# Reconciliation and Control Issues... What the



## Ben Connedfussed (May 4, 2012)

Hello again. This may be another off the wall question, but here goes!

I have heard some comment that when a couple are trying to stay together in a marriage, after an affair, that there needs to be transparency so the BS can regain trust more easily. Now I read also that some want to call such things as checking the phones, bills, passwords, etc. as spying and it is nothing more than a controlling issue. 

First of all, as I see it, there should never be any secrets in a marital relationship!

And foremost, after an affair is exposed and the betrayed spouse is willing to work things out to save the marriage, there should by no means any secrets or unwillingness on the dishonest spouses part to prove their loyalty. 

So, is the betrayed spouses request for transparency and getting information 'on a need to know' basis really a controlling issue.?
I don't think so, in light as seeing how the betrayed spouse has been treated in such manner. What? The betrayed spouse should not be expected to have trust issues? Obscure and unbelievable, if you ask me!


----------



## survivorwife (May 15, 2012)

I agree with you. I know of several "good" marriages where there is trust. In these marriages, the couple does not hide passwords to emails or anything else. They both use the same computer (or not) but both have complete access to each others emails. And since there is trust and openness, there is also a certain amount of respect for each others privacy in that they don't check every day. They just know that they can check if they want to.


----------



## Ben Connedfussed (May 4, 2012)

survivorwife said:


> I agree with you. I know of several "good" marriages where there is trust. In these marriages, the couple does not hide passwords to emails or anything else. They both use the same computer (or not) but both have complete access to each others emails. And since there is trust and openness, there is also a certain amount of respect for each others privacy in that they don't check every day. They just know that they can check if they want to.


Thank you for that reply. A marriage of good standing had no walls built between the partners, lest their hearts be separated as well. Only a wall of love, security, and trust surrounding the both, and a willingness to show each other whatever it takes to prove that proverbial undying love! No secrets. NO SECRETS!


----------



## sigma1299 (May 26, 2011)

Hell no it's not controlling. It's the obligation of the WS to gladly be transparent, and transparency is more than phone bills and key loggers. It's openness into how you feel and what you think. Any WS who doesn't voluntarily give total transparency isn't really interested in reconciling. IMO the only obligation (and that word maybe to strong) the BS has is to try to make it easy for the WS to talk and tell them truth, to not attack, berate, or belittle the WS when the roller coaster takes a plunge.


----------



## Ben Connedfussed (May 4, 2012)

sigma1299 said:


> Hell no it's not controlling. It's the obligation of the WS to gladly be transparent, and transparency is more than phone bills and key loggers. It's openness into how you feel and what you think. Any WS who doesn't voluntarily give total transparency isn't really interested in reconciling. IMO the only obligation (and that word maybe to strong) the BS has is to try to make it easy for the WS to talk and tell them truth, to not attack, berate, or belittle the WS when the roller coaster takes a plunge.


Understandable! Transparency is a must if the trust is going to return, and yes, cooperation on the behalf of the BS. I see the point!


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

Nope. Not controlling at all. I agree with Sigma. My husband has always had all my passwords and I have his. Kinda weird that we never went into each other's emails when we were suspicious. But I no problem with him "checking up" for his peace of mind... and vice versa. I got rid of the lock on my phone when I came clean to him. And if he asks for my phone, for whatever reason, I hand it over, no questions asked. Whatever he needs to confirm that I am staying faithful, and whatever I need to confirm the same, we are doing...with no problems.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

sigma1299 said:


> Hell no it's not controlling. It's the obligation of the WS to gladly be transparent, and transparency is more than phone bills and key loggers. It's openness into how you feel and what you think. Any WS who doesn't voluntarily give total transparency isn't really interested in reconciling. IMO the only obligation (and that word maybe to strong) the BS has is to try to make it easy for the WS to talk and tell them truth, to not attack, berate, or belittle the WS when the roller coaster takes a plunge.


:iagree: Perfectly said. If a WS feels that the BS is trying to control them by asking for transparency, and is unwilling to give it, there's a rather LARGE problem with R happening. Likewise, if the BS is using it as an excuse to 'make them pay', there's a problem.


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

Instead of making it an issue of control, it could be made into a relationship building tool. Having each others passwords and such is obviously necessary, but checking without the other persons knowledge (unless there are red flags flying all over the place) is unnecessary. When you feel the need to check, simply walk up to your spouse and say "<term of endearment> I'm feeling anxious, lets sit down and go over <whatever it happens to be, email, bills, whatever> together, so I can put the anxious thoughts away."

Still transparent, leaving no room for secrecy, but preserving privacy and respect. Also allowing for some time to sit with each other and do something together. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Vegemite (Apr 12, 2012)

Paladin said:


> Instead of making it an issue of control, it could be made into a relationship building tool. Having each others passwords and such is obviously necessary, but checking without the other persons knowledge (unless there are red flags flying all over the place) is unnecessary. When you feel the need to check, simply walk up to your spouse and say "<term of endearment> I'm feeling anxious, lets sit down and go over <whatever it happens to be, email, bills, whatever> together, so I can put the anxious thoughts away."
> 
> Still transparent, leaving no room for secrecy, but preserving privacy and respect. Also allowing for some time to sit with each other and do something together.
> 
> Just my two cents.


I've always insisted on transparancy, especially the mobile phone. But I still feel awkward about doing it. That's a good suggestion Paladin. I do believe there has to be respect, regardless of the history.


----------



## LeighRichwood (Mar 31, 2012)

It may feel like control to the FWS at first even if they're on the right path. If you've never had this kind of transparency in your marriage, then this could be difficult. 

I also feel like it's not reasonable to require transparency if you're not willing to give it back - transparency should be a two way street. Dual transparency may be a way to lessen the control issue.

Transparency shouldn't make the BS turn into the police. Transparency is a tool to build trust, not a tool to make sure that a FWS is obeying the rules. If a BS turns into the police, then it does turn into control.

I've also found that at first I was checking everything almost every day. I was obsessive about knowing what my husband had been up to. It was absolutely exhausting and not something I could have kept up for a long time. Now, I rarely check anything. It's easier now because most of the times I do check is when he asks me to look somewhere to get information he needs. 

If I were to see even one red flag, however, I'd go into full stealth investigation mode.


----------



## moxy (Apr 2, 2012)

Interesting question. In my opinion, intention makes a big difference here. I think that if the surveillance is used to verify the trustworthiness of the wayward spouse, that it's okay. However, if surveillance is used to manipulate and change the wayward spouse's behavior, then it tends toward controlling. 

The purpose of transparency and on checking on up on the spouse isn't to ensure compliance about rules by policing, but to just make sure that the spouse isn't being dishonest. It helps the betrayed spouse decide what he/she should do, rather than enforcing the actions of the wayward spouse. It can be tricky to find a balance, though. 

Privacy is important, but it isn't the same thing as secrecy. I think that checking up on a spouse who has willingly consented to transparency shouldn't be a problem, but that the person doing the checking up needs to recognize when he/she is crossing the line and breaching privacy. For instance, I think it's okay to read a spouse's email, but not a spouse's journal; the emails are between the spouse and someone outside the marriage, but the journal is basically between the spouse and his/her own head. One cannot in fairness police the thoughts of another person, but one can in fairness evaluate the actions of another person to see if that person has integrity and honesty and is worthy of trust.

So, I guess that observing and spying are fundamentally different actions. They also imply different levels of consent. And, the element of control enters the picture only when one person is attempting to unfairly influence the other one's behavior. You can't MAKE your spouse treat you well, but you can see if he/she does or doesn't and you can walk away if he/she doesn't.


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

If that's controlling, I'm fine with being controlling. I've been called worse things before anyway!


----------



## LookingForTheSun (Dec 28, 2011)

sigma1299 said:


> Hell no it's not controlling. It's the obligation of the WS to gladly be transparent, and transparency is more than phone bills and key loggers. It's openness into how you feel and what you think. Any WS who doesn't voluntarily give total transparency isn't really interested in reconciling. IMO the only obligation (and that word maybe to strong) the BS has is to try to make it easy for the WS to talk and tell them truth, to not attack, berate, or belittle the WS when the roller coaster takes a plunge.


So if the spouse is being transparent about phone, email, etc, is remorseful and apologized over and over, but still can't won't talk about how they are doing because they say that you (WS) are dealing with enough and that they are actually doing "fine" they just can't forgive themselves for what they did, does that mean that they do not want to really R, or is it personal psychy issues that they need counseling with to forgive or move past what they did and focus on full R?


----------



## moxy (Apr 2, 2012)

Looking, transparency is important to rebuilding trust, but intimacy is also something that needs building, too. If the WS isn't telling the BS things, then there's a lack of communication there. There might be other issues in the marriage that need addressing before there is more emotional intimacy.


----------

