# Transparency



## MEM2020

I've wanted to write about this topic (transparency) ever since a long ago post on the subject infuriated me because it was true, and I didn't want it to be. 

I'm going to paraphrase here but - what this person basically said was: Genuine transparency, REAL transparency can only be given. It cannot be demanded. It cannot be taken from someone else. It's not about control, it's about trust. 

It's ironic that the type of (mechanical) transparency typically discussed on TAM is the polar opposite of the real deal. Because mechanical transparency is typically imposed by a distrustful partner. This is totally different than voluntarily letting someone deep into your mind and heart, which is the ultimate demonstration of trust. 

Mechanical transparency is usually driven by the jet wash of distrust that follows some type of betrayal. It's an attempt to regain a sense of control. And it's characterized by an Orwellian level of surveillance. The result is of course entirely mechanical. It pertains to (with) WHO, (doing) WHAT, WHEN and WHERE. This transparency is achieved via phone apps, gps tools of various sorts and the sharing of passwords. 

That's not to say mechanical transparency is inherently bad. M2 and I fully share our passwords and lock codes for convenience. If she needs me to look something up in her email or vice versa, we can do so. And I'm not perfect. M2 did something once that I believed gave me 'reasonable cause' to read her emails. And because of that incident, I did just that - one time. 

I can't speak to her actions. Maybe she routinely reads my stuff. That's ok, I have nothing to hide. When we exchanged those codes and passwords, we did so freely and without any rules of engagement or constraints. 

The rest of this thread is about TRUE transparency. True transparency is about WHY. It's about feelings and beliefs. It's about stuff you can't get from a GPS log. Stuff you can ONLY get from a partner who actively trusts you. It's a voluntary act by a partner who overcomes their fear of being more fully known. 

With that as context, this is my question. What kinds of things does your partner do that encourage or discourage your transparency with them. And what do you believe you do, to encourage or discourage their transparency with you?


----------



## ConanHub

Anger is a definite shut down. Mrs. Conan has a habit of getting angry at things she doesn't agree with or fully understand some times.

Makes it hard to be transparent, something I greatly desire.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Conan,
Me too. Except - I was the angry one. And yes, I often got angry because I didn't understand. But the anger, made it impossible to understand. It was doubly destructive. Caused M2 to be less transparent and caused me to be less understanding. 

I remember the first time I realized how incredibly jealous M2 was. How furious I was as I ran through memory after memory of situations where she had intentionally created havoc - solely due to jealousy. 

It was a full month before I said a word to her on the subject. And by the time I spoke, I was no longer angry with her. Actually I felt sorry for her. So what I said was: It seems like you feel bad, when you feel 'left out'. That must be hard. 

And FWIW, if I had spoken 'in the moment' a month earlier, filled with righteous indignation I would have said: I'm happy for you, when you're happy. It doesn't matter what the source of your happiness is. 

You on the other hand, are ONLY happy for me, if you are the main source of my happiness. That's not just selfish, it's toxic. 

So - here's the thing. I'm glad I waited a month. Because - M2 - has brought me more happiness than all the other people in my life combined. Yes it's true that she's jealous. It's also true that - she doesn't want to be that way - she just IS that way.









ConanHub said:


> Anger is a definite shut down. Mrs. Conan has a habit of getting angry at things she doesn't agree with or fully understand some times.
> 
> Makes it hard to be transparent, something I greatly desire.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

Mrs. Conan is jealous as well. Some of it healthy and some not.

I think something I do that is unhelpful to her is jump ahead to conclusions, that are accurate but not what she was getting at.

I sometimes need to slow it down and absorb what she is communicating.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> I've wanted to write about this topic (transparency) ever since a long ago post on the subject infuriated me because it was true, and I didn't want it to be.
> 
> I'm going to paraphrase here but - what this person basically said was: Genuine transparency, REAL transparency can only be given. It cannot be demanded. It cannot be taken from someone else. It's not about control, it's about trust.


Yup.

And I'm going to go WAAAAAAY out on a limb here, and maybe I've been reading too much Esther Perel, but I don't think this is actually a good idea.

Too much transparancy in the grey matter can kill desire.

Everyone has a secret garden, sexually. I can let my wife in, and then escort her right back out if I want. Or not let her in at all.

There's all kinds of stuff I'm NEVER going to be transparent with her about.

And that's OK. It's my stuff. My grey matter is mine.

And there's all kinds of stuff she's NEVER going to be transparent with me about.

And that's OK. It's her stuff. It's her grey matter.

I don't own her fantasies. Her attractions to other men. Her darkest desires, or fears, or daydreams. Those are hers.

She may let me into them, but I don't pay rent and get right of way. I'm a guest -- and need to act like a good one.



> With that as context, this is my question. What kinds of things does your partner do that encourage or discourage your transparency with them. And what do you believe you do, to encourage or discourage their transparency with you?


#1 Expect too much transparency and it will kill transparency. 
#2 Be too insecure about stuff (especially sex stuff) and you'll kill transparency.
#3 expect it but not offer it.
#4 not realize that too much of this will bring a possability (perhaps probability) that all the mystery and magic and delight in your marriage will go poof!

Love is about having. Desire is about wanting. There is a balance.

A delicious balance.


----------



## WandaJ

ConanHub said:


> Anger is a definite shut down. Mrs. Conan has a habit of getting angry at things she doesn't agree with or fully understand some times.
> 
> Makes it hard to be transparent, something I greatly desire.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yep, that one. We were totally transparent twenty years ago, but too much anger and irritation on his part killed it. You need to feel safe to be transparent.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

In a relationship you start off being transparent. Then, over time, you learn whether it's safe to continue being so.


----------



## jld

WandaJ said:


> You need to feel safe to be transparent.


I generally agree with that. 

I think that choosing transparency for the sake of our own conscience is another option. 

I guess the first puts responsibility on the other person, and the second puts it on ourselves.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ConanHub said:


> *Anger is a definite shut down. Mrs. Conan has a habit of getting angry at things she doesn't agree with or fully understand some times.
> 
> Makes it hard to be transparent, something I greatly desire.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 My love for *openness & honesty* has always overridden this ...no matter who I am around.. husband , friends.. kids..if they speak anything that would be difficult to hear, even if I suddenly feel the blood draining from my face...a well of emotions ..... I can still mentally







and tell them I appreciate the honesty.. 

I will share how it makes me feel but at the same time.. I don't want them to shut down....someone willing to talk & share -I value this deeply... if one had a habit of avoiding out of fear.. I would find this very frustrating...and I wouldn't want to contribute to it. 

I enjoy the challenge of finding a peaceable solution/ understanding through communication.. 

My husband is very similar ....he is naturally calm tempered to begin with.... outside of our family...he would probably seek an exit if he felt someone very hurtful.. Like why put up with [email protected]#$... but those close to him.. he'll listen no matter what.. be diplomatic as possible... I have hurt him with my blatant honesty at times... he is more careful with his mouth or how he says something.. (I've gotten better over the years)...

Even with hurtful comments along the way.. we've always stood by each others side talking /arguing it out... we both greatly value being able to bear & share it all..it's a huge part of our intimacy....then there is make up sex. 



> *Marduk said*: And I'm going to go WAAAAAAY out on a limb here, and maybe I've been reading too much Esther Perel, but I don't think this is actually a good idea.
> 
> *Too much transparancy in the grey matter can kill desire.*
> 
> Everyone has a secret garden, sexually. I can let my wife in, and then escort her right back out if I want. Or not let her in at all.
> 
> There's all kinds of stuff I'm NEVER going to be transparent with her about.
> 
> And that's OK. It's my stuff. My grey matter is mine.
> 
> And there's all kinds of stuff she's NEVER going to be transparent with me about.
> 
> And that's OK. It's her stuff. It's her grey matter.
> 
> I don't own her fantasies. Her attractions to other men. Her darkest desires, or fears, or daydreams. Those are hers.
> 
> She may let me into them, but I don't pay rent and get right of way. I'm a guest -- and need to act like a good one.


 I bought the book by Esther Perel, Mating in Captivity. ..out of pure curiosity...from the 1st time I started reading.. I was thinking.. our marriage is not like this!.. we don't need to create distance and mystery to keep passion alive.. to want each other.. 

This IS the "Mating in Captivity" discussion thread..... http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...090-secret-desire-long-term-relationship.html... 

Myself & another poster @autopilot .. we have a different experience and opinion over the majority... that Esther Perel speaks for ALL .. Oh there is much truth there, she's an amazing speaker... it's just that we've personally not been hindered by our openness & transparency, we much enjoy the closeness , romance & affection.. it's not something we feel we need to tone down.. in order to get heated up..


----------



## WandaJ

jld said:


> I generally agree with that.
> 
> I think that choosing transparency for the sake of our own conscience is another option.
> 
> I guess the first puts responsibility on the other person, and the second puts it on ourselves.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I did not look at this as a matter of consciense. I was looking at this as a matter of sharing the soul with the other person, and I think that's what MEM was trying to do.


----------



## MEM2020

Theres nothing M2 ever told me - I really wish she hadn't. 





marduk said:


> Yup.
> 
> And I'm going to go WAAAAAAY out on a limb here, and maybe I've been reading too much Esther Perel, but I don't think this is actually a good idea.
> 
> Too much transparancy in the grey matter can kill desire.
> 
> Everyone has a secret garden, sexually. I can let my wife in, and then escort her right back out if I want. Or not let her in at all.
> 
> There's all kinds of stuff I'm NEVER going to be transparent with her about.
> 
> And that's OK. It's my stuff. My grey matter is mine.
> 
> And there's all kinds of stuff she's NEVER going to be transparent with me about.
> 
> And that's OK. It's her stuff. It's her grey matter.
> 
> I don't own her fantasies. Her attractions to other men. Her darkest desires, or fears, or daydreams. Those are hers.
> 
> She may let me into them, but I don't pay rent and get right of way. I'm a guest -- and need to act like a good one.
> 
> 
> 
> #1 Expect too much transparency and it will kill transparency.
> #2 Be too insecure about stuff (especially sex stuff) and you'll kill transparency.
> #3 expect it but not offer it.
> #4 not realize that too much of this will bring a possability (perhaps probability) that all the mystery and magic and delight in your marriage will go poof!
> 
> Love is about having. Desire is about wanting. There is a balance.
> 
> A delicious balance.


----------



## jld

WandaJ said:


> I did not look at this as a matter of consciense. I was looking at this as a matter of sharing the soul with the other person, and I think that's what MEM was trying to do.



MEM--_It's a voluntary act by a partner who overcomes their fear of being more fully known._


This is what inspired my thought. I think two things can inspire my transparency, to whatever end. The first is my partner's making it safe for me to do so. This feels very good, very warm and loving and accepting. It bonds me to him.

The second is independent of him. It is my overcoming my own fear because of my own need to do so. 

Sometimes some of us cannot wait for someone else to make us feel safe. We take responsibility for making ourselves feel safe. 

We realize we can be truthful with our partner regardless of his reaction. We are strong enough on our own to face whatever comes. It is empowering.

And again, I think both are perfectly valid options.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Theres nothing M2 ever told me - I really wish she hadn't.


That's not what I mean, although I know what you're getting at.

I'm not promoting being afraid or anxious about your partner's sexuality.

I'm saying that everybody gets sexual privacy. You don't own her fantasies or insecurities or secrets. She can share them or not.

And so can you. 

Let me give you an example. You go to starbucks and the barista is super cute and flirts with you. You don't flirt back, but all day long you're kind of on a high about it, and feel a huge sexual charge.

You come home, and rock your spouse's world out of the blue with hot animal monkey sex.

And when it's done and your spouse looks at you wondering WTF just happened and happily asks you about that...

Do you talk about the barista?

I wouldn't talk about the barista. I'd talk about how much I enjoy having sex with my spouse and that we have the kind of relationship where we can explore that.

Same goes for fantasies you may have had in high school, or even now, that you never want to come true, and maybe don't even make sense to you. You aren't obligated to share. And sometimes... maybe you shouldn't.

It's the same reason the best lingerie leaves something to the imagination, I think. There's something there to remove, and be even more naked.


----------



## WandaJ

jld said:


> MEM--_
> 
> Sometimes some of us cannot wait for someone else to make us feel safe. We take responsibility for making ourselves feel safe.
> 
> We realize we can be truthful with our partner regardless of his reaction. We are strong enough on our own to face whatever comes. It is empowering.
> 
> And again, I think both are perfectly valid options.
> Posted via Mobile Device
> Posted via Mobile Device
> Posted via Mobile Device
> Posted via Mobile Device
> Posted via Mobile Device
> Posted via Mobile Device_


_

until you hit the point that you are strong enough to say "enough". We are not in vaccuum, and our partners reaction affects us._


----------



## Wolf1974

In my opinion transparency needs to happen with trust. Some want to know little about thier partner and some want to know all. For those who want to know all you have to be responsible stewards of that information given. In other words can't punish for things you are asking for.

I think you need to determine who you are and what you need early on in relationships. I need disclosure and transparency, I need to have it and to give it so I do both responsibly.


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,
That's a great example. 




marduk said:


> That's not what I mean, although I know what you're getting at.
> 
> I'm not promoting being afraid or anxious about your partner's sexuality.
> 
> I'm saying that everybody gets sexual privacy. You don't own her fantasies or insecurities or secrets. She can share them or not.
> 
> And so can you.
> 
> Let me give you an example. You go to starbucks and the barista is super cute and flirts with you. You don't flirt back, but all day long you're kind of on a high about it, and feel a huge sexual charge.
> 
> You come home, and rock your spouse's world out of the blue with hot animal monkey sex.
> 
> And when it's done and your spouse looks at you wondering WTF just happened and happily asks you about that...
> 
> Do you talk about the barista?
> 
> I wouldn't talk about the barista. I'd talk about how much I enjoy having sex with my spouse and that we have the kind of relationship where we can explore that.
> 
> Same goes for fantasies you may have had in high school, or even now, that you never want to come true, and maybe don't even make sense to you. You aren't obligated to share. And sometimes... maybe you shouldn't.
> 
> It's the same reason the best lingerie leaves something to the imagination, I think. There's something there to remove, and be even more naked.


----------



## ConanHub

marduk said:


> That's not what I mean, although I know what you're getting at.
> 
> I'm not promoting being afraid or anxious about your partner's sexuality.
> 
> I'm saying that everybody gets sexual privacy. You don't own her fantasies or insecurities or secrets. She can share them or not.
> 
> And so can you.
> 
> Let me give you an example. You go to starbucks and the barista is super cute and flirts with you. You don't flirt back, but all day long you're kind of on a high about it, and feel a huge sexual charge.
> 
> You come home, and rock your spouse's world out of the blue with hot animal monkey sex.
> 
> And when it's done and your spouse looks at you wondering WTF just happened and happily asks you about that...
> 
> Do you talk about the barista?
> 
> I wouldn't talk about the barista. I'd talk about how much I enjoy having sex with my spouse and that we have the kind of relationship where we can explore that.
> 
> Same goes for fantasies you may have had in high school, or even now, that you never want to come true, and maybe don't even make sense to you. You aren't obligated to share. And sometimes... maybe you shouldn't.
> 
> It's the same reason the best lingerie leaves something to the imagination, I think. There's something there to remove, and be even more naked.


Good points though I don't function sexually that way. The only time I have sex with Mrs. Conan is when I am charged by the thought of ravaging her cute little body.

I can commiserate with the fantasy issue. We would have a looong way to go before she could hear my fantasies without running for the hills!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

MEM11363 said:


> With that as context, this is my question. What kinds of things does your partner do that encourage or discourage your transparency with them. And what do you believe you do, to encourage or discourage their transparency with you?


I'm smitten with my wife still after 19 years together. I think she's a good person and not just to me but to everyone in her life. She deserves to be treated good in return and transparency is a way I can show it. Except she trusts me so even though I've given her all of my passwords, she's never snooped that I'm aware of. Honestly the only time I've ever seen her get concerned was when she saw some of the thread titles I was looking at on TAM. Can't blame her for that given the messed up topics here.


----------



## MEM2020

Thundarr,

That kind of trust is huge. 





Thundarr said:


> I'm smitten with my wife still after 19 years together. I think she's a good person and not just to me but to everyone in her life. She deserves to be treated good in return and transparency is a way I can show it. Except she trusts me so even though I've given her all of my passwords, she's never snooped that I'm aware of. Honestly the only time I've ever seen her get concerned was when she saw some of the thread titles I was looking at on TAM. Can't blame her for that given the messed up topics here.


----------



## kag123

MEM -

You seem to be asking for us to share our ideas here, but I am more interested in hearing yours on the subject.

How does this play out in your marriage?


----------



## Thundarr

MEM11363 said:


> Thundarr,
> 
> That kind of trust is huge.


I think I just got really lucky MEM. Trust is very important but we in addition to that we don't have a lot of drama either like I see with many other couples. We went with two other couples on vacation this year and it reminded me just how lucky we are. When an attractive girl was walking around topless at the pool and my buddy's wife thought he was gawking, we had to avoid that pool for two days. Maybe he was gawking but he had on sunglasses so how the heck would she know plus his wife is smoking hot so I don't know. And then the other couple had a drama night too but I'm not sure exactly what about. I just know that me and my wife were scratching our heads wondering what use all of that drama was on a really nice vacation. And yea I saw the topless chic too but my wife knew it didn't matter. She was downplaying it to by buddy's wife as not being anything. We saw a whole lot more at the nude beach a few years back so a couple of boobs was not a big deal. Actually we saw more than we wanted to at the nude beach. Yuk.


----------



## john117

Transparency is great for windows. People should have some degree of opacity. If I wanted to be 100% transparent with my partner I would marry myself.

Transparency is the anathema of trust. Trust is your parent expecting you do do the right thing. Transparency is you doing the right thing because your partner is watching. 

I recently had an idea of just how silly this is. J2's phone broke and she demanded we fix it for the same money I could get her a very capable temporary phone for 3-4 months then her next dream phone. I told her a few times to no avail - i.e. I was transparent. She was suspicious that I would keep my word and get her the dream phone in February. So she opted to fix a 3 year old phone instead of trusting me, thinking I would somehow trick her into keeping the temp phone. 

I could have tricked her with repair costs that were exorbitant but was honest and found the lowest and best repair price. She did not return the courtesy.


----------



## jld

John, it sounds like there may be a reason why she does not trust you. One time transparency is unlikely to build trust. Consistent transparency over a long period of time is a different story.


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> Transparency is great for windows. People should have some degree of opacity. If I wanted to be 100% transparent with my partner I would marry myself.


My guess is that a partner needing 100% transparency all of the time would make most of us feel under-appreciated and untrusted and not want to be very transparent at all. At least it would if unwarranted. Being under a thumb is probably uncomfortable.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John, it sounds like there may be a reason why she does not trust you. One time transparency is unlikely to build trust. Consistent transparency over a long period of time is a different story.



True but regardless of outcome if the default mode is shields up... It's not going to work.

Besides, transparency assumes your partner is interested enough in you to look deeper. I could be maintaining a harem with the 72 virgins (not sure of exact number) in the attic and she wouldn't care. Not because of trust or transparency but because of indifference.


----------



## john117

Thundarr said:


> My guess is that a partner needing 100% transparency all of the time would make most of us feel under-appreciated and untrusted and not want to be very transparent at all. At least it would if unwarranted. Being under a thumb is probably uncomfortable.



Pretty much.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Transparency is great for windows. People should have some degree of opacity. If I wanted to be 100% transparent with my partner I would marry myself.
> 
> Transparency is the anathema of trust. Trust is your parent expecting you do do the right thing. Transparency is you doing the right thing because your partner is watching.
> 
> I recently had an idea of just how silly this is. J2's phone broke and she demanded we fix it for the same money I could get her a very capable temporary phone for 3-4 months then her next dream phone. I told her a few times to no avail - i.e. I was transparent. She was suspicious that I would keep my word and get her the dream phone in February. So she opted to fix a 3 year old phone instead of trusting me, thinking I would somehow trick her into keeping the temp phone.
> 
> I could have tricked her with repair costs that were exorbitant but was honest and found the lowest and best repair price. She did not return the courtesy.


This is the difference between faith and science, no?


----------



## jld

WandaJ said:


> until you hit the point that you are strong enough to say "enough". We are not in vaccuum, and our partners reaction affects us.


I think we are talking about two different things here. You are talking about saying No to abusive behavior, correct?

I am talking about being transparent because we have to be, because we just do not feel right without it.

I understand that transparency sometimes comes at a very high price. And it is certainly our choice whether or not we decide it is worth it.

For me, in my own marriage, it is worth it. I started out transparent, continued transparent, and plan to die transparent.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> This is the difference between faith and science, no?



More or less 

J2 believes everybody is out to get her, cheat her, etc including family members.

I mean it's not like her family didn't d it to her  it's her faith. 

Science is using basic math to decide is silly to repair a 3 year old phone.


----------



## jdawg2015

MEM, I don't even know if starting from scratch what to tell a new partner about transparency. I have ideas. But I can tell you that it seems to flow naturally....

With me ex W of 20 years, transparency was natural. Of course we married long before email and cell phones but even after neither would think twice to leave it around for the other to see. I never once has any inkling desire to log on to her computer or phone. Not once. 

I had a gf in China, she was relatively conservative. same thing. Never once questioned or had need for more transparency as our conversations and values aligned. And same thing, we both easily could use each others phones. She'd have me use her computer to order something, etc. We'd have been married but she was married to work (as in get home 8:30 or 9:00 every night). And she wanted kids and I did not. So we split.

Now my ex Fiance. Oh boy. At first I did not even notice it, but over time I noticed she always had her phone protected. Her computer was protected. She would ask me all kinds of questions and I think some of it was she was so ready for shoe to drop on the relationship based on her past issues with boyfriends. She was guarded. That ended up being a red flag. And after a while as I probed further, it became obvious that issues were there I did not see readily at first. She would text other guys or they would text her things. Was she cheating? No. Did she have terrible boundaries? Yup. So it became a vicious cycle. 

So if there is lack of transparency at all, my experience has been that it sets you up for failure.

Transparency is vital. 

Financial history and debt? Absolute total open window.
Past sexual history? If I ask I want answer. Don't want gory detail but if dated married person or had affair that needs to be disclosed.
Criminal past? Must reveal.
Drug use? I wanna know.

However, as you noted, you can give transparency but does not mean you'll get it in return....


----------



## MEM2020

Kag,

There's this store I love to walk around in - Swarovski. I never buy anything but I love their crystal figurines. When I'm in a store like that, surrounded by expensive, fragile things, I move slowly and carefully. 

Mostly I know when M2 is spontaneously letting me into a place in her head that is vulnerable. When that happens I make a conscious choice to relax and move slowly and carefully. What works best is a combination of 100% focused attention and empathy. And then end the conversation with: I'm glad you told me that. 

It's not a 50-50 thing. M2 has bigger balls than I do so she's shared more of herself with me, than I have with her. I am not proud of that. It's just true. 

As far as gently encouraging her transparency - there is a triangulation approach that I think works well. 

The truth comes at you through your partners actions, their tone of voice and most definitely their facial expressions and body language. 

When someone says one thing, and their actions, body language, and tone of voice say otherwise, it's sort of obvious that their words are untrue. 

In those situations I do the best I can to make the other person feel safe aligning their words with the rest of their comm channels. 

And I typically press them softly while reassuring them that 'whatever I'm reading the real truth to be' is:
- Fine with me and
- Fairly normal






kag123 said:


> MEM -
> 
> You seem to be asking for us to share our ideas here, but I am more interested in hearing yours on the subject.
> 
> How does this play out in your marriage?


----------



## MEM2020

Thundarr,

Excessive requests for transparency start to feel like surveillance and that reflects a definite lack of trust. 




Thundarr said:


> My guess is that a partner needing 100% transparency all of the time would make most of us feel under-appreciated and untrusted and not want to be very transparent at all. At least it would if unwarranted. Being under a thumb is probably uncomfortable.


----------



## kag123

MEM11363 said:


> Kag,
> 
> There's this store I love to walk around in - Swarovski. I never buy anything but I love their crystal figurines. When I'm in a store like that, surrounded by expensive, fragile things, I move slowly and carefully.
> 
> Mostly I know when M2 is spontaneously letting me into a place in her head that is vulnerable. When that happens I make a conscious choice to relax and move slowly and carefully. What works best is a combination of 100% focused attention and empathy. And then end the conversation with: I'm glad you told me that.
> 
> It's not a 50-50 thing. M2 has bigger balls than I do so she's shared more of herself with me, than I have with her. I am not proud of that. It's just true.
> 
> As far as gently encouraging her transparency - there is a triangulation approach that I think works well.
> 
> The truth comes at you through your partners actions, their tone of voice and most definitely their facial expressions and body language.
> 
> When someone says one thing, and their actions, body language, and tone of voice say otherwise, it's sort of obvious that their words are untrue.
> 
> In those situations I do the best I can to make the other person feel safe aligning their words with the rest of their comm channels.
> 
> And I typically press them softly while reassuring them that 'whatever I'm reading the real truth to be' is:
> - Fine with me and
> - Fairly normal


It sounds like you've got a good handle on this, then. 

I'm just curious...what prompted you to bring this up? Is it something you used to have a problem with?


----------



## always_alone

Things I do to discourage transparency:
1) Have boundaries -- marduk's story, for example, is the sort of thing that screams dealbreaker to me. So of course no one will want to tell me that they are lying to me about how much they love me, when really fantasizing about the barista. 

2) be totally transparent myself when I am hurt or angry. Few people want to deal with someone who is hurt or angry, and so will just not say stuff to prevent that. Or lie, to smooth everything over

3) Keep quiet. I'm pretty transparent in the sense that I do not hide my feelings, do not put a pretty gloss on things to sell them better. But I am also not very transparent because a lot of the time I don't bother saying anything at all. 

Things I do to encourage transparency
1) accept people for who they are, and not work to change them
2) ?????

I would like to encourage more transparency, as my biggest source of angst is a worry about being lied to. But I don't really know how, and am pretty sure that I'm more discouraging than encouraging.


----------



## farsidejunky

A_A:

I see none of those three as discouraging transparency in general.

1? I think that reaches the natural limit of healthy transparency. 

2? A strong partner will deal with that effectively. Not only that, but I would wager that the more effectively they deal with it, the more comforted it would make you feel, and the less it would actually happen.

3? Maybe it discourages transparency. But I would argue that it likely leads to more scenarios from number 2 due to allowing a problem to simmer and become worse.

All told, it sounds like you have a healthy grasp on it.


----------



## MEM2020

And here we come to the crux of the matter. 

While it's possible to have a high level of mutual transparency, it becomes much harder if you are exchanging 'raw feed' reactions. 

One raw feed works well as long as the recipient accepts that - raw is - well - raw. By raw feed, I mean a totally unfiltered delivery. 




always_alone said:


> Things I do to discourage transparency:
> 1) Have boundaries -- marduk's story, for example, is the sort of thing that screams dealbreaker to me. So of course no one will want to tell me that they are lying to me about how much they love me, when really fantasizing about the barista.
> 
> 2) be totally transparent myself when I am hurt or angry. Few people want to deal with someone who is hurt or angry, and so will just not say stuff to prevent that. Or lie, to smooth everything over
> 
> 3) Keep quiet. I'm pretty transparent in the sense that I do not hide my feelings, do not put a pretty gloss on things to sell them better. But I am also not very transparent because a lot of the time I don't bother saying anything at all.
> 
> Things I do to encourage transparency
> 1) accept people for who they are, and not work to change them
> 2) ?????
> 
> I would like to encourage more transparency, as my biggest source of angst is a worry about being lied to. But I don't really know how, and am pretty sure that I'm more discouraging than encouraging.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> A_A:
> 
> I see none of those three as discouraging transparency in general.
> 
> 1? I think that reaches the natural limit of healthy transparency.
> 
> 2? A strong partner will deal with that effectively. Not only that, but I would wager that the more effectively they deal with it, the more comforted it would make you feel, and the less it would actually happen.
> 
> 3? Maybe it discourages transparency. But I would argue that it likely leads to more scenarios from number 2 due to allowing a problem to simmer and become worse.
> 
> All told, it sounds like you have a healthy grasp on it.


Well, thanks far!! But truly I need to know if my SO is fantasizing about the barista when having sex with me. And if he won't admit to that for fear of my wrath (hurt!), then I don't or won't ever have what *I* need in this respect. And I see no way around it.


----------



## farsidejunky

A_A:

Why do you need to be more of anything but yourself?

Why do you think that is a healthy approach to how you contribute to the relationship?

Shouldn't just being more of yourself be enough?


----------



## Sure that could work

Transparency in a relationship is sort of a perception thing and is subjective in how you see and how your partner sees it. Does someone want their partner to tell them all their deep down thoughts and feelings.....maybe, maybe not. Is it a perceived deception to the relationship to not be totally transparent?

I perceive transparency as answering questions or explaining why someone did something without having to jump through hoops to get a "real" answer. I am lucky I guess because there aren't very many secrets in my relationship so I guess we have transparency. All the passwords are shared, we know the tricks to get into each other's phones, I do all the tech so I can muck around on his computer all I want and this is required to keep it running.

We both do things that we don't share, and we don't go looking for those things to shame or belittle each other. There are parts of each that we keep for ourselves. These are things that do not hurt our relationship. 

I am having a hard time thinking that to be transparent in a relationship you need to share every little thought or feeling with the other. There are certain things that are private, just for yourself, that one doesn't or shouldn't have to lay bear in a relationship. Those feelings or thoughts that come unbidden that are better left unshared.......there has to be something in this life that is just your own, so how does that play into being transparent?


----------



## MEM2020

Always,

This is interesting. I actually think it's very common to 'sometimes' think about someone other than the person you are having sex with. I absolutely have done so. 

And not only has M2 done so, I can say with confidence that for a period of years M2 was:
- Bringing her intense desire for the OM home and having crazy monkey sex with me
- For much of that time, pretty certain that she was pretending I was him - while we had sex

Do I 'like' that? No. But I think it's fairly 'normal'. 






always_alone said:


> Things I do to discourage transparency:
> 1) Have boundaries -- marduk's story, for example, is the sort of thing that screams dealbreaker to me. So of course no one will want to tell me that they are lying to me about how much they love me, when really fantasizing about the barista.
> 
> 2) be totally transparent myself when I am hurt or angry. Few people want to deal with someone who is hurt or angry, and so will just not say stuff to prevent that. Or lie, to smooth everything over
> 
> 3) Keep quiet. I'm pretty transparent in the sense that I do not hide my feelings, do not put a pretty gloss on things to sell them better. But I am also not very transparent because a lot of the time I don't bother saying anything at all.
> 
> Things I do to encourage transparency
> 1) accept people for who they are, and not work to change them
> 2) ?????
> 
> I would like to encourage more transparency, as my biggest source of angst is a worry about being lied to. But I don't really know how, and am pretty sure that I'm more discouraging than encouraging.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Things I do to discourage transparency:
> 1) Have boundaries -- marduk's story, for example, is the sort of thing that screams dealbreaker to me. So of course no one will want to tell me that they are lying to me about how much they love me, when really fantasizing about the barista.


I wasn't talking about secretly fantasizing about the barista at all.

I was referring to the 'kick' that you can get, quite unintentionally, when someone compliments you or gives you attention.

It's analagous to a wife going out with the girls to a pub and getting flirted with by some guy. She ignores him, and isn't fantasizing about him, but feels attractive and good about herself, and comes home to her husband with that mindset.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> 
> This is interesting. I actually think it's very common to 'sometimes' think about someone other than the person you are having sex with. I absolutely have done so.
> 
> And not only has M2 done so, I can say with confidence that for a period of years M2 was:
> - Bringing her intense desire for the OM home and having crazy monkey sex with me
> - For much of that time, pretty certain that she was pretending I was him - while we had sex
> 
> Do I 'like' that? No. But I think it's fairly 'normal'.


Ya, that stuff doesn't bother me at all. I guess as long as it's not a guy that's actually a threat to our relationship.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> And not only has M2 done so, I can say with confidence that for a period of years M2 was:
> - Bringing her intense desire for the OM home and having crazy monkey sex with me
> - For much of that time, pretty certain that she was pretending I was him - while we had sex
> 
> Do I 'like' that? No. But I think it's fairly 'normal'.


MEM, all I can say is that this would utterly crush me. I don't think I could withstand or get past it.

And that's what I mean about my own transparency being an obstacle to overall transparency. There is only raw feed.  I have no way to filter it so that it isn't raw feed. And I don't care how "normal" the behaviour is. 

And so I've put myself in this impossible situation where my SO pretty much has to lie to me if he wants me to stick around, and where I need him to be straight with me if I want to stick around.

It's total Catch-22, but I don't know how to change it.


----------



## MEM2020

Sure,
You should only be as transparent as you want to be. 

I believe we all have an absolute right to privacy. What we share is should be solely voluntary. 





Sure said:


> Transparency in a relationship is sort of a perception thing and is subjective in how you see and how your partner sees it. Does someone want their partner to tell them all their deep down thoughts and feelings.....maybe, maybe not. Is it a perceived deception to the relationship to not be totally transparent?
> 
> I perceive transparency as answering questions or explaining why someone did something without having to jump through hoops to get a "real" answer. I am lucky I guess because there aren't very many secrets in my relationship so I guess we have transparency. All the passwords are shared, we know the tricks to get into each other's phones, I do all the tech so I can muck around on his computer all I want and this is required to keep it running.
> 
> We both do things that we don't share, and we don't go looking for those things to shame or belittle each other. There are parts of each that we keep for ourselves. These are things that do not hurt our relationship.
> 
> I am having a hard time thinking that to be transparent in a relationship you need to share every little thought or feeling with the other. There are certain things that are private, just for yourself, that one doesn't or shouldn't have to lay bear in a relationship. Those feelings or thoughts that come unbidden that are better left unshared.......there has to be something in this life that is just your own, so how does that play into being transparent?


----------



## MEM2020

Always,

I'll tell you what wasn't painful and what WAS painful. 

Was NOT painful that the other guy was:
- Physically more attractive than me. Nor that M2 perceived him that way. 
- Way more 'handy' than me. He could build or repair anything. Truly amazing. Electrician, plumber, carpenter, tile guy, fine finish work of any sort.
- Christian. 

That's simply reality. 

What was very painful was when M2 made the comparison - in a devious, indirect and manipulative way. She didn't reference the other guy, just casually commented one night that she wished she'd married someone a little hotter, handier AND Christian.

I think she was hoping her disapproval would be the catalyst for me to seek her approval by 'converting'. 

I didn't understand what she was doing - in the moment. I was just stunned. Hurt. I'm not certain, but believe I was just quiet. Which was probably for the best. 

By then she was in love with the OM and her love for me was at an all time low. I'd say - for at least a year she loved him more than she loved me. 

She was becoming increasingly angry that I chose not be more like him. Chose not to focus intensely on being more handy, or becoming Catholic. 

I made no effort to do either. I helped them with the stuff I WAS good at - doing design and sales work with customers using a simple CAD product. And doing all the calculations for projects including the physics if pumps were involved. The OM wasn't good at math or physics. He was pretty good at sales but terrible at creating proposals. 




always_alone said:


> MEM, all I can say is that this would utterly crush me. I don't think I could withstand or get past it.
> 
> And that's what I mean about my own transparency being an obstacle to overall transparency. There is only raw feed. I have no way to filter it so that it isn't raw feed. And I don't care how "normal" the behaviour is.
> 
> And so I've put myself in this impossible situation where my SO pretty much has to lie to me if he wants me to stick around, and where I need him to be straight with me if I want to stick around.
> 
> It's total Catch-22, but I don't know how to change it.


----------



## jld

MEM, how were you able to get through that year when you were feeling hurt? Was it your commitment to your marriage, your love for your wife, that kept you there?


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
I never lost sight of what was true. 

The long list of stuff M2 loved about me when we married - was still true. 

I never felt threatened by him - because I didn't consider him my equal as a life partner for M2. He had about 25% of what M2 wanted. And I have about 85% of what she wants in a partner. 

The fact she found him hotter, was far, far less important than the fact that M2 has been attracted to me from the start. 

It's possible at one point I may have laughed and said: 
He's hot, but that doesn't change the fact you wouldn't last 90 days together in the same house. He doesn't understand you at all. 





jld said:


> MEM, how were you able to get through that year when you were feeling hurt? Was it your commitment to your marriage, your love for your wife, that kept you there?


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> He doesn't understand you at all.


I think this is the key, MEM. I wish more husbands realized how important this is.


----------



## MEM2020

M2 must have said this to me a half dozen times:

The most appealing thing you did, was showed total confidence that in the end you would 'win'. 

That was true when she

- Told me she needed 'space'
I went off a visited a bunch of friends and family until she told me she 'missed me'. That felt nice because I knew she meant it.

- Told me she didn't want to sleep with me anymore
I told her that was ok, I'd outsource using massages with 'happy endings' to avoid any bunny boiling type emotional entanglements. Turns out that M2 found the idea of another woman touching me - very hot. She didn't 'like it', but it produced a crazy spike in her desire level. 





jld said:


> I think this is the key, MEM. I wish more husbands realized how important this is.


----------



## Fozzy

marduk said:


> Yup.
> 
> And I'm going to go WAAAAAAY out on a limb here, and maybe I've been reading too much Esther Perel, but I don't think this is actually a good idea.
> 
> Too much transparancy in the grey matter can kill desire.
> 
> Everyone has a secret garden, sexually. I can let my wife in, and then escort her right back out if I want. Or not let her in at all.
> 
> There's all kinds of stuff I'm NEVER going to be transparent with her about.
> 
> And that's OK. It's my stuff. My grey matter is mine.
> 
> And there's all kinds of stuff she's NEVER going to be transparent with me about.
> 
> And that's OK. It's her stuff. It's her grey matter.
> 
> I don't own her fantasies. Her attractions to other men. Her darkest desires, or fears, or daydreams. Those are hers.
> 
> She may let me into them, but I don't pay rent and get right of way. I'm a guest -- and need to act like a good one.
> 
> 
> 
> #1 Expect too much transparency and it will kill transparency.
> #2 Be too insecure about stuff (especially sex stuff) and you'll kill transparency.
> #3 expect it but not offer it.
> #4 not realize that too much of this will bring a possability (perhaps probability) that all the mystery and magic and delight in your marriage will go poof!
> 
> Love is about having. Desire is about wanting. There is a balance.
> 
> A delicious balance.



Maybe. My wife has always been a bit of a closed book to me. I know stuff about my wife, her history, her likes and dislikes, but I often find myself unable to "read" her. This has always frustrated me more than created desire.

OTOH, I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve. I'm usually the one to push conversations, volunteer information, solicit opinions.

From what I've read by Perel, this could account for my wife's decreased attraction to me over the years. Oversharing on my part--too much transparency.

But as I start to get more of a handle on my wife...the more she opens up to me...legitimate transparency----the more I find myself attracted to her.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> MEM, all I can say is that this would utterly crush me. I don't think I could withstand or get past it.
> 
> And that's what I mean about my own transparency being an obstacle to overall transparency. There is only raw feed. I have no way to filter it so that it isn't raw feed. And I don't care how "normal" the behaviour is.
> 
> And so I've put myself in this impossible situation where my SO pretty much has to lie to me if he wants me to stick around, and where I need him to be straight with me if I want to stick around.
> 
> It's total Catch-22, but I don't know how to change it.


Your conundrum is common I think. Wanting to know what your partner is thinking but knowing if it's bad they might lie about it anyway. Really there's just no substitute for someone showing you that they love you with subtle little things so much that asking them certain questions just doesn't cross your mind. It's easy to feel when someone's happy to see us, proud to be with us, content with life, etc. It's easy to see the opposite as well no matter what words are spoken.


----------



## Thundarr

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> I never lost sight of what was true.
> 
> The long list of stuff M2 loved about me when we married - was still true.
> 
> I never felt threatened by him - because I didn't consider him my equal as a life partner for M2. He had about 25% of what M2 wanted. And I have about 85% of what she wants in a partner.
> 
> The fact she found him hotter, was far, far less important than the fact that M2 has been attracted to me from the start.
> 
> It's possible at one point I may have laughed and said:
> He's hot, but that doesn't change the fact you wouldn't last 90 days together in the same house. He doesn't understand you at all.


Being able to hold onto that mindset while in the midst of everything you were going through is impressive.


----------



## kag123

MEM, I had no idea about the past infedility in your marriage. That you were able to stick around and seemingly get your marriage back is impressive.


----------



## farsidejunky

Mem:

What would you have done had it gone physical?


----------



## ConanHub

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> I never lost sight of what was true.
> 
> The long list of stuff M2 loved about me when we married - was still true.
> 
> I never felt threatened by him - because I didn't consider him my equal as a life partner for M2. He had about 25% of what M2 wanted. And I have about 85% of what she wants in a partner.
> 
> The fact she found him hotter, was far, far less important than the fact that M2 has been attracted to me from the start.
> 
> It's possible at one point I may have laughed and said:
> He's hot, but that doesn't change the fact you wouldn't last 90 days together in the same house. He doesn't understand you at all.


Has she explored how she would feel if all her bvllshyt had ended your marriage?

I'm obviously wired different than you because Mrs. Conan would have found herself dumped on the idiots doorstep if I found myself in your position.

I often wonder if it occurs to a cheater, especially a remorseful one, that their spouse might not have any trouble finding someone hotter or better than them in some way. Not to mention loyal.

Before you brandish a weapon, make sure you are ready to have it used on you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> I never lost sight of what was true.
> 
> The long list of stuff M2 loved about me when we married - was still true.
> 
> I never felt threatened by him - because I didn't consider him my equal as a life partner for M2. He had about 25% of what M2 wanted. And I have about 85% of what she wants in a partner.
> 
> The fact she found him hotter, was far, far less important than the fact that M2 has been attracted to me from the start.
> 
> It's possible at one point I may have laughed and said:
> He's hot, but that doesn't change the fact you wouldn't last 90 days together in the same house. He doesn't understand you at all.


The thing about affair partners is that they don't need to be 100%. 

They just need to be whatever % they feel they're not getting. 

The problem is, of course, some people feel that they deserve 150% or more.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Far,

So - I have an unorthodox view of this type thing. 

If you have a great wife who makes a huge mistake - does that mean:

All the thousands and thousands of good things she's done - are invalidated? Does it mean that all the times she has casually walked away from temptation - don't count? Does it mean that suddenly she's a bad wife and bad person. 

Or might it simply mean that she's a good person, who did one very bad thing after an extended period of extreme temptation?

--------------
Now to answer directly. 

After a brief period of being intensely upset, I would have started working with M2 to reconcile. And given how big her conscience is, she would have been wracked with guilt. I likely would have felt a lot sorrier for her then me. 

Besides - you know how sometimes folks do a lot of unfortunate stuff that contributes to a 'weak' marriage? I didn't. So if M2 had gone physical - that would have been entirely on her. 

But - no - I wouldn't have left her. 

That said - if she'd truly blown the master circuit - and wanted to continue an affair - I would have shrugged and said ok - I guess that means we have an open marriage. 

There's not even close to any type of symmetry in that situation. M2 considers me hers. ALL hers. So the idea of me with someone else makes her agitated in a manner that isn't easily described. 

So could I forgive her a single affair? I'm confident I could. Could she forgive me? I'm not so sure. Probably not. 






farsidejunky said:


> Mem:
> 
> What would you have done had it gone physical?


----------



## MEM2020

Conan,

I forgave her way way too fast. So she's not nearly as sorry as she should be. 

She's chosen to adopt a very 'literal' view of it which is this: If it wasn't physical - it wasn't that big a deal. 

I dislike making M2 feel bad - so I didn't. I'm not worried about it though since if anything like that started to evolve again, I would handle it differently. 


QUOTE=ConanHub;14007313]Has she explored how she would feel if all her bvllshyt had ended your marriage?

I'm obviously wired different than you because Mrs. Conan would have found herself dumped on the idiots doorstep if I found myself in your position.

I often wonder if it occurs to a cheater, especially a remorseful one, that their spouse might not have any trouble finding someone hotter or better than them in some way. Not to mention loyal.

Before you brandish a weapon, make sure you are ready to have it used on you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_[/QUOTE]


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Conan,
> 
> I forgave her way way too fast. So she's not nearly as sorry as she should be.
> 
> She's chosen to adopt a very 'literal' view of it which is this: If it wasn't physical - it wasn't that big a deal.
> 
> I dislike making M2 feel bad - so I didn't. I'm not worried about it though since if anything like that started to evolve again, I would handle it differently


In what way?


----------



## norajane

MEM11363 said:


> I've wanted to write about this topic (transparency) ever since a long ago post on the subject infuriated me because it was true, and I didn't want it to be.
> 
> I'm going to paraphrase here but - what this person basically said was: *Genuine transparency, REAL transparency can only be given. It cannot be demanded. It cannot be taken from someone else. It's not about control, it's about trust.
> *
> [snip]
> 
> The rest of this thread is about TRUE transparency. True transparency is about WHY. It's about feelings and beliefs. It's about stuff you can't get from a GPS log. Stuff you can ONLY get from a partner who actively trusts you. * It's a voluntary act by a partner who overcomes their fear of being more fully known. *
> 
> With that as context, this is my question. What kinds of things does your partner do that encourage or discourage your transparency with them. And what do you believe you do, to encourage or discourage their transparency with you?





MEM11363 said:


> It's not a 50-50 thing. M2 has bigger balls than I do so *she's shared more of herself with me, than I have with her. * I am not proud of that. It's just true.


It's interesting that your wife is more transparent with you than you are with her. Is it a matter of trust for you that you share less? Do you want your wife to know you more fully, or are you happy with how much of you she knows?

For me, the more a person shares of themselves with me, the more likely I am to share with them.


----------



## MEM2020

Norajane,

It's partly trust - she's more judgemental than me. And it's partly courage ballsiness....

The only real secret I have from her is my business as a male escort. She thinks all that money comes from IT consulting.  



norajane said:


> It's interesting that your wife is more transparent with you than you are with her. Is it a matter of trust for you that you share less? Do you want your wife to know you more fully, or are you happy with how much of you she knows?
> 
> For me, the more a person shares of themselves with me, the more likely I am to share with them.


----------



## MEM2020

I'd tell her the truth - which is something like this.

I think you are developing feelings for XX. If you continue down this path - you will feel conflicted like last time. And you will start to focus a lot of negative energy on my 'flaws' - like last time. 

That's not ok. Last time, when you were hammering me, I just did my 'rope a dope' routine until you punched yourself out. This time I'm going to point out the source of your behavior - every - single - time. 

And if needed: You do know you've already used your one and only 'get out of jail free card', right? 






farsidejunky said:


> In what way?


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> I'd tell her the truth - which is something like this.
> 
> I think you are developing feelings for XX. If you continue down this path - you will feel conflicted like last time. And you will start to focus a lot of negative energy on my 'flaws' - like last time.
> 
> That's not ok. Last time, when you were hammering me, I just did my 'rope a dope' routine until you punched yourself out. This time I'm going to point out the source of your behavior - every - single - time.
> 
> And if needed: You do know you've already used your one and only 'get out of jail free card', right?


You would rattle sabres?


----------



## MEM2020

Far,
Is that what that is? A saber is a weapon. The truth is just - the truth. 

Last time - I honestly didn't realize the source of M2's gradually worsening behavior towards me. Nothing remotely like that had ever happened before, so I didn't understand it. 

Perhaps you are asking I would issue warnings, threats or ultimatums? No. I would simply say what's true which is: 

It seems this other relationship is harming our marriage. I don't like that. And I say this with nothing but good intentions: You cannot in good conscience ask for absolution, when you intend to keep doing the thing you're asking forgiveness for. 

Maybe this seems like an inappropriate 'under' reaction. But it really isn't. 

I am far more likely to be struck by lightening than M2 is to meet someone who she's more compatible with than me. 






farsidejunky said:


> You would rattle sabres?


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> The only real secret I have from her is my business as a male escort. She thinks all that money comes from IT consulting.



Fewer H1B male escorts


----------



## MEM2020

John,
I'm sorry I didn't respond to your earlier posts on this topic. It definitely svcks when you act in good faith and your partner chooses not to trust you. 

I'm assuming you had a 'free' phone upgrade available in 3 months time? Is it possible that J2 - is so status conscious - that she didn't want to be 'seen' with a lessor phone for 3 months? I only ask because she seems to prioritize appearances highly. 




john117 said:


> Fewer H1B male escorts


----------



## john117

we are In a bring your own device plan with AT&T but history has taught me to always have a capable backup phone. As of now we don't since all our older phones end up sent to her country 

I mean I could see her point for status but status be darned it makes no sense. My DD23's iPhone 5 croaked and I sent her a new Moto X 2015, same phone I'm getting next month. J2 refused the X as well. 

Turns out she also did not want the hassle of moving to a new phone...


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM, now I get it why you don't want to play the handy man role play dress up routine.


----------



## MEM2020

How much would you have saved by waiting 3 months to replace her existing phone vs buying it now? 

Just curious. 




john117 said:


> we are In a bring your own device plan with AT&T but history has taught me to always have a capable backup phone. As of now we don't since all our older phones end up sent to her country
> 
> I mean I could see her point for status but status be darned it makes no sense. My DD23's iPhone 5 croaked and I sent her a new Moto X 2015, same phone I'm getting next month. J2 refused the X as well.
> 
> Turns out she also did not want the hassle of moving to a new phone...


----------



## jdawg2015

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> Is that what that is? A saber is a weapon. The truth is just - the truth.
> 
> Last time - I honestly didn't realize the source of M2's gradually worsening behavior towards me. Nothing remotely like that had ever happened before, so I didn't understand it.
> 
> Perhaps you are asking I would issue warnings, threats or ultimatums? No. I would simply say what's true which is:
> 
> It seems this other relationship is harming our marriage. I don't like that. And I say this with nothing but good intentions: You cannot in good conscience ask for absolution, when you intend to keep doing the thing you're asking forgiveness for.
> 
> Maybe this seems like an inappropriate 'under' reaction. But it really isn't.
> 
> I am far more likely to be struck by lightening than M2 is to meet someone who she's more compatible with than me.


I'd be a bit more careful about assuming you are the one and only she could be compatible with. 

The fact she already walked down the EA path, the odds are stacked such that it could easily happen again.

So is she fully aware that she was the one who damaged your relationship and totally open about it?

And is she transparent about OSF and boundaries now?


----------



## MEM2020

FW,
Quite a ways back you asked me a very fair question on this topic. Why wouldn't I do something that I KNOW turns M2 on. I thought about that for quite some time and now perhaps I can answer it. 

I do some stuff. I do things I'm fairly confident I can do well and that isn't super time consuming. It's also true I 'could' put more effort into this. 

Here's the backstory. My father in law worked at a bank for 37 years. He had an 8 hour day and a 10 minute commute. He was also fantastically handy even for his generation. The ONLY times M2 ever saw a repairman during her childhood was when the TV broke, which was very rare. He added an entire bathroom to his retirement home without any help at all. It was an 'addition' not a renovation. He even did this enhancement that made the combo bath/shower a steam sauna as well. 

So he had both the skills and the time to do anything needed on their home growing up. Washing machine broke. He took it apart, ordered the broken parts and put it back together - good as new. 

Fast forward to the early years of our marriage. I'm working for a big 5 consulting company and two things are true. I'm way out earning my FIL (age and inflation adjusted) and I'm also working a LOT more hours than he was. 

And M2 is making snide comments about how casual I am about 'hiring' people to do stuff on our house. 

Finally I remember saying: How come you don't thank me for working hard enough you can be a SAHM and we can afford to hire folks to do stuff I'm not good at and/or don't like? 

I'm really not that handy. That's the truth. Don't have a strong aptitude for it like my FIL. And definitely didn't have as much time, nor as tight a budget as he did. The fact of it doesn't bother me. It did / does kind of bother me that M2 let me know how 'disappointing' that was to her. 

I would never tell M2 I'm disappointed she can't talk to me about quantum entanglement. Or why helicopter rotors have to change their pitch dynamically to fly level. I knew that about her before we married. I accept without reservation that she's got limitations just like anyone does. 




Faithful Wife said:


> MEM, now I get it why you don't want to play the handy man role play dress up routine.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> Is that what that is? A saber is a weapon. The truth is just - the truth.
> 
> Last time - I honestly didn't realize the source of M2's gradually worsening behavior towards me. Nothing remotely like that had ever happened before, so I didn't understand it.
> 
> Perhaps you are asking I would issue warnings, threats or ultimatums? No. I would simply say what's true which is:
> 
> It seems this other relationship is harming our marriage. I don't like that. And I say this with nothing but good intentions: You cannot in good conscience ask for absolution, when you intend to keep doing the thing you're asking forgiveness for.
> 
> Maybe this seems like an inappropriate 'under' reaction. But it really isn't.
> 
> I am far more likely to be struck by lightening than M2 is to meet someone who she's more compatible with than me.


Mem:

I know I am being a bit difficult on this, and understand that we are dealing in hypotheticals.

Your answer sounded a lot more like "It would never happen" than "Here is what I would do".


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> How much would you have saved by waiting 3 months to replace her existing phone vs buying it now?
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious.



Maybe enough to cover the temp phone. She wants a samsung Note 5 that just came out a couple months ago, they generally drop a bit after a few months.


----------



## ConanHub

Thanks for sharing Mem.

It is interesting to be allowed to see how other relationships function.

It does not appear that M2 is that introspective and you are.

I find it more than a little ironic that part of the reason she was involved with AP was his claim to Christianity.

I'm amazed at what doesn't occur to people.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

ConanHub said:


> Thanks for sharing Mem.
> 
> It is interesting to be allowed to see how other relationships function.
> 
> It does not appear that M2 is that introspective and you are.
> 
> I find it more than a little ironic that part of the reason she was involved with AP was his claim to Christianity.
> 
> I'm amazed at what doesn't occur to people.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:

had the same thought.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> 
> So - I have an unorthodox view of this type thing.
> 
> If you have a great wife who makes a huge mistake - does that mean:
> 
> All the thousands and thousands of good things she's done - are invalidated? Does it mean that all the times she has casually walked away from temptation - don't count? Does it mean that suddenly she's a bad wife and bad person.
> 
> Or might it simply mean that she's a good person, who did one very bad thing after an extended period of extreme temptation?


It wasn't aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

I do not have the authority to judge whether people are intrinsically "good" or "bad." But I can judge if someone is good or bad for me.

And, for me, 1 night of negligence, disloyalty, and dishonor in a thousand nights of the opposite would be far more than enough to poison that well, forever.

I would expect no different treatment.


----------



## kag123

marduk said:


> It wasn't aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway.
> 
> I do not have the authority to judge whether people are intrinsically "good" or "bad." But I can judge if someone is good or bad for me.
> 
> And, for me, 1 night of negligence, disloyalty, and dishonor in a thousand nights of the opposite would be far more than enough to poison that well, forever.
> 
> I would expect no different treatment.


Same here. 

Even in a ONS, there are thousands of milliseconds where one can stop and turn back and say no, this is the wrong path. To do otherwise to me is to make a thousand tiny decisions to deceive, betray and harm your marriage. 

And that's just for a ONS. A longer term EA or PA...just no excuse in my book. A "mistake" implies the person making the mistake did not know what the outcome would be. You can switch lanes in traffic and clip a car beside you because you didn't see it in your blind spot. A mistake. In an affair there are so many forks in that road that you choose to go down. I can see how EAs occur, and can see how an innocent friendship could morph into something more. But it does not get there by "mistake". There are two people making decisions that get it to that point. 

Poor boundaries. Poor self control. Poor sense of right vs. wrong. 

I just don't think I could get over that. It's a reflection of character. Even in a sea of otherwise perfect behavior. People change all the time. 

However - I do not judge anyone who forgives and moves on after affair. I am amazed at how it all works. It seems like MEM has got his marriage back into a good place and that's amazing to me.


----------



## always_alone

In theory, I agree with MEM. One mistake does not necessarily turn an otherwise good person or relationship into a bad one.

In practice, my trust would be shattered. And because trust is very hard for me (and transparency very important), I don't think I could recover.


----------



## MEM2020

Far,
You are being tenacious, not difficult. I consider myself an expert when it comes to differentiating between those two activities. 

We hired a guy for our small business. He was the right guy for what we needed. I worked there maybe 1 day in 10 and always at M2's request. 

She was around this guy every day for 3 years. And somehow, despite an intense desire to mate with him, she didn't. 

Did she somewhat lose her mind along the way. Absolutely. Did she betray me? 
YES - On several occasions M2 behaved in a manner that she described after the fact as: Deliberate attempts to get ME to divorce her. 

She didn't have 'grounds' for divorcing me. And as a good Catholic, that meant she was kind of stuck with me. 

She thought that if she simply became incredibly difficult, I would leave her. What she never really considered is that, she's always been difficult. Often but not always in a sort of charming and entertaining manner. And so, after hundreds of vaccinations over a period of 20+ years, I have close to total immunity to this. 

Each time M2 did this, she discovered herself on the receiving end of the same utterly infuriating result. I was more worried about her, than angry. Fully supportive of the idea of her divorcing me if that was what she wanted. 

On the other side of this, she managed to resist the physical part of temptation for three full years. 

I don't believe I could have done so. That's the truth. Three years of daily temptation. I don't know how she resisted that. 

So did she betray me? Yes
Did she behave better than I would have in her shoes? I think so.

Given all that, what exactly is it I'm supposed to do differently - if there's a next time? 

Other than to point out that she was generally more unhappy during two of those years than I was. Why would she want to go through that again? 






farsidejunky said:


> Mem:
> 
> I know I am being a bit difficult on this, and understand that we are dealing in hypotheticals.
> 
> Your answer sounded a lot more like "It would never happen" than "Here is what I would do".


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> You are being tenacious, not difficult. I consider myself an expert when it comes to differentiating between those two activities.
> 
> We hired a guy for our small business. He was the right guy for what we needed. I worked there maybe 1 day in 10 and always at M2's request.
> 
> She was around this guy every day for 3 years. And somehow, despite an intense desire to mate with him, she didn't.
> 
> Did she somewhat lose her mind along the way. Absolutely. Did she betray me?
> YES - On several occasions M2 behaved in a manner that she described after the fact as: Deliberate attempts to get ME to divorce her.
> 
> She didn't have 'grounds' for divorcing me. And as a good Catholic, that meant she was kind of stuck with me.
> 
> She thought that if she simply became incredibly difficult, I would leave her. What she never really considered is that, she's always been difficult. Often but not always in a sort of charming and entertaining manner. And so, after hundreds of vaccinations over a period of 20+ years, I have close to total immunity to this.
> 
> Each time M2 did this, she discovered herself on the receiving end of the same utterly infuriating result. I was more worried about her, than angry. Fully supportive of the idea of her divorcing me if that was what she wanted.
> 
> On the other side of this, she managed to resist the physical part of temptation for three full years.
> 
> I don't believe I could have done so. That's the truth. Three years of daily temptation. I don't know how she resisted that.
> 
> So did she betray me? Yes
> Did she behave better than I would have in her shoes? I think so.
> 
> Given all that, what exactly is it I'm supposed to do differently - if there's a next time?
> 
> Other than to point out that she was generally more unhappy during two of those years than I was. Why would she want to go through that again?


Quite honestly MEM, if she did it a second time my tolerance would be much lower for that behaviour.

I expect my wife to learn from her mistakes. 

That is, unless she didn't think it was a mistake to begin with.


----------



## MEM2020

Far,
One last thing. 

I did give M2 a shot at a totally clean, religiously acceptable exit. 

When she played the 'no more sex' card. I countered with the suggestion to 'outsource sex for as long as she wanted a break from - THAT'.

She had a very simple option at that point which I would have accepted without complaint. She could have said, if I did 'THAT', she would file for cause. And I would have told her to file away. 

But she hated the idea of me being with someone else in the biblical sense, more than any other option. 




farsidejunky said:


> Mem:
> 
> I know I am being a bit difficult on this, and understand that we are dealing in hypotheticals.
> 
> Your answer sounded a lot more like "It would never happen" than "Here is what I would do".


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> One last thing.
> 
> I did give M2 a shot at a totally clean, religiously acceptable exit.
> 
> When she played the 'no more sex' card. I countered with the suggestion to 'outsource sex for as long as she wanted a break from - THAT'.
> 
> She had a very simple option at that point which I would have accepted without complaint. She could have said, if I did 'THAT', she would file for cause. And I would have told her to file away.
> 
> But she hated the idea of me being with someone else in the biblical sense, more than any other option.


Sounds like you did some sabre rattling, after all.


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,

Yes. And that would also be true for me. 

But I think to some degree what you two wish - is for me to be more consequence oriented in my response to this hypothetical future situation. 

This Q&A has been helpful in the sense that it's enabled me to crystallize my thinking. 

I'm not interested in shaping M2's behavior via threats to use the marital weaponry of modern civilization. Lawyers and contracts and assets and so forth. 

I would tell her that I was concerned that if there were another round of this, I might not be able to love her anymore. 

I guess I'm not terribly interested in a marriage where I have to threaten divorce to get the outcome I want. 





marduk said:


> Quite honestly MEM, if she did it a second time my tolerance would be much lower for that behaviour.
> 
> I expect my wife to learn from her mistakes.
> 
> That is, unless she didn't think it was a mistake to begin with.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> Yes. And that would also be true for me.
> 
> But I think to some degree what you two wish - is for me to be more consequence oriented in my response to this hypothetical future situation.
> 
> This Q&A has been helpful in the sense that it's enabled me to crystallize my thinking.
> 
> I'm not interested in shaping M2's behavior via threats to use the marital weaponry of modern civilization. Lawyers and contracts and assets and so forth.
> 
> I would tell her that I was concerned that if there were another round of this, I might not be able to love her anymore.
> 
> I guess I'm not terribly interested in a marriage where I have to threaten divorce to get the outcome I want.


I have evolved my thinking in this space since I've had to deal with this kind of thing head on.

Threats and control tactics don't work.

But pretending that natural outcomes aren't going to naturally be outcomes are often at the bottom of why one feels the need to threaten to begin with.

Stop approaching the boundary of no return or I will leave you = threat and control.

I'm thinking I will have to leave this marriage as a result of you crossing this boundary = natural outcome.

If you don't plant food bearing plants, you don't get to eat the plants. If you don't go to work, you don't get paid. If you don't raise your children well, you won't get good kids. 

If you cheat or disrespect the marriage, you won't have one.

These things are just natural consequences. I found I was actually sheilding her from natural consequences by threatening -- because then it became about the threats and control, and about my behaviour... instead of hers.


----------



## farsidejunky

Marduk, this is the approach I would like to think I would have as well.

Mem, I was pushing you to see at what point it becomes less platitudinal and more decisive. Not with threats. Not with control. At what point is your true red line?

Additionally, all of the discussions on this have not been threatening sounding, but I would bet a substantial sum they will be viewed as threatening by the WS nonetheless.


----------



## kag123

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> Yes. And that would also be true for me.
> 
> But I think to some degree what you two wish - is for me to be more consequence oriented in my response to this hypothetical future situation.
> 
> This Q&A has been helpful in the sense that it's enabled me to crystallize my thinking.
> 
> I'm not interested in shaping M2's behavior via threats to use the marital weaponry of modern civilization. Lawyers and contracts and assets and so forth.
> 
> I would tell her that I was concerned that if there were another round of this, I might not be able to love her anymore.
> 
> I guess I'm not terribly interested in a marriage where I have to threaten divorce to get the outcome I want.


I'm with you that I don't believe in threats and control tactics and so on. Just does not interest me. 

However - you said "if you do it again, I may not be able to love you anymore".

What I find fascinating is that you are able to love after the first transgression. That is what I think I would not be able to do. For me, love is hard to earn and easy to lose. I could see myself simply walking away without a fight and just shrugging - guess that's over with. 

Maybe I don't know what love is? 

I'm truly interested to know how you continued to love her despite what happened.


----------



## Marduk

kag123 said:


> I'm with you that I don't believe in threats and control tactics and so on. Just does not interest me.
> 
> However - you said "if you do it again, I may not be able to love you anymore".
> 
> What I find fascinating is that you are able to love after the first transgression. That is what I think I would not be able to do. For me, love is hard to earn and easy to lose. I could see myself simply walking away without a fight and just shrugging - guess that's over with.
> 
> Maybe I don't know what love is?
> 
> I'm truly interested to know how you continued to love her despite what happened.


She walked right up to the line where it would be no more. 

And then she stopped. 

And then she stood there for a while, right on the edge, with her hands on her hips, just to show that she could. 

And then when I stopped fighting and started leaving, she ran back and worked her ass off to fix it. 

And still works at it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Kag,

Sometimes an affair gives gives the BS the license to do - guilt free - what they've wanted to do for a long time anyway - end the marriage. 




kag123 said:


> I'm with you that I don't believe in threats and control tactics and so on. Just does not interest me.
> 
> However - you said "if you do it again, I may not be able to love you anymore".
> 
> What I find fascinating is that you are able to love after the first transgression. That is what I think I would not be able to do. For me, love is hard to earn and easy to lose. I could see myself simply walking away without a fight and just shrugging - guess that's over with.
> 
> Maybe I don't know what love is?
> 
> I'm truly interested to know how you continued to love her despite what happened.


----------



## MEM2020

Far,

I can't think of a scarier thing than telling M2 if she did something - I might not be ABLE to love her anymore. 

And that isn't a threat. Or the little word game when people say: it's isn't a threat it's a promise. 

This isn't like that. It's a legitimate fear. 

And that happens to folks every day. There's a betrayal and someone can't get over it. And then the spirit of the marriage dies. And it's not just dead (resurrect able) it's dead-dead (not resurrect able). 

I would share that fear with M2. 





farsidejunky said:


> Marduk, this is the approach I would like to think I would have as well.
> 
> Mem, I was pushing you to see at what point it becomes less platitudinal and more decisive. Not with threats. Not with control. At what point is your true red line?
> 
> Additionally, all of the discussions on this have not been threatening sounding, but I would bet a substantial sum they will be viewed as threatening by the WS nonetheless.


----------



## john117

MEM, are you talking immunity or indifference? 

I would be more inclined to think indifference - immunity is acquired and I've yet to meet someone immune to humanity's antics...


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> 
> I can't think of a scarier thing than telling M2 if she did something - I might not be ABLE to love her anymore.
> 
> And that isn't a threat. Or the little word game when people say: it's isn't a threat it's a promise.
> 
> This isn't like that. It's a legitimate fear.
> 
> And that happens to folks every day. There's a betrayal and someone can't get over it. And then the spirit of the marriage dies. And it's not just dead (resurrect able) it's dead-dead (not resurrect able).
> 
> I would share that fear with M2.


It strikes me that one aid to transparency is honest, authentic self-awareness.

It's interesting that you characterize M2 as the more transparent one. Seems to me that your transparency is just a bit more carefully timed.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
Yes. As usual dead on. 

Broadcast TV used to have a 7 second delay loop. There was a censor watching the feed in real time and he had up to 7 seconds to 'intervene'. 

My built in delay loop is as long as needed for me to be completely calm. 

The drawback is that 'some' information does get edited out. The advantage is that the message delivered is clear, concise and delivered in a 'low distraction' environment. 







always_alone said:


> It strikes me that one aid to transparency is honest, authentic self-awareness.
> 
> It's interesting that you characterize M2 as the more transparent one. Seems to me that your transparency is just a bit more carefully timed.


----------



## MEM2020

Personal,

I really like M2's value system. I've already acknowledged she isn't perfect, overall in the day to day she is a solid citizen. 

Your MIL's view of your marriage is interesting given that the Catholic Church certainly has its - quirks - regarding marriage and annulments. For instance Joe Kennedy had a 12 year marriage with twin boys. He was able to get in annulled solely by virtue of clout. His wife contested it, and eventually prevailed. Mainly because the mainstream press saw the whole thing as a travesty. 


The annulment was the subject of Rauch's 1997 book Shattered Faith, which lambasted her ex-husband and was severely critical of the Catholic Church's proceedings, which made the marriage (which had produced twin boys) null and void in the eyes of the church. Rauch argued that Kennedy was able to unilaterally "cancel" nearly 12 years of marriage because of his clan's influence in the church. Kennedy argued at the time that the annulment was the right thing to do in religious terms. Few observers thought the appeal to Rome by Rauch, an Episcopalian, had a chance against the well-connected Kennedy. With women's groups loudly on Rauch's side, the controversy may have contributed to Kennedy's decision to give up his plans to seek re-election to Congress in 1998.



Personal said:


> I don't understand the mindset myself, yet my wife (a Catholic raised atheist) and I find it strange that her mother a few years ago was trying to set up my wife with one of her ex-boyfreinds who was recently divorced.
> 
> Since her mother feels our 16+ year marriage with two kids 15 and 12 is a sham, because I am not Catholic and worse still I am an atheist and we didn't get married in a Catholic church.
> 
> So she thought she could set up my wife with this ex-boyfriend (who she dumped because he was one of those needy types), because he attended the same church as my mother and was apparently a good practicing Christian.
> 
> So in that respect by way of justification M2 shared a similar mindset to my mother-in-law.


----------



## jdawg2015

marduk said:


> It wasn't aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway.
> 
> I do not have the authority to judge whether people are intrinsically "good" or "bad." But I can judge if someone is good or bad for me.
> 
> And, for me, 1 night of negligence, disloyalty, and dishonor in a thousand nights of the opposite would be far more than enough to poison that well, forever.
> 
> I would expect no different treatment.


I am exactly the same. 

Huge difference between a wife blowing too much money on shoes and handbags vs playing hide the bone with another guy......


----------



## jdawg2015

MEM11363 said:


> Personal,
> 
> I really like M2's value system. I've already acknowledged she isn't perfect, overall in the day to day she is a solid citizen.
> 
> Your MIL's view of your marriage is interesting given that the Catholic Church certainly has its - quirks - regarding marriage and annulments. For instance Joe Kennedy had a 12 year marriage with twin boys. He was able to get in annulled solely by virtue of clout. His wife contested it, and eventually prevailed. Mainly because the mainstream press saw the whole thing as a travesty.
> 
> 
> The annulment was the subject of Rauch's 1997 book Shattered Faith, which lambasted her ex-husband and was severely critical of the Catholic Church's proceedings, which made the marriage (which had produced twin boys) null and void in the eyes of the church. Rauch argued that Kennedy was able to unilaterally "cancel" nearly 12 years of marriage because of his clan's influence in the church. Kennedy argued at the time that the annulment was the right thing to do in religious terms. Few observers thought the appeal to Rome by Rauch, an Episcopalian, had a chance against the well-connected Kennedy. With women's groups loudly on Rauch's side, the controversy may have contributed to Kennedy's decision to give up his plans to seek re-election to Congress in 1998.


I was a Catholic (due to parents) and have been confirmed yada yada. I'm also an engineer/scientist so am an atheist as I've come to find that churches are all about money and influence.

There must have not only been clout on the Kennedy side but a payout to the church to grant such an annulment in the first place....


----------



## MEM2020

Jdawg,

Yes - screams payoff. 

Early on in our marriage M2 and I had some conversations about me being what she derisively referred to as 'an anything goes' kind of guy. She wasn't referring to infidelity. Just my stance on a few issues. 

So I said: Would you like to play a game?
M2: Sure - what do you have in mind
MEM: It's called Pearly Gate and this is how it works. I get to be Saint Peter. And you get to be my humble advisor, help me out with any difficult cases. You have only two choices, heaven or hell. There's no gray zone in this game. Can't park the tough cases in purgatory. Ready? 
M2: Who's our first case. 
MEM: Jane, life long Catholic. Solid citizen, husband 8 kids - typical 'natural family planning' outcome. No deep dark secrets. Day before she died in a car accident, it was a Sunday, she woke up with a headache. Didn't make it to church. Monday, before she could get to confession and be absolved, gets hit by a drunk driver and stands now before us. Tough case, what is your recommendation? 
M2: Heaven 
MEM: No - I'm sorry but your liberal anything goes approach strictly violates the rules - which are perfectly clear on this point. Jane committed a mortal sin (missing church) and died before obtaining absolution. She therefore died - NOT in a state of 'grace'. I'm ignoring your liberal 'anything goes' advice. And off to hell she goes. 
M2: Where did you find this game?
MEM: Our next case is Bill. He was a violent, murderous sexual predator. Raped and killed a bunch of women. A couple days before he died, he had a heart attack. Realizing he might die, and terrified of going to hell he went to confession, and received absolution. He now stands before us. 
M2: He's in a state of grace right?
MEM: yes
M2: We don't have a choice.
MEM: That's not how this game works. There's no hiding behind the rules. You're my advisor. Advise me. One word answer please.
M2: Heaven
MEM: Only because you say so - sheesh you say I'm an anything goes kind of guy. You just let Bill into heaven. 
M2: I don't want to play this game anymore. 







jdawg2015 said:


> I was a Catholic (due to parents) and have been confirmed yada yada. I'm also an engineer/scientist so am an atheist as I've come to find that churches are all about money and influence.
> 
> There must have not only been clout on the Kennedy side but a payout to the church to grant such an annulment in the first place....


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> Quite a ways back you asked me a very fair question on this topic. Why wouldn't I do something that I KNOW turns M2 on. I thought about that for quite some time and now perhaps I can answer it.
> 
> I do some stuff. I do things I'm fairly confident I can do well and that isn't super time consuming. It's also true I 'could' put more effort into this.
> 
> Here's the backstory. My father in law worked at a bank for 37 years. He had an 8 hour day and a 10 minute commute. He was also fantastically handy even for his generation. The ONLY times M2 ever saw a repairman during her childhood was when the TV broke, which was very rare. He added an entire bathroom to his retirement home without any help at all. It was an 'addition' not a renovation. He even did this enhancement that made the combo bath/shower a steam sauna as well.
> 
> So he had both the skills and the time to do anything needed on their home growing up. Washing machine broke. He took it apart, ordered the broken parts and put it back together - good as new.
> 
> Fast forward to the early years of our marriage. I'm working for a big 5 consulting company and two things are true. I'm way out earning my FIL (age and inflation adjusted) and I'm also working a LOT more hours than he was.
> 
> And M2 is making snide comments about how casual I am about 'hiring' people to do stuff on our house.
> 
> Finally I remember saying: How come you don't thank me for working hard enough you can be a SAHM and we can afford to hire folks to do stuff I'm not good at and/or don't like?
> 
> I'm really not that handy. That's the truth. Don't have a strong aptitude for it like my FIL. And definitely didn't have as much time, nor as tight a budget as he did. The fact of it doesn't bother me. It did / does kind of bother me that M2 let me know how 'disappointing' that was to her.
> 
> I would never tell M2 I'm disappointed she can't talk to me about quantum entanglement. Or why helicopter rotors have to change their pitch dynamically to fly level. I knew that about her before we married. I accept without reservation that she's got limitations just like anyone does.


Right but...what I was asking you about awhile back on that other thread was playing DRESS UP for sexy role play...not about actually doing any handy work. And I was confused why you wouldn't just throw on the hard hat and tool belt for a fun time. Now hearing about the OM and all of that, I can see why playing that particular type of dress up wouldn't be fun for you because there are too many negative associations.

I really never suggested (and still am not suggesting) that you should actually do handy work you are not cut out for and/or don't want to do just to make her feel sexy toward you, or for any other reason.


----------



## jdawg2015

MEM11363 said:


> Jdawg,
> 
> Yes - screams payoff.
> 
> Early on in our marriage M2 and I had some conversations about me being what she derisively referred to as 'an anything goes' kind of guy. She wasn't referring to infidelity. Just my stance on a few issues.
> 
> So I said: Would you like to play a game?
> M2: Sure - what do you have in mind
> MEM: It's called Pearly Gate and this is how it works. I get to be Saint Peter. And you get to be my humble advisor, help me out with any difficult cases. You have only two choices, heaven or hell. There's no gray zone in this game. Can't park the tough cases in purgatory. Ready?
> M2: Who's our first case.
> MEM: Jane, life long Catholic. Solid citizen, husband 8 kids - typical 'natural family planning' outcome. No deep dark secrets. Day before she died in a car accident, it was a Sunday, she woke up with a headache. Didn't make it to church. Monday, before she could get to confession and be absolved, gets hit by a drunk driver and stands now before us. Tough case, what is your recommendation?
> M2: Heaven
> MEM: No - I'm sorry but your liberal anything goes approach strictly violates the rules - which are perfectly clear on this point. Jane committed a mortal sin (missing church) and died before obtaining absolution. She therefore died - NOT in a state of 'grace'. I'm ignoring your liberal 'anything goes' advice. And off to hell she goes.
> M2: Where did you find this game?
> MEM: Our next case is Bill. He was a violent, murderous sexual predator. Raped and killed a bunch of women. A couple days before he died, he had a heart attack. Realizing he might die, and terrified of going to hell he went to confession, and received absolution. He now stands before us.
> M2: He's in a state of grace right?
> MEM: yes
> M2: We don't have a choice.
> MEM: That's not how this game works. There's no hiding behind the rules. You're my advisor. Advise me. One word answer please.
> M2: Heaven
> MEM: Only because you say so - sheesh you say I'm an anything goes kind of guy. You just let Bill into heaven.
> M2: I don't want to play this game anymore.


Thanks for the chuckle. But you highlighted the logic of religion.

Don't get me started..... Oh wait, let's start with the story of noah and the ark. I love to trap the unknowing on religious stories


----------



## ConanHub

Personal said:


> I don't understand the mindset myself, yet my wife (a Catholic raised atheist) and I find it strange that her mother a few years ago was trying to set up my wife with one of her ex-boyfreinds who was recently divorced.
> 
> Since her mother feels our 16+ year marriage with two kids 15 and 12 is a sham, because I am not Catholic and worse still I am an atheist and we didn't get married in a Catholic church.
> 
> So she thought she could set up my wife with this ex-boyfriend (who she dumped because he was one of those needy types), because he attended the same church as my mother and was apparently a good practicing Christian.
> 
> So in that respect by way of justification M2 shared a similar mindset to my mother-in-law.


Don't even get me started on Catholicism. WOW!

I've got problems with my MIL but nothing similar to yours. Extremely sinister and very unchristian for her to behave that way. Glad your wife is far better adjusted than her mother.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Sorry FW,
I totally misunderstood your suggestion. 

I would willingly DO that role play if it actually worked for M2. Unfortunately I think it would just remind us - that I'm not. 





Faithful Wife said:


> Right but...what I was asking you about awhile back on that other thread was playing DRESS UP for sexy role play...not about actually doing any handy work. And I was confused why you wouldn't just throw on the hard hat and tool belt for a fun time. Now hearing about the OM and all of that, I can see why playing that particular type of dress up wouldn't be fun for you because there are too many negative associations.
> 
> I really never suggested (and still am not suggesting) that you should actually do handy work you are not cut out for and/or don't want to do just to make her feel sexy toward you, or for any other reason.


----------



## autopilot

john117 said:


> Transparency is the anathema of trust. Trust is your parent expecting you do do the right thing. Transparency is you doing the right thing because your partner is watching.


Wow. I can't get this one out of my head. If you think transparency is the anathema of trust, you've got some real internal issues in your relationship. And trust is absolutely NOT a parent expecting you to do the right thing.

In our house, we've always maintained a healthy relationship with our kids and the old adage with them is: "trust but verify." Sure, we expect our kids to behave a certain way, but in no way do we fully trust that they do. To do so is completely naive and misguided with certain heartbreak and disappointment when they fail to live up to those expectations.

True transparency (one that's not steeped in guilt or betrayal) is the culmination of trust. It should be the "holy grail" of a marriage where you have nothing to hide from each other. Does that mean that you will always do or say the right thing? Certainly not. But it does mean that you love each other unconditionally (warts and all).

Transparency is unconditional and (in our case, at least) rewarded with the most blissful, happy, sensual and fulfilling marriage I could have ever hoped to have. It does not stunt our sexual desires for each other. Quite the contrary. It stimulates it to the most climactic state imaginable.

You don't begin a relationship or marriage with complete transparency. It grows as you become intertwined as one. That happens as you learn to love and respect each other as the relationship matures.

Transparency is one of the most liberating things you can achieve in a relationship. It removes all the negativity that comes from trying to hide things from your partner. If you cannot be your true self in a relationship, then you need to evaluate whether the relationship is sustainable. I would hate to be in a relationship where I felt hindered being who I really am and had to hide behind a veil of secrecy. That would be a miserable existence.

Which leads to another thing about transparency. You have to love and respect yourself to be transparent. If you don't like who you are, then you probably don't want others to see who you really are, either. That can be a huge issue and should be addressed through some sort of counseling.

I may be in the minority about this, but I feel very strongly about being transparent in a relationship and life in general (and not because of past transgressions). Transparency should not be used as a form of punishment but should be an expression of true love.


----------



## jld

I really liked your post, autopilot. 

I did start out transparent with my husband, though. I had just come out of an unhealthy relationship, and I was determined to be absolutely transparent moving forward. I figured if Dug could not accept my past, I wanted things to be over right away. I had already gone through enough heartache with the guy before.

I remember just a few weeks in when Dug said to me, almost incredulously, "You cannot lie." He said later that my directness and honesty with him made him angry at first. He was not used to that at all.

But he said that as he started to listen to what I was saying, without focusing on the delivery, he realized he could learn from me. He commented a few weeks later that it was very easy to live with me, because he did not have to guess what I was thinking or feeling.


----------



## autopilot

You hit on an ancillary benefit of transparency. You know where each other is coming from and aren't trying to hit a moving target. It's a simple matter of knowing the real person and how they think and act.

You are absolutely correct that life in the relationship is so much easier because you know what the other is thinking almost before they say it or act on it.


----------



## john117

Autopilot, consider culture in the context...

Some cultures are more transparent than others.


----------



## autopilot

John,

You'll have to be more specific about culture.

I'm sure that there are some cultures in this world where transparency may be an issue. But, you said nothing about culture in your post that I saw. The raw statements themselves were what I had a problem with because I completely disagree with your perspective about transparency and trust.

So, if you are talking about a cultural issue, you need to be specific about your context rather than making a blanket statement which is categorically incorrect in my opinion.

Please don't take these comments as disrespectful of you or your position in life. I'm just curious now about your perspective now that you've commented about culture as an issue to transparency.


----------



## john117

I'm referring to cultures like Asia - wide brush I know - or Middle East. A transparent loving spouse of either gender would last a week at best... Some Europeans (many ?) as well especially not the fully developed parts of Europe but the backwaters.

To be blunt transparency ranks high up there with optimism in the things most immigrants find strange about American culture... I can give you culture specific examples but it would take all day 

Culture provides context and in this case context is king.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

Do you equate transparency with neediness or weakness?

It can mean that. More often I believe it correlates to trust and confidence. 





john117 said:


> I'm referring to cultures like Asia - wide brush I know - or Middle East. A transparent loving spouse of either gender would last a week at best... Some Europeans (many ?) as well especially not the fully developed parts of Europe but the backwaters.
> 
> To be blunt transparency ranks high up there with optimism in the things most immigrants find strange about American culture... I can give you culture specific examples but it would take all day
> 
> Culture provides context and in this case context is king.


----------



## john117

Pretty much. Within a marriage needing transparency is generally perceived as weak, as is offering it. But then in the cultures I refer to marriages are more complex than here due to much more family involvement and the like.


----------



## jld

For sure foreign marriages are often different than most of ours. 

When we lived in India, we were regularly asked if we had a "love marriage." I remember thinking, "Is there any other kind?"

Oh, my goodness, yes. Marriages there are often all about money. I can definitely see how there could be very little transparency there. And potential for great dysfunction.


----------



## john117

Yet those marriages are often successful - go figure


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Yet those marriages are often successful - go figure


Successful is a subjective term, John. 

But yes, they are usually long lasting. In those countries there is a lot of pressure to make it work.

Skilled matchmakers help, too.


----------



## john117

Do you have some references? I could use one in a year and a half 

Increased accommodation and closer cultural backgrounds seem to work too.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
That's the whole theme of this thread. Just because you want or even NEED transparency - doesn't mean you will get any.

So I think it's pretty obvious that much of my marriage to M2 was 'high conflict'. It isn't anymore, but it was. 

What's not so obvious is that I've invited, encouraged and supported transparency on a pretty consistent basis. 

This next bit is the very beginning of that process. We'd been dating for 6 weeks. And I'd been sleeping over at M2's 3-4 nights a week for a few weeks. We would make out for a while - in our sleep clothes - and go to sleep. 

I took M2 away for a weekend in Annapolis. Stayed in a B&B. Of course she assumed - romantic weekend - well. By then I'd had a couple dozen partners and was in no hurry. 

Anyway - Saturday morning we wake up and suddenly I realize that she's furious - thinks that I'm not really attracted to her. And that she's about to abruptly end it. 

So we connect - it's great. And then after a fun day, connect again that night. 

Sunday morning we wake up and start kissing and stuff. M2 says: it's Sunday, we're not married, it would feel weird to have sex. 

So I say: ok 
And she says - but we can do other things - and proceeds to rock my world doing - other things. Afterwards we went to Church. That night she asked me if I thought it was 'weird' the not having intercourse - but doing other stuff - on Sunday. 
And I said: no, guilt is an entirely normal emotion

So here's the thing. That was the first small step towards transparency. M2 said 'WHY' she was doing, not doing something. And after the fact, was glad she did. 




john117 said:


> Pretty much. Within a marriage needing transparency is generally perceived as weak, as is offering it. But then in the cultures I refer to marriages are more complex than here due to much more family involvement and the like.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> So here's the thing. That was the first small step towards transparency. M2 said 'WHY' she was doing, not doing something. And after the fact, was glad she did.


Your story highlights a key to eliciting transparency: acceptance.

Nothing like knowing that you will be subject to a bunch of shame or recriminations to make you want to keep your mouth shut and your secrets to yourself.

Knowing that you are accepted, warts and all, on the other hand, makes it so much easier to be open.

Unlike john, I think that trust is a corollary to this acceptance. Trust on one side that your revelations will be met with acceptance. And trust, on the other side, that you won't be completely blindsided by those revelations.

Good thread, MEM! Instructive.


----------



## autopilot

john117 said:


> Pretty much. Within a marriage needing transparency is generally perceived as weak, as is offering it. But then in the cultures I refer to marriages are more complex than here due to much more family involvement and the like.


John,

I just don't buy what you're selling here.

Marriages in the cultures you are making indirect references to are much less complex because they are arranged marriages. The partners have no say in the matter, and therefore, the marriage is an iron-clad business arrangement made by the families without their input or necessary consent. The partners have to take each other and cannot leave the marriage.

Western marriages, on the other hand, are far more complex because we have the avenue of choice. We have all the say in who we select as a marriage partner and can leave the marriage without the fear of being ostracized by the extended families. Much more thought and work go into keeping these marriages intact as a result.

Transparency isn't for the weak, but for the strong. I am transparent because I am confident in who I am. I would not be transparent if I was trying to hide something about myself or felt insecure about my place in the marriage. My wife would say the very same thing. It takes much confidence and trust to become transparent, not weakness and cowardice as you imply.


----------



## john117

MEM, stories of decades ago when things were starting between a couple have little relevance to decades later. We made out like bunnies in the early years too, heck, moved in together after a few months and had a blast. 

You can't use events from three decades ago to extrapolate behaviors today. The other way around works better tho. I remember awesome dates from 30 years ago where we had Wendy's, Orange Julius, then some heavier duty drinks and... We were open with each other. We had goals, ambitions, and dreams. For 25 years we did well.

But culture and old age and stress - forget mental issues - play havoc with ones perceptions. 

Like every other immigrant I know culture catches up with you. And culture is at the top of the issues. 

All the glasnost in the planet can't overcome the human desire for safety. In design theory and even psychology we have prospect and refuge theory to tell us what humans think of their physical environment. If we place this much emphasis on refuge, it's a big leap of faith to do otherwise.

A couple years ago I visited a landmark architecture house with my older girl called Farnsworth House. For transparency advocates it would be ideal. While a great concept by one of the top designers that ever lived, the house was a spectacular disaster in terms of living in it. That's exactly how I view transparency.

View attachment 39865


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth_House

Read the criticism section...


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> All the glasnost in the planet can't overcome the human desire for safety. In design theory and even psychology we have prospect and refuge theory to tell us what humans think of their physical environment. If we place this much emphasis on refuge, it's a big leap of faith to do otherwise.
> 
> A couple years ago I visited a landmark architecture house with my older girl called Farnsworth House. For transparency advocates it would be ideal. While a great concept by one of the top designers that ever lived, the house was a spectacular disaster in terms of living in it. That's exactly how I view transparency.


Transparency definitely requires faith. No doubt.

But I don't think it requires giving up safety. The reality is that we are not safe, no matter how protected or hidden we are. We may think our curtains preventing others from seeing into our souls means they won't judge us. But it's simply not true. And in a good relationship, a partner is as much a refuge as anything else can be.

I've been thinking about it, and I don't think that transparency necessarily means sharing every detail in one's psyche at every moment. That would be exhausting. It does involve not deliberately hiding information to avoid dealing with the fallout, in the name of "protecting" our own or another's feelings. Or being unwilling to own up to what is really motivating us.

The transparency of the house you posted is, IMHO, the mechanical transparency that MEM talks about in his OP. It reminds me of the book "We" by Zamyatin. It is the transparency of control, not transparency in the spirit of being open-hearted.

Just reading through some TAM threads today with this one on my mind and it is really quite incredible the amount of things people lie to each other about. I really hope this is not the kind of relationship I have.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> Your story highlights a key to eliciting transparency: acceptance.
> 
> Nothing like knowing that you will be subject to a bunch of shame or recriminations to make you want to keep your mouth shut and your secrets to yourself.
> 
> Knowing that you are accepted, warts and all, on the other hand, makes it so much easier to be open.
> 
> Unlike john, I think that trust is a corollary to this acceptance. Trust on one side that your revelations will be met with acceptance. *And trust, on the other side, that you won't be completely blindsided by those revelations.*
> 
> Good thread, MEM! Instructive.


I mostly agree, but the bolded part troubles me a bit. If you want to be accepted warts and all, but you have reservations about how far your partner's acceptance will extend, then I don't know that you can really achieve transparency.

As the partner receiving the revelations--I don't know that you can put a line in the sand and say "I accept you up to this point, but don't tell me anything further" without unraveling some of that trust and acceptance.


----------



## john117

Transparency is a tautology type of thing.

True transparency assumes several other qualities which, if present, means your relationship is good and who cares about transparency. If those qualities aren't there transparency won't do you any good.


----------



## Fozzy

john117 said:


> Transparency is a tautology type of thing.
> 
> True transparency assumes several other qualities which, if present, means your relationship is good and who cares about transparency. If those qualities aren't there transparency won't do you any good.


Agreed. Chief among those qualities I believe are as A_A pointed out--trust and acceptance.

Really, transparency is just a manifestation of those qualities.


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> Transparency is a tautology type of thing.
> 
> True transparency assumes several other qualities which, if present, means your relationship is good and who cares about transparency. If those qualities aren't there transparency won't do you any good.


I'm scratching my head with your slams against transparency. What does "true transparency" even mean? Forget "true transparency" and think about the concept that two people are letting each other know what they think the other person wants to know. We can call that "common sense transparency".


----------



## john117

Thundarr said:


> ..... two people are letting each other know what they think the other person wants to know. We can call that "common sense transparency".



I have a different term for it:

View attachment 39873


People are individuals first and foremost. If I wanted a mind meld I would marry a Vulcan. Maybe when I was 25...


----------



## jld

John, it really seems like you do not trust the idea of transparency.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John, it really seems like you do not trust the idea of transparency.



Only because I, as a very good mind reader and friendly neighborhood schemer and manipulator, can tell you that it's potential for destruction far exceeds any benefits. 

Most people think a couple moves ahead, if that. I think a few more moves ahead. Being the paranoid immigrant that i am let's just say that trust is something that, pardon the language, it takes more than a few rolls on the hay to establish. 

If someone finds the love of their life all is well. Good for them. Maybe some day.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> As the partner receiving the revelations--I don't know that you can put a line in the sand and say "I accept you up to this point, but don't tell me anything further" without unraveling some of that trust and acceptance.


Agreed. What I had in mind when I said that, though, was the utter deal breakers.

To take an extreme example, just to make the point: you find out your spouse is a serial killer burying bodies in the basement.

Ain't got no acceptance of that! Nowhere. No how.

KWIM? And there would be less extreme examples of these sorts of deal breakers that would probably vary more depending on the people involved.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Only because I, as a very good mind reader and friendly neighborhood schemer and manipulator, can tell you that it's potential for destruction far exceeds any benefits.
> 
> Most people think a couple moves ahead, if that. I think a few more moves ahead. .


IOW, you have lots to hide, and no interest in sharing that, lest you lose your advantage.

Another corollary of transparency is vulnerability.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> ...two people are letting each other know what they think the other person wants to know. We can call that "common sense transparency".
> 
> 
> john117 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a different term for it:
> 
> View attachment 39873
> 
> 
> People are individuals first and foremost. If I wanted a mind meld I would marry a Vulcan. Maybe when I was 25...
Click to expand...

Well I am a star trek fan...... but your analogy is ridiculous to those of us in happy marriages who practice normal transparent and not the weird thing you're suggesting with mind melding. I actually don't want to know some things like whether or not my wife farted at 12:45PM on Jan 1, 2015. So no mind meld necessary here. But common sense information she thinks I'd want to know is cool. Seriously John, I don't understand your reply to my original post. Obviously mind melding wasn't what I suggested was a good thing.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Only because I, as a very good mind reader and friendly neighborhood schemer and manipulator, can tell you that it's potential for destruction far exceeds any benefits.
> 
> Most people think a couple moves ahead, if that. I think a few more moves ahead. Being the paranoid immigrant that i am let's just say that trust is something that, pardon the language, it takes more than a few rolls on the hay to establish.
> 
> If someone finds the love of their life all is well. Good for them. Maybe some day.


I hear pain in those last lines, John. I know the last years have been hard.


----------



## autopilot

always_alone said:


> IOW, you have lots to hide, and no interest in sharing that, lest you lose your advantage.
> 
> Another corollary of transparency is vulnerability.


I think that you nailed it here.

I certainly do not see transparency as doing a "data dump" at the end of the day revealing every second of activity and every thought that went through my mind.

Rather, it's sort of like leaving the bedroom closet door opened rather than closed. If you want to look to see what's in there, go right ahead, because I've got nothing to hide. If you find something interesting, feel free to inquire about it because I'm not going to get defensive about it.

Neither my wife nor I "snoop" on the other because we feel comfortable enough about our relationship that we don't need to do so. But, she has full access to everything that is mine and I have that same access to all that is hers.

The loving relationship that each should strive to attain with your spouse should be predicated on a firm foundation of commitment and trust. A large part of that is being accountable to the other and giving physical and emotional access to all that is you.

Selfishness, control and manipulation should be checked at the door if you want to attain such love in marriage. If your desire is keep an upper hand on your partner through deceit, manipulation and control empowered by false impressions then you don't need to be in a marriage relationship.


----------



## MEM2020

In 25 years I only had to 'bite the pillow' once. And I did. 

M2 said: I know it isn't right, but when we go to 'play practice - musical theater' for M3, I'm jealous of all the attention she gets. I know you shouldn't be jealous of your own child, but I am'. 

That revelation - REALLY - felt bad. But I just said something sort of neutral. Now before anyone extrapolates from this comment, I'd like to point out that M2 had always been 100% supportive of our daughter doing musical theater up until that point. And jealous or not she continued to be totally supportive after she made that comment. And I never saw a hint of that emotion impacting the way she treated M3. 

This activity was both expensive and time consuming as the location was a half hour from our home. Sometimes M2 had to do two round trips per practice session - 2 hours of driving - 4 days a week. 

Outside the bedroom, than was the only incidence of transparency that caused me any distress. 

And inside the bedroom, there was also only one - thing - M2 was partial to that - I struggled with a bit. 

So it's been 98% positive.....



Fozzy said:


> Agreed. Chief among those qualities I believe are as A_A pointed out--trust and acceptance.
> 
> Really, transparency is just a manifestation of those qualities.


----------



## john117

In an ideal marriage perhaps. Let's see how that works after decades of an average marriage. Or a few months of a bad one.

With divorce percentages where they are it takes a phenomenal leap of faith to get married, let alone to play 20 questions nightly.

Wearing my professional hat for a bit, I can't help but wonder if the transparency advocates are concerned to deal with reality rather than the possibilities. Meaning, they want to be able to know everything because that way there won't be a doubt about their partner (that they can't deal with) in their mind, period. 

Transparency also assumes you know the right questions to ask. Yea, as 25 year olds we knew everything already so ...

It also assumes boundaries. Transparency does not mean congressional hearings. Yet without those good luck getting answers. 

It takes a refreshing, if simplistic view of humanity to do so in my opinion. If you can pull it off the more power to y'all. To me, I will take my chances 



autopilot said:


> I think that you nailed it here.
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly do not see transparency as doing a "data dump" at the end of the day revealing every second of activity and every thought that went through my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Rather, it's sort of like leaving the bedroom closet door opened rather than closed. If you want to look to see what's in there, go right ahead, because I've got nothing to hide. If you find something interesting, feel free to inquire about it because I'm not going to get defensive about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither my wife nor I "snoop" on the other because we feel comfortable enough about our relationship that we don't need to do so. But, she has full access to everything that is mine and I have that same access to all that is hers.
> 
> 
> 
> The loving relationship that each should strive to attain with your spouse should be predicated on a firm foundation of commitment and trust. A large part of that is being accountable to the other and giving physical and emotional access to all that is you.
> 
> 
> 
> Selfishness, control and manipulation should be checked at the door if you want to attain such love in marriage. If your desire is keep an upper hand on your partner through deceit, manipulation and control empowered by false impressions then you don't need to be in a marriage relationship.


----------



## jld

For me, it is because I want to be known by my husband. He is not hounding me with questions. I have a high degree of trust in him. And that is because he has earned it.


----------



## autopilot

john117 said:


> In an ideal marriage perhaps. Let's see how that works after decades of an average marriage. Or a few months of a bad one.
> 
> With divorce percentages where they are it takes a phenomenal leap of faith...


Our marriage was a "bad one" at one time. It started out horribly with me filing for divorce within 6 months after we married. One day I'll post on here all that happened during that "dark" time of our marriage.

But, rather than going through with finalizing the divorce, we decided to take an intensive marriage intervention course. Over the course of 8 weeks we learned tools to repair and reshape our relationship.

One of the basic tenets that we learned was acceptance of each other and trusting each other enough to open up and be transparent with each other. It was not easy and took quite a while before we felt confident and secure enough to place that trust into the palm of the other.

So, yes, it does work.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
That's a scary interpretation of what I mean. 

The reason I opened with - transparency - the real thing - is given, not taken. Not interested in engaging in an interrogation style of marriage via 20 questions. 

Occasionally opening the door for M2 to share stuff, that's different. And it's not driven by fear, distrust or the desire to obtain leverage. Mainly by sincere desire to know her better. 

And it's not part of some 5 moves ahead strategy. It just sometimes happens - naturally. 





john117 said:


> In an ideal marriage perhaps. Let's see how that works after decades of an average marriage. Or a few months of a bad one.
> 
> With divorce percentages where they are it takes a phenomenal leap of faith to get married, let alone to play 20 questions nightly.
> 
> Wearing my professional hat for a bit, I can't help but wonder if the transparency advocates are concerned to deal with reality rather than the possibilities. Meaning, they want to be able to know everything because that way there won't be a doubt about their partner (that they can't deal with) in their mind, period.
> 
> Transparency also assumes you know the right questions to ask. Yea, as 25 year olds we knew everything already so ...
> 
> It also assumes boundaries. Transparency does not mean congressional hearings. Yet without those good luck getting answers.
> 
> It takes a refreshing, if simplistic view of humanity to do so in my opinion. If you can pull it off the more power to y'all. To me, I will take my chances


----------



## Fozzy

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> That's a scary interpretation of what I mean.
> 
> The reason I opened with - transparency - the real thing - is given, not taken. Not interested in engaging in an interrogation style of marriage via 20 questions.
> 
> Occasionally opening the door for M2 to share stuff, that's different. And it's not driven by fear, distrust or the desire to obtain leverage. *Mainly by sincere desire to know her better.*
> 
> And it's not part of some 5 moves ahead strategy. It just sometimes happens - naturally.


I really struggle with reading my wife sometimes. Not sure if it's a block I have, or if she could be more open with me--or both. I do know that when I catch a glimpse through the shutters, it usually makes me feel closer to her.


----------



## jld

Of course it does, Fozzy. That is how it's supposed to be. 

Do you get involved in her hobbies at all? 

Reaching out to her in her own interests is a great way to get close to a wife, I think. That is the reason Dug is here with me.


----------



## Fozzy

jld said:


> Of course it does, Fozzy. That is how it's supposed to be.
> 
> Do you get involved in her hobbies at all?
> 
> Reaching out to her in her own interests is a great way to get close to a wife, I think. That is the reason Dug is here with me.


My wife's hobbies take a certain skill set that I don't possess. I do show interest in them and support them, but I don't get involved in a hands-on fashion.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> That's a scary interpretation of what I mean.
> 
> The reason I opened with - transparency - the real thing - is given, not taken. Not interested in engaging in an interrogation style of marriage via 20 questions.



As I said, in so called "ideal" marriages I agree 100%. The problem is that few of us have ideal marriages, and I have to wonder about those with ideal marriages being on TAM.

The idealists see marriage and life itself as a stroll in the park, predictable to the end. Spouse, 2.2 kids, white picket fence, cat... 

The pragmatists are a bit more reserved, seeing life and marriage as a carefully orchestrated walk in downtown Chicago. Rewarding and exciting as long as you know what's going on. 

The skeptics or immigrants  see it as a game of backgammon. One bad roll of the dice and you're toast. 

If you're in the first group all the power to you. The last two...

It all boils down to how you see marriage. Two independent beings joined by a paper / ritual or some other mind meld type thing.


----------



## jld

I think all marriages have conflict. Transparency can really help iron out those inevitable conflicts.

When a marriage is basically good, it is easy to see our spouse through rose-colored glasses. Kathy Batesel once mentioned a study that found that couples in love are in their own kind of fog.

But every once in a while those rose-colored glasses get ripped off our faces, and we see the very clear imperfections of our mate. 

Even then, humility and sincerity can repair the damage.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> In 25 years I only had to 'bite the pillow' once. And I did.


And this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me wonder if one person's transparency comes at the price of the other's.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have bit the pillow and expressed your honest reaction. Especially as it seemed a one-off, possibly just M2 expressing a wistful desire to have had the sorts of talents M3 has, or an unrequited dream. So not really jealousy so much as "I aspired that too, and wish I too could've had those experiences."

But in my own world, it has become clear to me that my transparency stomps all over his. He probably never will share what he really thinks (on certain issues) for fear of the fallout.

I've tried stomping on my own transparency to correct this, but it isn't working well. Too late, the cat is out of the bag.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> I really struggle with reading my wife sometimes. Not sure if it's a block I have, or if she could be more open with me--or both. I do know that when I catch a glimpse through the shutters, it usually makes me feel closer to her.


I too have trouble reading my SO. Sometimes he is very obvious and overt in what he is thinking and feeling, but other times he deliberately doesn't reveal. If I watch closely, there are "tells", but even these can be hard to read.  

He wants to preserve his opaquenss on certain things, for me just to pretend it's not there and leave him alone. Which is what I mostly do, except for a few blowouts on the issue. But it quietly eats me up inside. And meanwhile, he thinks we're doing great.

It's a bit fvcked really.


----------



## MEM2020

AA,
You are too kind - quite literally. This was garden variety social jealousy. And that's ok. M2 is a great mom. Whatever she felt - isn't nearly as important as what she did. 

I agree, transparency often lacks symmetry. 





always_alone said:


> And this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me wonder if one person's transparency comes at the price of the other's.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have bit the pillow and expressed your honest reaction. Especially as it seemed a one-off, possibly just M2 expressing a wistful desire to have had the sorts of talents M3 has, or an unrequited dream. So not really jealousy so much as "I aspired that too, and wish I too could've had those experiences."
> 
> But in my own world, it has become clear to me that my transparency stomps all over his. He probably never will share what he really thinks (on certain issues) for fear of the fallout.
> 
> I've tried stomping on my own transparency to correct this, but it isn't working well. Too late, the cat is out of the bag.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> I too have trouble reading my SO. Sometimes he is very obvious and overt in what he is thinking and feeling, but other times he deliberately doesn't reveal. If I watch closely, there are "tells", but even these can be hard to read.
> 
> He wants to preserve his opaquenss on certain things, for me just to pretend it's not there and leave him alone. Which is what I mostly do, except for a few blowouts on the issue. But it quietly eats me up inside. And meanwhile, he thinks we're doing great.
> 
> It's a bit fvcked really.


A_A:

Is he that much of a catch?

Or do you believe yourself to not be?

It seems like every post I read from you screams (behind the words) one or both of these things.

FWIW, I hope I am misreading it.


----------



## john117

Maybe my style of thinking is straight out of the loonie house but I find it trivially easy to read most people I interact with. Keep track of your interactions and try to develop some simple behavioral models for those people. As you interact more, add parameters and adjust.

Hasn't failed me in decades. But you have to observe and track.


----------



## Duguesclin

John, do you feel that being transparent would place you in a weaker position, and therefore would make you lose in the long run? Do you view life as a chess game, where you need to hide your intent to better surprise your opponent?

Transparency can only work if you see the world, or at least the relationship with your spouse, as a collaboration. It is the sunshine. You do not have to have it, but it sure makes life more pleasant.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Maybe my style of thinking is straight out of the loonie house but I find it trivially easy to read most people I interact with. Keep track of your interactions and try to develop some simple behavioral models for those people. As you interact more, add parameters and adjust.
> 
> Hasn't failed me in decades. But you have to observe and track.


With all due respect, John, it is one thing to think we have people figured and another to actually have them figured.

For example, I've seen you boast before how well you can read, predict, and control your wife's behaviour. Yet you still seem surprised at the way she responds to you. 

And from where I sit, the explanation for these responses is trivially easy to understand. Indeed, if you manipulated, controlled and gamed me the same way you do to your wife, I would respond in the same sorts of ways. 

But hearing this sort of thing from me and even other women here on TAM in no way gives you any insight because, apparently, you already have her pegged.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> A_A:
> 
> Is he that much of a catch?
> 
> Or do you believe yourself to not be?
> 
> It seems like every post I read from you screams (behind the words) one or both of these things.
> 
> FWIW, I hope I am misreading it.


Well, I guess we can't all be "catches".

Is he that much of a catch? I've had other women tell me I'm lucky, but ultimately "on paper", probably not. Not that I care so much about these things.

And what it seems that I have to accept is that I'm not "all that". Even though it is a bit crushing to the ego.


----------



## autopilot

always_alone said:


> Well, I guess we can't all be "catches".
> 
> Is he that much of a catch? I've had other women tell me I'm lucky, but ultimately "on paper", probably not. Not that I care so much about these things.
> 
> And what it seems that I have to accept is that I'm not "all that". Even though it is a bit crushing to the ego.


Ok, A_A, don't sell yourself short. Remember that he chose YOU. You may not feel like you're "all that" but you are the one who caught his eye.

None of us are who we were because life gets in the way and we get out of shape, maybe gain some weight, stop taking the time to really take care of our physical appearances. Maintaining our physical appearances takes a lot of time and effort (especially if you're trying to juggle a household along with your life). But, let's face it, it's a losing battle.

But, you do have a lot to offer. Improve your self-esteem through bettering yourself in new ways. Take a "spa day" or two, start or re-establish a hobby that your enjoy, start exercising more, or just turn over a new leaf. Or just look in the mirror and see the beauty that you currently possess. Whatever you do, know that you are "all that" and can be again to your husband (if you feel that you aren't).:smile2:


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Well, I guess we can't all be "catches".
> 
> Is he that much of a catch? I've had other women tell me I'm lucky, but ultimately "on paper", probably not. Not that I care so much about these things.
> 
> And what it seems that I have to accept is that I'm not "all that". Even though it is a bit crushing to the ego.


A_A:

Maybe you aren't to all men.

But it seems to me that you should most certainly be to him.


----------



## john117

AA, you missed the boat.

I have been surprised by my wife exactly once in the last few years. Meaning I did not predict the right response.

What you refer to is not being able to understand why a particular decision is made or not made.... that is, using rationality as the guiding principle. There's a huge difference between the two. 

I can predict irrational behavior with a good model but I can't explain it...


----------



## john117

Duguesclin said:


> John, do you feel that being transparent would place you in a weaker position, and therefore would make you lose in the long run? Do you view life as a chess game, where you need to hide your intent to better surprise your opponent?
> 
> 
> 
> Transparency can only work if you see the world, or at least the relationship with your spouse, as a collaboration. It is the sunshine. You do not have to have it, but it sure makes life more pleasant.



With all due respect Dug, I would play my violin but it's at the shop as we speak 

Transparency or lack thereof is a short term issue, not a long term issue. If someone needs - in the long term - transparency instead of learning about their spouse by discussion, interaction, observation, behavior, and the occasional experimental psychology play or two... They need to work harder.

Everything is a collaboration but just like at work, are you always 100% transparent with your peers / direct reports / boss??? With your kids? 

If you are, you're rare indeed. I'm a bit more reserved.


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> With all due respect Dug, I would play my violin but it's at the shop as we speak
> 
> Transparency or lack thereof is a short term issue, not a long term issue. If someone needs - in the long term - transparency instead of learning about their spouse by discussion, interaction, observation, behavior, and the occasional experimental psychology play or two... They need to work harder.
> 
> Everything is a collaboration but just like at work, are you always 100% transparent with your peers / direct reports / boss??? With your kids?
> 
> If you are, you're rare indeed. I'm a bit more reserved.


John, it is not that I need transparency from my wife. She feels the need to be transparent with me. She simply cannot hide her feelings.

I have been pretty transparent at work. It is just the way I am. I have at times gotten some grief about it, but in the long run it has helped me build some strong relationships.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Myself & Husband had a funny exchange tonight.. I won't go into what we were talking about.. just that I can be a little too "Radically honest" at times.. ..he let me know tonight I was digging myself a hole & said "throw away the shovel"... ha ha.. he was right.. I was getting a bit carried away.. where it wasn't even necessary.. just a "What if?" scenario...nothing we were personally dealing with & hopefully never will. 

Before landing on this forum.. I never heard of >> The Policy of Radical Honesty though this was how I lived & loved pretty much.. I wanted the same from my man. 

Yet there is a LINE .... in the past few days.. I've come to realize something... I think I did our sons a dis-service to teach them "always be open & honest" in a relationship...there are some very delicate areas... once you cross a line with a female... there may be no going back.. 

*Example*: Have a Girlfriend, she's crazy about you...yet you start having feelings for another girl, a friend you've had a long time ....torn between 2 women... By God.. don't tell the one you are with!! (Pray about it, talk to your guy friends, deal with it internally -make your choice, walk in it - but don't speak desire of another woman to your GF!).... from that moment on.. her trust will be broken........"How could he, why am I not enough?"..."he can't love me if he is thinking about her !?"...this will plague a woman.. 

Talking to a friend about a son's breakup...the ex's behavior, the fallout, things she said in the aftermath ...also how HE contributed to their issues... he was dumb enough to do this 2 yrs ago.... when I spoke of this - it all made sense to her....telling me how she would never get over hearing something like that.. she insists his GF lost trust & *didn't feel loved *after that ....causing her to be very jealous...and a slow decline in her feelings..that she never fully got back.. even if he thought they worked through this....something was irrevocably lost to her ... 

Not sure how others would feel .... I never considered this angle myself.. just felt -"Yeah they worked through it"...got over that hump.. they are good !... but after hearing how strongly my friend felt ...... Hmmmm.. what if I was in those shoes...and learned this...how would I react, how would that affect me ?? 

I think outside of wanting to BE with another - if one's heart pines for a co-worker, ex lover , etc (wouldn't THIS be the most soul crushing ??)... I think so, it's why infidelity IS like a death, the ultimate rejection...some feel emotional is a bad -if not worse than a sexual betrayal.. 

Everything else seems *so small* in comparison... no matter the issue.. if at your core you know & feel accepted, deeply loved, by this person before you, their #1 fan despite our faults, differences & theirs...it just makes it easier to openly share and be authentic in all things.. knowing you both care -you're going to work it out...no matter what !


----------



## autopilot

john117 said:


> Transparency or lack thereof is a short term issue, not a long term issue. If someone needs - in the long term - transparency instead of learning about their spouse by discussion, interaction, observation, behavior...


Uh, John, I can do all those things and be completely ingenuine about it. You could "learn" about me and I could be just as fake as can be and yet you would think that you "knew" me.

From the sound of your comments, you appear to be an expert about giving false impressions.

Transparency is all about honesty. It is not a short term issue but at the very core of being true to yourself and your spouse.


----------



## john117

Duguesclin said:


> John, it is not that I need transparency from my wife. She feels the need to be transparent with me. She simply cannot hide her feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been pretty transparent at work. It is just the way I am. I have at times gotten some grief about it, but in the long run it has helped me build some strong relationships.



Hiding feelings isn't quite the same as being transparent. Think fact transparency - Not feelings transparency.

I can put up a pretty good poker face and hide my emotions that way, or I can chuck then out like there's no tomorrow (J2 style), or I can put different responses out based on what's best (for whom? ) and so on. 

Let's say you hook up with a woman that has a cemetery's worth of skeletons in her tractor trailer closet. I would be far more concerned about transparency of facts - which generally don't change - vs feelings which can change.


----------



## john117

autopilot said:


> Uh, John, I can do all those things and be completely ingenuine about it. You could "learn" about me and I could be just as fake as can be and yet you would think that you "knew" me.
> 
> 
> 
> From the sound of your comments, you appear to be an expert about giving false impressions.
> 
> 
> 
> Transparency is all about honesty. It is not a short term issue but at the very core of being true to yourself and your spouse.



I'm pretty good in reading humans. A good part of my job involves just that. 

Faking it works briefly but not long term. At work we have some pretty decent instrumentation to help us but we don't get to interact with our guinea pig users for years on end. With our spouse we do.

It's not a question of being honest or not. I am honest most of the time. It's just that there are many aspects of life that are either personal, esoteric, or don't cares in the grand scheme of things.

I own a couple properties in my birth country. They're outside marriage assets. Why should I bother my wife with details when it does not concern her? The properties are money neutral - no profit, no loss - and require no attention from her. Both properties are in my name with my kids as beneficiaries. That's a don't care.

Personal... Have I told her anything about my 99% upbringing? Ie dirt poor? Very little. Not that she cares. We have different philosophies in life so no matter how I explain to her what it means to eat potatoes and eggs for days in a row she won't get it.

Esoteric... I think in strange ways.if you've ever watched "Minority Report", I've always taken life like a game of chess. Crazy, I know. Crazy enough to get a PhD in the stuff. Does she need to know that?


----------



## autopilot

John,

I'm very good at reading people, too. It's also a requirement of my profession...theft, embezzlement, etc are my specialty. Seemingly innocuous questions lead me right where I want with unsuspecting individuals. My biggest clues come from body language rather than what they actually say.

Although I don't share your beliefs about this, I find you to be an incredibly interesting person. I would love to sit down and have a conversation with you sometime.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

john117 said:


> I'm pretty good in reading humans. A good part of my job involves just that.
> 
> Faking it works briefly but not long term. At work we have some pretty decent instrumentation to help us but we don't get to interact with our guinea pig users for years on end. With our spouse we do.
> 
> It's not a question of being honest or not. I am honest most of the time. It's just that there are many aspects of life that are either personal, esoteric, or don't cares in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> I own a couple properties in my birth country. They're outside marriage assets. *Why should I bother my wife with details when it does not concern her? The properties are money neutral - no profit, no loss - and require no attention from her. Both properties are in my name with my kids as beneficiaries. That's a don't care.*
> 
> Personal... *Have I told her anything about my 99% upbringing? Ie dirt poor? Very little. Not that she cares. We have different philosophies in life so no matter how I explain to her what it means to eat potatoes and eggs for days in a row she won't get it.*
> 
> Esoteric... I think in strange ways.if you've ever watched "Minority Report", I've always taken life like a game of chess. Crazy, I know. Crazy enough to get a PhD in the stuff.* Does she need to know that?*


If your wife has always been fine/ happy/ content with your not being one to share all that much.. feeling many things are just not worth a conversation ..... then You 2 are compatible this way ...Nothing wrong with it ! 

When I did my Transparency  thread.. I had replies like yours.. some think those of us who like to do all this sharing.. is probably off our rockers a bit.. but if that's what makes us happy.. 

Personally I very much enjoy hearing about someone's past, how they grew up, what they have learned along the way.. the hardships, the triumphs... I think we learn a lot about life and each other listening to each others stories..

Even the properties.. it'd be worth a conversation.. some details.. even if outside the marriage assets.. I guess my feelings is .. "why not speak of it?" .... where as some feel .."WHY" ?


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> AA, you missed the boat.
> 
> I have been surprised by my wife exactly once in the last few years. Meaning I did not predict the right response.
> 
> What you refer to is not being able to understand why a particular decision is made or not made.... that is, using rationality as the guiding principle. There's a huge difference between the two.
> 
> I can predict irrational behavior with a good model but I can't explain it...


What do I know, I'm just an Internet troll? I still find it interesting, though, that what you find baffling is trivially easy for me to understand.

I know you think you have your wife figured because you can predict and control her, and are not open to any alternate views on the matter. But being able to manipulate is not the same as understanding. 

And I suspect your unwillingness to ever connect with her is surely one reason why she is utterly indifferent to connecting with you.


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yet there is a LINE .... in the past few days.. I've come to realize something... I think I did our sons a dis-service to teach them "always be open & honest" in a relationship...there are some very delicate areas... once you cross a line with a female... there may be no going back..
> 
> *Example*: Have a Girlfriend, she's crazy about you...yet you start having feelings for another girl, a friend you've had a long time ....torn between 2 women... By God.. don't tell the one you are with!! (Pray about it, talk to your guy friends, deal with it internally -make your choice, walk in it - but don't speak desire of another woman to your GF!).... from that moment on.. her trust will be broken........"How could he, why am I not enough?"..."he can't love me if he is thinking about her !?"...this will plague a woman..


I know lots of people lie about this stuff, indeed it is often hard to convince someone to be open and honest when they have something to lose.

But this, IMHO, is precisely when it is most important. If my SO is pining after someone else, I absolutely want to know because I absolutely deserve the option of pulling myself out of the competition. Why should he feel justified in waffling around wrestling with his feelings while stringing along not just one but two people? It is the height of selfishness, and this idea that he is "protecting" them with his secrecy is, well, a little too convenient. Sounds to me like he is protecting himself.

When I have doubts about my relationship, I express them because I think he has a right to know where he stands with me.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> What do I know, I'm just an Internet troll? I still find it interesting, though, that what you find baffling is trivially easy for me to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you think you have your wife figured because you can predict and control her, and are not open to any alternate views on the matter. But being able to manipulate is not the same as understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> And I suspect your unwillingness to ever connect with her is surely one reason why she is utterly indifferent to connecting with you.



You're not an internet troll - relax. 

You fail to understand a lot of basic things about psychology. Not unexpected. Being able to predict and manipulate on things material does not imply control. It implies ability to make material decisions easier. 

But emotions? My goodness. How do you manipulate emotions of someone whose emotions are either apathy or rage? I suggest you read what I write instead of arguing for the sake of arguing. 

I'm willing to connect but you must have missed the lecture that stated that she's incapable of connecting with anyone - at any level - be it myself, her kids, her family, friends... 

Kindly understand each case study and it's unique characteristics before proclaiming verdicts. It tends to work better.


----------



## john117

I find it remarkably funny that America, the land of rugged individualism and privacy and independence above everything, is so into transparency in relations. In contrast, other more "secretive" cultures - the same ones who have no problem living on top of each other in apartments or having salaries or grades posted like we did - tend to downplay transparency 

I think it really boils down to a pragmatic marriage as business view vs marriage as an act of love, feed the unicorn kind of thing. Or, an issue where people get into relationships with not-quite-good-matches and require all kinds of tech support to communicate and get along. 

In reality the answer is somewhere in the middle but the bottom line is a marriage is not a union as much as it is a partnership. The fact that so many young people reject marriage should require a careful reconsideration of the dynamics of marriage.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> You're not an internet troll - relax.
> 
> You fail to understand a lot of basic things about psychology. Not unexpected. Being able to predict and manipulate on things material does not imply control. It implies ability to make material decisions easier.
> 
> But emotions? My goodness. How do you manipulate emotions of someone whose emotions are either apathy or rage? I suggest you read what I write instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.
> .


John, I am not devoid of understanding of basic psychology. I just do not share your behaviorist and rationalistic assumptions.

And I quite understand that your wife is struggling with mental illness and your marriage is likely beyond repair.

But the goal isn't to manipulate emotions. Or control them. All this does is generate more rage or more apathy.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I find it remarkably funny that America, the land of rugged individualism and privacy and independence above everything, is so into transparency in relations. In contrast, other more "secretive" cultures - the same ones who have no problem living on top of each other in apartments or having salaries or grades posted like we did - tend to downplay transparency


The American attachment to rugged individualism is a classic case of bad faith. Ultimately, it's a culture that prizes conformity above all else.

Cultures that prize conformity, OTOH, are much more tolerant of eccentricity and other foibles of human nature.

At least IMHO.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> The American attachment to rugged individualism is a classic case of bad faith. Ultimately, it's a culture that prizes conformity above all else.
> 
> Cultures that prize conformity, OTOH, are much more tolerant of eccentricity and other foibles of human nature.
> 
> At least IMHO.


Could you elaborate, with examples, please, aa?


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> I find it remarkably funny that America, the land of rugged individualism and privacy and independence above everything, is so into transparency in relations. In contrast, other more "secretive" cultures - the same ones who have no problem living on top of each other in apartments or having salaries or grades posted like we did - tend to downplay transparency
> 
> I think it really boils down to a pragmatic marriage as business view vs marriage as an act of love, feed the unicorn kind of thing. Or, an issue where people get into relationships with not-quite-good-matches and require all kinds of tech support to communicate and get along.
> 
> In reality the answer is somewhere in the middle but the bottom line is a marriage is not a union as much as it is a partnership. The fact that so many young people reject marriage should require a careful reconsideration of the dynamics of marriage.


You know people do a lot of controlling, managing, snooping, and manipulating and call it transparency. The fact is that transparency is only good if both partners want to accept each other and have nothing to hide. So in that regard maybe the good kind of transparency is more often a symptom of an already solid relationship. Even in cases where people learn to be more transparent after some relationship turmoil, it only works if they both buy into wanting to except each other.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> *I know lots of people lie about this stuff, indeed it is often hard to convince someone to be open and honest when they have something to lose.*


 It's a shame.. but so true.. few live by their own ethics in this...



> But this, IMHO, is precisely when it is most important. If my SO is pining after someone else,* I absolutely want to know because I absolutely deserve the option of pulling myself out of the competition. * Why should he feel justified in waffling around wrestling with his feelings while stringing along not just one but two people? It is the height of selfishness, and this idea that he is "protecting" them with his secrecy is, well, a little too convenient. Sounds to me like he is protecting himself.
> 
> *When I have doubts about my relationship, I express them because I think he has a right to know where he stands with me.*


I'm like you on this.. Believe me .... and I always thought it was for the best.. but given what I have seen in the aftermath of a bad break up ....it's caused me to question some things.. 

In son's situation... it was a divide right down the middle.. it wasn't that he wanted to be with this other girl for sure... he was confused, yes struggling... he opened up that conversation to his GF.. 

She did not handle this well at all...she trusted him , thought she was his everything....he stayed with her.. cut off all communication with the other..... they seemed to get over that hump ....but looking back... I don't think she ever really did...her trust was shattered ....at this point she felt she cared , loved him more.... (she even had a conversation with me about it last year after Thanksgiving)...should she have left him then...maybe so !...

*He was that honest guy*... well..

She got his azz good.. as she eventually dumped him for one of his friends months ago.... I guess she hung on long enough till she found someone better ...who gave her more time, attention... (which I can understand frankly)... I'm beginning to think she wanted to stab him in the back pushing the blade in deeper & moving it around .... a vindictiveness there to get back ...

Just in how she faked it, "played him" till the very end.. 

It was both their choices to remain.. but damage was clearly done.. He tried so hard getting her back...devastating watching him try to find his footing again.. He was angry, not to mention the blatant betrayal of his friend he thought so highly of, there were tears, he raged, he was depressed...he rebounded.. that blew up (as I expected it would)... 

Well he was honest.. what did he get in return... I think she over compensated.. spoke how she wanted it to be...she puffed him up so high, he could have Flew......had everyone fooled ....including me....to where I was taking HER SIDE against my own son ! Why would a girl go on & on & on for over a year speaking sweet everythings when she has lost "that lovin' feeling"... can anyone explain this to me. 

Seeing this side of some women...he's better off... I'm happy it all went to hell frankly... the sooner the better...cause her way of dealing was Fcked up .... better to have a good fight and tell him what for , over how she handled this.... but again.. She might have just wanted Sweet Revenge. 

We're never going to know for sure the WHY's....no closure.. only speculation in the aftermath. 

They say love & hate runs in the same river.. 

The point is.. sometimes we just CAN'T handle the honesty...and people will hold it against us..

In hindsight.. Hmmmm.. not so sure he should have been so OPEN...but dealt with it- inside himself.. made his choice and not looked back. 

That's where I am coming from AA.. 

But I am like you.. I want to be "In the Knowing"...If something was off, something I just couldn't lay down...I'd seek to unearth what's happening.. why we're at a disconnect....to find our peace again...till I was satisfied or he wanted rid of me.. whatever came 1st....

Thankfully I've never had to get this way with my husband ....he's always given freely... 

And yes...certain things SHOULD be deal breakers ...


----------



## jld

SA, I don't think your son's gf was trying to hurt him. If anything, she may have been trying to fight the feelings for the new guy for a long time, trying to focus on your son's great qualities. 

But in the end, the one that better met her needs prevailed. Not "the better one," but "the one that better met her needs."

Your son is a wonderful young man, SA. He really is. My son has remarked several times on what a confident young man you have there. 

Your son is still mourning his former gf. It will take time. But he will emerge stronger and wiser for the experience. 


One more thought. I think it is great to give genuine compliments. I love telling people what I sincerely admire about them. Words are an important way I show love, just like they are an important way I receive love.

But it is risky to seek out or rely on validation from others. People's feelings can rise and fall and rise again.

It is much safer to rely on ourselves for validation. It is safer to be in a relationship that is less based on emotion and more based on mutual values and goals and natural compatibility. 

I think someday your son will look back and see that this was all for the best. It was hard, but it was a gift. Rejection almost always is.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Words of wisdom JLD.. I hope it all plays out as you have written.....that her rejection will be seen as a "gift".. .feeling this someday.

We've had a difficult 2 weeks with him -when he saw the ex & his back stabbing friend together hand in hand at a football game, then at a pizza shop we all gathered after with the band....this unleashed an intense well of emotions - to the point we thought he'd need counseling... 

Ironically it was the words from the girl he almost left the ex for 2 yrs ago...it was HER words late one night that seemed to flip a switch getting him out of his FUNK ....he shared this with us days ago.. 

Maybe he will end up with this girl someday -after all these screw up's he's making... 

What was the lesson in all this.. I don't know.. do things happen for a reason...should we have done things differently... he's got to forgive himself..and see his 1st wasn't the end all...some things just aren't meant to be...no matter how many promises were made. 

Young love can be so foolish.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Could you elaborate, with examples, please, aa?


Sure, this is just what I have observed.

In American culture, people are said to be individuals, and are encouraged to "express their individuality", but in practice they do so by wearing the same clothes, acting in "socially acceptable" ways, following the same dreams. Conformity is heavily rewarded, if you "fit in" you are more likely to be popular, accepted, admired. Actual individualism is often penalized, eccentrics are often ostracized or ridiculed, and people who stand out are put under pressure to adjust themselves, the better to "fit in", be accepted, fit the standards of what is socially considered to be desirable and attractive.

In Asian cultures, conformity is claimed to be prized, and consideration of others takes precedence over individual desires. If you ask a Japanese person what they like or are like, they will almost universally say "I'm typical Japanese, I like what everyone else does.". But dig a little deeper, and there is a lot of very eccentric people, who are not at all conforming, and yet these people are tolerated with ease, as just a different expression of the "typical".

It's a bit tough to really explain well, as of course the stereotypes and expressed values do hold true in some respects. But in terms of the way social pressures are exerted and acceptance of non-conformity is very different.

For example, this guy I knew had very long hair, was an artist (with no day job), wore flowing robes, 6" high geta, painted his toenails pink and was a "typical Japanese". The same guy in the US would most certainly be quickly labeled a freak. And while he may find himself a community of freaks who were happy to accept him, he would be in a community of other freaks, not "typical".


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Words of wisdom JLD.. I hope it all plays out as you have written.....that her rejection will be seen as a "gift".. .feeling this someday.
> 
> We've had a difficult 2 weeks with him -when he saw the ex & his back stabbing friend together hand in hand at a football game, then at a pizza shop we all gathered after with the band....this unleashed an intense well of emotions - to the point we thought he'd need counseling...
> 
> Ironically it was the words from the girl he almost left the ex for 2 yrs ago...it was HER words late one night that seemed to flip a switch getting him out of his FUNK ....he shared this with us days ago..
> 
> Maybe he will end up with this girl someday -after all these screw up's he's making...
> 
> What was the lesson in all this.. I don't know.. do things happen for a reason...should we have done things differently... he's got to forgive himself..and see his 1st wasn't the end all...some things just aren't meant to be...no matter how many promises were made.
> 
> *Young love can be so foolish*.


I am skeptical of the value of teen dating. Sometimes it can be great, as for you and Mr. SA. But I think it can take time better used for developing skills that will be needed for the future. 

I don't mean for this to be a t/j on your very interesting thread, MEM. I really appreciate your starting this discussion on the very important subject of transparency.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Sure, this is just what I have observed.
> 
> In American culture, people are said to be individuals, and are encouraged to "express their individuality", but in practice they do so by wearing the same clothes, acting in "socially acceptable" ways, following the same dreams. Conformity is heavily rewarded, if you "fit in" you are more likely to be popular, accepted, admired. Actual individualism is often penalized, eccentrics are often ostracized or ridiculed, and people who stand out are put under pressure to adjust themselves, the better to "fit in", be accepted, fit the standards of what is socially considered to be desirable and attractive.
> 
> In Asian cultures, conformity is claimed to be prized, and consideration of others takes precedence over individual desires. If you ask a Japanese person what they like or are like, they will almost universally say "I'm typical Japanese, I like what everyone else does.". But dig a little deeper, and there is a lot of very eccentric people, who are not at all conforming, and yet these people are tolerated with ease, as just a different expression of the "typical".
> 
> It's a bit tough to really explain well, as of course the stereotypes and expressed values do hold true in some respects. But in terms of the way social pressures are exerted and acceptance of non-conformity is very different.
> 
> For example, this guy I knew had very long hair, was an artist (with no day job), wore flowing robes, 6" high geta, painted his toenails pink and was a "typical Japanese". The same guy in the US would most certainly be quickly labeled a freak. And while he may find himself a community of freaks who were happy to accept him, he would be in a community of other freaks, not "typical".


I don't know that I am following you very well, aa. When I think of highly conformist cultures, tolerance does not really come to mind. I am thinking of gays in strict Islamic societies, for example.

Perhaps you can further enlighten me?


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I don't know that I am following you very well, aa. When I think of highly conformist cultures, tolerance does not really come to mind. I am thinking of gays in strict Islamic societies, for example.
> 
> Perhaps you can further enlighten me?


It's an interesting conversation, and I would love to jump in, but I really really do not want to jack MEM's lovely thread with it. Perhaps some other thread, some other time?

Let me just say that I understand what you are getting at and am not trying to discount it. But I also think it useful to distinguish between politically controlled, imposed, conformity and that of day to day social pressures and acceptance..

In a place where you quite literally face the death penalty for "improper" dress, odds are you will dress "properly".

Yet, at the same time, these authoritarian expectations are not necessarily realized in the everyday social norms and pressures. Just watch women on, for example, a flight from Riyadh to Amsterdam. Or better still, look at what they are doing in their own countries, risking life and limb to build underground schools or advance women's rights.

I don't know anything about the gay communities in those countries, per se, but I do know that some of the strictest countries are also some of the biggest consumers of pornography in the world.

On the surface is one thing, but underneath, there is much, much more.


----------



## jld

I think that will be a fascinating thread, aa. Looking forward to it.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

This is a perfect example of a situation where, if you felt more at ease, we could have a fairly interesting exchange. 

Because your financial disagreements with J2 are driven by a mix of: 
- Engineering / optimization (the cost of keeping a 6000 ft^2 home)
- Fear of poverty

They both feel equally valid to you. But I can assure you, those two overlapping patterns feel very different to J2. 

Your recent conflict over her replacement phone is a perfect example. Here's a partner who contributes somewhere close to half of the income in your financial Eco system. 

She wants a Samsung Note 5, which she'll likely keep for what? At least 3 years? Would your 'rental' idea have saved $200-$300? Sure. But for the two of you, this should be a noise level decision. 

I'm 50-50 that you'll lay this at her door. If she was a 'good wife', you wouldn't be so - umm - frugal with her. But that's not typically what drives this sort of stuff. 

So I'm guessing that your financial background is a lot more transparent to J2 than you might guess. 

And she held off on upgrading her phone, to avoid upsetting you. 

A lot of transparency is behavioral. It just comes from paying attention. 




john117 said:


> I'm pretty good in reading humans. A good part of my job involves just that.
> 
> Faking it works briefly but not long term. At work we have some pretty decent instrumentation to help us but we don't get to interact with our guinea pig users for years on end. With our spouse we do.
> 
> It's not a question of being honest or not. I am honest most of the time. It's just that there are many aspects of life that are either personal, esoteric, or don't cares in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> I own a couple properties in my birth country. They're outside marriage assets. Why should I bother my wife with details when it does not concern her? The properties are money neutral - no profit, no loss - and require no attention from her. Both properties are in my name with my kids as beneficiaries. That's a don't care.
> 
> Personal... Have I told her anything about my 99% upbringing? Ie dirt poor? Very little. Not that she cares. We have different philosophies in life so no matter how I explain to her what it means to eat potatoes and eggs for days in a row she won't get it.
> 
> Esoteric... I think in strange ways.if you've ever watched "Minority Report", I've always taken life like a game of chess. Crazy, I know. Crazy enough to get a PhD in the stuff. Does she need to know that?


----------



## john117

Ah, without the details it's just not the same. The primary reason was her fear of learning another phone; the second was her fear of not getting the Note 5 in March (unfounded) and the third was to simply go against me on principle. 

New phone fear trumped the other two, never mind she would still have asked me to fix the Note 2 and leave the 5 in her drawer.

I mean...

In July J2 got a nice email from her corporate IT asking if she wants a laptop refresh (new). She clicks OK and a week later a brand new Thinkpad arrives. It's November and she powers it up once a week to verify it runs but has not used it. I migrated her apps and data (the beauty of home workers) and she still will not do it. 

You can't win with people like these. I migrated my stuff to my new personal Thinkpad (DD23's hand me down sigh) in 3 days.


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> Ah, without the details it's just not the same. The primary reason was her fear of learning another phone; the second was her fear of not getting the Note 5 in March (unfounded) and the third was to simply go against me on principle.
> 
> New phone fear trumped the other two, never mind she would still have asked me to fix the Note 2 and leave the 5 in her drawer.
> 
> I mean...
> 
> In July J2 got a nice email from her corporate IT asking if she wants a laptop refresh (new). She clicks OK and a week later a brand new Thinkpad arrives. It's November and she powers it up once a week to verify it runs but has not used it. I migrated her apps and data (the beauty of home workers) and she still will not do it.
> 
> You can't win with people like these. I migrated my stuff to my new personal Thinkpad (DD23's hand me down sigh) in 3 days.


Lol. It's as if she's speaking to us through you John.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> I agree, transparency often lacks symmetry.


So, thinking on this further, and while reading through some other TAM threads, it seems as though for the most part transparency is something we want from our spouses, even demand from our spouses, but not so much something we want to give them.

I think in a lot of cases, transparency doesn't have much to do with honesty, learning about each other, acceptance or trust. It has to do with control, and leveraging advantage. 

This is, I think, the mechanical transparency you mentioned in your OP, and it makes sense that it would be one-sided.

The type of transparency I would prefer, on the other hand, would be more symmetrical.


----------



## john117

Thundarr said:


> Lol. It's as if she's speaking to us through you John.



I hope so


----------



## MEM2020

AA,
The place we have the most symmetrical transparency is - in bed. 

It's easy to underestimate how important the psychology is. Easy to ever estimate how important the physicality is. 



always_alone said:


> So, thinking on this further, and while reading through some other TAM threads, it seems as though for the most part transparency is something we want from our spouses, even demand from our spouses, but not so much something we want to give them.
> 
> I think in a lot of cases, transparency doesn't have much to do with honesty, learning about each other, acceptance or trust. It has to do with control, and leveraging advantage.
> 
> This is, I think, the mechanical transparency you mentioned in your OP, and it makes sense that it would be one-sided.
> 
> The type of transparency I would prefer, on the other hand, would be more symmetrical.


----------



## MEM2020

You can 'demand it' all you want. But if your partner doesn't cooperate - what then? 

Besides, in my experience, demanding intimacy tends to be counterproductive. 

I remember a couple times - M2 feeling a bit pressured on this point. 

After I spent some time learning to interpret micro expressions, I started saying stuff to M2. Playfully I'd say: what you really meant was ....... 

She firmly asked me to get out of her head. Said she was entitled to the privacy of her thoughts, and if she wanted to share them, would express that sentiment by speaking. So I stopped. I don't mean I stopped reading her general affect. That's just being engaged. What I mean is I stopped violating her privacy by reaching into her head and then saying what she was thinking. 

The second time was when I asked her a question she really didn't want to answer. And as she got furious, I just held up my hands in surrender and said: ok, don't have to talk about that if you don't want to. 

So yeah - I'm kind of big on this being a voluntary thing. 




always_alone said:


> So, thinking on this further, and while reading through some other TAM threads, it seems as though for the most part transparency is something we want from our spouses, even demand from our spouses, but not so much something we want to give them.
> 
> I think in a lot of cases, transparency doesn't have much to do with honesty, learning about each other, acceptance or trust. It has to do with control, and leveraging advantage.
> 
> This is, I think, the mechanical transparency you mentioned in your OP, and it makes sense that it would be one-sided.
> 
> The type of transparency I would prefer, on the other hand, would be more symmetrical.


----------



## ConanHub

MEM11363 said:


> You can 'demand it' all you want. But if your partner doesn't cooperate - what then? QUOTE]
> 
> I just give her a spanking!
> 
> I don't take no for an answer!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

I think trying to demand transparency, like demanding in general, is controlling. I wonder how much heartfelt sharing goes on when people feel like someone is trying to control them. 

Earning a person's trust is the way to invite transparency. 

Dug did not expect transparency from me. He likely expected courtesy, social conformity. I think he would say today that he got something much more valuable. And that would not have happened if his character were not trustworthy.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> You can 'demand it' all you want. But if your partner doesn't cooperate - what then?
> 
> Besides, in my experience, demanding intimacy tends to be counterproductive.
> 
> I remember a couple times - M2 feeling a bit pressured on this point.


The more you say about M2 here, the more surprised I am that you describe her as the "transparent one". I've noted similar before, but in these two stories, it sure sounds a lot more like a door slamming than a window opening.

I "demanded" transparency a couple of times from my spouse. Not particularly proud of this, but I went all stealth on him and looked at what he was actually up to, as opposed to what he said he was up to. Turns out, my guess was better than his word, and it was then that I realized that he will say whatever crap he wants when the spotlight is shining on him. Means squat.

This is no doubt what john's getting at when he dismisses the value of "interrogation".

At the same time, I sometimes wonder if he is actually being perfectly transparent with me It's just that I don't particularly want to accept the answer.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I think trying to demand transparency, like demanding in general, is controlling. I wonder how much heartfelt sharing goes on when people feel like someone is trying to control them.
> 
> Earning a person's trust is the way to invite transparency.
> 
> Dug did not expect transparency from me. He likely expected courtesy, social conformity. I think he would say today that he got something much more valuable. And that would not have happened if his character were not trustworthy.


Is Dug as transparent with you as you are with him? And eiher way, would you want him to be more (or less) so?


----------



## always_alone

ConanHub said:


> I just give her a spanking!
> 
> I don't take no for an answer!


Okay, I know how you meant this, at least I think I do, but I can't help but comment because even though I think you meant to be playful, this made me shudder.

I mean really? Hitting and domination and power plays and control? This is how you extract your "connection"?

So glad I don't have to put up with that at least.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Is Dug as transparent with you as you are with him? And eiher way, would you want him to be more (or less) so?


I asked him this. He told me he is. He does not hold back from telling me what he thinks.

At the same time, he does not have the emotional range that I do. Rarely takes anything personally. 

He did say that there are times he gets angry with me that, if he waits a few seconds, it subsides. That way, he can look at things more objectively and not speak out of emotion, which would likely mean raising his voice. That would scare me, and he does not want to do that.

We do not have a symmetrical relationship, and do not pretend otherwise. I need to feel like I can look up to a man, and I cannot fake it. I cannot "carve out a space for a man to be a leader," or anything resembling that. If I did not truly feel I could look up to my husband, I would not be attracted. We would not have stayed together.

I doubt I am the only woman who feels this way. That is why I am always encouraging men to get stronger in themselves. Men on TAM might make a big deal out of having a plan for inviting a woman to dinner, but that has to be the lightest level of "leadership." 

When I say leadership, I mean things like being secure enough in himself that he can hear whatever is in his wife's heart, however it comes out, without getting hung up on the delivery. Secure men know that it is the message that is critical, not the packaging.

Secure men also understand that respect, like trust, is always earned. They do not demand it. Their integrity simply invites it. No control techniques required. 

I don't think secure men think in terms of controlling women, anyway. Their character just naturally inspires both women and men.


----------



## ConanHub

always_alone said:


> Okay, I know how you meant this, at least I think I do, but I can't help but comment because even though I think you meant to be playful, this made me shudder.
> 
> I mean really? Hitting and domination and power plays and control? This is how you extract your "connection"?
> 
> So glad I don't have to put up with that at least.


It was playful and tongue in cheek and a good representation of certain aspects of our marriage.

I know many find it offensive but I am the right kind of man for certain woman. I am definitely the right one for my wife.

My reference to spanking was of course playful. I have never struck a woman in my life and have intervened on behalf of many women who have been abused.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

AA,
I'll break this down for you. 

The first request that I get out of M2's head was actually innocent. She didn't enjoy being treated like a human Rubik's cube. A puzzle for me to frequently solve solely for my own entertainment. 

The second time, she really was concealing something. 

So what. Seriously. 

I'm starting to think that if my expectations/requirements from a partner were the same as yours, I would have ditched M2 when our marriage was difficult 2-4 years ago. 

I believe she's done the best she could, and that's good enough for me. 





always_alone said:


> The more you say about M2 here, the more surprised I am that you describe her as the "transparent one". I've noted similar before, but in these two stories, it sure sounds a lot more like a door slamming than a window opening.
> 
> I "demanded" transparency a couple of times from my spouse. Not particularly proud of this, but I went all stealth on him and looked at what he was actually up to, as opposed to what he said he was up to. Turns out, my guess was better than his word, and it was then that I realized that he will say whatever crap he wants when the spotlight is shining on him. Means squat.
> 
> This is no doubt what john's getting at when he dismisses the value of "interrogation".
> 
> At the same time, I sometimes wonder if he is actually being perfectly transparent with me It's just that I don't particularly want to accept the answer.


----------



## john117

The need for transparency to me sounds a bit like insecurity - I'm not saying it is - but I perceive it as a concern. Grown people should know what they're getting into in a relationship or business transaction and the like. If you can't trust what your spouse tells you and need them to be completely transparent to appease / pacify / comfort / satisfy you... Then you need to rethink your approach. I know I have.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> The need for transparency to me sounds a bit like insecurity - I'm not saying it is - but I perceive it as a concern. Grown people should know what they're getting into in a relationship or business transaction and the like. If you can't trust what your spouse tells you and need them to be completely transparent to appease / pacify / comfort / satisfy you... Then you need to rethink your approach. I know I have.


I know I can't trust what my SO tells me. I honestly don't understand why this wouldn't bother someone.

At any rate it bothers me. Does this mean I'm insecure? Maybe. But it still bothers me.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> I know I can't trust what my SO tells me. I honestly don't understand why this wouldn't bother someone.
> 
> At any rate it bothers me. Does this mean I'm insecure? Maybe. But it still bothers me.


It should.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> The second time, she really was concealing something.
> 
> So what. Seriously.
> 
> I'm starting to think that if my expectations/requirements from a partner were the same as yours, I would have ditched M2 when our marriage was difficult 2-4 years ago.


Yes, you are quite probably right. Or maybe not, because I haven't actually ditched my SO. I just wonder if I should.

It's a good question, though: Why do I care so much that my SO conceals things from me?

It makes me feel like my relationship is fragile and a figment of my imagination. 

I dunno, maybe I'm just naive to what a relationship is. Or stupidly expecting something that can never be. 

I just didn't realize that I would be as alone in a relationship as I was without one. And that maybe without is better,.because at least then I don't have to answer to anyone or factor in their feelings.


----------



## jld

I think it is totally normal to want to be able to trust your partner. It may not go to the level of expecting transparency, but I don't know why it could not. Just depends on the two individuals involved.

If you want transparency, you have to be worthy of it. And your partner has to be capable of it. Not every person is.

I don't expect to know Dug's every thought. Most of them seem pretty technical in nature, or related to cycling. Mostly I just want to be able to share my thoughts. And he is good with that.

Aa, I know we have been over this before, but I really think you need a different SO. And I am sure it gets annoying to hear that.


----------



## MEM2020

That's different. 

I didn't feel alone. I wasn't especially happy with how M2 was acting back then. But I didn't feel like she had bailed out of the marriage or anything. 

She seemed unhappy with me, and was routinely not very nice. But I didn't feel alone. 

As far as transparency goes, sometimes you get more and sometimes less. And when you get it, you don't always like what you hear. 






always_alone said:


> Yes, you are quite probably right. Or maybe not, because I haven't actually ditched my SO. I just wonder if I should.
> 
> It's a good question, though: Why do I care so much that my SO conceals things from me?
> 
> It makes me feel like my relationship is fragile and a figment of my imagination.
> 
> I dunno, maybe I'm just naive to what a relationship is. Or stupidly expecting something that can never be.
> 
> I just didn't realize that I would be as alone in a relationship as I was without one. And that maybe without is better,.because at least then I don't have to answer to anyone or factor in their feelings.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> And when you get it, you don't always like what you hear.


I think this is key. We have to accept to hear things that we disagree with, that hurt us, or make us fearful. We have to be able to hear whatever comes out.

I wish people would not be so afraid of this. It is like people will do anything to avoid pain. 

But pain is often part of growth. Are we so emotionally fragile that we cannot risk hearing some things that might initially hurt us, but eventually heal us?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *john117 said:* The need for transparency to me sounds a bit like insecurity - I'm not saying it is - but I perceive it as a concern. Grown people should know what they're getting into in a relationship or business transaction and the like. *If you can't trust what your spouse tells you and need them to be completely transparent to appease / pacify / comfort / satisfy you... Then you need to rethink your approach.* I know I have.


Before I landed on this forum... I've never really looked at our ways under a microscope ...or that I/ we needed more of this , or where things could have been better.. (the opening up in the bedroom was where we missed each other the most, some things just seemed too taboo- glad an openness here took us by storm- what FUN !)...

Outside of that... we were naturally BIG sharers...I'd explain it as-it's JUST A PART OF WHO WE WERE, and how we lived.. it's communication! Transparency to me is often GREAT ENTERTAINMENT [email protected]

... Why wouldn't we talk about our day...who we ran into, what's new ...the highlights.. how we feel, what ticked us off.. when we come back together after a day's work.... Gawd.. the hilarious antics with some co-workers for instance.. so many laughs throughout the years..







I know my husband has always been happy that I wanted to hear about his day.. and he was always open , welcoming to hear what I had to share to... 

*It was OUR JOY...*

I feel many THINK this is sharing every detail.. *it's NOT..* it's sharing the highlights.. the juicy, the funny, what stirred our emotions, the important financially speaking, anything concerning... if we need a hug.. etc.. it keeps a couple connected.. the communication [email protected]# 

It's good to bounce things off of each other.. seeking to know how they feel.. what they want.. when we do this.. is SHOWS WE VALUE them, their input.. we make choices and live our lives with these things in mind....

I also agree a Giving transparency is not forced in any way.. it's given* BECAUSE we trust *the other wants to hear us, BE a part of our world.. always ...

It is an outpouring of what keeps a couple connected...feeling best friends.. 

*A "controlling" transparency is born out of distrust*, and often times , unfortunately, someone brought that [email protected]# (or past experiences affect new relationships & some have a very hard time trusting again)... when we live like this.. it's like trying to capture the wind.. one will never be satisfied with it...it's not on the same plane as a willing / giving -because a couple just ENJOYS the "openness". 



jld said:


> He did say that there are times he gets angry with me that, if he waits a few seconds, it subsides. That way, he can look at things more objectively and not speak out of emotion, *which would likely mean raising his voice. That would scare me, and he does not want to do that.*


 My husband has raised his voice with me.. probably only a few times ...can't even remember them...but in all honesty...I had it coming !...So it's never scared me.. I can push things if I don't watch my mouth.. 



> We do not have a symmetrical relationship, and do not pretend otherwise. I need to feel like I can look up to a man, and I cannot fake it. I cannot "carve out a space for a man to be a leader," or anything resembling that. If I did not truly feel I could look up to my husband, I would not be attracted. We would not have stayed together.
> 
> I doubt I am the only woman who feels this way. That is why I am always encouraging men to get stronger in themselves. Men on TAM might make a big deal out of having a plan for inviting a woman to dinner, but that has to be the lightest level of "leadership."
> 
> *When I say leadership, I mean things like being secure enough in himself that he can hear whatever is in his wife's heart, however it comes out, without getting hung up on the delivery. Secure men know that it is the message that is critical, not the packaging.*


 In this definition... my husband shines...he can handle anything I throw at him.. even in moments where I was being a little brutal.. he's looked at me.. and told me he knows my heart.... sometimes I think he knows me better than I know myself.. he seems to have more faith in me than I give myself credit for even....but trying to get him to plan a dinner date.. OMG [email protected] if I waited on his lead here.... we'd all starve. He's happy handing all that over to me. 



> *Secure men also understand that respect, like trust, is always earned. They do not demand it. Their integrity simply invites it. No control techniques required. *


 My husband would walk away before he would demand something from me.. Oh he might not like the attitude given... mine or a co-workers for instance.. call us choice words under his breathe...but to demand to get his way.. he doesn't deal like that.. (I just asked him this.. he laughed and agreed)...not that this is how it goes with us.. it doesn't... when I have unruly moments.. I come crawling back eating crow.. as I always feel bad... it's generally ME out of line...but I "make up" well.. He's always been a man of his word, of integrity .... these things stay with us.. 



> *I don't think secure men think in terms of controlling women, anyway. Their character just naturally inspires both women and men*.


 It should inspire those around us.. in our own homes.. hopefully it does..


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> The need for transparency to me sounds a bit like insecurity - I'm not saying it is - but I perceive it as a concern. Grown people should know what they're getting into in a relationship or business transaction and the like. If you can't trust what your spouse tells you and need them to be completely transparent to appease / pacify / comfort / satisfy you... Then you need to rethink your approach. I know I have.


In the extreme it's certainly insecurity and controlling and I don't see it being helpful when it's demanded either. No transparency doesn't make sense either though. Just being respectful in general means some transparency and not just with our spouses. One of my sons floated between my house and other places for a little bit before getting his own place and I asked him to let me know when he's going to be here; to not show up at 2:00am without me expecting him. He's a good kid and is respectful so he did. Another example is if my wife or I are going to get home late we tell each other. It's out of respect and not wanting each other to worry.

I guess my point is that Transparency isn't like a on/off switch. We all have some level of it with our spouses.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> I know I can't trust what my SO tells me. I honestly don't understand why this wouldn't bother someone.
> 
> At any rate it bothers me. Does this mean I'm insecure? Maybe. But it still bothers me.


A_A, honest question here.

Can you not trust your spouse because of HIM, or because of YOU? Would you find it easier to trust another man, or would you still have the same trust issues?


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> A_A, honest question here.
> 
> Can you not trust your spouse because of HIM, or because of YOU? Would you find it easier to trust another man, or would you still have the same trust issues?


Honestly, Fozzy, it's probably a little of column A and a little of column B.

I can't help but think that if his word was consistently true, I would absolutely trust him. Why wouldn't I? But I know that ultimately, he doesn't tell me the truth about all sorts of things.

But I also do find it hard to trust, especially on some things. And given how common and expedient avoiding truth seems to be, I doubt I could ever expect more than I already have.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Are we so emotionally fragile that we cannot risk hearing some things that might initially hurt us, but eventually heal us?


Yes.

And we're not convinced that those things that hurt us will somehow heal us.


----------



## john117

That's where scenarios help - if you play out some scenarios in your head and see if trusting your spouse is critical, important, or not at all then you can separate the chaff from the wheat and only focus on important issues which can be discussed. 

What you want to avoid is global mistrust.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> As far as transparency goes, sometimes you get more and sometimes less. And when you get it, you don't always like what you hear.


This is so true. One way or the other, I've gotten a pretty good understanding of what the reality is. But I absolutely didn't always like what I found.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> That's where scenarios help - if you play out some scenarios in your head and see if trusting your spouse is critical, important, or not at all then you can separate the chaff from the wheat and only focus on important issues which can be discussed.
> 
> What you want to avoid is global mistrust.


In my world, that's not an issue. There are only certain critical issues that he will bother to lie about in the first place. Or that I even care about.

As for discussion, it only gets you so far if all that's said are the "right" things, those meaningless fluff words that mainly aim at making the conversation go away as quickly as possible.


----------



## MEM2020

*Transparency facilitation*

Always,
There's often a lot of communication by proxy in a LTR. The beauty of this is that it doesn't matter at all how close the proxy couple is to you or your partner. They could be as close as your brother or sister in law, Or as remote as a movie star couple you have never and likely will never meet. 

Something happens between the proxy couple. Could be financial infidelity, sexual infidelity, alcohol issues or domestic violence. And your partner says: If ANYBODY ever did that to me, I would do XYZ. This is very real communication. And I'm guessing most of you fully recognize that this is purely an exercise in courtesy. Your partner really means: If YOU did that to me, I would do XYZ. 

Think about how this works. You say: If anyone felt strong desire for another person (not talking affair, simply the desire itself), I would leave them so fast their head would spin. 

You have now permanently closed the door for transparency on that topic. 

And I am not being judgemental here. Just descriptive. 








always_alone said:


> In my world, that's not an issue. There are only certain critical issues that he will bother to lie about in the first place. Or that I even care about.
> 
> As for discussion, it only gets you so far if all that's said are the "right" things, those meaningless fluff words that mainly aim at making the conversation go away as quickly as possible.


----------



## jld

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> There's often a lot of communication by proxy in a LTR. The beauty of this is that it doesn't matter at all how close the proxy couple is to you or your partner. They could be as close as your brother or sister in law, Or as remote as a movie star couple you have never and likely will never meet.
> 
> Something happens between the proxy couple. Could be financial infidelity, sexual infidelity, alcohol issues or domestic violence. And your partner says: If ANYBODY ever did that to me, I would do XYZ. This is very real communication. And I'm guessing most of you fully recognize that this is purely an exercise in courtesy. Your partner really means: If YOU did that to me, I would do XYZ.
> 
> Think about how this works. You say: If anyone felt strong desire for another person (not talking affair, simply the desire itself), I would leave them so fast their head would spin.
> 
> *You have now permanently closed the door for transparency on that topic. *
> 
> And I am not being judgemental here. Just descriptive.


I hear what you are saying, MEM, but my husband has not only contradicted me on something like this, but he has done it in front of other people. And paid the price! 

I think a confident person might choose wisely when or how to be transparent (say when it is just the couple around, and maybe after some active listening), but would be transparent anyway. Jmho.


----------



## Cosmos

> MEM posted: It's ironic that the type of (mechanical) transparency typically discussed on TAM is the polar opposite of the real deal. Because mechanical transparency is typically imposed by a distrustful partner. This is totally different than voluntarily letting someone deep into your mind and heart, which is the ultimate demonstration of trust.


So very true and, like respect, trust has to be earned - not demanded...

I have no difficulty sharing my deepest thoughts etc with my SO. He's more reserved than I am, though, and tends to 'live inside his head,' but I do know that if I ask him something I will get a completely truthful answer.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> . . *like respect, trust has to be earned - not demanded...*


Truth.

And something I wish more people understood!


----------



## always_alone

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> Think about how this works. You say: If anyone felt strong desire for another person (not talking affair, simply the desire itself), I would leave them so fast their head would spin.
> 
> You have now permanently closed the door for transparency on that topic.
> 
> And I am not being judgemental here. Just descriptive.


I get that MEM. But then what that means is that transparency is necessarily asymmetrical. Any time I voice my own thoughts and feelings on a subject, I am permanently shutting down any chance of someone being open with me.

So either I walk on eggshells, be very careful not to assert myself, my feelings, my thoughts or I expect to be lied to about things that might upset me.

Not an awesome set of choices.

If my SO has strong feelings for someone else, he should do both of us a favour and just tell me already. Life would be so much simpler and easier.


----------



## MEM2020

Cosmos,

It was about a year after we were married that - via proxy - that I got an utterly unambiguous picture of M2's priorities. 

We're watching a recording of the organized crime classic, Goodfellas. First there are a few very violent scenes including a murder. These are followed by a scene where the main character describes how on Saturday nights, he and his gangster friends all take their girlfriends out on this group date. They are all married and in between acts of mayhem, they have this scheduled infidelity. 

The recording pauses. I look over at M2 figuring she needs a bathroom break. Nope. M2 is furious. Says: This movie is disgusting, we are not watching any more of this garbage. 

I ask her: So the murders are ok, but the infidelity is a 'no go'?

I watched the rest of the movie, while M2 went off and read a book. 

This does however bring up an entire 'sub theme'. 
In furor veritas - In rage lies the truth




Cosmos said:


> So very true and, like respect, trust has to be earned - not demanded...
> 
> I have no difficulty sharing my deepest thoughts etc with my SO. He's more reserved than I am, though, and tends to 'live inside his head,' but I do know that if I ask him something I will get a completely truthful answer.


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Transparency facilitation*

Always,
It's very rare that I believe I have an opportunity to be helpful to you. 

Let's break down a voluntary act of transparency. 

Motive: 
1. Genuine desire to be understood
2. Desire to influence partner behavior

Nothing wrong with (2). That said, this is what I've learned from some fairly heated back and forth with JLD. 

If as part of (2), I say how I'd feel, that's typically superior to saying what I'd do. 

For example: I would be upset if, or hurt, or maybe even very upset. 

Instead of: I'd file immediately. 

So humor me on the last bit of this. If you choose not to do something because you know it will upset me, that's at least partly kindness. If you choose not to do it because you KNOW I will divorce you, that's more often driven by self preservation. 





always_alone said:


> I get that MEM. But then what that means is that transparency is necessarily asymmetrical. Any time I voice my own thoughts and feelings on a subject, I am permanently shutting down any chance of someone being open with me.
> 
> So either I walk on eggshells, be very careful not to assert myself, my feelings, my thoughts or I expect to be lied to about things that might upset me.
> 
> Not an awesome set of choices.
> 
> If my SO has strong feelings for someone else, he should do both of us a favour and just tell me already. Life would be so much simpler and easier.


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Transparency facilitation*

Always,

To be fair - no matter how you phrase it - if you have a long list of deal breakers, that makes transparency more difficult. 

This next bit is an example of how this works for us/me. 

The raw physiology of sex is better for me than for M2. Partly that's because my body is easier to 'please'. But partly it's because M2 is better than I am at sex. Neither she nor I pretend otherwise on either of those two points. 

So if we're watching a show and M2 is getting turned on by Gerard Butler and then initiates, that's ok. If she's pretending I'm him while we play. That's ok too. Anything like that which makes the physicality of the experience more balanced - is fine with me. 

The primary basis for my comfort level with that type stuff is that I KNOW M2 loves me. Is really into me. 




always_alone said:


> I get that MEM. But then what that means is that transparency is necessarily asymmetrical. Any time I voice my own thoughts and feelings on a subject, I am permanently shutting down any chance of someone being open with me.
> 
> So either I walk on eggshells, be very careful not to assert myself, my feelings, my thoughts or I expect to be lied to about things that might upset me.
> 
> Not an awesome set of choices.
> 
> If my SO has strong feelings for someone else, he should do both of us a favour and just tell me already. Life would be so much simpler and easier.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

If I had a dime for every time I heard 'oh Gerard'....


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> 
> To be fair - no matter how you phrase it - if you have a long list of deal breakers, that makes transparency more difficult.
> 
> This next bit is an example of how this works for us/me.
> 
> The raw physiology of sex is better for me than for M2. Partly that's because my body is easier to 'please'. But partly it's because M2 is better than I am at sex. Neither she nor I pretend otherwise on either of those two points.
> 
> *So if we're watching a show and M2 is getting turned on by Gerard Butler and then initiates, that's ok.* If she's pretending I'm him while we play. That's ok too. Anything like that which makes the physicality of the experience more balanced - is fine with me.
> 
> The primary basis for my comfort level with that type stuff is that I KNOW M2 loves me. Is really into me.


As bad as it may sound.. my husband woudn't be a bit bothered by my getting HOT over another guy on the screen.. oh that's happened plenty of times over the years.. watching a movie...stirs me up...and I'm all over him... He's HAPPY for those benefits ! 

I like some porn.. what does he do while I'm watching it.. he's right up against me, watching my face...he tells me he likes to see my expressions.. I asked him one day, right there looking into his eyes....if it bothers him.. to please be honest ...that I ENJOY looking at these other men...he comes back with... " Are you slipping out when I'm at work to go to the Studio?"... 

I just laughed.. he says "NO".... so long as I am only giving it to him...and only him... that's all he cares about. Of course he also means the emotional we feel too... we've always been very HIGH in this.. so it's just never been a question..

He knows there isn't another that could satisfy me like he does... when the whole package is put together... so yeah.. like you ended your post here.. "*The primary basis for my comfort level with that type stuff is that I KNOW M2 loves me. Is really into me."*... 

That's what it's about.. I feel the same on this side of that.. many women here would not understand my not minding his looking at naked beauties... Heck, I've gotten solo Videos for him.. while I'd slip under the covers.. of course this was probably a little selfish of me at the time. I just wanted more sex.. so anything that turned him on - was helping me out!


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Transparency facilitation*

SA,
I honestly believe that the vast majority of folks, no matter how happily married, no matter how attracted to their spouse, ALSO feel desire for other folks. 

I imagine their are a very small number of folks who literally 'Imprint' sexually on their spouse, but they are the exception to the rule. 

That doesn't mean I would ever gawk when M2 and I are out together. That's different. I don't do that because it would upset her. But watching a movie or tv show - same as you and S2. 




SimplyAmorous said:


> As bad as it may sound.. my husband woudn't be a bit bothered by my getting HOT over another guy on the screen.. oh that's happened plenty of times over the years.. watching a movie...stirs me up...and I'm all over him... He's HAPPY for those benefits !
> 
> I like some porn.. what does he do while I'm watching it.. he's right up against me, watching my face...he tells me he likes to see my expressions.. I asked him one day, right there looking into his eyes....if it bothers him.. to please be honest ...that I ENJOY looking at these other men...he comes back with... " Are you slipping out when I'm at work to go to the Studio?"...
> 
> I just laughed.. he says "NO".... so long as I am only giving it to him...and only him... that's all he cares about. Of course he also means the emotional we feel too... we've always been very HIGH in this.. so it's just never been a question..
> 
> He knows there isn't another that could satisfy me like he does... when the whole package is put together... so yeah.. like you ended your post here.. "*The primary basis for my comfort level with that type stuff is that I KNOW M2 loves me. Is really into me."*...
> 
> That's what it's about.. I feel the same on this side of that.. many women here would not understand my not minding his looking at naked beauties... Heck, I've gotten solo Videos for him.. while I'd slip under the covers.. of course this was probably a little selfish of me at the time. I just wanted more sex.. so anything that turned him on - was helping me out!


----------



## Thundarr

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



SimplyAmorous said:


> As bad as it may sound.. my husband woudn't be a bit bothered by my getting HOT over another guy on the screen.. oh that's happened plenty of times over the years.. watching a movie...stirs me up...and I'm all over him... He's HAPPY for those benefits !
> 
> I like some porn.. what does he do while I'm watching it.. he's right up against me, watching my face...he tells me he likes to see my expressions.. I asked him one day, right there looking into his eyes....if it bothers him.. to please be honest ...that I ENJOY looking at these other men...he comes back with... " Are you slipping out when I'm at work to go to the Studio?"...


Lol, he sounds like me. I don't subscribe to 'Thought Police' magazine but 'Action Police' magazine is cool. We watch smut occasionally as well. Mrs Thundarr generally let's me take the lead on kinky stuff but I thought when she was reading fifty shades that she might get freaky but no dice. I'll just have to read that book some day (yuk) and figure out if there's anything in there worth exploring.


----------



## jld

There isn't, Thundarr.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> There isn't, Thundarr.


That's what I've heard plus she didn't toss out hints or suggestions so maybe I'll mark it off of my TODO list.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> 
> To be fair - no matter how you phrase it - if you have a long list of deal breakers, that makes transparency more difficult.


I don't have a long list of deal-breakers. I just don't want to be lied to and treated like a chump. Seems it is actually too much to ask.


----------



## jld

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



always_alone said:


> I don't have a long list of deal-breakers. I just don't want to be lied to and treated like a chump. Seems it is actually too much to ask.


You just need a different guy, hon.


----------



## Fozzy

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> I honestly believe that the vast majority of folks, no matter how happily married, no matter how attracted to their spouse, ALSO feel desire for other folks.
> 
> I imagine their are a very small number of folks who literally 'Imprint' sexually on their spouse, but they are the exception to the rule.
> 
> That doesn't mean I would ever gawk when M2 and I are out together. That's different. I don't do that because it would upset her. But watching a movie or tv show - same as you and S2.


This is absolutely true. I know my wife drools over other men. And I'm totally fine with that *as long as things are fine between us*.

On the flipside of that, once in our past when we were about 2 months with no sex and she couldn't stop making comments about some dude on True Blood----I was definitely not ok with that.


----------



## Thundarr

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



always_alone said:


> I don't have a long list of deal-breakers. I just don't want to be lied to and treated like a chump. Seems it is actually too much to ask.


Catching someone lying, even about stupid things, is something a lot of us can't handle. Trust and security are fickle things and seemingly insignificant lies chip away at them both.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> It's very rare that I believe I have an opportunity to be helpful to you.
> 
> Let's break down a voluntary act of transparency.
> 
> Motive:
> 1. Genuine desire to be understood
> 2. Desire to influence partner behavior


MEM, this whole thread has been very helpful. So thanks to you and others for all of it!

The first has always been my primary motivation for my own transparency. I've always had a longing to be understood and appreciated for who I am.

But you're right that I am also motivated by 2, I do wish to change his behaviour, even though I really should know better by now. He will do what he does and tell me what he wants to, and that will never change. No matter what I say.

Which leads me to a third option: Just be clear on where I stand to help me decide whether to leave him or not.

That makes it all pretty high stakes, of course, and so you're right that it is about self-preservation. He controls the message in the hopes of having his cake and eating it too. 

Maybe I should be flattered that he cares to keep me at all. But to me it just says he isn't all that interested in actually connecting with me, just in keeping me around, and that isn't really the kind of relationship I want to have.


----------



## Mostlycontent

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> I honestly believe that the vast majority of folks, no matter how happily married, no matter how attracted to their spouse, ALSO feel desire for other folks.
> 
> I imagine their are a very small number of folks who literally 'Imprint' sexually on their spouse, but they are the exception to the rule.
> 
> That doesn't mean I would ever gawk when M2 and I are out together. That's different. I don't do that because it would upset her. But watching a movie or tv show - same as you and S2.



Perhaps MEM but I don't necessarily see it that way. Do I or my wife see other people we find attractive? Sure. Does that mean that she or I get all lathered up or lust after them? Not at all.

If my wife has ever lusted after another man during our 30 years together, she has never mentioned it or shown any signs of such feelings. Of course, neither have I. I can safely say that while I have seen many other attractive women, I have not really lusted over them. I just don't allow myself to go there.

Now maybe we're unusual in that regard but I do think there's a difference between being attracted to someone else and lusting or fantasizing about them. One is normal and the other is borderline destructive.

Also, I can't seem to relate to a lot of others here, but I just don't seem to find much of anyone attractive on TV or Cable shows these days. Perhaps the Mrs. and I have ultra high standards but I can't for the life of me recall a single woman that I thought was gorgeous in recent years and we watch a lot of series on Netflix and the Premium Cable Channels.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



Thundarr said:


> Catching someone lying, even about stupid things, is something a lot of us can't handle. Trust and security are fickle things and seemingly insignificant lies chip away at them both.


Thank you for that Thundarr!! I realize that I'm probably coming off as totally over-sensitive on this issue, but well, I find it hard to deal with. I've been lied to and treated like a chump all too often, and I really want to say "no more". 

But of course you don't get control over that sort of thing.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



always_alone said:


> Thank you for that Thundarr!! *I realize that I'm probably coming off as totally over-sensitive on this issue, but well, I find it hard to deal with. I've been lied to and treated like a chump all too often, and I really want to say "no more".
> *
> But of course you don't get control over that sort of thing.


I don't think you are being over sensitive at all.. I would FEEL the same ..oh my God yes!!! .. probably even stronger about what you have to deal with day after day ...







... ..just imaging the Frustration......the yearning to connect time after time where it doesn't get off it's feet...he just sounds like one of those "emotionally unavailable men".. for whatever reason ...he can't allow anyone in.. or just refuses to... this is very damaging to relationships..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> I honestly believe that the vast majority of folks, no matter how happily married, no matter how attracted to their spouse, ALSO feel desire for other folks.
> 
> *I imagine their are a very small number of folks who literally 'Imprint' sexually on their spouse, but they are the exception to the rule. *
> 
> That doesn't mean I would ever gawk when M2 and I are out together. That's different. I don't do that because it would upset her. But watching a movie or tv show - same as you and S2.


I am not sure what you mean by *"Imprint".*.. expect that one's husband or wife never notices another , or gets a little stirred in a moment ??

Neither of us gawk... there is a line of clear "disrespect" ...a line of causing pain, leaving us questioning ... "aren't we enough.. do you want her...Him, are you thinking about them when you make love to me??"....this IS crushing ... if we feel our partner is doing this, longing to be with another.... of course. 

When telling my H last night about my post on this.. he still feels the same, it doesn't bother him.. the line would be...if I started "going on" about another man, or some actor ....that wouldn't be OK, he wouldn't appreciate that. 

So many threads here on what goes through a man's mind when he sees a beautiful woman....me & him have discussed this a # of times.. I've plastered his thoughts on TAM..... which I thought was pretty funny







....after the pretty face, the perfect body.. he thinks to himself.. "I love my wife, STD's.. I love my kids.. STD's"... and the fleeting thought is over... 

The kicker is .. I am just like him!...what I find attractively







is often a "Rock star look"... thin men, working man look, a little rugged...some stubble... even nerdy will do (these are likely more my type in real life!)... ..chances are with the others ...their lifestyle would completely disgust me.. groupies / casual sex, probably not the marrying type, hitting the bars being common....... Why are we physically attracted to things that also repulse us, we'd never get along with them anyway?? 

On Brain scans...different areas of the brain light UP for *Love* & *Lust*. but nothing is as addicting as Love, it's like cocaine .. there is a reward system going on when they show pictures of our Beloved before the scanning... the lust thing is very fleeting.. (why this is never enough to sustain something lasting anyway..it involves so much MORE!) 

So the best we can do is.. satisfy the physical attributes as best we can to keep our spouse wanting us... I made him grow longer hair for our wedding.. I love when he wears boots & levi's.. he knows I find him most attractive when he has some stubble.. 

But deep down, no matter how hot a man is...I have a huge soft spot & want to attach myself to the sweet Romantic guy who has oneitis just for me.. as I want to LOVE like that too.. give my all to one man.. but this still doesn't take our pulse away from noticing the opposite sex.. this is just HONEST - darn it. 

It's transparent! If I judged my husband for this.. I would have 2 fingers pointing back at myself !


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Transparency facilitation*

AA,
I would be afraid to lie to you. 

You have about the lowest CQ (chump quotient) of anyone I know. 

Sometimes when M2 gets into mischief, she's inclined to gaslight after the fact. For the first 20 years of our marriage, she had some success with that approach. 

I just stay on message: 

Might have had a good reason for doing what you did. Or not. Either way, the doing itself isn't subject to debate. Soon, this attempt to 'reimagine' actual events in a manner more flattering to yourself, will become a greater offense than the original mischief. 

Being difficult, even very difficult, is at worst a misdemeanor. Trying to convince me, that I'm bereft of hearing, sight, sensibility, or memory is a far greater offense. 



QUOTE=always_alone;14066682]MEM, this whole thread has been very helpful. So thanks to you and others for all of it!

The first has always been my primary motivation for my own transparency. I've always had a longing to be understood and appreciated for who I am.

But you're right that I am also motivated by 2, I do wish to change his behaviour, even though I really should know better by now. He will do what he does and tell me what he wants to, and that will never change. No matter what I say.

Which leads me to a third option: Just be clear on where I stand to help me decide whether to leave him or not.

That makes it all pretty high stakes, of course, and so you're right that it is about self-preservation. He controls the message in the hopes of having his cake and eating it too. 

Maybe I should be flattered that he cares to keep me at all. But to me it just says he isn't all that interested in actually connecting with me, just in keeping me around, and that isn't really the kind of relationship I want to have.[/QUOTE]


----------



## farsidejunky

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



jld said:


> You just need a different guy, hon.


Yup.


----------



## alphaomega

All you'z guys are very poetic. 👍
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## alphaomega

I'm not even sure I'm transparent with myself. 

I was messed up in the brain pan for several years which caused numerous problems with my marriage and life, without me even realizing it myself. 

After my "come to jabezzus" moment when I realized I was messed up....a trip to the doctors for some evaluation and some awesome meds...I slowly started to become myself again. 

It's been a long path of self discovery again that I gladly partook in. 

Unfortunately, there's actually large blocks of my life that I just for the life of me can't recall. One of them is trying to remember my son during his first year. I have snippets in there...but not like the memories I have of when I can remember pretty much all the cool stuff I did with my daughter at that age. 

At any rate. I think what I'm trying to unsuccessfully portray is that most transparency is good ...unless one of you'z is incapable of it. Then it's just a losing battle your trying to fight. I'm not sure in my crazy state I could have even comprehended the meaning of a "transparency" discussion and what that meant on the grander scale of things in a relationship.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> I would be afraid to lie to you.
> 
> You have about the lowest CQ (chump quotient) of anyone I know.
> 
> Sometimes when M2 gets into mischief, she's inclined to gaslight after the fact. For the first 20 years of our marriage, she had some success with that approach.
> 
> I just stay on message:
> 
> Might have had a good reason for doing what you did. Or not. Either way, the doing itself isn't subject to debate. Soon, this attempt to 'reimagine' actual events in a manner more flattering to yourself, will become a greater offense than the original mischief.
> 
> Being difficult, even very difficult, is at worst a misdemeanor. Trying to convince me, that I'm bereft of hearing, sight, sensibility, or memory is a far greater offense.


It sounds like she might be having a having a hard time dealing with her guilt, MEM. She knows what she did was wrong, on some level, even if it was not a PA. 

It takes some self-confidence, some inner security, to be able to be truthful with ourselves. Otherwise our ego will step in and protect us from what feels too threatening, from what might destroy our image of ourselves, what allows us to function, before we are ready to accept it.


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Transparency facilitation*

JLD,
Different than 'garden variety' embarrassment?

Tone and pacing are more important than content in these conversations. My tone is conversational. And I'm as patient as needs be. 

Besides this isn't about extracting an apology. Sorry or not - up to her. 

After she says - yeah ok, that did happen and here's why - she feels better. 




jld said:


> It sounds like she might be having a having a hard time dealing with her guilt, MEM. She knows what she did was wrong, on some level, even if it was not a PA.
> 
> It takes some self-confidence, some inner security, to be able to be truthful with ourselves. Otherwise our ego will step in and protect us from what feels too threatening, from what might destroy our image of ourselves, what allows us to function, before we are ready to accept it.


----------



## jld

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Different than 'garden variety' embarrassment?
> 
> Tone and pacing are more important than content in these conversations. My tone is conversational. And I'm as patient as needs be.
> 
> Besides this isn't about extracting an apology. Sorry or not - up to her.
> 
> After she says - yeah ok, that did happen and here's why - she feels better.


I just meant that if you see what she is doing as about her, it may not feel so offensive.

You are right to stand your ground. And like you said, when she makes herself face things, and thinks about why she did them, she can grow. 

Same for all of us. Denial does not lead us to growth.


----------



## jld

MEM, just curious. Has she ever looked at what happened from your pov? Been able to empathize deeply with you? Expressed true contrition?


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
Absolutely yes. She's definitely capable of empathy. 

And of recognizing without my input when she has gotten off track. 

Maybe a little overly inclined to reverse engineer explanations for her emotional state. Works like this:

If I'm angry at MEM, he must have done something wrong
If I'm really angry at him, he must have done something terrible

We know how this works, sometimes that IS true. And sometimes it isn't. 






jld said:


> MEM, just curious. Has she ever looked at what happened from your pov? Been able to empathize deeply with you? Expressed true contrition?


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Transparency facilitation*

Mostly,

You are a better man then I. While what you say is true, it just is t true for me. Sometimes I do indulge in the type lustful thinking you mention. 

But not with people I know in real life. That is dangerous. 






Mostlycontent said:


> Perhaps MEM but I don't necessarily see it that way. Do I or my wife see other people we find attractive? Sure. Does that mean that she or I get all lathered up or lust after them? Not at all.
> 
> If my wife has ever lusted after another man during our 30 years together, she has never mentioned it or shown any signs of such feelings. Of course, neither have I. I can safely say that while I have seen many other attractive women, I have not really lusted over them. I just don't allow myself to go there.
> 
> Now maybe we're unusual in that regard but I do think there's a difference between being attracted to someone else and lusting or fantasizing about them. One is normal and the other is borderline destructive.
> 
> Also, I can't seem to relate to a lot of others here, but I just don't seem to find much of anyone attractive on TV or Cable shows these days. Perhaps the Mrs. and I have ultra high standards but I can't for the life of me recall a single woman that I thought was gorgeous in recent years and we watch a lot of series on Netflix and the Premium Cable Channels.


----------



## Mostlycontent

*Re: Transparency facilitation*



MEM11363 said:


> Mostly,
> 
> You are a better man then I. While what you say is true, it just is t true for me. Sometimes I do indulge in the type lustful thinking you mention.
> 
> But not with people I know in real life. That is dangerous.



I appreciate the candor, MEM. I have found that if I do really find someone attractive, it's usually that they remind me of my wife from our youth and I found that to be incredibly erotic. 

Honestly, all fantasizing about that person would do is make me discontent and I hate feeling that way. My wife is still a very beautiful woman but she doesn't look 25 any more. Of course, neither do I no matter how hard I exercise and try. :smile2:


----------



## jld

I would like to touch on something I think MEM alluded to earlier. We can encourage transparency from our partners by being able to set aside our pride and actually hear what our partners are saying when they give us advice, particularly in a sensitive area.

It takes a lot of maturity to do this, and obviously humility. It is natural to become defensive when they say something that makes us feel bad in some way. Natural, but not necessarily helpful.

Certainly, sometimes they are wrong in what they tell us, and it can be helpful to them if we point that out. Not all advice our partners offer us is wisdom-based.

But often they see things we do not, and we react by getting defensive. Who are they to tell us we are wrong, we think. Do they think they are perfect?

And in our defensiveness, we start reminding them of their own shortcomings. It helps our wounded ego somehow to tell them to focus on cleaning up their own side of the street, and to leave us alone.

We might also insist they say it differently, more gently, for it to not hurt our feelings so much. I have to confess that I have told Dug, more than once, "Say it in a way I can hear it." 

While it would be wise for our partners to learn to do this, as we are more likely to listen to a message we perceive as non-threatening, I think the fact is that wise people will take solid advice in whatever package it arrives in. They are not picky. They just want to improve, period.

Rejecting sound but humbling advice, even though it may temporarily protect our ego to do so, does not help us in the long run. 

I guess the trick is being able to discern when the advice we are hearing is truly sound.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I really like your post Jld.. so true --even if I can't relate to it. what help am I here on TAM.. my man is so darn humble.. He was NEVER one to be defensive.. he can readily admit his faults at any time.. I can do this too.. but surely with more attitude going forth.. and not always in a good way.. to put him down, I ought to be ashamed of myself.. and am.. if/ when I have.... as his motives are always pure, for the benefit of Us, or our family. Humility is a virtue.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I really like your post Jld.. so true --even if I can't relate to it. what help am I here on TAM.. my man is so darn humble.. He was NEVER one to be defensive.. he can readily admit his faults at any time.. I can do this too.. but surely with more attitude going forth.. and not always in a good way.. to put him down, I ought to be ashamed of myself.. and am.. if/ when I have.... as his motives are always pure, for the benefit of Us, or our family. Humility is a virtue.


I agree that humility is a virtue, SA. I think a lot of relationship troubles stem from a lack of humility.

But they can also stem from an inability to see truth. 

I was talking with a friend last night whose husband has made a poor choice in one area. He has his reasons, but his wife does not think they are very good ones. 

But he does not want to listen. He could say he has a different truth then she has, I guess. From my own knowledge of their situation (we are in a club together, with several other families), I agree with her. 

I think he is going to end up learning the hard way. And that means his family is going to suffer along the way.

I wish he could humble himself and listen to his wife. And she surely wishes that, too.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> But often they see things we do not, and we react by getting defensive. Who are they to tell us we are wrong, we think. Do they think they are perfect?
> 
> And in our defensiveness, we start reminding them of their own shortcomings. It helps our wounded ego somehow to tell them to focus on cleaning up their own side of the street, and to leave us alone.
> 
> We might also insist they say it differently, more gently, for it to not hurt our feelings so much. I have to confess that I have told Dug, more than once, "Say it in a way I can hear it."
> 
> While it would be wise for our partners to learn to do this, as we are more likely to listen to a message we perceive as non-threatening, I think the fact is that wise people will take solid advice in whatever package it arrives in. They are not picky. They just want to improve, period.
> 
> Rejecting sound but humbling advice, even though it may temporarily protect our ego to do so, does not help us in the long run.
> 
> I guess the trick is being able to discern when the advice we are hearing is truly sound.


And, of course, there is just the pure and primal howl of pain. Not all transparency is about advice, or correction or improvement. It is just observation, feeling, thought. It is not necessarily wise or unwise, it just is.

It takes great courage and confidence to be truly transparent. To say your true self, especially when that self is different, stands out, doesn't fall into the popular/successful/attractive/desirable categories. It is much easier and safer to just play it down, keep it hidden, lash out at yourself, instead of others. 

And it takes great wisdom and maturity to be able to hear that transparency and allow it to flourish, and to do it with grace, without tripping all over your own ego, and yet also without turning yourself into a chump.

It's interesting that your (one's) reactions to another person tells you way more about yourself than they do that person.


----------



## always_alone

alphaomega said:


> I'm not even sure I'm transparent with myself.


I think this is true for a lot (most? Some?) of us. 

I mean, look at me, I'm practically a professional navel-gazer (no the pay isn't good!), and there's still lots of things I don't really understand about myself. Or stuff I've made stories up for, but really have no clue whether they're true or not.

And lately, TBH, I've been wondering if I should fire the incumbent and get myself a better script-writer.


----------



## MEM2020

Always, 

In general, the best script writers are harder on the main character, than everyone else. 

You have unfortunately extended that model far beyond the point of reason. 

Your partner has to learn to say: I don't want to talk about this.

Instead of flat out lying to you. 




always_alone said:


> I think this is true for a lot (most? Some?) of us.
> 
> I mean, look at me, I'm practically a professional navel-gazer (no the pay isn't good!), and there's still lots of things I don't really understand about myself. Or stuff I've made stories up for, but really have no clue whether they're true or not.
> 
> And lately, TBH, I've been wondering if I should fire the incumbent and get myself a better script-writer.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> It's interesting that your (one's) reactions to another person tells you way more about yourself than they do that person.


Totally agree with this. We can learn so much from our own reactions to what others say and do. 

Why does the same response from two different people affect me differently? What security or insecurity do I feel vis-a-vis one person versus another that makes me react in a particular manner? 

So often we want to make others responsible for our emotional reactions to them. We want them to alter what they say or do or think so we can feel better about ourselves somehow. We hand over our power to them.

But the best lesson we can learn from our emotions is how to redirect our reactions away from others and towards ourselves. What can we learn from our feelings? How can we take responsibility for our own emotional wellbeing? How can we keep our power while also being open to possible truth from another?


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I think this is true for a lot (most? Some?) of us.
> 
> I mean, look at me, I'm practically a professional navel-gazer (no the pay isn't good!), and there's still lots of things I don't really understand about myself. Or stuff I've made stories up for, but really have no clue whether they're true or not.
> 
> And lately, TBH, I've been wondering if I should fire the incumbent and get myself a better script-writer.


Why do you think you are wrong? I think your SO is clearly the problem.

Aa, do you think you might have control (fear) issues? You want to hang on even when something is clearly dysfunctional and unlikely to get better?


----------



## alphaomega

Humility can be a crazy mistress

If you swing too much towards it, you actually lose yourself in it. You engross yourself in too much empathy of the other person, and will act weak and indecisive. A Beta follower 

I've been there. And I interact with people with too much of it. And it makes me feel like I want to b!tch slap them for always wanting to hear my side and how they want to respect my thoughts. It gets to the point of grovelling. 

Maybe in a loving relationship this dynamic would be different...and welcome? I'm not sure. I don't have that life experience. 

Of course, not enough humility and...well...I'm sure we know where that leads


----------



## alphaomega

JLD,

Self Power is an illusion. Even when we think we are all together in the brain pan, we can still be fooled into thinking another way...

Let me tell a story......

I do project management as a career. I've done this for 30 years. I am very good at it.

My last contract, my boss complained a lot to me. Told me I wasn't doing things proper. How I have to force people into working harder and longer and complain more...."take things up the chain of command and complain and demand...!". No! You can't replace that person on the team!!! Well it's your fault that person messed up! You should have replaced her when I told you. Get everyone to work overtime! This project is too important! These are all the things you suck at that you need to do better!


At first I resisted because everything she wanted went against successful oractice and experience Then I started thinking she was maybe right. So I started second guessing myself. Part of the problem was that she was the one in power...and her "project management certificate" on the wall told her she was more experienced than me. So I had to do what she said, because the last PM she had got fired for not listening to her. (as an aside....I never did get my PMP certificate. I've been doing this so long I never bothered)

It took a few weeks, and a great talk with a lifelong mentor...to realize that she was using her inexperience and position as a way to mask her fake experience and knowledge forcefully into something remotely resembling competency. 

After some self reflection....and my awesome talk with my mentor...I had my moment where I just went to her office and called her a stupid Kunt and she should just go fu(k herself.

So what I'm trying to portray here is that not all interactions are beneficial. It really depends on the mental state of the givers and how they give back that dialog to you

At one point in my life...I was the terrible partner to reflect these exchanges upon. In life..You will get good and bad reflections...and it's not always easy to figure this out. And if they are a bad reflection partner...this will do more harm than good if you don't realize the company your exchanging with. 

(as another aside just to round out my story....I have such a good track record that after two days of unemployment I got scooped up with another company that really wanted me for a project and they called and said it was good I left.... So in the end....life turned out good).


----------



## SimplyAmorous

alphaomega said:


> Humility can be a crazy mistress
> 
> If you swing too much towards it, you actually lose yourself in it. You engross yourself in too much empathy of the other person, and will act weak and indecisive. A Beta follower
> 
> I've been there. And I interact with people with too much of it. And it makes me feel like I want to b!tch slap them for always wanting to hear my side and how they want to respect my thoughts. It gets to the point of grovelling.
> 
> *Maybe in a loving relationship this dynamic would be different...and welcome? I'm not sure. I don't have that life experience. *
> 
> Of course, not enough humility and...well...I'm sure we know where that leads


My husband is an empathetic man... very giving.. but I can't say I have ever looked at him/ upon us as "groveling" or frustrating- a feeling of needing to bi*ch slap... He had a friend in his teens...that I used to complain he was "too polite"..... I used to make fun of this guy.. he drove me a little crazy.. I couldn't stand it! My husband thought I was kinda mean about that...It's like I wanted to corrupt him or something, get him to swear, quit saying "Sir" and "Thank you" (I think I did want to slap him out of it!).. 

Now having said that....know there is still "Personality" - and plenty in also understanding "*Humility's role*" in a love relationship...

Myself and husband banter A LOT...it's lively ...free flowing...and FUN... and we FIGHT on occasion too...







...(he likes to tell me I start fights just so we'll have make up sex). This is not really true... but I can live with his feeling this.. 

I do consider him tipped on the Beta scales (but I don't mean this in a bad way - this word generally conjures up all weak willed puzzy behavior ..did a thread on that.. as the Good Beta is rarely spoken of.. a Man needs his share of that too...or he'd be nothing more than a narcissistic A-hole). 

Exploring various interpretations of the BETA MALE 

The dynamics of 2 differing personalities coming together can bring it's own excitement....I'm more the instigator... the jump starter... I can be feisty.. I reel him in, get a rise out of him.....He's more the quiet guy, that dry sense of humor going on... I may need a little taming at times.. he knows just how to make me purrr...

We make fun of each other..but it's all in PLAY.. there is surely truth to what we say, that transparency is ever present, but at the same time..we'll grab each other & speak our devotion, it's passionate even...


----------



## alphaomega

I find it interesting that you would like to "***** slap" the empathy out of someone Your not emotionally entangled with. But your husbands empathy is good. 

This isn't a bad thing. I'm just learning new "things" here. 

I have to ponder this now....

Btw...your dynamic with your husband is awesome.


----------



## alphaomega

I did mention I was messed up in the brain for a bit.....

It's like I'm learning social psychological interactions with the benefit of a working brain now. 

I find it intriguing comparing my old thought patterns with my new ones.


----------



## jld

Alpha omega, I certainly agree that some people's advice is worth more than others. Some "advice" is just worth a smile and a thank you, nothing more. 

I personally would not tell a boss off. That would feel wrong to me on too many levels.

I do think sometimes it is necessary to leave a job, though, or a relationship. When we realize we cannot be what that person needs, it is probably best if we free them to find someone they do need. 

I think personal empowerment is very important. To me, it is just too risky to be overly reliant on other people.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

alphaomega said:


> *I find it interesting that you would like to "***** slap" the empathy out of someone Your not emotionally entangled with. But your husbands empathy is good*.


 I think it was the way I wrote it.. sounded more intense than it was... he was just TOO POLITE.....too many "Yes Sirs".."thank yous"..."Maam"..."Mrs ____ Mr ______"... for some reason these things stood out to me like a sour thumb, it took away from his personality or something, just seeing how he interacted with Husband's parents for instance... he may not have even been all that empathetic at heart.. just raised to speak this way.... 

This friend went to the Army shortly after Graduation....when he came back.. he wasn't the same guy...a little more rough around the edges. For him, it was a plus. 



> This isn't a bad thing. I'm just learning new "things" here.
> 
> I have to ponder this now....
> 
> Btw...your dynamic with your husband is awesome.


 There is a balance in everything, right...I tend to feel people who are too passive & never have a heated argument are strange.... that they can't possibly be connecting emotionally, but "stuffing" to some degree to keep the peace... but there are those who say they never fight, never raise their voices to each other...so what do I know... 

I'm not one who feels having a blow out now & then hurts a relationship at all.. . so long as a couple resolves well & quickly not allowing things to fester...that's what matters...that your hearts come back together...both have felt heard, understood & cared for.. and you press on as a team...



> @MEM11363 said: What was very painful was when M2 made the comparison - in a devious, indirect and manipulative way.* She didn't reference the other guy, just casually commented one night that she wished she'd married someone a little hotter, handier AND Christian.
> *
> I think she was hoping her disapproval would be the catalyst for me to seek her approval by 'converting'.
> 
> *I didn't understand what she was doing - in the moment. I was just stunned. Hurt. I'm not certain, but believe I was just quiet. Which was probably for the best.*


 This would be very hurtful, reaching to our inner core... just knowing she had this other man in mind....

*So she never TOOK those words back MEM?? realizing shortly after they left her lips.. or even the next day... why did I say that, it had to have crushed him??*

We all want to feel we are our spouse's #1... that they are with us, not just because of a piece of paper, or we have kids, a house together, but because they cherish the years we've shared, they would even be lost without us. 

It's kinda what I spoke in one of my posts on this thread... I feel being transparent is so much easier when the foundation of KNOWING - our husbands want US (& only us - flaws & all)....and his knowing we want him (& only him - irregardless of his shortcomings)... that we can get away with being so transparent in other areas.


----------



## alphaomega

jld said:


> Alpha omega, I certainly agree that some people's advice is worth more than others. Some "advice" is just worth a smile and a thank you, nothing more.
> 
> I personally would not tell a boss off. That would feel wrong to me on too many levels.
> 
> I do think sometimes it is necessary to leave a job, though, or a relationship. When we realize we cannot be what that person needs, it is probably best if we free them to find someone they do need.
> 
> I think personal empowerment is very important. To me, it is just too risky to be overly reliant on other people.


I think that's why this entire situation rattled me. I had bad bosses before. But I never met someone so manipulative. In all my years I didn't experience this before and it took a while to mentally handle this. It was foreign to me. My dad taught me respect and to respect, so all my teachings weren't there to process this correctly. 

Telling her off was probably unnecessary but it did feel right
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

alphaomega said:


> I think that's why this entire situation rattled me. I had bad bosses before. But I never met someone so manipulative. In all my years I didn't experience this before and it took a while to mentally handle this. It was foreign to me. My dad taught me respect and to respect, so all my teachings weren't there to process this correctly.
> 
> Telling her off was probably unnecessary but it did feel right
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am sure it was a release.


----------



## alphaomega

She didn't reference the other guy, just casually commented one night that she wished she'd married someone a little hotter, handier AND Christian.


MeM,

We're these words spoken as part of "affair speak"?

Spouses say the weirdest and meanest shat during that "I just started an affair" phase. 

Some of the stuff coming out of my exWs mouth during that time was just downright subtly nasty.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Alpha,

You nailed it. 





alphaomega said:


> She didn't reference the other guy, just casually commented one night that she wished she'd married someone a little hotter, handier AND Christian.
> 
> 
> MeM,
> 
> We're these words spoken as part of "affair speak"?
> 
> Spouses say the weirdest and meanest shat during that "I just started an affair" phase.
> 
> Some of the stuff coming out of my exWs mouth during that time was just downright subtly nasty.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> 
> In general, the best script writers are harder on the main character, than everyone else.
> 
> You have unfortunately extended that model far beyond the point of reason.
> 
> Your partner has to learn to say: I don't want to talk about this.
> 
> Instead of flat out lying to you.


My first reaction to this was "no, no, no, no". It comes off as so much a stonewall. 

But after reflection, I see the value.

I'd still prefer to have that trust, acceptance and vulnerability.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> But the best lesson we can learn from our emotions is how to redirect our reactions away from others and towards ourselves. What can we learn from our feelings? How can we take responsibility for our own emotional wellbeing? How can we keep our power while also being open to possible truth from another?





jld said:


> Why do you think you are wrong? I think your SO is clearly the problem.


It is interesting to me to see these two posts side by side. 

If I may be so rude, let me turn the question back to you. Given all we have talked about on this thread, why would you think the problem is all on him. Surely I am responsible for my reactions?


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> It is interesting to me to see these two posts side by side.
> 
> If I may be so rude, let me turn the question back to you. Given all we have talked about on this thread, why would you think the problem is all on him. Surely I am responsible for my reactions?


I think you are in a no win situation. 

One person who has talked about the value of working through our emotions on our own, instead of expecting validation from others, was once in a Nazi concentration camp. He came to some of the conclusions he did as a way to survive that trauma.

But you are free to leave your situation, aa. You do not have to stay.

I think there is great value in learning to deal with our emotions on our own with people outside our inner circle. By at the very inside of my own inner circle are myself and Dug. I don't lie to myself and I certainly do not lie to my husband. We have mutual transparency.

I don't think this is too much for any couple to expect. I think anything less is risky.

Does that make sense?


----------



## john117

Don't confuse bluntness with openness or transparency. 

Yet some people don't want to know what you think of their outfits.

Today I had a great example of transparency, mental and physical. J2 and I made our run to Meijer (super walmart kind of chain except for NormalPeople (tm)). J2 decided to wear a very nice shirt our younger girl brought from France. Nice shirt but quite transparent in some places esp front. Further visual inspection revealed a minor Soma Intimates malfunction rendering one half of the goods being, well, not contained all that well and leaving a lot less to imagination. This being Meijer and not Super Walmart I kept quiet.

As fate would have it we ran into a couple friends of hers from her birth country and spent a few minutes chatting. The husband did a few Google eyes but thankfully did not stare while his wife did not notice.

When we went home I took her in the powder room and pointed out the malfunction. She had a good laugh at the incident and yet told me I have way too much time in my hands. 

What's the point of being transparent if the other side is not listening?


----------



## alphaomega

As a corollary, What's the point on wishing for transparency when the other side just doesn't "get" it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

intheory said:


> My husband was painfully "transparent", or just recklessly honest, when he was younger.
> 
> As far as that affected me. I knew in short order about my lack of certain physical attractions, what he thought of what I was wearing, the way I did things around the house; it was all transparently crystal clear.
> 
> One of the worst was the niggling feeling that he found my sister very attractive. He's denied this over and over again, when I've asked him why he said "comment about how desirable your sister is". I don't blame him for becoming evasive. I wouldn't want to deal with me either.
> 
> Yes, I am insecure and human. And there are a lot of horrible raw truths about life that I'd rather not get my face rubbed in ove r and over again. Kind of like death. We all know it's coming, but we can continue to live and be happy, even knowing that physical doom awaits us all in the end.
> 
> My husband has gotten a lot gentler over the years (ie. he doesn't tell me what he's thinking). And that's for the best.
> 
> And unless it's absolutely essential, I keep most of my negative thoughts to myself.
> 
> I don't mind doing this if we are happy with each other for the most part.


I am really sorry to hear this, Intheory.  I think every woman deserves to be with someone who is just crazy about her.


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> What's the point of being transparent if the other side is not listening?


John, was she not listening, or did she just not care? 

Or maybe she was not acknowledging your feeling of embarrassment?


----------



## john117

I wasn't embarrassed as I encourage such displays  - after all she's worked hard to keep that 9 body in shape. But she has a history of asking my opinion for clothes then do nothing with the feedback I provide. 

In the same time she thinks any compliment is to be misconstrued for a pick up line... Well, not.


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> I wasn't embarrassed as I encourage such displays  - after all she's worked hard to keep that 9 body in shape. But she has a history of asking my opinion for clothes then do nothing with the feedback I provide.


Haven't you learned by now, she is not asking you your opinion. She wants you to say how great she looks in those clothes.


----------



## john117

Duguesclin said:


> Haven't you learned by now, she is not asking you your opinion. She wants you to say how great she looks in those clothes.



She looks even better with a malfunction or two ...


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> She looks even better with a malfunction or two ...


Maybe she took what you said as a compliment then.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> What's the point of being transparent if the other side is not listening?


John, the only transparent thing in your whole story was your wife's blouse.


----------



## always_alone

Duguesclin said:


> Haven't you learned by now, she is not asking you your opinion. She wants you to say how great she looks in those clothes.


He doesn't care what she wants. My impression is that he gets off on putting his hottie on display, and making all the guys jealous of what a wonderful trophy he has, and prefers that over someone who might actually even be into him.


----------



## alphaomega

always_alone said:


> He doesn't care what she wants. My impression is that he gets off on putting his hottie on display, and making all the guys jealous of what a wonderful trophy he has, and prefers that over someone who might actually even be into him.


Who doesn't like putting thier hottie on display? And if she's with me she's into me. Until she's not. Then I find a new hottie. 

😜
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I think there is great value in learning to deal with our emotions on our own with people outside our inner circle. By at the very inside of my own inner circle are myself and Dug. I don't lie to myself and I certainly do not lie to my husband. We have mutual transparency.
> 
> I don't think this is too much for any couple to expect. I think anything less is risky.
> 
> Does that make sense?


Yes. But I tend to agree with intheory: "And a part of us inside is always alone, too.". She is speaking my language!

I'm very happy for you and Dug, though. That you both have found someone that you can truly be transparent with. 

I too would like to bridge that gap, but it does, I think, require facing some pretty difficult truths without flinching.


----------



## always_alone

alphaomega said:


> Who doesn't like putting thier hottie on display? And if she's with me she's into me. Until she's not. Then I find a new hottie.


Anyone who treated me like that would quickly find themselves on the other side of the door. Blech!


----------



## alphaomega

Lol. I understand where you are coming from. 

But a man needs to have pride in his mate. If he doesn't then he's not really into her either. 

All women are beautiful. I feel Nothing wrong with thinking that way. Hell, girl! I'd make everyone
Know how awesome you are and I'd make
No apologies for it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Anyone who treated me like that would quickly find themselves on the other side of the door. Blech!



Tell us how you really feel lolz 

One's material culture is not only the stuff they have but their associations - trophy kids, jobs, spouses, etc. If my dear wife has no issue parading my kids or my patents to her relatives I think I am entitled to parading a square foot or two of her cleavage here and there


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Tell us how you really feel lolz
> 
> One's material culture is not only the stuff they have but their associations - trophy kids, jobs, spouses, etc. If my dear wife has no issue parading my kids or my patents to her relatives I think I am entitled to parading a square foot or two of her cleavage here and there


Would you want your sons-in-law to treat your daughters that way?


----------



## john117

The mental transparency here is that my wife perceives me advising her of the wardrobe malfunction as a sexually motivated issue. So, transparency here is irrelevant since she's unwilling to see my action as one of pure circumstance. 

In terms of skin display - it's cultural. Growing up in a culture where public display of skin is a Bad Idea (tm) her country folk have an amazing counterculture of indoor clothing fashion that is remarkably revealing. We get selfies of her nieces (same age within a month of our daughters) and it's mind boggling they have the time to do makeup and dress and party and go to college... That counterculture is typical in the USA among the expats as well.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Would you want your sons-in-law to treat your daughters that way?



At a certain age and for a certain audience- why not. For an interview, not. Very circumstance related.

(Trophy MCAT or LSAT scores... Mmm)


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> At a certain age and for a certain audience- why not. For an interview, not. Very circumstance related.
> 
> (Trophy MCAT or LSAT scores... Mmm)


For the crowd at Meijer?

John.


----------



## john117

Again depends on the circumstances. It's not like they didn't put the goods on display like an Paducah teenager in high school.

Both her parents and my parents were blown away by the lack of dress up here...


----------



## jld

You are dancing around it, John.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> You are dancing around it, John.



Hardly. I have every confidence in the world that J2 won't run off with the meat department guy at Meijer. What do I care if she wears a too revealing outfit.

At the heart of it it's all about confidence. The need for transparency - for some people - may simply be a supplement to insecurity. Do I go OMG she's wearing this and will spend the next ten hours with her upper management crush (Mr. Mormon dude)?? Of course not.

If I need to know and I don't - Shame on me.


----------



## jld

I am talking about your sons-in-law treating your daughters that way.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I am talking about your sons-in-law treating your daughters that way.



Same rationale - if I trust my girl to do the right thing... 

Look beyond the action and into the reason. What do they have to gain? Anything? Would they object if the girls wear Miley Cyrus-esque outfits to Kroger? (No Meijer where they are lol). It works the same way as with me.

As long as it's not a control issue and as long as they do it without ulterior motives I'm ok with it. Both girls are going to work in male dominated fields like their mom. They know the ropes.


----------



## ConanHub

WorkingOnMe said:


> If I had a dime for every time I heard 'oh Gerard'....


He is a wuss!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

John,
Transparency is something that AA has an excellent grasp of, and JLD has an incredible depth of experience with. 

J2 showed you real transparency quite a while ago. She was sort of having a moderate intensity anxiety attack when you were late getting home/bringing the girls home. 

She EXPRESSED that to you. She was transparent with you. It was a true show of vulnerability. Not saying she was polite about it. Courtesy is sometimes lost in the shuffle during an anxiety attack. 

You had so many good options to choose from. Sadly you decided that the best move was to humiliate J2. In front of the girls. 

So you taught J2 to - bite the pillow - when she's anxious. 





john117 said:


> Hardly. I have every confidence in the world that J2 won't run off with the meat department guy at Meijer. What do I care if she wears a too revealing outfit.
> 
> At the heart of it it's all about confidence. The need for transparency - for some people - may simply be a supplement to insecurity. Do I go OMG she's wearing this and will spend the next ten hours with her upper management crush (Mr. Mormon dude)?? Of course not.
> 
> If I need to know and I don't - Shame on me.


----------



## john117

I don't doubt they understand transparency - I do doubt the reasons they need transparency are the same as mine. Or that they value transparency as much as I do (not much).

What you call humiliation is a simple PsyOps experiment for me. J2 is notorious for never checking in when she will be late for work or if the roads are snowy etc. Why should I bend over backwards to fulfill her insecurity if she won't bother fulfilling mine?

Playing to your spouse's every need and desire is catastrophic in the long term. For them as well as for you.


----------



## john117

My late brother played to his wife's whims to no end. She demanded TAM spec transparency to no end. I hope the sex and everything else he got out of his marriage was worth it because he ended up being more miserable than a lot of TAM basket cases. Take teenage insecurities, add a law degree, and you get her. 

Never a fight, never an argument, he always placated her. Skrew that.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

What follows is the absolute truth. M2 had a need. Expressed it to me, I fully met it. She was happy. 

Our situation reversed itself. M2 did not do for me, what she had asked that I do for her. 

Initially I was angry/aggressive. Then I realized that this was a pure 'tit for tat' response. I don't care if M2 is on the phone when she gets home from work. She DID care if I was. 

So I stopped asking for the same consideration because it really didn't matter to me. 






john117 said:


> I don't doubt they understand transparency - I do doubt the reasons they need transparency are the same as mine. Or that they value transparency as much as I do (not much).
> 
> What you call humiliation is a simple PsyOps experiment for me. J2 is notorious for never checking in when she will be late for work or if the roads are snowy etc. Why should I bend over backwards to fulfill her insecurity if she won't bother fulfilling mine?
> 
> Playing to your spouse's every need and desire is catastrophic in the long term. For them as well as for you.


----------



## john117

That's drama. J2 being three hours late with phone on mute and incommunicado in a winter storm is not.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

The net result looks something like this: You are (or believe you are) right about almost everything. 

I'm not.

You believe J2 is wrong about almost everything. 
I believe M2 is overall a fair person, not perfect but fair. 

In consequence - we have radically different outcomes. 





john117 said:


> That's drama. J2 being three hours late with phone on mute and incommunicado in a winter storm is not.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I don't doubt they understand transparency - I do doubt the reasons they need transparency are the same as mine. Or that they value transparency as much as I do (not much).


You'll have to pardon my skepticism, John, that you have the whole transparency thing nailed. Given that, for example, your marriage is doomed and you have nothing but contempt for your wife.

You are so sure that everyone else's relationships are so much more miserable than yours? Because we are so damn insecure and controlling that we actually care to connect?

Transparency has nothing to do with catering to whims, and everything to do with being true to oneself -- and extending that privilege to someone else.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Never a fight, never an argument, he always placated her. Skrew that.


This is your vision of transparency? Well this at least helps me to understand why you are so hostile to the idea.

But what you describe isn't transparency, it's control pure and simple. That same kind of control that you are so gleeful about when you wield it over your wife. 

Good for you to have, but not others? :scratchhead:


----------



## john117

There's a fine line between transparency and control. 

As I said, if you care enough to know, figure it out.


----------



## john117

AA, people connect with concepts and ideas. Not with never ending confessions of their deepest thoughts on 8-track tape. If that rocks your boat, the more power to you. 

Part of the connection process is discovery. Make it too easy, too frequent, and so on and sharing - what I call transparency - loses some of it's appeal.

If you have been with someone for a while and still have questions about them, situational or foundational, then think harder. Remember that lawyers never ask a question whose answer they don't already know.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> 
> 
> The net result looks something like this: You are (or believe you are) right about almost everything.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> 
> 
> You believe J2 is wrong about almost everything.
> 
> I believe M2 is overall a fair person, not perfect but fair.
> 
> 
> 
> In consequence - we have radically different outcomes.



I don't care if J2 is wrong as long as it does not impact me.

That's her approach as well.


----------



## Thundarr

alphaomega said:


> Who doesn't like putting thier hottie on display? And if she's with me she's into me. Until she's not. Then I find a new hottie.
> 😜


It's ironic how life works. My wife (T2) could have aged really poorly and I would still see her as gorgeous because I love her. Instead though at 44, she smoken hot to anyone who sees her. Sometimes karma rewards us or maybe it's not karma at all.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> AA, people connect with concepts and ideas. Not with never ending confessions of their deepest thoughts on 8-track tape. If that rocks your boat, the more power to you.
> 
> Part of the connection process is discovery. Make it too easy, too frequent, and so on and sharing - what I call transparency - loses some of it's appeal.
> 
> If you have been with someone for a while and still have questions about them, situational or foundational, then think harder. Remember that lawyers never ask a question whose answer they don't already know.


Lawyers are trying to win a case, not know their client or witnesses. And yes indeed, they do ask lots of questions they don't know the answer to. Just not in the courtroom.

Not sure why you think transparency involves endless confessions, or why you think that is what I'm after? :scratchhead:

I guess you've been lucky enough never to have been lied to? Or you simply don't care if you have?

Personally, I find "discovery" to be tedious when I have to do all the work, and it's in shifting ground. I really don't want my relationship to be a forensics lab. Or a psych lab. Maybe that's where we differ? I prefer it when my rat just tells me he wants a piece of cheese. No maze running required.


----------



## Heatherknows

Thundarr said:


> It's ironic how life works. My wife (T2) could have aged really poorly and I would still see her as gorgeous because I love her. Instead though at 44, she smoken hot to anyone who sees her. Sometimes karma rewards us or maybe it's not karma at all.


Awww. Show this to your wife. :grin2:


----------



## john117

AA, the use of rats in psychology is misunderstood  

I don't disagree - discovery can be tedious - but it is also rewarding. When you're younger you're idealistic and more open and expect same. 

But two women in my life were very forthcoming with very personal info very early on. One when I was young and one when I was, well, last year . 

To me, transparency is a tool to get information. I've wasted enough years in college to know that people often don't know what they know or want - hence a lot of instrumentation to tell us the details. But the primary reason is "what does the person expect me to do with the information".

If we are talking about something profound that has the potential to nuke the relationship that's not transparency - that's honesty. If they don't deliver it's bye bye birdie time. The rest... It's don't cares or small stuff.

I've mentioned the story of my first flame. CSA survivor and dirt poor. But we were so compatible and mind-sync'ed we were closer after a few months than I've been into my marriage after decades. But we were young college kids. What applied thirty five years ago does not apply now.

When you're starting a relationship or early in to it it's not a bad idea (subject to the fun of discovery). In an established relationship, communication is my preferred way. Not full disclosure but enough to facilitate and sustain dialog.

Transparency is like using a hardware debugger. Lots of raw data to process and not very useful unless you know what to look for (ask). Dialog is like using a software debugger. More of a pain to use and time consuming and less info, but more useful info... 

(Apologies to my software team)


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Transparency is like using a hardware debugger. Lots of raw data to process and not very useful unless you know what to look for (ask). Dialog is like using a software debugger. More of a pain to use and time consuming and less info, but more useful info...
> 
> (Apologies to my software team)


I have to say, I really, really wonder what it is you see when you read my posts. 

You say you want honesty and communication. Dialogue.

How is that different from transparency? 

Remember, you are the one with the Vulcan mind meld analogies, not me.

Yes, dialogue is a great tool for connecting with someone. On that at least (maybe ??!!??) we can agree. I realize you are no longer interested in connecting with your wife, because she's already in her pigeon-hole and you have moved on. I'm suspecting, though, that when you meet someone else, you might be interested in learning about her? And it might be at least somewhat nice if she was open and, yes, honest with you, as opposed to pretending to be something she's not and leaving it up to you to root around to "discover" the answers?

Oh, and trust me, I know how and why rats are used in psychology (and other fields).

ETA: I just re-read your post, and I think it's kind of sad that you have given up on being close to someone. I mean, to each his own, but in my world that is what a relationship is for: to be close to someone, to connect. 

It would seem, though, that in many ways, you and your wife are well suited. At least you both seem to agree that all that fluffy "connection" crap is for the immature and stupid. Not "right-thinking" mature adults.


----------



## john117

Transparency - unfiltered information we think our partner needs.

Dialog - filtered, measured information our partner needs.

Your expectation of transparency is more an expectation to access to information (because transparency). This could end up asking for any and all information because transparency.

My expectation of dialog is need to know along with the process of getting the information. 

After a decade with someone you know. You don't ask. You know. It's not unicorny stuff for teenagers. 

My view of marriage or LTR is fundamentally two people, not a Vulcan mind meld. My happiness is not tied down to knowing every little neuron of my partner's brain and I sure as he11 hope she don't expect it of me either.

If you need to know something, ASK. Don't DEMAND. Don't EXPECT.

Eta: Let's say I meet another interesting person next year. Between the two of us we will have a century of experiences and thoughts. Am I going to spend my last decade pestering her (or her pestering me) instead of enjoying ourselves and discovering ourselves?

(Omg she likes country music)


----------



## MEM2020

John,

Let's work on definitions. 

Transparency: 
1. Voluntarily sharing sensitive information about ourselves with a partner who has earned our trust.
OR
2. Voluntarily sharing sensitive information about ourselves in an attempt to build trust with a partner. 










john117 said:


> Transparency - unfiltered information we think our partner needs.
> 
> Dialog - filtered, measured information our partner needs.
> 
> Your expectation of transparency is more an expectation to access to information (because transparency). This could end up asking for any and all information because transparency.
> 
> My expectation of dialog is need to know along with the process of getting the information.
> 
> After a decade with someone you know. You don't ask. You know. It's not unicorny stuff for teenagers.
> 
> My view of marriage or LTR is fundamentally two people, not a Vulcan mind meld. My happiness is not tied down to knowing every little neuron of my partner's brain and I sure as he11 hope she don't expect it of me either.
> 
> If you need to know something, ASK. Don't DEMAND. Don't EXPECT.
> 
> Eta: Let's say I meet another interesting person next year. Between the two of us we will have a century of experiences and thoughts. Am I going to spend my last decade pestering her (or her pestering me) instead of enjoying ourselves and discovering ourselves?
> 
> (Omg she likes country music)


----------



## john117

Most people may "volunteer" way too much information in an effort to (a) demonstrate trust or (b) attempt to gain trust. 

That's a pretty good way of flooding the other person with TMI, getting sidetracked, avoiding critical discussions (because we are so OPEN with each other) and so on. 

I don't doubt the value of transparency / dialog / discovery but I do not share the war cries for 24/7 mind melds. I am not suggesting being obtuse or clouding the waters or misleading but I am not suggesting full disclosure either - at least at my age. Someone in an LTR for a decade should know their partner and someone in a new LTR should have done their homework and asked the right question expecting not transparency but honesty.

I also suggested that self confidence and tolerance are crucial in managing expectations vis a vis transparency.


----------



## jld

I think that mind meld idea sounds appealing. I would love for Dug to just read my mind instead of my having to go to the trouble of communicating everything.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I think that mind meld idea sounds appealing. I would love for Dug to just read my mind instead of my having to go to the trouble of communicating everything.



View attachment 40058


"Could you please stop by Walmart on the way home dear?"

Why is this? Is communicating trouble? Inefficient?


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> View attachment 40058
> 
> 
> "Could you please stop by Walmart on the way home dear?"
> 
> Why is this? Is communicating trouble? Inefficient?


I just want perfect unity.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I just want perfect unity.



That's a mirage. There's jld and there's Dug. Can you improve? You always can. But to what end? Mind Meld Dug will be 99.99 % and normal Dug will be 99.9%.

You already have an exceptional marriage and yet would like more transparency. I have a basketcase marriage and would like even less transparency. Is this a case of a wild goose chase from both fronts?


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> That's a mirage. There's jld and there's Dug. Can you improve? You always can. But to what end? Mind Meld Dug will be 99.99 % and normal Dug will be 99.9%.
> 
> You already have an exceptional marriage and yet would like more transparency. I have a basketcase marriage and would like even less transparency. Is this a case of a wild goose chase from both fronts?


You're funny, John. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I don't doubt the value of transparency / dialog / discovery but I do not share the war cries for 24/7 mind melds. I am not suggesting being obtuse or clouding the waters or misleading but I am not suggesting full disclosure either - at least at my age. Someone in an LTR for a decade should know their partner and someone in a new LTR should have done their homework and asked the right question expecting not transparency but honesty.
> 
> I also suggested that self confidence and tolerance are crucial in managing expectations vis a vis transparency.


LOL!! Wow. War cries? Mind melds? 

Methinks though dost protesteth too much. You are after all the only one who has mentioned any such thing.

And I really must dig up that post where you are excoriating your wife for the way she disparages "unicorny stuff for teenagers" and her "at my age" attitude.

Word for word, I'm betting.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> Let's work on definitions.
> 
> Transparency:
> 1. Voluntarily sharing sensitive information about ourselves with a partner who has earned our trust.
> OR
> 2. Voluntarily sharing sensitive information about ourselves in an attempt to build trust with a partner.


Yes, olease. Like!


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> LOL!! Wow. War cries? Mind melds?
> 
> Methinks though dost protesteth too much. You are after all the only one who has mentioned any such thing.
> 
> And I really must dig up that post where you are excoriating your wife for the way she disparages "unicorny stuff for teenagers" and her "at my age" attitude.
> 
> Word for word, I'm betting.



Be my guest.

Keep in mind that there are legit alternatives for mind melds (hiring a PI, asking, deducing, observing, inferring, ignoring) and not quite as many legit alternatives for an overall emotional connection -aka unicorny stuff (EA, PA, etc)

But humor me: what questions or insights would you like from your partner and you aren't getting?

Serious question.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Keep in mind that there are legit alternatives for mind melds (hiring a PI, asking, deducing, observing, inferring, ignoring) and not quite as many legit alternatives for an overall emotional connection -aka unicorny stuff (EA, PA, etc)
> 
> But humor me: what questions or insights would you like from your partner and you aren't getting?
> 
> Serious question.


Why would you (one) hire a PI? What question or insights might you want answered from that?

And you genuinely see this as a better option than cultivating more transparency with your spouse?

I think we're just very, very different people.


----------



## john117

Figure of speech... 

It's an option. Not the preferred one but an option. 

The idea of transparency is good till you realize that you don't know what you don't know and that your spouse may not know either. My late mother in law is the textbook example. J2 at 25 looked very normal and answered my questions readily. I never thought of asking directly "anyone in the family a psycho?"... And she never volunteered any such info because to her, her mothers behavior was normal. It's not like she his anything - her idea of mental illness was very different than mine. 

Fast forward to the first time I met my mother in law a few years into the marriage. Holy expletive deleted cow... And needless to say J2 freaked out just as much. 

Transparency won't do you any good here. A PI might


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Figure of speech...
> 
> It's an option. Not the preferred one but an option.
> 
> The idea of transparency is good till you realize that you don't know what you don't know and that your spouse may not know either. My late mother in law is the textbook example. J2 at 25 looked very normal and answered my questions readily. I never thought of asking directly "anyone in the family a psycho?"... And she never volunteered any such info because to her, her mothers behavior was normal. It's not like she his anything - her idea of mental illness was very different than mine.
> 
> Fast forward to the first time I met my mother in law a few years into the marriage. Holy expletive deleted cow... And needless to say J2 freaked out just as much.
> 
> Transparency won't do you any good here. A PI might


Whaaa? You're a psychologist and you didn't ask if anyone in the family is a psycho? 

Of course you don't know what you don't know. But that's not the point. Transparency is not for perfect information, it's for trust and bonding. Hire a PI and that's out the window. And it's not like a PI is necessarily going to ask all the right questions either. At least if perfect control of your future is your goal.

I have a friend who GPS tracks his wife He gets good information from t, knows exactly where she is every minute of the day. But there is not an ounce of transparency in that relationship. She's sleeping around and he's spying on her, and both are lying to each other.

There's information and there's transparency, and they aren't the same thing. One is just data, the minutiae of life, with, if you're unlucky, a bomb or two dropped in. Transparency is open-ness to each other. There may not even be any information there at any given time, but just the understanding that when there is, the important bits will be shared.


----------



## john117

I kind of think asking if the family is psycho is not a good way to start a relationship 

If nothing else, this taught me the fallacy of marrying or LTR with someone so out of one's culture that it makes any kind of cross cultural conclusion meaningless. To that add economic status, language barriers, etc and you have it made.

No amount of transparency or openness can gap such chasms. You don't know what to ask... You aren't really in the same continent thought process wise.

Bonding comes from the iterative discovery process. Not from being transparent to each other. There's no true/false Scantron form. It ebbs and flows, starting high at a hormonal level (unicorny) then reality sets in and you start to ask questions, get some answers, and learn to read the other person. 

Especially learning to read the other person.

To summarize, assuming your partner is not stonewalling or misleading or ignoring you, it's your responsibility as much as his to get the information, whether mind meld, PI, or anything in between. That's discovery. Yea, you might have to do extra thinking or talking otherwise.

Don't simply expect transparency. First think why you need to know this or that then fill in the blanks. Need to know and all that.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I kind of think asking if the family is psycho is not a good way to start a relationship
> 
> If nothing else, this taught me the fallacy of marrying or LTR with someone so out of one's culture that it makes any kind of cross cultural conclusion meaningless. To that add economic status, language barriers, etc and you have it made.
> 
> No amount of transparency or openness can gap such chasms. You don't know what to ask... You aren't really in the same continent thought process wise.
> 
> Bonding comes from the iterative discovery process. Not from being transparent to each other. There's no true/false Scantron form. It ebbs and flows, starting high at a hormonal level (unicorny) then reality sets in and you start to ask questions, get some answers, and learn to read the other person.
> 
> Especially learning to read the other person.
> 
> To summarize, assuming your partner is not stonewalling or misleading or ignoring you, it's your responsibility as much as his to get the information, whether mind meld, PI, or anything in between. That's discovery. Yea, you might have to do extra thinking or talking otherwise.
> 
> Don't simply expect transparency. First think why you need to know this or that then fill in the blanks. Need to know and all that.


I think you make some good points here, John. It can be challenging to be married to a foreigner. French is not so different from American, but Dug and I have had our cultural and language differences come up from time to time.

While I am transparent with Dug, he also reads me, as you say. He said once that he hears my words, but he knows my heart.

I think every dominant partner should consider the wisdom in that approach. And try not to take every word personally.


----------



## john117

There are differences and there are differences. It's if and how you bridge those differences that matters.

Another J2 example.... A year ago we got a stack of 5x7 photo prints an inch thick from J2's teenage years. Most were taken by a very well camera-equipped uncle with an expensive Canon SLR and were of remarkable quality. 

Lots of transparency there. J2 was not all that comfortable around crowds of teenagers... And guys? As far away as possible back when talking to a guy would NOT get you stoned . By comparison her sister was a social butterfly.

It is rare to get this much insight from 40 years ago but it's just as rare to expect transparency to discuss such things. J2 had - unintentionally - painted herself as a shy, chubby, studious kid and she was all that. But the (undisclosed) level of social awkwardness was alarming. By comparison I was - still am - an open book if you know the language.

And since AA will ask this question in cross-examination , no, AA, she was not quite as socially awkward when I met her - by necessity. Foreign students who clam up have a miserable time in college and she did not clam up (made up for lost time :rofl...


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Bonding comes from the iterative discovery process. Not from being transparent to each other. There's no true/false Scantron form. It ebbs and flows, starting high at a hormonal level (unicorny) then reality sets in and you start to ask questions, get some answers, and learn to read the other person.
> 
> .


Like I said. We are very different people. I have no problems talking about the family psychos at the beginning of a relationship. I am not on "my best behaviour", I have no real desire to impress. I have no idea what you are talking about with "unicorny" stuff because I don't fall headlong into love, indeed don't even believe love is possible until you actually know someone. Otherwise, you just are in love with the fiction in your own head.

Best to know early and get out, than to drag on and on pretending to be something you're not. Or worse pretending your partner is something they're not. But that is just me.

I have had relationships with people from vastly different cultures, and so I do know what you mean. There are differences you don't know about. But I never had a problem with figuring out areas of compatibility, areas of difference, why we might work, why we would not. With some transparency it is easy. 

I thought, John, that you found people trivially easy to read. Why then is transparency so difficult? I don't get it. :scratchhead:


----------



## john117

Transparency has little to do with reading people.

Transparency is reading a book.

Reading people is reading between the lines especially what's not there.

I don't find transparency difficult by any stretch. It is useful but not to the degree of being critical. Honesty is far more critical. You can be transparent and yet not honest (enough). 

When you deal with different cultures it takes a huge amount of time to figure such things out depending on circumstances because one knows the facts but not the context. That makes any transparency not quite as useful as it would be between locals. 

Agreed about love... But that's not how it works in real life.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

It's true there is a cognitive aspect to this. And a valuable one at that. 

Thing is, if you look at it as a type of interpersonal Rubik's cube - you largely miss the point. It's mainly about trust. 





john117 said:


> Transparency has little to do with reading people.
> 
> Transparency is reading a book.
> 
> Reading people is reading between the lines especially what's not there.
> 
> I don't find transparency difficult by any stretch. It is useful but not to the degree of being critical. Honesty is far more critical. You can be transparent and yet not honest (enough).
> 
> When you deal with different cultures it takes a huge amount of time to figure such things out depending on circumstances because one knows the facts but not the context. That makes any transparency not quite as useful as it would be between locals.
> 
> Agreed about love... But that's not how it works in real life.


----------



## john117

Trust is earned by actions - not words.

Unless one is in their unicorny phase of the relationship.


----------



## MEM2020

That's right.

That my man is exactly why it feels so good when your partner is transparent with you. 




john117 said:


> Trust is earned by actions - not words.
> 
> Unless one is in their unicorny phase of the relationship.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> That's right.
> 
> 
> 
> That my man is exactly why it feels so good when your partner is transparent with you.



Transparency is largely verbal - communication glasnost if you wish. In my case - and I'm not generalizing - you're asking two cultures that have stonewalling and appearances down to a science to be open?

American openness ranks highly up there with American optimism in my list of great qualities for OTHERS to have


----------



## john117

One of my lab's responsibilities at work involving the analysis of human machine interaction using instrumentation, questionnaires, observations, and interviews. 

Why not just ASK? 

Because people don't know what they don't know, they may tell you what they think you want to hear, they may base their opinions based on other experiences, etc.

Sounds familiar?


----------



## MEM2020

I half agree with that. 

There is a Latin phrase 'In vino veritas'. In wine is truth. More accurately 'in alcohol is truth', which makes sense since alcohol lowers inhibitions.

In my experience - anger - often does the same. *Drunk with rage* is a phrase comparing the effects of alcohol and fury. 

When your partner is openly angry, that IS a type of transparency. It's a display of either hurt or fear. 

In most cases, the hurt or fear feels very bad to them, and the angry behavior you see is just their attempt to feel less bad. 

So then the question becomes: what is hurting or frightening my partner? 

Before you read the rest of this John, I hope you'll believe me when I say that I'm not competing with you. This is an attempt to collaborate. That's all. 

You can scream back at the angry person. Eventually they will learn not to express their fear, hurt via angry outburst. 

But it doesn't change the fact, that the underlying triggers causing them to feel hurt/frightened are still there. 

And it is easy to never discover the triggers - because you were too busy managing their aggression with your protective reaction - counter aggression. 






john117 said:


> Transparency is largely verbal - communication glasnost if you wish. In my case - and I'm not generalizing - you're asking two cultures that have stonewalling and appearances down to a science to be open?
> 
> American openness ranks highly up there with American optimism in my list of great qualities for OTHERS to have


----------



## MEM2020

John,
Your post below is true. And often there are many simultaneous factors at work. That's why they pay you a lot of money to understand and then design using that expertise.

It's also true that there ARE some situations that are clear cut. 

It took me 20 years to 'see' the doorway. And one full year after seeing it, to slowly, carefully walk through it. 

I left M2 laughing and smiling. Went for a walk by myself in the neighborhood. I'd invited her, but she'd declined. When I came home she was showering. She glared at me with intense hostility as I walked into the master bath. 

Anyway - that was the night I realized she had such an intense fear of being left out, abandoned. 

Its like you said about J2 John. She's kind of introverted. You were 'her person'. She could always count on you. 

Until that thing happened. Made it seem to J2 as if you loved your designer daughter more than her. 

Come on man, where do you think all that rage came from? 

I told you that it took me a year. Most of that year was slowly coming to accept that M2's fears weren't about me. One more time: They weren't about me. 

Once I accepted that, my fury at M2 was replaced by empathy. And yes I was initially furious beyond words. Partly at her for being so selfish. And partly at me for being so stupid and not seeing the doorway right in front of me for 20 years. 

The reason I didn't see it was that anything work related was 100% exempt from this whole - abandonment - issue. Work was just one big act of service for the family. Hard work and travel - was more of the same. An act of love. 

Totally different than non work related decisions to do stuff without M2. 




john117 said:


> One of my lab's responsibilities at work involving the analysis of human machine interaction using instrumentation, questionnaires, observations, and interviews.
> 
> Why not just ASK?
> 
> Because people don't know what they don't know, they may tell you what they think you want to hear, they may base their opinions based on other experiences, etc.
> 
> Sounds familiar?


----------



## john117

See, our difference is that y'all seek emotional transparency while I'm more interested in factual transparency.

Emotional transparency is easy to obtain if you pay attention and if you're not exceedingly selfish. Mostly it's about paying attention and playing out scenarios in your head and UNDERSTANDING the responses you get vis a vis the behaviors you exhibit. Just like work 

Factual transparency is more of the "any psycho relatives" variety type questions. You can't figure those out without a PI, confession, PsyOps, etc (in no particular order)

I've gone thru the work - travel a bit and know J2 hates it when I travel. I've gone to extraordinary measures to send others to fun places and even done two trips to the west coast in one week to be with J2 for one extra day. That was in our good days. J2 knows I sacrificed a lot in my career to raise our kids and be there for them so I don't have to worry about such things....


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> One of my lab's responsibilities at work involving the analysis of human machine interaction using instrumentation, questionnaires, observations, and interviews.
> 
> Why not just ASK?
> 
> Because people don't know what they don't know, they may tell you what they think you want to hear, they may base their opinions based on other experiences, etc.
> 
> Sounds familiar?


All of this instrumentation and analysis you do is about operationalizing so that you can say what "people" do. Not person, but people, in general, on average, statistically speaking.

You don't ask because you don't care about the individual, don't care to hear their narratives, their idiosyncrasies, their complaints about how they used one just like that last week and burned their toast.

The instrumentation you speak of in no way helps you connect with or build transparency. It doesn't even help you know one person any better because it treats people like data points.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Factual transparency is more of the "any psycho relatives" variety type questions. You can't figure those out without a PI, confession, PsyOps, etc (in no particular order)
> .


Factual transparency is actually quite easy --' as long as you don't make stonewalling and maintaining appearances a point of pride.

Sometimes you can just ask. Or information is volunteered in the context of sharing experiences, thought, ideas. I know all about my SO's relatives, including ones I've never met and are long dead. 

And, the way I look at it at least, factual transparency isn't really about having *all* the facts. Just the knowledge that the important ones will be shared. 

Emotional transparency is much harder, IMHO. Because people want to be liked and save face and manipulate others (etc), they are (or rather can be) very careful to control the message. Only letting you see what they want you to see. Putting on airs, even believing them, lying to themselves as much as to anyone else, so that they feel a little less vulnerable.

You can play out all the scenarios you want in your head, but you don't really know if you are getting it right or projecting your own head onto theirs. Especially if that person *wants* you to think a certain way about things.

I would be a lot more willing to accept your total confidence in your ability to read emotional transparency if you didn't consistently describe your wife as some combination of evil, stupid, indifferent and full of rage. That this is all you can see in her tells me that you don't understand her half as well as you think you do.


----------



## john117

The instrumentation is there to tell me if what the subject reports is accurate or not - let's say I ask the subject what feature on the screen is the most prominent. The subject reports "uh, the big volume up/down buttons". The eye tracker & high speed video tells me it's the too bright power on LED... (True example from a couple years ago)

Then I ask the user if a particular sequence of operation was easy to perform. Subject, macho manly man he is, reports yea it's easy. The pupilometer and heart rate monitor reports otherwise. (Equally true)

In both cases the subject does not know what they don't know. It does not help build transparency but it helps confirm or reject user reported facts.

Just like I do not depend on transparency (i.e. user reported information) in the lab I do not depend on transparency in a relationship. In both cases I look for actions and other data to corroborate the reported information. It's nice to have but not make or break. 

Nothing in my mind beats forming a good hypothesis and testing it out: "wifey has the hots for Meijer meat department guy"... Transparency: "wow dear why did we buy $100 worth of steak for two people?..." Versus the alternatives 

Depending too heavily on a single source (transparency, instrumentation, hunches, observation, etc) is a recipe for bias. You need all of them integrated on a single and understandable format.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> I half agree with that.
> 
> There is a Latin phrase 'In vino veritas'. In wine is truth. More accurately 'in alcohol is truth', which makes sense since alcohol lowers inhibitions.
> 
> In my experience - anger - often does the same. *Drunk with rage* is a phrase comparing the effects of alcohol and fury.
> 
> When your partner is openly angry, that IS a type of transparency. It's a display of either hurt or fear.


I think you are absolutely right here, that transparency isn't all about words. Indeed, it is also very much about action, and about the dynamic between two people.

Your story is interesting. What you describe is kind of like transparency as itself a kind of action. M2 expresses her feelings, which in many ways aren't actually all that transparent because she doesn't or can't explain to you the source of those feelings. At least not initially. But depending on the responses, on how those feelings are met, you can both become more transparent to yourselves (better understanding your own emotions and reactions) and each other (honestly expressing them as such).

With my SO and I, I would say that I have successfully communicated some raw emotions, and more or less when I'm coming from, but he doesn't really want to hear about, and doesn't really care to communicate what goes on with him. So we are at a stand still. I want to connect, but feel like there's no real place to anymore. And for his part, I think he's perfectly happy with the way things are, as long as I'm not upsetting the apple cart.


----------



## jld

Aa, I don't mean to be hurtful, but I just don't get the feeling he loves you. I do think you love him, though.

Maybe that is why it is so hard to let go?


----------



## john117

People have no problem perceiving raw emotions - it's what they do with said emotions that matter...


----------



## jld

I think when a man loves a woman, he accepts the whole package.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> The instrumentation is there to tell me if what the subject reports is accurate or not - let's say I ask the subject what feature on the screen is the most prominent. The subject reports "uh, the big volume up/down buttons". The eye tracker & high speed video tells me it's the too bright power on LED... (True example from a couple years ago)
> 
> Then I ask the user if a particular sequence of operation was easy to perform. Subject, macho manly man he is, reports yea it's easy. The pupilometer and heart rate monitor reports otherwise. (Equally true)


Words like "prominent" or "easy" are actually quite subjective, and so of course people report different things. You want them to be objective, and so you're operationalize them according to your own measures and standards. All perfectly understandable because this is your job.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that people are invested in maintaining their images of themselves. Manly man isn't going to admit he is confused or stumped or scared, and certainly not to some psychologist in a lab. Girly girl isn't even going to try to figure out the big scary technology, as long as she can bat her eyelashes and make manly man do it for her.

But in the world of relationships, the goal isn't to eliminate bias to get at the "truth". It is to realize that these subjective experiences are the truth, as that person experiences and lives in the world. This includes all the games we play to preserve the image we desperately want to live up to.

At least, IMHO.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Aa, I don't mean to be hurtful, but I just don't get the feeling he loves you. I do think you love him, though.


It might be the other way around!


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> It might be the other way around!


Could you elaborate, please?


----------



## john117

Subject to him understanding of course.

There are three parts here: 

- perception (via transparency / mind meld / PI) 

- cognition (understanding of what was said)

- action 

Perception is important but without cognition and action all one has is words, and lots of them.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> But in the world of relationships, the goal isn't to eliminate bias to get at the "truth". It is to realize that these subjective experiences are the truth, as that person experiences and lives in the world. This includes all the games we play to preserve the image we desperately want to live up to.
> 
> 
> 
> At least, IMHO.



There is generally factual truth behind emotional truth. The question is, can we interpolate one from the other?


----------



## MEM2020

John,

You assess the difficulty of everything in terms of cognitive complexity. 

But that's not how this particular process succeeds or fails. 

The sad thing is that - some folks - are simply unable to put down the 'I have to win' mindset, and replace it with an 'I Have to understand' mindset. 





john117 said:


> See, our difference is that y'all seek emotional transparency while I'm more interested in factual transparency.
> 
> Emotional transparency is easy to obtain if you pay attention and if you're not exceedingly selfish. Mostly it's about paying attention and playing out scenarios in your head and UNDERSTANDING the responses you get vis a vis the behaviors you exhibit. Just like work
> 
> Factual transparency is more of the "any psycho relatives" variety type questions. You can't figure those out without a PI, confession, PsyOps, etc (in no particular order)
> 
> I've gone thru the work - travel a bit and know J2 hates it when I travel. I've gone to extraordinary measures to send others to fun places and even done two trips to the west coast in one week to be with J2 for one extra day. That was in our good days. J2 knows I sacrificed a lot in my career to raise our kids and be there for them so I don't have to worry about such things....


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> 
> 
> You assess the difficulty of everything in terms of cognitive complexity.
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not how this particular process succeeds or fails.
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that - some folks - are simply unable to put down the 'I have to win' mindset, and replace it with an 'I Have to understand' mindset.



Cognitive complexity is part of it, and the easier to understand. The other part is emotional complexity which I try to understand. Forget relationships and think smartphones. Why is it that Apple has 13% market share and 90% profit share? It's not cognitive prowess that drives their success. It's emotional. 

Yet at some point you say fvck it even if you're the most die hard iPhone user and move on. I'm getting an Android phone next week... I can't fathom paying $800 for an iPhone whose technology is not 2015 by any stretch.

It's like that with people, too. 

You expect cognitive / factual as well as emotional truth. The two are mixed at some ratio but as Apple will find one of these days you can only sustain a relationship on emotions for so long. 

Transparency (what you're being told) is great up to a point, makes you feel good etc and you even overlook glaring faults at times. But in any relationship you need a dose of reality, you need to feel good and be good and do good for what your partner DID, not TOLD you.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

Other than the death of a child, there is no greater loss than that of the love of your life. 

Nothing else is even close. 

And the folks on TAM who taught me to stay fully present - while M2 is in full fury - did me a huge solid. 





john117 said:


> Cognitive complexity is part of it, and the easier to understand. The other part is emotional complexity which I try to understand. Forget relationships and think smartphones. Why is it that Apple has 13% market share and 90% profit share? It's not cognitive prowess that drives their success. It's emotional.
> 
> Yet at some point you say fvck it even if you're the most die hard iPhone user and move on. I'm getting an Android phone next week... I can't fathom paying $800 for an iPhone whose technology is not 2015 by any stretch.
> 
> It's like that with people, too.
> 
> You expect cognitive / factual as well as emotional truth. The two are mixed at some ratio but as Apple will find one of these days you can only sustain a relationship on emotions for so long.
> 
> Transparency (what you're being told) is great up to a point, makes you feel good etc and you even overlook glaring faults at times. But in any relationship you need a dose of reality, you need to feel good and be good and do good for what your partner DID, not TOLD you.


----------



## john117

Yet people move on - even in decades long marriages. People pass on. And we survive.

What does this tell us? 

You stay present while M2 is doing this or that. Great. But everything has a "price". And when your "price" is met or exceeded you'll walk out. Or she will.

I know my cynicism shows here but I think pedestals are for art, not people. If you feel you have "struggled" or "fought" or "worked hard" for your marriage at some point you may wake up one morning and think differently.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
It truly isn't about a pedestal. It's actually the opposite. It's seeing someone's deep fears and still loving them. 





john117 said:


> Yet people move on - even in decades long marriages. People pass on. And we survive.
> 
> What does this tell us?
> 
> You stay present while M2 is doing this or that. Great. But everything has a "price". And when your "price" is met or exceeded you'll walk out. Or she will.
> 
> I know my cynicism shows here but I think pedestals are for art, not people. If you feel you have "struggled" or "fought" or "worked hard" for your marriage at some point you may wake up one morning and think differently.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> It truly isn't about a pedestal. It's actually the opposite. It's seeing someone's deep fears and still loving them.



Up to the point that someone's deep fears and insecurities nuke the relationship or create hardship on the partner. If that's not putting someone on the pedestal and accepting their flaws and associated side effects, I don't know what is. My brother did that for all the good it did to him. I did it for a while after things turned bad.

With divorce rates as high as they are maybe a lot of people are figuring that pedestals aren't worth the effort.

Just like there is no perfect smartphone there is no perfect partner. One can always get a new partner. One can't get back the years they lost with their current partner.

Emotions are great till one realizes the long term impact of taking one for the team every time and feeling good about it. It works up to a point.


----------



## MEM2020

Ocotillo,

What's the underlying trigger for rage if not fear or hurt?

Can you provide a real world example?



ocotillo said:


> I half agree with that.
> 
> Alcohol and anger can both induce moments of brutal honesty, but the expression, "drunk with rage" and the word, "rage" itself more commonly describe inappropriate expressions of anger not necessarily attributable to hurt and fear.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
Perhaps you don't care either way, but it's important to me that we are clear on this point. 

I absolutely and without reservation believe you did the right thing for your daughter and that you did it for the right reasons. So as far as the mechanics and the underlying emotions you are on the side of the Angels where that is concerned. 

The only point I'm trying to make is that I believe J2 perceived that conflict very differently than you did. This isn't double speak. J2's perception was incorrect. That doesn't change the fact that it felt real to her and triggered an extended downward spiral with you. 

The toughest thing about this situation is that you and I see a constellation of symptoms and draw completely opposing conclusions. 

You have a disturbingly simplistic model for depicting women. The phrases you use are illuminating. For example on the one hand you have what you condecendingly refer to as the: 
Doe eyed bride. 
And you contrast that with the: 
Battle scarred corporate veteran. 

J2 is the latter 'type'. 

I knew some car salesman, and they used similar terminology. All their female customers were either: bltches or lay downs. 

This mental model won't help you in a post J2 world. 




john117 said:


> Up to the point that someone's deep fears and insecurities nuke the relationship or create hardship on the partner. If that's not putting someone on the pedestal and accepting their flaws and associated side effects, I don't know what is. My brother did that for all the good it did to him. I did it for a while after things turned bad.
> 
> With divorce rates as high as they are maybe a lot of people are figuring that pedestals aren't worth the effort.
> 
> Just like there is no perfect smartphone there is no perfect partner. One can always get a new partner. One can't get back the years they lost with their current partner.
> 
> Emotions are great till one realizes the long term impact of taking one for the team every time and feeling good about it. It works up to a point.


----------



## alphaomega

Learning to understand has nothing to do with putting people on a pedestal. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Those that idolize don't even question the other person. They just think that the other person should always be right 

Learning to understand is a more thorough interaction to me. I may not agree with you, but I can put my own memes aside to at least understand what's making "you" tick. Why "you" are ranting or unhappy. Once I have that understanding, it's a much more mature way to go forward into resolution, or at least discussions. 

Yes...sometimes the end game can be separation or divorce, but the road travelled there is a much better route than blind acceptance or blind stubbornness.

It was a hard path for me to get here. I was both guilty of "pedastalization" and "being right". 

Wisdom is definitely wasted on old fks like me. 


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Up to the point that someone's deep fears and insecurities nuke the relationship or create hardship on the partner. If that's not putting someone on the pedestal and accepting their flaws and associated side effects, I don't know what is. My brother did that for all the good it did to him. I did it for a while after things turned bad.


Loving someone despite their flaws and vulnerabilities in no way means that you are putting them on a pedestal. It's quite possible to love someone with all your heart, know them to the depths of their soul, and still decide that all things considered, the best solution is to part ways and never even see each other again.

None of these words, love, honesty, transparency, mean that you will put up with anything or let yourself be damaged by that person. It's tricky sometimes, but "accepting flaws" in no way means "become a victim of" in quite the way you imply.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I half agree with that.
> 
> Alcohol and anger can both induce moments of brutal honesty, but the expression, "drunk with rage" and the word, "rage" itself more commonly describe inappropriate expressions of anger not necessarily attributable to hurt and fear.


I submit that it could be both inappropriate AND and an expression of hurt and fear.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Could you elaborate, please?


I was poised to leave. I stayed because he wanted me to. 

I don't really know how I feel these days. Because I'm hurt and don't know how to process it. Part of me *wants* to shut it down. Another part screams "no". 

He is at least consistent that he wants the relationship to continue.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Transparency (what you're being told) is great up to a point, makes you feel good etc and you even overlook glaring faults at times. But in any relationship you need a dose of reality, you need to feel good and be good and do good for what your partner DID, not TOLD you.


The more you insist that transparency is "just words", the more I'm seeing at as a constellation of things, words, actions, body language, reactions. The kit and the kaboodle.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Loving someone despite their flaws and vulnerabilities in no way means that you are putting them on a pedestal. It's quite possible to love someone with all your heart, know them to the depths of their soul, and still decide that all things considered, the best solution is to part ways and never even see each other again.


Totally agree! Sometimes the greatest act of kindness you can do for a loved one is to let him or her go!

Occasionally on TAM there is a thread about someone's partner realizing they were gay and wanting to pursue a life with another gay person. Their straight partner would very likely still love them very much, but willingly let them go. 

A HD and LD couple may love each other as well. But after coming to terms with their differences, they may decide to part ways, truly wishing each other the best.

Nothing wrong with separating if it is done with each other's best interests in mind.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I was poised to leave. I stayed because he wanted me to.
> 
> I don't really know how I feel these days. Because I'm hurt and don't know how to process it. Part of me *wants* to shut it down. Another part screams "no".
> 
> He is at least consistent that he wants the relationship to continue.


I think you are a very high quality person who deserves to feel cherished, aa. That just does not seem to be happening at this time in your relationship.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> The toughest thing about this situation is that you and I see a constellation of symptoms and draw completely opposing conclusions.
> 
> You have a disturbingly simplistic model for depicting women. The phrases you use are illuminating. For example on the one hand you have what you condecendingly refer to as the:
> Doe eyed bride.
> And you contrast that with the:
> Battle scarred corporate veteran.
> 
> J2 is the latter 'type'.
> 
> I knew some car salesman, and they used similar terminology. All their female customers were either: bltches or lay downs.
> 
> This mental model won't help you in a post J2 world.



Note that I have not referenced good ole' J2 here. What I write is influenced by my experience of 30 years and my accursed decade of psych education, but it's a lot more than just reactionary.

Indeed, I do simplify - you do it too. We all do. It's how the mind works. The only difference is how many rules we use and how each parameter within each rule is prioritized. That's what makes us different

Life is a slightly more complicated version of The Sims from where I sit. The models I use are for everyone, myself included, and are hardly gender limited. There's a handful of basic types of men, another handful of types of women, and from there on it's just a matter of filling in the right ovals in the Scantron form and you have your answer.

I know it svcks to have spent all those years thinking we are all different and all special. We aren't. It took me a while to come to terms with that. We think and act in ways that appear to make us different but at the bottom it's basic things that drive us all (Maslow ). 

In the post J2 world I'll be content with a pair of Maine *****....


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> The more you insist that transparency is "just words", the more I'm seeing at as a constellation of things, words, actions, body language, reactions. The kit and the kaboodle.



Of course they are. It so happens that emotions are the hardest to read, then words, then body language, and finally actions.


----------



## alphaomega

Yeah man

Dogs don't care if your broke this week. 

And they care if your unhappy. They do have stinky kisses though. 😜
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Now this resonates. 

It's why I mostly ignore your comments about culture. Your wife has been here a long long time. Was she a bit spoiled? Sure. Raised in an environment that had a preference for males? Probably. But that's true of a big chunk of US households. 

Your storybook romance that worked so well for a quarter century, is in crash and burn mode. So your story for the underlying causes leans heavily on factors you have no control over. 

You my man - are way way to worried about being 'right'. 

Think about that story I told about my failure to understand a core aspect to M2's behavior for 20 years. I'm referring to her somewhat extreme issues relating to abandonment and feeling left out. 

I'll flesh it out a bit more. M2 hated feeling left out. So at 'some level' I knew that doing stuff without her caused really bad shlt to happen. But M2 was able to obfuscate what was really happening by starting fights about random stuff. And she would sometimes wait long enough that the correlation wasn't so obvious. 

It was pure serendipity the way things worked out that night I went for a walk. 

That phobia doesn't make her a bad person. It just requires some special handling to work around. 

In the weeks after my epiphany, I was so angry. All those times that M2 created havoc out of jealousy. Eventually I came round to seeing it the way my therapist explained. She said: M2 is trying to make herself feel 'less bad' in those situations. That is her primary driver. To the degree you can help her with THAT, these undesirable patterns will disappear. 

Initially J2 was mostly doing stuff to make herself feel 'less bad'. And then as the marriage descended into near continuous 'low intensity conflict', well what happened then, that's just human nature. 

But the catalyst in the beginning is something you seem determined to avoid thinking about. 


QUOTE=john117;14127674]Note that I have not referenced good ole' J2 here. What I write is influenced by my experience of 30 years and my accursed decade of psych education, but it's a lot more than just reactionary.

Indeed, I do simplify - you do it too. We all do. It's how the mind works. The only difference is how many rules we use and how each parameter within each rule is prioritized. That's what makes us different

Life is a slightly more complicated version of The Sims from where I sit. The models I use are for everyone, myself included, and are hardly gender limited. There's a handful of basic types of men, another handful of types of women, and from there on it's just a matter of filling in the right ovals in the Scantron form and you have your answer.

I know it svcks to have spent all those years thinking we are all different and all special. We aren't. It took me a while to come to terms with that. We think and act in ways that appear to make us different but at the bottom it's basic things that drive us all (Maslow ). 

In the post J2 world I'll be content with a pair of Maine *****....[/QUOTE]


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Loving someone despite their flaws and vulnerabilities in no way means that you are putting them on a pedestal. It's quite possible to love someone with all your heart, know them to the depths of their soul, and still decide that all things considered, the best solution is to part ways and never even see each other again.
> 
> 
> 
> None of these words, love, honesty, transparency, mean that you will put up with anything or let yourself be damaged by that person. It's tricky sometimes, but "accepting flaws" in no way means "become a victim of" in quite the way you imply.



Any time you sacrifice a part of yourself to keep your non nicely behaving spouse "happy" you're treating them better than yourself. I can see that being a good thing if it happens symmetrically.

What we've seen on TAM is that it often not the case. When we feel strongly about our partner it only feels natural to do it. But, after some of us have been burned by prolonged exposure to spousal heat, some of us come out of our stupor (thank you 180) and realize our fvck up for what it was

In regards to your last paragraph, bad partners don't spontaneously combust like on Angry Birds after they get hit with the cayenne pepper ray. It happens gradually, slowly, transparently  and by the time you snap out of it you have 20 years and 2.2 kids and a picket fence in the game.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> You my man - are way way to worried about being 'right'.
> 
> 
> 
> Think about that story I told about my failure to understand a core aspect to M2's behavior for 20 years. I'm referring to her somewhat extreme issues relating to abandonment and feeling left out.
> 
> ..,,,
> That phobia doesn't make her a bad person. It just requires some special handling to work around.
> 
> 
> 
> In the weeks after my epiphany, I was so angry. All those times that M2 created havoc out of jealousy. Eventually I came round to seeing it the way my therapist explained. She said: M2 is trying to make herself feel 'less bad' in those situations. That is her primary driver. To the degree you can help her with THAT, these undesirable patterns will disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> Initially J2 was mostly doing stuff to make herself feel 'less bad'. And then as the marriage descended into near continuous 'low intensity conflict', well what happened then, that's just human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> But the catalyst in the beginning is something you seem determined to avoid thinking about.



I don't feel the need to be right. I do feel the need to be thorough and fair to all sides. 

Reading your story about M2 leaves two reactions in my mind:

- My parents like any military family never had such issues during lengthy deployments, long hours, or other career separations. 

- it took how long for MEM to figure this out? You're talking a chain reaction here: MEM gone, M2 angry, MEM doesn't pick up on it, M2 more angry... cue in music from Jaws...

Let me turn it around: Why was it so difficult for you to pick up the fact that she wanted you around, and why was it so difficult for her to understand you were gone to support the family?

When I had a stint from 1999 to 2002 when I did serious travel it took J2 all of a week to get teed off at me. Esp when she had two young kids to deal with. Took me a week to figure out. To her credit J2 was not subtle about it.

Later on she did not do anything to make herself feel "less bad". She did things to make others feel "way more bad". Like mess with my older girl (stuff I have not and will not go into detail). That's called "pathology". It took me a couple months to see thru it and deal with it to protect my child more than anything else. 

Trust me, MEM, I wish I had not gotten to know all this. It was a sh!tty period that my wife has all but rug swept and my girl pretends never happened. 

As much as I'm amazed at the human capacity to hold a grudge and seek justice, I'm equally amazed at the human capacity to forgive and forget. To experience both in the same family has to be worth something...


----------



## MEM2020

John,

I addressed your point in an earlier post - #332: 

M2 was amazingly supportive of my long hours and hard core travel. 

The bit below is a direct paste from post 332 in this thread. You must have missed it. 
--------------
*The reason I didn't see it was that anything work related was 100% exempt from this whole - abandonment - issue. Work was just one big act of service for the family. Hard work and travel - was more of the same. An act of love. 

Totally different than non work related decisions to do stuff without M2. *




john117 said:


> I don't feel the need to be right. I do feel the need to be thorough and fair to all sides.
> 
> Reading your story about M2 leaves two reactions in my mind:
> 
> - My parents like any military family never had such issues during lengthy deployments, long hours, or other career separations.
> 
> - it took how long for MEM to figure this out? You're talking a chain reaction here: MEM gone, M2 angry, MEM doesn't pick up on it, M2 more angry... cue in music from Jaws...
> 
> Let me turn it around: Why was it so difficult for you to pick up the fact that she wanted you around, and why was it so difficult for her to understand you were gone to support the family?
> 
> When I had a stint from 1999 to 2002 when I did serious travel it took J2 all of a week to get teed off at me. Esp when she had two young kids to deal with. Took me a week to figure out. To her credit J2 was not subtle about it.
> 
> Later on she did not do anything to make herself feel "less bad". She did things to make others feel "way more bad". Like mess with my older girl (stuff I have not and will not go into detail). That's called "pathology". It took me a couple months to see thru it and deal with it to protect my child more than anything else.
> 
> Trust me, MEM, I wish I had not gotten to know all this. It was a sh!tty period that my wife has all but rug swept and my girl pretends never happened.
> 
> As much as I'm amazed at the human capacity to hold a grudge and seek justice, I'm equally amazed at the human capacity to forgive and forget. To experience both in the same family has to be worth something...


----------



## MEM2020

YES 



jld said:


> I think when a man loves a woman, he accepts the whole package.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> I addressed your point in an earlier post - #332:
> 
> M2 was amazingly supportive of my long hours and hard core travel.
> 
> The bit below is a direct paste from post 332 in this thread. You must have missed it.
> --------------
> *The reason I didn't see it was that anything work related was 100% exempt from this whole - abandonment - issue. Work was just one big act of service for the family. Hard work and travel - was more of the same. An act of love.
> 
> Totally different than non work related decisions to do stuff without M2. *



I didn't miss it.

Without quantifying work vs non work absence times and frequencies of occurrence there's no information to make any kind of comment. 

I do find it odd that she accepted you gone while you were working but did not respond as well when you were gone for personal time, subject to a reasonable amount of each...


----------



## MEM2020

John,

I think you just called me - stupid - for not seeing the obvious. 

Let's begin by agreeing. I was stupid. I missed a huge component of M2. I admit that. 

It is also true that my stupidity was not caused by indifference. It was primarily a matter of:
1. M2 was super supportive of work - even extended periods where I was only home on weekends. She had this phrase: Do what you need to do. 
2. I am about as immune to jealousy as can be. Didn't dawn on me she might be totally different. 
3. For the first 20 years of marriage I worked so much, that the jealousy thing was a rare event because when I wasn't at work, I was mostly doing family stuff. 
4. M2 is keenly aware that her intense reaction to feeling left out, is not a positive thing. So she was usually careful not to be direct. She would create havoc but would claim it was about other stuff. 

All that said, early on there were some dead give aways. And in hindsight when I looked back it all became oh so obvious. 

Why I freely admit - this was appallingly stupid. It was. I'm sharing my mistakes here in the hope that those who follow will benefit. 

As far as the pathology from J2 towards your older daughter, that must have been very draining emotionally. 

It's also true that you are making my case for me. Your wife was seeing J3 and perhaps also J4 as competitors. 

So yeah - you were on the receiving end of hate. This isn't always true, but often when hate is present in a marriage it's triggered when the person we love isn't treating us/loving us the way they used to. The way we want them to. 




john117 said:


> I don't feel the need to be right. I do feel the need to be thorough and fair to all sides.
> 
> Reading your story about M2 leaves two reactions in my mind:
> 
> - My parents like any military family never had such issues during lengthy deployments, long hours, or other career separations.
> 
> - it took how long for MEM to figure this out? You're talking a chain reaction here: MEM gone, M2 angry, MEM doesn't pick up on it, M2 more angry... cue in music from Jaws...
> 
> Let me turn it around: Why was it so difficult for you to pick up the fact that she wanted you around, and why was it so difficult for her to understand you were gone to support the family?
> 
> When I had a stint from 1999 to 2002 when I did serious travel it took J2 all of a week to get teed off at me. Esp when she had two young kids to deal with. Took me a week to figure out. To her credit J2 was not subtle about it.
> 
> Later on she did not do anything to make herself feel "less bad". She did things to make others feel "way more bad". Like mess with my older girl (stuff I have not and will not go into detail). That's called "pathology". It took me a couple months to see thru it and deal with it to protect my child more than anything else.
> 
> Trust me, MEM, I wish I had not gotten to know all this. It was a sh!tty period that my wife has all but rug swept and my girl pretends never happened.
> 
> As much as I'm amazed at the human capacity to hold a grudge and seek justice, I'm equally amazed at the human capacity to forgive and forget. To experience both in the same family has to be worth something...


----------



## MEM2020

John,

That's childish. If you had a question on magnitude, just ask. Why would you assume it's a low magnitude thing? Why would I reference it as a confounding variable if that were the case. 

I was only home on weekends for a few long projects. Two of them were 2 years in duration. 

When I was in town, I normally had a 10 hour work day plus two hours of commuting. 




john117 said:


> I didn't miss it.
> 
> Without quantifying work vs non work absence times and frequencies of occurrence there's no information to make any kind of comment.
> 
> I do find it odd that she accepted you gone while you were working but did not respond as well when you were gone for personal time, subject to a reasonable amount of each...


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> 
> 
> That's childish. If you had a question on magnitude, just ask. Why would you assume it's a low magnitude thing? Why would I reference it as a confounding variable if that were the case.
> 
> 
> 
> I was only home on weekends for a few long projects. Two of them were 2 years in duration.
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in town, I normally had a 10 hour work day plus two hours of commuting.



Ok, I'll ask.

What was the magnitude of your non work absences that would justify such a response?

And how come you didn't see the obvious? Over many years ?

I'm assuming some sanity check here. Ie not gone for a month then off to the golf course....


----------



## john117

J2 never saw J3 as a competitor. Just a way to get to me . Pretty effective way till I figured her game plan a couple months later.

J2 never saw J4 as anything - she's the golden child. J4 being as manipulative and cold hearted as dad she's preparing some interesting surprise for mom come next spring 

J2 saw J3 as a convenient excuse. Nothing more. A fact that J3, the doe eyed designer completely missed.

J2 is only jealous about material things. Time spent with J3/J4 is time not spent with her so it's good....


----------



## alphaomega

John

I don't understand some of your logic. I can find it really easy for someone not to "get" it. Especially when we are not all psychologists. 

It would be the same as me projecting my knowledge towards someone at work who isn't trained in, say, electronics. And thinking thier stupid for not "getting it". I'm sure most have experienced this same attitude from those little punks working in IT when you call for help. 

And within psychology speak, it's well "known" most (not all) women are wired differently. Guys are obvious. Girls are subtle...

Guy: why are you always making us late? Bejezzus!

Same response from a lady: (big scowl)...you left the dirty coffee cups on the table again! You always do that!!! Forget it!!! Let's just go already!

Well....maybe not the best analogy but hopefully an illustrative one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

John,
A planned four day trip to visit my sister triggered a large amount of mischief. 

A friend I had dinner with once a month was about to start a project in our city and I mentioned we would have dinner once a week and got an unhappy reaction. 

We easily spend 20 hours a week doing stuff. That is a highly positive experience as M2 is a playful, upbeat companion with a wide range of interests. 

She has a genuine issue regarding me spending leisure time without her. That said, now that I've reassured her I'm not doing this to 'get away' from her, it's a lot better. 

So for example I recently started to play ping pong on the weekend which is a 4-5 hour thing and she seems untroubled by that. 

Me being close with other people makes her a bit uneasy. 

But some dead giveaways happened in our first year. We moved away from family for a large IT project. I was working a lot - 13 hour days. But not traveling. When I wasn't at work I was at home. One night the guys from work asked me to play tennis with them. I came home, ate dinner and just before I left M2 started world war 3 over something. Did not occur to me at the time that the real reason was - I was off to play tennis without her.....

And we had a few screaming matches over my once a week calls to my parents. She complained that a 60-90 minute weekly call was 'excessive'. I told her it would be a marriage ending move to get between me and my parents. And that I hoped our kids would treat us the same way I treated my parents. 

After those screaming matches M2 realized that a frontal approach was a bad idea. So she got good at finding less direct ways to create havoc. 

But here's the thing. It was totally counterproductive to scream at M2. Was I right to hold my ground? Of course. But the result of me screaming back at her was that she did a better job of masking the underlying issue by doing less obvious but equally painful things. And the way I handled that conflict made her MORE insecure which amplifies this type issue. 










john117 said:


> Ok, I'll ask.
> 
> What was the magnitude of your non work absences that would justify such a response?
> 
> And how come you didn't see the obvious? Over many years ?
> 
> I'm assuming some sanity check here. Ie not gone for a month then off to the golf course....


----------



## alphaomega

Mem

Why is ping pong (ahem....nerd) ok, but tennis is not? This is curious to me. 

Is it because she likes tennis but hates ping pong?

If so....isn't this just a "mask" of you doing what she "thinks" is ok?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## alphaomega

Also...

That behaviour would drive me nutso. Is it resolved now? What if you need to separate something like, say, gym time due to kids or such. She can go on her own but not you?

I guess I had it opposite. I'm the kind of guy that can find amusement anywhere. I was kind of a homebody, but only because I could easily spend time working in the garage, or basement...doing stuff. Alone or together. But going out wasn't a frightening thing for me. 

I got the "get the hell out of the house once a week already speech"....lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## alphaomega

Also also...

My wife at the time had long calls with her family. I too thought it was strange. But it didn't bother me the same as it did for your m2. For me it was more of a curiosity. "Why you talk so long every two days? Is that normal?"

"Uhh. Yeah. Why not?"

"No reason. Just curious. Our family didn't talk so it's foreign to me. But I'm glad you have a close family. It's kinda "neat""
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Alpha,

Ping pong vs tennis - makes no difference. 

The real difference is that our whole dynamic changed in a very positive way when I figured all this out a few years ago. 

1. Accepted this was a hard wired response pattern in M2. The anger she felt at feeling left out, the jealousy and fear of any other close relationships I have including with family. 
2. In a very low key way I let her know that I understood how she felt about these things and that it must be difficult for her. 
3. I handle her a little bit in these type situations. Before leaving for ping pong I usually ask her if she wants anything from the store on my way back. And I specifically reference wanting to do something - maybe a walk or board game with her - when I return. 

Does she know what I'm doing? That I'm handling her. Possibly. But it doesn't change the fact that she knows I don't want her to feel bad. That I'm making an effort to avoid that outcome. 

Plus she sort of finally accepted that I really do love her, not going to leave her. Not using external activities to avoid her. 

And FWIW. It would be easy to read this and think she qualifies for a 5150 type treatment. 

All I can say is she is a very high functioning person with a good job which she is exceptional at. If you met her you would think she is clever, quick witted and conversationally skilled. Because she is. 

She's organized and has a great sense of esthetics. Adventurous and willing to try anything and excellent with money. 

No one has ever made me laugh like she consistently does. 

If she's guilty of sometimes being aggressively possessive, I can work around that. 

And yes - she is amazingly good at touch - including sex. It's also true she doesn't have much of a sex drive since menopause 3-4 years ago. And she's handled that with a mix of honesty, class, kindness and grace that leaves me sort of speechless.....





alphaomega said:


> Mem
> 
> Why is ping pong (ahem....nerd) ok, but tennis is not? This is curious to me.
> 
> Is it because she likes tennis but hates ping pong?
> 
> If so....isn't this just a "mask" of you doing what she "thinks" is ok?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

I don't think J2 was or is jealous of her daughter(s). I think she loves them in her own way and wants the best for them, according to what she learned "the best" to be, in her culture and socio-economic class.

But that best does not or did not include any input from her girls in the matter. That was her mistake. And even then, in light of her background, it is understandable, though not helpful, if one chooses to be kind and understanding towards her.

John, I think you are scared of your wife. If you were not scared, you would never have left divorce papers on the table. You would have just sat down and had a talk with her, and listened to her concerns. Through love and logic you would have prevailed. 

Instead, because of your fear of not prevailing, you went the scare tactic, control technique route. Your fear and resultant resentment also motivated the disrespectful way you have modeled and encouraged your daughters to treat their mother. And even now you seem to approve of whatever unkindness J4 has planned for the spring.

John, is this really how you want to be? Is this how you would like your sons-in-law to treat your daughters?


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Indeed, I do simplify - you do it too. We all do. It's how the mind works. The only difference is how many rules we use and how each parameter within each rule is prioritized. That's what makes us different
> 
> Life is a slightly more complicated version of The Sims from where I sit. The models I use are for everyone, myself included, and are hardly gender limited. There's a handful of basic types of men, another handful of types of women, and from there on it's just a matter of filling in the right ovals in the Scantron form and you have your answer.
> 
> I know it svcks to have spent all those years thinking we are all different and all special. We aren't. It took me a while to come to terms with that. We think and act in ways that appear to make us different but at the bottom it's basic things that drive us all (Maslow ).


I half agree. We are all human, we have more or less the same needs, food, air, shelter, comfort, love, acceptance, accomplishment meaning. And we respond in similar ways, patterns at least, when these needs aren't met: determined action, anger, aggression, hurt, fear, rage. 

But there's simplification and there's oversimplification. We are not types that can easily be slotted by Scantron. The history of psychology is replete with efforts to typify humans and look at where it has got them: a whole bunch of systems and a whole lot of fighting about how useless/useful they are for diagnosis and prediction.

Mostly simplification is used to put people in their pigeon holes and dismiss them because we can't be bothered knowing or caring. 

Transparency on the other hand is about knowing and caring. Love and belonging. It isn't about playing special snowflake; it's about meeting fundamental and deep needs that we all have. Are there other ways to do that? Likely. But that's still where it aims at.

ETA: Let me put that in more concrete terms. When I was about 15, I thought I was really something special, unique. I was over that by about 17.


----------



## alphaomega

Mem

Well done, sir
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

Jld, I'm not scared of anyone - I would rather deal with issues proactively rather than pick up the pieces. 

Just as I wasn't scared when I told J2 of my torpedo plans a couple months ago and patiently (and transparently) explained the future if she continues her course. Since then I have seen big improvements though I am not convinced they're due to the torpedo warning as much as for other reasons.... 

I won't spoil the surprise yet but J4's Spring Surprise may be even more pleasant for all of us, J2 included. And another feather in my cap for getting around J2's brain freezes.


----------



## john117

Actually, AA, classification in psychology works pretty well - for some things. Nobody can deny Myers Briggs or most classifications.

Classifying someone as this or that simply reduces the search scope of the applicable models of interaction with them. If I know someone is a sports fan I will brag about the Cubs but if they are not... The last mile is the hard one, where you jump from the abstract (xxx is a sports fan) to the specific (John is a sports fan).

Transparency / mind meld comes at the end but often involves finding out parameters the person may not have deciphered themselves! Asking may not get you an answer. Them telling you may not get you an answer. You need a process (dialog) that has enough safeguards for privacy and individuality. And honesty. 

Anyhow....


----------



## john117

MEM, I will confess I read thru your post rather quickly but I did not see anywhere what actions you took to (a) determine root cause of M2's behavior or (b) work to condition her to be more accepting from an early stage.

What you described of M2 was near identical to my brother and his wife. Unfortunately for him he bought the farm at 50 so I would not know how it played out but she did a lot of the same. And I know the root cause (she was sent by her parents to be raised by a rather mean spirited aunt in the big city)...

I suppose you see marriage as gestalt, more than the sum of it's parts. I don't. Marriage to me is two individuals who stay individuals first and spouses second. 

J2 tried to pull the "you're jut going cycling" routine early on so I bought her a bicycle. Come along or...


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Jld, I'm not scared of anyone - I would rather deal with issues proactively rather than pick up the pieces.
> 
> Just as I wasn't scared when I told J2 of my torpedo plans a couple months ago and patiently (and transparently) explained the future if she continues her course. Since then I have seen big improvements though I am not convinced they're due to the torpedo warning as much as for other reasons....
> 
> I won't spoil the surprise yet but J4's Spring Surprise may be even more pleasant for all of us, J2 included. And another feather in my cap for getting around J2's brain freezes.


How is leaving divorce papers on the table proactive?

To me it sounds clearly reactive, defensive. Proactive would have been using all your knowledge and skills to persuade her of the wisdom of allowing your daughter to study art, relying heavily on your wife's trust in you, trust you have earned over decades.

And why did you wait so long to tell her you would leave her? 

If the surprise is a positive for your whole family, then good enough. But the way you and the girls have treated her in the past would not have led me to think that.

I feel sorry for your wife, John. She may indeed not be a very nice person. But I think she is more a product of her class and culture than some evil being. And no one gets to choose what class and culture they are born into.

So much resentment on both sides of the aisle in your family. Very sad.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
I don't think it was fear either. It was hurt. It's extremely painful to have someone fall out of love with you. 

That said, you're starting to convince me that you will make a better partner for those **** cats, than you would for another human. 

This isn't because you lack good qualities. You don't. Lots and lots of good qualities. 

It's just that - you'd walk to Hell and back on crutches - to avoid looking foolish. The endless contortions you engage in to prove that 'everything is under control', or more precisely that 'you have everything under control'. 



QUOTE=john117;14131298]Jld, I'm not scared of anyone - I would rather deal with issues proactively rather than pick up the pieces. 

Just as I wasn't scared when I told J2 of my torpedo plans a couple months ago and patiently (and transparently) explained the future if she continues her course. Since then I have seen big improvements though I am not convinced they're due to the torpedo warning as much as for other reasons.... 

I won't spoil the surprise yet but J4's Spring Surprise may be even more pleasant for all of us, J2 included. And another feather in my cap for getting around J2's brain freezes.[/QUOTE]


----------



## john117

I used my skills to no end. Change your frame of reference from NormalPeople to NotNormalPeople and you will see it differently.

I tried lots of transparency filled methods including dragging J2 to school to talk to the art teachers and counseling people. Nothing swayed her. It's her approach in life. My way or the highway. 

Why did I wait to tell her? Well, if she thought I could put up with her behavior for the next 20 years... Then she had no clue to what damage she caused to the marriage, or more precisely, did not care. Why should I?

I know other women from her culture - they aren't remotely like this. Sure, family has a big role and you don't get to choose, but it's a choice to recognize there are issues and it's a choice to deal with them.

Do you think any of her countrymen, here or there, would put up with her sh!t for more than a few months?


----------



## john117

MEM, the cats may have more redeeming qualities than most humans.

I'm telling it as I see it. I don't give a care if I'm right or not. Does it matter? It's not like AA or jld will call her new BFF J2 and try to talk sense into her. 

As I have said it a zillion times, you haven't seen the ugliness of mental illness. I have. I'm happy for you if the irrational fear or hurt is the hardest thing you ever had to deal with at home.


----------



## jld

John is an intelligent, funny, engaging guy. Definitely good qualities there, especially if he were with a woman he did not _fear._

MEM, if he were only hurt, why would he have acted aggressively?

To me aggression says fear. Fear in this case that his daughter would be prevented from doing the studies she loved and was gifted in. 

Hurt would look more passive, unable to react. Throwing in the towel, for example.


----------



## john117

Neither fear not hurt. Disappointed, but after a few years on TAM I've realized I'm not the only one...


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Actually, AA, classification in psychology works pretty well - for some things. Nobody can deny Myers Briggs or most classifications.


Oh?

Myers-Briggs Widely Used But Still Controversial


> The National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from over 20 MBTI research studies and concluded that only the Intraversion-Extroversion scale has adequate construct validity.


The Myers-Briggs Personality Test


> It's been found that 50% of test takers who retake it score differently the second time.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die



> In the MBTI, thinking and feeling are opposite poles of a continuum. In reality, they’re independent: we have three decades of evidence (link is external) that if you like ideas and data, you can also like people and emotions. (In fact, more often than not, they go hand in hand


Turns out lots of people can deny its validity, reliability, theoretical underpinnings, diagnostic and predictive value. Shall I go on?


----------



## john117

Any classification test can produce different results if answers are not consistent. I've done it several times and it's been consistent every time for me.

But you may have missed the part where the MTBI will fall out of favor for... Drum Roll... Another test


----------



## jld

What is your MBTI profile, John?


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Any classification test can produce different results if answers are not consistent. I've done it several times and it's been consistent every time for me.
> 
> But you may have missed the part where the MTBI will fall out of favor for... Drum Roll... Another test


And you must've missed the part that all of these tests are subject to the same sorts of problems: they are rooted in disputed and problematic theories, with poorly evidenced and problematic scales; questions are constructed in subjective and ambiguous ways, and they are taken by people who will interpret things differently depending on mood, time of day, whatever else is going on in their lives.

Your facility with consistent test taking in no way addresses the deep issues with validity, reliability, predictive or diagnostic value.

And sure, no doubt, this test will someday be replaced --- with one that is the new fad, but equally bad.


----------



## john117

Entp


----------



## john117

AA, the tests, faulty as they may be, are simply a means to an end. Just because a test is wrong does not render what you're testing for wrong...

Come up with a test that says whether there are categories of personalities or not and then we can talk


----------



## jld

Dug's company paid a lot of money for him to be tested. He is strongly INTP. No other description comes close.

I think part of the value of those tests is that they help us see people as just different than ourselves, rather than wrong or evil, when we have conflict with them. Companies don't generally want all their managers to view a problem the same way. Groupthink is limiting.

Something like MBTI allows people to disagree, and explain their disagreements, without differences becoming personal. I think that is the goal, anyway.

John, even when we disagree, I still like and respect you. You are a smart man, and interesting to talk to. It must be the NT in you.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> AA, the tests, faulty as they may be, are simply a means to an end. Just because a test is wrong does not render what you're testing for wrong...
> 
> Come up with a test that says whether there are categories of personalities or not and then we can talk


The only reason I brought that stuff up is that you were so adamant that "no one can deny" these categories. And the truth is that yes they can, and yes they do. And rightly so.

And if the test is wrong, well, maybe the categories that we are lumping people into are also wrong. Does that make them totally useless? No, of course not.

But it does we mean we should be a bit cautious when throwing around our oversimplifications and pretending we've successfully reduced everyone to Scantron analysis.


----------



## john117

your mind does those classifications and you don't even know it's doing it. Remember the brain is a big chunk of largely associative memory... Those associations form groups. The associations and classifications are how knowledge and information is organized for subsequent retrieval.

The mind also simplifies. Big time


----------



## MEM2020

John,
I don't question for a moment, the level of determination you brought to this venture. Not for a second. 

You've shown a very very high commitment level. 

You should feel good about that. You've shown your daughters what a high level of commitment looks like. That's a good thing. 

As for communicating your expected termination date, that's a humane thing to do. 

And maybe when J2 comes face to face with the abyss, she will come to her senses. 






john117 said:


> I used my skills to no end. Change your frame of reference from NormalPeople to NotNormalPeople and you will see it differently.
> 
> I tried lots of transparency filled methods including dragging J2 to school to talk to the art teachers and counseling people. Nothing swayed her. It's her approach in life. My way or the highway.
> 
> Why did I wait to tell her? Well, if she thought I could put up with her behavior for the next 20 years... Then she had no clue to what damage she caused to the marriage, or more precisely, did not care. Why should I?
> 
> I know other women from her culture - they aren't remotely like this. Sure, family has a big role and you don't get to choose, but it's a choice to recognize there are issues and it's a choice to deal with them.
> 
> Do you think any of her countrymen, here or there, would put up with her sh!t for more than a few months?


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> I don't question for a moment, the level of determination you brought to this venture. Not for a second.
> 
> You've shown a very very high commitment level.
> 
> You should feel good about that. You've shown your daughters what a high level of commitment looks like. That's a good thing.
> 
> As for communicating your expected termination date, that's a humane thing to do.
> 
> And maybe when J2 comes face to face with the abyss, she will come to her senses.


He said she is making improvements, but for different reasons than might be expected. 

What would you say the improvements are, John? And what do you think those reasons might be?


----------



## john117

jld said:


> He said she is making improvements, but for different reasons than might be expected.
> 
> 
> 
> What would you say the improvements are, John? And what do you think those reasons might be?



No rages or stoopid behavior, much more agreeable overall (phone incident notwithstanding ), improved intimacy and the such. 

The changes came after a rather lengthy Cold War period and right after I presented the torpedo plan and future look. I simply told her what I have in mind and when. Initially she laughed it off but a few choice discussions filled her in with details and likely took it seriously.

The cynic in me would also say that the changes coincided with her biting off more than she could handle at work in terms of expertise and relying on me to teach her some of the stuff she needed to know. Coincidence?


----------



## jld

Has your long term plan changed?


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Has your long term plan changed?



Nope.

I don't believe in "dead cat bounces". If she's genuine in turning the ship around by demonstrating actions, I may reassess. But I do not anticipate anything earth shattering.


----------



## jld

I hope she will be happy living alone.


----------



## alphaomega

I didn't take any of those tests. I am curious now to what I was and what I am now 

Allz I know is I came to the self realization that I was pretty messed up in the head. And that what I was doing was all the wrong things. Wrong reactions. Wrong emotions. Wrong thought patterns. Bad at relationships. Passive aggressive. And a bunch of other messed up stuff 

So, several several months of self reflection and self diagnosis, I certified myself as crazy and broken. And that's pretty much what I said to the doctor. I took all my notes in to him and he fixed me. 😛
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

There's something to be said about transparency during rages after all. J2 could not even bask in the light of her (our) professional Hail Mary for 24 hours before starting up a full blown BPD rage about something totally inconsequential and spilling her guts about how she hates me etc... Pity I did not catch it in the in-house security DVR system as it was 100% Dr. Phil material.

Yawn. 

I'm happy to report my new Android phone is awesome.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

I'm sorry that happened. Even at my most detached, I found that type situation to be very draining. 





john117 said:


> There's something to be said about transparency during rages after all. J2 could not even bask in the light of her (our) professional Hail Mary for 24 hours before starting up a full blown BPD rage about something totally inconsequential and spilling her guts about how she hates me etc... Pity I did not catch it in the in-house security DVR system as it was 100% Dr. Phil material.
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> I'm happy to report my new Android phone is awesome.


----------



## john117

I'm not sorry... I'm well past that. It serves as a message to the community to know what they're dealing with...

It's the script from 2010 vintage. Have a pre- weekend rage then spend the weekend doing yard work, make sure you work yourself to exhaustion, pretend you're also Ill from all the work then wait for Monday to be magically healed.

It's not even worth bringing it up. It will make divorce a lot easier to be honest.


----------



## john117

It sucks if you let it.

I'm not going to let day to day changes dictate long term strategy. Several members of the peanut gallery have questioned my lack of transparency vis a vis my plans for an exit. 

Transparency in this case is to handle the other side your plans on a platter. That's not happening.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> It sucks if you let it.
> 
> I'm not going to let day to day changes dictate long term strategy. Several members of the peanut gallery have questioned my lack of transparency vis a vis my plans for an exit.
> 
> Transparency in this case is to handle the other side your plans on a platter. That's not happening.


I understand how difficult it is to live with someone with mental illness. I doubt I could stick it out long term myself, for better or worse.

But more and more your lack of transparency very much seems like a double-edged sword, very much wielded as a weapon against your wife.

On the one hand, you insist that transparency is bad because us supposedly "normal" people cannot possibly understand the trials and tribulations you face, and that mental illness cannot be "handled" with it. Wife is incapable of normal human responses. On the other you consistently treat your wife as a fully functional enemy, driven by malevolence, rather than as someone ill. And of course, transparency there might mean she might checkmate you, instead of the other way around.

Of course if the goal is all about retaining the upper hand, who gives a damn what happens to them, then you would not at all be interested in any form of transparency whatsoever.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> I'm sorry that happened. Even at my most detached, I found that type situation to be very draining.


No doubt. Very terrible to be raged at.

It's also draining to be on the other side, stomping down one's feelings all the time, while the other person just thinks everything is a-okay.


----------



## john117

AA, consider yourself lucky that you never had to deal with such level of mental illness. 

We are talking more about a fully functioning adult with the illness on the side, rather than someone debilitated. As such, a confrontational relationship is to be expected after all other options have been exhausted... I took the MEM approach for a good number of years and a lot of good that did..

In a relationship like that one person needs to be "in control" incidentally. There are real life issues to be dealt with and so on.

My view of transparency has little to do with my specifics, however. I have other qualities I would like to see in a partner before I would start to sweat out the details. I think I explained this several times already


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> No doubt. Very terrible to be raged at.
> 
> It's also draining to be on the other side, stomping down one's feelings all the time, while the other person just thinks everything is a-okay.


I am counting on the other person being drained. Feedback loop and all that...


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I am counting on the other person being drained. Feedback loop and all that...


You mean better that the other person bears the brunt of everything while one party goes merrily along, content that their boat isn't being rocked? Because that's what I was describing.

Not the tit for tat exhaustion that you are counting on.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> We are talking more about a fully functioning adult with the illness on the side, rather than someone debilitated. As such, a confrontational relationship is to be expected after all other options have been exhausted... I took the MEM approach for a good number of years and a lot of good that did..


For a psychologist, you have remarkably little compassion for those with mental illness. Suffice to say, I have enough experience to know just how difficult it is to live with AND to know that either you pretend they are fully functioning, and treat them like they are selfish, malevolent, or what have you, or you realize that they aren't actually fully functional at all, and indeed don't have proper control over their emotional and mental states. And deal with them accordingly.

For some reason, you want it to be both ways? I guess this helps you to both hate and blame your wife while getting full sympathy from the peanut gallery?


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> My view of transparency has little to do with my specifics, however. I have other qualities I would like to see in a partner before I would start to sweat out the details. I think I explained this several times already


Sorry, one last comment: You keep reducing transparency to sweating out the details. Not sure why you can't allow that it may actually be about something other than "details".

But I think I explained that already.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> You mean better that the other person bears the brunt of everything while one party goes merrily along, content that their boat isn't being rocked? Because that's what I was describing.
> 
> Not the tit for tat exhaustion that you are counting on.


You just described my wife who, for the most part, is the person merrily going along, content that their party isn't being rocked.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> For a psychologist, you have remarkably little compassion for those with mental illness. Suffice to say, I have enough experience to know just how difficult it is to live with AND to know that either you pretend they are fully functioning, and treat them like they are selfish, malevolent, or what have you, or you realize that they aren't actually fully functional at all, and indeed don't have proper control over their emotional and mental states. And deal with them accordingly.
> 
> For some reason, you want it to be both ways? I guess this helps you to both hate and blame your wife while getting full sympathy from the peanut gallery?


I have enough compassion to last me several lives. But once you've made up your mind.. 

If you know what it means to live in this manner then you know that being fully functional they have no good way to tell themselves they are wrong. 

They simplify life down to 5 year old complexity and work from there. 

Transparency at this point is meaningless because they have little ability to comprehend the minute details. Live a life that can be described in a couple PowerPoint slides and you'll see what I'm talking about.

As for sympathy from the peanut gallery... Let me see if the emojis  print as expected...


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Sorry, one last comment: You keep reducing transparency to sweating out the details. Not sure why you can't allow that it may actually be about something other than "details".
> 
> But I think I explained that already.


Because if you can't understand or aren't directly told or aren't experiencing the BIG STUFF then transparency isn't going to be of much help.


----------



## john117

The thing is, AA, some people are married to "open books", some to the Sphinx of Egypt, and some need to "know" for their own reasons, comfort, convenience, or security. 

People don't become Sphinxes overnight, nor do they knock their head on a door and become "open books". If you're not getting Da Truth now, chances are you didn't when you met the guy or gal.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> You just described my wife who, for the most part, is the person merrily going along, content that their party isn't being rocked.


One who is "merrily going along" does not throw fits of rage on the regular.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Because if you can't understand or aren't directly told or aren't experiencing the BIG STUFF then transparency isn't going to be of much help.


Huh? You've lost me.

Who says this isn't about big stuff? And isn't being directly told just one example of being transparent?

I am neither a Sphinx nor an open book. I can be more or less transparent, and it's a choice. Personally, I see great advantage in being open about who I am with my SO, as it's important to me to have a relationship with someone who actually knows the real me. (I've had relationships where he was only interested in the fiction in his head, and it was not at all fun!). 

It is also important to me that I know my partner, the real person. If I can't feel like I connect, well, I'll have a hard time seeing the point of sticking it out.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> One who is "merrily going along" does not throw fits of rage on the regular.


In other words you just made my point.

To someone like that, it is absolutely normal BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A FREAKING FRAME OF REFERENCE TO COMPARE IT WITH.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Huh? You've lost me.
> 
> Who says this isn't about big stuff? And isn't being directly told just one example of being transparent?
> 
> I am neither a Sphinx nor an open book. I can be more or less transparent, and it's a choice. Personally, I see great advantage in being open about who I am with my SO, as it's important to me to have a relationship with someone who actually knows the real me. (I've had relationships where he was only interested in the fiction in his head, and it was not at all fun!).
> 
> It is also important to me that I know my partner, the real person. If I can't feel like I connect, well, I'll have a hard time seeing the point of sticking it out.


Let's add specifics.

Let me tell you three big things about myself. 

- I am a teenager trapped in a 55 year old's body. I enjoy video games, cycling, college sports, and appreciating women.
' I am lazy in principle. Think of the Lutheran work ethic? I'm the other side , but a PhD will go a long way towards convincing people I'm a hard worker.
- I am very easy to keep happy. No guy nights out every week, no big spender... The right person can read me very easily as I'm very extrovert. 

There. Now tell me, what kind of BIG THINGS do you have in mind? 

And now three small things:

- I like socializing with my interns  who have received great advice. 
- things in the mirror are different than they appear to be depending on circumstances
- my charming European accent is real

Now... Let's say I were dating a transparentista. What questions may they have?


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
We did go through a time frame where M2 also threw fits of rage over 'seemingly' small stuff. 

If I was able to go back in time I'd try a LOT harder to understand whether those rages really were over the minor triggers that immediately preceded them. 

That stuff no longer happens. So the big question becomes: what changed? 

I don't believe I have a simple answer, but I do think that the following is at least a partial explanation. 

We've all experienced a busted feedback loop between a microphone paired with an amplifier and speakers. 

The sound going into the mic is 40 decibels, the speaker output is 45 decibels. Oops that 45 feeds right back into the mic and comes through the speakers at 50. And in a scary short timeframe someone either hits a power off button or the system maxes out or blows a circuit. 

The thing about folks with BPD tendencies is that they typically have well defined triggers. In M2's case, her main triggers were abandonment and rejection. The rejection one almost always happened when I wouldn't do what she wanted. 

Now it's easy to be judgemental, so for a moment let's suspend the knee jerk reaction to that statement. 

I do stuff M2 doesn't want and don't do stuff she does want. And am able to do so without walking on eggshells because I NO LONGER do it in a way that causes her to question whether I love/respect her. 

If I go back in time, it's easy to see how I was feeding negative emotional energy into the 'system' while ALSO doing something she didn't want. And that negative energy coupled with the action is what hit the rejection trip wire and caused some type of melt down. 

John has tried some different stuff over time and is certain that she's crazy or worse evil (I'm never sure exactly what he thinks) because he certainly isn't doing anything 'wrong'. 

Some of what John says is identical to stuff I used to say, and think. For example she gets agitated if he's late. I don't think it impacts him the same way when she is late. He ends up perceiving her as a hypocrite because she doesn't do for him, what she wants him to do for her. 

And I used to have that exact same view. And then I accepted that - it's harder to be M2 - she has a longer list of pain points. That said, why try to force her to treat me the same way as I treat her. 

I don't care if M2 walks in the door on a call and it lasts for a while. She really DID care. I really DONT. So why would I make it a point of conflict unless I'm trying to enforce some type of synthetic symmetry. 

So yes I do have a 'short list'. These are things I have a strong preference for. But those are not connected in any manner to M2's list. 

All that said, M2's bpd tendencies have all but disappeared. Which makes me believe that I was a far bigger contributor to those melt downs than I ever realized.....





always_alone said:


> One who is "merrily going along" does not throw fits of rage on the regular.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
In all the time you've been on TAM, how often have you responded to a post with any of the statements below:

- I was wrong 
- I don't know 
- I'm sorry 
- I need your help

Because those are Inspector Gamache's four phrases for a successful career as a detective. 

Out of the total population of TAM, you are perhaps the 'lightest' user of those phrases. 

I'm not questioning how difficult J2 is. That said I've never met anyone quite as determined to 'win', and as allergic to showing vulnerability as you appear to be.




john117 said:


> Let's add specifics.
> 
> Let me tell you three big things about myself.
> 
> - I am a teenager trapped in a 55 year old's body. I enjoy video games, cycling, college sports, and appreciating women.
> ' I am lazy in principle. Think of the Lutheran work ethic? I'm the other side , but a PhD will go a long way towards convincing people I'm a hard worker.
> - I am very easy to keep happy. No guy nights out every week, no big spender... The right person can read me very easily as I'm very extrovert.
> 
> There. Now tell me, what kind of BIG THINGS do you have in mind?
> 
> And now three small things:
> 
> - I like socializing with my interns  who have received great advice.
> - things in the mirror are different than they appear to be depending on circumstances
> - my charming European accent is real
> 
> Now... Let's say I were dating a transparentista. What questions may they have?


----------



## WorkingWife

MEM11363 said:


> With that as context, this is my question. What kinds of things does your partner do that encourage or discourage your transparency with them. And what do you believe you do, to encourage or discourage their transparency with you?


I am 100% transparent by nature, but one thing that shuts me down is when I feel judged harshly by my spouse - which used to be a constant but now he's much better. I don't have any flirting or affairs to hide but just little things like saying "I made a mistake" or "I forgot something" - who wants to be forthcoming when the response is irritation and disapproval? Or even really stupid things like his disdain for a show or news item that interests me. Why mentioned I watched it if he things it, and everyone interested in it, is idiotic? Or criticizing my food choices - why say I had a burger and fries for lunch if he's going to be critical?

Ironically, I never hide these things anyhow because it's so not my nature, but his former criticisms did make me consider it.

My H is pretty transparent by nature with things like his cell phone or computer - we know each others passwords. But he's the opposite of transparent with his thoughts, fears, doubts. I try to encourage transparency with him by being understanding and encouraging him to tell me things but not making a big deal out of anything he does disclose. But I don't really know how to get true emotional transparency from him. He's more transparent than he used to be but still less than any other person with whom I've had a relationship.

Oh, also, in general if one of us is out and about we text and/or call home frequently just to update the other on where we are and how things are going. I guess that's transparency and that comes very natural to both of us.


----------



## WorkingWife

marduk said:


> Yup.
> 
> And I'm going to go WAAAAAAY out on a limb here, and maybe I've been reading too much Esther Perel, but I don't think this is actually a good idea.
> 
> Too much transparancy in the grey matter can kill desire.
> 
> Everyone has a secret garden, sexually. I can let my wife in, and then escort her right back out if I want. Or not let her in at all.
> 
> There's all kinds of stuff I'm NEVER going to be transparent with her about.
> 
> And that's OK. It's my stuff. My grey matter is mine.
> 
> And there's all kinds of stuff she's NEVER going to be transparent with me about.
> 
> And that's OK. It's her stuff. It's her grey matter.
> 
> I don't own her fantasies. Her attractions to other men. Her darkest desires, or fears, or daydreams. Those are hers.
> 
> She may let me into them, but I don't pay rent and get right of way. I'm a guest -- and need to act like a good one.
> 
> 
> 
> #1 Expect too much transparency and it will kill transparency.
> #2 Be too insecure about stuff (especially sex stuff) and you'll kill transparency.
> #3 expect it but not offer it.
> #4 not realize that too much of this will bring a possability (perhaps probability) that all the mystery and magic and delight in your marriage will go poof!
> 
> Love is about having. Desire is about wanting. There is a balance.
> 
> A delicious balance.


very interesting post - gave me a lot to think about.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> In all the time you've been on TAM, how often have you responded to a post with any of the statements below:
> 
> - I was wrong
> - I don't know
> - I'm sorry
> - I need your help
> 
> Because those are Inspector Gamache's four phrases for a successful career as a detective.
> 
> Out of the total population of TAM, you are perhaps the 'lightest' user of those phrases.
> 
> I'm not questioning how difficult J2 is. That said I've never met anyone quite as determined to 'win', and as allergic to showing vulnerability as you appear to be.


The fact that I decided - after consulting the TAM ORACLE (tm) to bail out while in my early TAM career I was he!! bent to "fix" my marriage should tell you right there if I ever admitted I'm wrong or if I ever asked for help.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> In other words you just made my point.
> 
> To someone like that, it is absolutely normal BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A FREAKING FRAME OF REFERENCE TO COMPARE IT WITH.


No I did not.

That she throws rage fits all the time shows that she is not merrily going along at all. 

She may think it's normal, but more likely she thinks she is justified, or just doesn't know how else to react. Either way, she isn't happy.

Happy people aren't filled with rage. They just aren't.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Now... Let's say I were dating a transparentista. What questions may they have?


Dating? I can't even imagine dating, let alone caring about it. But here are ome things I would like to be told:

- I'm in the process of racking up thousands of dollars of debt, and have no way to pay for it, so guess you'll be on the hook
-I don't particularly like you, or want you, and I spend most of my time complaining about you or trying to replace you 
- I was out flirting with /sleeping with other women
-I've fathered children that I do not know and haven't been involved with
-I have this major sexual fetish that I need filled to be happy, but so far have only ever told my escorts
- I believe that what you don't know can't possibly hurt you, and so I make sure you don't know what I'm up to.


----------



## john117

I'm afraid that shows your lack of experience with high functioning BPD's. They don't rage 24/7 and are generally content with their "life" as it is as long as they can get away with it. But when the right trigger occurs they turn around and go into rage mode in no time flat.

So yea, they're "happy" for the most part, and in steady state... While they EXPECT even DEMAND people around them walk on the proverbial eggshells. 


always_alone said:


> No I did not.
> 
> That she throws rage fits all the time shows that she is not merrily going along at all.
> 
> She may think it's normal, but more likely she thinks she is justified, or just doesn't know how else to react. Either way, she isn't happy.
> 
> Happy people aren't filled with rage. They just aren't.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Dating? I can't even imagine dating, let alone caring about it. But here are ome things I would like to be told:
> 
> - I'm in the process of racking up thousands of dollars of debt, and have no way to pay for it, so guess you'll be on the hook
> -I don't particularly like you, or want you, and I spend most of my time complaining about you or trying to replace you
> - I was out flirting with /sleeping with other women
> -I've fathered children that I do not know and haven't been involved with
> -I have this major sexual fetish that I need filled to be happy, but so far have only ever told my escorts
> - I believe that what you don't know can't possibly hurt you, and so I make sure you don't know what I'm up to.


Do you really expect someone to fess up that they have fathered a few Snows and Flowers (Game of Thrones withdrawal), have strange fetishes that you will likely disapprove, are deep $100k in student loans etc. ???

If you do it is admirable but you will need the modern equivalent of Diogenes' lamp to find such a person...


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Do you really expect someone to fess up that they have fathered a few Snows and Flowers (Game of Thrones withdrawal), have strange fetishes that you will likely disapprove, are deep $100k in student loans etc. ???
> 
> If you do it is admirable but you will need the modern equivalent of Diogenes' lamp to find such a person...


OK my dating days are WAY behind me, but even looking back through the mists of time, I tended to cover off the basics of their life history, get a general vibe for their sexuality, and what their life goals are.

That is, maybe by date 2 or 3 for sure, if I was interested in going further.

Don't people still do that kind of thing?


----------



## john117

That's the thing - one needs to use inferential selection and basic reasoning well before hoping for transparency to kick in.

If you show up at such and such establishment that alone preselects or precludes a number of characteristics with remarkable accuracy. Do people really go out of their way to find a potential match? Especially older people?


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I'm afraid that shows your lack of experience with high functioning BPD's. They don't rage 24/7 and are generally content with their "life" as it is as long as they can get away with it. But when the right trigger occurs they turn around and go into rage mode in no time flat.
> 
> So yea, they're "happy" for the most part, and in steady state... While they EXPECT even DEMAND people around them walk on the proverbial eggshells.


No one rages 24/7. Not even the most rage-filled anger-management case can rage that much. Too exhausting.

And yes, BPD folks most certainly do have good days where they are capable of having a good time. Even a great time.

Doesn't mean they are not filled with anxiety and hurt, which for the most part they are. And they don't DEMAND that you walk on eggshells. They just don't have any better coping mechanisms when their hurt and anger is triggered.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Do you really expect someone to fess up that they have fathered a few Snows and Flowers (Game of Thrones withdrawal), have strange fetishes that you will likely disapprove, are deep $100k in student loans etc. ???
> 
> If you do it is admirable but you will need the modern equivalent of Diogenes' lamp to find such a person...


I wasn't talking dating, I was talking relationship. And yes I do expect that level of honesty, and find it sad that you think no one is capable of it.

Although I will admit those examples did come from somewhere, if they aren't actually exceptions, then I can't imagine there ever being a point to a relationship. At all.


----------



## john117

AA, what I describe is steady state. If they're hurt or afraid or concerned they have plenty of options. Yet the success rate for BPD treatment is about what it is for my Cubs winning the World Series so...


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> I wasn't talking dating, I was talking relationship. And yes I do expect that level of honesty, and find it sad that you think no one is capable of it.
> 
> Although I will admit those examples did come from somewhere, if they aren't actually exceptions, then I can't imagine there ever being a point to a relationship. At all.


Very few people - think Diogenes and his lamp. Once again its a matter of probabilities. 

That's why it is important to go relationship hunting while on a controlled environment (college, social club, work)... And even there no guarantee of success.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> AA, what I describe is steady state. If they're hurt or afraid or concerned they have plenty of options. Yet the success rate for BPD treatment is about what it is for my Cubs winning the World Series so...


John, it is mental illness. You're a psychologist for Pete's sake. Surely you get this?


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
You remind me of someone who we will call Marty - short for Martha. 

True story - verbatim depiction of it. 

This past summer I was sitting in a hospital cafeteria in sub Saharan Africa. I was talking to Marty. She and her H had built the hospital itself - or - at least they funded the building of it. 

So Marty and I were sharing stories on how we met our spouses. And she says to me: I told H that I wanted to marry him. In response he told me he just generally didn't want to get married. 

So I said: I will stay with you - all the way through - even if we don't get married. So, it's up to you. If you really don't want to, that's ok. 

--------
Now her H is just an amazing guy. Good from the top of his head to the tip of his toes. Super talented, but modest. Crazy rich, but - modest. 

So - the thing is - sometimes John mocks Americans preference for transparency. But what I saw that day with Marty, was a huge love coupled with fearless transparency. 

They are just past their 40th year - happily married. 











always_alone said:


> I wasn't talking dating, I was talking relationship. And yes I do expect that level of honesty, and find it sad that you think no one is capable of it.
> 
> Although I will admit those examples did come from somewhere, if they aren't actually exceptions, then I can't imagine there ever being a point to a relationship. At all.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> John, it is mental illness. You're a psychologist for Pete's sake. Surely you get this?


I do get it... Especially when it's not really just mental illnesses.

To THEM it looks normal because their definition of normalcy is that is how people behave. This is straight out of her experiences growing up and seeing exactly the same playbook at home. Out of four kids two are messed up, one is developmentally challenged, and the only normal one is six feet under.

It's a perfect storm - mental illness causes symptoms X Y and Z and symptoms X, Y, and Z were more or less normal when she grew up...

Transparency be damned, it took her 25 years to understand a small fraction of how fvcked up her upbringing was.

BTW, cognitive psychology does not generally deal with mental pathology of any kind, that's clinical or behavioral. Undergraduate is common for the most part - general psych - but MA and PhD was all cognitive stuff.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> So Marty and I were sharing stories on how we met our spouses. And she says to me: I told H that I wanted to marry him. In response he told me he just generally didn't want to get married.
> 
> So I said: I will stay with you - all the way through - even if we don't get married. So, it's up to you. If you really don't want to, that's ok.
> 
> So - the thing is - sometimes John mocks Americans preference for transparency. But what I saw that day with Marty, was a huge love coupled with fearless transparency.
> 
> They are just past their 40th year - happily married.


What you saw was a very brief instance of transparency in an overall 40 year marriage. So, from that you extrapolate that their entire marriage was the crystal palace of transparency, and from that you further extrapolate that their marriage was successful because of transparency. 

These are leaps of faith that even my cat would make with some doubt. Wealthy people, especially that kind of wealthy, can talk transparency all they want but if one side has all the money good luck with the transparency crusade.


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> So yea, they're "happy" for the most part, and in steady state... While they EXPECT even DEMAND people around them walk on the proverbial eggshells.


At least one person around you guys probably suspected that they were watching a slow motion train wreck. And you've played your part too John. You've walked on a million egg shells all in the name of staying so the family unit would be together. And resentment has been building up the whole time. What you guys have become borders on codependency and it's probably been unhealthy for your daughters for a few years. This is ironic considering you're background but sometimes it's easier to see the box from the outside than it is from within. Make no mistake, you're going to be a handful for someone if you ever get into a serious relationship again. And your baby girls have absorbed a lot of bad dynamics. Let's hope they sifted the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

Both born lower middle class. They went bankrupt once. And then built a business they sold for over 100 million dollars. 

So maybe you could park the cynicism or jealousy long enough to recognize that sometimes folks really do bring out the best in each other....

They did. 



john117 said:


> What you saw was a very brief instance of transparency in an overall 40 year marriage. So, from that you extrapolate that their entire marriage was the crystal palace of transparency, and from that you further extrapolate that their marriage was successful because of transparency.
> 
> These are leaps of faith that even my cat would make with some doubt. Wealthy people, especially that kind of wealthy, can talk transparency all they want but if one side has all the money good luck with the transparency crusade.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> Both born lower middle class. They went bankrupt once. And then built a business they sold for over 100 million dollars.
> 
> So maybe you could park the cynicism or jealousy long enough to recognize that sometimes folks really do bring out the best in each other....
> 
> They did.


Good for them. Money doesn't impress me, and yet once you have enough of it a lot of character flaws seem to vanish...


----------



## john117

Thundarr said:


> At least one person around you guys probably suspected that they were watching a slow motion train wreck. And you've played your part too John. You've walked on a million egg shells all in the name of staying so the family unit would be together. And resentment has been building up the whole time. What you guys have become borders on codependency and it's probably been unhealthy for your daughters for a few years. This is ironic considering you're background but sometimes it's easier to see the box from the outside than it is from within. Make no mistake, you're going to be a handful for someone if you ever get into a serious relationship again. And your baby girls have absorbed a lot of bad dynamics. Let's hope they sifted the wheat from the chaff.


Good thing I don't plan to get into another relationship any time soon... 

I walked on a few eggshells but crushed a lot of them too... That is what stopped the rages. If you rage and rage and the other person isn't responding the way you expect eventually it hurts you. Tried other ways too. Lots of CBT, which worked well. Lots of simplification, which also worked well. 

Transparency wise, my wife knows what's my plan. I haven't told her what my crystal ball shows long term for either of us - ie after I'm gone. I'm not going to be around to care anyway. Not my problem to predict the future.

The girls have many more years of college ahead of them and appreciate what I did. That's what keeps me going. I wish they had a mom to talk to, but hey, I wish I had a wife too.


----------



## john117

Let's think about transparency when you meet people... There's this woman that has been on my radar for a couple years now. We've met a few times, great mind, awful health, two Maine *****... I thought about how to answer AA style questions if I were interested in her... 

The answer is - I would not be able to. It's not like at 55 I have a lot of time to play dating games or 20 questions. She has a vitriolic sense of humor and a superb mind plus she's over 25 and can read me as well as I can her.

Sooooo. How would your friendly neighborhood psychology dude fare against mystery lady?

Not that bad actually. Lots of info there.

Sex fetish? Not her type.

Finances? Not difficult to assess.

Escort service? I think not.

Crazy persona? Highly likely. Not a problem.

Workaholic? Yes

Capable of a fulfilling long term emotional relationship? Probably. I know enough about her to know she's very loving and caring to her animals. A good sign.

Capable of a fulfilling long term physical relationship? Not likely - inexperienced and highly likely body images and health issues (and she's ten years my junior)

So, here we are, having spent a dozen hours together over the past couple years doing fun stuff (in a small group setting) and I already have all the info I need. 

You'd be amazed to see how far inference and observation will take you. Long before the need for transparency arrives.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Let's think about transparency when you meet people... There's this woman that has been on my radar for a couple years now. We've met a few times, great mind, awful health, two Maine *****... I thought about how to answer AA style questions if I were interested in her...
> 
> The answer is - I would not be able to. It's not like at 55 I have a lot of time to play dating games or 20 questions. She has a vitriolic sense of humor and a superb mind plus she's over 25 and can read me as well as I can her.


SMH. John I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse because it's fun for you to irritate people and drive them crazy, or if you genuinely cannot hear anything that anyone else says.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> You'd be amazed to see how far inference and observation will take you. Long before the need for transparency arrives.


Umm, john, the reason you have all this info is *because* she was transparent with you. Guaranteed you wouldn't know squat if she was making any effort whatsoever to hide or image-manage any of it. 

Also good chance that you're wrong about half of it, but since you don't even care to look deeper, you'll never actually know. 

IOW, the "all" that you need to know is just enough for you to decide you're not interested. But supposing you were. Do you not think it might take a bit more than "is good with animals" to establish compatibility?


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Dating is an interesting dichotomy, because a fair amount human social customs are expressly for the purpose of *obscuring* transparency to one degree or another....


Yes, this is a big problem. We should be ourselves, not try to put our best foot forward.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> But what I saw that day with Marty, was a huge love coupled with fearless transparency.
> 
> They are just past their 40th year - happily married.


Except that I was the exact opposite: I said, I don't generally want to get married, but if you really want to, we can. 

And truthfully one of my biggest challenges is trust, my fear of being chumped, as gawd only knows, I have been chumped before.

Even so, I just can't cotton to the hunker down and bunker-in mentality. If you can't skate on the edge of the abyss, hand in hand, then what's the point? 

Because, like it or not, you're always on that edge, and boy is it slippery.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Yes, this is a big problem. We should be ourselves, not try to put our best foot forward.


I totally agree with this, but the more I hang out here, the more rare it seems. In this age of marketing, everything seems to be about image and crafting a "personal brand".

Ugh. And people wonder why it's so hard to find someone compatible.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I totally agree with this, but the more I hang out here, the more rare it seems. In this age of marketing, everything seems to be about image and crafting a "personal brand".
> 
> Ugh. And people wonder why it's so hard to find someone compatible.


Tam is a place to share experiences, not necessarily to gain wisdom. That is the conclusion I have come to, anyway.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> SMH. John I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse because it's fun for you to irritate people and drive them crazy, or if you genuinely cannot hear anything that anyone else says.


I can hear quite well. I apologize for not buying the party line on transparency but I'm a born sceptic so...


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I can hear quite well. I apologize for not buying the party line on transparency but I'm a born sceptic so...


It is not your disagreement that makes me wonder, it is your repeated caricatures of everything I've said.

Even though I explicitly pointed out that it isn't about 20 questions, you insist in framing it as "AA-style questions". Even as I've tried to suggest that some of these issues aren't details, you call it "AA's need for endless details". Even though I pointed out that dating isn't my frame of reference, you insist it's only the first 12 hours, and you already have "everything you need to know".

No problem with your disagreeing with me. But the constant patronizing dismissals of things I haven't even said make it really hard to talk to you.


----------



## john117

How transparent can you be after 20 hours of Cards Against Humanity, social chit chat, and a birthday party?

Most of it is simple observation and inference. Choose your setting as the guy said... Her home, informal setting, high probability of accurate information... No need to manage image. She is head of a college department... She knows the ropes.

If it's half wrong chances are I will see the warning flags - well ahead of time. If and when I care to look deeper. Remember we are adults here and can think for ourselves without expecting Da Truth to be spoonfed to us.

Animal inferences? Many. Too many.

What's missing right now is chemistry . We will see...



always_alone said:


> Umm, john, the reason you have all this info is *because* she was transparent with you. Guaranteed you wouldn't know squat if she was making any effort whatsoever to hide or image-manage any of it.
> 
> Also good chance that you're wrong about half of it, but since you don't even care to look deeper, you'll never actually know.
> 
> IOW, the "all" that you need to know is just enough for you to decide you're not interested. But supposing you were. Do you not think it might take a bit more than "is good with animals" to establish compatibility?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> It is not your disagreement that makes me wonder, it is your repeated caricatures of everything I've said.
> 
> Even though I explicitly pointed out that it isn't about 20 questions, you insist in framing it as "AA-style questions". Even as I've tried to suggest that some of these issues aren't details, you call it "AA's need for endless details". Even though I pointed out that dating isn't my frame of reference, you insist it's only the first 12 hours, and you already have "everything you need to know".
> 
> No problem with your disagreeing with me. But the constant patronizing dismissals of things I haven't even said make it really hard to talk to you.


Perhaps you should start thinking what causes my responses to come out the way they do...

And maybe even accept that some people are far more perceptive than others and trust their own instincts. I trust myself far more than I trust other people.. But I also have a plan B assuming we haven't eaten the cake. 

Let's just say the mystery lady and I have a long way to go, and transparency is the last of my concerns with her. When you look at another person your mind integrates a lot of information and classifies the person rather quickly. It doesn't take a lot of perceptive ability to get passing scores everywhere at first.

Then if things get serious you think of the scope of the relationship. You identify make or break scenarios that could unravel it and work to figure those out.

I think our difference reflects our mindsets. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## jld

John, do you feel like we do not try to understand you? That we are slow to show empathy for your pain?

Does it feel like you are alone in your corner while the rest of tam pounds away at you?

It can be hard to be open when you feel ganged up on.

How could we approach you more effectively?
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> If it's half wrong chances are I will see the warning flags - well ahead of time. If and when I care to look deeper. Remember we are adults here and can think for ourselves without expecting Da Truth to be spoonfed to us.


Okay, well, lucky you that you have never been and cannot be blindsided, and your powers of observation are so remarkable that you always read mixed messages correctly, and can always have sufficient depth of understanding that you are never confused about someone's motives, or concerned about what they are doing behind your back, and never ever surprised by a deeper insight...

... Oh wait. Maybe it isn't just us observationally challenged imbeciles.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

That's all well and good but I'd far prefer to understand which of the half dozen BPD triggers you hit with J2 the other day. 

1. Perceived or real abandonment
2. Rejection of any kind
3. Loss of a job
4. Locations that invoke negative memories
5. Reminders of traumatic events
6. Ending a relationship (seems like 1 to me)

It was just after you helped her with some work stuff. A normal person would have felt grateful. 





john117 said:


> How transparent can you be after 20 hours of Cards Against Humanity, social chit chat, and a birthday party?
> 
> Most of it is simple observation and inference. Choose your setting as the guy said... Her home, informal setting, high probability of accurate information... No need to manage image. She is head of a college department... She knows the ropes.
> 
> If it's half wrong chances are I will see the warning flags - well ahead of time. If and when I care to look deeper. Remember we are adults here and can think for ourselves without expecting Da Truth to be spoonfed to us.
> 
> Animal inferences? Many. Too many.
> 
> What's missing right now is chemistry . We will see...


----------



## Deejo

Emotionally honest: I appreciate that many folks come here with a wealth of life experiences both good and bad that shape who they are, how they perceive the world, and the concept of cultivating healthy and mutually beneficial interpersonal and intimate relationships.

Transparent: I think I'm emotionally healthier and smarter than most of you; who can't seem to find their ass with both hands, and I question if some even want a resolution to their issues, rather than a vehicle to perpetuate and enable them.


Which delivery do you think better fosters an exchange, or cultivates a relationship?


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> That's all well and good but I'd far prefer to understand which of the half dozen BPD triggers you hit with J2 the other day.


All six and probably more.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> Emotionally honest: I appreciate that many folks come here with a wealth of life experiences both good and bad that shape who they are, how they perceive the world, and the concept of cultivating healthy and mutually beneficial interpersonal and intimate relationships.
> 
> Transparent: I think I'm emotionally healthier and smarter than most of you; who can't seem to find their ass with both hands, and I question if some even want a resolution to their issues, rather than a vehicle to perpetuate and enable them.
> 
> 
> Which delivery do you think better fosters an exchange, or cultivates a relationship?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Okay, well, lucky you that you have never been and cannot be blindsided, and your powers of observation are so remarkable that you always read mixed messages correctly, and can always have sufficient depth of understanding that you are never confused about someone's motives, or concerned about what they are doing behind your back, and never ever surprised by a deeper insight...
> 
> ... Oh wait. Maybe it isn't just us observationally challenged imbeciles.


I'm human like everyone else. So relax, I don't have superhero abilities or anything.

What I do have is a careful and rational thought process that while not infallible, does pretty well because it considers a lot of angles and options. 

But above all, a process that's flexible and focuses on long term results.


----------



## stephscarlett

way late to this but...
after the infidelities I asked my husband for honesty... if he couldn't do that, I would understand. I mean, I would probably have to divorce him but I understand he gets to make his own decisions about the kind of person he wants to be. 
After my infidelity I decided that honesty and transparency were important to me. Very important. He doesn't have to create a safe place for me to be honest, it's more important to me than being married. Thing is, I'm not so sure it is for him.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Emotionally honest: I appreciate that many folks come here with a wealth of life experiences both good and bad that shape who they are, how they perceive the world, and the concept of cultivating healthy and mutually beneficial interpersonal and intimate relationships.
> 
> Transparent: I think I'm emotionally healthier and smarter than most of you; who can't seem to find their ass with both hands, and I question if some even want a resolution to their issues, rather than a vehicle to perpetuate and enable them.
> 
> 
> Which delivery do you think better fosters an exchange, or cultivates a relationship?


You are assuming that the primary goal is cultivating relationships.

Whereas my personal goal is a little bit different than all of that.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I'm human like everyone else. So relax, I don't have superhero abilities or anything.
> 
> What I do have is a careful and rational thought process that while not infallible, does pretty well because it considers a lot of angles and options.
> 
> But above all, a process that's flexible and focuses on long term results.


You really don't understand where I'm coming from at all, do you?

If there was to be an argument against transparency, you've just demonstrated it in spades. No matter what I try to communicate, makes no difference in how it gets taken up.

Interesting.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,

This is just - flawless. 

So I'm going to revisit an anecdote that I've mentioned many times over the years. It is one of my favorites because it led to a far deeper understanding of M2 and a happier marriage. 

For most of our marriage, when I would hit M2's abandonment or rejection triggers, the near term aftermath was some amount of emotional chaos. 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that when I'm very angry I'm very stupid. So when when M2 would button push, I would respond emotionally at which point, it became impossible to problem solve. 

The night I saw the light, M2 WAS transparent. Amazingly so. Because normally, she'd start a fight about something completely unrelated to the thing that was actually upsetting her. And often she would wait a little while, a few minutes or a few hours, before initiating hostilities. 

But not that night. That night I left her laughing and returned to a non verbal expression of such intense hostility that I still remember it today. And God bless her, she didn't say a word. Just nuked me via face talking. And for once I showed enough restraint to avoid jamming the comm channel with my own responsive fury. Gritted my teeth and said nothing. 

M2 is a good person. And without my anger to sustain it, her fury melted away within a few minutes. At which point she felt guilty. So for the next hour or so, she was warm loving and affectionate. Gave me a killer half hour back scratch. 

And then as we were drifting off to sleep - I heard the magic words: I'm sorry for being such a bltch before. 

And replied with: I love you babe, sleep well. 

If someone else had told the 'old' me this kind of story I would have said: Guy needs to man the fvck up, take the red pill. Look in the mirror and see what a doormat he's become. 

But the 'old me' didn't really 'get it'. He allowed his ego to obscure the truth. He always assumed these type situations were 'about him'. But they weren't. And that was the first night I remained sufficiently present to begin to see what was happening. 

And the apology - that wasn't important for the usual reasons. The reason it mattered was it tied back to the WHY. M2 was sorry because at a rational level she totally gets that her rage had no basis in reality. 

When I went to sleep that night, I was still clueless. But over the following days I replayed the sequence of events. And it became sort of obvious WHY and that turned out to be incredibly helpful over time. 







Deejo said:


> Emotionally honest: I appreciate that many folks come here with a wealth of life experiences both good and bad that shape who they are, how they perceive the world, and the concept of cultivating healthy and mutually beneficial interpersonal and intimate relationships.
> 
> Transparent: I think I'm emotionally healthier and smarter than most of you; who can't seem to find their ass with both hands, and I question if some even want a resolution to their issues, rather than a vehicle to perpetuate and enable them.
> 
> 
> Which delivery do you think better fosters an exchange, or cultivates a relationship?


----------



## MEM2020

John,
Were you intentionally button pushing? It's hard to hit all 6 at once. Or do you simply just not know? 

It's ok to say: I don't know

Because if you did know, you'd feel sorry for her. Your tone would be different. Because the event that causes a BPD response might be minimal, but the core trigger in the brain - abandonment - rejection - that isn't a small thing. 




john117 said:


> All six and probably more.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> You are assuming that the primary goal is cultivating relationships.
> 
> Whereas my personal goal is a little bit different than all of that.


So, what's your primary goal if not to cultivate a relationship?


----------



## john117

Well, MEM, you just described how normal people act. They let ego get the best if them, act stupid, have a duh moment, and eventually get it. 

In the sake of transparency, first you have to be transparent to yourself. Ask yourself the hard questions and make yourself answer. Think. Hard.

Now, the key factors here are: how long did you act this way and how long it took to figure it out and how long to correct it. 

In other words transparency with yourself, not with M2. If one takes the holier than thou approach there isn't enough plexiglas to go around.

Transparency is not to be told what you want to hear...


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> So, what's your primary goal if not to cultivate a relationship?


To relate. Better still, to connect.

To follow up on Deejo's example: If I need to be told that I can't find my a$$ with both hands, and am only perpetuating my problems rather than solving them, then just tell me, straight up. Pu$$y-footing around with "oh you have your experiences and I have mine" ---- well, I'm not even sure it qualifies as communication, let alone emotional honesty. It's diplomacy-speak, just more press and brand management.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
This all ties back to WHY. All of it. 

So let's break this down for a moment. First let's bracket the range of results:
1. At one extreme: I was utterly blind and M2 was totally transparent about her abandonment/rejection triggers
2. At the other: M2 was very careful to conceal her fears, and I mostly missed them because she was a genius at emotional camouflage. 

The truth is somewhere in the middle. So then we have a different question, which is this. WHY did M2 put SO MUCH EFFORT into camouflaging her true emotions? 

And that my man, I can answer without hesitation or doubt. 

I was often a judgemental azz hole. She didn't feel SAFE being transparent with me because I consistently judged her in an unkind way. 

That's just the truth. And so to avoid my judgement and anger, she hid those parts of herself from view. 

And because she was so supportive of my work travel (interpreting it as an act of service, not abandonment), and so pathologically honest about the mechanics of life, it never dawned on me that she would be so emotionally deceptive. 

But that deceptiveness was an adaption. She adapted to an emotionally volatile, judgemental partner. That is not on her. That is on me. 



QUOTE=john117;14174938]Well, MEM, you just described how normal people act. They let ego get the best if them, act stupid, have a duh moment, and eventually get it. 

In the sake of transparency, first you have to be transparent to yourself. Ask yourself the hard questions and make yourself answer. Think. Hard.

Now, the key factors here are: how long did you act this way and how long it took to figure it out and how long to correct it. 

In other words transparency with yourself, not with M2. If one takes the holier than thou approach there isn't enough plexiglas to go around.

Transparency is not to be told what you want to hear...[/QUOTE]


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> 
> This is just - flawless.
> 
> So I'm going to revisit an anecdote that I've mentioned many times over the years. It is one of my favorites because it led to a far deeper understanding of M2 and a happier marriage.


That's an interesting take on Deejo's comment.

Seems to me, M2 gave you a brief, no holds barred transparency. And that served very well as a wake-up call, getting you to see connections that were obscured before.

I want to say that transparency is to be clear to the other, and emotional honesty is to be true to yourself (and not just who you want to be, or want others to think you are).

Will have to think on that more .....


----------



## john117

Transparency and emotional honesty apply within oneself and with someone else.

Transparency is more about facts while emotional honesty is about how we feel about said facts. 

That's my interpretation at least. You need both for yourself and you can choose for others.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
YES

And yeah I agree with your definitions. 

JLD has been - encouraging me - to be more transparent with M2. 

So this weekend I was. We were taking about the latest nanny gate scandal. The type thing where the H has an affair with the young, long term Nanny. 

I said: I wouldn't want a hot 18 year old au pair girl living in our house. 

And that made for a good discussion. A little painful, but good. 

Eventually she got the point which was: This isn't about cheating, it's about being in a situation where you end up having feelings that are not helpful to your marriage. 





always_alone said:


> That's an interesting take on Deejo's comment.
> 
> Seems to me, M2 gave you a brief, no holds barred transparency. And that served very well as a wake-up call, getting you to see connections that were obscured before.
> 
> I want to say that transparency is to be clear to the other, and emotional honesty is to be true to yourself (and not just who you want to be, or want others to think you are).
> 
> Will have to think on that more .....


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> YES
> 
> And yeah I agree with your definitions.
> 
> JLD has been - encouraging me - to be more transparent with M2.
> 
> So this weekend I was. We were taking about the latest nanny gate scandal. The type thing where the H has an affair with the young, long term Nanny.
> 
> I said: I wouldn't want a hot 18 year old au pair girl living in our house.
> 
> And that made for a good discussion. A little painful, but good.
> 
> Eventually she got the point which was: This isn't about cheating, it's about being in a situation where you end up having feelings that are not helpful to your marriage.


I bet that was a painful thing for her to hear. Honest, but painful.

I think you are better off being honest, though. It can help her understand your weaknesses. And it can help you see what you can do to help yourself, if you want. You are not hiding from her, nor from yourself.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

I think of it a bit differently. 

Transparency: The degree to which you show your true self to others. 

This can be intentional or unintentional. 

If you aren't being guarded or worse deceptive, folks can learn a lot about you through direct observation. Like you have done with that neighbor lady. 

She likes you John. You two 'click'. She's smart and likes your sense of humor. I bet she's been more transparent with you as a result. 




john117 said:


> Transparency and emotional honesty apply within oneself and with someone else.
> 
> Transparency is more about facts while emotional honesty is about how we feel about said facts.
> 
> That's my interpretation at least. You need both for yourself and you can choose for others.


----------



## jld

Deejo, do you think people use emotional honesty instead of transparency to protect themselves, ultimately?

Because transparency tends to leave us not only open, but open to interpretation.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

Actually I just did this spontaneously. Didn't have any kind of plan. Just said what was what in the moment. 

So the primary pain point was raw desire and raw desirability. M2 said something true, and then I asked her a question. What she said was: 18 year old - you'd want to have sex with her every day. More desire for her than for your fat middle aged wife. 

I asked her if she thought I loved her less, the same or more than I did ten years ago. And she said: more 
Which is true. 

Then I asked her how she thinks our sex life is now compared to ten years ago. And she said: less 
Which is very true.

Then I looped back to the initial comment about raw desire. Said: We have enough raw desire to make the overall marriage - work great. Do you think it bothers me, you find Gerard Butler hotter than me? 

She explained how that was different because Gerard was 'age appropriate'. I just laughed and said - man - woman. Different. 




jld said:


> I bet that was a painful thing for her to hear. Honest, but painful.
> 
> I think you are better off being honest, though. It can help her understand your weaknesses. And it can help you see what you can do to help yourself, if you want. You are not hiding from her, nor from yourself.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,

I thought you were being funny. I hope that's the case. 

Because I consider transparency a synonym for emotional honesty....



QUOTE=Deejo;14174058]Emotionally honest: I appreciate that many folks come here with a wealth of life experiences both good and bad that shape who they are, how they perceive the world, and the concept of cultivating healthy and mutually beneficial interpersonal and intimate relationships.

Transparent: I think I'm emotionally healthier and smarter than most of you; who can't seem to find their ass with both hands, and I question if some even want a resolution to their issues, rather than a vehicle to perpetuate and enable them.


Which delivery do you think better fosters an exchange, or cultivates a relationship?

[/QUOTE]


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> 
> I thought you were being funny. I hope that's the case.


I took it as just the opposite.

My relationship with my wife has improved tremendously over the last couple of years, and the last month or two even more so.

I would tell you that she seeks me out more when I am less transparent with her. I am not sure if that is due to emotional flooding and her feeling like she has to carry something if I lay it at her feet, or what. 

But in fairness, my sharing less has had less to do with concern over her flooding, and more to do with a diminished need on my end to do so.

Somewhere in there is cause and effect.


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> I took it as just the opposite.
> 
> My relationship with my wife has improved tremendously over the last couple of years, and the last month or two even more so.
> 
> I would tell you that she seeks me out more when I am less transparent with her. I am not sure if that is due to emotional flooding and her feeling like she has to carry something if I lay it at her feet, or what.
> 
> But in fairness, my sharing less has had less to do with concern over her flooding, and more to do with a diminished need on my end to do so.
> 
> Somewhere in there is cause and effect.


Yup. 

Same.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

MEM, you've done enough mea culpas here for a Vatican's worth. That is admirable and you took ownership of the issues. I do wonder how difficult this was for you and M2 to figure out. 

It boils down to transparency providing the WHAT and thinking provides the WHY of things... At least that's what it looks like to me. The what part is easy to get but the why... The meaning, as we say in design


----------



## MEM2020

Interesting. 

This will never be a 50-50 deal for us. 

My goal is to receive 100% in real time - the raw feed

As for transmission, it depends. If I'm 'upset' I typically do not want to talk. 

When I'm upset, it's more likely M2 sees me as nemesis, not medic. 

As medic, I can say just about anything because it's obvious that it's 'all about her' and not 'about me'. 










farsidejunky said:


> I took it as just the opposite.
> 
> My relationship with my wife has improved tremendously over the last couple of years, and the last month or two even more so.
> 
> I would tell you that she seeks me out more when I am less transparent with her. I am not sure if that is due to emotional flooding and her feeling like she has to carry something if I lay it at her feet, or what.
> 
> But in fairness, my sharing less has had less to do with concern over her flooding, and more to do with a diminished need on my end to do so.
> 
> Somewhere in there is cause and effect.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Interesting.
> 
> This will never be a 50-50 deal for us.
> 
> *My goal is to receive 100% in real time - the raw feed*
> 
> As for transmission, it depends. If I'm 'upset' I typically do not want to talk.
> 
> When I'm upset, it's more likely M2 sees me as nemesis, not medic.
> 
> As medic, I can say just about anything because it's obvious that it's 'all about her' and not 'about me'.


I love this. It shows your inner security, MEM. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

I'm usually trying to be funny ... but helpful as well.

My statement was intended to illustrate that I do NOT think that transparency in the form of being completely unfiltered is always a good or beneficial thing.

There is human nature. There is nuance. There is intent. There is compassion, consideration, and trust.

And transparency is going to be influenced by all of those things.

If it helps your relationship, brings you closer together and feeds your bond, then I'm not going to argue with being transparent. But I would argue that transparency in and of itself is not a prerequisite to having a healthy relationship and bond.

If my being transparent with my partner simply gives them further ammunition to degrade our relationship and cause harm to me, then why on Earth be transparent?

I may have a different insight into this as a result of having a child that is autistic. His transparency is subject to interpretation.

Although as a direct result of this thread, I did inform my girlfriend that my very first GF reached out to me, she is going to be in town for Thanksgiving, has been in therapy for CSA which she confided to me, and wondered if I would be willing to meet with her. She apologized to me presuming that our relationship was impacted. As a result of her therapy she is revisiting a number of important people from her past. I told her, 'yes, I'd meet with her'.

Was rather curious to see what the result of my being transparent was. And it was in fact, as I expected.

My GF said; "And you are telling me this, why?"

Me: (Honest to God I said these words thinking of this thread) "Well I wanted to be transparent with you."

Her: "I trust you. I love you. You are a good man."


Had she been angry or upset, or for arguments sake, were she my wife for the last decade, rather than my GF for the last year ... I'd still meet with this woman.

And yes, my original statement was intended as hyperbole for illustration purposes.


----------



## farsidejunky

Hyperbole, but as is common with that subject, it contains more than a grain of truth.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,

That's very good. I was wrong about the synonym thing. 

So now, let's revisit:
Transparency: filters off - a real time raw feed 
Emotional honesty: the truth - expressed in a very intentional, constructive manner

My goal is to receive transparency and provide emotional honesty. 




Deejo said:


> I'm usually trying to be funny ... but helpful as well.
> 
> My statement was intended to illustrate that I do NOT think that transparency in the form of being completely unfiltered is always a good or beneficial thing.
> 
> There is human nature. There is nuance. There is intent. There is compassion, consideration, and trust.
> 
> And transparency is going to be influenced by all of those things.
> 
> If it helps your relationship, brings you closer together and feeds your bond, then I'm not going to argue with being transparent. But I would argue that transparency in and of itself is not a prerequisite to having a healthy relationship and bond.
> 
> If my being transparent with my partner simply gives them further ammunition to degrade our relationship and cause harm to me, then why on Earth be transparent?
> 
> I may have a different insight into this as a result of having a child that is autistic. His transparency is subject to interpretation.
> 
> Although as a direct result of this thread, I did inform my girlfriend that my very first GF reached out to me, she is going to be in town for Thanksgiving, has been in therapy for CSA which she confided to me, and wondered if I would be willing to meet with her. She apologized to me presuming that our relationship was impacted. As a result of her therapy she is revisiting a number of important people from her past. I told her, 'yes, I'd meet with her'.
> 
> Was rather curious to see what the result of my being transparent was. And it was in fact, as I expected.
> 
> My GF said; "And you are telling me this, why?"
> 
> Me: (Honest to God I said these words thinking of this thread) "Well I wanted to be transparent with you."
> 
> Her: "I trust you. I love you. You are a good man."
> 
> 
> Had she been angry or upset, or for arguments sake, were she my wife for the last decade, rather than my GF for the last year ... I'd still meet with this woman.
> 
> And yes, my original statement was intended as hyperbole for illustration purposes.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,

That's a great story. No idea what the normal female response to that would be. Is it possible that some women would have responded by thanking you for telling them? 

What am I saying. She DID thank you for telling her. She love bombed you. 




Deejo said:


> I'm usually trying to be funny ... but helpful as well.
> 
> My statement was intended to illustrate that I do NOT think that transparency in the form of being completely unfiltered is always a good or beneficial thing.
> 
> There is human nature. There is nuance. There is intent. There is compassion, consideration, and trust.
> 
> And transparency is going to be influenced by all of those things.
> 
> If it helps your relationship, brings you closer together and feeds your bond, then I'm not going to argue with being transparent. But I would argue that transparency in and of itself is not a prerequisite to having a healthy relationship and bond.
> 
> If my being transparent with my partner simply gives them further ammunition to degrade our relationship and cause harm to me, then why on Earth be transparent?
> 
> I may have a different insight into this as a result of having a child that is autistic. His transparency is subject to interpretation.
> 
> Although as a direct result of this thread, I did inform my girlfriend that my very first GF reached out to me, she is going to be in town for Thanksgiving, has been in therapy for CSA which she confided to me, and wondered if I would be willing to meet with her. She apologized to me presuming that our relationship was impacted. As a result of her therapy she is revisiting a number of important people from her past. I told her, 'yes, I'd meet with her'.
> 
> Was rather curious to see what the result of my being transparent was. And it was in fact, as I expected.
> 
> My GF said; "And you are telling me this, why?"
> 
> Me: (Honest to God I said these words thinking of this thread) "Well I wanted to be transparent with you."
> 
> Her: "I trust you. I love you. You are a good man."
> 
> 
> Had she been angry or upset, or for arguments sake, were she my wife for the last decade, rather than my GF for the last year ... I'd still meet with this woman.
> 
> And yes, my original statement was intended as hyperbole for illustration purposes.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Deejo, do you think people use emotional honesty instead of transparency to protect themselves, ultimately?
> 
> Because transparency tends to leave us not only open, but open to interpretation.


Maybe we are associating the words differently?

In general, I think of transparent as unfiltered.

My son is unfiltered. We are standing in a checkout line and he declares, "Wow. Somebody here smells really bad."

From my perspective, I, and I believe most other 'emotionally aware, or honest' people may think that, but they have that check valve, that filter, that tells them that declaring the fact that somebody in the line stinks is discourteous, hurtful and humiliating.

Would the smelly person benefit from the kind of transparency my son offers? 
Possibly.

Someone could then just as easily declare that my son is rude and insensitive ... to which I can tell you flatly isn't true, nor would he have any insight as to why someone would find him rude or insensitive.

But no, I certainly don't think anyone that keeps their mouth shut in that circumstance is a self-protection mechanism.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> My goal is to receive transparency and provide emotional honesty.


I would agree with this, Mem.

Understand I am not expressing frustration at this somehow being unfair, because this arrangement seems to be okay with me about 99% of the time, but...

Rhetorically: Why? Why the expectation of no reciprocity? 

Honestly: What does this say about our partners?


----------



## Deejo

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> 
> That's a great story. No idea what the normal female response to that would be. Is it possible that some women would have responded by thanking you for telling them?
> 
> What am I saying. She DID thank you for telling her. She love bombed you.


Yes. Yes she did.

But throughout this conversation about transparency/honesty, I keep coming back to that old chestnut; 

"Do these pants make my ass look fat?"

To me transparency I suppose is more of a rheostat rather than an on/off switch.


----------



## Deejo

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> 
> That's very good. I was wrong about the synonym thing.
> 
> So now, let's revisit:
> Transparency: filters off - a real time raw feed
> Emotional honesty: the truth - expressed in a very intentional, constructive manner
> 
> My goal is to receive transparency and provide emotional honesty.


I like that, MEM.

You can condense the nonsense. I tend to, as AA pointed out, get caught up in word soup.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I would agree with this, Mem.
> 
> Understand I am not expressing frustration at this somehow being unfair, because this arrangement seems to be okay with me about 99% of the time, but...
> 
> Rhetorically: Why? Why the expectation of no reciprocity?
> 
> Honestly: What does this say about our partners?


That they feel safe with you?

You don't have to try to be anything you are not, far. If you tell your wife it is okay to be transparent with you, and then you withdraw, get mopey, or in other ways react, she is going to know the truth.

Just take it at your own pace.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

It was not so much about me accepting transparency as much as her not dealing well with it.

And again, 99% of the time I am perfectly fine with it.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> It was not so much about me accepting transparency as much as her not dealing well with it.
> 
> And again, 99% of the time I am perfectly fine with it.


But that is a growth experience for her, too, far. It can be an exercise in humility.

Even if what is heard is inaccurate (and often further communication can resolve any possible misunderstanding), hearing it helps the listener understand the thought processes of the speaker better.


----------



## MEM2020

Far,

It's a fair question. This model has however forced me to grow up. 

Every once in a while there's a little 'bone on bone'. 

M2 is mostly a good driver. Every once in a while she is 'impulsive'. Starts to change lanes as she looks over to make sure no one is there. She only does that in low traffic situations but every once in a while - surprise - there's a car already occupying the space she's headed towards. 

This past weekend she almost crashed into another car in a parking garage. Short of it is: that would have been 100% her fault. 

So yes - I shouted when I saw the other car. A minute or so later she comments about how she is "still partly deaf" in her right ear. My response - I was furious but talking softly just in a tone of utter disbelief: you'd rather crash than have me shout at you to prevent an accident? 

I didn't add: that would have been 100% your fault - but it was a very very close thing 

About 10 minutes later we are playing mini golf and M2 says:

I already felt bad and then you being mad at me just made me feel worse. 

Just shrugged and said: You almost cause an accident, and you're only comment is to complain I raised my voice? Really? Wouldn't have raised my voice but for the situation. 

She apologized and that was that. 

So yes - there is a point where I become 'more' transparent. Usually in a time sensitive situation when physical safety or LARGE amounts of money are concerned. In this case - a bit of both. Would have been a very expensive accident. 

Whole different deal had it been the other driver fully or even mostly at fault. 




farsidejunky said:


> It was not so much about me accepting transparency as much as her not dealing well with it.
> 
> And again, 99% of the time I am perfectly fine with it.


----------



## MEM2020

That's not nonsense my friend. It was an excellent differentiation between two terms I had been using interchangeably.... 




Deejo said:


> I like that, MEM.
> 
> You can condense the nonsense. I tend to, as AA pointed out, get caught up in word soup.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> Maybe we are associating the words differently?
> 
> In general, I think of transparent as unfiltered.
> 
> My son is unfiltered. We are standing in a checkout line and he declares, "Wow. Somebody here smells really bad."
> 
> From my perspective, I, and I believe most other 'emotionally aware, or honest' people may think that, but they have that check valve, that filter, that tells them that declaring the fact that somebody in the line stinks is discourteous, hurtful and humiliating.
> 
> Would the smelly person benefit from the kind of transparency my son offers?
> Possibly.
> 
> Someone could then just as easily declare that my son is rude and insensitive ... to which I can tell you flatly isn't true, nor would he have any insight as to why someone would find him rude or insensitive.
> 
> But no, I certainly don't think anyone that keeps their mouth shut in that circumstance is a self-protection mechanism.


Well, children do tend to speak the truth. 

I think there is often an element of self-protection involved. People are not necessarily eager to invite unnecessary stress into their lives. And transparency can bring stress.

I am not sure we learn as much from anything else, though. As much as hearing what someone really thinks can hurt, if it is true, or lower our estimation of their intelligence, if it is false, I think transparency is a gift.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> This model has however forced me to grow up.


This.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> Yes. Yes she did.
> 
> But throughout this conversation about transparency/honesty, I keep coming back to that old chestnut;
> 
> "Do these pants make my ass look fat?"
> 
> To me transparency I suppose is more of a rheostat rather than an on/off switch.


When it comes right down to it, what is wrong with saying Yes?

It could probably lead to self-acceptance.

Or maybe divorce.  

But do you want to be married to someone that fragile?


----------



## MEM2020

John,

Yes, figuring out the WHY can be difficult. There is a low intensity but consistent subtext to your posts to me. The subtext is: How could it possibly have taken you so long to figure this out? 

Some people would interpret that to mean: You really are a bit daft. 

And that's ok John. Teenage males tend towards hyper competitiveness. And that's sort of the flavor of your feedback. You know, that you would have figured all this out in year 1, not year 20. And you are likely right about that. 

I am not poking at you here, just asking a question. 

I asked you which BPD trigger(s) you hit to catalyze J2's most recent melt down and your response was remarkably unhelpful. You say: All of them. 

But her melt down was in response to something you said or did. So what did you say or do to hit all those triggers at once? 

I am genuinely curious. 







john117 said:


> MEM, you've done enough mea culpas here for a Vatican's worth. That is admirable and you took ownership of the issues. I do wonder how difficult this was for you and M2 to figure out.
> 
> It boils down to transparency providing the WHAT and thinking provides the WHY of things... At least that's what it looks like to me. The what part is easy to get but the why... The meaning, as we say in design


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> 
> I thought you were being funny. I hope that's the case.
> 
> Because I consider transparency a synonym for emotional honesty....
> ]


Transparency - when I was young I used to do X Y and Z bad things.

Emotional honesty - I did X Y and Z because it made me feel whatever...

The difference is there. Actions are easier to explain away but feelings are not because they tend to stick with us...


----------



## heartsbeating

MEM11363 said:


> It's a voluntary act by a partner who overcomes their fear of being more fully known.
> 
> With that as context, this is my question. What kinds of things does your partner do that encourage or discourage your transparency with them. And what do you believe you do, to encourage or discourage their transparency with you?


What a wonderful question for thread discussion.

Answering from your opening post and having read page 1, I'm considering transparency as sharing vulnerability. My husband encourages my transparency by expressing verbally and non-verbally, that my vulnerabilities are safe with him. I feel this; I know this. When I share certain vulnerabilities, he may challenge, give opinion, express openly in return and this further builds trust and transparency. It's also in the way he chooses to live his life. It is recognizing the type of man he is and the actions he demonstrates - not just with me - but for himself. 

What do I believe I do? ...Well, I grew up. Possibly in just the last few months, granted. I'm taking care of my insecurities, learning to get right with myself and the whole picture of what that means. The neediness and insecurities that come out to play have been faced or are faced as they're occurring; self-soothing, looking at all my good bad and ugly. Not every thought and vulnerability needs to be shared however it seems I'm far more capable of sharing myself with him now. It's not scary anymore, there's no urges to cut and run or keep elements of emotional distance. I no longer hesitate. 

I also accept that he interprets the world differently to me at times and I value that. I do not have expectation of how he will respond. There's space for thoughts and feelings to be explored without constriction. There is a feeling of having a 'constant' that he has my back and that I have his. Maybe that's what is at the root of it all.


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo said:


> Maybe we are associating the words differently?
> 
> In general, I think of transparent as unfiltered.
> 
> My son is unfiltered. We are standing in a checkout line and he declares, "Wow. Somebody here smells really bad."
> 
> From my perspective, I, and I believe most other 'emotionally aware, or honest' people may think that, but they have that check valve, that filter, that tells them that declaring the fact that somebody in the line stinks is discourteous, hurtful and humiliating.
> 
> Would the smelly person benefit from the kind of transparency my son offers?
> Possibly.
> 
> Someone could then just as easily declare that my son is rude and insensitive ... to which I can tell you flatly isn't true, nor would he have any insight as to why someone would find him rude or insensitive.
> 
> But no, I certainly don't think anyone that keeps their mouth shut in that circumstance is a self-protection mechanism.


There are three phases of transparency. 
1. *Unfiltered*. This is knowingly forced openness of one partner things the other partner doesn't want to know.
2. *Controlling*. This is demanded by a partner interrogating the motives and actions of the other.
3. *Do unto others*. This is simply being open about what we think our partner would want to know. The example of your girlfriend asking why you were telling her <that thing> is a good example. You're not unfiltered so you won't mention it or similar to her next time. She's not controlling so she didn't flip out and give you the degree afterwards.

So like many things in life, moderation and common sense goes a long way. I personally like "Do unto others" transparency and I dislike unfiltered and controlling transparency.


----------



## john117

What did I do to trigger all cylinders at once... It was something work related for her - she asked for a tarot card reading of a situation she faced and I told her what I felt the situation was. She did not like it and as typical became unglued. I asked her to not scream / curse etc and of course that did not work. Realizing that what I told her was not what she wanted to hear she went thru the standard BPD I hate you routine etc etc etc. Except augmented by the stress of the current - trivial - issue. So in her mind two months work on teaching her qda (qualitative decision analysis) basics she needed for a project went poof because I dared disagree with her on a trivial manner.

If you're trying to make sense of a BPD rage please take a number 

And yea, I did wonder why it took you so long... I'm not competitive by nature except in backgammon so I am rarely worried if I'm right.


----------



## Marduk

I sure wouldn't want a raw unadulterated 100% real-time dump of my wife's emotional state all the time. 

That's what 5 year olds do. 

I like being with a grown-up. 

Not that I think your wife is being childish... But mine sure can be. She can keep that **** to herself.


----------



## Marduk

heartsbeating said:


> What a wonderful question for thread discussion.
> 
> Answering from your opening post and having read page 1, I'm considering transparency as sharing vulnerability. My husband encourages my transparency by expressing verbally and non-verbally, that my vulnerabilities are safe with him. I feel this; I know this. When I share certain vulnerabilities, he may challenge, give opinion, express openly in return and this further builds trust and transparency. It's also in the way he chooses to live his life. It is recognizing the type of man he is and the actions he demonstrates - not just with me - but for himself.
> 
> What do I believe I do? ...Well, I grew up. Possibly in just the last few months, granted. I'm taking care of my insecurities, learning to get right with myself and the whole picture of what that means. The neediness and insecurities that come out to play have been faced or are faced as they're occurring; self-soothing, looking at all my good bad and ugly. Not every thought and vulnerability needs to be shared however it seems I'm far more capable of sharing myself with him now. It's not scary anymore, there's no urges to cut and run or keep elements of emotional distance. I no longer hesitate.
> 
> I also accept that he interprets the world differently to me at times and I value that. I do not have expectation of how he will respond. There's space for thoughts and feelings to be explored without constriction. There is a feeling of having a 'constant' that he has my back and that I have his. Maybe that's what is at the root of it all.


This. My god, this. 

Well said.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> I sure wouldn't want a raw unadulterated 100% real-time dump of my wife's emotional state all the time.
> 
> That's what 5 year olds do.


Or BPD's.


----------



## Deejo

Thundarr said:


> There are three phases of transparency.
> 1. *Unfiltered*. This is knowingly forced openness of one partner things the other partner doesn't want to know.
> 2. *Controlling*. This is demanded by a partner interrogating the motives and actions of the other.
> 3. *Do unto others*. This is simply being open about what we think our partner would want to know. The example of your girlfriend asking why you were telling her <that thing> is a good example. You're not unfiltered so you won't mention it or similar to her next time. She's not controlling so she didn't flip out and give you the degree afterwards.
> 
> So like many things in life, moderation and common sense goes a long way. I personally like "Do unto others" transparency and I dislike unfiltered and controlling transparency.


I really like this too, Thundarr.

Over the years, I refer to the word 'dynamic' all of the time.

They exist in every single relationship we have, either by design or consequence.

One of the biggest things I've learned in my tenure here is that the dynamics fostered 'by design', by both parties, are far more prone to success and satisfaction than those forged of consequence.

I see transparency as a tool in the relationship toolbox, rather than a static state of behavior.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> When it comes right down to it, what is wrong with saying Yes?
> 
> It could probably lead to self-acceptance.
> 
> Or maybe divorce.
> 
> But do you want to be married to someone that fragile?


In my relationship? There is nothing wrong with saying yes. I know fully well if MR asks me how something looks on her, she wants me to tell her the truth.

Whereas, if I were with a woman whom telling, "Honey, there isn't a pair of pants out there that doesn't make your ass look fat. Because, your ass is fat." would send her into spiraling sense of body image issues and self-loathing, in my opinion being transparent doesn't make you simply open and honest, it makes you cruel.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> In my relationship? There is nothing wrong with saying yes. I know fully well if MR asks me how something looks on her, she wants me to tell her the truth.
> 
> Whereas, if I were with a woman whom telling, "Honey, there isn't a pair of pants out there that doesn't make your ass look fat. Because, your ass is fat." would send her into spiraling sense of body image issues and self-loathing, in my opinion being transparent doesn't make you simply open and honest, it makes you cruel.


For sure, the truth hurts. But if we can hear it, it can heal us. And we will not lose years to denial, and the emotional dependence and disorders that can accompany it.

And honestly, the more I think about it, the more I would question the whole idea that there is something "wrong" with having a fat ass. Recently I have read posts here from men or their wives saying how much these men like big butts. Being honest with her could bring about a paradigm shift in her, and that would go farther towards helping her accept herself than trying to protect a false self image.

I think the idea of protecting people from themselves is questionable, anyway. It sounds controlling, like you have decided what they are capable of hearing.

My advice? Tell her the truth as you see it, including how much you love her ass, if you do. And really, if you do not, why are you with her?


----------



## MEM2020

John,

I'm posting as a fellow contributor here - not as a mod. 

Why I describe you as competitive is that you claim to understand every synapse in J2's brain. 

And yet, you managed to ignite a full blown BPD melt down over a minor point. 

If you were totally innocent, I imagine you would say what actually happened. Because your response below is simply a restatement of your earlier claim. J2 exploded over nothing. 

And it's ok if you elect not to answer. All I ask is that you refrain from using your standard Arsenal of tactics. For example telling me for the umpteenth time that I have no experience with non normal people. 

Because that is an example of a teenage boy move. If you had ever asked me what experience I have with Non normal people my 
response would have been:

Reason I joke about 5150 (involuntary civil commitment of a person based on a reasonable belief they are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others) now and again is that M2 and I had to 5150 a family member. 

So yeah - I've got experience dealing with non normal people and their non normal behavior. 





john117 said:


> What did I do to trigger all cylinders at once... It was something work related for her - she asked for a tarot card reading of a situation she faced and I told her what I felt the situation was. She did not like it and as typical became unglued. I asked her to not scream / curse etc and of course that did not work. Realizing that what I told her was not what she wanted to hear she went thru the standard BPD I hate you routine etc etc etc. Except augmented by the stress of the current - trivial - issue. So in her mind two months work on teaching her qda (qualitative decision analysis) basics she needed for a project went poof because I dared disagree with her on a trivial manner.
> 
> If you're trying to make sense of a BPD rage please take a number
> 
> And yea, I did wonder why it took you so long... I'm not competitive by nature except in backgammon so I am rarely worried if I'm right.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,

That's the type situation where it is best to say something true that is related to the topic. 

For instance - assuming it's true. 

Babe, I love your ass. In fact, my general preference would be for you to leave it unclothed. 

-------
For a certain type woman who is demanding an answer, IF you have an alternate clothing recommendation you think is more flattering on her, that's the response. 

Babe,
My preferences in order are:
- naked
- this smoking hot skirt over here 
- those jeans over there

If she's still pressing - I finally shrug and say: Those pants you have on, are not my favorite item in your wardrobe. 

At that point I would do my best to redirect any further dialogue into a wrestling match because she is likely having the start of an anxiety attack. 

Disclaimer: M2 has never done anything remotely like that and her ass looks great in all her clothes (hand on the bible).

But if I was with someone who had body images - that's how I'd handle it. But I wouldn't lie. Lying is the opposite of intimacy. 




Deejo said:


> In my relationship? There is nothing wrong with saying yes. I know fully well if MR asks me how something looks on her, she wants me to tell her the truth.
> 
> Whereas, if I were with a woman whom telling, "Honey, there isn't a pair of pants out there that doesn't make your ass look fat. Because, your ass is fat." would send her into spiraling sense of body image issues and self-loathing, in my opinion being transparent doesn't make you simply open and honest, it makes you cruel.


----------



## jld

But you are avoiding, MEM. Why is that?


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> I'm posting as a fellow contributor here - not as a mod.
> 
> Why I describe you as competitive is that you claim to understand every synapse in J2's brain.
> 
> And yet, you managed to ignite a full blown BPD melt down over a minor point.
> 
> If you were totally innocent, I imagine you would say what actually happened. Because your response below is simply a restatement of your earlier claim. J2 exploded over nothing.
> 
> And it's ok if you elect not to answer. All I ask is that you refrain from using your standard Arsenal of tactics. For example telling me for the umpteenth time that I have no experience with non normal people.
> 
> Because that is an example of a teenage boy move. If you had ever asked me what experience I have with Non normal people my
> response would have been:
> 
> Reason I joke about 5150 (involuntary civil commitment of a person based on a reasonable belief they are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others) now and again is that M2 and I had to 5150 a family member.
> 
> So yeah - I've got experience dealing with non normal people and their non normal behavior.


I do understand every synapse of J2's brain. It comes with the territory of being married or together for 34 years. 

As it happened, she did explode over "nothing".

She works from home and I sometimes do too. Our desks are right next to each other in the home office. There is this situation at J2's work - a trivial one - that required a politically correct approach, not the standard J2 raw dump (transparency ) approach. She asked me for input and I told her to respond in a measured tone, which is akin to asking the North Koreans to... You get the idea. She declined. I politely explained why its better to do it this way vs that way. She did not understand and started " boiling over". I explained to her that there is no point blowing up your career to prove you are right - an all too common occurrence with her. She got really agitated and accused me of "caring about money only" and it escalated from there. 

Of course, it so happened that the night before, after J2 and my handiwork had been released to the masses, J2 opened a celebratory bottle of her favorite Kentucky wine and promised "great things" for the weekend. That was 24 hours earlier. J2 has had a history of Thursday or Friday rages (or illnesses that rapidly appear out of nowhere on Fridays) for obvious reasons  I would have thunk any student of all things John and J2 would be familiar with the nuances. My bad.

Re: the 5150 relative.... A single incident lasting a week or two left to others to worry about is not quite the same as having to deal with the mother of your children raging at you for six or seven years... 

Let's see that relative living with you for seven years and we can discuss "experience with non normal people". Or the total of a couple years that I have had to host my in-laws in the last 30 years... Or having to deal with rages against your kids. 

It's a merit badge I'd rather not have to wear.


----------



## MEM2020

Hearts,

That's beautiful. The kind of trust comes from repeated leaps faith - rewarded - is unlike any other. 




heartsbeating said:


> What a wonderful question for thread discussion.
> 
> Answering from your opening post and having read page 1, I'm considering transparency as sharing vulnerability. My husband encourages my transparency by expressing verbally and non-verbally, that my vulnerabilities are safe with him. I feel this; I know this. When I share certain vulnerabilities, he may challenge, give opinion, express openly in return and this further builds trust and transparency. It's also in the way he chooses to live his life. It is recognizing the type of man he is and the actions he demonstrates - not just with me - but for himself.
> 
> What do I believe I do? ...Well, I grew up. Possibly in just the last few months, granted. I'm taking care of my insecurities, learning to get right with myself and the whole picture of what that means. The neediness and insecurities that come out to play have been faced or are faced as they're occurring; self-soothing, looking at all my good bad and ugly. Not every thought and vulnerability needs to be shared however it seems I'm far more capable of sharing myself with him now. It's not scary anymore, there's no urges to cut and run or keep elements of emotional distance. I no longer hesitate.
> 
> I also accept that he interprets the world differently to me at times and I value that. I do not have expectation of how he will respond. There's space for thoughts and feelings to be explored without constriction. There is a feeling of having a 'constant' that he has my back and that I have his. Maybe that's what is at the root of it all.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
I'm thinking that - if I'm dealing with someone has serious body image issues - best not to feed into those. So my script applies to a person like that. 

But even with M2, who isn't fat and doesn't have body image issues, even with her I wouldn't say: yes they make you look fat

The most I'd say is: Those aren't the most flattering pair of pants you own. 

Usually I can tell when someone is asking for:
- Reassurance 
Vs
- A genuine opinion

If it's reassurance I find them attractive I provide it. 

If it's an opinion, I provide that. But I do have a hard wired aversion to dropping the F bomb on an intimate partner. 





jld said:


> But you are avoiding, MEM. Why is that?


----------



## MEM2020

John,

Thanks that makes total sense. The tough thing about this type situation is that it's difficult to get folks who don't value diplomacy to value diplomacy. 

Was J2 angry at the person she was responding to? Or was it more a case where she thought their question/comment was stupid? Or do you think she started the fight to extricate herself from her promise from the night before?

Just curious. 

It's ironic when the person who is wedded to the idea of remaining in a 6000 square foot house accuses you of only caring about money.  





john117 said:


> I do understand every synapse of J2's brain. It comes with the territory of being married or together for 34 years.
> 
> As it happened, she did explode over "nothing".
> 
> She works from home and I sometimes do too. Our desks are right next to each other in the home office. There is this situation at J2's work - a trivial one - that required a politically correct approach, not the standard J2 raw dump (transparency ) approach. She asked me for input and I told her to respond in a measured tone, which is akin to asking the North Koreans to... You get the idea. She declined. I politely explained why its better to do it this way vs that way. She did not understand and started " boiling over". I explained to her that there is no point blowing up your career to prove you are right - an all too common occurrence with her. She got really agitated and accused me of "caring about money only" and it escalated from there.
> 
> Of course, it so happened that the night before, after J2 and my handiwork had been released to the masses, J2 opened a celebratory bottle of her favorite Kentucky wine and promised "great things" for the weekend. That was 24 hours earlier. J2 has had a history of Thursday or Friday rages (or illnesses that rapidly appear out of nowhere on Fridays) for obvious reasons  I would have thunk any student of all things John and J2 would be familiar with the nuances. My bad.
> 
> Re: the 5150 relative.... A single incident lasting a week or two left to others to worry about is not quite the same as having to deal with the mother of your children raging at you for six or seven years...
> 
> Let's see that relative living with you for seven years and we can discuss "experience with non normal people". Or the total of a couple years that I have had to host my in-laws in the last 30 years... Or having to deal with rages against your kids.
> 
> It's a merit badge I'd rather not have to wear.


----------



## john117

J2 is perennially angry with people at work. She thought their request was beneath her (PhD etc). She has used similar techniques in the past with much success and was indeed successful this past week (because SLA's).. And when she accuses me of caring about money she means her money


----------



## MEM2020

Other than the perennially angry comment, I don't understand a word of what you've written. 



=john117;14179258]J2 is perennially angry with people at work. She thought their request was beneath her (PhD etc). She has used similar techniques in the past with much success and was indeed successful this past week (because SLA's).. And when she accuses me of caring about money she means her money [/QUOTE]


----------



## Deejo

*My advice? Tell her the truth as you see it, including how much you love her ass, if you do. And really, if you do not, why are you with her? *

Because odds are, she didn't have a fat ass when he fell in love with her, nor does the size of her ass truly impact how he feels about her now.

It impacts how she feels about herself, and I have seen this issue enough times (although they don't apply to my current relationship at all) to know that prudence and compassion rule over transparency.

In such a case, being transparent isn't even human in my estimation. It's rote. It's robotic. It isn't building a bridge for communication and honesty. It's actually blowing the bridge up.


----------



## Deejo

*I think the idea of protecting people from themselves is questionable, anyway. It sounds controlling, like you have decided what they are capable of hearing.
*

That's your trigger, and part of your dynamic. I'd argue that most people do not have that perspective. It isn't necessarily about deciding what they are capable of hearing, it may simply be about what someone is comfortable saying, just as MEM pointed out.

I posted previously about being away with MR for my birthday. She inadvertently gave me a bite of a cookie that had nuts in it. I have an anaphylactic reaction to nuts. She panicked and felt dumb, and she blurted out, "I forgot how fragile you are."

That was her being unfiltered, transparent in the moment with her thoughts. It was neither a smart nor helpful thing to say. And she realized that momentarily after as well.

What she meant was; "I have to keep in mind that there are very ordinary things that could kill you, and I'd lose you and I don't want that."

Our ability to openly communicate made that point clear much later after the 'incident'. However, her display of transparency in the moment was a big fail. Her words didn't fully align with her thoughts.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> I'm thinking that - if I'm dealing with someone has serious body image issues - best not to feed into those.


Best for whom?

MEM, when I am _not_ transparent with someone, it is not usually for _their_ benefit. It is usually for _mine_. Either I have a strong suspicion they cannot "absorb" my unfiltered views, or I have already tried and know it for sure. And it is not worth it to me to keep trying.

Transparency is a gift, after all, not an obligation. I think your very first post on this thread made mention of that.



> But I do have a hard wired aversion to dropping the F bomb on an intimate partner.


I was told once that hearing the F word for women is like hearing the W word for men. Yet both are changeable conditions. A man does not have to remain weak anymore than a woman has to remain fat. And some people really _like_ weak men and fat women.

So why do we dance around these two words? Is it purely out of care for the other person? Or are we wary of the possible consequences of our transparency to _us_?


----------



## Deejo

jld, as I see it, you are presuming that transparency = truth.

I can tell you flatly that in my experience that is not always the case.

I've dealt with individuals who were transparent, or in Thundarr's frame, were unfiltered. And they indeed claimed this somehow made them genuine because they would simply say what was on their mind.

Well, if their entire frame of reference for what is on their mind is incorrect or misaligned, transparency isn't a gift.

It is more like unadulterated bullsh!t.

Which is my overall point. Transparency doesn't stand on it's own as a good thing. It is intermingled with other emotional dynamics in order to create a good thing.

Just like, we want people to be completely honest with us. 

Except for when they shouldn't be.


----------



## jld

Deejo, I think each person's transparency is their truth in that moment. And I think it always has something to teach us, even if it is only to better understand their thought processes.

ETA: Thinking about this, I am reminded that we can learn much about ourselves by examining our reactions to another's transparency. That might be more revealing, and therefore an even greater benefit to us, than any actual content they have offered.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Well, if their entire frame of reference for what is on their mind is incorrect or misaligned, transparency isn't a gift.


In some ways it is. It lets you see very clearly who and what you are dealing with. Which actually can be very helpful.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Deejo, I think each person's transparency is their truth in that moment. And I think it always has something to teach us, even if it is only to better understand their thought processes.
> 
> ETA: Thinking about this, I am reminded that we can learn much about ourselves by examining our reactions to another's transparency. That might be more revealing, and therefore an even greater benefit to us, than any actual content they have offered.


Maybe I am wrong on this, but the edit has the feel of a justification after the fact.


----------



## lifecolorful

MEM11363 said:


> I've wanted to write about this topic (transparency) ever since a long ago post on the subject infuriated me because it was true, and I didn't want it to be.
> 
> With that as context, this is my question. What kinds of things does your partner do that encourage or discourage your transparency with them. And what do you believe you do, to encourage or discourage their transparency with you?


I routinely tell my H what's on my mind. Serious thoughts, that I don't share with anyone else. Some of the thoughts could be considered very scary for him to hear, for example I said, "hey, my Physical Therapist has started hitting on me. It makes me really uncomfortable and I ignore his come-ons. I wanted to tell you because I feel trapped. I want my injury (gave me partial paralysis in both hands, very serious injury) to get better and he's good at helping me, but I hate his new inappropriate behavior."

So, this would be really scary for most partners to hear. Especially, knowing I see this (*******) PT when my injury flairs up. One way I reassure it by offering up the information: I'm going to see the PT on this day, and then when I get back I tell him how it went. I always follow it with genuine reassurance that my H is the one. AND, btw, ignoring the PT's comments has really put a stop to his inappropriate behavior. yay!

I am very physically reassuring too. I often hold his arm in public, I look him in the eye, and sometimes I pinch his butt.  Many of our couple friends are much less physical. Meaning, they rarely look at each other, rarely even stand next to one another, etc. 

Sometimes building trust is scary. I respect that the truth can be terrifying. But, I tell my H, directly what is happening and then we move forward together. I always let him weigh in. And never get angry at his reactions. He's human and will have any range of reactions. I support him through it, we grow together. 

We've never had cheating or deception problems. (Except once, he told me he quit smoking and there was a $7.10 gas station charge on the card, haha! Got him!)

We do share password, but it's out of convenience. And I have nothing to hide from him, because I don't want to hide anything.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Maybe I am wrong on this, but the edit has the feel of a justification after the fact.


How so, far?

It is always interesting to hear other people's interpretations of what is written.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Because odds are, she didn't have a fat ass when he fell in love with her, nor does the size of her ass truly impact how he feels about her now.


If the size of her ass does not impact how he feels about her, then he should be able to say this, no?

My SO has gained a lot of weight, am I to tell him he is just "big-boned"? 

Personally, I find that empty platitudes out of "compassion" or "prudence" are not reassuring at all. Indeed, quite the opposite, as they just reinforce any negative body issues. I know when I am being lied to and placated, and you might as well just pat me on the head and say, "there, there dearie". 

Truth hurts like hell, but at least it is meaningful.


----------



## farsidejunky

It ties into the multitude of discussions we have previously had, and with that in mind, I will answer and then leave it be because I know we will see it differently.

Your edit is also a justification for not bearing any responsibility for what is said. Consideration of all aspects of the implications of what is said is also important, and feelings are not always factually accurate.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> If the size of her ass does not impact how he feels about her, then he should be able to say this, no?
> 
> My SO has gained a lot of weight, am I to tell him he is just "big-boned"?
> 
> Personally, I find that empty platitudes out of "compassion" or "prudence" are not reassuring at all. Indeed, quite the opposite, as they just reinforce any negative body issues. I know when I am being lied to and placated, and you might as well just pat me on the head and say, "there, there dearie".
> 
> Truth hurts like hell, but at least it is meaningful.


Again, compassion and prudence for whom?

I think people avoid transparency largely out of self-protection.

Another thought is that maybe they think that if they protect their spouse from their true feelings, their spouse will do the same for them? 

Isn't that a covert contract? And codependence?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> In some ways it is. It lets you see very clearly who and what you are dealing with. Which actually can be very helpful.


Subject to the individual being able to decipher the message.

And subject to the perceived information density by either side. That is, one side transparency-feeding minor details but not the big picture...


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> It ties into the multitude of discussions we have previously had, and with that in mind, I will answer and then leave it be because I know we will see it differently.
> 
> Your edit is also a justification for not bearing any responsibility for what is said. Consideration of all aspects of the implications of what is said is also important, and feelings are not always factually accurate.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts, far. We can learn a lot from sincere exchanges. 

For my part, the edit was just a continuation of my thinking about what Deejo wrote. As I said, I think we learn as least as much, if not more, from looking at our reactions to other people's transparency as we do from what they have actually said to us. Our reactions, whether defensiveness, anger, peace, or other emotions, can reveal our strengths and weaknesses to us.

Iow, our reactions can serve as a mirror to us. _If_ we are brave enough to look in that, it must be admitted, sometimes unflattering mirror.


----------



## Deejo

I tend to agree with what John said above.

The degree to which the exchange is beneficial or harmful for that matter, directly depends upon the emotional capacity of both parties being able to comprehend, process, and digest what is being said.

When I originally posted my GF's response to the 'nut incident', most people thought that was pretty insensitive and callous. I knew that she wasn't trying to harm me, and she doesn't think I'm delicate. I know she loves me. But what she said was still not prudent under the circumstances.

It didn't really bother me, but I let her know (non-verbally) that she chose her words poorly. I could have just as easily said "What an incredibly stupid and insensitive thing to say." after just jabbing myself in the leg with an epi-pen. I sure thought that. Saying it would have been transparent, but it would NOT have been emotionally honest. Because, I know her heart. And I know that had I been transparent in that moment ... rather than discussing it much later, it would have caused far more harm to her, whereas her statement didn't make much of an impact on me at all, other than my thinking it was an odd thing to say.

As I have said at several points in this thread, I don't believe that in virtually any relationship, that both parties are, nor should they be always unfiltered. But I don't disagree for a moment that transparency can have a tremendous and positive influence on a relationship.


----------



## john117

Transparency in general and unfiltered specifically is dangerous because it lacks context. And context is king as far as the human mind goes.

I could bore J2 with details of my upbringing that would scare her back to her home country. Without the proper context, ie, this is standard behavior there, she can't understand. And vice versa.

Add sociopolitical and economic differences and context is critical.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> jld,
> 
> I guess I'm getting confused here. (Nothing unusual..)
> 
> Are you talking about transparency only in the limited context of something a spouse may not know or even realize themselves or are you talking about it in every avenue of life?


Well, when the thread started, I was thinking about transparency only in the context of marriage. I think it is critical in marriage. Everything needs to be worked through. Transparency is a great vehicle for growth.

And it is very important to be as transparent as possible before marriage, while dating. No surprises later on. Be upfront and willing to be rejected if the other person is uncomfortable with your transparency. Accept it and walk away friends. Don't try too hard to "make it work." Look for natural compatibility instead.

But as the thread has progressed, I have indeed been thinking about how helpful transparency is outside of marriage, too. I hide very little from my children, for example. We have open and honest talks, and I tell them expressly to tell me whatever they are thinking, even if it is really angry, hurtful stuff. I can take it. The raw feed is worth it. I want to truly resolve conflict with them, and that will not happen without plunging the depths and risking hurt feelings or disagreement.

Does that answer your question, ocotillo? Transparency outside of marriage could be its own interesting thread.


----------



## john117

A week in the corporate world will convince you that transparency is overrated there


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> A week in the corporate world will convince you that transparency is overrated there


There is not transparency there, is there? Isn't it just conniving and manipulation all the way?


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> There is not transparency there, is there? Isn't it just conniving and manipulation all the way?


Oddly enough, I think why I am very successful at my role is that I have no issue telling a customer why what they want, won't work ... or I offer an alternative.

In contrasting a business relationship to an intimate one, the 'vibe' I give off is that I'm not going to steer them wrong, and I want them to be successful, therefore I'm not going to nod and agree to something that I know will screw them down the line. 

In part this is why they send me to see very unhappy customers. Because when I walk away, they are less ... unhappy.

So it's not all conniving and manipulation. And without a doubt I'm using transparency.

I often tell them, "Odds are the things you hate about our tool are the same things I hate about our tool. That's why I'm here to help you work around them."


----------



## john117

jld said:


> There is not transparency there, is there? Isn't it just conniving and manipulation all the way?


For the most part, yes. I mean, how do you tell a 30 year old young and inexperienced designer (customer) in Europe that their design for man machine interface looks like it came out of toys r us?


----------



## jld

That's a great post, Deejo, and I really appreciate your approach. 

But by corporate, I mean the P and VPs running a company. That is where I have heard about conniving and manipulation, anyway.

And, in fairness, it is surely not all of them, everywhere. And maybe it happens at lower levels, too, depending on the character of the people involved.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,Always,

That's pretty interesting. 

Growing up my father taught me the 'minimal force' doctrine. 

Use the minimum amount of force needed to produce the target result. 







always_alone said:


> If the size of her ass does not impact how he feels about her, then he should be able to say this, no?
> 
> My SO has gained a lot of weight, am I to tell him he is just "big-boned"?
> 
> Personally, I find that empty platitudes out of "compassion" or "prudence" are not reassuring at all. Indeed, quite the opposite, as they just reinforce any negative body issues. I know when I am being lied to and placated, and you might as well just pat me on the head and say, "there, there dearie".
> 
> Truth hurts like hell, but at least it is meaningful.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Partially
> 
> I was wondering how relevant the distinction between what our spouse definitely knows and what they may not know would be.
> 
> For example, when my wife asks me, "Do these jeans make me look fat?" it's not because she doesn't own a scale or is unaware of the fact that she doesn't have the figure at 60 that she did at 17. (Who does?)
> 
> I honestly think it's more along the lines of a, "_Will you still need me, will you still feed me when I'm sixty-four?_" type of sentiment and what she's primarily after is reassurance.
> 
> Similarly, if our spouse were to take up a musical instrument or some other hobby that takes a considerable amount of time to master, would we rub their nose in the obvious during the early stages of that endeavor? Or would we varnish our words a bit?


Probably depends on how happy we are that they are doing it. 

Ocotillo, I believe in transparency in marriage. The only limit to transparency that I am aware of in my own marriage is that Dug told me that when he feels angry with me (and he said it usually is not even anger, but irritation), he calms himself first before speaking. He said that he feels that he is the more powerful person in the marriage, and therefore his words have more weight. He wants to choose them carefully.

Transparency is powerful. With unvarnished sincerity there is no hiding, no controlling. And it offers so many learning opportunities.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,Always,
> 
> That's pretty interesting.
> 
> Growing up my father taught me the 'minimal force' doctrine.
> 
> Use the minimum amount of force needed to produce the target result.


I think the beauty of transparency is that you let go of the result.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I think the beauty of transparency is that you let go of the result.


If you let go, that is.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> If you let go, that is.


Control issues.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Again, compassion and prudence for whom?
> 
> I think people avoid transparency largely out of self-protection.


I absolutely agree with this. My SO avoids certain issues because *he* doesn't want to deal. Although, of course, he will always say that it was for me and supposedly my benefit. 

That said, the mirror that you mention can be tough to face. Especially when it is telling you that you really are the ugliest witch of them all. (If you know what I mean.) And so I get why people choose to avoid it or try to water it down with more palatable messages. Indeed, there is some fairly substantial literature out there that shows that humans generally tend towards positive delusions, and that those who have these positive delusions tend to be much happier than those who are more realistic.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,Always,
> 
> That's pretty interesting.
> 
> Growing up my father taught me the 'minimal force' doctrine.
> 
> Use the minimum amount of force needed to produce the target result.


Well, truthfully, and to expand, I don't really need to be told (for example) that I'm the most hideous troll to have ever walked the earth. That is, I don't need to be bludgeoned with the truth.

But at the same time, it's always clear when someone is being reassuring, just to be reassuring. My SO has taken this up recently, and it's not helping. Pandering to my "delicate sensibilities" just makes me feel lied to, and like I can't trust that I ever will actually get the truth. 

Ultimately, I'd rather something be hurtful and actually true than reassuring, but a whopping pile of lies. For me it builds trust that I will be called out when I need to be, and will be supported when I deserve to be. I need this. If I can't trust my partner to call me out when I need to be called out, who can I trust?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> When I originally posted my GF's response to the 'nut incident', most people thought that was pretty insensitive and callous. .


*That* was insensitive and callous? Oh my. 

Better that you don't ever come around to my neck of the woods. We're meaner than all of that just talking about the weather.


----------



## john117

Yes and no. Realistic or pragmatic is more 'reliably happy' rather than 'unicorny happy'...


----------



## Deejo

Again, that is because of your frame, or perspective.

Would I be out of line saying you have become a bit hardened by NOT having people (men) be honest and open with you in the past? 

Hell you even make being prudent and compassionate sound contrived and negative




always_alone said:


> If the size of her ass does not impact how he feels about her, then he should be able to say this, no?
> 
> My SO has gained a lot of weight, am I to tell him he is just "big-boned"?
> 
> Personally, I find that empty platitudes out of "compassion" or "prudence" are not reassuring at all. Indeed, quite the opposite, as they just reinforce any negative body issues. I know when I am being lied to and placated, and you might as well just pat me on the head and say, "there, there dearie".
> 
> Truth hurts like hell, but at least it is meaningful.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I think the beauty of transparency is that you let go of the result.


Well, and you have to. 

That's why I said earlier that my primary goal isn't cultivating a relationship. Because sometimes these things are relationship enders, not relationship builders. 

And you have to be okay with that.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Yes and no. Realistic or pragmatic is more 'reliably happy' rather than 'unicorny happy'...


Read the research!


----------



## MEM2020

Always,

Where I come from, you almost kill someone - by accident - calling them fragile is a blameshifting type nastiness.

Calling a guy fragile is worse than calling a woman fat. No comparison. 




always_alone said:


> *That* was insensitive and callous? Oh my.
> 
> Better that you don't ever come around to my neck of the woods. We're meaner than all of that just talking about the weather.


----------



## john117

I don't doubt the research. I wonder whether the extra happiness is due to "ignorance is bliss" or lack of self transparency.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> 
> Where I come from, you almost kill someone - by accident - *calling them fragile is a blameshifting type nastiness.*
> 
> Calling a guy fragile is worse than calling a woman fat. No comparison.


Could you explain this, please?


----------



## MEM2020

Ah 

Well here the truth is prized.....

But ballsier M2 dispenses with social niceties. 

Still - like everyone does - we have language augments. 

For example in the house of MEM, a long drawn out, high pitched Noooo - means - HELL YES.

Not maybe. Not probably. But yes with utter certainty. 

But it means more than that. It means the asker knew or should reasonably have known the answer was yes before asking. 


In group settings - this inflected no if often accompanied by:

Nooooooo?
Why would you even think that? 

Followed by howls of laughter. 

And often some anecdote demonstrating how come the 'inflected no' is so totally appropriate. 








always_alone said:


> Well, and you have to.
> 
> That's why I said earlier that my primary goal isn't cultivating a relationship. Because sometimes these things are relationship enders, not relationship builders.
> 
> And you have to be okay with that.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Hell you even make being prudent and compassionate sound contrived and negative


Sometimes it is! That's my point.

For example, MIL is declining cognitively and can no longer do all sorts of things. One of them was driving. She didn't pay attention, ran stoplights, relied on her passengers to tell her when to stop, go, turn, change lanes, etc. No one wanted to have her license taken away because no one was willing to say, point blank: you are a menace, a danger to yourself and others. 

They all wanted to reassure her that she's not "that bad", sure she's getting "older", but aren't we all? Maybe she should consider not driving anymore, but really, it's her decision. She's an adult, isn't she? Besides, there's not that much traffic in her little town. It's not that big a deal.

I get what you are saying about unfiltered messages. But sometimes these sorts of unfiltered messages are *exactly* what needs to be said. Do we wish to say them in a way that they can be heard without crushing someone's feelings? Ideally, sure. 

But words don't always work that way, and ultimately, sometimes it's more important that the message is heard than it is delivered in a palatable format. Especially, since it was their own discomfort with being blunt that prevented the family from saying directly to MIL what they were all saying to each other.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> sometimes it's more important that the message is heard than it is delivered in a palatable format.


This is what Dug says, too.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I don't doubt the research. I wonder whether the extra happiness is due to "ignorance is bliss" or lack of self transparency.


Yes, absolutely! 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. 

And where the realistic and pragmatic self-assessments are often revised according to realistic and pragmatic measures, positive delusions are (un)surprisingly resistant to revision.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

Weakness, bad as it is for a man, can sometimes be addressed via focus and determination. Fragility is an unfixable type weakness. 

He went to the gym to get stronger. (Less weak)

There is no: he went to the XYZ to become less fragile. 






jld said:


> Could you explain this, please?


----------



## john117

One would be hard pressed to disagree that filtered, even manipulative communication would work better than "grandma you're done driving"...

You can try the direct approach which will likely fail and then you can try the not quite direct and see which works.


----------



## MEM2020

Why I wasn't TACTFUL when M2 suddenly swerved to the left and almost smashed our car into another car. 





always_alone said:


> Sometimes it is! That's my point.
> 
> For example, MIL is declining cognitively and can no longer do all sorts of things. One of them was driving. She didn't pay attention, ran stoplights, relied on her passengers to tell her when to stop, go, turn, change lanes, etc. No one wanted to have her license taken away because no one was willing to say, point blank: you are a menace, a danger to yourself and others.
> 
> They all wanted to reassure her that she's not "that bad", sure she's getting "older", but aren't we all? Maybe she should consider not driving anymore, but really, it's her decision. She's an adult, isn't she? Besides, there's not that much traffic in her little town. It's not that big a deal.
> 
> I get what you are saying about unfiltered messages. But sometimes these sorts of unfiltered messages are *exactly* what needs to be said. Do we wish to say them in a way that they can be heard without crushing someone's feelings? Ideally, sure.
> 
> But words don't always work that way, and ultimately, sometimes it's more important that the message is heard than it is delivered in a palatable format. Especially, since it was their own discomfort with being blunt that prevented the family from saying directly to MIL what they were all saying to each other.


----------



## john117

Adrenaline?

Survivor guilt  ??


----------



## MEM2020

Always,

My mission is to serve and protect. Normal day to day that's all intangibles. Conflict between physical security and emotional comfort - deactivates the diplomacy filter. 

For the day to day stuff, the intangibles, kind of a range of situations. First is what I'd call a confirmation or sanity check. You already believe you know the answer, looking for confirmation. 

This actually tends to be the most fraught situation for me emotionally. 

It really is my favorite Mark Twain quote - hands down. 

It ain't the things you don't know that get you into trouble. It's the things you know for sure, that just ain't so. 

-----------
In those situations I try to tell the truth - in a way that minimizes distress. 



always_alone said:


> I absolutely agree with this. My SO avoids certain issues because *he* doesn't want to deal. Although, of course, he will always say that it was for me and supposedly my benefit.
> 
> That said, the mirror that you mention can be tough to face. Especially when it is telling you that you really are the ugliest witch of them all. (If you know what I mean.) And so I get why people choose to avoid it or try to water it down with more palatable messages. Indeed, there is some fairly substantial literature out there that shows that humans generally tend towards positive delusions, and that those who have these positive delusions tend to be much happier than those who are more realistic.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

Reason number 99 I'm so unconvinced that me being transparent is a good thing. 

We are on the highway, M2 driving me in passenger seat. She's doing 80 in a 75. So far so good. I'm looking down at my IPad. 

M2 decided to slide one lane to the left. She begins to change lanes as she looks into the side view mirror. Unfortunately there is a person coming up the left lane at maybe 95 mph. 

So all the sudden I feel the car swerve suddenly to the right as she aborts the lane change and gets out the way of speed racer. 

I said 'hey' - loud involuntary utterance plus I had a look of fear on my face. Very real, very genuine, very 'if you crash this car at 80 mph we might die' based fear. 

What did I learn from that? This is what I learned. M2's reflex reaction to seeing pure fear on my face, is rage. Not irritation. Nor anger. Pure, unadulterated rage. The next 5 minutes were filled with her telling me what an awful person I was. 

I didn't say much. We got to our sons game and as we got out the car I said: keys - held out my hand. She gave me the keys. 

I drove home. She stayed angry for a good day or two. 





john117 said:


> Adrenaline?
> 
> Survivor guilt  ??


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> One would be hard pressed to disagree that filtered, even manipulative communication would work better than "grandma you're done driving"...
> 
> You can try the direct approach which will likely fail and then you can try the not quite direct and see which works.


Indirect was a massive fail. Direct worked. No, you will *NOT* drive anymore because you are a menace on the road.


----------



## john117

Person dependent of course... Maybe I've watched one too many AARP commercials...

Old people are incredibly stubborn and because of the respect or other factors one may be reluctant to talk to them directly. The AARP and others suggest all kinds of approaches, some direct, many not.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> In those situations I try to tell the truth - in a way that minimizes distress.


I always try to minimize distress. The more painful the message, the more I will try to deliver it in a way that minimizes distress. I don't see this as a lack of transparency until you actually start changing the message to make it more palatable.

Does that make sense?


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Weakness, bad as it is for a man, can sometimes be addressed via focus and determination. Fragility is an unfixable type weakness.
> 
> He went to the gym to get stronger. (Less weak)
> 
> There is no: he went to the XYZ to become less fragile.


I think we may see this differently, MEM.

I can understand that there are some men who are truly emotionally fragile, perhaps even disturbed, and are likely to never recover from that. I have a relative who fits that description. I would not be surprised if he truly cannot handle transparency.

Deejo is not like that.

I think for guys who are called fragile or weak by their wives or girlfriends, it is just a question of developing thicker skin. 

Do you remember seeing this, MEM?

_"One of the core beliefs you must have if you want to succeed in both relationships and life is to be comfortable in your own skin.

This also means that you must have 10 inches of thick, steel skin. *Words and insults should bounce right off you and over your shoulder.* You can’t be affected by the opinions and words of others.

When you begin to understand this mindset, you’ll see how powerful it really is. All of the most powerful people who have ever lived have had thick skin.

The opinions of others, even their romantic partners, just doesn’t change who they are. It doesn’t throw them off course."_


----------



## MEM2020

Total sense. 

That's emotional honesty. 



always_alone said:


> I always try to minimize distress. The more painful the message, the more I will try to deliver it in a way that minimizes distress. I don't see this as a lack of transparency until you actually start changing the message to make it more palatable.
> 
> Does that make sense?


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
I'm just describing why men react to being called fragile. 

M2 can say: MEM is emotionally fragile, I almost crash the car going 80 mph and it scares the crap out of him.

I shrug and say - she describes it as fragile - I see it as having a survival instinct. 

Thing is, I'm not trying to change my response pattern. She can either drive better or we can drive to events separately. Or she can be a passenger. I'm fine with all of those. 

Blaming someone else for your almost mortally poor judgement is ugly. 




jld said:


> I think we may see this differently, MEM.
> 
> I can understand that there are some men who are truly emotionally fragile, perhaps even disturbed, and are likely to never recover from that. I have a relative who fits that description. I would not be surprised if he truly cannot handle transparency.
> 
> Deejo is not like that.
> 
> I think for guys who are called fragile or weak by their wives or girlfriends, it is just a question of developing thicker skin.
> 
> Do you remember seeing this, MEM?
> 
> _"One of the core beliefs you must have if you want to succeed in both relationships and life is to be comfortable in your own skin.
> 
> This also means that you must have 10 inches of thick, steel skin. *Words and insults should bounce right off you and over your shoulder.* You can’t be affected by the opinions and words of others.
> 
> When you begin to understand this mindset, you’ll see how powerful it really is. All of the most powerful people who have ever lived have had thick skin.
> 
> The opinions of others, even their romantic partners, just doesn’t change who they are. It doesn’t throw them off course."_


----------



## heartsbeating

I don't consider transparency and being unfiltered as one and the same.

My own knee-jerk reactions are not necessarily that of transparency. Sometimes they are! What I have noticed is those unfiltered reactions can actually serve as the veil that keeps the real feelings protected. I've found that taking a breath and looking beyond those reactions, is where the real feelings reside... that's where the rawness and vulnerability is. Sometimes it might take me expressing the surface knee-jerk reactions to recognize this.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> Reason number 99 I'm so unconvinced that me being transparent is a good thing.
> 
> We are on the highway, M2 driving me in passenger seat. She's doing 80 in a 75. So far so good. I'm looking down at my IPad.
> 
> M2 decided to slide one lane to the left. She begins to change lanes as she looks into the side view mirror. Unfortunately there is a person coming up the left lane at maybe 95 mph.
> 
> So all the sudden I feel the car swerve suddenly to the right as she aborts the lane change and gets out the way of speed racer.
> 
> I said 'hey' - loud involuntary utterance plus I had a look of fear on my face. Very real, very genuine, very 'if you crash this car at 80 mph we might die' based fear.
> 
> What did I learn from that? This is what I learned. M2's reflex reaction to seeing pure fear on my face, is rage. Not irritation. Nor anger. Pure, unadulterated rage. The next 5 minutes were filled with her telling me what an awful person I was.
> 
> I didn't say much. We got to our sons game and as we got out the car I said: keys - held out my hand. She gave me the keys.
> 
> I drove home. She stayed angry for a good day or two.


I don't think that was being transparent.

I think it was being responsive rather than reactive.

You did not act transparently to any internal emotional state that you may or may not have had. In fact, it didn't matter if you had an emotional reaction or not, because she didn't see it.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Weakness, bad as it is for a man, can sometimes be addressed via focus and determination. Fragility is an unfixable type weakness.
> 
> He went to the gym to get stronger. (Less weak)
> 
> There is no: he went to the XYZ to become less fragile.


Um, no.

Take, for example, swimming. Can be a great muscle workout, and improve core strength, but can make you more fragile in your bones.

You can to into the gym and do heavy squats for example to improve your bone density.

And many of the exercises we do in the dojo are specifically aimed at making you emotionally less fragile. I've had my ego systematically dismantled and reconstructed so many times I can't count -- to make me less reactive.

The education of instinct.


----------



## heartsbeating

jld said:


> I think for guys who are called fragile or weak by their wives or girlfriends, it is just a question of developing thicker skin.
> 
> _The opinions of others, even their romantic partners, just doesn’t change who they are. It doesn’t throw them off course."_


I don't feel there's benefit in developing a thicker skin (for either gender) without also learning how to assert oneself and becoming capable of calling out behavior that is unacceptable.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> I'm just describing why men react to being called fragile.
> 
> M2 can say: MEM is emotionally fragile, I almost crash the car going 80 mph and it scares the crap out of him.
> 
> I shrug and say - she describes it as fragile - I see it as having a survival instinct.
> 
> Thing is, I'm not trying to change my response pattern. She can either drive better or we can drive to events separately. Or she can be a passenger. I'm fine with all of those.
> 
> Blaming someone else for your almost mortally poor judgement is ugly.


Is that where the blame shifting was coming in? I did not understand that part of your post.

She said you were fragile because you reacted to her reckless driving? Seriously?

Unsafe driving could kill you. She was very defensive in her response. Maybe feeling terribly guilty?

I think your response was just fine. I can't believe she was not shaken herself, and contrite.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

heartsbeating said:


> I don't feel there's benefit in developing a thicker skin (for either gender) without also learning how to assert oneself and becoming capable of calling out behavior that is unacceptable.


And what do you do when they don't see it the way you do? 

Ultimately you only have control over yourself. If you learn not to take other people's words personally, you don't give them your power. They can't hurt you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

jld said:


> And what do you do when they don't see it the way you do?
> 
> Ultimately you only have control over yourself. If you learn not to take other people's words personally, you don't give them your power. They can't hurt you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Seeing different perspectives is one thing. 

So is having and demonstrating self-respect. 


I agree with your sentiment to a point, in terms of the various interactions we experience in the world, however my home is not somewhere I need to build walls... quite the opposite.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
Same thing in Deejos situation. What with the one small exception being that in our case, M2 shared in the risk equally. 

In Deejos case he solely bore the risk caused by her mortal carelessness. 

But let me jump up to 20,000 feet. M2 feels safe around me. I'm relaxed and in control. Things start derailing and I'm doing that low key problem solving thing she likes. 

Reason M2 started to fall for me on our first date was - I had a plan B. Told her life being full of surprises, it was important to have a good quality plan B in hand as sort of a standard practice. 

She liked that a lot. 

So - reason I like the story about Tippi Hedren (Melanie Griffiths mom) and their pet lion is simple. Lions don't differentiate when it comes to fear. You show fear, and they try to snackify you. 

M2 responds to fear just so. Doesn't matter the source. 






jld said:


> Is that where the blame shifting was coming in? I did not understand that part of your post.
> 
> She said you were fragile because you reacted to her reckless driving? Seriously?
> 
> Unsafe driving could kill you. She was very defensive in her response. Maybe feeling terribly guilty?
> 
> I think your response was just fine. I can't believe she was not shaken herself, and contrite.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Ethically positive qualifiers, like "Sincerity" do imply limitation:
> 
> Sincerity is not just a lack of deceit. It's strongly associated with things like, integrity, probity, honor, rectitude, etc. and that is what I'm driving at here.


You make a good point, ocotillo. I think of transparency as a positive, constructive force, so I do associate it with sincerity. 

If someone's intention is to destroy, I can see how transparency could be viewed negatively. 

I have to say, though, that even if someone has evil intent, much good can come from opening the curtains. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Same thing in Deejos situation. What with the one small exception being that in our case, M2 shared in the risk equally.
> 
> In Deejos case he solely bore the risk caused by her mortal carelessness.
> 
> But let me jump up to 20,000 feet. M2 feels safe around me. I'm relaxed and in control. Things start derailing and I'm doing that low key problem solving thing she likes.
> 
> Reason M2 started to fall for me on our first date was - I had a plan B. Told her life being full of surprises, it was important to have a good quality plan B in hand as sort of a standard practice.
> 
> She liked that a lot.
> 
> So - reason I like the story about Tippi Hedren (Melanie Griffiths mom) and their pet lion is simple. Lions don't differentiate when it comes to fear. You show fear, and they try to snackify you.
> 
> M2 responds to fear just so. Doesn't matter the source.


You must love her an awful lot, MEM. If my husband nearly killed me and then got mad at me for being scared, I would likely be done. The very minimum would be that we would be driving separately for the foreseeable future.

I did not see Deejo's gf as blaming him in any way. I think she just meant he was fragile in that he has a special health condition. 

Dug's brother could die if he gets bitten by a bee. He carries something with him for that, too. If his gf called him fragile, it would be strictly in reference to the health condition.

Okay, here is my unsolicited advice: Don't look for insult where none was intended. Life is much more enjoyable when you assume good intentions. And I think you will nearly always be right. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

I oughta give a ride to M2 in the Mini Cooper... Nothing teaches one the value of not driving like a teenager than growing up driving little cars.

The Mini handles impeccably but to the untrained observer it looks ready to go off the road at any time if driven spiritedly.


----------



## jld

MEM, were you trying to say that m2 expected you to keep her safe, and your fear made her feel unsafe?

Not saying you should not have been afraid. It was totally normal given the circumstances. She needs to see your humanity, too. That is part of how we grow from transparency.

Also, have you two been able to talk this over thoroughly? Or is it still too fresh?
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

On the subject of being honest and direct with elderly drivers...

https://www.caring.com/articles/when-should-seniors-stop-driving

http://www.elderparenthelp.com/aging-parents-stop-driving

Both of those articles are full of manipulative ways to get the job done...


----------



## MEM2020

John,

From what my friends say, that car handles like nothing else. 

So far my only experience with it has been in Gran Turismo 6, but even there it's a joy to drive...




john117 said:


> I oughta give a ride to M2 in the Mini Cooper... Nothing teaches one the value of not driving like a teenager than growing up driving little cars.
> 
> The Mini handles impeccably but to the untrained observer it looks ready to go off the road at any time if driven spiritedly.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
This isn't a daily or weekly or even monthly thing. But regardless of speed M2 has a strong reflexive, anger reaction to me expressing fear. 

This is not an endearing trait. It's just part of the PrimalPlus option package she was given at birth. I just accept it. That doesn't mean we don't tussle when there's a near miss and she gets aggressive. We do. Just get through it a lot faster now that I stay calm and tease her a bit. 

That said, for a while I did start driving more. She's actually usually a very skilled driver. Her issue isn't coordination, reflexes or spatial awareness. It is plain and simple a mix of occasional in attentiveness and/or impulsiveness. She hates being a passenger so that's just a gentle corrective measure I use. 




jld said:


> You must love her an awful lot, MEM. If my husband nearly killed me and then got mad at me for being scared, I would likely be done. The very minimum would be that we would be driving separately for the foreseeable future.
> 
> I did not see Deejo's gf as blaming him in any way. I think she just meant he was fragile in that he has a special health condition.
> 
> Dug's brother could die if he gets bitten by a bee. He carries something with him for that, too. If his gf called him fragile, it would be strictly in reference to the health condition.
> 
> Okay, here is my unsolicited advice: Don't look for insult where none was intended. Life is much more enjoyable when you assume good intentions. And I think you will nearly always be right.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Have I said: 
Seeing fear on my face causes you to instantly melt down? 

I don't believe I have. What would that change? I'm not being sarcastic. It's a sincere question. This is hardwired so deep that there is no possibility of changing it. 

It's a sub type of weakness. Ask Far and Marduk how their wives respond to weakness. 

Fear is just a subtype of weakness. A very pure subtype. 




jld said:


> MEM, were you trying to say that m2 expected you to keep her safe, and your fear made her feel unsafe?
> 
> Not saying you should not have been afraid. It was totally normal given the circumstances. She needs to see your humanity, too. That is part of how we grow from transparency.
> 
> Also, have you two been able to talk this over thoroughly? Or is it still too fresh?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> This isn't a daily or weekly or even monthly thing. But regardless of speed M2 has a strong reflexive, anger reaction to me expressing fear.
> 
> This is not an endearing trait. It's just part of the PrimalPlus option package she was given at birth. I just accept it. That doesn't mean we don't tussle when there's a near miss and she gets aggressive. We do. Just get through it a lot faster now that I stay calm and tease her a bit.
> 
> That said, for a while I did start driving more. She's actually usually a very skilled driver. Her issue isn't coordination, reflexes or spatial awareness. It is plain and simple a mix of occasional in attentiveness and/or impulsiveness. She hates being a passenger so that's just a gentle corrective measure I use.


If you are okay with it, then good enough, MEM.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Have I said:
> Seeing fear on my face causes you to instantly melt down?
> 
> I don't believe I have. What would that change? I'm not being sarcastic. It's a sincere question. This is hardwired so deep that there is no possibility of changing it.
> 
> It's a sub type of weakness. Ask Far and Marduk how their wives respond to weakness.
> 
> Fear is just a subtype of weakness. A very pure subtype.


It might be interesting to hear her thoughts on it. 

But again, if you are okay with it, good enough. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## MEM2020

Hearts,

I agree with all that. It's also true that the closer I get to accepting the model below, the happier I am.

Someone says something to me. It's either true or untrue. If it's true, it's true. If it's untrue, I either ask why they think that. Or IF they really think that. Sometimes people say stuff they don't really mean. Or that they aren't sure of. 

If I get the sense someone is trying to hurt me - I ask: are you upset with me about something? 

Sometimes the other person IS MAD but they say they aren't. That used to infuriate me. I mean, it's a type of gaslighting. 

Now I just do that thing JLD taught me. I say what's true which is some version of: Ok, well if you are upset with me I'm here. 

And then I just shrug and move on with my day. I've opened the door. They can walk thru or not. 

It's true that if someone is being disagreeable for a while and won't say why, I remove myself from their company. This is a rare event, but in extremus I've been known to say: 

I fully respect your first amendment rights just as I know you respect my right to spend as little or as much time in your company as I choose. 

The intention isn't to force anything. It's simply a reminder that quality time is either valued or not. And if not, one cannot complain when it disappears.  

--------
It's extraordinary how helpful that mindset is. 




heartsbeating said:


> Seeing different perspectives is one thing.
> 
> So is having and demonstrating self-respect.
> 
> 
> I agree with your sentiment to a point, in terms of the various interactions we experience in the world, however my home is not somewhere I need to build walls... quite the opposite.


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM11363 said:


> That said, for a while I did start driving more. She's actually usually a very skilled driver. Her issue isn't coordination, reflexes or spatial awareness. It is plain and simple a mix of occasional in attentiveness and/or impulsiveness. She hates being a passenger so that's just a gentle corrective measure I use.


Calling a man a bad driver is often viewed very negatively. We all think, me included, that we are better drivers than our wives.

However, insurance statistics do not bear that out. What those numbers are saying is that men, in general, are far worse drivers than women.

So it would be transparent to say that men are bad drivers. Are we ready, as men, to accept this?


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> On the subject of being honest and direct with elderly drivers...
> 
> https://www.caring.com/articles/when-should-seniors-stop-driving
> 
> How To Get Your Aging Parents to Stop Driving
> 
> Both of those articles are full of manipulative ways to get the job done...


Full of exactly the failed strategies that everyone was using to preserve her ego and soft-peddle the message.


----------



## Duguesclin

Deejo said:


> I posted previously about being away with MR for my birthday. She inadvertently gave me a bite of a cookie that had nuts in it. I have an anaphylactic reaction to nuts. She panicked and felt dumb, and she blurted out, "I forgot how fragile you are."
> 
> That was her being unfiltered, transparent in the moment with her thoughts. It was neither a smart nor helpful thing to say. And she realized that momentarily after as well.
> 
> What she meant was; "I have to keep in mind that there are very ordinary things that could kill you, and I'd lose you and I don't want that."
> 
> Our ability to openly communicate made that point clear much later after the 'incident'. However, her display of transparency in the moment was a big fail. Her words didn't fully align with her thoughts.


Deejo, what is wrong with being called fragile?

Are you saying that she can think it but cannot say it under any circumstances? This does not seem very practical.

We all have our own weaknesses. It is just a fact of life.


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> I don't consider transparency and being unfiltered as one and the same.
> 
> My own knee-jerk reactions are not necessarily that of transparency. Sometimes they are! What I have noticed is those unfiltered reactions can actually serve as the veil that keeps the real feelings protected. I've found that taking a breath and looking beyond those reactions, is where the real feelings reside... that's where the rawness and vulnerability is. Sometimes it might take me expressing the surface knee-jerk reactions to recognize this.


QFT! Words of wisdom.

Anger in particular is one of those reactions that can be more defensive than revealing.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Full of exactly the failed strategies that everyone was using to preserve her ego and soft-peddle the message.


And we know this because....


----------



## MEM2020

Dug,
M2 has never called me a bad driver. And objectively I have a better driving record than she does. Hers is good, mine is better. 

In 25 years I've had one minor fender bender in a parking lot. She ran a stop sign and directly crashed into the side of a car crossing the intersection. Nobody was hurt. Both cars were totaled. She was with M5 that day. And her depiction of events never wavered. 

Per M2 and confirmed by M5:
I wasn't paying attention, the stop sign was partly obscured by trees and the accident was 100% my fault. 

M2 likes to drive solely because she likes to drive. And that's ok provided she pays attention. 

This is solely about her response pattern when she creates 'near accident' situations by being inattentive. 



Duguesclin said:


> Calling a man a bad driver is often viewed very negatively. We all think, me included, that we are better drivers than our wives.
> 
> However, insurance statistics do not bear that out. What those numbers are saying is that men, in general, are far worse drivers than women.
> 
> So it would be transparent to say that men are bad drivers. Are we ready, as men, to accept this?


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> So all the sudden I feel the car swerve suddenly to the right as she aborts the lane change and gets out the way of speed racer.
> 
> I said 'hey' - loud involuntary utterance plus I had a look of fear on my face. Very real, very genuine, very 'if you crash this car at 80 mph we might die' based fear.
> 
> What did I learn from that? This is what I learned. M2's reflex reaction to seeing pure fear on my face, is rage. Not irritation. Nor anger. Pure, unadulterated rage. The next 5 minutes were filled with her telling me what an awful person I was.


Are you sure her reaction was due to your look of fear?

I'm thinking in a case like that I would've been looking at the road, not at my passenger's face. Plus it sounds really strange to me to react with such hostility to legitimate fear.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> And we know this because....


?? I read the articles and they sounded exactly like the family soft-peddling the issue to MIL. They spent months trying to get her to volunteer to give up driving, and she justified and pushed back, and made excuses. 

What worked was not sparing her feelings, but actual direct communication that she is incompetent and was going to kill someone.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Duguesclin said:


> Deejo, what is wrong with being called fragile?
> 
> Are you saying that she can think it but cannot say it under any circumstances? This does not seem very practical.
> 
> We all have our own weaknesses. It is just a fact of life.


I can certainly attest I have put my sorry foot in my mouth a # of times over the years with my husband.. he may not be the most aggressive guy around.. but he clearly rolls with my unruly moments...even finds them amusing.. God love 'em for this.. 

He's a sensitive man but I have to say more so in how he spills his thoughts, careful to not trample or wound....over expecting from others, I guess he understands human nature all too well....he's able to read context ..."wife opens mouth - inserts foot "- when it applies, not taking it personally. 

I must give myself a little credit though -which helps in these matters.. Although I can go too far in being unfiltered (I have more of an issue here over being too passive)... mainly around those I am close to.... 

At the same time... I have a sensitive conscience .... I will then feel bad, sometimes immediately ..or it will eat at me...I have to go make it right, I'm not callous if I hurt someone I care about...I simply CAN'T leave that in the air... I will go out of my way to humble myself to make amends, to explain myself.. 

I've always wanted to buy some of these balloons for those moments...maybe someday.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Are you sure her reaction was due to your look of fear?
> 
> I'm thinking in a case like that I would've been looking at the road, not at my passenger's face. Plus it sounds really strange to me to react with such hostility to legitimate fear.


It isn't just fear; it is also weakness, A_A.

F2's father is a good, no nonsense man...now. When she was growing up, he was a ruthless alcoholic who demonstrated that same attitude towards weakness and fear towards F2's mom physically, and F2 emotionally.

It just is. No, it is not her most endearing trait. Yes, I occasionally struggle (less now than ever) because I am a fairly sensitive dude. But if I am going to love her, I have to love her through her faults as well.


----------



## farsidejunky

After reflection, there is a part of me that identifies with aggression towards fear and weakness.

When I was a Soldier at about the two year mark, we got a new Sergeant in our section. He knew nothing of the job, could not manage his people, etc. He lacked both tactical and technical proficiency. He could not answer basic questions to our chief, so I would get called in to do so.

I despised him. So I aggravated things and accelerated the process of him being relieved by deliberately showing his flaws to supervisors. 

It was not my proudest moment, because he was a person with a family. But being subordinate to someone so inept drove me crazy. It disgusted me.

I think it is similar.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Are you sure her reaction was due to your look of fear?
> 
> I'm thinking in a case like that I would've been looking at the road, not at my passenger's face. *Plus it sounds really strange to me to react with such hostility to legitimate fear*.


This is what seemed strange to me, too, MEM. I think it would be worth exploring.

When people are frightened (and you certainly had reason to be!), the normal reaction is for other people to be empathetic with them. Vulnerability in other people usually brings out the best in us. We want to comfort and reassure them.

That is why I am wondering what more might be going on in her mind. Does she expect you to keep her safe, and when she sees fear in you, she does not feel safe? Did she just feel defensive, and so took it out on you?

Do you not think it would be interesting to explore this with her?

If you really do not, good enough. It is your choice. 

But if I were you, I would be exploring this big time, with heart to heart talks, complete openness (tell me anything, in any way, m2, I can take it!), and curiosity. A big, strange emotional reaction can reveal tons of helpful data.

I think this could be a great opportunity, MEM. 

Plus, it took her two days afterwards to start talking to you, right?

MEM, again, this sounds like a _great_ opportunity to explore what was going on in the heart and mind of your wife. It could greatly strengthen your mutual bond.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> After reflection, there is a part of me that identifies with aggression towards fear and weakness.
> 
> When I was a Soldier at about the two year mark, we got a new Sergeant in our section. He knew nothing of the job, could not manage his people, etc. He lacked both tactical and technical proficiency. He could not answer basic questions to our chief, so I would get called in to do so.
> 
> I despised him. So I aggravated things and accelerated the process of him being relieved by deliberately showing his flaws to supervisors.
> 
> It was not my proudest moment, because he was a person with a family. But being subordinate to someone so inept drove me crazy. It disgusted me.
> 
> I think it is similar.


So it was the incompetence that drove your lack of respect? That makes sense. Respect is always earned, after all. You do not get it from a title. 

Not saying that MEM is incompetent at all, btw, or that his wife does not respect him. Just commenting on far's story above.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> QFT! Words of wisdom.
> 
> Anger in particular is one of those reactions that can be more defensive than revealing.


I think it can be revealing, if we explore what is behind the defensiveness.

It can be helpful to explore what is behind any emotional outburst. It is great when we can do it ourselves, but a partner or counselor doing active listening with us can help, too. 

Emotions in general can reveal our innermost selves. That is why it is helpful not to fear them, but to see them as teachers.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> ?? I read the articles and they sounded exactly like the family soft-peddling the issue to MIL. They spent months trying to get her to volunteer to give up driving, and she justified and pushed back, and made excuses.
> 
> What worked was not sparing her feelings, but actual direct communication that she is incompetent and was going to kill someone.


If the soft methods were as ineffective with everyone wouldn't you think the article would be different?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Again, that is because of your frame, or perspective.
> 
> Would I be out of line saying you have become a bit hardened by NOT having people (men) be honest and open with you in the past?
> 
> Hell you even make being prudent and compassionate sound contrived and negative


I've been thinking on this, and I do understand what you are saying about prudence and compassion. There's no need to be downright cruel and there are certainly times where reassurance may be more beneficial than truth.

But I also think we need to be careful about assuming we know what is "good" for someone else. I knew a guy, for example, who thought it would be good for his girlfriend to toughen her up; she's too soft and vulnerable. What he did to her was abuse, pure and simple, in the name of "helping" her.

At the other extreme, another guy I knew, would always say the "right" things, make sure not to "hurt" his gf. But it turns out that leaving the house without her, receiving even just an email from another woman, and on and on, all these things "hurt" her.

My own interest in transparency is my realization that my SO is not honest with me on certain issues. Before this, and indeed before joining some conversations here on TAM on the topic, I hadn't ever thought about it. At all. 

Looking back, yes, I've encountered all sorts of dishonesty, and I suppose you could say that I've been "hardened" by it. I dunno. At the same time, I've never wanted to be coddled or pandered to, and always wanted the kind of relationship where I could trust that I would be challenged when full of it or being an ass ---even if it hurts or I have trouble accepting it. And of course, I'll return the favour.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> If the soft methods were as ineffective with everyone wouldn't you think the article would be different?


I think most folks lose their license because their doctors or the DMV take it away. The rest is largely fluff.

But I could be wrong.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> I think we may see this differently, MEM.
> 
> I can understand that there are some men who are truly emotionally fragile, perhaps even disturbed, and are likely to never recover from that. I have a relative who fits that description. I would not be surprised if he truly cannot handle transparency.
> 
> Deejo is not like that.
> 
> I think for guys who are called fragile or weak by their wives or girlfriends, it is just a question of developing thicker skin.
> 
> Do you remember seeing this, MEM?
> 
> _"One of the core beliefs you must have if you want to succeed in both relationships and life is to be comfortable in your own skin.
> 
> This also means that you must have 10 inches of thick, steel skin. *Words and insults should bounce right off you and over your shoulder.* You can’t be affected by the opinions and words of others.
> 
> When you begin to understand this mindset, you’ll see how powerful it really is. All of the most powerful people who have ever lived have had thick skin.
> 
> The opinions of others, even their romantic partners, just doesn’t change who they are. It doesn’t throw them off course."_


Yes you guys are coming at it from two different directions and I agree with both of you. Your point is about inner strength and confidence and not letting anyone take that away from us.

Here's where I suspect MEM is coming at it from. 

Fragile: adjective
1.
easily broken, shattered, or damaged; delicate; brittle; frail:
a fragile ceramic container; a very fragile alliance.
2.
vulnerably delicate, as in appearance:
She has a fragile beauty.
3.
lacking in substance or force; flimsy:
a fragile excuse.

Whether we have thick skin or not doesn't change the fact that we analyse what is said to us or about us. So it's not that being called fragile versus being called weak means anything different so much as the connotation of the word feels more insulting.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> Whether we have thick skin or not doesn't change the fact that we analyse what is said to us or about us. So it's not that being called fragile versus being called weak means anything different so much as the connotation of the word feels more insulting.


But isn't "insult" just about pride?

If there is one certain relationship-killer out there, it has to be pride.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> I think it is similar.


Is it? I too would hate to be taking orders from someone who is incompetent, but have all sorts of empathy for someone who is exposing their fears and vulnerabilities.

The two explanations that come to my mind are first that behind the hostility masks a deep, deeply insecurity in self that has been covered over by putting you in the position of "rock". So because you provide that security, you also become the blame point when that security is threatened.

The second is that she has internalized the attitudes of her father, and so is triggered by any show of fear and weakness, responding in a similar aggressive way.

But, of course, I'm just speculating -I don't know your wife.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Is it? I too would hate to be taking orders from someone who is incompetent, but have all sorts of empathy for someone who is exposing their fears and vulnerabilities.


Totally agree, aa. That is why I would like to see MEM have a deep talk, actually, mostly listen, session with his wife. Could be quite revealing, and bring them closer.



> The two explanations that come to my mind are first that behind the hostility masks a deep, deeply insecurity in self that has been covered over by putting you in the position of "rock". So because you provide that security, you also become the blame point when that security is threatened.


But she knows you, far. She knows you are sometimes strong, and sometimes weak. She has seen both.



> The second is that she has internalized the attitudes of her father, and so is triggered by any show of fear and weakness, responding in a similar aggressive way.


That is what I was asking MEM about. Do these men's wives feel fear when their men are not as strong as they expect? Is that what motivates the anger?

That could be an interesting discussion. Humbling, but interesting.


----------



## john117

Strength goes out the window when you're dealing with a driver who's simply not understanding basic physics.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Strength goes out the window when you're dealing with a driver who's simply not understanding basic physics.


We're all human. We all have the right to our own fears.

I thought MEM's reaction to her near accident was fine. Dug, though, thought MEM overreacted. He said we all make mistakes and there was no reason to take away the car keys.

I was really surprised by that.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Is it? I too would hate to be taking orders from someone who is incompetent, but have all sorts of empathy for someone who is exposing their fears and vulnerabilities.
> 
> The two explanations that come to my mind are first that behind the hostility masks a deep, deeply insecurity in self that has been covered over by putting you in the position of "rock". So because you provide that security, you also become the blame point when that security is threatened.
> 
> The second is that she has internalized the attitudes of her father, and so is triggered by any show of fear and weakness, responding in a similar aggressive way.
> 
> But, of course, I'm just speculating -I don't know your wife.


This is right.


----------



## john117

I have done some cognitive research work in grad school involving simulated driving (using a very pricy and very convincing driving simulator) that records humongous amounts of data. Let me tell you that based on simple tasks I had subjects go thru there is a good amount of people that should NEVER be issued driver licenses. May be 5%-10%... 

And yea, males did a bit better than females on the simulations . Probably better acquainted with video games tho.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I have done some cognitive research work in grad school involving simulated driving (using a very pricy and very convincing driving simulator) that records humongous amounts of data. Let me tell you that based on simple tasks I had subjects go thru there is a good amount of people that should NEVER be issued driver licenses. May be 5%-10%...
> 
> And yea, males did a bit better than females on the simulations . Probably better acquainted with video games tho.


Then why are the insurance stats not saying that?

Sincere question. I think Dug is a better driver than I am, too.


----------



## MEM2020

Never met anyone who reads emotions so fast, so easily as M2. 

One she picked it up from my voice and two soon as she righted the car she glanced over at me. But from voice alone it was obvious. 

Besides this isn't the ONLY time that type thing has ever happened. 




always_alone said:


> Are you sure her reaction was due to your look of fear?
> 
> I'm thinking in a case like that I would've been looking at the road, not at my passenger's face. Plus it sounds really strange to me to react with such hostility to legitimate fear.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Never met anyone who reads emotions so fast, so easily as M2.


F2 would give her a run for the money.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> But isn't "insult" just about pride?
> 
> If there is one certain relationship-killer out there, it has to be pride.


Not 'just' about pride. Pride is a piece of the puzzle but so is self worth, principles, boundaries, etc. I think pride gets a bad rap actually because too much of it is harmful. Not enough is also harmful though and equally destroys relationships.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> F2 would give her a run for the money.


Does she always read your emotions accurately, far?


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> Not 'just' about pride. Pride is a piece of the puzzle but so is self worth, principles, boundaries, etc. I think pride gets a bad rap actually because too much of it is harmful. Not enough is also harmful though and equally destroys relationships.


I think there is a difference between pride and self-respect.

I just do not think secure people care what names they might be called. They know better.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> That is what I was asking MEM about. Do these men's wives feel fear when their men are not as strong as they expect? Is that what motivates the anger?
> 
> That could be an interesting discussion. Humbling, but interesting.


I can say with a high degree of certainty that my wife needs to think I am strong; that I am the emotional rock when life is stressful. So yes I suspect if I were not meeting that need that her fear and anxiety would manifest as anger and resentment. But that's just one example based on our dynamics and needs.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> I can say with a high degree of certainty that my wife needs to think I am strong; that I am the emotional rock when life is stressful. So yes I suspect if I were not meeting that need that her fear and anxiety would manifest as anger and resentment. But that's just one example based on our dynamics and needs.


Thanks for responding, Thundarr. 

When our son got cancer, Dug cried. Our daughter and I were shocked. We had never seen that before.

But we had to accept that Dug has his weaknesses, too. He may be strong, but he has vulnerabilities. It was painful, but necessary, for us to see that.


----------



## MEM2020

Sadness

There is nothing weak about sadness. The Spaniards know this. 



jld said:


> Thanks for responding, Thundarr.
> 
> When our son got cancer, Dug cried. Our daughter and I were shocked. We had never seen that before.
> 
> But we had to accept that Dug has his weaknesses, too. He may be strong, but he has vulnerabilities. It was painful, but necessary, for us to see that.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> I think there is a difference between pride and self-respect.
> 
> I just do not think secure people care what names they might be called. They know better.


I agree that secure and confident people don't let another person tear down their self respect but boundaries and preferences are not tied at the hip to whether we are secure or not though. I choose to avoid being around people who don't treat me the way I think we all deserve to be treated and that includes name calling, being taken advantage, or betrayed. But I avoid people who I see do those things to others as well so it's a principle that makes names matter to me. Those things don't take diminish how I see myself but they do make me avoid people.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> Thanks for responding, Thundarr.
> 
> When our son got cancer, Dug cried. Our daughter and I were shocked. We had never seen that before.
> 
> But we had to accept that Dug has his weaknesses, too. He may be strong, but he has vulnerabilities. It was painful, but necessary, for us to see that.


I'm sorry about your son jld. Dug is human.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Does she always read your emotions accurately, far?


90% of the time.

The only times she doesn't is if she is emotionally flooded or exhausted.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Sadness
> 
> There is nothing weak about sadness. The Spaniards know this.


He still cries about it, MEM. He told me. I think I have seen it, too. Except at the time I was busy crying about the same thing.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> 90% of the time.
> 
> The only times she doesn't is if she is emotionally flooded or exhausted.


Do you think that is why she is so good with animals, too?


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> I agree that secure and confident people don't let another person tear down their self respect but boundaries and preferences are not tied at the hip to whether we are secure or not though. I choose to avoid being around people who don't treat me the way I think we all deserve to be treated and that includes name calling, being taken advantage, or betrayed. But I avoid people who I see do those things to others as well so it's a principle that makes names matter to me. Those things don't take diminish how I see myself but they do make me avoid people.


I don't like being around liars. I don't trust them. And because I am trusting, I am especially vigilant when I realize people are lying. 

But if my ds7 screams that I am ruining his life, I don't take it personally. 

And Dug does not take anything I say to him personally. To me, that is security.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Then why are the insurance stats not saying that?
> 
> Sincere question. I think Dug is a better driver than I am, too.


Easy - male teenagers, sports car drivers, and many more miles driven per year.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Do you think that is why she is so good with animals, too?


She communicates with them. I am skeptical of a lot of things. I was (WAS) skeptical of that. But I have seen too much to question it.


----------



## Deejo

Duguesclin said:


> Deejo, what is wrong with being called fragile?
> 
> Are you saying that she can think it but cannot say it under any circumstances? This does not seem very practical.
> 
> We all have our own weaknesses. It is just a fact of life.


In the middle of struggling to breathe with an epi-pen jammed in my leg, after feeding me the allergen that caused the reaction?

See, you do have a sense of humor.

Her timing for the comment, sucked, and she knew it too, as she said, " I used the wrong word."

All I said about it was, "We'll talk later." 

It didn't come up again that night. We had a good time, right up until I passed out from benadryl and red wine.


----------



## Livvie

Deejo said:


> Duguesclin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deejo, what is wrong with being called fragile?
> 
> Are you saying that she can think it but cannot say it under any circumstances? This does not seem very practical.
> 
> We all have our own weaknesses. It is just a fact of life.
> 
> 
> 
> In the middle of struggling to breathe with an epi-pen jammed in my leg, after feeding me the allergen that caused the reaction?
> 
> See, you do have a sense of humor.
> 
> Her timing for the comment, sucked, and she knew it too, as she said, " I used the wrong word."
> 
> All I said about it was, "We'll talk later."
> 
> It didn't come up again that night. We had a good time, right up until I passed out from benadryl and red wine.
Click to expand...

How did this get resolved? 

I have an allergy to shellfish. It is extreme. If someone truly thought me "fragile" because of it, that might change MY opinion of what my relationship with that person was like. As in, I can't trust them and that they view me in a positive light, but rather they (unfairly) view me as negatively flawed for something I have no control over.


----------



## Deejo

*always wanted the kind of relationship where I could trust that I would be challenged when full of it or being an ass ---even if it hurts or I have trouble accepting it. And of course, I'll return the favour.*

Well then, welcome to TAM! We're not happy 'til you're not happy.


----------



## Deejo

Livvie said:


> How did this get resolved?
> 
> I have an allergy to shellfish. It is extreme. If someone truly thought me "fragile" because of it, that might change MY opinion of what my relationship with that person was like. As in, I can't trust them and that they view me in a positive light, but rather they (unfairly) view me as negatively flawed for something I have no control over.


She was VERY concerned. Started with a nervous laugh, then the comment, and then nervous eyes as I popped a few benadryl, dropped my pants and held the epi-pen against my thigh for 30 seconds. 

I didn't want her to worry. I smiled and winked, and said, "If I'm not dead in an hour we can go to dinner."

We do occasionally joke about how she's going to try to kill me next.

It's good. 

We're good.

She wasn't making a declaration about me as a man, and I was able to intuit what she meant.

But to me, this would be the equivalent of recoginizing she's having her period and declaring what a b!tch she is. (Which is purely for illustrative purposes btw. She rarely has periods and is rarely moody)

Not wrong ... but neither appropriate nor prudent.


----------



## MEM2020

Far,

Yes. Thing is, if you get deployed a guy like that gets people killed. 

Google Image Result for http://www.cesgoysquidefendentisrael.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/band-of-brothers-107-2.jpg






farsidejunky said:


> After reflection, there is a part of me that identifies with aggression towards fear and weakness.
> 
> When I was a Soldier at about the two year mark, we got a new Sergeant in our section. He knew nothing of the job, could not manage his people, etc. He lacked both tactical and technical proficiency. He could not answer basic questions to our chief, so I would get called in to do so.
> 
> I despised him. So I aggravated things and accelerated the process of him being relieved by deliberately showing his flaws to supervisors.
> 
> It was not my proudest moment, because he was a person with a family. But being subordinate to someone so inept drove me crazy. It disgusted me.
> 
> I think it is similar.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> 
> Yes. Thing is, if you get deployed a guy like that gets people killed.
> 
> Google Image Result for http://www.cesgoysquidefendentisrael.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/band-of-brothers-107-2.jpg


I know, brother. However, it is a fear driven response that, converts to anger, and then to disgust, in the blink of an eye. I believe my wife's response is similar.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

M2 is a champ - when it comes to sadness. 

This is a longer story than I'd like but there's nothing to be done about it. 

S2 is my younger sister. Sue was one of her best friends in highschool and college - went to U Penn together. Sue grew up in a low empathy, ultra high performance family. Won the genetic lottery: brains, beauty and athletic ability. 

Sue gets married to Jay in her early thirties. They quickly have two kids. By now she's in the perfect career for a high functioning sociopath. An expert witness for a consulting company who provides expert witnesses in high stakes lawsuits. She has an engineering degree from Penn and she is killer credible in front of a jury. 

Jay - smart guy - great career - marathon runner - was a good fit for Sue. Was training for a marathon when he noticed a marked loss of kick in his step. A month later the docs in his platinum health care plan gave him the news. ALS. He was 37. Told him he might make it to his 40th birthday. One quick thing about ALS. It kills your body but often leaves your mind intact. That was the case for Jay. 

Six months later he's in a wheel chair. Soon after Sue shows her true self. Tells him it would be cheaper to put him in an assisted care facility. Big shocker. He's not really down for that. She tells him it really isn't his choice. 

Next day the doorbell rings. Jays parents have come for a little come to Jesus with their lovely daughter in law. Explain to her the facts of life in this type situation: They will take Jay in if need be. And help him divorce her. In the meantime they explain that not only will a family court judge take a dim view of her 'plan', they will do their absolute best to ensure that every single legal document remains unsealed. And unsealed or not they will make copies. 

If the father was anything like me, he smiled and said: These court docs - think of them like a training program for the kids. So they will know how to - take care of you - when your old and dependent. 

Round 1 went to Jay and his parents. Sue was pulling down 300K+ a year by then and that plus their health insurance covered his round the clock care at home. 

Eventually maybe two years later - he wanted something - she didn't want to do. Don't know what it was. Only know she forced him into a devils deal at the time. She'd do what he wanted, in exchange for a firm unplug date - one year in the future. By then he was on respirator. Still fully cognitive - but without the respirator he would die immediately. 

Thing is Jay didn't expect to last another year. And when he did, Sue fully expected him to proceed with operation unplug. His parents intervened again. 

So how come I know all this. Because through this whole mess, Sue was talking to S2. And S2 shared those little chats with me. And the thing is - S2 made it clear that she was fully sympathetic with Sue's desire to 'get on with her life'. And 'finally get to really enjoy her money and her big salary'. 

We were in the car and I'm saying to M2: The only person in the world I share the most DNA with - went right into full blown assisted sociopath mode - first opportunity she got. 





jld said:


> He still cries about it, MEM. He told me. I think I have seen it, too. Except at the time I was busy crying about the same thing.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,

That exchange is in the TAM 'Hall of Fame' for poise and humor under duress. Take a bow. 





Deejo said:


> She was VERY concerned. Started with a nervous laugh, then the comment, and then nervous eyes as I popped a few benadryl, dropped my pants and held the epi-pen against my thigh for 30 seconds.
> 
> I didn't want her to worry. I smiled and winked, and said, "If I'm not dead in an hour we can go to dinner."
> 
> We do occasionally joke about how she's going to try to kill me next.
> 
> It's good.
> 
> We're good.
> 
> She wasn't making a declaration about me as a man, and I was able to intuit what she meant.
> 
> But to me, this would be the equivalent of recoginizing she's having her period and declaring what a b!tch she is. (Which is purely for illustrative purposes btw. She rarely has periods and is rarely moody)
> 
> Not wrong ... but neither appropriate nor prudent.


----------



## john117

MEM, 

My father in law skipped the assisted living part of the program with his wife and went straight into "let her meet the 72 Chippendale guys" or whatever the equivalent of 72 virgins is for women. 

No need to consider someone a full blown sociopath when good ole selfish a-hole will work just as well.


----------



## MEM2020

I just remembered. M2 also got into a fender bender in a store parking lot. It truly was a 50-50 fault situation. 

The woman she hit tried to claim whiplash and sued us. M2 got the store to send a video of the accident to our insurer. And they quashed this woman's frivolous lawsuit like the bug it was. 




Duguesclin said:


> Calling a man a bad driver is often viewed very negatively. We all think, me included, that we are better drivers than our wives.
> 
> However, insurance statistics do not bear that out. What those numbers are saying is that men, in general, are far worse drivers than women.
> 
> So it would be transparent to say that men are bad drivers. Are we ready, as men, to accept this?


----------



## Deejo

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> 
> That exchange is in the TAM 'Hall of Fame' for poise and humor under duress. Take a bow.


We were in Ottawa, I was doing the math on the closest medical center, and wondering what the bill would potentially be if I had to tell the desk to call an ambulance and go to an ER.

I knew I had 20 minutes. If things didn't worsen in that time, I'm out of the woods.

Had I not had the epi-pen and antihistamine, we would have had no choice.

But we did make it to dinner. Took her to Moxies.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> She communicates with them. I am skeptical of a lot of things. I was (WAS) skeptical of that. But I have seen too much to question it.


I have heard some people are almost telepathic with animals. Is she like that?


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> There's an old saying to the effect that* you have to value someone's opinion before you can be insulted by it. *
> 
> Unfortunately, for many that is the cost of a thick skin.


I can believe there is more truth to this than some folks are willing to admit.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> M2 is a champ - when it comes to sadness.
> 
> This is a longer story than I'd like but there's nothing to be done about it.
> 
> S2 is my younger sister. Sue was one of her best friends in highschool and college - went to U Penn together. Sue grew up in a low empathy, ultra high performance family. Won the genetic lottery: brains, beauty and athletic ability.
> 
> Sue gets married to Jay in her early thirties. They quickly have two kids. By now she's in the perfect career for a high functioning sociopath. An expert witness for a consulting company who provides expert witnesses in high stakes lawsuits. She has an engineering degree from Penn and she is killer credible in front of a jury.
> 
> Jay - smart guy - great career - marathon runner - was a good fit for Sue. Was training for a marathon when he noticed a marked loss of kick in his step. A month later the docs in his platinum health care plan gave him the news. ALS. He was 37. Told him he might make it to his 40th birthday. One quick thing about ALS. It kills your body but often leaves your mind intact. That was the case for Jay.
> 
> Six months later he's in a wheel chair. Soon after Sue shows her true self. Tells him it would be cheaper to put him in an assisted care facility. Big shocker. He's not really down for that. She tells him it really isn't his choice.
> 
> Next day the doorbell rings. Jays parents have come for a little come to Jesus with their lovely daughter in law. Explain to her the facts of life in this type situation: They will take Jay in if need be. And help him divorce her. In the meantime they explain that not only will a family court judge take a dim view of her 'plan', they will do their absolute best to ensure that every single legal document remains unsealed. And unsealed or not they will make copies.
> 
> If the father was anything like me, he smiled and said: These court docs - think of them like a training program for the kids. So they will know how to - take care of you - when your old and dependent.
> 
> Round 1 went to Jay and his parents. Sue was pulling down 300K+ a year by then and that plus their health insurance covered his round the clock care at home.
> 
> Eventually maybe two years later - he wanted something - she didn't want to do. Don't know what it was. Only know she forced him into a devils deal at the time. She'd do what he wanted, in exchange for a firm unplug date - one year in the future. By then he was on respirator. Still fully cognitive - but without the respirator he would die immediately.
> 
> Thing is Jay didn't expect to last another year. And when he did, Sue fully expected him to proceed with operation unplug. His parents intervened again.
> 
> So how come I know all this. Because through this whole mess, Sue was talking to S2. And S2 shared those little chats with me. And the thing is - S2 made it clear that she was fully sympathetic with Sue's desire to 'get on with her life'. And 'finally get to really enjoy her money and her big salary'.
> 
> We were in the car and I'm saying to M2: The only person in the world I share the most DNA with - went right into full blown assisted sociopath mode - first opportunity she got.


That reminds me of that family in Florida where the husband was living with another woman and wanted to stop the feeding of his wife, but her parents intervened. But I think she died anyway. Can't really remember.

Wait. Terry Schiavo, maybe?

I don't know why the husband did not just give her to her parents. He clearly did not love her. But they did.


----------



## heartsbeating

jld said:


> It might be interesting to hear her thoughts on it.
> 
> But again, if you are okay with it, good enough. Different strokes for different folks.


I agree with jld.


MEM based on what you wrote of the car incident, I'm going to flip it on its head slightly for a different take. Your wife swerved in time, she kept you safe from the other driver who was speeding. Sure, you reacted, seemingly aiming your fear at your wife and not the other driver or just neutrally with what was happening. And rather than take responsibility and her perhaps apologize to you or vent about speed racer or a number of possible reactions she could have had... she was quick to respond with anger, blame and things that seemingly had nothing to do with that moment. Perhaps she felt worried about your safety and wants to be the type of wife you can count on yet instead reacts with defensiveness. However all of this is speculation without knowing how she feels. Which perhaps takes us back to the opening post of transparency?

I couldn't imagine my husband requesting the keys afterwards - and I wouldn't request the keys from him if the shoe was on the other foot. I also know that neither of us would be cool with such a request. It communicates that you don't trust her (driving). She agreed to relinquish the responsibility of driving to allow you to drive home. Is it possible that at the same time she also relinquished responsibility of dealing with what was happening?

Most of us have nit-picky moments as couples; we're human, it happens. This time stands out in your mind and I just thought I'd throw this perspective out there for a different take. In the name of transparency, I currently have a fever and may be hallucinating about typing this.


----------



## jld

Dug did say you overreacted, MEM. He said we all make driving mistakes and taking the keys was wrong. I was surprised to hear that, too, but you may want to think about it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I have heard some people are almost telepathic with animals. Is she like that?


Yes. She doesn't even have to be near them sometimes. She gets calls from people she doesn't know to work with their animals based on referrals.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Dug did say you overreacted, MEM. He said we all make driving mistakes and taking the keys was wrong. I was surprised to hear that, too, but you may want to think about it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


MEM was right in my view. Letting her drive after such a performance is simply rewarding her.

Transparency won't do one much good if they're six feet under.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Yes. She doesn't even have to be near them sometimes. She gets calls from people she doesn't know to work with their animals based on referrals.


Wow. That's really cool, far.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
And there is room here for that viewpoint. That was a perfect opportunity for a discussion if M2 wanted to have one. 

When I reverse the table - starting to change lanes at 80 mph without glancing in the side view mirror - is a bit like playing Russian roulette. 

There's mistakes - Mistakes and MISTAKES. 

I actually accept M2's allergy to me showing fear. I do. The PrimalPlus package is a fully integrated package. It is mostly positive. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. 

In a situation like this M2 is intensely conflicted. On the one hand - in her mind - she knew she had been irresponsible and put us in harms way at a very high speed. On the other - her intense hatred of a weak/fearful partner response. 

Actually - the best response would have been to follow Deejo's lead on this. Leave her with the keys and getting in the car to drive back just casually say: Try not to kill us on the ride home.

She actually would have laughed. 

Jeez and I already liked John's response. Maybe I'm more attached to the idea of being 'right', than I want to admit. 





jld said:


> Dug did say you overreacted, MEM. He said we all make driving mistakes and taking the keys was wrong. I was surprised to hear that, too, but you may want to think about it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> I actually accept M2's allergy to me showing fear. I do. The PrimalPlus package is a fully integrated package. It is mostly positive. I'd be lying if I said otherwise.


This.


----------



## MEM2020

Far,

Took me a long time to make beneficial use of that skill. To realize that - hands down the best move when M2 is anxious about a situation with me: 
Gently put my hands on the back of her head - make eye contact and softest voice 'look at me'. She's reading a 100% relaxed face, in synch with the tone. 

Maybe some folks can fake that. I can't. That approach is better and faster than any amount of clever talk. The follow up is a long full body hug. 





farsidejunky said:


> Yes. She doesn't even have to be near them sometimes. She gets calls from people she doesn't know to work with their animals based on referrals.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> 
> Took me a long time to make beneficial use of that skill. To realize that - hands down the best move when M2 is anxious about a situation with me:
> Gently put my hands on the back of her head - make eye contact and softest voice 'look at me'. She's reading a 100% relaxed face, in synch with the tone.
> 
> Maybe some folks can fake that. I can't. That approach is better and faster than any amount of clever talk. The follow up is a long full body hug.


That didn't work for a very long time. Even through last year and most of this year as we were improving. However, the last 6 months or so, it really has.

The interesting question behind it is why now? Did I change, or did she? Likely both.


----------



## MEM2020

Far,

Been trying to work up the feature list. Maybe you can help. 

1. Partner amplification 
- High quality standards 
- Result focused
- Intensely powerful admiration messaging as positive feedback
- Strong negative response to weakness of any type
2. Emotional awareness and synchronization 
- Real time read of micro expressions, tone and body language 
- Fluency in non verbal transmission - especially face talking
3. Sexual submission and availability 
4. Playfullness of all types including combat 
- Verbal sparring / humor 
- MMA type fighting / wrestling 
- Likes to bite 




farsidejunky said:


> This.


----------



## MEM2020

You did




farsidejunky said:


> That didn't work for a very long time. Even through last year and most of this year as we were improving. However, the last 6 months or so, it really has.
> 
> The interesting question behind it is why now? Did I change, or did she? Likely both.


----------



## farsidejunky

Under 1:

- Unwavering moral compass, with little to no grey area

- Focus on partners level of happiness

Under 2:

- Most reads are in the moment or the very near term

- Prone to emotionally flooding due to sensitivity

Under 4:

- Loves to BE bitten (just don't mention it...learned it the hard way...lol)

- Hyper competitive

I didn't see a category for this, but...I love a woman who can out shoot me. At least with a pistol. But she won't pick up a rifle because she knows she will lose (see last bullet above)...


----------



## MEM2020

Stunningly high correspondance. 
M2 probably likes being bitten. Have to try that. 

I left one out. 
Super adventurous - high risk tolerance....

Here's the bizarre thing. Our friends own guns. Lots of guns. Invited us to go shooting at their cabin - middle of nowhere - this weekend. M2 likes handguns. We both do. 




farsidejunky said:


> Under 1:
> 
> - Unwavering moral compass, with little to no grey area
> 
> - Focus on partners level of happiness
> 
> Under 2:
> 
> - Most reads are in the moment or the very near term
> 
> - Prone to emotionally flooding due to sensitivity
> 
> Under 4:
> 
> - Loves to BE bitten (just don't mention it...learned it the hard way...lol)
> 
> - Hyper competitive
> 
> I didn't see a category for this, but...I love a woman who can out shoot me. At least with a pistol. But she won't pick up a rifle because she knows she will lose (see last bullet above)...


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> And *there is room here for that viewpoint *. That was a perfect opportunity for a discussion if M2 wanted to have one.


The bolded shows openness, MEM. You know how much I respect that. 

I thought you a bit defensive the other night, so I did not push as hard for you to talk with her as I wanted to. I push when I care, and when I think the person I am talking to has potential. But I am realizing that a defensive reaction means that it might be best to back off and let people come to readiness on their own. 

I do think transparent talks are the way to resolve conflict. I was concerned that you two had not thoroughly and vulnerably talked this out. It is the way to strengthen bonds, MEM.

Why do you allow her to be angry for two days without trying to talk it out? Don't you think the hurt and fear underneath (I love how you always stress that these are the root causes of anger!) are worth probing?



> When I reverse the table - starting to change lanes at 80 mph without glancing in the side view mirror - is a bit like playing Russian roulette.
> 
> There's mistakes - Mistakes and MISTAKES.
> 
> I actually accept M2's allergy to me showing fear. I do. The PrimalPlus package is a fully integrated package. It is mostly positive. I'd be lying if I said otherwise.


PrimalPlus--that is funny.  You married a tiger, MEM. And you are clearly loving it! Far, too! (Most of the time, especially recently)



> In a situation like this M2 is intensely conflicted. On the one hand - in her mind - she knew she had been irresponsible and put us in harms way at a very high speed. On the other - *her intense hatred of a weak/fearful partner response.*


See, I think this would be fascinating to explore. And this is also where the folks who want to control other people through rules on how they are allowed to behave limit their own growth.

They want other people to behave in a certain way so that they can feel safe. They need that assurance from others because they cannot get it from within. And that makes them so vulnerable!

But until they are ready to let go of trying to control other people, and simply look at the reactions that the behavior of others reveals about their own strengths and weaknesses, they will be caught up in the game that no one can win: relying on other people for their own emotional safety.



> Actually - the best response would have been to follow Deejo's lead on this. Leave her with the keys and getting in the car to drive back just casually say: Try not to kill us on the ride home.
> 
> She actually would have laughed.


Humor is always good. Thanks, Deejo, for the example!



> Jeez and I already liked John's response. *Maybe I'm more attached to the idea of being 'right', than I want to admit.*


Your willingness to admit this shows inner security, MEM. We can all use more of it, certainly. But your openness is a testament to yours.


----------



## john117

I'm actually more attached to the idea of being alive than right.


----------



## Deejo

I find peoples interpretations of events quite interesting.

Now see, knowing what I know of MEM, and M2 through what he has shared here, 2 things;

1. Demanding the keys was the reset on her intense, negative, and certainly unreasonable reaction to his response about the near miss ... at 80 mph ... that could have killed them both. It was the RIGHT thing to do for their relationship dynamic. The dynamic they have built. Had he demurred and apologized or tried to calmly and lovingly draw her into a conversation, I'd wager she would have escalated, not de-escalated.

2. In light of M2's overall behavior (not just the car), she's fortunate to still be married.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I'm actually more attached to the idea of being alive than right.


You are so funny, John!


----------



## john117

My line of work has taught me that getting the job done is far more important than being right. I take the same approach in my personal life as well.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> MEM was right in my view. Letting her drive after such a performance is simply rewarding her.


Rewarding her? What on earth did that mean?

Taking the keys away is a power play in my view. Pure and simple. If my SO did that to me, I would've found myself another way home. 

And maybe not even showed up for few days.

(Of course, if it had been me and my SO, the whole story would have played out differently, as if I pulled a move like that, I would've been cursing at myself and other cars, not my SO.)


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Rewarding her? What on earth did that mean?
> 
> Taking the keys away is a power play in my view. Pure and simple. If my SO did that to me, I would've found myself another way home.
> 
> And maybe not even showed up for few days.
> 
> (Of course, if it had been me and my SO, the whole story would have played out differently, as if I pulled a move like that, I would've been cursing at myself and other cars, not my SO.)


Or you could just embrace it. 

On the 8 hour road trip: "Sweetie, I would love to drive us, but its just simply too dangerous for me to do so... Ever."

But then again, sometimes I'm a complete turd.


----------



## Thundarr

When did this incident in the car happen MEM? I understand a close call would have your and M2's adrenaline spiking and would have her defensive but fragile is a cutting word. There are a few phrases that it said during an argument would trigger me like "you are fragile or I hate you". Some times anger gives people the courage to say what they think but refrain from saying normally.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> When did this incident in the car happen MEM? I understand a close call would have your and M2's adrenaline spiking and would have her defensive but fragile is a cutting word. There are a few phrases that it said during an argument would trigger me like "you are fragile or I hate you". Some times anger gives people the courage to say what they think but refrain from saying normally.


Anger is valuable for cutting to the heart of an issue. Do not ignore what is said in anger. Study it carefully.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Rewarding her? What on earth did that mean?
> 
> Taking the keys away is a power play in my view. Pure and simple. If my SO did that to me, I would've found myself another way home.
> 
> And maybe not even showed up for few days.
> 
> (Of course, if it had been me and my SO, the whole story would have played out differently, as if I pulled a move like that, I would've been cursing at myself and other cars, not my SO.)


There are soft limits and hard limits.

A power play is selecting Pink Floyd vs Willie Nelson. Safety is not a power play.

Driving is specifically an issue because there's driving and there's driving and humans can't understand 30mph is not the same as 80mph.

One needs to understand that.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> There are soft limits and hard limits.
> 
> A power play is selecting Pink Floyd vs Willie Nelson. Safety is not a power play.
> 
> Driving is specifically an issue because there's driving and there's driving and humans can't understand 30mph is not the same as 80mph.
> 
> One needs to understand that.


So because she had a lapse in judgement, she is to be "punished" by having her "privileges" temporarily removed? What is she, 8?

And how long do you suppose she should be "punished" for? Forever? Because she is too reckless to ever drive?

If you treat someone like they are 8, they will either act 8 or they will tell you to eff off. One needs to understand that, too.


----------



## john117

MEM would be the one to make the judgment call if this was a first time occurrence or a regular behavior.

I suspect it was not the first time.

How long depends on the level of remorse and understanding what she did wrong.

Having said this, there's nothing to do for people he!! bent from removing themselves from the gene pool. J2 loves to drive hugging the steering wheel. If the airbag goes off she's toast. I have told her a few times and nothing happened. Let her go on the land of the 72 LD's next time for all I care.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> MEM would be the one to make the judgment call if this was a first time occurrence or a regular behavior.
> 
> I suspect it was not the first time.


I most certainly get the decision to not ever be a passenger in a car with someone who drives like a maniac. Indeed, I even understand that some people are not at all fit to drive and need their license removed. That's what my MIL story was all about.

But if you treat people like they are 8, they will either act 8 or they will tell you to eff off.

When I'm on the road, it seems to me that most everybody is drunk. I see people cutting each other off, running red lights, failing to stop at intersections, all kinds of dangerous, illegal, and boneheaded moves all of the time. And you know what? 80% of drivers think they are "above average", safer and better than all other drivers out there.

Wait, don't tell me, let me guess: You've never failed to see someone or made an error in judgement, any close call you've ever had was absolutely someone else's fault. Right?


----------



## john117

Driver skills and attitudes vary wildly. I lived in Boston and in Portland OR briefly and there are huge differences in both.

A lot depends on the specific driver post incident behavior. If they learn or not.

I'm a good driver but don't push the limits because I drive a lot (30,000 miles a year) and eventually fate will pick your number. I know what my car can do and what the weather will do. My only accident was 29 years ago not my fault and no moving violations. Can't parallel park to save my life  but I am careful.


----------



## john117

Also it depends on the vehicle... On my Mini with the performance rubber it won't work well... On J2's pseudo SUV (BMW X3) its not as big of an issue. On my officemate's Subaru Outback you can do 80 in rain without too much effort - the handling is incredible.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,
Totally unrealistic to believe you can live with a Tiger without getting bit or clawed. And I'm not talking play biting or scratching. 
That's different. The play stuff I mean. 

Since Far kindly helped me flesh out PrimalPlus, likely he can do the same with rules of engagement. 

Already harped on the - show no fear. And I'm actually trying to triangulate a bit here, so Far's experience would help with that. 

It is completely 100% acceptable to TALK about fear in TigerWorld. Long as you aren't radiating it via tone or body language. 

For instance: Babe, any chance I could persuade you to take a half step back from the precipice?

Said in a totally calm voice, relaxed face. That - produces kind, compassionate and mercifully prompt compliance. 

It's also true that where the spatial layout permits, I'll wander elsewhere while my companions choose to enjoy the view from the precipice. 





Deejo said:


> I find peoples interpretations of events quite interesting.
> 
> Now see, knowing what I know of MEM, and M2 through what he has shared here, 2 things;
> 
> 1. Demanding the keys was the reset on her intense, negative, and certainly unreasonable reaction to his response about the near miss ... at 80 mph ... that could have killed them both. It was the RIGHT thing to do for their relationship dynamic. The dynamic they have built. Had he demurred and apologized or tried to calmly and lovingly draw her into a conversation, I'd wager she would have escalated, not de-escalated.
> 
> 2. In light of M2's overall behavior (not just the car), she's fortunate to still be married.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
You are making me laugh out loud. That's kind of the key point here. After a near hiccup caused by being ADD, M2 feels bad and does pay more attention. 

And I have shaped her behavior a bit. She used to search through her pocketbook by hand - while driving. Now she asks me to retrieve whatever it is she wants. 



QUOTE=always_alone;14203090]So because she had a lapse in judgement, she is to be "punished" by having her "privileges" temporarily removed? What is she, 8?

And how long do you suppose she should be "punished" for? Forever? Because she is too reckless to ever drive?

If you treat someone like they are 8, they will either act 8 or they will tell you to eff off. One needs to understand that, too.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

I'm slow - but determined. 

I 'wish' I was faster. But I'm not. Don't mind plodding along provided it feels like progress. 

Thank you for being patient. 



jld said:


> The bolded shows openness, MEM. You know how much I respect that.
> 
> I thought you a bit defensive the other night, so I did not push as hard for you to talk with her as I wanted to. I push when I care, and when I think the person I am talking to has potential. But I am realizing that a defensive reaction means that it might be best to back off and let people come to readiness on their own.
> 
> I do think transparent talks are the way to resolve conflict. I was concerned that you two had not thoroughly and vulnerably talked this out. It is the way to strengthen bonds, MEM.
> 
> Why do you allow her to be angry for two days without trying to talk it out? Don't you think the hurt and fear underneath (I love how you always stress that these are the root causes of anger!) are worth probing?
> 
> 
> 
> PrimalPlus--that is funny.  You married a tiger, MEM. And you are clearly loving it! Far, too! (Most of the time, especially recently)
> 
> 
> 
> See, I think this would be fascinating to explore. And this is also where the folks who want to control other people through rules on how they are allowed to behave limit their own growth.
> 
> They want other people to behave in a certain way so that they can feel safe. They need that assurance from others because they cannot get it from within. And that makes them so vulnerable!
> 
> But until they are ready to let go of trying to control other people, and simply look at the reactions that the behavior of others reveals about their own strengths and weaknesses, they will be caught up in the game that no one can win: relying on other people for their own emotional safety.
> 
> 
> 
> Humor is always good. Thanks, Deejo, for the example!
> 
> 
> 
> Your willingness to admit this shows inner security, MEM. We can all use more of it, certainly. But your openness is a testament to yours.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> It is completely 100% acceptable to TALK about fear in TigerWorld. *Long as you aren't radiating it via tone or body language.*


For some reason, this made me laugh out loud.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> I'm slow - but determined.
> 
> I 'wish' I was faster. But I'm not. Don't mind plodding along provided it feels like progress.
> 
> Thank you for being patient.


MEM. I need to thank _you_ for being patient with _me._


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> Totally unrealistic to believe you can live with a Tiger without getting bit or clawed. And I'm not talking play biting or scratching.
> That's different. The play stuff I mean.
> 
> Since Far kindly helped me flesh out PrimalPlus, likely he can do the same with rules of engagement.
> 
> Already harped on the - show no fear. And I'm actually trying to triangulate a bit here, so Far's experience would help with that.
> 
> It is completely 100% acceptable to TALK about fear in TigerWorld. Long as you aren't radiating it via tone or body language.
> 
> For instance: Babe, any chance I could persuade you to take a half step back from the precipice?
> 
> Said in a totally calm voice, relaxed face. That - produces kind, compassionate and mercifully prompt compliance.
> 
> It's also true that where the spatial layout permits, I'll wander elsewhere while my companions choose to enjoy the view from the precipice.


Let me refer you to the dominance thread where I say that I still don't completely get it yet... lol

That approach is a fantastic idea.

Normally my approach is the "Clearly something is wrong. What can I do to help" version.

Frequently it works. Sometimes it results in "Leave me alone!". In that instance, there are a bunch of things that likely need to get done, so I honor her request and get into my tasks.

Further engagement at this point is viewed as escalation, and she is all fight. Then I could tell her she just won a million dollars, and she would find fault in it.

She will normally come back to me later with some action, like a playful elbow or hip check, with a smile, which is "I am sorry" in F2 language.


----------



## MEM2020

Far Side,
This is why you have progressed faster than almost anyone else here. WAY faster than I did. 

You are unencumbered by a 'big' ego. Healthy yes, but not big. 


QUOTE=farsidejunky;14206522]Let me refer you to the dominance thread where I say that I still don't completely get it yet... lol

That approach is a fantastic idea.

Normally my approach is the "Clearly something is wrong. What can I do to help" version.

Frequently it works. Sometimes it results in "Leave me alone!". In that instance, there are a bunch of things that likely need to get done, so I honor her request and get into my tasks.

Further engagement at this point is viewed as escalation, and she is all fight. Then I could tell her she just won a million dollars, and she would find fault in it.

She will normally come back to me later with some action, like a playful elbow or hip check, with a smile, which is "I am sorry" in F2 language.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MEM2020

Sometimes I play a little game. 

It's the almost zero talking game. So it might start with: Hey 

To get M2's attention. The rest is gestural - patting the bed. Rubbing her back while she lies down. This simply creates space for her to speak if she so wishes. 

Or not. 

Genuine patience is like humor in that both are very difficult to achieve if you feel anxious. Both therefore demonstrate that you are calm. 

PrimalPlus
- Nervous energy, often impatient 


QUOTE=farsidejunky;14206522]Let me refer you to the dominance thread where I say that I still don't completely get it yet... lol

That approach is a fantastic idea.

Normally my approach is the "Clearly something is wrong. What can I do to help" version.

Frequently it works. Sometimes it results in "Leave me alone!". In that instance, there are a bunch of things that likely need to get done, so I honor her request and get into my tasks.

Further engagement at this point is viewed as escalation, and she is all fight. Then I could tell her she just won a million dollars, and she would find fault in it.

She will normally come back to me later with some action, like a playful elbow or hip check, with a smile, which is "I am sorry" in F2 language.[/QUOTE]


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Far Side,
> This is why you have progressed faster than almost anyone else here. WAY faster than I did.
> 
> You are unencumbered by a 'big' ego. Healthy yes, but not big.


Far, you really do not suffer from an oversized ego the way some men do. Have you always been fairly humble? Or was this something that you worked on over the years?


----------



## MEM2020

Thundar 
maybe back in 2012 or so


----------



## MEM2020

Have to admit I was disappointed in the response to my post on "ego types" in Nirvanas thread. 

Its a type of blindness. And the opposite, which isnt a small ego, but a healthy one, provides the owner a vantage point from which to search for the truth unobstructed by self interest.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Have to admit I was disappointed in the response to my post on "ego types" in Nirvanas thread.
> 
> Its a type of blindness. And the opposite, which isnt a small ego, but a healthy one, provides the owner a vantage point from which to search for the truth unobstructed by self interest.


I found that post, just in case anyone wanted to see it:


_This theme of a 'big' ego keeps coming up. 

IME: A healthy ego is a beautiful thing. A person with a healthy ego is:
- Largely self sustaining (knows when they do good or bad and they trust their own assessment of their contribution). They don't need to 'self promote'. 
- They are confident in areas they excel, a confidence based on a pattern of success. 
- Aware of strengths and weaknesses and comfortable with BOTH. When you critique them, they thank you for the feedback. 

People with a healthy ego, do not describe it in terms of its size. 

IME: Folks who self describe as having 'big egos' are generally more:
- Emotionally fragile/sensitive
- Easily offended and/or angered
- Hungry for compliments and praise from others
- Resistant to seeing their contribution to bad outcomes

While I generally believe that humor is a good thing. I would not make a joke from it if M2 said I have a massive ego. 

And given my view of such things, would not happily agree that I have a big ego. 

The self referential irony here is that the person with a 'big' ego is proud of their pride. 

Please note that a SINGLE tough question from Megan Kelly drove Trump off the walls with anger and bitterness for a solid month. Think about how 'fragile' that very large ego of his is._


----------



## john117

I would rather do what needs done than feed my ego. My Army father taught me this. A big ego is useful at times but it does not help get the job done.


----------



## always_alone

It seems lopsided to me to wish to cultivate transparency *from* a partner, all the while avoiding *giving* that same transparency because they "can't handle ir' or will find it "repulsive" or "despicable".

It is troubling to me that my openness to my SO is what causes him to fear sharing with me, and I don't quite understand why one would want another person to be open with them without wanting the same in return. 

It makes me think it is more about power and control than anything else, especially now that the conversation has shifted to the need to be "dominant".

Is this really about transparency? Or is it about leverage?

(I am asking myself the same question)


----------



## MEM2020

It's why you are such an incredible father John. 

That's your mission. It's why the girls love and trust you so much. 




john117 said:


> I would rather do what needs done than feed my ego. My Army father taught me this. A big ego is useful at times but it does not help get the job done.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
The sailors of the ancient world had a rule. Never bring two watches to sea. Either 1 or 3. Two watches, at great variance - cause chaos. 

There is no 50-50 marriage. Well - maybe there are but I question how happy they can be. 

The most stable pattern is the dominant servant. Not my invention. It's typically called the servant leader. Or servant leadership. 

They have a disproportionate amount of power - and use that to care for their partner. 

I used to think unconditional love was a suckers play. A train wreck between two adults. 

And yet, here I am. Pretty damn close to unconditional love. And our marriage has never been this good in the past. Never - been - this - good. 




always_alone said:


> It seems lopsided to me to wish to cultivate transparency *from* a partner, all the while avoiding *giving* that same transparency because they "can't handle ir' or will find it "repulsive" or "despicable".
> 
> It is troubling to me that my openness to my SO is what causes him to fear sharing with me, and I don't quite understand why one would want another person to be open with them without wanting the same in return.
> 
> It makes me think it is more about power and control than anything else, especially now that the conversation has shifted to the need to be "dominant".
> 
> Is this really about transparency? Or is it about leverage?
> 
> (I am asking myself the same question)


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Sometimes I play a little game.
> 
> It's the almost zero talking game. So it might start with: Hey
> 
> To get M2's attention. The rest is gestural - patting the bed. Rubbing her back while she lies down. This simply creates space for her to speak if she so wishes.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> Genuine patience is like humor in that both are very difficult to achieve if you feel anxious. Both therefore demonstrate that you are calm.
> 
> PrimalPlus
> - Nervous energy, often impatient
> 
> 
> QUOTE=farsidejunky;14206522]Let me refer you to the dominance thread where I say that I still don't completely get it yet... lol
> 
> That approach is a fantastic idea.
> 
> Normally my approach is the "Clearly something is wrong. What can I do to help" version.
> 
> Frequently it works. Sometimes it results in "Leave me alone!". In that instance, there are a bunch of things that likely need to get done, so I honor her request and get into my tasks.
> 
> Further engagement at this point is viewed as escalation, and she is all fight. Then I could tell her she just won a million dollars, and she would find fault in it.
> 
> She will normally come back to me later with some action, like a playful elbow or hip check, with a smile, which is "I am sorry" in F2 language.


[/QUOTE]
The non-reciprocal massage works wonders.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Far, you really do not suffer from an oversized ego the way some men do. Have you always been fairly humble? Or was this something that you worked on over the years?


Nope. I used to be an arrogant prick. There was a period of several years in the Army where everything I touched turned to gold.

Then I got assigned to recruiting, and my ex wife left me. That was a two year lesson in humility.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Have to admit I was disappointed in the response to my post on "ego types" in Nirvanas thread.
> 
> Its a type of blindness. And the opposite, which isnt a small ego, but a healthy one, provides the owner a vantage point from which to search for the truth unobstructed by self interest.


Nirvana is not ready to listen yet.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> The sailors of the ancient world had a rule. Never bring two watches to sea. Either 1 or 3. Two watches, at great variance - cause chaos.
> 
> There is no 50-50 marriage. Well - maybe there are but I question how happy they can be.
> 
> The most stable pattern is the dominant servant. Not my invention. It's typically called the servant leader. Or servant leadership.
> 
> They have a disproportionate amount of power - and use that to care for their partner.
> 
> I used to think unconditional love was a suckers play. A train wreck between two adults.
> 
> And yet, here I am. Pretty damn close to unconditional love. And our marriage has never been this good in the past. Never - been - this - good.


You are confusing me, MEM. Who is dominant in servant leadership? The servant must serve, making the servee the dominant one. 

IOW, reciprocity comes out in the wash, no?

In servant leadership, the goal is specifically to put others first, and is participatory. The servant leader is not dominant. A leader, yes, but not dominant.

I have no desire to be top dog, and most certainly would not do well in a situation where someone is playing top dog with me. If it isn't equitable, I'm not interested.

I get that lots of people want a dom/sub relationship, (and that it is the preferred advice on TAM), but I don't buy that it is the only or the best way.


----------



## farsidejunky

A servant leader has no desire to be top dog either, A_A, at least as I see it.

The problem with the word dominance is that it has been casually thought of as synonymous with domineering for so long that the term itself is almost like a trigger word.

A_A, let me say what I think emotional dominance would look like from your partner, and this is just my observations on reading several of your posts, so feel free to dismiss as drivel. 

There would be no secrets. Your concerns about the stability and integrity of your relationship would, with rare exception, be answered though his actions because he would be actively looking to reassure your insecurities. The things that keep you up at night he would know, and actively reassure you. Then if they were to happen, he would carry you.

All of this, with asking little in return. But the admiration level from you would be so high that you would feel like you need to give much in return.


----------



## jld

Very nice, far. I would say, though, that she would *want* to give much in return. She would be too inspired not to.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
Dominance solely means having a disproportionate amount of impact on the result. 

The WHY of it matters a lot....

Michael Jordan totally dominated the game against the Lakers last night. 

We just redid a bathroom. There was no:
- schedule
- budget

We DID calculate an estimated cost up front. But that was purely a planning activity, not a budget. 

M2 had total artistic control. She's better at that stuff than I am. 

My primary role was to respond to anxious comments such as: 
- I'm sorry this is taking so long
- Is it ok if we get this light, it's more expensive than I wanted
- Is it ok if I return this table, I don't like it, thought I would but don't 
- Am I in trouble for how long this is taking?

It turned out absolutely beautiful. I never had a moments angst. She made one expensive interior decorating mistake in 25 years. I have faith in the result. 




always_alone said:


> You are confusing me, MEM. Who is dominant in servant leadership? The servant must serve, making the servee the dominant one.
> 
> IOW, reciprocity comes out in the wash, no?
> 
> In servant leadership, the goal is specifically to put others first, and is participatory. The servant leader is not dominant. A leader, yes, but not dominant.
> 
> I have no desire to be top dog, and most certainly would not do well in a situation where someone is playing top dog with me. If it isn't equitable, I'm not interested.
> 
> I get that lots of people want a dom/sub relationship, (and that it is the preferred advice on TAM), but I don't buy that it is the only or the best way.


----------



## kag123

marduk said:


> I sure wouldn't want a raw unadulterated 100% real-time dump of my wife's emotional state all the time.
> 
> That's what 5 year olds do.
> 
> I like being with a grown-up.
> 
> Not that I think your wife is being childish... But mine sure can be. She can keep that **** to herself.


I've been reading this thread since the beginning. Have been away for a week or so from the thread and trying to skim to catch up. Saw this and had to grab it. 

Perhaps I'm an oddball (likely)...

Like MEM said, what I most desire is a 100% raw feed from my H. And really all people I have to interact closely with. 

I know I will not get it. I do not push for it from anyone except my H.

I've been told and observed many times that I am apparently very strange for desiring this. Why would you want to know what someone is really thinking 100% of the time? Surely they think unkind thoughts about you at least some of the time, and those things could damage your relationship.

So I have been thinking about myself and WHY this is such a huge desire. 

I am an engineer. I analyze data for a living. I muddle through data to try to get as close to ground truth as possible and weed out the "noise". Then use the data to make decisions. 

This is how my brain works in all things. I do not take raw feed personally. I understand objectively that emotion can fuel knee-jerk reactions that are likely an exaggeration of what someone means to say. I understand that people cannot be 100% honest, that they are prone to bias, and that they can just be plain wrong in their facts and then base all feed off a misconception. I filter that on my own down to what the core issue is. This means I don't get my back up or my feelings hurt most of the time. I find some of the most insightful moments with another person come during these times of high emotion, when there are cracks in the walls they've built up to protect themselves. I used to think (until very recently) that most people also had this ability and would welcome this type of experience. That was naive of me. That's not meant to be a slight against anyone else either. 

I now feel that I am unique in that I desire these experiences and seek them out. 

As a result of being so objective, I am very unattached emotionally to almost every thing and every one. It does not mean I don't desire close relationships and love my husband and my children. I do. However I can make judgments objectively about whether that relationship is operating optimally or poorly and then will try to steer the ship to the best course. Part of the steering is constant evaluation of the relationship - is this really worth it to continue? If yes, proceed here. If no, proceed here. I try to "steer" to the best possible outcome for all parties as much as I can. 

But - deep down I feel that I could live alone and be totally fine with it. If my H left me, I'd carry on. If anyone in my life walked away and decided they did not want to continue, I'd carry on. 

It took me a LONG time to figure out that most people in serious relationships do not feel that way. 

At my core I always feel "What do I really have to lose by being 100% transparent?". I quickly play out all scenarios in my head and can visualize all potential outcomes. None that seem insurmountable. 

If I truly came up with a scenario in my head that scared me and gave me pause...felt that I had something I couldn't bear to lose... I can see how that would snowball into choosing to be less transparent. If you feel that your stakes are high and you can't bear to risk losing, you'll make sure you respond in ways that keep the odds in your favor. 

To get as close to raw feed as possible in my life from others: I take great care to create a safe environment where they can be transparent and know that I will not react adversely. It is not always easy because I can only control my own input to the situation. When you've got a lifetime of conditioning that taught you people lie and use your responses against you, and when you've got other individuals in current time who would use your raw feed to their advantage (even if I personally wouldn't), then it doesn't matter much what I do to try to encourage your transparency.

And this is what I struggle with in my marriage. H has built his walls so high, and is aware of my general pattern of non attachment that I think it just terrifies him to be real with me.


----------



## farsidejunky

Ouch, Kag.

Is your husband overall pretty sensitive?


----------



## jld

kag123 said:


> I've been reading this thread since the beginning. Have been away for a week or so from the thread and trying to skim to catch up. Saw this and had to grab it.
> 
> Perhaps I'm an oddball (likely)...
> 
> Like MEM said, *what I most desire is a 100% raw feed from my H. And really all people I have to interact closely with. *
> 
> I know I will not get it. I do not push for it from anyone except my H.
> 
> I've been told and observed many times that I am apparently very strange for desiring this. Why would you want to know what someone is really thinking 100% of the time? Surely they think unkind thoughts about you at least some of the time, and those things could damage your relationship.
> 
> So I have been thinking about myself and WHY this is such a huge desire.
> 
> I am an engineer. I analyze data for a living. I muddle through data to try to get as close to ground truth as possible and weed out the "noise". Then use the data to make decisions.
> 
> This is how my brain works in all things. *I do not take raw feed personally. I understand objectively that emotion can fuel knee-jerk reactions that are likely an exaggeration of what someone means to say. I understand that people cannot be 100% honest, that they are prone to bias, and that they can just be plain wrong in their facts and then base all feed off a misconception. I filter that on my own down to what the core issue is. This means I don't get my back up or my feelings hurt most of the time. *I find some of the most insightful moments with another person come during these times of high emotion, when there are cracks in the walls they've built up to protect themselves. I used to think (until very recently) that most people also had this ability and would welcome this type of experience. That was naive of me. That's not meant to be a slight against anyone else either.
> 
> I now feel that I am unique in that I desire these experiences and seek them out.
> 
> *As a result of being so objective, I am very unattached emotionally to almost every thing and every one. It does not mean I don't desire close relationships and love my husband and my children. I do. However I can make judgments objectively about whether that relationship is operating optimally or poorly and then will try to steer the ship to the best course. *Part of the steering is constant evaluation of the relationship - is this really worth it to continue? If yes, proceed here. If no, proceed here.
> 
> *Deep down I feel that I could live alone and be totally fine with it.* If my H left me, I'd carry on.
> 
> It took me a LONG time to figure out that most people in serious relationships do not feel that way.
> 
> *At my core I always feel "What do I really have to lose by being 100% transparent?". I quickly play out all scenarios in my head and can visualize all potential outcomes. None that seem insurmountable. *
> 
> If I truly came up with a scenario in my head that scared me and gave me pause...felt that I had something I couldn't bear to lose... I can see how that would snowball into choosing to be less transparent. If you feel that your stakes are high and you can't bear to risk losing, you'll make sure you respond in ways that keep the odds in your favor.
> 
> To get as close to raw feed as possible in my life from others: *I take great care to create a safe environment where they can be transparent and know that I will not react adversely. *It is not always easy because I can only control my own input to the situation. When you've got a lifetime of conditioning that taught you people lie and use your responses against you, and when you've got other individuals in current time who would use your raw feed to their advantage (even if I personally wouldn't), then it doesn't matter much what I do to try to encourage your transparency.
> 
> And this is what I struggle with in my marriage. H has built his walls so high, and is aware of my general pattern of non attachment that I think it just terrifies him to be real with me.


You sound like a natural domme, kag. I think many men would like to have a wife as open and able to bear their emotions as you.


----------



## john117

Kag is simply using the same process I am - the problem with that approach is that it is very irritating to people around us because we appear to have every negative quality in the book. This necessitates a facade of humanity and all that puppies and kittens stuff... Or to exposing a parallel, more confusing but mostly true side to others. I use both approaches. 

It's not a surprise that her husband has built Jericho walls, or about what her conclusion on transparency is.

Having said this, let's remind ourselves that my dear wife is transparent emotions wise. It's her intentions that have to be divined out. Huge HUGE difference, because people who dump out raw data 24/7 like my lab instrumentation don't give you the secret deciding ring to go with them.


----------



## kag123

farsidejunky said:


> Ouch, Kag.
> 
> Is your husband overall pretty sensitive?


No, of course not. If he was we wouldn't have lasted past the first few dates. 

I do consider myself human though. At least I try to be. I do have emotion and human connection with those close to me. I just separate emotion and logic, and do not make choices based from emotion. 

I seek to be careful with people's feelings and cherish when they are open with me. 

My husband built his walls long before I was ever in the picture, and chose a wife that seems to reinforce them. I often wonder why HE chose ME.


----------



## kag123

John said that we can come off as irritating and that is true. 

I am one of those people, you either love me or you hate me. There's rarely an in between. 

And I am OK with that.


----------



## jld

kag123 said:


> No, of course not. If he was we wouldn't have lasted past the first few dates.
> 
> I do consider myself human though. At least I try to be. I do have emotion and human connection with those close to me. I just separate emotion and logic, and do not make choices based from emotion.
> 
> I seek to be careful with people's feelings and cherish when they are open with me.
> 
> My husband built his walls long before I was ever in the picture, and chose a wife that seems to reinforce them. I often wonder why HE chose ME.


You are not any work.


----------



## farsidejunky

kag123 said:


> My husband built his walls long before I was ever in the picture, and chose a wife that seems to reinforce them. I often wonder why HE chose ME.


What did he say when you asked him?


----------



## jld

kag123 said:


> John said that we can come off as irritating and that is true.
> 
> I am one of those people, you either love me or you hate me. There's rarely an in between.
> 
> And I am OK with that.


You are a lot like my husband. He is an engineer, too. Loves all things technical. 

Does not take anything personally.


----------



## kag123

jld said:


> You are a lot like my husband. He is an engineer, too. Loves all things technical.
> 
> Does not take anything personally.


It is very strange to have my mind and be a woman. With the hormones and emotion and the access to the women's world of drama and gossip and nuances of behavior. 

It makes me a little different than my male counterparts. In my career I feel it gives me an edge. I can walk both sides of the line and relate to both extremes on the gender scale. 

But it's exhausting to be me.


----------



## jld

kag123 said:


> It is very strange to have my mind and be a woman. With the hormones and emotion and the access to the women's world of drama and gossip and nuances of behavior.
> 
> It makes me a little different than my male counterparts. In my career I feel it gives me an edge. I can walk both sides of the line and relate to both extremes on the gender scale.
> 
> But it's exhausting to be me.


I think a lot of sensitive, emotional men would love to be married to you, kag. You could carry them and make them feel safe, all the while not feeling it a burden.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> You are a lot like my husband. He is an engineer, too. Loves all things technical.
> 
> Does not take anything personally.


The last sentence is key. 

It's not strictly an engineer thing but more to do with self confidence.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I think a lot of sensitive, emotional men would love to be married to you, kag. You could carry them and make them feel safe, all the while not feeling it a burden.


But, does she love large annoying and entitled cats? I have learned so much from my cat...


----------



## Deejo

I like the phrase, 'raw feed'. I get this from my partner. Very glad that she feels safe and comfortable doing so. She struggles with words at times the same way I do. As I've indicated, we're both diagnosed ADD. We can be entertaining.

I just wish I didn't get the raw feed when we are at, or watching a movie. But I accept this too.


----------



## john117

I'm ADHD diagnosed as well and yet at 55 feel my need for sanity far exceeds any benefits from transparency. Even if/when I get to a new relationship I'm really not looking forward to having to deal with raw data. 

Humans don't deal well with large data sets anyway.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> I like the phrase, 'raw feed'. I get this from my partner. Very glad that she feels safe and comfortable doing so. She struggles with words at times the same way I do. As I've indicated, we're both diagnosed ADD. We can be entertaining.
> 
> I just wish I didn't get the raw feed when we are at, or watching a movie. But I accept this too.


I would still work on being able to hear her call you "fragile" without reacting, Deejo.


----------



## kag123

jld said:


> I think a lot of sensitive, emotional men would love to be married to you, kag. You could carry them and make them feel safe, all the while not feeling it a burden.


You may think so, but I am most often told that I am intimidating. 

My nature tends to build walls in others, not tear them down. 

WHY is what I am constantly searching for. My latest theory has to do with what I touched upon in my first post. I think it is apparent to others that I have no chips in the game. I'm not afraid of losing and don't feel the need to have approval or the worst possible outcome. Others who DO fear losing are at a perceived disadvantage when they deal with me. I can see how that would be intimidating. 

It is still a work in progress...figuring out how to foster the type of communication I seek. 

I think my husband knows that I would not beg him to stay if he wanted to leave. That applies to anyone at any time. He ranks number 1 on my list, and I care for him deeply. But if any one at any time wishes to dissolve the contract they are free to go. I am much more interested in actively choosing to be together on a daily basis - knowing there are a thousand other options and making an educated decision to stay is much more meaningful to me than clinging because you are afraid to let go.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> A servant leader has no desire to be top dog either, A_A, at least as I see it.
> 
> The problem with the word dominance is that it has been casually thought of as synonymous with domineering for so long that the term itself is almost like a trigger word.
> 
> A_A, let me say what I think emotional dominance would look like from your partner, and this is just my observations on reading several of your posts, so feel free to dismiss as drivel.
> 
> There would be no secrets. Your concerns about the stability and integrity of your relationship would, with rare exception, be answered though his actions because he would be actively looking to reassure your insecurities. The things that keep you up at night he would know, and actively reassure you. Then if they were to happen, he would carry you.
> 
> All of this, with asking little in return. But the admiration level from you would be so high that you would feel like you need to give much in return.


Far, I give a lot to my SO, and I want to. Already. And "reassuring" me is not how he is going to win my admiration. 

I do not need someone to be dominant, and no I do not confuse this with domineering. I don't need anyone to carry me, I just need them to not be dragging me down.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> Dominance solely means having a disproportionate amount of impact on the result.
> 
> The WHY of it matters a lot....


And so spell it out for me, MEM. In your example, M2 was the dominant one, no? Total artistic control. You fed that dominance by assuring her you wouldn't get impatient at the time or angry at the costs.

In other ways, I imagine you are the dominant one? And she feeds that by supporting, admiring, respecting you?

Reciprocity, no?

Thinking about it more: the person who is more the rock, less prone to anxiety or doubt will no doubt provide an anchor to the other. But is this really best described as "dominance"? And what happens when both people are about the same in their "rockness" (which is more or less where I find myself, as neither one of us is particularly anxious, emotionally needy, or fragile)?


----------



## jld

FrenchFry said:


> @jld, what happens if you do inadvertently say something that is hurtful to Dug?
> 
> Like, my husband has seriously pissed me off with things he has said but when we fight about it, it feels better than when I (because its always me) clams up and tries to process internally.
> 
> Do you mind fighting? Does Dug?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think it has ever happened, FF. Or maybe so long ago that I just cannot remember. 

I just asked Dug and he could not think of anything, either. 

He does not take my words personally. He said once that he hears my words, but he knows my heart. I think that is why he does not understand when my words bother other people.

Does not bother either of us to fight. I would say fighting here is mostly my getting mad and spewing out everything in my heart, no matter how vile, and then our working through it. 

Once all the emotion is out, I realize I don't mean most of it, anyway. I just get tired of being neglected.

I am glad you get it out instead of clamming up. It is hard to resolve issues in a couple without full disclosure, imo.


----------



## always_alone

kag123 said:


> You may think so, but I am most often told that I am intimidating.
> 
> My nature tends to build walls in others, not tear them down.


I can relate to this! For different reasons, probably, as I know I do have chips in the game and my own set of walls that I use to keep me from being transparent to the world at large. But one thing that most definitely brought me and my SO together was that he was not at all intimidated by me.


----------



## Roselyn

To my husband, all mechanics are transparent; all passwords available. In my head, there's some issues that I cannot be transparent all the time. Use your logic if the information will hurt your marriage or not; cheating not included.


----------



## jld

kag123 said:


> You may think so, but I am most often told that I am intimidating.
> 
> My nature tends to build walls in others, not tear them down.
> 
> WHY is what I am constantly searching for. My latest theory has to do with what I touched upon in my first post. I think it is apparent to others that I have no chips in the game. I'm not afraid of losing and don't feel the need to have approval or the worst possible outcome. Others who DO fear losing are at a perceived disadvantage when they deal with me. I can see how that would be intimidating.
> 
> It is still a work in progress...figuring out how to foster the type of communication I seek.
> 
> I think my husband knows that I would not beg him to stay if he wanted to leave. That applies to anyone at any time. He ranks number 1 on my list, and I care for him deeply. But if any one at any time wishes to dissolve the contract they are free to go. I am much more interested in actively choosing to be together on a daily basis - knowing there are a thousand other options and making an educated decision to stay is much more meaningful to me than clinging because you are afraid to let go.


Are you INTP, kag? 

I can bet people are intimidated by you. I think they are by my husband, too. Intelligence and self-confidence can feel intimidating, even when you guys do not mean for it to.

And in the case of Dug, people may find him a bit of a mystery, even though they generally respect him.

It must be hard to be this way as a woman, especially.

Dug would not let me go, though. He would not let our marriage fail. That is much easier for a man than a woman, though, I think.

So glad you joined this thread! FF, too!


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> @always_alone I feel you. I like working on my insecurities by myself, it's empowering. Do you feel that your SO actively undermines your process by being closed off?


Not closed off so much as working at cross purposes. At one point I just flatly said to him, "I need to feel like we are on the same team, working towards the same goals or this isn't going to work." He seems to have heard that, and things have improved a lot since then.

As for me, yes, I have my share of insecurities and a boatload of self loathing. But one thing that being always alone teaches you is self-reliance. Deep down, I know that I am resourceful and resilient, and that no matter what happens, I can handle it (until I can't, of course, but then it doesn't matter anymore.) I know I can pick myself out of the dust, brush myself and carry on. Other people, on the other hand, are fickle and unpredictable.


----------



## Marduk

Sorry Kag. 

I was getting at something a little different, and maybe it's an artefact of being attracted to high maintenance women. 

It's not that I take it personally - quite the opposite in fact. It's more like irritation at the other person not being able to deal with their own ****. I can help you process it, but I'm not going to become your emotional sewage treatment plant just because you want me to process it for you. 

For example, my wife has a giant temper. I can't really fault her for it, because so do I. But she can't really take her temper out on the kids or anyone else, so I become a lightning rod for all of it because I can take it. 

But that doesn't mean I want to take a raw dump of all her irritations throughout the day just because I can. She can deal with her own ****. 

Now, if she's mad at me, I want to hear it. But we don't really have the silent treatment/resentment cycle any more mostly because I refuse to play into it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Kag,

What an insightful contribution. 

You used one of my all time favorite phrases below: ground truth

If and its a big if with many folks, IF you can convince people that your highest priority is 'ground truth', you will tend to get better quality data. 




kag123 said:


> I've been reading this thread since the beginning. Have been away for a week or so from the thread and trying to skim to catch up. Saw this and had to grab it.
> 
> Perhaps I'm an oddball (likely)...
> 
> Like MEM said, what I most desire is a 100% raw feed from my H. And really all people I have to interact closely with.
> 
> I know I will not get it. I do not push for it from anyone except my H.
> 
> I've been told and observed many times that I am apparently very strange for desiring this. Why would you want to know what someone is really thinking 100% of the time? Surely they think unkind thoughts about you at least some of the time, and those things could damage your relationship.
> 
> So I have been thinking about myself and WHY this is such a huge desire.
> 
> I am an engineer. I analyze data for a living. I muddle through data to try to get as close to ground truth as possible and weed out the "noise". Then use the data to make decisions.
> 
> This is how my brain works in all things. I do not take raw feed personally. I understand objectively that emotion can fuel knee-jerk reactions that are likely an exaggeration of what someone means to say. I understand that people cannot be 100% honest, that they are prone to bias, and that they can just be plain wrong in their facts and then base all feed off a misconception. I filter that on my own down to what the core issue is. This means I don't get my back up or my feelings hurt most of the time. I find some of the most insightful moments with another person come during these times of high emotion, when there are cracks in the walls they've built up to protect themselves. I used to think (until very recently) that most people also had this ability and would welcome this type of experience. That was naive of me. That's not meant to be a slight against anyone else either.
> 
> I now feel that I am unique in that I desire these experiences and seek them out.
> 
> As a result of being so objective, I am very unattached emotionally to almost every thing and every one. It does not mean I don't desire close relationships and love my husband and my children. I do. However I can make judgments objectively about whether that relationship is operating optimally or poorly and then will try to steer the ship to the best course. Part of the steering is constant evaluation of the relationship - is this really worth it to continue? If yes, proceed here. If no, proceed here. I try to "steer" to the best possible outcome for all parties as much as I can.
> 
> But - deep down I feel that I could live alone and be totally fine with it. If my H left me, I'd carry on. If anyone in my life walked away and decided they did not want to continue, I'd carry on.
> 
> It took me a LONG time to figure out that most people in serious relationships do not feel that way.
> 
> At my core I always feel "What do I really have to lose by being 100% transparent?". I quickly play out all scenarios in my head and can visualize all potential outcomes. None that seem insurmountable.
> 
> If I truly came up with a scenario in my head that scared me and gave me pause...felt that I had something I couldn't bear to lose... I can see how that would snowball into choosing to be less transparent. If you feel that your stakes are high and you can't bear to risk losing, you'll make sure you respond in ways that keep the odds in your favor.
> 
> To get as close to raw feed as possible in my life from others: I take great care to create a safe environment where they can be transparent and know that I will not react adversely. It is not always easy because I can only control my own input to the situation. When you've got a lifetime of conditioning that taught you people lie and use your responses against you, and when you've got other individuals in current time who would use your raw feed to their advantage (even if I personally wouldn't), then it doesn't matter much what I do to try to encourage your transparency.
> 
> And this is what I struggle with in my marriage. H has built his walls so high, and is aware of my general pattern of non attachment that I think it just terrifies him to be real with me.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> I would still work on being able to hear her call you "fragile" without reacting, Deejo.


Oh I've worked on, and accepted it. I define myself with that term now. I'll say, "Will you please hold me? I'm fragile." It sounds more like 'fwajoo' when I say it.

I then bat my eyes and make the pouty lip face.

Totally alpha. Pretty badass. She melts every time.

Oh, and I'm not joking. Have actually done this. I'm usually naked too, to enhance my vulnerability. Or the sheer absurdity of the entire exchange. Either way, I don't care. It works.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> Me too! This is a double-edged sword though.


So I've learned --the hard way, of course.

But still, it's much better than having to always hold back or walk on eggshells, or having an extra doormat or someone offering themselves up as breakfast food, or worse, dealing with a bunch of ego posturing and resentment.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> Oh I've worked on, and accepted it. I define myself with that term now. I'll say, "Will you please hold me? I'm fragile." It sounds more like 'fwajoo' when I say it.
> 
> I then bat my eyes and make the pouty lip face.
> 
> Totally alpha. Pretty badass. She melts every time.
> 
> Oh, and I'm not joking. Have actually done this. I'm usually naked too, to enhance my vulnerability. Or the sheer absurdity of the entire exchange. Either way, I don't care. It works.


Funny, Deejo!


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> So I've learned --the hard way, of course.
> 
> But still, it's much better than having to always hold back or walk on eggshells, or having an extra doormat or someone offering themselves up as breakfast food, or worse,* dealing with a bunch of ego posturing and resentment*.


Totally agree with that. I don't know how women can stand that.


----------



## MEM2020

*Network latency*

Marduk,

Not sure why, but I'm sharing this story specifically with you. 

In the digital world within which we are ever more immersed, network latency is a bad thing. The engineers are constantly working to shave milliseconds. 

But in our interpersonal networks, latency can be the single most useful tool we have. 

Consider the case of a husband and wife. Both pretty frugal financially. Husband is generous with the wife. Wife not so much with the husband. 

Low latency model works like this:
Husband: I'm going to get a sound bar for our tv
Wife: Why
Husband: TV speakers aren't very good 
Wife: oh ok (tone clearly at best dubious)

Any further conversation at this point is a rapid downward spiral. She's not real happy he's about to waste money on some gadget. And he's angry she's being her usual self. WAY cheaper with him, than he ever is with her. 

High latency model is more like this
-----------
A few days later he shows her a picture of a sound bar - asks: tolerable? Over there - points to the top of the credenza below their tv. She nods. 

A few days after that when he mentions it a third time she says: Just so we are clear, even though it isn't important to me. I know it's important to you. So you should get whatever you want, spend whatever you want. 

------------
Was that her initial raw reaction. Hell no. 

Her initial internal reaction was: WTF. Why are you going to kludge up MY bedroom with more gadgetry and waste money in the process. 

But then - that's ok. That's not how she WANTS to react. That's just how she DOES react. After having a week to absorb - she fully accepts the situation. Is she happy about it? Not especially. Am I ok with that? Absolutely. Better than 50% chance that she will love the sound bar. And worst case, she won't dislike it. 

Is that transparency? 

Yes. But it's a VERY HIGH latency type transparency. 

So why did I think you might relate to this? Because that low latency pattern helps you at the Dojo and at the office. It's often the primary catalyst for a downward spiral with an intimate parter.




QUOTE=marduk;14211785]Sorry Kag. 

I was getting at something a little different, and maybe it's an artefact of being attracted to high maintenance women. 

It's not that I take it personally - quite the opposite in fact. It's more like irritation at the other person not being able to deal with their own ****. I can help you process it, but I'm not going to become your emotional sewage treatment plant just because you want me to process it for you. 

For example, my wife has a giant temper. I can't really fault her for it, because so do I. But she can't really take her temper out on the kids or anyone else, so I become a lightning rod for all of it because I can take it. 

But that doesn't mean I want to take a raw dump of all her irritations throughout the day just because I can. She can deal with her own ****. 

Now, if she's mad at me, I want to hear it. But we don't really have the silent treatment/resentment cycle any more mostly because I refuse to play into it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_[/QUOTE]


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

Because in between, most of their partners demonstrate redeeming qualities. 


QUOTE=jld;14212185]Totally agree with that. I don't know how women can stand that.[/QUOTE]


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Because in between, most of their partners demonstrate redeeming qualities.


Those must be some _highly redeeming_ qualities, MEM.


----------



## kag123

*Re: Network latency*



MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> Not sure why, but I'm sharing this story specifically with you.
> 
> In the digital world within which we are ever more immersed, network latency is a bad thing. The engineers are constantly working to shave milliseconds.
> 
> But in our interpersonal networks, latency can be the single most useful tool we have.
> 
> Consider the case of a husband and wife. Both pretty frugal financially. Husband is generous with the wife. Wife not so much with the husband.
> 
> Low latency model works like this:
> Husband: I'm going to get a sound bar for our tv
> Wife: Why
> Husband: TV speakers aren't very good
> Wife: oh ok (tone clearly at best dubious)
> 
> Any further conversation at this point is a rapid downward spiral. She's not real happy he's about to waste money on some gadget. And he's angry she's being her usual self. WAY cheaper with him, than he ever is with her.
> 
> High latency model is more like this
> -----------
> A few days later he shows her a picture of a sound bar - asks: tolerable? Over there - points to the top of the credenza below their tv. She nods.
> 
> A few days after that when he mentions it a third time she says: Just so we are clear, even though it isn't important to me. I know it's important to you. So you should get whatever you want, spend whatever you want.
> 
> ------------
> Was that her initial raw reaction. Hell no.
> 
> Her initial internal reaction was: WTF. Why are you going to kludge up MY bedroom with more gadgetry and waste money in the process.
> 
> But then - that's ok. That's not how she WANTS to react. That's just how she DOES react. After having a week to absorb - she fully accepts the situation. Is she happy about it? Not especially. Am I ok with that? Absolutely. Better than 50% chance that she will love the sound bar. And worst case, she won't dislike it.
> 
> Is that transparency?
> 
> Yes. But it's a VERY HIGH latency type transparency.
> 
> So why did I think you might relate to this? Because that low latency pattern helps you at the Dojo and at the office. It's often the primary catalyst for a downward spiral with an intimate parter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE=marduk;14211785]Sorry Kag.
> 
> I was getting at something a little different, and maybe it's an artefact of being attracted to high maintenance women.
> 
> It's not that I take it personally - quite the opposite in fact. It's more like irritation at the other person not being able to deal with their own ****. I can help you process it, but I'm not going to become your emotional sewage treatment plant just because you want me to process it for you.
> 
> For example, my wife has a giant temper. I can't really fault her for it, because so do I. But she can't really take her temper out on the kids or anyone else, so I become a lightning rod for all of it because I can take it.
> 
> But that doesn't mean I want to take a raw dump of all her irritations throughout the day just because I can. She can deal with her own ****.
> 
> Now, if she's mad at me, I want to hear it. But we don't really have the silent treatment/resentment cycle any more mostly because I refuse to play into it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


[/QUOTE]


I agree with your premise that a pause can be useful to diffuse a high tension situation. 

I use this technique with my kids, and in my career. 

However, with my husband I do not like it. A pause allows the person to put filters in place. My husband is the master of filtering. 

If I want "raw feed" I can only get it on the fly in those rare exchanges where he gets too tense to filter. I LOVE those exchanges even if he's angry and seething, or frustrated or whatever else. It feels to me like the only time I get to see the REAL him and I cherish that. Even in the worst moments. 

He hates it. Even though I am careful not to judge or use anything he says as ammo, when he has those momentary slips where the filter has stopped he quite visibly hates himself after. The more I try to offer "encouragement" (i.e., thank you for telling me that, or empathy like wow that must have been really frustrating), the more I am rubbing in to him that he let his guard down and the more he closes up in response. I've learned to be casual and pretend that nothing just happened whenever I get a rare raw feed from him. Just silently catalog in my brain but don't dare acknowledge it out loud. 

Perhaps that makes me even more irritating LOL.


----------



## jld

*Re: Network latency*



kag123 said:


> I agree with your premise that a pause can be useful to diffuse a high tension situation.
> 
> I use this technique with my kids, and in my career.
> 
> However, with my husband I do not like it. A pause allows the person to put filters in place. My husband is the master of filtering.
> 
> If I want "raw feed" I can only get it on the fly in those rare exchanges where he gets too tense to filter. I LOVE those exchanges even if he's angry and seething, or frustrated or whatever else. It feels to me like the only time I get to see the REAL him and I cherish that. Even in the worst moments.
> 
> He hates it. Even though I am careful not to judge or use anything he says as ammo, when he has those momentary slips where the filter has stopped he quite visibly hates himself after. The more I try to offer "encouragement" (i.e., thank you for telling me that, or empathy like wow that must have been really frustrating), the more I am rubbing in to him that he let his guard down and the more he closes up in response. I've learned to be casual and pretend that nothing just happened whenever I get a rare raw feed from him. Just silently catalog in my brain but don't dare acknowledge it out loud.
> 
> Perhaps that makes me even more irritating LOL.


Do you think he is afraid of giving you power over him?


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Network latency*

Kag,

You're killing me. Being angry - it's like being momentarily crippled. In that state, last thing in the world I want to do is interact. 

My ONLY priorities at that point are: 
1. Do no harm by doing NOTHING, that includes not speaking. 
2. Let the auto stabilization system do its magic - this is a 5 to 60 minute thing. 





I agree with your premise that a pause can be useful to diffuse a high tension situation. 

I use this technique with my kids, and in my career. 

However, with my husband I do not like it. A pause allows the person to put filters in place. My husband is the master of filtering. 

If I want "raw feed" I can only get it on the fly in those rare exchanges where he gets too tense to filter. I LOVE those exchanges even if he's angry and seething, or frustrated or whatever else. It feels to me like the only time I get to see the REAL him and I cherish that. Even in the worst moments. 

He hates it. Even though I am careful not to judge or use anything he says as ammo, when he has those momentary slips where the filter has stopped he quite visibly hates himself after. The more I try to offer "encouragement" (i.e., thank you for telling me that, or empathy like wow that must have been really frustrating), the more I am rubbing in to him that he let his guard down and the more he closes up in response. I've learned to be casual and pretend that nothing just happened whenever I get a rare raw feed from him. Just silently catalog in my brain but don't dare acknowledge it out loud. 

Perhaps that makes me even more irritating LOL.[/QUOTE]


----------



## kag123

I think I should clarify that I don't purposely provoke any reaction from him. 

I don't want him to feel anger or pain or frustration. 

But when he's gotten himself there - regardless of reason why - I will not pause the conversation as I may with others. I simply like to hear what he has to say and if it only comes out in those moments, I will linger in them as long I can.


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Network latency*

Kag,
Just want to clarify one thing though. If M2 wants to have a very mutually unfiltered conversation - I'm good with that. 

From what you describe, your H avoids those like tha plague. He is mostly closed off to you. 

Simple example: M2 asks me: were you angry that I did XYZ?

My response: In the moment, yes I was angry, for ten minutes or so. Was it obvious?
M2: Yes
MEM: Thanks for being patient with me

The tv series Homeland is very intense. That said, what was hands down the most impactful scene for me, was when one of the characters is talking about how CERTAIN they were that someone was a spy. And yet all the 'evidence' proved that person was NOT a spy. And this destroyed her confidence in her abilities. 

But the whole time, she WAS RIGHT. He WAS a spy. Just had a lot of folks helping him make it look otherwise. 

Anyway, it showed just how truly toxic gaslighting can be. 

But that stuff, doesn't bother me so much anymore. Things seem a certain way. The other person claims otherwise. Being patient and calm and did I mention patient, can help. 

The last time we had one of these gaslighting situations (which are thankfully rare) at home I just said. 

You were clearly upset the other morning. No more reason to discuss that than to discuss whether the mid day sky is blue or bright pink. 

If you want to talk about why, that is great. And if not, that's ok as well. 



I agree with your premise that a pause can be useful to diffuse a high tension situation. 

I use this technique with my kids, and in my career. 

However, with my husband I do not like it. A pause allows the person to put filters in place. My husband is the master of filtering. 

If I want "raw feed" I can only get it on the fly in those rare exchanges where he gets too tense to filter. I LOVE those exchanges even if he's angry and seething, or frustrated or whatever else. It feels to me like the only time I get to see the REAL him and I cherish that. Even in the worst moments. 

He hates it. Even though I am careful not to judge or use anything he says as ammo, when he has those momentary slips where the filter has stopped he quite visibly hates himself after. The more I try to offer "encouragement" (i.e., thank you for telling me that, or empathy like wow that must have been really frustrating), the more I am rubbing in to him that he let his guard down and the more he closes up in response. I've learned to be casual and pretend that nothing just happened whenever I get a rare raw feed from him. Just silently catalog in my brain but don't dare acknowledge it out loud. 

Perhaps that makes me even more irritating LOL.[/QUOTE]


----------



## jld

kag123 said:


> I think I should clarify that I don't purposely provoke any reaction from him.
> 
> I don't want him to feel anger or pain or frustration.
> 
> But when he's gotten himself there - regardless of reason why - I will not pause the conversation as I may with others. I simply like to hear what he has to say and if it only comes out in those moments, I will linger in them as long I can.


It makes you feel close to him?


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Network latency*

Angry MEM is self focused and stupid. Not sure what he contributes to any situation. 

Feeling vulnerable is different than feeling destructive. 



QUOTE=jld;14212401]Do you think he is afraid of giving you power over him?[/QUOTE]


----------



## john117

There's plenty of infinite latency stuff showing up at our place. I follow reciprocally of course... 

The bedroom features a very nice Yamaha subwoofer with soundbar and a Samsung 55" TV. To convince J2 I simply put in some decent high def BluRay movie with sound on and she was promptly blown away...

But reciprocity is the key - don't make it all for one side. What really hurts is the one sidedness aspect of it.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
The post below - is a perfect of what your daughters see. The clever, funny, fair man who is their role model for men. 

Back 2-3 years ago - when I couldn't get M2 to make me tea in the morning, I felt a mix of hurt, hurt based anger and despair. 

Honestly for a while, M2 almost reflexively did the opposite of what I asked or suggested. I was beginning to feel defeated. 

Wasn't until JLD explained how this situation felt to M2, that I started to reweave - is that a word re-weave - the fabric of our relationship. 

Now - M2 reflexively does what I suggest. Happily does almost anything I ask. 

By the way - initially - I read what JLD posted and thought: that just can't be true. 





john117 said:


> There's plenty of infinite latency stuff showing up at our place. I follow reciprocally of course...
> 
> The bedroom features a very nice Yamaha subwoofer with soundbar and a Samsung 55" TV. To convince J2 I simply put in some decent high def BluRay movie with sound on and she was promptly blown away...
> 
> But reciprocity is the key - don't make it all for one side. What really hurts is the one sidedness aspect of it.


----------



## tech-novelist

kag123 said:


> I've been reading this thread since the beginning. Have been away for a week or so from the thread and trying to skim to catch up. Saw this and had to grab it.
> 
> Perhaps I'm an oddball (likely)...
> 
> Like MEM said, what I most desire is a 100% raw feed from my H. And really all people I have to interact closely with.
> 
> I know I will not get it. I do not push for it from anyone except my H.
> 
> I've been told and observed many times that I am apparently very strange for desiring this. Why would you want to know what someone is really thinking 100% of the time? Surely they think unkind thoughts about you at least some of the time, and those things could damage your relationship.
> 
> So I have been thinking about myself and WHY this is such a huge desire.
> 
> I am an engineer. I analyze data for a living. I muddle through data to try to get as close to ground truth as possible and weed out the "noise". Then use the data to make decisions.
> 
> This is how my brain works in all things. I do not take raw feed personally. I understand objectively that emotion can fuel knee-jerk reactions that are likely an exaggeration of what someone means to say. I understand that people cannot be 100% honest, that they are prone to bias, and that they can just be plain wrong in their facts and then base all feed off a misconception. I filter that on my own down to what the core issue is. This means I don't get my back up or my feelings hurt most of the time. I find some of the most insightful moments with another person come during these times of high emotion, when there are cracks in the walls they've built up to protect themselves. I used to think (until very recently) that most people also had this ability and would welcome this type of experience. That was naive of me. That's not meant to be a slight against anyone else either.
> 
> I now feel that I am unique in that I desire these experiences and seek them out.
> 
> As a result of being so objective, I am very unattached emotionally to almost every thing and every one. It does not mean I don't desire close relationships and love my husband and my children. I do. However I can make judgments objectively about whether that relationship is operating optimally or poorly and then will try to steer the ship to the best course. Part of the steering is constant evaluation of the relationship - is this really worth it to continue? If yes, proceed here. If no, proceed here. I try to "steer" to the best possible outcome for all parties as much as I can.
> 
> But - deep down I feel that I could live alone and be totally fine with it. If my H left me, I'd carry on. If anyone in my life walked away and decided they did not want to continue, I'd carry on.
> 
> It took me a LONG time to figure out that most people in serious relationships do not feel that way.
> 
> At my core I always feel "What do I really have to lose by being 100% transparent?". I quickly play out all scenarios in my head and can visualize all potential outcomes. None that seem insurmountable.
> 
> If I truly came up with a scenario in my head that scared me and gave me pause...felt that I had something I couldn't bear to lose... I can see how that would snowball into choosing to be less transparent. If you feel that your stakes are high and you can't bear to risk losing, you'll make sure you respond in ways that keep the odds in your favor.
> 
> To get as close to raw feed as possible in my life from others: I take great care to create a safe environment where they can be transparent and know that I will not react adversely. It is not always easy because I can only control my own input to the situation. When you've got a lifetime of conditioning that taught you people lie and use your responses against you, and when you've got other individuals in current time who would use your raw feed to their advantage (even if I personally wouldn't), then it doesn't matter much what I do to try to encourage your transparency.
> 
> And this is what I struggle with in my marriage. H has built his walls so high, and is aware of my general pattern of non attachment that I think it just terrifies him to be real with me.


So in other words you are an extreme NT female in MBTI terminology. They are quite rare but not a problem for NT males... who are rare but not as rare as females.


----------



## kag123

technovelist said:


> So in other words you are an extreme NT female in MBTI terminology. They are quite rare but not a problem for NT males... who are rare but not as rare as females.


I'm not familiar with NT or MBTI...?


----------



## jld

kag123 said:


> I'm not familiar with NT or MBTI...?


Portrait of an INTP


----------



## john117

MEM, I think it takes two to reweave a relationship. And oftentimes the holes are too large to mend. 

A couple needs a common frame of reference, be it the same major in college, same culture, same socioeconomic background, etc. Pile on too many differences and its not doable.

You and M2 have a common frame of reference. Me and J2 don't. We used to. That's the difference.


----------



## tech-novelist

kag123 said:


> I'm not familiar with NT or MBTI...?


Here's a free test that gives similar results to the "official" Meyers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) test:

Personality test based on C. Jung and I. Briggs Myers type theory


----------



## MEM2020

Oddly enough, the single most important frame of reference for us, was the absolute belief that for the marriage to improve, I had to improve it. 

M2 was certain of that from the get go. She captured this theme in a simple, stark phrase which she uttered in a tone of absolute certainty. Over time I gradually came to believe and then embrace this theme. 

And this my friend is what M2 said to me whenever the opportunity presented itself: 

I react to you. 

And indeed as I discovered along the way, she did indeed react to me. Does continue to react to me. 







john117 said:


> MEM, I think it takes two to reweave a relationship. And oftentimes the holes are too large to mend.
> 
> A couple needs a common frame of reference, be it the same major in college, same culture, same socioeconomic background, etc. Pile on too many differences and its not doable.
> 
> You and M2 have a common frame of reference. Me and J2 don't. We used to. That's the difference.


----------



## heartsbeating

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> And there is room here for that viewpoint.


MEM, although this is addressed to JLD, for what it's worth reading your comments simply enhance the respect I already hold for you and your marriage.


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> I find peoples interpretations of events quite interesting.
> 
> Now see, knowing what I know of MEM, and M2 through what he has shared here, 2 things;
> 
> 1. Demanding the keys was the reset on her intense, negative, and certainly unreasonable reaction to his response about the near miss ... at 80 mph ... that could have killed them both. It was the RIGHT thing to do for their relationship dynamic. The dynamic they have built. Had he demurred and apologized or tried to calmly and lovingly draw her into a conversation, I'd wager she would have escalated, not de-escalated.
> 
> 2. In light of M2's overall behavior (not just the car), she's fortunate to still be married.


And isn't that the beauty of TAM? ...the different perspectives is indeed what makes it interesting.


----------



## john117

Reaction implies action. Think Fred Astaire and what's her name. If you think only your actions are necessary and sufficient...


----------



## MEM2020

John,
Perhaps it's best to describe the evolution, of my thinking. 

I've had a few major 'aha' moments. Often these produced the same patterned response: Short term, a knee jerk reaction of silent but total fury at the mechanics of what M2 has been doing. Followed by comprehension of WHY, leading to acceptance and a calm sometimes humorous reaction. 

When I realized M2 deeply resented me for not converting, I was initially angry beyond words. I had told her not to marry me thinking I'd eventually convert. I wouldn't. And yet, despite that, in the spirit of true partnership I'd gone to church with her steadily for all of our marriage. And not only was M2 resentful, but she expressed that resentment wihtout directly acknowledging it. She would be hostile now and then, and I wouldn't know WHY. Until looking back I put the pieces together. 

When I identified that resentment, instead of being a Man about it and addressing it directly with her, I stopped going. I had a plan, childish as it was. I would simply wait until she asked me to go. The bad news is that took about two years. 

The good news is that along the way, I had a little chat with myself while out walking the dog. And the key piece of that internal conversation was a question that I'd never considered. 

*How can you, in good conscience be angry at someone for wanting to spend eternity with you? *

So when M2 finally asked me to resume going with her, I very gently pointed out it was hard to WANT to go, with someone who resented you for something (converting) you weren't capable of. 

That's all. Just that. I didn't get into the mischief she'd caused along the way. Had no desire to. Told her it wasn't a lack of wanting to. Just a lack of ability. And that I wasn't going to pretend. Which she totally understood. 

And in a few short minutes, M2 reached a place of acceptance, that had eluded her for almost a quarter century. 

So yes - it's true - M2 really does react to me. For the past year it's been close to a 100% positive reaction. Before then, during the high conflict part of marriage, that simply wasn't the case.


----------



## MEM2020

Hearts,

I've been lucky to have met a lot of smart, good, kind people on TAM. Yourself included. It's changed my life. 



QUOTE=heartsbeating;14216313]MEM, although this is addressed to JLD, for what it's worth reading your comments simply enhance the respect I already hold for you and your marriage.[/QUOTE]


----------



## john117

MEM, once again you demonstrate the difference between severity of issues. You're running into a singular issue, deal with it, and that's all she wrote. It's what my software guys call the "happy path".

No converting this side and no issue about it either but I dream of having such singular issues 

I'm aware of J2's religion and she's aware of mine. The girls were not raised religiously so that's that.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
We fought about plenty of stuff. Except in truth we only fought for two underlying reasons: fear and hurt

Can you map any of J2's undesirable behavior to anything other than fear or hurt?

By the way her latest meltdown is likely a perfect example to use. 

Colleagues asking her to do work that's beneath her. Or worse yet, colleagues she doesn't consider senior enough to ask her to do anything, asking stupid questions. 

This isn't about right and wrong. Solely about what works and what doesn't. 

And I think you are about to tell me that I don't understand, because I can't understand. That M2 is a normal person. J2 isn't. 

I'm sure you would win the my wife is crazier than your competition. That said at the height of our marital Cold War, M2 exhibited many symptoms of BPD. 

You might want to replay the conversation you two had a few times. In slow motion. Not saying there's an easy answer. There isn't. Just that there is a LOT of information in a melt down like that. And some of it is about you. 

When I stopped feeding anger and disrespectful judgements into the system, M2's BPD symptoms melted away. 

It can be very painful to watch a spouse begin to commit career - vandalism - or worse career suicide. 

If you could redo that conversation, would you take the same approach? 




john117 said:


> MEM, once again you demonstrate the difference between severity of issues. You're running into a singular issue, deal with it, and that's all she wrote. It's what my software guys call the "happy path".
> 
> No converting this side and no issue about it either but I dream of having such singular issues
> 
> I'm aware of J2's religion and she's aware of mine. The girls were not raised religiously so that's that.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

WandaJ said:


> Yep, that one. We were totally transparent twenty years ago, but too much anger and irritation on his part killed it. You need to feel safe to be transparent.


and recriprocation.


----------



## john117

If "BPD" symptoms "melt away" you aren't dealing with BPD. Even on a scale...

J2 has a long track record of committing frequent career harakiri - her last employer being the sole exception. 

No matter how I tell her something the basic message is the same. Work is called work for a reason...


----------



## MEM2020

John,
We were out doing a bit of shopping for Christmas decorations today and as we drive past BestBuy M2 asks: Should we go get your sound bar while we are here? 

Sincere offer, totally friendly tone of voice. 

That is 180 degrees different than the M2 of yesteryear....

Label it however you wish, the results are outstanding. 






john117 said:


> If "BPD" symptoms "melt away" you aren't dealing with BPD. Even on a scale...
> 
> J2 has a long track record of committing frequent career harakiri - her last employer being the sole exception.
> 
> No matter how I tell her something the basic message is the same. Work is called work for a reason...


----------



## kag123

jld said:


> Portrait of an INTP


I took the test. I actually got INFJ. The "F" and the "T" were right on the line though.


----------



## jld

kag123 said:


> I took the test. I actually got INFJ. The "F" and the "T" were right on the line though.


Have you read the profile? Does it seem accurate?

Maybe read INTJ, too, just to compare.


----------



## john117

No need to label it anything - especially what it isn't.


----------



## john117

The test at the link posted is not quite as accurate as the official one. I did the link posted and it put me halfway between ENTP & ENTJ. The official test which I've done twice at work was solid ENTP.

Pretty good for a quick test.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
I imagine it's very irritating when folks with normal people (NP) style issues, associate themselves with an entirely different (non normal people - NNP) type of challenge. And then claim victory. 

It's like the guy who climbs a 14K peak in Colorado comparing himself to an Everest climber or a chap who summitted K2. 

Entirely different level of difficulty. Mortality rates alone show that the one is dead easy, and the other quite deadly. 

It is not my intent to annoy or offend. Truly it isn't. 

All I'm trying to do is describe my problem solving strategy. 

And at risk of being simplistic, this is what it was. 

I looked for a TAM marriage which was filled with the thing I most craved: Admiration 

When I found a marriage like that, I clumsily but sincerely followed Inspector Gamache's rules of engagement. And used a liberal dose of his best practices in an attempt to understand how that marriage worked. At risk of being tiresome those were:
- I need your help
- I don't know
- I was wrong and finally 
- I'm sorry

And here I am - two years or so later - in a marriage filled with laughter and love and admiration. 

I accept without reservation that J2 is more like Everest and M2 more like Mount Elbert. It's also true that I took all of two psychology classes in college. And my education stopped with a degree in computer science. 

So you have a greater challenge and are also better equipped than me.......






john117 said:


> No need to label it anything - especially what it isn't.


----------



## john117

The rules of engagement are great assuming the other person is interested in engaging. It has little to do with mental illness and everything to do with ingrained culture influences that are near impossible to unravel.

Being better prepared only makes the process worse because you always think there's one more thing to try instead of bailing out early.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> The rules of engagement are great assuming the other person is interested in engaging. It has little to do with mental illness and everything to do with ingrained culture influences that are near impossible to unravel.
> 
> Being better prepared only makes the process worse because you always think there's one more thing to try instead of bailing out early.


John, one thing I've noticed is that when it comes to giving advice, you speak as though your wife is representative of other women, that your story is illustrative, and to be learned from: bail out early because nothing can ever get better.

Yet, when you are getting advice, your wife is unique, she is not-normal, mentally ill, from a unique culture where there is no hope. No one can possibly understand.

I'll give you this, you are consistent in your lack of hope for a decent outcome, and steadfast refusal to consider the possibility that resentment, contempt, even downright hatred, have some sort of impact on this.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> John, one thing I've noticed is that when it comes to giving advice, you speak as though your wife is representative of other women, that your story is illustrative, and to be learned from: bail out early because nothing can ever get better.
> 
> Yet, when you are getting advice, your wife is unique, she is not-normal, mentally ill, from a unique culture where there is no hope. No one can possibly understand.
> 
> I'll give you this, you are consistent in your lack of hope for a decent outcome, and steadfast refusal to consider the possibility that resentment, contempt, even downright hatred, have some sort of impact on this.


I think he feels powerless to influence her.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I think he feels powerless to influence her.


You don't often bat a perfect 0.00, but this is one of those times 

'Feel' - past that already. Think root canal.

'Powerless' - make that indifferent.

'Influence' - the one area of concern is not the area one can be or should be influenced. We are both adults, not teenagers. I've done my share of 'influencing' which ended about umm, 1980?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> John, one thing I've noticed is that when it comes to giving advice, you speak as though your wife is representative of other women, that your story is illustrative, and to be learned from: bail out early because nothing can ever get better.
> 
> Yet, when you are getting advice, your wife is unique, she is not-normal, mentally ill, from a unique culture where there is no hope. No one can possibly understand.
> 
> I'll give you this, you are consistent in your lack of hope for a decent outcome, and steadfast refusal to consider the possibility that resentment, contempt, even downright hatred, have some sort of impact on this.


To quote Alfred P. Sloan... "Horse apples"...

'Hope for decent outcome'... Hope is for the feeble, my friend. I prefer to deal with facts. I can hope I win the Kentucky Lottery too...

'Giving advice'... Think of a physician who has experience with a lot of different symptoms. Chances are the next patient, being of the same gender and similar age, will match one or some of the symptoms previously experienced. Especially in a narrow focus field.

'Getting advice'... Had you bothered to follow the saga you would know by now that I have followed the advice. But snide remarks are so much better than reading, no?

As a matter of fact, AA, I have been following the 'nice' playbook for quite a while. Even told my wife of my not so transparent plans. She knows me well enough (probably not as well as you do ) to know I'm not making such comments for the heck of it. So things have improved once again, short term. What is often known as a " dead cat bounce".

The next few days will be an interesting sh!t test as we converge in a sleepy college town to spend Thanksgiving with my girls and the cat. Historically J2 gets unglued in such cases. 

As a general suggestion, kindly look at what people actually do instead of what you think they do. Someone full of hate and contempt would have bailed out long ago, or, worse. Spending two months of "quality time" and "acts of service" BS only to be rewarded with a rage and staying calm about it is hardly what your mental image of me is about...


----------



## MEM2020

John,
I bet she gets unglued. I'd bet my bottom dollar she feels left out. 

The girls love you - I don't for a MOMENT question that you have totally earned that love. This isn't about what is fair. It's about what IS. There is love and respect between the 3 of you. 

But the girls - have chosen a side yes. Your side. 

Maybe John, there are moments here on TAM where you feel like we are ganging up on you. If that is so, take that feeling and 100 fold it. That is how J2 sometimes feels when you are a foursome. 






john117 said:


> To quote Alfred P. Sloan... "Horse apples"...
> 
> 'Hope for decent outcome'... Hope is for the feeble, my friend. I prefer to deal with facts. I can hope I win the Kentucky Lottery too...
> 
> 'Giving advice'... Think of a physician who has experience with a lot of different symptoms. Chances are the next patient, being of the same gender and similar age, will match one or some of the symptoms previously experienced. Especially in a narrow focus field.
> 
> 'Getting advice'... Had you bothered to follow the saga you would know by now that I have followed the advice. But snide remarks are so much better than reading, no?
> 
> As a matter of fact, AA, I have been following the 'nice' playbook for quite a while. Even told my wife of my not so transparent plans. She knows me well enough (probably not as well as you do ) to know I'm not making such comments for the heck of it. So things have improved once again, short term. What is often known as a " dead cat bounce".
> 
> The next few days will be an interesting sh!t test as we converge in a sleepy college town to spend Thanksgiving with my girls and the cat. Historically J2 gets unglued in such cases.
> 
> As a general suggestion, kindly look at what people actually do instead of what you think they do. Someone full of hate and contempt would have bailed out long ago, or, worse. Spending two months of "quality time" and "acts of service" BS only to be rewarded with a rage and staying calm about it is hardly what your mental image of me is about...


----------



## Deejo

MEM11363 said:


> If that is so, take that feeling and 100 fold it. That is how J2 sometimes feels when you are a foursome.


And she's worked damn hard to earn it.


----------



## MEM2020

Deej,

Maybe.

Thing is, most cases someone is claiming their spouse is 99%+ to blame - that's not quite the case. 







Deejo said:


> And she's worked damn hard to earn it.


----------



## Deejo

I'm all for owning your side of the street. But the thing I keep coming back to in these kinds of circumstances is that at any point of this arc of a deteriorating relationship, either or both parties have the agency to contribute to the problem or contribute to the solution, or dissolution if need be.

I've never even been quite clear that J2 sees there is a problem that she contributes to.

If that's the case, one could certainly argue that her behavior is 'transparent'.

But it certainly doesn't make her transparency a good thing for the marriage.

John didn't make her crazy.

She either IS crazy or she chose crazy. Lets face it, there were a myriad of other choices either party could have made, on the arc where they are now.


----------



## MEM2020

Deej,
Having spent 20 years getting better and better at 'symptom management', I think I'm good at recognizing it. 

Have yet to persuade John that a 'melt down' is like an MRI. It's a series of images of what's going on inside. 

With a bit of trust, your partner will help you understand the confusing frames. That does require said partner to trust you. 





Deejo said:


> I'm all for owning your side of the street. But the thing I keep coming back to in these kinds of circumstances is that at any point of this arc of a deteriorating relationship, either or both parties have the agency to contribute to the problem or contribute to the solution, or dissolution if need be.
> 
> I've never even been quite clear that J2 sees there is a problem that she contributes to.
> 
> If that's the case, one could certainly argue that her behavior is 'transparent'.
> 
> But it certainly doesn't make her transparency a good thing for the marriage.
> 
> John didn't make her crazy.
> 
> She either IS crazy or she chose crazy. Lets face it, there were a myriad of other choices either party could have made, on the arc where they are now.


----------



## Deejo

MEM11363 said:


> With a bit of trust, your partner will help you understand the confusing frames. That does require said partner to trust you.


MEM, you've never known anyone who is simply difficult and miserable, and were you to hand them the keys to easygoing and content, they'd choose instead to slap them out of your hand, rather than thanking you?

I thought we've covered this ground before, and talked about the parable of the scorpion and the frog?


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,

If I'm with you, and after 25+ years of being a good partner, you start morphing into a scorpion, is it you, me, or us? 





Deejo said:


> MEM, you've never known anyone who is simply difficult and miserable, and were you to hand them the keys to easygoing and content, they'd choose instead to slap them out of your hand, rather than thanking you?
> 
> I thought we've covered this ground before, and talked about the parable of the scorpion and the frog?


----------



## john117

Deejo said:


> And she's worked damn hard to earn it.


Pretty much.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Deej,
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> Thing is, most cases someone is claiming their spouse is 99%+ to blame - that's not quite the case.


Thank goodness for the 5%


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Deej,
> Having spent 20 years getting better and better at 'symptom management', I think I'm good at recognizing it.
> 
> Have yet to persuade John that a 'melt down' is like an MRI. It's a series of images of what's going on inside.
> 
> With a bit of trust, your partner will help you understand the confusing frames. That does require said partner to trust you.


I don't need an MRI. I know exactly what's going on inside. 

Not that it matters at the end.


----------



## Deejo

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> 
> If I'm with you, and after 25+ years of being a good partner, you start morphing into a scorpion, is it you, me, or us?


The circumstance I'm familiar with?

Most definitely you.

It wasn't that you morphed into a scorpion, however, my willingness to overlook you were a scorpion all along.

I'm not referring to my ex.

I am referring to my ex's mother.

Point I'm trying to make is that we don't always have the opportunity, or the tools to manage, navigate, or influence those that can influence us.

Not so much relating it to John's case, but the dynamic exists.

You cannot deal reasonably with people who are unreasonable.

At best, you learn to work around it, or walk away from it ... if you can.

Earlier in this thread for example, I posted that I let my GF know that my very first girlfriend, of over 35 years ago reached out to me.

Said she was doing so as part of her therapy. Therapy surrounding the fact that her father had sexually abused her for years. A guy I thought I knew pretty well as a result of dating his daughter for nearly 3 years. Pillar of the community. Deacon at church. Family man.

His daughter has now been married twice, and is estranged from her family. Her first husband stole from her, and embezzled from his company. Her second husband was a serial cheater.

Do we put the onus of the failed marriage on them? On her for choosing them? Would those men have been embezzlers and cheaters if they had married someone different?

I realize I'm meandering far afield from the concept of two people who want to make their marriage work being transparent with one another ... with which I wholeheartedly agree to be clear. I just think it also has some caveats.

I've stated as much before. In general, when we couple we believe that we are dealing with someone on relatively the same mental and emotional footing that we are on. And by the time we discover that in fact, we are not ... in the case of a partner we may be invested, in love, and feel compelled to remain and work at it. In the case of parent and child, that equation becomes even harder to balance. Not like a child can divorce their parent. 

I dated a few damaged women. How did I know they were damaged? They told me. They told me because they trusted me.
That trust didn't prevent them from continuing the behavior they said they didn't like about themselves, nor was their behavior a result of my behavior ... but it impacted the relationship nonetheless. 

MR has been married 3 times. I'm in this relationship being fully aware of that fact, and of the nature of the men she chose to partner with previously.

I remain unconcerned. 

Have just reread this long, run-on post. I don't think I'm making the point I want to make very well at all; which isn't so much a direct disagreement with the intent of your post, but that the morphology of how we arrive in a particular dynamic is not always a direct result of the couple only.


----------



## happy as a clam

MEM11363 said:


> When I found a marriage like that, I clumsily but sincerely followed Inspector Gamache's rules of engagement.


Gamache fan here.... 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> As a general suggestion, kindly look at what people actually do instead of what you think they do. Someone full of hate and contempt would have bailed out long ago, or, worse. Spending two months of "quality time" and "acts of service" BS only to be rewarded with a rage and staying calm about it is hardly what your mental image of me is about...


I can only look at what you do on this forum, obviously, and even that is limited. But people full of contempt, resentment and loathing stay in relationships all the time, and yours is a classic example.

You've already all but ended it, and are shopping for the next one. The only nice thing I've ever seen you compliment about your wife is her tits, despite a couple of decades of supposedly great years.

I'm not judging you, john. If I were you, I would have left yesterday. Or months ago. 

But you are not a physician. Despite your experience with symptoms it is all one person, and all one person with a particular diagnosed illness. And yet you find it very easy to see how her reactions and responses might be similar to and applicable to all sorts of other women just because that's your experience. She is just another Scantron sheet.

But then insist that she is absolutely unique, not normal, culturally special, etc, whenever it comes to any suggestion of changing the inputs to affect the outputs.

But in the end, that's how us Scantron sheets work.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I don't need an MRI. I know exactly what's going on inside.


And yet you were surprised to learn that she was very socially awkward as a teenager....

I'm guessing that she has as many secrets as you do.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Have just reread this long, run-on post. I don't think I'm making the point I want to make very well at all; which isn't so much a direct disagreement with the intent of your post, but that the morphology of how we arrive in a particular dynamic is not always a direct result of the couple only.


Dynamics are always about the people who are relating. Does one have control over the other? Never. Are both influenced by other things? Always. But the dynamic is in the hands of the players.

I have a friend with a mental illness. She is a wonderful person, but impossible to live with. Her husband just left her. I get it. She really is really trying to be around, and not everyone is equipped for that sort of thing. And to round out the story, she wasn't always as bad as this. The symptoms weren't so strong, and at first she was able to manage them better.

No one would say that he did the wrong thing by leaving her. It's his mental health and well-being at stake too. But what he did do wrong was spend all sorts of time, energy, and money trying to lash out at her, to punish her, to make her suffer for what she did. Their dynamic went from totally into each other, supportive, loving, to out and out warfare. And both played a serious role in that. Without his input, she would still be impossible, but they still would've had mutual respect, good memories, caring. 

It's not like we can cure mental illness by wishing it away, just like we cannot save people from their childhood traumas, or have such a great influence that we somehow make everything all better. But whatever we do, we're contributing to a dynamic with others -- whether for better or worse.


----------



## Deejo

A post so nice, I liked it twice. I agree with you Always.



always_alone said:


> Dynamics are always about the people who are relating. Does one have control over the other? Never. Are both influenced by other things? Always. But the dynamic is in the hands of the players.
> 
> I have a friend with a mental illness. She is a wonderful person, but impossible to live with. Her husband just left her. I get it. She really is really trying to be around, and not everyone is equipped for that sort of thing. And to round out the story, she wasn't always as bad as this. The symptoms weren't so strong, and at first she was able to manage them better.
> 
> No one would say that he did the wrong thing by leaving her. It's his mental health and well-being at stake too. But what he did do wrong was spend all sorts of time, energy, and money trying to lash out at her, to punish her, to make her suffer for what she did. Their dynamic went from totally into each other, supportive, loving, to out and out warfare. And both played a serious role in that. Without his input, she would still be impossible, but they still would've had mutual respect, good memories, caring.
> 
> It's not like we can cure mental illness by wishing it away, just like we cannot save people from their childhood traumas, or have such a great influence that we somehow make everything all better. But whatever we do, we're contributing to a dynamic with others -- whether for better or worse.


----------



## always_alone

John, let me just say this in as black and white terms as possible:

Folks with BPD are well-known for their sensitivity to slights. Indeed, a BPD is infinitely more likely to perceive a slight that isn't there than they are to miss one that is. 

So if you think your wife is oblivious or indifferent to your disdain for her work abilities, your resentment at her for not being who you want her to be, the plotting that you and your daughters do to get back at mean old mom, well, I can pretty much guarantee you that you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> A post so nice, I liked it twice. I agree with you Always.


Wow, a like from Deejo! Two even. An auspicious start to the day...


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Wow, a like from Deejo! Two even. An auspicious start to the day...


That's transparency.


----------



## jld

Wow, the first like Deejo has ever given! What an honor, always alone!


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> And yet you were surprised to learn that she was very socially awkward as a teenager....
> 
> I'm guessing that she has as many secrets as you do.


Most people from her country are socially awkward. Growing up in a theocracy does that to most people.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Dynamics are always about the people who are relating. Does one have control over the other? Never. Are both influenced by other things? Always. But the dynamic is in the hands of the players.
> 
> I have a friend with a mental illness. She is a wonderful person, but impossible to live with. Her husband just left her. I get it. She really is really trying to be around, and not everyone is equipped for that sort of thing. And to round out the story, she wasn't always as bad as this. The symptoms weren't so strong, and at first she was able to manage them better.
> 
> No one would say that he did the wrong thing by leaving her. It's his mental health and well-being at stake too. But what he did do wrong was spend all sorts of time, energy, and money trying to lash out at her, to punish her, to make her suffer for what she did. Their dynamic went from totally into each other, supportive, loving, to out and out warfare. And both played a serious role in that. Without his input, she would still be impossible, but they still would've had mutual respect, good memories, caring.
> 
> It's not like we can cure mental illness by wishing it away, just like we cannot save people from their childhood traumas, or have such a great influence that we somehow make everything all better. But whatever we do, we're contributing to a dynamic with others -- whether for better or worse.


I agree as well. I hope you agree to it because I don't seem to be getting the same consideration as your friends ex husband.

The dynamics is in the hand of the person who does not want to do anything. Passivity rules...


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Most people from her country are socially awkward. Growing up in a theocracy does that to most people.


I know lots of people that have grown up in theocracies, and that are not even the slightest bit socially awkward.

Just sayin'


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I agree as well. I hope you agree to it because I don't seem to be getting the same consideration as your friends ex husband.
> 
> The dynamics is in the hand of the person who does not want to do anything. Passivity rules...


John, I've said time and time again that I completely understand why you are done with your marriage, and probably I would be too were I in your shoes.

But no, the dynamics are not in one person's hands. Ever.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Wow, the first like Deejo has ever given! What an honor, always alone!


What? No. Surely not the first ever? That's too much.

If it is, I'll have to make a commemorative plaque or something to mark the occasion


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I agree as well. I hope you agree to it because I don't seem to be getting the same consideration as your friends ex husband.
> 
> The dynamics is in the hand of the person who does not want to do anything. Passivity rules...


You feel powerless and unmotivated to change things. You were waiting for her to. 

And now, even though she seems to be, it is not enough. The resentment in your heart has solidified.

MEM does not understand that, because he never felt completely powerless in his marriage. 

And as he started to assert himself, through compassion and empathy towards his wife, he gained more power. And now he feels she will do anything he asks, because of the trust she has in him, trust that he earned.

But you reject his counsel. You do not want to take responsibility for the marriage. You want at minimum reciprocity, if not outright leadership from her, and right now. 

You may not be wired to take responsibility for the marriage. We may have asked more from you than you are capable of doing. And that only leads to frustration for both sides, as it has.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> John, I've said time and time again that I completely understand why you are done with your marriage, and probably I would be too were I in your shoes.
> 
> But no, the dynamics are not in one person's hands. Ever.


Certainly, both partners have influence. But I can tell you that my own partner has a _great deal _of influence over me. And not just for financial reasons.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> You feel powerless and unmotivated to change things. You were waiting for her to.
> 
> And now, even though she seems to be, it is not enough. The resentment in your heart has solidified.
> 
> MEM does not understand that, because he never felt completely powerless in his marriage.
> 
> And as he started to assert himself, through compassion and empathy towards his wife, he gained more power. And now he feels she will do anything he asks, because of the trust she has in him, trust that he earned.
> 
> But you reject his counsel. You do not want to take responsibility for the marriage. You want at minimum reciprocity, if not outright leadership from her, and right now.
> 
> You may not be wired to take responsibility for the marriage. We may have asked more from you than you are capable of doing. And that only leads to frustration for both sides, as it has.


Nope.

He doesn't love her any more and hasn't for a long time, so he's cooked up a machiavellian plot to exit with as much stuff as possible - with the justification being that she's a ****ty wife so she deserves it.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> John, let me just say this in as black and white terms as possible:
> 
> Folks with BPD are well-known for their sensitivity to slights. Indeed, a BPD is infinitely more likely to perceive a slight that isn't there than they are to miss one that is.
> 
> So if you think your wife is oblivious or indifferent to your disdain for her work abilities, your resentment at her for not being who you want her to be, the plotting that you and your daughters do to get back at mean old mom, well, I can pretty much guarantee you that you are sorely mistaken.


Never has the obvious been stated in a more elegant manner.. 

Typically, AA, if someone resents me or what not and I give a sh!t about the relationship and want a positive outcome, I will go out of my way to find out why and probably work to fix it. 

Subject to me giving a sh!t of course.

BPD or culture has nothing to do with it. I have to give a sh!t about the relationship to start the process and stay in the process.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Nope.
> 
> He doesn't love her any more and hasn't for a long time, so he's cooked up a machiavellian plot to exit with as much stuff as possible - with the justification being that she's a ****ty wife so she deserves it.


The amount of "exit stuff" is subject to the equitable distribution legal process in our great state and not subject to manipulation by my side or hers. There's my stuff, her stuff, and our stuff. It took me a while to convince her about how the system works - in the name of transparency I even offered to have her talk to the same lawyer I did so he could explain the process. 

In fact, what I think has changed her attitude a bit since I announced my plan was her realization that she is not waltzing out with a lot of my stuff, not the other way 'round.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> John, I've said time and time again that I completely understand why you are done with your marriage, and probably I would be too were I in your shoes.
> 
> But no, the dynamics are not in one person's hands. Ever.


The dynamics of intimacy... That's what is in the hands of the person desiring the less...

Look for root causes.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> I know lots of people that have grown up in theocracies, and that are not even the slightest bit socially awkward.
> 
> Just sayin'


"I know" is a bit different than "I dated" or "I married" or similar.

It also is different depending on age and context and number of years off the boat.

The more you don't know, the more you don't realize what you don't know.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
The exact same stuff we used to fight (in an uncivilized way) over, we now laugh about. 

I'm not talking about laughing about old fights. I'm talking - we start to have some conflict over something NOW - and the next thing I know we are both laughing. 






always_alone said:


> Dynamics are always about the people who are relating. Does one have control over the other? Never. Are both influenced by other things? Always. But the dynamic is in the hands of the players.
> 
> I have a friend with a mental illness. She is a wonderful person, but impossible to live with. Her husband just left her. I get it. She really is really trying to be around, and not everyone is equipped for that sort of thing. And to round out the story, she wasn't always as bad as this. The symptoms weren't so strong, and at first she was able to manage them better.
> 
> No one would say that he did the wrong thing by leaving her. It's his mental health and well-being at stake too. But what he did do wrong was spend all sorts of time, energy, and money trying to lash out at her, to punish her, to make her suffer for what she did. Their dynamic went from totally into each other, supportive, loving, to out and out warfare. And both played a serious role in that. Without his input, she would still be impossible, but they still would've had mutual respect, good memories, caring.
> 
> It's not like we can cure mental illness by wishing it away, just like we cannot save people from their childhood traumas, or have such a great influence that we somehow make everything all better. But whatever we do, we're contributing to a dynamic with others -- whether for better or worse.


----------



## MEM2020

Beginning of all these conversations, I thought John's plan to switch from human to feline companionship was a mistake. 

It has taken a while but he's convinced me. 




jld said:


> You feel powerless and unmotivated to change things. You were waiting for her to.
> 
> And now, even though she seems to be, it is not enough. The resentment in your heart has solidified.
> 
> MEM does not understand that, because he never felt completely powerless in his marriage.
> 
> And as he started to assert himself, through compassion and empathy towards his wife, he gained more power. And now he feels she will do anything he asks, because of the trust she has in him, trust that he earned.
> 
> But you reject his counsel. You do not want to take responsibility for the marriage. You want at minimum reciprocity, if not outright leadership from her, and right now.
> 
> You may not be wired to take responsibility for the marriage. We may have asked more from you than you are capable of doing. And that only leads to frustration for both sides, as it has.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> You feel powerless and unmotivated to change things. You were waiting for her to.
> 
> And now, even though she seems to be, it is not enough. The resentment in your heart has solidified.
> 
> MEM does not understand that, because he never felt completely powerless in his marriage.
> 
> And as he started to assert himself, through compassion and empathy towards his wife, he gained more power. And now he feels she will do anything he asks, because of the trust she has in him, trust that he earned.
> 
> But you reject his counsel. You do not want to take responsibility for the marriage. You want at minimum reciprocity, if not outright leadership from her, and right now.
> 
> You may not be wired to take responsibility for the marriage. We may have asked more from you than you are capable of doing. And that only leads to frustration for both sides, as it has.


Sigh.

I don't feel - anything - period. Disappointed maybe.

Powerless? Let's see who will be better off long term. 

Unmotivated? Haven't I done enough?

She improved from 5% to 10%. Whop-da-fvckibg-doo. Maybe if I spend another few months teaching her design she'll move to 15%. Do I hear 16%?? SOLD!!

MEM never felt indifferent in his marriage. That's the difference. 

But you conveniently ignore that I tried all of the MEM-ly stuff. I tried the compassion and empathy routine after her sister's death, during the times she had troubles at work, and so on. What did I get, jld? Diddly squat.

I had enough compassion to stick around thru the worst of her rages, thinking all the way to 2013 that I could somehow fix it.

I took responsibility for the marriage to the effect that I'm responsible for every little thing that happens. I don't expect reciprocity. But I expect PARTICIPATION. 

Think that you're married to someone who delegates everything to you. From raising your kids to helping with homework to fixing drywall to coaching you for the dream job you have. And as a show of appreciation, you get sh!t back. 

I have done far more than I ever thought myself capable of doing. With sh!t to show for it.

The TAM blurbs on leadership and the like is to me -with all due respect - for Dilbert like parodies of real marriages. Real marriages have real issues and require real people, not Peter Drucker types to apply six sigma and seven signs of successful lolz and all that.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Beginning of all these conversations, I thought John's plan to switch from human to feline companionship was a mistake.
> 
> It has taken a while but he's convinced me.


I'm actually having second thoughts after dealing with a 15 lb kitten...

The existence of millions of older people who prefer animals for companionship is a testament to the validity of this approach.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> The exact same stuff we used to fight (in an uncivilized way) over, we now laugh about.
> 
> I'm not talking about laughing about old fights. I'm talking - we start to have some conflict over something NOW - and the next thing I know we are both laughing.


The operative word here is "we"...


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

john117 said:


> The amount of "exit stuff" is subject to the equitable distribution legal process in our great state and not subject to manipulation by my side or hers. There's my stuff, her stuff, and our stuff. It took me a while to convince her about how the system works - in the name of transparency I even offered to have her talk to the same lawyer I did so he could explain the process.
> 
> In fact, what I think has changed her attitude a bit since I announced my plan was her realization that she is not waltzing out with a lot of my stuff, not the other way 'round.


In many places the lawyer is not permitted by legal customer to talk with the other party (unless the other party is expressly representing themselves)


----------



## john117

I simply consulted the guy - did not ask for representation. Their firm actually does quite a bit of "collaborative" divorces (lolz)...

They also are quite well versed in international divorces where one spouse is likely to run off with a suitcase of money...


----------



## MEM2020

This post is solely in my capacity as a contributor, NOT as a MOD. 

John,
You and I are very different. 




john117 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> I don't feel - anything - period. Disappointed maybe.
> 
> Powerless? Let's see who will be better off long term.
> 
> Unmotivated? Haven't I done enough?
> 
> She improved from 5% to 10%. Whop-da-fvckibg-doo. Maybe if I spend another few months teaching her design she'll move to 15%. Do I hear 16%?? SOLD!!
> 
> MEM never felt indifferent in his marriage. That's the difference.
> 
> But you conveniently ignore that I tried all of the MEM-ly stuff. I tried the compassion and empathy routine after her sister's death, during the times she had troubles at work, and so on. What did I get, jld? Diddly squat.
> 
> I had enough compassion to stick around thru the worst of her rages, thinking all the way to 2013 that I could somehow fix it.
> 
> I took responsibility for the marriage to the effect that I'm responsible for every little thing that happens. I don't expect reciprocity. But I expect PARTICIPATION.
> 
> Think that you're married to someone who delegates everything to you. From raising your kids to helping with homework to fixing drywall to coaching you for the dream job you have. And as a show of appreciation, you get sh!t back.
> 
> I have done far more than I ever thought myself capable of doing. With sh!t to show for it.
> 
> The TAM blurbs on leadership and the like is to me -with all due respect - for Dilbert like parodies of real marriages. Real marriages have real issues and require real people, not Peter Drucker types to apply six sigma and seven signs of successful lolz and all that.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> This post is solely in my capacity as a contributor, NOT as a MOD.
> 
> John,
> You and I are very different.


I would hope so - I am not the type of poster to incite the wrath of moderators 

Of course we are different. That's the whole point!


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> "I know" is a bit different than "I dated" or "I married" or similar.
> 
> It also is different depending on age and context and number of years off the boat.
> 
> The more you don't know, the more you don't realize what you don't know.


What difference does it make? Are you trying to suggest that no one who grew up in theocracy can have a good marriage? Now it's my turn to LOL.

My only point was that you claim to know her inside out, yet expressed deep surprise at how awkward she was. Now you're telling me that *all* people who grew up in theocracies are awkward --if you know them well enough?

Makes no sense.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Never has the obvious been stated in a more elegant manner..
> 
> Typically, AA, if someone resents me or what not and I give a sh!t about the relationship and want a positive outcome, I will go out of my way to find out why and probably work to fix it.
> 
> Subject to me giving a sh!t of course.
> 
> BPD or culture has nothing to do with it. I have to give a sh!t about the relationship to start the process and stay in the process.


Oh, sorry, my mistake. I thought that when you were railing about indifference, refusal to engage, unwillingness to participate, you were talking about *her*.

And that it was a problem.


----------



## john117

They're not awkward when looked at from a similar culture but they are if they're looked at from a different - very different - culture....

In general, people coming from restrictive cultures for college and staying end up in either extreme - too much attached to the home culture or too quick to shed it. 

But I'm sure your vast experience with international college students in the USA tells you otherwise


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Oh, sorry, my mistake. I thought that when you were railing about indifference, refusal to engage, unwillingness to participate, you were talking about *her*.
> 
> And that it was a problem.


I inherited my superb verbal skills from my younger daughter - 800 verbal / 750 writing SAT and NMF. Such verbal prowess should readily tell you if I'm talking about me, her, or someone in general (hint: its not A or B )


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> They're not awkward when looked at from a similar culture but they are if they're looked at from a different - very different - culture....
> 
> In general, people coming from restrictive cultures for college and staying end up in either extreme - too much attached to the home culture or too quick to shed it.
> 
> But I'm sure your vast experience with international college students in the USA tells you otherwise


Yet, according to you, your wife was at maximum awkwardness when she was growing up in her home country, but you had no real idea of it while she was in the good ol' USA. Until you saw pictures from some 40 yeas ago.

But somehow this leads to grand generalizations about international students that you want to make, but are blaming me for?

I'm afraid it still makes no sense to me.


----------



## john117

Her USA awkwardness is fairly typical of most international students so I never thought much of it. We were all like that. Sh!t, many of us are still like that. Especially out of our culture element in an LTR or marriage to such a person. 

But awkwardness in your home country.. Very different. And notable. Transparency would have helped considerably of course but it only took three decades to tell me after the pictures were received.


----------



## john117

You need to understand that from a transparency point of view she pulled a fast one on me:

- mental illness rampant in family
- totally fvcked up relationship between parents
- totally fvcked up relationship between parents and children
- totally fvcked up relationship between children

All I learned the first couple years was that the father was a high functionary with the last dictator who survived when the new dictator cane along. That and the fact that she and dad lived all over the country one year at a time away from mom and siblings. 

After we got married more of the truth tricked out and the more I heard the more I did not like what I heard. I met her mom 23 years ago while we were expecting our first. Let's just say it was an eye opener. Then I met her father, who was a bit more normal at the time. After having those guys in my house on and off for months at a time things began to clarify... 

Expecting transparency in such a case is laughable. Did l screw up? Yea, big time - because I misunderestimated the impact of cultural differences and lack of historical knowledge.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
Perhaps the one observation JLD kept making that caused me no end of distress, was this: 

The real DOM is able to synchronize everyone else's emotional state with their own. And up until a few years ago M2 was able to propagate her - distressed - emotional state onto me and or the kids. Quickly and fairly easily. 

Took me well over a year to integrate the lessons of our MC, with that observation. 

There is no longer any doubt who's emotional state will prevail when M2 gets agitated, angry or is in some sort of determined button pushing mode becuase she dislikes what is happening. 

And for the record, screaming back at an upset person, is a pure sub move. Their emotional chaos has now become YOUR emotional chaos. You are now mimicking their behavior. They are leading, you are following. 

Just as walking out of the room is acknowledging ones inability to replace their agitation with your calm. Walking away is at minimum acknowledgement you aren't able to preserve an emotionally independent state. 

As for blaming that long list of cross cultural, intra-familial, socio econmical factors you reference, heck we could ALL do that. 

But then what? Because I don't know a person alive who could possibly traverse the complex multi-factor relationship/behavioral map you describe. I personally wouldn't have a hope in hell.

Fortunately, my coping mechanisms, are simple and have worked out pretty well. 

The main one is to build enough trust (thru compassion, acceptance, kindness and calm) so when I don't understand what I'm seeing, I can just ask. 

When I said we were different what I mainly meant was this. The stuff below comes natural to me, because I believe we are stronger as a team, and these cables bind us together:
- I need your help
- I'm sorry
- I was wrong
- I don't know





john117 said:


> You need to understand that from a transparency point of view she pulled a fast one on me:
> 
> - mental illness rampant in family
> - totally fvcked up relationship between parents
> - totally fvcked up relationship between parents and children
> - totally fvcked up relationship between children
> 
> All I learned the first couple years was that the father was a high functionary with the last dictator who survived when the new dictator cane along. That and the fact that she and dad lived all over the country one year at a time away from mom and siblings.
> 
> After we got married more of the truth tricked out and the more I heard the more I did not like what I heard. I met her mom 23 years ago while we were expecting our first. Let's just say it was an eye opener. Then I met her father, who was a bit more normal at the time. After having those guys in my house on and off for months at a time things began to clarify...
> 
> Expecting transparency in such a case is laughable. Did l screw up? Yea, big time - because I misunderestimated the impact of cultural differences and lack of historical knowledge.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> Perhaps the one observation JLD kept making that caused me no end of distress, was this:
> 
> The real DOM is able to synchronize everyone else's emotional state with their own. And up until a few years ago M2 was able to propagate her - distressed - emotional state onto me and or the kids. Quickly and fairly easily.
> 
> Took me well over a year to integrate the lessons of our MC, with that observation.
> 
> There is no longer any doubt who's emotional state will prevail when M2 gets agitated, angry or is in some sort of determined button pushing mode becuase she dislikes what is happening.
> 
> And for the record, screaming back at an upset person, is a pure sub move. Their emotional chaos has now become YOUR emotional chaos. You are now mimicking their behavior. They are leading, you are following.
> 
> Just as walking out of the room is acknowledging ones inability to replace their agitation with your calm. Walking away is at minimum acknowledgement you aren't able to preserve an emotionally independent state.
> 
> As for blaming that long list of cross cultural, intra-familial, socio econmical factors you reference, heck we could ALL do that.
> 
> But then what? Because I don't know a person alive who could possibly traverse the complex multi-factor relationship/behavioral map you describe. I personally wouldn't have a hope in hell.
> 
> Fortunately, my coping mechanisms, are simple and have worked out pretty well.
> 
> The main one is to build enough trust (thru compassion, acceptance, kindness and calm) so when I don't understand what I'm seeing, I can just ask.
> 
> When I said we were different what I mainly meant was this. The stuff below comes natural to me, because I believe we are stronger as a team, and these cables bind us together:
> - I need your help
> - I'm sorry
> - I was wrong
> - I don't know


That's the script from BPDfamily.com as well, MEM. Validation, radical acceptance, unicorns, the works. Tried it for quite a while.

It does NOT work on the more spirited or highly functional BPD's. BPDfamily is full of desperate people at the end of their rope who never quite figured this out.

Your approach is valid if your partner has the ability to regulate their emotions and self soothe. That is plain and simple. I followed this compassion filled unicorny approach and it did not work. For years. End of story. I kept a journal documenting my experience. Call it a lab notebook. Noted frequency, intensity, duration, triggers, my responses, outcomes, etc. 

What was a resounding success was to simply match her behavior tit for tat and make it clear that she wasn't going to have it her way. See, MEM, BPD's wear out after rages. Eventually one side has to give. I didn't do it for myself but to protect my older girl who was generally the trigger. 

All this while supporting her during some very emotionally draining times at work and back home and wasting thousands of hours doing CBT with her. 

The end result is going from multiple rages per week to one or two a year. 

I've written about all this in the past. In even more detail. And all the way to after I came to TAM I thought I could fix things. I now know better.


----------



## farsidejunky

Based on what I have read, M2 does not self soothe.

Mem's demeanor is what soothes her.

John, I am not saying your problem is fixable, or even worth fixing. But the last few posts Mem has made to you have been gems. 

Your only response to those gems has been why they can't work, not how they could. Or, how they could potentially work in your next relationship (with the intern).

John, what does that say about you? At some point, don't you see it is a self fulfilling prophecy?



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Expecting transparency in such a case is laughable. Did l screw up? Yea, big time - because I misunderestimated the impact of cultural differences and lack of historical knowledge.


I see where you're coming from. Neither one of you ever had transparency, why would you start now?

But for the most part, I see this as arguments *for* transparency, not against it. But yes, from the get go, not when you've already signed off and given up.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> And for the record, screaming back at an upset person, is a pure sub move. Their emotional chaos has now become YOUR emotional chaos. You are now mimicking their behavior. They are leading, you are following.
> 
> Just as walking out of the room is acknowledging ones inability to replace their agitation with your calm. Walking away is at minimum acknowledgement you aren't able to preserve an emotionally independent state.


I'm a little skeptical of this whole DOM stuff too, MEM, to be honest.

I absolutely believe, as I was saying earlier, that each person contributes to the dynamic. And I absolutely believe that someone who truly is dom over a sub will have very great influence. I do not think this needs to or even should characterize every relationship.

Personally, my willingness to tolerate someone raging at me is limited. Does my walking away demonstrate that I can't replace their agitation with my calm? Perhaps. But I do not, I guess, feel the responsibility to manage that, or to put up with it.

For me it has nothing to do with rewards, punishments, managing, power plays. Just what I personally can bear.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> I see where you're coming from. Neither one of you ever had transparency, why would you start now?
> 
> But for the most part, I see this as arguments *for* transparency, not against it. But yes, from the get go, not when you've already signed off and given up.


More horse apples as Alfred P. Sloan would say.

I'm largely the same person I was 40 years ago, just 20 lb rounder. j2 traveled to my home country and met my family long before I met hers. My country people are fairly up front and what you see is what you get. She was welcome with open arms by everyone. She saw how I was raised including my village, my high school, my college, many childhood friends, and the like. I took her to all my favorite places including the spots in the village we used to hang out with the ladies 

If that's not transparency I don't know what is.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I'm a little skeptical of this whole DOM stuff too, MEM, to be honest.
> 
> I absolutely believe, as I was saying earlier, that each person contributes to the dynamic. And I absolutely believe that someone who truly is dom over a sub will have very great influence. I do not think this needs to or even should characterize every relationship.
> 
> Personally, my willingness to tolerate someone raging at me is limited. Does my walking away demonstrate that I can't replace their agitation with my calm? Perhaps. But I do not, I guess, feel the responsibility to manage that, or to put up with it.
> 
> For me it has nothing to do with rewards, punishments, managing, power plays. Just what I personally can bear.


It is powerful when you can. It makes you the dominant to be able to stay in the ring, calm, and soothing, backed up by solid arguments, while others are spinning out of control with their emotions and illogical reasoning.

But you have to feel the person or people you are doing it for are worth it. You really have to care about them.

It is hard for me to do it. Very stressful. 

And would not be worth it to me in a marriage. I expect to be taken care of there. That is what earns my trust.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> More horse apples as Alfred P. Sloan would say.
> 
> I'm largely the same person I was 40 years ago, just 20 lb rounder. j2 traveled to my home country and met my family long before I met hers. My country people are fairly up front and what you see is what you get. She was welcome with open arms by everyone. She saw how I was raised including my village, my high school, my college, many childhood friends, and the like. I took her to all my favorite places including the spots in the village we used to hang out with the ladies
> 
> If that's not transparency I don't know what is.


That may be outer transparency. We are talking about inner transparency here. What is in your deepest heart.


----------



## john117

farsidejunky said:


> Based on what I have read, M2 does not self soothe.
> 
> Mem's demeanor is what soothes her.
> 
> John, I am not saying your problem is fixable, or even worth fixing. But the last few posts Mem has made to you have been gems.
> 
> Your only response to those gems has been why they can't work, not how they could. Or, how they could potentially work in your next relationship (with the intern).
> 
> John, what does that say about you? At some point, don't you see it is a self fulfilling prophecy?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


One has to be able to self soothe before "allowing" themselves to be comforted by someone else's actions or words.

The best ways to self soothe involve accepting ones own vulnerabilities and working with them first and allowing oneself to be comforted. 

Read up on emotional regulation. There's some pretty basic patterns of behaviors involved.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> One has to be able to self soothe before "allowing" themselves to be comforted by someone else's actions or words.


False.



> *The best ways to self soothe involve accepting ones own vulnerabilities and working with them first *and allowing oneself to be comforted.
> 
> Read up on emotional regulation. There's some pretty basic patterns of behaviors involved.


I agree with the bolded. But if she can self soothe, why does she need you?


----------



## farsidejunky

john117 said:


> One has to be able to self soothe before "allowing" themselves to be comforted by someone else's actions or words.
> 
> The best ways to self soothe involve accepting ones own vulnerabilities and working with them first and allowing oneself to be comforted.
> 
> Read up on emotional regulation. There's some pretty basic patterns of behaviors involved.


Is that written somewhere? Was that on the third tablet that Moses carried off the mountain but got dropped and broken in History of the World?

"Thou shalt not be soothed by others lest you first be soothed by thyself."

I don't have a PhD, but I can clearly see this is bull shyte from a mile away.

F2 does not self soothe well. Yet, I still seem to be able to soothe her. M2 is the same way. Many others I have read about here

John, your problem is seeking out and applying "patterns" to retroactively fit your situation in order to justify inaction.

But hey, your clowns, your circus.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> Perhaps the one observation JLD kept making that caused me no end of distress, was this:
> 
> The real DOM is able to synchronize everyone else's emotional state with their own. And up until a few years ago M2 was able to propagate her - distressed - emotional state onto me and or the kids. Quickly and fairly easily.
> 
> Took me well over a year to integrate the lessons of our MC, with that observation.
> 
> There is no longer any doubt who's emotional state will prevail when M2 gets agitated, angry or is in some sort of determined button pushing mode becuase she dislikes what is happening.
> 
> And for the record, screaming back at an upset person, is a pure sub move. Their emotional chaos has now become YOUR emotional chaos. You are now mimicking their behavior. They are leading, you are following.
> 
> Just as walking out of the room is acknowledging ones inability to replace their agitation with your calm. Walking away is at minimum acknowledgement you aren't able to preserve an emotionally independent state.
> 
> As for blaming that long list of cross cultural, intra-familial, socio econmical factors you reference, heck we could ALL do that.
> 
> But then what? Because I don't know a person alive who could possibly traverse the complex multi-factor relationship/behavioral map you describe. I personally wouldn't have a hope in hell.
> 
> Fortunately, my coping mechanisms, are simple and have worked out pretty well.
> 
> The main one is to build enough trust (thru compassion, acceptance, kindness and calm) so when I don't understand what I'm seeing, I can just ask.
> 
> When I said we were different what I mainly meant was this. The stuff below comes natural to me, because I believe we are stronger as a team, and these cables bind us together:
> - I need your help
> - I'm sorry
> - I was wrong
> - I don't know


Totally disagree that walking away is saying I can't stay calm here with you. 

With my wife, the calmer I get in her presence, the more she escalates. Because she's actually seeking an emotional reaction that validates her internal experience and ego. 

Exploding back actually calms her down but terrifies her. 

Walking away allows her to release the energy herself and is an expression of "I will not be your emotional punching bag."

Because that's what I become when she's escalating and I'm maintaining calm. 

You must however walk away just after saying that you're going to walk away and it will be discussed when she is capable of calming herself.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

farsidejunky said:


> Is that written somewhere? Was that on the third tablet that Moses carried off the mountain but got dropped and broken in History of the World?
> 
> "Thou shalt not be soothed by others lest you first be soothed by thyself."
> 
> I don't have a PhD, but I can clearly see this is bull shyte from a mile away.
> 
> F2 does not self soothe well. Yet, I still seem to be able to soothe her. M2 is the same way. Many others I have read about here
> 
> John, your problem is seeking out and applying "patterns" to retroactively fit your situation in order to justify inaction.
> 
> But hey, your clowns, your circus.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I'm glad you understand my situation better than I do 

What makes you think that if someone can't regulate their own emotions they will allow someone else to help them regulate their emotions???

I mean, dude, use some common sense here. Its not like walking where if you can't walk on your own some one else can help you walk. The ability to regulate emotions is seriously impaired in BPD people, and it is this ability to regulate emotions that allows people to self soothe. 

I'm speaking from experience here as always. The moment there's an issue she comes to me for "support" which I provide but since she can't do it on her own it doesn't matter what I do or tell her. It's all downhill if I'm not there.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Totally disagree that walking away is saying I can't stay calm here with you.
> 
> With my wife, the calmer I get in her presence, the more she escalates. Because she's actually seeking an emotional reaction that validates her internal experience and ego.
> 
> Exploding back actually calms her down but terrifies her.
> 
> Walking away allows her to release the energy herself and is an expression of "I will not be your emotional punching bag."
> 
> Because that's what I become when she's escalating and I'm maintaining calm.
> 
> You must however walk away just after saying that you're going to walk away and it will be discussed when she is capable of calming herself.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think if you could maintain calm consistently, and by that I mean a *genuine* calm, Marduk, based on compassion and commitment to her, the escalation would stop.

Eventually she would have no one to fight against but herself. She would face her emotions, and remorse would set in.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I'm glad you understand my situation better than I do
> 
> What makes you think that if someone can't regulate their own emotions they will allow someone else to help them regulate their emotions???
> 
> I mean, dude, use some common sense here. Its not like walking where if you can't walk on your own some one else can help you walk. The ability to regulate emotions is seriously impaired in BPD people, and it is this ability to regulate emotions that allows people to self soothe.
> 
> I'm speaking from experience here as always. The moment there's an issue she comes to me for "support" which I provide but since she can't do it on her own it doesn't matter what I do or tell her. It's all downhill if I'm not there.


It is your choice whether or not to do it, John. But it does work.

It would require genuineness on your part, though. You would have to genuinely care about her. More than about yourself.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> It is your choice whether or not to do it, John. But it does work.
> 
> It would require genuineness on your part, though. You would have to genuinely care about her. More than about yourself.


If I didn't care about her I'd be LONG gone.

But you knew this already.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> If I didn't care about her I'd be LONG gone.
> 
> But you knew this already.


Are you going to stay then?

Dug thinks you will.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> It is powerful when you can. It makes you the dominant to be able to stay in the ring, calm, and soothing, backed up by solid arguments, while others are spinning out of control with their emotions and illogical reasoning.
> 
> But you have to feel the person or people you are doing it for are worth it. You really have to care about them.
> 
> It is hard for me to do it. Very stressful.
> 
> And would not be worth it to me in a marriage. I expect to be taken care of there. That is what earns my trust.


JLd, IRL I am the rock (except perhaps when I'm annoying people by challenging them). I have been told this time and time again by work colleagues, by friends, by even random strangers. They like me because they feel calmed by me, centered, at peace.

This doesn't mean, however, that I want to hang around while someone is losing it all over the place. There is only so much patience I have before I feel like the life is being sucked out of me, and they are quite capable of raging by themselves. They don't need my help, and I feel absolutely no compunction to take responsibility or become "dominant". 

I, of course, am very different from you, and am not particularly good at taking care of others, and certainly don't expect anyone to take care of me.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> If I didn't care about her I'd be LONG gone.
> 
> But you knew this already.


John, you are full of the most marvelous contradictions.  Exactly the sort of contradictions I'd expect from someone who is determined to see himself as hyper-rational in all ways.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> JLd, IRL I am the rock (except perhaps when I'm annoying people by challenging them). I have been told this time and time again by work colleagues, by friends, by even random strangers. They like me because they feel calmed by me, centered, at peace.
> 
> This doesn't mean, however, that I want to hang around while someone is losing it all over the place. There is only so much patience I have before I feel like the life is being sucked out of me, and they are quite capable of raging by themselves. They don't need my help, and I feel absolutely no compunction to take responsibility or become "dominant".
> 
> I, of course, am very different from you, and *am not particularly good at taking care of others,* and certainly don't expect anyone to take care of me.


Hon, if you are doing what you describe in the first paragraph, you are _very_ good at taking care of others!


----------



## john117

If she gets me a pair of Maine *****...

As I said the issue is long term finances and planning / lifestyle / vision issues, not sex five times a week vs five times a year. We have had a lot of (dead cat bounce?) progress but I know better than to trust a cat bounce, alive or not. 

And I'm being very transparent about it all. She knows I expect effort and commitment from her. I have demonstrated both in ample quantity and quality over the past three decades, its time for her to step up to the plate as well.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> John, you are full of the most marvelous contradictions.  Exactly the sort of contradictions I'd expect from someone who is determined to see himself as hyper-rational in all ways.


It is okay to just say you are hurt, John. We all feel that way sometimes.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> If she gets me a pair of Maine *****...
> 
> As I said the issue is long term finances and planning / lifestyle / vision issues, not sex five times a week vs five times a year. We have had a lot of (dead cat bounce?) progress but I know better than to trust a cat bounce, alive or not.
> 
> And I'm being very transparent about it all. She knows I expect effort and commitment from her. I have demonstrated both in ample quantity and quality over the past three decades, its time for her to step up to the plate as well.


How does it help you to leave her? What do you gain?


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Hon, if you are doing what you describe in the first paragraph, you are _very_ good at taking care of others!


Only so far as just being me is "taking care". Which it isn't really. I calm other people only because I myself am calm. They feel grounded by me because I am grounded. I don't actually do anything.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Only so far as just being me is "taking care". Which it isn't really. I calm other people only because I myself am calm. They feel grounded by me because I am grounded. I don't actually do anything.


A natural talent.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> How does it help you to leave her? What do you gain?


My goodness this should be a sticky post 

- financially we are headed to a cliff once DD20 heads to medical or law school while maintaining the McMansion. She refuses to sell.

- lifestyle wise she wants an even bigger place for retirement. Completely impractical.

- she wants no part in my plan of traveling to see the world and I want no part in her plan of playing geezer with McMansion. 

- health wise I'm more likely to need her support than she does. Let's say what I've seen with eye surgery didn't thrill me.

- zero common interests overall

- copious amounts of resentment and mistrust from years past unlikely to be resolved

- justice / revenge / insert euphemism here

She knows all of the above. In our "good" days we had much more aligned future plans but after a dozen years living the high life things changed.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think if you could maintain calm consistently, and by that I mean a *genuine* calm, Marduk, based on compassion and commitment to her, the escalation would stop.
> 
> Eventually she would have no one to fight against but herself. She would face her emotions, and remorse would set in.


That's how she gets wound up, jld. She becomes a closed loop, emotionally -- a fire that feeds itself because it has nowhere to go -- and yet is fueled because the perceived source of the anger is still there to fight with.

And she finds it infuriating. When she is angry she does not want compassion. She wants to fight, and to inflict injury.


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,

I've had both experiences. I will explain the delta best I can. 

All I'm saying here is that this was completely true for me. 

Experience 1:
Dead calm: M2 is desperately trying to escalate and getting more and more agitated that I'm calm. The staying calm thing - IS - consuming some effort and energy. 

AND there IS an important polarity thing going on here. In these situations, I'm focused on me. On staying calm. 

I believe that at some level I'm thinking: I'm married to a mad woman. 

Experience 2: 
This my man is totally and completely different. My focus is solely on M2. I'm not exerting any energy to stay calm cause I KNOW it's not about me. 

I'm not keeping calm. I AM calm. Big difference. And in that state I'm trying to help M2. 

-----------------
It's very rare for someone to sustain or escalate a melt down when they are face to face with genuine, calm concern. 

And my ONLY assumption is that: Something feels really bad to M2, and if I can get her to tell me what it is, maybe I can help her.

That's it. There is no: crazy, bad wife, negative assumption stuff. 







marduk said:


> Totally disagree that walking away is saying I can't stay calm here with you.
> 
> With my wife, the calmer I get in her presence, the more she escalates. Because she's actually seeking an emotional reaction that validates her internal experience and ego.
> 
> Exploding back actually calms her down but terrifies her.
> 
> Walking away allows her to release the energy herself and is an expression of "I will not be your emotional punching bag."
> 
> Because that's what I become when she's escalating and I'm maintaining calm.
> 
> You must however walk away just after saying that you're going to walk away and it will be discussed when she is capable of calming herself.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> I've had both experiences. I will explain the delta best I can.
> 
> All I'm saying here is that this was completely true for me.
> 
> Experience 1:
> Dead calm: M2 is desperately trying to escalate and getting more and more agitated that I'm calm. The staying calm thing - IS - consuming some effort and energy.
> 
> AND there IS an important polarity thing going on here. In these situations, I'm focused on me. On staying calm.
> 
> I believe that at some level I'm thinking: I'm married to a mad woman.
> 
> Experience 2:
> This my man is totally and completely different. My focus is solely on M2. I'm not exerting any energy to stay calm cause I KNOW it's not about me.
> 
> I'm not keeping calm. I AM calm. Big difference. And in that state I'm trying to help M2.
> 
> -----------------
> It's very rare for someone to sustain or escalate a melt down when they are face to face with genuine, calm concern.
> 
> And my ONLY assumption is that: Something feels really bad to M2, and if I can get her to tell me what it is, maybe I can help her.
> 
> That's it. There is no: crazy, bad wife, negative assumption stuff.


My wife interprets #2 as an insult.

She's like me: if you're gonna fight, then damn well drop the gloves. Don't patronize me.

It makes it worse. For my wife, anyway. Took me years to figure that out.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> It's very rare for someone to sustain or escalate a melt down when they are face to face with genuine, calm concern.


I was hoping to spend another hour playing with the cat but the above deserves a response...

The above is wrong from my experience at least. Marduk pointed out some people feed on anger I've seen occasions when I would calmly walk away from a rage only to come back an hour later and see the situation has escalated. Some people (who?) get the behavioral clues right and get on with the program while others (many) don't. 

And that's NormalPeople (tm). Notnormalpeople (tm) esp BPD's trigger abandonment which can make things even worse. 

Staying calm and focusing on the person raging needs works a few times till it becomes the new status quo. [Need something done now? Call 1-800-RAGE-NOW and a trained rage delivery professional will rage in your behalf.] Eventually you make it all to be about them (as per your words of apology, what can I do to fix it, and other words of appeasement)

Once raging vs calm becomes the new normal the other person will (a) seek to escalate the intensity or (b) increase the frequency or (c) use the by now successful techniques in new scenarios.

At that point MEM, you can play Mother Theresa and its too late. You're teaching the other person that your key responsibilities include being a counselor, soothsayer, and the like. They have no motive to improve.

If your experience is different then your initial problem was likely not the same.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> I was hoping to spend another hour playing with the cat but the above deserves a response...
> 
> The above is wrong. Marduk pointed out some people feed on anger. I've seen occasions when I would calmly walk away from a rage only to come back an hour later and see the situation has escalated. Some people (who?) get the behavioral clues right and get on with the program while others (many) don't.
> 
> And that's NormalPeople (tm). Notnormalpeople (tm) esp BPD's trigger abandonment which can make things even worse.
> 
> Staying calm and focusing on the person raging needs works a few times till it becomes the new status quo. [Need something done now? Call 1-800-RAGE-NOW and a trained rage delivery professional will rage in your behalf.] Eventually you make it all to be about them (as per your words of apology, what can I do to fix it, and other words of appeasement)
> 
> Once raging vs calm becomes the new normal the other person will (a) seek to escalate the intensity or (b) increase the frequency or (c) use the by now successful techniques in new scenarios.
> 
> At that point MEM, you can play Mother Theresa and its too late. You're teaching the other person that your key responsibilities include being a counselor, soothsayer, and the like. They have no motive to improve.


_Exactly._

I wish it were different. I've spent years trying to reverse engineer the dynamic. To decompile the code. 

It is not going to happen. In MC it was a particular area of focus -- and why we now have our "time out" strategy that allows her to regain composure without torpedoing the relationship (i.e. scream names, throw stuff, threaten divorce), but her abandonment does not get triggered either (it's for a specified time period and IT'S NOT OVER.)

She gets flooded, she feels pain, and she externalizes it into hurt. She specifically wants to inflict maximum damage to make the flooding stop. She will come up with any way to do that, and she's very creative and smart.

But here's the thing: she honestly can't help it. I can't expect her to. But what I can expect her to do is take a few hours or a day to process it and get to a place where she can be more objective. That's all.

Me being in her face about it denies her that ability. And by "in her face" I mean being present or seeking to engage her on it before she's ready. 

Same goes for me reversed, although far less often.


----------



## always_alone

MEM: Just as an angry MEM can be a stupid MEM, other people get stupid when angry too. The more enraged, the more stupid. For some, it is about lashing out, causing as much possible pain in another as "punishment" for the pain they feel, or as a "misery loves company" kind of thing. Others need to push buttons, are actively looking to provoke a reaction, and can be remarkably persistent in this, especially if they have succeeded before. Provoking the reaction proves they still have power.

Although I actually agree very much with what you are saying, I think it absolutely has to be an authentic calm, where there are no buttons to be pushed, or where it is understood that the desire to inflict pain will not have the hoped for effect, but --and this is very important -- this does not mean that you are utterly indifferent, don't care, or are enjoying their misery. Also, just as you want your 5 to 60 minutes to pull yourself together, others too often want a bit of space to process their rage, and put it into perspective.

Marduk, that your wife feels patronized by your unwillingness to engage says a lot to me about your demeanor to her. No one likes to be patronized, and indeed it can be a huge trigger for more rage. As can this whole "reverse engineer" thing. I've been trying to convince john of this for ages, but he's not buying it: no one likes to be a lab rat. And being treated like one also feeds rage.


----------



## jld

I don't have the feeling there is much trust in your marriage, Marduk.


----------



## john117

AA,

authentic calm and the rest of the stuff loses its appeal after a few times. 

I found far more success by manipulation (filter out information she won't bother with anyway) and mitigation than by any efforts to play zen master.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> AA,
> 
> authentic calm and the rest of the stuff loses its appeal after a few times.
> 
> I found far more success by manipulation (filter out information she won't bother with anyway) and mitigation than by any efforts to play zen master.


We'll have to agree to disagree then. Because you'll never convince me that treating someone like a lab rat is calming to them. I've no doubt that manipulation can take you so far. But people know when they are being manipulated and patronized, and they don't respond well. I've seen it in people who are so mentally challenged that others believe they don't even have the capacity to notice the difference--yet they do. I've seen it in those who are disempowered, in the mentally ill, in children, in adults. 

And there is no doubt in my mind that people respond favorably to genuine calm and genuine respect.


----------



## Marduk

It's daddy stuff @always_alone.

Reverse engineering it was an attempt at compassion; an attempt to hack the unhackable -- childhood trauma.

Her dad essentially would go from zero to 100% rage. 99.9% of the time she'd get a zero emotional response, which triggers rage on her part just trying to get through to him.

The .1% of the time resulting in 100% rage on his part triggered a terror response from her -- either fight or flight.

Calm compassion makes me essentially become her dad. So does anger back, but it sometimes triggers a calmer response which ends in flight when it doesn't trigger a thermonuclear response.

After much, much therapy... it's not gonna change. She knows the issue, and so do I. 

She's happer with a pissed off but respectful withdrawl on my part, and so am I.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree then. Because you'll never convince me that treating someone like a lab rat is calming to them. I've no doubt that manipulation can take you so far. But people know when they are being manipulated and patronized, and they don't respond well. I've seen it in people who are so mentally challenged that others believe they don't even have the capacity to notice the difference--yet they do. I've seen it in those who are disempowered, in the mentally ill, in children, in adults.
> 
> And there is no doubt in my mind that people respond favorably to genuine calm and genuine respect.


If they don't know they're treated like lab rats... What I refer to as manipulation is really opaqueness - filter out undesirable or stressful issues and handle them yourself - pretty quickly you're dad as well as husband.

People do respond favorably to genuine calm and genuine respect. For the first fifty times at least  after that it's a free for all..


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> A natural talent.


Well, in the interest of transparency, let me just add that this is an "on balance" kind of thing. It's not like I don't lose my sh1t from time to time.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> If they don't know they're treated like lab rats...


They know. That's my point. They always know.

So many times you have told me how oblivious your wife is. But she knows too.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> It's daddy stuff @always_alone.
> 
> Reverse engineering it was an attempt at compassion; an attempt to hack the unhackable -- childhood trauma.
> 
> Her dad essentially would go from zero to 100% rage. 99.9% of the time she'd get a zero emotional response, which triggers rage on her part just trying to get through to him.
> 
> The .1% of the time resulting in 100% rage on his part triggered a terror response from her -- either fight or flight.
> 
> Calm compassion makes me essentially become her dad. So does anger back, but it sometimes triggers a calmer response which ends in flight when it doesn't trigger a thermonuclear response.
> 
> After much, much therapy... it's not gonna change. She knows the issue, and so do I.
> 
> She's happer with a pissed off but respectful withdrawl on my part, and so am I.


What that tells me is that she is deliberately provoking a reaction, and success allows her to feel empowered and so defuse.

As long as you have something that works for both of you, that you both understand, why not? No problem!

But I would also say that there is a huge difference between calm and imperviousness. One is soothing, the other is as aggravating as stonewalling. And it troubles me that you view comoassion as "reverse engineering". That is at base manipulative, not real calm.

Isn't it?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> They know. That's my point. They always know.
> 
> So many times you have told me how oblivious your wife is. But she knows too.


Just like the rats she may know but she also knows what's good for her


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> What that tells me is that she is deliberately provoking a reaction, and success allows her to feel empowered and so defuse.
> 
> As long as you have something that works for both of you, that you both understand, why not? No problem!
> 
> But I would also say that there is a huge difference between calm and imperviousness. One is soothing, the other is as aggravating as stonewalling. And it troubles me that you view comoassion as "reverse engineering". That is at base manipulative, not real calm.
> 
> Isn't it?


Hmm. Maybe. 

In my defence I will say it was an enactment of last resort. I.e. We've talk until we're blue in the face, tried all kinds of "fighting fair" and failed, and been on the brink of divorce. I had to do something.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

always_alone said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree then. Because you'll never convince me that treating someone like a lab rat is calming to them. I've no doubt that manipulation can take you so far. But people know when they are being manipulated and patronized, and they don't respond well. I've seen it in people who are so mentally challenged that others believe they don't even have the capacity to notice the difference--yet they do. I've seen it in those who are disempowered, in the mentally ill, in children, in adults.
> 
> And there is no doubt in my mind that people respond favorably to genuine calm and genuine respect.


the lab rat deal is all about how much genuine input the lab rat has in the process


----------



## jld

Marduk and John, you both seem to be in low trust, high manipulation marriages. Just out of curiosity, what drew you to a thread on transparency?

To me, high trust/no manipulation/totally transparent marriage is the way to go. I don't see myself managing in any other kind. I have a hard time envisioning any other kind.

So I often find myself drawing a blank on the descriptions of how your marriages operate. For example, "reverse engineering"? And scantron sheets to represent a wife?

I don't know if these things are way over my head or they are just complicated explanations for something much simpler, but painful and maybe embarrassing to admit. 

In a thread on transparency, it might be easier if everyone would just be . . . transparent.


----------



## Marduk

Lol. 

No, jld.


----------



## john117

spotthedeaddog said:


> the lab rat deal is all about how much genuine input the lab rat has in the process


He has plenty of input. That's the whole point.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,

Yes - to the lashing out.
Yes - to the escalating button pushing, especially to the feeling of power.

Quintuple yes to the authentic calm. This isn't about restraint. It isn't about maintaining a facade of calm over irritation or anger. This is what you reference as authentic calm. 

And what comes from that is genuine compassion. Sincere recognition your partner is in a bad state. And they are merely trying to feel - less bad. 

And that calm concerned - is there anything I can do to help - produces the most amazing results. 

As far as space goes - yes to that as well. If M2 needs a few minutes, that is fine by me. 

She's usually patient with me when I need a few minutes. 




always_alone said:


> MEM: Just as an angry MEM can be a stupid MEM, other people get stupid when angry too. The more enraged, the more stupid. For some, it is about lashing out, causing as much possible pain in another as "punishment" for the pain they feel, or as a "misery loves company" kind of thing. Others need to push buttons, are actively looking to provoke a reaction, and can be remarkably persistent in this, especially if they have succeeded before. Provoking the reaction proves they still have power.
> 
> Although I actually agree very much with what you are saying, I think it absolutely has to be an authentic calm, where there are no buttons to be pushed, or where it is understood that the desire to inflict pain will not have the hoped for effect, but --and this is very important -- this does not mean that you are utterly indifferent, don't care, or are enjoying their misery. Also, just as you want your 5 to 60 minutes to pull yourself together, others too often want a bit of space to process their rage, and put it into perspective.
> 
> Marduk, that your wife feels patronized by your unwillingness to engage says a lot to me about your demeanor to her. No one likes to be patronized, and indeed it can be a huge trigger for more rage. As can this whole "reverse engineer" thing. I've been trying to convince john of this for ages, but he's not buying it: no one likes to be a lab rat. And being treated like one also feeds rage.


----------



## john117

Trust? 

When I was younger I used to trust people. That ended about the age of 12. I've seen - and understood - a lot of crap in 5 plus decades and I could be married to the best person I could pick and still would do it the same way.

Fundamentally a marriage is a business. In business you trust enough to get the job done. If you think marriage is all about unicorny stuff ask anybody who got divorced. It's a business.

I can only unconditionally love my parents my kids and my pets . A wife is not my own blood - insert Kentucky joke - so she's subject to business rules. As am I.

Thanksgiving going well. The 15 pound cat hasn't attacked the food yet and J2 has been exceptionally good.


----------



## jld

I hear obfuscation and pride protection.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Trust?
> 
> When I was younger I used to trust people. That ended about the age of 12. I've seen - and understood - a lot of crap in 5 plus decades and I could be married to the best person I could pick and still would do it the same way.
> 
> Fundamentally a marriage is a business. In business you trust enough to get the job done. If you think marriage is all about unicorny stuff ask anybody who got divorced. It's a business.
> 
> I can only unconditionally love my parents my kids and my pets . A wife is not my own blood - insert Kentucky joke - so she's subject to business rules. As am I.
> 
> Thanksgiving going well. The 15 pound cat hasn't attacked the food yet and J2 has been exceptionally good.


Because she is under threat. Fear is a poor motivator. But whatever.

Yes, part of marriage is a practical arrangement. But that seems out of place in a thread on transparency.

You two are basically here to say why transparency is a fool's errand?

Yet some people have said it has helped their marriages. Some are intrigued by it. And for mine, it is fundamental.


----------



## john117

Transparency is useful in many marriages. But there are other options as well as reasons where its not practical.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Transparency is useful in many marriages. But there are other options as well as reasons where its not practical.


But that is when you are left with only the practical arrangement, John. How cold and meaningless.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I hear obfuscation and pride protection.


 My reality or Marduk's reality aren't your or AA's or MEM's reality. Plus many of us don't worry about pride all that much.


----------



## jld

John, underneath it all, I think you have a good heart. You are hurt, for sure. But there is love there. That encourages me. It redeems you.


----------



## john117

Of course there is love. But its kinda like fractions. It cancels out.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Of course there is love. But its kinda like fractions. It cancels out.


It must be very painful to be all out of love, John.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Of course there is love. But its kinda like fractions. It cancels out.


Just thinking about this some more . . . I don't know, John. I don't know if it cancels out.

Five and a half years ago I left my family, at the urging of my husband and daughter. They said my family did not respect me.

I am the youngest, by a good number of years, of eleven kids (big Catholic family). I had spoken up for some poorer family members regarding a family event, and the richer members were offended by the idea that they were somehow in the wrong.

Last month I went back, for my mother's funeral. I saw nieces and nephews I had not seen in ten or twenty years, siblings in six or seven. A long time.

I love them. I love them so much. I always did. But I was just so hurt. And I had accepted the influence of my husband and daughter. 

But they did not grow up with my family. And my kids are being raised very differently than I was.

Being away had its merits. I don't know if I could have grown without the experience. Coming to TAM really helped. All the opposition has strengthened me. I was prepared for the funeral, with ten inches of "steel-thick" skin. 

What I was not prepared for was all the love and compassion from my family. They really missed me. And they really love me.

I wish we could have worked things out five and a half years ago. I wish I had not fled. Ultimately, fleeing is cowardly. Debating an issue passionately and transparently, even if you have to ultimately agree to disagree, is much better.

So I don't know if love really gets cancelled out. I wonder if it is still there, but we are just in denial of it, because of the pain that accompanies it.


----------



## john117

Now you see why I make the distinction of blood relatives... 

Five years ago J2's mother passed. She went back for the first time in years and she encountered the exact opposite of what you encountered. Greedy relatives making a grab from the rich American.

The piece de resistance was J2's mother having changed her will to ensure probate - what passes for such - was totally hosed. Five years later it still is in the courts.

No love left there. Just maximum hurt.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

That's not quite true though. At least not for you and not for me. This is a point of similarity I'm certain of. 

If I rewind your marriage to a point in time before the troubles, it was a very different thing - to you. I construct a scenario back then where - a car accident leaves J2 permanently incapacitated. A situation where if it's just a pure give and take business arrangement, the rational move is for you to walk. 

You wouldn't have done that. And not because of how it would have looked to the girls. 




john117 said:


> Trust?
> 
> When I was younger I used to trust people. That ended about the age of 12. I've seen - and understood - a lot of crap in 5 plus decades and I could be married to the best person I could pick and still would do it the same way.
> 
> Fundamentally a marriage is a business. In business you trust enough to get the job done. If you think marriage is all about unicorny stuff ask anybody who got divorced. It's a business.
> 
> I can only unconditionally love my parents my kids and my pets . A wife is not my own blood - insert Kentucky joke - so she's subject to business rules. As am I.
> 
> Thanksgiving going well. The 15 pound cat hasn't attacked the food yet and J2 has been exceptionally good.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Now you see why I make the distinction of blood relatives...
> 
> Five years ago J2's mother passed. She went back for the first time in years and she encountered the exact opposite of what you encountered. Greedy relatives making a grab from the rich American.
> 
> The piece de resistance was J2's mother having changed her will to ensure probate - what passes for such - was totally hosed. Five years later it still is in the courts.
> 
> No love left there. Just maximum hurt.


It must be hard to be from a rich family. Or a purely materialistic family, period.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> That's not quite true though. At least not for you and not for me. This is a point of similarity I'm certain of.
> 
> If I rewind your marriage to a point in time before the troubles, it was a very different thing - to you. I construct a scenario back then where - a car accident leaves J2 permanently incapacitated. A situation where if it's just a pure give and take business arrangement, the rational move is for you to walk.
> 
> You wouldn't have done that. And not because of how it would have looked to the girls.


No, I don't think so. There's a difference between rational decision making and contract law. One doesn't walk away from obligations because its the smart thing to do.

This is enforced thru contingency clauses, escape clauses, nonperforming penalties, and a myriad other reasons the legal profession is using to stay busy 

The terms should be applicable to both parties and known to both parties for maximum transparency


----------



## john117

jld said:


> It must be hard to be from a rich family. Or a purely materialistic family, period.


That was another of my mistakes .


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> Reaction implies action. Think Fred Astaire and what's her name. If you think only your actions are necessary and sufficient...


Ginger Rogers.


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> The test at the link posted is not quite as accurate as the official one. I did the link posted and it put me halfway between ENTP & ENTJ. The official test which I've done twice at work was solid ENTP.
> 
> Pretty good for a quick test.


And the price is right too!


----------



## tech-novelist

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> The exact same stuff we used to fight (in an uncivilized way) over, we now laugh about.
> 
> I'm not talking about laughing about old fights. I'm talking - we start to have some conflict over something NOW - and the next thing I know we are both laughing.


I understand that happens a lot more these days in Colorado and Washington. >


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> *I inherited my superb verbal skills from my younger daughter* - 800 verbal / 750 writing SAT and NMF. Such verbal prowess should readily tell you if I'm talking about me, her, or someone in general (hint: its not A or B )


Wow, *that *is amazing even for you. Can I get your autograph? >


----------



## jld

technovelist said:


> And the price is right too!


I tested infp on that one. The one a few months ago said infj.

How about you, technovelist?


----------



## tech-novelist

jld said:


> I tested infp on that one. The one a few months ago said infj.
> 
> How about you, technovelist?


ENTP on every Jungian personality test I've ever taken since I found out about MBTI.

The strength of the preferences differs, though I'm almost 100% N on most of them.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> I hear obfuscation and pride protection.
> 
> 
> john117 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reality or Marduk's reality aren't your or AA's or MEM's reality. Plus many of us don't worry about pride all that much.
Click to expand...

"My reality", "my truth", and "It's for the kids" are trump cards used to rationalize away reason, principle, morals, flaws, weakness, insecurity, etc. You've got a bunch of trump cards Jon. You've even got a PHD trump card so anything you want to do can be trumped away. After all it's your truth; your reality; you're doing it for your girls; and you have a PHD. By the way, I don't mention it often but I have a degree in mathematics so you should trust me when I say 2+2=5. Yes my degree and my conclusion don't make sense but just trust me. 2+2=5. I have an advanced degree in mathematics.


----------



## jld

technovelist said:


> ENTP on every Jungian personality test I've ever taken since I found out about MBTI.
> 
> The strength of the preferences differs, though I'm almost 100% N on most of them.


I think John said he is entp, too.

MEM, are you infj? You are so kind and insightful.

I bet always alone is intj.

Tech, what about you would you say reflects a strong N?


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> "My reality", "my truth", and "It's for the kids" are trump cards used to rationalize away reason, principle, morals, flaws, weakness, insecurity, etc. You've got a bunch of trump cards Jon. You've even got a PHD trump card so anything you want to do can be trumped away. After all it's your truth; your reality; you're doing it for your girls; and you have a PHD. By the way, I don't mention it often but I have a degree in mathematics so you should trust me when I say 2+2=5. Yes my degree and my conclusion don't make sense but just trust me. 2+2=5. I have an advanced degree in mathematics.


Are you intj, Thundarr?


----------



## tech-novelist

jld said:


> I think John said he is entp, too.
> 
> MEM, are you infj? You are so kind and insightful.
> 
> I bet always alone is intj.
> 
> Tech, what about you would you say reflects a strong N?


There's a funny story about that.

I took the official MBTI test at work about 10 years ago. The facilitator was trying to show the differences between S's and Ns, so she told all the extreme N's and the extreme S's to go out in the hall separately with the same assignment: Figure out how one would teach someone to tell time.

The S's went back in first and gave their results, then the extreme N's, including me, came back in and gave ours.

What the S's did was say "Look at the hands. If the big hand is on the 3 and the little hand is on the 12, it's 3 o'clock (etc.)"

What we said when we came back in was "Well, first we have to know what you mean by 'time'. Is it relative time, absolute time, time of the year, or what? And what about relativistic time? Should we explain that too?"

The rest of the group cracked up at this; as you can imagine they found the contrast pretty stark, but hilarious!

Oddly enough, I'm a pretty good proofreader and notice errors of all kinds in documents that others have read many times but have missed. I guess this is just a weird talent, as it isn't very N at all.

But in general I like to come up with a big picture so the details will fit in. I'm also quite future-oriented and am always seeing hazards (and opportunities) that others seem to neglect.


----------



## john117

technovelist said:


> Wow, *that *is amazing even for you. Can I get your autograph? >


The stats are for my younger daughter  my claim to fame is a rather mediocre GRE score and pretty decent TOEFL score...


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> The stats are for my younger daughter  my claim to fame is a rather mediocre GRE score and pretty decent TOEFL score...


I was referring to being able to inherit traits from your children.

But I'm sure you knew that. >

P. S. The SATs have been dumbed down because it seems that otherwise the drop in scores looks too scary. 1600 today is like 1475 fifty years ago, or something like that. Of course that is still a pretty good score, but still...


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> Are you intj, Thundarr?


Yes it's scary and almost creepy how accurately that personality type fits me. I'm sure it's sometimes a great disadvantage and other times a great advantage.


----------



## john117

I know they've dumbed down the SAT but the way it's graded is punitive. Both my girls took the Kaplan prep class and all that taught was the trickery identification process. The difference between an 800 and a 750 can literally be one question. The ACT is better in terms of knowledge.

My younger one is preparing for both the MCAT and the LSAT as we speak... But she's a good test taker and I'm not too worried.


----------



## tech-novelist

Thundarr said:


> Yes it's scary and almost creepy how accurately that personality type fits me. I'm sure it's sometimes a great disadvantage and other times a great advantage.


Given how rare INTJ women are, I sometimes think most of them are on this board!


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> I know they've dumbed down the SAT but the way it's graded is punitive. Both my girls took the Kaplan prep class and all that taught was the trickery identification process. The difference between an 800 and a 750 can literally be one question. The ACT is better in terms of knowledge.
> 
> My younger one is preparing for both the MCAT and the LSAT as we speak... But she's a good test taker and I'm not too worried.


That's weird about the SAT. As far as I know, it wasn't like that back in the Neolithic when I took it, but then I never went to a test prep class either...


----------



## jld

technovelist said:


> That's weird about the SAT. As far as I know, it wasn't like that back in the Neolithic when I took it, but then I never went to a test prep class either...


Everyone I knew growing up only took those tests once, too.


----------



## jld

Just saw this on another forum. It sounds a lot like Dug and me, though the second paragraph sounds more like Dug. He is better at reading my mind than I am at reading his.

_"I am an INFP and my husband is an INTP. We are probably the most compatible couple I've ever seen with maybe one exception. It works for us in part because he has a pretty developed Fe (though he says that I've brought this out in him much more since we've been together); he is very gentle and kind with me and very compassionate towards my feelings. Also, my Te function is well developed. I am very analytical/logical. As I told him, my emotions tell me what to think about and analyze. If either of us were different in these regards, it probably wouldn't work very well. 

We often know exactly what the other is thinking or is going to do, to the point that it seems like supernatural mind reading abilities. We communicate nonverbally very well. If he laughs when no one else does, I know exactly what he is laughing at. It's partly that we just share such a natural kindred nature, being both INPs. We instantly connected when we met and realized that we were both alien to the rest of the world in the same ways (it really felt like I'd been living in a foreign country and then suddenly found someone from my homeland who spoke my native tongue). It's also that we talked a lot, asked lots of in depth questions in the beginning about how the other thinks instead of just assuming that we already understood. 

Sometimes I answer him or ask him to do something in a very F way and he doesn't realize that, in my mind, I've said something very direct. To him with his T, it sounds like I haven't answered his question or that I merely suggested something that he might consider doing. Then I get irritated. Thankfully, despite the occasional blunder like this, we communicate very well. I can tell him that he irritated me, he can apologize and explain his thought process, and then I can change the way I speak in the future to make things more clear to him."_


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,

I can't speak to your situation specifically as I don't know your wife. 

All I know is that living with a true emopath*, has its challenges. Then again, if you can make it work the upset is pretty terrific. 

Emopath: someone who easily and accurately reads emotions in real time






marduk said:


> _Exactly._
> 
> I wish it were different. I've spent years trying to reverse engineer the dynamic. To decompile the code.
> 
> It is not going to happen. In MC it was a particular area of focus -- and why we now have our "time out" strategy that allows her to regain composure without torpedoing the relationship (i.e. scream names, throw stuff, threaten divorce), but her abandonment does not get triggered either (it's for a specified time period and IT'S NOT OVER.)
> 
> She gets flooded, she feels pain, and she externalizes it into hurt. She specifically wants to inflict maximum damage to make the flooding stop. She will come up with any way to do that, and she's very creative and smart.
> 
> But here's the thing: she honestly can't help it. I can't expect her to. But what I can expect her to do is take a few hours or a day to process it and get to a place where she can be more objective. That's all.
> 
> Me being in her face about it denies her that ability. And by "in her face" I mean being present or seeking to engage her on it before she's ready.
> 
> Same goes for me reversed, although far less often.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> And that calm concerned - is there anything I can do to help - produces the most amazing results.


And that there is *the* ticket to the difference between impervious or "brick wall" and calm.

Calm is sensitive to the emotions, not just trying to shut them down or block them out because they make one uncomfortable.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I bet always alone is intj.


INTP. Close!


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> INTP. Close!


Just like Dug! And French Fry, too, I think.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Plus many of us don't worry about pride all that much.


Says the man who hasn't missed an opportunity to tell us how smart, accomplished, rich, successful and beautiful he and his whole family is.

Some of us don't worry about pride because we have nothing to protect, no face to save. Some of us don"t worry about pride because we absolutely know ourselves to the the top of the heap.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> And that there is *the* ticket to the difference between impervious or "brick wall" and calm.
> 
> Calm is sensitive to the emotions, not just trying to shut them down or block them out because they make one uncomfortable.


Yes. I don't believe the guys who say they do this but it does not work. Their wives know them. If they are not getting a positive reaction, it is because the wives see right through them.

You have to be secure in yourself if you are going to take this approach. It takes inner strength to be a true dominant.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Says the man who hasn't missed an opportunity to tell us how smart, accomplished, rich, successful and beautiful he and his whole family is.
> 
> Some of us don't worry about pride because we have nothing to protect, no face to save. Some of us don"t worry about pride because we absolutely know ourselves to the the top of the heap.


Or because we know we are not the "best," however that might be defined, and find it is easier to accept that than trying to pretend we are something we are not.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Says the man who hasn't missed an opportunity to tell us how smart, accomplished, rich, successful and beautiful he and his whole family is.
> 
> Some of us don't worry about pride because we have nothing to protect, no face to save. Some of us don"t worry about pride because we absolutely know ourselves to the the top of the heap.


You do understand the need to provide context or background to posts, right?

Just checking.

Being in this business I have learned that unless half the country knows me by name (and they don't) I better stow my pride and do what the masses want.


----------



## jld

You know I think you're brilliant, always alone? I think you INTPs are the smartest people on these boards.

Sure is nice to be on the transparency thread, where it is safe to say what we think.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> You do understand the need to provide context or background to posts, right?
> 
> Just checking.
> 
> Being in this business I have learned that unless half the country knows me by name (and they don't) I better stow my pride and do what the masses want.


John, do you not see yourself as prideful?


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John, do you not see yourself as prideful?


I'm far more humble than my less accomplished but ****y neighbors. I take pride in what I have accomplished but not to the point of being arrogant about it.

Any sense of pride in my business tends to disappear fast once users start posting reviews . If I can handle those I can handle multiple AA's


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Says the man who hasn't missed an opportunity to tell us how smart, accomplished, rich, successful and beautiful he and his whole family is.
> 
> Some of us don't worry about pride because we have nothing to protect, no face to save. Some of us don"t worry about pride because we absolutely know ourselves to the the top of the heap.


I can recall more than one post of yours that is filled with self-limiting and almost a defeatist tone. 

In fact, I remember complimenting you and you telling me how wrong I was. 

Am I wrong?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I'm far more humble than my less accomplished but ****y neighbors. I take pride in what I have accomplished but not to the point of being arrogant about it.
> 
> Any sense of pride in my business tends to disappear fast once users start posting reviews . If I can handle those I can handle multiple AA's


John. Come _on._

We are talking about the wall that you put up that will not let MEM's advice come in. He is trying to save you, John. He cares so much about you, and your marriage. He could help you, if you let him.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I can recall more than one post of yours that is filled with self-limiting and almost a defeatist tone.
> 
> In fact, I remember complimenting you and you telling me how wrong I was.
> 
> Am I wrong?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And then, instead of sticking with her, and encouraging her, you just left the thread. Too much work, I guess.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> And then, instead of sticking with her, and encouraging her, you just left the thread. Too much work, I guess.


Lol.

We got into an arguement about it, actually.

You're quite good at projection, jld. Ever talk to anybody about it?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> John. Come _on._
> 
> We are talking about the wall that you put up that will not let MEM's advice come in. He is trying to save you, John. He cares so much about you, and your marriage. He could help you, if you let him.


The only thing John needs is the courage to actually do what he comes here every day to say he's gonna do.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> You have to be secure in yourself if you are going to take this approach. It takes inner strength to be a true dominant.


I absolutely agree that it takes an inner security to be calm in this way. But I have to confess, I cringe every time you use the word dominant in this context.

For me, calm has nothing to do with being dominant and everything to do with being grounded. 

Is there power in that? Sure, I suppose. But it isn't dominant any more than rays of sunshine dominate the leaves they provide energy for.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John. Come _on._
> 
> We are talking about the wall that you put up that will not let MEM's advice come in. He is trying to save you, John. He cares so much about you, and your marriage. He could help you, if you let him.


MEM's (and all other) advice is appreciated and is very good but unfortunately a lot of it does not apply all that much in my situation. I wish it did but it doesn't. I know it works in less extreme cases but even the best advise has its limits.

Bits and pieces of it apply but you aren't going to plug the iceberg hole in the Titanic this way.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Lol.
> 
> We got into an arguement about it, actually.
> 
> You're quite good at projection, jld. Ever talk to anybody about it?


I have no confidence in you.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I absolutely agree that it takes an inner security to be calm in this way. But I have to confess, I cringe every time you use the word dominant in this context.
> 
> For me, calm has nothing to do with being dominant and everything to do with being grounded.
> 
> Is there power in that? Sure, I suppose. But it isn't dominant any more than rays of sunshine dominate the leaves they provide energy for.


That is the only kind of dominance I believe in, aa. The kind that loves, and serves, and believes in you.


----------



## jld

And don't think you can hide down there, farsidejunky, putting likes on posts. I see you, young man.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> I can recall more than one post of yours that is filled with self-limiting and almost a defeatist tone.
> 
> In fact, I remember complimenting you and you telling me how wrong I was.
> 
> Am I wrong?


No, you're not wrong. But let me clarify. When I said:

"Some of us don't worry about pride because we have nothing to protect, no face to save. Some of us don"t worry about pride because we absolutely know ourselves to the the top of the heap."

I was intending to provide contrast. That is, one one side are people who aren't particularly prideful because they don't have anything to protect, and on the other people who aren't worrying about their pride because they are on top --their need for pride is satiated. These latter have the furthest to fall and will hit the hardest, should anything go south.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I have no confidence in you.


That's OK.

I have enough confidence in me for the both of us.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> No, you're not wrong. But let me clarify. When I said:
> 
> "Some of us don't worry about pride because we have nothing to protect, no face to save. Some of us don"t worry about pride because we absolutely know ourselves to the the top of the heap."
> 
> I was intending to provide contrast. That is, one one side are people who aren't particularly prideful because they don't have anything to protect, and on the other people who aren't worrying about their pride because they are on top --their need for pride is satiated. These latter have the furthest to fall and will hit the hardest, should anything go south.


I totally agree with that and what you're saying to John.

I kinda just wish you had a healthier dose of pride sometimes. Because you deserve it, you know?


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> And then, instead of sticking with her, and encouraging her, you just left the thread. Too much work, I guess.


Meh. What marduk sees as self-limiting and defeatist, I see as a reality check. And what he was complimenting was a picture in his head that actually had very little to do with me.

So, yes, it would've been going much work and probably wouldn't have gone anywhere.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> MEM's (and all other) advice is appreciated and is very good but unfortunately a lot of it does not apply all that much in my situation. I wish it did but it doesn't. I know it works in less extreme cases but even the best advise has its limits.
> 
> Bits and pieces of it apply but you aren't going to plug the iceberg hole in the Titanic this way.


This is a more humble tone, John, and I appreciate it.

MEM cares so much about you, John. He really wants the best for you. I think far does, too. Dug and I like you. We think you are smart and funny. We enjoy talking to you.

There are people here with good hearts, that truly care for you. From that love comes the willingness to be honest with you.

I think the advice can help you. I think if you could open your heart, your _heart,_ John, not just your mind, it could help.

Look at MEM. Can you find a more loving, gentle, and caring man on these boards? He is devoted to you, no matter what you do with your wife. He is a true friend to you, John.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> And don't think you can hide down there, farsidejunky, putting likes on posts. I see you, young man.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> This is a more humble tone, John, and I appreciate it.
> 
> MEM cares so much about you, John. He really wants the best for you. I think far does, too. Dug and I like you. We think you are smart and funny. We enjoy talking to you.
> 
> There are people here with good hearts, that truly care for you. From that love comes the willingness to be honest with you.
> 
> I think the advice can help you. I think if you could open your heart, your _heart,_ John, not just your mind, it could help.
> 
> Look at MEM. Can you find a more loving, gentle, and caring man on these boards? He is devoted to you, no matter what you do with your wife. He is a true friend to you, John.


Hey, I'm a card carrying member of the MEM fan club myself.

It just doesn't always make him right.

Listen: John's marriage blows. My only issue with the guy is that he's dive bombing his wife in a surprise attack instead of a compassionate divorce.

But I actually think he should divorce her. 

I just wish he'd actually just do it.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> I totally agree with that and what you're saying to John.
> 
> I kinda just wish you had a healthier dose of pride sometimes. Because you deserve it, you know?


What good is pride going to do me? 

IME, right when you think you've got things figured, life just kicks you in the a$$.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> That's OK.
> 
> I have enough confidence in me for the both of us.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> What good is pride going to do me?
> 
> IME, right when you think you've got things figured, life just kicks you in the a$$.


Because I think you kick ass.

I don't think I'm alone in this.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Meh. What marduk sees as self-limiting and defeatist, I see as a reality check. And what he was complimenting was a picture in his head that actually had very little to do with me.
> 
> So, yes, it would've been going much work and probably wouldn't have gone anywhere.


I think you are a very worthwhile person, aa. For the life of me I cannot figure out why you are still with a guy who does not cherish you.

You have made such insightful posts to me. You have seen things I cannot. 

You must see the truth in your situation, too, no?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Because I think you kick ass.
> 
> I don't think I'm alone in this.


Thanks marduk!

But let me ask the question again: What will pride do for me? Will it improve my ass kicking? 

I'm thinking not.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Hey, I'm a card carrying member of the MEM fan club myself.
> 
> It just doesn't always make him right.
> 
> Listen: John's marriage blows. My only issue with the guy is that he's dive bombing his wife in a surprise attack instead of a compassionate divorce.
> 
> But I actually think he should divorce her.
> 
> I just wish he'd actually just do it.


Some humility could turn his marriage around. I am sure of that.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> And don't think you can hide down there, farsidejunky, putting likes on posts. I see you, young man.


:rofl:

What is funny is I just put likes on both of Marduk's posts and got to yours. Totally caught me off guard!

:grin2:


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Some humility could turn his marriage around. I am sure of that.


It might make her more responsive.

But he no longer loves her, so it doesn't matter. Take the negativity out of two lives and hit the bricks.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Thanks marduk!
> 
> But let me ask the question again: What will pride do for me? Will it improve my ass kicking?
> 
> I'm thinking not.


Pride is a negative thing when it turns into arrogance.

Self-confidence is sexy. Confident people have more good sex. Confident people take smart risks and get rewarded. Confident people get noticed by other confident people. Confident people get the benefit of the doubt. Confident people get the rules bent for them. Confident people have an easier time in life.

You do not live in a hostile universe, no matter how much you want to convince yourself of this. You wouldn't exist if you did.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> It might make her more responsive.
> 
> But he no longer loves her, so it doesn't matter. Take the negativity out of two lives and hit the bricks.


No! He does love her. 

You do love her, don't you, John. I know you do. I know it is there. Your heart is broken from this. 

And she loves you, too, or she would not be making efforts.

Let's work with the cinders, okay? Let's _reignite a fire._ it does not have to die. This is what MEM keeps telling you.


----------



## Duguesclin

marduk said:


> It might make her more responsive.
> 
> But he no longer loves her, so it doesn't matter. Take the negativity out of two lives and hit the bricks.


He loves her. He would not be on TAM talking about her endlessly.


----------



## Duguesclin

marduk said:


> Pride is a negative thing when it turns into arrogance.
> 
> Self-confidence is sexy. Confident people have more good sex. Confident people take smart risks and get rewarded. Confident people get noticed by other confident people. Confident people get the benefit of the doubt. Confident people get the rules bent for them. Confident people have an easier time in life.
> 
> You do not live in a hostile universe, no matter how much you want to convince yourself of this. You wouldn't exist if you did.


Bernie Madoff was confident.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Pride is a negative thing when it turns into arrogance.
> 
> Self-confidence is sexy. Confident people have more good sex. Confident people take smart risks and get rewarded. Confident people get noticed by other confident people. Confident people get the benefit of the doubt. Confident people get the rules bent for them. Confident people have an easier time in life.
> 
> You do not live in a hostile universe, no matter how much you want to convince yourself of this. You wouldn't exist if you did.


Who said I don't have self-confidence? Who said I live in a hostile universe?

That is what I meant: you have a picture in your head that has very little to do with the real me.

I've been very open on this board about some of the challenges I've faced. None of them have anything to do with my level of self-confidence or a belief that I live in a hostile universe. They are simply observations of things that have happened to me.

When you say "self-confidence is sexy" what you have in your mind is the type of woman you are attracted to, a particular form of sexual confidence, a form that is actually often used to mask a deeper insecurity. That and a hot bod. What I've been told, time and time again, in so many different ways, is that my self-confidence is intimidating, a total. turn-off. 

I have plenty of self-confidence, but it has little to do with flashing my hot body to play flirt games with men who like drama. Instead it is grounded in resourcefulness, resilience, and my ability to make things happen and solve problems. Most guys don't view that sort of thing as sexy in the slightest. Although they will often turn to me if they need a solution to a problem.


----------



## farsidejunky

Duguesclin said:


> Bernie Madoff was confident.


So confidence=bad?

Just checking...


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Who said I don't have self-confidence? Who said I live in a hostile universe?
> 
> That is what I meant: you have a picture in your head that has very little to do with the real me.
> 
> I've been very open on this board about some of the challenges I've faced. None of them have anything to do with my level of self-confidence or a belief that I live in a hostile universe. They are simply observations of things that have happened to me.
> 
> When you say "self-confidence is sexy" what you have in your mind is the type of woman you are attracted to, a particular form of sexual confidence, a form that is actually often used to mask a deeper insecurity. That and a hot bod. What I've been told, time and time again, in so many different ways, is that my self-confidence is intimidating, a total. turn-off.
> 
> I have plenty of self-confidence, but it has little to do with flashing my hot body to play flirt games with men who like drama. Instead it is grounded in resourcefulness, resilience, and my ability to make things happen and solve problems. Most guys don't view that sort of thing as sexy in the slightest. Although they will often turn to me if they need a solution to a problem.


You sure can see through people, aa. I admire that.


----------



## Duguesclin

farsidejunky said:


> So confidence=bad?
> 
> Just checking...


I should have put quotes on confident.

I am not saying confident is bad. I am simply saying that confident looking people may not be that confident.

Looking confident is easy to fake, Bernie Madoff being one of the best example.

I have never met a truly confident man or woman.


----------



## jld

The idea is that confidence is on a scale, Dug, with no one reaching 100%?

In other words, we all have some fears?


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> So confidence=bad?
> 
> Just checking...


I would say confidence is not a good unto itself. It can be misplaced, even downright foolhardy. It can be used to prop up immorality. 

It's often used as a catch-all platitude to make life better, but there are all sorts of people who wield it as a weapon or get themselves in way over their heads because they don't actually have a clue what they are doing.

That said, when you have the substance to back it up, it's a good thing --and some people do shoot themselves in the foot by not having it when they need it.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Hey, I'm a card carrying member of the MEM fan club myself.
> 
> It just doesn't always make him right.
> 
> Listen: John's marriage blows. My only issue with the guy is that he's dive bombing his wife in a surprise attack instead of a compassionate divorce.
> 
> But I actually think he should divorce her.
> 
> I just wish he'd actually just do it.


No more torpedo threat - I revealed my intentions back in September. 

Some improvement has happened since then but the long term issues I'm so concerned about aren't likely to be resolved or even negotiated.


----------



## jld

I still think you love her, John.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> What good is pride going to do me?
> 
> IME, right when you think you've got things figured, life just kicks you in the a$$.


Well, there is this thing called planning and self reliance and all that...


----------



## Duguesclin

I am suspicious of people making a display of confidence. The corporate world is full of them. But when sh!t hits the fan, you see their true nature.

You can only fake it for so long.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Thanks marduk!
> 
> But let me ask the question again: What will pride do for me? Will it improve my ass kicking?
> 
> I'm thinking not.


Pride doesn't do anything. What does is thinking and planning and self confidence to see different paths without discarding half of them and also resolve to follow up.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> I would say confidence is not a good unto itself. It can be misplaced, even downright foolhardy. It can be used to prop up immorality.
> 
> It's often used as a catch-all platitude to make life better, but there are all sorts of people who wield it as a weapon or get themselves in way over their heads because they don't actually have a clue what they are doing.
> 
> That said, when you have the substance to back it up, it's a good thing --and some people do shoot themselves in the foot by not having it when they need it.


I don't disagree. Everything has a shadow side.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Some humility could turn his marriage around. I am sure of that.


A kiloton of humility can't fix decades of fvcked up upbringing and messed up family dynamics.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> No! He does love her.
> 
> You do love her, don't you, John. I know you do. I know it is there. Your heart is broken from this.
> 
> And she loves you, too, or she would not be making efforts.
> 
> Let's work with the cinders, okay? Let's _reignite a fire._ it does not have to die. This is what MEM keeps telling you.


To reignite the fire you need dry wood, oxygen, kindling, and a spark. All we have is a pile of wet leaves.

Love alone can't fix this either.. It's not the movies...


----------



## john117

Duguesclin said:


> He loves her. He would not be on TAM talking about her endlessly.


I talk about my cat too...

He did not raid the Thanksgiving dinner to his credit. But he trained for the Kitten Olympics all night much to our dismay.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> A kiloton of humility can't fix decades of fvcked up upbringing and messed up family dynamics.


I meant _you,_ John.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I still think you love her, John.


I love what was her. Not the shell that's left.

The peanut gallery has yet to grasp this basic fact.


----------



## Marduk

Duguesclin said:


> He loves her. He would not be on TAM talking about her endlessly.


I disagree.

I talk endlessly about women I don't love all the time.

If he loved her, he wouldn't be planning a pearl harbour attack.

I'm talking about the verb.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I meant _you,_ John.


A kiloton of MY humility can't fix....


----------



## jld

He does not want to leave. But his mistake is wanting her to fix things. 

And round and round we go.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> A kiloton of MY humility can't fix....


Yes, it could.


----------



## Marduk

Duguesclin said:


> Bernie Madoff was confident.


So was jld's fave mother teresa. 

She also says you're confident.

Just because some bad guys are confident doesn't make all confident guys bad, Dug. You're smarter than that.

Hell, you're an engineer. You should be explaining causality and correlation to me, not the other way around.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Who said I don't have self-confidence? Who said I live in a hostile universe?


You have said that men only see you for your physical attributes and don't value you for anything else.

That sounds pretty hostile to me.


> That is what I meant: you have a picture in your head that has very little to do with the real me.


Of course: I don't know the real you. What I know is what you post here, which is a projection of your internal life.

And whatever that is, I mostly admire it, even when I disagree with you.


> I've been very open on this board about some of the challenges I've faced. None of them have anything to do with my level of self-confidence or a belief that I live in a hostile universe. They are simply observations of things that have happened to me.


I would just like you to question that supposition -- that just because these things _happened_ to you means that they must continue happening to you.


> When you say "self-confidence is sexy" what you have in your mind is the type of woman you are attracted to, a particular form of sexual confidence, a form that is actually often used to mask a deeper insecurity. That and a hot bod. What I've been told, time and time again, in so many different ways, is that my self-confidence is intimidating, a total. turn-off.


I think you have been around the wrong men.


> I have plenty of self-confidence, but it has little to do with flashing my hot body to play flirt games with men who like drama. Instead it is grounded in resourcefulness, resilience, and my ability to make things happen and solve problems. Most guys don't view that sort of thing as sexy in the slightest. Although they will often turn to me if they need a solution to a problem.


See above.


----------



## Marduk

Duguesclin said:


> I should have put quotes on confident.
> 
> I am not saying confident is bad. I am simply saying that confident looking people may not be that confident.
> 
> Looking confident is easy to fake, Bernie Madoff being one of the best example.
> 
> I have never met a truly confident man or woman.


You must be pretty confident to judge people worthy of "true" confidence.

That's pretty circular and hypocritical.


----------



## jld

I think of you as truly confident, Dug. You are the first person I think of when I think of that.

I was shocked to see you say you have never met a truly confident person. Your standards must be much higher than mine.


----------



## jld

Users have superficial confidence, if you can call it that. They are out to serve themselves, not to build anything of substance.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> He does not want to leave. But his mistake is wanting her to fix things.
> 
> And round and round we go.


So... What's the alternative? They didn't teach it in grad school


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> So... What's the alternative? They didn't teach it in grad school


John. What have MEM and I and Dug and far been talking to you about endlessly?


----------



## jld

John, you are not a completely selfish and superficial person. There is hope for you. 

You are hurt. Your pride covers up that hurt, tries to deny it. But inside you are hurt.

A few posts back you showed your heart. It was open and honest and vulnerable. Has your wife seen that enough? Why not?

These endless competitions, these power struggles in marriage are so unhealthy. No one wins. 

You have to open your heart, consistently, show your pain, like MEM once told me. No one with any bit of humanity left to them can reject that forever.

And you have to see her pain, John. Look past her pride. Look at her heart. She is scared. Does that not move you?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> You have said that men only see you for your physical attributes and don't value you for anything else.
> 
> That sounds pretty hostile to me.


What I said was (or at least what I was trying to convey was) that men who have been interested in me sexually have cared only about the tits, nothing more. And only temporarily. The "whole package", including looks, is mostly a turn-off. (With perhaps a rare exception.)

You tell me I hang around the wrong men. Are you the wrong man? Because I guarantee you that you would not spend a minute discovering my so called inner life if it weren't for this disembodied and decontextualized forum.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> What I said was (or at least what I was trying to convey was) that men who have been interested in me sexually have cared only about the tits, nothing more. And only temporarily. The "whole package", including looks, is mostly a turn-off. (With perhaps a rare exception.)
> 
> You tell me I hang around the wrong men. Are you the wrong man? Because I guarantee you that you would not spend a minute discovering my so called inner life if it weren't for this disembodied and decontextualized forum.


That is true, but that is on those men, not on you, aa.

You know not all men are selfish and superficial. MEM is not like that. Plenty of men with good hearts are not.

Aa, do you want to make things better with your SO? Is that what you are looking for in this thread? Investigating transparency as a way to do that?


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Aa, do you want to make things better with your SO? Is that what you are looking for in this thread? Investigating transparency as a way to do that?


Yes, yes, and yes!


----------



## jld

You really do not want to leave him?

Just clarifying, not pressuring here.


----------



## always_alone

​


jld said:


> You have to open your heart, consistently, show your pain, like MEM once told me. No one with any bit of humanity left to them can reject that forever.
> 
> And you have to see her pain, John. Look past her pride. Look at her heart. She is scared. Does that not move you?


The problem is that he needs her to be fixed before his walls will come down, but she will never be "fixed" enough. Too many differences, too much water under the bridge, too much built up resentment.

I believe he *is* moved by her. But knows that if he lets his guard down, he is likely to be burned. And is fed up with feeling burnt.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> Are you intj, Thundarr?


The test said I'm ESTP-a. I took it twice, the second time projecting how I would have answered 10/20 years ago and it was ESTP-a both times. These types of tests and the personality types in general seem hit and miss though.


----------



## Duguesclin

marduk said:


> You must be pretty confident to judge people worthy of "true" confidence.
> 
> That's pretty circular and hypocritical.


It is just years of observations Marduk. It has nothing to do with confidence on my part.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> The test said I'm ESTP-a. I took it twice, the second time projecting how I would have answered 10/20 years ago and it was ESTP-a both times. These types of tests and the personality types in general seem hit and miss though.


Does the description they give match you?


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> ​
> The problem is that he needs her to be fixed before his walls will come down, but she will never be "fixed" enough. Too many differences, too much water under the bridge, too much built up resentment.
> 
> I believe he *is* moved by her. But knows that if he lets his guard down, he is likely to be burned. And is fed up with feeling burnt.


Do you think he could go first, aa? Withstand the fire?

Or do you think it is simply not possible?

You must not feel that way with your SO. You are still willing to try.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John. What have MEM and I and Dug and far been talking to you about endlessly?


Lots of things that don't work because I have tried them for months at a time?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> ​
> The problem is that he needs her to be fixed before his walls will come down, but she will never be "fixed" enough. Too many differences, too much water under the bridge, too much built up resentment.
> 
> I believe he *is* moved by her. But knows that if he lets his guard down, he is likely to be burned. And is fed up with feeling burnt.


This.

Next step. Use the Furminator (tm) de-shedding brush on the cat


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Do you think he could go first, aa? Withstand the fire?
> 
> Or do you think it is simply not possible?
> 
> You must not feel that way with your SO. You are still willing to try.


I took more fire and brimstone than Sodom and Gomorrah. I think after a while a pina colada is called for.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Lots of things that don't work because I have tried them for months at a time?


I think you have seconds of humility and vulnerability and compassion and fortitude, John. Not minutes, nor hours, nor months. 

Wasn't aa talking to you about stonewalling? That is what there has been years of.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> This.
> 
> Next step. Use the Furminator (tm) de-shedding brush on the cat


I have to hand it to you, John. No matter what, you have your sense of humor.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> Does the description they give match you?


It matches somewhat but 3 or 4 other types do as well. I think most of us fit within a couple of personality types and not just one.


----------



## jld

I agree, Thundarr. All I know for sure is that I am not an S.


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,
Where AA is concerned you have excellent taste. My perception of AA mirrors yours.

I've noticed a striking similarity between AA and JLD. 

They both - self describe - in a manner that is a bit hard to fathom. 

AA as unworthy of love, despite the fact, I'm guessing half the guys who read her stuff - find her absolutely lovable.

And JLD as - weak. 

It's occurred to me that the two of them are in one sense - the same. They are like those elemental superheroes. Fire, ice, water. 

The two of them - they are both truth elementals. Main difference being that JLD coming from a giant Catholic family - also has a view of how things ought to be. And in addition to telling you the truth, she shares that view. 











UOTE=marduk;14262441]Because I think you kick ass.

I don't think I'm alone in this.[/QUOTE]


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I think you have seconds of humility and vulnerability and compassion and fortitude, John. Not minutes, nor hours, nor months.
> 
> Wasn't aa talking to you about stonewalling? That is what there has been years of.


I have years. Look at what I'm putting up with the cat or my girls.

But as the humanoid robot in the Aliens movie said.... "I may be synthetic but I'm not stupid".

Humans tend to respond in kind. I'm not the type to accept pile upon pile of bricks dumped on me year after year. 

Let's see any member of the peanut gallery respond with the TAM spec qualities after seven years of bricks and then we talk. Because, it feels a lot like abstract mathematics to most of them. Something other people worry about.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I have to hand it to you, John. No matter what, you have your sense of humor.


The Furminator does work. The trash can has enough fur for a second cat. If you have pets with fur its a must.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> What I said was (or at least what I was trying to convey was) that men who have been interested in me sexually have cared only about the tits, nothing more. And only temporarily. The "whole package", including looks, is mostly a turn-off. (With perhaps a rare exception.)
> 
> You tell me I hang around the wrong men. Are you the wrong man? Because I guarantee you that you would not spend a minute discovering my so called inner life if it weren't for this disembodied and decontextualized forum.


Well, you remind me of my wife.

Who also has great tits.

Which I enjoy. But that's not why I love her.


----------



## Marduk

Duguesclin said:


> It is just years of observations Marduk. It has nothing to do with confidence on my part.


Are you confident in your ability to judge confidence?

Or "true" confidence?

Or is that arrogance?


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> Where AA is concerned you have excellent taste. My perception of AA mirrors yours.
> 
> I've noticed a striking similarity between AA and JLD.
> 
> They both - self describe - in a manner that is a bit hard to fathom.
> 
> AA as unworthy of love, despite the fact, I'm guessing half the guys who read her stuff - find her absolutely lovable.
> 
> And JLD as - weak.
> 
> It's occurred to me that the two of them are in one sense - the same. They are like those elemental superheroes. Fire, ice, water.
> 
> The two of them - they are both truth elementals. Main difference being that JLD coming from a giant Catholic family - also has a view of how things ought to be. And in addition to telling you the truth, she shares that view.


Lol.

A_A just needs to realize her self worth and that she deserves a kick ass man who realizes what he has.

jld... well, we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Do you think he could go first, aa? Withstand the fire?
> 
> Or do you think it is simply not possible?
> 
> You must not feel that way with your SO. You are still willing to try.


Could he? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Not unless something spectacular happens. Instigated by her.

IMHO, right now he thinks he's the only one getting burned, and doesn't realize that she is also burned --or at least thinks she is nowhere near as burned as she is. He no longer sees anything she has ever given him as a contribution, and sees her as getting off scott free while he does all the suffering. It matters not that her walls are probably as high as his.

It will take a lot more than an olive branch before he reaches out his hand.

As for my situation, it's very different. I'm not that worried about being burned any further than I already feel. And am pretty sure that any further burns will affect him as much as they do me.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Well, you remind me of my wife.
> 
> Who also has great tits.
> 
> Which I enjoy. But that's not why I love her.


It's a picture in your head, marduk, not reality. Everything you have said of your wife is not even close to what I am like. Seriously. Everything that you have put out there as "things you don't like about women" fit me ever so much better. Seriously.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> AA as unworthy of love, despite the fact, I'm guessing half the guys who read her stuff - find her absolutely lovable.
> 
> And JLD as - weak.


I have no problem seeing myself as lovable. It's just that others do not share that view -- and never have. I've never actually understood it, but when everyone tells you the same things, you learn to accept them as likely true. 

Let me clarify: friend, confidante, colleague, no problem. But just not "in that way", except, you know for a romp until someone better comes along. It is the story of my (dating/relationship) life.

I agree with you about jld, though. She truly does not see her power, which is admittedly quiet, but also inexorable. Like the slow and persistent trickling of water that can dig canyons and move mountains.

We are actually very different people in a lot of ways, but I do like and admire her.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Could he? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Not unless something spectacular happens. Instigated by her.
> 
> IMHO, right now he thinks he's the only one getting burned, and doesn't realize that she is also burned --or at least thinks she is nowhere near as burned as she is. He no longer sees anything she has ever given him as a contribution, and sees her as getting off scott free while he does all the suffering. It matters not that her walls are probably as high as his.
> 
> It will take a lot more than an olive branch before he reaches out his hand.
> 
> As for my situation, it's very different. I'm not that worried about being burned any further than I already feel. And am pretty sure that any further burns will affect him as much as they do me.


Her contributions to my non material side are about zero the last seven years or so. And it will take a grove's worth of olive branches.

But it really goes to show you she's not interested in fixing anything. Here we are in DD23'S town and she's only talking about her work. Nothing else. 

Think autism mom or gamer mom as seen in TAM. The outlet is different but the root cause is the same. As much as autism mom or gamer mom can be "approached" then workaholic mom can be approached also. 

It's just that I figured it out faster than the other two guys.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> It's a picture in your head, marduk, not reality. Everything you have said of your wife is not even close to what I am like. Seriously. Everything that you have put out there as "things you don't like about women" fit me ever so much better. Seriously.


What I mean:

- you are stubborn and like to fight. I like that. 
- you're blisteringly smart and wise when you want to be. 
- you have an acerbic wit that makes me laugh. 

And all of that covers up a startling vulnerability that most people probably never get to see. So it's special when shared. 

Stuff like that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> We are actually very different people in a lot of ways, but I do like and admire her.


And I have a ton of _respect_ for you, aa. 

Do you think men just feel inferior to you? 

It takes a lot of confidence for men to be with smart, strong women, after all. Their not feeling secure in themselves is a reflection on them, not on you. 

And it is really good that you do not dilute yourself in any way to accommodate them. It has probably felt lonely at times, though.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Could he? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Not unless something spectacular happens. Instigated by her.
> 
> IMHO, right now he thinks he's the only one getting burned, and doesn't realize that she is also burned --or at least thinks she is nowhere near as burned as she is. He no longer sees anything she has ever given him as a contribution, and sees her as getting off scott free while he does all the suffering. It matters not that her walls are probably as high as his.
> 
> It will take a lot more than an olive branch before he reaches out his hand.
> 
> As for my situation, it's very different. I'm not that worried about being burned any further than I already feel. And am pretty sure that *any further burns will affect him as much as they do me.*


Would you mind elaborating on that, aa?


----------



## john117

She is referring to Mutual Assured Destruction...


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> And I have a ton of _respect_ for you, aa.
> 
> Do you think men just feel inferior to you?
> 
> It takes a lot of confidence for men to be with smart, strong women, after all. Their not feeling secure in themselves is a reflection on them, not on you.
> 
> And it is really good that you do not dilute yourself in any way to accommodate them. It has probably felt lonely at times, though.


Inferior? I don't know about that. I expect it's a lot of different things. I've been told I'm intimidating, and there's certainly a lot of guys who want to be nurtured, not challenged. I think a lot of it has to do simply with how I look and the fact that I typically fail to provide adequate admiration and ego-stroking. Plus I don't much like flirting, or flaunting or game playing, and have a tendency to call out bs when I see it. 

All together it adds up to the category of "will do her", but not suitable for LTR.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> She is referring to Mutual Assured Destruction...


Yes, I suppose that's one way of putting it.

The worst that can happen from here is that we split. And if we do, he will be hurt by that as much as I am. The best that can happen is that things get better -and that means no more burns.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Inferior? I don't know about that. I expect it's a lot of different things. I've been told I'm intimidating, and there's certainly a lot of guys who want to be nurtured, not challenged. I think a lot of it has to do simply with how I look and the fact that I typically fail to provide adequate admiration and ego-stroking. Plus I don't much like flirting, or flaunting or game playing, and have a tendency to call out bs when I see it.
> 
> All together it adds up to the category of "will do her", but not suitable for LTR.


Some guys see a woman who calls them on their bs as flirting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Duguesclin

marduk said:


> Are you confident in your ability to judge confidence?
> 
> Or "true" confidence?
> 
> Or is that arrogance?


Let me give some of my observations. I gave the example of Bernie Madoff, and I could also give the example of Lance Armstrong. They are clear failures.

But let's take an example of success: Elon Musk. He has already accomplished a lot. But I was struck in an interview he gave a couple years ago on 60 Minutes of how much fear there was behind that confidence. He had bet the farm on Space X and the fate of his company relied on one launch. If it succeeded he could go on. If it failed he was done.

Your original post that prompted my comment about Madoff was basically pointing out all the personal gains you receive when you are confident. I just would not put confidence in that context because your list was full of selfish objectives. Confidence should benefit everyone, not one person.

As far as true confidence, I don't think in a pure form it exists. We all have doubts. Usaim Bolt may show a lot of confidence that he is the fastest man on earth. And his record is very impressive. But I have no doubt he has fear that someone may beat him. That is why he keeps going faster.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> What I mean:
> 
> - you are stubborn and like to fight. I like that.
> - you're blisteringly smart and wise when you want to be.
> - you have an acerbic wit that makes me laugh.
> 
> And all of that covers up a startling vulnerability that most people probably never get to see. So it's special when shared.
> 
> Stuff like that.


Thanks for kind words, marduk. This thread makes me feel all warm and fuzzy all over!

Have to admit, though, that I'm absolutely enchanted by the idea of being a "truth elemental". Best title ever, MEM, even if I don't truly qualify.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Thanks for kind words, marduk. This thread makes me feel all warm and fuzzy all over!
> 
> Have to admit, though, that I'm absolutely enchanted by the idea of being a "truth elemental". Best title ever, MEM, even if I don't truly qualify.


Why would you not qualify?


----------



## jld

Dug, I think people can qualify as confident while having some doubts in some areas. I think people can qualify as patient while occasionally getting irritated. I don't think perfection is required for an adjective to basically fit someone.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
No one describes the truth of what is with more precision, more insight. 

JLD,
Describes the truth of what is, then adds what is - possible. 






always_alone said:


> Thanks for kind words, marduk. This thread makes me feel all warm and fuzzy all over!
> 
> Have to admit, though, that I'm absolutely enchanted by the idea of being a "truth elemental". Best title ever, MEM, even if I don't truly qualify.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Some guys see a woman who calls them on their bs as flirting.


Ah, well, perhaps my delivery is too shock and awe. The usual reaction I get is, "whoa! Watch out for her".


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> No one describes the truth of what is with more precision, more insight.
> 
> JLD,
> Describes the truth of what is, then adds what is - possible.


Truth *is* my ideal. I have devoted much of my life to the pursuit of it. Which probably sounds stupid, but is actually true.

But truth is also super slippery and often lies in strange places. I know I often miss the boat.


----------



## always_alone

Duguesclin said:


> As far as true confidence, I don't think in a pure form it exists. We all have doubts. Usaim Bolt may show a lot of confidence that he is the fastest man on earth. And his record is very impressive. But I have no doubt he has fear that someone may beat him. That is why he keeps going faster.


Interesting take. But it can't just be one or the other, can it? Doubt is smart, sometime the smartest route. So is fear. I don't think that detracts from true confidence?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Ah, well, perhaps my delivery is too shock and awe. The usual reaction I get is, "whoa! Watch out for her".


And the problem with this approach is that people tune you out VERY quickly.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> And the problem with this approach is that people tune you out VERY quickly.


Or they start thinking about what you have said . . .


----------



## heartsbeating

jld said:


> Being away had its merits. I don't know if I could have grown without the experience. Coming to TAM really helped. All the opposition has strengthened me. I was prepared for the funeral, with ten inches of "steel-thick" skin.
> 
> What I was not prepared for was all the love and compassion from my family. They really missed me. And they really love me.
> 
> I wish we could have worked things out five and a half years ago. I wish I had not fled. Ultimately, fleeing is cowardly. Debating an issue passionately and transparently, even if you have to ultimately agree to disagree, is much better.


jld, I am sorry to hear of the passing of your mother. 

This life stuff can be a bit of a pardox at times, can't it? As you experienced, coming away from the dynamic helped you to grow. And you were pleasantly surprised by the love and compassion you received upon return - and you must have been open to receiving that for it to come your way. You no doubt have a different perspective now on things from over 5 years ago... yet that altered perspective was likely the very thing needed to begin altering the dynamic you had. 



jld said:


> So I don't know if love really gets cancelled out. I wonder if it is still there, but we are just in denial of it, because of the pain that accompanies it.


What you wrote here is brilliant.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Or they start thinking about what you have said . . .


Sometimes. Most times they tune you out. Human nature and all that.


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> Inferior? I don't know about that. I expect it's a lot of different things. I've been told I'm intimidating, and there's certainly a lot of guys who want to be nurtured, not challenged. I think a lot of it has to do simply with how I look and the fact that I typically fail to provide adequate admiration and ego-stroking. Plus I don't much like flirting, or flaunting or game playing, and have a tendency to call out bs when I see it.
> 
> All together it adds up to the category of "will do her", but not suitable for LTR.


I responded to jld's post then caught up on the other pages and feel like I'm awkwardly lingering at the side of a group hug.

Who told you that you are intimidating? Do you like/accept this feedback or does it puzzle you; was the reference of being intimidating expressed negatively? You are resilient, grounded and calm, and have been told this also. 

Flirting, flaunting, game-playing... I see as being in different categories and not necessarily from a negative perspective; it can be a playful part of marriage/LTR and expresses part of who we are. If that's who we are, of course. I verbally and physically demonstrate my admiration towards my husband. Is it ego-stroking or expressing how I feel? Maybe it's inadvertently both. I agree with mark that calling bollocks and challenging can also be a form of flirting.

My husband does not necessarily see himself in the light that I do and vice verse. I want him to know how I feel towards him, what I observe, what I admire. He doesn't 'need' that from me - he's secure enough within himself. I think it's safe to say though, that most of us like to feel valued, appreciated, respected, admired. The sun doesn't shine out of his ass though haha. That would be boring! He works my last nerve at times, as I do him. We challenge one another. 

I'm curious why there's consideration to the categories of 'will do her' or 'suitable for LTR' when you are already in a LTR. Do you feel your SO has your back, can be resilient alongside you, in your relationship? Is your SO someone who you're able to healthily challenge or does he seek nurturing?


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> And the problem with this approach is that people tune you out VERY quickly.


Yes, exactly. Most people don't really want to be challenged. All in all not a popular move. But silence often isn't popular either. 

So, shrug, whatever. Can't always make people happy.


----------



## john117

That's why I use a squid approach. A bit of ink, a swirl of water, a lot of tentacles and the facts are somewhere in the middle of the murk.


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> Who told you that you are intimidating? Do you like/accept this feedback or does it puzzle you; was the reference of being intimidating expressed negatively? You are resilient, grounded and calm, and have been told this also.


Lots of people. My own mother even. It neither puzzles me, nor do I particularly like it. It just is.

And truthfully (this is a transparency thread, after all), I'm told this a lot less these days, since I've both changed careers, and have mellowed -- these days, I'm a lot more inclined to just say nothing at all. But I still get the "whoa, watch out for her" reactions on occasion.

And I didn't mean to imply that flirting and flaunting are necessarily bad things. Indeed, I think most people want them, prefer them, even need them. It's just not really me. 

The categories are just ones I've picked up here at TAM. Before I had no way to express my experiences, other than the language of pure self-deprecation. But now I understand it a lot better. I'm just not what most want in a mate. I may be grounded and calm, that is assuredly one side of me, but I am also too extreme and too dangerous. And that makes a lot of people nervous.

I'm with my SO because he appreciates me in ways that no one else really has. He understands where I'm coming from --and I suspect he is with me for much of the same reasons. In many ways we complement each other well.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> That's why I use a squid approach. A bit of ink, a swirl of water, a lot of tentacles and the facts are somewhere in the middle of the murk.


That explains a lot. Indeed, it's a rather brilliant analogy for the way you post.


----------



## john117

People have to work for the truth. It's there but they have to go thru the murk first.


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> I'm just not what most want in a mate.


I've seen you express this before. Does this matter to you? 

What about what _you_ would want in a mate? 



always_alone said:


> I may be grounded and calm, that is assuredly one side of me, but I am also too extreme and too dangerous. And that makes a lot of people nervous.


Too extreme and dangerous... how so? 



always_alone said:


> I'm with my SO because he appreciates me in ways that no one else really has. He understands where I'm coming from --and I suspect he is with me for much of the same reasons. In many ways we complement each other well.


If you don't mind me asking, how are things between you lately? Any progression occurring?


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
That's why I try to broadcast on two channels simultaneously: intent, and content.

The intent channel gets broadcast through tone, volume, pacing, body language, facial expression. 

The content channel contains the raw message. 

Provided the other person truly believes you are genuinely trying to be helpful, you can say anything. 





always_alone said:


> Truth *is* my ideal. I have devoted much of my life to the pursuit of it. Which probably sounds stupid, but is actually true.
> 
> But truth is also super slippery and often lies in strange places. I know I often miss the boat.


----------



## john117

AA, maybe men consider you high performance and high maintenance. A good combination if one has the energy to deal with this because the rewards are good.

At least that was my rationale


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> AA, maybe men consider you high performance and high maintenance. A good combination if one has the energy to deal with this because the rewards are good.
> 
> At least that was my rationale


I'm not at all high performance or high maintenance, actually. Quite the reverse.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Provided the other person truly believes you are genuinely trying to be helpful, you can say anything.


Yes, agreed. I think you might be more controlled than me, MEM. I tend to be a bit more off the cuff.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> I'm not at all high performance or high maintenance, actually. Quite the reverse.


Well, you may be presenting as such or may be perceived as such. 

If your laundry list of requirements for a partner is super long that by definition is high maintenance. Mine is. You may think yourself as low maintenance but if you place -reasonable- demands on others (transparency being one of them) they may perceive it as high maintenance. 

I guess I don't know about you so I can't make the call but I would look at your list and see how close this matches others in your demographic segment. Its OK to have high requirements but you have to know that what you are asking is more than typical or perceived as such.


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> Too extreme and dangerous... how so?


Just a poor choice of words on my part. I just don't know how to express what I'm trying to say. I'm as average as they come, really, mostly quiet, easy to get along with, low drama. But, well...I just don't know how to say it properly. It's just an effect I have.

My SO and I are getting along. From his perspective, everything is good. From mine? Well, I'm conflicted on a couple of points, but am not sure what I want to do about it. Maybe nothing.


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> Just a poor choice of words on my part. I just don't know how to express what I'm trying to say. I'm as average as they come, really, mostly quiet, easy to get along with, low drama. But, well...I just don't know how to say it properly. It's just an effect I have.
> 
> My SO and I are getting along. From his perspective, everything is good. From mine? Well, I'm conflicted on a couple of points, but am not sure what I want to do about it. Maybe nothing.


On being average... aren't we all? That's kinda the beauty of it.

Speaking of beauty, yours shines through your posts, just so you know. With feeling conflicted, if there's anything I (and I'll speak on behalf of the collective 'we') can offer, please don't hesitate.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Well, you may be presenting as such or may be perceived as such.
> 
> If your laundry list of requirements for a partner is super long that by definition is high maintenance. Mine is. You may think yourself as low maintenance but if you place -reasonable- demands on others (transparency being one of them) they may perceive it as high maintenance.
> 
> I guess I don't know about you so I can't make the call but I would look at your list and see how close this matches others in your demographic segment. Its OK to have high requirements but you have to know that what you are asking is more than typical or perceived as such.


You don't know me at all! I require no "maintenance" and make no demands at all. I don't have long lists. 

But I am very much a different kind of challenging. Not high performance, exactly, but sometimes difficult to keep up with.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> You don't know me at all! I require no "maintenance" and make no demands at all. I don't have long lists.
> 
> But I am very much a different kind of challenging. Not high performance, exactly, but sometimes difficult to keep up with.


I alluded to as much - you have not given us any tidbits to extrapolate from 

In what sense are you difficult to keep up with?


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> That's why I try to broadcast on two channels simultaneously: intent, and content.
> 
> The intent channel gets broadcast through tone, volume, pacing, body language, facial expression.
> 
> The content channel contains the raw message.
> 
> *Provided the other person truly believes you are genuinely trying to be helpful*, you can say anything.


I am not sure about this. I do understand that the more trust the person has in you, the more receptive they are likely to be to your message, and the less likely they are to hold a grudge against you for saying it.

But ime, how much you can say in raw form mostly depends on the inner security of the person you are speaking to. Secure people can take wise advice from anyone, provided the advice is indeed wise. In fact, these people are on the lookout for wisdom, and do not care how or from whom they get it. They just want to get it.

I think being straight up with people can ultimately earn you their trust better than trying to manage their feelings towards you somehow. I think it might be more important that you know your motives in being raw with them than that they know, tbh.

Jmo, MEM.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Sometimes. Most times they tune you out. Human nature and all that.


Sometimes people are not quite ready to hear it. But you might be planting a seed. 

If you do not say anything, you are not planting anything. And that does not seem very caring.

If I care about someone, I will try almost relentlessly to reach them.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Lots of people. My own mother even. It neither puzzles me, nor do I particularly like it. It just is.
> 
> And truthfully (this is a transparency thread, after all), I'm told this a lot less these days, since I've both changed careers, and have mellowed -- these days, I'm a lot more inclined to just say nothing at all. But I still get the "whoa, watch out for her" reactions on occasion.


You are probably the smartest person in the room wherever you go. As much as people respect you for it, they likely fear you, too. Because you see right through their defense mechanisms.

Most of us try to protect our egos, our emotional defense system. And that is a shame. Because when we can lower our defenses (humble ourselves), we can often see what is limiting our happiness (admit our faults).


----------



## Marduk

Duguesclin said:


> Let me give some of my observations. I gave the example of Bernie Madoff, and I could also give the example of Lance Armstrong. They are clear failures.
> 
> But let's take an example of success: Elon Musk. He has already accomplished a lot. But I was struck in an interview he gave a couple years ago on 60 Minutes of how much fear there was behind that confidence. He had bet the farm on Space X and the fate of his company relied on one launch. If it succeeded he could go on. If it failed he was done.
> 
> Your original post that prompted my comment about Madoff was basically pointing out all the personal gains you receive when you are confident. I just would not put confidence in that context because your list was full of selfish objectives. Confidence should benefit everyone, not one person.
> 
> As far as true confidence, I don't think in a pure form it exists. We all have doubts. Usaim Bolt may show a lot of confidence that he is the fastest man on earth. And his record is very impressive. But I have no doubt he has fear that someone may beat him. That is why he keeps going faster.


Sure, so in your judgement, nobody has "true" confidence, including you.

Nice.

Come down off your throne, Dug.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Ah, well, perhaps my delivery is too shock and awe. The usual reaction I get is, "whoa! Watch out for her".


Sure, so you have a built in filter for weak men.

Sounds kinda good, actually.

Go find one that isn't weak, and is turned on by that.


----------



## Duguesclin

marduk said:


> Sure, so in your judgement, nobody has "true" confidence, including you.
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Come down off your throne, Dug.


Explain to me what you think true confidence is.


----------



## john117

In what domain?

I'm an expert in a few fields so if I say something I'm pretty confident I'm right. But I am smart enough to know I can't extrapolate confidence from one area to another. 

The key to confidence is knowing what you know and more important, what you don't know.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> ...Because you see right through their defense mechanisms.


I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I was thinking about this last night, and yes, one of my strengths has always been a well developed bullsh1t detector. Not infallible, of course, but overall pretty good. And I think it is largely what makes people intimidated by me.

@kag was talking about something similar a few pages back, where she wondered why people reacted to her by building walls, and I expect it's something similar. People often find it terrifying to think that someone might see right through to their vulnerabilities, or worse, might create them by poking at a carefully constructed sense of self, and they respond by building up more walls. Or just getting away, and seeking the company of someone else, someone who will reinforce their sense of security rather than put it in jeopardy. 

People see me as dangerous, not because I am (I'm not at all malicious, and generally try to be helpful!), but because I threaten what makes them feel secure. In general people (at least IME) take an attitude more similar to john: bury the truth in lots of squid ink, tentacles, and murk. Make 'em work for it. They don't want to be challenged and poked, and seen in their vulnerable states, but in the images they wish to portray. But I am often able to see through a lot of that murk.

Transparency is hard. And challenging. I get why people don't want to deal. Yes there is a lot to be learned, but you also have to be careful what you reveal -at least in some cases. I'm thinking more "world at large" here than individual relationships --but for example, I've had people use things I've revealed against me, and this sort of thing happens all the time, and isn't even necessarily intentional or malicious. It's just that some truths are more difficult than others.


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> In what domain?
> 
> I'm an expert in a few fields so if I say something I'm pretty confident I'm right. But I am smart enough to know I can't extrapolate confidence from one area to another.
> 
> *The key to confidence is knowing what you know and more important, what you don't know*.


Exactly my point.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Sure, so you have a built in filter for weak men.
> 
> Sounds kinda good, actually.
> 
> Go find one that isn't weak, and is turned on by that.


Well, that's a good chunk of the reason I'm with my SO. He doesn't see any of it as "shock and awe", he just thinks I'm smart. Or funny. Sometimes even both at the same time.

He's the first person I've ever been in a relationship with who genuinely appreciates these qualities and isn't just bluff and bluster. Or falling for a picture in his head that I'm then supposed to conform to.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Well, that's a good chunk of the reason I'm with my SO. He doesn't see any of it as "shock and awe", he just thinks I'm smart. Or funny. Sometimes even both at the same time.
> 
> He's the first person I've ever been in a relationship with who genuinely appreciates these qualities and isn't just bluff and bluster. Or falling for a picture in his head that I'm then supposed to conform to.


But is he giving equally to what he gets?

Or is that not an issue?


----------



## always_alone

Duguesclin said:


> Exactly my point.


You have a very interesting take here. But I think confidence has to do with more than an appraisal of what one knows and doesn't know.

There are a zillion things I don't know. My confidence isn't in being right. But rather a sense of self that says, right or wrong, I am sufficiently equipped to figure it out and deal with what comes my way.

Although even that isn't 100%, I suppose, because at some point it is inevitable that I will become less and less able to deal as I get older and frail.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> *People see me as dangerous, not because I am (I'm not at all malicious, and generally try to be helpful!), but because I threaten what makes them feel secure. * In general people (at least IME) take an attitude more similar to john: bury the truth in lots of squid ink, tentacles, and murk. Make 'em work for it. They don't want to be challenged and poked, and seen in their vulnerable states, but in the images they wish to portray. But I am often able to see through a lot of that murk.


I think I have this problem, too. Not that my perceptions are as accurate as yours. You really have a knack for that, aa.

You have been making me think about my own perception of my marriage. To me, Dug is very powerful. But I may only see him that way because, as you have said, I underestimate what I bring to the table. 

I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to debate, aa. I think it is a gift to hear your thoughts.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> But is he giving equally to what he gets?
> 
> Or is that not an issue?


Sometimes he will call me out, but no. He has been treading lightly, shooting out lots of squid ink and waving his tentacles. Which is why, I think, I'm drawn to this idea of transparency.

I think we could possibly develop a deeper connection if we can increase our respective transparency. Mine as much as his. But I'm not sure how to cultivate that.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> You have a very interesting take here. But I think confidence has to do with more than an appraisal of what one knows and doesn't know.
> 
> There are a zillion things I don't know. My confidence isn't in being right. But rather a sense of self that says, right or wrong, I am sufficiently equipped to figure it out and deal with what comes my way.
> 
> Although even that isn't 100%, I suppose, because at some point it is inevitable that I will become less and less able to deal as I get older and frail.


So your confidence comes from your self-reliance?


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Sometimes he will call me out, but no. He has been treading lightly, shooting out lots of squid ink and waving his tentacles. Which is why, I think, I'm drawn to this idea of transparency.
> 
> I think we could possibly develop a deeper connection if we can increase our respective transparency. Mine as much as his. But I'm not sure how to cultivate that.


How about just committing to it from your side? He gets it from you whether he wants it or not?


----------



## john117

If you get squidded a lot then you need to learn how to unsquid. 

Information theory tells us a lot about density of information. A good squid is capable of emitting a lot of ink and a few truths. It's not difficult to filter out the ink if you're aware of it. That's what makes me look good. It's not that people clam up - its just that you have to process what they say, not just listen.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I think I have this problem, too.


Yes, agreed. I've seen how angry some posters get at your approach, jld, and I suspect a lot of it has to do with the way you persistently push them to examine themselves. 

It's so much easier to see where other people are at fault and to deflect all responsibility to them. And it saves you from having to look at some of the harder truths. I'm guilty of this too.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
And that's the double standard that I far, far prefer. 

I want to receive the raw, unedited feed. And accept that, just like the tide coming in, that feed is unpredictable. It brings what it brings. 

When it comes to transmission - spontaneity rules except for:
- When I'm upset 
- When the content itself is likely upsetting to someone else 

Those situations are managed with a high level of intention and calm. 

Except one time this past year. Oldest daughter (M3) was very mean to M2. So - while I was angry - I spoke to M3 about the situation.

M3 did NOT like that at all. She told me I was being harsh and judgemental. I just stayed on point: Just not sure why it's ok for you to unload on Mom - but think it's not ok for me to turn round and unload on you? Just not seeing the difference. 

I don't know if that was effective. I'm really not certain. But the only scenario where I'll deliberately use a 'raw' outbound feed is where someone is messing with M2. 




jld said:


> I am not sure about this. I do understand that the more trust the person has in you, the more receptive they are likely to be to your message, and the less likely they are to hold a grudge against you for saying it.
> 
> But ime, how much you can say in raw form mostly depends on the inner security of the person you are speaking to. Secure people can take wise advice from anyone, provided the advice is indeed wise. In fact, these people are on the lookout for wisdom, and do not care how or from whom they get it. They just want to get it.
> 
> I think being straight up with people can ultimately earn you their trust better than trying to manage their feelings towards you somehow. I think it might be more important that you know your motives in being raw with them than that they know, tbh.
> 
> Jmo, MEM.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> If you get squidded a lot then you need to learn how to unsquid.
> 
> Information theory tells us a lot about density of information. A good squid is capable of emitting a lot of ink and a few truths. It's not difficult to filter out the ink if you're aware of it. That's what makes me look good. It's not that people clam up - its just that you have to process what they say, not just listen.


Well, sure. But you have to careful too. Just because you think you have someone figured doesn't mean you have. Despite your claims to have completely penetrated your wife's walls and defenses, I'm still skeptical. You are too surprised at how she acts and reacts, and too unable to see her frame of reference for that to be true. Indeed, you keep saying she has no frame of reference, which says to me clearly that you actually don't really understand her at all, despite your predictive success.

All of which is just a really long way of saying that I too have thought that I've successfully de-squidded only to discover my own assumptions and biases were getting in the way.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> And that's the double standard that I far, far prefer.
> 
> I want to receive the raw, unedited feed. And accept that, just like the tide coming in, that feed is unpredictable. It brings what it brings.
> 
> When it comes to transmission - spontaneity rules except for:
> - When I'm upset
> - When the content itself is likely upsetting to someone else
> 
> Those situations are managed with a high level of intention and calm.
> 
> Except one time this past year. Oldest daughter (M3) was very mean to M2. So - while I was angry - I spoke to M3 about the situation.
> 
> M3 did NOT like that at all. She told me I was being harsh and judgemental. I just stayed on point: Just not sure why it's ok for you to unload on Mom - but think it's not ok for me to turn round and unload on you? Just not seeing the difference.
> 
> I don't know if that was effective. I'm really not certain. But the only scenario where I'll deliberately use a 'raw' outbound feed is where someone is messing with M2.


Because you and M2 have way more power than M3, MEM. That is what makes it unfair.

Dug is much more careful what he says to me than I am with what I say to him, which is not at all. He is more careful because he sees himself as having more power in the relationship, and his words as having more weight.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> How about just committing to it from your side? He gets it from you whether he wants it or not?


I have backed off of thisl because it was doing nothing but provoking completely unproductive fights, insecurity and defensiveness. 

But if I can find a way to do it more usefully, more productively, I would certainly try. 

Suggestions?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Well, sure. But you have to careful too. Just because you think you have someone figured doesn't mean you have. Despite your claims to have completely penetrated your wife's walls and defenses, I'm still skeptical. You are too surprised at how she acts and reacts, and too unable to see her frame of reference for that to be true. Indeed, you keep saying she has no frame of reference, which says to me clearly that you actually don't really understand her at all, despite your predictive success.
> 
> All of which is just a really long way of saying that I too have thought that I've successfully de-squidded only to discover my own assumptions and biases were getting in the way.


That's where my personal method of setting up an if then else type analysis and squirrel the outcome away for a person - plus the usual complement of decision analysis tools


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> That's where my personal method of setting up an if then else type analysis and squirrel the outcome away for a person - plus the usual complement of decision analysis tools


Fair enough. But I think when it comes to your wife you are missing a crucial input: her frame of reference. Because you can't see this, you may be able to Scantron her, but you won't understand her.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I have backed off of thisl because it was doing nothing but provoking completely unproductive fights, *insecurity and defensiveness. *
> 
> But if I can find a way to do it more usefully, more productively, I would certainly try.
> 
> Suggestions?


See, this is where I feel you are not with someone at your quality level. Someone at your level would respond with openness and curiosity. Appreciation, too.

I think it is important to just be transparent. Follow it up with active listening if you need to. You could apologize for hurting his feelings, as I am sure that was not your intent. 

But ultimately he needs to hear your truth. And as MEM once told me, the closer you get to the truth, the more reactive the other person is likely to be.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Because you and M2 have way more power than M3, MEM. That is what makes it unfair.


Although, sometimes, it can be very enlightening to see what it looks like from the other side. Indeed sometimes you need to see it from the other side to truly get what you're doing --what's going on.

I'm betting that MEM would also be just as protective of M3 if the situation were reversed. (ETA: although on reflection, perhaps would not choose the same method for expressing that.:


----------



## Marduk

Duguesclin said:


> Explain to me what you think true confidence is.


con·fi·dence
ˈkänfədəns/
noun
the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust.
"we had every confidence in the staff"
synonyms:	trust, belief, faith, credence, conviction
"I have little confidence in these figures"
the state of feeling certain about the truth of something.
"it is not possible to say with confidence how much of the increase in sea levels is due to melting glaciers"
a feeling of self-assurance arising from one's appreciation of one's own abilities or qualities.
"she's brimming with confidence"
synonyms:	self-assurance, self-confidence, self-possession, assertiveness; More
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Although, sometimes, it can be very enlightening to see what it looks like from the other side. Indeed sometimes you need to see it from the other side to truly get what you're doing --what's going on.
> 
> I'm betting that MEM would also be just as protective of M3 if the situation were reversed.


But M3 does not have the power M2 has. She will have power later in life over M2, and M2 needs to be mindful of that in the relationship she is building with her daughter. But M3 does not have it now.

It is hard for some of us to imagine that we have any power at all over people we see as much more powerful than ourselves. 

I am a dozen years younger, minimum, than nine of my siblings, seven years younger than the other. I don't see myself as having any power at all over them. 

But considering the reaction from some when I suggested five years ago that a family event would be too expensive for some family members to attend, and should be refigured to be more affordable, it is clear I hit some sort of nerve. That is power I did not know I had. And quite frankly, considering the reaction, did not want.

Does your daughter know she can cause pain to her mother, MEM? Or, because of the power differential, is that a completely foreign idea to her?


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Sometimes he will call me out, but no. He has been treading lightly, shooting out lots of squid ink and waving his tentacles. Which is why, I think, I'm drawn to this idea of transparency.
> 
> I think we could possibly develop a deeper connection if we can increase our respective transparency. Mine as much as his. But I'm not sure how to cultivate that.


I don't thinks he wants that, A_A.

He seems to like his secrets.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Another suggestion, MEM. When my daughter and I have conflict, I think it is on me to resolve it. I am the mother. I have more power. That will be changing as she earns money, and gains more life experience, but for now it is true.

So I have to do the active listening. I have to seek to understand. I have to be patient and humble and apologetic. I have to model all those conflict resolution skills, because I have more power. That is the burden of leadership.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> See, this is where I feel you are not with someone at your quality level. Someone at your level would respond with openness and curiosity. Appreciation, too.


Except that his truth contains things that he wants to protect me from, that he doesn't want me knowing, that he thinks (probably rightly) will cause me to love him less, but has no interest in changing or compromising in any way. 

Basically, he just wants me to trust that things that I see as harmful or problematic aren't actually. Because he says so. But ultimately I don't trust this because all I get to see is the squid ink and waving tentacles. And haven't quite figured out how to get past that.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I don't thinks he wants that, A_A.
> 
> He seems to like his secrets.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Can you relate to that, far? Or not at all?


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Except that his truth contains things that he wants to protect me from, that he doesn't want me knowing, that he thinks (probably rightly) will cause me to love him less, but has no interest in changing or compromising in any way.
> 
> Basically, he just wants me to trust that things that I see as harmful or problematic aren't actually. Because he says so. But ultimately I don't trust this because all I get to see is the squid ink and waving tentacles. And haven't quite figured out how to get past that.


That is really tough.

I would just commit to transparency from your end and wait for him to catch up.

Aa, Dug was not transparent with me right off the bat. About four months in I found out he had lied to me about something at the beginning of our relationship. I was surprised, as he had seemed so upfront and honest. 

I guess after enough time with me, honesty seemed normal.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Fair enough. But I think when it comes to your wife you are missing a crucial input: her frame of reference. Because you can't see this, you may be able to Scantron her, but you won't understand her.


That's where the thirty years of experience come in. When I first met her I could barely find her country on the map. And I did ignore a number of signs because of a number of factors, age and loneliness being two. 

But keep in mind one's frame of reference changes. You may be familiar with how some immigrants, after successfully integrating into American culture for decades, revert back to their birth culture in their latter years. Those are generally late arrivals who think of their stay in America as temporary in one way or another so they see no reason to adapt. 

Which is what I'm really dealing with. Not BPD and not LD and so on  in her culture the idea that 55 year olds can be as intimately involved as teenagers horrifies her. Ten years ago that was not the case.


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> Which is what I'm really dealing with. Not BPD and not LD and so on  in her culture the idea that 55 year olds can be as intimately involved as teenagers horrifies her. Ten years ago that was not the case.


So she is not BPD. I thought you said she was.

I do not get what happens at 55 in her culture. Do you mean that in her culture you cannot be intimate anymore after that age?


----------



## jld

John, I always get the feeling you just feel powerless with her. That you feel there is nothing you did that lost you her trust, and nothing you can do to earn it back.


----------



## john117

Duguesclin said:


> So she is not BPD. I thought you said she was.
> 
> I do not get what happens at 55 in her culture. Do you mean that in her culture you cannot be intimate anymore after that age?


She was diagnosed as BPD by a PhD therapist while my older girl was doing IC... 

In some cultures - esp those that aren't very open sexually to begin with - physical intimacy and even any kind of romantic engagement are simply not talked about or done after a certain age. It's not a question of "can't be" but a question of "nobody shows affection so lets do that too". Women may dress nicely - and damn it most of them age very well - and all that but that does not translate into desire. Her sister ran into this, pursued a PA and ended up buying the farm in a car accident. Several of her 50sonething aunts are not married. Divorce is unheard of. 

BPD only adds to the challenge due to engulfment issues.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John, I always get the feeling you just feel powerless with her. That you feel there is nothing you did that lost you her trust, and nothing you can do to earn it back.


It's more of a "do I care" than "I tried and I feel this or that".


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Can you relate to that, far? Or not at all?


Sure. I successfully hid alcohol and porn addictions from my wife. I knew both of those would cause her to love me less.

I was right in my fears, but ultimately my secrecy is what began much of the process of nearly losing our marriage.

Ultimately, it did more damage hiding them then allowing them to come to light. 

Trust is much harder to build when there is secrecy of one's character as opposed to open demonstration of character traits that one does not like.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

Far,

How did F2 respond to the truth? 




farsidejunky said:


> Sure. I successfully hid alcohol and porn addictions from my wife. I knew both of those would cause her to love me less.
> 
> I was right in my fears, but ultimately my secrecy is what began much of the process of nearly losing our marriage.
> 
> Ultimately, it did more damage hiding them then allowing them to come to light.
> 
> Trust is much harder to build when there is secrecy of one's character as opposed to open demonstration of character traits that one does not like.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
Does he love you? 
How does he show it? 





always_alone said:


> Except that his truth contains things that he wants to protect me from, that he doesn't want me knowing, that he thinks (probably rightly) will cause me to love him less, but has no interest in changing or compromising in any way.
> 
> Basically, he just wants me to trust that things that I see as harmful or problematic aren't actually. Because he says so. But ultimately I don't trust this because all I get to see is the squid ink and waving tentacles. And haven't quite figured out how to get past that.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> 
> How did F2 respond to the truth?


She was stunned. She said she felt like she didn't even know me. She didn't trust me already, and this just compounded the problem.

I confessed this to her three days after the intimacy ultimatum.

She was not happy about many things; this was just one more.

I will say it felt good for me to not carry the secret anymore.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
M3 is 25 - so it's a bit closer to even. 

Mostly I encourage them to work their differences out. Sometimes I'll give a small nudge. 

Sometimes M2 keeps pushing even after she gets the result she wants. Why I often find myself smiling and saying: learn to accept a yes




jld said:


> Another suggestion, MEM. When my daughter and I have conflict, I think it is on me to resolve it. I am the mother. I have more power. That will be changing as she earns money, and gains more life experience, but for now it is true.
> 
> So I have to do the active listening. I have to seek to understand. I have to be patient and humble and apologetic. I have to model all those conflict resolution skills, because I have more power. That is the burden of leadership.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> M3 is 25 - so it's a bit closer to even.
> 
> Mostly I encourage them to work their differences out. Sometimes I'll give a small nudge.
> 
> Sometimes M2 keeps pushing even after she gets the result she wants. Why I often find myself smiling and saying: learn to accept a yes


I would still encourage your wife to take the leadership role. 

MEM, who loses out more if the relationship sours, M2 or M3?


----------



## MEM2020

M2 - loses out more if things go south. 

Parents usually love their kids more. Thats just nature. 




jld said:


> I would still encourage your wife to take the leadership role.
> 
> MEM, who loses out more if the relationship sours, M2 or M3?


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> M2 - loses out more if things go south.
> 
> Parents usually love their kids more. Thats just nature.


And they depend on them in their old age. That's reality.


I would have two separate talks, both very transparent, with each of them.


"M2, who do you think is going to take care of you when you are 85 and I am dead?

You need to start listening and respecting our children. They are not you. They have their own thoughts and values. 

Share your wisdom, but realize they may reject it. We made mistakes and survived. Our kids likely will, too. 

But if we are controlling, they may be away from us for a long, long time. Is it worth it?"



"M3, dear daughter, Mom and I will love you forever. I know Mom can be intense. I know better than anyone. 

But she would be the first to give an organ for you. Do you understand that? No one is going to love you more than your mother and I do, unless you are super lucky in marriage. 

So please be patient with Mom. And learn active listening. 

When you have your own children, you will start to see what she did for you. Someday these conflicts will fade, and you will largely remember the good times, and her tremendous love for you, my dear."


----------



## john117

My older girl took more crap from J2 than any 100 mistreated children. Yet DD still talks to her mom. 

Maybe in a decade I will understand why.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> My older girl took more crap from J2 than any 100 mistreated children. Yet DD still talks to her mom.
> 
> Maybe in a decade I will understand why.


Depends on the personality of the child.


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> My older girl took more crap from J2 than any 100 mistreated children. Yet DD still talks to her mom.
> 
> Maybe in a decade I will understand why.


John, your daughter is not giving up on her mom. Then why are you giving up on her? If your daughter can do it, why can't you?


----------



## john117

That's a good question.

But the answer is simple. DD has had little interaction with mom in the last 4+ years and will have even less once she graduates in another 5 or 6 years. To her she's the crazy aunt that nobody talks about. 

If I had this relationship with J2 I would have absolutely no issues with her


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> Does he love you?
> How does he show it?


Yes, he says he does. And he's nice to me. As companions we are good. As lovers, though, not so much.


----------



## always_alone

Duguesclin said:


> John, your daughter is not giving up on her mom. Then why are you giving up on her? If your daughter can do it, why can't you?


I think that this isn't a totally fair question. Children often can't give up on their parents, even in those (awful) cases where they need to. They will take responsibility for their parent's failings, the blame for what happens, and tie themselves into knots trying to "earn" love that is withheld. Children (regardless of age) will often work much much harder than adults -- even to their own detriment.

I have a friend who is now in his 50s and he is still taking responsibility for his parents fighting, and still works to earn their love, despite the immense hurt from the way they have treated him throughout his life and realization that they are unlikely to change.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
Everybody wants transparency - until the truth blows a master circuit. 

There's a Star Trek episode most of us guys love. It resonates deeply with any man who has ever suffered from testosterone poisoning. 

It is from season 1 of the original Star Trek. Called 'The enemy within'.

If you have Amazon prime - it's free. 




always_alone said:


> Yes, he says he does. And he's nice to me. As companions we are good. As lovers, though, not so much.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
There's this thing I do that is about as infallible as anything you can do with an intimate partner. While nothing is a 100% sure bet, this is as close to that as you can get. 

Instead of asking the hard question - you answer the question for the other person. But not in an aggressive or negative manner. 

There's this move I've never understood - that folks use when a desire imbalance occurs. The sequence, simplified looks sort of like this: Your partner is tolerating sex and then they start avoiding it. They don't seem sick mentally or physically. And for the sake of this post, let's accept that they aren't sick. 

The natural move appears to be to 'chase' in that type situation. And when that makes things worse, which it does, to confront. 

Even a fairly balanced person tends to confront this type scenario in an unhelpful manner. They are tense and/or angry when they ask: have you lost your desire for me?

They are already anxious, which is why most of what we label as 'The talk' on TAM is a train wreck. 

Ever wonder what happens if you just say what's happening - in a non threatening way. 





always_alone said:


> Yes, he says he does. And he's nice to me. As companions we are good. As lovers, though, not so much.


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> Except that his truth contains things that he wants to protect me from, that he doesn't want me knowing, that he thinks (probably rightly) will cause me to love him less, but has no interest in changing or compromising in any way.
> 
> Basically, he just wants me to trust that things that I see as harmful or problematic aren't actually. Because he says so. But ultimately I don't trust this because all I get to see is the squid ink and waving tentacles. And haven't quite figured out how to get past that.


The (probably rightly) caused me to pause. I'm unsure if I've misinterpreted this - he keeps part of himself detached from you, there's a distance as he thinks if he lets you in fully to know certain things that it will cause you to love him less - and without knowing what he's holding back, you agree that it probably would cause you to love him less? If I've received that correctly, then it seems he's insecure within himself and within the dynamic between you. And makes me wonder why you feel you may love him less if he does become transparent with you. I'm confused!

I agree with jld where she suggested for you to be transparent with him. That may be part of creating a 'safe' dynamic between you.


----------



## heartsbeating

MEM11363 said:


> Ever wonder what happens if you just say what's happening - in a non threatening way.


This sentence alone could save months of counseling. 

Way to go, MEM!


----------



## jld

The thing is, what does non-threatening feel like to each individual person?

I have thought I said something in a diplomatic way, only to hear defensive reactions from other people anyway.

I understand the point you seem to be making, MEM, that simple observation, without emotion, can be less threatening. But when people are sensitive in a particular area, they may be reactive no matter how the subject is broached. 

Not taking their reactions personally could help, though. And really, at least for me, leaving it to someone else to say is a lot less trouble. 

We really shoot ourselves in the foot by needing things to be said in a particular way. We could learn so much more if we could receive transparency as a gift, but as a gift we are perfectly welcome to throw in the trash can if it does not fit us. It is just an offering, after all.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> Everybody wants transparency - until the truth blows a master circuit.
> 
> There's a Star Trek episode most of us guys love. It resonates deeply with any man who has ever suffered from testosterone poisoning.
> 
> It is from season 1 of the original Star Trek. Called 'The enemy within'.
> 
> If you have Amazon prime - it's free.


Every issue a man will ever face in his life has been covered in the original 79 episodes of _Star Trek_.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> You don't know me at all! I require no "maintenance" and make no demands at all. I don't have long lists.
> 
> But I am very much a different kind of challenging. Not high performance, exactly, but sometimes difficult to keep up with.


How much of that is just being you, and how much of that is a way for you to put up a barrier to getting to the soft and squishy bits inside?


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
When you refer to folks getting defensive in spite of your diplomacy, do you mean in person, or via post? 

I'm asking because it is so much easier to be non threatening in person if indeed there is no threat. 

Imagine what happens if you just make an observation. 

You seem to have lost your desire for me. You can soften it a bit without in any way diluting the message. 

It seems that LATELY you have lost your desire for me. 

This opens the door to 'A talk'. Difference between having 'A talk' and 'THE Talk' is this. 

'THE Talk' is about me and my needs and my growing frustration with you for not meeting them. 'THE Talk' typically feels like it's about performance - lack thereof - and compliance. 

'A Talk' is about comprehension. It's open ended and it goes where it goes. 

And if you open the door, and your partner is determined to close it, you talk about that. 

This is the place most folks get stuck. They blend stuff together into a giant bowl of confusion. Desire isn't something you consciously control. But trust is. 

So that's what you say:

Trust is a choice, isn't. Have I done something that is preventing you from trusting me? 

If you are still getting stonewalled - the best way to wrap it up is to share the thought that they don't have to be alone on this.






jld said:


> The thing is, what does non-threatening feel like to each individual person?
> 
> I have thought I said something in a diplomatic way, only to hear defensive reactions from other people anyway.
> 
> I understand the point you seem to be making, MEM, that simple observation, without emotion, can be less threatening. But when people are sensitive in a particular area, they may be reactive no matter how the subject is broached.
> 
> Not taking their reactions personally could help, though. And really, at least for me, leaving it to someone else to say is a lot less trouble.
> 
> We really shoot ourselves in the foot by needing things to be said in a particular way. We could learn so much more if we could receive transparency as a gift, but as a gift we are perfectly welcome to throw in the trash can if it does not fit us. It is just an offering, after all.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> When you refer to folks getting defensive in spite of your diplomacy, do you mean in person, or via post?
> 
> I'm asking because it is so much easier to be non threatening in person if indeed there is no threat.
> 
> Imagine what happens if you just make an observation.
> 
> You seem to have lost your desire for me. You can soften it a bit without in any way diluting the message.
> 
> It seems that LATELY you have lost your desire for me.
> 
> This opens the door to 'A talk'. Difference between having 'A talk' and 'THE Talk' is this.
> 
> 'THE Talk' is about me and my needs and my growing frustration with you for not meeting them. 'THE Talk' typically feels like it's about performance - lack thereof - and compliance.
> 
> 'A Talk' is about comprehension. It's open ended and it goes where it goes.
> 
> And if you open the door, and your partner is determined to close it, you talk about that.
> 
> This is the place most folks get stuck. They blend stuff together into a giant bowl of confusion. Desire isn't something you consciously control. But trust is.
> 
> So that's what you say:
> 
> Trust is a choice, isn't. Have I done something that is preventing you from trusting me?
> 
> If you are still getting stonewalled - the best way to wrap it up is to share the thought that they don't have to be alone on this.


We have not had a problem with lack of desire in our marriage, MEM, so that is one I have a hard time relating to. I have always been attracted to Dug and vice versa. Sex has always been a sure source of attention from him, so it is not like I would have ever wanted to give it up, anyway. 

Plus, I like it. 

And Dug is not picky. I really am just expected to show up, though I rarely just show up. But it is nice to not have any pressure to affirm him in any way. Neither Dug nor I can relate to that dynamic at all.

About in person diplomacy versus by post . . . People get defensive with me because of my ideas, not because of anything else, that I am aware of, anyway. I do not have a threatening demeanor. Simple, sweet, calm, gentle, _nice_  are adjectives I hear a lot.

I will avoid people I feel threatened by, though, or just find uninspiring. I have a hard time pretending.

Back to your way of approaching lack of desire. I have mixed feelings on your approach. On one hand, it is honest and gentle, with compassion and openness. Can't beat that. 

But having to talk about it at all would surely feel awkward for the woman, I would think. Puts her on the defensive, and that is unlikely to attract her. Better to just inspire her desire, if you can.

Sorry, I bet that does not seem very helpful.


----------



## farsidejunky

At some point, a discussion is necessary, unfortunately.

And I can assure you, being someone who had to have "the talk", it is no less comfortable for the person initiating the dialogue.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> At some point, a discussion is necessary, unfortunately.
> 
> And I can assure you, being someone who had to have "the talk", it is no less comfortable for the person initiating the dialogue.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


It probably feels humiliating, as in, "Why don't you like me?"

Does that pretty much describe it, far?


----------



## john117

It's not awkward at all if the woman - or LD partner in general - has nothing to gain or lose from their perspective.

They stick to their script, you stick to yours, and pretty soon its a stalemate. If they want to talk and work together its a different story, usually with a good ending.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> It probably feels humiliating, as in, "Why don't you like me?"
> 
> Does that pretty much describe it, far?


It did before.

If we have to have the conversation again, it will not be.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> It did before.
> 
> If we have to have the conversation again, it will not be.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


How will it be?


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> It's not awkward at all if the woman - or LD partner in general - has nothing to gain or lose from their perspective.
> 
> They stick to their script, you stick to yours, and pretty soon its a stalemate. If they want to talk and work together its a different story, usually with a good ending.


No, it's totally awkward, because in those times, the LD people frequently actually _do_ realize that they're being unreasonable.

It's a power thing. The LD person has enough and gets without effort, the HD person is the one with the actual problem.

It's more akin to trying to get someone to workout or lose weight or quit smoking than anything.

Unless, of course, someone's actually for realz under the delusion that married people don't need to have sex ever.

But, like I said, I think that's just a cover story.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> When you refer to folks getting defensive in spite of your diplomacy, do you mean in person, or via post?
> 
> I'm asking because it is so much easier to be non threatening in person if indeed there is no threat.
> 
> Imagine what happens if you just make an observation.
> 
> You seem to have lost your desire for me. You can soften it a bit without in any way diluting the message.
> 
> It seems that LATELY you have lost your desire for me.
> 
> This opens the door to 'A talk'. Difference between having 'A talk' and 'THE Talk' is this.
> 
> 'THE Talk' is about me and my needs and my growing frustration with you for not meeting them. 'THE Talk' typically feels like it's about performance - lack thereof - and compliance.
> 
> 'A Talk' is about comprehension. It's open ended and it goes where it goes.
> 
> And if you open the door, and your partner is determined to close it, you talk about that.
> 
> This is the place most folks get stuck. They blend stuff together into a giant bowl of confusion. Desire isn't something you consciously control. But trust is.
> 
> So that's what you say:
> 
> Trust is a choice, isn't. Have I done something that is preventing you from trusting me?
> 
> If you are still getting stonewalled - the best way to wrap it up is to share the thought that they don't have to be alone on this.


Here's what worked for me:

"It's clear you're not interested in me. What's not clear to me is why."

Because that's it, isn't it? you can dance around that all you want, but that's the heart of it.


----------



## jld

It must be terrible to be with a man you do not feel attracted to. I could not stay in that situation.

I wonder how those women manage to stay.


----------



## MEM2020

I drafted that with Always in mind.




jld said:


> We have not had a problem with lack of desire in our marriage, MEM, so that is one I have a hard time relating to. I have always been attracted to Dug and vice versa. Sex has always been a sure source of attention from him, so it is not like I would have ever wanted to give it up, anyway.
> 
> Plus, I like it.
> 
> And Dug is not picky. I really am just expected to show up, though I rarely just show up. But it is nice to not have any pressure to affirm him in any way. Neither Dug nor I can relate to that dynamic at all.
> 
> About in person diplomacy versus by post . . . People get defensive with me because of my ideas, not because of anything else, that I am aware of, anyway. I do not have a threatening demeanor. Simple, sweet, calm, gentle, _nice_  are adjectives I hear a lot.
> 
> I will avoid people I feel threatened by, though, or just find uninspiring. I have a hard time pretending.
> 
> Back to your way of approaching lack of desire. I have mixed feelings on your approach. On one hand, it is honest and gentle, with compassion and openness. Can't beat that.
> 
> But having to talk about it at all would surely feel awkward for the woman, I would think. Puts her on the defensive, and that is unlikely to attract her. Better to just inspire her desire, if you can.
> 
> Sorry, I bet that does not seem very helpful.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Here's what worked for me:
> 
> "It's clear you're not interested in me. What's not clear to me is why."
> 
> Because that's it, isn't it? you can dance around that all you want, but that's the heart of it.


I can think of 100 different "legitimate" reasons why. Explanations are easy to come by. It's not like there's two people living in blue lagoon island (?? Jodie Foster?) having nothing to do...


----------



## john117

jld said:


> It must be terrible to be with a man you do not feel attracted to. I could not stay in that situation.
> 
> I wonder how those women manage to stay.


I can think of 100 reasons for that, too.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> I drafted that with Always in mind.


Sorry not to be helpful, MEM and Always.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I can think of 100 reasons for that, too.


You are just full of ideas, John. 

I have not had many relationships, but one I left when I lost attraction. And once I realized I had lost it, I could not get away fast enough. 

He was pressuring, though. And I hate pressure. Or any kind of coercion, really.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> I can think of 100 different "legitimate" reasons why. Explanations are easy to come by. It's not like there's two people living in blue lagoon island (?? Jodie Foster?) having nothing to do...


The point in asking wasn't to get an answer.

I knew I would just get a rationalization.

The point was to level the playing ground and let her know that the jig was up.

And then I started adjusting the variables that I could adjust to see what happened. And then I started to learn lots of reasons why.

But not with words.


----------



## MEM2020

I don't believe M2 feels a great deal of raw sexual desire for me. 

She 'did' for 20 years or so. But much less so during the last 5 years. 

I'm certain we could both find new partners we have better raw sexual chemistry with. 




jld said:


> It must be terrible to be with a man you do not feel attracted to. I could not stay in that situation.
> 
> I wonder how those women manage to stay.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> The point in asking wasn't to get an answer.
> 
> I knew I would just get a rationalization.
> 
> *The point was to level the playing ground and let her know that the jig was up.*
> 
> And then I started adjusting the variables that I could adjust to see what happened. And then I started to learn lots of reasons why.
> 
> But not with words.


That makes it sound like she was committing a crime.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> I don't believe M2 feels a great deal of raw sexual desire for me.
> 
> She 'did' for 20 years or so. But much less so during the last 5 years.
> 
> I'm certain we could both find new partners we have better raw sexual chemistry with.


For us it was more like we had it and lost it.

I just lost it less than she did. But I still lost it some.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> That makes it sound like she was committing a crime.


She wasn't being honest.

Whether just with me or with herself, only she can say.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> I don't believe M2 feels a great deal of raw sexual desire for me.
> 
> She 'did' for 20 years or so. But much less so during the last 5 years.
> 
> I'm certain we could both find new partners we have better raw sexual chemistry with.


She has those issues with vaginal pain, though, right, MEM? That must be hard on both of you. 

And I have heard menopause does a number on some women's sex drive.

Nevertheless, I am sorry to hear this. I respect your honesty tremendously, though.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> She wasn't being honest.
> 
> Whether just with me or with herself, only she can say.


Maybe it was too painful to face it?


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> The point in asking wasn't to get an answer.
> 
> I knew I would just get a rationalization.
> 
> The point was to level the playing ground and let her know that the jig was up.
> 
> And then I started adjusting the variables that I could adjust to see what happened. And then I started to learn lots of reasons why.
> 
> But not with words.


They know... For the most part they know. And they know you know. That's how the power dynamic works.

I've done the variables part as well - a bit of experimental psych can't hurt  - but knowing why and fixing it could be two different things. Sometimes it's fixable sometimes not.

But you have to know if its fixable. That was the aha moment I had in TAM.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Maybe it was too painful to face it?


Given the painful things she said to me over the years, it wasn't fear of inflicting pain on me, I think. 

It was actually more akin to wanting things like me having a gut not matter because only shallow wives are like that... But it did matter and it didn't make her shallow.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> They know... For the most part they know. And they know you know. That's how the power dynamic works.
> 
> I've done the variables part as well - a bit of experimental psych can't hurt  - but knowing why and fixing it could be two different things. Sometimes it's fixable sometimes not.
> 
> But you have to know if its fixable. That was the aha moment I had in TAM.


Can you tell me where things are at with you and your wife right now?

She knows you're exiting? Does she care? Has she made any attempt to reconcile?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

Back to the strong reactions you sometimes get. I think there are a few distinct factors driving those reactions:
1. pure ego protection
2. lack of TRUE comprehension as to what you are actually saying
3. it sometimes looks seems as if you have a 'one size fits all' philosophy

(2) Most folks don't get that the way you and Dug work is based on a remarkably effective partition. On one side of that partition lie the 'mechanics of life', time, money and other resources. On the other side are all the intangibles, the emotions of life. 

Folks don't quite get that mechanically you two are partners. And that you are super disciplined about money and time and resources. He travels a lot and you totally run the show in his absence. And you homeschool. The level of trust and respect in terms of that side of life is about as high as it gets. He doesn't try to control the mechanics of the house because he doesn't need to. 

And then there's the intangible aspect of a marriage. And this is what some folks struggle with. He wants the unfiltered - the raw feed whatever that turns out to be - all the time. 

Most guys struggle with that. After a 12 hour work day - I resented M2 dragging me into petty squabbles. 

(3) There's a bell curve of power distribution in marriage. I've said it before, I do believe a 50-50 power split is inherently difficult. It can lead to a lot of dead locks. That said, many folks make that work and wouldn't be ok either with the exceptional level of responsibility or the ceding of power inherent in a marriage like yours. 






jld said:


> We have not had a problem with lack of desire in our marriage, MEM, so that is one I have a hard time relating to. I have always been attracted to Dug and vice versa. Sex has always been a sure source of attention from him, so it is not like I would have ever wanted to give it up, anyway.
> 
> Plus, I like it.
> 
> And Dug is not picky. I really am just expected to show up, though I rarely just show up. But it is nice to not have any pressure to affirm him in any way. Neither Dug nor I can relate to that dynamic at all.
> 
> About in person diplomacy versus by post . . . People get defensive with me because of my ideas, not because of anything else, that I am aware of, anyway. I do not have a threatening demeanor. Simple, sweet, calm, gentle, _nice_  are adjectives I hear a lot.
> 
> I will avoid people I feel threatened by, though, or just find uninspiring. I have a hard time pretending.
> 
> Back to your way of approaching lack of desire. I have mixed feelings on your approach. On one hand, it is honest and gentle, with compassion and openness. Can't beat that.
> 
> But having to talk about it at all would surely feel awkward for the woman, I would think. Puts her on the defensive, and that is unlikely to attract her. Better to just inspire her desire, if you can.
> 
> Sorry, I bet that does not seem very helpful.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Back to the strong reactions you sometimes get. I think there are a few distinct factors driving those reactions:
> 1. pure ego protection
> 2. lack of TRUE comprehension as to what you are actually saying
> 3. it sometimes looks seems as if you have a 'one size fits all' philosophy
> 
> (2) Most folks don't get that the way you and Dug work is based on a remarkably effective partition. On one side of that partition lie the 'mechanics of life', time, money and other resources. On the other side are all the intangibles, the emotions of life.
> 
> Folks don't quite get that mechanically you two are partners. And that you are super disciplined about money and time and resources. He travels a lot and you totally run the show in his absence. And you homeschool. The level of trust and respect in terms of that side of life is about as high as it gets. He doesn't try to control the mechanics of the house because he doesn't need to.
> 
> And then there's the intangible aspect of a marriage. And this is what some folks struggle with. He wants the unfiltered - the raw feed whatever that turns out to be - all the time.
> 
> Most guys struggle with that. After a 12 hour work day - I resented M2 dragging me into petty squabbles.
> 
> (3) There's a bell curve of power distribution in marriage. I've said it before, I do believe a 50-50 power split is inherently difficult. It can lead to a lot of dead locks. That said, many folks make that work and wouldn't be ok either with the exceptional level of responsibility or the ceding of power inherent in a marriage like yours.


MEM, have I told you lately how brilliant you are, and how I lucky I feel to know you? 

I really appreciate your feedback. You often help me understand things I just do not get, like why people flip out when I post something that to me looks perfectly reasonable.

I don't really get the one size fits all idea, and there is another coming up that I have seen a few times: "Most men want wives, not daughters."

I asked Dug what in the world that is supposed to mean. He said men are willing to give to their daughters, but want their wives to give to them. Dug says men do not want to work too hard, and for sure do not want their wives to do less for them than they do for their wives. 

We do not really get that. Maybe we just do not see marriage as an accounting sheet.

One more thing. I think my life is way easier because of homeschooling. We just do not have nearly the stress that school families seem to. And our daughter is doing so well in college. I will always be glad to Dug for putting the idea about breastfeeding and homeschooling out there right away in our relationship.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

And the 'wife not daughter' comment is exactly what I mean. 

There is no 'daughter' component to the mechanics of your life. There are countless threads here on folks who have stay at home spouses (men and women) who aren't a fraction as disciplined as you are. 

So what happens is, folks read the stuff about how Dug has given you the freedom to be the person YOU want to be emotionally, and they extrapolate a lot of unflattering stuff from that. 

Your daughter got admitted into a competitive engineering program. That doesn't just mean you are doing 'some' things right, that means you are doing a hell of a lot of things right. 

I do believe that - one other factor contributes to - the sometimes sharp responses you get from other folks. And that is your tendency to identify with their spouses. When that happens, your posture shifts away from an outcome independent (I'll say what I think is true and let the cards fall as they may) and more towards that of a family court advocate....  




jld said:


> MEM, have I told you lately how brilliant you are, and how I lucky I feel to know you?
> 
> I really appreciate your feedback. You often help me understand things I just do not get, like why people flip out when I post something that to me looks perfectly reasonable.
> 
> I don't really get the one size fits all idea, and there is another coming up that I have seen a few times: "Most men want wives, not daughters."
> 
> I asked Dug what in the world that is supposed to mean. He said men are willing to give to their daughters, but want their wives to give to them. Dug says men do not want to work too hard, and for sure do not want their wives to do less for them than they do for their wives.
> 
> We do not really get that. Maybe we just do not see marriage as an accounting sheet.
> 
> One more thing. I think my life is way easier because of homeschooling. We just do not have nearly the stress that school families seem to. And our daughter is doing so well in college. I will always be glad to Dug for putting the idea about breastfeeding and homeschooling out there right away in our relationship.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> And the 'wife not daughter' comment is exactly what I mean.
> 
> There is no 'daughter' component to the mechanics of your life. There are countless threads here on folks who have stay at home spouses (men and women) who aren't a fraction as disciplined as you are.
> 
> So what happens is, folks read the stuff about how Dug has given you the freedom to be the person YOU want to be emotionally, and they extrapolate a lot of unflattering stuff from that.
> 
> Your daughter got admitted into a competitive engineering program. That doesn't just mean you are doing 'some' things right, that means you are doing a hell of a lot of things right.
> 
> I do believe that - one other factor contributes to - the sometimes sharp responses you get from other folks. And that is your tendency to identify with their spouses. When that happens, your posture shifts away from an outcome independent (I'll say what I think is true and let the cards fall as they may) and more towards that of a family court advocate....


Lol, MEM!  I would probably _love_ advocating for women and children in court!

I am just myself in my marriage. It is not that I _want_ to be that person; it is just who I am. And Dug is fine with that. Says he learns a lot from me, actually.

Since our daughter has come up, I just can't resist sharing that she was recently nominated for a Goldwater Scholarship. Every American university is allowed to nominate 4 students per year for this award. At her university, with 35k students, our daughter was one of those four. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_M._Goldwater_Scholarship


----------



## MEM2020

Congratulations!!! That is a serious accomplishment.

There's a lot to be said for picking very carefully and then letting your partner just be themselves....  





jld said:


> Lol, MEM!  I would probably _love_ advocating for women and children in court!
> 
> I am just myself in my marriage. It is not that I _want_ to be that person; it is just who I am. And Dug is fine with that. Says he learns a lot from me, actually.
> 
> Since our daughter has come up, I just can't resist sharing that she was recently nominated for a Goldwater Scholarship. Every American university is allowed to nominate 4 students per year for this award. At her university, with 35k students, our daughter was one of those four.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_M._Goldwater_Scholarship


----------



## Marduk

Personal said:


> Whenever I have lost attraction for someone, I have always ended my sexual relationship with them.
> 
> Regardless of how good everything else is in a sexual relationship, if I no longer desire someone emotionally and sexually. I simply don't want to have sex with them anymore, so from that moment there really is no point in keeping the relationship going.


The problem with that approach is that it's basically the HD perspective.

A lot of people - like A LOT of people - have periods of time in their life where they lose desire for their partner. And it has NOTHING to do with their partner whatsoever.

Some do just as you advocate -- dumping the partner in the hopes that after weeks or months of waiting and getting something new, the flames get fanned again.

The problem is that they will never be in a stable relationship, ever. Because they're not HD enough to still want to have sex with the same old person who maybe hasn't done the dishes, or pisses them off right now, or they just don't feel good about themselves.

Desire comes and goes. For me, it's almost always high tide. For others, the tides matter.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Ever wonder what happens if you just say what's happening - in a non threatening way.


I can tell you what happens. At least IME.

"No you're wrong. That's not happening. What makes you think that? Well that's not right either. It's not at all what you say it is."


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> Everybody wants transparency - until the truth blows a master circuit.
> 
> There's a Star Trek episode most of us guys love. It resonates deeply with any man who has ever suffered from testosterone poisoning.


I've seen the episode. But spell it out for me.

I get that we are all far from perfect. I'm aware of the dark side, shadow self, id, "limbic brain", etc. But what is "testosterone poisoning" in your view? 

My circuits are already blown, I think. It's just whether they'll ever restart.


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> The (probably rightly) caused me to pause. I'm unsure if I've misinterpreted this - he keeps part of himself detached from you, there's a distance as he thinks if he lets you in fully to know certain things that it will cause you to love him less - and without knowing what he's holding back, you agree that it probably would cause you to love him less? If I've received that correctly, then it seems he's insecure within himself and within the dynamic between you. And makes me wonder why you feel you may love him less if he does become transparent with you. I'm confused!
> 
> I agree with jld where she suggested for you to be transparent with him. That may be part of creating a 'safe' dynamic between you.


I have a pretty good idea what his truths are. If I were john, for example, I might be proud of my deduction and induction skills, and just leave well enough alone. But I can't let go, because yes, it makes me love him less and wonder, "WTF happened?"

Unfortunately, I think a big part of my problem is that my transparency just isn't a safe place. There is nothing safe about "our sex life is a big pile of crap, and you clearly aren't interested one way or the other". 

Believe me, I've tried a number of avenues to make this a safe thing -- but my truth really is that I am withdrawing and becoming increasingly disconnected and uninterested.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I can tell you what happens. At least IME.
> 
> "No you're wrong. That's not happening. What makes you think that? Well that's not right either. It's not at all what you say it is."


Yup. 

As I said, my goal wasn't to get any new info. It was to call BS. :surprise:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> How much of that is just being you, and how much of that is a way for you to put up a barrier to getting to the soft and squishy bits inside?


IME, my sense of adventure is higher than some. And if people find you difficult to peg, they have this way of finding you (one) a box that fits them, but not you.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> IME, my sense of adventure is higher than some. And if people find you difficult to peg, they have this way of finding you (one) a box that fits them, but not you.


I get that. 

But what I was really asking was how much of your calling people on their BS take no prisoners attitude is really keeping people at arms length so they can't hurt you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> I get that.
> 
> But what I was really asking was how much of your calling people on their BS take no prisoners attitude is really keeping people at arms length so they can't hurt you?


I don't have a "take no prisoners" attitudes. I just see bs and say something about it. Or not. Because less and less do I really feel the need to express my opinions at all.

I know what you're saying, I think. And yes, I do have my well-developed walls. But I'm also not who you seem to think I am. I show the soft squishy bits all the time and have zero need to prove how tough I am.


----------



## Thundarr

Duguesclin said:


> Explain to me what you think true confidence is.


It's easy to get caught up in semantics with a word like confidence so I'll define the context of confidence I'm speaking of which is the type of confidence that makes people gravitate toward us rather than away from us.

Confidence is when we have faith in ourselves and we don't let people or our own fears shake us. It just means we are confident that we'll survive, adapt, and land on our feet either way. Arrogance looks a lot of confidence from a distance but it's very different. Confidence is hard to shake and when it is shaken then it's usually returns because it comes from the inside out. Arrogance on the other hand is fleeting because it's built on external validation. I know the difference because I was arrogant but not confident as a young man.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> How will it be?


I will be patient in some ways. For example, if changes happened in me, then I will have some understanding. The same would apply if it were a medical condition she were going through.

If it turned out to be a "won't" without a clear why, then I would have a short window of complete and total patience of a couple of months, maybe three.

After that (assuming I was not needing to clean up my side of the street), I would be shutting down the meeting of each of her emotional needs, and it would be up to her to earn her way back into the marriage. I would essentially just become incredibly selfish with my time, and would only give it to B9 and myself.

I am at a point now where I could do without the sex if that happened. I was not there until a couple of months ago. But tolerating a sexless marriage is not something I am willing to do out of principle alone.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Personal said:


> That said I've got no idea why our relationship has so far worked well for us, unlike many people here who are struggling with their relationships *I don't think my wife and I try very hard at all*.


I think it is that. It is natural compatibility.


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> I have a pretty good idea what his truths are. If I were john, for example, I might be proud of my deduction and induction skills, and just leave well enough alone. But I can't let go, because yes, it makes me love him less and wonder, "WTF happened?"
> 
> Unfortunately, I think a big part of my problem is that my transparency just isn't a safe place. There is nothing safe about "our sex life is a big pile of crap, and you clearly aren't interested one way or the other".
> 
> Believe me, I've tried a number of avenues to make this a safe thing -- but my truth really is that I am withdrawing and becoming increasingly disconnected and uninterested.


In my experience, I could have handled things so much more effectively by not placing blame or considering what he is or isn't doing. I'm not suggesting this is what you do. The only way we were able to progress together was facing things. We were effective when we began abandoning our defensive positions. The willingness to alter our dynamic stemmed from that place. It required both of us to be fully engaged.

While certain conversations, raw emotions and such, may have felt difficult and awkward at the time - now they wouldn't. I feel that's partly because our understanding is continually being re-framed and dealt with in the moment. This may not be relevant to you but our intimacy was a symptom of other things. In many ways, I'm thankful, as it helped us with the growth we needed, both as individuals as well as a couple. 


It sounds like you noticed the stylus had slid across the vinyl and is now circling the label in the middle. Meanwhile, he's singing the song familiar to him as though the record is still playing. 

He's not willing to face things as they are. Rather than listen and validate your concerns, he wants to plug his ears and 'lah lah lah'...this may well relate to how he is feeling within himself. Does that play into a self-image of perhaps not being good enough? Unfortunately the only way to know is from him; if he even knows himself. Meanwhile, you're calling out the disharmony that his insecurity wants to deny which further pushes you away and has you questioning if you want this. Your behavior, actions or in-actions, may well be contributing to him wanting to shut down perhaps without even realizing. What happens when both partners close off to one another?

Being open - mind and body - may require taking a breath, disarming and making it safe for the other person to do so; for yourself to do so. Keeping in mind that all behavior is communication. This is not to suggest you stay in the relationship. Your concerns are completely valid. 

This may sound like a strange question but what does being a lover mean to you?


----------



## john117

Marduk asked where do we stand as of now. Well, in a scale from 0 to IP (Ideal Partner), she went from a 0.1 to a 0.2 IP's. 

Future wise - my main concern - zero change. 

She knows I tend to follow up on my plans so the ball is in her court. Personally I do not believe in miracles so if you do, please send some my way.


----------



## Marduk

@Personal my point is that it's easy to mistake or externalizes a lack of desire for a lack of desire for a particular person. And it's very easy in today's world to make a relationship disposable because you lack desire.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Your daughter got admitted into a competitive engineering program. That doesn't just mean you are doing 'some' things right, that means you are doing a hell of a lot of things right.


I'll see one daughter and raise the ante to a second both coming from a not so loving and nurturing environment 

Seriously, kids respond in different ways. One of my former interns and new hires has a story that would be absurd if anyone even posted it. Yet she did coop with my group and was hired full time. 

Now, having to put up with French food 24/7


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
Prior to JLD^2 - JLD + Dug, lots of things caused me agitation. 

But hands down, gaslighting caused me more distress than anything else. 

Thing is, M2 only gaslit me because she was afraid. I created the context in which gaslighting was a rational response, by being judgemental and harsh. 

When I changed my approach, this behavior largely disappeared. When it does happen, I have learned to convey that - whatever happened - isn't a big deal. Solely focused on the WHY of it. 

Lots of tactics for doing that. Humor and hyperbole both work. For instance:

Babe, I don't see any dead bodies. What happened is done and not that big a deal. Not even a little bit interested in taking about the 'what', nothing to discuss. The WHY, that's the only thing I'm hoping to talk about. So if you feel like sharing, that would be nice....





always_alone said:


> I can tell you what happens. At least IME.
> 
> "No you're wrong. That's not happening. What makes you think that? Well that's not right either. It's not at all what you say it is."


----------



## john117

Some people respond to this approach. Others fear even more and act worse. Humor and hyperbole fly right over their heads. 

Try convincing an angry pitbull to not bite you. Humor him or compare him to a bear. Ain't gonna work.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
I swear it was like a Twilight Zone scenario - when it came to the mechanics of life no one played it straighter than M2. No spin, no drift - just the facts. 

But when it came to the emotions, it was often total war. Gaslighting, and flash bang grenades. Smoke and mirrors and willful incomprehension. 

And I was absolutely certain that the ONLY sane way to deal with M2 was to meet aggression with counter aggression. And to meet deception with bright lights and carefully scripted interrogations designed to highlight the contradictions. 

Of course it turned out that I was CREATING most of our conflict by reacting this way. 

I was having an IC session when I said to the therapist - who was also our MC - and knew both of us. 

Let me get this straight. Something either frightens or hurts M2, she converts that to anger so fast that - that's all I see.
Doc: yep
And my response to her aggression is either fear or hurt - which I convert to anger so fast that that's all she sees.
Doc: yes, and having spent some time with her, she isn't aggressive for sport, it's a coping mechanism. She's trying to feel 'less bad'. 

When I reversed my response pattern, magically all this disappeared. 

A while back I said something that wasn't precisely true. Said that I don't do 'blind' apologies. But sometimes I sort of do. Turns out that the approach below is a pretty good skeleton key for almost any situation. 

Me: I think I've upset you. Didn't mean to. I'm sorry that I did. Honestly not exactly sure what I did. 

Almost always produces an honest explanation of catalyst. Often includes something like this: you didn't do anything wrong, I was just upset about XYZ. Sorry for being such a bltch. 






john117 said:


> Some people respond to this approach. Otherst fear even more and act worse. Humor and hyperbole fly right over their heads.
> 
> Try convincing an angry pitbull to not bite you. Humor him or compare him to a bear. Ain't gonna work.


----------



## john117

That's nice but the key is that M2 has enough mental clarity to respond. And enough determination to attend IC & MC. That's not the case in my situation 

Dealing with NormalPeople (tm) helps.


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> This may sound like a strange question but what does being a lover mean to you?


It's a good question.

I'm cynical, and part of me doesn't think it means much of anything at all. I've always been a little impatient with the star-crossed lovers stories, or the "happily ever afters".

Maybe I don't know what love even is.

What I have done to be as awesome as lover as possible is to work very hard in areas of conflict to see his side, and challenge myself not to be too rigid, to grow. To become as amazing as possible in bed, to keep him sexually satisfied. To care for him when things are going wrong.

In the here and now, we have a pretty good connection. I don't think he is going "lalalala" to my concerns. He just doesn't know what to do about them, so he does nothing. I know what I would like to see, but he can't (or won't) give me that. 

It breaks my heart because I don't think I'm asking very much at all. But apparently it really is just too much.


----------



## jld

What would you like to see?


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> But hands down, gaslighting caused me more distress than anything else.
> 
> Thing is, M2 only gaslit me because she was afraid. I created the context in which gaslighting was a rational response, by being judgemental and harsh.


I hear ya, MEM. I'm pretty sure that something along these lines is my sticking point. I just don't know how to fix it.

True, there are no dead bodies, and I am interested in the why. But, really, in my case it's not that hard to fathom, and I'm pretty devastated by the what -- and haven't figured out how to get over it. 

You are more forgiving than me, I think. Or more sure of your and M2's love. Or maybe both.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I hear ya, MEM. I'm pretty sure that something along these lines is my sticking point. I just don't know how to fix it.
> 
> True, there are no dead bodies, and I am interested in the why. But, really, in my case it's not that hard to fathom, and I'm pretty devastated by the what -- and haven't figured out how to get over it.
> 
> You are more forgiving than me, I think. Or more sure of your and M2's love. Or maybe both.


Is he afraid you will leave him? Is that why he is not forthcoming?


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Is he afraid you will leave him? Is that why he is not forthcoming?


Or he is not ready to face his own demons yet.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Or he is not ready to face his own demons yet.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Also.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> What would you like to see?


I would like for him to be attracted to me, to want to explore his sexuality with me, instead of waiting until I'm gone. And for him to care more about what works for me.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I would like for him to be attracted to me, to want to explore his sexuality with me, instead of waiting until I'm gone. And for him to care more about what works for me.


Aa, has he always been this way, more your friend than your lover? And from the sound of it, a rather self-centered friend?


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Is he afraid you will leave him? Is that why he is not forthcoming?


Probably. He said to me the other day that he fears menopause because he is worried I might leave him because of it.

Which is actually a kind of odd thing to say since I've already told him exactly what my problem is, but it doesn"t seem to register. Either that, or it's too much to ask.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Aa, has he always been this way, more your friend than your lover? And from the sound of it, a rather self-centered friend?


No. And he isn't self-centered, generally speaking. But certainly sex-wise lately it's been all about him.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> No. And he isn't self-centered, generally speaking. But certainly sex-wise lately it's been all about him.


Can you pinpoint the turning point?


----------



## john117

Let me expand on this...

Fear is the driver of much of human behavior. That's a no brainer. Anyone who sat thru my Decision Analysis TA days knows the hidden meaning behind risk and reward and how we perceive those.

What's not so obvious is how to mitigate fear in NotNormalPeople (tm). Because the problem is not that you can't mitigate fear in such people. The problem is that most techniques used to mitigate fear fail because the underlying pathology or cultural bias interfere.

You can't create a fear free safe environment for your partner when they have an ingrained North Korea level fear of the outside world. Even with no mental pathology present, overcoming this fear in a home culture where deception is the national sport is unlikely.

That's the value of transparency right there - these are not things loving partners tell each other and the initial lack of information is explained away as "shyness" or "reservedness" or "whateverness" and ignored away.


----------



## jld

I bet your wife would be fine married to Dug, John.

I am not saying she would _want_ to be married to him, but I don't think there would be all of these issues.


----------



## john117

It seems to me your Emphatizer 2000 is still out for service 

I do not think that a NormalHusband (tm) would last more than six months with good ole' J2. It would make for a heck of a science experiment but really, I don't think so.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> It seems to me your Emphatizer 2000 is still out for service






> I do not think that a NormalHusband (tm) would last more than six months with good ole' J2. It would make for a heck of a science experiment but really, I don't think so.


John, do you remember the cartoon that arb posted a few months ago on the humorous memes thread with the old guy pointing his finger at the reader?

That guy in the cartoon said that there are two things you have to know about men and women: men are stupid and women are crazy. And the main reason that women are crazy is because men are stupid.

I laughed at that when I read it. It was funny. Humor delivers truth in a non-threatening way.

Do you use your very good sense of humor to communicate with your wife, John?


----------



## john117

I do. Of course I do. 

It used to work but not anymore.

Communication is not the issue. It's not that simple.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Marduk asked where do we stand as of now. Well, in a scale from 0 to IP (Ideal Partner), she went from a 0.1 to a 0.2 IP's.
> 
> Future wise - my main concern - zero change.
> 
> She knows I tend to follow up on my plans so the ball is in her court. Personally I do not believe in miracles so if you do, please send some my way.


Can you go into more detail?

Because I think even if she started being super wife, you'd still be gone. 

Right?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

John, you feel like she does not love you. That she is selfish to the bone. 

And long term, as you age, you do not think she will take care of you.


----------



## john117

Small improvement in intimacy...

No improvement in attitude...

No likelihood of grasping the fundamental concerns I have for long term relationship and financial viability...

In a few months we will know what kind of financial hole we will be stepping into when our younger girl finds out where she's headed to professional school (medicine or law). At the same time her company's contract with the client she is at expires and not likely to be renewed. So she has to accept another assignment which could involve travel (her company thinks nothing of flying people around every week which J2 loathes)

So, what perfect opportunity to downsize - but as the McMansion means more to her than her life... 

It's all the concerns I had for years. 

Her fear is that I plan to blow our money on frivolities like travel and toys, never mind blowing money is exactly what the McMansion is all about or that I'm the most frugal and money minded of the two. 

If you know a good financial / sex therapist let me know .


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Can you pinpoint the turning point?


No. I mean, it's possible that he has always felt the same way, but was just better at hiding it when younger and more driven to sex. It may just because I'm getting older and uglier with each passing day, no competition for the young hotties. It could be partly a response/reaction to my realization that I don't / can't compete.

It could be all sorts of things.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> No. I mean, it's possible that he has always felt the same way, but was just better at hiding it when younger and more driven to sex. It may just because I'm getting older and uglier with each passing day, no competition for the young hotties. It could be partly a response/reaction to my realization that I don't / can't compete.
> 
> It could be all sorts of things.


I am certain you are not getting uglier. We women are hard on ourselves. 

And I _know_ beyond any doubt that you are beautiful on the inside. That is what ultimately brings peace and happiness in life, not the externals.

He has a porn addiction, right? 

I don't know much about that, but I am sure it has nothing to do with you. Please don't internalize it in that way. It is _his_ issue. 

But sadly, it is hurting you, too.


----------



## farsidejunky

A_A, speaking as someone who has a porn addiction, I would tell you this.

Porn is not as much about the what, in other words, not about the images we see. The images are a convenient facilitator, but not the event itself.

Porn for me was more about escape and control. It was what I would run to when the rest of my life was spinning out of control as a way to make myself feel better, if just for a little while.

So don't compare yourself to some "ideal" when it is much less about that, even though our lizard brains may make us want to start feeling that way.

How frequently would you estimate he is into it?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

I've spent the last few years around college campuses and believe me, the "young hotties" have a way to go to match the more mature women...


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> How frequently would you estimate he is into it?


Every day.

He says he doesn't know why he does it, he just likes it and is not ever going to give it up (foot is down!). He says it doesn't affect us, even though he now has ED ("not related"), is no longer into it with me ("getting older"), doesn't really attend to my needs/preferences ("can't always be good"), and apparently magically only really thinks about sex when I'm not around ("you weren't available").


----------



## MEM2020

John,
I believe your response below is a great example of - a blind spot you have. 

JLD has overall been the most empathetic person towards you on TAM. Her comment below - has nothing to do with whether or not she feels your pain. 

By the way - I've had that view for a long time. That J2 would get on well with Dug. 

By way of reference, there are a lot of things you do, that likely cause J2 to feel really bad. Unfortunately you are often too self focused to realize that. 

Dug - doesn't get lost in his own head. 

For example, you have won all the big battles with J2 regarding finances. You got her to agree to fund J3's design education. She doesn't much like her job, but keeps it. I imagine most folks nod and say those were practical outcomes. 

But - the cell phone debacle. Over a 300-400 dollar waste - and yes I agree it would have been wasteful - you made a big thing over it. 

J2 doesn't trust you because you are not only comfortable doing stuff that causes her distress, but worse, vocally self righteous in situations like that. 

When I acted like you - M2 acted a lot like J2. 

Your issue is that you believe that for a while you tried his 'other' approach. I'll call it Dug's approach. I don't believe that you did. 

And I'll tell you why I don't believe it. Because during the period you tried acting 'nice', it required a real effort. And you expressed that 'niceness' in words. Makes sense, your a smart guy with a facility for spoken language. But your words were likely often out of synch with your non verbal communication. 

You also pride yourself for being a skilled manipulator and being able to obscure your true self within a cloud of black ink. 

Those traits and your pride in them, inspire distrust and counter measures. 




john117 said:


> It seems to me your Emphatizer 2000 is still out for service
> 
> I do not think that a NormalHusband (tm) would last more than six months with good ole' J2. It would make for a heck of a science experiment but really, I don't think so.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I don't know much about that, but I am sure it has nothing to do with you. Please don't internalize it in that way. It is _his_ issue.


Yes, but (no longer surprising to me) it also reinforces everything I've always been told all my life.

His issue, other guy's issue, yet another guy's issue. What's the difference? They all have one thing in common...

ETA: And let me just clarify that the "what I've been told all my life" comes from multiple sources, men women, old, young. I tried hard not to believe it, but am thinking these days that I might as well just own it already.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Yes, but (no longer surprising to me) it also reinforces everything I've always been told all my life.
> 
> His issue, other guy's issue, yet another guy's issue. What's the difference? They all have one thing in common...
> 
> ETA: And let me just clarify that the "what I've been told all my life" comes from multiple sources, men women, old, young. I tried hard not to believe it, but am thinking these days that I might as well just own it already.


What you have been told is that you are a smart woman who unintentionally scares weak people.

But that is on _them_, aa, not on you.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Every day.
> 
> He says he doesn't know why he does it, he just likes it and is not ever going to give it up (foot is down!). He says it doesn't affect us, even though he now has ED ("not related"), is no longer into it with me ("getting older"), doesn't really attend to my needs/preferences ("can't always be good"), and apparently magically only really thinks about sex when I'm not around ("you weren't available").


A_A, this is exactly what I did to my wife.

Why go to a live person, with wants, needs and more, when a hottie, to which he has zero obligation, is getting nailed just a click away.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

MEM, my friend, you need to BUY an Empathizer 2000 HD (Heavy Duty). 

You seem bent on the idea that J2 is this innocent little Asian chick that is victimized by Big Bad John here.

Maybe she is. I am pretty good in pushing buttons. But you know what? She is not carrying her weight in the marriage. Period. 

I could spend a year writing parodies of her marriage to any of the male contingent of the TAM peanut gallery. The very thought of it brings tears of laughter in my cataract free eyes. 

Some people, my TAM friends, are simply not meant to be free-range. Today J2 was getting stressed from work - her only concern apparently - so I finally picked up my laptop and came home at 2 pm to calm her down. I'd love to see Dug cancel a business trip to come home and make sure his wife does not freak out from, say, doing her job. Maybe you would. But I've done this multiple times in a year, simply because her emotional processing is that fvcked up.

Forget the "rewards" part. There aren't any. Money maybe but screw money. I don't work for money. If I did I would be in Seattle right now working for big A. Where there's plenty of Asian chicks (you can't begin to appreciate how many ). The weather is awful tho.

Maybe I don't know how to be authentic. Whoa. Like the Marlboro man. Trade the Mini for a palomino, adopt a drawl... Authenticity doesn't help when you're dealt cards like mine. The only thing authenticity would do is bail out in six months instead of eight years. 

To be honest, I've followed J2's approach and checked out. A couple years ago. I didn't get married to be a therapist. I got my own things to worry about. 

I do have this wild image of Lucille Ball and Ricky Ricardo...


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
You translate very very well in text. What do you believe is it about your 'in person' style that produces this reaction? 

For instance, someone like you relaxes a bit and uses that keen observational style in a humorous fashion. That is really appealing. 

As far as A2 goes, he's exploiting the good will you have for him. 

And your take on him is right. He's 'largely' lost his desire for you. I imagine that is partly a function of age - his (falling testosterone) as much as yours. And definitely compounded by his daily use of porn. 

My BIG issue with him isn't his reduced (d)esire / lust. It is his lack of (D)esire to please you. 

Big D trumps little d in the overall scheme of things. 




always_alone said:


> Yes, but (no longer surprising to me) it also reinforces everything I've always been told all my life.
> 
> His issue, other guy's issue, yet another guy's issue. What's the difference? They all have one thing in common...
> 
> ETA: And let me just clarify that the "what I've been told all my life" comes from multiple sources, men women, old, young. I tried hard not to believe it, but am thinking these days that I might as well just own it already.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

You think I don't feel bad for you? That isn't true. I do. 

But not nearly as bad as you feel for yourself. 

As far as J2 goes, I believe you that she's difficult. Maybe even more difficult than you have painted her. 

What you know - in your head - is that it's almost all J2's fault. 

And yet what you believe - in your heart - is that in a post J2 world you are better suited to feline companions than a primate partner. 

And for the purpose of clarity, if I was J2, I'd take a VERY dim view of fully funding a child's medical school. 

Undergrad sure. But med school, no way. 

I could do a parody of you John. I'd have you behind a desk. 

Daughter comes up - asks for couple hundred thousand for med school. You say: yes med school for you

Wife comes up, asks for a new cell phone: 
You say: No - no cell phone for you

So yes - there is a LOT of good material here for a parody. 





john117 said:


> MEM, my friend, you need to BUY an Empathizer 2000 HD (Heavy Duty).
> 
> You seem bent on the idea that J2 is this innocent little Asian chick that is victimized by Big Bad John here.
> 
> Maybe she is. I am pretty good in pushing buttons. But you know what? She is not carrying her weight in the marriage. Period.
> 
> I could spend a year writing parodies of her marriage to any of the male contingent of the TAM peanut gallery. The very thought of it brings tears of laughter in my cataract free eyes.
> 
> Some people, my TAM friends, are simply not meant to be free-range. Today J2 was getting stressed from work - her only concern apparently - so I finally picked up my laptop and came home at 2 pm to calm her down. I'd love to see Dug cancel a business trip to come home and make sure his wife does not freak out from, say, doing her job. Maybe you would. But I've done this multiple times in a year, simply because her emotional processing is that fvcked up.
> 
> Forget the "rewards" part. There aren't any. Money maybe but screw money. I don't work for money. If I did I would be in Seattle right now working for big A. Where there's plenty of Asian chicks (you can't begin to appreciate how many ). The weather is awful tho.
> 
> Maybe I don't know how to be authentic. Whoa. Like the Marlboro man. Trade the Mini for a palomino, adopt a drawl... Authenticity doesn't help when you're dealt cards like mine. The only thing authenticity would do is bail out in six months instead of eight years.
> 
> To be honest, I've followed J2's approach and checked out. A couple years ago. I didn't get married to be a therapist. I got my own things to worry about.
> 
> I do have this wild image of Lucille Ball and Ricky Ricardo...


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> A_A, this is exactly what I did to my wife.
> 
> Why go to a live person, with wants, needs and more, when a hottie, to which he has zero obligation, is getting nailed just a click away.


Fantastic. Be glad she still talks to you.

I can't even begin to tell you how much it depresses me to know I can't compete with some fvcking random 22-year old flaunting it up and pretending to get off.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Fantastic. Be glad she still talks to you.
> 
> I can't even begin to tell you how much it depresses me to know I can't compete with some fvcking random 22-year old flaunting it up and pretending to get off.


Did you miss my point entirely?

Sorry if I triggered you.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> You translate very very well in text. What do you believe is it about your 'in person' style that produces this reaction?


Time and personal space, and [social] distraction are big factors IRL.

For some people the social interaction is easier to _continually_ day-to-day play off if they're in their own space and on a machine ... dealing with the picture world in their head.

Not everyone can hold that up day-to-day IRL with the constant other life demands.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> Did you miss my point entirely?


Maybe. 

But this is what I mean when I say I have nothing but raw feed on this issue, and no way to process it. 

I realize I'm coming up short because I'm not some sexy young object toy, and it makes me want to just scream "fvck you", throw a bomb into the relationship and walk away.


----------



## farsidejunky

It has nothing to do with you not being some hot young thing.

It has to do more with a certain emotional laziness that leads to escapism. The path of least resistance.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> It has nothing to do with you not being some hot young thing.
> 
> It has to do more with a certain emotional laziness that leads to escapism. The path of least resistance.


What difference does it make? He's still choosing some young hottie chick over me. No wait, correction: every young hottie chick that's naked on the internet --and these days, that's just about everyone --over me.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Maybe.
> 
> But this is what I mean when I say I have nothing but raw feed on this issue, and no way to process it.
> 
> I realize I'm coming up short because I'm not some sexy young object toy, and* it makes me want to just scream "fvck you", throw a bomb into the relationship and walk away*.


Follow your instincts!


----------



## farsidejunky

Because you are internalizing something that just isn't true.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Aa, if a woman came here saying that her husband had started spending the better part of every day drinking, and she said if she could just be a more interesting companion to him, he would surely stop drinking, what would you tell her?


----------



## john117

Personal said:


> I don't believe @MEM11363 thinks that at all, at the very least it isn't what he is saying.


Well, I do sense that the peanut gallery in general thinks that J2 is about ready to be canonized by Mecca - or wherever - so... 

There's is plenty of blame to go around but if one person is responsible for the vast majority of crap happening in the marriage I don't think it's fair to try to blame the bozo who spent the better part of the decade making sure his wife does not get herself committed.

At best I'm 10% and she's 90%. Wanna be generous? 25/75. But I can take my sh!t down to low single digits and still see zero or near zero reciprocity. 

I might as well try to teach calculus to my cat.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Aa, if a woman came here saying that her husband had started spending the better part of every day drinking, and she said if she could just be a more interesting companion to him, he would surely stop drinking, what would you tell her?


Do we know why he's drinking?


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Do we know why he's drinking?


You are surely not going to suggest it is because his wife is not an interesting companion?


----------



## john117

It's a possibility.


----------



## john117

Except for the part that DD20 was railroaded into premed and it took a Herculean effort to even agree to let her try for medical and law school entrance 

The phone... Well, I did not pay the Apple tax and switched out my aging iPhone 5 for a Motorola Moto X Pure at half the price of a 6s. DD23 likewise. I offered a Moto X to J2 as a permanent replacement but nooo... Has to be a Note 5, not those proletariat unlocked phones like ours 

Now... Who would make a great virtual partner for me from the TAM female coterie? J2 got great dibs, who will the great matchmaker s of TAM come up with?



MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> You think I don't feel bad for you? That isn't true. I do.
> 
> But not nearly as bad as you feel for yourself.
> 
> As far as J2 goes, I believe you that she's difficult. Maybe even more difficult than you have painted her.
> 
> What you know - in your head - is that it's almost all J2's fault.
> 
> And yet what you believe - in your heart - is that in a post J2 world you are better suited to feline companions than a primate partner.
> 
> And for the purpose of clarity, if I was J2, I'd take a VERY dim view of fully funding a child's medical school.
> 
> Undergrad sure. But med school, no way.
> 
> I could do a parody of you John. I'd have you behind a desk.
> 
> Daughter comes up - asks for couple hundred thousand for med school. You say: yes med school for you
> 
> Wife comes up, asks for a new cell phone:
> You say: No - no cell phone for you
> 
> So yes - there is a LOT of good material here for a parody.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Yes, but (no longer surprising to me) it also reinforces everything I've always been told all my life.
> 
> His issue, other guy's issue, yet another guy's issue. What's the difference? They all have one thing in common...
> 
> ETA: And let me just clarify that the "what I've been told all my life" comes from multiple sources, men women, old, young. I tried hard not to believe it, but am thinking these days that I might as well just own it already.


There is this giant defeatist tone in what you just posted. 

That is in stark contradiction to other things you post that are in what I call a "take no prisoners" tone.

It's like you switch from one to the other in rapid succession. I find it confusing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Fantastic. Be glad she still talks to you.
> 
> I can't even begin to tell you how much it depresses me to know I can't compete with some fvcking random 22-year old flaunting it up and pretending to get off.


Argh.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

For the life of me, I don't get why the hell John gets so much piled on him for wanting to leave. 

I had a big problem with his pearl harbour approach, but he didn't do that.

I now see his sardonic attempts at misdirection for what I think they really are - a complex self defence system that has been constructed to shield himself from a smart, beautiful, but profoundly broken wife. 

And, being more than a little broken himself, he created this elaborate castle and moat to hide behind.

This marriage is done. She knows why, he knows why. They're already better off than most divorces, and are flush with cash. 

Although, at a multimillion net worth why he fusses phones is beyond me - and John that may be an area for introspection - the need to financially control and perhaps punish. 

Aside from that, have at 'Er.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

We need the millions to pay for cat food 

It's not really a defense mechanism - its who I am. It infuriates a number of people but works well in general...


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,

I am not getting on John's case for wanting to divorce. My issue with him looks something like this. 

He's acting like a vindictive teenage boy whose prom date stood him up. 

He is clearly very happy about the way the asset distribution will work out - heavily in his favor. 

And I can understand that given that J2 has significant responsibility for the marriage ending. 

BUT - and it's a giant BUT

What he really wants is to JOINTLY fund med school which is proportionately a MUCH BIGGER sacrifice for J2 given that she has both a smaller asset base and a less stable career. 

And all this for a woman who will graduate with the ability to easily pay off med school by working hard and making what doctors in the US make. 

Where the girls are concerned - the best is barely good enough. But if J2 ends up in a tough situation in retirement - screw her. 

THAT is my issue with John. He is quick to claim indifference, but his actions show a level of well planned financial vindictiveness that says otherwise. 






marduk said:


> For the life of me, I don't get why the hell John gets so much piled on him for wanting to leave.
> 
> I had a big problem with his pearl harbour approach, but he didn't do that.
> 
> I now see his sardonic attempts at misdirection for what I think they really are - a complex self defence system that has been constructed to shield himself from a smart, beautiful, but profoundly broken wife.
> 
> And, being more than a little broken himself, he created this elaborate castle and moat to hide behind.
> 
> This marriage is done. She knows why, he knows why. They're already better off than most divorces, and are flush with cash.
> 
> Although, at a multimillion net worth why he fusses phones is beyond me - and John that may be an area for introspection - the need to financially control and perhaps punish.
> 
> Aside from that, have at 'Er.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

John,

As far as empathy goes - go find the posts where YOU were empathetic with others. 

From what I've seen to date empathetically speaking, you're a prodigious consumer and a negligible producer. 




john117 said:


> Except for the part that DD20 was railroaded into premed and it took a Herculean effort to even agree to let her try for medical and law school entrance
> 
> The phone... Well, I did not pay the Apple tax and switched out my aging iPhone 5 for a Motorola Moto X Pure at half the price of a 6s. DD23 likewise. I offered a Moto X to J2 as a permanent replacement but nooo... Has to be a Note 5, not those proletariat unlocked phones like ours
> 
> Now... Who would make a great virtual partner for me from the TAM female coterie? J2 got great dibs, who will the great matchmaker s of TAM come up with?


----------



## MEM2020

And law school is a very high risk play. 

We are currently producing almost twice as many lawyers as we have jobs for. 

The ABA recently convened a committee to 'address' the issue. The Chairman of that committee works for a private equity firm that owns big stakes in 3 'for profit' law schools. These schools charge tuitions which are staggeringly high in relation to the average income of their graduates. 

That guy - the Chairman of this 'committee' is the last person in the world to address the over supply issue because he is personally making a big profit on the backs of these students. 

The committee ended up concluding that: the over supply problem is a significant issue, worthy of further study.....

Reminds me of the two doctors who 'studied' the NFL's concussion problems for two decades without making a single step of progress. 

Average salary for a lawyer working for a 'firm' is 140K right out of school. Public sector grads make 60K. 

Unless you get into a top 10 law school and graduate top quarter of your class, it's a very high risk path. And even then, many of those lawyers dislike either the work, or the crazy workload.....




john117 said:


> We need the millions to pay for cat food
> 
> It's not really a defense mechanism - its who I am. It infuriates a number of people but works well in general...


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> You translate very very well in text. What do you believe is it about your 'in person' style that produces this reaction?
> 
> For instance, someone like you relaxes a bit and uses that keen observational style in a humorous fashion. That is really appealing.


Thanks, MEM, for the kind words. But you have to admit that these forums are a lot different than RL. We are total and complete strangers having an oddly intimate conversation. It's sort of like meeting someone on the road: a brief encounter, a connection is made, but it's precisely because the stakes are so low. There is no crossover to the daily grind. And a high stakes situation will unfold a.lot differently.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the conversation. IMHO this is the best thread ever on TAM.

But RL is different. I honestly have no vocabulary for what I'm trying to express other than what has been provided to me by others. But what I've been told is that men (generally) don't have much use for women like me. They want women who are submissive, who look up to them, who make them feel like providers, who are kind and nurturing and feminine and beautiful.

Let's get real here: Even you have said very clearly that you think there should be a power differential in a relationship. Would you, honestly, pick one where you were not the dominant one? 

I'm betting not!


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> I am not getting on John's case for wanting to divorce. My issue with him looks something like this.
> 
> He's acting like a vindictive teenage boy whose prom date stood him up.
> 
> He is clearly very happy about the way the asset distribution will work out - heavily in his favor.
> 
> And I can understand that given that J2 has significant responsibility for the marriage ending.
> 
> BUT - and it's a giant BUT
> 
> What he really wants is to JOINTLY fund med school which is proportionately a MUCH BIGGER sacrifice for J2 given that she has both a smaller asset base and a less stable career.
> 
> And all this for a woman who will graduate with the ability to easily pay off med school by working hard and making what doctors in the US make.
> 
> Where the girls are concerned - the best is barely good enough. But if J2 ends up in a tough situation in retirement - screw her.
> 
> THAT is my issue with John. He is quick to claim indifference, but his actions show a level of well planned financial vindictiveness that says otherwise.


As I explained med school and expensive schools were not my idea, or the lavish lifestyle, McMansion, or the like. I would be elated if my kids attended Padukah State University as long as that's what they wanted.

J2's got me beat by a sizable margin in the 401k department for various reasons - and that's joint income - while my real estate holdings in Europe were titled to me a decade before I met her. And I'm sure if the local theocratic bureaucracy has their way we will all be worm good before she gets any inheritance from her folks thanks to her mom's stunts.

All I know is that despite two six figure incomes i have to watch our money, something she never bothered to do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

AA...Your gut has already told you everything you need to know. I am with jld and wish you would just listen to it and leave him and stop the pain you are having. Unless this has changed, you are also the only one with an income, correct? So you essentially support a man who watches porn every day but doesn't want to or can't have sex with you. At this point, what else COULD he say that would tell you what you need to hear? Would he have to just straight up say "ok you are right, I'm here because you support me and I get to watch porn all day". IMO, it doesn't matter if he "also" loves you. The reality of what he is willing to give and take from you is right there, totally transparent. He doesn't want to say "yeah I'm not into you anymore and don't really want to have sex" because that would take away his meal ticket and he knows it.

If on the other hand he did love you and wanted to figure out a way to make it work, then he would not have put his foot down and be forever unwilling to discuss the porn. He would be trying to find out how to make you happy. He would be trying to make sure you are not the only income provider. He would want to hear how you feel, he would want to hear your transparency.

But the problem is that you've already accepted this shabby situation and you are now the only one who can make that pain you feel constantly stop. He is not going to blow his sweet deal. As I said, "love" or not, it is his sweet deal he is protecting. You don't really need any words from him in order to see the truth, which you already do see.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> As I explained med school and expensive schools were not my idea, or the lavish lifestyle, McMansion, or the like. *I would be elated if my kids attended Padukah State University as long as that's what they wanted.*
> 
> J2's got me beat by a sizable margin in the 401k department for various reasons - and that's joint income - while my real estate holdings in Europe were titled to me a decade before I met her. And I'm sure if the local theocratic bureaucracy has their way we will all be worm good before she gets any inheritance from her folks thanks to her mom's stunts.
> 
> All I know is that despite two six figure incomes i have to watch our money, something she never bothered to do.


John, you mentioned once on a thread in SIM that your older daughter needed to attend an expensive school because she was studying art and wanted to pursue a career in academia. You said she had to go to an elite school to do that.

And John, if you had objected to the McMansion, it would not have happened. You wanted your lifestyle, too.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,

I very much struggle with that question. About the power differential. 

My view on that topic 5 years ago was very different than it is now. Back then, the ONLY thing I knew was a loving, passionate but high conflict marriage. 

In a good year we were 'in conflict' 5% of the time. In a bad year 10%. And 'in conflict' meant a true 180. In between it was always good to great. But that is a LOT of conflict. 

The power gradient is WAY WAY more important to you in a high conflict marriage. 

And not a big deal in a low conflict one. 

Would I be ok with a true equal? Yes. Provided they were really 'into me'. 

Would I be ok with someone smarter, more successful? Yes. Provided they were really into me. 

I've written a lot about desire levels. In my experience lust is often a fickle friend - love is more stable. Don't get me wrong - I love lust. 





always_alone said:


> Thanks, MEM, for the kind words. But you have to admit that these forums are a lot different than RL. We are total and complete strangers having an oddly intimate conversation. It's sort of like meeting someone on the road: a brief encounter, a connection is made, but it's precisely because the stakes are so low. There is no crossover to the daily grind. And a high stakes situation will unfold a.lot differently.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the conversation. IMHO this is the best thread ever on TAM.
> 
> But RL is different. I honestly have no vocabulary for what I'm trying to express other than what has been provided to me by others. But what I've been told is that men (generally) don't have much use for women like me. They want women who are submissive, who look up to them, who make them feel like providers, who are kind and nurturing and feminine and beautiful.
> 
> Let's get real here: Even you have said very clearly that you think there should be a power differential in a relationship. Would you, honestly, pick one where you were not the dominant one?
> 
> I'm betting not!


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> As far as empathy goes - go find the posts where YOU were empathetic with others.
> 
> From what I've seen to date empathetically speaking, you're a prodigious consumer and a negligible producer.


Most people in TAM look for answers, not empathy. Myself included. There haven't been very many marriages as messed up as mine even in this dark corner of the world. The few that were received a fair bit of my attention. 

As for consuming empathy, judging from the misconceptions I'm STILL reading well over two years into my TAM quest...


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> I am not getting on John's case for wanting to divorce. My issue with him looks something like this.
> 
> He's acting like a vindictive teenage boy whose prom date stood him up.
> 
> He is clearly very happy about the way the asset distribution will work out - heavily in his favor.
> 
> And I can understand that given that J2 has significant responsibility for the marriage ending.
> 
> BUT - and it's a giant BUT
> 
> What he really wants is to JOINTLY fund med school which is proportionately a MUCH BIGGER sacrifice for J2 given that she has both a smaller asset base and a less stable career.
> 
> And all this for a woman who will graduate with the ability to easily pay off med school by working hard and making what doctors in the US make.
> 
> Where the girls are concerned - the best is barely good enough. But if J2 ends up in a tough situation in retirement - screw her.
> 
> THAT is my issue with John. He is quick to claim indifference, but his actions show a level of well planned financial vindictiveness that says otherwise.


All true.

So what?

What does he owe her?

Nothing.

Remember, she's going to get about a million bucks. It's not like she's going to be on the street.

And she knows what's coming, has not altered her perspective, nor has she taken any steps to mitigate her financial "hardship." Where hardship in her case means living in the top 1% and is really having an altered, but realistic, lifestyle.

I have zero empathy for her whatsoever.

Do not confuse this with having no compassion for her.


----------



## john117

As long as we both know what's coming and are open to each other I think we are OK. 

See, there's this little thing in the back of my head that tells me she will do to me what her dad did to her mom, namely, let me rot. 

Financially I'm not planning on supporting the illegal alien community with posh gardener or cook or housekeeper jobs in another five years. Right now its legal alien John doing all the work. Five years... 

And I have communicated this. Ten years ago before our marriage tanked we actually talked. And talked. And we decided on a nice 2-3 high rise bedroom on Lincoln Park or downtown Chicago. We both love Chicago. But now she wants to stay put or move to a bigger place. 

Transparency assumes communication. If you're not communicating all the transparency in the world won't save you. It's one partner making a crazy lifestyle decision and who cares if we can afford it.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> There is this giant defeatist tone in what you just posted.
> 
> That is in stark contradiction to other things you post that are in what I call a "take no prisoners" tone.
> 
> It's like you switch from one to the other in rapid succession. I find it confusing.


Well, FWIW, I think what you call a "take no prisoners tone" is something I see very differently. It isn't about winning a war or taking people down, it is just standing up for myself.

And what you see as the "self defeatist" tone is just my observations of certain patterns -what I've been told.

I don't see it as a huge shift from two different things, just two spins on a theme.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> At best I'm 10% and she's 90%. Wanna be generous? 25/75. But I can take my sh!t down to low single digits and still see zero or near zero reciprocity.


What is intriguing to me about the juxtaposition of our two stories here is that you want to shift the responsibility for what is away from you, and I keep taking it on. And we are both getting called out for it.


----------



## Deejo

john117 said:


> Now... Who would make a great virtual partner for me from the TAM female coterie? J2 got great dibs, who will the great matchmaker s of TAM come up with?


I think I banned most of them, John.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
Now this is one area where I believe J2 and M2 are radically different. I have absolutely no fear of what M2 would do were I incapacitated. And neither does she in reverse. 

All I can tell you is that over the last year or so - all the things M2 had done that I resented - and there were a LOT - dissolved and disappeared. 

I hope that happens for you. It was very liberating. 



john117 said:


> As long as we both know what's coming and are open to each other I think we are OK.
> 
> See, there's this little thing in the back of my head that tells me she will do to me what her dad did to her mom, namely, let me rot.
> 
> Financially I'm not planning on supporting the illegal alien community with posh gardener or cook or housekeeper jobs in another five years. Right now its legal alien John doing all the work. Five years...
> 
> And I have communicated this. Ten years ago before our marriage tanked we actually talked. And talked. And we decided on a nice 2-3 high rise bedroom on Lincoln Park or downtown Chicago. We both love Chicago. But now she wants to stay put or move to a bigger place.
> 
> Transparency assumes communication. If you're not communicating all the transparency in the world won't save you. It's one partner making a crazy lifestyle decision and who cares if we can afford it.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
This totally contradicts your early posts. Those posts basically said: I'm stuck in this marriage for another 7-8 years because that's how long it will be for daughter to complete college AND med school. You went on to explain that you would stick around so J2 would have to pay her half of those school expenses. 

That is not what someone OPPOSED to paying for med school would say. That person would say - upon youngest daughters completion of her undergrad degree I'm out. If J2 wants to pay for half of med school post divorce that's up to her. 

And this wasn't a single post. There was a lot of back and forth between you and other folks about med school. 



john117 said:


> As I explained med school and expensive schools were not my idea, or the lavish lifestyle, McMansion, or the like. I would be elated if my kids attended Padukah State University as long as that's what they wanted.
> 
> J2's got me beat by a sizable margin in the 401k department for various reasons - and that's joint income - while my real estate holdings in Europe were titled to me a decade before I met her. And I'm sure if the local theocratic bureaucracy has their way we will all be worm good before she gets any inheritance from her folks thanks to her mom's stunts.
> 
> All I know is that despite two six figure incomes i have to watch our money, something she never bothered to do.


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> What difference does it make? He's still choosing some young hottie chick over me. No wait, correction: every young hottie chick that's naked on the internet --and these days, that's just about everyone --over me.


Or he's choosing to remain in denial, through this method of escapism, the instant non-attached 'fix'... over you.

It was hard for me to read your posts without feeling defensive on your behalf because he has 'put his foot down' and is ignoring your feelings on this and how it impacts your relationship. No wonder you feel like saying 'eff you, I'm out.' I think it's completely different when couples face what's happening together, acknowledge concerns and work on that. 

What else does he have going on in his life? What was his childhood like? ...He's mentioned insecurity about you leaving him, yet his actions are pushing you to consider that. Any chance he's self-sabotaging?


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> But RL is different. I honestly have no vocabulary for what I'm trying to express other than what has been provided to me by others. But what I've been told is that men (generally) don't have much use for women like me. They want women who are submissive, who look up to them, who make them feel like providers, who are kind and nurturing and feminine and beautiful.


On the flip-side, what does a woman like _you_ want?

This doesn't necessarily warrant an answer. Why the focus on what certain men want, and why they don't 'have much use for' women like you... rather than what a woman like you seeks in her man? If that was your focus, what would your actions be?


----------



## heartsbeating

MEM11363 said:


> Average salary for a lawyer working for a 'firm' is 140K right out of school. Public sector grads make 60K.


This is why I passed on law school. :wink2:


----------



## heartsbeating

Faithful Wife said:


> AA...Your gut has already told you everything you need to know. I am with jld and wish you would just listen to it and leave him and stop the pain you are having. Unless this has changed, you are also the only one with an income, correct? So you essentially support a man who watches porn every day but doesn't want to or can't have sex with you. At this point, what else COULD he say that would tell you what you need to hear? Would he have to just straight up say "ok you are right, I'm here because you support me and I get to watch porn all day". IMO, it doesn't matter if he "also" loves you. The reality of what he is willing to give and take from you is right there, totally transparent. He doesn't want to say "yeah I'm not into you anymore and don't really want to have sex" because that would take away his meal ticket and he knows it.
> 
> *If on the other hand he did love you and wanted to figure out a way to make it work, then he would not have put his foot down and be forever unwilling to discuss the porn. He would be trying to find out how to make you happy. He would be trying to make sure you are not the only income provider. He would want to hear how you feel, he would want to hear your transparency.*
> 
> But the problem is that you've already accepted this shabby situation and you are now the only one who can make that pain you feel constantly stop. He is not going to blow his sweet deal. As I said, "love" or not, it is his sweet deal he is protecting. You don't really need any words from him in order to see the truth, which you already do see.


And then I caught up with the most recent posts.

Absolutely. 

Always, perhaps only you know why you're accepting this.


----------



## jld

Always, it sounds like you have low self esteem. This is pretty common in women. Unfortunate, but common.

I think one thing that could help would be to shake off thinking that what people have told you about yourself actually matters. You are a smart woman, and for whatever reason, that scares people. But again, that is their problem, not yours. Don't take their very insecure responses as any kind of truth, other than proof of their own insecurity. 

Your intelligence is a tremendous gift. I wish more people would have validated you for what you have shared with them, instead of contributing to your self doubt. But again, they cannot offer more than they are capable of, which obviously is not much.

Keeping this SO around is just going to keep dragging you down. He is basically cheating on you with porn, while being bankrolled by you, as FW said. You would be better off alone than with that weight on you.

Always, I think you need to learn to love yourself. It cannot have anything to do with other people. You need to know you have worth regardless of what other people think.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> This totally contradicts your early posts. Those posts basically said: I'm stuck in this marriage for another 7-8 years because that's how long it will be for daughter to complete college AND med school. You went on to explain that you would stick around so J2 would have to pay her half of those school expenses.
> 
> That is not what someone OPPOSED to paying for med school would say. That person would say - upon youngest daughters completion of her undergrad degree I'm out. If J2 wants to pay for half of med school post divorce that's up to her.
> 
> And this wasn't a single post. There was a lot of back and forth between you and other folks about med school.


Tentacles and ink...Tentacles and ink...



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Always, it sounds like you have low self esteem. This is pretty common in women. Unfortunate, but common.
> 
> I think one thing that could help would be to shake off thinking that what people have told you about yourself actually matters. You are a smart woman, and for whatever reason, that scares people. But again, that is their problem, not yours. Don't take their very insecure responses as any kind of truth, other than proof of their own insecurity.


When it comes to relationships and dating, it does matter what people think of you. And yes, it is their problem if they don't like me, but it is also mine.

JLD, I have spent most of my life not worrying about what other people think of me, living on my terms, doing the things I want. And I have no regrets about this. Well, maybe some of it, but mostly not. 

But let me be blunt about this: the qualities you like about me mean squat in the dating arena. Before I met my SO I hadn't been asked out in *years*. I am not joking. Any efforts I made were met with rejection. 

Anywhere else you go, you will hear that if the same problem keeps repeating itself, then look to the common denominator. Well, here I am. Why give me a free pass and not anyone else?


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> On the flip-side, what does a woman like _you_ want?
> 
> This doesn't necessarily warrant an answer. Why the focus on what certain men want, and why they don't 'have much use for' women like you... rather than what a woman like you seeks in her man? If that was your focus, what would your actions be?


I've put the focus on what men want because I think the context warrants mention. People want to see the problem as all his. He's just a loser, a porn addict, a whatever, I should just ditch him and find some wonderful guy. But there is no "wonderful guy". When I put the focus on what I want? Well, that's when I met my SO.

The most important thing to me was to be appreciated for who I am. In a past relationship, long ago, I ended it because he was always trying to put me in a cage, perhaps not realizing or caring that it would kill the bird. Another was infatuated with the picture in his head, and constantly pushed me to conform to what he dreamed about, how he wished I was. I can't live like that.

Relationshipwise, there is not a lot I care about --except having that deep connection and utter freedom to be me. And this is how I ended up with my SO and why I continue to stay. TBH, I was blindsided by this whole issue, and it does make me wonder if I am fooling myself. But I'm not ready to throw it all away.

And frankly, not at all eager to get back to the perpetual loneliness that I lived before.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> When it comes to relationships and dating, it does matter what people think of you. And yes, it is their problem if they don't like me, but it is also mine.
> 
> JLD, I have spent most of my life not worrying about what other people think of me, living on my terms, doing the things I want. And I have no regrets about this. Well, maybe some of it, but mostly not.
> 
> But let me be blunt about this: the qualities you like about me mean squat in the dating arena. Before I met my SO I hadn't been asked out in *years*. I am not joking. Any efforts I made were met with rejection.
> 
> Anywhere else you go, you will hear that if the same problem keeps repeating itself, then look to the common denominator. Well, here I am. Why give me a free pass and not anyone else?


I disagree with the frame, aa. I just do not think *you* are the problem.

Do you remember the story of the ugly duckling? 

Aa, you are the beautiful swan. 

But if you keep hanging around ducks, and thinking in terms of what ducks like, and how ducks judge, you will be forever stuck with ducks. And ducks are never going to be a good fit for you, because you are a swan.

Aa, girlfriend, there are men out there who will like you and appreciate you just the way you are. And they are not going to expect _you_ to make efforts. 

That has to be one of the biggest mistakes, if not the biggest, that women make in dating: actually trying. 

Your job, dear, is to just be yourself. Not look for someone, not try to please him. Let him please _you._ It's a great filter.

You know why I feel strongly about this, aa? Because most women end up giving an awful lot in relationships. You certainly do. I would never support a man who sat around watching porn, aa. I probably would not support a man, period. I certainly would not support one who felt entitled to it. That just seems totally unnatural to me.

Make your own great life, aa. You _can_ be happy without a man. You just need to love yourself and believe in yourself, and surround yourself with people who love and believe in you. 

And stop letting duck judgments affect you in any way. They are irrelevant to your swan life.

What do you feel you need a man for, aa?

Because, imo, unless you are with a great one, you are better off *always alone.*


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I've put the focus on what men want because I think the context warrants mention. People want to see the problem as all his. He's just a loser, a porn addict, a whatever, I should just ditch him and find some wonderful guy. But there is no "wonderful guy". When I put the focus on what I want? Well, that's when I met my SO.
> 
> The most important thing to me was to be appreciated for who I am. In a past relationship, long ago, I ended it because he was always trying to put me in a cage, perhaps not realizing or caring that it would kill the bird. Another was infatuated with the picture in his head, and constantly pushed me to conform to what he dreamed about, how he wished I was. I can't live like that.
> 
> Relationshipwise, there is not a lot I care about --except having that deep connection and utter freedom to be me. And this is how I ended up with my SO and why I continue to stay. TBH, I was blindsided by this whole issue, and it does make me wonder if I am fooling myself. But I'm not ready to throw it all away.
> 
> And frankly, not at all eager to get back to the perpetual loneliness that I lived before.


If you are not having sex with him, then he is just a friend. You can have friends without bankrolling them, aa.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Well, FWIW, I think what you call a "take no prisoners tone" is something I see very differently. It isn't about winning a war or taking people down, it is just standing up for myself.
> 
> And what you see as the "self defeatist" tone is just my observations of certain patterns -what I've been told.
> 
> I don't see it as a huge shift from two different things, just two spins on a theme.


I agree it's spinning. 

Around what focal point?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

farsidejunky said:


> Tentacles and ink...Tentacles and ink...
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


And lots of information that is outside the scope of this forum...


----------



## john117

AA, you run into the same issue I have seen. All the good ones are unavailable. And what's available is like a fire sale. 

And that's before chemistry.

May I suggest a pair of Norwegian Forest Cats? 😀


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Your job, dear, is to just be yourself. Not look for someone, not try to please him. Let him please _you._ It's a great filter.
> 
> You know why I feel strongly about this, aa? Because most women end up giving an awful lot in relationships. You certainly do. I would never support a man who sat around watching porn, aa. I probably would not support a man, period. I certainly would not support one who felt entitled to it. That just seems totally unnatural to me.
> 
> Make your own great life, aa. You _can_ be happy without a man. You just need to love yourself and believe in yourself, and surround yourself with people who love and believe in you.
> 
> And stop letting duck judgments affect you in any way. They are irrelevant to your swan life.
> 
> What do you feel you need a man for, aa?
> 
> Because, imo, unless you are with a great one, you are better off *always alone.*


JLD, I can't help but wonder what the reaction would be if I came waltzing in here bragging about what a beautiful swan I am, and how all the insecure losers that fill this world just fail to appreciate the wonderfulness that is me.

I suspect the temptation would be to point out that if I am such a failure at relationships, it might not be their fault, and I need to look for the common denominator.

Do women need a man to live a happy life? Well, no. Of course not. All of us would be perfectly fine without a relationship. We can all just meet all those emotional and sexual needs in some other way. 

But I wanted to *not* be a relationship failure. I *wanted* that type of connection, that type of relationship. So that was my struggle.

And I'm sorry, but I can't help but roll my eyes a bit at the"just be yourself and wait for someone to please me" thing. I have always "just been myself", and what it got me was exactly bupkus. What people are seeing in me here in no way translates to IRL dates, let alone relationships. The filter you are recommending to me is exactly the filter I employed, with my SO, the person you are now telling me to leave.

We are very different people, jld. What worked for you isn't going to work for me. If someone I was dating told me that I was going to have a hous full of kids and homeschool them all, my response would've been "later, dude." 

Please don't get me wrong, I respect your choices and admire your strength and graceful execution of them. I am grateful for your concern, kind words, and efforts to pump me up. I think you are awesome, and I've learned a lot from you, and hope to continue to do so. But waiting around for Prince Charming to whisk me off my feet? Not going to happen. And while you may be right that I would be fine on my own, that just isn't where I want to be. (At least not at this phase of my existence-- there have been others where I thought differently and had different goals.).


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> JLD, I can't help but wonder what the reaction would be if I came waltzing in here bragging about what a beautiful swan I am, and how all the insecure losers that fill this world just fail to appreciate the wonderfulness that is me.
> 
> I suspect the temptation would be to point out that if I am such a failure at relationships, it might not be their fault, and I need to look for the common denominator.
> 
> Do women need a man to live a happy life? Well, no. Of course not. All of us would be perfectly fine without a relationship. We can all just meet all those emotional and sexual needs in some other way.
> 
> But I wanted to *not* be a relationship failure. I *wanted* that type of connection, that type of relationship. So that was my struggle.
> 
> And I'm sorry, but I can't help but roll my eyes a bit at the"just be yourself and wait for someone to please me" thing I have always "just been myself", and what it got me was exactly bupkus. The filter you are recommending to me is exactly the filter I employed, with my SO, the person you are now telling me to leave.
> 
> We are very different people, jld. What worked for you isn't going to work for me. If someone I was dating told me that I was going to have a hous full of kids and homeschool them all, my response would've been "later, dude."
> 
> Please don't get me wrong, I respect your choices and admire your strength and graceful execution. I am grateful for your concern, kind words, and efforts to pump me up. But waiting around for Prince Charming to whisk me off my feet? Not going to happen. And while you may be right that I would be fine on my own, that just isn't where I want to be. (At least not at this phase of my existence-- there have been others where I thought differently and had different goals.).


I have tremendous confidence in you, aa. You are such a smart woman. You know what you can handle and you know what you want. 

And I am convinced that, in the end, you will always land on your feet.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> And I am convinced that, in the end, you will always land on your feet.


Thanks, jld!! That's exactly the sort of confidence I can believe in and get behind. 

(I have nine lives too!)


----------



## anonmd

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> I am not getting on John's case for wanting to divorce. My issue with him looks something like this.
> 
> He's acting like a vindictive teenage boy whose prom date stood him up.
> 
> He is clearly very happy about the way the asset distribution will work out - heavily in his favor.
> 
> And I can understand that given that J2 has significant responsibility for the marriage ending.
> 
> BUT - and it's a giant BUT
> 
> What he really wants is to JOINTLY fund med school which is proportionately a MUCH BIGGER sacrifice for J2 given that she has both a smaller asset base and a less stable career.
> 
> And all this for a woman who will graduate with the ability to easily pay off med school by working hard and making what doctors in the US make.
> 
> *Where the girls are concerned - the best is barely good enough. But if J2 ends up in a tough situation in retirement - screw her.
> *
> THAT is my issue with John. He is quick to claim indifference, but his actions show a level of well planned financial vindictiveness that says otherwise.


Mem, I think your attitude here is colored by your long marriage to a stay at home mom. In such cases you certainly would have a responsibility to your wife's ongoing economic well being. But that is solely related to the fact that she had been out of the workforce during what would have been her career years. 

John's attitude, stated in his unique way of stating things of course, is not really all that harsh unless I've missed something. That is to say, she is entitled to 50% of the marital assets. What was mine at the start is mine, what was hers at the start is hers and what we've generated together gets split in half. 

Of course she will be less well off on her own. Maybe that will be a rude awakening, that she can't afford what they could afford, that's life.


----------



## john117

Well, if we could compromise on one Maine **** and one Norwegian Forest Cat... 

AA, the problem with people like us is that we are too resilient....


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> I agree it's spinning.
> 
> Around what focal point?


A determination to ask the hard questions, a refusal to let fear stand in the way of facing down my demons, and a basic belief that if it doesn't kill me, it will make me stronger (or, if not, well, at least it didn't kill me).


----------



## john117

I followed those too... A lot of good that it did...

As I told my kids, its like watching a train wreck. From inside...


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> A determination to ask the hard questions, a refusal to let fear stand in the way of facing down my demons, and a basic belief that if it doesn't kill me, it will make me stronger (or, if not, well, at least it didn't kill me).


That sounds pretty awesome.

I know a lot of dudes that would kill for a shot at a woman like that. Straight up, smart, fit, driven dudes.

What am I missing here A_A that you don't think that's true?


----------



## john117

Are all these dudes already taken off the dating pool? Otherwise unavailable? 

Also don't go by what they say, go by what they do.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Are all these dudes already taken off the dating pool? Otherwise unavailable?
> 
> Also don't go by what they say, go by what they do.


Usually divorced or tired of dating and want a quality woman. 

Who kicks ass.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

I see. Do they ever succeed in getting said types?


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> I see. Do they ever succeed in getting said types?


Said types are pretty hard to come by, because when somebody finds one, they tend not to let her go no matter what **** comes at them.

My wife is many things, but she is also those things, and with her in my corner the rest of the world ain't so tough.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> That sounds pretty awesome.
> 
> I know a lot of dudes that would kill for a shot at a woman like that. Straight up, smart, fit, driven dudes.
> 
> What am I missing here A_A that you don't think that's true?


Well, no one has ever killed for a shot at me. Not that I would want them to, of course. But there were years of opportunity where all they had to do was ask if I wanted a cup of coffee, and that never happened either.

So, you know. You probably just haven't tuned the picture quite right yet.


----------



## john117

Getting Mr./Ms. Right is as much a function of the environment as anything. If you're not at the Right environment your chances may not be as high as if you are.


----------



## always_alone

My unsolicited advice to marduk's friends is that they aren't really looking for what they say they are. 

I'm reminded of this guy I met, one of those "on the road" connections that ends up having a deep conversation. He was complaining to me about how lonely he was, how superficial women are, how hard it was to find someone of substance, etc., and so on. He had a bit of an aha moment during that conversation: turns out the only women he was paying any attention to at all were those focused on appearances and surfaces.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
There is an element of raw physicality that's important in these situations. Do you believe that aspect of it is a significant factor in your experiences with men? 

For instance - beautiful women - don't react to me at all. I'm not 'hot'. As far as raw attractiveness goes - pure physicality - I would self assess as just a bit above room temperature. 

Kind of a good thing. Folks who walk around with a sexual reality distortion field - experience the world in a way that I have no interest in. 

On the other hand I feel very fortunate that the physical hand I was dealt, hasn't been a hindrance. 






always_alone said:


> Well, no one has ever killed for a shot at me. Not that I would want them to, of course. But there were years of opportunity where all they had to do was ask if I wanted a cup of coffee, and that never happened either.
> 
> So, you know. You probably just haven't tuned the picture quite right yet.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
I had a friend like that. He was ONLY interested in women who spent a huge amount of effort on surface polish. He was moderately rich so he dated a lot of those women. 

He bitterly complained how women ONLY cared about money. Not a happy fellow. 






always_alone said:


> My unsolicited advice to marduk's friends is that they aren't really looking for what they say they are.
> 
> I'm reminded of this guy I met, one of those "on the road" connections that ends up having a deep conversation. He was complaining to me about how lonely he was, how superficial women are, how hard it was to find someone of substance, etc., and so on. He had a bit of an aha moment during that conversation: turns out the only women he was paying any attention to at all were those focused on appearances and surfaces.


----------



## john117

The raw physicality is key - but there's a minimum floor value to it. I was dismayed when, after meeting the woman who I was sure would be the most likely to succeed J2, and saw no chemistry. No physicality whatsoever. 

I'm not superficial by any means and I'm not a prime specimen by any stretch... But the delta was too much. Maybe if we hang out more


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> There is an element of raw physicality that's important in these situations. Do you believe that aspect of it is a significant factor in your experiences with men?
> 
> For instance - beautiful women - don't react to me at all. I'm not 'hot'. As far as raw attractiveness goes - pure physicality - I would self assess as just a bit above room temperature.
> 
> Kind of a good thing. Folks who walk around with a sexual reality distortion field - experience the world in a way that I have no interest in.
> 
> On the other hand I feel very fortunate that the physical hand I was dealt, hasn't been a hindrance.


Physicality is huge, I think. And I agree with you absolutely.

I am infinitely more likely to be described as "cool", as opposed to "hot". But I have, or rather can have at times, a certain charisma, and so can range from initially fairly appealing to downright invisible. 

Initially appealing does have its advantages, to be sure, but lots of drawbacks, including what you describe, relating on solely a sexual level with people you'd rather not talk to at all. Or the initial appeal, even though there, does not translate into anything at all. So what's the point?

Invisible has lots of drawbacks, but also its advantages. I can go where I want, do what I want, wear what I want, and no one notices, cares, or bugs me about it. As a fairly introverted person, this is all absolutely fine by me.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Physicality is huge, I think. And I agree with you absolutely.
> 
> I am infinitely more likely to be described as "cool", as opposed to "hot". But I have, or rather can have at times, a certain charisma, and so can range from initially fairly appealing to downright invisible.
> 
> Initially appealing does have its advantages, to be sure, but lots of drawbacks, including what you describe, relating on solely a sexual level with people you'd rather not talk to at all. Or the initial appeal, even though there, does not translate into anything at all. So what's the point?
> 
> Invisible has lots of drawbacks, but also its advantages. I can go where I want, do what I want, wear what I want, and no one notices, cares, or bugs me about it. As a fairly introverted person, this is all absolutely fine by me.


All of that tells me you want to be noticed and persued.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> All of that tells me you want to be noticed and persued.


Why?


----------



## MEM2020

Always,

Reason I'm married to M2 is solely because she invited me to pursue her. 

Being sort of naturally low key - it was an indirect thing. But it was enough. 

She asked me if I was going to a mutual acquaintance's birthday party. That's all. So then I knew she was at least interested. And I pursued her. 

She didn't ask me TO go. She asked if I WAS going. And FWIW I was not planning to because the girl in question didn't much like me for reasons that are not relevant here. 

But then I made it a point to go. And asked her out and kept asking her out. 





always_alone said:


> Physicality is huge, I think. And I agree with you absolutely.
> 
> I am infinitely more likely to be described as "cool", as opposed to "hot". But I have, or rather can have at times, a certain charisma, and so can range from initially fairly appealing to downright invisible.
> 
> Initially appealing does have its advantages, to be sure, but lots of drawbacks, including what you describe, relating on solely a sexual level with people you'd rather not talk to at all. Or the initial appeal, even though there, does not translate into anything at all. So what's the point?
> 
> Invisible has lots of drawbacks, but also its advantages. I can go where I want, do what I want, wear what I want, and no one notices, cares, or bugs me about it. As a fairly introverted person, this is all absolutely fine by me.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Why?


When I read what you wrote, I got the sense that you're looking for the right guy to discover you. And that guy will not only have to notice you, he will have to draw you out, see past your defences and fall for the kick ass yet vulnerable you. 

And maybe know that he's taking the risk that you'll never let him all the way in, or it will just be temporary. Because he will always have to convince you that he cares about all of you, not just the tits or the attitude. 

And you might never believe him no matter what he does. 

Am I close?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

John,
That's a tough one. But having spent 20 years feeling intense, continuous desire - it was like a drug. 

You know people talk about something called a speedball. Never tried it, never will. But it's a combo of a high quality stimulant and an opiate. 

My speedball was a combo of a high testosterone level plus a very hot partner. 





john117 said:


> The raw physicality is key - but there's a minimum floor value to it. I was dismayed when, after meeting the woman who I was sure would be the most likely to succeed J2, and saw no chemistry. No physicality whatsoever.
> 
> I'm not superficial by any means and I'm not a prime specimen by any stretch... But the delta was too much. Maybe if we hang out more


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> When I read what you wrote, I got the sense that you're looking for the right guy to discover you. And that guy will not only have to notice you, he will have to draw you out, see past your defences and fall for the kick ass yet vulnerable you.
> 
> And maybe know that he's taking the risk that you'll never let him all the way in, or it will just be temporary. Because he will always have to convince you that he cares about all of you, not just the tits or the attitude.
> 
> And you might never believe him no matter what he does.
> 
> Am I close?


I dunno, marduk. When I read what you write, I get the sense that you are still mistaking me for your wife or past gfs. 

Whether or not I am initially appealing or invisible seems to be largely a function of my mood more than anything else. But, IME, initially appealing doesn't mean much in terms of actual interest. For example, one guy I know told a mutual friend that he found me "enchanting." But it's not like he actually wanted to go on a date with me, or anything. (We are still friends, BTW, and he is with someone he loves.)

It's true that I need/want to be appreciated for the "whole package", but I can easily tell the difference. I've always known my SO has liked me for me. He needn't prove this. I'll admit I warned him up front that he might want to re-think that like, that I was more awful than he probably realized, but truth is, it was evident from the get-go what he was about.

It's also true that I have defenses, and am not one to fall head over heels. But I have put myself out there for guys that I found appealing. I'm not really the Cinderella type.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> My speedball was a combo of a high testosterone level plus a very hot partner.


But, you just said that tells beautiful women paid you no nevermind, didn't you?

MEM, are you being transparent?


----------



## MEM2020

Hold the presses.

That's quite a word. 

Very odd for a man to use that word to describe someone he did NOT want to sleep with. 

But let's freeze the frame elsewhere - because that bit - the enchanting comment - it's like a sleight of hand thing. 

The thing you said that REALLY interests me is the 'I was more awful than he probably realized'. 

That's the only thing I want to understand. Why do you say that. I'm not debating you - solely interested in what causes a truth elemental to self describe that way. 




always_alone said:


> I dunno, marduk. When I read what you write, I get the sense that you are still mistaking me for your wife or past gfs.
> 
> Whether or not I am initially appealing or invisible seems to be largely a function of my mood more than anything else. But, IME, initially appealing doesn't mean much in terms of actual interest. For example, one guy I knew told a mutual friend that he found me "enchanting." But it's not like he actually wanted to go on a date with me, or anything. (We are still friends, BTW, and he is with someone he loves.)
> 
> It's true that I need/want to be appreciated for the "whole package", but I can easily tell the difference. I've always known my SO has liked me for me. He needn't prove this. I'll admit I warned him up front that he might want to re-think that like, that I was more awful than he probably realized, but truth is, it was evident from the get-go what he was about.
> 
> It's also true that I have defenses, and am not one to fall head over heels. But I have put myself out there for guys that I found appealing. I'm not really the Cinderella type.


----------



## MEM2020

M2 is pretty. Not beautiful. Has kind of a gymnasts body. 

So physically she's attractive. Dresses simple but nice. 

The huge amplifier was this high contrast thing. Outside the bedroom she was pretty low affect - inside - a hellcat. 

And the sound track helped. Has this musical laugh. Nothing else like that sound. 




always_alone said:


> But, you just said that tells beautiful women paid you no nevermind, didn't you?
> 
> MEM, are you being transparent?


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Hold the presses.
> 
> That's quite a word.
> 
> Very odd for a man to use that word to describe someone he did NOT want to sleep with.
> 
> But let's freeze the frame elsewhere - because that bit - the enchanting comment - it's like a sleight of hand thing.
> 
> The thing you said that REALLY interests me is the 'I was more awful than he probably realized'.
> 
> That's the only thing I want to understand. Why do you say that. I'm not debating you - solely interested in what causes a truth elemental to self describe that way.


Freeze frame 1: Well, if he did want to sleep with me, he never said anything, and never asked me out, not even for a coffee. And he could have. He did, however, ask someone else out, and they're a thing. A seemingly happy one.

Freeze frame 2: I would say such a thing because I genuinely believed it to be true. When I met my SO, I was jaded, cynical, and very lonely. And my only explanation was and still is that the very same qualities that are my great strengths are also my biggest weaknesses. And I absolutely fail to be what seems to make other women desirable: beautiful, nurturing, feminine, demure, admiring, and so on.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I dunno, marduk. When I read what you write, I get the sense that you are still mistaking me for your wife or past gfs.
> 
> Whether or not I am initially appealing or invisible seems to be largely a function of my mood more than anything else. But, IME, initially appealing doesn't mean much in terms of actual interest. For example, one guy I know told a mutual friend that he found me "enchanting." But it's not like he actually wanted to go on a date with me, or anything. (We are still friends, BTW, and he is with someone he loves.)
> 
> It's true that I need/want to be appreciated for the "whole package", but I can easily tell the difference. I've always known my SO has liked me for me. He needn't prove this. I'll admit I warned him up front that he might want to re-think that like, that I was more awful than he probably realized, but truth is, it was evident from the get-go what he was about.
> 
> It's also true that I have defenses, and am not one to fall head over heels. But I have put myself out there for guys that I found appealing. I'm not really the Cinderella type.


Describe to me your perfect "meeting mr right" scenario.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> And I absolutely fail to be what seems to make other women desirable: beautiful, nurturing, feminine, demure, admiring, and so on.


Are you sure all men want this, or even define it the same way?

Do all women want the same thing?

You need some optimism, aa. I wish I could give you an infusion.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Are you sure all men want this, or even define it the same way?
> 
> Do all women want the same thing?
> 
> You need some optimism, aa. I wish I could give you an infusion.


Good point, jld. No, tbh, I have no idea what men wanr, and I'm sure it varies widely. I just know what I've been told. And that it isn't me.

I've never been terribly good at optimism. My father tells me I can see the black cloud behind every silver lining.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Describe to me your perfect "meeting mr right" scenario.


Who is Mr. Right? What are you talking about?

There have been a couple of guys I was super seriously into. My ideal, or so I believed at the time. They didn't see me "that way". At all.

There was one bf, the one I was most into before meeting my SO. We met at a bar, and hit it off.

There was my SO. We met through mutual friends.

I don't know even know what a "meeting Mr. Right" scenario looks like, let alone a perfect one.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Good point, jld. No, tbh, I have no idea what men wanr, and I'm sure it varies widely. I just know what I've been told. And that it isn't me.
> 
> I've never been terribly good at optimism. My father tells me I can see the black cloud behind every silver lining.


You're funny, aa. 

I remember a prof in college saying that a variety of women were employed in the 19th century brothels out West. This was because different men have different tastes in women. I am sure nothing has changed.

All you really need is to love yourself, aa. It really is the only thing lacking to you. Then everything else would fall into place.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Who is Mr. Right? What are you talking about?
> 
> There have been a couple of guys I was super seriously into. My ideal, or so I believed at the time. They didn't see me "that way". At all.
> 
> There was one bf, the one I was most into before meeting my SO. We met at a bar, and hit it off.
> 
> There was my SO. We met through mutual friends.
> 
> I don't know even know what a "meeting Mr. Right" scenario looks like, let alone a perfect one.


Ok, fine. 

Describe to me a dude that you'd want to spend your life with, and how you would meet.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> You're funny, aa.
> 
> I remember a prof in college saying that a variety of women were employed in the 19th century brothels out West. This was because different men have different tastes in women. I am sure nothing has changed.
> 
> All you really need is to love yourself, aa. It really is the only thing lacking to you. Then everything else would fall into place.


Love myself? So I can work in a brothel and be sure to please at least someone? Oh, happy day.

Okay, sorry, could not resist. I'm sure there is some truth to what you say. Right now it's a bit love-hate.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Love myself? So I can work in a brothel and be sure to please at least someone? Oh, happy day.
> 
> Okay, sorry, could not resist. I'm sure there is some truth to what you say. Right now it's a bit love-hate.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Ok, fine.
> 
> Describe to me a dude that you'd want to spend your life with, and how you would meet.


How we would meet is irrelevant. Don't care if it is at bar, a party, the checkout line at the grocery store, a car accident, through friends, random. 

What he would be like? Interesting, caring, socially conscious, good to talk to, down-to-earth, full of integrity, physically appealing, and decidedly into me.


----------



## john117

Where do I apply? physically appealing, nvm 

That leaves way too many variables up in the air. By managing the encounter area / activity you filter out a lot of those.

It doesn't actually work 100% but people that have things in common tend to match better.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> All of that tells me you want to be noticed and persued.


Everyone does.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
You self described as 'awful'. Was that hyperbole? 

Because a lack of physical beauty or demureness does not equate to awful. 

That said, you made one comment I think worth pursuing. The bit about seeing the dark clouds - that is ok up to a point. But there is a fine line between being a realist and being a negativist. 





always_alone said:


> Love myself? So I can work in a brothel and be sure to please at least someone? Oh, happy day.
> 
> Okay, sorry, could not resist. I'm sure there is some truth to what you say. Right now it's a bit love-hate.


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> I've put the focus on what men want because I think the context warrants mention. People want to see the problem as all his. He's just a loser, a porn addict, a whatever, I should just ditch him and find some wonderful guy. But there is no "wonderful guy". When I put the focus on what I want? Well, that's when I met my SO.
> 
> The most important thing to me was to be appreciated for who I am. In a past relationship, long ago, I ended it because he was always trying to put me in a cage, perhaps not realizing or caring that it would kill the bird. Another was infatuated with the picture in his head, and constantly pushed me to conform to what he dreamed about, how he wished I was. I can't live like that.
> 
> Relationshipwise, there is not a lot I care about --except having that deep connection and utter freedom to be me. And this is how I ended up with my SO and why I continue to stay. TBH, I was blindsided by this whole issue, and it does make me wonder if I am fooling myself. But I'm not ready to throw it all away.
> 
> And frankly, not at all eager to get back to the perpetual loneliness that I lived before.


I feel the desire to clarify something from my perspective... I do not not assume your SO is a loser that ought to be ditched. I've no idea what he is like, how he chooses to spend his time, or really have much of an insight into your relationship beyond a few tidbits. I personally think there's lots of wonderful people. They still have issues, flaws, insecurities. 

What I do know, however, is that you are expressing valid needs to him and he is not only not acknowledging them, he's ignoring them. If there were issues and you both decided to work on them together, it's a completely different scenario. This is what I mean by only you know why you would accept that. 

I understand there are redeeming qualities within your dynamic. It would be unusual if there weren't. Relationships can be too complex and interesting to be summed up and made black and white (most of the time). You're not ready to throw it away combined with not wanting to be lonely.... of course there's always other possibilities if one is open to them. However from the standing of staying in your relationship, how can we help you? And would you be open to MC together?


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> Thanks, jld!! That's exactly the sort of confidence I can believe in and get behind.
> 
> (I have nine lives too!)


purrrfect!


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> And I absolutely fail to be what seems to make other women desirable: beautiful, nurturing, feminine, demure, admiring, and so on.


What about being enchanting?

Ever consider him not asking you out was more to do with him? Just sayin'


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> Good point, jld. No, tbh, I have no idea what men wanr, and I'm sure it varies widely. *I just know what I've been told. And that it isn't me.*
> 
> I've never been terribly good at optimism. My father tells me I can see the black cloud behind every silver lining.


What about what you have told yourself?

Boy, at times we sure can write scripts for ourselves that are either inaccurate, outdated, or narrated by a voice other than our own.


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> What about being enchanting?
> 
> Ever consider him not asking you out was more to do with him? Just sayin'


TBH, I just took it as a compliment and assumed he wasn't that into me. I only brought him up as an example that even "initially appealing" doesn't mean anything in dating and relationships.

And just like I said to jld: Sure I can assume that there's something wrong with every guy who didn't ask me out. But that seems a little...what's the word...self entitled? Out to lunch? Refusing to acknowledge simple reality?


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> You self described as 'awful'. Was that hyperbole?
> 
> Because a lack of physical beauty or demureness does not equate to awful.
> 
> That said, you made one comment I think worth pursuing. The bit about seeing the dark clouds - that is ok up to a point. But there is a fine line between being a realist and being a negativist.


Awful. Not sure in retrospect if this was the exact wording I used at the time. I think it was more along the lines of "you don't want to go out with me" than actually calling myself names. So, yeah, awful may perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but at the same time fairly true to how I felt at that period of my life.

And yes, I wouldn't call myself a negativist exactly because I certainly don't see everything through that lens. But I am definitely a cynic, and no one (but another cynic) loves a cynic.

ETA: I was just thinking more about that first phonecall, and yes, indeed, I did tell him I was "awful" (or possibly terrible). And while I really do think I am a decent person overall, there are only so many times you can be told that you will "walk all over" men or "trample them into the ground" before you start thinking that maybe you are a terrible person to date.


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> What I do know, however, is that you are expressing valid needs to him and he is not only not acknowledging them, he's ignoring them. If there were issues and you both decided to work on them together, it's a completely different scenario. This is what I mean by only you know why you would accept that.


You are good, hb. Very, very good!

It isn't so much that he is ignoring me, but is standing his ground. That's why I'm intrigued by this whole transparency theme, to see if there is anyway we can move past "standing our ground" to something that will bring us closer, to a better understanding. Right now, I don't think I do have a terribly good understanding of where he's coming from. I only see the downsides for me. And I don't think he understands me, either. He just sees the downsides for him.

The trouble with transparency, though, is that it seems to invite a certain one-sidedness, where it has the effect of shutting the other person down more. That, IMHO, will not serve us well.

It is very hard, though, to let go of the "downsides for me" angle, and just let whatever happens happen. Cuz, you know, no one wants to let themselves be walked over or treated like a schmuck, particularly in a love relationship.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Everyone does.


I'm far more comfortable pursuing than pursued.


----------



## john117

To get closer one has to be willing and able to listen to the other person's point of view without prejudice. Transparency is simply the conduit.

I have often asked for as much in as simple terms as possible and received a stonewall the size of an NFL stadium. It simply seems to me that many people are simply unable to come to terms with the concept of "being close" or "coming closer" because they can't manage a safe distance. Either they stay too far and drift away or get too close and burn out. 

Or, more likely, they don't see the benefit of being closer. The status quo works for them.


----------



## john117

Case in point. After my epic "teach a year of QDA in two months" adventure J2 actually asked me "what do you want from me" in a rare moment of head-out-of-rear-end clarity after I patiently explained to her this whole concept of mutual cooperation and give/take in a relationship.

To my astonishment she seems to believe that the reason I put forth my Herculean teaching effort was only because this would keep her employed. The concept that (a) I am a decent human being that enjoys teaching his favorite subject completely escaped her, as did the concept of (b) offering help to your partner simply because its the right thing to do, an act of service as per 5LL.

And crap, its not like she has reason to worry. I've been doing 90% of the giving in this relationship, and she is doing 90% of the taking. 

And this is where culture comes in.

In her culture everything has an ulterior motive or three. So there's no "love language" list. 

I would add that this was more or less what I saw from other people from that general part of the world even thru my college days. Relationships built more on quid pro quo rather than anything more. 

Better living thru rational thinking


----------



## farsidejunky

john117 said:


> Case in point. After my epic "teach a year of QDA in two months" adventure J2 actually asked me "what do you want from me" in a rare moment of head-out-of-rear-end clarity after I patiently explained to her this whole concept of mutual cooperation and give/take in a relationship.
> 
> To my astonishment she seems to believe that the reason I put forth my Herculean teaching effort was only because this would keep her employed. The concept that (a) I am a decent human being that enjoys teaching his favorite subject completely escaped her, as did the concept of (b) offering help to your partner simply because its the right thing to do, an act of service as per 5LL.
> 
> And crap, its not like she has reason to worry. I've been doing 90% of the giving in this relationship, and she is doing 90% of the taking.
> 
> And this is where culture comes in.
> 
> In her culture everything has an ulterior motive or three. So there's no "love language" list.
> 
> I would add that this was more or less what I saw from other people from that general part of the world even thru my college days. Relationships built more on quid pro quo rather than anything more.
> 
> Better living thru rational thinking


Or, she has been on the receiving end of your need to be right for so long that it shows how she believes you to be.

I am not saying it is, but good Lord, John, I don't ever recall you saying you have been wrong about something general without some sort of attempt to show you were at least partially right about some mundane detail.

Repeat after me: "You were right. I'm sorry."

Have you ever said those phrases to J2?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Satya

Constable Odo often tells people that I'm the "cruelest" woman he knows. But what many don't realize is that it is an honest compliment, not a dig. He knows exactly where he stands at all times with me and as he often says, I never let him "get away with anything." My question to him is, does he need to for some reason with me?  

He finds it incredibly refreshing and attractive. A man that's been a rascal his whole life meeting his match and being called on his sheet...I think he's been searching for such a woman his whole adult life. Some men don't like or want that. Those kinds of guys (and I dated a few) did not like my ways. You can't often successfully kid a former kidder.


----------



## john117

farsidejunky said:


> Or, she has been on the receiving end of your need to be right for so long that it shows how she believes you to be.
> 
> I am not saying it is, but good Lord, John, I don't ever recall you saying you have been wrong about something general without some sort of attempt to show you were at least partially right about some mundane detail.
> 
> Repeat after me: "You were right. I'm sorry."
> 
> Have you ever said those phrases to J2?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Sorry for what? For wasting 2 months worth of evenings and weekends without ANY meaningful change in attitude?

What would "I'm sorry" accomplish here? That I'm sorry I didn't take all my vacation to help do it faster? Or that I'm sorry I have a real job and a house to take care of?

It's easy to stick to your stereotypes, Far. It's a lot harder to see things from an objective standpoint if you've made your mind up that its my fault.


----------



## john117

This isn't about who is right or who is wrong. It's about what's the right thing to do. 

By the time it's all said and done I will have wasted a decade of my life. Do you think I care about being wrong???


----------



## farsidejunky

john117 said:


> Sorry for what? For wasting 2 months worth of evenings and weekends without ANY meaningful change in attitude?
> 
> What would "I'm sorry" accomplish here? That I'm sorry I didn't take all my vacation to help do it faster? Or that I'm sorry I have a real job and a house to take care of?
> 
> It's easy to stick to your stereotypes, Far. It's a lot harder to see things from an objective standpoint if you've made your mind up that its my fault.


Start by identifying something you actually did wrong.

Or can you come up with one, after say, you know, 20 years of marriage?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> This isn't about who is right or who is wrong. It's about what's the right thing to do.
> 
> By the time it's all said and done I will have wasted a decade of my life. Do you think I care about being wrong???


It's a powerful exercise that Far is recommending, John.

And that power isn't dependant upon the marriage continuing, or your wife responding in any way.

It's gravy.


----------



## john117

Sigh.

This isn't the Middle East peace process. 

In my home country we had a politician once who was belittled by his opponent because his father was a member of the German occupation era government, hence a collaborator and traitor. And that came to haunt his son. 

I could go back and apologize for the way I convinced her to send DD to major in design. Except that she claims she never opposed me or her daughter. She claims all the pain she inflicted on her own daughter never happened. 

I should also note that her culture - similar to those of the Middle East next door) - is not big on accepting apologies while they're exceptionally good in offering them...

Maybe I should apologise for the spirited way I drive my Mini Cooper when I'm with her


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> This isn't the Middle East peace process.
> 
> In my home country we had a politician once who was belittled by his opponent because his father was a member of the German occupation era government, hence a collaborator and traitor. And that came to haunt his son.
> 
> I could go back and apologize for the way I convinced her to send DD to major in design. Except that she claims she never opposed me or her daughter. She claims all the pain she inflicted on her own daughter never happened.
> 
> I should also note that her culture - similar to those of the Middle East next door) - is not big on accepting apologies while they're exceptionally good in offering them...
> 
> Maybe I should apologise for the spirited way I drive my Mini Cooper when I'm with her


John, buddy...

That's your ego talking. Protecting the squishy bits.

It's not helping you.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Case in point. After my epic "teach a year of QDA in two months" adventure J2 actually asked me "what do you want from me" in a rare moment of head-out-of-rear-end clarity after I patiently explained to her this whole concept of mutual cooperation and give/take in a relationship.


But wait, I'm confused. You patiently explained the concept of give and take after your Herculean effort to help her, and you're surprised that her first question was "what do you want from me"?

It would be my first question too, if someone made a point of telling me that the relationship should be given and take, and just look at all the wonderful giving I've been taking and taking, with nary a thought about how much I owed, errrr, I mean, could also give back from the bottom of my heart.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding the timeline here? :scratchhead:


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> John, buddy...
> 
> That's your ego talking. Protecting the squishy bits.
> 
> It's not helping you.


How do I apologize for something she insists never happened?


----------



## farsidejunky

john117 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> This isn't the Middle East peace process.
> 
> In my home country we had a politician once who was belittled by his opponent because his father was a member of the German occupation era government, hence a collaborator and traitor. And that came to haunt his son.
> 
> I could go back and apologize for the way I convinced her to send DD to major in design. Except that she claims she never opposed me or her daughter. She claims all the pain she inflicted on her own daughter never happened.
> 
> I should also note that her culture - similar to those of the Middle East next door) - is not big on accepting apologies while they're exceptionally good in offering them...
> 
> Maybe I should apologise for the spirited way I drive my Mini Cooper when I'm with her


Ink and tentacles.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

john117 said:


> How do I apologize for something she insists never happened?


Ink and tentacles.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

Start by answering the question without justification, analysis, or rationalization.

Give one thing you have done wrong in the marriage. Just one.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> But wait, I'm confused. You patiently explained the concept of give and take after your Herculean effort to help her, and you're surprised that her first question was "what do you want from me"?
> 
> It would be my first question too, if someone made a point of telling me that the relationship should be given and take, and just look at all the wonderful giving I've been taking and taking, with nary a thought about how much I owed, errrr, I mean, could also give back from the bottom of my heart.
> 
> But maybe I'm misunderstanding the timeline here? :scratchhead:


My surprise was that she saw my effort as expected because " of the money involved". Nowhere in her mind did it even occur to her that I did it to help her out as a so called "act of service".

I told her that what I really want is to have a better relationship, one based on more important components such as respect and consideration for each others well being. 

As you can probably guess, my cat will be solving multivariate calculus before she will understand the concept. My comment elicited no worthwhile response whatsoever.


----------



## john117

farsidejunky said:


> Start by answering the question without justification, analysis, or rationalization.
> 
> Give one thing you have done wrong in the marriage. Just one.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I told you. I threatened to walk out when she refused to consent to what DD wanted to study.

Today she outright refuses she ever had any objections regarding DD's choice.


----------



## john117

farsidejunky said:


> Ink and tentacles.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I was hoping for a useful answer but oh well...


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> My surprise was that she saw my effort as expected because " of the money involved". Nowhere in her mind did it even occur to her that I did it to help her out as a so called "act of service".
> 
> I told her that what I really want is to have a better relationship, one based on more important components such as respect and consideration for each others well being.
> 
> As you can probably guess, my cat will be solving multivariate calculus before she will understand the concept. My comment elicited no worthwhile response whatsoever.


OK John. 

Maybe that's true. Maybe your wife is totally incapable of giving freely of herself without expecting an implicit ROI.

It doesn't change the fact that you allow your ego to get in the way of you receiving things freely, or making the barrier of entry very large.

You have a giant ego. I say that having one.

Do you not see that?


----------



## john117

Maybe I should apologize for not rushing to best buy and getting her a new Note 5 the very day she stupidly broke her Note 2...

A glittered-out 64gb model that she won't bother learning 

Far, my friend, there's NormalPeople and there's NotNormalPeople... Pick one.


----------



## farsidejunky

Still making it about her.

Good luck, John.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Maybe I should apologize for not rushing to best buy and getting her a new Note 5 the very day she stupidly broke her Note 2...
> 
> A glittered-out 64gb model that she won't bother learning
> 
> Far, my friend, there's NormalPeople and there's NotNormalPeople... Pick one.


That dog isn't going to hunt when there's nobody left to blame but you, John.

I'm not trying to save your marriage.


----------



## john117

I'm still waiting for an answer.

How to apologize for an event the other person said never happened.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> That dog isn't going to hunt when there's nobody left to blame but you, John.
> 
> I'm not trying to save your marriage.


Me either :ROFL:


----------



## john117

farsidejunky said:


> Still making it about her.
> 
> Good luck, John.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Think, man. 

If it wasn't for her I would be discussing cat foods, bicycle computers, or Nikon lenses. 

Why am I here?


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Think, man.
> 
> If it wasn't for her I would be discussing cat foods, bicycle computers, or Nikon lenses.
> 
> Why am I here?


It's a good question. Why are you you here if it isn't to save your marriage?

I'll tell you why I waste time posting to you even though you ignore everyone that tries to give you advice -- because I want you to be a better guy.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> OK John.
> 
> Maybe that's true. Maybe your wife is totally incapable of giving freely of herself without expecting an implicit ROI.
> 
> It doesn't change the fact that you allow your ego to get in the way of you receiving things freely, or making the barrier of entry very large.
> 
> You have a giant ego. I say that having one.
> 
> Do you not see that?


I do have a giant ego. It's part of my job. But decades of experience have taught me to check it at the door in most cases, and focus on getting the job done.

Now, I'm not a philosophy major (close enough) but I would think that if nothing is offered, which is the case here, my ego has nothing to block. You can't block nothingness..

The barrier of entry is simple. A thank you text that isn't contrived. A word of kindness. Sh!t like those. Easy.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> I do have a giant ego. It's part of my job. But decades of experience have taught me to check it at the door in most cases, and focus on getting the job done.
> 
> Now, I'm not a philosophy major (close enough) but I would think that if nothing is offered, which is the case here, my ego has nothing to block. You can't block nothingness..
> 
> The barrier of entry is simple. A thank you text that isn't contrived. A word of kindness. Sh!t like those. Easy.


When you're single, what are you going to work on yourself to get better at?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

Probably become less hardened and cynical and come in terms with my non-tactical self. 

Loss of any of those would be catastrophic in the current environment. I'm speaking from experience.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Probably become less hardened and cynical and come in terms with my non-tactical self.
> 
> Loss of any of those would be catastrophic in the current environment. I'm speaking from experience.


How much do you actually interact with your wife on a day-day basis?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

Some. In good weather we cycle together. Mostly its both of us working on house tasks or me playing work therapist by explaining what diplomatic strategy I would follow with a particular coworker or client or some such, or listen to her endless drivel about work, or about her relatives, or about her neighbors... Or watching TV "together" which generally means a BS movie I don't care for or a movie I do that she'll fall asleep in 15 minutes.

Any effort to engage her into what's going on in my life hits the indifference filter head on, and its rare to get more than two or three sentences worth of an exchange going.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Some. In good weather we cycle together. Mostly its both of us working on house tasks or me playing work therapist by explaining what diplomatic strategy I would follow with a particular coworker or client or some such, or listen to her endless drivel about work, or about her relatives, or about her neighbors... Or watching TV "together" which generally means a BS movie I don't care for or a movie I do that she'll fall asleep in 15 minutes.
> 
> Any effort to engage her into what's going on in my life hits the indifference filter head on, and its rare to get more than two or three sentences worth of an exchange going.


I think it's time to intentionally start to limit your time with her. 

Go out, go to a separate part of the house, but it's time to get into a new headspace.

I want to meet the new less hardened less cynical John. 

No dramatics... Just get used to doing your own thing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

I've tried it. It does not work as you anticipated. Funny that we would be talking mind tricks in a transparency thread but hey...

Separation anxiety kicks in pretty hard. If you ignore her for too long it triggers a blow-out. 

But that's beside the point. The thing is she does not have the emotional processing ability to see the away part and make the connection. 

The less cynic version... Coming soon.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
That giant ego is more of a hindrance than you realize. 

It creates a lot of blind spots. 





john117 said:


> I do have a giant ego. It's part of my job. But decades of experience have taught me to check it at the door in most cases, and focus on getting the job done.
> 
> Now, I'm not a philosophy major (close enough) but I would think that if nothing is offered, which is the case here, my ego has nothing to block. You can't block nothingness..
> 
> The barrier of entry is simple. A thank you text that isn't contrived. A word of kindness. Sh!t like those. Easy.


----------



## Row Jimmy

I think John knows whats up in his relationship better than anyone else here. 

He seems to have a clear but negative view regarding his wife and his lack of connection but is aware of his timeline and his priorities. 

I don't think he has to be a better guy as he seems nice enough to me and likely to his cat.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
One attribute of a large ego is that it needs to be fed. More so than the average person. 

Becomes a major drawback when you get into conflict because - feeding that hungry ego by winning often trumps true collaboration. 

It's what drove your initial fixation on torpedoing J2. The need to declare victory. 

Do I get the point that J2 is gaslighting you over the design school battle? You betcha. 

Maybe SHE acts like that because YOU act like that. 

Note: I point out a very contradictory position you've taken and your response is the typical dismissive: that's outside the scope of the information I've provided on TAM. 

ROTFL. 

I'm not convinced that you and J2 are as different as you think. 




john117 said:


> I've tried it. It does not work as you anticipated. Funny that we would be talking mind tricks in a transparency thread but hey...
> 
> Separation anxiety kicks in pretty hard. If you ignore her for too long it triggers a blow-out.
> 
> But that's beside the point. The thing is she does not have the emotional processing ability to see the away part and make the connection.
> 
> The less cynic version... Coming soon.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> I've tried it. It does not work as you anticipated. Funny that we would be talking mind tricks in a transparency thread but hey...
> 
> Separation anxiety kicks in pretty hard. If you ignore her for too long it triggers a blow-out.
> 
> But that's beside the point. The thing is she does not have the emotional processing ability to see the away part and make the connection.
> 
> The less cynic version... Coming soon.


Ignore the blow-outs. 

You're going to have to get used to this and so does she. 

And you have work to do.


----------



## john117

Perhaps you're speaking from personal experience, MEM. My ego is fed primarily by my work and my kids, not by how many times I'm wrong in a day. Product Design is like that. If I ever get to be Donald Norman I'll worry about being right more often. My ego fled Las Vegas about an hour after the first time my work was shown there. Think your kid throwing a foul ball in the Little League game 7 last inning. Then do it for 15 years in a row. Then the rest of the year open Consumer Reports or Amazon and see your work grilled (we do win awards too ). That brings ego down to mouse levels.

The objective is not "winning". If that was the case I would be gone seven years ago. And I'd be teaching in some forsaken college.

Torpedoing is as good strategy as any when you're dealing with a spouse that's likely to take her share of the loot and run off to a country where US laws mean little. But I've done the Honorable Thing and briefed her, so let this ole' torpedo run out of air...

I'm too old to worry about who did what. My daughter was emotionally mistreated for three years and like her school apps, that never happened either. Whoops. Miracle.

About your contradiction... As I answered, it would take a lot of additional information to even explain it in any meaningful way. And I got some time to waste but not THAT kind. I mean, what standard of "proof" can there be? The girl would be happy being a librarian or high school language teacher. 

Please continue to believe what you see fit. I've been transparent enough here. I've done everything I could, and a lot more than any sane person should, and got zero in return. 

Maybe once in my life I'll give zero and walk out. That's how it is. 



MEM11363 said:


> John,
> One attribute of a large ego is that it needs to be fed. More so than the average person.
> 
> Becomes a major drawback when you get into conflict because - feeding that hungry ego by winning often trumps true collaboration.
> 
> It's what drove your initial fixation on torpedoing J2. The need to declare victory.
> 
> Do I get the point that J2 is gaslighting you over the design school battle? You betcha.
> 
> Maybe SHE acts like that because YOU act like that.
> 
> Note: I point out a very contradictory position you've taken and your response is the typical dismissive: that's outside the scope of the information I've provided on TAM.
> 
> ROTFL.
> 
> I'm not convinced that you and J2 are as different as you think.


----------



## MEM2020

I'm absolutely talking from personal experience. 

And what I've observed across tens of thousands of TAM posts. And also what I've observed of you on TAM. 

Maybe you like being cryptic. Thing is, to a third party here's how this looks. 

You recently began to express concern about the giant financial obligation you may be facing if daughter gets into an especially pricey med school. But then you blame J2 for being the one wanting to pay for med school. 

I totally get being proud of your daughter for doing so well. 

And hey if you want to transfer wealth to her that way - before you pass into the great beyond - it's your money. It's just hard to understand why this is yet one more thing that is J2's fault. 

And I'm sure there is some great explanation for why you want to do this. Like daughter wants to do med research, and it doesn't pay as well as vanilla doctoring. 

Given your plans to divorce, you have complete discretion on how much or little you choose to help her. 




john117 said:


> Perhaps you're speaking from personal experience, MEM. My ego is fed primarily by my work and my kids, not by how many times I'm wrong in a day. Product Design is like that. If I ever get to be Donald Norman I'll worry about being right more often. My ego fled Las Vegas about an hour after the first time my work was shown there. Think your kid throwing a foul ball in the Little League game 7 last inning. Then do it for 15 years in a row. Then the rest of the year open Consumer Reports or Amazon and see your work grilled (we do win awards too ). That brings ego down to mouse levels.
> 
> The objective is not "winning". If that was the case I would be gone seven years ago. And I'd be teaching in some forsaken college.
> 
> Torpedoing is as good strategy as any when you're dealing with a spouse that's likely to take her share of the loot and run off to a country where US laws mean little. But I've done the Honorable Thing and briefed her, so let this ole' torpedo run out of air...
> 
> I'm too old to worry about who did what. My daughter was emotionally mistreated for three years and like her school apps, that never happened either. Whoops. Miracle.
> 
> About your contradiction... As I answered, it would take a lot of additional information to even explain it in any meaningful way. And I got some time to waste but not THAT kind. I mean, what standard of "proof" can there be? The girl would be happy being a librarian or high school language teacher.
> 
> Please continue to believe what you see fit. I've been transparent enough here. I've done everything I could, and a lot more than any sane person should, and got zero in return.
> 
> Maybe once in my life I'll give zero and walk out. That's how it is.


----------



## MEM2020

FF,

Spot on. 





FrenchFry said:


> I think, because your SO is 100% cognizant of what would happen if he told you everything--everything he loved about porn, why he is lazy in the bedroom and why he feels the need to dodge you sexually--you would walk away. Not easily, but I think you would.
> 
> Because he knows this, he literally can't be honest with you on this subject. The consequences for being open in this regard are too high and being not all the way open keeps you enough in the grey area that you can continue to have a relationship.
> 
> I don't know if there is a way for him to safely acknowledge all of this to you. Do you think there is a way for him to do so?


----------



## john117

I'm not too cryptic. But you're trying to fit Chicago into Sim City. Ain't doable.

There are cases where all the facts and minute details are needed. This is one of them. I unfortunately agreed to an expensive house during our very good years. The assumption was salaries would grow. Never happened to the degree expected with recession and stagnant wages in a so and so job market here in the rust belt.

Sending the girls to pricy schools? Not a bad idea in itself. Med school was not my girl's idea to begin with but she played along. She could end up in law. And with loans either way. I'm not worried about the girls now that I have seen what they can do. 

My concerns are long term for my own regardless of the education outcomes. Not what happens in five years but in ten or more.

I don't feel that with what has transcribed in the last seven years we will have enough emotional stability to go another seven or seventeen. As I said I feel I've given it all and gotten sh!t in return. It's time to give zero.



MEM11363 said:


> I'm absolutely talking from personal experience.
> 
> And what I've observed across tens of thousands of TAM posts. And also what I've observed of you on TAM.
> 
> Maybe you like being cryptic. Thing is, to a third party here's how this looks.
> 
> You recently began to express concern about the giant financial obligation you may be facing if daughter gets into an especially pricey med school. But then you blame J2 for being the one wanting to pay for med school.
> 
> I totally get being proud of your daughter for doing so well.
> 
> And hey if you want to transfer wealth to her that way - before you pass into the great beyond - it's your money. It's just hard to understand why this is yet one more thing that is J2's fault.
> 
> And I'm sure there is some great explanation for why you want to do this. Like daughter wants to do med research, and it doesn't pay as well as vanilla doctoring.
> 
> Given your plans to divorce, you have complete discretion on how much or little you choose to help her.


----------



## farsidejunky

FrenchFry said:


> I think, because your SO is 100% cognizant of what would happen if he told you everything--everything he loved about porn, why he is lazy in the bedroom and why he feels the need to dodge you sexually--you would walk away. Not easily, but I think you would.
> 
> Because he knows this, he literally can't be honest with you on this subject. The consequences for being open in this regard are too high and being not all the way open keeps you enough in the grey area that you can continue to have a relationship.
> 
> I don't know if there is a way for him to safely acknowledge all of this to you. Do you think there is a way for him to do so?


This. In spades.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

John,
I do believe that J2's general level of self focus, and comments about what she'd do if you became incapacitated are a valid basis for moving along. And I get that the rest of the issues aren't small. 

And all kidding aside - you have put a lot of effort into this. 

I would say that if you begin the process of cutting back time and get a melt down - you might want to consider responding to it in a manner that she is most likely to hear. 

If it was me - I'd do that calming, soft voiced thing that works well with most (normal) anxious folks and in a couple sentences say what's true. 

We both need to gradually acclimate to not being around each other. It will make our final parting easier. 

----------






john117 said:


> I'm not too cryptic. But you're trying to fit Chicago into Sim City. Ain't doable.
> 
> There are cases where all the facts and minute details are needed. This is one of them. I unfortunately agreed to an expensive house during our very good years. The assumption was salaries would grow. Never happened to the degree expected with recession and stagnant wages in a so and so job market here in the rust belt.
> 
> Sending the girls to pricy schools? Not a bad idea in itself. Med school was not my girl's idea to begin with but she played along. She could end up in law. And with loans either way. I'm not worried about the girls now that I have seen what they can do.
> 
> My concerns are long term for my own regardless of the education outcomes. Not what happens in five years but in ten or more.
> 
> I don't feel that with what has transcribed in the last seven years we will have enough emotional stability to go another seven or seventeen. As I said I feel I've given it all and gotten sh!t in return. It's time to give zero.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

Yes. The post bubble 7 years have been WAY harder than expected. 





john117 said:


> I'm not too cryptic. But you're trying to fit Chicago into Sim City. Ain't doable.
> 
> There are cases where all the facts and minute details are needed. This is one of them. I unfortunately agreed to an expensive house during our very good years. The assumption was salaries would grow. Never happened to the degree expected with recession and stagnant wages in a so and so job market here in the rust belt.
> 
> Sending the girls to pricy schools? Not a bad idea in itself. Med school was not my girl's idea to begin with but she played along. She could end up in law. And with loans either way. I'm not worried about the girls now that I have seen what they can do.
> 
> My concerns are long term for my own regardless of the education outcomes. Not what happens in five years but in ten or more.
> 
> I don't feel that with what has transcribed in the last seven years we will have enough emotional stability to go another seven or seventeen. As I said I feel I've given it all and gotten sh!t in return. It's time to give zero.


----------



## Thundarr

FrenchFry said:


> I think, because your SO is 100% cognizant of what would happen if he told you everything--everything he loved about porn, why he is lazy in the bedroom and why he feels the need to dodge you sexually--you would walk away. Not easily, but I think you would.
> 
> Because he knows this, he literally can't be honest with you on this subject. The consequences for being open in this regard are too high and being not all the way open keeps you enough in the grey area that you can continue to have a relationship.
> 
> I don't know if there is a way for him to safely acknowledge all of this to you. Do you think there is a way for him to do so?


This highlights why transparency desired but also avoided. If we're afraid that transparency will expose things we don't want to know then transparency must be a bad thing. Head in the sand mentality.


----------



## john117

I'm doing that. The catch is - think sim city  - is that J2 is rarely able to slow down from her daily hyperwork schedule to comprehend what I'm telling her.

I could tell her that a 50 foot tall three legged Martian is about to devour her, laptop and all, and she would likely not pay attention. Then on the way down the Martian's stomach she would realize the internet connection was cut (because Martian) and text me to reboot the U-verse router. 

I have withdrawn considerably from my more involved days and saw that she noticed and did not like it. A year ago we could go a whole weekend and barely talk. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, her mind lacks the emotional capacity to assess what's going on. At best she would think I'm ticked off at her because of lack of intimacy but she would take no action to discuss. I can do a pretty good 180 but it goes to waste.

Since this is a transparency thread, let me point out once again the difference between the conduit - transparency - and the message, and the reception of the message. These are three different things that all have to be in place.


----------



## MEM2020

With normalPeople(tm), suffering from chronic anxiety you typically get brief windows of opportunity shortly after either:
- an intense workout 
Or
- a melt down 

They melt down, and in doing so release a lot of that angst. And then just after the melt down, there's a short period of time in which the background noise of their chronic anxiety, drops in volume. 

Those two sentences - are intentionally brief. The goal is to inject the message before her shields power up. 

If she doesn't instantly flare - you could add one more statement.

If you'd like some help planning life in a 'post John' world, let me know. 

-----------
Maybe J2 isn't wired like that. Maybe alcohol is a better portal. 





john117 said:


> I'm doing that. The catch is - think sim city  - is that J2 is rarely able to slow down from her daily hyperwork schedule to comprehend what I'm telling her.
> 
> I could tell her that a 50 foot tall three legged Martian is about to devour her, laptop and all, and she would likely not pay attention. Then on the way down the Martian's stomach she would realize the internet connection was cut (because Martian) and text me to reboot the U-verse router.
> 
> I have withdrawn considerably from my more involved days and saw that she noticed and did not like it. A year ago we could go a whole weekend and barely talk. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, her mind lacks the emotional capacity to assess what's going on. At best she would think I'm ticked off at her because of lack of intimacy but she would take no action to discuss. I can do a pretty good 180 but it goes to waste.
> 
> Since this is a transparency thread, let me point out once again the difference between the conduit - transparency - and the message, and the reception of the message. These are three different things that all have to be in place.


----------



## john117

If she needs help in a list John world, lolz.

I fully expect to find her a lawyer and fill out her legal forms. I've been filling her medical forms for decades... 

"Are you sexually active" Y / N 

No such brief clarity moments with NotNormalPeople (tm), my friend...

Alcohol used to be an occasional outlet for her - till she found Netflix.


----------



## heartsbeating

@always_alone would you say both of you are 'standing your ground' then? Do you feel a mediator or councilor would be beneficial to you both and is that something you'd be willing to try - or perhaps you have already? 

As for listening... I'll follow on from John with a piece I read this week by Thich Nhat Hanh (buddhist monk peace activist) about listening. I'd like to share it here as food for thought.

_'Compassionate Listening' - In the practice of compassionate listening, you listen with only one purpose: to give the other person a chance to speak out and suffer less. Practice breathing in and out deeply and concentrate on what you are hearing. While the other person speaks, they may express bitterness, wrong perceptions, or make accusations. If you allow these things to touch off the anger in you, then you lose your capacity to listen deeply. Listening with mindfulness helps you to keep your compassion alive. It protects you, and your anger will not be triggered. Even fifteen minutes of listening like this can be very healing and can bring a lot of relief to another. You may be the first person who has ever listened to him or her like that._


----------



## MEM2020

Hearts,

That's really good. Angry people are usually either checked out, or just waiting for you to stop talking so they can tell you why you're wrong. 





heartsbeating said:


> So always, would you say both of you are 'standing your ground'? As for listening... I'll follow on from John with a piece I read this week by Thich Nhat Hanh (buddhist monk peace activist) about listening. I'd like to share it here as food for thought.
> 
> _'Compassionate Listening' - In the practice of compassionate listening, you listen with only one purpose: to give the other person a chance to speak out and suffer less. Practice breathing in and out deeply and concentrate on what you are hearing. While the other person speaks, they may express bitterness, wrong perceptions, or make accusations. If you allow these things to touch off the anger in you, then you lose your capacity to listen deeply. Listening with mindfulness helps you to keep your compassion alive. It protects you, and your anger will not be triggered. Even fifteen minutes of listening like this can be very healing and can bring a lot of relief to another. You may be the first person who has ever listened to him or her like that._


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> TBH, I just took it as a compliment and assumed he wasn't that into me. I only brought him up as an example that even "initially appealing" doesn't mean anything in dating and relationships.
> 
> And just like I said to jld: Sure I can assume that there's something wrong with every guy who didn't ask me out. But that seems a little...what's the word...self entitled? Out to lunch? Refusing to acknowledge simple reality?


How is this helpful to you?


For the record, I'm rarely hit on or asked out.


----------



## heartsbeating

Transparency and assertiveness - is there a link between the two?


Recognizing a pattern I've followed in my professional life, I was recently transparent and vulnerable with my manager in a way that I've never been before. And in turn, was stunned at the positive response received. It was of pure support and understanding. I was pleasantly surprised. The surprise I felt largely stems from my inner dialogue that has a tendency to not ask for help and support (at work at least). On reflection, that support would have been there at several places previously, I just couldn't see that fully at the time. I'm now also recognizing how open my manager is with me. What I really took away from this recent experience though, was the kindness she demonstrated. That is something that had me feeling elevated and something I greatly appreciated. 

It has become easy for me to be transparent with my husband. However it's not something that always comes easily with other relationships that I value. There are moments, big and small, where I'll stumble.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> I think, because your SO is 100% cognizant of what would happen if he told you everything--everything he loved about porn, why he is lazy in the bedroom and why he feels the need to dodge you sexually--you would walk away. Not easily, but I think you would.
> 
> Because he knows this, he literally can't be honest with you on this subject. The consequences for being open in this regard are too high and being not all the way open keeps you enough in the grey area that you can continue to have a relationship.
> 
> I don't know if there is a way for him to safely acknowledge all of this to you. Do you think there is a way for him to do so?


You are absolutely right, FF. The stakes are too high, and this is why I'm wondering if transparency can really only be one-sided. I can't make it safe for him.

I tried. Backed off, stopped fighting about it, stopped talking about it, responded neutrally when the door opened to the topic. Avoided accusations. But it still isn't safe for him, and I can't lie about that.


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> How is this helpful to you?
> .


It's just context. Lots of the advice I've received is to just dump this loser, find myself a "real" man, there's plenty of fish in the sea. 

And there simply aren't. And the fish out there are not necessarily anymore compatible, or any more likely to work with me, or care about me, than the fish in my net. IME, less likely.

So, I can either accept what we have, faults and all, and figure out how to deal with it, or I can go running off looking for something that will just land me with the same set of problems, but just alone, or conceivably with a different person.

If it's bad enough, FF is right, I will choose alone. But right now I'm still choosing "try to figure it out". If I'm lucky I'll learn something and grow from it.


----------



## john117

That's the thing. I thought there would be lots of fish too, but the old proverb "the odds are good but the goods are odd" sorta wields its head.

The possibility of finding an available, well preserved, emotionally and physically healthy, and financially self sustaining professional 50+ woman are about zero, and I live in a decent size locale.


----------



## Wolf1974

john117 said:


> That's the thing. I thought there would be lots of fish too, but the old proverb "the odds are good but the goods are odd" sorta wields its head.
> 
> The possibility of finding an available, well preserved, emotionally and physically healthy, and financially self sustaining professional 50+ woman are about zero, and I live in a decent size locale.


John,

Do you know that or is this your fear talking? If you do know this then how? I think the fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of all. For some like me divorce was thrust upon us. I Had not time to prepare no time to adjust have never even had an inkling thought that i would ever be single again. Like an idiot I go to the Internet to see what dating post 35 looks like and that didn't help. Horror stories of guys being used for money, not having sex for years, being alone and isolated. I had no choice but to go but understood the power and fear of wanting to stay......that just wasn't an option.

The reality is none of it is true. Dating isn't hard, finding companions isn't hard and making your life your own isn't hard. I still firmly believe that dating young is an advantage to women but dating older is an advantage to men. I have far more success now than I ever did in my 20's. Now I will admit that finding an everlasting love and realtionship is hard to do past 40. Most men and women just aren't looking for that anymore or have too much baggage to commit fully. But my point is that so long as you have a job, can hold a conversation, and don't look like a troll I promise you it's not all doom and gloom on the other side...it just looks that way.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## john117

I think it's my inner psychologist fear speaking. Or my high expectations.

I have come up with a simple simulation. From all the women I know, married or not, assume my lab team could assemble a desire beam tool that I could zap ANY of those women and make them fall madly in love... How many would I go for.

The answer was one.

I know her for twenty five years, our girls are bff's, we have gone to a couple cruises as families together... But she's the type of ephemeral fun loving person that restricts meaningful deep thought relationships. 

Maybe look for that... But really, a pair of Maine ***** is a lot more entertaining.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I have withdrawn considerably from my more involved days and saw that she noticed and did not like it. A year ago we could go a whole weekend and barely talk. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, her mind lacks the emotional capacity to assess what's going on. At best she would think I'm ticked off at her because of lack of intimacy but she would take no action to discuss. I can do a pretty good 180 but it goes to waste.
> 
> Since this is a transparency thread, let me point out once again the difference between the conduit - transparency - and the message, and the reception of the message. These are three different things that all have to be in place.


You keep saying she is "not-normal", and lacks mental or emotional capacity and frames of reference, but folks with BPD are typically quite insightful. Often moreso than the so-called normal folks. They absolutely struggle with intimacy, and are often afraid of being too close on the one hand, but abandoned on the other, but they actually do get what is going on. High functioning ones are also well known for having a fair bit of insight into their own symptoms and behaviour patterns, but just aren't very good at self-regulating.

I suspect that she is just better at the game than you are. And doesn't want transparency any more than you do. I think MEM hit the nail on the head when he said that you two are actually an awful lot alike.


----------



## john117

Correct on the BPD, but add work stress, low self esteem, likely depression, a fvcked up family and upbringing, and growing up in a restrictive theocracy and you got a perfect storm that ten MEM's can't wrap their heads around.

In contrast I have no BPD or anything, grew up in a loving if poor family, and in a very liberal culture.

Good guess tho.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
This is why I believe you have super powers. Or at least one very useful super power - seeing what is. 

M2 doesn't clear the bar for a true BPD diagnosis. But when she feels threatened she ticks enough of the boxes for me to say with complete sincerity that she seems BPD-lite.

Reason I'm mentioning it, is because she is scarily insightful. Always has been. 

Being badly self regulated is totally uncorrelated to how perceptive you are. 




always_alone said:


> You keep saying she is "not-normal", and lacks mental or emotional capacity and frames of reference, but folks with BPD are typically quite insightful. Often moreso than the so-called normal folks. They absolutely struggle with intimacy, and are often afraid of being too close on the one hand, but abandoned on the other, but they actually do get what is going on. High functioning ones are also well known for having a fair bit of insight into their own symptoms and behaviour patterns, but just aren't very good at self-regulating.
> 
> I suspect that she is just better at the game than you are. And doesn't want transparency any more than you do. I think MEM hit the nail on the head when he said that you two are actually an awful lot alike.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> This is why I believe you have super powers. Or at least one very useful super power - seeing what is.
> 
> M2 doesn't clear the bar for a true BPD diagnosis. But when she feels threatened she ticks enough of the boxes for me to say with complete sincerity that she seems BPD-lite.
> 
> Reason I'm mentioning it, is because she is scarily insightful. Always has been.
> 
> Being badly self regulated is totally uncorrelated to how perceptive you are.


Yup. F2 also falls squarely into this camp.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Correct on the BPD, but add work stress, low self esteem, likely depression, a fvcked up family and upbringing, and growing up in a restrictive theocracy and you got a perfect storm that ten MEM's can't wrap their heads around.
> 
> In contrast I have no BPD or anything, grew up in a loving if poor family, and in a very liberal culture.
> 
> Good guess tho.


I know. The head games you play with her are just because she deserves them (or for fun, whichever comes first), your utter contempt and loathing for her has no bearing whatsoever (she's oblivious, don'tcha know, and besides she deserves it), she earns 6 figures, but isn't allowed to have the phone she wants, and the *only* mistake you've ever made was to protect your innocent daughters from her evilness.


----------



## john117

I don't recall BPD-lite in my copy of DSM-IV. One is either able to regulate emotions or they're not. If they are, and still blow up with the frequency of Old Faithful then that's a voluntary and intentional behavior with specific purpose in mind. 

If you look at a behavior and only consider highlight parts then all of us at some point check every symptom of every disorder in the DSM. That's part of the reason DSM-V changed considerably from IV.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
That is the one theme - that I have a low success rate effectively communicating to other men. 

You take an Emopath like M2 - and you radiate calm, concern, compassion at her - and the most magical transformation happens. 

All those years - I would reflexively radiate irritation or annoyance or anger or frustration at her - when she was disregulated. 

I was essentially pouring negative energy into an unstable bucket. 

But you radiate positive emotional energy into a situation like that - and the most beautiful thing happens. 

Reason that Far - immediately grasped this concept is that at core he is wired to protect and serve. 





always_alone said:


> I know. The head games you play with her are just because she deserves them (or for fun, whichever comes first), your utter contempt and loathing for her has no bearing whatsoever (she's oblivious, don'tcha know, and besides she deserves it), she earns 6 figures, but isn't allowed to have the phone she wants, and the *only* mistake you've ever made was to protect your innocent daughters from her evilness.


----------



## MEM2020

You are full of mischief today John. 

And I believe a skilled therapist would describe your missive below as an example of either:
- black and white thinking 
Or
- teenage boy hijinks




john117 said:


> I don't recall BPD-lite in my copy of DSM-IV. One is either able to regulate emotions or they're not. If they are, and still blow up with the frequency of Old Faithful then that's a voluntary and intentional behavior with specific purpose in mind.
> 
> If you look at a behavior and only consider highlight parts then all of us at some point check every symptom of every disorder in the DSM. That's part of the reason DSM-V changed considerably from IV.


----------



## john117

Do you dispute the reason for all cluster B spectrum disorder diagnostic criteria changes in the DSM IV vs V?

I initially thought they were nuts as the criteria in IV was fairly simple while V complicated things... 

Enjoy:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...personality-disorder-big-changes-in-the-dsm-5


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I don't recall BPD-lite in my copy of DSM-IV. One is either able to regulate emotions or they're not. If they are, and still blow up with the frequency of Old Faithful then that's a voluntary and intentional behavior with specific purpose in mind.
> 
> If you look at a behavior and only consider highlight parts then all of us at some point check every symptom of every disorder in the DSM. That's part of the reason DSM-V changed considerably from IV.


Considerably, my a$$. As per usual, it was a bunch of bull$hit tweaking of some already seriously problematic categories. 

Listen, I absolutely agree with you that armchair diagnosis is a mug's game, and that we need to be super cautious about assigning labels, particularly psychiatric categories, willy-nilly, and without due caution. But personality disorders are themselves hugely problematic as categories, and there are many who see them all as dimensional --continuous with, yep you got it, us regular folks. 

In the end, diagnosis is based on "impairments" to sense of self, interpersonal relationships, and severity of "pathological" personality traits like hostility, risk taking, anxiousness, attention-seeking. In most cases people who fit one diagnosis also fit others, and there just ain't no hard differentiation between them. Or us.


----------



## john117

The biggest issue with self diagnosis or buddy diagnosis is bias. A clinical shrink has seen it all and can tell pretty quickly what is what. Still, BPD is not something most clinicians diagnose readily, let alone treat. 

The level of impairment was a recent addition although most practitioners would use some variation or another even in the IV days (when J2 was diagnosed for example). 

I don't keep up with clinical literature much but there was concern about making things too "easy" to diagnose... 

If we go by pop psych diagnostic criteria for BPD we all have it, including my cat...


----------



## MEM2020

What she said.

Tell you what I'm gonna do. And maybe my buddy Far will humor me and do something similar for F2. 

I'm going to rate M2 on the individual BPD criteria. But I'm going to give her two distinct ratings. The first is based on our 'old' marriage. 

The second will be based on our new marriage. 

The old marriage was passionate, loving and fairly adversarial. 

New marriage - isn't adversarial, it's collaborative. 

And where possible I'll quantify the changes in M2's behavior. 

Perhaps the hardest thing for a therapist to ever capture is what I think of as a person's: range

Their 'range' is defined by the spread between the way they behave in a positive environment vs. the way they respond in a negative or stressful environment. 

Most folks have a pretty big range. And that's a good thing. It means you can often bring out a much better side to them, if you know how to. 





always_alone said:


> Considerably, my a$$. As per usual, it was a bunch of bull$hit tweaking of some already seriously problematic categories.
> 
> Listen, I absolutely agree with you that armchair diagnosis is a mug's game, and that we need to be super cautious about assigning labels, particularly psychiatric categories, willy-nilly, and without due caution. But personality disorders are themselves hugely problematic as categories, and there are many who see them all as dimensional --continuous with, yep you got it, us regular folks.
> 
> In the end, diagnosis is based on "impairments" to sense of self, interpersonal relationships, and severity of "pathological" personality traits like hostility, risk taking, anxiousness, attention-seeking. In most cases people who fit one diagnosis also fit others, and there just ain't no hard differentiation between them. Or us.


----------



## john117

Read up on observer bias while you're at it


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> The biggest issue with self diagnosis or buddy diagnosis is bias. A clinical shrink has seen it all and can tell pretty quickly what is what. Still, BPD is not something most clinicians diagnose readily, let alone treat.
> 
> The level of impairment was a recent addition although most practitioners would use some variation or another even in the IV days (when J2 was diagnosed for example).


Level of impairment was always part of diagnosis, and there were and always have been cautions *not* to apply the categories willy-nilly.

But the fact remains that clinicians don't actually know what's what because there is marked overlap between these categories, plus huge variety within, and truly the most accurate one in most cases is "personality disorder, not otherwise specified." This is precisely why there has been a push to ditch the categories altogether - and move to a solely dimensional scale.

However, many clinicians found this "too complicated" and prefer the convenient heuristic of the categories, even if they cannot at all be justified by the scientific literature, and are not much value for treatment. And because the DSM is and always has been more political than scientific, they of course acceded, and kept the categories in.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Read up on observer bias while you're at it


Only if you promise to take a refresher course on inter-rater reliability and construct validity.


----------



## john117

One simply does not get "cured" from most personality disorders by someone else's actions. One voluntarily changes their behavior because it fits their purpose. Most cluster B disorders are very difficult for clinicians to treat and have a success rate about as good as the Chicago Cubs.

It may make us feel good to consider we "cured" Billy's ADHD by clicking him in the closet with a calculus book and a bowl of soup, but that's not how it is. All people are difficult at times and some all the time. But in the absence of pathology people get better one way or another.


----------



## heartsbeating

The other day a friend mentioned about seeing the true nature of something and acting accordingly - however seeing the true nature isn't easy - it's all just to the best of our ability at the time. 



I'm stepping back and away from the screen again... it seems my tendency with TAM is to visit for a time, then be offline for a couple of months, then pop back in again and so it goes. MEM thank you for introducing a thread that's interesting to read and follow. john, jld, marduk, farside, always, everyone posting in this thread... it's been really interesting to follow your thoughts. always_alone I hope you are able to grow together as a couple, or at the very least, discover your clarity in the process. I use the word clarity simply as a contrast to you feeling conflicted.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

I actually agree with what you are saying below. 

And yet my subjective experience is that when I switched from responding to behaviors I disliked with: disapproval and aggression 
To responding with a: serve and protect 

Our marriage changed from one where there was a LOT of manipulation, gaslighting and guerrilla warfare, to one where there was almost none of that. 

And when M2 stopped focusing a lot of emotional energy on combat, she applied a certain amount of that focus to herself. 

There are still a few core things that still upset M2, and will always upset M2. She's not real big on sharing me. 

The fear of abandonment, coupled with a strong need for affirmation - from me - makes for a few challenges. 

So I read the dsm V. It will take a bit of effort but I'll map her to that. 

Maybe the hardest thing about all this is that - the things that changed our dynamic were so simple. 





john117 said:


> One simply does not get "cured" from most personality disorders by someone else's actions. One voluntarily changes their behavior because it fits their purpose. Most cluster B disorders are very difficult for clinicians to treat and have a success rate about as good as the Chicago Cubs.
> 
> It may make us feel good to consider we "cured" Billy's ADHD by clicking him in the closet with a calculus book and a bowl of soup, but that's not how it is. All people are difficult at times and some all the time. But in the absence of pathology people get better one way or another.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> I actually agree with what you are saying below.
> 
> And yet my subjective experience is that when I switched from responding to behaviors I disliked with: disapproval and aggression
> To responding with a: serve and protect
> 
> Our marriage changed from one where there was a LOT of manipulation, gaslighting and guerrilla warfare, to one where there was almost none of that.
> 
> And when M2 stopped focusing a lot of emotional energy on combat, she applied a certain amount of that focus to herself.
> 
> There are still a few core things that still upset M2, and will always upset M2. She's not real big on sharing me.
> 
> The fear of abandonment, coupled with a strong need for affirmation - from me - makes for a few challenges.
> 
> So I read the dsm V. It will take a bit of effort but I'll map her to that.
> 
> Maybe the hardest thing about all this is that - the things that changed our dynamic were so simple.


Can you link the resource, Mem?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

http://www.borderlinepersonalitydisorder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012_December_16_v2.pdf





farsidejunky said:


> Can you link the resource, Mem?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

Good. Now we are getting somewhere.

Think of stressors as known and specific vs unknown and not understood... Am I right to assume that M2 felt the need to be protected from specific behaviors or elements? These are known, finite, understood, and as such, can be dealt with. To some extent that's what CBT is. Dealing with very specific situations. And certainly she did not exhibit those behaviors 24/7 and had enough self awareness to understand what she did and how right or wrong it was.

That's called a human being.

Someone with a PD is way different. Over time you may know what triggers them but there's a surprising spectrum of unknowns. Everything can be and will be a candidate for threat. There's no emotional filtering and / or prioritization. It's all raw 24/7. CBT is of limited use - tried it - because there's no transference of skills learned from activity A into B. It's sh!t happening at a conceptual level. 

They're generally "never wrong", and never worry about the implications of their actions on others. Esp cluster B's. Nothing is too small.

As a cognitive psychologist I noticed right away that the way J2's mind processes things is different. It's as if there's a computer virus or runaway program running in her mind and taking out a whole bunch of processing power. And what's left is barely enough to function properly. Few things matter (making it trivial to manipulate them for many things) and those that do are often examined thru strange lenses. To help them one needs DBT, or dialectic behavior therapy. Not a strong dudevto save them or a rock of a husband or a heck of a Maine ****. 

These are key differences one observes quickly. None of those is in the DSM. Aren't you happy you didn't waste your life studying this?

Speaking of psychology, I got my name on a work patent we are applying for eye vs hand tracking  I'm doing the theoretical analysis. I'm so excited!!!


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> always_alone I hope you are able to grow together as a couple, or at the very least, discover your clarity in the process. I use the word clarity simply as a contrast to you feeling conflicted.


Thanks, hb. Well-wishes to you too!


----------



## jld

Congrats, John.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
Congratulations on the work patent. Are you simultaneously tracking hand and eye movements? 

I imagine folks eyes often lead their hands in control panel scenarios. 

That seems like it would be very useful for human factors design. 





john117 said:


> Good. Now we are getting somewhere.
> 
> Think of stressors as known and specific vs unknown and not understood... Am I right to assume that M2 felt the need to be protected from specific behaviors or elements? These are known, finite, understood, and as such, can be dealt with. To some extent that's what CBT is. Dealing with very specific situations. And certainly she did not exhibit those behaviors 24/7 and had enough self awareness to understand what she did and how right or wrong it was.
> 
> That's called a human being.
> 
> Someone with a PD is way different. Over time you may know what triggers them but there's a surprising spectrum of unknowns. Everything can be and will be a candidate for threat. There's no emotional filtering and / or prioritization. It's all raw 24/7. CBT is of limited use - tried it - because there's no transference of skills learned from activity A into B. It's sh!t happening at a conceptual level.
> 
> They're generally "never wrong", and never worry about the implications of their actions on others. Esp cluster B's. Nothing is too small.
> 
> As a cognitive psychologist I noticed right away that the way J2's mind processes things is different. It's as if there's a computer virus or runaway program running in her mind and taking out a whole bunch of processing power. And what's left is barely enough to function properly. Few things matter (making it trivial to manipulate them for many things) and those that do are often examined thru strange lenses. To help them one needs DBT, or dialectic behavior therapy. Not a strong dudevto save them or a rock of a husband or a heck of a Maine ****.
> 
> These are key differences one observes quickly. None of those is in the DSM. Aren't you happy you didn't waste your life studying this?
> 
> Speaking of psychology, I got my name on a work patent we are applying for eye vs hand tracking  I'm doing the theoretical analysis. I'm so excited!!!


----------



## john117

It's a new way to interact with a touchscreen. There's a lot of theory behind it and of course the engineers who got it working have no idea why it works so well... Since its a patent they need the theoretical model so its me to the rescue...


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Good. Now we are getting somewhere.
> 
> Think of stressors as known and specific vs unknown and not understood... Am I right to assume that M2 felt the need to be protected from specific behaviors or elements? These are known, finite, understood, and as such, can be dealt with. To some extent that's what CBT is. Dealing with very specific situations. And certainly she did not exhibit those behaviors 24/7 and had enough self awareness to understand what she did and how right or wrong it was.
> 
> That's called a human being.
> 
> Someone with a PD is way different. Over time you may know what triggers them but there's a surprising spectrum of unknowns. Everything can be and will be a candidate for threat. There's no emotional filtering and / or prioritization. It's all raw 24/7. CBT is of limited use - tried it - because there's no transference of skills learned from activity A into B. It's sh!t happening at a conceptual level.
> 
> They're generally "never wrong", and never worry about the implications of their actions on others. Esp cluster B's. Nothing is too small.


People with PD are just as human as the rest of us, john. Their triggers are both specific and non-specific, known and unknown, just like the rest of us. The problem is that there is an overabundance of the negative, those traits and functions that are most likely to lead to impairments in one's ability to live with oneself and others.

For BPD, you are right, there is nothing too small. Things that so-called normal people would brush off, or not worry about, or interpret differently can be huge mountains of angst for someone with BPD. They cannot self-regulate about these things.

But this doesn't make them un-human or mean that their processes are fundamentally different in kind than others. CBT is just one type of therapy, and while it does tend to be relatively effective when compared to other forms of psychotherapy, it is not the be all and end all, and like most therapies requires vested interest in improvement by the person suffering. Without that, it will be of limited success.

But what MEM is talking about is neither therapy nor cure, it is about dynamics. This is a very different sort of thing, but it is a mistake to discount its imoact. Schizophrenics, for example, have this interesting tendency to show complete spontaneous remission of symptoms in times of crisis or hardship, functioning completely normally, only to slide back into symptoms once the crisis is over. They also have much much better prognosis when they are in a loving and caring environment.

Mental illness, its symptoms, severity, prognosis are all affected significantly by environment. This does not mean they are caused by it or can be fixed by it. Just that it makes a difference.


----------



## john117

The dynamics that MEM mentioned depend on very subtle give/take, recognition of verbal and nonverbal cues, and careful consideration of all parameters with a reasonable level of objectivity. 

With untreated BPD none of the above is generally possible, not to the degree needed to facilitate effective communication. 

People with BPD are people and deserve compassion and all that. I get that. But at some point there's one's responsibility for one's actions and if they want to be loved and cared for they have to respond somehow in a positive way.

Some do. J2 has never done it for various reasons, so I'm not generalizing. I spent a fair amount of time on the TAM of BPD and alas, some people respond and some don't.

I tried CBT with J2 for a while. It was a bit effective but I found that at the end it was like teaching calculus to a cat. You could teach her to not blow up during a particular situation, then have a slightly different situation and sure as heck it would not click. 

I'm patient but not a saint. None of us is.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

I guess part of what I'm struggling with is this. 

J2 was in a mostly healthy state for about 25 years yes? Let's call this J2(H). And then some thing or things acted as a catalyst to push her into a mentally unhealthy state, J2(U). 

I believe that some of that could be what I like to call raw physiology, typically hormones. And some might perhaps have been environmental factors, such as conflict with children and conflict with you over children. 

I mention the latter because I have some experience with it. A conflict over how to handle a situation with our daughter caused M2 to call her closest 7 family and friends and tell them that:
1. I refused to let her cut T3 off financially mid semester
2. I was and had always been emotionally abusive and she was divorcing me ASAP

I raise that because I truly believe that it is helpful to identify the causal factors of change. 

When folks are chronically anxious - and J2 sort of seems that way - they are often but a hair trigger shy of a meltdown. 

For a long time M2 would melt down over 'seemingly' small things. 
Her need to control - was amplified to an unmanageable level. 

But the biggest issue by far was that, as soon as anything triggered her, she perceived me as an adversary not an ally. 

Somehow I wonder if a series of unfortunate events, caused J2 to begin to perceive you as an adversary and not an ally. 

The big unknown to me is whether your current style - which is adversarial - was somewhat present at the beginning of this marital melt down. 

For instance the contempt you express towards J2 for accidentally breaking her phone. Were you like that 7 years ago? 

In our OLD marriage there wasn't much room for M2's occasionally difficult or sub optimal behavior. I was often very judgemental and impatient. 





john117 said:


> The dynamics that MEM mentioned depend on very subtle give/take, recognition of verbal and nonverbal cues, and careful consideration of all parameters with a reasonable level of objectivity.
> 
> With untreated BPD none of the above is generally possible, not to the degree needed to facilitate effective communication.
> 
> People with BPD are people and deserve compassion and all that. I get that. But at some point there's one's responsibility for one's actions and if they want to be loved and cared for they have to respond somehow in a positive way.
> 
> Some do. J2 has never done it for various reasons, so I'm not generalizing. I spent a fair amount of time on the TAM of BPD and alas, some people respond and some don't.
> 
> I tried CBT with J2 for a while. It was a bit effective but I found that at the end it was like teaching calculus to a cat. You could teach her to not blow up during a particular situation, then have a slightly different situation and sure as heck it would not click.
> 
> I'm patient but not a saint. None of us is.


----------



## john117

J2 had always been normal but edgy. That is, on the edgy side of normal. We got thru some very stressful times together - being PhD students at a later age with a baby and a preschooler - and made it OK. The unfortunate events were not hormone related. Job issues and the passing of her sister send her to cuckoo land tho in retrospect she had the traits, its just that i was too unbelieving to notice. 

You mention M2's mostly word based responses. I would have been VERY lucky to have to deal with just words. I also had to deal with her actions against her own child. And the colleges issue. Neither of which occurred in J2's version of history.

In retrospect M2 telling everyone about your alleged transgressions helped you. Someone in her circle must have sat her down and read her the riot act. I did not have the benefit of J2 getting such counsel.

You mentioned M2 perceived you as an adversary on the occasions of her being triggered. Lucky you, as I did not need the benefit of triggering. I was always the perp.

In the early days I was not adversarial at all. Like an idiot I did not see it for what it was, and thought its just stress. Then like the good social scientist i am, I started documenting frequency and magnitude and trigger and all that. Meanwhile I provided phenomenal support to her. Support, that i may say, I did not receive at any time from her when I lost both parents and my brother in a relatively brief six year time frame. 

When more and more blowups were directed towards my daughter I decided enough was enough and decided to respond in kind. Eventually she realized she was not going to win and the rages slowly diminished. When J2 changed jobs four years ago that's where things went really downhill due to the stress. 

I'm very patient and non judgemental when needed. My kids are a testament to that. But I despise people not thinking. When j2 busted her phone it was not an accident. It was mindless stupid, period. Her driving also reflects that . Work is God and nothing else comes close. I could be talking to her about something and all of a sudden work. I have taken her to a rare lunch or dinner date where all we talked about - psyops experiment - was work. 

The piece de resistance was when in 2012'we were alone in the cruise ship night bar in Alaska. I got us two drinks and we sat and looked at the sky and sea. I did not offer to talk, unusual for me. She did not say a word for an hour and a half, not because the environment was so surreal - it was - but because she was all empty. There was nothing else to give. There's nothing there. It's an empty shell. I can't be angry with her. But that was the realization that long term the marriage is done. Emotionally she continues to deteriorate. And not care about it.

Initially, I have to admit. I was angry. Very angry. Like seriously angry. Then slowly I came to the realization that it can't be helped. Since then I have only seen glimpses of the old J2. Just like I saw my grandfather succumb to Alzheimer's. Slow and steady. 

And now you know the rest of the story. 





MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> I guess part of what I'm struggling with is this.
> 
> J2 was in a mostly healthy state for about 25 years yes? Let's call this J2(H). And then some thing or things acted as a catalyst to push her into a mentally unhealthy state, J2(U).
> 
> I believe that some of that could be what I like to call raw physiology, typically hormones. And some might perhaps have been environmental factors, such as conflict with children and conflict with you over children.
> 
> I mention the latter because I have some experience with it. A conflict over how to handle a situation with our daughter caused M2 to call her closest 7 family and friends and tell them that:
> 1. I refused to let her cut T3 off financially mid semester
> 2. I was and had always been emotionally abusive and she was divorcing me ASAP
> 
> I raise that because I truly believe that it is helpful to identify the causal factors of change.
> 
> When folks are chronically anxious - and J2 sort of seems that way - they are often but a hair trigger shy of a meltdown.
> 
> For a long time M2 would melt down over 'seemingly' small things.
> Her need to control - was amplified to an unmanageable level.
> 
> But the biggest issue by far was that, as soon as anything triggered her, she perceived me as an adversary not an ally.
> 
> Somehow I wonder if a series of unfortunate events, caused J2 to begin to perceive you as an adversary and not an ally.
> 
> The big unknown to me is whether your current style - which is adversarial - was somewhat present at the beginning of this marital melt down.
> 
> For instance the contempt you express towards J2 for accidentally breaking her phone. Were you like that 7 years ago?
> 
> In our OLD marriage there wasn't much room for M2's occasionally difficult or sub optimal behavior. I was often very judgemental and impatient.


----------



## MEM2020

I'm really sorry man. That's an awful story. 

As far as the group of 7, it was a mixed bag. One of her sisters was a negative amplifier - the two of them are competitive with each other. And I out earn by brother in law by a huge margin. I'm guessing this was just too good an opportunity to level the playing field. 

Lucky for me we have good friends - neighbors actually - who know us both. And Kim - told M2 that it was crazy to shred the cost of a full semester by cutting M3 off mid stream. Also told her that based on what she knew of me - M2's depiction of the marriage and me seemed way off. That was a big help. 







UOTE=john117;14324626]J2 had always been normal but edgy. That is, on the edgy side of normal. We got thru some very stressful times together - being PhD students at a later age with a baby and a preschooler - and made it OK. The unfortunate events were not hormone related. Job issues and the passing of her sister send her to cuckoo land tho in retrospect she had the traits, its just that i was too unbelieving to notice. 

You mention M2's mostly word based responses. I would have been VERY lucky to have to deal with just words. I also had to deal with her actions against her own child. And the colleges issue. Neither of which occurred in J2's version of history.

In retrospect M2 telling everyone about your alleged transgressions helped you. Someone in her circle must have sat her down and read her the riot act. I did not have the benefit of J2 getting such counsel.

You mentioned M2 perceived you as an adversary on the occasions of her being triggered. Lucky you, as I did not need the benefit of triggering. I was always the perp.

In the early days I was not adversarial at all. Like an idiot I did not see it for what it was, and thought its just stress. Then like the good social scientist i am, I started documenting frequency and magnitude and trigger and all that. Meanwhile I provided phenomenal support to her. Support, that i may say, I did not receive at any time from her when I lost both parents and my brother in a relatively brief six year time frame. 

When more and more blowups were directed towards my daughter I decided enough was enough and decided to respond in kind. Eventually she realized she was not going to win and the rages slowly diminished. When J2 changed jobs four years ago that's where things went really downhill due to the stress. 

I'm very patient and non judgemental when needed. My kids are a testament to that. But I despise people not thinking. When j2 busted her phone it was not an accident. It was mindless stupid, period. Her driving also reflects that . Work is God and nothing else comes close. I could be talking to her about something and all of a sudden work. I have taken her to a rare lunch or dinner date where all we talked about - psyops experiment - was work. 

The piece de resistance was when in 2012'we were alone in the cruise ship night bar in Alaska. I got us two drinks and we sat and looked at the sky and sea. I did not offer to talk, unusual for me. She did not say a word for an hour and a half, not because the environment was so surreal - it was - but because she was all empty. There was nothing else to give. There's nothing there. It's an empty shell. I can't be angry with her. But that was the realization that long term the marriage is done. Emotionally she continues to deteriorate. And not care about it.

Initially, I have to admit. I was angry. Very angry. Like seriously angry. Then slowly I came to the realization that it can't be helped. Since then I have only seen glimpses of the old J2. Just like I saw my grandfather succumb to Alzheimer's. Slow and steady. 

And now you know the rest of the story.[/QUOTE]


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> I'm really sorry man. That's an awful story.
> 
> As far as the group of 7, it was a mixed bag. One of her sisters was a negative amplifier - the two of them are competitive with each other. And I out earn by brother in law by a huge margin. I'm guessing this was just too good an opportunity to level the playing field.
> 
> Lucky for me we have good friends - neighbors actually - who know us both. And Kim - told M2 that it was crazy to shred the cost of a full semester by cutting M3 off mid stream. Also told her that based on what she knew of me - M2's depiction of the marriage and me seemed way off. That was a big help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UOTE=john117;14324626]J2 had always been normal but edgy. That is, on the edgy side of normal. We got thru some very stressful times together - being PhD students at a later age with a baby and a preschooler - and made it OK. The unfortunate events were not hormone related. Job issues and the passing of her sister send her to cuckoo land tho in retrospect she had the traits, its just that i was too unbelieving to notice.
> 
> You mention M2's mostly word based responses. I would have been VERY lucky to have to deal with just words. I also had to deal with her actions against her own child. And the colleges issue. Neither of which occurred in J2's version of history.
> 
> In retrospect M2 telling everyone about your alleged transgressions helped you. Someone in her circle must have sat her down and read her the riot act. I did not have the benefit of J2 getting such counsel.
> 
> You mentioned M2 perceived you as an adversary on the occasions of her being triggered. Lucky you, as I did not need the benefit of triggering. I was always the perp.
> 
> In the early days I was not adversarial at all. Like an idiot I did not see it for what it was, and thought its just stress. Then like the good social scientist i am, I started documenting frequency and magnitude and trigger and all that. Meanwhile I provided phenomenal support to her. Support, that i may say, I did not receive at any time from her when I lost both parents and my brother in a relatively brief six year time frame.
> 
> When more and more blowups were directed towards my daughter I decided enough was enough and decided to respond in kind. Eventually she realized she was not going to win and the rages slowly diminished. When J2 changed jobs four years ago that's where things went really downhill due to the stress.
> 
> I'm very patient and non judgemental when needed. My kids are a testament to that. But I despise people not thinking. When j2 busted her phone it was not an accident. It was mindless stupid, period. Her driving also reflects that . Work is God and nothing else comes close. I could be talking to her about something and all of a sudden work. I have taken her to a rare lunch or dinner date where all we talked about - psyops experiment - was work.
> 
> The piece de resistance was when in 2012'we were alone in the cruise ship night bar in Alaska. I got us two drinks and we sat and looked at the sky and sea. I did not offer to talk, unusual for me. She did not say a word for an hour and a half, not because the environment was so surreal - it was - but because she was all empty. There was nothing else to give. There's nothing there. It's an empty shell. I can't be angry with her. But that was the realization that long term the marriage is done. Emotionally she continues to deteriorate. And not care about it.
> 
> Initially, I have to admit. I was angry. Very angry. Like seriously angry. Then slowly I came to the realization that it can't be helped. Since then I have only seen glimpses of the old J2. Just like I saw my grandfather succumb to Alzheimer's. Slow and steady.
> 
> And now you know the rest of the story.


[/QUOTE]
If F2 would have called family and told them that, I would have dropped her off at her parents house for them to take her back in.

It is one thing to call someone abusive "in the moment". It is quite another to sabotage you to her whole family.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

Yet the family would have been able to provide some useful meaning of the term... Going it alone and feeling abused because you received Pepsi instead of Dr. Pepper...


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> If F2 would have called family and told them that, I would have dropped her off at her parents house for them to take her back in.
> 
> It is one thing to call someone abusive "in the moment". It is quite another to sabotage you to her whole family.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Love is stronger than pride, far.


----------



## jld

@farsidejunky

"Love . . . bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Love is stronger than pride, far.


And logic is stronger than emotion.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> And logic is stronger than emotion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Logic is supposed to serve the interests of love, far.

Think about where logic takes you if you are not guided by love.


----------



## farsidejunky

Or think about where logic from a place of love takes you when you care more about that persons character than for their comfort.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

farsidejunky said:


> And logic is stronger than emotion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Allow me a silent moment of cynicism


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Or think about where logic from a place of love takes you when you care more about that persons character than for their comfort.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Then you do not leave them, far.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Then you do not leave them, far.


Did I say anything about leaving?

I said I would drop her at her parents. She could do whatever she wanted at that point. One would hope she would want to make up for her transgressions. But it would be up to her to do.

Actions have consequences.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

If she was earning as much as you did then the above would be - at best - an exercise in futility. 

Never underestimate the magical power of a good income.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> If she was earning as much as you did then the above would be - at best - an exercise in futility.
> 
> Never underestimate the magical power of a good income.


It does bring freedom.


----------



## john117

Q.E.D.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> The dynamics that MEM mentioned depend on very subtle give/take, recognition of verbal and nonverbal cues, and careful consideration of all parameters with a reasonable level of objectivity.
> 
> With untreated BPD none of the above is generally possible, not to the degree needed to facilitate effective communication.
> 
> People with BPD are people and deserve compassion and all that. I get that. But at some point there's one's responsibility for one's actions and if they want to be loved and cared for they have to respond somehow in a positive way.


I disagree. MEM's instrument is actually fairly crude, as instruments go, but still it's one of the most powerful. Yes, it involves observation, but with the heart, not with the head or ego. And the success doesn't depend on the control of every thought process or nuance of behaviour, but a way of being in the world.

You keep falling back to this idea that BPD are oblivious to cues and non-verbal behaviour, but this simply not true. Indeed the exact opposite is true, and they are as likely, more likely even, to notice and respond.

I'm reminded of heart's quote from the Buddhist monk: that if you listen compassionately, it may be the *first* time a person has experience that. I think this is true, and that with MEM, it is the first time M2 has ever been *seen* so compassionately, and this helps her to fill that void inside her, without feeling smothered.

Don't get me wrong, john. I don't expect you to turn into a saint or a monk, to sacrifice your own self for the sake of J2. Indeed, I'm inclined to think the most humane thing for the both of you would be to leave her already, so that you can stop torturing each other, and move on.

But I also think that your overemphasis on the cognitive aspects of psychology means that you aren't really seeing or understanding the emotional side. And this part is huge, particularly with BPD.


----------



## jld

I like a lot of what you said, aa. But I think staying with her and working things out could help John grow a lot.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> Actions have consequences.


Yes, they do. But it is interesting that you believe it your responsibility to enforce those consequences.

If you treat her like she is 8, she will act 8. If you treat her like she is your project to be fixed, she will stay broken.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> If she was earning as much as you did then the above would be - at best - an exercise in futility.


Only if your objective is to train her into compliance.

Which is likely to fail anyway.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Only if your objective is to train her into compliance.
> 
> Which is likely to fail anyway.


Thank goodness.


----------



## john117

The current dogma believes that BPD's are pretty good in picking up some non verbal cues, lousy in picking up others, and not good overall in interpreting those.

http://healingbpd.blogspot.com/2012/03/bpd-and-misreading-of-facial.html?m=1

"Studies[ii]utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging have shown that*the parts of the brain that process negative emotion are more active*in people with BPD, and that there was*no*brain activity*in the parts of the brain which regulate or inhibit emotional response.*"

Or 

"Previous studies[iv]*[v]have shown that people with BPD have difficulty interpreting social gestures such as trust, and also are more acutely tuned in to the subtle facial gestures that we use to communicate emotions. That is, they notice changes in facial expression more quickly than people without BPD, but are more likely to misinterpret what the facial expressions mean."

But the emotional processing part is interesting:

"It makes perfect sense that with these differences in brain function that emotional regulation would be difficult. One of my clients has described this by comparing her emotions to "a radio that has the volume turned up full blast all the time."*

That's exactly my experience. The " runaway process" in the pc or volume full up.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I like a lot of what you said, aa. But I think staying with her and working things out could help John grow a lot.


Maybe, but only if he wants to. And I don't think he does. Which means staying is just as likely to end up in an endless loop of them doing their best to torture each other.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> "It makes perfect sense that with these differences in brain function that emotional regulation would be difficult. One of my clients has described this by comparing her emotions to "a radio that has the volume turned up full blast all the time."*
> 
> That's exactly my experience. The " runaway process" in the pc or volume full up.


Which is precisely why MEM's approach is as effective as it is. 

BPD often see slights where there aren't any, and are triggered by things that others dismiss as trivial. So rather than controlling their reactions to stimuli, you soothe the emotions that are reacting.


----------



## farsidejunky

john117 said:


> If she was earning as much as you did then the above would be - at best - an exercise in futility.
> 
> Never underestimate the magical power of a good income.


Not at all, John. Her choices in that situation would tell me all that I need to know.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Maybe, but only if he wants to. And I don't think he does. Which means staying is just as likely to end up in an endless loop of them doing their best to torture each other.


Not sure. He would have to "stay different," though, as Blossom Leigh says.

I think he loves her. But he is too focused on her loving him, without earning it.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Not at all, John. Her choices in that situation would tell me all that I need to know.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Your focus is on receiving, and not giving.

I think MEM is trying to nudge you beyond that.


----------



## john117

Ignoring each other is easier actually.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Yes, they do. But it is interesting that you believe it your responsibility to enforce those consequences.
> 
> If you treat her like she is 8, she will act 8. If you treat her like she is your project to be fixed, she will stay broken.


When the transgression is against me, why should I not have that responsibility? 

As for treating her like she is 8, that is almost fair. A contrary view would be that she is acting 8 so I am treating her as such. In all actuality, neither is my reasoning. 

For the sake of her own emotional safety, I would remove her from the situation. I would hate to subject her to another moment of emotional abuse.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Your focus is on receiving, and not giving.
> 
> I think MEM is trying to nudge you beyond that.


I understand your point. The proverbial fly in the ointment is that I'm already treating her this way

Any action such as that would tell me that there is very little emotional safety for her, so for her benefit, I would simply remove her from the abusive situation.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

But when I treat her according to emotional age, the peanut gallery has heart palpitations 

Sounds reasonable.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> But when I treat her according to emotional age, the peanut gallery has heart palpitations
> 
> Sounds reasonable.


This is exactly the sort of judgment that BPD are overly sensitive to. No wonder she doesn't respond well.

The current "dogma" on BPD ks not as dogmatic as you think:
Mechanisms of disturbed emotion processing and social interaction in borderline personality disorder: state of knowledge and research agenda of the German Clinical Research Unit | Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation | Full Text


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> As for treating her like she is 8, that is almost fair. A contrary view would be that she is acting 8 so I am treating her as such.


That right there is the key to dynamics: You can go round and round in circles, doing the same things and getting the same results. 

Or you can change.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I understand your point. The proverbial fly in the ointment is that I'm already treating her this way
> 
> Any action such as that would tell me that there is very little emotional safety for her, so for her benefit, I would simply remove her from the abusive situation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


If you cannot be what you know she needs, it is a kindness to divorce her.

If you simply _refuse_ to be what she needs, especially if developing those qualities would take some work and some dying to self, that is another story.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> That right there is the key to dynamics: You can go round and round in circles, doing the same things and getting the same results.
> 
> Or you can change.


I already have, A_A. Tremendously. I am still improving. If it is not enough for her, than I will set her free.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> If you cannot be what you know she needs, it is a kindness to divorce her.
> 
> If you simply _refuse_ to be what she needs, especially if developing those qualities would take some work and some dying to self, that is another story.


I agree that setting her free is ideal if I can't be that person.

I believe that I am being the best me that I can possibly be. If she were to describe the current me as emotionally abusive, then quite frankly, her expectations are too great for me to live up to. 

Continuing in that marriage would be a disservice to both of us.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

I guess it is still a bit lost on me though, that expectations are only allowed to be one sided. Or am I misreading what you two are saying?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> For the sake of her own emotional safety, I would remove her from the situation. I would hate to subject her to another moment of emotional abuse.


This is fair, I think, and definitely not the same as enforcing that "actions have consequences" 

If the transgression is against you, I can see why the impulse is there to be the enforcer of those consequences. But this is a form of "an eye for an eye" justice. And while tempting, we all know where that leads.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I agree that setting her free is ideal if I can't be that person.
> 
> I believe that I am being the best me that I can possibly be. If she were to describe the current me as emotionally abusive, then quite frankly, her expectations are too great for me to live up to.
> 
> Continuing in that marriage would be a disservice to both of us.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


There is always room for improvement, far. You can become even greater.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I guess it is still a bit lost on me though, that expectations are only allowed to be one sided. Or am I misreading what you two are saying?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I am just asking you to go first.

I want you to *inspire* her, far.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> I guess it is still a bit lost on me though, that expectations are only allowed to be one sided. Or am I misreading what you two are saying?


Expectations are never one-sided. I expect my SO to act like an adult (not 8) as much as he expects me to. Suppose he lets me down and starts acting 8. Should I then treat him as such? Or punish him because "actions have consequences?" What will that accomplish? 

If it gets bad enough, I would likely extricate myself from the situation. But not to prove a point, or punish, or exact consequences. Just for simple self-preservation.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> This is fair, I think, and definitely not the same as enforcing that "actions have consequences"
> 
> If the transgression is against you, I can see why the impulse is there to be the enforcer of those consequences. But this is a form of "an eye for an eye" justice. And while tempting, we all know where that leads.


What would you consider an appropriate response?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I am just asking you to go first.
> 
> I want you to *inspire* her, far.


Already happening.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Already happening.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Then keep up the good work.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> What would you consider an appropriate response?


Why is it important to respond?


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Why is it important to respond?


Is that your response?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

Far,

So here's sort of the deal on this. 

For months afterward I was hurt and angry. It was a case of M3 doing something on Facebook that embarrassed M2, and M2 literally came apart at the seems. 

She took a page right out of a scene in the series Mad Men. Don Draper says: All good PR folks know the right strategy for dealing with a situation where you don't like what people are saying. Just change the subject. 

In this case - M2 changed the subject from: M2 might not have been such a great mother, to M1 is a terrible husband and M2 is leaving him. 

Many months later M2 profusely apologized for all this nonsense. I asked her how she would feel if I blame shifted in that manner. 

Maybe a full year later - this is what I told her: I seriously doubt our mutual friends and family are going to be all that impacted by what you say about me in the 'heat of the moment'. Worst case for you, you succeed in convincing them I'm a bad guy. Because what then?

M2 looked at me a little confused.

Babe, If you convince them I'm a bad H, and then stay with me, do you think this increases or decreases their opinion of YOU?

And that was my final word with her on the subject. 

This is likely my least favorite of M2's dysfunctional behaviors. I believe it happens very rarely now, and is much less extreme when it does occur. 





farsidejunky said:


> When the transgression is against me, why should I not have that responsibility?
> 
> As for treating her like she is 8, that is almost fair. A contrary view would be that she is acting 8 so I am treating her as such. In all actuality, neither is my reasoning.
> 
> For the sake of her own emotional safety, I would remove her from the situation. I would hate to subject her to another moment of emotional abuse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

Far,
To be precise I do have expectations. And have let M2 know that this type behavior disappoints me. 

And it's not as if I'm immune to this. I'm not. I very much dislike it. And M2 knows that. I don't do a tit for tat. I have however asked her questions. 

Does your family know X about you? Would you be ok if I called them and shared that? I'm not going to, just asking if that's ok with you? 

And it is very painful to jam yourself so firmly into a sharp corner like M2 did in this case. I was way past the point of being angry when I said: 

Babe, the stuff you said to the G7 was either true or not true. If you believe that it's true you should leave me. If you believe that it isn't - you should unsay t. 

I guess there were consequences, mostly it was me just saying stuff that I believed to be true about this incident....





farsidejunky said:


> I guess it is still a bit lost on me though, that expectations are only allowed to be one sided. Or am I misreading what you two are saying?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

Best thing about the 'protect and serve' vibe is that it encourages open communication about WHY M2 is doing whatever she is doing. 

My response to the WHY always includes a: thank you for telling me that.

That doesn't mean I avoid a real conversation. The last time M2 got jealous of my older sister she poked at her during a visit to my sisters vacation home. 

Later that night in private I asked what was up. She acknowledged feeling jealous. I thanked her for telling me. And then I expressed a sincere concern. Which was that I couldn't guarantee we would continue to be welcome as guests if she continued to poke at my sister. 

That right there - is an example of me employing limited transparency. 

Full transparency would have been: If you keep doing this you may become persona non gratis here. That won't stop me from coming. I don't WANT to come without you, but I will if you're the one who creates that situation. 




always_alone said:


> I disagree. MEM's instrument is actually fairly crude, as instruments go, but still it's one of the most powerful. Yes, it involves observation, but with the heart, not with the head or ego. And the success doesn't depend on the control of every thought process or nuance of behaviour, but a way of being in the world.
> 
> You keep falling back to this idea that BPD are oblivious to cues and non-verbal behaviour, but this simply not true. Indeed the exact opposite is true, and they are as likely, more likely even, to notice and respond.
> 
> I'm reminded of heart's quote from the Buddhist monk: that if you listen compassionately, it may be the *first* time a person has experience that. I think this is true, and that with MEM, it is the first time M2 has ever been *seen* so compassionately, and this helps her to fill that void inside her, without feeling smothered.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, john. I don't expect you to turn into a saint or a monk, to sacrifice your own self for the sake of J2. Indeed, I'm inclined to think the most humane thing for the both of you would be to leave her already, so that you can stop torturing each other, and move on.
> 
> But I also think that your overemphasis on the cognitive aspects of psychology means that you aren't really seeing or understanding the emotional side. And this part is huge, particularly with BPD.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> Is that your response?


It's a response. But it's also a sincere question. The appropriate response depends a lot on what the issue and goal is.


----------



## always_alone

It seems to me only fair that we are all equally entitled to our authentic reactions. I mean, after all, the whole point of transparency, the point of thinking about compassionate listening or compassionate observation, is all about acceptance. Acceptance of our humanity, our weaknesses, our frailties. 

What we are talking here is not just sacrifice for the benefit of others, it is also what we need for ourselves: health, well-being, belonging, acceptance, love.

I'm having difficulty expressing what I want to say here, but surely the goal here is not to be immune to each other, to not have feelings and responses, but to do it in a way that accords everyone the same recognition and entitlements.


----------



## john117

If a relationship is at that point already why bother with transparency? As long as I'm not hiding a closet of horrors in the cellar and my significant other is accepting and trusting in general and I'm reciprocating I'm in good shape.

Y'all seem to be chasing y'er collective tails here. Do you need transparency to gain acceptance and understanding or the other way 'round?

There may be systemic issues that all the transparency in Murano island can't fix. J2's patched phone is now draining battery like its going out of style. it was doing that before the fix, a common Android 4.X issue with no fix. So today I reminded her in my best MEM impersonation that it was not my idea to repair it and that at some point even on things of this nature there should be some trust.

She chuckled and reiterated her Kim Jung Un mantra that trust is not something for her. 

Maybe if I could order her a transparent Note 5 .. Read what I wrote above regarding emotional dysfunction, this is a textbook case. Even when I accept her emotional mess and suggest a viable answer, it does not go thru the castle walls. Why bother with anything else?


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> It's a response. But it's also a sincere question. The appropriate response depends a lot on what the issue and goal is.


My goal would be to honor what is in her best interest based on what she said, and to do it with a smile.

"Mr. and Mrs. In-Laws, I know F2 has said I am emotionally abusive. For her emotional well being, I thought it best for her to be safely away from me."

Then smile, and go do whatever else needed to be done for that day.

The point is that any assertion like that would really be pretty far fetched. Given that, it would be more akin to demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

Now why didn't I think of that. Ship J2 back to her parents. DHL of course.

Not this easy I'm afraid. As a parent of girls I would not feel good about a son in law pulling the above stunt regardless of my girls actions. It's way too defeatist.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Y'all seem to be chasing y'er collective tails here. Do you need transparency to gain acceptance and understanding or the other way 'round?


It's not a chicken vs egg question. The two are mutually reinforcing.

And maybe some people don't care as much about either, but for me, being seen for who I am has always been important to my interest in LTR. 

When I was much younger, I was seeing this guy. He loved me, so he said, but his head was filled with images that had nothing to do with me. He asked me to marry him, and couldn't quite believe that his dream of white picket fences, 2.5 kids, and a dog named Spot was actually my nightmare. To him, my desire to explore the great big world was a character flaw, at best a phase that I needed to get over, to "grow up". That I needed to "settle down". That what I wanted was stupid, a waste of time, a bad decision that would hinder achievement of "success".

I'm really glad he was completely transparent about this, and didn't try to placate me with false promises and pretend agreement. Because it quickly became abundantly clear to me that we weren't even slightly compatible. Even though neither one of us had any horrors in our cellar, and were --at least on the surface -- getting along quite well.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> My goal would be to honor what is in her best interest based on what she said, and to do it with a smile.
> 
> "Mr. and Mrs. In-Laws, I know F2 has said I am emotionally abusive. For her emotional well being, I thought it best for her to be safely away from me."


It sounds a bit to me like making fun of her right to her parents faces. A bit of a dangerous gambit.

"If you think I'm abusive, why are you with me?"


----------



## john117

How far off was your dream from his? In practical terms? Could you do both?


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> It's not a chicken vs egg question. The two are mutually reinforcing.
> 
> And maybe some people don't care as much about either, but for me, being seen for who I am has always been important to my interest in LTR.
> 
> When I was much younger, I was seeing this guy. He loved me, so he said, but his head was filled with images that had nothing to do with me. He asked me to marry him, and couldn't quite believe that his dream of white picket fences, 2.5 kids, and a dog named Spot was actually my nightmare. To him, my desire to explore the great big world was a character flaw, at best a phase that I needed to get over, to "grow up". That I needed to "settle down". That what I wanted was stupid, a waste of time, a bad decision that would hinder achievement of "success".
> 
> I'm really glad he was completely transparent about this, and didn't try to placate me with false promises and pretend agreement. Because it quickly became abundantly clear to me that we weren't even slightly compatible. Even though neither one of us had any horrors in our cellar, and were --at least on the surface -- getting along quite well.


With the wrong guy, this could definitely be a nightmare. 

So glad you listened to your gut. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> How far off was your dream from his? In practical terms? Could you do both?


Not a chance. My dream involved travel, adventure, spontaneity; his was all "settling down". He wanted the big debt house in the suburbs, kids, locking into some boring job to manage it all, and maybe, just maybe if we were super lucky an occasional vacation to some "I can pretend I never left home" resort . A death sentence as far as I was concerned.


----------



## john117

Both are doable. If we had a sane sized house and slightly more reasonable college bills we earn enough to do just that.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Both are doable. If we had a sane sized house and slightly more reasonable college bills we earn enough to do just that.


Both are not doable. He could get what he wanted, and I would've died of boredom. Or I could've got what I wanted, and he would've resented me forever for robbing him of his white picket fence and dragging him around the world.

Both are only doable if you both want the same kind of house, the same kind of lifestyle, the same type of travel. And we absolutely did not. Not a chance in hell, for example, that he would've been willing to quit his job, ditch all of his possessions and buy a one-way ticket to a completely different part of the world. But after I left him, that was exactly what I did.


----------



## john117

If one of you thinks accountant and the other thinks cruise ship employee or ski resort snow bum, well, you have a problem. If both of you have portable skills, no problem. 

While I support your idea and would love to live like that, reality kicks in at some point, the fiscal type. It's easy to make plans on no money or no money of your own but once you get a bit older... 

Again, I fully understand and the biggest reason I don't want to stick around J2 is what you described, except at an older age. My wife's idea of retirement is 10,000 sq ft, mine is Machu Picchu.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Again, I fully understand and the biggest reason I don't want to stick around J2 is what you described, except at an older age. My wife's idea of retirement is 10,000 sq ft, mine is Machu Picchu.


Exactly. It's a question of priorities, values, lifestyle. If these are similar enough, then you can compromise, or at least take turns. But if not? One (or both) of you will always be unhappy.

This guy wanted to saddle us with big debt, virtually guaranteeing a life of wage-slaving and ladder climbing, and had no real interest in exploring the wonderful, big exciting world around him. I was the exact opposite.


----------



## john117

At one point in our good days we had retirement set right - urban loft in Chicago or Miami or similar and my place in Europe. But it's interesting to see how the McMansion took a life of its own and the rest is history.

I can see her point of view - she wants her version of Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin, security and all. A place to retire in and be buried in pretty much. But without discussing it with us.

Her parents and my parents did the exact same dumb mistake, building large houses they did not need at the end just to show the world they "made it". Crazy.


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> But it's interesting to see how the McMansion took a life of its own and the rest is history.


Curiousity is getting the best of me. What makes the McMansion a McMansion? Square footage, neighborhood, location, all of the above?


----------



## john117

All of the above . Especially the kick tail interior accoutrements, landscaping, technology, build quality, energy efficiency and so on.

It's 6,000 sq ft in three levels, fairly modern design, but not too off the wall, phenomenal insulation, top of the line materials, five bedrooms, two offices, four car garage, and so on.

It's a problem not because we can't afford it but because its silly to keep this much of an empty nest. In another few years things will begin to break. They always do. Plus new generations of buyers don't want huge houses (maybe JLD ). The last two are critical, once you run out of buyers you may as well donate it to Goodwill...


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> It's a problem not because we can't afford it but because its silly to keep this much of an empty nest. In another few years things will begin to break. They always do. Plus new generations of buyers don't want huge houses (maybe JLD ). The last two are critical, once you run out of buyers you may as well donate it to Goodwill...


Yea it's not necessary. Our home is 2265 square feet and we literally never go up stairs so we use about 1600 square foot and the rest is wasted. I can imagine that about 4,500 or your 6,000 square foot home is collecting dust. Yet you have to keep all of that space warm or cool.


----------



## john117

Actually heating and cooling aren't bad at all. The place is insanely insulated with triple glazed windows north side and a fairly sophisticated zoned HVAC system. It consumes about as much energy as a house a third the size . 

Now let's see how we manage the cat vs Christmas decorations...


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> Actually heating and cooling aren't bad at all. The place is insanely insulated with triple glazed windows north side and a fairly sophisticated zoned HVAC system. It consumes about as much energy as a house a third the size .
> 
> Now let's see how we manage the cat vs Christmas decorations...


Yes it consumes about as much energy as a house a third the size *that's NOT also insanely insulated*. But a 6,000 square feet home consumes a lot of emotional energy from empty nesters or soon to be empty nesters. That's a whole lot of empty house to remind you that no one is there with you.


----------



## john117

I don't mind the square feet to be honest. Most action is at the lower level (daylight walkout basement) with a kitchen and office space and family / dining room. The main level is never used and the second level is bedrooms. 

The best part is that thanks to my caring wife there's enough decoration, furniture, and household items for several people so a property split shouldn't be too difficult  

What I don't want is to be stuck with it when things really go south. I've painted the interior once (exterior is 100% brick) and know its too difficult to paint again - there are lots of 12 to 18 foot ceilings. 

But it does get one accustomed to luxury. You walk into a 2000 sq ft home and its dude, this is a dorm room . That's the hardest to undo.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I can see her point of view - she wants her version of Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin, security and all. A place to retire in and be buried in pretty much. But without discussing it with us.
> 
> Her parents and my parents did the exact same dumb mistake, building large houses they did not need at the end just to show the world they "made it". Crazy.


Yeah, well, if that's what you want you might as well do it right, and go for the full on pyramid. What better place to be buried in that can announce to the world you've made it --and for a few millennia to boot?

A house? Dude. Might as well be a lean-to in the forest.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> I don't mind the square feet to be honest. Most action is at the lower level (daylight walkout basement) with a kitchen and office space and family / dining room. The main level is never used and the second level is bedrooms.
> 
> The best part is that thanks to my caring wife there's enough decoration, furniture, and household items for several people so a property split shouldn't be too difficult
> 
> What I don't want is to be stuck with it when things really go south. I've painted the interior once (exterior is 100% brick) and know its too difficult to paint again - there are lots of 12 to 18 foot ceilings.
> 
> But it does get one accustomed to luxury. You walk into a 2000 sq ft home and its dude, this is a dorm room . That's the hardest to undo.


It's funny how small a place you can be comfortable in when it's just you and your stuff in it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

And 50 pounds worth of Maine *****


----------

