I mean, what's the basic mantra in the DB community -- figure out what you did 'wrong' to contribute to this outcome: "I think I wasn't supportive, but of course that's just my perspective, so it doesn't really matter."
This is a fascinating observation, and many (Gucci, for one) have posted about it: the natural tendency in DBing to start with the assumption that the betrayed/left-behind spouse is somehow deficient, has done something "wrong," and therefore needs to be "fixed" in order to attract back the wayward/walkaway spouse.
And this is certainly true in many, many instances.
But not all. I believe it was Dr. Harley who found in his research (and practice) on infidelity, that about 20-25% of the affairs happened in perfectly healthy marriages. And Gucci (and others) has posted about "Sometimes, you really DIDN'T do anything wrong -- sometimes it really IS just THEM." (I'm paraphrasing).
Really, if you follow the MLC forum at all, which I do at times, they work from the perspective of it's ALL about them -- it's their "journey."
Too many DBers, in my opinion, try to work with this "fix-it list," articulated to them from a fogged-out wayward/walkaway spouse, many times chemically-fueled, and find themselves in a hopeless, cheeseless tunnel of "self-improvement."
Coud it be the "scripts" are so similar because there are only so many ways one can break this kind of news to another?
The script seems to be worded in such a way that relfects the following: guilt, confusion, wanting to let someone down easy, justification, etc, but the bottom line to what they're saying is, as my wife so bluntly put it: "I don't want to be married to you anymore".
I don't think so, TT, because the "script" is followed -- with only a VERY few variations -- at every step along the way, not just at the "bomb." I have my own theories on this, mostly spiritual in nature, that would be better discussed on another thread, but I think Hoozh's suggestion is a fascinating one: the gubmint oughta do a study!! God knows it could help more people than the myriad of "Dating Habits of Two-Horned Frogs" and such that we fund now!
Puppy
oooh--lemme just clarify here. we don't want the gubmint "doing" the study--just paying for it!! lol!
but pup's point is a good one--the "script" is not just a one-scene performance, but often a multiple-act play, often with a scripted prologue. and it keeps going on...my own Niebelungen epic has stayed true to script lo these two-and-a-half years, and with very few exceptions, each dialogue is absolutely predictable. and probably several other old-timers have experienced the same. I'm actually not so much in favor of a study as its (hoped) result--acknowledgment that "serial monogamy" is not a self-actualizing phenomenon, but rather a very destructive influence on the stability of society (e.g. rates of children subsequently raised in near-poverty). and it needs not "acceptance" and brief, temporary hand-patting for the left-behind family, but rather some form of "treatment." of course it will be argued that the treatment would be involuntary and therefore unethical...but so is treatment of pedophiles, paranoid schizophrenics, and others whose behavior causes permanent damage to its victims. extreme view? of course. but sometimes that's what it takes to get that pendulum to swing back towards the middle.
M60 H52 D20 M14 yrs OW-old gf from 1986 bomb-5/18/08 H filed for D-9/10/08 D final 4/24/09 xH remarried (not OW) 2012
of course it will be argued that the treatment would be involuntary and therefore unethical...but so is treatment of pedophiles, paranoid schizophrenics, and others whose behavior causes permanent damage to its victims. extreme view? of course. but sometimes that's what it takes to get that pendulum to swing back towards the middle.
Yeah, and they'd have to listen to someone who knows how to uses "Niebelungen" in context, too!
Hi, Brow! Whoo-hoo, you can practically smell the wood burning.
So let's be fair and positivist and suggest that if there is in fact a rather predictable script -- a Divorce Ring Cycle, if you will (does that make me Siegfried to STBX's Brünnhilde?) -- this might compel us to recognize that perhaps there aren't so many variations of human relations.
Way back when, at the start of SP's own cycle, I met a diplomat from Very Catholic Central European country at a cocktail party. Before he joined his country's foreign service, he was a divorce attorney and wouldn't you know it -- Walkaways in Very Catholic Central European Country have the Exact Same Script as Walkaways in These Yere You-knighted States of Amurca.
So if (YouTube) People are People, then there are, by definition, patterns. And patterns are, by definition, explicable.
So it doesn't have to "just be their perspective" -- there could be / must be / might be some recurring social / emotional / psychological phenomena at work.
And that implies there could be such a study.
Whether or not that would change things is, of course, purely speculative. For mine own sake, I doubt it would -- the defining characteristic of Homo Ingredior Absentis is Rationalization.
I mean, what's the basic mantra in the DB community -- figure out what you did 'wrong' to contribute to this outcome: "I think I wasn't supportive, but of course that's just my perspective, so it doesn't really matter."
This is a fascinating observation, and many (Gucci, for one) have posted about it: the natural tendency in DBing to start with the assumption that the betrayed/left-behind spouse is somehow deficient, has done something "wrong," and therefore needs to be "fixed" in order to attract back the wayward/walkaway spouse.
In The Journey From Abandonment To Healing, author Susan Anderson lists the third of the Five Stages Of Abandonment as "Internalizing the Rejection," which includes
Idealizing the Abandoner Impotent Rage (victim) Isolation and Shame Indictment (of self)
"Why do we indict ourselves? As painful and potentially destructive as these thoughts are, they serve a temporary purpose. They provide a sense of control over what has happened. By holding ourselves culpable, we feel we have the power to change the things that brought the relationship to an end. All we have to do, we reason, is correct our faults and we can get our lost partners back... But accepting all of the responsibility of the failure of your relationship leads to further self-injury. As you look inside for deficiencies to correct, you come to believe that there is something inherently unacceptable about you."
Originally Posted By: hoosiermama
all of this is exactly why I think the NIH ought to sink some bucks into a comprehensive study that will examine the walkaway syndrome...with the ultimate denouement of having its own listing in the DSM-IV.
The author agrees with you, hm. Abandonment has enough similarities to - yet is in many ways different from - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (and Bereavement, for that matter) that she believes they should be a sub-types of this diagnostic category.
And as an aside, I think it's interesting - and telling - that the second sentence of the book contains the common DB term, "...it happened out of the blue."
Also, the first chapter contains a short, concise, dead-on definition of WHAT IS AN ABANDONER?
Peace,
Last edited by Gardener; 09/06/1003:09 PM.
Gardener
"My soul, be satisfied with flowers, With fruit, with weeds even; but gather them In the one garden you may call your own." Cyrano deBergerac
Whether or not that would change things is, of course, purely speculative. For mine own sake, I doubt it would -- the defining characteristic of Homo Ingredior Absentis is Rationalization.
Dear Siegried--Indeed. But while it might not change things personally, might it change things societal-ly? Reboot the anthropology of our age from the I-generation(s) to What's Best for the Children?? At the very least make it just a bit more appropriately politically unacceptable to jettison whole families, often condemning them to some kind of poverty of spirit as well as of material needs? Call into question the ethics of even those institutions we'd expect to champion values, but who instead get sucked into "self-actualization as the highest form of virtue" belief? Make it just a little bit less socially acceptable to blame the victims, We-Who-Are-Left-Behind? Love, Brunnhilde
M60 H52 D20 M14 yrs OW-old gf from 1986 bomb-5/18/08 H filed for D-9/10/08 D final 4/24/09 xH remarried (not OW) 2012
ah, no wonder that book resonated so profoundly; Susan Anderson and I are kindred spirits. I recognized my own PTSD and the need for a DSM-IV update even before reading that very dead-on book. Learned many other things therein, as well as having my perceptions validated. And even if they are just my perceptions, does anything else really matter at this point??
M60 H52 D20 M14 yrs OW-old gf from 1986 bomb-5/18/08 H filed for D-9/10/08 D final 4/24/09 xH remarried (not OW) 2012
...Reboot the anthropology of our age from the I-generation(s) to What's Best for the Children?? At the very least make it just a bit more appropriately politically unacceptable to jettison whole families, often condemning them to some kind of poverty of spirit as well as of material needs? Call into question the ethics of even those institutions we'd expect to champion values, but who instead get sucked into "self-actualization as the highest form of virtue" belief?...
Sounds like an excellent summary of why (I believe) No-Fault Divorce Laws should be repealed (unilateral, self-actualizing decisions by one person carrying the day and destroying so much for so many while the self-actualizing destroyer gets a "free pass").
Last edited by Gardener; 09/06/1003:34 PM.
Gardener
"My soul, be satisfied with flowers, With fruit, with weeds even; but gather them In the one garden you may call your own." Cyrano deBergerac
...Reboot the anthropology of our age from the I-generation(s) to What's Best for the Children?? At the very least make it just a bit more appropriately politically unacceptable to jettison whole families, often condemning them to some kind of poverty of spirit as well as of material needs? Call into question the ethics of even those institutions we'd expect to champion values, but who instead get sucked into "self-actualization as the highest form of virtue" belief?...
Sounds like an excellent summary of why (I believe) No-Fault Divorce Laws should be repealed (unilateral, self-actualizing decisions by one person carrying the day and destroying so much for so many while the self-actualizing destroyer gets a "free pass").
