# This marriage advice blew my mind!!



## jlcrome (Nov 5, 2017)

I went by barnes and noble yesterday I was walking by and pick up a book on marriage. Apparently this guy was a counselor for years and study likelyhood of those divorce and those who ended up divorce. What baffled the guy those who reconciled and those who divorced. He gave sound advise the best any counselor could offer and the results seemed random. But after years of counseling he came up with a different approach and saw more predictable results. He saw a common denominator in those who reconcile and those who didn't. He referred as it match for match psychology or something like that .
According to this guy when one spouse wants a divorce and the other is clinging on it causes a clash of wills. When one spouse dead set it will be like that as long as the other is on the other end of the spectrum. This work both ways whether wife/husband husband/wife. No amount of counseling, wise words, communcation, changing attitudes can off set this clash of wills. It is set in stone period! But also he says that I guess being agreeable or what he calls match for match is when the other spouse sides with the other. For instance his study concludes when say for instance one spouse announces a divorces and the other on the same page usually leaves the one that wants it to back step and second guess. They may not conscious know it but over time they loosen their stance on divorce and may make another mental choice. 
He recommends that just matching everything you're spouse wants will almost always forces them to make another chess move. He also recommends matching every chess move they make. He says this works almost always.
If they act distance you act distance
If they want to spend time you do the same
If they want to separate agree happily to it.
If they want a divorce agree with their level.
It almost always work!!

He gave an analogy of an athiest and a believer in god debate. Both hated the idea of the other. But during the debate the believer said "I can understand your position and can relate because I know close friends and family who have hard times believing in god". The athiest countered with him saying that he can relate too because he knows friends and family that are beleivers in god. Both had the clash of wills but when one match the other the other done the same.

Basically this book is a some kind of phychology book to get the other to loosen their grips on a stance. There's more to it than what I explained. But I just read the match for match part.
He also said something that hits home to anybody been done the divorce road. Women almost always say something like this. "I'm glad I got rid of him, he nevered let go always dragging out the divorce, done everything possible to change my mind". 
This guy claims the clash of wills always predict divorce 95% of the time. While other factors are just random.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

I'm ok w/ one more author breathlessly announcing the secret to happy marriage, but the self-generated statistic proving he isn't just trying to sell a book has gone on long enough. If some truly independent org can give me some data on how helpful your method is, I'm listening.


----------



## Townes (Jan 31, 2018)

That makes sense to me in a lot of cases. I think a lot of people make strong, declarative statements like, "I want a divorce" when they're still pretty conflicted about. They're expecting the person to try and talk them out of it, so it's a way for them to keep processing what they actually want. It throws them off when the person agrees. 

It's actually a counseling technique with ambivalent clients. You start "agreeing" with them that the undesired behavior is a good thing rather than getting into a power struggle about it "So it sounds like you really get a lot of benefits out of drinking and the pros outweigh the cons for you." "Well I don't know if I would say the pros outweigh the cons for me because it has messed up my life in a lot of ways."


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

In my case, my ex-husband would use the vague threat of divorce as a manipulation and control tactic. But, once I wanted one and began moving in that direction with certainty and purpose, he freaked out. He hadn't actually wanted a divorce. He wanted me to fear him divorcing me so I'd continue doing what he wanted. Once I filed, there was lots of backpedaling. 

So, I can see how the tactic described in the OP could work in certain situations. If someone is using the threat of divorce as a control tactic, eagerly agreeing to it could throw them off enough to cause them to stop that particular threat. It removes their ability to use your fear to control you. That's often a bit of a shake-up to someone who's been relying on that fear to maintain the upper hand in the relationship, and may be enough to bring them to the negotiating table to work on actual conflict resolution. 

However, I advise that it's much better to simply not remain with someone who says they want a divorce. Listen to your partner. If they say they want a divorce, give it to them. There's no upside to staying in a relationship with someone who professes to not want to be married to you. Even less to staying with someone who uses threats and fear to control you.


----------



## ButWeAreStrange (Feb 2, 2018)

I can't entirely understand what the author's advice was trying to go for since his analogies are a bit rough. 

No one should ever apply the notion of a game of chess to the concept of marriage. Chess is an inherently strategic, war-based game that is designed to help you learn to read your opponent, predict future actions, and understand the consequences of your own. While these types of strategy can be very useful in learning and understanding the dynamic one has with a partner, the point is that a chess match is first and foremost a game where there is definitive loser or a stalemate (neither I feel are healthy outcomes for a marriage). Marriage is a team-effort, not an opposition, and certainly not one where the ultimate goal is to out-wit or manipulate the other. The way the advice was presented sounds passive and intending to force a stalemate which, while it clearly shows no definitive winner, it also shows no growth and no productive teamwork. 

I also feel like in the analogy using an Atheist and a Theist, his point would have made more sense in using an Agnostic. Agnostics are the ones who "have hard times believing in God" and opt for a more open-ended belief in that they don't know for certain and withhold judgment. Atheists don't have trouble believing in God, they just simply don't believe in God. There is no gray-zone in this, and so to use the Atheist analogy, the author is implying that to avoid conflict, one must set aside personal belief altogether, lie, and avoid a deeper understanding of the situation and those involved. This is fine in one-on-one conflict resolution where there is no commitment or inherent investment between two individuals, but again not for marriage. This would resolve nothing, but act a numbing agent that would allow a problem to fester beneath the surface. 

I'm sure the author meant his advice in a much more reasonable manner, but again, I couldn't understand what he was truly trying to get at considering his use of examples seemed to portray an unhealthy means of conflict management.


----------



## hinterdir (Apr 17, 2018)

I suppose it can work in some cases. Not always. Many time if one wants a divorce and the other agrees, the divorce just happens much more quickly and smoothly and they end up divorced.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Rowan said:


> *In my case, my ex-husband would use the vague threat of divorce as a manipulation and control tactic. But, once I wanted one and began moving in that direction with certainty and purpose, he freaked out.* He hadn't actually wanted a divorce. He wanted me to fear him divorcing me so I'd continue doing what he wanted. Once I filed, there was lots of backpedaling.
> 
> ......However, I advise that it's *much better to simply not remain with someone who says they want a divorce.* Listen to your partner. If they say they want a divorce, give it to them. There's no upside to staying in a relationship with someone who professes to not want to be married to you. Even less to staying with someone who uses threats and fear to control you.


I guess, I would appreciate some insights into why you believe what you do, as I have a different view. I understand that threats and fear are a form of abuse. I also view saying that you will divorce someone is not necessarily a threat.

In my case, I didn't want a divorce, but could not continue to be treated the way I was being treated by my wife. So, while we were in a sex therapy marriage counseling session, when asked if I had ever considered divorce, I said that I had promised myself that by a certain major birthday milestone (over a year away), I would be in a loving sexual relationship with a woman, and while I wanted it to be my wife and work at making that happen, if she couldn't do that, I would divorce her and find someone else. The ST actually thought that was a fair approach considering what I was living through and that it gave me wife an opportunity to change or live with the consequences of not changing.

Based on my experience, where we did reconcile, I do question the advice about letting someone go if they threaten divorce. Of course I wasn't trying to threaten my wife, I was stating a promise I had made to myself.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

Young at Heart said:


> I guess, I would appreciate some insights into why you believe what you do, as I have a different view. I understand that threats and fear are a form of abuse. I also view saying that you will divorce someone is not necessarily a threat.
> 
> In my case, I didn't want a divorce, but could not continue to be treated the way I was being treated by my wife. So, while we were in a sex therapy marriage counseling session, when asked if I had ever considered divorce, I said that I had promised myself that by a certain major birthday milestone (over a year away), I would be in a loving sexual relationship with a woman, and while I wanted it to be my wife and work at making that happen, if she couldn't do that, I would divorce her and find someone else. The ST actually thought that was a fair approach considering what I was living through and that it gave me wife an opportunity to change or live with the consequences of not changing.
> 
> Based on my experience, where we did reconcile, I do question the advice about letting someone go if they threaten divorce. Of course I wasn't trying to threaten my wife, I was stating a promise I had made to myself.



There's a very big difference between "Maybe we should just get divorced then, since you're clearly just never going to ****ing let it go!" when your wife still has questions about your supposed EA three months after D-Day, and "I cannot continue to be married to someone who does X". The second is a boundary, the consequence of which is a divorce. The first is a threat used to keep your already hurting, confused, and fearful spouse reeling enough to shut down a conversation you don't want to have. 

My then husband wasn't stating a boundary. He was threatening a divorce he knew I didn't want so that I'd shut up and stop asking questions. That's about control and manipulation. 

Simply telling your spouse that you want a divorce isn't a threat. Sometimes it's just the truth. Sometimes it's simply a stated consequence of crossing a boundary. But if it's being used as a threat to keep your partner in line, then it's a threat. And again, I don't see an upside to being married to someone who has told you they don't want to be married to you, or has used the threat of a divorce as a means of controlling you through fear.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

My husbands ex wife used to threaten divorce ALL the time. He showed me some of the emails she'd send him. Outrageous.

She got the shock of her life when one random Sunday morning, they started arguing and she did it one time too many. 

Her: "I want a divorce"

Him: "Ok"

Her: "What? You want me to leave?"

Him: "Yep"

Marriage DONE. Right then and there. She was out of his head from that moment on.

People that threaten divorce need to be careful what they wish for - as in my husbands ex wife's case and @Rowan's ex husband.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

jlcrome said:


> I went by barnes and noble yesterday I was walking by and pick up a book on marriage. Apparently this guy was a counselor for years and study likelyhood of those divorce and those who ended up divorce. What baffled the guy those who reconciled and those who divorced. He gave sound advise the best any counselor could offer and the results seemed random. But after years of counseling he came up with a different approach and saw more predictable results. He saw a common denominator in those who reconcile and those who didn't. He referred as it match for match psychology or something like that .
> According to this guy when one spouse wants a divorce and the other is clinging on it causes a clash of wills. When one spouse dead set it will be like that as long as the other is on the other end of the spectrum. This work both ways whether wife/husband husband/wife. No amount of counseling, wise words, communcation, changing attitudes can off set this clash of wills. It is set in stone period! But also he says that I guess being agreeable or what he calls match for match is when the other spouse sides with the other. For instance his study concludes when say for instance one spouse announces a divorces and the other on the same page usually leaves the one that wants it to back step and second guess. They may not conscious know it but over time they loosen their stance on divorce and may make another mental choice.
> He recommends that just matching everything you're spouse wants will almost always forces them to make another chess move. He also recommends matching every chess move they make. He says this works almost always.
> If they act distance you act distance
> ...


If they don't want to have sex with you and never bring it up, you also never bring it up. 

Yeah that will work like a charm.


----------

