Mom,

This part of your post stood out to me....seems significant for some reason.

Is this part of the reason you "give in"?

We hope so too! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I will pass along the message to give you a call! Thanks for addressing my concerns...It helps to know that others deal with this stuff too!

I am certain the commitment is there from both sides with us...We will keep on keeping on with faith...

Mrs. W

Thanks NOW...That all makes very good sense...I harp on Mr. W at times that he doesn't understand because he is the picture of health...What I now realize, is that I don't understand things from his perspective either since I have never been the one dealing with a "Sicky Sickerson" and all of the great responsibility that comes with that...Empathy from both sides would be helpful to us I believe...

Mrs. W

Thanks FH
It does help. Unfortunately it has to do with the new situation. However I see positives in his choice in handling it after the fact.

I had just wrestled with whether or not to ask questions about it. Especially since he came to me, I didn't want him to not come to me in the future because he didn't like how I handled it. Part of his issues with me is my asking of questions which yes in the past I asked with the wrong motive. However he also understands that because of his past actions, and because he is working on his walk that there are some things he has to do that he doesn't want to.

FWIW, the bible is also clear that the H is to love his W as Christ loved the church. As in, willing to die for her and wanting only what is best for her. Note that this does not mean letting her have her own way at all times, since Christ does not do this with the church or its individual members.

There are times when no decision is a de facto decision. (If I stand in traffic when the light turns green, I am toast) In these cases, a decision must be made for the good of BOTH H and W and under God's directive, the H must make this kind of decision.

But there is another thing operating here. C. S. Lewis said that 50 pianos in tune with the same tuning fork are in tune with each other. If the H and W are both in tune with Christ, they naturally fall into tune with each other. But we still live in a fallen world and neither of us is yet conformed to the image of Christ.

Additionally, if I am truly loving my W as Christ loved the church, I want what is best for her, which is not necessarily giving her everything she wants on any whim that may come along. But there are things on which I would defer any opinion and allow my wife to make the decision on my behalf. An example in my case would be what color she wants the walls of the bedroom to be. She makes this kind of decision better than I could and I can pretty much live with whatever she chooses.

OTOH, if she gets up on Saturday morning and starts painting the bedroom before I've even had coffee without checking with me as to what plans I may have for the morning, it would irritate the h377 out of me, since she will require my assistance to get the project completed. She simply cannot move all of the furniture, paint the ceiling and the walls and put the room back together alone.
The problem results when one person makes unilateral decisions that by default affects the other. In marriage, this is most of the decisions and is why we need POJA if we are to live in harmony for our entire lives.

Mark

PS If this seems out of time with the rest of the thread it is because I just spent the last hour messing around with cell phone stuff for customers.

Nia,

I haven't read the whole thread, but I had to thank you for this line from you on pg. 1:



BINGO! In one sentence you managed to describe a big part of my world right now.

Mr. Cookie had a porn addiction and realized it was destructive. But instead of dealing with the real underlying issues... he decided he'd "just stop". No need to dig any deeper. No need to get any help. Just stop. Simple right? (I believe this is refered to as white knuckling it).

Now, approximately a year later. I don't know for sure where things stand with the porn.

But I DO know that his drinking has escallated. And he has made the switch from beer to vodka.

This apparent male need to keep it simple (read superficial) can be just a basic barrier to communication, as I think MM was trying to point out.

But it can also be a serious barrier to mental/emotional healing and health, as you point out.

Oh, and BTW, I haven't "nagged" Mr. Cookie about his drinking lately. But when I've gently expressed my concern in the past, I've gotten, "How is it a problem? I don't drink before work. I don't drive drunk. I don't get drunk and beat you or the kids."

I guess it's really that simple. I wonder why we women have to make everything so complicated.
<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

--SC

Well SC - that's your signature from another web site.

Tell me, do you think DD#2 being just a few months ago might have something to do with his drinking?

Any more undisclosed ONS's or affairs he suspects you of?

FH,

I believe that most of the world's "greatest" philosophers to date have probably been equally distributed between the genders.

The problem is that most of the worlds PUBLISHED philosophers have been MEN because of the historical opression of women until the more recent centuries. Women, remember, were not even educated to read nor write until recent history.

My daughter now holds a degree in philosophy and has "educated" me in this issue! I USED to think the same way you did - but now have changed my mind.

I guess I'm not to old to learn......

JMHO

SB

i don't understand your point Big K....how is that info relevant to SC's post?

Mortarman,

When you wrote of giving, you had this:

"God calls on us to give unconditionally! To give without expectation of anything in return." I thought it was interesting as a Biblical reference, because it is also found in the Quran.

Kahlil Gibran wrote of it where he talks of 3 kinds of givers - all are good, but that God really calls upon us to be the third kind:

The first kind of giver gives because he wants others to notice that he gives.
The second kind of giver gives because he gets something from it (this could be internal reward, pleasure from giving, for example).
The third kind of giver gives because it is of his nature to give, because he has taken it into his very soul to give and it is of him to give.

Muhammed instructs that we should strive to become the third kind of giver, to try to be that kind of person - but if we are the other two kinds, that's still good.



I like the idea of giving being a part of who a person is. Regardless of the reference.

SB

NOW,

You asked
I don't know if this got answered, I don't think so.

The answer is yes there are people that have a hard time accepting a gift, help, whatever. Most of the time, their self-image is tied up as the ultimate giver, thus to take is NOT a gift to them. So their taker is really not being rewarded. Praise for their giving does feed their taker, but a gift?? Nope.

You often see this in a clergyman, a doctor, or nurse. These are professions where giving is what defines the job. To be given to is hard for them accept. However, praise will definitely feed their taker. I have had personal experience with this within my own extended family.

Hope this helps.

God Bless,

JL

PS: It occured to me I could explain this easier. Put it in terms of meeting needs and how someone wants their needs met. If you misunderstand the needs and don't meet them in a way the recipient wants it, their taker is not fed. It is sort of like me going out on my W's birthday and buying her some beef jerky because it is on sale but not getting a birthday cake. I give her the beef jerky and I have sort of missed the mark don't you think? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> But, I didn't forget her birthday I say in self-defense and more I gave her something. What is the problem??? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Quite honestly, I don't think there's a connection. Anyone who knows anything about addictions knows they tend to be proressive, regardless of what's going on in the person's life.

I doubt Big K thinks there's a connection either. It was just another chance for him to take a pot-shot at me -- pretty much all he has ever done when responding to one of my posts since I arrived here.

So BK, is that how you make yourself feel like such a "Big Kahuna"?

Good for you. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

schoolbus - No argument there. All I was doing was attempting to illustrate that the "men are simply too shallow" argument was fallacious and too much of a "cop out" answer.

As for what your daughter may have "educated" you about, I don't know what you are referring to so no comments seem to be needed or appropriate.

I will say, however, that I am "leery" of most Philosophy that is taught in public schools because it is "human-centric" rather than "God-centric." Discussions, therefore, need to deal with specific topics and not the broad field of "Philosophy."

Along the same lines are many of the "Women's Courses" that are offered in colleges today. They are essentially "man-hating" courses that push a "women's liberation" view that is often extreme and results in a "personal philosophy" that is anything but "godly."

God bless.

schoolbus - considering that the Koran was written much later than the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, it is not surprising that "ideas" contained in the Bible were "borrowed" and inserted into the Koran.

The issue you raise of "good" vesus "bad," or "evil," is a different issue, though. That speaks to two major points. One, that "evil" exists (can't have "good" without "evil"); and two, that God exists and is the determining source of what is "good" and what is "evil" according to HIS standards.

In that respect, God has written His moral code in the hearts of all men so that we all know "good and evil."

Unfortunately, most of mankind has rejected God, especially God the Son, and are eternally lost simply because God is Sovereign and God determines, as in the case of His moral code, the ONLY way to be reconciled to Him, and that way is through Jesus Christ. No amount of "good works" or anything else "earns" us salvation.

Once Jesus is rejected, people CAN lead what other people might consider to be a "good life," because they are judging by human standards and often resort to a similar judgment string like Gibran was offering of "good, better, best."

The STANDARD by which God judges us is His perfection. No "points" are awarded for "almost good enough" because none of us "good enough" on our own.

That is the fundamental difference between ALL other religions in the world and Christianity. All other religions are based in "good works," what the person can do to earn salvation. In Christianity, it is a "done" religion in that Jesus Christ did it all for us and reconciles us with God through what He did on our behalf. We, by ourselves, are incapable of "doing enough" because we cannot be "perfect." Such is the nature of our "sin-nature" that we all "fall short of the glory of God."

God bless.

Mark, I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are driving at here. It is impractical, if not impossible, to POJA EVERY decision that needs to be made in marriage.

Insofaras the "TV" analogy goes, my "think outside the box" answer would be to have 2 televisions. I love (ya, I know it sounds crazy) Science Fiction and my wife can't stand the stuff. Likewise, she loves LMN type movies and I usually don't care for them. We "solve" the problem by watching on 2 different TV's most of the time.

I also don't tell her what to cook for dinner, and she "experiments" a lot with recipes. She will usually "warn" me that she is trying something new and that I am her "guinea pig," but she doesn't ask for my approval or even my input. For the most part, I like them. Occasionally though, I don't like something that she has tried, and I tell her. She, in response, removes that recipe from her "list" and we have achieved POJA on that. Being somewhat stupid about meals and how they will taste, I usually have to get "hurt" first before we decide not to make that dish again....grin.

I guess the best illustration I can give regarding what you said; "Remember, it is not I give and then my S gives. It is for each decision being made," is that of Proverbs 31. The husband "leaves" the wife up to make ALL of the decisions described therein by herself and he does not interfere, or even POJA. It "works" because they are both following God, and it is ultimately God who we are seeking to please.

God bless.

FH,

I was responding to your comment about mostly being men who had been the greatest philosophers....just wanted to note my thoughts on it, glad we agree!

About the "educated" part. My daughter taught me a great deal on philosophy - and you might be very surprised at the religious content in both high school and college level courses, BTW - and the ideas of how philosophy and philosophers are published then and now, mostly men still....... My DD actually does do a lot of writing, and currently has a well-visited blog with philosophical writing. She plans to write a book, currently in the works. But...

Oddly enough, that you mention women's liberation in the same vein! Many of the female philosophers' writings of our time are being thrust over into the "feminine writings" (for lack of a better term here) section of bookstores, and out of the "philosophy" section, based on gender. Take a look next time you go in - I was surprised to find this out.

This includes religious writings as well - although many are philosophical, they now have their own little "section" in bookstores, sort of segregated, as though not included in the academic philosophy, you're right. Sign of the times.



And while we are all at it, I do have a male-female question to ask:

You know, I saw a this today on a poster. It was list of "100 Kind Things to Do". One of the items was, "Put the toilet seat down when you leave the bathroom."

Now, that might be kind to the LADIES, but what if the next person coming in is a man? Has the pendulum just swung so far in one direction that we expect this???????

Just something to consider.

Smartcookie, I actually think your husband being again devastated a few short months ago by another d-day may have some effect on his behaviour don't you. Poor man is probably waiting for the other shoe to drop.

hmmmm...okay....my "considered" thought on this flushing (or is that blushing) dilemna. Maybe this has more to do with a petite butt versus a double wide? Potential for falling if the bottom is narrower that the bowl? Splish splash, I was taking a bath?

In a public facility, it is possible, but unlikely, that men and women would be sharing the same bathroom. But if they are, put the lid down if there are no urinals available. If the man is sitting anyway, it's already down.

If, as I suspect, the "kind thing to do" is related to bathrooms in the marital home, then I personally believe that the lid should be put down always. To leave it up may be convenient for the next time that one has to "stand," but if one is too weak to raise the lid then there are other problems of more importance. If it's not a question of strength to raise that heavy lid, then consider that the time needed to unzip rather than drop trou compensates nicely for the added time to raise the lid.

For the record, I think that women should close the lid all the way so no one has to see the "standing water." What's good for the gander is good for the goose too, it would seem. Maybe it's another issue for POJA? POttyJohnAgreement?

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

FH,

Sorry it took me a whole day to get back here. I've been sicker than a dog all day. Considering I had surgery 3 weeks ago, I'm a little concerned over it, but decided I wanted to check out the forums tonight to see what's up..

I don't think each decision needs to go through the process of POJA. My point was that when ever POJA does apply and comes into play, the goal is not to trade anything, but to search for something that satisfied both. POJA isn't about I do this and my W does that, it is WE come up with an answer that allows BOTH of us to get something we want AT THE SAME TIME, and by way of the same decision.

The 2 TV solution does not work long term because we end up living separate lives from each other. On the surface, it sounds like a real answer, but in practice causes both spouses to become more independent and can lead to feelings of entitlement. I mean, after all, I should be able to watch a simple TV program...(I'm a real Dr Who fan BTW I have 128 hours of the early stuff on VHS)

The 2 TV answer is not POJA because, while each gets what they want, it still isn't something that both want. It is two answers, not one. It may reduce the arguing and fighting over the remote, but that is not the same thing as finding an answer that is agreeable to both.

The mistake I see so many making is in thinking that POJA requires negotiating from a position of equality and I don't think that needs to be so. Since POJA is not about convincing my W to accept my point of view and give in, as is the case with other methods, outshouting or out arguing the other person.

And while we don't have to POJA what to have for dinner, we can. She may want chicken and I want steak. The answer might be as simple as going out to eat where we both get what we want, or it may mean we have something else entirely, something neither of us thought of when we started.

POJA applies any time there is a difference of desire that needs resolution in order to preserve the marriage and relationship, not necessarily the status quo. POJA is not about convincing, but looking. We don't attempt to sway our S of our view, but look for a new answer that we had not considered before.

If my wife wants something and I have no opinion, then I can give up my right to negotiate and let her have her way. Likewise, she may have no opinion on what kind of oil to buy for the chainsaw and so leaves it up to me. The problem occurs when we solve disagreement by each doing our own thing and leaving our spouse out of it. When I assume my W has no opinion, I do great damage to the R since she is wounded by my independent behavior, a real LB in every sense.

And since our own taker eventually demands equal time, we have to avoid just giving in at every instance, thereby building resentment and causing our taker to evolve into that super taker Steve described.

POJA is all about building consensus. The church I belong to committed long ago to making all decisions by this method. Not everyone has to vote "yes" but if one person on the board votes no, whatever is being discussed is stopped.

I have attempted for years to show how this works to various people and the question is always the same. "How do you make a decision when you don't agree." This is a real problem since we are a group of guys that can't agree what time it is when looking at the same (digital) clock.

In theory, it is a problem, but in practice it is a piece of cake. Dan cares not one tiny bit what color the carpet is. Jay doesn't even have an opinion on whether to buy the Shure or Carvin microphones. Both have strong opinions when it comes to giving financial help to the guy that has lost 4 jobs in 6 months. But the bottom line is that we always seem to find answers that do not create losers and winners, but only agreement. This is due primarily to the condition I described, re: C.S. Lewis and his comments.

Mark