@Greek cautioned: "it's not 'technique'. It is learning what you missed about the person to whom you tied your future."
I suspect most everyone "gets" that, but that the word "technique" was used as a place-holder for "way" or "method" or "approach." But your basic point is spot-on -- it has to be authentic.
I was talking to an old college friend yesterday, herself divorced (in a much worse divorce than mine), and she suggested that one challenge the WAS might face when confronting a productive DB'er is that "as if" and moving forward defies the WAS's expectations and puts the onus of The Work on her/him. In other words, the WAS needs the LBS to be a wreck, because Wreck Behavior has the nice effect of being a distraction AND a source of continual rationalization for the WAS ("Gosh I'm glad to be getting rid of that"). Thoughts?
@Forrest Gump: If Puppy is correct and that was merely a straight question with emphasis, the answer is -- if I might borrow a word from you -- "simple": Invaluable.
I was talking to an old college friend yesterday, herself divorced (in a much worse divorce than mine), and she suggested that one challenge the WAS might face when confronting a productive DB'er is that "as if" and moving forward defies the WAS's expectations and puts the onus of The Work on her/him. In other words, the WAS needs the LBS to be a wreck, because Wreck Behavior has the nice effect of being a distraction AND a source of continual rationalization for the WAS ("Gosh I'm glad to be getting rid of that"). Thoughts?
Yes, I think so, too. It was funny in a way: OCF said, "Man, I want to be on your side, but your attitude and behavior towards WAW is making me empathize with her. If my ex had done what you're doing, I don't know what I would have done!"
This, I think, is what I meant when I used the poorly chosen word, "revenge" (cf @Gypsy), and it's what I mean when I talk about Paradigm Shift --> Power Shift. And, not incidentally, I think it gets to the crux of the discussion you and I and @Thinker were having a few pages back over what constitutes "rescuing" vice just being open and supportive when requested/required.
It's "revengy" (or "Schadenfreudy") to see the burden shifted back to WAS. For me, this has been one of the truly great things about the MWD books, this board (cf, @Forrest Gump), and the other books recommended here there and everywhere (N.U.T.S., Codependent, etc. etc.).
On the one hand, I dislike the kind-of zero-sum sense of happiness the paragraph I just wrote implies -- if I'm happy Herself has to be unhappy -- but on the other I definitely like the fact that, by getting myself squared away and moving forward -- by Rolling My Way -- WAW must confront head-on her own feelings, fears, and the like.
Since the Bomb made me do that, it seems only fair to me that My Walk since the Bomb return the favor.
Since the Bomb made me do that, it seems only fair to me that My Walk since the Bomb return the favor.
And I agree with you, if your goal is to end the marriage.
If you're still DBing, then I thought you were missing openings and opportunities, and I still do.
See, here's the rub (and I've been noodling starting a whole thread on this, because I think it goes right to the core of the challenge of DBing):
To sufficiently detach in order to get yourself to a place emotionally where a divorce isn't going to just DEVASTATE you, I think you have to get to a place emotionally where you may not be vulnerable enough to still save your marriage.
Does that make sense? In other words, I think LBSs do this "one foot on the platform, the other foot on the train" thing as a defense mechanism, and in so doing, we hurt our chances to save the marriage. One might even argue that the ONLY way to save the marriage is to make a Leap of Faith into the mosh pit that is the troubled marriage, and hope your WAS catches you (and/or God sustains you). But if you DO that, and it's not successful (and it's also a given DB maxim that we CAN'T control it), then your heart will be WAY more hurt when she says "I still want a divorce."
I guess what I'm looking for is clarification of what that sentence implies -- to save the marriage one has to remain vulnerable to some degree. Is that the basic argument?
