CS, since it concerns TD, I very much think it should it have been discussed there. This goes to the type of advice he has been recieving and I don't think it's appropriate to start a thread to talk about a person. And that is what has happened here. There is nothing virtuous - or helpful - about that. He should be involved in this discussion and as you can see, he's not here. I do see that ba109 posted a link to this thread, which I think is good.

Ditto! I second that good advice.

Each of us would like to be handed a plan and thus recovery on a silver platter. It doesn't happen like that. They are going to have to form their own plan and do the hard work.

Susan <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Gotcha, using kids as leverage registers on my abuse meter too.

ML, this is the kind of statement you regularly make with which I take the most issue:
"your pal ghnl" is a deliberately snide and inflammatory remark - I'm glad that ZZP did not take offense to that, and have no idea if ghnl did - but I find that kind of remark infuriating - probably due to my ex's habit of using that kind of flippant, disrespectful phrasing. Also, you are taking me to task for something that I did not do - I did NOT use the "emotional unavailability" issue to "indict" TD - first of all, only a grand jury can indict, and second of all, there were several things I mentioned, and the emotional unavailability was mentioned as just another of those things that TD mentioned that made me and several others believe that he has a history of emotionally and/or verbally abusive behavior.

And the two statements you make above do not "demonstrate... how irresponsibly the label is being tossed about on this forum." They do not demonstrate anything at all.

You have never indicated if you've read all of TD's posts from his very first thread and all since. I'd like to know if you have actually done so.

CS

here's another thing: we can't do anything for people in denial than encourage them to try to take a look at reality. And, denial is there for a reason to protect ourselves from the true ugly pain of the truth. Its a survival technique (not a good one) but thats what its there for.

and the abuser and abusee have to kind of break the cycle together, or one starts the process. They are probably codependent in an unhealthy way.

My husband and I are going through this right now, I am trying to keep my eyes open for what I do and how I respond. Am I allowing myself to be controlled or manipulated? I have a right and an obligation to protect myself, or else I will remain a victim at my own hand for the rest of my life.

For the couple you guys are discussing, it is a thing between he and she that has to be worked out. One of them has to recognize their bad behavior and begin to change. It will affect the other party in the marriage.

If the worst thing that happens is the man you are debating will stop and take a look at his own motives, am I being abusive? then maybe it was a good thing somebody said it. If he's not being abusive then all the better, he took a look.

example: If my husband called me a queen B, I will stop and evaluate myself and see if I need to make an adjustment back to the right way of doing things. If I'm not being a queen B, then all the better.

Sorry to interrupt your debate.

CS, I have not read them all and have no intention of doing so. I have had my questions answered here satisfactorily.

Also, my use of the term "indictment" was not used in a legal sense. The definition of the word means "accuse of wrongdoing," which is exactly what you did. And I simply posted your own words; you most certainly did indict the man for being "emotionally unavailable" and used it to build a flimsy case.


Sorry you are infuriated but I have no control over your feelings.

m2,

I hope I was not misunderstood. It is not our responsibility to formulate a marriage building plan for anyone. That is T_D's responsibility. MB provides helpful concepts and it's posters provide support and advice in administering them...that is all.

If the worst thing that happens is the man you are debating will stop and take a look at his own motives, am I being abusive? then maybe it was a good thing somebody said it. If he's not being abusive then all the better, he took a look.

Whattagirl, thanks for posting your list. Also, I agree with you wholeheartedly here! I've said this to men who've not liked what I had to say before. "If it's true, I'm glad you were able to look. If it's not true, then I will happily accept your telling me I'm wrong (unless you keep repeating the behavior, then I'll tell you again ;p)."

I'm very into self-examination. I don't like insulting people, but at the same time, I do like telling the truth, and if it's true of someone, it's not my responsibility if they don't like it.

Like I told someone about her husband as I was encouraging her to take stock of her marriage. She wasn't sure what to do because she didn't want to judge him. I said, "Knowing something is true about someone is different from judging them."

example: If my husband called me a queen B, I will stop and evaluate myself and see if I need to make an adjustment back to the right way of doing things. If I'm not being a queen B, then all the better.

Eek! If using the phrase is okay with you, I'm on board. If it's not completely offensive to you, then maybe you could make a request that he stop saying it, yes?

~ZP

No ba...I just thought we could help them along with a plan...they seem to be STUCK in a situation that is not moving along...I will admit, I have not read all of TD's threads or posts...therefore I do not know WHAT has been given as far as advice for a plan...but my point being..he may be having a hard time coming up with a plan himself..and therefore I thought it might be a good idea to HELP him...not exactly MAKE one FOR him...kwim???

Point is...we can do whatever it is to help him along and her for that matter...however they must be ready and able to implement it themselves...

You are right...it IS their responsibility to come up with the plan...however it would not HURT if we helpeed them with it...is that wrong? I dont know...this situation is just too close to home for me..I'm going to step out of it now...

I am glad this was brought up though...learned a lot!

Melody Lane,

If you decide to quote people, I suggest you quote everything relevent and not just pick out the pieces that you feel make your case. The statement I made in my first post here was intended to be taken as a whole in order to make my point. Picking out just the piece you don't like the most is manipulative and deceptive.

The statement I made was as follows:

My statement above very clearly indicates that it was far more than the "emotional unavailability" that led to my conclusions. It was an entire package of information. Which you have chosen to ignore. Why? Because the rest of it does not support your claim that the "abusive" label is irresponsible?

You admittedly have not read and refuse to read the posts that support the conclusions that we have drawn, yet you feel that you are sufficiently "informed" to beat us up for the conclusions we have drawn... I don't get it, Melody.

At this point, I DON'T think this thread is about TD at all. It's about whether or not it's ok for some people to treat others disrespectfully because they disagree. I've tried to show you a great deal of respect and have tried to provide support for my opinions so you know where it is I'm coming from. You have responded by deciding what my intentions are and selectively quoting me to prove that I am irresponsible. You have responded with little digs that are designed to irritate and then danced away with "Sorry you are infuriated but I have no control over your feelings." No, you're right, you're not. But we would never advise people in any other type of relationship to simply ignore how their behavior emotionally affects others. If it is viewed as a love buster then it IS a love buster. That's not just applicable to marriage, it's applicable to every type of relationship. The statement you made to me might just as well have said "sorry you are infuriated but I don't CARE about your feelings." And frankly, my conclusion, based on everything else you've said to me here, is that is really what you meant.

CS

Don't worry, he has never called me that name. The worst he's said was "you're being stupid" and "you are being pissy" I was just using it as an example.

BTW, in response to CS about what books he has read...I have a load of books here that I am shipping to them...most of which I received at the MB weekend, so he will have all the Harley books on infidelity...however, I am keeping His needs/her needs....it will up to HIM to read them...but I am happy to shiop them to him!

CS, now you are misrepresenting my comments in order to manufacture offense. I never said that you used "emotional unavailability" as the foundation of your indictment, but that you did consider it to be abuse. And you do. The reason I targeted emotional availability was to point out how very extreme your definition of abuse is, not that it forms the exclusive foundation of your indictment.


Truly, it's not up to me to prove your case, but you. I have read enough of his posts to get the general gist and nothing you have posted has changed that perception. One doesn't have to read each and every post to come to an informed conclusion. Many folks have read them all and simply don't agree with you.

I read your best shot, with an open mind, to establish him as an "abuser," and I just aint' buying it. The best you could produce was an angry D-Day tirade, some vague allusions to anger [don't we all get angry at times?] and lots of "emotional unavailability."

I'm sorry, but I just think you are reaching here.

If you want to believe he is an "abuser," be my guest, but you are not in a position to demand that rest of us get on that train with you. I'll take the next train, thank you.

Folks,

May I remind you all that Harley does NOT use the word abuse, he uses Love busters to describe actions or statements that hurt a marriage. I can "abuse" a privledge (even if I cannot spell, <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ), I can "abuse" someones trust. I can "abuse" someones feelings.

But in the social context I cannot "abuse" someone with out civil penalty. I think what has Mel's knickers in a knot is that the use of the word "abusive" without the associated modifiers is a general indictment of someone that may not be warrented, and further such an indictment is ALWAYS taken at its worst. If I am termed abusive to my W, it is assumed that means I have physically abused her, if it is moderated to verbal it is assumed I am treating her as a brainwashing experiement with all of the attendant pscyhic pain.

If I say I 'abused' her trust, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

I think what has to happen on this subject is that people become much clearer in their phrasing of things. And here is why I don't like the word ABUSE used so lightly, although Mel may not agree with me, is that when someone comes on this board and says their spouse abused them, I WILL and HAVE responded with a simple LEAVE NOW. We are not talking about marriage building with a spouse that is physically abusive, and even verbally abusive becomes probablematic IF we are talking about a level of emotional abuse that is nothing short of brainwashing.

So folks use this term very very carefully. I really think that is what Mel is trying to say, and be aware that the term "abuse" can be used in many contexts, but it failing clarification, it is usually assumed to be in its worst context.

We want to help people here, but if someone is incorrectly labled an ABUSER, they will NOT get help and they will be told to end the marriage. That is not a good thing.

I hope that people will become as sensitized to misusing this term as they have become sensitized to the reality of abuse.

God Bless,

JL

JL, thanks for saying it so much better than I; that is exactly the point I have been trying to make!

p.s. no self respectin' Texan would be caught dead in knickers, JL! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Hmm, I haven't caught up on this thread yet, so someone else may have already cleared this one up -- my apologies if it's redundant:


This is not remotely what happened. TD kept reiterating up to D-day that he was sure an affair was not going on. It was posters on MB who brought it up repeatedly, pointing out that some of the common signs were present. No one ever tried to berate TD for suspecting an A, because nobody could talk him into suspecting one.

I agree that if he'd been berated for suspecting an A, it would be normal behavior on D-day to be furious at those who'd done so (though I don't think violating TOS falls in the normal spectrum). But that has nothing whatsoever to do with TD's case, because nothing remotely of the sort happened.

What did happen is that posters on MB told him both that classic signs of an affair were present and that there were clear and obvious problems with his own behavior. The FU thread wasn't about being angry at people who'd invalidated his now justified suspicions; it was about raging at anyone who'd dared point out his own shortcomings now that there was someone else clearly to point a finger at. That's abusive, and it's typical of the mindset generally found among domestic abusers.


Exactly -- blaming the victim is not appropriate. Blaming the victims of TD's abusive outbursts is not appropriate. No one has remotely expressed that it wasn't fine for him to be angry on D-day; everyone seems agreed that it was. Blaming people for something they didn't do is not appropriate.

mineownself, oh please. Calling folks "victims" who read TD's angry tirade, whatever the motivation, is a bit much. That doesn't change my opinion that it was a reaction of learning some devastating news. Nor does that justify this endless refrain of "abuse" being levelled against him for angry outbursts. Good grief, he is not guilty of anything more than run-of-mill lovebusters.

Let's give it a rest please, the witch hunt is over.

Actually, yes he does.

Love Busters, Chapter 2, What Is Marital Abuse?
~ZP

But he himself refers to those as lovebusters, for purposes of discussion. That is the point, I believe, JL was trying to make.

LOL, take your own advice. You're the one who's still trying to make out a case against people who did nothing more severe than:

1. Post according to MB principles, and

2. Protest over a blatant TOS violation

Given that you base your arguments on a completely erroneous version of what happened, it's interesting how those who disagree with you and post based on what actually did happen are "witch-hunters" in your vocabulary,