Some of you are here b/c you didn't SEE him/her. Don't make the same mistake by just finding another way to NOT see but passing it off as if you do.
here, here!!
Bridge,
What if we are here b/c we admittedly didn't see him/her, want(ed) to find another way TO see, but realize that WE were too late and he/she no longer wants to be seen by us?
-AlexEN
New: What a Weekend
H-48 WAW-49 M-22 S-14,9 D-11 EA disc.-11/07 PA disc.-3/08 EA2?-6/08 to ?
Some of you are here b/c you didn't SEE him/her. Don't make the same mistake by just finding another way to NOT see but passing it off as if you do.
here, here!!
Bridge,
What if we are here b/c we admittedly didn't see him/her, want(ed) to find another way TO see, but realize that WE were too late and he/she no longer wants to be seen by us?
-AlexEN
Oh since you put it that way, then by all means.. force yourself on them when they no longer want it.. that is very desirable to a WAS.
It's their choice whether to share the 'new' them with the 'new' you.. just as it would be any 'new' woman in your life.
You don't have to like it, to accept it... it's their choice to not 'be' with the new you.
Would you be here bemoaning & "learning to technique" a woman turning you down after a date or two b/c she didn't trust/get/connect with you?
Why do you do it because your STBX-wife has made that choice?
If love is a choice & she has made it.. why do you argue with her? All that does is just proves her point... that you invalidate what she chooses, her choices don't matter to you and she is irrelevent... you make it all about you when you do that.
As Coach says, make the road back to you as smooth as possible.. arguing with her about her choices, is not doing that.
Peace Bridge
Divorced 03/2010 Mom to two amazing kids
Taking the road less traveled because those encountered on the way may be just as unique.
And many salutes to @coach and @Jody for superior Dbing technique.
"technique"
Boy, I hate this terminology.
It caused a lot of discord initially in the Coach household.
Reminds me of the other 't' word...trickery.
Y'all...it's not "technique". It is learning what you missed about the person to whom you tied your future.
Beeeeeeeee careful. Some of you are here b/c you didn't SEE him/her. Don't make the same mistake by just finding another way to NOT see but passing it off as if you do.
@Gypsy wrote: "Folks end up in LimboLand because the alternative is far too scary for one party or the other."
That's pretty smart stuff right there.
I think that hits the old nail on the head, as a matter of fact. Last night I was talking to S about his regular goofing off behavior at bed time, and WAW kept coming in to his room demanding to know "what - is - going - ON?"
Finally I turned, looked her in the eyes, and said, "I am speaking to my son, thank you!" pretty sharply, and she retreated to the master bed.
I went downstairs to the guest room, settled in to bed, and about 5 minutes later heard her get in her car and drive off. She's spending the night in her new house. Literal LimboLand -- no fridge, no bed even.
But the alternative -- confronting the fact that I'm raising MY son in MY house -- too difficult to cope with perhaps.
Her aggregate level of outwardly manifested stress and sadness increases each day. Her movers will be here in 76 hours. I don't envy her what that must feel like one bit.
@Kalni wrote "When they do have second thoughts, they need encouragement that "this", the M, can work."
That sounds about right to me. And when WAW emailed me last week (?) that after she moves out she wants us to spend time together and "get to know each other again," I said that I had no objections to that. Between you and me and the firewall, it sounded wishy-washy and my initial reaction was to dismiss it as WAScript, but I thought about it and understood it (correctly, I think) as an opening, as a peace offering, and replied favorably.
So I hear you, for sure. By the same token, I've been thinking like our colleague does, and the @Coach-Greek example to the contrary notwithstanding, I wonder about this notion -- "'this,' the M, can work." It seems clear to me that "this" isn't the same "this" that it was pre-Bomb. So how can one assume the new "this" will work? It seems to me that new rules would have to be negotiated, new understandings reached, etc. Now this is more-or-less the same thing one does in any "new" relationship, so it's not an insurmountable obstacle.
But one thing that has been percolating in my mind of late is the growing awareness that -- as Puppy has pointed out elsewhere -- one can take on "too much" responsibility for the Bomb and D. The focus on GAL, 180, active listening, etc., is all to the good, don't get me wrong, and has done me a world of good to boot.
But as the power has shifted in my sitch, I sort of woke up with a 2x4 to the head: "Hey dude -- it, ummm, wasn't all you. There were 2 people in this marriage." WAW's attitude towards me in the context of the D has certainly evolved (right word?) as I noted to Puppy above. But it has evolved (regressed?) to her "normal" M behavior towards me: pushy and critical combined with a dollop of thin-skinned and defensive. She doesn't actively listen. I have to be constantly mindful of using the phrases "my point of view" and "my perspective."
She has this persona she adopts/uses with her friends and co-workers: clever, witty, quick-with-the-quip (stolen from me as often as not!), sassy -- think Myrna Loy in "The Thin Man." Lately she's chuckled about this or that and said, "That reminds me of X." When I look at her as if to say, "What's X?" she'll say, "Oh, didn't I send you that article / clip / link?" And of course the answer is, "No."
But at home, with me, none of that. I didn't discourage it, I didn't tell her to stop it, I didn't ignore her when she would tell me things -- she just had a Marriage Her and a Not-Marriage Her. Then she had a Divorce Her.
Now the Divorce Her has been subordinated, and the M / ~M Hers are back -- and in their familiar ordering. So let's play with a little thought experiment:
Assume that some kind of detente (cf, @Gypsy and the Art of War) is reached after Friday. Assume that some kind of tentative moves "back" (or, more accurately for me I think, towards some other place) are undertaken. At what point does one / ought one / could one expect to see Former WAS undertaking the kind of rigorous self-evaluation and reflection that Former LBS does during the divorce-busting process? That seems, at a minimum, only to be fair to me: sauce for the gander, sauce for the goose. (This assumes -- perhaps wrongly / unfairly -- that Former WAS has not been undergoing some kind of process during the separation, etc., I admit.) Because otherwise this would seem to have the effect simply of shifting the power back to the Former WAS -- gosh I'm glad you came home because all the problems were me.
@Forrest Gump wrote: "What do you think about all the "thought's" coming at you from "here" (Db.com)?"
I need clarification -- and I'm not being deliberately obtuse here.
"thought's" -- 1) why is it in quotes -- are these not thoughts? Or are these "thoughts" in the guise of something else you're referring to? 2) why the possessive apostrophe -- thought's what?
"here" -- same question -- why the quotes? Does "here" refer to somewhere else?
Bridge, Where in what I asked you did I ever suggest forcing myself on anyone or "techniquing". I've never even suggested arguing with her... Your wrath is misplaced.
Yeah, I'm going to have to rise to the defense of my esteemed colleague AlexEN here -- when I read those posts in order I got those ah-ooga eyes from the Tex Avery cartoons. The response clearly did not follow from the query. No active listening? *Ahem.
@Forrest Gump wrote: "What do you think about all the "thought's" coming at you from "here" (Db.com)?"
I need clarification -- and I'm not being deliberately obtuse here.
"thought's" -- 1) why is it in quotes -- are these not thoughts? Or are these "thoughts" in the guise of something else you're referring to? 2) why the possessive apostrophe -- thought's what?
"here" -- same question -- why the quotes? Does "here" refer to somewhere else?
SP, I think FG does that for emphasis -- like italics. He does it a lot in his posts.
like our colleague does, and the @Coach-Greek example to the contrary notwithstanding, I wonder about this notion -- "