So, he'd like a party with a meal. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but you're not enthusiastic.

The "party with a meal" is taken completely off the table then -- it should not be brought up again. He feels resentment because he's not getting what he wants, but his resentment will go away once a new plan that you both like is put in place.

What other ideas can the two of you come up with in which you would both be happy?

If your proposal is something your spouse isn't enthusiastic about, then you are facing the prospect of the lesser type of resentment. Such as if you want the party to include a meal but your wife isn't enthusiastic about a meal.

If your spouse says they are only enthusiastic about one proposal then you are facing the prospect of the greater type of resentment. Such as if your spouse says they won't be happy if you don't have the meal they want to have.

This would be good for you to read:
Type A and Type B Resentment

If you have the party with a meal, you will be forced to do something against your will. You will have resentment type A, which is the worst kind and causes the most damage. It cannot be undone.

If you do not have a meal at the party, he will be prevented from doing something he'd like and will have resentment type B. This resentment will go away once you find an alternative.
And there are plenty of alternatives.

I need to print out some of those articles to refer to frequently. We've developed some bad habits of communication and it's hard for me to see what is a DJ.

I did ask how E felt about the meal. I am interested in his thoughts. If he phrased it in terms of his preferences - "it means a lot to me when we take advantage of opportunity to eat with extended family; when we eat together I feel like it strengths my relationship with them" - that is not a DJ by educating correct? I highly value E's insights and he often has more clarity than I do in understanding situations.

As far as asking "why" I can see in myself times when that is totally a DJ. Typically it's when I question why he did something and it's because I believe he made the wrong choice. "Why didn't you put these other dishes in before starting the dishwasher?"

I don't see how we could negotiate and never ask why. Harley uses as example of doing that in the DJ chapter on persuasive negotiation. In the example, he asks why Joyce doesn't like wearing a seat belt. Asking why seems necessary in investigating your spouse's feelings. Is it more of an issue of how the other person currently feels about the why questions or should they always be off limits?

We are keeping records of the DJs.

You are correct that Dr Harley implies that asking "why" is necessary in negotiation. Here is what he says in the Four Guidelines article:

"Respect is the key to success in this phase of negotiation. Once the issue has been identified, and you hear each other's perspectives, it is extremely important to understand each other--not try to straighten each other out. Remember that your goal is enthusiastic agreement, and there is no way you will be enthusiastic if you reject each other's perspectives. In fact, the only way you will reach an enthusiastic agreement is if you not only understand each other, but also come up with a solution that accommodates each other's perspectives."

He does imply that exploring the other's perspective is necessary. If, for example, Erastis can understand what you dislike about serving a meal at that gathering, he can better tailor any proposals that he can come up with, for you to consider (and vice versa). If the issue boils down to too much work, he can suggest ways of eradicating the work for you, and so on.

However, this must be done with the aim of reaching enthusiastic agreement, and not with the aim of wearing you down, or cross-examining you until the the holes in your logic appear, or until you run out of steam, or feel stupid because your reason is "trivial", or feel stupid because you cannot put your feelings into word at all. Asking "why" must not be done in order to show that you have no "just cause" for refusing the suggestion, or for judging you in any way at all, and that is what was being done there.

In Dr Harley's words:

"It's so much easier to negotiate the right way when your goal is enthusiastic agreement. It eliminates all the strategies that attempt to wear each other down with abuse. "

Your husband was attempting to wear you down with abuse, and you could feel that, and were finding the exercise more and more frustrating. It should never feel like that.

Your husband is skilled at using words to frustrate and back people into a corner, where they are not even sure what is being discussed any more, or what the overall goal is any more. In almost every thread I have read where he has contributed (including those on the private forum), he has alighted on a point, a phrase or even a word, and hacked it to pieces. The thing is that Dr Harley will never be diverted from his principles by anything Erastis can pull out to argue that Dr H is wrong, so he does not succeed in getting Dr Harley to back down. Equally, there are several forum posters who write to Erastis, who can see right through what he is trying to do, and won't let him get away with it.

The problem is that those posters are not married to him, they have no romantic love for him and no feelings that are being hurt, and they do not have to try and rebuild a badly damaged marriage with him. They are not emotional about him, and his tactics do not hurt them - but you are married to him, you are doing and feeling all those things, and you are hurt by his unpleasant approach, where he isn't negotiating at all, but telling you what is right and what is wrong.

If we could see genuine goodwill in your husband's attempts to negotiate with you - with a genuine effort to understand and respect your perspective, and only to get your agreement on things that you are enthusiastic about, we might not say that "why" is off the table. It is off the table for markos and Prisca, because the question harms their negotiations, but it does not have to be for everybody - not if couples genuinely follow Dr Harley's article.

Your husband has not been following Dr Harley's article, and your marriage is still fragile. Erastis needs to lay off they "why" question because there is no sign that he is using it to understand your perspective, and only signs that he is using it to point out how empty your argument is. It's disrespectful, in other words. He admits to not recognising his own disrespect, and he has a long way to go before he can do this.

At this point, the two of you should only try to negotiate through email. You should CC your coach on all emails while negotiating.

Markos and I had to do that for quite a while. It will slow communication down so that you can think through what he tells you, and you can edit yourself to try to prevent lovebusters of your own.

You can eventually get to the point where you can investigate and ask why. Maybe. Some couples have to stay away from the question "why?" because it's too loaded. You have a history of your husband trying to control you with disrespectful judgements, so this is going to be a difficult one. Asking "Why do you feel that way" is very often a disguised disrespectful judgement -- it's a way of demanding that you defend your feelings.

Dr. Harley and Joyce do not have this history -- she's not going to feel like she's having to defend herself if he asks her "why?"

It is entirely possible to negotiate without asking why. Markos and I do it all the time.
I state "I'm not really enthusiastic about that idea."
He says "Okay, how about this other idea instead?"
I say "No, that makes me feel insecure."
He says "Would this third idea make you feel good?"
And I say, "I'm open to that, but what do you think of this 4th idea of mine?"
He says "I love that idea! Let's do that!"

There's no demanding to know why each other feels the way they do. He doesn't need to know why his idea makes me feel insecure (it just does). I don't need to know why he likes his first couple of ideas (he just does). Nobody is having to defend themselves.

If you can get to the point where he asks "why?" and you can say "I just feel that way" and that's the end of it (he accepts your answer with respect and can move on to negotiating alternatives), then maybe asking "why" can be something that you two do. I guarantee you that if Dr. Harley asked Joyce why she didn't like wearing a seatbelt, and she responded with "I just feel that way," he would have accepted it and moved on.

For now, while you two are learning, staying away from "why?" will help the two of you avoid DJs.

Prisca used to complain about me doing this all the time, and I didn't even understand what I was doing. When I learned to filter out things that she felt were disrespectful, it went away.

Thank you all for the detailed information.

No "why"s for now, perhaps later once we have a good track record.

Prisca, I appreciate the sample conversation. That gives me a good idea of how to negotiate without asking why.

Oh, and Erastis actually suggested a few days ago that we do all of our negotiations through email. The party negotiation was through email. Our communication broke down but it wasn't the huge blow up that could have happened with a live conversation.

Also, he did say to me what Prisca suggested - the "Honey, I love you, and I don't want to abuse you with DJs anymore." He's really a great guy. But he's a fighter and tends to confront conflict, whereas I would rather avoid it. We both need more balance in that area.

This is my response to Erastis' thread http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/u...at&Number=2888422&gonew=1#UNREAD

Erastis was unhappy with how I interacted with men, but I couldn't understand what I was doing wrong. So at my request, he has given me a list of things that he sees me doing when he feels bothered - such as a bright smile, laughing, joking, touching my hair, my body fully facing him, steady eye contact, etc. He has also asked that I only have necessary conversation and keep it as brief as possible. No casual conversation, only a polite hello with a polite smile (in response, not initiated) then move away. If a man tries to initiate casual conversation I should give as short of an answer as possible then move away, or if I am unable to move away I should discourage further conversation by pulling out my phone or otherwise busying myself. When I do not follow these guidelines, Erastis feels disrespected and as if I'm giving a piece of myself away to someone else.

Doing these things occasionally make me feel like I'm being rude and confined in a legalistic box that is beyond normal EPs. At times I am anxious about situations. I come from a past of finding it much easier to talk to men than women, but I understand the dangers of having male friends now. I am very aware of not asking for help or mentioning a problem I have, as it would give a man a chance to offer a solution and deposit love units. Even though I am sometimes uncomfortable with the EPs, I am in agreement with following them and I try very hard to do so.

There have been several opportunities that have come up for the kids and me to do an activity. He has indicated each time that he is not comfortable with the activity because he doesn't trust me to follow the EPs he has requested and there isn't a way to hold me accountable. I've offered to carry my phone on an open call so that he can hear what's going on, but he wouldn't be able to see my body language. It is nice when we come up with an alternative solution but I'm still left with a distasteful reminder that he does not trust me.

What are the activities? What have you done instead of the proposed activity?

One was going to a town an hour away on a weekday morning when school was out with a lady and her kids to a trampoline place. Instead, the kids and I went to the local tennis courts to hit around for an hour.

The other is a local large convention-type event that Erastis mentioned in his post that is coming up this week. We decided that he will take off work to go with us one day. If my dad goes, it would be ok to go with him a second day as long as I stay with him the whole time (and don't wander off with or without the kids). If my dad ends up not going, Erastis was going to try to take another half day off to go with us again.

I don't remember ever hearing of such stringent EPs before. And like it was posted on E's thread, he pushed this affair. So EPs are just preventative, not just compensation.

In my experience, my Mom's H had similar rules for her, and it was because he was having his own infidelity. Do you check into what E is doing?

The EPs Dr. H recommends are posted here. What do you think about calling Dr. H? I don't want you two mistakenly building more resentment because you initiate conversations with people, when that isn't the trust-destroying behavior. I'd rather you to focus your efforts in ways that will help you build a thoughtful, loving, considerate marriage.

Recovery After an Affair

1. Honesty
2. Account for Your Time.
3. Spend As Much of Your Time with Your Husband as Possible.

He didn't want to get off track with explaining this in his thread, but I feel like I need to clarify. E did push the initial online sexual contact. But then he told me he wanted us to stop. I agreed, but later contacted the OM secretly. When that affair died a natural death, I was addicted to the affirmation and sought out other men with which to have online sexual contact. I had a secret second life for 18 months, and I do owe him just compensation.



Yes, he is very transparent with his time, phone, passwords, etc. and I do check up on him.



The problem is, me initiating an unnecessary conversation with a man DOES destroy his trust in me, (with a few exceptions like an older relative who is a pastor). While I don't like it, and I feel like it is overly stringent, my understanding of Harley's position is that what matters is how E views it. If it bothers him, I shouldn't do it. Also, Erastis has said that he is willing to follow the same EP that he's asked me to follow.

I think this is, without question, flirting, and I think you need to knock it off.

I think it's a very normal thing for us women to want to use our sexuality in interactions with men, and to flirt with attractive men - or with men who give out signals that they find us attractive. I think you could probably do with taking a long hard look at yourself and admit that you're flirting. Even though you will not have another affair, and you value your marriage and love your husband, knowing that you are attracting other men makes you feel good; why wouldn't it?

You're not doing this because you have a wayward streak running through you - or at least, no more than the rest of us do. You're doing this because it feels good to sense that some men are attracted to you. And you could legally indulge that, if you were single in a singles' market; but you have a husband, and you are making him unhappy, and if you want your marriage to be successful, you need to stop doing things that make him unhappy.

Stop putting yourself in situations where this behaviour can come out. It's very hard to exercise self-control so that you are consistently polite, but cool and unapproachable. Instead, stop going to mixed events without your husband. You're not single; stop letting other men think that you might be.

What has your coach said about this?

I'm always leary of women who claim to have trouble being friends with other women. It usually means the woman is constantly seeking male attention/approval. Do you have female friends?

Yes, I have female friends. I have no male friends. It took a bit of adjustment when we got married, but I learned to have female friends then, as Erastis did not want me having male friends from the beginning.

Did you read Sugarcane's post? I had the same impression when reading your posts and wanted to hear your reaction. I think the solution is real simple. Stop going to these events when your husband is not there. It sounds to me like you are flirting and that would explain why your H gets upset about it.

I read Sugarcane's post. If she was saying that I am deliberately flirting, I disagree.

That being said - the rest of what she wrote was spot on. It *is* very difficult to remain cool and unapproachable. I try very very hard to NOT send out any signals of flirtation. At one time, I was very open and friendly towards other men and was completely blind to my behavior as anything other than perfectly normal. I have come a long way and it hasn't been easy, and I know I'm still not there yet. That's WHY I asked E to make out a list of things that I should be aware of so that I can not do them. When Erastis and I are in conversation together with another man, often the man will maintain a majority of eye contact with me. We've worked through this and I've learned that if I shift my focus to E, the man we are talking to will also look at him. I HATE this. I just want to be able to have normal conversations without worrying about some guy thinking I'm attracted to him. I do enjoy friendships and conversations with women and I'm learning to shun the opposite sex in exchange for female interactions.

I rarely go events without him. I am fine with what Sugarcane wrote to E on his thread, and I appreciate the comments about dropping the wayward title. The convention is a community event that - along with many men - is full of families. It is disappointing, but because E has been very kind and loving today, not only do I not mind missing part of it, but I don't want to hurt him.

Am I on ignore?

Why didn't you respond to me, but only responded to someone's post about me, writing about me in the third person? Have I done something to offend you?