Interesting set of exchanges Markos. I like the pebble parable, good one.

Yeah, I had one of those. Except it wasn't really a whine thread per se. It was more of an "I am on the edge of the abyss but I love my DH and I am desperate and I don't know if I am going to make it and I am afraid I am failing" thread. A raw, exposed, I don't want to leave my M but I can't live the rest of my life like this thread. And then I discovered am SF specific complement to the MB I was using. And I mentioned it. And that was BAD. And I realized that I was going to have to step away, especially after DH saw how twisted into knots I was and insisted on it.

So it DID work....once I tweaked it, because were WERE different. I don't care about rhetoric. I care that at this very moment DH and I are absolutely in love.

I'm certain we don't. I'm even more certain that I don't care what your definition of MY recovered marriage is. Not in the least. But the real travesty is that people with strong opinions about other peoples' marriages are the rule on the MB forums, not the exception.



At it's best, or in coaching, I would agree that this is what MB is about.



Hm... what about si2ations where the WS never left? But my own opinion about my own si2ation and what I would have done if my W had left 2 be with RM is that I wouldn't have wanted her back. I've been married a long time, and had been married a long time when I discovered the affair. And I STILL would not want 2 recover my marriage if my W's had been a "full blown" PA or she had left (or she hadn't ended the PA even) upon d-day.

I also think it's important, when giving suggestions 2 newbies on a discussion forum, that one clearly state that they are giving their opinions, and that it is always up 2 the newbie 2 make their own determinations as w what they can or should do.



You can post your own material here on MA, since you wrote it. Your call. But since I was banned from MB it's kind of a waste 2 go there where I can't post.



Not sure what terms you'd be violating. But by all means bring it 2 your thread on thunderdome, then.

-ol' 2long

I believe that, when implemented properly, the MB program actually works... but I have to be honest & say that I have no idea about the Infidelity piece of the program - Plan A, Plan B, and nuclear exposure...We did not have that issue in our marriage. We had other issues & this program has helped us tremendously.

For one thing, our marriage is finally honest. We don't lie to keep the peace anymore. That's a biggie. When you don't give the people in your life honest feedback about how their actions impact your feelings, you are setting them (& the relationship) up for failure.

We also resolve conflicts in a very different way now than we did in the past....negotiation, brainstorming about solutions which make both of us happy....

We are closer now than we've ever been.

This is due to the program; however, it's also due to the fact that both of us are 100% committed to a great marriage.

I believe that Mort Fertel & others have great successes too. I believe that MB isn't the end all be all & that there are other programs which work....but no "program" will work unless both people want it to. Many people who use MB never get past the reluctant spouse issue or they half-assed implement the program...so it doesn't work.

Just keeping it real.

This makes sence & I can see why it is being said.

From what I have observed, the Plan A, Plan B thing allows for the WW to harm the H even more.

I just wanted to clarify about "nuclear exposure" piece of this.

The concept of "nuclear exposure" was born and raised entirely in the MB forum. As we all know, the forum is a place where peers exchange ideas and talk about the MB program.

At some point, someone or a group of someones, got things a bit twisted around in their heads and started recommending this thing called "nuclear exposure" to every dazed and confused newbie that posted on the board.

There is NO mention of this in any of Harley's books or articles and the forum members' zeal to push their own agendas did way more harm than good.

Just wanted to set the record straight here on MA.

I am going to a broken record on the "nuclear" exposure point to where everyone is going to be thinking "PLEASE HOW DO WE MAKE HER SHUT UP!".

Exposing via Facebook tor any other social networking site, either by posting on the wall of your wayward spouse's affair partner OR by copying the contacts list of the affair partner and sending personal messages to every person on it with the exposure letter MAY EXPOSE YOU TO SERIOUS LEGAL LIABILITY, particularly if some of the contacts are professionally linked to the affair partner.

The whole idea makes my lawyer soul shudder.

Consult your local lawyer.

Good point OH. (Look! I'm speaking to you directly now)

I don't recall seeing anything about nuclear exposure in Harley's writings.

To set the record straight, I could post something to Dr. Harley directly and ask him his views on that. I can share the answer with everyone here if you feel that would be helpful.

Here's the question I posted to Dr. H:

Chris:

When he responds, could you open up the discussion with him to include the Nuclear part, in other words, Facebook, billboards and the like?

I do know that the chief proponent of nuclear exposure reads the private part of the forum and will change direction if Dr. Harley says something.

Larry

This is my new favorite article

HRF

That is one of the articles I read on the subject. The problem I have is that definitions run around all over the place. Harley address one, but it is a bit like hitting the pop up monkeys. He nailed one, but what about all the rest?

This is why I asked if Time wanted to do a construction thread on the topic.

That's one of the things about Dr. Harley you have to be really careful with: definitions. Dr. Harley tries to be extraordinarily precise and consistent with his definitions. (He's clearly an engineer/scientist at heart.) Often times things he says may not make as much sense as they should to a reader because the reader doesn't realize or understand the definitions Dr. Harley is assuming.

As an example, while Dr. Harley is an advocate of complaints in marriage, just yesterday I was reading an article at divorce busting arguing against complaints. But the position wasn't really different: it's just that to Dr. Harley, complaints do not include demands, disrespect, or anger, and to the author over there complaints meant something different.

Dr. Harley's definition of "conflict" is also very confusing I think until you realize what he means. He says he and Joyce have a conflict about once an hour, on average.

I'm sure Larry knows this, of course, but I thought it was valuable to point out.

I listened to an old radio program this week (date 4/7/2006 I believe) in which it was mentioned by the Harleys that their son lived in the same town with them, but their daughter did not.

Can you clarify? It was bad to mention the complimentary material ... to your husband? To the forum?

Not DH. I read a book called Sheet Music by Kevin Lehman. It was like a balm. I didn't toss all the things I had learned at MB or plan to stop implementing them. But it helped me to understand myself in a was that was helpful. So I mentioned it on a thread.....BAAAAAAD idea. It never even entered my mind to seem anti-MB or that someone should leave MB and go all "Kevin Lehman" instead or not implement the MB concepts or anything. It was just a book....no subterfuge or evil motives involved. Just a book.

Like I have said before. There is only one Book I am 100% exclusive about...the Bible. It's fine to be sold on a particular concept, but to imply that if you do anything else you are somehow being....unfaithful? That almost seems cultlike.

Markos:



Agreed. You have to absorb all of Dr. Harley's stuff to really get a feel for the assumptions upon which his advice rests, or definitions as the words in this context have similar meaning.

The more you read, the better the understanding. And the better the understanding, the more one is likely to appreciate the depth of the knowledge that Harley brings to the table.

My sole and only complaint about Dr. Harley is the way he has managed, or not managed, his forum. But that is a subject for another day - and the Thunderdome.

Thanks for the help, but if you read this entire thread, you will see that this has been discussed in detail and that we all know that Dr Harley never said anything about nuclear exposure in his writings.

People who have become legends in their own minds, have somehow decided this strategy is a sanctioned MB strategy and therefore, every shell-shocked newbie who comes onto the forum needs to do exactly this.

LOL. That "chief proponent" would stand barefoot out in the snow if WH told her it was a good MB strategy.

Markos, Dr. Harley can be the world's greatest scientist and engineer and we can all worship at his mountain. But if he can't figure out how to 'dumb it down' for the general lay person out there (aka, you and me, etc.), then what good is it?

Being told "well you just don't understand him, you have to try harder" does NOT fly in my book.

Well, then it's certainly a good thing I'm not saying that.

No, you haven't said that, Markos. Sorry if I implied that you had said that.

However, it *has* been said on that forum. I was replying to your post about Dr. Harley being a scientist and an engineer, which I appreciate..and acknowledge..however, it is fairly useless to be in a field where it is crucial people understand what you are saying, and then be told (not by him but by others), that if you don't understand him, you're missing a few brain cells, or something similar.

I was under the impression that this thread was for the discussion of the Marriage Builders Program....not the discussion forums.

I have not seen one post yet, OH, from anyone who states that the discussion forums are not run by out of control Moderators who interpret WH through their own filters. I believe that the thread that deal with that issue is in the TD.

markos, are you here as an official rep of MB to clear up misperceptions (which I think would be a good idea if MB sent one and informed MA's AB who it is)?

Also, it has been asserted that you are a known poster who is posting incognito as "markos"........personally, I don't care as long as you follow MA's TOS but I think it would be a good idea if you informed the AB of who you really are in the interest of good will.

If you want to know about Harley's actual program, the one HE uses and not the one presented by the forums, read Effective Marriage Counseling released early this year.

Meta warning!

Markos is NOT an official representative of MB, the forums or the organization, and as best as I can ascertain has never posted on MB or another forum related to MB under any other posting name.

But that isn't the topic of this thread and as already pointed out, neither are the interpretations of the Harley program by those posting on the forums at MB.