I've taken 24 hours to think about what I want to say. The response I drafted yesterday was quite different. Agreed. For the most part I agree. On the one hand that was part of the point that I was making with that statement. On the other hand, I was also wanting to distinguish (or make allowances for) between situations where an individual is emotionally invested in a relationship, and situations where although an individual might not be emotionally invested in a relationship, they might have some other kind of investment in it. For example, a couple who marry for a green-card, a couple who are still together 'for the children', or a couple who are still together simply because they're better off financially than they would be seperated or divorced. Of course, in each of these situations the individuals within the relationship have some kind of investment in the relationship - just not neccessarily emotional, they also have an emotional investment in something they gain from the relationship - just not neccessarily something that's dependent on trust. But all of that is something of a seperate issue to the implication that "that anybody who is hurt by being cheated upon is thereby necessarily some kind of doormat", and my point regarding emotional investment and the reasonablness of inference.