No, I would not regard her as weak. She has a lot of confidence that she can take care of herself, as that was what she had to do to survive. That gives her strength, along with a lot of anger. I also think she has a lot of justified fear which in turned served as her motivation to strengthen herself.
Therefore, if you allowed yourself to be vulnerable in relation to her you would be acting in opposition to your trust of another person.
I think I know what you are saying but I think you are mixing up strength/weakness with faith or no faith. The two are not he same. There are plenty of weak people who have faith. With faith, all you have to do is say “I believe” and you are there. Nothing else to, just take the leap. Once you do, it feels good because you have absolved yourself of responsibility for worrying about your future. You leave it in the hands of God.
No wonder so many people feel lifted and unburdened, full of the spirit, when finding the Lord. IMO all they did was to dump their sense of responsibility. You get the same feeling from capitulation by just letting go of all worries over whatever the consequences might be. Successful detachment is the same thing – not worrying for the other person and dumping that burden. I don’t think any of that has to do with strength or weakness.
Therefore the strength you would need in order to be vulnerable in relation to your wife would have to come from you. You can be weak and still have the ability to put your trust in someone you perceive to be strong. Vulnerable is to weak as strong is to guarded.
From my POV, I can be the weakest person in the world and still take a leap of faith to place my vulnerability in the hands of my wife, or God. My earlier point was that faith is related to trust. If you feel you have been betrayed by God and have been conditioned to believe that He will not protect you, then it is hard to trust Him or put your faith in Him or anyone else. A weak or strong person can have his or her faith shattered in this way (there may be some difference in how you and I use the terms “weak” and “strong.”)
The 12 Step method seems to revolved around the addict falling to such a low level that s/he cannot no longer depend on him/herself for comfort or safety. When there is no trust even in yourself, then who can you turn too? That point seems to be when the idea of making the leap of faith to God becomes a no-lose proposition. Once all seems lost, what else is there to lose by placing your faith in a God, even if you don’t trust Him? It’s worth a shot, right? To me, this is the point of capitulation. Is it necessary to reach a similar point in a relationship before one person is willing to trust another, to make the leap of faith?
I don’t think Christian missionaries wait for such opportunities to convert non-believers to Christianity. Maybe they have a model that is worth exploring?
However, sometimes avoidant fusion can look like lack of relation.
I’m thinking that avoidant fusion IS a lack of relation, unless I don’t understand your meaning of avoidant fusion.
In a way I am having an internal debate, questioning the whole process of marriage recovery as we know it and practice it on this board. Sometime it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Why is this and is there another, better way?
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't because we're dealing with human beings and they aren't as predictable as science experiments. Sometimes it doesn't work because it wasn't really implemented. It's easier to talk a good plan than it is to do a good plan.
Quote:
The problem I have is with “…choose to leave the marriage by refusing to change or adjust.” A good system should be able to rule this out as a necessary option, for saving the marriage is one of the main objectives of recovery, especially when children are involved.
How can you assert that any possible option "should be ruled out as a necessary option"? I'm not sure why you are labeling it as "necessary" but it is always an option in any country where divorce is allowed.
There is nothing you can say or do to ensure that your spouse won't walk if they choose to do so. You could be the best husband that you know how to be a high percentage of time, you could extend yourself to try to meet her every need and be super person - but that doesn't keep spouses from leaving. OTOH, you can see alcoholic, abusive marriages where the abused spouse won't leave no matter what.
Quote:
I am not sure I buy this part either: “…they will start to change themselves in an effort to keep the relationship and respond to the differences.”
I wrote that as one option out of three:
"The other spouse will either continue trying to push the changing spouse back into the disfunction,
or
will choose to leave the marriage by refusing to change or adjust to the new relational dynamics,
or
they will start to change themselves in an effort to keep the relationship and respond to the differences. "
I don't know of any other basic responses from the other spouse than:
* stay in the marriage and make no changes (status quo) * leave the marriage * stay in the marriage and make changes
Those are the 3 options all spouses have. You can't control which of the choices your spouse will choose.
Quote:
Maybe the spouse feels it is safer to not keep the relationship. But that decision would be based on a warped view and unresolved issues. So it would be a poor decision, with the benefit of hindsight of course.
Our spouses make their decisions based on their own views, whether they are warped or not, poor or wise choices. We don't have the control to make their choices for them based on what we think is best.
Quote:
I see ALL the problems with relationships as a matter of information – whether we have wrong or limited knowledge, impressions and reactions to ourselves and others. The cure is information. The obstacle is getting that information into the brain, to create understanding. I am not sure that the methods we commonly use are the best ways of accomplishing the objective. I am just not sure what a better method would be.
Unless I am misreading you, this all seems geared to be about you getting this info into your spouse's head.
Nothing (IMO) speaks louder than your (rhetorical you) own actions, attitudes and behaviors. Once your own act gets detectably "cleaned up", there is a foundation from which your words can be given weight.
I have no real debate with anything you've said. BTDT on just about everything you've mentioned.
Unless I am misreading you, this all seems geared to be about you getting this info into your spouse's head.
Well, that IS the key to recovery isn't it, for both people of course.
Nothing (IMO) speaks louder than your (rhetorical you) own actions, attitudes and behaviors. Once your own act gets detectably "cleaned up", there is a foundation from which your words can be given weight.
Yes, to a point, and in that way I think I have resolved a lot of my wife's complaints, in a very "detectable way." But that isn't really ever the issue with an avoider is it? Those complaints are just a deflection. Sure, there may be some validity to them, but once resolved, the avoider simply finds something else that is a problem. In my wife's case, she sometimes reverts to digging up the past because she has little to complain about in the present.
I think she is reverting to the tactic of creating drama, digging up one issue or another to pull someone (myself or the kids) into an argument to justify her anger/frustration/gripe-of-the-day. I have even been noticing more of this when things seem to be going good and joking and teasing take place. As you might expect, this goes too far, someone gets mad (either she or the kids, because I will NOT engage in this sort of teasing with her), and the comfort of confrontation can resume and she can punish someone.
Mrs. NOP: Unless I am misreading you, this all seems geared to be about you getting this info into your spouse's head.
Cobra: Well, that IS the key to recovery isn't it, for both people of course.
Getting the info into each person's head is NOT the key to recovery. But it's a very Five way of looking at the problem. Information is not the solution, nor is communication. If anything, Good Will is the solution. What difference does it make what's in your head or hers as long as you treat each other lovingly? Often words just complicate and deflect, doncha think?
No, not with an avoider. Has your goodwill improved your bf's relationship with you? Goodwill can help and is part of the answer, but I think a lot more than that is needed to fix things.
What difference does it make what's in your head or hers as long as you treat each other lovingly?
Nothing, but it is still that last part that is lacking, so then I start to question what's in her head (well, actually I don't do this because I'm not likely to find anything at all).
No wonder so many people feel lifted and unburdened, full of the spirit, when finding the Lord. IMO all they did was to dump their sense of responsibility. You get the same feeling from capitulation by just letting go of all worries over whatever the consequences might be. Successful detachment is the same thing – not worrying for the other person and dumping that burden. I don’t think any of that has to do with strength or weakness.
If you think detachment is about not worrying for the other person then you are just in denial about whatever is keeping YOU in the relationship, unless you are Jesus. I bet if you considered most of the other members of the BB you could make a guess about what might be keeping them in their relationships besides concern for their spouse. How are you different?
Quote:
The 12 Step method seems to revolved around the addict falling to such a low level that s/he cannot no longer depend on him/herself for comfort or safety. When there is no trust even in yourself, then who can you turn too? That point seems to be when the idea of making the leap of faith to God becomes a no-lose proposition. Once all seems lost, what else is there to lose by placing your faith in a God, even if you don’t trust Him? It’s worth a shot, right? To me, this is the point of capitulation. Is it necessary to reach a similar point in a relationship before one person is willing to trust another, to make the leap of faith
I really don't know where you are going with this. Are you God and is your wife the Bowery Street Bum?
Quote:
I’m thinking that avoidant fusion IS a lack of relation, unless I don’t understand your meaning of avoidant fusion.
Lack of relation is what I have with a stranger on the other side of the planet who calls my cell number by accident. Avoidant fusion is what I have with my mother when I avoid answering my cell because I see that she is calling.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
If you think detachment is about not worrying for the other person then you are just in denial about whatever is keeping YOU in the relationship, unless you are Jesus.
Detachment does not mean you don't worry about the other, it just means you stop feeling responsible for the other person's feelings, which is what I mean by "dump their sense of responsibility." It does not mean the end of empathy.
I bet if you considered most of the other members of the BB you could make a guess about what might be keeping them in their relationships besides concern for their spouse. How are you different?
Of course we stay in relationships out of concern for ourselves and to avoid the fear of leaving the relationship. I actually think concern for the spouse is much farther down the list, for everyone on this board. Where did you get the impression that my concern for my wife was any higher? Now my concern for my kids is very high, so in that way I have an interest in my wife's functioning, for their sake.
I really don't know where you are going with this. Are you God and is your wife the Bowery Street Bum?
I was wondering whether it is necessary for two people in a stand-off to get to the point of throwing up their hands and giving up before progress can be made. Is it necessary to always have to reach bottom before things improve, because, as you know, at the bottom one or the other is likely to walk out. So why go there if it can be avoided. Savvy?
Cobra, getting information into his head is what hasn't been a solution. My resentment has been so high, you can't call the way I've been treating him Good Will.
He's not an avoider anyway. He's very confrontational, and not in a pleasant way. I want to be treated lovingly. What I want from him is Good Will and all that that implies. I don't particularly care what's in his head.
But that isn't really ever the issue with an avoider is it?
What is an avoider? How do you define it?
Quote:
Those complaints are just a deflection. Sure, there may be some validity to them, but once resolved, the avoider simply finds something else that is a problem.
If there was some validity to them, then how are they deflections? Can you give me an example of the type of interaction you're talking about? Is it something like this:
Spouse A - We need to address blah issue. Spouse B - Well, blah occurs because you _____.
Would that constitute what you're calling a deflection?
Quote:
In my wife's case, she sometimes reverts to digging up the past because she has little to complain about in the present.
When she digs up the past does what she is unearthing have any corelation to the discussion/argument at hand?
I was wondering whether it is necessary for two people in a stand-off to get to the point of throwing up their hands and giving up before progress can be made. Is it necessary to always have to reach bottom before things improve, because, as you know, at the bottom one or the other is likely to walk out. So why go there if it can be avoided. Savvy?
I feel like I hit bottom in my relationship probably a few days before I joined this BB. I was doing much better when my relationship ended. The fact is not everyone can become more differentiated and stay married. However, not everyone can stay fused and stay married either. (I'm sure you know plenty of people who are still fused to ex-spouses) So why not become more differentiated since it's the only hope for a decent marriage?
If my 2bx were to become more differentiated, I would naturally be willing to reconcile with him. Because, as far as I can ascertain, he hasn't become more differentiated, the boundaries I would maintain if we tried to reconcile would send him bouncing right out of the relationship again. Maybe it isn't a matter of hitting bottom so much as finally BEING more differentiated rather than just ACTING more differentiated. One of the catch phrases in the dating advice books is "Don't play hard to get. Be hard to get." Same sort of thing that is hard to see until you see it.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
