I believe what Cobra is trying to say is... there isn't anything wrong with feeling good when someone delivers a compliment, or feeling bad when someone delivers a put down. You cannot control what another will do.
There is a difference between discerning information (taking it into account), and allowing compliments/criticisms define or change who you are.
I will ask my dance coach, if he is not delivering enough positive feedback, according to me, if I am doing something right or wrong. If he says, "you are doing great," Yippee!!! I am doing it right. Good. I keep going.
If he says... "no, you are doing it wrong," and quite honestly, I don't have to prompt him for that one... Yippee!!! I have something specific, concrete to work with.
If he says, "you'll never make it as a competitive dancer..." how I respond to THAT... is all within MY power, and will determine my level of differentiation, or not, and whether I can continue the positive enmeshment needed to dance with another person (and do it well).
That seems okay. It would be a problem if it was the bunny-girl part of your psyche yelling out, "Look how much he digs me! He must really be into me if he's willing and able to do all this!!"
This actually brings up an issue on which you might be able to offer some enlightenment for me as a middle-aged divorced dating man. What I've discovered is that my bunny-girl needs to be as differentiated as my monkey-girl as a middle aged female dater because your peers are WAY more affectionate, romantic, cuddly etc. than the guys I dated when I was young. So I don't assign any "Look how much he digs me!" thoughts to that kind of behavior either. So it's just like bunny-girl yells out that she is having sweet-fun and monkey-girl yells out that she is having spicy-fun. At first I thought this sort of behavior was a misguided attempt to use romance to get me into bed. Now I think they behave that way just because they want to be romantic. So I'm wondering if this is because men just naturally get more cuddly as they get older or is it because divorced men are used to having an all-purpose wife type woman so that is why I feel like I am being viewed/used/judged as sex-object/romantic-interest/person to talk to about your kids and finances right from the get-go? Do you talk to women about issues with your children or the state of your finances or get all super-cuddly or over-the-top-chivalrous or actually tear up when you're talking to a woman on a first or second date? I guess the thing that confuses me is that there is nothing that clearly signals to me when somebody really does "dig me" except their continued desire to date me (One guy actually sent me an e-mail which freaked me out because he used the phrase "you are the one" and then he disappeared on me). Actually, I'm not even inclined to assign "meaning" to a continued expressed desire to date me anymore. It's all quite baffling.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I think you have gotten yourself to a point that you can quit worrying about it all, and decide for yourself if and how long you are willing to stay with it.
YOU are your own measure of success now. Isn't that a kicker?
YOU are your own measure of success now. Isn't that a kicker?
Oh, I think you are right except for the fact that I haven't set any standards for myself or closely examined my preferences which is why I am just sort of floating along in a state of baffled babbling curiosity at the moment. Which really isn't a bad place to be as long as you aren't too picky of an eater to appreciate a random buffet (probably closely related to a movable feast, right?).
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
(Cobra) But my point is that other-validation per se is NOT bad. In fact, there should not be anything wrong with it if both people could be trusted to hold up their end of the validation duty.
I disagree with this though I think maybe the disagreement is only semantic.
Other-validation is bad per se because I can't be other-validated if I'm already self-validated. Also, I can't trust *anybody* to hold up their end of the validation duty except myself.
Let me give you an example of what I mean, which may illustrate why I say the difference may only be semantic. One of the things I've done to build a post-divorce life is take up swing dancing. Almost all the women I've run into at various dances have been very polite and the etiquette, at least in this area, is not to turn anybody down who asks you to dance. Some women I've danced with seem to enjoy my style and are complimentary. They seem enthusiastic when I ask them to dance and sometimes even seek me out. Other women are much less enthusiastic and I've gotten the vibe from them that they don't really enjoy how I dance. I can think of at least three women that I won't ask to dance again because while they're polite about it, they appear to regard it as chore (though they're enthusiastic about dancing with other people). One woman in particular seems to wish she was far, far away whenever I'm in her field of view.
None of these women validate me one way or the other. I know I'm a good dancer. I know I have a tremendous amount still to learn and a lot of potential for improvement. I'm not immune to the differences in how I feel when dancing with enthusiastic vs. non-enthusiastic women, though. It's a lot more fun dancing with someone who's enjoying themselves, so I make sure to pick out those ladies who seem to be having fun with me. If a song gets played that I particularly enjoy, I try to find one of those women. I'm not impervious and above it all, emotionally.
So maybe when you say that other-validation isn't bad per se, you're meaning it's okay to allow another's reaction to us to determine whether or not we enjoy being around them. I'm saying other-validation *is* bad per se because by definition it's allowing another's reaction to us to determine whether or not we enjoy being *us*.
But now (if you replace "dancing" with "sex") you *are* talking about what CeMar and I are talking about.
So you seek out a parter because they enjoy being with you. What if you then entered into a contractual agreement to dance professionally with ONLY that partner......and then you found out later that they never liked dancing with you at all.....or they changed their style and didn't like dancing with you any longer.
I can already hear you say that it wouldn't effect the way that you feel about yourself as a dancer....but you've already admitted that you "are not impervious and above it all emotionally".
What if you then knew that there were other partners who would really be happy to dance with you.....but you were contratually obligated to never do so. You love dancing....but you can never do so with a partner that really wants to dance with you ever again. You're resigned to either dancing all by yourself, or breaking your contract. In some ways, it can almost ruin an emotional activity that you hold near and dear to your heart.
In your own illustration, I see the potential for exactly what CeMar talks about all the time.....but may not be communicating very well....
The reason I brought up this idea in the first place was in response to CeMar’s question. I know everyone including myself has told CeMar what he needs to do to get desire but also why it is wrong for him to expect that desire. But then I think, what s really so wrong about wanting desire per se? Add to this the recent discussions about “No More Mr. Nice Guy” and I sense a certain “defensiveness” on the board toward the idea of enmeshment. But getting back to CeMar’s question, is wanting desire, validation or enmeshment bad?
In fact, exactly what is enmeshment? What is enmeshing to me may not be enmeshing to another. Or to put it another way, can anyone tell me exactly how and when they are able to put up the enmeshment flag and when they do not? To be honest, don’t we all soak up compliments? Our whole concern over enmeshment does not come into play over compliments, but only over non-validation, especially at stressful times. Enmeshment can be both positive and negative, so aren’t we using a double standard already?
It is our nature to like compliments and dislike non-validation. That makes us human, IMO. To deny that is to deny a lot of what makes up our passion, as Corri has discussed. Mojo’s struggle in trying to find herself has also helped to get me thinking about all this.
Martelo,
Perhaps this is all semantics like Burgbud says, but when I think of fusion, I think of two people who need reactivity from one another to reaffirm a connection in a dysfunctional and destructive manner - fighting, arguing, power plays, etc. that go on and on, not respecting boundaries or the viewpoints of others. You know the drill.
I think of differentiation in Schnarchian terms, and maybe this is where my semantics differ from others. I see Schnarch as emphasizing that each person worry ONLY about him/herself on the correct assumption that you can’t influence the other person anyway. Furthermore, to be happy you must be true to your own values, morals, goals, preferences, etc (sort of like the workshop Corri is conducting). But this seems to have two effects. One is to push your partner away by breaking the enmeshment and learning to hold on to yourself. After this, if both people are still willing to stay together, then great, but if not, c’est la vie.
It is this cavalier attitude that I get from Schnarch which bothers me and which goes to the heart of CeMar’s question. Should we be preaching such pure individuality (the emphasis on each individual’s differentiation) without higher consideration of the relationship and the other person? Should our quest for individual happiness override the happiness that can come from compromise for the benefit of the group? This “selfish” part of differentiation, where “Taking the detachment too far gets into the realm of isolation and repression,” as Martelo says, is what makes differentiation feel unemotional to me. That feeling can be destructive for troubled couples trying to move too fast.
My feeling is also that in order to truly maintain a differentiated state, many of us would have to maintain a certain level of detachment, which is what Mojo is trying to determine. That keeps a certain distance between the couple which may be good or may be bad.
The other effect from differentiation is positive in that a sufficiently healthy couple can get even closer due to the learned ability to tolerate greater intimacy. I like this part of differentiation. But it is not guaranteed.
When I start to think about positive enmeshment, or maybe let’s call it “differentiated enmeshment,” or interdependence, I think of a situation much like Fearless describes. A couple who can discuss openly and freely without fear of reprisal or non-validation, who can both be vulnerable without worry whether each is maintaining a minimum level of detachment as protection against non-validation. IMO, this is only possible when both people are tuned into each other and concerned about the validation the other receives. Maybe this is part of differentiation, but I did not get that from Schanrch. I understood his idea of holding onto oneself was his way of having each person deal with this. I know this can be a workable basis for a relationship but is it ideal?
One alternative is to place the happiness of the couple over the individual happiness of each person. Compromise. Going back to Fearless’ point of reliability, if we assume we do not want to be subject to the unreliability of our partner to validate us or compromise, then we should not consider the happiness of the group, instead focusing on our individual happiness and leaving it to our spouse to “deal with it.” Which is better? Should this reliability determine the type of happiness we settle on?
If not, can we let down our detachment guard and allow ourselves to feel our full emotions without concern of reliability, instead placing faith in each other to provide whatever validation our spouse can, focusing on the other person and not ourselves? By dropping this detachment guard and instead relying on faith in each other, can a couple rise to a higher state of connection that just differentiation?
Sure, this won’t work in a relationship where there is an imbalance, where one person might take advantage of the other or make a power play. It must be a healthy, balanced relationship.
Getting back to one of my earlier questions, how can we know exactly what is enmeshment? If there is a concern for one another, and each person knows that and expresses his/her concern to the other, then even if one fails to provide validation, is there really reason for disappointment and hurt feelings? Is there really a need to keep up the wall of detachment? Can a mutually empathic and compassionate couple ever fail to validate one another?
This seems to be a choice both people can make. A lot needs to be in place beforehand, but as dysfunctional as I am, it is hard for me to completely get my arms around the individual, detached idea of differentiation. I need some level of enmeshment, at least for now. Maybe someday I won’t but I have yet to meet the person who does not.
It also seems to me that this is really no more than the mutual practice of the Golden Rule. I think this idea should be the goal, not just the idea of pursuing differentiation.
P.S. I hope some of this made sense as it is getting almost too convoluted for me, LOL!!
t also seems to me that this is really no more than the mutual practice of the Golden Rule. I think this idea should be the goal, not just the idea of pursuing differentiation.
I do think I know what you are getting at. I would say that one way to define differentiation is that you are treating somebody (even yourself)with the Golden Rule of Respect. Perhaps, you are just trying to make the point that we should also treat people with the Golden Rule of Kindness or Compassion or Loving Behavior etc. The thing is that although this is true, it just doesn't negate the fact that RESPECT has to be the most important. So I think when you are saying there are some spouses who can't handle differentiation, you are really saying that there are some people it is better to handle with something other than respect. I don't think this is true. My 2bx,obviously, didn't handle me treating him with respect very well in the short run but I truly believe that he is much better off in the long run because I did rather than spoon-feed him with compassion. I think it is harder for the men on this BB to get their minds around that concept as applied to their wives. I think NOP has said "Why do you want to treat your wife like a china doll?" or something like that.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I do think respect is key, but remember the rule that people will not tolerate any more abuse (or disrespect) than that which they will abuse (or disrespect) themselves. So if a person is willing to accept a certain level of disrespect then that also tells me that the person is uncomfortable accepting much respect (though who knows how much). To me that means the person cannot tolerate too much differentiation and “needs” a certain level of enmeshment to be comfortable. Your 2bx seems to be a good example of this.
As long as it has taken some on this board to break through the “fog” of denial about themselves, their spouse, their FOO, whatever, then it makes sense to me that making the transition to differentiation will take some time too. Too fast will feel uncomfortable.
"Why do you want to treat your wife like a china doll?"
I don’t think this statement is the same. To me, treating someone like a china doll is not a show of respect but a show of fear, intimidation and weakness.
