I am TOTALLY confused now. Have to re-read all of this and think about it....thanks everyone for your posts, this is getting interesting!

I ditto what jdmac said.

It ain't complicated.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Just Learning:
<strong>SC,

...........
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.

....

JL</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Let's make this simple. Can you afford to be the chicken or the pig? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

L.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">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">Oh my gosh NO, I DO NOT believe this AT ALL.

You cannot MANIPULATE someone into loving you.

If it were so easy to "make" someone love you, we'd all be with the person we wanted. Clearly, all of us are NOT.

I don't know how many ways I can say this to make my point, and perhaps I'm being redundant, because those who understand just DO already.

YOU CANNOT DO ENOUGH TO MAKE SOMEONE LOVE YOU. They either DO, or they DON'T.

The only thing I would suggest that might make my point more clear is to go to the Divorce/Divorcing board and READ about the spouses who still love their stbx's/ex's -- and as I said before, sometimes after YEARS of NOT having their needs met by that spouse (like Nellie, who posted above). Even those vocal one's who say how much they hate their ex's -- do they lay in bed in the middle of the night and think that, or do they (perhaps) lay in bed and wish things would have been different?

I'd have to agree with Just Learning.

I think our WS still love us but do not have that romantic/passion "in love" feeling that is created by their most important EN being met.

Often a WS will describe living with their spouse as being with a roommate, friend, or sibling. They love their spouse as a family member. This is because often we (BS) played the role of spouse but stopped plyaing the role of lover. Hence, the spark/passion fading from the relationship and the WS going elsewhere for it.

Similarly, we (BS) probably do not feel "in love" with our WS but love them. (some of) The differences between a BS and WS are:

1. we believe in commitment/marriage vows (for better, for worse)
2. we are not being swept away by someone else (OP) meeting our most important EN in an A - tempting us away from the M/fixing the R.

So, I think that "in love" feeling (romance, passion, etc...) is conditional.

Loving someone (i.e. caring for someone such as a family member) is unconditional.

With all this in mind, I think part of the reason Plan B may work sometimes is that the WS feels what a D would be like. In other words, when the BS is out of their lives (no contact), over time the WS feels a sense of LOSS of a loved one/a family member/lifelong friend. Some WS's don't want to lose that person they love (even though they are not "in love" with them) and may come back to work on the M.

Being friends with our WS's is important in that it is also meeting a need (even though it might not be a top EN).

Dr. Phil McGraw (in Relationship Rescue) says "the quality of a relationship is a function of the extent to which it is built on a solid underlying friendship *and* meets the needs of the two people involved."

just my two cents.

Here is my take for whatever it is worth.

It is impossible for anyone of this earth to love unconditionally. We are not God, and we cannot even fully comprehend what unconditional love is. Some of us have only seen a small glimpse of the pain our spouses could cause us, the A, and our love wavers. For most, even more insignificant pains before the A caused our love to waver, and in some even cases provided the environment for the A.

This is where Harley comes in. He explains that we cannot love unconditionally. We are flawed. He helps us understand this and provides a cookbook recipe for loving. Of course, we would not need this recipient if we loved unconditionally, but that is impossible. The MB principals are necessary because we are flawed.

However, just because we cannot love unconditionally does not mean we should not try. It is the same thing about sinning. Do we give up trying NOT to sin just because we are imperfect? Unconditional love should be something we strive to accomplish.

Harley's principals are external actions to manifest love. Conversely, unconditional love occurs internally. This type of love is completely spiritual, and actions spawned by this type of love are demonstrative of TRUE LOVE. We should question our actions when they have little to no affect. Maybe our motives are not TRUE LOVE but rather manipulation. Many are often doing whatever it takes to save our marriage.

The only one person I know that loved unconditionally is Jesus, but we all know that story. Jesus should be our guide to love unconditionally. Only by drawing close to God can we even come close to the goal of loving unconditionally.

I have been hearing the phrase "feeling in love," and the likes, quite a bit. Is this what we all are after, fleeting love that is dependent upon hormonal reactions? In time, science will be able to isolate this hormone and you can take a pill to get this feeling. Some drugs already give this feeling of euphoria. Maybe we should all have a package of twenty of these pills so that the minute we feel "unloved" we can pop a pill.

Wanting this feeling and desiring to have these feeling as a condition of marriage is not only selfish, but also demeaning to the marriage vows. Lets try to rise above this teenage understanding of love and focus on REAL LOVE not chemically induced feelings. That is how our WS's started down their selfish paths.

Perhaps I am beginning to understand, we'll see.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>Cali;
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...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think this is entirely correct. There is a feeling in me that keeps me here, fighting for my M through all of this, and perhaps it is partially ULOVE, but it is here and it is strong. Otherwise, I'd be long gone. At the same time, I know that the R cannot keep on working as it is now; there are too many unmet needs on both sides, and too many rules (boundaries) have been broken, so those must also be repaired/changed/established before the R can really continue.

Perhaps E_C said it best:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>E_C:
Draw a circle and inside it write “Ulove”. Then draw a second circle around that, about twice the size, and inside it (but outside the little circle) write “Clove (romantic love)”. Imagine the little circle is made of lead and the larger circle is a balloon.

For me, that is what the love in M’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 “trust” 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’t feel stable or trusting because you never know where it’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’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 “option” of retaining it if you so CHOSE.

So now, if we look at marriage, from a “components perspective”, does it have Ulove? If it’s healthy, yes, at least some of the time.

But if we look at it from an “overall perspective” (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. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Do we agree that E_C's description (above; lead ball surrounded by a baloon) is pretty close to accurate?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>EC;
It is "MY" belief that, ideally, if Plan A and B are executed correctly, only marriages where ONE of the S’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 ‘flighty’ 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.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, I think E_C makes an important distinction here; when BOTH spouses realize they have ULove (or certain amount/degree of ULove) for each other, and both commit to building on that, only then does the rest "start falling into place" (CLove elements, etc.). Is this true? Can it work if only one of the Spouses is doing it?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>ec;
SC asked:
quote:
What if only one does it? Can we assume that the other, upon receiving it, will give it in return?
Well this is my personal opinion but YES, I believe that, generally, if one S gives Ulove to the other they won’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’s first post in her thread. (SC kindly provided the link in his first post in this thread.) </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I guess I'd have to ask how. I'm not at all sure this is the case.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>E_C;
...Amongst other very important things, she said:
quote:
The hurt child cries out “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.”
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’s and feeling more of the “fluffy love” because that’s better than nothing. They can’t force anyone to love them unconditionally so they take what they can get.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Does the WS realize this? I think not. Does understanding the differences between ULove and CLove help them in this? Perhaps.
The question is, can we BSs transmit this, clarify this for the WS? How?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>jdmac1;
I've not read all the replies to this thread, so perhaps others have already brought it up.
quote:
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.
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?

BR;
I ditto what jdmac said.

It ain't complicated.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think jdmac2 and BR misunderstood what I said; I was questioning this assumption. See below:
SC:
quote:
Posted by E_C:
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.
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.

<strong>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"><strong>New Beginning;
quote:
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.
Oh my gosh NO, I DO NOT believe this AT ALL.

You cannot MANIPULATE someone into loving you.

If it were so easy to "make" someone love you, we'd all be with the person we wanted. Clearly, all of us are NOT.

I don't know how many ways I can say this to make my point, and perhaps I'm being redundant, because those who understand just DO already.

YOU CANNOT DO ENOUGH TO MAKE SOMEONE LOVE YOU. They either DO, or they DON'T.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In light of what we are discussing, I don't see this as manipulation at all. How can it be manipulation to understand the difference between ULove and CLove and try to show the WS the ULove we have for them?
And I precisely questioned the assumption that by doing so we could get the WS to understand and give the saem to us in return.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>JL;
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.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">JL; I don't know what it's called (I guess that is precisely one of the things we're trying to clarify here) but I know this; There is something inside me that tells me that I will not let my W go easily, that I must fight for my M and for her. I don't know what this is called.
At the same time, there is something inside me that also tells me that in order for our M to work, certain conditions must be met, otherwise we'll both be exposed to huting each othjer over and over again. I don't know what THIS is called either.
But whatever those two "feelings" are called, that's how I feel.
I think that I am beginning to understand now why it is that many WSs say "I love you but I'm not IN love with you" or words to that effect. And if I'm not mistaken, based on the descriptions here, it their ULove that says the former, and their CLove that says the latter....
I think you make a very important point about "committment". That is the key to all of this, I believe; if we recognize and can differentiate between ULove and CLove, (I use these terms because I think we've established more or less what they are and how they interact) then we should know that we will occasionally lose CLove, but we should recognize it and do something constructive and positive about it, rather than negative and destructive, like having an A.
As for the chicken and the pig; I guess the same thing; we have and need both for a successful M, we just need to recognize which is which, and what to do about changes/issues with each. But differentiating them is the key, I believe.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>Orchid;
quote:
Originally posted by Just Learning:
SC,
...........
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.
....
JL
Let's make this simple. Can you afford to be the chicken or the pig? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not sure what you mean by this O; unless I'm terribly mistaken, we need to understand both in their proper contexts...as to which I can afford...I don't know that I get to choose.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>aanast2;
I think our WS still love us but do not have that romantic/passion "in love" feeling that is created by their most important EN being met.

Often a WS will describe living with their spouse as being with a roommate, friend, or sibling. They love their spouse as a family member. This is because often we (BS) played the role of spouse but stopped plyaing the role of lover. Hence, the spark/passion fading from the relationship and the WS going elsewhere for it.

Similarly, we (BS) probably do not feel "in love" with our WS but love them. (some of) The differences between a BS and WS are:

1. we believe in commitment/marriage vows (for better, for worse)
2. we are not being swept away by someone else (OP) meeting our most important EN in an A - tempting us away from the M/fixing the R.

So, I think that "in love" feeling (romance, passion, etc...) is conditional.

Loving someone (i.e. caring for someone such as a family member) is unconditional.

With all this in mind, I think part of the reason Plan B may work sometimes is that the WS feels what a D would be like. In other words, when the BS is out of their lives (no contact), over time the WS feels a sense of LOSS of a loved one/a family member/lifelong friend. Some WS's don't want to lose that person they love (even though they are not "in love" with them) and may come back to work on the M.

Being friends with our WS's is important in that it is also meeting a need (even though it might not be a top EN). </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Perhaps aanast2 has the beginnings of an answer here? Either as a way to reassure the WS of our ULove during Plan B, and as a way of "demonstrating" the difference to the WS? Not sure, but maybe.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>EC;
I ran into this definition of Ulove somewhere once:
quote:
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. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I would have to say that if this is the definition of ULove, then either I do not truly, fully ULove my W, or the lines between ULove and CLove are blurred enough or affect each other enough that I cannot truly tell the difference. Part of these I do feel, others I don't feel, or feel are conditional.

Thanks allforlove for validating what has troubled me about my WW all along--her incessant search for that "in-love" feeling, as an end unto itself (and thus justifying the means, but that's another story).

From my vantage point, I would say my WW takes it to another level. In her comments to me and in reading her lovey-dovey e-mails to OM, she seems to believe that all that matters is to be obsessed with another man. To hell with anything else: me, her children, her own financial stability, or even that the OM has red flags flying over his head that he's a womanizer. (sorry for rant). I believe that's what drove her to me years ago...her pursuit of that high had led to repeated failures in her prior boyfried relationships when she found she couldn't or wouldn't deal with solving the mundane (and not so mundane) problems that come up in any relationship. Her solution was simply to find another hit of the love drug and not deal with REALITY.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by mark2002:
<strong>...Her solution was simply to find another hit of the love drug and not deal with REALITY.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mark; you don't know just HOW right you may be in saying this. But there's hope. Is she still "on the fence", wavering between you and OM? Has she been there for some time?

Spacecase,

I think I'm being misunderstood a bit. You said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In light of what we are discussing, I don't see this as manipulation at all. How can it be manipulation to understand the difference between ULove and CLove and try to show the WS the ULove we have for them?

And I precisely questioned the assumption that by doing so we could get the WS to understand and give the saem to us in return.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I simply don't believe we can *reasonably expect* someone to love us unconditionally simply because we love them unconditionally. It doesn't work that way.

There's always exceptions, of course. I will agree with that.

Look, I've been around these boards for years now, and I've argued about ULove from the dawn of my time here. I don't expect you to agree with me, although yeah, it would be a nice bonus <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> , but I do want to make sure I'm being understood.

Ulove is quite a rare and a VERY misunderstood thing. It is a choice that you make. It happens in your head. And it&#8217;s either &#8216;on&#8217; or it&#8217;s &#8216;off&#8217;. If there is even one thing in my H that I don&#8217;t like, I do not have Ulove for him. It&#8217;s only when I can look at him and say &#8220;I have no desire to change anything about you&#8230;you are the perfect YOU exactly as you are&#8221; that I have Ulove for him.

I, personally, DO have Ulove for my H &#8216;today&#8217; because I honestly love everything about him&#8230;flaws and all. I can think of nothing I desire for him to change.

But I am human and as a human I will falter. He might do something tomorrow that will hurt me and I won&#8217;t like it. It&#8217;ll cause me to want him to change. I can then make the CHOICE to not Ulove him anymore. That is why Ulove needs an ever present vigil to keep it alive. When something happens I must go to him and say &#8220;&#8217;This&#8221; happened and I want to do a POJA so I can get back to a point of being able to choose to Ulove you again&#8221;. Why was I not strong enough to Ulove him even through whatever he did? Because "feelings" get in the way of making good choices. During that time did I stop &#8220;loving&#8221; him? No, the Ulove was not there but the romantic (Clove) always remained. That is why Harley&#8217;s principles (LB, POJA, understanding EN's) are CRITICAL to a M. Otherwise you just get pent up negative emotions and eventually LB again. (Or worse, stray from your M.)

Is it manipulative to say &#8220;I love you completely.&#8221;? No. You&#8217;re not asking for or EXPECTING anything whatsoever in return. You&#8217;re not saying &#8220;I love you completely and I will continue to love you completely &#8220;but&#8221; only if you stay with me&#8221;. In fact you&#8217;d be saying the opposite&#8230;&#8221;I love you completely and if not being with me is what makes you happiest then I will let you go&#8221;. No manipulation there.

Regarding the &#8216;without regards for my personal needs&#8217; part, that doesn&#8217;t say &#8220;You can do anything you want to me&#8221;. Just because I feel Ulove for my H doesn&#8217;t mean I no longer have needs. It says &#8220;YOU are not responsible for filling my needs.&#8221; If you &#8220;choose&#8221; to do so that would be wonderful but you are not obligated to.&#8221; If my H chooses NOT to fill some need of mine then I must decide if that need is important enough for me to go elsewhere to have it filled or if it is a need I can do without. If I must have it filled and he chooses not to do it then I must go somewhere else to have it filled, which leads to "D". But if I still have those strong romantic (Clove) feelings for him then I won't have the strength to D...that is when people stray. Fortunately, my experience has been that filling my H's needs comes very easy when I feel completely loved myself. In fact, an amazing amount of those needs have disappeared because the majority of them were a need to feel truly loved.

Ulove is what every human longs for. To be truly loved exactly as they are&#8230;flaws and all. Yes, only God can do that perfectly and the feeling is second to none. Ask any person who&#8217;s found God. It&#8217;s unparalleled. When we find a human that can offer us that, even if just in an &#8216;on&#8217; and &#8216;off&#8217; and back &#8216;on&#8217; mode (rather than the constant, never faltering mode God does it) it&#8217;s pretty hard for them to say &#8220;No thanks.&#8221;. They MAY choose to do that and that would be Ok but our Ulove for them would accept that they don&#8217;t want it and still Ulove them.

Look at that &#8220;in love&#8221; feeling we get when we first start dating. We get that feeling when we first meet someone because when we&#8217;re new to each other, we don't try to change each other. We realize at that time, that it's not our place to do so. And generally speaking we put our best foot forward and often hide our flaws when we&#8217;re dating. If we choose to reveal our &#8220;flaws&#8221; at that time, we are either received with great admiration for having the courage to admit them (more Ulove) or we decide we don&#8217;t like that person enough to keep dating them.

Unfortunately, many &#8216;flaws&#8217; don&#8217;t get discovered until after the romantic love (clove) has set in and then we often find ourselves struggling to get back to that Ulove feeling by trying to change them back to the person they were when we met them.

I&#8217;m not claiming to have all the answers. I can only tell you what I have experienced since D-day.

Thanks to everyone for all the different perspectives because it allows me to more fully test the theories of my experience.

<small>[ September 03, 2002, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Extremely_confused ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by new_beginning:
<strong>Spacecase,

I think I'm being misunderstood a bit. You said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In light of what we are discussing, I don't see this as manipulation at all. How can it be manipulation to understand the difference between ULove and CLove and try to show the WS the ULove we have for them?

And I precisely questioned the assumption that by doing so we could get the WS to understand and give the saem to us in return.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I simply don't believe we can *reasonably expect* someone to love us unconditionally simply because we love them unconditionally. It doesn't work that way.

There's always exceptions, of course. I will agree with that.

Look, I've been around these boards for years now, and I've argued about ULove from the dawn of my time here. I don't expect you to agree with me, although yeah, it would be a nice bonus <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> , but I do want to make sure I'm being understood.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">NB; I think we COMPLETELY agree. I don't believe we will necessarily get reciprocal ULove in exchange for ours. We might, we might not.
But I don't see how giving ULove to our spouse is manipulation either. If we give it freely, without expectation of getting it or something else in return, it's not manipulation, is it?

<small>[ September 03, 2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Spacecase ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">He might do something tomorrow that will hurt me and I won&#8217;t like it. It&#8217;ll cause me to want him to change. I can then make the CHOICE to not Ulove him anymore. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ummmmm, unconditional should mean just that. This is an example of conditional love.

Sorry to move off-topic Space (and everyone else).

To be honest Space, I don't know. She tried coming off the fence but apparently climbed back up a few weeks ago. After the latest revelation, I drew a boundary by saying that if she renewed contact, I'm gone (explaining to her that I will no longer put up with emotional abuse--I mean really, it's been too long for me. A possible LB, I know, but I think she realizes it too...I've had the patience of a saint). Now I know that's more in the LMBT camp, but I think she responds better to the threat of having cake taken away--given my particular situation.

She actually does "know" (she's told me) that what she's doing is bad for her, me, and the kids. But the OM is playing her brain like a puppet-player with marionette strings. I'm serious. I'm installing spectorsoft soon and will even inform her as a deterrant. Remember, she did TRY to break it off before.

My recent experience just reinforced the MB principal that no recovery can begin without total separation--and with TIME thrown in. After her first attempt, I tried too hard to "win her over". Now I'm just back in Plan A (a refined one at that) and will just be a good friend to her. I think previously I believed that if I wasn't more aggressive, she'd have an excuse to turn away from me. Wrong. Her brain is just still emotionally entangled with thoughts of OM and any wooing on my part just looks stupid and clingy.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Spacecase:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by mark2002:
<strong>...Her solution was simply to find another hit of the love drug and not deal with REALITY.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mark; you don't know just HOW right you may be in saying this. But there's hope. Is she still "on the fence", wavering between you and OM? Has she been there for some time?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Spacecase:
I think we COMPLETELY agree. I don't believe we will necessarily get reciprocal ULove in exchange for ours. We might, we might not.
But I don't see how giving ULove to our spouse is manipulation either. If we give it freely, without expectation of getting it or something else in return, it's not manipulation, is it?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh! It must've been ME who misunderstood!! <hiding head in embarrassment>

Okay, gotcha then... and yes, I would agree with your agreement <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> .

About the manipulation factor: *IF* someone is **saying or believing** that they are giving ULove for a RESULT, then it is manipulation. Obviously, it isn't true ULove in my mind, if that is the case.

I have often been the "exception to the rule" in matters of the heart. When I first came here, to MB, I had been married for 18 years to my first husband, and had no idea of abuse issues, or that his cheating was real, since it was "just" emotional and some oral sex play. If he hadn't slept with the OW(s) (three in the 80's) I thought it was crazy from me to call it infidelity. I honestly came here because I had had an affair. My one-time hop in the hay cost me my marriage, my family, and my life as I knew it. I know it sounds overly-dramatic, but it's my truth.

Slowly throughout the next year, I began to realize not only MY truth, but THE truth, if that makes sense. But not before I made some whopping big (and some very wrong) decisions and involved some other people, like my now-husband.

Just because I beleive in ULove doesn't mean all is peachy in "EuphoriaLand of ULove" ~~ in fact, love (U or otherwise) is NOT everything, and in reality, if it is gained at the cost of others, it is next to nothing. How's that for deep?

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <sometimes I have to laugh at me and my nutty ideals>

NB;
We're on exactly the same page, on both counts. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

SC:

"There is something inside me that tells me that I will not let my W go easily, that I must fight for my M and for her. I don't know what this is called.
At the same time, there is something inside me that also tells me that in order for our M to work, certain conditions must be met, otherwise we'll both be exposed to huting each othjer over and over again. I don't know what THIS is called either.
But whatever those two "feelings" are called, that's how I feel."

This is exactly how I feel. Our M is far from "fixed", but at least I'm able to show my W that I love her through my actions (and my responses to what she says/does). I have no illusions, though, about what I need in the long run. And maybe all this talk about buying houses for investments, starting a business account for her research property (with me as a cosigner) and telling me that "maybe I'll follow you to <new job location> instead of "are you going to leave me to take this new job?" ...maybe all that shows me that she really, really wants to work our problems out. She's frantically working on the final edits on her report. Maybe I can hope for a NC agreement after that?

I don't know. All I do know is that I am getting to a comfy point where I know that I can love her for who she is, and though I certainly hope that her happiness involves me and our family intact from here on out, I AM willing to let her go if she'd be happier without me. I also don't want to be "miserable" myself for the rest of my life. Well, maybe miserable is a bit strong a term, but I definitely don't want to live like the last 12 years anymore.

So, I guess I'd have to say, based on my limited knowledge here, that I have Ulove for my W, but I can't keep it up forever if she isn't going to change her ways? Sounds conditional. Sounds like nonsense, really. But so does saying "I want to be married, rather than right." Sure, it's a necessary stopgap while dealing with the A, but I don't intend to be "wrong" forever. And so, similarly, I will conduct myself by loving my W unconditionally, because the Clove "approach" was causing me to LB too much, even unintentionally. I don't know. Maybe this isn't making any sense at all.

Again, all I know is what seems to be working for the moment. Call what I'm doing whatever you think you need to call it.

I can't honestly say whether a person can love unconditionally or no. Or whether it takes God to do that. I'm an atheist, so I don't do that Jesusy stuff <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ...not that there's anything wrong with that!

Sorry, SC if I've gotten off topic here.

2L; you're not off topic at all: in fact, this is PRECISELY the topic.

On the one hand, we feel that we love our Ws, we want to fix our Ms, we don't want these Rs to end.

On the other hand, we feel that the way these Rs are working right now, doesn't work for us (or for our Ws, it seems).

So how do we reconcile the two? For the first, we know we basically have to unconditionally love our Ws, show them that no matter what they've done, we DO love them, CAN forgive them, and WANT to stay with them. That the truth, no matter HOW horrible, is OK; we still love them.

For the second, well, here we're making demands again...so what to do?

I think we have two options; we can go the harda$$ route, go to Plan B, try to make our lives without them, and at the same time hope that our abscence might persuade them that this is not what they want, and that maybe they would be willing to do something about it. Like love us back, just as WE are, thus perhaps eliminating the "frustration" that led them to have an A in the first place, or to be willing to "accomodate" our "needs" in some way.

The second option is to "get over it" long enough to show our Ws we really DO love them unconditionally, warts and all, no matter what, in the hope that they, in turn, will do the same for us at some point down the line. The second option requires faith. Not religious faith, but just plain faith; faith in the fundamental goodness of our fellow human beings, faith in that most people, when loved will love back, when accepted will accept back, when not being demanded of will not demand back, etc. And in my particular case, for instance, that the truth, no matter HOW terrible (assume the worst; multiple PAs during the course of many years, for instance) can and will be forgiven, because I love her just as she is.

Easier said than done, of course, but an option nonetheless.

I guess that is MY dilemma, and what I'm trying to work through, trying to rationalize, weigh, evaluate. Perhaps you should too?

<small>[ September 03, 2002, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Spacecase ]</small>

Let's consider the following statements. Let's look at them from the standpoint of my W, for instance. Is this, perhaps, what she is saying, thinking? Is this, prehaps the "reason" she must "search" and keep "searching" for satisfaction?

And if she is, what can be done about it? What the writer suggest perhaps?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong> It's very common for people to feel uncomfortable with the word "love." All our lives people have told us they love us, but then we find out that they only like us when we're doing things for them and when we don't inconvenience or hurt them. They get tired of us and leave. Or they stay in our lives, demanding and criticizing all the while they tell us they "love" us.

So it's understandable that you'd have some negative feelings around the idea of being loved all the time. When someone says they love us, most of these things go through our mind:

1. What do you want from me?
2. What do I have to do so you'll keep loving me?
3. I wonder how long this will last?
4. So what? Lots of people have told me that, and I didn't end up happy because of it.
5. When are you going to hurt me like everyone else who's loved me?
6. I suppose now I'll have to tell you that I love you, or you'll be hurt and angry.

Real Love is, "I care about </strong>your<strong> happiness." Imitation Love is, "I like how you make </strong>me<strong> feel." Most of us have only known Imitation Love all our lives, love that is traded, bought, sold, and never makes us genuinely happy.

This is the reason most people have difficulty making a commitment to a relationship, especially marriage. They're certain that things will fall apart as they always have in the past, and then they'll be even more hurt and alone. And they feel obligated to anyone who expresses affection for them. They want to avoid all that, so they stay only with superficial relationships.

It's not Real Love you fear. Real Love is unconditional and could never hurt you. You're afraid of what always accompanies Imitation Love -- expectations, demands, disappointment, obligation, and inevitable pain.

When people have felt enough Real Love in their lives and begin to share it with others, they can't imagine how they ever lived another way. By comparison, Imitation Love is utterly empty, even harmful.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

<small>[ September 04, 2002, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Spacecase ]</small>