Melody Lane,

You wrote:
Sorry, not going there. There are a few reasons why I chose to create a new profile, and to give you my old screenname would negate most of them. If that somehow makes what I have to say less "valid," so be it. I'm sure that eventually people will recognize that my words have value regardless of whether or not I share my MB history.

You also wrote:It comes from his own words. While TD has never actually stated he is verbally abusive in those words, in the early posts on his first thread at MB, he repeatedly referenced situations where he "said and did things he shouldn't have" and the general gist of his posts are that he has made himself emotionally unavailable to his wife since early on in their marriage (explained as due to her affair during their engagement). Put those things together, and a logical conclusion is that he's somewhat emotionally and verbally abusive. He's mentioned that to fix himself in counseling would take months and months, he's "that bad". There are many veiled references to his verbal abuse of his wife. THAT is where the label has come from - his own posts.

Subsequently, the "kiss my a$$" thread he posted when he found out about the affair did nothing to convince anyone that he WASN'T verbally abusive to his wife. It takes a lot of anger to sit down and TYPE OUT the angry words he posted on the forum that day. And before you defend him because of the affair, I do understand the feeling of finding out - I am divorced due to my ex's infidelity, so I know it very personally.

I don't know if you had the opportunity to read all of TD's posts. Maybe you have and you interpret it differently from your perspective. I know that I am not the only one who thinks that TD has some anger issues that he needs to deal with before his marriage can ever be saved (of course we do not think his behavior justified her affair - she should have divorced him if she didn't want to be with him anymore). If you haven't read them, read the threads on EN when he first arrived.

CS

CS

I'm sure we are going to disagree on this.

When I found out about my W affair I was angry for a long time, there are still times I get angry & bitter. However, as time goes on and we work together when we can on our m, it of course fades.
And why shouldn't I get those feelings at times?
I'm sure my W has lingering feelings of her own where the anger and pain is directed at me.

I swore at her, called her every name under the sun for the first few months.
I'm sure I hated her guts for a while.

Then I found MB purely by chance.....I was looking for a divorce site.

it took a while to remember who told me about the affair, who accepted a lot of abusive language..... but to say I was abusive compared to using abusive language is bit much.
Using that yard stick then surely my W was abusive to me by having an affair? Do two wrongs make it right? NO.

Now if I kept on and on and on like this for month after month THEN there may be a case to argue for me being an abusive person towards my wife.

Maybe to say using abusive language and withdrawing from your w is NOT a good method to repair your M is appropriate, but to intrepret such actions right after finding out as being a abusive person is jumping the gun.
Its way too harsh.

It settles down CS if given help and support & you handle the anger and pain a lot better later on.
But sometimes you screw up even so.
The last time I did that was..oh months & months ago I called my W the 'S" word .... and got jumped on by lots here for doing so. Quite rightly too... in hindsight anyway. BUT still not 'abusive' as it has come to be understood just angry & lashing out.

Somewhere along the way the anger & bitterness is no longer directed at my W but at the affair...not sure how or why but thats what happened to me, & even that fades.

But thats my take CS on what happens with anger and language especially JUST after discovery.
I admit that reading some of my first posts I sound like some angry self rightous [censored] ... I probably wasn't a very nice person to talk to back then.

I'm suggesting we don't be too harsh in judging at those times.

I find it odd that you want to be anonymous, but I guess there is nothing I can do about that.

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know that he had, himself, said that he was emotionally abusive. I have yet to see a post of his where he indicated any action was emotionally abusive, but then I have not read every post. Being "emotionally unavailable" is not abuse, though.

The description you made outlines many, many marriages and is not what most would consider "abusive," but if he was there and indicated a long term pattern of verbal abuse, to which he admits, then I suppose we have to take him at his word.

His outburst of KISSMYA** on D-Day, however, does not support a case of verbal abuse and is not verbal abuse. A normal, mentally healthy person would be extremely angry on D-Day, especially against folks who had wrongly tried to berate him for such suspicions. Blaming him for being angry on D-Day is about like comdemning a rape victim for calling her rapist an a**hole. We have to remember who the REAL victim is here and try to keep things in perspective. Blaming the victim is not appropriate.

I wonder if it's helpful to constantly harp at him about being "abusive?" I would like to see his thoughts on this. To me, that is about like telling a WS they were rutting like a pig every day. I don't see how that would be helpful.

edited to add: thanks for the explanation, CS.

Thanks for taking this off T-D's thread.

I understand the word 'abuse' is loaded with much negative connotation. But, the fact remains that LB'ers are clearly designated as abusive. Click on the Basic Concepts and read Dr Harley's writings. I counted the words 'abuse' or 'abusive' used 20 times in 3 pages (Selfish Demands, Disrespectful Judgements, Angry Outbursts).

[color:"white"] - [/color]
Well, that is surely open to interpretation... I'd bet T-D feels 'abused' by the emotional unavailability of his wife.
[color:"white"] - [/color]
[color:"white"] - [/color]
OK, I can agree with you there. He cannot really abuse anonymous posters on a discussion forum. But it might be indicative of a general pattern of behavior.
[color:"white"] - [/color]
[color:"white"] - [/color]
If a major aspect of his relationship problems hinges on the likelihood he exhibits abusive behaviors (i.e. Love Busters) then admonishing him to work on eliminating those behaviors does seem useful.
[color:"white"] - [/color]

I found that statement very offensive. I agree it is not at all helpful.


[color:"white"] - [/color]

ghnl, so then every person who commits a lovebuster is "abusive?" Because if that were the case, then most every person is abusive because they have committed a lovebuster. I bet you have even committed one or two yourself, right?

That is not what Harley is saying. He is talking about long term abusive "strategies." [that was the word he used]

But, I don't disagree with the definition of Harley's lovebusters, my question is whether or not TiredDad's behavior really fits the definition and whether is it really helpful to continually label his lovebusters as "abuse." Occasional abusive behaviors, which most of us commit, is not the same as an "abusive strategy," or being "abusive person." I have seen nothing that indicates it does and that was my question. [per CS, he admits this, though]

I also think its offensive to overwork the term "abusive" and label lovebusters in the most negative possible manner. I don't think we should call all WW's harlots, and thusly, I don't see why should label lovebusters with such an extremist label at every opportunity.


A general pattern of WHAT, though? Exhibiting normal, healthy outrage at injustice? When one is victimized, as he was, they do tend to be outraged. That is not a sign of an abusive personality.


Just as it's not helpful to endlessly harp at someone for lovebusters and label them as "abuse."

ghnl, your example here demonstrates the point I am trying to make, that we shouldn't toss this word around so cavalierly that it loses it's true meaning. It's irresponsible to label emotional unavailability as "abuse" and lump it in the same category as wife beating. Nor does it do any justice to our REAL abuse victims. When we start labeling everything we don't like as "abuse" then the word no longer has any meaning.

I had asked in TiredDad's thread, and no one answered, if these accusations of "abuse" are also being lobbed against TiredDad's WW for having an affair, since that far exceeds verbal abuse on the abuse scale. Is she being treated to this same hammering and cavalier use of the word abuse?

Mel,

T_D has admitted to many angry outbursts prior to and after D-Day. The EN board (where he originally began posting) therefore labeled him "emotionally abusive" and continue to carry that message over to this board. To support that accusation, they pointed to his actions during those AO's.

The AO's prior to D-Day seem to stem from the changes in his W's behaviorisms. Something was amiss and he was reacting in anger. His trust in her was diminishing. Circumstantial evidence of an A was mounting. I think it was believer that raised his eyebrows to this possibility.

I don't believe that the AO's are one sided. I think his WW can hold her own in that category from what I've read.

Whether AO's are to be expected or not upon discovering an A is moot. What T_D really needs help with is eliminating the AO's which only lead to an endless array of LB's and bad decisions...such as placing the kids in the middle of this whole mess.

I certainly won't label him as "abusive", (verbally, emotionally, physically) or otherwise. I don't think he or his WW have posted enough information for anyone to determine that.

I think it would be very helpful for him to establish a PLAN to save his M. At the moment he seems to be posting the 'updates' and is aimlessly going along for the ride.

I don't know yet if he has come to the GQ board in search of a PLAN or to simply continue posting yet another 'story'. Maybe time will tell.

I dont ever recall TD saying he was "abusive" in any of his posts...there is a huge difference in neglect and abuse...and I consider his actions more on the neglect side rather than the abusive side...

I dont recall him ever saying he verbally abused his wife, just that he was not "emotionally there"...is that abuse? No, I dont think so...

many, many marriages get to the "emotionally not there" stage over time...which is why a marriage takes EXTREME work on both sides...

Labeling this poster as "abusive" is disrespectful in my view...The "kiss my a$$" thread was NOT an indication of his abuse...ANYONE in their right mind would act that way, especially after what everyone said on his earlier threads...It does not take deep thought to write those words down...They come as you type...

I do remember believer asking if his wife was having an affair and everyone lashed out at her...Well....

Like my opinion matters, but I really do not feel that TD was ever abusive, just neglectful to her EN's...

JMVHO! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Very good post ba....maybe we can put a plan together for HIM and HER! Maybe they are having a hard time coming up with one...With his AO and her emotional distress...maybe they need HELP with coming up with a plan! YES???

Thanks for the excellent overview, ba109, yours is the only one that seems to make any sense. Most BS' do react with anger when they suspect an affair, and most especially upon discovery. That does not mean they are "emotionally abusive." That is like blaming the rape victim for screaming epitaphs at her rapist. Good grief.

But like you said, that is a moot point, what is important is that he needs help with a plan. I agree 100% that he needs help in establishing a plan to save his marriage, but hopefully that can be done without exaggerated labels of "abuse" and useless blame the victim strategies.

Thanks for making sense of all this. You are alright for a yankee. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> **snort**

His posts allude to things he did THROUGHOUT THE MARRIAGE. Not just when his wife started acting weird and not just on and after D-Day. That would seem to establish a pattern, not just reaction to an affair.

And with regard to my username, I have in RL sent some people to this site and have discussed my involvement here with others - I realized that there were things I wanted to talk about here that might involve some of those people and didn't want it to be so incredibly obvious who I was here, since my previous username at MB contained my real name. Is that enough justification for you now?

CS

CS, please don't feel that you have to justify yourself to me.

I suspect that TD has done no more than the rest of us in a typical marriage. I see him being accused of "abuse" for being "emotionally unavailable," which is a huge, inappropriate leap. Lumping "emotional unavailability" into the same category as wife beating only diminishes the credibility of the accuser.

Most folks do commit lovebusters over the life of a marriage, we don't label them as "abusers." Cavalierly slinging around exaggerated accusations of "abuse" is not helpful to anyone and is tantamount to blaming the victim. What he and his wife really need is a plan of action to overcome her affair and to restore their marriage using MB principles, not inappropriate harping about so-called "abuse."

T_D is aware of his AO's and possibly even anger "issues". He has named it and claimed it. He has never denied it. He is well aware that AO's and resulting actions are LB's which can be devestating to a M.

Posters need to get past that and start helping him formulate a plan. This is not the anger issues board, nor are his anger issues validation for his WW's affair.

I'm sorry that the word abuse is such a loaded one. No one has accused T-D of wife-beating. (OT - anyone know where the phrase 'rule of thumb' originated?)

It is clear from reading what Dr Harley has written that he views LB'ers as abuse.


So, why is that admonishments to T-D that he must eliminate his LB'ers is not seen as helpful? That is precisely where his plan should begin.

[color:"white"] - [/color]

ghnl, no one said you had accused him of wife beating, you missed my point. My point is that it is silly to lump "emotional unavailabilty" in the same category as wife beating. And that is what you are doing here. We have all committed lovebusters, but you and I both know that Harley does not consider everyone an "abuser." WE all have engaged in lovebusting, we are not all "abusers."

It is loaded when you abuse the word by labeling anyone who has committed a lovebuster as an abuser. He is being labeled an abuser for silly things like "emotional unavailibility." Such accusations only hurt the credibility of the accuser.

We all admonish each other to avoid lovebusters, but we don't label each other as "abusers" and harp on it endlessly, do we? We don't stretch the meanig of the word in some weird effort to indict the lovebusters. Using that bizarre method, we should label all WW's as wh*ores and endlessly point this out to them. It is perhaps legalistically correct, in a bizarre out of context way, but do you think its helpful to endlessly label someone thusly?

Instead of desperately poring over Harley's words searching for ways to indict TiredDad, why not try to find ways to help him?


But no one has said it is unhelpful. He should eliminate lovebusters and no one has said otherwise. That is not the issue, which you well know.

Yes, Aussie. That is exactly what I think.

Affairs are abusive, physically and emotionally. Physically, because it's more than one BS who contracts a disease from a WS who contracted it from an affair partner.

Emotionally, because...well, I think it's obvious.

~ZP

Melody,


Yes, this is the standard I use on myself. Categorizing harmful words as abuse tends to curb my appetite for using them.

Abuse from dictionary.com: To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
Obsolete. To deceive or trick.

~ZP

He talks about abusive strategies, yes. I do not see where he adds any qualifiers such a 'long term'. Can you provide a link to that?

[color:"white"] - [/color]
So, if what CS reports is true does that change your opinion/advice?

[color:"white"] - [/color]