Jenny, My personal feeling is that your reached a state of differentiation that you were able to maintain in the presence of your H's bluff. I don't think he really thought you would move forward with D; you would re-fuse like so many times before and then repeat the negative pattern. I also think that my failure to separate from my H came from both of us realizing that we somehow are forever enmeshed with each other and that we had better turn things around if this was going to be our life. It's like I am choosing fusion, but I know it's my choice, so it's less fused than I was before. You chose differentiation.
My personal feeling is that your reached a state of differentiation that you were able to maintain in the presence of your H's bluff. I don't think he really thought you would move forward with D; you would re-fuse like so many times before and then repeat the negative pattern.
I think you are probably right because I think he was genuinely shocked when I started dating.
Quote:
You chose differentiation.
I would say that I will continue to choose differentiation too. I may choose to be in a committed relationship again someday but I will never choose to be in a fused relationship (except perhaps in the self-aware way one might choose to be emotionally self-indulgent by watching a movie that is a tear-jerker).
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I would venture to guess that there is a certain amount of fusion in every relationship...it's the nature of the beast. The problem arises when the self gets too sacrificed for the sake of the relationship. Objectively, I see this in pretty much every case here on the board, but each of us has to figure out this line for ourselves.
IMO, you will experience fusion again as your relationships mature, but NEVER in the way that you did in the past. And that's growth.
It's probably just a matter of semantics. It's impossible to avoid a degree of fusion even in the most casual human relationships but just being able to recognize it is the first critical step to minimizing it. Then you can ask yourself "Why am I letting this person's behavior or emotional state effect my behavior or emotional state in a negative manner?" For instance, I had the thought the other day "NG is the coolest guy I ever dated. I will be so bummed out if we break-up." and immediately I recognized it as a fused thought and made the effort to work my way through it by thinking about what personal inadequacies I possess or imagine I possess that would make me feel dependent on a continuing relationship with NG in order to not be "bummed out" and I realized that I wanted to "borrow" some of his "semi-fame" in an artistic field and his extensive social network by being in a relationship with him. That's why I perceived him as being "cool." So, clearly I need to work more on my own creative expression and building a better social network. Really, any other thought about what you might "need" from a particular relationship for your own emotional well-being can be worked through in this manner. Even issues involving sex or other interactions for which you "need" another person's involvement can be resolved as long as you don't limit your dependency to a particular person. Even deep multi-layered psychologically rooted fused thoughts like "I only want to have sex with my husband because he is the father of my children." can eventually be unknotted. Trust me on this one.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Even deep multi-layered psychologically rooted fused thoughts like "I only want to have sex with my husband because he is the father of my children." can eventually be unknotted. Trust me on this one.
Reminds me of Lil's train of thoughts from " Undefended Love." I am sure you are right, but would you be so kind as to show me specifically how the " father of my kids" example would work?
I think it is probably semantics for me but maybe it is just my contrariness
It's impossible to avoid a degree of fusion even in the most casual human relationships but just being able to recognize it is the first critical step to minimizing it.
Isn't there a significant difference between the ideas of CONNECTION and FUSION? I feel pretty sure that I have probably never been fused to someone at any level. YET I also feel like I tend to connect to people (I seem to always attract people who want to talk at work or when traveling) I have deep and strong connections to my close friends and family. I say this because I think if people hear me say I don't get fused to someone they picture someone who has no emotional attachment to people and that is far from the truth. I feel emotions deeply and empathize strongly with others.
Raven and I had a conversation yesterday where we spoke of my XH and my philosophy that we felt when we married that we were together because we WANTED to be together and NOT because we NEEDED to be together. Raven and his XW had a similar conversation only SHE did not agree. She felt that being needed was a higher level of love. Which just doesn't compute for me. I would so much rather be wanted than needed...
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Well, I would say that fusion is a subset of connection, as in percent of fusion in a connection ( connected relationship). To the degree that you have good boundaries and self awareness, the fusion percentage will go down. Is it possible to have no fusion? I just don't think so.
Really, any other thought about what you might "need" from a particular relationship for your own emotional well-being can be worked through in this manner. Even issues involving sex or other interactions for which you "need" another person's involvement can be resolved as long as you don't limit your dependency to a particular person. Even deep multi-layered psychologically rooted fused thoughts like "I only want to have sex with my husband because he is the father of my children." can eventually be unknotted. Trust me on this one.
Sounds nice in theory, and maybe it will work for a while for someone who is single, but I don’t see this a reality for the majority of society, especially those who are married. The problem as I see is in your term “as long as you don't limit your dependency to a particular person.” If you stick to this rule, then you will never achieve a close, intimate relationship. You will only have friend or acquaintances, even though they may be sex friends. But in so doing, haven’t you just thrown up another variant of a defensive wall?
How can you unknot the idea “I only want to have sex with my husband because he is the father of my children” without breaking marriage vows or having a divorce?
