Hey LG et al,

I've been off researching but was referred to this thread by a friend. It appears it was on my Jan. 21 thread that LG shared dissenting posts from almost all others, which helped my H and me in a tremendous 'marriage-building' way. I can't share all the details yet but I was dismayed to see posts suggesting that you, Lousy Golfer may not be back before I could acknowledge your contribution.

I see you're online LG, so I wanted to tell you THANKS and that your input was/is invaluable. More details as they develop. Keep up the great efforts....some may not always agree but that's what spurs us to grow.

Ace

Ace:

That's just the thing, isn't it?

A little bit of dissenting point of view, made all the difference for you.

But it ended up with me being put out to a woodshed. BTDT. Because that advice is what got me here. Funny, Huh?

Because I disagreed with someone else's description of MB concepts.

What works, is what works sometimes.

For Everyone else:

I have posted a request on Dr Harleys's Forum about the situation. I will let you know what HIS answer is. Both sides.

And Ace, At any time, if you feel you need to, pull that exposure trigger. OK?

No, you disagreed with Marriage Builders concepts and were peddling YOUR OWN concepts to Ace. You were RIGHTLY challenged.[the OWH in her case still does not know about the affair despite repeated D-Days and you told her NOT to expose to him, which will likely lead to D-Day #4] You already KNOW that Dr.Harley believes in exposure and admitted as such.

Here is Ace's thread about exposure to OWH:

Need help finding OW H and exposure http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/sho...rue#Post3171658


Her signature says it all:

DD #1 June, 06
DD #2 one week later
DD #3 month after #2 (same OW online & phone)
Fear DD#4 although WH says EA over

Mel, Believer, MEDC, M2L and others challenged me in "Sadandpissed's" thread for saying that "there's no one-size-fits-all" and "no correct answer" regarding delayed exposure. So I retracted my post from "sadandpissed's" thread and started the thread Mel linked above.

I found the post that I based my original reasons upon and it WAS from WAT:





LG said he has asked Dr. Harley to comment about delayed exposure. I look forward to his insight.

Of utmost importance is respect and a right heart attitude towards those whose perceptions may be different (not right or wrong per say) but just different for whatever reason. I've been registered for 3 weeks and appreciated everything I've learned from those who agree and disagree with me and each other.

Hearing dissenting opinions and discussions only made me dig deeper for the truth as it applies to me and our situation. But I felt bad for inadvertantly committing a 'threadjack' before I even knew what one was!

It would be helpful if you pros can help us rookies keep focused on the original poster's issues so they get the help they need in a more expedient fashion, especially if they're new like S and P was.

Thank you for caring enough to speak out and for listening.

Ace

P.S. Regretfully, "Sad and Pissed" has not posted any more....yet. And that makes me sad and sorry.

stick around
many times people go to lurker status
and are reading along & learning

Pep

Hey Pep,

Thanks for the heads up on lurking. I hope S and P is. My H calls me "wonder woman", not because I'm a super human, but because I wonder about everything. Like "I wonder if a moderator can encourage him to come back because I didn't mean to TJ him on his second post."

I forgot to mention that I DID NOT realize that WAT's post regarding exposure after 2.5 years not only related to time passed, but to the fact that the OM and OP were not yet married, apparently 'only engaged.' I guess that's a thread of a different color, huh? Or is it?

Ace

no worries
people post or don't post for their own reasons

usually nothing to do with the rest of us

Pep

Ace, I would guess that the reason that WAT gave this opinion above is more related to the fact that it happened when the couple was not married.

Even so, Dr. Harley has never limited exposure due to the amount of time passed. He believes that the BS "should always be told" because they have a right and a need to know this information. That principle does not change over time. That principle would be just as valid on YEAR TEN as it would on DAY TWO.

More specifically he answered this question on air about exposure about an affair that had ended FOUR YEARS AGO. [a couple from this forum] When asked about an affair that had ended FOUR YEARS AGO if the OWH should be notified, he responded the same, "the betrayed spouse should always be told."

For my part, I have to align with the idea that this site provides "Marriage Builders Principles" and "Marriage Builders Concepts".

I've never heard them referred to as "Marriage Builders Rules", but maybe I haven't read enough.

Infidelity involves passion at its heart and it would be difficult to find someone who has experienced either side of infidelity who doesn't have passionate views about the subject. I think that's some of the reason the occasional discussion on here spins up so quickly into a maelstrom.

From what I've understand from Dr. Harley (radio program, reading books), he acknowledges that every situation is different and should be approached uniquely.

Concepts and principles such as exposure, checking up (spying), No Contact and Plan A/B all are subject to potential mitigating circumstances that require the guidelines established by Dr. Harley to be tweaked here and there.

For the most part, Dr. Harley's principles are right on and I'd wager over 90 percent of what he suggests applies in over 90 percent of the cases.

I certainly have learned from everyone's opinion -- those who agree and disagree. We all are adults and can choose what advice to follow.

My personal thanks and indebtedness extends to all who have posted here -- the dialog, exchange and arguments have been educational and helpful for me.

Blessings

Artor, I would point out that it is not a matter of definition, ie: rule versus concept versus principle, but rather a matter of what works. There are no "rules." No one is ever obliged to take any suggestion from MB, no matter what we call it. I am not, you are not, no one has suggested otherwise. We are here to find out what works.

But the question remains for newcomers like Ace: WHAT WORKS? When folks come here, we would be remiss if we didn't tell them what we know is the most likely to work within the framework of Dr. Harley's professional expertise. It is never, and has never been a matter of a "rule" versus a "concept." It is: WHAT WORKS....

The focus should be on what is going to WORK best for someone like Ace who has been through THREE D-Days, and is headed for # FOUR. The question is would exposure to her OWH be in her best interest? I think it would be reasonable to assert, as many here have told her and were contradicted by the Lousygolfer, that exposure to the OWH would help her situation. No one is telling her that this is a "rule," but rather a SMART THING that she should be encouraged to do.

I realize she did not want to HEAR THAT answer and it is so much easier to just tell her what she wants to hear [as LG did] but it is probably not in her best interest. I realize that LG really wants to be liked, but in this case, telling her what she wants to hear so he will be liked is probably going to work against her best interest. A high price for approval, IMO.

ML--

I don't disagree.

What I was poking at, or at least trying to acknowledge, was that the frank and pointed discussion, exchange and, yes, disagreement on these topics is helpful.

It had the effect on me to force me to think through how I applied the concepts of MarriageBuilders. "Do I really understand this?" "How does this apply to my situation?" Maybe it's the way I think or reason, but eavesdropping on the "discussion" was helpful to me.

Had I known about MarriageBuilders early enough, I might have chosen to expose my wife's affairs to our children. I might not have, since, as it was, I limited exposure to the OM's wife and our pastor and that was effective in ending the affairs -- the primary goal of exposure.

Exposing now to my children, after I believe my wife is committed to our marriage and restoration would be very counter-productive and hurtful to my wife. (A tweak to the exposure principle based on my situation.)

I can see where MB concepts are exactly what you said, "What works". For my part, the tweaking was in how they are applied in my situation.

You simply stated it better than I did. Thanks.

If LG's motivation was whether or not he'd be liked, it sure garnered the opposite effect apparently for the vocal majority on this board. No logic there.

I believe his motivation was to share what he feels has worked in his marriage.

Personally, I wonder if my husband's affair was the first actual infidelity he committed during this marriage. But we have both changed on the cellular level. We do not live in a marriage anything at all like our old marriage. My husband is 100% accountable and schedules his time so that we are together during 99.9% percent of his free time. He works in a closed environment with all men for the vast majority of his work time.


If someone were to bring me news of a prior infidelity now, I'd be angry at the messenger.

Let me make this clear:

I DON'T WANT TO KNOW anything HISTORICAL. I won't even ask him directly. I don't want to know.

I now have the marriage I always dreamed of and wished for, so let me be happy.

10Swords, LG has never had to bust up someone else's affair, he is a WS. He speaks from that mindset, not from any successful experience of busting up affairs. It would be very hard to argue that it would "work" for this woman to NOT EXPOSE the affair to the OWH after 3 D-Days, headed into #4. Sorry, but that is just plain dumb advice that comes from his inexperience.

She came here looking for solutions, fearful of exposing and found someone who would assuage that fear in LG. At her own expense, sadly. Telling her what she wanted to hear is not in her best interest.

The infidelity in Ace's case is NOT PRIOR. It is RECENT and headed for another, in her own STATED OPINION.


Even so, if you know about an affair in my past and you DON'T TELL ME, I would be VERY ANGRY. Most people want to know the facts about their OWN LIFE, to which they are entitled. Illusions DO NOT make people happy. Just because you choose the ostrich approach does mean others do.

Thanks for the clarification, Artor. I get your point. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm living in the present. I don't give a damn about the past at this point. I'm concerned with NOW.

Otherwise I could just cry a river of tears until I die, never stopping to enjoy the gift of the PRESENT that I have now.

I'm just giving you the other side. You don't have the right to choose what is best for me, regardless of your good intentions, (which I believe in your case).

In some cases "good intentions" are quite suspect.

This is the reason I won't expose to the OW's husband in my case. The affair is over; it was 17 years ago. OW and her husband might actually be happy. News from me does have the potential to do harm.

I would feel differently if the affair was recent or ongoing.

I understand that you feel strongly about this Melody. I hear your position and I respect it, I just don't think it applies to all cases.

Thats nice, but what does this have to do with Ace's specific case?

SR, the "harm" was done when the affair happened. Telling the victim he was harmed does not cause the harm, the affair does. Illusions do not make people happy. That is dysfunctional.

This warped logic about "harming" the victim by telling him seems to only be applied to adultery. This principle that one shouldn't tell a victim of adultery because it will "hurt him," must have been launched by a fogged out WS. It is irrational and quickly falls apart under minor scrutiny.

Lets imagine that my neighbors bookkeeper embezzled money from him and i knew it. Would it make sense for me to not tell him because "it might hurt him?" What an inane notion. But this silly notion is mindlessly applied to adultery. No one would ever assert that it was learning the TRUTH about an act of betrayal that harmed rather than the ACT in any other situation. Because..it makes no sense. Because...it is the ADULTERY that harms, not the truth.

In the case of a BS who would or wouldn't want to know, you wouldn't KNOW that unless you told, would you? You have no idea what the person would prefer. Most people do choose to know the facts about their own lives. It is dysfunctional to want to live in a state of delusion. I don't think its helpful to anyone to feed their dysfunction and I sure wouldn't be a party to that.

The emotional involvement at stake is what makes a difference between bookkeeping and marriage.

You may believe that doing real harm rational but your minor scrutiny has not proven anything, nothing in my opinion has fallen apart at all.

It comes across to me as hysterical and malicious.

I don't believe in blind justice, good medicine for one often kills another.

Please site your empirical study that states most people want to know the facts of their own lives, I look around the American landscape and see millions of people choosing to live in denial you need only to watch millions of overweight people go in and out of McDonalds for proof.