Is this how it is?

[Doug Laidlaw]

In "In Search of Solutions" (a very readable introduction to solution-
oriented counseling, just republished in paperback) a wife who was a good
horse-trainer couldn't control her husband so she was told to pretend he
was a horse, only not to tell him so.

Actually, the point was that many of her horse-training skills were just as
applicable to human relationships, e.g. praising small improvements
(recommended by Dale Carnegie.) relaxing the tension on the reins
occasionally instead of making it a tug-of-war.

Doug.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Drama is life with the dull bits cut out.
-- Alfred Hitchcock.
The trick is to see what Hitchcock sees, not just the dull bits.

[somebody]

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

In "In Search of Solutions" (a very readable introduction to solution- oriented counseling, just republished in paperback) a wife who was a good horse-trainer couldn't control her husband so she was told to pretend he was a horse, only not to tell him so. Actually, the point was that many of her horse-training skills were just as applicable to human relationships, e.g. praising small improvements (recommended by Dale Carnegie.) relaxing the tension on the reins occasionally instead of making it a tug-of-war. Doug.

I wish someone would tell my wife that. She seems to constantly bring up my
past mistakes instead of praising the improvements I am trying to make

[Caren]

Doug Laidlaw <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message news:<ambt22-eh4.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au>...

In "In Search of Solutions" (a very readable introduction to solution- oriented counseling, just republished in paperback) a wife who was a good horse-trainer couldn't control her husband so she was told to pretend he was a horse, only not to tell him so. Actually, the point was that many of her horse-training skills were just as applicable to human relationships, e.g. praising small improvements (recommended by Dale Carnegie.) relaxing the tension on the reins occasionally instead of making it a tug-of-war. Doug.

It's actually not a bad idea.

My theory is that if we treated our spouse as nicely as we treat our
friends, our relationships would improve. Sometimes I think it's
easier to be nicer to a stranger than it is to a spouse. Think about
it: I see my husband open a door in a store or restaurant for a
stranger and often forgets to do it for me. Those small things such
as givng a compliment, positive reinforcement, saying thank you,
looking into a person's eyes when talking- so many of those things are
done for friends, strangers, neighbors...you know, kind of like on
your best behavior. Yet when you get home, your "sanctuary" it's
easier to let loose, be less attentive, less kind, less grateful,-you
get my point, don't you?

Doug, with all of the posts of yours that I have read (I've probably
NOT read most of your posts), why exactly are you staying married?

[Jack C Lipton]

Caren and Company...

In some ways the difference isn't in how we deal
with strangers but how we deal with long-term
relationships.

Perhaps the mobile phone or long distance biz is
an exaggeration of the problem: we want *novel*
experiences so we look for *new* or *changed*
situations but neglect the existing relationships
because they're either "stable" or otherwise seen
as self-perpetuating.

A *lot* of people don't consider the need to deal
with RETENTION; in some ways we gets too secure
and stop worrying about how someone bound to us
is feeling, assuming the relationship won't change
while we're not looking.

IMHO a relationship where the requirement for
maintenance is *visible* (like "term marriages",
for instance, like term insurance) would tend to
keep the need to refresh the relationship in a
place immediately obvious to the eye (rather than
"on display in the bottom drawer of a locked file
cabinet stuck in a dis-used lavatory with a sign
on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'").

The problem is that relationships tend to build
up various asymmetries that *don't* help matters;
one party gets to feel too secure in the whole
relationship and the other one decides to say
"f**k this sh*t" and bail out. (I now believe
that some may say "f**k off" when they choose to
murder themselves; it's a pity there's no stigma
attached to the survivor, but that might encourage
more folks to end things this way.)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership deals with maximizing gains;
Management is all about minimizing losses.
Too much of either is death. - me

[Doug Laidlaw]

Jack C Lipton wrote:

Caren and Company... In some ways the difference isn't in how we deal with strangers but how we deal with long-term relationships. Perhaps the mobile phone or long distance biz is an exaggeration of the problem: we want *novel* experiences so we look for *new* or *changed* situations but neglect the existing relationships because they're either "stable" or otherwise seen as self-perpetuating. A *lot* of people don't consider the need to deal with RETENTION; in some ways we gets too secure and stop worrying about how someone bound to us is feeling, assuming the relationship won't change while we're not looking. IMHO a relationship where the requirement for maintenance is *visible* (like "term marriages", for instance, like term insurance) would tend to keep the need to refresh the relationship in a place immediately obvious to the eye (rather than "on display in the bottom drawer of a locked file cabinet stuck in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'"). The problem is that relationships tend to build up various asymmetries that *don't* help matters; one party gets to feel too secure in the whole relationship and the other one decides to say "f**k this sh*t" and bail out. (I now believe that some may say "f**k off" when they choose to murder themselves; it's a pity there's no stigma attached to the survivor, but that might encourage more folks to end things this way.)

I think that you are right about the retention, Jack. In the days of
arranged marriages, couples had to work at retention. They could make the
marriage last if they tried. Now we tend to believe that we are entitled
to a life-long romance, and if we don't get it, there is something wrong
with the relationship, and we should start again with someone else.

The idea of term marriages is interesting, but so long as people believe
what I have just stated, there is no incentive to continue. Incidentally,
I was taught that in revolutionary Russia, it was provided that any
marriage could be dissolved by both parties filing a document at the
Registry Office. The point for us was whether this was a marriage at all
that our law would recognize. It was decided that it would be recognized,
but the reason I am quoting it is that social pressure made them change the
law. Couples don't want that kind of marriage.

The argument for pre-nuptial agreements is that they are realistic. No
marriage will last, they assume. And the ones that do last make the
partners feel a bit strange. I have been married 33 years. We have had
two men come up on this ng saying the same and wondering if it is a record.
At 15 years, my secretary believed that we had been married far too long.

There is a poem that starts: "Why, having won her, do I woo?" Many men and
women would agree that the time for wooing is then over. But continuing to
woo is simply maintenance of the marriage. My wife and I would make a good
working team regardless of any relationship, so long as she was the leader.
And that is largely what we have become.

(Now I realize that this is inconsistent with Snarch's distinction between
loving and being in love. Only the latter requires cohabitation. So
perhaps we are still "in love" to some extent.)

I suggested elsewhere that every house should have a "parents' retreat" - by
analogy, a workshop for marriage maintenance. Someone replied that young
couples with young children don't have the time. That is rather like the
book on the delights of reading. The author was frequently told: "TV takes
up too much of my time. There is no time for reading." It is simply a
matter of priorities. If something is important to you, you will make the
time, even if something less important has to go. If you "haven't time" for
marriage maintenance, then maintenance isn't important to you. That doesn't
mean that the marriage is unimportant to you. Maintenance may be regarded as
unnecessary - until it is too late. Even in one of the Rodgers and
Hammerstein musicals - Carousel, I think - there is the line "When the
children are asleep, we'll sit and dream." That is doing marriage maintenance,
and for the housewife, it may be the best time, or the only time available.
Our first homework was to do it for half an hour every night, but we treated
it like homework, and did it onlyas long as we had to.

My wife tended to believe that at our stage in life, love is irrelevant to
marriage. A German woman on ethnic television said the same thing. If
they mean the romance of the honeymoon stage, I agree. But the honeymoon
is "froth and bubble." Really deep love takes time - and commitment.
There is a tendency to believe that love is something outside ourselves,
like a puddle that we "fall into" or "fall out of". But love is something
that we do. It is at the core of the Commandments. We can't be judged
morally on loving or not loving if it is something external to us. That is
if you like, a "victim" attitude. in the words of someone who replied to me
on ASDR. He was:

David Bruce Jr
Baltimore Maryland
http://www.victimbehavior.com

I don't know if I agree totally with the contents of his site, but the
"victim" approach is a common thing these days. I love Agatha Christie's
statement of it, which I have quoted before: "I'm not responsible. It's in
my blood. You can't hang me for something that's not my fault." (The
speaker's mother had committed a murder, too.) That was an extreme case,
but too much excusing of crime on these grounds is bad for society.
Allowing for human fallibility is different, but the ethic used to be:
"Yes, I was just fallible, but the consequences are a fact of life." Now
we ask to be protected from the consequences.

Doug.

--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Silently one by one, in the infinite meadows of heaven
Blossomed the lovely stars, the forget-me-nots of the angels.
-- Longfellow.

[Doug Anderson]

Doug Laidlaw <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> writes:

Jack C Lipton wrote:

I think that you are right about the retention, Jack. In the days of arranged marriages, couples had to work at retention.

Did they? I don't think so. In the days of arranged marriages there
was really no way out for the woman, and often no way out for the man.
So retention was automatic. It is _now_ when we have to work at
retention since there are other options.

They could make the marriage last if they tried. Now we tend to believe that we are entitled to a life-long romance, and if we don't get it, there is something wrong with the relationship, and we should start again with someone else.

Yes, that is a much bigger difference. In the days of an arranged
marriage "I love you but I'm not in love with you" was far more than
adequate. Now we want more than that.

The idea of term marriages is interesting, but so long as people believe what I have just stated, there is no incentive to continue.

Why isn't there incentive to continue? I don't understand what you mean.

Incidentally, I was taught that in revolutionary Russia, it was provided that any marriage could be dissolved by both parties filing a document at the Registry Office. The point for us was whether this was a marriage at all that our law would recognize. It was decided that it would be recognized, but the reason I am quoting it is that social pressure made them change the law. Couples don't want that kind of marriage. The argument for pre-nuptial agreements is that they are realistic. No marriage will last, they assume.

No, that isn't what they assume. No more than someone who buys life
insurance while his children are young assumes he will die before they
become adults.

(snip rest)

But I think I agree with your general point that if you want to have a
delightful marriage, it is probably necessary to keep wooing.

Doug A.

[Amy Lou]

"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3754f0b3.0409301148.6ac52b94@posting.google.c om...

Doug Laidlaw <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message

news:<ambt22-eh4.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au>...

In "In Search of Solutions" (a very readable introduction to solution- oriented counseling, just republished in paperback) a wife who was a

good

horse-trainer couldn't control her husband so she was told to pretend he was a horse, only not to tell him so. Actually, the point was that many of her horse-training skills were just

as

applicable to human relationships, e.g. praising small improvements (recommended by Dale Carnegie.) relaxing the tension on the reins occasionally instead of making it a tug-of-war. Doug. It's actually not a bad idea. My theory is that if we treated our spouse as nicely as we treat our friends, our relationships would improve.

I'm all for this! Why is it that so many married people get complacent about
the simple niceties? Its become a bit of a joke in our house now when I
cuddle DH in the morning and ask him to "be nice to me all day today,
pleeeease".

Amy

[Michael]

in article 3k57d.10033$5O5.861@news-server.bigpond.net.au, Amy Lou at
amylouisa@bigpond.com wrote on 9/30/04 10:47 PM:

"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message news:3754f0b3.0409301148.6ac52b94@posting.google.c om...

news:<ambt22-eh4.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au>...

good

as

I'm all for this! Why is it that so many married people get complacent about the simple niceties? Its become a bit of a joke in our house now when I cuddle DH in the morning and ask him to "be nice to me all day today, pleeeease". Amy

What exactly is your definition of being nice to you?

[Amy Lou]

"Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in >

What exactly is your definition of being nice to you?

Not being rude, not being cranky, not sitting in front of the telly all day,
being helpful, cheerful and friendly.

Amy

[Everyboysmomma]

"Doug Laidlaw" <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message
news:ambt22-eh4.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au...

In "In Search of Solutions" (a very readable introduction to solution- oriented counseling, just republished in paperback) a wife who was a good horse-trainer couldn't control her husband so she was told to pretend he was a horse, only not to tell him so. Actually, the point was that many of her horse-training skills were just as applicable to human relationships, e.g. praising small improvements (recommended by Dale Carnegie.) relaxing the tension on the reins occasionally instead of making it a tug-of-war. Doug. -- ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548. Drama is life with the dull bits cut out. -- Alfred Hitchcock. The trick is to see what Hitchcock sees, not just the dull bits.

Hmmmm I was taught how to rein in a run away horse at the age of 11. He was
a retired lead pony from the races. He was wonderful as I would take him
out on the trail, but when we got approximately 1/4 mile from the barn, he
would tear loose and run, pell-mell, back to the barn. Unfortunately, this
took us across a road. I tried everything in my power to hold him back.
Nothing worked. A very old horseman told me to fill a bread bag halfway
with warm water on my next trip out, and when I felt the horse start to
bolt, haul off and bonk him over the head with it. The bag would break, and
the horse, not being exceptionally bright, would feel the water and think he
was bleeding to death. He would walk.
I did not believe this for one minute, but since I had tried everything
else, and the horse was so wonderful in every other regard I figured I had
nothing to loose.
You guessed it. It worked like a charm. The horse never bolted again.
SO... am I to infer then that the best way to get my husband not to want to
take off when we are in the mall is to look for the nearest bakery?????
Momma
"they shoot horses, don't they?"

[Doug Laidlaw]

Amy Lou wrote:

"Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in >

Not being rude, not being cranky, not sitting in front of the telly all day, being helpful, cheerful and friendly. Amy

My wife and I would probably say the same about each other.

There seems to be an idea that family don't "need" the ordinary niceties. A
woman who wrote about this was at a friend's house when the daughter of the
house wanted to go to her brother's room, but the door was closed. The
girl knocked. The visitor commented to the mother that this was an
unnecessary formality. The mother was puzzled. "What are closed doors
for?" she asked. The same rules apply to all. I take the view that my
obligation to family members is the highest, not the lowest.

Doug.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
To know the road ahead, ask those coming back.
- Chinese Proverb.
(I hope that this doesn't mean: To know what marriage is like, ask those
returning from it.)

[Doug Laidlaw]

Doug Anderson wrote:

Doug Laidlaw <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> writes:

Did they? I don't think so. In the days of arranged marriages there was really no way out for the woman, and often no way out for the man. So retention was automatic. It is _now_ when we have to work at retention since there are other options.

"No way out" isn't retention, just as putting someone in jail doesn't make
him want to stay there, but it motivates the couple to make their
coexistence at least pleasant.

Yes, that is a much bigger difference. In the days of an arranged marriage "I love you but I'm not in love with you" was far more than adequate. Now we want more than that.

Why isn't there incentive to continue? I don't understand what you mean.

There is no "carrot", just an easy way out. The only incentive is the
commitment of the couple. If they choose to make it work, it will. If
they choose not to, they can just call it quits (perhaps after 5 years.)
If they can't get out of it that easily, they have to reason "Well, I am
stuck with you, so I might as well make the best of it." And it isn't what
society wants, if the next bit is any indication. Our law provides for no
divorce until two years after the wedding (unless the parties have tried
counseling) Since they must be separated for 12 months, that expects them
to give the marriage a go for at least 12 months (although they don't have
to: they can separate the next day then wait two years.)

No, that isn't what they assume. No more than someone who buys life insurance while his children are young assumes he will die before they become adults.

The real problem i have with pre-nups is that they may no longer be
appropriate, but that is an entirely different question. My very first
estate fight only happened because a will hadn't been brought up to date to
meet changed circumstances.

(snip rest) But I think I agree with your general point that if you want to have a delightful marriage, it is probably necessary to keep wooing. Doug A.

Or at least talking.

Doug. L.

--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Maturity begins to grow when you can sense your concern for others
outweighing your concern for yourself.
- John Macnaughton.

[Doug Laidlaw]

somebody wrote:

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

I wish someone would tell my wife that. She seems to constantly bring up my past mistakes instead of praising the improvements I am trying to make

That statement is so common that it was given as one of the reasons why a
computer should be called "she". Whether the statements in those lists are
accurate or not, they do largely reflect each gender's perception of the
other.

Doug.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Success usually comes to those who are too busy to be looking for it.
- Henry David Thoreau.

[Tony Miller]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:43:34 GMT, Amy Lou
<amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:

"Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in >

Not being rude, not being cranky, not sitting in front of the telly all day, being helpful, cheerful and friendly.

Hmmm... Sounds like a recipe for failure. There's only one way to do it
right, and thousands of ways to screw it up.

"I know you painted the entire house, took the kids to the park, washed
and waxed both of our cars, gave me a full body massage, but you didn't
help me with the dishes without being asked. BZZZZZZT, you lose!"

-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 Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:21:09 GMT, Everyboysmomma
<noway@maine.rr.com> wrote:

"Doug Laidlaw" <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message news:ambt22-eh4.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au...

Hmmmm I was taught how to rein in a run away horse at the age of 11. He was a retired lead pony from the races. He was wonderful as I would take him out on the trail, but when we got approximately 1/4 mile from the barn, he would tear loose and run, pell-mell, back to the barn. Unfortunately, this took us across a road. I tried everything in my power to hold him back. Nothing worked. A very old horseman told me to fill a bread bag halfway with warm water on my next trip out, and when I felt the horse start to bolt, haul off and bonk him over the head with it. The bag would break, and the horse, not being exceptionally bright, would feel the water and think he was bleeding to death. He would walk. I did not believe this for one minute, but since I had tried everything else, and the horse was so wonderful in every other regard I figured I had nothing to loose. You guessed it. It worked like a charm. The horse never bolted again. SO... am I to infer then that the best way to get my husband not to want to take off when we are in the mall is to look for the nearest bakery?????

This was very funny!!! I never mind going to the mall when I can go to
Sears and look at the power tools and meet my wife back when she's
finished.

-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.

[Jack C Lipton]

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

Doug Anderson wrote:

Or at least talking.

It can safely be argued that this *is*
the same thing. If both partners talk
*WITH* each other (rather than *AT* each
other) then the experience is pleasant
and will reinforce the commitment within
the relationship.

Note I say *with* which means that there
is a feedback loop in place.

When I say *at*... words are weapons.
When words are weapons they are usually
treated as "fire and forget".

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership deals with maximizing gains;
Management is all about minimizing losses.
Too much of either is death. - me

[Jack C Lipton]

Amy Lou wrote:

Why is it that so many married people get complacent about the simple niceties?

Because we forget to maintain what we already *have*.

Because we forget that we don't own our partner.

Because we think about changing long distance carrier
for one with bonuses for switching to them... and
then change again because we're offered new incentives
to change. Why be nice to someone who's already in a
relationship with us? Aren't the always going to be
there?

(All right, so that last paragraph was a bit over the
top but we've already got a thread where retention
and contined wooing is being discussed.)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership deals with maximizing gains;
Management is all about minimizing losses.
Too much of either is death. - me

[Jack C Lipton]

Amy Lou wrote:

Michael wrote:

Not being rude, not being cranky, not sitting in front of the telly all day, being helpful, cheerful and friendly.

Hmmmmmm... finally someone willing to actually answer
the question with actual behaviors.

One can modify behaviors. Attitudes are far harder to
change since they're far less concrete.

My wife has said "I want you to be nice to me" but has
never been able to define concrete behaviors.

However, Amy Lou, I see you started with "don'ts" which
aren't as useful as "dos". A "don't do..." provides a
LOT of latitude...

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership deals with maximizing gains;
Management is all about minimizing losses.
Too much of either is death. - me

[Jack C Lipton]

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

somebody wrote:

That statement is so common that it was given as one of the reasons why a computer should be called "she". Whether the statements in those lists are accurate or not, they do largely reflect each gender's perception of the other.

I suspect one of the reasons this kind of
issue is the "scramble for authority". The
person most capable of acting as the "judge"
likely feels they are "in control".

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership deals with maximizing gains;
Management is all about minimizing losses.
Too much of either is death. - me

[Jack C Lipton]

Amy Lou wrote:

Certainly rewarding behaviour is one way of 'controlling' people. I'm all for it!

IIRC Skinner's behaviorism covered a lot of this
as well.

Punishments to discourage a behavior tend to
trigger random behaviors; only reinforcing a
behavior positively will actually encourage it
to be repeated.

So the real issue is to make up one's mind as
early as possible which behaviors to encourage
and find means of encouraging them. This also
includes the requirement to reinforce them ASAP
so there's no confusion. Behaviors are concrete
rather than being a "nebulous" attitude.

Punishments are useful only when one wants to
form an aversion ... but you have NO control
over the *target* of the aversion. Note that
punishment may not avert a behavior but will
form an aversion to *things* or *people*.

I believe that aversions are far broader in
scope than behaviors; and an aversion may be
more of an attitude towards the object of the
aversion.

So when you're told "don't do ..." the problem
is that this leaves open a WIDE range of
behaviors that can be chosen.

(Gawd, did I really say that?)

In my own experience I realize I have aversions
against my wife which doesn't help me in trying
to work on our relationship.

It's that battle of how we really feel versus
how we think we *should* feel.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership deals with maximizing gains;
Management is all about minimizing losses.
Too much of either is death. - me

[Skip]

Tony Miller wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:43:34 GMT, Amy Lou <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:

Hmmm... Sounds like a recipe for failure. There's only one way to do it right, and thousands of ways to screw it up. "I know you painted the entire house, took the kids to the park, washed and waxed both of our cars, gave me a full body massage, but you didn't help me with the dishes without being asked. BZZZZZZT, you lose!"

how long were you spying on my marriage??!?

--skip, separated but hopeful.

[Jack C Lipton]

Skip wrote:

Tony Miller wrote:

how long were you spying on my marriage??!?

Actually, I wonder why the simple little words
like "please" and "thank you" so seldom get
heard within the context of a marriage.

It's almost like letting the other party feel
appreciated for an effort is *wrong*.

--skip, separated but hopeful.

Hopeful that she'll find someone who's happier
with her which would avoid alimony?

It sometimes seems that bad habits (or own as
well as those of a spouse) are the hardest to
root out-- and has to be the choice of the
person *with* the bad habit.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership deals with maximizing gains;
Management is all about minimizing losses.
Too much of either is death. - me

[Tracey]

Jack C Lipton wrote:

Actually, I wonder why the simple little words like "please" and "thank you" so seldom get heard within the context of a marriage.

How about rephrasing that, Jack? 'Actually, I wonder why
the simple little words like "please" and "thank you" so
seldom get heard within the context of some marriages' or
even 'my marriage' or 'a lot of marriages'. Because in
MY marriage, 'please' and 'thank you' are heard multiple
times daily. And I would bet a lot of other people here
hear it a lot, too.

Tracey

[Jack C Lipton]

Tracey wrote:

Jack C Lipton wrote:

How about rephrasing that, Jack? 'Actually, I wonder why the simple little words like "please" and "thank you" so seldom get heard within the context of some marriages' or even 'my marriage' or 'a lot of marriages'. Because in MY marriage, 'please' and 'thank you' are heard multiple times daily. And I would bet a lot of other people here hear it a lot, too.

I'll re-phrase it, but not the way you want me
to. *I* say the words within _my_ marriage and
I even say them to my children. My wife does
not currently find these utterances of value,
perhaps because it symbolizes dependance, etc.

I've seen other couples in domestic situations
and have found these little items of politeness
missing. I've seen plenty of glares but seldom
the positive little things to remind someone
that their efforts are appreciated.

Perhaps it's because I can't make a *scientific*
study (the sample is likely selected by criteria
that aren't immediately obvious to the eye, so,
hopefully, my experience is NOT common) that I
stated it the way I did.

In my limited experience the use of "please" is
pretty scarce; I'd suspect the idea that one
party is begging something from the other might
be one of the things putting those I've seen
off of it (usually ego issues, etc).

Likewise, a simple "thank you" does a lot of
good in an environment where it is seldom heard.
I *think* my awakening last year and the fact
that I'm freeer to use these words around my
family (and with my wife) that she has, on
occasion, actually used it with me (or others).

What I *don't* think is funny is that the same
person who begrudges these words inside their
marriage are so much more willing to use them
outside.

But then... I've just recently (within the last
18 months) re-learned how to use them myself.

It is _amazing_ how a child glows when you say
"thank you" to them.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership deals with maximizing gains;
Management is all about minimizing losses.
Too much of either is death. - me

[Jack C Lipton]

Larry wrote:

what a looser

Larry... consider yourself slapped.

#1 I think you wanted the word "loser"; somehow
I do not see Caren as "looser" (unless that's
some kind of slur against a tee-totaler because
they don't get "tight").

#2 Caren can be pissed, it's her right. It is not
necessarily her right to _stay_ that way if she
wants to _stay_ married, but she's entitled to
express her displeasure. Hopefully there are
corrective measures the couple can exercise.

I may seldom agree with Caren (or Tony, for that matter)
but neither of them has a lock on truth (any more than
I do) and I've learned from both. I just wish I had
people who found _my_ words edifying.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership deals with maximizing gains;
Management is all about minimizing losses.
Too much of either is death. - me

[DrLith]

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnclqnpn.q86.tony@home.cigardiary.com...

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:21:09 GMT, Everyboysmomma

and

the horse, not being exceptionally bright, would feel the water and

think he

was bleeding to death. This was very funny!!! I never mind going to the mall when I can go to Sears and look at the power tools and meet my wife back when she's finished.

Tony's friends spot Tony walking in the mall, his shirt soaking wet.

Friends: "Looks like he's been boltin' fer the router tables again!"

[Tony Miller]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:34:06 GMT, Jack C Lipton
<cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote:

Larry wrote:

Larry... consider yourself slapped. #1 I think you wanted the word "loser"; somehow I do not see Caren as "looser" (unless that's some kind of slur against a tee-totaler because they don't get "tight").

I think he was talking about Caren's husband.

#2 Caren can be pissed, it's her right. It is not necessarily her right to _stay_ that way if she wants to _stay_ married, but she's entitled to express her displeasure. Hopefully there are corrective measures the couple can exercise.

One would hope.

I may seldom agree with Caren (or Tony, for that matter) but neither of them has a lock on truth (any more than I do) and I've learned from both. I just wish I had people who found _my_ words edifying.

If we could understand what you were talking about, maybe.

-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.

[Tai]

"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3k57d.10033$5O5.861@news-server.bigpond.net.au

"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
It's actually not a bad idea. My theory is that if we treated our spouse as nicely as we treat our friends, our relationships would improve.

I agree with you, Caren, and suggest it would be even more helpful if we
treated our spouse better than our friends.

I'm all for this! Why is it that so many married people get complacent about the simple niceties? Its become a bit of a joke in our house now when I cuddle DH in the morning and ask him to "be nice to me all day today, pleeeease".

But if my husband said anything like this to me I'd be quite upset and need
a sit-down discussion as to why he felt I *wasn't* being nice to him as a
general principle and what he saw "being nice" meant to him. Not that I
don't think I need the occasional reminder, especially if I've been in a
snarky mood, but I would hope that he believes I am trying to be nice to him
almost all the time.

Tai
(Freely admitting there are times when I'm not nice to anyone.)

[Tai]

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnclrpmi.ro9.tony@home.cigardiary.com

If we could understand what you were talking about, maybe.

If it helps, I cross my eyes and push my tongue into my cheek when I'm
reading Jack's posts, Tony. It works miracles!

Tai

[Amy Lou]

"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2s73drF1h0ajeU1@uni-berlin.de...

"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:3k57d.10033$5O5.861@news-server.bigpond.net.au

I agree with you, Caren, and suggest it would be even more helpful if we treated our spouse better than our friends.

Of course!

But if my husband said anything like this to me I'd be quite upset and

need

a sit-down discussion as to why he felt I *wasn't* being nice to him as a general principle and what he saw "being nice" meant to him. Not that I don't think I need the occasional reminder, especially if I've been in a snarky mood, but I would hope that he believes I am trying to be nice to

him

almost all the time. Tai (Freely admitting there are times when I'm not nice to anyone.)

You know I would feel the same if my DH said that to me. I am *always* nice
to him! ;-)

I suppose its become a joke in our house because not so long ago DH was a
walking talking 'crank pot'. It was normal for him to be rude, cranky,
unhelpful, down in the dumps etc. He'd jump down your throat as soon as you
opened your mouth to say something. He was a real pain to live with! In
retrospect I don't know how I did live with him.

Amy