Yes, good find, MrsNop. Of course, she might say something like, "go ahead and express yourself. Just don't bother me with it." Okay, maybe she wouldn't say that, and, of course, it's my responsibility to not let something like that get said without being addressed and, called BS on.
Wow! What a big, warm, bear-hug of support for hairydoggie! Yay! (By that I don't mean we're against mrs hd, but that we're pulling for what's best for both of you.)
cobra wrote
Quote:
she sent him that article, rather than escalate with more anger and shouting.
This is KEY!
Clearly hd has been avoiding such confrontations because he was afraid she would respond with nu-cue-ler (as W says) warfare or apocalypse, BUT SHE DIDN'T. Very important.
Also I agree with NOP, the fewer words the better. Cobra, I see that you want to reason with her, but they've been wrestling with these issues for YEARS. Action is called for, not more talk.
Bravo, hairdog! Hold your ground. Be cool. Don't react.
I needed to hear that she WILL try things to make herself more willing.
She said she would.
Hairdog, do you read this as her having at least a glimmer of an idea that the issues you have with sex in your marriage are legitimate issues?
Is it possible you could sit down with her, using that statement as a starting point, and see if she'll agree that it's a legitimate issue? Even if you don't discuss what might be done about it in that same sitting?
Stop WaitingFeel EverythingLove AchinglyGive ImpeccablyLet Go
In the heat of battle all you have is faith. Faith in your training. Faith in your skills. (or indifferance but thats not HD) There is no guarantee.
Agreed. But I also know that faith and confidence in battle can mean the difference between winning and losing.
Just because you didnt have the previous experience to understand why, how, wherefore what you were being told, does not change the fact. Noone understands prior to learning, or they wouldnt have to be taught.
Agreed.
If you question those you have previously accepted as successes or instructors, then thats fear talking.
Agreed in principal, but not necessarily agreeing that those who have success can translate that success into other situations. Are you saying that I or others should look past fear and proceed on faith? I strongly disagree with this. The outcome may not change whether one has faith and no fear, or if one has no faith and fear, but it might.
What is the purpose of withholding information that might give security to someone? The “instructor” might know that the “student” is capable of tackling the battle, and maybe the “student” could get more out of the battle by confronting his fears, but then again, maybe not. This is a subjective value call on the part of the “instructor.” Nothing more.
Thats why you better make damn sure you are fighting for something you believe in.
That’s the problem for so many of us, isn’t it? Do we believe in the marriage or not? Is it worth fighting for or not? There is no certainty. If we could see the future and knew the outcome, it would be one thing. But since there is a chance that the marriage could survive, the risk adverse person will err on hoping for the best and work on the marriage, giving the benefit of the doubt. But this is fear driven too. But I’ve seen few people who truly know what they believe in.
s but not nearly as valuable as doing the deed. If you need a justification for things, thats just the 5's version of fear talking.
I’ll take issue with this. At one time I did see the logic in your view. Now I do not. Let’s use the Enneagram as an example. The fears of the 5 are real. They are what make the 5 the 5. To discount these as something the 5 should just learn to work through is to tell the 5 his/her fears, as well as other emotions, are invalid.
Instead, work through those fears as the 1 would do (or whatever category does that sort of thing). I don’t agree with this. I do say that a person should carve his own destiny, be like a canal and not wander like a river. But I do not think that should ever be done contrary to the emotions of that person. That is a recipe for internal conflict and unhappiness. This is forcing your self to feel something you don’t, which just happens to be what your spouse is trying to do to you, isn’t it?
A person is who he is. That is the unchanging part, in the short term. This is a constraint that the approach must try to accommodate. I believe a person can only accommodate so much change to his personality at one time. That means the approach must be altered for different people. What I hear you are telling me is that I should change how I feel because my fears are invalid. Maybe next year I will feel differently, but for today that does not fly.
Thats exactly why it will work and you better believe she is going to fight, and wail and rail and bluff and bluster all the way to make sure she can trust being that way with HD.
You may be right, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Not with what is at stake. I do not see this marriage as having a linear relationship between HD taking a stand and MrsHD backing down. I believe there might be a “tipping point.” At some unknown level, I think MrsHD’s defenses, resentment and ego can be pushed to the point that she could walk out or escalate into a major war with serious consequences. I don’t believe she has a high tolerance for a shift in power in the relationship.
But under this unknown critical level, I think HD can push and she will back down, as he has just seen. I think she will only take so much. So if HD believes there could be this threshold, I think it wise to chip away at the work to be down over a longer period of time, than through a bigger, more sudden change.
Most times a simple 'because thats what I want' is far more effective then a 300 page thesis when it comes to emotions.
Agreed, what I call your own emotional “last court of appeals.”
Cobra, I see that you want to reason with her, but they've been wrestling with these issues for YEARS. Action is called for, not more talk.
I've been thinking about this a little, and I wonder if it is really true. I am wondering if HD's reluctance to confront has allowed her deflections to stand without challenge. I also sense that he is developing a stronger resolve now, whereas before I wonder if he thought it pointless to debate her, so he didn't.
Personally I think she can be whipped in the logic arena. I don't know if HD is ready to do it, but over time, with some background work and better understanding of herself, himself, and the issues, I think the hypocrisy of her views will become apparent.
I also question whether the counselor has really addressed this too. IMO, counselors will only push to the point of losing business.
I have to admit I am REALLY confused with what has transpired with HD and MsHD. As someone who does not have an opinion set in stone about MsHD I will tell you I see something different than many responses.
Micro summary: we talked, we talked louder, she threatened divorce, I did a 180 and said, "fine. Let me know who you are going to choose as your attorney so that I don't waste my time waiting for them to call me back." Without being there I do not know how she threatens divorce. Did she stay I am going to divorce you or did she say I guess that means divorce? Whatever the answer, I am not sure that I think the answer "Fine" was your only option than your past pleading. What about simply standing your ground and asking her if "that is what you really want?" I know, I know... everyone here believes you have to fight her tooth and nail. I just do not think that is the only way. Make her own up to her words when she speaks them. That is what you did later and it worked!
Ironically if she does have the abandonment issues someone mentioned earlier, she may bring divorce up in a self protect mode rather than as a threat. My xH's best friend's xW was so sure that her H would leave her for a younger woman (she was 7 years older and he was making A LOT of money). For 2+ years before her affair and eventual divorce, despite his not wanting the divorce, she mentioned that "it was what happened with all rich men. They leave their wives." Hmmmm is it OBVIOUS that she left him in order to not be LEFT??
She got quiet, and then came back with all these things she was going to do today, e.g. cancel joint credit cards, etc. "Fine." And I made one observation: "Interesting how, over all these years, when you threaten divorce, I plead for you not to go there. When I finally agree, you have all the plans to D ready to go. Who's been working to keep the marriage together?" I found this to be a blaming and accusatory statement and a projection onto her since yesterday morning you were here on the boards discussing those very plans of how to separate from her.
Then, followed a dissection of the emails. She says that I took the whole "gritted teeth" thing wrong, that she wasn't commenting about doing this in response to sex in general, just scheduled sex. So NO ONE sees this as positive?? Whether she was honestly correcting a misinterpretation or just waffling from what she wrote, she was opening the door and not saying no to sex!!
I asked, again, just WTF, if anything, she WAS willing to do. She said it was in her email...that part about that she "might try things to make myself 'willing' more often than if I would if left to my own devices..." Huh? I told her that this was vague, and, really, just an illusory sort of offer... Example..."I might pick you up at 5pm, if you don't have another ride"... this promises nothing. Even if you didn't have another ride, I still haven't committed to pick you up.
I agree that she was extremely vague and I think you did a great job of "logically" explaining why her statement said nothing!
I needed to hear that she WILL try things to make herself more willing. She said she would.
Am I missing something!!!!! YOu asked for what YOU NEEDED and she said YES. Isn't this great???
And then I said, great, but we need to get more specific.
YES
So MsHD sends this article on communication IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR COMMUNICATION. Did she say anywhere that this stuff was only for you? Nope - she specifically said,"I'm reading this article on NVC, and I think it's got some good stuff, but I'm not saying we have a 'violence' problem." Wow and she even said WE. This is a way to set guidelines for how BOTH of you communicate as you both start down this path together. I see this as her ENGAGING and not deflecting.
The non-violent communication stuff is good and is covered in many other communication discussions also. Terrible "title" but good stuff. Michele covers this type in her book and I think John Gottman does the same.
I know people struggle with Michelle's "ACT AS IF" technique but I think it makes perfect sense and is useful to bringing out the best behaviors in people. What if you approached the conversation with MsHD "Acting as if" she loves you, wants to stay married to you and respects your feelings? Would it change how you reacted to her every word?
Please note that this does not mean sticking your head in the sand, backing down, begging, pleading, blah, blah, blah. This just means looking at her as the woman you love and expecting that she feels the same about you even if she cannot express it all the time or in the exact way that you want.
HD you deserve a great marriage and to be able to make love to your wife. Do you agree that she deserves a great marriage too? Find common ground and solve this problem TOGETHER. She seems as open to this as ever, doesn't she?
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Ah, Fearless, the optimism of fresh eyes. I think many of us here have gotten jaded when it comes to Mrs.HDog and feel a tough approach is best. I am sure HDog will appreciate the positives you have pointed out.
