LRT is not an ultimatum. It's when you agree to the D and that's that. You aren't demanding anything or pushing anything.
A boundary is basically what you won't tolerate in your spouse. Will a boundary stop them from doing what they want? No. They're going to do whatever it is they want.
In the case of some of the DB'ers, they went ahead and filed themselves and when they took action, it snapped the WAS out of the fog. If you feel your S has overstepped your boundary more than you can tolerate, then you'll figure out if you want to file or not.
M-43 W-40 2D - 9 and 5
Emotion, yet peace. Ignorance, yet knowledge. Passion, yet serenity. Chaos, yet harmony. Death, yet a new life.
My phone Coach advises me to maintain the boundary but allow the Wait and Watch step of LRT to develop.
My impression is that PB is mis-intrepereting what the DB Coach is advocating. State the boundary, then The LRT is the 'drop the rope' I'm done - go dark, when the boundary is crossed. You would then watch to see if she changes her behavior and respects the boundary.
My "confused" emoticon was in reference to the DB coach advocating using boundaries. Thought that was on some "verboten" list according to some.
M22,H45,W45 S21/18D12 Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties and at the same time confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.
LRT is a detachment tactic.. filing for divorce being the last step of that technique
MWD advocates using LRT if other non LRT tehcniques are failing, the spouses are separated, the WS has filed for divorce already, etc... Again this is all in the book.
I don't wnat to type the book out here as it may offend some readers.. LRT is not synonymous with filing for divorce...
The ultimatum as described on pp 230 is for the LBS filing for divorce and how to go about this, what to say, what to expect, what not to expect... and why this is a tactic and not simply throwing in the towel.
My point I made earlier is that there are other ultimatums/boundaries that can be set earlier on with the WS before the filing for divorce consequence needs to be acted on.
MWD makes the point that if there is obsessive or addictive behaviour that some "losses" on the part of the WS need to happen before they will take the time to look inward and consider making any changes to thier destructive behaviour.
This is pretty much in line with standard addiction treatment : intervention, end all enabling, end all support and invite the addict to end their behaviour and enter a recovery program.
The point being that action has to take place here... And yes this would be part of LRT... Since its clearly a different strategy from the more obvious "loving" tactics.
In my opinion withdrawing support for an addiction and refusing to enable the addict further IS a loving act.
We ground children for similar reasons, the act of grounding a child doens't in any way suggest any less love is felt for that child.. Only that a different and less obvious form of love is needed to remedy reckless or destructive behavior.
I think those that post on the thread called "What is and is not DBing" have a reasonable expectation that what follows from people is going to be about, you know, what is and is not DBing.
I am still confused then; since what I wrote was categorized as not DBing, why would it be unexpected in a thread of this title? Now if the title had restricted the topics exclusively to DB techniques, then it would make sense and I could see how my posts might be off-topic.
Arnie,
It would appear as if we were BOTH advocating a slightly different stance than what is advocated here. I mistook your points (as I didn't really understand them) as agreeing with stcdtox that firm boundaries weren't called for, and that a more passive approach was better.
If that's not what you mean, then my apologies. I do agree with you that -- conveyed incorrectly -- boundaries can come across as controlling, patronizing and paternal. Not only should they be structured correctly, they should be CONVEYED a certain way -- I believe, in a "Hey, whatever you do is up to you. I'm just telling you what I'M willing to live with (or not live with)."
In the case of some of the DB'ers, they went ahead and filed themselves and when they took action, it snapped the WAS out of the fog. If you feel your S has overstepped your boundary more than you can tolerate, then you'll figure out if you want to file or not.
or the opposite could happen .. the WAS can walk away with less guilt because the WAS didn't pull the trigger and file. having the LBS take action could be something that the WAS is hoping for so that in the end, the WAS could say "you also agreed that our m was over. you didn't fight for us because you ended up filing, not me".
i don't know if that makes sense .. if not, pls ignore.
MWD warns quite clearly not to make hollow threats. If you tell your WS that their actions will produce a consequence from you then you need to do it...
if you don't they will be unlikley to believe you or respect you after that point.. you are just a talking head...
LRT is not an ultimatum. It's when you agree to the D and that's that. You aren't demanding anything or pushing anything.
OK, this is another example of what I am talking about :
Last Resort Technique is not what this says above.
Read pp 124 - 31 of the Divorce Remedy text :
1. Stop the chase 2. Get a Life 3. Wait and Watch
That's the summary for the Last Resort Technique as it appears in the text. It mentions nothing about agreeing to file for divorce. It says to leave your spouse alone and work at improving your end of the marriage.
Very misleading post above... And very distressing...
i don't know if that makes sense .. if not, pls ignore.
It makes a lot of sense, and its a good point to make as a warning... It is often difficult to understand what the response to filing for divorce will be. I have seen both ends of the spectrum...
So, a word of warning like yours is an excellent point to make.
I mistook your points (as I didn't really understand them) as agreeing with stcdtox that firm boundaries weren't called for, and that a more passive approach was better.
It's completely understandable that would be the perception - and I certainly haven't helped by being able to express more clearly. (BTW, if a book or reference is needed to see an approach as valid, then check out Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg)
My point is that being gentle and heart-centered is not only being proactive, in my experience it is far more effective at setting boundaries than what I have seen advocated here.
Originally Posted By: Starsky309
I believe, in a "Hey, whatever you do is up to you. "
I wouldn't even give that - since my limits are defined in terms of the desired outcome without telling my W what to do or how to do it, I have every expectation that there be a desire to help achieve that. I do not expect that if I tell her what to do it will (naturally) be met with resistance; by stating the desired outcome - and completely avoiding the pronoun "you" there tends to be little defensiveness or resistance. This turns a "problem" from something that is between us to something that we are both facing together to solve. (I'm probably being "poetic" again).
I think part of the difficulty with the examples is that by the time a couple is dealing with an A, the time for "boundaries" is long past and what is needed are in fact walls. There doesn't appear to be a clear distinction between the two in DB.
