Bells and Whistles went off when I read "The Passionate Marriage" last night.<p>Schnarch believes that most people are married to the person they are married to for a reason... that many couples become emotionally fused and unable to differentiate... therein lies the problem.<p>He wrote (and this is an indirect quote, from memory) that when you hear the "I love you, but am not in-love with you," or the "I don't love you anymore," it is a defensive mechanism... a coping skill... the husband or wife has become so enmeshed with their spouse that it is like they can't breathe... so to 'separate' from their spouse is the only way that they can see out of it. <p>He calls it 'poorly' differentiating. <p>Conqueror... have I thanked you for this book recommendation yet? Every night I learn something new...<p>Cali

Cali,<p>Can you elaborate on this? <p>sad dad

Cali,
I think I'm going to have to dig this book out of my cabinet & read it. I just haven't wanted to go back to endlessly reading self-help, but this sounds like it might fit for me right now. Thanks for posting what you are learning.

cali...Schnarch believes that most people are married to the person they are married to for a reason... that many couples become emotionally fused and unable to differentiate... therein lies the problem.<p>snl...I have not read the book yet, but thinker has it, so I will at some point look it over. I realize this is a short quote out of a 400 page book...but I am confused. Of course one is married for a reason, if nothing else cause you both signed a marriage license, and have a legal connection...but there are many reasons to be married, and many of them are the wrong reasons...so you may divorce to correct the dysfunctional relationship that can never be a healthy marital place, and may have nothing to do with this fusion/differentiation stuff. It seems the "theme" through most of this stuff is the notion it makes no difference who or how you married, only that you are married, and therefore that must be the best way to live the rest of your life....I find that completely nonsensical. You married someone out of millions who essentially was a stranger, there is no particular reason why living in marriage with that person for a lifetime is somehow the only healthy way to live your life. That bias presupposes that the marriage is what makes you healthy, not the synergy of fit between the 2 people.....a position with no merit at all really...considering most people marry in almost totally ignorance of who their mate really is, and only find out as time goes on....and had they known ahead of time, may very well have declined marriage as not a good idea.<p>[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: sad_n_lonely ]</p>

sad dad... The book is home... I am at work... but I will pull references from it later tonight or tomorrow.<p>Lor (Lor)... You're welcome... I'm flitting between books which strengthen me spiritually... self-help books... and pure junk [img]images/icons/grin.gif" border="0[/img] .<p>SnL... At least read the book before you dismiss it... <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>It seems the "theme" through most of this stuff is the notion it makes no difference who or how you married, only that you are married, and therefore that must be the best way to live the rest of your life....I find that completely nonsensical.<hr></blockquote> Well, of course you do. But have you ever analyzed WHY you want out? And, I don't mean the usual stuff... but the real underlying reason WHY you must leave your marriage to become a happy individual? That is the crux of what Schnarch is saying. That nobody WANTS to or is really READY to be married... but that marriage is a place of growth... where two people learn to be INTERDEPENDENT, and INDEPENDENT as well... and, as you have stated, that doesn't occur in many marriages because we are wont to really get at the heart of who we are and why we do what we do w/out putting the blame and justification on someone else. It is when you realize who your are, why you are and how you 'dance' with your partner that you begin to differentiate . You meet your crucible and go to the next level... or you run away to be separate and alone or to another who is at the same level of differentiation as you are.<p>
Cali

Cali --
I wish Bells and Whistles were going off when your H changed the password on his phone!!!!<p>I'm glad that you're finding comfort in books. And I think you are quite the student of relationships. <p>But where exactly are you and H at? He's still carrying on with 2 women?? And you've been at this for nearly a year??<p>You want to know why I said I wasn't "in-love" with my H? Because I no longer felt excited to see him. Because there was no intimacy. Because I no longer shared myself with him -- he didn't know my thoughts or dreams, nor did he care to learn about me. <p>I was in NO WAY so "emeshed with him that I couldn't breathe".<p>I didn't need to separate myself from him.

Cali,<p>The quote sounds pretty close (I just read that part last night).<p>The thing that strikes me is that Schnarch believes that every normal marriage runs through this process of "fusion till it hurts", and then someone has to do something painful in order to progress toward real intimacy. This seems to jive with the statements of some here that their M's are better than they ever were before the "A" -- it must have pushed them toward differentiating.<p>I'm having difficulty reading this book quickly. Every two pages or so he seems to peg something "we" always do and then I realize that I'd just read three more pages without seeing a single word. I have to go back, place the bookmark, and put the book down. <p>Schnarch is supplying some of the "whys" for MB processes. Plan A seems to be just a version of differentiation. <p>I have the same kind of "arguing" dynamic that you mentioned on your previous thread. I notice I have the same kind of interactions with my family. Many of my colleagues behave the same way. I "feel" like I've been conciously trying to change that dynamic that past couple of years. I don't think my W has noticed and continually harps on the way *I* discuss things with my family. Also interesting to note that some threads here go the same way... people repeating the same argument over and over because the recipients don't seem to "hear". <p>I'll be honest and admit that I get some "other-validation" by posting here. I suspect that the majority of us here are tightly fused when we come and part of the reason MB calms us down is that it supplies some of the other-validation we aren't getting at home.<p>I'm a capitulator too. Amazing how little there is to talk about if you avoid all topics where you might have disagreements. I think we've socialized our kids the same way... explains a lot of our problems with 15yo (the arguing forever stuff). <p>If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say my W is differentiating ahead of me and that's why I feel like my life is falling apart. <p>Lor,<p>I like your comment about endless reading of self-help stuff. I've been pretty selective and have tried to pick a collection that doesn't overlap too much. Sort of a "best of" list. Probably the only "best of" book I don't have is SAA. <p>Jeffers

Cali,<p>It strikes a chord with me.<p>During his A and while in one of our relationship discussions initiated by him, my ex-H said to me, "We aren't Siamese Twins, Dammit!!! <p>The flavor of our discussion was that he was a "Loaner", a man who should be on his own ... single and allowed to roam. Then in his next breath he said "but you do know I love you, and I'm beginning to feel in-love with you again, there will always be "us" in my thoughts". <p>So I subscibe to this particular belief of Schnarch's.<p>Thanks Cali. Might be visiting Amazon again today for another new book now. Never know when I'm going to need relationship skills again. [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Love,
Jo

snl:
... It seems the "theme" through most of this stuff is the notion it makes no difference who or how you married...<p>Actually, that is not Schnarch's point at all. He says very clearly that people get married because they have much in common. In fact, the early part of the relationship is very intense because people have so much to share about what they have in common and like. <p>The more they share, the closer they get, until they start to bump into their differences. Then, they push away in pain. His claim is that every marriage runs into this point. In order to get closer you have to figure out to tolerate the other's individuality (and how to express your own). <p>His other claim is that this process can take 20 years until you get to the point of "gridlock" where something has to change. Something you have to experience because the pain is what makes you change.<p>Jeffers<p>[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: jeffers ]</p>

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jeffers:
<strong>
The thing that strikes me is that Schnarch believes that every normal marriage runs through this process of "fusion till it hurts", and then someone has to do something painful in order to progress toward real intimacy. This seems to jive with the statements of some here that their M's are better than they ever were before the "A" -- it must have pushed them toward differentiating.<p>Jeffers</strong><hr></blockquote><p>That's interesting. My H and I are definitely a case of being much closer after the A and I think that makes some sense. He told me at teh begining of the A that he felt that I was "getting to know him too well". I was starting to see the parts of him that he wanted to hide from the world, the parts he didn't want anyone to know. Almost like he didn't think I'd be able to handle knowing "all" of him, the good and bad. Enter OW, who only knew what he presented for public viewing. I remember when he realized that even with all that he had done, even knowing what I knew about him, that I still loved him. He was basically amazed. Now he knows that he doesn't have to hide "bad" aspects, I love him for all that he is, flaws and all.

Jo,
Re: Loaner, did you mean loaner, as in borrowing out, which also seems appropriate for your XH [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] , or loner, needs to be alone.<p>Either way, you gave me a nice little paradigm shift today [img]images/icons/grin.gif" border="0[/img] .

Jo, Lor:<p>Yikes! I read "loaner" and it made perfect sense. I didn't think you might've meant "loner".<p>Can I laugh at that?<p>Jeffers

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lor (Lor):
Jo,
Re: Loaner, did you mean loaner, as in borrowing out, which also seems appropriate for your XH [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] , or loner, needs to be alone.<p>Either way, you gave me a nice little paradigm shift today [img]images/icons/grin.gif" border="0[/img] .<hr></blockquote><p>Dang! I meant the latter, which is loner, Lor. <p>Thanks!<p>And you're welcome for those pair of dimes, too!

ohhh, and BTW Cali ....<p>That Phrase "Emotonally Fused", that's what I have been referring to as "Emotionally Imprinted". Somewhat the same concept. <p>Jo

Oooohhh, just have to chime in. I loved this book. In fact, I may have to drag it out and re-read it now, with a little more time since things were in turmoil...<p>Kathi

That Schnarch book rocks! One of my favs.<p>Pepper [img]images/icons/cool.gif" border="0[/img]

Lexxxy... so much anger... so little time... ???
yeah, I get why my H changed the passcode. Maybe you've given up on your marriage... I haven't given up on mine... you don't live w/ me day-to-day... you don't see what I see... only what I post... and I haven't exactly been the posting queen lately...<p>I am a teacher and a student... books help me... if you don't like it.... don't reply to my threads.<p>Why do you give a rip if my H is seeing 2 women (he's not... went to NC w/ OW in Jan... just calls YoungUn... he's 'talked' to women for years... his weakness... his problem... my job to figure out how to deal w/ it not yours).<p>Why don't you read the whole book before you form an opinion... I'm kinda sick of you and SnL forming opinions from the snatches I post... funny how those who HAVE read the book have a whole different outlook...<p>Don't get mad at me because you live in the surface of your life and don't want to get into the whole "what was our whole dance about anyway." You don't like what I post... don't reply...<p>Sheesh... strike a chord, or what?

Didn't mean to upset you Cali --
I was sincere in my comments about the books.
I am totally in AWE of your ability to absorb and study and use what you learn to help others here.
(perhaps you thought I was being sarcastic? I'm not...)<p>I'll try not to form an opinion on the book itself from the paragraph you described. It just didn't strike a cord with me as far as being a plausible explanation for the "not in-love" comment.<p>So any.....just thought I'd explain....I have no anger towards you. I really hope things work out for you.

pg 56: <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>The illusion that in a good marriage partners are like tightly choreographed figure skaters is impossible to live.
People who are emotionally fused are controlled by their connection. They have lost their ability to direct themselves and so get swept up in how people around them are feeling. There's room for only one opinion, on position. probably why Lexxxy & SnL rile me Differentiation is the ability to stay in connection without being consumed by the other person. Our urge for togetherness and our capacity to care always drive us to seek connection, but true interdependence requires emotionally distinct people.
Emotional fusion is the opposite of differentiation. Fusion is an invisible-but-tenacious emotional connection. Notice that the opposite of differentiation is neither connection nor lack of connection--it's a different kind of connection. You can see this if you don't confuse differentiation with individuality, autonomy or independence.
Many people make the mistake of thinking of dfferentiation as the opposite of emotional relationship, rather think of differentiation as a "higher order" process that involves balancing both connection and autonomy...then you can see that emotional fusion is connection without individuality.
Lack of differentiation alienates us from those we love. Emotional fusion deceives us into thinking that we're not connected and we move away in defense. But the deeper truth is that we ahve to move away to counterbalance the tremendous impact we feel our spouse has on us. Or, unable to turn away, we turn ourselves over to the connection, but it feels engulfing <hr></blockquote><p>To some fusion seems like security... any prospect of becoming more separate creates fear.<p>pg67 <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> People screaming, "I got to be me!" "Don't fence me in,!" and "I need space!" are not highly differentiated. Just the opposite. <hr></blockquote><p>pg 152 <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> I've seen lots of people dodge this issue of wanting . There are those who say, "I'm dying to really want somebody again! I just keep picking the wrong partner!" But they pick the wrong parnter becasue they don't want a person. Wanting someone gives that individual unique importance and leverage in your life. Wanting a personinvolves spending time with him or her, which diminishes the credibility of repeated "bad picks." The complaint about picking the wrong person reflects the cravings of an unresolved emotional fusion.
Others have no illusion about wanting their partner: they simply make sure they don't. It never gets to the level of not wanting to want.They don't want--period. They don't have the capacity for wanting, and they like it that way. Their partner is always replaceable. <hr></blockquote>

thanks, Lexxxy... <p>your comments struck too close to someone else's comments to me on another board...<p>I apologize for taking it personally.<p>Marsha