"If done properly, a boundary is ALL ABOUT a choice, O.T.
"This is how I feel. This is my boundary of personal integrity. I will understand if you don't want to stay within it, but please understand that if you don't, I cannot in good conscience remain married to you."
And then the cheating spouse gets to make their choice, knowing clearly what their spouse's position is.
There is nothing "controlling" or "moralizing" about that.
I'm all for free choices, but they need to be made WITHIN clearly-laid boundaries. BOTH partners have choices; it is one's job to let the other know where they stand, and then let the other choose, and let the consequences fall where they may, no?"
Absolutely, very well put. I agree entirely, 100% with you on that Puppy. The key is to define such boundaries in a way that works for you and your interests.
For instance, you ultimately did allow dating in the context of M, but only in the context of physical separation, with the separation leading to divorce (barring radical changes, which happily came about.) So, you had a firm no-dating boundary unless we are physically separated and on the path to divorce.
Someone else might have a firm no-dating boundary unless we are emotionally/financially separated, honest about whether we are dating, and understand that we will be living together only in a roommate and co-parent, not friends, mode, and I will live like this only for a limited period of time before I take the next step of moving to D.
Personally, I don't find that an attractive alternative. But people vary. That kind of thing works for some people. The particulars aren't important. I agree, it is all about setting and enforcing boundaries that ensure one is not a victim or a doormat. RTGU must respect herself though her boundaries, absolutely, whatever that looks like.
My point is only that it is possible to do that without a physical separation, without coercing an end to the A, but as I've said over and over, ONLY if one puts in place clear financial/emotional/physical boundaries that protect the LBS.
Look, people who are successfully setting boundaries and treating themselves well here often get to a point WHILE MARRIED where they consider their WAS's LL none of their business because they are separated and heading to D. They often even start dating themselves and consider their own LLs none of their WAS's business. There is no reason that this is in principle inconsistent with two people sharing housing. So, RTGU might go that route.
She could also, as I noted before, "it is ok for us to live together but only if neither of us is dating."
Fine, whatever.
Again, my point is to suggest to RTGU that she resist the urge to force and even coerce an end to the A or to throw his sorry butt out immediately. There are alternatives that don't make the A the centerpiece, the obsession, the thing the LBS focuses on and tries to control. And it is those alternatives that will be more productive.
Even if they take the shape of: "I am only willing to live with you if you are not involved with other women." FINE
I've said that over and over. We AGREE about all things present. You just object to me saying that in the past you were very moralizing with your W. But you've always objected to me saying that, even when others agreed with me. It is ok. Maybe someday with greater distance you'll agree with me after all, maybe you won't. Either way is fine. Though, truthfully, I don't know why it pisses you off for me to say that you've grown a lot and moved away from moralizing/coercion to a place of effective boundary setting that allows real love to bloom. Oh, right, that's enough to piss anyone off, lol.
