Must've Been That Mojo Boogie

[SmileysPerson]

Und so fahren wir mit den Abenteurn von Smiley's Person fort. Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?

Thursday, for whatever reason, I would not drop the rope -- nor would WAW. We were like Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier in The Defiant Ones. We had an all-day email-a-thon that got pretty nasty. It was like texting, only slower. There were, literally, 106 replies and counter-replies.

Oddly enough it was a bit of a relief for me. She finally started to tell the truth, or reveal the truth perhaps, of her POV, or at least some of it.

Frankly, I shudder to think that her feelings run any deeper than they did that day. By the end of the night -- literally, around 11:45 -- I had been skewered, roasted, grilled, boiled, sauteed, flambeed, flame-broiled, and charcoal-broasted; shoved down the disposal, tossed in the trash, dumped on the dung heap, thrown into the recycling, and spread out on the compost pile.

And that was just from the nice things she said.

It all came out, or at least what I have to assume is a sizable chunk of it all.

Throughout, I framed each and every response very carefully. I began every one with "I wish to state that...." and then simply had the factual response. I used no modifiers (heavily, carefully, deliberately, etc.). I used no "emotion" signifiers ("I can't believe that...."). Where I could not do that, I simply wrote, "I wish to state that I acknowledge this is your POV."

As the day wore into night, she started hammering me on the money. Name a price; name a price. So finally I said, "You're the petitioner -- petition. Make me an offer."

Of course WAW refused to do this, because in a pair-wise bargaining situation under conditions of incomplete information, there is a "first-mover disadvantage" -- you reveal important information about yourself and your implicit price if you go first. This is why tricky car dealers ask you what you "think" you can pay and why an insurance salesman will ask you "what that kind of peace of mind is worth to you." It's why sellers on eBay have hidden "reserves" -- they don't want potential buyers to know what they're willing to take, in the hope that the price is bid up.

Well -- as you can see -- I understand that, too. So we reached an impasse: She wasn't going to bid, I wasn't going to bid. "You're asking me to bet against myself," she wrote, "that's not how it works in litigation." Sez I, this isn't litigation and you're asking me to bet against myself.

Lo and behold, as we DB'ers are chatting with each other, WAW is chatting with someone else. A lawyer. And she informs me of this fact at around 4 in the afternoon, Coastal State time.

And in her long and detailed email -- which reveals that, surprise-surprise -- her lawyer has come up with child support and spousal support figures that are muuuuucccch lower than those 2 other attorneys have calculated (including WAW's own BFF D Attorney).

I tried very hard to stay cool as I read it, and as I formulated my replies, most of which were of the "I wish to state that I will make no reply on this matter until so advised by counsel" variety, I got more and more and more irritated.

And I click "send."

WAW's reply is almost immediate. She is hugely vexed by my responses (because, I suppose, they are not cooperative) because they are "exactly what I'd expect of you" (i.e., you a**hole).

And then there's this:

"And I take it that's a NO on the marriage counseling."

To which I reply: "??????"

And am told to re-read the email.

And there at the end of this immensely long e-mail -- far longer, if you can believe it, than even the longest of Smiley's Person's disquisitions -- is this:

FYI: Before she went into the money details, [L] told me she thought that, based on what I told her, this was a marriage that might be saved, and she gave me the name of a marriage counselor [Coastal City] who she said is "fabulous".

Okay. Now that's not a question. That's a statement. But let's not be obtuse.

It's clearly an opening.

BUT. And it's a big BUT.

We've been to this rodeo before. And her goal in going to MC the first time was, essentially, to bring me around to her POV on the Wonderfulness of the divorce and to surrender my right to alimony.

(No, Gypsy, I'm not mind-reading -- this is what she told me after we terminated the MC, during one of our "better" periods during the in-house separation.)

So this morning, when I got that reply, I wrote that from my POV I was generally open to this idea. My answer was not "no" but was a "qualified yes." Why? Because, sez I, I did not want a repeat of the first round of MC.

And, predictably, she got all p*ssed-off about that.

But this is a pattern, you see. Whenever -- always -- whenever she is held accountable for things she has done or said in the past, she deflects the accountability by attacking me.

So I wasn't surprised. I replied that I was simply being honest, that I was sharing my POV openly, and that I felt some hesitation because of experience and because she wrote in her email, "I have no idea where we will end up or even where I want us to end up."

Though I didn't say this, all of my MWD/DR alarm bells went off -- this is precisely the problem with "therapy" as opposed to solutions-oriented counseling.

Open-endedness can go, by definition, anywhere or (indeed) nowhere. Quite apart from the emotional risk, there is the simple matter of the Benjamins -- I don't have a lot of them to spare.

But there it is. And there we are. We have an appointment -- she made it -- on July 28 in the early Coastal City evening.

And we will see. It will likely be the first time I will have heard her voice since the Batsh*t-Crazy-a-Thon. I suppose that alone is reason enough to go.

But what a curious thing to bring out of a session with her lawyer, let alone to tell me about. After all, there's been so much that she's hidden from me, so much that she's outright lied about.

What a curious thing. Must've been the mojo boogie.

The gypsy carried me all down on Rampart Street
I seen everybody that I wanted to meet
She said, "Hey Johnny, son listen to me,
They got something to knock you off of your feet.
It's called the mojo boogie,
It's called the mojo boogie,
You know the mojo boogie, began to slide on down.

[Sara]

Well, good, I think. She is a tough nut to crack, that one. But if anyone is up to it, it is you. You are the perfect foil for her. And, of course, twist and turn and try as she might, someday she might even recognize that that is what she needs. Maybe not what she thinks she wants. But what she needs.

[givingitmyall]

Very interesting.

You are wisely cautious. Especially since she, and her L, picked the C.

Good luck man.

[hoosiermama]

interesting. it isn't every day that a divorce lawyer tells their client that the marriage could be saved. kinda like a carpet salesman telling someone they have beautiful hardwoods.

so now that it's all out in the open and you're well done, what's next?

[orangedog]

We've been to this rodeo before. And her goal in going to MC the first time was, essentially, to bring me around to her POV on the Wonderfulness of the divorce and to surrender my right to alimony.

(No, Gypsy, I'm not mind-reading -- this is what she told me after we terminated the MC, during one of our "better" periods during the in-house separation.)

My W told me exactly same thing. I didn't like the idea that she set up the MC as essentially an exit interview. She knows not to waste my time (or her $) on this stuff anymore. Likewise I won't waste my friends time and money recommending this C. I didn't feel it was good practice.

Though I didn't say this, all of my MWD/DR alarm bells went off -- this is precisely the problem with "therapy" as opposed to solutions-oriented counseling.

You might be good candidates for Retro. At least it has a start and finish. I hope they set you up with a few counselors who could also referee those mixed-martial-arts fighting championships because it seems you both have a lot to get out.

I don't pretend that C will answer all of my questions. A lifetime sitting on the couch next to Jung would only scratch the surface. Another argument for solutions-based therapy. Answer the now question now, continue working on your own.

[SmileysPerson]

Yeah, well there's a long road between today and that day.

And for much of today I got a series of almost deliberately cruel e-mails.

When I let her know that I was, you know, sort of tired of that, I got a series of e-mails that explained the cruel e-mails but no apology. And when I expressed dissatisfaction that, since D-Day, I've taken responsibility and apologized when appropriate, all I get is more "explanations."

Not am "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" to be seen.

Meanwhile I hear through back-channels what she says to others about me. She's living in a parallel dimension.

Or I am.

[AlexEN]

Not am "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" to be seen.

Smiley,

This intrigues me... Is it a recent phenomenon or did she have trouble throughout your time together saying she was sorry or apologizing?

This is not only true of my W today (more pronounced, since I would say the transgressions are worse, he said, not being at all judgmental), but has been since, well, forever.

She wasn't always right, but she was never in doubt. Yet, never able to offer an apology when her no doubt proved out to have been quite doubtful.

-AlexEN

[Kettricken]

.... then there were the Irish, who never knew what they wanted but were willing to fight for it anyway ....

(shakes head)

I suppose you can either try to view that level of thrashing about as supremely irritating or OTOH compassion-evoking.

Dunno, dude, about the rest of it. Saying "sorry I hurt you" is a pretty basic grownup skill. It's a shame that many people seem to consider a sincere apology for a discrete event tantamount to saying, "You are right about everything".

Nil desperandum.

[Thinker]

My W also never apologizes (to me at least, she does apologize to others).

I do apologize, and have recently tried to apologize more effectively.

My W, however, also seems to interpret an apology from me as proof that she was right all along and that therefore I was just causing her pain by arguing with her in the first place.

Recently it seems like every time we have disagreed, and then I realized we could work something out, retracted my entrenched position and apologized, this disagreement shows up in the next list of ways that I continue to be impossible to work with.

[AlexEN]

My W, however, also seems to interpret an apology from me as proof that she was right all along and that therefore I was just causing her pain by arguing with her in the first place.

LOL. I forgot this part!

It's sometimes accompanied by a "Thank you for apologizing", but not an "I'm sorry, too."

My takeaway is just as is yours, that since she was right all along, the mea culpas should all be all on me...