I don't think anyone tells a guy things like that. However, I think many "interpret" plan A to mean just that. Meet her needs, don't make waves, etc.

Now you and I know it's not that way, but when I was a newly betrayed BH, that's how I saw plan A.

It's a fine line. The typical WW isn't going to let her BH meet many needs at all. Probably only the FS and maybe DS if she likes him killing spiders, (LOL.)

But she's probably not willing to talk. After all, if she were, then she would have told him she's not happy and she wants something different. So conversation is probably not a need she'll allow her BH to meet.

SF, do I even have to say. She didn't want it from him before she started her affair, now that she's getting it from someone else, it's unlikely that's a need he'll get to meet for her.

DS, well maybe. Of course if she's not there, if she's already moved out, or is trying to get him out of the home, he's not going to have opportunity to meet that need.

RC, doubtful for reasons similar to above.

FS, probably. I don't think I've ever seen a WW who doesn't accept her BH's money or other financial benefits such as remaining on his insurance policies at work or for the car, or wanting him to keep paying on the mortgage, any car payments, keep using joint credit cards, etc.

So then do we tell the BH to keep meeting needs (plan A) even if those needs help finance the affair?

If you think about the typical WW, any needs she'll allow him to meet probably make it easier for her to have her affair with little benefit to him.

Maybe he keeps her cell phone on his plan so he can look. But most WW's have their own phone that she's not going to allow him to check, so even that's not realistic.

So what needs can a BH meet without being a doormat for the WW who is active in her affair?

Not to mention the whole LB nature of him trying to meet her needs. As someone mentioned above, even his attempts to meet needs are probably taken as LB's because she's saying "why now?" and annoyed that he's now trying to meet her needs, resenting the time where she perceived he wasn't meeting her needs.

That's why I'm saying it's likely pointless to try to meet needs because he'll either be financing the affair, or just pissing her off with his attempts.

Tell her she's free to go, file for divorce and maybe if she's really repentant after she realizes he's a great guy, he can take her back.

If she only comes back because she wants the house or the kids, then he should probably say no.

So I think a BH should do a plan A, but that simply means no LB's. Don't make displays of anger, simply continue to repeat the line that he married her for life and the children and home and whatnot are part of that marriage. If she wants out, he cannot prevent her from going, but he will not abandon the marriage, it's children or assets simply because she no longer loves him.

And file for divorce based on adultery if his state has it. Not to get a divorce, but to send the message that he will protect his family, seeking to be the primary custodian of his children.

If she's an active wayward, she has no place in the lives of her children, and he needs to protect his family from her at this point. Without LB's.

Not even a demand. Simply state the case that he's no willing to remain married to someone who is willing to put her children in such peril as to expose them to another man, and that he is acting to protect his children from her emotional abuse.

In plan A....the betrayed spouse needs to attempt to meet emotional needs whether they are welcomed or not. It lays groundwork to show that there is the possibility, just maybe....they will be met


once the affair dies a natural death.

(In other words, doing so won't kill the affair but allow for future marital recovery once the affair goes belly up)

So, men should still show a willingness to meet the needs during plan A.

No, they should not finance the affair but show a lovely, well funded marital home awaiting attention.

EE, where do you get this stuff? I've seen people on here specifically tell BH's not to finance the affair. Cut off the WW's access to cell phones, credit cards, etc. I've never seen anyone tell a BH that he has to financially support his WW's affair.

As far as meeting needs goes, it's very individual. When I was actively wayward, I actually did allow my H to meet most of the needs you say a WW won't allow her BH to meet. I went out on dates with my H (RC), I talked to him, a lot (C). We had SF. His willingness to meet these needs (many of which were not being met prior to my A, in spite of the fact that I made it very clear that I would like them to be) were what made me ultimately stay and want to work on my M. My H showed me that he actually was willing to listen to me and meet my needs, something I didn't believe prior to my A.

If he had done what you're suggesting, basically tell me I'm free to go and file for divorce, we probably would be, well, divorced right now. I would have likely assumed he wasn't willing to or capable of meeting my needs. Plan A gives the BS a unique opportunity to show the WS what the marriage could be and what they would be giving up if they decide to leave. Taking away that opportunity would probably only increase the chance of the marriage ending in divorce.

Maybe Plan A only succeeds a relatively small percentage of the time, but it seems as though your plan (whatever you call) would have almost no chance at succeeding in saving the marriage at all. It certainly would have killed my marriage.

So are anecdote allowed now?

Writer1, I have no doubt you allowed your BH to meet your needs, congrats, you are in the 15% of WW who were plan A'ed who didn't get your divorce.

But are you the typical case? Given that there are 6x as many WW who got the same plan A, but chose to leave their husbands anyway, I'd say you are not the typical case.

So if we follow your plan, we still the 15% success rate. Is there a plan that will get an even higher success rate, AND even if it doesn't succeed, the guy will not lose his home, his children, etc.

Given how seldom the plan works, my view is we need to first protect the guy from the typical fall out first, losing his home, his children, etc, while at the same time making her husband a more appealing choice to the wayward wife.

My plan may not have worked in your case. However, how many WW's face being a visitor to their children, no longer living in the marital home, having to pay their BH alimony and/or child support, giving up 1/2 of their 401(k) or pensions?

Maybe their husbands wouldn't look so bad to them if those were the costs of their affairs, and they knew they would get nothing from their BH's in terms of wealth or custody of their children.

Now you can argue if they would stay for the right reasons or not, that's why I'd give the BS the right to say no to any WS who wants to return to the marriage.

Or as Ronald Reagan said, "If you cannot make them see the light, make them feel the heat."

Melody already covered how a BH can protect himself (not leaving the marital home or allowing the WW to remove the children from the marital home) while doing Plan A.

What you are basically recommending is that the BH not Plan A at all. You've decided that 15% isn't high enough, so you seem to be saying why bother? Just go straight to divorce and don't even try to save the marriage. You're pretty much hoping that the WW will be forced back into the marriage by making her lose everything (house, kids, etc.). This may technically lead to fewer divorces, but I seriously doubt it will lead to ANY recovered marriages.

The end goal shouldn't be to simply preserve the marriage at all costs. It should be to create a loving, fulfilling marriage for both partners. How would threatening the WS with the loss of children and all marital assets cause them to fall back in love with the BS and want to work on the M? Sure, it may make them stay, but it seems likely that the M will be in even worse shape than it was before, since they will be staying for all the wrong reasons.

What is your goal here?

Writer1,

Since you brought your anecdote here, remember, that I did the plan as described by Dr H. I worked with Steve H until I had no money left.

I asked him if I should still be giving her money, allowing her to use the credit cards, etc, and he said not to make changes to the arrangements as they are.

So I did follow the plan, and guess what, I was one of the 85% of BH's following the plan who got the typical result, divorce.

Now maybe 15% is the best possible outcome. If that's the case, then why not protect BH's and their families from the prospect of the WW not only getting the divorce she'll probably get, but also getting primary custody and a favorable division of assets?

Personally, I think a BH is better off without an unrepentant WW. What I resent is that she can take the house and/or the kids too.

Until the typical outcomes of following the plans changes and given my personal experience with following and executing the plan and ending up a visitor to my child, I cannot say in good faith that it would be my choice in any future action.

If a guy is probably going to end up divorced, I recommend that he end up divorced and the primary custodian of his children and remain in his home.

Change the typical outcome from following the plan and divorce in America and I'll gladly change my views.

But as long as the chance of success is so low and the chance of prevailing if he's responding to her divorce request is also low, I simply recommend he defend his castle from the enemy within, his WW.

EE...

Mr. W met my needs AND protected himself financially, on the custody front and beyond -- AT THE SAME TIME...It is possible to do both...That IS Plan A -- I am sorry that is not how you understood it...

Mrs. W

EE, I think the idea here was you'd let Pepperband's thread be and were welcome to bring it up again on another thread?

Again, ask yourselves if you are the typical WW?

I understand plan A, as presented here. I also clearly understood the words presented by Steve H who said for me not to make any changes to my at the time WW's financial arrangements.

So his advice essentially was to continue to pay for her car, her gym membership, her cell phone, etc while she was having her affair in her rented love shack.

So what is the real advice? If they only need you can meet is FS, then keep meeting it?

What needs will the typical WW allow her BH to meet?

I don't think it helps to canvas the 15% of WW's who are here as they don't represent typical.

What do the other 85% who were plan A'ed by their BH's and chose divorce anyway say? I'd think their answers are far more useful than the answers of those who stayed based on the plan as it is today.

What was it that made their husbands still unappealing 85% of the time when following the plans as outlined and possibly even coached by the MB staff?

That would be some really helpful information for the BH. Far more valuable than hearing from the minority who are attracted back by husbands working the plan.

What prevented the other 85% of WW from returning to their husbands executing the very same plan?

That really doesn't square up with the title of the thread.


Seems both or anything in between the two extremes is within the scope of the question.

Now if she wanted to discuss, Plan A, why you shouldn't kick your WW to the curb, then perhaps she could ask that question. But she didn't, she posed the question presented as the title, right?

Plan B is about riding out the affair to see what the wayward chooses. Its about realizing you can only control yourself, not your spouse.
You do the best you can and

let them choose.

The waywards who choose divorce in spite of being plan A-d and plan B-d made the choice not to end the affair and recover.

Its that simple.

Impossible to answer, since they're not here. Maybe you could ask that question on the TOW website. A lot of them may have ended up there.

Also impossible to quantify, since it is difficult to judge whether or not the BHs actually did a true Plan A. Please understand, I am in no way judging your Plan A here, but it is quite possible (probable even) that many of the BH's in that 85% did not stick to a true Plan A, or did not stick to it long enough. This could be for a variety of very legitimate reasons, but it is certainly going to affect the numbers.

Remember, most affairs die a natural death within 2 years. Some die much faster and some die much slower, but they almost always die. Plan A is generally only recommended for 6 months for a BH. After that, he is advised to move into Plan B, mostly to protect his own LB from so many withdrawals that he loses all love for his WW and no longer desires to work on the marriage once the affair does end.

You've only presented half the argument here by stating that Plan A only works 15% of the time. You've completely left out the second part of the equation, which is Plan B.

True, so perhaps even if BH's were perfect, not just in their minds, but really perfect, WW's would still choose them only 15% of the time.

But has anyone done a "debrief" of WW's who were pursued using the MB methods, Plan A, exposure, plan B and still chose other then their BH?

I would think that checking with those who didn't choose the MB'ing BH would be a good idea to see what was needed to make the plans more effective, or even if there were anything that could be done.

Perhaps 85% of WW are defective? (Now there is a provocative statement!) Perhaps 85% of BH's executing the plans are not worth the effort? (Does that counter the previous provocative statement?)

Or perhaps the plans need some adjustment based on the nature of the WW, or they need some external help to slow the WW down in her quest to be rid of her husband?

What I've proposed in the law changes, is to provide that sort of marital speed-bump to the WW plans. Sure, she can be rid of her BH, but the cost will be far higher than it is today.

But I do believe there is more merit in asking the 85% why they refused their MB'ing husbands than there is in polling the 15% who remained with their MB'ing husbands in the end. Especially if the objective is to save more marriages, wouldn't an "autopsy" on the failure to save the marriage help MB science to have fewer failed marriages?

Actually, I've said the MB plan, which includes plan A, exposure and plan B only work 15% of the time, as was suggested in the initial post.

Maybe I misunderstand, but I believe it's the whole package that only works for a BH 15% of the time.

I don't know about the statistics. Maybe that's a question you could take to Dr. Harley himself. He would be in a much better position to answer this question than anyone here.

As far as changing the law goes, I think most people here do not favor no-fault divorce. Most of also aren't lawyers or in any real position to do anything about it. It's good that you feel impassioned about this and that you want to fight to get things changed. We've made divorce far too easy in this country, which is probably why we have such a high divorce rate.

I've presented it before, but I've not yet received an answer from Dr H. So I'm not confident that asking the question again will get an answer.

Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure Pepperband clarified her intent in subsequent posts. Her feelings looked pretty clear to me.

I'm just curious why you would go about this in a way guaranteed to upset her when you could go about it by starting a new thread and not upset her.

Marcos,

Really, are you saying that this sort of response is her saying that my take on the subject is not her intent to actually discuss the plan "kick her to the curb?"

Because I've not yet seen her say she really didn't want to discuss the option of kicking the WW to the curb.

Now if I've missed where she asked that we only discuss plan A, and not any other options, then please point it out.

However, I still stand by my objection that my view is being singled out, while others are allowed to present their views, their anecdotes and whatever without experiencing the same complaints as I get when I do nothing more than what others are doing in their participation in this thread.

If the standard is no anecdotes, then let's apply it to all, not just me.

If the standard is only the topic, then let's apply it to all, not just me.

If the standard is it's not about a person, then let's apply it anyone, including those who choose to be offended by the observations of others.

I don't mind a standard being enforced, as long as it's enforced consistently and not just imposed upon one while others are given license to violate that standard.

Given the topic, I believe it's a legitimate question to ask if there is a means to make the plans even more successful. If there is something that will make the plans more effective at restoring romantic love in marriages, or if there are that many defective people out there, or something in between.

If the plan works 15% of the time, then that means it fails 85% of the time. What about that plan makes it fail 85% of the time? Is it worth the emotional time and energy to engage in a plan with only a 15% success rate? Are there better means to keep the family intact?

Those are all very legitimate questions that I believe are part of the initial question.

The purpose of this thread, and this forum for that matter, is to discuss/explore effective ways of implementing The MARRIAGE BUILDERS PLANS.

If you, or others, want to discuss a plan(s) of action which is NOT any MB plan, start your own thread.

MarKos spells his name with a K.