Gonna Get Me A Mojo Hand

[AlexEN]

Yep, everyone has been busy and I’m coming to this party late…

But, before I start, @Puppy, you are SO right, we need a popcorn eating emoticon… Reading your back and forth with @SP was DB entertaining at its best…

The mental imagery was even better as I tried to put a clock on the exchange… Had to be 4:30-5:00 a.m. Smiley Time and 7:30-8:00 a.m. Puppy Time…

So, I get the split-screen visual in my head of Smiley sitting there in his DB Kung Fu jams, unshaven and still slightly disheveled, making coffee in the dark, moving around quietly so as not to wake the kids, and just getting his day going… On the right (pun intended) side of the screen, I see Puppy already spiffed-up, sitting at his desk with DB-themed tunes already cranking as a backdrop, and the bright Florida sun shining through his window…

And, then they log-on simultaneously and post their DB thoughts… and the ping-pong begins with concepts all too cogent given the early hour… even in Florida…

[Poll question: Does spending too much time on these boards constitute GALing or not?]

I guess what I'm looking for is clarification of what that sentence implies -- to save the marriage one has to remain vulnerable to some degree. Is that the basic argument?

Yes. And I'm asking whether the degree to which you need to detach in order to "be okay with divorce" hinders your ability to be sufficiently vulnerable in order to save the marriage.

yeah, I think it could stimulate some great discussion.

I have tended to see more success from the "willing to jump into the mosh pit" crowd than the "one foot on the platform" folks (of which I am a card-carrying member in good standing), so there's a reason I'm asking.

As I’m read this I’m wondered why dontgiveashitness and vulnerability have to be mutually exclusive? Or why it really has to be a zero-sum game?

I think two different concepts are, ahem, becoming enmeshed here… Why can’t the LBS fully detach and still be vulnerable enough to save the marriage if that opportunity ever presents itself?

To me, this is where my interpretation of “being dead already” comes in… If you replace “be okay with divorce” or “dontgiveashitness” with “accepting divorce” or “acceptance”, you don’t have to give up vulnerability, do you? In which case, the vulnerability – a precursor to saving the marriage or the next R – doesn’t have to be subsumed.

I hope not, because, for me one of the things I got back in the course of my DBing was the ability to feel again (to be vulnerable). I sure as $hit ain’t gonna give that back, because I know I want that in my next R. I was walled off emotionally and the “blame” for that is both of ours, but more so mine, because just as I believe love is a choice, so, too, is letting the dynamics of a M or an R suppress one’s feelings.

I’d rather think of it as being conscious of keeping both feet being on the platform and instead of jumping on the train as the doors are closing, waiting patiently for the next train, and if it’s still too crowded, waiting for the next one…

And, if that R is to be with the WAS, I agree with @SP, @Kalni, @Thinker, @TD and others that it ain’t all the LBS’ fault, it won’t work for the LBS unless the WAS does The Work.

@A&K said it well and as I read her post I think she’s almost to that place where acceptance and vulnerability can co-exist as precursors to “saving a marriage” or maybe not… [Although, granted, some could read her reference to “ambivalence” as disproving my point; but, nowhere in there do I really sense “dontgiveashitness”. It sounds more like "acceptance" to me.]

Once, I was willing to settle for just getting my H back (and did that 6 years ago. I am no longer there.

As of now, I am willing to walk into Retrovaille with nearly equal ambivalence that M "can work." I am willing to be convinced that we are a pair that can live with respect and mutual admiration, healthy boundaries, forgiveness, trust and exhibitions of valuing the relationship (reading, growing, etc).

I think that in some ways, it is the couples that really split, really take a good deal of time and space to grow (for real), and then come back together, who proceed to have marriages that I might want.

Again, saving the marriage can't be of as much importance as saving oneself.

Recently, I asked H, following his rattling off a litany of things I had done wrong or not done in the R since we last reconciled, "H, what did you change? What did you do differently?" Kaboom. There wasn't much other than a LOT of therapy that led to temporary changes in behavior that were short-lived. He changed zero, zilch, nada.

So, for the sake of sanity, for the sake of making this all worthwhile, I think you do have to jump off the cliff so to speak and let life, your own and WAS's evolutions reveal whether the new R is a viable prospect.

It’s true, and I don’t remember who posted it, that we are not all as fortunate as @Coach and @Greek to have both partners be willing to go “all in”, but that doesn’t mean we have to be okay with our sitch or notgiveashit about it, because whether or not the WAS even believes he/she needs to save himself/herself, it isn’t in our control.

Again, saving the marriage can't be of as much importance as saving oneself…

But, if you give up on your “hard earned changes” among which may be [should be?] the willingness to be vulnerable, you won’t have broken all of your own bad patterns and not only would the “new R” not be a viable prospect, but ANY “new R” of meaning will be ephemeral, too.

So far, Mrs. Thinker has shown absolutely no interest or willingness to do any of this. She is still in the "Blame it all on Thinker and Run away" mode. I am moving ahead as if she is, at some point in time, going to decide to really work hard on herself. One of my fears, however, is that she never will.

And, @Thinker’s Fear is valid, but, Thinker that he is, he knows the answer: She may not.

Because…

...at the end of the day, we can self improve and WAS can see it, awknowlege it, but they themselves might not want to do their own work and own their piece of the relationship.

Maybe they would rather have a blank slate or settle for less or, or, just really so many possibilities not really worth wondering about because, its their choice all the same. More power to them. Though certainly it is a refreshing window for the LBS, lets up some of burden.

So, I choose to accept… not to notgiveashit… and to stay vulnerable… because otherwise there’s no chance for me to have the kind of R I want in the future.