oh, mimi, I'm so sorry for bringing back awful memories. And I made more out of it than it really was...yes, it was a dagger...but I have armor, remember? And I was ready with a come-back. So he didn't get to me, not REALLY, dispite his best effort. Even though he said that....I still told him I loved him.

I'm sorry, mimi.

I hope this is not about the ROSES COMMENT.

It's part of the WH SCRIPT...

He wants you to GIVE UP and BACK OFF..especially after a DAY with her...

It's JUST WORDS, SIS...

I told you before..I STOPPED LISTENING TO MY H...
I focused on his ACTIONS...

Your WH came over there and picked up the boys for you. I tell you what. There's no way my H would have done that when he was wayward. I had to purchase our son a car because he wouldn't pick him up from after school activities when I couldn't. The OW would get angry with him about coming to our son's football games....

RT got angry with him today and he took it out on you...I betcha...

Oh, yes! After the build up of getting up to 12 roses...he may be wondering at that point what I'm going to do once I get to the "magic" number...I give him the PBL, and the ball's in his court from there.

Make sense?

Hope I didn't freak you out! I'm okay, really. The comment hurt, but it wasn't a fatal blow. I deflected it mostly...just a nick. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm just FINE, Sis. My H is AS WONDERFUL now as he was AWFUL..

I hate it that YOU have to go through this crap, too.

My memories motivate me to keep up my FIGHT against RAT TURDS!!!

Sorry you had to hear that Lilsis. I know that must hurt like he11... been there myself too.
One thing I wanted to share tonight was something my son said to me at dinner... his mom had asked if she could have him tonight... and in the past he would have jumped at the chance to do so. Tonight he said... "No, I want to stay with you." When I asked him why... his answer broke my heart to hear... he said "because she made me feel like garbage."
When she called to find out if it was okay I talked to her about my conversation with him and I can tell you that she absolutley fell apart.... hysterical. When she calmed down I asked her why she was so surprised... and how would you feel if you were in his shoes... her response... "like garbage."

Please be diligent in talking with your children. Ask them open ended questions and put yourself in their shoes... how would you feel if you were them right now? Let your questions follow that line of thinking so that they open up. I am afraid that your H may be passing a threshold with his children that will not be able to be recovered.
I promised my son... months ago and again tonight... that no one will ever hurt him again.. even his mother and that I will do everything in my power to make sure that never happens again. His response... "you always have dad!" Made me cry.. I tell you this because it says so much about how important YOU are to the kids right now. So much more than your WH....YOU are their rock....you are the soft place that they land when their whole world is being shaken to its core.

I wish I were a friend of your WH's so that not only could I stick my foot in his [censored]... but also to relay this conversation with him so that he can see the damage that he is inflicting on his children. They know. The fantasy world of an affair is so thick that even when a child is so obviously being hurt... the wayward thinks that they are doing what is in everyones best interests... gag!

Keep up the good work with you WH... your M deserves that chance...
But more importantly... keep up the job you have been doing being a great mom... your kids are counting on YOU.

MEDC

MEDC: I don't know if it counts for anything or not, but I have told the boys that I am trying to put their family back together...and of course, like all kids, this is what they want. I have been very honest with them.

I've told them over and over that the man I married--their dad--was a wonderful, admirable, caring man who loved me, and we were so happy when they were born. I've told the boys that I am trying to help THAT man find his way home....and that I hope when they grow up that they are JUST LIKE THAT man...NOT this man that we see now who has hurt them, me, their grandparents, God, other family, and friends. It is not right to hurt people, ever, and it is not right to break promises.

I've told them that there are bad influences in the world, and right now, their REAL dad is sort of being held prisoner by a bad influence. He's still there underneath, and he still loves them, but he's acting differently and hurting us all because of the bad influences causing him to make bad choices.

I worry also about passing the point of no return. But I guess by framing this as I have, I am allowing the boys an "out"--a way to be understanding and forgiving if WH ever DOES come home and is truly repentant and sorrowful. It is a cruel lesson--to have to learn that your parents are fallible and flawed--but better to learn that and accept it and love in SPITE of that. The alternative is to not have a dad in their lives at all...not authentically or truly, anyway. I'm not articulating that well, but I can tell that you have an authentic and true relationship with your son, so I hope you get my meaning.

Sis,

Just caught up reading! Lots here to talk about.

WH's comments are interesting again. He has made some references to the boys, custody, etc. Some of what he says make me look for an undercurrent of his desire to explore his having the boys with him after the D - watch for this trend. You will know best if that's the case, and from this forum it is hard to say with any measure of certainty. I would need a transcript of the conversations to tell for sure. I wonder how much RT has put the Brady Bunch into his head, and what they have discussed regarding the custody post-D for the two of you (in her affair-addled brain, she may really think she is just the perfect Carol Brady PUKE). Just keep an eye out for signals in this direction from him. It would not be a surprising turn.

A few things he said are very instructive.

The comment "I'm trying." This was said in regard to your statements about his input, your apology, his differences in the "man" stuff, etc. My thoughts went to an underlying message here that you might want to consider. The context was that he was at a distance, and you were in the mix. He was "shut out", and now just re-entering the arena. The "I'm trying" may speak to more than just this one instance of his trying to be a parent, and more to the bigger picture of being much more involved in that regard. (Hence, my note to watch for signals of his desire to increase their time with him.)

Of importance in his communication was his statement about his mother. While it was couched within the other comments regarding mothers and sons and yours/his parenting, it was quite telling about himself and YOUR relationship with MIL. He said, "Ask my mom" when you talk to her again. I see this with quite a few powerful meanings attached - and he probably didn't realize the whole of the message himself!!!

1. He is encouraging you to talk to MIL. Now, if you were wanting to get someone OUT of your life, why in the world would you encourage them to talk to your mom?
2. He sees his mother as a very good parent to him. While he states that she had "no" authority, he refers you to her as "the authority" in mother-son issues. Big-time information, that. He is saying that he respects what mom has to say, and feels close to her. YOU CAN USE THIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE. One way I would capitalize on this is to say something to the effect of, "Your mom and I talk all the time. She has helped me to grow so much through this experience - I feel closer to her now, her help and love have been invaluable...." Let him know that not only have YOU grown, but that his MOTHER has assisted you in the process of your personal growth. That his mother sees the changes in you.
3. He does not foresee your relationship with the IL's changing if you get a D. A little reality check with him here might be in order at some point? The fact that he says you should call her, when you talk to her again, etc., reveals his sense that there is and will be an ongoing "regular, normal" relationship, and that his A or even a D won't change it. Reality is that the A has made it difficult for you to go to IL's house! And, if a D were to occur, even worse, especially if he and BARF RT were to CHOKE get M'd. He has not thought this far....which, by the way, is the GOOD side, and actually is point number...
4. just made it above. He has not thought through the relationship changes a D would make in terms of IL's, or isn't ready to face it? Perhaps lots of conflict still here. In the cognitive aspect, this works in your favor, if you can get him to think about it somehow. Opens the reality to his fantasy. However, it is likely Plan B is more effective in this area.

For the last item, the 5-4-3-2-1 comment. If he has told RT about the roses, or she found out, I see this comment as more related to her recent D, her pushing him, etc. Lots of D talk over in affairland, lots of pressure there, don't you think? Also, it may have been an attempt on his part to draw you into verbal conflict - to spar with you. Your failure to respond in kind likely took him off guard. He had nothing to come back with - however, had you said something hateful/spiteful back, I am willing to bet there was something there ("See, LilSis, you haven't changed a bit" or something along that line) ready to fire back. You surprised him. Good move.

SB

Thanks Lilsis... yes, I get what you are saying and I have been down that road before... said the same type of things that you mentioned... but there obviously came a point where he started looking at her in a different light. I even remember telling him at one point that his mom is not a bad person... just that she did bad things and we need to forgive her. In a childs eyes though... when the bad things continue to happen again and again... their ability to view the person and the actions separately becomes more difficult. While we KNOW that parents are fallble and imperfect... we still want them to be our heros and soft places to land when we are children. Childrn need security and love forst and foremost... and an affair robs them of that. Some of it is not recoverable...it is innocence lost. There are many books out there that talk about the lasting damage that a child endures as a result of childhood trauma. Dad or mom leaving home and picking up with someone else AND hurting the BS is significant childhood trauma.
I think what you are doing is great and certainly the best way to make the best of a bad situation. It is a shame that your H apparently has no friends that have given him a swift boot and a wake up call of sorts. At the very least he should understand what his children are going through.
You keep up the great work mom.

"your parents are fallible and flawed--but better to learn that and accept it and love in SPITE of that. The alternative is to not have a dad in their lives at all...not authentically or truly, anyway. I'm not articulating that well, but I can tell that you have an authentic and true relationship with your son, so I hope you get my meaning."

We are ALL fallible and flawed! Fallible Flaws will be forgiven! Fallible Flaws will be accepted!
Time proves that, over and over!

PGA

For what it's worth, I have come up with a new saying.

"Love may be unconditional. Relationships, however, ARE conditional."

SB

LilSis:

Aren't you glad you followed up on that court case?

All hail Princess Meg! Or new court sleuth!

Can you see the dynamics changing already?

Your H has been seen more and more since Jan 16th. Review the thread.

And tonight? Yep. You interuppted the fantasy time.

He was with RT and STILL took your call! No VM there!

"Don't push it with the boys about the Super Bowl" Means that WH has tentative plans with RT. So push it.

Make him make a choice. "Boys" or RT. Will your boys be disappointed? Possibly. But are they not already?

I would also copy the earlier post that Marsh put up from Lori. Put it out to MS Word, delete some of the references to MB, and some of the plan A stuff. And tack it to the fridge. Let H see it. Because, your H will have that type of change. When he sees the OW is just what she is and LS is what he really wants...

Have you read this article yet?
This is what I was referring to when I said you were pulling him out of withdrawal and back into conflict.
(one of the reasons for his spitefulness and nastiness...he's trying to push you back into withdrawal...)

Its long -- so read it when you have time. Pay particular attention to how one spouse can pull another back to intimacy!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

First state of Marriage: INTIMACY
The most essential prerequisite for the state of intimacy is the feeling of being in love. As I discussed in my section on the Love Bank, you obtain that feeling when your spouse has deposited enough love units into his or her account in your Love Bank to trigger that reaction.

In this most enjoyable state of a relationship, spouses follow the rule of the Giver, Do whatever you can to make your spouse happy, and avoid anything that makes the your spouse unhappy, even if it makes you unhappy. When both partners follow this rule, both are getting their emotional needs met, and all is well with the world.

In this state of mind the Giver is in charge and giving to each other seems almost instinctive. Both spouses have a great desire to make each other happy in any way they can, and want to avoid hurting each other at all costs.

As they protect each other, trust builds. They can share their deepest feelings, becoming emotionally vulnerable, because they know that they both have each other's best interests at heart. They feel so close to each other that to hurt the other person would be the same as hurting themselves.

Conversation in the state of intimacy is respectful and non-judgmental. The partners also express their deepest love for each other and gratitude for the care they are receiving. By lowering their defenses and forming a close emotional bond, they feel even greater pleasure when they meet each other's needs. This is the way marriage was meant to be.

Negotiation in this state of marriage is controlled by the Giver and the Giver's rule. When one spouse expresses a desire, the other rushes to fulfill it. There is no thought of repayment, because the Giver's care is unconditional. As long as both spouses are in the same state, there's actually nothing to negotiate--they give each other anything that's possible, and they do it unconditionally.

But giving unconditionally isn't really negotiating. It's giving whatever is requested without the need to bargain. And more importantly, it's with the attitude that bargaining would be somehow immoral, because it would imply conditionality.

You can get into some very bad habits when you are in the state of intimacy. A new mother in love with her husband may let her husband completely off the hook when it comes to child care. A husband in love with his wife may do nothing to restrain her tendency toward irresponsible spending, driving them both into backrupcy. And once these bad habits have been around for a while, they are very difficult to change.

You'd think that the state of intimacy would guide a husband and wife toward marital bliss. But, instead, because of the failure to negotiate terms that benefit both spouses, it tends to drive them toward the second state of mind in marriage, conflict.

Second State of Marriage: CONFLICT

As long as a husband and wife are happy, the state of intimacy hums right along. But no one is happy all the time, especially when making sacrifices to make someone else happy. And when unhappiness is experienced by either spouse, the slumbering Taker is immediately alerted to the pain.

"What's going on? Who's upsetting you?" the slumbering Taker wants to know.

It can be a temporary lapse if your spouse is still in a giving mood and apologizes for the error (whether or not it's his or her fault). Your spouse may promise to be more thoughtful in the future or make a greater effort to meet an unmet need. The Taker is satisfied that all is well, and goes back to sleep, leaving the Giver in charge, and keeping you in the state of intimacy.

But what happens if there are no apologies? What if the damage is not repaired quickly? What if one spouse continues to be thoughtless or unwilling to meet an emotional need?

When that occurs, the Taker, mindful of all your sacrifices in the state of Intimacy, comes to your defense.

I think it's time for a new rule, the Taker advises. You've done enough giving for a while, now it's time to get something in return. Instinctively, you adapt the Taker's rule: Do whatever you can to make yourself happy, and avoid anything that makes yourself unhappy, even if it makes your spouse unhappy. When that happens, you've entered the second state of mind in marriage -- Conflict.

When one spouse follows this new rule, it isn't long before the other spouse's Taker pushes the Giver aside and is ready for battle. In this state of Conflict, spouses are no longer willing to be thoughtful or to meet each other's needs. Instead, they demand that the other spouse become more thoughtful and that their own needs be met first. They no longer guarantee protection, but instead, threaten each other unless their demands are met. When demands are not met, the Taker resorts to disrespectful judgments, and when that doesn't work, out come the armaments. Angry outbursts are the Taker's last-ditch effort to solve the problem.

In the state of Conflict, conversation tends to be disrespectful, resentful and even hateful. Mutual care and concern have been replaced by mutual self-centeredness. Your Taker no longer trusts your spouse to look after your interests, but pulls out all the stops to see to it that you are treated fairly. The problem, of course, is that your Taker does not know how to treat your spouse with that same fairness. Fairness is viewed by the Taker as getting its way at all costs.

In the state of Conflict, couples are still emotionally bonded and that makes the pain of thoughtlessness even worse. Love units are withdrawn at a very fast rate. They may still hope that the hurting will stop and there will be a return to the state of Intimacy, but they don't trust each other to stop the madness. Occasionally, one spouse may revert to the state of Intimacy, but if peace is to return, they must both do it simultaneously. The only way to calm down both spouse's Takers is for both of them to be protected at the same time.

Couples can return to the state of Intimacy from Conflict, if, and only if, they stop hurting each other and return to meeting each other's emotional needs again.

But it's very difficult to be thoughtful in the state of Conflict, because your Taker urges you to return pain whenever you receive it. So for most couples, the state of Conflict inspires them to think with short-sightedness. Instead of wanting to meet each other's needs, they want their own needs met before they'll do anything. That makes resolving the conflict seem almost impossible, because our Takers would rather fight than try to make the other spouse happy.

Negotiations in the state of Intimacy really don't work, because each spouse is trying to out-give each other. Sooner or later, one spouse feels used by the arrangement. It's not what I consider bargaining -- it's like giving away the store!

However, negotiations in the state of Conflict don't work either. Each spouse is trying to out-take each other. There is no effort to make the other spouse happy, only the self-centered effort of pleasing yourself at the other person's expense -- it's like robbing the bank.

When a husband and wife are in the state of Conflict long enough, the resentment and disillusionment they experience eventually convinces their Takers that fighting doesn't work. A new approach is warranted, and that approach ushers in the the third state of mind in marriage, Withdrawal.

Third State of Marriage: WITHDRAWAL

Reason would dictate that demands, disrespect and anger are not the way to resolve conflicts in marriage. But with the Giver and Taker as the only instinctive alternatives, reason doesn't play much of a role in marital problem-solving. Instead, mood is almost everything, and after a fight, most couples do not feel much like going back to the rule of the Giver.

So they leave the Taker in charge, and the Taker adopts a new approach. In the state of Conflict it's strategy is fight. But in the state of Withdrawal, it's strategy is flight.

When you're in the state of Conflict, your Taker tries to force your spouse to meet your needs, making demands, showing disrespect, and threatening your spouse with angry outbursts to get its way. But if that doesn't work--if your spouse does not meet your needs--your Taker suggests a new approach to the problem: Withdrawal. It tries to convince you that your spouse is not worth the effort, and you should engage in emotional divorce.

In the state of Withdrawal, spouses no longer feel emotionally bonded or in love, and emotional defenses are raised. Neither one wants to try to meet the other's needs, and both have given up on attempts to get their own needs met by the other. One becomes two. They are completely independent, united only in living arrangements, finances and childrearing, although they often have to keep up appearances for neighbors and friends.

When one spouse enters the state of Withdrawal, the other usually follows. After all, what is the point? If she is meeting none of his needs and rebuffing every effort he makes to meet hers, he might as well give up, too. The thoughtless behavior by each spouse toward the other becomes too great to bear, so they stop caring. Trust is a faint memory.

Emotional needs can be met only when we are emotionally vulnerable to someone who meets those needs. When we are in the state of Withdrawal, our emotional needs cannot be met because we've raised our defenses. Even when a spouse tries to meet an emotional need, the defensive wall blunts the effect to prevent any Love Bank deposits.

Couples in Withdrawal are really in a state of emotional divorce. When they've been in Withdrawal for any length of time, they will sleep in separate rooms, take separate vacations, and eat meals at different times. They will not communicate unless they must. If that doesn't work, they either separate or obtain a legal divorce.

I've already explained that the states of Intimacy and Conflict discourage negotiating. But in the state of Withdrawal there isn't the slightest interest in it. In Intimacy, couples must only ask in order to receive. In Conflict, they fight to try to get what they want, and the bargain is usually less than intelligent. But in Withdrawal, there is no discussion, no bargaining, not even arguing. In that state, a spouse is unwilling to do anything for his or her spouse or let the spouse do anything in return.

When a couple is in the state of Withdrawal, the marriage seems hopeless. There is no willingness to be thoughtful or to meet each other's emotional needs, and no willingness to even talk about the problems. When both spouses are in the state of Withdrawal, at that point in time, it really is hopeless, because neither are at all interested in saving the marriage.

But the state of Withdrawal doesn't usually last very long. Sooner than most couples think, at least one spouse has the presence of mind to try to break the deadlock. When that happens, it's possible for that spouse to lead the other all the way back to the state of Intimacy. But it's possible only if the Giver and Taker are relegated to the back room.

How One Spouse Can Lead
the other Back to Intimacy


Marriage partners do not necessarily experience the same state of mind in marriage at the same time. One spouse may disrupt the other's state of Intimacy by failing to meet an emotional need, or inadvertant thoughtlessness. In the state of Conflict, the offended spouse begins to complain, nag, and may even try to start a fight. As the complaints escalate, the other spouse who has been in the state of Intimacy, is dragged into the state of Conflict as well, and then the fighting begins in earnest.

Typically, if they fail in their efforts to resolve the conflict, and if the unpleasant effects escalate, one spouse will go into Withdrawal first and raise his or her emotional barriers. The spouse that remains in the state of Conflict continues to argue, while the withdrawn spouse tries to escape. If the arguing spouse persists, the withdrawn spouse may be goaded to re-enter the Conflict state, and fight back. Or, the arguing spouse may give up and enter the Withdrawal state, too.

One spouse may also lead the other on the road back from Withdrawal to Conflict and eventually to back to Intimacy. In Withdrawal, a husband may decide to make a new effort to restore Intimacy and toss out an olive branch. That effort places him back into the Conflict state, while his wife is still in Withdrawal.

Suppose his effort is an encouragement to her and she eventually joins him in the state of Conflict. Now they are both willing to have their needs met by the other, but their Takers encourage them to fight about it, rather than negotiate intelligently and peacefully. In all too many cases, if they follow their Taker's advice and argue rather than negotiate, they both find themselves back in the state of Withdrawal, convinced that in that state their marriage is safer, and certainly more peaceful.

But this step from Withdrawal to Conflict is a step in the right direction, and provides spouses an opportunity to regain Intimacy -- if they can resist the advice of their Takers. Withdrawal may seem more peaceful, but it is actually a shuttering down of the marriage. A return to the state of Conflict is a sign that the partners have restored hope -- the marriage is worth fighting over. By coming out of Withdrawal, they are lowering their emotional defenses and taking the risk of getting close to each other again.

While demanding and arguing is instinctive in the state of Conflict, one spouse can lead the other back to Intimacy by resisting the Taker's temptation to fight. It takes two to argue, and if one spouse makes an effort to avoid making demands and judgmental statements, and tries to be thoughtful and meet the other's needs, the other spouse usually calms down and does the same thing.

Once they see each other's caring efforts, and rebuild their Love Bank accounts, they re-enter the Intimacy stage. But there's an irony that trips up some couples. Which spouse do you think is the first to move back into the state of Intimacy: the one who makes the first effort to meet the other's needs, or the recipient of that effort? You may have guessed it. The recipient of care is usually the first to return to the state of intimacy, and not the one who make the greatest effort to save the relationship.

If you set a good example by meeting your spouse's needs first, alas, that usually means that your own needs are met last. Your Taker is not pleased with this arrangement, and may try to sabotage it. You will need to make a deliberate and patient effort to override the Taker's instinct to retreat back to fighting and name-calling. But if you resist that instinct to argue, and instead focus attention on behaving thoughtfully and meeting your spouse's needs, your spouse will be encouraged to reciprocate.

Granted, when in the state of Conflict, it's much more difficult to be thoughtful and meet each other's emotional needs. That's because the Taker's advice dominates the Giver's advice, and the Taker isn't interested in thoughtfulness or meeting someone else's needs. So if you want to return to Intimacy, you must override this instinct with great effort. Meeting an emotional need in marriage is easy when you are in the state of Intimacy, because the Giver encourages you to do just that. But in the state of Confict, it seems very unnatural and even unfair.

When your Love Bank balances are finally restored, and your love for each other is triggered again, the struggle is over. You will have returned to Intimacy, and along with it, everything you need to do for each other will seem almost effortless.

The passage from Intimacy, through Conflict, to Withdrawal is a slippery slope. You can get there before you know it. But it takes quite a bit of work to climb back up that hill. While one of you can help by pulling the other back up the hill, it's a lot easier when you both work together. And the best way to work yourselves back to Intimacy from Withdrawal and Conflict is by negotiating effectively.

My next concept is designed to helps you negotiate in all three states of mind in marriage, when your insticts tell you to either give or take or even give up entirely. It's a rule that I want you use as a way to override the short-sighted advice of both your Giver and Taker. I call the rule the Policy of Joint Agreement.

SB

I'm going to ask you a question off this thread.

Pep

i know this might sound stupid but i dont have the slightest idea on how to start my own thread. any help?

Right above, where it says poster, it says POST in blue. Hit that, give it a title, and post away.

When you are viewing the General II board look at the top of the page where you see...

Post Previous Index Next Expand

(All of them are in blue boxes)

Click on the box that says "Post"

~ Marsh

Actually, it would be surprising to me...or maybe just naive. Or maybe the idea is simply so frightening that I've never truly allowed myself to consider it. I am likely to have nightmares tonight.

I don't know if this changes your assessement of the comment, but WH knows that MIL and I talk, and he knows that she is absolutely, 100% in my corner. He knows how close we are...how close we have BECOME through this. (I'm her "precious daughter!" Isn't that something? I love that!!)

It's the fog. He is clueless. His parents have made it ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR to him (in actual ENGLISH...not fog-speak) that RT will NEVER, EVER be a part of the family and would NEVER EVER be welcome in their home. They have said this over and over. The only conclusion that makes sense to me is that he KNOWS that he is making a choice between RT and his family...not just me and the boys, but his extended family as well. He'll leave me and them right along with me...but he gets the RT prize, and she's THAT worth it to him.

Or at least that what he's trying to convince himself of. (okay, that's my overconfidence talking...you all can nod your heads in agreement and maybe I'll believe it)

But we don't know if he's told her...if he has not, if she does not know about the roses...what is your interpretation then? Could it still be attributed to all the D talk? Just a way to push me away? Make it easier on himself because I STOP, I give up?

LilSis:

WH has not done this:



Because if he did, she would go over to the house and throw them away. That's why the roses serve so many purposes. Your description of the original intent, 1 thru 12 to a proposal is just so romantic. And then you do it to him? You are KILLING him. So you make sure you get to number 12. And stay on schedule.

That's why RT does not know. Because he is hiding them from her. And if the roses in the manvase are thrown away, RT may or may not be visiting soon.... Or, if WH does tell her about them, then he can not have them in the house.

So, all around, the roses are perfect.

And for this:



Yes, he is trying to convince himself of that. And when you were the mean bad LS, it was an easy argument with himself.

But you are not that person anymore (No, you never were, but us WW have to blame somebody <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />). You are the new improved LilSis, working on herself and her behaviors to make her M great.

Schoolbus' picking up on the fact that H was asking you to talk to MIL MORE, is part of this. MIL does not accept RT. MIL uses subtle pressure on WH when speaking to him. This pressure creates more "convincing" of WH that all he will have is RT. Couple that with the thought that he really will not be around his own kids as well, and that is a very chilling prospect...

We're hoping she DOES know but EVEN if she doesn't... think about that. If she doesn't know, then hooray for him because it's having the INTENDED effect (conflict) within himself. If she DOES know, then it's having the EXPECTED result... she's pi$$ed that you're still in the ballgame (yuk! I use that word only for lack of a better one... there should be no "game").

Chin up. You're doin' good. I PROMISE you that you're on his mind constantly. How do I know? Because that's one thing that my FWH admitted to me, that when I thought he couldn't possibly be thinking about me, he was. ALL THE TIME.

I agree with LG that he probably did not tell her about the ROSES..the last thing he wants is for her to be angry with him...she would wonder why he kept them at all..in his MAN VASE... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />