He doesn't seem to see himself as selfish -- his self-image seems to be that he is a good husband who does his best to provide for your needs. Would you agree with that? I don't get the sense that he walks around saying "I'm going to take care of myself and too bad for you". When you complain, I don't get the sense that he says "yeah, so what? Too bad!" He truly seems to be surprised/confused by your reaction to him -- would you agree?
Yes, I would agree with totally.
Originally Posted By: Accuray
So he's feeling like he keeps breaking rules that he's not aware of. Or he's aware of the rules, but he thinks they are silly or inconsequential, and that they shouldn't *really* matter.
Yes and no. No, he denies breaking any rules, because he's "a good guy," they aren't valid rules in his mind. Yes, he thinks my response is silly and inconsequential.
To your options, I have tried option 2 for many years. It seems like the most rational/functional thing to do in M. I will spell it out for him, something simple like "Please stop using me as the brunt of your jokes. I feel it's hurtful and degrading and getting really old, and it makes me want to retaliate, which is not fostering a loving R between us." He will argue at first, defending his actions, which is essentially telling me that my feelings aren't valid. I'll have to defend my request with multiple reasons, sometimes quotes from books or directly from a counselor, and then he'll finally agree to it. He's good for a couple days, then "forgets" and reverts back to the behavior. I remind him, often having to retrace the previous steps of explaining and defending and referencing other sources, to which he'll promise again. This will cycle a half-dozen more times before I can at least just remind him "You said you wouldn't do that." Of course, it's always after the behavior has been exhibited so the damage is done. I can't think of anything he has ever bought into, that wasn't like this. And I've never been able to successfully remind him beforehand where he retained it. Like the lemonade scenario, even when I've just told him, internal thoughts override.
As to option 1, I think I'm partly there now. I'm resigning myself to the fact that this is how he's going to be. I already acknowledged that he's being courteous when he gets me a lemonade. I've said that I still love him, which I probably wouldn't if I just thought he was purposely being mean. If I implied that I interpreted the lemonade analogy as a slight or offensive, I didn't mean to. It's just frustrating because there doesn't seem to be a way to get my needs met with him.
I lived this way the first part of our M, going along with his "positive intentions," sacrificing what I really wanted out of caring for him. But I found that I grew very resentful of never getting what I wanted. I found that the only way I could get "iced tea" for certain was to get it myself, and I usually had to do it alone because if I tried it with him, he would try to convince me that I really wanted "lemonade" and tell me all the reasons why I was wrong for wanting "iced tea," -- all with the best of intentions, of course. It just became easier to go without him. Now it's hard to find things I want to do with him, because of the negative memories of doing things with him in the past. Plus, additional incidents like this weekend just keep piling on.
I completely get the mentality of the WAS. I really do. If S wasn't in the picture, I would have left long ago. I wouldn't hate H, and I would hope to still be able to be friends with him. I just wouldn't want to be M'd to him. I'm just so tired of trying. It's just not worth it. And I would feel like I was doing him as much a favor as myself, because I wasn't going to be a happy W to him any longer anyway. What man wants to be in a sexless M? We've all but torn each other apart trying to get our own needs met. It seems it would just be easier with someone else, for both of us. Or even better alone.
Maybe it's because my love language isn't "acts of service," so I don't value the "effort" of getting me lemonade enough. At the same time, my true love languages aren't getting met. When H and I discuss our R, he tells me the reasons why he can't do what I want (says he doesn't know how but doesn't bother to find out, says he doesn't have time but has time for shopping ebay for cars we're not buying, says he doesn't have anyone to talk to to help him then says he's not comfortable opening up to a stranger or burdening a friend.) Bottomline, I'm not going to get my needs met with him. I accept that. It just becomes difficult to value him. As a person, sure. As a partner, not so much. I had asked a question long ago in my posts, how do I make myself WANT to be around him? I still have that same issue.
But I'm doing it. I'm going through the motions. I'm meeting every single one of his needs, even if I have to fake it and lie to accomplish it. He's happy with it, he said so.
Now what?
(BTW, I really appreciate everyone playing along with the lemonade analogy. It just makes everything easier to discuss, I think. For me anyway.)
I've been pondering something since I posted to Adinva this morning, and reflecting on KD's post about M... It's about the overall concept of a marriage commitment.
I started reflecting on my current approach, and why my acts of doing things for my H, meeting his needs, is not pleasing me. There was a time when it did, when the mere act of doing something for him was pleasurable to ME. And I spent some time contemplating what the difference is between now and then.
It boils down to the reason why I'm doing it. My current approach is out of a sense of obligation. "If I am going to remain M'd, even just until son goes off, I am obligated as a W to perform certain functions. It's my responsibility, my duty. Everyone is telling me it's what I need to do."
Key word, obligation.
But most people don't refer to M as an obligation, they refer to it as a M commitment. Having a commitment sounds much better than having an obligation. Why?
I tried looking at the definitions of the words but they tended to cross-over, so that wasn't very helpful. So I tried coming up with examples of where the different words are used.
Committed: (not the lock-away-in-an-asylum version) I'm committed to losing weight He's committed to finishing this marathon They're committed to saving x dollars a month for retirement
Obligated: He's obligated to pay child support each month She's obligated to serve 20 hours of public service as restitution They're obligated to pay a fine if they don't show as scheduled
The difference, I've determined, is where the motivation is coming from. When someone is committed to something, the motivation comes from within. When they are obligated, the motivation comes from without. Most people that are obligated to do something would choose not to if given a choice. Most people that are committed doing something do so even when no one is watching.
WAS's that walk from a M lost the commitment to the M some time prior, and they are left only with the obligation. Eventually, the obligation isn't enough to keep them around, because the obligation can be negated simply by filing for D. Proof! Obligation removed.
So what causes people to lose commitment, and how can it be regained, or is it even possible?
So back to the examples. - Someone is committed to losing weight. Why do they quit? Because the challenge is too difficult and the reward is not forthcoming. - He's committed to finishing this marathon. Why do they quit? Personal injury, exhaustion, physical inability, overwhelmed by the monumental size of the task, progress is not forthcoming. - They're committed to saving x dollars a month for retirement. Why do they quit, or perhaps fall short? Material things too tempting, loss of income, long-term big picture too far away to grasp the payoff.
In each of the examples, the external barriers are greater than the internal drive to accomplish. The payoff is not there. The same reason not everyone is committed to completing a marathon or even trying -- too much effort for not enough personal payoff. So I'm hard-pressed to see why anyone would commit to M if they believed they would get nothing in return. They have to have SOME expectations of a payoff.
When the payoff is not forthcoming, the internal commitment is tested. If the period without payoff is too long, the commitment is lost and the only thing left is the obligation, which by definition can in itself be suffocating. Clearly, obligation is rarely enough to motivate a person to stay in a M, and when it is, it's far from satisfying for either party.
So how does one present enough payoff to a WAS that they'll want to commit to the M again? What would make me once again value doing something for my H just for the sake of doing something for him?
What about the people that are committed and offset the external obstacles? Or remain committed even when there is no obvious payoff? What is their secret?
For me, one thing I've committed to that addresses this question is being a vegetarian. There is no external obligation for my decision. I can certainly afford to buy meat. I don't have any dietary issues. I actually love the taste of a good filet. I chose to go vegetarian about 5 years ago and have stuck to it since, for the most part. I've never thrown out my commitment. I have been tempted by external factors, ie. H is NOT vegetarian and eats meat in front of me. Heck, I even cook it for him and S. There hasn't been any measurable payoff, like I feel so great and healthy I want to climb a mountain. Fresh vegetables are not cheap, and I need to make a point to eat some odd things I might not normally eat to get the proper nutrition.
So what keeps me committed? (I'm really not looking for a debate on vegetarianism, just using it as an example of commitment.)
There are a number of reasons I decided to in the first place, such as dietary health reasons, but since I still eat M&M's and chocolate chip cookies, that certainly isn't a primary dietary force for me. The primary reason is probably the humane treatment of the animals in the commercial industry, and the fact that the animal has to be killed to eat it, vs. eggs and milk which are by-products. Again, I'm not looking to debate, just saying it's important to me and WHY I'm committed.
Now, since there aren't any chickens knocking on my door handing me a bouquet of roses in thanks for not eating them, and my vegetarianism hasn't single-handedly impacted the meat-farming industry, what is the payoff?
For me, it's simply the feeling that I'm doing the right thing.
Animals are lesser creatures. As humans, we have a responsibility to treat them humanely. I don't need to look the chicken in the eye and set it free to know that I've at least eliminated to the need to kill the chicken on my behalf. I know that. It makes me feel good. There is a need that I am meeting, and it's a need that can't be met by someone else. If I eat a chicken, the chicken must be killed. No one else can step in and change that.
Now, forgetting all the vegetarian mumbo-jumbo, how does that apply to people? Well it's easy to transition to parenting. I don't feel obligated to parent my son. I'm committed, it's something I WANT to do, something I chose to do. There are no obstacles in life that will change that commitment for me, short of incapacitation or death. Part of that commitment comes from the fact that he NEEDS me to parent him. He is a "lesser" creature in that he is young and not fully capable on his own, and I know I am doing a good thing by filling that roll. When he grows, that commitment will change with him. His NEEDS won't be the same. I am not committed to providing him food and shelter for all of his life, and I won't. I will still love him, but our R will be different.
Now this is where I lose it.
What should my commitment to my H be based upon? He is not a lesser creature. He is perfectly capable of meeting his own needs in most areas of life. Even sex could be performed by someone else. I don't feel like I'm doing something noble because I cook him dinner. The action itself provides no value to me, I'm actually not a big fan of cooking. I can see that S growing up in a two-parent household is a good thing and I'm committed to that, until he's grown. Then what? I'm sure he would always like his parents to be together, but he'll be off focused on his own life and family. That just means the D would need to be amicable.
What does one base a commitment to M on when there is no NEED, there is no ENJOYMENT, and there is no PAYOFF?
For me, it's simply the feeling that I'm doing the right thing.
I would simply say it's the above.
For as long as it is. Until it isn't.
Every year, every month, every day, every hour, every moment...
People who commit make that choice, consciously or unconsciously, every moment...
Until that no longer is their choice.
I personally have been a risk taker in many aspects of my life.
And today. At this moment. And this began about a year and a half ago...
The fear of loss began to outweigh the personal desire. Not the value or potential gain...
Simply the internal desire to not be hurt...
I do and commit to many things not because there is a value... at least not any value other than it serves my need to feel that I am contributing in some way, without getting feedback (monetary, words of affirmation, love)...
Now, the fear of hurt drives me to no longer take those risks...
I think your explanation of your pursuit of options 1 & 2 are a bit different than what I was suggesting. An important ingredient in option 2 is that if H will do something for you, then you will do something for him -- i.e. if you stop making me the focus of your jokes, I will go boating with you and your friends twice a month and be pleasant and upbeat. Find something that matters to him. This should NOT need to be a long term approach, it's a short term approach to change direction by exaggerating the rewards that should come just by doing the right thing. I KNOW it makes you frustrated to have to reward what should be expected behavior, but if you want to DO something, that's something you can do, and as I said, it should be temporary.
Option 1 was not meant to be equated with resignation. It's a conscious effort on your part to find joy in what you have and to celebrate it -- not to resign yourself to loss. This does not come easily and may not be possible, it takes an incredible force of will.
Originally Posted By: Crazyville
Now what?
Give it time, two weeks is not enough. Investment + enforcement of boundaries + patience
With regard to your commitment versus obligation argument, I think you're kidding yourself -- you are committed, although you wish you weren't. If you weren't committed, you wouldn't be here. You've said yourself that you love him and you want this to work -- that's commitment, not obligation. At the same time, you don't "like" him, and are hugely frustrated by him, so it makes you want to be able to abandon this feeling of commitment. If you weren't committed, you wouldn't be so tortured, it would be easy to regard him with contempt and a lack of pity or empathy, but you're not there.
I think you're writing about how you want to feel, but the fact that you're spelling it out this way indicates to me that you're trying to convince yourself. If you already felt that way you wouldn't need to explain it, because you wouldn't have any motivation to.
Accuray
Married 18, Together 20, Now Divorced M: 48, W: 50, D: 18, S: 16, D: 12 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 7/13/11 Start Reconcile: 8/15/11 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 5/1/2014 (Divorced) In a New Relationship: 3/2015
