What a predicament! I have read through quite a few posts here dealing with the matter of exposure in Plan ‘A’.’ It seems that there is some controversy over whether this policy is the absolutely correct approach to take, or not. By ‘selectively exposing’ an affair, one can tactically apply pressure in points where it might be most effective at a particular time, still hold some cards close to their chest if they’re needed in the future, and minimize the total trauma that the ‘couple’ needs to deal with over their future years together (assuming a healing in the relationship). By exposing the affair through the ‘scorched earth’ policy, one gains the advantage of maximum ‘shock value’ in terms of jolting the WS back into reality, but faces the risk that the trauma induced by the scorched earth approach makes you look like a total a** hole to friends and family for sullying the image of the one you love (because many would argue, perhaps quite rightfully, that a more tactful and selective strategy would be arguably the easier to recover from in a social context). However tactful you are about ‘scorched earth’ exposure, it’s pretty hard to get away from the general perception that one looks like a bit of a jerk for telling the whole world about the indiscretions of someone you are supposed to care about (and who you presumably are hoping to live a happy life again with in the not-too-distant future). In other words, if you’re gunning for the future of the relationship, why create scars from this episode with such a wide range of people – you need a healthy network of friends and family who are not themselves traumatized by this ugliness in order to ‘try’ get back to a normal life. If you know the affair exists and you confront the WS with a well thought-out strategy which they can’t wiggle out of, then who is it really most important for the truth to be know by – my answer: the truth may only need to be known by the two who are most intimately influenced by the course of events. If the truth between the couple is fleshed out, then it seems, for many of these situations, that a large part of the battle is already won. At least with the truth known and uncontested, the two parties are no longer living ‘as much’ under the veil of secrecy and deception. On top of this, do you want a partner back simply because they are “shamed” into returning home by the humiliation of the exposure, or do you want them back because the truth is known and they have chosen to live their life with truth and principle again, and to work on healing their marriage. Maybe “shaming” a person into ending a betrayal is the only way of “shocking” a person into reality again. It still seems that it’s a double-edged sword, because the more shame that is used for the shock treatment, the more the couple has exponentially increased the damage to their social network… the social network that they will ultimately need to re-enter a healthy, loving relationship again. For this reason, I have some serious doubts about the ‘scorched earth’ policy of exposure that is endorsed so strongly by some. By ‘not exposing at all,’ the couple have the opportunity to emerge from a crisis based on the communication and dynamics between them, the dynamics which they ‘own’ entirely themselves – in other words, the influence for the two to come together is sourced by what happens ‘between them’… the coming together is powered by truthful and principled communication, not by the negatively-oriented influence of shame. I’m not saying that shame doesn’t take it’s place in keeping human affairs in balance, but I am questioning whether a couple doesn’t already have enough to tackle without facing the mountain of trauma and stigma left by a ‘scorched earth’ approach (and to some degree even a ‘selective’ use of exposure). Some have argued that the ability to emerge from this ugliness unscathed by the additional trauma of “shame” was an important part of their finding peace and resolution again – the fact that they hadn’t told the world accelerated their healing. I am really curious to know whether people feel there is an effective way to tackle these extremely painful circumstances, but without adding to the complexity of the equation by heaping on truckloads of shame and disgrace in the eyes of family, friends, and work associates. Maybe that’s just not reality. Do you think there’s a way of executing an effective Plan A but without the use of exposure – or is Plan A without exposure simply not a Plan A at all?

I haven't a doubt that circumstances can be different for each couples situation.
I have read where exposure shocked the person into shame so badly that they quit the A immediately.
In my case the A came to light but WH protected information so closely that I had to seek info myself. (where, who, when, why, if possible) He moved out when A came to light and still had his secret place to go.
I did extensive investigative work. I know more about this woman then I really care to know but it has given me enough info that WH can't say I don't know about her, she is not something he knows and I don't. She has no mystique now.

So when I approached WH with my knowledge of it all a few weeks later. He didn't stop A but I could see a noticable change. He started talking more, he is around more. He hasn't stopped A, but there was a definite change.

I see your point that exposure to family can be hard for the WS to come back to recovery. But I see it simply as their facing the truth.

I'm the BW and along with exposure with family and friends I have included my wrong doings in our failing marriage when I talk to them. I don't place entire blame on WH.

I have had nothing but support in my decision to attempt to save marriage. I wouldn't have gotten that without exposure. Not all friends believe they could do the same. The exposure in my case has been my support system.
I have many people that are in my life that are aware of the problem and keep me staying the course (that I've decided) . . . which is plan A.

And when WH does interact with these family members or friends he is being supported in the sense that they are very well aware of what is going on and are there for him also. He in some cases has no idea that they know. They have chosen themselves to not let him know . . . and thats okay with me. Their intent is to allow him to feel free to talk if he so desires without feeling pre-judged. (as I said, we are blessed)

I have spoke with one of his closest friends that doesn't live around us anymore if he would make the special effort to be available to him. I told the friend up front I have no desire to know what they talk about or wish to manipulate his thinking. I just want my husband to have all the support he can get. And this friend has done so. I have the feeling WH hasn't opened up completely but I feel comforted that his friend is aware of situation enough that whatever way our M goes, he will be looked after.

I realize that many other situations this couldn't and wouldn't happen. We are blessed to have a great circle of friends and family that supports us however this turns out.

Sure would have loved the exposure to had shocked WH into stopping A, it didn't.
But the exposure has taken much of the mystique from his sneaking around and doing something that no one knows about. He did love that mystique.

I honestly cannot see a circumstance where no exposure should take place.

Post Mark,

IMO the amount of exposer is completely up to the WS.

If when the BS finds out, the A stops, then only 3 need to know (WS, BS, OP)

However, If AFTER D-day the A doesn't end then a progressive escalation of Exposer seems a balanced way to go.
IT gives out the incentive for the WS to stop being selfish, but still leaves a measure of control for the BS.

But if they insist on persisting then:

Of course if OP is married then start with OPS.
If affair is job or career related..... then superiors and perhaps coworkers.
Immediate family.
If religious, pastor or other leader.
Extended family.
Friends.
MC
& if all else fails ..........The Street corner.

(Only persons who should be protected are young children.)

Also I recommend telling OPS even if A does end, just to make sure it stays ended.
Plus wouldn't you want to know?
But that is a personal choice.

In my way of thinking, it is the WS choice as to how many people know.
That range can be as small as the 3 (4) in the dysfunctional triangle, or as large as the whole world. Whatever it takes to accomplish the goal (Ending the A For Ever!)

When revealing, I also believe that other people only need to know the basics. Just that he/she IS having an A, and that you still love them & just want them to stop the A and come back and work with you on the M.

But of course each WS and situation is different.
YOU know better then anyone on a board what is more likely to work with your own WS, depending on their personality as well as the particulars of the A (one night stand, just "extra" on the side, long term, soulmate crap, ect,.)

So there's my 2 cents.

NOW Questions for you:
Are you struggling with this dilemma?
Care to give at least a brief description of your situation?

It can really help you in you getting answers that fit your situation better when some back ground is known. Just a thought.

Lastly, This is not a criticism,(suggestion) but in the future please try to break up your posts into paragraphs. One long one is just very difficult to read.
The easier it is to read and therefore understand, you'll end up getting even more responses.
Sorry, Not trying to piss you off.

In any case,
Take care.......make sure to keep posting and learning.

I didn't follow all the rules of Plan A. Not sure if it helped or not. I did not say one word about the A until FWS told his mom. He just said that a third person was involved. Once he let that out of the bag, I felt free to tell her that it was a PA. That is it.

As a BS, I probably didn't get all of the support I needed, but then I suspect everyone would have been telling me to leave. My IC essentially said that. I don't think I would have received support for Plan A.

Because my FIL had an A a couple of years ago, MIL was very supportive of Plan A.

I have to say that FWS has always been concerned with how others see him, so for my family to find out he had an A, I wonder if recovery would have been more difficult.

I'm not saying one way is better or not. I'm just saying that I did selective exposure and it worked for us.

As devil's advocate, though, I can understand exposing the A as a way to end the A. We are not talking about someone who is thinking clearly. WS' have no idea what is going on and if you want to begin your recovery, the A has to end.

I'm a firm beleiver in the 'scorched earth policy'.

Let me explain. A's thrive in an atmosphere of mystery and secrecy. The thrill of not getting caught, of it being the affair partner's "little secret" and of it being their own little world all add to the appeal and the fantasy of an A.

I do not believe that in disclosing an A that one looks like a jerk. Quite the opposite, in fact. The person who discloses the A (usually, the BS) is doing it to protect their M, protect their family and protect themself. Yes, the WS will be angry at that moment and why wouldn't they...you destroyed their fantasy world!

Personally, I disclosed my FWH A's to anyone who asked how I was doing. I was open and honest and told them exactly what was going on in my life. I did not stand on a street corner and yell it to the world but, I did not make the effort to protect my H and his A's! He was a grown man and like the rest of us needed to be accountable and responsible for his actions. In the beginning, after disclosure, my FWH admitted he felt embarassed and ashamed around those who knew. Those feelings faded as he recovered and grew as a man. His hard work and renewed committment actually garnered him alot of respect from the people that knew about his A's.

My FWH was not shamed into ending his A's. Disclosing his A's forced him to face reality. He had to deal with how his behaviour had impacted his family and his friends. He was forced to face the facts. Look at it this way...disclosure is much like an intervention for someone who is addicted to alcohol or drugs. These individuals are forced to face their destructive behaviours and forced to see how their behaviour has negatively impacted those that care about them. It's not about shame or guilt; it's about facing the truth of who you are and what you've become. Sometimes, this way of doing things is effective, sometimes it's not. There are no guarentees that disclosure, plan A or plan B will work. BUT, by using them you certainly increase the odds that the M will recover.