On another thread, Sandi was proposing an aggressive approach to cake eaters. I moved it here for responses so as not to hijack that thread.
Quote:
Sandi, I would love you to read my thread and continue this there.
Quote:
Well, do you believe you deserve better, or not? If you do, then you start acting like it and stop accepting what she's dishing out.
I can't compel W to stop A, or to leave house, so anything there is an empty threat.
So I can leave now, but that kills child access rights later.
I can completely starve her financially until she quits A and commits to M. Any ideas how this might play out? It's very controlling, but forces a stark choice (until she gets a job.)
I can ask her to leave marital bed until she ends A. Symbolic, yes. Maybe hard to explain to kids - her problem. Again, if she resists, I can't physically remove her from a room.
I can file myself, but she knows that's a bluff. Unless, of course, it isn't (which I won't know myself until more time passes)
So while I agree with you in principle, DB seems to suggest passive behavior in response to A to wait it out, rather than aggressive ultimata where you have little or no leverage, other than the D you don't want.
Please 2x4 me again from a different angle - maybe I'll get it.
Sandi seems to be advising against Sandi's rules, which is why I ask for clarification of the (non-) subtleties of boundaries in conjunction with LRT.
