Quote: If we assume our objective is to save the marriage and put the relationship back on track, does it matter that we do so with two “healthy,” “functional” people or that we do so with two “unhealthy,” “dysfunctional” people? As long as both are happy and there is no buildup of resentment, who cares if the couple is “healthy” and “functional?” My point is that individual health is important, but in my mind, and for purposes of all my comments on this board, I put it secondary to saving the marriage.
I think the reason that you feel this way is because you are putting the needs of your children first. I think this is true for most of the people on this BB. You are rationalizing along the lines of "It's okay if we are unhealthy, unfunctional people as long as we keep it together well enough to aid the personal growth of our children.". I think that this is natural and commendable. However, the downside is that your kids will grow up and then where will you be? Do you keep on keeping it together, muddling along in your mutual dysfunction in order to enjoy holidays together with the Grandkids? Will the freedom from responsibility that comes with an empty nest give both of you the ability to achieve personal growth that will improve your relationship? These are important questions for someone like me who is just a few years from empty nest status but everyone on this BB will have to face them sooner or later.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I hear you and agree. Perhaps I should say that I know this is not a permanent position we want to be in, but it may be good enough for now, to pull this marriage together enough to move forward. In fact, it may be the only hope we have, to accept the flaws we have and help each other heal, knowing that together we can become more functional but that there is a long way to go. So I am not trying to rationalize it as a permanent state, but for now it IS the reality and is as much as we can do.
I am so happy to see a whole lot more of "we" in what you are are saying. There used to be a lot more of "I" and "she".
FWIW - I think the idea of "two healthy differntiated adults" is an ideal - all of us bring a certain amount of dysfunction with us. If we are lucky we bring dysfunctioned that have healed to some degree or another. There are many times when H or myself behave in a way that is so disproportionate to the sitch we will actually say, "Wow honey, that reaction just seems extreme. What does this sitch remind you of or why do you think that is?" It does help. See, I'm not totally against FOO.
Cobra you seem to be getting the results that you want from the methods that you are choosing. While I don't agree with the way that you have been atacking the problem I understand where you are coming from. You seem to be focusing strongly on " breaking " down walls that are due to past trauma I would sugest that you look into the biology of trauma and PTSD. What may be of interest to you would be reasearch into the activity of the amygdala and its role in memory, stress, emotions and sex. As you are creating you own therapeutic model for the treatment of both your own and your wifes issues I sugest that you investigate what is curently known about processes that lie beneath the behaviors.
W is already taking meds for ADD and anxiety. Short of a lobotomy, I don’t know what else can be done from a biological standpoint. Maybe she could meditate (which would probably help her), but the chance of her doing that is slim to none. All the subconscious, reptilian brain reflex reactions are good to understand, but real-life treatment is still the bottom line. All the basic instinctual dysfunctional reactions I have been discussing come from environmental type conditioning (barring some genetic issue), including trauma from her spouse, me. So I think addressing the primary fear or anxiety is actually going to the heart of the limbic system. That is why soothing seems to get such immediate results and stops the cycle.
The book on attachment says that it is common for therapists to diagnose attachment behaviors as more sever disorders, such as bipolar or borderline disorder. They can both manifest in the same irrational behavior. But attachment is not necessarily affected by medication like personality disorders are, and the later are not necessarily lessened by soothing, like attachment disorders are. So I am not sure what more I can do. You got any specific ideas?
If you follow the hyperlinks on this page it will give you a very basic look at some of the pocesses. Of particular interest is the following
"These connections appear to be involved in the process of extinction, whereby a stimulus that triggers a conditioned fear gradually loses this effect. This happens if that stimulus is repeatedly presented to the subject without the unconditional nociceptive stimulus that was initially associated with it to produce the conditioned fear."
So soothing while experiencing a situation that is traumatic would fit.
As far as attachment dissorders I am highly sceptical of them due to my recent readings of Jerome Kagen someone whose ideas you may find though provoking.
From a quick perusal of some articles on Kagan, he seems to be saying that both biology and the environment are important determinants in the development of children. This is just the nurture vs nature argument. I have no quarrel with this view, nor do I see how it negates attachment theory. For instance, my W has the personality to fight when threatened, when her sisters would rather flee. They both were raised in the same environment, so it may be possible that genetics affect their behavior. But even though they react in different ways, they are both traumatized by their FOO.
The manifestations are different. My wife has issues with respect and has always felt the need for more education. Her sister does not care so much for either of these, rather wanting to surround herself with material goods and trying to climb the social ladder and “keeping up with the Joneses.” But both of them have had panic attacks and both are compensating for inner fears and insecurities.
The idea of adult attachment is an offshoot from reactive attachment disorder, a very well documented and studied field, especially pertaining to abandoned, orphaned or traumatized children. The classic studies of baby monkeys and the degree of self confidence they develop due to the level of attachment to their mother is a clear example.
Your quote and Kagan’s work seem to support this, rather than refute it. If people were not adaptable, neither soothing nor acclimation therapy would work, right? Once traumatized, always traumatized. Only in the most severe cases such as PTSD of war veterans or other equally violent events does it seem that soothing, bonding, acclimation or what ever, does not seem to work. For the less severe cases, therapy usually does work.
Furthermore, Susan Johnson says in her book that “normal” people can become traumatized as adults in a dysfunctional relationship. There are plenty of people on this board who can attest to walking on eggshells, afraid of the next explosion by their spouse. These are people who did not exhibit that behavior before marriage, only after the abuse started. These very same people (and their abusers) can be rehabilitated. So yes, people are adaptable. But reversing trauma requires soothing the right hurts in the right way.
Does it really matter whether the biological predisposition to fight or flee comes from a unique structure in the brain? Whether it is a special form of neural pathway or simply “your mother’s genes,” isn’t this all nature (vs. nurture)?
Quote: Furthermore, Susan Johnson says in her book that “normal” people can become traumatized as adults in a dysfunctional relationship. There are plenty of people on this board who can attest to walking on eggshells, afraid of the next explosion by their spouse. These are people who did not exhibit that behavior before marriage, only after the abuse started.
Interesting. The thing that sometimes makes me feel like it is my marriage that is traumatizing me rather than that I brought my trauma to the relationship is that I have never ever been a "crybaby" in any other context in my life. Not as a child, not in school or work environments, not in other relationships, not even in my relationship with my dysfunctional mother. Usually when I face confrontation I either remain cool, calm, collected and good-humored or I fight back. Also, my sister has told me that she thinks that dealing with my H has changed my personality that I used to be much more confrontational myself. We were at a booksale recently(a very tooth and nail competitive environment) and another dealer invaded my "turf" and snatched a book that I was looking at. I reflexively firmly chastized her for her behavior. My sister laughed and laughed because this was behavior more like the big sister she used to know not the wimpy push-over I've somehow become. This is why I've protested when you've presented this vision of me as a nervous,nail-biting,eager-to-please little girl cowed by her angry, manic-depressive mother. I definitely displayed some dysfunctional behavior in my youth in reaction to my mother but it was more along the lines of "F*ck you. I'm going to the roller rink if I want to. If I can't get a ride, I'll hitchhike and probably score some free weed from the driver 'cause I look pretty hot in my new jeans."
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
IMO, I think the difference you describe between your childhood and your marriage is more common than not for marriages in trouble. Think about it… as a kid, you did as many kids do, locked in a power struggle with a parent, often out of anger at one or both parents because the child’s needs were not being met. Rather than withdraw, you fought. As I kid, I withdrew.
Now as an adult, your needs are still not being met, but the needs are different. Intimacy and sexuality force you to expose vulnerabilities and the tender side of yourself. It makes sense to me that you would cry after exposing this part of yourself. It makes sense to me that my wife does not cry (as high as your walls are, I think my wife’s are even higher).
Both you and I have felt like we were walking on eggshells at one time. In hindsight, I can see that for me to do something like that says a lot about how much I wanted to make the marriage work, how much I wanted to avoid unnecessary fights to preserve some level of intimacy. I think the amount a person walks on eggshells relates to the level of “desperation” within that person to get the intimacy s/he desires. This desire holds us hostage to ourselves. No wonder we cry.
The offsetting balance is that our spouse does his/her own form of distancing, whatever that may be, including anger and yelling. I can see that my walking on eggshells was detestable to my W, even though it seemed as if that is what she wanted. She tried to intimidate by being tough, but what she really wanted was for me to be tough.
I am starting to see many times when she made a statement that I think was really a projection of what she wanted from me. For instance, if she complains that I am controlling her, I am now seeing in her words that she DOES want me to control things, maybe not her per se, but the uncertainty that frightens her. So the ideas of Blackfoot and Dieda are slowly starting to sink in.
I am turning tossing around an idea with regard to your Grand Unification Theory of value/validation about trying to find the right “mix” of value/validation. Maybe all we have to do is listen to the “projections” made by our spouse, that they are actually telling us exactly what the right mix should be. The task is in hearing them right and decoding their words. Of course it would help if they had enough of a clue to just tell us straight out.
__________________________________________________________ I am starting to see many times when she made a statement that I think was really a projection of what she wanted from me. For instance, if she complains that I am controlling her, I am now seeing in her words that she DOES want me to control things, maybe not her per se, but the uncertainty that frightens her. So the ideas of Blackfoot and Dieda are slowly starting to sink in. _________________________________________________________
This one reminds me of a Schnarch thing too. Very often our SO is not trying to control us but rather, to control themselves.
