In article <1g12m1s.1z0nfc2br5gdgN%mbjq@earthlink.net>, Emma Anne
<mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well, that's true, but I do think it's part of his job as a spouse to meet your emotional needs, including the need for affection. www.marriagebuilders.com has quite a bit about emotional needs and how to meet them.

You can probably answer this question more quickly than I can by wading
through all the material there (which I have looked at a couple of
times.) Does marriagebuilders (and you) think a spouse *can* and
*should* meet *all* of his or her spouse's emotional needs?

We talked about this some at our session yesterday. My wife said the
thinks it is impossible for any single person to meet all my emotional
needs. We didn't at the time pursue what the implications of that are
-- she is quite content (she says) to have some of them be met by others
-- but I wonder if she really understood what some of them are if she
would be so acceptiong.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote:
In article <1g12m1s.1z0nfc2br5gdgN%mbjq@earthlink.net>, Emma Anne <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote: Well, that's true, but I do think it's part of his job as a spouse to meet your emotional needs, including the need for affection. www.marriagebuilders.com has quite a bit about emotional needs and how to meet them. You can probably answer this question more quickly than I can by wading through all the material there (which I have looked at a couple of times.) Does marriagebuilders (and you) think a spouse *can* and *should* meet *all* of his or her spouse's emotional needs?

Harley's feeling is that a wife (for example) will do well to
concentrate on her husband's five most important emotional needs (out of
ten). He says this strategy will allow most people to feel quite happy
and satisfied. Obviously anything you can do for the rest of the needs
is good, too, but those top five are the big ones. Especially the top
two or three.

I don't know about "should." How can you say what another person
"should" do? What Harley says, and it makes sense to me, is that if you
*don't* meet your spouse's top emotional needs, your spouse will tend to
be unhappy and fall out of love with you (and in love with someone else,
if the someone else does meet those needs). So if you want a happy
in-love spouse, you need to figure out how to meet those needs. It's
more cause and effect than prescription.

We talked about this some at our session yesterday. My wife said the thinks it is impossible for any single person to meet all my emotional needs. We didn't at the time pursue what the implications of that are -- she is quite content (she says) to have some of them be met by others -- but I wonder if she really understood what some of them are if she would be so acceptiong.

OK, so she is happy (she says). Do you think she is in love?

In article <slrnbm2a5p.hg6.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller
<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
The one who wishes most to save the marriage needs to behave as if they loved doing the thing that their spouse loves...

What if you each know each other so well that you would be able to tell
in an instant such behavior would only be an act and not sincere?

Ted

Seeker wrote: Tony Miller wrote: The one who wishes most to save the marriage needs to behave as if they loved doing the thing that their spouse loves... What if you each know each other so well that you would be able to tell in an instant such behavior would only be an act and not sincere?

Actually, Ted, it's an interesting sentiment, but the
problem is that the one who wishes most to do the saving
is the one who recognizes the problem, so, as Tony tries
to advise, it's up to one party to make it look like
there _are_ no problems.

It's doesn't matter who wishes *more*; if the desire is
unequal there is no point, no education, no chance of a
change.

Both parties must *choose* to do the "saving".

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Unknown

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <slrnbm2a5p.hg6.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: The one who wishes most to save the marriage needs to behave as if they loved doing the thing that their spouse loves... What if you each know each other so well that you would be able to tell in an instant such behavior would only be an act and not sincere?

There is a level where you can be happy that your spouse wants you to
feel loved so much that she/he is willing to do with enjoyment that
which she/he has no abstract desire to do at all.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:100920032154314930%anon-
My wife said the thinks it is impossible for any single person to meet all my emotional needs. We didn't at the time pursue what the implications of that are -- she is quite content (she says) to have some of them be met by others -- but I wonder if she really understood what some of them are if she would be so acceptiong. Ted

You know, there are two sides to this. On the one hand it is important to
have one's emotional needs met by a spouse in order to feel loved. On the
other hand it is possible to know and understand that the spouse is
incapable of meeting certain needs and to *still* feel or know that they
love you. Communication plays a big part in that, I think.

Amy

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote:
I now realize why I fell in love with "the pharmacist" so suddenly and unexpectedly -- she was, or *had the potential of* satisfying several very strong emotional needs of mine, needs which my wife was not satisfying, and, in some cases, *could not* satisfy.

Yeah, I realized this about you and your W about a year ago. I told
you, too, but I guess you weren't ready to hear it.

Ted, do you notice that you've done a great job analyzing what your
needs are, how you W doesn't meet them and how the pharmicist does, or
could - but no analysis of what your W's needs are, how you aren't
meeting them, and how you could? This is the only way out of your trap,
IMO. Hoping your W will change first seems horribly unlikely.

Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:100920032154314930%anon- My wife said the thinks it is impossible for any single person to meet all my emotional needs. We didn't at the time pursue what the implications of that are -- she is quite content (she says) to have some of them be met by others -- but I wonder if she really understood what some of them are if she would be so acceptiong. Ted You know, there are two sides to this. On the one hand it is important to have one's emotional needs met by a spouse in order to feel loved. On the other hand it is possible to know and understand that the spouse is incapable of meeting certain needs and to *still* feel or know that they love you. Communication plays a big part in that, I think.

Can you give me an example of a case where a spouse is *incapable* of
meeting an emotional need? Because I can't think of one, unless the
spouse is seriously disabled in some way.

Can you give me an example of a case where a spouseis *incapable* of meeting an emotional need?

I think I have one. At one point, my husband had a need
to be with his soulmate. I wasn't it. I was incapable
of being his soulmate. It was not possible.

Tracey

Emma Anne wrote: Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:100920032154314930%anon- My wife said the thinks it is impossible for any single person to meet all my emotional needs. We didn't at the time pursue what the implications of that are -- she is quite content (she says) to have some of them be met by others -- but I wonder if she really understood what some of them are if she would be so acceptiong. Ted You know, there are two sides to this. On the one hand it is important to have one's emotional needs met by a spouse in order to feel loved. On the other hand it is possible to know and understand that the spouse is incapable of meeting certain needs and to *still* feel or know that they love you. Communication plays a big part in that, I think. Can you give me an example of a case where a spouse is *incapable* of meeting an emotional need? Because I can't think of one, unless the spouse is seriously disabled in some way.

Yes, if the spouse has suppressed her own feelings, and pushed them down.
Absolutely.

>Practically speaking, I think this amounts to aneed for certain kinds of intimacy, some of whichyou probably _could_ supply.

Dammit, Doug, why do you always seem to catch me on
those short posts that don't (of necessity because
the stupid story is so damn long and I don't want
to bore the ones who have heard it so many times
before) go into the whole thing and ask for an
expanded version (or at least make me feel as if I
need to expand it) when what I *really* want to do
is go kill some monsters????? <grin>

Firstly, I don't particularly agree with the whole
'need for certain kinds of intimacy.' Or at least
I don't agree that they're 'needs' in the sense that
a person is going to die if they don't get them. The
relationship may die, but the person won't. I pretty
much look at 'emotional need' as really being an
'emotional want.' Secondly, in my rush this morning,
I condensed a lot of things into 'needing to be with
his soulmate' because that's what it basically boiled
down to with him. What he 'needed' was a relationship
in which he never had to figure out exactly what it
was he wanted and the other person would always know
exactly what it was, thus, his 'need' to be with his
soulmate. I can't really think of any other way to
explain it other than his emotional 'need' at the
time was to not have to figure out what his emotional
'needs' were and the only way he could see to do that
was to be with his soulmate who, through just the fact
of being his soulmate, would KNOW what it was he needed
and supply it.

Tracey

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1g164wc.133ftya1bjavcpN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:100920032154314930%anon- My wife said the thinks it is impossible for any single person to meet all my emotional needs. We didn't at the time pursue what the implications of that are -- she is quite content (she says) to have some of them be met by
others -- but I wonder if she really understood what some of them are if she would be so acceptiong. Ted You know, there are two sides to this. On the one hand it is important
to have one's emotional needs met by a spouse in order to feel loved. On
the other hand it is possible to know and understand that the spouse is incapable of meeting certain needs and to *still* feel or know that they love you. Communication plays a big part in that, I think. Can you give me an example of a case where a spouse is *incapable* of meeting an emotional need? Because I can't think of one, unless the spouse is seriously disabled in some way.

I was thinking of the OP's husband, the one with the 'lack of emotion'. The
OP is asking her husband to completely change his personality. Now if he is
willing to give it a go for her sake but fails to change into the knight in
shining armour she dreams of isn't there a point where she needs to either
accept him the way he is or move on.?

Teds been married for a long time and his wife has not met his needs.
Somewhere along the line he must have accepted that she can't or won't and
made the best of it because he is still there isn't he (even if he is
complaining)?

My husband has a need to feel top dog in the family. As far as he is
concerned he doesn't feel top dog if my son (his step son) gets, what he
sees as, preferential treatment. I've flat out told my husband that there is
no way I will change to his satisfaction. He has two choices, live with it
or get out. He's still living with it and, as Tony points out as being quite
possible, has taken on the new attitude with grace and style.

I think there is a point where you have to say to yourself "they just cannot
give me what I want but I know that they still love me".

Of course there is a difference between the *complete* fulfilling of needs
and *attempts at* fulfilling needs and *refusal to even try* to fulfil
needs. If we are faced with a 'refuse to even try' partner its up to us to
decide whether that is acceptable or not.

Amy

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Practically speaking, I think this amounts to aneed for certain kinds of intimacy, some of whichyou probably _could_ supply. Dammit, Doug, why do you always seem to catch me on those short posts that don't (of necessity because the stupid story is so damn long and I don't want to bore the ones who have heard it so many times before) go into the whole thing and ask for an expanded version (or at least make me feel as if I need to expand it) when what I *really* want to do is go kill some monsters????? <grin>

Sorry - I didn't really want to make you expand. I thought your
response was a bit on the cynical side though, 'cause although I may
believe more in this concept of emotional need than you do, I don't
really believe there is such a thing as a "need to be with one's
soulmate."
Firstly, I don't particularly agree with the whole 'need for certain kinds of intimacy.' Or at least I don't agree that they're 'needs' in the sense that a person is going to die if they don't get them. The relationship may die, but the person won't. I pretty much look at 'emotional need' as really being an 'emotional want.'

Yeah, OK. I agree that the word "need" gets bandied about quite a
bit. It isn't "need" like food and drink.

On the other hand one could call it a "need" in the sense that I
"need" to get some emotional intimacy out of my relationship with my
wife, otherwise I'd probably leave it and find another. (For example.)
Secondly, in my rush this morning, I condensed a lot of things into 'needing to be with his soulmate' because that's what it basically boiled down to with him. What he 'needed' was a relationship in which he never had to figure out exactly what it was he wanted and the other person would always know exactly what it was, thus, his 'need' to be with his soulmate. I can't really think of any other way to explain it other than his emotional 'need' at the time was to not have to figure out what his emotional 'needs' were and the only way he could see to do that was to be with his soulmate who, through just the fact of being his soulmate, would KNOW what it was he needed and supply it.

Yeah. He was hoping to get away with being lazy.

So the way you wrote the above makes me think you think your husband
was appropriating this language of "need" for somewhat manipulative
purpose. I've certainly seen others doing that.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 04:01:07 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>
wrote:
In article <slrnbm2a5p.hg6.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: The one who wishes most to save the marriage needs to behave as if they loved doing the thing that their spouse loves...What if you each know each other so well that you would be able to tellin an instant such behavior would only be an act and not sincere?

Go with it anyway. Appreciate their effort and don't reject them for
being insincere. "Act as if", in the same way they are. Meet them
halfway.

- Randy

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:58:08 GMT,
Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: "Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1g164wc.133ftya1bjavcpN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:100920032154314930%anon- My wife said the > thinks it is impossible for any single person to meet all my emotional > needs. We didn't at the time pursue what the implications of that are > -- she is quite content (she says) to have some of them be met by others > -- but I wonder if she really understood what some of them are if she > would be so acceptiong. > > Ted You know, there are two sides to this. On the one hand it is important to have one's emotional needs met by a spouse in order to feel loved. On the other hand it is possible to know and understand that the spouse is incapable of meeting certain needs and to *still* feel or know that they love you. Communication plays a big part in that, I think. Can you give me an example of a case where a spouse is *incapable* of meeting an emotional need? Because I can't think of one, unless the spouse is seriously disabled in some way. I was thinking of the OP's husband, the one with the 'lack of emotion'. The OP is asking her husband to completely change his personality. Now if he is willing to give it a go for her sake but fails to change into the knight in shining armour she dreams of isn't there a point where she needs to either accept him the way he is or move on.?

Because he may not have a clue about "the way she wants him to be". Many
women believe that men are psychic. That we have some sort of "Madame
Cleo-like" ability to know what women need and respond to it. If we don't
respond exactly as expected, we're not "meeting your needs". (This is a
problem with men with regard to women too.)
Teds been married for a long time and his wife has not met his needs. Somewhere along the line he must have accepted that she can't or won't and made the best of it because he is still there isn't he (even if he is complaining)? My husband has a need to feel top dog in the family. As far as he is concerned he doesn't feel top dog if my son (his step son) gets, what he sees as, preferential treatment. I've flat out told my husband that there is no way I will change to his satisfaction. He has two choices, live with it or get out. He's still living with it and, as Tony points out as being quite possible, has taken on the new attitude with grace and style.

This is a problem with marrying a woman with a ready made family. You
really have to be ready and willing to play second fiddle (at least until
the child has moved out). Once the child has moved out, your husband has
the right to demand your full attention.
I think there is a point where you have to say to yourself "they just cannot give me what I want but I know that they still love me". Of course there is a difference between the *complete* fulfilling of needs and *attempts at* fulfilling needs and *refusal to even try* to fulfil needs. If we are faced with a 'refuse to even try' partner its up to us to decide whether that is acceptable or not.

This is a game where a high score "for effort" counts. :)
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.

In article <1g164wc.133ftya1bjavcpN%mbjq@earthlink.net>, Emma Anne
<mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote:
Can you give me an example of a case where a spouse is *incapable* of meeting an emotional need? Because I can't think of one, unless the spouse is seriously disabled in some way.

Here's one. Suppose you are a gifted singer. You discover that you
are very good at singing duets --and that there is something special
about them that can't be duplicated any other way. As my wife says
about her being in choir, you discover you *need* to sing -- and sing
that way. The person you are singing the duet with is filling a very
deep and powerful emotional need. Your spouse *cannot* fill that need
unless he or she also is a gifted singer (and probably also one who
likes the same kind of music you do too!)

Ted

In article <75c8b.39456$mp.18901@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Doug
Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is a level where you can be happy that your spouse wants you to feel loved so much that she/he is willing to do with enjoyment that which she/he has no abstract desire to do at all.

Yah, that would be nice, wouldn't it.
Not to be facetious, but is it anything like learning to eat green
beans?
For some people (and I think that includes both my wife and I)
integrity is so important to them that the idea of pretending -- for no
matter how you cloak it, that's still what it is -- to like what you
don't like is completely counter to their natures that it's almost
impossible and doing so in itself can generate animosity and even
physical symptoms.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <75c8b.39456$mp.18901@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: There is a level where you can be happy that your spouse wants you to feel loved so much that she/he is willing to do with enjoyment that which she/he has no abstract desire to do at all. Yah, that would be nice, wouldn't it. Not to be facetious, but is it anything like learning to eat green beans? For some people (and I think that includes both my wife and I) integrity is so important to them that the idea of pretending -- for no matter how you cloak it, that's still what it is

This indicates a very fundamental misunderstanding.

I don't like giving back rubs especially, and could go my whole life
never giving another _except_ my wife loves getting them. Because I
like doing things that please her, I _love_ to give her backrubs.

Does that clarify that this _isn't_ pretending, or at least it doesn't
have to be?
-- to like what you don't like is completely counter to their natures that it's almost impossible and doing so in itself can generate animosity and even physical symptoms.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 03:48:20 GMT,
Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <75c8b.39456$mp.18901@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: There is a level where you can be happy that your spouse wants you to feel loved so much that she/he is willing to do with enjoyment that which she/he has no abstract desire to do at all. Yah, that would be nice, wouldn't it. Not to be facetious, but is it anything like learning to eat green beans? For some people (and I think that includes both my wife and I) integrity is so important to them that the idea of pretending -- for no matter how you cloak it, that's still what it is -- to like what you don't like is completely counter to their natures that it's almost impossible and doing so in itself can generate animosity and even physical symptoms.

Then I guess you're sunk, Ted. You can't make someone (even yourself)
have certain feelings. They just are. You can, however, change your
behavior. If you don't want to do that, I don't know what else to tell
you.
Ted

-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.

In article <pgS8b.336855$Oz4.123228@rwcrnsc54>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
This indicates a very fundamental misunderstanding. I don't like giving back rubs especially, and could go my whole life never giving another _except_ my wife loves getting them. Because I like doing things that please her, I _love_ to give her backrubs. Does that clarify that this _isn't_ pretending, or at least it doesn't have to be?

That's not the sort of thing I'm talking about.
The standard joke (?) of course would be a woman faking an orgasm
to please her husband -- but there could be countless other examples.
Accompanying your spouse to a sports event he or she likes and you
don't is one thing -- pretending to be enthusiastic about it (yelling
and cheering because everybody else is) when you aren't the slightest
bit excited about it would be another thing

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <pgS8b.336855$Oz4.123228@rwcrnsc54>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: This indicates a very fundamental misunderstanding. I don't like giving back rubs especially, and could go my whole life never giving another _except_ my wife loves getting them. Because I like doing things that please her, I _love_ to give her backrubs. Does that clarify that this _isn't_ pretending, or at least it doesn't have to be? That's not the sort of thing I'm talking about.

OK. But it is the sort of thing _I_ was talking about, which you
responded to by calling it pretending.
The standard joke (?) of course would be a woman faking an orgasm to please her husband -- but there could be countless other examples.

That would be a silly thing to do, and not helpful.
Accompanying your spouse to a sports event he or she likes and you don't is one thing -- pretending to be enthusiastic about it (yelling and cheering because everybody else is) when you aren't the slightest bit excited about it would be another thing

But enjoying the fresh air and the company and pleasure of your spouse
at said sporting event could be perfectly honest, legitimate and
positive.

I'm not talking about "faking it" in any way. I'm talking about the
myriad ways to enjoy giving one's spouse pleasure.

In article <slrnbm2i7q.d2j.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller
<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
After my wife and I had our Marriage Encounter weekend, we set aside special time... An hour a night, to dialog according to the rules laid down. We locked the door, hung the banner on the door, and told the kids they'd better be bleeding really badly if they knocked on the door while the flag was out ;)

What led you to set aside that special time? Did you *both* agree it
was something you needed or wanted to do?

Ted

In article <yKs8b.230668$2x.64241@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Doug
Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Needing to "be with his soulmate" is a lot like Ted's "needing to be free." Practically speaking, I think this amounts to a need for certain kinds of intimacy, some of which you probably _could_ supply.

While I see from her response later what she's saying isn't, I don't
think, at all what I am referring to, on first glance they might seem
to be. I have learned what it is to be with a woman who is comfortable
and natural talking about her feelings and emotions. My wife isn't
and I don't see how anything *I* can do can make her be, nor that it is
something she herself can choose to be comfortable with. I now know
that is a kind of emotional intimacy I need. In my response to Emma
Anne I made reference to the road to Emmaus experience -- I have
learned that an important need of mine -- one which I did not have
until five years ago -- is to be with a woman who shares that knd of
experience. I don't know why that is the case or even what name to
give it, other than some kind of spiritual intimacy -- and that
definitely is not something my wife can choose, no matter how hard whe
works at it, to give me. She is aware of that and says she is
accepting of the fact that I need to have that need filled elsewhere --
but I wonder if she really means it.

Ted

In article <3F626799.7090101@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
Firstly, I don't particularly agree with the whole 'need for certain kinds of intimacy.' Or at least I don't agree that they're 'needs' in the sense that a person is going to die if they don't get them. The relationship may die, but the person won't. I pretty much look at 'emotional need' as really being an 'emotional want.'

Ah, that is a most difficult question -- *is* there such a thing as an
emotional need? Could someone be locked away alone in a cell,
provided food, clothing, and shelter, and never interact with another
human being and survive without going crazy? Sure that's an extreme --
but how powerful does an emotional need have to be before not having it
be satisfied is analagous?

Ted

In article <QQu8b.98243$bo1.3207@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
Teds been married for a long time and his wife has not met his needs. Somewhere along the line he must have accepted that she can't or won't and made the best of it because he is still there isn't he (even if he is complaining)?

No, I have not accepted it. The first go around I coped with it
(without being able to name all of what is wrong) by drinking. That of
course didn't work. This go around I've been trying other things --
changing my behavior (as much as I could? probably not), going through
counselling, seeking fulfillment of some of the needs as best I can
within the bounds of social propriety. Time will tell if that combined
approach works.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <3F626799.7090101@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: Firstly, I don't particularly agree with the whole 'need for certain kinds of intimacy.' Or at least I don't agree that they're 'needs' in the sense that a person is going to die if they don't get them. The relationship may die, but the person won't. I pretty much look at 'emotional need' as really being an 'emotional want.' Ah, that is a most difficult question -- *is* there such a thing as an emotional need? Could someone be locked away alone in a cell, provided food, clothing, and shelter, and never interact with another human being and survive without going crazy?

This experiment has been tried. Numerous times. Apparently the
answer is "yes", someone could survive this without going crazy. Not
necessarily everyone though.
Sure that's an extreme -- but how powerful does an emotional need have to be before not having it be satisfied is analagous?

Why is it important to categorize something as a "need" rather than as
a desire or want?

In article <slrnbm8srl.25p.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller
<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
Then I guess you're sunk, Ted. You can't make someone (even yourself) have certain feelings. They just are. You can, however, change your behavior. If you don't want to do that, I don't know what else to tell you.

And exactly what behavior do you think I should change and why?

Ted

In article <S4b9b.445990$YN5.301962@sccrnsc01>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
But enjoying the fresh air and the company and pleasure of your spouse at said sporting event could be perfectly honest, legitimate and positive.

Yes, but it's still not satisfying the need. It's accompanying him or
her on the journey, but not particpating in it. It'd be lying saying
a blind spouse could accompany a sighted one to watch the sunrise --
yes, it could be a meaningful and loving experience for both, but by no
stretch of the imagination could either one honestly say they were
sharing the experience with their loved one -- and if *that* is the
need you have, as I think it was Tony put it, you're stuck.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <S4b9b.445990$YN5.301962@sccrnsc01>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: But enjoying the fresh air and the company and pleasure of your spouse at said sporting event could be perfectly honest, legitimate and positive. Yes, but it's still not satisfying the need. It's accompanying him or her on the journey, but not particpating in it. It'd be lying saying a blind spouse could accompany a sighted one to watch the sunrise -- yes, it could be a meaningful and loving experience for both, but by no stretch of the imagination could either one honestly say they were sharing the experience with their loved one

I think there is room for more than one opinion on that. At any rate,
I disagree.
-- and if *that* is the need you have, as I think it was Tony put it, you're stuck.

No, but you have to re-imagine the needs you think you have. If, in
fact, you have convincing and strong reasons to be wtih your wife, it
behoves you to define your needs in such a way that the person you're
sure you should be with has a chance at satisfying them.

I need my wife to be my intellectual equal. If I were to go and
define that as needing her to equal me in every dimension of our
intellectual lives, she'd be inadequate. In fact it's fine that she's
better at some things and I'm better at others.

In article <vWb9b.446632$YN5.302687@sccrnsc01>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, but you have to re-imagine the needs you think you have. If, in fact, you have convincing and strong reasons to be wtih your wife, it behoves you to define your needs in such a way that the person you're sure you should be with has a chance at satisfying them.

Huh? Needs are things one has, or discovers one has -- not something
one chooses or defines.

Ted

In article <6Bb9b.249336$2x.70785@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Doug
Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why is it important to categorize something as a "need" rather than as a desire or want?

Because it is noble and virtuous to forego desires and wants, or,
conversely, it is a weakness to indulge them..
Needs, on the other hand, are something everyone will understand if you
try to satisfy them.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <vWb9b.446632$YN5.302687@sccrnsc01>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: No, but you have to re-imagine the needs you think you have. If, in fact, you have convincing and strong reasons to be wtih your wife, it behoves you to define your needs in such a way that the person you're sure you should be with has a chance at satisfying them. Huh? Needs are things one has, or discovers one has -- not something one chooses or defines.

Maybe this is the real focus of your problem. What you wrote above
just isn't true.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <6Bb9b.249336$2x.70785@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Why is it important to categorize something as a "need" rather than as a desire or want? Because it is noble and virtuous to forego desires and wants, or, conversely, it is a weakness to indulge them.. Needs, on the other hand, are something everyone will understand if you try to satisfy them.

So you can only be insistent about wanting something if you first
convince yourself it is categorized as a need?

I think there is something very wrong there. Unless your answer was
meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 04:59:41 GMT,
Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <slrnbm8srl.25p.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Then I guess you're sunk, Ted. You can't make someone (even yourself) have certain feelings. They just are. You can, however, change your behavior. If you don't want to do that, I don't know what else to tell you. And exactly what behavior do you think I should change and why?

Not knowing your wife and only hearing one side of the story, I'm going to
make broad assumptions that are probably wrong. I'd imagine your wife
wants to be more intimately connected to you. She wants you to share
your life.

You sound like you've been living your lives (like my wife and I used to)
as "married singles". You seem to be doing your own thing, and she's
doing her own thing, and you get together to eat meals and sleep.

This was not working for my wife and made her very unhappy. I needed to
change my behavior (set aside time to be with her). Maybe an hour on the
couch snuggling, maybe talking. It shouldn't be too hard unless you
dislike your wife and/or she dislikes you. You can talk if you want, or
not. I would use this time to find out what would make her happy.
Ted

-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.

In article <jac9b.448875$o%2.204509@sccrnsc02>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <vWb9b.446632$YN5.302687@sccrnsc01>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: No, but you have to re-imagine the needs you think you have. If, in fact, you have convincing and strong reasons to be wtih your wife, it behoves you to define your needs in such a way that the person you're sure you should be with has a chance at satisfying them. Huh? Needs are things one has, or discovers one has -- not something one chooses or defines. Maybe this is the real focus of your problem. What you wrote above just isn't true.

Are we on the same planet? Are we speaking the same language? Are we
both homo sapiens of roughly the same generation?

You have completely lost me now Doug.

Ted

Ted wrote:For some people (and I think that includes both mywife and I) integrity is so important to them thatthe idea of pretending -- for no matter how you cloakit, that's still what it is -- to like what youdon't like is completely counter to their natures thatit's almost impossible and doing so in itself cangenerate animosity and even physical symptoms.

Doug has done a good job, IMO, in pointing out the
difference in pretending to like an activity when you
don't and actually enjoying the joy it brings to your
partner but I'm gonna tell my wrestling story anyway.

When our son was younger, he *loved* professional
wrestling. My mother was coming for a visit and we
had bought tickets to go see pro wrestling live. My
mother didn't want to go because she 'wouldn't enjoy
it.' I told her to go anyway, not to watch the wrestling
itself but to watch her grandson enjoying the wrestling.
She did and had a good time and bonded with him. And,
10 years later, our son still talks about the time
that Granny went to the wrestling show with him. :)

Tracey

Ted wrote:Huh? Needs are things one has, or discovers onehas -- not something one chooses or defines.

Then Doug wrote:Maybe this is the real focus of your problem. Whatyou wrote above just isn't true.

I understand perfectly what Doug is saying (I think :) )
We have emotional 'needs'. We get to decide what it is
*exactly* that will fill those needs and we get to
decide which 'needs' can be unfulfilled if enough others
are getting filled. As an example, our bodies need water
to continue working. That's the need. We get to decide
whether it's going to be pure spring water that we buy,
or water out of the tap or some of the water we need
will have drink mixes put into it to make it taste better
or we'll eat 10 apples a day to get part of our water
or whatever. The need is the same, we fill it in different
ways.

A lot of times when I'm reading your posts, Ted, the
saying 'You can tell me *what* to do, or you can tell
me *how* to do it. You can't tell me both' comes to
mind. I don't see much willingness on your part to
compromise or to 'settle' for less or to look at what
your wife's preferences or needs are. Or, if you do,
you are quick to discount your wife's preferences/needs
in favor of yours.

Tracey

Because it is noble and virtuous to forego desiresand wants, or, conversely, it is a weakness toindulge them.. Needs, on the other hand, are somethingeveryone will understand if you try to satisfy them.

Eeeeuuuwww. And again, eeeuuuwww.....

Tracey

Tracey wrote: Ted wrote: <snip the usual rationalizations>
A lot of times when I'm reading your posts, Ted, the saying 'You can tell me *what* to do, or you can tell me *how* to do it. You can't tell me both' comes to mind. I don't see much willingness on your part to compromise or to 'settle' for less or to look at what your wife's preferences or needs are. Or, if you do, you are quick to discount your wife's preferences/needs in favor of yours. Tracey

Precisely. Right on the button....

In article <3F65F2FF.7000006@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
Because it is noble and virtuous to forego desiresand wants, or, conversely, it is a weakness toindulge them.. Needs, on the other hand, are somethingeveryone will understand if you try to satisfy them. Eeeeuuuwww. And again, eeeuuuwww.....

That's most emotive, but not all communicative!
And your point is...?

Ted

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:
Can you give me an example of a case where a spouseis *incapable* of meeting an emotional need? I think I have one. At one point, my husband had a need to be with his soulmate. I wasn't it. I was incapable of being his soulmate. It was not possible.

This is not an emotional need, according to the marriage builders
formulation. Not everything you want or even yearn for is counted as an
emotional needs. I would definitely say that it is impossible to give a
spouse everything he wants.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

(snip)
Why is it important to categorize something as a "need" rather than as a desire or want?

In this context, an emotional need is a need that needs to be met to be
happy and in love in the relationship.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote:
In article <1g164wc.133ftya1bjavcpN%mbjq@earthlink.net>, Emma Anne <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote: Can you give me an example of a case where a spouse is *incapable* of meeting an emotional need? Because I can't think of one, unless the spouse is seriously disabled in some way. Here's one. Suppose you are a gifted singer. You discover that you are very good at singing duets --and that there is something special about them that can't be duplicated any other way. As my wife says about her being in choir, you discover you *need* to sing -- and sing that way. The person you are singing the duet with is filling a very deep and powerful emotional need. Your spouse *cannot* fill that need unless he or she also is a gifted singer (and probably also one who likes the same kind of music you do too!)

OK, but now you are extending the concept of emotional need from what a
person needs to be happy in the relationship, to what a person needs to
be happy in life. Obviously a spouse cannot meet all of these needs.

>> >Because it is noble and virtuous to forego desiresand wants, or, conversely, it is a weakness toindulge them.. Needs, on the other hand, are somethingeveryone will understand if you try to satisfy them.
Eeeeuuuwww. And again, eeeuuuwww.....

That's most emotive, but not all communicative!And your point is...?

Yeah, it definitely added nothing to the discussion.
I *told* you the post you termed sensitive must have
been written on a bad day for me.

Lots of things went through my head when I read what
you wrote above. The 'noble and virtuous' part brought
up visions of martyrs and not the 'good' version of
martyrs. Someone willing to die for their beliefs is
a 'good' version. Someone denying themself a pleasure
or a want or a desire *solely* because they wish to
be seen as 'noble and virtuous' and, durnit, everyone
had better acknowledge their sacrifice is the 'bad'
version of a martyr, IMO. Another thing that went
through my head is the 'weakness to indulge <desires
and needs>' part. It's another aspect of martyrdom
(the 'bad' kind) that I find incomprehensible. I don't
believe that life is or is meant to be all pain and
suffering and sacrifice. Sometimes, it *is*, but I
don't believe that it *has to be*. And the last part,
to me, is a set up for justifying anything a person
wants to do as long as they classify it as a 'need'.
Altogether, my reaction was 'eeeuuuwww'.

You're fighting very hard, Ted, and you have been
fighting very hard ever since you started posting here
to justify what you're doing as 'right' and the honorable
way of handling things and 'not so bad' because you're
just trying to fill your 'needs' and 'it's the best
thing' for you to do. It's not enough for you, it
seems, for you to know that what you're doing is right
and I wonder about that. You see, for me, when I'm
unsure about a decision I need to make, I ask for input
from other people and what they say will help clarify
things for me. I'm not asking them to make the decision
for me and I don't feel obligated to do everything they
suggest and but, a lot of times, the ensuing discussion
has pointed out places where my logic was a little thin,
places where I felt compelled to justify and justify and
justify some more to the point where I realized that I
was trying to justify something that I *knew* was wrong,
wrong for me and wrong for the situation. In other situ-
ations, I'm faced with an issue, I *know* the right thing
to do, I do it and I feel no need to ask anyone else what
they would do. I don't feel the need to justify anything
to anyone. I might choose to explain why I did it that
way, but the need to justify it isn't there for me.

But I don't see that from you. (By 'that', I mean that
I don't see an honest willingness to question your core
beliefs or a willingness to acknowledge that your core
beliefs may be at the very heart of your problem<s>.)
And, if you want to know the truth, I don't think that
that is necessarily a bad thing. I have great respect
for a person who won't compromise their beliefs. Who
won't get a whole lot of respect from me is someone who
twists the situation around into something that it isn't
just so their decision won't go against their beliefs
and also someone who doesn't recognize or acknowledge
that another person's core beliefs are just as important
as theirs.

Tracey

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <3F65F2FF.7000006@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:Because it is noble and virtuous to forego desiresand wants, or, conversely, it is a weakness toindulge them.. Needs, on the other hand, are somethingeveryone will understand if you try to satisfy them. Eeeeuuuwww. And again, eeeuuuwww..... That's most emotive, but not all communicative! And your point is...?

Echoing just one of Tracey's points;

If you believe it is only right to pursue what you want if you
categorize it as a _need_ first, then you've put yourself in a
position where there is incredible pressure to lie to yourself in
order to justify pursuing what you want.

Doug wrote:I thought your response was a bit on the cynical sidethough, 'cause although I may believe more in thisconcept of emotional need than you do, I don't reallybelieve there is such a thing as a "need to be withone's soulmate."

I don't think it was cynical, it was stating his belief
at the time. He had a need that I *couldn't* fill, no
matter how hard I tried. Even throwing out the fact of
the other woman being his soulmate, *I* wasn't a soul-
mate (in writings, you'll find that no one has one soul-
mate, they have many.)
Yeah, OK. I agree that the word "need" gets bandiedabout quite a bit. It isn't "need" like food and drink.
On the other hand one could call it a "need" in the sensethat I "need" to get some emotional intimacy out of myrelationship with my wife, otherwise I'd probably leave itand find another. (For example.)

Yep, I agree with ya. I went into a little bit of expla-
nation, too, in another post where the need for emotional
intimacy, for example, shouldn't be confused for a need
for a specific example of emotional intimacy.
Yeah. He was hoping to get away with being lazy.

Now, see, you're being cynical. :) Again, I've condensed
a lot of stuff into one sentence. You don't have to accept
my view, but it's not just a matter of being lazy. There
are lots of family of origin, past relationship, person-
ality and religious upbringing thrown into the mix, but
it's not just him being lazy.
So the way you wrote the above makes me think you thinkyour husband was appropriating this language of "need"for somewhat manipulative purpose. I've certainly seenothers doing that.

Yes, my point exactly. Or I think it was supposed to be.
Sometimes I think I'm making a point and I'm actually
making another. It's confusing, I know.

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Doug wrote:I thought your response was a bit on the cynical sidethough, 'cause although I may believe more in thisconcept of emotional need than you do, I don't reallybelieve there is such a thing as a "need to be withone's soulmate." I don't think it was cynical, it was stating his belief at the time. He had a need that I *couldn't* fill, no matter how hard I tried. Even throwing out the fact of the other woman being his soulmate, *I* wasn't a soul- mate (in writings, you'll find that no one has one soul- mate, they have many.)

Cynical in the sense of stating it as a "need." I wasn't trying to
imply that you were being inaccurate as to what he _wanted_.
Yeah, OK. I agree that the word "need" gets bandiedabout quite a bit. It isn't "need" like food and drink.On the other hand one could call it a "need" in the sensethat I "need" to get some emotional intimacy out of myrelationship with my wife, otherwise I'd probably leave itand find another. (For example.) Yep, I agree with ya. I went into a little bit of expla- nation, too, in another post where the need for emotional intimacy, for example, shouldn't be confused for a need for a specific example of emotional intimacy.Yeah. He was hoping to get away with being lazy. Now, see, you're being cynical. :)

Yes.
Again, I've condensed a lot of stuff into one sentence.

Fair enough.
You don't have to accept my view, but it's not just a matter of being lazy. There are lots of family of origin, past relationship, person- ality and religious upbringing thrown into the mix, but it's not just him being lazy.

Sure, I buy that. But the point I was making is that "being with his
soulmate" doesn't qualify (to me) as a "need." There are things
related to that (for example emotional intimacy and companionship)
that might qualify as needs, and _those_ things it is much more likely
you could supply.

For him to frame his "need" as "being with his soulmate" seems to me a
little like what Ted is doing. It replaces some things that might
qualify as needs with a very specific way of filling them, in such a
way as to make illegitimate any ways in which you might have provided
for those needs.
So the way you wrote the above makes me think you thinkyour husband was appropriating this language of "need"for somewhat manipulative purpose. I've certainly seenothers doing that. Yes, my point exactly. Or I think it was supposed to be. Sometimes I think I'm making a point and I'm actually making another. It's confusing, I know.

See Jack's thread about how hard it is to know another person
(actually that wasn't his initial point), which isn't that surprising
considering how hard it is to know oneself!

Doug wrote:Sure, I buy that. But the point I was making is that"being with his soulmate" doesn't qualify (to me) asa "need." There are things related to that (for exampleemotional intimacy and companionship) that might qualifyas needs, and _those_ things it is much more likely youcould supply.
For him to frame his "need" as "being with his soulmate"seems to me a little like what Ted is doing. It replacessome things that might qualify as needs with a veryspecific way of filling them, in such a way as to makeillegitimate any ways in which you might have providedfor those needs.

Yes, exactly. I'm with you on all of this. Really, I am. :)
In fact, getting him to redefine his 'need to be with his
soulmate' was a very important and vital step on our way
to staying married. I wasn't addressing whether his need
was valid or right or wrong, just that, at the time he
stated his 'need', it was *impossible* for me to fill it.

Emma Anne hopped on the 'that's not a valid emotional need'
bandwagon, too, but even if you and I and EA and everyone
else in the world discounts it as a valid emotional need,
if the person involved views it as a need that MUST be
filled, until they change that view, they're going to feel
it must be filled.

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Doug wrote:Sure, I buy that. But the point I was making is that"being with his soulmate" doesn't qualify (to me) asa "need." There are things related to that (for exampleemotional intimacy and companionship) that might qualifyas needs, and _those_ things it is much more likely youcould supply.For him to frame his "need" as "being with his soulmate"seems to me a little like what Ted is doing. It replacessome things that might qualify as needs with a veryspecific way of filling them, in such a way as to makeillegitimate any ways in which you might have providedfor those needs. Yes, exactly. I'm with you on all of this. Really, I am. :) In fact, getting him to redefine his 'need to be with his soulmate' was a very important and vital step on our way to staying married. I wasn't addressing whether his need was valid or right or wrong, just that, at the time he stated his 'need', it was *impossible* for me to fill it.

I understand. I just disagree with his view at the time that this is
a need, even though that is the word he used, and I imagine he
believed it.

So in terms of examples, this is an example of someone who _thinks_
they have a need that you couldn't fill, but I agree with Emma Anne
that this isn't really a need (though it probably masks things that
might be better referred to as needs). So, IMO (though not in your
husband's at the time obviously) it _isn't_ a valid example.
Emma Anne hopped on the 'that's not a valid emotional need' bandwagon, too, but even if you and I and EA and everyone else in the world discounts it as a valid emotional need, if the person involved views it as a need that MUST be filled, until they change that view, they're going to feel it must be filled.

Yes. Though this is where a good couples therapist can be helpful.

In unthreading the actual "need" (I'm still not crazy about that word)
from the needers perception.

Although I probably won't know what it is until I try to write it down,
I think these two posts have a lot to do with each other:

In article <bm8yopwyj8.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Echoing just one of Tracey's points; If you believe it is only right to pursue what you want if you categorize it as a _need_ first, then you've put yourself in a position where there is incredible pressure to lie to yourself in order to justify pursuing what you want.

While there may be a bit of truth in that, I think it's more a question
of understanding oneself and choosing what to pursue. Whether something
is a need or a desire I think can be told by the long-term consequences
of not having it be met -- if there really are none, it's a desire; if
there are, it's a need. In the case of survival needs the consequences
are obvious: death. For all other needs I don't know if one can
characterize the long-term consequences in a single word, although
perhaps unremitting unhappiness might come close. Is the same thing an
emotional need for everyone? I don't think so, and therein lies some of
the problems -- by directly or indirectly trying to impose on others our
definitions of what is a need and what is not we are not being very
helpful or understanding. Maslov's hierarchy of needs notwithstanding,
I also think each of us has our own priority of needs and so for our own
happiness (and that of our SO's) it is beneficial to try to understand
and communicate the relative importance of all our needs. (And, yes,
just to make life interesting, I think it is the case that the relative
importance ofdifferent needs can vary from time to time and with the
circumstances.)

In article <1g1bwii.mumz9t1ybugg6N%mbjq@earthlink.net>, Emma Anne
<mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote:
OK, but now you are extending the concept of emotional need from what a person needs to be happy in the relationship, to what a person needs to be happy in life. Obviously a spouse cannot meet all of these needs.

I wasn't aware that Marriagebuilders made that distinction, but I can
see how it could be a meaningful one. When I read what you wrote I
tried to reword it to distinguish needs that must be satisfied in the
relationship (i.e., by or involving ones partner) and ones that could be
satisfied elsehwere, and I couldn't get very far -- primarily because
our needs aren't satisified in a vacuum. In theory we might be
perfectly happy if some need is satisfied either inside or outside the
relationship (which is how I interpret part of what you said) -- but
because of his or her needs, our partner will only be happy if *our*
need is satisfied within it. (or, if not, the importance of some of
his or her needs may be elevated.)

What's hard about all this wonderful theory is that I think the only
way we can tell what our needs are, and which ones are essential (need
to be satisfied within it) to our relationship is by experience -- whats
presence makes us happy and its absence unhappy? I did not know I
craved -- needed -- affection until it was instintively offered to me.
I only knew I was unhappy, but not all the ingredients of why. I did
not know I needed emotional intimacy until I was -- if even a little --
able to experience it. I only knew something was missing. I have some
evidence that some of my emotional needs can only be satisfied by a
woman. I've tried to question why that is the case and given up -- I
just accept that it's the case. If they are needs (and not desires --
which is why Doug's question is so crucial) and if my wife can't (or
won't) satisfy them -- what then?

Yes, I know I *should* be looking at her needs too -- and I am (which
is why some of this is so difficult) -- but I find it hard to focus on
her when just thinking of her reminds me of how unhappy I am in some
areas.

Ted

In article <3F661FF6.9020904@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
Lots of things went through my head when I read what you wrote above. The 'noble and virtuous' part brought up visions of martyrs and not the 'good' version of martyrs. Someone willing to die for their beliefs is a 'good' version. Someone denying themself a pleasure or a want or a desire *solely* because they wish to be seen as 'noble and virtuous' and, durnit, everyone had better acknowledge their sacrifice is the 'bad' version of a martyr, IMO. Another thing that went through my head is the 'weakness to indulge <desires and needs>' part. It's another aspect of martyrdom (the 'bad' kind) that I find incomprehensible. I don't believe that life is or is meant to be all pain and suffering and sacrifice. Sometimes, it *is*, but I don't believe that it *has to be*. And the last part, to me, is a set up for justifying anything a person wants to do as long as they classify it as a 'need'. Altogether, my reaction was 'eeeuuuwww'.
That's roughly what I thought you meant but had to ask --
and while not very specific, your "eeeuuuwww' said it much
better than I did. (In short, I agree.)
You're fighting very hard, Ted, and you have been fighting very hard ever since you started posting here to justify what you're doing as 'right' and the honorable way of handling things and 'not so bad' because you're just trying to fill your 'needs' and 'it's the best thing' for you to do. It's not enough for you, it seems, for you to know that what you're doing is right and I wonder about that. You see, for me, when I'm unsure about a decision I need to make, I ask for input from other people and what they say will help clarify things for me. I'm not asking them to make the decision for me and I don't feel obligated to do everything they suggest and but, a lot of times, the ensuing discussion has pointed out places where my logic was a little thin, places where I felt compelled to justify and justify and justify some more to the point where I realized that I was trying to justify something that I *knew* was wrong, wrong for me and wrong for the situation. In other situ- ations, I'm faced with an issue, I *know* the right thing to do, I do it and I feel no need to ask anyone else what they would do. I don't feel the need to justify anything to anyone. I might choose to explain why I did it that way, but the need to justify it isn't there for me. But I don't see that from you. (By 'that', I mean that I don't see an honest willingness to question your core beliefs or a willingness to acknowledge that your core beliefs may be at the very heart of your problem<s>.) And, if you want to know the truth, I don't think that that is necessarily a bad thing. I have great respect for a person who won't compromise their beliefs. Who won't get a whole lot of respect from me is someone who twists the situation around into something that it isn't just so their decision won't go against their beliefs and also someone who doesn't recognize or acknowledge that another person's core beliefs are just as important as theirs.

Fair enough. Oh. You want me to say more than that? That's where it
gets hard. I post here for a small number of reasons. One is the
rational one of finding others who have been in somewhat similar
circumstances to find out what works and what doesn't. While I've heard
a lot of opinions, I haven't come up with many hard facts. Perhaps part
of that is my inability or refusal to recognize when something *is*
similar -- but I don't think that's the whole story. In many ways each
of our journeys is a unique, lonely one and we can't get much guidance
from others. Some seem to recognize the truth of that a little and from
them I have received comfort and encouragement. Another reason I post
here is just to hear myself think -- and to have others help me think by
chewing on what I have to say. The third reason is just a vague need
for community -- other people wrestling with similar problems (I have
only a very small handful of friends I talk to in person, occasionally,
about this stuff.) But you are right -- in none of that except my
face-to-face encounters do I really bring up, lay bare, and explain some
of my core beliefs. And I'm not likely to, for many of those beliefs
are based on experience that I cannot reproduce for you and cannot fit
into context without you having the whole picture. With respect to the
particular subject of my marriage and related topics I have three
beliefs that I have personally examined and re-examined with others in a
much better position than anyone here has to be able to give me informed
feedback. Those beliefs are (1) that my wife and I were, and are,
intended to be married (2) that I am supposed to be friends with "the
pharmcist" and (3) that joint marriage counseling is the current right
next step in dealing with my unhappiness and what has come from that.
Beyond that it gets muddy and I don't think all the answers can be
arrived at logically.

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:170920031836293767%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com...
If they are needs (and not desires -- which is why Doug's question is so crucial) and if my wife can't (or won't) satisfy them -- what then?

That's a very simple question, Ted, with a very simple answer. Thing is you
don't like the answer. So change the question! If you have decided to stay
married for all this time without your needs being met then obviously they
mustn't be needs, but desires, something which you *can* do without. So make
the question: "If my wife can't satisfy my desires, what then?" You'll be
able to cope with the answers to that question much easier.

Amy

Amy Lou wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:170920031836293767%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... If they are needs (and not desires -- which is why Doug's question is so crucial) and if my wife can't (or won't) satisfy them -- what then? That's a very simple question, Ted, with a very simple answer. Thing is you don't like the answer. So change the question! If you have decided to stay married for all this time without your needs being met then obviously they mustn't be needs, but desires, something which you *can* do without. So make the question: "If my wife can't satisfy my desires, what then?" You'll be able to cope with the answers to that question much easier. Amy

Are you sure? Wanna take any bets? :-)

In article <3n9ab.109295$bo1.83036@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
That's a very simple question, Ted, with a very simple answer. Thing is you don't like the answer. So change the question! If you have decided to stay married for all this time without your needs being met then obviously they mustn't be needs, but desires, something which you *can* do without. So make the question: "If my wife can't satisfy my desires, what then?" You'll be able to cope with the answers to that question much easier.

Changing the word doesn't change the question. You appear to use the
fact that I stayed married as evidence for them being only desires (no,
you did not say "only", but that's the spirit in which I read it) and
not needs -- one *can* go for a long time without food and survive
pretty extreme conditions of weather -- but that doesn't change survival
needs into survival desires. One can survive a pretty bad case of
scurvy -- but that doesn't mean the body doesn't need vitamin C; one
can survive a pretty bad case of rickets -- but that doesn't mean the
body doesn't need vitamin D, in some form. Those are actually not bad
analogies -- I coped with the emotional rickets by getting drunk. But
there is one way in which the analogies don't work -- for most of my
life I didn't need emotional vitamin C -- now I do. Hmmm... I bet there
is an analogy in that there probably are some vitamins or other
nutrients that aren't needed pre-puberty but are needed post-puberty.
Or maybe that's pre-menopause and post-menopause.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <3n9ab.109295$bo1.83036@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote: That's a very simple question, Ted, with a very simple answer. Thing is you don't like the answer. So change the question! If you have decided to stay married for all this time without your needs being met then obviously they mustn't be needs, but desires, something which you *can* do without. So make the question: "If my wife can't satisfy my desires, what then?" You'll be able to cope with the answers to that question much easier. Changing the word doesn't change the question. You appear to use the fact that I stayed married as evidence for them being only desires (no, you did not say "only", but that's the spirit in which I read it) and

I'm not sure if this isn't an important fact. For you, a "want" is
"only a want" (Notice that Amy Lou didn't say that, but you read it
in). whereas a "need" is something important.

When my wife and I were going through our roughest period, I
discovered it was very important for me to separate my "needs" as it
were from my "wants," _and_ it was also important for me to realize
that there was nothing wrong with wanting what I wanted, and nothing
wrong with pursuing strategies to get it (with the recognition that
there was no guarantee of success).

For me though, the sense of what a "need" meant was more specific than
"a really urgent want." A "need" meant something which would
ultimatlely result in my ending our relationship if we couldn't find
some way to satisfy it.

"Wants" on the other hand were things that didn't endanger the
relationship and could be subject to continuing effort and negotiation
indefinitely. This was a useful division for me to make. I can't
tell the difference between your needs and your wants. Do you have a
way to tell the difference?


So, to be specific, emotional intimacy is a "need." Wanting my wife
to have a libido is a "want." (For me.)

Doug

Ted wrote:Fair enough. Oh. You want me to say more than that?

Not necessarily, Ted. In fact, sometimes, IMO, a non-
reply is better than a reply. Sometimes a reply is a
way to bolster a stance. Sometimes it's just a continu-
ation of the same arguments. You don't *have* to explain
anything to me or anyone else. But, since you did, I
guess I can reply, too. :)
That's where it gets hard. I post here for a smallnumber of reasons. One is the rational one of findingothers who have been in somewhat similar circumstancesto find out what works and what doesn't.

But, you know what, Ted, you've pretty much discounted
anyone else's experiences, even when there are similarities,
because they don't *exactly* match your own. And that's
durned difficult to do, find a circumstance that *exactly*
match your own.
While I've heard a lot of opinions, I haven't come up withmany hard facts.

We're talking about humans and emotions and differences in
age, culture, religion, parenting input, etc. That are very
few 'hard facts' when it comes to this sort of thing.
Perhaps part of that is my inability or refusal to recognizewhen something *is* similar -- but I don't think that's thewhole story.

I think it's part of it, too, and definitely not the whole
story. AFAIC, another major part is your unwillingness to
consider a course of action that conflicts with what you
want to do.
In many ways each of our journeys is a unique, lonely oneand we can't get much guidance from others.

Well, I disagree with that because there's very little
that's new under the sun. Men and women have been facing
these same problems for centuries and have muddled through
them in many ways, some good, some bad. To discount other
people's experiences and opinions is to discount a vast
knowledge base, IMO.


Tracey

In article <slrnbmbifq.2fs.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller
<tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
This was not working for my wife and made her very unhappy. I needed to change my behavior (set aside time to be with her). Maybe an hour on the couch snuggling, maybe talking. It shouldn't be too hard unless you dislike your wife and/or she dislikes you. You can talk if you want, or not. I would use this time to find out what would make her happy.

The difference here is that *I* am the one who is (was) unhappy.
Seeing as you are giving yourself as an example, following your example
it is my wife who must do something, not me. Why did you need to
change your behavior, and not your wife?

Ted

In article <H9xab.111245$bo1.48358@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:
"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in Changing the word doesn't change the question. Well then, I guess your stuck with the same answer then.

And what was that? I've long since forgotten.

Ted

In article <3F6B3EE5.3010401@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
I think it's part of it, too, and definitely not the whole story. AFAIC, another major part is your unwillingness to consider a course of action that conflicts with what you want to do.

If you are referring to divorce, yes I am unwilling to consider that --
because it simply is not an option. Everything else I'm willing to
*consider*; some I've rejected in favor of others, but not
out-of-hand. If someone can lay out a specific course of action they
followed in simlar circumstances that led to the desired results, I'll
be glad to consider it.

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:200920030009566498%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <slrnbmbifq.2fs.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: This was not working for my wife and made her very unhappy. I needed to change my behavior (set aside time to be with her). Maybe an hour on
the couch snuggling, maybe talking. It shouldn't be too hard unless you dislike your wife and/or she dislikes you. You can talk if you want, or not. I would use this time to find out what would make her happy. The difference here is that *I* am the one who is (was) unhappy. Seeing as you are giving yourself as an example, following your example it is my wife who must do something, not me. Why did you need to change your behavior, and not your wife? Ted

It is a practical issue - you can only change your own behavior, not
somebody else's - so as a practical matter, you do what you *can* do - which
is to modify your own actions.

>How many of those does somebody else have to notmatch on before you'll agree their situation isnot similar?

Doug basically what I would have answered if I had
gotten here first. You seem to want people who have
shared your *life* experiences to a tee, when that's
just not going to happen, IMO. People who have shared
the problems you are experiencing, OTOH, are many and
have some very good suggestions, IMO, but you shoot
them down because they don't share your age or the
number of years married or your exact upbringing or
the color of shirt you're wearing that day.

Tracey

I wrote: I think it's part of it, too, and definitely not the whole story. AFAIC, another major part is your unwillingness to consider a course of action that conflicts with what you want to do.

Ted responded:If you are referring to divorce, yes I am unwilling to considerthat -- because it simply is not an option.

Actually, I wasn't. I was thinking of the whole 'I want
emotional intimacy in my marriage but I'm sure not gonna
give it to my wife' thing.
Everything else I'm willing to *consider*; some I'verejected in favor of others, but not out-of-hand. Ifsomeone can lay out a specific course of action theyfollowed in simlar circumstances that led to the desiredresults, I'll be glad to consider it.

But now we're back to the 'similar circumstances' that,
to you, means something totally different than what it
means to me and to others. There have been a few people
who have responded with ways that they achieved greater
emotional intimacy in their marriage and, because the
common thread seems to have been to concentrate their
attention on their spouse to the exclusion of others
and that's something you *don't want to do*, you've re-
jected it.

Tracey

Tracey wrote: I wrote: I think it's part of it, too, and definitely not the whole story. AFAIC, another major part is your unwillingness to consider a course of action that conflicts with what you want to do. Ted responded:If you are referring to divorce, yes I am unwilling to considerthat -- because it simply is not an option. Actually, I wasn't. I was thinking of the whole 'I want emotional intimacy in my marriage but I'm sure not gonna give it to my wife' thing.Everything else I'm willing to *consider*; some I'verejected in favor of others, but not out-of-hand. Ifsomeone can lay out a specific course of action theyfollowed in simlar circumstances that led to the desiredresults, I'll be glad to consider it. But now we're back to the 'similar circumstances' that, to you, means something totally different than what it means to me and to others. There have been a few people who have responded with ways that they achieved greater emotional intimacy in their marriage and, because the common thread seems to have been to concentrate their attention on their spouse to the exclusion of others and that's something you *don't want to do*, you've re- jected it. Tracey

(Hey Trace - who is more frustrating now, Ted or me? He's harder to reach
than I am. No offense, Ted). And the saga continues; stay tuned to this
channel, for further updates... Don't touch that radio dial! :-)

In article <fiZab.4204$jO.3447@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy
<fairly_happywithoutspam@withoutspamyahoo.com> wrote:
Yep. And refusing to accept that anybody who hasn't been married the exact same number of years or had polio at the exact same age has enough in common to be relevant is just a way of screening out people who aren't giving you the answers you want.

I'll agree that the exact number of years or the exact nature of
childhood trauma don't matter, but that we are talking about *many*
years and significant trauma -- with apparently latent but lasting
physical effects -- I believe is relevant.

Ted

In article <3F6E30CD.10104@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:
There have been a few people who have responded with ways that they achieved greater emotional intimacy in their marriage and, because the common thread seems to have been to concentrate their attention on their spouse to the exclusion of others and that's something you *don't want to do*, you've re- jected it.

I'd buy that except that my wife was perfectly happy until I told her
*I* was unhappy -- long after I'd spread my attention in many
directions. As far as she was concerned, I was paying her all the
amount and kind of attention she needed.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <fiZab.4204$jO.3447@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy <fairly_happywithoutspam@withoutspamyahoo.com> wrote: Yep. And refusing to accept that anybody who hasn't been married the exact same number of years or had polio at the exact same age has enough in common to be relevant is just a way of screening out people who aren't giving you the answers you want. I'll agree that the exact number of years or the exact nature of childhood trauma don't matter, but that we are talking about *many* years and significant trauma -- with apparently latent but lasting physical effects -- I believe is relevant.

Look. Everyone has childhood trauma. That is almost axiomatic.
Probably 2/3 of people had a parent who was emotionally distant.

Yeah, it matters to understanding how you got where you are. But you
aren't going to go back and retrace your steps to change your
situation, so what matters now is strategies to move forward.


I'm having to remind myself of something I observed when you first
started posting. You're older than I am, but in some ways you missed
a lot of growing up. Or maybe it took place during your "personality
change." So I'll repeat something I've said before.

Most adolescents go through a period of blaming their problems on
their parents. Although this may be accurate, and may even be
accurate for our entire lives, at some point it becomes irrelevant.
People who are still doing this in their 20s (or even their 30s!) are
stuck. Instead of living their live, they are on the cycle of all the
bad things that have been done to them that prevent them from having
the life they want.

Even if they're right, the only hope they have is to get out of this stage.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:210920032317358206%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <3F6E30CD.10104@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: There have been a few people who have responded with ways that they achieved greater emotional intimacy in their marriage and, because the common thread seems to have been to concentrate their attention on their spouse to the exclusion of others and that's something you *don't want to do*, you've re- jected it. I'd buy that except that my wife was perfectly happy until I told her *I* was unhappy -- long after I'd spread my attention in many directions. As far as she was concerned, I was paying her all the amount and kind of attention she needed. Ted

In other words, Ted, your wife *is* unhappy. What people have suggested is
to work on making her happy. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if
she's happy she'll want to make you happy too. So why not concentrate on
building up her confidence in her ability to make you happy?

Amy

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:210920032303488449%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <fiZab.4204$jO.3447@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy <fairly_happywithoutspam@withoutspamyahoo.com> wrote: Yep. And refusing to accept that anybody who hasn't been married the
exact same number of years or had polio at the exact same age has enough in
common to be relevant is just a way of screening out people who aren't giving
you the answers you want. I'll agree that the exact number of years or the exact nature of childhood trauma don't matter, but that we are talking about *many* years and significant trauma -- with apparently latent but lasting physical effects -- I believe is relevant. Ted

After a certain point in life it really doesn't matter any more *why* you
are screwed up. What matters is what you are going to do to make things
better. Stewing over the why can be counterproductive - it can even be a
just a way to keep yourself from working on the what-to-do part.

(FWIW, that is one of the things I like about the concept of
results-oriented therapy. You can spend years analyzing your childhood or
you can cut to the chase and come up with strategies to improve your life.)

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<210920032317358206%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <3F6E30CD.10104@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: There have been a few people who have responded with ways that they achieved greater emotional intimacy in their marriage and, because the common thread seems to have been to concentrate their attention on their spouse to the exclusion of others and that's something you *don't want to do*, you've re- jected it. I'd buy that except that my wife was perfectly happy until I told her *I* was unhappy -- long after I'd spread my attention in many directions. As far as she was concerned, I was paying her all the amount and kind of attention she needed. Ted

Her happiness was partly based on yours. As long as she believed you
were happy with her, your spreading your attentions around wasn't
threatening to her.

Now spreading your attentions *is* a threat to her. Her faith in your
love for her has been shaken. You have to do something to restore
that.

I don't mind my wife having male friends and spending time with them.
On the other hand, if I doubted that she still loved me, I can
guarantee you that her continuing to spend a lot of time with her male
friends and my reaction to that would erect a wall between us.

And Seeker, if I even suspected that the nature of the relationship
with one of her friends was like the one you have with the pharmacist,
it would be a challenge for me to be even civil to my wife, much less
intimate.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<170920031839173907%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>...
With respect to the particular subject of my marriage and related topics I have three beliefs that I have personally examined and re-examined with others in a much better position than anyone here has to be able to give me informed feedback. Those beliefs are (1) that my wife and I were, and are, intended to be married (2) that I am supposed to be friends with "the pharmcist" and (3) that joint marriage counseling is the current right next step in dealing with my unhappiness and what has come from that. Beyond that it gets muddy and I don't think all the answers can be arrived at logically. Ted

I'm curious about belief #2.

Are you supposed to be friends with the pharmacist *right now* and
ongoing?

Is what you have with the pharmacist really a friendship? In other
words, are your feelings toward her really what they are "supposed" to
be?

Could your friendship with the pharmacist survive or perhaps even be
enhanced by taking a break from it in order to put your marriage on a
more solid footing?



If you ask me, you aren't really following directives 1 and 2. Having
a crush on the pharmacist prevents you from having a real marriage
with your wife and a real friendship with the pharmacist.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
With respect to the particular subject of my marriage and related topics I have three beliefs that I have personally examined and re-examined with others in a much better position than anyone here has to be able to give me informed feedback. Those beliefs are (1) that my wife and I were, and are, intended to be married (2) that I am supposed to be friends with "the pharmcist" and (3) that joint marriage counseling is the current right next step in dealing with my unhappiness and what has come from that. Beyond that it gets muddy and I don't think all the answers can be arrived at logically. Ted

Is it fair to say that the pharmacist is good for you because of the
emotional awakening she has provided? Past posts of yours imply that
you missed out on adolesence to some degree.

What about your wife? Could it be argued that what she really needs is
another man to awaken similar feelings in her? There's probably just
too much history and familiarity for you to be able to do that for
her.

How would you feel about that?

Jingle Bells wrote: Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<170920031839173907%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... With respect to the particular subject of my marriage and related topics I have three beliefs that I have personally examined and re-examined with others in a much better position than anyone here has to be able to give me informed feedback. Those beliefs are (1) that my wife and I were, and are, intended to be married (2) that I am supposed to be friends with "the pharmcist" and (3) that joint marriage counseling is the current right next step in dealing with my unhappiness and what has come from that. Beyond that it gets muddy and I don't think all the answers can be arrived at logically. Ted I'm curious about belief #2. Are you supposed to be friends with the pharmacist *right now* and ongoing? Is what you have with the pharmacist really a friendship? In other words, are your feelings toward her really what they are "supposed" to be? Could your friendship with the pharmacist survive or perhaps even be enhanced by taking a break from it in order to put your marriage on a more solid footing? If you ask me, you aren't really following directives 1 and 2. Having a crush on the pharmacist prevents you from having a real marriage with your wife and a real friendship with the pharmacist.

Obviously. Good call.

>>There have been a few people who have responded with ways that they achieved greater emotional intimacy in their marriage and, because the common thread seems to have been to concentrate their attention on their spouse to the exclusion of others and that's something you *don't want to do*, you've re- jected it.
I'd buy that except that my wife was perfectly happy until I told her*I* was unhappy -- long after I'd spread my attention in manydirections. As far as she was concerned, I was paying her all theamount and kind of attention she needed.

If you re-read what I wrote, I mentioned nothing about
whether your wife was happy or not. I wrote 'they achieved
greater emotional intimacy in their marriage', which is
one of the things that you've said you want.

Look, you two have had a level of emotional intimacy
in your marriage that was, let's say, a level 1 on a
scale of 1 to 10. You both viewed it as a normal level
of intimacy and let it stay at that. Over the years,
you got more connected with women other than your wife
and the level stayed at 1, with her being happy <content?>
with that. Now, you want to raise that level of intimacy
with your wife and it's not abnormal that your wife is
saying 'But why? We've been just fine all these years.'
To achieve a greater level of intimacy *with your wife*,
it's only logical that you should cut off some, if not
all, of your connections with other people. It's like
someone who says they want to learn how to cook Thai
food. As long as they still go to Thai restaurants two,
three, four times a week, there's no impetus for them
to learn to cook it on their own. As soon as the option
of going to a restaurant is removed, they'll most likely
start learning how to cook it.

Tracey

Bill in Co wrote: Jingle Bells wrote:

< snip discussion of Ted's emotional affair with the pharmacist> If you ask me, you aren't really following directives 1 and 2. Having a crush on the pharmacist prevents you from having a real marriage with your wife and a real friendship with the pharmacist. Obviously. Good call.

Double ditto.

Tai wrote: Bill in Co wrote: Jingle Bells wrote: < snip discussion of Ted's emotional affair with the pharmacist> If you ask me, you aren't really following directives 1 and 2. Having a crush on the pharmacist prevents you from having a real marriage with your wife and a real friendship with the pharmacist. Obviously. Good call. Double ditto.

This is really an affair. Why are we even discussing the acceptability of
having an affair? It's bull****.