Double Post again! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" />

<small>[ August 27, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Extremely Lost ]</small>

Extremely Lost

I know you’re about to head out but I wanted to at least answer this one..

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Now, my W goes out for a girls night only a couple of times a year. I do not have a problem with this because it is not every weekend like some poor Ms here. It is just that my W and other neighbor women have made comments from time to time how they have a better time going out with the girls than their Hs. This may be meant as innocent and not a big deal to them, but to us Hs this is extremely hurtful and is difficult for us to take any other way. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, OF COURSE , she’s going to say that! You silly goose! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> What, you expect her to look at her girlfriend and say she’d rather be with you?! Sisterhood betrayal! Seriously, it’s probably an expression of scale rather than an objective fact. Like, when she said you wanted to go out for dinner 5 minutes after you went out for lunch. I’ve said things like that before, and it’s usually just an expression for “way too soon in my book” rather than because I’m that time impaired.

Ok, now listen close here… women talk to each other differently. It’s very likely that she’s using “scale” language.. “why, that was just the best time EVER!!!” than sticking to a true objective fact. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t mean what she says or believe it’s true.. because her audience at the time (her female friend) knows precisely what she’s talking about.

But, just in case I’m wrong.. assuming she really DOES enjoy going out with the gals “more” than she enjoys going out with you… what about it bothers you? There are certainly elements of going out with my gal friends that I enjoy more than going out with my H. The conversation is better – more my native “language”, I don’t have to reach for understanding and that is really nice sometimes. Like your W, it happens fairly infrequently (worse now, we’re in several different states) so there is the “reunion affect” – we have tons to talk about and catch up on so the topics we discuss tend to be more interesting because they are highlights. It doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy going out with my H; I do. I enjoy that in ways my girlfriends can NEVER make up for. At the end of the day, where my heart lives is home. I’ve gone to visit them for a week and I still miss my H before I come home (though I wouldn’t really “miss him” for an evening).

So, what gives? Why do you feel bad if she likes there gal’s nights more than going out with you?

Mys

Throwing in my VHO on the girls night out aspect...

*Wahoo! Girlz Rule!*

That's pretty much the sentiment surrounding girls night out. I love it. I would do it more often if my girlies were all in the same town. It's all about (for me) going out to a nice dinner where you get all dressed up, drinking wine and eating way too much chocolate dessert, talking and laughing and sharing together until your poor waiter, who you have harrasses mercilessly all night - much to his enjoyment) is left wandering around waiting for you to pay so he can go home and clear his head of all the estrogen he breathed in over the last 4 hours.

Seriously. It's awesome. And necessary for a lot of women. It is apples and oranges compared to a night spent with the H - even in a very happy marriage.

As it is (and you might think this is exessive) I spend ONE NIGHT A WEEK with my very best girfriend. We take community activity classes together (and have all year) that meet once a week. We go out to dinner and drinks before hand, spend time talking, go to class, and sometimes go out for dessert after. It's so great. And, to throw this in there - she's single! (ignores dissaproving glances) we don't go out to pick up men. We go out to be women together and to rejoice in our friendship. To enrich ourselves so that I can come home and be a happier, healthier wife for my H.

and, while I'm adding fuel to the lfc-is-not-as-proMB-as-she-should-be fire, I also enjoy going clubbing! Yes, clubbing!

In fact, I went to Vegas with my dearest friend, who just got married, and my once a week friend for a bachelorette party. H was invited to go with the groom's group - but he had work. We got classily-skanked up for a night out on the town, went to dinner, and then went out dancing. It was great. I didn't have an affair, wasn't looking for one, and fully protected my marriage...while dancing the night away with my Girlz (most of whom are attached in some way to a significant other) AND the guys in the club. I danced in, what I felt for myself, was a completely reasonable way - my rules are suggestive freaky dancing ok - as long as there is no touching and no dancing with the same guy for too long. Most of the time it was us girls dancing together anyways... It was great. Not something to be done every week, but was a much needed break.

*reminisces*

ok. that's my take on girlynight. It should be POJA'd as to not be a threat to the M. But I think it is a perfectly reasonable and maybe even important part of a married woman's life.

lfc

So here's my response as to why us H's don't like it, and why I think MB wouldn't like it:

We H's want your best experiences to be shared with us. We want the times you're just glowingly happy to be with *us*, because then you associate your best time with us, and we're all that much happier. (There's an article on the site about it.) The jist of it is that those are easy love bank deposits, that you're sharing with your girlfriends and the guy you are dancing with, and not with your H.

Not only that, but it something that *automatically* excludes your H. It's basically saying, "I married you because I want to share my life with you.......... except for this part This belongs to my girls." *Ouch*.

So, for you, you're going out once a week to get your EN's met by people you think can *really* understand you. (Communication, recreation, etc...)

Maybe he should occasionally go to a prostitute and get his need for SF filled by someone who can *speak his language* sexually.

Keep in mind that anything you can do with another EN you should be able to do with SF. An EA is still and A, even if it isn't a PA. And an EA can still be an A through recreational companionship, admiration, and communications as well as through any other means.

So why does it bother us H's? Because our W's are shutting us out of what they consider the best part of their lives.


Honestly, if your girlfriends are so much better at understanding you, maybe you should work on getting your H to understand you better than they do. Wouldn't *that* be nice?

Hey guys,

OK. I can understand all the different POVs here (how is that Mys?). I can relate to what you women are saying as well as the male perspective. The things that do not make sense to me are for example, my W going up to her home state for a bachelorette party, going out on the town with the girls and then calling old guy friends to meet them out at certain bars. Obviously this hurts your H if he is not invited because you break the "girls only" status by calling male friends (even if they are friends).

The last girls night out my W had was in January (so, ok, it was a while ago). The problem here was it was for her Birthday and they went out on the closest Saturday night to her B-day. It was only the girls in the neighborhood (not like some old friends flew/drove into town). I was planning on taking her out that night for her B-day. She decided she would rather go out with the girls and I could have the Monday night that was actually her B-Day. Well that may work for her, but I have to work. These are the kinds of things I take exception with. I will not agree with "its girl language" whatever, because it does not matter if it is hurtful to your spouse. CTJ brought up a brutal example that is not truly unfair.

In a M where there currently is not much playfulness or flirting or intimacy, your H cannot understand why you think it is so fulfilling to flirt/play with a waiter for four hours, or dance with a guy in a way that you feel is OK. This is all hurtful stuff that women (a lot of women) seem to just think their Hs should except.

The guys nights out that we do in our neighborhood happen about once every two - three months. We get together at one of the guys houses and play poker. Their wife is usually there that night. We do not go to a bar, flirt with a nice waitress and dance with a girl. We accomplish all of the comradery that you are looking for in a safe enviornment.

I will qualify my response here with YOU ALL UNDERSTAND MY CURRENT STATE OF MIND BASED UPON MY LAST FEW POSTS AND PAST TRUST ISSUES. Therefore, nobody should really take offense to what I have said.

Have a great weekend,

EL

Committed to Jewel

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> We H's want your best experiences to be shared with us. We want the times you're just glowingly happy to be with *us*, because then you associate your best time with us, and we're all that much happier. (There's an article on the site about it.) The jist of it is that those are easy love bank deposits, that you're sharing with your girlfriends and the guy you are dancing with, and not with your H.

Not only that, but it something that *automatically* excludes your H. It's basically saying, "I married you because I want to share my life with you.......... except for this part This belongs to my girls." *Ouch*. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m not entirely sure I understand your point of view. It sounds as if you’re saying that you want to be the main (only) source of happiness or maybe the “best” source of happiness for your spouse in all areas.

Assuming I have that correct (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), I’ll say I have an entirely different philosophy which I’ll describe for the sake of contrast. I’m happy when my H is happy whether or not I’m the direct cause. I could argue that it makes him happy to know I want him to be happy but then that starts getting chicken and egg.

I understand that there are some things that he enjoys doing that I’m not interested in doing and I want him to be able to pursue those things within our marriage. Now, all that comes with a big caveat of “within the marriage.” What I mean by that phrase is as long as it doesn’t interfere with the marriage, it should be allowed as much as possible. So, for me, there is a big difference in wanting to go do a fun activity 2-3 times a year or even once a week, than doing something every night and all the time on weekends. Provided I get “enough” of his time and my needs filled, I can be enthusiastic about him doing activities that excite, thrill, and make him happy.

Just for clarity, I’ll add that any activity that a spouse finds absolutely unacceptable (visiting a prostitute, dancing, <whatever>) would be off the table – and every couple gets to create their own list. Some people might be fine with dancing and some might not. But, activities which are otherwise acceptable (going to dinner with a friend, talking to people) should not be excluded just because they make the other spouse happy.

I did marry my H because I want to share my life with my H. I want to SHARE it with him.. not GIVE it to him. I reserve the right to still be me and like what I like.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> So, for you, you're going out once a week to get your EN's met by people you think can *really* understand you. (Communication, recreation, etc...)

Maybe he should occasionally go to a prostitute and get his need for SF filled by someone who can *speak his language* sexually.

Keep in mind that anything you can do with another EN you should be able to do with SF. An EA is still and A, even if it isn't a PA. And an EA can still be an A through recreational companionship, admiration, and communications as well as through any other means. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I do think that these activities should be subject to POJA. So, if a spouse doesn’t agree, then there should be some negotiation made that both parties can be enthusiastic about.

I absolutely agree that SF should be POJA’d just like every other EN. (And, I think we might be in the minority on that.) To me, that does not mean that if we POJA that I can talk with other people it automatically translates into a POJA that I can have sex with other people too! Each need must be negotiated separately. If some of my communication needs can be met by other people (friends, family) or some of my DS needs can be met by other people (hired cleaning services) that does not mean some of my SF needs can be met by other people. I suppose that does not preclude the possibility, either.

I think it’s less important WHAT people agree on vs. THAT they agree and it works for them.

I’m also a bit baffled by the thought of labeling a same sex (assuming a hetero individual) friendship as an A. It might be LIKE an A in the sense that it damages the marriage and takes time away from the marriage but I still draw a distinction between people I’d build a marriage-like relationship with (exclusively men) and people I’d like to spend time with but wouldn’t marry (girlfriends, family).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> So why does it bother us H's? Because our W's are shutting us out of what they consider the best part of their lives. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don’t know that I’d consider it the “best” part of my life.. at least not in all respects. I do consider it an important part of my life, but not AS important as my marriage. I suppose I have many categories of “best” to assign and they have a category all their own. My H doesn’t fit the requirements of the “Best Girl Friend” category. On the other hand, my girlfriends will never make it into the "Best Sex" category. They aren’t in competition.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Honestly, if your girlfriends are so much better at understanding you, maybe you should work on getting your H to understand you better than they do. Wouldn't *that* be nice? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This made me smile. Somewhere on this board, recently, a poster (male) responded to a question about what men really want with something like ”We’re not women. Stop expecting us to act like women! (paraphrased and emphasis probably added) So, I suppose it would depend on the man in question as to whether or not it would be nice.

I do spend time trying to help him understand me better. There are many areas that he just does not relate to – and that is not a DJ because we’ve talked about them and he’s said “I understand THAT you feel that way, but I’d never feel that way about <situation>. I just don’t relate to that.”

So, maybe that’s what I should do here (assuming that I was correct). I understand THAT you want to be there and involved any time your W is glowingly happy and that makes a big difference to you. But, I don’t feel the same way about it. I don’t relate.

Mys

Alright I'll throw my 2 cents in here.

EL,

I do see a problem with girl's night out ... but only if it entails some type of activity that is very uncomfortable for me to tolerate. Let's say my W is going back to her home town to have a party with the girls and while she's back she's going to catch up with some old male friends. Some may be quick to jump up and say 'NO WAY'. That crosses a boundary. I don't. First I look at the situation for what it is. My W has always had a lot of male friends... moreso than female friends. (We knew each other and even dated when she was still in high school). And all those years while we were dating I developed a trust in her ... trust that she wouldn't sleep around on me and trust that these guys wouldn't try something. It wasn't always easy but I think it was necessary for her to feel confident that I wasn't some controlling, overly jealous guy who was going to demand that she do things my way or hit the highway.

EL, to this day my W understands that I trust her. It is an extremely important aspect of our R. And by putting trust in her I've learned to feel more comfortable and confident that she is trustworthy. By letting go of the control I've actually gained control .... over myself.

As far as a girl's night out. I understand how women have more fun together than with their Hs. Hell I have a lot more fun when I'm golfing or drinking with my buddies. It's not because she and I are not good friends and it's not that I can't have a good time with my W but because I relate to my buddies more than my W.

I often encourage my W to get out more. I think it would be so cool if she could go out with Myschae, LFC, Telly, Symphony and MOS. Booze it up a little, consume way too much chocolate and chat about what's wrong with ME.

I'm sure that eventually my W would come to my defense because she realizes the honest truth about me. That I'm a darn good H and that I'm worth defending. Of course she'd feel so good about her realization that she'd have to come home and fulfill her craving for a big old hunk of MyAlias. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> (Your right myschae we really do only want one thing!!!) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

EL, If your W decided to leave you for another man, say the one she puts Xs and Os in emails to then what does that say about you. It says that there are flaws in your R and she's unhappy with you. You can't fix the situation by trying to make her stay home. You can explain how you're uncomfortable about it but you shouldn't try to control her. It's an insult to her. If she states she loves you and wants your M to work then you have to trust that she's telling you the truth. Yes, I know this is a violation of the MB concept of avoiding temptation. But temptation is all around and you can't spend your life trying to POJA all of the situations you feel are temptations. Especially because your W (as far as you know) has not had an A!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. This was another of my long rambles.

Extremely Lost

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> OK. I can understand all the different POVs here (how is that Mys?). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Excellent! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I will not agree with "its girl language" whatever, because it does not matter if it is hurtful to your spouse. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I do understand what you’re saying and I agree that such activities should be POJA’d. I think it’s too simplistic to say that: You never get to <list of activities> because your spouse isn’t enthusiastic. Part of the POJA is that there is an agreement to be willing to negotiate.

So, let’s separate out exceptions, first. One exception involves boundary issues. Boundary issues are not subject to POJA because they are about actions that YOU TAKE that are different from your REGULAR actions in certain, very specific situations. Boundary issues do NOT apply well to historical situations unless you are talking about an action you took that was different from your normal action.

For example:

Boundary statement: Well, <person> crossed my boundary the other day by yelling and cursing at me on the phone. <person> wouldn’t stop, so I had to hang up on him/her.

Non-Boundary statement: Well, <person> crossed my boundary the other day by yelling and cursing at me on the phone. That really hurt my feelings! I can’t believe <person> would do that to me!

The first one is a description of an abnormal action (hanging up on someone) and the reason why. The second one is a description of a hurtful situation. If you wanted to turn the second one INTO a boundary you could phrase it:

Well, <person> crossed my boundary the other day by yelling and cursing at me on the phone. That really hurt my feelings! I can’t believe <person> would do that to me! I’ve decided the next time that happens, I’m going to warn him/her once and then just hang up the phone.

Boundaries are not POJA’d because it’s an action you take that you have decided to give yourself permission to do. You don’t build agreement on those.

Another example is a situation which calls for current, unclear judgment. So, you’re in a situation, and it’s new, and you’ve weren’t expecting it so you haven’t discussed it in advance with your spouse. You are probably unaware that this situation might BOTHER your spouse, so you follow your best judgment because it doesn’t bother you. Later you find out that it DOES bother your spouse. Obviously past behavior can’t be POJA’d. I don’t find “How could you not have known <X> would bother me?!” to ever be a successful way to build agreement. I don’t ever think assumption is a good idea if something is important to you, so I even suggest that if sexual fidelity is important, you make that explicitly known ahead of time. (I’m sure you’ve done that.)

I suppose that what I’m trying to say is that just because <behavior> seems like an obvious boundary buster to you, that doesn’t mean your spouse will know that. Trying to POJA a past event is pointless. All you can do at that point is to explain how you feel using radical honesty and POJA future actions. I suspect your argument would be “call and ask” which works if there is a smidge of doubt that there will be a problem. Unfortunately, I’m talking about situations where there isn’t any doubt on the person’s mind; s/he just has a different perspective on the subject and doesn’t see anything wrong with it. Or, feels empowered to make that choice.

So your statement Obviously this hurts your H if he is not invited because you break the "girls only" status by calling male friends (even if they are friends). very likely ISN’T obvious to her. It wouldn’t have been obvious to me unless at some point prior you specifically offered an opinion on the matter.

I think that wraps it up for exceptions. What’s left is to POJA what happens. I think it’s very important to note that POJA does not mean that one spouse gets to unilaterally stop all activities done by the other spouse. POJA means BOTH spouses must be enthusiastic and that generally means that a spouse should have reasonable access to enjoyable activities. So, that means negotiation MUST happen. If there is an activity that you would never be enthusiastic about, then that is a boundary issue… but if everything is a boundary issue, it’s likely you are not going to find someone who is able to fill your needs. People need some autonomy to pursue their interests. Certainly negotiated limits can apply I’m enthusiastic about you going out with the girls as long as you don’t engage in <behaviors> or do it more often than <number> of times in <time period>. I think where people get stuck is that there is not enough attention given to limits which address specific concerns and there is too much “avoid it all together.” Most things (girls night out included) don’t have to be all or nothing.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> CTJ brought up a brutal example that is not truly unfair. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It’s fair only if you consider girls night out to be on the same level as sex with a prostitute. For me, I’d consider one a negotiated issue and the other a boundary issue so they are on different levels and it is not a very good comparison to make. If you consider them both boundary issues, then I suppose that it makes a good comparison. Or, if you consider them both negotiable, it makes a good comparison.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> In a M where there currently is not much playfulness or flirting or intimacy, your H cannot understand why you think it is so fulfilling to flirt/play with a waiter for four hours, or dance with a guy in a way that you feel is OK. This is all hurtful stuff that women (a lot of women) seem to just think their Hs should except. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">First, I want to preface my thoughts with the caveat that you and I are unlikely to come to a meeting of the minds on this issue. For one thing, it dances around the edges of what I consider to be a personal boundary and, while I will try to be objective, I’m sure some of that will bleed through. I do think it might be useful for you to hear an alternate perspective on this even if you don’t relate to it.

First:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> This is all hurtful stuff that women (a lot of women) seem to just think their Hs should except </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’d just like to note that some H’s (mine included) do not consider this behavior hurtful. That doesn’t make you wrong, controlling, judgmental, or bad, it just makes you different. And, that’s OK. I’d just like you to keep in mind that many women who do this sort of thing do so with the sanction and support of their husbands and have perfectly normal, fulfilling marriages. Each individual couple has to decide where those boundaries lie for them as individuals. I don't buy in to the idea that there is One True Way(tm) to run a marriage in relation to specific agreements. The closest thing I come to in terms of a One True Way(tm) is that there SHOULD be agreements. Those agreements are between the two people involved, no one else's opinion is relevant - mothers, fathers, friends, brothers, sisters, random people on the street, etc.. DO NOT GET A VOTE.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> …why you think it is so fulfilling to… </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I pulled this out of context because, to me, this is skating close to a boundary issue (of mine, not necessarily anyone else’s). I’ll offer you my perspective, not because I want you to change your mind, but because it might be helpful to consider.

One of the themes that comes up often on this board is “I want my spouse to want to <insert activity, often related to SF>.” Or, the converse of that, but I link them closely together is “I can’t believe my spouse wants to <activity>.” So, I know there are a lot of people out there that feel that way.

It is always difficult for me to respond to any of that because it comes from a place that is so foreign to my way of thinking. In my world, people want what they want and like what they like. Actions can be negotiated and SHOULD be but desire, fulfillment, “liking it”, opinions, thoughts about <action>, feelings, etc. are not a negotiable items. So, while I think it’s very possible to negotiate the action of SF, and do that well enough so that both partners can be enthusiastic about the AGREEMENT, I don’t necessarily think that desire FOR SF can be a negotiated item.

Let’s take the instance of your W signing “love” to the bottom of her emails. It’s my understanding that she agreed to stop but, to this day, still thinks it is all right to do. In my book that is a 100% positive resolution (assuming she negotiated properly and was enthusiastic about stopping). I don’t think that “changing her mind” is a requirement, nor do I think it should be. One of my basic beliefs is that people should be allowed to feel how ever they feel about something. If feeling, wanting, or believing something is a boundary issue, and in some cases I can see where it would be, then I hold very little hope of things changing in a positive direction. Generally, I tend to stay in the arena that negotiates actions as opposed to personal philosophy.

My boundaries around this area are pretty defined. I concede that there ARE some desires that would be deal breakers. For example, religious beliefs are very hard to negotiate or change. If those are very important, one way or the other, then it is unlikely that a mismatched pairing would be successful. Another is the desire for children. I’ve seen too many tragic cases of mismatch over that desire and it is just not something that can be negotiated well (though I’ve seen a few creative solutions). But, my focus is still always on accepting how the other person feels and then doing what needs to be done in response to that.

If my H wanted children of his own, then our marriage would have to end. In the first place I’m not willing to have children which I knew from the start, and in the second, I’ve discovered in the past couple of years I’m physically unable. Yet, at the same time, I wouldn’t be comfortable living with the knowledge of denying him that basic human drive. So, in a sense, I relate to the idea that there are some thoughts, feelings, and desires that are deal breakers. My response is perhaps different – I wouldn’t try to change the thought, feeling, or desire, I’d simply enforce the boundary. In this case, it would be “Well, if you want children, you’ll need a different wife because it’s not possible with me.” Then, I’d allow him to make his choice based on that. If he stayed, I wouldn’t assume his desire went away, only that the benefits of the marriage outweighed his drive in that area. And, I’d expect him to continue to want children until he told me differently. So, any actions that he took that indicated that desire would not be surprising to me or particularly hurtful.. unless, of course, it involved impregnating another woman or other out of bounds behavior. (The type of behavior I was referring to include: talking about it, reading about it, joining a child oriented program like big brothers/big sisters, being sad when spending time with other’s children, being happy but melancholy as our friends announce births, etc.)

Because of my bias, I expect to want what I want and like what I like and be accepted for it. If I find <activity> fulfilling and he finds it impossibly droll, I would be incensed if he felt a need to convince me <activity> was boring. Or, if I felt signing “love” at the bottom of my letters to whomever was reasonable and right, I’d be willing to negotiate an agreement to stop doing it if it was bothering my H. After I agreed, however, my expectation would be that I would be given both appreciation and respect for my opinion. If my H then treated me like some child who had finally learned her lesson “Well, of course you stopped, you never should have been doing that in the first place!” I know my resentment would grow with leaps and bounds. My expectation would be to be treated with respect of my opinion and appreciated for accommodating him: ”I understand we don’t agree here, and I really appreciate you doing this to make me happy. I feel much better and more secure since you stopped doing that for me. Thanks.”

In essence, if I do something or don’t do something for the sole purpose of accommodating my H’s feelings, I absolutely expect to be acknowledged and appreciated for that. AND, I expect it to accommodate his feelings in the sense that I’ve stopped the hurtful behavior, I expect the hurt to dissipate (not necessarily immediately but if it was still there 6 months later, I’d call it a grudge). I’d be very irritated if that wasn’t “good enough” and I also was required to adopt HIS OPINION that I was wrong.

This often comes up in terms of sexual desire. As a woman, I conceptualize male sexual desire to be like the ticking of a clock. It’s fairly constant and predictable. Most men can probably tell you their desired frequency and there is little that varies with it on average. I experience sexual desire differently. For me, it’s more like the weather. It’s rowdy, unpredictable, and can be very calm or very extreme sometimes at the drop of a hat. Since his is more predictable, it seems sensible to me, to build accommodations according to his needs. If he waited for my inclinations to come around he’d be in a constant state of either feast or famine. In our relationship, barring periods of abstinence for physical illness, we expect regular SF. The way we work around the desire issue is through him understanding that, even if I don’t necessarily desire an O or desire sexual activity explicitly, I DO DESIRE pleasing him. I get an equal measure of SF in being able to fill his need for SF than he does from his needs being met… and I enjoy that he lets me do that even if I don’t like it or want it in the “same way” that he does.

I know myself well enough to know that if he was somehow expressing disappointment in that accommodation, it would build resentment within me towards having SF. Again my expectation is to be allowed to feel how I feel. If I was being given the message: “Feel how you feel but it’s better if you feel how I want you to feel” through his actions it would put a damper on things for me. Now, that doesn’t mean he has to let go of his opinion that he’d like me to experience desire like he does (I know he does wish that .. heck sometimes I wish that. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) but the actions we agreed upon have to take any punitive measures or convincing out of the equation. Those actions have to be designed with respect to how we are truly feeling. Otherwise, even if I desired it (felt lust), I probably would be somewhat restrained because I’d wonder who I was desiring it for.. him or me. When I experience a climax, I know it makes him happy. But, I know he’s also happy when I don’t. That frees me up to either have one or not as I desire and makes them more frequent as a result. My O is not a reflection on his skills as lover (or, mine for that matter) or my emotional connection to him; instead, it is allowed to be something that happens when I truly feel it. I find that very satisfying to my SF need.

Goodness, that was a long ramble. I’d best summarize.

Extremely Lost, I don’t condone hurtful behavior on the part of either spouse. From my perspective, actions should be negotiated not thoughts, opinions, or feelings. POJA, subject to the exceptions I mentioned, is not carte blanche to prevent your spouse from enjoyable activities. As much as your W should respect your “No” and be willing to stop hurtful behavior, you are required to exercise [b]due diligence to negotiate terms of your enthusiasm so she can have as much of what she wants as possible. [/b] If you are unable or unwilling to ever give consent, then you are not negotiating – you are dictating.

If you have a difference of opinion, and reach an agreement about it (how to close an email) then I advocate RESPECT for your W’s opinion. How she used to do it was hurtful to you and she was willing to stop. That’s a positive action on her part. Grumbling about how you shouldn’t have had to ask and justifying continued resentment because it “never should have happened in the first place..” or, continuing attempts to show her the error of her thinking after the agreement is NOT showing respect. People react very badly to that sort of treatment.

Finally, I’ll say that I understand that you seem to be saying that it hurts you when your wife likes something or prefers something that doesn’t include or involve you. I do not relate to that feeling. In my world, I’m just happy when he’s happy. **disclaimer: that was meant in relation to appropriate things like going out to dinner, not hurtful things like affairs, etc.**

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I will qualify my response here with YOU ALL UNDERSTAND MY CURRENT STATE OF MIND BASED UPON MY LAST FEW POSTS AND PAST TRUST ISSUES. Therefore, nobody should really take offense to what I have said. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No offense taken, of course. I’ve rambled a lot. Thanks for reading.

Mys

Myschae--

Thanks for your set of coherent responses. You've eloquently state the second position on this issue. (In my experience there are really only two positions on this issue with variations.)


First off, I want you to keep in mind that I am writing in the context of someone stating above how women often come back spouting how it was the "best time."


To be honest, I think your position is one that is dangerous to a marriage, particularly a marriage with other non-trivial problems to be worked out.

I'm probably going to summarize a lot of what is stated in the following link:

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5069_qa.html

But actually, my thoughts on this issue came up long before I even heard about MB.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m not entirely sure I understand your point of view. It sounds as if you’re saying that you want to be the main (only) source of happiness or maybe the “best” source of happiness for your spouse in all areas.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Definitely not only. I do not have time or capability to fill that position. :-D But, equally definitely, "best." But this is the logic behind the thought:

Premise #1:
All relationships are important to the extent to which they meet a person's EN's.

Premise #2:
A person will naturally gravitate towards the relationship which is meeting their EN's best. (Which is how EA's happen.)

Premise #3 (Probably where most people get off the boat):
Marriage is a relationship that is intended by vow to be permanent, and carries a high cost for neglect or termination. This is unique among all
other relationships.

Conclusion:

To keep marriage as important as it should be in order to remain permanent, the lion's share of EN meeting should take place between spouses, within the marriage. (From Premise #1 and #3)

Consistent *strong* meeting of EN's through other means robs a marriage of its depth by attracting(#1 and #2) attention to subsidiary relationships (#3).


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> understand that there are some things that he enjoys doing that I’m not interested in doing and I want him to be able to pursue those things within our marriage. Now, all that comes with a big caveat of “within the marriage.” What I mean by that phrase is as long as it doesn’t interfere with the marriage, it should be allowed as much as possible.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Clearly, from what I've stated above, I don't believe that "as long as it doesn't interfere with the marriage" exists. And I certainly don't agree with "as much as possible", because the more consistent and frequent the meeting of an EN, the more important that relationship becomes.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I did marry my H because I want to share my life with my H. I want to SHARE it with him.. not GIVE it to him. I reserve the right to still be me and like what I like.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't think whether you like what your like is at issue here. What is at issue is actions, not preferences. I like automobile races, for instance, but very rarely go to see them. Why? My wife doesn't like them, and while I could spend that time at the race, I'd rather be spending time with her. Things like Girls Night Out, or Boys Night Out fall into a slightly different category, though. Those items are not things that your spouse doesn't want to participate in. Those are items that your spouse is actively excluded from, whether they want to or not.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
I’m also a bit baffled by the thought of labeling a same sex (assuming a hetero individual) friendship as an A. It might be LIKE an A in the sense that it damages the marriage and takes time away from the marriage but I still draw a distinction between people I’d build a marriage-like relationship with (exclusively men) and people I’d like to spend time with but wouldn’t marry (girlfriends, family).
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It is definiely LIKE an A... If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Besided which, I know of a woman (a good friend of mine, actually) who has had two or three failed marriages, and finally settled down to becoming partners with her best girlfriend from high school and through life.

Now, I do not know enough of her history to at all suggest that her relationship with any of her husbands were ruined by her relationship with her friend. I'm just trying to point out that people seem to have the ability to switch relational orientation.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
don’t know that I’d consider it the “best” part of my life.. at least not in all respects. I do consider it an important part of my life, but not AS important as my marriage. I suppose I have many categories of “best” to assign and they have a category all their own. My H doesn’t fit the requirements of the “Best Girl Friend” category. On the other hand, my girlfriends will never make it into the "Best Sex" category. They aren’t in competition
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My main point is that if your marriage is your most imporant relationship, then you should be having the most fun with your spouse to help keep it that way, and keep that the relationship an emotional "favorite."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This made me smile. Somewhere on this board, recently, a poster (male) responded to a question about what men really want with something like ”We’re not women. Stop expecting us to act like women! (paraphrased and emphasis probably added) So, I suppose it would depend on the man in question as to whether or not it would be nice.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree with the poster:

Stop |expecting\ us to act like women!

But help us to act like a friend who understands you better than anyone else.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> do spend time trying to help him understand me better. There are many areas that he just does not relate to – and that is not a DJ because we’ve talked about them and he’s said “I understand THAT you feel that way, but I’d never feel that way about <situation>. I just don’t relate to that.”</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">To be honest, I believe that statement can be made by any two people regardless of their genders. I really don't believe that being of the same gender helps in that sitation. I almost said "except in a few cases," but to be honest, women's periods differ between women so much, as does pregnancy, that even there women can only understand but not relate. (In the context that your husband used the words.)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
So, maybe that’s what I should do here (assuming that I was correct). I understand THAT you want to be there and involved any time your W is glowingly happy and that makes a big difference to you. But, I don’t feel the same way about it. I don’t relate.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well... I think I've stated my reasoning as clearly as possible, so maybe you can also understand *why* I feel that way. I can't change your mind, but I do hope to help you *think* through an issue step by step that people are very willing to just go by gut reaction on.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Boundaries are not POJA’d because it’s an action you take that you have decided to give yourself permission to do. You don’t build agreement on those.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Frankly, the PoJA is not at *all* about what you've given yourself permission to do. If you *ever* do something on the lone reason that you've given yourself permission to do it, it is in violation of the PoJA. The point of the PoJA is to have joint enthusiastic consensus.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Unfortunately, I’m talking about situations where there isn’t any doubt on the person’s mind; s/he just has a different perspective on the subject and doesn’t see anything wrong with it. Or, feels empowered to make that choice</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My take is that unless it has been discussed before hand, you should *never* feel empowered to make that choice, without consulting your spouse. Why should I LB my spouse accidentally? (to say they shouldn't be LB'd is to just DJ them) PoJA is there to give you the *best* should ot creating *and maintaining* compatibility.

Doesn't mean it has to be laborious. The night my W and I decided to PoJA seriously, we quickly PoJA'd our entire morning routine:

"I propose that we keep up our morning routine."
"I enthusiastically agree."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">People need some autonomy to pursue their interests.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I heartily disagree. Marriage is not about autonomy. Roommateship is about autonomy. Marriage is about jointness.

I suppose we could redefine marriage to start including grey shades of autonomy, but then you start missing out on the satisfaction of an intimate partnership.

See, intimacy is about *trusting* someone enough to be able to say, "Here, you can have *all* of me to do with what you please." Can you imagine that kind of trust? It's scarey, particularly if you've been scarred in the past. And that's why a strict application of the PoJA is so important. Because it helps you build that kind of trust.

I want to be able to say:
I can trust my W completely with my secrets, my emotions, my heart, my body because I know that she will not hurt me.


Of course, we're all human, which makes us mistake prone. But I believe that as soon as you erect boundaries within marriage, you rob yourself of intimacy.

(I understand that there are plenty of situations where boundaries are a necessary step to get to where you can build that trust.)


Well.. there's my long post for the day. Congrats all, you've hit my #1 Marriage pet peeve! :-D

Another thought occurred to me:

What is it about a GNO (Girls Night Out) that makes it *necessary* to exclude your husband?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Another thought occurred to me:

What is it about a GNO (Girls Night Out) that makes it *necessary* to exclude your husband?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">He would prefer not to come, he doesn't find the topics we discuss and the way we discuss them particularly interesting.

Mys

But he would be welcome if he wanted to come?

Committed to Jewel

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Thanks for your set of coherent responses. You've eloquently state the second position on this issue. (In my experience there are really only two positions on this issue with variations.) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That is probably true, I haven’t thought through the variations but it does seem that there are two main positions.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> To be honest, I think your position is one that is dangerous to a marriage, particularly a marriage with other non-trivial problems to be worked out.

I'm probably going to summarize a lot of what is stated in the following link:

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5069_qa.html

But actually, my thoughts on this issue came up long before I even heard about MB. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I understand your position and I’ve read the link.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Premise #3 (Probably where most people get off the boat):
Marriage is a relationship that is intended by vow to be permanent, and carries a high cost for neglect or termination. This is unique among all
other relationships.

Conclusion:

To keep marriage as important as it should be in order to remain permanent, the lion's share of EN meeting should take place between spouses, within the marriage. (From Premise #1 and #3) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m still on the boat with you, here. Keep in mind that my “girl’s nights” were always infrequent, at best. In fact, I haven’t had one for over 2 years because of geography. Even when we were in the same city, it was maybe 4 times a year.. and generally was less of a “night out” so much as a Pampered Chef party or, we did lunch an awful lot (when spouse’s weren’t available anyway) or went shopping at the mall together during holidays. Though, we did meet at the Olive Garden and camp a table once or twice, too. I also drove out and visited them for 5 days once. *shrug*

I don’t think there is any way those sporadic incidents could come close to meeting the bulk of my EN’s by any stretch of any definition.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Clearly, from what I've stated above, I don't believe that "as long as it doesn't interfere with the marriage" exists. And I certainly don't agree with "as much as possible", because the more consistent and frequent the meeting of an EN, the more important that relationship becomes. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m perfectly willing to agree to disagree with you.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I don't think whether you like what your like is at issue here. What is at issue is actions, not preferences. I like automobile races, for instance, but very rarely go to see them. Why? My wife doesn't like them, and while I could spend that time at the race, I'd rather be spending time with her. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The key might be how much quality time you get in general. My H and I are childless and so average WAY, WAY above 15 hours a week of quality time together. We probably average more like 40. So, taking off for 8 hours here and there to go do an activity (spend a day at an air show which he likes and I find mind bogglingly dull) or me going shopping which he hates, is really not detracting significantly from our relationship. Even the 4 hours a week he invests in working out at the gym doesn’t significantly impact our time together.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Things like Girls Night Out, or Boys Night Out fall into a slightly different category, though. Those items are not things that your spouse doesn't want to participate in. Those are items that your spouse is actively excluded from, whether they want to or not. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">He absolutely does not want to go. I just asked him (he’s in the room) and he assures me that he has no interest and has never had an interest or felt left out. He says “more power to you, I’ll buy you a plane ticket” if I want to go spend a weekend with my friends. We’ve been uprooted a lot lately and I’m more or less without any support network here. He wants me to be happy. I like that, a lot.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> It is definiely LIKE an A... If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Besided which, I know of a woman (a good friend of mine, actually) who has had two or three failed marriages, and finally settled down to becoming partners with her best girlfriend from high school and through life.

Now, I do not know enough of her history to at all suggest that her relationship with any of her husbands were ruined by her relationship with her friend. I'm just trying to point out that people seem to have the ability to switch relational orientation. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Heh. Ok, I suppose it COULD happen. I’ve never had any twinges in that direction. Do you ever see yourself going off with your best guy buddy?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> My main point is that if your marriage is your most imporant relationship, then you should be having the most fun with your spouse to help keep it that way, and keep that the relationship an emotional "favorite." </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It IS my favorite. I’m not sure what I’d consider my “BEST” fun. I can see telling my girlfriend that “THAT was just the BEST time.” But, as for the objective “BEST” fun of my life *shrugs* who can tell? There have been a lot of highlights. I would say I have the “most” fun with my H because I’m almost always with him. We do a lot together, we’ve just spent a year exploring a foreign country together and that was a LOT of fun and very romantic, too. I’ve also had some of my WORST times with him.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> But help us to act like a friend who understands you better than anyone else. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think he understands parts of me better than anyone else. Certainly, he can anticipate me better than anyone else. But, he still doesn’t get EVERYTHING. There are some things that my girlfriends and I just understand at a gut level. There are some things my sister and I just understand at a gut level because we grew up together.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> To be honest, I believe that statement can be made by any two people regardless of their genders. I really don't believe that being of the same gender helps in that sitation. I almost said "except in a few cases," but to be honest, women's periods differ between women so much, as does pregnancy, that even there women can only understand but not relate. (In the context that your husband used the words.) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">True, but those are often the things my girlfriends understand. I’ll give you a specific example. One of the issues we’re currently working on is emotionally supportive conversation. My girlfriends naturally fall into a pattern of very emotionally supportive conversation. My H likes to solve my problems for me and thus tends to lead conversation away from my emotions and towards “what to do about it.” He understands (intellectually) what is happening but is trying to learn a new conversational pattern which is difficult for him. I appreciate him doing that because I need more emotionally supportive conversation than I’ve been able to get lately. Before, I’d do fine 99% of the time but every now and again would need to do an “emotional dump” with someone who understood that her job was to say “Poor baby” and support me. I did this with my girlfriends. Now that we’re all over the country, he gets to pick up that slack. He didn’t particularly mind me doing that with them, nor does he mind doing it for me. I’ll say this though, as much as he is trying and I really do love him for it, he STILL doesn’t do nearly as good a job as my girlfriends do.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Well... I think I've stated my reasoning as clearly as possible, so maybe you can also understand *why* I feel that way. I can't change your mind, but I do hope to help you *think* through an issue step by step that people are very willing to just go by gut reaction on. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I do understand “why”, I think. Well, maybe I do. I still don’t relate so it’s hard to be sure. My H and I were discussing it this morning and we really feel successful in our marriage the way it is. We love the way we have things set up and it works very, very well for us. I think it could work very, very well the other way. The important thing is that you have an agreement with your spouse and you both understand what is expected and where the boundaries lie. Marriage can work in a variety of ways.

We have a “best case” scenario on this issue because we both believe the same way. It’s harder if you have one person who feels one way and one person feels the other and then you have to negotiate. There are other issues where we are not in sync that way. To that end, it is helpful to understand BOTH perspectives because, as you said, actions are what are negotiated, not opinion. It would be silly for both of us to negotiate actions that are inconsistent with BOTH of our beliefs *grins* wouldn’t it?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Frankly, the PoJA is not at *all* about what you've given yourself permission to do. If you *ever* do something on the lone reason that you've given yourself permission to do it, it is in violation of the PoJA. The point of the PoJA is to have joint enthusiastic consensus. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think what I said is that boundaries are about what you give yourself permission to do. Boundary actions can violate POJA. For example, Plan B is an expression of a boundary action. You do not seek enthusiastic agreement to implement Plan B. There are other boundaries in marriage. You do not seek enthusiastic agreement to leave in cases of abuse – you just go ahead and violate POJA. Boundaries are an exception to POJA. What I was doing was pointing out exceptions first. Most issues are not boundaries and thus are subject to POJA.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> My take is that unless it has been discussed before hand, you should *never* feel empowered to make that choice, without consulting your spouse. Why should I LB my spouse accidentally? (to say they shouldn't be LB'd is to just DJ them) PoJA is there to give you the *best* should ot creating *and maintaining* compatibility. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Fair enough. I think that might run into logistical issues in many relationships. But, if you can work it out, then more power to you.

But in the context of something having all ready happened, what do you do then? If the incident has occurred (for whatever reason) then I still maintain that you can’t POJA history. Sooner or later, no matter how careful you are, I suspect that you will do something that will upset your spouse. Yes, POJA is there to give you the best shot at compatibility but, I think it’s wise to expect mishaps to occur. When they do, you can POJA future actions but since you can’t change the past, you can’t POJA what has all ready happened. That was the other exception.

There are two exceptions to POJA that I can think of currently. 1.) Boundaries and 2.) History. All else should be POJA’d.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I heartily disagree. Marriage is not about autonomy. Roommateship is about autonomy. Marriage is about jointness. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Obviously complete autonomy is bad. But, SOME autonomy is necessary. Otherwise how would anyone be able to pursue a specialized career? He’s an aerospace engineer and I have no interest in planes. Does that mean he doesn’t get to do the specialized study that he needs to do to pursue his career (including conferences, etc) because I don’t want to come along? I said some autonomy to pursue their interests. I didn’t say lead completely different lives. I absolutely believe that you can be married and still pursue subjects that interest you (get degrees, have careers, etc). And, that your spouse does NOT have to share that interest with you.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I suppose we could redefine marriage to start including grey shades of autonomy, but then you start missing out on the satisfaction of an intimate partnership. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In my world, intimacy is not damaged by differences. I find differences to be exciting and sometimes challenging.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> See, intimacy is about *trusting* someone enough to be able to say, "Here, you can have *all* of me to do with what you please." Can you imagine that kind of trust? It's scarey, particularly if you've been scarred in the past. And that's why a strict application of the PoJA is so important. Because it helps you build that kind of trust.

I want to be able to say:
I can trust my W completely with my secrets, my emotions, my heart, my body because I know that she will not hurt me. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don’t think my view excludes this type of trust. At least, in my experience it has not.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Of course, we're all human, which makes us mistake prone. But I believe that as soon as you erect boundaries within marriage, you rob yourself of intimacy. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Perhaps this has to do with how you define boundaries. I don’t define boundaries as “places he shall not go.” But rather as specific actions I take in specific situations which differ from my normal actions and should be communicated. For example, girls night out is not a boundary because it has nothing to do with my actions. A boundary would be more along the line of “I will remove myself from any situation which places me in physical harm. Or, if he ever hits me, he should expect me to head to the door.” I’m not telling him NOT to hit me or that he “can’t” hit me, I’m telling him what actions he can expect me to take if that happens. By definition, they do not require him to do or not do anything. They simply inform him of what to expect.

Or, a more realistic example would be that he and I differ in opinion on the safety of his driving. In the past, there was one incident where he scared me to the point that I found it necessary to get out of the car. I did NOT have his enthusiastic agreement to leave and he did NOT have my enthusiastic agreement to drive the way he did. I was so upset, I could no longer stay in the car without having hysterics. I refuse to be in a situation where I am being frightened or intimidated over my hearty protests – whether or not he “agrees” that I should be scared. That was a boundary action. It was an extreme action in an equally extreme situation. I normally don’t just exit the car when we’re stopped at a light.

I think it is very important to have boundaries as I’ve described them.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Well.. there's my long post for the day. Congrats all, you've hit my #1 Marriage pet peeve! :-D </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Should I apologize or be glad? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> But he would be welcome if he wanted to come? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’ve invited him on several occasions and he has declined. He has come with to dinners once or twice when he was interested in the restaurant and was welcomed. On some occasions (such as my trip) he was not invited because he had to work. Many of our lunches he was not invited again because he was at work. Baby showers and the Pampered chef party he was not invited because I was not the hostess and the invitation was clearly only for me. I would not have gone, however, if he felt that was inappropriate or rude.

Mys

<small>[ August 28, 2004, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: myschae ]</small>

Myschae --

Actually I think you and I are more in tune than the original posters on GNO and I. You seem to mostly describe a kind of GNO I've been known to push my wife towards. I'm about to head to bed, soon. (I'm an early to bed, early to rise kind of guy.) So, maybe tomorrow I'll come back and post my points of agreement.

Committed to Jewel

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Myschae --

Actually I think you and I are more in tune than the original posters on GNO and I. You seem to mostly describe a kind of GNO I've been known to push my wife towards. I'm about to head to bed, soon. (I'm an early to bed, early to rise kind of guy.) So, maybe tomorrow I'll come back and post my points of agreement. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Heh. I am one of the original posters on GNO and I don’t think I’m saying anything much different than what I said originally; though perhaps I just wasn’t as clear as I could have been (I don’t discount the possibility that I wasn’t making sense <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ). Some of what I originally said was somewhat ‘overstated’ and meant to be a little tongue in cheek, as well. I look forward to any thoughts you’d like to share.

Whew. This thread took a decidedly philosophical turn as opposed to the usual specifically solution oriented discussion that has dominated. That is good but, for my part, I’d like to come back around to the more specific situation at hand which is Extremely Lost’s boundaries. (Of course, does not mean that you should feel obligated to do so. I’m just less interested in discussing general marital philosophy as I am offering specific solution oriented discussion. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) I do hope you’ll stick around here, Committed to Jewel, as I think more perspectives and ideas would be great.

Extremely Lost, please pardon me while I speak of you in the third person on your own thread for a moment. This is addressed to you, as well, but verb tenses start to get difficult with too much switching. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

I’d like to quickly summarize the intent of my message to EL and a little of why I’ve responded the way I have. Based on information EL has provided, his wife goes out approximately 2-3 times a year. According to him, her last night out was last January. She is a stay at home mom to their young son who has only recently started participation in a community board. Currently, she is in withdrawal and one of her main complaints is that EL has behaved in a controlling and jealous manner in the past. He admits that this is a significant problem in their relationship and is largely reacting to triggers based upon a previous marriage in which his wife was unfaithful. He has been struggling with trying to find a way to help his wife feel more comfortable with his level of trust with her and learning to manage his own feelings which he has identified as inappropriately jealous.

His feelings about girls night out was one of the items he listed under emotional triggers that he has been struggling to control. I admit it did catch my eye because previously I had been under the impression that the primary problem centered on his discomfort with appropriate contact his wife maintained with other men. (Appropriate contact was described as contact for community board related activities such as coordinating a signature drive, planning meetings, etc.) I hadn’t considered that contact with other women was ever a problem.

One reason for my response is because EL and his wife have been struggling with arguments about perspective that spin out of control. I try to offer additional perspectives that can be discussed safely because right now those kinds of conversation are very difficult between him and his wife. The more preparation he has for various differences, the better he’ll be able to deal with discussions in a productive way. At least, that’s one theory.

One of the scenarios put forth was EL’s wife saying “I’d rather be out with you girls than H.” That it’s something I’d be likely to say. There are various reasons for that. One, I don’t always speak the objective truth – I’m not always speaking in facts. When I say “I had the best time EVER!!!” it’s not meant to be taken as a fact but rather as a measure of scale “I had a wonderful time!” Another reason is sheer politeness. It would seem odd to say “I had a really great time but not as good as the time we …. “ One of the things that EL has wished his wife would do for him is that if a statement can be interpreted one of two ways; one hurtful and one benign that she give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant the benign one. (EL, are you listening here? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> ) There may very well be a valid BENIGN interpretation of her statement.

But that’s a sneaky way of getting around the very real hurt EL feels. I don’t really expect that to work for EL or for his wife. So, dealing with the hurt in that statement is important. One question I asked is why, specifically, it bothers EL to hear his wife say that.

I think I have the answer in this statement: In a M where there currently is not much playfulness or flirting or intimacy, your H cannot understand why you think it is so fulfilling to flirt/play with a waiter for four hours, or dance with a guy in a way that you feel is OK. This is all hurtful stuff that women (a lot of women) seem to just think their Hs should except.

I think you also spoke from the same perspective. I think (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, EL) that he is afraid that she is having fun out there and the marriage will suffer by contrast. That is the focus of the article you pointed out. I suspect there is some very real, valid truth to that. First, EL’s wife is currently in withdrawal. From the history he’s related, he was also in a form of withdrawal prior to deciding to work on the marriage. The path back to intimacy from withdrawal takes you through conflict and that makes the marriage a not so fun place to be right now. I don’t discount the importance of safeguarding the marriage from outside influences.

However, there are some very important considerations. One is the history of the marriage. EL’s marriage started out with a lot of stressors for both parties. It is my understanding that she left her job, moved from her home town, got married, had a child, and then became a stay at home mom within the first year of marriage. Four years later, the picture painted is of a woman who has been largely isolated from her support group and has participated in very few activities outside the home with the exception of this recent community board. I think it is important that the marital relationship be safeguarded but I also think it important that she be allowed ( encouraged! ) to find some outside support in a healthy environment. No marriage or spouse should replace ALL the people in a person’s life.

Another consideration is the current state of the marriage. Right now, EL is working on managing his emotional triggers from his past relationships. His wife has told him she does not feel trusted, yet. Consistent actions on his part will be needed to demonstrate to her that he has changed this hurtful behavior. Managing his triggers is an important step in that process. I think it is very important that he think about and develop healthy boundaries in regard to this issue. On the one hand, he shouldn’t over compensate and agree to behaviors that will cause resentment and could lead to destructive patterns and on the other he can’t expect his wife to be enthusiastic about leading a cloistered life. I feel a concentrated focus on negotiation and figuring out where his comfort level is so that he can offer her as many choices as possible would be a positive step.

The purpose of this discussion (on my end) is to define what boundaries EL needs to have in order to feel safe and secure in his marriage and THEN develop a strategy on how to communicate those to his W in a way that does not reinforce her impression that he finds her untrustworthy or is trying to control her. Part of that includes offering different perspectives (so he can think about how she might perceive the situation differently) and another part involves challenging his assumptions.

Committed to Jewel, I do hope that you will make this thread one of your “homes” on this board. The more ideas we can come up with the better! I suspect that you and I have some very different general philosophies about marriage but that makes discussion so much more interesting and well rounded.

Mys

<small>[ August 29, 2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: myschae ]</small>

Extremely Lost

Well, I’m finally (FINALLY) out of the old house! Yay! Man, there is just nothing more depressing than when you get down to the dregs of what’s left to completely clean out a house. Last week was just .. harrowing. I am SO glad it’s over and I’m reunited with my H in temporary housing until we can complete escrow on our new house. Moving in is never as awful as moving out, though.

Ok.. back on track. I think I’ve kicked around the Girls Night out issue enough so I’ll skip that one until I see your reply.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Environment

It’s important to be in an environment conducive to communication. To that end, pick a time when you are most likely to be alert and able to participate fully. Schedule the time in advance. There should be no distractions. Find a sitter for the children. Turn off the television/radio. Delay the laundry. Start on time and END on time. Schedule follow ups as needed.

I agree with this entirely. I know my W would not agree with this at this time. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh? What parts do you think she would disagree with? I’d have thought the idea of an END time would be attractive to her <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> .

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> quote:

Agree to work on one topic at a time. Keep the conversation focused on the problem at hand. As much as possible, do not wander into past history. Agree that if any party feels the conversation has gotten off topic, s/he will let the other person know to wrap up his/her point and focus back on the topic at hand.

I definitely agree with this as I am the more "topic oriented" of the two. My W tends to jump all over the place. I think she may resist here or feel offended if I try to tell her she is off topic because she will thing I am saying, YOU ARE WRONG. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Heh. I think you both need work on this one.

One issue might be how you define ‘topic at hand.’ The agenda for the conversation has to be set by agreement. Consider this example:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> quote:

I also felt that both my W and I try to get in the last word in an argument. I realize that this is not a healthy communication skill and am willing to forgo my needing to have the last word if my W would be willing to agree that her last words are kind and caring." My W said, "I do not have to have the last word. I am only responding to you saying something unkind."

*whistle blowing*

STOP! You two don’t agree here.

EL, believes that the problem in your arguments is that you both want the last word.

ELW does not believe that she wants the last word in the argument.

.. if you both were here…
Let’s stop here and try to come to some agreement. First, EL, I need you to be very clear and acknowledge that your wife does not agree with your assessment that you BOTH want the last word in an argument situation. Therefore, she is probably not going to be open to your solution to a problem she doesn’t agree with. ELW, I need you to understand that EL believes that this is a problem and would like to do something about it. Whether or not that is really how you feel, it might be worthwhile to consider what EL is saying to you in an effort to improve communication.

I’d like to point out to you BOTH how closely what you are saying mirrors each other. In essence, EL is willing to discontinue an argument if ELW is willing to say something kind and caring. ELW’s is saying that she’s responding to an unkind word from EL. Can you both see how what you are saying is very similar. You both seem to indicate that you are responding to an unkind statement. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You had a topic you wanted to discuss, but from the start of the conversation you were all ready out of agreement. Focusing on the topic at hand is not short hand for being able to direct the discussion where you want it to go. It’s the both of you building agreement on what the problem is… and then focusing on the solution instead of getting mired in the historical incidents surrounding it.

I think we need to change this to including building agreement on setting an agenda for the conversation so that you both know what you’re talking about. What do you think?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> quote:

Agree to work towards a solution. That means do not focus the bulk of the conversation on explanation and chronology. Focus on what BEHAVIORS you want to see. That means practice ASKING for what you want.

Sounds good. I need to discuss this a little more to understand how to ask in a positive way. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Right. One very important component to being able to ask for what you want is KNOWING what you want. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> Another is KNOWING what areas you’re open to negotiate. POJA is about building enthusiastic agreements. Know what makes you enthusiastic and what would make you resentful. If you can go into a discussion with that information, then it becomes much, much easier.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> quote:

Agree to take a time out if either party is becoming too upset to continue. Either party can request a short (5 minute) time out if s/he feels upset. Either party can request a short (5 minute) time out if s/he feels the other party is too upset.

We have reached this agreement already, although at this point I feel it is open ended where she can say stop and thinks we do not have to discuss it in the future. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That’s why I advocate a short time out. If too much time elapses, often you have to start over. Who has the patience for that?! Not I! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> quote:

Agree not to engage in vengeful behavior and not to assume that your spouse is engaging in that behavior. That means that there is no revenge, retaliation, no grandstanding, and no disrespectful judgments. Listen to what your spouse is saying and accept that as his/her own personal truth of the moment. Agree that you both experience life differently. If you hear something that hurts you, take a time out until you achieve emotional stability. Understand that there may be some painful revelations your spouse needs to make and that they are NOT designed to injure you. Also, if you have painful revelations to make, you agree to make them as safe as possible for your spouse to hear.

I do not have a problem agreeing to this. I think my W may agree to this, but not really understand what is meant by it, maybe she will. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What area do you think she’ll misunderstand? It is very important that it be clear. What areas do you suspect she might find vague or interpret differently than you do?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> For sure I agree with this. I guess I am saying something similar when I wrote about when we would come back to an argument after having said stop, I might just validate her opinion that I was wrong or what we started arguing about was silly and leave it at that. But I cannot do this if we coast out of control and both end up getting hurt. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m confused. What needs to happen if it coasts out of control that is different? For example, that the sign caused a much larger argument doesn’t make that issue more relevant, does it? Hrm. I’m floundering here. Toss me a line.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Later I realized that it was not fair of me to have called her idea crazy, especially in front of a neighbor. So I apologized later for doing this. I still disagree with the amount of money she is talking about. The point here is that I realized I was name calling and did not realize it until after the conversation. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good for you for apologizing! *thumbs up*

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Of course there is a distinction, which is why I was flustered that something so irrelevant (like a sign we will never see again) started so much damage. I think if we were to try the pattern I suggested, where we come back to everything after it was decided to be stopped, my W will quickly see that half the time, when we come back to them, there will be no need to discuss things further. Maybe I am more after her recognition of whether I am finished discussing things or not. I think this may be more relevant because it is almost always her walking away from the subject. This could be it Myschae. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Uh huh. *blinks* You left me back at the curve in the road somewhere.

Ok, let me try and puzzle through this. You’re after her recognition that you’re finished discussing something? How would she be able to tell?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> My point about bringing this up is that others have seen BOTH of us in this pattern. I accept that we do this and am willing to change. I do not think my W is as accepting or as willing. What do you suggest? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You’re not going to like my suggestion. *evil grin*

So, tell me, EL what do you think would happen if you just let her be right?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> quote:

I think it is, and I think that it is a good thing to ask for, we’ll talk more about it once I have a sense about just how much resolution you need. Is it everything or are there some things you’re willing and able to exclude? It’s time to get down to the nitty gritty.

I guess I am not understanding what you are asking here. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, I’m still a little fuzzy on what makes any particular situation need more resolution for you.

I’ll give you some examples: (choose all that apply and feel free to change any to suit)

- is it because a decision needs to be made in the future (like actually spending money on a golf cart)
- is it because you’ve determined you did something wrong and want to offer an apology
- is it because you’ve determined that you were right and you want an apology
- is it the level of hurt feelings you experience (small hurts don’t; larger ones do)
- Is it the likelihood that the situation will arise again
- Is it because you STILL can’t understand her perspective but would really like to be able to
- Is it because you’re looking for some sort of acknowledgement or validation from her that the situation was <harmful, hurtful, silly, etc>
- Is it because you’re afraid she doesn’t understand your perspective and you’d really like her to be able to
- ….?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I know you were joking with this DJ, but I have to say, you would be surprised. I am a romantic person. My W is not really a romantic person. Being able to have deep conversations where we share our most intimate details and thoughs without worry or conern for being judged or put down is part of the defintion of intimacy for a lot of guys. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I was joking. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> I wouldn’t be surprised, either. Goodness knows my H has more of a romantic soul than I do.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Well, I would hope she wants it back or she would not be here, right? I have said this is what I want back and she has been trying to work on our M, so I would take this as an indication that she would want this back. I would not be able to understand why she would not want this back. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oooooohhh a challenge! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> Ok, just for the sake of being a playful devil’s advocate and stretching the bounds of your perception. What if she doesn’t want it back because she sees it as a step on the path to where you are now? Maybe, what she wants is a totally new, sustainable relationship that is NOT GOING backwards – it’s going forwards and leads to a different place.

Yeah, yeah, I know that’s out of context. But you should know better than to toss a statement like that out at me! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> (I do think I know what you mean. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> )

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Wonderful. I need my W to explain herself before she exits or walks away from something. This would go a long way towards me not building up negative resentment towards what I percieve as her just giving up. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, it is a learned skill. It would be a wonderful, learned skill on BOTH parts. Men can learn to do this, too. One very important part of this, though, is that in order for her to be responsive to this sort of request (thoughtfully expressed) it would be absolutely vital that you be able to listen to and accept her explanation. She’s not going to want to offer an explanation if you’re going to argue with her about why she’s doing something.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> As long as boundaries are understood and respected for what they mean. If you would still have went home, you would truly understand what that may mean to someone with a strong boundary against that action. You would have decided it was worth you taking your chances. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">True.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> To me it would not have been worth taking that chance, because I believe that walking away (or flying for this matter) is the worst thing that could be done. To me it is far worse than sticking around and arguing through it. At least sticking around shows commitment and a willingness to improve or solve something. The actual fact of walking away (or throwing away for that matter) is the same as saying to me "I do not hold the value of this relationship above the value of garbage." </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Possibly. It might also mean that whatever alternatives were offered were going to be worse than the consequences of leaving. It is very difficult to judge someone else’s actions through the lens of your values because people hold different perspectives and values. I might leave because, even understanding the boundaries stated, I still feel it is the ONLY way to save the relationship. Or, I might do it to prevent a violent felony. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> (that was a joke.. but, it is worthwhile to consider that rage in a marital relationship can escalate out of control.. leaving is always a better choice)

But, it’s worthwhile to know that you wouldn’t leave. Now, the question is, would the relationship really be over in your mind if your partner left?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I agree and your final statement works for both POV's. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yep.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I agree. I also think that if they were more like animals they would not be overly sensitive to some of the things we humans feel or mentally create. This is why Pavlov's experiment works much easier on dogs than humans. Although it works, it is not as effective. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Heh. This is very true.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> OK, but if I am going to try and reach an agreement with my W about the MC (which is a subject she currently does not even like to talk about), and how I would like the MC to be more forceful as a coach to correct both of us (which will put her on the defensive as me indicating she needs to be corrected), I will need your help on how to do this. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yeah. I’m thinking about this and trying to brain storm some ideas. The problem, as I see it, has several parts:

1.) How to explain what you want to your MC clearly enough so that she can understand it.
2.) How to present this strategy to your wife in a positive way that does not increase her defensiveness
3.) Building agreement with your W on each element of the strategy to be presented
4.) Building agreement between you and your wife on how to present the strategy to the MC and what to do if your MC is unable or unwilling to provide the strategy (like finding a new MC)
5.) How to react gracefully if your W says “NO” to presenting the strategy to the MC all together or disagrees with specific elements in it.

Did I miss anything?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> quote:

Well, I think number 4 is an appropriate boundary in marriage unless the man is a family member or a close friend of the family (godfather, like).

They are not and she just does not get it. She thinks it is my problem that I have a problem with this. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It was my understanding that she stopped? Yes, no, maybe?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I guess it is left somewhat upto my own inturpretation. I mean when I look at my W and see her looking at a man, like she used to look at me in the beginning of our R. She does not even realize she is doing it, but I do. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yeah, then it’s going to be hard to ask her to stop.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Of Course. We spend time with other couples, usually at our house or theirs because of kids. I think the problem was that my W's life changed so quickly and so dramatically from working two jobs (one as a bartender) to getting pregnant and moving to a different state that she felt cut off from what she was used to as normal friends. We did not have any family around us in this new state and we only had each other. Although my W is a very independent person, this takes something out of anyone. Now that it has been over four years and she has had time to establish a new life and new friends and is trying to find some selfworth through this "board" I think things are going to get more normal (I know, I hate this word too), for us. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">When you spend time with other couples, do her interactions with the male half of the couple trigger you, also?

And, yes, I think it’s good that she’s opening up to some outside activities. I think that might improve her overall general mood and that will help her find the energy to focus on your marriage. Isolation is a very SERIOUS problem. You don’t want her to suffer from depression.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I just wanted to say that since April this year, when I became aware of my M and how I was part of the problems (my "awakening"), things have gotten slowly better. I have been able to make some changes towards the positive. Our circular agruments have been infrequent. There have been times that my W has said "You have not changed" such as in the last MC session, but there have been just as many if not more times my W has said, "I can see your trying to change." I do think I have "woke up" in time to save my M and get it back on track. I do love my W. I believe this is the normal, but slow improvement rate that people have been trying to tell me about. I am by no means where I want to be with my M, but I can see some forward progress towards the over all goal. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m glad you see progress. I see a lot of progress in the way you’ve described your approach changing. I know you’re working hard at this and I think you’re doing a good job. Now get back in there and get to it!

Mys

Myschae --

You and I seem to have two very different interpretations of the term GNO. EL, I think, is closer to my perspective.

The #1 trigger on GNO is that it is exclusive. Which makes it blanket statement that, "I just don't want you in X part of my life." In a troubled marriage that kind of message is hard to accept.

The #2 trigger on GNO is when the W comes back glowing, and utters words such as "That was the *most* fun I've had in a long time. I can't *wait* until we do it again."

This is where we get to the difference between E-speak (emotional speak) and L-speak (literal speak). Normally we would talk gender differences, here, but I think it goes beyond that. Human beings, I notice, have a tendency to listen in L-speak when there is tension or an intimacy problem in a relationship. The more tension there is, the more literally we listen. That's why both EL and Mrs. EL are having problems with this issue. And that's why DJ's have to be addressed intentionally.

Trigger #3 on GNO comes when it crosses boundaries that the H thinks are their primary domain. (Which you have already mentioned) Things like dirty dancing with other guys tends to stomp on this barrier for a lot of H's.

Now, you mentioned:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’d like to quickly summarize the intent of my message to EL and a little of why I’ve responded the way I have. Based on information EL has provided, his wife goes out approximately 2-3 times a year. According to him, her last night out was last January. She is a stay at home mom to their young son who has only recently started participation in a community board. Currently, she is in withdrawal and one of her main complaints is that EL has behaved in a controlling and jealous manner in the past</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is a *very* difficult issue. This is part of the reason why I've encouraged my wife (I said pushed, but it's closer to a nudge) towards certain girls-together activities in the past. She has often felt like she had no friends besides me.

More, in a second post.

EL --

I totally feel for you, because I've 100% completely been there.

The fact of the matter is that it's just not easy to progress. The fact of the matter is that in your mind, your wife is potentially crossing reasonable boundaries. And in her mind, you are squeezing the life out of her.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environment

It’s important to be in an environment conducive to communication. To that end, pick a time when you are most likely to be alert and able to participate fully. Schedule the time in advance. There should be no distractions. Find a sitter for the children. Turn off the television/radio. Delay the laundry. Start on time and END on time. Schedule follow ups as needed.

I agree with this entirely. I know my W would not agree with this at this time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh? What parts do you think she would disagree with? I’d have thought the idea of an END time would be attractive to her .</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Let me kick in an idea here, because EL may not even know *why* his W would object to the idea.

My W and I have traditionally had a problem scheduling things. And it can be brought out by *one* statement you made "Delay the laundry." For a lot of us, this doesn't make sense. In face, for me, it felt like my W was more interested in the laundry, dishes, etc... more than our M. What I began to understand is that my W is under *constant* tension from undone tasks that she knows need to be done. It is a drastic emotional drain on her. So it makes it very difficult to have the discussion while putting aside the house duties. (Turn's out that my W's #2 EN is also Domestic Support).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You’re not going to like my suggestion. *evil grin*

So, tell me, EL what do you think would happen if you just let her be right?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That is the most difficult one. Sometimes you have to commit letting someone learn from their mistakes so that:

A: They will trust *your* judgement more
and
B: They will learn that you respect their judgement.

My W and I have had to do this on driving. We are *both* terrible back seat drivers, when it comes to each other. We've had to learn to shut up and let the other person drive. But, by doing that, I'm starting to figure out where I can improve. :-D

Clicked "post" before I wanted to:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">- is it because a decision needs to be made in the future (like actually spending money on a golf cart)
- is it because you’ve determined you did something wrong and want to offer an apology
- is it because you’ve determined that you were right and you want an apology
- is it the level of hurt feelings you experience (small hurts don’t; larger ones do)
- Is it the likelihood that the situation will arise again
- Is it because you STILL can’t understand her perspective but would really like to be able to
- Is it because you’re looking for some sort of acknowledgement or validation from her that the situation was <harmful, hurtful, silly, etc>
- Is it because you’re afraid she doesn’t understand your perspective and you’d really like her to be able to
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In my experience, it is often just because I'm waiting to *feel* like we have jointly come to a conclusion.


The good news is, EL, that by all the signs I see, things should go good for you. The basic fact that both of you are engaged in your M still is a great encourager. I've seen far too many posts here, recently, where one person is trying to change the M singlehandedly. It is very difficult to do.

My basic thought on "fixing" a marriage has become:

#1 Get *both* spouses aware that their is a relationship between them which their actions towards other affect.

#2 Get *each* spouse engaged and focussed on doing their best to get rid of their own part in the problems.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> In my experience, it is often just because I'm waiting to *feel* like we have jointly come to a conclusion. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*Holds up a sign that reads “SEND HELP!”*

I have no idea what that means.

Does jointly coming to a conclusion happen when:

- You both adopt the same perspective or opinion on the matter.
- You both agree that there is no further point discussing it because it’s trivial
- You both agree that you were wrong.
- You both agree that she was wrong.
- You both agree that you are NEVER going to agree
- You both agree that you understand each other’s perspective on the matter
- You both apologize
- You both develop a plan to prevent it from happening again
- You both forget what the heck you were talking about in the first place <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

I get the part that you both probably have to agree on SOMETHING. But what specific types of agreements are you trying to build?

Mys