Yes, I do think it's different if you are fully divorced. I'm sorry I missed that "little" detail, Dday.
That being said, "it does, but it doesn't," kwim? Because it all comes down to establishing trust, and what the betrayed spouse is comfortable with. If Dday says "It is a matter of personal integrity to me that I couldn't date you if you were still in contact with the man who helped to break up our marriage," than that is his boundary, and he has a right to it. His XW then has a right to respectfully decline, saying "I understand, but I can't commit to that."
However, if she DOES want to try to help her XH rebuild his trust, and respects his boundary and agrees to it (and it sounds like she has? or is at least claiming that there is no more contact??), then I think Dday has every right to insist upon transparency, if they are to date.
It's a grey area, but it goes to the difference between "boundaries" and "ultimatums." Ultimatums are about the OTHER person, and are controlling: "I forbid you to see OM."
Boundaries are about YOU, and are matters of personal integrity: "I cannot feel safe in a new relationship with you, when you are still in contact with the man with whom you had an affair while we were still married." To me, that seems like a fair boundary, it's Dday's responsibility to communicate it clearly to her if that's indeed how he feels (and it sounds like he has), and it's then up to his xW what she wants to do with that information.
But I DON'T think it can work (not for Dday, anyway, and that's who we're supporting here) for her to say "OK, yes, I respect that," and just CLAIM to not be in contact with the OM anymore. Because -- on this subject -- she has already shown herself to be deceitful, and therefore untrustworthy.
