Welcome, Kyrian.

Here's your post lifted from Christy's thread:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">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><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You probably noticed that we've waffled on Christy exposing to her H's employer. You identified some of the pitfalls. But as you read here, you'll learn that exposure is about the only direct tool that a BS has to compel the end to an affair.

In Christy's case, she is interested in recovering her marriage. Period. It's not about retribution, revenge, or any other motive.

Romantic affairs are constructed of fantasy. Exposure, or the threat of it, is the single most effective weapon to end it. Yep, it comes with some collateral damage, but there's usually more good than harm - especially since the alternative is a broken home.

For the situation of workplace infidelity involving a superior/subordinate the specter of sexual harassment is a HUGE cloud over continuation of the affair. Yep, again, collateral damage. Which would you prefer - a chance at recovery, or no chance at all?

Please read the post linked in my sig line below and the embedded posts for more on exposure.

<small>[ May 06, 2004, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: worthatry ]</small>

Thanks, WAT! I appreciate the quick links to help me catch up!

Rule #2 does seem a little confusing, though. On the one hand, you advise that one should not 'interfere' with the affair and yet, at the same time, one should consider "exposure" of it. Isn't exposure a method of interfering?

Don't get me wrong! I agree with practically all of the very good, common sense approach rules here. But, if all romantic love is indeed a fantasy, then every good marriage I know of is endangered if what you say is true <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

I think you and I are basically on the same page here. You make a good point in that the employer may take strong measures to discourage the A since there is a supervisor/subordinate dynamic here. (Hadn't considered that!) But, I think it's extremely dangerous to ever try to embarass someone into coming back to you. And, I think exposure carries as much potential to strengthen an A as it does to end it.

Assuming I'm interpreting your posts accurately, it would appear that your exposure of your WS's A to her family did not produce the result you had hoped...is that true?

Again, thank you for the helpful insight!

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.

Welcome to MB.

Am I to understand that reconciliation through intimidation is a noble goal around here?

No you are not to understand intimidation is noble.

Truth and honesty are however oft considered noble in most circumstances.

Why not this?

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?

Keep this in mind .... because...

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.

I thought you said you thought most companies wouldn't "give a darn" if the worker was productive ... and now you are saying the opposite... revealing the affair to the company might cost her H his job....

Which is it?

The company won't care? or... The company might fire him?


I'm curious to know how much success any of you have had in mending your marriages using this humiliation tactic?

How is being truthful and forthright a humiliation tactic?

Please give more details of your logic here.

How is truth humiliating?




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?"

That's a possibility .... for sure... it takes guts to speak the truth and suffer the fall-out consequences.

You're a pretty good writer.... do you use words for a living?

Again, interesting point of view. Thanks for sharing. Welcome.

Pep

Kyrian,

Just another factor to consider. No Contact is KNOWN to be the most effective way for the WS to recover from an affair, and thus help the BS rebuild the marriage. So if the affairee's are co-workers, someone is going to be leaving the job. Further, as you know most companies have policies against workplace romances and certainly affairs because it hurts productivity. Frankly it is in the companies best interest legally, financially and from a human resource point of view to NOT tolerate affairs and to at least reassign one or both of the affairee's to places that means NO CONTACT.

So, there are at least three ways disclosure makes sense. 1. It leads to the end of the fantasy and the glare of the light from the REAL world. 2. It puts pressure on both affairee's to end the affair or be made to pay a price. 3. It can and should lead to NO CONTACT between the WS and the OP.

This last part is the most compelling. As WAT, noted exposing to the work place is usually suggested AFTER exposure to family and friends who presumably may help the WS see the reality of what they are doing before the marriage and the family are destroyed. If that does not work, then exposrue to the boss of WS is the next logical step.

You are right, the WS will not like it. In fact they will hate it, but choices lead to consequences and some of those are not pleasant. However, the real thing to fathom is the depth of the "fog" that most WS's and OP are in. It sometimes take full exposure to accomplish the task.

A classic case of this being successful is Heroswife. She exposed the A to H's work, and it ended the A. They are rebuilding as we speak.

You are right it is a tough call. It is something that should be considered carefully, but it is a tool that has proven effective.

What I think you will find in the Harley approach is that it is a bit anti-intuitive. His response is that if marriages and affairs were intuitive, there would NOT be as many failed marriages. His business is rebuilding marriages by whatever means. In the case of infidelity, that can and sometimes does mean exposing the affair to the workplace.

No pain, no gain, I think has some merit in this endeavor.

Keep asking questions, they are interesting.

JL

Hi, Pep! Have lifted your ?s' in an effort to respond/clarify my POV.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Pepperband:
No you are not to understand intimidation is noble. Truth and honesty are however oft considered noble in most circumstances.

Why not this?

Well, maybe because this truthful and honest approach is carrying a label called exposure?

I thought you said you thought most companies wouldn't "give a darn" if the worker was productive ... and now you are saying the opposite... revealing the affair to the company might cost her H his job....

Which is it?

The company won't care? or... The company might fire him?

Both, my friend. Both. My point is that the company is ultimately not responsible for repairing the M and to lay such responsibility upon said employer is self-defeating. More often than not, the employer will not care. It is typically not grounds for termination (unless of course, the management/subordinate rule has been violated). Amongst peers, affairs occur everyday and are neglible by companies for the reasons I cited. Nonetheless, there is always the possibility that the WS will be fired and this is exactly what the BS hopes to accomplish, is it not? Hence, I maintain, this is reconciliation via intimidation.

How is being truthful and forthright a humiliation tactic?

Please give more details of your logic here.

How is truth humiliating?

Truth is never humiliating unless one intends it to be. Case in point: If I know that you have a fetish of some sort, is it being truthful or honest to publicize it to your friends, family and co-workers? Of course not! The intent of my "truthfulness" would be blatantly obvious. The intent is to humiliate you, harm your reputation, make you appear repugnant to others. My question is simply, what good can one expect of this?


....it takes guts to speak the truth and suffer the fall-out consequences.

Hmmmm...perhaps. But, I think one needs to distinguish between the acts of a courageous person as opposed to a desperate one.


You're a pretty good writer.... do you use words for a living?
Pep [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You're too kind! No, I do not use words for a living, per se. Have just always had a great deal of respect for the English language and communicating well. So, I try my best <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Thank you for your response!

Humblest regards,
K

Yes, yes, yes - one size does not EXACTLY fit all and there are always a few differences.

BUT - if you want/need to be a student of this subject, read on and you will see that affairs and affairees are surprisingly similar. So much so that it's spooky. You'll wonder if there's not really a common virus creating identical physiological results. Hence our pretty rigid approaches to dealing with them.

If you are either a betrayed spouse (BS) or a wayward spouse (WS) I already know some of the things you've said and done. Wanna bet? Go ahead, make my day. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Kyrian:
<strong>Rule #2 does seem a little confusing, though. On the one hand, you advise that one should not 'interfere' with the affair and yet, at the same time, one should consider "exposure" of it. Isn't exposure a method of interfering?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ah, grasshopper. You try to form contradictions based on the semantics alone.

By interfere, we mean direct attempts to separate the affairees. Impossible. You cannot convince them to separate using logic alone. Remember, we're dealing with alien abductees here. They (at least one of them) have to decide to end it on their own.

On the other hand, exposure is indirect and shines the light of day on their fantasy and the secret is gone. Affairs thrive on secrecy and with it removed, the allure often vanishes. And yes, here the "shame" or embarassment factor can compel the affairees to determine that it's no longer worth it. But regardless, the affairees make the decision to end it - exposure doesn't TELL them to, it compels them to. See the difference?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>But, if all romantic love is indeed a fantasy, then every good marriage I know of is endangered if what you say is true <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, every marriage is vulnerable. Period. A+ for this section. But not because every marriage is a fantasy - because every marriage is built on conditional love.

Affairs are built on fantasy because of the artificial settings. A couple of hours a week, maybe? Maybe more, maybe less? Maybe only an emotional connection over the internet without ever meeting? Is this real? Does this represent a total relationship with bad breath, dirty laundry, mortgage payments, taking care of kids and all? Always on your best behavior? You tell me. NOT real.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>But, I think it's extremely dangerous to ever try to embarass someone into coming back to you. And, I think exposure carries as much potential to strengthen an A as it does to end it. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, this is dangerous business. Ugly, too. I know. Yes, my case is a good example where the affairees entered the fortress mentality phase, due in part to their respective personalities, and were hellbent on "proving" to everyone what they were doing was good and right. No turning back. It strengthened the affair. This is actually rare but is also very, very, very likely temporary.

Did you know that 5 years after an affair's beginning that it's WAY more likely that the original partners will be back together than the affair partners remaining together????

But over and over we see the benefits of exposure in compeling affairs to end. But don't take my word for it. Keep reading.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>Assuming I'm interpreting your posts accurately, it would appear that your exposure of your WS's A to her family did not produce the result you had hoped...is that true?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, that's correct. It doesn't always work. The individual personalities are a wildcard. That said, I didn't really expose it - it was self exposing. I did try to enlist my in-laws assistance to "talk sense" into my wife, but their style was non-interference and at the time I was not versed in the do's and don'ts. She was fleeing the pain of the loss of our son and, I believe now, nothing could stop her. If you knew her new husband - the guy she wasn't having an affair with - you'd understand the meaning of "any port in a storm."

So, what's your reason for being here?

WAT

Truth is never humiliating unless one intends it to be.

So, if the intent of exposing the adultery is to save the marriage .... then there is no humiliation?

Is this what you are saying?

If this is what you are saying .... I agree!!!!

Case in point: If I know that you have a fetish of some sort, is it being truthful or honest to publicize it to your friends, family and co-workers? Of course not! The intent of my "truthfulness" would be blatantly obvious. The intent is to humiliate you, harm your reputation, make you appear repugnant to others.

What if my fetish (how did you know? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Embarrassed]" src="images/icons/blush.gif" /> ) is so repugnant in nature that by my actions I am actually harming others... should my fetish be exposed to protect the innocent? (like children or a wounded spouse for instance).

Pep

[QUOTE]Originally posted by worthatry:

If you are either a betrayed spouse (BS) or a wayward spouse (WS) I already know some of the things you've said and done. Wanna bet? Go ahead, make my day. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

You'll be happy to know that I'm neither. Well..at least not yet, anyway... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />


By interfere, we mean direct attempts to separate the affairees. .. They (at least one of them) have to decide to end it on their own.

Unless, of course, you can get the employer to do it for them? By seperating them (locale wise) or terminating one of them? Does this not serve to end the affair during working hours only?

On the other hand, exposure is indirect and shines the light of day on their fantasy and the secret is gone.

It may "shine" for the BS, but I doubt that the WS would see it that way....

Affairs thrive on secrecy and with it removed, the allure often vanishes.

The allure does not vanish; only the opportunity does. I believe that Affairs thrive on whatever element the A provides that the M no longer does. Secrecy makes the A more enticing...that's all.

And yes, here the "shame" or embarassment factor can compel the affairees to determine that it's no longer worth it. But regardless, the affairees make the decision to end it - exposure doesn't TELL them to, it compels them to. See the difference?

"Compel"? Now, who's playing with semantics?
Apply enough social pressure to exact feelings of guilt and humiliation sufficient enough to threaten WS's self-esteem and social standing, thereby forcing him/her to return to BS in an effort to salvage their reputation. I would hope that if ever I was in this situation, my WS would return to me willingly, not because I set enough trap doors that he had no other place to fall other than in my lap....

Affairs are built on fantasy because of the artificial settings.... Always on your best behavior? You tell me. NOT real.

No argument there.

But over and over we see the benefits of exposure in compeling affairs to end. But don't take my word for it. Keep reading.

Oh, believe me, I will!

So, what's your reason for being here?

I am a HMW (happily married woman); hoping to learn from the mistakes of others who have been brave enough and willing to share their heartbreaking experiences here. "An ounce of prevention" and all that, you know? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Thank you , again, for the clarifications! I am learning a great deal here.
Humbly,
K

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Kyrian wrote:
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?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hi Kyrian, and welcome to Marriage Builders.

Just an FYI, I work for a very large high visibility company, and through recent investigation via HR, I have learned we maintain ZERO Tolerance for work-place affairs. Employees participating in such activities jeopardize their employment.

Any chance you can share your story with us, Kyrian? Are you a BS or WS?

Jo

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

Any chance you can share your story with us, Kyrian? Are you a BS or WS?

Jo [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ah, but that I had one to share...I am, fortunately, a happily married woman who has come to MB to learn so that I might avoid the pitfalls that can so easily trap us all. I have maintained for many years that one can trace the demise of any successful relationship to the moment that one partner began to take the other for granted. Never has that lesson been so vividly driven home for me, than by the posts I've read here. It would do many a HMS a great deal of good to visit MB..to appreciate what they have and to understand how special a good M is...

I hope I am still welcome, given the circumstances... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Kyrian:
<strong>You'll be happy to know that I'm neither. Well..at least not yet, anyway... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So which are you comptemplating being?

I detect a certain defensive/argumentative attitude from you.

I hope I'm wrong.

I encourage you to continue to read and ask probing questions. Debate is healthy.

We may be jaded from our personal experiences and blind to differing views. This is NOT healthy and we should be challenged.

But, you may be surprised.

Recommended reading: Private Lies, by Frank Pittman. A brilliant book about the inner workings of betrayal.

Beautiful Swimmers, by William W. Warner, a Pulitzer Prize winner. Waterman, Crabs, and the Chesapeake Bay. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's just a beautiful book.

WAT

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by worthatry:
<strong> [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kyrian:
[qb]You'll be happy to know that I'm neither. Well..at least not yet, anyway... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So which are you comptemplating being?

Neither, WAT. As I mentioned in my post, I'm happily married and working to stay that way.

I detect a certain defensive/argumentative attitude from you.

None intended, I assure you. Argumentative? Not at all! But, I do ask a lot of questions when I don't understand something; it doesn't necessarily always mean that I don't agree with a certain approach...only that I may question it's effectiveness...that's all.

We may be jaded from our personal experiences and blind to differing views. This is NOT healthy and we should be challenged.

How true. We are, after all, the sum total of our experiences, are we not? The best we can hope to do is learn from the experiences of others which is my endeavor here...no more, no less and I assure you, no hidden agenda...

Kyrian

Oh, one more thing, the "humiliation" tactic.

An interesting way of terming it, but, so what?

Is it a matter of degree?

"Humiliation", derived from "humble", right?

Aren't most decisions we make based on our humbleness? I.e., our introspection that checks whether we're doing the right thing, making the right decision? Our "oops" response?

Hmmmmmmm.

You know, Kyrian, you're right. We DO try to "humiliate" WSs into changing their course, when you get right down to it.

And it works!

Tomorrow, my boss will "humiliate" me into producing my normal daily output - in a matter of degree. He won't have to say a word. But I'll know that if I don't produce, he might.

WAT

I have a different twist to the "humiliation" factor of exposing an affair.

I feel strongly that the WS placed themselves in this very compromising if not extremely damaging situation in terms of their employment. I realize they attempt to be discrete, however, who's to say how many people (co-workers, colleagues) are privy to their infidelity, whether it be voluntarily shared or intentional slips in hiding things.

After all, it's no fun having such a secret unless you've shared it with someone.

So, if humiliation is felt by the WS due to exposure of the affair in the work-place or elsewhere, they are the responsible parties who placed themselves there. The BS does NOT own any of that.

Jo

<small>[ May 06, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Resilient ]</small>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by worthatry:
[QB] Oh, one more thing, the "humiliation" tactic.

An interesting way of terming it, but, so what?
Is it a matter of degree?
You know, Kyrian, you're right. We DO try to "humiliate" WSs into changing their course, when you get right down to it.

And it works! [/b]

But, you said it didn't for you... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Tomorrow, my boss will "humiliate" me into producing my normal daily output - in a matter of degree. He won't have to say a word. But I'll know that if I don't produce, he might.

So, if he broadcasted to every other employee, (as opposed to just you) that your performance was sub-standard, doesn't he risk pushing you over the edge? If my employer did that, I would seek every opportunity, better or worse, to leave that organization. And, I've got to believe that you perform your job well because you're good at it..not because someone humiliates you each day into doing it, right?

As I said, WAT, I see a very dangerous risk here. If this approach works for everyone, then I say, more power to you all! I can see where, in some instances, it might. I guess it all depends on what provoked the A to begin with. If a WS wanders because they're looking for an out of the M, I guess no amount of exposure is going to change their mind, anyway.....

Just my two cents...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Resilient:
<strong> I have a different twist to the "humiliation" factor of exposing an affair.

I feel strongly that the WS placed themselves in this very compromising if not extremely damaging situation in terms of their employment. ....

So, if humiliation is felt by the WS due to exposure of the affair in the work-place or elsewhere, they are the responsible parties who placed themselves there. The BS does NOT own any of that.

Jo </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, then, am I to understand that exposure is , in fact, an act of retaliation or revenge, as contrasted to what WAT has said? It sounds like the old, "all is fair in love and war". If you (WS) won't return on your own, I'll (BS) make you wish you had? I'll scare you into returning to me? Is that what this boils down to?

Say it isn't so!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Kyrian:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Resilient:
<strong> I have a different twist to the "humiliation" factor of exposing an affair.

I feel strongly that the WS placed themselves in this very compromising if not extremely damaging situation in terms of their employment. ....

So, if humiliation is felt by the WS due to exposure of the affair in the work-place or elsewhere, they are the responsible parties who placed themselves there. The BS does NOT own any of that.

Jo </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, then, am I to understand that exposure is , in fact, an act of retaliation or revenge, as contrasted to what WAT has said? It sounds like the old, "all is fair in love and war". If you (WS) won't return on your own, I'll (BS) make you wish you had? I'll scare you into returning to me? Is that what this boils down to?

Say it isn't so! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Where did you get this idea? I read Resilent's remarks and she said nothing close to this. Where did you get this interpretation?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Kyrian:
[QB]
"Compel"? Now, who's playing with semantics?
Apply enough social pressure to exact feelings of guilt and humiliation sufficient enough to threaten WS's self-esteem and social standing, thereby forcing him/her to return to BS in an effort to salvage their reputation. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Someone who commits adultery should feel humilation and guilt, regardless of whether he is exposed or not. That is the natural consequence of bad behavior in people who have a conscience.

It's not exposure that causes loss of social standing or self esteem, but adultery. An adulterer shouldn't esteem their adulterous behavior, it is bad behavior, nothing to "esteem" there. But the loss of self esteem comes from the WS's CHOICES and nothing else.

If I announced that my spouse won a medal for saving a child's life, he wouldn't lose social standing or self esteem. That's because its not exposure that is the issue, but the underlying behavior.

And a person who cheats on his spouse doesn't deserve good social standing if its not based on the truth. If you have to hide who you are to maintain social respect then you are a phony, an illusion who deserves no respect. No one should help such a person hide who he really is.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I would hope that if ever I was in this situation, my WS would return to me willingly, not because I set enough trap doors that he had no other place to fall other than in my lap....</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">All spouses return to the spouse willingly, this is a free country. They make that choice of their own free will.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Kyrian:
So, then, am I to understand that exposure is , in fact, an act of retaliation or revenge, as contrasted to what WAT has said? It sounds like the old, "all is fair in love and war". If you (WS) won't return on your own, I'll (BS) make you wish you had? I'll scare you into returning to me? Is that what this boils down to?

Say it isn't so!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">IT ISN'T SO.

And no, not at all Kylian. What I was trying to illustrate is that the WS places themselves in this situation (work-place affair). They, themselves, made that choice and have unwittingly (or not) placed themselves in a position where they are a varitable target for humiliation by virure of their adulterous actions within their workplace by their very peers.

Humiliation, shame, embarrassment, regret, denial, blame, etc. .... all of these things are synonymous with an affair, workplace or not.

Jo

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MelodyLane: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Kyrian:
<strong>
"</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Someone who commits adultery should feel humilation and guilt, regardless of whether he is exposed or not. That is the natural consequence of bad behavior in people who have a conscience. </strong>

Yes, Melody, they should. But that doesn't mean that they will and it doesn't mean that it's up to anyone to force that guilt if they don't...

"It's not exposure that causes loss of social standing or self esteem, but adultery. An adulterer shouldn't esteem their adulterous behavior, it is bad behavior, nothing to "esteem" there. But the loss of self esteem comes from the WS's CHOICES and nothing else.

Q: If this is true, then why invoke exposure at all? If you really believe what you're saying, then why the need to 'expose' the adulterer? What good does this do other than to foster bitterness between WS and BS? Let the adulterer deal with their guilt. Why force them into it?

If I announced that my spouse won a medal for saving a child's life, he wouldn't lose social standing or self esteem. That's because its not exposure that is the issue, but the underlying behavior.

In which case, you wouldn't need to announce it...

And a person who cheats on his spouse doesn't deserve good social standing if its not based on the truth.

In your opinion.

If you have to hide who you are to maintain social respect then you are a phony, an illusion who deserves no respect. No one should help such a person hide who he really is.

True. And if one is a phony, their true nature will reveal itself. It will not require a BS or anyone else, for that matter, to "expose" it for what it is ..to anyone.

All spouses return to the spouse willingly, this is a free country. They make that choice of their own free will. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ah, but EXPOSURE sweetens the odds a little, eh? It's the "just in case" measure. It's revenge, Melody, pure and simple. Everything I've read from most (not all) of the posters here are merely efforts to justify seeking retaliation. I think, deep inside, anyone who seeks to 'expose' their WS knows that. IMO, it is a knee-jerk reaction from a broken-hearted, desperate soul who needs to blame someone, anyone, for the A and seeks to form an army to help them get the WS back.

As I've said before, if many of you have found success with this technique, I commend you! It's a gutsy move. I guess so long as you're willing to accept the adverse potential of such an effort,
there is no harm in trying.

Godspeed.