I wanted to move this conversation here, so as not to further hijack Eternal Optimist's thread, but we've been having a spirited back-and-forth about whether or not exposure of an affair is ever a valid technique, or is it simply trying to "shame" a wayward spouse into returning to the marriage?
For a link to the discussion, see the last few pages of EO's thread, here:
As most of you know, I am generally "pro-exposure," for a lot of reasons, but the main ones would be:
1. Affairs thrive on secrecy, and when you expose them to the light of day, they often end very quickly.
2. The longer an affair continues, the greater the emotional damage to the betrayed spouse.
3. The longer the affair continues, the greater the emotional damage to the family.
4. The longer the affair continues, the greater financial drain on the family's resources.
5. The longer the affair continues, the greater the medical risk to the wayward spouse (and, if they are still ML, therefore also the betrayed spouse).
I also just tend to be a "I'd rather err on the side of DOING SOMETHING" kinda guy, and have never been fond of what I call the "Little Bo-Peep" approach; you know, "leave them alone, and they'll come home, wagging their tails behind them." Yes, many affairs do die a natural death (most, in fact), but I just believe that this has to be weighed against the damage of the points outlined above, that continue to happen for every month that the affair continues, un-confronted.
I liken exposure to an "intervention," and I think the analogy applies. Affairs are HIGHLY addictive (if you doubt this, just Google "PEA" "brain" "chemicals" "love" sometime, and read up on it. It's what made an otherwise intelligent, sane adult female astronaut drive across country, wearing an adult diaper, so she wouldn't have to make bathroom stops while she drove to Florida to avenge her man.) Often a close circle of family and friends are in a position of influence with the wayward spouse, and their intervention can make the cheater see what they are doing. Even if it doesn't, but the aggressive exposure does end the affair, is that not for the overall good, considering the points raised above?
Simply put, I think the cheating spouse is an addict, and the sooner you can separate the addict from the source of their addiction, the better.
Now, that all being said, I fully realize that the "pro-exposure" position is in the minority, but I also think it's maybe a 40/60 or a 35/65 minority, and it's hardly a lunatic fringe position. And I don't think my position is "anti-DB," as I fully believe that one should also do 180s, GAL, and do everything else that MWD teaches about making oneself "the better option" and shining a path back toward the marriage.
However, if done properly, there should be NO "shame" or "condemnation" conveyed. It should be done in a spirit of love and forgiveness, and as a loving, concerned friend and family member, who believes that the behavior is destructive to the family (often children are involved), and needs to stop immediately.
25mlc, I'll respond to your specific points in a moment.
