Erastis and I are still trying to figure out how to negotiate and we thought you guys could help.

Our daughter's birthday is next Saturday. We have had some other pressing things on the calendar that have distracted me from letting the guests know when the party will be. The only people who are invited are extended family, so the urgency is less than if we had a large gathering of friends planned. I do still feel like we should let the extended family know soon, though.

I emailed E to let know my preferences for the party - that we invite family only and have it in the afternoon - and asked how he felt about that.

He asked how I felt about having the party when we could eat lunch or dinner. I told him I wasn't crazy about feeding everyone and asked how he felt about it.

He replied that he felt that meals were an important part of relationships and that we did not spend enough time with extended family, and wanted to know why I wasn't crazy about feeding everyone a meal.

I told him it is stressful for me to feed that many people, that it has only been a few weeks since we had extended company and that I'm not ready for another big group meal. I agreed that eating together is important and offered to have a few people over more frequently.

He asked if I could be more specific about the source of stress.

At this point the conversation is making me feel stressed. I don't have any more reasons, nor do I understand exactly how to explain why feeding a large group of people is stressful other than it just is. I let E know this and tell him that I consider feeding people cake, ice cream and snacks is sufficient and I am not in agreement with a meal. I mention again that I am willing to brainstorm other options for time with extended family.

His reply is that because I did not say that I was not in agreement earlier in the conversation, it sounded like I was willing to negotiate. He feels like I shut down negotiation without proper cause, and that we should "do nothing" until we are able to restart negotiations, and that "do nothing" means not having a party. He also said the meal was a big deal to him, and that if we just had the party in the afternoon with snacks he would be capitulating in a way that creates the wrong type of resentment.

My understanding is that I do not have to do something I am uncomfortable with, and that meal negotiations can be other options (such as smaller extended family meals at other times), and that it is fine to continue with discussions of other details of having the party.

How should we continue this negotiation?

There are many things to consider here. It sounds like you guys are on the right track and making a huge effort!

One thing that messes up negotiations is to try to accomplish multiple goals at once or make blanket agreements. In this case, I would not discuss trying to compensate by other family dinners or any consistent plan for family dinners.

Try to discuss this event only. If he would rather have no party unless there is dinner, then I guess that is his choice. However, the resentment you will feel by moving forward with dinner, cannot be undone, and the resentment he will feel by having cake and snacks only, can be improved over time, if he can find a way that you might be enthusiastic.

Conditions are a separate topic. In the course of negotiations, he could offer some ideas to you or ask if there is any condition under which you would be enthusiastic. Ex: Have the meal catered, have a cleaning crew, he does the work...

If you know that there are NO conditions under which you would be enthusiastic for this event, then you should do as you have done and tell him that there are no conditions under which you would be enthusiastic with having a meal at this party.

I would also suggest negotiating how you both will respond to any questions from family about a lack of meal.

Then, I would write down meals with others as a topic to bring up in the future. You know that it is important to him, so the goal is to find a win-win way to do it. Once you have an idea, do it on a trial basis and reassess at that point.

Something to add-

Negotiations don't need to stop just because you don't want a meal. That specific part would be off the table.

By eliminating the parts that either spouse is NOT enthusiastic about, we end up with a better solution than what would have happened when one is winning at the other's expense. No, we don't get our "10" idea of a party, but we get something pleasant.

I would compare this idea to what Dr. Harley said to your husband on the private forum about sex. (If I remember correctly.)

You are negotiating.does he only consider it a negotiation if he gets his way? Q

This account gives me the same feeling that I get reading one of Erastus's posts to the forum. This sounds like a highly unpleasant experience and I suspect you would get more fun beating your head against a brick wall than attempting to negotiate an agreement with him.

He slipped in a DJ at the point where he explained that he felt that "meals were an important part of relationships" etc; this was an attempt to educate you about why your approach to relationships was wrong. He should have simply said that he liked having meals with the family. After that, he tried to browbeat you into doing what he wanted to do. This is just NOT ACCEPTABLE.

In pressing you to define the source of the stress, he was really pointing out that you don't have a valid reason for the stress you claim to feel. This is unacceptable.

You did not shut down negotiations by saying again that you did not want to provide a meal and effectively ruling this out - and you do not need "proper cause" for saying that you don't want to do something. His saying that is bullying, and that is unacceptable.

He threatened you with his resentment if he did not get a meal. This is a selfish demand, it is an attempt to force you to do something you do not want to do, it disregards your feelings, it is bullying, and it is unacceptable.

He is quite correct that you must do nothing until you can come to an enthusiastic agreement about what to do for the birthday, so at this point, there is no gathering taking place at all, or any other way of marking the day. You should continue to brainstorm ways of marking the day, but until and unless you both enthusiastically agree to a suggestion, no party of any kind may take place. If he suggests something like having the mental catered, or doing the work himself, you should agree to that only if you are enthusiastic. If you are not enthusiastic about providing a full meal, under any circumstances, then that option must be taken off the table, WITHOUT repercussions or threats of resentment.

There is no such thing as "enough time" with extended family. The only relationships to which the concept of "enough time" apply are to those with with your spouse and those with your children - UA time and FC time.

His use of that phrase makes me wonder whether you feel obliged to have gatherings with family when sometime, you would really rather not.

Are you enthusiastic about a family gathering for your daughter's birthday? Is that what you really want to do to give her a party? A lot of parents would arrange an easy, child-focused party, such as an hour's bowling or ice skating, followed by a pizza. There is nothing to buy or cook and nothing to clean up, and no stress about making the house look nice.

Do you really want to have a party at all, and if so, do you really want it to be at your house? The family party sounded like a foregone conclusion at the beginning of your post - but is it something that you enthusiastically agreed to in the first place?

I think that Sugar meant "without" repercussions or threats of resentment.

This type of argument - where he browbeats you, picks holes in your logic, and bullies you to defend yourself ("without proper cause"), belongs in a courtroom. It absolutely does not belong in a marriage.

]
And you would be capitulating if you reluctantly agreed to the meal. It would create type A resentment, the worst kind.


I agree with Sugarcane's comments that you do not need "proper cause" to end an unpleasant conversation. These types of discussions belong in a courtroom, not a marriage.

DQ - we definitely tend to get spread out in negotiations. Focusing on one topic at the time is good advice. Also, I liked your suggestion about asking if there is any conditions under which I would be enthusiastic. I really struggle with understanding how I feel, let alone WHY I feel that way, and then putting all of that into words. I am just now beginning to recognize when I first start to get upset during a conversation. Trying to understand what would be agreeable is easier for me to express.


I do want to have the party at our house. I do not like spending money on rentals and we generally save "big" parties for certain milestone ages. I very much want to have the party, and I would be much more upset about not having the party than I would about feeding everyone.



So if there is no circumstance under which I would be enthusiastic about a meal and there is no circumstance under which he would be enthusiastic about no meal, there is no party then, right? My thoughts were more inline with DQ in that we work out the best we can on what we do agree on. But I remember Harley saying something about it not being good when both parties compromise.

Fortunately, you don't have to ever explain the WHY.


This is exactly the wrong way to go into a negotiation, nothing should be concrete. If you are both stuck in concrete positions, there is nothing TO negotiate. The goal of brainstorming in the POJA is to put aside your own pre-formed opinions and come up with something you both like. This cannot be win/lose. No one wins at the others expense.

I understand. This is a weakness I have in negotiation. My tendency is to either total capitulation or total rebellion.

That's good. Thank you for clarifying.

Those two things are not equivalents, though. They do not lead to the same place.

No circumstance in which you would be enthusiastic about a meal:

There are lots of things you can do without providing a meal. Ruling out a meal does not mean at all that the party is off.

No circumstance in which he would be enthusiastic about no meal:

That is actually imposing a condition (that there must be a meal). That means that there is no alternative to having a meal. He is imposing a condition that is non-negotiable; nothing can be done except to provide a meal. This actually means that HE is the one not open to negotiation; the mindset that he accused you of having.

Your "take this off the table" preference means that other things are possible. His means that other things are not. Therefore, if he does maintain that line, the party is off forever, unless you capitulate - which you must not do.

Please understand that stating that you are completely unwilling to provide a meal is not rebellion.

Providing one when you don't want to would be capitulation, though.

This is good clarification too.



I understand what you mean in this instance. I was just saying that when I initially feel pushed I tend to lock into "my way or the highway", but with continued pressure I usually cave, and that it's not a good negotiation skills.

Maybe that wasn't a good example...

I don't want to mislead here, Azurite. If there is not a solution that you are both enthusiastic about, then you don't do it at all.

My point was that if Erastis was still enthusiastic with having the party with cake and snacks only, even if his #1 choice was a meal, and you were enthusiastic also, then it would be a successful agreement. In negotiating, we often throw out our first ideal, to brainstorm other ideas until we are both enthusiastic. The final result may look similar to the original idea or totally different. It will always be good, instead of someone winning with their preference and someone losing.

If there is anything you don't want to negotiate about or you feel disrespected, then you can stop negotiating.

WHen I used to say things like that to Prisca, she would suddenly get upset and stop talking to me, sometimes for several days. I was mystified as to why. Then I came here and started learning that such attempts to educate my wife were disrespectful judgments and I finally understood why she was upset and how to stop upsetting her.

Erastis could have a happy wife if he would eliminate the disrespectful judgments. Are the two of you exchanging the weekly disrespectful judgments worksheets? Have you included this one on this week's worksheet?

Whenever I would talk to Steve Harley about negotiations, he would emphasize Dr. Harley's four guidelines for successful negotiation. I think you should take a look at these.

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3350_guide.html

Steve Harley would tell me that we should walk through the four guidelines and only proceed to the next guideline after we both agreed the previous guideline had been met.

Notice guideline 1:
Guideline 1: Set ground rules to make negotiation pleasant and safe.

Now I'm thinking that this guideline hasn't been met - negotiation isn't very pleasant for you on account of Erastis's disrespectful judgments, right?

From the FGSN article:
"If you reach an impasse where you do not seem to be
getting anywhere, or if one of you is starting
to make demands, show disrespect, or become angry,
stop negotiating and come back to the issue later. ... If your negotiation turns sour, and one of you succumbs to the temptation of the Taker with demands, disrespect or anger, end the discussion by changing the subject to something more pleasant. After a brief pause, your spouse may apologize and wish to return to the subject that was so upsetting. But don't go back into the minefield until it has been swept clear of mines. The mines, of course, are demands, disrespect and anger, and you must discuss how to avoid them before you return to the issue. You can't negotiate if your destructive instincts control your discussion."

Prisca nearly always felt that I was being disrespectful when I asked her "why?" and it turned out I felt the same way when she asked me, so we had to learn to avoid that question completely in negotiations. "Why?" just always sounded like a challenge, to both of us.

You don't need to explain why you feel the way you do. Ever. Don't waste another breath ever trying to explain why you feel what you feel again. Demanding that you explain "why" is an attempt to control you.

From now on: "This is just the way I feel." Period.