Heather, I again think that what you guys are battling over is the top of the ice berg, fighting over ice chips, and without getting professional counseling in order to grasp the issues better and for each of you to better understand the processes inside both of yourselves, that there'll be many more of these spurious tangent driven arguments/discussions that never really address the real issues. I'll give you some for instances.
H makes very plain his belief that your sister, primarily, and your family may effect an undesirable influence on you. An influence that he also characterizes as being prejudiced against him, and in your favor. Specifically, that your past actions are condonable.
So, he seeks to control the visitation with sis and family so as to curtail their interactions with you, such as by wanting to stay at a cottage rather than with them and seeking to have the final OK over where and when you go out during the visit. And so your discussions with him become these reasoning arguments over why you should or shouldn't have Nth degree of interaction with family, how family is pro Heather, that family's attitude sucks, that H sees "problems" brewing, divorce ahead, etc.
But these aren't really the issues. These are Don Quixote's windmills.
H trying to make your relationship work by trying to control family's influence on you goes to show just how badly in need of help he is.. and you too. Seeking to improve from the outside by cutting third party influences that which can only be improved from the inside via the primary partners.
Part of his issue also is that this is a power struggle as to who's right and who's wrong... and he wants to be proved right and have people support his side.
All this is "Control". That's how H goes about trying to keep his world in order. You know it, I know it, everyone on this site knows it. H doesn't know it.
If H actually worked on the relationship in a productive manner, others, like family, might see the difference in the repaired relationship and take note of its improvement and not be critical of it. That would be the answer to changing how family sees H.
Some other stuff I'm seeing:
Quote: I said "H, they don't think what I did was fine. No one in my family thinks that. But they do think that the only way to go forward is to work it out rather than continue to harbor grudges and dispense punishment.
He said "But you've never been sorry to me. Why don't you try being sorry and then we can talk about how I've reacted."
H is saying, "I'm harboring grudges and dispensing punishment because I haven't received an apology in the form I want."
Not that even if you gave him that exact apology might he stop his behaviors, mind you.
His statement also implies that any "higher ground" behavior coming from him is contingent on you first... I'll be good if you're good... and that's not love. Love doesn't hold grudges and critically punish.
Quote: I said "H, I am sorry." He said "No you're not, you've even said to me 'I can't be sorry to you'."
Don't we know better than to say we know what the other person truly is thinking and feeling? We learn that to tell another person what their thoughts/feelings are is invalidative, demeaning and... yep... a form of control.
It's also disturbing that H dismisses your apologies, argues against them. Why? Is it in order to remain being the hurt partner, and in so doing, create a never ending obligation on your part to make it up to him by doing what he says?
Quote: "but H you kicked me out of my home, took away my key, you kept my kids from me and wouldn't let me feed or dress them, you harassed me to the point countless times where I was curled up in a ball crying and begging you to stop, you've called me names and screamed at me to get out to go sleep in my car....a person's heart gets hardened, do you understand that?"
He said "Do you honestly think I overreacted?"
Interesting that he sees this litany of his actions and their impact on you as "over reacting" but doesn't admit it, instead throwing the question back at you so as to start a argument over whether what he did was over the top or not. And so he does:
Quote: He said "you're kidding. Heather, people have *killed* their wives for cheating."
Over reacting, he goes on to reason, is when someone actually kills their spouse. By comparison, he reasons that the list of his abuses is acceptable or tolerable, because they don't meet his extreme definition of "over reacting".
Don't you think a more responsible response to hearing that list should be, "Geez Hun, my anger got the best of me. I'm so sorry. I hurt you badly. I shouldn't have acted that way toward you. It won't happen again" rather than an argument condoning it?
The typical abusive partner does not see the consequences of their actions as it affects others, but sees the consequences of their actions as it affects them and passes the blame for it to others. Here, his actions have had you in a fetal position, crying, hardening your heart, and what he then focuses on is that what he did wasn't that bad, rather than the crippling toll it took on his loved one.
Yet, as you know, he has no problem being the hurt, begrudging victim of Heather's previous actions, and lets you know that every time. And even when you offer an apology, he won't accept it... doesn't work with that to put these issues behind.
And of his own accord, he won't, Heather. Never will. And so your discussion with him ends with him saying, yet again, "I don't believe you're sorry."
He said "And how are we supposed to rebuild trust then?" and I said "By me being understanding that things don't go back immediately to the place they were, but that we take steps slowly to eventually get back there".
Your answer was that trust takes time to rebuild, but didn't answer how. Husband thinks that trust is rebuilt by chaperoning (and controlling), but we know all that means is (and this is not meant as a reflection on you, but just as a general statement about chaperoning) that the "offender" simply doesn't engage in unethical conduct while being directly observed, duh. And that doesn't rebuild trust.
Trust is built with actions, and over time. If you're genuinely being faithful, no evidence of breach will be found; anything that seems like it will be proven to be otherwise. Along the way, lots of reassurance is needed to be given the LBS, and transparency of the WAS's whereabouts, so that if the LBS begins to doubt, they can check and call and relieve their doubts. Some WASs complain about this, but if someone's really sincerely interested in repairing what was shattered... This sucks for everyone, not just the WAS, but you know, we undergo operations that cut us and cause pain, in order to heal and be made better. Same stuff.
But eventually, a degree of trust is rebuilt that way.
But trust is more than that. Has to be. Blind trust isn't what we want. We need to build a trust that trusts in ourselves, as the former LBS, that we'll pay more attention to the relationship and the needs of our lover. That we'll do what we need to do to make things work. That we have confidence in ourselves. And if our relationship does fail, if this ever happens to us again, we are strong and will be OK.
Now, true to course, H fights against this mode of building trust because he has to have it his way or the highway. All you can do is help guide him to understand why he may feel that way, which stems from his past not his present. When you discuss things with him, keep on topic instead of all these tangents he throws at you. Do not move forward in your discussion if he does so. Otherwise these barbs will continually be thrown at you... discussions that never go anywhere and thus are never fruitful. When he states a premise to you, suss out what the real argument is and reason on that with him. If he brings up past grudges or points blame, tell him the discussion doesn't include that and the discussion is over if that's what he wants to do with it.
In other words, you need to set certain boundaries on how these discussions will go.
