<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by snobird:<BR><B>To Lupo, AGG and others in that boat. I am just so glad I'M not married to any of you. I don't want to be someone's "commitment" or "responsibility". I want my husband to stay with me because he WANTS to.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Snobird, with all due respect, why would anyone in their right mind be interested in pursuing a relationship with a person who openly admits that they are unreliable and do not keep promises? That their promises are only based on thier "feelings" and may change the next day as the spirits move them? That is an expression of a profound lack of character. I wouldn't even loan you money, give you a job, or work for you, much less get involved with you. <P>

Why are so many here afraid to use "Marital Vows" as a positive defense in FAVOR of marriage and it's continuance? Why is it so Taboo? I feel it shouldn't be.<P>You and your spouse (WS and BS both) "willingly" and "consciously" made a "choice" to agree to them, and most of us in front of God and our family and friends.<P>It was a contract, one of spirituality, logic, emotion and legal that we all entered into, and one of THE most profound and important contracts in the course of our lives. I feel it shouldn't be something we're ashamed of bringing up on this board as a defense and compelling reason to NOT end the marriage. <P>I, as a BS, am not ashamed I made vows to someone I loved and planned on living with the rest of my life. No one held a gun to my head to force me to agree to them. I knew when I agreed to the verbiage in the vows that there would be hard times, as well as good ones. I took my vows seriously and I believed and trusted my H, as an intelligent adult, did the same.<P>Jo

dana...Snobird, with all due respect, why would anyone in their right mind be interested in pursuing a relationship with a person who openly admits that they are unreliable and do not keep promises? <P>snl...She did not say that, she said they are not absolute (essentially). Nor did she say anything about being unreliable. Nothing she has posted indicates she doesn't show up for work, drive safely, or pull her weight around the house.<P>dana...That their promises are only based on thier "feelings" and may change the next day as the spirits move them? That is an expression of a profound lack of character. I wouldn't even loan you money, give you a job, or work for you, much less get involved with you.<P>snl......Likewise one who lives life solely by reason, and is never swayed by emotion is not to be trusted either, and a sign of a profound lack of character. I am willing to bet you would violate any promise you care to offer as example, if sufficient cause were offered. I am regularly (don't know if you are guilty or not) chastised for equating marital feelins/choices with jobs, or other more mundane stuff (I guess). I wonder if one of those individuals will jump in here and do the same to you? (ok, half-kidding, but partly true). The point is marriage is a unique activity, and cannot be governed by contract type arguments.<P>Let me ask you something dana, agreeing (I assume you do) that feelings cannot be chosen, they just "are" (and further I would suggest feelings are not just some silly thing we do, they are important representations of our assessment of our reality too), how does one reconcile the following....<P>Most would agree sexual desire (assuming healthy idividuals) is a normal manifestation of love, so if one has no sexual desire for their mate, but "chooses" to follow the doctrine of duty (vows) and remain in the marriage even though not in-love (as evidenced by lack of sexual desire, but this could just as easily be evidenced in a lot of ways, not caring to spend time with someone, not missing them when they are apart, etc. you know, feeling stuff), does one still meet the SF EN need of the spouse? If not, then why even be married? If so, how is this different than any other prostitution (giving sex for an expectation of something in return)? This is the kind of stuff that one deals with when we exclude emotions as important. If you are gonna say vows are what make you married, what do you say to the people who will never desire their mates? Why be in such a marriage? That is what you are saying to sno, that even if your H (dana) does not love you, or desire you, you still expect him to stay married to you because he made a promise, and service your sexual (and other ) EN. Is that what you would want? Accept? <P>

jo...Why are so many here afraid to use "Marital Vows" as a positive defense in FAVOR of marriage and it's continuance? Why is it so Taboo? I feel it shouldn't be.<BR>You and your spouse (WS and BS both) "willingly" and "consciously" made a "choice" to agree to them, and most of us in front of God and our family and friends.<P>snl...The problem is what do you do if you no longer feel this way? (see question to dana above). How do you make yourself "love" someone, and why would you want someone to honor vows who does not "love" you?<P>jo...It was a contract, one of spirituality, logic, emotion and legal that we all entered into, and one of THE most profound and important contracts in the course of our lives. I feel it shouldn't be something we're ashamed of bringing up on this board as a defense and compelling reason to NOT end the marriage.<P>snl....No one says it is unimportant, just that it cannot be the basis for staying married. Although it can (and should be) the basis for doing the work to be sure you truly are not in love.<P>jo....I, as a BS, am not ashamed I made vows to someone I loved and planned on living with the rest of my life. No one held a gun to my head to force me to agree to them. I knew when I agreed to the verbiage in the vows that there would be hard times, as well as good ones. I took my vows seriously and I believed and trusted my H, as an intelligent adult, did the same.<P>snl..... The question is simple jo, and heartbreaking, if you looked at your H and asked him his feelings (after all the work is done), and he had to tell you (radical honesty) he cared about you, but did not want to be married to you, but he will stay if you ask him to honor his promise, cause he cannot bear your pain.....would you want that kind of marriage?<P>

I will try an respond to some other posts I have not yet, I am not ignoring anyone on purpose, just only so much time. Wish we could just have this all out verbally in some kind of round table, (preferably with pizza and pepsi).....hmmm or upon reflection maybe a wrestling arena, could do tag team......or maybe a boxing ring. Thx for all the participation.

Wow, stay away for a day or two and look at the length of this thread!...Anyway, my "bottom line" take on all of this is....you can talk yourself into anything....being happy, sad, outraged, moral, pretty much anything....as humans we'll always find a way to justify what we want...."yes officer, I know I was speeding, but I'm late for work".... "No, doctor, I didn't take the antibiotics because they were hard to swallow"..."it's in the mail" al excuses we use to justify our behavior....so, talk yourself into what you really want.<BR>T<BR>

SnL, I do appreciate your words. And I'd be your tag team partner! :-) I'm not very big, but I bite and scratch!<P>There are just so really hard topics here and rather than keep digging, I'm going to step out of them and back off. Perhaps I HAVE been a bit too...verbal. But when cornered I tend to get real territorial. I'll be around posting under calmer circumstances.

SnL,<P>I don't know if I should even bother. I don't have a lot of time and I really don't like to go on a verbal search and destroy mission. What I find most annoying about your musings and your arguements is that they are like many arguements in a debate based on a flawed set of based assumptions. I believe I recall that you are a lawyer, and so this tactic is very familiar to you. Start with some flawed assumptions, build an elaborate and yes "logic" set of reasons on this base set of assumptions and see if you can blow it by a jury.<P>If you are good at this you WIN, and I don't doubt that YOU are good. But it doesn't really change the fact that you assumptions are flawed. You have structured your arguements here by misconstruing the Harley approach, the approach of many people, and what appears some seriously misunderstanding of human nature (of which you profess to be an expert). <P>Now, me I am "just learning", but I do KNOW a few things.<P>1. The Harley's and their method is not about marriage absolutism. They believe that divorce should take place. But the stated goal here is to save the marriages in which there is indeed love and where the circumstances of life has buried that love. Marriages where changing the behaviors of both parties, time, patience, and consideration (plan A, the 4 rules, POJA, and just plain forgiveness can rebuild a marriage. I would guess that number to be well over 50% of the marriages.<P>They offer the opinion that if needs are met, that people who still have love for one another or used to have it can reignite that love. Harley also suggests that love can be built where none exists, but only if needs are being met. I don't believe that he proposes that other items such as good will, physical attraction ( a need), ability to communicate ( a need) and a general willingness to have a relationship are absent that love can be built. They use the useful and simple approach of NEEDS. You could say it differently. It boils down to showing kindness, consideration, and using communications. <P>WHat they have observed that is a bit different is that if this demonstration is not directed at the individual (their specific needs) that the effort is often overlooked and not received in the manner intended (a person has wasted their time). So random acts of kindness are often not effective.<P>2. You have put down as a base assumption for you arguements that most people here think that a marriage should be saved no matter what. Clearly, you don't read here as much as you need to. There is a Divorced section to this site and it is populated by all sorts of people. WHat most people here seem to feel is that if you have made a vow, you should make a legitimate effort to meet that vow. Something, I sense you are indeed trying to do. <P>However, your ruminations often suggest that the BS should just get over it and meet their fate as rejected human beings. You may not have intended this but it is exactly the message you often lead off with.<P>3. You assume that many of the people posting here, think you should stay in YOUR marriage no matter what. I know I don't. From what you have said about your W and your marriage, I question why you stayed at all. But, I question even more your having an A, and THEN deciding that your W is the <I>wicked witch of the west</I>.<P>4. You make statements suggesting that your broad base of knowledge of the human condition means that your interpretations of peoples behaviors (such as most BS's being controling) is correct or even close to correct. Your antipathy toward people being angry or in pain following be betrayed and viewing that as controling is not consistent with the reality I have seen here or in my life (which I believe to be longer than yours).<P>5. You purpose that "logic" must be applied in a relationship, yet your behavior defies logic unless you are an inherently evil person, which I doubt seriously. For if you truely only act after due consideration and in a "logically" consistent manner, how do you explain remaining married to your W before the A and having the A? You clearly should have known, given your study of the human condition, the pain it would cause her, the family of the OW and yes even your children if the divorce turns ugly.<P>You behavior does not display "logic", clearness of thought, and absence of emotion you commonly expect the people you advise here to have.<P>This is what bothers me most about your approach here.<P>On the other hand you posted in this long thread the following: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I know I was dishonest as far as the development of the A. But as soon as I realized how I felt, I told my wife I would agree to her previous suggestions of divorce. It was not the way I would have chosen to resolve the marital concerns, but I had no real idea of what it was like to bond with someone (had never done so with my wife, was living the committment you suggest, for 23 years, and it was killing both of us), and found myself in a very<BR>uncomfortable place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>See the problem that bothers me here is not that you had no clue about what being married should mean. What bothers me is that you seem to think that there is no hope that you cannot get what you want with your W. The methods proposed here may or may not work. Perhaps there are better methods or ones more effective for you, but the reality is that you are not trying them. <P>No one is arguing that you should stay in a completely disfunctional marriage. We are arguing that that since you are still under the influence of the OW and you admit as much, it is unlikely that you will give your marriage a chance to become the marriage you want. This has been one of the <B>strawmen </B> you have set up in your discussions.<BR>You are assuming that your W cannot/won't change. This may be true but let her demonstrate this to be true. By the way, how would you have "resolved the marital concerns" if you had complete control of this situation and before your A?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Since she declined, I will honor the committment and revisit our marriage, but I know what in-love feels like now, what it looks like, sounds like... and I won't settle for committment any more. My wife and I will either fall in love with each other or we won't, but we will not stay married without that bonding. I don't want a roomate, and neither does she, we want enthusiastic choice. Committment means I have obligations to provide for her for the rest of her life, and not reject her, or demonize her, and I will honor that, but I do not need to be a spouse to do so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I read this statement and say; this is all anyone could ask. And then we come to the last sentence. You do have to be her spouse if you propose not to "reject her". Having an affair is the ultimate "rejection" for a married person. Divorce is about rejection also unless both parties are enthusiastic about getting one. Note the word "enthusiastic". I chose it for a purpose it goes with the POJA. <P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>For that matter she may not continue to choose me, it disturbs her I love the ow, but I cannot lie about it, should I lie? This is the on-going problem with feelings, it is great to say one is in-love with their spouse, but if not, and with someone else, somehow they do not count. How does that work? She does not want me to be here cause of committment, she wants me to be in-love with her, and I have absolutely no control over that, it is a matter of the heart that not you, or I, or anyone understands, or can control. All we can do is deny our hearts, I don't think we should, nor would I ever ask anyone to do so for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You don't want her to have feelings, but you have them for OW and you have committed an illogical act because of them, based on your own logic. And for the record, it appears that her "feelings" don't count either do they. I will repeat if your behavior meets your own standards for "logic" and absence of feelings, then you truely are an evil vengeful man. <P>I repeat this because you counsel people not to have feelings and consider that their spouse has them and that is the reason they have acted. To reject the presence of emotions and feelings, leaves only the "logical" conclusion that these people acted with the utmost cruelity and with malice of forethought. I don't think so in many of the people you have posted to and I don't think so in your case. You have admitted as much in your own situation.<P>SnL, it seems to me you come to a crisis. Perhaps your personal faith is telling you not to divorce, perhaps your commitment to the vows you would like to dismiss as just something convenient is stronger than you would like to believe. Perhaps you just don't want to be the bad guy for having the affair and wanting a divorce from your W, so you would like to argue that marriage vows, religion, and certainly feelings are all bogus. But I would submit to you that you are a victim of your own "logic". You have persuaded yourself, that all people here, the Harley's, and perhaps the clerics in your religion would have looked down on you had you simply divorced your W because she was not a W to you. You are wrong. Most here would have counseled to see if somethings could be changed, but if you had tried and they didn't they would have supported you as they probably will no matter what you decide.<P>It was your failure in having the A, that has caused you the heartburn, not us, not even your W. I will quote Lostva (Lori) when she came to realize that "there are more vows made than just fidelity." Most people here recognize this and they realize that if they are the BS, they must recognize and cease their behaviors in order to rebuild the marriage, but they do ask that they not be told to "just get over it" when having to deal with the WS's infidelity.<P>It isn't the institution of marriage that has failed. It is peoples failure to communicate the changes they feel in their lives, yes their "needs", their dreams. It is peoples failure to treat their spouse with respect and as a partner. It is many things. But what is known is that a marriage can be improved, it can be made where both parties are happy. But it takes focus and effort. It is not just finding your "soulmate". I know from extensive experience that there are many soulmates out their, but without nuturing, effort, focus these soulmates leave or lose their attractiveness.<P>SnL, I will close this by agreeing with you as I do on many particulars. Life is not 50/50, it is 100/100 each person should be giving the best they can at all times, but as you said it is not a mathematical process and the concept of <B>equal </B> does not apply.<P>So please do me and others a favor, don't assume that we are against something when in fact the data shows we are not.<P>God Bless and I do hope you and your W find your way through this and it can be resolved in a manner that you both agree to "enthusiastically".<P>JL<p>[This message has been edited by Just Learning (edited September 22, 2001).]

Thank you, JL. Only you could articulate it so eloquently. <P>Jo

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Twyla:<BR><B>Wow, stay away for a day or two and look at the length of this thread!...Anyway, my "bottom line" take on all of this is....you can talk yourself into anything....being happy, sad, outraged, moral, pretty much anything....as humans we'll always find a way to justify what we want...."yes officer, I know I was speeding, but I'm late for work".... "No, doctor, I didn't take the antibiotics because they were hard to swallow"..."it's in the mail" al excuses we use to justify our behavior....so, talk yourself into what you really want.<BR>T</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Man oh man, do I wish it were that easy! My problem is that I long ago quit believing my own bullsh** so I just gave up and tried brutal honesty. And I was pretty good at making excuses for myself at one time. And I have to tell you, life is so much easier that way - it's just too much work to come up with all that BS.<P>

jl...I don't know if I should even bother. <P>snl...Boy, is that a disrespectful judgement? But ok, no foul, maybe I do seem hopeless, but I do read and contemplate everything that is posted to me, and right or wrong, what you see is what you get, I am tryinf my best, and I have no agenda (other than understanding this part of life).<P>jl...I don't have a lot of time and I really don't like to go on a verbal search and destroy mission. <P>snl...One thing about on-line discussions, sooner or later you can hang anyone on their own petard. Frankly I don't worry much about what I might have said, or how I phrased it. People (and not saying maliciously or anything) constantly misunderstand and go off on tangents not intended by the poster, usually to promote their own view. I post a large volumne of stuff about the many nuances of this issue, often emphasizing or focusing on different things. I have no doubt you could search and destroy accordingly. I also do not intend for the body of my prose to be consistent, as I will argue from different (and sometimes conflicting) viewpoints on the same issue. The goal is to illuminate these issues as much as possible. I sure don't have all the answers, and neither do the harley's, or yourself, or anyone else. Maybe the answer is we should not have marriage at all, or maybe it should be a civil contract and expires every year, renewal is voluntary, maybe we should have compatibility testing (yearly), and if you fail, the marriage is immediately dissolved, I don't know what is right, but I am trying to figure it out, otherwise how can I act at all?<P>jl....What I find most annoying about your musings and your arguements is that they are like many arguements in a debate based on a flawed set of based assumptions. <P>snl...You see, I think my assumptions are sound, and fit (the human condition) better than others promoted here. But I would expect to have to prove that, and so should you...correct? One of the things than annoys me the most is an inconsistent set of assumptions....in fact, I try to at least make an effort to go on record re my assumptions (which makes me a target), but that seems to not be the case in general. Maybe I will start a thread on what assumptions should we use re human behaviour. For instance, I have no idea what your assumptions are. But I gather you agree marriage is not an absolute, that people should only stay married if they are enthusiastic, and that vows imply one make themself available for a reasonable effort at reconcilliation before divorce if spouse offers a credible proposal to change. I would agree with all those assumptions, I am not so sure we actually differ all that much. Where we may differ is what exactly are feelings and what role should they play in our behavioural choices.<P>jl....I believe I recall that you are a lawyer, and so this tactic is very familiar to you. Start with some flawed assumptions, build an elaborate and yes "logic" set of reasons on this base set of assumptions and see if you can blow it by a jury.<P>snl....I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted...no jl, I am a nobody, just a lowly blue collar grease monkey, I fix furnaces and air conditioners.<P>jl....You have structured your arguements here by misconstruing the Harley approach, the approach of many people, and what appears some seriously misunderstanding of human nature (of which you profess to be an expert). <P>snl...Not sure how you define expert, a word I usually avoid (did I really say that?). But I do think I am pretty skilled at understanding human nature (relative to the population in general), perhaps I decieve myself, is that your assessment of my skills?<P>jl...Now, me I am "just learning", but I do KNOW a few things.<P>snl...As should we all be, all the time... the older I get the more I realize I don't know, and I am about to the point I realize I don't know anything at all....how about you?<P>jl...1. The Harley's and their method is not about marriage absolutism. They believe that divorce should take place. But the stated goal here is to save the marriages in which there is indeed love and where the circumstances of life has buried that love. Marriages where changing the behaviors of both parties, time, patience, and consideration (plan A, the 4 rules, POJA, and just plain forgiveness can rebuild a marriage. I would guess that number to be well over 50% of the marriages.<P><BR>snl...sounds good to me. And I do understand that, I wouldn't waste my time here if I did not.<P>jl...They offer the opinion that if needs are met, that people who still have love for one another or used to have it can reignite that love. <P>snl...ok<P>jl...Harley also suggests that love can be built where none exists, but only if needs are being met. <P>snl...I completely disagree. You can build caring, goodwill, and tolerance, but not love (at least not the bonding passionate kind, it either was there to begin with or never will be).<P>jl...I don't believe that he proposes that other items such as good will, physical attraction ( a need), ability to communicate ( a need) and a general willingness to have a relationship are absent that love can be built. They use the useful and simple approach of NEEDS. You could say it differently. It boils down to showing kindness, consideration, and using communications. <P>snl...This is just dancing around the fundamental issue, or assumption, does it matter who you are partnered with, can you be in-love with anyone, makes no difference who you marry, I say yes, it does matter, and I don't think you think so either (that doesn't matter)..<P>jl...WHat they have observed that is a bit different is that if this demonstration is not directed at the individual (their specific needs) that the effort is often overlooked and not received in the manner intended (a person has wasted their time). So random acts of kindness are often not effective.<P>snl.... maybe so, but I also think what they are observing is that if you do not fit someone, you do not want them acting toward you like a lover, and will deliberately (so to speak) not recieve their efforts. Is an interesting concept, meeting needs, I don't think it is just a choice, I think ones needs (as far as being in-love) can only be met by someone you fit. But I am inclined to think people who do fit may find themselves in trouble if they get sidetracked from meeting needs.<P>jl...2. You have put down as a base assumption for you arguements that most people here think that a marriage should be saved no matter what. <P>snl...Only when they argue that way. Not my assumption, is an observation. However, I am aware when push comes to shove few people will agree that marriage is an absolute. And that even despite the "extended" list of reasons to divorce (abuse, addiction etc.) and the puzzleing conundrum of who decides what is abuse, addiction etc., most also agree they would not want a spouse to stay who was not enthusiastic (in other words said they did not love them, and if they could would not be married to them).<P>jl...WHat most people here seem to feel is that if you have made a vow, you should make a legitimate effort to meet that vow. Something, I sense you are indeed trying to do. <P>snl...Yes I am, and yes I agree.<P>jl...However, your ruminations often suggest that the BS should just get over it and meet their fate as rejected human beings. You may not have intended this but it is exactly the message you often lead off with.<P>snl...There is no such a thing as a rejected human being. That is the guilt trip we put on each other when we want someone to adjust their behaviour to meet our needs. And I do think people wallow in self-pity way too much, we have life far to good in this country, and at this time in human history. I wallow in self-pity myself, it feels soooooooooo good, but I do not delude myself as to it's uselessness. As proof, let me ask you who you would choose as a mate (if you were available) someone who runs about woe is me, or someone who sucks it up, and takes positive proactive actions? This is about survival jl, and the more you allow yourself to feel a victim, or rejected, or worthless, the more you reduce your chances of survival. My advice is sound, and people ignore it at their own peril. But it is a free country, and self-destructive behaviour is a choice we can all make.<P>jl...3. You assume that many of the people posting here, think you should stay in YOUR marriage no matter what. I know I don't. From what you have said about your W and your marriage, I question why you stayed at all. <P>snl...Why do you question, I made vows, committments, and am willing to agree that emotions can be messy and confusing so one should be cautious.<P>jl...But, I question even more your having an A, and THEN deciding that your W is the wicked witch of the west.<P>snl..I decided that long before the A. And one does not have an A. In some ways I realize now I was a very naive person. I like many, just tried to hang on to what I was indoctrinated to believe...I had no idea how vulnerable that made one to being emotionally blindsided. One does not choose to have an accident, but one can choose to drive fast, or skip the safety lectures, and not wear a seatbelt, or get distracted by the radio, or a lot of things. One does not have an affair, much less choose to have one, one falls in love, and human behaviour takes the path it always does.<P>jl...4. You make statements suggesting that your broad base of knowledge of the human condition means that your interpretations of peoples behaviors (such as most BS's being controling) is correct or even close to correct. <P>snl...How about you? You have any faith in your ability to discern?<P>jl....Your antipathy toward people being angry or in pain following be betrayed and viewing that as controling is not consistent with the reality I have seen here or in my life (which I believe to be longer than yours).<P>snl...Then we differ.... unless perhaps you live in a different world. Behaviours stand on their own, and being screened by anger, hurt, and righteous indignation changes nothing. Control is control, and when one acts in a manipulative or coercive manner their is no other label. That there is so much is hardly surprising considering very few marriages are based on love. It is nothing more complicated than one human being trying to get what they want from another human being....few are willing or able to truly let another choose them freely, they need to hedge their bets.<P>jl...5. You purpose that "logic" must be applied in a relationship, yet your behavior defies logic unless you are an inherently evil person, which I doubt seriously. For if you truely only act after due consideration and in a "logically" consistent manner, how do you explain remaining married to your W before the A and having the A? You clearly should have known, given your study of the human condition, the pain it would cause her, the family of the OW and yes even your children if the divorce turns ugly.<P>snl....Actually this was a hole in my knowledge base, having had no experience myself, or with anyone else re affairs. I really thought affairees were all low life sex addicts with no morals or ethics, I had no idea, I was very naive. I actually thought people would be happy for us, finding someone we fit and who made us complete.....It is how I would have felt for my wife.... someone pointed out to me I have way to high a regard for human kindness, they were right. People pretty much don't care about anyone but themself, and if they want someone else to meet their EN they by gosh that person better do it, or there will be hell to pay. Personally I have never asked anyone for anything they did not freely want to give, and I never will.<P>jl...See the problem that bothers me here is not that you had no clue about what being married should mean. What bothers me is that you seem to think that there is no hope that you cannot get what you want with your W. The methods proposed here may or may not work. Perhaps there are better methods or ones more effective for you, but the reality is that you are not trying them.<P>snl...How can you say I am not trying? If I am trying I will be successful, if I am not successful I am not truing...is that your logic? Of course if you think fitting someone is irrelevant, you are right, I must be deliberately choosing not to be in-love.... but since I am not conciously making such a choice I am either mentally ill, or who you are trying to fit does make a difference.<P>jl...No one is arguing that you should stay in a completely disfunctional marriage. We are arguing that that since you are still under the influence of the OW and you admit as much, <P>snl...I am under a spell? You believe in witches? In any event, I am in no contact, nor did the ow ever ask me to leave my marriage, in addition she has stated she can never leave hers whether she is happy or not. So not much of a spell here to interfere methinks.<P>jl....it is unlikely that you will give your marriage a chance to become the marriage you want. <P>snl...And of course if it doesn't work, that just proves I didn't try...do you really think that is a fair way to assess someone jl?<P>jl....You are assuming that your W cannot/won't change. This may be true but let her demonstrate this to be true.<P>snl....I am letting her, why in the world do you think I am not doing so?<P>jl....By the way, how would you have "resolved the marital concerns" if you had complete control of this situation and before your A?<P>snl...I would have divorced her. She wanted it, I had come to understand we did not fit, was horrified at the thought of spending 30-40 more years like this, and was unwilling any longer to give blind allegiance to empty vows.<P><BR>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Since she declined, I will honor the committment and revisit our marriage, but I know what in-love feels like now, what it looks like, sounds like... and I won't settle for committment any more. My wife and I will either fall in love with each other or we won't, but we will not stay married without that bonding. I don't want a roomate, and neither does she, we want enthusiastic choice. Committment means I have obligations to provide for her for the rest of her life, and not reject her, or demonize her, and I will honor that, but I do not need to be a spouse to do so. [quote] <P>jl...I read this statement and say this is all anyone could ask. And then we come to the last sentence. You do have to be her spouse if you propose not to "reject her". <P>snl...Let me clarify, I did not mean that last sentence to apply during the reconcilliation effort. I just meant if you determine you are not in-love there is no reason to be married, I can meet all her needs, and my committments as an exspouse.<P>jl....Having an affair is the ultimate "rejection" for a married person. Divorce is about rejection also unless both parties are enthusiastic about getting one. Note the word "enthusiastic". I chose it for a purpose it goes with the POJA.<P>snl....I don't believe in the concept of rejection, I prefer radical honesty. If you choose to enter a relationship (of any kind) with another human being you tacitly accept the good and the bad possibilities....one being the relationship will end and you will be dissappointed. One should accept that just as readily as the outcome of getting what you want and being happy. One should never undertake anything one is unwilling to pay the price for. What one should desire above all else is radical honesty. So if you come to find your spouse does not love you (in a marital way, only a caring way), my sense is you thank them for their respect for you (by telling you the truth) and participate in mutually supportive end to the marriage. Surprisingly, people do do this jl, people who do not have their own agendas of you owe me. No one who chooses to love me, will ever owe me anything but the truth, and the moment they stop loving me, I would prefer they leave....why is that such a hard thing to understand? How can you ever love anyone if you bind them by not wanting to know the truth? Or by committment, vows, or anything else? I gave my wife a lot, a tremendous amount of emotional resources the first 5-10 years of our marriage. And I was very angry and hurt when she rejected me (gave nothing back). I struggled with this for a while, I mean fair is fair right? She made vows right? But I didn't like how I felt, I finally came to understand you cannot love and expect anything, it is a gift, always a gift, freely given with no expectations of anything in return. I was ok after that, and I forgave her. I am not mad, or angry now. I have given this woman the prime years of my life, devoted my entire being to her, I have plenty I could be angry about, but I am not. But I am determined to find the truth of our relationship, and if it is not in-love then it should end. What I get after the bs on occassion for is this expectation they are owed something, they are owed nothing, not if it is love they profess, now if it is a contract, ok, lots is owed....but usually they say no, is not a contract, they want to be loved, they demand to be loved, they are owed love.....is a dangerous mindset. I would like to think expecting fairplay from folks is not unreasonable, (whether married to that person or not), and to that end a bs can feel "owed" some things I think, but being owed love is not one of them.<P>snl (said)...For that matter she may not continue to choose me, it disturbs her I love the ow, but I cannot lie about it, should I lie? This is the on-going problem with feelings, it is great to say one is in-love with their spouse, but if not, and with someone else, somehow they do not count. How does that work? She does not want me to be here cause of committment, she wants me to be in-love with her, and I have absolutely no control over that, it is a matter of the heart that not you, or I, or anyone understands, or can control. All we can do is deny our hearts, I don't think we should, nor would I ever ask anyone to do so for me. <P>jl....you don't want her to have feelings, but you have them for OW and you have committed an illogical act because of them, based on your own logic. And for the record, it appears that her "feelings" don't count either do they. I will repeat if your behavior meets your own standards for "logic" and absence of feelings, then you truely are an evil vengeful man.<P>snl...I have no idea what you are talking about here. Her feelings do count, they are hers, and she acts on them. Often in ways quite insensitive and hurtful to me. <P>jl...I repeat this because you counsel people not to have feelings and consider that their spouse has them and that is the reason they have acted. <P>snl...I think things are getting a little confused here. First I have no status to counsel anyone, I just have my point of view as do you and everyone else, to take or leave as one sees fit. But if I understand your reference correctly, it is simply my assessment of what immediate action one can take when dealing with a ws in some circumstances. That should not be construed as thinking a particular bs feelings don't count..... I think this falls under the concept of do you want to be married, or do you want to be right....it is more of a damage control thingy, an immediate action thing.<P>jl....SnL, it seems to me you come to a crisis. Perhaps your personal faith is telling you not to divorce, perhaps your commitment to the vows you would like to dismiss as just something convenient is stronger than you would like to believe. Perhaps you just don't want to be the bad guy for having the affair and wanting a divorce from your W, so you would like to argue that marriage vows, religion, and certainly feelings are all bogus. But I would submit to you that you are a victim of your own "logic". <P>snl...perhaps, I keep all these things (and more) in mind, until I finally decide what is what.<P>jl....You have persuaded yourself, that all people here, the Harley's, and perhaps the clerics in your religion would have looked down on you had you simply divorced your W because she was not a W to you. You are wrong. Most here would have counseled to see if somethings could be changed, but if you had tried and they didn't they would have supported you as they probably will no matter what you decide.<P>snl....I may have a little bunker mentality, and get a little shrill, but I too believe that generally people do wish you well. I am pretty good with stress, but the events of this year have kicked my a**, I am still reeling, but sooner or later I will find my balance, as long as I don't give up, that is all that scares me, just wanting to give up. I am not a quitter, but sometimes it seems so much easier to just do what everyone wants me too, and forget my needs.<P>jl....It was your failure in having the A, that has caused you the heartburn, not us, not even your W. <P>snl...I know that.<P>jl....It isn't the institution of marriage that has failed. It is peoples failure to communicate the changes they feel in their lives, yes their "needs", their dreams. It is peoples failure to treat their spouse with respect and as a partner. It is many things. But what is known is that a marriage can be improved, it can be made where both parties are happy. But it takes focus and effort. It is not just finding your "soulmate". I know from extensive experience that there are many soulmates out their, but without nuturing, effort, focus these soulmates leave or lose their attractiveness.<P>snl.... Yes, everything has potentials, the question is where do you focus, I do not understand why it must be the first person you chose indefinitely, how many years of trying are enough? What degree of happiness is enough? No one can say, and that is the problem. As soon as we say you "should" do something we remove love from the equation and make marriage a duty, a sacrifice. I have come to believe that only radical honesty and poja will reveal the truth. That is the only way to marry love is a decision with love is an emotion, and it is the only way I ever wanted to be married, I just didn't have the vocabulary to put it into words, I do now.<P>jl....SnL, I will close this by agreeing with you as I do on many particulars. Life is not 50/50, it is 100/100 each person should be giving the best they can at all times, but as you said it is not a mathematical process and the concept of equal does not apply.<P>snl...That is the way I see it too, and why feelings are essential to love. <P>jl...God Bless and I do hope you and your W find your way through this and it can be resolved in a manner that you both agree to "enthusiastically".<P>snl...Thank-you<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sad_n_lonely:<BR><B><P>snl...She did not say that, she said they are not absolute (essentially). Nor did she say anything about being unreliable. Nothing she has posted indicates she doesn't show up for work, drive safely, or pull her weight around the house.</B>]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I hope you aren't trying to tell me that one bases a marital committment on thier feelings and then treats their other obligations by a completely different set of standards. I won't buy it for a minute. And far from stating that they are not "absolute" [which no one claims anyway] she has indicated that her promises are based on feelings, rather than on a commitment - just as you have. Feelings change with the wind, as we all know, and are not to be relied upon. <P><BR>Anyone who treats a promise this way is not to be trusted for obvious reasons. If they can break thier marriage vows according to their latest whim, then they can - and WILL - certainly break a contract/agreement with someone they don't love if thier feelings so dictate. Folks who HAVE such principles [I use this term very loosely] are not to be trusted because they value thier everchanging feelings more than thier committment. <P><BR><B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>......Likewise one who lives life solely by reason, and is never swayed by emotion is not to be trusted either, and a sign of a profound lack of character. I am willing to bet you would violate any promise you care to offer as example, if sufficient cause were offered. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Since we aren't discussing living solely by reason, I can't imagine what your point is - nor do you try to explain - with this remark so I will skip it. Nor do you bother to offer up any rationale for your outlandish view that being driven solely by reason is a sign of a "profound lack of character." I would love to see the explanation for that since character is a MORAL issue that is contingent upon one's CHOICES and has nothing whatsoever to do directly with emotions OR reason.<P>Might I suggest that you folks who view promises and vows as something that are contingent upon your feelings, simply STOP making promises? Wouldn't it be better to be completely honest going in and just explain to your "soulmate" that your feelings may not be the same in 2-3 years when the heat wears off and that you may be obliged at that time to move onto the next "soulmate." Wouldn't that be the most honest, decent thing to do? And wouldn't you want to be treated in the same open manner if your partner also based thier promises on thier feelings? Just think, no committment, no disappointment.<P>I think that rather than trying to diminish the value and validity of our standards [promises, vows] to accomodate your wrongdoing, that it would be better to simply raise your own standards. <BR>

Betcha thought I wasn't coming back after all the controversy that's arisen huh? I found myself asked out on a "date" and had to attend to H's need for recreational companionship . I hope I can help you somehow SNL but I have my doubts, I must say. Let me explain my viewpoints. They arise out of my sprituality as a Christian woman, a Christian who is Christian not in name only but who strives daily to follow the One to Whom I profess my belief. I believe to be Christian is not to merely claim to be one but to live in the Spirit (not the flesh)and to live a life of service to others as Christ did. Do I falter? Sure I do, more than I'd ever like to admit, but in striving to live my life as Christ did, I have obtained more peace and joy in my life than I ever dreamed possible. My ex-WS will tell you the same, for it has been in both of our efforts to have a Christ centered marriage that our marriage was restored and we can fully meet each other's ENs. Soooooooo<P>SNL "No human being does anything without a reason, a benefit (well some don't, but we call that mental illness). So what is the benefit? We know the benefits of an in-love marriage (live longer, happier while living, psychologically healthier kids, more productive, etc.) but what are the benefits of staying in a not in-love marriage? "<P>Mthrr- What you fail to recognize is that your "not in-love marriage" does not have to remain such. There are concrete and not so concrete ways to restore or even build love in a loveless marriage. I think we all recognize that the Harley's have a pretty concrete plan for restoring love. God has a plan too. With God as the center of your marriage ( and your life)you have an infinite resource, Who's desire is for you to live life well and to live it abundantly. It's His promise to you as a Christian, who strives to walk the walk and not merely talk the talk. In staying in a not in-love marriage" AND seeking to follow God's plan for a husband and your wife to follow His plan for a wife you open your marriage up to untold benefits. Is it work? You bet, a constant struggle for my H to love me as Christ loved the church (sacrificially, to die to himself) and for me to submit ( This doesn't mean that I let him walk all over me and do whatever he tells me to do.It means that I honor him and support him in his rightful place as the spiritual leader in our household.It is a voluntary submission that requires an appropriate response by my H,an unselfish motive on his part and a life spent loving me as Christ loved His church. When he lives in this spirit I am more than willing and happy to submit), but that is what we are called to do in a Christian marriage as found in Ephesians 5:22-33. Living and growing in a marriage that abides by God's plan has enormous benefits and is rich fertilizer if you will, for a marriage in any condition. So the benefit of staying in a "not in love marriage", if you are a Christian, (as you claim for yourself)is that you open your marriage to the incredible work God can do in it, and you please Him, Who hates divorce and intended for marriage to be a lifelong commitment. We are also guaranteed a benefit in eternity for holding steadfastly, to keeping the course, as God intended for marriage. Remember, what God hath joined together let no man put usunder. That doesn't imply that God picks your marriage partner, you do that of your own free will. That years later you decide that you picked wrongly does not relieve you from adhereing to the intended plan of an institution that God designed and to Whom you profess to follow. Psychology is limited to this world and to living in our humaness (the flesh). As a Christian, you are called to live and walk in the Spirit, and to rely on God in your time of need and despair. He won't forsake you SNL, He won't forsake your marriage either, but you must walk in His ways to be worthy of His blessings. Benefits abound both in the here and hereafter. For a non Christian who cannot embrace the biblical principles of marriage, I would think it would be very difficult to come up with a reason to stay in a "not in love marriage", but you SNL, self admittedly, as a Christian have other options! I urge you to use them and see your marriage blossom into something you never dreamed possible.<P>I'd be happy to give you biblical references for God's plan for marriage and His feelings on those who break that covenant and it's vows. I use a Nelson Study Bible, NKJ version, that is an excellent resource that provides extensive commentary on the interpretations from the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek from the NT.<P>Oh, and I'm just wondering what you call that mental illness of those who chose to do things which provide no personal benefit? <P><BR>SNL "what if it is made with incomplete knowledge of yourself, or the other person? Since that is almost always the case, you are in effect saying the institution is what is important, not the people, is that true? And what if your spouse does not want to stay married to you, would you let them go? Or invoke vows (assuming you had such power) and make them stay faithful and steadfast."<P>Mthrr- I agree SNL, that the promise of marriage is almost always made with incomplete knowledge of another human being. How could it not be? We are all changing as we personally grow, we have no way of knowing the person our spouse will become. That doesn't imply that the institution is more important than the people. It implies that we never really know another human being. Many of us never thought we'd have affairs and therefore we can say we never even really knew ourselves. Many can say they would have bet a million dollars that their spouse would never cheat. Point is that we never really know another person.<P>If my spouse did not want to stay married to me I would surely let him go. I did that SNL. When my H told me he didn't know if he wanted to be married I let him go, we separated so that he could come to a decision, purely of his own volition.<P>mtr...It is who they are, despite getting the short end of the stick. For some, life is not about how much they get, but how much they can give and contribute and to how well they can hold to the principles they have chosen to live their life by.<P>SNL "And is not the fate of such folks to be taken advantage of? (since they do not value their own circumstances, and Christ did tell us to love ourselves). <P>Mthrr- We have to allow ourselves to be taken advantage of.To be taken advantage of implies abuse. I don't recommend that anyone stay in an abusive relationship and believe Christ implied just that, when he commanded us to love ourselves.Commanding us to love ourselves does not imply that we indulge ourselves or live selfishly.I'm saying that for some, who's spiritual existence is of their utmost concern, that just because it seems that they get the short end of the stick in this time and space does not necesarily mean that they get the short end of the stick in the long run. For some it is easier to postpone immediate gratification than it is for others. Christ assures me I'll be given the crown I'm due in heaven,so if I get the short end of the stick now and again,it's really not of much consequence, unless of course I'm being abused in some way.<P>SNL "How do we know that a ridgid adherence to what you suggest is not essentially legalism, icon worship, and satan working on us through the sin of prideful behaviour. One can make the argument that any rigid position is prideful, and God has warned us not to act in such a manner."<P>Mthrr- Christ came to give us liberty, in following God's plan for marriage as written in the scriptures, I have liberty AND joy.I don't think Jesus would say I'm falling under the influence of Satan because I am choosing to be steadfast in following Christian precepts for marriage. So no, not ALL rigid positions are prideful. My position of adhering to God's plan for marriage is submissive.<P><BR> SNL "God clearly does not make marriage an absolute, nor is his references to adultery and unbelievers meant to be solely literal. Not to mention adultery is never actually specified, and IMO is symbolic of much more than sexual infidelity." <P>Mthrr- Not sure what you mean by this? God certainly created marriage. Genesis refers to this in the story of the creation of Eve to provide Adam a companion by stating that "A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall be one flesh" So yes, in God's eyes marriage is an absolute, He created it. Your reference to adultery not being specified, what are you saying here? I don't follow you.<BR> <BR>SNL "I suspect their are lots of people who remain married out of Biblical principles who deep in their heart (where God knows us) do not choose to be their, and therefore are in fact not married in God's eyes, although they may be in the eyes of the community. <P>Mthrr- Where do you get the idea, that because someone, deep in their heart is only remaining in a marriage due to biblical principles, is in fact, no longer married in God's eyes? What is your basis for this premise?<P>SNL " <BR> Your views interest me, hope you don't find this offensive. I have been a Christian a long time, by choice, and that has not wavered, although life has take me to a place where I need to understand some things and so am questioning Christian marital doctrine, and Gods will for each of us, and how He may reveal that will. It seems only logical that if satan exists (and I believe he does) that he would work in many different ways re marriage, including influencing people to marry wrongly, not following Gods will, and therefore creating a non-covenant marriage. That a civil/church ceremony takes place is not nearly enuf, there has to be a lot more to it. I suspect entering a covenant marriage is much harder than people realize. Likewise God moves in mysterious ways, and if He is all-powerful He certainly has the power to dissolve a marriage, and may well do so. I cannot for a second believe God means for every marriage to be (otherwise all we Christians who say sure he does, but then look the other way when terrible abuse is present and we approve the divorce, are hypocrits), we have freewill, and people can and will make terrible choices in many things, including marriage. Each has to decide for themself whether they have a oneflesh marriage or not.<P>Mthrr- First to be Christian means more than simply proclaiming to be so. We are not the sum of what we believe or esteem ourselves to be.We are the sum of our actions. To be Christian means to follow Christ and emulate his selfless love of humankind. To be self serving is not congruent with being a Christian.<P>God reveals His will for us through His Word. There are different versions(NKJ,KJ,NIV etc) of His Word but interpretation is limited to translation between the Hebrew and Greek. A good study bible will provide insight and reference to the translation of terms/words from the original languages.<P>I wonder how you come to the distinction between marrying "rightly" or marrying "wrongly". During biblical times the majority of marriages were prearranged by young people's parents. So if we use your definition that to marry " wrongly" is to chose someone with whom we do not fit, you could surmise that most marriages in biblical times did not fit. How could they, if they were arranged?<BR>Did prearranged marriages negate the following of God's plan for marriage? Did all pre arranged marriages create a mandatory sentance of unhappiness? I think not, for when we follow God's plan for marriage and seek Him as a partner in our marriage we have much hope and His promise of abundant and joyous life through keeping in His will as revealed through Jesus, the Way, the Truth and the Light. No where in the bible does "one flesh" imply an emotional, or personality "fit". According to my study bible "one flesh" suggests both a physical, sexual bonding and a life long relationship. In biblical times there was no way to ensure that emotional "fit" in the context of pre arranged marriages. Even Adam did not pick Eve. <P>Certainly God has the power to disolve marriages. In cases of adultery it is allowed as documented in the scriptures. Likewise, in cases of abuse ( emotional, physical, sexual) it is implied by his command for us to love ourselves. Our God does not expect us to live in abusive situations. <P>We decide to have a covenant marriage when we take our vows as Christians before God. Whether or not we happened to make the right choice in a mate is not the determining facor in whether or not we have a covenant marriage. Our promises to our spouse create that covenant. Again, I can provide you with a number scriptural references that imply that the act of marriage creates the covenant. If you can lead me to references that show that it is an emotional fit that defines a covenant marriage I would be very interested to see those. <P>SNL if you truly want a marriage that fulfills your wildest dreams and passions you can have it. My H thought much like you do. He argues that we were not meant to be, that we made a mistake, as we were young(24 when we married) and had our first child 18 months before we married. He used to say he married me to provide a good life for our son.He went on to father 2 more children with me in the years before his discontent, so if he felt forced into marriage why is it that he continued to build a family with me? Maybe all of these would have been good reasons for us to divorce but when my H realized that what he had done was wrong and turned back to God to find his way and became the husband God's word told him to be, he found that as a result I could become a woman who was more than willing to meet all of his needs and then some. Could we have recovered and rebuilt a marriage as strong and wonderful as we have now without God? I don't think so, neither does H. God works miracles in marriages for he loves marriage and hates divorce. I believe God used my H's affair to get our attention, to alert us to the fact that we had not included Him and that with Him we could both have the fulfilling marriage we both so desperately wanted. "A three fold cord is not easily broken" Eccl 4:12<BR>

SNL, <P>If you need a clue about your wife's emotional needs try reading this link.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum8/HTML/006119.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum8/HTML/006119.html</A> <P>Maybe you cannot give 50% but think maybe something is needed?<P>Z<P>------------------<BR>He loves not who does not show love.<BR>----William Shakespeare

SnL,<P>Why can't you be there for your wife right now. She is hurting so bad. Please don't ignore her anguish. My H did that to me for the 8 mos I was in RAD treatments ... I struggled with physical as well as emotional pain and he just watched me, he never helped me. I thought he hated me, I still think he hated me because he was so uncaring and indifferent, treated me like he didn't know me or like I wasn't human. <P>Please SnL, please go touch Thinker, hug her, hold her, comfort her. She has been your life's partner for so many years, doesn't that count for anything, Hon?<P>Love,<BR>Jo<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Resilient:<BR><B>SnL,<P>Why can't you be there for your wife right now. She is hurting so bad. Please don't ignore her anguish<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Naw, he's too busy online talking about thinker's abject SELFISHNESS. Didn't you hear? A BS who wants her husband to act like a husband is SELFISH and he has to get that out on the internet so he can absolve himself of guilt. It's all morally equivalent, ya see.<P>

dana...Feelings change with the wind, as we all know, and are not to be relied upon. <P>snl...So you interract with someone who appears to be perfectly safe, and your gut feeling is trouble, you just ignore your windy feeling dana? Feelings are essential to our well-being dana (why do you think we have them anyways, some kind of cosmic joke?), and we ignore them at our own peril. If you do not feel like the marriage is working, that is important, and ignoring that feeling is not going to have a good outcome.<P>dana...Anyone who treats a promise this way is not to be trusted for obvious reasons. If they can break thier marriage vows according to their latest whim, <P>snl...Maybe this is your confusion, you equate leaveing a marriage as a whim..... if one has thought long and hard about it, is it ok then? Neither sno (or I) have left our marriages, I have struggled for 23 years, she for a long time as well, plz explain how trying to make something work for 23 years constitutes a whim? And neither you, or anyone else has explained how you can choose to honor a vow, but not want to be married, and tell your spouse you do not love them, and have a successful marriage..... would you accept your spouse staying if they did not love you? I hear what you are all saying, but it is like listening to gibberish....on one hand you say honor vows, but on other hand you all (pretty much) say you do not want to remain married to a spouse who may care about you, but is not in-love with you. How does this work? Or are you saying anyone who does not love their spouse is automatically a person of low character? In other words character is only determined by one thing, the willingness of a person to maintain the marital contract they entered in youth, for a lifetime, regardless of feelings, love, or anything else. <P>dana...then they can - and WILL - certainly break a contract/agreement with someone they don't love if thier feelings so dictate. Folks who HAVE such principles [I use this term very loosely] are not to be trusted because they value thier everchanging feelings more than thier committment.<P>snl...We clearly have an entirely different view of love and marriage. I would be horrified to find my spouse only stays married to me cause they made a promise, that is even worse than being rejected and divorced. Love (for me) involves the intimate connections of souls that cannot be done without feelings, it is not a choice. I don't want to be loved cause one decides too, and follows the cookbook, I want to be loved cause my partner can't not love me, even if they "decide" not too. Some are willing to settle just for the rational side, the vow side, and that's ok if it is all you need/want dana. And I will even agree that an adherence (to the contract) despite the inevitable conflicts of such an arrangement are an indication of sorts re character, it is just not for me, I think marriage is more, should be more than that, and if that different philosophy means I am of low character, ane not to be trusted, I can live with that...... I recognize it for the peer pressure it is, and the majority in a culture sets the rules.....but I still would choose love everytime, their is no point to life without it IMO. <P>......Likewise one who lives life solely by reason, and is never swayed by emotion is not to be trusted either, and a sign of a profound lack of character. I am willing to bet you would violate any promise you care to offer as example, if sufficient cause were offered. <P>dana...Since we aren't discussing living solely by reason I can't imagine what your point is <P>snl...You did, when you eliminate feelings as a reason to make decisions, decisions that might be against what reason says to do. I believe you did so again this post, equating them to a whim.<P>dana...Nor do you bother to offer up any rationale for your outlandish view that being driven solely by reason is a sign of a "profound lack of character." <P>snl..... Are you familiar with the christmas story about bob crotchet, and his rational (but labeled miserly) employer? It illustrates my point. The trouble with your argument is it is one-sided, you only present a negative view of acting on feelings, and from that conclude one can never leave a marriage because you made a reasoned promise, and since there will never be any acceptable reason to break the contract, being happy or in-love is not sufficient cause to divorce, but strangely, are sufficent cause to get married....go figure.<P>dana...I would love to see the explanation for that since character is a MORAL issue that is contingent upon one's CHOICES and has nothing whatsoever to do directly with emotions OR reason.<P>snl....I would suspect there are plenty of ws, and people who chose divorce who are far more moral than many people who are married, are suggesting otherwise? Character has to do with a lot of things, but maybe can be boiled down to doing the right thing. IMO a person who has the courage to end a marriage that does not work, has more character than one who stays in it because they don't have the courage to see if the marriage should be or not be, but instead hides behind words like vow and committment to justify their avoidance of the psychological truths re marriage. Anyone who worships vows above all else essentially agrees with sacrificial marriage. You don't need vows when both parties freely choose each other (meaning neither would leave if there were no negative consequences). The sad truth is many married people who will never divorce, and who wish their spouse no ill-will, would be content if their spouse instead left them, why are they married? Vows? Some have told there stories here, I know others in real life. You may choose to blame them, saying they aren't working, but in most cases they did work, for years, their spouses will do nothing...... and why not? Cause they don't have to, vows gaurantee them their spouse, who will essentially plan a them till one of em dies...sad huh? But that is what vows get you, when feelings don't count.<P>dana...Might I suggest that you folks who view promises and vows as something that are contingent upon your feelings, simply STOP making promises? Wouldn't it be better to be completely honest going in and just explain to your "soulmate" that your feelings may not be the same in 2-3 years when the heat wears off and that you may be obliged at that time to move onto the next "soulmate." Wouldn't that be the most honest, decent thing to do? And wouldn't you want to be treated in the same open manner if your partner also based thier promises on thier feelings? Just think, no committment, no disappointment.<P>snl...Sounds ok to me, although you kinda stated it inflammatory. Because that is the truth anyways, that is what it means to be a human being. Vows are not a choice, it is something humans can't do, anymore than we can fly, or lift 10x our body wait. Vows violate the psychological capabilities of being human....UNLESS we say marriage is not about love, it is a contract, and we put into place significant enough consequences that no one will break the contract (maybe the death penalty, although some would choose death over continuing to be married to someone they didn't fit bad enough). Do you want that dana? To remove love from marriage? To substitute "character" for love?<P>IMO marriage is not the piece of paper anyways. It is the truths in the hearts of 2 people, when one is no longer in-love (or more likely was never in-love in the first place) the M does not exist (except as a contract, and all your arguments now come into play), it is a picture, a sham, and the real truth hidden away in a dark deep place. True enuf, people can live their lives without needing to deal with this truth, and pay the consequences of doing so, but that is what frewill and choice are about, each makes their own way through life.<P><p>[This message has been edited by sad_n_lonely (edited September 23, 2001).]

"IMO marriage is not the piece of paper anyways. It is the truths in the hearts of 2 people, when one is no longer in-love (or more likely was never in-love in the first place) the M does not exist (except as a contract, and all your arguments now come into play), it is a picture, a sham, and the real truth hidden away in a dark deep place. True enuf, people can live their lives without needing to deal with this truth, and pay the consequences of doing so, but that is what frewill and choice are about, each makes their own way through life."<P>Well SnL, if a mature intelligent adult person marrys KNOWING they do not "LOVE" or are not "In-Love" or "Are Soul Mate Challenged", they are still responsible for that decision and entering into that contract. And they did EXERCISE their free will when they entered into that contract of marital vows. They made a choice. No one forced them into it. If they knowingly did not love their spouse when they married but told their spouse they did (how sad & manipulative), then they lied and that is STILL their responsibility. Own your decisions.<P>So if you believe marriage is not that piece of paper, then do not get married again, SnL. I'm starting to think you may not be a viable candidate for marriage. It is an institution where two people CHOSE freely to become bound together in a marital coventant for the rest of their lives because they LOVE (feelings) one another.<P><BR>Jo<p>[This message has been edited by Resilient (edited September 23, 2001).]

Wow, SNL,<P>You really work hard at being the A*****e right?...here everyone is telling you, with no ambiguity that your wife NEEDS you...29 years, and you can't go give her some comfort because her father is ill?<P>I am SURE you will feel like a huge pile of S*** in about three years regarding your actions now. That's when you'll be a lonely old man, cos OW, who you so desperately want to get back to, will have moved on, and thinker will have woken up to your disgusting self-serving ways...I read you are a lawyer...God HELP us all if you are the kind of lawyer we get when the time comes.<P>No-one, not even that obj bird, has portrayed themselves as the matyr you claim to be...for the sake of integrity and the sanity of your wife....move on! Or COMMIT!!! I know people have told you this before, but you stay there proving the point that you and her are not suited and never have been...where the hell is your head...up your a**? <P>NO-ONE and I repeat NO-ONE stays with someone as long as you have without love. You are only kidding yourself!!! You will not allow yourself to feel it, that is all. And I suspect your wife knows it, and that is why she is hanging on, saying you're a great guy, etc. <P>I happen to agree with you that if you don't want to be there you shopuld go. But you have agreed to one year of trying, and buddy, YOU AIN'T trying!!! You are only there to show your wife what a B*****d you are. That sucks.<P>Get real, or get out....you are causing too much pain.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sad_n_lonely:<BR><B>dana...Feelings change with the wind, as we all know, and are not to be relied upon. <P>snl...So you interract with someone who appears to be perfectly safe, and your gut feeling is trouble, you just ignore your windy feeling dana? .</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This has nothing to do with basing one's promises on thier "feelings" so I will skip. I have noticed that you often try to confuse the issue by redefining the premise at hand. Why do you so like to create confusion with this kind of muddled thinking? Let's stick to the subject at hand, please.<P><B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><P>snl...Maybe this is your confusion, you equate leaveing a marriage as a whim..... if one has thought long and hard about it, is it ok then? Neither sno (or I) have left our marriages, I have struggled for 23 years, she for a long time as well, plz explain how trying to make something work for 23 years constitutes a whim? And neither you, or anyone else has explained how you can choose to honor a vow, but not want to be married, and tell your spouse you do not love them, and have a successful marriage..... would you accept your spouse staying if they did not love you? I hear what you are all saying, but it is like listening to gibberish....on one hand you say honor vows, but on other hand you all (pretty much) say you do not want to remain married to a spouse who may care about you, but is not in-love with you. How does this work? Or are you saying anyone who does not love their spouse is automatically a person of low character? In other words character is only determined by one thing, the willingness of a person to maintain the marital contract they entered in youth, for a lifetime, regardless of feelings, love, or anything else. <P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You state that "one has thought long and hard about it" however, we are not talking about THINKING here at all, but about feelings. One does not THINK with thier feelings. Wouldn't you admit that feelings change all the time? This is why feelings need to be dictated and screened by one's logic and reason. Otherwise, one is blowing in the wind like a teenage girl. I don't know about you, but there have been times in my [previous 19 yr] marriage where I felt like I didn't love him and then the next year I felt like I did. However, I didn't act on it because I had made a committment, a vow to him. And my vow supercedes my feelings. To do otherwise would have been devastating to my children, my family. <P>It isn't always just about MY feelings, MY happiness. There are other people involved here who also matter, and I have no right to destroy my family's happiness in search of my "happiness." It just isn't all about me. [another topic but I will add that I have achieved happiness as a RESULT of doing the right thing, and NEVER found it by seeking it for it's own sake]<P>You ask me if I would accept a spouse who says he does not love me. I would set him free for sure and I certainly would not settle for one who was adulterous and dishonest unless he broke his back redeeming himself. The disppointment of discovering that your own spouse has a low character is very hard to swallow. I don't think that vows are absolute, but on the other hand I don't think they should be contingent upon one's feelings.<P><B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>snl...We clearly have an entirely different view of love and marriage. I would be horrified to find my spouse only stays married to me cause they made a promise, that is even worse than being rejected and divorced. Love (for me) involves the intimate connections of souls that cannot be done without feelings, it is not a choice. I don't want to be loved cause one decides too, and follows the cookbook, I want to be loved cause my partner can't not love me, even if they "decide" not too. Some are willing to settle just for the rational side, the vow side, and that's ok if it is all you need/want dana. And I will even agree that an adherence (to the contract) despite the inevitable conflicts of such an arrangement are an indication of sorts re character, it is just not for me, I think marriage is more, should be more than that, and if that different philosophy means I am of low character, ane not to be trusted, I can live with that...... I recognize it for the peer pressure it is, and the majority in a culture sets the rules.....but I still would choose love everytime, their is no point to life without it IMO. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But love IS committment, it is NOT a feeling of passion. In most relationships the passion wears off after 2-3 years - that is normal. Love is a much deeper feeling that comes as a RESULT of committment and caring to another person. I can't help but think that you are confusing infatuation with love and have been watching too many chick flicks on A&E.<P><BR><B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>snl...You did, when you eliminate feelings as a reason to make decisions, decisions that might be against what reason says to do. I believe you did so again this post, equating them to a whim.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That is not the same as living "solely by reason." One has feelings and they screen them with reason and logic. For example, I often have an "urge" to run out and go power shopping but I use reason and logic to think through the rationale of such a move. One THINKS and makes decisions with thier logical mind, not thier feelings. Feelings are sadness, happiness, anger, etc. They are not reasoned or logical. One should THINK thier decisions through and experiencing feelings is not the same as thinking. Feelings might go into decision making, but they are not the dictator.<P><B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>dana...Nor do you bother to offer up any rationale for your outlandish view that being driven solely by reason is a sign of a "profound lack of character." <P>snl..... Are you familiar with the christmas story about bob crotchet, and his rational (but labeled miserly) employer? </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Bad analogy, dude. His sin was not in being RATIONAL, but in being MISERLY. The premise you are offering up here is that being rational EXCLUDES compassion, which is nonsense. The two are not mutually exclusive. Are you trying to tell me that people who operate strictly on feelings are ALWAYS compassionate? Let's just take a look at the very emotionally driven WS' around here who acted adulterously and cruelly on thier "feelings." Was that compassionate to their spouse? To thier children?<P><B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><P>snl....I would suspect there are plenty of ws, and people who chose divorce who are far more moral than many people who are married, are suggesting otherwise? Character has to do with a lot of things, but maybe can be boiled down to doing the right thing. IMO a person who has the courage to end a marriage that does not work, has more character than one who stays in it because they don't have the courage to see if the marriage should be or not be, but instead hides behind words like vow and committment to justify their avoidance of the psychological truths re marriage. Anyone who worships vows above all else essentially agrees with sacrificial marriage. You don't need vows when both parties freely choose each other (meaning neither would leave if there were no negative consequences</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It doesn't take any courage to flee a marriage when the going gets tough. All marriages have tough spots. It is the coward who flees, it is the one with character and courage that stays and attempts to do the right thing rather than selfishly destroying those around them for the sake of their "happiness." I never cease to be amazed at how you manage to twist things around to make something good look bad. Amazing. <P>I would just reiterate what I said before and that is that you folks that disdain promises/vows should simply STOP making them. Do the decent thing and forewarn your potential partners that your promises are very conditional and based completely on your feelings. That way, when your soul-mately passion wears off in 2-3 years and you move onto the next "soulmate" they won't be hurt or surprised. And like I said in a previous post, for God's sake, please take birth control so that there are no children left in the wreckage of your feelings.