Once a cheater, always a weeper?

When it comes to the dreadful confrontation of cheating, an apology quickly follows, usually covered up with a justification of the cheating. The ‘why’ is something that haunts not only the cheater but the cheated. Varying reactions to a cheating scandal are something that has been historically portrayed as gendered in film, books and culture. We’ve all heard the infamous line “Did you fuck him?”, when a man is cheated on, while the woman asks, "Do you love her?". So why are these specific sentiments attached to particular genders? And is there anything that can earn a cheater the sweet release of forgiveness? 

If you’ve been watching the Olympics, you would have seen the controversial confession of Norwegian biathlete Sturla Holm Laegreid, who “made a choice to tell the world what he did” in hopes that “she’ll see what she really means to [him]” as said in an interview post-confession. In his attempt to “[not] think [he] didn’t try everything”. But was that the best he had to offer? After all, most romantic period dramas are resolved from confession, and if Rachel Green forgave Ross Geller for cheating on their ‘break’ are we to blindly follow suit? 

Your head is probably screaming, “But it’s different”, and it’s true. The circumstances between Ross and Rachel were completely individual and specific. There is time, history, surrounding relationships, and their current relationship status, which all play a part in how bloody the cheater's hands are. 

And an 18-page letter (front and back Ross loved to point out) is not the universal repentance for cheating.Critics online made sure Laegreid knew, too. Despite his speech after the confession, being full of self-focused language, where it seems his repentance was making ‘his feelings of love’ as loud as possible, rather than her feelings of betrayal. Giving the impression that overwhelming feelings of love are enough to drown out the trust that was taken from the cheated. 

With many commenting that this was an act of manipulation, humiliation, and above all, messy. So, who did Laegreid think he was getting sympathy from? While he stated he hasn’t gotten any “reactions” from the woman, it is safe to say he was coming from not only the cheating perspective but also an external perspective. If Laegreid broke her trust with a big action, he simply thinks that a grand gesture will, in turn, fix it. 

Often, the questions we ask cheaters are an attempt at rationalising the unthinkable act of betrayal. With Laegreid, he believes the emotional act of confessing on national news might balance out the physical betrayal of cheating. Sadly for Laegreid, his display at the Olympics garnered the wrong attention, with many women online applauding his ex-girlfriend for not taking him back. It is clear that if Laegreid ever wants to be forgiven, he needs to understand the emotional betrayal. 

But how can Laegreid understand the emotional betrayal of cheating when he only knew the woman for six months, which resulted in a wandering eye in the third month? Another debate stems from the length of the relationship. Some critics online are saying that for Laegreid to only know her for six months made the cheating somewhat ‘worse’ as it was just the beginning. Many comments say that they would have more ‘sympathy’ if it were a three year relationship or marriage in comparison, as it somehow makes not only the cheating more of a simple ‘mistake’ but also the gesture would have been more genuine. 

So if Laegreid had confessed to cheating on his wife of three years, would you have encouraged her to forgive him? 

This narrative seems to protect all that was built, a history, rather than nurturing a future. How is it that cheating is more justifiable the more you have to lose? While one would assume it would be the other way around, we find ourselves perhaps playing ‘hopeless romantics’, where we tend to give more reason to preserve the love that was there, rather than acknowledge the reason the love left. Often hearing parents say they stayed together ‘for the kids’, financial reasons, and the stubborn religious or cultural theme of not believing in ‘divorce’. 

And if you’re thinking ‘hopeless romantic’ and ‘cheating’ don’t belong in the same sentence, think of how much you were rooting for Allie and Noah in The Notebook. Where the cheater, Allie, is not only justified but praised for leaving her fiancé to go see her ex-boyfriend and end up not only sleeping with the ex but leaving the fiancé for the ex. That’s not typically the version of the film you hear, and that’s the complexity of cheating. For us, Lon was the ‘other man’, only because the history between Noah and Allie was longer, disregarding the commitment Allie made to Lon. 

The longer the relationship, the more there is at stake. For short- lasting relationships such as Laegreid’s, who is there to consider? 

Ironically, while there is less history to consider, people tend to detach from the situation. Where the cheater and the cheated fight to win the jury’s favour, be that close friends or as Laegreid made it- the public. Most of the time people tend to put a definitive label on cheaters, usually jumping to “once a cheater always a cheater”. But does that mean Noah should have trusted Allie to be faithful to him? We all did, because there was an emotional and historical understanding that we failed to see in Laegreid. However, for an action that seems so sudden and impulsive, how much time do we owe to the cheater to assess the ‘type’ of cheating? Whether you can forgive Laegreid or not, one thing is clear - we don’t have the whole story and only the cheated can make that decision.

Written By: Sophia Arceo, @sophiearceo

Edited By: Alex Kelleher @Alex_kelleher_