Forum folklore? Really? How about this, my friend, from "What is Plan A and Plan B?"

In an effort to win the wayward spouse back, the betrayed
spouse meets emotional needs that the lover cannot meet,
while the lover meets emotional needs that the betrayed
spouse has not learned to meet. While this competition is
excruciatingly painful to the betrayed spouse, and the
lover as well, the wayward spouse basks in the warmth of
being loved and cared for by two people, with no real
motivation to choose one over the other.

So, to avoid an indefinite period of suffering while a
wayward spouse vacillates between spouse and lover, and to
avoid rewarding the selfish behavior of having needs met
by both spouse and lover, if plan A does not work within a
reasonable period of time, I recommend plan B.

My point is that you aren't in Plan A because there is no active affair, correct? You two should be working on recovery.

When to Call it Quits is talking to a wife with a neglectful husband.

With RC, it's not just about doing fun things together - it's also about using a fun activity as an opportunity to practice care, respect, consideration, thoughtfulness, etc. If you have mutually enjoyable RC, but engage in annoying habits, enemies of good conversation, and/or DJs, etc., she will stay in withdrawal and the activity won't meet any needs, won't build your marriage.

When the activities include children most of the time, the children act as a buffer. Can you think of any reasons based on your behavior from which she might feel a need to protect herself?

Neglect is a failure to meet emotional needs is it not? Or are you saying that only applies to women?

FTF,

I have only read up to page 35 of your thread, but I was wondering if you have read the chapter on affection in HNHN's?

My apologies, what was in my mind was intimate conversation. For me, those two are so intertwined they can't hardly be separated.

I focus a lot on validating her point of view on things rather than trying to say how I disagree.

A psychologist that I have come to respect, John M. Gottman (University of Washington), conducts research in marital therapy that has led him to reject his own pet theory. "Active listening," which is a very popular method of conflict resolution in marriage that John Gottman helped create, was demonstrated in his own laboratory to be ineffective in improving marriages. I've known for some time that active listening didn't go far enough in helping resolve conflicts, but my experience with most theorists is that they are too wrapped up in their theories to see their mistakes. John Gottman is one of the rare exceptions who is objective enough about his field to correct his errors.

"Yes Dear" and What Men Can Learn from Bill Cosby.



RW:

I remember Bill Cosby having a father-son talk on the old Cosby Show. His teenage son said: "My girlfriend is still mad at me, I screwed up! I said I was sorry, but she won't forgive me. What can I do, Dad? I want her back more than anything." And Cosby says in his Cosby voice: "Son, you're not done til' she says you are done." His son dejectedly says: "Well, how many times do I have to keep apologizing, Dad?" And Cosby says: "Until she begs you to stop." This sounds similar to what has been called your "Yes, Dear" approach, which has been lampooned on the Politically Incorrect TV show. It sounds cliche, but what are Cosby and you really getting at?



JG:

There's this great Ogden Nash poem that I think gets Bill Cosby's point, and I'll paraphrase it:
To keep brimming the marital cup,
when wrong admit it,
when right shut up!

It's a great line. It's about respect, it's about honor, and the idea of giving in, of saying I'm sorry, that really honors both people. So what we find is that, first of all, just like Bill Cosby said, the husband is really critical in this equation because women are doing a lot of accepting influence in their interaction. That's what we find and it doesn't predict anything, because many women are doing it at such a high level. But there's more variability in guys. Some guys are really in there and these are the masters. They're not saying: "Yes, dear." What they're really saying is: "You know, I can see some points in what you're saying make sense to me. And there's other stuff you're saying I just don't agree with. Let's talk about it." Now that husband is a different husband from the husband who says: "No. I'm not buying any of this!" Then the husband becomes an obstacle.

If you don't accept some influence, then you become an obstacle and people find a way around you and you have no power. So the violent guys that Neil Jacobson and I studied, they're always saying: "No!" to offers to communicate better. No matter what was said, they would bat it back like baseball players at batting practice. Wham! And they turn out to be enormously powerless in their relationships. I think that's one of the reasons they resort to violence, because they have no influence in any of their personal relationships.



RW:

And in couple's therapy, oftentimes when dealing with the aggressor, they're told to basically give up all their power, both illegitimate and legitimate, and so then they're powerless again, and the cycle begins anew.



JG:

That doesn't work either. Morihei Ueshiba, the Japanese genius who invented Aikido, had that very point, his whole approach to negotiating conflict, which is you need to yield to be powerful.



RW:

When pushed, pull, when pulled, push, and roll.



JG:

That's right. So it's not that the guys were saying: "Yes, dear," as the parody went, and, sure, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, anything you say." They were saying: "I can see this point; let's kick this around. Here's my point of view. I accept some of what you're saying but not all of it." Usually the wives will be saying a similar thing. And then they really start persuading one another and compromising and coming up with a solution.

When it comes to making marriage fulfilling for a wife, the "when mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy" approach dominates the thinking of many husbands. In this time-honored line of attack, a husband simply does whatever his wife wants, in the hope that he'll at least have peace and quiet. But peace and quiet doesn't turn out to be that easy. In fact, the more a husband reinforces a wife's "ain't nobody happy" part of the equation, the more skilled she becomes in making him miserable.


In many if not most cases, this "give her whatever she wants" approach to problem solving begins during courtship. In an effort to win her heart, he showers her with proof that he's the right one for her. No one will ever care for you the way I will. Then when she finally says, "I do," he's created a precedent. For a while, he tries to maintain that precedent, but one morning he wakes up to face the realization that while she gets pretty much whatever she wants, he's left with little to show for his effort. His wife might like being able to get her way, but he's getting nothing in return.

So he decides to change his approach. Instead of giving her whatever she wants, he takes charge and makes decisions that are in his best interest. If she's willing to let him suffer to get what she wants, how about a little reciprocity? Why can't she do a little suffering to get what he wants?

But his wife doesn't see his point. Thus begins the "ain't nobody happy" response that I mentioned above. That response, of course, does not endear her to him. In fact, it makes him wonder why he had tried so hard to make her happy in the first place. If she's unwilling to suffer to make me happy, I'll just make myself happy and try to ignore her. That strategy, of course, usually leads to infidelity and divorce.

One form of intimacy is cognitive or intellectual intimacy where two people exchange thoughts, share ideas and enjoy similarities and differences between their opinions. If they can do this in an open and comfortable way, then can become quite intimate in an intellectual area.

A second form of intimacy is experiential intimacy or intimacy activity. Examples of this would be where people get together to actively involve themselves with each other, probably saying very little to each other, not sharing any thoughts or many feelings, but being involved in mutual activities with one another. Imagine observing two house painters whose brushstrokes seemed to be playing out a duet on the side of the house. They may be shocked to think that they were engaged in an intimate activity with each other, however from an experiential point of view, they would be very intimately involved.

A third form of intimacy is emotional intimacy where two persons can comfortably share their feelings with each other or when they empathize with the feelings of the other person, really try to understand and try to be aware of the other person�s emotional side.

Once personal information is requested, you should both inform each other of the facts of your personal histories, present experiences, plans for the future, and your attitudes and emotional reactions to all of those facts. To withhold accurate information about your inner self prevents intimacy and leaves the need for meaningful conversation unmet.

After you have investigated and informed each other of personal activities and feelings, you are in a position to understand each other. What motivates you and your spouse to do what you both do? What are your rewards, and what do you find punishing? What are your beliefs, and how are they put into practice? What are your most common positive and negative emotional reactions? What are your strengths and weaknesses? The list goes on and on. There is so much to know about each other, you will never get to know it all.

By reaching an understanding of each other, your conversation will break through the superficiality barrier. You become emotionally connected to each other, and able to bring out each other's best feelings, and avoid the worst. "Hidden agendas" are not possible because neither of you hide anything from each other.

...


The Third Friend of Good Conversation is balancing the conversation. Conversation is a two-way street. But if you try to turn it into a one-way road, it becomes a speech. Conversation is meant to be interactive.

There are important rules of conversational etiquette that must be followed when you talk to each other. Don't interrupt or try talking over each other. Make sure that you both have a chance to finish a thought before the other person responds. If you notice that one of you is talking more than the other, the more talkative spouse should pause to give the less talkative spouse a chance to talk more.

Balancing the conversation simply refers to the importance of equal participation from each of you. Any effort you make to insure balance will make the conversation much more enjoyable, and more interesting.

HHH,

I think I used a poor choice of words that invoked that response from you. However, it was pretty informative and shows a deeper understanding than I have on IC.

Where trouble begins, is when we get into this habit of explaining why we disagree and in doing so take an approach that seems like we are lecturing our spouse into agreeing with us. That is a disrespectful judgement.

Yep, this is where I have gotten into big trouble in the past.

Yes, I have read it. My W is not big on hugs, kisses, that sort of thing. She likes the other forms, like make her coffee in the morning, call to ask if she needs anything from the store, that sort of stuff.

I've read it. For IC, she likes when I ask about her day when I get home, but ask again later after the kids are in bed. That's really the only specific things I have.

I am mindful of the friends and enemies of good conversation and make it a point never to interrupt. I focus a lot on validating her point of view on things rather than trying to say how I disagree.

The key point is that it is ok to disagree with your wife. Where trouble begins, is when we get into this habit of explaining why we disagree and in doing so take an approach that seems like we are lecturing our spouse into agreeing with us. That is a disrespectful judgement.