>What if you didn't know about that ahead of time? (Don't read anythingin to that -- I'm not speaking about me. I have no idea what my wifethinks about masturbation. So it's even worse than that! But doknow she thinks pornography is wrong.)

Ted, I think it is your responsibility as an adult to choose your mate
responsibly and have a good sense of who you, and your mate, are before your
are married. I'm sorry, but I don't see immaturity as a rationalization for
doing the wrong thing. I can see that it may well be an explanation of why one
may do the wrong thing, but I don't think it makes the thing any less wrong.
Does that make sense?

Oh, I forgot -- anyone married in the last 20 or so years went throughpre-marital counseling and got *everything* out on the table.And no-one ever changes during the course of a marriage.

Of course people do. But, that is separate and apart from the commitments that
are made.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that "I was unhappy" serves to make
infidelity okay. As I said earlier, it seems to me to be a way to have your
cake and eat it too --- you can keep your marriage and all the parts about it
you like, while doing something that pleases you (generically), but could
gravely hurt your spouse. I think that is selfish.

I am not a proponent of divorce, even though I've gone through one. As I've
said, I have feelings of guilt about the demise of my marriage, and the impact
it had on my kids. So, I think it should be only as a last resort, after all
other possibilities have been worked through. My first "choice" of options is
to work on the marriage and make the conscious decision not to engage in
"extracurricular" activity with others. Even if the marriage doesn't succeed,
at least you then know that you gave it your all, rather than having one foot
in one camp, and the other in another.

However, if someone is simply unable/unwilling to keep the commitment to their
spouse, IMO, the less selfish and more moral thing to do is to tell the spouse
that. Don't deceive them. Don't try to justify it by saying "They aren't
giving me what I need", or "These things happen; it is only human." If this
leads to a divorce, that is a very, very sad thing. But, at least you have
given your spouse the dignity of being honest with him/her, rather than the
indignity of being "cheated on".

That's all I'm saying.

SheilaTed

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030906225121.07779.00000461@mb-m17.aol.com...What if you didn't know about that ahead of time? (Don't read anythingin to that -- I'm not speaking about me. I have no idea what my wifethinks about masturbation. So it's even worse than that! But doknow she thinks pornography is wrong.) Ted, I think it is your responsibility as an adult to choose your mate responsibly and have a good sense of who you, and your mate, are before
your are married. I'm sorry, but I don't see immaturity as a rationalization
for doing the wrong thing. I can see that it may well be an explanation of
why one may do the wrong thing, but I don't think it makes the thing any less
wrong. Does that make sense?

Doug. Look at the last two sentences of the above paragraph. I guess she
doesn't understand it when someone esle says it. Only when she does!



Oh, I forgot -- anyone married in the last 20 or so years went throughpre-marital counseling and got *everything* out on the table.And no-one ever changes during the course of a marriage. Of course people do. But, that is separate and apart from the commitments
that are made.

I guess you consider your childhood separate and apart from you adult life
too? One does not play a role, have an impact, influence the other?


I'm sorry, but I just don't think that "I was unhappy" serves to make infidelity okay. As I said earlier, it seems to me to be a way to have
your cake and eat it too --- you can keep your marriage and all the parts about
it you like, while doing something that pleases you (generically), but could gravely hurt your spouse. I think that is selfish.
I am not a proponent of divorce, even though I've gone through one. As
I've said, I have feelings of guilt about the demise of my marriage, and the
impact it had on my kids. So, I think it should be only as a last resort, after
all other possibilities have been worked through. My first "choice" of
options is to work on the marriage and make the conscious decision not to engage in "extracurricular" activity with others. Even if the marriage doesn't
succeed, at least you then know that you gave it your all, rather than having one
foot in one camp, and the other in another.

How is it that you are not a proponent of divorce even though you have gone
through one. I would hope that you are saying that divorce is no picnic and
you wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it seems you are suggesting that after
you got yours, you would be willing to prohibit them for anyone else.

I would think you would be a proponent of divorce in appropriate situations.


However, if someone is simply unable/unwilling to keep the commitment to
their spouse, IMO, the less selfish and more moral thing to do is to tell the
spouse that. Don't deceive them. Don't try to justify it by saying "They aren't giving me what I need", or "These things happen; it is only human." If
this leads to a divorce, that is a very, very sad thing. But, at least you
have given your spouse the dignity of being honest with him/her, rather than
the indignity of being "cheated on". That's all I'm saying. SheilaTed

Sheila, this reminds me of a conversation that I heard someone have with
Marilyn Vos Savant. Someone asked her what would be the result of total
honesty. She said, there would be a lot more divorces.

rg

"rg" <jobahut@hotmail.com> writes:
"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030906225121.07779.00000461@mb-m17.aol.com...What if you didn't know about that ahead of time? (Don't read anythingin to that -- I'm not speaking about me. I have no idea what my wifethinks about masturbation. So it's even worse than that! But doknow she thinks pornography is wrong.) Ted, I think it is your responsibility as an adult to choose your mate responsibly and have a good sense of who you, and your mate, are before your are married. I'm sorry, but I don't see immaturity as a rationalization for doing the wrong thing. I can see that it may well be an explanation of why one may do the wrong thing, but I don't think it makes the thing any less wrong. Does that make sense? Doug. Look at the last two sentences of the above paragraph. I guess she doesn't understand it when someone esle says it. Only when she does!

Sheila and I had a long pissing match that amounted to:

Doug: something is primarily an individual's own responsibility.

Sheila: No! You're callous and wrong. It is 85% that individual's
responsibility, and 15% that individual's spouse's responsibility.

So I know she has trouble understanding what _I_ say sometimes.

WhansaMi wrote: I'm sorry, but I don't see immaturity as a rationalization for doing the wrong thing.

You DON'T? Even TODAY, in this "enlightened" 21st century, that has made such
tremendous sociological and moral progress? REALLY????????

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
WhansaMi wrote: Influence, yes. But, there is free will. There is the ability to rise above one's past. I know. I've done it. Look, unlike Bill (sorry, my dear) I don't think that adulterers should be rounded up and shot at dawn. I do, however, hold them responsible for engaging in their own bad behavior. I hope they feel guilty about it. They DON'T - just observe the posts in here over time. They just want a hug.

Put your money where your mouth is. Find some posts like that in
here. Maybe it will knock a bit of sense into your head about the
difference between what you perceive, and what is.

jinglebells5555@yahoo.com (Jingle Bells) wrote in message news:<f804e152.0309091419.ecedcc3@posting.google.com>...
I will not go as far to say that if marrying her was a mistake, then remaining married is also a mistake. When you spend 37 years with someone, there's an emotional price tag associated with walking away, -for both you and your family.

I used to post here what seems like eons ago and I still lurk now and
then. The above statement describes my situation pretty well and I
felt I had to respond.

I married someone I shouldn't have. She has a condition that can make
living with her, and especially having a family with her, an extra
challenge. I wish I could say that I didn't realize what I was getting
into or that I was blinded by love. I was not.

I married her simply because I didn't have backbone to end the
relationship; to say that I liked having her in my life but didn't
really want to be married to her. I can remember thinking the night
before we got married that I was probably making a big mistake.

For several years I was unhappy. Not miserable, but not happy. I
frequently fantasized about what my life might have been like had I
not married her.

Then my wife found a way to manage her condition that works very well.
Our marriage has improved dramatically. I now feel very lucky to have
her even though I wouldn't describe myself as "head over heels" in
love. I'm not sure I'm the type of guy who falls head over heels
anyway.

If I'm to be completely honest I must admit that I still consider
marrying her a mistake. It's going well now, but at the time, it was a
mistake. In all probability there will be periods that she'll suffer
some degree of relapse. Only time will tell, but I'm optimistic.

Maybe it doesn't make any sense, but while I consider marrying her to
have been a mistake, divorcing her now would be an even bigger one.
Over the years there's been an equity built up in the relationship,
and a love that's grown over time that I don't want to give up. I
can't imagine our family living apart. Like I said we are happy now,
and while I very well could have found a person who was a better match
for me right from the start, that's not what I did. I can only live
my life from this point forward, but I have to be honest with myself
in order to avoid making similar mistakes that may not turn out so
well in the end.

Seeker might be tempted to think that God brought my wife and I
together, and that we are meant for each other. I'm skeptical of that.
The lack of balls I showed in not ending the relationship was pretty
typical of me at the time and that trait cost me in other instances. I
just got lucky with my wife.

This has been along winded way of saying that I can understand why
Seeker stays married. There is however a difference between my wife
and Seeker's though that is worth noting. My wife knew she had a
problem and she was constantly working on ways to manage it. She
wanted to change.

I'm more like Seeker's wife than I'm like Seeker. I married someone
who made a dramatic change for the better. I need to make sure that
I'm still worth remaining married to in her eyes.

Sheila wrote:Ted, I think it is your responsibility as an adultto choose your mate responsibly and have a goodsense of who you, and your mate, are before your are married.

Then Ted replied:Where were you -- or anyone else like you -- 37 yearsago? Answer me that.

And this is where I get a little frustrated and impatient.
Sheila's response (and, no, Sheila, I'm not pissed at you
or anything and I *will* respond to your e-mail. But <shares
guilty secret here> a new expansion to Everquest got re-
leased yesterday and I'm a little...uh...preoccupied. :) )
is a common one and one that I just don't get. When a
problem is presented, some people will go straight for
the 'Well, you shouldn't have done it in the first place'
or 'You should have known better.' While that's almost
certainly true, I don't really 'get' what the people
who post those things are trying to accomplish, espe-
cially within the context of this particular newsgroup.
In alt.support.divorce, I can kinda see it because most
of the people there are either divorced or divorcing and
it can be seen as a cautionary 'Before you marry the next
time...' thing. But, when it's being addressed to people
who are apparently trying to deal with their problematic
relationships, it's almost like a slap in the face and
at least a little dismissive, IMO. 'Yah, yah, you got
problems. Of course you do. Because you screwed up years
ago. Live with it.'

Ted, you and I are similar in the fact that we are both
in marriages that aren't perfect but we're trying to make
them better. While I don't always agree with the ways
you are going about trying to better your marriage, I
*do* acknowledge that you're at least trying. And I sure
can relate to your comment above, if the sarcasm that I
read in it was felt by you.


Tracey

Tracey wrote: Sheila wrote:Ted, I think it is your responsibility as an adultto choose your mate responsibly and have a goodsense of who you, and your mate, are before your are married. Then Ted replied:Where were you -- or anyone else like you -- 37 yearsago? Answer me that. And this is where I get a little frustrated and impatient. Sheila's response (and, no, Sheila, I'm not pissed at you or anything and I *will* respond to your e-mail. But <shares guilty secret here> a new expansion to Everquest got re- leased yesterday and I'm a little...uh...preoccupied. :) ) is a common one and one that I just don't get. When a problem is presented, some people will go straight for the 'Well, you shouldn't have done it in the first place' or 'You should have known better.' While that's almost certainly true, I don't really 'get' what the people who post those things are trying to accomplish, espe- cially within the context of this particular newsgroup.

I think I can answer that. It goes along with that (seemingly) foreign
concept nowadays: "you made your bed, now sleep in it", and quit whining about
it.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Tracey wrote: Sheila wrote:>Ted, I think it is your responsibility as an adult>to choose your mate responsibly and have a good>sense of who you, and your mate, are before your> are married. Then Ted replied:Where were you -- or anyone else like you -- 37 yearsago? Answer me that. And this is where I get a little frustrated and impatient. Sheila's response (and, no, Sheila, I'm not pissed at you or anything and I *will* respond to your e-mail. But <shares guilty secret here> a new expansion to Everquest got re- leased yesterday and I'm a little...uh...preoccupied. :) ) is a common one and one that I just don't get. When a problem is presented, some people will go straight for the 'Well, you shouldn't have done it in the first place' or 'You should have known better.' While that's almost certainly true, I don't really 'get' what the people who post those things are trying to accomplish, espe- cially within the context of this particular newsgroup. I think I can answer that. It goes along with that (seemingly) foreign concept nowadays: "you made your bed, now sleep in it", and quit whining about it.

Of course on a newsgroup about supporting marriage, there is some
merit to focussing on _improving_ your bed, not just deciding you've
ruined your life and you just have to finish it out as well as you
can.

I guess this is why you like focussing on how bad people are, whereas
I find it better to focus on strategies for improvement.

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:<3F5F675F.7060202@aol.com>... Sheila wrote:Ted, I think it is your responsibility as an adultto choose your mate responsibly and have a goodsense of who you, and your mate, are before your are married. Then Ted replied:Where were you -- or anyone else like you -- 37 yearsago? Answer me that. And this is where I get a little frustrated and impatient. Sheila's response (and, no, Sheila, I'm not pissed at you or anything and I *will* respond to your e-mail. But <shares guilty secret here> a new expansion to Everquest got re- leased yesterday and I'm a little...uh...preoccupied. :) ) is a common one and one that I just don't get. When a problem is presented, some people will go straight for the 'Well, you shouldn't have done it in the first place' or 'You should have known better.' While that's almost certainly true,

I get your point. Seeker married who he married and that can't be
changed. The reason I think it's pertinent in Seeker's case is that
he doesn't appear to accept that his wife may not have been the right
one for him. I'm tempted to go as far as to say that as far as
Seeker's concerned, it was God's will that he marry his wife.

People make mistakes. A first step to correcting them is to accept
responsibility for them and then move on. I'm not quite in Bill's camp
because to me moving on is as at least as important as accepting
responsibility.
I don't really 'get' what the people who post those things are trying to accomplish, espe- cially within the context of this particular newsgroup.

You are right. "Bed made, Lie" isn't at all "supportive" or helpful.

What I'm trying to get Seeker to do is take an honest look at what got
him where he is, -not to beat him up over it. If one can't recognize
one's own mistakes we are likely to keep on making them.

In article <3F5F675F.7060202@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
Ted, you and I are similar in the fact that we are both in marriages that aren't perfect but we're trying to make them better. While I don't always agree with the ways you are going about trying to better your marriage, I *do* acknowledge that you're at least trying. And I sure can relate to your comment above, if the sarcasm that I read in it was felt by you.

Felt by me? I *meant* it to be read that way!
Thanks.

Ted

In article <gOJ7b.6675$Yt.3861@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill
in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
I think I can answer that. It goes along with that (seemingly) foreign concept nowadays: "you made your bed, now sleep in it", and quit whining about it.

Ah, but we do *not* make our own beds -- we do not (certainly not in
the climate of 37 years ago) enter a marriage capable of making what a
friend of mine likes to refer to as "an informed decision." Now, I do
not liken a marriage to a legal contract, but I understand that if
information materially relevant to a contract is withheld by either
party from the other, the contract cannot be enforced by the injured
party. So if two people *unknowingly* enter into a marriage without
anything like full knowledge of all of what it entails, because society
never saw fit to impart that knowledge to them, can they be held
responsible if it goes sour?

Ted

In article <f804e152.0309101843.5b38dda4@posting.google.com>, Jingle
Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote:
What I'm trying to get Seeker to do is take an honest look at what got him where he is, -not to beat him up over it. If one can't recognize one's own mistakes we are likely to keep on making them.

It's kinda hard to trace what happened over the course of 37 years to
figure out what got us here. And what good would it do anyway? What
we need to know is how to move forward, not look backward.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <f804e152.0309101843.5b38dda4@posting.google.com>, Jingle Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote: What I'm trying to get Seeker to do is take an honest look at what got him where he is, -not to beat him up over it. If one can't recognize one's own mistakes we are likely to keep on making them. It's kinda hard to trace what happened over the course of 37 years to figure out what got us here. And what good would it do anyway? What we need to know is how to move forward, not look backward.

Yes. And whether you made the descision to marry each other
responsibly and with full disclosure is really irrelevant too.

You are where you are now, and have to try to find a way to make your
lives work as well as possible.

jinglebells5555@yahoo.com (Jingle Bells) wrote in message news:<f804e152.0309102246.76664d6@posting.google.com>... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<100920032152579243%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <f804e152.0309091419.ecedcc3@posting.google.com>, Jingle Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote: There weren't people around who thought it was your own responsibility to choose a good mate? Not that I'm aware of. Neither of our sets of parents would have dared question it (or if they had we probably wouldn't have listened) and neither one of us had any truly close friends. My college roommates thought it was a great idea -- but they were of the same generation. Pre-marital counselling? We saw her pastor for maybe a half hour, as I recall. I wasn't really asking if there was anyone around to try and talk you out of it. Jayne's point was that it was *your* responsibility to determine whether or not your wife was a good choice for a spouse.

Sorry, I believe it was Sheila and not Jayne.

Jingle Bells wrote: Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message I am not yet being anywhere near fully honest with my wife -- and that's probably the biggest problem we're working on now. You don't switch from telling almost nothing to telling almost everything over night!

Over nite? LOL! You mean - over a year... How long have you been
discussing and rationalizing all of this in here? (seems like a decade..)

"Jingle Bells" <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f804e152.0309110524.76fcce30@posting.google.c om... jinglebells5555@yahoo.com (Jingle Bells) wrote in message
news:<f804e152.0309102246.76664d6@posting.google.com>...

[] Jayne's point was that it was *your* responsibility to determine whether or not your wife was a good choice for a spouse. Sorry, I believe it was Sheila and not Jayne.

You had me worried there for a minute. I thought I was making points
without knowing about them.
Anyhow, I'm flattered to be mistaken for Sheila, so, as long as she is isn't
insulted, no harm done.
<g>

Jayne

Ted wrote:Ah, but we do *not* make our own beds

Well, now I'm gonna go over to Sheila's side a bit.
(Don't get excited, Sheila, you don't have a total
convert. <grin>) We *do* make our own beds. Let's
use carpentry as a metaphor. Let's say at an early
age, you had gotten a little bit of experience at
making furniture by hand. You watched other people
do it, you got tidbits of information offered to
you in an offhand way, and you decided to make your
own bed. You do. And you like it. You like the fact
that you did it yourself, you figured out the design,
you liked the wood you used. You made that bed. You're
going to lie in it because, at the time, you did the
best you knew how in building that bed. A few years
down the road, some of the slats have broken, you had
a late growth spurt and now you're an inch taller than
the bed is and you've gotten more experience at car-
pentry. Some people seem to be saying 'You made that
bed, you live with the way it is.' Others seem to be
saying 'Yeah, it's the bed you made, but you *do*
have the ability to fix it and make it better and use
some of the carpentry knowledge that you've gained
to change it a little into something that is more
likely to last for your entire life.' What I think
*both* groups are saying is that, no matter whether
you made the bed perfectly the first time or you
have to totally remake the bed later because you
screwed it up to begin with, take ownership of the
fact that you *did* make it. Sometimes, Ted, it
seems like you're standing there, looking at the
bed, the scars are still on your hands where you
cut yourself putting it together, the initials that
you carved into it are clearly visible and you're
saying 'Nope, that wasn't me that made this thing.'
-- we do not (certainly not in the climate of 37years ago) enter a marriage capable of making what afriend of mine likes to refer to as "an informeddecision."

When my husband was close to asking for a divorce,
he made the statement that 'We got married too fast.'
I agreed with him. But, he looked at 'We got married
too fast' and saw it as a justification for divorcing.
I looked at 'We got married too fast' and saw it as
a non-issue. To me, it didn't matter. What mattered
was that we *were* married and I felt there was an
obligation to do all that we could to *stay* married.
Now, I do not liken a marriage to a legal contract,but I understand that if information materially relevantto a contract is withheld by either party from the other,the contract cannot be enforced by the injured party.So if two people *unknowingly* enter into a marriagewithout anything like full knowledge of all of what itentails, because society never saw fit to impart thatknowledge to them, can they be held responsible if itgoes sour?

Short answer, yes. Where I think people have the most
problems (and I know it's where *I* have the most problem)
is that there seems to be an assignation of *guilt* when
someone is assigned responsibility for the death of a
marriage. My first marriage ended in divorce. Over the
years, I've realized that the whole thing, the decision
to marry, the marriage itself, the decision to divorce,
the divorce was done and happened because of the decisions
I made. I take full responsibility for that whole time
period in my life and all of the things that came out of
it. At the same time, I also feel that my ex-husband has
full responsibility for all of *his* decisions during that
same time frame. Also at the same time, I feel no guilt
for any of the decisions I made because I did the best
I could (or maybe I did the best I *thought* I could) at
the time. For me, the only guilt associated with the
decisions I made is and would be if I continued to make
those same types of decisions.

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Ted wrote:Ah, but we do *not* make our own beds Well, now I'm gonna go over to Sheila's side a bit. (Don't get excited, Sheila, you don't have a total convert. <grin>) We *do* make our own beds. Let's use carpentry as a metaphor. Let's say at an early age, you had gotten a little bit of experience at making furniture by hand. You watched other people do it, you got tidbits of information offered to you in an offhand way, and you decided to make your own bed. You do. And you like it. You like the fact that you did it yourself, you figured out the design, you liked the wood you used. You made that bed. You're going to lie in it because, at the time, you did the best you knew how in building that bed. A few years down the road, some of the slats have broken, you had a late growth spurt and now you're an inch taller than the bed is and you've gotten more experience at car- pentry. Some people seem to be saying 'You made that bed, you live with the way it is.' Others seem to be saying 'Yeah, it's the bed you made, but you *do* have the ability to fix it and make it better and use some of the carpentry knowledge that you've gained to change it a little into something that is more likely to last for your entire life.' What I think *both* groups are saying is that, no matter whether you made the bed perfectly the first time or you have to totally remake the bed later because you screwed it up to begin with, take ownership of the fact that you *did* make it. Sometimes, Ted, it seems like you're standing there, looking at the bed, the scars are still on your hands where you cut yourself putting it together, the initials that you carved into it are clearly visible and you're saying 'Nope, that wasn't me that made this thing.'

I agree wtih Tracey here. It makes no sense to somehow disassociate
yourself from your decidion to get maried to your wife 37 years ago.

How is such a disassociation even helpful?

It does make sense to say "OK, what do I want to do _now_ given the
way things are as an accumulation of a lifetime of actions."
snip
Now, I do not liken a marriage to a legal contract,but I understand that if information materially relevantto a contract is withheld by either party from the other,the contract cannot be enforced by the injured party.So if two people *unknowingly* enter into a marriagewithout anything like full knowledge of all of what itentails, because society never saw fit to impart thatknowledge to them, can they be held responsible if itgoes sour? Short answer, yes. Where I think people have the most problems (and I know it's where *I* have the most problem) is that there seems to be an assignation of *guilt* when someone is assigned responsibility for the death of a marriage. My first marriage ended in divorce. Over the years, I've realized that the whole thing, the decision to marry, the marriage itself, the decision to divorce, the divorce was done and happened because of the decisions I made. I take full responsibility for that whole time period in my life and all of the things that came out of it. At the same time, I also feel that my ex-husband has full responsibility for all of *his* decisions during that same time frame. Also at the same time, I feel no guilt for any of the decisions I made because I did the best I could (or maybe I did the best I *thought* I could) at the time. For me, the only guilt associated with the decisions I made is and would be if I continued to make those same types of decisions.

I like the thinking here about both responsibility, and guilt (which
maybe has its place, but can easily degenerate into either blame, or
self-indulgence).

I have a friend, who I like very much, who is in her early 40s. She
was a horrible teenager - vicious to her parents, and her younger
sister. (Not that her parents were blameless, but that isn't the
point.) She's spent way too much time blaming her problems on her
parents. Recently she is confronting the extent to which _she_ made
decisions as a teenager which led to problems with her family, and
which she then let avalanche into bigger problems during her young
adulthood. Having spent decades blaming her parents, she is now stuck
in blaming herself and feeling guilty. My reaction is to want to
smack her upside the head and say: "OK, your parents were imperfect,
and you were a lousy person when you were young. You're 43. Own up
to these facts, but really it's time to get over it, and stop letting
it run your life."

I feel this way when I listen to Ted go on about how emotionally
incompetent his parents and inlaws were, and how ignorant he and his
wife were when they got married.


For almost every important decision we make, we only have enough
information to make the decision with a certainty of correctness
retrospectively.

This doesn't absolve us of dealing with the consequences of the many
decisions we make with partial knowledge.

Jingle Bells <you getting ready for Christmas?> wrote:I get your point. Seeker married who he married andthat can't be changed.

Yep, that's my point. Trying to make Ted feel guilty
because he didn't make an informed choice 37 years
ago or pointing out how he screwed up (in the poster's
opinion) when he decided to get married does *nothing*
for him *now*.
The reason I think it's pertinent in Seeker's case isthat he doesn't appear to accept that his wife may nothave been the right one for him.

I'm not finding it pertinent because Ted has made it
perfectly clear that he *won't* divorce his wife no
matter what. So, whether or not his wife is the 'right
one' for him is moot.
I'm tempted to go as far as to say that as far asSeeker's concerned, it was God's will that he marryhis wife.

You don't have to be tempted. Ted has said so himself. :)
People make mistakes. A first step to correcting them isto accept responsibility for them and then move on.

That's where, IMO, Ted falls short a little bit. Heck,
we all probably have/will/do fall short on that. And I
think that the times we fall short on it tend to be
when there's an inordinate amount of guilt trying to
be assigned to whatever happened. I made bad decisions
when I was 16 and 20 and 24 and 30 and 34. Heck, I've
made bad decisions in the past six months. I *don't*
feel guilty about them today because I made those de-
cisions to the best of my ability at the time. I *will*
feel guilty about them in the future if I make the
same bad decisions in the future.
I'm not quite in Bill's camp because to me moving onis as at least as important as accepting responsibility.

And I'm not in Bill's camp because I don't believe that
feeling shame and guilt is a requirement for accepting
responsibility.
You are right. "Bed made, Lie" isn't at all "supportive"or helpful.

Heh. Oh, goodness, let's not get going on what is considered
'supportive' and not. That could turn this thread into a
long one. Ooops, too late. :)
What I'm trying to get Seeker to do is take an honest lookat what got him where he is, -not to beat him up over it.

Oh, go ahead. Everyone else does. :P (That was a joke, Ted.)
If one can't recognize one's own mistakes we are likely tokeep on making them.

Yep.

Tracey

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<B7T7b.413805$Ho3.65729@sccrnsc03>... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <f804e152.0309101843.5b38dda4@posting.google.com>, Jingle Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote: What I'm trying to get Seeker to do is take an honest look at what got him where he is, -not to beat him up over it. If one can't recognize one's own mistakes we are likely to keep on making them. It's kinda hard to trace what happened over the course of 37 years to figure out what got us here. And what good would it do anyway? What we need to know is how to move forward, not look backward. Yes. And whether you made the descision to marry each other responsibly and with full disclosure is really irrelevant too.

I'm sorry. I can't agree.

If, for example, Seeker was never really in love with his wife,
doesn't that have some importance today? If she privately doubted his
love all this time, that would certainly make it more difficult for
her to be intimate with him, wouldn't it?

Yes, I know that her problem started well before she got married. I'm
not blaming it on Seeker. I am suggesting that the quality of their
marriage may have reinforced her condition.

Now it's 37 years years later and Seeker wants to stay with his wife,
not because he loves her, but because God wants him to. What a turn
on.

I admit this is a harsh take on things, but it wouldn't surprise me at
all if this is how Seeker's wife sees it. If Seeker didn't in fact
love his wife when they got married, and doesn't now, how can he
convince her that he ever will, no matter how much she changes?
You are where you are now, and have to try to find a way to make your lives work as well as possible.

Absolutley, you can't go back, but it's hard to succesfully treat
something without knowing the cause.

jinglebells5555@yahoo.com (Jingle Bells) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<B7T7b.413805$Ho3.65729@sccrnsc03>... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <f804e152.0309101843.5b38dda4@posting.google.com>, Jingle Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote: > What I'm trying to get Seeker to do is take an honest look at what got > him where he is, -not to beat him up over it. If one can't recognize > one's own mistakes we are likely to keep on making them. It's kinda hard to trace what happened over the course of 37 years to figure out what got us here. And what good would it do anyway? What we need to know is how to move forward, not look backward. Yes. And whether you made the descision to marry each other responsibly and with full disclosure is really irrelevant too. I'm sorry. I can't agree. If, for example, Seeker was never really in love with his wife, doesn't that have some importance today?

Nope. Whether he is in love with his wife _today_ is relevant though.
If she privately doubted his love all this time, that would certainly make it more difficult for her to be intimate with him, wouldn't it? Yes, I know that her problem started well before she got married. I'm not blaming it on Seeker. I am suggesting that the quality of their marriage may have reinforced her condition. Now it's 37 years years later and Seeker wants to stay with his wife, not because he loves her, but because God wants him to. What a turn on. I admit this is a harsh take on things, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is how Seeker's wife sees it. If Seeker didn't in fact love his wife when they got married, and doesn't now, how can he convince her that he ever will, no matter how much she changes?

Ted has stated that (his wife claims) his wife was perfectly happy
until he (Ted) came to the realization that he wanted to be happier,
and started pushing the boundaries of their relationship.

Now I don't know whether to take this at face value or not, but if one
does, then her "problem" (it isn't clear, by the way, whether she has a
problem - at least other than the fact that her husband is unhappy) is
caused by who Seeker is now.
You are where you are now, and have to try to find a way to make your lives work as well as possible. Absolutley, you can't go back, but it's hard to succesfully treat something without knowing the cause.

Sure. I'm just saying that although what Seeker and Mrs Seeker were
like 37 years ago _might_ be relevant and hence might be worth
thinking about, the fact that they got married young and ignorant in
and of itself isn't terribly relevant.

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:<3F60C134.5030702@aol.com>... Jingle Bells <you getting ready for Christmas?> wrote:I get your point. Seeker married who he married andthat can't be changed. Yep, that's my point. Trying to make Ted feel guilty because he didn't make an informed choice 37 years ago or pointing out how he screwed up (in the poster's opinion) when he decided to get married does *nothing* for him *now*.The reason I think it's pertinent in Seeker's case isthat he doesn't appear to accept that his wife may nothave been the right one for him. I'm not finding it pertinent because Ted has made it perfectly clear that he *won't* divorce his wife no matter what. So, whether or not his wife is the 'right one' for him is moot.

Even he remains with his wife, he should do so (and so should she)
with his eyes wide open. It's more about honesty than blame.

In article <9hekyn41sy.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

<assorting snipping throughout>
Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes: Ted wrote:Ah, but we do *not* make our own beds Well, now I'm gonna go over to Sheila's side a bit. (Don't get excited, Sheila, you don't have a total convert. <grin>) We *do* make our own beds. Let's use carpentry as a metaphor.>It does make sense to say "OK, what do I want to do _now_ given theway things are as an accumulation of a lifetime of actions." Short answer, yes. Where I think people have the most problems (and I know it's where *I* have the most problem) is that there seems to be an assignation of *guilt* when someone is assigned responsibility for the death of a marriage. ...I feel no guilt for any of the decisions I made because I did the best I could (or maybe I did the best I *thought* I could) at the time. For me, the only guilt associated with the decisions I made is and would be if I continued to make those same types of decisions.I like the thinking here about both responsibility, and guilt (whichmaybe has its place, but can easily degenerate into either blame, orself-indulgence).I feel this way when I listen to Ted go on about how emotionallyincompetent his parents and inlaws were, and how ignorant he and hiswife were when they got married.For almost every important decision we make, we only have enoughinformation to make the decision with a certainty of correctnessretrospectively.This doesn't absolve us of dealing with the consequences of the manydecisions we make with partial knowledge.

I like, and agree, with what both of you are saying -- I especially
liked
the carpentry metaphor. While it is possible that the bed can't be
repaired and has to be replaced, I think that's stretching the
metaphor
too far. When I hear the "made bed, lie" aphorism I hear punishment,
that nothng can be done, that you must suffer forever because of
mistakes made along the way -- not as a consequence of them, but as
punishment for having made them and don't you dare try to make things
better. I've heard that often enough I guess I over-react to it,
partly
by trying to excuse the situation or blame others (rightly or wrongly)
for it. (Also relevant here is Schnarch's argument that the kind of
situation we are in is an *inevitable* stage in the course of a
marriage.)

Part me also just likes to try to understand how I got here -- partly
in hopes
it may help (although there is a lot of evidence that knowing how you
got to where you are doesn't really help), partly in a vain hope of
helping
someone else not make the same mistakes, and partly just out of
native curiosity at how things tick. I also suspect I use looking at
the
past, painful though parts of it may be, as a diversion and excuse from

looking at the painful work I have to do now!

Ted

In article <B7T7b.413805$Ho3.65729@sccrnsc03>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes. And whether you made the descision to marry each other responsibly and with full disclosure is really irrelevant too.

Mostly, but not entirely -- I think it can help get rid of some
conscious and unconscious baggage.

Ted

In article <_U08b.8586$Yt.5660@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill
in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
Jingle Bells wrote: Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message I am not yet being anywhere near fully honest with my wife -- and that's probably the biggest problem we're working on now. You don't switch from telling almost nothing to telling almost everything over night! Over nite? LOL! You mean - over a year... How long have you been discussing and rationalizing all of this in here? (seems like a decade..)

Yes, it is funny when put that way. What I seem to be stuck on is that
I'm not convinced that doling out my complaints in little doses is the
right answer (and she has said as much.) So I am faced with having to
spill it all at once -- and i can't do that either. If I let her see
into who I really am in little pieces she's always going to wonder
whether she's seen the "real" me; if I do it all at once I have to
wonder what the shock will do to her.

Am I exagerrating the fear? Probably. But it's real to me.

Ted

In article <f804e152.0309111901.350111f4@posting.google.com>, Jingle
Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote:
I admit this is a harsh take on things, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is how Seeker's wife sees it. If Seeker didn't in fact love his wife when they got married, and doesn't now, how can he convince her that he ever will, no matter how much she changes?

There is the flip side to that too -- I find myself all too often
asking if *she* loves me, for the very same reasons.

We are a very well-matched pair, it would seem.

Ted

In article <f804e152.0309111920.26e92119@posting.google.com>, Jingle
Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote:
Even he remains with his wife, he should do so (and so should she) with his eyes wide open.

What do you mean by that?
The obvious meaning (fully attentive to what's going on, both
internally and externally) is so obvious I have to wonder if you mean
something else.

Ted

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<YWa8b.418352$YN5.283206@sccrnsc01>... jinglebells5555@yahoo.com (Jingle Bells) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<B7T7b.413805$Ho3.65729@sccrnsc03>... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: > In article <f804e152.0309101843.5b38dda4@posting.google.com>, Jingle > Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > What I'm trying to get Seeker to do is take an honest look at what got > > him where he is, -not to beat him up over it. If one can't recognize > > one's own mistakes we are likely to keep on making them. > > It's kinda hard to trace what happened over the course of 37 years to > figure out what got us here. And what good would it do anyway? What > we need to know is how to move forward, not look backward. Yes. And whether you made the descision to marry each other responsibly and with full disclosure is really irrelevant too. I'm sorry. I can't agree. If, for example, Seeker was never really in love with his wife, doesn't that have some importance today? Nope. Whether he is in love with his wife _today_ is relevant though.

Here again I will disagree.

I do agree that whether or not he is in love with is wife today is far
more important than whether he was 37 years ago.

But if he was not, his marriage was likely damaged because of it and
those wounds need to be healed.

He is not starting from scratch and history isn't so easily discarded.

I will agree that at some point you have to get beyond the injuries of
the past.

If she privately doubted his love all this time, that would certainly make it more difficult for her to be intimate with him, wouldn't it? Yes, I know that her problem started well before she got married. I'm not blaming it on Seeker. I am suggesting that the quality of their marriage may have reinforced her condition. Now it's 37 years years later and Seeker wants to stay with his wife, not because he loves her, but because God wants him to. What a turn on. I admit this is a harsh take on things, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is how Seeker's wife sees it. If Seeker didn't in fact love his wife when they got married, and doesn't now, how can he convince her that he ever will, no matter how much she changes? Ted has stated that (his wife claims) his wife was perfectly happy until he (Ted) came to the realization that he wanted to be happier, and started pushing the boundaries of their relationship. Now I don't know whether to take this at face value or not, but if one does, then her "problem" (it isn't clear, by the way, whether she has a problem - at least other than the fact that her husband is unhappy) is caused by who Seeker is now. You are where you are now, and have to try to find a way to make your lives work as well as possible. Absolutley, you can't go back, but it's hard to succesfully treat something without knowing the cause. Sure. I'm just saying that although what Seeker and Mrs Seeker were like 37 years ago _might_ be relevant and hence might be worth thinking about, the fact that they got married young and ignorant in and of itself isn't terribly relevant.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<110920032344179893%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <f804e152.0309111901.350111f4@posting.google.com>, Jingle Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote: I admit this is a harsh take on things, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is how Seeker's wife sees it. If Seeker didn't in fact love his wife when they got married, and doesn't now, how can he convince her that he ever will, no matter how much she changes? There is the flip side to that too -- I find myself all too often asking if *she* loves me, for the very same reasons. We are a very well-matched pair, it would seem. Ted

Honestly Seeker, if my spouse treated may the way your wife does, I
would wonder that too.

I suppose it goes back to the question of "What is Love?". She may
never have
felt the passionate side of love for you and maybe that's something
she just isn't (or at least hasn't been) capable of.

On the other hand there is the milder, more comfortable aspect of
love, and that is something she definitely felt toward you (from where
I sit).

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<110920032347140342%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <f804e152.0309111920.26e92119@posting.google.com>, Jingle Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote: Even he remains with his wife, he should do so (and so should she) with his eyes wide open. What do you mean by that? The obvious meaning (fully attentive to what's going on, both internally and externally) is so obvious I have to wonder if you mean something else. Ted

I'm in the minority here in insisting that the origin of your
relationship has much relevance, so I don't want to beat this dead
horse for much longer.

I might be way off base, but I sense a certain unwillingness from you
to take a good hard look at why you really got married in the first
place and how that may have affected how the two of you have
historically felt and related to each other.

In my opinion, the effects of that history have to be acknowledged and
addressed if you now want to move in a different direction.

And then there's the other part. Let's just say for a moment that 37
years ago you turned a blind eye toward certain things about you, your
wife, and your relationship. If 37 years later you still can't throw
the blinders off about that part of your life, I wonder how clearly
you're able to look at where you are headed right now.

That's what I mean by having your eyes wide open.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message Sure. I'm just saying that although what Seeker and Mrs Seeker were like 37 years ago _might_ be relevant and hence might be worth thinking about, the fact that they got married young and ignorant in and of itself isn't terribly relevant.

To be blunt, here is what I see:

Seeker and and Mrs. Seeker weren't "in love" but got married anyway.

Seeker later decides that he wants a real relationship.

He's not in love with her and never was.

She never was "in love" him and still isn't (and maybe isn't capable
of it).

He insists on her treating him as if they were in love, and he is
willing to do the same in hopes that they will fall in love (I may be
reaching a bit here)

Even though I think Seeker truly wants to love and be loved by his
wife, I see
an inherent dishonesty in the whole thing that should be dealt with.

I'm sure they have a love of sorts that may well be worth keeping, but
they need to be honest with themselves about what it is and it isn't.

Okay, okay, NOW you did it! You went and brought up all
sorts of things that we can arg...er, discuss forever
and ever. Thanks. :)

Jingle Bells wrote:Seeker and and Mrs. Seeker weren't "in love" but gotmarried anyway.

Aaaaahhh, but what's 'in love'. I think Ted and his
wife were 'in love' as they understood the term. Or
at least I believe that they believed they had
feelings for each other that meant that getting married
wasn't a *totally* stupid idea.
Seeker later decides that he wants a real relationship.

What constitutes a 'real relationship'? I think Ted has
decided he wants a *different* relationship than what
he has now with his wife. But from what I've read over
the months, I don't think Ted is being very realistic
as to what kind of relationship he can have with his
wife at this point.
He's not in love with her and never was.

Eh, I'm not so fond of the term 'in love' in general
because so many people use it to describe a feeling
that, IMO, has little to do with love and more to do
with lust and obsession. And I also don't believe
that two people have to be 'in love' (according to
what the general acceptance of that term is) to have
a happy, satisfying marriage.
She never was "in love" him and still isn't (and maybeisn't capable of it).

Same as above. Although I wonder how you've come to the
opinion that she might not be capable of it, unless you're
someone who has read a lot more of Ted's previous posts
than your recent appearance indicates.
He insists on her treating him as if they were in love,and he is willing to do the same in hopes that they willfall in love (I may be reaching a bit here)

I don't think you're reaching too awfully far, at least
as far as Ted is concerned. I think, too, that Ted seems
to want her to act in a certain whether she wants to or
not and whether she's capable or not and whether she wants
to try to be capable or not. But I don't see much willingness
on his part to act in the same way he wants her to act.
At least not *until* she acts in that way.
Even though I think Seeker truly wants to love and beloved by his wife, I see an inherent dishonesty in thewhole thing that should be dealt with.

Yeah, that's there. I don't think we're seeing the dis-
honesty in the same places though.
I'm sure they have a love of sorts that may well be worthkeeping, but they need to be honest with themselves aboutwhat it is and it isn't.

And yeah again.

Tracey

Doug wrote:I like the thinking here about both responsibility,and guilt

Aw, thanks, Doug. :)
(which maybe has its place, but can easily degenerateinto either blame, or self-indulgence).

I agree.

<snip of familiar and common story about Doug's friend>Having spent decades blaming her parents, she is now stuckin blaming herself and feeling guilty.

I see very little practical use in guilt. I don't feel
good when I do things out of guilt. I don't see that
excessive feelings of guilt will always prevent a person
from doing the same thing over again. And I don't see
that feeling guilty does much of anything for the person
who you hurt. Or at least not feeling guilt by itself.

<snip>For almost every important decision we make, we onlyhave enough information to make the decision with acertainty of correctness retrospectively.
This doesn't absolve us of dealing with the consequencesof the many decisions we make with partial knowledge.

Nope, it doesn't. And I've seen many times when feeling
guilty about the decision is seen as 'good enough' when
it comes to dealing with the consequences. 'I feel guilty
about it! What more do you want?'

Tracey

>Same as above. Although I wonder how you've come to theopinion that she might not be capable of it, unless you'resomeone who has read a lot more of Ted's previous poststhan your recent appearance indicates.

Who was it that recently left and said maybe one day would return with a
different name?

Sheila

Sheila wrote:Who was it that recently left and said maybe one daywould return with a different name?

Have you heard about my new favorite t-shirt yet? It
reads 'I don't think much therefore I might not be.'
that's my roundabout way of saying I don't have a clue. :)

Tracey

>Sheila wrote:Who was it that recently left and said maybe one daywould return with a different name?Have you heard about my new favorite t-shirt yet? Itreads 'I don't think much therefore I might not be.'that's my roundabout way of saying I don't have a clue. :)Tracey

Aw, Tracey, sure you do. Somebody (for some reason I remember him as male)
siad they were really busy, and was sorta bored, I think, and was going away,
but he'd done this before, and returned with a new name.

Darn it... I wish I could remember.

Sheila

in article 3F623868.8010506@aol.com, Tracey at rbrancher2@aol.com wrote on
9/12/03 3:16 PM:
Sheila wrote: Who was it that recently left and said maybe one day would return with a different name? Have you heard about my new favorite t-shirt yet? It reads 'I don't think much therefore I might not be.' that's my roundabout way of saying I don't have a clue. :) Tracey

That would be Jay Dubya Bee.

M.

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Nope, it doesn't. And I've seen many times when feeling guilty about the decision is seen as 'good enough' when it comes to dealing with the consequences. 'I feel guilty about it! What more do you want?'

This made me laugh. I'm sitting across the table from my 9 year old,
of the "I _said_ I was sorry" (not very gracefully) "what else do you
want?"

Of course she never could have learned such behavior from me!

WhansaMi wrote: Sheila wrote:> Who was it that recently left and said maybe one day> would return with a different name? Have you heard about my new favorite t-shirt yet? It reads 'I don't think much therefore I might not be.' that's my roundabout way of saying I don't have a clue. :) Tracey That would be Jay Dubya Bee. M. Yeah! That's it! Could Jingle be JWB? Sheila

Nope, Jingle is brighter, and more experienced.

Ted wrote:I like, and agree, with what both of you are saying --I especially liked the carpentry metaphor. While itis possible that the bed can't be repaired and has tobe replaced, I think that's stretching the metaphortoo far.

Yeah, there's a group that would also say replace the
bed completely.
When I hear the "made bed, lie" aphorism I hear punish-ment, that nothng can be done, that you must sufferforever because of mistakes made along the way -- notas a consequence of them, but as punishment for havingmade them and don't you dare try to make things better.

Me, too.
I've heard that often enough I guess I over-react to it,partly by trying to excuse the situation or blame others(rightly or wrongly) for it.

Can't say as that's an abnormal reaction. At *some* point
or another, I think everyone gets tired of explaining what
led them to where they are, especially because the way we've
come to the place where we made the decision in the first
place is so complicated and involved and has many, many
factors. It's never so simple as saying 'I was raised this
way and that's why I made this decision.' And when you *do*,
you're then said to be blaming your parents for your de-
cision. It's difficult, it's time-consuming, and, quite
frankly, it's boring as heck to write: 'I grew up believing
X (but, hey, I'm not blaming my parents for it. They did
the best they could with what they had) and so, when Y
happened, I did Z (still not my parents' fault I did Z.
I take full responsibility for Z and I've tried 1, 2 and
3 to make Z better for myself.)

<snip>Part me also just likes to try to understand how I gothere -- partly in hopes it may help (although there isa lot of evidence that knowing how you got to where youare doesn't really help),

Is there? I think that knowing how you got to where you
are *is* helpful in a lot of ways, but I think that it
takes so darned long to figure out those things and then
figure out ways to change in response to what you've
learned and then actually implement the changes in a
meaningful manner that the immediate crisis has either
blown up completely or no longer exists. Does that make
sense? That's why the concept of solution oriented brief
therapy (probably misremembering the exact phrase) seemed
like a good thing to me way back when. I think it's in
"Divorce Busting" by Michele Weiner-Davis. Basically, it
says fix the problem *now* and worry about why the problem
is *later*.
partly in a vain hope of helping someone else not make thesame mistakes,

That's a side-effect, I think, and might even be a way for
you to keep from feeling self-indulgent. Not that you are
being self-indulgent, but some people have the belief that
doing something, anything, solely for their own benefit is
somehow wrong or selfish.
and partly just out of native curiosity at how things tick.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm pretty fascinated by the 'whys'
of human behavior, too, although I tend to be drawn towards
the more psychopathic behaviors myself. :)
I also suspect I use looking at the past, painful thoughparts of it may be, as a diversion and excuse from lookingat the painful work I have to do now!

And that's a normal thing to do, too. Distract ourselves
from the 'now' because it's too painful/daunting to look at.

Tracey

Sheila wrote:Aw, Tracey, sure you do.

Well, I remembered that someone had said that, just
no clue as to who it was. But, JWB it was. :)

Tracey

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 06:12:59 GMT,
Bill in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:

<Snip>
Yup. And if I were in her shoes, I'd say the hell with this....

So is this how "moral" people handle problems in their marriages?

Is this how people "take responsibility" for the relationship they chose?

Do you talk the talk, but don't care to walk the walk?

-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.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 06:12:59 GMT, Bill in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: <Snip> Yup. And if I were in her shoes, I'd say the hell with this.... So is this how "moral" people handle problems in their marriages? Is this how people "take responsibility" for the relationship they chose? Do you talk the talk, but don't care to walk the walk?

I fear this is some of what the black/white, right/wrong, pro guilt
people think. You assign blame to one party. Simultaneously
absolving the other party from any responsibility.

But I thought you were on the black/whit, right/wrong pro-guilt side
too, Tony.

In article <f804e152.0309120817.6932ac17@posting.google.com>, Jingle
Bells <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote:
Even though I think Seeker truly wants to love and be loved by his wife, I see an inherent dishonesty in the whole thing that should be dealt with.

I will agree there *is* a dishonesty there now (and how to get rid of
it with as little pain as possible is what I'm wreslting with) -- but I
suspect we have entirely different views on what that dishonesty is.
I'll let you go first -- where do you think the dishonesty is?

Ted

In article <3F635D22.2090301@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
<snipped>
And that's a normal thing to do, too. Distract ourselves from the 'now' because it's too painful/daunting to look at.

Thanks for what I read as understanding words Tracey.

Ted

Tony Miller wrote: On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 06:12:59 GMT, Bill in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: <Snip> Yup. And if I were in her shoes, I'd say the hell with this.... So is this how "moral" people handle problems in their marriages? Is this how people "take responsibility" for the relationship they chose? Do you talk the talk, but don't care to walk the walk?

Come again? I didn't choose that relationship. But if I were being totally
excluded and ignored in the marriage, and with an affair going on, to boot, and
with no hope of connecting, it would be over. Use your brain.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 04:21:17 GMT,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 06:12:59 GMT, Bill in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: <Snip> Yup. And if I were in her shoes, I'd say the hell with this.... So is this how "moral" people handle problems in their marriages? Is this how people "take responsibility" for the relationship they chose? Do you talk the talk, but don't care to walk the walk? I fear this is some of what the black/white, right/wrong, pro guilt people think. You assign blame to one party. Simultaneously absolving the other party from any responsibility. But I thought you were on the black/whit, right/wrong pro-guilt side too, Tony.

Sure I am, but dumping your wife isn't on my "white" side ;) Both parties
should take responsibility for doing what is required to make their
marriage work.

-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.

>>And that's a normal thing to do, too. Distract ourselves from the 'now' because it's too painful/daunting to look at.
Thanks for what I read as understanding words Tracey.

I do understand the tendency, Ted, and I think it's normal.
Doesn't mean I won't call someone on it when they're doing
it to excess though. :)

Tracey

In article <3F65EF3F.3070509@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
And that's a normal thing to do, too. Distract ourselves from the 'now' because it's too painful/daunting to look at.Thanks for what I read as understanding words Tracey. I do understand the tendency, Ted, and I think it's normal. Doesn't mean I won't call someone on it when they're doing it to excess though. :)

I wasn't referring to *just* the part I quoted -- the whole post I
felt was quite sensitive.

Ted

I wasn't referring to *just* the part I quoted --the whole post I felt was quite sensitive.

It was? I must have been having a bad day. :P

Tracey

In article <slrnbmbjsh.2fs.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller
<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
Sure I am, but dumping your wife isn't on my "white" side ;) Both parties should take responsibility for doing what is required to make their marriage work.

What if one of them doesn't think they need to do anything different --
that they *are* taking their responsibility just fine thank you?

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <slrnbmbjsh.2fs.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Sure I am, but dumping your wife isn't on my "white" side ;) Both parties should take responsibility for doing what is required to make their marriage work. What if one of them doesn't think they need to do anything different -- that they *are* taking their responsibility just fine thank you?

I'm also mildly curious about the answer to this from Mr. "My word is
my bond, but I'm entitled to break it if my wife does something from
the following list..."

But I doubt what you describe makes his list.

On 21 Sep 2003 21:30:31 -0700,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <slrnbmbjsh.2fs.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Sure I am, but dumping your wife isn't on my "white" side ;) Both parties should take responsibility for doing what is required to make their marriage work. What if one of them doesn't think they need to do anything different -- that they *are* taking their responsibility just fine thank you? I'm also mildly curious about the answer to this from Mr. "My word is my bond, but I'm entitled to break it if my wife does something from the following list..." But I doubt what you describe makes his list.

As a matter of fact, it isn't. "I don't love you anymore" and "You don't
make me happy" are not reasons to divorce.

Ted claimed he was in couples counseling. How did that go, Ted? Also,
Ted claims he is in individual therapy. That's cool, if the therapy is
aimed at being thankful for what he has rather than what he's missing.

-Tony

PS: Was that ok, Mr. "Bail of you aren't making me happy".

--
"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.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
PS: Was that ok, Mr. "Bail of you aren't making me happy".

I've never said that.

Feeling a bit defensive about the self-righteous "my word is my bond"
but "I break if for infractions on this list?"

On 22 Sep 2003 09:14:01 -0700,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: PS: Was that ok, Mr. "Bail of you aren't making me happy". I've never said that. Feeling a bit defensive about the self-righteous "my word is my bond" but "I break if for infractions on this list?"

Actually, if you'd like to mischaracterize what I said, carry on. "My
word is my bond unless you break the covenant."

If you're going to be snide and condescending, at least have your facts
straight. Facts, you know what they are, don't you?

-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.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 22 Sep 2003 09:14:01 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: PS: Was that ok, Mr. "Bail of you aren't making me happy". I've never said that. Feeling a bit defensive about the self-righteous "my word is my bond" but "I break if for infractions on this list?" Actually, if you'd like to mischaracterize what I said, carry on. "My word is my bond unless you break the covenant."

Actually, you didn't say that. But if that is what you meant, it is
more reasonable. How is the "covenant" defined, and where is it
recorded?
If you're going to be snide and condescending,

This, coming from you!
at least have your facts straight. Facts, you know what they are, don't you?

I've got them straight. I can point out what you said where. You may
not have meant exactly what you said though - that's easy enough to
do.