 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / July 2008Disabilities
I have a couple of disabilities which have curtailed my social life and my husband's -- the medication i take gives me diarrhea at certain times of the day and i have to schedule myself accordingy. I also have car phobia so i take the bus and the metro. These issues were brought up in session, and as part of the reasons for his unhappiness with me and his search for a livelier social life. He wants me to become more social too. I thought I was doing rather well considering a rather serious disorder i have (bipolar) and the many medications i have to take. Exactly what am i supposed to do to please my husband? I have already taken care of many medical problems and i am far more stable than he is- no suicide attempts or even depression for example - which are part of his life and a burden on mine when he does not take his meds. Erin > I have a couple of disabilities which have curtailed > my social life and my husband's -- the medication > i take gives me diarrhea at certain times of the day > and i have to schedule myself accordingy. I faced lithium issues in my first marriage so I know about that effect. I take it you've worked to reduce your dosage until the diarrhea stopped and the swings got worse? There are worse symptoms than diarrhea. In another post you called it IBS. Have you ever done the standard IBS just in case test? That is go 2 weeks without eating any grain and see if it gets better. For some IBS folks specific grains or grain in general cause it. Go without it and the symptoms go away. The fact that lithium causes diarrhea could easily mean you've never tried to see if it might have other causes. > Exactly what am i supposed to do to please my husband? Change the locks. Pleasing him is not an issue as long as he has abandoned you. > I have already taken care of many medical problems > and i am far more stable than he is- no suicide attempts > or even depression for example - which are part of > his life and a burden on mine when he does not take > his meds. I thought med compliance was no longer an issue? > > I have a couple of disabilities which have curtailed > > my social life and my husband's -- the medication [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I thought med compliance was no longer an issue? It was for a long time and now it is irrelevant except to him if he is not well; i don't know what he is taking now. The worse dx is clear though according to tests. Erin > I have a couple of disabilities which have curtailed > my social life and my husband's -- the medication [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Erin You can't change who you are to please another (or at least, not for very long). Nor should you. In news:ea18d78b-e27f-46f3-a668-84dd965b5995@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: > I have a couple of disabilities which have curtailed > my social life and my husband's -- the medication [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > his life and a burden on mine when he does not take > his meds. Your posts here suggest that whatever you're doing isn't enough. > In > news:ea18d78b-e27f-46f3-a668-84dd965b5995@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Your posts here suggest that whatever you're doing isn't enough. I'm making it clear to him that I cannot tolerate his close friendship with XXXX and have our cohabitation too-- that's what he wants. It's not what I want. I offered a compromise-- only e-mail communication with her, but he turned it down for at least monthly personal meetings because they are so close. Frankly, i do not understand how the therapist thinks this is acceptable; possibly because it is presented in a different impression-- he is glib and is able to present his case well. The fact that we are nice to each other does not mean that we don't have serious problems with a third party in the marriage; i do anyway. So, that is what i am doing now-- not yielding to his request for happy domesticity until he stops seeing and talking to XXXX every day/ month/ year. Reason? I am no longer in his personal life since her. I have heard the warm tone of chatting on the phone with her-- it is always acrymonious with me. I believe that he wants to come back because I have made his life uncomfortable, not because he loves me anymore. Even that is too drastic perhaps to our counsellor-- thinking that we really should get closer together because we seem like such a compatible couple and there is hope for reunion. True, I think there never *was* a problem and we always were compatible. I only noticed his distancing, grooming, weight loss schemes, and staying at work late, starting to find faults in me, around the time he hired her as his partner at work- about 5 yrs. ago. I fear that a reunion will be a man living here physically but emotionally and psychologically with her -- which is what made the marriage so cold in the past few years. Erin In news:647da0f4-969c-4677-bb3e-240fa8d0f44b@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >> In >> news:ea18d78b-e27f-46f3-a668-84dd965b5995@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > friendship with XXXX and have our cohabitation too-- that's what > he wants. No you have not. In fact, you've said exactly the opposite. You've said, and made it very clear, that you will stay in the relationship despite his very open and very honest behavior with OW. How can you possibly claim that you've made anything to the contrary clear? > I have a couple of disabilities which have curtailed > my social life and my husband's -- the medication [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > his life and a burden on mine when he does not take > his meds. Finally, at least from my perspective, this post made my view crystal clear... enough said. > > I have a couple of disabilities which have curtailed > > my social life and my husband's -- the medication [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Finally, at least from my perspective, this post made my view crystal > clear... enough said. Thanks. It is something that has been retracted by the way. Many complaints are being retracted because DH was going through a rough medical w/d. I appreciate that; though reading Yahoo help posts, i did get the impression that some justification was mixed in there too. Erin >> I have a couple of disabilities which have curtailed >> my social life and my husband's -- the medication [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Finally, at least from my perspective, this post made my view crystal > clear... enough said. Presumably, Erin wrote this before her visit to the therapist, and I don't want to mess up any of that work. But it is the wrong question. She isn't expected to please her husband at the cost of her own integrity. Nor is he. I have depression too, more cyclic than bipolar. The most revealing book to me was "Passionate Marriage" which deals extensively with this issue. Our daughter lent us a book on "Boundaries within the home," that my wife read. From the little panels on each page, its theme is the same. Marriage is an interaction of two adults, and neither should be the servant of, or an emotional dependant of, the other. Sigs are out of date, but P.M. has a delightful quote from "The Devil's Dictionary. I have seen others from it that aren't half as good:- "Marriage, n.: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two." And this just jumped up from a page: "Don't confuse your vested interests with ethics." Doug L. > >> I have a couple of disabilities which have curtailed > >> my social life and my husband's -- the medication [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Doug L. Thanks Doug, i love Abrose Bierce (very dark though); as for interdependence, i would say many factors go into how much and what and who are factors; i think that as long as you have the strength and good will to help any family member, not just your spouse, you have a moral duty to do so. When it starts to compromise your own health, then it's time for the doctor to do a little more caretaking or at least give some advice. Erin > ut it is the wrong question. She isn't expected to please her husband at > the cost of her own integrity. If you got that from any words I wrote - you need new glasses because there is NO WAY I'd say or imply such a distorted expectation. Conditional love in marriage is one subject; integrity is another with ties to character. > > ut it is the wrong question. She isn't expected to please her husband at > > the cost of her own integrity. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Conditional love in marriage is one subject; integrity is another with > ties to character. Gosh, that reminds me of a scene from "My Fair Lady"; her father, saying something about integrity; Erin >> > ut it is the wrong question. She isn't expected to please her husband >> > at the cost of her own integrity. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Erin What did he say, Erin? I never thought of him as a philosopher. Doug. > >> > ut it is the wrong question. She isn't expected to please her husband > >> > at the cost of her own integrity. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Doug. Mr. Higgins [?] asked Elisa's chimney sweeper father "don't you have any morals, man"?, and the father replied, "No Sir, can't afford 'em". I think it was something like that, from my memory. Erin >>>>> ut it is the wrong question. She isn't expected to please her husband >>>>> at the cost of her own integrity. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Erin Nah. It's not a question of affordability. It's a question of integrity and character. or maybe that was his point. > > >> > ut it is the wrong question. She isn't expected to please her husband > > >> > at the cost of her own integrity. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - yeah, but you control your butt-hole that's something may sound like nothing but you know, erin, i likes ya and that control is something, and something your hubby doesn't have >> ut it is the wrong question. She isn't expected to please her husband at >> the cost of her own integrity. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Conditional love in marriage is one subject; integrity is another with > ties to character. No, I didn't get it from you. It is what I firmly believe. (I thought that my wife was the only one who has to originate everything I say...) I will admit that it was difficult finding the right words. I much prefer a viva voce discussion, where ideas are exchanged and refined. Xorra at one stage was told that she could not expect to change her husband. I put in the same idea there. I cannot change my partner. Must I then adapt to my partner, this theoretically "unchangeable" thing? No! - unless I am willing to sacrifice everything to stay together. I set limits on how far I am prepared to compromise. Things will be a bit tense for a while. If I refuse to shift further, my partner has to come to terms with that. Hopefully, my partner will then move towards my position. If not, it is back to the drawing-board. Am I prepared to move further? Have I gone as far as I am willing to go? In terms of my daughter's book, am I prepared to move the boundary, or does it stay firmly fixed? Basically, why should my partner have the right to be fixed, and I have to do all the adapting? I have as much right as my partner to be myself. If either one is in a dependant position, that one is not free. Remember that these are general ideas. They make a lot more sense in a real situation. Life is a dynamic thing. The reality may hide the principles. The most basic principle is that every individual is of equal value. Doug L. -- We're none of us infallible - not even the youngest among us. - W.H. Thompson, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, to a junior fellow. >>> ut it is the wrong question. She isn't expected to please her husband >>> at the cost of her own integrity. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Conditional love in marriage is one subject; integrity is another with >> ties to character. Just a thought on unconditional love vs. integrity. Unconditional love says: "I love you, with all your bad points, all your irritating habits, your dominating manner." Integrity of character says: "I refuse to be dominated by you. I refuse to be dependent on you. I am my own person, just as much as you are." That is where the trouble can start. If the other person is in fact dominating, you can't have it both ways. Schnarch had to put integrity first in his own life at a cost: read his Introduction. He also has a chapter about dilemmas. Or the opposite: if the partner is a dependent clinging type, integrity of character refuses to be clung to. Of course, these principles depend on the personality needs of the individuals. Two clinging vines, or two dominating types, will be dissatisfied with each other. IMO, complementary needs rather than similar needs, are the best indicators of compatibility. A 1950's psychologist in her diary, called it "mutual needs." My in-laws were a dominating wife and a passive but intelligent husband - a rather obvious example. My wife is rather dominating. Next January she is going on a fortnight's cruise with a friend who is notoriously over-dominating, as illustrated by two (untrue) anecdotes told by a good friend at her 60th birthday. My sister nursed under her at Geelong, and her experience and ours both confirm the picture. We are both wondering how it will turn out. Mother- in-law went on a similar trip with a schoolteacher friend, and reported some conflicts. Principles from books are fine - yours and mine - but they need to be tested in the world of living people. Doug L. -- Books are good enough in their own way; but they are a mighty bloodless substitute for life. -R.L. Stevenson. |
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
|
©2009 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.