A few quick comments [Archive]

Seeker

07-30-2004, 09:25 PM

I don't know if I'm going to get back and respond to everything I feel
I ought to, but I do want to make a few quick comments in reaction to
some of what I've read.

First, I realized perhaps why I was annoyed at my wife's reading the
program during the concerts. (I don't know where some of you got the
idea she "chattered" during them; she didn't.) Going to the symphony
is one of the few things we do together where I think we have some kind
of a shared emotional experience -- or a hope of one. So it was
disappointing to realize that wasn't as true as I'd hoped it was or
might be. (Now, why several of you found my reaction something worth
commenting on at length is perhaps something for you to think about --
I know why *I* made a big deal about it; why did you?)

Second, to Jen, I think what I mean by "integrity" *is* maybe what you
mean by authenticity -- being true to yourself. I agree that
"authenticity" is probably a better word and it does fit better some of
what I react to strongly (especially what I perceive as a lack of it in
someone else, whether accurately or not.)

Third, tonight's concert was much better than the last several. I
don't know if discussing it here helped or not, but I was hardly
annoyed at all -- if any -- by her reading the program tonight. On
the other hand, for whatever reason, to the extent I noticed, she read
it much, much less than previously.

Fourth, someone made some comment about there not being much to observe
at a concert (or, if there was, doesn't than mean I wasn't paying
attention to the music?) As I said -- we sit in the second or third
row of the hall. That means we can watch the facial expressions of the
musicians and follow their body language. For me, that means that in
a little way I can feel what it is like to be performing the music --
not just listening to it. I can rejoice with them, say, when two of
the musicians sense they've harmonized just right -- I don't know that
I can put it into words, but it adds an immense amount to enjoying the
concert to me. There are two or three out of the whole ensemble who
are especially inspiring to watch that way -- they just seem to "get
into" the music with much more depth than any of the rest.

G'night.

Ted

shinypenny

07-31-2004, 06:33 AM

Seeker <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<300720042325387864%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com>...
Second, to Jen, I think what I mean by "integrity" *is* maybe what you mean by authenticity -- being true to yourself. I agree that "authenticity" is probably a better word and it does fit better some of what I react to strongly (especially what I perceive as a lack of it in someone else, whether accurately or not.)

Gotcha.
Third, tonight's concert was much better than the last several. I don't know if discussing it here helped or not, but I was hardly annoyed at all -- if any -- by her reading the program tonight. On the other hand, for whatever reason, to the extent I noticed, she read it much, much less than previously.

Since you've been going every week this summer, it could be that
something just happened to be weighing on her mind the last time.

Instead of jumping to the conclusion she's not experiencing the
concert in the same way as you and being annoyed by that, next time
try shifting your attitude away from the personal. In the
intermission, say something like, "Honey, is everything okay? You
strike me as preoccupied tonight."

Who knows - maybe if you were tuned into her and not just the
symphony, maybe she'd share with you what's on her mind and then you
could have an emotional experience with *her* and not the orchestra.

jen

shinypenny

07-31-2004, 06:33 AM

Seeker

08-01-2004, 09:36 AM

In article <c8cb5319.0407310533.3c773304@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since you've been going every week this summer, it could be that something just happened to be weighing on her mind the last time. Instead of jumping to the conclusion she's not experiencing the concert in the same way as you and being annoyed by that, next time try shifting your attitude away from the personal. In the intermission, say something like, "Honey, is everything okay? You strike me as preoccupied tonight."
It didn't strike me as being pre-occupied (especially) -- afterall,
when she watches TV she'll do a crossword puzzle at the same time. I
did ask afterwards if she enjoyed the concert and she said, yes, why
did you ask? But after the last couple of times our love-making
fizzled she did acknowlege being preoccupied by three things: the
marriage counselling ("I've been this way for two years"), the fact
that we have house guests coming mid-September and a lot of work to do
to get ready, and, our probably dying elderly cat (he's eating a little
better, on some medication & been given fluids, but at all in very good
shape.)
Who knows - maybe if you were tuned into her and not just the symphony, maybe she'd share with you what's on her mind and then you could have an emotional experience with *her* and not the orchestra.

Understood (sort of.)

Ted

Seeker

08-01-2004, 09:36 AM

Everyboysmomma

08-02-2004, 04:49 AM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:300720042325387864%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om... I don't know if I'm going to get back and respond to everything I feel I ought to, but I do want to make a few quick comments in reaction to some of what I've read. First, I realized perhaps why I was annoyed at my wife's reading the program during the concerts. (I don't know where some of you got the idea she "chattered" during them; she didn't.) Going to the symphony is one of the few things we do together where I think we have some kind of a shared emotional experience -- or a hope of one. So it was disappointing to realize that wasn't as true as I'd hoped it was or might be. (Now, why several of you found my reaction something worth commenting on at length is perhaps something for you to think about -- I know why *I* made a big deal about it; why did you?) Second, to Jen, I think what I mean by "integrity" *is* maybe what you mean by authenticity -- being true to yourself. I agree that "authenticity" is probably a better word and it does fit better some of what I react to strongly (especially what I perceive as a lack of it in someone else, whether accurately or not.) Third, tonight's concert was much better than the last several. I don't know if discussing it here helped or not, but I was hardly annoyed at all -- if any -- by her reading the program tonight. On the other hand, for whatever reason, to the extent I noticed, she read it much, much less than previously. Fourth, someone made some comment about there not being much to observe at a concert (or, if there was, doesn't than mean I wasn't paying attention to the music?) As I said -- we sit in the second or third row of the hall. That means we can watch the facial expressions of the musicians and follow their body language. For me, that means that in a little way I can feel what it is like to be performing the music -- not just listening to it. I can rejoice with them, say, when two of the musicians sense they've harmonized just right -- I don't know that I can put it into words, but it adds an immense amount to enjoying the concert to me. There are two or three out of the whole ensemble who are especially inspiring to watch that way -- they just seem to "get into" the music with much more depth than any of the rest. G'night. Ted
I am not reading any other comments before answering here, but the answer is
screaming in my head.
Ted, you want to have a relationship with *yourself*!! There is no room in
your idea of relationship for personal expression. You want your wife to
respond to all stimuli exactly the way you do. It ain't gonna happen and
you are doing nothing but frustrating yourself (not to mention the poor
woman who has to try to live up to your unlivable expectations)
We all enjoy shared emotional understanding. But trying to contrive it or,
even worse, demand it is just unrealistic. You keep talking about wanting
the shared experiences of a soulmate when I truly do not believe you can
comprehend what that really means.
This note is not based on this post alone. It is your ongoing theme. You
want to script the way that everyone around you, and most especially your
wife, react to things that excite or otherwise employ your emotions. No one
on earth is ever going to match your every sensation but you.
You need to get real.
Momma

Everyboysmomma

08-02-2004, 04:49 AM

WhansaMi

08-02-2004, 05:55 AM

Momma wrote:
I am not reading any other comments before answering here, but the answer isscreaming in my head.Ted, you want to have a relationship with *yourself*!! There is no room inyour idea of relationship for personal expression. You want your wife torespond to all stimuli exactly the way you do. It ain't gonna happen andyou are doing nothing but frustrating yourself (not to mention the poorwoman who has to try to live up to your unlivable expectations)We all enjoy shared emotional understanding. But trying to contrive it or,even worse, demand it is just unrealistic. You keep talking about wantingthe shared experiences of a soulmate when I truly do not believe you cancomprehend what that really means.This note is not based on this post alone. It is your ongoing theme. Youwant to script the way that everyone around you, and most especially yourwife, react to things that excite or otherwise employ your emotions. No oneon earth is ever going to match your every sensation but you.You need to get real.Momma

My husband told Ted this months ago. Maybe he'll hear it from you, this time,
though. :-)

Sheila

WhansaMi

08-02-2004, 05:55 AM

Tony Miller

08-02-2004, 07:10 AM

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 11:49:38 GMT, Everyboysmomma
<noway@maine.rr.com> wrote: "Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:300720042325387864%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om... I don't know if I'm going to get back and respond to everything I feel I ought to, but I do want to make a few quick comments in reaction to some of what I've read. First, I realized perhaps why I was annoyed at my wife's reading the program during the concerts. (I don't know where some of you got the idea she "chattered" during them; she didn't.) Going to the symphony is one of the few things we do together where I think we have some kind of a shared emotional experience -- or a hope of one. So it was disappointing to realize that wasn't as true as I'd hoped it was or might be. (Now, why several of you found my reaction something worth commenting on at length is perhaps something for you to think about -- I know why *I* made a big deal about it; why did you?) Second, to Jen, I think what I mean by "integrity" *is* maybe what you mean by authenticity -- being true to yourself. I agree that "authenticity" is probably a better word and it does fit better some of what I react to strongly (especially what I perceive as a lack of it in someone else, whether accurately or not.) Third, tonight's concert was much better than the last several. I don't know if discussing it here helped or not, but I was hardly annoyed at all -- if any -- by her reading the program tonight. On the other hand, for whatever reason, to the extent I noticed, she read it much, much less than previously. Fourth, someone made some comment about there not being much to observe at a concert (or, if there was, doesn't than mean I wasn't paying attention to the music?) As I said -- we sit in the second or third row of the hall. That means we can watch the facial expressions of the musicians and follow their body language. For me, that means that in a little way I can feel what it is like to be performing the music -- not just listening to it. I can rejoice with them, say, when two of the musicians sense they've harmonized just right -- I don't know that I can put it into words, but it adds an immense amount to enjoying the concert to me. There are two or three out of the whole ensemble who are especially inspiring to watch that way -- they just seem to "get into" the music with much more depth than any of the rest. G'night. Ted I am not reading any other comments before answering here, but the answer is screaming in my head. Ted, you want to have a relationship with *yourself*!! There is no room in your idea of relationship for personal expression. You want your wife to respond to all stimuli exactly the way you do. It ain't gonna happen and you are doing nothing but frustrating yourself (not to mention the poor woman who has to try to live up to your unlivable expectations) We all enjoy shared emotional understanding. But trying to contrive it or, even worse, demand it is just unrealistic. You keep talking about wanting the shared experiences of a soulmate when I truly do not believe you can comprehend what that really means.

Hehehe... My "Ladyhawk" thread was the perfect example of the kind of
"shared experinces" my wife and I can have.

My wife and I don't like the same kinds of movies. She likes the romantic
stories, and I like the manly fighting kinds of movies (swords, guns or
bombs). My movies have to have a really high "boom to word" ratio and if
that ratio goes into the high positives, it's my kid of movie.

As a result, when we go to the movies, one of us is generally aquiescing
to see a movie that really isn't interesting for the sake of the other.

_Ladyhawk_ was interesting because it was a movie we both enjoyed though .
.. . and this is the important part . . . for different reason.

My wife liked the romantic story. I'd imagine she though Rutger Hauer was
"hunky". She liked the way the hero finally won the girl.

I liked the fighting and swordplay. I liked the half naked Michelle
Pfieffer. I liked the escape on multiple occasions by "the mouse". I
also liked the evil bishop getting his in the end (and by his own hand,
Navale was going to leave him to stew in his own juice).

But we enjoyed the movie for different reasons. It was a shared
experience of enjoying a movie, but I had no expectation of her enjoying
it the same way I did. I also picked out the movie and suggested it to
her because I understand the kinds of movies she likes, and I saw those
aspects in that movie. I was right on target. Is *that* intimacy?

-Tony

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

Tony Miller

08-02-2004, 07:10 AM

Everyboysmomma

08-02-2004, 07:51 AM

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrncgsike.t5d.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 11:49:38 GMT, Everyboysmomma <noway@maine.rr.com> wrote: "Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:300720042325387864%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om... I don't know if I'm going to get back and respond to everything I feel I ought to, but I do want to make a few quick comments in reaction to some of what I've read. First, I realized perhaps why I was annoyed at my wife's reading the program during the concerts. (I don't know where some of you got the idea she "chattered" during them; she didn't.) Going to the symphony is one of the few things we do together where I think we have some kind of a shared emotional experience -- or a hope of one. So it was disappointing to realize that wasn't as true as I'd hoped it was or might be. (Now, why several of you found my reaction something worth commenting on at length is perhaps something for you to think about -- I know why *I* made a big deal about it; why did you?) Second, to Jen, I think what I mean by "integrity" *is* maybe what you mean by authenticity -- being true to yourself. I agree that "authenticity" is probably a better word and it does fit better some of what I react to strongly (especially what I perceive as a lack of it in someone else, whether accurately or not.) Third, tonight's concert was much better than the last several. I don't know if discussing it here helped or not, but I was hardly annoyed at all -- if any -- by her reading the program tonight. On the other hand, for whatever reason, to the extent I noticed, she read it much, much less than previously. Fourth, someone made some comment about there not being much to observe at a concert (or, if there was, doesn't than mean I wasn't paying attention to the music?) As I said -- we sit in the second or third row of the hall. That means we can watch the facial expressions of the musicians and follow their body language. For me, that means that in a little way I can feel what it is like to be performing the music -- not just listening to it. I can rejoice with them, say, when two of the musicians sense they've harmonized just right -- I don't know that I can put it into words, but it adds an immense amount to enjoying the concert to me. There are two or three out of the whole ensemble who are especially inspiring to watch that way -- they just seem to "get into" the music with much more depth than any of the rest. G'night. Ted I am not reading any other comments before answering here, but the
answer is screaming in my head. Ted, you want to have a relationship with *yourself*!! There is no room
in your idea of relationship for personal expression. You want your wife
to respond to all stimuli exactly the way you do. It ain't gonna happen
and you are doing nothing but frustrating yourself (not to mention the poor woman who has to try to live up to your unlivable expectations) We all enjoy shared emotional understanding. But trying to contrive it
or, even worse, demand it is just unrealistic. You keep talking about
wanting the shared experiences of a soulmate when I truly do not believe you can comprehend what that really means. Hehehe... My "Ladyhawk" thread was the perfect example of the kind of "shared experinces" my wife and I can have. My wife and I don't like the same kinds of movies. She likes the romantic stories, and I like the manly fighting kinds of movies (swords, guns or bombs). My movies have to have a really high "boom to word" ratio and if that ratio goes into the high positives, it's my kid of movie. As a result, when we go to the movies, one of us is generally aquiescing to see a movie that really isn't interesting for the sake of the other. _Ladyhawk_ was interesting because it was a movie we both enjoyed though . . . and this is the important part . . . for different reason. My wife liked the romantic story. I'd imagine she though Rutger Hauer was "hunky". She liked the way the hero finally won the girl. I liked the fighting and swordplay. I liked the half naked Michelle Pfieffer. I liked the escape on multiple occasions by "the mouse". I also liked the evil bishop getting his in the end (and by his own hand, Navale was going to leave him to stew in his own juice). But we enjoyed the movie for different reasons. It was a shared experience of enjoying a movie, but I had no expectation of her enjoying it the same way I did. I also picked out the movie and suggested it to her because I understand the kinds of movies she likes, and I saw those aspects in that movie. I was right on target. Is *that* intimacy? -Tony -- "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's
time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony, not sure if it is called intimacy but I would call it *realistic
expectations*. In a way I am reminded of all the friends I have had who
didn't want to take their kids to Disney World until they were "old enough
to enjoy it". I always thought of this as meaning "old enough to understand
the financial hit we are taking". In my experience when I was there with
my 6 month old many many years ago, he was engrossed with all the lights and
movement. At 2 he had become a real "people watcher" and there is no better
place on earth for that activity. Each person has to be allowed the "right"
to experience life on their own terms, and when that just happens to be
shared occasionally not only do you get intimacy, but *magic*!
Momma

Everyboysmomma

08-02-2004, 07:51 AM

Tracey

08-02-2004, 09:45 AM

Tony Miller wrote:
But we enjoyed the movie for different reasons. It was a shared experience of enjoying a movie, but I had no expectation of her enjoying it the same way I did. I also picked out the movie and suggested it to her because I understand the kinds of movies she likes, and I saw those aspects in that movie. I was right on target. Is *that* intimacy?

It comes closer to my definition of intimacy than Ted's seemingly
does.

Tracey

Tracey

08-02-2004, 09:45 AM

Seeker

08-02-2004, 12:45 PM

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:410E6FC4.9070203@aol.com... Tony Miller wrote: But we enjoyed the movie for different reasons. It was a shared experience of enjoying a movie, but I had no expectation of her enjoying it the same way I did. I also picked out the movie and suggested it to her because I understand the kinds of movies she likes, and I saw those aspects in that movie. I was right on target. Is *that* intimacy? It comes closer to my definition of intimacy than Ted's seemingly does.

After reading this, some of my own posts, and some others (one from Joy
recently sticks in my mind especially) I see that we (including me
especially in that) may be confusing two different kinds of emotional
intimacy. I'm probably too tired right now (it was a very sleepless night)
to be writing this very coherently, but I'll give it a shot.

One kind of emotional intimacy is what Tony and Tracey and others are
referring to: communicating what we know and discover about ourselves (as
Schnarch would have it) well enough and fearlessly enough that we know how
to speak each others love languages -- doing things for and saying things to
each other that enhance our love for each other. While it may take a lot
of work, any two people can do that -- it is something any two people can
choose to do.

I don't know what you call the other kind -- unless it's what someone
labelled as "co-emoting." It is the recogition, through various kinds of
communication, that you and someone else are experiencing the same situation
(which could be a book or play or something in real-life) in roughly the
same way. That is not something you can choose or bring about through
conscious effort: it just happens. The irrational part of me wrongly says
I should expect to be able to have that kind of intimacy with my wife, and
so when I don't I am disappointed. The rational part of me acknowledges
that need is very strong for me and that I shouldn't have to defend that
when it is called into question. But the irrational part of me feels
rejected when it is and wants to fight back. What complicates this further
is that satisfying that need is not just a fantasy -- for I *have*
experienced such moments with others and I dearly wish I *could* experience
them with my wife. A further complication is that it is mostly women I've
had such moments with and it is women that I truly desire to have them with.
So, do I continue to hope to have it with my wife, seek out others I can
have it with (risking the danger of emotional intimacy with someone else)
or simply forgo it?

Ted

Seeker

08-02-2004, 12:45 PM

Tracey

08-02-2004, 01:19 PM

Seeker wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:410E6FC4.9070203@aol.com...Tony Miller wrote:But we enjoyed the movie for different reasons. It was a sharedexperience of enjoying a movie, but I had no expectation of her enjoyingit the same way I did. I also picked out the movie and suggested it toher because I understand the kinds of movies she likes, and I saw thoseaspects in that movie. I was right on target. Is *that* intimacy?It comes closer to my definition of intimacy than Ted's seeminglydoes. After reading this, some of my own posts, and some others (one from Joy recently sticks in my mind especially) I see that we (including me especially in that) may be confusing two different kinds of emotional intimacy. I'm probably too tired right now (it was a very sleepless night) to be writing this very coherently, but I'll give it a shot. One kind of emotional intimacy is what Tony and Tracey and others are referring to: communicating what we know and discover about ourselves (as Schnarch would have it) well enough and fearlessly enough that we know how to speak each others love languages -- doing things for and saying things to each other that enhance our love for each other. While it may take a lot of work, any two people can do that -- it is something any two people can choose to do.

I disagree with this but not sure if I can verbalize it. I guess it's
because, for me, there's another aspect behind the 'knowing what my
spouse likes and getting or doing it for him'. It's the 'happy be-
cause he's happy' thing going on. I don't see this with you at all.
It's never a matter of 'Well, if she's happy doing X this way, then
I'm happy she's happy.' Instead, it's been 'But she would be much
happier if if she did Y and she won't do Y and now I'm miserable.'
I don't know what you call the other kind -- unless it's what someone labelled as "co-emoting." It is the recogition, through various kinds of communication, that you and someone else are experiencing the same situation (which could be a book or play or something in real-life) in roughly the same way. That is not something you can choose or bring about through conscious effort: it just happens. The irrational part of me wrongly says I should expect to be able to have that kind of intimacy with my wife, and so when I don't I am disappointed. The rational part of me acknowledges that need is very strong for me and that I shouldn't have to defend that when it is called into question. But the irrational part of me feels rejected when it is and wants to fight back. What complicates this further is that satisfying that need is not just a fantasy -- for I *have* experienced such moments with others and I dearly wish I *could* experience them with my wife. A further complication is that it is mostly women I've had such moments with and it is women that I truly desire to have them with. So, do I continue to hope to have it with my wife, seek out others I can have it with (risking the danger of emotional intimacy with someone else) or simply forgo it?

And we're back full circle again.

Tracey

Tracey

08-02-2004, 01:19 PM

Seeker

08-02-2004, 07:12 PM

In article <410EA203.7020702@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:
I disagree with this but not sure if I can verbalize it. I guess it's because, for me, there's another aspect behind the 'knowing what my spouse likes and getting or doing it for him'. It's the 'happy be- cause he's happy' thing going on. I don't see this with you at all. It's never a matter of 'Well, if she's happy doing X this way, then I'm happy she's happy.' Instead, it's been 'But she would be much happier if if she did Y and she won't do Y and now I'm miserable.'

I warned you I didn't promise to be especially coherent. Of course the
reason I want to do X for my wife is because it makes her happy. The
problem is -- there are very few things I can do that bring her
happiness. Mostly I am aware of having to avoid doing things that
bring her unhappiness. She admits herself she is not a very
demonstrative person, so mostly I am not even aware of whether she is
happy or not. She loves it when I bring her flowers -- but if I bring
them too often, or buy ones that are too expensive (say $6 instead of
$4) she gets upset because I exceeded the budget.

Ted

Seeker

08-02-2004, 07:12 PM

Joy

08-03-2004, 05:02 AM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2n7jumFtikngU1@uni-berlin.de... "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:410E6FC4.9070203@aol.com... Tony Miller wrote: I don't know what you call the other kind -- unless it's what someone labelled as "co-emoting." It is the recogition, through various kinds of communication, that you and someone else are experiencing the same
situation (which could be a book or play or something in real-life) in roughly the same way. That is not something you can choose or bring about through conscious effort: it just happens. The irrational part of me wrongly
says I should expect to be able to have that kind of intimacy with my wife, and so when I don't I am disappointed. The rational part of me acknowledges that need is very strong for me and that I shouldn't have to defend that when it is called into question. But the irrational part of me feels rejected when it is and wants to fight back. What complicates this
further is that satisfying that need is not just a fantasy -- for I *have* experienced such moments with others and I dearly wish I *could*
experience them with my wife. A further complication is that it is mostly women I've had such moments with and it is women that I truly desire to have them
with.
So, do I continue to hope to have it with my wife,

You've already established that this is not one of the things your wife has
to offer. You know that, already, so why would you continue to hope to have
it with her? Can you not see that "hoping to have it with your wife" EQUALS
"hoping your wife will change to be who you want her to be", which is what
people have been telling you all along?

No, you don't get to define who your wife is, or demand she change to be who
you want. It also sounds like a huge waste of time and energy to sit around
dwelling on it, too - she is who she is, she has a right to be. What you DO
get to do - in fact, really *need* to do - is decide whether or not you can
live with who she is.

These are your choices, as you've been told about a zillion times - either
accept her for who and what she is, and live with that, or decide you can't
accept her for who and what she is, and leave. You keep insisting there's a
choice C - in which she changes to be who you want her to be - but that is
an illusion. There is no choice C.

Joy

08-03-2004, 05:02 AM

Everyboysmomma

08-03-2004, 06:35 AM

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10guvnhe5ulgra7@corp.supernews.com... "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2n7jumFtikngU1@uni-berlin.de... "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:410E6FC4.9070203@aol.com... Tony Miller wrote: I don't know what you call the other kind -- unless it's what someone labelled as "co-emoting." It is the recogition, through various kinds
of communication, that you and someone else are experiencing the same situation (which could be a book or play or something in real-life) in roughly the same way. That is not something you can choose or bring about through conscious effort: it just happens. The irrational part of me wrongly says I should expect to be able to have that kind of intimacy with my wife,
and so when I don't I am disappointed. The rational part of me acknowledges that need is very strong for me and that I shouldn't have to defend that when it is called into question. But the irrational part of me feels rejected when it is and wants to fight back. What complicates this further is that satisfying that need is not just a fantasy -- for I *have* experienced such moments with others and I dearly wish I *could* experience them with my wife. A further complication is that it is mostly women
I've had such moments with and it is women that I truly desire to have them with. So, do I continue to hope to have it with my wife, You've already established that this is not one of the things your wife
has to offer. You know that, already, so why would you continue to hope to
have it with her? Can you not see that "hoping to have it with your wife"
EQUALS "hoping your wife will change to be who you want her to be", which is what people have been telling you all along? No, you don't get to define who your wife is, or demand she change to be
who you want. It also sounds like a huge waste of time and energy to sit
around dwelling on it, too - she is who she is, she has a right to be. What you
DO get to do - in fact, really *need* to do - is decide whether or not you
can live with who she is. These are your choices, as you've been told about a zillion times - either accept her for who and what she is, and live with that, or decide you
can't accept her for who and what she is, and leave. You keep insisting there's
a choice C - in which she changes to be who you want her to be - but that is an illusion. There is no choice C.

Excellent post Joy. I think everyone here gets it except for Ted. And
somehow
I just have the feeling Ted is never going to get it. I could wish forever
that my DH would be 6 feet tall, and at 52 years old, *it isn't going to
happen*. What Ted is wishing for is no different. There is a part of me
that would love to read Mrs. Ted's posts on what she wishes *he* could be
and what he could understand. To quote Dr. Phil, "no matter how flat you
make a pancake, it has two sides".
Momma

Everyboysmomma

08-03-2004, 06:35 AM

Seeker

08-03-2004, 09:56 PM

In article <10guvnhe5ulgra7@corp.supernews.com>, Joy
<joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
No, you don't get to define who your wife is, or demand she change to be who you want. It also sounds like a huge waste of time and energy to sit around dwelling on it, too - she is who she is, she has a right to be. What you DO get to do - in fact, really *need* to do - is decide whether or not you can live with who she is.

I can live just fine with her as she is -- in a fashion haven't I been
doing that for 38 years? What I need to find out is whether who she
is can satisfy some of my emotional needs that aren't being satisfied,
and, if not, is there any acceptable way of having them be satisfied?

Ted

Seeker

08-03-2004, 09:56 PM

Jennifer

08-03-2004, 10:43 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:010820041136393948%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om... In article <c8cb5319.0407310533.3c773304@posting.google.com>, shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: Since you've been going every week this summer, it could be that something just happened to be weighing on her mind the last time. Instead of jumping to the conclusion she's not experiencing the concert in the same way as you and being annoyed by that, next time try shifting your attitude away from the personal. In the intermission, say something like, "Honey, is everything okay? You strike me as preoccupied tonight." It didn't strike me as being pre-occupied (especially) -- afterall, when she watches TV she'll do a crossword puzzle at the same time. I did ask afterwards if she enjoyed the concert and she said, yes, why did you ask?

Ted, are you a multi-tasker? Because I am, and I love doing multiple things
at once. I never go anywhere without a book to read, and I always have
crossword puzzles at my side, even when I'm watching a movie (and I adore
films). I eat while I read, and I read when I bathe, etc. I feel restless
if I'm not handling a lot of things simultaneously, and I happen to like
that I have the ability to focus on more than one thing. Just because you
find the concert more enjoyable by focusing on it to the exclusion of nearly
everything else, that doesn't mean your wife has to do so in order to enjoy
the concert.

It seems to me that you don't understand what it's like to live with a mind
completely unlike your own.

Jennifer

Jennifer

08-03-2004, 10:43 PM

Jennifer

08-03-2004, 10:46 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:020820042112536336%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om... In article <410EA203.7020702@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: I disagree with this but not sure if I can verbalize it. I guess it's because, for me, there's another aspect behind the 'knowing what my spouse likes and getting or doing it for him'. It's the 'happy be- cause he's happy' thing going on. I don't see this with you at all. It's never a matter of 'Well, if she's happy doing X this way, then I'm happy she's happy.' Instead, it's been 'But she would be much happier if if she did Y and she won't do Y and now I'm miserable.' I warned you I didn't promise to be especially coherent. Of course the reason I want to do X for my wife is because it makes her happy. The problem is -- there are very few things I can do that bring her happiness. Mostly I am aware of having to avoid doing things that bring her unhappiness. She admits herself she is not a very demonstrative person, so mostly I am not even aware of whether she is happy or not. She loves it when I bring her flowers -- but if I bring them too often, or buy ones that are too expensive (say $6 instead of $4) she gets upset because I exceeded the budget.

Why does it bother you when she gets upset, though? DH loves to buy me
flowers, and I enjoy it sometimes. At other times, it strikes me as too
much, and I ask him please to lay off the flowers for a while. He doesn't
feel hurt when I ask him that, nor does he ask for an explanation (I don't
even have a good reason, lol...I just get tired of extra stuff around the
house, even pretty clutter!).

So when your wife says, hon, you exceeded the budget...why not just say,
yeah, sorry, I guess I'll lay off the flowers for a little while until it
can be a nice surprise again!

Jennifer

Jennifer

08-03-2004, 10:46 PM

_calinda_

08-04-2004, 04:49 AM

Jennifer wrote: "Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:010820041136393948%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om... In article <c8cb5319.0407310533.3c773304@posting.google.com>, shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: Since you've been going every week this summer, it could be that something just happened to be weighing on her mind the last time. Instead of jumping to the conclusion she's not experiencing the concert in the same way as you and being annoyed by that, next time try shifting your attitude away from the personal. In the intermission, say something like, "Honey, is everything okay? You strike me as preoccupied tonight." It didn't strike me as being pre-occupied (especially) -- afterall, when she watches TV she'll do a crossword puzzle at the same time. I did ask afterwards if she enjoyed the concert and she said, yes, why did you ask? Ted, are you a multi-tasker? Because I am, and I love doing multiple things at once. I never go anywhere without a book to read, and I always have crossword puzzles at my side, even when I'm watching a movie (and I adore films). I eat while I read, and I read when I bathe, etc. I feel restless if I'm not handling a lot of things simultaneously, and I happen to like that I have the ability to focus on more than one thing. Just because you find the concert more enjoyable by focusing on it to the exclusion of nearly everything else, that doesn't mean your wife has to do so in order to enjoy the concert.

I was thinking of Ted and this whole issue of his wife at a concert this
past weekend. My SO were at a folk festival, where there are several
venues with various groups performing in six different venues all at one
time. During part of the performance, I would take the program and read
about whatever group was performing (listening and enjoying the music
all the while!)..

I would look around at the people in the audience, watching their
reactions to whatever music was being played, I'd watch the musicians,
basically absorbing the entire atmosphere around me.

If I had to sit and just watch the performance of the musicians and not
do anything else for fear of bothering my SO, my enjoyment would have
been severely limited.
It seems to me that you don't understand what it's like to live with a mind completely unlike your own.

Not only does he not understand that, I don't think he even cares to try
to allow his wife to feel and act differently than his expectations.
That he feels he can't derive any enjoyment from an experience unless
his wife feels identically from him seems, well..to put it bluntly...
completely bonkers to me..

I know he believes he's experienced this in the past with other women
(how convenient).. I would just *love* to hear their side of things.

Cal~ Jennifer

_calinda_

08-04-2004, 04:49 AM

Bogart

08-04-2004, 08:23 AM

Seeker wrote:
In article <10guvnhe5ulgra7@corp.supernews.com>, Joy <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:No, you don't get to define who your wife is, or demand she change to be whoyou want. It also sounds like a huge waste of time and energy to sit arounddwelling on it, too - she is who she is, she has a right to be. What you DOget to do - in fact, really *need* to do - is decide whether or not you canlive with who she is. I can live just fine with her as she is -- in a fashion haven't I been doing that for 38 years? What I need to find out is whether who she is can satisfy some of my emotional needs that aren't being satisfied, and, if not, is there any acceptable way of having them be satisfied? Ted

yes there is - satisfy them yourself.
wanting someone is streets ahead of needing them.

bogey

Bogart

08-04-2004, 08:23 AM

Seeker

08-04-2004, 11:36 AM

"_calinda_" <calindasinclair@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2nc0qvFuam14U1@uni-berlin.de... Jennifer wrote: It seems to me that you don't understand what it's like to live with a mind completely unlike your own. Not only does he not understand that, I don't think he even cares to try to allow his wife to feel and act differently than his expectations. That he feels he can't derive any enjoyment from an experience unless his wife feels identically from him seems, well..to put it bluntly... completely bonkers to me..
Aargh. One more try. One of the observations about our marriage is that
it has been one of two people living parallel lives -- great and efficient
for the mechanics of raising a family, but without much intimacy. One of
the things we have been working on is simply consciously spending more time
together doing things we enjoy doing together -- in hopes, I guess, of
finding intimacy there. Continuing along like we have been before -- being
in the same place, observing the same thing in parallel -- but not sharing
anything other than time -- is no change. I had hoped that some of these
experiences might be ones where we'd connect and I admit I over-reacted
(here) when it looks like they've turned out not to be.

Ted

Seeker

08-04-2004, 11:36 AM

Tracey

08-04-2004, 01:31 PM

Seeker wrote: "_calinda_" <calindasinclair@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2nc0qvFuam14U1@uni-berlin.de...Jennifer wrote:It seems to me that you don't understand what it's like to live witha mind completely unlike your own.Not only does he not understand that, I don't think he even cares to tryto allow his wife to feel and act differently than his expectations.That he feels he can't derive any enjoyment from an experience unlesshis wife feels identically from him seems, well..to put it bluntly...completely bonkers to me.. Aargh. One more try. One of the observations about our marriage is that it has been one of two people living parallel lives -- great and efficient for the mechanics of raising a family, but without much intimacy. One of the things we have been working on is simply consciously spending more time together doing things we enjoy doing together -- in hopes, I guess, of finding intimacy there. Continuing along like we have been before -- being in the same place, observing the same thing in parallel -- but not sharing anything other than time -- is no change. I had hoped that some of these experiences might be ones where we'd connect and I admit I over-reacted (here) when it looks like they've turned out not to be.

Ted, have you asked the therapist to describe *exactly* what you
both are supposed to be doing during this time together? And after?
I can't even begin to imagine that his assignment of being together
also included the assignment of both feeling the same thing while
you're doing it. Because I don't think I'm totally crazy or far off
the mark when I say if you explained to your therapist what you're
seemingly expecting to happen, he would say that's not the intent
of his assignment.

My husband and I went to a concert last night as you might have
already read. There were a couple of times when, sad as it may
seem to some, I was *really* overcome by the fact that this
group, who I have been listening to for over 30 years and have
spent probably thousands of hours listening to their music and
watching on TV and DVDs, I was actually seeing *live* and seeing
in person all of the things that I've only seen on a TV or movie
screen. And my husband was sitting there looking at me like I was
from another planet for my reaction but, at the same time, I could
see (and he said it later when we could hear each other :P) he
was very, very happy that he was a part of making that happen.

In another part of the concert, Pete Townshend sang and played
a song solo. During that song, I noticed my husband sitting there,
just shaking his head a little and I leaned over and said 'Honey,
he's been playing guitar for probably 50 years. Don't feel bad.'
And I had hit it on the head, what he was thinking. (I also
wasn't too far off the mark. He'll be sixty next year and he
started playing guitar when he was 12, so, about 48 years. :P )

But, guess what? I didn't just 'know' that that was what he
was thinking without him ever saying anything. I knew his thoughts
because we've talked about his wish that he played guitar better
and his envy of people who can play well and the people he thinks
plays well.

Am I bringing up this concert to ding you on how differently our
concert went than your recent one did? No, I'm not. I'm trying to
point out that our mutual enjoyment of our concert didn't happen
in a vacuum. Just spending time together, as you've found out,
doesn't accomplish much without some communication and some know-
ledge of the other person. Your disappointment that your concert
didn't go the way you wanted it to is just another example, IMO,
of your 'magical' thinking.

Tracey

Tracey

08-04-2004, 01:31 PM

Seeker

08-04-2004, 06:11 PM

In article <4110ff86$0$12928$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
bogart <bogart@here.there.com> wrote:
yes there is - satisfy them yourself.

Emotional masturbation? I haven't found a manual on that yet.

Ted

Seeker

08-04-2004, 06:11 PM

Jennifer

08-04-2004, 07:20 PM

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2ncokpFv852bU1@uni-berlin.de... "_calinda_" <calindasinclair@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2nc0qvFuam14U1@uni-berlin.de... Jennifer wrote: It seems to me that you don't understand what it's like to live with a mind completely unlike your own. Not only does he not understand that, I don't think he even cares to try to allow his wife to feel and act differently than his expectations. That he feels he can't derive any enjoyment from an experience unless his wife feels identically from him seems, well..to put it bluntly... completely bonkers to me.. Aargh. One more try. One of the observations about our marriage is that it has been one of two people living parallel lives -- great and efficient for the mechanics of raising a family, but without much intimacy. One of the things we have been working on is simply consciously spending more
time together doing things we enjoy doing together -- in hopes, I guess, of finding intimacy there. Continuing along like we have been before --
being in the same place, observing the same thing in parallel -- but not sharing anything other than time -- is no change. I had hoped that some of these experiences might be ones where we'd connect and I admit I over-reacted (here) when it looks like they've turned out not to be.

Aargh. One more try, lol (but not really, of course).

Ted, you wrote, "I had hoped that some of these experiences might be ones
where we'd connect." You *did* connect, in some fashion. Your problem is
your perception that there was no connection, simply because what you'd
imagined *should* happen (she should watch the play the same way, we should
turn our heads at the same moment to smile at one another, we should whistle
in admiration on cue) didn't.

It *IS* a change, being in the same place, observing the same thing in
parallel, if you open your mind up to the fact that you're responsible for
your reaction to the event, your wife is responsible for her own, and if you
can take simple pleasure in your physical closeness...being at the same
place and not apart...having some shared experience you can (or might not!)
discuss in later hours, days, weeks or years...then you can begin to feel
warmth toward your wife.

Of course, you have to stop expecting everything to come to you as you
imagine it should, and that includes emotional intimacy with your wife.

Jennifer

Jennifer

08-04-2004, 07:20 PM

Jennifer

08-04-2004, 07:27 PM

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:411147B9.6010807@aol.com...
In another part of the concert, Pete Townshend sang and played a song solo. During that song, I noticed my husband sitting there, just shaking his head a little and I leaned over and said 'Honey, he's been playing guitar for probably 50 years. Don't feel bad.' And I had hit it on the head, what he was thinking. (I also wasn't too far off the mark. He'll be sixty next year and he started playing guitar when he was 12, so, about 48 years. :P )

*LOL* Yeah, DH and I went to see Rush last night with my brothers. We're
all fans from way back. :-) The band in its current incarnation (Geddy
Lee, Neil Peart, Alex Lifeson) is celebrating 30 years together, and the
band members are in their early fifties. DH is only 41, but we were all
amazed at how quickly 1974 becomes 2004...and it doesn't seem like 30 years
at all! Then old pics of the band members would flash on the screen during
the show, and--wow!!--they had lots of hair! ;-)

Jennifer

Jennifer

08-04-2004, 07:27 PM

Tony Miller

08-04-2004, 09:10 PM

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 01:11:26 GMT, Seeker
<Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote: In article <4110ff86$0$12928$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, bogart <bogart@here.there.com> wrote: yes there is - satisfy them yourself. Emotional masturbation? I haven't found a manual on that yet.

You tell yourself "secrets" and you react the way you want you to :P

-Tony

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

Tony Miller

08-04-2004, 09:10 PM

BottleRocket

08-04-2004, 09:34 PM

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:<411147B9.6010807@aol.com>...

<snip> But, guess what? I didn't just 'know' that that was what he was thinking without him ever saying anything. I knew his thoughts because we've talked about his wish that he played guitar better and his envy of people who can play well and the people he thinks plays well. Am I bringing up this concert to ding you on how differently our concert went than your recent one did? No, I'm not. I'm trying to point out that our mutual enjoyment of our concert didn't happen in a vacuum. Just spending time together, as you've found out, doesn't accomplish much without some communication and some know- ledge of the other person. Your disappointment that your concert didn't go the way you wanted it to is just another example, IMO, of your 'magical' thinking. Tracey

excellent post

BottleRocket

08-04-2004, 09:34 PM

Seeker

08-05-2004, 09:05 AM

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:411147B9.6010807@aol.com... Am I bringing up this concert to ding you on how differently our concert went than your recent one did? No, I'm not. I'm trying to point out that our mutual enjoyment of our concert didn't happen in a vacuum. Just spending time together, as you've found out, doesn't accomplish much without some communication and some know- ledge of the other person. Your disappointment that your concert didn't go the way you wanted it to is just another example, IMO, of your 'magical' thinking.

I get your point -- and we have had something a little like those kinds of
discussions (for instance, I've talked about how I like sitting close so I
can see the performers interacting with each other -- the last time I even
pointed out the two I like paying attention to most because they are the
most expressive).

Do you get *my* point at all? That I have a hard time accepting, and
grieving over, that there is something I would like in my marriage that I
probably can never have, and so I grasp at any straws that maybe there is
hope for it afterall?

Ted

Seeker

08-05-2004, 09:05 AM

Tracey

08-05-2004, 09:48 AM

Seeker wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:411147B9.6010807@aol.com...Am I bringing up this concert to ding you on how differently ourconcert went than your recent one did? No, I'm not. I'm trying topoint out that our mutual enjoyment of our concert didn't happenin a vacuum. Just spending time together, as you've found out,doesn't accomplish much without some communication and some know-ledge of the other person. Your disappointment that your concertdidn't go the way you wanted it to is just another example, IMO,of your 'magical' thinking. I get your point -- and we have had something a little like those kinds of discussions (for instance, I've talked about how I like sitting close so I can see the performers interacting with each other -- the last time I even pointed out the two I like paying attention to most because they are the most expressive). Do you get *my* point at all? That I have a hard time accepting, and grieving over, that there is something I would like in my marriage that I probably can never have, and so I grasp at any straws that maybe there is hope for it afterall?

Of course I get the point that you have a hard time accepting that
there is something you would like in your marriage that you aren't
getting What I don't get is why you continue to make yourself miserable
over it and won't *do* anything about it.

Tracey

Tracey

08-05-2004, 09:48 AM