Actually, the negotiation has been pleasant and the goal is enthusiastic agreement. He told me (after years of allowing pets in the house) no more pets in the house. That's not poja, that's a demand. That would be him gaining at my expense.

All of the pets were bought or "not shot" (stray cats) long before we heard of the poja. I reluctantly agreed on the first two dogs. He reluctantly agreed on my poodle. The cats show up pregnant, have litters. We live out in the county. No animal control. Animal control out in the country, is a shotgun. When the kittens are old enough we spay or neuter them. Some stay, some run away, some are shot by neighbors, I'm sure.

Nonetheless, he had never demanded "no pets in the house" until recently. I understand his reasons. But, we need to find a win/win. The final decision cannot be "no pets in the house" or "pets in the house whenever, wherever."

Assuming you each have good will toward each other, meaning each of you wants the other to win, then you know neither of you should gain at the others expense.

Every time your H comes home to find the animals in the house, it's a love buster for him. Good will toward your H would mean you wouldn't want to be cause of his unhappiness. (Of course, he shouldn't want to be the cause of your unhappiness either.) If he's okay with the notion of the animals in the house, but he would like for you to put out the pets before he comes home, then why not give that solution a trial period to see if it works for both of you?

A selfish demand is when one spouse forces the other to do something. Your husband is not making a selfish demand when he insists that he doesn't want the animals in the house any longer. The default position is that the animals are outside. As long as the animals are outside, you can still enjoy their company outside, but your H doesn't have to face them when he comes indoors. He sees it as a love buster that you want the animals in the house in spite of his desire to come home to a house without animals.

While the animals are outside, your and your H can negotiate. Is he against ALL the animals in the house or are there one or two he would be enthusiastic (not just okay) about being inside?

If he is not enthusiastic about pets in the house, then it is not a demand, it is a lack of enthusastic agreement about pets in the house.

Pets.

Is your marriage worth less than the pets?

Also; POJA is a living contract; if a spouse has enthusiastic agreement to something, and is later no longer enthusiastic about it, then you return to default until another mutually enthusiastic agreement can be met.

It is a Selfish Demand to require a spouse to put up with something they are not enthusiastic about - and it creates building resentment.


When a spouse goes without something they are enthusiastic about, but the other spouse isn't the resentment isn't as threatening to the marriage.


For instance - if your husband wanted an expensive hot rod, and bought one despite your lack of enthusiasm, you would resent him than he would resent you if he never bought it.


That is why the default position is do nothing.



(Also; you could try cuddling your husband rather than your poodle.)

Yes, we have goodwill. We want both of us to win. I will try a period of putting the animals out when he gets home.

Yes, he is enthusiastic about my poodle being in the house, just not on our bed.

To tell me to put them out would be a demand. And of course my marriage is worth more than our pets.

And letting them in when he is not enthusastic about it is an independent behavior. It is bypassing a demand, and going straight to "I will gain at your expense if you will not agree to what I want."

**edit**

TO, it is a selfish demand to force him to endure your pets in the house. The pet issue should be negotiated and they should not be in the house unless you BOTH enthusiastically agree. The default position in the POJA is to do nothing and that means the pets do not come in the house unless and until you are both enthusiastic about it.

Another poja issue arose last night.

I asked him how he felt about attending my 25th high school reunion. He said, he didn't want to and didn't want me to go either. That our son has a football game that day and he wants me with them. I said ok. I asked him if that was his only enthusiastic position, he said yes. I said, ok, I'm not sure if I'm enthusiastic about not going, but ok. If there's no room for negotiation, then I won't go if he isn't enthusiastic about another option.

This morning he told me, I could go to the reunion. That he was enthusiastic about me going. That he thought he was being selfish in his position.

I told him that it isn't selfish to want to be with your spouse. That I didn't think he was being selfish.

I don't know which reaction is the REAL reaction. He literally did a 180 overnight. I don't want to DJ him and question this turn around. But, I also want enthusiastic and HONESTY agreement. What do ya'll think?

TO, here is where I think you don't understand the POJA. It doesn't require your enthusiastic agreement to NOT do something. IT requires your enthusiastic agreement to DO something. In other words, you shouldn't attend the football game unless you are enthusiastic. It doesn't matter if you are enthusiastic about NOT attending your reunion.


I would wonder if this wasn't a reluctant agreement. Does he understand how damaging reluctant agreements are to marriage? They only lead to resentment and incompatibility.

I'm pretty sure he understands. He listens to the show. We talk about enthusiastic agreement all the time. Making things win/win. Don't capitulate. When I asked why he changed his mind, he just said he felt like he was being selfish. I told him, that if he wasn't enthusiastic, I wouldn't go.

I yes, I'm sure I misunderstand the application of poja. I just hear Dr. H's voice in my head. "win/win" "Don't do anything without your spouses' agreement." When I think "agreement" I think we both are pleased with the decision.

I think back to most of the shows and Dr. H says to negotiate. Are you saying, that sometimes there is NO negotiating? That if one spouse says no, then the other must go with the no. No matter what.

Did you read my post? It means that your "enthusiastic" agreement is not necessary to NOT do something. For example, if you want to go shopping and your spouse is not enthusiastic, it does not mean you go ahead and go shopping because you are NOT enthusiastic about giving up your trip. The rule is that you don't do anything unless both spouses are enthusiastic about it.

No, I am saying that you don't negotiate. But if an agreement can't be reached that you are BOTH enthusiastic about, then that thing is forever off the table. For example, there are NO circumstances under which my husband would be enthusiastic about going shopping at the mall. NONE. So mall shopping together is forever off the table.

I am certainly not enthusiastic about not going to the mall HOWEVER, I would never want my spouse to sacrifice at my expense.

Thank you Melody, I understand now!

We thought everything needed to be win/win. But, sometimes it is win/lose.

I don't want my H playing computer games under any circumstances.(win). He wants to but doesn't. (lose)

But it's only a "lose" until you both arrive at a solution that makes you both happy. He may not ever play computer games, and he may be unhappy about that. However, once that activity is replaced with another that you both enthusiastic about, he will no longer be in a "lose" position.

Well, not really because forcing your spouse to accept something you don't like is not a win because the marriage suffers. Eliminating annoying behaviors and finding things to do that both enjoy is a win/win. His computer games would be lose/lose because you lose and the marriage loses. That is a net loss for your husband because it creates an unhappy, incompatible marriage. I sure don't feel like I have "WON" anything if I can force my spouse into doing/accepting something he hates.

It would be like be quitting smoking. It sure felt like a LOSS!! But the result: great health made it feel like a WIN.

Why would you go to a reunion without your husband?

He doesn't want to go and our son has a football game that day.

I've heard the Harleys say on their radio show that high school reunions ought to be attended by the couple, never by just the one spouse, because of the tendency with this occasion for affairs to start up. So if your H can't go, it's best for you not to attend either.