In article <TqKdnSmlutTFvdLdRVn-jA@telcove.net>, Stephanie Stowe
<stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote:
Looking himself was not good enough.

BINGO!
If you had been blind, what would he have done?

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:100320040933072041%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <TqKdnSmlutTFvdLdRVn-jA@telcove.net>, Stephanie Stowe <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: Looking himself was not good enough. BINGO! If you had been blind, what would he have done? Ted

I do not understand that question at all. Are you asking what happens if one
cannot appreciate or understand the other's sense of romance?

S

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> writes:
"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:100320040933072041%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <TqKdnSmlutTFvdLdRVn-jA@telcove.net>, Stephanie Stowe <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: Looking himself was not good enough. BINGO! If you had been blind, what would he have done? Ted I do not understand that question at all. Are you asking what happens if one cannot appreciate or understand the other's sense of romance?

It is the bait by which the topic will change to Mrs Ted not
appreciating the things that Ted needs someone to appreciate with
him. (Sorry to give you away, Ted.)

Get with the program Stephanie!

In article <vxsmggtzb0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> writes: I do not understand that question at all. Are you asking what happens if one cannot appreciate or understand the other's sense of romance? It is the bait by which the topic will change to Mrs Ted not appreciating the things that Ted needs someone to appreciate with him. (Sorry to give you away, Ted.)

I wouldn't have put it so bluntly, Doug, but, yes that is the jist of
it -- Stephanie, if it were very important for your H to have shared
that sunset with someone, and you could not have appreciated it because
you were blind, what would he have done, what would you have expected
him to have done, what would you have wanted him to have done?

Ted

Seeker wrote:
I wouldn't have put it so bluntly, Doug, but, yes that is the jist of it -- Stephanie, if it were very important for your H to have shared that sunset with someone, and you could not have appreciated it because you were blind, what would he have done, what would you have expected him to have done, what would you have wanted him to have done?

I'm not Stephanie, but if a person is blind, 'needing' them to share
a visual event with you is futile.

This reminds me of a Law and Order I once saw. (Yeah, I know, it's
fiction, but the show seems to be fairly good at presenting issues
that, while maybe not common, do exist.) This show dealt with the
death of a deaf woman. The issue presented was the belief of some
deaf people that deafness is not something that *must* be fixed.
That you can live a full, happy life without hearing aids, operations
to fix the 'problem', etc. The show took the issue to an (inevitable
for L&O) extreme, but it brings up an interesting point, IMO. If
the person who is deaf and is content and comfortable with their
deafness, has never felt a need or desire to be not or less deaf, etc.,
suddenly meets up with a person who is extremely involved with, say,
music and that person 'needs' their partner to enjoy music to the same
extent that they do, it's not within the partner's 'rights' to start
demanding the deaf person get the hearing aids, have the operations,
etc., to fill their 'need'.

As far as the original scenario goes, I would hope that my husband
would take me to 'see' the sunset with him anyway, that he would accept
that, even though I can't/don't enjoy it in quite the same way as he
is able to, he would be able to be satisfied with the fact that I
shared it with him in the only way that I was able to and I would
also expect that he wouldn't start pushing me for experimental or
even accepted treatments to make me see if I didn't want them.

Tracey

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vxsmggtzb0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> writes: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:100320040933072041%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <TqKdnSmlutTFvdLdRVn-jA@telcove.net>, Stephanie Stowe <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: > Looking himself was not good enough. BINGO! If you had been blind, what would he have done? Ted I do not understand that question at all. Are you asking what happens if
one cannot appreciate or understand the other's sense of romance? It is the bait by which the topic will change to Mrs Ted not appreciating the things that Ted needs someone to appreciate with him. (Sorry to give you away, Ted.) Get with the program Stephanie!


EEEK. I was not watching for bait and switch.

S

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:100320041243208487%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <vxsmggtzb0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> writes: I do not understand that question at all. Are you asking what happens
if one cannot appreciate or understand the other's sense of romance? It is the bait by which the topic will change to Mrs Ted not appreciating the things that Ted needs someone to appreciate with him. (Sorry to give you away, Ted.) I wouldn't have put it so bluntly, Doug, but, yes that is the jist of it -- Stephanie, if it were very important for your H to have shared that sunset with someone, and you could not have appreciated it because you were blind, what would he have done, what would you have expected him to have done, what would you have wanted him to have done? Ted

Well, sometimes I have failed to appreciate it simply because I was in a
grumpy mood. Much worse I would say from the perspective of a wife TRYING to
give to their spouse. Luckily my DH is forgiving.

But if I COULDN'T share. Well then the onus would really be on DH to decide
how important that was to him. I suppose if it were important enough to him
and another substitute could not be found, he would have to leave me. I can
tell you I would expect him to help negotiate a substitute that I could
enjoy with him. I would expect him to communicate with full honesty and not
decide for me what he thought would hurt me too much to communicate.

S

In article <404F6681.2010008@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
As far as the original scenario goes, I would hope that my husband would take me to 'see' the sunset with him anyway, that he would accept that, even though I can't/don't enjoy it in quite the same way as he is able to, he would be able to be satisfied with the fact that I shared it with him in the only way that I was able to and I would also expect that he wouldn't start pushing me for experimental or even accepted treatments to make me see if I didn't want them.

While I don't think the example can be stretched this far, what if
there were something about being where you could "see" the sunset that
actually upset you, made you uncomfortable?

Ted

In article <m4udnRbNO-1B5tLdRVn-vg@telcove.net>, Stephanie Stowe
<stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote:
EEEK. I was not watching for bait and switch.

Sorry. I thought it was a natural turn to the thread.

Ted

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:07:12 GMT, Seeker
<anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <m4udnRbNO-1B5tLdRVn-vg@telcove.net>, Stephanie Stowe<stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: EEEK. I was not watching for bait and switch. Sorry. I thought it was a natural turn to the thread.

I guess every thread naturally turns to you and your problem, right, 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.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:100320040933072041%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <TqKdnSmlutTFvdLdRVn-jA@telcove.net>, Stephanie Stowe <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: Looking himself was not good enough. BINGO! If you had been blind, what would he have done? Ted

Everyone is on to you Ted.

Seeker wrote: In article <404F6681.2010008@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:As far as the original scenario goes, I would hope that my husbandwould take me to 'see' the sunset with him anyway, that he would acceptthat, even though I can't/don't enjoy it in quite the same way as heis able to, he would be able to be satisfied with the fact that Ishared it with him in the only way that I was able to and I wouldalso expect that he wouldn't start pushing me for experimental oreven accepted treatments to make me see if I didn't want them. While I don't think the example can be stretched this far, what if there were something about being where you could "see" the sunset that actually upset you, made you uncomfortable? Ted

In this specific example, (where I have accepted my blindness), the
only thing that could *possibly* (hypothetically) upset me or make
me uncomfortable is if my husband was sitting there miserable because
I couldn't see it.

Look, Ted, we've been down this road before. I think your trying or
wanting your wife to feel the same way about certain activities of
yours is futile. The most I think you have a right to expect or re-
quest of your wife is to accompany you to these activities. And if
the activities upset her or make her uncomfortable, then she gets
to decide for herself whether she wishes to accompany you. But,
IMO, it's not a 'right' of yours to insist that she accompany you
if she doesn't want to and it's definitely not a 'right' of yours
to insist that she enjoy it in the same way you do.

Tracey

In article <404FDD48.8040301@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
But, IMO, it's not a 'right' of yours to insist that she accompany you if she doesn't want to and it's definitely not a 'right' of yours to insist that she enjoy it in the same way you do.

And I do neither. So who do I share the sunset with?

Ted

Seeker wrote:
And I do neither. So who do I share the sunset with? Ted

You learn to enjoy the sunset by yourself. Or you cut your
wife free and find someone who *can* enjoy the sunset with
you. Or you give up the sunsets and go watch bowling with
your wife. (Of course, you realize we're not really talking
about sunsets, right? At least I'm not.)

Tracey

Tracey wrote: Seeker wrote: And I do neither. So who do I share the sunset with? You learn to enjoy the sunset by yourself. Or you cut your wife free and find someone who *can* enjoy the sunset with you. Or you give up the sunsets and go watch bowling with your wife. (Of course, you realize we're not really talking about sunsets, right? At least I'm not.)

While "sharing" is all well and good, the problem often is
one of priorities; one or the other will think what *they*
see is more important at various times.

I'm also seeing a pattern *here*, in my own life; what I
want to share w/ my wife (like sunsets, etc, and there are
some SERIOUSLY nice ones here on Florida's west coast)
seldom interests her enough to get her up to go to a door
or window. At the same time, however, she sees nothing
wrong in demanding me to come running to see something
she's been watching on TV. (shrugs)

It's an asymmetry. It happens. Some will see it (or use
it) as a form of domination. Some will resist it in order
to *avoid* the idea of *being* dominated by doing as others
want them to.

Because we're talking about human beings... it depends.

Over time asymmetries will come and go; people DO evolve.
Granted, there's no guarantee partners will grow TOWARDS
each other, but it would be nice if such tropisms existed.

(Hmmmm... Happy people attract others... So a "sunny"
disposition could be a trigger for certain tropisms, right?)

Finally, there ain't no *ONE RIGHT ANSWER* for anything.
I've come to the conclusion that answers *I* have are
usually the wrongest, though. So I try to concentrate
on questions...

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Jack C Lipton wrote:
While "sharing" is all well and good, the problem often is one of priorities; one or the other will think what *they* see is more important at various times.

Sure. Along with the 'accepting that our spouse isn't interested
in something quite the way we are', what also should be there to
some degree or another is 'accepting that our spouse is interested
in things we aren't and being as enthusiastic about it as we can
be' from *both* sides. I'll bet Ted is kinda tired of me by now
because it seems like I'm always addressing him and what I think
he should be doing but I can't really address what I think his
wife should be doing. She's not here. If she *were* here, I would
tell her that I think she would help Ted's happiness by finding a
way to be enthusiastic about some of the things that Ted is inter-
ested in.

With my husband and I, it's cars and airplanes. I can get some
enjoyment out of going and looking at cars and airplanes or
watching a show about them on TV. Some. My husband could sit
and watch 'Discovery Wings' all day long (and sometimes does.)
I have learned more about cars and airplanes during our almost-
10-years of marriage that I learned in the previous 30-some
years. But I'm NOT interested in them in the same way he is.
And I never will be. But I accept the fact that he will point
out different cars to me (which I usually can't find because
he'll say 'Look at that X over there.' I look in the general
direction and say 'Uh huh, nice.' Luckily, that's enough for
him. <grin>), I accept the fact that we have to drive around
by the airfield at the military base we go to for groceries
even though it's shorter to go a different way, etc. And he
accepts the fact that I'm just not that interested in those
things.

<snip> Finally, there ain't no *ONE RIGHT ANSWER* for anything. I've come to the conclusion that answers *I* have are usually the wrongest, though. So I try to concentrate on questions...

Did I seem like I thought I had the 'one right answer'?

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:<404FFD5A.8040303@aol.com>... Seeker wrote: And I do neither. So who do I share the sunset with? Ted You learn to enjoy the sunset by yourself. Or you cut your wife free and find someone who *can* enjoy the sunset with you. Or you give up the sunsets and go watch bowling with your wife. (Of course, you realize we're not really talking about sunsets, right? At least I'm not.) Tracey

Ted,

I'm not sure what exactly you're using sunsets to symbolize but I can
tell you that there are things that I care deeply about that my wife
has much less concern for. I know the reverse is true as well.

I work for an environmental and energy conservation organization. My
work and the work of our company is very important to me. While my
wife has some appreciation the environment and environmental concerns,
it's not a big issue for her.

Conversely, it is important to my wife that we and our children be
actively involved in a church. It is not important for me and in some
ways I'd rather we weren't involved at all.

While this does lead to conflicts at times, it is not a deal killer.
It is important to respect what is important to our spouses and make
some accomodations for them to pursue those things. In my case, I do
attend church with my family. I know my wife wishes I did so more
enthusiasticly, but on the other hand, the fact that I go "just for
her" isn't lost on her and is appreciated.

If I hated the church, hated everything it stood for, and refused to
go, -ever, it would be a more difficult situation and my wife would
have to decide if she could live with that or not.

Tracey wrote: Jack C Lipton pontificated: Finally, there ain't no *ONE RIGHT ANSWER* for anything. I've come to the conclusion that answers *I* have are usually the wrongest, though. So I try to concentrate on questions... Did I seem like I thought I had the 'one right answer'?

Tracey, hon... I usually add that as a disclaimer these
days. Sorry you read it as a critique, but whenever I
get into a mood where I feel like I'm pontificating too
much (or worry that I'll be mis-read) there's gotta be
some kind of "out".

If I had even a minority of the answers my own life
would be in far better order than it is now; and, on
top of that, questions work better because we each have
to *think* of our own situation.

Having a good question is WAY better than having an answer.

A *good* question implies different answers depending upon
the person trying to answer it; given our differences...

And our differences are what makes it easier for us to be
of value to others... while it also provides friction to
make it difficult to be with others. Perhaps a Zen-like
principle?

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Jack C Lipton wrote:
Did I seem like I thought I had the 'one right answer'? Tracey, hon... I usually add that as a disclaimer these days. Sorry you read it as a critique, but whenever I get into a mood where I feel like I'm pontificating too much (or worry that I'll be mis-read) there's gotta be some kind of "out".


Okay, I understand now. I was just confused a bit. I thought
I had given three 'answers' so was confused about the 'one
right answer' comment. :)

Tracey

Tracey wrote: Okay, I understand now. I was just confused a bit. I thought I had given three 'answers' so was confused about the 'one right answer' comment. :)

Sorry for the confusion, but then I've actually made
some posting w/ a serious caffeine deficit going. Not
only were they gibberish to others but they sure looked
like gibberish to me, too.

So people can tell if I'm "functional" based on my need
to "qualify" my thinking. (There are those whom I work
with that might find amusing my ability to claim myself
as "thinking" given how I function before that first
dose of caffeine... which I really *am* supposed to do
without, so I'm sinning A.M.A.)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

In article <404FFD5A.8040303@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
You learn to enjoy the sunset by yourself. Or you cut your wife free and find someone who *can* enjoy the sunset with you. Or you give up the sunsets and go watch bowling with your wife. (Of course, you realize we're not really talking about sunsets, right? At least I'm not.)

No, we're not talking about sunsets -- but we could be. Anything where
a significant part of the enjoyment of the activity comes from being
able to share it with someone you are emotionally close to. Even just
reading a book can fall in that category -- where you can come across a
passage, read it t someone, and have them truly understand why it
touches you, whether it touches them the same way or not.

Ted

Seeker wrote:
No, we're not talking about sunsets -- but we could be. Anything where a significant part of the enjoyment of the activity comes from being able to share it with someone you are emotionally close to. Even just reading a book can fall in that category -- where you can come across a passage, read it t someone, and have them truly understand why it touches you, whether it touches them the same way or not.

I think that's asking too much of people, too. I don't 'truly
understand' why cars and automobiles are of such an interest to
my husband. I don't 'truly understand' how he can sit and watch/
listen to music DVDs over and over and over. He doesn't 'truly
understand' my interest in newsgroups. He doesn't 'truly under-
stand' my interest in orchids, in fantasy books, in ceramics.
We both will listen to the other talking about these subjects,
we both will join in on some of the activities involved with
these subjects, but we don't really *get* the interest itself.
Because we don't share it.

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:<40508BE8.8020705@aol.com>...
husband and I, it's cars and airplanes. I can get some enjoyment out of going and looking at cars and airplanes or watching a show about them on TV. Some. My husband could sit and watch 'Discovery Wings' all day long (and sometimes does.)

I'm laughing over here... DF has a fascination with SG-1. He could
watch it for hours. I have *tried* to get into it, but I just don't
see why it would interest anyone. It's a totally cheesy show.

When I come in to find him sprawled out on the bed mesmerized by SG-1
Marathon night, he always offers to switch the channel to something
we'd both like. Sometimes I take him up on the offer. More often I
leave him to his indulgence, crawl into bed next to him, and boot up
my laptop. We chat during the commercials. God forbid if I interrupt
him while the show is on!!!

But it could be worse... at least he doesn't like watching sports!

jen

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<110320041252023013%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <404FFD5A.8040303@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: You learn to enjoy the sunset by yourself. Or you cut your wife free and find someone who *can* enjoy the sunset with you. Or you give up the sunsets and go watch bowling with your wife. (Of course, you realize we're not really talking about sunsets, right? At least I'm not.) No, we're not talking about sunsets -- but we could be. Anything where a significant part of the enjoyment of the activity comes from being able to share it with someone you are emotionally close to. Even just reading a book can fall in that category -- where you can come across a passage, read it t someone, and have them truly understand why it touches you, whether it touches them the same way or not. Ted

I can be playing around with my family out in the snow, fall down,
look up at the sky and gaze in wonder at it's beauty. I'll remark to
my wife how pretty it is and she'll say something like "Yeah, I guess
it is".

The fact that she doesn't feel quite the same way about the sky
doesn't diminish its beauty.

Would it truly be enough for you to have someone just understand why
something touches you? How would you expect them to convey that
understanding? Is this part of what your wife was getting at when she
called you "emotionally needy"?

In article <4050E950.5060106@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
No. Why should there be? Amazingly enough and as hard as it may be to understand, I'm quite content with being with myself and don't need another person sharing an experience with me to enjoy it.

But have you been in situations where being able to share the
experience greatly enhanced your enjoyment of it?

Ted

>It's an asymmetry. It happens. Some will see it (or useit) as a form of domination. Some will resist it in orderto *avoid* the idea of *being* dominated by doing as otherswant them to.

Jack, lately I've been reading your posts and I've been struck by how... I
don't know how to say this... focussed on bargaining and power and negotiating
for perks and power. Your desire to quantify things and then balance them (or
point out the imbalances) seems, to me, to foment an adversarial stance, rather
than the cooperative one I think is necessary for a good relationship.

I'm not saying this well. I think what I am trying to get at is that it seems
to me that the more you try to reduce things to "I gave this much, and she gave
that much," and "this service that I provide to the family should mean that I
get 'that' which has approximately equal value to me". Your marriage sounds
like a business transaction lately.

I guess people can be happy with a business transaction-like relationship, but
since you aren't, it might be worth it to try to figure out why. From where I
sit, if you are going to have a marriage based on this "quid pro quo" scenerio
you and your partner have to have a meeting of the minds about the contract --
and it is clear that you don't. If you want/need to have that, it seems to me
only fair that you sit down and tell your wife and negotiate what the exact
terms of the contract are.

Alternatively, you could stop with that mindset. Make the decision that you
are going to do what a "good husband" does, without the thought of "giving to
get" -- but just because you want to be the best darned husband you can be.
Talk to her about it. Tell her of your commitment, and maybe she'll decide she
wants to do the same. Stop balancing the books -- they are never going to come
out even anyway. Maybe, make a commitment to giving to this *marriage* because
you want to give the marriage every possible chance of succeeding, and if it
fails, it won't be because of you.

Sheila

Seeker wrote: Tracey wrote: No. Why should there be? Amazingly enough and as hard as it may be to understand, I'm quite content with being with myself and don't need another person sharing an experience with me to enjoy it. But have you been in situations where being able to share the experience greatly enhanced your enjoyment of it?

Ted, it strikes me now, just reading this, that
the "sharing of an experience" may actually be
a fairly selfish activity... or perhaps better
considered "self-centered".

Sound stupid? Yes, it does. Sharing, in a
way, when "appreciated", allows the person who
included another person to feel that their
effort was itself valued.

I would suspect that a *strong* dependancy on
"successful sharing" may be a sign of what I've
had driving me: poor differentiation. I was
too dependant upon getting my wife's attention
so I *tried* so hard to share sunsets and the
like with her.

Part of growth is learning that one cannot
expect anyone else to have an interest in all
of the things that pique your own-- and being
able to accept their differences.

And, really, that's the hardest part of all;
when we express our opinions here, we want to
hear people agree with us; this is likely to
be a mechanism of affirmation arising from
social programming (and ego boost).

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc510br.epc.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Tracey wrote: Seeker wrote: And I do neither. So who do I share the sunset with? You learn to enjoy the sunset by yourself. Or you cut your wife free and find someone who *can* enjoy the sunset with you. Or you give up the sunsets and go watch bowling with your wife. (Of course, you realize we're not really talking about sunsets, right? At least I'm not.) While "sharing" is all well and good, the problem often is one of priorities; one or the other will think what *they* see is more important at various times. I'm also seeing a pattern *here*, in my own life; what I want to share w/ my wife (like sunsets, etc, and there are some SERIOUSLY nice ones here on Florida's west coast) seldom interests her enough to get her up to go to a door or window. At the same time, however, she sees nothing wrong in demanding me to come running to see something she's been watching on TV. (shrugs) It's an asymmetry. It happens. Some will see it (or use it) as a form of domination. Some will resist it in order to *avoid* the idea of *being* dominated by doing as others want them to. Because we're talking about human beings... it depends. Over time asymmetries will come and go; people DO evolve. Granted, there's no guarantee partners will grow TOWARDS each other, but it would be nice if such tropisms existed. (Hmmmm... Happy people attract others... So a "sunny" disposition could be a trigger for certain tropisms, right?) Finally, there ain't no *ONE RIGHT ANSWER* for anything. I've come to the conclusion that answers *I* have are usually the wrongest, though. So I try to concentrate on questions...


Do what George Costanza does. Do the opposite of what you think you should
do.

I once saw an older man in a S.Fla. deli. I was with Estelle and her mother,
maybe
other people too. In the next booth, within earshot, sat an older group of
senior
citezens. One old man was complaining bitterly about his wife to the others.
He was
very animated and angry. It was very sad.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:110320041252023013%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <404FFD5A.8040303@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: You learn to enjoy the sunset by yourself. Or you cut your wife free and find someone who *can* enjoy the sunset with you. Or you give up the sunsets and go watch bowling with your wife. (Of course, you realize we're not really talking about sunsets, right? At least I'm not.) No, we're not talking about sunsets -- but we could be. Anything where a significant part of the enjoyment of the activity comes from being able to share it with someone you are emotionally close to. Even just reading a book can fall in that category -- where you can come across a passage, read it t someone, and have them truly understand why it touches you, whether it touches them the same way or not. Ted

Beautifully said and very insightful Ted.

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4050CDFA.9080500@aol.com... Seeker wrote: No, we're not talking about sunsets -- but we could be. Anything where a significant part of the enjoyment of the activity comes from being able to share it with someone you are emotionally close to. Even just reading a book can fall in that category -- where you can come across a passage, read it t someone, and have them truly understand why it touches you, whether it touches them the same way or not. I think that's asking too much of people, too. I don't 'truly understand' why cars and automobiles are of such an interest to my husband. I don't 'truly understand' how he can sit and watch/ listen to music DVDs over and over and over. He doesn't 'truly understand' my interest in newsgroups. He doesn't 'truly under- stand' my interest in orchids, in fantasy books, in ceramics. We both will listen to the other talking about these subjects, we both will join in on some of the activities involved with these subjects, but we don't really *get* the interest itself. Because we don't share it. Tracey

Where do you make your connections with him Tracey?

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc522g2.h0h.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Seeker wrote: Tracey wrote: No. Why should there be? Amazingly enough and as hard as it may be to understand, I'm quite content with being with myself and don't need another person sharing an experience with me to enjoy it. But have you been in situations where being able to share the experience greatly enhanced your enjoyment of it? Ted, it strikes me now, just reading this, that the "sharing of an experience" may actually be a fairly selfish activity... or perhaps better considered "self-centered". Sound stupid? Yes, it does. Sharing, in a way, when "appreciated", allows the person who included another person to feel that their effort was itself valued. I would suspect that a *strong* dependancy on "successful sharing" may be a sign of what I've had driving me: poor differentiation. I was too dependant upon getting my wife's attention so I *tried* so hard to share sunsets and the like with her. Part of growth is learning that one cannot expect anyone else to have an interest in all of the things that pique your own-- and being able to accept their differences. And, really, that's the hardest part of all; when we express our opinions here, we want to hear people agree with us; this is likely to be a mechanism of affirmation arising from social programming (and ego boost). -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

urf wrote:
Where do you make your connections with him Tracey?

LOL. Oh, we have lots of things we like that share. I just
mentioned that ones that we don't. We like scifi/fantasy
movies and tv shows. We like American Chopper and American
Hot Rod. We like to jump into the convertible and drive
around the island of Oahu, taking the scenic route that
takes 2 1/2 hours to drive, to get 'The World's Best Cheese-
burger and Fries' and then drive another hour back to our
house. We like the same styles of music <mostly>. We like
to find restaurants with views of the sunset over the ocean
and go out to have a drink and/or dinner there. We like to
go to Brunch on the Beach (a monthly event in Waikiki where
local higher-end restaurants sell scaled down versions of
their food for lower prices) and eat ourselves silly at 10am
on macadamia nut waffles with mango butter and papaya syrup
and coconut covered deep fried shrimp and drink bubble tea
and eat Dip-n-Dots. We like to read scifi books that the other
has recommended. We like to go to bookstores and browse and
buy a ton of books. We like to sit and do a family version of
Mystery Science Theater (even our 8yo daughter does pretty
good on that one.) We eat lunch together almost every week
day, either here at the house or at a local place.

We share a lot of the same likes. We also have a lot that we
don't share. It's all good. :)

Tracey

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc522g2.h0h.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Seeker wrote: Tracey wrote: No. Why should there be? Amazingly enough and as hard as it may be to understand, I'm quite content with being with myself and don't need another person sharing an experience with me to enjoy it. But have you been in situations where being able to share the experience greatly enhanced your enjoyment of it? Ted, it strikes me now, just reading this, that the "sharing of an experience" may actually be a fairly selfish activity... or perhaps better considered "self-centered". Sound stupid? Yes, it does. Sharing, in a way, when "appreciated", allows the person who included another person to feel that their effort was itself valued.

I think that sharing, particularly something emotionally important
to you is a window you open so your partner can see your soul.

I would suspect that a *strong* dependancy on "successful sharing" may be a sign of what I've had driving me: poor differentiation. I was too dependant upon getting my wife's attention so I *tried* so hard to share sunsets and the like with her.

You tried wrongly in deed but not in motivation.
I think you were correct to be dependant and sharing
at least at times and in particular ways. The problem
of unresponsiveness from your partner has to be resolved
first. In this respect you must be clear about what you should do.
It is never a matter of manipulating your partner or cajoling
or threatening or in any way making you partner join you. It is
creating the enviroment of mutuality between you that she
wants to be with you and enjoy what you enjoy with you because
you are who you are.

Part of growth is learning that one cannot expect anyone else to have an interest in all of the things that pique your own-- and being able to accept their differences. And, really, that's the hardest part of all; when we express our opinions here, we want to hear people agree with us; this is likely to be a mechanism of affirmation arising from social programming (and ego boost).

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
urf wrote: Where do you make your connections with him Tracey? LOL. Oh, we have lots of things we like that share. I just mentioned that ones that we don't. We like scifi/fantasy movies and tv shows. We like American Chopper and American Hot Rod. We like to jump into the convertible and drive around the island of Oahu, taking the scenic route that takes 2 1/2 hours to drive, to get 'The World's Best Cheese- burger and Fries' and then drive another hour back to our house. We like the same styles of music <mostly>. We like to find restaurants with views of the sunset over the ocean and go out to have a drink and/or dinner there. We like to go to Brunch on the Beach (a monthly event in Waikiki where local higher-end restaurants sell scaled down versions of their food for lower prices) and eat ourselves silly at 10am on macadamia nut waffles with mango butter and papaya syrup and coconut covered deep fried shrimp

I was in control until you got to the coconut fried shrimp... please
stop!

"Jingle Bells" <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f804e152.0403111457.7ba7f59b@posting.google.c om... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:<110320041252023013%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <404FFD5A.8040303@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: You learn to enjoy the sunset by yourself. Or you cut your wife free and find someone who *can* enjoy the sunset with you. Or you give up the sunsets and go watch bowling with your wife. (Of course, you realize we're not really talking about sunsets, right? At least I'm not.) No, we're not talking about sunsets -- but we could be. Anything where a significant part of the enjoyment of the activity comes from being able to share it with someone you are emotionally close to. Even just reading a book can fall in that category -- where you can come across a passage, read it t someone, and have them truly understand why it touches you, whether it touches them the same way or not. Ted I can be playing around with my family out in the snow, fall down, look up at the sky and gaze in wonder at it's beauty. I'll remark to my wife how pretty it is and she'll say something like "Yeah, I guess it is".

You are gifted with the sense of awe. Your gift to others is to share that
with them.
We all have it to a degree and we all need someone to point it out
sometimes.
The fact that she doesn't feel quite the same way about the sky doesn't diminish its beauty. Would it truly be enough for you to have someone just understand why something touches you? How would you expect them to convey that understanding? Is this part of what your wife was getting at when she called you "emotionally needy"?

urf wrote:
How about a vacation? Would you regularly take one without him?

I don't know what you're talking about really. Do we spend 'vacation'
time apart regularly? Yes, we do. It's a function of the fact that
he only has so much vacation time and I am always on vacation. When
we go back to the Mainland, we have a 'together' vacation and then,
usually, he comes back home and I remain on the Mainland for a while
longer. I'm planning on taking our kids to Japan in the near future
without him also. Do we take *all* vacations separately? No. Do we
take some? Yes.

Tracey

Doug Anderson wrote: We like togo to Brunch on the Beach (a monthly event in Waikiki wherelocal higher-end restaurants sell scaled down versions oftheir food for lower prices) and eat ourselves silly at 10amon macadamia nut waffles with mango butter and papaya syrupand coconut covered deep fried shrimp I was in control until you got to the coconut fried shrimp... please stop!

Hehe. Oh, boy, are they goooooood! It's an awesome event. To make
it easier, you buy tickets at 50 cents per ticket and then the
food is priced by number of ticket. For the four of us (myself,
husband, 15yo son and 8yo daughter), we can buy $25 worth of
tickets and each get two 'main' dishes, a dessert, a soda/drink
(I'm curiously addicted to bubble tea for some reason), and a
dish of Dip-n-Dots and have enough left over for another main
dish or two to share.

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: We like togo to Brunch on the Beach (a monthly event in Waikiki wherelocal higher-end restaurants sell scaled down versions oftheir food for lower prices) and eat ourselves silly at 10amon macadamia nut waffles with mango butter and papaya syrupand coconut covered deep fried shrimp I was in control until you got to the coconut fried shrimp... please stop! Hehe. Oh, boy, are they goooooood! It's an awesome event. To make it easier, you buy tickets at 50 cents per ticket and then the food is priced by number of ticket. For the four of us (myself, husband, 15yo son and 8yo daughter), we can buy $25 worth of tickets and each get two 'main' dishes, a dessert, a soda/drink (I'm curiously addicted to bubble tea for some reason)

If I concentrate really hard on the bubble tea (which I despise), I
can forget how much I want coconut fried shrimp. It's a little like
"thinking about baseball."

, and a dish of Dip-n-Dots

Do tell about the Dip-n-dots!

Seeker wrote: In article <4050E950.5060106@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:No. Why should there be? Amazingly enough and as hard as it may beto understand, I'm quite content with being with myself and don'tneed another person sharing an experience with me to enjoy it. But have you been in situations where being able to share the experience greatly enhanced your enjoyment of it? Ted

Seeker wrote: In article <4050E950.5060106@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:No. Why should there be? Amazingly enough and as hard as it may beto understand, I'm quite content with being with myself and don'tneed another person sharing an experience with me to enjoy it. But have you been in situations where being able to share the experience greatly enhanced your enjoyment of it? Ted

There's no way for me to answer that, Ted. I can't tell if I would
have enjoyed an experience that I had alone more if I had had someone
there to share it with. I do know this, though. If I had spent those
times when I was alone being miserable because no one was there, I
wouldn't have enjoyed them at all. And I also know that if I tried
to force someone to enjoy them in the same way I did when they didn't,
then we'd both be miserable. Them because they couldn't/didn't want
to, me because I couldn't make them.

Tracey

Doug Anderson wrote:
, and adish of Dip-n-Dots Do tell about the Dip-n-dots!

You've never had Dip-n-Dots? It's ice cream but frozen into little
balls. Like different shaped ball bearings. They're very good. :)
I had seen them before in a couple of different amusement parks
but, here, they have kiosks in the mall that sell them, too.

Tracey

urf wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Seeker wrote: Tracey wrote:> No. Why should there be? Amazingly enough> and as hard as it may be to understand, I'm> quite content with being with myself and> don't need another person sharing an> experience with me to enjoy it. But have you been in situations where being able to share the experience greatly enhanced your enjoyment of it? Ted, it strikes me now, just reading this, that the "sharing of an experience" may actually be a fairly selfish activity... or perhaps better considered "self-centered". Sound stupid? Yes, it does. Sharing, in a way, when "appreciated", allows the person who included another person to feel that their effort was itself valued. I think that sharing, particularly something emotionally important to you is a window you open so your partner can see your soul.

Well, yes, I can see the "deep exposure" side of
this at the same time as it can be a "test" of
commitment or interest at the same time.

As a test you get to see the soul of your partner
in this by watching how *they* respond to this
stimulus as well.

So, yes, I can see it working both ways.
I would suspect that a *strong* dependancy on "successful sharing" may be a sign of what I've had driving me: poor differentiation. I was too dependant upon getting my wife's attention so I *tried* so hard to share sunsets and the like with her. You tried wrongly in deed but not in motivation.

Well, this analysis is mostly hindsight (for me).
I think you were correct to be dependant and sharing at least at times and in particular ways.

Right, my original thought of blaming my past
behavior totally on poor differentiation was
probably a bit fatuous. Now I'd have to add
that some of it was a test, some was a plea
for attention some of it a matter of showing
her that there were things that I could like
that are aesthetic in nature.

There are probably additional layers along with
these but they escaped my mind as soon as I
tried writing them down here.
The problem of unresponsiveness from your partner has to be resolved first. In this respect you must be clear about what you should do.

In *my* situation it's a matter of what I should
NOT do. In some ways neglecting to include her
has worked better in drawing some of her interest
(though, granted, it may be statistical noise).
In some ways I'm expecting to pique her interest
by implying that she's being "left out of
something".)
It is never a matter of manipulating your partner or cajoling or threatening or in any way making you partner join you. It is creating the enviroment of mutuality between you that she wants to be with you and enjoy what you enjoy with you because you are who you are.

Agreed. The test is always with it-- testing
our partner's limits, testing their commitment,
testing our own ability to *FEEL*.

You CANNOT pressure another human being into doing
something; they *must* choose for themselves, if
only for them to justify *continuing* the activity.
It's the old draftee/volunteer question.

Wanting to share something like a sunset *DOES*
work on many levels; in a way you're sharing of
yourself, exposing your own appreciation of inner
beauty and simultaneously testing for acceptance,
appreciation and sensitivity in one's mate.

Gawd that's complicated. :-)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

shinypenny wrote:
I'm laughing over here... DF has a fascination with SG-1. He could watch it for hours. I have *tried* to get into it, but I just don't see why it would interest anyone. It's a totally cheesy show.

Heh. :) DH and I and our son love SG-1. We've even starting collecting
the series on DVD. :P

<snip>
But it could be worse... at least he doesn't like watching sports!

I hear ya there!

Tracey

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40511C71.5080605@aol.com... urf wrote: Where do you make your connections with him Tracey? LOL. Oh, we have lots of things we like that share. I just mentioned that ones that we don't. We like scifi/fantasy movies and tv shows. We like American Chopper and American Hot Rod. We like to jump into the convertible and drive around the island of Oahu, taking the scenic route that takes 2 1/2 hours to drive, to get 'The World's Best Cheese- burger and Fries' and then drive another hour back to our house. We like the same styles of music <mostly>. We like to find restaurants with views of the sunset over the ocean and go out to have a drink and/or dinner there. We like to go to Brunch on the Beach (a monthly event in Waikiki where local higher-end restaurants sell scaled down versions of their food for lower prices) and eat ourselves silly at 10am on macadamia nut waffles with mango butter and papaya syrup and coconut covered deep fried shrimp and drink bubble tea and eat Dip-n-Dots. We like to read scifi books that the other has recommended. We like to go to bookstores and browse and buy a ton of books. We like to sit and do a family version of Mystery Science Theater (even our 8yo daughter does pretty good on that one.) We eat lunch together almost every week day, either here at the house or at a local place. We share a lot of the same likes. We also have a lot that we don't share. It's all good. :) Tracey

Wow!

Drooling on my shoes right now.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Rg94c.10701$i76.173659@attbi_s03... Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote:> We like to>go to Brunch on the Beach (a monthly event in Waikiki where>local higher-end restaurants sell scaled down versions of>their food for lower prices) and eat ourselves silly at 10am>on macadamia nut waffles with mango butter and papaya syrup>and coconut covered deep fried shrimp I was in control until you got to the coconut fried shrimp... please stop! Hehe. Oh, boy, are they goooooood! It's an awesome event. To make it easier, you buy tickets at 50 cents per ticket and then the food is priced by number of ticket. For the four of us (myself, husband, 15yo son and 8yo daughter), we can buy $25 worth of tickets and each get two 'main' dishes, a dessert, a soda/drink (I'm curiously addicted to bubble tea for some reason) If I concentrate really hard on the bubble tea (which I despise), I can forget how much I want coconut fried shrimp. It's a little like "thinking about baseball." , and a dish of Dip-n-Dots Do tell about the Dip-n-dots!

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc529cg.hci.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... urf wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Seeker wrote:> Tracey wrote:>> No. Why should there be? Amazingly enough>> and as hard as it may be to understand, I'm>> quite content with being with myself and>> don't need another person sharing an>> experience with me to enjoy it.>> But have you been in situations where being> able to share the experience greatly enhanced> your enjoyment of it? Ted, it strikes me now, just reading this, that the "sharing of an experience" may actually be a fairly selfish activity... or perhaps better considered "self-centered". Sound stupid? Yes, it does. Sharing, in a way, when "appreciated", allows the person who included another person to feel that their effort was itself valued. I think that sharing, particularly something emotionally important to you is a window you open so your partner can see your soul. Well, yes, I can see the "deep exposure" side of this at the same time as it can be a "test" of commitment or interest at the same time. As a test you get to see the soul of your partner in this by watching how *they* respond to this stimulus as well. So, yes, I can see it working both ways. I would suspect that a *strong* dependancy on "successful sharing" may be a sign of what I've had driving me: poor differentiation. I was too dependant upon getting my wife's attention so I *tried* so hard to share sunsets and the like with her. You tried wrongly in deed but not in motivation. Well, this analysis is mostly hindsight (for me). I think you were correct to be dependant and sharing at least at times and in particular ways. Right, my original thought of blaming my past behavior totally on poor differentiation was probably a bit fatuous. Now I'd have to add that some of it was a test, some was a plea for attention some of it a matter of showing her that there were things that I could like that are aesthetic in nature. There are probably additional layers along with these but they escaped my mind as soon as I tried writing them down here. The problem of unresponsiveness from your partner has to be resolved first. In this respect you must be clear about what you should do. In *my* situation it's a matter of what I should NOT do. In some ways neglecting to include her has worked better in drawing some of her interest (though, granted, it may be statistical noise). In some ways I'm expecting to pique her interest by implying that she's being "left out of something".) It is never a matter of manipulating your partner or cajoling or threatening or in any way making you partner join you. It is creating the enviroment of mutuality between you that she wants to be with you and enjoy what you enjoy with you because you are who you are. Agreed. The test is always with it-- testing our partner's limits, testing their commitment, testing our own ability to *FEEL*. You CANNOT pressure another human being into doing something; they *must* choose for themselves, if only for them to justify *continuing* the activity. It's the old draftee/volunteer question. Wanting to share something like a sunset *DOES* work on many levels; in a way you're sharing of yourself, exposing your own appreciation of inner beauty and simultaneously testing for acceptance, appreciation and sensitivity in one's mate. Gawd that's complicated. :-)

Quite.

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: , and adish of Dip-n-Dots Do tell about the Dip-n-dots! You've never had Dip-n-Dots? It's ice cream but frozen into little balls. Like different shaped ball bearings. They're very good. :) I had seen them before in a couple of different amusement parks but, here, they have kiosks in the mall that sell them, too.

I'll be on the lookout. So many different foods, so little time.

In article <IuydncVh_LTthMzdRVn_iw@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
Beautifully said and very insightful Ted.

I don't think Tracey gets it...

Ted

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40508BE8.8020705@aol.com... Jack C Lipton wrote: While "sharing" is all well and good, the problem often is one of priorities; one or the other will think what *they* see is more important at various times. Sure. Along with the 'accepting that our spouse isn't interested in something quite the way we are', what also should be there to some degree or another is 'accepting that our spouse is interested in things we aren't and being as enthusiastic about it as we can be' from *both* sides. I'll bet Ted is kinda tired of me by now because it seems like I'm always addressing him and what I think he should be doing but I can't really address what I think his wife should be doing. She's not here. If she *were* here, I would tell her that I think she would help Ted's happiness by finding a way to be enthusiastic about some of the things that Ted is inter- ested in. With my husband and I, it's cars and airplanes. I can get some enjoyment out of going and looking at cars and airplanes or watching a show about them on TV. Some. My husband could sit and watch 'Discovery Wings' all day long (and sometimes does.)


I used to be in your shoes. The "some" enjoyment I got was all made up. Then
we had a three year old. (Well we had him as a newborn...) AHHH. No more
airplanes for me. Now DH has someone who really DOES appreciate them.
I have learned more about cars and airplanes during our almost- 10-years of marriage that I learned in the previous 30-some years. But I'm NOT interested in them in the same way he is. And I never will be. But I accept the fact that he will point out different cars to me (which I usually can't find because he'll say 'Look at that X over there.' I look in the general direction and say 'Uh huh, nice.' Luckily, that's enough for him. <grin>), I accept the fact that we have to drive around by the airfield at the military base we go to for groceries even though it's shorter to go a different way, etc. And he accepts the fact that I'm just not that interested in those things. <snip> Finally, there ain't no *ONE RIGHT ANSWER* for anything. I've come to the conclusion that answers *I* have are usually the wrongest, though. So I try to concentrate on questions... Did I seem like I thought I had the 'one right answer'? Tracey

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4050CDFA.9080500@aol.com... Seeker wrote: No, we're not talking about sunsets -- but we could be. Anything where a significant part of the enjoyment of the activity comes from being able to share it with someone you are emotionally close to. Even just reading a book can fall in that category -- where you can come across a passage, read it t someone, and have them truly understand why it touches you, whether it touches them the same way or not. I think that's asking too much of people, too. I don't 'truly understand' why cars and automobiles are of such an interest to my husband. I don't 'truly understand' how he can sit and watch/ listen to music DVDs over and over and over. He doesn't 'truly understand' my interest in newsgroups. He doesn't 'truly under- stand' my interest in orchids, in fantasy books,


What kind of fantasy? Have you read the Wheel of Time series from Robert
Jordan? If so, are you as frustrated as I am that that series is likely to
never have an ending... GRRRR.
in ceramics. We both will listen to the other talking about these subjects, we both will join in on some of the activities involved with these subjects, but we don't really *get* the interest itself. Because we don't share it. Tracey

In article <Y7l4c.16968$%06.6757@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote:
Does singing with others fit what you're talking about? Blending voices is part of the fun I experience at church. (Maybe this is more about sharing the activity than sharing enjoyment of the activity?)

That's a good example of something that can be that way, but isn't
necessarily. Yes, several of the moments of this kind I can bring to
mind did involve singing, some being part of it, some being in the
audience. The key is sensing through body language, the way you
both describe the experience, and how you react when you're talking
about it, that you both experienced something like the same thing.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote:
In article <4051369C.8070803@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: Let's see. Having our two children. Getting married. That's about all I can think of right now. Then you don't have a clue as to why the inability to share some things that are very important to me with my wife when I can, and have, shared them with others is such a big deal for me.

I think I might know. Could it be that you are putting up a barrier? A
requirement that you know can never be met, so you are excused from
being fully committed to the relationship?

In article <1gaj8w2.s2qm2f35vihmN%mbjq@earthlink.net>, Emma Anne
<mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote:
I think I might know. Could it be that you are putting up a barrier? A requirement that you know can never be met, so you are excused from being fully committed to the relationship?

I don't think so.

Ted

Emma Anne wrote:
I'm with Tracey here. I would be very sad if there weren't a lot of good things that I share with my H, but I don't relate to the need to have him share specific things, like sunsets, with me.

I gotta admit, I'm getting a little peeved here with Ted's seeming
opinion that since I don't share his 'need' to share experiences
with another person in the same way that he does that I don't have
a clue. I have a clue. A better clue than I believe Ted does. At
least I have a clue as to the chances of his wife changing in a
way where she does share these experiences with Ted in the way he
wants her to.

Tracey

In article <40520C30.7070605@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
I gotta admit, I'm getting a little peeved here with Ted's seeming opinion that since I don't share his 'need' to share experiences with another person in the same way that he does that I don't have a clue. I have a clue. A better clue than I believe Ted does. At least I have a clue as to the chances of his wife changing in a way where she does share these experiences with Ted in the way he wants her to.

I guess I haven't made it clear. While, yes, it would be nice if I
could share the experiences with my wife, we *both* have agreed that's
nothing either one of us can do anything about.

The question becomes -- can I share them with others, and how, without
it leading to further difficulties?

What I don't think you have a clue about is why that is so important an
issue to me -- and, ideally, to my wife as well.

Ted

Seeker wrote:
I guess I haven't made it clear. While, yes, it would be nice if I could share the experiences with my wife, we *both* have agreed that's nothing either one of us can do anything about.

Well, AFAIC, no, you haven't been clear about that.
The question becomes -- can I share them with others, and how, without it leading to further difficulties?

IMO, no, you can't. You wanna know why I think that? Because you have
made it abundantly clear that you don't know how to set clear boundaries
with other women. You have fallen in love with, what, at least 3 other
women in the past few years. That, to me, shows that you don't have
any idea how to keep your relationships with other women within the
bounds of what is acceptable to your wife and what is not harmful to
your marriage.
What I don't think you have a clue about is why that is so important an issue to me -- and, ideally, to my wife as well.

That's condescending, Ted, IMO. I don't have to have the same feelings
about this that you do to understand that it is important to you. You
just don't like what my solution to the problem is.

Tracey

In article <40524E05.4020103@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
That's condescending, Ted, IMO. I don't have to have the same feelings about this that you do to understand that it is important to you.

Sorry. I didn't mean it to be condescending.

You just don't like what my solution to the problem is.

I'm not sure I'm clear what that solution is. Neither leaving the
need unmet nor having a divorce is a solution. Have you proposed
something else?

Ted

Seeker wrote:
I'm not sure I'm clear what that solution is. Neither leaving the need unmet nor having a divorce is a solution. Have you proposed something else?

It's the same solution<s> that all of us who are married who are
faced with feeling unfulfilled in our marriage are left with. We
either find an appropriate way to feel fulfilled, we deal with the
fact that we aren't going to be fulfilled or we find another spouse
that we can feel fulfilled with. The problem is, you refuse to con-
sider two of those solutions and you seemingly can't do the third.
Spending years searching for a fourth solution when there isn't one
is guaranteed to keep you miserable.

Tracey

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gaj8w2.s2qm2f35vihmN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <4051369C.8070803@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: Let's see. Having our two children. Getting married. That's about all I can think of right now. Then you don't have a clue as to why the inability to share some things that are very important to me with my wife when I can, and have, shared them with others is such a big deal for me. I think I might know. Could it be that you are putting up a barrier? A requirement that you know can never be met, so you are excused from being fully committed to the relationship?

I think the *sharing a sunset* is symbolism. I think it stands for the loss
of years together and what *could have* been during that time. Spending time
together is not the same as sharing a life together.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:24:13 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>
wrote:
In article <4050E950.5060106@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>wrote: No. Why should there be? Amazingly enough and as hard as it may be to understand, I'm quite content with being with myself and don't need another person sharing an experience with me to enjoy it.But have you been in situations where being able to share theexperience greatly enhanced your enjoyment of it?Ted

Like what? I'm petty happy having experience all by myself. For
example I love going to hockey games. I like when my husband comes.
But sometimes he can't because of his work. So I go by myself. Guess
what I still have a good time.

But then maybe being single for 20 years has made it easier for me to
do things by myself.

In article <4052C460.1040201@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
We either find an appropriate way to feel fulfilled, we deal with the fact that we aren't going to be fulfilled or we find another spouse that we can feel fulfilled with. The problem is, you refuse to con- sider two of those solutions and you seemingly can't do the third.

Well, until I discover there is no appropriate way -- which there may
well not be -- then I don't need to consider not being fulfilled, do I?
What would *you* consider appropriate wyas to meet the various
emotional needs outside the marriage?

Ted

Seeker wrote:
Well, until I discover there is no appropriate way -- which there may well not be -- then I don't need to consider not being fulfilled, do I? What would *you* consider appropriate wyas to meet the various emotional needs outside the marriage?

Ones in which you don't fall in love with the person you're sharing
the experience with.

Tracey

Seeker wrote:
What would *you* consider appropriate wyas to meet the various emotional needs outside the marriage?

Depends on what emotional needs we're talking about. Some needs I
don't believe there are appropriate ways to satisfy outside of the
marriage (unless there is full disclosure to the spouse and you have
their full agreement with getting them filled outside the marriage.)
And there are some needs that, if you have to go outside your marriage
to get filled, I don't understand why you (generic) are married to
the person you are in the first place.

As a general rule, if you can get a need satisfied outside your
marriage in a way that you don't have to hide from your spouse,
that, if your spouse was along while you got that need satisfied
and your interactions with the other person didn't upset them in
any way, AND you are able to not think negatively of your spouse
because they're not able to do what this other person does for
you or wish that your spouse was more like that person or fantasize
that that person was actually your spouse or try to change your
spouse into that person, then it's probably appropriate. That's
IMO, of course. And, also IMO, you don't come close to this.

Tracey

In article <his7501365dhe3ojgms0eq8jictrt5lm2a@4ax.com>, Rauni
<ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote:
I share more hobbies and intellectual peruses with my ex-husband than I do with my current husband.

What does your husband have to say about that? Does he become jealous
when you pursue them with your ex-husband?

Ted

In article <rbs7505pefl9ij77n0otumkps8ivf6n1c4@4ax.com>, Rauni
<ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote:
But then maybe being single for 20 years has made it easier for me to do things by myself.

Maybe you were single for 20 years because you weren't especially
interested in doing things with someone else?

Ted

In article <7CE4c.3632$1g2.2277@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
I think the *sharing a sunset* is symbolism. I think it stands for the loss of years together and what *could have* been during that time. Spending time together is not the same as sharing a life together.

Nice try, and while the second part of what you've said is true, that
isn't what "sharing a sunset" brought to mind -- I did mean what I was
talking about: having some activity about which you are both
passionate in the same way, something that you both know affects you
similarly.

Ted

In article <40549FEC.6020206@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
And there are some needs that, if you have to go outside your marriage to get filled, I don't understand why you (generic) are married to the person you are in the first place.

Maybe because you didn't know you had those needs?

Ted

In article <11s750lqadu5nvemccivoonvh8svinf9sp@4ax.com>, Rauni
<ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote:
Share what?

Anything -- so long as it is emotionally important to both of you.

Ted

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:44:20 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>
wrote:
In article <11s750lqadu5nvemccivoonvh8svinf9sp@4ax.com>, Rauni<ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote: Share what?Anything -- so long as it is emotionally important to both of you.Ted

To vauge. Give us an example.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:26:10 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>
wrote:
In article <his7501365dhe3ojgms0eq8jictrt5lm2a@4ax.com>, Rauni<ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote: I share more hobbies and intellectual peruses with my ex-husband than I do with my current husband.What does your husband have to say about that? Does he become jealouswhen you pursue them with your ex-husband?Ted

I don't pursuse them with my ex-husband. I do a lot of stuff I like
alone. And my current husband is friends with my ex. In fact my
husband and myself were just down at my ex's home a week ago. I was
fixing my ex's computer and updating his web page.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:27:15 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>
wrote:
In article <rbs7505pefl9ij77n0otumkps8ivf6n1c4@4ax.com>, Rauni<ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote: But then maybe being single for 20 years has made it easier for me to do things by myself.Maybe you were single for 20 years because you weren't especiallyinterested in doing things with someone else?Ted

Well I did a lot of things with my daughter. We both enjoyed going to
the ren faire and re-enacting, (a lot of our friends were in Pirates).
But I never had a problem going alone as well.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:31:08 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>
wrote:
In article <7CE4c.3632$1g2.2277@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf<urf@nospam.com> wrote: I think the *sharing a sunset* is symbolism. I think it stands for the loss of years together and what *could have* been during that time. Spending time together is not the same as sharing a life together.Nice try, and while the second part of what you've said is true, thatisn't what "sharing a sunset" brought to mind -- I did mean what I wastalking about: having some activity about which you are bothpassionate in the same way, something that you both know affects yousimilarly.Ted

Oh I think that is so over rated. All one really needs is a spouse to
understand that you are passionate about something.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:39:31 GMT, Seeker
<anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <40549FEC.6020206@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: And there are some needs that, if you have to go outside your marriage to get filled, I don't understand why you (generic) are married to the person you are in the first place. Maybe because you didn't know you had those needs?

So you're changing the rules of your marriage will into it? Doesn't sound
very fair to your wife. And people like to classify wants as "needs" to
make it more morally acceptable to "do things" to aquire them.

-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 wrote: On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:39:31 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <40549FEC.6020206@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: And there are some needs that, if you have to go outside your marriage to get filled, I don't understand why you (generic) are married to the person you are in the first place. Maybe because you didn't know you had those needs? So you're changing the rules of your marriage will into it? Doesn't sound very fair to your wife. And people like to classify wants as "needs" to make it more morally acceptable to "do things" to aquire them.

That's true. These things are WANTS, not NEEDS, per se. Needs are food,
water, air, stuff like that.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5a1hn.or7.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:39:31 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <40549FEC.6020206@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: And there are some needs that, if you have to go outside your marriage to get filled, I don't understand why you (generic) are married to the person you are in the first place. Maybe because you didn't know you had those needs? So you're changing the rules of your marriage will into it? Doesn't sound very fair to your wife. And people like to classify wants as "needs" to make it more morally acceptable to "do things" to aquire them. -Tony

2 points to question.

01. Life is not static. It is not a photograph of a particular moment in
time.
With that in mind, don't you think that marriage should be dynamic in
nature.
That is to say that it should change as you and your spouse change?

02. Wants and needs. Do you want to be happy and fulfilled in your life or
do you need to be that way. Me, I need to think that I've done the best with
my life.
I only have one chance at it. I want to be happy. I need to be happy.
Perhaps
not every moment of my life do I need to be happy but every moment I want to
be happy. By that definition they are different. Perhaps different sides of
the same
concept?

urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote:
"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gaj8w2.s2qm2f35vihmN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: In article <4051369C.8070803@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: > Let's see. Having our two children. Getting married. That's about > all I can think of right now. Then you don't have a clue as to why the inability to share some things that are very important to me with my wife when I can, and have, shared them with others is such a big deal for me. I think I might know. Could it be that you are putting up a barrier? A requirement that you know can never be met, so you are excused from being fully committed to the relationship? I think the *sharing a sunset* is symbolism. I think it stands for the loss of years together and what *could have* been during that time. Spending time together is not the same as sharing a life together.

No, I disagree. Because Ted doesn't just need to share things with his
W. He needs to share *particular* things in a very *specific* way, or
it doesn't count.

If I decided my H just *had* to love sunsets in the same way I love
sunsets, and he just didn't, that is too specific and picky, IMO. We
can share other things that we both do love and be just as close.

"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:i1q9505308u7cm1rugojrepctgqe53r0d3@4ax.com... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:31:08 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote:In article <7CE4c.3632$1g2.2277@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf<urf@nospam.com> wrote: I think the *sharing a sunset* is symbolism. I think it stands for the
loss of years together and what *could have* been during that time. Spending
time together is not the same as sharing a life together.Nice try, and while the second part of what you've said is true, thatisn't what "sharing a sunset" brought to mind -- I did mean what I wastalking about: having some activity about which you are bothpassionate in the same way, something that you both know affects yousimilarly. Oh I think that is so over rated. All one really needs is a spouse to understand that you are passionate about something.
Huh? How does having a spouse say anything about being passionate about
anything? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Ted

"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:npp950pbl52mu0jf8hn02qssjm5f091rhv@4ax.com... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:26:10 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote:In article <his7501365dhe3ojgms0eq8jictrt5lm2a@4ax.com>, Rauni<ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote: I share more hobbies and intellectual peruses with my ex-husband than I do with my current husband.What does your husband have to say about that? Does he become jealouswhen you pursue them with your ex-husband?Ted I don't pursuse them with my ex-husband.

Oh. Then sharing them is *not* important -- it just happened to be the case
that you did.

I'm talking about things where sharing the enjoyment of the activity is in
itself important. One example that just came to mind is humor -- doesn't it
add a lot to your enjoyment of a good joke or comedy skit if you can hear
or see it in the company of somebody else who laughs when you laugh?

Ted

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40549B9D.7080805@aol.com... Seeker wrote: Well, until I discover there is no appropriate way -- which there may well not be -- then I don't need to consider not being fulfilled, do I? What would *you* consider appropriate wyas to meet the various emotional needs outside the marriage? Ones in which you don't fall in love with the person you're sharing the experience with.
And what's wrong with that?

Ted

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40549FEC.6020206@aol.com... As a general rule, if you can get a need satisfied outside your marriage in a way that you don't have to hide from your spouse, that, if your spouse was along while you got that need satisfied and your interactions with the other person didn't upset them in any way, AND you are able to not think negatively of your spouse because they're not able to do what this other person does for you or wish that your spouse was more like that person or fantasize that that person was actually your spouse or try to change your spouse into that person, then it's probably appropriate. That's IMO, of course. And, also IMO, you don't come close to this.
Yes, that does sound like a good set of groundrules.
And, no, I'm nowhere near that -- probably mostly because we (I) haven't
been able to be open about what our needs are and what is to be done about
them.

Ted

Seeker wrote:
Oh. Then sharing them is *not* important -- it just happened to be the case that you did. I'm talking about things where sharing the enjoyment of the activity is in itself important. One example that just came to mind is humor -- doesn't it add a lot to your enjoyment of a good joke or comedy skit if you can hear or see it in the company of somebody else who laughs when you laugh?

Ted, when you get into this mode of discussing and re-discussing the
same issue ad nauseum, I find it difficult to not get frustrated with
you. As far as I can tell, people are being very clear on what their
opinions are but you keep asking the same questions over and over and
over again. Apparently because you're not getting the answers you want
to get. This is, IMO, a child's idea of 'discussion'. 'I wanna go
swimming.' 'Okay, let me put this sunscreen on you.' 'I don't like the
smell!' 'Okay, you can't go swimming without putting sunscreen on.'
'But I wanna go swimming!!!' 'You will get sunburned if you go swimming
without sunscreen.' 'But I don't like the smell.' 'So, you can't go
swimming.' But I WANNA go swimming!'

Guess what? I think everyone here has gotten the idea that you 'need'
someone who enjoys certain experiences in the same way you enjoy them.
I think you've also been pretty clear that your wife doesn't and won't
and can't be that person. What's happening, IMO, is that no one has
agreed that it's 'okay' for you to go out and find these people and
share these experiences with you. But you're still plugging away at
it, aren't you?

Tracey

Seeker wrote:
Well, until I discover there is no appropriate way -- which there maywell not be -- then I don't need to consider not being fulfilled, do I?What would *you* consider appropriate wyas to meet the variousemotional needs outside the marriage?Ones in which you don't fall in love with the person you're sharingthe experience with. And what's wrong with that?

Are you seriously asking me what's wrong with finding people to
share activities with that aren't your spouse and falling in love
with those people?

Tracey

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gaoovi.n455q11hu3gguN%mbjq@earthlink.net... urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: "Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gaj8w2.s2qm2f35vihmN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: > In article <4051369C.8070803@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> > wrote: > > > Let's see. Having our two children. Getting married. That's about > > all I can think of right now. > > Then you don't have a clue as to why the inability to share some
things > that are very important to me with my wife when I can, and have,
shared > them with others is such a big deal for me. I think I might know. Could it be that you are putting up a barrier?
A requirement that you know can never be met, so you are excused from being fully committed to the relationship? I think the *sharing a sunset* is symbolism. I think it stands for the
loss of years together and what *could have* been during that time. Spending
time together is not the same as sharing a life together. No, I disagree. Because Ted doesn't just need to share things with his W. He needs to share *particular* things in a very *specific* way, or it doesn't count. If I decided my H just *had* to love sunsets in the same way I love sunsets, and he just didn't, that is too specific and picky, IMO. We can share other things that we both do love and be just as close.

Rarely do we emotional humans act so directly as to say what we mean
when the subject is ourselves.

The symbol is *something beautiful* a sunset. We could also extrapolate
that to mean * - *our later years*. Sharing beautiful, later years in life
is
a very desirable goal. Given that this is a couple who have NEVER
demonstrated the ability to communicate about themselves it seems likely
that they communicate *in code*.

This is an example of that code.

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gaoovi.n455q11hu3gguN%mbjq@earthlink.net... No, I disagree. Because Ted doesn't just need to share things with his W. He needs to share *particular* things in a very *specific* way, or it doesn't count. If I decided my H just *had* to love sunsets in the same way I love sunsets, and he just didn't, that is too specific and picky, IMO. We can share other things that we both do love and be just as close.

No, that's not quite it either. I think there are two aspects to my
"problem". One is that there is almost nothing that my wife and I are
*both* passionate about. Yes, there are a few things we enjoy doing
together, but none are individually of high priority. The second is that
there a few things that I place a high priority on precisely because they
are shared with other people -- they aren't interesting to me as solo or
spectator activities -- but she isn't interested in, or capable of, sharing
them. I wish she were, but I don't *need* for her to share them for me to
enjoy them.

Ted

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4055F2F2.4070008@aol.com... Are you seriously asking me what's wrong with finding people to share activities with that aren't your spouse and falling in love with those people?

I am asking what's wrong with loving more than one person at the same time?

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c34opt$23jvbc$2@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:i1q9505308u7cm1rugojrepctgqe53r0d3@4ax.com... Oh I think that is so over rated. All one really needs is a spouse to understand that you are passionate about something. Huh? How does having a spouse say anything about being passionate about anything? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I think she means, "All you really need to have from your spouse is that
they understand that you are passionate about something."

Not, "A spouse is all that you really need to have in order to understand
that you are passionate about something."

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:16:18 GMT, Tracey
<rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: Seeker wrote:>Well, until I discover there is no appropriate way -- which there may>well not be -- then I don't need to consider not being fulfilled, do I?>What would *you* consider appropriate wyas to meet the various>emotional needs outside the marriage?Ones in which you don't fall in love with the person you're sharingthe experience with. And what's wrong with that? Are you seriously asking me what's wrong with finding people to share activities with that aren't your spouse and falling in love with those people?

Tracy, you really gotta understand that Ted has a *need* for this. His
wife is a cold fish. Because it's a *need*, he has a free pass to find it
elsewhere because it's all his wife's fault.

-Tony

PS: Ted, how about showing this post to your wife and see what she thinks
about it.

--
"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.

Seeker wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:4055F2F2.4070008@aol.com...Are you seriously asking me what's wrong with finding people toshare activities with that aren't your spouse and falling in lovewith those people? I am asking what's wrong with loving more than one person at the same time?

You do know you're asking the wrong person that question, right?
Because my own personal experience with loving a person other
than your spouse (romantic love, not friendship love or familial
love) was extremely painful and horrid and awful and...well, you
get the picture. I'm sure there are people out there who can be
married, love a person other than their spouse (romantic love)
and not have it become an issue or cause problems in their marriage.
But I've never personally known any.

Tracey

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:4055F2F2.4070008@aol.com... Are you seriously asking me what's wrong with finding people to share activities with that aren't your spouse and falling in love with those people? I am asking what's wrong with loving more than one person at the same time?

When you ask an open-ended question like this, I can't help but feel
you are looking to pick a fight with someone.

The answer of coure is "nothing." Probably most of us love more than
one person at a time. Besides my wife, I love my kids, my nuclear
family-of-origin, and some of my friends.

Now if you mean "what's wrong with being romantically in love with
more than one person at a time?" then there is a practical answer. I
find nothing wrong with it in theory. In practice there may even have
been some who have made this work well for everyone concerned. But
most people fail.

If this can be done honestly and all are satisfied with this
arrangement then I would say "nothing is wrong."

If it involves deception, then I would ask

1) to what extent can you actually be in love with someone and not
feel bad about deceiving them?

2) if you prize intimacy as part of a loving relationship, how can
you hope to achieve this through deception?

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:46:18 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:4055F2F2.4070008@aol.com... Are you seriously asking me what's wrong with finding people to share activities with that aren't your spouse and falling in love with those people? I am asking what's wrong with loving more than one person at the same time?

Ask your wife what's wrong with it, and if it's ok with her, go for it.

-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:slrnc5bug3.qdp.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:16:18 GMT, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: Seeker wrote:>>Well, until I discover there is no appropriate way -- which there may>>well not be -- then I don't need to consider not being fulfilled, do
I?>>What would *you* consider appropriate wyas to meet the various>>emotional needs outside the marriage?>>Ones in which you don't fall in love with the person you're sharing>the experience with.> And what's wrong with that? Are you seriously asking me what's wrong with finding people to share activities with that aren't your spouse and falling in love with those people? Tracy, you really gotta understand that Ted has a *need* for this. His wife is a cold fish. Because it's a *need*, he has a free pass to find it elsewhere because it's all his wife's fault. -Tony PS: Ted, how about showing this post to your wife and see what she thinks about it.

I have a serious problem with characterizations.

Calling someone a *coldfish* based solely on an on-line description hardly
opens the situation to understanding.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:25:01 GMT, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5bug3.qdp.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:16:18 GMT, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: Seeker wrote:>>>Well, until I discover there is no appropriate way -- which there may>>>well not be -- then I don't need to consider not being fulfilled, do I?>>>What would *you* consider appropriate wyas to meet the various>>>emotional needs outside the marriage?>>>>Ones in which you don't fall in love with the person you're sharing>>the experience with.>>>> And what's wrong with that? Are you seriously asking me what's wrong with finding people to share activities with that aren't your spouse and falling in love with those people? Tracy, you really gotta understand that Ted has a *need* for this. His wife is a cold fish. Because it's a *need*, he has a free pass to find it elsewhere because it's all his wife's fault. -Tony PS: Ted, how about showing this post to your wife and see what she thinks about it. I have a serious problem with characterizations. Calling someone a *coldfish* based solely on an on-line description hardly opens the situation to understanding.

Compared to what Ted wants, she's a cold fish. If she were married to
someone not quite so "needy", she might not be considered a cold fish.

-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.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:23:07 -0600, "Seeker"
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:i1q9505308u7cm1rugojrepctgqe53r0d3@4ax .com... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:31:08 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote:In article <7CE4c.3632$1g2.2277@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf<urf@nospam.com> wrote:> I think the *sharing a sunset* is symbolism. I think it stands for theloss> of years together and what *could have* been during that time. Spendingtime> together is not the same as sharing a life together.Nice try, and while the second part of what you've said is true, thatisn't what "sharing a sunset" brought to mind -- I did mean what I wastalking about: having some activity about which you are bothpassionate in the same way, something that you both know affects yousimilarly. Oh I think that is so over rated. All one really needs is a spouse to understand that you are passionate about something.Huh? How does having a spouse say anything about being passionate aboutanything? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.Ted
You were talking about having a spouse share you passion about a
activity that you shared. I am saying that is really over rated. Oh
it is really nice when that happens but not important to a good
relationship. Really it is the little day to day things that make a
good relationship. Like getting up and making that special coffee for
my husband. Not fusing about something like clothes on the floor or
papers on the table. Just the shear enjoyment of spending time with
your spouse over a cop of coffee.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:39:28 -0600, "Seeker"
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:npp950pbl52mu0jf8hn02qssjm5f091rhv@4ax .com... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:26:10 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote:In article <his7501365dhe3ojgms0eq8jictrt5lm2a@4ax.com>, Rauni<ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote:> I share more hobbies and intellectual peruses with my ex-husband than> I do with my current husband.What does your husband have to say about that? Does he become jealouswhen you pursue them with your ex-husband?Ted I don't pursuse them with my ex-husband.Oh. Then sharing them is *not* important -- it just happened to be the casethat you did.I'm talking about things where sharing the enjoyment of the activity is initself important. One example that just came to mind is humor -- doesn't itadd a lot to your enjoyment of a good joke or comedy skit if you can hearor see it in the company of somebody else who laughs when you laugh?Ted
Of course but I don't *need* nor miss it if I am alone

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:48:50 -0500, "DrLith" <drlith@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c34opt$23jvbc$2@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:i1q9505308u7cm1rugojrepctgqe53r0d3@4ax.com... Oh I think that is so over rated. All one really needs is a spouse to understand that you are passionate about something. Huh? How does having a spouse say anything about being passionate about anything? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.I think she means, "All you really need to have from your spouse is thatthey understand that you are passionate about something."
Yeah sometimes I think faster than I write....Not, "A spouse is all that you really need to have in order to understandthat you are passionate about something."

Tony Miller wrote: That is what Ted has to discover. But what's frustrating for me (and I'm sure at least one other person here) is the round and round... 1. I can't live without intimacy. 2. My wife won't provide me with intimacy. 3. I won't divorce my wife. 4. Go to #1. Repeat ad nauseum.

While you categorize it as a "simple loop", I'm
of the opinion that Ted's facing a "recursive
descent".

There's a net loss each time through the cycle
and it seems easy for Ted to lose his way.

The only way to break a feedback loop is to, well,
break it.

The MOST productive thing I did for myself was
rather recently; I was hedged about by all kinks
of rules/expectations by my wife. I exceeded
these parameters and "disobeyed" my wife.

Perhaps the fact that I didn't immediately cringe
when she used the "D" word and that I didn't back
off on *her* need to look at how things worked...

In effect, a wake-up call that she needed to
re-examine her expectations.
PS: There's an analogy I'm thinking of right now. Has to do with defecating or getting off the pot. I'd just like to see the incessant "farting" stop :))

Ah, yes, truth. "Abdicate or Defecate" is one of
the circumlocutions for this situation.

BTW, as an aside... breaking wind has also been
referred to as "cutting the cheese"... so, if
you're down-wind, you get to know "the power of
cheese".

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:kg7c50h6h3utmng5djg07jgdgqkmcm5b74@4ax.com... On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:23:07 -0600, "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote:"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:i1q9505308u7cm1rugojrepctgqe53r0d3@4ax .com... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:31:08 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: >In article <7CE4c.3632$1g2.2277@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf ><urf@nospam.com> wrote: > >> I think the *sharing a sunset* is symbolism. I think it stands for
theloss >> of years together and what *could have* been during that time.
Spendingtime >> together is not the same as sharing a life together. > >Nice try, and while the second part of what you've said is true, that >isn't what "sharing a sunset" brought to mind -- I did mean what I was >talking about: having some activity about which you are both >passionate in the same way, something that you both know affects you >similarly. > Oh I think that is so over rated. All one really needs is a spouse to understand that you are passionate about something.Huh? How does having a spouse say anything about being passionate aboutanything? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.Ted You were talking about having a spouse share you passion about a activity that you shared. I am saying that is really over rated. Oh it is really nice when that happens but not important to a good relationship. Really it is the little day to day things that make a good relationship. Like getting up and making that special coffee for my husband. Not fusing about something like clothes on the floor or papers on the table. Just the shear enjoyment of spending time with your spouse over a cop of coffee.

Suppose instead of a sunset he was missing sharing, it was a cup of
coffee together that he missed?

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5bug3.qdp.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:16:18 GMT, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: Seeker wrote:>>Well, until I discover there is no appropriate way -- which there may>>well not be -- then I don't need to consider not being fulfilled, do
I?>>What would *you* consider appropriate wyas to meet the various>>emotional needs outside the marriage?>>Ones in which you don't fall in love with the person you're sharing>the experience with.> And what's wrong with that? Are you seriously asking me what's wrong with finding people to share activities with that aren't your spouse and falling in love with those people? Tracy, you really gotta understand that Ted has a *need* for this. His wife is a cold fish. Because it's a *need*, he has a free pass to find it elsewhere because it's all his wife's fault.

Characterizations aside, as I understand it, Ted changed the rules of
engagement rather late in their marriage dur to his own personal epiphany
which his wife did not share. Can it really be called "all his wife's
fault?" There is probably blame to be shared all around here.

S

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:35:39 -0500, Stephanie Stowe
<stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5bubt.qdp.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:58:59 GMT, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5a1hn.or7.tony@home.cigardiary.com...> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:39:31 GMT, Seeker> <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote:> > In article <40549FEC.6020206@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>> > wrote:> >> >> And there are some needs that, if you have to go outside your marriage> >> to get filled, I don't understand why you (generic) are married to> >> the person you are in the first place.> >> > Maybe because you didn't know you had those needs?>> So you're changing the rules of your marriage will into it? Doesn't sound> very fair to your wife. And people like to classify wants as "needs" to> make it more morally acceptable to "do things" to aquire them.>> -Tony 2 points to question. 01. Life is not static. It is not a photograph of a particular moment in time. With that in mind, don't you think that marriage should be dynamic in nature. That is to say that it should change as you and your spouse change? Of course, but when you come up with a whole new set of what you term as "needs" that your wife is unwilling or incapable of performing then you're being unfair. What if Ted found this need to dress up in women's underwear and wear a How would his wife provide his need to wear a dog collar? Would she be the one who had to get it at the store? ;)

You missed the other half (implied) having to do with "doggie style" and
"howling like a dog" :))
What complicates things is that I don't believe what Ted is looking for is unreasonable. It is the type of thing I enjoy in my marriage. If my wife became a cold fish, I'd have the right to protest. If I *married* a cold fish, I have no right to complain. If you don't like stripes, don't marry a zebra. If you develop a dislike for stripes, I don't know what to tell you besides trade your zebra in for a horse. Note that I make the exact same point in response to you above. Seems we agree.

Ack!!! how did that happen!!! :)

-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.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:07:34 GMT, "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote:
"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:kg7c50h6h3utmng5djg07jgdgqkmcm5b74@4ax .com... On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:23:07 -0600, "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote:"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:i1q9505308u7cm1rugojrepctgqe53r0d3@4ax .com...> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:31:08 GMT, Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>> wrote:>> >In article <7CE4c.3632$1g2.2277@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf> ><urf@nospam.com> wrote:> >> >> I think the *sharing a sunset* is symbolism. I think it stands fortheloss> >> of years together and what *could have* been during that time.Spendingtime> >> together is not the same as sharing a life together.> >> >Nice try, and while the second part of what you've said is true, that> >isn't what "sharing a sunset" brought to mind -- I did mean what I was> >talking about: having some activity about which you are both> >passionate in the same way, something that you both know affects you> >similarly.> >> Oh I think that is so over rated. All one really needs is a spouse to> understand that you are passionate about something.>Huh? How does having a spouse say anything about being passionate aboutanything? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.Ted You were talking about having a spouse share you passion about a activity that you shared. I am saying that is really over rated. Oh it is really nice when that happens but not important to a good relationship. Really it is the little day to day things that make a good relationship. Like getting up and making that special coffee for my husband. Not fusing about something like clothes on the floor or papers on the table. Just the shear enjoyment of spending time with your spouse over a cop of coffee.Suppose instead of a sunset he was missing sharing, it was a cup ofcoffee together that he missed?
But he wasn't talking about shared moments of intimacy. He was talking
about a shared "activity". Now it would very unfortunate if a person
who valued intimacy was in a marriage that had no intimacy.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5e9pm.sof.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:35:39 -0500, Stephanie Stowe <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5bubt.qdp.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:58:59 GMT, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: > > "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message > news:slrnc5a1hn.or7.tony@home.cigardiary.com... >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:39:31 GMT, Seeker >> <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: >> > In article <40549FEC.6020206@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> And there are some needs that, if you have to go outside your marriage >> >> to get filled, I don't understand why you (generic) are married
to >> >> the person you are in the first place. >> > >> > Maybe because you didn't know you had those needs? >> >> So you're changing the rules of your marriage will into it? Doesn't sound >> very fair to your wife. And people like to classify wants as
"needs" to >> make it more morally acceptable to "do things" to aquire them. >> >> -Tony > > 2 points to question. > > 01. Life is not static. It is not a photograph of a particular moment
in > time. > With that in mind, don't you think that marriage should be dynamic in > nature. > That is to say that it should change as you and your spouse change? Of course, but when you come up with a whole new set of what you term
as "needs" that your wife is unwilling or incapable of performing then
you're being unfair. What if Ted found this need to dress up in women's underwear and wear a How would his wife provide his need to wear a dog collar? Would she be
the one who had to get it at the store? ;) You missed the other half (implied) having to do with "doggie style" and "howling like a dog" :))



AHHHH. I see now.
What complicates things is that I don't believe what Ted is looking for
is unreasonable. It is the type of thing I enjoy in my marriage. If my
wife became a cold fish, I'd have the right to protest. If I *married* a
cold fish, I have no right to complain. If you don't like stripes, don't
marry a zebra. If you develop a dislike for stripes, I don't know what to
tell you besides trade your zebra in for a horse. Note that I make the exact same point in response to you above. Seems we agree. Ack!!! how did that happen!!! :)

Weird stuff can happen. Go figure!
-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.

Urf (I think) wrote:Suppose instead of a sunset he was missing sharing, it was a cup ofcoffee together that he missed?

Rauni wrote: But he wasn't talking about shared moments of intimacy. He was talking about a shared "activity". Now it would very unfortunate if a person who valued intimacy was in a marriage that had no intimacy.

And that is a big part of what Ted is missing and is (supposedly)
trying to fix in his marriage. The lack of emotional intimacy. But,
IMO, he is putting just as many (if not more) roadblocks up against
emotional intimacy as his wife is but seems to believe that it's
up to his wife to change to get that intimacy in their marriage.

As an example, Ted seems to entirely miss what, IMO, his *wife* views
as intimate moments and discounts them, views them negatively. His
wife enjoys talking about their shared past. My husband and I do,
too. For us, it's a confirmation of our life together, remembering
things that happened, that were enjoyable, that make us laugh, that
we enjoyed together. Ted finds it boring. Repetitive. IMO, it's just
as important for Ted to participate in the things his wife finds
enjoyable and gets pleasure out of as it is for his wife to par-
ticipate in Ted's.

There's nothing wrong, IMO, with wanting your spouse to share
moments and experiences that resonate with you. At the same time,
you should be willing to share moments and experiences with *them*
that resonate with them. I see very little of that when it comes
to Ted.

Tracey

"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:kg7c50h6h3utmng5djg07jgdgqkmcm5b74@4ax.com...
You were talking about having a spouse share you passion about a activity that you shared. I am saying that is really over rated.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it is not important *to you*? By saying
it is over-rated you are saying my need for it is misplaced, that somehow I
am wrong to be having that need, as are anyone else who have a similar need.

Ted

"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pcce509nsiam4k90o708u4p8vq0gg2vkd5@4ax.com... >> But he wasn't talking about shared moments of intimacy. He was talking about a shared "activity". Now it would very unfortunate if a person who valued intimacy was in a marriage that had no intimacy.

And who here is the arbiter of what is a moment of intimacy and what isn't?
For me, a shared deep emotion is perhaps the greatest moment of intimacy
there is. It's not the activity itself that is important, but the shared
*enjoyment* of it.

Ted

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4057391B.2000309@aol.com...
to get that intimacy in their marriage. As an example, Ted seems to entirely miss what, IMO, his *wife* views as intimate moments and discounts them, views them negatively. His wife enjoys talking about their shared past. My husband and I do, too. For us, it's a confirmation of our life together, remembering things that happened, that were enjoyable, that make us laugh, that we enjoyed together. Ted finds it boring. Repetitive. IMO, it's just as important for Ted to participate in the things his wife finds enjoyable and gets pleasure out of as it is for his wife to par- ticipate in Ted's.

I understand Tracey. The moments like that that bother me are the ones
that are *not* about our shared past -- but about her past. "My mother
said..." "My sister said ..." "My sister and brother-in-law did...."
And it's so predictable -- I can almost guarantee that when we pass a
paricular intersection she'll talk about how her car died (this was probably
20 years ago) and a policeman happened to be nearby and helped push it into
the garage at the corner.) Not that I've said it, but how many times could
I say "Yes, dear, you have a wonderful memory for detail..."?

Ted

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message
news:fOWdnSeNkrw0jMrdRVn-sQ@telcove.net... Sometimes I actually wonder if this sequence of events is not just a big mental put on to justify an extramarital affair to himself. You know, wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Sorry Ted, this thought has
crossed my mind more than once.
That's quite understandable, although I'm not sure what you mean by "this
sequence of events."

In a way, it's like what my wife thinks (thought? maybe we've made some
progress) the purpose of our going to marriage counselling is: to get
permission from the counsellor for me to divorce her.

Ted

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message
news:FdydncaE6NwxqMrdRVn-gQ@telcove.net...
me he has several choices: - Decide he does not really "need" what he thinks he needs. Difficult, but possible. - Decide he really does need and look elsewhere. - Keep being horribly miserable, and seemingly keep making his wife miserable, by doing neither of the above. How about a combination of all three? I am not that good at being wishy-washy. :)

Ah, but I seem to be!

Ted

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5coni.ri1.tony@home.cigardiary.com... That is what Ted has to discover. But what's frustrating for me (and I'm sure at least one other person here) is the round and round... 1. I can't live without intimacy. 2. My wife won't provide me with intimacy. 3. I won't divorce my wife. 4. Go to #1. Repeat ad nauseum.

But, you see, 2 isn't an insurmountable obstacle -- we are making progress.
The tectonic plates are moving ever so slightly -- I suspect we'd be hard
pressed to say which one is moving, which stationary -- it's probably that
both are moving just a little. I think subtly the therapy sessions are
contributing more just by happening than by exactly what goes on in them --
for that is a time when we are encouraged to dig a little deeper into
ourselves and reveal than we otherwise do. Who knows how much it
contributed to what happened the last couple of weeks -- but I think it did
contribute something.

Ted

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZVD5c.12032$Q2.4394@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... Yes, that sentiment has been expressed here often and by several people. If it's frustrating to you, imagine what it must be like for Ted. Ted *IS* making progress. He is on a different timetable than most of us though. It is also interesting how Ted is able to emotionally *trap* some of us
into suffering a bit with him.
Well, if nobody did I suppose I wouldn't have stuck around!

Ted

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message
news:sr2dnbkXKf3NjMrd4p2dnA@telcove.net... The problem for Ted is that there are things you can have and things that you cannot. He wants something from his wife that he never wanted before.
He does not want to divorce. No one can MAKE his wife change into something that she has never been. Seems to me he has several choices: - Decide he does not really "need" what he thinks he needs. Difficult, but possible. - Decide he really does need and look elsewhere. - Keep being horribly miserable, and seemingly keep making his wife miserable, by doing neither of the above.
Why paint such a gloomy picture? Suppose we're not asking for a fundamental
change -- but a rediscovery of what's already there but just buried?
Despite the horrible cold I have right now I've felt better these last two
weeks or so than I have in years -- and the "change" that took place wasn't
much more than going back to where we were two or three years ago. But,
unlike the downward spiral Jack thinks of it as, maybe it's very slowly
upward spiral -- back to where we were, but actually significantly better.

Ted

Seeker wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:4057391B.2000309@aol.com... to get that intimacy in their marriage.As an example, Ted seems to entirely miss what, IMO, his *wife* viewsas intimate moments and discounts them, views them negatively. Hiswife enjoys talking about their shared past. My husband and I do,too. For us, it's a confirmation of our life together, rememberingthings that happened, that were enjoyable, that make us laugh, thatwe enjoyed together. Ted finds it boring. Repetitive. IMO, it's justas important for Ted to participate in the things his wife findsenjoyable and gets pleasure out of as it is for his wife to par-ticipate in Ted's. I understand Tracey. The moments like that that bother me are the ones that are *not* about our shared past -- but about her past. "My mother said..." "My sister said ..." "My sister and brother-in-law did...." And it's so predictable -- I can almost guarantee that when we pass a paricular intersection she'll talk about how her car died (this was probably 20 years ago) and a policeman happened to be nearby and helped push it into the garage at the corner.) Not that I've said it, but how many times could I say "Yes, dear, you have a wonderful memory for detail..."?

And? I'll bet there are stories that I've told about things that I've
done that he had no participation in that I've told 20 times. And I'll
probably tell them another 20 or 30 or 40 times again before we die.
Same with him. I've heard stories of his past multiple times and I'll
hear them many more times. Emotional intimacy is not only sharing the
big, deep thoughts we have. The grand moments that bring us to tears.
It's also sharing the things that flit through our minds. You're dis-
missive and bored with your wife's attempts at emotional intimacy with
you.

Tracey

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:48:19 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:4057391B.2000309@aol.com... to get that intimacy in their marriage. As an example, Ted seems to entirely miss what, IMO, his *wife* views as intimate moments and discounts them, views them negatively. His wife enjoys talking about their shared past. My husband and I do, too. For us, it's a confirmation of our life together, remembering things that happened, that were enjoyable, that make us laugh, that we enjoyed together. Ted finds it boring. Repetitive. IMO, it's just as important for Ted to participate in the things his wife finds enjoyable and gets pleasure out of as it is for his wife to par- ticipate in Ted's. I understand Tracey. The moments like that that bother me are the ones that are *not* about our shared past -- but about her past. "My mother said..." "My sister said ..." "My sister and brother-in-law did...." And it's so predictable -- I can almost guarantee that when we pass a paricular intersection she'll talk about how her car died (this was probably 20 years ago) and a policeman happened to be nearby and helped push it into the garage at the corner.) Not that I've said it, but how many times could I say "Yes, dear, you have a wonderful memory for detail..."?

And you are showing a decided lack of interest in her past (what made her
the woman you are married to). I hope you take more interest in the
therapy sessions.

She wants to share something with you. And you don't appear to give a
crap. You want to share something with her, and she doesn't seem to give
a crap. Are you seeing a pattern here?

-Tony

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

> And? I'll bet there are stories that I've told about things that I've done that he had no participation in that I've told 20 times. And I'll probably tell them another 20 or 30 or 40 times again before we die. Same with him. I've heard stories of his past multiple times and I'll hear them many more times. Emotional intimacy is not only sharing the big, deep thoughts we have. The grand moments that bring us to tears. It's also sharing the things that flit through our minds. You're dis- missive and bored with your wife's attempts at emotional intimacy with you.

Interesting. She says she does it just to babble and fill up empty air.
I'll have to look at from your point of view. I'm not saying hers because I
don't yet know if she considers it being emotionally intimate or not. It
certainly doesn't seem to fit Schnarch's defnition of emotional intimacy
though, since how can you call it self-discovery when it's the same thing
over and over again?

Ted

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5esc1.t05.tony@home.cigardiary.com... She wants to share something with you. And you don't appear to give a crap. You want to share something with her, and she doesn't seem to give a crap. Are you seeing a pattern here?

Once or twice or maybe three times I'd consider sharing and I take an
interest. But over and over and over again? Sure I see a pattern...

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c37lm6$25dpam$3@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de>...

I understand Tracey. The moments like that that bother me are the ones that are *not* about our shared past -- but about her past. "My mother said..." "My sister said ..." "My sister and brother-in-law did...." And it's so predictable -- I can almost guarantee that when we pass a paricular intersection she'll talk about how her car died (this was probably 20 years ago) and a policeman happened to be nearby and helped push it into the garage at the corner.) Not that I've said it, but how many times could I say "Yes, dear, you have a wonderful memory for detail..."? Ted

Hee hee... DF and I both do this *all the time.* It's an ongoing joke
with us. He'll start in on a story and I'll complete it for him. Or
we'll pass something and if he forgets, I'll start his predicatble
story *for* him. And he does likewise to me. IOW, for us such
predictable re-hashing is a comforting, intimate connection.

The funny thing is, my ex used to do this and I didn't respond the
same way. Like you, I'd roll my eyes and think "Oh no not again." His
stories were just as boring and predictable as DF's are, but the
difference is that DF and I share so much other good things, and ex
and I did not.

On our road trip to visit my parents each summer, there is this one
spot where my ex would always make the same predictable, boring
remark. I shared this with DF early on during our first road trip.
Now, each time we pass that spot, DF acts like my ex - on purpose -
and makes the same predictable, boring remark. But instead of rolling
my eyes and sighing with boredom and frustration, I laugh.

What's my point? It's not YOUR WIFE that's boring. You're utterly
bored with *the relationship* and probably your life in general. If
the relationship improved elsewhere, likely you'd find this sort of
thing much more positive and not something you need to endure.

jen

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c37lm6$25dpam$3@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de>...

I understand Tracey. The moments like that that bother me are the ones that are *not* about our shared past -- but about her past. "My mother said..." "My sister said ..." "My sister and brother-in-law did...." And it's so predictable -- I can almost guarantee that when we pass a paricular intersection she'll talk about how her car died (this was probably 20 years ago) and a policeman happened to be nearby and helped push it into the garage at the corner.) Not that I've said it, but how many times could I say "Yes, dear, you have a wonderful memory for detail..."? Ted

Hee hee... DF and I both do this *all the time.* It's an ongoing joke
with us. He'll start in on a story and I'll complete it for him. Or
we'll pass something and if he forgets, I'll start his predicatble
story *for* him. And he does likewise to me. IOW, for us such
predictable re-hashing is a comforting, intimate connection.

The funny thing is, my ex used to do this and I didn't respond the
same way. Like you, I'd roll my eyes and think "Oh no not again." His
stories were just as boring and predictable as DF's are, but the
difference is that DF and I share so much other good things, and ex
and I did not.

On our road trip to visit my parents each summer, there is this one
spot where my ex would always make the same predictable, boring
remark. I shared this with DF early on during our first road trip.
Now, each time we pass that spot, DF acts like my ex - on purpose -
and makes the same predictable, boring remark. But instead of rolling
my eyes and sighing with boredom and frustration, I laugh.

What's my point? It's not YOUR WIFE that's boring. You're utterly
bored with *the relationship* and probably your life in general. If
the relationship improved elsewhere, likely you'd find this sort of
thing much more positive and not something you need to endure.

jen

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:40:52 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5esc1.t05.tony@home.cigardiary.com... She wants to share something with you. And you don't appear to give a crap. You want to share something with her, and she doesn't seem to give a crap. Are you seeing a pattern here? Once or twice or maybe three times I'd consider sharing and I take an interest. But over and over and over again? Sure I see a pattern...

Sure, and I hug my wife. The same way I hug her every night. Over and
over again. She tells me about her day. The same players doing
practically the same thing over and over. I listen attentively and I
interject occasionally. My wife talks about the homework assignment she
helped my daughter with that she got an A+ on. I am... get this... being
intimate with her. This is the way she is intimate. Am I intimate the
same way? No. She's a different person than me.

I think you have a selfish streak, Ted. And that is what's getting in the
way of your marriage getting better. You concentrate on her, and what
she's not doing for her, when you completely blow off what you're not
doing for her.

-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.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:40:52 -0600, Seeker
<tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5esc1.t05.tony@home.cigardiary.com... She wants to share something with you. And you don't appear to give a crap. You want to share something with her, and she doesn't seem to give a crap. Are you seeing a pattern here? Once or twice or maybe three times I'd consider sharing and I take an interest. But over and over and over again? Sure I see a pattern...

Sure, and I hug my wife. The same way I hug her every night. Over and
over again. She tells me about her day. The same players doing
practically the same thing over and over. I listen attentively and I
interject occasionally. My wife talks about the homework assignment she
helped my daughter with that she got an A+ on. I am... get this... being
intimate with her. This is the way she is intimate. Am I intimate the
same way? No. She's a different person than me.

I think you have a selfish streak, Ted. And that is what's getting in the
way of your marriage getting better. You concentrate on her, and what
she's not doing for her, when you completely blow off what you're not
doing for her.

-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.

Seeker wrote:
Interesting. She says she does it just to babble and fill up empty air.

Well, AFAIC, silence is not always golden. I am silent only when I'm
engaged in an activity that has my attention or requires my attention.
OR when I'm not comfortable with the person I'm with. Intimacy with
my spouse means that I'm comfortable and I talk to him. Riding in a
car and not talking with the person I'm with is, for me, an indication
of no emotional intimacy and not wanting any.
I'll have to look at from your point of view. I'm not saying hers because I don't yet know if she considers it being emotionally intimate or not.

There are people who are not going to think about these things. They
do them naturally. They do what makes them feel good without feeling
the need to analyze it and find the childhood experiences that make
X make them feel good. Communication is a way to connect to someone.
Look at this newsgroup. I haven't discussed much of anything with
you except for 'deep, emotional' subjects. I don't feel connected
or as if I'm emotionally intimate with you at all. But my conversations
with my husband are probably 90% (or more) surface conversations that
don't have any deeper meaner than relating our immediate responses
or thoughts about things going on around us.
It certainly doesn't seem to fit Schnarch's defnition of emotional intimacy though, since how can you call it self-discovery when it's the same thing over and over again?

Schnarch, while helpful and quite knowledgeable, is not the end all and
be all for me. He doesn't have the ability to define *for me* what I
consider emotional intimacy and what makes me feel closer to my husband.

Tracey

Seeker wrote:
Interesting. She says she does it just to babble and fill up empty air.

Well, AFAIC, silence is not always golden. I am silent only when I'm
engaged in an activity that has my attention or requires my attention.
OR when I'm not comfortable with the person I'm with. Intimacy with
my spouse means that I'm comfortable and I talk to him. Riding in a
car and not talking with the person I'm with is, for me, an indication
of no emotional intimacy and not wanting any.
I'll have to look at from your point of view. I'm not saying hers because I don't yet know if she considers it being emotionally intimate or not.

There are people who are not going to think about these things. They
do them naturally. They do what makes them feel good without feeling
the need to analyze it and find the childhood experiences that make
X make them feel good. Communication is a way to connect to someone.
Look at this newsgroup. I haven't discussed much of anything with
you except for 'deep, emotional' subjects. I don't feel connected
or as if I'm emotionally intimate with you at all. But my conversations
with my husband are probably 90% (or more) surface conversations that
don't have any deeper meaner than relating our immediate responses
or thoughts about things going on around us.
It certainly doesn't seem to fit Schnarch's defnition of emotional intimacy though, since how can you call it self-discovery when it's the same thing over and over again?

Schnarch, while helpful and quite knowledgeable, is not the end all and
be all for me. He doesn't have the ability to define *for me* what I
consider emotional intimacy and what makes me feel closer to my husband.

Tracey

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0403161812.17fc9ba8@posting.google.c om...
What's my point? It's not YOUR WIFE that's boring. You're utterly bored with *the relationship* and probably your life in general. If the relationship improved elsewhere, likely you'd find this sort of thing much more positive and not something you need to endure.

Agreed. Now what?

Ted

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0403161812.17fc9ba8@posting.google.c om...
What's my point? It's not YOUR WIFE that's boring. You're utterly bored with *the relationship* and probably your life in general. If the relationship improved elsewhere, likely you'd find this sort of thing much more positive and not something you need to endure.

Agreed. Now what?

Ted

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:405886E4.5080400@aol.com... Schnarch, while helpful and quite knowledgeable, is not the end all and be all for me. He doesn't have the ability to define *for me* what I consider emotional intimacy and what makes me feel closer to my husband.
Ah, that's the tricky part, isn't it. Discovering what makes either one of
us feel closer to the other. And you know -- what I think I'm discovering
is that in some areas what may make her feel closer to me makes me feel less
close to her. And probably vice versa. It's not only that we speak
different love languages, the languages we speak mean opposite things to
each other. A dilemma, no?

Ted

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:405886E4.5080400@aol.com... Schnarch, while helpful and quite knowledgeable, is not the end all and be all for me. He doesn't have the ability to define *for me* what I consider emotional intimacy and what makes me feel closer to my husband.
Ah, that's the tricky part, isn't it. Discovering what makes either one of
us feel closer to the other. And you know -- what I think I'm discovering
is that in some areas what may make her feel closer to me makes me feel less
close to her. And probably vice versa. It's not only that we speak
different love languages, the languages we speak mean opposite things to
each other. A dilemma, no?

Ted