Exposure: good for the goose...

[mzdolphin]

Originally Posted by frozensprouts

to carry the analogy to a drug addiction further, I have always heard that it is easier to "kick" an addiction if one has a strong support system in place to help provide strength and understanding when it is needed.

 

An awful lot of affair partners on here who are trying to work through the end of their relationships seem so very sad and alone. Perhaps by "coming out" about their affair ending they may find that they do have a support system to help them through the times they are really sad and lonely.

 

while internet support is fine, it doesn't take the place of having someone you can talk to in person, who really knows you and will be there for you with a kind word and support.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It is so important to not allow the MM to isolate you from your friends and family. Especially if they lied to you about their marital status. I believe the secrecy is a plow they use to keep everyone in the dark. Remain honest with your friends. Even my best friend and siblings who were not judgmental, but truthful, were able to help me sort things out because I remained honest with them even though he was not honest with me.

 

You need your support system. If you are feeling weak, just say so. Last month I came back to these boards right after calling my sister and telling her I was having some anxiety about knowing he would be in town. Just voicing that aloud helped me through. She suggested I keep myself busy. So I told my close girlfriend who knew I had gone NC about what I was dealing with. She planned a whole bunch of stuff for us to do together to keep my mind occupied while we knew he was in town.

 

Bring what's done in the dark to light. It's easier to remove dirt when you can see it.

[donnamaybe]

I disagree. But that is the nice thing about a civil discussion - we can disagree with each other and still get along.

 

So. How about the Cards?!?!?!

 

Disagree with what? That it isn't emotionally healthy to carry on a secret life built on lies and betrayal? That it isn't best to live a life of honesty, particularly when someone else is involved? That one can out an A without purposely digging an emotional trench in another's heart in the process?

[findingnemo]

This idea that APs should simply end the A and go away quietly if they are unhappy is, to me, discussing an ideal. It would be ideal that an AP says it's over and the MP simply accepts this and leaves.

 

Life is rarely lived in extremes, whether extreme good or bad. Ending an A must be a very hard thing to do. A BS is advised to get all email and phone passwords, monitor the WS, probe for answers as to why it happened, go for MC and IC to work things out and even write a NC letter. Why is that? This is because it can be very difficult for a MP to stop doing what they were doing. Thus the concept of exposure as yet another tool for the BS.

 

On the APs side, however much there is pain and anxiety over the incompleteness of the R, there is also a tendency to keep going in the A. The more invested the APs feelings, the more vulnerable they are to MP coming back saying all sorts of sweet things with the intent of resuming the A. Apart from NC, all the other remedies available to the BS are not available to the AP. You can't say they go to couples counseling. The AP can't check email, etc. IC for the AP could work in isolation and assuming that the WS has totally backed off. But they usually don't totally back off. Ever.

 

thomasb says that exposure helped him definitively end the A. This makes sense to me. A WS even after d-day may intellectually choose the BS but emotionally maintain strong emotions towards the AP. The BS cannot sustain over very long periods the policing of a WS. But with exposure, the policing is done communally by friends and family. The more a WS talks to his support system, the more they reinforce that the A was wrong. Of course, this reinforcement could be that the WS has a good BS and is throwing away a good M, or it could be along the lines of get a D. Whichever it is, policing helps the WS figure themselves out quicker rather than wallow in fantasy land about AP.

 

The Houston case is an extreme and Spark, I have read about murders committed in the name of love. This is sad but an extreme nevertheless. That's why the newspapers report these kinds of things. It's a sensation precisely because it's an aberration. How can I love someone so much that I'll kill the object of my love or the person with whom he strays? It is a solution that may come to mind at the height of my anger but to actually go ahead and do it is another matter.

 

Another extreme I want to point out, is the extreme views of APs in society. Ms are sacred, vows were made and an entire family unit is based on the M. Society would like to simplify things so that it's rules can work. Unfortunately, it is not always that simple. APs come in different shades, as do WSs and BSs. As are a result of different circumstances ranging from pure dishonesty on a WSs part, an inability to discuss and sort out issues on WSs part and a propensity to get into a dead-end R (whether duped or not) on the APs part. The facts are as follows :

 

1. The WS is missing something in the M. This missing thing can lead to a one time A or serial As.

 

2. The BS is completely unaware of what the WS is thinking, at least about their personal R within the M. A BS may think that all is well and indeed if one were to give the facts of the M situation to 1,000 people, it may very well turn out that they agree. On the other hand, there may be issues the WS has treks to communicate and change in vain. The latter could lead to dissatisfaction and the vulnerability of the WS to cheating.

 

3. The AP while aware that the WS is M, may easily get lured into an A. This is because usually the R begins as a friendship and the AP genuinely likes and trusts the WS. When the WS begins to tell AP about their marital issues (whether exaggerated or not), the AP believes them. The AP takes the side of the WS, their friend.

 

Assuming for a moment that we are talking about good normal people as opposed to crazies, as opposed to extreme people, why would anyone not see a benefit to exposure for the AP? If you take away stereotypical behaviour, exposure will work. I do not know any AP in my circles who intentionally set out to harm a BS. This was never a target, just a result of the A. Hurt and shame are almost inevitable outcomes of an A and therefore one can't use hurt and shame as a reason for an AP not to expose.

 

I'm blabbering, I know. It's just that most of us are in agreement that the truth and honesty is the best policy. I think that those opposed to exposure may be so because they don't believe that an AP can essentially be a good person who found themselves doing something bad.

Edited October 29, 2011 by findingnemo
Clarification

[woinlove]

This idea that APs should simply end the A and go away quietly if they are unhappy is, to me, discussing an ideal. It would be ideal that an AP says it's over and the MP simply accepts this and leaves.

 

Life is rarely lived in extremes, whether extreme good or bad. Ending an A must be a very hard thing to do. A BS is advised to get all email and phone passwords, monitor the WS, probe for answers as to why it happened, go for MC and IC to work things out and even write a NC letter. Why is that? This is because it can be very difficult for a MP to stop doing what they were doing. Thus the concept of exposure as yet another tool for the BS.

 

On the APs side, however much there is pain and anxiety over the incompleteness of the R, there is also a tendency to keep going in the A. The more invested the APs feelings, the more vulnerable they are to MP coming back saying all sorts of sweet things with the intent of resuming the A. Apart from NC, all the other remedies available to the BS are not available to the AP. You can't say they go to couples counseling. The AP can't check email, etc. IC for the AP could work in isolation and assuming that the WS has totally backed off. But they usually don't totally back off. Ever.

 

thomasb says that exposure helped him definitively end the A. This makes sense to me. A WS even after d-day may intellectually choose the BS but emotionally maintain strong emotions towards the AP. The BS cannot sustain over very long periods the policing of a WS. But with exposure, the policing is done communally by friends and family. The more a WS talks to his support system, the more they reinforce that the A was wrong. Of course, this reinforcement could be that the WS has a good BS and is throwing away a good M, or it could be along the lines of get a D. Whichever it is, policing helps the WS figure themselves out quicker rather than wallow in fantasy land about AP.

 

The Houston case is an extreme and Spark, I have read about murders committed in the name of love. This is sad but an extreme nevertheless. That's why the newspapers report these kinds of things. It's a sensation precisely because it's an aberration. How can I love someone so much that I'll kill the object of my love or the person with whom he strays? It is a solution that may come to mind at the height of my anger but to actually go ahead and do it is another matter.

 

Another extreme I want to point out, is the extreme views of APs in society. Ms are sacred, vows were made and an entire family unit is based on the M. Society would like to simplify things so that it's rules can work. Unfortunately, it is not always that simple. APs come in different shades, as do WSs and BSs. As are a result of different circumstances ranging from pure dishonesty on a WSs part, an inability to discuss and sort out issues on WSs part and a propensity to get into a dead-end R (whether duped or not) on the APs part. The facts are as follows :

 

1. The WS is missing something in the M. This missing thing can lead to a one time A or serial As.

 

2. The BS is completely unaware of what the WS is thinking, at least about their personal R within the M. A BS may think that all is well and indeed if one were to give the facts of the M situation to 1,000 people, it may very well turn out that they agree. On the other hand, there may be issues the WS has treks to communicate and change in vain. The latter could lead to dissatisfaction and the vulnerability of the WS to cheating.

 

3. The AP while aware that the WS is M, may easily get lured into an A. This is because usually the R begins as a friendship and the AP genuinely likes and trusts the WS. When the WS begins to tell AP about their marital issues (whether exaggerated or not), the AP believes them. The AP takes the side of the WS, their friend.

 

Assuming for a moment that we are talking about good normal people as opposed to crazies, as opposed to extreme people, why would anyone not see a benefit to exposure for the AP? If you take away stereotypical behaviour, exposure will work. I do not know any AP in my circles who intentionally set out to harm a BS. This was never a target, just a result of the A. Hurt and shame are almost inevitable outcomes of an A and therefore one can't use hurt and shame as a reason for an AP not to expose.

 

I'm blabbering, I know. It's just that most of us are in agreement that the truth and honesty is the best policy. I think that those opposed to exposure may be so because they don't believe that an AP can essentially be a good person who found themselves doing something bad.

 

Why are these facts? Are those facts of your MM or some subset of MM? In 3 you say "may" and sometimes that isn't the case. 1 and 2 aren't always the case either.

[Silly_Girl]

SG, here is my problem with this.

 

I was already hurt by my WS and his OW when they decided to engage in the ACT of having an affair.

 

The telling of it pales in comparison to the act of it. If I wasn't a blip on anyone's empathy scale during the affair.....why is everyone oh-so-concerned in protecting my feelings now?

 

It seems condescending and self-protective to withhold or omit info to me.

 

The info can never hurt as much as the act, IMO.

 

Firstly you're assuming no one gave a crap about you (general BS you). May well not be the case. You can say 'affair = no thought for my feelings'... Might not be true. Both the other parties might have thought and worries about your feelings a LOT either together, individually or both.

 

In terms of telling the BS, I have an issue (for another thread) as to when that becomes a discussion point, but I believe the BS should know. And I believe the BS should hear it from the person who - in my view - has the most relevant answers to offer. The spouse. Because those parties were in the marriage and the OW is not the best person to offer insight on that score.

 

Many OW have posted they would like the BS to know, but they want MM to be the one to do it. Why? Maybe it's a mucky job and they don't fancy it, or maybe they feel, as I did, that it's a conversation to rightly be had between spouses. They are often encouraged here to push their MM to do it, but if the OW seriously had no regard for the wife I think we'd see a lot more 'anonymous' letters and emails flying around.

 

Then when there's been contact often the OW is honest about fundamental facts when asked, but careful not to 'rub their nose in it'. That's about being tactful, not withholding.

 

There is often much empathy, but there is either no place for it or no chance of it being visible because it's understandably overshadowed by bigger events and emotions.

[bentnotbroken]

I used to think that "its not my business" as the OW to inform the BS. After a thread i made , i got some answers (thanks) that brought me to my sense. Of course its good for both parties to know whats going on. If i was the one cheated on, id love to know. Im not saying though that i would end the marriage, but it would be good to know what im dealing with. Honesty IS the key to any sucsseful relationship, even between friends.

 

Now as the OW, i dont know how wise it is to be the messenger. After my unfortunate expirience, i think its still not our job to bring the news to the wife. Id prefer insisting to the MM to be honest. They never will though....

 

*edit: Maybe , if you first tell the MM that you want to tell his wife. Maybe you both do it..If he refuses or in general, during the process of revealing the truth you will actually find where you really stand in his life. If you eventually, leave his life, than maybe, (although it sounds creepy) you could inform the wife....Dunno, just thoughts.

 

On the other hand...I know a couple that the Husband cheated on the wife....I really dont want to tell her cause i am sure it was just a mistake...So come to think of it, i dont want to be involved in other peoples problems , but when it comes to my A, it sounds at least more rational...

 

 

Cheating is NOT a mistake. A poor decision, a selfish choice, piss poor boundaries...but not a mistake. Mistakes don't taking lying and deceit on a regular basis.

[findingnemo]

Why are these facts? Are those facts of your MM or some subset of MM? In 3 you say "may" and sometimes that isn't the case. 1 and 2 aren't always the case either.

 

Factors rather than facts. My mistake. No, this is not about my MM. Let me explain:

 

1. The WS Is missing something according to them. That's what they tell APs, that's what they tell friends and usually is what they tell themselves. This may be utter crap. This may or may not be the TRUTH but what matters is what they perceive. It may become clear after MC and IC that the WS is wrong. Nevertheless, that's what they believe.

 

2. The BS is defiantly unaware that their spouse is about to go and cheat. Do I need to explain this one? In which case does the BS know before hand? Do you know of one? Would be interesting.

 

3. The AP may get lured into an A. This means as you say that there cases where an AP is not lured and with full knowledge goes ahead.

 

I think when we give opinions we should not expect them to cover all situations. Of course 3 is a variable. 2 is not a variable IMO. Tell one instance where it is and I'll change my mind. 1 is about a BS clearly deluding themselves about their sitch and therefore allowing themselves to dishonor their vows.

[findingnemo]

Whichever the factors, honesty and truth are the best remedy, IMO.

[findingnemo]

I disagree. But that is the nice thing about a civil discussion - we can disagree with each other and still get along.

 

So. How about the Cards?!?!?!

 

True. We can agree to disagree. What cards? I don't get it.

[findingnemo]

Firstly you're assuming no one gave a crap about you (general BS you). May well not be the case. You can say 'affair = no thought for my feelings'... Might not be true. Both the other parties might have thought and worries about your feelings a LOT either together, individually or both.

 

In terms of telling the BS, I have an issue (for another thread) as to when that becomes a discussion point, but I believe the BS should know. And I believe the BS should hear it from the person who - in my view - has the most relevant answers to offer. The spouse. Because those parties were in the marriage and the OW is not the best person to offer insight on that score.

 

Many OW have posted they would like the BS to know, but they want MM to be the one to do it. Why? Maybe it's a mucky job and they don't fancy it, or maybe they feel, as I did, that it's a conversation to rightly be had between spouses. They are often encouraged here to push their MM to do it, but if the OW seriously had no regard for the wife I think we'd see a lot more 'anonymous' letters and emails flying around.

 

Then when there's been contact often the OW is honest about fundamental facts when asked, but careful not to 'rub their nose in it'. That's about being tactful, not withholding.

 

There is often much empathy, but there is either no place for it or no chance of it being visible because it's understandably overshadowed by bigger events and emotions.

 

SG,

 

What if the MM refuses to tell the BS? The idea to expose assumes that MM won't come clean all by himself. Ideal vs. reality.

 

I agree that many OW think about the BS and although they fight it sometimes, they feel guilty about how they'd feel to find out.

 

What exactly do you mean by the last statement (bold)?

[woinlove]

Factors rather than facts. My mistake. No, this is not about my MM. Let me explain:

 

1. The WS Is missing something according to them. That's what they tell APs, that's what they tell friends and usually is what they tell themselves. This may be utter crap. This may or may not be the TRUTH but what matters is what they perceive. It may become clear after MC and IC that the WS is wrong. Nevertheless, that's what they believe.

 

2. The BS is defiantly unaware that their spouse is about to go and cheat. Do I need to explain this one? In which case does the BS know before hand? Do you know of one? Would be interesting.

 

3. The AP may get lured into an A. This means as you say that there cases where an AP is not lured and with full knowledge goes ahead.

 

I think when we give opinions we should not expect them to cover all situations. Of course 3 is a variable. 2 is not a variable IMO. Tell one instance where it is and I'll change my mind. 1 is about a BS clearly deluding themselves about their sitch and therefore allowing themselves to dishonor their vows.

 

Thanks, nemo. On 1. I was thinking sometimes what's missing is inside the WS. For example, the WS may be bored because they aren't actively engaged in their own life and they look for a new rush with someone else to try to fill the gap, rather than looking inside themselves. Also, the way you first wrote 2. the first time, I was thinking sometimes the WS doesn't even know what is up with themselves that might make them vulnerable to cheating, so there would be little chance of the BS knowing. But as far as the BS not knowing about the cheating - that is obvious and practically defines cheating. Again, thanks for the explanation.

[findingnemo]

No problem, woinlove. I sometimes type so fast and don't realize that I may need to explain some more. But seeing as the post was already so long....

[Silly_Girl]

SG,

 

What if the MM refuses to tell the BS? The idea to expose assumes that MM won't come clean all by himself. Ideal vs. reality.

 

I agree that many OW think about the BS and although they fight it sometimes, they feel guilty about how they'd feel to find out.

 

What exactly do you mean by the last statement (bold)?

 

Your first comment isn't about ideal vs reality. Ideal is that he does it because it's the 'right' thing with regards the marriage and showing respect to his spouse. Not all that common. You then have varying degrees. 'Tell her or I will', 'Tell her or I'll leave you', or 'I told her'. None of those are likely to be brief or one-time discussion.

 

Re the bolded, the empathy I believe usually exists. Does the OW show it? Maybe. By staying away from the MM? Not necessarily. By talking it through with the MM? Maybe, but does she want to draw attention to it? I DID share with my MM the many lost night's sleep I had, and the regular nightmares. But would all OW? From what I've read many OW may not want to show that side. Or maybe, to be an OW you need to NOT have that aspect.

 

Can the BS understand there has been active empathy towards her? How has she seen it? Does she know the OW has begged MM not to continue lying for example? Doubtful but possible. Does she know the OW has agonised about 'releasing' the person who means more to her than any other man ever has... to be 'altruistic' to a woman she's never met? If the BS had an understanding, could she acknowledge or appreciate it? Why would she? The spouse in my situation has happily allocated all the 'bad stuff' to me, not him. He is unhappy about this, has defended me (the same as he would her to me we're I making false assumptions) but she can never accept it. She needs to demonise me and I'm okay with that. If there were kids I wouldn't be, however.

 

The people and personalities differ, but ultimately the role means there are basic fundamentals which are difficult to depart from.

[MissBee]

This idea that APs should simply end the A and go away quietly if they are unhappy is, to me, discussing an ideal. It would be ideal that an AP says it's over and the MP simply accepts this and leaves.

 

I have to ask about this findingnemo...

 

I have ended an A, likewise, I've had other relationships end. Most times it's not a case of someone saying "It's over" and there is never any looking back, back and forth etc. However, the difficulty of leaving a relationship, from how you're painting it, seems more akin to atypical situations like: when one has been severely emotionally abused or is addicted to this situation and person to where one's normal faculties are not in tact. Versus the regular roller coaster of detaching, that is hard but happens and people move on.

 

I do not believe it is idealistic to think one can break up with someone and stay broken up. Like I said, I do get the back and forth, sometimes falling back into old patterns...I think most people go through that for a while then it tapers off.

 

On the APs side, however much there is pain and anxiety over the incompleteness of the R, there is also a tendency to keep going in the A. The more invested the APs feelings, the more vulnerable they are to MP coming back saying all sorts of sweet things with the intent of resuming the A. Apart from NC, all the other remedies available to the BS are not available to the AP. You can't say they go to couples counseling. The AP can't check email, etc. IC for the AP could work in isolation and assuming that the WS has totally backed off. But they usually don't totally back off. Ever.

What are you basing this assertion on nemo? The fact that your MM hasn't backed off...if so, don't forget that you enable him as you're currently trying to be friends and do business together. So it is an unfair analogy as rightfully it's not like you've blocked him from every avenue and he has weaseled his way against your will back in. Most people who go FULL NC, may be harassed for a while...but unless that person being ignored is insane...they will eventually get the point and stop. However, one cannot fairly say this person doesn't back off if one opens the door for them to believe they can still persuade you. Lots of As restart, likewise lots don't, chalkfarm for example and other exOW come here very upset that dday occurred and the MM threw them under the bus or ended the A and never spoke to them again.....for my situation, we went NC for an entire year with ZERO contact. Sooo I am not so sure about your idea that most WS continue bothering their former APs for years after it is done and the AP has been ignoring them.

 

I'm blabbering, I know. It's just that most of us are in agreement that the truth and honesty is the best policy. I think that those opposed to exposure may be so because they don't believe that an AP can essentially be a good person who found themselves doing something bad.

I am still having trouble understanding what you mean by exposure on the APs part. I don't know if I overlooked your answer...but to whom? Do you mean the AP informing the WS's BS or the AP simply telling his/her own people about it? For me, I have been in the OW position and know myself to be a good person who got caught up...and take full responsibility. So I have no reason to think badly of someone who has been where I was. That said...I still don't fully get the exposure idea. But perhaps, if you explain to whom is the AP exposing it to, I'll get a clearer sense. I have no idea if a dday happened, in that my exAP's gf found out and it was hashed out between them without my involvement...or if she to this day doesn't know. But I do know the A ended and I did not have to dig her up to tell her in order for it to end....my own friends and sister knew about my situation and helped me through and were sounding boards for me to move on. But that wasn't an "exposure" as they always knew about it and their knowledge of it did not have any effect on his life...just mine, in terms of support. I did not feel like I needed to drag people in his life into it for it to end....that is why I am truly puzzled at that idea. I get APs telling the truth to their own friends and family...and I even get a BS confronting the AP and the AP tells the truth...and I even get the AP telling the BS if it weighs on her/his conscience and he/she has had enough.....I just am not comprehending the concept of you still wanting this person and you tried to break up but find your way back so you tell the BS and whoever else so by these other people's policing it, it ends. Edited October 29, 2011 by MissBee

[woinlove]

Your first comment isn't about ideal vs reality. Ideal is that he does it because it's the 'right' thing with regards the marriage and showing respect to his spouse. Not all that common. You then have varying degrees. 'Tell her or I will', 'Tell her or I'll leave you', or 'I told her'. None of those are likely to be brief or one-time discussion.

 

Re the bolded, the empathy I believe usually exists. Does the OW show it? Maybe. By staying away from the MM? Not necessarily. By talking it through with the MM? Maybe, but does she want to draw attention to it? I DID share with my MM the many lost night's sleep I had, and the regular nightmares. But would all OW? From what I've read many OW may not want to show that side. Or maybe, to be an OW you need to NOT have that aspect.

 

Can the BS understand there has been active empathy towards her? How has she seen it? Does she know the OW has begged MM not to continue lying for example? Doubtful but possible. Does she know the OW has agonised about 'releasing' the person who means more to her than any other man ever has... to be 'altruistic' to a woman she's never met? If the BS had an understanding, could she acknowledge or appreciate it? Why would she? The spouse in my situation has happily allocated all the 'bad stuff' to me, not him. He is unhappy about this, has defended me (the same as he would her to me we're I making false assumptions) but she can never accept it. She needs to demonise me and I'm okay with that. If there were kids I wouldn't be, however.

 

The people and personalities differ, but ultimately the role means there are basic fundamentals which are difficult to depart from.

 

I'm not sure the bolded is true. Sometimes, yes. Usually? One doesn't see too much of it here. Maybe more common well after the A is over.

 

Sadly, it wasn't true in my own case during the A. I was rather indifferent to the BW and never tried to put myself in her place. On the other hand, I was not hostile to her and I am often surprised at the level of hostility toward the BW displayed on LS. Not by all OW, but by many. Sometimes even when the OW starts out as a friend of the BW, one sees animosity toward the BW which seems to be connected to nothing more than the fact that she is still married to the MM.

 

Also what you describe as "active empathy" sounds more like trying to relieve one's one internal turmoil caused by guilt. Are you sure it is empathy and not guilt?

[Silly_Girl]

I'm not sure the bolded is true. Sometimes, yes. Usually? One doesn't see too much of it here. Maybe more common well after the A is over.

 

Sadly, it wasn't true in my own case during the A. I was rather indifferent to the BW and never tried to put myself in her place. On the other hand, I was not hostile to her and I am often surprised at the level of hostility toward the BW displayed on LS. Not by all OW, but by many. Sometimes even when the OW starts out as a friend of the BW, one sees animosity toward the BW which seems to be connected to nothing more than the fact that she is still married to the MM.

 

Also what you describe as "active empathy" sounds more like trying to relieve one's one internal turmoil caused by guilt. Are you sure it is empathy and not guilt?

 

I think some OW deny the empathy they feel, because they 'need' to, as I said. I think there's often a lot of it but sometimes a poster feels forced to be defensive, and that means you don't see the full picture... It'll sometimes come out later, or if the right question in the right way.

 

Your last Q, I wonder if you've a meaning in mind which would mean my answer will be wrong, but yes, I believe there's empathy. For example, if OW were offered option 1 that meant not having to give up the MM and the wife being hurt terribly, or option 2 that meant not having to give up the MM and the wife barely being hurt at all, BUT option 2 were infinitely harder/longer/challenging I think most OW would do what they could to minimise damage and go for 2. The issue is that the OW can't be credited with caring because she already boinked a married person, for many that's where her morals and credibility as a person have gone out of the window. But I don't agree with that principle. I met the woman my bio-dad left my mum for, I'm fully satisfied she was never on the sidelines lapping up all the drama and pain.

[jwi71]

Can the BS understand there has been active empathy towards her? How has she seen it? Does she know the OW has begged MM not to continue lying for example? Doubtful but possible. Does she know the OW has agonised about 'releasing' the person who means more to her than any other man ever has... to be 'altruistic' to a woman she's never met? If the BS had an understanding, could she acknowledge or appreciate it? Why would she? The spouse in my situation has happily allocated all the 'bad stuff' to me, not him. He is unhappy about this, has defended me (the same as he would her to me we're I making false assumptions) but she can never accept it. She needs to demonise me and I'm okay with that. If there were kids I wouldn't be, however.

 

I would agree with this but I would also make one small change.

 

There is not enough empathy while the A is ongoing.

 

There is however, and I have seen it here and elsewhere, where the OW/OM reaches a breaking point and ends the A. This often results in the those "help me with NC posts". We constantly read of the conflict of them doing what's right (empathy) and their own selfish desires.

 

Not having been an OM, I can't speak to the progression personally.

However, as BS, I can speak to the stages I have gone through with this.

At first, within the first 2 years of the A, its just plain nuts to me.

From years 2-4, I can intellectually grasp it but can't quite get the emotion behind it.

Finally, coming up on 5 years now, it makes sense to me and I can accept it.

 

That guilt, that cognitive dissonance, has go to be a real bitch to deal with. Its how I respond now, point out that in a poster and their story and hopefully get them to try to align words and deeds.

 

Its a great way to live...when what you do internally aligns with one's belief system.

[findingnemo]

I have to ask about this findingnemo...

 

I have ended an A, likewise, I've had other relationships end. Most times it's not a case of someone saying "It's over" and there is never any looking back, back and forth etc. However, the difficulty of leaving a relationship, from how you're painting it, seems more akin to atypical situations like: when one has been severely emotionally abused or is addicted to this situation and person to where one's normal faculties are not in tact. Versus the regular roller coaster of detaching, that is hard but happens and people move on.

 

Atypical? I don't think so based on so many threads here where APs keep resuming the As, or where the A lasts for years and years. Does an AP need to be emotionally abused or addicted to have a hard time detaching? There are plenty of balanced APs who don't detach under certain circumstances.

 

I do not believe it is idealistic to think one can break up with someone and stay broken up. Like I said, I do get the back and forth, sometimes falling back into old patterns...I think most people go through that for a while then it tapers off.

 

What are you basing this assertion on nemo? The fact that your MM hasn't backed off...if so, don't forget that you enable him as you're currently trying to be friends and do business together. So it is an unfair analogy as rightfully it's not like you've blocked him from every avenue and he has weaseled his way against your will back in. Most people who go FULL NC, may be harassed for a while...but unless that person being ignored is insane...they will eventually get the point and stop. However, one cannot fairly say this person doesn't back off if one opens the door for them to believe they can still persuade you. Lots of As restart, likewise lots don't, chalkfarm for example and other exOW come here very upset that dday occurred and the MM threw them under the bus or ended the A and never spoke to them again.....for my situation, we went NC for an entire year with ZERO contact. Sooo I am not so sure about your idea that most WS continue bothering their former APs for years after it is done and the AP has been ignoring them.

 

I did talk about NC being the only available tool for APs. I also said IC could work but on an individual level for the AP. I wasnt using MBs concept as an analogy, it was used as an example to show that APs cannot use the same tools to end an A. Let's say you had no idea about my sitch, what would you think I was basing my opinion on? Am I the only person in the world or even on this site whose xMM hasn't stopped pushing for a resumption, whether in NC or not? Isn't it possible that if I am the only one and if I have an average intelligence, I'd have figured out that this is not a standard thing and therefore not based my assumptions on myself? In fact there are so many variations of As that I doubt the word atypical can be used for this kind of thing.

 

Another thing. NC didn't work for me, period. It's not because I didn't do it. I did. Twice. I can understand the opinion that it is because I'm in touch with him that he continues to sporadically tell me his feelings. The idea that if I can somehow erase him from my life, I'd eventually stop feeling because he won't exist anymore is another ideal. The reality is simply different. First I can't disappear from my home, business and my family so that I can go NC. Secondly, since I was strong-willed enough to end the A a long time ago, is it a wonder that I think that perhaps the problem isn't the man but myself with my feelings? If I was emotionally abused or addicted, I'd have continued the A until I guess he stopped it. I detached permanently.

 

I am still having trouble understanding what you mean by exposure on the APs part. I don't know if I overlooked your answer...but to whom? Do you mean the AP informing the WS's BS or the AP simply telling his/her own people about it? For me, I have been in the OW position and know myself to be a good person who got caught up...and take full responsibility. So I have no reason to think badly of someone who has been where I was. That said...I still don't fully get the exposure idea. But perhaps, if you explain to whom is the AP exposing it to, I'll get a clearer sense. I have no idea if a dday happened, in that my exAP's gf found out and it was hashed out between them without my involvement...or if she to this day doesn't know. But I do know the A ended and I did not have to dig her up to tell her in order for it to end....my own friends and sister knew about my situation and helped me through and were sounding boards for me to move on. But that wasn't an "exposure" as they always knew about it and their knowledge of it did not have any effect on his life...just mine, in terms of support. I did not feel like I needed to drag people in his life into it for it to end....that is why I am truly puzzled at that idea. I get APs telling the truth to their own friends and family...and I even get a BS confronting the AP and the AP tells the truth...and I even get the AP telling the BS if it weighs on her/his conscience and he/she has had enough.....I just am not comprehending the concept of you still wanting this person and you tried to break up but find your way back so you tell the BS and whoever else so by these other people's policing it, it ends.

 

The exposure I was referring to in this post was specifically to the BS. Many people agree already that exposure could be a good tool to help break the A cycle for an AP who desperately wants to end it. There are those, however, who don't see it that way and believe that it is better for the AP to simply walk away and stop seeing the MP. This is the ideal solution I was talking about. The kind where one solution fits all. The reality however is different. So in that post I was explaining a sitch in which the AP may not be able to walk away/ detach because of being too emotionally invested regardless of the fact that they know it's a dead-end R.

[findingnemo]

Your first comment isn't about ideal vs reality. Ideal is that he does it because it's the 'right' thing with regards the marriage and showing respect to his spouse. Not all that common. You then have varying degrees. 'Tell her or I will', 'Tell her or I'll leave you', or 'I told her'. None of those are likely to be brief or one-time discussion.

 

I understand now

 

Re the bolded, the empathy I believe usually exists. Does the OW show it? Maybe. By staying away from the MM? Not necessarily. By talking it through with the MM? Maybe, but does she want to draw attention to it? I DID share with my MM the many lost night's sleep I had, and the regular nightmares. But would all OW? From what I've read many OW may not want to show that side. Or maybe, to be an OW you need to NOT have that aspect.

 

Can the BS understand there has been active empathy towards her? How has she seen it? Does she know the OW has begged MM not to continue lying for example? Doubtful but possible. Does she know the OW has agonised about 'releasing' the person who means more to her than any other man ever has... to be 'altruistic' to a woman she's never met? If the BS had an understanding, could she acknowledge or appreciate it? Why would she? The spouse in my situation has happily allocated all the 'bad stuff' to me, not him. He is unhappy about this, has defended me (the same as he would her to me we're I making false assumptions) but she can never accept it. She needs to demonise me and I'm okay with that. If there were kids I wouldn't be, however.

 

The people and personalities differ, but ultimately the role means there are basic fundamentals which are difficult to depart from.

 

SG,

 

Yes, OW can have empathy. You are saying that regardless of the empathy they may feel, they should not be the one's to expose. That it's better if the MM expose himself voluntarily or under duress. There are reasons why an OW would want this that I can think of.

 

1) She doesn't want to deal with the confrontation. It's ugly, it's painful for her. She is after all in a bad position in all this and according to society is to blame. So it's hard to do it. But what if the MM refuses to do it under any circumstances, then what?

 

2) There's another reason she'd want the MM to do it himself. She expects that if the MM exposes on his own, it will bring some sort of legitimacy to their love. In other words, he can't then say she made it all up, or it wasn't serious, or run away from what happened. There's a hope that perhaps their R could stop being an A once the MM tells the BS.

 

Those are the only reasons I can think of. Both of them involve the AP protecting him/herself to some extent. MPs can self-expose but the OP refers to cases where the MP will not expose and where the AP wants out of the A. An AP should be able to know that they did all they could to end it and leaving it in the hands of the MP kind of defeats the purpose of exposure.

[findingnemo]

I would agree with this but I would also make one small change.

 

There is not enough empathy while the A is ongoing.

 

There is however, and I have seen it here and elsewhere, where the OW/OM reaches a breaking point and ends the A. This often results in the those "help me with NC posts". We constantly read of the conflict of them doing what's right (empathy) and their own selfish desires.

 

Not having been an OM, I can't speak to the progression personally.

However, as BS, I can speak to the stages I have gone through with this.

At first, within the first 2 years of the A, its just plain nuts to me.

From years 2-4, I can intellectually grasp it but can't quite get the emotion behind it.

Finally, coming up on 5 years now, it makes sense to me and I can accept it.

 

That guilt, that cognitive dissonance, has go to be a real bitch to deal with. Its how I respond now, point out that in a poster and their story and hopefully get them to try to align words and deeds.

 

Its a great way to live...when what you do internally aligns with one's belief system.

 

Cognitive dissonance, that's what is!! There's a new thread where an OW is suffering from just that. I didn't know what to call the push-pull emotions associated with being an AP for many.

 

In our last exchange, you asked me what I'm going to do to change my sitch. I don't feel guilty for still having feelings for xMM. I suppose that's because I was the one who put an end to the A. I actually don't have an imbalance between what I believe and what I live. Don't get me wrong, I regret ever being in an A for many reasons including the fact that he was M. But I dealt with that a long time ago and never actually feel that regret any more. I did it, it was bad, I ended it. Finished. I live in tune with my beliefs.

 

I do have an imbalance between what I feel and what I believe/live. I have learned that acting on your feelings can be a disaster and so I don't. That's why exposure in my case is not a solution. What kind of dissonance is it when you are doing the right thing but you'd rather be doing the wrong one? When your desires go against your beliefs?

[woinlove]

I think some OW deny the empathy they feel, because they 'need' to, as I said. I think there's often a lot of it but sometimes a poster feels forced to be defensive, and that means you don't see the full picture... It'll sometimes come out later, or if the right question in the right way.

 

Your last Q, I wonder if you've a meaning in mind which would mean my answer will be wrong, but yes, I believe there's empathy. For example, if OW were offered option 1 that meant not having to give up the MM and the wife being hurt terribly, or option 2 that meant not having to give up the MM and the wife barely being hurt at all, BUT option 2 were infinitely harder/longer/challenging I think most OW would do what they could to minimise damage and go for 2. The issue is that the OW can't be credited with caring because she already boinked a married person, for many that's where her morals and credibility as a person have gone out of the window. But I don't agree with that principle. I met the woman my bio-dad left my mum for, I'm fully satisfied she was never on the sidelines lapping up all the drama and pain.

 

No, I'm not suggesting that the OW can't be credited with caring because of her situation. But I'm questioning the examples you give and whether they are really driven by empathy or by guilt. Both empathy and guilt can be very strong driving forces, although guilt is often even stronger because it doesn't require us to fully get inside someone's head. I think given the situation, it could be difficult to disentangle the two.

 

Does an OW want to ease the BW's pain because the OW shares the BW's pain and feels her pain so deeply or does the OW want to ease the pain because it eats her up inside that she has a role in it and she wants to ease the BS's pain in order to feel better about herself and stop feeling guilty? Can she even distinguish the two while she is in the midst of it?

 

One would think the empathy would be strongest when the OW was a close friend of the BW, because then she knows a lot about how the BW feels. But (from the few such cases I have read here) it seems the rationalizations are sometimes even stronger in such cases - and I think that might be that the guilt wins out over empathy and the driving force is to ease the guilt.

[findingnemo]

No, I'm not suggesting that the OW can't be credited with caring because of her situation. But I'm questioning the examples you give and whether they are really driven by empathy or by guilt. Both empathy and guilt can be very strong driving forces, although guilt is often even stronger because it doesn't require us to fully get inside someone's head. I think given the situation, it could be difficult to disentangle the two.

 

Does an OW want to ease the BW's pain because the OW shares the BW's pain and feels her pain so deeply or does the OW want to ease the pain because it eats her up inside that she has a role in it and she wants to ease the BS's pain in order to feel better about herself and stop feeling guilty? Can she even distinguish the two while she is in the midst of it?

 

One would think the empathy would be strongest when the OW was a close friend of the BW, because then she knows a lot about how the BW feels. But (from the few such cases I have read here) it seems the rationalizations are sometimes even stronger in such cases - and I think that might be that the guilt wins out over empathy and the driving force is to ease the guilt.

 

I agree with you. You can only feel empathy when you know what the other person is going through. Some AP may get the true picture from the MP but most don't. They get a caricature, an exaggeration and at times a pure misrepresentation of the facts. The BS is someone who is painted as having major issues and is the reason why MP is cheating anyway. If you don't have the true picture, how can you empathize?

 

In my case, I hardly got any information except him saying "she's an angel". Did I feel empathy for her? I felt bad because she'd get hurt and I would be part of the cause of that pain. But the "bad" I felt was not empathy. And I say this with hindsight, it was guilt.

[Silly_Girl]

SG,

 

Yes, OW can have empathy. You are saying that regardless of the empathy they may feel, they should not be the one's to expose.

 

Didn't think I said that, but maybe talking the points through made it sound that way.

 

Those are the only reasons I can think of. Both of them involve the AP protecting him/herself to some extent.

 

Interesting. I don't think it is automatically self-serving, the scenarios you gave were one way of viewing it, but I don't think that's the only way.

 

MPs can self-expose but the OP refers to cases where the MP will not expose and where the AP wants out of the A. An AP should be able to know that they did all they could to end it and leaving it in the hands of the MP kind of defeats the purpose of exposure.

 

But then it comes back to your 'ideal' which you discounted... AP ups and leaves. Job done.

[Silly_Girl]

You can only feel empathy when you know what the other person is going through.

 

I can't agree with this at all. Plus there are many OW who are exBS and know only too well.

 

Some AP may get the true picture from the MP but most don't. They get a caricature, an exaggeration and at times a pure misrepresentation of the facts. The BS is someone who is painted as having major issues and is the reasn why MP is cheating anyway. If you don't have the true picture, how can you empathize?

 

Are you saying that the OW can't feel empathy because she feels the BS has asked for it, deserves it? Because that caricature won't be in all cases, and even those who've had the BS painted as a big bad wolf still have the opportunity to consider the bigger picture.. Whether that's 100% true or whether all partners in even the best relationships have times they could say a lot of bad stuff about their partner - and mean it, yet still have strong feelings. Most posters understand they are hearing limited facts. And even if she's the devil incarnate, we're all capable of wondering whether we'd like to be treated that way regardless of who it is. I suppose I'm reading your post as excuses not to have empathy for the BS, which is sort of at odds with how I feel. I might be picking up the angle incorrectly.

[SBC]

. You can only feel empathy when you know what the other person is going through. .

 

That is not true

 

empathy: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner;