This is an area I have not quite worked through, but I don't think I want to have a relationship where I have to worry about my spouse moving boundaries because they have the ability to be secretive. I think I actually NEED to be able to trust my spouse. Of course, my M failed before I even thought of it this way, but this is becoming more and more my reason for not going back. I have no problem with transparency and I have no secrets of my own - I simply don't want to NEED transparency. I cannot have any kind of relationship with WXH without it now. Does this make sense?

Actually this is more to the point I was trying to make. I don't want a marriage where the chance of my spouse cheating increases because they have access to something that makes affairs easier. There will always be avenues to infidedity. I want someone with the backbone and decency not to take them. WXH isn't that man.

IMO, both spouses are transparent in a healthy marriage.

If someone is not enthusiastic about being transparent, then they should not be trusted.

If a spouse feels entitled to privacy, then they are demonstrating that they should not be trusted.

Affair or no affair.

Transparency is needed in a healthy marriage.

Share passwords... If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing. I've made contact with old Navy friends I've not talked to in over 20 years due to FB. It's a great social tool that has potential to be abused.

Often people see transparency as a punishment because of adultery or that "now we HAVE to be transparent because I can't trust you."

But transparency is a QUALITY that is present in healthy, intimate marriages.

It's like that saying, someone who has nothing to hide, hides nothing.

Well, someone who is trustworthy, will be enthusiastic about transparency.

Yes, transparency is needed, but when it's to the point that one spouse has to read and know every little thing just to make sure the other is remaining faithful, well, it's just not the type of relationship I'd want. Sure, each spouse should have access to everything the other has, but once I felt the need to monitor it, it would be a big LB to me.

FWIW, WXH and I weren't neither untransparent, nor actively snooping into each other's stuff. But looking back at the events before D-day, he did a lot of things to build secrecy. They were obvious in retrospect, but they didn't alert me at the time because I trusted him then.

Are these opposite sex friends?

If so, I would consider that lacking a boundary that is important to keeping your marriage affair-proof.

No they are also men. I should add... I have no issue with staying in contact with frineds of opposite sex in regard to FB in the format "If your familiar with the site" Wall chat.... Wall chat is visible to everyone who is allowed access to your profile. The chat is posted in
plan site.

But it's all about the boundries you are comfortable with. Not to mention the history you have with the indivual your chatting with.

I don't find it as cut and dry as "No communication with the opposite sex".

This is true. It's not much different than men and women posting here on MB to each other. However, there is always the opportunity to receive a private email from one of your "friends" as opposed to MB where private messaging is disabled... and for good reason. Again, it's the person's personal morals and boundaries.

That is why you share passwords. We both agree to never post as the other person, Short of that our accounts are public to each other.

Oh, that's true. (I've been waiting for a chance to use this emoticon).

I have absolutely NO problem with boundaries when it comes to FB and I'm an FWW. I went to an all girl school and my only friends from my past are two women I've LOVED chatting to again, looking at their gorgeous adult kids and grandkids. I only have people I trust as my friends, my page is set to VERY private and I love "poking" my DD. I also love showing my H pics from my friends.

Fair enough. Maybe not directly in the path of temptation, but close enough that MBers ought to know better. The attitude that "I won't have an affair because I won't let it happen" is dangerous. Most waywards said that at some point. The best way to have an affair is to be so confident that you won't have one that you don't put up boundaries in advance.



Then I am not incorrect, because I never said that. I said it makes affairs easier. And we should mostly avoid anything that makes affairs easier, especially anything as unnecessary as Facebook. It's not vital to life, after all.


I really have a problem with this line of thinking. I hear it a lot.

So we wait until an affair happens to put up boundaries? A little too late, don't you think?

Billy Graham had a policy of never being in a room alone with a woman other than his wife. Not because he had ever had an affair (he hadn't), but to keep from having one. He wanted to avoid even the possibility of being tempted.

Ottert, do you even know how FaceBook works? Everything you post is visible to all of your friends (at the same time). It's very public, much like MB. To me FB is necessary. It's the BEST tool I've found for communicating with family all over the country and keeping up with my kids and grandkids.

I just recently started on FB, with Mr. W's enthusiastic agreement of course - My "profile picture" is a family photo...Mr. W and I also share the same password for most everything...I have a strict all women FB friends policy, the only exception being my little brother - of course I did used to dress him up like a GIRL when we were kids...soooooo...LOL!

It's been fun to reconnect with my old girlfriends and see their families...I also have a couple of super cool MB gal pals on there - As a matter of fact, these two women would not hesitate even for one second to kick my butt and tell Mr. W if I ever got out of line! Ahhhh, friends to my marriage...The BEST kind to have!

Mrs. W

princess,

My 17-year-old daughter has a page and she is on it daily (too much in daddy's opinion!). She is a great Christian girl (better than I can take credit for) and I don't worry much about her getting into anything inappropriate. Also, I set up an account once when a friend wanted me to look at some pictures of his family vacation. I can't remember my password or how to log on. I never set up a personal page.

I don't need to have tried meth to know it is a dangerous substance that I'd be better off without. There's just too much evidence of Facebook being a launch pad for affairs with old flames for me to ignore.

I'm sure my aversion to it is closely connected to my wife's indiscretion with her ex. I am hyper-vigilant about anything that allows a spouse to easily and secretly contact an old flame or anyone of the opposite sex. Facebook is high on my list.

I guess I see a big difference between the possibility of something happening and a certainty that something will happen. I suppose it's true that if you never had any unsupervised interactions with the opposite sex you would never have an affair. You would essentially be affair-proof. However, you would also miss out on a lot because of that constraint. So I think you should only have such a constraint if there is a reasonable chance that it can cause problems.

This reminds me of something from the show "30 Days". One episode had a Muslim who was asked why Muslims don't drink. He replied that he didn't drink because he might lose control of himself and take the Lord's name in vain. While I suppose that way of thinking is logical, it seems a bit extreme.

But I can also see where you're coming from. Being that this is GQII, most people here have had a direct impact from an affair. So maybe for this audience, an extreme limit on social networks is appropriate. But for the population in general, it's probably not nearly as dangerous.

I think FB has something like 300 million members. I would say for the vast majority of users, FB will be nothing more than a harmless way to keep up with friends. It's likely that many of your friends are on it and use it for nothing more than keeping up with their friends. So just because it may be dangerous to have in your household doesn't mean that it's dangerous to have in every household.

This is not an authoritative source and I don't present it as scientific evidence. But it is thoroughly footnoted and has some very interesting information about the prevalence of infidelity in "the population in general."

Facts and Statistics About Infidelity

One more thing: "this audience" was once in "the population in general."

Facebook story: Just happened in fact. A friend of mine from way back and I recently connected on FB. (female friend). We were connected on LinkedIn and we had each other's email addresses but other than Christmas cards, we never really communicated. We discovered through FB that our sons are attending the same college next year. And we live 3000 miles apart. So we're both excited because we may get to see each other!

That's my positive FB story for the day!

I have never used Myspace because of the viruses and adware, hence, no Facebook either. (guilty by association. I just don't want to bother, and I have no pictures to post anyway, no scanner or camera)

I'm glad I avoid it, with this info.