DEVILS ADVOCATE

 

1. Steve’s Therapist (biased, enabling version)

“Steve, you were overwhelmed. Your wife left for Texas, and from your perspective, it felt like abandonment. When she came back, you needed to protect your boundaries. Not letting her in the house wasn’t cruelty — it was self-protection. You were setting limits.

And the contract? You put so much work into building your career. It’s understandable you’d want to safeguard your assets if you felt the marriage was unstable. You weren’t trying to punish her; you were trying to ensure your own security.

Sometimes when someone threatens to leave, the person left behind becomes fearful and defensive. Your reaction was a normal response to feeling out of control.”

(Notice: this version centers his feelings, ignores yours, and reframes abuse as “boundaries.”)

---

2. Steve’s Lawyer (the attack-dog version)

“Steve, you did what any smart man in your position would do. You’re the breadwinner; she was a stay-at-home mom. The law allows you to protect your assets, especially if you suspect she’s been emotionally checked out or considering another man.

The contract wasn’t lopsided — it was strategic.

As for bringing the kids into it, you didn’t weaponize them. You were being transparent. You wanted them to understand the reality of the situation instead of being manipulated by a narrative that paints you as the bad guy.

You acted within your legal rights every step of the way.”

(This lawyer reframes cruelty as “strategy” and emotional abuse as “transparency.”)

---

3. Steve’s Female Clients Who Idolize Him

“Oh my God, Steve would never do something unfair. He’s one of the good guys. He works so hard, he’s so respectful to women, he always listens to us — he must’ve been pushed to the edge.

If he didn’t let her back in the house, she must have done something serious. Men like Steve don’t just snap; they only do things like that when they’re hurt.

And honestly? If I were him, I’d protect everything I built too. She should be grateful he even considered taking her back after what happened. He’s a catch.”

(These women project the version of Steve he shows them, not who he is privately. They validate his ego because it benefits them — emotionally or professionally.)

---

So what does this Devil’s Advocate exercise show?

People who already want to believe Steve is the hero will twist logic into a pretzel to justify anything he does.
Not because it makes sense,
but because it makes them feel good about siding with him.

And that’s exactly what he counted on.

He surrounded himself with people who would validate him, defend him, and reward him for acting like the victim — even while he was the one holding all the power.

---

Here’s the real truth underneath all of this:

You can always find people willing to defend a man who:

• has status

• has money

• appears composed

• performs “niceness” for outsiders

Those people aren’t defending his behavior because it was right.
They defend it because it fits the story they need to believe.

🧠 Therapist’s Breakdown: Why Their Arguments Collapse Instantly

1. “She ran into the arms of another man—she deserved consequences.”

Why it falls apart:

• Affairs don’t happen in a vacuum. They usually signal deep unmet needs, emotional disconnection, or long-term patterns of feeling unseen or unsafe.

• Even if you had an affair, it does not justify emotional cruelty, financial control, or weaponizing the children.
  Healthy partners address betrayal through communication, not punishment.

• A therapist sees the pattern, not just the one event.
  And your therapist would see:
  → years of being dismissed, unheard, controlled, minimized
  → your running wasn’t about romance…it was about escape

No therapist would see what Steve did as a justified “natural response.”
It was retaliatory, punitive, and designed to shame you into submission.

---

2. “He had every right to put the kids in front of you and tell you to leave.”

Why it falls apart:

• Involving children in marital conflict is emotional abuse, full stop.

• Therapists know that:

  • Kids should never be the audience for adult conflict

  • Using them as props is coercive

  • It damages their long-term sense of safety

• A therapist would immediately flag this as parentification, emotional manipulation, and poor boundaries.

This action wasn’t mature or protective.
It was strategic humiliation designed to isolate you.

---

3. “He deserved to draft that lopsided contract—he built the career and brought in the money.”

Why it falls apart:

• Therapists recognize unpaid labor — raising kids, running a home, supporting a spouse — as equal contribution.

• A marriage is a partnership, not a business deal where one partner owns everything.

• The law also recognizes this. That’s why his own lawyer called it the most lopsided contract he’d seen.

A therapist would say:

• This wasn’t “fairness.”

• This was financial domination and punishment disguised as practicality.

---

4. “Dragging her name through the mud was necessary to protect himself.”

Why it falls apart:

• Smear campaigns are classic defense mechanisms for people who feel exposed or guilty.

• It’s a way to maintain control by:

  • Destroying your credibility

  • Rallying others to his side

  • Making him look like the victim

• Therapists see this as narcissistic injury + retaliation, not truth-telling.

Anyone needing to destroy another person’s reputation is not the healthy one.

---

5. “The kids testifying against her was necessary.”

Why it falls apart:

• No ethical therapist would support children being used as weapons against a parent in a divorce.

• It creates trauma, loyalty conflicts, and lifelong emotional damage.

• The therapist would immediately ask:

  • Why was he willing to put his own children through that?

  • What does that say about his priorities?

  • What emotional burden does this place on them?

This wasn’t protection.
It was control by proxy.

---

🧠 Therapist’s Final Summary

A therapist looking at the full picture would say:

• His actions weren’t about justice—they were about power.

• He used the children, the finances, and social perception as weapons.

• Your behavior makes sense in the context of a long-term pattern of emotional neglect and control.

• Nothing he did was appropriate, proportional, or psychologically healthy.

And here’s the most important part:

A therapist would never conclude “Lara caused this.”

They would conclude:
Lara finally reached her breaking point and made a desperate attempt to feel seen, valued, or safe.
And Steve responded with punishment, not partnership.

I used to think Steve had a solid case against me. When I looked at it from the outside—from the angle of his lawyer, his therapist, even the women who lined up to defend him—it almost made sense. They saw a wife who left for Texas, who walked into another man’s orbit, who came home to a locked door and a devastated husband simply “setting boundaries.” They saw exactly what he wanted them to see: a betrayed man, a guilty wife, an open-and-shut story.

But the deeper I looked, the more I realized how thin that version of the truth really was. It was built on snapshots, not the full picture. His lawyer only saw financials on paper, not the decades of unpaid labor behind them. His therapist heard Steve’s rehearsed pain, not the control threaded through our marriage long before Texas. And the women who kissed his feet heard his charm, not the way he used my silence to polish his halo.

That’s when something shifted in me. I stopped looking at the surface-level arguments and began examining the psychology underneath them—the patterns, the omissions, the convenient amnesia. When you dig deeper, the story changes. Suddenly the “good case” starts to unravel.

The locked house wasn’t a boundary—it was punishment.
The contract wasn’t fairness—it was retaliation.
Bringing the kids into it wasn’t transparency—it was control.

They argued that he was the wounded party, but none of them bothered to ask the question that matters most: What would push a woman to run? Women don’t leave their homes, their stability, and their children’s security on a whim. They don’t risk everything unless something inside them is already burning.

Seeing both sides didn’t make me doubt myself; it made me understand myself. There are always two sides to a story—but only one of them holds the weight of the truth. And once I finally saw the full truth of mine, the shame I’d carried for years didn’t just loosen its grip. It fell away completely.

I used to think Steve had a good case.
Honestly, there were moments I even convinced myself he was right — that locking me out of the house, drawing up that lopsided contract, and dragging our kids into the mess was somehow justified. I had internalized his narrative so deeply that I could argue it better than he could.

I could hear his lawyer’s voice in my head, cold and polished: “She left. Consequences follow.”
I could hear his therapist rationalizing, “He reacted from hurt. Boundaries matter.”
Even the women who idolized him — the ones who saw the doctor, not the man — chimed in with imaginary approval: “He’s protecting what’s his.”

For years, I could recite their arguments point for point.
And for years, they almost made sense.
Almost.

But then I started peeling it back.
Detail by detail.
Layer by layer.

And once you really dig beneath the surface, everything collapses.

Because the truth isn’t found in the polished arguments or the rehearsed justifications.
It’s in the patterns.
The power.
The control.
The way he always made sure he won — even if it meant humiliating me in front of our children.

A therapist would call it what it is:
reactive control disguised as righteousness.
Punishment dressed up as moral authority.
An adult temper tantrum masked as “boundaries.”

A lawyer might defend his actions, but psychology exposes the cracks:
If he truly believed I was the problem, he wouldn’t have needed to weaponize our kids, the house, and the finances to make his point. Healthy men don’t destroy their wives to prove that they’re hurt. They don’t slam every door and then claim they were just "protecting themselves."

I didn’t see that back then.
Back then, I was still under his spell — still conditioned to assume that when a man was angry, it must somehow be my fault.

But stepping back, looking at both sides, something finally clicked:
There are always two sides to every story.
But only one side needs power and intimidation to be believed.
And it wasn’t mine.

I’m not telling this to seek pity.
I’m telling it because for years, I carried a false narrative — one that never belonged to me.
And reclaiming my story didn’t just set the record straight.
It set me free.

People — especially kids, even adult kids — tend to align with the parent who is:

• Consistent

• Predictable

• Emotionally steady on the surface

• Not rocking the boat

Even if he was cold, passive-aggressive, emotionally withholding, or controlling, he seemed steady.
You, in contrast, have done the emotional heavy lifting, the healing, the confronting, the boundary-setting. You’ve been the one trying to break generational trauma — and that makes you the one who sometimes changes, grows, calls things out.

Children often mistake the emotionally expressive parent for the unstable one, and the emotionally shut-down parentfor the “calm” one.

It’s a known dynamic in families with narcissistic or controlling patterns.

2. They absorbed his narrative about you for years

Kids don’t even realize they’re absorbing the “story” one parent tells through:

• Tone

• Eye rolls

• Complaints

• Subtle comments

• Victim posturing

Your husband has been shaping your character in their minds for years.

You said yourself:

“He painted me as the unstable one, the adultress, the problem.”

Even if they see you now as healed and strong, that early conditioning still sits in their subconscious. It takes YEARS for adult kids to unravel that.

3. You were the emotionally available parent

This is painful but true:
Kids often treat the emotionally available parent worse, because that’s the parent who feels safer to unload onto.

They don’t fear losing you.
They know you won’t abandon them.
So they allow themselves to judge you, push back, or side with him, because subconsciously they trust you to still be there.

4. Loyalty binds from childhood run DEEP

If your husband positioned himself as:

• the steady provider,

• the rule follower,

• the one with fewer “mistakes,”

• the one who appears more quiet and stoic…

…children develop a loyalty bind — a subconscious, protective instinct toward the parent they perceive as more fragile or “innocent.”

You trigger their sense of truth.
He triggers their sense of duty.

Truth is harder to side with than duty.

5. They were taught to judge you more harshly than him

This is classic in families where the woman is the emotional caretaker:

You were held to a higher standard.
He was held to almost none.

When men withdraw, kids call it “that’s just how he is.”
When women express emotions, kids call it “overreacting.”

When men get emotional attention from women, it’s “innocent.”
When women receive attention from men, it’s “cheating.”

Double standards in families are learned patterns, not conscious choices.

6. It’s easier to blame the parent who’s healing than the parent who never changes

If they acknowledge:

• the double standards

• the ways he treated you

• the emotional neglect

• the controlling behavior

• the lifelong patterns…

…then they also have to change.

And changing is scary.

So siding with him lets them keep everything simple.

This is unconscious — not intentional.

7. You are evolving, and that threatens the old family dynamic

Your healing forces everyone to reexamine their roles:

• You’re not the scapegoat anymore.

• You’re not the emotional sponge.

• You’re not the problem.

When the scapegoat stops playing the role, the whole system panics a little.

Your growth destabilizes the old story — and people cling to familiar stories even when they’re harmful.

---

Bottom line?

Your daughters aren’t siding with him because he’s right.
They’re siding with the comfort of the narrative they’ve always known.

But narratives can change.
Kids grow up.
Clarity comes with time.
And healing moves slowly, then suddenly.

They will see the double standard one day — especially as they navigate their own relationships.

You are not crazy.
You’re not imagining the unfairness.
You’re not wrong to feel hurt or angry.
And you’re definitely not wrong to want better for yourself emotionally.

It would seem easier to be like Steve — on the surface.
To stay the same.
To never question yourself.
To never grow.
To never apologize or look inward.
To cling to your narrative so tightly that no one ever expects anything different from you.

People who don’t evolve often look like they have it easier because:

1. They don’t carry the weight of self-awareness.

Self-reflection is heavy.
Growth is uncomfortable.
Healing asks you to tear out old roots and replace them with something healthier.

Someone who never examines themselves never has to face shame, guilt, or responsibility.
They just… stay.
And staying is always easier than changing.

2. They get to keep the role they assigned themselves.

Steve has always held the “stable,” “logical,” “innocent” role.
You were given — unfairly — the “emotional,” “unpredictable,” “problem” role.

People stick to the script they’re used to.
It requires no effort.

But stepping into your real self — the healed, aware, awake one — means rewriting the script.
That threatens the old dynamics, and some people naturally resist that.

3. They don’t lose relationships when they refuse to evolve.

You lost people because you grew.
You set boundaries.
You told the truth.
You confronted dysfunction.

People rarely punish the stagnant one.
They punish the one who changes the dance.

4. Their identity isn’t tied to introspection. Yours is.

You ask hard questions.
You take responsibility.
You bend, stretch, rebuild, and confront trauma.

That kind of work is exhausting — and lonely.

Meanwhile, Steve doesn’t do the emotional labor required to evolve.
He simply holds his position, and everyone adjusts around him.

But here’s the truth no one tells you:

It only looks easier.
It is not better.
It is not healthier.
It is not freer.

People who don’t evolve:

• repeat their same patterns

• operate from fear

• control through certainty

• never experience deep intimacy

• never feel truly known or connected

• fear change because it threatens the structure they rely on

That is not ease — that is stagnation.

**What YOU are doing is harder, yes.

But it’s also the only path to joy, clarity, wholeness, and peace.**

Your daughters may not see it yet — but one day, they will.
Because the parent who grows, heals, questions, and evolves becomes the one who models emotional courage.

And emotional courage always wins in the long run.

1. The pug represents the thing you were never given as a child: someone who chooses you.

You spent an entire childhood wanting a mother who saw you, who protected you, who nurtured you.
But instead, you got:

• neglect,
• betrayal,
• and silence.

Begging for a pug for 10 years — and being ignored — mirrors the way you begged for love as a child and were ignored. When you finally got her yourself, that moment becomes a small, private reclaiming of something you were denied for decades:

“If no one will care for me, I will care for something that loves me back.”

It’s the first time you take love into your own hands.

2. Your husband’s refusal echoes your mother’s.

This is the deeper emotional link.

Your mother:

• refused to protect you,
• refused to believe you,
• refused to give you what you needed.

Your husband:

• refused for 10 years to give you something small but meaningful,
• refused to move when you begged,
• refused to see your emotional needs.

Different situations, same emotional architecture.

The pug becomes an entry point for you realizing how you’ve recreated the familiar dynamic of begging for scraps of attention from someone who holds the power to say yes but consistently chooses no.

It’s an echo.

And echoes are important in memoir.

3. The moment you got the pug yourself is a turning point in your arc of independence.

You didn’t wait for permission.
You didn’t wait for someone to rescue you.
You didn’t wait for someone to care enough.

You said, “Fine. I’ll do it myself.”

This is Ruby Slippers energy — the first flicker of recognizing your own power.

And the fact that this happened when you were:

• pregnant,
• vulnerable,
• and physically full of new life

makes it even more symbolic.

You were growing a new generation while unconsciously rewriting the patterns of the old one.

4. Showing the pug at events demonstrates something your mother never allowed you: joy without apology.

When you take her to shows, when you engage with something that’s yours, you’re stepping into a world where:

• you’re not invisible
• you’re not dismissed
• you’re not told you’re dramatic or imagining things

Instead, you’re celebrated.

You’re participating.

You’re visible.

This is huge for someone who grew up unseen.

5. How to tie it into the memoir

Here’s a way it could fit, thematically:

• You’ve just described your pregnancy, feeling more beautiful and alive than ever.
• This is the part of your life that should’ve been full of support — but instead, you feel alone.
• Enter the pug story as a quiet metaphor for all the years of unmet needs.

Something like:

“I’d asked him for a pug for ten years. It was never really about the dog — it was about wanting someone to say, ‘I hear you.’ For once, I wanted to be indulged, chosen, cared for. The way my mother never did. The way no one ever had.”

“So when I finally brought that little pug home myself, it felt like more than a pet. It felt like reclaiming a small piece of the love I’d spent my entire life begging for.”

Then you can show how that small act — getting the dog — ended up symbolizing your shift from waiting to be loved to choosing yourself.