Rules for a Happy Marriage [Archive]

Jack C Lipton

03-25-2004, 02:36 AM

Whisper wrote: I was going thru some old emails from when my Hubby and I were planning our wedding ..found this..thought I would share.. author unknown...

Thanks for the posting (sure, it may be a repost...)
Rules for a Happy Marriage 1. Never both be angry at the same time.

Actually you have to learn NOT to be angered when
your mate angry, and anger can be contagious. As
I note below, a lot of things are contagious.
2. Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire. 3. If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate.

Just remember that when one wins, both lose.
4. If you have to criticize, do it lovingly. 5. Never bring up mistakes of the past.

For men this mistake is easier to avoid. Women seem
to have "total grievance recall" and reflects back to
#1, above.

That doesn't mean men all have short memories, it's
just that enough don't "live" in the past and so their
resentments are not always freshly at hand.
6. Neglect the whole world rather than each other. 7. Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled.

How does one do this when it usually seems better to
let sleeping dogs lie?

7a. If you must sleep apart, it should be due to a
business trip or hospital stay.
8. At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing to your life's partner. 9. When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask for forgiveness.

This is usually a good idea in the workplace, too,
but realize that it's usually best to have a solution
in hand as well there.

Within a marriage you don't need the solution itself,
just the willingness to use consensus with your
partner in working out a satisfactory solution.
10. It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who does the most talking.

I't add, as a corollary:

10a. Just because you've silenced yourself and are
nursing a silent anger doesn't mean you're right,
either.

So, even if you've kept your mouth shut, a sullen
mood full of resentment does not help.

And:

11. If one is unhappy, both are. Unhappiness is
extremely contagious. Happiness is, unfortunately,
not as contagious, so you have to work harder at
it. Enthusiasm is key.

I *was* initially going to make comments that were more
light-hearted but this one hit me in enough spots.

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

Jack C Lipton

03-25-2004, 02:36 AM

Guest

03-25-2004, 05:12 AM

You forgot the two most important rules.
1. NEVER GET MARRIED
2. If you are already married, GET A DIVORCE

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:13:43 GMT, "Whisper"
<whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote:
I was going thru some old emails from when my Hubby and I were planning outwedding ..found this..thought I would share.. author unknown...KassRules for a Happy MarriageNever both be angry at the same time.Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire.If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate.If you have to criticize, do it lovingly.Never bring up mistakes of the past.Neglect the whole world rather than each other.Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled.At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing to yourlife's partner.When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask forforgiveness.It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who doesthe most talking.

Guest

03-25-2004, 05:12 AM

Guest

03-25-2004, 05:14 AM

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:36:39 GMT, cupasoup@softhome.net (Jack C
Lipton) wrote:
7a. If you must sleep apart, it should be due to a business trip or hospital stay.

Or VD

Guest

03-25-2004, 05:14 AM

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:36:39 GMT, cupasoup@softhome.net (Jack C
Lipton) wrote:
7a. If you must sleep apart, it should be due to a business trip or hospital stay.

Or VD

Red

03-25-2004, 07:40 AM

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc65dj4.1l7.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Whisper wrote: I was going thru some old emails from when my Hubby and I were planning our wedding ..found this..thought I would share.. author unknown... Thanks for the posting (sure, it may be a repost...) Rules for a Happy Marriage 1. Never both be angry at the same time. Actually you have to learn NOT to be angered when your mate angry, and anger can be contagious. As I note below, a lot of things are contagious. 2. Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire. 3. If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate. Just remember that when one wins, both lose. 4. If you have to criticize, do it lovingly. 5. Never bring up mistakes of the past. For men this mistake is easier to avoid. Women seem to have "total grievance recall" and reflects back to #1, above. That doesn't mean men all have short memories, it's just that enough don't "live" in the past and so their resentments are not always freshly at hand.

I don't know if that is fair. I'm a woman and I don't bring up mistakes of
the past, and I hate it when people do that. My old roommate in college did
this kind of **** all the time...with me, with her boyfriend, with her other
friends.
6. Neglect the whole world rather than each other. 7. Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled. How does one do this when it usually seems better to let sleeping dogs lie?

Maybe this is related to number 5 above. If you never talk about stuff and
get it out in the open, it's easier to dwell on it internally until one day
you just explode from keeping it all in for so long. Maybe that's what's
going on when it seems to you like women are "living in the past..." They're
not living in the past...they never got to talk about their greivances in
the first place so those greivances were left to fester.

7a. If you must sleep apart, it should be due to a business trip or hospital stay.

Or because your husband snores and you really need a good night's sleep ;)

<snip> 10. It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who does the most talking.

I don't see why this is necessarily true.
I't add, as a corollary: 10a. Just because you've silenced yourself and are nursing a silent anger doesn't mean you're right, either.

If you're angry you should express that. Feelins aren't right or wrong. They
just are.
So, even if you've kept your mouth shut, a sullen mood full of resentment does not help.

Yeah but keeping your mouth shut probably led to the sullen mood of
resentment.

And: 11. If one is unhappy, both are. Unhappiness is extremely contagious. Happiness is, unfortunately, not as contagious, so you have to work harder at it. Enthusiasm is key. I *was* initially going to make comments that were more light-hearted but this one hit me in enough spots.

Cheryl

Red

03-25-2004, 07:40 AM

Phil T

03-25-2004, 08:05 AM

HI "Whisper"

I could not have said it better - very good indeed!
Rules for a Happy MarriageNever both be angry at the same time.Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire.If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate.If you have to criticize, do it lovingly.Never bring up mistakes of the past.Neglect the whole world rather than each other.Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled.At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing to yourlife's partner.When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask forforgiveness.It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who doesthe most talking.

--
Phil :)

Phil T

03-25-2004, 08:05 AM

shinypenny

03-25-2004, 08:29 AM

"Whisper" <whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote in message news:<X%s8c.1774$WC3.16744@ord-read.news.verio.net>... I was going thru some old emails from when my Hubby and I were planning out wedding ..found this..thought I would share.. author unknown... Kass Rules for a Happy Marriage Never both be angry at the same time. Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire. If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate. If you have to criticize, do it lovingly. Never bring up mistakes of the past. Neglect the whole world rather than each other. Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled. At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing to your life's partner. When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask for forgiveness. It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who does the most talking.

I like:

"If you must argue, do so while completely naked, sitting on the bed
facing each other, and holding hands."

jen

shinypenny

03-25-2004, 08:29 AM

Jack C Lipton

03-25-2004, 08:42 AM

shinypenny wrote: "If you must argue, do so while completely naked, sitting on the bed facing each other, and holding hands."

You, m'dear, are a complete optimist. I like
the sentiment, though. I'll let you know how
she reacts when I propose it.

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

Jack C Lipton

03-25-2004, 08:42 AM

Emma Anne

03-25-2004, 09:35 AM

Whisper <whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote:
I was going thru some old emails from when my Hubby and I were planning out wedding ..found this..thought I would share.. author unknown... Kass Rules for a Happy Marriage

These aren't bad, actually. Usually I find these sorts of things far to
corny and inrealistic.
Never both be angry at the same time. Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire. If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate. If you have to criticize, do it lovingly. Never bring up mistakes of the past. Neglect the whole world rather than each other. Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled. At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing to your life's partner. When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask for forgiveness. It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who does the most talking.

A lot of the emphasis seems to be on not fighting. This is something
I've changed my opinion on over the years. I do think frank airings of
feelings and even heated discussions are good things, but I now think
fights just result in hurt feelings and defensiveness. Less closeness,
not more.

Emma Anne

03-25-2004, 09:35 AM

Seeker

03-25-2004, 10:01 AM

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gb791q.6z35ne1cgcapcN%mbjq@earthlink.net... A lot of the emphasis seems to be on not fighting. This is something I've changed my opinion on over the years. I do think frank airings of feelings and even heated discussions are good things, but I now think fights just result in hurt feelings and defensiveness. Less closeness, not more.

Isn't it Gottman who says he can tell how well a marriage will fare just by
seeing *how* a couple fights? Not, "whether", but "how".

I avoid fights at all cost. That is probably a mistake.

Ted

Seeker

03-25-2004, 10:01 AM

Red

03-25-2004, 10:17 AM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c3v6qe$2ars74$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gb791q.6z35ne1cgcapcN%mbjq@earthlink.net... A lot of the emphasis seems to be on not fighting. This is something I've changed my opinion on over the years. I do think frank airings of feelings and even heated discussions are good things, but I now think fights just result in hurt feelings and defensiveness. Less closeness, not more. Isn't it Gottman who says he can tell how well a marriage will fare just
by seeing *how* a couple fights? Not, "whether", but "how". I avoid fights at all cost. That is probably a mistake.

Probably.

I saw a news magazine show (maybe it was "Dateline" or maybe it was "60
Minutes") about some guy who hooked up all these scientific doo-dads to
couples to measure their physical responses, and then told the couples to
talk about some of their bigger marital issues.

He was able to predict, with a good amount of accuracy, which marriages
would end in divorce. The common denominator in the failed marriages was
that one or both partners expressed the feeling of contempt for the other.
Apparently, more than anger, or sadness, or anything, feeling contempous of
your partner is a marriage killer. I thought that was rather interesting.

Cheryl

Red

03-25-2004, 10:17 AM

Seeker

03-25-2004, 10:29 AM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3v7i9$12lg$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... I saw a news magazine show (maybe it was "Dateline" or maybe it was "60 Minutes") about some guy who hooked up all these scientific doo-dads to couples to measure their physical responses, and then told the couples to talk about some of their bigger marital issues. He was able to predict, with a good amount of accuracy, which marriages would end in divorce. The common denominator in the failed marriages was that one or both partners expressed the feeling of contempt for the other. Apparently, more than anger, or sadness, or anything, feeling contempous
of your partner is a marriage killer. I thought that was rather interesting.

That sounds very much like it was an interview with Gottman. I can't
imagine having an argument with my wife, either alone or in "public" -- the
rare times we have a clear argument -- in which either one of us would say
something that could be even construed as contemptuous of the other. Did
they say, or did you hear, what kind of language was used that was
understood to be expressing contempt? (Now, whether I might actually *feel*
contempuous of her at some moment -- that's a different question. I
suspect I have at times, and I know some here have read some of what I've
written as having done so. But I'd never express it to her.)

Ted

Seeker

03-25-2004, 10:29 AM

Jack C Lipton

03-25-2004, 10:51 AM

Emma Anne wrote: Whisper wrote: Rules for a Happy Marriage These aren't bad, actually. Usually I find these sorts of things far to corny and inrealistic.

Of course they're corny and idealistic; there are certain
things we want to aspire to, even if we'll never completely
arrive there!

We're all "works in progress", after all, completion only
found with the final shovelful delivered to our gravesite.
Never both be angry at the same time. Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire. If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate. If you have to criticize, do it lovingly. Never bring up mistakes of the past. Neglect the whole world rather than each other. Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled. At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing to your life's partner. When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask for forgiveness.

Actually, I just realized, this one little rule
needs some expansion; "... and if you're sure
you are completely in the right, check again."
It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who does the most talking. A lot of the emphasis seems to be on not fighting. This is something I've changed my opinion on over the years. I do think frank airings of feelings and even heated discussions are good things, but I now think fights just result in hurt feelings and defensiveness. Less closeness, not more.

Actually, I suspect "low level" 'fighting' being
more like two dogs barking now and again may be
a way to reduce stress between since frustrations
and feeling get aired rather than becoming a
festering wound, never to see light.

The idea that I've gotten from one couple was that
they "barked" so that they wouldn't "bite".

Now, mind you, this is not talking about the way
people may "bark" out orders or insults, but more
a matter of airing differences in a way that they
get both seen... and, if possible, resolved.

Some more rules:

* Never argue with your partner if they're holding
a chainsaw.

* Don't write down your resentments since they can
always use the list against you in a divorce.

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

Jack C Lipton

03-25-2004, 10:51 AM

Tai

03-25-2004, 04:14 PM

Whisper wrote: I was going thru some old emails from when my Hubby and I were planning out wedding ..found this..thought I would share.. author unknown... Kass Rules for a Happy Marriage Never both be angry at the same time.
Not always possible
Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire.
Yes
If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate.
Definitely not always possible!
If you have to criticize, do it lovingly.
Yes
Never bring up mistakes of the past.
unless they are unresolved
Neglect the whole world rather than each other.
Yes
Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled.
No, some arguments can't be solved in a few hours. They can be shelved
before bedtime, though.
At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing to your life's partner.
More days than not is fine, too

When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask for forgiveness.
Yes
It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who does the most talking.
No, the one doing the most talking might just be the more talkative spouse

Tai

Tai

03-25-2004, 04:14 PM

shadowheart

03-25-2004, 05:07 PM

Emma Anne wrote:
A lot of the emphasis seems to be on not fighting.**This*is*something I've changed my opinion on over the years.**I*do*think*frank*airings*of feelings and even heated discussions are good things, but I now think fights just result in hurt feelings and defensiveness.**Less*closeness, not more.

Oh I agree. It is all in the way one sorts out disagreements. I know when I
get upset I need to cool down. Then my hubby and I can discuss things. The
same for him. Weknow to give each other space. Fortunately neither he nor I
get very upset with each other too often. I guess we are pretty compatible

shadowheart

03-25-2004, 05:07 PM

Amy D

03-25-2004, 06:58 PM

Tai wrote:
Whisper wrote:I was going thru some old emails from when my Hubby and I wereplanning out wedding ..found this..thought I would share.. authorunknown...KassRules for a Happy MarriageNever both be angry at the same time. Not always possible

If it's heavy duty angry ONE has to be sensible.....two crazy angers
make a helluva mess......
Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire. Yes

Yes, but not always easy....... :)
If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate. Definitely not always possible!

Shouldn't be a "win" alot of times......often requires compromise.....
If you have to criticize, do it lovingly. Yes

Agreed
Never bring up mistakes of the past. unless they are unresolved

Which is interesting....if it becomes a hot button again why weren't
they resolved the first time? <This is not against Tai at all, more of a
reflection on my marriage>

Neglect the whole world rather than each other. Yes
Hmmm...to a point....unless one partner has a tendency to neglect the
world to a fault.....what if the "world" involves your children?
Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled. No, some arguments can't be solved in a few hours. They can be shelved before bedtime, though.

Agreed.
At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing toyour life's partner. More days than not is fine, too

But striving for once a day is good. :)When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask forforgiveness. Yes
Agreed.
It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the onewho does the most talking. No, the one doing the most talking might just be the more talkative spouse

Agreed....the one throwing things around may be the one in the wrong. :)
Tai

Amy D

03-25-2004, 06:58 PM

Tai

03-25-2004, 09:01 PM

Amy D wrote: Tai wrote: Never both be angry at the same time. Not always possible If it's heavy duty angry ONE has to be sensible.....two crazy angers make a helluva mess......

True. I wasn't thinking of the knives, axes and shotgun kinds of anger. :)

Never bring up mistakes of the past. unless they are unresolved Which is interesting....if it becomes a hot button again why weren't they resolved the first time? <This is not against Tai at all, more of a reflection on my marriage>

I think the issues any of us are going to be angriest about are the ones
that come up over and over again and either aren't resolved or won't stay
resolved.
Neglect the whole world rather than each other. Yes Hmmm...to a point....unless one partner has a tendency to neglect the world to a fault.....what if the "world" involves your children?

Unless you think of looking after your children as part of nurturing your
relationship with your spouse. I take you point, though, Amy. Sometimes the
health of the relationship may have to become secondary to the needs of the
child(ren) but with luck and good management the parents can find a balance
between the two.
At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing to your life's partner. More days than not is fine, too But striving for once a day is good. :)

Agreed. As long as it isn't at 7:40pm exactly each day.... ;)

It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who does the most talking. No, the one doing the most talking might just be the more talkative spouse Agreed....the one throwing things around may be the one in the wrong. :)

lol

Tai

Tai

03-25-2004, 09:01 PM

Stephanie Stowe

03-26-2004, 07:45 AM

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc65dj4.1l7.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Whisper wrote: I was going thru some old emails from when my Hubby and I were planning our wedding ..found this..thought I would share.. author unknown... Thanks for the posting (sure, it may be a repost...) Rules for a Happy Marriage 1. Never both be angry at the same time. Actually you have to learn NOT to be angered when your mate angry, and anger can be contagious. As I note below, a lot of things are contagious. 2. Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire. 3. If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate. Just remember that when one wins, both lose. 4. If you have to criticize, do it lovingly. 5. Never bring up mistakes of the past. For men this mistake is easier to avoid. Women seem to have "total grievance recall" and reflects back to #1, above. That doesn't mean men all have short memories, it's just that enough don't "live" in the past and so their resentments are not always freshly at hand.

It is not always about having total grievance recall. One thing about my DH
not living in the past, to use your words, each disagreement is brand new.
No matter how many millions of times the particular grievance has been
voiced, and some steps agreed to be taken. If enough time goes by without
steps taken, the grievance is completely forgotten. Then, the next time it
comes up, if his darling wife (me) tries to indicate it is a pattern not an
isolated instance, I get hammered for it!
6. Neglect the whole world rather than each other. 7. Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled. How does one do this when it usually seems better to let sleeping dogs lie?

It is the difference between the desire for short term calm and the desire
for real resolution. I do not happen to agree with the never go to sleep
with an argument unsettled advice. But I do agree not to allow arguments to
go unsettled.
7a. If you must sleep apart, it should be due to a business trip or hospital stay. 8. At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing to your life's partner. 9. When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask for forgiveness. This is usually a good idea in the workplace, too, but realize that it's usually best to have a solution in hand as well there. Within a marriage you don't need the solution itself, just the willingness to use consensus with your partner in working out a satisfactory solution. 10. It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who does the most talking. I't add, as a corollary: 10a. Just because you've silenced yourself and are nursing a silent anger doesn't mean you're right, either. So, even if you've kept your mouth shut, a sullen mood full of resentment does not help. And: 11. If one is unhappy, both are. Unhappiness is extremely contagious. Happiness is, unfortunately, not as contagious, so you have to work harder at it. Enthusiasm is key. I *was* initially going to make comments that were more light-hearted but this one hit me in enough spots. -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Stephanie Stowe

03-26-2004, 07:45 AM

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc65dj4.1l7.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Whisper wrote: I was going thru some old emails from when my Hubby and I were planning our wedding ..found this..thought I would share.. author unknown... Thanks for the posting (sure, it may be a repost...) Rules for a Happy Marriage 1. Never both be angry at the same time. Actually you have to learn NOT to be angered when your mate angry, and anger can be contagious. As I note below, a lot of things are contagious. 2. Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire. 3. If one of you HAS to win an argument, let it be your mate. Just remember that when one wins, both lose. 4. If you have to criticize, do it lovingly. 5. Never bring up mistakes of the past. For men this mistake is easier to avoid. Women seem to have "total grievance recall" and reflects back to #1, above. That doesn't mean men all have short memories, it's just that enough don't "live" in the past and so their resentments are not always freshly at hand.

It is not always about having total grievance recall. One thing about my DH
not living in the past, to use your words, each disagreement is brand new.
No matter how many millions of times the particular grievance has been
voiced, and some steps agreed to be taken. If enough time goes by without
steps taken, the grievance is completely forgotten. Then, the next time it
comes up, if his darling wife (me) tries to indicate it is a pattern not an
isolated instance, I get hammered for it!
6. Neglect the whole world rather than each other. 7. Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled. How does one do this when it usually seems better to let sleeping dogs lie?

It is the difference between the desire for short term calm and the desire
for real resolution. I do not happen to agree with the never go to sleep
with an argument unsettled advice. But I do agree not to allow arguments to
go unsettled.
7a. If you must sleep apart, it should be due to a business trip or hospital stay. 8. At least once every day try to say one kind or complimentary thing to your life's partner. 9. When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask for forgiveness. This is usually a good idea in the workplace, too, but realize that it's usually best to have a solution in hand as well there. Within a marriage you don't need the solution itself, just the willingness to use consensus with your partner in working out a satisfactory solution. 10. It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong is the one who does the most talking. I't add, as a corollary: 10a. Just because you've silenced yourself and are nursing a silent anger doesn't mean you're right, either. So, even if you've kept your mouth shut, a sullen mood full of resentment does not help. And: 11. If one is unhappy, both are. Unhappiness is extremely contagious. Happiness is, unfortunately, not as contagious, so you have to work harder at it. Enthusiasm is key. I *was* initially going to make comments that were more light-hearted but this one hit me in enough spots. -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Emma Anne

03-26-2004, 09:19 AM

Seeker <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gb791q.6z35ne1cgcapcN%mbjq@earthlink.net... A lot of the emphasis seems to be on not fighting. This is something I've changed my opinion on over the years. I do think frank airings of feelings and even heated discussions are good things, but I now think fights just result in hurt feelings and defensiveness. Less closeness, not more. Isn't it Gottman who says he can tell how well a marriage will fare just by seeing *how* a couple fights? Not, "whether", but "how".

Is he talking about *fights*? Or disagreements? Becaue those are two
very different things.

I avoid fights at all cost. That is probably a mistake.

How do you sort out disagreements?

Emma Anne

03-26-2004, 09:19 AM

Emma Anne

03-26-2004, 09:19 AM

10816fyeg@simplicato.net <10816fyeg@simplicato.net> wrote:
Emma Anne wrote: A lot of the emphasis seems to be on not fighting. This is something I've changed my opinion on over the years. I do think frank airings of feelings and even heated discussions are good things, but I now think fights just result in hurt feelings and defensiveness. Less closeness, not more. Oh I agree. It is all in the way one sorts out disagreements. I know when I get upset I need to cool down. Then my hubby and I can discuss things. The same for him. Weknow to give each other space. Fortunately neither he nor I get very upset with each other too often. I guess we are pretty compatible

My H and I had very dramatic fights when we first got together. Luckily
we were gaga in love, and could get past it. But now - we pretty much
discuss things. Even if I'm really furious, I can *usually* say "I'm
really furious - how can we sort this out?" Instead of having to yell or
sulk. I'm not promising to never yell or sulk again in my whole life,
but it is extremely rare at this point. I agree that knowing when to
take some time alone before trying to deal with stuff is key.

Emma Anne

03-26-2004, 09:19 AM

Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
Actually, I suspect "low level" 'fighting' being more like two dogs barking now and again may be a way to reduce stress between since frustrations and feeling get aired rather than becoming a festering wound, never to see light.

But I see this "barking" as reducing the trust and closeness in the
marriage. If my H is barking at me, I am going to be nervous about
opening up to him.

I am *in no way* saying people should bury their resentments. I am
saying their are ways to express your true feelings in a way that makes
you closer instead of putting up barriers.

Emma Anne

03-26-2004, 09:19 AM

Emma Anne

03-26-2004, 09:19 AM

Seeker

03-26-2004, 09:24 AM

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gb92h7.1q9uccu16ga0nlN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Seeker <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gb791q.6z35ne1cgcapcN%mbjq@earthlink.net...> A lot of the emphasis seems to be on not fighting. This is something I've changed my opinion on over the years. I do think frank airings
of feelings and even heated discussions are good things, but I now think fights just result in hurt feelings and defensiveness. Less
closeness, not more. Isn't it Gottman who says he can tell how well a marriage will fare just
by seeing *how* a couple fights? Not, "whether", but "how". Is he talking about *fights*? Or disagreements? Becaue those are two very different things.
You're the one who used the term "fights" -- it triggered a memory of
reading or reading about Gottman but I couldn't say exactly what word was
used.
I avoid fights at all cost. That is probably a mistake. How do you sort out disagreements?

I avoid them. That's how I avoid fights. Never really ever having had what
I would call a fight with my wife I'm not sure I know exactly what the word
means, however.

Ted

Seeker

03-26-2004, 09:24 AM

Seeker

03-26-2004, 09:25 AM

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gb92lz.gbo01j193trh6N%mbjq@earthlink.net... My H and I had very dramatic fights when we first got together. Luckily we were gaga in love, and could get past it. But now - we pretty much discuss things. Even if I'm really furious, I can *usually* say "I'm really furious - how can we sort this out?" Instead of having to yell or sulk. I'm not promising to never yell or sulk again in my whole life, but it is extremely rare at this point. I agree that knowing when to take some time alone before trying to deal with stuff is key.

What sort of thing makes you "furious"? I can't ever think when I've felt
that way.

Ted

Seeker

03-26-2004, 09:25 AM

Red

03-26-2004, 10:55 AM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c3v8dp$2c4gqe$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c3v7i9$12lg$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... I saw a news magazine show (maybe it was "Dateline" or maybe it was "60 Minutes") about some guy who hooked up all these scientific doo-dads to couples to measure their physical responses, and then told the couples
to talk about some of their bigger marital issues. He was able to predict, with a good amount of accuracy, which marriages would end in divorce. The common denominator in the failed marriages was that one or both partners expressed the feeling of contempt for the
other. Apparently, more than anger, or sadness, or anything, feeling contempous of your partner is a marriage killer. I thought that was rather
interesting. That sounds very much like it was an interview with Gottman. I can't imagine having an argument with my wife, either alone or in "public" --
the rare times we have a clear argument -- in which either one of us would say something that could be even construed as contemptuous of the other.

Well the point of the exercise was to talk about longstanding issues in the
marriage, even if these issues never really get talked about normally.

You could just sit there and stare at each other I suppose but that wouldn't
work.
Did they say, or did you hear, what kind of language was used that was understood to be expressing contempt? (Now, whether I might actually
*feel* contempuous of her at some moment -- that's a different question. I suspect I have at times, and I know some here have read some of what I've written as having done so. But I'd never express it to her.)

Actually it was my understanding (and it has been some time since I saw
this) that the observers weren't just looking at what was said but how. The
facial expressions. The body language.

And I also got the feeling that it might not just be the expression of
contempt, but the *feeling* of contempt, that could both be bad for
marriage. And contempt is a pretty strong emotion...It seems like it would
be hard not to express it....in facial expression and body language,
unconsciously.

Cheryl

Red

03-26-2004, 10:55 AM

Seeker

03-26-2004, 11:34 AM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c41u59$dbs$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... And I also got the feeling that it might not just be the expression of contempt, but the *feeling* of contempt, that could both be bad for marriage. And contempt is a pretty strong emotion...It seems like it would be hard not to express it....in facial expression and body language, unconsciously.

I had to look up "contempt" -- the one that seemed best was "lack of
respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike" -- and I was right
that I can't see either one of us fitting that -- the *intense* dislike
simply is not there.

I also looked up "respect" -- that's more intriguing. Here are three
definitions of it as a noun: (the definition for the verb is mostly #1)
1.. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem.
2.. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
3.. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation
I know I have been accused of not showing respect for my wife. 3 I do. 1
and 2 I plead guilty on. And I'm beginning to have a hunch why -- not to
lay the blame on him, but to try to understand -- that's how I see my father
as having treated my mother. Something to ponder and do something about.

Ted

Seeker

03-26-2004, 11:34 AM

Red

03-26-2004, 11:45 AM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c420kp$1lra1t$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c41u59$dbs$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... And I also got the feeling that it might not just be the expression of contempt, but the *feeling* of contempt, that could both be bad for marriage. And contempt is a pretty strong emotion...It seems like it
would be hard not to express it....in facial expression and body language, unconsciously. I had to look up "contempt" -- the one that seemed best was "lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike" -- and I was right that I can't see either one of us fitting that -- the *intense* dislike simply is not there. I also looked up "respect" -- that's more intriguing. Here are three definitions of it as a noun: (the definition for the verb is mostly #1) 1.. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. 2.. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem. 3.. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation I know I have been accused of not showing respect for my wife. 3 I do. 1 and 2 I plead guilty on. And I'm beginning to have a hunch why -- not to lay the blame on him, but to try to understand -- that's how I see my
father as having treated my mother. Something to ponder and do something about.

Well, as long as the intense dislike is missing, it sounds like you don't
really have "contempt" for your wife, which is a good thing. I was kind of
surprised that you said you sometimes felt contemptuous of her. Perhaps you
just meant you sometimes don't feel respect for her, which is only half of
the equation.

Cheryl

Red

03-26-2004, 11:45 AM

Seeker

03-26-2004, 11:51 AM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4212v$g1r$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
.. Well, as long as the intense dislike is missing, it sounds like you don't really have "contempt" for your wife, which is a good thing. I was kind of surprised that you said you sometimes felt contemptuous of her. Perhaps
you just meant you sometimes don't feel respect for her, which is only half of the equation.

That's why I looked it up -- your reference to it being a *strong* emotion
made me wonder if I'd used the right word. Other than fear of various
kinds, sadness about some things, and feelings of loneliness at times, it
seems I don't have any strong *negative* emotions about much of anything or
anyone. I don't know if that's good or if it means I just haven't
acknowledged them. (I definitely have strong *positive* emotions.)

Ted

Seeker

03-26-2004, 11:51 AM

Tracey

03-26-2004, 12:19 PM

Seeker wrote:
That's why I looked it up -- your reference to it being a *strong* emotion made me wonder if I'd used the right word. Other than fear of various kinds, sadness about some things, and feelings of loneliness at times, it seems I don't have any strong *negative* emotions about much of anything or anyone. I don't know if that's good or if it means I just haven't acknowledged them. (I definitely have strong *positive* emotions.)

I don't know if I've ever used the word contempt in re to how you
come across here concerning your wife. If I did, I'll change it now.
I don't think you're contemptuous, but I do think you're very dis-
missive of her feelings and thoughts and actions. It's pretty ironic,
IMO, that *you* want *her* to be more interested/participate more/etc.,
in what you find interesting/pleasurable/intriguing while, at the
same time, you're not reciprocating.

Tracey

Tracey

03-26-2004, 12:19 PM

Seeker

03-26-2004, 12:30 PM

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40649070.3040102@aol.com...I don't know if I've ever used the word contempt in re to how you come across here concerning your wife. If I did, I'll change it now. I don't think you're contemptuous, but I do think you're very dis- missive of her feelings and thoughts and actions. It's pretty ironic, IMO, that *you* want *her* to be more interested/participate more/etc., in what you find interesting/pleasurable/intriguing while, at the same time, you're not reciprocating.

I don't believe anyone has said I've come across as contemptuous -- that was
all in the context of talking about Gottman. But I have been told I come
across as disrespectful. Now, where you get the idea that I am "dismissive"
of her "feelings and thoughts and actions" really puzzles me -- if anything,
I've been accused of being too sensitive to all of those -- I'm afraid of
hurting her feelings, afraid of what she might think about me or what I
might say, afraid of what actions she might take. That doesn't sound at
all "dismissive," does it? I will admit, however, that since her response
to anything is to look for reasons to oppose change, to look for the
downside, to look for what might have been overlooked, that I am inclined to
dismiss her reaction ahead of time as being so automatic and instinctively
negative that it doesn't contribute anything. It isn't that I "dismiss" her
response so much as I know what it's going to be so it contributes little.

Ted

Seeker

03-26-2004, 12:30 PM

WhansaMi

03-26-2004, 02:19 PM

>What sort of thing makes you "furious"? I can't ever think when I've feltthat way.Ted

"Furious" for me, comes in two (related) ways. The first one occurs mostly
with my those closest to me (at one point in our relationship, with my DH).
That is when I feel that there is a pattern that has been talked about, agreed
to change, and yet still occurs. As I've mentioned here before, we went
through a very rough period with his daughters, and I'd find myself furious
when we had agreed to a course of action, and then he'd renege. He'd always
see mitigating factors that made it okay for him to renege on our agreement,
but I saw it as him breaking the agreement. I'd be furious.

The other situation that makes me furious is more likely to occur with I'm
confronted with "bureaucracy" and I feel totally helpless to do anything about
a situation. When something is very important and I'm being shifted from
person to person, with nothing getting done, or encountering ineptness over and
over again, I can find myself building fury.

Of course, both of these circumstances have to do with feeling helpless to
effect change. As long as I feel I can **DO** something about a problem, I'm
okay. But, when I feel helpless, my response is intense anger.

Sheila

WhansaMi

03-26-2004, 02:19 PM

Bill in Co.

03-26-2004, 02:49 PM

WhansaMi wrote: What sort of thing makes you "furious"? I can't ever think when I've felt that way. Ted "Furious" for me, comes in two (related) ways. The first one occurs mostly with my those closest to me (at one point in our relationship, with my DH). That is when I feel that there is a pattern that has been talked about,
agreed to change, and yet still occurs. As I've mentioned here before, we went through a very rough period with his daughters, and I'd find myself furious when we had agreed to a course of action, and then he'd renege. He'd always see mitigating factors that made it okay for him to renege on our agreement, but I saw it as him breaking the agreement. I'd be furious. The other situation that makes me furious is more likely to occur with I'm confronted with "bureaucracy" and I feel totally helpless to do anything
about a situation. When something is very important and I'm being shifted from person to person, with nothing getting done, or encountering ineptness over and over again, I can find myself building fury. Of course, both of these circumstances have to do with feeling helpless to effect change. As long as I feel I can **DO** something about a problem, I'm okay. But, when I feel helpless, my response is intense anger. Sheila

Boy can I identify with that last one. And yet the counselor says, "WHY is
this bothering you so much"? You/We have a Choice: to let IT overtake us,
and consume us, or - to "empower ourselves" and free ourselves, (not that she
is immune all the time, either), but still, the words ring true. And
yet.....it is so difficult to do.... sigh...

"The path to salvation is as difficult to walk as a razor's edge" (Somerset
Maugham)

Bill in Co.

03-26-2004, 02:49 PM

WhansaMi

03-26-2004, 03:01 PM

The other situation that makes me furious is more likely to occur with I'm confronted with "bureaucracy" and I feel totally helpless to do anythingabout a situation. When something is very important and I'm being shifted from person to person, with nothing getting done, or encountering ineptness over and over again, I can find myself building fury. Of course, both of these circumstances have to do with feeling helpless to effect change. As long as I feel I can **DO** something about a problem,I'm okay. But, when I feel helpless, my response is intense anger. SheilaBoy can I identify with that last one. And yet the counselor says, "WHY isthis bothering you so much"? You/We have a Choice: to let IT overtakeus,and consume us, or - to "empower ourselves" and free ourselves, (not that sheis immune all the time, either), but still, the words ring true. Andyet.....it is so difficult to do.... sigh...

Bill, well, my fury is pretty short-lived, fortunately -- in almost all
situations. So, it doesn't really consume me, at least not for very long!
Typically what has happened is that I call my DH, tell him the story of what
happened -- complete with a few choice expletives! --- and then we make jokes
about being amazed that some folks find their way home every night.

I burn hot, but pretty fast. ;-)

Sheila

WhansaMi

03-26-2004, 03:01 PM

Bill in Co.

03-26-2004, 03:10 PM

WhansaMi wrote: The other situation that makes me furious is more likely to occur with I'm confronted with "bureaucracy" and I feel totally helpless to do anything about a situation. When something is very important and I'm being shifted from person to person, with nothing getting done, or encountering ineptness over and over again, I can find myself building fury. Of course, both of these circumstances have to do with feeling helpless to effect change. As long as I feel I can **DO** something about a problem, I'm okay. But, when I feel helpless, my response is intense anger. Sheila Boy can I identify with that last one. And yet the counselor says, "WHY
is this bothering you so much"? You/We have a Choice: to let IT overtake us, and consume us, or - to "empower ourselves" and free ourselves, (not that
she is immune all the time, either), but still, the words ring true. And yet.....it is so difficult to do.... sigh... Bill, well, my fury is pretty short-lived, fortunately -- in almost all situations. So, it doesn't really consume me, at least not for very long! Typically what has happened is that I call my DH, tell him the story of what happened -- complete with a few choice expletives! --- and then we make
jokes about being amazed that some folks find their way home every night. I burn hot, but pretty fast. ;-) Sheila

OK - that is GOOD, and an important distinction, Sheila. You're in better
shape. (Well, we all knew that). :-)

Bill in Co.

03-26-2004, 03:10 PM

WhansaMi

03-26-2004, 03:20 PM

>> Bill, well, my fury is pretty short-lived, fortunately -- in almost all situations. So, it doesn't really consume me, at least not for very long! Typically what has happened is that I call my DH, tell him the story ofwhat happened -- complete with a few choice expletives! --- and then we makejokes about being amazed that some folks find their way home every night. I burn hot, but pretty fast. ;-) SheilaOK - that is GOOD, and an important distinction, Sheila. You're in bettershape. (Well, we all knew that). :-)

LOL! I just asked my DH if he thinks I'm mercurial. He said no, because he
equates mercurial with having a short fuse, and I don't. However, if we take
it to mean that I can change moods pretty quickly, then, yeah, I am.

Sheila

WhansaMi

03-26-2004, 03:20 PM

shadowheart

03-26-2004, 07:23 PM

Emma Anne wrote:
10816fyeg@simplicato.net <10816fyeg@simplicato.net> wrote: Emma Anne wrote: A lot of the emphasis seems to be on not fighting. This is something I've changed my opinion on over the years. I do think frank airings of feelings and even heated discussions are good things, but I now think fights just result in hurt feelings and defensiveness. Less closeness, not more. Oh I agree. It is all in the way one sorts out disagreements. I know when I get upset I need to cool down. Then my hubby and I can discuss things. The same for him. We now to give each other space. Fortunately neither he nor I get very upset with each other too often. I guess we are pretty compatible My H and I had very dramatic fights when we first got together. Luckily we were gaga in love, and could get past it. But now - we pretty much discuss things. Even if I'm really furious, I can *usually* say "I'm really furious - how can we sort this out?" Instead of having to yell or sulk. I'm not promising to never yell or sulk again in my whole life, but it is extremely rare at this point. I agree that knowing when to take some time alone before trying to deal with stuff is key.

Well I don't tend to yell, although I did when I was younger. My DH says I
am the most tolerant person he knows. I don't know if that is true (most
likely not) but I tend to ignore what most people get annoyed with. In
other words I don't really care if my husband picks up after himself or
does stuff around the house. But I get really mad when I have to repeatly
ask someone to stop doing something and yet I'm ignored(like they somehow
know better that I what I want)

shadowheart

03-26-2004, 07:23 PM

Joy

03-26-2004, 11:27 PM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c3v8dp$2c4gqe$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c3v7i9$12lg$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... I saw a news magazine show (maybe it was "Dateline" or maybe it was "60 Minutes") about some guy who hooked up all these scientific doo-dads to couples to measure their physical responses, and then told the couples
to talk about some of their bigger marital issues. He was able to predict, with a good amount of accuracy, which marriages would end in divorce. The common denominator in the failed marriages was that one or both partners expressed the feeling of contempt for the
other. Apparently, more than anger, or sadness, or anything, feeling contempous of your partner is a marriage killer. I thought that was rather
interesting. That sounds very much like it was an interview with Gottman.

Here are a couple of references that turned up in a quick search:

http://listarchives.his.com/smartmarriages/smartmarriages.9909/msg00026.html
http://depts.washington.edu/uweek/archives/1998.02.FEB_26/_article6.html

I can't imagine having an argument with my wife, either alone or in "public" --
the rare times we have a clear argument -- in which either one of us would say something that could be even construed as contemptuous of the other. Did they say, or did you hear, what kind of language was used that was understood to be expressing contempt?

"What separates contempt from criticism," explains Gottman, "is the
intention to insult and psychologically abuse your partner." Negative
thoughts about the other come out in subtle put-downs, hostile jokes,
mocking facial expressions, and name-calling ("You are such an idiot around
money").
from:
http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0430.htm

Joy

03-26-2004, 11:27 PM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c3v8dp$2c4gqe$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c3v7i9$12lg$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... I saw a news magazine show (maybe it was "Dateline" or maybe it was "60 Minutes") about some guy who hooked up all these scientific doo-dads to couples to measure their physical responses, and then told the couples
to talk about some of their bigger marital issues. He was able to predict, with a good amount of accuracy, which marriages would end in divorce. The common denominator in the failed marriages was that one or both partners expressed the feeling of contempt for the
other. Apparently, more than anger, or sadness, or anything, feeling contempous of your partner is a marriage killer. I thought that was rather
interesting. That sounds very much like it was an interview with Gottman.

Here are a couple of references that turned up in a quick search:

http://listarchives.his.com/smartmarriages/smartmarriages.9909/msg00026.html
http://depts.washington.edu/uweek/archives/1998.02.FEB_26/_article6.html

I can't imagine having an argument with my wife, either alone or in "public" --
the rare times we have a clear argument -- in which either one of us would say something that could be even construed as contemptuous of the other. Did they say, or did you hear, what kind of language was used that was understood to be expressing contempt?

"What separates contempt from criticism," explains Gottman, "is the
intention to insult and psychologically abuse your partner." Negative
thoughts about the other come out in subtle put-downs, hostile jokes,
mocking facial expressions, and name-calling ("You are such an idiot around
money").
from:
http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0430.htm

Seeker

03-27-2004, 11:53 AM

In article <EX99c.21323$fl6.916@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Joy
<joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
"What separates contempt from criticism," explains Gottman, "is the intention to insult and psychologically abuse your partner." Negative thoughts about the other come out in subtle put-downs, hostile jokes, mocking facial expressions, and name-calling ("You are such an idiot around money").

Definitely not guilty of that -- but I have run across some who I think
are.

Ted

Seeker

03-27-2004, 11:53 AM

Joy

03-27-2004, 01:07 PM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:270320041353349152%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <EX99c.21323$fl6.916@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Joy <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote: "What separates contempt from criticism," explains Gottman, "is the intention to insult and psychologically abuse your partner." Negative thoughts about the other come out in subtle put-downs, hostile jokes, mocking facial expressions, and name-calling ("You are such an idiot
around money"). Definitely not guilty of that -- but I have run across some who I think are.

I used to be married to someone who behaved like that. I can attest to the
fact that it is a relationship killer.
Joy

Joy

03-27-2004, 01:07 PM

Lauri

03-27-2004, 01:21 PM

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:07:49 -0500, "Joy"
<joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <EX99c.21323$fl6.916@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Joy <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote: "What separates contempt from criticism," explains Gottman, "is the intention to insult and psychologically abuse your partner." Negative thoughts about the other come out in subtle put-downs, hostile jokes, mocking facial expressions, and name-calling ("You are such an idiotaround money").
I used to be married to someone who behaved like that. I can attest to thefact that it is a relationship killer.

Same here, Joy. And I think that, probably, I repaid him in kind.
When he was contemptuous, I repaid him in the same fashion; in
retrospect, our relationship didn't stand a chance. It's a miracle
that it lasted 16 years.

Lauri in WA

I like my email spamless

Lauri

03-27-2004, 01:21 PM

Tracey

03-28-2004, 09:05 AM

Seeker wrote:
I don't believe anyone has said I've come across as contemptuous -- that was all in the context of talking about Gottman.

Okay. Got things a bit confused, I guess.
But I have been told I come across as disrespectful. Now, where you get the idea that I am "dismissive" of her "feelings and thoughts and actions" really puzzles me -- if anything, I've been accused of being too sensitive to all of those -- I'm afraid of hurting her feelings, afraid of what she might think about me or what I might say, afraid of what actions she might take. That doesn't sound at all "dismissive," does it?

The thing is, Ted, you're not afraid of hurting her feelings, or afraid
of what she might think about you or what you say, afraid of what
actions she might take for *her* sake but for your own. You've said
over and over again that the thing that stops you from telling all
is that you're afraid your marriage will be irretrievably damaged.
That your comfortable, working relationship will no longer be that.
That's all about you, not about your wife at all. Your actions are
'right', the fears and feelings driving those actions are not, IMO.

There's a big difference in being considerate of your spouse's
feelings because you don't want them to be hurt and being consider-
ate of your spouse's feelings because they can make life miserable
for you. From what I've read over the years, you fall in the second
category *much* more than you fall in the first.

BUT, to go back to the dismissive thing, I think you're very dis-
missive of your wife. Almost everything (I would say everything
because I truly cannot think of an exception to this, but I can't
be sure so I'll say 'almost') you've said about what makes your
wife happy, what she does, what she talks about, etc., you've
'dissed'. It's boring. It's repetitive. It's stagnant. It's not
a 'growing' action. It's not intimate enough for you. It's just
plain not good enough for you. You may not show it to her, but
your thoughts about it all are dismissive. That's what I mean
about being dismissive. Not your actions, but your thoughts.
I will admit, however, that since her response to anything is to look for reasons to oppose change, to look for the downside, to look for what might have been overlooked, that I am inclined to dismiss her reaction ahead of time as being so automatic and instinctively negative that it doesn't contribute anything. It isn't that I "dismiss" her response so much as I know what it's going to be so it contributes little.

Nice twisting there.

Tracey

Tracey

03-28-2004, 09:05 AM

Seeker

03-28-2004, 09:47 PM

In article <406705EA.2010504@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
Not your actions, but your thoughts.

I'm not ignoring you Tracey, but this post will take more time to
answer than I have now (or that I'm any shape to do right now -- it's
been a long, busy, emotionally draining weekend.)

Ted

Seeker

03-28-2004, 09:47 PM

Red

03-29-2004, 08:02 AM

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EX99c.21323$fl6.916@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
<snip> "What separates contempt from criticism," explains Gottman, "is the intention to insult and psychologically abuse your partner." Negative thoughts about the other come out in subtle put-downs, hostile jokes, mocking facial expressions, and name-calling ("You are such an idiot
around money"). from: http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0430.htm

This is a fascinating article! I was especially surprised at this:

"Nor will conflict-avoiding couples, the third type of stable
marriage, necessarily benefit from an increase in their emotional
expression, he says. Gottman likens such unions to "the placid
waters of a summer lake," where neither partner wants to make
waves. They keep the peace and minimize argument by constantly
agreeing to disagree. "In these relationships, solving a problem
usually means ignoring the difference, one partner agreeing to act
more like the other . . . or most often just letting time take its
course." The universal five-to- one [1] ratio must still be present for
the couple to stay together, but it gets translated into a much
smaller number of swipes and caresses (which are also less
intensely expressed). This restrained style may seem stifling to
some, but the couple themselves can experience it as a peaceful
contentment."

[1] "What Gottman and his colleagues have discovered -- and summarized
for popular audiences in a new book, Why Marriages Succeed or Fail
(Simon & Schuster) -- is mind-boggling in its very simplicity. His
conclusion: Couples who stay together are . . . well . . . nice to
each other more often than not. "[S]atisfied couples," claims
Gottman, "maintained a five-to-one ratio of positive to negative
moments" in their relationship. Couples heading for divorce, on the
other hand, allow that ratio to slip below one-to-one."

I find this all very interesting. Basically, according to Gottman, there are
three types of marriages: volatile, validating and conflict-avoiding. All
three can work as long as the five-to-one rule is in place, but
unfortunately everyone seems to think that only the validating model will
work.

Just thinking of my own marriage, and how it works...well this is all very
interesting. I can't really pin my marriage into any one of those types
(seems like we have all of them at one time or another) but I feel pretty
good about the five-to-one thing. I'm certain my husband and I have at least
this ratio, so that's comforting.

Cheryl

Red

03-29-2004, 08:02 AM

Seeker

03-29-2004, 08:17 AM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c49h4b$ro7$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... "Nor will conflict-avoiding couples, the third type of stable marriage, necessarily benefit from an increase in their emotional expression, he says. Gottman likens such unions to "the placid waters of a summer lake," where neither partner wants to make waves.

And here I come along wanting to make waves... I'll have to go read the
article (or book) and look at the 5/1 question. I suspect ours worked (and
still does to some extent) because most of our interactions are neutral.
The reason it has run into trouble is that I stopped blinding myself to the
number of unintentional negative messages my wife was sending (as well as, I
admit, viewing some of our interactions as negative when before they
wouldn't have mattered, because my needs changed.) One question I'll be
looking for when I read his stuff is whether the perception of interactions
changes over time, even if the interactions themselves don't, and how
relevant that might be.

Ted

Seeker

03-29-2004, 08:17 AM

Red

03-29-2004, 10:15 AM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c49i6a$2fv4pr$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c49h4b$ro7$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... "Nor will conflict-avoiding couples, the third type of stable marriage, necessarily benefit from an increase in their emotional expression, he says. Gottman likens such unions to "the placid waters of a summer lake," where neither partner wants to make waves. And here I come along wanting to make waves... I'll have to go read the article (or book) and look at the 5/1 question. I suspect ours worked
(and still does to some extent) because most of our interactions are neutral. The reason it has run into trouble is that I stopped blinding myself to
the number of unintentional negative messages my wife was sending

I'm confused by what "unintentional negative messages" your wife was
sending.
(as well as, I admit, viewing some of our interactions as negative when before they wouldn't have mattered, because my needs changed.) One question I'll be looking for when I read his stuff is whether the perception of
interactions changes over time, even if the interactions themselves don't, and how relevant that might be.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but I get the impression that
the negative experiences talked about in the article are *obvious*. It's a
nasty/nice ratio, not a nuetral/nice ratio. I don't see how your
"perception" would change that. If your wife calls you an idiot, that's
negative. But perhaps you mean that you would let something like that roll
off your back in the past? I think it would still count as a negative
message, regardless of how dramatic the response is.

Cheryl

Red

03-29-2004, 10:15 AM

Seeker

03-29-2004, 11:57 AM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c49ouf$12s8$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... I'm confused by what "unintentional negative messages" your wife was sending.
A specific example is reminding me to do something when I haven't asked her
to. As best I can tell she thinks that is loving behavior -- it helps me
avoid making some kind of a mistake that there is some chance I might
otherwise make. I view it as treating me as a child, not trusting or
respecting me. Or another example is last night we went to a performance
at the local dinner theatre with our oldest son (he'd missed out when we
went to the same show several months ago and we both wanted to go again.)
During the first half we two sat opposite her (my son was opposite her
because he's a lot taller than I am and it made more sense for him to be
looking past me than me him. That was her idea, not mine -- I probably
would rather it have been the other way so I could have sat opposite her.)
The seat opposite me, next to her, was empty, and during the intermission I
suggested that I occupy it so I could sit next to her -- I really wanted to
be near her, to be able to touch her, to put my arm around her, to feel her
presence. (No, I didn't say that. Probably should have.) She said she
didn't want me to sit there because it would interfere with her seeing the
show. Neither one of us intended our behavior in that case to be sending
negative messages, but I certainly took hers as such (she didn't want to be
close to me) and it's entirely possible she took mine negatively too (he is
inconsiderate of my desire to watch the show.) Or, I'll go out and buy a
boquet of roses and she'll get upset because I spent too much money. I'm
sending the negative message that I don't listen to her when she is worried
about money and she's sending the negative message of rejecting my attempt
to show my love. I think rarely are the negative messages we are sending
deliberate or even indicative of how we really feel -- but the result of our
different sets of values, needs, habits, and concerns.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but I get the impression that the negative experiences talked about in the article are *obvious*. It's a nasty/nice ratio, not a nuetral/nice ratio. I don't see how your "perception" would change that. If your wife calls you an idiot, that's negative. But perhaps you mean that you would let something like that roll off your back in the past? I think it would still count as a negative message, regardless of how dramatic the response is.

Not having read the article when I wrote that I see I was saying what the
authors were saying about the "conflict-avoiding" style of marriage. Most
interactions *are* neutral, and the ones that aren't neutral aren't
dramatic. The authors talk about such marriages as "agreeing to disagree"
but I think that's mistating it -- it's agreeing to keep the disagreements
tacitly hidden. Although there are a lot of other things that entered into
it, I believe two primary things happened to us. One is that I
anaesthetized myself to the negative messages by becoming an alcoholic.
(That was preferable to having to face them.) The other is that I changed
the rules of the game. A conflict-avoiding marriage by definition is almost
emotionless -- there is little true intimacy. I discovered I no longer
want an emotionly dry relationship and I was willing to upset things -- even
a little -- to change that. I introduced conflict big-time. Remember again
that she was perfectly happy with the marriage until I told her I wasn't:
from her point of view the ratio of good/bad must have been acceptable;
from mine it wasn't. I don't know if Gottman talks about that -- how what
seems a positive message to one may not to the other. I do *not* think what
is positive and what is negative is at all obvious -- if it were obvious,
why would anyone ever send any negative messages?

One thing the article didn't talk about, but which I would hope the book
does, is, five what vs. one what? Is it frequency, intensity, or some
combination of the two? Speaking just in terms of positive things
(deposits in the love bank) and even there just talking, say, about gifts
that are physical tokens of affection, for some a number of small presents
over a period of time counts more than one big present all at once, but for
others the opposite is true.

Ted

Seeker

03-29-2004, 11:57 AM

Seeker

03-29-2004, 12:58 PM

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:406705EA.2010504@aol.com... The thing is, Ted, you're not afraid of hurting her feelings, or afraid of what she might think about you or what you say, afraid of what actions she might take for *her* sake but for your own. You've said over and over again that the thing that stops you from telling all is that you're afraid your marriage will be irretrievably damaged. That your comfortable, working relationship will no longer be that. That's all about you, not about your wife at all. Your actions are 'right', the fears and feelings driving those actions are not, IMO. There's a big difference in being considerate of your spouse's feelings because you don't want them to be hurt and being consider- ate of your spouse's feelings because they can make life miserable for you. From what I've read over the years, you fall in the second category *much* more than you fall in the first. BUT, to go back to the dismissive thing, I think you're very dis- missive of your wife. Almost everything (I would say everything because I truly cannot think of an exception to this, but I can't be sure so I'll say 'almost') you've said about what makes your wife happy, what she does, what she talks about, etc., you've 'dissed'. It's boring. It's repetitive. It's stagnant. It's not a 'growing' action. It's not intimate enough for you. It's just plain not good enough for you. You may not show it to her, but your thoughts about it all are dismissive. That's what I mean about being dismissive. Not your actions, but your thoughts.

This post annoys me, Tracey. It did when I first read it and it continues
to do so. At first I thought it was simply because it must be hitting too
close to the truth -- that you are telling me something I don't want to
hear, that I'm be dishonest with myself and you all and you are showing me
that.

But, no, I don't think that's why it annoys me. It annoys because I'm
trying to be as honest I can in discovering and understanding my feelings
and you*are rejecting those attempts. I'm discovering the shadow side of
myself and you*don't like what I am finding.

So I am both afraid of hurting her and being hurt. (I honestly don't know
how much both come into play -- all I know is both are there.) So I find
many aspects of her behavior boring. So I focus on the negative things.
(How can one not? Pain always trumps pleasure.) Why does that all matter so
much to you so long as I am trying to do something about it?

(Now, the question I have to ask myself is: why should I care in the
slightest what you, someone I scarely know, thinks about it?)

Ted

Seeker

03-29-2004, 12:58 PM

Red

03-29-2004, 02:47 PM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c49v2e$2gdiee$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c49ouf$12s8$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... I'm confused by what "unintentional negative messages" your wife was sending. A specific example is reminding me to do something when I haven't asked
her to. As best I can tell she thinks that is loving behavior -- it helps me avoid making some kind of a mistake that there is some chance I might otherwise make. I view it as treating me as a child, not trusting or respecting me. Or another example is last night we went to a performance at the local dinner theatre with our oldest son (he'd missed out when we went to the same show several months ago and we both wanted to go again.) During the first half we two sat opposite her (my son was opposite her because he's a lot taller than I am and it made more sense for him to be looking past me than me him. That was her idea, not mine -- I probably would rather it have been the other way so I could have sat opposite her.) The seat opposite me, next to her, was empty, and during the intermission
I suggested that I occupy it so I could sit next to her -- I really wanted
to be near her, to be able to touch her, to put my arm around her, to feel
her presence. (No, I didn't say that. Probably should have.) She said she didn't want me to sit there because it would interfere with her seeing the show. Neither one of us intended our behavior in that case to be sending negative messages, but I certainly took hers as such (she didn't want to
be close to me) and it's entirely possible she took mine negatively too (he
is inconsiderate of my desire to watch the show.) Or, I'll go out and buy a boquet of roses and she'll get upset because I spent too much money. I'm sending the negative message that I don't listen to her when she is
worried about money and she's sending the negative message of rejecting my attempt to show my love. I think rarely are the negative messages we are sending deliberate or even indicative of how we really feel -- but the result of
our different sets of values, needs, habits, and concerns.

Hmmm...I admit, I was confused before and couldn't imagine what you were
talking about. I think these would count as negative experiences though,
since they seem so negative to you. But it's a bit of a thorny issue,
really. I was looking at the issue more from my own experience and what I've
seen other couples do...more on that in a bit...
Not having read the article when I wrote that I see I was saying what the authors were saying about the "conflict-avoiding" style of marriage. Most interactions *are* neutral, and the ones that aren't neutral aren't dramatic. The authors talk about such marriages as "agreeing to
disagree" but I think that's mistating it -- it's agreeing to keep the disagreements tacitly hidden. Although there are a lot of other things that entered
into it, I believe two primary things happened to us. One is that I anaesthetized myself to the negative messages by becoming an alcoholic. (That was preferable to having to face them.) The other is that I
changed the rules of the game. A conflict-avoiding marriage by definition is
almost emotionless -- there is little true intimacy.

I think you're being a bit harsh here. For *you* perhaps the
conflict-avoiding relationship seems emotionless and not intimate. But the
fact that so many couples persist (with lasting marriages) in this model
speaks to the fact that others do not share your definition of intamacy, at
the very least. Gottman did get a bit more specific about how the conflict
avoiding marriage works in his article (so glad I bookmarked it!).

" "In these relationships, solving a problem
usually means ignoring the difference, one partner agreeing to act
more like the other . . . or most often just letting time take its
course." "

I think there's a lot of implicit acceptance of the other person in this
model, along with the attitude of "oh well, we're not going to sweat the
small stuff." It's not necessarily a silent relationship filled with hidden
resentments. It might just be a more easygoing relationship.

So I suppose (and I'm just hypothesizing here) that if your relationship
were more in the successful conflict-avoidance territory, one of you in the
above situation (dinner theater) would have acquiesced without it bothering
them. You DID acquiesce in that situation (you didn't press her to let you
sit near her...you remained where you are), but it does bother you. I could
see the exact same situation playing out differently with different people.

I think you would have preferred for your wife to be the one to acquiesce in
that example, instead of you. But she didn't, and you did. And if you
pressed her, perhaps she would have reacted even more negatively. So I guess
what you have to decide is, can you be the one to acquiesce and just let it
roll of your back? Maybe this is a case for saying to yourself, "Oh, I know
she wants to see the show and didn't mean to push me away. Not that big of a
deal." And then later you could have said something like, "Well next time
we'll have to try to find seats where we can sit next to each other and BOTH
see the show."

Just a thought.

I discovered I no longer want an emotionly dry relationship and I was willing to upset things --
even a little -- to change that. I introduced conflict big-time. Remember
again that she was perfectly happy with the marriage until I told her I wasn't: from her point of view the ratio of good/bad must have been acceptable; from mine it wasn't.

That makes a lot of sense. You two probably have different ratios - I mean,
from her end, the way it was before might have been 5 to 1, because she
didn't perceive some of the things as negative.
I don't know if Gottman talks about that -- how what seems a positive message to one may not to the other. I do *not* think
what is positive and what is negative is at all obvious -- if it were obvious, why would anyone ever send any negative messages?

Ok, there's a lot here. I think couples send intentionally negative messages
all the time. I've heard couples snap at each other (even for something
minor...it's still a negative), or glare at each other. I would say these
are both negative and intentional.

I'm not sure about the perception stuff. But I don't know if it matters. I
mean, if you don't have the 5 to 1 ratio, then you don't have it, from your
perspective. It sounds like you want to know how to get your wife to stop
doing things you perceive as negative, but maybe you need to stop perceiving
these things as negative?

There's nothing wrong with wanting a spouse to stop doing something that
hurts or affects you negatively. It's natural to want that. The only problem
is, you only have so much control over what the other person does. So, (at
least in my case) I have to pick my battles. I don't like it when my husband
leaves his towel on the shower curtain rod instead of the towel rod. At
times, I thought, "Why can't he just do it? I've asked him before, and it's
like he's disregarding my feelings on this..." But I had to take a step back
and say, "that's just how he is" because I really don't want to fight about
towel placement. So now I just sigh or roll my eyes and move the towel, and
not let it get to me.

Maybe some people have a harder time doing that than others. It's possible
I'm the accomodating type.

Anyway, the point is, it might be easier for you to try to change your
perceptions of her actions than it is for her to change her actions. Because
you can really only change you. Obviously there's a limit to what you can
accomodate or accept, but save that for the really big stuff.
One thing the article didn't talk about, but which I would hope the book does, is, five what vs. one what? Is it frequency, intensity, or some combination of the two? Speaking just in terms of positive things (deposits in the love bank) and even there just talking, say, about gifts that are physical tokens of affection, for some a number of small
presents over a period of time counts more than one big present all at once, but
for others the opposite is true.

I hadn't thought about it that way. Also the one negative thing could be
Really Bad and totally offset the good five things. However, I think he's
speaking in generalities and patterns anyway, so I don't know if it is too
useful to analyze this aspect too much.

Anyway, I realize I'm getting longwinded here, and I hope I don't come off
sounding like a know-it-all, but I feel good about this aspect of my
relationship and it's helped me to understand why. So I couldn't help
talking about it! :)

Cheryl

Red

03-29-2004, 02:47 PM

WhansaMi

03-29-2004, 05:39 PM

>But, no, I don't think that's why it annoys me. It annoys because I'mtrying to be as honest I can in discovering and understanding my feelingsand you*are rejecting those attempts. I'm discovering the shadow side ofmyself and you*don't like what I am finding.

Ted, it doesn't seem to me that Tracey is in a position to "reject" anything
you do. She isn't invested in your life at all. You come here (presumably)
wanting feedback, and to be quite frank, she is one of the few who has not
tuned you out over time-- giving you very good feedback, IMO. If you don't
want feedback, I suggest you not post your "explorations" on usenet.

From where I sit, if what you perceive you are doing is "exploring the shadow
parts of yourself," well, you seem to be doing so with a lot less trepidation
than most of us do. AAMOF, it often feels that you embrace these traits rather
warmly, and expect that your wife should too. Some of us simply point out that
your wife shouldn't necessarily have to change, just because you have developed
some "need" or preoccupation for her to respond to.
So I am both afraid of hurting her and being hurt. (I honestly don't knowhow much both come into play -- all I know is both are there.) So I findmany aspects of her behavior boring. So I focus on the negative things.(How can one not? Pain always trumps pleasure.) Why does that all matter somuch to you so long as I am trying to do something about it?

I don't know if Tracey "cares" or not, but, to be honest, you should, at this
point, be grateful that *anyone* is responding to you at all! Have you not
noticed how few people continue to engage in the "process of Ted"? Have you
failed to notice the number of people who have concluded that this whole thing
is not much more than mental masturbation for you, for there is little hope
that you will actually make any significant changes in your marriage, other
than, perhaps, in convincing yourself that you *can* have your cake and eat it
too?

Sheila
(Now, the question I have to ask myself is: why should I care in theslightest what you, someone I scarely know, thinks about it?>Ted

WhansaMi

03-29-2004, 05:39 PM

shinypenny

03-30-2004, 07:35 AM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c4a2lh$2g055p$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de>...

This post annoys me, Tracey. It did when I first read it and it continues to do so. At first I thought it was simply because it must be hitting too close to the truth -- that you are telling me something I don't want to hear, that I'm be dishonest with myself and you all and you are showing me that. But, no, I don't think that's why it annoys me. It annoys because I'm trying to be as honest I can in discovering and understanding my feelings and you*are rejecting those attempts. I'm discovering the shadow side of myself and you*don't like what I am finding. So I am both afraid of hurting her and being hurt. (I honestly don't know how much both come into play -- all I know is both are there.) So I find many aspects of her behavior boring. So I focus on the negative things. (How can one not? Pain always trumps pleasure.) Why does that all matter so much to you so long as I am trying to do something about it? (Now, the question I have to ask myself is: why should I care in the slightest what you, someone I scarely know, thinks about it?)

Possibly because Tracey is a safe surrogate for your wife. Perhaps you
view her reaction as the same reaction your wife would have, if you
were as honest with her as you are with us.

jen

shinypenny

03-30-2004, 07:35 AM

Seeker

03-30-2004, 08:19 AM

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0403300735.91c08b4@posting.google.co m... Possibly because Tracey is a safe surrogate for your wife. Perhaps you view her reaction as the same reaction your wife would have, if you were as honest with her as you are with us.
Could be. If so, it certainly doesn't make it any more likely I'll be that
way, does it!

Ted

Seeker

03-30-2004, 08:19 AM

Tracey

03-30-2004, 10:15 AM

Seeker wrote:
This post annoys me, Tracey. It did when I first read it and it continues to do so. At first I thought it was simply because it must be hitting too close to the truth -- that you are telling me something I don't want to hear, that I'm be dishonest with myself and you all and you are showing me that.

All I have to go on, Ted, is what I read. And although I've taken
breaks from responding to your posts, I've always read what you've
had to say. And I can't remember reading *anything* that leads me
to believe that you like your wife as a person. You're making a
list of traits now that you like in her, but, as a whole person,
you don't seem to like *her*. And if you don't like her, I don't
see how you can have an emotionally intimate relationship with
her.
But, no, I don't think that's why it annoys me. It annoys because I'm trying to be as honest I can in discovering and understanding my feelings and you*are rejecting those attempts. I'm discovering the shadow side of myself and you*don't like what I am finding.

Welcome to the real world, Ted. One full of people whose purpose in
life is not to be cheerleaders for self-centeredness. And that's what
you're being, Ted, IMO. Totally self-centered. And, even though I've
probably annoyed you even further, there is a part of me that under-
stands and agrees that, at times, we have to be self-centered to get
what we want out of life. But, for the period of time you've been
posting, I can't remember a clear instance when you've come out of
it. It's always been about you. You remind me of the people who have
come out of controlling relationships with the clear goal of not ever
being controlled again who have gone over the line and see controlling
behavior in perfectly innocent behavior. 'You held the door open for
me? Well, you can't *tell* me to go into that store.' I think for a lot
of your life, you never considered or even knew your own needs and now
that you're figuring them out, you've gone completely over to that side
of it. Getting your own needs filled. But you have been forgetting that
you're married and, in a marriage, it's not only about getting your own
needs filled, it's also about your spouse getting their needs filled.
If getting your needs filled directly affect your spouse's needs getting
filled, you've got a *huge* problem. Which you seem to have.

Right now, it seems that, in your marriage, your wife is/was content
and happy with the way things were and you were miserable. The solution
to that problem IS NOT for her to be miserable and you to be content
and happy. It's for you both to be content and happy. I just don't see
that what you're doing and have been doing is getting you closer to
that goal.
So I am both afraid of hurting her and being hurt. (I honestly don't know how much both come into play -- all I know is both are there.) So I find many aspects of her behavior boring. So I focus on the negative things. (How can one not? Pain always trumps pleasure.) Why does that all matter so much to you so long as I am trying to do something about it?

It 'matters', I guess, because you've come here and posted about it
here on the newsgroup. It *seems* that you post here because you're
seeking outside input. (That's kinda rocky though because you seem to
spend most of your time trying to prove that the way you're handling
things is 'right' and explaining how most of the opinions offered don't
really apply to your situation because of X, Y and Z.) If you didn't
want comments on what you post or you only wanted comments that agreed
with you, then Usenet isn't the place to be.

And the second part ('...so long as I am trying to do something about
it?'), well, let's just say that I'm not so sure you are trying to do
something about it. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that I think
that your attempts are half-hearted at best or window dressing at the
worst. A person who *really* wants to eat a healthier diet and lose
some weight doesn't go to Weight Watcher's for two years and then
continue to load their shopping cart down with cookies and candy and
chips and lay on the couch all the time. A person who *really* wants
intimacy with their spouse doesn't go to counseling for two years
and still hasn't told their spouse that sometimes the way they speak
to them or the things they do or say isn't conducive to an intimate
relationship.

Now, I've heard all of your justifications for going slowly but,
damn, Ted, this isn't slow. This is 'well, we're getting to the
point where we can take our first step!' Some of your stories
lately have been so totally sad. If, after all of this time, you
still can't even just open your mouth and say 'I would like to
sit next to you so I can hold your hand' or, later, 'I felt re-
jected when you didn't want me to sit next to you,' what does
that say about any progress *you* have made over the last few
years?
(Now, the question I have to ask myself is: why should I care in the slightest what you, someone I scarely know, thinks about it?)

I dunno, Ted. I do know why I always end up getting sucked back
into responding to you though. You remind me a lot of my husband.
(Or, how my husband used to be. Fortunately, he's working his way
out of it and only rarely relapses.) I won't go into why you remind
me of my husband because I'm pretty sure I've said it before. If
you want me to, I will again. But I will say that your posts over
the years have reminded me very strongly of things that my husband
and I had to work through 9 years ago and still occasionally have
to talk through today.

Tracey

Tracey

03-30-2004, 10:15 AM

Tracey

03-30-2004, 10:54 AM

I've snipped everything because this isn't a reply at all. It's more
of a general explanation, starting with something from my past.

When my husband was having his affair and after it ended, I started
out talking to 4 or 5 people about what was going on. Pretty quickly,
I ended up talking to 2 people almost exclusively about what was
happening and our progress. Now, the reason behind paring it down
to those 2 people was pretty simple. *Both* of them (and I am
thankful for those 2 people) didn't let me remain continuously
focused on myself and my pain. They made me consider my husband's
feelings, his needs, his side of things. At a time when it would
have been very easy for me to remain totally focused on me and it
would have been very easy to justify running roughshod over my
husband because of his actions, they kept me grounded and kept
pointing me back to my ultimate goal, repairing and having a good
relationship with him.

I *truly* believe that if I hadn't had those 2 people in my life,
my husband and I wouldn't have made it to our 2nd wedding anniversary.
The pain, the feelings, the needs that I had at the time were so
strong and so all-encompassing, I'm certain that, in my attempts
to remain married, I would have ended up totally ignoring him
and his needs to the point where he would have had to have left.

Now, I am NOT like the 2 people I have referred to. They were
endlessly patient with me. They were (mostly) gentle in their
attempts to get me to consider other things than my own pain and
needs. I'm more of a 'There, there. Yes, I know it sucks. So,
what are you going to do about it?' type. No, I'm not apologizing
for that. There's a very good reason why I'm not a counselor. This
is it. :)

To me, Ted, you have a lot of people in your RL who are doing
the 'There, there' stuff. IMO, you don't need it from me, too.
I don't see that a whole lot of people in your RL are doing much
about getting you to look elsewhere instead of your own pain and
needs. If they are, you're sure not posting about it here. And I'm
not as good at it as the 2 people in my life were (although I
imagine at least part of it is that I knew those 2 people cared
about me and wanted me to be happy so their criticisms of some of
my actions were easier to take because I knew they wanted what was
best for me and you have no such assurance of that of me) but that
IS my intention. To provide a balance. To point out where I think
that your actions/lack of actions aren't going to get you to your
stated goal. To keep reminding you that a good marriage is about
two people being happy and getting their needs filled, not just
one.

Tracey

P.S. And, yes, I have thanked my 2 friends over and over and over
again for their help.

Tracey

03-30-2004, 10:54 AM

Ugly

03-30-2004, 11:45 AM

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:19:00 -0600, Seeker babbled on about Re: Rules for a Happy Marriage
proclaiming:
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0403300735.91c08b4@posting.google.co m... Possibly because Tracey is a safe surrogate for your wife. Perhaps you view her reaction as the same reaction your wife would have, if you were as honest with her as you are with us. Could be. If so, it certainly doesn't make it any more likely I'll be that way, does it!

There was one couple's secret to a happy relationship. Now this was a gay relationship, so
one man's view on another man but it can work for a woman too in a straight relationship.
Upon how he makes the relationship work he said,

"I keep his stomach full and his balls empty."

Ugly

03-30-2004, 11:45 AM

Seeker

03-31-2004, 01:36 PM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4a8re$1hfa$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
<some snips throughout>
I think you're being a bit harsh here. For *you* perhaps the conflict-avoiding relationship seems emotionless and not intimate. But the fact that so many couples persist (with lasting marriages) in this model speaks to the fact that others do not share your definition of intamacy,
at the very least. Gottman did get a bit more specific about how the conflict avoiding marriage works in his article (so glad I bookmarked it!).

I didn't see any particular discussion of intimacy at all in the article;
maybe he
does in the books. Whether different people have different definitions of
intimacy (do
any two of us here -- except those who are Schnarch fans -- agree on any
single definition?) doesn't seem to me to be the point -- what is more to
the point is differing *needs* for intimacy. But, I can't see how
conflict-avoidance -- especially when arrived at by tacitly agreeing not to
even bring something up -- can contribute to intimacy: it's whole point is
to prevent engaging with each other.
" "In these relationships, solving a problem usually means ignoring the difference, one partner agreeing to act more like the other . . . or most often just letting time take its course." " I think there's a lot of implicit acceptance of the other person in this model, along with the attitude of "oh well, we're not going to sweat the small stuff." It's not necessarily a silent relationship filled with
hidden resentments. It might just be a more easygoing relationship. So I suppose (and I'm just hypothesizing here) that if your relationship were more in the successful conflict-avoidance territory, one of you in
the above situation (dinner theater) would have acquiesced without it
bothering them. You DID acquiesce in that situation (you didn't press her to let you sit near her...you remained where you are), but it does bother you. I
could see the exact same situation playing out differently with different
people. I think you would have preferred for your wife to be the one to acquiesce
in that example, instead of you. But she didn't, and you did. And if you pressed her, perhaps she would have reacted even more negatively. So I
guess what you have to decide is, can you be the one to acquiesce and just let
it roll of your back? Maybe this is a case for saying to yourself, "Oh, I
know she wants to see the show and didn't mean to push me away. Not that big of
a deal." And then later you could have said something like, "Well next time we'll have to try to find seats where we can sit next to each other and
BOTH see the show." Just a thought.
I think at other times I would have acquiesced without it bothering me --
most of the time I do (Or so that's how I perceive it) . But I was
especially raw emotionally that evening and really needed to feel near
her -- so it hurt a lot.
Ok, there's a lot here. I think couples send intentionally negative
messages all the time. I've heard couples snap at each other (even for something minor...it's still a negative), or glare at each other. I would say these are both negative and intentional. I'm not sure about the perception stuff. But I don't know if it matters. I mean, if you don't have the 5 to 1 ratio, then you don't have it, from
your perspective. It sounds like you want to know how to get your wife to stop doing things you perceive as negative, but maybe you need to stop
perceiving these things as negative?
Actually, I have learned to do that in one major area (although it has been
hard.) As a Conservator (MBTI) -- Type 1 (Enneagram) it is her mission in
life to see that things are orderly -- to help those she loves not make
mistakes. To help us stick to schedules,deadlines, budgets, promises...
because they know that's what we want to do and it is a loving thing to help
us do that. So, rather than taking such things as negative (hearing "I am
going to remind you you have screwed up to punish you, or that you are
incapable of doing something for yourself") I try to take them as positive
(hearing instead, "I really want you to succeed and here's a small way I can
help.") Anyway, the point is, it might be easier for you to try to change your perceptions of her actions than it is for her to change her actions.
Because you can really only change you. Obviously there's a limit to what you can accomodate or accept, but save that for the really big stuff.
Well, Shnarch points out that by the time a couple has been married as long
as we have, all that's left is the big stuff.

Ted

Seeker

03-31-2004, 01:36 PM

Doug Anderson

03-31-2004, 01:56 PM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c4a8re$1hfa$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... <some snips throughout> I think you're being a bit harsh here. For *you* perhaps the conflict-avoiding relationship seems emotionless and not intimate. But the fact that so many couples persist (with lasting marriages) in this model speaks to the fact that others do not share your definition of intamacy, at the very least. Gottman did get a bit more specific about how the conflict avoiding marriage works in his article (so glad I bookmarked it!). I didn't see any particular discussion of intimacy at all in the article; maybe he does in the books.

I don't know if Gottman talks about intimacy. But he doesn't really
need to; he's a behaviorist. He focuses on what people do and say,
and how that works, not their feelings.

OK, I'm oversimplifying, but as an example, he looks at how people
argue, and how that correlates with their marital satisfaction.
whether different people have different definitions of intimacy (do any two of us here -- except those who are Schnarch fans -- agree on any single definition?)

(yes)
doesn't seem to me to be the point -- what is more to the point is differing *needs* for intimacy. But, I can't see how conflict-avoidance -- especially when arrived at by tacitly agreeing not to even bring something up -- can contribute to intimacy: it's whole point is to prevent engaging with each other.

Presumably in conflict-avoidant relationships, conflict avoidance
isn't the _only_ activity the partners pursue together.

Doug Anderson

03-31-2004, 01:56 PM

Red

03-31-2004, 02:23 PM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4fdk6$2ibrfo$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c4a8re$1hfa$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... <some snips throughout> I think you're being a bit harsh here. For *you* perhaps the conflict-avoiding relationship seems emotionless and not intimate. But
the fact that so many couples persist (with lasting marriages) in this model speaks to the fact that others do not share your definition of intamacy, at the very least. Gottman did get a bit more specific about how the
conflict avoiding marriage works in his article (so glad I bookmarked it!). I didn't see any particular discussion of intimacy at all in the article; maybe he does in the books. Whether different people have different definitions of intimacy (do any two of us here -- except those who are Schnarch fans -- agree on any single definition?) doesn't seem to me to be the point -- what is more to the point is differing *needs* for intimacy. But, I can't see how conflict-avoidance -- especially when arrived at by tacitly agreeing not
to even bring something up -- can contribute to intimacy: it's whole point
is to prevent engaging with each other.

While Gottman doesn't really go into the whole intimacy issue in his argue,
I have to strongly disagree that the conflict-avoiding marriage type can't
be intimate. The whole point of conflict-avoidance isn't to prevent
"engaging" with each other...it's to prevent *conflict* with each other. And
I don't believe that intimacy only comes from conflict.

Maybe in your experience conflict-avoidance has prevented intimacy. I don't
think it has for me, and I don't think it has to work that way for others.
" "In these relationships, solving a problem usually means ignoring the difference, one partner agreeing to act more like the other . . . or most often just letting time take its course." " I think there's a lot of implicit acceptance of the other person in this model, along with the attitude of "oh well, we're not going to sweat the small stuff." It's not necessarily a silent relationship filled with hidden resentments. It might just be a more easygoing relationship. So I suppose (and I'm just hypothesizing here) that if your relationship were more in the successful conflict-avoidance territory, one of you in the above situation (dinner theater) would have acquiesced without it bothering them. You DID acquiesce in that situation (you didn't press her to let
you sit near her...you remained where you are), but it does bother you. I could see the exact same situation playing out differently with different people. I think you would have preferred for your wife to be the one to
acquiesce in that example, instead of you. But she didn't, and you did. And if you pressed her, perhaps she would have reacted even more negatively. So I guess what you have to decide is, can you be the one to acquiesce and just let it roll of your back? Maybe this is a case for saying to yourself, "Oh, I know she wants to see the show and didn't mean to push me away. Not that big
of a deal." And then later you could have said something like, "Well next
time we'll have to try to find seats where we can sit next to each other and BOTH see the show." Just a thought. I think at other times I would have acquiesced without it bothering me -- most of the time I do (Or so that's how I perceive it) . But I was especially raw emotionally that evening and really needed to feel near her -- so it hurt a lot.

But you didn't tell her that. She had no way of knowing that. I'm sure you
know that but I'm puzzled a bit by your framing of this situation. You said
earlier this was an example of an unintentional negative action on her part.
It sounds more like a negative reaction on your part.

But back to your comment about how you acuiesce most of the time...I was
thinking a lot about this whole topic lately, and I realized that one way a
successful conflict-avoidance relationship can work is if *both* parties try
equally to accomodate the others. I could see being in a conflict-avoidance
(from now on I'm just calling it CA) relationship where one party constantly
does all the accomodating and changing without every getting things their
way. That would feel...really bad, I imagine.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I think CA works when both parties are
equally accomodating.

<snip> Anyway, the point is, it might be easier for you to try to change your perceptions of her actions than it is for her to change her actions. Because you can really only change you. Obviously there's a limit to what you
can accomodate or accept, but save that for the really big stuff. Well, Shnarch points out that by the time a couple has been married as
long as we have, all that's left is the big stuff.

I guess so, but the situation you described above (initially anyway) did not
appear to me to be a "big stuff" item. But now I see that that you were
secretly feeling emotionally raw and in need of your wife's attentions, but
were unable to express that. And perhaps that's a something that happens a
lot between you? I guess I'm asking, is the example you gave a part of the
"big stuff?"

Cheryl

Red

03-31-2004, 02:23 PM

Red

03-31-2004, 02:25 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nmr7v8bs0a.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes: "Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c4a8re$1hfa$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
<snip> doesn't seem to me to be the point -- what is more to the point is differing *needs* for intimacy. But, I can't see how conflict-avoidance -- especially when arrived at by tacitly agreeing not
to even bring something up -- can contribute to intimacy: it's whole point
is to prevent engaging with each other. Presumably in conflict-avoidant relationships, conflict avoidance isn't the _only_ activity the partners pursue together.

LOL

Just trying to picture that cracks me up for some reason. I've got an image
of a couple hiding from each other or something.

Nevermind me. It's the end of the day and I'm slaphappy, apparently.

Cheryl

Red

03-31-2004, 02:25 PM

Seeker

04-01-2004, 11:32 AM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4fg97$2utt$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... Presumably in conflict-avoidant relationships, conflict avoidance isn't the _only_ activity the partners pursue together. LOL Just trying to picture that cracks me up for some reason. I've got an
image of a couple hiding from each other or something. Nevermind me. It's the end of the day and I'm slaphappy, apparently.
Unfortunately it's too close to the truth to be funny.

Ted

Seeker

04-01-2004, 11:32 AM

Seeker

04-01-2004, 12:52 PM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4fg61$2uoj$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... While Gottman doesn't really go into the whole intimacy issue in his
argue, I have to strongly disagree that the conflict-avoiding marriage type can't be intimate. The whole point of conflict-avoidance isn't to prevent "engaging" with each other...it's to prevent *conflict* with each other.
And I don't believe that intimacy only comes from conflict. Maybe in your experience conflict-avoidance has prevented intimacy. I
don't think it has for me, and I don't think it has to work that way for others.

If you take Schnarch's definition of intimacy at face value, after we've
been married as long as we have the *only* way to have intimacy is to accept
conflict -- for the only thing left to discover about yourselves that you
haven't shared with your partner are those things that bring you into
conflict. But you didn't tell her that. She had no way of knowing that. I'm sure you know that but I'm puzzled a bit by your framing of this situation. You
said earlier this was an example of an unintentional negative action on her
part. It sounds more like a negative reaction on your part.
That's the point -- it's the reaction that counts, for that is what you
feel, not whether that reaction was intended or not. Sometimes knowing what
the intention is (or is not) helps determine or at least ameliorate what the
reaction is -- but if it's so deep as my fear of rejection is just "knowing"
(as in "just say no") isn't enough.
But back to your comment about how you acuiesce most of the time...I was thinking a lot about this whole topic lately, and I realized that one way
a successful conflict-avoidance relationship can work is if *both* parties
try equally to accomodate the others. I could see being in a
conflict-avoidance (from now on I'm just calling it CA) relationship where one party
constantly does all the accomodating and changing without every getting things their way. That would feel...really bad, I imagine.
Ya it does -- and it doesn't matter whether it's true or just a perception;
I wouldn't be surprised if she thinks she does all the accomodating. (I
think there even was a question like that on the marriage inventory --
probably one of the reasons why we scored so low.)
So I guess what I'm saying is that I think CA works when both parties are equally accomodating.
Probably.
I guess so, but the situation you described above (initially anyway) did
not appear to me to be a "big stuff" item. But now I see that that you were secretly feeling emotionally raw and in need of your wife's attentions,
but were unable to express that. And perhaps that's a something that happens a lot between you? I guess I'm asking, is the example you gave a part of the "big stuff?"
Well, even I hadn't been as emotionally taught as I was it still would have
been "big stuff" because I (at least) don't know how to go about asking for
my needs to be met.

Ted

Seeker

04-01-2004, 12:52 PM

Seeker

04-02-2004, 12:48 PM

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4069C29F.70101@aol.com... To me, Ted, you have a lot of people in your RL who are doing the 'There, there' stuff. IMO, you don't need it from me, too. I don't see that a whole lot of people in your RL are doing much about getting you to look elsewhere instead of your own pain and needs. If they are, you're sure not posting about it here. And I'm not as good at it as the 2 people in my life were (although I imagine at least part of it is that I knew those 2 people cared about me and wanted me to be happy so their criticisms of some of my actions were easier to take because I knew they wanted what was best for me and you have no such assurance of that of me) but that IS my intention. To provide a balance. To point out where I think that your actions/lack of actions aren't going to get you to your stated goal. To keep reminding you that a good marriage is about two people being happy and getting their needs filled, not just one.

Tracey -- let me start by admitting that I did not want to read these two
posts of yours. I feared they might say something that I *really* didn't
want to hear. (It's my problem to figure out why I was so fearful.) I
beathed a considerable sigh of relief when I did finally read them -- if
only because nothing jumped off the page and grabbed me by the neck. I
don't know if they call for any immediate response, but before I do I'd like
to ask a couple of questions. I don't know how much of your story you've
posted while I've been here and if you have posted most of it I'm sorry to
have forgotten it. Obviously it was your husband's affair that created the
crisis. What were his excuses? Was there the slightest validity to them?
Was he the only one who had to work on issues, or were there things you had
to do too? Are you both happy now? What did each of you, if anything,
have to give up to get there?

This isn't real life? (-: (I need to think about those comments a bit.)

Ted

Seeker

04-02-2004, 12:48 PM

Tracey

04-02-2004, 01:34 PM

Seeker wrote:
Tracey -- let me start by admitting that I did not want to read these two posts of yours. I feared they might say something that I *really* didn't want to hear. (It's my problem to figure out why I was so fearful.)

And of what.
I beathed a considerable sigh of relief when I did finally read them -- if only because nothing jumped off the page and grabbed me by the neck. I don't know if they call for any immediate response, but before I do I'd like to ask a couple of questions. I don't know how much of your story you've posted while I've been here and if you have posted most of it I'm sorry to have forgotten it. Obviously it was your husband's affair that created the crisis.
What were his excuses?

He found his 'soulmate'.
Was there the slightest validity to them?

Only if you (generic) believe that finding your 'soulmate' justifies
breaking your marriage vows.
Was he the only one who had to work on issues, or were there things you had to do too?

Depends on how you look at it. He never has told me that I was doing
anything wrong before the affair. But the resulting counseling made
me into a better partner, IMO.
Are you both happy now?

I am. He says he is.
What did each of you, if anything, have to give up to get there?

He had to give up his 'soulmate'. Completely. I had to give up my
innocence, I guess you would say.

That's the short answer. Longer answer, he had to give up the belief
that a 'good' relationship means that there will never be conflict.
That if a person loves you, they automatically will know what you're
thinking, what you want, how you feel, etc., and give you everything
that you need. He had to give up the feeling that, if someone loves
you, no matter what you do to them, they'll continue to treat you
nicely. I had to give up my staunch belief that he would never cheat
on me. I had to give up my belief that our never having a disagreement
didn't mean we had a good relationship but that he was a conflict-
phobe. I had to give up my feeling of being totally secure in our
relationship.
This isn't real life? (-: (I need to think about those comments a bit.)

RL, for me, equates to 'non-internet interaction.'

Tracey

Tracey

04-02-2004, 01:34 PM

Red

04-02-2004, 02:19 PM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4hve9$2b4eci$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c4fg61$2uoj$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... While Gottman doesn't really go into the whole intimacy issue in his argue, I have to strongly disagree that the conflict-avoiding marriage type
can't be intimate. The whole point of conflict-avoidance isn't to prevent "engaging" with each other...it's to prevent *conflict* with each other. And I don't believe that intimacy only comes from conflict. Maybe in your experience conflict-avoidance has prevented intimacy. I don't think it has for me, and I don't think it has to work that way for
others. If you take Schnarch's definition of intimacy at face value, after we've been married as long as we have the *only* way to have intimacy is to
accept conflict -- for the only thing left to discover about yourselves that you haven't shared with your partner are those things that bring you into conflict.

I'm not familiar with Schnarch. But if this is true, there must be a lot of
successful marriages out there that don't fit your definition of intimacy,
since Gottman's research showed that conflict-avoidance can make a
successful marriage. Those poor souls...
But you didn't tell her that. She had no way of knowing that. I'm sure
you know that but I'm puzzled a bit by your framing of this situation. You said earlier this was an example of an unintentional negative action on her part. It sounds more like a negative reaction on your part. That's the point -- it's the reaction that counts, for that is what you feel, not whether that reaction was intended or not. Sometimes knowing
what the intention is (or is not) helps determine or at least ameliorate what
the reaction is -- but if it's so deep as my fear of rejection is just
"knowing" (as in "just say no") isn't enough.

I just find it interesting that you said she was doing unintentionally
negative things, instead of saying "I was having a negative reaction." Or
maybe not interesting, but just odd.
But back to your comment about how you acuiesce most of the time...I was thinking a lot about this whole topic lately, and I realized that one
way a successful conflict-avoidance relationship can work is if *both* parties try equally to accomodate the others. I could see being in a conflict-avoidance (from now on I'm just calling it CA) relationship where one party constantly does all the accomodating and changing without every getting things
their way. That would feel...really bad, I imagine. Ya it does -- and it doesn't matter whether it's true or just a
perception; I wouldn't be surprised if she thinks she does all the accomodating. (I think there even was a question like that on the marriage inventory -- probably one of the reasons why we scored so low.)

Yeah I could see that.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I think CA works when both parties
are equally accomodating. Probably. I guess so, but the situation you described above (initially anyway) did not appear to me to be a "big stuff" item. But now I see that that you were secretly feeling emotionally raw and in need of your wife's attentions, but were unable to express that. And perhaps that's a something that happens
a lot between you? I guess I'm asking, is the example you gave a part of
the "big stuff?" Well, even I hadn't been as emotionally taught as I was it still would
have been "big stuff" because I (at least) don't know how to go about asking
for my needs to be met.

I have a hard time framing this interaction as conflict though. But I guess
you weren't framing it so...you were talking about "unintentionally negative
actions."

Cheryl

Red

04-02-2004, 02:19 PM

Larry Kessler

04-04-2004, 12:59 PM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not familiar with Schnarch. But if this is true, there must be a lot ofsuccessful marriages out there that don't fit your definition of intimacy,since Gottman's research showed that conflict-avoidance can make asuccessful marriage. Those poor souls...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805058265

Larry Kessler

04-04-2004, 12:59 PM

Caren

04-05-2004, 05:54 PM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c4s6uo$2mk7nh$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c4kolk$1f1r$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... I'm not familiar with Schnarch. But if this is true, there must be a lot of successful marriages out there that don't fit your definition of intimacy, since Gottman's research showed that conflict-avoidance can make a successful marriage. Those poor souls...
My understanding of Gottman's research is that conflict-avoidance
doesn't necessarily make a good marriage. He found that those who
fought and had a style of fighting that worked for them, had
successful marriages.

Caren

04-05-2004, 05:54 PM

Jack C Lipton

04-06-2004, 01:45 AM

Caren wrote: Seeker wrote: Red wrote: I'm not familiar with Schnarch. But if this is true, there must be a lot of successful marriages out there that don't fit your definition of intimacy, since Gottman's research showed that conflict-avoidance can make a successful marriage. Those poor souls... My understanding of Gottman's research is that conflict-avoidance doesn't necessarily make a good marriage. He found that those who fought and had a style of fighting that worked for them, had successful marriages.

I would suspect that sheer conflict avoidance doesn't
work because at least one of the voices is not being
heard, so, at best, only one party is talking within
the marriage.

So in a marriage free of conflict there is likely to
be silence-- if not of both parties, then just one.

Human beings *vary*; you cannot completely avoid
conflict when varying wants/desires/needs/viewpoints
run across each other. The magic of intimacy is, I
believe, in how conflict is RESOLVED, not *avoided*.

The problem with silence is that one party (if not
both) hold their voice back and so resentments tend
to accumulate. Even the kind of folks for whom such
irritations "roll off their back" will accumulate
some sense of frustration.

So HOW a fight/argument/disagreement is handled by
each party makes a lot of sense as to whether issues
are handle positively or negatively... and whether
it's a matter of one winning or both winning.

And, even within a marriage there is that issue of
"losing face"...

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

Jack C Lipton

04-06-2004, 01:45 AM

Red

04-06-2004, 06:45 AM

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc74rjp.6qd.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Caren wrote: Seeker wrote: Red wrote:> I'm not familiar with Schnarch. But if this is> true, there must be a lot of successful marriages> out there that don't fit your definition of> intimacy, since Gottman's research showed that> conflict-avoidance can make a successful marriage.> Those poor souls... My understanding of Gottman's research is that conflict-avoidance doesn't necessarily make a good marriage. He found that those who fought and had a style of fighting that worked for them, had successful marriages. I would suspect that sheer conflict avoidance doesn't work because at least one of the voices is not being heard, so, at best, only one party is talking within the marriage. So in a marriage free of conflict there is likely to be silence-- if not of both parties, then just one. Human beings *vary*; you cannot completely avoid conflict when varying wants/desires/needs/viewpoints run across each other. The magic of intimacy is, I believe, in how conflict is RESOLVED, not *avoided*. The problem with silence is that one party (if not both) hold their voice back and so resentments tend to accumulate. Even the kind of folks for whom such irritations "roll off their back" will accumulate some sense of frustration.

I think you're confusing two different types of marriages: two people who
want to avoid conflict with each other and two people who are different in
the way they handle conflict.
So HOW a fight/argument/disagreement is handled by each party makes a lot of sense as to whether issues are handle positively or negatively... and whether it's a matter of one winning or both winning. And, even within a marriage there is that issue of "losing face"...

Red

04-06-2004, 06:45 AM

Seeker

04-06-2004, 09:29 AM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4ubvj$imj$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... I know he's not saying that if you're in a conflict-avoidance relationship you will be successful. But this type of marriage can be successful, and often times it's not recognized by marriage counselors and the like.
Thanks Cheryl. I was about to raise the question of whether such a marriage
can be successful if the emotional needs of one or both of the people is not
met -- the "his needs/her needs" kind of question -- when I realized that
the 5/1 ratio probably takes care of that -- if your emotional needs are not
being met then you are likely to perceive a signficant fraction of your
interactions with your spouse as being negative. (even a non-interaction
gets turned into a negative interaction.)

Ted

Seeker

04-06-2004, 09:29 AM

Jack C Lipton

04-07-2004, 05:52 AM

Red wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Caren wrote: Seeker wrote:> Red wrote:>> I'm not familiar with Schnarch. But if this is>> true, there must be a lot of successful marriages>> out there that don't fit your definition of>> intimacy, since Gottman's research showed that>> conflict-avoidance can make a successful marriage.>> Those poor souls...> My understanding of Gottman's research is that conflict-avoidance doesn't necessarily make a good marriage. He found that those who fought and had a style of fighting that worked for them, had successful marriages. I would suspect that sheer conflict avoidance doesn't work because at least one of the voices is not being heard, so, at best, only one party is talking within the marriage. So in a marriage free of conflict there is likely to be silence-- if not of both parties, then just one. Human beings *vary*; you cannot completely avoid conflict when varying wants/desires/needs/viewpoints run across each other. The magic of intimacy is, I believe, in how conflict is RESOLVED, not *avoided*. The problem with silence is that one party (if not both) hold their voice back and so resentments tend to accumulate. Even the kind of folks for whom such irritations "roll off their back" will accumulate some sense of frustration. I think you're confusing two different types of marriages: two people who want to avoid conflict with each other and two people who are different in the way they handle conflict.

"Handling" means getting *through* it. Discharging
frustrations OUTSIDE the communications loops within
a marriage corrects NOTHING.

Communication... HONEST communication... is required.
The good. The bad, The ugly. The egotistical. The
stupid. The proud. All the deadly sins.

On top of this a disagreement is almost like a negotiation.

It also discharges tension without bringing labelled
silhouette targets to the gun range and shooting out
the crotch.

A "way" to handle conflict through silence solves
nothing. It is only when both can speak freely with
each other that the "scheduled preventive maintenance"
of a marriage will work.

Kinda like scheduled visits to the dentist for a check
and cleaning, trying to catch problems while they are
still potential, not actual.

When a marriage requires corrective maintenance the
problems end up stacked pretty damn high.

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

Jack C Lipton

04-07-2004, 05:52 AM

Red

04-07-2004, 10:24 AM

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc77udi.drj.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Red wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Caren wrote:> Seeker wrote:>> Red wrote:>>> I'm not familiar with Schnarch. But if this is>>> true, there must be a lot of successful marriages>>> out there that don't fit your definition of>>> intimacy, since Gottman's research showed that>>> conflict-avoidance can make a successful marriage.>>> Those poor souls...>>> My understanding of Gottman's research is that> conflict-avoidance doesn't necessarily make a good> marriage. He found that those who fought and had> a style of fighting that worked for them, had> successful marriages. I would suspect that sheer conflict avoidance doesn't work because at least one of the voices is not being heard, so, at best, only one party is talking within the marriage. So in a marriage free of conflict there is likely to be silence-- if not of both parties, then just one. Human beings *vary*; you cannot completely avoid conflict when varying wants/desires/needs/viewpoints run across each other. The magic of intimacy is, I believe, in how conflict is RESOLVED, not *avoided*. The problem with silence is that one party (if not both) hold their voice back and so resentments tend to accumulate. Even the kind of folks for whom such irritations "roll off their back" will accumulate some sense of frustration. I think you're confusing two different types of marriages: two people who want to avoid conflict with each other and two people who are different in the way they handle conflict. "Handling" means getting *through* it. Discharging frustrations OUTSIDE the communications loops within a marriage corrects NOTHING. Communication... HONEST communication... is required. The good. The bad, The ugly. The egotistical. The stupid. The proud. All the deadly sins. On top of this a disagreement is almost like a negotiation. It also discharges tension without bringing labelled silhouette targets to the gun range and shooting out the crotch. A "way" to handle conflict through silence solves nothing. It is only when both can speak freely with each other that the "scheduled preventive maintenance" of a marriage will work. Kinda like scheduled visits to the dentist for a check and cleaning, trying to catch problems while they are still potential, not actual. When a marriage requires corrective maintenance the problems end up stacked pretty damn high.

Well I think I've quoted the article I was referring to, and stated my
positions clearly enough. We disagree. Oh well.

Cheryl

Red

04-07-2004, 10:24 AM

Jack C Lipton

04-07-2004, 01:37 PM

Red wrote: Well I think I've quoted the article I was referring to, and stated my positions clearly enough. We disagree. Oh well.

Ah, but Cheryl, I no more have a monopoly on truth than
even the psychiatrists... who contradict each other,
too!

People vary. Some people vary A LOT.

For instance, I'm in a sub-optimal marriage; my voice
is pretty much muzzled simply to avoid confrontaion. So
I *don't* discharge tension "appropriately" within the
marriage and so very little is solved. My situation has
been, from my reading, rather pathological and so is not
representatie, but that doesn't stop me from being aware
of the needed qualities in communication.

One pre-requisite of open communication is *trust*. One
must TRUST one's mate to not take advantage of the exposure
and using it as a lever to abuse one's self. This leads
to either fights w/o any exposure of heart or soul (as
a defensive mechanism) or to sullen silences.

It takes two to fight.

It only takes one to "be silent".

And silence *sounds* like assent to some one party while
it is merely a mechanism of avoiding confrontation.

Silence doesn't solve anything, it merely prolongs the
situation. So avoidance is *not* a good approach, either.

There are a lot of theories. No one theory works for
everybody. People vary.

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

Jack C Lipton

04-07-2004, 01:37 PM

Red

04-07-2004, 01:51 PM

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc78pmq.fql.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Red wrote: Well I think I've quoted the article I was referring to, and stated my positions clearly enough. We disagree. Oh well. Ah, but Cheryl, I no more have a monopoly on truth than even the psychiatrists... who contradict each other, too! People vary. Some people vary A LOT. For instance, I'm in a sub-optimal marriage; my voice is pretty much muzzled simply to avoid confrontaion. So I *don't* discharge tension "appropriately" within the marriage and so very little is solved. My situation has been, from my reading, rather pathological and so is not representatie, but that doesn't stop me from being aware of the needed qualities in communication. One pre-requisite of open communication is *trust*. One must TRUST one's mate to not take advantage of the exposure and using it as a lever to abuse one's self. This leads to either fights w/o any exposure of heart or soul (as a defensive mechanism) or to sullen silences. It takes two to fight. It only takes one to "be silent". And silence *sounds* like assent to some one party while it is merely a mechanism of avoiding confrontation. Silence doesn't solve anything, it merely prolongs the situation. So avoidance is *not* a good approach, either. There are a lot of theories. No one theory works for everybody. People vary.

That's true, of course. Maybe I am overstating my case. I know that, for me,
avoiding *fighting* is important, because neither me or my husband
particularily like doing it.

But I suppose "conflict" could mean calmly talking about your differences
and coming to an understanding. However, I *do* think a lot of couples fight
about unimportant ****, and more could learn the lesson of "don't make a
mountain out of a molehill" and "pick your battles." Obviously there are
some battles that must be fought. But in a egalitarian relationship, most of
the time I think one partner (and no, not always the *same* partner) can
accomodate the other without a huge loss of ego or self-esteem.

I think in the scenario you present above, yes, "silence", or avoiding
talking about issues that really are important, obviously won't work. What
I'm saying is that I think taking the approach that both parties will yield
to the other, depending on the situation, to avoid conflict, is a good
strategy. With us, it always seems like one person feels more strongly about
something than the other, so that person gets their way in that situation.
Er., not sure if that makes sense. Basically we try to let the other person
"win" whenever possible, and because (and I admit, it is not always) both of
us do this, we're able to avoid most conflicts and be happy. Does that make
any sense?

Cheryl

Red

04-07-2004, 01:51 PM

Jack C Lipton

04-07-2004, 03:14 PM

Red wrote: However, I *do* think a lot of couples fight about unimportant ****,

I have to agree. When a couple fights at full volume the
issues exposed aren't the *real* ones (those are kept hidden
due to mistrust) and stupid bull**** (which is, I think, a
slight refinement on your phrasing) is what gets spewed.

I agreed that fighting doesn't solve anything; IMHO it's
a good indication of mistrust since both are spending time
being defensive and deflecting their sparring partner from
their own vulnerabilities.

Some people will refer to a loud discussion as a fight, and,
in retrospect, it probably is, since it's deflection time,
but, depending upon the words that may be said (and how they
are said) will influence the parties to calm down and come
together or blow apart.

And even the distance might work for a bit since the adrenalin
has been flushed, but a lot depends upon whether they can
ever expose their vulnerabilities.

And maybe that's the key to *real* intimacy: the knowledge
that one's mate will NOT abuse one's vulnerabilities.

Cheryl, thanks for the lead.

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

Jack C Lipton

04-07-2004, 03:14 PM

Seeker

04-07-2004, 08:46 PM

In article <c51pde$gp1$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, Red
<clafount@hotmail.com> wrote:
With us, it always seems like one person feels more strongly about something than the other, so that person gets their way in that situation. Er., not sure if that makes sense. Basically we try to let the other person "win" whenever possible, and because (and I admit, it is not always) both of us do this, we're able to avoid most conflicts and be happy. Does that make any sense?

For the most part that is what we do. It is also the case that it
*feels* like my wife is always the one who feels more strongly about
something, so I *feel* like I'm always accomodating. The other common
case is where neither one of us feels strongly about it, in which case
we either figuratively go a few rounds of "you first" before somebody
says yes or we metaphorically flip a coin.

Her take on it might be completely different.

Ted

Seeker

04-07-2004, 08:46 PM

Red

04-08-2004, 05:58 AM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:070420042246544966%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <c51pde$gp1$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, Red <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote: With us, it always seems like one person feels more strongly about something than the other, so that person gets their way in that
situation. Er., not sure if that makes sense. Basically we try to let the other
person "win" whenever possible, and because (and I admit, it is not always)
both of us do this, we're able to avoid most conflicts and be happy. Does that
make any sense? For the most part that is what we do. It is also the case that it *feels* like my wife is always the one who feels more strongly about something, so I *feel* like I'm always accomodating. The other common case is where neither one of us feels strongly about it, in which case we either figuratively go a few rounds of "you first" before somebody says yes or we metaphorically flip a coin.

Heh. Whenever neither one of us cares too much, I'll usually make the
decision. Just because I am *surrounded* by lousy decision makers! I mean
the friends I hang with and my husband. They will all go round and round,
with no one wanting to decide for everyone. So that's where I come in. It's
not that I particularly care...I'd just rather have a decision made than go
round and round about it. I like being decisive.
Her take on it might be completely different.

Might be something to ask her.

Cheryl

Red

04-08-2004, 05:58 AM

Seeker

04-08-2004, 08:25 AM

"Red" <clafount@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53i2b$20q3$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... Heh. Whenever neither one of us cares too much, I'll usually make the decision. Just because I am *surrounded* by lousy decision makers! I mean the friends I hang with and my husband. They will all go round and round, with no one wanting to decide for everyone. So that's where I come in.
It's not that I particularly care...I'd just rather have a decision made than
go round and round about it. I like being decisive.
Actually that probably is the case for us -- but I will delay doing that
until I'm pretty sure she doesn't want to make the decision.

Ted

Seeker

04-08-2004, 08:25 AM

WhansaMi

04-11-2004, 12:07 PM

>> With us, it always seems like one person feels more strongly about something than the other, so that person gets their way in that situation. Er., not sure if that makes sense. Basically we try to let the other person "win" whenever possible, and because (and I admit, it is not always) bothof us do this, we're able to avoid most conflicts and be happy. Does that make any sense?For the most part that is what we do. It is also the case that it*feels* like my wife is always the one who feels more strongly aboutsomething, so I *feel* like I'm always accomodating. The other commoncase is where neither one of us feels strongly about it, in which casewe either figuratively go a few rounds of "you first" before somebodysays yes or we metaphorically flip a coin.Her take on it might be completely different.Ted

A few months ago, in reaction to another thread, I asked my husband who got
"their way" more in our relationship. We ended up agreeing that, overall in our
relationship, he probably gets his way about 70% of the time (I think that was
the number we ended up with.... we talked about a range of about 60 to 75%).
This happens because, in most things, I am pretty easygoing and I'll defer to
him. There isn't much conflict on these occasions --- one might say I was being
conflict avoidant, whereas I'd just say that I didn't feel strongly enough
about it to draw out a conflict.

However, we also both knew right away that when there *is* a conflict (i.e.,
when I care enough about an issue to actually argue my point) I probably get my
way about 70% of the time. It just doesnt happen all that often.

I think the whole concept of conflicts, power and conflict avoidance is much
more complex than at first glance.

Sheila

WhansaMi

04-11-2004, 12:07 PM