SNL,<p>Have you read Schnarch's books yet (
Passionate Marriage and
The Sexual Crucible)? I'm about 1/3 of the way through
Passionate Marriage, and you have come to mind a lot as I've read it because it addresses so many of the issues you talk about.<p>Schnarch's explanation for the purpose of M is what I've found reassuring. Most of the stuff we go through in M is SUPPOSED to happen. Schnarch calls M the cradle of adulthood and is a system designed to do exactly what it does--progress to emotional gridlock so that you are forced to make a choice:<p>
- Withdraw emotionally
- Engulf your partner
- Allow your partner to engulf you
- Raise your level of differentiation
<p>I really like the way he explains the paradox of M and intimacy. And he addresses the "fit" and the journey from emotional fusion to differentiation. Differentiation is the ability to hold onto yourself in close proximity to your partner and is what leads to deeper intimacy. His contention is that the "fit" will ALWAYS lead to emotional gridlock because that is exactly what it is supposed to do.<p>My own take on it in regard to your statement about M being a safe and nurturing place is that is not so because of the paradox. Only when we establish that safe and nurturing place inside ourselves first will M be a safe and nuturing place.<p>My understanding is that as long as you have unresolved emotional fusion, you will confront the same emotional gridlock in your next R because you will ALWAYS pick a long-term partner at the same level of differentiation as yourself.<p>Schnarch gives lots of stuff to chew on.<p>My hope is that you'll stay and add to the dialog. You're always pretty clear and up front about when you're saying something in conflict with MB principles, so I don't see that as a problem. If we've outlived our usefulness to you, then that's of course a horse of a different color.<p>Just wanted you to know I have benefited from your posts, and I think others have as well.<p>(Would have done my editing faster if I'd known you were reading--was trying to figure out how to do that list thing, and I ended up taking out the "pushy" part because I thought it was well, too pushy. [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img] )<p>FYI,
The Sexual Crucible was written first and apparently is more of a clinical manual for therapists presenting his theory and approach to therapy. The sexual crucible approach combines marital and sexual therapy, both being the essence of the system (his opinion being that you can't have one without the other).<p>I haven't read TSC, and considering the technical/intellectual challenge of the style of
Passionate Marriage, which was written later to present the approach to laymen, I'm probably better off reading this one, though TSC was recommended to me by a therapist relative of mine who thought I could handle it. Because of the depth of the concepts that Schnarch describes, I find myself having to read some passages 2-3 times to finally "get it", and I like those kinds of challenges.<p>Figured you did too, which is probably why you've come to mind so often as I'm reading it. I love logic puzzles, too, so this paradox stuff is right up my alley:<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Spouses' interlocking crucibles are an inherent part of the
system that is marriage. Carol wanted Warren to want her--to choose her deep down in his soul. But this meant Carol had to face the possibility that he might not pick her now if he had a choice. If she couldn't live through that gamble, she would never be wanted the way she desired.<p>There was another level of gridlock: the only way Warren had a choice was if he
didn't need Carol. But that challenged Carol's bottom line: she wanted to be wanted
but she needed to be needed. Warren needed her as long as he couldn't take care of himself--at those low times he had no choice. Carol had the impulse to "help" Warren with his unresolved issues--to make herself indispensable as she had in the past. (This is the role Carol had assumed in their prior days of borrowed functioning.) But then she would never be certain Warren
wanted her. As long as she pandered to her need to be needed, she would never know if she was wanted for herself.<p>Carol's crucible fit snugly with Warren's struggles. (Remember, that's the essence of gridlock.) He had much the same issues of wanting to be wanted but needing to be needed. And there was the twist that the only way Carol could be wanted was if he exposed himself to the vulnerability of wanting and choosing. They both benefited when Carol let Warren struggle with himself. In the process Carol had to struggle with herself, too. If Warren went through his crucible and came out wanting her,
then she would know he had truly chosen her. <hr></blockquote><p> [img]images/icons/grin.gif" border="0[/img]<p>[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Conqueror ]</p>
