Suzet*

I totally understand your position

I totally think your husband does not choose to protect you

It is your husband's lack of protection that I find so sad

... sad for you Suzet

sad for you

equally sad about Kiwi's husband's lack of protection for his wife ... sad sad sad

I hold the husbands accountable here .... yep, you heard me right!

Pep

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> OWL ! I am shocked!



you neglected to mention that we are especially concerned about NON-exposure when there has been repeated attempts at contact by the OP .... as in "we've written our 3rd NC letter"

oops Owl ... you made a lapse in your letter.... why not send another to correct that lapse?

Say: the exposure being discussed is actually not going back into ancient history and exposing a long dead affair from, say, 10 years ago .... what is being discussed is when the OP keeps trying to re-start the affair? Shouldn't the OP's spouse be informed?

a'la Kiwi, Suzet, and 2bNormal

Pep

Pep-

I'd not planned on going into specific poster's direct situations, but if that's the consensus of the team I'll be glad to send an updated request.

I'd like to see an answer on both sides of that...both when OP is attempting contact, and when they've stayed out of the picture. Agreed?

As I'd mentioned in the email...what I'm really and truly hoping is that they'll come here and answer some of these questions and issues directly.

Actually Pep we disagree <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />...

Wouldn't you say that an attempt to contact/resume affair on the part of the OP makes the affair active in the present tense with regard to the OP whether the XWS climbs aboard or not?

In that case...the entire POST affair exposure of the OBS issue is null..because the OP affair is not *in* the past tense...in cases such as this the affair is present and active in the OP/OBS marriage...and makes lack of exposure even MORE curious.

my error Noodle .... indeed ... affair is NOT "past tense" .... the clock is re-set with ANY contact

Pep

Actually, I've got to agree with Noodle...if contact is attempted in any fashion, personally I'd agree that this is a "continuation" of the affair...and there should be no doubt at all that OPS should be contacted.

It's if the affair is "in the past" and the marriage is in recovery that I see as the biggest issue.

And additionally, per my email, I want to know WHO holds the responsibility for making it happen, and what should be done if POJA can't be reached...per the MB team, not our own interpretations of it.

Dear Dr Harley

currently
some "FWW" with more than 1-D-day and more than 1 NC letter, as well as current WW are advocating NON-exposure to the OM's wife , even after several contact attempts by their affair partner ... what do you think their agenda might be?

To put this in context:

This idea that exposure to OM's wife = bad, was begun by a now-kicked-off member (troll) who posted under many identities to try and disrupt the discussions usually by calling exposure advocates with actual recovered marriages "bitter, or "harsh" or "mean-spirited".

This idea exposure = bad is being carried forth by "her" friends who remain on the MB forum.

Pep

Aside from casual curiosity the Harley weigh in is largely irrelevent for me as I consider this an issue that supercedes marital recovery and all marital recovery tools.

I exist independently of my marriage, I am responsible for my choices regardless of my marital status.

Being married will not influence whether I go to jail if I commit a crime and it will not prevent me from confessing to my victims.

My personal and independent integrity comes before my marriage [she shouted into the halls of redundancy].

OWL:

whoever has the integrity

Pep

Pep...I'm looking for that answer from the MB staff. I know your view, and understand it.

I'm not interested in bringing up the "troll" issue...I want to focus on answering the question at hand.

I'm not wanting to "lead" his response by saying who is advocating what...I am just interested in their position on how this should work, and if it should be tailored by individual circumstances or if this is a "one size fits all".

Lets hope we get a response here on the board that we can all read and work with.

WHAT?

You're not going to hide behind "POJA" to avoid confessing to your victim?

What a noodle you are! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Pep

YourShoes,

“Honestly, I have to smile to myself at some of these threads where so many people so adamantly argue what the higher moral / ethical / responsible duty is...

What I want to know is how many of you people reading and arguing your point on this thread right now are doing this from your job? In other words, you’re being paid by someone else to do something else, but you’re here arguing ethics – is that moral / ethical / responsible?

Gotta go – coffee break is over…”

Interesting observation, YS. I guess zero.

But you do bring up an interesting aside called business ethics. A peculiar brand of ethics which, along with most of the rest of universal ethics formulations, includes an additional rule, if you will: appearances. In business, it is not only required that you be ethical, you need to appear ethical.

Appearances are not a major component in most other constructs.

I know a number of people on this thread have on-call jobs and can post between calls and on breaks. My company allows personal business to be conducted on the internet as long as it does not impact my productivity or use company material resources (like paper for printing hard copies of threads.)

Therefore, even though it is acceptable for me to use the internet at work as long as it is not interfering with getting my work done, I cannot let it even appear to be impacting my productivity.

The company I work for could care less who is boinking who’s wife or husband, as long as it does not make the papers. That is business ethics for you.

But, after two CEO’s in a row and several other high ranking execs were “let go” for having one too many affairs make the papers, all of us employees are required to sign an ethics agreement and to renew it each year.

It includes typical business ethics stuff such as I mention above, but it also includes a clause that holds one accountable if you knew of someone’s unethical conduct and did not report it. This clause is modeled on the ethics requirements for cadets at the Naval Academy.

I can now be fired for not reporting a managers affair.

Now there is exposure to OP’s spouse for you!

With prayers,

[color:"blue"]Evil flourishes when good men do NOTHING.[/color]

So to answer your question Owl, GOOD MEN

Again, I understand everyone's opinion here, and the moral concepts behind them.

I want to know what the specific guidance of the MB team is on how this is supposed to be handled in context of recovery from an affair.

Or is this a moral issue ONLY...and has no bearing whatsoever with the MB precepts?

For one as wise as an Owl I would think you could predict the Harley's response. Which I believe would be similar to the following (paraphrased):

"It all depends on the individuals involved and the particular characteristics or profile of THEIR situation.

AKA: No real cookie cutter or one size fits all answer."

Thats my guess.
Jo

Resilient- Actually, that's my belief as well. But that's not the indication that many of the other posters here have suggested...the belief appears to be that this IS a 'one size fits all'.

Which is why I'm ASKING for from the MB staff.

Last thing...lots of comments about "wise" Owl lately...the Owl moniker has nothing to do with wise, or me claiming to be so. It's completely unrelated to any of that, and is simply a personal thing. If I had been "wise"...I wouldn't have ended up here, now would I?

At this point, does it really matter what Harley answers?

To me, it isn't about Harley. It's about honesty, integrity, and healing the marriage(s) involved, by whatever means necessary.

Even though I'm not fully engaged in this topic (i.e. not going back and forth with anyone in particular -- I am an island <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />)... my belief in this concept is simple and personal: It is the right thing to do.

And frankly, I would push for exposure even if Harley himself came on and renounced it as an affair-ending tool.

I think it was Melody Lane who first said something that I appreciate and believe so much, and this is a paraphrase: It isn't the exposure that hurt(s) the marriage, it is the AFFAIR.

When you peel back the layers of "the situation" you will see the seed, or core, is the affair. Had there not been the affair, none of the rest would be happening. The affair is to blame for the consequences that follow.

Hi Aphelion,

Thank you for your response to my questions. I was more throwing an observation out there, but I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

Two things in your post caught my eye.

I’m assuming your “I’d guess zero” comment is referring to the number of people you believe are actively engaged discussing the moral \ ethical aspect of this thread from work? OK, I have no proof to the contrary. Looking at the times of the posts would seem to indicate that most posts have been during work hours – but I know this is not proof.

I’m not very eloquent with words, but the point I was trying make with my previous post was that I believe some people on this thread are overly focused on winning this argument by illustrating their own higher moral, ethical, and responsible beliefs. Some people are telling us how they would act honorably in this HYPOTHETICAL situation, yet at the same time, they are neglecting their REAL moral and ethical responsibilities to their employer. My point was that people, without even realizing they were doing it, might be acting in opposition to their words - something that people often caution against here on MB. If no one is arguing the moral issue from work then I am wrong.

Regarding work Internet usage: I believe you may want to re-examine your company’s Internet policies. If your interpretation is correct – that you’re allowed to as long as doesn’t interfere with performance – it may be leaving your company vulnerable legally. Many many companies have policies in place that employees must sign as a condition of employment stating that you will not use the internet for personal use. Also, you may want to keep in mind that publicly traded companies monitor all incoming and outgoing Internet access (or are putting mechanisms in place to do this as a result of recent legal actions).

With kind regards,

YS

PS – I guess that was three things...

so, your whole contribution to this discussion is to question the ethics as to what time of day a person is replying and if they are taking time away from their work to do so.

wow, that is very deep insight on your part.

medc,

YS has a valid point. It made me re-think, at least.

YS,

"I’m assuming your “I’d guess zero” comment is referring to the number of people you believe are actively engaged discussing the moral \ ethical aspect of this thread from work?"

No, I was referring to posters posting from work who are knowingly vilolating their company policies.

My company’s IT policy does indeed allow personal use of the internet at work. I checked before my first ever post here.

Plus my bosses for three levels up are aware of my MB posts and will tell me if they think it becomes a problem. But I only post when taking a break or at lunch. And mostly after I get home.

Further, they are just happy I am back to normal productivity levels. For a year after D-Day 2 I was useless, even at work. I have unusually compasionate and understanding bosses.

Regarding the legal implicates, not being a lawyer, I rely on the written company policy and my informed integrity. For example, I never discuss work. I have never even revealed where I work. That’s’ all they care about.

But thanks for the reminder. It is timely and always apropos.

With prayers,