I think many are missing the point. Forget the genesis of his relationship. She was broken entering into this relationship and so was he.

They both made a classic mistake. They jumped from one relationship right into another, without fixing or analyzing what led them down the path to that bad relationship in the first place. They didn't fix themselves before getting into it with someone else.

They tried to escape their marriages in each other, but fell into the trap of the love illusion which covers up, temporarily, the real problems that caused the problems in their own marriages.

Again, the Titanic comes to mind. She's the Titanic here and he's the passanger on board regretting the design of the thing and wishing it was just a little different so that it wouldn't sink. He can wish all he wants, but it's still a flawed ship and is sinking regardless and he's still thinking he can fix it somehow so it doesn't happen.

Forget the adultery. This ship was doomed from the start even if they had been fully divorced when they met, the fact is they are two broken people. He has, based on his post, White Knight Syndrome and she has, based on his post, maturity/personality/baggage issues.

He needs to see that the "princess" he thinks she is is not the reality of who she really is. She needs to fix the issues that led to settling for marrying a man with a chemical abuse problem (if true).

They escaped into each other's arms when the they themselves were broken. This is why second and third marriages have high failure rates. People blame their ex spouse for the breakup of their marriage and seldom fix or address their own role in the failure, instead finding someone else to cover their insecurities or who overlook their problems which only resurface after the hormones and scre*ing stops.

Waywards are broken people. So are BSes. Both BS and WS need to make changes to restore the existing marriage or to make future marriages work.

That's my twocents. I'm sure he still reads our exchanges but is holding back on responding. Hopefully he'll see that ultimately, regardless of the opinions on the genesis of his marriage/relationship, there's issues he's blind to because of his "love" for this woman.

He's in love with being in love and really believes in the potential of "Jane". Reality keeps slamming him in the face that "Jane" is not the princess he thinks she is, but he continues to ignore it because his feelings are getting in the way of logic.

He really needs to back up, listen to the logic, and take a good hard look at the reality versus the fantasy of his head.

That's hard to do when hormones and feelings cloud logic.

I'm a BS who understands how intensely others feel about affairs. But we'll never get through to someone operating in an emotional state. They need to back up, listen to logic, and really absorb what is being said.

That's hard to do for a wayward looking for validation or emotionally involved.

I should know. I've loved very broken women in my past who suffered from all kinds of problems. I thought I could save them. They can only save themselves just as he can only save himself.

The Titanic is sinking and he's going to drown no matter how badly he wishes it wouldn't sink.

1of2, if you're still reading, and I hope you are, post. Listen to what we're saying. Love is not enough and you are ignoring realities of your situation that are never going to be fixed. I'm sorry, my friend, but you are on the Titanic. Jane can only fix herself and you can't do it and you will never be accepted by her children and you don't have a right to say anything about how she and her ex raise them. You're an outsider wanting to join a club that you're simply never going to get into.

We're 2x4s here that want you to see the logic. Some of us present it with emotion, having suffered from the betrayal of infidelity that you and Jane inflicted on your spouses.

No one ever cheats on a spouse when they're happy in their marriage (except philanderers). They obviously cheat because they're unhappy. Is it justified? Absolutely not. But human beings are imperfect people and logic doesn't trump feelings. We gravitate to what makes us feel good instead of dealing with the painful process of fixing the problems in the existing marriage.

Please continue posting.

"If it's 1 in 100 it's his choice. The affair was pointed out repeatedly, and we were beating a dead horse. Dr. Harley recognized that too, and gave him the tools to work with Jane. It isn't something "I" would want...but it's not for us to say what relationships are worth saving. I agree that it is loving and caring to help him see that it is an unhealthy losing proposition...unfortunately that's not the tone it was addressed with"

It is however for each of us to decide AND SAY, whether or not WE will support OR challenge adultery. That is not for you to decide for any other poster here. If you choose to support or defend an adultery-based relationship, or to ignore it, that is your choice. But your choice does not extend to me and other posters here. It is well within the posting rules and purpose of this site to speak up against adultery. Nobody here is required to either help adulterers keep their adulteries alive or else just keep quiet about it.

My WXH could have very easily come here at some point saying many of the same things John is saying, or my WXH's latest OW could have posted here in a very similar fashion. And they for sure would have been telling you how 'dead' and 'horrible' the marriage they destroyed was. They would even have told you that if it weren't for the kids, and the kids' reaction to their adultery, that everything would be perfect...

It absolutely appalls me to realize that if that had happened, if my WH or the OW had come here seeking help in keeping their dying adultery alive, there are posters here who would have chastised anyone who tried to tell them to stop the adultery and for my WH to make a genuine reconciliation effort with me! If somebody had tried to tell my WH that what he was doing was wrong, that the right thing to do (and BTW the option with the far greater odds of success than trying CPR on his adultery-based relationship), then they would have been criticized and shushed!

Absolutely revolting IMHO!!!!!

IMHO there are far too many posting here at MB's who are willing to either condone or ignore adultery when offered the opportunity to challenge it. Very few people (besides the BS's and BC) in an adulterer's life will have the sense or courage to speak up against the adultery. Unfortunately most of what people think they know about marriage and adultery is not factual or effective. That is one of the reasons the existence of this site is so important. But even here, there is an infestation of adultery-promoting, adultery-prolonging, marriage-destroying mindset and myths that serves to enable adulteries while destroying legitimate marriages...

And while it may be your choice to fail to confront adultery, to either assist the adulterers or 'stay out of it', you undoubtedly are leaving out consideration for the BS's and the BC. Do you presume that the BS's and BC John and Jane have harmed with their marriage-destroying, family-fracturing adultery, ALSO agree that whatever John wants, John should get, and THAT is ALL that matters?

John came here seeking support for trying to salvage his disintegrating adultery. We got that.

John didn't/doesn't want to put the same effort into saving his marriage. We got that too.

You personally don't mind him seeking and getting help to save his adultery (you might not feel comfortable helping him yourself - but have no problem with others helping him).
We got that part too.

Now here's the part you don't seem to get:
It is NOT up to you to decide what I and other posters decide to do. And it is perfectly OK for us to tell John that what he is doing is wrong and that he has a better chance of turning his abandoned marriage into a healthy marriage than he does of turning his adultery into one. And it's even OK for us to tell him that even if it's something he doesn't want to hear. AND as a matter of fact it also happens to be the best way to respond to a person deep in the addiction and fog of adultery!

It is a GOOD THING to confront an adulterer with the truth and to challenge them to stop the adultery.

And while some who post here seem to not get it that adultery is indeed wrong, that it needs to be challenged, that a 'stay out of it' attitude (let alone a 'hey everybody else you stay out of it too' attitude!) does nothing but further enable the adultery, I assure you that the adulterers themselves usually do realize that confronting them with the truth is a very effective way to stop adultery. Why do you think adulterers are so secretive and object to exposure? They KNOW that exposure may result in opposition to the adultery and that will in turn endanger the adultery.

Now it is important to realize that opposing the adultery is a good thing, it HELPS the adulterers. Of course it does not help the adulterers to continue the adultery as easily as before... But just because the person deep in the adultery addiction WANTS to continue the adultery, even if that is what they came here to MB to try to do, that does not mean that openly opposing their agenda, confronting them with the consequences of their addiction, and challenging them to end the adultery, is therefore a bad or mean thing to do.

Again consider the AA anology. An active adulterer coming here to seek help with saving his adultery is akin to an alcoholic showing up at an AA meeting seeking booze... or asking for help in keeping his access to the local bar going... or complaining that if it weren't for the kids being such brats and/or the consequences his drinking has on the kids, he could continue to drink with no problems.

But for some odd reason, unlike an AA meeting, there are some people here who not only think it's a good idea to try to help this addict get what he wants, but also feel it is their duty to prevent all other posters here from giving him what he really needs.

I have to wonder if some of you posters would show up at an AA meeting to hand out beers and complain about the 'judgementalism' of those at the meeting who try to tell the alcoholic they have to stop drinking?

Catperson,

True. He may have walked into a nightmare of bad parenting. But, he had as much right to interject himself into that as I do in interjecting myself into the parenting styles of the parents of the kids I coach in baseball.

Of course, if I saw abuse, I would inform the authorities. But outside of that, it is none of my business.

John is Jane's affair partner. That entitles him to nothing when it comes to the kids. And as pointed out by meremortal, his presence is also probably adding to the bad environment with those kids.

Again, he has no right to interject himself into their lives.

My kids told my wife that if she ended up with the OM, they would not welcome him. They would not treat him as a parent or with much respect. Why? Because he was one of two people responsible for destroying their family. He did not deserve their respect, nor love.

On the other hand, when questioned, they asked that if we divorced and my wife and I remarried, would they accept the new step-parents. And they said yes.

You see, it has nothing to do with being a step-parent. It has EVERYTHING to do with the adultery and the break-up of the family!

Hi MortarMan -

The answer to "who was angry" is (IMHO) John was.

John had hoped that even though this site is for preventing adultery and helping marriages recover from adultery, that maybe this part of the site labeled "After Divorce: Dating & Relationships" would perhaps be a safe place to seek help in trying to jump-start the dying adultery that destroyed two marriages (and thereby decrease the odds that the BS's will get a chance to recover their marriages).

When he was told the truth about how his current relationship was adultery-based and therefore not likely to survive, he didn't like what he was being told.

Then after he got angry, it was pretended that his anger at being told the truth was somehow proof that he had been treated poorly by the posters who had responded to him.

Like any addict, when told what he wants is harmful, and while immediately gratifying will not lead to a happy and healthy future, he reacted to the info with defiance.

He did leave because he didn't like what he was told.
But he didn't leave because something that was said to him was wrong to say.
Addicts have to bottom out before they are ready to listen to what they need to hear to get better.
And that does not translate into it was wrong to tell them the truth they aren't ready for yet, or into it's right to tell them what they want to hear, or even into just keep quiet...

Hopefully he is still reading or will come back someday to read the responses.

I sincerely hope he gives up his addiction and his stubborn defense of it sooner vs. later for the sake of all involved.

But some people insist on waiting until much more damage is done before they finally acknowledge the truth and give up their waywardness...

That's your choice to believe that. I choose to believe that if a person puts their children under my roof, I will take on their welfare, whether others feel I'm legally or morally obligated/allowed to do so.

I think the issue here today is the method of delivery. People are more than welcome to posit their beliefs (and I happen to agree with your beliefs). However, I am also a pragmatist and an amateur psychologist, and I will reiterate that you did no good by beating him over the head, over and over and over, about how reprehensible and immoral he was. You can speak about the immorality of adultery til you're blue in the face, but guess what? You now have no audience to hear it, except the other people who already agree with you, because you've chased him off through your method of delivery.

Mermortal, I don't think anybody here disagrees with you regarding adultery. Nobody is saying not to inform John that his relationship is adultery nor that the adulterous nature of his R is at the core of his problems. It is more the delivery of these statements that is being called to task. Yes he needs to know, but if it is not presented in a way that he will actually read it and absorb it, it won't ever sink in. At least that's how I see it.

I don't doubt he'll be back to read this, if he hasn't already. He'll never post again, though, and I can't blame him. I'm not defending him, just that why would he come back after he has been raked across the coals the way he was, whether it was justified or not?

Is this going to turn into one of those "My posting approach is better that yours" debate?

What's the point? No one is going to change the way another person posts.

I think John from his very first post is still lost in the FOG, even years after his divorce. Perhaps that's why many kept trying to take him back to the start of the relationship. The EA. He hasn't dealt with the affair yet. He hasn't even admitted that an affair ever occurred.

Resilent asked: "John,
If I'm reading this correctly, you and Jane are an adultery-based marriage, correct?"

John's reply: "Sort of I guess."

and then later he posts this:


I think it would be irresponsible of members of this board to NOT point out the fact that he had an affair to the point that it finally sinks in and he GETS IT. How can anyone help the man in his relationship when he is still lost in FOG?

His first response to Resilient was very civil and then moments later he responded to Resilient again as if a switch had been flipped. He suddenly felt judged and went immediately on the defensive. Did the man have an epiphany? Who knows.

mm, this is not a response to you...i must have clicked on your post to respond to the thread in general.

"Well, what I got from his complaints was that he walked into a nightmare of bad parenting and tried to make the best of a bad situation."

I've had some discipline problems with my daughters resulting from both the fact that my WXH and I had very different approaches to parenting (that WXH wouldn't POJA on), and the fact that they were drastically affected by their WF's (Wayward Father's) midlife crisis and adultery that resulted in their WF insisting on destroying our marriage and their family.

I'm willing to bet big that if you listened to my WXH and his OW all you would get from listening to their complaints would also be all they wanted you to get from it - that the ONLY problem was that the kids were acting up...

My WXH only agreed to meeting with the family counselor three times even though one of our daughters was cutting herself and another was hospitalized for severe depression.
And guess what his reason for meeting with the family counselor was? According to him if we could just get our daughters to behave and accept his adultery and the OW as 'good' than he and the OW would have no problems. He actually told me that it was my JOB to tell our daughters that "their feelings were wrong"! He told me I needed to make it part of my homeschooling to teach them that what he and OW were doing was OK.

(BTW, just in case some participating here might be so 'non-judgemental' as to believe that it really was my duty to tell my daughters adultery is OK - I assure you that my daughters would not have bought that anyway and would have just thought BOTH of their parents had gone insane then LOL)

It sounds as if Jane and her husband, the father of her kids, had not POJA'd on how to discipline her kids. (maybe - heresay from an adulterer - not known to be credible - plus it does have to be taken into consideration that just like my WH his #1 priority is not the welfare of the kids, although he sometimes claimed that, but sheltering his adultery from the naturally occurring consequences - In other words my WXH went to the family counselor becuase he was concerned about how our daughters' behavior was threatening to spoil the fun of his adultery!)

Consistency between the parents is important; inconsistency itself can lead to more behavior problems than either both parents being too strict or both parents being too permissive. It is important for the parents of those kids to POJA to come up with a consistent way for those kids to be parented. And by parents I do NOT include whomever their mother is currently having sex with.

It really is no business of one of the mother's OM how her children are disciplined. It is very damaging and even sometimes dangerous for children to be exposed to adult male sex partners their mother gets involved with. The fact that one of her male sex partners is so obsessed with her kids needing much more strict discipline is sort of a red flag IMHO, regardless of whether it's true that her kids are spoiled and lacking in discipline!

In fact, if it really is true that her kids are that spoiled or rebellious
AND he is so obsessed with wanting to impose much stricter discipline on them
AND he inapporpriately believes he has some sort of right of authority over her kids,
then IMHO this is a not an example of him trying to make the 'best of a bad situation'.

It's more like the ingredients for the worse case scenario IMHO - what could very easily turn into one of those all too common cases of mommy's boyfriend finally giving the kids the 'discipline' he feels they need with tragic results.

"We'll just have to agree to disagree, but IMO, your disapproval of him is filtering what you see."

I haven't seen any "disapproval of him". We disapprove of adultery.

Let's go back to the alcohol anology:

I have a relative who spent several years in prison for killing a man while drunk driving. I don't disapprove of this relative, I love her. She is out of prison now, she drinks, and so does her new husband (and sometimes even drives after drinking). I strongly disapprove of what she does. Her actions are wrong. Expressing disapproval of what she does is not the same as being disapproving of her or disliking her.

It is not mean, rude, or evidence of simply not liking or being 'disapproving' of somebody to tell them what they are doing is wrong and harmful.

And some posters here seem to not realize, or tend to forget, that they are only hearing one side of the story, and the statistically less honest side at that when they are listening to an adulterer.

Don't you at least wonder how different a tale would be told by the John's & Jane's BS's and BC's?

It's entirely possible, and actually VERY PROBABLE that the marriages John and Jane destroyed to be together were nothing like described. It's also quite possible that Jane's kids are not all that bad either. Why pretend, just because John said so, that we know the truth about the situation? It could be that Jane's kids really are as spoiled and disrespectful as John claims... or they could be just normal kids or even angelic ones for all we know. It is even a possibility that John has some jealousy or abuse issue? IMHO it doesn't even sound as if he even likes Jane's kids let alone genuinely cares about their welfare.

(Oh, and BTW if you had talked to my WXH's OW she would have told you all about how much she 'cared' about my daughters, and was worried abotu their problems too... I guess I can assume you would have believed her too.)

What I got from John's posts was that he wanted to find some way to make Jane's kids behave per his standards so that Jane's kids would not be interfering with his relationship with Jane. I believe he even said something about if it weren't for her kids the relationship would be perfect?

I'm sorry but I've just got to say that IMHO Jane is crazy to have anything to do with a man who thnks that way! Even if my kids were the worst little demons on the planet, that would be like waving a HUGE RED FLAG if I ever heard a man who was interested in me saying that!

I think there is a very good reason why the counselor John and Jane went to at some point started trying to tell John to butt out of the parenting of those kids!

I understand what you are saying. If a child is under my roof, I would take responsibility while under my roof. BBBUUTTTTTT....the whole point to the post was the fact that they shouldnt be under his roof. being under his roof is a form of abuse! It is putting those kids face to face with the man responsible for the break up of their family. What he needs to do is get them out from under his roof.


Well, I am not for beating people up. But I am for using 2x4s (virtual) for those that continue to try to push foggy notions. And that was what John did over and over again. he kept trying to push the conversation onto how to fix things with Jane and how to fix things with the kids. He wanted us to help him use MB principles to help him get things right.

And what we kept trying to tell him was that he had a snow balls chance in Hades of getting things fixed with Jane....and he had an even lesser chance of getting things right with those kids. He has caused them much pain (of course, Jane has too!).

So, we continue to try to get him to the point where he understands that the only answer here is to stop the adultery with Jane AND to leave those kids alone and get them out of his house.

He has read this. He most likely has continued to read this.

it will sink in one day!

I'm sorry you've had the trouble you've had, and I hope your children are better, and that you are reading as many books and taking as many courses as you can to learn how to help them through it all, and that you are providing them access to as much help as they will take.

I will stick to my claim that if children are under my roof, I will take steps to take care of them, entitled or not. I don't doubt he had just as big a filter on his situation as you do. However, he did recite specific examples of what I consider dangerous, harmful behavior on Jane's part. Could he have made that up? Certainly. But, as with all posters here, we assume that they are telling at least a modicum of truth about their situation, at the very least the specific examples cited. It was to those examples I was referring.

You have valid fears, and I have valid arguments for the welfare of children. And it is entirely possible that, given the opportunity to turn his vision of sensible bedtimes and meal times and homework and treats into action, those children might have even become grateful that there was at least one nurturing adult in the household, and grown up to be better people for it, no matter how he entered their lives; their own parents certainly didn't seem to be providing it. But I guess we'll never know.

Hey meremortal...I understand what you have been saying!

So, his response should be twofold, if there are serious problems with the way they are being treated:

1. Get them out of his house
2. Call social services, and/or the police, depending on what is needed.

But, continuing to have them live under his roof while he flaunts that relationship in front of the kids...is abuse all of its own!

That may be, but the point is, they are under his roof, no one is leaving, therefore, what would you do for the kids?

I would tell Jane to take them and leave...that the relationship is over. And if he wanst her out, she will have to leave.

And I will contact the appropriate authorities and let them know of the situation.

Outside of that, I would really have no power to do anything for those kids. Added to the fact that they wouldnt want me to do anything for them anyway, because I would be the source of much of their pain!

Ok, I'll reiterate - no one is leaving, apparently, so what do you do for the kids? You can judge all you want, and think that if you are just righteous enough he'll listen to you and leave, but the fact is, there are thousands of households just like this one all over the country, where the parents choose their selfishness over the kids' welfare. If they ARE going to stick together, despite your vehement protests about their immorality, if one of the APs sees the children suffering from poor parenting, he is to stand by the side and observe, simply because he's a sinner or whatever, and doesn't deserve to help? Like I said, I don't give a flip about John and Jane. But those kids are stuck in that situation, and I would welcome some sort of help applied for their sakes.

I wouldnt be able to do anything, if I were in John's shoes...more than reporting jane to social services AND stopping my own abuse of those kids by getting them out of my house. The fact they arent leaving means he doesnt really care about them...because he wants the abuse he is heaping on them to continue!


He doesnt have any legal right to do anything, except report Jane. That's it! He has as much right to do something for those kids as I do!!

The problem is that he doesn't recognize it as such. He doesn't see himself as an abuser, because he hasn't subscribed to your notion of such; if anything, he sees himself as the one hope the kids have. Maybe if he had stuck around through more polite and logical discussion with less finger pointing, he could have come to that conclusion eventually, as people stated their case logically enough for him to see the truth. But since he left, he's back in his situation, on his own, thinking it's his duty to help raise her kids and getting nowhere, just like the kids.

Whatever, I'm done.

Mortarman:

Good for you...advocating for the kids.

That is my view also. The children in these SITs suffer so much. I know this is a marriage builder's forum, but sometimes it seems to me the marital advice and empathy for the BS takes precedence over the children's rights and best interests.

IMO Jane moving her affair partner into her home (it was her marital home, right?) to shack up with her AND her three children is capital abuse in my view too. How can you even BEGIN to compare that to a discussion of parenting issues and common household rules like sensible bedtimes and homework schedules?

If John wants to have a relationship with Jane, and Jane wants to have a relationship with John, why do they need to even do it in front of the children?

My sister divorced and lived alone in her own home with her kids until they were grown. Only after the kids grew up, did she marry her boyfriend and life-partner of fifteen years. She sold her nice home and moved into his nice house and now they have a nice little nest egg to take romantic vacations with. They have been happily married for over five years now. Her children always treated her husband like a favorite uncle and a welcome guest in their home whenever he was there, which, by the way was quite often.

CatPerson,

Dr. Harley himself posted to John. In my nearing 8 years here, I have seen this happen only a few times. We told John how rare it was to receive a post from Dr. Harley. And, I'm sure you agree Dr. Harley's post was LOGICAL. Yes?

So John had the very owner of this site and the principles that John himself was pleading for, post to him. Yet John has chosen to remain quiet.

If John read Dr. Harley's response yet still chooses not to respond that says to me John may not like LOGIC. Or perhaps it could be John contacted Dr. Harley outside of the forum for a much needed counseling session. Even better.

Jo

I agree with this and I'm sure so does everybody else. But the law does not, at least not where I live. My WSTBX is living with his OW and her D6. OWH has taken her to court to no avail - in fact the judge ruled that since she has the "complete" family (i.e. man and woman), she has the more stable home. OWH lost a significant amount of his visitation because she & WSTBX moved away. Nowhere in our legal system do they allow adultery to be brought up in a custody hearing. It makes me sick, but there you have it. So John or any of you could report Jane to whoever and nothing will be done about it. If the kids have food, shelter and clothing and are not being physically or sexually abused, then there is no "legal" abuse.

Like I said, it makes me sick.

Sorry I picked on your quote Pieta but it was the most recent.