"You're Trying To Control Me"

How many BS have heard that from their WS, when they want the WS to commit to the marriage?

Probably just about all of them.

Yet -- I submit that intentionally misleading someone, deliberately witholding information from someone, and outright baldface lying to someone is the *ultimate* in Controlling Behavior.

And what WS has not done this to their BS?
Mulan

ya, i've heard that line bs before. My h's famous line was that I was pressuring him.... pressuring him? we are already married! it's not like i was pressuring him to get married, i was working hard at getting a commitment from him to work on the marriage but he called it "pressure"... well, ya either want the marriage or ya don't. it was like having to [censored] foot around a fence sitter. did it for almost 3 years while he slept on the couch and fence sat. he ain't sitting on the fence anymore... he could have hopped off and had everything but chose to fall off into the gutter... his loss. mlhb

In my case it was "Quit trying to act like you're my father!"

But it was the same thing...she felt that I was always trying to tell her what to do.

Funny thing is, SHE is the one who pretty much controls the house...amazing how logic can go out the window sometimes.

Not to be argumentative, but what BS has not also done this to their WS?

Does that make it right? Does it work?

The feelings of anger at having been intentionally intentionally misled, had information withheld from, and outright lied to are valid, of course. Feelings are neither right nor wrong. They just are.

But, just possibly does some of that anger stem from trying too hard to control the situation or the person and not being able to?

Since feelings are neither right nor wrong, wouldn't that make the WS's feelings of being controlled valid?

Maybe they ARE making it all about them (the WS), but you say yourself...



Do the BS's simply just "want" this, or are they taking action to get their WS to do it? If they are taking action, then possibly they are trying to control the situation and it would obviously make the WS feel as though the BS were trying to control them. Again, no disrespect or invalidating anyone's feelings intended here. I'm just trying to offer a different perspective.

Frozen, you cut off part of my quote:

"Yet -- I submit that intentionally misleading someone, deliberately witholding information from someone, and outright baldface lying to someone is the *ultimate* in Controlling Behavior.
"And what WS has not done this to their BS?"

I was referring to the WS lying to and deceiving the BS in order to carry on their affair, not the BS trying to "control" the WS by expecting to be treated with courtesy and respect.

Froz, by your argument *anything* that one person wants or needs from another can be perceived as "controlling." If expecting to be treated with courtesy and respect is "controlling," if expecting a married man to put his family first is "controlling," then sue me, I'm "controlling."

I hate seeing people dance around issues trying desperately not to be wrong, until everything is right and everybody is right and nothing is wrong and nobody is wrong and no one will take a stand for or against anything in case they might get it wrong. With this sort of thinking, values are all but rendered meaningless, and then people wonder why there aren't any.

I am not going to twist myself into a pretzel to avoid conflict. And IMHO, Froz, neither should you!
Mulan

I'm not really sure what the point of your post is, Mulan...

I absolutely agree with you that the deception perpetrated by the WS is a control tactic. It usurps the personal sovereignty of the BS by denying them critical information they need to make decisions about their own life.

However, I do think that the BS may engage in tactics that are perceived as controlling without being aware of it.

My wife had fallen into a pattern of treating me like a another child. She believed she was "helping" me by telling me how to do things and telling me when I was "doing things wrong". I was often frustrated because she didn't respect my solutions or approaches to problems. If something did not immediately make sense to her, then it was immediately wrong. Unconciously, she would sometimes do things to sabotage plans or decisions that I made if she disagreed with them in an attempt to prove to me that she was right.

Respect for personal sovereignty is a two way street. ANY behavior on our part that is intended to force the hand of our spouse is controlling behavior. It's especially bad when it's disguised as "help".

Controlling behavior isn't always bad. Exposure of the affair is controlling behavior...the BS is attempting to control the outcome for the good of the marriage.

We may not always like the decisions our spouses make, BUT we MUST respect their right to make them...even if we believe they are bad.

Low

I understood what you were referring to. I was just offering a different perspective. I was offering the perspective of the BS trying to control, too. I was offering the perspective of focusing on something you could change, instead of something you couldn't.



I didn't intend for you to see it as an argument, more of a different viewpoint.

It isn't the "wanting" or "needing" by the BS that I perceive as controlling...it's the behavior they sometimes exhibit in trying to obtain it.

For example:

A BS can say "WH, you are a married man. I need for you to be honest and faithful and always put your family first."

Okay, you have stated what you want. There is not one thing wrong with wanting that.

But, what behaviors do some BS's exhibit in order to obtain it?


Some of the ways that I have attempted to control Patriot are:

Guilt, blaming, refusal to take responsibility for my own actions and making him responsible for them, etc...it's kind of a passive/aggressive form of control, but extremely controlling, nonetheless.

Again, it is not the desire of your WS to change that is controlling, it is the actions you take in an attempt to bring that change about.

I was reading on another thread a situation where someone's WS was acting like an alien and their BS just unleashed on them.

Someone posted to that BS that their negative behavior was justified and that their WS deserved whatever they could dish out to them.

I don't believe that. I don't believe that two wrongs make a right. I don't believe it is up to someone to decide and dole out to someone else what they "deserve".




People dancing around issues trying desperately not to be wrong = people not taking responsibility for THEIR OWN actions.

You can't force a WS to take responsibility for their own actions. You can, however, be responsible for you own. You can't force values or morals on someone else. You can only be responsible for your own.

Nothing wrong with taking a stand against an injustice. But, is it a situation you can really change? Is it a situation you are trying to change or a person?

You can take a stand against a law and perhaps you can change it. I have rarely seen an instance where someone took a stand against another person and changed them. The other person has to do that for themselves.

Sometimes trying to change someone else actually prevents the person from changing. How can they have room to grow with another person pushing them? They are too busy defending. I'm not saying you are doing that, btw.


ME???? Avoid conflict???? Are you joking? I love facing down conflict! I don't like battles I can't win. I am just beginning to recognize how much energy I have wasted, taking on battles I couldn't win and trying to learn how to refocus that energy on a cause where I can actually make a difference. If I spent half as much energy on making myself happy and making myself the person I thought I could be, as opposed to spending it on making Patriot MAKE me happy, or making him happy, or making him into the person I thought he should be...wow, that's a lot of energy we're talking about! I would probably be ecstatic by now!

***I'm not really sure what the point of your post is, Mulan...***

The point was the irony of someone who has been deliberately lying to, deceiving and manipulating their spouse for weeks, months or years saying that the SPOUSE is being controlling when they want that behavior to stop -- and that if lying and deception aren't the ultimate in "controlling," then I don't know what is.

***We may not always like the decisions our spouses make, BUT we MUST respect their right to make them...even if we believe they are bad.***

Actually, no, I do NOT have to respect my spouse's right to make decisions that are hurtful and destructive to me personally and to my family as a whole. No, I don't.

Leaving may be my only option in such a case, but h*ll, no, I do NOT have to respect his right to make THAT kind of decision. That's like saying I don't have to like the thief who breaks into my house and steals my possessions, but I have to respect their right to make that decision.

???????????????
Mulan

I think "accept" may be a more fitting word.

You don't have to have respect for him for the choices he makes.

You don't have to accept them, either.

But why not accept them? Is NOT accepting them going to change them, or is it only going to continue to fuel your anger and frustration and make you unhappy?

I think, therein, lies the root of the problem. You don't seem to see that the actual decision, and the right to make that decision are two completely separate things.

Even in the case of the thief...the only ethical thing we can do is respect their personal sovereignty. We never deny them the right to decide to choose wrong if they desire...that is control of the highest form, and there is nothing just about it.

We do NOT have to respect the actual decisions that another makes...which I believe is your point...

But you have no right to take away someone's ability to make them.

Low

"Even in the case of the thief...the only ethical thing we can do is respect their personal sovereignty. We never deny them the right to decide to choose wrong if they desire...that is control of the highest form, and there is nothing just about it."

OK, LO, this is one of those occasional statements of yours I do not understand at all.

Society denies thieves the right to choose thievery all the time. What are prisons for, if not to impose absolute control upon thieves, rapist, murderers, embezzlers and the like?

There are in fact established ethical arguments for controlling the decisions of others. Not just imposing consequences upon those decisions, but the ability to make those particular decisions themselves.

That’s even what the 10 commandments are. Some things we are instructed by God to not even think about!

IMO.

With prayers,

Mulan,

I hope you don't feel "ganged up" on. You may not feel that way at all, but just in case you do:

I have been studying and learning to practice some of the concepts, which are very new to me. Focusing more on things I can change and releasing control of others is really bringing about some positive changes in my life, and offering me some serious RELIEF. Trying to control others is exhausting. It feels so much better to fight winning battles.

I wish good feelings for you, too, so I shared some of those concepts with you.

If you feel they don't apply, I won't shove them on you. I'm no expert, anyway. As I said, I've just begun. But if you'd like to explore them together, I'd sure love a teammate. Two heads are always better than one.

I don't think society tries to "control" bank robbers and other criminals. Society says, "If you rob banks and we catch you and can prove you did it, we are going to send you to jail."

We don't make the decision for them. People know the consequences.

You can't make a WS do anything, but you can tell them that if they continue their behavior, this is what you will do. They may feel it is control, etc. It may be a power struggle, but not control.

T

Funny, I've always heard it said (usually by social liberals) that prisons are not for punishment, not even for mass murderers. They exist to protect the rest of us from the people who make these kinds of decsisons: i.e to islolate and control them.

Aphelion, thank you. If no one is ever willing to take a moral stand for fear of being labeled "controlling" or "judgmental", then there is no moral argument against anything.

Froz, I started this thread to point out how ironic it is for a WS to accuse a BS of being "controlling" when there is nothing more "controlling" than lying to and deceiving one's spouse in order to carry on an affair.

I guess I can end it by saying "Don't be afraid to stand up for what is right. And no one should be so open-minded that their brains fall out."

Thank you for your response.
Mulan

Re: Relativism

I read a book about ethics and ethical behavior shortly after the most recent D-Day. It’s by a very famous philosopher (still alive). I wish I could remember the title, but my mind is a blank.

Anyway, one chapter was dedicated to moral and ethical relativism and the right to make decisions on your own.

One example used was when the author himself, a professor, was discussing the failures of relativism with his college class. Like most college age kids they all leaned strongly toward, if it feels right do it.

Next midterm he says he gave them all F’s. His answer to all the complaining was, “It really felt like the right thing to do!”

Notice this was about just ethics, not morals. Ethics is a subset of morals. Not the other way around.

Moral and ethical relativism generally feels right when it’s not your ox being gored.

I understood the irony. I just find it useless to focus on what someone else is doing. Like I said before, that energy could be better spent on something you could actually change.

Is what a WS does despicable? Sure! How are you going to stand up for what is right??? Just by griping about it and pointing out the injustice? What is that going to change?

You can stand up and fight against an injustice or wrongdoing, in this case infidelity, without trying to control someone else or placing expectations on them and being disappointed and angry when they don't meet them.
There are other ways to take a moral stance.

Froz ~ yer da bomb. you are getting it!!!!

Mulan ~ Sure the WS attempts to control by lying and deceipt. So what?

Often, the BS exhibits controlling behavior before and during the affair.

The problem is, the BS thinks he or she is morally "right" and so therefore justified in controlling behavior - and who scoffs at the WS's complaints.

We all have God-given free will to choose our own actions. Respect for another's free will does not equal agreement with those choices. Strong boundaries are what protects ourselves from others harmful choices, while still respecting another's right to choose his/her own path in life, whether or not we agree.

I disagree that there is nothing more controlling than lying about an affair.

I agree that Ss often try to control each other by 'passive' methods like lying, dishonesty, withholding the truth to avoid conflict, pretending to 'go along' with things, guilt trips (shaming the S into doing something...).

Other Ss use more obvious control methods like outright physical or verbal abuse, blaming, criticising, judging.

Of course not all forms of 'control' have an equally severe effect on the victim. The effect of passive aggressive control methods and emotional abuse is hard to see clearly and is often overlooked, but can be devastating.

To state that all forms of control are deeply lacking in basic respect for others is not moral relativism IMO. Its true.

IMO it is possible to live without trying to control others. Its ultimately liberating, because it frees us to do all kinds of other things with the extra energy that we are not now expending on useless attempts to get others to be someone other than who they are and to act in ways we want them to act.

There is no real comparison between the control a WS accuses a BS of vs the control a WS does while a WS in the A.

They only common factor is the word control. After that they take off in 2 different directions. Let's not confuse the point Mulan is trying to make.

When my WS accused me of being controlling....the 1st time I conceded. The 2nd time he tried to boost his ego, I shot him down. I agreed that I was 'being controlling', then told him that 'somebody' had better get control...... he was acting crazy.

Of course his accusations were plain babble.

So should a BS be offended when a WS accuses the BS of being too controlling? Nope. Instead bring it back to reality by putting some bite into those charges. Yea bite back with the point that 'good control' is healthy. Stupid control is not. Then identify that WS' actions fall into the stupid control category and not family oriented at all.

JMHO,
L.