I'm going to wish you luck on that quest of yours...
I have no fantasies about my time, perseverance or intellectual capacity at being able to reach that goal.
Im more happy that I figured out my passion and purpose. Now I can bend it to my will and between the two, hopefully engage in activities that give me happiness.
Thanks for the well wishes.
I'm not sure what it has to do with marriage or relationships... still... it is an extraordinarily interesting undertaking.
There are should bes and wishes in R's. (subjective) and then there is what works. (quantifiable) there are no guarantees. There is no such thing as a lovers oath. Plato
There are should bes and wishes in R's. (subjective) and then there is what works. (quantifiable) there are no guarantees.
I personally find you more easily understood and respectable when you cut to the chase and are simple and direct, as above.
To me, and this is just my own observation, you unnecessarily muddy your own waters a great deal of the time... and someone has to come along and literally piss you off or insult you in order for you to get simple and direct about your original meaning.
Quote:
I have no fantasies about my time, perseverance or intellectual capacity at being able to reach that goal.
Im more happy that I figured out my passion and purpose. Now I can bend it to my will and between the two, hopefully engage in activities that give me happiness.
Did she take him back? Did she tit for tat him w/ the OM? Did they decide to work on this? Any chance his current unattractive behavior has her looking for justifications to get away from him? Is he abusive? Is he an addict? Is she part of the problem? Did she work on her part that caused him to want to get away?
But it was he who first broke that most fundamental of all promises. First? Really? How do you know he didnt want to get away becasue she wasnt respecting him and caring from him how he wanted? But HE should 'MAN UP'. Right? we could do the chicken and egg thing all day long. thats not going to get anyone anywhere.
The attraction thing isn't the core problem imo, it's that LFL has a mended tear in the fabric of her marriage, and isn't sure the thread won't unravel on her again.
I completely unequivocally disagree wholeheartedly. She knows he isnt going anywhere again. She is icked out by him. Its all about the attraction.
I didn't see this post the first time around because you posted it while I was writing mine.
Imagine you're a young girl, getting married for the first time. For you, marriage is like making a hearth inside a ring of fire. The fire gives warmth and keeps out the wild things in the dark woods, but it also keeps you inside because it is too hot to step over. You ramble along, add a few kids to the hearth, and are, while not deliriously happy, quite content.
One night, out of the blue, you see that your husband has packed his bags. You are confused, asked him what he is doing. He says "I don't like living inside the ring with you anymore. I'm going to go be on my own in the dark woods. Do what you like, and if the beasties come to eat you don't call me." He then easily walks through the fire (it didn't burn at all, you realize) and disappears.
After a period of shock you realize you can't stay alone inside the ring, so you gather up the kids, walk through the fire yourself (no, doesn't burn) and go off to make a new home for yourself in the woods. It's not easy, but it is also strange and new and exciting.
After some time has passed, your husband approaches you and says "I don't like living alone in the dark woods after all. Let's go back into the ring and live there again". You agree, mainly because you think kids belong inside a ring of fire, even if the fire doesn't burn. You try to act like you did when you first settled down there, but it's not quite the same. You now know it doesn't burn to step over it. He showed you. There are the wild woods, beckoning. You don't really know why he left in the first place. You try to talk yourself into believing in the warmth, the safety of fire again, but you now know it was an illusion, and you're too pragmatic a girl. You look at the kids. You pace around in your imaginary circle. And in the end, you stay.
If you don't get the significance of that first step over the fire (it doesn't burn) then you're missing something fundamental. in my most humble opinion. Something that has nothing to do with attraction.
The problem I have with your analogy SG, is that it does in fact burn to step thru the ring of fire. ask anyone here who stepped thru it whether they were first or second. Ive been both first and second.
It burns like hell, and when burned you are going to look for salve anywhere/anyhow is best for you. It also burns going out and coming back in. It doesnt kill you(usually).
I understand why LFL went thru the ring of fire and found her salve and someone to tend her burn. I understand why Mr. was prompted to go thru the burn back.
My point is, Why did Mr. go thru the fire the first time? It had to be something that was equal to the burn. its not easy allowing the person who burned you to help you. Its not easy to help the person who burned you. Heck its not easy helping them when they havnt burned you.
There is a lot of intimacy on the other end though. I assume.
SG. Well done, with the greek. It sounds much better coming from you.
Yes, dear. I am a bit of a show-off. But it usually serves a purpose besides underlining my intellectual genius (an end in itself some might say) and your fondness for truth is matched by my fondness for precision. Who said what, where, exactly. And what does it mean.
That same fondness for precision also causes me to know that Ephesians is one of the disputed Pauline letters, so he may not be to blame for the content at all. The last line of my Ephesians post was snark, not theological argument.
Does it "work"?
I'm not arguing with you that wives should respect their husbands. But this passage goes much further. What we have here is a line, something like this:
God/Christ ---- > husband -----> wife
The wife must obey her husband as her husband must obey God. Put differently, God appears to her through the prism of her husband, so she must obey him as if he were God.
Sorry blackfoot. It doesn't work.
Yes, I respect my husband. I defer to his expertise in those areas where, by either education or natural inclination, he is more experienced and knowledgeable than I.
There are other areas, where, either by education or natural inclination, I am more experienced and knowledgeable than he, and in those areas I would not budge an inch. Would he insist on his "headship" and overrule me, simply because he is "the man" I would not respect that at all.
My respect is grounded on the fact that I know he is, all ego and testosterone related issues aside, he is committed to the facts above all. As am I.
I do not need a prism to see the world, or God, or truth. That is where I and the anonymous letter-writer will always differ.
The problem I have with your analogy SG, is that it does in fact burn to step thru the ring of fire. ask anyone here who stepped thru it whether they were first or second. Ive been both first and second.
It burns like hell, and when burned you are going to look for salve anywhere/anyhow is best for you. It also burns going out and coming back in. It doesnt kill you(usually).
Good point. I've never gone through one myself, either out or back, so I defer to your expertise and expand my analogy to say "it burns, but it doesn't kill you. And you learn that most burns heal in time, even if they do leave scars."
Yes, it would be interesting to know why MrLFL took that first step over the fire. But I'm still certain that that first step by person 1 through the fire is a most decisive step, that sets the tone for the whole drama. We need to acknowledge it and not brush it aside, I believe.
The wife must obey her husband as her husband must obey God. Put differently, God appears to her through the prism of her husband, so she must obey him as if he were God. Following that line of thinking, God may ask you to do hard things you dont like, but it all falls under the umbrella of assumption that he isnt abusive, and even he dosent TELL you --you have to do anything. You have free will. You can leave anytime you want.
besides, Thats sounds like more responsibiliy and pressure then I care for, expecially since I dont have a direct ------> God.
Anyways, this was not intended to be a theological discussion. you said My respect is grounded on the fact that I know he is, all ego and testosterone related issues aside, he is committed to the facts above all.
That validates the theory. when it comes down too it, you choose to respect him. You choose to remember that even during the ego and testorone issues.
The wife must obey her husband as her husband must obey God. Put differently, God appears to her through the prism of her husband, so she must obey him as if he were God. Following that line of thinking, God may ask you to do hard things you dont like, but it all falls under the umbrella of assumption that he isnt abusive, and even he dosent TELL you --you have to do anything. You have free will. You can leave anytime you want.
I don't understand what you mean. But yes, this has strayed far from LFL's sitch and you don't need to expand.
Quote:
you said My respect is grounded on the fact that I know he is, all ego and testosterone related issues aside, he is committed to the facts above all.
That validates the theory. when it comes down too it, you choose to respect him. You choose to remember that even during the ego and testorone issues.
Not really. I respect him because he predictably comes back to the facts after dealing with his ego/testosterone issues (when he has them). If he didn't I'd stop respecting him. Just as he sits out my hormone-related funk, when I get into it. If I decided to make my home there I'm sure he'd lose his respect fast enough.
We need to acknowledge it and not brush it aside, I believe.
See we agree after all that. Isnt that special. *warm fuzzy* *grin*
Heh. Don't agree with me blackfoot. Takes the fun out of arguing.
Has the irony of our mutual positions in LFL's sitch occured to you?
When it came to you and ex, we argued the opposite side of the fence: I was all "no wonder she leaves if she has no EC and is left alone with OM thinking you don't care" and you were all "she shouldn't have left the ring of fire no matter what she was feeling. Actions are what count here."
Now I'm pointing fingers at MrLFL for leaving the ring, and you are arguing LFL somehow pushed him to it.
At least that's how I remember it, my memory being usually not warm but often fuzzy, and I'm too lazy to look it up.
