I would just like to quote from another poster on this forum who I highly respect, and who helped me tremendously during the recovery from my wife’s affair. This quote was actually directed at someone else, but I think it bears some relevance to the situation here at hand. This was in regards to exposure without first using the POJA. This person exposed without first talking it over (negotiating) with their spouse:


This, I think, is what marriage building is all about. Practicing the "correct way" to negotiate with your spouse without doing anything that depletes their Love Bank. If you're going to expose, first try and negotiate with your spouse. If you're still intent on doing it, then let them know through Radical Honesty -- but do it in a thoughtful way that doesn't cost you a lot of LB points!

-HD

It seems this issue on POJA versus exposure is something people have very different opinions and philosophies on. I have my own personal opinion on this too but since there are so many opinions flying around on this, I do wish I could have a VERY straight, direct and clear-cut answer from Dr Harley himself regarding POJA and exposure in a situation where the BS doesn’t approve and agree on exposure to the OPS (whatever the reasons or circumstances). I would like to know this so that there can be NO doubt or different interpretations about Dr Harley’s viewpoint and opinion on this whatsoever again in future.

Specifically, I would like to know from him that - since exposure to the BS and POJA in an M is both important - what about a situation where the BS doesn’t agree and approve on exposure to the OPS? Must the FWS honor the BS request and do nothing without the BS “enthusiastic agreement” or must the FWS continue with exposure to the OPS anyway (by using "Radical Honesty") no matter what the consequences on the M, FWS and BS might be?

What bothers me is that on the one side Dr Harley says an A should ALWAYS be exposed to the BS, but on the other side he also says issues should always be POJA’d between the spouses after an A… But which one is the most important especially after a recent betrayal by the FWS? Is it more important for the FWS in such a situation to do the “morally right” thing and inform the OPS without the BS agreement and approval…and therefore put the relationship and trust between the BS and FWS at risk (which might have a negative influence on the M especially if there is bad consequences after the exposure) or is it more important for the FWS to honor and submit to the BS (especially where the BS is a man and head of the household in a Christian marriage) and take his/her feelings into account above anything else and not do anything (in this case exposure) without the BS approval and “enthusiastic agreement” first?

IMPORTANT: Please note that I'm NOT referring to situations where someone breaks the law such as child molestation, murder, theft or whatever - of course these are entirely different issues.

Since I live in S.A. and have a different “time-slot” here, I will not be able to phone Dr Harley himself. I will however appreciate if someone can take the time and effort to get a direct and clear-cut from Dr Harley on this so that there can be NO doubt about this issue whatsoever again in future. Maybe someone will be willing to phone in during his radio show.

LA - Suzet forensically cleaned the "evidence" so she can now claim she has no evidence. Wiped the knife clean.

Unless my comprehension skills are way below par, the quoted text had nothing to do with exposure but everything to do with providing phone records - ie, clearly, exposure had already been done.

The only thing I have is a Word Document where I've saved the e-mail exchanges between me and OM. It can't be used as "solid evidence" since anyone can change the contents of such a document. (The exchanges between me and OM on e-mail was send as attachements on Word and this is what I've saved on my computer.)

That's a very interesting question - one I would like to see an answer on as well. When I first came here, exposure to the OP's Spouse was not as prominent as it is today. The emphasis was on restoring your marriage, and that exposure was only used as a tool if it was needed in order to end your spouse's affair during Plan A or B, etc.

If the affair was already over and the WS was recommitted to the marriage, Dr. Harley never, as far as I can tell, told anyone (BS or WS) that they had a moral obligation to inform the OP's Spouse before POJA'ing it first with their own spouse. If both spouses didn't want to tell anyone he never, as far as I know, tried to push them to say anything. Of course, it would be good for the OP's spouse to know of the affair so they could deal with it on their end, but the emphasis was always on building your marriage, since you were the ones that were here seeking help. The marriage of the OP's was really not their problem. They were not here.

That's what it was like back in 2000-2001.

Maybe he's changed his stance on this? Does he now think that in EVERY circumstance - even ones where the affair is over and done with - that the BS or WS has a moral obligation to tell the OP's Spouse no matter what? Even if one or both of the BS or WS don't want it done? Even if years have gone by and the affair has never resumed?

Would be interesting to know.

-HD

Honestly, HD, do you need Dr.Harley to tell you it is a moral obligation to tell someone they are being victimized? REALLY?

p.s. I have been reading/posting here since late 2000 and was always taught that exposure to both spouses was absolutely essential.

HD.....

I think in situations where NOT exposing the affair to the other betrayed spouse HAS allowed a new volley of affair-emails (or whatever contact it may be) ....

the option to permanently close & lock & bolt the door so the OP may never again gain entry is the most noble & wisest choice

in addition

this is killing Suzet*

if she does not do the right thing & address her conscience issue directly .... she will die a little more

I see this woman who has admitted she suffers from OCD ... and she has this UNfinished business .... and this worm will remain in her brain until she exterminates ....

Pep

Yes ML.

I would really like to hear HIS answer on this.

Do we ALWAYS HAVE to tell under EVERY circumstance? Even if the affair is over and one or both of the spouses don't want to? Even if years have gone by?

Is it the law of the land? Is it iron-clad? Is it the same as violating the "Basic Concepts" or the "4 Rules?"

-HD

In Suzet's case you think the affair is over HD ?

Dd you READ the exchanges between Suzet and OM ?

The affair is alive and well IMO. From where you sit apparently you didn't need exposure to recover. From where I sit it is an absolutely fundamental component of any recovery. We will never agree on this. Its utterly black and white to me. OMW needs to know for suzets marriages sake and for OMs marriages sake.

HD, as you can see, the lack of exposure and continued contact in Suzet's case has been devastating to her marriage. This affair has been on again, off again FOR YEARS, just as Dr. Harley predicted would happen in such cases.

And yes, Dr. Harley believes the BS should be notified even when the affair is over and years have passed. He commented on a case on this forum where the affair had been over for 4 years. He stated the "betrayed spouse should ALWAYS be told." And they should.

cc46 wrote: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/sho...rue#Post2942830

This is information about their life to which they have a right to know. To not tell someone about an affair in their marriage is cruel and thoughtless.

If your neighbor's bookkeeper was embezzling money from him, would you hesitate for one minute to alert him? Only the most callous, coldhearted would not tell him. Yet, for some odd reason, some apply a completely different standard to adultery, although it is the exact same principle. I have never understood this.

Bob, I can assure you that from my side, the A IS over. It was over and done with when I've sent that last NC letter and made it clear to OM that this time it's FINAL and PERMANENT and I want ZERO contact (something I failed to state clearly before in my other 2 NC letters). I WILL NOT allow myself to slip up again and make a second mistake. As I've said to you before, if I haven't allowed those sporadic & minor e-mails previously, things wouldn't have lead to the recent massive e-mail exchanges. I will not...CAN NOT...allow that again.

Putting Suzet's situation aside...

I find it interesting that Dr. Harley would say that in 100% of the cases and in 100% of the time there is an iron-clad rule that the OP's spouse should be told by either the BS or WS no matter what the circumstances are and with no exceptions.

If that's the case, I guess that's something in which I have to respectfully disagree with him on.

-HD

.... this is just the saddest comment

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Suzet* .... I am so sorry you needed 3 (so far) NC letters ....

maybe the 4th NC letter will be even more forceful & vehement

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

OMG .... just sad to read

((( Suzet* )))

you are so lost .... I ache for your pain right now

HD,

Honestly, I have come across one instance where I struggled with advice to someone about exposure. There was a man whose wife had cancer and was close to death. Ten years prior, he'd had an ONS and had deep regret and guilt about it. He wanted to confess, but felt that his motives might be selfish. I agreed with him. The relief he would feel at having told his wife....was hard to weigh against the cost of harm and loss of peace this would create for his dying wife. I weighed in on the side of letting her die peacefully believing her husband was faithful....and letting him do the suffering. Perhaps on her deathbed she'd prefer to know.....but somehow....I doubt it. So on the one hand....I agree that there are likely a few DRASTIC exceptions....so can we agree on 99.9%?

huh? You can't disprove a rule based on an EXCEPTION. He was stating a general PRINCIPLE, not addressing each and every case. I am sure there might be a RARE exception, but that doesn't disprove the rule.

ML, that's exactly what I was getting at! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Just because there's a general principle that the OP's spouse should be told it doesn't mean that there aren't exeptions to it.

Wow! We do agree on something! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

-HD

Star,

I can see your point here. And wow - that is a very extraordinary circumstance.

But I think most of this debate has not revolved around whether a WS should confess to his/her own spouse, but rather if they need to tell the "OP's Spouse" of the affair in every single circumstance. I am all for the WS to confess to their own spouse (Policy of Radical Honesty, right?) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

BTW - I think the work you do here and over on Penny's site is great! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

-HD

Pep, I didn't want to leave you out since you addressed me personally. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Yes, this issue in the past was not handled well according to Harley principles, and it has further damaged Suzet's marriage as a result.

Hopefully their plan now will permanently lock that door since they will now use exposure as a threat if he ever comes knocking again.

I guess time will tell if it works for them or not.

But at least they are working together and communicating with each other on this - which will hopefully help to strengthen their marriage.

-HD