Was I unclear when I said:


I think I was pretty clear that ALL the choices save one should be reserved for the BH. The only choice he cannot make is if his wife will end her affair or not.

Every other choice should be his and only his to make.

So how do you get that the BH isn't allowed to choose? He doesn't get to choose if his wife has an affair or not. Unless you are suggesting he be given that level of control???

Fine, my fights the wrong fight. We should just tolerate WW and keep blaming men when the don't fight, or fight the wrong fight, or whatever.

You all have proven my point. Thanks.

I've been told I'm fighting the wrong fight. I've been told I'm fighting the fight wrongly.

I've said given that 85% of attempts by BH's to save marriages end up in failure, what we need to give the guy on the ground to succeed is something that will result in an 85% success rate.

Folks here are suggesting we stick with the 85% failure rate.

For me, a 15% success rate isn't good enough. So I'm looking to change the battle in such a fashion that I believe will produce more success.

I believe that if the wayward party has more to lose, such as custody, all marital assets, etc, there is far more incentive for her to return to the marriage.

We've already read where even when the BH plan A's, the vast majority (6 out of 7) don't believe him and continue with the affair and the divorce. I believe part of that is because the typical WW can remove the BH from the family, but keep the assets and the children and end up with little or no debt.

She believes (usually wrongly) that he's the largest problem in the family and if she gets rid of him, it will be better.

Well maybe it will if he still has to support her and is turned into a visitor to his children.

But what if she was the one left on the outside looking in if she didn't end her affair?

Maybe instead of seeing 85% of those cases end up without a recovered marriage, you would see 85% of the husbands fighting for their families have an intact family.

I'm all for the guy with boots on the ground. The current battle plan only works for 1 out 7 of them.

What about the other 6? When are we going to give him a plan that works for those guys?

So please, don't tell me I'm not supporting the guy on the ground. I am. After all, folks are content with a 15% success rate.

I'm not!

EE, the way it looks to me, your plan probably wouldn't result in many Recovered marriages either. It may result in fewer divorces, but merely staying married doesn't equal a recovered marriage. Sure, WW's may choose to stay if they were threatened with losing everything if they left, but would they be staying for the right reason? Would you really want your WW to stay with you just because she's afraid of losing everything? That isn't my definition of a happy, recovered marriage.

I think it's largely the same thing that brings WH's back. They see that what they are leaving behind, the kids, the house, etc is better than what they are getting in return.

So why not give the BH the same advantages that are given the BW?

Remember, the typical BW plan A's while having the kids while her WH is a visitor, if he sees them at all. She's at home while he's living in the OW's apartment, or on his buddies couch.

So why not the same treatment for the WW?

I don't think we should have someone stay because they are afraid of losing everything. However, it likely takes being faced with losing everything in order to drive home the reality of the situation.

After all, doesn't Dr H have a plan A and a plan B? What is plan B but exactly what I'm saying. Plan B is, "You are giving up all of this to have your affair, get your divorce, etc. I will not be your buddy after the divorce, I will do what it takes to ensure the children spend as much time as possible with the morally responsible parent, you cannot come and go from the marital home, or get one dime of support from me for your affair.

What I'm suggesting is that the LAW actually support the betrayed, both husbands and wives if they believe plan B is their best option when faced with a wayward spouse.

The other thing, if she didn't want to stay, she's free to go. In fact, I'd suggest the betrayed spouse is no obliged to take her back.

But the betrayed spouse, under my plan would not be the visiting parent, would not leave the marital home, would not pay alimony or child support, but may receive those, and so forth.

So even if the marriage was dissolved, the impact to him would only be losing his spouse. He would be the primary custodian for his children and retain all marital assets.

That's a far better outcome than WW's being the primary custodian and getting marital assets if not alimony and having control over how the BH's is or isn't spent on his children.

EE, you're assuming then that when there is a WH, 85% of the time, he comes home and chooses to stay in the M after his BW's Plan A and Plan B. I haven't seen any statistics to back that up. Where does Dr. Harley say that Plan A then Plan B works 85% of the time when there is a WH, but it only works 15% of the time when there is a WW?

I agree that your plan would put the BS (H or W) in a better position.

I do not, however, think it would lead to more recovered marriages, which was your original assertion.

I don't know that it works 85% of the time or not. However, I'm pretty confident it's more than 15% of the time.

Isn't the objective to save more marriages?

Even if we can't get to my goal of an 85% success rate, if we can do better than 15% shouldn't we try?

Sure I'd like to see a 100% success rate. But if BW's are having a 33-50% success rate and BH's are having a 15% success rate using the same plans, then maybe we need either a different plan, or similar consequences for both sets of waywards.

I thought I read somewhere that the success rate for BW was 2 to 3 times higher than for BH's. If I'm correct, then that would certainly be a great move in the right direction.

Also remember, that since 2/3rds of all divorces are initiated by women and according to Dr H himself, few of those are betrayed or abused women, simply changing that 15% to 30% would save a lot of marriages.

Thirty percent of 66% is almost 20%. So if you could save 1 out of 5 instead of 1 out of 10, then you are moving in the right direction. (If I've done the math right in my head, a 15% success rate in 2/3rds of all cases is (1/7) * (2/3) = 2/21 or just under 10% so yes, roughly 1/10 of all divorces are turned around by the BH who plan A's.)

I believe if the WW faced the same consequences as the WH, that number could go to 1/5 if not 2/5 which is a significant improvement.

Well to start with, a system that does not take into account the WS's infidelity.

Since we tend to agree with Dr H here, the WS is guilty of the equivalent of rape.

So why isn't infidelity considered in a custody hearing. After all, if someone raped their spouse and chose divorce, we would have no problem with them never seeing their child again. Yet the same folks appear to say they want to work with-in a system that allows those who perpetrated crimes upon their betrayed spouse as damaging as rape to even be considered, let alone allowed to be the primary custodian of a child.

But yet I have to endure how I'm the one out of step here.

Do you really believe in what Dr Harley says? Then why are we discounting him when he says the damage done by the WS is far greater than rape?

When you add in the fact that the WS is betraying not only the BS, but also her children, how can we even consider allowing a WS to even think she could ask for custody of a child with the expectation that a court would grant her custody?

Unlike the rapist, who only rapes the adult victim, the WS rapes everyone in the family, not just the BS.

That's the system I am talking about, a system that would even consider giving such an emotionally abusive person unfettered access to children.

I think people have been pointing out that Dr. Harley has to work within the system that is currently in place. Everyone does.

Currently, a lot of states do not take adultery into account when deciding the terms of a divorce. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.

When someone comes here trying to deal with an unfaithful spouse, it does them no good to go on and on about how unfair the system is and how it needs to be changed. That may be true, but it isn't going to help a newly betrayed person save their marriage, which I believe was Pep's point in starting this thread, to help BH's (who want to) save their marriages.

So that means we shouldn't change the system?

Why not both? After all, do you disagree that if the system is set up to be a large factor in an 85% failure rate, not only do we have to support the guy on the ground while he's in the circumstance. But we also need to change the circumstance.

I thought of this analogy about an hour ago.

Think back to when we had all sorts of troops in Iraq. The insurgents were using IEDs to take out Humvees. I don't know what the real numbers were, but I suspect I'm not too far out of line here.

Let's say that 6 out or 7 attacks on Humvees were successful for the attacker, meaning the vehicle was destroyed and people were killed and injured.

We didn't just keep sending our soldiers out in Humvees as they were forever. That would be insane. Instead soldiers started to apply some battlefield modifications to add armor to them.

That's the advice I'm giving with plan FU. Uparmor your family. Protect them from the attacks of the WW.

At the same time, on the home front, congress sees the problem and starts an official program to up-armor the Humvees as well as new vehicles that are more heavily armored such as the Stryker Infantry Combat Vehicle. A set of "official" solutions to better protect the soldier.

So why not both in our protect marriage situation here? We can give advice to the boots on the ground to best protect his family. I.E. don't move out, don't allow WW or a WAW to take your children, don't finance the affair (giving money to the enemy) etc. When faced with a potential WW, protect your family first until you know what you are really facing.

Because the reality is, you really will not know what it is you are facing if you've never been on the receiving end of an affair before.

First, you won't believe your wife is having an affair. If she utters those words, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you." You'll probably think there is something wrong with you. If you do love her, then you'll probably spend a lot of time an energy looking at what you can do better.

It may work, but as we've seen, it's about a 1 in 7 chance that even addressing those things will work.

That means there is a 6 out of 7 chance that she's trying to take your kids and get out of dodge or force you out of the home. So up-armor your family against this possibility.

This is especially true if you ask for specifics and you just get things like, "we are incompatible" "I don't feel the same for you I once did" or any of the other fog-babble. The newly BH will not recognize this for what it is, and will spend a lot of time and energy on the wrong path.

So I recommend at the very least, digging in and taking a defensive posture until you know what you are facing. Is it a full blown affair. Is it an EA she hopes will turn into a PA? Or is she really just tired of your crap and is going to walk away and try to take the kids with her?

But while new BH's are fighting this fight everyday, who is back home, trying to provide better armor for his family against such attacks? Who has his back on the home front providing better tools to protect him from the enemy?

Who is writing better laws to protect the BS from the sneak attacks of the WS?

Don't we need both? Neither the marriage, nor the legal landscape will get better if no action is taken.

Slavery was once legal.

Women were not allowed to vote.

Jim Crow laws were allowed to remain in effect.

Husbands could beat or rapes wives and it was not a crime.

Do we really have to work within the system as it is today?

Dr. Harley isn't a lawyer either. He isn't a judge or a congressman or a senator.

So yes, he has to work within the system.

He's a marriage and family counselor. It is his goal to help people have the best marriages possible. He may be in favor of changing divorce laws, but I don't think that is his main focus in life.

EE,

Thank you for this summation. I understand much more clearly the interplay among the points you're making.

I agree that more consequences for the WS are fair, and would probably act as some form of compulsion/"think twice" on the WS. I can see how it could lead to more M recovery, though also understand writer's point about staying in the M for the wrong reasons.

No quick fix.

You hijacked this thread so it is now all about you.

I am unappreciative of that.

You have changed the focus of my thread to a different subject of your choosing.
I call that rude.

Really?

Go back and reread my first post in this thread and then the responses to my post and tell me you still believe that.

I gave my opinion and explained why I believed it was best and I got all sorts of anecdotes about how I was wrong.

When I asked the legitimate question about the 85% who do not succeed using the plans, I was told that we should try anyway.

But when I suggest that there is a fight even bigger, I'm told that we have to work within the system.

Sorry, I didn't make it about me. Others took it upon themselves to try to shout me down or reason my point of view away.

This thread is about what the BH faces and his options. I presented a rationale for one of the options presented and a call for changing the landscape so that any wayward, husband or wife doesn't have to fight to remain a key part of his/her family.

The only part that was about me was sharing my anecdote. Apparently, while Mrs W and Mrs Vanilla are allowed to share about them, somehow you find it offensive and rude if I share about myself.

So is it about me, or is it about you controlling a discussion you started? Because the standards are not being applied evenly when you single me out for complaint for doing what most others are doing in this thread.

If you don't want me to comment on what BH's should do, don't bring it up in a discussion. If you want to discuss what BH's should do, expect that I may join the discussion and share my views.

It really is that simple.

Truce.

I never thought it was any sort of fight, or at least nothing personal. Just differing points of view.

If a BH want's to plan A, he's free to plan A. I simply think that he needs to consider defending his family against the natural tendencies of the typical WW, which will be to try to force out the BH, keep him out of his home, away from his children, etc.

I think that the BH has a greater chance of getting noticed, in a good way, by his WW if he is strong, doesn't put up with the crap, and works to remain in the home with his children.

That may mean him being the first to file for divorce, depending on his location as laws vary.

But what is almost universally true is that courts do not want to change the way things are, so if he leaves, or lets the children move, he's probably not getting them back, regardless how great a dad he might be.

Yep, which is exactly why we tell men NOT to leave and not to allow his WW to take the kids without a court order. Plan A does not mean a man bends over and takes it. We often advise them to file for divorce on grounds of adultery so they will have a legal advantage. It means he protects himself and his children legally AND strives to kill the affair while pledging to meet the WW's needs in the FUTURE *IF* she ends her affair and commits to the marriage.

I hope you aren't implying that we just tell men to lie down and allow a tyrant to run right over him. We don't. WE counsel them to fight like hell and take an aggressive approach.