I'm listening to Marriage Builders radio, and Dr. Harley just made the comment that if Joyce were to have an affair he would try Plan A.

That's different from what I've heard before.

I seem to remember it written as;

"I would never see or speak to her again."

and for her

"She would KILL me."

However, I think that part of that is demonstrating the difference between NOT having faced infidelity, and having faced infidelity.

I certainly thought that I would want to leave, Plan D/FU.


Not the case now, is it?

Being 'new' here, how was this different than before?

Thanks.

I paraphrased, and can't seem to remember which infidelity article it was stated in.

I stand by my statement. Assumptions we make are made because we can "Only see from where we are standing."

Here's Dr. Harley's prior statement which others over the years have taken literally as an indication that Dr. Harley wouldn't undertake the very Plans he was promoting on his website. Often the argument would come from someone encouraging someone to give up on their marriage (and give up HOPE) and kick their spouse to the curb. They'd say: "Even Dr. Harley says he wouldn't "Plan A" his wife".

[when you have the most successful program on the web for infidelity (and you give it away for free) you are bound to be attacked over and over again by doubters, haters, evil and the very other men and other woman to whom MB represents a real threat.]




Link: Coping with Infidelity:Part 4 Overcoming Resentment

Thank you very much, Mr. W.

Echo... echo... echo...

As stated, I think it's demonstrating the mindset of not having faced infidelity, and facing infidelity.

How about your testimonial? Was that your mindset before you faced it yourself?

It's kind of like saying "I can't imagine living without my legs, I would kill myself!"

And then you lose your legs, and you learn that you DON'T want to die. But, now you have to adapt and change to your new situation.

Not all who have pointed out his stance are attacking the program. So don't try to paint with that brush.

I guess I was in the minority then if most couples try to reconcile.

Great!

But I understand the sentiment. I told my ex-wife when we were dating that if she betrayed me, I wouldn't divorce her, I'd kill the man she was in bed with and claim he was raping her and I was acting in defense of my wife.

I had told her of my walking in on a college friend and the woman I thought I would marry.

Needless to say, I lost two friends that day.

But it's not about me. Please, don't paint everyone who asks honest questions as attackers or haters. It's not a true characterization.

I think folks need to know the gravity of the difficult task they face. It's impossible if the WS wants nothing to do with recovery, regardless the program. That's not necessarily a fault of the program. But if someone is given false hope, it could further weaken their chances at recovery.

I'm quite sure somebody fighting to save their marriage knows the gravity of the situation, without hope-breaking comments.

They don't come here to be discouraged, their WS does enough of that without help.

By the way, EE, your question was answered on the radio show today.

EE...

My supposition or whatever you want to call it wasn't about you. I personally don't think you are evil and I don't think you are attacking MB.

However, others have attacked MB over the years and to such a large extent (they used to post here without reservation telling people not to do the plans, not to expose, don't do the MB plans, kick them to the curb, etc) that your posts SOUND SIMILAR to the rhetoric we heard and saw here for far too long. They didn't come right out and announce they had ill-intentions...instead they tried to hid their intentions behind smiles, joking, chit-chat and honest seeming questions and endless distracting debate. Their disguise was niceties. You are an engineer. I find you earnest questioning legitimate though I think you are trying to nail down jello. But I can also see how others question your intentions.

I am sure our questions and emails will soon be answered. Maybe not to your satisfaction but I've put my questions in too as have others so I hope they are being addressed. Please just calm down and the issues SHOULD be discussed again hopefully with more facts. Email me if you want but it is my understanding that you can get in trouble for re-opening issues from a locked thread (at least that's what happened to me once). My apologies to Justuss.

Mr. Wondering

So... you are saying that you didn't want to reconcile? That [i]you[i] didn't try to reconcile?

Great! That's you.

You see from where you stand.

For people that want to reconcile, the landscape appears different.

I'll have to try to listen to the broadcast replay while I do some administriva here at work.

I beg to differ about it not being necessary to tell the participant the full range of possible outcomes, etc.

Why?

Think about the mindset of the typical BS here. Are 100% of them able to use 100% of their reasoning powers in the midst of their crisis?

The answer is no. Some people are crippled mentally, emotionally, physically or any combination of those when faced with an affair.

Even Dr Harley suggests seeing your doctor for anti-anxiety medication for some folks. So what you and I can rationally discuss, analyze and digest well away from our respective betrayals, we cannot assume that someone just hit with the D-Day discovery is able to do at that moment in time.

Maybe they can, maybe they can't. I don't feel right about assuming they can due to the potential state of mind at that moment. Therefore, I think the honorable thing to do is to be 100% open and honest about the scope of the task, the difficulties they will face, the odds of success, etc.

If I'm wrong and they can think rationally at that point, I'm not telling them anything they do not already know. If I'm right, then I'm helping them with the rational thought until they get up to speed after a bit of personal healing and recovery.

So for those reasons, and those reasons alone I think we need to spell out to those who are facing the crisis in those early moments, the gravity and the range of outcomes as well as the likely outcomes.

We cannot assume others think like us. We can't assume they are better, worse or the same. The only safe means is to treat everyone as if we have to spell it all out until we learn otherwise.

Really...

How many minutes in? Do I dare ask for a summary? Is Justuss fine with this issue being blown up again after a thread was just locked?

Mr. W

When the statement most couples try to reconcile, I take that as the couple, as a unit attempts reconciliation.

If I try to reconcile, but my WW doesn't then we are not a couple trying to reconcile.

I can want to reconcile all I want, but it doesn't constitute a couple seeking reconciliation until the other spouse joins in.

So how do you get the idea that I didn't want to reconcile from that. After all, shouldn't it be obvious what "couples try to reconcile" isn't so obvious to you, how many other things that we take as "givens" are not really givens or obvious to the BS facing a newly discovered affair?

The fact that we have so many misunderstandings here should make it obvious (pardon the pun) that what one thinks is obvious may not be on the radar of another.

So don't blow it up. (Not that you are.)

You are a lawyer, so you likely encounter clients who are facing a crisis. (Tax laywer, right, so probably some stressed out clients when they get their invite from the IRS?)

Anyway, you have to recognize when some clients are not going to realize what others think is obvious. Not due to any mental defect, but simply the overwhelming nature of their situation.

Would you be doing your client a favor by assuming they understood the givens? Probably not.

That's my point here. If you want to help someone in a crisis, you may need to help the understand the "obvious" because it may not be so obvious to them at that time.

So why all the reluctance to help someone in that fashion?

oh seriously.

EE are you going to parse every word of every thread from now on?

But we're not functioning in an analytical capacity here. We are peers, not professionals. We bring a bias with us to this site. We know our experience. We know what worked and what didn't, for us. We know what worked for others who have shared with us. And we pass this on to other peers.

You make it sound like there needs to be a disclaimer at the bottom of every post, like the one on my hairdryer: "Do not use in the bathtub."

So you find it OK for folks to misrepresent what you said or did?

I parsed it because first it was a gross misrepresentation of what I said and did.

Second, it proves the point about things that are obvious to one may not be so obvious to another. So if parsing the statement proves the potential for misunderstanding, then I'll parse.

If someone mis-represents what I say, then I'll call them on it.

Your right, we are peers.

And I would hope that you as a peer would respect my experience as much as you would want your own respected.

I don't get the sense that my experience is welcome in this group of peers. We are peers and the experience each of us brings has equal value. Mine is no more and no less valuable than yours.

My outcome was different than other, but is no less valuable.

To suggest that my experience is not welcome is to say that my experience is not valuable.

Most of the very wounded newly discovered Betrayed are here bleeding. They need HOPE and a PLAN. Not statistics on why this will likely not work for them...