Yes! That is my ONLY point: that you cannot directly change someone else.
What you're saying is that if you limit or control the other person's choices (by adding, removing, changing them) you can indirectly control what the other person chooses, right?
Like this analogy: I have a jar of different colored jelly beans. I want you to choose only the red ones. I know you hate the green ones and wouldn't choose them anyway. So I take out all the jelly beans and only leave the red and green ones. Naturally you choose the red ones.
But you can also choose not to eat any jelly beans and walk away.
So I remove even the green ones from the jar, and then I go out and find lots of different kinds of red ones-- peppermint, cinnamon, cherry-- knowing that you will not be able to resist a jar full of only RED jelly beans.
By limiting your choices, or offering you ONLY choices I know will appeal to you, I am controlling your options, but I am still not making the choice for you. YOU are still the one doing the choosing... in a sense you are making the choice to choose at all. NOT choosing-- not playing along-- is still a real choice.
This statement
Quote:
Then why is my marriage so much better than it was a year ago and well along the path to sustainability while your R is basically unchanged?
was way over the top! You don't have any idea what's going on in my R, whether it's changed or not, whether it's better or not! Where on earth do you find the arrogance to make such a statement? Again, you're acting like you know something about a situation that you know next to nothing about! You're making inferences based on old, sketchy information, and you have no idea what the current situation is.
