A personal journey through Karen's eyes

[Dom R]

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

I think that bringing up "examples" that are completely in violation of the whole principles of marriage.. kinda nullifies the argument

I think that there are at least two categories of a spouses needs and wants, when they are not "shared wants".

1 category is, "well, that thing is not important to me, but it doesnt violate my morals, so ok".

and the other category is, "that is antithetical to my concept of marriage".

Maybe you were referring to stuff in the first category, and that it's important for each person to acknowlege, "yes, that is important for you. I accept that, and recognize that".

I agree that is crucial in a marriage: that each person recognize, and accomodate, things that the other person wants and needs, so long as it doesnt violate the marriage in principle.

To look at your more "normal"? example:.. erm.. wait, i'll save that for the end, because it disrupts the flow

Does anybody really believe that Anna Nicole Smith had a happy marriage with that old rich guy?

it's quite possible.
Ok, YOU wouldnt like being sexual with an old wrinkly prune. But there are other women, who are in relationships with, and even marry, men who most others would consider physically repulsive.

Was it "love"? eh... probably not. But did they "make each other happy"? quite probably.
Was the old guy happy to be boning her? Umm.. i'm thinking "yes".
Was she happy to get to initially play with, and then get all to herself, a gazillion dollars?
probably.

Now.. she may have had other MAJOR self-esteem problems, that overall made her miserable. But was she happy with the marriage itself? i'd say it's quite possible.

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.

I completely agree there. Just because you care about someone, and want to make them happy... doesnt mean that you automatically become their house-slave or something. And if they do something for you, for the sole reason that you like them to do it, not becuase they value it for themselves.... a decent amount of gratitude and appreciation is definately called for!
Not to mention, if you really wanted the whole house spic n span, but they only happen to have cleaned 4 rooms out of 5... it's still something good that they did for you, so be nice about it.


---------------

ok, now the out of place example from you:

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.

What you seem to be describing, is an attitude change in the woman. I'm not sure how it fits in with the theme of "acknowleging that each others' wants and needs are valid". Seems to be a different topic. Might be interesting to start a separate thread on that one.


there are lots of different ways to reply to it, that I actually wrote up.. and then erased... because it depends on why she suddenly started feeling that way after 20 years.
Ideally, though... her feelings could be best resolved, if she actually *gasp* talked to her husband, about what she felt was lacking in her own life, and they brainstormed together for ways to make her feel more secure/fulfilled/...whatever she was missing.

To put it another way... peoples' "primary wants and needs" change over time. This is a fact of life.
A good marriage, IMO, is where each person is committed to recognize that, and also committed to try to meet their spouses' needs in the future, whatever they may be.

Rather than copping out with, "well, after 20 years, you and I are different people than when we married; lets get divorced and find other people";
Instead choosing a road of, "wow.. you have grown into a different person than the person I married... we have new learning and experiences together we can pursue now, that I never even imagined when we first got married. How exciting!"

AKA: Choosing to "grow together, not grow apart".

[MJontheMend]

I completely agree there. Just because you care about someone, and want to make them happy... doesnt mean that you automatically become their house-slave or something. And if they do something for you, for the sole reason that you like them to do it, not becuase they value it for themselves.... a decent amount of gratitude and appreciation is definately called for!
Not to mention, if you really wanted the whole house spic n span, but they only happen to have cleaned 4 rooms out of 5... it's still something good that they did for you, so be nice about it.

You are missing my point. The reason the slob should do some vacuuming is that nobody is really a complete slob. How often has it occurred on this BB that after a big crisis the LD spouse suddenly recognizes "Gee,I guess I actually do like sex too after all.". Marital fusion pushes people to opposite ends of the spectrum on a variety of issues. The person who when single liked to vacuum twice a week develops a bitter dislike for all things Hoover after living for 20 years with Mr.VacuumDailyOrIWillMakeYouMiserable and that guy might discover after she leaves him that he doesn't even vacuum his bachelor pad daily himself and was just looking for suction-related Acts of Service as a sign of love or validation or control etc. etc. Or sometimes when you are in a relationship where no vacuuming gets done at all instead of admitting to mutual slobby behavior in conflict with a desire for a crumb free floor, each partner will fingerpoint at the other as guilty of either crumbthrowing or vacuum-slackery. So, what I am saying is that independent, differentiated action in pursuit of your own highest level of functioning in a given area will best serve the happiness of your partner and yourself.

For instance, the worst example of this with me would be that I was a wee bit overboard in my the-pilgrim-soul-is-the-sexiest-thing-enchanted-cottage view of sexuality. As a single woman, I discovered that "Guess what? I don't want to have sex with men who aren't physically attractive even if everything else about them is great." I so wanted to prove that I was "right" about this issue that I actually tried to be sexual with a man I didn't find physically attractive. Big, big, big mistake. My behavior resembled that of a mentally-impaired 7th grade cock-tease. So what I'm saying is that marital fusion is actually sort of a mild form of insanity and maintaining your own balanced, differentiated, non-co-dependent level of functioning is about the only preventative measure you can take. Counting on selfless behavior from others is kind of really stupid even if you are suffering under the delusion that you are capable of it yourself.

[Dom R]

You are missing my point. The reason the slob should do some vacuuming is that nobody is really a complete slob. How often has it occurred on this BB that after a big crisis the LD spouse suddenly recognizes "Gee,I guess I actually do like sex too after all.".

MJ... there really are people that Dont Do Vacuuming. Period.

(i know this, because, a long time ago, I used to be one of them )

so, you are basing at least some of what you say, on invalid assumptions.

So what I'm saying is that marital fusion is actually sort of a mild form of insanity and maintaining your own balanced, differentiated, non-co-dependent level of functioning is about the only preventative measure you can take. Counting on selfless behavior from others is kind of really stupid even if you are suffering under the delusion that you are capable of it yourself.

You seem to be looking for some kind of "mutually enlightened self-interest" approach for a relationship. I take that, primarily from these last few sentances of yours. I have a bit of difficulty understanding your descriptions of "levels of functioning"... but what I get from it, is that you are kind of looking for "cooperative roommates, who arent dependant on each other, but 'appreciate' each others presence, and enjoy a great sex life together".
You seem to imply, that this is the Only Sensible Thing To Do.



Well.. I think that you are right, in that reguard. It is the only "sensible" thing to do.
As for me, though... I'd rather have, and give, "love".
Not "romantic, ooey-gooey crush feelings" love. But deliberately chosen, and ideally mutually given, selfless love.

love, is an eminently NON-sensible behaviour.
It isnt logical to give to someone, when they are not giving something back to you on a equal basis.

Given a choice, between a life with a "highly functioning, non-codependant indivdual", or a life with someone who chose to love me and care about me... even if they arent a particularly "highly functioning individual"... I would personally pick a life with the second person.
I'd like to share my life with someone, with whom we can both say to each other.."I KNOW you're not perfect... I KNOW you have faults (and some of them can be durn irritating)... but I choose to love you and be with you and cherish you anyway. For the rest of our lives."

Ideally, also i'd like that to be with the woman I chose to marry 10 years ago. sigh....

[MJontheMend]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I simply believe that the kind of person who could best choose and maintain a commitment to love (not in the "in love" sense) would be the kind of high-functioning individual I describe. If somebody is loving you in the verb sense their love will necessarily be associated with loving behavior which generally would be associated with functional behavior. I personally have no desire to be married to the guy who quits his job,goes on a weekend bender, comes home and kicks the dog while yelling "Where's my dinner!" but then says "Love ya, Babe!". oTOH, I would probably feel very loved, maybe even in love, in a relationship with someone who was mostly like a very high functioning roommate but with whom I had great sex and exchanged affectionate gestures. Maybe you were just thinking that there wouldn't be any affectionate gestures in my scenario? I think the ability to exchange affectionate gestures is a sign of high functioning too.

[Dom R]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I simply believe that the kind of person who could best choose and maintain a commitment to love (not in the "in love" sense) would be the kind of high-functioning individual I describe. If somebody is loving you in the verb sense their love will necessarily be associated with loving behavior which generally would be associated with functional behavior. I personally have no desire to be married to the guy who quits his job,goes on a weekend bender, comes home and kicks the dog while yelling "Where's my dinner!" but then says "Love ya, Babe!".

There's a big difference between [not highly 'functional', as you put it] vs Actively Anti-considerate.
The example you give, is of an actively inconsiderate person.

The majority of people probably fall "somewhere in the middle".

oTOH, I would probably feel very loved, maybe even in love, in a relationship with someone who was mostly like a very high functioning roommate but with whom I had great sex and exchanged affectionate gestures. Maybe you were just thinking that there wouldn't be any affectionate gestures in my scenario?

Nope. I just saw the emphasis more on "functional" rather than "showing love".

Maybe your "love language" is basically "acts of service", so you consider the two as almost synonymous. Other people differ in how they wish to recieve "love". Myself being one of them.
I personally dont care about someone "cleaning the house" for me. I can hire a maid for that.
(although cooking, is kinda an exception. i think its special to have someone cook food that I like for me.)
I'd rather have "quality time" together, than "acts of service".

So, "high functioning", as I think you mean it, doesnt matter that much, to me.
It matters to you. That's fine for you, and others. I just dont think it's a "universal relationship criteria".

You also may want to recognize, "this is what I want, but not what XXX wants"... in the event that you find someone who is "highly functional" for your sake... but would rather you do something different, for their own happiness.

Your happiness doesnt have to depend on the person sharing the same values as you in that area. It more depends on whether they choose to respect and do something about, your values, I'd say.

[Corri]

What my shrink told me about ending up with 'similar spouses/so's' is that it isn't that I am attracted to the same 'type' of people, or even that I purposely go after people that are so radically different than past SOs... the one constant between ALL partners/spouses... is ME.

And I bet any amount of money... Hairdog could talk about that very thing, in quite a pretty profound way, now that he's read No More Mr. Nice Guy, and really 'gets' it. I'd love to hear those thoughts, too, HD, so if you are so inclined... please share.

[MJontheMend]

What my shrink told me about ending up with 'similar spouses/so's' is that it isn't that I am attracted to the same 'type' of people, or even that I purposely go after people that are so radically different than past SOs... the one constant between ALL partners/spouses... is ME.

Exactly! So, if you become more self-aware, differentiated and improve your functioning in various ways as a result you will simultaneously become a "better" partner AND have "better" partnerships and therefore "better" partners. For instance, I know just what I should do if I don't want to turn my next partner into a "bad boy" but I also understand my motivation for wanting to be with a "bad boy" so I need to figure out how to strike a happy middle ground.

[karen1]

Well, our family celebrated Christmas last evening in the typical "modern" way. Two of my children were out of state with Dad. Various combinations of our adult foster children and their significant others and/or biological children and children came to share food, gifts etc.... H and I busied ourselves with host responsibilities and care of the smallest children.

All this came after I worked 1/2 day and H took DD3 to the doctor for a strep test. In the end product I wasn't even in the same room to see if H liked the gifts I selected for him and he barely acknowledged the lovely and expensive leather jacket from my parents ( H is a terrible gift receiver, very uncomfortable about it). On top of that H never asked whether I liked what he had picked out for me. I know he had help in choosing so I assume he cared.

DD3 was wildly thrilled with everything. She received far less than is typical in these modern times because I want her to appreciate things (I was shocked to find out what my daycare provider spends on her kids for Christmas, we are pretty frugal on the per person cost but we buy for a lot of people so we still spend a lot). Baby (now almost 8 months) crawled around enjoying the event (mostly the paper and boxes), he attempted to eat a glass ball from the tree and thankfully did not get cut but he did successfully consume many a dust bunny, piece of sweater fuzz or crumb off the floor.

During the whole hilarity and chaos H never kissed me, never wished me Merry Christmas (until I did him), never caressed me. OK - those of you who think it is all about reciprocity - NO. I DID NOT INITIATE A KISS OR CARESS EITHER. That my friends is a cheeseless tunnel in this marriage. I can do all the touchy feely stuff I want and most of the time I get a mildly positive response back, sometimes a mildly irritated one. Overall, I get a look like "Oh, are you still here?" I think when I embark on some kind of misguided attempt to show my feelings he thinks inside, "Oh geez - I thought I had trained her out of that kind of bs. I thought we had an understanding here - I can live in my bubble and she can live in hers."

I know that for the last year I have complained, cried, whined etc on this forum. I know that I have failed to take any action and that inaction is, in itself, an action. I am tired and I am busy and I cannot any longer be bothered to prod the roadkill that is my marriage. If it is dead it is dead.

I DO believe in miracles though. I DO believe that my dead marriage can be resurrected. The thing is, I don't know how. Stigmata suggested something on another forum that I shall have to find and consider. Maybe I will somehow find the strength to scrape that less than appetizing thing from the roadway and try again. Maybe, I'll just pretend I'm a nun and that this is a form of the monastic life. Maybe I will buy Michelle's new book if only to see how she utilized our musings.

If I sound miserable, I'm not. My children are beautiful, happy and healthy. My parents, friends, brother and children love me. After a fashion, my H does too. My work is important and fulfilling. I am not dead or ill like several of my friends and acquaintances this year. The Christmas trees are lovely, the music divine. God knows me and I know Him. Spring comes after winter reliably and I am looking forward to it.

[Lillieperl]

Karen, all in all, it sounds like a very nice evening... excepting the obvious thing that is missing.

I can totally relate to this: "I can do all the touchy feely stuff I want and most of the time I get a mildly positive response back, sometimes a mildly irritated one. Overall, I get a look like "Oh, are you still here?" I think when I embark on some kind of misguided attempt to show my feelings he thinks inside, "Oh geez - I thought I had trained her out of that kind of bs. "


This is what I get from bf these days. When I pull him over for a kiss he gives me that "what's your problem" look.

What did Stig suggest on another forum? I only read this one. How can y'all keep up with others?

[Dom R]

I DO believe in miracles though. I DO believe that my dead marriage can be resurrected. The thing is, I don't know how.

I thought I suggested something to you, many moons ago. Did you try that?

Additionally;
From reading your posts on the other thread, sounds like your H is strongly invested in "The Church", inherited through his family.

Have you tried finding a priest that is understanding and open about talking about the importance of sex+physical affection in marraige, and then getting your H to talk with him?

PS: I dont think your marriage is "dead". A "dead" marraige, to me, would be one where neither party shows any caring towards each other. Do you think that describes your marriage?
Your marriage is certainly sexually "dead", or at least dormant, at this point. But it's not quite the same thing, is it?