Well my other thread locked. No surprise, it was way overdue.
I hesitated in starting a new thread because I really don't have a purpose other than keeping in touch with some great people I've gotten to know, and to journal some thoughts along the way. I guess if it helps someone else in the process, then that's just a bonus.
As I was typing in the title, I had a curious thought and so put a little twist to it. I realize that short of salvaging my M and making it something wonderful and fulfilling for both of us, my second greatest fantasy would be for us to reach a point where we both realize we are simply incompatible, and that the best thing we could do for each other is to let the other one go.
I did that years ago with a guy I dated. He was just a little older than me, but he had gotten his GF pregnant in H.S. and married her, had another child, then eventually D'd. The problem for us was that he was done having/raising kids and I hadn't even started. We both really liked each other, but both realized it wasn't fair to the other to expect them to compromise something so significant. So we mutually broke up but remained friends long after, caring for the other still and wishing the best for them. I even ran into him a couple years ago and it was a wonderful reunion. He graciously met my H who was with me at the time, and spoke fondly of his W that wasn't present. It was so comfortable, and I can honestly say that I still care for him and I'm very happy for his relationship with his W.
The thing is, it never even occurred to me to ask him to compromise his choice. He could have accomplished it, easily. He was in his early 30's, healthy, gainfully employed, responsible, etc. I guess that's what happens sometimes when you become a teenage parent - you grow up fast. But I never felt I had any right to even ask that of him. It was his life, his choice. My "negotiating" it with him under the parameters of "our R" would have just been wrong.
I don't believe that anyone has the right to expect someone else to serve them, and the problem is amplified when it's expected without reciprocation. I guess I don't understand a sense of entitlement. I wouldn't expect to be paid without working. I wouldn't expect to have something without paying for it. I don't think being in a R "entitles" you to anything, not even a M R. If your partner doesn't offer something freely when asked, then it's not yours to have.
I can see how this attitude played out in our M. I asked H to garden with me; he declined so I did it alone or with GF's. I asked him to go on a float trip with me, for years; he finally agreed but then cancelled at the last minute. I asked him to consider that the act of sex needs to be satisfying for me too and gave him suggestions for what he could do; he forgot repeatedly and left me wanting. In these and more, I asked but he opted out. Do I have a right to be angry and demand that he do what I ask, because we're M'd? I didn't think so. I already asked, he declined. Instead, I just accepted his position, disappointed but not argumentative or demanding. I didn't give up my interests, I just did them without him. I pulled away, because he wasn't offering me anything to stay for. At the same time, I gradually stopped doing his things with/for him. He doesn't seem to hold the same position. He often tells me that I need to do something for/with him "because I'm his W," regardless of the fact that he's not even reciprocal.
When I got M'd, the vows were mine, the responsibility was mine, the words I spoke were promises of what *I* was committing to. Sure, H spoke similar vows, but the only one that can deliver what he promised is him. If he chooses not to, what right do I have to demand different? Even God allows for free will. It's his choice to live in this R the way he does, and I can't do anything to make him do different. I *can* choose to not be part of it. But to criticize? Condemn? Demand? I don't even see the point. Should I even want a partner that's only there because I coerced/argued/nagged/threatened him into doing it?
When would "because you're my H" ever be a legitimate reason for demanding something from him?
It's an interesting discussion, CV. I agree... in part.
Do we have the right to demand anything of anyone? No. And there are certain boundaries that are hard stops. I loved a man who also wanted children but I know that I would not be able to do that for him. Did I have the right to ask him to compromise his dreams? Especially ones that big? No. It hurt like hell to watch him go. But there are certain incompatibilities that probably should not be resolved as they will bring resentment later on. And truthfully, he is happier now and that makes me very happy to see him happy and pursuing his dreams.
HOWEVER, there is compromise. And that is a bit different than demanding. It's very nice that you were able to carry on with your activities without your H... You did the right thing. His unwillingness to compromise, however, clearly caused a wedge. Gardening with someone or going on a float trip with someone is very very different than giving up on one's dream to have children or demanding of another who does not want children to have them. If each person in a marriage is engaged in separate activities, then where exactly is the bonding? So while it is right that one cannot demand of another to bend to their will, you are still left with a R that does not work. Each person has simply gone to their own corner.
I have sat here and thought long and hard about your second to last sentence. Where's the line? I mean when is it coercion and when is it simply dialogue about our needs? I mean I'm not sure it is simply enough to say, "Hey I want you to garden with me," and let it go after they say no. Especially after the answer is always no when it comes to our own interests. There needs to be more dialogue after that. Now, I agree that you are fairly convinced you have had that dialogue and with no success. But many of us, me included, never really had that dialogue. I would ask and let it go without any further dialogue.
It will ALWAYS get to a point in a R that compromise needs to happen. And that compromise can't happen without some type of meaningful dialogue. I guess the question for me become where's that line between nagging and meaningful dialogue?
Oh, I'm not suggesting it makes for a healthy M, this ask/decline/accept/withdraw pattern. In fact, continuously ignoring your spouse's requests is a sure recipe for failure. But I think people understand this dynamic in general or no one would ever get past the first date. The fact that they do shows they're capable of it. So what happens after M?
I've had this sticky on my desktop for a long time now. I think it's perfect for this:
"Arguing is a sign that one or both people in the relationship are unable to grasp the rights, boundaries and feelings of the other person. At least one of you is unfit for a relationship."
If we respect the other person's boundaries, for example their right to say "no" to a request, how can we ever have an argument? How could anything progress to anything even resembling nagging?
At the same time, if someone did something before M, while dating, in order to "catch" their S, why wouldn't they realize they still need to do it to "keep" their S?
For my needs, I asked my H, I asked him clearly, I asked him multiple times. He always had excuses but the bottomline answer was "no." As a result, our M is likely over. I knew it was happening, but I also knew I couldn't save it by myself, and didn't believe I had the right/ability to "make" him meet my needs.
I'm curious, when you asked but then "let it go," did you feel like your M was failing? Or were you simply fine with it?
I read something once following Trump's divorce. He said, "I want a marriage that I don't want to work at." I found that funny. Because you hit the nail on the head... when you date, you work. You compromise. You show interest and concern for the other. We get married and we get lazy. Plain and simple. We just get lazy. And it seems to me, that as the resentment builds up, we are willing to compromise less and less. You point out before you were willing to compromise and show interest in your H's activities and less so now. Why? Well, because you don't feel he's compromised, you don't feel you should. The resentment continues to build from there.
I absolutely don't agree with the quote. Hahahahaha. Not much we've disagreed on. But I don't think that's right. When people are arguing, they clearly are still engaged in the other person. Meaning, indifference hasn't taken over yet. I don't think arguing is bad, per se. I think that the way we argue can be bad. My H and I didn't argue much. Why? Well, I was all too willing to just concede. I don't believe arguing is a sign of one's inability to grasp the rights of others. What's the alternative? Not saying anything? Now, your response might be that the two just simply talk about it and not argue about it. But that is kind of semantics to me. When I say my H and I had an argument, rarely are we talking about anyone who has raised their voice. So it's perhaps best to say we had a disagreement. But whatever you call it, these discussions, arguments, disagreements do need to happen at some level, IMHO.
I don't think I felt my M was failing when I let it go. I think it was a symptom of a larger problem, however. I am the perfect co-dependent. Daughter of an alcoholic. Came from an abusive household. Victim of a rape. I came with some pretty large self-esteem issues. It was not always so obvious... in fact, it practically never was unless you got to know me. I was confident at work. I took great pains in dressing and keeping myself taken care of. I spoke my opinion and could never be called "soft spoken." However, I have always felt that I was not good enough. So? What happens. I ask to go to a play. He says no. I realize how stupid it is to ask to go to a play because most people don't. What is wrong with me? I shouldn't want to go to a play. I should be like normal people. Of course he's right not wanting to go to a play. Most guys don't. Then I sit down and watch 18 holes of golf on TV with him trying my best to enjoy it. Not saying it's right. In fact, at this point, I know it's not. But that's MY dysfunction. Not his. Now, when we were dating, it was easier. I didn't need to ask for something more than once. But as we discussed at the beginning, people get lazy. So what SEEMED to work for awhile, didn't once everyone got lazy.
The breakdown happened when I was moved to TN. That was the first time I really asserted myself and my absolute displeasure about the situation. Now listen, I was NOT constructive (understatement of the century). However, it was the first time I really put up a fight. And my H? Well, he had no clue what to do with that because I really never put up a fight on much of anything.
I've been sitting here thinking about the arguing thing and boundaries...
As part of a series done by my Historical Society, I saw a series of mock debates about the constitutional and the forming of our new government. What struck me in some of the debates was what people were arguing. I saw people arguing "their" side, what was best for them. And I saw people arguing what was best for the new government. While taxes weren't much of an issue at that time, I can argue passionately that paying taxes is bad and why. And it is bad for me. There's no one that can argue any different. But for the government? Well, while it is bad for me, it is best for the greater good... in this case, the entity of the government. Now my only argument is about how much I have to pay... hahahahha
So... marriage seems to be the same thing for me. While your H can say he doesn't want to garden and it's a bad thing for him to be doing, what is best for the M? Because there are 3 entities now in this equation... you, your H and your M. You may still disagree about what is best for the M, but the conversation and even the argument, still needs to happen. Upon hearing the other's arguments, one might genuinely see things differently and have a change of heart. Or perhaps find a compromise that does meet the needs of the M. It's not only about the individual anymore.
For me, the difference is between arguing and discussing, and it has nothing to do with the volume of the exchange. Arguing has to do with defending your position of being "right." Discussing has to do with offering your perspective but being open to hearing another person's, even if you don't ultimately change your position. SS, your example of paying taxes is perfect. If your sole purpose is to make your case, then you're not even open to the reasoning behind taxes. You, then, would simply be arguing. But in order to be able to hear the other side and factor it in to your perspective, a discussion is definitely warranted since no one has yet figured out how to read minds. I have had many, many discussions at work. Few would consider them arguments because we all believe we're on the same team. Arguments happen when you position yourself on opposite "sides," not simply opposite perspectives, and don't even allow for another legitimate perspective besides your own.
I'll at least say that for us, we don't have discussions, we have arguments, even though they're not loud either. And the problem in our sitch reflects the quote above exactly.
CV: Today would be a great day for a float trip. H: Today would be a great day to go boating. CV: Yes, it's a great day for both. I'd rather go floating. H: I'd rather go boating. CV: Okay, then you go boating and I'll go floating. H: No, you can't, you need to go boating with me because that's what a family does. CV: Except that I've already gone boating 5 times with you this summer and haven't gone floating in 6 years. H: I know, but ..........
discussion: the examination or consideration of a matter in speech or writing argument: an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation
BTW, I believe you and I are having a discussion, perhaps even a debate. I would not qualify this as an argument in any way.
Which comes back to my original question about demanding that someone honor a request. Is it fair to argue? Discuss, yes. Request, yes. Even offer up a trade/compromise, yes. But argue when the other person has made up their mind? There's clearly a dysfunction in the R when one party won't voluntarily/happily do some things for the other. Arguing will not correct the dysfunction but simply add a few other negative dimensions to it.
Well it's an interesting discussion but I think we may be talking semantics at this point. Let's look at your definition again:
argument: an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation
I'm not sure there is much wrong with convincing and persuading. I mean truly a person can see things from a different perspective only if and when they are presented with a different perspective. Now, you can call that a discussion... but it could also be an argument. We go back to what happened at the continental congresses and many men argued their point vehemently and truly came up with a framing of a government that is amazingly functional and smart (lol, I know many would disagree). I think it is in the way we argue and the mind frame in which we enter these "arguments."
It's hard to have these discussions, though, when speaking globally. The devil is in the details. So if we were to go back to your examples... your H wants you to have sex with him and not give you anything in return. Well that's not an argument. That's someone who is entering an argument with a bad frame of mind. And that's different. There is no exchange of ideas there. I have had these arguments before with people. Damn, people have had them with me. But if someone won't at least consider your point of view, then you are at end game. Now I hear you saying that is how you define an argument... when someone enters it and does not consider the other's point of view. But I don't see it the same way. Why? Well the lens by which I see through prevents me from seeing that way. My H and I have had arguments and we both ended up at some sort of compromise in the end. Some of those arguments were productive. It sounds to me that you don't find any productivity in your arguments. Does that mean the act of arguing is bad or does it mean that the frame of mind being brought into the argument is bad? And again, I'm aware that we are probably talking about semantics here...
LOL. You can call it an argument or you can call it a discussion... either way... I LIKE IT
