A personal journey through Karen's eyes

[karen1]

To Dom and Lil,

Wow - what a can of worms I opened. I honestly never considered the issue of multiple marriages as an academic point. I just threw it in there as a emotional point that I am aware of within myself. I have an Aunt that was married three times and has had several long term boyfriend in between. She also cheated on husband #2. She is a kind of self centered, cold person in general so that is probably the association I am making in my own head.

Further I do believe that just like it isn't possible to make it in all job environments it isn't possible to make it in all marital pairings. It is SEVEN years since I left my 1st marriage. I didn't leave because of anyone but myself. I couldn't continue respecting myself if I stayed. My ex-H has since remarried and divorced. He is still unemployed, still "figuring himself out" and quite a few of the things that were a problem at the time. Now, I can look on these things with sympathy and he and I are kinda friendly. In our marriage his inability to get it together caused him to be very ugly, undercutting and verbally abusive toward me - he needed to blame someone for all of this. Now he just throws the label of "recovery" on it and stays ill. I suppose he and I could have stayed together and I could have continued to carry the whole load for both of us and I would have been just as LD as current H if not more.

Current H and I get along, treat each other well and are good partners together. We are good parents together. We carry the weight together. I DO feel that walking away from a situation that is functioning well in so many ways to seek some elusive something.......

Miss IC,

I have tried just about everything except moving out or throwing plates. I have done some yelling, lots of crying, addressing it quietly, doing some MC (not much), going to Marriage Encounter (left early - H closed off and went from twitchy to catatonic). We have talked about it in letters. Tried to negotiate. Now, I'm tired and I'm doing nothing.....

I don't threaten divorce because it would be an empty threat.

I will write more later - have to go. I have some thoughts though.

Karen

[MJontheMend]

I've had the thought before that you and HD are "stuck" for similar reasons. You are both people who highly value family and stability and your first marriages were to people who were highly unstable. So, it's like you both "shopped" for the opposite for your second marital partner and ended up with problems on the other end of the dysfunctional spectrum. Maybe, in a way, you were punishing yourself for being LD in your first marriage by going ahead and marrying a man with whom, as you put it, the sex was uncomfortable from the get-go. HD also indicated that the sex with MsHD wasn't great pretty much right from the beginning. It's like you guys were telling yourselves that because you left Marriage 1 due to values A and B, you were willing to put up with lack of C in Marriage 2...or something like that. IOW, your choice of second marital partner was reflective of lingering fusion from your first marriage.

[RealJourney]

Well then MJ, you are going to break this pattern by finding a guy the exact opposite of your stbx who has no mean/cruel streak and you are going to be happy.

[MJontheMend]

Well then MJ, you are going to break this pattern by finding a guy the exact opposite of your stbx who has no mean/cruel streak and you are going to be happy.

Nope, 'cause the guy who would be roughly the opposite of my 2bx would be roughly equivalent to Bill Clinton in terms of sexuality/personality/virtues&vices and I don't want that either. Besides, a guy like that needs somebody tough like Hilary for the long run and I'm definitely more the Monica type. I think I need somebody who is a bit of a hard*ss but has a sense of humor, kind of a Ricky Ricardo type but I could be wrong. Anyways, I intend to be very, very picky.

[sat567]

You are both people who highly value family and stability and your first marriages were to people who were highly unstable. So, it's like you both "shopped" for the opposite for your second marital partner and ended up with problems on the other end of the dysfunctional spectrum. . . . IOW, your choice of second marital partner was reflective of lingering fusion from your first marriage.

Yep. There are many things about MsHdog that are 180 degrees opposite from XW. But there are similarities, too, such as strength of character, little fear of confrontation, and some narcissistic tendencies (e.g. blame shifting).

Still, I do think that MsHdog is a much better person than XW will ever be. Can't really compare the two as wives, as they each had their highs and lows and it's difficult to quantify those points. XW was more fun and willing in the sack, but W is more stable and dependable and consistent as a "partner." Maybe you can't "have it all."

Hairdog

[MJontheMend]

Maybe you can't "have it all."

I guess I would like to believe that I can "have it all" if I am reasonably willing to "be it all" myself. IOW, if I have all my animals in reasonably functioning order then I can expect the same of my partner. Less "tit for tat" and more "tit for tit" and "tat for tat".

[Dom R]

Maybe you can't "have it all."

I guess I would like to believe that I can "have it all" if I am reasonably willing to "be it all" myself. IOW, if I have all my animals in reasonably functioning order then I can expect the same of my partner. Less "tit for tat" and more "tit for tit" and "tat for tat".

I agree with the first sentance, but disagree on the rest of it.
You make it sound like, "if i know what I want, then I can get it ". ie: "it's all about ME, and knowing what *I* want".

I think just the opposite is more important:
I think that if you want your spouse to "be everything to you", then you also should try to "be everything to your partner". That doesnt involve "getting yourself in order", and understanding yourself better: I'd say that involves understanding your spouse and their wants/needs better, and making THEIR needs come first.
Not "instead of your own". Just, before your own.

[MJontheMend]

You make it sound like, "if i know what I want, then I can get it ". ie: "it's all about ME, and knowing what *I* want".

I think just the opposite is more important:
I think that if you want your spouse to "be everything to you", then you also should try to "be everything to your partner". That doesnt involve "getting yourself in order", and understanding yourself better: I'd say that involves understanding your spouse and their wants/needs better, and making THEIR needs come first.
Not "instead of your own". Just, before your own.

I disagree with you to the extent that what I was trying to convey is that I believe most people have the same basic needs/wants in a relationship. For instance, if one were to consider the need for stability and the need for fun to be generally desirable but in opposition then I think a relationship would function better if both partners brought some fun and some stability (though perhaps in different "flavors") rather than trying to trade off one for the other. So REALLY what I was saying was that if I want a well-balanced, well-integrated, high-functioning relationship than I need to be a well-balanced, well-integrated, high-functioning person to begin with. Let's say I have a natural tendency towards being messy. If I am self-aware about this tendency and acknowledge that a desire for order is valid and understand that if I don't acknowledge this desire within myself and improve my own functioning to a reasonable extent then I will have great difficulties establishing a boundary around this issue in any relationship. I limit my choices to wallowing in filth with some other slob or waging war with somebody more anal retentive. I'd rather be in a relationship in which I do the dishes while he vacuums the floor and he pins me down after I give him head than one in which he vacuums the floor so that I will give him head or vice versa.

[Dom R]

I disagree with you to the extent that what I was trying to convey is that I believe most people have the same basic needs/wants in a relationship.

...


So REALLY what I was saying was that if I want a well-balanced, well-integrated, high-functioning relationship than I need to be a well-balanced, well-integrated, high-functioning person to begin with.]

Interesting theory... i think that can work well for some relationships.. but neither point that you state, is neccessarily a requirement for a good relationship.

I think that the marriagebuilders "emotional needs" concepts, are more widely applicable for this sort of comparison. (not perfect, but better, at any rate )

That is to say, two people may HAPPEN to have the exact same basic wants/needs, and get along great... but other people may have completely DIFFERENT primary basic needs, and also get along great.
EG: the classic stereotypical,
"Guy wants sex 4 times a week, and someone who can cook well. Gal wants financial stability, and protection".

The guy may care nothing personally about stability, but chooses to stick in a stable job, for the woman. (and decides to stay in the relationship, not neccessariliy because of a desire for stability and commitment, but because the woman keeps giving him "what he wants")
In contrast, the woman may care nothing for "pretty boys", or be particularly HD sexually... but is happy to give the man what he wants in that area, because he gives her what SHE is looking for.

So, even though they do NOT have "the same basic wants and needs", that can be a highly satisfying relationship for both of them. And neither of them have to be particularly "well integrated or high-functioning" to stay satisfied. What they need to do to keep the other person happy, is fairly straightforward and uncomplicated.


I'm not saying "the traditional roles are what work best". I was just giving an example of what is known to work in some cases.

The man may not be looking for sex... he may be looking for personal validation and admiration instead. The woman may not be looking for financial protection.. she may be looking for caring companionship. or.... etc.

It doesnt really matter particularly what it is... Each person doesnt really even have to understand that is what makes them happy about being with the other person. What matters, is that the other person keep doing whatever it is, that makes their spouse happy.

The guy could be completely clueless, that the reason he is so happy with his wife, is 'cause she does the horizontal mambo with him 4 times a week. Ok, he probably would have an idea... but my point is that even if he somehow doesnt realize it... he's still gonna be happy about it.


---------

change of gears...
On top of that "basic needs" stuff.. or perhaps underneath/lower than that, there's also the kind of middle ground of, "ok, i choose to do extra stuff for my spouse, because i care about them/they make me happy".


To bring it to your comparison of "vacuuming vs head"
Seems like you are interested in a relationship, where BOTH people want to keep a clean house, and BOTH people are specifically interested in sex.
Well, sure, that would make life a lot easier But at some point, you are going to have to deal with the fact that the other person does not share ALL your values, on EVERYTHING. If it isnt about cleanliness, or sex... it's gonna be something else.

So at some point, it's gonna still come down to issues of,
"I really dont think [this area] is important to me At All. But I'm going to make an effort in this area, because it's important to my spouse, and I want to keep them happy".

Not necessarily a direct, "Will vacuum for head"... but still a "will do X for you, because you make me happy" type of situation.

[MJontheMend]

"Guy wants sex 4 times a week, and someone who can cook well. Gal wants financial stability, and protection".

The guy may care nothing personally about stability, but chooses to stick in a stable job, for the woman. (and decides to stay in the relationship, not neccessariliy because of a desire for stability and commitment, but because the woman keeps giving him "what he wants")
In contrast, the woman may care nothing for "pretty boys", or be particularly HD sexually... but is happy to give the man what he wants in that area, because he gives her what SHE is looking for.

My point is that underlying their ability to happily "trade" is an acknowledgment that their spouses needs/wants are valid. Let's say that what the man in the example wanted/needed was for his wife to engage in a different threesome every Saturday and what his wife desired was that he finance her coke habit. They might both be happy but their relationship wouldn't be all that "functional" in my book. Because what happens when the wife cleans up her act drug-wise and decides she can't quite stomach the threesomes while straight? A typical way in which the more conventional scenario you describe might fall apart would be if the woman started to feel like she had to have sex with the man because after 20 years of being home cooking she didn't feel like she had the ability to financially support herself. Does anybody really believe that Anna Nicole Smith had a happy marriage with that old rich guy?

So at some point, it's gonna still come down to issues of,
"I really dont think [this area] is important to me At All. But I'm going to make an effort in this area, because it's important to my spouse, and I want to keep them happy".

Not necessarily, "Will vacuum for head"... but "will do X for you, because you make me happy"

I disagree somewhat. Let me give a really outre example stolen from the Savage Love column. Let's say you were married to someone and they told you that they had a strong "water-games' fantasy and were sexually turned on by the idea of somebody urinating on them. I don't think it would be a good idea to just say "Well, I vowed to be GGG in my sexual relationships so I'll p*ss away to make her happy , I guess.". IMO, it would be better to think about/discuss why that sort of thing might turn on your partner and consider your own boundaries on the issue. So, you might discover that your partner is turned on because it is "naughty" to watch somebody else pee and you might be able to get a little bit into that vibe if you think about accidentally walking into the girl's room when you were an adolescent or something like that but you might still feel that actually going so far as to p*ss on someone would be a turn-off. Then you could maybe make each other happy with a compromise along the lines of role-playing accidentally walking into the wrong bathroom and seeing somebody pee. I think the same sort of problem-solving would apply to an issue like how often vacuuming should be done. The person opposed to vacuuming needs to acknowledge that they don't exactly love walking around on crumbs and the person in favor of frequent vacuuming needs to acknowledge that hauling the old vacuum around isn't exactly a trip to Cedar Point.