Six, I just wanted to apologize for some very heated things I may have said to you yesterday. but I don't want to hijack someone else's thread to do so.

I know you and I don't think alike, but it is important that for lack of anything else, we understand each other.

We differ on confronting OM and that's OK.

I won't knock your opinion if would agree to do the same.

For the record, my confrontation with OM happened nearly 2 and 1/2 years before I ever recorded my firts post here. It had absolutely nothing to do with this forum nor the encouragement of any one individual or group of individuals that might be found here.

I simply reacted with an Irish temper and a compulsion to do what I felt I needed to do. Cloudy judgement? Absolutely!

OTOH, it drove home a point to OM that one does not interlope into anothers M and expect to get away with it, unscathed. I went so far as to force OM to call my W and tell her how sorry he was to have ever interfered with a 30+ year M, and somehow remain blameless.

That was the day when my W realized just what a worthless POSOM he really was. On top of every other fault he possesed, he was also a coward and had no feelings for my W other than to find a way into her pants. In essence, he was not me, not could he ever be me. I know, I forced the NC rule, but back then, I hadn't found MB.

After all this came up in the last couple of days, I asked my W point blank what she would have thought of me if I did "nothing."

She reflected a moment, and said: "You showed me just how powerful a warrior you were for me and our M. IT actually meant a great deal to me, and why I love you so much."

So I guess will may differ in our approachs, but we can agree about the destructiveness of infidelity. That's all that really counts in the end.

All Blessings,
Jerry

I'd like to add my viewpoint to this.

I'm the BS. I've always had very good boundaries when it comes to other men.

When we were younger, my husband went off to deer camp for the weekend.

One of the guys in his crowd (not a particularly good friend of his, but part of the group of friends) came by our house, saying that he stopped by to see what time my husband was going to the camp. When I told him that my H had already left for the camp, he wanted to come inside for a drink of water. Now, I didn't particularly like this guy, either. He was a nice-looking man, but there was something about him (maybe a "God's Gift to Women" attitude?) that turned me totally off.

I told him I'd get him a glass of water, and he reached for the door. I had the storm door locked, and I told him that I did not allow men in my house when my husband wasn't home. He acted surprised and said, "You don't think I'd attack you or something, do you?" I told him, "No, but that is a rule that I have." He said, "Well, I think we could get to be pretty good friends. Let's talk about it." I then told him that if he wanted a drink of water, there was a faucet on the side of the house, and I shut the door. He left without getting his drink of water!

When I told my husband about it, he said that he had seen and talked to the guy before he left town for the camp, so the guy KNEW that he was not at home. So, the guy apparently came to my house, thinking that he might start something up with me.

Now...this is the part that I could never understand.

My husband apparently didn't say anything to the guy and kept hanging out with him.

I asked him why he didn't cut that "friend" out, and my husband said, "Well, you didn't fall for his line, did you? I trust you."

To me, my husband's lack of action indicated a lack of caring. What his friend did was highly insulting to me. No, I didn't expect my husband to go beat him up, but it really always bugged me that he could continue to be friendly with him.

lady clueless

Unbelieveable: "My husband apparently didn't say anything to the guy and kept hanging out with him."

I'm not saying that your H should of made this guy have a hunting accident. Though it makes wonder what his motivation was to do nothing.

Did this guy have dirt on your WH cheating?

Did WH go after this guy's wife first?

Did WH have a three some with them?

Did WH want you to cheat because he was?

I smell something rotten.

Everybody has 2 decide what the appropriate action should be in their own sitch.

LC, I agree that your H should have at least said something 2 his "friend" about that incident. Since they knew each other, it would probably have been pretty easy 2 avoid any physical altercation in the process.

Penny asked me recently if I ever called RM. I sent him an email 5 years ago, but I've not called him. I don't believe I could be civil on the phone with the jerk, even after all this time.

Counselors are required 2 ask the BS whether they're having suicidal or homicidal thoughts. They wouldn't have 2 do this if there wasn't a non-trivial chance that someone could wind up in jail or croaked, after an A is discovered.

Six was recently asked, repeatedly, 2 show proof that someone from MB has gotten violent. We all saw how quickly such proof disappears from the boards, so I hope people can simply acknowledge that it is a real risk that is taken by feeding the drama here. It's a sad fact that infidelity isn't illegal, but making threats is, often requiring BSs 2 find more thoughtful means of getting 2 NC and recovery.

-ol' 2long

No 6 was making out that the board was advocating violence against OM and that was not the case. 6 was told that instances of actual violence are rare. If someone is dumb enough to post your real details here 2long, I think that your threads might be removed as well for your own protection.

I'd have to go back and re-read the threads to support my opinion, and frankly I don't want to. (And I can't in the case of one thread.) But I didn't get this impression at all, BK. The way I read what 6YL was trying to say, is that he feels some MB members (not the entire board) advocate, and even fewer encourage, confronting the OP. I don't recall an accusation from him that MB folks advocate attacking a BS.

My understanding is that 6YL feels confrontation is not a good idea because confrontation CAN lead to violence, criminal ramifications, long-term problems, etc. He feels BSs should instead deal with the pain and the hurt legally through other means, means that would not tempt the BS to do something he/she can't take back. 6YL believes it's better to focus energy on the WS and either recovering the marriage or ending it -- instead of seeking justice through the OP.

I may be wrong and don't want to take the energy to prove it one way or the other. That's the way I interpretted it. I guess among all the yelling people read the posts differently.

Certainly we all interpret things differently.

Edited to add: He also didn't feel the BS having anger against the OP was appropriate whereas it is actually quite productive close to d-day as it can stop the BS from completely losing it in a time of high emotion with the WS. Ultimately, the BS has to come to the conclusion that it is all on their WS and nothing at all to do with the OP but that takes time. In fact if you read the forgiveness thread, you can see many people after years of recovery have failed to make that connection.

Confronting does not mean getting phyiscal or saying some thing stupid.

Exactly.

Of course not. The board is not in any way, shape or form encouraging people to get violent so it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Everyone is responsible for their own behavior, so it defies common sense to infer that a suggestion to confront the OP can cause someone to get "violent." Only a persons own personal choice can cause him to get violent.

In Mikes case, board members specifically told him NOT TO engage the OM. So it is ridiculous to point the finger of blame at the board.

I know of ZERO members who ever got violent when they confronted at the suggestion of this board. So what does that tell you? That there is no reason to believe that confronting causes violence. I have known more people here who had CAR WRECKS since I have been here.

Steve Harley and Dr Harley have advocated confronting the OP for years with great success. My H's affair ended the DAY I confronted the OW. There is absolutely no reason to stop and, I for one, will continue that practice.

I ac2ally agree with 6. True, said member wasn't actively encouraged 2 get violent or even confront, but he was certainly egged on by the largely one-sided "support" 2 end his marriage and "win" some kind of contest in the process by putting down his W and the OM... directly or indirectly. Maybe we'll never know why he acted when and how he did.


And as I recall, he agreed. But rare isn't zero, and Mike's threads have disappeared, for whatever reason, so demanding such proof from 6 is... ...ludicrous and ridiculous. The arguments for and against are inconclusive. Period.


Interesting choice of analogy. Protection from what? Violence? Lawsuits? From RM? or from me?

I'm all for confrontation when it's deemed necessary by the BS and their counselor or coach. I don't think I need it now, and don't think I could stay civil even if I did. Other MBers do need 2 be careful what they're suggesting, lest their advice be misinterpreted.

-ol' 2long

I agree. And I think 6YL was agreeing too. I don't recall 6YL saying that confronting = violence. I feel that 6YL was saying that confronting CAN -- again I repeat as I typed in my previous post -- that confronting CAN lead to something bad. Something that cannot be taken back.

We have seen cases on MB where the BS has approached the OP, yelled at him/her, had their say, and that was it. The BS feels better, the OP leaves forever, and they're done with that.

We've also read where the OP has yelled back, made accusations, and now the BS is left with that addtional emotional baggage from the accusitory and crazy OP. This can now take energy that the BS should probably othewise be using toward repairing or severing their M.

And then there are cases where we don't know what did or did not happen -- whether insitgated by the BS or the OP. We just know something went wrong. We don't know anything more because the threads are gone.

I think 6YL was saying it's because as people we don't know what will happen, it's best not to test it. Emotions can take over and the BS might put something in writing that can come back at the BS legally or drive the WS further away. The BS might get so enraged he/she assaults the OP or the OP can pull out a gun... Who knows what might happen? I understood 6YL to be advising against confrontation because while it may provide relief for the BS in the moment, it may also provide no relief, or may even exacerbate the anger and pain. The results may not be as the BS envisioned when he/she went into it.

He shared with us that because one can't be certain about how the confronation will go, he himself opted for not confrontating the OP. And he's trained in hand-to-hand combat -- or some extreme physical thing like that.

At the end of the day, people are going to make their own choices and people have to live with those choices. Whether the BS confronts is his/her choice. How the OP responds is the OPs choice.

That's all. That's what I believe 6YL was saying. And of course, I could be completely wrong.

Of course it is not ludicrous to ask that 6years back up his arguments. When one makes an assertion, they have to back it up if they expect to be taken seriously. Assertions made with absolutely no substantiation can be dismissed the same.

His implication that confrontations lead to violence can't be backed up, especially when the experience here is just the opposite. If he can't back up his assertions, he shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

Well yes we do. Past experience is an indicator of the future. And in this board's experience, there has been no violence linked to any suggestion for the BS to confront the OP, despite the fact that is recommended every day.

In Mike's case, for example, he was repeatedly told NOT TO confront the OP because folks here knew he was violent.

So, I do understand what 6years was saying, but his concerns were groundless. On the other hand, we can point to numerous instances where an OP was scared off and an affair was killed by confronting the OP.

BS should be encouraged to confront the OP and it would be wrongheaded and counterproductive to discourage such a valuable tactic.

The bottom line is that we are all adults and we all know our own limits. If we feel we would get violent, then it is UP TO US to not take that advice. We are grown ups here, remember?

I agree, BK. I saw this happen with my H.

If H had of seen FOM in those first couple of weeks post D-Day, my H would have gone after him. I believe this because I've seen my H get in someone's face and get into a rage. However, FOM is much bigger, and while H's heart would have made him a formidable fighter, in the end I think H could have been badly hurt. That is if FOM would have even fought back. Who knows. I don't think about it.

I just know I am glad that FOM lives 2,000 miles away. After a few weeks, H told me he can't and doesn't blame OM, but puts it all on me. FOM is pathetic and all kinds of other names, according to H, but H doesn't blame him and H lost the desire to go after FOM. H instead wrote parts of what he wanted to say to FOM in an email to me. And I deserved every word.

Some days I wish I wasn't.

We must agree 2 disagree, Mel. Of course it's ludicrous 2 ask Six 2 back up his arguments on an anonymous but public 4um where specific legal cases can't be discussed without blowing the anonymity of the people involved.

Assertions made without substantiation on a board like this, dealing with a subject like that, are no more and no less valuable than the advice given by non-credentialed forum members.


He can't, for the obvious reasons stated above.

If MB forum members aren't backed by credentials, they shouldn't expect 2 be taken seriously. That's what you're saying, by analogy. More better, what anyone says here should perhaps be considered, and weighed against the reader's own experiences and discussions with professionals, 2 be used or not used in forming a course of action for them.

-ol' 2long

My main concern is that some folks tend to get emotional and overreact when things like this happen. This is why I tried to get 6years to use some logic, reason and most of all, EVIDENCE in his assertions. His assertion was entirely emotional and not based on any sound reasoning.

It would be a mistake, IMO, to start telling ppl to NOT confront, based on a fluke experience that had nothing to do with the board, in light of long experience with no violence. That would a huge disservice to board members who could greatly benefit from confrontation.

Well I think 6 thought it was better to deal with the WW instead of the OM. At least I think that is what he was saying. I hope you also understand that as a BH I agree with 6yearsleft on this. Did I hate the OM yes I did but he was not really my problem. My XW was attractive and I am sure there were a few men who would have been glad to go to bed with her.

I took my vows with my then wife. She promised to forsake all others in front of both or our families. The OM did not promise me anything. I will not let that scumbag take one minute of my life from me. I on the other hand did not want to stay married to her after she had sex with the OM.

These are just differences in opinion nothing wrong with that. That does not make you wrong and it does not make 6 wrong either.

I have no problem with people contacting the OM. But we all need to understand that bad things can happen when a BS goes to confront the OM.

I'm not a violent person by any means. And yet, about 25 years ago, I damn-near threw my brother in law through a wall over some s2pid argument we had that I can't remember now. I kid you not, because I repaired the damage 2 the wall. It happened pretty fast, and I'm not sure something like that wouldn't happen 2day if I were 2 confront RM in person.

Hanging out here 2 long tended 2 get me upset about s2pid things 2 easily, so I stay away more now than I used 2.

Which is what I'm going 2 do now,
-ol' 2long