Its in print, too Markos. All caps, even. In one of the SAA Q&A responses, one of the first things that Dr. Harley states to the BH is; DO NOT JUDGE HER.

I've seen Markos shaking with rage.
I've seen the murderous rage on his face. Even though he didn't murder me, obviously. He had the look. It was in control of him.

It didn't help our marriage. It left me emotionally scarred.

Dr. Harley told me that our marriage would not get better as long as he continued to have such AOs.

I am of the opinion that this demand is most effective if issued in a calm, matter-of-fact manner. Spoken without anger. Spoken firmly. Not an emotional explosion. But a declaration of war against the adultery. Not a war against the spouse.

I cannot imagine this demand being as effective if spoken hysterically, or shouted, with objects thrown, fists raised, or in any way which is out-of-control.

I was not nearly as effective when I punched my WH as I was when I said to him "You're out of here." I was very serious, calm, soft-spoken, and obviously in control of myself. Something far more fearful. Far more powerful.

Yep.

The guilty emotion in all this is not rage, it is anxiety. Anxiety is the primary response to threat. It, too, is tied to fight or flight. But, part of that fight or flight response is an issue when fighting adultery; paralysis. Paralysis is what we see. Waiting, sitting still, deciding to fight or flee.

This is what drives people to goad a BS - trying to move them somewhere, anywhere... RIGHT. NOW.

Move from paralyzed anxiety to... Something... ANYTHING!

I know right? Rage?

Rage is what makes a BS make head-scratching decisions despite every reason being given to them not to. Rage is what makes a BS kick the WS out and justify it when the MB plan clearly states that separation WILL NOT aid recovery. Rage has an entire thread in "Happyville."

Rage... Rage isn't good even "controlled."

Rage is only good when it's GONE, and one instead eliminates the source or trigger (lettuce, anyone?).

Rage is the endpoint of thought, and the result of inaction.

Read again; rage is the result of inaction.

Rage is inaction...

Y'all have heard of "roid rage", right?

Unfortunately, I am currently dependent on steroids. (again) It causes me a good deal of anxiety on a regular basis. I can almost feel my anxiety taking off like a 747.
I hate the damn stuff.

My A&P 1 teacher was adamant that we know the corticosteroid cortisol frontwards and backwards... And I took the course with him twice.

Why? Because it was pre-nursing at the community college.

What does cortisol do? Raises blood sugars, increases fat storage in the "trunk," effects blood pressure, suppresses the immune system.

When does it do this? When we are under long term stress.

Biologically, it helps us survive periods of starvation, or warfare, or being hunted.

Pharmocologically? We chemically induce the effects of long term stress to suppress the immune system as; an anti-inflammatory (mainly).

And then we can't just dump it, because the adrenal glands aren't producing due to the artificial introduction of a corticosteroid.

Stress sucks.

Yep.

I decided to address this.
I am not playing a game.
I think it's often useful to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other using a different interpretation of a word's meaning.
Not wasting my time.

I'd think we'll waste our time playing semantic games here.

See, here is where this medium is inadequate to carry on this type of discussion. Right now it's NG against the world, and okay, those odds are not totally unacceptable, but in the 18(!) posts since I last wrote, we've had introductions of chemically-introduced psycho-tropic anger issues, been sidetracked by the explanations of the body-chemistry that fuels anger (although in another thread, I'd love to learn more), observation that M-W's examples illustrate AOs (Uhh, yeah, but nothing tied them to spousal confrontation, either), and carefully-shielded threats that I'm approaching mod notification ("You aren't fully indoctrinated in the Harley way...").

And NOW you choose to return to parse my sentences from my FIRST post here, which, by the way, I posted by way of saying (paraphrasing), "Okay if you insist rage must have violence, then pick a different word, because MY use of the word, and the emotion itself, has no inclusion of violent ACTION!"

Let's recall that this whole thing began with my position that posters here, anonomously to, and isolated from, all readers, would provide a useful service by basically, "calling a 'ho' a 'ho' " if it instills in quavering BHs the necessary (and, yes, possibly reptilian ) drive to FIGHT for their own interests, as such interests are also in line with saving marriages.. That position I will not be swayed from.

The Webster online definition which I copied/pasted/posted did not say "action".
The definition said "feel or express". (when used as a verb)
Expression of rage could be in the form of a violent action, or could be verbal violence/written violence/painted violence/violence acted out in mime

Picasso's painting Guernica pops into my mind. Full of rage and visual violence.

The part of rage that is scary (to me) is the "uncontrollable" component. Especially when there is a high level of volatility and the possibility of domestic violence. Things can suddenly and unpredictably escalate.

I can't make it out if you agree or not that it is useful to understand if we might be using the word "RAGE" in different terms.

You're discussing rage. Right up my alley!

Rage is uncontrollable. When you are enraged, consequences for your actions cease to matter to you. Rage is what causes crimes of passion...murder.

Only once did I truly lose it, about a year after d-day. My ex and I went out with friends to have a few drinks. It was the first time I'd had alcohol since before d-day, because I was afraid of how I might react.

Sure enough, I ended up threatening several people in the club, drove over 100 mph on city streets while drunk, and told my ex that I was going to drive her to OM's house, drag her to the front door, and ring the doorbell. I actually did drive by his house, but fortunately he lived a good distance from the bar and I had time to calm down just enough.

THAT was rage. I didn't care if I killed her, myself, strangers on the road...I was completely out of control.

There is nothing inadequate about this medium for this discussion. Some people just do not agree with you.

So?

Eh? What?
I don't see it.

((( K )))

I had a similar (less severe) experience prior to my marriage.
I discovered my long term boyfriend had a girl at his apartment.
I drank a huge glass of vodka, got in my car and drove like a crazy woman (krazy). I was going to drive off the cliff and into the Pacific.
A few blocks from the cliff, I realized I did not want to kill myself, I wanted to kill him.
So, I steered my drunken self to his apartment where I pounded on the door and punched him in the gut as soon as he opened the door.

Then, I went home. Rage exhausted.

What a dope. This was in my 20's.

Lesson here? rage + alcohol = stupid

My dear friend NeverGuessed, I have no intention of mod notification!

I do think you are off the beaten path here on anger/rage. Have you listened to Dr. Harley on this issue? (Not rhetorical question.) Would you give him a chance to persuade you to his way of thinking on this issue?

One of the best things Dr. Harley has persuaded me of is that there is no excuse for an angry outburst, ever. I cannot tell you how this has improved ever facet of my life: marriage, parenting, work, church, just going to the grocery store!

I am excited about it. I feel "evangelistic" about it. I wish you could learn the benefits of this, too, and I wish you'd give it a chance.

Mod notification never entered into it. (Maybe you weren't talking about me!) In my opinion, you're doing exactly what a person ought to do if they disagree with Harley: discussing it on its own thread. If you were telling a BH that he needed to draw on rage, I'd be hitting the mod notification button, but you are not doing that, I think.

NG, I married a very insightful woman, here.

We disagree. I believe Dr. Harley disagrees with you. I can't figure out any kind of definition of "rage" that makes "rage" anything other than an "angry outburst."

That's okay. Lots of people disagree about things. I work with, live with, go to church with people who disagree with me on lots and lots of things. We can all be respectful about it and discuss the differences.

What I want to know is if you've examined the contrary view to what you're saying.

Many people believe there is.

Dr. Harley believes they are mistaken.

NG,

I see what you are saying. I am not sure if I agree with your use of the word rage however. Maybe I'd use "righteous indignation" as a better word to describe what you want to get.

This is a thread I have been somewhat ashamed to post on. I had a rage incident early on in recovery that almost blew our chances out of the water. When I think of rage, the image that comes to mind is the Hulk... Remember that comic? An intelligent man who's transformed by his lack of self control into this incredibly destructive creature that wreaks havoc wherever he goes.

I have a particular concern for stirring someone to this state. Why? Not because violence may or may not be there, but because of what Mel and Pepp said, the person is not thinking straight. It means if we stir someone to this level of anger, we simply don't know what their reaction may be.

I think of three words in the Old Testament that are used to describe rage:

1) zahaf: To storm. Like Asa was in 2 Chronicles 16. He acted, but not the way he was supposed to...

2Ch 16:10 Then Asa was angry with the seer and put him in the stocks in prison, for he was in a rage with him because of this. And Asa inflicted cruelties upon some of the people at the same time.

Another instance of Zahaf is used here:

2Ch 28:9 But a prophet of the LORD was there, whose name was Oded, and he went out to meet the army that came to Samaria and said to them, "Behold, because the LORD, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand, but you have killed them in a rage that has reached up to heaven.

2) Rawgaz is another word used: to quiver (with any violent emotion, especially anger or fear)-

2Ki 19:28 Because you have raged against me and your complacency has come into my ears, I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will turn you back on the way by which you came.

3)The word translated as fury from the Hebrew is ebraw: Rage or outburst of passion

Psa 7:6 Arise, O LORD, in your anger; lift yourself up against the fury of my enemies; awake for me; you have appointed a judgment.

In each of these three instances rage is never described as a good thing.

the one time rage is used in the New Testament, it is a quote of the Psalms (why do the nations rage and the people plot in vain Psalm 2) in Acts 4:25.

In fact we are often cautioned in the NT about simply being angry or provoked (Be angry and sin not) simply because sin so easily accompanies anger, and with rage it displays itself in an even stronger way.

In some ways though, I **do** agree with you. We need to find a productive way to provoke or move a BS to action, but we need to do it in a way that moves the person to righteous action and not unrighteous action.

I don't want to provoke someone using the "ends justifies the means" model. To me, using anger or rage towards a person and not the actions, feels like a manipulation of the person's distress to get action in an unhealthy way. If the goal is to disparage the WS and not the world-view they have adopted and the actions they are performing, then we have missed the point of saving their marriage. And it is about saving the marriage, right? We want the BS to be angry at what the WS is doing, but we don't want to instill hate for the WS unnecessarily.

One last note before I stop: Many BS' are protective of the WS, which is good. The problem is they are protective of the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I think our goal should be to move them to protect the RIGHT things (the kids, the marriage, their health and spiritual well being, etc..) and to do it for the right reasons.

OK.. One last note...

Contra-mundum isn't a bad thing, but it needs to be for the right reason.

cv

Yes!