Back in 1698 a chap by the name of Charles Lebrun gave a lecture on expression (a discourse on Art), a part of which discussed PASSION. Concerning passion Lebrun said:<p>&#8220;..a passion is a movement of the sensitive part of the soul, which is designed to pursue that which the soul thinks to be for ist good, or to avoid that which it believes to be hurtful to itself&#8221;<p>Lebrun, basing his argument on the views voiced by a well known chap called Aristotle, divided the soul into three basic parts: the vegetative (aligned with physical life and existence): the reasoning (allied with rationality): and the sensitive (aligned with the capacity to experience sensations and emotions). Agreeing with Aristotle, Lebrun claimed that the sensitive had two appetites, one concupiscible (desire) the other irascible (anger).<p>I was intrigued by this argument because of the possibility that during an affair the soul of the WS is so consumed by desire that the two remaining parts, the vegetative and the reasoning are diminished. Like the effects of alcohol, desire dampens our ability to reason and therefore creates what we know as the &#8216;fog&#8217;. Obviously, having feelings of desire for two people is difficult so the only other available emotion for the WS to express is anger and this they direct towards the BS.<p>Now, following this argument it seems logical that as these feelings of desire diminish, just as the effects of alcohol diminish, the ability to reason returns. However, the sensitive part of the soul still needs to project it&#8217;s appetite for desire and anger somewhere. And based on what I&#8217;ve read and learned here it seems plausible that some WSs become angry at themselves while others rationalise that it is the BS who made them have the affair in the first place and therefore maintain their anger toward the BS.<p>The argument is intriguing for a number of reasons, all of which (in my opnion) lead back to some Harley principles: 1) what were the reasons we married, 2) the need to protect the marriage from external desires and 3) how to recover from the affair.

I hate monologues....so what do you think?<p>- Freddy

Hey you!
Great seeing your screenname again! Interesting stuff here. I was just wondering about those who didn't marry for true love... They have the age old question of how to regain something they never had. [img]images/icons/frown.gif" border="0[/img]

Hi Bin,<p>great to see and read YOU too. <p>I've been toughing out some issues but keeping well and keeping out of trouble [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>how are you????<p>- Freddy<p>[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Freddy ]</p>

Freddy,
Very interesting and uplifting. I think that you are RIGHT ON TARGET. Thanks for the sharing.

Yep, very true. My WW in many ways hates herself and is not ready to forgive me for my part in her wanting to have an affair. She has yet to learn how to constructively deal with that.

Freddy and Bin,
Just trying to ponder this a bit and come up with something halfway worth posting.... so I'll just throw this out there, FWIW... [img]images/icons/tongue.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Bin, you asked what if one didn't marry for true love... then I think Freddy's #1 still applies: "What WERE the reasons you married?"<p>Not to rehash SNL's posts, but what is true love, and does anyone ever really know if they're in it? I believe people marry for many reasons, and perhaps mainly because they BELIEVE they have found true love. Isn't that enough? And therefore, once we've identified that part, we should answer Freddy's other 2 Harley questions: #2 how to maintain and protect those initial "reasons", and protect the marriage from external desires, and #3 how to survive the affair once it's occurred.<p>I dunno... [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Interesting stuff Freddy. It really makes sense and seems very applicable to affairs. Probably way too deep for me, but I'm trying to let it sink in a bit. [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img]<p>[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Faith1 ]</p>

I'm not familiar with the Aristotelian view, Freddy, and I look at this more simply. I may only be stating the obvious, but in our minds we set expectations of need fulfillment on a relative rather than an absolute scale. We don't have to be angry about anything at a given time, or excited either. What matters more than the way life is for us at the moment is whether it seems to be getting better or worse. If we've been earning, let's say, $75,000 a year, we may not necessarily be "excited" about that (depending on our circumstances), and we may be just "satisfied." But if we got a raise from $65,000 to $75,000, we'd be pleased or excited. And if our pay was cut from $85,000 to $75,000, we'd be disappointed, frustrated--or angry. Even though the final position was the same in each case, it's the deterioration from our former expectations that makes us angry, not the position in itself.<p>However, our expectations aren't necessarily based either on what we have right now, but often on what we visualize having, believe we could have, or think we "ought" to have. We may for instance be frustrated about earning "only" $75,000 a year if we believe we're worth more.<p>The problem is that anger is often irrational, and depending on how we think, we may look for a target to blame that's quite undeserving of the anger. People don't necessarily take responsibility for their own feelings. I think the operative phrase here is "If it weren't for you." When it comes to "passion" for another person, someone of the opposite sex may evoke those feelings of desire even if there is no relationship and never was any agreement to form one. But some people will obsess over another person, fantasize repeatedly in their mind, and form an expectation that they somehow "could," "will," or "ought to" have that person anyway. If this doesn't come to pass, they may get angry at the person for "not fulfilling their expectations." The "logic" behind this anger is "If it weren't for you, I wouldn't be feeling these feelings of frustration and disappointment." This of course can lead to "love-hate" relationships (or often "lust-hate" relationships), and as we know, in some cases people use it to "justify" rape ("You 'owed' me the fulfillment of my expectations").<p>When it comes to being pulled in two directions, what first came to mind for some reason was the Luxton tragedy in Devonshire back around 1975. Perhaps that's because you seem to be from England, Freddy, so if you are, you may be familiar with that incident. Years earlier, Alan Luxton had been engaged to a girl, but he was prevented from using his legitimate financial interest in the family farm to set up a separate household with her. He was torn between his reasonable desire to marry on the one hand, and on the other, his brother's stubbornness and a set of duties to the family farm that had been drilled into him from childhood. His real problem was with the latter, though various courses of action were open to him, as to anybody. Instead, he gave up his engagement in frustration and had a nervous breakdown. Afterwards, he developed a quite irrational hatred of women and kept a diary in which he wrote down all the bad things to say about women that he could think of.<p>This made no sense, because no woman had wronged him in any way that we know of. If anything, he was the one who had disappointed his fiancee. Yet the "crazy logic" behind his hatred seems clear enough. "If it weren't for women," he wouldn't be feeling these perfectly natural yet frustrated desires to pull away from his family "duties," which were tearing him in two. Women must be to blame.<p>I don't mean of course that only men are prone to this kind of irrational subjectivity. Women do just as much of it. Now when it comes to an affair, it's surely true in many cases (though not all by any means) that the BS has not been meeting the WS's needs. Even if that isn't true, the passion excited by the OP sets a new standard (or renews an old standard) of expectation in the WS's mind that the BS is not currently meeting. That alone makes for an invidious comparison, and perhaps anger at the BS; disappointment anyway.<p>However, if the BS isn't completely in the doghouse, I wouldn't like to say it's so difficult in itself to have feelings of desire for two people at once. It's a wish that could certainly be felt and fulfilled--in some ideal fantasy land! But real people have real needs of their own, and surely what's difficult is the practical hardships of trying fulfill desires with two people at once, with their conflicting demands on the WS.<p>When it's the OP who excites the greater passion of the two, the WS may be feeling on occasion: "If it weren't for my spouse, I could be enjoying this all the time with my OP." Instead of being a blessing who adds to the WS's life, the BS may be seen as an obstacle to the fulfillment of desire, causing illogical anger to be directed at him or her.<p>When the WS gives up an affair, naturally that's a drop in the fulfillment of desire, a deterioration from previous "expectations," leading to disappointment and perhaps anger. The WS may be thinking "If it weren't for my spouse, I wouldn't have to give this up," and direct that illogical anger at the BS as well.<p>I'm sure WSs may direct their anger at themselves instead, thinking "if it weren't for my own 'weakness' and passion, then I wouldn't be feeling so bad about all this now." If that happens, it's depressive. But as you say, Freddy, in the end it does lead back to the principles you mentioned. Protecting the marriage from external desires avoids those invidious comparisons. Most of all, I think returning to the reasons why a couple married is important to reassociate those high expectations with the spouse alone.

freddy, interesting stuff, and of merit IMO, as you may know I do think there are psychological explanations for all this, and healthy and unhealthy (in a physical and emotional sense) courses of action arising from those understandings....we concentrate way too much on the behaviour, and not nearly enough on the why, and whether a marriage should continue, (or whether one should pursure and affair for that matter). IMO we gaurantee a lot of long term unhappiness, and a certain amount of irrational anger when we only place one outcome on the table (recovery). If we also counselled people on why are they married, and that maybe their psychologies will not support a healthy intimacy (meaning a safe, nurturing place for both), and facillitate amicable and responsible divorce we would also reduce the anger and depression that are associated with relationships that will not work, or require "work" (a euphemism for ignoring that the two people do not fit psychologically very well). There is absolutely no reason why responsible, caring, people with proper societal support cannot dissolve a marriage (which is about intimacy) and be very good caring supportive special freinds, yet that option is not even offered (usually), much less given equal billing. The facts are irrefutable, vast numbers of marriages end in divorce, not cause people are defective, but because they are trying to maintain a particular level of closeness impossible for their psychological needs....and we have precious little support/tools for assessing this....is no wonder people are so depressed and/or angry...who wouldn't be when you are living incompatibly with who you are. This is not about blame, or fault, it is about possession. In my one year here, I can count on one hand, (out of the hundreds of stories I have read) the bs who have any actual concern for their ws, all their focus is on the bs, and what the bs wants and needs, their hurt, their destruction, their future, and how it MUST have the ws in their life....that is possession, and has nothing to do with love. There is almost no discussion from bs about whether they are really the spouse their ws needs....they got em, and by gosh, they are not gonna let em get away, no matter what it takes to rope em back in. That gaurantees conflict, as the ws percieves the relationship is not healthy for either bs or ws, and gets very little help from the bs in ending it. Instead the emphasis is on the ws must be crazy, in a fog, mesmerized.... how could they possibly not want to be in an intimate relationship with the bs...and how dare they care and love the bs in other ways, and want to be a good friend to them....so you gaurantee more anger. There is little doubt in my mind anymore that the primary factors driving bs/ws conflict are possession and fear....not love.<p>eddy, your stuff was very good, I just wish people would do a lot more of this, instead of just jumping into making it "work", and trying to coerce folks into specific behaviours designed to get them focused only on a particular person, and wear down their concerns about the nature of the relationship. We talk and talk and talk about how awful the affairs are, and how they can't work, apparently ignoring that every marriage started as an "affair" also, and is driven by all the same feelings and may very well be just as faulty as the current affair. We put a layer of social rules on top of human psychology and somehow think that changes everything...it doesn't of course, it just adds a layer of coercion and consequences. The fact is, and will always remain, relationships are about people, not rules, and to the degree people don't fit the relationship will not work...and we will have anger, and depression, and loneliness, and all that stuff cause we do expect something else from a bond, and rightly so....we expect to be healthy and happy, else why do it? One does not need to be married to live, the only reason to do it is to enhance the lives of both, and if one percieves that is not happening...what do you do? Just make it work? Or adjust it to the level of interaction that does work?<p>eddy...But as you say, Freddy, in the end it does lead back to the principles you mentioned. Protecting the marriage from external desires avoids those invidious comparisons. <p>snl..This makes sense at first, but has always troubled me, I think I know why now. Cause it violates honesty, I want to know that no matter what the stresses, or temptations my spouse would always choose me, and I do not want it to be based on fear or possession either. I think "protecting" marriages is an insidious way of preventing people from realizing maybe the marriage doesn't work so well (cause they have nothing to compare against)...and people spend a lifetime wondering why it really is a sorta shallow place...because it should have ended, and it might have if people had not hidden themself away (so to speak). If peole are really in-love, their is no danger, people in-love do not have affairs, or turn away (according to harleys last book, and I agree). If all it takes for me to lose a spouse, is to have her spend some time with another male, I want to know that actually, and I want her to choose him and leave. I do not want to be settled for, or possess a spouse cause she has no other options... I realize many are unwilling to take those risks, recognizing that most marriages are settled ones, and not with your best match probably, so fear is the better match might come along....and maybe that is the reality of human society, settling is the norm, and so one needs to "protect" it, but I don't like it, why be married then if it isn't anything more that fear of losing a spouse.<p>
eddy...Most of all, I think returning to the reasons why a couple married is important to reassociate those high expectations with the spouse alone.<p>snl...I think it is important too, so one can understand if the why's made sense, most times they do not, cause little effort was made to apply sound mate-selection techniques to validate the love feelings (which more often were infatuation and lust, not a recognition of the in-love that is associated with oneflesh, and fitting).<p>[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: sad_n_lonely ]</p>

Hello Freddy,
Thank you for this post, but I better wait til the brandy wears off a little before answering... rough day at work! Be back later.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>snl..This makes sense at first, but has always troubled me, I think I know why now. Cause
it violates honesty, I want to know that no matter what the stresses, or temptations my
spouse would always choose me, and I do not want it to be based on fear or possession
either. I think "protecting" marriages is an insidious way of preventing people from realizing
maybe the marriage doesn't work so well (cause they have nothing to compare
against)...and people spend a lifetime wondering why it really is a sorta shallow
place...because it should have ended, and it might have if people had not hidden themself
away (so to speak). If peole are really in-love, their is no danger, people in-love do not
have affairs, or turn away (according to harleys last book, and I agree). If all it takes for
me to lose a spouse, is to have her spend some time with another male, I want to know
that actually, and I want her to choose him and leave. I do not want to be settled for, or
possess a spouse cause she has no other options... I realize many are unwilling to take
those risks, recognizing that most marriages are settled ones, and not with your best
match probably, so fear is the better match might come along....and maybe that is the
reality of human society, settling is the norm, and so one needs to "protect" it, but I don't
like it, why be married then if it isn't anything more that fear of losing a spouse.<hr></blockquote><p> Interesting SNL. This makes sense to me somehow. But at the same time it seems to be an easy out for any WS. I like it but it makes me uneasy for some reason.<p> I do believe fear plays a big role for the BS to keep trying when the M is so clearly over. How do we get beyond that fear and determine if that is all that is keeping us here??? <p> Great thread Freddy. You have a real talent.<p> jd

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Freddy:
<strong>how are you????
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey Freddy,
Glad to hear you are keeping yourself out of trouble! [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img] All is well on my end. No complaints.<p>To answer Faith1's question on whether or not it is enough to BELIEVE one has found true love. IMO, NO! I think you gotta KNOW it's right, deep down from the beginning. <p>If you find yourself in a situation where you know you married with doubts in your heart and mind, AND NOW there are kids involved, then I feel you should make the best of it. (except for cases of abuse, of course) <p>It's too late to be thinking about why you got married in the first place, especially if it was not right. Now would be the time to look for God's help, after all, marriage was/is HIS idea, so He must have some answers for us all!<p>If there was/is an affair going on, then supposedly that is not even a good enough reason to give up, biblically speaking. Divorce came as a result of hard hearts. God's love in us gives us the capacity to love each other unconditionally as He loves.<p>As for expectations, I don't believe we are "entitled" to do anything but to hide ourselves in Christ where we can expect to receive HIS love and protection.<p>God said to treat others as we would want them to treat us, He didn't say that they would tho...<p>Further, Harley's infidelity materials are written to and for BS's so quite naturally this would be the safe place for BS's to vent and receive support. That's just the way it is... And as much as I have read how BS's choose to fight for their marriage, I have also read time and time again that the BS cannot control their WS nor force the WS to want them or their marriage--for WHATEVER reason! <p>Nobody is trying to control their WS's, all MBers know full well that is impossible. To resent MBers for trying, well, that is a lost cause... Everybody has personal reasons for how they choose to survive their affairs. Everybody has personal reasons for why they got married in the first place, and everybody has personal choices to make when it comes to protecting their marriages. Nobody can say for certain what is right for another couple.<p>Men and women are basically the same, but couples, well, they are all different!

jd...I do believe fear plays a big role for the BS to keep trying when the M is so clearly over. How do we get beyond that fear and determine if that is all that is keeping us here??? <p>snl..In a minute, first wanna add a little more to the thought you referenced. The protection philosophy is a 2-edged sword. IMO a marriage should not be based on it, nor should it be like a prison. For example, no friends of opposite sex, what is that about? You give up the growth you can experience by cutting off access to 1/2 the human race? Not to mention that the interaction bwtween male and female is important in itself in defining who we are. It is sort of like living in a convent, nunnery, monastery...except you are allowed 1 opposite gender contact all your life...maybe like a nun who gets to interact with the bishop or something...the whole thing gives me the creeps and feels cultish. <p>And as I mentioned previously, if I have to gaurd my wife (by having her voluntarily protect me so I won't feel uncomfortable), then how is that love? I am treating her like a possession, and fearful I will lose her....I am no longer trusting her love for me, I am trusting her to voluntarily isolate herself....that may make no difference to some, but to me, it is all the difference in the world, and eliminates the reason to be married. I do not want to possess anyone....nor do I want to be possessed.<p>So the marriage is "safe" but at the expense of personal growth, and at the expense of knowing I will always be chosen no matter what temptations occur....I will always have to keep in mind, she might chose another if given the opportunity. There are other prices to pay as well. We talk sop much about EN's (in our effort to reduce bonding to a formula, but that's another issue), ok how do we KNOW what our EN's are if we do not see how a variety of people meet them? How can we tell our spouse when we don't even know ourselves? That is of course one of the fallout benefits of the train wreck of affairs, people wake up to this and if they can recover put the information to good use. But on a less catastrophic scale, interracting with a variety of people gives you insight into who you are, and you can assess (and communicate) you (and your spouse) ability to meet en's in the marriage. Yes the downside is you may discover you don't fit, cannot meet each others needs the way you want them met, which could lead to ending the marriage, and recognizing it never was more than a picture, expectations, in the first place. In fact quite often I am pretty sure marriage is essentially an effort to have regular licit sex (and procreate as we are driven to do), and have someone take care of us. <p>I think there is a lot of fear in relationships. And this fear is what leads to anger (a normal biochemical response to fear [and anger]...which is usually about threats to our percieved well-being). I find this curious cause I am not sure why the fear is there. A marriage ending is not particularly harmful in any real sense. It was at one time, but not now. In addition, according to MB principles, finding another mate is fairly trivial, just start meeting someone's needs, and don't LB...voila, in-love. So what is going on? Why do people "love" someone who is harmful to their well-being, and not meeting their en's? Has to be fear, compeitition, and possession (meaning by gosh, I planned my life a certain way, beleive in certain things, and no sorry a**ed ws is gonna mess that up, and who cares how well we really fit, we are gonna work, and work darn hard, and MAKE it fit...I'ff fix that sob if it is the last thing I do...blah blah blah). <p>On the other hand, one can make a sorta case for protection on the premise no one is "perfect", and should themself, (and by appropriate pressure from spouse/society), avoid temptation. This makes me a little queasy too, but for example, suppose someone is married to sexual addict...not a raving lunatic one, but one who has a weakness...they probably need to be kept further away from situations which could lead to sexual temptation...of course this belies the question why be married to such an individual at all, and simply divorce them (cause they are unhealthy for you). Same concept as an alcoholic, be best not to go places where alcohol is readily available, or folks offering drinks etc, so some level of protection is in order....but if this means you can never even send them to the grocery store, or drive down any street with a liquor store, then again, why me married to such an individual if that level of protection is required. I could go on jd, but I think this illustrates the point. In part I think marriage is earned, and if a spouse is going to falter (for whatever reasons) then why be married to them at all? I don't think that is what marriage is about, and I know it is not what God had in mind either....cause they are not marriages (despite the piece of paper), they are cohabitations, and contractural affairs...that must have rules and protection...people in-love do not need these things, oneflesh does not need it either.<p>Ok, how do you get rid of the fear jd? Not an easy thing to do, fear is a survival reaction, it mobilizes our defenses, and is a good thing. But like all our "reactions", fear, anger, happy, lust, pride, jealousy, etc. all have an appropriate manifestation, it is what we do with them that messes us up. That's where our rational side comes into play, it takes the "emotions" and adds clarity and understanding to them, so we can choose a course of action. Of course that means we have to do the work of understanding the circumstances...and in relationships that means a thorough understanding of who we are, the SO is, and how we are as a couple (a separate entity in itself). The bs kneejerk reaction to save the marriage at all cost, without doing this other work first is irresponsible....they may be trying to save something that should not be saved (in terms of the emotional/psychological health of the individuals). But being messy manipulative humans, and give the low levels of introspection people engage in, it is quite possible to manipulate each other right back into the relationship, even after something as significant (in terms the marriage is not working) as an affair. Given all the issues of control, co-dependentcy, fear of starting over, competitive responses, and so forth...far as I can see very few couples here do any real work at determining whether they should be married, and instead most recoveries are simply a renegotiation of the contract (and usually cause op did not work out), a lot of denial of the real truths, and folks continue on mostly disquieted, and not particularly happy, but working on "making" themself be happy with what they have. <p>I think the real benefit of MB stuff is the behavioural modification of learning not to LB, so one can create an atmosphere of communication...also the illustration that marriage should be about radical honesty (no more stuffing your unhappiness, or needs issues), and poja (elimnates..or more accurately exposes, controllers). I think their EN concepts are helpful (and extremely simplistic) in identifying fit, but their notion you just change yourself to meet the EN's of spouse is a recipe for psychological disaster. They have no explanation, or assistance in assessing motivation, why do this, they leave that up to the couple, and/or IC...which is ok, but needs to be talked about a lot more in their materials. <p>This same issue applies to retrovaille, marriage encounter, most Christian materials... We have very little resources available to understand why we are married, and whether we should remain married, thereby insuring psychological damage to millions of people in marriages that should be safe, nurturing places, but are not, and never will be...as they struggle to make them "work". Is fascainating that in every other area of our live we promote and embrace change when our lives don't work right. Be it a career, a job, a religion, where we live, out politics, everything...but we pressure 2 people to spend their entire lives together, for no other reason than becuase it is painful to separate. I have no problem whatsoever with people doing marital work, to see if they can find a state of passion acceptable to both (not just one), but I think that should also include a lot of help in assessing how well we fit each other, compared to how well we might fit someone else.... We need to do this with our young people, before marital errors are made, we need to know each others psychological/temperament profiles (and how to assess this) before we marry, and make marriage much much more difficult to enter (a 2-year waiting period comes to mind). For the last year I have looked hard at the hundreds of everyday people I come in contact with, and their marriages, it is absolutely ludicrous to think fit does not matter...it matters immensely...and all the work in the world cannot make you fit...with motivation you can make a tolerable accomodation, but that almost always means a serious reduction in expectations (of what marriage should be), and I am not sure that is a good thing at all....again, why be married then, if it is only work and protection?<p>I think one can do a few things to minimize fear driven behaviour. First is to accept the marriage is over, done, finished, didn't work. Most seem to be able to at least articulate (if not internalize) that. Accept the possibility that one may be single again, and start contemplating what that means in practical terms (finances, etc.) so one is not "fearful" of surviving. This is a very big deal, especially for sahm, and many times the prospects are very very bleak, driving these women to feel them must love their ws, cause the reality is their survival is at stake. But in the meantime they can start trying to develop some skills, maybe seek family/friend support in the short term, legal options. <p>One can also start doing the work of understanding the psychological realities of marriage, reading, counselling, preparing to give up the "picture" we all pretty much use in place of reality re in-love/bonding. Decide for themself what is aceeptable and what is not re living with someone as a spouse, and set the appropriate boundaries, and so forth...the point being in all this to take definitive action, that includes a not being married outcome, this I think reduces fear. It is interesting to watch peoole here, and the posts they make when the light bulb comes on, and they realize there is a whole world of people out there, other paths to take, that love can and will be found if it fails in their current case...and the best way to find it is to give up blame, and anger, and co-dependentcy, and simply accept life is not over cause you aren't married to a certain person....and that you can and probably will be, much much happier now that you know how to assess a mate, and choose wisely.<p>The other thing one can do is give up control. This is easy to say and hard to do, cause control is a normal human activity, but again something that can be applied unwisely. We cannot control our spouse, and should not try (this is another area rules of protection fail on, they encourage manipulation/control behaviours)...we can only assess whether the relationship works or not, and respond the way we need to, not how our spouse thinks we should. Again one has to be honest with themself, and assess whether what we want is appropriate and not gratuitiously selfish. That is I think how plan a is suppose to work, but often doesn't. It must be applied with the mindset it is for you, not to effect a change in spouse. If done properly, there is no reason to feel like a doormat....it is about letting go of the spouse, and any expectations re them....fixing yourself. A good way to give up control is to give it to God. For the first ten years of marriage I worked and worked and worked at "fixing" the marriage (not that my efforts were well done, but the motivation was strong), I felt I had to somehow fix this, and if I didn't I would be lost, a failure. I was getting more and more depressed, finally I realized I do not have the power to do anything but fix myself, and the first thing I had to do, was stop blaming myself, or feeling I was the responsible party all alone. So I gave that up to God, whatever will be will be, and accepted from that day forward one day I may no longer be married, and that I would be ok. It was a huge relief, and took away most of the fear. I still have some fear, and reintensified now following the affair, and the bringing of the marriage to a moment of truth. I lost God for awhile, trying to fix everything (spouse, ow, etc., trying to do all the "right" things). But again came to understand I was controlling again...so I gave it all up once more, the fear I will be alone, the fear I am hurting my spouse, the fear I have messed up ow life, fear my kids will be messed up, fear God will abandon me, fear I will never be loved, or love right. And He took all that angst, and fear, and I know I will be allright, and so will everyone else, if they let Him take care of them. That leaves me free to concentrate on the truth, be radically honest, and let the chips fall where they will, and walk the path He has in mind for me. Maybe that will work for you too. Ultimately I think it comes down to this JD, you have to let love be free, you cannot demand it, coerce it, guilt it, manipulate it, use anger, decide about it, make it happen (lovebank), it is about how you fit someone psychologically, whether you can "see" each other, "hear" each other, and are compelled to nurture each other. Admittedly, not easy to come by, so we all mostly settle, and that involves a different set of rules, but first there must be a negotiation, and an understanding (by both parties) that is what you are doing, otherwise you have an expectation conflict.<p>There is a lot more to it than this, and this is not well organized jd, but for what it's worth there it is. I realize many people think I am full of crap, and maybe I am, but I do think this stuff can be figured out, and if our culture was more supportive of the mental health of the individuals and less fixated on keeping people married we would all be a lot happier, and more productive...I think intimacy is important, I don't think humans are really meant to be alone, but it can't just be anyone, or who you made babies with, it has to be who you fit, or it is not healthy for either one.

Some of you mentioned "true love." I think true love doesn't come until you've been through fire and ice with someone. I cared about my husband and trusted him with my feelings. Apparently he trusted me too. We made a promise to love and honor and cherish. That's the promise that keeps us from giving up...but it didn't make me love my H. He gives to me, I give to him...but what makes the difference now is that I have learned to respect him and he to respect me. At the trough of my depression, my H was there. During his near EA, I was there. "WE" are still here, because of God's grace. We truly love each other, not just because of how we feel, but also because we accept each other's faults and try to help each other overcome them, and try not to let anyone come between us(the protection issue). True love comes only with time. If you have good feelings about someone, it's easier to keep commitments to them and that's when you take a chance on love. It's only over time that true love comes to fruition. (Not to say that it only comes about in marriage, that is certainly not true because a good number of fiance's have given up so much. ex. Mary and Joseph.) I just think that I had little more than friendship love for my H when I married him. Now, I think I would give my life for him--I couldn't always say that. I also think that true love can come about with different people. Maybe OP do love the WS truly. In that case, they would sacrifice their relationship with WS and allow WS to reestablish their commitment to the BS. People forget that God doesn't just admonish a couple committing their lives to each other, but He also admonishes the community they live in...hence, we get married in public (mostly).

. People forget that God doesn't just admonish a couple committing their lives to each other, but He also admonishes the community they live in...hence, we get married in public (mostly). <p>God admonishes us all to protect a marriage. The public, doesn't respond to it, but God holds us responsible anyway. The public has no choice but to protect it. [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img]

To all starting with Freddy:
I found ALL this very interesting and ALL very acceptable in and of it's own right. If we could follow these principles we would have it made. The factor that makes it difficult is: "life"
We have no idea what will happen within the next few seconds or how we will react to that or even whether we will be here. For that reason alone everything we do involves "work". No matter whether we love it or them or how much. We are destined as humans to always be searching for something. That's why we have hopes, prayers and expectations.<p> [img]images/icons/confused.gif" border="0[/img]
Brw

HI Freddy,
I am having some trouble with the way you are interpreting this. So help me out!
Aristotle divided the soul into 3 parts. (I know nothing of aristolte's philosophy having promptly purged it with drugs after high school). That being a given we are talking of only one soul, not that of both WS and BS. The WS or BS could well be rational, not senistive or angry?
I need to do this before my eve glass of wine!
Aloha, cl