How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DH
finds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me.
When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DH
uncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I want
to. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things
(such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them with
me. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff but
it feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privy
to his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes me
feel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able to
help me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty well
had to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made him
uncomfortable.

Amy

You need to *tell* him this, Amy. If necessary, print a copy of this post,
and put it on kitchen table so you guys can discuss it. (JMHO)

Amy Lou wrote: How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DH finds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me. When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DH uncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I want to. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things (such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them with me. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff but it feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privy to his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes me feel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able to help me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty well had to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made him uncomfortable. Amy

"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes:
How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DH finds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me. When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DH uncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I want to. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things (such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them with me. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff but it feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privy to his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes me feel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able to help me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty well had to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made him uncomfortable.

There is pretty much nothing that I don't talk about with my spouse.
And I wouldn't like it if there were "off limits" areas.

Though it gets dodgy sometimes with relationship stuff.

In article <LaqMa.1064$oN.40697@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DHfinds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me.When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DHuncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I wantto. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things(such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them withme. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff butit feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privyto his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes mefeel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able tohelp me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty wellhad to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made himuncomfortable.

Sounds like you're feeling disconnected and you and he need to talk.

On 01 Jul 2003 19:42:32 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes: How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DH finds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me. When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DH uncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I want to. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things (such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them with me. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff but it feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privy to his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes me feel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able to help me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty well had to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made him uncomfortable.There is pretty much nothing that I don't talk about with my spouse.And I wouldn't like it if there were "off limits" areas.Though it gets dodgy sometimes with relationship stuff.

I'm finding that my wife and I are talking about more things then we
ever used to, especially lately with our therapy.

--Brian

In article <slrnbg4j0s.296.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C
Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
If each party in a relationship can *TRUST* the other to NOT do anything to hurt their feelings (with *FULL* reciprocity) each party needs not fear exposure of their own weaknesses since there is no threat of having it used against them.

I think that is impossible, Jack, if I understand what you are saying.
What there needs to be is the trust that *if* I hurt my wiffe's
feelings, or vice versa, she will not hold that against me -- two
people who are at all intimate are going to say and do things that hurt
their partner's feelings -- unless there are identical twins it can't
be any other way.

Or at least that's what I think.

Ted

Seeker wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: If each party in a relationship can *TRUST* the other to NOT do anything to hurt their feelings (with *FULL* reciprocity) each party needs not fear exposure of their own weaknesses since there is no threat of having it used against them. I think that is impossible, Jack, if I understand what you are saying. What there needs to be is the trust that *if* I hurt my wiffe's feelings, or vice versa, she will not hold that against me -- two people who are at all intimate are going to say and do things that hurt their partner's feelings -- unless there are identical twins it can't be any other way.

No, the "holding against" would be more about forgiveness,
but, as we all know, "forgiveness is difficult".

The "trust" issue is that you trust your spouse to NOT WANT
TO HURT YOU, physically or emotionally, that their priority
is to avoid harm. Likewise full reciprocity is necessary.

Any harm would need to be "plausibly accidental"... and,
depending upon the harmed party's sensitivity, each such
even reduces the likelihood of harm being accidental, so
an erosion of trust would occur.

So they key behavior is to work at not harming one's
spouse emotionally. What works *against* this is human
drives since this issue brooks very little unilateral
tolerance.

So you need a *lot* of forgiveness between parties BEFORE
any kind of trust can be restored... and, at that, trust
is harder to gain.

Like respect, it is harder to gain it than it is to lose
it.
Or at least that's what I think.

Hey, it's a good comment and got *me* to think about this
more deeply.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

"Bill" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bArMa.21274$C83.2012098@newsread1.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... You need to *tell* him this, Amy. If necessary, print a copy of this
post, and put it on kitchen table so you guys can discuss it. (JMHO)

I once asked him to record a TV program for me. He mucked it up. (Put the
tape in and forgot to rewind it so I only got about 3 seconds of the actual
TV program taped.) I was bitterly disappointed. Told him so. I whined "I was
sooo looking forward to seeing that show". I wanted him to say sorry, "sorry
you missed your show darling" and hug me till I felt better, but all I got
was "WELL I TRIED TO TAPE IT. ITS NOT MY FAULT THE TAPE WAS NOT REWOUND"

So you see what I say and what he hears are are two different things. If he
read this post he would not see that my feelings are hurt, he would see that
I think he is a failure.

Part of the problem is (I think) his inability to show sadness. He converts
sadness to anger. His angry remark after the video muck up was probably his
way of dealing with his sadness at his perceived failure to please me. I end
up feeling that I must deal with my feelings of disappointment alone without
any support from my husband because if I ask for his support I am, in
effect, hurting him.

Amy

Amy Lou wrote: Bill wrote: You need to *tell* him this, Amy. If necessary, print a copy of this post, and put it on kitchen table so you guys can discuss it. (JMHO) I once asked him to record a TV program for me. He mucked it up. (Put the tape in and forgot to rewind it so I only got about 3 seconds of the actual TV program taped.) I was bitterly disappointed. Told him so. I whined "I was sooo looking forward to seeing that show". I wanted him to say sorry, "sorry you missed your show darling" and hug me till I felt better, but all I got was "WELL I TRIED TO TAPE IT. ITS NOT MY FAULT THE TAPE WAS NOT REWOUND"

When my wife falls short like this I *feel* it to be calculated
incompetence; after all it's a "plausible accident". It's the
response to making a mistake that is wrong, here.

For some people (and my wife tolerates it far more than I, but
I retain the far narrower definition of "plausibility" I grew
up with) an "accident" need not be apologized for... so the
"accidents happen" means that a child can learn to get away
with almost anything.

I *look* clumsy... but I'm not. I don't tend to fall. I put
my glass near the edge of the table... and I *don't* knock it
over. I was taught that while accidents happen, it was UP TO
ME to do my best to *keep* them from happening, since I could
still be blamed for an accident.

Repeated "accidents" in the same vein are an indication, to me,
that someone does not realize their own role in the tributary
cause of what becomes an "incident" rather than "accident".

So when my daughter jumps on my wife's lap and hurts her, my
wife writes it off as an accident rather than realize there is
a pattern I'm seeing.

Mind you, when I do something stupid through actual
incompetence the rules of evidence seem to be much different;
I get to hear *all* about it.

I'm willing to take the heat where I've committed a sin of
commission. Sins of omission, however, should be handled a
little more delicately.

So, in your case, your husband got defensive and deflective.
He didn't acknowledge the priority you placed on making the
tape, so he didn't put much effort into it. That he chose
to be deflective when found he fell short rather than contrite
may be a reflection that he feels threatened by *you*. (OK,
so if you were physically threatening he may have been more
contrite.)

Add to this... there came a point where I feel like I've
spent *too* much time being contrite, so I back off and my
ability to care falls off.
So you see what I say and what he hears are are two different things. If he read this post he would not see that my feelings are hurt, he would see that I think he is a failure.

And that's just the crux of the issue: people don't like to
see themselves as failures. I settle for barely mediocre.
I certainly _don't_ look heroic to her.

We respond to what we see reflected in our spouses' eyes,
for good or ill. Reflect a judgement of failure and the
person is more likely to flee... emotionally, and, in some
cases, physically. Admittedly some men will choose to turn
it around and be more aggressive, but I'm not sure physical
intimidation is a better coping mechanism for the sense of
failure.
Part of the problem is (I think) his inability to show sadness. He converts sadness to anger. His angry remark after the video muck up was probably his way of dealing with his sadness at his perceived failure to please me. I end up feeling that I must deal with my feelings of disappointment alone without any support from my husband because if I ask for his support I am, in effect, hurting him.

I wouldn't call is "sadness to anger", more like "why am
I being so contrite to *her*?" response. Rather than
acknowledge that he fell short... again... it's easier to
growl and put the blame elsewhere, preferably something
as impersonal as possible.

And it's bothersome to recognize yourself as falling
short of the "due diligence" needed to maintain a marital
relationship.

Of course... I know I need my wife's forgiveness for many
things. What holds a lot back is that she doesn't seem to
think that she needs *my* forgiveness. Until she can
recognize she's got a problem there is no solution.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

To me, talking is a part of intimacy.

As a young man I had many misconceptions of what it was
to be a *man*.

To get *to where he lives*. Ask thoughtful questions.
Accept his answers, don't question them.


"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:LaqMa.1064$oN.40697@newsfeeds.bigpond.com... How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My
DH finds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me. When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DH uncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I want to. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things (such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them with me. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff
but it feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be
privy to his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes me feel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able to help me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty well had to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made
him uncomfortable. Amy

"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<lgzMa.1390$oN.54634@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>... "Bill" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bArMa.21274$C83.2012098@newsread1.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... You need to *tell* him this, Amy. If necessary, print a copy of this post, and put it on kitchen table so you guys can discuss it. (JMHO) I once asked him to record a TV program for me. He mucked it up. (Put the tape in and forgot to rewind it so I only got about 3 seconds of the actual TV program taped.) I was bitterly disappointed. Told him so. I whined "I was sooo looking forward to seeing that show". I wanted him to say sorry, "sorry you missed your show darling" and hug me till I felt better, but all I got was "WELL I TRIED TO TAPE IT. ITS NOT MY FAULT THE TAPE WAS NOT REWOUND" So you see what I say and what he hears are are two different things. If he read this post he would not see that my feelings are hurt, he would see that I think he is a failure. Part of the problem is (I think) his inability to show sadness. He converts sadness to anger. His angry remark after the video muck up was probably his way of dealing with his sadness at his perceived failure to please me. I end up feeling that I must deal with my feelings of disappointment alone without any support from my husband because if I ask for his support I am, in effect, hurting him. Amy

Amy...please read my post in the remembering thread. I understand
completely what you are experiencing and find this to be a very
interesting thread!

Trust? As in......

If I show you my vulnerability will you show me yours?



"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbg4j0s.296.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Amy Lou wrote: How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DH finds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me. When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DH uncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I want to. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things (such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them with me. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff but it feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privy to his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes me feel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able to help me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty well had to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made him uncomfortable. I've been in the throes of writing a story where the whole issue of emotional/intellectual intimacy is *KEY*, and *I* suddenly, out of the blue, realized that intimacy is grounded in absolute trust. This reflects in my own life, too, so it's yet another facet for me to look into vis a vis my marriage. If each party in a relationship can *TRUST* the other to NOT do anything to hurt their feelings (with *FULL* reciprocity) each party needs not fear exposure of their own weaknesses since there is no threat of having it used against them. And that's just why it's difficult, because trust *may* be given but, with the first failure, must then be earned back... and people, especially the more sensitive, will have far more hurdles and hoops for their partner to navigate in order to prove trustworthiness. Mind you, the above may be a work of fiction, but it does feel right to me. -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "Do these pants make my penis look small?"

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbg4sf6.g2r.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Seeker wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: If each party in a relationship can *TRUST* the other to NOT do anything to hurt their feelings (with *FULL* reciprocity) each party needs not fear exposure of their own weaknesses since there is no threat of having it used against them. I think that is impossible, Jack, if I understand what you are saying. What there needs to be is the trust that *if* I hurt my wiffe's feelings, or vice versa, she will not hold that against me -- two people who are at all intimate are going to say and do things that hurt their partner's feelings -- unless there are identical twins it can't be any other way. No, the "holding against" would be more about forgiveness, but, as we all know, "forgiveness is difficult". The "trust" issue is that you trust your spouse to NOT WANT TO HURT YOU, physically or emotionally, that their priority is to avoid harm. Likewise full reciprocity is necessary.

Your onto something Jack. Any harm would need to be "plausibly accidental"...

How about *truly accidental*? Look at *intention* is such cases.
and, depending upon the harmed party's sensitivity, each such even reduces the likelihood of harm being accidental, so an erosion of trust would occur.

You start with everything and end up with something less.
This is in the nature of most relationships. Good relationships
keep most of what they started with. So they key behavior is to work at not harming one's spouse emotionally.

Even better than that Jack. How about *boosting* your
partner emotionally every chance you get.
What works *against* this is human drives since this issue brooks very little unilateral tolerance.

What drives do you mean Jack?
So you need a *lot* of forgiveness between parties BEFORE any kind of trust can be restored... and, at that, trust is harder to gain. Like respect, it is harder to gain it than it is to lose it. Or at least that's what I think. Hey, it's a good comment and got *me* to think about this more deeply. -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "Do these pants make my penis look small?"

In article <slrnbg4sf6.g2r.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C
Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
The "trust" issue is that you trust your spouse to NOT WANT TO HURT YOU, physically or emotionally, that their priority is to avoid harm. Likewise full reciprocity is necessary.

OK Jack -- I believe we are very much in agreement here. It would
interesting if our wives would agree -- my wife has repeatedly said
that the way I went about entering therapy by myself has led her not to
trust me -- because I wasn't, in her eyes, completely honest about why
I went. And the whole reason I wrapped the truth in a more palatable
package was precisely because I didn't want to hurt her -- I knew it
would hurt to acknowledge the reason I was going to therapy was because
I was unhappy with my marriage and feeling bad about how I was reacting
to that -- it was leading me to hurt others, eventually probably her.

I know that what I am being asked to do in therapy right now will hurt
her -- and I don't want to do it because of that. She has even, in
metaphor, acknowledged that it will hurt -- as she puts it, it's like
pulling a bandaide off very slowly, one hair at a time -- she says she
wants me to rip it off all at once -- but at the same time acknowledges
she won't be happy about it and probably won't take it well.

Ted

In article <lgzMa.1390$oN.54634@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
So you see what I say and what he hears are are two different things. If he read this post he would not see that my feelings are hurt, he would see that I think he is a failure.
But, you see, if he has hurt your feelings, especially through
carelessness, he *is* a failure. A man who makes mistakes is a
failure. At least that's the message I have heard loud and clear
through these many years of my marriage. And I don't think it is
because I am a poor listener (although it is true that I am); it may
or may not be the message my wife intended to convey consciously, but
unconsciously it surely was (and still is) the one I hear.
Part of the problem is (I think) his inability to show sadness. He converts sadness to anger. His angry remark after the video muck up was probably his way of dealing with his sadness at his perceived failure to please me. I end up feeling that I must deal with my feelings of disappointment alone without any support from my husband because if I ask for his support I am, in effect, hurting him.

You may be right, but with me it's more frustration at my own failures.
I do recognize my internal response as anger -- both at me for being
such a screw up *and* at her for being the means of my recognizing it.
What I don't know is what to do with the anger.

Ted

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:14:37 +1000, "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com>
wrote:
How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DHfinds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me.When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DHuncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I wantto. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things(such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them withme. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff butit feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privyto his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes mefeel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able tohelp me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty wellhad to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made himuncomfortable.Amy

Here's something that was posted recently by Jen (shinnypenny)...and I
thought it was excellent. I hope she doesn't mind if I repost it
here...

/beginquote
Yes, sure. Sadly, though, I think this misses the point: many, manywomen simply find it way too hard to communicate to their husbandswhat they like, even once they've figured it out all on their own! Ithink this has to do with fear of rejection, and self-validatingthrough the eyes of ones' partner.Sadly, these same women may actually become complete wild women withnew partners, people they don't care about or with whom they havelittle emotional investment. It's the person they love that they can'trisk revealing who they are, and what they like. What if that personconfirms their worse fears and is disgusted by them?Early on, my SO and I got to a point where we started "editing"ourselves. As we became increasingly committed to each other, we foundourselves shutting down, acting differently, more prudishly andself-conciously. Luckily, we got past all that. Yes, it took each ofus taking a great big breath and daring to reveal what we like. Buthaving a partner confidently and enthusiastically reassure that whatyou like is not only okay but OKAY!, well, that goes a long way, too.jen

/endquote

The more you have invested in a relationship, the more guarded you
become in your feelings, I'm afraid.


Have a nice week...

Gus

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

On 01 Jul 2003 19:42:32 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes: How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DH finds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me. When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DH uncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I want to. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things (such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them with me. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff but it feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privy to his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes me feel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able to help me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty well had to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made him uncomfortable.There is pretty much

I think that's what she tryin' to say, Doug...'pretty much'. I doubt
if there is any of us who give 100%...nor should we.


Have a nice week...

Gus

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:34:52 +1000, "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:bArMa.21274$C83.2012098@newsread1.prod .itd.earthlink.net... You need to *tell* him this, Amy. If necessary, print a copy of thispost, and put it on kitchen table so you guys can discuss it. (JMHO)I once asked him to record a TV program for me. He mucked it up. (Put thetape in and forgot to rewind it so I only got about 3 seconds of the actualTV program taped.) I was bitterly disappointed. Told him so. I whined "I wassooo looking forward to seeing that show". I wanted him to say sorry, "sorryyou missed your show darling" and hug me till I felt better, but all I gotwas "WELL I TRIED TO TAPE IT. ITS NOT MY FAULT THE TAPE WAS NOT REWOUND"

See!! What'd I tell ya. lol
So you see what I say and what he hears are are two different things. If heread this post he would not see that my feelings are hurt, he would see thatI think he is a failure.

That's a venus/mars thingee, Amy I has nothing to do specifically
with you and him.
Part of the problem is (I think) his inability to show sadness. He convertssadness to anger. His angry remark after the video muck up was probably hisway of dealing with his sadness at his perceived failure to please me.

My take...I think yer 'right on' with this. He feels sad that he let
you down...although the whole thing could have easily gone the correct
way. It was just one of those things.
I endup feeling that I must deal with my feelings of disappointment alone withoutany support from my husband because if I ask for his support I am, ineffect, hurting him.

All women...WRITE THIS DOWN...

Men don't think like women. Women don't think like men.

PLEASE write that down! Geesssshhhhh!!!

My interpretation, Amy, would have been that you were *****in'. I
don't know what your husband thought...but I would guess it was
probably near the same thing.

If you would have said, 'Honey, I really appreciate what you tried to
do for me. I'm really disappointed...and I could really use a hug. I
know it wasn't your fault...and I'm not blaming. I just need you to
hold me right now '.


Have a nice week...

Gus

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

Herr Taurus wrote: On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:34:52 +1000, "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: "Bill" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bArMa.21274$C83.2012098@newsread1.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... You need to *tell* him this, Amy. If necessary, print a copy of this
post, and put it on kitchen table so you guys can discuss it. (JMHO) I once asked him to record a TV program for me. He mucked it up. (Put the tape in and forgot to rewind it so I only got about 3 seconds of the actual TV program taped.) I was bitterly disappointed. Told him so. I whined "I was sooo looking forward to seeing that show". I wanted him to say sorry, "sorry you missed your show darling" and hug me till I felt better, but all I got was "WELL I TRIED TO TAPE IT. ITS NOT MY FAULT THE TAPE WAS NOT REWOUND" See!! What'd I tell ya. lol So you see what I say and what he hears are are two different things. If he read this post he would not see that my feelings are hurt, he would see that I think he is a failure. That's a venus/mars thingee, Amy I has nothing to do specifically with you and him. Part of the problem is (I think) his inability to show sadness. He converts sadness to anger. His angry remark after the video muck up was probably his way of dealing with his sadness at his perceived failure to please me. My take...I think yer 'right on' with this. He feels sad that he let you down...although the whole thing could have easily gone the correct way. It was just one of those things. I end up feeling that I must deal with my feelings of disappointment alone without any support from my husband because if I ask for his support I am, in effect, hurting him. All women...WRITE THIS DOWN... Men don't think like women. Women don't think like men. PLEASE write that down! Geesssshhhhh!!! My interpretation, Amy, would have been that you were *****in'. I don't know what your husband thought...but I would guess it was probably near the same thing. If you would have said, 'Honey, I really appreciate what you tried to do for me. I'm really disappointed...and I could really use a hug. I know it wasn't your fault...and I'm not blaming. I just need you to hold me right now '.

That would probably work, but should she really have to say all that? I think
that is a lot to put on her shoulders. HE needs to get a clue too.

urf wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Seeker wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote:> If each party in a relationship can *TRUST* the other to> NOT do anything to hurt their feelings (with *FULL*> reciprocity) each party needs not fear exposure of their> own weaknesses since there is no threat of having it> used against them. I think that is impossible, Jack, if I understand what you are saying. What there needs to be is the trust that *if* I hurt my wiffe's feelings, or vice versa, she will not hold that against me -- two people who are at all intimate are going to say and do things that hurt their partner's feelings -- unless there are identical twins it can't be any other way. No, the "holding against" would be more about forgiveness, but, as we all know, "forgiveness is difficult". The "trust" issue is that you trust your spouse to NOT WANT TO HURT YOU, physically or emotionally, that their priority is to avoid harm. Likewise full reciprocity is necessary. Your onto something Jack.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm starting to have my doubts in
this, wondering if that flash was merely illusory.
Any harm would need to be "plausibly accidental"... How about *truly accidental*? Look at *intention* is such cases.

The key is "plausible" in that it's difficult to claim it
was intentional. A lot depends upon how much a partner may
"profit" from an "accident".
and, depending upon the harmed party's sensitivity, each such even reduces the likelihood of harm being accidental, so an erosion of trust would occur. You start with everything and end up with something less. This is in the nature of most relationships. Good relationships keep most of what they started with.

I would hope so, but some decay occurs. Active measures to
repair damage, however, require bilateral recognition of a
problem and agreement in how to handle it. A bilateral
COMMITMENT to working around or correcting problems is a
prerequisite.
So they key behavior is to work at not harming one's spouse emotionally. Even better than that Jack. How about *boosting* your partner emotionally every chance you get.

Well, that's true enough. What's that really feel like on
the receiving end?
What works *against* this is human drives since this issue brooks very little unilateral tolerance. What drives do you mean Jack?

We all have selfish desires, profit motives, fears to
avoid (usually via efforts at "control") which work
against this.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:05:08 GMT, "Bill" <none@earthlink.net> wrote:
That would probably work, but should she really have to say all that?

Of course not, Bill. She doesn't have to do ANYTHING she doesn't want
to do.
I thinkthat is a lot to put on her shoulders.

I think we're drifting from the subject here.
HE needs to get a clue too.

Clue? My point was that he doesn't THINK like her. He obviously
doesn't GET clues. You have to TELL him...just like you have to tell
me...and most males.

She's saying one thing...and attributing a meaning to it.

He's hearing the very same thing...and attributing a DIFFERENT meaning
to it.

That's not HIS fault...nor hers. That's just the way we men are!

If she is more specific in what she's trying to CONVEY...not in the
actual words themselves...he might then be able to grasp her
INTENTION...which was simply to convey her FEELINGS. HE looks at it
differently...as a problem that came up...and that he screwed up...and
that she's complaining about.

She wasn't really *****in'...she was simply looking for intimacy. But
he heard the words as most males would.


Have a nice week...

Gus

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

Seeker wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: The "trust" issue is that you trust your spouse to NOT WANT TO HURT YOU, physically or emotionally, that their priority is to avoid harm. Likewise full reciprocity is necessary. OK Jack -- I believe we are very much in agreement here. It would interesting if our wives would agree -- my wife has repeatedly said that the way I went about entering therapy by myself has led her not to trust me -- because I wasn't, in her eyes, completely honest about why I went. And the whole reason I wrapped the truth in a more palatable package was precisely because I didn't want to hurt her -- I knew it would hurt to acknowledge the reason I was going to therapy was because I was unhappy with my marriage and feeling bad about how I was reacting to that -- it was leading me to hurt others, eventually probably her.

The problem all too often is that one cannot dissemble as a
means of reducing harm; a "little white lie" doesn't instill
trust.

If the truth is required, it's required. And it must be a
bilateral acceptance. Additionally, I'm thinking that small
arguments (non-physical fights) that happen often enough (and
can be followed by some after-disagreement course correction)
discharge things BEFORE a small problem can accumulate.

By not addressing a small problem when it *IS* a small problem
(and so can be handled w/ minimal pain to either or both
parties) things start being hidden from the other.
I know that what I am being asked to do in therapy right now will hurt her -- and I don't want to do it because of that. She has even, in metaphor, acknowledged that it will hurt -- as she puts it, it's like pulling a bandaide off very slowly, one hair at a time -- she says she wants me to rip it off all at once -- but at the same time acknowledges she won't be happy about it and probably won't take it well.

I was trying to describe ideal circumstances. Regaining a
reciprocal trust after a major breach... like I face...
has not been answerable. I've learned something of what *I*
want but have no idea how to get there without her commitment-
and we talk enough that I recognize that she doesn't see any
kind of "real problem" between us.

I may be practicing some self-deception, but, really, so is
she.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

Herr Taurus <gusaufdenkinder@hotmail.com> writes:
On 01 Jul 2003 19:42:32 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes: How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DH finds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me. When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DH uncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I want to. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things (such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them with me. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff but it feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privy to his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes me feel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able to help me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty well had to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made him uncomfortable.There is pretty much I think that's what she tryin' to say, Doug...'pretty much'. I doubt if there is any of us who give 100%...nor should we.

Hmm. You took such a small fragment of what I had to say out that
I can't tell what your are responding too (if anything) or what you
mean.

I don't think Amy Lou is talking about 100%, sounds more like she is
talking about "some."

In article <slrnbg762c.ksu.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C
Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
By not addressing a small problem when it *IS* a small problem (and so can be handled w/ minimal pain to either or both parties) things start being hidden from the other.

Unfortunately, I've been doing that for 35+ years.
Note, however, someone (Gottman?) made the observation that there will
be problems, or differences, or whatever that cannot be "handled" --
they can never go away. I don't know what it takes to deal with
those.

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:020720031955350638%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <slrnbg4sf6.g2r.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote: The "trust" issue is that you trust your spouse to NOT WANT TO HURT YOU, physically or emotionally, that their priority is to avoid harm. Likewise full reciprocity is necessary. OK Jack -- I believe we are very much in agreement here. It would interesting if our wives would agree -- my wife has repeatedly said that the way I went about entering therapy by myself has led her not to trust me -- because I wasn't, in her eyes, completely honest about why I went. And the whole reason I wrapped the truth in a more palatable package was precisely because I didn't want to hurt her -- I knew it would hurt to acknowledge the reason I was going to therapy was because I was unhappy with my marriage and feeling bad about how I was reacting to that -- it was leading me to hurt others, eventually probably her. I know that what I am being asked to do in therapy right now will hurt her -- and I don't want to do it because of that. She has even, in metaphor, acknowledged that it will hurt -- as she puts it, it's like pulling a bandaide off very slowly, one hair at a time -- she says she wants me to rip it off all at once -- but at the same time acknowledges she won't be happy about it and probably won't take it well. Ted

Morphing the metamorphosis metaphor..............

It hurts to be born into a new life. However there is no stopping
the process of change no matter how much it hurts.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <c9GdnR7cEtAJAJ6iXTWJkg@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: It hurts to be born into a new life. However there is no stopping the process of change no matter how much it hurts. Well, I *could* sit here and do nothing (pretty much what I've been for several months, I have to admit) and change would go on much more slowly (at least on the surface.) Or I could sit my wife down and dump all my accumulated gripes (deserved or not) at once, pack my toothbrush, go out the door, drive down to "the pharmacist's" house and beg for aid and comfort. Or something in between. It's in that in-between stuff where I'm stuck.

You said your therapist has been telling you to do something which
you've been resisting. What course of action would that be?

Seeker wrote: In article <slrnbg762c.ksu.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote: By not addressing a small problem when it *IS* a small problem (and so can be handled w/ minimal pain to either or both parties) things start being hidden from the other. Unfortunately, I've been doing that for 35+ years. Note, however, someone (Gottman?) made the observation that there will be problems, or differences, or whatever that cannot be "handled" -- they can never go away. I don't know what it takes to deal with those.

I have seen similar processes for getting over this hurdle described
by Harville Hendrix and Terry Real. The initial attraction of a
partner comes from the ability to re-create the issues from childhood
that have left wounds. Much of the power behind being "in love" is
a promise that the other person can heal ones wounds, with no effort
on the part of the wounded. (Kind of like a supplement that promises
to make you lose fat while you sleep.) When the emotional "honeymoon"
ends, this hope is questioned. Both Hendrix and Real propose means to
use the relationship _consciously_ as a safe place where one can heal
ones own self. When this responsibility is returned to where it can
be controlled, the little hurts can be addressed by conscious acts to
show the value each partner feels for the relationship.

There probably are other facets of this approach, other explanations.
But the basic idea seems viable to me.
--
Tsam

Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DH finds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me. When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DH uncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I want to. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things (such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them with me. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff but it feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privy to his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes me feel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able to help me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty well had to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made him uncomfortable.

There are two different issues here (well, more than that, but two I
want to respond to). (1) he is embarassed or depressed talking about
some things; and (2) he talks about some things with other people that
he won't talk to you about.

I find (2) to be the more worrisome. My H does squirm when certain
topics come up, and I've learned to approach them more obliquely and not
"quiz" him about things. But if he were talking about these things to
someone else, I would be very upset.

<Empress> wrote:
On 03 Jul 2003 09:12:49 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:I can see where this would be a hard thing to do.But (as has been observed before w.r.t. you) intimacy requireshonesty. Absolutely. Honesty with self and others. Maybe we should spend more time talking about courage.

I think you should start a thread. I'm interested.

In article <3F047C7C.32CCC63@tidal.wav>, Tsam Nami
<tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote:
The initial attraction of a partner comes from the ability to re-create the issues from childhood that have left wounds.

Initially that's what Hendrix reads like, but you read it closer it's
clear he doesn't have a clue either -- the image you create of the
ideal spouse has *both* good and bad aspects of your caregivers, and he
offers no explanation for which are picked.
Jung says we look for our anima or animus -- but no theory as to what
*that* is like!
I think it's best to look at what you have, as he or she is, and not
pay much attention to the stereotypes. Now, I agree Hendrix is much
better than Gray in that respect, but he too ofers a theory that I
don't think really helps much.

Ted

Chrome2003@webtv.net (Amy D) writes:
Clue? My point was that he doesn'tTHINK like her. He obviously doesn't GETclues. You have to TELL him...just likeyou have to tell me...and most males.She's saying one thing...and attributing ameaning to it.He's hearing the very same thing...andattributing a DIFFERENT meaning to it.That's not HIS fault...nor hers. That's justthe way we men are!If she is more specific in what she's tryingto CONVEY...not in the actual wordsthemselves...he might then be able tograsp her INTENTION...which was simplyto convey her FEELINGS. HE looks at itdifferently...as a problem that cameup...and that he screwed up...and thatshe's complaining about.She wasn't really *****in'...she was simplylooking for intimacy. But he heard thewords as most males would.Have a nice week...Gus BINGO!! It really is this simple. Throw away your books and fire your therapist.

Wait - you say below that your husband _learned_ this from a book. So
why throw away your books? (Alright - your husband won't read, so
throw away _your_ books and get books on tape.)

The real problem is however "simple" things are, some people can't
get them, or if they can, need help learning to do them. So what are those
people supposed to do?

>Wait - you say below that your husband_learned_ this from a book. So why throwaway your books? (Alright - your husbandwon't read, so throw away _your_ booksand get books on tape.)
The real problem is however "simple"things are, some people can't get them, orif they can, need help learning to do them.
So what are those people supposed todo?

Alright -- you are right. :) I was speaking more towards those that
keep searching for more books and more books, hiring new therapists and
new therapists -- because they aren't finding any answer they want to
hear -- rather than just looking within and finding it. The answers are
already there --- if you don't overcomplicate the issue. Or they are
still searching for the perfect way to fix their spouse -- rather than
learning the simple act of acceptance <or moving on if acceptance is not
possible>.

Granted, most people probably need some guidance to find that within
---- but the ones that keep reading and reading are not taking much time
for self-reflection. Trust me -- the more I read in my 20's in my crazy
years -- the crazier I became!

So I guess throw away the books isn't good advice. Sorry. :) Only when
you hit your saturation point of insanity and diagnoses do you finally
say "Bull****! I am NOT crazy" and then you move on. :)
And your head quits spinning and you actually realize you were stuck in
some psychotic time warp.

amy

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:030720032340595000%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <1fxivgj.6aejxz3x7gzkN%mbjq@earthlink.net>, Emma Anne <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote: <Empress> wrote: On 03 Jul 2003 09:12:49 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: >I can see where this would be a hard thing to do. > >But (as has been observed before w.r.t. you) intimacy requires >honesty. Absolutely. Honesty with self and others. Maybe we should spend more time talking about courage. I think you should start a thread. I'm interested. I think she did. Courage of what kind? How about ... courage to be ... courage to be me. (I've heard that somewhere.) Your turn. Ted

How do you know who you are?

Are you the same person every hour of everyday?

Is one supposed to have an image of self? If so, where
does it come from? What you are taught , what you observe,
what you feel?

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in Perhaps one gripe a week? You show me yours, I show you mine? Write a letter about the gripe? An essay? Not to place blame, but to ask for an explanation?

Actually some self help book I read somewhere suggested writing a whole lot
of compliments and gripes on little pieces of paper, putting them in a jar
and letting your spouse take one out every day. Both of you should do this
for it to be fair I suppose. I think it would be a good exercise in
improving communication for a lot of couples.

Amy

"Amy D" <Chrome2003@webtv.net> wrote in message
But to be totally honest we didn't make this breakthrough until after listening to "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" book on tape. He would NEVER read a book. :) Basically, it made him feel more confident to learn he was "normal". amy

Tolerance is a wonderful thing, I agree, but like all good things it has to
be taken in moderation. :)

Amy

In article <_X-dncz6WYN2Z5iiXTWJjg@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
How do you know who you are? Are you the same person every hour of everyday? Is one supposed to have an image of self? If so, where does it come from? What you are taught , what you observe, what you feel?

You think too much, urf. (-:

Ted

In article <klsNa.2621$oN.110476@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
Actually some self help book I read somewhere suggested writing a whole lot of compliments and gripes on little pieces of paper, putting them in a jar and letting your spouse take one out every day. Both of you should do this for it to be fair I suppose. I think it would be a good exercise in improving communication for a lot of couples.

I don't know that it would work for us. My wife says she wants us to
get this over with fast -- that she keeps waiting for the other shoe to
drop. She doesn't want me to dole the gripes out one by one.

Or so she says.

Ted

"keelandra sislack" <keelandrasislack@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:56904c48.0307021212.3a4ecf78@posting.google.c om... "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:<lgzMa.1390$oN.54634@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>... "Bill" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bArMa.21274$C83.2012098@newsread1.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... You need to *tell* him this, Amy. If necessary, print a copy of
this post, and put it on kitchen table so you guys can discuss it. (JMHO) I once asked him to record a TV program for me. He mucked it up. (Put
the tape in and forgot to rewind it so I only got about 3 seconds of the
actual TV program taped.) I was bitterly disappointed. Told him so. I whined "I
was sooo looking forward to seeing that show". I wanted him to say sorry,
"sorry you missed your show darling" and hug me till I felt better, but all I
got was "WELL I TRIED TO TAPE IT. ITS NOT MY FAULT THE TAPE WAS NOT REWOUND" So you see what I say and what he hears are are two different things. If
he read this post he would not see that my feelings are hurt, he would see
that I think he is a failure. Part of the problem is (I think) his inability to show sadness. He
converts sadness to anger. His angry remark after the video muck up was probably
his way of dealing with his sadness at his perceived failure to please me. I
end up feeling that I must deal with my feelings of disappointment alone
without any support from my husband because if I ask for his support I am, in effect, hurting him. Amy Amy...please read my post in the remembering thread. I understand completely what you are experiencing and find this to be a very interesting thread!


I just googled and read your post. You make a very good point. A lot of
communication problems are due to interpretation discrepancies. Its one of
the reasons why I like to get feedback when talking to my DH so that I can
be certain of understanding what he is saying. Funnily enough even my good
intentions there are misunderstood. He says it is annoying to him and I
should understand him without asking questions. In other words if he told me
there were clouds in the sky and I looked out and saw only blue sky I should
lie and say something like "mmm yes". :)

Amy

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:040720032355181025%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <klsNa.2621$oN.110476@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Actually some self help book I read somewhere suggested writing a whole
lot of compliments and gripes on little pieces of paper, putting them in a
jar and letting your spouse take one out every day. Both of you should do
this for it to be fair I suppose. I think it would be a good exercise in improving communication for a lot of couples. I don't know that it would work for us.

Well of course not. NOTHING will work for you buddy! You're only reading
this ng to offer a few insightful little titbits to us poor guys who are
still under the illusion that we have a chance at being happy. Not you -
goodness no - being happy would be beneath you.

My wife says she wants us to get this over with fast

Yeah thats what they say in the movies when the serial killer has the victim
all tied up and begging to be put out of their misery.

Or so she says.

She who must be obeyed? I wish you'd grow some balls!
Sorry for being so blunt. Sometimes I just have to be direct for my own
sanity. :)

Amy

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <klsNa.2621$oN.110476@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Actually some self help book I read somewhere suggested writing a whole lot of compliments and gripes on little pieces of paper, putting them in a jar and letting your spouse take one out every day. Both of you should do this for it to be fair I suppose. I think it would be a good exercise in improving communication for a lot of couples. I don't know that it would work for us. My wife says she wants us to get this over with fast -- that she keeps waiting for the other shoe to drop. She doesn't want me to dole the gripes out one by one.

Reasonable. Everyone wants to get unpleasant stuff over with fast.
I wish I was a perfect person already!

But sometimes things _can't_ be done fast. (Though it isn't clear to
me that this is one of those times.)

Amy Lou wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:040720032355181025%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <klsNa.2621$oN.110476@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Actually some self help book I read somewhere suggested writing a whole lot of compliments and gripes on little pieces of paper, putting them in a jar and letting your spouse take one out every day. Both of you should do this for it to be fair I suppose. I think it would be a good exercise in improving communication for a lot of couples. I don't know that it would work for us. Well of course not. NOTHING will work for you buddy! You're only reading this ng to offer a few insightful little titbits to us poor guys who are still under the illusion that we have a chance at being happy. Not you - goodness no - being happy would be beneath you. My wife says she wants us to get this over with fast Yeah thats what they say in the movies when the serial killer has the victim all tied up and begging to be put out of their misery. Or so she says. She who must be obeyed? I wish you'd grow some balls! Sorry for being so blunt. Sometimes I just have to be direct for my own sanity. :) Amy

Meeeeoooow! What a tigress! Can't say I disagree with your assessment,
though - LOL. But I think this particular saga will continue for awhile
longer - at least another decade or so. Wanna make a wager, Amy?

In article <HJzNa.2845$oN.121038@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
Well of course not. NOTHING will work for you buddy! You're only reading this ng to offer a few insightful little titbits to us poor guys who are still under the illusion that we have a chance at being happy. Not you - goodness no - being happy would be beneath you.

I have no insights, other than perhaps about how I tick.
I'm looking for some.
From people who have some experience to share.
I haven't found many, but I'm sitll hoping.

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:050720032139353201%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <HJzNa.2845$oN.121038@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Well of course not. NOTHING will work for you buddy! You're only reading this ng to offer a few insightful little titbits to us poor guys who are still under the illusion that we have a chance at being happy. Not you - goodness no - being happy would be beneath you. I have no insights, other than perhaps about how I tick. I'm looking for some. From people who have some experience to share. I haven't found many, but I'm sitll hoping.

You will never find any because you dont really *want* to. You have an
excuse every time.

Amy

cupasoup@softhome.net (Jack C Lipton) wrote in message news:<slrnbg4j0s.296.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>... I've been in the throes of writing a story where the whole issue of emotional/intellectual intimacy is *KEY*, and *I* suddenly, out of the blue, realized that intimacy is grounded in absolute trust.


I'll agree that intimacy is grounded in trust in ONESELF, not
necessarily one's partner. First of all, it's impossible to have
absolute trust in any other human being. You're simply asking much too
much, IMHO. There is no one else in this entire world who's going to
place your self-interest above their own. Trust in yourself, well
that's another thing. Trust that you can take care of you, come what
may, if your partner hurts you and the relationship beyond repair.

This reflects in my own life, too, so it's yet another facet for me to look into vis a vis my marriage. If each party in a relationship can *TRUST* the other to NOT do anything to hurt their feelings (with *FULL* reciprocity) each party needs not fear exposure of their own weaknesses since there is no threat of having it used against them.

How about simply trusting yourself to 1) disclose to people you feel
reasonably safe with; and 2) in the event you were wrong, be strong
and not let another person's opinion send you reeling.

jen

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<030720030917017603%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>...
but she's the one I need to tell it to -- and I just can bring myself to start down that road.


Why do you suppose that is? What are you gaining by your inaction?

jen

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:020720032233592299%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <c9GdnR7cEtAJAJ6iXTWJkg@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: It hurts to be born into a new life. However there is no stopping the process of change no matter how much it hurts. Well, I *could* sit here and do nothing (pretty much what I've been for several months, I have to admit) and change would go on much more slowly (at least on the surface.) Or I could sit my wife down and dump all my accumulated gripes (deserved or not) at once, pack my toothbrush, go out the door, drive down to "the pharmacist's" house and beg for aid and comfort. Or something in between. It's in that in-between stuff where I'm stuck. Ted

The answer is also *in-between*.

There is a school of thinking the says
you are exactly where you are supposed to be.

Could that be possible? If you were to take all the events
of your life, and lived them once again,
would they sum once again to the same definition of you?

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:040720032355181025%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <klsNa.2621$oN.110476@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Actually some self help book I read somewhere suggested writing a whole
lot of compliments and gripes on little pieces of paper, putting them in a
jar and letting your spouse take one out every day. Both of you should do
this for it to be fair I suppose. I think it would be a good exercise in improving communication for a lot of couples. I don't know that it would work for us. My wife says she wants us to get this over with fast -- that she keeps waiting for the other shoe to drop. She doesn't want me to dole the gripes out one by one. Or so she says. Ted

You could accommodate her in one dynamic moment, simply change your name.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:050720032139353201%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <HJzNa.2845$oN.121038@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Well of course not. NOTHING will work for you buddy! You're only reading this ng to offer a few insightful little titbits to us poor guys who are still under the illusion that we have a chance at being happy. Not you - goodness no - being happy would be beneath you. I have no insights, other than perhaps about how I tick. I'm looking for some. From people who have some experience to share. I haven't found many, but I'm sitll hoping. Ted

This is the game that you play. I imagine that this must be difficult
to live with for the both of you. It seems a form of passive agressive
behavior. Suppose you echanged the word "insights" for the word
"creativity". Would you still say that was true. What you are talking
about is "creating" your life as an author to a novel. Every writer
gets *blocked* now and again

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gnvfuh6p07.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:

I wish I was a perfect person already!

Do you expect to get to this goal?

It think that was a compliment.

I believe that you should think about these questions though.
Once you wrestle with them you will be different.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:040720032353294487%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <_X-dncz6WYN2Z5iiXTWJjg@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: How do you know who you are? Are you the same person every hour of everyday? Is one supposed to have an image of self? If so, where does it come from? What you are taught , what you observe, what you feel? You think too much, urf. (-: Ted

shinypenny wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: I've been in the throes of writing a story where the whole issue of emotional/intellectual intimacy is *KEY*, and *I* suddenly, out of the blue, realized that intimacy is grounded in absolute trust. I'll agree that intimacy is grounded in trust in ONESELF, not necessarily one's partner. First of all, it's impossible to have absolute trust in any other human being. You're simply asking much too much, IMHO. There is no one else in this entire world who's going to place your self-interest above their own. Trust in yourself, well that's another thing. Trust that you can take care of you, come what may, if your partner hurts you and the relationship beyond repair.

Actually, I suspect that those who have no doubt of their own
trustworthiness and basic "rightness" are the ones most likely
to be diagnosed with a psychosis. There is always a kernel of
doubt in ourselves required to maintain some balance in this
world.

For instance, Ashcroft is sure that he can be trusted. Same
with Dubya and even Cheney.
This reflects in my own life, too, so it's yet another facet for me to look into vis a vis my marriage. If each party in a relationship can *TRUST* the other to NOT do anything to hurt their feelings (with *FULL* reciprocity) each party needs not fear exposure of their own weaknesses since there is no threat of having it used against them. How about simply trusting yourself to 1) disclose to people you feel reasonably safe with; and 2) in the event you were wrong, be strong and not let another person's opinion send you reeling.

"reasonably safe with" implies a matter of trusting another
with one's vulnerabilities. As human beings, we *all* have
vulnerabilities, but some can keep them in an undisclosed
location...

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

urf wrote: Seeker wrote: Jung says we look for our anima or animus -- but no theory as to what *that* is like! http://www.cgjungpage.org/jpintro.html#Daryl

You _are_ a Vorlon...

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

In article <c8cb5319.0307061708.37562cb6@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<030720030917017603%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... but she's the one I need to tell it to -- and I just can bring myself to start down that road. Why do you suppose that is? What are you gaining by your inaction?

I don't know that I'm gaining anything -- it's fear of losing that has
me stuck. (Yes, I know it may sound like I have little to lose, but
even a little of something is more than nothing.)

Ted

In article <bMycnS9Ez-z1TJWiXTWJjQ@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
There is a school of thinking the says you are exactly where you are supposed to be.

And that's the delusion of people who do not want to take
responsibility for their actions nor ask other people to take
responsibility for theirs.
It's the same school that says there are no coincidences.

I do not deny that events outside my control or the conscious control
of others have bought me where I am, but this is not the only path I
could have been on, nor even the only path to have gotten me to roughly
where I am.

Ted

In article <EqCcnSPj6IhZSJWiXTWJiw@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
What you are talking about is "creating" your life as an author to a novel.

Not a good analogy.
An author doesn't have to deal with the lives of real people.

Ted

In article <uv1Oa.3501$oN.156908@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
You will never find any because you dont really *want* to. You have an excuse every time.

Show me someone who has dealt with a situation at all similar to mine
without resorting to divorce and I'll listen. Show me someone who
felt the right way to live with their spouse was to hide from them
every unpleasant thought or event unless it was impossible to do so --
and then after 35 years realizes that was not the right thing afterall
and successfully turned around 180 degress and told everything and I'll
listen.

Ted

Amy Lou wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:050720032139353201%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <HJzNa.2845$oN.121038@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Well of course not. NOTHING will work for you buddy! You're only reading this ng to offer a few insightful little titbits to us poor guys who are still under the illusion that we have a chance at being happy. Not you - goodness no - being happy would be beneath you. I have no insights, other than perhaps about how I tick. I'm looking for some. From people who have some experience to share. I haven't found many, but I'm sitll hoping. You will never find any because you dont really *want* to. You have an excuse every time. Amy

Exactly true. No spin.

Empress Otku wrote: On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:48:13 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <uv1Oa.3501$oN.156908@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: You will never find any because you dont really *want* to. You have an excuse every time. Show me someone who has dealt with a situation at all similar to mine without resorting to divorce and I'll listen. Show me someone who felt the right way to live with their spouse was to hide from them every unpleasant thought or event unless it was impossible to do so -- and then after 35 years realizes that was not the right thing afterall and successfully turned around 180 degress and told everything and I'll listen. Oh, Ted. Have you ever heard of "terminal uniqueness"? ~Empress

LOL. Now THAT is classic. :-)

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gnvfuh6p07.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: I wish I was a perfect person already! Do you expect to get to this goal?


Of course not. And if you took my remark in context, you'd see what
the point was. What _was_ the point of isolating it out of context?

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qaednR1u0YQjT5WiXTWJhg@comcast.com... Do you think that sarcasm is appropriate?

Do you think it isn't?
Why show your frustration?

Why not?

Amy

"Amy Lou" said:
Why not?

Hey someone's awake!! haha! Where ya from Amy?

Temily

so then, you are?

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:070720030008579908%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <FMKcnYFBYPv3S5WiXTWJgQ@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: It think that was a compliment. Actually, it was a joke on myself. I believe that you should think about these questions though. Once you wrestle with them you will be different. I have. Ted

Tell me what is really real again?

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:060720032348064671%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <EqCcnSPj6IhZSJWiXTWJiw@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: What you are talking about is "creating" your life as an author to a novel. Not a good analogy. An author doesn't have to deal with the lives of real people. Ted

"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:FSaOa.4217$oN.169436@newsfeeds.bigpond.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:qaednR1u0YQjT5WiXTWJhg@comcast.com... Do you think that sarcasm is appropriate? Do you think it isn't? Why show your frustration? Why not? Amy

Because sarcasm directed towards another person is a form
of abuse.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kallva971m.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gnvfuh6p07.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: I wish I was a perfect person already! Do you expect to get to this goal? Of course not. And if you took my remark in context, you'd see what the point was. What _was_ the point of isolating it out of context?

Because I believe that most people reveal who they are in what they
say (write). I thought that what you wrote is what you meant and
that it was important.

urf wrote: Amy Lou wrote: urf wrote: Do you think that sarcasm is appropriate? Do you think it isn't? Why show your frustration? Why not? Because sarcasm directed towards another person is a form of abuse.

I'd have to agree, some people don't realize that sarcasm is
actually an insult though, to the less sensitive, sounds more
like a compliment.

When exposed to it in large quantities as a child one learns
not to trust compliments, which tends to undercut any ability
to succeed (or even _feel_ successful).

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

"urf" said:
Because sarcasm directed towards another person is a form of abuse.

Not always. Like when you say to someone who is absolutely beautiful but is
complaining their hair is not 'sitting right', "Yeah ms gorgeous, you really
need to worry about your HAIR!" That form of sarcasm is actually
sarcastically complimentary!

Temily

"urf" said:
Because I believe that most people reveal who they are in what they say (write). I thought that what you wrote is what you meant and that it was important.

The things people write or say can be masked. It's the action of the person
that reveals their true nature.

Temily

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kallva971m.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gnvfuh6p07.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... > Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: > I wish I was a perfect person already! Do you expect to get to this goal? Of course not. And if you took my remark in context, you'd see what the point was. What _was_ the point of isolating it out of context? Because I believe that most people reveal who they are in what they say (write). I thought that what you wrote is what you meant and that it was important.

Yes, people do reveal who or what they are in what they say or
write. But removing remarks from their contexts often makes them
_less_ revealing. Though it can be a nice debating trick if one's
only concern is scoring points.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3s65me9s6v.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kallva971m.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:gnvfuh6p07.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... > > Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: > > > > I wish I was a perfect person already! > > Do you expect to get to this goal? Of course not. And if you took my remark in context, you'd see what the point was. What _was_ the point of isolating it out of context? Because I believe that most people reveal who they are in what they say (write). I thought that what you wrote is what you meant and that it was important. Yes, people do reveal who or what they are in what they say or write. But removing remarks from their contexts often makes them _less_ revealing. Though it can be a nice debating trick if one's only concern is scoring points.

Do you think that is my motivation?

Do you think that what I did was a negative or a positive?

Why don't you correct me by revealing in any amount of detail that
you would like to, what it is that you meant when you included that as part
of a larger context? I'm interested. Apparently I did not get the point in
the original telling. To me, the interesting part was what I snipped out
and posted.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3s65me9s6v.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kallva971m.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... > "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: > > > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:gnvfuh6p07.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... > > > Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: > > > > > > > I wish I was a perfect person already! > > > > Do you expect to get to this goal? > > > Of course not. And if you took my remark in context, you'd see what > the point was. What _was_ the point of isolating it out of context? Because I believe that most people reveal who they are in what they say (write). I thought that what you wrote is what you meant and that it was important. Yes, people do reveal who or what they are in what they say or write. But removing remarks from their contexts often makes them _less_ revealing. Though it can be a nice debating trick if one's only concern is scoring points. Do you think that is my motivation?

I don't know. You took a fragment of my post out of context to go off
on a tangent from the topic of that thread. So I'm confused about
your motivation to do that.a
Do you think that what I did was a negative or a positive?

Negative. On usenet, taking small bits of other's posts out of
context is usually negative.
Why don't you correct me by revealing in any amount of detail that you would like to, what it is that you meant when you included that as part of a larger context? I'm interested. Apparently I did not get the point in the original telling. To me, the interesting part was what I snipped out and posted.

The context was Ted's remark about his wife wanting to get things over
with fast. That is a laudable goal, but sometimes impractical. As
you might put it: life is a journey - there is no way to "get there"
before it ends.

Now in the context of Ted's dilemna (whether to be honest and take a
risk, or continue to withhold his feelings), if I were him I believe
I'd take the first choice. But whatever choice he makes, it is
unlikely to fulfill his wife's desire to "get things over with fast."

Doug

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:060720032348074718%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <uv1Oa.3501$oN.156908@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: You will never find any because you dont really *want* to. You have an excuse every time. Show me someone who has dealt with a situation at all similar to mine without resorting to divorce and I'll listen. Show me someone who felt the right way to live with their spouse was to hide from them every unpleasant thought or event unless it was impossible to do so -- and then after 35 years realizes that was not the right thing afterall and successfully turned around 180 degress and told everything and I'll listen. Ted

It isn't really her responsibility to show you anything.

It is possible to find bits and pieces in every message and in every
moment of every day.

I rather think of myself like this

http://www.crumbmuseum.com/naturalcvr.html


"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbgekeu.5r0.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Seeker wrote: urf wrote: How do you know who you are? Are you the same person every hour of everyday? Is one supposed to have an image of self? If so, where does it come from? What you are taught , what you observe, what you feel? You think too much, urf. (-: Are we sure urf ain't a Vorlon? -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "Do these pants make my penis look small?"

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
I rather think of myself like this http://www.crumbmuseum.com/naturalcvr.html

That's scary. That's how _I_ think of you!

Seeker wrote: In article <3F047C7C.32CCC63@tidal.wav>, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: The initial attraction of a partner comes from the ability to re-create the issues from childhood that have left wounds. Initially that's what Hendrix reads like, but you read it closer it's clear he doesn't have a clue either -- the image you create of the ideal spouse has *both* good and bad aspects of your caregivers, and he offers no explanation for which are picked. Jung says we look for our anima or animus -- but no theory as to what *that* is like! I think it's best to look at what you have, as he or she is, and not pay much attention to the stereotypes. Now, I agree Hendrix is much better than Gray in that respect, but he too ofers a theory that I don't think really helps much. Ted

Dismissing Hendrix does not settle the issue.

Terry Real takes a similar model and then gives different suggestions.
(This probably is due in part to the more acutely hurting men that he
typically deals with.) He has identified relational maturity skills
that closely correspond to the self-care skills that codependents are
taught. There is a good chance that you would find this interesting.

There probably are similar therapy approaches that you and I am not
aware of. (Maybe someone will point one out.)
--
Tsam

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:VSeOa.32764$U23.9885@nwrdny01.gnilink.net... "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:FSaOa.4217$oN.169436@newsfeeds.bigpond.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:qaednR1u0YQjT5WiXTWJhg@comcast.com... Do you think that sarcasm is appropriate? Do you think it isn't? Why show your frustration? Why not? Amy Because sarcasm directed towards another person is a form of abuse.

Gosh I didn't realise. We live in an abusive society don't we. ;) Still it
was better than crawling through the phone line reaching out to Ted and
twisting his ear which is what I really wanted to do. ;)

Amy

Amy

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in Now in the context of Ted's dilemna (whether to be honest and take a risk, or continue to withhold his feelings), if I were him I believe I'd take the first choice. But whatever choice he makes, it is unlikely to fulfill his wife's desire to "get things over with fast."

A major part of Ted's problem is IMO his inability to prioritise his needs
over his wife's needs. Sometimes we just have to take the bull by the horns
and put ourselves first. Until Ted can do that he will never move on.

Amy

urf wrote: I rather think of myself like this http://www.crumbmuseum.com/naturalcvr.html

as a follow-up: http://www.asstr.org/~gary/Naked/Naked.htm

"During the daytime I'm Mr Natural, Just as healthy as I can be,
But at night I'm a Junk Food Junkie, Good Lord have pity on me!"

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:27:34 +1000, "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com>
wrote:
"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:qaednR1u0YQjT5WiXTWJhg@comcast.com... Do you think that sarcasm is appropriate?Do you think it isn't? Why show your frustration?Why not?Amy
Ah...a primer in becoming a salesman!! lol


Have a nice week...

Gus

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

In article <LNeOa.32749$U23.16935@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
so then, you are?

Yes.

Seeker, in an effort to out-Vorlon urf, chimed: urf being mysterious, performed the following incantation: so then, you are? Yes.

Ted, have you been watching B5 reruns again?

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

Did you seriously not get my point? An author can try different
things out -- sketch a plot, try some character development, draft some
dialogue -- and if it doesn't work, throw it all in the wastebasket and
start over. While some mistakes and false starts in a relationship
can be undone, I believe many cannot.

Ted

In article <zReOa.32759$U23.28960@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
Tell me what is really real again? "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:060720032348064671%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <EqCcnSPj6IhZSJWiXTWJiw@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: What you are talking about is "creating" your life as an author to a novel. Not a good analogy. An author doesn't have to deal with the lives of real people.

In article <1BoOa.4434$oN.181218@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
Sometimes we just have to take the bull by the horns and put ourselves first.

Says who?

Ted

In article <UwoOa.4433$oN.180587@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
Still it was better than crawling through the phone line reaching out to Ted and twisting his ear which is what I really wanted to do. ;)

Huh? I think I missed something...

Ted

In article <slrnbgkd31.ugt.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C
Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
Ted, have you been watching B5 reruns again?

Nope. I hardy watched the original either (except in passing, I guess
when one of our sons may have been watching it.)

Ted

In article <nw4r1xn0c8.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
For instance, the principle of rigorous honesty (or whatever the catchphrase for it is) has been espoused by many -- how many here have successfully tried to institute such a policy after having kept silent on any potentially negative issues (unless absolutely necessary) for 37 years? The answer to that question isn't important.

It's not?????????
I'm not going to follow advice that no-one else has been able to follow
and make work!

I understand your arguments that any one of us can rationalize
themselves into being special cases -- but you don't seem to accept my
argument that the various *serious* aspects of my situation cannot be
"treated" individually -- I claim that if solution X works for A, and Y
for B, and Z for C, then there is no guarantee that XY&Z together will
work for AB&C together, and good reason to believe they won't.

Ted

In article <nw4r1xn0c8.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK. But that is a bad analogy. _You'll_ only eat the mushrooms if you've seen someone else eat them with _exactly_ the same set of accompanying dishes and with the sun and moon in the same astrological signs.

Not true. I'd ignore the sun and moon. But I *would* pay close
attention to how they were prepared -- some, I understand, are
poisonous when raw, but edible when cooked. (Or was that blowfish?
Anyway, I'm sure you get the point.)

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <nw4r1xn0c8.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: For instance, the principle of rigorous honesty (or whatever the catchphrase for it is) has been espoused by many -- how many here have successfully tried to institute such a policy after having kept silent on any potentially negative issues (unless absolutely necessary) for 37 years? The answer to that question isn't important. It's not????????? I'm not going to follow advice that no-one else has been able to follow and make work! I understand your arguments that any one of us can rationalize themselves into being special cases -- but you don't seem to accept my argument that the various *serious* aspects of my situation cannot be "treated" individually -- I claim that if solution X works for A, and Y for B, and Z for C, then there is no guarantee that XY&Z together will work for AB&C together, and good reason to believe they won't.

But Ted, there is no guarantee of anything, ever. So at some point
you have to synthesize the information you can gather about all the
various things that have happened to people that aren't anything like
your situation, and act.

Or not, if that is waht you prefer.

Doug Anderson wrote: Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <nw4r1xn0c8.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:> For instance, the principle of rigorous honesty (or whatever the> catchphrase for it is) has been espoused by many -- how many here have> successfully tried to institute such a policy after having kept silent> on any potentially negative issues (unless absolutely necessary) for 37> years? The answer to that question isn't important. It's not????????? I'm not going to follow advice that no-one else has been able to follow and make work! I understand your arguments that any one of us can rationalize themselves into being special cases -- but you don't seem to accept my argument that the various *serious* aspects of my situation cannot be "treated" individually -- I claim that if solution X works for A, and Y for B, and Z for C, then there is no guarantee that XY&Z together will work for AB&C together, and good reason to believe they won't. But Ted, there is no guarantee of anything, ever. So at some point you have to synthesize the information you can gather about all the various things that have happened to people that aren't anything like your situation, and act.

Well, not really - he doesn't have to. And from what little snippets I've
seen in here, it sure doesn't sound too likely, at least at this stage, does
it?

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:070720032249530689%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <UwoOa.4433$oN.180587@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Still it was better than crawling through the phone line reaching out to Ted and twisting his ear which is what I really wanted to do. ;) Huh? I think I missed something...

I find it rather frustrating that so many people here, including me, have
offered you help yet you refuse to accept that any of it is of any use. Can
you understand that from my point of view? Can you put yourself in my shoes
for a moment and think about it?

Amy

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:070720032248355988%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <1BoOa.4434$oN.181218@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Sometimes we just have to take the bull by the horns and put ourselves first. Says who?

Well I posted it so it must have been me. :) Ted, for years I kept on
putting my DH's needs ahead of my own. The more I gave, the more he
complained he wasn't getting enough. When I realised I was no longer able to
live like that (I was miserable) I began setting boundaries with DH and I
began to live my life the way I wanted, not the way he wanted. The spin off
from that was that he developed respect for me. We are now much happier.

Amy

shinypenny wrote: Part of it is that she claims not to be judging me, but her feedback seems to always sound absolute and objective-- even when it's an emotional or relationship issue. In temperament terms, she's a "J" and you're a "P." I'm also a P. My first marriage was to a J. My SO is a P, and it makes a big difference.

Yeah, she did the Myers-Briggs on-line test and got an INFJ, I
got an INFP.
I do believe, however, that in many marriages people tend to take the polar opposite to balance each other out. Your wife over the years may have drifted into extreme J-ness as you've drifted into extreme P-ness, in an attempt to balance the relationship. If so, then your becoming a little less P might be enough to coax her into becoming a little less J.

Well, I think the cracks that have been accumulating in my
shell have been somewhat threatening to her; she has been
oscillating between trying to apply more "control" and being
more, well, affectionate (or looking for physical affection
from me) so it's a matter of her finding a mode that doesn't
piss me off so much.

Part of it is that I'm now less willing to just swallow the
bile and I express my frustrations more outwardly, even if
it's mostly growling...
"It's not like you're entitled to that kind of attention". She can say that all she wants. The question is, do you believe it about yourself?

At one time I would accept whatever she placed in front of
me. Now that I know limits exist, that means that I can
now REFLECT those limits explicitly to her so that she
knows what parameters there are in our relationship. Part
of it is recognizing the limits to commitment made by a
partner; once recognized, they become something that needs
to be bilaterally applied.

So, as long as she kept those limits covert, well, it was
easier to believe them to be "normal". Now that they are
recognized as _existing_, well, that changes quite a few
dynamics... and allows me to review our past with an eye
to seeing where the boundaries are.

I suspect that if I had some kind of experience in emotional
relationships before meeting her that I'd have had a better
grasp of how things worked, but I was such an idealist.

Of course getting me the way she did gave her a lot more
control over me and led me to be more accepting of her
limits. It also increased my sense of loyalty to her as
well, so I can't picture myself leaving her.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

"Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DqrOa.33101$C83.2820174@newsread1.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net...
It's called "rationalization". Yes, it's a way to stall and avoid
*doing*.

Not doing is a form of decisive participation. (err... I think.)

You too are missing a point. That you are in fact writing the
story of your life as you live it. It is here on these pages
you tell us but it is in the history you have created that
your complete story is told. You are the author of your
life and there is no denying it.

Have you ever seen the movie "Defending Your Life"?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1034710/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=24702

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:070720032246489574%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... Did you seriously not get my point? An author can try different things out -- sketch a plot, try some character development, draft some dialogue -- and if it doesn't work, throw it all in the wastebasket and start over. While some mistakes and false starts in a relationship can be undone, I believe many cannot. Ted In article <zReOa.32759$U23.28960@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Tell me what is really real again? "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:060720032348064671%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <EqCcnSPj6IhZSJWiXTWJiw@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: > What you are talking > about is "creating" your life as an author to a novel. Not a good analogy. An author doesn't have to deal with the lives of real people.

You think this could be the reason that many people
spend years in psychotherapy? It is not easy.


"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:orwOa.4633$oN.186494@newsfeeds.bigpond.com... "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:070720032249530689%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <UwoOa.4433$oN.180587@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Still it was better than crawling through the phone line reaching out to Ted
and twisting his ear which is what I really wanted to do. ;) Huh? I think I missed something... I find it rather frustrating that so many people here, including me, have offered you help yet you refuse to accept that any of it is of any use.
Can you understand that from my point of view? Can you put yourself in my
shoes for a moment and think about it? Amy

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:87k6u890l.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3s65me9s6v.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:kallva971m.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... > > "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: > > > > > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:gnvfuh6p07.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... > > > > Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > I wish I was a perfect person already! > > > > > > Do you expect to get to this goal? > > > > > > Of course not. And if you took my remark in context, you'd see
what > > the point was. What _was_ the point of isolating it out of
context? > > Because I believe that most people reveal who they are in what they > say (write). I thought that what you wrote is what you meant and > that it was important. Yes, people do reveal who or what they are in what they say or write. But removing remarks from their contexts often makes them _less_ revealing. Though it can be a nice debating trick if one's only concern is scoring points. Do you think that is my motivation? I don't know. You took a fragment of my post out of context to go off on a tangent from the topic of that thread. So I'm confused about your motivation to do that.a Do you think that what I did was a negative or a positive? Negative. On usenet, taking small bits of other's posts out of context is usually negative. Why don't you correct me by revealing in any amount of detail that you would like to, what it is that you meant when you included that as
part of a larger context? I'm interested. Apparently I did not get the point
in the original telling. To me, the interesting part was what I snipped out and posted. The context was Ted's remark about his wife wanting to get things over with fast. That is a laudable goal, but sometimes impractical. As you might put it: life is a journey - there is no way to "get there" before it ends.

I might have said.....*There is no way to get there from here.*

Now in the context of Ted's dilemna (whether to be honest and take a risk, or continue to withhold his feelings), if I were him I believe I'd take the first choice. But whatever choice he makes, it is unlikely to fulfill his wife's desire to "get things over with fast." Doug

urf wrote: Pardon my Ignorance but what is "B5"? Jack C Lipton wrote: Seeker, in an effort to out-Vorlon urf, chimed: urf being mysterious, performed the following incantation:> so then, you are? Yes. Ted, have you been watching B5 reruns again?

B5, wherein there are references to Vorlons, is a/k/a "Babylon 5".

Trekkies called it "Babbling Jive" but it was a very character
driven series...

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

urf wrote: Bill wrote: It's called "rationalization". Yes, it's a way to stall and avoid *doing*. Not doing is a form of decisive participation. (err... I think.)

My father did his best to instill us with what he learned as
an officer in the Army:

"Not making a decision is still making a decision, it's just
that you didn't choose a desired result."

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

shinypenny wrote: cupasoup@softhome.net (Jack C Lipton) wrote in message news:<slrnbgka1l.ugt.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>... I have fairly high standards of loyalty, though, which cannot adequately be explained-- even to _me_.

If you are an ACOA, it goes with the turf.

Bill wrote: shinypenny wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: I have fairly high standards of loyalty, though, which cannot adequately be explained-- even to _me_. If you are an ACOA, it goes with the turf.

Ah, but *I* am not an ACOA (ACOE, Adult Child Of an Engineer,
perhaps that's equivalent?) but my wife is. My standards for
loyalty is for *my* loyalty. (Perhaps that the engineer in me.)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

"Amy Lou" <said: I find it rather frustrating that so many people here, including me, have offered you help yet you refuse to accept that any of it is of any use.
Can you understand that from my point of view? Can you put yourself in my
shoes for a moment and think about it?

That's always the key..putting ourselves in someone else's shoes......if we
can do that we're ahead. The trick is, to get the other person in our
shoes!!

Temily

"Amy Lou" said: Well I posted it so it must have been me. :) Ted, for years I kept on putting my DH's needs ahead of my own. The more I gave, the more he complained he wasn't getting enough. When I realised I was no longer able
to live like that (I was miserable) I began setting boundaries with DH and I began to live my life the way I wanted, not the way he wanted. The spin
off from that was that he developed respect for me. We are now much happier.

That's a good thing Amy :-) BTW~ Are you in Austraaaalia?

Temily

Seeker wrote: In article <3F09FE13.6FAF3A33@tidal.wav>, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: Terry Real takes a similar model and then gives different suggestions. (This probably is due in part to the more acutely hurting men that he typically deals with.) He has identified relational maturity skills that closely correspond to the self-care skills that codependents are taught. There is a good chance that you would find this interesting. I did read Real. And other than being afraid to give the diagnostic test he has in the introduction ot my wife I have completely forgotten anything he said. Strange, given it came so highly recommended. (It could just be I'm on overload -- after awhile, they all blur together and none of it makes sense.) Ted

The first point I remember is that (due to differences in their standing
in society) men have options of emotional disconnection via rage and
withdrawal that are perceived as not there for women. It's unfair, but
setting these options aside is necessary before the subtler ways that
women (and men) damage relationships can be addressed.

(My 7/03 post in this thread briefly describes the following phase.)

The PC gender theory did put me off at first. I guess that it needs
a context of experience with inherited pain to be applied constructively.
Real did convince me that he knew what he was saying by the familiar
emotional texture of his examples.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I can see similarities between your family and these examples. The
emotional damage caused by your withdrawal when you were drinking
would get a lot more emphasis than you and we have given it.

Real's success stories tend to be men whose inner pain is becoming
unmanageable. Their lives often are at a crisis. Real believes in
taking away the masks and forcing the underlying pain to the surface,
in a context where it can be resolved (instead of being compounded
with further injuries).

You have been told by many in ASM to stop hiding your hidden feelings
from your wife and work to resolve them, similarly to Real's approach.
Whether you will do this probably depends on whether you reach a
crisis in your life that forces you do do this. At this point you
likely will act less afraid, because courage and desperation look a
lot alike.

Your growing need for emotional connection seems to come from some
healing of your history of pain. Pursuing this need away from your
wife is gradually leading you into betraying her trust. Following
the path of least resistance will likely lead to her discovering so
much accumulated betrayal that your marriage will end.

If you see this as the path that you are on, then your hesitations
are locally reasonable but not in a long-term context. I believe
that for you to find your voice about this, you need a conviction
that not rocking the boat no longer is a viable option. You will
need a part of yourself to act as Real and tell you that jumping
into change, with your therapist there to protect you and your
family, is really safer than staying on your emotional ledge.

Your essential dilemma is _not_ unique.
--
Tsam

>Pardon my Ignorance but what is "B5"?

Ack! Not to know one of the greatest scifi shows on TV?
Babylon 5, standalone series (i.e., not a spinoff of
Star Trek.) Jack was comparing you to a mysterious,
word-conserving race called the Vorlons.

Tracey

'What is it now, Vir, you grinning assassin of joy?'
Lando

"Temily" <temilyp@hotmail.com> writes:
"Amy Lou" said: Well I posted it so it must have been me. :) Ted, for years I kept on putting my DH's needs ahead of my own. The more I gave, the more he complained he wasn't getting enough. When I realised I was no longer able to live like that (I was miserable) I began setting boundaries with DH and I began to live my life the way I wanted, not the way he wanted. The spin off from that was that he developed respect for me. We are now much happier. That's a good thing Amy :-) BTW~ Are you in Austraaaalia?

I thought it was 'strahlia. Or maybe 'strahlier.

Jack C Lipton wrote: urf wrote: Pardon my Ignorance but what is "B5"? Jack C Lipton wrote: Seeker, in an effort to out-Vorlon urf, chimed: > urf being mysterious, performed the following incantation: > >> so then, you are? > > Yes. Ted, have you been watching B5 reruns again? B5, wherein there are references to Vorlons, is a/k/a "Babylon 5". Trekkies called it "Babbling Jive" but it was a very character driven series...
Can someone explain briefly what Vorlons are, in context to their
mention here?
--
Tsam

>Can someone explain briefly what Vorlons are, in contextto their mention here?

An 'older' race with much wisdom, but who choose to share
the wisdom cryptically. Kinda like an interstellar Buddha.

Tracey

"Doug Anderson" said: I thought it was 'strahlia. Or maybe 'strahlier.

Most people think i sound a bit english anyway..but the way i pronounce it
is: ustraylia

Temily

"Tsam Nami" said [snipped a lot] If you see this as the path that you are on, then your hesitations are locally reasonable but not in a long-term context. I believe that for you to find your voice about this, you need a conviction that not rocking the boat no longer is a viable option. You will need a part of yourself to act as Real and tell you that jumping into change, with your therapist there to protect you and your family, is really safer than staying on your emotional ledge. Your essential dilemma is _not_ unique.

A very insightful, sensitive and helpful post Tsam.

Temily

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:48:06 GMT, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav>
wrote:

<snipped>Your essential dilemma is _not_ unique.

Wow.

Ted, this is a post for you to print out or save as a text file. I
think I'll go read it again, myself.




~Empress

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:11:11 GMT, cupasoup@softhome.net (Jack C
Lipton) wrote:
My father did his best to instill us with what he learned asan officer in the Army: "Not making a decision is still making a decision, it's just that you didn't choose a desired result."

Very true. Sometimes sitting down and enumerating all the options
will help a person get past that stuck place.

~Empress

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 19:59:51 +1000, "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com>
wrote:
I find it rather frustrating that so many people here, including me, haveoffered you help yet you refuse to accept that any of it is of any use. Canyou understand that from my point of view? Can you put yourself in my shoesfor a moment and think about it?

Amy, one of the first things I noticed about Ted is that he places us
in a classic double-bind by asking for help and then saying that it
won't work.

I think all we can do is keep pointing out that one can't expect
intimacy without being ready to experience it.

~Empress

I went down to the Chelsea drugstore
To get your prescription filled
I was standing in line with Mr. Jimmy
And man, did he look pretty ill
We decided that we would have a soda
My favorite flavor, cherry red
I sung my song to Mr. Jimmy
Yeah, and he said one word to me, and that was "dead"
I said to him
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You get what you need

~Empress

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:37:45 GMT, "Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net>
wrote:
But what good will that do if he doesn't (and won't ever) believe it, Emma?

We don't know that, Bill. Where there's life, there's hope. (Who
said that?)

~Emmapress.

"Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Empress Otku wrote: On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:48:06 GMT, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: <snipped> Your essential dilemma is _not_ unique. Wow. Ted, this is a post for you to print out or save as a text file. I think I'll go read it again, myself. But what good will that do if he doesn't (and won't ever) believe it, Emma?

It may do good for someone other than Ted.

I get to watch very little TV.

That was not always the case.


"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3F0AF8EF.1040303@aol.com...Pardon my Ignorance but what is "B5"? Ack! Not to know one of the greatest scifi shows on TV? Babylon 5, standalone series (i.e., not a spinoff of Star Trek.) Jack was comparing you to a mysterious, word-conserving race called the Vorlons. Tracey 'What is it now, Vir, you grinning assassin of joy?' Lando

Empress, Otku wrote: On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:48:06 GMT, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: <snipped>Your essential dilemma is _not_ unique. Wow. Ted, this is a post for you to print out or save as a text file. I think I'll go read it again, myself.

I appreciate your response. The impetus behind my posts are my needs,
not Ted's.

Thank you, Empress, for citing this author to me last year. Terry's
bluntness was helpful to me.

In one of his examples, a withdrawn nerd on the verge of committment
to a better marriage (Dan, Ch 10) said that he would go "through broken
glass barefoot" to stop repeating his hurtful, inherited pattern. Not
simply out of love for his wife, but because seeing himself do this
"just sickens me". That connected. The people aboard UAL flight 93
on 9/11/01, who fought back, changed their behavior when they became
aware of the situtation and where their passivity would lead. My
challenges are on a much smaller scale, but they can't be ignored
either.

Ted, figure out for yourself if passivity is truly a safe choice in
your marriage. I doubt it, but you gotta decide for yourself.
--
Tsam

Tracey wrote:Can someone explain briefly what Vorlons are, in contextto their mention here? An 'older' race with much wisdom, but who choose to share the wisdom cryptically. Kinda like an interstellar Buddha.

(chimes/rustles) yes (rustles/chimes)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

Tracey wrote:Can someone explain briefly what Vorlons are, in contextto their mention here? An 'older' race with much wisdom, but who choose to share the wisdom cryptically. Kinda like an interstellar Buddha.

Of course, trying to explain Zathras might be more difficuly.

"Zathras used to being beast of burden to other people's needs.
Zathras has had a sad life. Zathras will probably have a sad
death... At least, there is symmetry."

"This is... wrong tool."

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

Of course, trying to explain Zathras might be more difficuly.

Zathras is cool.

'Do you understand?'

<nodding head vigorously> 'No. Zathras no understand.
Zathras do, but Zathras no understand.'

==============================

'There's Zathras. And there's Zathras. And then there's
Zathras. I don't like him.'

Tracey

Empress Otku wrote: On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:37:45 GMT, "Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: But what good will that do if he doesn't (and won't ever) believe it, Emma? We don't know that, Bill. Where there's life, there's hope. (Who said that?) ~Emmapress.

It must have been Temily! It sure wasn't me. LOL.

You seem to be describing certain of the folks
here in ASM.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbgm7bm.rci.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g...
Of course, trying to explain Zathras might be more difficuly. "Zathras used to being beast of burden to other people's needs. Zathras has had a sad life. Zathras will probably have a sad death... At least, there is symmetry." "This is... wrong tool." -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "Do these pants make my penis look small?"

<Empress> wrote:
~Emmapress.

:-)

Seeker wrote: In article <3F0AF5C6.F41F315@tidal.wav>, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: The first point I remember Thanks Tsam. I'm quoting this just to acknowledge what you wrote. Of all of what I've read, I suspect Real is the one that would most benefit from a re-reading (taking special note of what I underlined the first time!) Your growing need for emotional connection seems to come from some healing of your history of pain. Pursuing this need away from your wife is gradually leading you into betraying her trust. Following the path of least resistance will likely lead to her discovering so much accumulated betrayal that your marriage will end. This, of course, struck home. What I have trouble with here is reconciling this particular advice with that of those who if they have not actively encouraged me to seek that connection elsewhere ("don't look for raisins in the hardware store", "it is unrealistic to expect all of a person's emotional needs to be met by his or her spouse") have at least not discouraged it. (I may or may not comment on the rest later... busy schedule these days.) Ted

OK. We'll discuss this later.
--
Tsam

In article <r40mgvkdebkop5o8tkk1n6npf2k08dtgd5@4ax.com>, Empress Otku
wrote:
Very true. Sometimes sitting down and enumerating all the options will help a person get past that stuck place.

Hasn't worked for me yet...

Ted

In article <R_zOa.21017$Ha.791@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
I might have said.....*There is no way to get there from here.*

And I need to be convinced that is not the case.

Ted

In article <uu4r1w8ugd.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
One might also consider whether your goal is increasing the intimacy in your marriage, or to give up on that and deal with the lack of intimacy in your marriage by looking for it elsewhere. You've implied that your goal is the former. On the other hand, the path you've been pursuing seems better suited to the latter.

I view what I'm doing with the latter is what gives me impetus to
pursue the former, or at least some happiness while I am. I could
also be fooling myself.

Ted

In article <3f0b33f0$0$643$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>, twoFive wrote:
There's already been some very good responses to your post, but for some reason I feel compelled to reply too.

Thanks. I need to chew on this one too.

Ted

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:47:10 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>
wrote:
You can't get away that easily. Advice is easy to give -- I needconcrete case histories of where the specific advice offered has indeedworked. And where it hasn't.

Sorry, Ted. The thing is, you don't *need* it so much as *want* it.
It's as though you want a guarantee.

Listen, there's no way anyone else is going to have exactly the same
life circumstances that you have! Even if they did, what worked for
them, might not work for you.

Paradoxically, though, the fact that your personal life is unique
doesn't mean that others haven't faced the same existential dilemma
that you're facing.

There are no guarantees, choices negate other options and we all have
to decide, one way or the other... Or stay stuck and let it be.


~Empress

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:080720032344385904%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <orwOa.4633$oN.186494@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: I find it rather frustrating that so many people here, including me,
have offered you help yet you refuse to accept that any of it is of any use.
Can you understand that from my point of view? Can you put yourself in my
shoes for a moment and think about it? I just searched for every post you've made that has either "Ted" or "Seeker" in it somewhere. There were about 14 of them. At the end of this I've included all of what they said (in the order Google came up with them, which is only roughly chronological, newest to oldest.) II see only two pieces of advice from your own experience (1) that I put my needs ahead of my wife's, and (2) I take over more of the chores. At the very least, those sound in conflict to me, and I've already been doing the second one -- I do all the vacuuming and 90% of the floor washing, cook all me meals on weekends and probably 50% of those during the week (as well as make my own lunch). We do all our shopping (food, clothing, household supplies, gifts) together. Our kids are grown and out of the house and she is not employed and has no outside committments other than church choir. I've been trying to find out how long you have been married. As best I can tell, you've never said, though you do appear to have children. In the process I ran across the following from you: Religion is quite irrelevent to our marriage. As far as I know neither of us have any religious beliefs but I could not say for certain as, to be quite honest, the topic never comes up. Why should I listen to you at all? If it weren't for the course of our respective spiritual journies I would not be in the situation I find myself in. I am in what I consider is a very serious situation. The future of my marriage depends on what I do or don't do. I am not about to listen very seriously to somebody who says "I think you should" or "I believe" unless they can say "here is exactly the situation I was in, here's what I did, and here's what the outcome was." Is that blunt enough for you?

I appreciate the effort you have been to. Im pretty impressed with the
googling. :)) Yes you have been very blunt but you havent answerd my
question. I said I was feeling frustrated because you come here and moan
about how terrible your life is, we listen to you, we tell you how we cope
with our lives, we offer advice yet you keep coming up with excuses as to
why you should do NOTHING. I asked you to consider how *I* feel. All you did
was go into defense mode, searched out a few more excuses as to why you
shouldn't listen to me and left it at that. I'll ask you again - can you try
to understand how *I* feel? This time don't get defensive. We all make
mistakes. I've made the very same one you have just made. Im not trying to
diss you. Im simply asking you to see my point of view, to understand why I
feel frustrated with you.

Amy

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <4rbngvoujfpi4aijik7s56r3qd23730in7@4ax.com>, Empress Otku wrote: Sorry, Ted. The thing is, you don't *need* it so much as *want* it. It's as though you want a guarantee. Listen, there's no way anyone else is going to have exactly the same life circumstances that you have! Even if they did, what worked for them, might not work for you. Paradoxically, though, the fact that your personal life is unique doesn't mean that others haven't faced the same existential dilemma that you're facing. There are no guarantees, choices negate other options and we all have to decide, one way or the other... Or stay stuck and let it be. Yes, doing nothing is safe (until something explodes, whch is always a risk.) Family systems theory says that if one spouse makes a change, the other is going to be forced to also make a change, and that's part of the principle under which I believe I'm being told I have to do something, probably something dramatic.

Well, of course you _don't_ have to do anything. Then maybe things
will stay as they are, or maybe your spouse will eventually do
something.
But the risk is in not knowing what the nature of the response is going to be -- some say it is somewhat predicatable, i.e., that if I make myself vulnerable by telling my secrets she will respond in kind and everything will be fine.

Yep. That's the problem with everything. Even small actions can have
consequences that would be hard to predict. There just aren't any
guarantees.
I don't know with any confidence that that is true -- for I've seen no case example to demonstrate it is, although Schnarch gives some hope (until you look at the details -- I believe in all his examples both parties *were* sincerely trying to make matters better, but I should re-read both books.) I fear that the opposite reaction will in fact set in -- that she will completely shut me out. I suspect that is always a risk -- but it is one only worth taking if it is a small one.

That may be true for you. For others it might be worth taking that
risk even if it were large. For you, maybe not.
It matters to me to feel like I'm being honest with myself and my
closest relationships. It matters so much that I need to be able to
take risks like that. But different things matter to different
people.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:090720032351512721%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <YiSOa.5080$oN.211068@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: I'll ask you again - can you try to understand how *I* feel? I can try, but I can't say I succeeded.
<snip excuses about not knowing Amy>


I'm baffled. You need to know me better in order to understand my feelings
of frustration? Why can't you just imagine yourself in my position and
imagine how you would feel? Its called empathy. You don't have to be
correct. You just tell me how you *think* I feel and we'll go from there. Go
on, take a stab at it.

Amy

This is a far more important question than would seem
on the surface.

Imagination requires creativity. Creativity can also be used
to form solutions to problems.


"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:9PaPa.5498$oN.232164@newsfeeds.bigpond.com... "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:090720032351512721%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <YiSOa.5080$oN.211068@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: I'll ask you again - can you try to understand how *I* feel? I can try, but I can't say I succeeded. <snip excuses about not knowing Amy> I'm baffled. You need to know me better in order to understand my feelings of frustration? Why can't you just imagine yourself in my position and imagine how you would feel? Its called empathy. You don't have to be correct. You just tell me how you *think* I feel and we'll go from there.
Go on, take a stab at it. Amy

urf wrote: This is a far more important question than would seem on the surface. Imagination requires creativity. Creativity can also be used to form solutions to problems.

Only if one is motivated to do so.

Seeker wrote: Yes, doing nothing is safe (until something explodes, whch is always a risk.) Family systems theory says that if one spouse makes a change, the other is going to be forced to also make a change, and that's part of the principle under which I believe I'm being told I have to do something, probably something dramatic. But the risk is in not knowing what the nature of the response is going to be -- some say it is somewhat predicatable, i.e., that if I make myself vulnerable by telling my secrets she will respond in kind and everything will be fine. I don't know with any confidence that that is true -- for I've seen no case example to demonstrate it is, although Schnarch gives some hope (until you look at the details -- I believe in all his examples both parties *were* sincerely trying to make matters better, but I should re-read both books.) I fear that the opposite reaction will in fact set in -- that she will completely shut me out. I suspect that is always a risk -- but it is one only worth taking if it is a small one.
Caution is reasonable. My main criticism of your anaysis is that it seems
to assume that the null choice (continuing to do what you have been doing)
has no risks.
--
Tsam

Bill wrote: urf wrote: This is a far more important question than would seem on the surface. Imagination requires creativity. Creativity can also be used to form solutions to problems. Only if one is motivated to do so.

Creativity is an example of emergent rather than deterministic
behavior.

Creativity, BTW, is dependant upon transmission errors w/i the
brain and how the wetware copes (or doesn't) with such an error
rate.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

Tsam Nami wrote: Seeker wrote:Yes, doing nothing is safe (until something explodes, whch is always arisk.) Family systems theory says that if one spouse makes a change,the other is going to be forced to also make a change, and that's partof the principle under which I believe I'm being told I have to dosomething, probably something dramatic. But the risk is in notknowing what the nature of the response is going to be -- some say itis somewhat predicatable, i.e., that if I make myself vulnerable bytelling my secrets she will respond in kind and everything will befine. I don't know with any confidence that that is true -- for I'veseen no case example to demonstrate it is, although Schnarch gives somehope (until you look at the details -- I believe in all his examplesboth parties *were* sincerely trying to make matters better, but Ishould re-read both books.) I fear that the opposite reaction will infact set in -- that she will completely shut me out. I suspect that isalways a risk -- but it is one only worth taking if it is a small one. Caution is reasonable. My main criticism of your anaysis is that it seems to assume that the null choice (continuing to do what you have been doing) has no risks. -- Tsam

My personal belief is that unless Ted's personal situation gets worse,
he's not likely to do more than he's already doing. He gets little
emotional or physical intimacy from his wife, but he gets at least of
whiff of it from someplace else, and that is apparently good enough for now.

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:3F0DC25B.DC879735@tidal.wav... Jack C Lipton wrote: Bill wrote: urf wrote:> This is a far more important question than would seem> on the surface.>> Imagination requires creativity. Creativity can also be used> to form solutions to problems. Only if one is motivated to do so. Creativity is an example of emergent rather than deterministic behavior. Creativity, BTW, is dependant upon transmission errors w/i the brain and how the wetware copes (or doesn't) with such an error rate. That's the first step. Being receptive to unexpected good fortune is the second step. (I learned to be conscious about this from playing bridge.) -- Tsam

Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand why I
felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I do that he
doesn't seem to be able to?

Amy

"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes:
Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand why I felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I do that he doesn't seem to be able to?

Sure, sort of. He's frustrating 'cause he likes to complain, but then
he can rationalize ignoring any advice.

But maybe he doesn't want a solution, just to complain. Isn't that
supposed to be a "venus" thing on the mars/venus continuum?

But why get bent out of shape about it? Ted will take action when and
if his situation becomes sufficiently intolerable so that he is forced
to risk the unknown over continuing with the status quo.

And none of us have to live with him!

Doug Anderson wrote: "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes: Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand why I felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I do that he doesn't seem to be able to? Sure, sort of. He's frustrating 'cause he likes to complain, but then he can rationalize ignoring any advice. But maybe he doesn't want a solution, just to complain.

MAYBE???? Yeah, right! I needed a funny today, Doug. So thanks for that!

Amy Lou wrote: "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:3F0DC25B.DC879735@tidal.wav... Jack C Lipton wrote: Bill wrote: > urf wrote: >> This is a far more important question than would seem >> on the surface. >> >> Imagination requires creativity. Creativity can also be used >> to form solutions to problems. > > Only if one is motivated to do so. Creativity is an example of emergent rather than deterministic behavior. Creativity, BTW, is dependant upon transmission errors w/i the brain and how the wetware copes (or doesn't) with such an error rate. That's the first step. Being receptive to unexpected good fortune is the second step. (I learned to be conscious about this from playing bridge.) -- Tsam Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand why I felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I do that he doesn't seem to be able to? Amy

I know how much I want to drop out of Ted's conversations here.
Ted puts much energy into his arguments here. I feel that we are
facilitating his neglect of his marriage by repeatedly discussing
his situation with him, whether we sympathize or argue with him.
The sooner Ted asks his wife for the emotional intimacy he wants,
the more he will be able to listen to her reactions then-and-there,
instead of playing back rehearsals of this discussion.

What I see as soothing her when this happens is the basis for their
love -- why he does not feel that she is replaceable. IMO expressing
that is a matter of being true to what he feels and the feelings that
they connect to. I see this more as a matter of being authentic than
of being creative. That's why I feel that a lengthly rehearsal is not
helpful.

How are you seeing added creativitiy in Ted as a way out of his dilemma?
--
Tsam

I empathize with his wife. I would like to spend an
hour or two talking to her.

We have only his descriptions of his relationship to go by.
It may take a near saint to cope on a regular basis with
the type of game he plays. Perhaps his mention of other women
is really just his fantasy too. Perhaps they exist but would bolt
the moment he showed them the side of himself he shows here.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.....

Of course he is going to a therapist. That could take
many years but it is a step. It does indicate something.
I'm not sure what.


"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:3F0E0AB0.2A316A85@tidal.wav... Amy Lou wrote: "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:3F0DC25B.DC879735@tidal.wav... Jack C Lipton wrote: > > Bill wrote: > > urf wrote: > >> This is a far more important question than would seem > >> on the surface. > >> > >> Imagination requires creativity. Creativity can also be used > >> to form solutions to problems. > > > > Only if one is motivated to do so. > > Creativity is an example of emergent rather than deterministic > behavior. > > Creativity, BTW, is dependant upon transmission errors w/i the > brain and how the wetware copes (or doesn't) with such an error > rate. That's the first step. Being receptive to unexpected good fortune is the second step. (I learned to be conscious about this from playing bridge.) -- Tsam Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand why
I felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I do that he doesn't seem to be able to? Amy I know how much I want to drop out of Ted's conversations here. Ted puts much energy into his arguments here. I feel that we are facilitating his neglect of his marriage by repeatedly discussing his situation with him, whether we sympathize or argue with him. The sooner Ted asks his wife for the emotional intimacy he wants, the more he will be able to listen to her reactions then-and-there, instead of playing back rehearsals of this discussion. What I see as soothing her when this happens is the basis for their love -- why he does not feel that she is replaceable. IMO expressing that is a matter of being true to what he feels and the feelings that they connect to. I see this more as a matter of being authentic than of being creative. That's why I feel that a lengthly rehearsal is not helpful. How are you seeing added creativitiy in Ted as a way out of his dilemma? -- Tsam

Amy Lou wrote:

Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand why I felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I do that he doesn't seem to be able to?

Ohhhhhh yes....

It'd drive me batty if I had to live with that level of "analysis before
action" in my husband. (Ted, that's one of the reasons I sympathise with
your wife as well as you.)

Ted's stalled because he's too scared to risk whatever meagre comfort he has
now against the possible gain of something closer to the ideal life he
wants. Maybe he recognises that dreams are more perfect than reality is
likely to be.

Besides - what do you *do* with a spouse you decide you no longer want if
you are a person of principle and compassion. (Rock, hard place)

Tai

"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:beldio$6g3vj$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... Amy Lou wrote: Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand why I felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I do that he doesn't seem to be able to? Ohhhhhh yes.... It'd drive me batty if I had to live with that level of "analysis before action" in my husband. (Ted, that's one of the reasons I sympathise with your wife as well as you.)

Me too. And I'm cautious by nature.
Ted's stalled because he's too scared to risk whatever meagre comfort he
has now against the possible gain of something closer to the ideal life he wants. Maybe he recognises that dreams are more perfect than reality is likely to be.

Fantasy *IS* better than reality but it is still fantasy.
For me fantasy is as important to my life as is so called reality.
I still buy lottery tickets.
Besides - what do you *do* with a spouse you decide you no longer want if you are a person of principle and compassion. (Rock, hard place) Tai

Morally and ethically I could not live with a person in the way Ted does.
It's against my principles. I think it is MORE moral to live honestly,
authentically
however that is described by each individual than it is to live a lie of a
marriage.
If you talk the talk, you must walk the walk. We all have to live with
ourselves,
even in fantasyland.

Tracey wrote: Thanks for being what seems to be about the only person here who thinks that preceding with caution has some merit. The thing is, Ted, that there is a big difference between 'caution' and 'I ain't doing nothing until I'm *guaranteed* the result I want.' You, IMO, fall in the last category.

In life there are no guarantees. You make decisions
based on desired outcomes; you try to prepare for as
many of the possible outcomes as you can, but there
will be those that fall outside your expectations.

So be it.

However, the flip side to this isn't symmetrical:
Not making a decision is STILL making a decision, it's
just that you didn't choose any of the outcomes you
get.

Additionally, making a decision doesn't necessarily
mean there's no fallback path; you merely have to work
out a fallback plan.

Sheesh... I'm sounding like a version/change management
guy. ICK.

ISO-9000 applied to marriage: It's not just a good idea,
it provides plenty of material for jokes.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

In article <dDmPa.5734$oN.241419@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand why I felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I do that he doesn't seem to be able to?

Now you are really sounding frustrated. Sure I can empathize. You
have a point you are trying to get across and I'm not getting it. Who
hasn't felt that way. Now why you care so damn much about getting
your point across to me I don't know; I guess I should appreciate the
concern but I don't see any empathy from your side on my predicament --
just complaints that I'm not getting it. It cuts both ways, you know.

Ted

urf wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:beldio$6g3vj$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... Amy Lou wrote: Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand why I felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I do that he doesn't seem to be able to? Ohhhhhh yes.... It'd drive me batty if I had to live with that level of "analysis before action" in my husband. (Ted, that's one of the reasons I sympathise with your wife as well as you.) Me too. And I'm cautious by nature.

So am I. It amuses me that Ted thinks anyone is actually trying to rush him
into action, I doubt anyone here would want him to do anything without
careful consideration.
Ted's stalled because he's too scared to risk whatever meagre comfort he has now against the possible gain of something closer to the ideal life he wants. Maybe he recognises that dreams are more perfect than reality is likely to be. Fantasy *IS* better than reality but it is still fantasy. For me fantasy is as important to my life as is so called reality. I still buy lottery tickets.

Well, I don't buy lottery tickets (I may have forgotten a great deal of the
math I ever knew but probability theory has rubbed off) and I wouldn't say
fantasy is as important to me as reality is but it's what helps shape the
directions I take and it adds depth to my life in other ways.

Heh... I fantasise about buying lottery tickets and winning....
Besides - what do you *do* with a spouse you decide you no longer want if you are a person of principle and compassion. (Rock, hard place) Tai Morally and ethically I could not live with a person in the way Ted does. It's against my principles. I think it is MORE moral to live honestly, authentically however that is described by each individual than it is to live a lie of a marriage.

Hmmmm.... I agree up to a point. However, I value loyalty, responsibilty and
duty too and I would be looking for ways to accommodate those values,
because they are part of who I am and who I need to be to achieve personal
happiness. But I'm not good martyr material so I wouldn't commit suttee over
the death of my marriage.
If you talk the talk, you must walk the walk. We all have to live with ourselves, even in fantasyland.

Yep.

Tai

Jack C Lipton wrote:

It'd drive me batty if I had to live with that level of "analysis before action" in my husband. (Ted, that's one of the reasons I sympathise with your wife as well as you.) Normally referred to "analysis paralysis" and it isn't all that unique a situation.

Thanks, I knew there had to be a common usage term for it!
Ted's stalled because he's too scared to risk whatever meagre comfort he has now against the possible gain of something closer to the ideal life he wants. Maybe he recognises that dreams are more perfect than reality is likely to be. I have no idea how much experience Ted had with others before he met his wife; if he was the one short on experience of the two, then, for him, it was a matter that she had the Midas touch for him... one touch, acceptance, and WHAM-OH he was _human_.

You differ from Ted in that one of your problems is the (false) picture you
have of yourself as being less important than others. Ted comes across as
being a little arrogant and bossy and certainly fairly demanding. It's quite
interesting how you react differently to the same comments.

(Ted, I'm not trying to insult you, everyone is allowed to have those
attributes)
Agreed... sometimes it has felt (in the past) better to hope for an 18-wheeler to crush me during my commute, so that I'm released from the bonds. Stupid, yes, but once dead any subsequent blame cannot stick to you... or your memory. The downside is that you no longer exist to enjoy that state. *DARN*

There *must* be a way in between, Jack. :)

Tai
(optimistic realist or realistic optimist)

In article <slrnbgsff5.9tu.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C
Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
ISO-9000 applied to marriage: It's not just a good idea, it provides plenty of material for jokes.

Now *that* was funny (I work for an ISO-9001 company).
The rest will have to wait until tomorrow.

G'night all

Ted

Tai wrote: urf wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:beldio$6g3vj$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... Amy Lou wrote:> Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand> why I felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I> do that he doesn't seem to be able to? Ohhhhhh yes.... It'd drive me batty if I had to live with that level of "analysis before action" in my husband. (Ted, that's one of the reasons I sympathise with your wife as well as you.) Me too. And I'm cautious by nature. So am I. It amuses me that Ted thinks anyone is actually trying to rush him into action, I doubt anyone here would want him to do anything without careful consideration.

What time frame would you consider to be rushing? 5 years? :-)

Tai wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote:It'd drive me batty if I had to live with that level of"analysis before action" in my husband. (Ted, that's oneof the reasons I sympathise with your wife as well as you.)Normally referred to "analysis paralysis" and it isn't allthat unique a situation. Thanks, I knew there had to be a common usage term for it!Ted's stalled because he's too scared to risk whatevermeagre comfort he has now against the possible gain ofsomething closer to the ideal life he wants. Maybe herecognises that dreams are more perfect than reality islikely to be.I have no idea how much experience Ted had with others beforehe met his wife; if he was the one short on experience ofthe two, then, for him, it was a matter that she had theMidas touch for him... one touch, acceptance, and WHAM-OHhe was _human_. You differ from Ted in that one of your problems is the (false) picture you have of yourself as being less important than others. Ted comes across as being a little arrogant and bossy and certainly fairly demanding. It's quite interesting how you react differently to the same comments. (Ted, I'm not trying to insult you, everyone is allowed to have those attributes)

And these attributes are why I find Ted to be much healthier than Jack.
Both of them have a tendency to wallow in their circumstances, but from
Ted I sense an optimism that he can make things better. I don't get that
from Jack, at least not very often.

If I were The Wizard of Oz and could give one gift to Jack, it would be
hope.



Agreed... sometimes it has felt (in the past) better tohope for an 18-wheeler to crush me during my commute, sothat I'm released from the bonds.Stupid, yes, but once dead any subsequent blame cannot stickto you... or your memory. The downside is that you no longerexist to enjoy that state. *DARN* There *must* be a way in between, Jack. :) Tai (optimistic realist or realistic optimist)

twoFive wrote: Tai wrote:

<snip>
You differ from Ted in that one of your problems is the (false) picture you have of yourself as being less important than others. Ted comes across as being a little arrogant and bossy and certainly fairly demanding. It's quite interesting how you react differently to the same comments. (Ted, I'm not trying to insult you, everyone is allowed to have those attributes) And these attributes are why I find Ted to be much healthier than Jack. Both of them have a tendency to wallow in their circumstances, but from Ted I sense an optimism that he can make things better. I don't get that from Jack, at least not very often.

I agree. Ted seems far healthier than Jack, to me, too... though perhaps not
quite as sweetnatured... ;)

I wonder how much of Ted's healthy self-worth is gained from his knowledge
that God loves him? Irrespective of my own beliefs I see that as a huge
positive for him.
If I were The Wizard of Oz and could give one gift to Jack, it would be hope.

I'd give him self-love.

Tai

Bill wrote:
What time frame would you consider to be rushing? 5 years? :-)

Hey... How long have they been married?

I think it's one of those "how long is a piece of string?" issues. It'll
take as long as it takes.

Tai

Tai wrote: twoFive wrote: And these attributes are why I find Ted to be much healthier than Jack. Both of them have a tendency to wallow in their circumstances, but from Ted I sense an optimism that he can make things better. I don't get that from Jack, at least not very often. I agree. Ted seems far healthier than Jack, to me, too... though perhaps not quite as sweetnatured... ;)

This so-called sweet nature may be _due_ to my constant
ego reduction exercises, since I _want_ to be liked but
seldom feel like, well, I _deserve_ to be liked. That
character flaw or weakness in myself can make me look
better in a social context.
I wonder how much of Ted's healthy self-worth is gained from his knowledge that God loves him? Irrespective of my own beliefs I see that as a huge positive for him.

God may love me, too, but it's a little distant. I may
doubt myself, but...
If I were The Wizard of Oz and could give one gift to Jack, it would be hope. I'd give him self-love.

The problem I see with hope is hope of what? Hope that
it's over within the next 5 years? Or hope that I can
become fully human?

Right now I'm still working towards self-tolerance;
Once I can comfortably look at myself in a mirror I
will know I've achieved this level of comfort. At
least I'm no longer as uncomfortable seeing pictures
that I'm in.

Yes, I know it sounds stupid...

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

Jack C Lipton wrote: Tai wrote:twoFive wrote:And these attributes are why I find Ted to be muchhealthier than Jack. Both of them have a tendencyto wallow in their circumstances, but from Ted Isense an optimism that he can make things better.I don't get that from Jack, at least not very often.I agree. Ted seems far healthier than Jack, to me,too... though perhaps not quite as sweetnatured... ;) This so-called sweet nature may be _due_ to my constant ego reduction exercises, since I _want_ to be liked but seldom feel like, well, I _deserve_ to be liked. That character flaw or weakness in myself can make me look better in a social context.I wonder how much of Ted's healthy self-worth isgained from his knowledge that God loves him?Irrespective of my own beliefs I see that as ahuge positive for him. God may love me, too, but it's a little distant. I may doubt myself, but...If I were The Wizard of Oz and could give one giftto Jack, it would be hope.I'd give him self-love. The problem I see with hope is hope of what? Hope that it's over within the next 5 years? Or hope that I can become fully human?

Jack, you are fully human. I can't imagine any non-human feeling the way
you do.
Right now I'm still working towards self-tolerance; Once I can comfortably look at myself in a mirror I will know I've achieved this level of comfort. At least I'm no longer as uncomfortable seeing pictures that I'm in.

I think Tai's gift of self love is a better one for you. Anyway, I sense
that there is a link between self-love and hope.
Yes, I know it sounds stupid...

It doesn't sound stupid.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbgtcuu.bq3.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Tai wrote: twoFive wrote: And these attributes are why I find Ted to be much healthier than Jack. Both of them have a tendency to wallow in their circumstances, but from Ted I sense an optimism that he can make things better. I don't get that from Jack, at least not very often. I agree. Ted seems far healthier than Jack, to me, too... though perhaps not quite as sweetnatured... ;) This so-called sweet nature may be _due_ to my constant ego reduction exercises, since I _want_ to be liked but seldom feel like, well, I _deserve_ to be liked. That character flaw or weakness in myself can make me look better in a social context.

Why due you see that as a *character flaw*? I wonder how much of Ted's healthy self-worth is gained from his knowledge that God loves him? Irrespective of my own beliefs I see that as a huge positive for him. God may love me, too, but it's a little distant. I may doubt myself, but...

In my case I had to redraw the concept of God to
suit myself. Is that egotistical? If I told you that
God doesn't care what you do, it's all just a huge
experiment to see what will happen. Would that
have any meaning to you?
If I were The Wizard of Oz and could give one gift to Jack, it would be hope. I'd give him self-love. The problem I see with hope is hope of what? Hope that it's over within the next 5 years? Or hope that I can become fully human?

I hope you learn to dream.
Right now I'm still working towards self-tolerance; Once I can comfortably look at myself in a mirror I will know I've achieved this level of comfort. At least I'm no longer as uncomfortable seeing pictures that I'm in. Yes, I know it sounds stupid...

Actually, for me, looking in the mirror is getting much
more difficult. Age you know. That once handsome face
gets closer and closer to the end of the line and looks
the part. I admit that I fear death but I think it's because
I love life so much.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<UOCdnefKopySoJOiXTWJkA@comcast.com>...

Morally and ethically I could not live with a person in the way Ted does.

Me, neither.
It's against my principles. I think it is MORE moral to live honestly, authentically however that is described by each individual than it is to live a lie of a marriage.


My take is that Ted is seriously conflicted between two choices,
equally moral & authentic in his own mind:

1) His personal beliefs, which may eventually mean divorcing his wife
so he no longer lives a lie;

- and -

2) His religious beliefs, which dictate staying in the marriage. Ted's
religious beliefs are very much a part of who he is; going against
them would be inauthentic.

For the faithful, I think these are exactly the kind of dilemmas that
help us grow in our understanding of God.

For me, I learned to keep my eye on the universal principles, not just
the black & white rules. Ultimately that led me to do what I
considered the most life-giving and loving thing, for our situation.
I think that's all God asks of Ted, too. What that happens to be,
well, only Ted can determine that.

jen

shinypenny wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<UOCdnefKopySoJOiXTWJkA@comcast.com>... Morally and ethically I could not live with a person in the way Ted does. Me, neither. It's against my principles. I think it is MORE moral to live honestly, authentically however that is described by each individual...
(and morally and ethically - at all costs..)

But this is a dilemma, for in truly subscribing to this philosophy, we will not
find happiness, due to the inherent banality of mankind.

Bill wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: The problem I see with hope is hope of what? Hope that it's over within the next 5 years? Or hope that I can become fully human? I'm not sure it's such a great thing to become "fully human". There are too many human traits that really suck.

Well, I think I already have most of *those* traits already.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <3F0E0AB0.2A316A85@tidal.wav>, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: The sooner Ted asks his wife for the emotional intimacy he wants, the more he will be able to listen to her reactions then-and-there, instead of playing back rehearsals of this discussion. And I guess that's what scares me -- do you have any idea of how much I fear asking that question (in whatever form it ends up taking shape as) and getting the answer that there is no emotional intimacy to give?

Frankly, _I_ have no idea. If that happened, and you got that
answer, exactly what have you lost?

Tai wrote: I wonder how much of Ted's healthy self-worth is gained from his knowledge that God loves him? Irrespective of my own beliefs I see that as a huge positive for him.

I agree -- faith in God's love can limit how low one prone to depression
might fall. Also, for someone who believes that Christ's Passion was done
for his/her own self (in part), the love shown can be a useful challenge
to self love and self healing.

These ideas work for me in my times of need.
--
Tsam

Jack C Lipton wrote: This so-called sweet nature may be _due_ to my constant ego reduction exercises, since I _want_ to be liked but seldom feel like, well, I _deserve_ to be liked. That character flaw or weakness in myself can make me look better in a social context.
As an author and a techie, you show a lot here that I admire,
respect, and even envy a little. Not loving yourself seems
so mistaken.

For you, as for me, a key part of differentiation is to not
put your feelings of self worth at stake when your wife dumps
on you fears and doubts about your love for her. The parts
of Ecstatic Cling (not including the conclusion) that I've
read show you as a man who loves your wife, but one who
resents how she treats you. Loving yourself -- developing
a resistance to inappropriate shame -- will enable you to
keep your resentment separate from her mistaken assumptions
about you. If you can process the resentment within yourself
(and any healers you employ), you will have the patience
needed to show your true self past her defenses of fear and
doubt.
--
Tsam

I am vain enough to think that I know God better than most
everybody else.

I *know* that doesn't care about anything at all.


"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0307110743.463911c4@posting.google.c om... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<UOCdnefKopySoJOiXTWJkA@comcast.com>... Morally and ethically I could not live with a person in the way Ted
does. Me, neither. It's against my principles. I think it is MORE moral to live honestly, authentically however that is described by each individual than it is to live a lie of
a marriage. My take is that Ted is seriously conflicted between two choices, equally moral & authentic in his own mind: 1) His personal beliefs, which may eventually mean divorcing his wife so he no longer lives a lie; - and - 2) His religious beliefs, which dictate staying in the marriage. Ted's religious beliefs are very much a part of who he is; going against them would be inauthentic. For the faithful, I think these are exactly the kind of dilemmas that help us grow in our understanding of God. For me, I learned to keep my eye on the universal principles, not just the black & white rules. Ultimately that led me to do what I considered the most life-giving and loving thing, for our situation. I think that's all God asks of Ted, too. What that happens to be, well, only Ted can determine that. jen

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:3F0F02E9.FA7E91F5@tidal.wav... Jack C Lipton wrote: This so-called sweet nature may be _due_ to my constant ego reduction exercises, since I _want_ to be liked but seldom feel like, well, I _deserve_ to be liked. That character flaw or weakness in myself can make me look better in a social context. As an author and a techie, you show a lot here that I admire, respect, and even envy a little. Not loving yourself seems so mistaken. For you, as for me, a key part of differentiation is to not put your feelings of self worth at stake when your wife dumps on you fears and doubts about your love for her. The parts of Ecstatic Cling (not including the conclusion) that I've read show you as a man who loves your wife, but one who resents how she treats you. Loving yourself -- developing a resistance to inappropriate shame -- will enable you to keep your resentment separate from her mistaken assumptions about you. If you can process the resentment within yourself (and any healers you employ), you will have the patience needed to show your true self past her defenses of fear and doubt. -- Tsam

Wow. Impressive.

In article <belkdd$6i0o4$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tai
<tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote:
I wonder how much of Ted's healthy self-worth is gained from his knowledge that God loves him? Irrespective of my own beliefs I see that as a huge positive for him.

I don't know that I can answer that question myself. It certainly is
a big part of it, but as often as my mind my reflects on the times God
and I have been close it reflects on that very precious moment on Nov.
30, 1998, when the woman I've called my soul friend gave me a deep hug
in the lobby of my hotel and said, under circumstances where I knew it
was sincere, "I love you." In an earlier post "twofive" (I think)
used the common argument that if there is a heaven etc. then all the
troubles one goes through in this world hardly matter and can be
(should be able to be?) easily endured. To some extent that is true
-- but one of the surprising (to me) messages I've learned these last
few years is that that is only *one* of God's promises -- and focussing
just on it overlooks the fact, which can be stated in many ways, that
on the whole we were intended to *enjoy* creation, not just suffer
through it. I'm sure I've quoted before a saying my bishop friend
uses often that I eventually tracked down to a medieval (or possibly
earlier) Jewish commentator to the effect that God will hold us
accountable for the pleasure we could have had but refused to. And
so, while it isn't guaranteed and I don't know how it's going to work
out I do believe I am supposed to enjoy my life and my created body --
all aspects of it -- and in that I also have hope.

Ted

In article <yowuepvvhv.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <3F0E0AB0.2A316A85@tidal.wav>, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: The sooner Ted asks his wife for the emotional intimacy he wants, the more he will be able to listen to her reactions then-and-there, instead of playing back rehearsals of this discussion. And I guess that's what scares me -- do you have any idea of how much I fear asking that question (in whatever form it ends up taking shape as) and getting the answer that there is no emotional intimacy to give? Frankly, _I_ have no idea. If that happened, and you got that answer, exactly what have you lost?

Hope.

I have not had to grieve many losses in my life, whether that be
fortunate or not. What I have had to grieve on several occasions is
what might have been but never will be.
I don't want to have to do that again if I don't have to.

Ted

In article <slrnbgsf5c.9tu.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C
Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
I have no idea how much experience Ted had with others before he met his wife; if he was the one short on experience of the two, then, for him, it was a matter that she had the Midas touch for him... one touch, acceptance, and WHAM-OH he was _human_.
Neither one of us had any experience to speak of before we met each
other. A few dates each -- nothing physical, not even a serious kiss,
no long walks in the moonlight. So, yes, it was something brand new
for both of us.
So, in some ways, that's an imprinting event. Unfortunately for Ted, human personalities evolve with time, and he did evolve in one direction while it is apparent his wife's progress diverged from his path, but that initial imprint is still in place.

I'm not sure at first how much of it was evoluation but rather
discovery; later came the evolution (in me) and that's when the pain
really started.
At a certain point it could be said that "better the devil you know, who knows you" than "the devil you don't". Personally, the thought of losing the person who provided me that first rush of acceptance would undermine many of the structures I'm still depending upon as I try to migrate away from my own dependancies.

Nope. I have tried to imagine life without her and I have very little
problem doing so. Yes, there have been moments when there were some
close calls (like a near accident) and for a fleeting moment I thought
how close I'd come to losing her and that hit me pretty hard, but I
can't conjure up that feeling at will.

Ted

In article <jDzPa.1$3G5.0@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
In my case I had to redraw the concept of God to suit myself. Is that egotistical? If I told you that God doesn't care what you do, it's all just a huge experiment to see what will happen. Would that have any meaning to you?

If you mean that literally, then that is one point where we differ
greatly. It wasn't a question at all of coming up with a concept of
God -- I just had to observe and write down what I observed -- not an
intellectual exercise at all. If I told both of you that God cares
*immensely* about what we do, would that have any meaning to either one
of you?

Ted

In article <belfrt$6gotg$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tai
<tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote:
So am I. It amuses me that Ted thinks anyone is actually trying to rush him into action, I doubt anyone here would want him to do anything without careful consideration.

You can't really mean that, can you? I think the very first day I
posted my story I had two or three people telling me to rush off to
divorce court as fast as I could! Damn it -- I would like this to
move faster too; my wife keeps saying it took us 35 years to get where
we are, then all of a sudden I change my personality by 180 degrees and
i expect her to accomodate me overnight.
Hmmmm.... I agree up to a point. However, I value loyalty, responsibilty and duty too and I would be looking for ways to accommodate those values, because they are part of who I am and who I need to be to achieve personal happiness. But I'm not good martyr material so I wouldn't commit suttee over the death of my marriage.

I have to admit that those values do not seem to be intrinsic to my
personality -- but integrity and compassion are, and they are at
constant loggerheads. I suspect there are very few of us who have a
mix of personal values that can all be satisfied at once.

Ted

Seeker wrote: In article <belfrt$6gotg$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tai <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote: So am I. It amuses me that Ted thinks anyone is actually trying to rush him into action, I doubt anyone here would want him to do anything without careful consideration. You can't really mean that, can you? I think the very first day I posted my story I had two or three people telling me to rush off to divorce court as fast as I could!

lol

I'll have to google that! I do a lot of 'consider the messenger' filtering
now and that was probably where my comment came from. Do you think the
people who are still engaged with your stitution are doing that? Most seem
to feel you should be revealing more of yourself to your wife but not
necessarily *all at once*.... <shudder>

Damn it -- I would like this to move faster too; my wife keeps saying it took us 35 years to get where we are, then all of a sudden I change my personality by 180 degrees and i expect her to accomodate me overnight.

Well, I'd expect us (newsgroup) to have a smaller attention span than your
wife about this. :) Anyway, you may think your personality change
occurred overnight but I very much doubt that.

<snip>
I have to admit that those values do not seem to be intrinsic to my personality -- but integrity and compassion are, and they are at constant loggerheads. I suspect there are very few of us who have a mix of personal values that can all be satisfied at once.

True.

Tai

In article <beo2il$7clqb$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tai
<tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'll have to google that! I do a lot of 'consider the messenger' filtering now and that was probably where my comment came from. Do you think the people who are still engaged with your stitution are doing that? Most seem to feel you should be revealing more of yourself to your wife but not necessarily *all at once*.... <shudder>
And that's what our therapist is saying too -- but my mind runs too
fast -- something comes up that would be an opportunity for me to try
that (some little gripe -- what he calls "bug therapy") and I see
everything else that is tied to it and I say, "I can't go there" -- I
don't see how I can let a little bit out without all of it coming out
at once. At one session I even complained, saying, I could go down my
list of secrets and I wouldn't know where to start -- and my wife
replied, incredulously, "you have a list?" (In fact, I do -- I wrote
it down for the annual fifth step I did in January.)
Damn it -- I would like this to move faster too; my wife keeps saying it took us 35 years to get where we are, then all of a sudden I change my personality by 180 degrees and i expect her to accomodate me overnight. Well, I'd expect us (newsgroup) to have a smaller attention span than your wife about this. :) Anyway, you may think your personality change occurred overnight but I very much doubt that.

Actually it did -- in Oct. of '96 (four months sober, so no longer
under any kind of influence) I took the Keirsey test and came out INTJ
-- this was completely consistent with how I'd been my entire life.
In January of '99 a friend (my soul friend) sent me a joke personality
test and just for the heck of it I decided to take the real one again
-- and it turned out to be ENFP (and has stayed that consistently
since.) I know to within a few minutes, in fact, when the change
took place -- at 7 PM on Feb. 12, 1997, but I've told that story
already.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:100720032353354759%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <dDmPa.5734$oN.241419@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: Do you guys see where I am going with this? Can you guys understand why
I felt frustrated with Ted? Do you find it as interesting as I do that he doesn't seem to be able to? Now you are really sounding frustrated. Sure I can empathize. You have a point you are trying to get across and I'm not getting it. Who hasn't felt that way. Now why you care so damn much about getting your point across to me I don't know; I guess I should appreciate the concern but I don't see any empathy from your side on my predicament -- just complaints that I'm not getting it. It cuts both ways, you know.

I am complaining because I am testing you. I am not in the least bit
frustrated with you now. I was frustrated with you a few days ago though.
That happened because I offered a simple bit of advice and you knocked it
back quick as a flash. I thought "well fine - but I'm going to tell Ted how
*I* feel". In other words I decided to be *open and honest* with you. I
decided that it would help *our* relationship (the one between you and me).
I wasn't doing it to hurt you. I was asking for your help and understanding.
I didn't expect you to take responsibility for my feelings or to tell me
that I am wrong to have such feelings. I expected you to simply accept that
my feelings are real. That's how it started, so I told you I felt frustrated
and your reaction to that got me thinking. You see your reaction was one of
"well that's not my fault", and "you shouldn't feel that way". You went into
a long story about how you didn't know me and how I don't share your
religious beliefs and how you should be excused from understanding my
feelings.

My little test has given me an idea. I think that you are frightened to be
open and honest with your wife because you fear that her reaction will be
just like the reaction you had to me.

Communication is the Key. I said that I was feeling frustrated and asked you
to empathise but you heard blame. See I wanted to talk about *me* but you
interpreted it to be about *you*. Do you see how confusing it is?

Amy

In article <ZZMPa.6261$oN.276840@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
I am complaining because I am testing you.

I'm glad I wasn't aware of that.

I'm going to pass on the rest for the moment because I don't have time
to review our exchanges to check my memory, but you sure have a
different picture of what went on than I do!

Ted

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbgsf5c.9tu.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g...
Agreed... sometimes it has felt (in the past) better to hope for an 18-wheeler to crush me during my commute, so that I'm released from the bonds. Stupid, yes, but once dead any subsequent blame cannot stick to you... or your memory. The downside is that you no longer exist to enjoy that state. *DARN*

To die, to sleep, to sleep perchance to dream. Ay! There's the rub.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:110720032241157020%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <jDzPa.1$3G5.0@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: In my case I had to redraw the concept of God to suit myself. Is that egotistical? If I told you that God doesn't care what you do, it's all just a huge experiment to see what will happen. Would that have any meaning to you? If you mean that literally, then that is one point where we differ greatly. It wasn't a question at all of coming up with a concept of God -- I just had to observe and write down what I observed -- not an intellectual exercise at all. If I told both of you that God cares *immensely* about what we do, would that have any meaning to either one of you? Ted

No. It would have no meaning. My observations of the world during my
lifetime have convinced me that there is no inteligent direction of the
physical universe. It is is merely the result of accident piled on accident.
The result is what is (or isn't). To me it is all a grand experiment.

In article <FjKdnSBYkfO7ko2iU-KYvA@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
No. It would have no meaning. My observations of the world during my lifetime have convinced me that there is no inteligent direction of the physical universe. It is is merely the result of accident piled on accident. The result is what is (or isn't). To me it is all a grand experiment.

I think we need to have a talk, urf -- a real long talk. Now, as far
as I know God is not *directing* things in the sense that a conductor
directs an orchestra or a director of a movie or a play takes care of
every little detail (although at times given what He manages to pull
off behind the scenes I sometimes have to wonder how much choice we
really do have) I do know He (or She as the case may be) is intimately
involved -- more deeply than I think we can ever unederstand -- in
everything that goes on. Definitely not an absentee landlord -- but
someone willing to, eager to, mix it up with everyone and everything.

Ted

Tsam Nami wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: This so-called sweet nature may be _due_ to my constant ego reduction exercises, since I _want_ to be liked but seldom feel like, well, I _deserve_ to be liked. That character flaw or weakness in myself can make me look better in a social context. As an author and a techie, you show a lot here that I admire, respect, and even envy a little. Not loving yourself seems so mistaken.

It seems sometimes that pain brings out more creativity.
I don't know why that's true.

Mind you, I've been told that my stuff is excessively sweet,
so I've suggested a new award (to go with the Clitorides
awards on ASSTR) of the "Gold and Silver Glucometer". :-)
For you, as for me, a key part of differentiation is to not put your feelings of self worth at stake when your wife dumps on you fears and doubts about your love for her.

Self-doubt is what made me sweet-natured. I'm a *lot* less
tolerant of late, perhaps by developing more of an immune
response to things that I feel are critical.
The parts of Ecstatic Cling (not including the conclusion) that I've read show you as a man who loves your wife, but one who resents how she treats you. Loving yourself -- developing a resistance to inappropriate shame -- will enable you to keep your resentment separate from her mistaken assumptions about you. If you can process the resentment within yourself (and any healers you employ), you will have the patience needed to show your true self past her defenses of fear and doubt.

To be seen. If I can figure out how to do it in the real
world. Fantasies allow for too much unreality...

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

Seeker wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: I have no idea how much experience Ted had with others before he met his wife; if he was the one short on experience of the two, then, for him, it was a matter that she had the Midas touch for him... one touch, acceptance, and WHAM-OH he was _human_. Neither one of us had any experience to speak of before we met each other. A few dates each -- nothing physical, not even a serious kiss, no long walks in the moonlight. So, yes, it was something brand new for both of us.

Right, but my key point is that her acceptance of you was
an ennobling event.
So, in some ways, that's an imprinting event. Unfortunately for Ted, human personalities evolve with time, and he did evolve in one direction while it is apparent his wife's progress diverged from his path, but that initial imprint is still in place. I'm not sure at first how much of it was evoluation but rather discovery; later came the evolution (in me) and that's when the pain really started.

Discoveries can function as selection pressures (and vacuums)
in the evolution of the personality.
At a certain point it could be said that "better the devil you know, who knows you" than "the devil you don't". Personally, the thought of losing the person who provided me that first rush of acceptance would undermine many of the structures I'm still depending upon as I try to migrate away from my own dependancies. Nope. I have tried to imagine life without her and I have very little problem doing so. Yes, there have been moments when there were some close calls (like a near accident) and for a fleeting moment I thought how close I'd come to losing her and that hit me pretty hard, but I can't conjure up that feeling at will.

There is a difference between losing someone to death-- thus
releasing you from the marriage contract-- and turning your
back on them... or them turning their back on you.

If your mate dies, that imprinted event of acceptance is not
lost; if backs are turned, though, that initial event of
acceptance is withdrawn. Two VERY, VERY different things.

I could just barely handle the thought of losing my wife to
death. Divorce, however, would devastate me more right now,
perhaps to the edge of dissolution.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

In article <slrnbh0o26.j89.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C
Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
Right, but my key point is that her acceptance of you was an ennobling event.
Probably true. What's happened since is that i've realized she hasn't
accepted the *real* me (because she either doesn't know it or chooses
to deny it) so that acceptance almost counts for nought -- especially
given that I *have* been accepted by other women who do know more of
the real me.
So, in some ways, that's an imprinting event. Unfortunately for Ted, human personalities evolve with time, and he did evolve in one direction while it is apparent his wife's progress diverged from his path, but that initial imprint is still in place. I'm not sure at first how much of it was evoluation but rather discovery; later came the evolution (in me) and that's when the pain really started. Discoveries can function as selection pressures (and vacuums) in the evolution of the personality.

I should have been more specific. While no doubt we did change over
the course of the first 30 years or so of our marriage, what was, in my
mind, really important was my discovering there was something really
wrong with my picture of the whole, which led to my drinking -- it was
only after sobering up and letting God's grace in that my personality
changed -- before the change we were unfulfilling'; afterwards,
incompatible.
There is a difference between losing someone to death-- thus releasing you from the marriage contract-- and turning your back on them... or them turning their back on you. If your mate dies, that imprinted event of acceptance is not lost; if backs are turned, though, that initial event of acceptance is withdrawn. Two VERY, VERY different things. I could just barely handle the thought of losing my wife to death. Divorce, however, would devastate me more right now, perhaps to the edge of dissolution.

Interesting. I think that's my wife's view -- our therapist asked her
what would happen if we did divorce and her answer was that "she'd be
nothing." He didn't ask me, by the way. I'm not going to try to
guess how I would react to either event, for it would depend so much on
the details.

Ted

p.s. -- Jack -- I apologize again for not getting terribly engaged in
reacting to your plight. I recognize that I am too focussed on my own
to be of much help to anyone with a remotely similar problem (and
that's the main reason *I* went it to therapy alone to start with -- I
knew this all was eating at me so much it was clouding my interaction
with I should have been in a position to help.)

In article <j5RPa.137$k57.2534@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
That is exactly my point. My DH and I often argue or discuss a point and get nowhere because in fact we are having two completely different conversations. If you recall, that is basically why I started this thread in the first place. My DH doesn't hear what I want him to. He either misinterprets what I say (and I'm not saying that is his fault) or he switches off completely (because he has learned from experience that it will be not in his best interest to hear what I have to say - again that is not his fault). Because of this communication barrier I am not getting my emotional needs met. It appears to me that you and your wife have a barrier to good communication too. I'm betting that my DH and you share a fear - the sound of your wife's voice. :)

Amy -- I'm not going to respond to this much until I get a chance to do
what I said I wanted to -- I want ot review our exchanges to see what
really went on.

In an earlier post you wrote this:
Communication is the Key. I said that I was feeling frustrated and asked you to empathise but you heard blame. See I wanted to talk about *me* but you interpreted it to be about *you*. Do you see how confusing it is?

As far as I can remember, I did not "hear" blame -- but somehow you
interpreted what I said that way. (But that's why I want to review the
bidding.) Above you imply that your husband and I seem to have the
same problem in understanding you. Is there the slightest chance that
what is common in all that is not whatever we by chance happen to have
in common in our communicative skills, but you? I mean, what are the
odds that some random guy on the internet and your husband suffer from
the same malady -- isn't it more likely that it's you that is the
common thread?

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:120720031919122823%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <j5RPa.137$k57.2534@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: That is exactly my point. My DH and I often argue or discuss a point and
get nowhere because in fact we are having two completely different conversations. If you recall, that is basically why I started this
thread in the first place. My DH doesn't hear what I want him to. He either misinterprets what I say (and I'm not saying that is his fault) or he switches off completely (because he has learned from experience that it
will be not in his best interest to hear what I have to say - again that is
not his fault). Because of this communication barrier I am not getting my emotional needs met. It appears to me that you and your wife have a
barrier to good communication too. I'm betting that my DH and you share a fear -
the sound of your wife's voice. :) Amy -- I'm not going to respond to this much until I get a chance to do what I said I wanted to -- I want ot review our exchanges to see what really went on.

Ted, that is unnecessary. You don't need to analyse what "really" went on.
What I wanted was for you to understand *my* feelings based on *my*
perception
of what really went on. I just wanted you to know how I felt. It was an
experiment because I was interested to see if you could look beyond the
criticism or not, and because it was a similar situation to you telling your
wife the things that you want to but can't .

I wonder if anyone else understands my experiment? My language skills are
letting me down I think.

Amy

>I wonder if anyone else understands my experiment?

I think I do. Ted is under the impression that there
is 'one truth' when it comes to communication between
two people. He believes he can go back, read the words
on the screen, and discern the truth about what *really*
happened. What he's discounting is that your filters
and your emotions while reading the words are different
than what his are/were and so there is no 'one truth'.

Tracey

In article <pQ7Qa.540$k57.23155@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
Ted, that is unnecessary. You don't need to analyse what "really" went on. What I wanted was for you to understand *my* feelings based on *my* perception of what really went on. I just wanted you to know how I felt. It was an experiment because I was interested to see if you could look beyond the criticism or not, and because it was a similar situation to you telling your wife the things that you want to but can't .

Welllllllll, if you aren't interested in analyzing the experiment
that's your choice. But seeing as I was something like half of the
experiment it'd be a waste of all the effort put into it for me not to
try to understand it, wouldn't you say?

Ted

> I wonder if anyone else understands my experiment? My language skills are letting me down I think. Amy

I do. However, maybe I do because I relate to your issues in the
first place. There is a book called Too Good To Leave Too Bad to Stay
and it addresses the very issue of communication that you are
describing. It helped me understand why I usually felt frustrated.
It gave it a label. I was better able to express the feeling to my
husband. He didn't like hearing it or reading it however it is
sinking in, slowly but surely.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:120720031303367555%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <FjKdnSBYkfO7ko2iU-KYvA@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote:
I think we need to have a talk, urf -- a real long talk.

That would be nice Ted. Let's do within the context of other conversations
though.

I find discussions about individual perceptions of God fall short except in
face to face
conversation. For me, it's better to allow what we think to permeate
that which we write here.

Now, as far as I know God is not *directing* things in the sense that a conductor directs an orchestra or a director of a movie or a play takes care of every little detail (although at times given what He manages to pull off behind the scenes I sometimes have to wonder how much choice we really do have) I do know He (or She as the case may be) is intimately involved -- more deeply than I think we can ever unederstand -- in everything that goes on. Definitely not an absentee landlord -- but someone willing to, eager to,
mix it up with everyone and everything.< Ted

I can agree with that last line without hestation.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbh0nmb.j89.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g...
To be seen. If I can figure out how to do it in the real world. Fantasies allow for too much unreality... -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Tell me again. What is really real?

Deepak Chopra gave a very interesting talk once. He made the argument that
the only thing in the universe that is real is energy and information and
that neither
one can exist without the other.

Seeker wrote: Jack C Lipton pontificated: Right, but my key point is that her acceptance of you was an ennobling event. Probably true. What's happened since is that i've realized she hasn't accepted the *real* me (because she either doesn't know it or chooses to deny it) so that acceptance almost counts for nought -- especially given that I *have* been accepted by other women who do know more of the real me.

Consider that at that age the 'real' you (and the 'real' her)
were, well, far more shallow than today's instances of your
identities. If you could step through a "magic door" and see
yourself then I suspect recognition would be rather difficult.

At the time you (and she) were "real enough"; you were both
far closer to matching your masks than otherwise.
> So, in some ways, that's an imprinting event. Unfortunately> for Ted, human personalities evolve with time, and he did> evolve in one direction while it is apparent his wife's> progress diverged from his path, but that initial imprint> is still in place. I'm not sure at first how much of it was evoluation but rather discovery; later came the evolution (in me) and that's when the pain really started. Discoveries can function as selection pressures (and vacuums) in the evolution of the personality. I should have been more specific. While no doubt we did change over the course of the first 30 years or so of our marriage, what was, in my mind, really important was my discovering there was something really wrong with my picture of the whole, which led to my drinking -- it was only after sobering up and letting God's grace in that my personality changed -- before the change we were unfulfilling'; afterwards, incompatible.

The process of alcoholism and recovery-- and the spiritual
enlightenment you mention-- in effect breaks quite a bit of
continuity, so, yes, it can be considered a revolutionary
change rather than evolutionary. It may even be considered
a "phase change" since a lot of what happened before, a lot
of what you _were_ before, became irrelevant.
There is a difference between losing someone to death-- thus releasing you from the marriage contract-- and turning your back on them... or them turning their back on you. If your mate dies, that imprinted event of acceptance is not lost; if backs are turned, though, that initial event of acceptance is withdrawn. Two VERY, VERY different things. I could just barely handle the thought of losing my wife to death. Divorce, however, would devastate me more right now, perhaps to the edge of dissolution. Interesting. I think that's my wife's view -- our therapist asked her what would happen if we did divorce and her answer was that "she'd be nothing." He didn't ask me, by the way. I'm not going to try to guess how I would react to either event, for it would depend so much on the details.

This seems odd w/r/t your wife: she has borne children, right?
I suspect that some (if not many) women will turn to the
existence of their children (and grand-children) to help define
their identity and their "value" w/i the world. As such, the
value you place on her through accepting her would nominally
be rather diminished in priority to her.

I suspect the reason that many men do not merely walk away _is_
that imprinting event.
p.s. -- Jack -- I apologize...

No real problem, Ted... I'm coming to realize that my problems
*aren't* as bad a I've believed. I have spent far too much time
perceiving myself as much less than I *am*. It's been a matter
of getting the blinders off... and then keeping them off.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

urf wrote: Seeker wrote: I think we need to have a talk, urf -- a real long talk. That would be nice Ted. Let's do within the context of other conversations though. I find discussions about individual perceptions of God fall short except in face to face conversation. For me, it's better to allow what we think to permeate that which we write here.

Spiritual issues are usually far too subjective; no matter
how much we may wish to describe the "feel" of a revelation,
there is not enough language in common. Some things cannot
be so easily shared with others.

Often, it is a matter of who we are, how we stand, and how
we feel that best shows our understanding of God. While I
have great faith in God's love (across a 14GY universe I
have _felt_ some interventions) I still doubt my own.

(shrug)

It's a deeply personal thing... and of objective evidence
there is none.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

urf wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: To be seen. If I can figure out how to do it in the real world. Fantasies allow for too much unreality... Tell me again. What is really real?

Ummmm... Chocolate?
Deepak Chopra gave a very interesting talk once. He made the argument that the only thing in the universe that is real is energy and information and that neither one can exist without the other.

Look at the latest Scientific American... the whole
universe is a ... hologram?

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

In article <UHqdnXWrBIwbjI-iXTWJhg@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
I find discussions about individual perceptions of God fall short except in face to face conversation.

I agree that is much better, but I've had many very rewarding
discussions through this medium. All of them, however, had to do
with some very concrete spiritual events and encounters, so there was
little chance for miscommunication or the need to try to convey elusive
feelings.

Ted

In article <slrnbh45hg.7uk.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C
Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
Consider that at that age the 'real' you (and the 'real' her) were, well, far more shallow than today's instances of your identities. If you could step through a "magic door" and see yourself then I suspect recognition would be rather difficult. At the time you (and she) were "real enough"; you were both far closer to matching your masks than otherwise.
Agreed. Different schools of psychology and psychiatry aside, a
definitely complicating factor is that the 'real" me now is not the
"real" me that was, even under the mask. My wife says she prefers
this "me" over the previous one but I know that what she perceives is
neither what I was nor what I am. The process of alcoholism and recovery-- and the spiritual enlightenment you mention-- in effect breaks quite a bit of continuity, so, yes, it can be considered a revolutionary change rather than evolutionary. It may even be considered a "phase change" since a lot of what happened before, a lot of what you _were_ before, became irrelevant.
Very astute Jack. Interesting. I think that's my wife's view -- our therapist asked her what would happen if we did divorce and her answer was that "she'd be nothing." He didn't ask me, by the way. I'm not going to try to guess how I would react to either event, for it would depend so much on the details. This seems odd w/r/t your wife: she has borne children, right? I suspect that some (if not many) women will turn to the existence of their children (and grand-children) to help define their identity and their "value" w/i the world. As such, the value you place on her through accepting her would nominally be rather diminished in priority to her.
I think I know what you are trying to say, but I found your last
sentence possibly garbled. Yes, our childern are very important to
her, and she acknowledges it. (They are not nearly so important to
me.) Neither is married and so there are no grandchildren -- we have
some hopes that the younger may actually get married within the not too
distant future, but the older one has very little chance of it. Her
identify still is very much defined by me, although she resents it.
I suspect the reason that many men do not merely walk away _is_ that imprinting event. p.s. -- Jack -- I apologize... No real problem, Ted... I'm coming to realize that my problems *aren't* as bad a I've believed. I have spent far too much time perceiving myself as much less than I *am*. It's been a matter of getting the blinders off... and then keeping them off.

A great awareness Jack. Keep it up!

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <yowuepvvhv.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <3F0E0AB0.2A316A85@tidal.wav>, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: > The sooner Ted asks his wife for the emotional intimacy he wants, > the more he will be able to listen to her reactions then-and-there, > instead of playing back rehearsals of this discussion. And I guess that's what scares me -- do you have any idea of how much I fear asking that question (in whatever form it ends up taking shape as) and getting the answer that there is no emotional intimacy to give? Frankly, _I_ have no idea. If that happened, and you got that answer, exactly what have you lost? Hope. I have not had to grieve many losses in my life, whether that be fortunate or not. What I have had to grieve on several occasions is what might have been but never will be. I don't want to have to do that again if I don't have to.

I can't imagine that you'll never have to do that again. Stasis in
life is unusual, and not necessarily even desirable. One often has to
make choices that close down some possibilities in order to more fully
realize other possibilities. It is natural and sensible to grieve the
lost possibilities even while rejoicing in those fully realized.

Thanks for the site.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbh4656.7uk.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... urf wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: To be seen. If I can figure out how to do it in the real world. Fantasies allow for too much unreality... Tell me again. What is really real? Ummmm... Chocolate? Deepak Chopra gave a very interesting talk once. He made the argument that the only thing in the universe that is real is energy and information and that neither one can exist without the other. Look at the latest Scientific American... the whole universe is a ... hologram? -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "Do these pants make my penis look small?"

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:130720031251293935%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <3F118C21.2020705@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: I think I do. Ted is under the impression that there is 'one truth' when it comes to communication between two people. He believes he can go back, read the words on the screen, and discern the truth about what *really* happened. What he's discounting is that your filters and your emotions while reading the words are different than what his are/were and so there is no 'one truth'. Oh I don't think she thought about it all that hard -- she was pissed off at me and wanted to catch me in some kind of trap. Or not.

You make it sound like such a negative thing. Is it wrong to feel pissed
off? I don't think so. I was pissed off with you and I wanted you to know
it. I tried to let you know it without it sounding like a ***** or a whine
(which are often ignored). I didn't say it to start an argument. I didn't
say it to hurt you. I just felt that you should know. I felt that it was the
healthy thing to do (for both of us). Unfortunately your reaction has made
it very difficult for me. I will probably restrain myself next time. I mean
why bother being honest when it is going to be taken so badly? Sound
familiar?

Amy

"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<pQ7Qa.540$k57.23155@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
I wonder if anyone else understands my experiment? My language skills are letting me down I think. Amy


I DO!! IMO, it is *not* your language skills. I think you're dead-on
about Ted. The thing is, I have been there myself, in Ted's shoes, too
self-involved to communicate effectively. :-(

jen

In article <oo1xwt7mh5.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can't imagine that you'll never have to do that again. Stasis in life is unusual, and not necessarily even desirable. One often has to make choices that close down some possibilities in order to more fully realize other possibilities. It is natural and sensible to grieve the lost possibilities even while rejoicing in those fully realized.

I have little problem with closing down one possiblity to admit of
another -- what I have a problem with is when it is not clear
what that other possibility might be -- if any. There are reasonable
risks and foolish risks -- not that I can pretend to be good at
telling which is which!

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <oo1xwt7mh5.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: I can't imagine that you'll never have to do that again. Stasis in life is unusual, and not necessarily even desirable. One often has to make choices that close down some possibilities in order to more fully realize other possibilities. It is natural and sensible to grieve the lost possibilities even while rejoicing in those fully realized. I have little problem with closing down one possiblity to admit of another -- what I have a problem with is when it is not clear what that other possibility might be -- if any. There are reasonable risks and foolish risks -- not that I can pretend to be good at telling which is which!

Closing down "hope for intimacy" in order to pursue "intimacy."

Your real problem seems to be the notion of "possibility." Nothing is
certain, and there are no guarantees. But you seem to want a
guarantee. Well, I can't blame you for wanting one I guess, but I
can guarantee you won't get one!

In article <c8cb5319.0307141458.753e6fe7@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
I DO!! IMO, it is *not* your language skills. I think you're dead-on about Ted. The thing is, I have been there myself, in Ted's shoes, too self-involved to communicate effectively. :-(

That's why I wanted to look at the exchanges -- to see what role I
played in it.

Ted

In article <sj65m4wto5.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your real problem seems to be the notion of "possibility." Nothing is certain, and there are no guarantees. But you seem to want a guarantee. Well, I can't blame you for wanting one I guess, but I can guarantee you won't get one!

**** Doug, I'm not asking for a guarantee -- but for something better
than a long shot. *Some* hope. A person undergoing chemotherapy at
least is told what the chances of success are, how long the process
may take, what to expect long the way, what the side-effects will be
(and what can or can't be done about them) and so forth.

Ted

shinypenny wrote: "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<pQ7Qa.540$k57.23155@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>... I wonder if anyone else understands my experiment? My language skills are letting me down I think. Amy I DO!! IMO, it is *not* your language skills. I think you're dead-on about Ted. The thing is, I have been there myself, in Ted's shoes, too self-involved to communicate effectively. :-( jen

I understand too, Amy. It's quite clear.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <sj65m4wto5.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Your real problem seems to be the notion of "possibility." Nothing is certain, and there are no guarantees. But you seem to want a guarantee. Well, I can't blame you for wanting one I guess, but I can guarantee you won't get one! **** Doug, I'm not asking for a guarantee -- but for something better than a long shot.

I think you are asking for a guarantee. I think people have said that
there is some hope of you having a better life if you try for it.
*Some* hope. A person undergoing chemotherapy at least is told what the chances of success are, how long the process may take, what to expect long the way, what the side-effects will be (and what can or can't be done about them) and so forth.

Yeah, unfortunately no one has compiled 5-year survival statistics
for people who start being honest with their spouses.

"Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BXIQa.101360$Io.8724454@newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... shinypenny wrote: "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<pQ7Qa.540$k57.23155@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>... I wonder if anyone else understands my experiment? My language skills
are letting me down I think. Amy I DO!! IMO, it is *not* your language skills. I think you're dead-on about Ted. The thing is, I have been there myself, in Ted's shoes, too self-involved to communicate effectively. :-( jen I understand too, Amy. It's quite clear.

Would you mind feeding it back to me then just so I can be sure.

Amy

Amy Lou wrote: "Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:BXIQa.101360$Io.8724454@newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... shinypenny wrote: "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<pQ7Qa.540$k57.23155@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...> I wonder if anyone else understands my experiment? My language skills are> letting me down I think.>> Amy I DO!! IMO, it is *not* your language skills. I think you're dead-on about Ted. The thing is, I have been there myself, in Ted's shoes, too self-involved to communicate effectively. :-( jen I understand too, Amy. It's quite clear. Would you mind feeding it back to me then just so I can be sure. Amy

Amy, it's getting old, and I'm tired of it. We've all been saying the same
thing, but "someone" insists on not listening, w/o getting defensive. This
saga will continue for the next <insert integer> years, I fear. It's just
*easier* that way - it requires no courage. No change is infinitely easier
than any change - especially if you consider yourself a martyr. A martyr
doesn't need - or want - change, because that would remove the martyrdom. End
of story.

In article <uuoezw1m2g.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah, unfortunately no one has compiled 5-year survival statistics for people who start being honest with their spouses.

Then on what basis is the idea supported? I'm being serious. When
you start reading through a series of marriage books or advisors you
run into the phenomenon that the later ones --- eg Gottman or Schnarch
-- say the earlier ones were all wrong -- who's right?

Ted

In article <GbLQa.101549$Io.8742663@newsread2.prod.itd.earthli nk.net>,
Bill <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
Amy Lou wrote: "Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:BXIQa.101360$Io.8724454@newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... shinypenny wrote:> "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message> news:<pQ7Qa.540$k57.23155@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...>>> I wonder if anyone else understands my experiment? My language skills are>> letting me down I think.
> I DO!! IMO, it is *not* your language skills. I think you're dead-on> about Ted. The thing is, I have been there myself, in Ted's shoes, too> self-involved to communicate effectively. :-(> I understand too, Amy. It's quite clear. Would you mind feeding it back to me then just so I can be sure. Amy, it's getting old, and I'm tired of it.

I think you were just 747'd Bill.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <uuoezw1m2g.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Yeah, unfortunately no one has compiled 5-year survival statistics for people who start being honest with their spouses. Then on what basis is the idea supported? I'm being serious.

Anecdotes, which will _never_ be exactly like yours, so it is time to
stop looking for that if you're serious.

And the principle that living your life at a level of integrity that
feels right is a necessary step to working towards having a better
life.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:140720031932487925%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <%dGQa.4434$wU5.3095@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: I mean why bother being honest when it is going to be taken so badly? Who was taking it badly? (Well, I was OK with it until you called it an experiment or a test -- perhaps if you'd said "an attempt to communicate in a different way" then I wouldn't have been annoyed at all.)

Are you annoyed with me? For tricking you? If you are that's OK. I
understand. Even though I don't know you and you believe in God. :) Even
though what I did was not done to annoy you I can see that it did annoy you.

See? I didn't go running off to my room slamming the door behind me. I
didn't get defensive. I didn't make excuses. So I annoyed you. No big deal.
;)

Amy

In article <017k6kh0n2.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
And the principle that living your life at a level of integrity that feels right is a necessary step to working towards having a better life.

And that's what's tough. My interpretation of integrity is being true
to your *own* principles. Unfortunately, as is probably always the
case with everyone who has any principles, my principles are in
conflict with each other. But -- there may be an important clue here
on how to move ahead: I need to be clear about my own principles and
see which I am not being true to, and if, like the Laws of Robotics,
there is some kind of order to them that can resolve the conflicts that
I'm sure I'm using to justify particular actions or failures to act.

Hmmm...

Ted

In article <evLQa.4690$wU5.2551@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
See? I didn't go running off to my room slamming the door behind me. I didn't get defensive. I didn't make excuses. So I annoyed you. No big deal. ;)

But then, I have to assume that your testing me is not an essential
part of your personality -- that in principle you can imagine
interacting with me perfectly well without doing it. It's not a
crucible-level conflict. Either that or you perceive it's not that
big a deal for me either, because I didn't run off, I assume you
noticed. (although I *have* done that when the intensity of a
conversation has gotten just too much and I can't go any farther
without going too far.) Or you don't care about interacting with me.
Did I leave any possibiliites out? (-:

Ted

In article <4cSQa.5332$wU5.3258@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
You don't believe a single word I say, do you? Do you believe your wife? Does your wife believe you?

Methinks we are having trouble communicating. (-: You didn't hear me
either. I acknowledged that it's not a big deal and offered some
speculation as to why it isn't a big deal for you, but something very
similar could be a big deal for me and my wife.

Do I "believe" my wife? Generally yes -- in that I believe she is
generally serious and honest in what she says. Do I
believe she is *right*, i.e., portraying an accurate view of the world
around her? Too often not.

Does she believe me? She says no. No, I need to be more accurate --
she says she can't trust me. I have yet to pursue whether those are
the same or not.

Ted

"Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GbLQa.101549$Io.8742663@newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... Amy Lou wrote: "Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:BXIQa.101360$Io.8724454@newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... shinypenny wrote:> "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message> news:<pQ7Qa.540$k57.23155@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...>>> I wonder if anyone else understands my experiment? My language skills
are>> letting me down I think.>>>> Amy>>> I DO!! IMO, it is *not* your language skills. I think you're dead-on> about Ted. The thing is, I have been there myself, in Ted's shoes, too> self-involved to communicate effectively. :-(>> jen I understand too, Amy. It's quite clear. Would you mind feeding it back to me then just so I can be sure. Amy Amy, it's getting old, and I'm tired of it. We've all been saying the
same thing, but "someone" insists on not listening, w/o getting defensive.
This saga will continue for the next <insert integer> years, I fear. It's
just *easier* that way - it requires no courage. No change is infinitely
easier than any change - especially if you consider yourself a martyr. A martyr doesn't need - or want - change, because that would remove the martyrdom.
End of story.

Thanks Bill. I've not really taken much notice of Ted before. He seemed to
go on and on and I guess that caused me to switch off. Its only been during
this thread (which was supposed to be about me not him!) that I noticed what
he is like. Anyway I am enlightened now so I will move on. Next topic
please!

Amy

Amy Lou wrote: "Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:GbLQa.101549$Io.8742663@newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... Amy Lou wrote: "Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:BXIQa.101360$Io.8724454@newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net...> shinypenny wrote:>> "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message>> news:<pQ7Qa.540$k57.23155@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...>>>>> I wonder if anyone else understands my experiment? My language skills
are>>> letting me down I think.>>>>>> Amy>>>>>> I DO!! IMO, it is *not* your language skills. I think you're dead-on>> about Ted. The thing is, I have been there myself, in Ted's shoes, too>> self-involved to communicate effectively. :-(>>>> jen>> I understand too, Amy. It's quite clear.> Would you mind feeding it back to me then just so I can be sure. Amy Amy, it's getting old, and I'm tired of it. We've all been saying the same thing, but "someone" insists on not listening, w/o getting defensive. This saga will continue for the next <insert integer> years, I fear. It's
just *easier* that way - it requires no courage. No change is infinitely easier than any change - especially if you consider yourself a martyr. A martyr doesn't need - or want - change, because that would remove the martyrdom.
End of story. Thanks Bill. I've not really taken much notice of Ted before. He seemed to go on and on and I guess that caused me to switch off. Its only been during this thread (which was supposed to be about me not him!) that I noticed what he is like. Anyway I am enlightened now so I will move on. Next topic please! Amy

I used to read Ted (and Brian, and some others) directly, but I can't take it
anymore. It's just too frustrating (cause I have enough frustration here as it
is), so all I see is some requotes. STILL, I would *love* to see him make
some headway on this, and sometimes I'm (naively) optimistic, I guess. Hope
springs eternal, I guess. But I'm getting worn down...

In article <BA0Ra.5952$wU5.680@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
I've not really taken much notice of Ted before.

Likewise, I'm sure.

Ted

In article <E_0Ra.102857$Io.8853169@newsread2.prod.itd.earthli nk.net>,
Bill <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
STILL, I would *love* to see him make some headway on this, and sometimes I'm (naively) optimistic, I guess.

How would you measure headway and judge whether we were making any?

Ted

In article <BXTQa.1171$I4.679@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
Not to mention that those Doctors are not 100% right.

But they are better than magic incantations or old wive's tales or 16th
century medicine.

Ted

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:14:37 +1000,
Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: How do you guys feel about discussing private things with your spouse? My DH finds some things too "depressing", or "embarrassing" to discuss with me. When I want to talk about something private I can tell it makes DH uncomfortable so I often don't really talk to him about the things I want to. I find it rather insulting and hurtful that DH discusses some things (such as a family crisis) with his parents but avoids discussing them with me. He reckons he doesn't want to involve me cause its unpleasant stuff but it feels to me like he's shutting me out. I am his wife. I want to be privy to his thoughts on all sorts of things pleasant or unpleasant. It makes me feel connected and close to him. And of course I'd like him to be able to help me when I want comfort and support. When my mother died I pretty well had to grieve alone because whenever I wanted to talk about her it made him uncomfortable.

Make plans for a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Amy

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.