Keep Wearing Wedding Band? [Thread #2]

[CT1118]

To be clear, your W isn't both WW and MLC. It just cannot be done. Yes, MLCers can be WAS, but not WW.

I trust that you have read up Sandi's threads on WW.

Wonka,
I hadn't thought of it that way. I can understand why you would take this position. I can tell that you are really serious about this, but I may need a bit more time to think about it, yet I do have to say I feel differently.

Kidding, hope you took it as such, you are a master. Must bring 2x4 out though.

Seriously - Wonka major respect for you, learned much from you, but- have got to disagree.

WAS is the walk away spouse who does not leave the M for another man. So, yes, the MLC may not be leaving for the OM, an OM does not have to be present for an MLC to occur, but w/ many MLC's another partner is present and that makes the difference between a WAW MLC and a WW MLC. Here is the opening from Sandi's differential in the HW assigned to all newbies by Cadet:
Sandi2:
"I have started using the term wayward when posting about a wife involved in an A. Mainly b/c I feel that there is a major difference in the heart of a woman who does not have sights on another man and leaves the M for other reasons .....compared to the heart of one who has eyes for another man or who wants to conduct herself as though she were some wild, single girl looking for fun. It came to my attention some time back that there was some confusion, and I personally think it has to do with these two different women."

An OM/OH can and will often be a portion of the MLC just as easily as the ILBNILWY statement, the feeling of no love for the H from the start, and the M was wrong can be germane statements for both WAW and WW. These symptoms may overlap and be components of each; no differently than someone can be bipolar w/ suicidal idealization or be bipolar w/out suicidal idealization. There is an overwhelming amount of data showing that MLC often involves an OM/OW and that it was a contributor to the W/H being wayward. Yes, I agree w/ you the impetus was a mental disorder we know as MLC which included or did not include an A as but one symptom among many, but I contest you find many MLC research results which have an A listed as a normal and likely symptoms.

That said, your list of true MLC was correct. My WW has most of what you put below and then some. However, one does not require 10:10, 9:10 or even 8:10 symptotms to be categorized as all in or all out, the statistical break is usually around 30% to be in a club. I posted on a thread where my WW was absent of many if not most of the true A WW characteristics and why I believe she is MLC, but she is also definitely in an A, which definitely played a role in our S (albeit not as great of a role as her childhood, youth behavior, and escapism did), which meets Sandi's def. of the WW. Overlap exists by definition of symptoms. I agree, I do not think ForGump's WW is also MLC by way of his description(s).

Regardless of a WW, WAS, or MLCer, the underlying DBing principles applies to all three situations. The only difference is, in my view, that the WW needs a firm hand and a strong set of personal boundaries to head off their god-awful rebellious behaviors. Those WWs need to feel a real, genuine loss of the M *FIRST* before they are jolted out of their wayward mindset.

MLCers, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the loss of the M because they desperately WANT to escape the M and need a lot of time to work through their unresolved issues from their childhood/teenage years. Which is why many vets over in the MLC caution DBers that it could take years and years before they come out of MLC. Sadly, in some cases, they remain stuck and never come out of MLC.

This is true, which is why on my thread I spoke to changing my game up. My WW's childhood rules her day, and I speak heavily to the fact that she has claimed A means nothing, is BS, etc - repeated it many times, but she is still in an A, still meets WW definition as I first understood it here, per Sandi's distinction in my HW.

In short, WW and MLC cannot co-exist. It is not scientifically or biologically possible at all.

There is no scientific definition of WW. It has been stated here many times that the term was created on this board. Sandi speaks to that, she mentioned it on one of my threads a few days ago. I would loosely lend scientific license to WAW as MWD is a master's degree in social work who performed research on the condition, but do feel that is a stretch. MLC however is a well studied physiological disorder as it deals with brain functions and psychologically in terms of the interaction with the worldly experience around it combined with how those brain will process said interactions. As I understand, WW is a term assigned to indicative behavior for a person who has left their partner to become involved in a non-marital relationship w/ another - WAW is a term assigned to indicative behavior for a person who has left their partner for reasons homogeneous to that specific relationship alone. MLC is a medically classified brain disorder incumbent to the way some human brains process the natural human life sequence of reaching an understood point between birth and death which may include a gambit of symptoms that could or could not mimic those attributes associated with what we know here as WAW and/or WW. The WW and WAW are merely traits affiliated with certain behavior characteristics in a given situation while the MLC is abnormal response to a normal physiological process - coexistence is scientifically possible.

All that said, I feel like you and I just cut a single hair down the middle. Hope you know its all for understanding and its all for knowledge. Plus I got the feeling you have forgotten more about DB than I will ever retain. Thanks Wonka.