Before an A metastasizes into its middle stage, anything that serves to keep the APs apart is helpful. Agreed?

Let's say there's a WW and an OM.

Let's say the WW's husband confronts OM and convinces OM that he will actually DIE if he continues to mess around with this woman, in love or not.

Put aside "you could go to jail" or "you could get a RO against you" for now.

Put aside any prejudice against the sort of man who would scare the OM.

Put down your self-help books.

Could such a threat contribute to the end of an affair and help lead to a real recovery for the married couple?

Has the husband acted ethically?

GC

WOW! I'd have to think to actually answer that question.

Got any easier ones? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Well, GC, in many parts of Mexico, it is perfectly acceptable for a husband to kill anyone having an affair with his wife. I do think it cuts down on affairs. But I don't know that we would want to live like that.

Heck believer, there are still places in the USA where people look the other way when a cheatin' wife's affair partner vanishes.

I actually have an opinion about this question.

GC

"some might say about you OM one day...."
"he sleeps with da fishes"
"if you get my drift..."

works for me...

ARK

Yeah, I think it would--all other things being equal--end the affair on the spot. The husband has most definitely acted ethically. His reaction is quick, forceful, and proactive.

(Let’s assume the woman isn’t in an abusive relationship for the purposes of examining the question. Abuse radically changes the dynamic.)

Whether such swift, forceful action leads to reconciliation is problematical, but I think it would in most cases. Unless I’ve missed one of the studies, women's reasons for having affairs appear to be rooted in a general category that could be labeled “lack of communication.” I suspect such a reaction from the husband would lead to reconciliation because the readiness to use violence to protect the marriage is one heck of a message from the husband, in and of itself. That the husband had to go to that extreme is also a wakeup call for him. Both parties are thus motivated to begin communicating together again.

Alas, this isn’t 1870 in Tombstone, AZ, and people don’t have clearly delineated guidelines as to what is proper and expected these days. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Hi Gray. Hope all is good with you mate.

You may recall I threatened OM very credibly in several well prepared ways including extreme violence and it was very successful in helping NC in the early days. In fact he has remained utterly dark and even got his GF to ask me if I still wanted him hurt a while back. Some karate champion, huh ?

I am too close to my own situation to assess if I behaved ethically, but I behaved in a courageous way, and it was seemingly effective. I do not regret a thing that I did after my car crash. God will judge my ethics.

Certainly what is ethical isn't necessarily legal, and the reverse too.

GC

Well, you know, it sort of happened that way for me. I confronted OM. And he vanished.

Ok, Ok, not literally. Figuratively. FWW tried to pursue him for a while, but he had his running shoes on by then.

Lest anyone think I’m named Guido or Knuckles, I did not threaten him physically. I threatened him where it really hurt: his pocket book and his ego.

If he ever talked to FWW again I promised him I would expose him to the whole world – from his wife and daughters, on through his work colleagues, bosses and church congregation, and all the way out to his first xW and their grown kids. (His current BW is the OW from his first M. Exposure to his first xW seemed to bother him a lot. I still wonder why.)

I showed him some copies I already had of company email between them. I told him I would have an attorney subpoena every email between them for the entire 10 years (they never delete the backup servers) of their adultery, looking for evidence of community property transfers (I didn’t think there were any, but that didn’t matter.)

Then I took him through the process by which he would lose his clearance and be fired.

I described how if FWW and I divorced, his BW would be called to testify during the proceedings. Again, it didn’t matter whether or not this would have been useful. He was able to imagine the scene in graphic detail, with a little help from me.

There are lots of lawyers in my family. Several already told me they would love to drag him to the cleaners. They sort of looked forward to it, in fact, and were willing to do it for free. I made sure OM knew this. I made sure he knew his troubles would be very expensive and drag on for a long, long time.

He sat there nodding like a bobble-head doll saying over and over. “I understand.”

As I left his office he shook my hand and said, “Thank you for being so civil.” Errrgh.

There was a lot more to this conversation. I’m just giving the relevant parts here.

With prayers,

PS: I have a friend who played football for the Naval Academy. He has to turn sideways somewhat (really, it’s true) to get through a normal sized doorway. Don’t know for sure, but it may have mattered some that he was standing outside said doorway.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> You da' man, Aphelion!

Somehow I knew the Texans would like this one. Besides being legal in Mexico, I think in Texas you can eliminate the OP, no questions asked.

Well,

I actually talked to the OM on D Day told him that when I was very young my father told me the best way to get killed was to mess with another man's wife. He said his father had told him that as well, to which I answered I never drive long distances without being heavily armed and I just drove 10hrs, 700 miles to get to OKC yesterday. Not sure if it worked, but his 1st Sgt told WW's 1st Sgt he was heavily involved with someone else, and either getting out of AF or PCS'ing and she didn't see a need for a NC LTR. WW doesn't know this yet but should be told by her 1st Sgt this afternoon.

Personally I think it should be OK to make the world safer by removing the OM or OW from the living.

Hmmmmmmm, Believer, you are factually incorrect. The OP is not eliminated with no questions asked. In fact, questions are always asked and when they are answered, the matter is put to rest, as it should be. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

--------

I have GOT to get this tongue out of my cheek. Darn thing is getting lodged there and I can't get it out!

**snort** <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well, Graycloud, my wild, wild west roots are driven deep in my heart. I could have nearly word for word said the same words as Longhorn. But I'm a woman.
Maybe its a matter of conviction.
I confronted OW once after D-Day and forbid her any and all contact with my children ever again. No, I did not threaten violence, and no, despite being a North Idaho gal, did not have a chainsaw in hand. But she knew an angry mother bear when she saw one! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> I may not have been able to keep her from my H, but she has never, not once again, come near me or my children again. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

gc:

I had thought of something 2 post, but decided it would just be the old adrenilin talking.

More important: What's up? Why this thread?

-ol' 2long

Why this thread? I thought it would be interesting.

In one sense, a serious threat would be a kindness to the OM. If the hypothetical husband is certain that the affair can only end in tears, then convincing the OM to get out of it quickly will likely save the OM months or even years of suffering.

However, in order for the threat to be honest, the hypothetical husband has to be prepared to actually follow up on it.

The potential consequences muddy things up quite a lot after that.

I like when people say "He's a thinker, not a doer" or "He's a doer, not a thinker."

Why not be both?

GC

Never mind.

I can't be a promoter of violence. Too many times it goes wrong and people get hurt very badly, or worse.

gc:

Why be either?

Consider, perhaps, the 1/12034857145673 chance that the OP and the WS are truly solemates, not just @$$holemates - that they were meant 2 be 2gether.

Should the BS want 2 mess that up? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But seriously. We talk all the time about how we can't change others, that they must change themselves. Even 2 the extent that we are told every day, and tell others every day, that the BS must let go of the "need" 2 affect the outcome of the nearly-always inevitable train wreck. We learn valuable life lessons in the process. Why not let the affairees learn their own lessons without our "help"?

As for 'thinking', I really like Eckhart Tolle's atti2de about how we all 2 often let our minds control us - playing endless what-if tapes over and over in our minds, agonizing over what we perceive was done 2 us in the past and worrying incessantly over a fu2re that hasn't happened. All the while, missing NOW. Just Be, gc. And be gc in the process. I think you're good at it.

-ol' 2long

Heck 2long, this question doesn't have anything to do with me.

For me, I'd rather just go to the Y and let God sort 'em out.

GC