This is from Passionate Marriage by David Schnarch. It is an excellent adjunct for MB, especially for the self-confrontation of Plan A. I highly recommend this book, and here's why:<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Many people have asked me, in one way or another, "How do you get people to do such daunting things? Why would people want to put themselves through the anxiety of risking rejection and exposing their innermost selves--especially when their marriage isn't very good? How do you motivate people to be so brave?"<p>Often I answer with a question: "Do you think the Pilgrims came to the New World because they were so brave--or because they couldn't stand things where they were?"<p>We have the fantasy that we have the choice between being anxious or not. Unfortunately, we don't. Our choice is between one anxiety or another. Do something scary--or face problems from not doing it. Make an error by commission--or omission. Face the anxiety that things will change--or stay the same. Do (sexual) things you've never done--or forfeit that taste of life. Face the anxiety of growing up--or the terror of facing life as a perpetual child. Confront the fear of differentiation or the dread of marital living death.<p>These are examples of two-choice dilemmas inherent in emotionally committed relationships. Such dilemmas arise from our human nature: we are fundamentally separate life forms who value both attachment and autonomy. In Chapter 4 we unmasked the illusionary notion of "being in the same boat." Once you realize you and your partner are in separate "boats," you understand the nature of your dilemma: you want to steer your own boat--and your partner's, too. We call this "togetherness"--as long as you are steering for both of you. When your partner does the same thing, however, it's called "control." If you want both absolute certainty of your partner's course and certainty that you're not controlling him or her--you've just run into a two-choice dilemma.<hr></blockquote><p>To Be Continued.<p>Dr. Schnarch's website: www.passionatemarriage.com<p>[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Conqueror ]</p>

gee, Conqueror, we must be on the same wavelength! I was thinking about the 'growing' in marriage scenario and emotional fusion... was pondering how to post about it...<p>So many posts BSs seem to want to steer their partner's boat... make it go faster... etc. We are so fused to our partners...<p>The empowerment of growth is tremendous when you figure out that two do not have to be ONE... Two is Two and there is power in that... how much stronger is there when there are two of you... working from each others strengths... appreciating and sharing and learning to soothe ourselves...<p>AND, when we learn to soothe ourselves THEN we can reach out to others with love and soothe them w/out expecting it in return... that is love!<p>Hugs!<p>I look forward to your next installment.
Cali

Here's one of my favourate PASSIONATE MARRIAGE paragraphs .... dealing with two-choice dilemmas:<p>~~~~~~~~~~<p>Spouses often try to avoid marriage's choices by upsurping their partner's options. A clandestine affair can be understood as an attempt to steal a partner's choice for monogamy. The adulterer wants it both ways; to have sex with someone else and still be married to the spouse. It's like saying, "I want this other person and I want you. If I tell you about the affair, you might choose to leave. To hell with what you want -- to be in a monogamous relationship. I get both choices and you get none. That's because I love you and don't want to give you up!" ....<p>
~~~~~~<p>
It always gets me reading this .... I wanna stand up with my raised fist and say "YEAH ... that's a cake-man .... damn straight!" [img]images/icons/grin.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Pepper [img]images/icons/cool.gif" border="0[/img]<p>[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Pepperband ]</p>

<<Cali w/fist raised>><p>Yeah, damn straight!<p>me too, Pepperband!<p>I was like a charismatic Christian... page after page of AMEN! as I read the book.<p>Cali

yeah well pepper that is a bs point of view, sometimes it means I don't want to be married, and I am gone. Since divorce is rarely a mutually (in time) arived at choice, somehow or another it has to be put on the table, this is one way...I had no intentions of remaining married once I realized what was happening, I only did so cause I was asked to try, everyone is not a cake-eater, I never wanted, nor intended to have both.

One of the primary means we use to steer our partners "boat" is education. Often by expressing our "opinion" over and over and over...<p>From the BS side: if only we can get the WS to understand how we feel, or how wrong they are, or how fogbound... They'll automatically choose to follow our path (repent, recover).<p>From the WS side: If only the BS can see that we're done, that the marriage has been over for years, that there truly is no love... They'll automatically choose our path (separation, divorce)<p>
Another relevant quote (from Chapt. 7):<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Contrary to contemporary emphasis on "understanding more" or "being more understanding," differentiation doesn't occur unless you do something.
...
Becoming more differentiated doesn't mean that the stand you take is "right." It means that the stand you take is yours and that you are responsible for your actions. <hr></blockquote><p>You not only have to face your two choice dilema, you have to act on your choice.<p>Jeffers

Jeffers,<p>I think you are so wrong. WS does not usually want a divorce... they want to have it both ways!! They prefer to keep the secret A going and have the security of the M and the "fun" of the A.<p>please wake up!

Hey there SNL .... how ya doin'? I'm a little worried about you. Take care of yourself.<p>My opinion ... if you kept it a *secret* that you were involved with someone else while you were still married .... the above situation applies. If you announced yourself as intending to leave the marriage and become involved with a 3rd person before becoming involved with someone else ... no cakeman. The faithful spouse deserves a choice in their own monogamy, does he/she not?<p>Again, take care. Stay strong and true.<p>Pepper [img]images/icons/cool.gif" border="0[/img] <p>PS:<p>Key term ...clandestine<p>[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Pepperband ]</p>

I think we are discussing different things here...
Of course the WS wants it both ways; but what if there isn't an A happening (as I think in my case?)? My W just wants out!
So, my action must be to stand on my own two feet and go through the "crucible" and Schlarch describes...and it is gut-wrenching work!

SNL,
I agree with Pepper. There was likely some point where you checked out of the M without notice, and it was probably before or concurrent with a developing R with OW. Having been at the point of decision myself, I know there is at least one moment when you decide whether you are faithfully married or not, and it usually comes with the first stirrings of attraction to someone else, if not before.<p>In a sense it is when you first begin disrespecting your spouse and stop seeing them as someone deserving of the truth from you, and this can come way before an attraction to someone else.<p>----------------------------------<p>Thank you for everyone else's contributions. I, too, think this book provokes many "a-ha" moments and puts so many pieces into place so you have a much better understanding of yourself and yourself in relationships.<p>The Two-Choice Dilemma--continued<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>If you check your dictionary, you'll find the phrase "two-choice dilemma" is redundant--technically, a dilemma is a situation necessitating a choice between two or more unpleasant alternatives. However, many people think of a dilemma according to the dictionary's secondary definition: a perplexing or awkward situation. In my clinical work, I use the term "two-choice" dilemma" to highlight that (a) we often try to remain in our perplexing, awkward, and painful situations to keep everything in check, (b) a choice is often required to solve our situation, (c) we usually want two choices but we only get one, and (d) we try to avoid choosing (by remaining in difficult situations) to avoid losses inherent in giving up one option for the other (i.e., a solution).....<p>You and your partner will face two-choice dilemmas specific to your relationship at some point (if you haven't already). They may surface as you try to use what you've learned in this book, but they will surface even if you don't do a thing. Dilemmas are part of the fabric of life--and thus part of your marriage. Disparate desire is just one of marriage's "natural" crucibles; two-choice dilemmas lie at the heart of sexual monogamy.<p>When relationships hit gridlock, everyone wants two choices. The problem is you only get one at a time. You make a choice and then your partner gets to make his (or vice versa). That's when you encourage your partner to be "reasonable"--so you don't really have to choose.<p>Expecting your partner to sacrifice for you in the name of love kills marriage, sex, intimacy, and love. What makes us feel loved--the illusion of fusion--destroys sexual desire and growth. That's why if you're "normal," your marriage is an accident looking for a place to happen. That "accident" is gridlock--which is no accident at all. Two-choice dilemmas are grindstones of differentiation. They are part of a system in which your partner's mere attempts to have a self puncture your narcissism.<hr></blockquote><p>A couple of comments on this passage:<p>Many of us here would say that monogamy is not exclusively sexual. I would consider anything involving a third person done behind the partner's back violative of monogamy--the standard oft repeated here on the boards being that you don't do anything behind your partner's back that you wouldn't do with them standing right there with you.<p>I think that last paragraph of the quote explains the need for POJA very well. When one partner gives in to keep the peace, the resentment inevitably builds, and even though the partner may have voluntarily given in and maybe not even let the other know that that is what they were doing, they will likely automatically expect the unsacrificing partner to be beholden to them for martyring themselves, and they will expect reciprocation or feel entitled in some way because of what they gave up.<p>[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Conqueror ]</p>

Conan,<p>Sorry, you took my examples a little too literally. I was trying to make the point that all of us use "education" as a tool to control our partners. Actually, some BSs here have relayed exactly those examples from their WSs- that's why I used them. <p>The idea is that if you just explain yourself well enough your partner will agree that whatever solution you've chosen is the "right" one, be that cake eating, or reconciliation.<p>I'm not sure how to know what a WS is really thinking. In many cases the discrepancy between words and action and even inconsistencies between subsequent actions seem to just indicate massive confusion more than anything else. From the descriptions presented here on MB, I'm guessing that not many WSs are "enjoying" their current situations.<p>Conqueror,<p>I've often thought about the reality of POJA related to the situation of: "I want to do this, but you'll be unhappy if I do."<p>This seems to be one of those dilemmas where someone always "loses" and ends up being resentful. MB just specifies which person it is- the person who wants to initiate the "action". This is also a case where we might be tempted to use education to get our partner to agree with us (without giving in, of course).<p>This looks like an example of gridlock to me. I interpret Schnarch to suggest that a differentiated person will make a unilateral decision and let the partner react as they see fit. Do you have a different take on this?<p>Jeffers<p>[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: jeffers ]</p>

Jeffers,<p>I see Schnarch's two-choice dilemma in harmony with Harley's POJA. I think of the two-choice dilemma as the bottom-line issues, the ones you simply cannot compromise on without losing yourself. In that sense, by notifying your partner of your boundary on one of those issues, and then your partner doing the same in response, you are ruling out the alternatives that make enthusiastic agreement impossible. Hopefully then you would go back to brainstorming and through this back-and-forth ruling-out process, eventually find the point of agreement.<p>I haven't yet had a joint commitment to follow POJA, so I don't know how it would work in practice, but I have replayed some marital issues with this in mind and can see how if we had followed the process, it probably would have had a much better outcome.<p>I see Plan A as the time the BS is in his/her crucible, doing the work of self-confrontation and being radically honest with themselves about themselves and making decisions about behavior based on that inventory and eventually getting to the point of self-soothing and a more differentiated stance in preparation for Plan B.<p>Dr. Harley explains that commitment to POJA would make an A impossible unless for some reason you WANTED your spouse to have an A. This would be one of those bottom-line issues where at some point after discovery the BS makes the choice that they will no longer be part of a threesome and notifies the WS (Plan B). At that point, the WS is put into their crucible and has to face his/her two-choice dilemma: the A or the M. There is no longer the choice of both, and even the option of keeping the M on the back burner is in jeopardy because the BS might end up LIKING living without the pain of the WS in their life.<p>I think that most of Schnarch reinforces most of Harley and vice versa.<p>[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Conqueror ]</p>