Rick – you’ve answered this other places in various formats, and I’ve read your articles on moral justifications, but I still could use some help understanding this issue: My wife says that even though she booked a hotel room for two and invited her AP to join her for the weekend, she intended not to have sex with him, but just to “talk and cuddle” and this gave her justification for doing it. Then after they did have sex, and she made plans to stay in contact with him daily by phone and text, she justified this to herself by her supposed intent not to have any more sexual contact with him. I don’t know why these could even have been considered justifying anything. Even if she wasn’t going to have sex, it is still such a betrayal for a mother and wife to spend a night in a hotel room with another man. And even if she never did intend to sleep with him again, a spouse having daily intimate phone conversations with a third party is still a hurtful risk to a marriage. So what I don’t understand is how pretending that it’s not the worst possible betrayal, but is instead a lesser, but still divorce-worthy, betrayal gives somebody the justification to proceed with an affair. Why bother justifying it at all, when even with the most benign interpretations of what she was doing were still such hurtful and disrespectful things to do another person?