The facts are always the same.

Person A is married and is seeing Person B. This is NOT RIGHT.

Circumstances may vary but in all cases exposure is necessary!

Tax Attorneys


Dr. Harley is free to deviate all he wants from his plans. He's the doctor and relationship/marriage expert. The "patients" (usually betrayeds) are free to use or not use any plans, principles and/or methods they choose to fix or end their marriage too. However, "we" aren't qualified to decide when or where it's appropriate to deviate. We aren't experts. We ARE merely facilitators of the MB program as best we can. You want a different opinion or a deviation...call the Harleys...don't expect it here and certainly don't offer as "advice".

But it is interesting to note that his words and writings on exposure have gotten stronger after seeing and hearing about the success the forums have had with exposure. The data has gone upstream in this case and convinced him further (of what he already written and suspected was the case).

Mr. W

Mr. W. I don't disagree with anything you wrote; provided, however, that the application of the concepts are as Dr. Harley advocates in his published (and unpublished) works. For example, an "Exposure 101 thread" specifically eliminates some of Dr. Harley's caveats regarding exposure.

That's true, he doesn't. But he does say that the only way fully to recover is permanent separation.

The words "the only way" are the significant ones in that sentence. There is no wiggle room or "exception" there. In fact, he writes

In spite of career sacrifices, friendships, and issues relating to children's schooling, I am adamant in recommending that there be no contact with a former lover for life. For many, that means a move to another state. But to do otherwise fails to recognize the nature of addiction and its cure. Coping with Infidelity: Part 2: How Should Affairs End?

Dr Harley says we cannot know whether the affair is an addiction or not, so rather than take the risk that a particular affair is in the minority of cases that is not an addiction, permanent separation is always required.

You are not making any point worth making here, If "in general" a BS should address all the root causes and offer a plan for recovery, then the exception must be that sometimes they do not do that. Sometimes, therefore, they do not look at root causes or offer a plan for recovery. What is left after that? What are you suggesting?

It is really stretching a point to take the statement "I highly recommend" to mean "I do not recommend".

No, that is not a logical deduction. Saying that one set of plans is not guaranteed to succeed is not at all the same as positively saying that another set of plans might. In this case, Dr Harley is like the surgeon who recommends surgery and chemotherapy to treat cancer. Any surgeon will tell the patient that a particular treatment is not guaranteed to work. That is not the same as their saying that another path might work. Indeed, the surgeon is likely to say that other treatment has an even poorer chance of success than his recommendation. A doctor recommends what he believes to be the best treatment, surely.

If a doctor thinks that another path has a chance of working he will tell his patient so. Dr Harley tells us that leaving the affair to die of its own accord might work - since most affairs die within two years of being revealed - but he also tells us how unpleasant it would be to live with the WS while he or she continues the affair, and he does not recommend doing so for long. He does acknowledge that there are other paths, but he does not recommend them. What is your problem in understanding that?

You are really clutching at straws with these very selective quotes, dec. Anyone with normal sensibilities, and who is looking for a solution to the problems in their marriage, reads the books and articles are they are intended to be read. They are not meant to be as a lawyer might read a draft contract - looking for the get-out clauses. Why have you come here finding fragments of statements that can be interpreted as advising conflict avoidance?

Anyone with normal reading skills can understand that Dr H recommends that couples should actually use his plans. He has not developed and written up those plans so that people can see how to AVOID using them.

You are confusing his CONCEPTS with generalities he has made about affairs, marriages, and/or tactics. The examples you post don't support your point. [more on this later] This thread addresses his CONCEPTS for recovery from an affair. Dr Harley might use qualifiers in his descriptions of the affair, but he does not cut corners on the implementation of his principles.

In fact, if you want to recommend to board members that they do cut corners, you will be violating the TOS and will probably find yourself escorted off the board. With the approval of Dr Harley. Does that sound like he tolerates corner cutting?

Did you read the post I posted above? Does that sound to you like he advocates corner cutting:


Once again, Dr Harley is very, very specific about the implementation of his principles. There is no corner cutting. In the 2 cases that are referenced above, for example, corner cutting has resulted in resumed affairs.


He "highly recommends" all of his concepts in every applicable case so this paragraph makes no sense, nor does it support your point. In the case of workplace exposure, you are again confusing a TACTIC with a concept. It is understood that the TACTICS will be very different in every case because there is a different cast of characters in every case. He recommends exposure in every case, for example, and doesn't suggest corner cutting on that. That is not to say the exposure targets will be different in every case.

Maybe if you produced an example of him telling someone not to expose a KNOWN affair, you could make your case. Do you have such an example?

Otherwise, assertions made with no substantiation can be dismissed the same. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to back up your claims.


Please post your credentials and your experience as Dr Harley has done. Unless you can prove that not following these concepts produces a better result, THAT IS GUARANTEED, then you are just talking crap. Dr Harley backs up his program with 40 years of experience and thousands of case studies. If you are going to challenge these concepts, please back it up.

But you need to establish such a case and you have not done so. If the thread was started to "profess a general rule without regard to specific facts and circumstance" it is up to you to make your case. Assertions made without substantiation can be dismissed the same.

The same with your assertion about exposure. Where is your substantiation? I see none.

As we say in Texas, money talks and bullsh** walks; without backing up your assertions, it is all bs.

And I am fine with that. The purpose was to help posters with exposure tactics and best practices. That is what the thread achieves.

If the thread was started to "profess a general rule without regard to specific facts and circumstance" it is up to you to make your case. Assertions made without substantiation can be dismissed the same.

Wyatt does a better job with a thesaurus than with her usual 6-shooters! Them marital-relationship Clantons have no chance!

yeehaw!!

But, UNLIKE the forums, Dr. Harley gets to practice one on one with his/their clients. If he wants or thinks exposure to the wayward's workplace might not be in the betrayed spouses best interest (e.g. - perhaps a completely financially dependent betrayed wife with young children) he won't even mention it. Conversely, he if doesn't think the caveat applies then he doesn't mention or discuss the caveat not only because it doesn't apply but ALSO because after years of practice he knows that exposure requires the betrayed spouse to make a leap of faith and many a betrayed spouse will seek out any and all loopholes they can find to 'caveat' themselves out of exposing. They will sabotage their best interests out of fear.

On the forum, we aren't "one on one" and if the collective "we" always harp, focus upon, debate, argue about a possible deviation from the general plans (any more than just mentioning it) then "we" know the weakest most fearful betrayed spouses will seek out such (on someone else's thread) and grab a hold of the caveat as their lifeline to inaction. "We've" learned over years of advising that we can't focus on the deviations because we end up in endless discussions and arguments about those deviations instead of actually advising and helping the newbie betrayed spouses (and endless lurkers) take ACTION. ACTION saves marriages.

We also know that there are those out there on the internet opposed to assisting and saving marriages. "They" enjoyed the way this board used to be whereupon there were endless personal banter, chatter, disruptions, debates and arguments questioning the fundamental ideas of Dr. Harley's plans and concepts. They used this as the springboard of purposefully distracting the board from actually helping people. I've often compared it to the emergency room in a hospital. Trauma patients arrive and instead of getting the doctors (Dr. Harley) help in the form of Doctor approved plans and treatment...they get a gaggle of nurses, other patients (recovered and unrecovered), candy stripers, medical assistants, paramedics, and janitors in their room all standing around arguing about the best possible medical course of action. The "treatment" has already been decided but how confident is the "patient" going to be in taking it when tons of questions have arisen not to mention what kind of Doctor allows the gaggle to debate such in front of his trauma patients? Nobody would argue that in a hospital that trauma patients need professional medical attention...not "peer" help and debate. Same applies here.

Anyway...I'm rambling and it's a shame to mess up this thread with your debate about one minor caveat. We're still in the emergency room and this is an "Other Topics" discussion.

Mr. Wondering

The problem with dec's "interpretation" is that he doesn't comprehend the difference between a generalization about affairs/marriages/addictions and Dr Harley's concepts. That makes his entire premise wrong, ie: that Dr Harley makes deviations and vague generalities about his concepts. Start with a wrong premise, end with a wrong conclusion, hence his wrong conclusion. [a conclusion that was very sloppy in it's reasoning, I might add]

These so-called "deviations" are not deviations at all. Dr Harley doesn't deviate in his own practice. In fact, he is quite adamant that anyone who teaches his concepts does not deviate. [witness his board TOS about this very issue] This was an issue that he addressed with his Exposure article in 2009 because of varying advice being given by his children. In his practice, he tells people not to deviate and there are untold posts over on the private forum attesting to this fact:


In his recent book Effective Marriage Counseling, pg 30, he made it clear he does not tolerate deviations:
The "caveat" about workplace exposure is not a "deviation" at all. The principle is exposure. The cast of characters and the tactics will be different in every case. That is not a "deviation" in his concept of exposure, but a tactic. In some cases, workplace exposure is not necessary because it is not a workplace affair. In the case of SAHM's all he is saying is that economic considerations should take place when discussing workplace exposure. He never said he was against it, but it should be taken on a case by case basis. Which it IS on this forum.

When Dr. Harley (and his kids) address a client...they don't speak in generalities. Unlike non-directional talk counselors who try to draw the answers out of you, Dr. Harley would never tell a patient "In general, I recommend separation when at least one spouse cannot control destructive behavior". He would simply assess the case and say "You need to separate and let's go ahead and implement that now".

We do the same thing on the forum...and if a possible odd-ball fact pattern presents itself then they'll need to either accept our (you, me, everybody's) best guess at Dr Harley's response or call him/them themselves to get his real reaction and assessment. But our true goal on a help thread is to help the poster bust the affair and/or recover their marriage not to have endless disputes about what Dr. Harley might advise.

We aren't dolts that can't think for ourselves. But we are not to be mistaken as professionals. Someone coming to the internet for help better understand quick that they are getting exactly what they paid for. I view MB as the absolute least dangerous and least risky of all infidelity advice forums. Most sites are a complete free for all. You roll the dice and may get the worst poster taking a shine to your thread right off the bat and have no idea he's some idiot who's wife has been cheating on him annually for the last 10 years. Often there is no standard of right and wrong. All opinions are considered equal. "Peers" don't even have to share their histories (so they act like peers when they are anything but). Even unacknowledged OW and OM can give betrayeds "marital advice" and if you try to warn the original poster...you get zapped for being non-responsive to the original poster. At least we here have FREE, AVAILABLE, PROVEN methods, concepts and principles with which to GENERALLY advise people what to and hold the other posters to some standard of accepted forum advice.

Mr. W

Well Dr Harley just posted on madmommas thread that he supports workplace exposure.

Now he just needs to update his books because I was also confused about exposure and snooping (nowhere is SAA) and had to learn about it on the forum

You have an old edition. Newest edition released last year (or maybe 2010) already has a whole new exposure section in it. I think an excerpt has been posted at one time or another.

Mr. W

Here: Dr. Harley updates HNHN with exposure stuff

*so maybe he didn't update SAA (maybe he didn't want to scare off any waywards that might read it after getting busted)

The problem with pointing out "exceptions" is that EVERYBODY thinks they are the exception to the rule. Everyone's a special snowflake and you don't understand, yadda yadda. Unless the doctor himself advises this very rare change of circumstances knowing the intimate details, then the plan is the same for everyone.

And the self-diagnosed special snowflakes are always the same ones that float right into false recovery.

He did add it to SAA too, but I don't think the revision is coming out until later this year.

Dr Harley posted his view of workplace exposure on the thread of a SAHM today:

here

Dr Harley doesn't states that (i) such decision should be made unknowingly and without regard to possible loss of employment and possible legal action, or (ii) such action is recommended without at least acknowledging such possibilities (as his above post so recognizes).