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?
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. ” – Albert Einstein
Quote: I'm not willing to sacrifice my dignity or happiness to appease her in order to buy her back.
That's the line, isn't it?
My way of summing all this stuff up is that a healthy marriage is one in which two individuals choose to love each other our of their strength. Not "complete" each other (romantic drivel) but complement each other.
In order to do that the two have to be strong individuals first. So if one of you is strong enough, but the other has problems, you have to do what I quoted, but also encourage them to solve their problems the way you would for any friend of either sex.
I think the reason you struggle is because you feel responsible for the entire relationship and for her well-being, and marriage is a covenant of mutual acceptance of responsibility, but if one spouse rejects your fulfillment of that responsibility, doesn't it follow that you still have to uphold your obligations but aren't obligated to appease her just so she'll remain in your presence and throw you a bone occasionally?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. -- Inigo Montoya, 'The Princess Bride'
So does this statement apply only to a healthy marriage? To me, an unhealthy marriage, or a marriage in an unhealthy state is always going to be implicitly unbalanced. One person leans more towards wanting out as a means to gain power and the other hangs on. Clearly one person is more "in" the marriage in the sense that they want it to work on the surface - but I guess both people are invested in the relationship when issues of power come up because they are pursuing power, which can only be gained if the relationship exists.
In response to your point, TL, about the personal responsibilty of an LBS, I agree fully. The trouble is that often the beliefs of each of the spouses regarding what those responsibilities entail are debatable. It's very easy for my W to say that I don't validate her feelings and thereby I'm not living up to my responsibility as her husband when she wants me to support an idea that I don't agree with (utter manipulation in my opinion) while I believe that I am meeting all of my responsibilities as a spouse.
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. ” – Albert Einstein
OT, thanks for jumping in here with this clarification. You really do present a pretty disquieting picture of the dis-service one does themself by acting this way. The availibility issue resounded with me. I think this is where I'm having trouble - I'm pressuring my W just be being there, prepared to be accomodating to her. I don't pursue, I don't think I imply that I want any kind of romantic relationship with her, yet I'm always willing to take care of things. This does imply it. I allow her to expect service from me, and I willingly do things for her.
The trouble is that I get feedback to the opposite: "You don't care about my needs." "You don't get me things that you know I want." "I can't eat because there's nothing in the house that I like to eat." She has a very limited diet because of her aversions, and I am aware of this and accomodate it. I take responsibility for her needs far more than I should, yet in her eyes I do a poor job of this. Her feelings don't matter. I think her feelings are at odds with themself in this situation.
So, in light of this, I question whether I should do less to accomodate her specific needs. It almost seems spiteful to do so, yet I think she would be aware that she's using me at present - which does nothing good for her respect for me.
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. ” – Albert Einstein
Yes, this is a worthy topic for discussion Muddle. I think we all grapple with what often feels like a no-win situation. I believe it comes down to the dynamic going on in each individual R. My line may be different than your line and vise versa. I think what it comes down to is if certain actions on your part are creating discomfort for either party than they must be re-examined. If something works, do more of it and if it doesn't work stop doing it and do something else. The trick is to recognize whether something is working or driving you further apart. That is hard to do considering we all make deductions based on our own emotional filters. Finding which action(s)is the negative one is often the real work here. If I think showing love is cooking dinner every night then it is going to be difficult for me to see that I am maybe pushing my W away by not "allowing" her a role in this activity. I may be isolating her by doing something that I see as loving. I tend to think in your case though, and what do I really know,your W is fully invested in blaming you no matter what you do, so you need to do what you feel most comfortable doing. Lets face it, if you take on getting groceries for her she considers you uncaring for not getting the right stuff and if you don't buy her groceries you are uncaring for not getting her groceries. So, I say, just do what you feel is best for you and the sitch. If you notice a certain action or purchase gets a positive then jump on it if not let it roll off your back. I think the "line" we walk moves frequently and it is never a permanent one. We should never make the mistake of expecting that line to be in the same place tomorrow as it is today. That's my 2 cents anyway.
The question is, does she really know what she wants? When she demands things from you, you assume that's really what she wants, but I think that women sometimes need someone who can tell them "no" and stand up to them. What she may really be doing is "testing" you to see if you're just going to cave, or if you're going to stay in charge of the situation.
The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth." (Psalm 145:18)
To put it very bluntly, I don't think EITHER gender finds a spouse attractive when that spouse is scrambling somewhat pathetically to meet unreasonable demands in a desperate attempt to get something other than venomous spew from the other spouse.
On the other hand, both genders really seem to find self-respect, directness, and healthy boundaries very attractive.
I guess what it comes down to is that if a person is feeling taken advantage of and abused for doing "loving" things for his/her S, then he/she should stop doing those things. It is the emotional effect that is the line here rather than the effect on the sitch. But, of course, if a person is feeling angry and unappreciated then that will certainly flow into whatever actions are taken in the sitch. So I guess it comes down to making yourself happy, that is what is best for the sitch. If one feels disrespected he/she must either choose to ignore it, and live with it, or draw firm boundaries for the other party and live with those consequences/benefits. Does that make sense?
Quote: The question is, does she really know what she wants? When she demands things from you, you assume that's really what she wants, but I think that women sometimes need someone who can tell them "no" and stand up to them. What she may really be doing is "testing" you to see if you're just going to cave, or if you're going to stay in charge of the situation.
Yes, I think there is a fair degree of testing going on. This came up in therapy yesterday - the fact that she's not communicating directly, not taking responsibility for her own needs and then blaming everyone around her in her life (with an extra dose of anger for me) for not noticing or responding to her neediness. She seems to only see an effective response to her neediness as caring (she wants to be rescued from her pain). The importance of boundaries is what I came away from this session with. The trouble for me is that what you call staying in charge of the situation is not really a dynamic I want - staying in charge of my interests in the situation, maybe, but I shouldn't have any responsibility to stay in charge of her interests. To me this is codependency - me doing what's right for her despite her verbalized desire for something else.
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. ” – Albert Einstein
