Exposure: good for the goose...

[thomasb]

gotta weigh in on this: I told my BS one month into the A and thanks to my BS threatening MM, it ended 2 months later. MM never told his wife. 6 months later my BS told OMW, however, they didn't know that the relationship was a physical one. Fast forward over a year since the A had been over and I knew I didn't have an authentic marriage unless my BS knew the absolute truth about the person he was married to. I told him. I did not have a right to keep that from him and make decisions about our marriage that he doesn't know about. That same night I called OMW and told her the truth. It was her right to know she was married to a liar. She deserves an authentic marriage too. Also, I didn't know what my BS would do to OM and I needed to warn her.

Any fallout OM received (and I think they're still together) from me exposing is his own damn fault. And i bet he is still lying his butt off but that's their problem.

 

 

In my opinion, you did the right thing. Good job and good luck!

[donnamaybe]

A legal secretary might pretend knowledge of the law, through second-hand osmosis, but some of us are trained and certificated in labour law ourselves.

And your "training and certification in law" tells you someone can be prosecuted for telling the truth? Um, okay.

[thomasb]

And your "training and certification in law" tells you someone can be prosecuted for telling the truth? Um, okay.

 

 

And obviously no real knowledge of labor laws. At least where I own my business. I can hire and fire at will. Trust me. If I don't like someone or feel I can't trust them implicitly, they are history.

Edited October 26, 2011 by thomasb
spelling is atrocious

[Spark1111]

And obviously no real knowledge of labor laws. At least where I own my business. I can hire and fire at will. Trust me. If I don't like someone or feel I can't trust them implicitly, they are history.

 

Very true where I live also. In the US, you cannot discriminate in your hiring or firing practices due to three things: race, gender or religion.

 

In addition, there have been some successful lawsuits due to age; firing an older employee who made too much money. But it is still hard to prove and there needs to be a pattern of doing so.

 

Otherwise, you can be fired at will, suspended if in a protecting union until a hearing.

 

The head of the RED Cross was fired a few years ago for having an affair with an employee. They both were. Why? Because they used company phones and company email and company time to conduct their affair.

 

Company resources and company time = an offense to be fired over.

[Spark1111]

Plus, the Red Cross is a not-for-profit, which means charitable donors, a lot like taxpayers, were funding the affair.

 

A big no-no.

 

Most businesses, whether small or large, do not want the potential splashback, drama, guilt by association whether they have a "no fraternization policy" or not.

[Got it]

I logged into Marriage Builders.com. I wanted to learn a bit about what it takes to make a M work. Why? I thought that if I understood the things that build up a M, maybe I'd know how to handle an R better for the future.

 

So I learned about the principle of Exposure. Basically, the on-site Dr(s). believe that a BS upon discovering an A should tell friends and family about it. This will force the WS to end the A, shame the AP into leaving the couple alone to work themselves out and give the BS a support system.

 

My question: if Exposure is good for the BS, can it also be good for the AP? The fact is that WS' lie through their teeth to the APs about the state of their Ms. If the AP were to "expose" to friends and family and BS, could the following be the result?

 

1. The WS is forced to choose one way or the other.

2. The BS, who has been in the dark, is now informed.

3. The AP now also has his/her own support system.

4. The AP brings a forced end to their personal hell and in some way starts the process of getting out of being an accomplice to the lies, cheating, gas lighting, etc.

 

We sometimes advise APs not to expose and bring pain to the BS, but if exposure is good for the BS, can it be good for the AP too? All opinions are welcome.

 

I do not not think this always has the intended purpose. BW in my case did this and due to her own past history actually turned people against her and solidified for dMM that he was done with his marriage.

 

If you need to shame your spouse into staying with you, what kind of spouse do you have?

 

And it is not a given that the WS lies to the AP about things. I wasn't lied to. But I also made sure I had my own boundaries in place and I stuck to them.

[thomasb]

I do not not think this always has the intended purpose. BW in my case did this and due to her own past history actually turned people against her and solidified for dMM that he was done with his marriage.

 

If you need to shame your spouse into staying with you, what kind of spouse do you have?

 

And it is not a given that the WS lies to the AP about things. I wasn't lied to. But I also made sure I had my own boundaries in place and I stuck to them.

 

 

It has very little to do with shameing. More a long the lines of forcing someone to finally tell the truth. My wife had no reason to lie. She wasn't the cheater. She just wanted me to be honest in my life and my relationships. Lying by ommission or intentionally gaslighting a person causes confusion. Bringing things into the light of day shines light into the lies and darkness caused by such.

[donnamaybe]

If you need to shame your spouse into staying with you, what kind of spouse do you have?

The spouse isn't "shamed into staying," they are forced to make a choice. Of course if anyone else is fine with sharing their partner, that's up to them. Those who aren't, however, would find the A nearly always ends one way or the other once everyone knows about it.

[Got it]

Very true where I live also. In the US, you cannot discriminate in your hiring or firing practices due to three things: race, gender or religion.

 

In addition, there have been some successful lawsuits due to age; firing an older employee who made too much money. But it is still hard to prove and there needs to be a pattern of doing so.

 

Otherwise, you can be fired at will, suspended if in a protecting union until a hearing.

 

The head of the RED Cross was fired a few years ago for having an affair with an employee. They both were. Why? Because they used company phones and company email and company time to conduct their affair.

 

Company resources and company time = an offense to be fired over.

 

Actually not entirely true. "At will" does not have quite the open ended ability that many believe it to. Title VII limits some of the areas that you cannot discriminate in which does include age as well as race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. Some states, CA, WV, DC, etc have broaden that gap as well to include other protected groups like sexual orientation, etc.

 

Age discrimination is a very prevalent and successfully won lawsuits against employers in regards to it. One does not have to show a pattern of behavior to lose. The EEOC has brought many suits against companies based on one case against them. The most recent group that, though isn't protected under Title VII yet, weight, is being speerheaded by the EEOC and most likely will be added in the coming years. Right now it can fall under ADA rights and there are pending lawsuits now with the EEOC in regards to possible weight discrimination.

 

At will means, yes you can terminate employment but that does not mean that you have terminated fairly and does not protect a company from government fines, investigation, lawsuits, etc. A smart employer does not use that as a catch all to run amuck but limits their terminations to performance based reasons and show they have done their due diligence and termination is the last resort.

 

In regards to the Red Cross firing, it was mainly due to him using company funds/trips to visit his AP disguised as company business so a misappropriation of funds.

 

Few companies, even with no fraternization policies will terminate for affairs. This is especially true of those with no fraternization policies.

 

There have actually been wrongful termination lawsuits because of terminations for affairs as a breach of personal privacy, discrimination of marital status, etc. Affairs are a morality issue and not something that most companies feel then need to address; at least no more than dating in general.

 

Most cases, single or marital dating, that involves supervisor/subordinate dating, will result in termination as it is ripe for possible sexual harassment issues or morale concerns. Outside of it, most companies will not touch it.

[Got it]

The spouse isn't "shamed into staying," they are forced to make a choice. Of course if anyone else is fine with sharing their partner, that's up to them. Those who aren't, however, would find the A nearly always ends one way or the other once everyone knows about it.

 

That isn't about making a choice. A BS makes a choice by deciding if they will stay or go based on the information at hand.

 

Involving everyone and sundry is just a shaming tactic. If it works for you, great, and it may resort in a decision by the WS but it may not.

 

And I didn't say shaming into staying. I said shaming in general.

[Got it]

It has very little to do with shameing. More a long the lines of forcing someone to finally tell the truth. My wife had no reason to lie. She wasn't the cheater. She just wanted me to be honest in my life and my relationships. Lying by ommission or intentionally gaslighting a person causes confusion. Bringing things into the light of day shines light into the lies and darkness caused by such.

 

Why would you need to be forced to tell the truth? Why would you want to continue gaslighting your spouse?

 

Why would you need everything exposed to get you to "see the light"? Were you not aware of the consequences to your actions?

 

Again, my post was to show that it can have the opposite effect as well. It is a power play to get others to help influence an action/decision. Call it what you want but that is what it is.

 

I believe it to be shaming, to get the truth, to get a decision, to influence an action. It is using intended or perceived negative reinforcement (the disapproval of others) to help influence the wayward individual to exhibit certain behaviors.

[Got it]

That isn't about making a choice. A BS makes a choice by deciding if they will stay or go based on the information at hand.

 

Involving everyone and sundry is just a shaming tactic. If it works for you, great, and it may resort in a decision by the WS but it may not.

 

And I didn't say shaming into staying. I said shaming in general.

 

And I did say shame into staying, my apologies, tried to edit and couldn't.

 

But fine, shamed into a choice, shamed into staying (which does happen as well) but it is using shaming to get an effect.

[thomasb]

And I did say shame into staying, my apologies, tried to edit and couldn't.

 

But fine, shamed into a choice, shamed into staying (which does happen as well) but it is using shaming to get an effect.

 

Geez, more AP speak for "the evil BS forced him to stay." She/he turned everyone against him/her and there was no choice. Cop out.

[Got it]

Geez, more AP speak for "the evil BS forced him to stay." She/he turned everyone against him/her and there was no choice. Cop out.

 

thomas, please, I think you are projecting here. I believe the exact opposite. I believe that there is ALWAYS a choice and staying is a choice. I do not believe that anyone is forced to do anything unless physical violence is being threatened.

 

So, sorry, not the case. That does not change my argument that using that tactic is a form of shaming. It is not a gun to the head and it is not forcing anything which is why it may not always have the desired effect, whether that be the WS make a decision, end the affair, etc.

 

We can only control ourselves so the decisions need to be ours to make, The BS needs to do what is right for them. I do not think resorting to shaming is the way to go but then I have always been of the mind set you want to "expose light" then you immediately move to seperation/divorce, institute the changes for that and show the WS exactly what divorce is going to look like for them. You do not try and make them stay. The decision to reconcile should be the BS and one that the WS is begging them for. They should be able to have that choice because they are moving forward with their boundaries and showing the level of respect that they are owed because of who they are as a person. Just the fact of wanting to be with them should be more than enough for the WS to get their head out of their back end and make a decision.

 

A different approach for a desired impact but it keeps the "power" entirely with the BS and does not need the influence of others for it. If you want to use others fine, but then do you know if the WS is wanting to stay for them or because of everyone else?

 

Moving forward immediately with divorce does not mean divorce as to happen or a remarry isn't an option as well but it immediately closes the bakery and forces the WS off the fence they may be sitting on.

 

Would that not have had the same effect on you as well as telling your immediate and extended family? Would that not have showed you "the light" and made you reassess your situation and your priorities?

[thomasb]

And I did say shame into staying, my apologies, tried to edit and couldn't.

 

But fine, shamed into a choice, shamed into staying (which does happen as well) but it is using shaming to get an effect.

 

 

No one is shamed into staying. It is all about freedom of choice. Once things are all out in the open, everyone has choice. Including the BS who no longer has to live in the dark.

[Got it]

No one is shamed into staying. It is all about freedom of choice. Once things are all out in the open, everyone has choice. Including the BS who no longer has to live in the dark.

 

As soon as an affair is known, as soon as enough information is known to warrant talking to others about it, then there is enough information for the BS to decide whether they want to stay or not.

 

One does not need everything out in the open to have a choice. The freedom to make a decision was there well before that point.

 

Shamed into staying is a choice. Shame was used because it was recognized as such and had the intended effect. Again, why I said it doesn't always have the intended effect. It can cause the opposite response because of how it is perceived and whether there was actually any value assigned to it, i.e. whether the WS cares that others know.

[donnamaybe]

If you need to shame your spouse into staying with you, what kind of spouse do you have?

Yes. Shame your spouse into staying is precisely what was said. And it is about choices. Part of the "choice" of the BS is to decide if he/she wants to try to save their M. Part of that may involve outing the A. Sorry if the cheaters don't like it, but that IS one of the choices a BS has at hand. Once the BS makes that "choice" the MM/MW can then make their OWN "choice" and decide if they want to stay in the M and work their arse off to regain their spouse's trust, or be with their AP, or be alone.

 

See how many "choices" there are to be had?

[thomasb]

Yes. Shame your spouse into staying is precisely what was said. And it is about choices. Part of the "choice" of the BS is to decide if he/she wants to try to save their M. Part of that may involve outing the A. Sorry if the cheaters don't like it, but that IS one of the choices a BS has at hand. Once the BS makes that "choice" the MM/MW can then make their OWN "choice" and decide if they want to stay in the M and work their arse off to regain their spouse's trust, or be with their AP, or be alone.

 

See how many "choices" there are to be had?

 

 

Right. And part of making that choice is asking friends and family for advice and support. Hence, a choice is made. Which by the way, is usually the betrayeds. If the married person could make a rational choice, none of the above would have happened in the first place!

[Got it]

Yes. Shame your spouse into staying is precisely what was said. And it is about choices. Part of the "choice" of the BS is to decide if he/she wants to try to save their M. Part of that may involve outing the A. Sorry if the cheaters don't like it, but that IS one of the choices a BS has at hand. Once the BS makes that "choice" the MM/MW can then make their OWN "choice" and decide if they want to stay in the M and work their arse off to regain their spouse's trust, or be with their AP, or be alone.

 

See how many "choices" there are to be had?

 

Sigh, AGAIN, I didn't say it wasn't a choice. It is definitely a choice. And I do believe I very quickly corrected that piece of it and acknowledged my incorrection.

 

I think it is stated MANY times that a BS/one person cannot save a marriage but both parties decide to save the marriage. So a decision can be made to "out" to others in an attempt to do so. What I have stated is that may have the opposite effect.

 

Needing support is one thing, telling everyone and sundry is something entirely differently. It is their choice, I agree. But I do believe there are many who end up reconciling who then regret telling such a wide audience as it is another action that we can't take back and so they are dealing with a negative view of their spouse that is being battled as well.

 

There are many roads to Rome . . . . all have ripple effects.

[Got it]

Right. And part of making that choice is asking friends and family for advice and support. Hence, a choice is made. Which by the way, is usually the betrayeds. If the married person could make a rational choice, none of the above would have happened in the first place!

 

thomas, can you please clarify, I am not quite sure what you are saying here. Thank you.

[thomasb]

thomas, can you please clarify, I am not quite sure what you are saying here. Thank you.

 

 

It is usually the betrayeds choice to end the marriage, not the cheaters.

[Elizabeth Southerns]

And your "training and certification in law" tells you someone can be prosecuted for telling the truth? Um, okay.

 

Wherever did I claim that?

 

Though it does seem to happen in the US - ergo, Bradley Manning. Thomas Drake. David Kernell. Teresa Chambers.

[Silly_Girl]

It is usually the betrayeds choice to end the marriage, not the cheaters.

 

Anecdotally, that's not my experience AT ALL. Nearly all splits I'm aware of post-cheating is because the WS left. Whether for someone else or just to leave.

 

The reconcilers versus divorcers on here, of the BSs, I'd say were about 50:50.

[Got it]

It is usually the betrayeds choice to end the marriage, not the cheaters.

 

According to whom?

 

Statistically women file more often than men but I don't know the statistics on the BS/WS and who files, do you? And even who files doesn't indicate who wants it more necessarily.

 

I let my ex file but I had moved out of my own accord and we have definitely separated well prior to it. Honestly I did it in part of his ego since I made the decision to leave. But it was mutual.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Got it

[thomasb]

Anecdotally, that's not my experience AT ALL. Nearly all splits I'm aware of post-cheating is because the WS left. Whether for someone else or just to leave.

 

The reconcilers versus divorcers on here, of the BSs, I'd say were about 50:50.

 

 

 

Read up. I did. Google it.