Satisfaction?

Huh?

The only satisfaction I see is causing an end to the affair, thus creating an opportunity to restore the mariage and keep the family together.

If you think exposure is really an offensive weapon against the affairees rather than the affair, we are on entirely different wave lengths here.

I acknowledge that the affairees very, very likely "receive" exposure as strictly revenge. That's OK. They're under a general anesthesia of sorts in their stupor and reality will soon return - if they are worthy.

JMHO

WAT

In that part we talked about if 'the last circle' does not work, A continues, they D...


No, just not to "everyone" and I said so, i.e. I'm OK to exposure it to WS, close members of their family, close friends (people WS loves and respects)... and not to employer nor community...


I agree.
If they are...

I have to admit that I am incapable of following your logic.

I sense that you are trying to justify past decisions not to expose in your case.

I suggest you let them go. They cannot be retracted and done over.

The truth is that NO ONE KNOWS what the "correct" exposure is for any given case. It's impossible to know because we can't try it again differently to see alternative results.

The best we can do is make educated guesses based on previous cases involving different people. Our comfort in doing this is recognition that the behaviors of affairees are soooooooo similar that they appear to be due to a common pathogen. Or, there's a common Mothership. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Take your pick. Are there any guarantees? Of course not.

JMHO

WAT

B2M,

This place never ceases to amaze me. One day people are convinced I'm too lenient in my interpretation of exposure....the next they think I apply it too radically....hahahaha. B2M.....not long ago I had a thread called Children of Exposure where as usual, I took alot of heat about my moderate views on exposure. No sense in retyping all of that....read to your hearts content!!

As far as the last ring of exposure.....I'm with you....I doubt I'd think much of a partner who had to be exposed publically to be interested in the marriage. However, I'm not financially destitute, I could easily get a job, I'm not pregnant, I don't have lots of small chidren....in other words...it's easier for me to separate if I need to and I'm not in the desperate situation that many other spouses are. That's a much more comfortable place from which to say.....exposure seems too radical.

The other thing about that last ring.....is that unless the affair also causes a risk for the business, or like a church job where reputation is so important....it doesn't always get good results. My husband's company wouldn't have ever been a good place to expose....they facilitated affairs...it was commonplace.

But you talked about it "ruining a career" and how cruel that is to do. If a spouse works in an environment where reputation is important, or there are rules about dating in a company.....and they have an affair....what has "ruined" the career? The truth? If this fabulous career is the most important thing in someone's life....why would they risk losing it for some sex? And whose problem is that? The BS....because they blew the whistle? And how good of an employee are they really if they'd put the reputation of the company/church/boyscourt troup at risk or open their company to litigation? Actions have consequences.....you don't do anyone much of a favor for protecting them from those....that's called "enabling".

As far as using that energy instead to work on self....exposure doesn't really take much time or energy....just courage and resolve....so that leaves plenty of time left to self explore, and work on addressing the issues in the marriage.

BINGO! In my company, our state director was fired on the spot, and led off the premises by an ARMED security guard the day after his W exposed his affair to Human Resources. In my company you don't have affairs with subordinates or you are DONE. You are out the door.

No one except HIM and his subordinate girlfriend "ruined" his career. He did that all on his OWN.

Now, is that the fault of the betrayed spouse who reported her husband to HR? Of course not. He was fired for his own behavior and gladly took that risk. He didn't care a whit about the security and safety of his family when he CHOSE to have an affair. Our company has every right to decide they don't want to employ affair partners and no one has the right to deny them that choice.

Are there consequences? Sure there are. But it is the direct result of the person who had the affair, not the person who exposed them. Affairs sometimes come at a very high price, and the family are always the victims of that cost.

This is just more of the typical, self serving justifcations of a person without a moral compass....the WS. Justification abound here. That is clear to all but the fogged out, denial-driven offender.

Keep the focus on the exposure and not the acts that caused the destruction of a family.

As for the comments about ruining a career being such a horrible offese? How about the BS who devouted all those years to a marriage just to have it nuked by an selfish, uncaring WS? How about the innocent child who now lives in a divorced family? WHO did WHAT here?

Yes, just the normal, denial filled justification post here...nothing more.

sickofthis,

I just wanted to note that while the orginator of the thread is the WS.... B2M is the betrayed spouse...her husband had the affair and she doesn't like the idea of exposure. It's NOT always the WS who has questions about exposure.....let's face it....Harley is unique in his radical strategy about exposure....and I think that strategy has merit. But if we can't "defend" it for folks....wayward or betrayed....or discuss it without making personal attacks.....then what's the purpose of having a discussion board?

Oh, I don't know, I suspect there is a different agenda behind the questions from a WS versus BS. A WS complaining about exposure is a little self serving and smacks of the child molestor complaining about stringent laws against molesting. His "interest" is not really in protecting children, but in protecting his [censored].

I agree ML....but it's B2M (a BS) who brought up the "career" question.....so what's her agenda?

But even if we're responding to a (new) WS (like wecansurvive....the originator)....people arrive here without knowing these concepts....or understanding why they work. They are pretty radical and different from other counseling advice. We need to be prepared to accept that reality. I think it might help to explain these concepts, the reasons behind them, the method behind what can seem like "madness" before tearing somebody a new [censored] orifice.

I arrived here as a BS thinking alot of this stuff was kinda crap.....like the NEED for an attractive spouse....huh? It's taken a long time to understand the whys and hows.....and the real genius behind why MB works. And in the end.....some folks may still think it's crap.

This is a "discussion forum".....so I welcome other opinions....even dissenting ones, because it's an opportunity to share how these concepts work and offer another perspective they may have never encountered. There's always going to be new arrivals who think differently, who might be fogged, who might have agendas.....that's not going to stop....and the strength of this program will depend partially on the ability of people who have been here....to EXPLAIN why this unique program can be so effective.

SF, I don't think B2M has an agenda that is self serving. That is my point. I DO, however, suspect a WS has an agenda when they come here and condemn tactics that are anti-affair because it conflicts with their pro-affair stance. It's alot like a drunk driver coming to AA and whining about drunk driving laws. The "questions" are not really to LEARN, but to cast aspersion on something that interferes with their nefarious activities.

And sure, we should explain how the concepts work, but that doesn't mean I will overlook an obvious agenda that may not be designed to LEARN, but rather to defend and rationalize affairs. And I think that is what many find so galling; I know I sure do.

No, this is just my opiniong re: exp. to employer&community, and really has nothing to do with what I did.
(In my case, my X knew OW was just his escape from some problems of ours, he was never going to leave me for her...)


WAT, I did let them go and I did what was the best for me and I have NO regrets at all.
But he never "went", he has been always around hoping we can get back together... (Btw, OW is the past now and he is alone).
So, all I write here is just MHO and has NOTHING to do with my X and me.

I.e. I just somethimes think, when reading some advice here... that they might be very very wrong and yet people want to convince other ones to apply them...
For no rule is applicable to every case.
THAT IS all I want to say here!!


Exactly.
We dont know it re: our own life, and imagine how much less we know what might work with other people and their families that we don't know at all!

Therefore, to say your opinion is OK, to advice is OK, BUT is NOT OK to insist on accepting it and pushing hard others to do 'this and that' as "the only way".
That's, in the essence, re: exposure or something else, all I wanted to say...

ML,

I DO, however, suspect a WS has an agenda when they come here and condemn tactics that are anti-affair because it conflicts with their pro-affair stance. It's alot like a drunk driver coming to AA and whining about drunk driving laws. The "questions" are not really to LEARN, but to cast aspersion on something that interferes with their nefarious activities.

Whether a drunk is showing up at AA, or a WS is arriving here on MB....both of them have some reason for showing up....usually on some level...they know they have a problem. If a drunk wants to drink....he doesn't go to an AA meeting....he goes to a bar. If a WS wants to continue to cheat....they're are alot more comfortable spots to do that than on MB!! Sure we get the occassional troll....but that isn't usually too difficult to feret out.

Just like the sponsors at AA....I'm going to assume that whether the drunk is a whiner or is confused about what it takes to be sober, that I have an opportunity to help him see the folly of ideas like he can "just drink a little"....right? I look at newbies arriving here in much the same way.

And sure, we should explain how the concepts work, but that doesn't mean I will overlook an obvious agenda that may not be designed to LEARN, but rather to defend and rationalize affairs. And I think that is what many find so galling; I know I sure do.

Are all drunks who go to their first AA meeting "ready" to learn? Aren't many of them still trying to justify/explain drinking? But if they keep coming.....don't many of them change as they hear testimonies from folks who have been where they are?

star, I understand all that, and agree in some cases. But I don't believe it can be assumed that everyone comes here to learn or believes they have a problem at all. Many don't. And it sure can't be assumed that they all have the same agenda. Some have a self serving agenda that is pro-affair, and some don't.

One of great wonders of AA is that [censored] has a very short shelf life and when a newcomer sees that their rationalizations won't WORK, as they do so well in the real world, they are forced to get honest. OR get out. And I think that is the beauty of this forum, too. Bullcrap has a very short shelf life here. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I don't recall insisting that anyone do anything regarding exposure. I don't think anyone else here "insists" either.

I make strong recommendations about exposure - and it frequently varies from case to case. If this is received as "pushing", so be it. I - and I believe all others who offer exposure advice here - have the best interests of the poster in mind and we have nothing to gain personally, other than the warm fuzzy that comes with helping others. When the advice varies or is contradictory, the poster seeking the advcie has to weigh the information as it applies to their sitch. I think it's important to get differing view points, and you should offer yours on this topic.

WAT

ML,

LOL....here we are....back to agreeing on the major stuff and mud wrassling about the "details"!! We've got to stop meeting this way!!

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

I love ya, star! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Have you ever wondered why we can say bullsh** but we can't say hale??? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

You can't say cockerspaniel on some boards!! swear to gawd!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
I missed that, sorry.
I've just read your starting post on C&Exp. thread, and - I'm totally with you there, that's exactly where I am and what I am doing.
May I join to the "too lenient" club please? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)


Right. Therefore that rule wouldn't be applicable to you/people like you (and me)...


Same thinking here.
And many companies "facilitate" affairs.
So, no use in this case either


I said: if someone tried to ruin MY career that I invested so much for so many years, from ANY reason 'just to get me back', I could never live with that person, be their friend, nada.


Well, according to who and what I am, it is not protecting "them" but me.

However, my comments here (and my convinctions) are - some rules are applicable to some people, other rules to the others, be human and kind and explain your opionion and advice, but let people chose what they think it is the best for their particular family, for it's them carrying consequences either and any way.

Not my impression...

You're preaching to the choir dawlin'!! Is there an echo in here?