 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / May 2006Flutes and smiles
Part of my daily meditation (when I do it, which I admit is less disciplined than it ought to be) is to jot down the high and low points of the day -- where was I energized, bouyed up, thankful vs. unhappy, out of sorts, angry, sad, etc. Last night and this morning give a good example of the sort of thing I find myself writing down now and then -- all too often, unfortunately. Last night was the last symphony concert for the season. One of the works was a flute concerto. The soloist was a young (late 20's, maybe) gorgeous -- no, that's too pompous -- cute woman, dressed in a lovely shimmering purple off-the-shoulder evening gown, with just enough cleavage to be attractive without being distracting. The piece turned out to be almost more of a treat for the eye than the ear -- she almost turned it into a sensuous dance. Yes, while she was playing she was intent on the music, but during the times just the orchestra was playing you could see and sense how the music was affecting her -- it was very, very moving. She would close her eyes, sway to the music, gently move around, touch her arms or belly, open and close her mouth -- showing how deeply she was into the music and deeply it was into her. My main thought as the piece ended was that I wished I had somebody to go home to to make love to -- I wanted to share with someone the kind of emotion that was being showed to me on the orchestra's stage. That I wasn't and wouldn't be able to do that made me very sad. This morning was a different story. During my AA meeting an attractive young woman who always likes to say hello to me when she or I show up (she has one of the sultriest low voices I've ever heard) was part of the small group I was in. After we'd all had our little say on the step of the day (which incidentally you could say was the step on miracles) she said something that made my day. She said she always enjoyed it when I was in the meeting -- because I always was so happy and brightened the place up. That felt very good to hear. Ted > Part of my daily meditation (when I do it, which I admit is less > disciplined than it ought to be) is to jot down the high and low points [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > enjoyed it when I was in the meeting -- because I always was so happy > and brightened the place up. That felt very good to hear. You know what Ted...some of why you don't have what you want in your life has to do with your self induced limitations. Some are due to your wife. And you know what? Solme are due to life. Period. The woman in the orchestra swaying on the stage, closing her eyes and participatin in the show; does not live you. You don't have to wash her dirty laundry and she doesn't have to put your toilet seat down. The woman who who said that you brighten up the place and enjoys you in the meetings; does not have to deal with some of daily, monotonous boredom of figuring out what's for dinner, whose going to wash the dishes and ask for the millionth time "did you lock the door." It's so easy to look outside of our marriage and look at how perfectly wonderful everyting else looiks and have a bunch of "if only______". Being married has its pros and cons. My husband and I were out front one am last weekend. A friend and her family were walking by and hadn't seen me for many weeks. They asked how I was feeling and then went on to ask how my husband's work issues were going and how the vote thing went and on and on. When they left, he made a comment like, "gosh, ______ seemed more interested in my job than you are half the time." Well, of course she seemed interested in it! She hdoesn't hear about it every waking hour. She doesn't have to listen to how much he complains about his job. She doesn't do his dirty laundry or clean the toilets. It was so easy for him to look at her and fantasize about what a better wife she might make. Bulllshit! I happen to know something about her marriage and how that all works. What am I trying to say? The short version is: the greass is always greener. Another version: bloom where you are planted. Here's one more: if it's that bad....leave. Unless your therapist is a magician; your marriage is going to stay just the way it is. Oh, of courfse there's always the chance that you or your wife will change but it doesn't seem hopeful. > Ted >...Last night was the last symphony concert for the season. One of the >works was a flute concerto. The soloist was a young (late 20's, maybe) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >me very sad. >... I really enjoy symphonic music, especially live. Thanks for the vivid description of the flutist. The flute is one of my favorite instruments. Long ago, I played some percussion parts in a local symphony a couple of times; it was a great experience. I reckon Mrs. Ted doesn't appreciate symphonic music? If not, how sad. Does she tolerate your girl watching, within reason? Out of curiosity, you said, "...I wished I had somebody to go home to to make love to..." Why didn't you specify your wife? Is she not the first person who would come to mind for such sharing? That was another interesting story, about the woman at the AA meeting. I see you enjoy little pleasures wherever you can. So do I; including those low, sultry voices! So, do you turn off the sunshine when you arrive at home?! I bet Mrs. Ted would love to enjoy that sort of warm from you. Surely she remembers it! I see that some folks believe you two are content with your unhappiness, and that therefore, things will never change. Are those people correct? I have seen people content to be miserable--because it was safer than facing the needed chances! As one who still enjoys symphonic music, you are not brain dead, yet! You could make things happen, if you really wanted that! ________________________ Whatever it takes. > >...Last night was the last symphony concert for the season. One of the > >works was a flute concerto. The soloist was a young (late 20's, maybe) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >me very sad. > >... I always enjoy and look for your posts, Michael (not flirting, just saying). Michael knows that, that was for some of the rest of you. > I really enjoy symphonic music, especially live. Thanks for the vivid description of the > flutist. The flute is one of my favorite instruments. Long ago, I played some percussion > parts in a local symphony a couple of times; it was a great experience. I'm horrible - I don't enjoy live symphonic music much, even though I too was in an orchestra and I still play. If I'm going out for music, and dealing with crowds/seats/germs/people in general, it will be for rock or jazz. Also, this girl-flute thing is just barely within my own tolerance. I love girl-watching, and encourage my DH to do it, within reason of course, but flute plus girl bugs me because, well, there are no cute sexy guy pianists or violinists. There just aren't. In fact, there are no cute sexy guy symphony players, and that's a huge bias I have after years of playing. There are, however, lots and lots of cute guy guitar players, bass players, drummers, lead singers. And, since I too like the erotic charge I get from performances - the performance has to be one with that potential - for both of us. DH likes symphonic music (but not for girl watching, whew) and opera. He's also a huge ballet fan (and therein, there is a girlwatching theme). I will go to the ballet if one ever arrives in our hinterland. But not often. > I reckon Mrs. Ted doesn't appreciate symphonic music? If not, how sad. I guess it is sad. I have had huge fights inside my two major relationships over this "why don't you like what I like in terms of music," enough that I now include it as a research interest/ teaching theme each semester (it's got to be in the brain: men tend to really get bent out of shape if their girl/ other partner doesn't like their favorite music - my DH has still not gotten over something I said about Edith Piaf in an offhand way, and I still feel bad, but I simply couldn't lie, either). It's very sad when a couple can't find their way to enjoying SOME form of music intensely, together. I finally got together a collection of what I call "music from MY planet," and when DH listened he saw why we were having difficulties. We've found mutual ground since then. Took a loooooong time though, and seemed hopeless for much of that time. I know he was sad about it. Does she tolerate > your girl watching, within reason? Very important that a wife does understand this, if her husband is a normal guy. Out of curiosity, you said, "...I wished I had > somebody to go home to to make love to..." Why didn't you specify your wife? Is she not > the first person who would come to mind for such sharing? I think Ted's relationship doesn't include sex at this point - which may really surprise you, Michael. I was shocked when I first came to online forums on marriage at how sexless some marriages are. In fact, that was another area where I had to hit the library. I have a lot of views on the biology of why women get turned off altogether to sex, but it doesn't really help fix the problem (if anyone is interested, I'll post more). I just don't know how Ted (or anyone) would handle this situation indefinitely. > That was another interesting story, about the woman at the AA meeting. I see you enjoy > little pleasures wherever you can. So do I; including those low, sultry voices! I'd advise Ted to increase his dose of AA-like experiences - branch out from AA into other domains (take a class or join the SCA or something) where he will get pleasant, real, female companionship. Many women offer pleasant companionship to men in public places, which increases a man's awareness of femininity and also his confidence in himself. > So, do you turn off the sunshine when you arrive at home?! I bet Mrs. Ted would love to > enjoy that sort of warm from you. Surely she remembers it! I think that's the problem. It just doesn't seem to happen for her - or if it does, Ted's not aware of it. > I see that some folks believe you two are content with your unhappiness, and that > therefore, things will never change. Are those people correct? I have seen people content > to be miserable--because it was safer than facing the needed chances! As one who still > enjoys symphonic music, you are not brain dead, yet! You could make things happen, if you > really wanted that! Are you speaking of sex/romance or the Mrs. Ted enjoying Ted problem? I agree that unless Mrs. Ted is really strange/defective, Ted should, with a little change on his own side, be able to get some solution to the sex/romance thing. It will be interesting to read (without googling) what Ted has to say on this issue. If it were my marriage, that would be the entire focus.locus of change, therapeutic and otherwise, and until that got off the ground, I'd be concerned with little else. But that's just me. > ________________________ > Whatever it takes. Ha. Yes - I agree. Great philosophy, Michael. Regards, A. > I'd advise Ted to increase his dose of AA-like experiences - branch out > from AA into other domains (take a class or join the SCA or something) > where he will get pleasant, real, female companionship. Considering a)his penchant for emotional affairs with women other than his wife and b) her complaints that he spends the majority of his 'free' time away from her (and IN the company of some of these women), this comes across as really terrible advice, IMO.  SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > > I'd advise Ted to increase his dose of AA-like experiences - branch out > > from AA into other domains (take a class or join the SCA or something) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Cal~ Really? Why is that? His wife seems to keep him at distance, for whatever reason, or to be more clear, he IS at a distance from his wife. I don't think that's going to change, do you? Marriage isn't defined in just one way - by anybody. If Ted wants to have "emotional affairs," what will his wife's response be? I don't know, but I can predict it will be like this: 1) Okay, I'm mad at you now, but there's nothing I can do about your emotional affairs. I'd say - okay. Fine, if a person gets mad at affairs but is unable to change/address whatever caused the affair - I think the affair(s) become(s) part of the status quo. If the wife is incapable of changing - at all, Ted could divorce her - but this is alt.support.marriage and presumably Mrs. Ted doesn't want a divorce. So, no divorce, but Ted gets some measure of happiness. Better than BOTH of them being miserable. If Mrs. Ted is UNhappier than she is now, she could, um, change. Obviously, her limbic system is capable of degrees of unhappiness if it is the case that she can get more or less unhappy - she needs to employ those feelings in her marital quest (as if she has one). 2) Stop that! Get that from me! This would be the "good," healthy response - and Ted could hold the "threat" over her head for the rest of their lives together. 3) I really don't care. 4) I care, I am incapable of providing you with whatever it is you want, but I am so selfish that I don't want you to have it unless it's with me. 5) I care, I'm incapable, I'm not selfish - I just can't function if I know that my husband is emotionally involved with others. In this last case, Ted does what he can to hide the evidence, as he is doing. I have asked several times for definitions of marriage on this board and been told: people decide for themselves. So. I just said to my own DH that for me, aside from emotional intimacy, I'd be pretty damned upset if there were actual SEX with another woman - and, things would not go well if I found about it. However, if my DH then told me, "Dear, I am no longer sexually attracted to you, but I still want sex," I would be mournful. So would he. If my DH could not find himself attracted to me - but still wanted to be with me - this would make him very sad. Nevertheless, just because I can't enjoy something - or he can't enjoy it with me - doesn't mean he doesn't get to have it. Why would it? Let's say it were something like "music." Just because I dislike so many forms of music doesn't mean that my DH has to stop listening. If Mrs. Ted is getting whatever it is she wants from the marriage (apparently, merely that it exists is enough for her - I find that reprehensible, if true), then Ted should too. Mrs. Ted doesn't get to define their marriage all by herself. And, well, behavioral therapies (carrots and sticks) are the only things that work with some people (that's a really valid research finding). Mrs. Ted may not have the capability of changing (I've known so many women like her). In the small, religious community where I grew up, it was understood that there could be valid "reasons" (that even God would forgive, in all his loving compassion) for someone to have an affair (that an "affair" was not the only sin in the world). Everyone I know would have said that beating your spouse was unacceptable, altogether, but that in certain "circumstances" (like the mental illness of a spouse), an undertthetable remarriage was something the public had no right to comment upon, and the pastor should address in personal visits (as Jesus says in his teachings) not from the pulpit - as people here like to do. Anyway, read Jane Eyre again and tell me whether you really think Mr Rochester is amoral. All I know is that if I truly love someone - truly - I want them to be HAPPY, and if they can't be entirely happy with me, I want them to compose their own happiness, including other people. But that's just me. You aren't saying that I should be otherwise, are you? You're just saying I shouldn't base any advise on my own experience, I guess. Maybe not. But, if I have the story right (and this is what Ted seems to have told me), this is a VERY longterm "no change in partner" situation. Right? Ted also didn't want to go to "wife is mentally off" with me - I think he's past that. But an affair often lights a fire underneath the afflicted party, and I've come to realize that sometimes, a little fire is better than huge arson later on down the road. Anyway, all these people whose spouses stalk off after 20 years and then they ask, "Why me? WHy didn't they tell me? Why didn't they propose a solution before this?" may be getting their answer, from me: because the solution was something you refused to talk about or hear. It's an old, old problem. Abraham had Sarai - and Hagar, remember. Solomon, who God gave the gift of ultimate human wisdom had... hmmm...something like 300 wives or so? I realize it's a challenge for most women to be a wife that equals 300 women, but it's out there, it's in the mythology and the culture. If Mrs. Ted "needs" Ted the way she seems to (by tagging along, mopey, to therapy) then she might well still need him - no matter what else she does. I'd have given the woman a couple of chances to up her ability to do intimacy at home, then I'd have been way into emotional affair-land, myself. That's part of how I understand marriage. I'm not staying in it forever just because - and both times I married, THAT wasn't in the vows. I stay because I love the man and want him to be happy. If he's not happy, the whole premise of the relationship is gone. A. - love the name Calliope by the way, and appreciate that you're sitting on Ted in order to make him "do the right thing" and establish intimacy with Mrs. Ted - but, I don't think it's working out quickly enough. Mrs. Ted needs to fish or cut bait, I guess, and Ted himself should simply enjoy fishing, as he's still capable of doing it. In fact, Ted can enjoy life with Mz Rampal at a distance - poor man, that's all he's getting. Maybe Mrs. Ted is having her own affairs - perhaps with her house or her children, who knows. If she isn't getting ANY intimacy/love/happiness anywhere at all and still refuses to change - says whatever she has is "enough," they have deep, deep problems - that's what I'm saying. If she merely wants to hold him to his initial promise to "stay," then he is not, in my view, breaking that promise by being emotionally involved - with women, cookies, men, horses, racetrack or fishing. If she construes their mutual promise to be "loving intimacy," then she is failing, major league big time and needs to shape up. If Ted is going to find fault with any wife at all, then he needs to wise up and recognize that. His wives may still suffer - and Mrs. Ted is already suffering, but we can't change Ted. I'd divorce him, myself, if that were the case - but Mrs. Ted apparently doesn't see it that way. >If Ted wants to have "emotional affairs," what will his >wife's response be? I don't know, but I can predict it will >be like this: Whether or not anyone has an affair, emotional or otherwise, shouldn't depend on the spouse's reaction. Many people (myself included) believe that good behavior and morals are their own reward, and just because someone's spouse is distant emotionally does not justify an affair of any kind. Ted is at least 50% responsible for the distance between his wife and himself. Suggesting that he cultivate more friendships with women (which are bound to be inappropriate, at least from Ted's somewhat fantasy-skewed viewpoint) is probably not the best approach for Ted. Ted himself would probably agree with that. Lauri in WA > >If Ted wants to have "emotional affairs," what will his > >wife's response be? I don't know, but I can predict it will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because someone's spouse is distant emotionally does not justify an > affair of any kind. I sat on this, because I knew I couldn't phrase my response without emotionally-laden terminology. Thank you for saying it succinctly and much more nicely than I would have managed. :-) Sheila > Whether or not anyone has an affair, emotional or otherwise, shouldn't > depend on the spouse's reaction. Many people (myself included) > believe that good behavior and morals are their own reward, and just > because someone's spouse is distant emotionally does not justify an > affair of any kind. Well said. In this particular instance, I also believe that his emotional affairs play(ed?) a *huge* roll in the emotional distance between them.. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >> Whether or not anyone has an affair, emotional or otherwise, >> shouldn't depend on the spouse's reaction. Many people (myself [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In this particular instance, I also believe that his emotional affairs > play(ed?) a *huge* roll in the emotional distance between them.. They certainly create more distancing secrets between them. Tai >>> Whether or not anyone has an affair, emotional or otherwise, >>> shouldn't depend on the spouse's reaction. Many people (myself [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > They certainly create more distancing secrets between them. It is really hard to focus on your wife's good qualities when you are busy making negative comparisons between her and some sweet young thang. >>>> Whether or not anyone has an affair, emotional or otherwise, >>>> shouldn't depend on the spouse's reaction. Many people (myself [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > busy making negative comparisons between her and some sweet young > thang. That too! > It is really hard to focus on your wife's good qualities when you are busy > making negative comparisons between her and some sweet young thang. It's also hard to focus on them when she's focussing on all your bad qualities. Over the weekend one of the people here sent me a private email. I can't bring myself to open it -- I haven't the slightest idea what is in it, but I just did not want to voluntarily submit myself to some piece of unpleasantry. I wrote back, to explain why I hadn't responded, that I was feeling especially fragile, but I didn't know why. (The person responded very graciously to that.) Now I think I know why -- the sense of not measuring up, of feeling like I'm constantly being reminded of some unfinished chore, of feeling I'm responsible for everything that isn't the way it is supposed to be, is getting to me again. I thought I'd been able to let it go, but Zorra's comment elsewhere today along those lines makes me think I haven't been able to. -- Ted >...It's also hard to focus on them when she's focussing on all your bad >qualities. Over the weekend one of the people here sent me a private [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >unfinished chore, of feeling I'm responsible for everything that isn't the >way it is supposed to be... Damnation! What pathetic, childish stand! You can give no better than you get!? Learn to consider the source! Maybe your bad qualities need improvement! If not, wonderful! But sadly, that would suggest your wife has some mental/emotional problems: a fact that has been cited before. As for the e-mail you couldn't open, again consider the source. Constructive criticism is a good thing, and we should take advantage of it. If the contents are just designed to do harm, ask your self, "Is this author even worth reading?" Of course, not! I nearly wept up when I read, "...I'm responsible for everything..." I know that feeling well; and I'm very sorry you know it, too. :-( *&#*%4# I'm not even sure what "everything" is--or was. Now, I'm certainly not an expert, but seeing how willing and able you are to address this newsgroup, I believe you are thinking clearly enough to realize the need for either you or your wife to end this vicious circle of criticism and other childish, counter productive behavior. Presently, I can't help wondering if this newsgroup isn't perpetuating your situation by responding to you. Perhaps the attention you receive here is more important than being happy. Stranger things have happened. _________________________ When I count my blessings, I count my dog twice. > > Whether or not anyone has an affair, emotional or otherwise, shouldn't > > depend on the spouse's reaction. Many people (myself included) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Cal~ Whans, Calliope, Lauri: Are you really not seeing how you (the Graces?) are in fact conducting what could be considered a joint affair with Ted? How is it not? What makes it not an affair? Does anyone actually know Mrs. Ted's views on this? I can tell you this. IF I went into therapy with my husband, it would damn well be OUR business and not a word of it posted on the internet. Not a WORD. We would both think that egregious. If we were in therapy. Or, actually, if we thought we were in any relationship dificulty, posting to strangers would be the first thing to go. It's recreational - but it involves adult relationships outside the home, and well, that's often a source of problems. Hunkering down at home and getting through being together, alone, with one's own problems is another way of invoking change. So please explain how you see your joint relationships with Ted - because, from my point of view, Ted (through mainly women on this board) is getting way more intimacy than almost any man I know. A. > > > Whether or not anyone has an affair, emotional or otherwise, shouldn't > > > depend on the spouse's reaction. Many people (myself included) [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > women on this board) is getting way more intimacy than > almost any man I know. Yup, even if it's not all positive attention, he's still getting the attention. He probably gets some renewed energy and ideas on how to try and manipulate the DW as well. Few months ago lot of people in the NG got irritated with him sufficiently that he decided to focus on himself and his home relationship for a while. That lasted a few months, now he's back first a few posts here and there then progressively posting more and more. He's back to his old volumes now, I think. I used to be a lot nocer to him when I first came, and tried talking over things, but now that I see him run aroiund in circles, I'm deliberately not very nice to him. Things will either sionk in (probably not) or this will be unpleasant enough of a place for him to keep coming to get whatever 'fix' he's getting in here. (Considering that last time there was a lot of unpleasantness, he decided to leave.) I'm hopiong that left him with fewer places he can go to to continue the avoidance cycle. > > > > Whether or not anyone has an affair, emotional or otherwise, shouldn't > > > > depend on the spouse's reaction. Many people (myself included) [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > I'm hopiong that left him with fewer places he can go to to continue > the avoidance cycle. Great perspective. The story of their marriage reminds me of a few long-married couples I know where there is constant melancholy from one spouse and vaguely increasing amounts of acting out (affairs) on the part of the other spouse. A. > > > > > Whether or not anyone has an affair, emotional or otherwise, shouldn't > > > > > depend on the spouse's reaction. Many people (myself included) [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > melancholy from one spouse and vaguely increasing amounts > of acting out (affairs) on the part of the other spouse. Thanks! I think you may not be too far off. He'susing hisfantasy life to try and get wht he needs. That in itself wouldn't be such a bad thing if he weren't saying he was so close to acting it out, and to a point people around him IRL notice it (by his own admission), and if he wasn't pressuring his wife nto changing, by trying to pin a dysfunctional label on her. > > Whether or not anyone has an affair, emotional or otherwise, shouldn't > > depend on the spouse's reaction. Many people (myself included) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In this particular instance, I also believe that his emotional affairs > play(ed?) a *huge* roll in the emotional distance between them.. Nah. If there hadn't been an emotional vacuum there would have been no need to have it be filled elsewhere. Even various folks here have admitted that -- I remember exchanges about how once I looked at the marriagebuilders emotional needs survey what happened was almost inevitable. -- Ted >> In this particular instance, I also believe that his emotional >> affairs play(ed?) a *huge* roll in the emotional distance between [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about how once I looked at the marriagebuilders emotional needs survey > what happened was almost inevitable. Let me rephrase this then: Your emotional affairs play a huge role in your *continued* emotional distance with your wife. Once you identified that there was a problem, rather than opening up to her and letting her into your life you've chosen to open up to your varous female friends at the book clubs, church clubs, AA, the pharmacist, etc.. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > >If Ted wants to have "emotional affairs," what will his > >wife's response be? I don't know, but I can predict it will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because someone's spouse is distant emotionally does not justify an > affair of any kind. Oh, of course. But not everyone has the SAME morals. Are you saying that you are in charge of what I, myself, find to be good/bad? I disagree. Surely you can't be implying that people who are consciously polyamorous, or who have several wives (say in Afghanistan) are to be judged by Judeo-Christian ethics and morals? We have a moral obligation to do good. But our notions of good are not entirely predetermined. Now, I don't know Ted and Mrs. Ted at all - but, I am of the view that not only should one be tremendously clear and honest about their morals and values. I also think it is only adult to expect that as life passes, some of our values and morals can change. The Golden Rule itself dictates no specific action - but, well, think about it. If people change in different directions (which is ultimately one way of stating what happened to my marriage), the dislocations can be tremendous - but there is no way you are going to convince me that you (or anyone) knows what is moral/ valuable for every other person on the planet. It is YOUR view that affairs are NEVER justified - not mine. If you were married to me, we'd have difficulties, don't you think? My view, which differs radically from yours, is not the point, anyway. > Ted is at least 50% responsible for the distance between his wife and > himself. I don't know how'd you'd know this. I'm amazed that you think you can quantify this. But, if you were my spouse, again you and I would last about 5 minutes. All of the bad things I do are 100% MY fault - not 50% the fault of my DH. Are you kidding? What a strange model - but I'm guessing you are saying this because you do know Ted/Mrs Ted better than I do. Anyway, when I see 'bad' behavior, I do not assume that somewhere there is a spouse that is halfway responsible. Not at all. The relationship itself can be responsible (wrong choices, wrong structure for those two individuals, etc.) Anyway, in my own case, if I do something immoral, it is I who did it - not anyone else. My DH holds the same view. I also use entirely different standards for judging the morality of other people (largely none of my business) and focus on looking into what I myself do. I know that my DH believes that cheating is horrifically wrong (much more wrong than I do), and when I make a promise never to do it, it means a great deal to him. His promise back to me means less (I want other things more than I want him "not to cheat", although obviously, cheating is not something high on my list of "things I want my DH to do." If he did cheat, though, I would not consider that automatically the worst thing he could do, out of all the options I know about to resolve relationship problems. It often takes a crisis to get people out of the long term chain-yanking mode Ted and Mrs. Ted appear to be in. At least that's my observation. But frankly, I"ve totally lost track of the couples I know who are embedded in longterm sniping, mutually unrewarding behaviors, and so forth. I simply don't go near them anymore - which is a really good thing for my own life. Other people would consider writing off friends as quickly as my DH and I do as a bad thing. We think it's a very good thing - for them, and for ourselves. Suggesting that he cultivate more friendships with women > (which are bound to be inappropriate, at least from Ted's somewhat > fantasy-skewed viewpoint) is probably not the best approach for Ted. > Ted himself would probably agree with that. Well, my point was not to engage you, Lauri, in deciding it for Ted, but precisely to put it out on the table for Ted to mull and clearly refute (or accept). Fish or cut bait. If Ted has come to the conclusion (unshakeable?) that he will NEVER approach any other person in a way more intimate than that he has from his wife, he surely needs to reconsider his relationships _on this board_, don't you think? Penpals are certainly in the category of possibly intimate emotional relationships. A collective group of pals is still a potential affair - from Mrs. Ted's point of view. I think this is self-evidence and obvious, and therefore, we are all potentially implicated in an "affair" with Ted - at least, I feel that way. My DH agrees, that if he were seeking "relationship support" on an anonymous ng for months on end, or years, that I could viably see that as an "affair." The reason that my DH doesn't see my posts as affairs is based on OUR relationship. Which has its own moral viewpoints. It could change, btw. So, Ted - is this ng your affair? A. > Lauri in WA > So, Ted - is this ng your affair? If it is, it's a pretty lousy one... -- Ted > > So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php It's not an affair, it's called AVOIDANCE. > > > So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > > > > If it is, it's a pretty lousy one... > > It's not an affair, it's called AVOIDANCE. You hit the nail on the head, IMO! And part of the attention he's not getting from the DW, he gets in here. The other part, I'm sure sucks, but better a sucky surrogate then nothing at all. > > > > So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The other part, I'm sure sucks, but better a sucky surrogate then > nothing at all. Yes, but all we have to go on is what Ted says. He probably gets plenty of attention from his wife, Ted just doesn't want the attention from his wife he wants it from other women. > Yes, but all we have to go on is what Ted says. He probably gets > plenty of attention from his wife, Ted just doesn't want the attention > from his wife he wants it from other women. Nope. I would like a different kind of attention from my wife than I do get. Simple as that. -- Ted > > Yes, but all we have to go on is what Ted says. He probably gets > > plenty of attention from his wife, Ted just doesn't want the attention > > from his wife he wants it from other women. > > Nope. I would like a different kind of attention from my wife than I do > get. Simple as that. That's really not that much different then what Pavehawk said. Just two very close shades of gray, whereas you should be a lot farther into the white, saying something like, I can appreciate the atention that my wife is willing to give. Much like as if pavehawk said, gas is $3.99, and you said, nope, it was $3.95 as if that's such a huge difference, where it really should be $1.98 to make a significant difference. You're arguing pennies when you should be worrying about dollars. > > > Yes, but all we have to go on is what Ted says. He probably gets > > > plenty of attention from his wife, Ted just doesn't want the attention > > > from his wife he wants it from other women. > > > > Nope. I would like a different kind of attention from my wife than I do > > get. Simple as that. What the hell is simple about that? "A different kind of attention?" Do you want me to tell you honestly what that would mean to many women? I know this because I went to the beauty parlor today and asked several what they thought - neither heard the others' responses. Blow job. Now, I know you say it has to do with the symphony and expressing whatever it is you want her to express (I'm telling you: she has to repress ALL of her significant feelings in regard to music or else she's like to explode all over you and she's decided, out of respect for you and your marriage, not to do that). Music is the catalyst for the strongest feelings - if one hasn't made a scheme for some reason to prevent those feelings from coming up. I don't think other symphony goers WANT my reactions to the music, honestly. Later on, play it again at home (I do this by myself more than I do it with others - it's private). Are you getting it? Music = privacy (to me). Sex = two people involved (to me). The two of you have zero on both counts (it seems) and I think the math is significant. I know you won't respond to when and how your sex life went bad (no, I'm not going to send google information about my interest in the sex frequency of Ted and Mrs. Ted - sorry, you'd like that though - to turn up in google's published journals about the "greatest numbers of hits on May 23, 2006 or whatever the date is" and then sociologists will come here and study you...you'd like that, wouldn't you?) People who think Ted is being terribly hurt by my posts, never fear, he says they are too long and tortured for him to read, anyway. They are for public inspection. A. > That's really not that much different then what Pavehawk said. Just two > very close shades of gray, whereas you should be a lot farther into the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > $1.98 to make a significant difference. You're arguing pennies when you > should be worrying about dollars. > > So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php It's not an affair, it's called AVOIDANCE. > > So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > > If it is, it's a pretty lousy one... > > -- > Ted Actually, Ted - it's a pretty typical one. That's my point. The only difference is that it is taking about a dozen persons to keep your interests and keep you posting intimately - instead of one. Usually, after the affair begins, the couple is going to find SO many of the same problems they had at home, it's shocking - it's really shocking. It was, however, by changing partners that I was finally able to SEE clearly the part that I contribute to the big messes of my life. Then, using that information, I sought a relationship with someone who did not parallel and increase my own "issues," but instead took very seriously the fact that in certain areas, if we had "problems," it would clearly be me who was suspect - not him. If, for example, you could meet and have a passionate affair with a talented beautiful flutist, and then you found yourself back here because your intimacy needs weren't met (or you couldn't find your socks - whatever the reason), you'd know that no woman was going to meet those needs. Your lifelong, hopeless, quixotic quest would be over. You might even look at Mrs. Ted quite differently. I feel I am on entirely safe moral ground here by asking Ted to fantasize about these issues because, people, Ted is NOT going to get an affair with the flutist - and anything less would be unsuitable, would it not? But I find it interest that Ted just disregarded, collectively, all of you who have been so steadfastly responding to him, and he clearly states that this entire group is not an affair to him - because if it is, it too, sucks. I can only comment that it is very sad that none of Ted's experiences with folks meet up to his standards. Ted never answers any of my questions, btw, so unless I feel like typing to the wind (as I sometimes do), I'm not really trying to be helpful to HIM - there's nobody here who is close to him, understands him, or is helpful to him. At least, that's how I see it. I could be advising him to do any number of things and he wouldn't do any of them - you all know that. As I see it, a man who fantasizes but does nothing is immoral, and a man who wants sex with his wife but doesn't get it is incompetent, and a man who pushes his wife into therapy when he clearly needs years by himself is selfish. I sure do hope that all of these items are on Ted's searching moral inventory - but he obviously isn't to the apology/make amends stage in any real way, at all. In fact, my need to refer to him in the third person comes from not wanting him to incur any more debts that would require apologies - but his last post (to me) says that he needs to apologize to many of you, his online friends (who are female, especially - as you are his female friends, his girlfriends). A. > > > So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > you'd know that no woman was going to meet those needs. > Your lifelong, hopeless, quixotic quest would be over. And he would have to face that which he fears and goes at great lengths to avoid - ghetting to KNow Ted, and open up the more genuine Ted to the world. > You might even look at Mrs. Ted quite differently. Like, he won't try to make his happiness her responsibility. > I feel I am on entirely safe moral ground here by asking > Ted to fantasize about these issues because, people, Ted [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and he clearly states that this entire group is not an affair > to him - because if it is, it too, sucks. Here's how to know something *is* applicabe to Ted. He'll be so much in denial about it, but have no logical way to explain why it doesn't apply, that he'll just claim it doesn't apply. He'll find some obscure detail that logically carries no weight in applicability, and claim that becaise of it, the whole concept doesn't apply. > I can only comment that it is very sad that none of Ted's > experiences with folks meet up to his standards. Indeed. Ted said himself (or agreed with someone, I forget which at the moment), that he never had a fulfinning intimate experience with another person, in his life. It must be everyone else. Noone is a good match for Ted. ;) > Ted never answers any of my questions, btw, That's our Ted... > so unless I > feel like typing to the wind (as I sometimes do), I'm not > really trying to be helpful to HIM - there's nobody here who > is close to him, understands him, or is helpful to him. > At least, that's how I see it. And mahy people have tried, me including. I've never seen someone who needed such a huge amount of reassurance. One example, a while ago via email, he asked me if it would be okay for him to share some opinions with me. I told him it would be okay. I told him I may not necessarily agree or change my point of view to his, but I can definately guarantee that I will be understanding of his point of view. After asking the same but rephrased thing a few more times , and getting more reassurance, Ted decided he didn't get enough reassurance to share his point of view with me. By the end oif that interaction I was wondering, what the hell more does he want, I have him at least twice the reassurance that I've given anyone else, and he still won't take a step. So, what I'm getting at is that he;s had plenty of chances to be close to people. He doesn't take them unless he sees someone being identical to him, thinking people won;t appreciate the difference. What I think it really means is that Ted can't appreciate the differences (and remembering some of his posts, I've seen him cmake comments to that effect as well.) > I could be advising him to do any number of things and he > wouldn't do any of them - you all know that. Yup. > As I see it, > a man who fantasizes but does nothing is immoral, and a > man who wants sex with his wife but doesn't get it is > incompetent, Yup. I was calling it unassertive. Similar thing. > and a man who pushes his wife into therapy > when he clearly needs years by himself is selfish. I sure I agree. Many people here have suggested different Therapy for Ted, and he has a set of excuses for it. > do hope that all of these items are on Ted's searching > moral inventory - but he obviously isn't to the apology/make > amends stage in any real way, at all. I doubt that they are. The way it seems to me is that he is in very deep and complex denial about it. He's smart enough to have developed a pretty intelectually elaborate web of denials, to a point he believes it himself. I also think that is why his relationship with God is as important and as unique to him as it seems to be, God whom is a product of Ted's mind is the only one who can truly understand him. His imaginary pal, with authority to be approving of his behaviors and justifications, and the only one whom understands and buys into his elaborate justifications. Wow - sort of harsh, but a brilliant analysis. That was very helpful, Kitty. A. > Wow - sort of harsh, but a brilliant analysis. Yeah, I tend to come across harsh as I tell it like it pops into my head... Brilliant, um... thanks :) It'd be better without all the typo's. > That was very helpful, Kitty. Thanks. At least that's he way I see it. Other people may have different angles an perspectives.. I love your posts, I like the way you seem to think, it resonates with me a lot. :) >>So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > > If it is, it's a pretty lousy one... It's like the hallway sex of internet affairs! (You know, when a married couple passes in the hallway and says "f.ck you!" to each other) > >>So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (You know, when a married couple passes in the hallway and says "f.ck > you!" to each other) Hilarious. Thanks - makes my day. A. >>>So, Ted - is this ng your affair? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(You know, when a married couple passes in the hallway and says "f.ck >you!" to each other) Except that, no matter how frustrated people may be with Ted, I'd be suprised if anyone ever wanted to say that to him. At least, I've never been tempted just because he's so unfailingly couteous in his posts. Lauri in WA >>>> So, Ted - is this ng your affair? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > never been tempted just because he's so unfailingly couteous in his > posts. Yep, I'm more likely to feel mean because I've been so harsh with him and he takes it too much to heart. But Ted, you've got to stop doing those silly little jobs for your wife if you don't like doing them! That's the problem, not that she asks you to do them. If anything, you've trained her to expect you to run around after her like a mother hen. Tai > >>>> So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yep, I'm more likely to feel mean because I've been so harsh with him and he > takes it too much to heart. I don't feel mean. I want to see him get pissed off and stand up for himself. He needs practice doing thaht, so one day he can tell his wife, "no dear, I'm not going to do this for you", and realize that there *is* life after an argument. > But Ted, you've got to stop doing those silly little jobs for your wife if > you don't like doing them! That's the problem, not that she asks you to do > them. If anything, you've trained her to expect you to run around after her > like a mother hen. A resentful mother hen, now that's an image of Ted that might stick in my head for a little while. > But Ted, you've got to stop doing those silly little jobs for your wife if > you don't like doing them! That's the problem, not that she asks you to do > them. If anything, you've trained her to expect you to run around after her > like a mother hen. I wonder who's trained whom? My guilt feelings lie pretty close to the surface. -- Ted >> But Ted, you've got to stop doing those silly little jobs for your wife >> if [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I wonder who's trained whom? My guilt feelings lie pretty close to the > surface. They're still *under* the surface, no matter how close they are. > >> But Ted, you've got to stop doing those silly little jobs for your wife > >> if [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > They're still *under* the surface, no matter how close they are. The problem is that they are indeed up at the surface, and not connected via memory, limbic system or the autonomic system - yet - to their own history. Ted has individual spurts of feelings, not long continuous ones. A> > > But Ted, you've got to stop doing those silly little jobs for your wife if > > you don't like doing them! That's the problem, not that she asks you to do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wonder who's trained whom? My guilt feelings lie pretty close to the > surface. All/many of your feelings seem to lie "close to the surface," according to you. A. - some of us are very different > -- > Ted > > Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php > > But Ted, you've got to stop doing those silly little jobs for your wife if > > you don't like doing them! That's the problem, not that she asks you to do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wonder who's trained whom? My guilt feelings lie pretty close to the > surface. Not every feeling needs to be acted upon. > >>>So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Lauri in WA Maybe he's been courteous with you - but I have experienced him as rather rude (telling me that there's no point in discussing psychological theories, telling me to google him rather than answer a single simple question, yes-butting me without the least bit of apology while refusing to answer even the simplest questions. Guess he doesn't like me! Or maybe my notions of rudeness are different - the overt hostility that some posters use is much more decent, from my point of view, than the kind of crap Ted does - but that's just me. A. > > >>>So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > > >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > more decent, from my point of view, than the kind of crap Ted > does - but that's just me. Actully, you're one of the few to notice how his confrontations and disagreements are veiled behind logic and somewhat nice calm language. Someone less astute as you, he'll discount them with a pat on their back and a little glisten of self assumed superiority, and a lot of people fall for it. I called him manipulaive a few times. Instead of haing a normal emotional rection many people would seeing that, he had an I'm oh so misunderstood martyr like deflection to sincerely addresing the notion of being manipulative - which i manipultive in itself, but since it's wrapped up n a capsule of poor mee subtle enough to be digested by most peple, it goes unchallenged. >> So, Ted - is this ng your affair? > >If it is, it's a pretty lousy one... LOL Ted, thanks for saying this. No matter what, you can always be counted on to reply with good humor. Lauri in WA > Surely you can't be implying that people who are > consciously polyamorous, or who have several wives (say in > Afghanistan) are to be judged by Judeo-Christian ethics and morals? > We have a moral obligation to do good. Ted has posted here for many years now, with his marriage in a stagnant place. He has never once indicated that he and his wife have this type of marriage, quite the contrary in fact. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > > Surely you can't be implying that people who are > > consciously polyamorous, or who have several wives (say in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > place. He has never once indicated that he and his wife have this type of > marriage, quite the contrary in fact. I'm very confused. I didn't refer to any type of marriage. I simply said there are different types. I am not the least bit interested in trying to classify OR understand what type of marriage Ted has (if any - my view right now is that he has a piece of paper saying someone married him legally). But I am very interested in people working out marriages, their own way. So I really don't get what you said. But that's okay. And, well, if Ted ever gets "unstagnant" - or his wife does - you want to take bets on what that relationship will be - then....in the future? I have no clue. But gambling is fun. A. > > > Surely you can't be implying that people who are > > > consciously polyamorous, or who have several wives (say in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I have no clue. But gambling is fun. I put $50 that it never gets 'unstagnant' Kitty - not much of a gambler, going for a safe bet. > Why is that? His wife seems to keep him at distance, > for whatever reason, or to be more clear, he IS at a distance > from his wife. I don't think that's going to change, do you? Not as long as he continues his affairs, no. But having them does nothing to further him on his quest to have the relationship he says he wants with his wife. All the rest of what you've said is, IMO, simply a means to justify behavior that has no justification (outside of agreed upon open marriages). SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > Not as long as he continues his affairs, no. I should've added 'Also, as long as he keeps his secrets and lies (my omission), no he will not have any chance of shortening the distance between him and his wife'. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > (my > omission) GAHHH.. "by omission".. carry on. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >> (my >> omission) > > GAHHH.. "by omission".. > > carry on. Some of us are trying to, but it's difficult, don't ya know...! I guess you've missed the last couple years or so of the Saga Of Ted and Mrs. Ted. I suspect that your advice would be rather different if you had caught that. A brief synopsis: One thing you might have missed is that it isn't just Mrs. Ted who is or isn't "doing anything" about the marriage. Ted himself has had one of the worst cases of needing to s*** or get off the pot that I've ever seen. He comes, complains, people make suggestions, and *always* there is some "reason" why the suggestion isn't valid. Maybe the person doing the suggestion hasn't had *exactly* the same experience, so Ted says it doesn't count (quite literally - this has happened here). Maybe it would rock the boat a little, and Ted doesn't want to rock the boat. The two things Ted has been most renowned for over the years have been 1.) falling in love inappropriately (i.e. fantasizing about his love interest to such a degree that it interferes with developing a better relationship with Mrs Ted) and 2.) refusing to do anything about the problems he is complaining about until he has a 100% guarantee, preferably signed by God, that whatever he is trying will end up with the desired end result, which appears to be a personality transplant for Mrs. Ted. The end result is that nothing happens. Tony Miller described the phenomenon incredibly succinctly: <Ted> OW!!!! I have a tack in my a.s and it hurts!!!!! <ASM> Well, take the tack out of your a.s. <Ted> I can't do that! <Ted> OW!!!! I have a tack in my a.s and it hurts!!!!! > >> >... Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. There's a lot more - and I'm really not trying to be mean to Ted, but it appeared to me that you were attributing things to Mrs. Ted that should also be attributed to Mr. Ted. Really, the two of them are so enmeshed that it is hard to see where one of them begins and the other one ends. > I guess you've missed the last couple years or so of the Saga Of Ted and > Mrs. Ted. I suspect that your advice would be rather different if you had [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > also be attributed to Mr. Ted. Really, the two of them are so enmeshed > that it is hard to see where one of them begins and the other one ends. Sorry to follow up to my own post, but I forgot to include the 3rd thing Ted is renowned for - 3.) keeping secrets from his wife. Also 4.) there are periods of time in which all threads become Ted threads > I guess you've missed the last couple years or so of the Saga Of Ted and > Mrs. Ted. I suspect that your advice would be rather different if you had [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > isn't "doing anything" about the marriage. Ted himself has had one of the > worst cases of needing to s*** or get off the pot that I've ever seen. Yes, exactly. I'd say I picked that up on the first thread I read, since everyone was pointing it out to him. He > comes, complains, people make suggestions, and *always* there is some > "reason" why the suggestion isn't valid. so, why, exactly, do regs keep making these suggestions to him? Or responding to him at all? Is that helping? Seems to me, that makes it worse. Maybe the person doing the > suggestion hasn't had *exactly* the same experience, so Ted says it doesn't > count (quite literally - this has happened here). Maybe it would rock the > boat a little, and Ted doesn't want to rock the boat. The two things Ted > has been most renowned for over the years have been 1.) falling in love > inappropriately (i.e. fantasizing about his love interest to such a degree > that it interferes with developing a better relationship with Mrs Ted) why would you think he's ever going to change this? with ANY Mrs. Ted? If Ted is incapable of emotional intimacy without projecting large amounts of his idealized feminine onto a strange woman, why would you expect that to change? And, furthermore, why encourage it by providing him with a supply of "strange women"? (Ourselves?) and > 2.) refusing to do anything about the problems he is complaining about until > he has a 100% guarantee, preferably signed by God, that whatever he is > trying will end up with the desired end result, which appears to be a > personality transplant for Mrs. Ted. Exactly. So they will go on in this way, forever. He likes it like this. Having a relationship with a REAL woman is not on Ted's agenda. Mrs. Ted is made to sound alternately like a doormat, a robot, a ninja-psycho of alternate dimensions, bland, plain, asexual, stupid, and, most of all, a complete simpleton. While we, here on the ng, are of course articulate, helpful and most of all - responding to TED. (I'm not responding to Ted right now - I'm responding to JOY, who is vastly more interesting than TED...) > The end result is that nothing happens. Tony Miller described the > phenomenon incredibly succinctly: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > <Ted> OW!!!! I have a tack in my a.s and it hurts!!!!! > > >> >... Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. LOL. Okay. I get it. Truly, I'm the type that will never be able to meet people like Ted without advising dynamite up their a.s to get the tack out - and it will be my pleasure to ultimately make that dynamite look VERRRY attractive to Ted. > There's a lot more - and I'm really not trying to be mean to Ted, but it > appeared to me that you were attributing things to Mrs. Ted that should also > be attributed to Mr. Ted. Really, the two of them are so enmeshed that it > is hard to see where one of them begins and the other one ends. Well, of course. In any written form, like this one, characters are only as real as the author makes them. Ted is not a good author - he's merely blogging his own life without regard to what kinds of qualities make other people seem real to him. Playing the flute seems real enough to him - his own wife is blurry. I'd wager real money (if I could) that Ted could not paint a picture of his wife, in words, that would give us a sense of who she is - without himself realizing a bunch of stuff about himself that is so unpleasant, he'd just as soon not bother. I know a Mrs. Ted (I think) IRL She's married to a guy who thinks he's insightful and a good writer (LOL) but can't see her at all (and thinks he's hidden himself really well from his wife). This woman has gotten, over the years, so constricted in her affect, her habits, her ways of being (she was once much more free, at least she was capable of making new patterns of behavior at one time - I have seen none, now, for at least 7 or 8 years), that I truly think she's just walking around like a zombie. If Ted could, for example, make a daily ritual of writing to this ng ABOUT MRS TED (accurately telling us what she is doing at that moment, such as "Mrs. Ted got up this morning, wearing her yellow flowered lounging pants and her wire-rimmed glasses, with an unmatched sweatshirt as her top" (or whatever) that would be a start. In my view. But frankly, if what you say is correct, then people who feel they know Ted well should definitely NOT be encouraging him to write about the flute player (but no one can keep Ted from being aroused by the flute player - which is my point). Ted is probably quite happy where he is, not seeing Mrs. Ted, just seeing himself and writing about it here. I just wish he would focus on being a better writer. I think it would help him. His imagination is titillated by the flute player, but then he must stop - because it's "wrong" to involve himself with the flute player more deeply. I think he should involve himself with SOMETHING, don't you? Maybe it doesn't matter, not everyone needs to have the same things from life, I guess. A. > > I guess you've missed the last couple years or so of the Saga Of Ted and > > Mrs. Ted. I suspect that your advice would be rather different if you had [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to him? Or responding to him at all? Is that helping? Seems > to me, that makes it worse. A, I am going to address this post, as well as the one suggesting that I might be engaging in an emotional affair with Ted (which I found to be a bit insulting) in one post. First of all, I have, on two very separate occasions, suggested to the group at large that we have become part of the problem. I suggested that, by providing Ted with an outlet to vent his feelings, and get attention and feedback, we are giving him just enough of what he needs to allow him to go on, in real life, without having to address the problems. Most of the people here seemed to think I was wrong, and since as long as Ted has an audience of any size, whether or not I respond makes no difference at all. Secondly, I have made it a conscious practice *not* to say things to encourage any projection of Ted's onto me. For instance, at one point, Ted offered to share some of his thoughts with me that he had not shared with the group. I told him I did not want to engage in that conversation. What Ted thinks privately of me, I cannot control, but I certainly do not encourage any fantasy or infatuation. I hope I make that clear. Sheila > > > I guess you've missed the last couple years or so of the Saga Of Ted and > > > Mrs. Ted. I suspect that your advice would be rather different if you [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > might be engaging in an emotional affair with Ted (which I found to be a bit > insulting) in one post. Oh, dear. You completely missed my point. If TED defines it as an affair - it is! In my view. You were never consulted. That's my point. Ted could in fact be using this entire group - you included - as a substitute for his wife (in fact, I'm sure he is) and that would implicate you AS A GROUP MEMBER - and he never, ever consulted you, or made that clear. I don't know what to do with that. But I sure wouldn't be insulted at the message-bringer. The fact that you got emotional in response though, makes my point. > First of all, I have, on two very separate occasions, suggested to the group > at large that we have become part of the problem. I suggested that, by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people here seemed to think I was wrong, and since as long as Ted has an > audience of any size, whether or not I respond makes no difference at all. I agree - although I am very very happy to hear you say this. I think you and I both need to say this, frequently, so that newcomers are made aware of the situation. By posting what you just did, you at least do the only thing you can do to get out of this affair - but truthfully, I'm going to tell you, that it is impossible to blame the group for this. I feel the exact same way about all types of "affairs" started one-sidedly, and, in my experience, almost all of them are one-sided, to begin with. Still, what do we do? In this day and age, with the internet, we're all out here, available, for Ted to smear his fantasies of intimacy upon. I'm not chaste enough, myself, to carry out a total boycott of Ted (why should I? It's HIS problem, not mine). > Secondly, I have made it a conscious practice *not* to say things to > encourage any projection of Ted's onto me. For instance, at one point, Ted > offered to share some of his thoughts with me that he had not shared with > the group. I told him I did not want to engage in that conversation. I'm not surprised that you were good - you seem like a very fine person. But it's still the case that we (collectively) are viewed by Ted (who is the wrong-doer) in a way we cannot control Just. Like. Mrs. Ted. Must be awful to be Mrs. Ted, btw. > What Ted thinks privately of me, I cannot control, but I certainly do not > encourage any fantasy or infatuation. I hope I make that clear. > > Sheila I'm so sorry that you took the post that way (although if you hadn't stated so clearly your views, I would have been surprised at you). I don't know what to do in situations like this. I'm obviously not going to stop using a ng because Ted has taken a liking to it. I'm either morally worse than you or past caring. While I have posted TO Ted (I can't help it, I feel sorry for him), I try to post ABOUT him more often than not. I do not see ANYONE here as encouraging his fantasies any more than the poor flute player - which is why I thought this was an excellent thread to take it up on. But, nevertheless, here we are, standing in for Mrs. Ted. If Ted ever found the cajones to actually HAVE an affair, like Hamlet, he might end up destroying genuine humans around him, but he'd have acted. Your post, Sheila, is helping me sort this out though. Why in the world does anyone (especially me) think Ted deserves help/happiness? Anyway, I got pulled in, the same way it appears you did - someone called me on "morality" when I suggested Ted should just go ahead and have a regular affair (I still see absolutely NO difference, but at least, if Ted could get near a real world woman - which he obviously can't - that woman would be far more therapeutic than we are being - and that woman would have given moral consent, which you and I have not - so at least the rape-like aspect of what Ted does wouldn't be there). I'm thinking of The Sopranos and how so many of us came to be concerned about murdering gangsters. Ted seems so innocuous, doesn't he? Compared to Tony Soprano? Perhaps he's not, at all. OTOH, once someone appears as a real person to me (and it doesn't seem to take much to make me regard people as real), I find it very hard not to show SOME compassion. At any rate, Ted obviously adores the group attention - and insults it at the same time, every day. One more thing, because I think I may need to leave the topic of Ted for awhile: Ted's marriage counselor has to be aware of this, if we can see it. Therefore, either the counselor is incompetent (probably not), regards Ted as incapable of being in individual therapy (most likely), therefore is doing "supportive therapy" for two complainers with money/insurance (seems likely, doesn't it?) But as to whether this group is actually involved, morally - nope. It's no different than when a therapist realizes that the patient has a transference-crush on them. Which is, I guess, what we are calling an "affair" here, in many ways. Even if we all killfilled Ted, he would still lurk and read the posts that, in his imagination, were STILL directed at him - he would still use us as his substitute. A. > > > > I guess you've missed the last couple years or so of the Saga Of Ted and > > > > Mrs. Ted. I suspect that your advice would be rather different if you [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > carry out a total boycott of Ted (why should I? It's HIS problem, > not mine). When enough people are unpleasant (not really mean or nasty, just mildly rejecting) to wards him, he leaves (he has in the past). I think that may be because rejection is one of things he has most difficulty coping with. >... >When enough people are unpleasant (not really mean or nasty, just >mildly rejecting) to wards him, he leaves (he has in the past). >I think that may be because rejection is one of things he has most >difficulty coping with. Just for fun: perhaps that rejection [negative attention] is the only sort of attention he perceives; and his departure occurs when he is sufficiently gratified. Isn't that a twisted notion! ________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments. > >... > >When enough people are unpleasant (not really mean or nasty, just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > perceives; and his departure occurs when he is sufficiently gratified. Isn't that a > twisted notion! I think he may be in a position where he'd rather get positive attention, and longs for it, but if negative attention is all he can get, he'll settle for that, since it may be better then not being noticed at all. At some point, there's enough hurt feelings and discomfort through negative attention to overshadow the fear of no attention at all. Sort of like picking the lesser of two evils, because they at least partially satisfy his needs. I bet you if he found a place where his needs were met in a more positive way, he'd be there in a second. >>> I guess you've missed the last couple years or so of the Saga Of >>> Ted and Mrs. Ted. I suspect that your advice would be rather [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > What Ted thinks privately of me, I cannot control, but I certainly do > not encourage any fantasy or infatuation. I hope I make that clear. Don't be cross with me, darl, but I knew *exactly* what you were going to say here and giggled to myself because of anyone here you're probably the least likely woman who would need to make that clear! And now I have to wonder if I should feel left out and slighted that in any email correspondence I've had with Ted he's always been a perfect gentleman! (Just kidding, I can't imagine Ted being anything else.) Tai (having a cracking good time reading this sub-thread) >And now I have to wonder if I should feel left out and slighted that in any >email correspondence I've had with Ted he's always been a perfect gentleman! > >(Just kidding, I can't imagine Ted being anything else.) Ted has never initiated email with me and his interactions with me in this group have been gentlemanly and polite. So I'm really not sure where the idea that Ted is having emotional affairs with a bunch of us is coming from. He has never indicated anything of the sort in the posts of his that I've read. Lauri in WA >> And now I have to wonder if I should feel left out and slighted that >> in any email correspondence I've had with Ted he's always been a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Lauri in WA I agree, although I think he might be susceptible if he ran into someone who took advantage of his neediness in a cruel and exploitative way. Or if they were emotionally needy, themselves, I suppose. He might be too scared to, though, which would be in character given his tentativeness and fears about sexual intimacy generally! (Hi Ted!) Tai > >And now I have to wonder if I should feel left out and slighted that in any > >email correspondence I've had with Ted he's always been a perfect gentleman! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > where the idea that Ted is having emotional affairs with a bunch of us > is coming from. I think it's coming from me. Let me explain it again. First, the word "affair." I don't want an adjective in front of it - I don't think it's needed. I am going to go further than I did before in making my statement, though. But before I do, let me reiterate: it isn't up to Ted to decide what's an affair and what's not. That needs to be negotiated between Mrs. Ted and Ted - but my point is that if Ted (or anyone) thinks that an affair is just about sexual intercourse, I'd disagree strongly. Any set of behaviors that comes in between a marrired couple is suspect to me. It can be one intense relationship - or it can be a series of behaviors/relationships. For example, golf can be the equivalent of an affair. I have a friend whose husband started out with "fishing with the guys," and it became a huge huge huge problem for them. No one understood, in their little community, how she could "complain about fishing." I did. A person has a list of expectations and needs in a marriage...if those aren't being met, and the agreement was that the marriage would address those needs - some kind of communication/renegotiation/addressing of the situation needs to take place. Anyway, perhaps the word "affair" is the problem. Let's just say an "affair" is using other people/activities to get outside of one's marriage in a way designed to leave the other party behind/out. The other person may be deceived about the nature of the activity for years. The affair-having person is the one who is hiding the true nature of their affair. Hence, being on the internet (whether it's looking at porn, chatting, cybering, posting to newsgroups, etc.) can be an affair. Ted uses this ng and the responses he gets from people in some way. I am suggesting that it's entirely possible that the group AS A COLLECTIVE stands in for a girlfriend. Combine this group with the flute player and there ya go. I never suggested he was having "affairs," I suggested he treats this group as a sancha, a girlfriend, an affair if you will. He has never indicated anything of the sort in the > posts of his that I've read. I see it in his posts, you don't. Affairs in the real world are exactly the same way. Sometimes the object of one person's lust is completely unaware of it - but it can still disrupt a marriage, major league, big time. Ted's gameplaying is in itself a kind of solitaire-affair, in which the players (us) comply by posting back. He gets some sort of sense of interiority/headspace by typing here, and he gets something else by looking at Mz. Rampal. Then, he goes home and gets nothing. That's the classic pattern of the affair, and it leads to an embittered "cheater" who justifies his/her actions by claiming they are getting nothing at home. Surely you're aware that married people cheat all the time, in the regular sense of the word, but do not tell the person they're cheating with, that they are married. People cheat in terms of intimacy too - which is the worst form, in my view (in my marriage). The sex part would be down the list aways (but still a major problem). A. > Lauri in WA > (having a cracking good time reading this sub-thread) I'm glad someone is... -- Ted >...I love girl-watching, and encourage my DH to do it, within >reason of course, but flute plus girl bugs me because, well, there are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >may really surprise you, Michael. I was shocked when I first came >to online forums on marriage at how sexless some marriages are. >>... So, do you turn off the sunshine when you arrive at home?! >> I bet Mrs. Ted would love to enjoy that sort of warm from you. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I agree that unless Mrs. Ted is really strange/defective... Greetings "A." Did you see my response to your 5-14-06 post in the "Now he's having a change of heart" thread? Well, not drawn to the symphony. That's okay. Anyone who enjoys jazz can't be all bad! I never got to play much jazz, but I played with a country-rock group for a while and flavored everything with jazz. I had a blast, and the other band members liked the effect. I don't like country music, but it does allow vast amounts of room to put things in. I'll take your word about there being "no cute sexy guy pianists or violinists..." And you are right: it is sad when a couple can't thoroughly enjoy any sort of music together. I just realized I've never been to a ballet, and I was doing percussion for the only opera I've attended. It was a college production of Gianni Schicchi by Giacomo Puccini. Another great experience. My spouse didn't actually encourage me to girl watch, but she did actually direct my attention on occasion. Sometimes, I just smiled sheepishly, and sometimes I thanked her. After a life that involved little or no fidelity, I was able to assure her that she had no competition: that I merely enjoyed the view. She once asked me when I would stop girl watching. I said, "When I die, or go blind." There after, the issue remained a source of comic relief. :-) When you say that you love girl watching, do you mean that you love seeing how the sight of a pretty woman influences men's behavior? Sexless marriages are unfortunate and sadly lacking. Please, share your extensive views on why women lose interest in sex. I had thought the reasons were obvious. I am in a sexless marriage, because I haven't seen or heard from my wife in about ten years. Sometimes, one must take matters in hand. I haven't done any research into the relationship Ted and Mrs. Ted have now. The evolution might be interesting, amusing or entertaining, but I suspect it would merely be expectable, predictable. Having read so little from Ted, I can only guess at what is going on. Apparently they both brought a lot of emotional baggage into the relationship. When they could no longer had their respective burdens, the marriage began to malfunction. I don't know if more AA-type experiences for Ted would help either of them. Weak, vulnerable people have great difficulty maintaining platonic relationships. My feelings about encouraging him to find companionship, even from what should be a platonic source, has been expressed rather well by Lauri in WA. SCA, or similar activity, would be an interesting diversion. However, I am afraid that, at best, Ted would view it as a replacement rather than a supplement to the validation he should be receiving from Mrs. Ted. Of course, as we know, she is too bogged down with her own difficulties to be very supportive of Ted. Apparently Mrs. Ted is not going to speak with us, and Ted will certainly remain evasive; so, all we can do is wish them well. I've enjoyed trying to make sense of it all, but I've never liked wasting time. As I sometimes say, none is so blind as he who will not see. Your use of "defective" to possibly describe Mrs. Ted really got my attention. When I was a psych patient, I concluded that I was not ill, but defective. LOL ________________________ Percussion: a masterful mix of speed, force and finesse. > >...I love girl-watching, and encourage my DH to do it, within > >reason of course, but flute plus girl bugs me because, well, there are [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Greetings "A." Did you see my response to your 5-14-06 post in the "Now he's having a > change of heart" thread? Actually - no, I didn't, I've got it up in another window, will read that next. > Well, not drawn to the symphony. That's okay. Anyone who enjoys jazz can't be all bad! I > never got to play much jazz, but I played with a country-rock group for a while and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > When you say that you love girl watching, do you mean that you love seeing how the sight > of a pretty woman influences men's behavior? Wow - insightful - yes, I think that's mainly what I enjoy. Let me also say that I'm aware of the entire physiology of attraction/arousal and obviously, one needs to get one's neurons/ hormones excited somewhere. A guy needs to look at girls (if he's heterosexual) and so forth. I look at guys, too - but, frankly, am always astounded that so few guys come remotely close in visual interest to my own DH, who is not only handsome and graceful (he always liked ballet), but also dresses very very well. He's well-spoken, has a lovely foreign accent, etc., etc. I do like to watch his reactions to women - I've learned so much over the years about what he thinks is/isn't attractive, and he's astute with fashion (I'd still be dressed like a clown if he weren't). In fact, as I'm packing for our trip, I'm checking the various outfits with him, as he has both practical and aesthetic comments that are useful, based on his years of girl-watching (he points out things he thinks would look good on me, and points out women whose bodies are similar to mine, so that I can get a sense of what he thinks is attractive - otherwise, as stated, I'd still be wearing...well, you get the picture). > Sexless marriages are unfortunate and sadly lacking. Please, share your extensive views on > why women lose interest in sex. I had thought the reasons were obvious. I am in a sexless > marriage, because I haven't seen or heard from my wife in about ten years. Sometimes, one > must take matters in hand. LOL. I know a couple of people in your category (missing, undivorced spouses). Well, it turns out that women's sexual biology seems very differently geared, in terms of testosterone and t-related chemicals in both the brain and in the erogeneous zones. Men, as I'm sure you are aware, produce constant amounts of testosterone, all day long, pulses hitting from 15 minutes apart to 12 hours apart, often keyed to other parts of the guy's biorhythms (many guys are higher in T in the morning, for example). It is the testosterone receptors in our erogeneous zones that make us think we're horny. Men's numbers of receptors vary, so even a guy high in T might not get horny if he doesn't have many receptors. The body breaks down unused receptors over time, so if you avoid sexual arousal as much as you can, you'll eventually be less horny. It might take years - but it would be predicted that in most men, after 10 years of relatively little arousal, they would not get aroused easily. Like the pope, I guess. With women, it all happens much faster. We have almost no T - and one of the main factors in our producing it is whether a man is around. We respond pheromonally to the creatures around us, if someone is turned on by us, and they are right there in bed or next to us, women will respond by producing a tiny amount of T. Often very tiny. Still, women have so few T receptors that almost any amount of T will induce some sort of active sexual interest. Unfortunately, women are ready oxytocin producers, which often fills up the remaining receptors in the erogeneous zones, and O is the chemical that makes us want to bond, cuddle, ask personal questions, murmer sweet nothings - but not get erections/ genital responses, and therefore, no moving forward toward sex. >From what I can tell, having asked literally hundreds of co-eds questions about sex, I believe that women's cycles are quite different (most are now saying DUH, A.) Anyway, some women say that if no one attempts to arouse them sexually for a month, they find themselves completely disinterested in sex, perhaps even reviled by it. Some women say it's more like two weeks. At any rate, consider the young "virgin" of yore. No sex, so no easy arousal. Enter husband, all aroused. They have sex - but she isn't aroused, she's actually uncomfortable. If this isn't addressed, she will quickly become conditioned to dislike sex, which of course, is quite common in women, especially the women from back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. If, on the other hand, a young "virginal" girl has been emulating Madonna and taking things into her own hands, so to speak, she'll be ready, willing and able. The discouraging of women from experimenting with their sexuality during the time in their lives they are most geared to want sex anyway (from about 2 years after their first period, and for about 10 years thereafter) is really strange. There is another period of sexual development in women (they say men have something going on as well over their lifespan, but of course not nearly so dramatic). As estrogen declines in the mid-thirties to mid-forties (IF it does), then progesterone (which is something like T) gets higher and that increases active sexual desire. But again, even a woman with a very strong sex drive will likely be unable to respond very well, in terms of orgasmic responses, if she has gone a month or more with no orgasm. It's just the way it is. She'll have to start out with expecting less, and hope to get her groove back. A woman who knows this (as many women do) will maintain her own sexuality - and it doesn't take actual orgasm or masturbation, but it does take brain activities that stimulate T, and progesterone more than they estimulate E and oxytocin. Mothering and wifing often produce E and oxytocin, but looking at porn (or beautiful sexy people) stimulates T and P. Women may not even know that they are losing their ability to get the female equivalent of a hard-on (many women don't even understand that they have to have the female equivalent of a hard-on to enjoy sex). In my classes, I give a short quiz on sex sometimes, on the first or second day of class. The guys usually score 100% on it, while many of the girls score 50-60%. It's a true/false quiz set up by a major publisher of books on human biology - but the fact that so many girls have no clue what the answers are disturbs me. Younger women do poorly, and Catholic girls do the worst of all in my community. (For example, I had a class in which 80% of the Catholic girls thought that an "orgasm" was a reference to "getting pregnant.") > I haven't done any research into the relationship Ted and Mrs. Ted have now. The evolution > might be interesting, amusing or entertaining, but I suspect it would merely be > expectable, predictable. Having read so little from Ted, I can only guess at what is going > on. Apparently they both brought a lot of emotional baggage into the relationship. When > they could no longer had their respective burdens, the marriage began to malfunction. I think it was malfunctioning from the beginning, myself. > I don't know if more AA-type experiences for Ted would help either of them. Weak, > vulnerable people have great difficulty maintaining platonic relationships. My feelings [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ted. Of course, as we know, she is too bogged down with her own difficulties to be very > supportive of Ted. I don't think it's ever going to change. It's like that character in When Harry Met Sally. Everyone here knows it's not going to change - I got scolded within five days of joining for not researching the impossibility of changing Ted/Mrs. Ted. I have a grizzly approach to change in these cases. Platonic? Who cares. I don't see why that should make any difference to either of them. At this point, if I were either of them, I'd be looking for any type of marginal experience that improved the quality of my life whatsoever. I would have long ago given up the idea that my "marriage" was going to exist or supply me with anything. Marriage, as I see it, is a functioning relationship between TWO (and only two) people, whereby both are enriched and made happier in dimensions mutually defined as important. Whatever those are. > Apparently Mrs. Ted is not going to speak with us, and Ted will certainly remain evasive; > so, all we can do is wish them well. I've enjoyed trying to make sense of it all, but I've > never liked wasting time. As I sometimes say, none is so blind as he who will not see. > > Your use of "defective" to possibly describe Mrs. Ted really got my attention. When I was > a psych patient, I concluded that I was not ill, but defective. LOL Anyone who expresses themselves as well as you do doesn't have any major thought disorder. I can't quite get my mind around Mrs. Ted - and why she doesn't investigate what he's saying here. If I were Ted, I'd have printed out my first posts here and taken them to counseling, then read them aloud. I'd then point out each time I posted and try to get her interested in reading my posts. If I were Ted. And if I were Mrs. Ted, I would of course have typed reams of responses. What does Mrs. Ted think Mr. Ted is doing while on the internet? My life is an open book - if my poor DH wanted MORE of this kind of analysis, he could google me, LOL. He's probably happy that I've found some amusement while he's busy which ultimately benefits him and our relationship. He's been jealous on occasion, but he now understands my compulsion to observe people from a distance, and the even greater compulsion I have to communicate/write. He prefers riding his motorcycle. A. - I'll read your other post a bit later, looks like I need to fold things more neatly if they are to fit in my suitcase, LOL. > ________________________ > Percussion: a masterful mix of speed, force and finesse. > I reckon Mrs. Ted doesn't appreciate symphonic music? If not, how sad. No, she loves it. Does she tolerate > your girl watching, within reason? I try not to let her be aware of it. Out of curiosity, you said, "...I wished I had > somebody to go home to to make love to..." Why didn't you specify your wife? Is she not > the first person who would come to mind for such sharing? Yes, she was the first person that came to mind. But I knew that just thinking of wanting to make love to her would be an exercise in frustration, so I made it more general. > That was another interesting story, about the woman at the AA meeting. I see you enjoy > little pleasures wherever you can. So do I; including those low, sultry voices! > > So, do you turn off the sunshine when you arrive at home?! I bet Mrs. Ted would love to > enjoy that sort of warm from you. Surely she remembers it! Pessimism always wins out over optimism. By the time I get home most days the thought of what I might be coming home to (especially when it's been a day full of negative emails from her) has pretty much burst any bubble I might have had. My wife jokes about her pessimism, fully admiting it: "the good thing about being a pessimist is that you are never disappointed." I don't find that funny when she says it. > I see that some folks believe you two are content with your unhappiness, and that > therefore, things will never change. Are those people correct? I have seen people content > to be miserable--because it was safer than facing the needed chances! As one who still > enjoys symphonic music, you are not brain dead, yet! You could make things happen, if you > really wanted that! Not content, but somedays resigned. Ted > > I reckon Mrs. Ted doesn't appreciate symphonic music? If not, how sad. > > No, she loves it. You just don;t like the way she appreciates it, because it's different from the way you appreciate it. > Does she tolerate > > your girl watching, within reason? > > I try not to let her be aware of it. According to few posts that you made before, seems like she is aware and unapproving of it. Remember the emails to the mutual friend - the one that you sait, nooo, that's not it, when she complained about your out of home activities and certain female friends? > Not content, but somedays resigned. And too afraid to make any changes. >> I reckon Mrs. Ted doesn't appreciate symphonic music? If not, how sad. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Not content, but somedays resigned. Not everyone here is familiar with you and Mrs. Ted's history. Please, indulge us with details, when an explanation would facilitate and expedite understanding. So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience with you? Why not!? Your wife is probably aware of your girl watching. If it is girl watching and nothing more, I see no harm in it--unless it harms her, and apparently it does. Therefore, you need to become far, far less obvious and/or help your wife realize she has no competition. Period. "A." made a great statement to the effect that women need to understand our need to girl watch. Women guy watch, but I think they are more discrete about it. Ha, they know our fragile egos can't handle it. LOL Okay, it is time to go home, and you dread it because the e-mail flood has dragged you down. Does your supervisor know about all of that wasted time? That's strictly rhetorical. Why not tell your wife that you're not going to read those e-mails--starting today. Look, if you already realize those messages are going to be negative, can't you also realize they come from a woman who needs your support, but sometimes says things that shouldn't be taken at face value. Hmmm. Can we be resigned to a situation, without being content? I suppose it is possible. Does that mean you'd like for things to be better, but don't know how to make it happen? _________________________ Zildjan: world class cymbal of excellence. > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > with you? Why not!? Best I can tell, Mrs.Ted 'shares' in that she goes with him and she loves the symphony, the problem is she does not react to the symphony the *exact* same way as Ted, she is not moved by the same passages, she does not show the same *exact* emotions that Ted shows, she likes to look at the program during the performances, etc, etc. He's posted extensively in this regard so it is not a matter of just assuming these things. He wants her to mirror his thoughts and feelings and anything less he finds lacking. It's very sad because if he could just relax and enjoy what he enjoys while allowing her to experience and enjoy in her own fashion and they could then come together and share each other's joy, just imagine what that would do for them? SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the program during the performances, etc, etc. He's posted extensively in > this regard so it is not a matter of just assuming these things. He has posted extensively. But what he has posted is different from what you just posted. She does not seemed to be moved by _any_ passages, shows _no_ emotions, etc., etc. Do you think that is a little different from what you've written? Now we can choose not to _believe_ what Ted says, but misrepresenting it is doing him a disservice. >> > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience >> > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Now we can choose not to _believe_ what Ted says, but misrepresenting >it is doing him a disservice. Wow, this Ted saga just gets more twisted as we go along. Showing no emotion really is vastly different from showing emotion for different things. Possibly Ted said one thing at some point, and something different at another time? I don't know. I just realized, as a percussionist, I'd get really excited about a well-played cymbal crash; but if the third chair picalo botches a slur, I probably won't even realize it. LOL! Still, I can't imagine remaining emotionless throughout an entire concert. ________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments. > >> > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > >> > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > vastly different from showing emotion for different things. Possibly Ted said one thing at > some point, and something different at another time? I don't know. Actually, he's been pretty consistent on this point. He probably shouldn't be held accountable for people who misrepresent what he's said. >> >> > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the >> >> > experience with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Actually, he's been pretty consistent on this point. Yes, he has been very consistent in that he doesn't 'get' her or how she expresses her feelings regarding the symphonies that she loves, I will grant you that. The mere fact that she loves them means she has feelings about them. That Ted can't figure them out and is unwilling to discuss their feelings doesn't mean she's not having them. (Yes, it isn't just his job, but he's the one posting) > He probably > shouldn't be held accountable for people who misrepresent what he's > said. There was no misrepresentation. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > >> >> > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the > >> >> > experience with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > their feelings doesn't mean she's not having them. (Yes, it isn't just > his job, but he's the one posting) Right. Ted discusses nothing with no one. > > He probably > > shouldn't be held accountable for people who misrepresent what he's > > said. Sure he should - if he engages in ordinary social interaction and can't be bothered with correcting misrepresenatings, understanding the words others use, answering questions or following "tortured" explanations. In fact, any explanation that isn't already Ted's is "tortured," by definition. Kitty is so right on with the "anything that bothers Ted" can't be used in Ted's quest for betterment. > There was no misrepresentation. > -- > Cal~ Cal, well, I believe that makes at least four of us, who think Ted needs to own up. The thing that's strange to me is that he's so drawn to this weird mix of criticism and attention (you know he reads all this, which is fine - except that it's so focused on him NOT changing.) Like Zorra, I have a hard time not showing compassion to someone (Ted included) who constantly asks for it, doesn't understand or show gratitude when he receives it, and ultimately, is a sinkhole. Which, again, sounds like depression. A. > calliope 123 at gmail dot com > >> > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > >> > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > crash; but if the third chair picalo botches a slur, I probably won't even realize it. > LOL! Still, I can't imagine remaining emotionless throughout an entire concert. To be fair, here's the copy and paste of the symphony night post titled "A Quiz:" http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.marriage/browse_frm/thread/902f9956a8 bd7ee4/3869d367d3624aaf?q=ted+symphony&rnum=5#3869d367d3624aaf Symphony night. It was a couple of pieces we'd never heard before, but by the description and our familiarity with the composers we were pretty sure we'd like one and not the other. Turns out the second wasn't as bad as we'd feared, but that's not the point. The first piece was Richard Strauss' Don Quixote. When it was done, I turned to my wife and said, "I liked that a lot." Knowing her from what I've written here, which of the following do you think was her answer: (a) "I liked it too." (b) "I hated it." (c) "Strauss is known as the master of the tone poem." (d) "What did you like most about it?" (e) "The orchestra sure played it well, didn't they." For those of you who do listen to classical music, if your spouse had said what I said, which of the above answers would be closest to the kind of answer you might have given under similar circumstances? --------- Back to my commentary It turns out that Ted was dissatisfied that his wife responded with a comment of intellectual admiration for the piece, as a response to Ted's lame little "I liked that a lot" Just how much of an emotion does Ted expect to get in return to an "I like d that a lot" comment???? My BF's 16 year old boy is capable of expressing more emotion about something like that then Ted. Ted wants to be able to say "I liked that a lot" and get an emotionally orgasmic response from his wife. Well, in real life (rather then in fairytale) things don't work that way. You get pretty close to what you're willing to offer yourself. After a night like that, if a guy came and said "I liked that a lot" I'd be thinking, is tha the best you can do? Yuck. What do you say top that? Doesn't exactly open the door to sharing your thoughts and feelings and elation with him. But nooo, it;s her shortcoming that she doesn't open up... Oi Vei! > --------- > Back to my commentary [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > doesn't open up... > Oi Vei! Consider my speculation yesterday: it's not that Ted wants his DW to be emotionally orgasmic in her response, but that *Ted* wants to feel he can say a lot more than "I liked that a lot" without fear of his DW rejecting him as some sort of sappy milquetoast kinda guy. If his DW was all sappy and emotional over the music, then Ted could *also* be sappy over it, without any fear she'd think he's odd. He's had that sort of experience with the pharmacist and other women who are freely emotional and Ted could let down his guard and be who he really is, instead of pretend to his DW he's someone he's not. I really think that's what's going on with Ted. I think if you replace every "I wish my DW would be like X" with "I wish *I* could safely be like X with my DW accepting that" then you are closer to the truth and what's going on in Ted's head. Note, I don't think he's even conscious that's what he's doing. jen > I really think that's what's going on with Ted. I think if you replace > every "I wish my DW would be like X" with "I wish *I* could safely be > like X with my DW accepting that" then you are closer to the truth and > what's going on in Ted's head. Note, I don't think he's even conscious > that's what he's doing. Good, very good. I have little more on the tip of my tongue (or is that tips of my fingers?) to say, but I have to run off to a meeting. -- Ted > Consider my speculation yesterday: it's not that Ted wants his DW to be > emotionally orgasmic in her response, but that *Ted* wants to feel he > can say a lot more than "I liked that a lot" without fear of his DW > rejecting him as some sort of sappy milquetoast kinda guy. OK, that sounds reasonable. But then you say: > If his DW was all sappy and emotional over the music, then Ted could > *also* be sappy over it, without any fear she'd think he's odd. So in a nutshell in order for him to express himself without fear his wife needs to feel and act like him (or the way he wants her to). How is this different than saying he wants his wife to be orgasmic in her response?! > He's > had that sort of experience with the pharmacist and other women who are > freely emotional and Ted could let down his guard and be who he really > is, Right. In other words he has encountered women who feel and act the way he wants. His wife doesn't. Is there anyway that his wife can make him feel safe about expressing himself without *herself* behaving as if she is sharing his emotional experience? I am not taking a particular position regarding Ted here, just trying to understand your logic, Jen. > > Consider my speculation yesterday: it's not that Ted wants his DW to be > > emotionally orgasmic in her response, but that *Ted* wants to feel he [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is this different than saying he wants his wife to be orgasmic in her > response?! You have to go dig up my posts from yesterday on the other thread (can't find them now!). I explained this already: it's a factor of Ted's dysfunctional enmeshment. He knows no other way than to be enmeshed, so it is "logical" from his dysfunctional perspective to think that his DW must also change, and preferably first. Of course, that kind of logic is totally irrational! But Ted knows no other way than an enmeshed relationship. The answer is to learn a better way, a relationship that's not based on enmeshment, in which Ted can be as emotive as he wants, and Mrs Ted can be her true self too. See, I think every time people here berate Ted for wishing his DW was someone she's not, Ted automatically bristles because in his head if DW stays the same, then Ted must be just like her (i.e., stay the same as he always has, preventing his false front) or else the relationship will fail. I don't think that's what any of us are saying to him, but I can see how when that criticism is also wrapped up with subtle and not-so-subtle criticism of Ted himself, and Ted knows no other way than enmeshment, well, yeah, he must be frustrated and feel hopeless. That's why I do tend to give Ted some ego strokes and reassurance. I think Ted has to be his true self and no less, and I think there's room in this world for an emotional, sappy guy who likes to sway to music. ;-) He won't be happy any other way, and his relationship will never improve if he is anything less. But don't get me wrong: I don't condone him expecting his DW to become someone she's not. I don't think she needs to change who she is (although yes, some of her unproductive relationship behaviors). If she did, it'd solve nothing - Ted would still be in an enmeshment relationship with his twin. But Ted has yet to understand this because he can't even fathom a different type of relationship. So I do find it natural and understandable, given where he is, that he has developed such deep-seated resentment. I also have full confidence he can do better. > Right. In other words he has encountered women who feel and act the way > he wants. His wife doesn't. Is there anyway that his wife can make him > feel safe about expressing himself without *herself* behaving as if she > is sharing his emotional experience? Sure, and the optimist that I am, I think she would be more than willing. But *first* Ted has to be open and honest and be himself around her! And, I suspect she will need to work on certain behaviors of her own that shut him down the minute he even tries. I think Ted has long seen these roadblock gestures as her disapproval and rejection of the real Ted, whereas it could be just her own way of protecting her own intimate territory. Two different things entirely. > I am not taking a particular position regarding Ted here, just trying > to understand your logic, Jen. Hope that helps! I don't think I'm explaining it all that well, anyway. But it appears Ted is getting my meaning, so I must be explaining it well to him at least! jen > > > Consider my speculation yesterday: it's not that Ted wants his DW to be > > > emotionally orgasmic in her response, but that *Ted* wants to feel he [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Hope that helps! I don't think I'm explaining it all that well, anyway. Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand you. > But it appears Ted is getting my meaning, so I must be explaining it > well to him at least! And that's all that matters. However, I hope that Ted gets your true meaning, and not what *I* got from your post! See, it's possible that Ted agreeing with you and confirming what you say means that he, like me, thinks you are saying in order for him to feel safe in being himself, his wife has to behave like the other women that he knows - and *that* is what he is agreeing with you about. :-) > See, it's possible that Ted agreeing with you and confirming what you > say means that he, like me, thinks you are saying in order for him to > feel safe in being himself, his wife has to behave like the other women > that he knows - and *that* is what he is agreeing with you about. :-) Well, no, that wasn't what I was saying and I think since Ted responded to my other posts along the same lines, he got my meaning, though I could be wrong! Often I find I can talk to Ted and I don't have to spell it all out because he thinks like I do and can read between my lines. :-) jen. > Often I find I can talk to Ted and I don't have to spell it all out > because he thinks like I do and can read between my lines. :-) We have to stop agreeing like this... what will the neighbors say? -- Ted > > See, it's possible that Ted agreeing with you and confirming what you > > say means that he, like me, thinks you are saying in order for him to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Often I find I can talk to Ted and I don't have to spell it all out > because he thinks like I do and can read between my lines. :-) Yes, speaking the same language is great help in communication! > Hope that helps! I don't think I'm explaining it all that well, anyway. > But it appears Ted is getting my meaning, so I must be explaining it > well to him at least! Yes, I am and I think it has been helpful. I don't find throwing around technical jargon like "enmeshment" or "dysfunctional" or "codependent" -- to indirectly pick on a few folks here -- as helpful, since few if any of us are professionally qualified to diagnose them, nor understand precisely what they mean, but your perception of some of what's going on in plain language seems pretty close to the mark. What I am not careful to do, perhaps in part because it isn't always clear in my mind, is distinguishing between two needs of mine -- the need to be able to express my emotions without fear and the need, sometimes, to have someone else share them. I have a hunch that if I could express them without fear that the desire to share them would be less strong, but it wouldn't go away -- there *is* something very powerful -- dare I say, intoxicating -- about that "you too?" feeling. I don't know if my need for that is universal, or even common, but I don't think it's, uh, pathological. I don't think there's much I can do about the fact, other than acknowledge it and be on guard, and not indulge myself too much, that I am naturally going to be drawn more to somebody who shares some emotion with me than one that doesn't (at least for the moment.) I know that my wife is terrified to show her own emotions -- the few times she's broken down in therapy, for instance, were moments of considerable distress for her (not what it was that caused her to break down, but that she did so) -- she doesn't want to be known as having emotions, I think. So, I suspect she plays that out in how she reacts to me, and vice versa -- I don't want to upset her, and instinctively I know that showing emotion is upsetting. -- Ted > Yes, I am and I think it has been helpful. I don't find throwing around > technical jargon like "enmeshment" or "dysfunctional" or "codependent" -- to > indirectly pick on a few folks here -- as helpful, since few if any of us > are professionally qualified to diagnose them, nor understand precisely what > they mean, I expected you to say that. :-) Ted, I think you are so close to your situation, you can't even begin to understand what "enmeshment" or "codependent" means. I've found that tends to happen to people. It's only when you start making the initial moves to become less codependent and enmeshed, that these concepts start meaning something and you start to get it. > but your perception of some of what's going on in plain language > seems pretty close to the mark. What I am not careful to do, perhaps in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't know if my need for that is universal, or even common, but I don't > think it's, uh, pathological. I think it's common and yes universal. And you felt that "you too" with your DW during your last session, didn't you? When you realized you both checked of the same priorities on your survey. jen > I think it's common and yes universal. And you felt that "you too" with > your DW during your last session, didn't you? When you realized you > both checked of the same priorities on your survey. No, that wasn't the feeling involved. It was more simply a feeling of relief and hope that there was something in common to work with. The "you too?" feeling, if there was one, came with us joking about not knowing what emotional intimacy was, even though whatever it was we both wanted it. -- Ted > > I think it's common and yes universal. And you felt that "you too" with > > your DW during your last session, didn't you? When you realized you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > too?" feeling, if there was one, came with us joking about not knowing what > emotional intimacy was, even though whatever it was we both wanted it. Sure *sounds* like a "you too" moment to me, Ted. jen > > I think it's common and yes universal. And you felt that "you too" with > > your DW during your last session, didn't you? When you realized you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Ted Ted - that's very hopeful! I'll tell you what, though. If you really don't know what it is - it's even more important to sift through your childhoods together. And if you can't remember, start over. There are excellent fairy tales-for-grown-ups who can't remember their childhoods - and intimacy is the subject of nearly all fairy tales, in my view. (How do we get to Rapunzel, what do we do when we find her?) You're not alone in this quest. Ten years ago, if someone had said I'd even consider "role playing" in quest of intimacy (or reading fairy tales), I'd have laughed at them. At that time, I wanted someone to listen intensely to all my problems and respond entirely in the way I wanted them to. A. - still urging looking at photo albums, genealogies, baby books, newspapers from your childhood, talking about childhood memories, first grade, your first friends, etc. Even if you've gone through it before. Find out as much as you can about each other. No point in "retiring" together if you have nothing to say to each other, right? > > --------- > > Back to my commentary [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > can say a lot more than "I liked that a lot" without fear of his DW > rejecting him as some sort of sappy milquetoast kinda guy. I'm sure he does. Who do you think needs to work on opening up more to fix that, Ted or his wife? His wife already told him that the amount of work she will be willing to put in is very limited. Alsi, I'm considering here that Ted is *very* insecure abnout opening up, which leads me to believe that the main thrust of his effort should be working on himself, getting over that insecurity, regardelss of what his wife does or doesn't. > If his DW was all sappy and emotional over the music, then Ted could > *also* be sappy over it, without any fear she'd think he's odd. That sounds awfully codependent to me, and just the part that I don't like, he needs to see her open up before he's able to and muster up more then "I liked this a lot". In turn, his wife probably wishes that he would open up moer first in the ways she finds pleasing. I don't think I have to be telling you this, the party that has a stronger desire to make changes gets to go first, if they want to see progress, and they do it by leading by example, not by pushing for their partner to act in ways that they're incapable of even explaining to the partner what it is they want. > had that sort of experience with the pharmacist and other women who are > freely emotional and Ted could let down his guard and be who he really > is, instead of pretend to his DW he's someone he's not. What I gathered from Teds posts about the pharmacist and some other women that he mentionewd is that when he had their 'deep interactions' the women were in a very emotionally voulnerable stage, and didn;t need much encouragement opening up to someone who offered two kind words. I think you can somewhat understand that feeling, whether you actually open up to a kind stranger or not, I'm sure you can relate to the feeling whjen someone says something nice, it feels like the floodgates are going to open. I don't see the relationships he had with those women as healthy stable emotional friendships and healthy levels of intimacy. Those were pretty close to emotionally orgasmic situations where both of their pent up needs manifested themselves in a very amplified manner. He'll never be able to have that kind of an interaction with another person on regular basis, and I gather that the mundane warm and fuzzies of a stable relationship bore the crap out of him. My thoughts as to why that might be ios because he;s been pushing his own feelings aside for so long, he is ready to burst, emotionally, and is prone to latching on to the situations where he has an opportunity to do that. Much like when someone's bladder is really full, but they don't allow themselves to relieve themselvess in full and on regular basis, but keep running around looking for short opportunities to relieve at least a little bit of pressure. > I really think that's what's going on with Ted. I think if you replace > every "I wish my DW would be like X" with "I wish *I* could safely be > like X with my DW accepting that" then you are closer to the truth and > what's going on in Ted's head. Note, I don't think he's even conscious > that's what he's doing. I'm sure he would like to be able to express himself more freely, not just with his wife, but in other situations as well. I remember from his posts that he has trouble expressing himself in many other situations, not just with his wife. If you noticed some of his posts, he says that *nobody* really understands him, that he doesn't feel like he can make a satisfying connection with anyone (except for the few unhealthy opportunities where he sees he can allow the floodgates to open) Here's where I think we disagree: I don't think that continuing to push his wife into changing will make that happen. I made my own assesment a while ago, before continuing to push his wife into changing, and nagging her and putting it all on her like it's her fault that he can't open up, he needs to focus on some intense individual therapy focused on understanding nurturing and expressing his own feelings in as healthy of a manner as is possible for him. Once he gets little more centered, I really believe that his wife may start responding to him in a little more positive way. After that is evaluated, they can see if there's any fertile ground on her side, where progress could be made in couples sessions, or maybe in most optimistic situation she may even get enticed to try individual therapy on her own. Now that she has indicated in the intimacy survey that she too would like some more communication and intimacy, I believe even more that if he'd work on himself more, the overall situation would improve at least a little for starters. But, Ted continues to reject the idea that HE should do some individual therapy, saying that they can't afford it, and some other rationalizations. Instead he keeps plodding along running in circles in couple's therapy that hasn't gone anywhere in years. I keep wondering if that's not just another oif his weekly 'attention fixes' where he allows himself to let out another tiny bit of the internal emotional pressure he feels. However uncomfortable the idea of more intense individual therapy may be for Ted, I really believbe that in skilled hands he will learn much more constructive, healthier and more effective ways of releaving that emotional pressure, along with learning how to not let it build up again. It;s Ted that needs to work on himself if he wants to see improvements. I'm sure that Mrs.Ted has her own hangups. Ted fixing his hangups in order to improve the quality of his social interactions shouldn't depend on Mrs Ted fixing herself first. Back to the symphony orchestra incident, I was using it as one of many examples where Ted is not exactly maximizing his chances of recieving the responses he wishes for. In the general direction of whare I think Ted needs to go in order to see improvements, the detail that in this particular case Mrs. Ted could have done three ounces more, and that ted wished he could expressed 4.5 ounces more. Ted needs to learn to allow himself to express what he wants and needs, and people around him will respond in variuous ways. He'll get to choose which responses he likes and wants to be around, and which ones he doesn't. Don;t get me wrong, I have emphaty for it being a drag to not be able to share an emotional experience with someone. I had conversations about it with Ted about a year and a half ago, when I was a lot gentler with him, trying to validate that his desire for more fulfilling relationships is a very realistic and valid one. After going through that spin cycle 2-3 times I realized that Ted sapped all the symphaty he could have, and is unwilling, afraid or whatever it is that holds him back, to put forth the work most people in those situations need to do. Like I said, I deliberately stopped validating his desire to have better interactions, because he wasn't doing his part of the work to achieve them. I realized he just comes here to get his fix of approval, then he goes home and does nothing with it. I don't mind helping someone along, with Ted I felt I was becoming a permanent emotional crutch, and I'm not willing to give someone a warm fuzzy spot to help them perpetuate his fears and dysfunctions. > > Consider my speculation yesterday: it's not that Ted wants his DW to be > > emotionally orgasmic in her response, but that *Ted* wants to feel he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Who do you think needs to work on opening up more to fix that, Ted or > his wife? Both! Ted obviously needs to learn to be brave and confident and be himself. But his DW could also change some of her behaviors (note - behaviors, not herself) that prevent him from being his honest true self. > His wife already told him that the amount of work she will be willing > to put in is very limited. > Alsi, I'm considering here that Ted is *very* insecure abnout opening > up, which leads me to believe that the main thrust of his effort should > be working on himself, getting over that insecurity, regardelss of what > his wife does or doesn't. Yes, no argument from me there, but his DW does do that "roadblock" thing which she could work on. > > If his DW was all sappy and emotional over the music, then Ted could > > *also* be sappy over it, without any fear she'd think he's odd. > > That sounds awfully codependent to me, and just the part that I don't > like, he needs to see her open up before he's able to and muster up > more then "I liked this a lot". Right. It is codependent. Ted has no other concept of how a relationship could function. > In turn, his wife probably wishes that he would open up moer first in > the ways she finds pleasing. I think Ted has long bent himself into a pretzel making her happy and making her feel safe. At his own expense, which is why he's so resentful and thinking ill of his DW. So personally I think the onus is on his DW to also be more pleasing and quit doing the roadblock thing. But yeah, ideally, every relationship is 100% on both sides, not one or the other. > I don't think I have to be telling you this, the party that has a > stronger desire to make changes gets to go first, if they want to see > progress, and they do it by leading by example, not by pushing for > their partner to act in ways that they're incapable of even explaining > to the partner what it is they want. Sure, but now that he's got her in therapy and they had this survey revealing that she is just as unhappy about emotional and communication intimacy as he is, then there is really no reason why *both* can't work on making changes. > > had that sort of experience with the pharmacist and other women who are > > freely emotional and Ted could let down his guard and be who he really [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > feeling whjen someone says something nice, it feels like the floodgates > are going to open. Yes, and for the first time Ted was able to be his true self, and be accepted. > I don't see the relationships he had with those women as healthy stable > emotional friendships and healthy levels of intimacy. Those were pretty > close to emotionally orgasmic situations where both of their pent up > needs manifested themselves in a very amplified manner. Yep. Kindred-soul relations tend to be like that. Very exhausting after awhile and they have no legs. But I can see why Ted found it to be a revelation. > He'll never be able to have that kind of an interaction with another > person on regular basis, and I gather that the mundane warm and fuzzies > of a stable relationship bore the crap out of him. Sure, they do right now, because he's getting zero% of the other stuff! > My thoughts as to why that might be ios because he;s been pushing his > own feelings aside for so long, he is ready to burst, emotionally, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > basis, but keep running around looking for short opportunities to > relieve at least a little bit of pressure. So what do you propose he should do? > I'm sure he would like to be able to express himself more freely, not > just with his wife, but in other situations as well. I remember from [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > he'd work on himself more, the overall situation would improve at least > a little for starters. But now we know she wants improvement too. So why not opportunize on that and get them to *both* work on their own nonproductive relationship behaviors? > But, Ted continues to reject the idea that HE should do some individual > therapy, saying that they can't afford it, and some other [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > order to improve the quality of his social interactions shouldn't > depend on Mrs Ted fixing herself first. Nobody suggested Mrs Ted needs to fix herself first. I am suggesting they work on this together. > Back to the symphony orchestra incident, I was using it as one of many > examples where Ted is not exactly maximizing his chances of recieving [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > choose which responses he likes and wants to be around, and which ones > he doesn't. I suspect long ago & early on Ted *did* express himself... and learned quickly it was better not to express himself. I think, however, that he may have misconstrued his DW's reactions as disapproval, when maybe it wasn't. > Don;t get me wrong, I have emphaty for it being a drag to not be able > to share an emotional experience with someone. I And apparently his DW wants more emotional intimacy too. Look, if she'd have rated on her survey that emotional intimacy was a low priority, or that she was mostly satisfied in this area, I'd be singing a different song. But she didn't. jen > > His wife already told him that the amount of work she will be willing > > to put in is very limited. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, no argument from me there, but his DW does do that "roadblock" > thing which she could work on. She certainly could, and we've known for a while that she is unwilling to. If she were here, I'd have a few words with her about that, but since it is Ted that is here, I concentrate on dissecting what his options are, and impressing upon him that if she dug her heels in and isn't willing, there isn't much he can do (to or with her) to get her to be more willing. The only things I think he hasn't tried is leading by example. Right now, he;s been spending years trying to get his wife to do something she is unwilling to do. I think that is not only not constructive for what he wishes to accomplish, but overall pretty destructive to the relationship, as the nagging and the pushing and manipulating can be. > > > If his DW was all sappy and emotional over the music, then Ted could > > > *also* be sappy over it, without any fear she'd think he's odd. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Right. It is codependent. Ted has no other concept of how a > relationship could function. I agree. And in years of couple's conseling he hasn't learned much more, because (I believe) he has mental blocks about certain things. I think that if he did some individual counseling, he would have a chance of getting over those mental blocks. Or to rephrase it, if he is at all capable of getting over those mental blocks, it is the individual counseling with a qualified person that would maximize his chances. (Rather then doing it with his current therapist/friend/spiritual counselor) > > In turn, his wife probably wishes that he would open up moer first in > > the ways she finds pleasing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > resentful and thinking ill of his DW. So personally I think the onus is > on his DW to also be more pleasing and quit doing the roadblock thing. to be objectivelly fair, that would be correct (althought I always have doubts in the back of my mind that we're getting an objective story from Ted.), but assuming that we are getting the objective story, we already know hios wife isn't willing to make the changes. Sure, it's unfair to Ted, and I can emphatize with the sadness of life's unfairness, and I've extended to him the emphaty for that a number of times before. Now, the reality of the situation is that without learning how to assert himself little more drastically and learning more about personal boundaries and few other things (I've brought them up many time before so I'm not going to repeat them here - I can if you want me to), improving himself, and as a rsult hopefully his wife being shaken out of her secure lull maybe the motivation to kane some changes will rise in her as well. Again, that's niot something Ted can count on. He needs to do the bvest he can for himself, and let the chips fall they may, rather then not doing it out of fear that the chips may not fall where he wants them to fall. > But yeah, ideally, every relationship is 100% on both sides, not one or > the other. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > intimacy as he is, then there is really no reason why *both* can't work > on making changes. Other then her unwillingness. I gather that she's been in therapy before too. Right now she has exporessed that she really has no desire for therapy, and the only reason she is going is because she feels intimidated that Ted and the therapist may be cohorting against her. Not exactly the kind of attendance attitude that is fertile for making serious hard to do changes. Maybe the therapist will eventualy break through that. For Ted and his DW's sake, I hope he does, but with what I've seen so far, I'm not very optimistic it will happen any time soon. > > > had that sort of experience with the pharmacist and other women who are > > > freely emotional and Ted could let down his guard and be who he really [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yes, and for the first time Ted was able to be his true self, and be > accepted. In a very destructive and inappropriate situation, which on the long run carries negative consequences and only reinforces his belief that it's not really okay to open up and be yourself. Look at how much flack he's catching just here about the pharmacist. IRL he got kicked out of the study group because his crush was too obvious. This is not environment that reinforces that it is safe to open up, nor does it teach him appropriate personal boundaries and places to open up. The more he goes about opening up in unsafe situations with a number of negative consequences, the less he's going to be willing to open up. Also, I have very serious doubts that this is the foirst time he experienced opening up. Also, I don't see it as much of opening up, it's more like it spilled over in a most inappropriate place, and in a rather unhealthy and untactful manner. > > I don't see the relationships he had with those women as healthy stable > > emotional friendships and healthy levels of intimacy. Those were pretty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > awhile and they have no legs. But I can see why Ted found it to be a > revelation. I can see why as well. > > He'll never be able to have that kind of an interaction with another > > person on regular basis, and I gather that the mundane warm and fuzzies > > of a stable relationship bore the crap out of him. > > Sure, they do right now, because he's getting zero% of the other stuff! No sure I understand your comment here? Or maybe I dodn't say what I meant clearly enough. What I was getting at is that he won't be able to have a relatioship that has frequent emotional highs with even the most expressive person. Those things wear off over the years. > > My thoughts as to why that might be ios because he;s been pushing his > > own feelings aside for so long, he is ready to burst, emotionally, and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > But now we know she wants improvement too. I may have missed where she changed her mind and became a willing participant. Wasn't she just the other day saying how she's rather die or kill herself, or something to that effect, then go to another appointment? > So why not opportunize on > that and get them to *both* work on their own nonproductive > relationship behaviors? There's no reason why not, if there's a significant change of attitude in Mrs Ted. > > But, Ted continues to reject the idea that HE should do some individual > > therapy, saying that they can't afford it, and some other [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Nobody suggested Mrs Ted needs to fix herself first. Ted is pushing and hoping for that. > I am suggesting > they work on this together. *If* there are two willing participants, then that's a good idea. > > Back to the symphony orchestra incident, I was using it as one of many > > examples where Ted is not exactly maximizing his chances of recieving [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > may have misconstrued his DW's reactions as disapproval, when maybe it > wasn't. I see it little differently. Way back when, when Tad and Mrs. Ted picked each other as spouses, Ted was too intimidated to express himself, and so was she. The relationship lacked the closeness and the delight of feeling in love, but since both were uncomfortable with expressing that much, they probably felt comfortable kinship. After the year of self imposed suppression of feelings they both started suffering emotional imbalance. I think Mrs. Ted may have quitly found other emotional outlets (having children may have helped Mrs. Ted), and Ted found himself suffering alone, and not knowing what to do. For a while turning to drinking to self medicate. Now that he's wuit drinking, and a number of years later, again the urgency of the unfulfilled emotional needs is torturing him again. At this stage in their relationship, 30 years later into a rather emotionally dysfunctional relationship, I'm sure they've both snipped at the otehr enough to find it unsafe to be emotional around the other to a point it reinforces keeping it all in around your partner. > > Don;t get me wrong, I have emphaty for it being a drag to not be able > > to share an emotional experience with someone. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > low priority, or that she was mostly satisfied in this area, I'd be > singing a different song. But she didn't. I always said that she couldn't possibly be emotionally satisfied. For one becasue we only hear Teds side in here, because Ted every now slips in something that he thiks is to his benefit, but to me speaks of her dissatisfaction, and because I can't really see it objective for a human to be happy in such situation. I don't see the result of the emotional intimacy survey as a change in her attitude. I see it as something that has been present all along. I'll be more optimistic when I see her fully understand what it may entail actually re-establishing the intimacy. Also, I really really believe that in the objective world (not ted's descriptions of the relationship, but in what happens to him and Mrs Ted IRL), Mrs Ted has sent out a number of signals about being dissatisfied, that flew right over Teds head. One example being her complaint about his out of the house activities, to which Ted replied with a practical account of how many hours they spend in the same space vs. how often he is out of the gouse, completely missing that she might be talking about more intimate in one on one interactions. I even commented to that effect to Teds post accounting the hours spent at homse vs. outside, suggesting that she is wanting more intimacy and closeness, but Ted glazed right over that suggestion. Coming from a guy aching for more intimacy with his wife, I found it rather peculiar that he wouldn't jump on the opportunity to try and hear her out. Well, not so much peculiar as, I was thinking, yeah, just another example of how he avoids it when there's an opportunity for him to do something to improve the relationship by doing something that is not the easiest thing to do. So... I really don't see her answers to the intimacy survey as indication of her being more willing then she has been, but like I said, for their own sake, I hope their therapist knows how to break through it. > > > His wife already told him that the amount of work she will be willing > > > to put in is very limited. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > more willing. The only things I think he hasn't tried is leading by > example. I'm sure that's one thing he hasn't tried, yet it's the main "masculine" mode that is available for family use. A man who leads by example (including the omission of errors and the need for change) may very well fine himself a leader. > Right now, he;s been spending years trying to get his wife to do > something she is unwilling to do. I think that is not only not > constructive for what he wishes to accomplish, but overall pretty > destructive to the relationship, as the nagging and the pushing and > manipulating can be. Ted is very womanly. He experiences deep feelings at the symphony. He refuses to do much more than whine. He's offput by complexity. Things should be made plain to him. (This is the traditional view of Woman). Nagging, pushing, etc - traditional womanliness. Leading by example - traditional manliness. I find the erotic charge of traditional womanliness absent - but I think that men's sexuality and power in a relationship is definitely related to being able to Lead. > > > > If his DW was all sappy and emotional over the music, then Ted could > > > > *also* be sappy over it, without any fear she'd think he's odd. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I think that if he did some individual counseling, he would have a > chance of getting over those mental blocks. Me too, but he's terrified. He'd have to take back and own his own life. Or to rephrase it, if he is > at all capable of getting over those mental blocks, it is the > individual counseling with a qualified person that would maximize his > chances. (Rather then doing it with his current > therapist/friend/spiritual counselor) Which is why I think there is hope for him. If his current counselor sounded more competent, I'd trust their view on Ted NOT being in individual therapy (there are those who can't withstand it). But Ted is focusing so heavily on the individual self here on this ng, it's obvious he needs a run at analyzing it - with a competent person. Preferably female. Because he's having trouble with a woman. At least that's what he says is his main problem. > > > In turn, his wife probably wishes that he would open up moer first in > > > the ways she finds pleasing. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > unfairness, and I've extended to him the emphaty for that a number of > times before. There's nothing remotely "objective" about Ted. He says one thing, adds a detail that negates 1/10th of the previous thing, insists he didn't mean to, or didn't notice, and then says it was "a joke," then asks why everyone else insists on "complicating things." This I can tell without ever meeting Mrs. Ted. > Now, the reality of the situation is that without learning how to > assert himself little more drastically and learning more about personal > boundaries and few other things (I've brought them up many time before > so I'm not going to repeat them here - I can if you want me to), > improving himself, and as a rsult hopefully his wife being shaken out > of her secure lull Until I see otherwise, it's going to be my stand that any woman whose husband has been on the internet with such diffuse, biting criticisms and hopelessness about her...is _not_ a secure woman. maybe the motivation to kane some changes will rise > in her as well. Again, that's niot something Ted can count on. He needs > to do the bvest he can for himself, and let the chips fall they may, > rather then not doing it out of fear that the chips may not fall where > he wants them to fall. We find out today that Ted's mother didn't love him, that he knows this only because his wife sniffed it out, that his wife never said anything to him about such an earth shattering detail, and that he found out suddenly in therapy. We do not know what happened next and whether Ted made any effort to ascertain the truthfulness of his wife's statements (he started out by saying his mother hated him as if it were simply a true thing). What B.S. Oh, and apparently the therapist has nothing to say about it. Yawn. > > But yeah, ideally, every relationship is 100% on both sides, not one or > > the other. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > kind of attendance attitude that is fertile for making serious hard to > do changes. Ted's wife holds his memories for him - about his wretched unloved childhood. BTW the prognosis for people whose mothers truly did not love them and did not attach - isn't good. If Ted has attachment disorder, his wife cannot fix it by changing herself. His demands on her to do so would be in the realm of impossibility - and of no help to him in solving his problems of attachment. > Maybe the therapist will eventualy break through that. What's with all the pussyfooting? That's not how real therapy works these days. The therapist should have called Mrs. Ted on her disclosures of Ted's mother's not-loving him in therapy and called Ted on his reactions - when it happened! That's how therapy works! For Ted and his > DW's sake, I hope he does, but with what I've seen so far, I'm not very > optimistic it will happen any time soon. Me neither. > > > > had that sort of experience with the pharmacist and other women who are > > > > freely emotional and Ted could let down his guard and be who he really [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yes, and for the first time Ted was able to be his true self, and be > > accepted. If he has a "true self." Unloved kids don't, usually. > In a very destructive and inappropriate situation, which on the long > run carries negative consequences and only reinforces his belief that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > over in a most inappropriate place, and in a rather unhealthy and > untactful manner. This last sentence is very perceptive, thanks. > > > I don't see the relationships he had with those women as healthy stable > > > emotional friendships and healthy levels of intimacy. Those were pretty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > awhile and they have no legs. But I can see why Ted found it to be a > > revelation. I'm in a longterm kindred souls relationship. They are delicate, but if both individuals are aware and healthy, it's also an exceptionally wondrous thing to be in. We aren't the same, but we are on the same team, we are kindred. I already did the opposites attract thing - no thanks. That's not me. Familiarity is great, I love being able to understand my partner. It's actually the most reassuring relationship I've ever had - since my own mother wasn't that great at understanding me, though she loved me. > I can see why as well. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have a relatioship that has frequent emotional highs with even the most > expressive person. Those things wear off over the years. I'm still waiting. We just said today that after 13 years, he says I still look at him the same way as I did, all those years ago - and that no one else has ever looked at him the way I do. I say the same about him. We are two peas in a pod. Nothing wore off, but we were highly aware that it could. It could, tomorrow, though after 13 years of increasing crush-like intensity and admiration for each other - and DECREASING fights, bitterness, struggle - why would we want anything else? The sex is better, our lives are better, we are still amazed by each other, we feel the relationship is brand new. We are going on a "second' (or fiftieth) honeymoon this week - and the time we'll spend, unadulterated, in each other's company will be my renewal for the upcoming months. Not only am I not bragging, but we tend to resist hanging out with couples who work otherwise. We find each other and support each other and try to hang out together, if we hang out at all. Our neighbors happen to be another happily, blissfully married couple (older than we are) and their recent deepening of appreciation of each other, through travel, adventures, other things, has been inspirational. My parents, as I keep saying, have had what appears to be an evolving, more positive, more enriching relationship over 65 years! > > > My thoughts as to why that might be ios because he;s been pushing his > > > own feelings aside for so long, he is ready to burst, emotionally, and [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > There's no reason why not, if there's a significant change of attitude > in Mrs Ted. I wouldn't change a bit if I were her, until he stops with the internet support team, stops with the inappropriate behaviors with others, and faces up to his own issues. > > > But, Ted continues to reject the idea that HE should do some individual > > > therapy, saying that they can't afford it, and some other [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > delight of feeling in love, but since both were uncomfortable with > expressing that much, they probably felt comfortable kinship. This sounds like a sibling relationship, not a marriage. > After the year of self imposed suppression of feelings they both > started suffering emotional imbalance. Or they had no feelings. Which is far more likely. At least not man/woman marriage feelings. Sibling feelings, yes. Friend feelings, yes. I think Mrs. Ted may have quitly > found other emotional outlets (having children may have helped Mrs. > Ted), and should have helped Ted, as well, if Ted is also a parent. and Ted found himself suffering alone, and not knowing what to Chose to be alone and not part of the evolving (but not maritally based) kinship unit. Plenty of cultures have mother raising kids with her own brother, sans sex, sans friendship really - just with shared duties and expectations. I see this a lot in American relationships, even though the two aren't technically siblings. > do. For a while turning to drinking to self medicate. Now that he's > wuit drinking, and a number of years later, again the urgency of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at the otehr enough to find it unsafe to be emotional around the other > to a point it reinforces keeping it all in around your partner. That's a lot of snipping/sniping. It would take nuclear armament for me to keep it all in. > > > Don;t get me wrong, I have emphaty for it being a drag to not be able > > > to share an emotional experience with someone. I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'll be more optimistic when I see her fully understand what it may > entail actually re-establishing the intimacy. Remember, she knows more about Ted's inner world (his early object relations and feelings) than Ted does. Ted doesn't even know how she knows this - just knows that she does. She carries around what must be terrible childhood feelings. He wears his on his sleeve. > Also, I really really believe that in the objective world (not ted's > descriptions of the relationship, but in what happens to him and Mrs [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > completely missing that she might be talking about more intimate in one > on one interactions. Exactly. He thinks intimacy is "too complicated" and "torturous." He does not want a real relationship with a real woman. His wife is intelligent and sensitive, he ignores that. He does not go to her for advice, he seeks out a therapist - and us. She is way down the list in terms of where he goes for aid - and she probably thinks of herself as being capable of being a wife. > I even commented to that effect to Teds post accounting the hours spent > at homse vs. outside, suggesting that she is wanting more intimacy and > closeness, but Ted glazed right over that suggestion. Exactly. As he does with everyone. He has no bonds or attachments, no sense of repicrocity to others. Coming from a guy > aching for more intimacy with his wife, I found it rather peculiar that > he wouldn't jump on the opportunity to try and hear her out. Well, not > so much peculiar as, I was thinking, yeah, just another example of how > he avoids it when there's an opportunity for him to do something to > improve the relationship by doing something that is not the easiest > thing to do. Exactly, again. A. > So... I really don't see her answers to the intimacy survey as > indication of her being more willing then she has been, but like I > said, for their own sake, I hope their therapist knows how to break > through it. > We find out today that Ted's mother didn't love him, that he knows > this only because his wife sniffed it out, that his wife never said > anything to him about such an earth shattering detail, and that > he found out suddenly in therapy. Well, not really - IIRC (which I might not) Ted was born in the era in which all the "experts" told parents that the best method of childrearing was to feed babies on a strict schedule, etc. Seems like he was also very preemie, which back then probably meant not much handling/affection as a newborn. OTOH, Ted's mother probably did love him, since she apparently tried hard to parent him "correctly", according to the thinking of the day, and Ted knows this, and knows his mother loved him - but he still blames his emotional difficulties on this, since he believes he must have felt unloved as an infant... His wife found this out when Ted's mother gave her a copy of the book that described this method of childrearing. We do not know what happened > next and whether Ted made any effort to ascertain the truthfulness > of his wife's statements (he started out by saying his mother hated him > as if it were simply a true thing). > > What B.S. >> Other then her unwillingness. >> I gather that she's been in therapy before too. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ted's wife holds his memories for him - about his wretched unloved > childhood. I don't remember that he said he had an unloved childhood - my recollection is that he 'assumes' he felt unloved as an *infant*, but probably had a pretty typical childhood for the day. >BTW the prognosis for people whose mothers truly > did not love them and did not attach - isn't good. If Ted has [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > on her disclosures of Ted's mother's not-loving him in therapy > and called Ted on his reactions - when it happened! Possibly the therapist didn't do that because there just wasn't that much to the story....Ted's mother did love him after all, she just thought that good mothers fed their babies by the clock. > > We find out today that Ted's mother didn't love him, that he knows > > this only because his wife sniffed it out, that his wife never said [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > His wife found this out when Ted's mother gave her a copy of the book that > described this method of childrearing. That's an interesting tidbit I didn't know about. Thanks for sharing. > We do not know what happened > > next and whether Ted made any effort to ascertain the truthfulness [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > the story....Ted's mother did love him after all, she just thought that good > mothers fed their babies by the clock. I'm pretty sure Ted ha an insecure attacment style, of the clingy type. it typically develops in infancy, with respect to the primary caretaker. There'sa lot of informion out there describing this, and there are ways to manage it in a more constructive ways then reacting to the imediate feelings we can experience surrounding this. for eample: http://web.uccs.edu/swilson/securevs.htm http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/yf/famsci/fs617w.htm http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/ss/attachmentstyle.htm Many others.... I think if Ted worked on his attachment issues, he'd get over his fear of aserting himelf and standing up or himself - for starters. being somone who can get severe panic attacks associated with primary attachment myself, I can certainly appreciate omeone being affraid to assert themelves (in my case that used to mean an irrational panic attack episode) With therapy and learning I managed to get it under control enough to be alble to get myself taken care of and out of a dysfunctional destructive attachment situation (bad unfulfilling or destructive relationship). I know what real uncontrollable paralyzing irration fear is like, where you feel like you'd rather kill yourself then go through the terror. I've been in ted's shoes, wishing, oping, beggng pushing for those lose to me to do this or that to accomodate my fears. Things didn't change for me untill I bit the bullet and worked on it for myself. I doubt Teds attachment issue is *that* severe, but I see so many things that I went through, where I know that things can be better on the other side, if he just gets some more competent professional help, rather then his spititual dvisor/marriage counselor, meyers briggs personality tets and the AA. Ted keeps complaining how he oesn't have that much more time left in life to fix things, but yet won't try what I'm willing to bet a significant amount will help him a great deal. > > Yes, no argument from me there, but his DW does do that "roadblock" > > thing which she could work on. > > She certainly could, and we've known for a while that she is unwilling > to. We have? I'm not even sure anyone's ever talked to her about her roadblock thing, and pointed out how unconstructive it is. We do know that she wants more communication and emotional intimacy with Ted. So now there is leverage for the roadblock thing. > If she were here, I'd have a few words with her about that, but since > it is Ted that is here, I concentrate on dissecting what his options [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > destructive to the relationship, as the nagging and the pushing and > manipulating can be. Personally? I get a picture of total stagnation. Ted hasn't tried anything, except going to counseling and getting her to come with him to counseling. Otherwise, he has neither led by example nor has he nagged and pushed and manipulated her - not from what I can see. He just waits for the therapist to work his magic. He may complain here, but I think he keeps his mouth firmly shut at home. Mrs Ted, OTOH, apparently has a long history of nagging, and yes, manipulation. So we have Ted doing nothing constructive, and Mrs Ted only doing destructive things. Now it's true Ted may indeed be wistfully contemplating destructive maneuvors of his own, but frankly I think it's understandable given his frustration, and I don't see him acting on them. He may wistfully talk about other woman, but he hasn't cheated nor left his DW. He may wistfully wish she would completely change into someone she's not, but he hasn't nagged, manipulated, demanded or even requested she be different. But yes you are right - the single best thing Ted can do is lead by example, open up his mouth, and share with her. Meanwhile, I cannot let this opportunity (the survey) go here - I think Ted should definetly encourage his DW to take a look at her own destructive behaviors too. She's not a saint and I'm not sure why you wish to continue to paint her that way. Show me a troubled relationship where both partners mark dissatisfaction with communication and emotional intimacy, and I will show you *TWO* people who are both contributing to that.... not just one. > I agree. And in years of couple's conseling he hasn't learned much > more, because (I believe) he has mental blocks about certain things. > I think that if he did some individual counseling, he would have a > chance of getting over those mental blocks. Did you miss the part where Mrs Ted doesn't want him going to a therapist alone? > Or to rephrase it, if he is > at all capable of getting over those mental blocks, it is the > individual counseling with a qualified person that would maximize his > chances. (Rather then doing it with his current > therapist/friend/spiritual counselor) I agree that individual counseling would be good for him, but Mrs Ted won't have any of it. > to be objectivelly fair, that would be correct (althought I always have > doubts in the back of my mind that we're getting an objective story [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > unfairness, and I've extended to him the emphaty for that a number of > times before. I'm not there yet, believing his wife isn't willing to make changes. She may be willing, once she knows clearly what would have to change, and why. IOW, if she wants higher intimacy satisfaction, then if she's told that she must work on minimizing her roadblock behaviors to get it, she may indeed see the value in that. I don't think she's connected the two. Heck, this group has a hard time connecting the two! > Now, the reality of the situation is that without learning how to > assert himself little more drastically and learning more about personal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of her secure lull maybe the motivation to kane some changes will rise > in her as well. If only Ted changes, I suspect it will raise a lot of anxiety in Mrs Ted. I think to titrate that anxiety, she must understand what he's decided to change and why (i.e., to improve both their intimacy satisfaction). If she's given a clear roadmap of what Ted is going to work on, she will likely find any changes much less intimidating and scary to deal with. They won't have come out of the blue. > Again, that's niot something Ted can count on. He needs > to do the bvest he can for himself, and let the chips fall they may, > rather then not doing it out of fear that the chips may not fall where > he wants them to fall. But keep in mind the one non-negotiable with Ted is leaving his marriage. He does not want to leave Mrs Ted, does not want her leaving him. > Other then her unwillingness. > I gather that she's been in therapy before too. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > kind of attendance attitude that is fertile for making serious hard to > do changes. So then she could've marked her survey quite differently, indicating she is highly satisfied with things just the way they are (in which case, I'd be on your side of the fence arguing your case). But, she didn't. I think Mrs Ted does grumble about therapy, but it sounds like more and more she is getting something satisfying out of the experience. This last session and the session before it she sounded eager and excited. It's only between sessions that she has time to reflect and grumble. Yet, she still goes anyway. It doesn't sound like someone forced or manipulated. It does sound like someone who is reticent, but continues because she *is* getting something out of it, or hopes to. Frankly, if the $ was there, I'd suggest Ted ups the therapy sessions and goes more frequently, to keep the positive momentum. > In a very destructive and inappropriate situation, which on the long > run carries negative consequences and only reinforces his belief that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The more he goes about opening up in unsafe situations with a number of > negative consequences, the less he's going to be willing to open up. Maybe so. Or maybe he is learning boundaries. I do often get the impression Ted posts here to get deliberately kicked. I used to do that in ASD when I first joined. It toughened up my skin and gave me courage to stand my own ground. It may be a lot safer to express himself here to us, and take all the punches from us, than it would be to express himself to his DW, with whom he has far more invested. > Also, I have very serious doubts that this is the foirst time he > experienced opening up. > Also, I don't see it as much of opening up, it's more like it spilled > over in a most inappropriate place, and in a rather unhealthy and > untactful manner. Yes, he has kept himself pent up for so long, it is natural that it would eventually overflow and spill out in a disasterous manner. That's what happens when your needs go unmet for 30 years! > > Sure, they do right now, because he's getting zero% of the other stuff! > > No sure I understand your comment here? Or maybe I dodn't say what I > meant clearly enough. What I was getting at is that he won't be able to > have a relatioship that has frequent emotional highs with even the most > expressive person. Those things wear off over the years. Yes, and I was saying that it is natural for Ted to now want 100% when he's spent 30 years going with zero. He may think he wants 100% for the rest of his life, but I suspect once the drought is over, he'd settle down and be perfectly happy - even thrilled - to have say 5%. > I may have missed where she changed her mind and became a willing > participant. > Wasn't she just the other day saying how she's rather die or kill > herself, or something to that effect, then go to another appointment? She indicated on her intimacy survey that her highest need is emotional and communication intimacy (same as Ted) and that her satisfaction with both is currently woefully low (same as Ted). > There's no reason why not, if there's a significant change of attitude > in Mrs Ted. Exactly. That's what I'm saying! Others are arguing that Mrs Ted is perfectly happy with the relationship and so it's Ted that needs to change. But, it's clear she's not happy. So they do have something to work on. Both of them, together. > > Nobody suggested Mrs Ted needs to fix herself first. > > Ted is pushing and hoping for that. Yes, he has been wishfully thinking about it. I think that's a product of his enmeshment. I, however, was not arguing it at all, but I was understanding why Ted would think that's what he wants and that it's his only solution (which it is not). > > I am suggesting > > they work on this together. > > *If* there are two willing participants, then that's a good idea. I typed all of the above, and now you're agreeing with me. Hee hee. Shoulda read ahead! > I see it little differently. Way back when, when Tad and Mrs. Ted > picked each other as spouses, Ted was too intimidated to express [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > wuit drinking, and a number of years later, again the urgency of the > unfulfilled emotional needs is torturing him again. I think that sounds about right. I don't believe Ted when he says he had a personality change midlife.... I think he's always been the same, but has subverted his true self for so long that at one point that true self started clamoring so loud, it just *sounded* to him like he had changed. > At this stage in their relationship, 30 years later into a rather > emotionally dysfunctional relationship, I'm sure they've both snipped > at the otehr enough to find it unsafe to be emotional around the other > to a point it reinforces keeping it all in around your partner. Yep. And it's something they both need to work on. > I always said that she couldn't possibly be emotionally satisfied. For > one becasue we only hear Teds side in here, because Ted every now slips [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'll be more optimistic when I see her fully understand what it may > entail actually re-establishing the intimacy. I think it's a step that she's admitting she is dissatisfied, and also I see it as an opportunity to finally make some progress. > Also, I really really believe that in the objective world (not ted's > descriptions of the relationship, but in what happens to him and Mrs [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > completely missing that she might be talking about more intimate in one > on one interactions. True. Except when they are together, they don't spend much time in intimate one-on-one. They watch t.v. And Mrs Ted throws up those roadblocks. I think you are right though, and in therapy this could be a useful example: Ted could agree to stay home more, Mrs Ted could agree to work on her roadblock behavior, and they both could agree to turn off the t.v. See how much better that is then Ted simply agreeing to be at home more? > I even commented to that effect to Teds post accounting the hours spent > at homse vs. outside, suggesting that she is wanting more intimacy and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > improve the relationship by doing something that is not the easiest > thing to do. Because the poor man needs a break from her. She can be a nag, and she's not all that fun to be around. If she wasn't nagging him all the time, then yeah, I have no doubt Ted would never leave the house! > So... I really don't see her answers to the intimacy survey as > indication of her being more willing then she has been, but like I > said, for their own sake, I hope their therapist knows how to break > through it. Me too! jen Lots snipped. Jen -- you have far more patience than I do in responding to people sometimes! I probably could quibble with things here and there, but with one exception on the whole I think you did a masterful, and clear, job of expressing some important things. This is the one point I want to comment on. > I think that sounds about right. I don't believe Ted when he says he > had a personality change midlife.... I think he's always been the same, > but has subverted his true self for so long that at one point that true > self started clamoring so loud, it just *sounded* to him like he had > changed. You haven't been reading your Jung carefully enough. Seriously -- he says a personality change is an essential part of individuation. (and one description I read of it sounded so much like me I was flabbergasted.) There very definitely was a personality change. I have little doubt that the results of the two Keirsey inventories were both accurate -- before and after. It wasn't a matter of subverting my "true self" -- I really was a bookish INTJ. I was comfortable in my career -- I was excited by doing detailed analysis, of finding solutions, of poking holes in things. I built electronic equipment. I made radio propagation charts. I was in the high school debate team -- not the thespians. I poured over the encyclopedia -- not Shakespeare. I read science fiction. (My wife says she once asked me to read the Gray "Mars/Venus" book and I had no interest in it whatsover.) As a, now, ENFP my interests are quite different -- but it is useful to look upon my previous personality traits as skills that I can draw upon when appropriate -- so I can be analytical when it's called for, for instance. But I don't enjoy doing it in the same way I used to. In another recent post, which I probably won't get around to responding to, you wrote > I suspect long ago & early on Ted *did* express himself... and learned > quickly it was better not to express himself. I think, however, that he > may have misconstrued his DW's reactions as disapproval, when maybe it > wasn't. (I think you expressed a similar thing in yet another one, referring to showing my emotions.) I really don't know, but I suspect not. As I've mentioned before, one of the more puzzling therapy sessions we had was one where my wife said I had been affectionate before we were married, but that once we were married I told her we didn't need to be that way anymore -- we were now married. I haven't a clue what she's referring to (nor whether her memory is accurate or not.) I really don't know how things were 40 years ago -- does it matter? It's now that's important. Ted > Lots snipped. > > Jen -- you have far more patience than I do in responding to people > sometimes! That's so true. I admire Jen's energy and calm manner in detail explanations and analysis. In the recent threads about you I've observed one thing. Jen does a marvelous job explaining *you* to all of us who probably don't quite understand you. I think Tai and Doug (and perhaps others) have also confirmed her analysis. And of course you, too, have said that she does read you right. But in most of the posts that you praise her for accurately speaking on your behalf there is a "but" of some sort that follows and breaks down her analysis! I know that I don't *think* like Jen (as she nicely put it), and for that reason I probably can't read you like she does. But the more I read the clarifications that you add to her analysis the more it seems that you aren't *really* the ways she describes either! What follows in this post is an example of what I'm talking about (so is the other recent response about "you too" moment). Anyway, I know I am not contributing anything useful to this discussion. Just offering my observation that Jen might not be as accurate about you as it's been suggested after all :-) > I probably could quibble with things here and there, but with one exception > on the whole I think you did a masterful, and clear, job of expressing some [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php > > Lots snipped. > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > this post is an example of what I'm talking about (so is the other > recent response about "you too" moment). Yeah, believe it or not, I fully anticipated Ted's response to the "you too" subthread. :-) I fully expect he's missing the subtle glimmers of hope right now: he's too dedicated to his view that his lot in life will never change. That he does need to work on! > Anyway, I know I am not contributing anything useful to this > discussion. Just offering my observation that Jen might not be as > accurate about you as it's been suggested after all :-) I am well aware Ted has an unproductive "yeah, BUT" habit. I am reading the thread backwards as I usually do (newest posts first) and responding as I go along. I don't even have to read below to know already that he added a "BUT" to the part where I said his personality never changed. :-) > > I probably could quibble with things here and there, but with one exception > > on the whole I think you did a masterful, and clear, job of expressing some [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > upon when appropriate -- so I can be analytical when it's called for, for > > instance. But I don't enjoy doing it in the same way I used to. Yep.... this is how I expected Ted to respond. He and I have debated this to death already, since we're both fascinated in personality theory. > > In another recent post, which I probably won't get around to responding to, > > you wrote [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I really don't know how things were 40 years ago -- does it matter? It's > > now that's important. No, I think you're right, now is what's important, but it is important to remember that your DW brings her own history and experience of your relationship together, so you shouldn't invalidate her comment here - you don't want her to invalidate your experience, do you? You could tell your DW that even if you did say that 40 years ago, you don't believe it anymore? jen > You could tell your DW that even if you did say that 40 years ago, you > don't believe it anymore? I did. She doesn't like things like that -- she likes consistency, no changes. She acknowledges the personality change and I think it has thrown her for a loop -- she says she likes this personality better than the one I had during the first 30 years of our marriage: but since it's a change that's not good. (It probably isn't any great consolation for her that I'm probably having as much trouble getting used to the new "me" as she is!) -- Ted > loop -- she says she likes this personality better than the one I had during > the first 30 years of our marriage: Well, that's something!! Concentrate on the positive. :-) jen > Anyway, I know I am not contributing anything useful to this > discussion. Just offering my observation that Jen might not be as > accurate about you as it's been suggested after all :-) Pretty darn accurate about how things are now. I think the inaccuracies are in speculating how they used to have been -- and I can't even be sure I know that myself. -- Ted > Pretty darn accurate about how things are now. I think the inaccuracies > are in speculating how they used to have been -- and I can't even be sure I > know that myself. Yes, it's quite common when one is unhappy to start revising one's history. :-) I suspect you've always been the same old Ted. It is true that aspects of our personalities may come to the fore depending on the interaction of our parents, and later, the SO's in our lives. You've never been on your own, really, have you? Your dynamics with your FOO may have caused you to suppress certain personality tendencies when growing up, but suppression doesn't mean they were never there to begin with. It sounds like you went straight from FOO to Mrs Ted, no? I think, living with Mrs Ted all these years, she's helped to bring your personality to full expression - in fact, even to an extreme. You can thank her for that, in fact! But the key is to be a well-rounded person. The real Ted probably isn't that extreme. You are just extreme right now because of the dynamic with your DW. It needn't stay that way. Like a pendulum, if you get through this learning experience with your DW, I suspect you'll swing back towards a nice, balanced center. Your DW, incidentally, has also been effected by you over the years. I think she's also probably showing an extreme. She has to - to balance *your* extreme. jen > Lots snipped. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You haven't been reading your Jung carefully enough. See - you did it again - and you can't convince me you haven't said and done things similar to Mrs. Ted. You won't answer, but if I asked which Jung you were reading, you would say......? Man and his symbols? What? Or are you reading various Jungians? At any rate, Jung says no such thing about personality changes - and Jung has nothing to do with the Meyers-Briggs assessments or the inventories you reference next. In fact, many people would say that to try and combine the linear assessments WITH Jung is impossible - although you can find ways of vibrating with both in your head. Most of us don't need a specific form of theory in our heads, anyway. But whether or not someone has read Jung has NOTHING to do with whether you, Ted, have had a personality change or not. Even if I give in and stipulate that Jung said such a thing, how would that make Jen's observation related to reading Jung? I just don't get it. There's such a disconnect there - and you're almost about to see it (with Jen's patient help). Please don't give up. Seriously -- he says a > personality change is an essential part of individuation. I don't think Jung even used the word "individuation" anywhere in his writings - I could be wrong. It's mainly Mahler's term and it's neo-Freudian. Jung may have used it, but if so, he sure didn't say anything about "personality" change. My god, what a misrepresentation of Jung. (and one > description I read of it sounded so much like me I was flabbergasted.) But it wasn't Jung's. Not that it mattered - but you may be referring to some archetypal energy that sounded like you. And Jung does say we can come into contact with new forces in our lives, if we work at it. I think that may be what you're trying to say. > There very definitely was a personality change. I have little doubt that > the results of the two Keirsey inventories were both accurate -- before and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > upon when appropriate -- so I can be analytical when it's called for, for > instance. But I don't enjoy doing it in the same way I used to. Jung would have found it very peculiar if your former personality disappeared and another one appeared in its place. On the other hand, one's personality inventories do vary over time - lots of factors change "inventories." Hopefully, your former self is still there, but the more public forms (which are measured in inventories, not in dreams or active imagination) have changed. That's great. It can be disconcerting to one's spouse, though, I'll grant that. Mrs. Ted says you stopped giving her affection after marriage - was that part of your change? Were you more affectionate when you were more engineering oriented? Or were you simply struggling to get through each day, like most of us? Anyway, what happens when you take her hand, these days? Or place your fingers at the small of her back on the way in or out of the symphony? (No, you don't have to answer). > In another recent post, which I probably won't get around to responding to, > you wrote [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I really don't know how things were 40 years ago -- does it matter? It's > now that's important. It would matter if she felt she was following your instructions (which caused her own self to feel pain and which caused her to change into the being you see before you today) and now you've changed your instructions. Yes. Think of yourself as Jehovah-God. Wouldn't that be perplexing to your "flock" if you distributed alternate marching orders? Sure, you can change your mind, but it looks like back then, she felt she had to obey you, and perhaps, after obeying you and losing her drive toward affection (at your behest) she's now completely at a loss to get it back. In other words, it was destroyed at your request - and now you want it. You don't see how that would feel strange/awful to her? It's true she should attempt to get it back, and she should explore the Now - not disputing that. If her memories are wrong, it's your duty to stay in the Now and not dispute them. Just deal with them. Tell her you didn't mean whatever it is you said back then - or if you did, you take it back (say both things, just in case). Tell her you are now confused about how the lack of affection began and over that misunderstanding 40 years ago. Has your counselor encouraged you to hold hands in his presence to interpret/see what happens when you do? > Ted [snipping items we agree on] > She's not a saint and I'm not sure why you wish to continue to paint > her that way. Show me a troubled relationship where both partners mark > dissatisfaction with communication and emotional intimacy, and I will > show you *TWO* people who are both contributing to that.... not just > one. I agree with you on most points. I would have sworn that I read once or twice or more Ted talk about her being unwilling to change and few other things that helped for mthe opinion I have right now, I'd like to google those posts and explain point by point how I arrived to some of the conclusions, but that might take me a big part of the day, and I don't have time or the inclination to do it. I know, I know, I shouldn't get into the lengthy discussions then bail out... I start talking about what's on my mind, then people ask questions or come up with different opinions, and before you know it, I'm thinking, uh, oh, it's interesting, and I'd like to continue, but I can't spend this much time on it, and negelct work and chores etc... (You get the picture, I hope) And I haven't learned to gracefully duck out before I get caught up. (Offering lessons anyone, I could use help with that) > > I agree. And in years of couple's conseling he hasn't learned much > > more, because (I believe) he has mental blocks about certain things. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Did you miss the part where Mrs Ted doesn't want him going to a > therapist alone? The marriage therapist, I did see that, and I can understand. Individual counseling is different. I don't know if Mrs. Ted would understand the difference and be okay with it. > > Or to rephrase it, if he is > > at all capable of getting over those mental blocks, it is the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I agree that individual counseling would be good for him, but Mrs Ted > won't have any of it. I'm not sure that would apply to individual counseling. I do know it applies to the marriage counseling. He goes to his AA meetings and his spiritual things alone, which are things that have to do with his individual interests and needs. Marriage therapy should be done with both of them in there. So, considering those, I can't convince myself one way or another, whether she is likely to let him go or not. > > to be objectivelly fair, that would be correct (althought I always have > > doubts in the back of my mind that we're getting an objective story [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm not there yet, believing his wife isn't willing to make changes. Gotcha. > She may be willing, once she knows clearly what would have to change, > and why. IOW, if she wants higher intimacy satisfaction, then if she's > told that she must work on minimizing her roadblock behaviors to get > it, she may indeed see the value in that. I don't think she's connected > the two. Heck, this group has a hard time connecting the two! I hope that's the case. [snipping items we agree on] > But keep in mind the one non-negotiable with Ted is leaving his > marriage. He does not want to leave Mrs Ted, does not want her leaving > him. And I think if they let the chips fall where they may, them splitting up is highly unlikely scenario. To quantify just how unlikely of a scenario I think that would be, I'd say 2-5% chance. I think that to be the case because they are both so fearful of splitting up, once they start thinking that if they continue business as usual they'll end up splitting up, they will get very motivated to make changes needed to stay together. > > Other then her unwillingness. > > I gather that she's been in therapy before too. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > case, I'd be on your side of the fence arguing your case). But, she > didn't. I'm little unclear on that point, knowing how Ted said mnany times that she was perfectly happy with how things are, and now in the survey she says she isn't... Thinking out loud here, Ted's statememnts how she was happy with how things were probably speaks more to the magnitude of Ted not understanding her. > I think Mrs Ted does grumble about therapy, but it sounds like more and > more she is getting something satisfying out of the experience. This > last session and the session before it she sounded eager and excited. Maybe I confused somethig? I thought prior to this last session she grumbled about how she'd rather die then go to another one of those... > It's only between sessions that she has time to reflect and grumble. > Yet, she still goes anyway. It doesn't sound like someone forced or > manipulated. It does sound like someone who is reticent, but continues > because she *is* getting something out of it, or hopes to. How do we explain her statements about how she thinks the appointments are a waste of money, and where she is complaining how her opinion doesn't seem to count? To me that says that she is feeling like she doesn't have a choice. (Whether she has a choice or not, that's a different story. I'm focusing on what little feedback we get about her feelings.) Give you an example, ifsomeone knows my insecurities (like Ted knows about her fear of him leaving her), and then uses them to convince me to participate in something that I would not participate if the pressure wasn't applied in the areas of my insecurities, I'd be likely to comment in similar resentful manner as Mrs Ted, and would feel manipulated - If it's coming from someone familiar with my insecurities, and someone to whom I left myself voulnerable. Sure, Mrs Ted should work on those, but that's not the reality of the moment. What I'm getting to is that I have a hard time seeing her make comments like that, and believing that she is a willing and interested participant. > Frankly, if the $ was there, I'd suggest Ted ups the therapy sessions > and goes more frequently, to keep the positive momentum. I agree. > > In a very destructive and inappropriate situation, which on the long > > run carries negative consequences and only reinforces his belief that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Maybe so. Or maybe he is learning boundaries. I hope so, although, I've never known hitting the spot that already hurts to be a good learning tactic. Usuallyu the pain gets so overwhelming that the person needing the lesson ends up not being receptive to the lesson. In a controlled environment with skilled mental professional little bit of poking with subsequent encouragement and rebuilding after the gentle pokes helps retrain the person (as I understand it), but in uncontrolled environments like out there in the freeform RL, with no guidance, it can be destructive. > I do often get the impression Ted posts here to get deliberately > kicked. I used to do that in ASD when I first joined. It toughened up > my skin and gave me courage to stand my own ground. It may be a lot > safer to express himself here to us, and take all the punches from us, > than it would be to express himself to his DW, with whom he has far > more invested. I do deliberately kick him just for that reason. I figure, if he gets to a point he can make a good strong stand here, he might be able to softly tell his wife, no Dear, I'm not going to do this for you, and stand by it. [snipping items we agree on] > Yes, and I was saying that it is natural for Ted to now want 100% when > he's spent 30 years going with zero. He may think he wants 100% for the > rest of his life, but I suspect once the drought is over, he'd settle > down and be perfectly happy - even thrilled - to have say 5%. I'm having a hard time thinking he'd be happy with 5%, when I see Ted's dramatic moments. But, who knows, it's just my perception. > > I may have missed where she changed her mind and became a willing > > participant. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and communication intimacy (same as Ted) and that her satisfaction with > both is currently woefully low (same as Ted). That's great, now let's see if they're actually able to take into account and approve of each other's differing love languages, or if they're going to continue to want to be loved in the way they want to be loved, rather then appreciating the other's style. Remains to be seen. > > > Nobody suggested Mrs Ted needs to fix herself first. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > understanding why Ted would think that's what he wants and that it's > his only solution (which it is not). Oh, I understand it too. Being that Ted is the one coming here, I was trying to concentrate on discussing that point with him more, rather then give him more opportunity to indulge in wishful thinking about things he can't control. In the past I agreed and emphatize with him more about how Mrs. Ted has things to work on too, but after seeing how consumed he is with the wishful thinking about her changing, I decided I didn't want to be a facilitator of that fantasy, and that I'd have a lot cleared conscience if I were at least *trying to* burst that bubble when I see it inflating, and appeal to him got get back to reality. Your and few other people's emphatizing may offer a balance to the poking he gets here. You be the good cop, I'll play the bad cop for now. > > > I am suggesting > > > they work on this together. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I typed all of the above, and now you're agreeing with me. Hee hee. > Shoulda read ahead! 's okay, I've been doing the same! > > I see it little differently. Way back when, when Tad and Mrs. Ted > > picked each other as spouses, Ted was too intimidated to express [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > self started clamoring so loud, it just *sounded* to him like he had > changed. When he talks about the personality change, I keep thinking he had a period of self discovery, rather then a true change from one personality to another. He allowed more of it to show. > > At this stage in their relationship, 30 years later into a rather > > emotionally dysfunctional relationship, I'm sure they've both snipped > > at the otehr enough to find it unsafe to be emotional around the other > > to a point it reinforces keeping it all in around your partner. > > Yep. And it's something they both need to work on. I can't tell you how many times I wished Mrs Ted was in here too, to have a few words with her as well. > > I always said that she couldn't possibly be emotionally satisfied. For > > one becasue we only hear Teds side in here, because Ted every now slips [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > intimate one-on-one. They watch t.v. And Mrs Ted throws up those > roadblocks. I was imagining their evenings as her doing her own thing, and Ted posting in the other room. > I think you are right though, and in therapy this could be a useful > example: Ted could agree to stay home more, Mrs Ted could agree to work > on her roadblock behavior, and they both could agree to turn off the > t.v. See how much better that is then Ted simply agreeing to be at home > more? Even if Ted didn't actually stay at home more, if they had more one on one time, she would notice it a lot less when he is not home. At least that's how it works for me. A synopsys of a discussion I had with my BF just this weekend. We spent several days in a row doing various fun activities together, but really didn't have the opportunity to have a few deeply intimate moments. I mentioned to him how it's been a while since I've seen him, and he immediately recanted, it was only yesterday that you didnt't see me, you saw me each day for 4 days prior, and we saw each other this afternoon. My first response to him was, oops, I didn't really say what I mean't, I'm sorry. What I tried to expres that even thought we saw each other, we didn't have a chance for those quiet intimate snuggly moments, and I'm craving them. That, he agreed that it's been a while. With him, even though he doesn't get the same craving as I do, he enjoys them very much. He on the other hand gets cravings for other things, like doing fun activities together, much more then I do. What I was getting to with that anecdote was that after my intimacy craving is satisfied, I can go for several days without seeing him, and not feeling like I'm not seeing him enough, and vice versa, when we do fun activities together, he can get busy and not notice the time has flown by. > > I even commented to that effect to Teds post accounting the hours spent > > at homse vs. outside, suggesting that she is wanting more intimacy and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > she's not all that fun to be around. If she wasn't nagging him all the > time, then yeah, I have no doubt Ted would never leave the house! True. Corollary to that would be that for the situation to improve someone is going to have to go and be the first one to bite the bullet and do something they really don't feel like doing. heh, I was just thinking, you're in the emphatizing mode, I'm in the put the feelings aside foir the moment and fix it already, mode. Aside from that, I think we pretty much agree on things. > I'm little unclear on that point, knowing how Ted said mnany times that > she was perfectly happy with how things are, and now in the survey she > says she isn't... Thinking out loud here, Ted's statememnts how she was > happy with how things were probably speaks more to the magnitude of Ted > not understanding her. Sure. Can we surmise here that Ted isn't the only one not articulating himself and witholding? > > I think Mrs Ted does grumble about therapy, but it sounds like more and > > more she is getting something satisfying out of the experience. This > > last session and the session before it she sounded eager and excited. > > Maybe I confused somethig? I thought prior to this last session she > grumbled about how she'd rather die then go to another one of those... Yes, but prior to this last session, when the therapist gave them the survey assignment, she was all excited about the survey. See, she grumbles but I'm not convinced she gets nothing out of therapy. > How do we explain her statements about how she thinks the appointments > are a waste of money, and where she is complaining how her opinion > doesn't seem to count? To me that says that she is feeling like she > doesn't have a choice. (Whether she has a choice or not, that's a > different story. I'm focusing on what little feedback we get about her > feelings.) Have you ever done something you know is good for you, and grumbled about it? I know a lot of people who grumble about going to the gym, but once they're on the treadmill they are happy they went. > Give you an example, ifsomeone knows my insecurities (like Ted knows > about her fear of him leaving her), and then uses them to convince me [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > like that, and believing that she is a willing and interested > participant. I get the impression Mrs Ted is just a grumpy pessimistic person in general, one who enjoys bitching and complaining. I doubt that's going to stop, although I should hope that therapy teaches her to point it less at her DH. I think there are people in this world who just like to kvetch! > I hope so, although, I've never known hitting the spot that already > hurts to be a good learning tactic. Then why are you doing that to Ted? > Usuallyu the pain gets so > overwhelming that the person needing the lesson ends up not being [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > uncontrolled environments like out there in the freeform RL, with no > guidance, it can be destructive. Then why are you doing that to Ted? > I do deliberately kick him just for that reason. > I figure, if he gets to a point he can make a good strong stand here, > he might be able to softly tell his wife, no Dear, I'm not going to do > this for you, and stand by it. But read what you just wrote above! jen > Then why are you doing that to Ted? I was going to ask the same question. It made me feel a little bit like a puppy dog she was trying to train. -- Ted > > I'm little unclear on that point, knowing how Ted said mnany times that > > she was perfectly happy with how things are, and now in the survey she [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sure. Can we surmise here that Ted isn't the only one not articulating > himself and witholding? I don't know, I've seen Ted paraphrase or describe certain actions by Mrs. Ted that to me, they spoke that she isn't happy (over the last couple of years I've been reading), and Ted didn't seem to take them as her being unhappy, and would claim that she was happy, because she said once or twice that she was happy. To me, those contradicted, but I haven't raised the question because I figured without Mrs. Ted I doubted that I'd get any meaningful clarification out of Ted. I just made a mental note to myself thinking, I just don't see how Mrs Ted could possibly be happy. When Ted posted the results of the intiomacy survey, I thought to myself, A-HA, I knew it! It seems to me that, even though she has a lot of room for improvement, Mrs. Ted articulates a lot more feelings (espacially the unhappy parts) then Ted recognizes. Even nagging and negative comments towards Ted, however dysfunctional they may be, is still some form of expressing feelings of displeasure. > > > I think Mrs Ted does grumble about therapy, but it sounds like more and > > > more she is getting something satisfying out of the experience. This [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > survey assignment, she was all excited about the survey. See, she > grumbles but I'm not convinced she gets nothing out of therapy. Mrs Ted does appear to send a number of mixed signals. > > How do we explain her statements about how she thinks the appointments > > are a waste of money, and where she is complaining how her opinion [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Have you ever done something you know is good for you, and grumbled > about it? If I do grumble about it, I make sure that people don't see it as a serious objection, but rather more benign huffing and puffing. It doesn't seem like Ted takes Mrs. Ted's complaints as benign huffing and puffing. So, I don;t know how seriously she was excited, or how seriously she grumbled. This is actually just the reason I don;t try to dissect a whole lot of Mrs. Ted's actions. I can't tell how objective Ted's reports of her behavior and comments are to start with, and she's not here to clarify herself. We can discuss that you took Ted's paraphrase of her comment one way, and I took it another way, and neither one of us has a way of confirming which is closer to the truth. What I'm cautious about though is that Ted is already biased in wanting got Mrs Ted to do more work, so he'd have to do less (at least that's how it looks to me), so I'm really not inclined to encourage him in that aspect. If Mrs. Ted does get something out of therapy and if she is amiable to some change, it will happen withoput Ted discussing it to the n-th degree, and if he gets the idea that he may be able to apply some pressure on her to make it happen sooner, I gather that she is ambivalent enough about the whole thing that I'm concerned that putting more pressure on her may cause a slowdown. I think Ted needs more of encouragement to wortk on himself then he needs to be thinking his wife is more willing then she is. > I know a lot of people who grumble about going to the gym, > but once they're on the treadmill they are happy they went. Sure, that happens. Unfortunately I can just see Ted reading all this and decided that he should pressure her more. I mean he keeps coming in here looking for angles how to get Mrs. Ted to do this or that. I donl't want to give him encouragement. > > Give you an example, ifsomeone knows my insecurities (like Ted knows > > about her fear of him leaving her), and then uses them to convince me [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > less at her DH. I think there are people in this world who just like to > kvetch! Her kvetching is I think one of the things that bother Ted immensely, so I gather. If that is not likely to change as a result of therapy, then we're giving Ted false hope. What I gather from Ted is that he wants his wife to be cheery and affectionate, and act like she is in love with him all over again. I'd rather suggest Ted that he learns to not take her kvetching as seriously and to heartas he does now, rather then to lead him to believe it's going to change a lot. I'm saying this in a prism of what I think Ted will get out of the encouragement, knowing that he often hears only the parts he *wants* to hear. I think he very badly wants to hear that his wife is changeable. If he gets a glimmer of hope, and it doesn't happen in the timeframe of his partience, he'll feel even more hopeless, it will be yet another letdown. > > I hope so, although, I've never known hitting the spot that already > > hurts to be a good learning tactic. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > But read what you just wrote above! I think you either deliberately ignored or missed what I was describing. There is a difference between him getting hurt randomly IRL because he doesn't know the boundaries, and there's noone around him to explain why exactly he got hurt, and he's not likely to really understand what happened on his own, and a guided corrective process, where someone makes sure that aside from a kick, a person understand why they got kicked, and how to not get kicked again. > What I'm cautious about though is that Ted is already biased in wanting > got Mrs Ted to do more work, so he'd have to do less (at least that's > how it looks to me), so I'm really not inclined to encourage him in > that aspect. I do get the impression Ted would love it if Mrs Ted went first. Much less scary that way. But I don't necessarily get the impression that if she did go first, he would do any less work than her. I think the floodgates would open.... > If Mrs. Ted does get something out of therapy and if she is amiable to > some change, it will happen withoput Ted discussing it to the n-th > degree, Do you think Ted discusses it to the n-th degree now? I think he does here - but I definetly get the impression he discusses *too little* rather than *too much* at home and in therapy. > and if he gets the idea that he may be able to apply some > pressure on her to make it happen sooner, I gather that she is > ambivalent enough about the whole thing that I'm concerned that putting > more pressure on her may cause a slowdown. This apply pressure thing... I keep wondering how you got that impression. On the contrary, I have seen more evidence that Ted doesn't apply any pressure at all (other than requesting her to join him in counseling). Rather, he treats her like a fragile, delicate child with a possible personality disorder, who might break if he applies any bit of pressure at all! Instead, he has brought her to therapy hoping that the counselor would help apply the pressure at just the right points and in the right amounts. And to that end, we know very well that Ted has been exceedingly patient when the counselor has *not* applied pressure and therapy has proceeded at a glacial pace. So I am not getting this "apply pressure" at all. > I think Ted needs more of encouragement to wortk on himself then he > needs to be thinking his wife is more willing then she is. "Work on himself" is rather vague. Can we be more specific? What things could he do differently? Because on the contrary I think Ted has spent possibly too much time "working on himself" in the sense of analyzing himself, taking personality sorters, pondering his childhood, etc. :-) I admit many of your posts to Ted I breeze over, but this is the impression I get from what I have scanned: you feel that he needs to learn to get a backbone. You are testing him continually hoping one day he snaps at you and shows he can set boundaries and "fight back." Is this what you mean by "working on himself?" Is this the behavior you think he needs to learn? Because if so, I think Ted is probably right in his assessment of Mrs Ted, and if he snapped at Mrs Ted like you appear to want him to snap at you, I believe it would make the situation far worse. Instead of one nagging grumbling spouse, they will have a marriage with two nagging grumbling spouses! I think Ted has exhibited instead a very polite, civil way of gently exerting his boundaries with you and others. I think that is far better than encouraging him to throw a nasty tizzy fit and give Mrs Ted back tit-for-tat. Apologies if I have misread your intentions, it just seems to me that is what you are aiming for here. I could be totally wrong! > > I know a lot of people who grumble about going to the gym, > > but once they're on the treadmill they are happy they went. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > here looking for angles how to get Mrs. Ted to do this or that. I > donl't want to give him encouragement. And I see that Ted just gets deflated way too easily when Mrs Ted grumbles. Weird how we can both read the same thing, and interpret it totally differently? > Her kvetching is I think one of the things that bother Ted immensely, > so I gather. > If that is not likely to change as a result of therapy, then we're > giving Ted false hope. This is what I think Ted needs and is now ready to hear: constructive, highly specific suggestions on how he could act and behave towards his wife, rather than vague generalizations to "work on himself." In this case, I would like to suggest that Ted stand firm with a guiding principle that kvetching is okay (and probably just a natural part of Mrs Ted he will never change), but kvetching *at him* is *NOT* okay. There is a difference. > What I gather from Ted is that he wants his wife to be cheery and > affectionate, and act like she is in love with him all over again. Don't we all want that in a marriage? > I'd rather suggest Ted that he learns to not take her kvetching as > seriously and to heartas he does now, rather then to lead him to > believe it's going to change a lot. Sure, the kvetching that is not aimed at him. I don't know why he should have to put up with the criticisms that are aimed at him, and that make him feel dejected, rejected, and less than loving towards her? > I'm saying this in a prism of what > I think Ted will get out of the encouragement, knowing that he often > hears only the parts he *wants* to hear. Don't we all. :-) > I think he very badly wants to > hear that his wife is changeable. If he gets a glimmer of hope, and it > doesn't happen in the timeframe of his partience, he'll feel even more > hopeless, it will be yet another letdown. Okay, do you agree that her behaviors may be changeable? Do you agree that it is within Ted's rights, as part of the marriage, to request that she change certain behaviors that leave him feeling dejected, rejected and less than loving towards her? > I think you either deliberately ignored or missed what I was > describing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > makes sure that aside from a kick, a person understand why they got > kicked, and how to not get kicked again. Oops, I snipped my part of the post you were responding to here, so now I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you suggesting that Ted needs this corrective process that involves someone kicking him? jen > > What I'm cautious about though is that Ted is already biased in wanting > > got Mrs Ted to do more work, so he'd have to do less (at least that's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > she did go first, he would do any less work than her. I think the > floodgates would open.... <followed by more wonderful stuff> This post almost brought me to tears, Jen. Thanks for expressing what I was unable to, but would like to have. -- Ted > <followed by more wonderful stuff> > > This post almost brought me to tears, Jen. Thanks for expressing what I > was unable to, but would like to have. Heh! I'm on a roll this morning... check out my next post. :-) I am glad you were touched. It is nice to be understood, isn't it? Last night, i was thinking some more about the Keirsey/Idealist thing. As Idealists, you and I will spend our life time constantly seeking to be understood. It is a core part of our natural temperament - far more than any other type, we often feel misunderstood, and we crave it because it makes us feel all alone in this world. (We can get a bit arrogant about it too, enjoying our "special" status). I think my DH understands me fairly well, but I don't know if he's ever fully going to "get me" like another Idealist might. He gets me enough that I am quite happy, and I've also come to appreciate the value in other relationship needs beyond just being understood. This is something I hope you someday learn yourself: in our marriage, it's enough that DH acts/behaves a certain way to meet my needs, but he doesn't necessarily have to know intricately the *why* behind the *how.* Like you, I went through a period of time trying to get others to understand me. However, as time has gone on (in the past 5 or 6 years especially), I have come to appreciate the value in my personal gift of understanding *others.* I get a real thrill out of being able to understand others, particularly those who are totally unlike me - it's easy to understand fellow Idealists.... much more of a challenge to understand those of different types, but oh so very rewarding when you do. And it is a very big part of the reason why I spend so much durn time in this newsgroup. :-) So that is the flip side of being an Idealist. And I admit I like hearing that my read of you is accurate. I actually get a bigger thrill these days understanding others than when others understand me! jen > So that is the flip side of being an Idealist. And I admit I like > hearing that my read of you is accurate. I actually get a bigger thrill > these days understanding others than when others understand me! Understood (-: ! Sounds like part of the prayer of St. Francis has been answered for you: "Oh Divine Master, grant that I may seek not so much to be consoled, as to console, To be understood as to understand, To be loved, as to love another." -- Ted > i was thinking some more about the Keirsey/Idealist thing. First off, I am a) not trying to offend anyone b) not trying to get anyone to stop or anything like that.. that said: The second I see someone talk about Keirsey or Meyers Briggs or any of that I can literally feel my eyes glaze over.... I'm sure that means something to those that put a lot of stock in those tests. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >> i was thinking some more about the Keirsey/Idealist thing. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I'm sure that means something to those that put a lot of stock in those >tests. Oh, you are SUCH an INFT! Lauri in WA > Oh, you are SUCH an INFT! :::: glaze... (did you see the email I set ya this evening?) SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >> Oh, you are SUCH an INFT! > >:::: glaze... > >(did you see the email I set ya this evening?) No, not till now! I emailed you back. PS....I just made up the letters. I glaze over at the tests, too (no suprise there, eh?) Lauri in WA > > i was thinking some more about the Keirsey/Idealist thing. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The second I see someone talk about Keirsey or Meyers Briggs or any of > that I can literally feel my eyes glaze over.... Whereas I prick my ears up and get all interested. :-) It's OK, not everyone has to be interested in everything. I glaze over when people want to talk about gardening or astrology. >>> i was thinking some more about the Keirsey/Idealist thing. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > everyone has to be interested in everything. I glaze over when people > want to talk about gardening or astrology. I'm only mildly interested in Keirsey and Myers Briggs but I have to say they beat gardening and astrology (and Jung) by a wide margin! I had an interesting experience recently where I was professionally assessed as part of receiving some careers advice. The agency I was going though outsources this task to a specialist company and part of the process involved MB testing. Since I wasn't paying for the final report and had no intention of forking out mega dollars to have my own copy I was content to read it at the agency's office one day and don't have it to hand but I was interested to see that they came up with INFJ for me - something I'd determined for myself for free over the internet. (Of course the rest of the report was much more useful.) Anyway, as a nod to Jen's analysis of the various types which of course I can longer find, as my specific Idealist group encompasses only 1% of the total population I feel very "special" indeed! Seriously, various amounts of the several profile descriptions for my type that I've read resonate but some of it is way off although it may have been more accurate when I was younger. Tai Meant to respond to this part too: > I don't know, I've seen Ted paraphrase or describe certain actions by > Mrs. Ted that to me, they spoke that she isn't happy (over the last [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > When Ted posted the results of the intiomacy survey, I thought to > myself, A-HA, I knew it! Sure. This is what I think the dynamic is: 1) Mrs Ted berates and criticizes Ted over things like the budget. 2) Ted feels dejected and rejected and his self-esteem goes into the dumpster. He begins to resent her and bristle when she asks him to bring her tea, etc. He fantasizes about other women, which is a coping strategy since he is in the marriage for the long haul. He also tunes her out - another self-protective coping measure. 3) Because of #2, Mrs Ted feels less and less loved, and her satisfaction with their emotional and communication intimacy has reached an all-time low. 4) Every now and then, Ted attempts to rekindle the intimacy too, because he is also just as dissatisfied and unhappy. 5) Mrs Ted may indeed find this false or offputting of him, because she is just not feeling the love these days either. So the attempt falls on sterile ground and fails. 6) Also going on in the dynamic is Mrs Ted's frequent use of roadblocks to protect her own self from too much scrutiny. I believe Ted misinterprets these roadblocks as yet another form of rejection of him, when it may not be that. And her roadblocks feed into his developing belief that it is simply totally hopeless. 7) And then we have Ted's secret-keeping to add to all of it. He harbors intense guilt for having thoughts of other women, and for having horrible thoughts about his own DW. For a long while, I got the impression he has kept his mouth shut because he is afraid if he dares open it, all these nasty thoughts will come right out, and in the wrong way, and will not do anything constructive to help the marriage at all. He does not feel comfortable editing his words just so - so what he says is constructive and not plain hurtful - at least not at this stage of the game. And he knows if he was to open his mouth to her, it *would* be hurtful, because when he shares those unadorned thoughts here, we all tell him how cruel he is for even *thinking* those thoughts. So if that is the dynamic, can you see how Mrs Ted is shooting her own happiness in the foot? That Mrs Ted, as a participant in counseling, could change certain behaviors that may go a long way to improving both their satisfaction.... and not just Ted needs to change? jen > Meant to respond to this part too: For what it's worth, another on-the-mark analysis, with one exception. I have pretty much now been able to accept her kvetching (to use your word from the other post) as just part of her personality -- I can almost now not take it personally. If she sees something that's not the way it ought to be, she'll call it to my attention -- not because of me, particularly, just because that's the way it is. But my years of taking it personally have taken a toll and it's still hard to get out of reacting to it negatively. She also views it as her mission to keep me out of trouble, to help me avoid making mistakes so that too adds to some of the interactions in a negative way. Interestingly, I think that tendency became even more prevalent after my personality change -- she talks about me as a balloon on a string and her job is to keep me tied down to the earth. (You've seen the Meyer's-Briggs version of the serenity prayer haven't you? For an ENFP it goes something like "God grant me the serenity .... oh look at that bluebird...") I might as well also respond here to the part of what Kitty wrote that I was about to. My wife was pretty much happy until we started marriage counselling. She felt safe and secure and that everything was fine. She thought I was happy. It probably is the case that my admitting I was unhappy and asking her come to counselling drove her into some degree of situational depression, not unreasonable since as a naturally pessimistic person I suspect she's never far from that. That is what I regret most about having asked her to come, and if it weren't for a very strong conviction that we had to take that step my prophetic fears that that is what would happen would have stopped me. -- Ted I'll top post because I'm going to be brief but I think this is a really accurate assessment of what is going on with Ted and his wife, Jen. Tai >>> Consider my speculation yesterday: it's not that Ted wants his DW >>> to be emotionally orgasmic in her response, but that *Ted* wants to [quoted text clipped - 176 lines] > > jen > I'll top post because I'm going to be brief but I think this is a really > accurate assessment of what is going on with Ted and his wife, Jen. What she said! >> --------- >> Back to my commentary [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > can say a lot more than "I liked that a lot" without fear of his DW > rejecting him as some sort of sappy milquetoast kinda guy. He is operating under the assumption that she would reject him. > If his DW was all sappy and emotional over the music, then Ted could > *also* be sappy over it, without any fear she'd think he's odd. He's > had that sort of experience with the pharmacist and other women who are > freely emotional and Ted could let down his guard and be who he really > is, instead of pretend to his DW he's someone he's not. Someone who is not freely emotional is not necessarily devoid of emotion.. they are simply more reserved. > I really think that's what's going on with Ted. I think if you replace > every "I wish my DW would be like X" with "I wish *I* could safely be > like X with my DW accepting that" then you are closer to the truth and > what's going on in Ted's head. Note, I don't think he's even conscious > that's what he's doing. Perhaps that is what his subconscious desires, but IMO, he's made a conscious, active decision to not behave in manner X in front of his wife, not giving her the chance to accept or deny him or his feelings.. which is contradictory to what he is seeming to want. How many times has Ted posted what he *thought* she would say or do without his ever finding out? He's become a great big giant pessamist where she is concerned, believing only in the worst where she is concerned, so much so that he's scared himself away from having a real relationship with her. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > >> --------- > >> Back to my commentary [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > concerned, so much so that he's scared himself away from having a real > relationship with her. You said that so well! We really don't see what Mrs Ted is really like, we see Ted's distortions, and I really don't believe Ted can be very objective, even if he tried. > How many times has Ted posted what he *thought* she would say or do > without his ever finding out? He's become a great big giant pessamist > where she is concerned, believing only in the worst where she is > concerned, so much so that he's scared himself away from having a real > relationship with her. Have I scared myself or has she scared me? I don't expect you to know the answer to that because I don't myself. -- Ted >> How many times has Ted posted what he *thought* she would say or do >> without his ever finding out? He's become a great big giant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Have I scared myself or has she scared me? I don't expect you to know > the answer to that because I don't myself. I'd say it's probably a combo of both, but since you, at least are now aware that you are, it's in your ability to make the changes necessary in yourself and your reactions to her. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > >> > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > >> > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > crash; but if the third chair picalo botches a slur, I probably won't even realize it. > LOL! Still, I can't imagine remaining emotionless throughout an entire concert. But how would you show/demonstrate your feelings? I am a calm, sedate person from a cultural background where people are sometimes considered poker faced. I still have thoughts. Some of my thoughts are enthusiastic responses (is that a feeling? - it can, as you say, be based on complex intellectual/memory based responses to certain instruments, songs, themes, etc. - is it a feeling? who decides?) Most of my thoughts, while at concerts, center around my own personal understanding of music, my relationship to pitch and harmonics, the struggle I've had as a musician to obtain a sense of harmonics and structure. Sadness - from the music - can break through, but it's rare it does so without my mental "permission." I almost never get swept up in fan-type feelings, although I would say I experience excitement, hyper-focus, sadness, happiness, and other things, mixed into my mind. If Mrs. Ted is sitting there catatonic, I'd like to have that clarified. If her responses are, "The other flute player was better, what _was_ her name, let me check the program, I think her technique was better..." She's similar to me, then. For any performance to move me beyond that would be amazing. I'm quite different at movies, although I rarely cry. Whenever I do cry (and I do) at movies, my DH is tearing up too. I'd freak out, though, if he was all mushy-emotional at something I thought was just intellectual. His responses are often more emotional than mine, but still complex, and he doesn't see much point in discussing his "feelings" about Dumbo's mommy being kidnapped or whatever it is. He has his experience during the event, I have mine, often they do coincide though - and I think that's Ted's point. Of course, I don't think Ted has any clue whatsoever about how to actually approach other people, especially women, or what might possibly being going on in someone's mind. In very fact that Mrs. Ted _goes_ to the symphony with Ted indicates to me that she is probably a very bright woman. The technical and mathematical qualities of music that appealed to Bach or Goedel could very well appeal to her. Mrs. Einstein (the original one) had mathematical responses to nearly everything, so do many others. Some people "see" music in colors - no feelings involved, etc. Some people are like that, in general. They still bond to others, are a source of companionship and are, in fact, true persons and human beings. So the mere fact that Ted wants to gush all over the flute player while Mrs. Ted "feels nothing" is of no import to me, except as it points out once again that Ted married the "wrong person." The rather stunning analysis (was it Kitty? - I'm still trying to remember names here) that Ted would only be happy with his own reflection has been avoided by Ted, as he still posts as if he expects his wife to change (or something to happen). Maybe not. Maybe this is just one long outlet of mourning for Ted. I don't think supporting lifelong grief over a bad marriage is the same thing as supporting marriage, at all. I'm still awaiting proof that Ted himself feels anything (he doesn't seem to - although there seems to be a sense of superiority over Mrs. Ted that comes through consistently). But _feeling_ for her, as in compassion, love, honor, respect, interest, whatever you want to call those (I call them mental states or attitudes) - I don't see it. His projections onto the flute player are likely inaccurate - I've many times performed myself and been told how much "feeling" there was in the performance, and there was none, I assure you, from my point of view, even the tilt of the instrument was strategized, planned, quizzed on and then performed. Method actors are the same way - and there are definitely method musicians. The other style of musician (emotive) exists as well. Most good musicians can do both. The "crazy" severe performers of the 1930's were, in fact, acting - according to every biography I've read of them. A. - I do smile a lot, though. You'd be really unlikely at most times to figure out what I'm feeling or why, though. >...Some people "see" music in colors - no feelings involved, etc... I'd like to know what you mean: "see" music in colors". I think I come close to that, when I listen to Handel's Messiah, or maybe The Best of The Strawberry Alarm Clock. _______________________ Play with fire! Zildjan drum sticks > >...Some people "see" music in colors - no feelings involved, etc... > > I'd like to know what you mean: "see" music in colors". Google "synaesthesia." It's quite interesting. >>> Best I can tell, Mrs.Ted 'shares' in that she goes with him and she >>> loves the symphony... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > emotion really is vastly different from showing emotion for different > things. For Ted, anything less than her feeling the same as he felt during any given passage is her being emotionless. If she is looking at the program when he's moved to tears by something on the stage, he finds her lacking. > Possibly Ted said one thing at some point, and something > different at another time? I don't know. IMHO, regardless of whether he's said it specifically or not, his comments over the last several years have pointed to the fact that he has a strong need for a mirror, and anything less is cold and heartless. I do think that Shinypenny is possibly on to something in regards to his wanting to feel safe to show his emotions and feels that if she would show (the ones HE wants to show to her).. then he would feel safe in doing so. But, IMHO, that is on him.. the fact that he can't bring himself to just be himself.. be who he wants and needs to be sits squarely on himself. > I just realized, as a percussionist, I'd get really excited about a > well-played cymbal crash; but if the third chair picalo botches a > slur, I probably won't even realize it. LOL! Still, I can't imagine > remaining emotionless throughout an entire concert. And I would expect that someone who loves the symphony as much as Ted says his wife does probably isn't emotionless, either. I don't recall his mentioning HER FOO, perhaps her upbringing has something to do with her hiding from him.. or perhaps she is aware of how much disdain he has for her and is unwilling to put her deep emotions out there for him to negatively judge. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > >>> Best I can tell, Mrs.Ted 'shares' in that she goes with him and she > >>> loves the symphony... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > For Ted, anything less than her feeling the same as he felt during any > given passage is her being emotionless. Why is it so important to you to maintain this is true for Ted when he's never said this? > > >>> Best I can tell, Mrs.Ted 'shares' in that she goes with him and she > > >>> loves the symphony... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Why is it so important to you to maintain this is true for Ted when > he's never said this? Doug, Cal is not the only one to glean this from Ted's posts. I totally get that you interpret it differently, and I'm not going to sit here and argue with you that your interpretation is wrong. But, it is quite annoying when you insist that *others'* interpretations of what was said are wrong. The fact is, there are many interpretations of "The Ted Story". You have yours. Others have theirs. Why you insist on imposing your view of it is beyond me. Sheila >> For Ted, anything less than her feeling the same as he felt during any >> given passage is her being emotionless. > > Why is it so important to you to maintain this is true for Ted when > he's never said this? Because I believe he HAS said it many times... just today he again posted how he craves that whole shared "you too" experience. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >>> For Ted, anything less than her feeling the same as he felt during >>> any given passage is her being emotionless. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > posted how he craves that whole shared "you too" experience. This is > a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I don't know Cal, I don't think it goes as far as that first sentence. I'd find it hard to believe Ted's wife feels no emotions during a concert, she expresses a whole range of them at other times. However, it seems to me that if she's actually expressing an emotional response during and after a performance it's not in any form Ted is able to recognise and share. Since the Ted I know can and does understand emotional responses that differ from his own I don't see that he's demanding that she feels exactly as he does, it's more that he wishes there was some way that he could tap into just what it is she *is* feeling. That's my take on it and, as Sheila said, we all seem to have our own interpretations of Ted's words! Tai > >>> For Ted, anything less than her feeling the same as he felt during > >>> any given passage is her being emotionless. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > does, it's more that he wishes there was some way that he could tap into > just what it is she *is* feeling. But, Tai, it is more than that. He doesn't only not understand/see it, but he is disdainful of what he does see. He doesn't like it when she looks at the program, for instance, because it signifies to him that she is not sufficiently involved *emotionally* (for him). As a person who spends at least half the time with her Revels program open, I can tell you that a *good* part of my enjoyment of the concert is knowing the background of the music, being able to connect it to a particular culture, and so forth. But, the fact that I get a major part of my enjoyment from those things does not negate the fact that I enjoy the hell out of it. Ted says his wife loves the symphony. By definition, that means he has some idea of her feelings -- "love". And, since he has often complained about her over-intellectualizing it, I don't think he has to go far to tap into why she feels that way. > That's my take on it and, as Sheila said, we all seem to have our own > interpretations of Ted's words! > > Tai Indeed. :-) Sheila >>>>> For Ted, anything less than her feeling the same as he felt during >>>>> any given passage is her being emotionless. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > when she looks at the program, for instance, because it signifies to > him that she is not sufficiently involved *emotionally* (for him). Oh, yes, that's true as well and I've been among those to tell him he's being unreasonable about it. I suppose I'm seeing that sensitivity to such trivia as being along the lines of "I'm not getting what I want so I'm going to be picky about everything and go looking for more things to be irritated over ". Which is a very common (and unhelpful!) state to be in when we're unsatisfied with or annoyed about something we consider important in our partner's behaviour. Tai > >>>>> For Ted, anything less than her feeling the same as he felt during > >>>>> any given passage is her being emotionless. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > unsatisfied with or annoyed about something we consider important in our > partner's behaviour. Recently I read an article by a mental healt professional (I forget where) that this kind of nitpicking is building a case against someone in order to alleviate one's own guilt for not wanting to be with that personn any more. All of us would like to think we're good people, and a good person doesn't abandon nother good person, therefore we build a case of rationalizations to explain away why someone is a bad person (to a degree). This is especially the case when someone has difficulty asserting their wants and needs, and acts based on how their insecurities are driving them. I wish I rmember where I read or heard this, so I could post a link to the text... I may have been thumbing through past issus of psychology today in my doc's office, or read it online, It was few months ago... Anyway, having read thtarticle i'm wonderin if we're not seeing Ted doing some of that (among other thngs) > >>> For Ted, anything less than her feeling the same as he felt during > >>> any given passage is her being emotionless. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > does, it's more that he wishes there was some way that he could tap into > just what it is she *is* feeling. Of curse he could, he could ask her about more detail, have more lead in then just "I liked that a lot" or ct curious ratherthen take it as a form of rejection that her first comment was intellectual rather then emotional. He just needs to grow a tad of courage to do this, which won't happen till he learns to do things in spite of experiencing fears and discomforts associated with doing it. That doesn't happen by avoiding the uncomfortable. > Since the Ted I know can and does understand emotional responses that differ > from his own I don't see that he's demanding that she feels exactly as he > does, it's more that he wishes there was some way that he could tap into > just what it is she *is* feeling. And also that somehow she would acknowledge and accept what *I* am feeling. (You don't need to add, "how can she acknoweldge and accept it if she doesn't know what you are feeling?") There have been a few times where the feelings have been so strong it was clear something was going on -- and her response was one I interpreted, perhaps wrongly, as trying to squash those feelings. -- Ted > > Since the Ted I know can and does understand emotional responses that > differ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > response was one I interpreted, perhaps wrongly, as trying to squash those > feelings. Which is only natural for a person uncomfortable with expressing a lot of feelings, which is the type you married. > Which is only natural for a person uncomfortable with expressing a lot > of feelings, which is the type you married. Made bed, lie in it. Right? -- Ted >> Which is only natural for a person uncomfortable with expressing a lot >> of feelings, which is the type you married. > >Made bed, lie in it. Right? I wasn't thinking so much that as I was thinking if it wouldn't make it a tad easier on you if you learned to not take It as personally as you seem to. > >> Which is only natural for a person uncomfortable with expressing a lot > >> of feelings, which is the type you married. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it a tad easier on you if you learned to not take It as personally as > you seem to. You were writing to me, so of course I took that personally. Once I started to understand some of the personality stuff, believe it or not, I was able to take the situation itself less personally -- while it's still difficult, I generally am able to, for instance, take her criticisms as a critcism of the state of how things are and not as a criticism of me: it is just her nature to critique things and that has little to do with me (I jjust happen to be there.) Ted > >> For Ted, anything less than her feeling the same as he felt during any > >> given passage is her being emotionless. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > example of what I'm talking about. > -- Can I jump in? Some of what is going on in a lot of these exchanges, I think, is that I talk about individual situations and we all generalize from them in different ways -- me included. Yes, I do especially cherish those generally rare "you too?" moments I have had with others and I hope nobody faults me for that. As best I can recall, I have *never* had such a moment with my wife and I very much wish it were otherwise. The symphony is one of the few things we do together where I see there is a chance we might have that -- and so, when there happens to be a time where I am reacting very strongly to the piece I feel cheated that she isn't -- and that, for the most part, she isn't even aware that I am, even though my body is giving off all sorts of signals. So, I complain that she isn't reacting emotionally to the music in some situation and you read that as my wanting her to react to it the same way I do, all the time. The case of the concert where she came down with a coughing fit was especially frustrating -- because it was some of her favorite music and she *did* start to show some of the strength of her feeling for it by taking my hand the moment it started -- and held it for the longest time, until the coughing fit happened. Ted > > >>> Best I can tell, Mrs.Ted 'shares' in that she goes with him and she > > >>> loves the symphony... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Why is it so important to you to maintain this is true for Ted when > he's never said this? Because she is talking about what she has seen, an you keep insisting she doesn't see what she sees merely because you choose to interpret it differently. It's a bit disrespectful that you insist she didn't see what she saw. it's a little bit like challenging someones caacity for judgement and sanity beause you disagree with them. It's pretty likely that it would put a person on a defensive track. Your interpretation of your perception of what may be true for ted is no more or less credible then Cal's. Why do you insist that yours is better or closer to the truth then hers? I doubt that either of you read *all* of ted's posts, and have probably seen or missed details that shaped each opinion. > > > >>> Best I can tell, Mrs.Ted 'shares' in that she goes with him and she > > > >>> loves the symphony... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > differently. It's a bit disrespectful that you insist she didn't see > what she saw. Has she seen Ted? I think not, but I'll stand corrected if wrong. If I'm right, then all she has to go on is what Ted has written here. In which case she's seen the same things I've seen. If she decides to interpret Ted as meaning something he didn't actually say, she is of course entitled to do that. But it isn't "disrespectful" for me to correct her about what Ted actually said. Ted's words are available on google. > Has she seen Ted? I think not, but I'll stand corrected if wrong. No, and I never said I did. I *have* seen what he's posted, though and I think you know that is what she meant and find your comments way more sarcastic than what I said that you claimed was sarcastic. > If I'm right, then all she has to go on is what Ted has written here. > In which case she's seen the same things I've seen. > > If she decides to interpret Ted as meaning something he didn't > actually say, she is of course entitled to do that. No, I've interpreted what he has said, not what he hasn't. > But it isn't > "disrespectful" for me to correct her about what Ted actually said. Except that your opinion on what he's said is not necessarily any more accurate than mine.. it simply is your opinion. > Ted's words are available on google. Right.. and based on what he's said about his wife and his 'emotional affair' women, I don't believe I've said anything that is inaccurate. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > > Has she seen Ted? I think not, but I'll stand corrected if wrong. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Except that your opinion on what he's said is not necessarily any more > accurate than mine.. it simply is your opinion. And repeatedly trying to correct an opinion of another adult (Like Doug is doing to you in this case) is disrespectful. > > Ted's words are available on google. > > Right.. and based on what he's said about his wife and his 'emotional > affair' women, I don't believe I've said anything that is inaccurate. I agree with you here on all points. > > > Has she seen Ted? I think not, but I'll stand corrected if wrong. > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > And repeatedly trying to correct an opinion of another adult (Like Doug > is doing to you in this case) is disrespectful. If an adult says "A cat is a small dog" and you correct them, is that disrespectful? If someone says "Kitty thinks the moon is made of green cheese" and you point out that Kitty hasn't said that, is that disrespectful? If you think so, then you have a good basis for thinking I'm disrespectful. I don't think either of those things counts as disrespectful myself. But, to quote my daughter, "whatever." > > > Ted's words are available on google. > > > > Right.. and based on what he's said about his wife and his 'emotional > > affair' women, I don't believe I've said anything that is inaccurate. > > I agree with you here on all points. Interesing that neither of you can document Cal's claim that >> Mrs.Ted 'shares' in that she goes with him and she >> loves the symphony, the problem is she does not react to the >> symphony >> the exact same way as Ted, she is not moved by the same passages, >> she does not show the same exact emotions that Ted shows > I don't recall his mentioning HER FOO, perhaps her upbringing has > something to do with her hiding from him.. or perhaps she is aware of how > much disdain he has for her and is unwilling to put her deep emotions out > there for him to negatively judge. More FAQ stuff (and it is in those 7 pages) -- She is the youngest of three siblings, but what one would call an "afterthought" -- her sister is 8 years older than she and her brother was 10 years older. He died of a sudden heart attack 13 years ago. Her parents were divorced when she was an infant -- as the story was told me, her mother was given the divorce papers on my wife's 1st birthday. (My wife speculates her mother got pregnant that third time in hopes of saving the marriage.) Her father ran off with his secretary. When she was 3 (or possibly 4; I may have the year wrong) she contracted polio and was isolated from her family for several months in a polio hospital -- only her mother could visit and she couldn't even come in the facility -- she had to climb the fire escape and talk to her daughter through the window. Her brother was essentially a father surrogate. Her mother was a nurse and they had a pretty hard life after the divorce. Her sister also very much acted in a parental role and my wife remembers she wasn't allowed to get involved in household chores -- she was too little or too ill. -- Ted > More FAQ stuff (and it is in those 7 pages) -- huh? SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > > More FAQ stuff (and it is in those 7 pages) -- > > huh? You may not have seen the post where I mentioned I had written my life story down for our therapist before my first visit with him. All the family of origin stuff (mine and my wife's) that I then knew about was in it, including the answer to the question you asked. Ted >> > More FAQ stuff (and it is in those 7 pages) -- >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > family of origin stuff (mine and my wife's) that I then knew about was > in it, including the answer to the question you asked. Oh, okay. I thought you had posted a Ted FAQ somewhere. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > > > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > > > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Now we can choose not to _believe_ what Ted says, but misrepresenting > it is doing him a disservice. I don't agree with you on this. I've seen plenty of times Ted describe his wife's emotion, like intellectual admiration for the perfoprmers, or dissatisfaction with something, or comfort or discomfort with the setting etc. Unless she shows the same or similar emotion that Ted is experiencing, he'll see it as no emotion. On the other hand, remembering how frustrated Ted gets when she does show emotion, she's probably learned to withold a lot of it over the years. Ted wants emotion when it suits him, but when she is actually having feelings, he's annoyed by them. He wants her to have feelings that he thinks she ought to be having at any given moment - is the way Ted comes across to me. > > > > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > > > > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > his wife's emotion, like intellectual admiration for the > perfoprmers, That isn't an emotion. > or dissatisfaction with something, or comfort or discomfort with the > setting etc. And that isn't about the music. So I stand uncorrected on this. > > > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > > > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Now we can choose not to _believe_ what Ted says, but misrepresenting > it is doing him a disservice. In any case, it's Ted's problem. There's nothing wrong with having purely intellectual responses to symphonies - or anything else. Many times, I have no clue what other people mean by "feelings" about things - I have responses, I put them in words, they are considered intellectual by most. Sometimes I am not like that, sometimes I'm very moved. But should I be watched for my responses? Ick, no. INDIVIDUATION. Individuation is grand - and two people are often more interesting than one. Anyway, if Ted married Mz Spock instead of Mz Rampal, he still has to deal with it. If Mrs. Ted _never_ has had a feeling in her life, or never shows one, that's still the person he married. If she has changed since they married...I wonder why. Does anyone know? What was their wedding like? Did Mrs. Ted beam as she walked down the aisle? Does Ted know where his wedding album is? Can he check? What's the expression on her face then? Or was it elopement/never any feelings from the beginning? A. > > > > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > > > > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > having purely intellectual responses to symphonies - or anything > else. Of course there is nothing wrong with it. My point was simply that Cal was misrepresenting what Ted has said. > > > > > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > > > > > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > My point was simply that Cal was misrepresenting what Ted has said. And my point is that if your representation of what Ted has said (and we'll never hear any clarification from Ted himself, is my bet - so he manages to split you and Cal) - then his wife is an almost unheard of casebook study. In fact, as emotion is defined in psychology and neuroscience, what Ted describes is _impossible_. A person without the special neurons called the limbic system (the seat of emotions) threading from the brain stem to the cortex would be...catatonic or worse. Unheard of, anyway. So Cal has replaced the realism to Ted's posts, and you point out that Ted's actual posts depict either 1) an impossible woman or a 2) one of a kind on the planet, mutant human being. Either way, Ted has a problem with distorting reality. A. > > > > > > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > > > > > > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > manages to split you and Cal) - then his wife is an almost unheard of > casebook study. In that case the casebooks need some work. I've seen _plenty_ of people at classical music concerts showing no emotion whatsoever at the music. I suggest some new casebooks for you as this turns out to be not impossible at all. > > > > > > > So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience > > > > > > > with you? Why not!? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I suggest some new casebooks for you as this turns out to be not > impossible at all. we were talking about experiencing no emotion, not showing no emotion. There *is* a difference, you know. >> Best I can tell, Mrs.Ted 'shares' in that she goes with him and she >> loves the symphony, the problem is she does not react to the symphony [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > He has posted extensively. But what he has posted is different from > what you just posted. No, I don't believe that to be the case. > She does not seemed to be moved by _any_ passages, shows _no_ > emotions, etc., etc. Because he is unable to decipher her feelings or emotions does not mean they aren't there. > Do you think that is a little different from what you've written? What you wrote is certainly different than what I wrote.. I just don't happen to agree with you. > Now we can choose not to _believe_ what Ted says, but misrepresenting > it is doing him a disservice. I disagree with this, I've not misrepresented anything. I'll agree that she doesn't show the kind of emotion he is looking for, but the very fact that she loves the symphony [as he's said quite often, even in this current thread] means there is something there, he's just unable to accept and appreciate that people are different and will have different emotions to the same event. But, no, I don't agree that someone who loves the symphony can be said to have no emotion or feelings about it. That is simply Ted not allowing for his wife to differ, which is where I started with this thread. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > >> Best I can tell, Mrs.Ted 'shares' in that she goes with him and she > >> loves the symphony, the problem is she does not react to the symphony [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Because he is unable to decipher her feelings or emotions does not mean > they aren't there. Of course. And the fact that they might be there does not mean she shows them. > > Do you think that is a little different from what you've written? > > What you wrote is certainly different than what I wrote.. I just don't > happen to agree with you. I wonder if you can find anything Ted wrote to justify your account of what he wrote. After all, you and I can have opinions about what Ted wrote, but it is on the record. > > Now we can choose not to _believe_ what Ted says, but misrepresenting > > it is doing him a disservice. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have no emotion or feelings about it. That is simply Ted not allowing for > his wife to differ, which is where I started with this thread. Ted says she _shows_ no emotion. I don't think he said she _has_ no emotion. He doesn't know about that. > Ted says she _shows_ no emotion. I don't think he said she _has_ no > emotion. He doesn't know about that. yeah, on one hand ted whines about her sowing no emotion, and on the other hand he describes her as having emotions, just not the ones he is hoping for. I guess you missd those posts. I'm looking at your reponse to ted's hread about the symphony, BTW, you were the first to respond, with this: -------- I could say any of the 5 choices you listed, depending of course on what I thought of the music. (I'm not a huge Strauss fan, though I like Elektra. So I might well say (c) with just a tad of irony in my voice.) Ted, I don't know if I'm reading too much into this post. But micro-interpreting your wife's remarks rather than telling her what you want continues to seem like an unhealthy way to handle a relationship to me. -------- hen kater on in the thread you are speculating that how what Ted's wife sad must ave been with a touch of irony... Doug, irony is a away of demonstrating emotion. ------your post: I think if you say this, it _has_ to be with a hint of irony in your voice! ----- Later on i the same thread you stated this: ------ Ted, it _may_ be hopeless to expect emotional intimacy with your wife - I don't know. But if it is, it isn't hopeless for the reasons you are giving. You are wanting her to reveal her emotional state in a way which isn't "her." And that isn't going to happen. And this is what the responses tell you, by the way. There is nothing wrong with _any_ of thsoe responses. They just aren't what you want. I believe (since you haven't said anything to the contrary) that you are also still wanting her to "go first." It isn't reasonable to expect emotional intimacy from her when you are unwilling to be open with her yourself. -------- Doug, are you now recanting your assesment from the earlier thread (one I copied nd pasted for you here, your very commentary to Ted, which is much closer to what cal is saying then to what you ae claiming now. I wuld have sworn I'm reading you responding to Ted: ""You are wanting her to reveal her emotional state in a way which isn't "her." And that isn't going to happen. And this is what the responses tell you, by the way. There is nothing wrong with _any_ of thsoe responses. They just aren't what you want.""" Just how different in that statement of your t what Cal was saying here. I'm looking for difference of significant and more profound magnitude, not hairsplitting. > > Ted says she _shows_ no emotion. I don't think he said she _has_ no > > emotion. He doesn't know about that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hoping for. > I guess you missd those posts. Nope. He complains she shows no emotion at concerts. He doesn't describe her as having emotions he doesn't want at concerts. But what Cal turned that into was 'he'll only be happy if she mirrors his emotions precisely at concerts.' > But what Cal turned that into was 'he'll only be happy if she mirrors > his emotions precisely at concerts.' His statements in this thread have confirmed that he is looking for someone to mirror his feelings. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > > But what Cal turned that into was 'he'll only be happy if she mirrors > > his emotions precisely at concerts.' > > His statements in this thread have confirmed that he is looking for someone > to mirror his feelings. Right. That has been clear for years, and is a symptom of his enmeshment with his wife. However, that wasn't the statement of your which I objected to. You said this; the problem is she does not react to the symphony the exact same way as Ted, she is not moved by the same passages, she does not show the same exact emotions that Ted shows, she likes to look at the program during the performances, etc, etc. Which is not accurate (and which, I'll add, feels sarcastic to me). > > > But what Cal turned that into was 'he'll only be happy if she mirrors > > > his emotions precisely at concerts.' [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Which is not accurate (and which, I'll add, feels sarcastic to me). OMG, Doug, let it go already, and stop the confrontational judgemental comments. So what if there was a dose of sarcasam or a little bit of exaggeration in what Cal said. She's not the first or the last to ever use sarcasam and hyperbolize a tad. Big freaking deal. Leave her be. We don't all live up to your standards of hairsplittingly exact communications, and opinbions and conclusions identical to yours. You have to learn to give people more breathing room to have their opinions, without you turning into a hounding nag. And yes, seeing you nitpick Cal triggers all to vividly of the feelings I had when you were doing it to me, so I'm speaking up about it. Right wrong or indifferent, I don't care. > > > > But what Cal turned that into was 'he'll only be happy if she mirrors > > > > his emotions precisely at concerts.' [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > So what if there was a dose of sarcasam or a little bit of exaggeration > in what Cal said. Sh So nothing. She's allowed to do that. And I'm allowed to call her on it. >>>>> But what Cal turned that into was 'he'll only be happy if she mirrors >>>>> his emotions precisely at concerts.' >>>> >>>> His statements in this thread have confirmed that he is looking for someone >>>> to mirror his feelings. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > So nothing. She's allowed to do that. And I'm allowed to call her on > it. Hey, are we now allowed to make confrontational judgements in here? When did the door get opened?! > >>>>> But what Cal turned that into was 'he'll only be happy if she mirrors > >>>>> his emotions precisely at concerts.' [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Hey, are we now allowed to make confrontational judgements in here? When > did the door get opened?! Bill.... Step out of the equation. Now! > > > > > But what Cal turned that into was 'he'll only be happy if she mirrors > > > > > his emotions precisely at concerts.' [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > So nothing. She's allowed to do that. And I'm allowed to call her on > it. And I'm allowed to call you on on your *ahem* ___it. > However, that wasn't the statement of your which I objected to. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which is not accurate I don't happen to agree with you. (and which, I'll add, feels sarcastic to me). No, there was no sarcasm on that and there was none intended. This is what I believe he has said, not necessarily in those exact words, but his comments regarding her reactions added with the comments of how he's felt about the reactions of the 'other women' in his life in various situations is where I draw my conclusion from. Whether you agree with that conclusion may be a matter of discussion, but your accusations that I'm misrepresenting anything is far from accurate. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > > > Ted says she _shows_ no emotion. I don't think he said she _has_ no > > > emotion. He doesn't know about that. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But what Cal turned that into was 'he'll only be happy if she mirrors > his emotions precisely at concerts.' So she did. Sounds like a pretty logical conclusion on her part. Even if not necessarily one 100% supported by detailed facts. I don't see it necesary all those detail to be present for someone to voice their opinion. Anyway, to me the rest of the detail you are arguing is hairsplitting and shades of gray, which at the stage of a social conversation about it is very uninteresting and frustrating to me. I'd appreciate it if you'd let it be at this point and didn't follow up with judgemental remarks, like you've been known to do in the past. > Nope. He complains she shows no emotion at concerts. He doesn't > describe her as having emotions he doesn't want at concerts. > > But what Cal turned that into was 'he'll only be happy if she mirrors > his emotions precisely at concerts.' Yes, he wants a mirror. He's said he wants someone that will experience the symphony the way he does. Based on the multitude of other comments he's made regarding that issue as well as how he's reacted to someone when they do mirror his feelings in a given situation is where I drew this conclusion from. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > Yes, he wants a mirror. I agree with you Cal, except I'd reword that he "thinks" he wants a mirror. jen > > Yes, he wants a mirror. > > I agree with you Cal, except I'd reword that he "thinks" he wants a > mirror. I think what you wrote in another post recently puts it more accurately -- having nothing, in some areas, makes it look like I want everything, but that I'd find myself quite satisfied with a small amount. -- Ted > > > Yes, he wants a mirror. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > having nothing, in some areas, makes it look like I want everything, but > that I'd find myself quite satisfied with a small amount. Yet other times you make a statement that you really don't think you know what you want, and how much you'd be happy with. This usually leaves people trying to give you feedback trying to make educated gusees of what and how much you may want, based on a collection of what you say. > Yet other times you make a statement that you really don't think you > know what you want, and how much you'd be happy with. > This usually leaves people trying to give you feedback trying to make > educated gusees of what and how much you may want, based on a > collection of what you say. (trying to catch up on some posts I'd marked to come back to. Sheila and I are more alike than we probably want to admit!) Do you have trouble accepting the idea that I can't honestly say I know what I want since I've never had it? Do you have trouble accepting the idea that if I were "satisfied" with how things were in some area or areas that what bothers me in others no longer would -- or that it might take much less to make me happy about them too? I use, or accept, particular words to describe what I want because I think I understand what they mean (like emotional or conversational intimacy.) But If I had what others call emotional intimacy would that be what I want? I can't say for sure. I know, for instance, that when I talk about how powerful a particular kind of shared emotional/spiritual experience is for me, and how much I value that, that a lot of people don't seem to have a clue what I'm talking about. So if they can't understand me, why should I necessarily be able to understand them? Ted > > Yet other times you make a statement that you really don't think you > > know what you want, and how much you'd be happy with. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Do you have trouble accepting the idea that I can't honestly say I know > what I want since I've never had it? Not at all, if anything, that can be pretty normal. What I had in mind with that comment were couple other people jumping on my case for saying (to another poster) that you're not sure or don't know what it is you want, as if I was making a negative judgement on you and getting on your case, rather then repeating facts as I gathered them. People start arguing what possible solution about what may or may not be applicable to you, and get all huffy about it, all the while lot of those are pretty speculative, considering that you're yet to figure out or find what you want. > Do you have trouble accepting the > idea that if I were "satisfied" with how things were in some area or > areas that what bothers me in others no longer would -- That too is relatively normal, and I hope it would be applicable to you as well. > or that it > might take much less to make me happy about them too? That, I'm a little bit sceptical about. Perhaps my pictiure is skewed. Collection of your posts over time make me doubt this, but, collection of your posts could be giving a skewed picture, if you come here most of the time to vent (and not share other things that might give more objective view.) > I use, or accept, particular words to describe what I want because I > think I understand what they mean (like emotional or conversational [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So if they can't understand me, why should I necessarily be able to > understand them? This is one of the areas I think you'd benefit from working for a little bit with an individual therapist. It's one of the areas I see in you as having few red flags that could be worked on, but I don't think they're something you'll be able to effectively work out with people here online. >> Yes, he wants a mirror. > > I agree with you Cal, except I'd reword that he "thinks" he wants a > mirror. Yes, agreed. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >>> Yes, he wants a mirror. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Cal~ Probably true. But then again, I haven't met too many people who want - or can really handle - a mirror! > > Ted says she _shows_ no emotion. I don't think he said she _has_ no > > emotion. He doesn't know about that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hoping for. > I guess you missd those posts. That's happened just since I've been here - no googling. Example: wife has no feelings, yet wife seeks out his mother for sharing about his childhood. That shows motivation. If we're going to get into what's a feeling and what's not, that would be simply hilarious. But anything that motivates someone to do something is, in my book, some kind of feeling. Ted's wife has feelings by virtue of the fact that she gets dressed to go to the symphony - he just ignores that part (as he does with many of us) and goes right on with what he thinks she's up to (as he does with many of us). > I'm looking at your reponse to ted's hread about the symphony, BTW, you > were the first to respond, with this: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you want continues to seem like an unhealthy way to handle a > relationship to me. And then, there are other responses, such as acceptance. I still don't see why the big deal over the shared responses to a symphony, the symphony or symphonies in general. > -------- > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > - I don't know. But if it is, it isn't hopeless for the reasons you > are giving. Excellent way of putting it. And of course, he'll never know for sure _if_ it was hopeless, since he won't assume she has her reasons & feelings. > You are wanting her to reveal her emotional state in a way which isn't > "her." And that isn't going to happen. And this is what the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > expect emotional intimacy from her when you are unwilling to be open > with her yourself. Wow. I wondered about this part. Why doesn't he go first? Must be a history there. I wonder if he's one of those who is so hurt by responses to his feelings...he can't go first. > -------- > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'm looking for difference of significant and more profound magnitude, > not hairsplitting. Well, we're all on the same page, regardless of how long we've known Ted. A. >> So, she loves the symphony, but chooses not to share the experience >> with you? Why not!? > >Best I can tell, Mrs.Ted 'shares' in that she goes with him and she loves >the symphony, the problem is she does not react to the symphony the >*exact* same way as Ted... Thank you very much. That makes it perfectly clear to me. What a goofy attitude! I like it whenever someone enjoys a piece the same way I did; but I also like different views. If I disagree, that's okay because it is merely opinions, but sometimes, I can see things that I missed, and that's far better than never seeing them. I usually have to listen to a piece of music or a song many times, before I hear everything in it. Thanks again. ________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments. > Thank you very much. That makes it perfectly clear to me. What a goofy attitude! It also doesn't express my attitude quite right either. See the longer response to Jen I'm about to write. -- Ted > It also doesn't express my attitude quite right either. See the longer > response to Jen I'm about to write. Which one? SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > Women guy watch, but I think they are more discrete about it. Ha, > they know our fragile > egos can't handle it. LOL I don't think this is really true. I mean, sure, women will notice a good looking guy, but I really don't think we are always sort of scoping on auto-pilot the way men are. Of course, I'm only speaking for myself, and I can only go buy what guys say. But that's my impression anyway. Zorra > > Women guy watch, but I think they are more discrete about it. Ha, > > they know our fragile [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for myself, and I can only go buy what guys say. But that's my > impression anyway. Nah, there just aren't as many good looking guys to scope. Far more women take care of their appearance and dress to be scoped, than men do. DH never believed me on this until we tried an experiment. We sat and people-watched one whole afternoon, counting attractive men and women. There were about 10 eye-catching women to every single eye-catching man. Don't get me wrong - there are plenty of men who one would find attractive after one met them and started chatting them up, but on first appearance they don't necessarily catch your eye because unlike women they aren't trying to catch your eye. jen >> > Women guy watch, but I think they are more discrete about it. Ha, >> > they know our fragile [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >first appearance they don't necessarily catch your eye because unlike >women they aren't trying to catch your eye. Men aim elsewhere than eyes. Men's clothing is far blander than women's these days. Historically, it was either even or the men who dressed to impress. Only last couple centuries did it move to men in bland black (or, to be exotic, blue, and to be really really exotic, blue with pinstripes). But go in to the men's side of a clothing store and prepare to fall asleep. The women's side is colorful enough to blind. Even if a guy were trying to catch your eye by how he dressed, it has to be limited to exotica like 'oh, he's wearing a bland red tie instead of a bland blue tie', or throwing a sweater over his shoulder, or maybe the chain and medallion thing. They're all pretty bland in their own right, just that the reference point is so much blander, that these trivia are noticeable. Then again, since I don't have any fashion sense to speak of, it makes life easy for me. Comfortable pants and oxford broadcloth shirts for work. As none have noticeable colors (today's shirt is gray and white stripes) they all go together just fine and I don't have to worry about which shirt to wear with which pants. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences >Nah, there just aren't as many good looking guys to scope... > >Don't get me wrong - there are plenty of men who one would find >attractive after one met them and started chatting them up, but on >first appearance they don't necessarily catch your eye because unlike >women they aren't trying to catch your eye. I once read that men dress for women, and women dress for other women, too. I suppose that means both genders want the approval of women, and not so concerned about male approval. I really don't know. It just seemed like an interesting observation. ________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments. > Nah, there just aren't as many good looking guys to scope. Far more > women take care of their appearance and dress to be scoped, than men [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > first appearance they don't necessarily catch your eye because unlike > women they aren't trying to catch your eye. Whether an individual woman is trying to catch your eye (my wife definitely wouldn't want to be catching anybody's eyes!) or not, customs certainly push you all in that direction. Why? Because isn't it the case that in general men are more affected by an attractive woman than women by a handsome man? (Notice even the language tends to push us into using different terms.) -- Ted > Whether an individual woman is trying to catch your eye (my wife definitely > wouldn't want to be catching anybody's eyes!) or not, customs certainly push > you all in that direction. Why? Because isn't it the case that in general > men are more affected by an attractive woman than women by a handsome man? > (Notice even the language tends to push us into using different terms.) Not this woman!! I love looking at handsome, attractive men. It's just depressing because when we people watch there are too few to ogle. TBH (and I know I'll get chided for saying this), after a certain age, men are far more apt to let their waistlines go and not keep themselves up, compared to women of the same age. And they spend a lot less time on grooming and hygiene too, and are apt to throw on whatever wrinkled clothing they can find after a quick sniff test. Yes, I know this is a gross generalization, but just sit in a sidewalk cafe for a few hours and watch people go by, and see what I mean... you'll see women who've probably spent at least 30-40 minutes putting on their makeup, slathering on anti-aging cream, styling their hair, getting rid of the unibrow, picking out an outfit. Even those who don't spend hours dieting and exercising do seem to spend more time picking out styles that conceal figure flaws. For example, my biggest flaw is my gut. If I were a man, I might not give a crap and just wear a shirt tucked into my bulging waistline, accentuating this flaw. It seems a lot of men do this. But no, I am a woman so I have learned the wisdom of never wearing belts, having shirts hit just right so it minimizes my gut, etc. You could say it is that men just don't have as many concealing options; I think there's just no market because men simply care a lot less. Of course, if that sidewalk cafe happens to be in a university area, then you will see more men who put in some effort and haven't gone to pot yet. But I'm not attracted to men in their 20s anymore - too young. I do like watching the marathon each year because then I do get to see a lot of physically fit men in their 30s, 40s, 50s and upwards. :-) And I'll add here that of course "present male company accepted" - I think I've seen photos of most of the men in this group and you're all attractive. :-) jen >"Michael A. Ball" <Guardian@wireco.net> wrote >> Women guy watch, but I think they are more discrete about it. Ha, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >for myself, and I can only go buy what guys say. But that's my >impression anyway. OH, Zorra! How can you say that!? Are we really "scoping on auto-pilot"!? LOL All men and all women are different, of course. But, yes, I readily admit to enjoying the site of a pretty woman (and most of you are pretty), but it is not like a hunting expedition: it is more like a serendipity experience--an unexpected, pleasant surprise. :-) Gosh, "auto-pilot." :-) OT: for Zorra. I hope my signature lines are inserted better now. :-) ________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments. >>> Women guy watch, but I think they are more discrete about it. Ha, >>> they know our fragile egos can't handle it. LOL [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Gosh, "auto-pilot." :-) Dunno, it sounds like you're agreeing with me. See? You aren't even aware you're looking, and then suddenly "she" pops into your conscious. > OT: for Zorra. I hope my signature lines are inserted better now. > :-) :-) Thank you. Zorra > ________________________ > Practice safe eating - always use condiments. >> Gosh, "auto-pilot." :-) > >Dunno, it sounds like you're agreeing with me. See? You aren't even >aware you're looking, and then suddenly "she" pops into your >conscious. I do not deny that we do a lot of looking. Most of the time, it is a passive act and we probably are not aware that we are looking (as in seeking). Sometimes it is quite an active process: such as at a gathering where there are several women to observe. It is much like a visual Disneyland! All good! Zorra, could we change the term to "auto detect"? It is more accurate, and undeniably true. There are few times when we are not on auto detect. LOL! _________________________ Some trees are ever green. > >> Gosh, "auto-pilot." :-) > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Zorra, could we change the term to "auto detect"? It is more accurate, and undeniably > true. There are few times when we are not on auto detect. LOL! A 'chick radar' ;) >>> Gosh, "auto-pilot." :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > accurate, and undeniably > true. There are few times when we are not on auto detect. LOL! Works for me. Zorra > Part of my daily meditation (when I do it, which I admit is less > disciplined than it ought to be) is to jot down the high and low points [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > orchestra's stage. That I wasn't and wouldn't be able to do that made > me very sad. Not having someone to share this kind of stuff is the consequence of you being too chiken to open up, and picking out a wife that matches you in that aspect. You made your own bed, Ted. > Part of my daily meditation (when I do it, which I admit is less > disciplined than it ought to be) is to jot down the high and low points [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > enjoyed it when I was in the meeting -- because I always was so happy > and brightened the place up. That felt very good to hear. In light of the recent religious threads you seem to like, I wonder how you reconcile your little emotional affairs with "thou shall not covet". What kind of a justification do you talk yourself into? > In light of the recent religious threads you seem to like, I wonder how > you reconcile your little emotional affairs with "thou shall not > covet". What kind of a justification do you talk yourself into? As far as I can tell I have never coveted anything belonging to any of my neighbors. Now, if you brought up some New Testament teachings about lust and adultery you might have a case, but just barely, because sexual desire in itself is not lust, loneliness is not lust. -- Ted >My main thought as the piece ended was that I wished I had > somebody to go home to to make love to -- I wanted to share with > someone the kind of emotion that was being showed to me on the > orchestra's stage. That I wasn't and wouldn't be able to do that made > me very sad. Okay let me get this straight: Do you wish it was your wife up there on the stage emoting all over the place? Or that you could go home and, like the woman on the stage, emote all over her? There *is* a difference. jen > >My main thought as the piece ended was that I wished I had > > somebody to go home to to make love to -- I wanted to share with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > place? Or that you could go home and, like the woman on the stage, > emote all over her? There *is* a difference. Actually, neither. I just wanted to be able to go home and make love to somebody (preferably my wife -- I should have said that.) I don't want to say that I didn't find Mz Rampal (to use somebody's phrase elsewhere in this thread) attractive, but it wasn't her specifically I had in mind. (The reason I said "neither" is that I don't think of making love as "emoting all over" somebody.) -- Ted > > >My main thought as the piece ended was that I wished I had > > > somebody to go home to to make love to -- I wanted to share with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > reason I said "neither" is that I don't think of making love as "emoting all > over" somebody.) Well, you see, you missed this weekend's debate about you. It seemed this post was reinforcing Sheila (and many others) impression that you want your DW to change into someone she is not, and that you are filled with disdain for who she is. You can see how easy it is to read that into your words above: > > > I wished I had > > > somebody to go home to to make love to -- I wanted to share with > > > someone the kind of emotion that was being showed to me on the > > > orchestra's stage. That I wasn't and wouldn't be able to do that made > > > me very sad." One could read into that: "I wanted to make love with someone like that woman on the stage, but my DW will never be like that woman on the stage." Whereas I read your words above to mean, "I wish *I* could be openly expressive like the woman on the stage"......... and now that you've clarified, I could add to that "when making love to my DW." IOW, it's not that you need your DW to become someone she's not; it's that you want to be able to feel free and safe being who *you* are. Because your only concept of a relationship is enmeshment, I suspect you've gotten it into your head the only way you'll ever be safe being who you are is if your DW becomes just like you... first. ???? jen > Well, you see, you missed this weekend's debate about you. It seemed > this post was reinforcing Sheila (and many others) impression that you [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > expressive like the woman on the stage"......... and now that you've > clarified, I could add to that "when making love to my DW." Yup. You've articulated what I didn't bother to take the time to, not that I necessarily could have. I found it what I guess one would call a sensous, erotic performance -- and yet using the words doesn't convey it at all well, and while I've thought about it off and on since then, I can't quite come up with the right language. > IOW, it's not that you need your DW to become someone she's not; it's > that you want to be able to feel free and safe being who *you* are. > Because your only concept of a relationship is enmeshment, I suspect > you've gotten it into your head the only way you'll ever be safe being > who you are is if your DW becomes just like you... first. Maybe that is I how I think of it -- that the only way she could accept me being the way I want to be is if she wanted to be that way too. But you are certainly right about the first part: I do want to be able to feel free and safe being who I am. And right now I don't feel that way. (even here, sometimes!) -- Ted > > Well, you see, you missed this weekend's debate about you. It seemed > > this post was reinforcing Sheila (and many others) impression that you [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Maybe that is I how I think of it -- that the only way she could accept me > being the way I want to be is if she wanted to be that way too. That's a very unrealistic expectation. Lot of people don't have to be identical to you to accept you, and there's a lot of people that dislike their own behaviors and desires and needs sufficiently that when they see them in someone else, they reject them. > > > >My main thought as the piece ended was that I wished I had > > > > somebody to go home to to make love to -- I wanted to share with [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > expressive like the woman on the stage"......... and now that you've > clarified, I could add to that "when making love to my DW." Yeah, he wishes he could be like that, but he won't take the risk of even trying to do that unless his wife does it first, and in the exact way that would encourage him, and a guarantee that she will recieve it just the way he wants it recieved. Anything less then the exact will be no good. > IOW, it's not that you need your DW to become someone she's not; it's > that you want to be able to feel free and safe being who *you* are. > Because your only concept of a relationship is enmeshment, I suspect > you've gotten it into your head the only way you'll ever be safe being > who you are is if your DW becomes just like you... first. I don't believe that Ted will feel comfortable doing that untill his DW starts acting the way he wants her to in order for him to feel comfortable, untill she invites him in and keeps reassuring him, just the right way. He seems to think that what he is and what he wants will be rejected unless he finds someone that is identical to him. (as a reassurance) It's almost as if he needs a mommy or daddy to tell him: "It's okay to be the way he is, by leading the way. Look, honey, it's okay, Look, I'm doing it, now you try while mommy is watching over you. I promise you it will be okay." Which would be fine if he was a small child. > > > > >My main thought as the piece ended was that I wished I had > > > > > somebody to go home to to make love to -- I wanted to share with [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > you it will be okay." > Which would be fine if he was a small child. Kitty, Do you know what Ted wants? Do you know if Ted knows what he really wants? I can't tell if Ted is afraid to be sexually uninhibited with his wife, or if he has a serious kink that he is too afraid to disclose. Do you have any ideas? > Do you know what Ted wants? Do you know if Ted knows what he really > wants? I can't tell if Ted is afraid to be sexually uninhibited with > his wife, or if he has a serious kink that he is too afraid to > disclose. Do you have any ideas? No kink's. I *think* most would agree to that. But I don't want to revisit all that over again. -- Ted > > Do you know what Ted wants? Do you know if Ted knows what he really > > wants? I can't tell if Ted is afraid to be sexually uninhibited with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Ted No kinks, ok fair enough. Ted, the only limitations there are in life are the ones we put on ourselves. Remove your limitations and be free You will never be the *free* person you say you want to be until YOU choose WHO you really want to be!! Make sure you know who it is you want to be then disclose it to your wife and I'm sure she will love you just the same if not more!! Not knowing your wife of course ;-) BTW, it may seem to you as though your wife only focuses on negative qualities, occurances, or however you put it, but I BET she appreciates you even if she hasn't verbalized it as she should. It seems, IMO that people tend to neglect praise toward their SO when they have been together for a long perios of time. I think most people would call it laziness, or thoughtlessness. Lola > > > Do you know what Ted wants? Do you know if Ted knows what he really > > > wants? I can't tell if Ted is afraid to be sexually uninhibited with [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > together for a long perios of time. I think most people would call it > laziness, or thoughtlessness. Also, that needs to be juxtaposed against Ted's tendency towards being hypersensitive. For example, he wants his wife to hug him - and she never does. Well, after some discussion oit comes out that she does hug him, but not in the way he wants to be hugged, and he never told her how he wants to be hugged. Of course, one day he got hugged by another female, and all of a sudden *that's the right way*. > > > > Do you know what Ted wants? Do you know if Ted knows what he really > > > > wants? I can't tell if Ted is afraid to be sexually uninhibited with [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > hugged. Of course, one day he got hugged by another female, and all of > a sudden *that's the right way*. Truly amazing. And he either avoids reading these posts or can completely ignore them forever. No field of experience in which to store memories, no ongoing sense of self at this point. A. > > > > > >My main thought as the piece ended was that I wished I had > > > > > > somebody to go home to to make love to -- I wanted to share with [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Do you know what Ted wants? I'm rather familiar with what Ted wrote at one time or another what he wants. And I have my somewhat educated opinion on what all that means in reality. > Do you know if Ted knows what he really wants? Ted is often vague, and sometimes contradicts himself, so it's hard to get a clear picture of what he really wants. Or, rather to get a clear picture of what he might be happy with. This gives me serious doubts that even he really knows what it is he wants. > I can't tell if Ted is afraid to be sexually uninhibited with > his wife, or if he has a serious kink that he is too afraid to > disclose. Do you have any ideas? I don;t think he has a serious sexual kink. I think he's noit getting some of his basic intimacy needs met, but is too afraid, too avoidant and too unassertive to make changes and do what heeds to be done to get his needs met. What I gather is that there's a number of his needs, sexual, intelectual, spiritual, emotional needs not getting met. I'm a little uncertain to what degree they would have to be met for him to be satisfied. I noticed that with spiritual and emotional needs he comes across as needier then normal. His big problems are that he lotahes himself, so some of the needs those of us who have gotten over the self-loathing have learned to satisfy, aren't getting satisfied. That and opther hangups collective I believe prevent him from opening up to other people, which cuts him off from other needs being met. He's never told his wife waht he really wants, out of some sort of fear. He's hoping his wife will get a clue on her own what it is he wants, without him having to risk going out on a limb and asking. He's like a ticking bomb, he's too afraid and intimidated to get with the program that would start getting his needs satisfied. One day they'll get enough out of whack that he'll do something radical. He may fall into an actual affair or have a blowup at home, or his alcoholisam may relapse or who knows what need will blow first and start a chain reaction. Slow, measured steps towards improving the situation are out of question for him, since he's afraid to rock the boat, even a little. He's sufficiently avoidant about it all that he'll just let himself gripe and complain and float along till it all blows up - or till he dies never getting fulfilled (which is also one of his fears). > > >My main thought as the piece ended was that I wished I had > > > somebody to go home to to make love to -- I wanted to share with [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > Ted What is your definition of making love Ted? > What is your definition of making love Ted? Enjoying giving and receiving sexual pleasure from each other. Can one make love without having sex? I think so, but I don't know how to express that, so that definition isn't quite right. It has something to do with enjoying each other's presence on an emotional level. -- Ted > Actually, neither. I just wanted to be able to go home and make love to > somebody (preferably my wife -- I should have said that.) So, what do you think your your wife would have said if you had gone home and said you were in the mood for love (or whatever your chosen euphamism is)? Why is it that y'all haven't had sex for 6 months...has she been rejecting all your advances, or have you given up trying (your choice, so own it!) > > Actually, neither. I just wanted to be able to go home and make love to > > somebody (preferably my wife -- I should have said that.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > she been rejecting all your advances, or have you given up trying (your > choice, so own it!) Hmmm...I have a feeling that Ted hasn't been all that honest about his wife. I have a feeling that they probably made love at her request recently. I think A is right, he has all these people entangled in his all so sad life. Think about it...he doesn't talk to his wife about how he feels, but he's pretty open here with all the females trying to get into private conversations with them. In addition, who said the flutest was playing an actual flute...could have been the skin flute. Ted could just be a slave to porn or a RL voyeur, just a thought, now imagine him telling that to Mrs. Ted. > > > Actually, neither. I just wanted to be able to go home and make love to > > > somebody (preferably my wife -- I should have said that.) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > how he feels, but he's pretty open here with all the females trying to > get into private conversations with them. Well, what I gather about his DW is that she's somewhat ingibited, physically, by not being all that comfortable in her own skin, so I don't see it as an impossibility that she has not accepted his advances in 6 months. Also, Ted and his wife are in their early 60's IIRC and they've been married for 30+ years, so I would have to make a guess that her sexual desires are not at their all time high. > Well, what I gather about his DW is that she's somewhat ingibited, > physically, by not being all that comfortable in her own skin, Not disagreeing necessarily, but considering he says she goes to bed naked every night, it's hard to mesh that with being inhibited and uncomfortable in her skin. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > > Well, what I gather about his DW is that she's somewhat ingibited, > > physically, by not being all that comfortable in her own skin, > > Not disagreeing necessarily, but considering he says she goes to bed naked > every night, it's hard to mesh that with being inhibited and uncomfortable > in her skin. But that's just it, Ted had defined everything and how do you know he isn't being deceptive. Does anyone see him in person, live by him, have any contact with him in the real world? Just suppose for a moment that Mrs. Ted is nothing at all like he says. Maybe she is a normal loving woman who is just unaware, or has been unaware for all these years what Ted is really like. Maybe Ted isn't in his 60's but maybe 20 or so years younger. Maybe Ted doesn't have sons or maybe he does but they are younger. I mean how do you know what to believe? There are crazy people in this world who have done all kinds of insane things, and one could possibly create a fake identity for attention. Just a thought. Lola <pavehawk.l@gmail.com> wrote in message > But that's just it, Ted had defined everything and how do you know he > isn't being deceptive. Does anyone see him in person, live by him, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > things, and one could possibly create a fake identity for attention. > Just a thought. Nah. If I'd been creating a fake identify to get attention I think I'd have done something quite different. Besides, I think I'd have had a very hard time keeping at it, and keeping it all consistent, for what is now not quite four years. (My first post here was in June of 2002; I just checked.) Ted > > Well, what I gather about his DW is that she's somewhat ingibited, > > physically, by not being all that comfortable in her own skin, > > Not disagreeing necessarily, but considering he says she goes to bed naked > every night, it's hard to mesh that with being inhibited and uncomfortable > in her skin. At the same time she detests that Ted looks at her in a sexual way when she goes to bed naked, and insists that it's the only way she feels comfortable, and not too hot to fall asleep. That leads me to believe that the need for other physical comforts override the discomfort with her own body, when it comes to sleeping. Also, she hates shopping for clothes, and here were few other things I remember ted mentioning about her own body image. I can certainly appreciate the comfort of sleeping naed, an right now when I hate the fact that I gained 40 lb over the last year, once the lights are out, and I'm comfortable, and noone can see me, who cares. At the same time I would not feel all that comfortblshwing off to my BFtill I lost a few pounds. I don'tlike the way I look i the mirror right now, and I don't like the feel of the tummy jiggles.They remind me of all the tims I was too cranky, ate too much to calm the nerves, only to end up feeling guilty for eating too much. Yuck. Anyway, the short of it is that I can easily understand being comfortable with one, but not the other. > > Well, what I gather about his DW is that she's somewhat ingibited, > > physically, by not being all that comfortable in her own skin, > > Not disagreeing necessarily, but considering he says she goes to bed naked > every night, it's hard to mesh that with being inhibited and uncomfortable > in her skin. Since nudity doesn't turn her on, there's nothing inhibited or uninhibited to do with it. -- Ted >> > Well, what I gather about his DW is that she's somewhat ingibited, >> > physically, by not being all that comfortable in her own skin, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Since nudity doesn't turn her on, there's nothing inhibited or > uninhibited to do with it. Whether its a turn on or not, if she's getting naked with you every night then it seems to me she couldn't be called inhibited or uncomfortable in her skin. That her being naked with you does not translate into sex for you two has no bearing on whether she's comfortable in her own skin, IMO. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > Hmmm...I have a feeling that Ted hasn't been all that honest about his > wife. I have a feeling that they probably made love at her request > recently. Your feeling is wrong. Any idea where it came from? I think A is right, he has all these people entangled in his > all so sad life. Think about it...he doesn't talk to his wife about > how he feels, but he's pretty open here with all the females trying to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have been the skin flute. Ted could just be a slave to porn or a RL > voyeur, just a thought, now imagine him telling that to Mrs. Ted. Huh? -- Ted > I just wanted to be able to go home and make love to > somebody (preferably my wife Can we assume that you told her you'd like to make love with her or no? SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >> I just wanted to be able to go home and make love to >> somebody (preferably my wife > > Can we assume that you told her you'd like to make love with her or > no? I suspect that Ted has decided not to initiate sex with his wife and is counting the days until his wife decides to do so herself or until he is so overwhelmed by the drought he can't hold in his anguish any longer and tells her of his distress. And all to make a point he could make quite easily by saying something *now*. Tai > I suspect that Ted has decided not to initiate sex with his wife and is > counting the days until his wife decides to do so herself or until he is so > overwhelmed by the drought he can't hold in his anguish any longer and tells > her of his distress. And all to make a point he could make quite easily by > saying something *now*. It's more that I simply gave up. Can't have sex in the evening because she's too tired at the end of the day. Can't have sex in the morning because she worries about my getting to work on time. Can't have sex on the weekends because those are reserved for chores and errands that can't be done during the work week. Get the picture? -- Ted > It's more that I simply gave up. Can't have sex in the evening because > she's too tired at the end of the day. Can't have sex in the morning > because she worries about my getting to work on time. Can't have sex on > the > weekends because those are reserved for chores and errands that can't be > done during the work week. Get the picture? Thought of making a date? Jess > > It's more that I simply gave up. Can't have sex in the evening because > > she's too tired at the end of the day. Can't have sex in the morning [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thought of making a date? A date for sex? Heavens no. That would be too much pressure ("what if I'm not in the mood?"), too much acknowledgement of it. Besides, sex on a schedule is what prostitutes do. Do I *know* that would be her response? No, but I'm 99% sure of it. -- Ted > A date for sex? Heavens no. That would be too much pressure ("what if > I'm > not in the mood?"), too much acknowledgement of it. Besides, sex on a > schedule is what prostitutes do. > > Do I *know* that would be her response? No, but I'm 99% sure of it. How's about a date *period*, where there's time for sex but that it doesn't necessarily have to happen? And you know, if you ask and she says no-then it's not like you're any worse off. Jess > > A date for sex? Heavens no. That would be too much pressure ("what if > > I'm [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And you know, if you ask and she says no-then it's not like you're any worse > off. I believe Ted and Mrs Ted go out on dates quite frequently. The symphony and other stuff they enjoy doing together. jen > > How's about a date *period*, where there's time for sex but that it doesn't > > necessarily have to happen? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I believe Ted and Mrs Ted go out on dates quite frequently. The > symphony and other stuff they enjoy doing together. I think Jess means a time when sex is one of the things on the menu, but not the only thing. I guess you'd say we have those -- at the suggestion of our therapist several years ago we agreed that Saturday is "date" night -- a night when neither of us will schedule anything other than each other. My wife has taken to that almost religiously. But have we ever had sex on one of our Saturday night dates? Nope. What they have turned into is a Saturday-night-watch-TV-or-a-DVD date. -- Ted >A date for sex? Heavens no. That would be too much pressure ("what if I'm >not in the mood?"), too much acknowledgement of it. Besides, sex on a >schedule is what prostitutes do. > >Do I *know* that would be her response? No, but I'm 99% sure of it. So......how much $$$? OK, I'm just KIDDING before people start emailing me and going off on vicious sub-threads. Lauri in WA >> I just wanted to be able to go home and make love to >> somebody (preferably my wife > >Can we assume that you told her you'd like to make love with her or no? "WITH"! You said "with"! I'm so easily pleased! :-) I always say "with" instead of "to." I consider love making something that is done with another--not to another. _______________________ Play with fire! Zildjan drum sticks > I always say "with" instead of "to." I consider love making something that is done with > another--not to another. Well, seeing as the times I've felt it's been "with" and not "to" have been so rare, I hadn't thought of it in those terms. Had I, yes I would have expressed it that way too. -- Ted >>> I just wanted to be able to go home and make love to somebody >>> (preferably my wife [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "WITH"! You said "with"! I'm so easily pleased! :-) You know, I honestly didn't notice that I changed his 'To' to "With". > I always say "with" instead of "to." I consider love making something > that is done with another--not to another. Right, it's a shared event to be cherished. :-) glad my little subconscious word swap made you happy <G> SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.