I answered that in the other thread also.

Basically for two reasons.

1) I find the focus on blaming the OP to be a waste of time. Since they are not the root cause of the situation.

2) I will admit I find topic that I find interesting and I like to discuss (some say argue) the accepted dogma. In the case of OP it is worth discussing. Since I am reading HNHN and I can't find anything where the author places blame on the OP. I do find words on blame towards WS and BS since they are ones with the marriage in trouble.

hu, of course the OP is to blame, that is just common sense. It takes 2 people to have an affair. The OP is to blame for climbing into bed with a married person.

And who is to say it is a "waste of time" to blame the OP? You? When someone has been knifed in the back by an OP, it is not a "waste of time" to blame the knifer, it is the reaction of a normal healthy psyche who has been knifed. It wouldn't be RATIONAL for a knifing victim to NOT blame their attacker. It would be extremely dysfunctional.


So what? I don't see the relevance of your statement.

I only hope and pray you don't say this kind of thoughtless, cruel nonsense to your wife. To try and convince her that she shouldn't blame someone who knifed her in the back is cruel, stupid and thoughtless. You and the OW did a terrible thing to your wife and you are both to blame. Trying to pretend the OW isn't to blame only adds insult to injury and is a form of GASLIGHTING.

Please quote me the EXACT QUOTE, page and paragraph, from HNHN where it says "don't blame the OP."

Thank you...

Again with the simple answers of the "fog" and "gaslighting".

The OP did not "knife" my wife in the back I DID!!!! All the blame resides with ME!!!! Blaming the OP is an easy way of coping.

What is the relevance of my statement? Since everyone here claims to be doing the MB principles but blaming OP is not a principle I can find.

See your answer is why I am discussing this topic. If the OP is not invited into the marriage then why are they even a topic for the recovery of one? The focus should be on the WS and the BS and no one else. That is simple logic to me, the problem started with the WS and the BS and therefore should end with them.

See that is thing there is NOTHING in the book about blaming the OP, that topic is NOT discussed. Seems that topic is only found here.

But I can give you the page, paragraph and sentence where is puts the blame on the WS and the BS. I will post it once I get home I forgot to bring it with me. But it is on the second page of dealing with an affair. Says something to the effect that the BS is to blame for allowing the WS love bank to degrade to the point where the WS was interested in an affair. But I will get you the exact quote later.

So, in other words you cannot produce a SINGLE quote that states that one should NOT blame the OP?


Blameshifting. The WS and the OP are 100% responsible for the affair.

You people want negative proof? So the argument you folks have is since the topic is NOT TALKED ABOUT there for it exists??


Really well then wait until I give you the quote because that is NOT what the book states. It clearly states the WS and BS are to blame.

Dr. Harley: "Let me add something to what I have already written to you. I hope I'm not being too redundant.

You will hear Joyce and I repeat, "there are reasons but no excuses." One of the reasons for an affair is that emotional needs are not being adequately met in marriage, which makes an affair that meets those needs more tempting. But the same thing can be said of some who rob banks. They may be out of work, need money to pay the rent, ask for a loan but are refused by the bank, which makes robbing it more tempting. One reason for the robbery is that the bank refused the loan, but it wasn't the bank's fault that it was robbed. On hindsight, a bank might have helped the robber get the help he needed through social services, but the bank is under no obligation to do so, even though they advertise that it is a "caring bank."

An affair is different from robbing banks in that a couple have promised to be more caring than banks. But the principle is the same. The lack of care by one spouse does not excuse harmful behavior by the other spouse. Even when one spouse absolutely refuses to be affectionate, or to make love, or to talk intimately, or to join in recreational activities with the other spouse, it gives them no right to have those needs met by someone else of the opposite sex in an affair. They have the right to separate until the other spouse meets those needs, or even divorce when it becomes obvious that there will be absolutely no cooperation (there are many who strongly disagree with me on that point). But an affair is so cruel and so painful that nothing any one spouse does (including having an affair themselves) can justify the suffering that an affair causes.

Making a disgraceful act more tempting by someone is no excuse for that person committing the disgraceful act. Besides, in most marriages, there are times when emotional needs are not being met for reasons beyond anyone's control. That's why I recommend extraordinary precautions to help spouses avoid an affair. They are to not allow anyone of the opposite sex to meet their need for affection, or intimate conversation, or recreational companionship, or sexual fulfillment. When those needs are met, they deposit so many love units that you are likely to fall in love with that person, and make you hurt your spouse in the worst way possible. I hope that explanation helps.

Best wishes
Willard F. Harley, Jr.

You are the one who is making the claim that since you can't find it in the book, THEREFORE, the OP should not be blamed.

THEREFORE, it is up to YOU to substantiate your assertion that the OP should not be blamed with an EXACT QUOTE.

Chapter and verse please.

Somebody is looping for loopholes in the Bible, isn't he?

Could it be THIS QUOTE?

Here is Dr. Harleys clarification of that quote. I think you need to read this carefully:


Dr. Harley
Member


Registered: 11/16/00
Posts: 2070

MelodyLane: Let me add something to what I have already written to you. I hope I'm not being too redundant.

You will hear Joyce and I repeat, "there are reasons but no excuses." One of the reasons for an affair is that emotional needs are not being adequately met in marriage, which makes an affair that meets those needs more tempting. But the same thing can be said of some who rob banks. They may be out of work, need money to pay the rent, ask for a loan but are refused by the bank, which makes robbing it more tempting. One reason for the robbery is that the bank refused the loan, but it wasn't the bank's fault that it was robbed. On hindsight, a bank might have helped the robber get the help he needed through social services, but the bank is under no obligation to do so, even though they advertise that it is a "caring bank."

An affair is different from robbing banks in that a couple have promised to be more caring than banks. But the principle is the same. The lack of care by one spouse does not excuse harmful behavior by the other spouse. Even when one spouse absolutely refuses to be affectionate, or to make love, or to talk intimately, or to join in recreational activities with the other spouse, it gives them no right to have those needs met by someone else of the opposite sex in an affair. They have the right to separate until the other spouse meets those needs, or even divorce when it becomes obvious that there will be absolutely no cooperation (there are many who strongly disagree with me on that point). But an affair is so cruel and so painful that nothing any one spouse does (including having an affair themselves) can justify the suffering that an affair causes.

Making a disgraceful act more tempting by someone is no excuse for that person committing the disgraceful act. Besides, in most marriages, there are times when emotional needs are not being met for reasons beyond anyone's control. That's why I recommend extraordinary precautions to help spouses avoid an affair. They are to not allow anyone of the opposite sex to meet their need for affection, or intimate conversation, or recreational companionship, or sexual fulfillment. When those needs are met, they deposit so many love units that you are likely to fall in love with that person, and make you hurt your spouse in the worst way possible. I hope that explanation helps.

Best wishes
Willard F. Harley, Jr.

No that is not the quote.

HU, you misunderstand what Harley tells us. The WS and BS are responsible for the STATE of the marriage which could have made the affair possible. The WS AND the OP are the two sole responsible parties for choosing (the CHOICE) to have an illicit affair.

The BS is in no way shape or form responsible (or to blame) for the affair. That was a CHOICE the WS and OP made.

Jo

I was asking about your morals. My point being that if you think it is okay to date married people, then the rest of the debate is merely fluff.

My other question was related to assigning responsibility. I find it difficult to believe you would assign zero responsibility for the A to the OP. I mean after all, they could have chosen not to engage in the activity. Unless, of course, you're asserting that people do not have free will. Which, again, if you are, then the rest of the debate is merely fluff.

IMHO, these two points come together. I say this since "blame" is usually associated with indicating responsibility (whether full or partial) for a harmful or incorrect action. If you believe dating married people is neither harmful nor incorrect, or believe people are unable to chose their actions, then there is no blame. Aside from that, then the OP's have earned some blame.

Whether assigning that blame to the OP has any benefit to recovery is a different topic. I think it does, but others opinions may vary.

Tell you what LovingAnyway gave the best reason to dislike the OP and one I cannot argue with. To prove you are on team marriage.

That is the best non-emotional reason I have heard and one that is simple and true.

We need to speak to your wife, hu. Can you send her to GQ11 and have her look me up?

I think your defence of the OP is quite interesting Hu.

I think some of what you say is partially right. The OP can be a soft target for assigning blame but that is actually quite productive at first as it deflects the anger of the BS away from the (hopefully) repentant WS.

But of course the OP is just as responsible for the affair as the WS - it's just that to the BS, the OP is really irrelevant. It was the WS who made promises to the BS to love and honour and cherish, not the OP. But the OP is just as guilty as the WS.

Eventually in recovery, focus moves away from the OP as they really are irrelevant.

I agree with Mel - please bring your BS to MB.

Hu, what you don't seem to be getting is that it is VERY important for the BS's recovery and, really, that is the only recovery you need to be concerned about, to hear that the OP means NOTHING to the WS. Defending the OP, saying the OP wasn't at fault, saying it has "nothing to do with the OP" is tantamount to saying that the OP was a great person and, if only circumstances had been different, you'd be with them now.

You just don't seem to understand that saying that is like sticking in the knife, twisting it around, taking it out, then sticking it in again.

It is IMPORTANT, really, really important to the BS that you negate the OP. It is one of the biggest steps forward that a WS makes. I don't think you realise quite what it means to a BS.

After my A, I said to my H that he had liked the OM before, that he'd thought he was a great guy. I said he still is, he hasn't changed. (Yes, I said things like that when I was totally foggy.)

I couldn't believe the look of horror on my H's face. He said, that was before he f***ed my wife. The OP is the enemy, the enemy of the marriage, the enemy of recovery.

Hu, if you were my husband, I would be highly offended that you want to let OW off the hook. I would be very suspicious that you are still "in luuuuvvvv" with the "wonderful OW" and trying to play the "noble knight" so she can be the "innocent damsel in distress".

I would probably kick you out on your butt until you could admit that she acted the wh0re same as you did.

I have more to say, even though I seem to type in invisible font.

You say that the OP is not in the equation. You say that you are 100% responsible. Yes, you are 100% responsible but you are wrong that the OP is not in the equation.

I can almost see your thought processes. You think because the A is "over" and the OW is "gone" that's all that matters. The wonderful, sainted OW can live on in your memory. (sarcasm, extreme sarcasm there).

That is NOT all that matters to your BW. Do you not understand that the BS obsesses about the OP? They wonder if they match up, they wonder if you did different sexual acts, they wonder what was lacking in them to make you look at another person. They question their worth, their attractiveness, their whole life. For the BS, it is ALL ABOUT the OP.

My H will still punch the OM in the nose if he ever sees him. My A was 6 years ago. You just cannot remove the OP from the equation.