Otherwise, what’s the point?
To me, the answer to your question lies in the simple, brutal reality of survival. Suggesting that staying with someone who committed infidelity—a form of emotional abuse—is "special" or "romantic" is not only misleading but potentially dangerous.
This isn't to say that marriages can't survive, but it gives far too much credit to an inherently abusive act.
If we view cheating for what it clearly is—a form of abuse—would we apply the same romanticized description to a man who finally learns to stop hitting his wife? I certainly wouldn't. My internal response would be: "Great, he's now meeting the absolute base level of decency required in a relationship." There is nothing special about that situation.
I believe this is where our viewpoints fundamentally diverge. I recognize that many people see reconciliation as a grand, special achievement. For my money, however, relationships are rarely strengthened by it.
An analogy I came across perfectly describes my view on this:
Imagine your marriage as a house. This house might have a few minor issues—the wallpaper needs replacing, the paint is peeling, or a window needs fixing. Infidelity is a bomb.
If you have minor maintenance issues, dropping a bomb and leveling the house to the ground is absolutely not a helpful form of renovation.
The only time leveling a house can be beneficial is if it was condemned to begin with.
To me, this analogy rings absolutely true. If a marriage is on its deathbed, with issues that appear irremediable, I can understand how the shock of infidelity could be the jolt the couple needed to finally address things and build something new from the wreckage.
Outside of that rare, condemned-house scenario, simply talking things over would have been the appropriate action. Levelling the house was a destructive and damaging overreaction that caused more trauma than it fixed.
