On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:44:31 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:c1lh5a$1k8avp$1@ID-75132.news.uni-berlin.de... Of course I can't ask what led to the change -- that would be to direct and invasive. Why do you have to ask? Why can't you just enjoy it for what it is/was--a lovely, close, intimate moment with your wife. No more, no less. As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Because I want to know if I'm sacrificing to a volcano or burying fish with the corn seed. Tai suggested I try some things; Jen suggested some other things. I did. I *really* would like to know if they had anything to do with it -- and I don't want to wait another two years to find out!

You make your wife sound like a lab experiment.

-Tony

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

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc3snlb.908.tony@home.cigardiary.com... You make your wife sound like a lab experiment. -Tony

It was Tai who said try her suggestions and report back on the results after
awhle.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc3snlb.908.tony@home.cigardiary.com... You make your wife sound like a lab experiment. -Tony It was Tai who said try her suggestions and report back on the results after awhle.

It hasn't been awhile yet.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ODt%b.130073$uV3.645471@attbi_s51... It was Tai who said try her suggestions and report back on the results
after awhle. It hasn't been awhile yet.

Oh, that's right, it's mostly Bill who says I've been here over two years
and nothing's changed and nothing will.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ODt%b.130073$uV3.645471@attbi_s51... It was Tai who said try her suggestions and report back on the results after awhle. It hasn't been awhile yet. Oh, that's right, it's mostly Bill who says I've been here over two years and nothing's changed and nothing will.

That wasn't what I meant. It hasn't been a while since Tai made her
suggestions and suggested you report back later.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cbu%b.67059$4o.87482@attbi_s52... "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ODt%b.130073$uV3.645471@attbi_s51... > > It was Tai who said try her suggestions and report back on the
results after > awhle. It hasn't been awhile yet. Oh, that's right, it's mostly Bill who says I've been here over two
years and nothing's changed and nothing will. That wasn't what I meant. It hasn't been a while since Tai made her suggestions and suggested you report back later.

I know Doug. Just trying to keep things in perspective.
But, that does raise an interesting question -- how long is "a while" in
such matters?
And does it depend on the circumstances and the people involved? Referring
to her
1,000 year-old Icelandic ancestry, my therapist readily acknowledges the
sheer weight of tradition and stability in my wife, should any changes be
expected or needed.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c1lrmv$1jrghm$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cbu%b.67059$4o.87482@attbi_s52... "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ODt%b.130073$uV3.645471@attbi_s51... > > > > It was Tai who said try her suggestions and report back on the results after > > awhle. > > It hasn't been awhile yet. Oh, that's right, it's mostly Bill who says I've been here over two years and nothing's changed and nothing will. That wasn't what I meant. It hasn't been a while since Tai made her suggestions and suggested you report back later. I know Doug. Just trying to keep things in perspective. But, that does raise an interesting question -- how long is "a while" in such matters? And does it depend on the circumstances and the people involved? Referring to her 1,000 year-old Icelandic ancestry, my therapist readily acknowledges the sheer weight of tradition and stability in my wife, should any changes be expected or needed. Ted

Reading this is nearly unbearable. I do not doubt that you are
frustrated, that you have this intensity that you would like to see
fully engaged in your relationship with your wife. However, there is a
blind spot a mile wide here. You go on and on about what changes you
want from your wife but I do not get any impression that you love this
woman. You treat your relationship with her like it was a peice of
machinery.

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c1oe7e$1l31nr$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de...
If I don't love her why do I make her appointments at the dog groomers for her when she asks me to?

Wouldn't she really rather go to a beauty salon? (Sorry, couldn't help
myself)

In article <ibu11cb207.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Also your self-image discourages disloyalty.
But doesn't my non-affair with "the pharmacist" in and of itself
constitute disloyalty? (My wife said in so many words that if told any
of my women friends we were going to counselling she'd consider it
emotional infidelity. Of course she said that long after I'd told some
of them, so it was a little late to make the rules of the game clear.)
If I don't love her why do I consent to account for every single penny I spend? If you _do_ love her why do you consent to do that?

Because she's asked me to.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <ibu11cb207.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Also your self-image discourages disloyalty. But doesn't my non-affair with "the pharmacist" in and of itself constitute disloyalty? (My wife said in so many words that if told any of my women friends we were going to counselling she'd consider it emotional infidelity. Of course she said that long after I'd told some of them, so it was a little late to make the rules of the game clear.)

Yes, so you are doing something a little disloyal and refraining from
something you consider to be more disloyal. What is hard about that?
If I don't love her why do I consent to account for every single penny I spend? If you _do_ love her why do you consent to do that? Because she's asked me to.

I wouldn't do that for anyone whether I loved them or not. There are
limits imposed by self-respect.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:260220042314527491%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com...

If I loved her wouldn't I be more careful with money? (I don't remember -- did I post how I lost a $300 check a few weeks ago? Luckily it was at church and somebody turned it in.)

I don't see how that has anything to do with loving your wife at all. It
was careless, maybe, but not connected with loving your spouse.

If I loved her would I keep wearing pants with holes in the pocket where my keychain wears them out prematurely?

What on earth does that have to do with loving or not loving your wife?

If I loved her would I forget to check when the orange juice container needs to be emptied into a glass so it can be washed because it won't be the next day? If I loved her would I keep forgetting to put the sponges in the dishwasher so they can be washed with the dishes?

Sounds like you are confusing "doing stuff around the house" with love.
They are NOT the same thing.


If I loved her would I be so careless a driver as to start off and smash my bumper into a stationary vehicle?

What does that have to do with loving or not loving your wife?
If I loved her would she still be wanting new faucets, a bay window, and a gas fireplace log? If I loved her wouldn't I have repaired the tile in her bathroom years ago? If I loved her wouldn't I have put a new fence around the garden several years ago when we first realized it was needed?

Again, this is "doing stuff around the house". I don't get how not
installing new faucets equates to loving or not loving your wife.

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1041r3rs6i3c975@corp.supernews.com...
<similar things snipped>
Again, this is "doing stuff around the house". I don't get how not installing new faucets equates to loving or not loving your wife.

By labeling it "consideration" urf hit the nail on the head. *If* I loved
my wife I would be aware of what she considers important and place it all
above what *I* consider important. I would be considerate of her needs
and desires and be happy making them subservient to mine. As I believe
somebody here said not very long ago, love means placing the beloved's
interests above ones own.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c286o0$1osftq$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1041r3rs6i3c975@corp.supernews.com... <similar things snipped> Again, this is "doing stuff around the house". I don't get how not installing new faucets equates to loving or not loving your wife. By labeling it "consideration" urf hit the nail on the head. *If* I loved my wife I would be aware of what she considers important and place it all above what *I* consider important. I would be considerate of her needs and desires and be happy making them subservient to mine.



As I believe somebody here said not very long ago, love means placing the beloved's interests above ones own.
What that person must mean is that to them, love means placing the
beloved's interests above ones own. I don't think that that is a
definition of love. Of course, when you can do it, GREAT. However,
most of us have a hard enough time taking care of our own needs.
Granted, this has a lot to do with whether or not you have young
children in your life.

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c286o0$1osftq$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1041r3rs6i3c975@corp.supernews.com... <similar things snipped> Again, this is "doing stuff around the house". I don't get how not installing new faucets equates to loving or not loving your wife. By labeling it "consideration" urf hit the nail on the head. *If* I
loved my wife I would be aware of what she considers important and place it all above what *I* consider important. I would be considerate of her needs and desires and be happy making them subservient to mine. As I believe somebody here said not very long ago, love means placing the beloved's interests above ones own. Ted

I am considerate of Estelle's needs but I am also considerate of my own.
In return for my consideration I expect her consideration.
This concept helps me visualize the balance between us and the in fairness
of sharing
life's joys and burdens. It helps me to be more of the man I want myself to
be.
I can not help but to return in kind that which bestows on me.
It is our circle of being kind to each other.
I love her. I love myself. She loves me. She loves herself.
For me, it is important to express these ideals in my everyday life.

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c286o0$1osftq$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1041r3rs6i3c975@corp.supernews.com... <similar things snipped> Again, this is "doing stuff around the house". I don't get how not installing new faucets equates to loving or not loving your wife. By labeling it "consideration" urf hit the nail on the head. *If* I
loved my wife I would be aware of what she considers important and place it all above what *I* consider important. I would be considerate of her needs and desires and be happy making them subservient to mine. As I believe somebody here said not very long ago, love means placing the beloved's interests above ones own.

I'm not sure I agree with that - I can see making the beloved's interest
important to you, even perhaps equal to your own interests - but to always
put them ahead of your own seems to me to risk losing something of yourself.
You spoke earlier about compromising your principles - doesn't always
putting someone else's interests ahead of your own lead to that?

Seeker wrote:
By labeling it "consideration" urf hit the nail on the head. *If* I loved my wife I would be aware of what she considers important and place it all above what *I* consider important. I would be considerate of her needs and desires and be happy making them subservient to mine. As I believe somebody here said not very long ago, love means placing the beloved's interests above ones own.

Is this what you believe, Ted? Because your actions aren't supporting
that belief.

And, IMO, the only way this works is if *both* spouses believe this.

Tracey

"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3754f0b3.0403041916.5014c8d1@posting.google.c om... What that person must mean is that to them, love means placing the beloved's interests above ones own. I don't think that that is a definition of love.

Would you care to give another one?

Ted

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j5ednXTKY73LntXdRVn-hA@comcast.com... This concept helps me visualize the balance between us and the in fairness of sharing life's joys and burdens.

And how does one establish what is a fair sharing? Let's take the burdens:
should the load be shared equally, or should it be proportional to the
respective ability to carry it?

Ted

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4048B017.3050207@aol.com... Is this what you believe, Ted? Because your actions aren't supporting that belief.
Why do you think I prefaced all of those with "if I loved her would I..."?

But -- if I didn't place her interests and needs ahead of mine, why didn't I
divorce her during that period I both thought it was an option and that I
felt acceptable to and desired by other women?
And, IMO, the only way this works is if *both* spouses believe this.

Does it work if neither spouse believes it?

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2anj6$1s5rms$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:4048B017.3050207@aol.com... Is this what you believe, Ted? Because your actions aren't supporting that belief. Why do you think I prefaced all of those with "if I loved her would
I..."?

"would I turn on the gas if my friend Rocky was in that stove?"

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2anc6$1pks7l$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:j5ednXTKY73LntXdRVn-hA@comcast.com... This concept helps me visualize the balance between us and the in
fairness of sharing life's joys and burdens. And how does one establish what is a fair sharing? Let's take the
burdens: should the load be shared equally, or should it be proportional to the respective ability to carry it? Ted
A bull**** question since you asked me Ted!

You already KNOW the answer. Your response is meant to
deflect and evade. You have lived with someone for a long, long time.
You absolutely know what is fair and what is not.

You can dance around it all that you want to.

In article <MeydnQCz3ZxBhNTdRVn-vg@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
The conflict is between what you feel and what you think you should be feeling.

Yes, that is one of my conflicts, but much, much less than it used to
be. A couple of years ago I realized that one of my problems was
trying to live up to other people's standards, or at least what I
thought they were -- when I examined myself for the most part I was
content with my own standards and my ability to live up to them. At
least that was so in my interactions with everyone except my wife --
the conflicts there can't be accepted so easily.

Ted

In article <UoudnZIKPZ9zh9Td4p2dnA@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
You already KNOW the answer. Your response is meant to deflect and evade. You have lived with someone for a long, long time. You absolutely know what is fair and what is not.

Yes, I know that what is fair is each bears proportionately (in some
sense) what they can bear. The evasive part is -- who is to judge how
much each can bear?

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:050320042344536170%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <UoudnZIKPZ9zh9Td4p2dnA@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: You already KNOW the answer. Your response is meant to deflect and evade. You have lived with someone for a long, long time. You absolutely know what is fair and what is not. Yes, I know that what is fair is each bears proportionately (in some sense) what they can bear. The evasive part is -- who is to judge how much each can bear? Ted

Not "how", "who".

In article <63l2c.46156$6c5.13250@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
Yes, I know that what is fair is each bears proportionately (in some sense) what they can bear. The evasive part is -- who is to judge how much each can bear? Not "how", "who".

You lost me on that one urf. You sure you wrote what you meant to?
(I delight in such kinds of wordplay, but if something got garbled in
transmission it's hard to play the game!)

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:060320041648384313%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <63l2c.46156$6c5.13250@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Yes, I know that what is fair is each bears proportionately (in some sense) what they can bear. The evasive part is -- who is to judge
how much each can bear? Not "how", "who". You lost me on that one urf. You sure you wrote what you meant to? (I delight in such kinds of wordplay, but if something got garbled in transmission it's hard to play the game!) Ted

Sorry, that came out bass ackwards.

Not who, how?

How do you judge was the question.

"Who" implies that someone is qualified, willing and capable to make
judgments
about our lives. This may be true at least some of the time. Example" I've
had
enough, I can't take anymore!

"How" implies (at least to me) a thought out scheme to apportion the duties
and benefits of a relationship.

In article <u_ydndE3vOX8MNbd4p2dnA@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
Sorry, that came out bass ackwards.
I thought something like that had happened.
Not who, how? How do you judge was the question.

That's your question -- mine indeed was *who*?.

I am holding back on making progress because I fear I would be laying
too much of a burden on my wife -- that even providing her with enough
to make the decision herself requires going too far.
I think it may well have been near the end of one of the Schnarch books
-- and if not there one in a similar vein -- that the author said that
one of the truths of a marriage is that indeed we *do* play God and
are required to -- we have to unilaterally make decisions on behalf of
our partner.

Your question is good too -- no matter who makes the choices.

Ted