Me neither. I have not ever been in step one either. Not even during the entire decade of the VLTA with all its meanness, LBs, being completely ignored and none of my ENs being met in the sligtest.

I wonder why Pep thinks I would have been in step one? Well, actually, according to MB theory I should have been all the way through the last'th step. Several times.

Is there something wrong with us?

Of course Wayzilla's and Gollum's goals were different. She wanted him cause she was in LURV. He only wanted a backup personal auxiliary semen reservoir.

As sad as it is for me to say this is EXACTLY how it happened for my WH. I found out early enough that had I known about MB, it could have ended differently. Instead it was 2 years of deceit, angry outbursts, covering up and tonnes of cake eating. Many MANY times I got the "I can't believe that you don't trust me. We are JUST FRIENDS there is nothing going on. OW is not a problem in our M. The problems in our M have NOTHING to do with OW."

I knew it was all bull but I didn't know what to do about it. After I would find out about secret phone calls or texts I would often EXPLODE and tell WH that he needed to stop talking to OW. If I had known about MB I would have known that they HAD to stop working together. Oh well, as the saying goes "Everything happens for a reason." I just haven't figured out the reason yet hehehehehe

They should teach this stuff in school. It is SOOOOOO true.

Pepperband, this is a great article.

I stopped listening in my M because of all the outside chatter of life, work, family. PP was there waiting with open whatever.

I remember when XH started going to work earlier and earlier and staying later and later and of course always calling me to see when I was leaving work. I did not pay attention. My eyes were closed.

In my case I thing that #12-15 were rolled into one. When the started it was a slam dunk.

Add tons of alcohol = 1 party while I was traveling = #12-15 rolled into one night and boom now XH is "very happy".

This Adultery stuff is so heady and powerful that less than 2 months into the A, XH gave me the I love you but don't love you bomb after 21 years of M. It was like he was struck with lightening.

Now he looks like he was struck with lightening -- but not in a good way.

If you take many affairs and work backwards through their steps, you will probably find that most start with step 1.

It does not follow that talking to a member of the opposite sex, which we've all done, and which was step 1 in an affair THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, means that we have all taken step 1.

I like this model because it shows how a lot of affairs start, and suggests ways that we should erect boundaries against "innocent"affairs. However, I reject the suggestion that we have all been on step 1.

The model also does not describe those affairs in which one person is physically attracted to another (or both are), and so FINDS or INVENTS a common interest so that further steps can be taken.

People who chat each other up in bars do this. It is also done by people who are physically attracted to someone at work, and wait for (or create) the opportunity to be in a social setting with them. They linger in the relaxation area when the other colleagues go back to their desks. They suggest one more drink at the Christmas event when everyone else starts to drift away. They start a flattering conversation which goes something like "so tell me about this evening class you're taking. I think it's so interesting! I've always wanted to study psychology. Does your husband like it? Isn't he very keen for you to do more studying, then? Oh, I think it's great that you're doing it, with 3 kids at home. Why doesn't he like it?"

It's not a long way from this to "I admire you so much for what you have achieved and how hard you work for your family. If you were my wife I'd support you 100%. How your husband does not see it is beyond me - I think you're incredible. I only wish my wife could fit in all the things you do - and look so good while doing them! You never look flustered - in fact you look lovely."

Some of that was my H (although the initial meeting in the bar was OW's scheming), and it was all, ALL OF IT artificially constructed. OW had had affairs before and long wanted to leave her marriage, but would not do so without a man to go to. My H thought she was very attractive and when she kissed him when they were finally alone together, he was delighted. They went to bed, and thereafter he piled on the flattery to keep getting laid. I've seen the flattering emails, I saw how quickly he dropped her on D Day (and sneaked back when he thought the coast was clear) and I see the "sharing a common interest" for what it was. It was a tool to keep her giving sex.

That is not to say they had nothing at all in common. I'm sure most of us can find things in common with people in our work or church social circle. Work, church and a particular form of socialising for a start! But the "we hit it off so perfectly" deal?

Manufactured.

>PP was there waiting with open whatever.


EEEEWWWW!!!!!!!!!

I just got very skeeved out.

I don't know if you really mean this, Pep. It does not sound genuine, to me.

I took care to say that I was not a better person than most and I was often a terrible wife. I don't know whether I am smarter than you and I don't think it is relevant.

If I had instinctively known MB stuff I would not have been such a bad marriage partner, and perhaps the affair would not have happened at all.

If I had instinctively known MB stuff I would have responded differently to the affair when it happened.

You asked whether we knew any adult who had not been on step 1 and I answered that question. Good for me, I suppose, that I haven't been.

Good morning, SC.

Okay, I need to elaborate because your viewpoint is valid, and I don't want to be misconstrued. I have work to do, but it's Friday, and TB doesn't wish to be characterized as a cad......

First, I think we're all clear that #2 - #15 is essentially a one-way, direct flight to Waywardville. No meal will be served, but coffee, juice and soda are complimentary.

Second, I'm stickin' to my point that we interact with people of the opposite sex all of the time, and in the course of conversation, may find them interesting, attractive, thought-provoking, etc. THAT is a result of utilizing our senses -- we HEAR what they say, we PROCESS it, we COMPARE it to our mindset, outlook, "world view", whatever. We SEE them. SC, that's just human nature.

Three, it's through this interaction process that one decides to enforce their boundary, put up their red flags, and/or head for zee hillz. Look, if some nasty, dumber-than-dirt, skank-master is coming over to give me an estimate on shudders (or whatever), I don't feel AT RISK. If it's someone I can identify with, who possesses traits that are palatable to me, and I'm married (or she is), I recognize that as an avenue I don't wish to travel. And I put up the wall, limit the conversation, find something else to do, etc.

Maybe I'm not 'splainin' myself very eloquently here, but I'm just saying, for me, opposite sex interaction happens all of the time in #1. And it's in stage #1 where I evaluate the situation in terms of "safety" or "danger". Yes, SC, there are DEGREES of danger within Pep's #1. I'm just saying that we all hang in #1 to a certain degree because we ALL interact with the opposite sex throughout our days, and we are all HUMAN. It's our boundaries, personal experiences, scruples, values, political affiliations (okay, maybe not that one), that help us to take the detour away from #2.

Okay, I hope that's better. If not, keep chirpin' at me.

Thanks,
TB

That's how I took Pep's comment as well. It does not imply that we are all trolling deep for alternatives.

why does me-thinks that you would notice that one line.

Meh.

Me-thinks the line just jumped out at me...kinda like PP and VD and people like them do in regards to married guys.

>and subsequent learning of MB concepts makes us acutely aware of how dangerous "innocent sharing" can get. And how the uninitiated can be easily drawn into "innocent sharing". It does not seem dangerous, at first.


I think this is VERY VERY spot on.