We had a pretty good (meaning, not particularly fear-filled) session at the
therapist's yesterday afternoon. We went over that inventory of how we
spend our time and once we'd sorted out how we had interpreted some terms
differently were surprised that we both had roughly similar perceptions of
how we spend our time (for instance, neither one of us thought the other
spent a lot more or a lot less on housework than the other thought.)

The real insight for me (and I hope for her) came in discussing the category
of how much time we spend on "self-disclosure." I have a lot of avenues
for that and guessed maybe an hour a day (and that she didn't do any of it.)
She perceived that neither one of us did any of it -- which is the main area
where I'd say she doesn't understand why I participate in some of the
activities I do. The insight came from our therapist commenting on how
that's one big difference between extraverts and introverts -- extraverts
*need* that kind of activity. We all are aware that my wife is, as we say,
a 110% introvert -- if the scale could go any higher than it does, she'd
still be off the scale! (We talked again some about the factors in her
childhood leading to that.) I observed as how since she is unwilling or
unable to be self-disclosing with me I am reluctant to do so with her --
because, for whatever reason, I'm aware of the lack of reciprocity and don't
want to be the only one doing it. (Asymmetrical vulnerability doesn't last
very long, I think.) That's when our therapist made the comment that sank
in: it is the low-disclosing (introverted) partner who controls the level
of disclosure. Now where have we heard something like that before?!

(Where we go with that insight is unclear -- the next steps are to look at
where we'd like to make changes in how we spend our time, negotiate some
kind of compromise, and intentionally go about it.)

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvr6kt$uhe9c$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de...

[] We all are aware that my wife is, as we say, a 110% introvert -- if the scale could go any higher than it does, she'd still be off the scale! (We talked again some about the factors in her childhood leading to that.)

There is evidence that, to some extent, introversion is innate. While it
might not seem this way to extraverts, intoversion is not a personality
flaw. It is just one way that people are. You need to accept this in your
wife.
I observed as how since she is unwilling or unable to be self-disclosing with me I am reluctant to do so with her -- because, for whatever reason, I'm aware of the lack of reciprocity and
don't want to be the only one doing it.

You have a need for self-disclosure and she doesn't. You are going to lack
reciprocitiy no matter what you do.

Whenever you write about your wife I get the impression that you do not love
or accept her.

Jayne

Seeker <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
The real insight for me (and I hope for her) came in discussing the category of how much time we spend on "self-disclosure." I have a lot of avenues for that and guessed maybe an hour a day (and that she didn't do any of it.) She perceived that neither one of us did any of it -- which is the main area where I'd say she doesn't understand why I participate in some of the activities I do. The insight came from our therapist commenting on how that's one big difference between extraverts and introverts -- extraverts *need* that kind of activity.

I don't really agree with your therapist (if I am understanding "self
disclosure" correctly). Extroverts need more social contact than
introverts, but they do not need more self disclosure. IMHO.
Introverts tend to have just a few close close friends and to them they
reveal a lot. For example: My H is an extrovert and has a bazillion
friends, but they talk about hockey and David Letterman and their jobs.
Whereas I have real heart to heart talks with my two best friends.

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvr6kt$uhe9c$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... We had a pretty good (meaning, not particularly fear-filled) session at
the therapist's yesterday afternoon. We went over that inventory of how we spend our time and once we'd sorted out how we had interpreted some terms differently were surprised that we both had roughly similar perceptions of how we spend our time (for instance, neither one of us thought the other spent a lot more or a lot less on housework than the other thought.) The real insight for me (and I hope for her) came in discussing the
category of how much time we spend on "self-disclosure." I have a lot of avenues for that and guessed maybe an hour a day (and that she didn't do any of
it.) She perceived that neither one of us did any of it -- which is the main
area where I'd say she doesn't understand why I participate in some of the activities I do. The insight came from our therapist commenting on how that's one big difference between extraverts and introverts -- extraverts *need* that kind of activity. We all are aware that my wife is, as we
say, a 110% introvert -- if the scale could go any higher than it does, she'd still be off the scale! (We talked again some about the factors in her childhood leading to that.) I observed as how since she is unwilling or unable to be self-disclosing with me I am reluctant to do so with her -- because, for whatever reason, I'm aware of the lack of reciprocity and
don't want to be the only one doing it. (Asymmetrical vulnerability doesn't
last very long, I think.) That's when our therapist made the comment that sank in: it is the low-disclosing (introverted) partner who controls the level of disclosure. Now where have we heard something like that before?! (Where we go with that insight is unclear -- the next steps are to look at where we'd like to make changes in how we spend our time, negotiate some kind of compromise, and intentionally go about it.) Ted

The pace of self discovery is slow. We move through time at
the speed of life.

Good work Ted.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bvr9uh$vokdj$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...
There is evidence that, to some extent, introversion is innate. While it might not seem this way to extraverts, intoversion is not a personality flaw. It is just one way that people are. You need to accept this in
your wife.

I agree, for the most part (although extraversion/introversion appears to be
one of the most fluid aspects of personality.) Introversion itself is not
a flaw -- but can it be flaw if carried to an extreme? I think so.
You have a need for self-disclosure and she doesn't. You are going to
lack reciprocitiy no matter what you do.

So, what do I do? Forego any notion of emotional intimacy in my marriage?
And, if so, what do I do with that need?
Whenever you write about your wife I get the impression that you do not
love or accept her.
I have asked myself several times over the course of the past few years
whether I love her or not; I've also asked myself whether she loves me.
It's gotten to the point that I don't even know what it means to say that
someone loves somebody. Is it a state of mind? A choice? A set of
actions?

Of course I love her -- or I wouldn't agonize over all this so much. At
least that's how I see it.

As far as accepting her is concerned, that doesn't admit of a simple yes/no
answer. Complete acceptance, on some level, means that I believe she is
exactly as she is supposed to be, that she has no problems to work out, no
areas in which it would be beneficial for her or others for her to change,
or, at the least, that if there are such areas they are none of my business
and nothing I can help with. If that's what you mean by accepting her, then
I don't. If that's not what you mean, say what you do mean and we'll see.

Do I wish she behaved differently in a variety of areas? Of course --
that's what a lot of this is about, given that it would appear the only way
I can have some of my needs met is if she did. Does that mean I don't
accept her? I don't know.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bvr9uh$vokdj$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... There is evidence that, to some extent, introversion is innate. While it might not seem this way to extraverts, intoversion is not a personality flaw. It is just one way that people are. You need to accept this in your wife. I agree, for the most part (although extraversion/introversion appears to be one of the most fluid aspects of personality.) Introversion itself is not a flaw -- but can it be flaw if carried to an extreme? I think so. You have a need for self-disclosure and she doesn't. You are going to lack reciprocitiy no matter what you do. So, what do I do? Forego any notion of emotional intimacy in my marriage? And, if so, what do I do with that need? Whenever you write about your wife I get the impression that you do not love or accept her. snip As far as accepting her is concerned, that doesn't admit of a simple yes/no answer.

For me, love and acceptance are closely related. Love has something
important to do with:

really understanding what a person is like, warts and all, and
wanting to be with that person anyway.

Of course it has to do with other things to, like wanting to please
that person, and enjoyment of mutual activities. But the acceptance
bit seems sort of key.
Complete acceptance, on some level, means that I believe she is exactly as she is supposed to be, that she has no problems to work out, no areas in which it would be beneficial for her or others for her to change, or, at the least, that if there are such areas they are none of my business and nothing I can help with. If that's what you mean by accepting her, then I don't. If that's not what you mean, say what you do mean and we'll see. Do I wish she behaved differently in a variety of areas? Of course -- that's what a lot of this is about, given that it would appear the only way I can have some of my needs met is if she did. Does that mean I don't accept her? I don't know.

I don't know the answer to this either. What I do know is this (and
I've said this before, as have others): she will not change unless
you change. You aren't going to get from her to there by hoping for
her to change. You may not get there even if you _do_ change, but
that is your only hope.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m4ad3ypns5.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... I don't know the answer to this either. What I do know is this (and I've said this before, as have others): she will not change unless you change. You aren't going to get from her to there by hoping for her to change. You may not get there even if you _do_ change, but that is your only hope.

And partly that's what has me puzzled -- I've already changed nearly 180
degrees in personality (and while she accepts it, my wife is still reeling
over it -- after six years.) In which way am I supposed to change -- back
to what I was, or to continue to be even more different from what I was?

Ted

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fRbUb.14238$KV5.4834@nwrdny01.gnilink.net... The pace of self discovery is slow. We move through time at the speed of life. Good work Ted.
Thanks Urf.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:m4ad3ypns5.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... I don't know the answer to this either. What I do know is this (and I've said this before, as have others): she will not change unless you change. You aren't going to get from her to there by hoping for her to change. You may not get there even if you _do_ change, but that is your only hope. And partly that's what has me puzzled -- I've already changed nearly 180 degrees in personality (and while she accepts it, my wife is still reeling over it -- after six years.) In which way am I supposed to change -- back to what I was, or to continue to be even more different from what I was?

But some of the ways in which you've changed you continue to hide from
your wife.

If you want intimacy, you have to be prepared to be vulnerable.
This means going ahead with self-disclosure even though your wife may
not like it, for example.

It also might mean honestly pursuing what you want in life from
sources other than your wife. Even though your wife may not like it.

Of course there are no guarantees.

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvrlo4$101ce2$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bvr9uh$vokdj$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...
Of course I love her -- or I wouldn't agonize over all this so much. At least that's how I see it. As far as accepting her is concerned, that doesn't admit of a simple
yes/no answer. Complete acceptance, on some level, means that I believe she is exactly as she is supposed to be, that she has no problems to work out, no areas in which it would be beneficial for her or others for her to change, or, at the least, that if there are such areas they are none of my
business and nothing I can help with. If that's what you mean by accepting her,
then I don't. If that's not what you mean, say what you do mean and we'll
see.

I can't speak for Jayne, but I do believe that acceptance means accepting
somebody warts and all - it should NOT be necessary for anybody - including
your wife - to attain perfection (i.e. no problems to work out, etc) in
order to be accepted in a committed, marriage-type relationship. If you
can't accept somebody warts and all, then it isn't going to be possible to
have the deep, meaningful, romantic relationship with them that it sounds
like you want.

In order to have a happy, satisfying relationship then I think that both
partners have to be able to accept each other *as they are*....

In article <L%fUb.6381$uS3.1233@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Joy
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:
I can't speak for Jayne, but I do believe that acceptance means accepting somebody warts and all - it should NOT be necessary for anybody - including your wife - to attain perfection (i.e. no problems to work out, etc) in order to be accepted in a committed, marriage-type relationship. If you can't accept somebody warts and all, then it isn't going to be possible to have the deep, meaningful, romantic relationship with them that it sounds like you want.
Suppose your spouse were grossly overweight (and wasn't that way when
you got married.) Should you "accept" that? I don't think so.
Suppose your spouse was addicted to something. Should you "accept"
that? I don't think so. Suppose your spouse was neglectful of your
children -- not harmful, but just neglectful. Should you accept
that? I don't think so. We've had a lot of talk about people being
clinically depressed. If your spouse were clinically depressed,
should you "accept" that? I don't think so.
In order to have a happy, satisfying relationship then I think that both partners have to be able to accept each other *as they are*....

I think that is nonsense. What I think is necessary is they not blame
each other or hold each other responsible for who or how they are
(except where that's the result of clear choices consciously made) or
withhold love from each other because who or how they are. But to say
that we are what we are and there is no reason to change and that it is
none of our spouse's business whether we change or not is ridiculous.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <L%fUb.6381$uS3.1233@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Joy <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: I can't speak for Jayne, but I do believe that acceptance means accepting somebody warts and all - it should NOT be necessary for anybody - including your wife - to attain perfection (i.e. no problems to work out, etc) in order to be accepted in a committed, marriage-type relationship. If you can't accept somebody warts and all, then it isn't going to be possible to have the deep, meaningful, romantic relationship with them that it sounds like you want. Suppose your spouse were grossly overweight (and wasn't that way when you got married.) Should you "accept" that? I don't think so. Suppose your spouse was addicted to something. Should you "accept" that? I don't think so. Suppose your spouse was neglectful of your children -- not harmful, but just neglectful. Should you accept that? I don't think so. We've had a lot of talk about people being clinically depressed. If your spouse were clinically depressed, should you "accept" that? I don't think so.

The problem is that when it comes down to it, you have no choice. If
your spouse is grossly overweight, you can't change that. You can
decide you don't care very much (one form of accepting), or you can
decide you care very much, and leave (another form of accepting: I
accept you the way you are; I just no longer wish to be with you).

In order to have a happy, satisfying relationship then I think that both partners have to be able to accept each other *as they are*.... I think that is nonsense. What I think is necessary is they not blame each other or hold each other responsible for who or how they are (except where that's the result of clear choices consciously made) or withhold love from each other because who or how they are. But to say that we are what we are and there is no reason to change and that it is none of our spouse's business whether we change or not is ridiculous.

That may be what Joy was saying; I'm not sure. It isn't the same as
accepting your spouse.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:040220042332009200%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <L%fUb.6381$uS3.1233@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Joy <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: I can't speak for Jayne, but I do believe that acceptance means
accepting somebody warts and all - it should NOT be necessary for anybody -
including your wife - to attain perfection (i.e. no problems to work out, etc) in order to be accepted in a committed, marriage-type relationship. If you can't accept somebody warts and all, then it isn't going to be possible
to have the deep, meaningful, romantic relationship with them that it
sounds like you want. Suppose your spouse were grossly overweight (and wasn't that way when you got married.) Should you "accept" that? I don't think so. Suppose your spouse was addicted to something. Should you "accept" that? I don't think so.

I don't think so either. In fact, I ran into that exact issue - my former
spouse had a number of problems that I could not accept, including a serious
substance abuse problem. I couldn't accept it, he decided not to change it,
and we aren't married any more.

Acceptance is different from love. It also isn't unconditional - but it is
(IMO) necessary for the kind of deep, meaningful relationship that you seem
to be searching for.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cXkUb.178431$sv6.939698@attbi_s52... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <L%fUb.6381$uS3.1233@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Joy <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:
Suppose your spouse were grossly overweight (and wasn't that way when you got married.) Should you "accept" that? I don't think so. Suppose your spouse was addicted to something. Should you "accept" that? I don't think so. Suppose your spouse was neglectful of your children -- not harmful, but just neglectful. Should you accept that? I don't think so. We've had a lot of talk about people being clinically depressed. If your spouse were clinically depressed, should you "accept" that? I don't think so. The problem is that when it comes down to it, you have no choice. If your spouse is grossly overweight, you can't change that. You can decide you don't care very much (one form of accepting), or you can decide you care very much, and leave (another form of accepting: I accept you the way you are; I just no longer wish to be with you).

That is what I was trying to say, although you said it better - although I
was phrasing the latter case as "I cannot accept you (or more accurately,
accept having a bond with you) the way you are, so I choose not to be with
you".
In order to have a happy, satisfying relationship then I think that
both partners have to be able to accept each other *as they are*.... I think that is nonsense.

No offense, Ted, but neither one of us has a happy satisfying relationship
so it is entirely possible that neither of us knows what we are talking
about. I'd put more weight on what Doug says.

What I think is necessary is they not blame each other or hold each other responsible for who or how they are (except where that's the result of clear choices consciously made) or withhold love from each other because who or how they are. But to say that we are what we are and there is no reason to change and that it is none of our spouse's business whether we change or not is ridiculous. That may be what Joy was saying; I'm not sure. It isn't the same as accepting your spouse.

No, that is NOT what I am saying. I'm saying that either the two people in
a relationship can accept each other as they are, or they can't. In order
to be able to accept each other as they are, there has to be a fundamental
level of compatibility.

I think Ted has trouble with this concept because he is starting with the
assumption that he MUST stay married to his wife, so he MUST be able to have
the kind of relationship with her that he wants, so he MUST be able to get
her to change into what he needs. If you started out with that as your
basic underlying assumption, it would tend to drive your thinking about
relationships in that direction, and would "disallow" some of these other
ideas, if that makes sense.

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote
in message news:L%fUb.6381$uS3.1233@bignews4.bellsouth.net... "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bvrlo4$101ce2$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bvr9uh$vokdj$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... Of course I love her -- or I wouldn't agonize over all this so much. At least that's how I see it. As far as accepting her is concerned, that doesn't admit of a simple yes/no answer. Complete acceptance, on some level, means that I believe she is exactly as she is supposed to be, that she has no problems to work out,
no areas in which it would be beneficial for her or others for her to
change, or, at the least, that if there are such areas they are none of my business and nothing I can help with. If that's what you mean by accepting her, then I don't. If that's not what you mean, say what you do mean and we'll see. I can't speak for Jayne, but I do believe that acceptance means accepting somebody warts and all - it should NOT be necessary for anybody -
including your wife - to attain perfection (i.e. no problems to work out, etc) in order to be accepted in a committed, marriage-type relationship. If you can't accept somebody warts and all, then it isn't going to be possible to have the deep, meaningful, romantic relationship with them that it sounds like you want. In order to have a happy, satisfying relationship then I think that both partners have to be able to accept each other *as they are*....

I think acceptance starts with oneself. Accepting oneself and loving oneself
goes a long way towards accepting and loving others.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:040220042332009200%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <L%fUb.6381$uS3.1233@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Joy <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: I can't speak for Jayne, but I do believe that acceptance means
accepting somebody warts and all - it should NOT be necessary for anybody -
including your wife - to attain perfection (i.e. no problems to work out, etc) in order to be accepted in a committed, marriage-type relationship. If you can't accept somebody warts and all, then it isn't going to be possible
to have the deep, meaningful, romantic relationship with them that it
sounds like you want. Suppose your spouse were grossly overweight (and wasn't that way when you got married.) Should you "accept" that? I don't think so. Suppose your spouse was addicted to something. Should you "accept" that? I don't think so. Suppose your spouse was neglectful of your children -- not harmful, but just neglectful. Should you accept that? I don't think so. We've had a lot of talk about people being clinically depressed. If your spouse were clinically depressed, should you "accept" that? I don't think so.

The concept of individual responsibility within a partnership sends
me a mixed message.

If this were a business relationship and my partner were making decisions
that were harming our business would I not have some responsibility for
allowing those decisions to happen with no input from me? In the same
mode, do I bear any responsibility for choosing that partner? Does that
partner have a similar resposibility towards correcting, even controling
my behavior? Where does individual responsibility start. Is it merely
that a partner can do anything as long as it is approved? Is there
individual responsibility in a partnership?

In order to have a happy, satisfying relationship then I think that both partners have to be able to accept each other *as they are*.... I think that is nonsense. What I think is necessary is they not blame each other or hold each other responsible for who or how they are (except where that's the result of clear choices consciously made) or withhold love from each other because who or how they are. But to say that we are what we are and there is no reason to change and that it is none of our spouse's business whether we change or not is ridiculous. Ted

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> writes:
No, that is NOT what I am saying. I'm saying that either the two people in a relationship can accept each other as they are, or they can't. In order to be able to accept each other as they are, there has to be a fundamental level of compatibility. I think Ted has trouble with this concept because he is starting with the assumption that he MUST stay married to his wife, so he MUST be able to have the kind of relationship with her that he wants, so he MUST be able to get her to change into what he needs. If you started out with that as your basic underlying assumption, it would tend to drive your thinking about relationships in that direction, and would "disallow" some of these other ideas, if that makes sense.

Yes, Ted has himself in a bind. There are a number of potential paths
out of this bind, but it seems like they all involve taking actions
Ted is unwilling to take. Maybe he isn't ready to be out of this bind.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cXkUb.178431$sv6.939698@attbi_s52>... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <L%fUb.6381$uS3.1233@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Joy <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: I can't speak for Jayne, but I do believe that acceptance means accepting somebody warts and all - it should NOT be necessary for anybody - including your wife - to attain perfection (i.e. no problems to work out, etc) in order to be accepted in a committed, marriage-type relationship. If you can't accept somebody warts and all, then it isn't going to be possible to have the deep, meaningful, romantic relationship with them that it sounds like you want. Suppose your spouse were grossly overweight (and wasn't that way when you got married.) Should you "accept" that? I don't think so. Suppose your spouse was addicted to something. Should you "accept" that? I don't think so. Suppose your spouse was neglectful of your children -- not harmful, but just neglectful. Should you accept that? I don't think so. We've had a lot of talk about people being clinically depressed. If your spouse were clinically depressed, should you "accept" that? I don't think so. The problem is that when it comes down to it, you have no choice. If your spouse is grossly overweight, you can't change that. You can decide you don't care very much (one form of accepting), or you can decide you care very much, and leave (another form of accepting: I accept you the way you are; I just no longer wish to be with you).
Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but how do you see leaving as a form of
acceptance. I accept you the way you are but it bothers me enough to
leave. That sounds like non-acceptance to me.

caren50@msn.com (Caren) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cXkUb.178431$sv6.939698@attbi_s52>...
The problem is that when it comes down to it, you have no choice. If your spouse is grossly overweight, you can't change that. You can decide you don't care very much (one form of accepting), or you can decide you care very much, and leave (another form of accepting: I accept you the way you are; I just no longer wish to be with you). Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but how do you see leaving as a form of acceptance. I accept you the way you are but it bothers me enough to leave. That sounds like non-acceptance to me.

OK, I buy that too. My real point is that your options are quite
limited. Either you accept your spouse, or you exercize your
extremely limited options to influence your spouse (the big gun being
"this is a deal-breaker for me so either it changes, or we're done,"
but there are some smaller guns too), or you say, "OK, you are the way
you are, but it doesn't work for me."

I accept my friends, but I wouldn't want to live with most of them.
But I don't really care about the word "accept." My real point is
that if you are going to stay with your spouse and be happy, you need
to accept them, at least in the long run.

Doug wrote: The problem is that when it comes down to it, you have no choice. If your spouse is grossly overweight, you can't change that. You can decide you don't care very much (one form of accepting), or you can decide you care very much, and leave (another form of accepting: I accept you the way you are; I just no longer wish to be with you).

Then Caren wrote:Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but how do you see leaving as a form ofacceptance. I accept you the way you are but it bothers me enough toleave. That sounds like non-acceptance to me.

I guess it's time to start discussing what 'acceptance' means
then. :P

Accepting someone is, to me, not gauged by whether their
beliefs/actions bothers me or not, but whether I believe
that their beliefs are valid or whether they have the 'right'
to behave the way they do. And that belief or non-belief of
mine has little to do with whether I can or want to live
with or be around someone with those beliefs or that behavior.
Acceptance or non-acceptance of a person also isn't, AFAIC,
measured by whether I remain in a relationship with that
person or no. Staying with them doesn't necessarily mean
I accept them, and leaving them doesn't necessarily mean
I don't accept them but is, IMO, more a measure of how
much our beliefs/behaviors are compatible or incompatible.

I have friends who are vegetarians, for example. I accept
that they are. They accept that I'm not. We can get together
and even eat meals together without getting into an argument
about our differing beliefs because we all accept our dif-
ferences rather than trying to get the other ones to 'our'
side.

Tracey

Doug Anderson wrote: "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> writes: No, that is NOT what I am saying. I'm saying that either the two people in a relationship can accept each other as they are, or they can't. In order to be able to accept each other as they are, there has to be a fundamental level of compatibility. I think Ted has trouble with this concept because he is starting with the assumption that he MUST stay married to his wife, so he MUST be able to have the kind of relationship with her that he wants, so he MUST be able to get her to change into what he needs. If you started out with that as your basic underlying assumption, it would tend to drive your thinking about relationships in that direction, and would "disallow" some of these other ideas, if that makes sense. Yes, Ted has himself in a bind. There are a number of potential paths out of this bind, but it seems like they all involve taking actions Ted is unwilling to take. Maybe he isn't ready to be out of this bind.

I think we are sometimes masters at making our own prisons. Why? Who
knows...

"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3754f0b3.0402051201.7e25fece@posting.google.c om... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<hitUb.228770$xy6.1161376@attbi_s02>... caren50@msn.com (Caren) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<cXkUb.178431$sv6.939698@attbi_s52>... > The problem is that when it comes down to it, you have no choice.
If > your spouse is grossly overweight, you can't change that. You can > decide you don't care very much (one form of accepting), or you can > decide you care very much, and leave (another form of accepting: I > accept you the way you are; I just no longer wish to be with you). > Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but how do you see leaving as a form of acceptance. I accept you the way you are but it bothers me enough to leave. That sounds like non-acceptance to me. OK, I buy that too. My real point is that your options are quite limited. Either you accept your spouse, or you exercize your extremely limited options to influence your spouse (the big gun being "this is a deal-breaker for me so either it changes, or we're done," but there are some smaller guns too), or you say, "OK, you are the way you are, but it doesn't work for me." I accept my friends, but I wouldn't want to live with most of them. But I don't really care about the word "accept." My real point is that if you are going to stay with your spouse and be happy, you need to accept them, at least in the long run. I think that we should start a thread on why so many people (including myself) spend so much time trying to help Ted. I think that we're trying to change him :-) I mean honestly...one of his threads has 500 some odd posts. I left asm for a few months and the same question is still being pondered.

It's almost comical. It goes something like this:

Ted: "I want to change things"
ASM: "So, change them"
Ted: "But I can't."

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<hitUb.228770$xy6.1161376@attbi_s02>... caren50@msn.com (Caren) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cXkUb.178431$sv6.939698@attbi_s52>... The problem is that when it comes down to it, you have no choice. If your spouse is grossly overweight, you can't change that. You can decide you don't care very much (one form of accepting), or you can decide you care very much, and leave (another form of accepting: I accept you the way you are; I just no longer wish to be with you). Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but how do you see leaving as a form of acceptance. I accept you the way you are but it bothers me enough to leave. That sounds like non-acceptance to me. OK, I buy that too. My real point is that your options are quite limited. Either you accept your spouse, or you exercize your extremely limited options to influence your spouse (the big gun being "this is a deal-breaker for me so either it changes, or we're done," but there are some smaller guns too), or you say, "OK, you are the way you are, but it doesn't work for me." I accept my friends, but I wouldn't want to live with most of them. But I don't really care about the word "accept." My real point is that if you are going to stay with your spouse and be happy, you need to accept them, at least in the long run.


I think that we should start a thread on why so many people (including
myself) spend so much time trying to help Ted. I think that we're
trying to change him :-) I mean honestly...one of his threads has 500
some odd posts. I left asm for a few months and the same question is
still being pondered.

"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3754f0b3.0402051201.7e25fece@posting.google.c om...
I think that we should start a thread on why so many people (including myself) spend so much time trying to help Ted. I think that we're trying to change him :-) I mean honestly...one of his threads has 500 some odd posts. I left asm for a few months and the same question is still being pondered.

That would be an interesting topic. This thread has 24 posts (not counting
this one) and I'm to blame for only six of them. The "guanlet" threads have
21 posts, with only three of them from me.

Ted

>I think that we should start a thread on why so many people (includingmyself) spend so much time trying to help Ted. I think that we'retrying to change him :-) I mean honestly...one of his threads has 500some odd posts. I left asm for a few months and the same question isstill being pondered.

Precisely why I try to avoid getting sucked in. Of course, I'm not always
successful, but I manage not to post 80% of my posts to him.

Sheila

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:00:22 GMT, JWB
<nospam1112@nowhere.com> wrote: "Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message news:3754f0b3.0402051201.7e25fece@posting.google.c om... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<hitUb.228770$xy6.1161376@attbi_s02>... caren50@msn.com (Caren) writes: > Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cXkUb.178431$sv6.939698@attbi_s52>... > > The problem is that when it comes down to it, you have no choice. If > > your spouse is grossly overweight, you can't change that. You can > > decide you don't care very much (one form of accepting), or you can > > decide you care very much, and leave (another form of accepting: I > > accept you the way you are; I just no longer wish to be with you). > > > Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but how do you see leaving as a form of > acceptance. I accept you the way you are but it bothers me enough to > leave. That sounds like non-acceptance to me. OK, I buy that too. My real point is that your options are quite limited. Either you accept your spouse, or you exercize your extremely limited options to influence your spouse (the big gun being "this is a deal-breaker for me so either it changes, or we're done," but there are some smaller guns too), or you say, "OK, you are the way you are, but it doesn't work for me." I accept my friends, but I wouldn't want to live with most of them. But I don't really care about the word "accept." My real point is that if you are going to stay with your spouse and be happy, you need to accept them, at least in the long run. I think that we should start a thread on why so many people (including myself) spend so much time trying to help Ted. I think that we're trying to change him :-) I mean honestly...one of his threads has 500 some odd posts. I left asm for a few months and the same question is still being pondered. It's almost comical. It goes something like this: Ted: "I want to change things" ASM: "So, change them" Ted: "But I can't."

It also sounds like...

Ted: I'm going to therapy to change my wife.

Which sounds suspiciously like.

Ted: I'm taking my car into the shop so my wife's car will get rid of that
nasty knock.

-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.

Caren wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<hitUb.228770$xy6.1161376@attbi_s02>... caren50@msn.com (Caren) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cXkUb.178431$sv6.939698@attbi_s52>...> The problem is that when it comes down to it, you have no choice. If> your spouse is grossly overweight, you can't change that. You can> decide you don't care very much (one form of accepting), or you can> decide you care very much, and leave (another form of accepting: I> accept you the way you are; I just no longer wish to be with you).> Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but how do you see leaving as a form of acceptance. I accept you the way you are but it bothers me enough to leave. That sounds like non-acceptance to me. OK, I buy that too. My real point is that your options are quite limited. Either you accept your spouse, or you exercize your extremely limited options to influence your spouse (the big gun being "this is a deal-breaker for me so either it changes, or we're done," but there are some smaller guns too), or you say, "OK, you are the way you are, but it doesn't work for me." I accept my friends, but I wouldn't want to live with most of them. But I don't really care about the word "accept." My real point is that if you are going to stay with your spouse and be happy, you need to accept them, at least in the long run. I think that we should start a thread on why so many people (including myself) spend so much time trying to help Ted. I think that we're trying to change him :-) I mean honestly...one of his threads has 500 some odd posts. I left asm for a few months and the same question is still being pondered.

Yup. So does this say more about us, than about him? :-) I dunno.
Maybe someone else knows.....

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:<40227AAF.2040303@aol.com>... Doug wrote: The problem is that when it comes down to it, you have no choice. If your spouse is grossly overweight, you can't change that. You can decide you don't care very much (one form of accepting), or you can decide you care very much, and leave (another form of accepting: I accept you the way you are; I just no longer wish to be with you). Then Caren wrote:Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but how do you see leaving as a form ofacceptance. I accept you the way you are but it bothers me enough toleave. That sounds like non-acceptance to me. I guess it's time to start discussing what 'acceptance' means then. :P Accepting someone is, to me, not gauged by whether their beliefs/actions bothers me or not, but whether I believe that their beliefs are valid or whether they have the 'right' to behave the way they do. And that belief or non-belief of mine has little to do with whether I can or want to live with or be around someone with those beliefs or that behavior. Acceptance or non-acceptance of a person also isn't, AFAIC, measured by whether I remain in a relationship with that person or no. Staying with them doesn't necessarily mean I accept them, and leaving them doesn't necessarily mean I don't accept them but is, IMO, more a measure of how much our beliefs/behaviors are compatible or incompatible. I have friends who are vegetarians, for example. I accept that they are. They accept that I'm not. We can get together and even eat meals together without getting into an argument about our differing beliefs because we all accept our dif- ferences rather than trying to get the other ones to 'our' side. Tracey


When you don't live with someone, it is far easier to accept some
fundamental differences. Speaking of vegetarianism...you know my
stance on that one :-) From day one, it has been a struggle when our
daughter was born. The different eating styles between me and my
husband are night and day. She wants to eat potato chips and coke
with him, while I'm serving tofu on a bagel with soy milk. It's a
total challenge and can really set you back. On the other hands, I
don't give a rip how my non veggie friends eat. We all honor and
respect each others diets. Also on the subject of vegetarianism, I'm
conflicted about acceptance of my husband's diet because I worry about
his health. My husband has the baldness and the belly that is most
prevalent with heart attacks, his father has diabetes, mom has high
blood pressure (has forever) and they both live on a variety of pills
(his mom is only 11 years older than I). I worry that if he keeps
eating the way that he eats, it will hit him hard one day. I know I
can't control how he eats, I can only control what foods I buy.
However, he buys the stuff he wants.

Here's a good example of an acceptance issue. We both have our skin
checked annualy at the dermatologist's office. A couple of years ago,
he had a basal cell carcinoma removed and Dr. said...SUNBLOCK. I
spent every summer tossing a bottle of block out the back door with
him often ignoring it. Face forward last week. He had another one
removed. This summer it will be more of the same. Me telling him to
put sunblock on while he's gardening. I get mad that he isn't taking
care of something that important but I understand the desire to be tan
and feel good being in the sun. That's a dilemma (also an issue is
role modeling the sunblock deal for our daughter).

There are a plethora of issues that are "acceptance" issues in life,
but the hardest ones are when we love someone and live with them. As
I said in another thread, my sister is my soulmate and we know each
other inside and out. We get our voices mixed up sometimes when I
call her house I sometimes feel like I'm talking to me. So do her
kids. And our mother and husbands. However, if I had to live with
her, some of our differences would absolutely drive me up a tree. She
is one of those "entitled" people while I'm one of those "don't really
deserve it" people. I'd sooner take my daughter with me instead of
asking someone (putting them out) to watch her. She'd call anyone in
a heartbeat so that she could go out alone. Once again, I digress.

I think it's a good topic to discuss (what is acceptance) and in my
opinion, acceptance is on a continuum. I might not accept a certain
thing from my husband but have no problem if others do it. Others
doing it doesn't impact me whereas my husband doing it might.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc25f83.9c2.tony@home.cigardiary.com... It also sounds like... Ted: I'm going to therapy to change my wife. Which sounds suspiciously like. Ted: I'm taking my car into the shop so my wife's car will get rid of that nasty knock.

I'd say it's more like I decoupled one of the cars from the train and
brought it into the shop and while that helped a little it didn't really get
things back on track, so I decided to bring the whole train in. We're
still discovering how many of the problems are with the individual cars and
how much because of how they behave when coupled together.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c00dk8$11inbo$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc25f83.9c2.tony@home.cigardiary.com... It also sounds like... Ted: I'm going to therapy to change my wife. Which sounds suspiciously like. Ted: I'm taking my car into the shop so my wife's car will get rid of
that nasty knock. I'd say it's more like I decoupled one of the cars from the train and brought it into the shop and while that helped a little it didn't really
get things back on track, so I decided to bring the whole train in. We're still discovering how many of the problems are with the individual cars
and how much because of how they behave when coupled together. Ted

A good analogy Ted. I say anything that can be done to improve self can
not help but improve the entire world.

When you don't live with someone, it is far easier to accept somefundamental differences.

But, see, Caren, now we're talking about accepting differences
in people and accepting the person. And I admit, I started it
first. :)

For me, I guess, I can just tell when I'm being accepted as a
person who has their own beliefs, their own habits, their own
way of doing things and when I'm not. I think a very good ex-
ample in my own life is my parents. My parents love me and I
don't doubt that, but, quite honestly, they don't 'accept' me.
It's quite obvious when I spend a lot of time with them that
they don't 'accept' me as a person who is able to make her own
decisions about how she acts and has her own beliefs that don't
have to mirror theirs. They spend quite a bit of time and energy
either trying to get me to see that I'm living my life 'wrong'
or getting in digs about the way I've chosen to live my life.
It's way beyond discussing our differences or trying to under-
stand why I do what I do.
Speaking of vegetarianism...you know my stance on that one :-)

Well, yes, that's why I used it. :P
From day one, it has been a struggle when our daughter was born.The different eating styles between me and my husband are nightand day. She wants to eat potato chips and coke with him, whileI'm serving tofu on a bagel with soy milk.

I wouldn't begin to be able to deal with that (if how I'm inter-
preting this is how it is.) Another example from my life is when
my son was a baby. I was *trying* to do what my doctor had recom-
mended and not letting him have any solid food for X number of
months (can't remember exactly what was recommended now, it was
so long ago) and my mother knew this and *still* would feed him
mashed potatoes and gravy and other foods that she felt was okay
for him to have. (Of course, a short time later, I threw the doc-
tor's recommendation out the window when my son insisted on drinking
five bottles in the space of 3 hours but, hey, that was *my* de-
cision to make as the parent, not my mother's.)

<snip>I think it's a good topic to discuss (what is acceptance) and in myopinion, acceptance is on a continuum. I might not accept a certainthing from my husband but have no problem if others do it. Othersdoing it doesn't impact me whereas my husband doing it might.

I keep getting the impression that we're talking about totally
different things or at least different enough that I'm confused
about what exactly we're talking about. :)

I'll have to think about this some more. I know what I feel, I
just can't put it into words, I think. :)

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:<4023F018.5040109@aol.com>...When you don't live with someone, it is far easier to accept somefundamental differences. But, see, Caren, now we're talking about accepting differences in people and accepting the person. And I admit, I started it first. :) For me, I guess, I can just tell when I'm being accepted as a person who has their own beliefs, their own habits, their own way of doing things and when I'm not. I think a very good ex- ample in my own life is my parents. My parents love me and I don't doubt that, but, quite honestly, they don't 'accept' me. It's quite obvious when I spend a lot of time with them that they don't 'accept' me as a person who is able to make her own decisions about how she acts and has her own beliefs that don't have to mirror theirs. They spend quite a bit of time and energy either trying to get me to see that I'm living my life 'wrong' or getting in digs about the way I've chosen to live my life. It's way beyond discussing our differences or trying to under- stand why I do what I do.

Now, are we talking about accept or are we talking about like? You
don't have to like something to accept it. Nor do you have to accept
something that you don't like. Your example of your parents loving
you but not accepting you made me think, well, they love her but they
don't like what she is doing. Does that mean they don't accept your
action or does it mean they don't like your action. Kind of like hate
the sin, not the sinner? (I know one thing from the bible).

Perhaps the use of the word accept, is overrated? I don't like plenty
of things that my husband does. You know that snort the snot thing in
the morning? I hate it hate it hate it. Farting. I hate that too.
Should I accept it cause it's just the way he is? What other choice
do I have? Divorce him cause he farts or snorts? Isn't it just okay
to not like things about each other and move on?

I think that in a marriage there are all kinds of words that need to
be used such as NEED, ACCEPT, TOLERATE, GIVE IN....feel free to use
some more. I accepted the fact that my husband was going to buy a
totally expensive, brand new truck that he (we) did not need. He
certainly needed a vehicle but not one that would not be energy
efficient (he is environmentally aware as I am) and a gas guzzler for
long commutes. At first I tolerated his decision because he was going
to do it with or without my approval. My feelings then moved on to
acceptance. From time to time I get a bit pissed when he can't take
the truck cause there would be no room for the stuff we have to bring
(and the bed is wet like it usually is here in sun country :-)

The bottom line is is that people that we love and who love us are not
going to like all the choices that we make and we won't necessarily
like all of their choices. Do we have to accept them? Tolerate them?
Ignore them? Embrace them?

DAmned if I know :-)




Speaking of vegetarianism...you know my stance on that one :-) Well, yes, that's why I used it. :PFrom day one, it has been a struggle when our daughter was born.The different eating styles between me and my husband are nightand day. She wants to eat potato chips and coke with him, whileI'm serving tofu on a bagel with soy milk. I wouldn't begin to be able to deal with that (if how I'm inter- preting this is how it is.) Another example from my life is when my son was a baby. I was *trying* to do what my doctor had recom- mended and not letting him have any solid food for X number of months (can't remember exactly what was recommended now, it was so long ago) and my mother knew this and *still* would feed him mashed potatoes and gravy and other foods that she felt was okay for him to have. (Of course, a short time later, I threw the doc- tor's recommendation out the window when my son insisted on drinking five bottles in the space of 3 hours but, hey, that was *my* de- cision to make as the parent, not my mother's.) <snip>I think it's a good topic to discuss (what is acceptance) and in myopinion, acceptance is on a continuum. I might not accept a certainthing from my husband but have no problem if others do it. Othersdoing it doesn't impact me whereas my husband doing it might. I keep getting the impression that we're talking about totally different things or at least different enough that I'm confused about what exactly we're talking about. :) I'll have to think about this some more. I know what I feel, I just can't put it into words, I think. :) Tracey

Now, are we talking about accept or are we talking aboutlike?

I'm trying to talk about accepting a person or a person's
action, Caren, but I'm having a difficult time with it. :)
You don't have to like something to accept it. Nor do youhave to accept something that you don't like.

True. Agree with this.
Your example of your parents loving you but not acceptingyou made me think, well, they love her but they don't likewhat she is doing. Does that mean they don't accept youraction or does it mean they don't like your action. Kindof like hate the sin, not the sinner? (I know one thing fromthe bible).

It means that they don't like my actions and they don't accept
them. They get angry at decisions I've made, try to talk me
out of them and spend a lot of their time pointing out to me
the 'wrong' decisions I've made and continue to make. They
undermine my decisions. Try to blackmail or force me into
changing them. Totally go against my decisions at times. If
that's not accepting me and my decisions, I don't know what
is.
Perhaps the use of the word accept, is overrated? I don'tlike plenty of things that my husband does. You know thatsnort the snot thing in the morning? I hate it hate ithate it. Farting. I hate that too. Should I accept it causeit's just the way he is? What other choice do I have?Divorce him cause he farts or snorts? Isn't it just okayto not like things about each other and move on?

You're last statement is what I mean by 'accepting'. It's
okay to not like things about each other. It's okay to have
a different opinion. Just move on. It's when it gets into
the realm of trying to change the person's action that it's
going into non-acceptance, IMO.
The bottom line is is that people that we love and who loveus are not going to like all the choices that we make andwe won't necessarily like all of their choices. Do we haveto accept them? Tolerate them? Ignore them? Embrace them?
DAmned if I know :-)

Heh. Well, I guess it all depends on how we want to live *our*
lives. I aim for acceptance/toleration/ignoring/embracing be-
cause I hate being in an emotional turmoil all the time. My
parents, OTOH....

Here's an example from a phone call yesterday. My father is a
packrat. Even worse, he's a procrastinating packrat. Their house
caught on fire in 1984 and they moved a double-wide trailer onto
the property across the road from the ruined house. For 20 years,
my father has done little to the house. He's occasionally taken
some of the 'good parts' out of it, but, really, overall, he did
nothing to it. It's been sitting there for 20 years because 'some-
day' he's going to do something with all of the things he thought
was still good in the house. My mother has been pissed for 20
years because that house is still standing there. (Actually,
it isn't still standing there. A few weeks ago, my nephew tore
it all down which has pissed my father off because there was
still some 'good wood' in there that my nephew just bulldozed
over and burned.)

Me, I laugh about my father's habits. That's who he is. That's
who he always has been. My mother though has been pissed off for
her entire married life about how my father is. She doesn't accept
that that is who he is.

Tracey