I (and most proponents of exposure) am ONLY in favor of exposure if you ARE trying to save the marriage. This came up yesterday on ndsmhlp's thread, and I advised him -- as I advise everyone -- that if you know you DON'T want to remain married, that I don't think he should expose, as he'd only be doing it out of vindictiveness.
Well, I can say that in my own case, I have given up trying to save my M. The D is final, and since the bomb my exW has done everything she could possibly do to burn the bridges. In this she has "poisoned the well" and "salted the earth" against any peaceable R we might have tried to work out between us. I honored her "request" (read, "demand") at the outset that we not reveal all the difficulties between us to family, friends and acquaintances, instead suggesting we say that our marriage was suffering some difficulties but "we're working on it." (Hah!)
Meanwhile, as I would discover over time, not only did she not adhere to this agreement, but she was actively speaking to these same people about how I was the problem and that she had to end our marriage because of how "abusive" I was to her and our children. In other words, while I protected her reputation and honored her call for discretion, she used that as her opportunity to get her story out first.
Now, should I decide to say anything to these other parties, I risk the definite chance of coming off as just being mean and vindictive. Basically, just "sour grapes".
But I have now decided to take another view on this and to begin to set the record straight if at all possible. And while I still run the risk of these steps to get the truth out there as being seen as merely an act of vengeance, and even though I have no anticipation that my M would be restored by this (even if I really thought that was still in my best interests or that of my S's), I act for the reason that exW's smear campaign against me was calculated to help her take our children away from me. THAT is the other, albeit extreme, scenario that I feel exposure might be necessary.
In my opinion, I think "shame" is less of an issue because there are some people who just cannot be shamed, especially in today's selfish and materialistic society. I might garner a bit more compassion for the concept of the "abuse" of guilt were it not for the fact that too many people think all guilt should be suppressed or is unhealthy. If one lacks a real value system, then perhaps so, and thus we should all excuse anything we or someone else may do.
Now having said that, in any case, the main thing we need to keep in mind, and I mentioned this in my own thread, is that Christians should be prepared to confront others with their transgressions, but, as the Apostle Paul put it, "speaking the truth with love." That is, not out of vengeance or vindictiveness, but out of compassion for those who transgress.
I admit that is a tall order, and perhaps this is the hair being split in this thread (hmmm, too many metaphors?) That's where we have to continue to pray and to ask God to help us search within ourselves for our motives and the spirit by which we really act. I'm finding myself continually reassessing my own course of action while on my knees, as it is easy to second guess myself, one way or the other.
None of this is really cut-and-dried, I guess. As with most hings, we have to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.
In my own case, at various points, I seem to have to choose between the lesser of evils. I often feel that I am forced to take options that, while not so great and with difficult side-effects, have even worse alternatives. Exposing to targeted individuals now seems to be one of those -- because had I known two years ago now what I didn't know then, I would have sang like a canary to all who cared to listen. Suppressing the truth (or just playing "dumb" with other parties) has not been good for my own sitch.
