Let's get concrete here. Do some Christmas shopping online, have some fun with some sex toys, and then order in your favorite food. (Don't worry, I'm not a creepy guy, I'm a happily married woman.)
Regarding As, etc... From my perspective, your case illustrates my view perfectly.
You blew up W's A. Yes you did. You polluted her Rs with her kids and family with it. Sure, you made her A stop. But you coerced her into ending it. She did not freely choose to end it. She did not freely choose the M.
UNTIL, you had enough. You said FINE, move out, DATE if you want. Heck, we'll BOTH date. Gee, then suddenly, everything wasn't all about the A anymore. You weren't coercing her anymore. You FINALLY gave her enough space to figure out what she wanted. And guess what -- it wasn't her A-partner, it wasn't the guys she'd been flirting with. As soon as she had the space to make a genuine, free, uncoerced decision that YOU weren't trying to control, she realized that in fact she DID want to work on the M. And it was then that things really began to change for the two of you. YOU couldn't give her that space with an in-house separation.
Some people can. Perhaps RTGU can. It is darn hard. Clear financial/physical/emotional boundaries have to be in place and enforced, just as with a separation in which people live separately. Personally, I'd rather live separately. But, some people choose to try to do the in-house separation. Done the right way, it can work and might be bearable (yuck!). And, I sometimes think that for shorter marriages it might be the better way to go as the resolution of the bomb, whichever way it goes, will tend to come pretty quickly.
But, if it isn't a real separation with real freedom, if it is just doormatting, that isn't going to be good for anyone.
BTW, real freedom doesn't mean that you'd have to put up with dating while under the same roof. There could be a boundary like: we can share housing until one of us chooses to date, at which point we'd need to stop sharing housing. This is not coercion. On the other hand, this is coercion: We can share housing, but if you choose to date I'll throw you out, burn your stuff, and let your family know what kind of sick adulterer you are.
Love, intimacy, connection, commitment can only grow and flourish in a context in which the relationship is one that is truly freely chosen.
You let go of the A, you let go of the rope, you dropped the whip, you stopped moralizing, you gave W real space and freedom. THEN you got your W back, and a much better M with it (as far as I know.)
You do not fully understand the dynamics of what went on between my wife and I, but I have no desire to re-hash all of that here. My advice to OT was to follow the course laid out by Sandi (ironically, a AWAW herself, who disagrees with me vehemently on exposure), and to look to her own Subject line -- BOUNDARIES.
We are not in disagreement on that.
It is not "moralizing" to tell your spouse that it is a boundary of personal integrity for you that you will not live in an open marriage.
"It is not "moralizing" to tell your spouse that it is a boundary of personal integrity for you that you will not live in an open marriage."
I agree. No problem with that whatsoever. Indeed, that is a boundary for me. But trust me Puppy, your tone has changed radically over the years, and it has helped you. I know it pisses you off when I suggest that lol, but its true.
And, I'm certain that I don't understand everything about your sitch. But, your case is simply part of a pattern -- genuine reconciliation that has a possibility of lasting only ever happens in a context of freedom. It is only when the LBS really drops the rope, really quits trying to fix and control, really gives the WAS space to make their own choices, that the WAS has the mental and emotional space to see what they really want for themselves.
If done properly, a boundary is ALL ABOUT a choice, O.T.
"This is how I feel. This is my boundary of personal integrity. I will understand if you don't want to stay within it, but please understand that if you don't, I cannot in good conscience remain married to you."
And then the cheating spouse gets to make their choice, knowing clearly what their spouse's position is.
There is nothing "controlling" or "moralizing" about that.
I'm all for free choices, but they need to be made WITHIN clearly-laid boundaries. BOTH partners have choices; it is one's job to let the other know where they stand, and then let the other choose, and let the consequences fall where they may, no?
Let's get concrete here. Do some Christmas shopping online, have some fun with some sex toys, and then order in your favorite food. (Don't worry, I'm not a creepy guy, I'm a happily married woman.)
"If done properly, a boundary is ALL ABOUT a choice, O.T.
"This is how I feel. This is my boundary of personal integrity. I will understand if you don't want to stay within it, but please understand that if you don't, I cannot in good conscience remain married to you."
And then the cheating spouse gets to make their choice, knowing clearly what their spouse's position is.
There is nothing "controlling" or "moralizing" about that.
I'm all for free choices, but they need to be made WITHIN clearly-laid boundaries. BOTH partners have choices; it is one's job to let the other know where they stand, and then let the other choose, and let the consequences fall where they may, no?"
Absolutely, very well put. I agree entirely, 100% with you on that Puppy. The key is to define such boundaries in a way that works for you and your interests.
For instance, you ultimately did allow dating in the context of M, but only in the context of physical separation, with the separation leading to divorce (barring radical changes, which happily came about.) So, you had a firm no-dating boundary unless we are physically separated and on the path to divorce.
Someone else might have a firm no-dating boundary unless we are emotionally/financially separated, honest about whether we are dating, and understand that we will be living together only in a roommate and co-parent, not friends, mode, and I will live like this only for a limited period of time before I take the next step of moving to D.
Personally, I don't find that an attractive alternative. But people vary. That kind of thing works for some people. The particulars aren't important. I agree, it is all about setting and enforcing boundaries that ensure one is not a victim or a doormat. RTGU must respect herself though her boundaries, absolutely, whatever that looks like.
My point is only that it is possible to do that without a physical separation, without coercing an end to the A, but as I've said over and over, ONLY if one puts in place clear financial/emotional/physical boundaries that protect the LBS.
Look, people who are successfully setting boundaries and treating themselves well here often get to a point WHILE MARRIED where they consider their WAS's LL none of their business because they are separated and heading to D. They often even start dating themselves and consider their own LLs none of their WAS's business. There is no reason that this is in principle inconsistent with two people sharing housing. So, RTGU might go that route.
She could also, as I noted before, "it is ok for us to live together but only if neither of us is dating."
Fine, whatever.
Again, my point is to suggest to RTGU that she resist the urge to force and even coerce an end to the A or to throw his sorry butt out immediately. There are alternatives that don't make the A the centerpiece, the obsession, the thing the LBS focuses on and tries to control. And it is those alternatives that will be more productive.
Even if they take the shape of: "I am only willing to live with you if you are not involved with other women." FINE
I've said that over and over. We AGREE about all things present. You just object to me saying that in the past you were very moralizing with your W. But you've always objected to me saying that, even when others agreed with me. It is ok. Maybe someday with greater distance you'll agree with me after all, maybe you won't. Either way is fine. Though, truthfully, I don't know why it pisses you off for me to say that you've grown a lot and moved away from moralizing/coercion to a place of effective boundary setting that allows real love to bloom. Oh, right, that's enough to piss anyone off, lol.
Let's get concrete here. Do some Christmas shopping online, have some fun with some sex toys, and then order in your favorite food. (Don't worry, I'm not a creepy guy, I'm a happily married woman.)
wouldnt that be getting rubbery?
OK, so maybe Steve is a little creepy, lol. But that can be a good thing.
Thank you to you all. I did some online searching for some christmas presents for myself ;), took a nap, and watched some tv. Here's my next question. Normally, when h is working late or on a trip, i would call him when we were getting ready for bed so daughter could say goodnight. I should not do that tonight, right? If he wants to talk with her, he can call, right? And no, it won't affect daughter if I don't call, I'm the one that has to usually convince her to talk to her dad at bedtime. When he said to her "I'll see you tomorrow" this morning, she said ok. No questions asked. The good thing is he works such odd hours she never notices the difference. And back to my other question, any idea why he'd take the random items from our closet rather than clothes or books or something of more value?
