Question, for those of you familiar with both Plan B and the Tough Love approach, is there a significant difference between the Tough Love "farewell" letter and a Plan B letter?

Going completely dark, a la, Plan B, didn't and still doesn't seem like a workable option since we have 3 kids we're both trying to make sure see both of us every day. For that reason, I've chosen the Tough Love approach of sincerely letting go, out of love, and ceasing to be as emotionally vulnerable to her.

Personally, I feel worlds better than when I was desperate to get her to choose me. I have no idea if any of this is having any impact on Crystal, in terms of prompting her to reconsider her choices, but I almost don't care anymore. I feel bad saying that, because I'm still her H, but I don't feel much for her anymore. I know I can still take her back, if she REALLY does change, but, aside from the fact that my kids are being torn apart by her selfishness, I have almost no desire to interact with her anymore.

But, I can and do still pray for her. I trust that, should she actually repent and return, I woule re-develop my feelings for her.

Has anyone else been where I am? Is it merely an "eye of the storm" kind of calm, or is it where I need to be, or have I lost something important to my ability to rebuild should she turn around?

Any answers for my questions and/or comments on Plan B v. Tough Love are more than welcome.

Been there buddy! Do you have the kids or her?

The PBL and the tough love letter are very similar. But here is the difference. Plan B is for YOU. It is to remove YOU from the situation.

Now you ask...how can that be done with three kids? Well, I did it. My wife left to move into an apartment so she could see the OM. She left the three kids with me. Of course, she would have them spend the night occasionally...and she would call several times a week. So, how did I handle this?

First, I got a second line with a distinctive ring. That way, she could call the kids...and the kids could automatically answer because she (and my MIL) were the only ones to have that number.

Second, in Plan B, I made her leave all requests and interaction on my voicemail. I told her in the PBL that I will respond to her questions or whatever by leaving a message on her voicemail. But, if she answered the phone when I called, I would hang-up and not leave the message.

She tried to get me to talk to her early on. You know...for the sake of the kids! Yeah right! (sarcastic) I wouldnt go for it. One time, she showed up unannounced at my house to see the kids. I just let her in, said "they are downstairs" and I went into the other room.

You can Plan B with kids. But you will have to set and enforce boundaries.

Oh yeah...and since she is the WS...you need to get custody of your kids. As Steve Harley told me...the kids being with me was the biggest asset towards saving my marriage. But the other reason is that a WS is not really very sane...so why let them have the opportunity to corrupt your children?

In His arms.

I do have the children, by default, at this time. I'm working to make that more legally concrete.

I'm getting REALLY annoyed by her at this point. She's getting all indignant that I'm closing down all joint accounts and removing her name as an authorized user of any account that's solely in my name. Somehow she sees that as an attack. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Whatever. One thing is for sure, since she has NO grounds for asking for a divorce, I will fight tooth-and-nail to avoid being stuck with any of her attorney fees. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

But you're absolutely right, she's not as tightly bound to reality as would make me feel comfortable if she's going to be spending lots of time around our kids. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

As I have said before, WSs are ridiculous. And it would all be laughable if it werent so destructive. Ignore her blatherings...they dont come from a sane person!


What state do you live in? You might even have more power than you think.


So, what is the plan? I noticed you put a handle next to her information in your bio. Does that mean she comes on here? if so, then please dont divulge any key information.

As I said, I have been where you are. Plan B is easy, as long as you set and enforce the boundaries.

In His arms.

She used to come here... She seemed to get all annoyed that the folks at MB weren't in favor of her plan to dump me, especially since she had been the unfaithful one. And that whole NC thing was just TOTALLY uncalled-for according to her.

Anyway, I live in MD. I'm moderately aware of my legal standing because I just finished law school in December (and "Aced" Family Law in my very last semester - whooah!). But I don't consider myself an expert, so I've hired one of the better family law attorneys in the area.

At this point, my plan, like she knows, is to file for what we call a "Limited Divorce." The court will be able to say that I get the house, assign custody, and order whatever support payments are called for to whomever. Legally speaking I'm in the driver's seat because even to get a limited divorce in this state requires "grounds". For my wife to get a no-fault divorce (the only type she can hope for) she'll have to wait for 2 full years before she can even file it.

I don't know if I'll file for an "absolute divorce" after a year (or sooner). I'm not a fan of it, and every now and then she dangles out a few words about there being some possibility of a chance that she might reconsider. Personally, I think she's trying to manipulate me into giving in as much as possible while she's running out the clock. I'm done with that.

My Plan A was, unfortunately, whole-hearted but fairly spineless. I made all sorts of changes, and accepted all the challenges, but she took no responsibility and submitted to almost no form of accountability. I do think I can implement a more Plan B-esque model, though I'm sort of easing into it.

Ya know, I don't know if Crystal reads here anymore. I know that at one time she was checking up on me and ridiculing me based on my posts. I don't really care. I'm not interested in talking to her until the aliens return my wife's functioning brain to her body. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

At this point, I can still take her back, out of committment to doing what's right, in the absolute sense. However, the burden is on her to convince me that any desire to return is genuine and backed up by some real resolve to change.

Hi TD -

I've been following some of your latest posts, and sorry to hear that things seem to be getting worse.

I've looked at Dobson's stuff. I didn't particularly care for it, mainly because his emphasis seemed to be all on provoking conflict (the earlier the better), and not a whole lot on what to do if the conflict brings the WS back. That and I totally disagree with his reading of 1 Corinthians 7:15.

Having said that, I do see some of what he is saying, and it's not that different, IMO, from what Harley says (or many others as well). It's a different way of recognizing (and implementing) the simple truth that we are not responsible for other people's actions and choices. We can influence them, yes, but not directly make them. It's all about being a strong and attractive person - first and foremost for your sake. If it brings back the WS, then it's a bonus.

I think you are heading for a good spot. There are 5 stages to grief, and from what I understand it's common to bounce around from one to the other quite a bit before all is said and done. It looks like from what you've posted that you've bounced to acceptance (the final stage). You may bounce out of it from time to time, but you're there currently. Similar to me - I know what I want, but if it doesn't happen, then I'm reaching a point where I can live with that and move forward.

Keep going - it's not over till it's over.

brokenbird,

Quote:I've looked at Dobson's stuff. I didn't particularly care for it, mainly because his emphasis seemed to be all on provoking conflict (the earlier the better)

I am dumbfounded to read this. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Please give me an example of this "provoking conflict" if you have the time.

Dobson's "Tough Love" approach says that as early as possible, when a significant violation of the marital relationship takes place, the BS needs to put up some strong boundaries so that the WS knows the behavior will not be tollerated.

I.e. as soon as infidelity is discovered, the offending spouse should be lovingly asked to leave unless and until the WS is actually repentant and willing to be accountable.

It's very much like the Plan B approach, but he seems to advocate going to it very quickly. In hindsight, I think it would have been more effective. Plan A only really works when the WS is willing to be receptive and accoutable. Lacking that, it just drains the already victimized BS, and appears, in WS who is still in the fog, as if the BS is attempting to control him/her indirectly.

In my circumstances, I'm thinking that Plans A & B should have been reversed. Crystal should have seen the consequences of her actions immediately, and then been able to see love and forgiveness when she was ready to leave her unfaithfulness behind her. Unfortunately, almost all BSs suffer the same emotional panic in which we convince ourselves that IF ONLY we were a better spouse, we can make or convince our WS to come home and love us again. Plan A caters to that instinct.

Cymanca -

Basically what TD said above. When the affair is discovered, the BS needs to provoke a conflict to force the WS to make a choice. Basically, it's almost an ultimatum (IMO) - and that's something that I know, in the case of MP, would result in her doing just that - leaving.

I could be getting the words wrong, but that's the sentiment I got from what Dobson says.

Dobson's Tough Love Approach is excellent!!

sfjaj -

Why do you say that? I'm curious, because I have many reservations about it.

brokenbird, td et al,

I am very confused. When is asking your spouse to live up to their marriage vows conflict?????????????????????????

Dr Dobson's adviced is the least confrontational, least threatening and most conflict avoiding strategy out there , bar none.

The Tough part is the BS saying

" Make no mistake, I expect you to uphold your promise made before God and man. If you want to go and be with the OP, go but I will not share you"

This approach needs to be immediate, consistent and most importantly non-appeasing.

Cy,

You're right that the tough-part for the BS is to stand-up and say that, and then stick to it. HOWEVER, it *is* confrontational, because the marriage is faced with two mutually exclusive ideals. One side HAS to win, and the other side will lose. If the BS doesn't win, by definition, the BS loses.

But you're right... It doesn't have to be threatening, personally, though the accountability will scare a fogg-addled WS.

TD,

Sorry but I believe that you are flat out wrong.

This aint' a horse race, there are no winners or losers in a good marriage. The tie that binds is summed up in the words of a positive, truthful, timeless affirmation...."I do"

I repeat, since when is asking...no demanding your spouse live up to their vows confrontational?

I guess we will just have to differ on this point.

Then we're disagreeing over symantics.

If you tell the WS, "You can have OP or me, but not OP & me." Then it's a demand, no matter how nicely put. Demands are, by their nature, confrontational. Simply because the BS has all logic and morality on his/her side does not negate the fact that it's confrontational.

I'm not saying, however, that a the WS will wallow in misery for his/her life if the BS "wins" and the marriage, survives. The FWS wins, but the WS loses by becoming a FWS.

Merely asking, "Dearest, would you please stop committing adultery," is not a demand, but it will also almost never work.

***If you tell the WS, "You can have OP or me, but not OP & me." Then it's a demand, no matter how nicely put.***

I submit, however, that if you state this as "You can have the OP if you want, but if you do, I will not participate in any kind of relationship with you any longer," you have not made a demand or an ultimatum.

You have drawn a boundary.

That's very different -- and also far, far more effective than an ultimatum or a demand, assuming you are prepared to enforce the boundary by removing yourself from the relationship (Plan B.)

I think this is what's meant by the statement so often seen here: "You cannot control the WS or the OP. You can only control yourself."
Mulan

TD,

Sorry but I can't let this drop. Our disagreement has nothing to do with sematics. Please give me the semantical differences that can reasonably inferred from your marital vows.

You can't be a little pregnant nor can you be a little married.

Cy,

If a person has the ability to break the vows at any point, a stand by one party that calls on the other to uphold the vows is a demand. It's certainly a REASONABLE demand, but it's a demand, just the same.


Thank you for making MY point. Either the WS can comply, with the vows voluntarily or live with the consequences. If that's not a demand, then what is it?

Honestly, I don't know what the point of the hair-splitting with regards to this is, but we do essentially agree that the WS should be informed that the A is not compatible with a continued relationship with the BS.

I see I'm not the only one...I take heart.

TD, I know you're just learning about boundaries...me, too. Got "Boundaries in Marriage" by Cloud and Townsend. I offer it to you to help know the difference between demands and boundaries.

What Mulan said (and Cymanca did, too) was an accurate boundary enforcement. Shows the choice, WS's power of choice, and the BS's choice. No victims. No win/lose. Just real choice.

Not hair-splitting, essential to your belief system, which you operate from. Choose from. If you know you are enforcing boundaries because you are stating your boundary (two-person marriage), then you know you are not demanding, provoking conflict or otherwise. You are acknowledging your choices, respecting yourself and your WS.

I read that you heard Dobson advise to put boundaries into the marriage in the case of marital conflict, like an A. I believe he meant to have them in place to insure respect between partners, so that A's and other conflicts would be owned. Mutual beliefs about enforceable boundaries build marriages. Hard part is coming to this knowledge afterwards. You're not alone.

People are reaching for you, with all they have, TD. Know the love, the message. You can do this.

LA