Can't say I know him as well as his mother, children or XW but he & I have chatted a bit in the past.

LIke I said, S has helped many in the past and maybe it is because I know him a bit that it hurts my heart knowing he can be all that he posts and then some.

We are all imperfect sometimes even hypocritical. If that moment of imperfection or being hypocritical is due to an error and not a habit, then one can learn and grow. However, denial is a choice. Maybe not at first but eventually it is a choice.

For those that don't care about S or his true identity, this posts nor the responses of others won't mean much. Maybe you don't know the history that some of us are aware of....... maybe it is better you don't.

My posts here to S are just that, posts to S. I believe he knows it. I respect him for that. He is also aware that some of what may appear to be harsh posts come from those who were his supporters. Learning goes both ways.

If you have read his posts both past and present, have you seen S show that he is happy, settled and moving forward with a smile?

This isn't a dis on you or anyone else, esp not S, but S knows those who cares and hopefully he will see that his future can be happier.... the choice is his.

g'nite.
L.

I think that it is very appropriate for S to reveal his identity, although I respect if he doesn't. There are a few of us in marriages that have been abusive, and abuse doesn't come out of thin air. Personally I think it is not a matter of mental illness. I think it is a matter of faulty beliefs and perhaps immaturity (wanting things your way and not being willing to negotiate to a win-win with your spouse).

Hey -- I've had a faulty belief or I would have been OUT OF THE MARRIAGE six hours after the ceremony! Was I? NO!!! I'm still married, typing on MB at 7 in the morning on Sunday. I'm in the MB program to save my M. It may well not work, but I've gained a lot of insight into why the M was so bad from the very start. Reading S's post with the idea that he was abusive and had an affair gives me insight into my own problems, which are many.

I have to tell you, S, that my H read your post and said you were obviously very smart, maybe someone with an Ivy League education. He saw the abusive mentality in what you posted.

It's OK to not be perfect, to struggle with beliefs that you thought were right, and to have your M end in disaster. I can accept the path I was on. The problem is that there are four small, vulnerable children, who need to be shown a different path... That is why I read here, and that is why anything S posts is of interest to me. He puts into words what I have thought and, to some extent, still think.

Cherished

cherished, here is the comments on poja as part of "love"...as for the digression into recreational poster identify "outing" ...it is my opinion that discussions of ideas, philosophies, processes, behavior, etc. have nothing to do with the nature of the individuals having the discussion, such things stand on their own merit....if ummm...adolph hiter, or say saddam hussein came here and participated in a discussion contributing useful thoughts...then that would be as appropriate as um...mother theresa doing the same thing. It doesn't upset or bother me so much that someone makes the "person" the issue, rather than discussing the issue itself, rather it befuddles me, why comment at all if you aren't going to offer rational input? What's the point? No matter how evil I may be, or who I may be, has no bearing at all on whether I an right or not....

If on the other hand someone seeks direct input into what they should do, and misrepresents their own actions (not an unusual behavior here, people consistently downplay their own shortcomings, it is obvious in their posts, and f4me is one of more eggregious in this manner) then they will reduce the effectiveness of this "group" therapy...and one may recieve a few disgruntled complaints from posters because of that. However, none of this has anything to do with "identity" of a poster, whether IRL, or some other id. In fact, who someone is is completely irrelevant to the operation or purpose of this board....it is designed to be annonymous. As for my own person, when I have sought specific input I always as accurately as possible (given we all have a built in "bias" toward ourself) to present the facts....to do otherwise would violate everything that makes me me, including my temperament profile.....I value truth ane reality above all else....not for some moral or ethical reason....but because it is stupid to live otherwise.

Back to poja....at first that seems like the Holy Grail of relationship success...and once I learned about it, I promoted it too. However, it has built-in flaws if applied without consideration....but then that applies to any tool...one size does not fit all, every tool can be used and misused. In the case of poja, the application is inextrictably connected to fit and temperament. I won't preface this with a repeat of what poja is, I assume folks know, or can look it up....What happens in the application of poja is consideration of an ever DECREASINLY desireable set of choices. Until you find a choice both parties can agree too...this is essentially the lowest common denominator....Sometimes though, the process does reveal an alternative that by happenstance is HIGH on both parties list of choices, that is why we all look at poja and say, oh isn't this wonderful....indeed, it is, when it works, cause it eliminates manipulation, control, resentment, and all that stuff, and still gives us what we want. Unfortuneately this is not magic, it has to be based on something....and that something is fit/temperament. The more two people are healhy, fit, and committed...the more likely this "tool" works.....uh, anyone notice the similarity to the requirements for "love"? In short, poja gets you nothing but a reduction in conflict, albeit an still an unhappy existence (at the lowest common denominator) unless you FIT. Poja cannot make people fit, it cannot fix personality disorders, it cannot create pyschological capacity to be a marital partner, it cannot create monogamous committment.... and it cannot make love with any two people picked at random....and frankly, I think poja probably is quite common amongst successful marriages cause it is not something needing to be learned, it is a natural manifestation of healthy love relationship. Something Dr Harley did not invent, but observed in successful marriages, and then wrote about, and promotes....but it will only be useful for marriages that are essentially healthy (in that all the right ingredients are present)....it will do nothing for mismatches....

It also is skewed toward rule maker temperaments (the majority temperament of the population, who are less motivated by fit, and more by order). For such poja application looks more like negotiation/compromise than it does mutual nourishment, so it works "better" the more poja is deployed as compromise the more effective it is...but the more it is applied rigourously, the more it will look like the lowest common denominator, which reduces well-being. I don't think Harley says poja is the cure-all, but some do, clearly that is nonsensical...there are many many things poja cannot resolve...but when you examine those impasses, you realize the two people do not fit, and should not be married to each other..... Saying poja is love, or creates love is just another way of saying it doesn't make any difference who you are married too....yet we all know it does. So before one should apply poja, one should assess whether the marriage they are entering (or already in) has sufficient capacity to work....

<small>[ May 23, 2004, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Resilient:
[QB] [QUOTE]sufbd wrote:
and one clear fact is snl (her exh) did not abuse or mistreat her in their marriage, and has not done so since their seperation/divorce either</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not to be dedundant here, but like star*fish responded, how has this been determined a "FACT"?

sufdb...It is a fact because the supposed perpetrator (SNL) said the allegation (the primary event used as "proof") is false, and provided the description (facts) of the event, facts his exw does not dispute, which clearly describe a an accident arising substantially out of f4me provocative behavior, ending in what normally would have been a minor tussle (as snl attempted to remove the aggresive f4me, who refused to leave, from his domicile), but instead resulted in f4me shoulder injury........ Further their marriage (as posted) had occassions of regular angry outbursts, and criticisms by f4me, which belies her complaints of verbal abuse....

The thing is resilient, snl presented himself on MB exactly as he is IRL, when f4me daughter posted she also complained that f4me misrepresents her behavior, and contributes substanbtially to the "abuse" in the snl/thinker household, f4me apparently rarely posts here what she really does, which means she gets inappropriate advice/support...snl/f4me_exh has posted a couple of times how that does not help her at all, and provides other data...but due to the nature of this board, she is not held accountable, and surprisingly, all the synchophants that support her, do not have the sense to ask her specific questions about what she actually does, instead they respond to vague allegations, and broad statements....the recent dr phil episode is I think representative of many households with emotionally devious women..... or men for that matter. It is hard to know what goes on behind closed doors, when you have an aggressive personality who is good at keeping that hidden, and only visiting it on the spouse/kids.

res...IMVHO, I also think that speaking/defending of one self in third person may indicate some deeper unhealthy issues.

You have my prayers, sufbd.

sufdb...I suppose it could, under some circumstances, but I doubt that is a concern in this circumstance, as it does not really apply. Thx for the prayers.


edited to add....oh yeah, not to mention what ever happened to innocent till proven guilty? and allegations are not considered "proof" in our society...are they?

<small>[ May 23, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

cherished....I have to tell you, S, that my H read your post and said you were obviously very smart, maybe someone with an Ivy League education. He saw the abusive mentality in what you posted.

sufdb...well, this is a digression from the intent of the post, but I value input re my person whether solicited or not. However cherished, such an allegation is only character assasination unless your H (or you by proxy) posts the analysis leading to that conclusion....it is this kind of slander/gossip (no offense intended) that God instructs us not to do....on it's face, I am left with an "abuse" label and no way to refute it. Further given your H nature (from your description) his ability to analyze abusive persons seems questionable. Further, since I have never abused anyone, I am bemused at what he supposedly "sees". I will comment further if you provide more information.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Cali:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by star*fish:
<strong> However, cherished....if you wish to know why some here persist in thinking that snl and sufbd are one in the same....here is an interesting post. It was written by snl and it is entitled oddly enough LOVE IS NOT A DECISION!!!! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You know, I had a strong sense of deja vu when I read this post... thanks starfish, now I know why. Must also explain the shaking of my head, the instant headache, and the total lack of desire to post a response. My forehead is now healed and I no longer wish to bang it against any brick walls.

Cali </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">hmm...yet you did post. Implying you disagree with at least some portion of the discussion. Well, discussions are for the benefit of the many not the few....if you have a dissenting view...why not post it? I wrote this because the love is just a decision theory gets heavily promoted, and clearly encourages people, who should leave dysfunctional circumstances as quickly as possible, to stay, and ignore their well-being....I find this dangerous, and so write about what a more healthy understanding of love might be......so one can understand the role "decideing" plays, as well as the other considerations.....I realize you belong in the it doesn't matter who you marry camp, that well-being just is in the "rules", or doing it....but that is not true for everyone marsha...and those for who it is not need help too....even if they are a minority temperament. Love makes no sense as a concept if the well-being of both people is not important.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by star*fish:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> and one clear fact is snl (her exh) did not abuse or mistreat her in their marriage, and has not done so since their seperation/divorce either. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">ahem, huh? Unfortunately this is not a clear fact to almost anyone who was there when it happened. SNL was banned from this board because of his abusiveness. sufdb....how would saying you are NOT snl reveal your identity in any way? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">sufdb...Snl was not banned (for violateing TOS), he and thinker had their posting privledges revoked because the intensity of their personal conflict (mostly thinker, who was extremely aggressive) was disruptive to some on the boards, and deemed in the interest of the greater good (as well as an attempt to reduce conflict between snl/thinker) to remove them.

Snl crime was he was a ws, and asked tough questions about the nature of marriage, relationships, and promoted emotional well-being over staying married, as he tried to sort out his own life, and what had happened.... this annoyed the board police personalities (you know, those who cannot tolerate a different viewpoint than theirs), who regularly "complained"... The powers that be had no problem with this, but were concerned about the controversy that he generated with these "questions" being disruptive....of course since that time the boards have become a free for all, and excess far greater than snl ever engaged in. Snl was always polite, civil, and yet endured tremendous abuse, his sole crime was being a ws...I suspect had he been a bs he never would have had his id blocked. Search his thousands of posts, he clearly was a lightning rod for displaced anger by many, and returned it with nothing but civility, and a dogged determination to discuss upsetting, but important subjects. On the rare occassion he overstepped/insensitive he invariably apologized, or made corrections. I use to wonder why some people got so angry with him....but as I learned about temperaments, and behavior in general....it became more clear, he was good at cutting trough to the chase, and applying rational arguments to emotional circumstances....and this absolutely infuriates certain temperaments....he also observed no particular significance on ones bs or ws status, which also infuriates some....which is curious, cause Dr. Harley also view "status" as a minor issue in marital disharmony, resolution.

Star, I challenge you to document this so-called abuse....rather than pass on gossip. You are a fair person, either prove what you said about his nature or so-called banning, or retract that allegation....I wouldn't waste my time making this comment to many on the board, for whom honor/fairplay is a a foreign concept, and of no use to their self-serving personalities....but you are not such....

<small>[ May 23, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Orchid:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by sufdb:
<strong> In reading posts recently the notion love is a decision popped up again, as it regularly does, something I contemplate often myself....that is far to simplistic a notion....


Love is NOT a decision....but neither is it a feeling. Love IS a grossly overused, misused, abused word which unfortuneately carries a lot of psychic "weight" (which is why it is used inappropriately so much). IMO it is impossible to specify one "love's" something (or someone) without a lot of qualifying clarification due to the inexactness of the word.

...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hello S,

Long time no C! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

As partially quoted above, you have once again explained what love is not. Even generalized your explanation.

But what is love to you and for your?

Inquiring minds are patiently waiting. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

L. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">sufdb....well, dang it, had a pretty extensive reply re discussion of what love might be (and lost it)....sooooo annoying!!!! Don't know if I am up to redoing it, but it is an important and interesting topic.

Being brief, I noted that I did say what it was buried in my extemporaneous initial post (how I usually write, so gets a little obtuse sometimes)...that being love is about well-being...of BOTH parties, therefore cannot be sacrificial, love=sacrifice is an oxymoron...be no need to have the term sacrifice if it did not mean something different than love.

I went on to note we are talking about marital love, the decision to vest emotional/psychological resources in a stranger, as opposed to kinship love (of genetically related individuals) or love of french fries (feels good, but sure does not enhance well-being)..etc. etc.

from there I stated what I think well-being is about, and how that relates to a definition of love. I do think these things are important, otherwise we just lurch through life making a series of emotional choices which rarely work out very well. Anyways, will try to provide that discussion later.

<small>[ May 23, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

think that about covers everyone, let me know if not....and will try to post a working (meaning useful) definition of love today or tomorrow for those interested in that topic.

sufbd,

Actually your description of why thinker and snl were banned is far more acurate mine....a description that shouldn't have excluded thinker in the first place, to be sure. So forgive me for that. However, to say it is "clear" is certainly not accurate either. I myself, found thinker's reactions to be violatile, destructive and often exaggerated, however....she was very very good at pushing snl's buttons (as he said many times)...and he often responded "in kind" and expressed regret for that. Would you prefer that I said that usually thinker started much of it? Does it matter? These situations quickly got out of control...and like most marriages involved both partners.

The part of snl's nature that I would likely consider abusive was less about the physical and more about the emotional...which if I remember correctly you don't put much stock in (not sure here). I think we've had this discussion before (?) about abuse suf, so maybe that is part of what is contributing to confusion here....so while you may not think of him as abusive because if I remember correctly you define abuse in a more limited way than I do...I simply don't agree. That's why it isn't "clear" to me..or to many others here.

You are right however, that abuse was not given as the reason for losing posting priviledges....it was the constant disruption on the board....he said/she said and the huge amount of disrespect they showed each other. I heard what thinker said. I heard what snl said. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. While the claims of abuse from both camps may not have been cited as reasons for banning however....I think it is reasonable to believe it contributed to that action. I have no desire to fuel gossip so I hope that this explanation will help clear up my grossly oversimplified....thus inaccurate description.

However, if no one knows the facts about snl+thinker...then it stands to reason that neither do you. So you can't say with certainty or clarity that he didn't abuse his wife anymore than anyone else can acuse him of it. What was evident clearly on the board was that these two people were poison for each other....brought out the worst in each other....and at the very least on a verbal level would be described by many as abusive to each other. Thinker used emotional tirades...snl intellectual ones....but they were both verbally vivisecting each other.

Personally, I don't give a rats patootie if you're snl or not. Whatever happened back there is certainly not happening now and your posts are interesting, intelligently organized and many times very insightful. I enjoy them. I respond to them and I have always treated you with respect. Likewise, you have done the same for me. If you wish to keep your identity as anonymous as the rest of the folks here....you have that right no matter how transparent some folks may find it. That won't stop the comparisons or the questions though...and you aren't going to get it both ways. You can't say you aren't snl, or don't want to be compared to snl and then argue that you know as FACT what he did or didn't do.

Of course then I blew by not being any more accurate that you were. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Embarrassed]" src="images/icons/blush.gif" />

*sigh*

thx star, no problem I see...and I suppose given the circumstances I cannot claim with certainty what the situation is with snl/thinker.... petard comes to mind sorta in that regard....

anyways your comments pretty seem fair enuf as I see it, so nuff said....

re the sub issue of "abuse"....my concern about the willy nilly use of the word is it has become so diluted that essentially everyone is abusive (including me)...I find this ridiculous, and of no practical use...it also is insulting to those who are really victims of abuse.

On the other hand, we all do act up (ie childishly) from time to time and need to be called on that...but that is not abuse. As for myself, I do apologize when I namecall or act in hurtful manner....and I am aware of my intellectual skills, and work really hard at not um....vivisecting lesser skilled folks I am in conflict with...but it is a fine line between restraint, and still holding people accountable for their opinions/behaviors/actions.... Sometimes (and suspiciously self-serving) people claim foul, when there really is none, they just don't want to admit they are wrong.

IMO abuse requires malicious intent...that meaning at the very least one has no regard for the well-being of the recipient....and usally also requires a pattern of behavior over time, not a single event, or mutual provocation (which raises an interesting issue, is it possible for people to be mutually abusive, or does it somehow cancel out cause they..."fit"). As well as malciousness there needs to be an agenda of coercion...be it sexual, financial, power...etc. Sociopathic personalities such as narcissists, BPD etc. are clearly "abusive" and dangerous, and nor rehabilitateable. I do beleive there is a less "obvious' (from a presenting standpoint) group (large) of "selfish" individuals, who are not suited for marriage, and will most likely always have limited capacity to "see" others needs over their own...and will be mildly "abusive"...but this abuse is not dangerous particularly, is not about power (the worst kind), and just means they are poor marital partners, or freinds etc....but you can deal with them, negotiate with them if you want to vest the effort.

Some people are incapable of abusive behavior, not cause they are saints, but by temperament, empathic temperaments (not to be confused with sympathy etc.) feel the emotions of those they interact with (which is why empaths typically present dysfunctionally as rescuers), they won't hurt someone in a abusive sense cause it hurts themself just as much (or more), and typically human beings do not self-injure, at least not if they can avoid it.....however, they are vulnerable to victimization strategies, and must learn to resist being manipulated that way (empaths live for guilt, they think the whole world is their responsibility, probably cause when everyone else feels good they feel good....they are the flip side of narcissists). I couldn't abuse anyone if I wanted to star, I have actually tried to give as good as I got sometimes, just makes me ill...can't even hold a grudge...really sucks ya know....sometimes I envy those who can just vent and unload on people with no apparent concern for the result, feeling all that righteous validation doncha know.

Sufdb,
POJA creates compatibility by eliminating choices in which one party sees the solution as not being positive.

Last year, my H wanted the kids in sports activities. I said I thought that would be negative. He got upset and said especially the boy needs to be with other boys, since he has three sisters. I said let me think about it. I realized my problem was the rush for dinner.

So -- I have since purchased a Pyrex dish with a carrying case, a slow cooker with a carrying case, a container to keep a whole gallon of milk cold, plastic forks, plastic spoons, plastic cups, paper plates, napkins, a cheap tablecloth and a container to keep a lot of this in the back of the van.

I went looking for and found recipes to end up in the slow cooker or the Pyrex dish, and now we have picnics in the park. Last year, we were in the park every night Monday through Thursday except during the 4th of July week and Memorial Day for a solid two months. By the end, everyone had fun, including me.

POJA forces negotiation because it eliminates choices where one party is unhappy (sacrificing). Would I have thought of this without Tom wanting the kids in sports so much? No.

Sadly, Tom last year said "I did what you want and you still won't let me golf." Well, to me, golf is a win-lose. As he said last night, I am not enthusiastic about POJA.

I think that your perspective would be more valuable if you said where you were coming from, what sort of relationship you have had. It helps give insight.

As for abuse requiring intent, my H didn't mean to break my arm. He wanted to prevent me from calling the woman with whom in fact he was having an affair. He wanted to punch me in the shoulder. I was lying in bed with the phone in my hand and he punched away the hand that I held up to protect my face. $15,000 in medical bills, 3 surgeries, 6 months in a cast or splint. No intent to hurt. He was protecting his affair partner from harassment.

By the way, I have thought many times of your advise to me concerning looking for a pattern of behavior. The affair was not "one mistake" that I need to forgive him for. It was reflective of a pattern of disregard.

Cherished

<small>[ May 23, 2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Cherished ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by sufdb:
<strong> [QUOTE.... all the synchophants that support her, </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hey S,

Do you mean: Sycophants?

Entry: entourage
Function: noun
Definition: followers
Synonyms: associates, attendants, companions, company, cortege, court, courtiers, escort, following, hangers-on, retainers, retinue, staff, suite, sycophants, toadies, train
Concept: social entity
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

If so follwers of whom? Or maybe U think I am a toadie?!??! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Doesn't matter. I am neither. I post here on my own. Even that doesn't matter.

But my original question may not have been clear enough.....please let me try again.

After all the generalization regarding the discussion of love and relationships, despite all the 'learned' info, stats and other misc data. How have you been able to apply what you know to yourself? How has it changed you into a better person and how has your family benefitted from those changes?

I believe knowledge is good. Proper application is better (wisdom is the ability to apply good knowledge). Hence, wisdom is better than knowledge.

These are questions we can each ask ourselves, so you aren't the only one being picked on, eh? But you are one whose response I w/b curious to see. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

take care,
L.

cherisheh...I think that your perspective would be more valuable if you said where you were coming from, what sort of relationship you have had. It helps give insight.

sufdb...I do sometimes, but really, these discussions are independent of the circumstances of the participants, and are applicable to a wide range of people, so should not be tied to a given circumstance, or the decisions made therein.

cher...As for abuse requiring intent, my H didn't mean to break my arm. He wanted to prevent me from calling the woman with whom in fact he was having an affair.

sufdb...That is what makes it abuse, he was attempting to coerce you from making a legitimate choice. Had he been trying to prevent you from picking up a gun and leaveing to wreak violence on the ow, then it would not be abuse, but an unfortunate accident, arising in part from your provocation. Further, you have mentioned in the past a pattern of phyiscal contact for coercive reasons, rather than say...I dunno, say you slapped him for some disgusting comments or some such...physical contact has to be assessed as to why, the simple fact that physical contact occured is meaningless.

cher...He wanted to punch me in the shoulder. I was lying in bed with the phone in my hand and he punched away the hand that I held up to protect my face.

sufdb....The abuse is not in the injury, which was an accident, the abuse was in the use of force to prevent/coerce you from a legitimate course of action. You had every right to make that phone call, he had no right to feel empowered to prevent it, much less take direct action to prevent it.... His "crime" is the assumption he has power over your choices....he does not, and that is what abuse is about.

cher...By the way, I have thought many times of your advise to me concerning looking for a pattern of behavior. The affair was not "one mistake" that I need to forgive him for. It was reflective of a pattern of disregard.

sufdb...while single events can be revealing, or at least alerting, it is generally shortsighted to draw conclusions without verifying (even if in hindsight due to denial) a pattern of behavior supporting whatever conclusion you draw from a single event instance. For example, seeing what you think is "flirting" by your spouse, yet they have no history of flirting, probably does not mean your spouse has been leading some kind of secret life, and you need to do more investigation, including contemplateing whether your own assessment was even correct, or some issue you have. Least that is the way I see it....one should not ignore a single event, it may be the only clue you get from a clever manipulative personality, but you should realize also the much greater likelihood you are mistaken..... abuse is alot easier, bonafide abusers don't just suddenly jump out of someones character, there is likely a long history of symptons that have been deliberately ignored, or downplayed.

yes, I spelled it wrong, and no I had no one in mind, just a sorta if the shoe fits wear it thing. I guess the "followers" of what would be those who haven't the sense to ascertain facts before espousing opinions about others, I think of them as drama junkies...for whom the drama is the addiction, and the facts are irrelevant. Victomology is the "religion"...but I digress, is of no import, such are with us, have always been with us, and just must be endured.

l..But my original question may not have been clear enough.....please let me try again.

After all the generalization regarding the discussion of love and relationships, despite all the 'learned' info, stats and other misc data. How have you been able to apply what you know to yourself? How has it changed you into a better person and how has your family benefitted from those changes?

sufdb...ah, not asking about a discussion re what is love. I see now. Ok yes, I have been able to apply what I have learned to myself, with some difficulty, self-introspection is not for the weak of heart. Yes, I am a better (at least healthier) person. Yes, my family has benefited as we are no longer living in denial, instead dealing with the real deal, and boundaries (such as divorce) have been appropriately placed so as to properly reflect the emotional/psychological realities.

l...I believe knowledge is good. Proper application is better (wisdom is the ability to apply good knowledge). Hence, wisdom is better than knowledge.

sufdb...hmm, well ok, but you cannot have wisdom without knowledge, kinda chicken/egg thing I guess. But I agree one should be aware of, and seek skill in applying knowledge....it can be used detrimentally.

Subfd,
Thank you for your reply. I don't really have anything to add. My heart is broken. I did have a great deal of love for my H on the day we married, and it was all gone by the end of the month. He treated me terribly starting before dinner on our wedding night.

I thought it was circumstances, one circumstance after another, starting with adjustment to sharing a bed. I was wrong.

Now where do we go? I don't know. I'm not in any position to be offering good advise to others, so perhaps I shouldn't get on the forum. We are struggling in the program, with the sense that one of us could end the M at any minute.

Good luck to you. I have appreciated your posts in the past and wish you the best.
Cherished

cher... My heart is broken. I did have a great deal of love for my H on the day we married, and it was all gone by the end of the month. He treated me terribly starting before dinner on our wedding night.

sufdb...this kind of start does seem to happen sometimes, I don't know why, probably has to do with the masks worn in pursuit, and a certain willingness to be in denial when the euphoria of a hopeful begining relationsip wears thin...the biggest "mistake" is thinking it will get better when the marriage is consummated...it doesn't, it gets worse. I don't know what happened for you, but the past is past, whether you were thoroughly misled, or a willing participant in denial...but the past is past....focus on the present, people do change, but it is important not to expect it, and judge realistically.

cher...Now where do we go? I don't know. I'm not in any position to be offering good advise to others, so perhaps I shouldn't get on the forum. We are struggling in the program, with the sense that one of us could end the M at any minute.

sufdb...struggle is good, at least that suggests you (and your H) have some sense of the dysfunction that exists, and that is an important start. You can only make the changes you need for you, tom will or will not for him, and the marriage will survive or not accordingly...the important thing is the truth sets you free....as for giving advice, this is an open forum, run more as group therapy than anything else, no one expects (or should anyways) that advice is gospel, it is just food for thought, and your experiences/thoughts are as valuable as anyone...and will be particularly relevant to someone in similar circumstances....so post or not as you feel the need....and give up the despair/angst/fear to God, He has big shoulders and will carry that burden...your job is to work on your own healing, and take care of the kids....ditto for your H.

cher..Good luck to you. I have appreciated your posts in the past and wish you the best.

sufdb...thx, you too, but mostly we make our own luck...just keep putting one foot in front of the other, you will get there.

sudfb-

For the record, I don't believe in ALL marriages @ ANY cost. If you live a life where you have no control and you allowed yourself to choose to love someone who is an abuser, then take control and put some boundaries in your life.

I believed in my marriage. I believed in the decisions we BOTH made then. I did know my H better than he knew himself. However, we didn't have good boundaries... with others & with each other.

HOWEVER, and this is a biggie... I learned to OWN my own stuff. I didn't blame our failing marriage on a bad picker. I didn't blame my spouse. I am responsible for my life.

And, when I was feeling the very same urges my H felt... when I was JUST as UNHAPPY w/ him as he was w/ me... I knew it was ABOUT ME... not about him... and I didn't try to solve MY issues by involving another in my life. I made a decision.

Choosing to CONTINUE to love, is a decision. One of many that we make over the years. We may gradually 'grow' out of love, but that is due to a series of decisions made, not helplessness.

Love isn't just A decision, it is choice after choice after choice made in a life that we choose to own.

Love is not helplessly throwing up our hands and saying, I can't help who I happen to love. It is not blaming a bad picker. It is not blaming our spouse or our past. It is not saying I have no control over myself.

Love is patient. Love is kind. Love is a choice made everyday.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by sufdb:
<strong> Orchid: How have you been able to apply what you know to yourself? How has it changed you into a better person and how has your family benefitted from those changes?

sufdb...ah, not asking about a discussion re what is love. I see now. Ok yes, I have been able to apply what I have learned to myself, with some difficulty, self-introspection is not for the weak of heart. Yes, I am a better (at least healthier) person. Yes, my family has benefited as we are no longer living in denial, instead dealing with the real deal, and boundaries (such as divorce) have been appropriately placed so as to properly reflect the emotional/psychological realities.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Orchid: Glad to hear you are working on being a better person. You say your family has benefitted? Has your W? How is she doing?


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by sufdb:
<strong> Orchid:...I believe knowledge is good. Proper application is better (wisdom is the ability to apply good knowledge). Hence, wisdom is better than knowledge.

sufdb...hmm, well ok, but you cannot have wisdom without knowledge, kinda chicken/egg thing I guess. But I agree one should be aware of, and seek skill in applying knowledge....it can be used detrimentally. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Orchid: I know wisdom requires knowledge. The problem is that many attain the knowledge but do not apply the wisdom, hence the real benefit is not attained. This can make some frustrated and feel like life along with others have wronged them. Leading some to blame others for their own troubles and this vicious cycle haunts them for the rest of their lives. Common sense is what often is missing and one's own pride prevents them from seeing themselves as the rest of world sees them.....another form of denial.

JMHO of course,
L.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> petard comes to mind sorta in that regard....

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">ho ho ho <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> That got a real smile out of me!!! Very apt description LOL in light of this convo. *chuckle* I'm laughing WITH you suf....since I've certainly fallen on a few of my own.

About "malicious" intent and abuse. Since abuse can often be passed down as a legacy...I think it can be "learned" behavior as opposed to maliciously motivated. When a child is beaten to model behavior....he often grows up and uses the same style with his own children....not with malicious intent, but the idea that it is a necessary part of training because that's how his parents trained him. Maliciousness requires a certain consciousness about one's actions, when oftentimes, I think many people are merely acting habitually having been taught poor coping/socialization skills. Abuse can seem very "normal" to people who have been conditioned that way.

Some people become abusive because they are not able to manage their feelings properly. For example, people who are unable to control their anger or people who can't cope with stressful personal situations (like the loss of a job or marital problems) may lash out at others inappropriately. Certain types of personality disorders or mental illness can also interfere with a person's ability to relate to others in healthy ways or cause people to have problems with aggression or self-control.

Substance abuse, such as alcoholism or drug use, can also play a role in abuse by making it difficult for the abuser to control his or her actions.