Sorry to hear about your accident. I hope you are feeling better. Don’t let this emotional turmoil cloud your senses, especially in your line of work. I understand your anger when these things happen, but you do know that is self defeating, don’t you?. An accident is an accident and it is no one’s fault. But for you to get so angry with yourself only throws you off balance and open to more accidents. So take it as a warning, but one to be thankful for not angry for.
In reading your comments here and on Heather’s thread, I get the strong impression that you have not read Schnarch. Tsk, tsk, tsk…. You are doing yourself a disfavor. A “like new” copy of the book is only $10 on Amazon. Put in you order today.
Your statement (within the quote of my statement):
(husband and wife will be enmeshed. its unavoidable, and is not a negative aspect.)
is not Schnarchian. Enmeshment means requiring your spouse to reflect back to you the image you have of yourself. If the spouse does not do this, then an enmeshed person experiences tension, anxiety, anger, etc. Schnarch’s example of hugging till relaxed explains this very well. When two people hug while standing, but with feet distant from one another so that they must lean together in an “A frame” configuration, there is a certain sense of security because they depend on each other, they support each other, they hold one another up. This is the enmeshment you speak of.
The problem is that if one has to shift positions to scratch and itch or something, the other can be thrown off balance. That other person can get upset because s/he may lose his/her balance, or maybe even fall. This demonstrates the danger in depending on your spouse for support of your self image and how arguments arise because the spouse is not doing “his/her share” or dropping “his/her responsibilities.” If instead the two people learn to hug in an upright position, each balancing themselves, but still hugging (i.e., still maintaining the emotional contact, the caring and love), any shift by one person is of little consequence to the other. The other just stands patiently until the spouse finishes scratching the itch and settles down. Then the hug can continue and the sharing of lives can go on out of choice, not dependence. This is interdependence, not enmeshment. So enmeshment is NOT an unavoidable aspect of marriage and it can be very negative and destructive.
They are enmeshing themselves with a different person, becuase of a perceived (true or not) lack in the SO ability to sooth there need, desire, want. Even despite the pain of loss(withdrawal), guilt, etc.
The above example should also explain why I take issue with this statement. One should not depend on the spouse for soothing. The spouse can and should provide comfort and empathy from a position of love, but ultimately each person must depend on him/herself for comfort. I have seen some confusion on this board regarding this concept. This does not mean you find love and satisfaction within yourself to the point you do not need a spouse. That is impossible. What is meant is that you find it within you to control your fears and anxieties so that you do not contribute to an escalation of tension that might lead to a fight. We all still need to feel love and caring from someone else. Lil’s examples from “Come to Your Senses” is EXACTLY what this is all about. Once you can do this self soothing, you are in a position to give and receive the love and attention from the spouse without the presumption or condition that creates problems.
Schanrch calls this self soothing “holding onto yourself.” It is especially important (and maybe the most important) for troubled marriages. Holding onto yourself and not retaliating will stop the cycle of escalation. During high stress, each partner must focus on themselves and usually loses the ability to sooth the other. If both persons have come to expect soothing from one another, this sudden lack of support will quickly degenerate into accusations that the other person is being selfish, that they do not care for you, that they are forsaking the marriage, etc. If each person can turn inward for self soothing, this cycle will not start and the crisis can be handled better.
And when a typical (for the most part psych healthy) woman has an affair, its becuase you no longer have a very high biological value too her. So she really doesnt care how you respond. (thats pretty differentiated) Shes got a replacement lined up. At least thats how their feelings are driving them.
The problem I have with jumping too much into the biological needs camp is that there are studies that have shown women who are given security and comfort in a marriage may still feel the need to be promiscuous, more so than men. I believe studies have shown this behavior in primates as well. I don’t know why monkeys do this, but I suspect women do it because of FOO issues. So simply being the perfect alpha male is not sufficient in my opinion to making the W fully satisfied in a marriage. If she has FOO issues, the most alpha of males will not satisfy her.
Now, to your personal conflicts….
Ah... but to what point does the BF rule extend to. Friends with benefits? Dating for 1 year? Living together for 5 years?...... Pretty much a 21st century marriage IMO. So if thats acceptable, why not married women? Just a POP. The unhappy ones are just looking for a way out, Right? or maybe get there H's attention. or just a side fling. So why not use my skills and offer them that apparent out? I was rationalizing, and spiraling down.
I see this as a consequence of too rigid black & white thinking. Remember, such rigidity is to maintain a feeling of control over chaotic situation… a form of self soothing. I think the answer to what you’re struggling with is somewhere in the gray area. The criteria should not be simply whether a woman wants out of a relationship or not. If you find a perfectly healthy, functional, aware woman who only needs a little push, some incentive to leave the relationship, then you might have found something good.
OTOH, it is more likely they want out because they are really very dysfunctional, have a ton of baggage they do not want to acknowledge, and are best left alone. There is a reason the divorce statistics on second marriages are so high.
Your comment “So why not use my skills and offer them that apparent out?” is a little self serving. Why would you want to rescue someone in this situation? What could you possibly gain, except for adoration and worship? Those are enticing rewards but they will leave you flat on your face. Getting involved with someone who does not have the strength to make a clean break from their relationship is playing with fire.
I think this is a good example of the contradictions and weakness of a purely biological needs approach. I think your confusion is from trying to make sense of a belief that I think is only partially valid. There is value to honor, integrity and commitment. But biological needs do not recognize this. Go read Schnarch. I think it will clear up a lot of things for you.
