Who will actually fight? I asked the question why we are blaming the husband when the acts of the WW are what we need to address?

This whole thread is nothing but blaming the BH. He didn't meet her needs, he didn't hear her, he didn't take the right actions when she had her affair.

If you really want men to fight, then why not stop shooting at them with the criticisms? As I clearly said before, the problem isn't with the men, but what we are tolerating from the women in these cases.

Who will join me going to the state capitol and seeking to have both adultery and choosing a no-fault divorce when there is no marital misconduct grounds to be a unfit parent and an automatic division of assets and debts going to the victimized spouse, regardless of gender?

After all, Dr Harley says affairs are abuse akin to rape, so why are emotional rapists getting primary custody of children? Why are emotional rapists getting ANY marital assets and able to avoid marital debt if their income is low enough?

I am fighting, I'm fighting against the absurd notion that any of this is the BH's fault. I'm fighting against the absurd notion that the BH's should have to do anything to keep his kids or protect the marital assets when faced with an unfaithful or walk-away wife.

So who is going to step up and fight against the nonsense that requires an BH (or BW for that matter) to have to fight about anything. If they are betrayed, the wayward or walkaway (because walking away is betrayal too) gets nothing but a suitcase full of clothes and 50% of the marital debt, period.

Basically, since I've fought and lost and 6 out of 7 BH's who fight also lose, what I suggest is that we change the shape of the battlefield.

The first step is to ensure the betrayed don't have to fight. We need to change the laws such that the betrayed spouse does not have to fight to keep anything, but if the wayward spouse wants anything they have to fight get back in the marriage. Because the only way a wayward, walkway or abuse spouse would get anything is if they convince the one they harmed and a professional such as Dr H, that they are worthy of returning to the marriage.

It takes a unanimous vote to allow the wayward back in.

Otherwise, the wayward is removed from the marriage, any marital assets and 1/2 the marital debt.

So my fight is now against the whole system that would have the betrayed spouse fight to remain in the family.

The wayward should be the one fighting to remain in the family, not the betrayed.

It's time to change the system.

I agree with you 100% that the laws should be changed, EE -- Paying lip service to that here doesn't do much good though, huh?

Mrs. W

I'm not asking you to play lip service. You say we should fight, so what are you doing to change the laws? What can we do? Who would actually support me in seeking to accomplish that in my state?

(BTW, my state's supreme court has ruled that infidelity has no bearing on custody cases, so it's a tough fight.)

Everyone says fight, but who will actually join me in the fight?

Most appropriate for you.
Not most appropriate for a man who wants to try something different, to possibly save the remaining love he has for his WW.
Plan B is appropriate for other BHs who have a different goal.

Really?
What system is that?

I'm curious as to what YOU are doing to change things. You want people to join you in your fight, but are you actually fighting? Are you lobbying for changes in the law in your own state? What actions have YOU taken so far to try to change things?

I happen to agree that it isn't fair for the WW (or WH) to get custody of the kids and half the marital assets. But that's the way the law works right now in a lot of states (mine included). I'm not divorced, and I don't intend to get divorced, so that's probably why I've never joined in the fight against this. But you are, and you have a personal stake in getting things like this changed.

So what are you going to do about it EE?

You are flat out WRONG.
Apologize to me now.

Well I don't think that we live in the same state, EE...Mr. W and I do our share to combat what we can...One of the things we do is support MB and Dr. Harley who DOES do a lot to try and change the laws -- and his is a much bigger voice than is ours...Have you read his book Defending Traditional Marriage?

Mrs. W

To whom it may concern:

I don't dispute this. I simply see the battle differently. The BH shouldn't be trying to win his wife back. The BH should have to option of allow or not allow the WW back to the family. In other words, she should be the one fighting, the one having to choose to plan A or not, because she is losing everything.

Goes along with what ML says. Don't leave. I'll go that further and don't allow your wife to take the children if you even suspect an affair. If she wants to go, she can go. If she wants to spend time with the children, it's supervised at home. But as long as she's fogged out and suspect, she shouldn't be trusted with the children.

Shape the battle so the WW is already on the back-foot and has to fight to get back in, rather than the BH having to fight the same fight.

If she's already gone, then even the prospect of losing her kids, all marital assets and being saddle with 1/2 of the marital debt probably won't change her mind anyway.

I think that has a far better chance of reaching her than counting on a fogged out wayward to give her BH the benefit of any doubt she's having.

I tend to believe what was presented above, the plan A, even if done perfectly is discounted by the 6 out of 7 WW's. So how do you reach the most WW's? It's not by plan A. The cost of getting out of the marriage has to be greater than the perceived benefit for those 6 out of 7.

Right now, there is little cost for the WW to leave, so the majority will take that path of least resistance.

So basically, the rate of success is too low so in your opinion, no one should ever try to save their marriage after infidelity?

I'm guessing we should also tell many cancer victims that the chance of saving their lives is too low, so the doctors aren't even going to bother treating them? If you were diagnosed with a cancer that had a 15% survival rate, wouldn't you at least want to try the therapy? Would you really tell everyone with certain types of cancer to not even bother and just give up and die? Isn't it worth trying to treat something in order to save that 15% that do survive and go on to live fulfilling lives?

Your intent was not that, but look at the responses. The man isn't doing the right things. He didn't meet her needs, he isn't fighting, he's not doing the right things.

I did not say this was your intent, but it is what the thread is largely about.

Again, I'll ask the question you ignored, why do we even tolerate the WW? Why do we tolerate a system where the betrayed spouse, regardless of gender has to fight to keep his/her kids, get support, etc?

I will not apologize for my observations regarding what has been said. I will apologize if you thought I was talking about you personally, as I was not. I do not believe that was your intent.

However, my observation of what has been said stands.

You do not have an issue with Plans A to B to D.
You think BSs , men in particular, should skip right to Plan D.
That is FINE WITH ME if that is THEIR desire.

When it is THEIR DESIRE to try something different , Plans A to B to D, then I think we need to show RESPECT for that particular BH, and help him try.

EE, you can misread my intent and the intent of others all day long, it does not change the fact that this site is supposed to HELP people apply the Harley plans to their own situation IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.

Apologize better. It was not good enough for me.

Read on, you are missing the point, not to mention making an apples to oranges comparison.

But let me see if I can fit my proposal into your analogy.

The BH is the one who gets the cancer diagnosis. We simply don't allow the cancer, the WW, to take away the BH's quality of life. She can't have his kids, she can't take his money, she can't kick him out of the home.

We as a society have a duty to the victims of the wayward cancer to reduce the damage it does to the victim, the betrayed husband.

We do such cancer victims a disservice if we allow the cancer to take away their children, their homes, their savings. When they are weak, we fight the cancer, so they can focus on healing.

If the cancer wants back in his life, she has to stop being a cancer and prove that she's fit to parent, etc.

We don't allow the cancer to make the choices, the patient makes all the choices. The only choice we allow the cancer to make is if she's going to remain a cancer, or become something far less destructive.

And you never answered my first question. What are you, EE, doing to change the laws in your state so that adulterers do not get custody of the kids and half the marital assets?

Apparently, it is you mis-reading my intent. I clearly said I was not speaking about you specifically. But perhaps after clearly saying that and being misunderstood and criticized, I should re-think that.

Nice quote, but why even accept it? After all, we tell folks all the time they should not accept abuse, correct? If folks can deliver the no-tolerance for abuse message here, then why do you criticize me for delivering the no-tolerance for wayward behaviors?

Be honest, have you told someone who suggests no tolerance for abuse that such a policy is fine for them, but if others want to tolerate abuse, then we should support them in that decision?

I agree, we should support someone who wants to save their marriage. So how are we supporting the 6 out of 7 who don't end up with a saved marriage by standing by and accepting the situation as it is?

What are you going to do about the fact that 6 out of 7 betrayed husbands, who apply Dr H's plans end up divorced and most likely visitors to their children?

I'm saying they need to keep their kids from day one. Not allow a change in their home. Don't leave, don't allow the kids to move out. The WW can leave or stay.

If the guy wants to win, I really think his best chance is to first make it clear that she's going to be the one on the outside if she continues the affair. She'll have to move out, she'll have to open a new bank account, she'll have to get a job, she'll have to buy new clothes, a new car, because he's not going to support a wayward spouse.

Now he can say he's made mistakes, he's willing to listen to her complaints and address them with the program, but will not do that as long as there is any sort of contact with the OM.

I have said that I would immediately file for divorce if there wasn't true remorse and repentance in about a nanosecond.

Is that because I want a divorce, or because I want to send a message that marriage means something, and if she's not willing to agree regarding what those vows mean, then I'm not willing to be married to her.

I've also said that the guy should file so he controls the timetable. He can stretch out the time as long as the law allows when he's the one who has filed. He can wait until the last day to do the next step and since she's responding, she can't prepare much in advance.

He can still work on what he needs to, and should do so. Not with any expectation that she'll return, but because it will make him a better person.

If she returns AND actually MB's, then great. If not, then great too, as long as he still has the kids, the house and off-loaded 1/2 the marital debt and no marital assets to her.

I don't think you'll ever know how much I do respect a BH who actually fights for his marriage, having been one who did that very thing.

What I wonder is do you really respect my experience on the topic? After all, my experience is just as valuable and just as worth of respect as the desires of those who choose to fight or not fight.

I've been there. I've fought to win back the WW, remember. I know what it's like not eating or sleeping for the first few months, losing 25-30#, having to go on meds to control my blood pressure and anxiety.

I know what it's like wondering if the best solution is to just end it all with a pistol to the temple or driving into a telephone poll, or pulling out in front of a train.

Dr H is right, it's not for the faint of heart. It's for an extra special kind of man. It damn near killed me. But for the grace of God I didn't take my life, nor did I act on my desires to murder the affair partners.

I don't know if that makes me a good man for resisting those thoughts, or a bad man for having them. But they are something I had to battle. All of it.

I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I told my best friend and his wife that if he ever cheated on her, to call me and I'd straighten him out. I made sure both of them heard me and understood that I was serious. That if he betrayed her, I'd do a little wall-to-wall counseling on him. That if either betrayed the other, that I'd be in the betrayed spouses corner for and do everything in my power to make sure the other was an infrequent visitor to the children.

I can support those who choose to plan A, B or D their spouse and still give my advice. As I've said before, if someone asks me what I would do, I'd tell them, file for divorce immediately, seek to cut them out of everything legally possible, make divorce seem like a very costly choice so that they might choose to work on the marriage.

If they say they want to plan A, B or whatever, I'd support them in their choice.

I can do both without being inconsistent. Because of that, I really don't think I need to apologize.

I cannot apologize because you don't understand what I'm saying. I can apologize because I'm not being clear. But that's as far as I can go.

I'm actually working on a bill. I don't know much about it, but heck, if I can draft a bill, maybe I can find others who are working on the same thing and have a better version than I do.

But I'm an engineer, not a lawyer or lawmaker, so it's not my forte. But I have some examples and that will get me started.

It sure would be nice to find a group who is actively seeking to change the no-fault-divorce laws and has a member of the house who can steer such legislation to the house floor.

So far, I've not found any such group, so perhaps it's time to start my own.

And you believe that a BH in Plan A or Plan B doesn't make a choice?

That's rather disrespectful, EE. There isn't a person on the planet that doesn't realize they have the option of divorce. MB offers another CHOICE for those that don't want to exercise that as their first option...

We can talk about how things ought to be all day long - But HERE at MB we must first DEAL with how things are currently. It does no good to jump up and down screaming "The way things are is NOT FAIR" -- We know that...That will not help a marriage that is in crisis RIGHT NOW...TODAY...SAA is the FRONT LINES - Here it's about helping those that choose to do so with the practical application of what is available to deal with the battle raging right in front of them...

A family that is being destroyed IN REAL TIME, can't rely on what might happen if we all march on Washington...

Mrs. W

EE, what's the intent here? I mean, really - your first post was the one largely responsible for the direction this thread has taken. And no one is arguing w/ you about what's fair or not fair.

You have muddied the waters and what I read as the original intent of this thread by expounding on this idea of what's fair and unfair, about how we need to change the moral reasoning of the law, about how a BH should treat his WW... when the original parameters still have not changed:

*There was an affair
*The BS gets the short end of the stick
*The WS AND the BS have choices to make that are theirs and theirs alone
*IF the BS CHOOSES TO TRY TO SAVE THE MARRIAGE, the MB concepts of Plan A and Plan B are the best bet for that

You cannot change that first one. It's done. Now you do the best you can with that given. Just like everyone else here on the MB WEBSITE and what they are choosing to do with their givens.