I agree with Dom R that boundary setting is necessary. I do have a little bit of a different take - I avoid using emotionally charged labels that to characterize the person or the dialogue when setting a boundary. I also stay issue focused. Perhaps it is the lawyer in me.... This is something I learned again from Michele and actually use it at work as a very effective tool.
It is harder to set boundaries with non-specific terms like - do not insult me or do not hurt me b/c words like insult and hurt are subject to individual interpretation - and may lead to an argument of what constitutes insulting or hurtful. It is easier on a case by case, issue by issue, fact by fact basis.
For example, if W says no, you cannot put $650 in a separate account. I would respond: I have looked into apartments. According my calculations, I will need X dollars/month. I am willing to listen what do you think is a reasonable amount to put aside that will enable me to afford my own apartment when I get back. (Do not bring up garage apt, the D, or your pain - just focus on what you are asking for.)
If W says: I can't afford x, y, z, if you spend X dollars on yourself with some ranting and raving thrown in. Then I would say: Having two separate living establishments costs more than a single one. We are going to have to make adjustments to the budget b/c we simply do not have the money to do x, y, z, and have my own place.
If W starts accusing you of doing things to her - simply say: I am sorry that my actions made you feel that way. And NOTHING ELSE.
If W says other stuff - I would filter before it gets processed by my brain as white noise and detach. Respond with perfunctory non-emotional phrases like - I see, I will think about it, I will consider it, etc - and NOTHING ELSE. Or if it continues - I would simply excuse myself and say. I hate to interuppt you but I have to go to attend to xyz, let's discuss this again tomorrow. Keep your voice calm, steady, relaxed and pleasant. And you have not given, the discussion is not over.
The goal is to communicate what you want while cutting opportunities for the other person to whine, complain, communicate in a generally unconstructive manner. If you de-escalate, the other person no longer has the foundation to escalate.
In the beginning, the calmer I became, the angrier The X became So you take a time out - let them think about it and then readdress the issue. I use this at work all the time with contentious opposing counsel. They eventually get that you will not be engaged in a discussion on their terms - it will be on your terms.
It takes awhile to master. When I was DB'ing, I detached and it was almost like a game to me... Can I control what The X is saying simply by what I say. I got to the point where I really stopped caring about what he was saying - and I no longer allowed him to control my reaction. I acted - as opposed to reacted. I know cold and manipulative - but very effective.
I hope this makes sense - it is hard to communicate how to do this.
