♥

<small>[ September 09, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: kam6318 ]</small>

^

^

^

Just adding a comment to POJA that may have already been stated.

It can work always but both spouses must have the right mind frame for POJA. If wife goes into it with only one thought, "I love my husband and I want to give "him" what "he" wants." and husband goes into it with "I love my wife and I want to give "her" want "she" wants. Then their will ALWAYS be a compromise made. However, I would bet too many times people miss this point and they go into thinking in the end "I" had BETTER get what I want or if I don't fight for what "I" want then we will end up doing what she/he wants.

To me POJA is defined in two words, "unselfish compromising".

Cerri girl,

I posted a thread to you on D/D, just saying "Hi!". No hurries as I figure eventually you'll see it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Love ya ♥

ANNA

<small>[ October 25, 2003, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Anna2000 ]</small>

^

^

^

^

^

^

time for a bump...

This thread has helped me crystallize my thoughts aboutPOJA that led to the thread I started.

After reading all the comments (and all Dr. harley's columns on the subject I could find), I see two problems with the POJA.

First, it assumes that there _must_ be a solution that both spouses can be enthusiatic about. What reason do we have to think that's true? The "enthusiastic" standard puts a huge burden on brainstorming--it rules out accomodations both spouses can live with even though neither may be enthusiastic about. It rules out compromise. (I've seen posts referring to POJA leading to compromise, but if both are enthusiastic I certainly wouldn't call it a compromise.)

Let me try an example. Let's imagine I've lost sexual interest in my wife because I think she's too fat. (This is _purely_ hypothetical and does not reflect reality!) I can imagine various compromises involving meeting each other half way, such as me finding a way to be more tolerant of her appearance and her losing some weight (but not as much as I'd like. That might well be a workable solution. But unless one of us undergoes a radical personality change, neither of us will be enthusiastic about the solution. So, according to POJA we reject the solution.

The second problem I see (which may underlie first) is the implicit assumption that all problems in a marriage result from a spouse's action, but inaction is never a problem. Actually it's fiarly explicit in at least one place. In "Following the Policy of Joint Agreement
When You're VERY Incompatible, Letter #2" Dr. Harley says: "There are two kinds of resentment: (1) Resentment due to something one of you DID to the other that was hurtful, and (2) resentment due to something you DIDN'T do for yourself that you would have liked, but would have hurt your spouse." He ignores resentment due to something one spouse DOESN'T due resulting in the other spouse's needs not being met. In my example, my wife's resentment doesn't result from something I did (type 1) or from something she didn't do (type 2), so it doesn't fit into Dr. Harley's paradigm at all.

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, a great deal depends on what is regarded as "doing something." (Actually this is a common issue in moral philisophy: the same action can be described in many ways, and our judgment about the morality of the action can depend heavily on the description.) Now, we can define my hypothetical refusal to have sex with my wife as "doing something," but once we go down that road every action and inaction becomes a case of "doing something." At that point the POJA collapses entirely because it's impossible to do nothing.

If someone can tell me I'm all wrong and explain why, I'll be delighted.

Bump for wasp