Sheer physicality

[Cobra]

CE,

I think what you describe as one partner pulling the other up, and how those roles can switch back and forth, can actually be a way of connection in and of itself. I think it can become an unspoken agreement that one expects the other to take a turn at pulling up. It is an enmeshed sort of an arrangement and might seem a bit odd, but I can see how it could work.

[karen1]

MJ,

First, I think it is sooo cool that you and Corri met. Glad you enjoyed yourselves. I've often imagined a SSM "girls weekend" - that would be soo interesting.

OTOH - I was thinking of your example of what comment to 2bx's comments would show a lack of fusion. I get concerned sometimes that in trying to "de-fuse" we actually get into a "tit for tat" mindset. So....if ex-H says, "you are too fat to fcuk" and you say, "well, you are too uptight to fcuk" then it doesn't display a lack of fusion necessarily. IMHO your 2bx used such ridiculous statements to establish and maintain a kind of power/dominance in the R.

"Marriage" can be viewed from 2 very different perspectives. For legal purposes it is basically a business/economic agreement. For religious purposes it serves another function. Both institutions were supposed to help create a "stable" family unit to keep the chaos of society to a bare minimum - this is true in polygamous cultures as well. However, "marriage" is structured it is supposed to create an economic, child-bearing and care-taking unit that is stable over time. Now it seems that this still exists but because of the limits of human beings in the present culture it seems to be of a "serial" nature for 50% of the folks but still serves the same purpose.

For you, emotionally, should you every marry? Does it serve a purpose for you? I don't think you can know that until the question presents itself. I do agree wholeheartedly that many times R's go waaaaaaaaayyyyyy beyond anythign beneficial for either party.

Karen

[Crazy Eddie]

I think that maybe the line of dysfunction is crossed when you in any sense take responsibility for your partner's emotions. It's just natural fo people to feel emotions that other people reflect to some extent(For instance, I am frequently amused when I take my dog for a walk because he's such a funny looking dog that passerbys often start spontaneously chuckling when they see him.)If I examine my own marital fusion dysfunction it would have gone something like - My H suffers from severe anhedonia therefore he doesn't feel like anything would be fun. I would like to do something fun with him like have sex or go to a movie, therefore I need to take responsibility for changing his emotional state in order to get what I want. Clearly, what I needed to do was take responsibility for my own emotional state instead of trying to get a down dog to dance and ending up with bite marks for my trouble.

And if you really want to be dysfunctional, you can use the following thought process:

1. My partner is not happy. She must be unhappy with me.
2. But I didn't do anything wrong!
3. How dare she judge me so unfairly and be unhappy when I'm not doing anything wrong!

From there you can try to cover it up with "concern" that she'll see right through, and she'll get the message that she's unfairly being unhappy with you and needs to shape up. Or you can just jump in with both guns blazing and berate her for "always being so negative/b*tchy/etc." Either way, she'll be pressured to be happy, which never works well.

For a nice sexual dysfunction, wait until she's "not in the mood" and proceed as above. Play your cards right, and she won't be able to summon any enthusiasm for sex (with you, at any rate) for years to come.

[Crazy Eddie]

Another twist goes like this:

1. My partner is not happy/horny. She must be unhappy with me/turned off by me.
2. I must be doing something wrong.

From there you have a choice

3a. I must apologize for whatever it is.
3b. I must assume a "manly" role and get her in the mood.
3c. I must fix things and cheer her up.

Or you can try out all three, one after the other, to really get the message across.

Now no one can say you're blaming her for anything. But she notices that you feel like you have failed her, and will continue to feel like you have failed her until her mood improves. Now if she takes the bait and considers it her duty to improve your mood by improving her mood, this pressure will insure that her mood will not improve, and you'll have a nice feedback loop of despair.

I tried that out the other day and found it to be quite effective for several days. The loop didn't get broken until she said "let's go to the gym" and immersed both of us in GAL activities that distracted us and improved both our moods at the same time.

[MJontheMend]

IMHO your 2bx used such ridiculous statements to establish and maintain a kind of power/dominance in the R.

Well, after we split he came right out and said that he thought he said things like that in order to bring me down to his lower level he thought he inhabited due to poor self-esteem.

For you, emotionally, should you every marry? Does it serve a purpose for you? I don't think you can know that until the question presents itself.

Well, I would say that people consciously or unconsciously make choices that lead in one direction or another. Probably the reason I am thinking about this issue now is I was wondering why I care whether I can designate the man I am currently having sex with as my "boyfriend"? Is it a desire for a "higher" level of psychological validation, as Heather suggested or maybe simply the natural fallout of the fact that I am trying to play by the rules of serial monogamy for a variety of cultural reasons or is there some root level biological drive towards pair-bonding within me? If I had the gonads to be honest with my partners, I would be tempted to give polygamy and/or polyamory a whirl at this point in my life, perhaps just to satisfy my curiosity about why it doesn't work.

[Lillieperl]

This is a list of the qualities of poorly differentiated and well differentiated people that a counselor gave me and my bf a couple of years ago. She was a therapist who followed the Schnarch philosophy. I suspect you’ll see yourself, your partner, former partners, or your parents here… maybe ALL of them.

Poorly differentiated people:

Pressure others (important others) to accommodate them regardless of that it costs. “If you love me, you will_______! I can’t survive if you don’t do what I want you to. I can’t survive if I do what YOU want.”

Give in (sell out) because of fear of rejection.

Have to leave relationships emotionally or physically in order to resist the pressure to conform (give up themselves).

Accuse others of trying to control them when others resist being controlled.

Monitor how much they disclose about themselves so as to please others or avoid conflict.

Have families where it’s true that “When Dad/Mom is unhappy, ain’t NOBODY happy!”

Have chronic anxiety that is easily stirred up and difficult to calm down.

Take things personally, are on the defensive much of the time. Are easily “hurt” by others, feel “guilty” for having their own needs, feelings, interests, or opinions that are not shared by their important other(S).

Feel responsible for others’ lives and happiness, and for solving their problems.

Feel rejected when important others disagree with them.

Need to control someone else’s behavior or feelings in order for them to manage themselves. In other words, they need someone to do X before they can do/feel Y.

Rely on external activities or substances that are often labeled “addictive” in order to manage their feelings.


The interesting thing about the qualities of good differentiation below is that you may very well react with surprise that it’s not only OKAY to be some of these ways, but it’s actually pretty healthy, for example not solving other people’s problems, or stay calm when a loved one is “losing it.”

Well differentiated people:

Value their self-respect above all else. This is another way of saying they have integrity or that they live by their values.

Manage their own feelings, calm themselves, and then choose how they respond to others rather than reacting out of anxiety.

Confront themselves instead of blaming others for their own circumstances or consequences of their own choices.

Recognize that "it's not about me" when someone near and dear "loses it" or becomes anxious. They don't personalize others' behavior.

Validate themselves rather than rely on others to do it for them all the time.

Refuse to sell themselves out of betray their values in order to maintain a relationship.

Refuse to project their own conflicts onto their partners, and refuse to allow others to project theirs onto them. They fight their own battles within themselves where the fight belongs.

Know the difference between themselves and others: what is me and what is not me.

Take responsibility for themselves. They do not take responsibility for others’ choices or consequences.

Have their feelings rather than their feelings having them.

Have deeply connected relationships, since they can tolerate closeness without undue anxiety about fusing or distancing.

Support the emotional growth of others toward greater differentiation by their refusal to participate in fused behaviors.

[fearless]

Thanks Lillie. That was a very useful list.

This one stood out for me under "well differentiated people"

Have deeply connected relationships, since they can tolerate closeness without undue anxiety about fusing or distancing.

I think this is absolutely true. Deep connections with others are good and healthy and can be done without fusing. I think this is what I was trying to get across in a horribly botched manner

[SolidMechanic]

I'm not sure if I understand your definition of fusion. I would see fusion at the far end of the spectrum of connectedness. A connection between a couple is a good thing. Fusion sounds like an extreme. So my analogy would be that connectedness is like weight gain and fusion is like morbid obesity.

In my parent's marriage my mom said that what got them through the financially difficult years is that one of them always managed to stay up while the other was down. So if they were "fused" wouldn't they have fed off the negative? Instead their connection allowed them to balance each other out.

Again I guess I would say that being connected is part of a long term relationship/marriage and is a very good part of it. But being fused seems like you're getting into more dangerous territory.

In long term relationships, it's very common for one person to depend on another for emotional support. You said that one of your parents would be up while the other was down, and this worked for them. How about if your father was the one that was usually down? Then your mother would feel the pressure to be "up" all the time, even if she didn't actually feel that way.

This also plays itself out in terms of self esteem. I used to compliment my wife's appearance all of the time, but she was constantly putting herself down. I started responding to her self put downs with compliments, but after a while, I got tired of trying to prop her up. It didn't work, so why bother. The same thing has happened with her anxiety. I've tried to calm her, but the cycles of self talk that go round and round in her head tend to crowd out my reassurances.

My attempts to prop her up have led me to loose respect for her. I don't try that hard to prop her up any more. I'm more inclined to just listen to her and say "I'm sorry you feel that way" or to just be honest and factual with her fears.

Another way to understand fusion is to see that it's opposite is not detachment, it is unattachment. If your reaction to being fused to your parents is to move to the other side of the country and never speak to them again, you are still fused. It's not clinging, but it's not aversion either.

Here is an analogy that I got from a book I'm reading called "Open to Desire" by Mark Epstein. Lets say you have a quarter in your hand. Make a closed fist. This is the grasping, clinging quality of fusion. You want that quarter so bad, you'll hurt anyone, including yourself, before you'll let it go. Now hold your hand palm up and open it. You still want it, it is still in your hand, but you are no longer grasping onto it. If you loose it, it's not the end of the world.

You can hold your partner lightly, in a way that does not consume them or cling desperately to them or overly rely on them to validate your self worth. That is differentiation.

SM

P.S. I think you will really like "Passionate Marriage". It is very challenging and thought provoking. Not your everyday self help book.

[fearless]

You said that one of your parents would be up while the other was down, and this worked for them.

I don't think I described this well enough. The point was NOT that my mom lifted my dad back up or vice versa. The point was that just because my dad got down about the possibility of losing the farm, my mom did not feel down. Her "up mood" did NOT lower because of my dad's mood. To me, if they were "fused", her mood would have changed because of his mood. Instead their moods were not dependent on each other but on their own personalities and circumstances.

This also plays itself out in terms of self esteem. I used to compliment my wife's appearance all of the time, but she was constantly putting herself down. I started responding to her self put downs with compliments, but after a while, I got tired of trying to prop her up.

So you were paying her compliments with the expectation that you could "make" her feel better about herself?

It didn't work, so why bother.

Well one reason to "bother" might be because you find her attractive, think she looks nice, think her new dress flatters her figure, etc. and want to let her know. Her insecurities are her problem.

(One of my good friends is trying to get better about accepting compliments. She actually has a pretty good self image but for some reason never learned how to just accept a compliment. When we were first becoming good friends I might say something like "Your hair looks great today" and her reply would be "REally because I haven't washed it for 2 days and I think it looks horrible." I would just look at her and say "Hmmm. Ever hear of the phrase Thank you??" She would laugh and say "I don't know why but it is REALLY hard to do that!!"

My attempts to prop her up have led me to lose respect for her.

Why? Seriously because I don't follow your logic.

[MJontheMend]

Another way to understand fusion is to see that it's opposite is not detachment, it is unattachment. If your reaction to being fused to your parents is to move to the other side of the country and never speak to them again, you are still fused. It's not clinging, but it's not aversion either.

I always think about the actual exercise that I used to lessen my fusion with my 2bx. I just decided one day that in the interest of my own self-respect I wouldn't try to hug somebody who acted like they didn't want to be hugged by me. Interestingly, the hardest part of this exercise was convincing myself that it wasn't "mean" to choose not to hug somebody even if the result of avoiding the action tended to reduce the urge or the feelings that I associated with the urge. If I had left my 2bx at that time simply because I couldn't bear the emotional pain of being in a relationship with somebody who didn't want my physical affection then I think that would have been more of an instance of detachment. I think a large part of Schnarch tries to teach is that it is just as much of a relationship skill to know how to create or offer space or freedom within a relationship as it is to know how to create or offer closeness or intimacy. That is why he uses the word "fusion" because it offers up the vision of two people sickeningly Siamese-twinned together. Unfortunately, our cultural notions of romance often reinforce fusion. I shudder now when I hear the phrase "You complete me." Perhaps a good relationship would be one in which you could honestly say "You complement me."

Your quarter in the hand example reminds me of something similar I once read in a book of Eastern philosophy. The gist was that love is like a beautiful flower but most people spoil it because they don't know that a flower should be held gently by the stem rather than grasped by the petals.