I don’t mean to pick on Mojo, but I see her doubting a lot of the positives she is now getting from her NG as a way to protect herself in case he also throws out some negative feedback.
I don't think she's doubting; I think she's possessing herself. If she depends on his positive feedback then she's susceptible to his negative feedback (or even a mere lack of positive feedback) and eventually, she's going to get some of that, directly or indirectly. We'd have to ask her but I suspect the more differentiated she becomes, the more she's able to enjoy her activities with NG for what they *are* and not for what they might *mean*. Again, that allows for deeper levels of connection.
Here's the thing. What's important to me is that I am happy. If it made me happy to obsess over what NG's behavior might "mean" then I would go ahead and do it. However, it does not make me happy so I don't. The way I don't do this is I choose to concern myself with my own matters/behavior/preferences etc. and I assume that he will do the same. If they overlap and we both find ourselves wanting to bike ride, eat Thai and f*ck like bunnies with each other on a Friday night then that is excellent! If not, then we are both still going to be happy because we are both still acting in alignment with our preferences to the extent that we are capable. I think it is appropriate to feel disappointed if others preferences aren't in alignment with ours in a way we might have desired but it is fused to feel hurt.
The other night NG made the most perfect erotic gesture towards me. If I tried to assign "meaning" to that gesture it would ruin it for me. I just want to be happy to be living my life in a world in which perfect erotic gestures exist. Perfect erotic gestures don't need to have meaning assigned to them any more than blue moons or solar eclipses.
However, I was having second thoughts about the whole MB without fantasy thing. I think it might not be a very differentiated thing for me to do and the reason why I think it might not be very differentiated is that I can pretty much always get a sex partner. I shall offer an over-the-top scenario. Let's say I was contemplating MB at the beach on Friday night. Why would I choose to do this rather than going to an appropriate site on the internet and posting a blurb that said "Reasonably attractive female seeks reasonably attractive and intelligent man to meet her at beach on Friday night and engage in sexual acts X, Y and Z." If I just want the sexual sensations and don't care about validation why wouldn't I prefer that scenario since I can definitely come up with some better sensations X,Y and Z given a willing male partner than I can using some electronic gadget (For example, I've yet to find a vibrator that can pin me down and if I subtract whatever sort of primitive validation I might get from being pinned down, I still like the muscular tension.) So whether or not choosing to MB is a non-validation-seeking activity for me isn't clear. It might be a form of avoidant fusion along the lines of "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." 'cause sometimes this fish WANTS a bicycle.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I agree that it is different for SOME singles (not all) than it is for struggling married couples. I think you are WAY more differentiated than you were when you first showed up here, and I'm pretty certain that has had an impact on what improvements you've been seeing in your marriage.
I've come to see/learn lots of things about myself that I have no doubt would have helped my marriage. Lots of good that will do my ex, huh? And no, I still don't regret my decision.
The further you differentiate, the more change you will see. I'm telling you that from hindsight, not from the idealistic world you seem to think I now live in as a single.
Put yourself back into a committed relationship and some of the old enmeshment will start to come back
I have been in a committed relationship. Now we are not married yet so maybe that's what you mean?
I have always been fairly well differentiated (of course it is relative and it is always about becoming more in touch with yourself). I haven't sought out relationships to "make" me feel better about myself.
But because you are human you WILL feel a connection to your future partner, your WILL become vulnerable and you WILL get hurt. Then you WILL put up defenses. What level of differentiation will you settle on then?
I'm not sure what your point is here. I have already stated that differentiation allows for connections and which then allows for loss and pain. Not sure that putting defenses up is a natural recourse. I think it was my differentiation that helped me through my separation and divorce. I was incredibly sad during that time. I used to "joke" that the truck drivers probably knew me as the "crying lady" on Interstate 71. Yet even with that incredible pain I still liked myself and was able to move forward in my life without bitterness, regret, hatefulness, etc. I was still able to be open to meeting and welcoming people into my life. So what level of differentiation is that??
Yes, to an extent I do see it as uncaring or unfeeling. By definition it HAS to be lass caring or feeling than enmeshment.
No actually by definition differentiation is MORE caring and feeling than enmeshment!! That's because we are not USING the other person for our sense of identity, etc. instead we are caring and feeling for a person because we love them and not to "use" them.
Detachment is the blocking of too much emotional attachment, especially the destructive kind.
Again detachment is part of fusing and enmeshment and NOT part of differentiation. if you are differentiated, you don't have to detach.
I am not arguing that these negative emotions should be limited because they can make a person feel even less cared for, but my original premise was that enmeshment per se is not bad.
"We're enmeshed when we use an individual for our identity, sense of value, worth, well-being, safety, purpose, and security. Instead of two people present, we become one identity. More simply, enmeshment is present when our sense of wholeness comes from another person... Enmeshment doesn't allow for individuality, wholeness, personal empowerment, healthy relationships with ourselves or others, and, most importantly, a relationship with our Higher Power."
This does not sound like a healthy state for people.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
(Fearless) No actually by definition differentiation is MORE caring and feeling than enmeshment!! That's because we are not USING the other person for our sense of identity, etc. instead we are caring and feeling for a person because...
...of who they are and not for whatever it is we want them to do for us.
...detachment is part of fusing and enmeshment and NOT part of differentiation. if you are differentiated, you don't have to detach.
Exactly.
(Cobra) If we are talking theory, then I don’t buy this, because theoretically it should be possible to completely know a person. All you need to do is ask, and all the other needs to do is answer. I see no reason why it should theoretically be unhealthy. As a practical matter, well, that’s another thing.
Quote:
The dawning of loneliness is a very strange time in a relationship. Sometimes it is a sign that something is clearly wrong, and that action must be taken to set things back on course. But this is not always the case. It is one of the age-old truths about love that, while it offers unparalleled opportunities for union and the lifting of ego boundaries, at the same time it washes us up on the shores of the loved one's otherness. ...
Most psychological experts counsel a certain level of resignation in the face of this disappointment. Some desires, like the one for total intimacy, can never be met, the experts remind us. Freud was notorious in his promulgation of the "reality principle," in which insistent demands for pleasure have to give way to the truth of limitation and restriction. he saw the task of therapy as helping people move from a place of neurotic misery to one of common unhappiness, and, for him, that was movement enough. One psychoanalyst who has contemplated the contradictory nature of love, however, has come up with a more hopeful formulation. "Love," wrote Otto Kernberg, who has devoted the better part of his long career to the study of intimate human relations, "is the revelation of the other person's freedom."
--Mark Epstein, M.D. in Open to Desire
From another place in the same book:
"I have no trouble understanding the idea of non-attachment in meditation," the questioner said, "but when it comes to my marriage and family, I don't get it. Why is non-attachment even a positive thing to aspire to?" Attachment, even desire, seemed to teh questioner like something to be supported in the interpersonal realm, no something to be overcome.
Stephen motioned to his wife, Martine, who was just coming into the room. "My wife says it is like holding a coin," he said, and he held out one arm with his palm up and his fist closed. "We can hold it like this," and he emphasized the closed nature of his fist, "or we can hold it like this," and he opened his hand to show the coin sitting in the center of his palm. "The closed fist is like clinging," he said. "But with my hand open, I still hold the coin."
Stop WaitingFeel EverythingLove AchinglyGive ImpeccablyLet Go
Again detachment is part of fusing and enmeshment and NOT part of differentiation. if you are differentiated, you don't have to detach.
That is not my understanding of detachment. Detachment is part of breaking the over-bonding of enmeshment. It is also a necessary step to reach differentiation. Enmeshment is too much emotional bonding between people, where person A believes s/he is responsible for the emotions of person B, and therefore believes that person B should feel and act as person A would. When Person B does not do this, person A internalizes the frustration, anger, shame, whatever, and reacts toward person B because B is not “acting” or “feeling” right. That is enmeshment.
Detachment is person A learning to not assume responsibility for person B’s feelings. That means person A must restrain him/herself to not react to person B’s “incorrect” feelings or behavior. However person A still feels the pain of person B because person A is still not differentiated. Person A is still enmeshed emotionally with person B, its just that person A has learned to control it.
It is true that if you are differentiated that you don’t have to detach, because as I see it, detachment is a precondition for differentiation. I see the scale as follows: enmeshment, then detachment, then differentiation. This corresponds to higher and higher possible levels of connection, consistent with what you and Burgbud are saying.
I think my original idea has gotten lost in these recent posts. My idea was how that above scale fits in with the idea of interdependence. I see this as a fourth, higher state beyond differentiation. That means emotional connection should be even closer that what is achieved through differentiation. But if differentiation is a state of two completely separate people, fully cognizant and respecting of each other’s boundaries, with each person completely confident and self assured, how can more intimacy be made? If the two people have the perfect distance between them and the boundary is crystal clear, how can that line get more clear or the perfect distance adjusted?
This is where I wonder if the circle comes back around and all the benefits and attributes of a perfectly differentiated couple allow the two people to re-enmesh, but in a perfectly healthy way. If all the negatives of a relationship are no longer present because of the “perfection” of differentiation, then why can’t two people re-enmesh at a higher level? If this is the case, is there actually something gained by re-enmeshing at this higher level, a level more connected than differentiation? If this is true, then is the clear boundary and the perfect distance of differentiation actually a barrier that is overcome by the even higher perfection of interdependence?
We’re almost there…. Assuming you buy all this so far, is there a way to leap over to interdependence directly from enmeshment by altering certain things, most notably the negative enmeshment factors? Could we throw in some detachment, some compassion, some mutual respect, some firm boundaries, and a mutual agreement on cooperation to reach this nirvana? Even though the end relationship would be symbiotic, all such relationships endure because they meet the individual and selfish needs of each participant. Nature has plenty of examples of this. Why couldn’t this be a model for relationships? Could it help some of those whose marriages are stuck and just can’t seem to get moving no matter what?
I am not sure they are all barking up the wrong tree. Soething though that their theories do not take into account is that there are MULTIPLE problems going on. Take all the physical problems that happen with women. Lets say a woman loses all desire because her body quits on her. How do you address that?
Take all the physical problems that happen with women. Lets say a woman loses all desire because her body quits on her. How do you address that?
The question is how does she address that? My sister is suffering through just about the worst imaginable physical situation for a woman sexually (hysterectomy, pelvic radiation, probable radiation destruction of her ovaries) and she just keeps working at salvaging her sexuality. She was so happy the other day because she found some vitamin E capsules that seems to be helping. Many people retain some form of sexuality even in the event of paralysis. I don't think physical problems are ever the core issue although lack of desire or willingness to address physical problems may be part of the core issue.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
"Love," wrote Otto Kernberg, who has devoted the better part of his long career to the study of intimate human relations, "is the revelation of the other person's freedom."
Brilliant. Why don't they teach us that in 7th Grade Sex Ed?
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Is your problem with the idea of avoiding enmeshment based on your fear that without enmeshment you don't understand how people can be bond and care for each other? Because I believe you can bond with and care for people without enmeshment.
Enmeshment is too much emotional bonding between people
This is not true in clinical descriptions of enmeshment and certainly not in my personal understanding of enmeshment. Emotional bonding is NOT enmeshment. Differentiated people can emotionally bond with others and in fact can do so easily WITHOUT LOSING THEMSELVES. Being differentiated makes it easier to feel and empathize with another's emotions WITHOUT feeling like it is YOUR emotion.
Enmeshment is looking to another to "complete" you - "We're enmeshed when we use an individual for our identity, sense of value, worth, well-being, safety, purpose, and security. Instead of two people present, we become one identity. More simply, enmeshment is present when our sense of wholeness comes from another person....Enmeshment doesn't allow for individuality, wholeness, personal empowerment, healthy relationships with ourselves or others, and, most importantly, a relationship with our Higher Power."
Cobra said: However person A still feels the pain of person B because person A is still not differentiated.
For me this is not exactly true. The difference is in HOW you feel the other's pain. I am an empathetic person and an emotional person; so I tend to cry easily. (True story. When I was leaving for work a few years ago I heard on the radio that Mr. Rogers had died. I rolled down the window to tell my XH and found myself crying when I spoke. Yeah Yeah I know but I grew up with Mr. Rogers and he was such a kind gentle spirit that his passing did sadden me. Of course I was feeling my own pain with his loss. My XH did not cry when he saw me crying or when he heard the news. He didn't grow up watching Mr. Rogers so he had no connection to him. And why should he cry just because I was crying?)
I think you see enmeshment as the only way for people to be empathetic to another's feelings. Unfortunately enmeshment is not empathy; it is actually taking someone's feelings as your own which is NOT the same as recognizing those feelings for the other person. (Has anyone else had that experience where you share a feeling with someone and instead of that person empathizing with your feeling they seem to take on your feeling as their own? For me it is not comforting and is in fact disconcerting because you don't feel any empathy from them)
Also I don't think we are using the same definition for detachment (and there are more than one). For me detachment is separating yourself from someone so you can remain individuals however it is NOT a disconnection or disengagement at all.
So if you believe that to be a differentiated person you must disengage and disconnect from others, then I can understand why differentiation would bother you. For me it is the other way around, differentiation is what gives you the power to connect to others in a truly meaningful way.
I have no idea if it would surprise you to know that people have always seemed to gravitate to me to talk and open up. I get the "you are so easy to talk with" line all the time. I love people. I like having connections to people. I believe that my differentiation is probably part of that draw.
Please check out this site on detachment for more information. I'll include some quotes here.
Here is one part of their definition of detaching.
Detachment is the "Ability to maintain an emotional bond of love, concern, and caring without the negative results of rescuing, enabling, fixing, or controlling.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
I think a good example of detachment would be what should naturally happen at some point or at various points in parent/child relationships. For instance, my S18 came by recently and wanted me to bail him out of a difficulty. I thought about it for a bit and decided that he would have to take on the responsibility for himself although I did present him with a few options he might not have considered for solving the problem. Then I cooked him a meal and gave him a haircut and he cut the lawn for me and we hugged when he left. Probably I should have let him cry in the crib a bit longer when he was a baby too. Oh well, live and learn.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
