Lust for life - You said "However, my H would probably be disgusted and annoyed to see that book in our house or that I was following her hypocritical advice." Would your husband really try to control what books you read? If this is a serious reason not to bring home a book I would be questioning how free and equal you actually are.
Oh Martelo, let's not make assumptions here. No where did I say he would "control" me and not let me bring it into the house. All I'm saying is if he doesn't respect the book and I don't respect the book, why bring it into the house? If I wanted to I would. See the difference? There are plenty of things I do that he probably doesn't like but I like it so I do it, including posting on this board, eating certain foods, listening to certain music, you get the idea.
Fearless- Thanks for the reply on your own thinking about XH. Him wanting you to lead and then being pissed at your leadership sounds like he had a bunch of stuff to work on. I'm just curious if you think that it was " all his fault " not in a victimhood way just what if anything you may have brought to the relationship dynamic.
As far as LFL it just struck me as odd that that was a reason that she picked out not to read the book, it rang of a fear of disapproval from her husband to me when I read it and I would love to be wrong about it.
*edit- and it appears that I am!
I personally think Dr.Laura is a complete nut bar and more of an entertainer than a healer. I would just ask anyone to look and see what kind of Dr. she is before they take her advice too seriously.
As far as LFL it just struck me as odd that that was a reason that she picked out not to read the book, it rang of a fear of disapproval from her husband to me when I read it and I would love to be wrong about it.
I took it the opposite way. I took it as FIRSTLY LFL thinks Dr. Laura is a hypocrite and SECONDLY the book would not interest Mr LFL. I took from that that IF Mr LFL had some interest in her reading the book it's POSSIBLE she might consider it. But in her case if she has no interest AND her H has no interest, what would be the purpose. My take anyway...
I'm just curious if you think that it was " all his fault " not in a victimhood way just what if anything you may have brought to the relationship dynamic.
No I definitely don't think it was "all his fault." In fact I struggle with feeling like it was ANY of his "fault." I end up feeling that I as the "healthy" (well working on it anyway) one should have recognized what was going on and gotten him and us into counseling. I also wish I had had the strength to deal with his first serious EA in a more productive way. I've said before that my counselor (became my IC after MCing stopped) thought that the only thing I hadn't done that might have worked would have been to leave him. That was frustrating and reassuring to hear. I think it might have worked but just as likely he might have thought I was a "crazy b!tch" and have refused to do anything. Bottomline is that I married to stay married and the idea of divorcing just because he had a friend I wasn't comfortable with seemed ridiculous to me. NOW, with the knowledge I know have, the idea of a separation to express feelings and encourage WORKING on the marriage would have worked. I just didn't know that separation was anything other than preparing to divorce.
And NOW I am shutting the computer down and getting in the car. Really truly I am.
Last edited by fearless; 09/13/0703:45 PM.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Do you really see Deida and Schlessinger in agreement? I've only skimmed her book and listened to her rarely but I don't see her as having much in common with Deida.
She is speaking to women, Dieda to men, so the approach is different and each sounds different. But listen to the overall message. Dieda encourages the man to focus on himself and his purpose, to be true to himself, not make excuses to shortchange his potential, be a rock to his W and family, not worry about the tests he receives from his woman.
Schlessinger speaks to women to allow the man to become the same thing, to ease off testing the man to comfort herself but rather learn to trust in his abilities to provide, and allow him to express himself in the way he chooses as a man, not only in the feminine, emotional way she wants him to. I hear her message as allowing an unshackling of men from trying too hard to please women, thereby allowing the man to come more into his male polarity. This makes him feel more whole and content because he is can think like a man, rather have to alter himself to think like a woman. Schlessinger says this makes both people happier.
So from a bigger picture viewpoint, I think they say the same thing, only from different approaches.
So she's a great Deida woman! She's challenging you, right? Why not accept the challenge?
I am accepting the challenge. What is it you don’t hear? But just because I accept the challenge does not mean it is something I prefer or necessarily enjoy.
Cobra- I get confused with where you coming from sometimes and I think it revolves around your professed lack of love for your wife. I'll just paraphrase Deida where he says that the Feminine gets pissed when one does not feel loved, I just wonder how you would fit that into your thinking?
That is very much in the front of my thinking, but you've got to walk before you can run. I am absolutely convinced that there is a circular problem in my M that is part her, part me. As I have discussed many times, her issues come from fear. That fear has destroyed her ability to trust and therefore to have faith. Love means placing yourself in a vulnerable position and having faith that will not come back to bite you.
Before we could get to that level, all the other crap had to be addressed and moved out of the way. So I step forward, she steps forward. One step at a time. Love will be one of the last things on the list. BTW, I think the masculine gets pissed when it is not loved too.
I've actually known a few couples similar to what you describe and they too seem very happy. No way I could do that though... yuck!
It might be helpful to you to think about why your response is "yuck!" Using a strap-on would really be at the far edge of my sexual comfort zone because I'm not quite comfortable enough in my femininity to do that and also because I simply don't like toys or paraphernalia very much. So, in order to do that I would need some combination of alcohol, feeling good enough about my femininity to "act" the masculine, a partner with whom I was intimate enough to know his boundaries/desires, a partner from whom I could "borrow" validation of my femininity, feeling good enough about sexuality in general to perform the edgy and a high level of general arousal/ horniness. I have gone for the prostate on a couple men and I got the same response from both of them which was along the lines of "I must admit I really liked it but it was a bit over my boundary line so it makes me psychologically uncomfortable." I have no real urge in my sexuality to push a man into that level of vulnerability. On that edge of things, I just want a guy who is comfortable enough in his masculinity to allow me to maybe grab his *ss and f*ck him from below. It's his choice if he wants to see that as high monkey or low lioness. I'm good either way.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
(Fearless) I am thinking specifically of Deida's chapter 15 on a man coming home after making a MILLION dollars and having his wife's only comment being "That's nice. Did you pick up the milk like I asked?" Deida says that you should EXPECT AND WELCOME that attitude from your wife.
QUOTE - "Why is she being this way? Because she simply wants to deflate your success? NO. She is challenging you because your success doesn't mean sh!t to her, unless you are free and loving. And if you are free and loving, nothing she can do can collapse you. She wants to feel you are uncollapsable, so she pokes you in your weak spot." and "It's a tall order to be this free, and in your more mediocre moments you will wish your woman would settle for less. But if you are a man living to his fullest, willing to play his edge and grow through difficulties, then you will want her to test you. You may not like it. But you don't want her to settle for some bozo who depends on his woman's response to be happy." (I added the bold.)
Which is interesting because it's Deida describing pure, unadulterated differentiation.
Stop WaitingFeel EverythingLove AchinglyGive ImpeccablyLet Go
I personally think Dr.Laura is a complete nut bar and more of an entertainer than a healer. I would just ask anyone to look and see what kind of Dr. she is before they take her advice too seriously.
Based on just my third-hand or skimmed knowledge of the two books, I would conjecture that Dr. Laura and Deida are looking at the exact same set of data but coming up with almost opposite conclusions. It's like Dr. Laura listened to men telling her what they wanted and decided to tell women how to give it to them and Deida, knowing what men want also, decided to tell them how to get it for themselves. So, in a way, the books affirm the same reality but have differing perspectives as to cause and effect. The problem I always had with the Dr. Laura book was that in my experience it just didn't work. Kind of like trying to catch fish by throwing worms into the water. Has anyone read Deida's book for women. I would be very curious to learn how it differs from Dr. Laura's philosophy. However, I'm willing to bet the bank that he uses the word vulnerability. Which if I complete my analogy would mean that you try to catch fish by making yourself into a tasty worm which is probably why I have some issues with the concept.- lol
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Cobra, my husband has, for all practical purposes, zero interest in sports. If we're somewhere and a game's on, I'd be more likely to watch.
His passion is his music, he's self-taught on piano and guitar and composes amazing work (IMHO). Also, deep discussion of philosophy, religion, the state of the world in general, the paranormal. He is a software engineer with a focus on database design/data warehousing.
If you have never listened to "Dr" Laura, I understand why you may not get all the vitriol her name produces. I have had the misfortune to listen to her radio show, and a more vicious, judgmental, sanctimonious, adversarial voice I have rarely encountered. Perhaps her writing style is different.
Burgbud, really? My understanding of Schnarch is that couples *do* support and appreciate each other .... as The Other ... by free choice .... it's just not coming from that place of desperation/fear of loss/siamese twinhood. I'm making the mistake of picking on an isolated quote again .... I know! ... but the above example .... wow. Not caring about/appreciating the other person's triumphs (the million dollars) unless and until they meet your own intimate needs (the milk) doesn't sound differentiated ... it sounds intensely selfish. Is that really how Deida sees the feminine? Am I missing the point?
The more I think about it, it sounds like the *opposite* of differentiation ... the wife in the example who does this is not appreciating her husband as The Other, with his own valid priorities and agenda....
Ah. Perhaps you're focusing on the bold part ... "some bozo who depends on his woman's response to be happy". I see your point. Still .... you may not be *dependent* on your mate's response to be happy ... but it still feels good when it's forthcoming .... and what kind of schmuck wouldn't want to rejoice in their partner's joy?
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
