Summary [Archive] - Labor Law Talk

Seeker

06-13-2005, 11:49 AM

I have at least a dozen more posts that I feel I ought to respond to.
Here's sort of what I get out of all of them. Some of these I have answers
to, some not. Some we agree on; some we don't.

I have become overly emotionally attached to at least four different women
over the past half-dozen years.

One of those was even after I was in individual counselling intended to get
to the root of what's going on.

I know that's all wrong. I'm married and by all external measures our
marriage is just fine It's not supposed to happen.

So why did it happen?

What is wrong with me or with our marriage?

I can identify a small number of ways in which my relationships with those
women were different, in truth or in fantasy, from what I have with my
wife -- how they either satisfied or gave promise of satisfying what I think
is missing.

What can I learn from all that?

What can *I* do?

Why am I afraid to do almost anything?

Some of those things many, if not most, people here can relate to. Some --
and unfortunately perhaps the most important -- few, if any, can.

How can I expect people to accept that if I'm not willing to go into any
detail?

By focussing here on all of that I believe I am unfortunately presenting a
limited and distorted view of how things are and who I am. I don't know
that I can do much about that.

But I do care that people here "get it right."

Why?

--
Ted

Fran

06-13-2005, 12:25 PM

In article <42add514$1_1@x-privat.org>, Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com
says...
But I do care that people here "get it right."

Don't you think they have? Many times over?
Why?

Validation... Even *you* know that.

Fran

06-13-2005, 12:25 PM

Doug Anderson

06-13-2005, 12:39 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:

I have almost nothing to add to jen's excellent response. But only
_almost_ nothing!

(snip)
Some of those things many, if not most, people here can relate to. Some -- and unfortunately perhaps the most important -- few, if any, can. How can I expect people to accept that if I'm not willing to go into any detail? By focussing here on all of that I believe I am unfortunately presenting a limited and distorted view of how things are and who I am. I don't know that I can do much about that.

OK. But I'm worried you are playing the same self-destructive game
here, with your wife, and with your therapist.

You are hoping to be accepted and understood without opening up and
communicating about what is going on. You are doing the same with
your wife, hoping her to provide what you "need" in a relationship
without telling her what you need or asking her to provide it.

Now it doesn't matter that you are doing this on ASM - we're not
important. It matters that you're doing this with your wife and
therapist.
But I do care that people here "get it right." Why?

I don't know. I'm guessing that you are like me in the following
respect: it is important to me to be understood. It _isn't_ important
to be agreed with, but it is important to be understood.

Of course, when I want to be understood I actually try to tell people
what I want them to understand rather than dancing around it with
metaphor or engaging in magical thinking and hoping that they'll just
understand it by intuition. This makes it (in my experience) easier
to be understoot.

Doug

Doug Anderson

06-13-2005, 12:39 PM

DaKitty

06-13-2005, 12:40 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42add514$1_1@x-privat.org... I have at least a dozen more posts that I feel I ought to respond to. Here's sort of what I get out of all of them. Some of these I have
answers to, some not. Some we agree on; some we don't. I have become overly emotionally attached to at least four different women over the past half-dozen years. One of those was even after I was in individual counselling intended to
get to the root of what's going on. I know that's all wrong. I'm married and by all external measures our marriage is just fine It's not supposed to happen. So why did it happen? What is wrong with me or with our marriage? I can identify a small number of ways in which my relationships with those women were different, in truth or in fantasy, from what I have with my wife -- how they either satisfied or gave promise of satisfying what I
think is missing. What can I learn from all that? What can *I* do? Why am I afraid to do almost anything? Some of those things many, if not most, people here can relate to.
Some -- and unfortunately perhaps the most important -- few, if any, can. How can I expect people to accept that if I'm not willing to go into any detail? By focussing here on all of that I believe I am unfortunately presenting a limited and distorted view of how things are and who I am. I don't know that I can do much about that. But I do care that people here "get it right." Why?

One thing I wanna add to Jen's excellent post...
It's unrealistic to expect that people will 'get it right' or agree with you
when you are giving a skewed story.
Makes me wonder if the story isn't skewed in the direction that you *think*
would make it acceptable, and have people agree with you, and you're
bothered that they aren't buying the story that you're trying to use to
justify your actions to yourself.

DaKitty

06-13-2005, 12:40 PM

Tracey

06-13-2005, 12:40 PM

Fran wrote: In article <42add514$1_1@x-privat.org>, Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com says...But I do care that people here "get it right." Don't you think they have? Many times over?

No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation
pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth
about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to
take.

Tracey

Tracey

06-13-2005, 12:40 PM

Fran

06-13-2005, 02:19 PM

In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take.

Hey Tracey!
Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help
him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?"

I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status
quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then
people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to
help himself. Rinse, repeat.

What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly
stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step
towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people
getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working
wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't-
have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing.

I don't know... anyway...

Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your*
recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?).
It's a favorite around here! :)

Fran

06-13-2005, 02:19 PM

DaKitty

06-13-2005, 02:26 PM

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?"

Being relatively new here, I'm closer to the end of the first time around.
I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat.

Heh, I just told him that couple of days ago, that we're staring to go in
corcles, and I won't repeat myself.
What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing.

Very good point!

DaKitty

06-13-2005, 02:26 PM

Tracey

06-13-2005, 02:34 PM

Fran wrote: In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...Don't you think they have? Many times over?No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situationpegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truthabout *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen totake. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?"

Well, I've mainly stopped. Occasionally I get sucked back in but
I'm making a conscious effort not to. I did get involved in a back
and forth not long ago but when I felt it was heading down the same
old road that I had been down many times before, I got off of it. :)

<snip> Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :)

Glad they like it. :) I've gotten a bit lighter in the cooking area
lately and haven't made it for us in a long time. Grocery shopping
tomorrow so maybe I'll pick some up and make it soon.

Tracey

Tracey

06-13-2005, 02:34 PM

urf

06-13-2005, 02:37 PM

urf

06-13-2005, 02:37 PM

Tai

06-13-2005, 03:55 PM

Fran wrote: In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing.

The problem is that we're all in different places on our tedcycle and not
enough of us have stepped out at any one time to break it for him.

Tai

Tai

06-13-2005, 03:55 PM

Fran wrote: In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing.

The problem is that we're all in different places on our tedcycle and not
enough of us have stepped out at any one time to break it for him.

Tai

Tai

06-13-2005, 04:02 PM

Seeker wrote: I have at least a dozen more posts that I feel I ought to respond to. Here's sort of what I get out of all of them. Some of these I have answers to, some not. Some we agree on; some we don't. I have become overly emotionally attached to at least four different women over the past half-dozen years. One of those was even after I was in individual counselling intended to get to the root of what's going on. I know that's all wrong. I'm married and by all external measures our marriage is just fine It's not supposed to happen. So why did it happen? What is wrong with me or with our marriage? I can identify a small number of ways in which my relationships with those women were different, in truth or in fantasy, from what I have with my wife -- how they either satisfied or gave promise of satisfying what I think is missing. What can I learn from all that?

I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying your
friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and not
become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for people.
So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have relationships
with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you
receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your
relationship with her and not instead.
What can *I* do? Why am I afraid to do almost anything?

That one I can't help you with - I have puzzled and puzzled over how you can
find your state of agonised indecision preferable to the worst outcome -
which I don't think is the most likely one, anyway. Your wife is unlikely to
leave you if you are honest with her.

Tai

Tai

06-13-2005, 04:02 PM

WhansaMi

06-13-2005, 07:21 PM

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing. I don't know... anyway... Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :)

Fran, I suggested this a while back. I was called a "meany" for it. :-)

Sheila

WhansaMi

06-13-2005, 07:21 PM

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing. I don't know... anyway... Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :)

Fran, I suggested this a while back. I was called a "meany" for it. :-)

Sheila

Tai

06-13-2005, 10:23 PM

WhansaMi wrote: "Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...> Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing. I don't know... anyway... Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :) Fran, I suggested this a while back. I was called a "meany" for it. :-)

I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bully
behaviour changes into Ted. And I don't believe our willingness to engage
him, either singly or collectively, will ever have much effect on what he
decides to do - he's on a path moving at his own(snail-like) pace and very
much in control of both the throttle and the steering.

Tai

Tai

06-13-2005, 10:23 PM

Bill in Co.

06-13-2005, 11:36 PM

Tai wrote: WhansaMi wrote: "Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...>> Don't you think they have? Many times over?>> No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation> pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth> about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to> take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing. I don't know... anyway... Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :) Fran, I suggested this a while back. I was called a "meany" for it. :-)

(You got off easy. I've been called worse things)!
I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. And I don't believe our willingness to engage him, either singly or collectively, will ever have much effect on what he decides to do - he's on a path moving at his own(snail-like) pace and very much in control of both the throttle and the steering. Tai

Well, I don't think anything we do here is really going to make any
difference. (If that's the expectation, that may be a bit naive).

Bill in Co.

06-13-2005, 11:36 PM

Fran

06-14-2005, 08:43 AM

In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says...
I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bully behaviour changes into Ted.

Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to
mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do
things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying
that!

What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to
the repetition. Going by what I've read here in the past few days, I
don't think the repetition (and getting pissed off with Ted in the
process) is working. I truly believe the only purpose it's serving at
this point is to keep Ted stuck (evidenced by the fact that his
responses seem almost scripted), and the folks who help him, frustrated.

So, what to do? Prepare - Here comes the good part...

I don't *know* what to do! Lol!

But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his
well intentioned helpers, can move forward. I'm sure Ted is an
intellectualy capable person, and many of you have given him the
"tools" to begin working through his issues. If folks really want to
help him, then help him to *use* the tools, and by all means be
assertive! 'Cause Ted's little cycle of making sure "you all get it
right" over and over is his way of bullying *you*.

Fran

06-14-2005, 08:43 AM

Bill in Co.

06-14-2005, 10:01 AM

Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying that! What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. Going by what I've read here in the past few days, I don't think the repetition (and getting pissed off with Ted in the process) is working. I truly believe the only purpose it's serving at this point is to keep Ted stuck (evidenced by the fact that his responses seem almost scripted), and the folks who help him, frustrated. So, what to do? Prepare - Here comes the good part... I don't *know* what to do! Lol! But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his well intentioned helpers, can move forward.

But maybe people don't want to move forward? (not trying to be catty here,
just stating a possibility)
I'm sure Ted is an intellectualy capable person, and many of you have given him the "tools" to begin working through his issues. If folks really want to help him, then help him to *use* the tools, and by all means be assertive! 'Cause Ted's little cycle of making sure "you all get it right" over and over is his way of bullying *you*.

Bill in Co.

06-14-2005, 10:01 AM

Tracey

06-14-2005, 10:25 AM

Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says...I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bullybehaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck.

I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop
responding. I mean, what do you do about the people who don't
stop? Stop responding to them, too? At the same time, I don't
believe there's anything wrong with individuals deciding not
to respond anymore. I have. :) Not in a 'Until you do things
*my* way' way but because it's better for *me* to not respond.
Imagine any mental health professional saying that!

Well, we're not mental health professionals in a patient/client
relationship so that really doesn't apply.
What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition.

That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO. Because it's
the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult,
after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues.
So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop
responding, I think.

Tracey

Tracey

06-14-2005, 10:25 AM

Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says...I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bullybehaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck.

I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop
responding. I mean, what do you do about the people who don't
stop? Stop responding to them, too? At the same time, I don't
believe there's anything wrong with individuals deciding not
to respond anymore. I have. :) Not in a 'Until you do things
*my* way' way but because it's better for *me* to not respond.
Imagine any mental health professional saying that!

Well, we're not mental health professionals in a patient/client
relationship so that really doesn't apply.
What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition.

That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO. Because it's
the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult,
after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues.
So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop
responding, I think.

Tracey

Doug Anderson

06-14-2005, 10:49 AM

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. I mean, what do you do about the people who don't stop? Stop responding to them, too? At the same time, I don't believe there's anything wrong with individuals deciding not to respond anymore. I have. :) Not in a 'Until you do things *my* way' way but because it's better for *me* to not respond.

Something which has occurred to me, which isn't feasible but would be
nice, is to have a sort of "codex tedius" (I'm sure someone can
correct my pig-latin, but it would be nice if the corrections was
"codex tedious!").

An index of, say, the 50 most useful posts on the Ted subject. Then
if we were all disciplined, every time Ted posts, rather than
answering with the same words, we can post references to the codex. E.g.:

Ted: "How can I expect my wife to listen to my needs when she is a cold fish."

ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety."

Of course there have been so many postings about Ted that preparing
this codex would be a lifetime job for a monastery full of monks!

Doug Anderson

06-14-2005, 10:49 AM

Fran

06-14-2005, 11:03 AM

In article <_3Ere.4297$jX6.2851@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says...
But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his well intentioned helpers, can move forward. But maybe people don't want to move forward? (not trying to be catty here, just stating a possibility)

Oh, absolutely! If folks don't want to move forward, then that's that,
right? :) No problem whatsoever. I certainly believe in people doing
what *they* believe is right for them.

Fran

06-14-2005, 11:03 AM

Fran

06-14-2005, 11:06 AM

In article <42AF1308.9010409@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding.

Oh, so do I! I agree with Tai when she said that it's no one's place to
bully behavior changes in Ted.
What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition.
That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO.

Yeah, you're right.

My post was meant as a food-for-thought kind of thing... an
"outsider's" perspective, if you will. In the end people get to make
their own choices. (That's always the good news!)
Because it's the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult, after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues. So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop responding, I think.

Well, something's bound to give in 10-20 years, no doubt. :) Anyway, my
posts were mainly in response to the folks who seemed to be getting
ticked off at Ted's inability (unwillingness?) to move forward.

Fran

06-14-2005, 11:06 AM

Fran

06-14-2005, 11:08 AM

In article <PrqdnVRUqtI6hTLfRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com says...
An index of, say, the 50 most useful posts on the Ted subject. Then if we were all disciplined, every time Ted posts, rather than answering with the same words, we can post references to the codex. E.g.: Ted: "How can I expect my wife to listen to my needs when she is a cold fish." ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety." Of course there have been so many postings about Ted that preparing this codex would be a lifetime job for a monastery full of monks!

You're so cute! - Lol!

Fran

06-14-2005, 11:08 AM

Bill in Co.

06-14-2005, 11:43 AM

Fran wrote: In article <42AF1308.9010409@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. Oh, so do I! I agree with Tai when she said that it's no one's place to bully behavior changes in Ted. What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO. Yeah, you're right. My post was meant as a food-for-thought kind of thing... an "outsider's" perspective, if you will. In the end people get to make their own choices. (That's always the good news!) Because it's the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult, after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues. So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop responding, I think. Well, something's bound to give in 10-20 years, no doubt. :) Anyway, my posts were mainly in response to the folks who seemed to be getting ticked off at Ted's inability (unwillingness?) to move forward.

If you really want to know what is so pathological, it's the apparent
compulsion of people in here to respond, hoping that he will see the Light.
But this may say more about them (or us) than it does about him. You
think? And not necessarily a healthy thing!!!

Bill in Co.

06-14-2005, 11:43 AM

DaKitty

06-14-2005, 12:38 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PrqdnVRUqtI6hTLfRVn-2w@comcast.com... Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes: Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says...> I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think> or bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. I mean, what do you do about the people who don't stop? Stop responding to them, too? At the same time, I don't believe there's anything wrong with individuals deciding not to respond anymore. I have. :) Not in a 'Until you do things *my* way' way but because it's better for *me* to not respond. Something which has occurred to me, which isn't feasible but would be nice, is to have a sort of "codex tedius" (I'm sure someone can correct my pig-latin, but it would be nice if the corrections was "codex tedious!"). An index of, say, the 50 most useful posts on the Ted subject. Then if we were all disciplined, every time Ted posts, rather than answering with the same words, we can post references to the codex. E.g.: Ted: "How can I expect my wife to listen to my needs when she is a cold
fish." ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety." Of course there have been so many postings about Ted that preparing this codex would be a lifetime job for a monastery full of monks!
We could set up an "Answer Ted" Web-Bot, have it be triggered by a
combination of certain words in Ted's posts, based on that library.

DaKitty

06-14-2005, 12:38 PM

WhansaMi

06-14-2005, 01:24 PM

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d18c51f242eb14a98968b@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying that!

I, personally, think that if giving Ted an outlet to express himself in a
way that he is quite comfortable doing is enabling him to stay miserable,
then, yes, that becomes part of the problem. I think this group, for Ted,
is the equivalent of a bar for an alcoholic --- he gets enough of what he
needs here that he doesn't need to change anything anywhere else. Yes, I
think that cutting that off for him would be a good thing. I'm not saying
that we shouldn't talk to him, but that going over the same material over
and over again, and allowing him this outlet, is, I believe, ultimately
counterproductive. Not that it stops me, or anyone else, for doing it, but,
essentially, I fully believe we enable him.
What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. Going by what I've read here in the past few days, I don't think the repetition (and getting pissed off with Ted in the process) is working. I truly believe the only purpose it's serving at this point is to keep Ted stuck (evidenced by the fact that his responses seem almost scripted), and the folks who help him, frustrated.

Right, and that's what I suggested would be the better approach .

So, what to do? Prepare - Here comes the good part... I don't *know* what to do! Lol! But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his well intentioned helpers, can move forward. I'm sure Ted is an intellectualy capable person, and many of you have given him the "tools" to begin working through his issues. If folks really want to help him, then help him to *use* the tools, and by all means be assertive! 'Cause Ted's little cycle of making sure "you all get it right" over and over is his way of bullying *you*.

Yes, he has a lot of control this way.

Sheila

WhansaMi

06-14-2005, 01:24 PM

Fran

06-14-2005, 02:07 PM

In article <gzFre.4104$hK3.1159@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says...
If you really want to know what is so pathological, it's the apparent compulsion of people in here to respond, hoping that he will see the Light. But this may say more about them (or us) than it does about him. You think? And not necessarily a healthy thing!!!

But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most
part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need."

Fran

06-14-2005, 02:07 PM

Bill in Co.

06-14-2005, 02:29 PM

Fran wrote: In article <gzFre.4104$hK3.1159@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says... If you really want to know what is so pathological, it's the apparent compulsion of people in here to respond, hoping that he will see the
Light. But this may say more about them (or us) than it does about him. You think? And not necessarily a healthy thing!!! But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need."

Yeah, but they AREN'T helping! If you don't believe me, check out the
"progress", or lack thereof.

Bill in Co.

06-14-2005, 02:29 PM

Fran

06-14-2005, 03:28 PM

In article <O_Hre.4429$NX4.535@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>,
surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says...
But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need."
Yeah, but they AREN'T helping! If you don't believe me, check out the "progress", or lack thereof.

Enhance your calm. I said people have a desire to help. Whether the
help is actually effective is a different story. Some folks will see
the brick wall, others will continue to bang their heads against it.

Fran

06-14-2005, 03:28 PM

Bill in Co.

06-14-2005, 03:36 PM

Fran wrote: In article <O_Hre.4429$NX4.535@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says... But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need." Yeah, but they AREN'T helping! If you don't believe me, check out the "progress", or lack thereof. Enhance your calm.

My calm???? LOL. (I seemed to have misplaced it). If you find it,
pse send it back. I'll pay shipping.
I said people have a desire to help. Whether the help is actually effective is a different story. Some folks will see the brick wall, others will continue to bang their heads against it.

Bill in Co.

06-14-2005, 03:36 PM

Joy

06-14-2005, 04:21 PM

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d18e69ee3af12f198968d@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42AF1308.9010409@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. Oh, so do I! I agree with Tai when she said that it's no one's place to bully behavior changes in Ted. What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO. Yeah, you're right. My post was meant as a food-for-thought kind of thing... an "outsider's" perspective, if you will. In the end people get to make their own choices. (That's always the good news!) Because it's the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult, after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues. So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop responding, I think. Well, something's bound to give in 10-20 years, no doubt. :) Anyway, my posts were mainly in response to the folks who seemed to be getting ticked off at Ted's inability (unwillingness?) to move forward.

I don't know that it is unwillingness to move forward that irritates people.
Its that even though he has obviously decided not to make any changes, he
still continues to repeatedly post that he wants to make changes. IOW,
people want him to either sh** or get off the pot.

Joy

06-14-2005, 04:21 PM

WhansaMi

06-14-2005, 04:45 PM

WhansaMi

06-14-2005, 04:45 PM

Fran

06-14-2005, 05:37 PM

In article <S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03>, whansami@aol.com says...
they *do* say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to another therapist, one who might be able to help you."

Exactly, a change of tactic - such as in your example, sending the
person to see another therapist. Or, if the therapist doesn't want to
give up on the person just yet, s/he could also say: "Ok, you've been
seeing me for so many weeks/months/years now and we're not moving
forward, which leads me to believe that approach ABC isn't working. I
would like to try XYZ instead, what do you think?"

I realize we're not running a practice here, but I think the same
principle still applies.

Or not. As Tracey mentioned, after 3 or 4 years it's difficult to think
of a new approach to the same issues.

Fran

06-14-2005, 05:37 PM

WhansaMi

06-14-2005, 05:42 PM

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d194265786b2a09989692@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03>, whansami@aol.com says... they *do* say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to
another therapist, one who might be able to help you." Exactly, a change of tactic - such as in your example, sending the person to see another therapist. Or, if the therapist doesn't want to give up on the person just yet, s/he could also say: "Ok, you've been seeing me for so many weeks/months/years now and we're not moving forward, which leads me to believe that approach ABC isn't working. I would like to try XYZ instead, what do you think?"

By that point in time, most therapists have used up their bag of tricks.
And, to be perfectly honest, most of them are not thinking "I can't help
you".... more likely, they are thinking, "You aren't really ready to
change" -- at least with those people whose issues are "life adjustment"
issues, rather than significant mental/emotional illnesses.
I realize we're not running a practice here, but I think the same principle still applies. Or not. As Tracey mentioned, after 3 or 4 years it's difficult to think of a new approach to the same issues.

More to the point (for me, at least!) I think Ted uses this place as an
active mechanism to AVOID any changes.

Sheila

WhansaMi

06-14-2005, 05:42 PM

Fran

06-14-2005, 08:14 PM

In article <HPKre.5658$1q5.4829@trnddc02>, whansami@aol.com says...
More to the point (for me, at least!) I think Ted uses this place as an active mechanism to AVOID any changes.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Fran

06-14-2005, 08:14 PM

Bill in Co.

06-14-2005, 10:19 PM

Fran wrote: In article <HPKre.5658$1q5.4829@trnddc02>, whansami@aol.com says... More to the point (for me, at least!) I think Ted uses this place as an active mechanism to AVOID any changes. I couldn't agree with you more.

But the bottom line is, nothing is going to make any difference.

(Hmmm, it's getting a bit deep in here....)

Bill in Co.

06-14-2005, 10:19 PM

Seeker

06-15-2005, 11:09 AM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PrqdnVRUqtI6hTLfRVn-2w@comcast.com... ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety."

Thanks for the laugh, Doug!

(More than once it has been suggested I write a FAQ. I'm not sure how to do
that without turning it into a lousy great American novel.)

--
Ted

Seeker

06-15-2005, 11:09 AM

Seeker

06-15-2005, 12:33 PM

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:y0nre.665$EH1.451@trndny03... What about *internal* measures????

By internal measures it stinks! (but you knew that)

--
Ted

Seeker

06-15-2005, 12:33 PM

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:y0nre.665$EH1.451@trndny03... What about *internal* measures????

By internal measures it stinks! (but you knew that)

--
Ted

Seeker

06-15-2005, 12:35 PM

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d194265786b2a09989692@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03>, whansami@aol.com says... Or not. As Tracey mentioned, after 3 or 4 years it's difficult to think of a new approach to the same issues.

How do you decide when a new approach is needed? If something just takes
time, it does no good to look for a new approach.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-15-2005, 12:35 PM

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d194265786b2a09989692@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03>, whansami@aol.com says... Or not. As Tracey mentioned, after 3 or 4 years it's difficult to think of a new approach to the same issues.

How do you decide when a new approach is needed? If something just takes
time, it does no good to look for a new approach.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-15-2005, 12:37 PM

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03... Something else occurred to me on the drive home. No, mental health professionals don't say the things you say abover, however, they *do* say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to another therapist, one who might be able to help you." In fact, IMO, mental health professionals are morally *obligated* to do such, if there has been minimal or no progress over a significant period
of time.

Do you think our therapist is being less than professional (or not living up
to his obligations) by not having suggested something like that?

--
Ted

Seeker

06-15-2005, 12:37 PM

Seeker

06-15-2005, 01:00 PM

"DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote in message
news:M9qdnVFSd_S_fDDfRVn-qg@giganews.com... One thing I wanna add to Jen's excellent post... It's unrealistic to expect that people will 'get it right' or agree with
you when you are giving a skewed story. Makes me wonder if the story isn't skewed in the direction that you
*think* would make it acceptable, and have people agree with you, and you're bothered that they aren't buying the story that you're trying to use to justify your actions to yourself.

I don't think I'm deliberately presenting a "skewed" story. Pretty much
every aspect of our life has come out here, although at any time one aspect
or another may take the forefront.
For instance, Tai thinks my wife sounds to be very affectionate. I'm not
sure what she's basing that on, but if it's from what I was writing during
that time I posted all the "I love my wife because ..." posts that *was*
skewed -- because I was deliberately looking for all the good things I could
find.

Obviously I can present only what I see; only someone who knows us both
intimately would be able to tell what blinders I unknowingly have on.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-15-2005, 01:00 PM

Fran

06-15-2005, 01:42 PM

In article <42b08303$1_2@x-privat.org>, Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com
says...
How do you decide when a new approach is needed?

When the current one doesn't show signs of working within a reasonable
amount of time.
If something just takes time, it does no good to look for a new approach.

Change *will* take time, no doubt. But usually there are clear signs
that indicate whether a particular approach is working or not.

Fran

06-15-2005, 01:42 PM

Seeker

06-15-2005, 02:19 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jJ6dnVBDIIlEfTDfRVn-ug@comcast.com... Of course, when I want to be understood I actually try to tell people what I want them to understand rather than dancing around it with metaphor or engaging in magical thinking and hoping that they'll just understand it by intuition. This makes it (in my experience) easier to be understoot.

I appreciate that and I don't quite know what to do about it. The only area
of my life that I believe I "dance around" is that having to do with my
spiritual experiences and those of my wife and other people I run into. I
don't think I realized when I started posting here how often that would keep
recurring as a key part of what's going on. (Oh, I knew it was important --
but didn't realize that it couldn't easily be separated from everything else
and just not talked about.)

Let me think (and pray!) about it. At one time I consciously put all that
beyond the boundary of what I would talk about. I believe I thought I had
a good reason for doing so, but I admit that right now I can't remember what
it was. I want to reconsider moving the boundary but that will take
awhile -- at the very least I need to make sure I'm not considering doing it
for purely ego-driven reasons.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-15-2005, 02:19 PM

WhansaMi

06-15-2005, 02:22 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b08364_3@x-privat.org... "WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03... Something else occurred to me on the drive home. No, mental health professionals don't say the things you say abover, however, they *do*
say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to
another therapist, one who might be able to help you." In fact, IMO, mental health professionals are morally *obligated* to do such, if there has been minimal or no progress over a significant period of time. Do you think our therapist is being less than professional (or not living
up to his obligations) by not having suggested something like that? -- Ted

I'm not there. While I can make educated guesses based on what you say
here, I also am aware that I don't see the full picture, as I would if I
could see you, see your wife, see your interactions, etc.

Based on what I see here -- and only here -- and if what you portray here is
an accurate reflection of what is actually occuring... yes, I'd say the
therapist should consider referring you elsewhere.

Sheila

WhansaMi

06-15-2005, 02:22 PM

Seeker

06-15-2005, 02:48 PM

"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3h6hk1Ffh564U1@individual.net... I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying your friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and
not become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for people. So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have
relationships with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your relationship with her and not instead.

That is exactly why I started individual counselling, and why I asked my
wife to join me later. (I think recently I mentioned that Schnarch has a
great example of it too.) Unfortunately that general goal doesn't say how
to go about ensuring that any of those benefits which must be in my
relationship with my wife -- so there's no reason to have them elsewhere --
are actually there when they aren't now. Why am I afraid to do almost anything? That one I can't help you with - I have puzzled and puzzled over how you
can find your state of agonised indecision preferable to the worst outcome - which I don't think is the most likely one, anyway. Your wife is unlikely
to leave you if you are honest with her.

I don't know why I have so much trouble making the point that that is *not*
what I view as the "worst outcome." While, yes, the thought of divorce is
upsetting for a variety of reasons, what I also fear -- probably even
more -- is doing or saying something that makes things much worse -- and
being stuck in some kind of living hell because of it. I keep having this
image of that one Star Trek episode where the two mirror-image characters
were stuck forever in some kind of a cage locked in battle with each other.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-15-2005, 02:48 PM

DaKitty

06-15-2005, 03:27 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b0a20c$1_2@x-privat.org... "Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3h6hk1Ffh564U1@individual.net... I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying
your friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and not become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for
people. So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have relationships with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your relationship with her and not instead. That is exactly why I started individual counselling, and why I asked my wife to join me later. (I think recently I mentioned that Schnarch has a great example of it too.) Unfortunately that general goal doesn't say how to go about ensuring that any of those benefits which must be in my relationship with my wife -- so there's no reason to have them
elsewhere -- are actually there when they aren't now. Why am I afraid to do almost anything? That one I can't help you with - I have puzzled and puzzled over how you can find your state of agonised indecision preferable to the worst outcome - which I don't think is the most likely one, anyway. Your wife is
unlikely to leave you if you are honest with her. I don't know why I have so much trouble making the point that that is
*not* what I view as the "worst outcome." While, yes, the thought of divorce
is upsetting for a variety of reasons, what I also fear -- probably even more -- is doing or saying something that makes things much worse -- and being stuck in some kind of living hell because of it. I keep having this image of that one Star Trek episode where the two mirror-image characters were stuck forever in some kind of a cage locked in battle with each
other.

You *are* in that kind of a living hell right now.
Divorce *is* the worst case scenario, because of the relationship gets so
bad that the divorce would be better, then you go with the divorce.

The reason lot of people think you believe that the divorce is what you fear
the most, is because you look like you would rather stay stuck in hell, then
go with the divorce. You say Divorce isn't the worst, but yet even the
mention of it, you get very defensive, and it's an avenue you don;t even
want to consider, and say you can't even think in that direction, or
something to that effect.
You claim one thing, and your behavior and actions (or lack thereof)
indicates something different.

See, perceptions are created not just by what you say, but what you do as
well.
I mean, if you just gulped down a big vanilla ice cream cone with gusto and
then went around claiming that you hate Vanilla Ice Cream, not very many
people who saw you eat that Vanilla ice cream would believe you, would they?
I'm sure you already know that concept, but I spelled it out anyways.

That's why you're so unconvincing here. You say you think and feel one way,
and then when you describe what you end up doing, and we see no progress in
the direction that you say you want to go in, it's not indicative of someone
who thinks and feels the way you describe. Lot of people can pick up on
that. there are few that can't, but not all that many. Usually younger and
more naive people will only pay attention to what you say, rather then what
you do as well.

DaKitty

06-15-2005, 03:27 PM

Doug Anderson

06-15-2005, 03:45 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jJ6dnVBDIIlEfTDfRVn-ug@comcast.com... Of course, when I want to be understood I actually try to tell people what I want them to understand rather than dancing around it with metaphor or engaging in magical thinking and hoping that they'll just understand it by intuition. This makes it (in my experience) easier to be understoot. I appreciate that and I don't quite know what to do about it. The only area of my life that I believe I "dance around" is that having to do with my spiritual experiences and those of my wife and other people I run into. I don't think I realized when I started posting here how often that would keep recurring as a key part of what's going on. (Oh, I knew it was important -- but didn't realize that it couldn't easily be separated from everything else and just not talked about.)

Well, OK, I was being too subtle. You don't _even_ dance around
telling your wife who you really are and what you want.

And on ASM, you often mysteriously hold back information. I'm not
arguing with that latter trait - that is your privilege. But I fear
it is typical of your approach with your wife and with your joint
counselling.

Let me think (and pray!) about it. At one time I consciously put all that beyond the boundary of what I would talk about. I believe I thought I had a good reason for doing so, but I admit that right now I can't remember what it was. I want to reconsider moving the boundary but that will take awhile -- at the very least I need to make sure I'm not considering doing it for purely ego-driven reasons.

I'm not asking you to move that boundary. I don't believe the
information about your spiritual experience is relevant to the
marital/personal problems you talk about here.

I'm also not asking you to share personal stuff here you don't want to.

My point is that you want your wife to understand you as you really
are, to accept you, and to treat you the way you would like to be
treated. But you are unwilling to let her know enough about you to do
any of that.

Doug Anderson

06-15-2005, 03:45 PM

Tai

06-15-2005, 04:05 PM

Seeker wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3h6hk1Ffh564U1@individual.net... I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying your friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and not become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for people. So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have relationships with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your relationship with her and not instead. That is exactly why I started individual counselling, and why I asked my wife to join me later. (I think recently I mentioned that Schnarch has a great example of it too.) Unfortunately that general goal doesn't say how to go about ensuring that any of those benefits which must be in my relationship with my wife -- so there's no reason to have them elsewhere -- are actually there when they aren't now.

Well, you're not going to get them if you won't ask for them, will you? By
now that must be clear to you. You probably won't end up with all of them
anyway, but some would be an improvement, yes?

Why am I afraid to do almost anything? That one I can't help you with - I have puzzled and puzzled over how you can find your state of agonised indecision preferable to the worst outcome - which I don't think is the most likely one, anyway. Your wife is unlikely to leave you if you are honest with her. I don't know why I have so much trouble making the point that that is *not* what I view as the "worst outcome." While, yes, the thought of divorce is upsetting for a variety of reasons, what I also fear -- probably even more -- is doing or saying something that makes things much worse -- and being stuck in some kind of living hell because of it. I keep having this image of that one Star Trek episode where the two mirror-image characters were stuck forever in some kind of a cage locked in battle with each other.

I doubt very much whether that would happen, either, Ted. You have too many
years of living peaceably together not to slip back in to that mode once the
dust had settled. Also, I doubt whether much you have to tell your wife
would come as a huge surprise to her. She knows you've dragged her off to
counselling because you want *something*. She may experience any or all of
hurt, anger, resentment, fear, surprise and even irritation but they won't
kill her and she'll cope.

It seems to me you don't want her to think less of you but that's your
issue, not hers. She may even respect you more for finally articulating what
would make you happy.

Tai

Tai

06-15-2005, 04:05 PM

Seeker

06-16-2005, 12:41 PM

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d1a5cab43e4365c98969a@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42b08303$1_2@x-privat.org>, Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com says... How do you decide when a new approach is needed? When the current one doesn't show signs of working within a reasonable amount of time.

What's a reasonable amount of time? My wife says we've been married 40
years -- why should I expect changes overnight (this after I'd been looking
for them for, say, five years.)
If something just takes time, it does no good to look for a new approach. Change *will* take time, no doubt. But usually there are clear signs that indicate whether a particular approach is working or not.

Usually, but not always. If the change that needs to take place is deep
inside, it will both take time for it to happen and for the results to be
visible.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-16-2005, 12:41 PM

Seeker

06-17-2005, 07:49 AM

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:H_0se.18814$gL4.2243@trnddc07... Based on what I see here -- and only here -- and if what you portray here
is an accurate reflection of what is actually occuring... yes, I'd say the therapist should consider referring you elsewhere.

It'll be interesting to see how our session next week goes (including what I
feel like saying.) Normally we meet every two weeks, but it will have been
five weeks this time because he's been an a trip to South Africa. Things
have actually been noticeably, if only a little, better during this period.
(We even had you-know-what once and it wasn't too bad, and the goodbye hugs
have *definitely* been better.)

--
Ted

Seeker

06-17-2005, 07:49 AM

Seeker

06-17-2005, 08:17 AM

"DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote in message
news:BISdnfs7Q5OjNi3fRVn-qg@giganews.com... > > The reason lot of people think you believe that the divorce is what you
fear the most, is because you look like you would rather stay stuck in hell,
then go with the divorce. You say Divorce isn't the worst, but yet even the mention of it, you get very defensive, and it's an avenue you don;t even want to consider, and say you can't even think in that direction, or something to that effect. You claim one thing, and your behavior and actions (or lack thereof) indicates something different.

I don't think I've ever denied fearing divorce (not that you said I have.)
What I've tried to do is compare two hypothetical situations and see which
one seems worse to me. The problem with trying to sort out how I feel
about a potential divorce is it depends on too many details of what leads up
to it, how the process might go, what state we are both in afterwards, and
how things go afterwards. Some versions of the possible scenarios there,
yes, could be worse than being "stuck in hell." (say, if my wife were
absolutely miserable afterwards); others would be clearly better. In all
cases, how I feel about the divorce would be in reaction to how it affected
my wife, and not to the divorce in and of itself.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-17-2005, 08:17 AM

Seeker

06-17-2005, 08:27 AM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZZSdnYaEvpOWLi3fRVn-2g@comcast.com... Well, OK, I was being too subtle. You don't _even_ dance around telling your wife who you really are and what you want. And on ASM, you often mysteriously hold back information. I'm not arguing with that latter trait - that is your privilege. But I fear it is typical of your approach with your wife and with your joint counselling.

Yes, in both cases I'm not being completely forthcoming. The difference is
that the things I don't talk about in therapy (or at home) is out of fear
whereas what I don't talk about here is out of principle. (Whether my set
of principles, which includes that, makes sense is a different matter!)
I'm not asking you to move that boundary. I don't believe the information about your spiritual experience is relevant to the marital/personal problems you talk about here.

Unfortunately, for the discussion, it is extremely relevant. It is one of
the central reasons why I am so torn as to what to do about my marriage and
it is *directly* related to why I have fallen in love with the particular
women I have.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-17-2005, 08:27 AM

Doug Anderson

06-17-2005, 08:34 AM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ZZSdnYaEvpOWLi3fRVn-2g@comcast.com... Well, OK, I was being too subtle. You don't _even_ dance around telling your wife who you really are and what you want. And on ASM, you often mysteriously hold back information. I'm not arguing with that latter trait - that is your privilege. But I fear it is typical of your approach with your wife and with your joint counselling. Yes, in both cases I'm not being completely forthcoming. The difference is that the things I don't talk about in therapy (or at home) is out of fear whereas what I don't talk about here is out of principle. (Whether my set of principles, which includes that, makes sense is a different matter!) I'm not asking you to move that boundary. I don't believe the information about your spiritual experience is relevant to the marital/personal problems you talk about here. Unfortunately, for the discussion, it is extremely relevant. It is one of the central reasons why I am so torn as to what to do about my marriage and it is *directly* related to why I have fallen in love with the particular women I have.

I have this strong feeling that if you told us, many of us would _not_
find it relevant. Not that we wouldn't find it real or important, I'm
just saying that it is hard to see how your spiritual experience is
going to affect the (similar) perspectives that many of us here have
on you.

I (and several others here) think that your marital problems are
mostly about _you_. Not your marriage, not your wife, and not your
spiritual experiences.

I hope those of us who think this have made it clear. I feel like I
couldn't have made it any clearer, but I'm still not sure you get it.
(Of course, you could get it and just disagree - that's your right).

I'll go a bit further. I think, maybe subconsciously, one of the
reasons you hold this back is that it gives you an excuse to discount
things we say that you don't want to hear. After all, we don't know
about this big thing!

Doug

Doug Anderson

06-17-2005, 08:34 AM

Tai

06-17-2005, 08:40 AM

Seeker wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ZZSdnYaEvpOWLi3fRVn-2g@comcast.com... Well, OK, I was being too subtle. You don't _even_ dance around telling your wife who you really are and what you want. And on ASM, you often mysteriously hold back information. I'm not arguing with that latter trait - that is your privilege. But I fear it is typical of your approach with your wife and with your joint counselling. Yes, in both cases I'm not being completely forthcoming. The difference is that the things I don't talk about in therapy (or at home) is out of fear whereas what I don't talk about here is out of principle. (Whether my set of principles, which includes that, makes sense is a different matter!) I'm not asking you to move that boundary. I don't believe the information about your spiritual experience is relevant to the marital/personal problems you talk about here. Unfortunately, for the discussion, it is extremely relevant. It is one of the central reasons why I am so torn as to what to do about my marriage and it is *directly* related to why I have fallen in love with the particular women I have.

There ya go, teasing us again, Ted!

I'm not asking what it is but could you explain why it's a matter of
principle for you not to reveal your secret. Or would that reveal it?

And I'm curious - if you were to reveal the secret would it feel safer for
you to do it here or in a counselling session with your wife?

Tai

Tai

06-17-2005, 08:40 AM

Seeker

06-17-2005, 08:46 AM

"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3hbqh3FganfoU1@individual.net... I doubt very much whether that would happen, either, Ted. You have too
many years of living peaceably together not to slip back in to that mode once
the dust had settled. Also, I doubt whether much you have to tell your wife would come as a huge surprise to her. She knows you've dragged her off to counselling because you want *something*. She may experience any or all of hurt, anger, resentment, fear, surprise and even irritation but they won't kill her and she'll cope. It seems to me you don't want her to think less of you but that's your issue, not hers. She may even respect you more for finally articulating
what would make you happy.

I wish I could know that all were true. (Ya, I know, we all wish for a lot
of things we can't have!) Is it just a pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow or is it something really worth the risk?

--
Ted

Seeker

06-17-2005, 08:46 AM

Tai

06-17-2005, 08:53 AM

Seeker wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3hbqh3FganfoU1@individual.net... I doubt very much whether that would happen, either, Ted. You have too many years of living peaceably together not to slip back in to that mode once the dust had settled. Also, I doubt whether much you have to tell your wife would come as a huge surprise to her. She knows you've dragged her off to counselling because you want *something*. She may experience any or all of hurt, anger, resentment, fear, surprise and even irritation but they won't kill her and she'll cope. It seems to me you don't want her to think less of you but that's your issue, not hers. She may even respect you more for finally articulating what would make you happy. I wish I could know that all were true. (Ya, I know, we all wish for a lot of things we can't have!) Is it just a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or is it something really worth the risk?

Can you tell me exactly what you fear as being the worst case result? And
remember, although I think you should be more open and make yourself
vulnerable to your wife by trusting her with the real you I wouldn't advise
you to be specific about your infatuations to her - just that you are at
risk from them. They aren't really the problem, anyway, imo.

Tai

Tai

06-17-2005, 08:53 AM

Cheryl

06-17-2005, 09:13 AM

Tai wrote: Seeker wrote:"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:3hbqh3FganfoU1@individual.net...I doubt very much whether that would happen, either, Ted. You havetoo many years of living peaceably together not to slip back in tothat mode once the dust had settled. Also, I doubt whether much youhave to tell your wife would come as a huge surprise to her. Sheknows you've dragged her off to counselling because you want*something*. She may experience any or all of hurt, anger,resentment, fear, surprise and even irritation but they won't killher and she'll cope.It seems to me you don't want her to think less of you but that'syour issue, not hers. She may even respect you more for finallyarticulating what would make you happy.I wish I could know that all were true. (Ya, I know, we all wish fora lot of things we can't have!) Is it just a pot of gold at the endof the rainbow or is it something really worth the risk? Can you tell me exactly what you fear as being the worst case result? And remember, although I think you should be more open and make yourself vulnerable to your wife by trusting her with the real you I wouldn't advise you to be specific about your infatuations to her - just that you are at risk from them. They aren't really the problem, anyway, imo. Tai
Maybe he is afraid she won't like who he is and divorce him, taking the
choice of what to do totally out of his hands. (not to mention the fact
that she would reject him and he seems to need validation from others to
feel ok about himself. I, personally, don't see her validation him
*now*, not sure what difference his revealing himself to her would make
at this point).

Cheryl

Cheryl

06-17-2005, 09:13 AM

Seeker

06-17-2005, 12:40 PM

"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3hg973Fgpl0dU1@individual.net... And I'm curious - if you were to reveal the secret would it feel safer
for you to do it here or in a counselling session with your wife?

It's not a secret from her at all. Nor from the therapist. My wife even
understands (at some level, but not completely) and says she accepts how it
affects my relationships with other women.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-17-2005, 12:40 PM

Seeker

06-17-2005, 12:50 PM

"Cheryl" <hunny_pot@thousand.acre.woods> wrote in message
news:d8uriu$f2i$1@news.wss.yale.edu... Tai wrote: Can you tell me exactly what you fear as being the worst case result?
And remember, although I think you should be more open and make yourself vulnerable to your wife by trusting her with the real you I wouldn't
advise you to be specific about your infatuations to her - just that you are at risk from them. They aren't really the problem, anyway, imo.

What I fear there is that supposing I decide so as not to hurt her any more
that I need to do that -- that she'll turn around and ask me if I have
fallen for anyone. You may remember that several years ago in fact she did
in fact ask me that, when I talked about a woman at my AA meeting who was
all upset because she'd fallen in love with her boss. I said yes, but when
she asked if it was anyone she knew I lied and said no (because at the time
it was someone we both saw twice a week) and that seemed to end it. I don't
want to have that kind of conversation again.
Tai Maybe he is afraid she won't like who he is and divorce him, taking the choice of what to do totally out of his hands. (not to mention the fact that she would reject him and he seems to need validation from others to feel ok about himself. I, personally, don't see her validation him *now*, not sure what difference his revealing himself to her would make at this point).

See Jen's comments and my response. I think they sum it up pretty well.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-17-2005, 12:50 PM

DaKitty

06-17-2005, 01:09 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b2e981_1@x-privat.org... "DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote in message news:BISdnfs7Q5OjNi3fRVn-qg@giganews.com... > > > The reason lot of people think you believe that the divorce is what you fear the most, is because you look like you would rather stay stuck in hell, then go with the divorce. You say Divorce isn't the worst, but yet even the mention of it, you get very defensive, and it's an avenue you don;t even want to consider, and say you can't even think in that direction, or something to that effect. You claim one thing, and your behavior and actions (or lack thereof) indicates something different. I don't think I've ever denied fearing divorce (not that you said I have.) What I've tried to do is compare two hypothetical situations and see which one seems worse to me. The problem with trying to sort out how I feel about a potential divorce is it depends on too many details of what leads
up to it, how the process might go, what state we are both in afterwards, and how things go afterwards. Some versions of the possible scenarios there, yes, could be worse than being "stuck in hell." (say, if my wife were absolutely miserable afterwards); others would be clearly better. In all cases, how I feel about the divorce would be in reaction to how it
affected my wife, and not to the divorce in and of itself.

Okay.
One thing I want to point out is this statement:
....how I feel about the divorce would be in reaction to how it affected
my wife, and not to the divorce in and of itself....

In little simplified form says, How I feel about something will depend on
how my wife feels about something.

That's a dead ringer kind of a red flag that screams codependence. or an
unhealthy level of interdependence... however you want to call it, it's
still not completely functional that how you feel about something depends on
how she feels about it. Especially in a divorce, when people typically try
to get more independent from one another.
In a divorce, you'll have to decide how you feel about something, on your
own.

DaKitty

06-17-2005, 01:09 PM

Seeker

06-17-2005, 02:02 PM

"DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote in message
news:mvCdnZALDeudsy7fRVn-pg@giganews.com... In little simplified form says, How I feel about something will depend on how my wife feels about something. That's a dead ringer kind of a red flag that screams codependence. or an unhealthy level of interdependence... however you want to call it, it's still not completely functional that how you feel about something depends
on how she feels about it. Especially in a divorce, when people typically try to get more independent from one another. In a divorce, you'll have to decide how you feel about something, on your own.

I guess I don't get it at all. Are you telling me I should completely
ignore my wife's feelings in any decisions I make -- especially in something
this important?

I'm glad I'm not married to you (or contemplating marriage to you.)
What I feel about something would have no influence on what you did, I
gather.
It'd be as if I didn't exist.

Now *that* sounds unhealthy to me.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-17-2005, 02:02 PM

DaKitty

06-17-2005, 03:18 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b33a6b_3@x-privat.org... "DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote in message news:mvCdnZALDeudsy7fRVn-pg@giganews.com... In little simplified form says, How I feel about something will depend
on how my wife feels about something. That's a dead ringer kind of a red flag that screams codependence. or an unhealthy level of interdependence... however you want to call it, it's still not completely functional that how you feel about something
depends on how she feels about it. Especially in a divorce, when people typically
try to get more independent from one another. In a divorce, you'll have to decide how you feel about something, on
your own. I guess I don't get it at all. Are you telling me I should completely ignore my wife's feelings in any decisions I make -- especially in
something this important?

If you're divorcing, then yes.
Thatis not to suggest thatyou need to be a jerk about it, but when youlre
divorcing, then you need to consider your feelings and interests first.
Otherwose you get manipulated into giving in.
I'm glad I'm not married to you (or contemplating marriage to you.) What I feel about something would have no influence on what you did, I gather. It'd be as if I didn't exist.

There is a HUGE difference between depend and influence.
Consider these two phrases:

What I do and think depends on what my husband says.

What I do and think is considerate (or influenced) by what my husband says.

You're a smart guy, you can figure out the difference.

DaKitty

06-17-2005, 03:18 PM

Joy

06-18-2005, 08:20 AM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b2e2e6_1@x-privat.org... "WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:H_0se.18814$gL4.2243@trnddc07... Based on what I see here -- and only here -- and if what you portray here is an accurate reflection of what is actually occuring... yes, I'd say the therapist should consider referring you elsewhere. It'll be interesting to see how our session next week goes (including what I feel like saying.) Normally we meet every two weeks, but it will have been five weeks this time because he's been an a trip to South Africa. Things have actually been noticeably, if only a little, better during this period. (We even had you-know-what once and it wasn't too bad, and the goodbye hugs have *definitely* been better.)

Does your wife *know* that you rate the status of your marriage by the
quality of the goodbye hugs? 'Cause if she doesn't know this it sounds like
something that really, really, really needs to come up for discussion.

Joy

06-18-2005, 08:20 AM

Joy

06-18-2005, 08:39 AM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b33a6b_3@x-privat.org... "DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote in message news:mvCdnZALDeudsy7fRVn-pg@giganews.com... In little simplified form says, How I feel about something will depend on how my wife feels about something. That's a dead ringer kind of a red flag that screams codependence. or an unhealthy level of interdependence... however you want to call it, it's still not completely functional that how you feel about something depends on how she feels about it. Especially in a divorce, when people typically try to get more independent from one another. In a divorce, you'll have to decide how you feel about something, on your own. I guess I don't get it at all. Are you telling me I should completely ignore my wife's feelings in any decisions I make -- especially in something this important?

You missed her point, Ted. She was NOT telling you to ignore your wife's
feelings when making decisions. She WAS telling you what divorce is all
about. Lots of long-time-married people don't grasp it on a gut level, if
they haven't been through it. In a divorce, as DaKitty pointed out, the two
of you become "no longer a unit". Instead of being two halves of a couple,
you become two separate independent entities. I've been divorced for 4
years. Do you really think I make my decisions on how my ex-husband would
feel about it? Doesn't it sound ludicrous to think that either he or I
would make decisions about our lives based on how somebody we've been
divorced from for years (and rarely have any contact with) would feel about
it? Well, Ted, that is what divorce is all about - and that is what DaKitty
meant by "when people typically try to get more independent from one
another. In a divorce, you'll have to decide how you feel about something,
on your own." It is simply the end result of a divorce that you are, well,
divorced!

I'm glad I'm not married to you (or contemplating marriage to you.) What I feel about something would have no influence on what you did, I gather. It'd be as if I didn't exist.

But Ted, read for comprehension. She was talking about in the event of a
DIVORCE. She wasn't talking about in a marriage.

Joy

06-18-2005, 08:39 AM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b33a6b_3@x-privat.org... "DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote in message news:mvCdnZALDeudsy7fRVn-pg@giganews.com... In little simplified form says, How I feel about something will depend on how my wife feels about something. That's a dead ringer kind of a red flag that screams codependence. or an unhealthy level of interdependence... however you want to call it, it's still not completely functional that how you feel about something depends on how she feels about it. Especially in a divorce, when people typically try to get more independent from one another. In a divorce, you'll have to decide how you feel about something, on your own. I guess I don't get it at all. Are you telling me I should completely ignore my wife's feelings in any decisions I make -- especially in something this important?

You missed her point, Ted. She was NOT telling you to ignore your wife's
feelings when making decisions. She WAS telling you what divorce is all
about. Lots of long-time-married people don't grasp it on a gut level, if
they haven't been through it. In a divorce, as DaKitty pointed out, the two
of you become "no longer a unit". Instead of being two halves of a couple,
you become two separate independent entities. I've been divorced for 4
years. Do you really think I make my decisions on how my ex-husband would
feel about it? Doesn't it sound ludicrous to think that either he or I
would make decisions about our lives based on how somebody we've been
divorced from for years (and rarely have any contact with) would feel about
it? Well, Ted, that is what divorce is all about - and that is what DaKitty
meant by "when people typically try to get more independent from one
another. In a divorce, you'll have to decide how you feel about something,
on your own." It is simply the end result of a divorce that you are, well,
divorced!

I'm glad I'm not married to you (or contemplating marriage to you.) What I feel about something would have no influence on what you did, I gather. It'd be as if I didn't exist.

But Ted, read for comprehension. She was talking about in the event of a
DIVORCE. She wasn't talking about in a marriage.

Seeker

06-19-2005, 08:27 PM

In article <ieXse.1671$mD6.429@fe07.lga>,
"Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote:
But Ted, read for comprehension. She was talking about in the event of a DIVORCE. She wasn't talking about in a marriage.

Yes she was.
--
Ted

Seeker

06-19-2005, 08:27 PM

Seeker

06-19-2005, 08:42 PM

In article <48-dnXnsc-7c0S7fRVn-oQ@giganews.com>,
"DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote:
There is a HUGE difference between depend and influence.

Of course. And your point is?
--
Ted

Seeker

06-19-2005, 08:42 PM

In article <48-dnXnsc-7c0S7fRVn-oQ@giganews.com>,
"DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote:
There is a HUGE difference between depend and influence.

Of course. And your point is?
--
Ted

Seeker

06-19-2005, 08:57 PM

In article <kZWse.5626$uS2.1062@fe03.lga>,
"Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote:
Does your wife *know* that you rate the status of your marriage by the quality of the goodbye hugs? 'Cause if she doesn't know this it sounds like something that really, really, really needs to come up for discussion.

In a way she does -- I've said more than once that I don't feel I get
enough affection. Have I said I feel more affection when "the
pharmacist" hugs me than when she does? Or when my "soulfriend" said "I
love you Ted?" Of course not -- but it is events like that which made
me realize what was missing. She answers by blaming me for having
rejected her affection early in our marriage -- 38 years ago. I don't
recall having done that at all.
--
Ted

Seeker

06-19-2005, 08:57 PM

Tai

06-19-2005, 09:09 PM

Seeker wrote: In article <kZWse.5626$uS2.1062@fe03.lga>, "Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote: Does your wife *know* that you rate the status of your marriage by the quality of the goodbye hugs? 'Cause if she doesn't know this it sounds like something that really, really, really needs to come up for discussion. In a way she does -- I've said more than once that I don't feel I get enough affection. Have I said I feel more affection when "the pharmacist" hugs me than when she does? Or when my "soulfriend" said "I love you Ted?" Of course not -- but it is events like that which made me realize what was missing. She answers by blaming me for having rejected her affection early in our marriage -- 38 years ago. I don't recall having done that at all.

What happens when you hug your wife?

Tai

Tai

06-19-2005, 09:09 PM

Joy

06-19-2005, 09:27 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Tedds212removethis-B43DA3.22275019062005@news.x-privat.org... In article <ieXse.1671$mD6.429@fe07.lga>, "Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote: But Ted, read for comprehension. She was talking about in the event of a DIVORCE. She wasn't talking about in a marriage. Yes she was.

Go back and read it again, Ted.

Joy

06-19-2005, 09:27 PM

Joy

06-19-2005, 09:32 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Tedds212removethis-F1CE12.22571619062005@news.x-privat.org... In article <kZWse.5626$uS2.1062@fe03.lga>, "Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote: Does your wife *know* that you rate the status of your marriage by the quality of the goodbye hugs? 'Cause if she doesn't know this it sounds like something that really, really, really needs to come up for discussion. In a way she does -- I've said more than once that I don't feel I get enough affection.

"I don't get enough affection" is vastly different from "I rate the status
of our marriage by the quality of the goodbye hugs". Affection covers a
lot of territory - goodbye hugs are very specific. If you just ask for
affection, it is too vague - there are many, many ways she might think she's
showing it and none of them might be what you have in mind. If you ask for
better goodbye hugs, or more passionate goodbye hugs, or longer goodbye
hugs, though, thats something concrete that is clear and understandable and
achievable.

I'd specifically ask for the kind of hugs I wanted, if I were you.

Joy

06-19-2005, 09:32 PM

Cheryl

06-20-2005, 07:25 AM

Seeker wrote: In article <kZWse.5626$uS2.1062@fe03.lga>, "Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote:Does your wife *know* that you rate the status of your marriage by thequality of the goodbye hugs? 'Cause if she doesn't know this it sounds likesomething that really, really, really needs to come up for discussion. In a way she does -- I've said more than once that I don't feel I get enough affection. Have I said I feel more affection when "the pharmacist" hugs me than when she does? Or when my "soulfriend" said "I love you Ted?" Of course not -- but it is events like that which made me realize what was missing. She answers by blaming me for having rejected her affection early in our marriage -- 38 years ago. I don't recall having done that at all.

Why did you reject her affections? That would color my behavior toward
you as well, I can't say I blame her. That's hard to regain without
tons of deposits into the love bank.

Cheryl

Cheryl

06-20-2005, 07:25 AM

Seeker wrote: In article <kZWse.5626$uS2.1062@fe03.lga>, "Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote:Does your wife *know* that you rate the status of your marriage by thequality of the goodbye hugs? 'Cause if she doesn't know this it sounds likesomething that really, really, really needs to come up for discussion. In a way she does -- I've said more than once that I don't feel I get enough affection. Have I said I feel more affection when "the pharmacist" hugs me than when she does? Or when my "soulfriend" said "I love you Ted?" Of course not -- but it is events like that which made me realize what was missing. She answers by blaming me for having rejected her affection early in our marriage -- 38 years ago. I don't recall having done that at all.

Why did you reject her affections? That would color my behavior toward
you as well, I can't say I blame her. That's hard to regain without
tons of deposits into the love bank.

Cheryl

Seeker

06-20-2005, 08:28 AM

"Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:8Brte.3877$Gp.2649@fe04.lga... "Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Tedds212removethis-B43DA3.22275019062005@news.x-privat.org... In article <ieXse.1671$mD6.429@fe07.lga>, "Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote: But Ted, read for comprehension. She was talking about in the event of
a DIVORCE. She wasn't talking about in a marriage. Yes she was. Go back and read it again, Ted.

I did. I suggest you do too. Here's the relevant part:
I guess I don't get it at all. Are you telling me I should completely ignore my wife's feelings in any decisions I make -- especially in
something this important?
If you're divorcing, then yes.

I'm not divorcing, so the answer would be no -- i.e., I should *not* ignore
my wife's feelings.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-20-2005, 08:28 AM

Seeker

06-20-2005, 08:42 AM

"Cheryl" <hunny_pot@thousand.acre.woods> wrote in message
news:d96ic8$psc$2@news.wss.yale.edu... Why did you reject her affections? That would color my behavior toward you as well, I can't say I blame her. That's hard to regain without tons of deposits into the love bank.

My point was that I don't remember having done so. So I have no idea what
she's talking about. She said something about how I decided that now we
were married we didn't need to "do that stuff". (or something like that) I
haven't a clue what conversation she might be referring to.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-20-2005, 08:42 AM

Seeker

06-20-2005, 10:20 AM

"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3hmtspFhvlkeU1@individual.net... What happens when you hug your wife?

It's been changing. It used to be that she'd kind of back off and pat me on
the back. Lately she's actually been putting her arms around me and
holding on. Not sure why the change.

--
Ted

Seeker

06-20-2005, 10:20 AM

Seeker

06-20-2005, 11:30 AM

"Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:LFrte.3879$Gp.3065@fe04.lga... "I don't get enough affection" is vastly different from "I rate the status of our marriage by the quality of the goodbye hugs". Affection covers a lot of territory - goodbye hugs are very specific. If you just ask for affection, it is too vague - there are many, many ways she might think
she's showing it and none of them might be what you have in mind. If you ask
for better goodbye hugs, or more passionate goodbye hugs, or longer goodbye hugs, though, thats something concrete that is clear and understandable
and achievable. I'd specifically ask for the kind of hugs I wanted, if I were you.

I use the hugs (here) as a specific example -- it isn't the hugs per se that
are important, but what they seem to be saying: why is it that I so readily
notice the difference? My wife gave me a father's day card that said
something like "you are the person I most want to cuddle with." (That
isn't exactly what it said, but how I remember it; it may have said "the
only person.") My reaction, which of course I didn't say, was, "If you want
to cuddle with me so much, howcome you don't?"

I can imagine other ways that I think would show affection equally well --
like a quick kiss (cheek, neck, lips, anywhere), a pinch, putting her arms
around me, laying her head on my shoulder, rubbing my hair, even maybe a
well-time wink -- but since she doesn't do any of them I have no idea which
to ask for. (I don't do most of them because the rejects them.)

--
Ted

Seeker

06-20-2005, 11:30 AM

Seeker

06-20-2005, 12:10 PM

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DjAte.12921$kl1.11516@trndny08... And I think you are right, we could never agree on what in your belief system has betrayed you. I can give you my impressions though. First *I* question anyone who believes in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and *GOD*! That is not a comment on spirituality which is human nature but transcends religion and the concept of one God.

Ah, you see, the main part of my belief system that I was, most
surprisingly, unexpectedly, and pleasantly driven to discard was the part
having to do with God.

The other part was much more mundane: about women. And both of those are
long stories.
Second I would discard *EVERYTHING* that I had ever *assumed* to be true

And reject all of human history and experience? That's awfully
self-centered, don't you think?
and establish an entirely *NEW BELIEF* system based on my own personal happiness.

How does happiness become a measure of what's true and what's not?
What you believe has gotten you to where you are. Where you are is not
where you want to be or even thought you wanted to be. Throw away that compass named *belief system* and try something else. Lastly you asked me to tell you what *I* think your belief system is and that is total bull. I could no more climb into your head than you could mine.

Well, you stated that my belief system betrayed me (or words to that
effect) -- how can you say that without knowing, or at least surmising,
what my belief system was?
I can tell you one thing for absolutely sure. I'd rather be me than you.

With one exception, I'd rather be you than me too!

--
Ted

Seeker

06-20-2005, 12:10 PM

urf

06-20-2005, 03:12 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b71472$1_2@x-privat.org... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:DjAte.12921$kl1.11516@trndny08... And I think you are right, we could never agree on what in your belief system has betrayed you. I can give you my impressions though. First *I* question anyone who believes in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and *GOD*! That is not a comment on spirituality which is human nature but transcends religion and the concept of one God. Ah, you see, the main part of my belief system that I was, most surprisingly, unexpectedly, and pleasantly driven to discard was the part having to do with God.

Please expand. I've been under the impression that you do believe in God
and your religion.
The other part was much more mundane: about women. And both of those are long stories.

Everything about you is a long story. Tell us..... but do it a little at a
time.
Second I would discard *EVERYTHING* that I had ever *assumed* to be true And reject all of human history and experience? That's awfully self-centered, don't you think?

What I said was discard what you *assumed*. That the earth is round
is not discardable. It is observable fact. If you believe that you are
inferior
in some way that is totally discardable. You can discard your concept of
love,
that is if you have one.

and establish an entirely *NEW BELIEF* system based on my own personal happiness. How does happiness become a measure of what's true and what's not?

Happiness is the only goal I aspire too. You can't quantify it, you can only
be it. If something makes you happy, embrace it. Being true and being
happy are not mutually dependent although they influence one to the other.
If I lived my entire life as a lie but was delieriously happy every moment
what difference to anyone should it make?
What you believe has gotten you to where you are. Where you are is not where you want to be or even thought you wanted to be. Throw away that compass named *belief system* and try something else. Lastly you asked me to tell you what *I* think your belief system is and that is total bull. I could no more climb into your head than you could mine. Well, you stated that my belief system betrayed me (or words to that effect) -- how can you say that without knowing, or at least surmising, what my belief system was?

I know what I know. I see what I see. I have read your posts for several
years now.
I can tell you one thing for absolutely sure. I'd rather be me than you. With one exception, I'd rather be you than me too! -- Ted

urf

06-20-2005, 03:12 PM

Joy

06-20-2005, 03:56 PM

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b6e06d$1_1@x-privat.org... "Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote in message news:8Brte.3877$Gp.2649@fe04.lga... "Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Tedds212removethis-B43DA3.22275019062005@news.x-privat.org... In article <ieXse.1671$mD6.429@fe07.lga>, "Joy" <joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net> wrote:> But Ted, read for comprehension. She was talking about in the event> of a> DIVORCE. She wasn't talking about in a marriage. Yes she was. Go back and read it again, Ted. I did. I suggest you do too. Here's the relevant part:

That wasn't the relevant part, IMO. See below.
I guess I don't get it at all. Are you telling me I should completely ignore my wife's feelings in any decisions I make -- especially in something this important?If you're divorcing, then yes. I'm not divorcing, so the answer would be no -- i.e., I should *not* ignore my wife's feelings.

She didn't say you should ignore your wife's feelings. Lets try it again:

You said:
I don't think I've ever denied fearing divorce (not that you said I have.) What I've tried to do is compare two hypothetical situations and see which one seems worse to me. The problem with trying to sort out how I feel about a potential divorce is it depends on too many details of what leads
up to it, how the process might go, what state we are both in afterwards, and how things go afterwards. Some versions of the possible scenarios there, yes, could be worse than being "stuck in hell." (say, if my wife were absolutely miserable afterwards); others would be clearly better. In all cases, how I feel about the divorce would be in reaction to how it
affected my wife, and not to the divorce in and of itself.

In response to the part where you claimed that *if* you divorced how you
felt about it wouldn't depend on the divorce but rather on how your wife was
affected, DaKitty took the opportunity to point out how that statement of
yours was indicative of a codependent relationship:

She said:
"One thing I want to point out is this statement:
....how I feel about the divorce would be in reaction to how it affected
my wife, and not to the divorce in and of itself....

In little simplified form says, How I feel about something will depend on
how my wife feels about something.

That's a dead ringer kind of a red flag that screams codependence. or an
unhealthy level of interdependence... however you want to call it, it's
still not completely functional that how you feel about something depends on
how she feels about it. "

She then went on to point out, and I tried to reiterate, that in an actual
divorce you become *divorced* - you are no longer a couple, and you have to
make decisions based on your own needs, rather than on your former spouses
feelings:

"Especially in a divorce, when people typically try
to get more independent from one another.
In a divorce, you'll have to decide how you feel about something, on your
own."

So, Ted, she WAS talking about in the event of a divorce. In the event of a
marriage, of course you consider your spouses feelings. Nobody ever said
otherwise.

Joy

06-20-2005, 03:56 PM

Tai

06-20-2005, 05:13 PM

Seeker wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3hg973Fgpl0dU1@individual.net... And I'm curious - if you were to reveal the secret would it feel safer for you to do it here or in a counselling session with your wife? It's not a secret from her at all. Nor from the therapist. My wife even understands (at some level, but not completely) and says she accepts how it affects my relationships with other women.

Ted, I missed this, I'm sorry.

I have been assuming your secret had something to do with your
spirituality - something on which I'm sure I'd have nothing useful to say!
But this post suggests it might be something else, entirely. So, now I am
curious whether I'd have anything different to say to you if I knew.

Tai

Tai

06-20-2005, 05:13 PM