I never exposed to work. The only place i did not. I talked to OMW and she said not to. So I said. Ok. I will honour that request. And just kept exposure to friends of the marriage and family. And I told friends that in no way was I saying to stop talking to ladybug. But I set a boundary. Any friend of the marriage who did anything with both of them was no longer my friend. They could support Ladybug. But not the affair. Our friends have kept to that agreement. And the two who did not. I no longer talk to them. I asked this request to family as well. Family has honoured it to this day. Exposure was to get support for the marriage. Exposure was to make sure I was not alone. Exposure was to bring the affair to the light. It was the path of tough love. I will go to my grave believing it was the right choice. Not only did I set up my own support group with friends and family but I also set up hers for down the road when the affair ends. My friends and family on both sides allowed me to lean on them when I was lost. I will be forever grateful for that. It was a hard thing to do. Harder than kicking her out after the days of Plan A. But it was the right thing to do.
I think Blaise Pascal summed it up rather well.
We know the truth, not only by the reason, but by the heart.
As did Galileo Galilei
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Flowers always make people better, happier, and more helpful; they are sunshine, food and medicine for the soul. unconditional love is awesome!
In my opinion, public humiliation, which you claim is one objective of exposure is a punishment, or revenge. To say that it is not, is splitting hairs.
In the case of the pain caused by the cheater to his spouse, that is collateral damage. It is an accidental result of the action he has chosen to take. While it is possible that someone might cheat and flaunt it against the spouse, usually they go to some trouble to try to hide the affair.
In the case of public humiliation, that is a deliberate action, intended to cause pain and embarrassment to the other person. It cannot be construed as unintended.
In some cases I've seen, exposure at work was a case of revenge. Kind of like the need to punish the other person.
Personally, I think exposure should be done only to the immediate family involved like the OP's spouse. When it's done at work, you can jeopardize your spouse's career. And that goes far beyond the relationship.
I would not be quick to reccomend exposure of an affair to your WS' workplace... WOrkplace exposure is most often left to the third party's workplace when used as leverage...
If you show enough guts to walk into OM's place of work and create a huge scene and embarass him along with yourself... he may think twice about chasing your wife further... particularly if he wants to save his rep at work... and knows you can keep coming back to embarass him further...
I have seen this happen in my own workplace, it was very effective.
A female divorced PM in my workplace was having an affair with a married man. The man's wife showed up at our workplace openly threatening the PM.
That same PM was let go less than three months later, and she had been working there for over twenty years.
Exposure did a LOT of damage to that affair. If I recall the PM is still looking for work, and this was almost a year ago. The man she was sleeping with reconcilled with his wife, he had two children.
I can get all this because the man she was sleeping with used to work there too.
If the wife hadn't shown up at work, I doubt the affair would be over even now a year later.
In my opinion, public humiliation, which you claim is one objective of exposure is a punishment, or revenge. To say that it is not, is splitting hairs.
In the case of the pain caused by the cheater to his spouse, that is collateral damage. It is an accidental result of the action he has chosen to take. While it is possible that someone might cheat and flaunt it against the spouse, usually they go to some trouble to try to hide the affair.
In the case of public humiliation, that is a deliberate action, intended to cause pain and embarrassment to the other person. It cannot be construed as unintended.
In my opinion, public humiliation, which you claim is one objective of exposure is a punishment, or revenge. To say that it is not, is splitting hairs.
In the case of the pain caused by the cheater to his spouse, that is collateral damage. It is an accidental result of the action he has chosen to take. While it is possible that someone might cheat and flaunt it against the spouse, usually they go to some trouble to try to hide the affair.
In the case of public humiliation, that is a deliberate action, intended to cause pain and embarrassment to the other person. It cannot be construed as unintended.
Right
I agree Allen. Cheating is a deliberate action. The pain caused is very deliberate. It is not collateral. It cannot be construed as unintended.
Flowers always make people better, happier, and more helpful; they are sunshine, food and medicine for the soul. unconditional love is awesome!
In the case of the pain caused by the cheater to his spouse, that is collateral damage. It is an accidental result of the action he has chosen to take. While it is possible that someone might cheat and flaunt it against the spouse, usually they go to some trouble to try to hide the affair.
You are implying cheaters HIDE their affairs to spare their spouse pain... sure, I have heard that one... from my cheating spouse!
This is BS, sorry, but cheaters hide affairs so they can CONTINUE them.
Accident I think not.. they KNOW what they are doing and they KNOW they are hurting people... the suggestion that they are some innocent and don't intend any harm is just silly...
Telling the public the truth about the damage being done to someone's home is EXPOSING pain done by an affair.
Sorry, but your line of reasoning would suggest no one should be reporting crimes of any kind... it just invites a LOT of abuse.. I can't accept this as making any sense at all.
"I didn't know I was hurting you and trashing my marriage, that was an accident, honest..."
If I burn a house down, assuming it is vacant, and it is NOT vacant, I am STILL charged with a criminal offence..
Wreckless disregard for the potential damage one may cause is offensive.. them simply hoping they dont' hurt anyone does not lessen the offence at all...
If I fire a gun and someone gets hit, I get charged. Sure, some fancy lawyer could argue for a lesser charge than would be the case for a deliberate attempt to hurt someone, but you are suggesting because the damage is indirect it is sufficient to warrant it being kept SILENT.. I do NOT agree with that.
