I think the man gets it.

Zelmo:

MBers is a BEHAVIORAL APPROACH..focusing on the HERE AND NOW..analyzing her HISTORY is not part of PLAN A..PLAN A is about meeting her primary EMOTIONAL NEEDS..PERIOD..FINANCIAL SUPPORT IS A MAJOR EMOTIONAL NEED...for many women..including ME...

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with Mel...

Okay, next time I cheat, I want a new set of golf clubs

Sorry if I was not very clear. Here is what has been going with respect to OM and WW, contact-wise:

Their relationship started off as internet based. Move to phone/internet based. After about one month of cyber/phone, it did turn physical. She would drive to his house when kids were in bed and stay at his house until 3am or so and come home before kids woke up. She told me she was going to Walmart or to hang out with friends.

She saw him this way maybe once a week for about 2 weeks maybe. She did spend a whole weekend with him about 4 weeks ago while our step-children were at their dads. I watched our boy for the weekend. I had agreed to watch our son every other weekend to give my wife a break every once in a while but I see now that it started right when the affair became physical and she was doing this agreement just to see him. This coming weekend will be my weekend with our son again. I'm not sure how I'm going to stop her from seeing him if they are still together by then.

Good news is that last weekend she was going to stay at his place for the weekend and he told her he needed to be away from her physically but would still be her cyber/phone friend for now. Not sure what that was all about.

I really don't think they have been physical for about 4 weeks now. It has been cyber/phone for that time. But it's been constant every night starting when kids go to bed. They text during the day and she talks online to him while kids are awake.

Are you considering trying to gain custody of your son?

My apologies to you Zelmo. I was not aware they had ever met.

That is horrendous that you have agreed to this. This is called ENABLING THE AFFAIR. Your agreement has aided and abetted her adultery.

Sorry that you had to eat your words here Mel. The original post started way back on the EN forum. Honest mistake.

My question still remains whether WW deserves to be driving this vehicle. If she takes out the vehicle while unroadworthy then she should be busted.

Is there any current legitimate need for having use of the vehicle?

We already answered this question, imagine. In Plan A one is supposed to meet the EN's of the WS. Plan A does not mean cutting off financial support. Have you read about Plan A?

C'mon Mel. You're a fab gal. Why the DJ?

I think that we are both trying to plug the holes that are enabling WW's affair.

I am trying to help this man and instead I am having to DEFEND Plan A from ppl who know nothing about it and can't be bothered to do any reading. Do you think thats fair? Do you thats helpful to this man who came to MB to learn about the concepts?

Why do you not read up on Plan A before posting to newcomers who are here to learn about MB? Do you see how unhelpful it is to give advice that is counterproductive to MB?

I am very frustrated about this interference, imagine. I should not have to debate MB concepts - ON MARRIAGE BUILDERS - to a newcomer who is in crisis.

Yeah, she has to drive her kids to their dad's houses for their visitation hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays and every other Friday for weekend visitation. She also does grocery shopping once a week. But that's about all she needs the car for..

My work schedule doesn't allow me to be home early enough to take the kids myself.

Ooops..there's another thread with info....

****edit****

Zelmo, please show me WHERE Dr Harley says not to meet the emotional need of FINANCIAL SUPPORT in Plan A and that one is a "doormat" if he does.

I would appreciate it if you would cite your source, posting a LINK or the page # in the book. I have been here for almost 8 years, have been through the MB weekend seminar and have never heard this before. I would like to see your source.

Thanks.

Zelmo - Mel is posting sound MB advice and she gave excellent reasons for what she has posted.

Are you really advocating he give his wife and OM reasons to unite against him?

And with all respect, I think Mel has been here for long enough to actually have some kind of idea about this don't you?

Mel this is a relatively simple distinction . But, let me explain where I am coming from. The vehicle in question, according to Erich, has consistently been used to transport this woman to her lover, as well as providing a refuge for her private conversations. No one is suggesting he stop paying for food etc.
I think this is a very gray area and subject to interpretation as to whether finanacial support relative to the vehicle,which serves a dual purpose, constitutes an emotional need for support or subsidizes the affair. In fact, the support clearly serves both purposes. So , which overides in your opinion? This is not as cut and dried as you seem to see it, IMO.
Despite your experience in this area, which alomost rivals my own, I cannot defer to you on this.

Sorry, Zelmo, but that goes completely against Plan A strategy and makes no sense whatsoever. If FS is a top need, then he needs to meet it in Plan A.

So unless you can produce a QUOTE from Dr Harley which stipulates that the EN of Financial support should be avoided, then common sense dictates that we defer to Dr. Harley, a clinical psychologist with 35 years of experience.

I would also keep in mind that this man is here to learn about MARRIAGE BUILDERS, not my personal opinion or yours.

Big, I simply disagree. Analyze this and don't defer based solely on length on this board.
Look he is doing many things correctly that give them reasons to "unite". Interferring in her ability to go to this guy will cause them to rail against him , no doubt. Exposure has already done that, initially, but now we see them unravelling.
I look at it this way: Perhaps making getting together more difficult is a good thing and will enahnce the friction between them. The Om is already making noises about her willingness to work. Her lack of self sufficiency is further demonstrated by her dependence on her H to fix her car. It will be drive(sorry -pun) home further when he sees how much of a load he may be taking on.
But, the kids, I admit, need to be taken care of. A tough call.

I do believe the car should be roadworthy, especially if the children will be transported around in it. Regardless of WW's need for financial support, it is a safety issue first and foremost. I'd be out of my mind worrying if i thought my kids were being driven around in a car with faulty brakes.

However, a flat tyre just as she's about to leave might be a good idea! Easily fixed, but very very time-consuming.