Overview of Was I Used for a Visa?
A caller (Melbourne, Australia) describes a nearly five-year relationship in which she sponsored her partner for a partner visa, only to discover after he left that he had been sexually unfaithful from the start and engaged in boundary-violating behavior at work. A therapist told her he was likely a psychopath/narcissist and urged cutting contact; the caller is torn between the felt reality of deep care and love she experienced and the factual evidence that he deceived her. Esther Perel explores this paradox, the caller’s family history, sexual dynamics in the relationship, the aftermath of betrayal, and how to move forward without surrendering her sense of reality or capacity to love.
Case summary / context
- Relationship: ~5 years, moved in during COVID lockdowns in Melbourne; intense emotional closeness and physical affection outside the bedroom.
- Visa: Caller pushed for a partner visa to resolve insecurity; partner raised visa concerns early on.
- Sexual dynamic: From early on, sex was aggressive/objectifying and often without intimacy/eye contact; later, partner experienced loss of libido as they became emotionally closer.
- Discovery: After partner walked out, caller learned he’d been cheating throughout the relationship, had taken sexualized photos of an 18-year-old colleague, did OnlyFans shoots, and continued sexual relationships with others. He alternated between wanting to fix things and breaking up. Months later he became engaged to someone new.
- Caller background: Grew up with a mother diagnosed with borderline personality disorder; learned early to manage others’ emotions and diffuse conflicts.
- Therapist impact: One therapist labeled the partner a psychopath/narcissist and told the caller she’d been manipulated; this assessment destabilized the caller’s sense of reality.
Key themes and takeaways
- Felt experience vs. factual betrayal: Emotional experiences (feeling deeply loved, seen, soothed) can coexist with a partner’s deceitful or harmful actions. The existence of one does not automatically negate the other.
- Complexity over binary labels: People are often a mix — capable of tenderness and harm. Quick diagnostic labeling (e.g., “psychopath”) can be destabilizing and may give excessive external authority over personal meaning-making.
- Sexual expression and attachment can be disconnected: Some people separate intimacy and lust; an erotic style that objectifies or avoids eye contact can coexist with genuine tenderness outside sexual contexts.
- Caretaking histories create vulnerability: Growing up managing a parent’s emotional instability can make a person skilled at soothing others — an asset that can be exploited and also a source of self-blame.
- Reclaiming agency: The therapeutic task is to reclaim narrative power and choose a “good enough” story that allows recovery — not to force certainty about another person’s full moral character.
Notable quotes / insights
- “There are people who are at the same time loving and lying.” — Esther Perel
- “Pick a story that for the moment is good enough — that allows you to sleep, to meet new people, to not second-guess yourself all the time.” — Esther Perel
- “Secondary naivete”: the idea of loving again with eyes open — cautious, slower, alert but still available to intimacy.
- On therapists: “How much power do you want to give my profession?” — a reminder that a single clinician’s interpretation can wield outsized influence.
Red flags and behavioral indicators from the transcript
- Persistent sexual secrecy and parallel sexual relationships.
- Boundary violations at work (sexualized photos, harassment claim involving a minor-aged colleague).
- Alternating ambivalence: rapid shifts between tears/attachment and withdrawal/breakup.
- Refusal of sustained transparency and eventual blocking of contact.
- Rapid replacement/engagement soon after breakup.
Esther’s practical guidance (implicit and explicit)
- Reclaim narrative power: Don’t let a single therapist or one person’s actions completely rewrite your internal story; take back what you can about how you understand your life.
- Choose a provisional story: Adopt a “good enough” narrative for now — one that permits sleep, healing, and the ability to reengage with life.
- Grieve and allow ambiguity: Recognize the pain, rage, and confusion; accept complexity rather than forcing either/or answers.
- Seek a therapist who tolerates complexity: Find professional support that can sit with nuance, uncertainty, and help you take steady steps forward.
- Reopen your eyes gradually: Practice secondary naivete — be cautious but allow the possibility of new attachment and trust-building, checking actions over words.
- Stop exhaustive fact-finding if it prevents healing: Endless verification can prolong trauma and keep the perpetrator in power.
Concrete next steps (recommended)
- Establish clear boundaries: Consider no-contact or tightly limited contact while you heal.
- Find sustained therapy: Look for a clinician who will hold nuance and help with grief, trauma, and rebuilding trust.
- Stop or limit fact-finding/checking that keeps you ruminating and retraumatized.
- Reconnect with supportive friends/family who can validate your experience and help counter isolation.
- Allow grieving practices: permit yourself to mourn the relationship and the lost sense of certainty.
- When ready, date slowly and openly: Ask questions about fidelity, values, and emotional availability; observe consistency of actions over time.
Final synthesis
Esther’s core message: your felt experience of being loved was real and meaningful, even if it coexisted with deception. Rather than forcing a definitive moral label onto the partner or allowing one therapist’s assessment to dictate your reality, reclaim your story, grieve the loss, and open to loving again with “eyes open” — cautious, deliberate, and guided by boundaries and evidence of consistent behavior. The healing path requires both protecting yourself and not letting one person’s betrayal freeze you out of future intimacy.