Puppy, does the above response clarify my assertion of a boundry and the consequences. I thought this was pretty powerful on my part. It signals a strong stance something she has not seen much from me. Essentially I said, 'This is what I insist upon and if you are unwilling to accept these terms, then you will not get what you want.' It also put her between her cake and whether she can eat it too. The boundry was asserted in such a way to say that she cannot have both. Of course, she remains committed to having it and eating it and is exploring other ways to achieve that goal. But for me, I established firmly that I will not participate in the manner prescribed by her. The consequence is that she does not obtain the result that she wants. This is an important change. Heretofor, I have generally taken the tact that if I give her everything she wants, she is bound to respect me. She can't deny that the position I took last night is a substantial departure from my customary practice.
Hard for me to say, because I STILL don't understand how you phrased the financial boundary! Will you please stop being so cryptic, and just tell us what your stance was on your financial support of her business???
And if we're correct in assuming that you left such a major conversation with laying out ANY affair boundaries, then no, I don't see where you did anything "powerful" on your part, and in fact I think your wife probably walked away from the encounter thinking some combination of:
- he still seems to be okay with my affair; he'll huff and he'll puff, but he won't do anything about it;
- he's SUCH an a**hole on the financial stuff! What a controlling jerk!
- he's weak and afraid to confront the real issues here.
