A few quick comments

[Seeker]

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

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

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

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

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

G'night.

Ted

[shinypenny]

Seeker <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<300720042325387864%Tedds212removethis@yahoo. com>...

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

Gotcha.

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

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

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

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

jen

[shinypenny]

Seeker <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<300720042325387864%Tedds212removethis@yahoo. com>...

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

Gotcha.

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

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

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

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

jen

[Seeker]

In article <c8cb5319.0407310533.3c773304@posting.google.com >,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:

Since you've been going every week this summer, it could be that something just happened to be weighing on her mind the last time. Instead of jumping to the conclusion she's not experiencing the concert in the same way as you and being annoyed by that, next time try shifting your attitude away from the personal. In the intermission, say something like, "Honey, is everything okay? You strike me as preoccupied tonight."

It didn't strike me as being pre-occupied (especially) -- afterall,
when she watches TV she'll do a crossword puzzle at the same time. I
did ask afterwards if she enjoyed the concert and she said, yes, why
did you ask? But after the last couple of times our love-making
fizzled she did acknowlege being preoccupied by three things: the
marriage counselling ("I've been this way for two years"), the fact
that we have house guests coming mid-September and a lot of work to do
to get ready, and, our probably dying elderly cat (he's eating a little
better, on some medication & been given fluids, but at all in very good
shape.)

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

Understood (sort of.)

Ted

[Seeker]

In article <c8cb5319.0407310533.3c773304@posting.google.com >,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:

Since you've been going every week this summer, it could be that something just happened to be weighing on her mind the last time. Instead of jumping to the conclusion she's not experiencing the concert in the same way as you and being annoyed by that, next time try shifting your attitude away from the personal. In the intermission, say something like, "Honey, is everything okay? You strike me as preoccupied tonight."

It didn't strike me as being pre-occupied (especially) -- afterall,
when she watches TV she'll do a crossword puzzle at the same time. I
did ask afterwards if she enjoyed the concert and she said, yes, why
did you ask? But after the last couple of times our love-making
fizzled she did acknowlege being preoccupied by three things: the
marriage counselling ("I've been this way for two years"), the fact
that we have house guests coming mid-September and a lot of work to do
to get ready, and, our probably dying elderly cat (he's eating a little
better, on some medication & been given fluids, but at all in very good
shape.)

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

Understood (sort of.)

Ted

[Everyboysmomma]

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:300720042325387864%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om...

I don't know if I'm going to get back and respond to everything I feel I ought to, but I do want to make a few quick comments in reaction to some of what I've read. First, I realized perhaps why I was annoyed at my wife's reading the program during the concerts. (I don't know where some of you got the idea she "chattered" during them; she didn't.) Going to the symphony is one of the few things we do together where I think we have some kind of a shared emotional experience -- or a hope of one. So it was disappointing to realize that wasn't as true as I'd hoped it was or might be. (Now, why several of you found my reaction something worth commenting on at length is perhaps something for you to think about -- I know why *I* made a big deal about it; why did you?) Second, to Jen, I think what I mean by "integrity" *is* maybe what you mean by authenticity -- being true to yourself. I agree that "authenticity" is probably a better word and it does fit better some of what I react to strongly (especially what I perceive as a lack of it in someone else, whether accurately or not.) Third, tonight's concert was much better than the last several. I don't know if discussing it here helped or not, but I was hardly annoyed at all -- if any -- by her reading the program tonight. On the other hand, for whatever reason, to the extent I noticed, she read it much, much less than previously. Fourth, someone made some comment about there not being much to observe at a concert (or, if there was, doesn't than mean I wasn't paying attention to the music?) As I said -- we sit in the second or third row of the hall. That means we can watch the facial expressions of the musicians and follow their body language. For me, that means that in a little way I can feel what it is like to be performing the music -- not just listening to it. I can rejoice with them, say, when two of the musicians sense they've harmonized just right -- I don't know that I can put it into words, but it adds an immense amount to enjoying the concert to me. There are two or three out of the whole ensemble who are especially inspiring to watch that way -- they just seem to "get into" the music with much more depth than any of the rest. G'night. Ted

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

[Everyboysmomma]

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:300720042325387864%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om...

I don't know if I'm going to get back and respond to everything I feel I ought to, but I do want to make a few quick comments in reaction to some of what I've read. First, I realized perhaps why I was annoyed at my wife's reading the program during the concerts. (I don't know where some of you got the idea she "chattered" during them; she didn't.) Going to the symphony is one of the few things we do together where I think we have some kind of a shared emotional experience -- or a hope of one. So it was disappointing to realize that wasn't as true as I'd hoped it was or might be. (Now, why several of you found my reaction something worth commenting on at length is perhaps something for you to think about -- I know why *I* made a big deal about it; why did you?) Second, to Jen, I think what I mean by "integrity" *is* maybe what you mean by authenticity -- being true to yourself. I agree that "authenticity" is probably a better word and it does fit better some of what I react to strongly (especially what I perceive as a lack of it in someone else, whether accurately or not.) Third, tonight's concert was much better than the last several. I don't know if discussing it here helped or not, but I was hardly annoyed at all -- if any -- by her reading the program tonight. On the other hand, for whatever reason, to the extent I noticed, she read it much, much less than previously. Fourth, someone made some comment about there not being much to observe at a concert (or, if there was, doesn't than mean I wasn't paying attention to the music?) As I said -- we sit in the second or third row of the hall. That means we can watch the facial expressions of the musicians and follow their body language. For me, that means that in a little way I can feel what it is like to be performing the music -- not just listening to it. I can rejoice with them, say, when two of the musicians sense they've harmonized just right -- I don't know that I can put it into words, but it adds an immense amount to enjoying the concert to me. There are two or three out of the whole ensemble who are especially inspiring to watch that way -- they just seem to "get into" the music with much more depth than any of the rest. G'night. Ted

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

[WhansaMi]

Momma wrote:

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

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

Sheila

[WhansaMi]

Momma wrote:

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

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

Sheila

[Tony Miller]

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 11:49:38 GMT, Everyboysmomma
<noway@maine.rr.com> wrote:

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:300720042325387864%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om...

I am not reading any other comments before answering here, but the answer is screaming in my head. Ted, you want to have a relationship with *yourself*!! There is no room in your idea of relationship for personal expression. You want your wife to respond to all stimuli exactly the way you do. It ain't gonna happen and you are doing nothing but frustrating yourself (not to mention the poor woman who has to try to live up to your unlivable expectations) We all enjoy shared emotional understanding. But trying to contrive it or, even worse, demand it is just unrealistic. You keep talking about wanting the shared experiences of a soulmate when I truly do not believe you can comprehend what that really means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Tony

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

[Tony Miller]

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 11:49:38 GMT, Everyboysmomma
<noway@maine.rr.com> wrote:

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:300720042325387864%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om...

I am not reading any other comments before answering here, but the answer is screaming in my head. Ted, you want to have a relationship with *yourself*!! There is no room in your idea of relationship for personal expression. You want your wife to respond to all stimuli exactly the way you do. It ain't gonna happen and you are doing nothing but frustrating yourself (not to mention the poor woman who has to try to live up to your unlivable expectations) We all enjoy shared emotional understanding. But trying to contrive it or, even worse, demand it is just unrealistic. You keep talking about wanting the shared experiences of a soulmate when I truly do not believe you can comprehend what that really means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Tony

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

[Everyboysmomma]

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrncgsike.t5d.tony@home.cigardiary.com...

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 11:49:38 GMT, Everyboysmomma <noway@maine.rr.com> wrote:

answer is

screaming in my head. Ted, you want to have a relationship with *yourself*!! There is no room

in

your idea of relationship for personal expression. You want your wife

to

respond to all stimuli exactly the way you do. It ain't gonna happen

and

you are doing nothing but frustrating yourself (not to mention the poor woman who has to try to live up to your unlivable expectations) We all enjoy shared emotional understanding. But trying to contrive it

or,

even worse, demand it is just unrealistic. You keep talking about

wanting

the shared experiences of a soulmate when I truly do not believe you can comprehend what that really means. Hehehe... My "Ladyhawk" thread was the perfect example of the kind of "shared experinces" my wife and I can have. My wife and I don't like the same kinds of movies. She likes the romantic stories, and I like the manly fighting kinds of movies (swords, guns or bombs). My movies have to have a really high "boom to word" ratio and if that ratio goes into the high positives, it's my kid of movie. As a result, when we go to the movies, one of us is generally aquiescing to see a movie that really isn't interesting for the sake of the other. _Ladyhawk_ was interesting because it was a movie we both enjoyed though . . . and this is the important part . . . for different reason. My wife liked the romantic story. I'd imagine she though Rutger Hauer was "hunky". She liked the way the hero finally won the girl. I liked the fighting and swordplay. I liked the half naked Michelle Pfieffer. I liked the escape on multiple occasions by "the mouse". I also liked the evil bishop getting his in the end (and by his own hand, Navale was going to leave him to stew in his own juice). But we enjoyed the movie for different reasons. It was a shared experience of enjoying a movie, but I had no expectation of her enjoying it the same way I did. I also picked out the movie and suggested it to her because I understand the kinds of movies she likes, and I saw those aspects in that movie. I was right on target. Is *that* intimacy? -Tony -- "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's

time

to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

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

[Everyboysmomma]

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrncgsike.t5d.tony@home.cigardiary.com...

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 11:49:38 GMT, Everyboysmomma <noway@maine.rr.com> wrote:

answer is

screaming in my head. Ted, you want to have a relationship with *yourself*!! There is no room

in

your idea of relationship for personal expression. You want your wife

to

respond to all stimuli exactly the way you do. It ain't gonna happen

and

you are doing nothing but frustrating yourself (not to mention the poor woman who has to try to live up to your unlivable expectations) We all enjoy shared emotional understanding. But trying to contrive it

or,

even worse, demand it is just unrealistic. You keep talking about

wanting

the shared experiences of a soulmate when I truly do not believe you can comprehend what that really means. Hehehe... My "Ladyhawk" thread was the perfect example of the kind of "shared experinces" my wife and I can have. My wife and I don't like the same kinds of movies. She likes the romantic stories, and I like the manly fighting kinds of movies (swords, guns or bombs). My movies have to have a really high "boom to word" ratio and if that ratio goes into the high positives, it's my kid of movie. As a result, when we go to the movies, one of us is generally aquiescing to see a movie that really isn't interesting for the sake of the other. _Ladyhawk_ was interesting because it was a movie we both enjoyed though . . . and this is the important part . . . for different reason. My wife liked the romantic story. I'd imagine she though Rutger Hauer was "hunky". She liked the way the hero finally won the girl. I liked the fighting and swordplay. I liked the half naked Michelle Pfieffer. I liked the escape on multiple occasions by "the mouse". I also liked the evil bishop getting his in the end (and by his own hand, Navale was going to leave him to stew in his own juice). But we enjoyed the movie for different reasons. It was a shared experience of enjoying a movie, but I had no expectation of her enjoying it the same way I did. I also picked out the movie and suggested it to her because I understand the kinds of movies she likes, and I saw those aspects in that movie. I was right on target. Is *that* intimacy? -Tony -- "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's

time

to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

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

[Tracey]

Tony Miller wrote:

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

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

Tracey

[Tracey]

Tony Miller wrote:

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

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

Tracey

[Seeker]

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:410E6FC4.9070203@aol.com...

Tony Miller wrote:

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

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

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

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

Ted

[Seeker]

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:410E6FC4.9070203@aol.com...

Tony Miller wrote:

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

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

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

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

Ted

[Tracey]

Seeker wrote:

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:410E6FC4.9070203@aol.com...

After reading this, some of my own posts, and some others (one from Joy recently sticks in my mind especially) I see that we (including me especially in that) may be confusing two different kinds of emotional intimacy. I'm probably too tired right now (it was a very sleepless night) to be writing this very coherently, but I'll give it a shot. One kind of emotional intimacy is what Tony and Tracey and others are referring to: communicating what we know and discover about ourselves (as Schnarch would have it) well enough and fearlessly enough that we know how to speak each others love languages -- doing things for and saying things to each other that enhance our love for each other. While it may take a lot of work, any two people can do that -- it is something any two people can choose to do.

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

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

And we're back full circle again.

Tracey

[Tracey]

Seeker wrote:

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:410E6FC4.9070203@aol.com...

After reading this, some of my own posts, and some others (one from Joy recently sticks in my mind especially) I see that we (including me especially in that) may be confusing two different kinds of emotional intimacy. I'm probably too tired right now (it was a very sleepless night) to be writing this very coherently, but I'll give it a shot. One kind of emotional intimacy is what Tony and Tracey and others are referring to: communicating what we know and discover about ourselves (as Schnarch would have it) well enough and fearlessly enough that we know how to speak each others love languages -- doing things for and saying things to each other that enhance our love for each other. While it may take a lot of work, any two people can do that -- it is something any two people can choose to do.

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

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

And we're back full circle again.

Tracey

[Seeker]

In article <410EA203.7020702@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:

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

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

Ted

[Seeker]

In article <410EA203.7020702@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com>
wrote:

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

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

Ted

[Joy]

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2n7jumFtikngU1@uni-berlin.de...

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:410E6FC4.9070203@aol.com...

I don't know what you call the other kind -- unless it's what someone labelled as "co-emoting." It is the recogition, through various kinds of communication, that you and someone else are experiencing the same

situation

(which could be a book or play or something in real-life) in roughly the same way. That is not something you can choose or bring about through conscious effort: it just happens. The irrational part of me wrongly

says

I should expect to be able to have that kind of intimacy with my wife, and so when I don't I am disappointed. The rational part of me acknowledges that need is very strong for me and that I shouldn't have to defend that when it is called into question. But the irrational part of me feels rejected when it is and wants to fight back. What complicates this

further

is that satisfying that need is not just a fantasy -- for I *have* experienced such moments with others and I dearly wish I *could*

experience

them with my wife. A further complication is that it is mostly women I've had such moments with and it is women that I truly desire to have them

with.

So, do I continue to hope to have it with my wife,

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

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

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

[Joy]

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2n7jumFtikngU1@uni-berlin.de...

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:410E6FC4.9070203@aol.com...

I don't know what you call the other kind -- unless it's what someone labelled as "co-emoting." It is the recogition, through various kinds of communication, that you and someone else are experiencing the same

situation

(which could be a book or play or something in real-life) in roughly the same way. That is not something you can choose or bring about through conscious effort: it just happens. The irrational part of me wrongly

says

I should expect to be able to have that kind of intimacy with my wife, and so when I don't I am disappointed. The rational part of me acknowledges that need is very strong for me and that I shouldn't have to defend that when it is called into question. But the irrational part of me feels rejected when it is and wants to fight back. What complicates this

further

is that satisfying that need is not just a fantasy -- for I *have* experienced such moments with others and I dearly wish I *could*

experience

them with my wife. A further complication is that it is mostly women I've had such moments with and it is women that I truly desire to have them

with.

So, do I continue to hope to have it with my wife,

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

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

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

[Everyboysmomma]

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10guvnhe5ulgra7@corp.supernews.com...

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2n7jumFtikngU1@uni-berlin.de...

of

communication, that you and someone else are experiencing the same situation

says

and

so when I don't I am disappointed. The rational part of me acknowledges that need is very strong for me and that I shouldn't have to defend that when it is called into question. But the irrational part of me feels rejected when it is and wants to fight back. What complicates this further

experience

I've

had such moments with and it is women that I truly desire to have them with.

You've already established that this is not one of the things your wife

has

to offer. You know that, already, so why would you continue to hope to

have

it with her? Can you not see that "hoping to have it with your wife"

EQUALS

"hoping your wife will change to be who you want her to be", which is what people have been telling you all along? No, you don't get to define who your wife is, or demand she change to be

who

you want. It also sounds like a huge waste of time and energy to sit

around

dwelling on it, too - she is who she is, she has a right to be. What you

DO

get to do - in fact, really *need* to do - is decide whether or not you

can

live with who she is. These are your choices, as you've been told about a zillion times - either accept her for who and what she is, and live with that, or decide you

can't

accept her for who and what she is, and leave. You keep insisting there's

a

choice C - in which she changes to be who you want her to be - but that is an illusion. There is no choice C.

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

[Everyboysmomma]

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10guvnhe5ulgra7@corp.supernews.com...

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2n7jumFtikngU1@uni-berlin.de...

of

communication, that you and someone else are experiencing the same situation

says

and

so when I don't I am disappointed. The rational part of me acknowledges that need is very strong for me and that I shouldn't have to defend that when it is called into question. But the irrational part of me feels rejected when it is and wants to fight back. What complicates this further

experience

I've

had such moments with and it is women that I truly desire to have them with.

You've already established that this is not one of the things your wife

has

to offer. You know that, already, so why would you continue to hope to

have

it with her? Can you not see that "hoping to have it with your wife"

EQUALS

"hoping your wife will change to be who you want her to be", which is what people have been telling you all along? No, you don't get to define who your wife is, or demand she change to be

who

you want. It also sounds like a huge waste of time and energy to sit

around

dwelling on it, too - she is who she is, she has a right to be. What you

DO

get to do - in fact, really *need* to do - is decide whether or not you

can

live with who she is. These are your choices, as you've been told about a zillion times - either accept her for who and what she is, and live with that, or decide you

can't

accept her for who and what she is, and leave. You keep insisting there's

a

choice C - in which she changes to be who you want her to be - but that is an illusion. There is no choice C.

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

[Seeker]

In article <10guvnhe5ulgra7@corp.supernews.com>, Joy
<joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

Ted

[Seeker]

In article <10guvnhe5ulgra7@corp.supernews.com>, Joy
<joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

Ted

[Jennifer]

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:010820041136393948%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om...

In article <c8cb5319.0407310533.3c773304@posting.google.com >, shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:

It didn't strike me as being pre-occupied (especially) -- afterall, when she watches TV she'll do a crossword puzzle at the same time. I did ask afterwards if she enjoyed the concert and she said, yes, why did you ask?

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

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

Jennifer

[Jennifer]

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:010820041136393948%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om...

In article <c8cb5319.0407310533.3c773304@posting.google.com >, shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:

It didn't strike me as being pre-occupied (especially) -- afterall, when she watches TV she'll do a crossword puzzle at the same time. I did ask afterwards if she enjoyed the concert and she said, yes, why did you ask?

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

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

Jennifer

[Jennifer]

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:020820042112536336%Tedds212removethis@yahoo.c om...

In article <410EA203.7020702@aol.com>, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:

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

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

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

Jennifer