Jess and David have different definitions of cheating. This is what happened when they went to therapy.

When Jess and David sat down for our first session on podcast This Is Why We Fight, they were stuck in a painful cycle.

They were fighting about "cheating" and fidelity, but they were actually avoiding a much deeper, more fundamental problem.

Their arguments were symptoms; the disease was a profound lack of trust and emotional safety stemming from the beginning of their relationship.

The problem beneath the argument.

The flashpoint was their different perceptions of cheating. For David, infidelity was strictly physical. For Jess, it was relational and emotional, exacerbated by past experiences of being cheated on and gaslit.

But before we could even begin to define their marital contract, we had to address the instability in their foundation.

This instability began early. Jess revealed a painful, long-held belief that David was ashamed of her. This feeling, linked to comments David received about her weight at the start of their relationship, felt like David thought she was "good enough for him, but not for his public image".

This early wound left Jess feeling perpetually insecure and like a "side piece" in David's life, especially as he had not fully integrated her with his family or friends, or posted her on social media.

This original hurt became an underlying, high-alert insecurity that coloured subsequent interactions, including their arguments over fidelity.

Watch the trailer for Mamamia's therapy podcast, This Is Why We Fight. Post continues below.

The communication breakdown: Validation vs. rationalisation.

The core issue that maintained this cycle was their communication style in conflict:

• David's default (problem-solving): David felt attacked and misunderstood whenever Jess raised an issue. His immediate, well-intentioned impulse was to rationalise and explain why he did what he did. He wanted Jess to know he wasn't a "monster" and needed to be heard.

• Jess's default (emotional withdrawal): Jess read David's explanations not as justification, but as a sign he cared more about being right than her pain. When she was emotionally flooded and distressed, all she needed was a hug or validation to "turn her ears on". Instead, she felt she was getting intellectual debate, confirming her fear that she was unloved.

This led to Jess's defensive coping mechanism: when she felt overwhelmed in social situations, she would default to leaving and isolating. This was a way to manage her anxiety, but it unintentionally reinforced David's worry about inviting her out and deepened her own feeling of isolation.

The therapeutic solution: Foundational work and new systems.

Before we could tackle the content of their arguments (the cheating), we focused on repairing their communication foundation.

1. Homework on inclusion and transparency

• David's homework (inclusion): David was tasked with brainstorming practical ways to demonstrate that Jess was truly welcome and celebrated in his life. This included posting photos of them socially and actively incorporating her into his activities and friend groups. This work directly targeted Jess's core wound of feeling hidden or ashamed of.

• Jess's homework (emotional safety plan): Jess had to articulate a clear emotional safety plan for social outings to replace her default of leaving. This involved pre-event planning and creating concrete verbal and non-verbal cues for support:

• She committed to using direct, transparent language to state her needs ("I need a hug," or "I'm overwhelmed").

• They devised a signal (like a squeeze or wink) to indicate distress when words weren't possible.

• Crucially, David committed to prioritising the emotional need (the hug/validation) first, before attempting any "problem solving".

2. Moving beyond 'cheating' to shared agreements

While they postponed the difficult conversation, the plan was to shift the focus from debating past actions to creating a clear future path.

David and Jess will work on developing shared couple agreements, a defined, explicit contract on what constitutes unacceptable behaviour in their relationship, overriding their individual definitions of cheating.

This clarity is essential for rebuilding trust.

Listen to this episode of This Is Why We Fight. Post continues after podcast.

Universal takeaways for relationship repair.

Jess and David's journey is a powerful reminder that complex relationship problems often share common solutions:

• Listen to the hurt first: The key to constructive conflict is recognising the "moment of hurt". Your partner needs to feel cared for and validated before they can hear your perspective. Validation, the simple act of saying, "I see you're hurting," is the true first step to problem-solving.

• Default reactions aren't always helpful: David's default was to rationalise; Jess's was to withdraw. Identifying your unproductive "default mode" and actively choosing to do something different, even if it feels awkward or "bossy, is how partners break harmful patterns.

• Transparency is an act of trust: Expecting your partner to be a mind-reader ("Surely he knows I need a hug!") will lead to disappointment. Being clear and transparent about your needs, even if it feels vulnerable, is an act of trust that gives your partner the tools to successfully support you.

The progress they made was substantial. By laying this fundamental groundwork, Jess and David are creating the security they need to eventually tackle their toughest topics as a united team, rather than being dragged down by old, painful habits.

Feature Image: Getty.