Erastis and I are still trying to figure out how to negotiate and we thought you guys could help.

Our daughter's birthday is next Saturday. We have had some other pressing things on the calendar that have distracted me from letting the guests know when the party will be. The only people who are invited are extended family, so the urgency is less than if we had a large gathering of friends planned. I do still feel like we should let the extended family know soon, though.

I emailed E to let know my preferences for the party - that we invite family only and have it in the afternoon - and asked how he felt about that.

He asked how I felt about having the party when we could eat lunch or dinner. I told him I wasn't crazy about feeding everyone and asked how he felt about it.

He replied that he felt that meals were an important part of relationships and that we did not spend enough time with extended family, and wanted to know why I wasn't crazy about feeding everyone a meal.

I told him it is stressful for me to feed that many people, that it has only been a few weeks since we had extended company and that I'm not ready for another big group meal. I agreed that eating together is important and offered to have a few people over more frequently.

He asked if I could be more specific about the source of stress.

At this point the conversation is making me feel stressed. I don't have any more reasons, nor do I understand exactly how to explain why feeding a large group of people is stressful other than it just is. I let E know this and tell him that I consider feeding people cake, ice cream and snacks is sufficient and I am not in agreement with a meal. I mention again that I am willing to brainstorm other options for time with extended family.

His reply is that because I did not say that I was not in agreement earlier in the conversation, it sounded like I was willing to negotiate. He feels like I shut down negotiation without proper cause, and that we should "do nothing" until we are able to restart negotiations, and that "do nothing" means not having a party. He also said the meal was a big deal to him, and that if we just had the party in the afternoon with snacks he would be capitulating in a way that creates the wrong type of resentment.

My understanding is that I do not have to do something I am uncomfortable with, and that meal negotiations can be other options (such as smaller extended family meals at other times), and that it is fine to continue with discussions of other details of having the party.

How should we continue this negotiation?

There are many things to consider here. It sounds like you guys are on the right track and making a huge effort!

One thing that messes up negotiations is to try to accomplish multiple goals at once or make blanket agreements. In this case, I would not discuss trying to compensate by other family dinners or any consistent plan for family dinners.

Try to discuss this event only. If he would rather have no party unless there is dinner, then I guess that is his choice. However, the resentment you will feel by moving forward with dinner, cannot be undone, and the resentment he will feel by having cake and snacks only, can be improved over time, if he can find a way that you might be enthusiastic.

Conditions are a separate topic. In the course of negotiations, he could offer some ideas to you or ask if there is any condition under which you would be enthusiastic. Ex: Have the meal catered, have a cleaning crew, he does the work...

If you know that there are NO conditions under which you would be enthusiastic for this event, then you should do as you have done and tell him that there are no conditions under which you would be enthusiastic with having a meal at this party.

I would also suggest negotiating how you both will respond to any questions from family about a lack of meal.

Then, I would write down meals with others as a topic to bring up in the future. You know that it is important to him, so the goal is to find a win-win way to do it. Once you have an idea, do it on a trial basis and reassess at that point.

Something to add-

Negotiations don't need to stop just because you don't want a meal. That specific part would be off the table.

By eliminating the parts that either spouse is NOT enthusiastic about, we end up with a better solution than what would have happened when one is winning at the other's expense. No, we don't get our "10" idea of a party, but we get something pleasant.

I would compare this idea to what Dr. Harley said to your husband on the private forum about sex. (If I remember correctly.)

You are negotiating.does he only consider it a negotiation if he gets his way? Q

This account gives me the same feeling that I get reading one of Erastus's posts to the forum. This sounds like a highly unpleasant experience and I suspect you would get more fun beating your head against a brick wall than attempting to negotiate an agreement with him.

He slipped in a DJ at the point where he explained that he felt that "meals were an important part of relationships" etc; this was an attempt to educate you about why your approach to relationships was wrong. He should have simply said that he liked having meals with the family. After that, he tried to browbeat you into doing what he wanted to do. This is just NOT ACCEPTABLE.

In pressing you to define the source of the stress, he was really pointing out that you don't have a valid reason for the stress you claim to feel. This is unacceptable.

You did not shut down negotiations by saying again that you did not want to provide a meal and effectively ruling this out - and you do not need "proper cause" for saying that you don't want to do something. His saying that is bullying, and that is unacceptable.

He threatened you with his resentment if he did not get a meal. This is a selfish demand, it is an attempt to force you to do something you do not want to do, it disregards your feelings, it is bullying, and it is unacceptable.

He is quite correct that you must do nothing until you can come to an enthusiastic agreement about what to do for the birthday, so at this point, there is no gathering taking place at all, or any other way of marking the day. You should continue to brainstorm ways of marking the day, but until and unless you both enthusiastically agree to a suggestion, no party of any kind may take place. If he suggests something like having the mental catered, or doing the work himself, you should agree to that only if you are enthusiastic. If you are not enthusiastic about providing a full meal, under any circumstances, then that option must be taken off the table, WITHOUT repercussions or threats of resentment.

There is no such thing as "enough time" with extended family. The only relationships to which the concept of "enough time" apply are to those with with your spouse and those with your children - UA time and FC time.

His use of that phrase makes me wonder whether you feel obliged to have gatherings with family when sometime, you would really rather not.

Are you enthusiastic about a family gathering for your daughter's birthday? Is that what you really want to do to give her a party? A lot of parents would arrange an easy, child-focused party, such as an hour's bowling or ice skating, followed by a pizza. There is nothing to buy or cook and nothing to clean up, and no stress about making the house look nice.

Do you really want to have a party at all, and if so, do you really want it to be at your house? The family party sounded like a foregone conclusion at the beginning of your post - but is it something that you enthusiastically agreed to in the first place?

I think that Sugar meant "without" repercussions or threats of resentment.

This type of argument - where he browbeats you, picks holes in your logic, and bullies you to defend yourself ("without proper cause"), belongs in a courtroom. It absolutely does not belong in a marriage.

]
And you would be capitulating if you reluctantly agreed to the meal. It would create type A resentment, the worst kind.


I agree with Sugarcane's comments that you do not need "proper cause" to end an unpleasant conversation. These types of discussions belong in a courtroom, not a marriage.

DQ - we definitely tend to get spread out in negotiations. Focusing on one topic at the time is good advice. Also, I liked your suggestion about asking if there is any conditions under which I would be enthusiastic. I really struggle with understanding how I feel, let alone WHY I feel that way, and then putting all of that into words. I am just now beginning to recognize when I first start to get upset during a conversation. Trying to understand what would be agreeable is easier for me to express.


I do want to have the party at our house. I do not like spending money on rentals and we generally save "big" parties for certain milestone ages. I very much want to have the party, and I would be much more upset about not having the party than I would about feeding everyone.



So if there is no circumstance under which I would be enthusiastic about a meal and there is no circumstance under which he would be enthusiastic about no meal, there is no party then, right? My thoughts were more inline with DQ in that we work out the best we can on what we do agree on. But I remember Harley saying something about it not being good when both parties compromise.

Fortunately, you don't have to ever explain the WHY.


This is exactly the wrong way to go into a negotiation, nothing should be concrete. If you are both stuck in concrete positions, there is nothing TO negotiate. The goal of brainstorming in the POJA is to put aside your own pre-formed opinions and come up with something you both like. This cannot be win/lose. No one wins at the others expense.

I understand. This is a weakness I have in negotiation. My tendency is to either total capitulation or total rebellion.

That's good. Thank you for clarifying.

Those two things are not equivalents, though. They do not lead to the same place.

No circumstance in which you would be enthusiastic about a meal:

There are lots of things you can do without providing a meal. Ruling out a meal does not mean at all that the party is off.

No circumstance in which he would be enthusiastic about no meal:

That is actually imposing a condition (that there must be a meal). That means that there is no alternative to having a meal. He is imposing a condition that is non-negotiable; nothing can be done except to provide a meal. This actually means that HE is the one not open to negotiation; the mindset that he accused you of having.

Your "take this off the table" preference means that other things are possible. His means that other things are not. Therefore, if he does maintain that line, the party is off forever, unless you capitulate - which you must not do.

Please understand that stating that you are completely unwilling to provide a meal is not rebellion.

Providing one when you don't want to would be capitulation, though.

This is good clarification too.



I understand what you mean in this instance. I was just saying that when I initially feel pushed I tend to lock into "my way or the highway", but with continued pressure I usually cave, and that it's not a good negotiation skills.

Maybe that wasn't a good example...

I don't want to mislead here, Azurite. If there is not a solution that you are both enthusiastic about, then you don't do it at all.

My point was that if Erastis was still enthusiastic with having the party with cake and snacks only, even if his #1 choice was a meal, and you were enthusiastic also, then it would be a successful agreement. In negotiating, we often throw out our first ideal, to brainstorm other ideas until we are both enthusiastic. The final result may look similar to the original idea or totally different. It will always be good, instead of someone winning with their preference and someone losing.

If there is anything you don't want to negotiate about or you feel disrespected, then you can stop negotiating.

WHen I used to say things like that to Prisca, she would suddenly get upset and stop talking to me, sometimes for several days. I was mystified as to why. Then I came here and started learning that such attempts to educate my wife were disrespectful judgments and I finally understood why she was upset and how to stop upsetting her.

Erastis could have a happy wife if he would eliminate the disrespectful judgments. Are the two of you exchanging the weekly disrespectful judgments worksheets? Have you included this one on this week's worksheet?

Whenever I would talk to Steve Harley about negotiations, he would emphasize Dr. Harley's four guidelines for successful negotiation. I think you should take a look at these.

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3350_guide.html

Steve Harley would tell me that we should walk through the four guidelines and only proceed to the next guideline after we both agreed the previous guideline had been met.

Notice guideline 1:
Guideline 1: Set ground rules to make negotiation pleasant and safe.

Now I'm thinking that this guideline hasn't been met - negotiation isn't very pleasant for you on account of Erastis's disrespectful judgments, right?

From the FGSN article:
"If you reach an impasse where you do not seem to be
getting anywhere, or if one of you is starting
to make demands, show disrespect, or become angry,
stop negotiating and come back to the issue later. ... If your negotiation turns sour, and one of you succumbs to the temptation of the Taker with demands, disrespect or anger, end the discussion by changing the subject to something more pleasant. After a brief pause, your spouse may apologize and wish to return to the subject that was so upsetting. But don't go back into the minefield until it has been swept clear of mines. The mines, of course, are demands, disrespect and anger, and you must discuss how to avoid them before you return to the issue. You can't negotiate if your destructive instincts control your discussion."

Prisca nearly always felt that I was being disrespectful when I asked her "why?" and it turned out I felt the same way when she asked me, so we had to learn to avoid that question completely in negotiations. "Why?" just always sounded like a challenge, to both of us.

You don't need to explain why you feel the way you do. Ever. Don't waste another breath ever trying to explain why you feel what you feel again. Demanding that you explain "why" is an attempt to control you.

From now on: "This is just the way I feel." Period.

So, he'd like a party with a meal. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but you're not enthusiastic.

The "party with a meal" is taken completely off the table then -- it should not be brought up again. He feels resentment because he's not getting what he wants, but his resentment will go away once a new plan that you both like is put in place.

What other ideas can the two of you come up with in which you would both be happy?

If your proposal is something your spouse isn't enthusiastic about, then you are facing the prospect of the lesser type of resentment. Such as if you want the party to include a meal but your wife isn't enthusiastic about a meal.

If your spouse says they are only enthusiastic about one proposal then you are facing the prospect of the greater type of resentment. Such as if your spouse says they won't be happy if you don't have the meal they want to have.

This would be good for you to read:
Type A and Type B Resentment

If you have the party with a meal, you will be forced to do something against your will. You will have resentment type A, which is the worst kind and causes the most damage. It cannot be undone.

If you do not have a meal at the party, he will be prevented from doing something he'd like and will have resentment type B. This resentment will go away once you find an alternative.
And there are plenty of alternatives.

I need to print out some of those articles to refer to frequently. We've developed some bad habits of communication and it's hard for me to see what is a DJ.

I did ask how E felt about the meal. I am interested in his thoughts. If he phrased it in terms of his preferences - "it means a lot to me when we take advantage of opportunity to eat with extended family; when we eat together I feel like it strengths my relationship with them" - that is not a DJ by educating correct? I highly value E's insights and he often has more clarity than I do in understanding situations.

As far as asking "why" I can see in myself times when that is totally a DJ. Typically it's when I question why he did something and it's because I believe he made the wrong choice. "Why didn't you put these other dishes in before starting the dishwasher?"

I don't see how we could negotiate and never ask why. Harley uses as example of doing that in the DJ chapter on persuasive negotiation. In the example, he asks why Joyce doesn't like wearing a seat belt. Asking why seems necessary in investigating your spouse's feelings. Is it more of an issue of how the other person currently feels about the why questions or should they always be off limits?

We are keeping records of the DJs.

You are correct that Dr Harley implies that asking "why" is necessary in negotiation. Here is what he says in the Four Guidelines article:

"Respect is the key to success in this phase of negotiation. Once the issue has been identified, and you hear each other's perspectives, it is extremely important to understand each other--not try to straighten each other out. Remember that your goal is enthusiastic agreement, and there is no way you will be enthusiastic if you reject each other's perspectives. In fact, the only way you will reach an enthusiastic agreement is if you not only understand each other, but also come up with a solution that accommodates each other's perspectives."

He does imply that exploring the other's perspective is necessary. If, for example, Erastis can understand what you dislike about serving a meal at that gathering, he can better tailor any proposals that he can come up with, for you to consider (and vice versa). If the issue boils down to too much work, he can suggest ways of eradicating the work for you, and so on.

However, this must be done with the aim of reaching enthusiastic agreement, and not with the aim of wearing you down, or cross-examining you until the the holes in your logic appear, or until you run out of steam, or feel stupid because your reason is "trivial", or feel stupid because you cannot put your feelings into word at all. Asking "why" must not be done in order to show that you have no "just cause" for refusing the suggestion, or for judging you in any way at all, and that is what was being done there.

In Dr Harley's words:

"It's so much easier to negotiate the right way when your goal is enthusiastic agreement. It eliminates all the strategies that attempt to wear each other down with abuse. "

Your husband was attempting to wear you down with abuse, and you could feel that, and were finding the exercise more and more frustrating. It should never feel like that.

Your husband is skilled at using words to frustrate and back people into a corner, where they are not even sure what is being discussed any more, or what the overall goal is any more. In almost every thread I have read where he has contributed (including those on the private forum), he has alighted on a point, a phrase or even a word, and hacked it to pieces. The thing is that Dr Harley will never be diverted from his principles by anything Erastis can pull out to argue that Dr H is wrong, so he does not succeed in getting Dr Harley to back down. Equally, there are several forum posters who write to Erastis, who can see right through what he is trying to do, and won't let him get away with it.

The problem is that those posters are not married to him, they have no romantic love for him and no feelings that are being hurt, and they do not have to try and rebuild a badly damaged marriage with him. They are not emotional about him, and his tactics do not hurt them - but you are married to him, you are doing and feeling all those things, and you are hurt by his unpleasant approach, where he isn't negotiating at all, but telling you what is right and what is wrong.

If we could see genuine goodwill in your husband's attempts to negotiate with you - with a genuine effort to understand and respect your perspective, and only to get your agreement on things that you are enthusiastic about, we might not say that "why" is off the table. It is off the table for markos and Prisca, because the question harms their negotiations, but it does not have to be for everybody - not if couples genuinely follow Dr Harley's article.

Your husband has not been following Dr Harley's article, and your marriage is still fragile. Erastis needs to lay off they "why" question because there is no sign that he is using it to understand your perspective, and only signs that he is using it to point out how empty your argument is. It's disrespectful, in other words. He admits to not recognising his own disrespect, and he has a long way to go before he can do this.

At this point, the two of you should only try to negotiate through email. You should CC your coach on all emails while negotiating.

Markos and I had to do that for quite a while. It will slow communication down so that you can think through what he tells you, and you can edit yourself to try to prevent lovebusters of your own.

You can eventually get to the point where you can investigate and ask why. Maybe. Some couples have to stay away from the question "why?" because it's too loaded. You have a history of your husband trying to control you with disrespectful judgements, so this is going to be a difficult one. Asking "Why do you feel that way" is very often a disguised disrespectful judgement -- it's a way of demanding that you defend your feelings.

Dr. Harley and Joyce do not have this history -- she's not going to feel like she's having to defend herself if he asks her "why?"

It is entirely possible to negotiate without asking why. Markos and I do it all the time.
I state "I'm not really enthusiastic about that idea."
He says "Okay, how about this other idea instead?"
I say "No, that makes me feel insecure."
He says "Would this third idea make you feel good?"
And I say, "I'm open to that, but what do you think of this 4th idea of mine?"
He says "I love that idea! Let's do that!"

There's no demanding to know why each other feels the way they do. He doesn't need to know why his idea makes me feel insecure (it just does). I don't need to know why he likes his first couple of ideas (he just does). Nobody is having to defend themselves.

If you can get to the point where he asks "why?" and you can say "I just feel that way" and that's the end of it (he accepts your answer with respect and can move on to negotiating alternatives), then maybe asking "why" can be something that you two do. I guarantee you that if Dr. Harley asked Joyce why she didn't like wearing a seatbelt, and she responded with "I just feel that way," he would have accepted it and moved on.

For now, while you two are learning, staying away from "why?" will help the two of you avoid DJs.

Prisca used to complain about me doing this all the time, and I didn't even understand what I was doing. When I learned to filter out things that she felt were disrespectful, it went away.

Thank you all for the detailed information.

No "why"s for now, perhaps later once we have a good track record.

Prisca, I appreciate the sample conversation. That gives me a good idea of how to negotiate without asking why.

Oh, and Erastis actually suggested a few days ago that we do all of our negotiations through email. The party negotiation was through email. Our communication broke down but it wasn't the huge blow up that could have happened with a live conversation.

Also, he did say to me what Prisca suggested - the "Honey, I love you, and I don't want to abuse you with DJs anymore." He's really a great guy. But he's a fighter and tends to confront conflict, whereas I would rather avoid it. We both need more balance in that area.

This is my response to Erastis' thread http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/u...at&Number=2888422&gonew=1#UNREAD

Erastis was unhappy with how I interacted with men, but I couldn't understand what I was doing wrong. So at my request, he has given me a list of things that he sees me doing when he feels bothered - such as a bright smile, laughing, joking, touching my hair, my body fully facing him, steady eye contact, etc. He has also asked that I only have necessary conversation and keep it as brief as possible. No casual conversation, only a polite hello with a polite smile (in response, not initiated) then move away. If a man tries to initiate casual conversation I should give as short of an answer as possible then move away, or if I am unable to move away I should discourage further conversation by pulling out my phone or otherwise busying myself. When I do not follow these guidelines, Erastis feels disrespected and as if I'm giving a piece of myself away to someone else.

Doing these things occasionally make me feel like I'm being rude and confined in a legalistic box that is beyond normal EPs. At times I am anxious about situations. I come from a past of finding it much easier to talk to men than women, but I understand the dangers of having male friends now. I am very aware of not asking for help or mentioning a problem I have, as it would give a man a chance to offer a solution and deposit love units. Even though I am sometimes uncomfortable with the EPs, I am in agreement with following them and I try very hard to do so.

There have been several opportunities that have come up for the kids and me to do an activity. He has indicated each time that he is not comfortable with the activity because he doesn't trust me to follow the EPs he has requested and there isn't a way to hold me accountable. I've offered to carry my phone on an open call so that he can hear what's going on, but he wouldn't be able to see my body language. It is nice when we come up with an alternative solution but I'm still left with a distasteful reminder that he does not trust me.

What are the activities? What have you done instead of the proposed activity?

One was going to a town an hour away on a weekday morning when school was out with a lady and her kids to a trampoline place. Instead, the kids and I went to the local tennis courts to hit around for an hour.

The other is a local large convention-type event that Erastis mentioned in his post that is coming up this week. We decided that he will take off work to go with us one day. If my dad goes, it would be ok to go with him a second day as long as I stay with him the whole time (and don't wander off with or without the kids). If my dad ends up not going, Erastis was going to try to take another half day off to go with us again.

I don't remember ever hearing of such stringent EPs before. And like it was posted on E's thread, he pushed this affair. So EPs are just preventative, not just compensation.

In my experience, my Mom's H had similar rules for her, and it was because he was having his own infidelity. Do you check into what E is doing?

The EPs Dr. H recommends are posted here. What do you think about calling Dr. H? I don't want you two mistakenly building more resentment because you initiate conversations with people, when that isn't the trust-destroying behavior. I'd rather you to focus your efforts in ways that will help you build a thoughtful, loving, considerate marriage.

Recovery After an Affair

1. Honesty
2. Account for Your Time.
3. Spend As Much of Your Time with Your Husband as Possible.

He didn't want to get off track with explaining this in his thread, but I feel like I need to clarify. E did push the initial online sexual contact. But then he told me he wanted us to stop. I agreed, but later contacted the OM secretly. When that affair died a natural death, I was addicted to the affirmation and sought out other men with which to have online sexual contact. I had a secret second life for 18 months, and I do owe him just compensation.



Yes, he is very transparent with his time, phone, passwords, etc. and I do check up on him.



The problem is, me initiating an unnecessary conversation with a man DOES destroy his trust in me, (with a few exceptions like an older relative who is a pastor). While I don't like it, and I feel like it is overly stringent, my understanding of Harley's position is that what matters is how E views it. If it bothers him, I shouldn't do it. Also, Erastis has said that he is willing to follow the same EP that he's asked me to follow.

I think this is, without question, flirting, and I think you need to knock it off.

I think it's a very normal thing for us women to want to use our sexuality in interactions with men, and to flirt with attractive men - or with men who give out signals that they find us attractive. I think you could probably do with taking a long hard look at yourself and admit that you're flirting. Even though you will not have another affair, and you value your marriage and love your husband, knowing that you are attracting other men makes you feel good; why wouldn't it?

You're not doing this because you have a wayward streak running through you - or at least, no more than the rest of us do. You're doing this because it feels good to sense that some men are attracted to you. And you could legally indulge that, if you were single in a singles' market; but you have a husband, and you are making him unhappy, and if you want your marriage to be successful, you need to stop doing things that make him unhappy.

Stop putting yourself in situations where this behaviour can come out. It's very hard to exercise self-control so that you are consistently polite, but cool and unapproachable. Instead, stop going to mixed events without your husband. You're not single; stop letting other men think that you might be.

What has your coach said about this?

I'm always leary of women who claim to have trouble being friends with other women. It usually means the woman is constantly seeking male attention/approval. Do you have female friends?

Yes, I have female friends. I have no male friends. It took a bit of adjustment when we got married, but I learned to have female friends then, as Erastis did not want me having male friends from the beginning.

Did you read Sugarcane's post? I had the same impression when reading your posts and wanted to hear your reaction. I think the solution is real simple. Stop going to these events when your husband is not there. It sounds to me like you are flirting and that would explain why your H gets upset about it.

I read Sugarcane's post. If she was saying that I am deliberately flirting, I disagree.

That being said - the rest of what she wrote was spot on. It *is* very difficult to remain cool and unapproachable. I try very very hard to NOT send out any signals of flirtation. At one time, I was very open and friendly towards other men and was completely blind to my behavior as anything other than perfectly normal. I have come a long way and it hasn't been easy, and I know I'm still not there yet. That's WHY I asked E to make out a list of things that I should be aware of so that I can not do them. When Erastis and I are in conversation together with another man, often the man will maintain a majority of eye contact with me. We've worked through this and I've learned that if I shift my focus to E, the man we are talking to will also look at him. I HATE this. I just want to be able to have normal conversations without worrying about some guy thinking I'm attracted to him. I do enjoy friendships and conversations with women and I'm learning to shun the opposite sex in exchange for female interactions.

I rarely go events without him. I am fine with what Sugarcane wrote to E on his thread, and I appreciate the comments about dropping the wayward title. The convention is a community event that - along with many men - is full of families. It is disappointing, but because E has been very kind and loving today, not only do I not mind missing part of it, but I don't want to hurt him.

Am I on ignore?

Why didn't you respond to me, but only responded to someone's post about me, writing about me in the third person? Have I done something to offend you?

No, no. You are not on ignore and you haven't offended me. You didn't ask any questions in your post. When MelodyLane asked if I'd read your post and what I thought of it, I answered her question. You took the time to write. I should have given you the courtesy of my thoughts. I apologize.

It doesn't matter if it is deliberate or not, it is still flirting. And it still needs to stop.

Okay.

But you're married. And you must take your husband's feelings into account, anyway. It won't feel good until you are in love with him.

But you're married. You must learn new behavior to not send the flirting signals. Learning new behavior is always uncomfortable, no matter what the new behavior is.

The simple (not easy, but simple) solution is to stay away from events where there are men present unless your husband is with you.


Erastis is just as wayward as you are. Him bringing that up as a title for you will only feed your resentment. The implication that you are wayward at heart and must be kept on a tight leash or you'll jump into bed with the first man who smiles at you will also feed your resentment. The wayward title needs to go.

He shouldn't get into why he doesn't want you doing something. "Trust" shouldn't be brought up. It simply bothers him, and that's it. You don't need to know why -- if you start getting into why, the past will inevitably be brought up (even if it's implied). The reason why it bothers you for him to not feel trust is because it is bringing up the past. It is a reference to the affair. And it will drain you every time. So, don't go there. Don't talk about trust.

The issues you two are dealing with are issues that ANY marriage could have, regardless of whether or not there was ever an affair. They can be dealt with as if there had never been an affair. So leave the affair in the past. Don't even hint at it. Deal with the present.

Yes, I can tell a big difference in my desire to care for him when we are in a good place.


Agreed. It is getting easier to accept that - hearing it from neutral third parties is helpful. I need to change my mindset to focus on and enjoy what is safe for our marriage instead of feeling sorry for what I am missing.




This was helpful for both of us. He apologized last night for thinking in those terms, and we understand that the only difference between someone who has an affair and someone who doesn't is EPs.

This will be easier when you are in love. Feelings follow actions.

We went camping this weekend. Friday was great. There was quite a bit of stress leaving but we managed to come together and have a wonderful day. Saturday, we did several activities - a 5 mile round trip hike to a farm, then a trip into town for supplies. I had a great time overall and when the kids went to sleep that night, I was excited to have time alone again with Erastis. He was upset with me and after letting me know, went to bed without me. He said he felt rejected the whole day. I asked if he could let me know what it was that I did. He said that I did not walk beside him on the hike nor when we went shopping for supplies. Today, he said that I looked irritated when he was trying to talk me while I was reading by the fire. He said in general, that behavior of independence was carried throughout the whole day.

During the hike, I had walked with my daughter behind him. At one point, Erastis had gotten quite a bit ahead of us (our daughter tends to walk slowly) and I'd asked him to wait for us. I very much enjoyed the time I spent with her and did not see it as independent behavior. As we got near the camp and the kids left to play, I walked with E the rest of the way back and enjoyed talking to him. At the store, he snapped at me for walking behind him when I had the list of supplies. While these two things bothered me a little, neither was enough of a problem to ruin the evening for me.

I was hurt and shocked to realize he felt like almost the entire day was spent in disunity, and very disappointed that he did not want to take advantage of the time we had alone to reconnect. I told him that I would have liked for him to let me know during the day that things weren't going well so that I could have had the chance to change and not ruin our evening together. My preference is that instead of complaining ("It bothers me when you walk behind me") is that he either state what he would like ("I really enjoy it when you walk beside me") or that he take the initiative to walk beside me, hold my hand, and introduce conversation. His preference is that we walk together by default, and that if I want to talk to one of our kids, I ask how he feels about it and we branch off then come back together.

Things went a little better Sunday. I made a point to walk beside him when we hiked again. That evening, he said that he felt like I was just doing it because I was supposed to and not because I wanted.

So I would guess that everyone would say that he is right about how we should operate. That my default behavior should be for us to be a unit that occasionally separates after I've asked how he felt about me doing something else. I agree with him that I do not always have an automatic response to be with him. When we are around the kids, I get a great deal of enjoyment from interacting with them. When I'm enjoying the day, I don't always realize that Erastis is feeling left out. He wants me to *want* to be integrated, not just do the individual actions because he asks.

Will my default behavior eventually change as we create romantic love? I believe that I can be happy with an integrated lifestyle, but there are times when I just don't notice that I'm not thinking of him first. It is especially frustrating when I have the impression that we are both having a great time. I have a reminder set on my phone to let him know each day whether or not I've had any contact with a man. Should I set a reminder to be close to him? It sounds facetious, but I'm serious. It is hurtful to get to the end of the day when I am looking forward to having time alone with Erastis, only to find that he feel neglected and is too hurt to spend time with me. Will I ever get to the point where I do these things automatically?

I don't see any "independent behavior" but I do see a lot of lovebusters that would naturally push you away from him. When my H "snaps" at me, I feel alienated from him for a day or two, so I can understand why you wouldn't feel "integrated."


Then he is not being very strategic if that is what he wants. If he wants to be integrated with you, he should step up his program and start ATTRACTING YOU. "Snapping" at you and being "upset" and accusing you of "independent behavior" for walking with your daughter on a family outing will cause you to be LESS integrated, not more.


And this is what happens when an unpleasant person demands and bullies his spouse to walk closer to him. You aren't doing it out of desire, but out of obligation.

This is not Independent Behavior on your part. Erastis was making a Disrespectful Judgment by expecting you to read his mind and know that he wants you to walk next to him, and he was also making a Demand that walking next to him is to be the default. When you didn't do it the way he wanted you to do it, he punished you.

HE is hurting your integration. If he wanted to walk next to you, he could have requested it. He could have also changed his pace to match yours. If he wants "walking next to each other" to be the default, he can take it upon himself to make sure he always walks next to you.

His demands and disrespect, followed by his punishment of you, is what ruined the evening.

If he had said "I really enjoy it when you walk beside me," that would have made his desire a request instead of a demand. Or, as you said, he could have taken the initiative to walk beside you -- that's what markos does when we go out as a family. He takes the initiative to walk by my side and hold my hand, and the kids just naturally surround us.

He is being demanding by expecting you to ask him before you can talk to one of your kids while out on family time. He does see this as family time and not UA time, right?

That is a massive DJ on his part.

And even if it were true .... SO???? That's how the program works.

That is because you have a high need for Family Commitment. Which is a valid emotional need. He needs to provide that for you, and not expect you to give your undivided attention to him when you are having family time. Undivided Attention should be scheduled a part from family time.

And he can stop his DJs right there.

Erastis: STOP IT.

It is not facetious -- such reminders to change your behavior to meet an emotional need for your spouse is a very good idea. I used to have a ton of them, until the behavior became second nature.


Azurite, there is no excuse for how he is treating you. He is punishing you. He's not spending time with you because he's just too neglected and hurt to do so -- he got his feelings hurt, and he's going to punish you in response.

Nothing will change for you until he stops that.

No, the default is to do nothing.

It sounds to me like he is going on at whatever pace he wants and demanding that everybody keep up. If my wife or I did that to each other, I'm certain the other would feel very cruelly mistreated.

Literally. He cannot demand that you DO something as the default.

Markos did that to me once, before Marriage Builders. I stopped taking walks with him.

The lovebusters didn't come until after he was upset about my behavior.




We have had numerous discussions about how it bothers him when I do not walk beside him. Whether it is an annoying habit or independent behavior, I try to remain aware of walking beside him when it is the two of us. On this occasion, I did not think about it. If I understand correctly, you are saying that it would not be IB to interact more with the kids during family time? We do occasionally try to get UA time in when out with the kids. For example, there are times we have gone on long walks with the kids and they run ahead and we are able to talk alone. He wants us together and the kids surrounding us like you said.




That is good to know.


I will do this.

Surely you know that that isn't UA time. You can't strip little bits of UA time out of activities that are definitely not UA time, such as when you are with your kids. That is family time, full stop.

You can't say that we were out with the kids for two hours, but for ten minutes when we were approaching the lake they ran ahead, and then there were another fifteen minutes when we walked down the hill, and there was the last five minutes when they raced to the gate...so that makes...oooh... a whole half-an-hour.

A date's a date (or recreation time is recreation time) - only if it's without the kids. Surely you know that.

The lovebusters on his part started on the walk.


It is fine for him to prefer that you walk beside him. I prefer that markos walk beside me, too, a lot of the time. BUT, he cannot demand it. And he cannot judge you or your motives for not doing it. And he cannot expect you to read his mind, know that he wants you beside him RIGHT NOW, and punish you when you don't comply.

He could have requested it.
He could have changed his behavior and slowed down to walk next to you.
But, instead, he reacted with demands and disrespect.

He cannot become demanding and disrespectful, even when his emotional needs are not being met.

This will not work. UA time should be done with no kids present. Family time is a vital emotional need for you, and should occur at a different time from UA time. Neither UA or Family time will be high quality if you try to blend the two.

That is nice, and it may make lovebank deposits. But it's not UA.

Remember: The default is to do nothing. The default is not "We walk together," it's "We don't walk at all." He can request that you walk together. He can take it upon himself to walk with you. He can ask what he can do to make you enthusiastic about walking together. But he cannot demand it. He cannot make it the default. He cannot become disrespectful of you when you fail to do it. He cannot punish you over failing to comply.

BTW, just because he was upset by your behavior doesn't mean that your behavior was wrong.

You did nothing wrong by walking more slowly and spending the time talking to your child.

He got upset because he wanted something from you that you were not giving (and didn't have to give). You may have been willing, if he had talked it over with you respectfully. But he didn't. He chose to resort to demands and disrespect and punishment.