It seems to me that your disbelief in differentiation is a religious disbelief. It appears that you don't believe in differentiation because you haven't seen it, differentiation can't be sustained and everyone MUST become enmeshed when in stress.
I guess you’re right. It’s the Order of the Human Emotion, which says that people are people and will react like people.
But if those are your reasons, those are not arguments but rather circular reasoning.
No, those are my experiences, based on my empirical evidence.
Then again I understand that some people don't want to lose weight, don't want to exercise, don't want to eat healthy, don't want to stop watching TV, don't want to be happier, etc.
Do you really? Tell why you think this is?
YES I most certainly had HIGH STRESS and I DID react. But my reaction was NOT to enmesh/fuse with my XH. But how can that be?
It might be because of two things…. One is that it was your mother who was dying, but it was your xH with whom you are talking about fusion. There was no need to react toward your xH because he was not dying and he was validating what you were feeling about your mom.
I suppose I should have preface my comments to say that fusion comes with high enough heat in the absence of validation. You had a support system that was working. So you got through it.
But what if during your mom’s problems, and your going to school, that you had a car accident like Corri, called you H in the middle of the night to tell him you were fine and he said OK, but then why are you waking me, I have an early appointment in the morning. On top of all this, say you have a history with your H where he does not validate you at all. Say everytime you called him about your mother, he would instead dump his problems on you? How would Fearless feel then?
My premise that it only takes sufficient heat to cause fusion to occur also requires that you keep the idea Harley’s love bank in mind. If the credit balance is high, it might take you a long time of enduring your xH’s self-entered ways (in my example above) before the love bank goes into negative territory and your resentment starts to rise. If the starting balance is already low, it may not take too long to reach the same point. So it differs from situation to situation.
What I did do was talk to my XH and stay connected with him. But the fact is he was in Law School and he needed to stay on track with his classes. I needed him to take care of himself MORE than I needed him to take care of me. Just being there to talk to WAS enough.
But what if it wasn’t? What does it take to make Fearless angry, to become resentful? Have you ever had to deal with this? Have you ever had deal with the sh*t hitting the fan without a support system behind you, or worse, a negative system that invalidates you? Or do you put in so much effort to be sure everyone around you understands you and is therefore at the ready to validate you when needed? Do you go to lengths to preempt any possible future invalidation by relentlessly trying to smooth things over and keep the peace? That might be a good strategy for you, since it seems to have worked in the past, but if I were your H, I think constantly having to validate you and make sure you are comfortable would take a lot out of me. I think you would start to come over as very needy.
I know you are resistant to the idea of differentiation but this is a thread that others are reading and I want to give encouragement that it is possible and worthwhile to pursue this as a goal.
I agree that differentiation is an excellent goal and it is possible to achieve this at times.
[/b]Quite frankly I see enmeshment all the time in all sorts of low stress situations….[/b]
Yes, what you describe in your everyday conversations is reality, that is real life. Wasn’t that part of my point?
What would you think if she went to a male colleague for her need for extra talk? What if she has a need to have a male figure listen to her and respect her? Why SHOULDN'T you be that male figure??
I would tell her to go find a female friend to talk to. She likes to talk. It doesn’t have to be a male.
"It comforts me to know that she has a need for me and that I can provide for that need (a la Dieda)."
OK, I see where I confused you and this comment is not clear. To really understand what I am trying to say you need to read Dieda (have you done that?) His premise, that I agree with, is that the man’s purpose is to pursue his main objective and then to share the gifts of his success with his woman. Sharing gives her comfort and security, but the act of giving and sharing with her becomes his inspiration, actually, she is the inspiration.
So what I mean is that I want to share with my W, which does met whatever needs she might have, but I do so for her, not for some specific need.
My guess is that she is VERY aware that you prefer not to listen to her. The sentiment among men here is that they recognize if their wives are just "putting up" with sex and it is VERY disturbing to them. Why wouldn't your wife feel the same way about your lack of interest in what is important in your life? When you judge her interests and way of talking as harshly as you do, I imagine that she would feel that you see HER as annoying and unimportant and might not recognize that it's what she is talking about that annoys you.
I know this is hard for you to understand, so maybe Dieda will explain it best. What I get from your overall tone is that you feel men should really pay full attention to their wives, to keep them happy and content in exchange for engaged sex and EC and to keep resentment down and the bonding levels high. The logic of that makes complete sense. The reality is that it just doesn’t quite work that way. Which is what I guess I am driving at in my overall tone.
Both Laura Schlessinger and Dieda say the same basic thing in this regard… the man needs to listen to and validate his woman, but only to a point. Give her enough to keep her happy (how happy is not defined) but not so much that the man becomes a servant to satisfying the woman (which won’t ever happen anyway) and then builds up his own resentment.
What I keep getting from you is that peace and harmony is the overriding objective (or maybe it’s part of the means to achieve full differentiation?) so each partner should focus on giving to keep this peace. But then, isn’t this really just another covert form of enmeshment, trying to keep everyone happy on a daily basis so that people can be differentiated when stress hits? Is this really serving the ideal of differentiation or indirectly avoiding potential confrontation and disagreement (which is what you seem to want to avoid)?
I am just saying that recognizing that your wife may need you in ways that you find absurd, annoying, frustrating, pointless (she can go to her girlfriends for this), etc. could help you be the "knight in shining armor" to her. Is it more important for you to do whatever SHE NEEDS you to do to be a knight in shining armor to her or more important for you to do what YOU WANT to do for her??
That is the dilemma right? Balancing what I want versus what she wants. There is no right answer. It depends on me and her. There is nothing wrong in me putting first what I want to do for her. Then I am being honest. She can propose what she wants me to do, so she will be honest. How we work out the compromise is the art of marriage, right?
So when you are asked to do something else for the princess, you argue and argue that you want to slay the dragon instead of doing what is required. Maybe there isn't even a dragon to slay... Yeah I know but that's the only thing you KNOW how to do. Those other tasks they are asking of you are beyond your area of expertise. It would be so much more convenient for them to ask of you what you know you can provide.
You are correct in this analogy…. but, if the woman does not want to take the gifts that I want to provide, she needs to find another provider and I need to find another woman.
Go read Dieda. The worst thing a man can do is to compromise himself, his purpose, his values, in order to please a woman. The man and his objectives come first. Then woman comes second, but in this way, the man can give the woman the maximum of what she really wants. Putting the woman first and the man’s objective second will actually diminish returns for the woman and make her unhappy.
IMO, you are still espousing a very feminist mantra, one in which you think men need to be in touch with a woman’s emotions, that the men should be focused on the woman’s feelings for in that way conflict can be minimized and both will feel validated, secure and able to stand in a differentiated mode. But you model is not the kind of man I want to be or the kind of man I think anyone should be. I feel that a part of your "message" has a subtle emasculation of men that sort of turns me off the more I think of it. Sorry, that’s just how I feel. I'm also beginning to develop suspicions why your H left you.
