Well, I'm assuming that MsDog didn't have any personal hangups at the beginning that caused her to shout inwardly "I don't want this feeling!" so why does it appear now?
I understand what happens from other viewpoints (the newness wears off, biochemical stuff fades, etc) but I was wondering how that factors into the Enneagram. Do the traits of the types of people kinda ebb and flow or do they remain constant? And if they remain constant, why the shift from "I want this feeling" to "I don't want this and I will freak if he tries to make me feel it"...?
Just guessing, but I think HP means, at the beginning of a relationship, when all the newness and excitment is present...how do 1s deal with it. I think my W dealt with it by putting on a facade of being sexual, and somewhat carefree.
But, after awhile, she gave all that up and felt freer to be her repressed self. And then, wrote all that early behavior off to "beginning of the relationship stuff."
This inner shouting isn't really shouting; it's unconscious. Even though in Ms. Dog's case, she IS shouting. The internal resistance that the enneagram book talks about isn't about the kind of boundaries we set up to let a person know what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
When I was quoting before, I left out this paragraph:
Quote: When we truly inhabit our Instinctive Center-- fully occupying our body-- it gives us a profound sense of fullness, stability, and autonomy or independence. When we lose contact withour Essence, the personality attempts to "fill in" by providing a false sense of autonomy.
To give us this false sense of autonomy, the personality creates what psychology calls ego boundaries. With ego boundaries, we are able to say, "This is me and this is not me. That out there is not me, but this sensation (or thought or feeling) here is me." We usually believe that these boundaries correspond with our skin and therefore with the dimensions of our real bodies, but this is not always the case.
This is because we are usually sensing habitual tensions, not necessarily the actual contours of our bodies. We may also notice that we have almost no sensation in some parts of our bodies: they feel blank or empty. The truth is that we are always carrying around a felt sense of self that has little to do with how our body actually is, where it is positioned, or wht we are doing. The set of internal tensions that create our unconscious sense of self is the foundation of the personality, the first layer.
The text goes on to say that ego boundaries are of two types, inward and outward. We come to know what outside of us that is NOT us (for example when we get our hair cut, we know we are not cutting off an essential part of ourselves), and we also come to know that things can be inside us but NOT us (for instance, we know that dreams are ours but not US). So far so good.
The book goes on to say that the 8's ego boundary is primarily focused outward. Eights are constantly putting out energy so that nothing can get too close. [This really applies to my bf.] They are very defensive. They want nothing to penetrate their defenses.
However-- and here's where I picked up the original quote--
Quote: Type 1 individuals also hold a boundary against the outside world, but they are far more invested in maintaining their internal boundary. All of us have aspects of ourselves that we do not trust or approve of that make us feel anxious and that we want to defend ourselves from. Ones expend enormous energy trying to hold back certain unconscious inpulses, trying to keep them from getting into consciousness. It's as if 1's were saying to themselves, "I don't want that feeling!"
etc. So the boundary they're talking about is not a boundary against a possible partner. This ego boundary is something Mrs. Doggie has had since she was a child. It's part of her personality and sense of herself. For the 1, the ego boundary is about not letting certain of their impulses come into their own consciousness. Because the 1 is obsessed with perfection, order, and control, I say these impulses are about humanness, vulnerability, the messiness of life.
The third type in this group that the book calls "The Instinctive Triad" is the 9, who has the externally directed ego boundaries of the 8 AND the internally directed ego boundaries of the 1. What this creates is a a passive-aggressive (as honey correctly pointed out) person who spends a lot of energy resisting reality on both fronts! Sometimes they take the position, as my late H did, of just seeing all points of view and agreeing with everyone (but not DOING much).
Underneath everything, for the 1, 8, and 9 is rage.
Whew! Does this help clarify? (I'm certainly learning a lot!)
I know this thread has turned to enneagram analysis, but unfortunately I don't know anything about that.
But just a quick comment (well maybe not so quick) - Reading back on my previous posts, I'm again struck by my own focus on "normality". Now, we all want to think of ourselves as "normal", but once again I think it ties into my own tendency towards self-righteousness, and I don't like it in myself.
One of the things I value about this BB is how all of us have many similar situations, and so we can learn from each other's experiences. But I also especially value the fact that people on this BB are very respectful of the uniqueness of each person's sitch and his/her feelings about it.
E.g. MrsNOP could be bragging about the fact that she has come such a long way from an LDW in a SSM to a loving partner who does it daily. But she doesn't; she just shows us that it's possible without putting down those who have not yet been able to achieve her success.
Anyway, I see in my own posts a thread of grading myself and others: My thinking often goes: "I used to be worse than average, but now perhaps I'm average or even better". And believe me, if MrDL and I should argue about something and our R declines I can imagine myself bringing that up: "You should be happy about the fact that we now ML at or more than average".
But averages don't really matter; it's how it feels to each individual person and to each couple. And being better than someone else is entirely irrelevant.
Perhaps the concept of "normalcy" may matter if an HD spouse can effectively convince an LD spouse that there are alternative ways of feeling and acting which are enjoyed by a large percentage of people. But if it makes an LD spouse feels defensive or attacked, and it's likely to, then it's just not going to work.
Probably a better approach is that of your MC who pointed out to your W that your marriage is doomed if you don't both spend regular time and care to deal with and resolve issues.
I think you are doing a great job of respecting your wife's issues and handicaps while at the same time continuing to let her know that a better SL is very important to you.
DogLover
P.S. But now I previewed my post, and I will lapse into self-righteousness one more time - wanting sex more than twice a year is an "abnormal expectation"? What is she thinking? I don't know how you get around that one without saying that that is a "normal" expectation of most married men and many if not most married women. Maybe there's a synonym which is less charged and less critical than "normal or abnormal". Would "typical" work?
Quote: DL:
...
Also, I went through a period during which I was trying to prove to her what a "normal" sex life was like. Big mistake. She got very defensive. Claimed I was telling her she was abnormal. Currently, she is in about the same place I was back then; trying to prove her "normality" and show that I have abnormal expectations.
Yeah, right, she'd say. Just another rationalization to try to get me into bed.
...
Hairdog
Last edited by doglover; 07/28/0509:19 PM.
There are many wise, empathetic and funny people here: you are my buddies - I'm grateful for your support.
Quote: I am interested in the Schnarch CDs. Were they just titled "Passionate Marriage" or was it "Secrets of a Passionate Marriage" ? I own the book, of course.
Could I get my W to listen to the lectures? Maybe. Maybe not. It's certainly worth a shot. The only shortcoming is that it's not a lecture by a woman, which would give it more credibility for my W.
HD:
You're right the title, just like the book is "Secrets of a Passionate Marriage." Too bad Schnarch might not be credible to your W just because he is a man. Does she work with any men in her professional life that she finds credible?
One other thought, and closer to this BB, would she consider Michelle's audio book, "Keeping Love Alive?" The testimonials from other women found on the KLA Forum are very positive and say that listening to the CDs is just like having a good friend talking to you in your living room.
You get six CDs for about the price of one MC session.
I like the cd as a back-up to the book but I think the book states the concepts more clearly especially because of the vignettes. I kinda think that the material in it could be a little threatening to your W. She seems threatened by some really mild stuff.
The more that you describe her the more I feel that she is psychologically traumatized in some way. You and the actions that you take play a very miniscule part in her reactions. She is reacting to the gremlin that she sees sneaking up behind you.
I could be wrong about the Schnarch stuff with your W. She is very cerebral so she might enjoy it from that perspective. She could definately use it against you - point out where she sees you as "fused" but it might at least open the dialogue a little more. Lately, your posts have demonstrated much more vulnerability on your W's part. Be the man of steel but try to find the softness in her. It is definately there.
Quote: To this, my W would likely say any or all of the following: 1. That's just sick! 2. ...and wasteful! 3. ...and messy! 4. ...and fattening! 5. ...and you have to use it to frost the cupcakes you're going to make for DD4's treat day tomorrow, for 25 kids, that I didn't tell you that you had to do until just now! 6. ...and tongues are icky! 7. ...and that's abnormal! Married people of our age just do not do those sorts of things! 8. ...and using frosting on my body is a desecration, and symbolizes men's objectification of women's bodies! 9. ...and asking me to spread frosting on your body clearly indicates your chauvinistic desire to force me into the traditional woman's role of mistress of the kitchen! 10. ...and there are starving children in Africa! 11. ...stop pressuring me!
Phew!
I just wrote those in about 3 minutes! Must need to get some aggression out this morning. You know, that typical male aggression, driven by testosterone, the poison.
Sigh
Hairdog
I could tell you stories about how many times my W has turned down the "mixing of oral appetites" as you posted on Geek's thread. but I'm not going to.
Instead, it's like it's sunk in just how far apart you and your W are and how you keep trying to make things right and make things work. "Don't give up, don't give up?"
Instead, I'm wondering if you're ready to shake her up with a 180 or even just trying something new since what you have been doing isn't working. Would you do a 180? would you try something completely different to shake her up?
Does she come across in your R as some kind of Goddess to be worshiped from a distance? Or just someone who has real "issues" that she doesn't want do deal with?
Here's a really tough question. Don't get angry at me for asking, if you please. I wonder if you are having a real hard time with confronting her with any of the suggestions from folks here at the BB or from anywhere else in your life just because it would be too hard to stand up to and take any further rejection from her?
As for me, after all these years, I still fear the rejection and not being good enough to be worth her time. Things have gotten a lot better as time goes by, but previously injected pain DOES have a memory that can paralize us in present tense. I ask these questions from personal experience; not to get on your case.
I think all I am really trying to say here is that when we decide for ourselves that some idea that presents itself to us to try to improve our W and our R and we rule it out without trying it on her, it ALWAYS equals "nothing ventured, nothing gained." If on the other hand, we put it out there where our spouses can try to get it, we do stand a chance that they WILL GET IT. And we will connect, even if its just in a small way.
Here I am preaching to the choir, if YKWIM, "Never give up, never give up." Try something! Try something!!!
It's the weekend, HD, do somehing for the both of you that she would like.
Weber: I used to be very afraid of confronting her, for fear of making her angry. Now, my attitude is, "whatever...she'll be pissed at me for one reason or another. I'm not going to keep quiet and get resentful about it."
I do implement many of the ideas given to me by the SSM board. I no longer fear her rejection, because, well, heck, what's she gonna do? Divorce me? Short of that, I'm already about as rejected by her as anyone can get. Might as well touch that breast...what's she gonna do? Slap it away? Okay.
As Wayne Gretzky said: You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take.
Quote: It's the weekend, HD, do somehing for the both of you that she would like.
This is course, leads me to believe that you just don't "get" her, Weber. The only thing I could do that she would like is to leave her alone. And that, my friend, is not something I can do for "the both of you."
