Actually, intent is key, and makes a big difference.
"If you don't start having sex with me, I'm divorcing you."
"I will not live in a sexless marriage."
One statement is punitive. The other is honoring self, regardless of what the other chooses (because you leave it up to them). The end result may be the same, but instead of imagining yourself saying one or both of these sentences, imagine yourself on the receiving end of them, and think about which one you might be more likely to respond to. Probably not either one, at first.
What if you said "I am not someone who will stay in a sexless marriage.". I know it's still just semantics but I think if it is phrased that way it conveys even more acceptance of the partner's right to remain non-sexual. How about "I am a person who values sex too highly to remain in a sexless marriage."
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
p.s. Your name is "SouthernGirl" but you are Catholic? If the numbers I have heard are correct, that is relatively rare. Maybe grew up in the North and migrated south? Not trying to get too personal, just curious. I recently did some studies on religious demographics and find much to my surprise that the South, which is supposed to be more religious actual had about an equal percentage of people claiming to be Christian as the Northeast. In the South it is Baptist, CoC, etc., while in the North it is primarily Catholic. Surpisingly, the state with the largest percentage claiming to be Christian was North Dakota. Anyway, just another factoid hobby of mine. I'm nerdy like that.
She could always be from south Louisiana, which is kinda sorta the South (since it was part of the late, unlamented Confederacy until 1863 or so) but mostly its own little world, and also heavily Catholic. There's also plenty of Catholics in Texas, thanks to its proximity to the border.
Hey, there's an argument we could start up: the best thing that ever happened to southeastern North America was getting conquered by the United States in 1865.
a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.
I have always been the type of person that says "as long as it is not hurting someone" then I really don't care what others do (illegal or otherwise)
Gotcha. I'm big on self-determination as well.
Quote:
If our spouse is hurting us in some way, I think we absolutely have the right to advise them - however, there is always the right and wrong way to do things now, isn't there?
I tend to think of it as not just two options (right & wrong), but this infinite continuum of choices - which explains the difficulty I have in trying to figure out the "best" response, which can be really hard to do in the heat of the moment.
And even that can be wonky, because the relationship and personalities involved make such a difference. Couples can get so ingrained in their interactions, that both individuals run on autopilot and end up not really hearing what the other is saying. Sometimes taking a totally different step (like a 180) can interrupt the mindless dance long enough to actually break through the crust. The calm partner who is always understanding can sometimes get through via an emotional blowout and the emotional partner may move things forward by responding with calm. Harriet Lerner has written several books about the various relational "Dances" in which we all participate.
Quote:
When I say not to judge, it is more in the context of making assumptions of others, that quite often are wrong.
That's a hard one, isn't it? Perhaps I don't quite grasp the difference between an assumption and the tendency to insert the observations and interactions you have of someone else into your existing world view framework. We only have our own context with which to perceive, so I don't know how to avoid making assumptions. Just pondering aloud.
Quote:
Don Miguel Ruiz has a wonderful book, based on ancient Toltec wisdom, called the Four Agreements. They are:
(1) don't make assumptions (2) be impeccable with your words (3) don't take things personally (4) always do your best
If more people learned to live by just these four agreements, the world would be a much better place by far
I've read about this before and am heading to Amazon today to order it.
To me, unconditional love is loving and accepting someone just as they are and for who they are. It speaks more to the core personality, the core PERSON. One of my biggest problems with my mother was that I never felt she loved me unconditionally. She never loved me for ME. She always wanted me to be, to act, like someone other than who I was.
So for me, unconditional love = acceptance of me, the person that I am, flaws and all.
mrs.cac4, thanks for the response. How do you as a parent do this with your child? My formative parenting days are over, and I know what you are saying here, but how does it work out practically?
I know I tried to express this to my child during her childhood, but I know I failed on occasion. I know some children are very sensitive to correction of any sort. So, how do you correct without the child experiencing that correction as a rejection of themself?
I encountered some of this feeling as an adult when NOP and I were working on our sexual issues. The feeling of "but this is ME, this is who I am!" and "I'm having to change ME!" was one I had to deal with often and the resultant resentment that would sometimes arise. Have you encountered this yourself as you and cac work through things?
COG, if you're reading I wanted to apologize if I came across combative in my earlier post to you. It was not my intention. I was basing my response to you on *my* concept of unconditional love, which most likely is totally off from your own idea.
Here is my base concept from which I was proceeding. _____________________________________________________________ "When I hear it, I envision some longsuffering soul who is biting his/her lip while encountering soul-devastating treatment and never speaking truth, never suggesting to the unconditional love recepient that their behavior or attitude is harmful, etc.
I perceive that as harmful for both the giver and reciever. The love-giver continues to take in damage and continues to keep making themselves vulnerable to be damaged. The love-recepient continues along the path of unchallenged self aggrandizement with little concern of the impact they are having on those around them and never being presented with an opportunity to grow." _________________________________________________________
And as I have seen, people have differing concept of what that might be. So, I was just looking for a discussion, not an argument. No offense intended.
Good points CE. I have been to Lousiana and remember finding that counties are called parishes interesting.
There are many who would debate that Lousiana is sufficiently different to not really be "southern" (as well Texas and Florida). Of course, trying to categorize an entire state as having a certain mindset is foolish anyway.
As far as your debate topic ... I would agree to some degree, but you will have to admit that Reconstruction was a dismal failure. One could argue that it was doomed to failure from the start, but that is another point.
I do know that just the other day, a prominent conservative talk show host was seriously discussing the idea that the "Red" states should secede and make their own country with all the right Christian moral values, etc. If that ever happens, I'm moving.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
As far as your debate topic ... I would agree to some degree, but you will have to admit that Reconstruction was a dismal failure. One could argue that it was doomed to failure from the start, but that is another point.
It wasn't so much that Reconstruction was a failure... it just took a lot longer than originally envisioned. I'd say right around a century or so.
I see a lot of parallels between the Civil War/Reconstruction and the present War on Terror. After "mission accomplished" was declared in 1865, there were still a lot of terrorists running around, a lot of locals willing to commit just about any atrocities to keep the ideas of the United States from taking hold, to discourage Americans and their local sympathizers from the reconstruction project, and to keep everyone in their "proper place".
It seems that one of the real turning points in the reconstruction of the South was when Yankees started moving down in large numbers. I don't know if that was more of a cause or an effect, though, and I'm pretty sure we won't see large numbers of Yankees moving to the Middle East anytime soon, so it might not be an observation that's all that helpful to our current effort anyway.
Originally Posted By: chromosphere
I do know that just the other day, a prominent conservative talk show host was seriously discussing the idea that the "Red" states should secede and make their own country with all the right Christian moral values, etc. If that ever happens, I'm moving.
Chrome
It ain't happening. Think "Sherman with nuclear weapons", and you'll see just how unrealistic a second secession would be.
a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.
I do know that just the other day, a prominent conservative talk show host was seriously discussing the idea that the "Red" states should secede and make their own country with all the right Christian moral values, etc.
That is F-ed Up. Again, they focus on their own views of "morality" at the expense of all else, including what is best for this COUNTRY, that means ALL 50 states. That's a lack of patriotism in my book. Ok, don't get me started. LFL
