What's "NUCLEAR" about "nuclear exposure" - 11/18/10 07:08 PM
Well it's come to my attention that the term "nuclear" as in "nuclear exposure" as we use that term here on the MB forums has been a problem for a couple of persons so I thought I try to help them out.
First this is what Dr. Harley's words are about exposure as will appear in the upcoming revised edition of His Needs, Her Needs:
Dr. Harley - Exposure:When Should an Affair be Exposed 10-28-10
With the pertinent language [emphasis mine]:
Next a little history of the term "Nuclear Exposure" as used on the MB forums.
The term "Nuclear Exposure" is really a MB forum term. The first 4 examples of the term that I could find were used by the poster Aphelion. Here they are [emphasis mine]:
So in 2005 the term was used a total of 5 times on the forum. In his case he was really referring to confronting OM directly and "blowing up" the affair. "Exposure" seemed to be about confronting OM and merely threatening "nuclear exposure", which is not really what the term has come to mean on MB thereafter. However, Aphelion did more appropriately use the term and narrow down his definition of the term "Nuclear Exposure" in the last post above in early 2006 as "all your friends and family, and yes, all your children including OW's".
So then in 2006 the term "nuclear exposure" started being used more regularly by others besides just Aphelion. According to the search feature, it "appears" 22 times in 2006.
Here's one:
Here's another nice one by Longhorn balancing the former poster WAT's concentric circles of exposure theory against the newer term "Nuclear Exposure":
Here's one by Nottoday I liked from 2006. What I like is the limiting of the definition of "nuclear" to "all possible targets". He doesn't say expose to the whole world but rather "nuclear" refers to a one time BIG BANG of exposure to specific people "targeted". It's not a scud missile..."nuclear exposure" as used on the forums is "targeted".
So thereafter, "nuclear exposure" became a more widely used term. It appeared 30 times in 2007, around 48 times in 2008, 109 times in 2009 (35 or so times in one thread that had "nuclear exposure" in the title) and finally, about 200 times in 2010 so far. Interestingly, the exact term has been used very few times by MelodyLane our resident exposure expert and I have never saw it used as a reason to expose to hundreds of extraneous persons only remotely associated with the Wayward Spouse or the public at large.
So MY OPINION:
I think term "nuclear exposure" as used on the MB forums (and consistent with Dr. Harley's words about exposure) can be defined as:
Our Goal as Peer Marriage Coaches
Our goal here on the MB support forums is to motivate newbies facing this overwhelming and non-instinctual task to undertake the utilization of this most powerful tool to break up their spouses affair and save the family/marriage that THEY CAME HERE SEEKING HELP TO SAVE as well as coaching them how to do it right and in the techniques of proper "TARGETING" of exposure candidates. Generally, the whole world doesn't have to know...but 1/2 efforts achieve 1/2 results. Miss a few of just the right persons and the exposure may just fail. Instincts, IMO, will have a BS erring on the side of underexposing the affair...so our goal should be to help them see that expanding their targeting system is USUALLY worth the effort.
CAVEAT:
In the end...it's the exposing BS's decision. It's his/her life and his/her consequences. We can direct him or her to what we've seen work here in the past and our opinions of what they should do...but ultimately it's their call. Just because we know what works best most of the time doesn't mean we have the answer to any specific individuals situation. Though VERY unlikely, less exposure may have worked just as well to bust up the affair. We DON'T and CAN'T know with certainty so we are just playing the odds and we do a disservice if we don't at least offer a poster seeking advice the best odds of saving their marriage. That said...they take the risk by accepting FREE ADVICE on the internet and they'd be well-advised to use some common freaking sense when applying anything they read on the internet to their own lives. I assume no responsibility for someone else's failure and no accolades for someone else's success. We are just TRYING to be non-professional PEER marital coaches assisting people in THEIR decision process using our experience and knowledge of the MB plans as we know them today. We aren't perfect.
What do you think?
Mr. Wondering
*"Documented infidelity" - means before you run around exposing anyone broadly you better have documented proof to protect yourself. We live in a litigious society. I'm not too concerned with actual Waywards suing someone for defamation because generally most Waywards DO NOT want to submit themselves to open depositions or open court and flaunt their waywardness for the world to see. There is a big reason they keep their affairs secret...because they KNOW it's wrong and the last thing they want to do is further advertise their wayward behavior by suing someone. What I'm referring to is you better be right. If you expose someone claiming they are committing adultery but you have no proof whatsoever....whether you are right or not, you're asking for it. You could be wrong (maybe they haven't had sex..yet) or they could have covered their tracks well enough that they THINK they can sue you and PROVE you wrong. They MAY be lying but if you can't at least demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they are or were having an affair you may be subject to civil penalty for defamation, slander, invasion of privacy, etc. If you don't have good documentation of a physical affair...don't call it a "physical" or "sexual" affair. Just say it's an "affair" (which is inclusive of the term emotional and/or sexual affairs not to mention it protects you from many defamation per se statutes which often include specific utterances of sexual immorality...the word "affair" is not necessarily an "utterance of sexual immorality").
First this is what Dr. Harley's words are about exposure as will appear in the upcoming revised edition of His Needs, Her Needs:
Dr. Harley - Exposure:When Should an Affair be Exposed 10-28-10
With the pertinent language [emphasis mine]:
Originally Posted by Dr. Harley
...the issue of exposure comes up when a betrayed spouse has first learned about the affair. Should it be exposed to others, or kept secret? I generally recommend exposure. When should it be exposed? I usually recommend that it be exposed immediately. To whom should it be exposed? I recommend that family, friends, children, clergy, and especially, the lover�s spouse be informed. Exposure in the workplace depends on several factors.
There are many reasons for this recommendation, but the primary reason is based on my belief that the more people know about what I do in my most private moments, the safer I am to others. Infidelity is one of the most painful experiences one spouse can inflict on the other, and it�s far less likely to take place, or continue to take place, when everyone knows about it.
There are many reasons for this recommendation, but the primary reason is based on my belief that the more people know about what I do in my most private moments, the safer I am to others. Infidelity is one of the most painful experiences one spouse can inflict on the other, and it�s far less likely to take place, or continue to take place, when everyone knows about it.
Next a little history of the term "Nuclear Exposure" as used on the MB forums.
The term "Nuclear Exposure" is really a MB forum term. The first 4 examples of the term that I could find were used by the poster Aphelion. Here they are [emphasis mine]:
Originally Posted by aAphelion 7/1/05
In my case, FWW packed up and left the morning or D-Day 2. I believe she expected OM to join her. He didn’t. And I further headed that off in a confrontation with him and threatened nuclear (and I mean big nuclear, not core family nuclear) exposure.
Originally Posted by Aphelion 9/16/05
W moved back home after meeting all the requirements in my Plan B letter, with proof. This included an apology letter to OM W on top of the NC letter, Retrouvaille, MC, IC (a different one this time), returning to an active church involvement, total access to phone and computer accounts, me confronting OM, total nuclear exposure, and a half dozen additional things unique to us. And I waited to see her proofs endure for several months before I agreed to anything.
Originally Posted by Aphelion 11/22/05
I know the helpless feeling. FWW left to be with OM. He did not join her after all (nuclear exposure intervened) but she stayed away almost six months.
Originally Posted by Aphelion 1/19/06
Interfere in the LTA from the OW end as much as you can. She is not going to give up the LTA any easier than WH will. I recommend nuclear exposure. In my case, confronting OM threw a big monkey wrench in the LTA. But this takes nerves of steel and a realization you have nothing to loose.
Originally Posted by Aphelion 3/29/06
Uzzah, you are a walking, talking testament to the need for radical, nuclear, exposure. If all your friends and family, and yes, all your children including OW's, knew about your affair, there would be a lot less obsessing about it on your part. The consequences of your affair need to become more real to you. The sleaze it really was. Real to everyone in your life.
So in 2005 the term was used a total of 5 times on the forum. In his case he was really referring to confronting OM directly and "blowing up" the affair. "Exposure" seemed to be about confronting OM and merely threatening "nuclear exposure", which is not really what the term has come to mean on MB thereafter. However, Aphelion did more appropriately use the term and narrow down his definition of the term "Nuclear Exposure" in the last post above in early 2006 as "all your friends and family, and yes, all your children including OW's".
So then in 2006 the term "nuclear exposure" started being used more regularly by others besides just Aphelion. According to the search feature, it "appears" 22 times in 2006.
Here's one:
Originally Posted by Longhorn 4/1/06
For sure, if you're going to make one final attempt, you need to do a Plan A by the book and that includes a nuclear exposure. You'd need to make sure everyone who can put pressure on the affair finds out about it. If it's "re-exposure," the same criteria apply. Your children aren't old enough to be told, but that sure leaves a whole universe out there of people who can express their disapproval with your WH.
Here's another nice one by Longhorn balancing the former poster WAT's concentric circles of exposure theory against the newer term "Nuclear Exposure":
Originally Posted by Longhorn 6/3/06
Q, welcome back to MB. I'm sorry you're back because that means the adultery isn't over. WAT has suggested you expose in concentric circles of individuals, exposing to some--waiting to see if the effect is sufficient--then exposing to others, etc., etc. Sometimes this works. Sometimes it is self-defeating because it gives the partners in adultery time to "spin" things with folks not included in the first wave. I treasure WAT's advice enough to include his "Exposure 101" thread in my signature block.
On the other hand, some others out here, such as Melodylane, think one "nuclear" exposure is best because it gives the adulterers nowhere to find refuge. It all hits at once and has a greater effect on the adultery. I think the one-time exposure effort is best because I like my weapons to strike hard and with great impact.
You pick the method that suits your situation best. When in doubt, pick the one that is tougher for you and from which you are shying away.
On the other hand, some others out here, such as Melodylane, think one "nuclear" exposure is best because it gives the adulterers nowhere to find refuge. It all hits at once and has a greater effect on the adultery. I think the one-time exposure effort is best because I like my weapons to strike hard and with great impact.
You pick the method that suits your situation best. When in doubt, pick the one that is tougher for you and from which you are shying away.
Here's one by Nottoday I liked from 2006. What I like is the limiting of the definition of "nuclear" to "all possible targets". He doesn't say expose to the whole world but rather "nuclear" refers to a one time BIG BANG of exposure to specific people "targeted". It's not a scud missile..."nuclear exposure" as used on the forums is "targeted".
Originally Posted by Nottoday 5/14/06
With a NUCLEAR EXPOSURE done all at the same time to all possible targets, as you go through the recovery process you will no doubt broaden your allys that can be there for you in a time of need. This approach certainly risk some fallout...there may be friends, family, others who disown the WW or never look at her the same, or their may be others who rationalize her actions along with her that will certain impact your ability to have close relationships with them long term, but the important thing to remember is that when your wife made her choices, she also bears the responsbility for the consequences. It is quite sad that many innocent Japanese citizens lost their lives in Hiroshima, but the fact remains that the Japanese chose to bring the US into WWII when they made their choice to bomb Pearl Harbor.
So thereafter, "nuclear exposure" became a more widely used term. It appeared 30 times in 2007, around 48 times in 2008, 109 times in 2009 (35 or so times in one thread that had "nuclear exposure" in the title) and finally, about 200 times in 2010 so far. Interestingly, the exact term has been used very few times by MelodyLane our resident exposure expert and I have never saw it used as a reason to expose to hundreds of extraneous persons only remotely associated with the Wayward Spouse or the public at large.
So MY OPINION:
I think term "nuclear exposure" as used on the MB forums (and consistent with Dr. Harley's words about exposure) can be defined as:
Quote
NUCLEAR EXPOSURE: A Marriage Builders strategy whereupon a Betrayed Spouse faced with Wayward partner unwilling to completely cease his relationship with his/her affair partner and after taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of his/her situation, undertakes a plan of exposing their Wayward Spouse's DOCUMENTED* infidelity for the objectives of busting the affair up, seeking emotional support for themselves and setting the historical record straight by utilizing broad reaching exposure of such affair by whatever means necessary to communicate effectively, without any forewarning and in a non-vindictive manner, to as many "targets" as possible that MAY have any influence or ability to achieve the three stated objectives. Such "nuclear exposure" will often be much broader on the Other Man/Other Woman side of the fence because the Betrayed Spouse could care less about the reputation of the OM/OW going forward and such broad exposure has dramatically less consequences and embarrassment for the BS themselves. It is also more difficult to target just the right persons on the OM/OW's side to achieve the desired result so "target" as many as possible. However, "Nuclear" does not mean GLOBAL. It's just a massive TARGETED exposure bomb that hits all at once and hopefully, overwhelms and defeats the enemies of the marriage or at least, gets support for it.
Our goal here on the MB support forums is to motivate newbies facing this overwhelming and non-instinctual task to undertake the utilization of this most powerful tool to break up their spouses affair and save the family/marriage that THEY CAME HERE SEEKING HELP TO SAVE as well as coaching them how to do it right and in the techniques of proper "TARGETING" of exposure candidates. Generally, the whole world doesn't have to know...but 1/2 efforts achieve 1/2 results. Miss a few of just the right persons and the exposure may just fail. Instincts, IMO, will have a BS erring on the side of underexposing the affair...so our goal should be to help them see that expanding their targeting system is USUALLY worth the effort.
CAVEAT:
In the end...it's the exposing BS's decision. It's his/her life and his/her consequences. We can direct him or her to what we've seen work here in the past and our opinions of what they should do...but ultimately it's their call. Just because we know what works best most of the time doesn't mean we have the answer to any specific individuals situation. Though VERY unlikely, less exposure may have worked just as well to bust up the affair. We DON'T and CAN'T know with certainty so we are just playing the odds and we do a disservice if we don't at least offer a poster seeking advice the best odds of saving their marriage. That said...they take the risk by accepting FREE ADVICE on the internet and they'd be well-advised to use some common freaking sense when applying anything they read on the internet to their own lives. I assume no responsibility for someone else's failure and no accolades for someone else's success. We are just TRYING to be non-professional PEER marital coaches assisting people in THEIR decision process using our experience and knowledge of the MB plans as we know them today. We aren't perfect.
What do you think?
Mr. Wondering
*"Documented infidelity" - means before you run around exposing anyone broadly you better have documented proof to protect yourself. We live in a litigious society. I'm not too concerned with actual Waywards suing someone for defamation because generally most Waywards DO NOT want to submit themselves to open depositions or open court and flaunt their waywardness for the world to see. There is a big reason they keep their affairs secret...because they KNOW it's wrong and the last thing they want to do is further advertise their wayward behavior by suing someone. What I'm referring to is you better be right. If you expose someone claiming they are committing adultery but you have no proof whatsoever....whether you are right or not, you're asking for it. You could be wrong (maybe they haven't had sex..yet) or they could have covered their tracks well enough that they THINK they can sue you and PROVE you wrong. They MAY be lying but if you can't at least demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they are or were having an affair you may be subject to civil penalty for defamation, slander, invasion of privacy, etc. If you don't have good documentation of a physical affair...don't call it a "physical" or "sexual" affair. Just say it's an "affair" (which is inclusive of the term emotional and/or sexual affairs not to mention it protects you from many defamation per se statutes which often include specific utterances of sexual immorality...the word "affair" is not necessarily an "utterance of sexual immorality").