Okay, so she kept it in her in box all day today. She knows I check, but she kept it around. I didn't see a reply to him. I actually just checked again, and now it's gone, but nothing in Sent.
AFAIK, she hasn't spoken to him in going on a couple of years (AFAIK). But, he asked her out to lunch?!?! I ratted him out to his wife and his BW let me know about contact that they had post NC, etc.
So, is he that stupid? Should I ask my W about it. I was (and still am) hoping that she will mention it to me. (I made a screen cap of it, so I can always send it to his BW).
I'm not terribly worried that she will go to lunch with him, but I will have my eyes peeled.
Thoughts on how to approach this? Needless to say, that put a damper on my day...
And yes, I'd send it to his wife.
It's all very curious. They have no contact for almost 2 yrs. and he says "Lunch next week?" That seems a little too familiar for not having spoken...
This is not behaviour that rebuilds trust.
I would def send to the OM'S BW. She deserves to know he's still an ass.
presently working towards...well i don't know anymore...
[This message edited by Happydays at 2:21 PM, May 31st (Friday)]
(I just saw your newest post....and see that you noticed the same thing that I did.)
In my effort to be *concise*, I often come off as blunt and harsh. Sorry, don't mean to be offensive.
Be wary of those that do *good* things fo
The fact that there hasn't been contact in a couple of years, along with the overly-familiar tone of the email, and that it happened today....should bother your wife enough for her to not *forget* about it.
I vote for a *wait and watch* approach.....with perhaps the subtle email references dropped into conversation that were suggested to you earlier.
eta: dropping an email reference into conversation gives a way to *broach* the subject without you having to sound accusatory....and might be helpful for her in case she is having a problem with *how* to bring it up.....
[This message edited by gonnabe2016 at 3:01 PM, May 31st (Friday)]
at the end of the week I would forward the email to the betrayed wife, and I would have a serious boundary discussion with my Fww. that of course is assuming that nothing happens at lunch.
[This message edited by metamorphisis at 3:43 PM, May 31st (Friday)]
I would ask, tonight, why only ONE email from her work email was deleted from BOTH her inbox AND trash: the email from OM.
I agree, the cloak-and-dagger stuff is for the birds. Why should a BS's anxiety be left at Defcon 1 when simple conversation can resolve the matter, one way or the other?
Unique, I agree that the "lunch next week?" is very casual for someone not in contact. It may be that he's now pushing boundaries and testing the safety of work email.
I would want to know whether there has been other communication (waiting won't answer that), why the email was deleted before you were told and could read it with her (waiting won't answer that), and what the plan is to ensure future NC (waiting won't answer that).
Transparency is crucial. Waiting may give you an idea of whether your wife is being transparent...but really, you already know that she hasn't been, at least today.
So talk about it. Find out if there have been other days she hasn't been transparent.
If you ask a WS about the email, they lie. Nearly always. Even if it's just to avoid drama and not that the WS plans to resume the affair. Drama avoidance. Conversations with a WS are worthless if they're lying.
But if you wait, then you can figure out what they ACTUALLY WILL DO (like respond to it or really meet for lunch). And that makes all the difference in the world as to whether or not a WS is trustworthy and whether or not a BS wants to remain married to this person
My Opinion: People who confront early and don't investigate are chicken. They would rather the WS lie than to have to deal with the truth if it's not good. So they confront early so that a WS can lie, or go more deeply underground by being tipped off.
[This message edited by Heavy Sigh at 4:02 PM, May 31st (Friday)]
My Opinion: People who confront early and don't investigate are chicken.
So I agree that in a lot of cases, including this one, it makes sense to wait a bit an collect evidence.
I wholeheartedly disagree that those who confront immediately are "chicken" and would rather their WS lie. Sometimes emotion just takes over. It takes a HELL of a lot of wherewithal to go into investigative mode instead of just blowing the lid off the case because your universe was just upended.
I'm terrible at keeping things under my hat, but not because I'm chicken. Impulsive, sure. I also have this thing where I need my reality to be REAL, and I need it yesterday. People trying to hide things don't like me - what can I say.
Sorry to t/j. I just think that the namecalling was really unnecessary.
For last year's words belong to last year's language
And next year's words await another voice.
And to make an end is to make a beginning. - T.S. Eliot
Damn, I really hope she comes home and admits to it.
ETA I agree with Jrazz "Sorry to t/j. I just think that the namecalling was really unnecessary."
[This message edited by 5454real at 4:31 PM, May 31st (Friday)]
People who confront early and don't investigate are chicken
Duly noted. Good thing I don't care if you think I'm a chicken. Look I was overwhelmed. I literally went from "My partner loves me and is not having sex with someone else" to "Oh.. apparently he is."
Being tactical was the last thing on my mind. Murder was pretty much at the forefront.
But in the end.. who the heck cares? Do what's best for you uniquenewyork (and everyone), and if that turns out to be the totally wrong thing.. approach it a different way. Last time I checked it wasn't a contest on who handled this shit show perfectly.
[This message edited by metamorphisis at 5:46 PM, May 31st (Friday)]