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.
Because, I flat-out reject your premise.
A. What I did at the time (exposing her affair, insisting she end it before wasting my time and my family's limited finances MCing, establishing a firm boundary of "I will not live in an open marriage," using as much intel as necessary to protect my interests, and then eventually insisting on 100% no-contact and full transparency when she ended her affair and wanted to come back to the marriage . . . I think these were all absolutely the right things to do.
And I'd do them again.
And she THANKED me for doing them (said "thank you for fighting for me"), and said she RESPECTED me for doing them, and understood WHY I did them.
B. Taking a softer stance later on, two years after she ended her affair (and remained loyal to the marriage), was ALSO the right thing to do at THAT time.
Just because "B" was right, doesn't make "A" "coercion" and "moralizing."
Or maybe you just consider a stance of "I consider adultery morally wrong, and I won't continue to enable it" to be "moralizing." In that case, I'm guilty as charged.
