That I forgave until I lost myself, that I communicated but wasn't heard. That really, most of the time I gave it all I had but it takes two. And two of us just weren't doing it. And I can live with that answer.
Another piece of the puzzle, well done! Self-awareness! Also vital for the Going Beyond of resentment. You have to know things about yourself.
That, cf @Greek, is one of the things I was missing when I "wasn't" SP but was SP-with-WAW.
"Had to live without." Those are powerful words, @Greek. Why not, "Chose to live without." "Opted to live without." "Decided to live without." "Didn't have to live without." "Did everything possible -- or, in this case, didn't do anything possible -- to avoid having to live without?"
All narratives, you see. Which is why The Story matters so much. And, paradoxically, doesn't matter at all.
That's the part that bother's me the most in all of the WAS stories. The idea that they had to live without, it isn't true and yet it's the story you hear so many times, he/she wouldn't change and I had to leave to find someone to make me happy & fulfill me.... and then the LBS changes, turns into something better and when they start to reconsider the situation and think that they can do better and ultimately become the WAS themselves, the original WAS starts saying things like "why weren't you like this before?", "you were never like this before", "you changed", "you're different", etc.
So it's not the people can't change, people can definitely change. However people instead of communicating what they want would rather start new hoping to leave all their past problems behind instead of dealing with them and that doesn't work, it can't because none of those issues are resolved, you were part of the problem and you will repeat those same mistakes and years later wake up feeling the same way about the relationship except they'll be waking up next to a different body saying to themselves "how did I get here all over again?"
That I forgave until I lost myself, that I communicated but wasn't heard. That really, most of the time I gave it all I had but it takes two. And two of us just weren't doing it. And I can live with that answer.
Another piece of the puzzle, well done! Self-awareness! Also vital for the Going Beyond of resentment. You have to know things about yourself.
That, cf @Greek, is one of the things I was missing when I "wasn't" SP but was SP-with-WAW.
The irony is that I always had that self-awareness, but it seemed I was letting myself off the hook too easily. But I've had 18 months of painful and intense reflection trying to find "where I went wrong" and--aside from becoming someone I wasn't in trying to be "good enough" and still falling way short, in xH's eyes, at least once Something Better came along--I truly don't know what I'd do significantly differently. Which until very recently has been Too Simple--but maybe perhaps Too Simple is good enough.
M60 H52 D20 M14 yrs OW-old gf from 1986 bomb-5/18/08 H filed for D-9/10/08 D final 4/24/09 xH remarried (not OW) 2012
What if the WAS and the LBS are BOTH different? Ed: What is the referent for "the other person" -- which other person are you talking about here?
I apologize, I should've applied a chronological setting - referring to "the other person" as the person you are forming a new relationship with. Speaking of She Who Farts Through Dinner - I had to laugh because I very nearly gave an example of how Jonf would've held a fart until it seeped through his pores on a first or even fifth date, but Mr.. Jonf, while perhaps not farting in Mrs. Jonf's general direction, would've felt no compunction to release in the general vicinity. Perhaps all marriages come down to farts?
Quote:
many if not most romances start with an illogical assumption that the other person is perfect Assuming facts not in evidence. But if you want to play with the idea, maybe ALL romances HAVE to start that way. You're not going to go on Date #2 with She Who Farted Through Dinner, now, are you?
I do generalize - and if playing with that idea, I would challenge anyone to find me a statistic that shows that the majority of participants in dates present an accurate picture of themselves. My point should have continued by pointing out that I believe that most relationships that fail is because this initial portrayal is believed by the "other person" (see above) to be the real deal, and the relationship, marriage, and happily ever after are built around this. Pardon me if my cynicism is showing. Is the marriage failure rate because of this?
Quote:
It is my contention that the wayward spouse returns in these cases because you finally shed the facade With all due respect, you're promoting (as is often done on the boards) a curiously uni-directional model here. Wayward "returns" because LBS "returned" to LBS's "true self."
Not promoting, wondering aloud, and my wondering is specifically because that is what most people on here seek: "What can I possibly do to convince my dear WAS to come back?". Perhaps flavored with my own experience - when I GALed, lost weight, became happy strong and satisfied, and my children shared with WAW that women were coming up on me, WAW initially lost it, and then started calling/texting/sending pictures, coming over, complimenting my buff and chiseled bod, inviting to dinner, all while continuing, though less fervently, an affair.
My changes, initially made for WAW, became for my benefit, my kids, and so on, and have become a part of who I am. The secondary, and most important part of this has to be, really, the fact that it was mostly uncovering who I used to be, along with a bit of fine-tuning to remove the nasty pieces picked up along the way. Tertiary, the changes were subtle, but long-lasting, and improved me as a person, not as Mrs. Jonf's husband. I did not whittle myself to match Mrs. Jonf, but rather to more accurately match the person that I SHOULD be. Or as @aliveandkicking said, "'Original self' + evolved and improved."
Quote:
What we have here is a strategic interaction in which both parties are engaged in (internet link) Bayesian updating. Each person is changing his/her beliefs (in lieu of probabilities) about the other in reaction to observable somethings in the other. ......................... (1) her next-round evaluation or (i) @JonF, (ii) the marriage itself, (iii) herself, and (iv) @JonF + marriage + herself, and
(2) @JonF's round-after-next-round evaluation of (1).
Which is probably why reconciliation is such a low-probability event.
So, let me run my thoughts by on this, and I will take the liberty of once again generalizing. I think that by the time that most would be DBers hit this board, the marriage/relationship as it existed on the blissful wedding day is a thing of the past, and chances of "saving the marriage" as it previously existed are fairly low. People do change, and grow, and interests change and mature, and the neglected marriage does indeed watch its participants grow apart - in my opinion, because of a lack of mutual discovery of new corners of life, and the joy of sharing in your partner's new discoveries. In essence a lack of maintenance has precipitated the DB exploration.
(EDIT: You preceded this point by your post to @hoosiermama about communication and maintenance!)
Thusly, to your comments, and my assumption that an original relationship is already 6-feet-under, the success of a new relationship and a round-by-round evaluation is necessarily dependent on the willingness and ability of said participants to both experiment and discover their interest in each other in the light of these changes, both good and bad. That's how I see the current status of the inimitable Mrs. SP - the first round looks pretty darned good based on Mr. SP's glorious rebirth, and so she is willing to take a few steps down the road, but not ready to sink back into wedded bliss.
Quote:
Neither person is "the same," so what you're really aiming at is a new marriage that just happens to have the same physical persons in it as before.
Reunited and it feels so good Reunited 'cause we understood There's one perfect fit And, sugar, this one is it We both are so excited 'cause we're reunited, hey, hey
It is amazing to me that everyone seems to leave the advent of children and their personalities and needs out of the equation. I have long suspected that many divorces are done because shared, separate child-rearing is in some ways easier and preferable to joint, in the same house child-rearing.
@JonF: Is the marriage failure rate because of this?
What is the "marriage failure rate"? The basic problem I have -- empirically speaking -- with the so-called "divorce rate" and "divorce problem" (eegads! the sky is falling! marriage is a disposable institution! people are getting divorced more than ever!) is that it is a bullsh*t statistic.
It's like the cancer rate. Cancer is on the rise! Is it? Or is cancer detection on the rise?
It used to be very, very difficult to get a divorce and, even when possible, socially problematic in the extreme (viz., His Highness (wikipedia link) King Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson).
So we don't really know what the divorce rate "really" would have been in times-gone-by if it were the case that one could divorce, legally and comparatively easily. It strikes me as being probable that people divorced at more-or-less the same rate, only they divorced "in situ" -- Archie and Edith, sitting there in separate chairs, more-or-less silent. No "marriage" as an engagement of two souls, but a by-then mandatory contractual arrangement.
So I disregard all notions that people divorce more now than ever. Frankly, if the choice were a loveless "marriage" ending in a dispirited death or a divorce, I'd choose the latter.
@Lotus: It is amazing to me that everyone seems to leave the advent of children and their personalities and needs out of the equation.
I don't think that's a fair observation. No one to my knowledge on any thread has left out the advent of children. We're merely trying to break the discussion down into more manageable bits. On that point, however, I think you're on the right track. There is the "first" family -- he and she. Then there is the "second" family -- he and she and Wee One. And then there is the "second + n" families in which the siblings grow up.
So there may well not, in fact, be A marriage for the same couple, but multiple, overlapping marriages.
Which just makes everything ever-so-much-more interesting -- which of those marriages is one trying to save?
So there may well not, in fact, be A marriage for the same couple, but multiple, overlapping marriages.
If you apply this to your hypothesis about the divorced "in situ" (me pretending to know what the heck you actually meant here), when divorce was not so socially acceptable and easy, it seems likely (and verifiable based on conversing with old couples) that marriages live and die just to breathe again all the time when given time...as in my parents who have now hit a sweet spot of sorts in their 60s despite the fact that 20 years ago, I wished they would divorce because they seemed so miserable.
How one views marriage as an entity has everything to do with survival rates, sometimes it leads to spouses taking each other for granted but I submit that it ultimately leads to hitting a sweet spot and having the kind of intimacy and security that comes from surviving the lumps and bumps together over a life time (separations included).
And by the way, cancer is on the rise...and so is divorce (but we can debate this another time.
My very long-winded quest has been to dig into the root of what DBing is all about. To me, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, R problems, divorce rate, etc, debatable as they may be - are all symptoms of a problem, and not the problem itself.
Let me rephrase this question: "Is the marriage failure rate because of this?"
- to this -
"Are marriage failures because of this"? (this being a lack of knowledge of the goods and bads of a person before marrying them)
I would agree with SP on the divorce "in sutu" observation and take that a step further. If you look at simple percentages - the big round number is 50% of marriages end in divorce, but how many of the remaining 50% are divorces "in sutu"? Another 20-25%? What about those couples that don't even bother with the hodge-podge and commitment of vows but simply live together?
Is it possible that there could be as little as 3-4% of all current marriages that are actually reasonable happy and fulfilled to to a greater degree than not?
Let's make that assumption for the moment because I would be very surprised to see anyone provide me with evidence to the contrary.
Why?
Although I realize situations are different, there must be some compelling cause. For example, I read Divorce Remedy. I could swear that Michelle was literally bugging my house because she knew exactly what my WAW had said, did say, and would say in the future - at times, I literally had to put down the book it was that overpowering. I have read newbie posts on here, and time and time again, the WAW and WAH repeat nearly identical actions. If my situation is so predictable, there have to be SOME set of drivers that have some consistency... Right? Or is it, instead, that the human psyche is so predictable in dealing with life?
SP, it appears that, by all casual observance, you have made great strides towards both recovering your self respect (mojo) and perhaps rekindling a future "something" with Mrs. SP - the most important question I have for you is this: could you clearly define why your M hit the rocks, and are you completely certain that you would not repeat your side of the mistakes? I'm not referring to an occasional slip-up, but to a successful pattern. On the other hand, does it matter? Are you two new "yous", and need to approach this newness with a whole different gameplan?
(FYI - I'm not attacking you, or doubting your sincerity, but as a 3-year-veteran, I'm seeking someone who honestly gets it.)
