Over the Shock and GALing 6

[Thinker]

From the discussions we have had, and from her answers to my questions, a foundation is / would be

Foundation: "Two people meet and are so compatible that they fall madly, deeply in love, and that love is so strong that even when they fall on hard times, that love is the foundation that can carry them through and that they can build on to keep the marriage going."

In other words, she does not feel that we were ever compatible enough and deeply in love enough, and never can be, and therefore...

[Energizer Bunny]

That's TV love.

There is no one else on the planet that has a 13 year history with her.
No one else has children with her.
No one else who knows her the way you do.
No one else that she vowed to stay with for the rest of her life.
No one else that would have put up with this cr#p for nearly a year to be with her.

Everything that she's saying is part of the script. It's amazing how history can be rewritten. Granted, I am sure that she did have some unhappy times. She wouldn't have married you if she didn't feel compatible with you at some point though.

[Coach]

"Two people meet and are so compatible that they fall madly, deeply in love, and that love is so strong that even when they fall on hard times, that love is the foundation that can carry them through and that they can build on to keep the marriage going."

In love = connection = fixable

If she was in love with you then she would not not be in love with you. She would have that love (the being in love kinda love) which she craves to persevere. You will be surprised at how fast you can re-kindle the connection.

All the reasons below matter:

- "We have 13 years of history together"
- "We have 3 children, and agree on how and cooperate well in raising them"
- "We like to do the same things, travel to the same sorts of places, etc"
- "We have the same group of friends"
- "I get along well with your family"
- "We have the same outlook on health, physical activity, etc"
- "We (used to) both have the same need for physical affection and sex"
- "We have worked out most of our issues around money, household chores, etc"
- "We are learning to communicate better than ever before"

Now is not the time to get impatient and frustrated.

[aliveandkicking]

She's seeking a feeling that has to do with her and her depression IMO...she projects it on to you but she is missing her self-love, her zest for life, her feeling of being inspired. It is her foundation that is off.

Stop beating a dead horse, she is just engraving this story and you should have none of it, IMO. Words will never convince her, experiences might.

What is she passionate about? What inspires her? What turns her on? Until she feels whole, you are just part of her unsatisfying reality...

Make sense?

[givingitmyall]

From the discussions we have had, and from her answers to my questions, a foundation is / would be

Foundation: "Two people meet and are so compatible that they fall madly, deeply in love, and that love is so strong that even when they fall on hard times, that love is the foundation that can carry them through and that they can build on to keep the marriage going."

In other words, she does not feel that we were ever compatible enough and deeply in love enough, and never can be, and therefore...

That's what I'm saying. She seems hung up on a fundamental misunderstanding - that love is what you feel - that butterfly in the stomach feeling. You, me and lots of people here know that's not the case.

I don't think you are going to be able to talk your way into convincing her she's wrong. But, you just might be able to show her by continuing the fight.

Could you turn her argument around a bit and mention (if coupled with your actions - which you have done so far) that the reason you are fighting for your M IS precisely b/c you love her and your family. B/c right now times are rough. That "love" you have (real love, not some teenager's fantasy of what it is) is what serves as your foundation to keep fighting. I suspect that is also HER foundation, but she interprets it as her desire to keep the family together.

Oh, the "compatible" thing I believe to be script. It's a non-specific word that can explain why she wants out without providing a real reason. It's NOT an explanation. AND, I heard it too.

[Greek]

...but she feels like if we go forward with our M, it would be (in her words) "Like an arranged Marriage" - ie, we are not here because there is "a great foundation of chemistry and love" but because we are together and are therefore forced to make it work.

It's very hard to see "better". I admit that I NEVER (use of the word NEVER is precise) thought/believed Coach and I could have the marriage we are building now. The models of "love" in my life were my parents (divorced) and falling in love with Coach (infatuation). That long term PARTNERSHIP was never shown to me so I couldn't imagine what it would take to have it.

She is looking back on her memories of our R, and does not see something positive she wants to build on.

Hurt clouding memories.

She is also hanging on very tightly to "Love is something that happens when the 2 people are right for each other" rather than "Love is a decision and something that requires work"

Oh grow up, my sister! I hope you won't take offense, Thinker - but this is silly Girl talk. How many times has your W seen The Notebook? Hollywood, infatuation, what we daydreamed of when we were 17...but real life it ain't . Would that she could believe the Real Thing truly is BETTER. It's not effortless, it's not without risk, but better by a mile. Give her my number

I told her that in no way do I want to stay married to someone who does not choose to be married to me. Although I didn't say this, I am clear in my own mind that unless she choses, she will always put all responsibility for the R on me (as she is doing now) and continue to resent me whenever she is not happy. Unless she CHOSES to be married to ME, we will both be miserable.

We agreed that something has to change in the R. It can't go on like this. I told her that I would accept a decision to cancel Retrouvaille as a decision to stop working on the M completely, and in that case we should contact a mediator and begin the D.

Spot on. Good man. Tough love.

Does Mrs. Thinker know about LL?

Greek

[Greek]

She's seeking a feeling that has to do with her and her depression IMO...she projects it on to you but she is missing her self-love, her zest for life, her feeling of being inspired. It is her foundation that is off.


Make sense?

RIGHT ON! Bang on the Truth, A&K!
Greek

[AlexEN]

Thinker,

This:

My memories are different - there was a period of time where I was definitely getting my LL's met - but I understand that we can each have different experiences of the same R.

...and this:

She is also hanging on very tightly to "Love is something that happens when the 2 people are right for each other" rather than "Love is a decision and something that requires work"

... are, IMO, integrally linked with each other and not too distantly related to the esoteric regressions being run on Smiley's thread.

It is absolutely true that "we can each have different experiences of the same R" and that was not only true at the time we were experiencing them but ALSO now when we are re-experiencing/recalling them. Whether or not it is "script" as GIMA says, the present colors both spouses' interpretations of past experiences, too. In other words, it seems readily apparent that the glasses one is wearing today when looking at the past profoundly affect how we think we experienced things in the past (not just at the time they are happening).

So, you can't put too much weight on what she says about the past. It is what it is, but it also is what she perceives it to be. What you're hearing from her is how she feels today, not necessarily how she really felt then and that, to GIMA's point, may be where "script" comes in.

But (and Coach, correct me if I'm wrong), I think Coach would tell you that that is largely irrelevant at this point. The only way she MIGHT change her interpretation of the past is if she were to feel differently today. But, and I know you know this, you can't control that through words (and, believe me, your list (below) is convincing to me as I would say exactly the same thing about my M, but it's irrelevant to her). It falls on deaf ears and pushes the WAS further away. She's telling you she wants to FEEL it.

But I think...
- "We have 13 years of history together"
- "We have 3 children, and agree on how and cooperate well in raising them"
- "We like to do the same things, travel to the same sorts of places, etc"
- "We have the same group of friends"
- "I get along well with your family"
- "We have the same outlook on health, physical activity, etc"
- "We (used to) both have the same need for physical affection and sex"
- "We have worked out most of our issues around money, household chores, etc"
- "We are learning to communicate better than ever before"

As sure as you and I are that “Love is a decision…” and that it really only “happens” in movies, she’s just as sure that it’s the other way around. Pointing out a list like this, not that you've done this, would merely make her point for her -- you don’t get it. So, right now, words won't matter. Your actions (as Smiley has pointed out in the past) will determine the outcome. And, even then, it isn’t in your control; your actions will or won’t have an influence on how she views the present and the past. The decision you have to make is how long you are willing/able to wait for something that may or may not happen…

My convoluted two cents…

As an aside, I thought robx’s recent post (which kind of got buried on Smiley’s thread) was one of his best ever and is very a propos of this topic, so I’ve taken the liberty of cutting-and-pasting it here…

"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?"

[Dia]

FWIW, I don't happen to agree with that post. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like it invalidates the idea that there were any real problems in the M at all. It sounds like it discounts any real reasons the WAS may have had for becoming WAS-y, as well as any real attempts the WAS may have made to speak up, ask for change, etc. It sounds like it lays the fault pretty squarely on the WAS and virtually none on the LBS. It also specifies that the WAS seeks whatever is missing form a third party, and there isn't always a third party involved.

While I'm sure that post is the case at least some of the time, there are plenty of LBS here who will admit 1) that the WAS has/had valid gripes, 2) that they discounted the validity of said gripes until the WAS really did walk, and 3) only got serious about addressing any valid issues after the walk.

Could most WAS have done more, communicated better, tried harder? Probably. Could most LBS have listened better, validated more, admitted their own role in the demise of the M sooner? Probably.

<shrug>

One person's opinion.

[AlexEN]

Dia,

I agree with EVERYTHING you said.I apologize if unclear. Thinker knows me well enough to know my beliefs aren't as you've read.

In fact, I don't think anything I wrote is contrary to what you just wrote (that is, if I'm understanding it as you intended). If you re-read knowing we're in basic agreement, where do you take exception?