Wow, definitely keep this up. Can't wait to hear what happens next. Bottom line...she has to understand that intimacy is a normal part of a happy, functional marriage...she can either work on it or not. I think she knows you aren't backing down this time...
Good for you! No matter what happens Mrs. HD now suspects you are serious. She rarely backpedals. Denying what she meant by "gritted teeth" is a HUGE backpedal. No matter what happens you can be proud of yourself for being forthright and not backing down.
Fearless,
Yeah - H actually is a pretty good guy for a BUCKEYE. I did not manage to stay up for the whole game but of course, H did. I figure I'm entitled to some victory sex because at least I support Ohio State when they aren't playing my team!
How did I feel? It ranged from confident to scared to hopeless to calm, to hopeful. At any moment, it could change instantly. When she upped the ante after my 180 (canceling credit card, etc.) was probably the bottom of the whole emotional roller coaster. Instead of backing off, or escalating it further, I took a breath and decided to confront her with, what I felt was her "one foot out the door, all along" way of dealing with our R.
She just sent me a long article on non-violent communication which has some good stuff in it. Dare I quote it in full here? Oh, sure:
Quote:
Unlike traditional models of argument, debate, and right and wrong, Nonviolent Communication helps get disconnected conversations back on a loving, empathic track where everyone's needs are more likely to get met.
As I mentioned at the beginning, most arguments center around "the truth." "The truth" usually gets described in terms of what "is," or how things "are" or "ought to be." You are, or are not, wrong, bad or hideous. This is, or is not fair, just or sustainable. We are or are not behaving like a couple ought to, like friends should, or as humans are capable of.
One brilliant way to avoid an argument is never to say anything that can be argued with. A quick and easy way to do this is to stop using any form of the verb "to be."
When we stop talking about what "is," what's outside, we're left with what's going on inside our sweet selves, in this moment. NVC helps us do this. I can't argue with what you see, feel, need and request, because it's inside you.
Most people understand the four-step NVC model quite easily. Putting it into practice usually presents more challenges. This is because we're used to speaking English, not NVC.
We're used to evaluating instead of observing, conveying interpretations instead of feelings, putting forth strategies instead of needs, and making demands instead of requests. In Marshall Rosenberg's words, we're trained to speak in Jackal instead of Giraffe.
Jackal represents how we've been taught to communicate. It is a language low to the ground, designed to get others to do what we want, or else get bitten. Giraffe represents compassionate communication. A giraffe has the largest heart of any mammal, a long neck for seeing the big picture, and treats others with gentleness. It takes much practice and a strong intention to replace Jackal with Giraffe. Most of what surrounds us pulls us back again and again into Jackal.
Here is a breakdown of one form of Giraffe, the basic NVC model of observations, feelings, needs and requests, followed by a more detailed explanation:
Observation: When I.(see, hear, notice) Feelings: I feel (sad, hurt, angry, confused, curious) Needs: I need (empathy, respect, connection, recreation, peace) Requests: I would like you to (doable request)
OBSERVATION: "WHEN I.(see, hear, notice)"
An observation looks or sounds much like what a newspaper reporter or broadcast journalist might report: just the who, what, when, where. We use the "how" with care since it invites interpretation, and stay away from the "why" entirely, since that's all interpretation. Most often English speakers use evaluations and interpretations instead of pure observation.
Here are some evaluations and interpretations, along with their translations into observations:
EVALUATIONS
OBSERVATIONS
When you yelled at me
When I heard your tone of voice.
You're not taking responsibility.
When I hear you say that.
You treated me like [censored].
When I saw you turn away from me and heard nothing from you all of last night.
Why is the "when" important? It anchors the observation, and everything that comes after it, in a specific moment or instance. Otherwise, many times conversations can center round "how things are in general," which again, locates the speaker at a fictional outside point, once again inviting argument. In other words, if you look at the statements in the left "evaluations" column, they could all be argued, since "yelling," "taking responsibility" and "treating like [censored]" represent an interpretation of an event from the outside looking in.
On the other hand, the statements in the "observations" column recall one person's perception of something that happened. I can't argue that you heard my tone of voice, something I uttered (even I recall saying something different) or saw me turn away and heard nothing from me. These things don't mean that I spoke in a given tone of voice, said a particular thing, or acted in a certain way-they mean that the speaker experienced these things. In fact, in an NVC conversation, sharing conflicting observations can help dissipate a conflict before it starts. For example, in response to the third observation, I might offer some information: "Did you know that I took my medication that knocks me out, and also had on earplugs last night?" Maybe you didn't.
An observation sounds like, "Yesterday, at 7PM Pacific time, I saw a man in a long yellow coat enter a burning house and exit with a small black box," not "That criminal stole my jewelry!" Yes, you're talking as objectively as possible, in some ways as "outside" of yourself as possible, yet you're still locating your perception within yourself. You said, "I saw." not "he was." Whether you saw a hologram, a hallucination or a human being, your statement invites little argument, since you described what you saw, from inside you, not what "was," from outside of yourself.
FEELING: "I FEEL .(fill in the blank with a word describing a feeling)"
A feeling is a one-word (or phrase) description of our inner emotional state. Feelings include sadness, happiness, excitement, relaxation, curiosity, anxiety, and much more. Feelings happen on the inside of us. Most times, however, when people say how they feel, we don't really express the feelings inside them. Instead, perhaps to avoid getting hurt, we attach interpretations, analyses or stories to sentences beginning with "I feel."
A clue to when we're doing this is when we say "I feel that." or "I feel like." These are not feelings; they're interpretations, or stories about what "is."
STORIES/INTERPRETATIONS
FEELINGS
I feel like you're ignoring me
I feel angry
I feel that this is going nowhere
I feel despairing and hopeless
I feel that you're abusing me
I feel sad, and scared
I feel like this is the same conversation over and over
I feel frustrated
But what about the actual events that catalyzed the feelings above? These can still be described in NVC. Let's return to them.
STORIES/INTERPRETATIONS
FEELINGS
I feel like you're ignoring me
When I called you and did not hear you respond, I felt angry.
I feel that this is going nowhere
When I notice how long we've been talking without reaching an agreement, I feel despairing and hopeless.
I feel that you're abusing me
When you struck my arm, I felt sad, and scared.
I feel like this is the same conversation over and over
When I hear us having a conversation that sounds similar to recent ones, I feel frustrated and afraid of stagnating.
NEED: "I NEED. (fill in the blank with one the basic human needs)"
Needs are things all human beings require to flourish, such as food, cooperation, respect and connection. We most confuse needs with strategies. A strategy is a means for fulfilling such a need. People usually confuse their needs with the strategies they'd like to use (or more likely, they'd like someone else to use) to get their needs fulfilled. A good clue to tell when we're confusing needs with strategies is when we say we need someone or something TO DO SOMETHING IN PARTICULAR.
STRATEGY
NEED
I need you to stop yelling at me
I need peace, and respect
I need you to be a better partner
I need connection and nurturance
I need this to change right now
I need love and fulfillment
I feel like this is the same conversation over and over
I feel frustrated
Needs are never connected to anyone doing anything in particular. This means you are not responsible for fulfilling anyone else's needs, nor are they responsible for fulfilling your needs. Ironically, when we release others from blame, guilt, shame and obligation for not fulfilling our needs, they become more likely to want to do things that do fulfill our needs.
NVC is not about getting others to do what we want, but creating conditions in which everyone's needs get met. When we ask someone else to meet our needs, the request is always followed by "if it meets your needs."
REQUEST: "SO I WOULD LIKE." "WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO."
A request is when we ask someone to do something to help us get our needs met. Requests often get confused with demands. A demand is when we don't believe we or the other people in question have any choice but to do things a particular way. In other words, a demand attaches us or others to a particular strategy. In reality, for any give human need, multiple strategies may help fill that need.
DEMAND
REQUEST
Give me that right now.
Would you be willing to hand that to me?
I've got to use your car because mine's in the shop.
I would like to take your car to the appointment, would this meet your needs?
This is all or nothing.
I'd like you to tell me if you'd be willing to walk the dog on Mondays.
If you don't start being a better (wife, husband, son, daughter), you're going to drive me to drink.
Would you be willing to have a family dinner with all of us once a week, on Mondays, starting next Monday at 6PM?
A request also needs to be "doable," meaning it refers to a specific action, ideally at a specific time or times. With non-doable requests, the participants can argue about whether the request was actually fulfilled, or whether it's already being fulfilled. For example,
"I want you to treat me with respect." "I do treat you with respect!" " No you don't." " Yes, I do."
See how useful non-doable requests are? A doable request leaves little or no doubt about whether it's fulfilled.
NON-DOABLE REQUEST
DOABLE REQUEST
I would like you to treat me with more respect.
When I speak, I'd like you to listen until I'm done, then tell me what you heard me say. (Note: this request still refers to the general. It might need to be repeated for particular instances.)
I want you to let me be who I am/give me more freedom.
I'd like you to tell me if you'd be willing to take care of the kids while I attend this event.
I just want you to be more responsible.
Would you be willing to call me when the meeting is finished and you're about to head home?
You need to get off my back
I'd like it if you would not tell me your opinions about the books I choose to read, unless I ask.
The rider attached is, "if it meets your needs." If a person fulfills our request out of anything other than a genuine desire to contribute to your, their own, or everyone's needs, for example, out of guilt, shame, obligation, self-loathing or fear, we have created a situation in which everyone's needs are NOT MET. As Marshall Rosenberg says, you will pay for it.
Again, the idea behind NVC is to help create conditions under which everyone's needs get met. Therefore, our requests get followed with an implicit, or explicit "if it meets your needs."
What if someone doesn't give us what we want?
SELF-EMPATHY - Acknowledge, accept and allow for expression of one's own feelings, tuning into your NEEDS
EMPATHY- What needs of theirs are not being met? Try to tune in and reflect back to them what you hear their needs are, without judgment. If you can both connect with each other's needs, the truth from the inside out, the rest will be cake. Or at least not thorns.
BREATHER - If you're too triggered to talk, take a break! Get some support, pound or scream into a pillow, go for a jog, write in your journal or whatever helps release tension for you.
BIG PICTURE - realize that 1000 possible strategies exist for meeting any given need at any moment. We never "need" anyone to do anything in particular! When we truly know this, we can experience a very sweet kind of freedom, and are more likely to help create conditions in which everyone's needs can be met. Yes it sounds paradoxical-try it!
CREATIVITY - think outside the box about how everyone's needs can be met. Release prior strategies, and invite new ones to come in.
NEGOTIATION - stay with the process to explore other strategies Remember, conflict is inevitable; arguments are optional. Of course one way to avoid argument is never to go outside your house. Another way is never to go outside your own precious self: what you observe, feel, need and want defies argument. If you can put into practice part of the above, you may find that your arguments diminish, or at least transform, at least some of the time.
The above is based on Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life.
Moretocome: I think she knows you aren't backing down this time...
Karen: No matter what happens Mrs. HD now suspects you are serious.
Personally I doubt this…. I think she is just regrouping, thinking that HD must have read some new book, and she will have to mount a little stronger effort to put him back in his place. But the interesting thing is that she sent him that article, rather than escalate with more anger and shouting.
HD,
What I wonder is why she sent this particular article. Obviously she is doing some studying on her own. Is she trying to tell you that she has no obligation to meet your needs, or is she focusing on some of your past arguments, basically accusing you of violent communication, as Lil asks?
With what we know of her, I wonder if she identifies herself as being the non-violent communicator, rationalizing that abstinence is her need and that you should be empathic toward her, blah, blah blah. In other words, do you think she takes those positives from this way of thinking and applies them to her, then applies the negatives to you, which would be consistent with a narcissistic bent?
Anyway, this opens the door for a LOT more communication, which is what you want. Regardless of what strategy she uses to begin, you can bet it is just another decoy and she will be going down some path of deflection. Just keep it in her face and don’t back down.
She knows she can intimidate you through power or bamboozle you through logical debate. The first did not work, when she saw you confront her. So I am guessing she has switched over to plan B. Hold the line on this. After some time (who knows how long) she will probably get frustrated that you won’t let it die, and switch back to plan A, outright intimidation again.
For now, I would ask her to explain what she means. Dissect it into as much detail as you can, not just to understand for your sake, but to see how she thinks and frankly, to wear her ass out. I think this is good because now she is in the position of having to explain things to you, rather than the other way around. She is engaging, so don’t make it to easy for her to make her case and then go back into her cave. Be a little thick-headed. Let her work at it for a while. Don’t be a smart ass, be sincere, just keep going and going and going….. Hang in there.
Hairdog, I would be careful of not get suckered into a debate about proper communication. She may be trying to restore her power by feeling she is more giraffe-like and you are more jackal-like, and it's just another deflection and power struggle, while the real issues wait their turn.
That article seems like a lot of deflection to me. Biding her time until she can figure out if you are going to cave. Notice how panicky she got when you said "fine" about her threat of D. She started to backtrack quickly and explain her email with a new twist. That Maybe she can work on. But you are right. That is not enough. It's still not specific, direct, or understanding of your concerns. Someone who was truly going to engage in this process would be talking to you about this elephant in the room and NOT sending impersonal articles. Yuck.
I second Journey's comment on not getting suckered into a debate on communication. What a fruitless path that would be. I don't know why but I feel compelled to ask - Does she follow these communication suggestions? Does she state her issues in that format? FWIW - there is an audiobook of that program by Sounds True. You might buy it for her, put a bow on it and enthusiastically say, "I am so glad that you are interested in this topic. Here is some more information on it."
Oh, she is going to try to "make" him back off...again. WTF is with this article? Big deflection IMO. She just has to prove herself right? Or prove HD to be wrong in the way he communicated? I don't even think she knows what she is unhappy about...
