Interpretation of MWD and DR regarding infidelity

[~ kd ~]

I might be off course a little, I personally see DR and much of what MWD saying is stressing that infidelity is often a symptom of a deeper, underlying problem.

As opposed to someone who might be focused on infidelity as the problem.

My take on that, in context of pursuit / distance is that if infidelity is the symptom, it could be the LBS was distanced from the WAS so the WAS sought getting their needs met elsewhere.

Therefore, pursuit MIGHT be appropriate.

This might be the off course bit.

In the MLC forum, that's often seen as "poking the bear". ie. We will directly contact the WAS to "take a temperature" of the WAS to see if they are receptive to us. That may not make sense, although we can tell that if they are receptive, then we may work on seeking further connection with them. If they spew at us, we know we need to continue to stay away. Many don't do it purposely, the results are the same.

In what might be considered "generic infidelity", the WAS MAY be desiring to have their needs met by the LBS. So if distance is "more of the same" which set up a condition of the WAS seeking elsewhere... "doing something different" or "a 180" might be pursuit, to see if the WAS would be receptive to re-engaging or re-connecting with the LBS.

If the WAS is receptive to that and that direction is set up and begun, then the process of healing from the infidelity can begin.

If the WAS is NOT receptive... is the WAS just set in their course... and / or... is that because they don't see the LBS as a "better option"...

And finally, it is up to the LBS to decide... IF... they want to be a better option...

Their choice... neither good nor bad...

[Arsene]

Thanks Denver,

So most of these occurred after you guys had agreed to work on reconciliation. From what I understand. Your W had a difficult time letting go of OM and seemed to be torn between you and OM, however, she had expressed that she loved you and wanted to give it another go.

You talk about moments when you went "dark" and I realize you do need a certain amount of detachment to do this but how about being detached without going dark? Did you experience this? A time when although you were still in touch with your W regularly, her actions and words didn't affect you and you were able to stay cheerful (or at least act "as if" successfully) and get on with your life.

I guess I'm asking because I'm realizing that there is nothing I can do now to get her away from OM so my only alternative is to completely detach (so I don't live in constant pain) or simply give up.

I'm not ready to give up yet because, somehow, I still believe my W is somewhere in that body and that, once she comes out of that tunnel, we have a chance at a fantastic future together. Now I can't go "dark" because I'm taking care of D8, and W does come around often enough.

So far my detachment seems to have appeased the storm. We are now civil, or even friendly, and from where I stand, although this might not in itself get her to reconsider the A, at least, she is close enough that she will see/has seen the changes is me and, most of the time, I am not affected by what she does or say.

I'd love to hear more on the effects of detachment in the case of an A.

(I guess that since I still care about the outcome, I am not truly detached but I am as detached as I wish to be for the time being)

[Starsky309]

I might be off course a little, I personally see DR and much of what MWD saying is stressing that infidelity is often a symptom of a deeper, underlying problem.

As opposed to someone who might be focused on infidelity as the problem.

My take on that, in context of pursuit / distance is that if infidelity is the symptom, it could be the LBS was distanced from the WAS so the WAS sought getting their needs met elsewhere.

Therefore, pursuit MIGHT be appropriate.

This might be the off course bit.

In the MLC forum, that's often seen as "poking the bear". ie. We will directly contact the WAS to "take a temperature" of the WAS to see if they are receptive to us. That may not make sense, although we can tell that if they are receptive, then we may work on seeking further connection with them. If they spew at us, we know we need to continue to stay away. Many don't do it purposely, the results are the same.

In what might be considered "generic infidelity", the WAS MAY be desiring to have their needs met by the LBS. So if distance is "more of the same" which set up a condition of the WAS seeking elsewhere... "doing something different" or "a 180" might be pursuit, to see if the WAS would be receptive to re-engaging or re-connecting with the LBS.

If the WAS is receptive to that and that direction is set up and begun, then the process of healing from the infidelity can begin.

The problem I see with that approach is that the cheating spouse (and again, I was asking about this only in the context of infidelity) could easily be "receptive" to the pursuit solely as a way to cake-eat, or to keep the betrayed spouse in line while they carry on their affair, now with two people courting them.

I don't ever see a time when pursuit can be justified, as long as their is still an active affair going on. If "too much distance" was indeed a prior marital complaint, then the betrayed spouse can (and should) address that when the affair ends and they enter the Piecing phase.

This is just my opinion and observation, but I just don't think purusuig during an active affair is ever a good idea:

- It enables the affair, by having the betrayed spouse meet some of the cheating spouse's emotional (and sometimes even physical) needs, while their affair partner meets the others;

- It makes the betrayed spouse look weak and supplicating (especially if the LBS is the husband);

- It allows the cheating spouse to not have to make a decision, longer;

- It puts the betrayed spouse's own health at risk (if unprotected sex is a part of the recommended pursuit).

Again, these are just my opinions and observations; I was looking to see what MWD's official DB/DR stance was on the issue, since it was the topic of the thread. I do believe that infidelity is often -- maybe even usually -- a symptom of a deeper, underlying marital problem. I just also believe that it's an immediate "tree crashing thru the roof" (see Penny Tupy's excellent article "Holes in the Roof") that requires a different approach, at least while there is an active affair still going on. I do realize that reasonable people may disagree on this topic.


Starsky

[Denver_2010]

I might be off course a little, I personally see DR and much of what MWD saying is stressing that infidelity is often a symptom of a deeper, underlying problem.

As opposed to someone who might be focused on infidelity as the problem.

My take on that, in context of pursuit / distance is that if infidelity is the symptom, it could be the LBS was distanced from the WAS so the WAS sought getting their needs met elsewhere.

Therefore, pursuit MIGHT be appropriate.

This might be the off course bit.

In the MLC forum, that's often seen as "poking the bear". ie. We will directly contact the WAS to "take a temperature" of the WAS to see if they are receptive to us. That may not make sense, although we can tell that if they are receptive, then we may work on seeking further connection with them. If they spew at us, we know we need to continue to stay away. Many don't do it purposely, the results are the same.

In what might be considered "generic infidelity", the WAS MAY be desiring to have their needs met by the LBS. So if distance is "more of the same" which set up a condition of the WAS seeking elsewhere... "doing something different" or "a 180" might be pursuit, to see if the WAS would be receptive to re-engaging or re-connecting with the LBS.

If the WAS is receptive to that and that direction is set up and begun, then the process of healing from the infidelity can begin.

The problem I see with that approach is that the cheating spouse (and again, I was asking about this only in the context of infidelity) could easily be "receptive" to the pursuit solely as a way to cake-eat, or to keep the betrayed spouse in line while they carry on their affair, now with two people courting them.

I don't ever see a time when pursuit can be justified, as long as their is still an active affair going on. If "too much distance" was indeed a prior marital complaint, then the betrayed spouse can (and should) address that when the affair ends and they enter the Piecing phase.

This is just my opinion and observation, but I just don't think purusuig during an active affair is ever a good idea:

- It enables the affair, by having the betrayed spouse meet some of the cheating spouse's emotional (and sometimes even physical) needs, while their affair partner meets the others;

- It makes the betrayed spouse look weak and supplicating (especially if the LBS is the husband);

- It allows the cheating spouse to not have to make a decision, longer;

- It puts the betrayed spouse's own health at risk (if unprotected sex is a part of the recommended pursuit).

Again, these are just my opinions and observations; I was looking to see what MWD's official DB/DR stance was on the issue, since it was the topic of the thread. I do believe that infidelity is often -- maybe even usually -- a symptom of a deeper, underlying marital problem. I just also believe that it's an immediate "tree crashing thru the roof" (see Penny Tupy's excellent article "Holes in the Roof") that requires a different approach, at least while there is an active affair still going on. I do realize that reasonable people may disagree on this topic.


Starsky

Wow... I actually agree with Starsky on this 100%. As long as OM is a part of WAW's life, LBH should not be an active part. That's not to say that you necessarily have to be completely dark, but not an active part of their life. IMO of course.

[Starsky309]

Wow... I actually agree with Starsky on this 100%. As long as OM is a part of WAW's life, LBH should not be an active part. That's not to say that you necessarily have to be completely dark, but not an active part of their life. IMO of course.

But yet, I'm pretty sure this is what MWD teaches. At least up until the LRT and perhaps up until the after-the-LRT stage. That's why I was looking for clarification from dbmod.

Not sure if it's MWD teaching or it's just what the forum has morphed into over the years, but I'm pretty sure even the DB coaches encourage "flirting" and other forms of pursuit even with the actively-wayward. It's fine if we disagree on that; I'm just looking to get a straight answer, since this thread was started and we're all discussing this aspect right now.


Starsky

[Still learning]

MESSAGE FOR STARSKY309, JTB, SANDI2, DENVER, HARRIER AND OTHERS. SORRY TO HIGHJACK. COULD FOLKS POINT THIS OUT TO THESE FOLKS?

I'LL BE GOING OFFLINE. MY W FOUND THE FORUM AND SOME OF MY POSTS. IT WAS A SHOCK TO ME AND A ROUGH WEEKEND BUT SPARKED SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS. I'M GOING TO BE FINE. BUT OBVIOUSLY I'D RATHER THAT SHE DIDN'T GO BACK AND RE-READ THE POSTS. I JUST NEED TO GO OUT ON MY OWN FOR AWHILE. BUT I COULDN'T HEAD OUT WITHOUT SAYING THANKS. AND THANKS TO MWD FOR RUNNING A GREAT ONLINE COMMUNITY. I HAVE GROWN AND LEARNED A LOT. I'M A BETTER MAN, FATHER, AND HUSBAND FOR IT. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS A GREAT AND KIND SERVICE. I WISH YOU ALL THE BEST. sl

[chatterbug]

The women on the board are very good at describing their play-by-plays. You see what works, because you see it as it happens, and you see it isn't one technique.


2 successful men's stories on the board come to mind, because they are not only successful but pretty well described on the board:


Denver 2010
JackThreeBeans


Please feel free to add stories that are successful and well described.

What are you defining as successful? I only ask since you posted this via your mod id. And the two names you mentioned are at two completely different levels in their recoveries.

Please post anything you feel as helpful.

I know many folks are successful, but they don't say EVERYTHING that was succesful for them.

If you look around folks are very descriptive in what is wrong with their spouses. As things start working out, you might find they are together. Andthey might post something they felt important ... but not the individual day by day interactions that helped to bring them togeher. They might not describe that the fact they told their wife how beautiful she was to them, or the fact that woman told her family in front of her husband, what a great man, provider and father he was.

Get it?



if you recognize something great, post it.

I have no idea if you answered my question that I asked.

What are you defining as successful ?

[Denver_2010]

Thanks Denver,

So most of these occurred after you guys had agreed to work on reconciliation. From what I understand. Your W had a difficult time letting go of OM and seemed to be torn between you and OM, however, she had expressed that she loved you and wanted to give it another go.

We never agreed to reconcile until this most recent go around. When we were in periods of hanging out, spending lots of time together, dating, whatever you want to call it, W's position was that she was 'trying' to forgive me and fall back in love with me. She always said that she loved me. But there was a wall that she just had a very hard time breaking down. IMO, it was all about the hurt that she felt from my prior actions and her fear that if she came back and opened her heart to me that she would just be hurt again.

OM presented an "opportunity for happiness with out [me]" for my W. She had a hard time letting go of THAT. I don't think that it was OM himself, if that makes sense. Listen, he had spent months 'supporting' my W and listening to her complaints about me. He had the playbook. He provided her the things that I hadn't before. She had been starved for these things for a very long time. It was difficult for my W to believe that she could get them from me after not having gotten them for so long, and after having received them from OM, it was something that was hard to let go of.

But she said throughout, that I felt like 'home' to her.

That's what she was torn between.

It wasn't until I had demonstrated for a very long time that I had changed, understood what she needed, and was capable of giving that to her... and then, at the end, taking myself away from her altogether, that my W was finally able to figure it out.

So yes, there were long periods of time when she and I would spend lots of time together. Her trying to break down that wall, and me trying to show her that she could trust me with her heart. But at all times, my position was that if OM was a part of her life, that I would not be an active part of her life.

You talk about moments when you went "dark" and I realize you do need a certain amount of detachment to do this but how about being detached without going dark? Did you experience this? A time when although you were still in touch with your W regularly, her actions and words didn't affect you and you were able to stay cheerful (or at least act "as if" successfully) and get on with your life.

Honestly, the answer is no. I never was able to really fully detach. The closest that I came was in August/Sept of 2011. I briefly dated a girl in August (which was a huge mistake for me personally btw). And when that ended, the lawfirm that I co-owned broke apart. I had to focus on dealing with the business S with my biz partner and building a new law firm in September and October. So my mind was distracted away from what my W was doing. So I was somewhat detached by the distraction of OW and then by my career.

I had gone dark on her in August because she began to spend time and talk to OM again. In September, she began to initiate contact with me. I kept conversations short, ended them first, didn't always respond to texts or voice messages, but was otherwise polite and upbeat when I did speak with her.

In a sense I was becoming detached at this point, and wasn't dark. But I was not fully detached. In my mind, I was just letting my W figure her life out while I focused on mine. I loved her from a distance and did not allow my thoughts to be constantly consumed by what she was or was not doing.

By the end of September, she was telling me that OM was out of her life again and that she wanted to work on us... towards reconciliation. She still wouldn't commit to it though.

Same thing in January of this year. We had gone from Oct through middle of January spending lots, and lots of time together, without W committing to R. Then I found out that she had spent some time with OM one week in January. I had set a boundary, so I enforced it by removing myself from her life immediately. The same cycle repeated albeit much shorter this time. By early February she was again saying that she was done with OM and wanted to work on us. Actually, this was, for the most part the end of OM even though he still lurked and W had not completely resolved her feelings for him or the thought that he was her alternate 'opportunity for happiness' so to speak.

I guess I'm asking because I'm realizing that there is nothing I can do now to get her away from OM so my only alternative is to completely detach (so I don't live in constant pain) or simply give up.

You're not ready to give up, so what I suggest is that you do what I did in August/Sept of 2011 and in January of 2012. Remove yourself as much as possible. Love her from a distance. Lovingly detach in other words. Keep your conversations and contact limited to what is necessary for your D. Maybe this is a good way to say it... be an active part of your D's life, but do not be an active part of your W's life... she is with an OM right now. IMO, she needs to know that the consequence of that is that she no longer has you to be there for her in any way other than as the father of her child.

I'm not ready to give up yet because, somehow, I still believe my W is somewhere in that body and that, once she comes out of that tunnel, we have a chance at a fantastic future together. Now I can't go "dark" because I'm taking care of D8, and W does come around often enough.

Can you not work out a plan where your W is not around when you have D and you are not around when she has D? Again, you need to remove yourself from your W's life as long as OM is a part of it. IMO.

at least, she is close enough that she will see/has seen the changes is me and,

She needs to see this from afar, and during the brief moments of contact that YOU allow. Right now, IMO, that should come in the context of your D only.

I'd love to hear more on the effects of detachment in the case of an A.

(I guess that since I still care about the outcome, I am not truly detached but I am as detached as I wish to be for the time being)

Being detached does not mean that you stop caring. You love from a distance. The moment that you become ambivalent, I believe that you will move on and your M will be over.

Lovingly detach.

Unfortunately, nothing is going to happen as long as OM is part of your W's life. As long as whatever it is that she thinks that he offers is in her head, she will not be open to R.

She has to work through this on your own. She has to resolve these feelings. You cannot force it to happen, or expedite it. Trust me on this. I tried everything that I could. I tried to will it to happen. It is just something that we have no control over.

So where does that leave you? It leaves you waiting for your W to figure it out. Personally, I wish that I had listened to others here and not tortured myself so much during the periods when I was where you are now. I wish that I would have used the time to GAL more. Not that I didn't do some, but I never fully enjoyed it. I don't want to say to sit back an enjoy the ride, because you are not going to enjoy much about this ride. But maybe, you sit back, try to relax a bit, find a bit of peace and happiness where you can, continue to love your W from afar, and let the ride happen.

To me, that is detaching. That's all that you can do right now Arsene.

[Denver_2010]

Wow... I actually agree with Starsky on this 100%. As long as OM is a part of WAW's life, LBH should not be an active part. That's not to say that you necessarily have to be completely dark, but not an active part of their life. IMO of course.

But yet, I'm pretty sure this is what MWD teaches. At least up until the LRT and perhaps up until the after-the-LRT stage.

My interpretation is that this is what she teaches in the LRT. But personally, I think that you should be in LRT if your S is in an active A.

My interpretation of the after LRT stage, is basically ultimatum time. And you have to be ready to accept the end of your M.

Not sure if it's MWD teaching or it's just what the forum has morphed into over the years, but I'm pretty sure even the DB coaches encourage "flirting" and other forms of pursuit even with the actively-wayward. It's fine if we disagree on that; I'm just looking to get a straight answer, since this thread was started and we're all discussing this aspect right now.


Starsky

I could be wrong Starsky, but I think that MWD encourages this in the chapter on infidelity in DR prior to LRT. I'd have to go back and look at the chapter.

Either way though, I simply could not do it as long as WAS had an OP as active part of his or her life.

For me, I just had to remove myself from my W's life during those periods of time.

My mistake was always letting her back into my life too easily when she believed that she was ready to rid herself of OM, when she clearly had not completely resolved those feelings.

[Starsky309]

Either way though, I simply could not do it as long as WAS had an OP as active part of his or her life.

See? We do have some things in common. Me neither.