As I begin to get settled into Plan B, and have begun several activities in order to help myself out of my "funk" and paralysis, I found that I cannot remove myself completely from the forum, or from wanting to learn, understand, and explore the new and, (for me), uncharted waters of relationships, state-of-mind, and our inner workings.

Now I do want to clarify one thing; I'm interested in doing this not because I think I have to "do" something about my M right now, or because I feel that I must "keep pursuing a solution", but rather becasue I believe that as time goes on, and regardless of the outcome of my Plan B and my M, these are valuable and important things which I wish to pursue simply for personal growth, education, and because they will be valuable for my future relationships.

Over the last few weeks several things have happened that have, in many ways, changed who I am and how I see and think about myself, my M, relationships, and my life. Many people here have contibuted to that, and several threads here have been key to this.

In the "infamous" <strong>"Real Issue for which we both are guilty or Affair Protection Mechanism?"</strong> thread (which started life with a different name) I made two important discoveries; first, that my personality and many of the ways in which I was acting towards my W made a large contribution to my W's "Secrecy and Privacy" issue, (Which I'd initially thought was just and APM, or worse, a "disorder of some sort). Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, that I could honestly explore, face, understand, and accept responsibility for something which just days before, I would have thought a "ridiculous" or worse notion. The concept of ULove, or Unconditional Love, was also introcduced in this thread.

The second thread in which a new and different notion was explored is <strong>KAT's "Inner Child"</strong> thread in Recovery, where my eyes were opened to the possibility that there is an element of "darkness" in all our personalities which contributes in a very direct fashion to a lot of the things we are living right now, and understanding it may shed some light on who we are and who our S is, and perhaps, why we do/have done some of the things we do. So it is relevant in that if we understand this better, we may be able to understand and accept our S better for what they are, perhaps making it easier to find forgiveness, understanding, and maybe even....

Which brings us to the third thread (bear with me, this IS getting somewhere) where we further explored the concept of ULove and perhaps the role it may play in Marriage Recovery, or at least in making the process less taxing, painful and desperate. This thread is the <strong>"An Apology for Space Case"</strong> thread, who's name I hate, but who's content is invaluable.

Which brings me to the point of this new thread. (geez, I thought I wasn't going to make it!) I think the concepts discussed in these three threads are very interesting for all of us, and in my case in particular, may provide some of the keys to unraveling some of the mysteries and unfathomable complexities of the situations many of us are facing.

I'll add links to those 3 threads below, in case anyone wants to go back to them.

Real Issue for which we both are guilty or Affair Protection Mechanism?

Self-Worth, Inner child stuff, and other helpful stuff from my MC

for Space Case

And so, with that long introduction, I guess I'll throw out the first question that I have.

One of the first things we learn with Harley, and in fact it IS the very first thing Steve Harley talks to us about on our first appointment with him, is that Love IS Conditional. And if we've explored the Harley books, articles, and methods, we all pretty much understand that concept and embrace it, as it makes perfect sense. Both that Love IS conditional, as well as our "permitting" someone to fulfill our ENs can make us vulnerable to falling in love.

On the other hand, here we are exploring how perhaps "Unconditional" love (ULove) MAY just play a KEY role in many of our situations, and how we may perhaps gain tremendous forward momentum in our Rs through embracing it and exercising it.

So, that being said, isn't this a contradiction? I think in some ways it is, but in other ways it is not. As it pertains to fulfilling our S's ENs and by doing so keeping the in love with us, it is conditional.

Conversely, if by giving our Ss Unconditional Love, accepting them as they are right now, we can create an environment where they will ALLOW us to fulfill their ENs and thus fall in love again after infidelity or neglect.

So, what does everyone think?

<small>[ August 31, 2002, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Spacecase ]</small>

Cadet,

Sounds very deep and since I am writing as I am finishing my housework, well you know, this will not be a deep philosophical response. LOL!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Now are you asking conditional vs unconditional love between H & W during the A or just all the time?

First off, love is a feeling that leads to action. Bascially the act of love must go hand in hand with the words of love. Love are actions that put the interests of others ahead of our own. As the Bible writer put it: 'Love is long suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag....does not behave indecently, does not look for its own intersts, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury....It bears all things....endures all things. Love never fails.'

1. Conditional vs unconditional between H & W all the time: Conditional (re: we are human prone to error). We love our spouses but both can error, to give of ones self without acknowledging our sinful tendencies would be foolish since there is no guarantee that any human would not reneg on loyalty. Only 1 person deserves that kind of love and he is above.

2. Conditional vs unconditional between H & W during the A: Conditional but more subdued than in item 1. This love can include tough love techiniques. Used to protect the safety of the family unit. Acts of love are still used, just not the same acts. Stronger type of love is used here to accomplish the same purpose as biblically outlined above.

3. Who should we give unconditional love? Not a human but the one whose loyalty is already established.

4. What about to our children? Even this is a conditional type of love. Again, in line with what is outlined above.

Cadet, there is a lot of ideas written out there, they can confuse us and clog our minds. For serious subjects like this it is good to go to a reliable source. Opinions are always welcome but when decision making time comes to each of us, we should look to the source(s) that are tried, trusted and true. Much higher than me, that's for sure.

If I am way off base, here please excuse me. I will check back later. Gotta go.

JMHO,
L.

Orchid... I loved your response.

Might I suggest a book I recently read on this most fundamental topics of MB... "Love and Responsibilty" (by Karol Wojtyla), A masterpiece of the concepts of "love". (Orchid... I think you know why I read this particular book.)

As to "unconditional love"... we are called to 'attempt' to achieve this as a purpose of our life. (Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.")

Alas, our fallen nature makes this impossible to attain practically... and hence we accept that love is "conditional". However... that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for the aspects and characteristics of "unconditional love", those aspects in marriage of the donation of self to the spouse!

I too accept the MB concept of "conditional love"... but indeed insist... it is a goal of Plan A and Plan B to lead toward... the unattainable... "unconditional love".

(What do you think Orchid... am I on your wavelength?)

Between H & W... all the time... yes... Plan A... in support of conditional love... and in that conditional love... we know each will occasionally slip and fall off the right way. We accept that of our spouse, and of ourselves... but know the focus is on the unselfish sacrifice of self to our spouse.

Between H & W... during the A... yes... Plan B... IS a form of conditional love...
...seeing consequences of the wrong that is an intrinsic nature of the A...
...and allowing "what ever happens"... is as what the father in the prodigal son had to allow... and it was 'love'!

We should all strive to move toward the giving of love... as an unconditional love...
...but realize... and put into perspective... the only one who GIVES it... is "the one whose loyalty/fidelity is already established. "

Absolutely... even with our children we can reach/give a very high form of "conditional love"...
...but as children of "the one"...we can only get it.

I have said countless times...
Plan A... is to make yourself a better you... "move toward unconditional love"... it's unselfish!
Plan B... is to make yourself a better you... "move toward unconditional love"... it's unselfish!

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

Jim,

You are always right on target. I believe you clarified my thoughts. Since we are definitely imperfect creatures, unconditional love is not attainable but we can work on taking conditional love to a high and pure form.

Proper love between parent and child is pure. Proper love between H & W is pure.
Proper love of one's neighbor (not coveting the family or possessions of another) can be pure.

Showing proper love without being selfish can be pure. The moment selfishness is manifest the picture, the corruption enters the picture.

I will try to find that book. thanks for the info.

Cadet, still waiting to hear your thoughts.

L.

Well that explains alot! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

No wonder I seem to be causing such chaos. I had no idea what Steve says about love being conditional. My only exposure to Steve&#8217;s concepts has been basically through these forums.

Having said that, I believe we are congruent with each other. Philosophy of love is not my strong suit but here&#8217;s a recap of what I learned in Kat&#8217;s thread.

There are 3 types of love....philo (brotherly), eros (romantic) and agape (unconditional).

Philo (brotherly) love is a love for a &#8220;group&#8221; of people (ie. humanity).

Eros (romantic) love IS conditional. It is a FEELING love....a sensual, erotic love. This love has EN&#8217;s that need to be fulfilled.

Agape (unconditional) love is an INTELLECTUAL love. It is a choice. And it is a love that we can CHOOSE to give to any &#8220;person&#8221;, not just our S. As well, it can be given to many people all at once so it is not exclusive . For instance, I can unconditionally love my mother, my father, my child and my H at the same time.

I ran into this definition of Ulove somewhere once:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Unconditional love is given in spite of how the other person behaves. It is a gift, rather than something that is earned. You are not obligated to love. This form of real love is an unconditional commitment to an imperfect person. Unconditional love is the readiness to move close to another and allow them to move close to you. Unconditional love is trying to be content with those things that don't live up to your expectations. Unconditional love must be at the heart of marriage. It's a self giving love that keeps on going even when the other person is unlovable. This love will keep the other types of love alive. It involves kindness, sympathy, and being thoughtful and sensitive to the needs of your loved one, even when you feel they don't deserve it. Unconditional love means to commit yourself without guarantee, to give yourself completely in the hope that your love will produce love in the loved person. Love is an act of faith, and whoever is of little faith is also of little love. The perfect love would be the one that gives all and expects nothing. It would, of course, be willing and delighted to receive anything offered back, the more the better. But it would ask for nothing. For if one expects nothing and asks nothing, one can never be deceived or disappointed. It is only when love demands that it brings pain. Unconditional love is an act of the will. We choose to love in our hearts and minds. Unconditional love means choosing what is right and best to do rather than what you want or feel like doing. Unconditional love is not determined by our feelings. We can't command our feelings. They come and go. They're like the tide in the ocean; they come in and then recede. Don't allow your feelings to be your guide. When the "in love" feeling is gone, that is when we can make the conscious choice and effort to have unconditional love in our lives.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Health marriages are made up of both romantic and unconditional love. I can make the intellectual decision to unconditionally love my H. But there must also be the romantic feeling love of sensuality for a M to be complete. The &#8220;more&#8221; unconditional love a M has, the stronger and more fulfilling it is.

Coming from God, unconditional love is pure....never faltering. But humans, being not perfect, will falter and there will be times when our feelings will overpower intellect and we will chose to withdraw that love....sometimes just for a moment, sometimes for years.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I have said countless times...
Plan A... is to make yourself a better you... "move toward unconditional love"... it's unselfish!
Plan B... is to make yourself a better you... "move toward unconditional love"... it's unselfish! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Jim, I really wish I would have heard one of those countless times you said that sooner. That is so well put.

There is one point where I might be diverging from the previous posts OR it may just be semantics. I don&#8217;t believe there has to be a removal of unconditional love in Plan B. If I understood Kat correctly, she told her H that she still loves him but she will have to leave to protect her own boundaries if he doesn&#8217;t get help. It is the romantic (Conditional) love that she would have stopped giving should she have left. But she also told him that the Agape (Ulove) that she has for him will still be there.

Here is my current perspective on my M:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We are now "recovering affair-aholics"..............We understand how important it is to unconditionally love each other and we realize it will always require an eternal vigil in order for that to continue to happen.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In Kat&#8217;s thread, I came to understand that there were reasons why my H had an A. And none of those reasons were to hurt me. His actions were as a result of inner child issues....something we all have because we&#8217;re all human. And seeing that more clearly gave me the strength to make the intellectual decision to unconditionally love him....forgive and accept him as he is. Will I Ulove him as perfectly as God does? Nope. I&#8217;ll falter...many times. That is why we&#8217;ll always have to have an &#8220;eternal vigil&#8221;. When something happens that leads us away from Ulove we must &#8216;intellectually&#8217; choose to address it, understand it and get back to being Uloving again. That&#8217;s why H and I refer to ourselves as recovering A-aholics.

One of the other things that hit me in Kat&#8217;s thread was if I chose to divorce my H and some day he remarries, would his new M fail "because he betrayed me"? Not likely. Why not? He is after all exactly the same man with the same history. So why is it that when another woman is married to him he'd be &#8216;acceptable&#8217; (loveable) but as my H he&#8216;s not? Where is the problem? Is it with my H? No, because he&#8217;s the same man either way. The problem is with me. It&#8217;s in 'my head&#8217;. I am unable to &#8220;accept&#8221; (Ulove) him for who he is today. That was a big eye-opener for me. I had to change me, not him.

H and I experienced that after we chose to Ulove each other, the romantic EN's that each of us had automatically got fill. More than that, there were alot less EN's for us then because it seemed that many of them were founded in a need to try to "feel loved". For us, with Ulove nothing else mattered. But without it nothing else was enough.

I wonder, if had I referred to unconditional love only as Agape love previous to this post would it have alleviated some of the confusion I&#8217;ve created?

Not sure....I&#8217;m too confused. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

<small>[ September 01, 2002, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Extremely_confused ]</small>

I think this discussion is important because i can clearly see and understand both sides of this issue, but what is perhaps not as clear is if some of this changes according to where we are in our lives or relationships, and perhaps even more, where we are in terms of recovering from infidelity.

In short, Dr. Harley's concept of love being conditional is simple; we fall in love with the person who best fulfills our emotional needs and does the least lovebusting. If I stop fulfilling my spouse's emotional needs and/or commit many lovebusters, my spouse's love bank for me will become depleted, and my spouse will fall "out of love" with me.

When that happens, or even if it doesn't, but my spouse allows someone else to fulfill her most important emotional needs, the conditions for having an affair are set.

Therefore, to restore love to the M after/during and A, and bring the spouse back to loving me, I must filfill her most important emotional needs, and reduce my lovebusters.

Fairly simple, really. And the basis for all of Dr. Harley's ideas about restoring a marriage broken by infidelity.

On the other hand, many here have been espousing the concept of unconditional love as what appears to be a very effective method of doing the same thing. Something like this: If we are able to unconditionally love our spouse, love them for what they are and who they are right now, without regard for our personal needs, this can create an environment where the spouse will, in turn, love us much more, because we are truly accepting them as they are and making no demands for change, etc.

So, how do these two concepts go together?

Do we attempt to unconditionally love our wayward spouse while the A is on-going or they are "on the fence" to rebuild trust, bring them closer and get them to a place where they will allow us to fulfill their EN's and thus restore their love for us? Does doing this push the spouse's "Taker" back where he belongs and brings out the "Giver" to create a better environment for the A to end, and perhaps to restore my M?

See the dilemma? Perhaps these two concepts do have their proper places in all of this, but maybe there is a right or better time for each within the course of a marriage affected by infidelity?

Say for me right now; I'm in Plan B, taking the steps to either end or save my M. What am I asking of my Spouse? That she end the A, demonstrate it, and be willing to work on our M. Well, she's not sure if that's what she wants to do, doesn't trust that I can/will change what she perceives as my failings to her, is hurt by years of neglect, etc. etc.

So I have removed myself from the picture, in order to prepare myself for the end, to be ready for it, but at the same time, to remove myself from fulfilling the ENs that I WAS fulfilling for my W, and perhaps help her see what life without me would be like.

Then along comes unconditional love. IF I am able to demonstrate unconditional love for her right now; "I love you for what you are, right now, warts and all, because I understand what has happened, my role, and I still love you" that might be an effective method of helping her regain confidence in me as someone able to forgive, might help her believe that I CAN change, fulfill her needs, etc.

So, do these two apparently opposite concepts have a place within this process? Maybe at the right times within the sequence of events? Or are they not compatible with each other?

I'm headed out, and will respond more later, but quickly, a couple of things:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Posted by E_C:
<strong>H and I experienced that after we chose to Ulove each other, the romantic EN's that each of us had automatically got fill. More than that, there were alot less EN's for us then because it seemed that many of them were founded in a need to try to "feel loved". For us, with Ulove nothing else mattered. But without it nothing else was enough.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Perhaps the key lies here. I BOTH partners understanding and attemting to implement ULove...

Maybe when bot partners understand it and implement it, ENs can be fulfilled for both.

What if only one does it? Can we assume that the other, upon receiving it, will give it in return?
I'm not sure.

<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I wonder, if had I referred to unconditional love only as Agape love previous to this post would it have alleviated some of the confusion I’ve created?
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I didn't have any confusion, really. Both concepts are valid in their context. To me the confusion lies in how/if they can "work" together, and if maybe it's a matter of timing rather than of choosing one or the other?

SC:

Darn. Wish I could spend more time here. I'll think about this stuff some more and try to get back on here today or tomorrow with some thoughts of my own.

I'm definitely experiencing some of this "confusion" about Ulove versus Clove, including the results from each. Gotta go, though. Spousal unit forgot her mouse, and her laptop has one of those annoying little "titty" mice in the middle of the keyboard! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Extremely_confused,

Your excerpt on unconditional love was truly profound. Worthy of a "notable post" unto itself.

On the issue of "I am unable to &#8220;accept&#8221; (Ulove) him for who he is today"...
...a key is realizing the to "accept" someone for who they are... is not unconditional love.

We all to often think that the desires of our S, must be met...
...and the truth is that... that is not the case.

The need of an alcoholic spouse need not be met...
The need of a sex-addicted spouse need not be met...
The need of a violent, abusive spouse need not be met...

...and here's the kicker... this is true in both Plan A and Plan B!

To give unconditional love... is not to shower the gift ... "do what you wish... my spouse"!

Like the only true unconditional love we ever receive... from above...
...that love is loaded with guidelines... that respect our freewill... including the freewill to reject those same guidelines.

That is why I often tell people in Plan A... you can... you must set boundaries...
...and in setting those boundaries... you are showing how you approach... unconditional love.

In Plan B, likewise, the boundaries become clarified... focused... explicit...
...but still a form of unconditional love... when viewed from the perspective of having the wayward come to the truth of the boundaries... (not that you are imposing)... but those that come from above.

------------

Spacecase...

You focus seems to be "recovery"... as an end in itself.

Neither Plan A nor Plan B... are the guarantee... or the magic potion.
The Harley's will clear up this misconception if you ask them!

Your thoughts "...Therefore, to restore love..." have to be placed into the context of unconditional love... having little if any "expectations"...

i.e. that even your conditional love (attempting to reach unconditional love)... may not have as it's goal... the goal of "unconditional love"... to have your spouse reach the eternal and the truth!

Unconditional love... is not meant to be an "effective method"...
...it is meant to a way of existence... to imitate he who was the perfect (see above).

Making unconditional love a utilitarian tool (or for that matter conditional love)... is to allow self to take center stage. It is almost as bad as the spouse who uses the other spouse as a utility for sex... or financial security... or any of the other EN.

Conditional love... is not in opposition to unconditional love...
...by the human path... leading toward the perfect "unconditional love"...
...if you understand that the MB conditional love... is still selfless.

------

Plan A is the hand-holding walk toward unconditional love (through the human fraility of conditional love)...

Plan B is the spiritual walk...
...be not ashamed of Plan B!

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

<small>[ September 01, 2002, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: NSR ]</small>

Another excellent post, SC!

I am here as the <booming echo> Voice of the Lone One <end of echo> who believes in UNconditional love.

I have argued about this around here until I'm blue in the face~ and it's one of the BIG disagreements I have with the Harley's, et.al.

If love were conditional, then you tell me how it is that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people on this very site who are fighting for their marriage, sometimes for years, while their spouse cheats right in front of their face?

If love were conditional, then you tell me why there are more than a handful on the divorce boards who still love their ex-spouses, even though that spouse (usually the WS) has moved on, sometimes married the OM or OW, and hasn't met a need of the one left behind for a long time?

If love were conditional, then please, please tell me why love sometimes lingers for years after someone dies.

Love is UNCONDITIONAL.

Sometimes we have NO IDEA why we love... while my ex was yanking me by the hair... to the pavement... in front of my children... I should have hated him. When he called me a B!TCH at the top of his lungs in the market, I should have hated him. When I reached out to him and he slapped my hand away, I should have hated him. There are stories like mine, and MUCH WORSE, all over this site - indeed, all over the country - and all to often... WE STILL LOVE THEM, in spite of it all. We want them to love us back. We don't understand. (This is how I felt in my past long-term marriage. It was HELL deciding to get out! And no, not every moment was this bad, but I hope I make my point.)

I KNOW this flies in the face of everything-Harley, but it's how I feel... yep, those darned *feelings* that are difficult to intellectualize, try as we might.

<small>[ September 01, 2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: new_beginning ]</small>

Hi Sheryl,

As you know, I agree with you on this point. There is no doubt in my mind that unconditional love exists - as a matter of fact, I believe that conditional love is an oxymoron.

As one of those posters you mentioned who continues to love their the person they married in spite of everything, I completely agree.

The other day I was talking to a lawyer who hypothesized that my H had remained unemployed for two years because he was lazy - my first thought was, "No, he's not ... how can you say something like that about him?" I, like many others, will continue to love the man I married unconditionally.

Yes Nellie,

You are PRECISELY the person I thought of first while writing my response.

Also, I was thinking of a few others... close to me... they know who they are.

And finally, I was thinking of myself. As crappy as David could be, I always loved him. I still feel terrible for him when he hurts, and will cry when he dies. I have no doubt of that.

Love the feeling vs. Love the ACTION.

Love the feeling = conditional.

Love the action = can be unconditional if you follow God's Word and love your spouse as he commands.

Now saying that... I also agreed w/ Sheryl. I have thought long and hard about what it was that continued to make my heart go pitter/patter for my H... when he had consistently NOT met my needs and had betrayed me... love... addiction... WHAT???

Others refuted me... but I KNEW that my H was FAMILY... like my mother, my kids, my siblings... and I couldn't IMAGINE not 'loving' him.... didn't like him sometimes... but ALWAYS loved him...

I guess now I'd have to say that my love for him has no conditions... no boundaries... but my RELATIONSHIP... our MARRIAGE is conditional and MUST have boundaries...

Cali

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Cali:
<strong>...my love for him has no conditions... no boundaries... but my RELATIONSHIP... our MARRIAGE is conditional and MUST have boundaries...

Cali</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well said, Cali.

Oh, wise, sage ones!! Excellent subject matter, as usual. And difficult to come to agreement on, I suspect.

I am somewhat more in the camp of Cali, Nellie and Sheryl. I believe we "hang in" for our S's during all this precisely BECAUSE of ULove. What else would make us do some of the things we do (which hurts US worse than it appears to hurt them?) while we wait for the "fog" to lift?

As Lostva (some of the "old-timers" remember her) used to tell her H, she "believed in him." I truly think that was part of what lifted the fog for him. Her belief in him, in their strong love, brought him around.

Having said that, however, I also want to point out that it is the CLove aspect of our R's that make or break it...and "creates an atmosphere which contributes to the climate ripe for one partner to engage in A."

Maybe we really dont' know very much about ULove without having it tested, such as when one partner has an A. As humans, I'm sure we don't practice it nearly as perfectly as God would have us do!

Thanks for the thought provoking subject, SC!

As always, my prayers are with you and your W.

Hmmm...this is a highly philosophical discussion! Do I dare enter the fray?!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

I believe that there is really is no scientific or emperical way to study or define some of these issues. As individuals we know what we feel, even though we're not always clear as to why. Things we've learned from our pasts play a part, I'm sure. We often repeat patterns because we know of no other way to act. We express love in the ways we've learned. Some of us learn to love highly dysfunctional people in spite of themselves. I don't consider that love as unconditional but, I would say it is 'highly accepting/forgiving'. Others love in more 'restrictive' ways. They have a narrow view of what love is and can be unaccepting/unforgiving. I think that individuals can be taught new ways to love. Whether that means to be more accepting or whether that means to establish firmer boundaries. It's also important to remember that even with the great success the Harley's have had with their MB program, their theories and methodologies don't work for all. The reason? The fact we are all individuals who have different views, tolerances, coping skills etc., etc. dictates we respond in different ways. What works for one may not work for another. Psychology, psychotherapy and psychiatry are all, for the most part, theoretical fields. Very little in behavioural studies can be said to be absolute, 100% fact. The fact that the Harley's method is theoretical also means that there are going to be some 'holes', which SC may have found! Given enough time and expertise any theory about anything can be found to have a 'hole' or two.

So, my point, after all that.... We as individuals must establish boundaries within our relationships that are healthy and beneficial to all parties involved.

Here's where I may get flamed! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> I believe that Plan A&B offer individuals guidelines for repairing a M. Following these guidelines as hard and fast rules of conduct won't work for everyone. I'm not trying to trivialize, but the guidelines are like a recipe. A recipe that may be altered somewhat to suit our taste but, not altered to the point where it is no longer recognizable as the item the recipe claims to create.

<small>[ September 01, 2002, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: mgm ]</small>

mgm:

I agree with you, without necessarily knowing why! plan A and plan B don't always work for me. Maybe because I can't seem 2 get them right! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> But really, I've been thinking about this Ulove concept as it applies 2 fixing my M, and I think that's what I've been applying this past month or so, that has had the most positive results. The best part is that it's been easy for me, because it's honest. I realized when I came home after my week away that I really do love my W 2 much 2 go 2 plan B just yet.

Most of the time has been great, but there have been some bad times as well. Mostly trigger comments from my W. LBs. I haven't responded to them. Just with more love. And it seems 2 work.

I think that my Ulove for her will drop back to Clove, if and when she insists on continued contact with Rat Meat. I don't know whether that will be an issue or not. I just know that it IS if I LB about it. So I don't.

I'm just a simple country geologist lost in the big city, though. What do I know? ...just what works for the moment, I guess.

<small>[ September 02, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: 2long ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Your excerpt on unconditional love was truly profound. Worthy of a "notable post" unto itself.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Wow! Thank you NSR. That means the world coming from you.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">On the issue of "I am unable to &#8220;accept&#8221; (Ulove) him for who he is today"...
...a key is realizing the to "accept" someone for who they are... is not unconditional love.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Exactly! If I am unable to even &#8216;accept&#8217; him for who he is then how in the world will I ever come to Ulove him? Thanks, NSR, for making that clear.

Mgm & 2long, </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">2long said...."I agree with you, without necessarily knowing why"!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree with both of you and this is why.

Draw a circle and inside it write &#8220;Ulove&#8221;. Then draw a second circle around that, about twice the size, and inside it (but outside the little circle) write &#8220;Clove (romantic love)&#8221;. Imagine the little circle is made of lead and the larger circle is a balloon.

For me, that is what the love in M&#8217;s looks like. It is Ulove encompassed in a legally binding marital contract of Clove.

If a marital contract (marriage) has Ulove, it is grounded, solid and unwaivering. You can &#8220;trust&#8221; that it will stay put no matter what winds blow in.

But a M without Ulove is ungrounded, flighty and unstable. You never know where the next wind will take it. Can it survive a storm? Certainly, but it doesn&#8217;t feel stable or trusting because you never know where it&#8217;s going to end up.

If, after the winds die down, the balloon lands where one S in the M no longer "choses" to fulfill enough of the EN&#8217;s of the other S, the balloon (M contract) breaks and you get the infamous "D". The Ulove portion CAN remain intact. Does it have to? No. You can throw the lead ball in the garbage. But you have the &#8220;option&#8221; of retaining it if you so CHOSE.

So now, if we look at marriage, from a &#8220;components perspective&#8221;, does it have Ulove? If it&#8217;s healthy, yes, at least some of the time.

But if we look at it from an &#8220;overall perspective&#8221; (ie the entire balloon) then we see that the love in M IS in fact conditional because the Ulove is housed in a marital contract of Clove.

I know, I know....&#8221;What&#8217;d she say???? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

All I'm saying is I understand completely what Harley says and I can certainly see why he says it. Just look at the confusion the phrase &#8220;Unconditional Love&#8221; has created in this thread. Harley works with people in crisis. The last thing they need in their M is more confusion from their MC. How long would you go to a MC who spends your &#8216;first three sessions giving philosophy lessons&#8217;? (Say that 3 times fast. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> )

If I would have went to Harley after D-day and he started talking about Ulove I would have said &#8220;Unconditionally love him?????? Gawd, are you joking???? I don&#8217;t even kinda "like" him right now!!!&#8221;.

So Harley sticks to phrases that are easier for us to understand and put into practice such as &#8220;act with thoughtfulness and respect&#8217;...two steps that can lead toward Ulove. The POJA, removing LB&#8217;s, fulfilling EN&#8217;s, etc., they&#8217;re all, with any luck, a means to an end....Ulove. But he also needs us to understand that Marital love is conditional and the effects of that.

MY focus here is the one sentence within the definition of Ulove earlier in this thread that said, &#8220;Unconditional love must be at the heart of marriage&#8221;. Getting caught up in semantics and/or philosophy will only distract me from my goal...to find out &#8220;WHY 2long is having more success in his M now that he&#8217;s starting to Ulove his W?&#8221;. And why is this working better for him than Plan B did?

It is "MY" belief that, ideally, if Plan A and B are executed correctly, only marriages where ONE of the S&#8217;s has no desire to remain in the marriage would you ever get to Plan B and then it would be to let go of the M. Does that mean that variations of Plan A or B won't work? No it doesn't. Just because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line doesn't make it the "only" line.

The confusion with A & B for ME was my lack of focus on remembering to fix the foundation of the M (the "lead" or Ulove). Fixing all the &#8216;flighty&#8217; conditional things are important but it is just one step towards the goal. Without the Ulove, I continued to have a constant craving for 'something more'. From D-day forward, my H was Plan A'ing me like crazy trying to get me to emotionally commit to the M again. And it was what I truly wanted but I couldn't get there and I didn't know why. Once we started understanding Ulove it all fell into place like magic for us.

SC asked: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
What if only one does it? Can we assume that the other, upon receiving it, will give it in return?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well this is my personal opinion but YES, I believe that, generally, if one S gives Ulove to the other they won&#8217;t be able to resist it. Unless of course, the other S has no desire to stay in the M anymore. The key is having the stamina because it probably won't happen over night. But go back and read Kat&#8217;s first post in her thread. (SC kindly provided the link in his first post in this thread.) Amongst other very important things, she said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
The hurt child cries out &#8220;Nobody loves me! Nobody cares about me, and the only way to get any happiness for myself is to take it no matter what it costs.&#8221;</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That child is screaming for Ulove...."I want someone to see me for exactly who I am today and STILL love me". They settle for getting in A&#8217;s and feeling more of the &#8220;fluffy love&#8221; because that&#8217;s better than nothing. They can&#8217;t force anyone to love them unconditionally so they take what they can get.

But don&#8217;t be mislead into thinking only WS&#8217;s have an inner child screaming to be Uloved. I was a BS and my inner child was screaming just as loud as my H&#8217;s...just in different ways. I was fighting to get attention from him by trying to change him...&#8221;Please come home from work earlier....please stop looking at your computer while I&#8217;m trying to talk to you.....Please take Sunday off and spend it with D and I.&#8221; And the more I tried to change him, the harder he pulled away because what he was hearing from me was "You're not good enough". Ironically, for both of us, at the time we would have sworn that we were Uloving each other. Alas, we were wrong.

Try it yourself. Go back and read the Ulove definition in this thread and sentence by sentence ask yourself "Is this true of my love for my S?".

Ok, disengaging from soap box..... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />
E_C

<small>[ September 02, 2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Extremely_confused ]</small>

I've not read all the replies to this thread, so perhaps others have already brought it up.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">On the other hand, many here have been espousing the concept of unconditional love as what appears to be a very effective method of doing the same thing. Something like this: If we are able to unconditionally love our spouse, love them for what they are and who they are right now, without regard for our personal needs, this can create an environment where the spouse will, in turn, love us much more, because we are truly accepting them as they are and making no demands for change, etc. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">First let me apologize if this seems totally off the mark of the discussion. These are my own thoughts on the subject of ULove.

Perhaps I am missing something in the discussion, but. Does everyone believe what SC is saying above? That if you ULove someone they will eventually love you in return?

I don't necessarily see it this way at all. Your love for your child IS/Should be ULove. It should make no difference if that child is a murderer or anything else. You may hate what he/she has done, you may despise who he/she is. But you love that child unconditionally. That does not mean you support the actions a child takes.

The same for your WS. This does not mean you will grow a love in him/her which will cause a recovery to begin. It does not mean your marriage will be saved. It does mean you choose to love your WS in spite of themselves. But in my opinion it is a different kind of love. I do see where ULove could eventually help a WS to come back to the marriage, but I doubt anyone could/would say it is a given.

Perhaps my thinking is too simpleminded. But I do not think one needs to make ULove nearly as complicated. It is a simple love. It is a pure love, perhaps the purest kind of love one will or can have. But it does not mean you will get what you desire from your WS or your children or anyone else. You love them in spite of whatever you may gain. Simply because you choose to.

jd

EC:

Good stuff, as usual!!! As the Mr. Spock with the beard said (in the episode with the parallel universe thang).

"Captain Kirk. I SHALL CONSIDER IT!"

Then the engineer threw the switch and they got all sparkley and the episode ended.

But I'll bet it worked out... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

SC,

I have just one question for you SC. Do you love your W and are you "in-love" with the woman to whom you are married?

It seems to me that what is getting messed up is that unconditional love is NOT the same as being "in-love". Unconditional love is a verb. Something you do or give. "In love" is a feeling and is very subject to the needs being met.

You don't think ALL of the WS's are lying when they say the "love you, BUT aren't in-love" with you do you? What they are trying to say but clearly have screwed up is that the feelings are GONE, but there is still a connection.

I think the other word that MUST be associated with "unconditional love" is commitment. I keep going back to the wedding vows. They were not designed just for grins. It is known that there wil be times when the feeling of "inlove" won't be there, but you are committed to still love your spouse.

I think here is where the confusion lies. Let's face it the WS's wouldn't have an affair if they were willing to stick by their commitments. And many BS's aren't "in love" but still try to love their spouse.

SC, with all due respect, and you are due alot, I think you are mixing apples and oranges. THe two types of love you discuss are in fact different and play a different role.

Sort of like the joke about breakfast: "THe chicken is involved and the pig is committed." The "inlove" is the chicken and the unconditional love is the pig.

I don't have much time and I suspect I have managed to mess up what I was trying to convey but don't have a lot of time.

Must go,

JL