 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / June 2008This has to stop
I can't go on explaining my point of view. It's futile and it has exhausted me. It's time to try and get some kind of life besides wondering what happened to my marriage. Bye everyone. Thank you for participating and helping. Erin In news:895ff5b8-4d3d-45a3-8ca0-b786406f6a0e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: > I can't go on explaining my point of view. > It's futile and it has exhausted me. It's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Bye everyone. Thank you for participating and > helping. For the record, and because I have a suspicion that you'll be back very soon, this forum isn't a place where you have to explain anything. In fact, there is no such place. You only ever have to explain yourself if YOU choose to do so. And that may very well be one of the key elements to why you find yourself in such a miserable limbo. Stop trying to seek some sort of justification for why you do what you do. The only person to which you have to justify anything is you. IMO, you need to realize that if you do invite comments and opinions about your situation, that you will get some. You may choose to consider some, explore some, dismiss some, or anything else you want to do with them. That is up to you too. The primary point I've been trying to make to you, and which, like every other piece of advice that you will ever get from anyone, you are free to dismiss, is that we are all better served in life when we look very carefully for all of the consequences of our decisions, and then, after having made them, accept and deal with the consequences forthrightly. There is almost nothing to be gained by blaming someone else for our situation, especially where their behavior toward you is predictable. I see nothing in what your DH has done since you've begun posting here that wasn't totally predictable, even by you. And so any consequences that you've had to endure as a result of his behavior was due to a choice that YOU made. Sure, that doesn't mean that he's immune from being regarded as a person of low morals for engaging in that behavior, but in the end, you have to deal with the fact that you had a good idea that you'd be treated badly. Good luck to you, but as frequently as you keep raising new issues for us to ponder, I'm sure we have not heard the last from you. > In > news:895ff5b8-4d3d-45a3-8ca0-b786406f6a0e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Good luck to you, but as frequently as you keep raising new issues > for us to ponder, I'm sure we have not heard the last from you. You put it well. I think that Erin is saying that her point of view is crystal clear to her, but clear as mud to us. Personally, I don't agree, and if I said that, I apologise to her. It is all about perception. Her point of view was indeed clear to us - I hope. I took it that she was saying that it is all her husband's problem, not hers. Maybe it is, but he isn't here. Until she started dealing with her own situation and not his. nothing could change. That is why I was a bit challenging. That is the positive development that I see. In the course that I took -and failed twice - they talk about people like Erin as "complainants." "If my husband will come back, everything will be fine." We were taught to try to make them into "customers" - people who say: "What am I myself going to do about this?" Then we can see change - but only then. And Erin, if things do get rough again, we are always here to listen, even if we don't adopt your point of view. We are here to help, not as "yes-men." Doug L. >> In >> news:895ff5b8-4d3d-45a3-8ca0-b786406f6a0e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Doug L. Or "no-men". Actually, it sounds like she left. But given some of what she "received" in here, I'm not totally surprised. > Actually, it sounds like she left. But given some of what she > "received" in here, I'm not totally surprised. She has left many times Bill, I'm sure she'll be back. And sure she's reading even if she's not responding. Xorra Erin, if you are still reading... good luck to you! There is sometimes a tone in here (this board) of frustration with people who don't "just go ahead and deal with the problem already, dammit". I think there is a good balance of the folks who take that tack, the ones who are simply kind, and the ones who help figure out the deeper issues. If you are leaving because of the first group... please don't. But if you are just sick of it... exhausted by talking about it, I hope that this prase in your farewell post: "It's futile" ... is trumped by this other one: " It's time to try and get some kind of life besides wondering what happened to my marriage." Again... good luck, Erin! >Erin, if you are still reading... good luck to you! There is >sometimes a tone in here (this board) of frustration with people who >don't "just go ahead and deal with the problem already, dammit". It takes most of us a long, long, long time to get to the point of "just go ahead and deal with the problem already, dammit." You haven't been around very long (or very consistently, unless you've been lurking which is OK too!), but Erin has been posting basically the same repetitive post, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and......well, you get the drift. For years now. So yeah, eventually people are going to suggest that she either p** or get off the pot.  SignatureLauri in WA > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:42:31 -0700 (PDT), mom0f4boys > > <momsh...@msn.com> wrote: <xxx> over and over and over and over and over and......well, you get the > drift. For years now. So yeah, eventually people are going to > suggest that she either p** or get off the pot. > -- > Lauri in WA Lauri, I think it's "sh.t or get off the pot," given that most guys stand when they go tee tee. But, it's still great advice. See below... - Saul ~~~ From : http://www.huliq.com/53526/us-woman-stuck-toilet-seat-two-years ~~~ The 35-year-old woman, Pam Babcock, locked herself in the bathroom and sat there for so long that her skin grew around the toilet seat, in other words she stuck on her toilet seat for 2 years. Her boyfriend, Kory McFarren, 36, said he had brought her food and water every day and often asked to come out of the toilet. However the kansascity.com news portal reported that she would unfailingly reply, "Maybe tomorrow." It is not known where McFarren relieved himself for the 24 months that the toilet was 'occupied.' The man called police on February 27, saying that there was something "wrong with his girlfriend," Whipple said. McFarren has not yet explained why it took him two years to call for help. Police said they found Babcock sitting on the toilet and that her legs appeared to have atrophied. She initially refused medical help and was reported to have been reluctant to leave the bathroom. "We pried the toilet seat off with a pry bar and the seat went with her to the hospital," Whipple said. "The hospital removed it." Kansas authorities have not yet decided if charges are to be brought against McFarren ~~~~ > On Jun 25, 8:25 pm, Lauri <laurinos...@nwidespam.netunspam> wrote:> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:42:31 -0700 (PDT), mom0f4boys > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > sat there for so long that her skin grew around the toilet seat, in > other words she stuck on her toilet seat for 2 years. I had to double-check the link to see if this was an Onion article. Oi! Kitten > Erin has been posting basically the same repetitive post, over > and over and over and over and over and over and over and > over and over and over and......well, you get the drift. For > years now. So yeah, eventually people are going to suggest > that she either p** or get off the pot. What was particularly annoying was how, after much wailing and nashing of teeth, she'd show some insight and make real progress, we'd give her kudos for rational thinking, and then boom, the next thing we'd know, she was back at square-one, just as dependent and making excuses, as at the start. It was if we were in some endless loop, or part of an anomoly in the space-time continuum in which we could see our future selves occupying the same place that we'd been before, and yet have no power to keep it from happening again, like a Star Trek episode. >> Erin has been posting basically the same repetitive post, over >> and over and over and over and over and over and over and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thing we'd know, she was back at square-one, just as dependent > and making excuses, as at the start. That is HER issue, not yours. Ummm, come to think of it, maybe it IS your (and Lauri's, and xyz's), "issue". (Look within thyself for the answer, grasshopper). > It was if we were in some endless loop, or part of an anomoly in > the space-time continuum in which we could see our future selves > occupying the same place that we'd been before, and yet have no > power to keep it from happening again, like a Star Trek episode. I just want the damn transporter. Somebody stole it, and I can't find it now. >It was if we were in some endless loop, or part of an anomoly in >the space-time continuum in which we could see our future selves >occupying the same place that we'd been before, and yet have no >power to keep it from happening again, like a Star Trek episode. Like that XFiles episode where the bank robbery was happening over and over again, and Scully and Mulder kept going to the bank and forgetting that they talked to the girl who was trying to warn them. Except this time we know what is happening, and it keeps happening anyway. SignatureLauri in WA > >It was if we were in some endless loop, or part of an anomoly in > >the space-time continuum in which we could see our future selves [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Lauri in WA It's over now. A compromise is in the making. Had it not been for marriage counselling this separation would have continued as long as he chose to keep relations with OW. DH and I are compromising according to the insights that the counsellor has provided. DH is happy and relieved. I'm apprehensive but willing to drop my "weapons". Apparently, I have to look at my insecurities a little closer. Erin In news:65158d10-ca85-4d02-8622-7b5ff7e4a741@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >>> It was if we were in some endless loop, or part of an anomoly >>> in the space-time continuum in which we could see our future [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I'm apprehensive but willing to drop my "weapons". > Apparently, I have to look at my insecurities a little closer. So what's the compromise, and what do you mean that "it's over"? > In > news:65158d10-ca85-4d02-8622-7b5ff7e4a741@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > So what's the compromise, and what do you mean that "it's over"? The compromise is that we meet half-way on our "issues". The "war" is over. I have to go out now. Erin > The compromise is that we meet half-way on our "issues". .... The "war" is over. Er... please could you be more specific than that? "Meeting half-way" is the usual definition of compromise, yes, but it doesn't give us any clue of what kind of compromise you have made or even whether it really is a compromise and not a rout. This vagueness is a worrying sign for how long the cessation of hostilities is likely to last. So what have you and he agreed to say or do? Which issues are you meeting half-way on, and what will you and you husband do about each issue that counts in both your eyes as meeting half-way? > I have to go out now. No hurry. (And of course you don't have to reply at all... I don't mean to badger you.) Cailleach > > In > >news:65158d10-ca85-4d02-8622-7b5ff7e4a741@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - In news:9aae65b9-8641-4c28-b965-5fbc7a7ac8f3@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >> In >> news:65158d10-ca85-4d02-8622-7b5ff7e4a741@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > The compromise is that we meet half-way on our "issues". I inferred as much from the word 'compromise'. But what's the compromise? > The "war" is over. I wasn't aware that there was a war. > In > news:9aae65b9-8641-4c28-b965-5fbc7a7ac8f3@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > I wasn't aware that there was a war. Does it matter what the compromise is? Erin > Does it matter what the compromise is? > > Erin I'm just really, really hoping it's not, your husband keeps his special friend and you learn to curb your irrational jealousy. Sarah' > > Does it matter what the compromise is? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sarah' Out of curiousity, if you were a therapist what would be your advice and why? Erin In news:8953f71b-257b-4d6e-a784-8f2f35a3a4f4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >>> Does it matter what the compromise is? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Out of curiousity, if you were a therapist what would be your > advice and why? Oooo, ooooo, oooo, oooooo, me, me, me, ooo, please me, please, me, me, me. > In > news:8953f71b-257b-4d6e-a784-8f2f35a3a4f4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Oooo, ooooo, oooo, oooooo, me, me, me, ooo, please me, please, me, > me, me. huh? Oooo? me? you? who? huh? Erin In news:14e1b6d5-1158-4aeb-8e92-57e3777868e9@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >> In >> news:8953f71b-257b-4d6e-a784-8f2f35a3a4f4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > huh? Oooo? me? you? who? huh? Well, whereas you asked, if I were your therapist, and only knew what you've posted here about your relationship, and didn't have your DH's side of the story, my advice to you would be the same as what I've been advising for quite some time now. In summery, it's to accept the things that you can, and to reject the things that you can't accept, and to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which is which. Also, if what you posted here about your DH is accurate, my advice to him wrt the relationship would be that there's isn't much he should do differently. He's told you what his behavior will be, and he's told you that he doesn't much care what you do about it, and so what else is there for him to do? The choice, at that point, is up to you. That's why I'm so curious about what the compromise might be. How can you possibly believe that he'll live up to any new agreements when he's violated some of the most fundamental agreements that he's made with you? How can you expect him to live up to any agreements for very long when there will be no downside to him if he doesn't? > In > news:14e1b6d5-1158-4aeb-8e92-57e3777868e9@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > made with you? How can you expect him to live up to any agreements > for very long when there will be no downside to him if he doesn't? Because the therapist thinks i have a biased perspective on the situation due perhaps to my temperamental character, jealousy, and childhood instability. And that DH is a very nice guy who has done everything he could to tell me and show me how devoted he is to me. Furthermore, he would not be spending all that money on marital therapy if his objective was not to be with his beloved wife again. If I don't believe that, it's because i'm not listening. Erin In news:85c85fca-0d4b-4a6a-a578-d8150fa77b07@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >> In >> news:14e1b6d5-1158-4aeb-8e92-57e3777868e9@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Because the therapist thinks See below. > i have a biased perspective on the > situation due perhaps to my temperamental character, jealousy, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > don't > believe that, it's because i'm not listening. Either you can accept what the therapist has said, and take it as your own belief, or you cannot. It would seem foolish to me if you were to proceed with an agreement with your DH on the basis of something that you do not accept, and that you do not believe. I'll bet that even your therapist would agree with me on this one. > Because the therapist thinks i have a biased perspective on the > situation due perhaps to my temperamental character, jealousy, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Erin But you have said that your husband is lying to the therapist! Do you still think so? If so, if your therapist's opinion is based on less than the truth, why do you trust it's right? I mean, on the face of it, the above opinion is ridiculous. You want to know what your husband has not done to show how devoted he is to you? He hasn't stopped reserving the right to have an emotional relationship with another woman that is of higher priority to him than his relationship with you. Sarah >>> Does it matter what the compromise is? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Erin Well, presumbably if I were your therapist I would be in posession of both sides of the story. Since I'm not, it's hard to say for sure. However, what I described above isn't a 'compromise' in the version of English I speak and I certainly wouldn't advise you to do that. If the version of the story as you have told it here is true (perfect loving marriage until five years ago when your husband got involved with the other woman) I would say that your jealousy is *not* irrational. Your husband is maintaining an emotional relationship with another person which is outweighing his relationship with you and isn't interested in the fact it's causing you unhappiness. Under those circumstances jealousy seems entirely reasonable. He's lying to the therapist and the therapist is buying it, which means that any advice the therapist is giving you is based on erroneous data. 'Compromising' by rolling over and accepting the status quo doesn't sound much like compromising to me. What exactly is he giving up? Of course, as I said, the above is wrapped in a big conditional because it depends on the accuracy of your story, which as I've said I really don't completely buy, or even get (your descriptions of the situation and your husband vary a lot from post to post). I'm not saying that you're lying, but it sometimes appears that in your efforts to deal with this painful situation, you are grasping at a lot of straws in order to try to explain your husband's behavior in some way other than the obvious; your husband prefers another woman's company to your own. Sarah > >>> Does it matter what the compromise is? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Sarah l o n g ---- sorry: It's true that i have built a hypothesis on the indirect evidence regarding my DH's relation with his friend. The evidence is indirect and slanted too, for a couple of reasons: 1. I am not in his circle of work and friends as we used to be in early college days. Therefore I do not witness the actual dynamics of the relationship. Second, of the evidence I do have, i have "cherry-picked" the events, statements, confessions and unusual behaviour which fit the hypothesis that he is emotionally involved with her. This second type, is more reliable as it is direct. The counselling, both his (from two other therapists) and this one involving both of us, seems to have convinced the therapists that the relationship is not a love affair, and at least with one, if it is emotional, it is in the past for a number of stress reasons, and now things will be different and the friend will remain a good friend. The first therapist, i suspect did not believe that the relationship would not at least do damage to the marriage. Third, and this is something i feared, i am bipolar and have a very difficult childhood, portraying me as a rather unstable individual, regardless of my present clarity. Another problem is that I do not have the graceful presence of my DH, though that does not mean my DH is lying. I may infact be delusionally jealous and not know it. As for the compromise-- let us say it is an agreement. It requires trust on my part and less secrecy on the part of my DH. I am sorry i am not disclosing the actual details as they took place privately. Last, i have said this before: i think that these family conflicts should be discussed with the family, or someone like a pater familias, or a family doctor who knows both for a long time, or family friends. Counsellors have the advantage off knowing innumerable cases of marital conflict and their statistically likely outcome, but they may have the disadvantage of not knowing the character. Because my DH seems almost overnight to have become distraught and has lost so much weight, and says he wants to come back, and of course because I love him, I have agreed to the "compromise" or coming half way on our impasse. I hope I am doing the right thing even though i do get a slight sense of acting on blind faith. I think that I can handle that, and treating him poorly may end up being the worse option. And the counsellor does think I have treated him poorly, but also he has done some things that hurt me. As for the past -- i think you probably have to go to a psychoanalyst for that and i doubt that a life history would help much in a present conflict. Hope that helps -- sorry it's long; Erin In news:4c9d9b05-6e5d-4f58-8e9f-a190743cd915@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: > It's true that i have built a hypothesis on the indirect evidence > regarding [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Hope that helps -- sorry it's long; Most of the above makes very little sense to me. First of all, you've already told us so many private details of your relationship, and private discussions that you've had in therapy, that the notion that an agreement with your DH on how you'll behave toward each could possibly be more private than all of that is simply too fantastic for me to believe. Secondly, you've already rejected that notion that all of these therapists could possibly have your DH accurately pegged because of all of the lies and charm in which your DH has engaged with them, and yet, you somehow accept their advice about this mysterious agreement. Again, not credible to me. Thirdly, the idea that any respectable therapist would make any sort of judgments about how you should trust your DH in his relationship with another woman is also not credible to me. IMHO, here are the possibilities..... You are here for attention, and so you make things up as you go along, including the secrecy of the agreement, for no other reason than to keep people on the hook, and keep people responding to you. If that's the case, then you are to be commended for your ingenuity, because it has worked. Or, all of your posts have been very sincere, even if they are incredible. If that's the case, then either you have the most unlikely of lives about which I've ever heard, or your perceptions of reality are so tremendously skewed as to suggest to me that you are in need of some very intense, and serious psychiatric help and treatment. Or, it's some sort of weird combination of all of the above. I sometimes ask myself why I keep posting to you, and it varies between one of two reasons. The first is that in the off chance that you are, in fact, sincere, then maybe some of what I post may be of assistance. The second is that if you are not sincere, it's an interesting, chess-like game to see how you'll wiggle out of the various boxes in which you seem to place yourself. Like with the agreement? It's actually a bit disappointing that you'd resort to a refusal to play out that part of the game. It's just too easy of an escape from the web that you're weaving. As someone else here said it, it's just as much a cop out as when, in the TV show 'Dallas', an entire season was dismissed as a dream. But whether it's a game, or it's your real life story, I will admit that it is interesting. >IMHO, here are the possibilities..... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Or, it's some sort of weird combination of all of the above. I'm voting for B. >> IMHO, here are the possibilities..... Where is the "H" part? >> You are here for attention, and so you make things up as you go >> along, including the secrecy of the agreement, for no other reason [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'm voting for B. I'm voting for C. And I bet I'm right. To 'All You!' What if it is, as you said, that Erin is 'not sincere'? I think it is cruel of you to make it your own "interesting, chess-like game to see how you'll wiggle out of the various boxes in which you seem to place yourself. " In Erin I see a woman who is unhappy, communicative about her troubles, and yes - frustratingly immune to advice. In you, I see a person who might find puzzle games fun. Google 'Escape the room'. Lots of tough puzzles, and solving them doesn't include batting another person around like a cat with a mouse. In news:0c3bdb73-25c2-4e18-809e-9ff5bcea8461@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, mom0f4boys <momshea4@msn.com> mused: > To 'All You!' > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "interesting, chess-like game to see how you'll wiggle out of the > various boxes in which you seem to place yourself. " I'm not making it into a game, and I think it's grossly unfair of you to snip what I actually said in order to create the impression that I said something other than what I did. What I said is that for me, it is irrelevant which of those might be true. What I said, which directly answers your question, thereby making it unnecessary to ask, is that if Erin IS sincere, "then maybe some of what I post may be of assistance." IOW, what I post is what I would post regardless of what the truth may be. It is my view of those exchanges that differs depending on how I might feel about her sincerity, and not the content or substance of my posts. Besides, this is a public forum in which Erin has posted intimate details of her marriage. She did so voluntarily, and chooses, voluntarily, to engage in exchanges with various posters, including me, at her whim, and by her own free will. Over all of the time that she's posted here, she has continued to exchange thoughts with me. In fact, even today, she posted "There's something about you I like AllYou!-- can't put my finger on it -- maybe the right key is missing on the keyboard." And so clearly, your snap judgental attitude notwithstanding, her choice to keep communicating with me tells me that she does not find me to be cruel at all. Certainly, she may not like what I post from time to time, but cruel? > In Erin I see a woman who is unhappy, communicative about > her troubles, and yes - frustratingly immune to > advice. In you, I see a person who might find puzzle games fun. > Google 'Escape the room'. Lots of tough puzzles, > and solving them doesn't include batting another person around > like a cat with a mouse. FWIW, you strike me as someone who is extraordinarily judgmental, and my advice to you would be to work on that. If true, it can't possibly be doing you any good in life. > In > news:0c3bdb73-25c2-4e18-809e-9ff5bcea8461@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > and my advice to you would be to work on that. If true, it can't > possibly be doing you any good in life. AllYou! You have forgotten that I tried to explain my "sincerity" in terms of self-critical analysis in a previous but not too distant post, i.e.: 1. My interpretation of the situation may be distorted by my exclusion in the working life of my DH-- thereby having indirect evidence for a hypothesis, which i frankly admit has been fuelled by jealousy. 2. My interpretation of the situation has some credibility because of the statements, acts, and confessions which imply that there has or is an intimate relation going on between DH and another. And i should repeat here that half the people who know me, both professionals and friends/relatives do not doubt that the marriage has suffered from something which is commonly considered a species of affair. So, it is not my sincerity that you should doubt, except when i am upset, i overstate the facts, but how to judge the situation with regard to its significance in the marriage. Also, no offense, but you have to get a sense of humour; when i said there was something about you i liked, i was proposing a date. Erin In news:b7097dd9-a99a-40aa-b563-333c3ba669d5@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >> In >> news:0c3bdb73-25c2-4e18-809e-9ff5bcea8461@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > when i said there was something about you i liked, i was > proposing a date. I do have a sense of humor, which is why I responded to your comment that I must be missing a key that I have lots of missing keys from which to choose. DUH. > In > news:b7097dd9-a99a-40aa-b563-333c3ba669d5@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> of you to snip what I actually said in order to create the > >> impression that I said something other than what I did. OK - maybe i needed more coffee to appreciate that; what about the rest of my post? Do you see that there is a problem which has nothing to do with me or DH but is in itself an objective question, such as how much rain can we expect to fall before the levees break? Erin > >> What I said is that for me, it is irrelevant which of those > >> might be true. What I said, which directly answers your [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > that I must be missing a key that I have lots of missing keys from > which to choose. DUH. In news:15d60ea6-32fe-4432-b809-e4e2f537f127@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >> In >> news:b7097dd9-a99a-40aa-b563-333c3ba669d5@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > OK - maybe i needed more coffee to appreciate that; what about > the rest of my post? You've got me terribly confused. You just responded to a comment I made to another poster as though I made that comment to you. Either you are that poster as well, and you can't keep your handles straight, or you need one hell of a lot more coffee. As to the rest of your post, you'll have to be more specific because, if you can't keep track of your own posts, there's no way I can. > Do you see that there is a problem which > has nothing to do with me or DH but is in itself an objective > question, such as how much rain can we expect to fall before the > levees break? I have no idea what this means. > In > news:15d60ea6-32fe-4432-b809-e4e2f537f127@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > I have no idea what this means. What a rude man you are. And if you cannot see an analogy, then there is not much use talking to you. Erin In news:58b40f50-b6ac-43f3-9526-bb03f4b98b2d@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >> In >> news:15d60ea6-32fe-4432-b809-e4e2f537f127@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > What a rude man you are. And if you cannot see an analogy, > then there is not much use talking to you. The fact that I do not understand what you meant by what you posted makes me rude, and so not worth talking to? OK. As odd and totally illogical as that is to me, as always, that's your prerogative. > In > news:58b40f50-b6ac-43f3-9526-bb03f4b98b2d@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > The fact that I do not understand what you meant by what you posted > makes me rude, and so not worth talking to? Actually, it's more than that, but let's not belabor the point. >> In >> news:15d60ea6-32fe-4432-b809-e4e2f537f127@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Erin Finally the light turns on! :-) Good catch, Erin. (I was actually wondering just how long it was going to take) - ~00 (here's a little fishie for you to play with) > - > In > news:15d60ea6-32fe-4432-b809-e4e2f537f127@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You've got me terribly confused. (that doesn't take much) > You just responded to a comment I > made to another poster as though I made that comment to you. Either [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I have no idea what this means. No doubt. > In > news:b7097dd9-a99a-40aa-b563-333c3ba669d5@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > that I must be missing a key that I have lots of missing keys from > which to choose. DUH. And you do, AY (have lots of missing keys). > In > news:0c3bdb73-25c2-4e18-809e-9ff5bcea8461@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you to snip what I actually said in order to create the impression > that I said something other than what I did. ROFL! Here, here, little fishie: ~00 (one for you to catch again, AY). > What I said is that for me, it is irrelevant which of those might be > true. What I said, which directly answers your question, thereby [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > FWIW, you strike me as someone who is extraordinarily judgmental, Pot, Kettle. Self projection noted once again. > and my advice to you would be to work on that. If true, it can't > possibly be doing you any good in life. >>> IMHO, here are the possibilities..... > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I'm voting for C. Sorry, I meant D. And I bet I'm right. >>> IMHO, here are the possibilities..... > > Where is the "H" part? It's no mystery to me that you have no understanding of the H. > Bill in Co <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> mused: >> <idaman@conversent.net> wrote: "IMHO,..." >> Where is the "H" part? > It's no mystery to me that you have no understanding of the H. IMHO, use of the "H" by many of us is little more than satire... as if we could be. >> Bill in Co <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> mused: >>> <idaman@conversent.net> wrote: "IMHO,..." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > IMHO, use of the "H" by many of us is little more than satire... > as if we could be. The interpretation I use is 'honest', not 'humble'. I agree, there's hardly a poster here who can be humble. >>> Bill in Co <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> mused: >>>> <idaman@conversent.net> wrote: "IMHO,..." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The interpretation I use is 'honest', not 'humble'. I agree, > there's hardly a poster here who can be humble. Really? >>>> Bill in Co <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> mused: >>>>> <idaman@conversent.net> wrote: "IMHO,..." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Really? In your case, you're just an idiot. >>>> IMHO, here are the possibilities..... >> >> Where is the "H" part? > > It's no mystery to me that you have no understanding of the H. (Self-projection noted). >>>>> IMHO, here are the possibilities..... >>> >>> Where is the "H" part? >> >> It's no mystery to me that you have no understanding of the H. (Self-projection noted). >> IMHO, here are the possibilities..... >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I'm voting for B. Ayup. Through all the posts I've kept thinking "what other woman?" There's been very little written to point to there being one at all, except as another one of Erin's imaginative reasons to explain her husband's distance from her. > >> IMHO, here are the possibilities..... > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > another one of Erin's imaginative reasons to explain her husband's distance > from her. The two are not mutually exclusive possibilities; but you do have a good point there. Erin >>>> IMHO, here are the possibilities..... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Erin I meant D. I'm voting for D. >>>>> IMHO, here are the possibilities..... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I meant D. I'm voting for D. (Option D is none of the above :-) > As for the compromise-- let us say it is an agreement. It requires trust > on my part and less secrecy on the part of my DH. I am sorry i am not > disclosing the actual details as they took place privately. Trust on your part - Giving him a set of the house keys. Less privacy on his part - Only speaking to OW in your presence so you have a veto on stuff like waltzing off to see her when you object. Compromise - You view her as friend not mistress. Is it that simple? It should be. > Last, i have said this before: i think that these family conflicts should > be discussed with the family, or someone like a pater familias, or > a family doctor who knows both for a long time, or family friends. Which explains why you've been posting on UseNet. We're family. Check. > Because my DH seems almost overnight to have become distraught > and has lost so much weight, and says he wants to come back, and > of course because I love him, I have agreed to the "compromise" or > coming half way on our impasse. Your current state is abandonment - He lives elsewhere. He moved back in already, right? Oh, because he got sick. Well, sometimes crap has to happen to motivate folks to do the right thing. Shrug, doing the right thing beats having the right reasons. Actions beat thoughts. Has he returned yet? If not it's not much of a compromise. > > As for the compromise-- let us say it is an agreement. �It requires trust > > on my part and less secrecy on the part of my DH. �I am sorry i am not [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Has he returned yet? If not it's not much of a compromise. Not yet; he has changed again from wanting to stay there until next year, to as he said to the counsellor when i said why wait until his friend comes in August-- wants to come back as soon as possible. I'm listening to the counsellor's advice about my own inability to listen to what my DH says: that he loves me and misses being home-- he would not say that if he did not want to come back. So, I'm being humble about it all and trying to see my mistakes and not focus on the negativity of my DH's personality; trying to focus on his good parts and forget the pain of the past 5 years. I'm cooperating and accepting the compromise. As for your question-- has he returned yet, it takes a while to break a lease and stuff and he has to wait until his friend comes and leaves. That's OK with the counsellor and DH, so I have agreed to see this in a positive light. Erin > > Has he returned yet? If not it's not much of a compromise. > > Not yet; he has changed again from wanting to stay there until > next year, Living apart is abandonment. You've pointed that out to the councellor? > to as he said to the counsellor when i said why wait > until his friend comes in August-- Thus having one more chance to co-habitate with OW. Tough compromise on his part. Right. And it's long enough in the future that he could back out of the agreeement and you're one of your bipolar swings past the incident and remembering it wrong. Check. > wants to come back as soon as possible. As soon as possible is returning from the day's work at the office today to his marriage home. Period. > I'm listening to the counsellor's advice about my > own inability to listen to what my DH says: that he loves me and > misses being home-- Actions speak louder than words. What does your counsellor say about the actions? > he would not say that if he did not want to come back. False. Just another lie until he DOES move back. Sounding good isn't the same as doing good. > ... As for > your question-- has he returned yet, it takes a while to break a > lease and stuff There's a difference between *paying* for a lease because you've commited to doing that and actually living in the place while you're paying. It remains abandonment until he starts showing up at home each and every day. That apartment isn't going to vanish down a black hole just because he pays the rent but does not go there. And once he has moved *all* of his stuff out (that can wait unti the weekend in other words tomorrow) the landlord can put out a sign to lease the place to the next tenant - As soon as it's rented the lease can be dropped. > and he has to wait until his friend comes and leaves. Cohabitation would not be a part of any compromise you should agree to. If he wants to keep the apartment so she can use it during her next visit then there's no need to break the lease. But there is no way any sincere compromise can be reached if he continues the abandonment and lives with her during the visit. IF she is just a Platonic friend then he will without hesitation agree to not sleep in the same apartment with her during her visit, and agree to have you present during most of their time physically together. It is true this would be extremely tough on you being a non-negative observer of the Platonic nature of their relationship. It would also make extremely clear her sincerity in the matter how easily she agrees to having her friend's wife present during their visits. Friends DO hang out with their married friends as couples. > That's OK with the counsellor and DH, so I have agreed to see > this in a positive light. Right. The positive light is he can keep paying for the apartment until the agreed upon time but each night spent there without you is a night of abandonment. It's not the money that keeps him at that apartment. It's his actions saying his words that he wants to return are false. Actions speak louder than words. So the situation you have is you're still separated. You still don't have any sign that he plans on returning because his actions don't match his words. And you have an improved attitude about the situation. That really is an excellent step of progress but there's no way the step of progress is what you've stated. He wants to return to the extent he shows up tonight after work. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Your compromise is worth the effort exactly because you now feel better about the situation, not because there's a chance in H*l he is telling the truth when he states he wants to come home. You feel better so that's progress, but don't play the game of he's coming back because he said so. > > > Has he returned yet? �If not it's not much of a compromise. > > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > You feel better so that's progress, but don't play the game of > he's coming back because he said so. Your post is duly noted. Thank you. Erin In news:9c1bba84-b591-4e9f-a005-605f7a2e46c6@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> mused: > Living apart is abandonment. You've pointed that out to > the councellor? I'm not so sure that 'abandonment' would leave the right impression. I think most people would infer that for one person to abandon another means that the one doing the abandoning is victimizing, in some way, the one who is being abandoned. I suppose, in a case where two people agree to live apart, it could be said that they abandoned each other, but even that doesn't sound right. Even that seems to imply that they've completely broken ties. Or it could even be inferred that each of them left the other to their own devices without regard to need. I guess I don't see your point in adding the word 'abandon' when 'separated' seems to fit the situation just fine. > In > news:9c1bba84-b591-4e9f-a005-605f7a2e46c6@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I guess I don't see your point in adding the word 'abandon' when > 'separated' seems to fit the situation just fine. Abandonment need not be just physical. There can be emotional abandonment for a long long time. In such cases, many men live lives of quiet desperation. Erin > Abandonment need not be just physical. There can be emotional > abandonment for a long long time. In such cases, many men > live lives of quiet desperation. > > Erin And women. >> Abandonment need not be just physical. There can be emotional >> abandonment for a long long time. In such cases, many men [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And women. Right. It applies to both sexes. In news:b9a1ec8b-88a5-470e-a83d-feb5a1ecbb25@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >> In >> news:9c1bba84-b591-4e9f-a005-605f7a2e46c6@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > abandonment for a long long time. In such cases, many men > live lives of quiet desperation. I know all of that, and so my comment stands as written. You tend to be incredibly rude. > In > news:b9a1ec8b-88a5-470e-a83d-feb5a1ecbb25@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I know all of that, and so my comment stands as written. You tend > to be incredibly rude. ROFLMAO! 100% self projection noted. What a dumbass. > Innews:9c1bba84-b591-4e9f-a005-605f7a2e46c6@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, > Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I guess I don't see your point in adding the word 'abandon' when > 'separated' seems to fit the situation just fine. Especially considering Mr Erin is participating in marital counseling with intention to try and reconcile with Erin. That doesn't sound like abandonment to me either. jen pennyshiny...@gmail.com wrote: > > Innews:9c1bba84-b591-4e9f-a005-605f7a2e46c6@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, > > Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > jen No, it doesn't. Erin > Not yet; he has changed again from wanting to stay there until > next year, to as he said to the counsellor when i said why wait [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That's OK with the counsellor and DH, so I have agreed to see > this in a positive light. Sounds like a good first step in the right direction, Erin. I see the situation differently - I am more in line, I think, with your therapists' view. My guess is that your DH is not and was not ever having an affair - at most, maybe he toyed with a one-sided crush for awhile. But he's clung on to her - he has made her the "topic" you debate over - because it got your attention. It is his leverage point with you. Just as it has become your leverage point with him. As I said before, both of you are awfully stubborn. He won't let go until you let go, and you won't let go until he lets go. Sounds like the therapist is slowly getting the two of you to loosen your stubborn grips. Your DH's delay with moving back in, is akin to him loosening up one or two fingers, but not quite letting go. Not until he's convinced you mean it now. Just as you need to relearn to trust him, he needs to relearn to trust you. Maybe he worries if he rushed back home tomorrow, he'll find nothing has changed. So he's giving it a little more time and therapy. That seems reasonable. Please never forget, no matter what anyone tells you here, it is YOUR marriage and it is up to you to decide how you want to conduct it, and what is acceptable or not acceptable. I would never judge you for welcoming your DH back into your life - even if it turned out he was having a full-on affair. Affairs happen to a lot of marriages. They are nothing new. Many couples get through them - they just don't talk about it. But I still have this hunch there was no affair - just a friendship. I think this was more about your DH wanting to send you a message that you don't control him and can't dictate who he is friends with. It is about him wanting more breathing space in the marriage. Wanting you to respect that he can make his own health decisions. Wanting you to trust that he can have a female friendship and not cheat on you. As I said before, he may indeed be very insulted that you would even think he would ever cheat. But listen to your DH and your therapist: he loves YOU. He misses YOU. He wants to come back home to YOU. Focus on those three things. That is all that matters, and what is going to get you two through this and out the other side. Even better.... he loves, misses, and wants to come home to you, but he wants to do so in a way that will make the marriage better, stronger, happier. That's why he's in therapy with you. That's why he may be holding on to his last bit of "leverage" for now. He wants things to change for the positive. You two have a chance to recreate your marriage and make it better than ever. How cool is that? jen pennyshiny...@gmail.com wrote: > > Not yet; he has changed again from wanting to stay there until > > next year, to as he said to the counsellor when i said why wait [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > jen thanks jen for your kind and optmistic post; i have my own theories about what went wrong and medication is a big factor but not the only one; as for stubborness-- i doubt it; but as for creating an unmanageable mess-- i think that is what has happened. I am past making judgements now because i have tried so hard; i am letting things go and time showing the most probable outcome; basically i am tired but at least i am no longer in pain and able to exercise some objectivity in perspective; thanks again Erin > ..., regardless of my present clarity. Dammit!!! Now I hafta wipe beer off my son's brand freakin' new monitor!!!! >> ..., regardless of my present clarity. > > Dammit!!! > Now I hafta wipe beer off my son's brand freakin' new monitor!!!! :-) Please be nice. > >> ..., regardless of my present clarity. > > > > Dammit!!! > > Now I hafta wipe beer off my son's brand freakin' new monitor!!!! > > :-) Please be nice. If you're not going to be civil, i'm picking up all my bottle caps and going home! Erin In news:26c83ba4-3918-4f10-bb1e-f36d1495fb5f@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused: >> In >> news:9aae65b9-8641-4c28-b965-5fbc7a7ac8f3@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Does it matter what the compromise is? :-) IMO, it would be illogical for you to continue to post the travails of your relationship with your DH in a public, marital, support group, and leave out what I would regard to be an essential part of that relationship. However, as always, and as you've been advised now very many times, by very many people, what you post, what you include, what you exclude, and how you receive any comments made about your situation which you've thereby invited is completely up to you. And so in that context, it matters, but to me personally, it doesn't matter at all. > It's over now. I'd like to think so, but the fat lady hasn't sung yet :-). Don't let's get too excited yet. > DH and I are compromising according to the insights that > the counsellor has provided. That's nice. A compromise means that you have agreed to something he wants, and that in return he has agreed to something you want. So, what have you agreed to, and what has he agreed to? Cailleach > > >It was if we were in some endless loop, or part of an anomoly in > > >the space-time continuum in which we could see our future selves [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > It's over now. A compromise is in the making. Had it not > been for marriage counselling this separation would have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm apprehensive but willing to drop my "weapons." > Apparently, I have to look at my insecurities a little closer. Well, this is vague enuff to mean almost anything. Stay tuned, folks. In the next episode, she opens the shower door, sees Patrick Duffy who's been dead for a year and says, "Bobby, I had an awful nightmare." -- from "Dallas" (1986) > > It's over now. A compromise is in the making. Had it not > > been for marriage counselling this separation would have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Patrick Duffy who's been dead for a year and says, "Bobby, > I had an awful nightmare." -- from "Dallas" (1986) I did not watch Dallas but it does sound scary; and i did have a nightmare last night :-). I'm not a Freudian and i hope i won't be converting soon with all these changes in perspective. Erin >>> It's over now. A compromise is in the making. Had it not >>> been for marriage counselling this separation would have [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Erin Dallas wasn't scary. >>> It's over now. A compromise is in the making. Had it not >>> been for marriage counselling this separation would have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I did not watch Dallas.... Then you've missed 13 years of damn fine TV entertainment! EB > I can't go on explaining my point of view. > It's futile and it has exhausted me. It's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Erin You don't have to go on explaining your point of view, however. (This group isn't all or nothing, you know. :-) >> I can't go on explaining my point of view. >> It's futile and it has exhausted me. It's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You don't have to go on explaining your point of view, however. (This > group isn't all or nothing, you know. :-) Perhaps Erin is "getting it" at last. No, we don't have to agree with her explanations, only listen to them, but I like: >> It's >> time to try and get some kind of life besides >> wondering what happened to my marriage. That is what it is all about. Good luck, Erin. You may even find that it gives you a different perspective on past events. Doug L. >>> I can't go on explaining my point of view. >>> It's futile and it has exhausted me. It's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > Perhaps Erin is "getting it" at last. Whatever "it" is.... > No, we don't have to agree with her explanations, only listen to them, but > I like: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That is what it is all about. Presumably that is what you mean by "it". :-) > Good luck, Erin. You may even find that it > gives you a different perspective on past events. > > Doug L. >I can't go on explaining my point of view. Good, because we are getting tired of hearing it. We get it. Your point of view was crystal clear. > It's futile and it has exhausted me. I, personally, am tired too. You are right, it was futile. It was futile for you to get us to nod in agreement like some mindless chorus praising St Erin for being this matyr and hanging on to this trainwreck of a marriage you have. You painted a picture of an abusive male, with mental problems, that has a mistress, that is also abusive to you. You painted a picture of friends, family, and co-workers that support this abusive a.shole and you have no one in your corner. You said he has lied and tricked all his doctors and theraspists and the doctors has stated that somewhere at the root of HIS problems, was YOU. After all that, you want us to understand why you are still staying with him. You asked for opinions, We gave them. You didn't like what we said. EVERYONE here has said we would not conduct ourselves the we would have if we have been in your shoes. From my perspective, there is not enough explaining you can do to make me understand why you are sticking with this guy. If it were strickly financial obligations, THAT is something I can relate to. This "30 year marriage obligation but, the last five years were hell" thing leaves me cold. You want to stay with him, fine. But, you can't start whining about him spending time with his "soulmate" and him not taking his med and understainding why he is such an a.shole. You want it both ways. You want his respect. You want to take care of him and you want him to recognise your efforts for sticking with him. You want you marriage back. We SO get it. Problem is, you don't get it. Exhaustion on both ends. You are tired of explaining it and so are we. >It's time to try and get some kind of life besides > wondering what happened to my marriage. We've all said that from day one! You have been the one that has insisted on making your marriage the main focal point. I have told you maybe a year ago to focus on other aspects of your life. > Bye everyone. You'll be back >Thank you for participating and helping. > > Erin We have participated, but I doubt we've helped :-( EB >> I can't go on explaining my point of view. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > EVERYONE here has said we would not conduct ourselves the we would have if > we have been in your shoes. No, everyone has not stated that. Truth is, we are NOT in her shoes. Geesh, the innocence of youth....! > From my perspective, there is not enough explaining you can do to make me > understand why you are sticking with this guy. No doubt that is true. > If it were strickly financial obligations, THAT is something I can relate > to. > This "30 year marriage obligation but, the last five years were hell" > thing > leaves me cold. It probably does. > You want to stay with him, fine. But, you can't start whining about him > spending time with his "soulmate" and him not taking his med and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Exhaustion on both ends. > You are tired of explaining it and so are we. Are you speaking for everyone now? Wow, such hubris. EB! >> It's time to try and get some kind of life besides >> wondering what happened to my marriage. Says who? Who are you to judge that? Maybe this is where she is at right now. > We've all said that from day one! You have been the one that has insisted > on making your marriage the main focal point. I have told you maybe a year [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You'll be back So? >> Thank you for participating and helping. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > EB But that's not your job, either (and if you think so, that is your issue). |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message