I remember telling my husband after D-day that if his "affair didn't destroy our marrriage, my reaction to it would". Dealing with resentment after an affair is one of the enormous challenges to recovery. Resentment retards recovery....and it is fueled by fear.

Infidelity creates enormous vulnerability for the BS. Regaining trust after betrayal is a long hard road, and some people get stuck in the resentment phase because there aren't enough safeguards....extraordinary precautions....to give them a level of protection great enough to find peace.

Here on MB....Dr. Harley talks about these precautions and I think some people forget to take this step in their haste to get their wayward partner back. The result is unfortunately a lack of safety which can translate into a lack of healing.

Dr. Harley lists these precautions:

Honesty....past, present and future.
Accountability....for time and finances
Time.....spend as much time together as possible.
Follow the four rules of a succcessful marriage.

These precautions work very well to begin the process of building trust. However, with serial cheaters, unremorseful waywards, narcissists, passive/aggressive waywards, "entitled" waywards....I wonder sometimes those precautions are enough. Serial cheating is much more difficult to resolve than a onetime affair as it is often linked to personality characteristics, which can be very difficult to change.

I've recently being doing research on "post-nuptial" agreements, and interestingly enough.....some of the articles I've read by other counselors, recommend postnups as a response to infidelity. They said, in some cases, a post-nuptial agreement may be worth considering. Is a cheating spouse willing to demonstrate his or her commitment to the relationship by putting their financial assets on the line? After my husband cheated.....we did do an informal, but notorized agreement that spelled out expectations and consequences....but it wasn't "legal" and there weren't any financial penalties for future infidelity.

You can read about post-nuptial agreements at:

http://www.equalityinmarriage.org/dmpost.html

I've always liked this idea.

And about personality characteristics.....here is an incredibly interesting article on The Personality of the Unfaithful

Wow

I like the idea after infidelity, too. I have a long time friend of the family who had a post nup done for alcoholism. It was the only way her husband was able to come back home and into the marriage after he got out of detox and rehab. If he drank again, he would give up everything, including the house and the divorce would proceed. It was drawn up and filed by an atty.

He never drank again. He took up all kinds of healthy activities and was a very happy man until his death.

It worked. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

My FWH said he would sign one if it would help me feel more secure. I haven't gotten around to drafting one, but I fully intend too.

I think that without one, a part of me will always be a little afraid of being abandoned and financially screwed as well.

Who

Weaver....thanks for sharing that! I wonder how many waywards would cheat again if they had really had to agree to up their house, and agree to higher/longer spousal support if they were unfaithful again.

I think there's probably a downside to postnups too....but with serial cheaters....I think perhaps the plusses outweigh the minuses.

Who me.....I think it's another level of protection worth consideration.....it's certainly extra-ordinary <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Here's another good link for postnups:

http://marriage.about.com/od/agreements/a/postnuptial.htm

You could also look at it from another vantage point of "how many waywards would choose to remain in a marriage in which they had to sign such a deal."

That's not necessarily a negative, of course, at least the BS knows up front that the WS isn't willing to make THAT level of committment.


I think the downsides fall into two major categories:

1.) complexity: How are you going to define an affair. Most courts probably wouldn't recognize an EA as an affair and, yet, they are just as damaging.

2.) enforceability: Because of the complexity (nuances) of description of what's allowed and what's not, it might give the BS a very false sense of security. If the charges are challenged in a civil court, then it will be the BS's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that they happened. Such proof may be hard to come by.

3.) In some cases, there may be a greater tendency for violence/harm to the BS if the WS feels "trapped" by such an agreement. From the link you provided about cheater's personality types, many of them are narcissistic or display narcissistic tendencies - these are your people who are more likely to think of "ways around" an expensive divorce.

Finally, there are other questions to be considered:

1.) Does the clause only apply to the WS or does the BS get a "freebie" to commit adultery?

2.) Does the clause apply only to divorce if adultery is present (where is the line of demarkation between "forgiven" adultery and "non-forgiven" adultery? What if the FWS just wants a divorce because s/he doesn't want to be married to the BS any more?

3.) What happens if there is a substantial change in fortune between the post nup and the divorce?

It's not a bad idea - most ideas aren't bad. It's just all dependent upon the implementation - I see great potention for abuse on both sides. And, nothing in any of it really speaks to building anything out of the marriage that's worthwhile -- only who gets what if the marriage breaks.

Mys

Does anyone remember when Cymanca's WW was trying to get him to open himself back up to her ...

He asked her to sign an agreement that should they remarry , and should she commit adultery again ... she would forfeit financial benifits of the marriage (I can't remember exactly the wording)

and

she bailed (naturally)

she wanted him (sort-a) but not enough to promise absolute fidelity <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

very interesting ...



<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> because the WS has already had his/her "freebie" ... has "sampled" and "coveted"

for me --- it would not bother me one bit to sign a legal document stating that if I broke my marriage vows it would cost me $$$ --- BRING IT <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

I would sign one, Star. Thank you for the links and the thread. I'll see what DH thinks, too.

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

LA

So, maybe it has great merit as a litmus test. Though, given the reluctance BS's often show to even 'make the WS upset or mad' by exposing or Plan B..... I don't hold out much hope for it to catch on.

Mys

Mys,

I took Star to mean FWS, not WS.

LA

Did you?

I came away with a slightly different impression - where the post-nup was incorporated into the recovery stages (for example, as one of the conditions in the Plan B letter). I was envisioning a marriage where the affair might have stopped but that the BS and WS were in negotiations about what was required for recovery (or, the WS is in the process of earning the F).

How do you see this difference impacting things?

Mys

I have a problem with post-nups for the same reason I have a problem with pre-nups. It's setting up the marriage for a possible failure. I promise to love you in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, etc., etc. (but in case you cheat you'll have to pay me off). It's like buyer's insurance and if you're a buyer (according to Dr. Harley) aren't you in it for the long-haul anyway? Isn't it like holding a stick over your spouse's head? I don't know. Just my take. I'd never sign either.

I am all for post nups and I think anyone that refuses to sign one would be a bad risk.
Another method of assuring that no further infidelity is a problem is outlined here.... although I do not recommend the methods in any way. There was also some talk a while back that these laws only seemed to apply to women in these countries...this is certainly barbaric by any measure...but in a way I am glad to see it is gender neutral... at least in this case.
Now if they could just find a way to get these animals to stop punishing people like this all together things would be much better (although I would suppose their infidelity rate would shoot up).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19696636/

Princessmeggy

Is this because it makes marriage seem unromantic ? Just another contract ?

I think this is very interesting. I actually feel FOOLISH that I never protected my marriage - my most invested asset - in the same way I protect my home contents or my car.

But then I chide myself for that wholly pragmatic , unromantic view of marriage.

I guess such is a consequence of infidelity.

We're having a hard time with Squid's FOO lately and Squid wants us to make sure our wills exclude certain people from inheritance regardless of circumstances.

Strange thing is - it has made me want to reconsider my own will.

I would have a clause where if Squid got together with OM after my death she got nothing, instead my kids get it all in trust.

I think a post-nup is a fine practical idea, but is wholly unromantic.

My post nup: Plan B in my back pocket.

Step outta line and whop! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

No signature needed. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

JMHO,
L.

No. To me it's a trust issue. To insist on a pre- or post-nup implies that there's a little inkling of untrust in the marriage. Yes, I know that after an infidelity there is no trust, but isn't that a choice the BS makes, to give the marriage another chance and allow the WS the opportunity to restore that trust? A pre- or post-nup says, "I don't completely trust you to do the right thing." What kind of a basis for a marriage is that?

Another thing, I worked in a family law firm for several years that only took on, how should I say this, high-profile, wealthy, and some famous clients and saw that pre-nupts are very hard to enforce as are post-nups, especially clauses of infidelity.

I agree that it is not romantic, but for me the fear associated with losing my marriage and my financial security is real even if it isn't currently justified.

I am older than Skirmisher and I am the primary income earner. I'm about to retire next year and would hate to spend my retirement years scrimping and just getting by when I have worked hard and saved my whole life just so that I wouldn't have to.

I also think that it should be a 2-way street. I'd have no problem signing something that said I would forfeit $$ is I had an affair. I don't think that I am likely to have an affair, but we are all vulnerable.

Who