Christy - I'll have a suggestion after I cook my marinated rib eye on the grill with mesquite wood chips and cover it with sauteed Vidalia onion.

Ok....quit bragging.

The modifications are very good, IMVHO. The human-side of this now stands out which I think was needed. And it is still professionally written and has remained factual, which is very important.

I'm interested in seeing Dave's scrub.

How are you feeling, Christy?

Jo

What is the "code deal"?

And, did you want to add anything to the E-letter mentioning that by your husband's own admittance there is an inappropriate relationship between him and the "BFW"?

Jo

The Code of conduct.

I hate him today. Thus, I have not yet sent it...I did not want to send it in anger.

OK Christy, try this:

Dear Boss dude,

My husband, [WH], who is a [title for business unit here], has been employed at [the Firm] since [date]. He loves his job and genuinely wishes to be a model employee and promote the success of [the Firm].

As such, in compliance with the [Firm] Code of Ethics, he should be expected to engage in and promote ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships, and carry out his responsibilities honestly, in good faith and with integrity, due care and diligence, exercising at all times the best independent judgment.

Contrary to the above, it is with regret and deep embarrassment that I must report that [WH] became involved in a sexual relationship with a coworker, [big fat whore's name here], while he was working overseas on xxxx project. [Ms. homewrecker] is a [title here] in Mumbai, India. I have irrefutable proof these events. I have been assisted by professional counseling since my discovery of this adultery.

Since his return to the US he has continued his relationship with this coworker through [Firm] provided communications, including the toll free office phone to do so. [Ms. homewrecker] also calls [WH] using company phone service (e.g. one call in mid-March '04 to his personal phone that lasted over 45 minutes). I believe there is no legitimate business need for them to communicate in this manner.

I love my husband and it is my goal to sustain my marriage in spite of this adulterous affair. My motive is not to enact retribution, but first and foremost to do all I can to save my marriage and my family while secondarily maintaining a favorable relationship for [WH] with [the Firm].

Infidelity is a too common curse in today's marriages, but has been proven to be recoverable, and even strengthening, to marriages in the long term - when recovery is promoted, encouraged, and rewarded. It is to this end I genuinely seek your assistance. Unfortunately, I am also concerned that he and [firm name] may now be liable to a sexual harassment accusations as a result of this affair.

I request you take all appropriate actions to ensure a permanent end to all contact between them to avoid further damage to my marriage, my precious family, [WH's] career, and the [company's] reputation and to promote marital recovery. All contact must be ended to accomplish this and to lessen exposure for [the Firm] to sexual harassment charges.

I will gladly cooperate to any extent to achieve my goal. Please contact me at [phone] to facilitate this goal.

Sincerely,
Christy

<small>[ May 05, 2004, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: worthatry ]</small>

I like it....a lot.

Now...to get my stuff together so I can send it. I think I will start the launch sequence Friday am.

...........and I wasn't bragging - just hungry.

It WAS good! (That's bragging!)

Aaaarrrgh!!! My internet connection is extremely slow today. It has taken me 17 minutes just to log on to post you this reply.

I read your intended letter of exposure, and thought it was a tad severe. I remember someone said to soften it a bit. However, what interest me was the OW, the Indian lady.

I live in Asia and am quite familiar with the indian culture. Three of my very close friends are indians and i have friends living in mumbai as well. I haven't read the entire thread (slow www connection today!)There are some thoughts in my head for your plan right now but i need time to draft them and i am at the office, have a meeting in half an hour and need to prepare for that meeting. Will post tonight. hang in there!

Hello Christy,

What I am going to say here is a mere generalization of what I observed from my own experiences with the indian culture. I'm not a social scientist. I do not wish to offend any particular race and their cultural beliefs, so please, don't nobody flame me.

Historically, India has many social castes (four, if I am not mistaken). Many parents still prefer their children to marry within the same caste. Arranged marriages are still practiced, and if the family still holds strong to tradition, they will expect their child (especially daughters) to obey. Outright disobedience will put the family to shame, and believe me, 'saving face' is very important.

Since OW's father has already promised his daughter's hand in marriage to a selected family, it is his onus to deliver the child. It would be terribly embarrassing for the father to tell the other family 'sorry, I can't deliver'. He would 'lose face' for not having control over his daughter and the groom's family would 'lose face' for being rejected. OW is probably locked up without food and water till she submits (don't we wish).

To add a little flame in OW's situation, I would call OW's dad, and with all respect and kindness, plead for him to help you keep your family. I say 'plead' because the indian father is very much a man, so let him play his role. Tell him you want OW to be a respectable woman. Heck! Send him a picture of you, H and kids!!

I am careful here to add that you can expect a lot of drama from indian love stories. The indian widow is expected to burn herself because she should have no other man in her life. Of course this used to happen many generations ago, but suicide for love often adds to the flavor of many indian movies. See, she had already shown how she has 'sacrificed' herself when her dad beats her. If your H shows concern/support, she'll use this to get herself out of the country.

I would not write a letter to the senior vice pres. One, your H will think you are spiteful and vindictive. Two, a letter as such may ruin his career (especially if they file it with HR). Besides, the man might be very embarrased the next time he meets your H. Since you've met this man before, call him. Tell him about the phone calls OW make on company resources. Tell him quietly about the A. Can he curb her privileges? This can be done so subtly OW and H doesn't even have to know you called.

So this is my perspective, and it may be shallow and generalized as I do not know the OW personally, her status, her family status etc. but I believe I may have shed some light to this culture.

Christy, I read Ruffled's thoughts and insights to the culture and wanted to add some input as well.

Your husband was impressed with the drama of his OW's suffering for their relationship - which means he's only going to be more impressed as she suffers more abuse from her father. So appealing to her father for help will probably not give you the results you are looking for. If anything, it would strengthen their bond because their love stays strong in spite of all that is against them.

Penny's strategy of poisoning the water for the OW with the company, on the other hand, could bear merit. OW despises her culture or she wouldn't pursue a daliance with a married American with children. If she was going to be swayed by her father's pressure, of if she had plans to remain in India, she'd have caved in to the beating. She works in a corporate setting, but is still oppressed by the culture she lives in. She sees the relationship with an American as her ticket to freedom out of the caste.

So contaminating her standing with the company would shake her up more than another threat from her father.

Christy, above all else, you have to destroy the romance fantasy they both have. You stand to lose your husband anyway. He may be beyond your reach because of how he feels about her with the web she's already woven around him with enduring a beating for loving him. You can't compete with fantasy.

At least with the revelation to the company, you stand a chance of destroying the fantasy. If he takes it to "over" at this point, you never really had a chance of recovering to begin with. He was too far gone.

Penny knows what she's talking about when she tells you to end the fantasy NOW. Because the longer this goes on, the more OW suffers because of her devotion to your husband, the more your marriage moves to the non-recoverable zone.

Christy, maybe you said this and I didn't see it. Make sure your H knows that you told numerous people about his violent fantasy.

I'm rooting for you and praying for you. You are a very brave soul and I think you are doing the right thing! CV

Ok, I'm glad someone else brought this up.

Is this man insane?!?!?! He's talking about killing you! Is that normal or supposed to be overlooked?

Aren't you afraid for you life?

Please someone help me understand this. Is it normal for a WS to think of killing the BS?

What about Laci Peterson...this can't be normal.

Hello, all!

I'm admittedly new to this forum and am reading everything I can (voraciously, I might add!) to catch up. Lots of good info here. However, I'm in a quandry....

Am I to understand that reconciliation through intimidation is a noble goal around here? With all due respect, Christy, do you really expect that any company gives a darn what their workers do, so long as the workers produce?

I'm a newbie, I admit it. But, I'm at a loss to see how this kind of exposure, putting a WS's job on the line could possibly result in their ending an A.

I hope you are prepared for the aftermath. If you send this e-mail, you risk permanently turning your WH away. I assume you already know this. I've been reading what I can on this 'exposure' approach and I admit, I just don't get it. I can't imagine ever coming home to an S that deliberately jeopardized my job and my future to serve their own purpose.

Perhaps, in answering my question, some of you will be answering Christy's as well. I'm curious to know how much success any of you have had in mending your marriages using this humiliation tactic? Or, is reconciliation not the goal...is there some other agenda? Isn't it possible that by revealing the A to your WS's employer, you set up the WS to defend the A and respond to their employer that they are seeking a divorce, anyway, therefore, it's all ok? I can see it now. "Look at the e-mail my S sent you! Now do you see why I want out?"

Just a thought...
Kyrian

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

Originally posted by ChristyV:
The Code of conduct.

I hate him today. Thus, I have not yet sent it...I did not want to send it in anger.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I LOVE this about you ChristyV....

WoW This is sooooo impressive!!!!!

YOU ROCK!

Pep

Kyrain -

Gonna address this part of your post.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I hope you are prepared for the aftermath. If you send this e-mail, you risk permanently turning your WH away. I assume you already know this. I've been reading what I can on this 'exposure' approach and I admit, I just don't get it. I can't imagine ever coming home to an S that deliberately jeopardized my job and my future to serve their own purpose.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I sense sarcasim in your tone here. I'll assume you are a WS? Not sure..might be way off target there.

Now when you say deliberately jeopardize someone's job....do you think that BS jeopardized the job...oh that's right we didn't sleep with a co-worker our spouses did.

What world to you live in where companies do not care if the employees have A's with each other? Do you work in a factory making Pajamas (my mom did that when I was little)....in the world today having relationships within the company costs companies money on wasted unproductive time spent flirting at the coffee maker.

Should I go on to mention the tense meetings after the Office Lady's Man has moved on to his next victim. Please explain how this is good for the company.

Sorry if I went off a little there but I feel strong that this exposure letter should be written. I think it is tactful and very direct.

I think my situation speaks for this all too well. Being in the military my H faced a possible dishonorable dicharge from the military. But please keep in mind...it wasn't my actions that would have caused him to lose his job. It was his actions.

You have to remember that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by heroswife:
<strong> Kyrain -

Gonna address this part of your post.
I sense sarcasim in your tone here. I'll assume you are a WS? Not sure..might be way off target there. </strong>

No, not a WS. Not a BS. Happily married. Trying to ensure I stay that way. No sarcasm. Only sincerity.

Now when you say deliberately jeopardize someone's job....do you think that BS jeopardized the job...oh that's right we didn't sleep with a co-worker our spouses did.

Yes. BS's "exposure" of the affair jeopardize's WS's job. That's the whole reason for doing it, isn't it?

What world to you live in where companies do not care if the employees have A's with each other?

I work for one of the largest corporations in the world. I can tell you that they, too, have a zero tolerance policy on affairs between management and subordinates. But, for the most part, companies do not (repeat: DO NOT) want to know about affairs.

...in the world today having relationships within the company costs companies money on wasted unproductive time spent flirting at the coffee maker.

Trust me...because of the discretion factor that so many have sited here, there is very little open "flirting at the cofee maker" going on...

Should I go on to mention the tense meetings after the Office Lady's Man has moved on to his next victim. Please explain how this is good for the company.

I'm sorry...are we concerned with rebuilding a marriage with a WS here or are we now turning attention to the profit margin of the WS's employer? Please. Honesty is the best policy here. BS's expose the A because it's a desperate way to the get the WS's attention. That's it, in a nutshell. It is not out of some righteous concern for the employer's welfare. It is a 'strength in numbers' approach. That's fine if it works. I am not condemning. But, I do insist on calling something what it is...

I think my situation speaks for this all too well. Being in the military my H faced a possible dishonorable dicharge from the military. But please keep in mind...it wasn't my actions that would have caused him to lose his job. It was his actions.

Was it HIS actions? Did they learn of it on their own? Or was it through your "exposure" of his actions? I'm just curious.

If I appear sarcastic/argumentative, etc., I do apologize. But, I tend to challenge things when they are not logical. The "I'm going to force you to love me whether you want to or not" just doesn't seem like an acceptable goal...for BS or WS. Scaring someone into coming back to you just doesn't click in my head...that's all.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Kyrian:


Yes. BS's "exposure" of the affair jeopardize's WS's job. That's the whole reason for doing it, isn't it?

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh no, it is not the exposure that would lead to job jeopardy, but ADULTERY. Let's be logical here.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I work for one of the largest corporations in the world. I can tell you that they, too, have a zero tolerance policy on affairs between management and subordinates. But, for the most part, companies do not (repeat: DO NOT) want to know about affairs. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I wouldn't agree with this. I have worked for Fortune 500 companie[s] since 1989 and I assure you they do want to know about fraternization. Workplace affairs are like poison in the workforce. The last gentleman that was caught having an affair on the job was fired on the spot and led off the premises by an armed security guard.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">BS's expose the A because it's a desperate way to the get the WS's attention. That's it, in a nutshell. It is not out of some righteous concern for the employer's welfare.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">BS's usually expose the affair in order to hasten its end. It really doesn't matter WHY though. What matters is that it is brought out into the open.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> But, I do insist on calling something what it is...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, you insist on jumping to ill formed hasty conclusions.



</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If I appear sarcastic/argumentative, etc., I do apologize. But, I tend to challenge things when they are not logical. The "I'm going to force you to love me whether you want to or not" just doesn't seem like an acceptable goal...for BS or WS.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I also tend challenge illogical statements and I have found numerous ones in your posts. For example, how is it logical to presume that exposing would "force" someone to love another? I am not getting your logic here. Have you really thought that statement through?

Or do you think someone can really be FORCED to love anyone? Is that logical to you?

<small>[ May 06, 2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MelodyLane:


Oh no, it is not the exposure that would lead to job jeopardy, but ADULTERY. Let's be logical here.

Ok. Logic: It's the EXPOSURE of the ADULTERY. The job is not in jeopardy until the employer knows of the adultery. The employer learns of it through EXPOSURE. The adulterous act, on its own, does not jeopardize the WS's position. It' is the KNOWLEDGE of this act, made available to the employer, that jeopardizes the WS's position.

BS's usually expose the affair in order to hasten its end. It really doesn't matter WHY though. What matters is that it is brought out into the open.

The BS wants it to end, therefore, any means at the BS's disposal to force the A to an end is acceptable. Got it.

No, you insist on jumping to ill formed hasty conclusions.

Hey, I'm not the one using intimidation to get anyone to stop a behavior that I don't approve of. If that were acceptable, it would be legal to shoot anyone who smoked cigarettes around me... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

I also tend challenge illogical statements and I have found numerous ones in your posts. For example, how is it logical to presume that exposing would "force" someone to love another? I am not getting your logic here. Have you really thought that statement through?Or do you think someone can really be FORCED to love anyone? Is that logical to you?

No, but you can force someone to stay with you(even if they don't love you) if they have no means of income, can't you? Again, my point is that exposure is a very desperate act. Why do it? Simple. The BS hopes that by exposing the WS and OM/OW's A that the WS will end the A under the threat of losing their job. Why does the BS want the A to end? Because they want the WS back. The BS rationalizes that it's okay since the exposure creates a chance that the WS will come home contrite. Maybe it does. It must work for some folks here because they sure defend it!

I'd love to hear from a WS on this board who was "exposed" and, as a result, returned to their BS and rebuilt their M with the BS. Perhaps their perspective will shed light on my confusion.

Please understand that ours is merely a difference of opinion, that's all. I do not agree with the concept of exposure and no one has posed a reasonable, sound argument that has convinced me that it is the way to end an A. I do not believe in intimidating anyone into doing anything that I would prefer they ultimately do of their own volition.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Kylian wrote:
No, but you can force someone to stay with you(even if they don't love you) if they have no means of income, can't you? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ummmm, I need clarification on this. Are you saying that a person can force another person to stay with them simply because they have no other source of income???

So the person WITH income is PHYSICALLY MAKING the person WITHOUT income, stay with them? How so?

Did you want to re-think your example, Kyrian?

Jo

<small>[ May 06, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Resilient ]</small>