Then I must vacuum in apathy.

i think you are right about the language MIM ... use of the word if makes it sound like an ultimatum.

I'm pretty sure that I've been using I statements, which is why it feels a bit powerless. There is no action if she doesn't agree with, or honor my broken record statement. There is no threat, no real consequence other than continuing to hurt me and hurt our boys. The consequence only comes when I've had enough and ask her to leave. I have not threatened that, nor will I. I will continue to express my love, and desire to recover our marriage, and the actions that I believe are required for us to move forward together. We'll either forge a path together, or she'll ignore me and continue the A. Eventually, I won't have any fight left. There is no threat, but there are inherent consequences.

does that make sense? or am I still sounding like a doormat?

I understand that you originally came from the US to go to Canada.

Is there any legal complication to take the kids, while married to go back to USA?

MiM: Yes! Boundaries are about "I". Good point.

GWN right now you are not setting boundaries *or* issuing ultimatums. You are reminding her how hurtful your behavior is.

Right now you're just saying "It's painful to see you continuing the A with OM". This eliminates (hopefully) her ability to tell herself "GWN doesn't care what I'm doing".

Plan B would be a boundary. That would be saying "I can't bear the pain of seeing you constantly interacting with OM, so I'm removing myself from the drama."

This did not come out at all as I would have liked:

I would like to repair this sentence: Do not bring up the subject of OM as an entity again. Bring up the triggers - the place of identification with OM. Focus on your PERCEPTIONS of influence to your marriage. At the same time do look smart when meeting WW.

Like Mel I agree that a physical removal is logical, provided you can do this legally hence my asking about physical removal of the children while married.

Keep in touch GWN!