Don't be more in the R than they are?

[MuddleThrough]

This is a bit of advice (OT through GH) that I have heard batted around a bit here for a while, and I'm not sure I understand it thoroughly. I think it's worth starting a thread to meditate on it.

The idea that I shouldn’t be more in the relationship than is my W is something that I struggle with in my relationship, and have for many months. I have felt that on the one hand I need to maintain my part in the relationship by not allowing the value of it to be lost. Knowing that my actions are not dependant on those of my W, I choose to act kind and lovingly towards her. In so doing, I am concerned that I seem to be directly invalidating my W by showing her that her lack of feeling for me, actually more like her repulsion, mean nothing to me. That I am going to act however I choose to act regardless of her feelings.

So what then is it to be more IN the relationship? Does it mean that I shouldn't allow the relationship to mean more to me than it does to her? As in the personal significance I put on its succeeding? Or is this about action and investment of personal energy? Don't give more than they do? This is where I'm lost. I tend to think it's a bit of both, but the latter seems dangerous to me. I have been told pretty consistently that I don't do enough to show that I love my W. I recognize that she has an agenda in saying this, but the fact is that there's some truth to what she's saying. She's saying that I'm saying that I care about her and she says she doesn't care about me. So she acts accordingly by being cold, distant, mean, etc, and I act nice, wishing her well, etc, but I don't make myself her servant. I'm not willing to sacrifice my dignity or happiness to appease her in order to buy her back.

So essentially, what's being said here is that there needs to be a boundary between the spouse role and the estranged spouse role, and that's where I get a bit lost. In trying to address faults in the relationship and demonstrate that we have done so, I find that I need to stay relatively close to my W and open (don't withdraw from her), which requires a good bit of detachment because being open and close while angry and/or resentful is a recipe for disaster. This seems to me to dictate that the spousal role be maintained, alienating further the estranged spouse a potential consequence. Now, there has to be a limit to how far I extend myself, and I know my limits, but is there an unspoken logic here that says something like "I won't do THAT unless we are in a relationship"? I know for myself that I don’t want to be manipulative in this way, yet this is a point that seems necessary to make. My W must understand that I am capable of being a great partner and also aware that I am choosing, as she is, not to act in that capacity beyond what she is. Confusing when she’s stopped being obviously ambivalent.

This is where the question of pressure comes up. I think my W would be relatively comfortable forever in this situation if I were to completely stop addressing her as a spouse - if I would act towards her like her needs meant nothing to me (this isn't entirely true because of her issues with dependency) - because then she'd have her "proof" that our relationship doesn't exist and that she's doing nothing “wrong” in having this extramarital relationship, thereby enabling her affair. I'm putting some pressure on her in addition to that which she puts on herself just by being forgiving and still being there. My kindness and lack of anger or malicious intent puts pressure on her. Now, I'm not pursuing her, but I make it clear that I have more interest in her and her wellbeing than if she were just an acquaintance. Where should I draw that line? I think a certain amount of pressure IS necessary, because that's the only motivation for change, but pressure also drives her to run.
On the other hand, maintaining the spousal position tends to maintain the sense of imprisonment that the WAW spouse feels. So, the distance is important, allowing them to feel that the decisions they make are theirs alone. Not giving the justifications that they look for, not contributing to their unhappiness in a way that feeds their desire to escape. Perhaps in my situation my relative contentment is something that irks her, that makes her feel bad about herself and her life, and in showing her that I’m happy even while she is walking all over me and destroying our family and life I may be feeding into her own insecurity and inferiority issues. Am I giving her reason to escape herself, to lose herself in another person, someone far away and fantastic because I’m happy and she’s not? This OP who will never know the sides of her that she hides from him, who she will continue to see as the idol worth worshiping, because she never has to see him as a real person, a person with faults.

So I guess the question I ask to you all is where do you draw the line? How much of yourself do you give to the relationship in service action (as opposed to personal improvement)? Where is the line that prevents you from putting yourself out there and being used? How exactly can you not be in an R more than someone who’s walked (or walking) away? Is this just a paradoxical theoretical statement, or is it practical?