I too lived with alcoholism in my family (my mom, my aunt, two of my grandparents), and you're right -- it's a tough call.
I do know that they have to "hit bottom," or at least WANT to do something about their drinking.
I also know that sometimes interventions do work, and I also know that you have to, at least, first separate the addict from the source of their addiction (get the alcohol out of the house).
I guess my own belief in a way around this chicken-and-the-egg thing is to help "prime the pump." I do believe that someone in a life crisis is far more likely to make a move back toward the marriage, if the OP is out of the picture. Can we totally control that? No. But there are things I believe we can do to make it a helluva lot harder for them to continue it, and if that helps "prime the pump" to start their recovery, then I put it in the "hey, whatever it takes" category myself.
IF YOU STILL LOVE YOUR W which I will assume you do......
Then when she asks why you are choosing not to be around her you can simply say.....
" W while I do still love you, I can not be around you nor communicate with you while you are involved in behaviors 1,2,3,4...., it hurts me and our family. When you stop behaviors 1,2,3,4...., I will be glad to sit down with you to discuss the possibility of having a relationship with you and what that would entail."
See, I'm FINE with that. I guess I consider that to be "fighting the affair" (or at least not making it easy on them), and it's NOT just giving in to a "whatever will be, will be" attitude. You ARE fighting it, only with different weapons (withholding your day-to-day comfort and emotional support).
It's almost like an "aggressive passivity"? Or a "tactical detachment"? I'm having a hard time expressing it, but there are a myriad of ways to fight infidelity -- not just exposure, intervention, etc. And while I do believe in some of those things, I also see value in the type of stance that MHL lays out here.
TG,I do know that they have to "hit bottom," or at least WANT to do something about their drinking.
AGREED!
Originally Posted By: Starsky309
I also know that sometimes interventions do work, and I also know that you have to, at least, first separate the addict from the source of their addiction (get the alcohol out of the house).
I guess my own belief in a way around this chicken-and-the-egg thing is to help "prime the pump." I do believe that someone in a life crisis is far more likely to make a move back toward the marriage, if the OP is out of the picture. Can we totally control that? No.
We totally agree. And I think you agree that detachment is one way to accomplish this. Letting Go! Getting on with your life and acting "as if" they are never coming back.
Can we talk about how "to prime the pump"? Or, did I miss it in the thread here?
No, I just introduced that phrase, as a way to describe my thoughts about doing almost whatever-it-takes to attack infidelity, as a means to take that "high" away from the MLCer as part of what's holding them back from being open to your changes and your love.
It's not really considered part of the DB catechism, though -- just my musings.
We totally agree. And I think you agree that detachment is one way to accomplish this. Letting Go! Getting on with your life and acting "as if" they are never coming back.
Cadet,
Please don't intentionally edit what I said, and make it out of context. You know full well I followed that with "But there are things I believe we can do to make it a helluva lot harder for them to continue it, and if that helps "prime the pump" to start their recovery, then I put it in the "hey, whatever it takes" category myself."
If you want to disagree with my view, that's fine (reasonable people do), but please stop taking what I post out of context.
Thank you.
Starsky
P.S. Yes, I agree that detachment is key. Rather than "acting as if," however, I'd rather see a betrayed/left-behind spouse REALLY GET to to a place where they ARE emotionally moving on, and there's no "acting" to it. Wayward spouses can smell when it's an act, IMHO.
"Acting as if", DB-wise, is frequently taken out of context. It actually refers to not projecting negative thoughts:
Quote:
Problems often arise in relationships because people think they can predict the future. "I know just how my wife will respond when I tell her I'm going out," or "Steve will undoubtedly fly off the handle when my parents come for dinner." The problem with predicting dire outcomes in the future is that, whether we know it or not, we begin acting in certain ways that broadcast our expectations to our partners, and these subtle signals often bring about the very results we fear." (Divorce Remedy, p. 111)
So Starsky-in other words - we can't talk about it here. It would mean exposing the A? Is that right? I dont know but I think either my brain isn't working and I am not following or you guys are talking in code!
No, I'm not recommending exposure, LJG2H. I'm saying that it's easier to DB when there's no OP in the picture, and that while you can't FORCE someone to end an affair, there are ways to combat it and put boundaries in place. MHL does an excellent job at giving just one example, above.
