<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Challenge and Importance of Disclosure &#8211; Part 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://newlifearticles.com/2006/11/the-challenge-and-importance-of-disclosure-part-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://newlifearticles.com/2006/11/the-challenge-and-importance-of-disclosure-part-2/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:45:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: NoMore</title>
		<link>http://newlifearticles.com/2006/11/the-challenge-and-importance-of-disclosure-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-308</link>
		<dc:creator>NoMore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:14:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newlifearticles.com/?p=57#comment-308</guid>
		<description>I totally agree with SuperCat! I am mortified at the thought that it&#039;s even suggested that total disclosure is not supported!

Like I told my husband, if I&#039;ve discovered something...enough to come to ask you about an unfaithful inicident...then I&#039;ve already prepared myself to hear the worst! The worst for me is finding out that there was more to the story that you didn&#039;t disclose when you had the chance.  That only reopens the wounds of that inicident and further causes the distrust to deepen.   
This is what happened in my case. First lies, denial, and rage...then &quot;some disclosure&quot; and then later more things were revealed and it ultimatley has brought the distrust to zero! I gave him many many many opportunities for full disclosure he he chose not to take it. Well now he&#039;s paying the price of a broken marriage and all of the efforts its going to take to try to fix it...if it can even be fixed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I totally agree with SuperCat! I am mortified at the thought that it&#8217;s even suggested that total disclosure is not supported!</p>
<p>Like I told my husband, if I&#8217;ve discovered something&#8230;enough to come to ask you about an unfaithful inicident&#8230;then I&#8217;ve already prepared myself to hear the worst! The worst for me is finding out that there was more to the story that you didn&#8217;t disclose when you had the chance.  That only reopens the wounds of that inicident and further causes the distrust to deepen.<br />
This is what happened in my case. First lies, denial, and rage&#8230;then &#8220;some disclosure&#8221; and then later more things were revealed and it ultimatley has brought the distrust to zero! I gave him many many many opportunities for full disclosure he he chose not to take it. Well now he&#8217;s paying the price of a broken marriage and all of the efforts its going to take to try to fix it&#8230;if it can even be fixed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Snipercatt</title>
		<link>http://newlifearticles.com/2006/11/the-challenge-and-importance-of-disclosure-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-307</link>
		<dc:creator>Snipercatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:51:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newlifearticles.com/?p=57#comment-307</guid>
		<description>Stenberg is guilty of the same error he writes about, &quot;advice written by males who were deciding what was best for their wives without consulting them.&quot;

The infidel has no right to &quot;decide what you will disclose.&quot;  And, it isn&#039;t Biblical or wise, to advise that infidels may want to remain silent about affairs from a long ago time in order to protect your wife from additional hurt for something that no longer poses any threat to your marriage.&quot;    Infidelity and adultery is a crime of arrogance against the heart, soul and life of the betrayed spouse.  Don&#039;t advise people to practice that same arrogance in disclosure.  


There is the real possibility of discovery some time in the future!!!  Sheesh!!  What is so hard to understand about &quot;no secrets.&quot;  The faithful spouse knew something was wrong, at the time, disclosing what it was allows them to put it in perspective.  Leaving this undisclosed has far greater possibility of imploding the marriage than dislcosing does.

This line of thinking is almost unfathomable.

A judge won&#039;t accept a plea agreement until the criminal truthfully and completely confesses.  This is no different.  The infidel doesn&#039;t get to set the pace or degree of information disclosure, that right belongs to the betrayed spouse.  It is an excuse if you believe you are protecting the betrayed spouse. You&#039;re only attempting to protect yourself.  Sooner, or later, someone or something brings what you kept in the dark, to light.  Why not let the light begin with the infidel? 

Telling the faithful spouse whether or not they need to be tested for STDs is a joke if toothbrushes were shared, kissing took place, licking happened, or oral or actual sex took place.  Condoms do not protect against transmission of vaginal infections and life long genital herpes to the faithful spouse.  And, since most infidels fail to confess all, the advice should be  Get.tested.period.  It puts the purposefulness of the infidel&#039;s betrayal front and center, that is what the infidel finds so difficult to admit.  The infidel chose to jeopardize their spouses life and health, don&#039;t do it again in disclosure.

OK, sermon over.  Thanks for the opportunity to comment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stenberg is guilty of the same error he writes about, &#8220;advice written by males who were deciding what was best for their wives without consulting them.&#8221;</p>
<p>The infidel has no right to &#8220;decide what you will disclose.&#8221;  And, it isn&#8217;t Biblical or wise, to advise that infidels may want to remain silent about affairs from a long ago time in order to protect your wife from additional hurt for something that no longer poses any threat to your marriage.&#8221;    Infidelity and adultery is a crime of arrogance against the heart, soul and life of the betrayed spouse.  Don&#8217;t advise people to practice that same arrogance in disclosure.  </p>
<p>There is the real possibility of discovery some time in the future!!!  Sheesh!!  What is so hard to understand about &#8220;no secrets.&#8221;  The faithful spouse knew something was wrong, at the time, disclosing what it was allows them to put it in perspective.  Leaving this undisclosed has far greater possibility of imploding the marriage than dislcosing does.</p>
<p>This line of thinking is almost unfathomable.</p>
<p>A judge won&#8217;t accept a plea agreement until the criminal truthfully and completely confesses.  This is no different.  The infidel doesn&#8217;t get to set the pace or degree of information disclosure, that right belongs to the betrayed spouse.  It is an excuse if you believe you are protecting the betrayed spouse. You&#8217;re only attempting to protect yourself.  Sooner, or later, someone or something brings what you kept in the dark, to light.  Why not let the light begin with the infidel? </p>
<p>Telling the faithful spouse whether or not they need to be tested for STDs is a joke if toothbrushes were shared, kissing took place, licking happened, or oral or actual sex took place.  Condoms do not protect against transmission of vaginal infections and life long genital herpes to the faithful spouse.  And, since most infidels fail to confess all, the advice should be  Get.tested.period.  It puts the purposefulness of the infidel&#8217;s betrayal front and center, that is what the infidel finds so difficult to admit.  The infidel chose to jeopardize their spouses life and health, don&#8217;t do it again in disclosure.</p>
<p>OK, sermon over.  Thanks for the opportunity to comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
