While I am generally in agreement with Dr. H's philosophy and ways to handle infidelity...there are times when his advice leads me to shake my head a bit. It also seems to fly in face of common sense in some instances.

I am wondering, since the doctors advice in the letter I will reference, if anyone else here feels like a BH is asked to sacrifice too much in an attempt to win back a WW. Specifically, in this example, two things stand out to me:

1. there is NO mention of being careful while sleeping with a WW that is having sex with another man(men).

2. this person has two children with his WW yet Dr. Harley suggests that if after 6 months his wife refuses to leave her "lover" that the BH leave his home. I don't get that at all.

I cannot imagine any WW respecting a husband that is willing to sleep with his wife while she is actively engaged in sex with another man. I mean...does she shower first...semen remains in the body for about 4 days...and they are having sex 2 x per week....do the math. Does dignity need to take a holiday to accomplish this?

More importantly, I also cannot understand how from a parenting perspective Dr. H would suggest a father leaving his children (in addition, this could also have legal ramifications in the event of a divorce).

His response to AW does not seem sound on these levels. To me, it smacks of saving a marriage at all costs (dignity and children). Dr. H is obviously very, very good at what he does. I am wondering if he merely dropped the ball on this one or if I am just missing something important here.

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5033a_qa.html

MEDC, I can't speak for Dr Harley, but I wonder if he feels he doesn't need to tell a capable adult they need to be wary of STDs? I know I don't unless I feel the person is stupid.

I have no explanation why he told this guy to do the leaving, especially in light of the fact that I KNOW he tells his clients not to leave, to get the WS to do the leaving. For example, in SAA, he got Greg to get SUE to move out and she did. Sue got back in, of course, and got GREG booted out when she retained a clever lawyer.

In some cases, the WS won't leave, which leaves it up to the BS to either get them out or get out himself.

I would point out that Dr Harley is a BIG PICTURE communicator. He is NOT a detail man, IMO. This seems to drive ppl crazy who want step by step instructions about everything.

He gives a BIG PICTURE and then expects people to figure out the details in the way that would BEST BENEFIT their own situation. For example, we know he recommends separation [Plan B] when the affair doesn't end. He gives very general guidelines about timelines, methods, etc.

He doesn't tell us to protect finances, contact a lawyer, etc. He mentions getting an intermediary but gives no details about what exactly the intermediary does.

He doesn't usually delve that deep because each situation is so different that it would be virtually impossible to get too detailed and have it apply to a general audience. My opinion is that where he doesn't give in depth details, he expects us to fill in the gaps in the way that best benefits us.

And that is where this forum becomes such a HUGE ASSET. The people here have BTDT so we can help others fill in those gaps concerning legal issues, finances, intermediaries, best practices about getting waywards out of the house, etc.

I figured he was a big picture guy. I found this "letter" when I went looking for something this morning for another poster.

I agree that the forum can help fill in the gaps...but in this case, it seems to contradict what he and others would normally suggest.

As for the STD's...I think a lot of people that are not stupid could be confused by the advice...especially at such a vulnerable time in their life. You would HOPE that people would use common sense...but, given the details that the BH was sleeping with his WW, I would also hope that someone giving out advice would suggest caution.

Thanks Mel.

Perhaps, in this case, making the wife leave didn't seem like the best advice, since that would also mean displacing an elderly parent and special needs sibling? He didn't tell him to take the children with him, but neither did he advise the gentleman to leave his children behind if it came time to go.

Medc - One caveat I would make is this letter was posted on his web site, so it may be an excerpt or missing other information.

But assuming that the letter is "complete" and conveys all the information that was shared, then yes, I would disagree with some of the advice.

On the pure saftey side relating to SF, depending on when this letter was written (I mean I think the guy has been in business a long time), STD's may not have had the awareness that they have now, so it may have been on oversight consistent with the times.

On the emotional side of it, i.e. would a WW respect a man that would do that, I would say that he didn't specifically call out him meeting the EN of SF. His advice was to find out what need the OP was meeting and meet that. I would imagine that Dr. Harley does not think the need the OP was meeting is SF. I just say that because in my MC with the Harleys, they seemed pretty well set on the idea that women want affection, conversation, etc. I guess the thought process would be the WW needs to feel connected and his opinion is that most women feel connected via affection and conversation.

Leaving out the SF part, IMHO, meeting her needs while she is actively engaged in an A, does not require dignity to take a holiday. I personally think a BH can do this, so long as they continue to confront about the A.

The part I would disagree about is him leaving his house. I know many times it is not possible to make someone else leave, so one may be left to leave themselves in order to remove themselves from the situation. But the letter does not mention asking the WW to leave. Perhaps this situation is a a very close call. Dr. Harley may have felt that if he should ask his wife to leave, then she may never return. But he felt he had a a better chance of ending the A, if he left. I mean he does talk at length about thrusting OM into the role that the BH was playing may quickly destroy the fantasy. But still, its a recomendation that I would disagree with as I think it puts the kids future in too much risk.

Overall though, I think Dr. Harley gets that nothing can happen until the A is ended and this letter focused on that. Maybe at the expense of other considerations.

well, he really did. He talks about the BH visiting his children.

But that's just it...we can't leave out the SF part since that is a huge part of this letter.

As for the STD issue, if the information is that dated....and I do not think it is (considering the timing of the advent of the internet), it should be updated. It is my understanding that MB has been live for about 12 years now....clearly the issue of STD's (including Aids) proceeds that by at least a decade.


Exactly my point here...and those other considerations here are children and personal safety.

You're correct. I missed the line where he said not to talk to her, if possible, when he sees his children.

I can understand why you feel he should have taken it further. I guess it didn't register with me, because I wouldn't need to be told to protect myself sexually or to keep my child with me. Do you think men need to be told that specifically because SF is usually a top EN for them and that courts favor women in child custody?

Can you imagine the stress level of the WW if left to care for 4 dependent individuals once BH was gone? I often wonder what the end of the story was on those emails.

I re-read it. I don't see SF in there. Maybe I am missing something? I see privacy, alone time, etc. But that isn't always SF. That can be affection, conversation, undivided attention, recreational companionship. All needs that Dr. Harley usually places above SF for women.


Didn't say it was the reason, just a possibility. My thought was that I imagine he archives letters from his entire career, not just the internet period.


Well, like I said I didn't agree with all of his advice.

I won't overdebate this, but he didn't really answer the guys question at all. His question was how long should I wait. My answer to that would be if your just going to sit there and wait, then I wouldn't wait at all.

I only make this point because as with all advice, it depends on the objective. We get so many people who post questions here with "what should I do?" And then we argue over the advice posted by others as incorrect. Which in many cases its not that it's incorrect advice, the respondent is just infering a different objective. When some one asks "what should I do?", the answer should be "what do you want to achieve?" "Is your goal to recover or get out of this as quickly and painlessly as possible?" Those two objectives don't get the same advice.

If the guy had said I want to protect my safety and my children's safety Dr. Harley would have answered differently. But what Dr. Harley inferred he was asking was how do I get my WW to end her A.

I don't see Dr. Harley advocating marriage at all costs. The absence of him commenting on these considerations is not a statement that they should not be there. Its a statement that the guy asking for recovery advice should have already considered these factors. We can't ever "know" either way, which is why I said Dr. Harley's advice may be at the expense of those considerations.