<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by soon2b_alone:<BR><B>Is your wife involved with anyone else? ...I wonder if your wife's accusation is not being fed by an OM who wants you to be not only out of the marriage, but legally held out of the picture via a restraining order. Without a precedent of bad behavior on your part (i.e. stalking accusation), a restraining order might be harder to come by.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Possible, but highly unlikely. I am very confident that there was no OM at the time my wife left me. She would talk about how she wasn't cut out to be married, and she expressed the fear that she was losing her sense of who she was. I think she became too scared to allow herself to get close to <I>anybody</I>. Plus, she's never been good at either acting or lying, and I don't think she could hide something like that from me for long. (I can remember exactly one time in our relationship when she actually succeeded at an attempt to surprise me with something.)<P>I have been out of touch for seven months, though, and I can't discount the possibility that she has hooked up with some OM more recently. Nevertheless, I think the influence of her lawyer and her own deep-rooted fears are sufficient to explain her actions.<P>Oh, and she had no trouble at all getting a restraining order. No questions asked.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by GnomeDePlume (edited February 05, 2001).]

GdP,<P>Thanks for your response. First, I'd have to say, "Good Job" that you have already thought through a lot of this stuff. I know that one of the things that is hardest (not impossible, but difficult) for me is to feel scared, crystalize it into WHY I'm feeling scared, and then have the guts to speak up about it and say, "Hey! That's scaring me! Can we do something else?" It is a process, and from all you've said, it sounds like it's a process that your wife either has not thought of going through or is unwilling to go through. However, once I realized I had perhaps an extra need for "feeling safe", I also realized that it is MY job to communicate that and communicate what does and does not feel safe!<P>My next question to you would be, if she went through the process and figured out what did and did not feel safe, and was somehow able to verbalize it, did you give her a safe environment to state her feelings--you know, without getting defensive, without denying her experience and all that? Just a guess, it sounds to me as if you went to great lengths to give her a forum in which to honestly face herself, and that she didn't really want to look.<P>When Sisyphus started the thread last week about "Verbal Abuse" I put in my two cents that I liked his definition, but that I thought a pattern of behavior should be part of the definition, and I have to tell you, I stand by that precisely because of situations like yours. Technically, in a long term relationship that lasts years, at one time or another we are ALL verbal abusers and say something we are not proud of. However, if in 15 years, there were just a couple of instances of abusive talk (meaning, not perfect equality and autonomy), then I would hardly classify that as a verbally abusive relationship! Yet, since those couple of times did occur, are the partners aloud to cry, "VERBAL ABUSE!!" Personally, I think the answer should be no. Same thing here. Things like stalking and verbal abuse and emotional abuse are difficult to prove at all--and if the tenure of the relationship was basically kind and loving with both parties meeting each other's needs, then the one or two instances should not make allow one party to claim "stalking". <P><BR>CJ <P>------------------<BR>Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FaithfulWife:<BR><B>My next question to you would be, if she went through the process and figured out what did and did not feel safe, and was somehow able to verbalize it, did you give her a safe environment to state her feelings--you know, without getting defensive, without denying her experience and all that? Just a guess, it sounds to me as if you went to great lengths to give her a forum in which to honestly face herself, and that she didn't really want to look.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It is difficult to address your question directly. The scope of your question is limited to situations in which my wife verbalized what made her feel safe or unsafe, and frankly I don't remember any occasions which could clearly be categorized as such. Of course, I wasn't thinking along those lines, it never occurred to me that my wife would not feel safe with me (<I>I</I> knew she was safe with me), and I'm not sure I would have recognized that safety was an issue if my wife tried to bring up the subject (unless she was direct about it).<P>When my wife expressed her feelings, I would often respond with facts. In my own struggle with depression, this kind of "cognitive therapy" was essential, but I'm not at all sure that it was an appropriate way of dealing with <I>my wife's</I> feelings. Although my <I>intent</I> was to be encouraging, she seemed to feel that I was invalidating her feelings.<P>There were times I became defensive as well. It was not unusual for my wife to very unfairly accuse me of something, and when I would respond defensively she would say that she was talking about how she <I>felt</I>. Usually we were pretty careful to make a distinction between the expression of feelings and the expression of opinion, but sometimes the qualifier would get omitted, and, well, I tend to be a pretty literalistic sort.<P>I also had a tendency to respond to my wife's expression of feelings by proposing solutions. The typical male fix-it approach. Compound this with a tendency to interrupt (which my wife shares), and I don't think my wife always felt she got a fair or empathetic hearing.<P>Empathy in general was a difficult thing for me to convey. I would <I>feel</I> it, but couldn't always get that across. Sometimes when my wife would tell me how she felt about something, I would say "Yeah, I know how you feel" and tell her about something similar that happened to me. I thought that I was relating to her and her experience, but then she would get upset and accuse me of making our feelings into a competition.<P>These kinds of communication problems were what led our therapist to prescribe "empathetic listening" as an exercise. My job was to practice listening, and to encourage my wife to express her feelings (and expand on them) without offering judgment or becoming defensive.<P>I think I became <I>very</I> good and consistent with this skill during the months before my wife left me. I listened to a lot of unfair and hurtful accusations, and I heard about a lot of fears and feelings. Unfortunately, my wife repeatedly declined my requests to give me my own turn at speaking, so I never got a chance to defend myself or try to allay her fears.<P>Suddenly, she was gone.<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FaithfulWife:<BR><B>When Sisyphus started the thread last week about "Verbal Abuse" I put in my two cents that I liked his definition, but that I thought a pattern of behavior should be part of the definition, and I have to tell you, I stand by that precisely because of situations like yours. Technically, in a long term relationship that lasts years, at one time or another we are ALL verbal abusers and say something we are not proud of. However, if in 15 years, there were just a couple of instances of abusive talk (meaning, not perfect equality and autonomy), then I would hardly classify that as a verbally abusive relationship! Yet, since those couple of times did occur, are the partners aloud to cry, "VERBAL ABUSE!!" Personally, I think the answer should be no. Same thing here. Things like stalking and verbal abuse and emotional abuse are difficult to prove at all--and if the tenure of the relationship was basically kind and loving with both parties meeting each other's needs, then the one or two instances should not make allow one party to claim "stalking".</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I think the nature and quality of the single or few incidents is relevant. Some forms of verbal abuse are itty bitty little lovebusters, mere bee stings. On the other hand, someone could undertake a nightlong deconstruction of a partner, a la "<I>Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?</I>" That kind of thing could end with a spouse deciding to make a very fast trip to the sidewalk below.<P>On the stalking side, coming after someone to sign a tax form is a whole lot different from being caught outside their home at 3AM donned in all black and carrying handcuffs, zip ties, duct tape and an O.J. knife ... while in the car is plastic tarp, rope, a shovel, and a map with a highlighted route to a remote area. If the latter happens once, the problem is real and big and <I>real big</I>. <P>There are many aspects to this. One is that women have used concepts like stalking to drive the legal system to give some well-deserved protection ... and even that is often inadequate. On the other hand, the same tools are often bludgeons against a man whose actions are more equivocal, or perhaps largely innocent. <P>I think it's probably better to have many men live with the undeserved label than to have a handful of women maimed and murdered. As word gets around that this label is easy to get, men will become more thoughtful and the bad eggs with really major impulse control problems will stand out and be easier pickings for a less-burdened police force. So it's a price we men gotta pay to save women from the really bad few among us. It may be too easy to cross the line where the women have drawn it, but it quickly separates the law-abiders from the psychos. <P>I don't like seeing anybody labeled a verbal abuser either, but a single instance of abuse remains just that--abuse. Maybe if we add the word "chronic" in front of "verbal abuser" it would help. That still wouldn't capture the case of the person who does a one-night mind(bleep), but I think in most cases the real damage is done over a long period of time anyway.

I'll leave the analysis of the legal reasons for stalking laws to Sisyphus, who seems to have covered it well.<P>The more interesting (to me) implications of this thread start with the observation that feelings are facts--maybe not to a court, but to the person feeling them. The object lesson in the exchange earlier between FaithfulWife and Sisyphus should not be missed. He appeared to her to dismiss the importance of her feelings.<P>I think it worth noting that one doesn't have to actively criticize the feelings of another to produce this effect. The failure to actively show understanding and empathy for the feelings of another can be sufficient to cause pain and alienation on the part of another, particularly someone as close as a spouse.<P>I'm not sure how to help GDP here. Once things get to this point it's really difficult. I've seen a lot of stories on these boards where one spouse (usually the wife) leaves, indicating among other things that they don't feel safe. If the husband was not abusive he generally seems clueless as to why she feels this way. The reason seems to be exactly what CJ was talking about--the failure to be aware of and responsive to her feelings.<P>Where we still have a chance, and before things get to where were dealing with the kind of thing GDP is, we need to heed the lesson. GDP, I'm not blaming you for your situation, just trying to draw a lesson for us all from the discussion.<P>Dealing with "facts alone", where our definition of "facts" excludes the other persons feelings, will serve us ill in our quest for better relationships.<P>Steve

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GnomeDePlume:<BR><B>I have every reason to believe that my wife’s attorney will not do anything at all to help. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>He has a <I>duty</I> to pass along to her copies of everything he receives in the case. Your attorney's letter should make it into her hands. <P>Unless your attorney is a complete slouch, he should be able to craft the letter he sends in such a way as to make it very difficult for <I>her</I> attorney to credibly spin it as self-serving or untruthful. <P>Just be sure you document <I>every</I> encounter, whether intentional or unintentional, and whether you knew she saw you or not (I'm thinking specifically of the incidents where you were innocently driving behind her--she may not have acknowledged you, but she may have <I>seen</I> you--be sure you own up to that even though it was unintentional). <P>Has it occurred to you that she may, for narcissistic reasons, be unable to fathom that you have let go? There may be something you can do with that.<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B>On the stalking side, coming after someone to sign a tax form is a whole lot different from being caught outside their home at 3AM donned in all black and carrying handcuffs, zip ties, duct tape and an O.J. knife ... while in the car is plastic tarp, rope, a shovel, and a map with a highlighted route to a remote area. If the latter happens once, the problem is real and big and real big. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Er…I guess I should have left the knife and handcuffs at home when I brought her the tax form, huh? <P>Seriously, when I approached my wife in the parking lot, it was in daylight hours, in clear view of a busy street about twenty feet away.<P>In retrospect, it is hard for me to understand how I missed that she was signaling fear. When we converged on her car and I told her I had the tax form for her to sign, she <I>first</I> got in her car, closed the door, cracked the window a few inches, and then accepted my clipboard through the narrow opening. I thought it peculiar at the time, but somehow it didn’t occur to me that she was doing this <I>for her protection</I> until I read her response to my interrogatory six months later!<P>Given my obtuseness, I think I deserve <I>some</I> credit for trying to be non-threatening when I wasn’t even aware that my wife felt threatened!<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StillHers:<BR><B>Where we still have a chance, and before things get to where were dealing with the kind of thing GDP is, we need to heed the lesson. GDP, I'm not blaming you for your situation, just trying to draw a lesson for us all from the discussion.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I learned quite some time ago that assigning blame and accepting responsibility are two different things. I am in part responsible for how things fell out in my marriage, but I feel no guilt. Just as my wife is in part responsible, but I feel no anger.<P>To assign blame is to dwell on the past. To accept responsibility is to learn from the past and take action for the future.<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B> He has a duty to pass along to her copies of everything he receives in the case. Your attorney's letter should make it into her hands.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yeah, maybe some time in the next century. It has become clear to me that duties, even legal requirements, are not taken very seriously by either the lawyers or the courts, at least not where I live. And I <I>know</I> that messages I have tried to pass to my wife through her lawyer did not get to her. The affidavit my wife filed with her divorce complaint had some errors in it (e.g. she claimed she had no medical insurance coverage, even though she has <I>always</I> been covered by my employer-provided plan), and I promptly sent a letter to her lawyer to assure her that she <I>was</I> covered, including details. When I later filed an interrogatory, I asked whether she was aware of her insurance coverage, and it was apparent from her answers that it was my interrogatory itself that made her aware.<P>What I <I>don’t</I> know is whether the original message was never delivered, never read, or merely discarded as incompatible with my wife’s current concept of reality. (Her father is responsible for providing medical coverage for her mother, but her mother has had to fight for it, and I suspect that part of my wife’s concept of reality includes playing out her mother’s role while casting me in the role of her father.)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Unless your attorney is a complete slouch, he should be able to craft the letter he sends in such a way as to make it very difficult for her attorney to credibly spin it as self-serving or untruthful.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have been very impressed with my attorney’s ability to take my often verbose documentation and turn it into a direct and succinct presentation of the significant facts. Thus far, I am very pleased with my representation. I just wish the magistrates would bother to read the briefs…<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Just be sure you document every encounter, whether intentional or unintentional, and whether you knew she saw you or not (I'm thinking specifically of the incidents where you were innocently driving behind her--she may not have acknowledged you, but she may have seen you--be sure you own up to that even though it was unintentional).</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Good point. I have already provided my attorney with a complete detailed timeline of my communications, interactions, and attempted communications or interactions. But I didn’t include the accidental not-quite-interactions. I’ll document those as well.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Has it occurred to you that she may, for narcissistic reasons, be unable to fathom that you have let go? There may be something you can do with that.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This has indeed occurred to me. But I haven’t been able to figure out anything I can do with it. Any ideas?<BR>

GdP,<P>Forgive me for this, but the cop in me just came out after reading and rereading this thread.<P>There is that nagging line from Hamlet, "Hoist by his own pitar!" It means blown up by his own bomb. The lawyers use it sometimes to refer to the defendant who gives from his own mouth, the very evidence that proves his guilt. <P>These points might be worth thinking about.<P>Why was it necessary for you to get her signature on a tax form in person? That is something that is easily done either by using certified mail, return reciept requested, or giving it to your lawyer who in turn can hand it to her lawyer. I know you don't have a very high opinion of her lawyer, but he isn't really required to get his client to cooperate just to please you. You have no right to control that relationship. If she doesn't cooperate, you still have the option to file without her. Time isn't a consideration, the IRS will grant an extension in a case like this. It wouldn't take much of a bs artist to portray this incident as a mere pretext so that you could make an unwelcome contact with her. It would be easy to at least argue that this is an example of you trying to control her. Soooo, why did you give her that weapon to point at your head? There were easier alternatives.<P>Next, the incident at the elevator with the coupon book. Why were you laughing, what was so funny? Sounds like a big time love buster to me. When the judge ordered her to make the payments, it seems to me that how she makes those payments is her responsibility, not yours. She didn't need that coupon book from you, she can get a fresh book from the bank or finance company with a phone call. Unless she asked you for the coupon book, what is the need for you to present it to her? I can hear the lawyer now: "Are you so controlling that you don't trust her ability to carry out this court order without your assistance?"<P>Sisyphus I hope you'll chime in on this.<P>GdP, when you mentioned approaching stbx in the parking lot, she gets into the car, locks the door and rolls down the window an inch or so to allow the clipboard in, signs the forms and goes on her way. Did it ever occur to you that she is documenting what you are doing, and documenting her reactions as well? This sounds like the rationalization game where the plaintiff tries to use his or her own "reactions" to prove the actor's actions. At any rate, why give her that?<P>You stated that she was granted a protection from abuse order, no questions asked. That is certainly different from the way it operates here. A temporary protection from abuse order can be issued, but usually there is some kind of hearing within about fifteen days where at least a primia facia case has to be proved by a weighing of the evidence. I know the standard of proof isn't as strict as in criminal law, but still a reasonable case must be made out. But it rarely is. In most cases, where the Permanent Protection from Abuse order is entered, it is done by a consent decree, both parties just agree to it rather than argue it out in front of a judge. <P>At any rate, once this order is in effect, and you found yourself inadvertantly driving behind her in traffic, did you by any chance just make a few turns and go a block or two out of your way so you would no longer be driving behind her. That would sure indicate that you are taking deliberate action to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Soo, did you take action to get away from her or just keep following her?<P>No doubt you are sincere when you say that you pose absolutely no threat to her, and that you believe she has no reason to fear you. But the operative point here is that just because you think she has no reason to fear you, doesn't mean that she believes that. It really doesn't matter if she has any logical reason to fear you. What ever her reasons are, they are very reasonable to her, and very real to her. And after her lawyer prepares her, she just may well be able to articulate a case that will sound reasonable to the judge or master. Why not respect that?<P>Considering nothing else, other than what is posted in this thread, her fear doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me.<P>Sure hope these reflections will be helpful. <P>Bumper<P> <p>[This message has been edited by Bumperii (edited February 06, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bumperii:<BR><B>Why was it necessary for you to get her signature on a tax form in person? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE></B><P>I'm trying to get one right now ... Since mid-October ... and the extension ran out then. My pre-nup said we file jointly during years when we're married. Filing on my own would violate it--and I don't know what consequences that would bring. Sometimes you have to go where the signatory is and shake the tree in person. I haven't resorted to this ... yet.<P>The point is: we don't know the nature and extent of the games GDP and the X were playing with each other. All we know is things got weird. It's easy to deconstruct events in retrospect ... police spend their working hours looking at situations that wouldn't have boiled over if one or the other party had handled it a bit differently ... and recognize domestic situations as the most volatile of all. <P><B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Next, the incident at the elevator with the coupon book. Why were you laughing, what was so funny?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Again, we don't know. Maniacal laughter? Laughter at the absurdity of X and her attorney's behavior? Looked at from another perspective: if the court orders her to pay on the car, common courtesy would demand of him the coupon book. Why should she have to enter voicemaze hell and hound the bank for another? Perhaps without even knowing that all-important loan number? Again, things got weird, we're not sure why.<P><B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sisyphus I hope you'll chime in on this.<P>You stated that she was granted a protection from abuse order, no questions asked.<P>At any rate, once this order is in effect, and you found yourself inadvertantly driving behind her in traffic, did you by any chance just make a few turns and go a block or two out of your way so you would no longer be driving behind her.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm chiming. But I think few of us are asked by ethical codes to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The bulk of the population is asked only to be reasonable in conducting their affairs.<P>The standard for what allows a woman to get a protection order varies from state to state. In some states, the showing required may be very low. I'm not sure that's a bad thing--the woman knows best whether there is any danger, and there may not be a lot of objective evidence around to be cited. I'm reminded of characters in the movies who say "<I>I've got a bad feeling about this!</I>" Invariably, they are correct.<P>Once the protective order is in effect, I would hope that GDP's state would hale the restrainee in for a brief training session on what is expected of him. Again, we weren't there when he found himself behind her. Time of day, traffic conditions, and availability of alternate routes may all play a role here. Had there been training, GDP might have better understood what he would have to do: pull over, turn off, etc.<P>I would think that GDP's attorney knows how to defend him from any canards cast his way:<P>Any phone calls? Nope. Any poison pen letters? Nope. Any intimidation delivered through intermediaries? Nope. Cat still alive? Yep. Where something is really going on, you usually see an escalating pattern. That seems absent here.<P>My XW seemed quite intrusive about staying in touch with me. Now she's silent. I can guess why, but do I really know? No, I don't. Women do things for their own reasons. Including recasting an ex-spouse as a menace--and I bet more than a few times that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. As Gray says, if you reject a man's behavior, he will unconsciously repeat it seeking its acceptance.<p>[This message has been edited by Sisyphus (edited February 07, 2001).]

It is not just women who recast their spouses as menaces. Paranoia is very common in men, too, especially in those cases where they have suddenly left a long term marriage. Many men act as if they think their spouses are out to get them, although probably fearing for their physical safety may be a bit less common (or they wouldn't admit it even if they did).

GDP,<P>that's why i suggested mental illnes, and not all mental illness is bio related, some are ticking time bombs that occur at a certain age, those would be genetically oriented, others are latent until there's a trigger.<P>so it does sound as though she has some sort of mild mental illness, and who knows what the trigger was.<P>WIFTTy

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bumperii:<BR><B>Why was it necessary for you to get her signature on a tax form in person? That is something that is easily done either by using certified mail, return reciept requested, or giving it to your lawyer who in turn can hand it to her lawyer. I know you don't have a very high opinion of her lawyer, but he isn't really required to get his client to cooperate just to please you. You have no right to control that relationship. If she doesn't cooperate, you still have the option to file without her. Time isn't a consideration, the IRS will grant an extension in a case like this. It wouldn't take much of a bs artist to portray this incident as a mere pretext so that you could make an unwelcome contact with her. It would be easy to at least argue that this is an example of you trying to control her. Soooo, why did you give her that weapon to point at your head? There were easier alternatives.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This incident with the tax form happened two weeks after my wife left me, and I was not yet aware of the extent to which my wife wanted to cut off contact with me. I knew that she didn’t want to “talk” with me, but I had naively (and incorrectly) assumed that she only meant she didn’t want to talk about our relationship issues. I hadn’t realized that routine business matters were also off limits (and this <I>was</I> routine: there was nothing controversial about what I wanted her to sign). There was no restraining order at this time, and in fact neither of us had lawyers yet. Furthermore, I didn’t want to mail anything to her because she had told me she wasn’t reading my letters. (Actually, she may have said she wasn’t opening them. I no longer remember.)<P>So why did I give her a “weapon”? Well, I suppose I could make the excuse that I was still in a state of shock and confusion, but I really don’t think it would have made any difference. The simple truth is that <I>it didn’t occur to me</I> that I was doing something that would be perceived as threatening, or that could be used as a weapon against me. Seeing things in that way would have required a paradigm shift I had not yet been forced to make.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Next, the incident at the elevator with the coupon book. Why were you laughing, what was so funny? Sounds like a big time love buster to me.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yeah, I imagine my balance in that lawyer’s love bank dropped a bit. But really, his posturing was just so <I>absurd</I>. “Fear not, fair lady, I will defend you against this vicious and highly dangerous animal!” (Cut to image of little puppy dog wagging its tail.)<P>Maybe laughter was my way of dealing with my hurt pride. (After all, it had always been <I>my</I> role to protect my wife, and now this guy had not only usurped that role, but turned it against me.) I suppose I could have gotten angry instead. But I <I>still</I> think it was funny, even if no one else does. And it was my automatic, natural reaction.<P>Oh, and it was more like snickering than maniacal laughter.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>When the judge ordered her to make the payments, it seems to me that how she makes those payments is her responsibility, not yours. She didn't need that coupon book from you, she can get a fresh book from the bank or finance company with a phone call. Unless she asked you for the coupon book, what is the need for you to present it to her? I can hear the lawyer now: "Are you so controlling that you don't trust her ability to carry out this court order without your assistance?"</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>OK, I’m baffled. I was just trying to be <I>helpful</I>, for pity’s sake, and trying to do so in a non-threatening manner in spite of all the obstacles raised against me. And if I <I>didn’t</I> give her the coupon book, you can be sure that I would have been accused of being uncooperative (at a minimum).<P>How on earth could my actions possibly be considered <I>controlling</I>? When prevented from fulfilling my harmless intent, I made at least <I>three</I> immediate adaptations to the demands that were made of me.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>GdP, when you mentioned approaching stbx in the parking lot, she gets into the car, locks the door and rolls down the window an inch or so to allow the clipboard in, signs the forms and goes on her way. Did it ever occur to you that she is documenting what you are doing, and documenting her reactions as well? This sounds like the rationalization game where the plaintiff tries to use his or her own "reactions" to prove the actor's actions. At any rate, why give her that?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, this did <I>not</I> occur to me. And frankly, I’m not sure what difference it would make. My wife can document events that never happened as easily as she can document events that <I>did</I> happen. And in the latter case I can at least provide my side of the story, whereas my only possible response to fabrication is a lame denial.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>You stated that she was granted a protection from abuse order, no questions asked. That is certainly different from the way it operates here. A temporary protection from abuse order can be issued, but usually there is some kind of hearing within about fifteen days where at least a primia facia case has to be proved by a weighing of the evidence. I know the standard of proof isn't as strict as in criminal law, but still a reasonable case must be made out. But it rarely is. In most cases, where the Permanent Protection from Abuse order is entered, it is done by a consent decree, both parties just agree to it rather than argue it out in front of a judge.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The restraining order is temporary but of indefinite duration. Perhaps that makes a difference. There was no hearing of any sort. I suppose I could have contested it, but I didn’t see the point. I am not restrained from doing anything I would have done anyway, and I figure if I get accused of violating it I will at least get a chance to tell my side of the story. I would <I>love</I> to have even a <I>tiny</I> opportunity to poke some holes in the fog.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>At any rate, once this order is in effect, and you found yourself inadvertantly driving behind her in traffic, did you by any chance just make a few turns and go a block or two out of your way so you would no longer be driving behind her. That would sure indicate that you are taking deliberate action to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Soo, did you take action to get away from her or just keep following her?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>All I did was back off a bit so it wouldn’t look like I was trying to drive up her tailpipe. I figured that if any trauma had been inflicted by my proximity, it had already been inflicted. My wife knows where I work, how I get there, and when I go, so she should have had no <I>rational</I> reason to be concerned.<P>And anyway, there are levels of paranoia to which I am not willing to accede. If someone wants to burn down my house, they can. If someone wants to broadside me in traffic, they can. If someone wants to ruin my reputation by falsely accusing me of horrible crimes, they can. There’s nothing I can do to stop any of this from happening, so I see no point in worrying about it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>No doubt you are sincere when you say that you pose absolutely no threat to her, and that you believe she has no reason to fear you. But the operative point here is that just because you think she has no reason to fear you, doesn't mean that she believes that. It really doesn't matter if she has any logical reason to fear you. What ever her reasons are, they are very reasonable to her, and very real to her. And after her lawyer prepares her, she just may well be able to articulate a case that will sound reasonable to the judge or master. Why not respect that?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This all goes back to my original points. First, I understand that my wife <I>does</I> fear me, and that she <I>believes</I> that she has <I>reason</I> to fear me. I am struggling to find a way to encourage her brain to engage so that she will recognize the false premises on which her reasoning is based, which might then <I>eventually</I> weaken her belief and alleviate her fear. Second, I am trying to understand how to deal with a system which is incapable of making an objective distinction between loving behavior and criminal behavior, a system in which <I>any</I> argument can sound reasonable.<P>You want an example of controlling or manipulative behavior? OK, how about this. You come home from work to find your wife in a depressed mood. So you go up to her and give her a big hug. You hold her for a while and you tell her about how precious she is to you. After a bit, she perks up and starts to feel better.<P>What have you just done? You’ve <I>manipulated</I> her feelings is what you’ve done. And you’ve done it <I>deliberately</I>. You <I>wanted</I> her to feel a certain way and you <I>controlled</I> the situation to achieve that end.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Sure hope these reflections will be helpful.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, if nothing else, they got me thinking! <BR><p>[This message has been edited by GnomeDePlume (edited February 07, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhenIfindthetime:<BR><B>GDP, that's why i suggested mental illnes, and not all mental illness is bio related, some are ticking time bombs that occur at a certain age, those would be genetically oriented, others are latent until there's a trigger.<P>so it does sound as though she has some sort of mild mental illness, and who knows what the trigger was.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I won't quibble about the definitions. I <I>think</I> I've got a pretty good idea about what happened to my wife, including what the trigger was, and if you want to call it mental illness that's fine. I think it's on the same order of things as my depression, and that would generally be considered mental illness. But in my case I suspect a genetic component, and in my wife's case I think it may all be developmental.<P>The important thing is, if I'm right about my wife, her condition is very treatable. In fact, I have reason to believe that she is now getting psychological treatment for it on the recommendation of a physician, even while she is still accusing me of "cruelty" for "diagnosing" her with the condition myself.<P>Who knows, if she continues with treatment, maybe the fog will lift too. But for now, I suspect I'm getting the blame for all my wife's problems, and it wouldn't surprise me if she were getting encouragement in that direction from her psychotherapist (who, after all, only knows what my wife has told her)...<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GnomeDePlume:<BR><B> Well, if nothing else they got me thinking</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That is all any of us can do. These things really are only questions, I don't have any answers. Good luck pal, hang in there.<P>Bumper<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GnomeDePlume:<BR><B>You want an example of controlling or manipulative behavior? OK, how about this. You come home from work to find your wife in a depressed mood. So you go up to her and give her a big hug. You hold her for a while and you tell her about how precious she is to you. After a bit, she perks up and starts to feel better.<P>What have you just done? You’ve manipulated her feelings is what you’ve done. And you’ve done it deliberately. You wanted her to feel a certain way and you controlled the situation to achieve that end.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think that's very misleading. <I>Controlling</I> is violating someone's autonomy (through some form of coercion, be it physical, mental, financial, etc.)--causing them to do something or refrain from doing something against their will; and which they later decide was against their best interests. Notice that if it's against their will and later decide it was a good thing, the problem of objection to having one's autonomy violated should not arise (although I've seen it happen!).<P><I>Manipulation</I> is using subterfuge rather than coercion to the same end.<p>[This message has been edited by Sisyphus (edited February 07, 2001).]

Hmm. I just had another look at my wife's accusations, and I discovered a subtlety I had missed. She doesn't actually accuse me of controlling her. (This would be very hard for her to demonstrate, since she pretty much did whatever she wanted whenever she wanted to do it.) She merely accuses me of excessive controlling <I>behavior</I>. I guess she thinks I <I>tried</I> to control her, and the fact that I completely failed to <I>succeed</I> is incidental.<P>In actuality, though, I can't tell what she thinks controlling behavior <I>is</I>. She seems to associate it with being judgmental, saying that everything she did "short of going to the bathroom...was up for judgement: approval or disapproval" and saying that my "judgements and rules" were "always the last word". I don't know what she means about the rules, since I can't think of any we had (our mistake I reckon, as Harley has some good ones), but she's not too far off on the judgements. I'm just glad she included approval as a judgement, since I gave her a heck of a lot more approval than disapproval.<P>Unfortunately, most of the criticisms she claims I made did not come from me at all. (Others I still stand by.)<BR>

Hi GDP,<P>Your wife sounds like me, kind of. I consider my ex to be a controlling, and at times, abusive. If I gave you one example, it would sound ridiculous. To me it felt like Chinese water torture. Drip, drip, drip, and one more friggin' drip and I'd go insane. Coffee spoons on the counter, dental floss left on the sink, lights left on, chop-chop "let's go" every morning before work, forgetting to replace his blade on his shaver, not driving as fast as he'd like me to go and having him pull the keys out of the ignition on me, making the bed--RIGHT NOW, not cooking dinner for him, taking too long to orgasm...get the picture?<P>After awhile, I felt like I couldn't do a single thing without inviting a comment on his part. Yea, he said lots of positive things. TONS of positive things, but after awhile it didn't matter. Saying positive things was part of his training procedure, "good dog"....I just got the sinking feeling that when it came right down to it, he didn't respect me as a person in my own right. Somehow, I had to be some extension of him in every way. After awhile, I found it hard to believe what he said. Kind of like that little boy who cried wolf. He was crying wolf every damn day, so when the wolf actually showed up, I stopped listening to him. <P>He would say that I'm too sensitive. I would say he needs to pick his battles and criticize me for important things, not the endless piddly things he chose. After living with a couple of roommates for awhile, I've gotten used to the idea that there are just some things I have to live with and get used to if I have another person in my house. My roommate throws her cigarette butts in my flower bed. Yea, that bugs me. On the other hand, she likes my dogs and is fun to talk to. So big deal. Twice a year I will probably have to get in the flower bed and pick out those stupid cigarette butts.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheStudent:<BR><B>Your wife sounds like me, kind of. I consider my ex to be a controlling, and at times, abusive. If I gave you one example, it would sound ridiculous. To me it felt like Chinese water torture. Drip, drip, drip, and one more friggin' drip and I'd go insane. Coffee spoons on the counter, dental floss left on the sink, lights left on, chop-chop "let's go" every morning before work, forgetting to replace his blade on his shaver, not driving as fast as he'd like me to go and having him pull the keys out of the ignition on me, making the bed--RIGHT NOW, not cooking dinner for him, taking too long to orgasm...get the picture?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This post has really given me pause for thought. Because no, I <I>don’t</I> get the picture. My initial impression was that there is a real mix of behaviors described here, ranging from simple differences in habits to disrespectful domination. But the more I contemplate the mix, the more confused I get.<P>My thinking about what it means to be controlling has been pretty much along the lines that Sisyphus drew: it’s about not respecting one another’s autonomy. This “Chinese water torture” concept is rather different…<P>A lot of these behaviors seem to be rooted in lifestyle differences. Like where one person is a slob while the other is a neat freak. Obviously, the most appropriate way of dealing with these differences is compromise, where both parties make accommodations. But where does that line get drawn? If I make more accommodations than you do, does that mean you are “controlling” me? And if I agree to change but don’t, at what point does the difficulty I have in breaking old habits become disrespectful thoughtlessness?<P>I am reminded of what Susan Page claimed to be the foundation of a good marriage in her book <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440507820/qid=981655781/sr=1-6/ref=sc_b_6/105-9273230-3707954" TARGET=_blank>The 8 Essential Traits of Couples Who Thrive</A>: commitment and <I>goodwill</I>. How we view our partner’s behavior has an awful lot to do with whether we believe they mean well toward us.<P>When my wife prepared dinner and told me it was ready, she became upset if I didn’t come to dinner right away. Was it disrespectful of me to tell her I needed a minute or two to wrap up what I was doing and wash up, or was she being “controlling” by expecting me to immediately drop anything I might be doing (without even knowing what it was)?<P>In the apartment where we used to live, I often spent time in my office at one end of the apartment while my wife spent time in the kitchen or living room at the other end. It was not at all unusual for her to say something to me, loud enough for me to hear that she was speaking, but not loud enough for me to hear what it was she said. So I would get up, run down the hall, say “I’m sorry, what did you say?”, have a brief conversation, and then go back to the office. Sometimes I would end up running back and forth several times in as many minutes. Sometimes my wife would get exasperated at my saying “what?” all the time; sometimes I would get exasperated at having to get up all the time; and sometimes I would give up on what I was doing and just stay wherever my wife was in case she wanted to talk again.<P>Thinking back on this, I can’t figure out where this pattern might fall in the spectrum of controlling and disrespectful behavior, or what we should have been doing differently. Personally, I thought that if my wife wanted to ask me a question, it would have been more courteous of her to have come to <I>me</I> to ask it, rather than expecting me to come to her (especially if she didn’t want to repeat the question), but that’s one of the accommodations that seemed to be required of me…<P>If controlling behavior is so vague and encompassing, I <I>really</I> wish I had a chance to talk to my wife about what specifically she had a problem with. When she first suggested (less than a year ago) that I had a “need to be in control” I couldn’t understand what she was talking about. I <I>still</I> can’t see how the one example she gave has anything to do with such a need. But now I can’t help but wonder whether she was really thinking about problems of accommodation.<P>I know she had a problem with compromise. She said that a marriage was the one place you should be free to be yourself, and she never seemed to understand that it was generally possible to <I>make</I> compromises without compromising your identity or integrity. (As a consequence, <I>I</I> did the vast majority of the accommodating in our relationship.) If she expected <I>my</I> life to revolve around <I>her</I> desires, perhaps she thought I expected <I>her</I> life to revolve around <I>my</I> desires. If she though I resented her for anything she did or didn’t do that failed to support <I>my</I> preferences, if she thought that that was what I <I>expected</I> from her, then I can almost see how she might have felt I was trying to “control” her any time I asked her to do something that was not <I>her</I> first choice, or even any time my first choice didn’t coincide with hers.<P>Is that possible? My wife is (was?) a very thoughtful and generous person, and what I am describing here is totally narcissistic. It makes me wish I could find something more on the concept of “narcissistic regression” than the two brief and tantalizing references I have come across so far. It just <I>sounds</I> like something that could be closely akin to what we call “the fog”. I have to remember that I don’t know which of my wife’s feelings are long-buried ones that have recently surfaced, and which are new ones manufactured from revisionism.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by GnomeDePlume (edited February 08, 2001).]