I am about 90 pages into my reading assignment (Passionate Marriage) and I have a clearer idea of what the book is about. As I read, I really like what it is saying and relate a lot to the examples he gives.
One thing that strikes me so far is this idea that being "best friends" or TOO close can actually do more harm than good. That is an interesting prospect, one I'm sure he'll go into much more.
I posted this because I see (and have posted many times) a lot of people today talking about being best friends with their spouse while I am reading this book advocating something different.
GH, I'm not too familiar with the DUI sitch....I'm assuming that it stemmed from her fog days of the A and stuff? Which is why you've been staying out?
If she asked you to go tomorrow, go for support. Be what she needs tomorrow....as you have already pointed out, it's rough facing something like that, knowing that you got lost but made a lot of pricey mistakes in the process, things so out of character for yourself (meaning W). It's gotta be embarrassing, etc....the fact she wants you there means she trusts your opinion, etc. That means a lot.
You've been quite compassionate, understanding and patient, and I have no doubt you will be the same tomorrow.
Oh, I am not wondering if I shoud go, I know I should. I am really asking about fighting these things versus no contest.
As for me going, she knows I have take a LOT of time off lately for her sake and so she didn't really ask me to go. She did mention that she wishes there was some way I could go to which I said nothing. I wanted to see if I could and when I found that I could, I told her. She was tenative because again, she KNOWS it is a big deal for me to take more time off work but when I assured her it was ok, she was VERY appreciative. This is something I feel I need to do for our family's sake because there are big decisions to be made, that will impact us all and she wants me to be involved in helping her make those decisions. It will be a stressful, but all-in-all, good thing.
Hi GH, Well your long posts are always good posts, so thanks for sharing. I want you to know that I actually think you did really well yesterday. You have self-assessed in less than 24 hours, and in fact, on the very same day you were able to let it go and have a great day at Disneyland. Somehow I think the old GH would have punished W and himself a bit longer... Pickled himself in the ugly juice. Instead you pulled it together, had fun for the remainder of the day. Everyone has bad days, everyone is human. What matters is what you did and what you learned. All good news GH.
I am glad you are going with your W tomorrow to the lawyer's. If the lawyer is a good lawyer and you trust him/her, go with a combination of your intuition and his/her advice. The lawyer will know the local trends and typical consequences of the choices are, and how best to work the system. My thoughts will be with you for a positive outcome.
PositivelyListening ************************************** When one door of happiness closes, another one opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us. - Helen Keller
Don't beat yourself up over one little slip up. Realize that even though you were a pain in the a$$ it was not the same old you, or even your same old W.
I see a lot of positives. First, you realized your behavior was unacceptable and were able to recover. Second, your W did not allow herself to be baited into the argument. You can't expect things to be perfect. You're still learning and need to practice how you argue a few times before you will be really be able to modify your behavior.
Thanks ladies and gents. I think things went ok. I just wish that most primal, most blatant of my issues, i.e. my passive/aggressive pouting didn't surface. I really thought those days were behind me. It's like an alcoholic waking up with a drink to his lips.
As for the lawyer thing today, well, no, in my estimation, he is NOT good. So far, everything has gone against my W and of course, in the beginning he said based on her case, there was NO WAY any of this would happen. He said there was NO WAY she would be kept out of a 1st time offenders/pre-trial diversion program and she was. There was NO WAY they would not grant her an extended temporary licence, and instead they took her licence away for 30 days. Every worst case scenario he tells W about comes true and now he wants to go to trial? I am thinking "no contest" is looking pretty good right now. We'll see after the meeting today. We are going to see the evidence, including the video of W's field sobriety test and we'll make a decision about what do to. We just have NO confidence in this lawyer and both from a financial and time standpoint we don't really have a choice but to stick with him now.
We have gotten a second opinion from my BIL who is a VERY good lawyer and he says the same thing as our lawyer, that this SHOULD be an easy case to win but...
On the home-front, I read a few more pages of Passionate Marriage. This is pretty good stuff. I think Mama, you read it, right, or was that NM? Anyway, yes, it is a pretty tough read but I am getting a lot from it. The basic premise is similar to detachment. The idea is that the more "differentiated" we are, or "detached" the closer we are able to be with our partner, in a healthy, good way. The more "enmeshed" we are, or emotionally fused with our partner (codependent) the more we are actually apart from them, in terms of healthy bonding. It gets complicated in a way, but really it just comes down to learning to fully be your own person, able to withstand the emotional flame of another without burning up. I am still only in the first parts of the book, and I suspect he meat of it is still to come, but I am understanding now something that has eluded me for a long time. I always tried to figure out OT's litmus test, how she figured out what behavior was acceptable (not that she's god or anything) and what behavior was in need of correction. I now see the line and am starting to understand more about how to tell good from bad in terms of this theory of differentiation. It is a fine line, and I think VERY easy to misunderstand, which is why OT's advice is often insightful AND sometimes confusing but almost always makes sense when you consider it.
OT, thank you for this recommendation. You knew it would help me understand a lot more about my issues and it surely has, even in the first few pages.
Re the *incident* -- hey, in my book, expressing some anger over the couch thing is better than nothing. WTF was she thinking? How could she treat you that way??? I'm glad you apologized for how you expressed the anger rather than the anger itself, lol. It was a very inappropriate choice for her to make. Maybe even PA on her part. Yes, you could have been more direct about not wanting it to happen in the first place. Then again, you SAID you weren't comfortable with it, while refusing to make the decision for her. That doesn't seem to be like such a bad thing.
Anyway, I'm glad you are liking the book. I think you can think of the recommendation not to be best friends as a recommendation not to be joined at the hip and totally enmeshed. You seem to have gotten that from it as well.
I'm sorry that the DUI case is not looking great. It might, though, help to simply acknowledge to yourself that drunk driving is not acceptable and should have significant consequences. It sucks maybe that some people luck out and get off too easy. It would have been nice if your W had gotten lucky. But, what she did was really not OK. I know it makes life harder, but poor choices have consequences. It is easy to feel alot of anger and rage when these bad consequences follow bad choices, but much of that is likely projection because the anger is really toward the original bad choice and its maker...
I doubt your W would take very kindly to you sharing such a perspective, but it may help you through this.
Quote: Re the *incident* -- hey, in my book, expressing some anger over the couch thing is better than nothing. WTF was she thinking? How could she treat you that way???
Well, what she was thinking was that OM's brother is in a very real way (to her anyway) responsible for her ending the affair and I think she wanted to repay him for that. That is also why she took the approach with me that it should be ok with me for us to give him the couch, because he helped "us" so much. Of course, I just can't seperate OM from OM's brother and as someone from that "sitch" in her life, I have immediate and harsh feelings, no matter how much he may have actually been the "good guy" and helped her.
Anyway, it's done now and truly in the past. We have more important things to deal with.
Quote: Anyway, I'm glad you are liking the book. I think you can think of the recommendation not to be best friends as a recommendation not to be joined at the hip and totally enmeshed. You seem to have gotten that from it as well.
This is the part that I am getting the most from. I am really starting to understanding detachment (which is what differentiation is to me) in a new way through the author's more in-depth approach to explaining it.
Quote: It might, though, help to simply acknowledge to yourself that drunk driving is not acceptable and should have significant consequences.
Actually, W and I do acknowledge this and I have said it often to her when we are discussing it. She agrees that what she did was wrong and IF she was legally drunk driving, then she would accept the punishment. She has no qualms about that. I don't judge her but I have stated many times that she could very well be guilty of the charges but as a person with only one ticket, for going 74 in a 65, in her life, it seems reasonable that there is room for giving her the benefit of the doubt. In terms of her case, the issue is that she did take a BAL test and it posted close to the legal limit but still above. Almost everyone involved with her has commented that it seemed silly for the cop to even have arrested her. Her lawyer actually got the test thrown out (don't know it that's a good thing or not). Anyway, I guess the dispute in her case is that her field sobriety test looks really good (we'll see for ourselves today) and she MAY not have been "drunk" driving. I know drinking at all is bad when you drive, but as I said way back when in my original posts about this, I really didn't think she had more than one and a half glasses before she left and that was at least an hour before she went. She is small so I'm sure it IS possible for her to have been over the limit but so too is it possible she wasn't.
There just seems to be a lot of legal wrangling going on here and I want to see if, in the eyes of the law, the evidence against her is enough to convict her. If not, maybe we let the lawyer take it to court and take our chances. Right now it's just so hard to figure out what to do.
GH, good luck with the laywer today. I will be interested in the results because as you know my H comes home drunk all the time after his little rendevous and it is only a matter of time before he gets caught.
Anyway, regarding your "episode" - it comforts me to see that even the best DB'er here can fall off the wagon - and I'm not trying to be mean - but as you know I fall off quite a bit and then beat myself up about it for days. We are all human, so I'm glad to see that you got over it and ended up having a nice time as I did this past weekend as well.
P.S. I finished PM, I found it very repetive and confusing but I did figure out that you cannot be so dependent on your spouse for your happiness. I think I will have to go back and re-read it with a highlighter this time.
