Mark, I would say NO flirtin is okay. No hours with that person are okay. I should never ever seek out a man who makes me feel good - unless it's H. You are absolutely right about those needs. My youth group analogy was very flawed.

The point I really meant to make was the idea that EP's need to be intrisic. My H could impose very strict "rules" on me, and he would have every right. But our M will be much more harmonious and genuine - for lack of a better word - if I take ownership of those EP's, not because H won't "let" me say hello to a man, but because I care supremely about my H and the protection of my M and I don't want to jeopardize it. Does that make sense?

I think my story is proof that we can NEVER let our guard down when it somes to our EP's. I taught with OM 3 years without an A or any attraction ever entering my mind. All it took was some resentment, some entitlement, and some "innocent" crossed lines.

I'm not picking on you, Lurioosi. I'm just using you as my answers for my hopeless attempts at the Socratic method of teaching...

Mark

Ottert, an you explain what you feel is weak as water about my boundary-keeping? What would you advise people to do differently?

I have been honest about a single boundary violation, which was done deliberately because it was a boundary violation, to make clear to H that I was capable of breaching boundaries, not to mention I might have other options. Do I regret it? No, afraid not. I really didn't give a toss whether it ended the marriage by that point. (Read my sigline. There were seventeen years of affairs and paid sex. The recovery of this marriage has always been on the shakiest of grounds. H's confidence in my 'goodness' and willingness to forgive has been one of the biggest barriers.)

Apart from that one evening, my boundaries have been utterly solid, and based on awareness of danger, it seems to me. I'm interested in why you think differently.


TA

TA, your first post that raised the alarm bells was the one about sharing "passions." You seemed to be saying that if your spouse doesn't share your passion about something - books, art, sport, etc. - then you are free to pursue that passion with someone else or a group of someone elses that might include the opposite sex. That is dangerous thinking to me. It's my understanding of Dr. Harley that your spouse is to be your primary recreational companion, and if your spouse is not enthusiastic about an activity, then you find things to do that you both can enjoy.

At the MB weekend, we were instructed to go through the recreation inventory and rank the activities. Each spouse scores an activity from one -3 to +3. You then combine the scores. We were to identify those interests with at least a +2 score from each spouse and "spend ALL of your recreational time together developing skill in these recreational interests." Only after you have become each other's FAVORITE recreational companion are you to engage in any recreational activities without your spouse.

Dr. Harley said that being with someone when we are having fun - sharing a "passion, for example - will deposit love units. That is a dangerous thing to be doing with someone who is not your spouse, but particularly if they are of the opposite sex. I believe that's true even if it's a mixed-sex group.

Your description of your book club sounded particularly troubling. You are enjoying time with men whom you admitted were very attractive, without your husband being present, and who shared your passion for books. This should be a huge red flag to you, IMO. This an optional, recreational activity, not a work requirement. I personally don't think you should be going.

Your admission that you are thinking this Guy to whom you are very attracted might be a possibility after you divorce is also troubling to me. You said you don't regret going to the movie alone with him after your D-day. You only see him every few months, but you mention that he has "good taste" and recommends music, etc. It looks a lot like an infatuation to me. I think you should avoid this Guy like a leper. If you never see him, you can't get in conversations in which there is a chance he might make one of his "tasteful" recommendations.

Dr. Harley says in Surviving An Affair that "If you ever find yourself infatuated with someone other than your spouse, don't walk away, RUN! Have nothing to do with him or her, even if it means quitting your job, leaving your church, or moving from your neighoborhood."

I don't think the word "touting" is justified. You were asked a question about being on step 1 and you answered it. I don't see that as "touting" - i.e. selling or pushing - how you have acted.

Mark, feel free to pick on me. It makes me think and it gives me a chance to clarify my own thoughts. Unless I am on a bipolar depression thingy, you pretty much have get in my face and say "You s*ck!" to hurt my feelings I guess it's all those years of teaching pre-pubescent kids!

I regret my first response to this thread. It was defensive, and it has led to the thread becoming combative. Some of the responses have implied "tell us what you did then, since you're so perfect".

My first response was a reaction to the quotes under Step 1. The description of Step 1 in itself did not give many clues to what it involved:

1. Sharing Common Interests.

What did "sharing" mean to the writer? Simply having interests in common? I "share" an interest in certain music artists with people I have never met. I think the term meant more than that.

I "share" an interest in the local school with the two fathers that work on my house. I have employed them to work in my home - a private place - and I have "shared' a cup of coffee with them. However, in the same way that I do not like to eat at a table with a strange man, I do not like to sit at the kitchen table drinking coffee with one. I make two cups. The builder likes me to keep the coffee coming and he drinks it while he carries on working. I stay away from the area in which he is working anyway, so at coffee time it is easy to take my cup elsewhere.

The painter likes to take a break and sit at the kitchen table. I might be cleaning the kitchen or doing the laundry at his break time. If I am in the middle of a job that needs to be finished, I take my cup over to where I am working and carry on working, while he sits down. The radio is normally on, which is a way of reducing "intimacy", and by bustling around and not concentrating on the conversation, I keep the interaction superficial. I might ask how his daughter is and he tells me about what she is up to at university. He might ask about my son and I say, oh, you know, he's a teenager! I keep things light deliberately, because the whole situation of a man alone in my house talking to me is ringed with difficulty. I don't like it and I never did, even before finding MB.

I didn't think that "sharing a common interest" meant conducting the slightest degree of conversation with any man. Some of the posts that came after mine seemed to have defined Step 1 to mean "anything I want it to mean" - i.e. any interaction - by which definition everyone will be guilty!

When I was writing my first response, I looked at these quotes:

"We just had so much in common, it was uncanny."

"She and I both enjoyed music, and we were attracted to each other."

"He was so spiritually-minded... I'd been looking for someone to share my spiritual struggles with."

"We both loved horses, and started riding together."

"We both shared a burden for the church and especially children's work."

"She was the first woman I'd ever met who liked the outdoors, even hunting and fishing -- I was fascinated!"

and saw something that went beyond anything I have ever "shared" with a man since marriage. I don't know whether I have "so much in common" that it is "uncanny" with any man, because I've never had that conversation (since marriage).

Everyone I know "enjoys music". That does not place everyone on Step 1. "We were attracted to each other" seemed to me to be a key part of that statement.

I have shared my spiritual struggles with my H and I enjoy talking to him about these, so I have never had a sense of "lack" about a deep issue. We are not identical in either our spiritual or political beliefs but we are able to talk each other about them. it would seem odd to me to discuss an issue of deep personal conviction with an acquaintance, or even with my brother-in-law, or the male half of a couple that we regularly see for drinks.

I similarly saw the remaining quotes as something describing more than light conversation; I saw them as repeated conversations that had turned into heart-spillings. To describe "we began riding together" as being in the same boat as "we're going to California" seems a mismatch to me.

My first post said that I hadn't gone as far as Step 1 with any man, and I was going by what those quotes seemed to describe. The author put them there as guidelines for the reader, I take it.

I've enjoyed (not sure enjoy is quite the right word)reading much of this thread but I hate to see good informative threads such as this degenerate into a vehicle that Ottert uses to prove his much laboured point that conversation can lead to an A.

We all accept that conversations can lead to an A. In fact I would imagine that 99.99999% of A's begin with a conversation of sorts. However, 99.99999% of conversations do not lead to A's beginning.

I think there's a danger of putting the cart before the horse here. By that I mean Ottert should be focusing on building a loving and mutually satisfying M in which EN's are met with enthusiasm in order to build romantic love.

Once romantic love is re-established and the EN for intimate conversation is met, then Mrs O will enthusiastically agree to place EP's around her conversations with OM and will become more aware of any weakness she has in that area. She will be enthusiastic about making sure Ottert feels safe.

Placing restrictions such as who a person can and can't talk to in a M must surely be construed as a LB'er if the couple are in withdrawal or conflict.

EP's are about a person having a plan that protects those they love.

Mrs O has to feel love for you to pland and apply the EP's to protect you. It is impossible to exert so much control over your spouse so as to force them into applying EP's unwillingly. EP's come from love not control.

If she isn't feeling "in love" with you, she is likely to see you as controlling and suffocating.

Feel free to ignore me Ottert, I seem to frustrate you but I do want your M to succeed and I can only see it succeeding if you focus all your energies on building your M rather than proving your point.

I'll go with the horse analogy here to try and distinguish HAVING a common interest and SHARING a common interest. As many of you know, me exWW was/is a horse trainer and thus interacts with MANY men (and women) who have common interests. It's a unisex hobby / industry in that on the English side at least men and women compete in general compete against each other.

I have an INTEREST in horses because of the kids, owning a horse farm, and the exWW. I don't share or ever will have the same passion for them as my exWW. However, I can hold my own in a conversation about them but you won't see me riding them or talking about soulful aspect in them. I've talked to attractive women in the industry about things like health, results at the last show, who's riding well, etc. We are talking about a COMMON interests. I didn't SHARE in that interest by helping them out, going on rides with them WITHOUT my spouse, etc.

Like my exWW, POSOM grew up around horses. He knows how to ride, he's trained them before. He has more knowledge about them and I can not and never will match that. It's not who I am. Things like my exWW going on nightime trail rides alone with him, etc is crossing the line. The are SHARING their interests in horses at that point. Now, if she only talked to POSOM about training, health issues, etc, they would be having a COMMON interst in something.

My FWH didn't quite follow the formula but many of the 15 steps hit home...

1. Sharing Common Interests.

Pretty much skipped this - they had noting in common and he didn't even like her

2. Mentally comparing with my mate.

I'm sure this happened when she told him she was available

3. Meeting emotional needs.

She definitely met his need for admiration. Definitely.

4. Looking forward to being together.

Not sure about this one as the only times they were together (apart from the 2 hotel incidents) I was there. He had to have felt a bit uncomfortable??????

5. Tinges of dishonesty with my mate.

Yep

6. Flirting and teasing.

There were lots of texts flying around so yep

7. Talking about personal matters.

I think they skipped this one too. It was a very superficial relationship.

8. Minor yet arousing touch, squeeze, or hug.

This possibly happened when I was out of sight but not sure as there were always all the kids around (ours and hers) as well as her H, so there wouldn't have been much in the way of opportunity.

9. Special notes or gifts.

Nope, they skipped this one too.

10. Inventing excuses to call or meet.

She was never out of our house, but on the pretext of confiding her marital problems with me. My FWH never went to her house, he said to me later he would never do that as it crossed the line. I can laugh about that one now.

11. Arranging secret meetings.

The only secret meetings were at the hotels on the 2 occasions they sh****d.

12. Deceit and cover ups.

Yep, about the hotels when he told me he was at a business meeting that I would find boring.

13. Kissing and embracing.

They did this at stage 1. She kissed him when he was asleep in our living room after I had gone to bed. He obviously liked it.

14. Petting and high indiscretion.

In the hotel rooms - yep.

15. Sexual intercourse.

Yep - twice.

So in our case, the A seems to have started at step 13, gone on to 3, then 2, 5, 6 12 and 15. There must be others that have started like this????

Whilst it's good that there was no emotional connection between them, it sure does hurt to know that he risked losing me and everthing we had for absolutely nothing other than a skanky ho and making himself feel good.

Why is it that I am the only one using this thread to prove a point? Why did Pepperband post the thread if not to prove a point? What is anyone doing when they post, if not trying to prove a point?

**edit**

So this kind of thread on how adultery starts is only insensitive if I bring it up?

Please tell me why I can't discuss this topic with other posters? It's important to me. I feel I have something to say about it. TogetherAlone made points about EPs and boundaries with which I disagree, which I deem to be in direct contradiction to Dr. Harley's concepts on EPs.

She asked me what I thought she should do differently. I answered her.

If you don't like what I have to say, report the offending post to the mods or put me on ignore. But I don't appreciate the accusations of me ruining the thread every time I state an opinion or differ with a poster.

.... To inspire individuals to think about themselves, and hopefully make better choices in the future.




My intention is to communicate ideas, not prove a point.


Personal accusations aside, affairs do start in a remarkably similar fashion to each other.




More likely, it provides food for thought and understanding and insight about their personal habits/behaviors/belief systems.





Take this comment (and all that relate to it) back to whatever old thread you are talking about. On this thread, it is incongruent. This thread is not about you.


Please remember that. And respect that.

I'm not focusing "all my energies" on proving my point. I rarely post here.

Mrs.O and I spend 2-4 hours EVERY WEEK doing the MB lessons. We plan 15-20 hours a week of UA. We went on a 4-hour date Friday night. We had another 4 hours of UA yesterday, including walking 30 minutes together, 1 hour of conversation/coffee and 2 hours of TV together.

That compares with maybe an hour total spent posting here.

I agree 100%. Now tell that to serendipitous and any others who make their entire post about ME.

None of my posts until my response to sere was about me. Before that, I didn't mention my situation or anything about myself.

I am a lightning rod for some reason I can't understand. I will bow out.

One last point, sere.

My post to TA was about RECREATIONAL COMPANIONSHIP, not about conversation.

Be the one who stops.
Please.

I'm not sure that the people here post to prove a point. They post for many reasons, to share experiences, for support or to give support and also they post in order to debate or discuss issues.


Surely in learning how A's can start, we are also learning how to protect ourselves in the future.



I have no problem with you posting Ottert, I have no problem with you discussing issues here. Why would I have a problem with that? I do have concerns that you only seem to post on this particular issue (the potential for an A when members of the opposite sex converse) because it appears that you are not willing to take on board or accept as valid the opinions of others and only want to prove to your wife and others here that your opinion is right.

I worry that too much of your focus remains in proving that you are right and right now ALL your focus should be on building your M. I worry when you ignore the threads and posts that may be helpful to you and then jump on a comment that you read that you think might serve your purpose. I worry that useful threads which you hijack lose valuable contributors because people are afraid to post to you. Most of all I worry that you reading here in the hope that you'll find a thread in which you can reiterate your views on how dangerous conversations can be is becoming unhealthy for you and is making you combative when there is no need for any sort of combat here.




Ottert, I am surprised you would attack me in such a way. I have always posted constructive advice to you in an effort to help and I did say in my most recent post that you could ignore me if you liked. Everyone here wants you to successfully rebuild your M, including me. I'm sorry you can't see that.

I think this thread should be about any and all of us, if anyone wants to know my opinion!

Pep, I understand your point about the original article having been written for "church people". I did not read the article at first, but just your summary of it, which started at Step 1. Underneath the summary, you asked your question, which set me off!

If we read the article in its context, you can see that the writer was addressing it to his group. These were people who were brought together to celebrate and practise Christianity, which should preclude their having affairs. Yet, as he said, affairs do happen among churchgoers. He was asking his group to look at their own behaviour and see how far it had gone.

I can see that it isn't meant to address all affairs, including those of the kind my H (and yours, I think sere) had. It is probably fair to say that it was aimed at people who participate in mixed group activities, and who would not dream of seeing these as a place to pick up other people.

See what you started now, Pep?

Sorry, my post took ages to write in between sorting supper out for the kids so I didn't see this before I pressed submit.