|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 748
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 748 |
I decided to start another thread on this topic, since it is cetainly of importance for many BS. Perhaps FWS will also have suggestions.
What is the best way for a BS to respond to WS's anger over exposure?
Me BS 44
XH 45
M 20 years
D19
D12
DDay 11.29.04
Separated 12.29.04
Plan A 24.02.05
Plan B 10.9.05
Plan D 2.2.06
Divorce 13.6.06
OW - former friend and D12's x-godmother (Skunkypoo)
OWH - philander, XH's former best friend (still shares skunkypoo with XH)
Anger = drinking a rat poison and waiting/wishing the rat would notice you drink it and the rat die from it.
Redhat
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
The best way is to stay calm, smile sweetly and say "I'm sorry you are upset, dear, but I will do what I have to in order to save our marriage." Smile sweetly again.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
"I'm sorry you feel that way. I just wanted to let folks know that I love you, that your affair hurt me, and that I want every possible chance at reconciliation."
You will hear things like, "you are trying to hurt me" "you are ruining my life" "If you loved me, you wouldn't have told"
Just keep repeating the above, "I'm sorry you feel that way..."
DO NOT get into things like:
"If what you are doing is ok, then why not let everyone know about it?"
"Hey, at least I didn't put the details and pictures up on a billboard!"
Ok, that's my $0.02
T
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
p.s. if there is nothing wrong with the affair, why shouldn't everyone know about it? Why would he be angry? I find that reaction puzzling since he thinks there is nothing wrong with his affair.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
p.s. if there is nothing wrong with the affair, why shouldn't everyone know about it? Why would he be angry? I find that reaction puzzling since he thinks there is nothing wrong with his affair. The problem with this is you are using his behavior to justify what you are doing. If what you are doing can't be justified by how you think and feel, then perhaps you shouldn't say it. I think it's a weak DJ as well. It's the equivalent of saying, "I know what's best for you and how things should be said." So while we all believe the statement about "If it's so right, why not be open about it." It's probably an LB to go down that path. I think the temptation to say such a thing as an AO is too great for many folks. T
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
CEH, that is not a lovebuster at all. Exposure needs no justification. What she has done is not wrong. His behavior DOES need justification. So there is a huge difference. My point is that he has no grounds on which to complain because he has painted his own behavior as not wrong. He wouldn't be complaining if she told folks about the latest award he won at work. So it is clear that he understands something is very wrong with an affair.
That isn't a lovebuster at all to use his own logic on him.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
MelodyLane,
I can speak from experience that using such logic on SOME WS is a love buster.
In my case, I "out logic-ed" my now ex-wife all the time. She decided she was tired of losing every logical battle and had her affair. She even told me in a phone conversation that she couldn't be herself because everytime I would explain my position it was just so logical that she felt she could not disagree, she could not be herself.
It's not my fault that she was weak with self-esteem issues, but it was my fault for trying to win every discussion.
To continue to win the logic wars would (and did) only further convince her that she couldn't be married to me.
While I agree with what you are saying "logically" relationally speaking I think it's a bad idea to go down that path.
I agree that exposure needs no justification, so if you choose to explain what you did, just keep it about yourself and what you want to do, and not about what the other person did or is doing.
So let me state again that while I agree 100% with your logic there is a relationship cost to verbalizing that logic.
T
Last edited by Confused_Ex_Husb; 06/10/05 07:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,724
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,724 |
I was quite happy to use Melody's approach when my WH confronted me over exposure. I said 'If there's nothing wrong with what you and OW are doing, why are worrying?'
He said 'I'm worrying because we might lose our $£@~#=& jobs because of you!'
I said 'Why should you lose your jobs if you've done nothing wrong?'
Silence.
Alph.
Me, BS 37
Him, WXH (Noddy) 40
DD13, DD6
Married 14th August 1993
D/Day 2nd April 05
Noddy left us 3rd April 05, lives with OW (Omelette) 28
Divorce final 6th July '06.
Time wounds all heels... - Groucho Marx
...except when it doesn't. - Graycloud
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,107
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,107 |
I replied " I'm sorry you are upset, I did what I felt was in the best interests of our marriage. " I actually got one spiteful tirade along the lines of : "now *exposee* will think I'm a silly tart and OM is a manipulating old roue !! " My reply "..and ? " <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
MB Alumni
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
So let me state again that while I agree 100% with your logic there is a relationship cost to verbalizing that logic.
T T, I would have to disagree. She is simply showing him the logical end of his own fuzzy logic. We are not supposed to protect the WS from the consequences of their behavior. The definition of lovebuster is not avoiding any unpleasant truth the WS might not "like." She is not using "logic" on him, she is taking *HIS* fuzzy "logic" and bringing it to it's logical conclusion. That's not a lovebuster. A love buster is an angry outburst, disrespectful judgement, selfish demand, annoying habits, independent behavior. That is none of these things. She is simply taking his own fuzzy logic to its logical conclusion and there is nothing wrong with that. The WS might not like using his own logic in an inconvenient way, but it is not a lovebuster to do something the WS might not like. We don't protect them from the truth because they might not "like" it. It is simply showing him the logical conclusion of his own thinking. This should be no more angering than telling folks he just bought a new red car, according to his logic and she shouldn't miss the opportunity to point out the obvious.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
The bottom line is that this message should be conveyed to the WS: as you have presented the affair as perfectly acceptable, then you have forfeited all grounds on which to complain about it's exposure.
To be angry/unhappy about exposure defies the belief that the affair is acceptable.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
In my case to use such logic would have been an LB. I had a hard time placing it, but it would fall in the category of an Annoying Habit.
It's not that using such logic itself is the LB, but because such logic was used prior to the affair and became painful to her makes it a LB.
FWIW, what I'm saying is essentially what Steve Harley told me during my sessions with him.
While what I said was right, it wasn't the time to say such a thing.
T
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
CEH, I think you are calling anything that the WS might not like a "lovebuster, " and that is not a lovebuster. This is not an "annoying habit," it is a first time event. Protecting the WS from anything and everything they don't like is not a MB principle. Sure, its a waste of time to try and reason with a fogged out WS, however, in this case you are simply using his own reason; his own logic.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
MelodyLane,
I don't think I said "ANYTHING the WS might not like" I clearly said that IN MY situation it was an LB because it was an annoying habit.
So my adivce is to look at your situation, and if one of your LB's is to win the logic debates at all costs avoid that approach and simply say, "I'm sorry you feel that way. I just wanted to let folks know that I love you, that your affair hurts me, and that I want every possible chance at reconciliation."
There may be situations where you can get into that logical discussion with your WS.
But it may also shut down ANY communication. So you win the logic debate and lose because you have stopped any further communication.
Is this clear? I don't think I said what you are hearing.
T
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
CEH, I have never advocated that she get into a debate over this, that is an entirely different issue so I am not sure where you got that. Pointing out his own "logic" is not consistent with complaint is not a debate, it is simply a comment and is not a lovebuster.
Thank you for clarifying that this was a problem in your situation. I don't think that this an "annoying habit" in this situation.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
BTW, my exposure included not only MOM's family and my XW's family, friends, co-workers, former employers ( I guess they fall into the category of family friends) and MOM's employer and alumni association for good measure. I really was tempted to use the billboard, but I stopped there <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> T
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 748
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 748 |
This is how the conversation went on Wednesday:
WH: "Your talking to other people about our problem, especially a colleague from the bank is counterproductive."
Me: "That is the idea that being open and truthful will be counterproductive to the affair, but be a source of support for me and our children and our marriage. Perhaps the most effective way to get people to stop talking about your affair is to completely end contact to OW."
What I really wanted to say was:
"OW is not "our" problem. It's yours. Get rid of it."
Or: "Is the victim of a crime responsible for protecting the perpetrator? I don't think it is healthy for a victim to keep their mouth shut, suffer, and let the perpetrator continue to hurt them. they should seek whatever help they can get to stop the perpetrator from hurting them."
What do you think of the real response and the imagined ones?
Oh, BTW WH's reasoning that this is counterproductive is that "this is just between the two of us"....
Me: "If this is just between you and me, why did you keep it a secret from me for so long? Why did our friends, your customers, and our neighbor know about this before I did?"
Last edited by losttranslation; 06/10/05 08:40 AM.
Me BS 44
XH 45
M 20 years
D19
D12
DDay 11.29.04
Separated 12.29.04
Plan A 24.02.05
Plan B 10.9.05
Plan D 2.2.06
Divorce 13.6.06
OW - former friend and D12's x-godmother (Skunkypoo)
OWH - philander, XH's former best friend (still shares skunkypoo with XH)
Anger = drinking a rat poison and waiting/wishing the rat would notice you drink it and the rat die from it.
Redhat
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,094
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,094 |
T, I would have to disagree. She is simply showing him the logical end of his own fuzzy logic. We are not supposed to protect the WS from the consequences of their behavior.
The definition of lovebuster is not avoiding any unpleasant truth the WS might not "like." She is not using "logic" on him, she is taking *HIS* fuzzy "logic" and bringing it to it's logical conclusion. It's not clear to me from your post whether you realize this, but "fuzzy logic" does not mean bad logic. Fuzzy Logic is . . . an extension of Boolean logic dealing with the concept of partial truth. Whereas classical logic holds that everything can be expressed in binary terms (0 or 1, black or white, yes or no), fuzzy logic replaces boolean truth values with degrees of truth.
Degrees of truth are often confused with probabilities, although they are conceptually distinct, because fuzzy truth represents membership in vaguely defined sets, not likelihood of some event or condition. To illustrate the difference, consider this scenario: Bob is in a house with two adjacent rooms: the kitchen and the dining room. In many cases, Bob's status within the set of things "in the kitchen" is completely plain: he's either "in the kitchen" or "not in the kitchen". What about when Bob stands in the doorway? He may be considered "partially in the kitchen". Quantifying this partial state yields a fuzzy set membership. With only his little toe in the dining room, we might say Bob is 0.99 "in the kitchen", for instance. No event (like a coin toss) will resolve Bob to being completely "in the kitchen" or "not in the kitchen", as long as he's standing in that doorway. Fuzzy sets are based on vague definitions of sets, not randomness. There certainly is a place for fuzzy logic in discussing affairs, given that affairs occur along a continuum of behaviors from friendship to emotional affairs, to emotional affairs with a lot of physical affection but no intercourse to full-blown physical affairs. Fuzzy logic is the discipline that deals with that sort of continuum, and in that sense, the WH you referred to may indeed be using fuzzy logic to justify his affair. Somehow, though, I suspect that that's not what you meant-I think you meant there is something wrong with his logic, and there very well could be, but something being wrong is not what makes it fuzzy logic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,253
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,253 |
My WH was really angry about exposure. He'd say that "It was just between you and me. These other people don't need to know." Of course, "these other people" included our children and his parents. I have had to patiently and slowly explain that his A didn't just affect the two of us but also our parents, our kids, our neighborhood, the schools I'm in involved with, the sports our kids play, the dogs, even down to my Girl Scout troop.
The fogged in view is a narrow view.
Grapes are versatile. Grapes can be sour, sweet, sublime as wine and fabulous even when old and dried out.
Me: BS
XCH: Clueless
2-DS: Bigger than me
1-DD: Now also bigger than me!
5/6: Personally served CH with divorce papers
6/6: CH F? wants to time to see if M can be saved
7/6: FCH reenters our lives to work on marriage but secretly signs papers to start divorce...what's that about?
Mediation set for November
Final dissolution in January 2007.
2008 and beyond: Life goes on...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060 |
With regard to "exposure" and "lovebusters."
Exposure is the ultimate lovebuster, IMHO. How can it not be? But it's a calculated lovebuster. One step back to (hopefully) take multiple steps forward.
It is foolish for BSs to attempt to "know" or predict what absolutely will or will not be a lovebuster to the WS. The best that can be done is to predict what ought not be a lovebuster. But some things that ought not be lovebusters are and vice versa. Merely acting like you know what should or shouldn't be one can be a lovebuster in itself.
Key point > the WS determines what is or isn't a lovebuster. It's ANYTHING that withdraws from their bank. Afterall, it is their bank.
JMHO,
WAT
|
|
|
|
1 members (vivian alva),
1,543
guests, and
57
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,624
Posts2,323,522
Members72,027
| |
Most Online6,102
Jul 3rd, 2025
|
|
|
|
