La Bug-Clouds in my Coffee

[labug]

I just read this post and wanted to move it here so I could find it again. I also have a text file of DB Words of Wisdom that I will add it to.

On detachment and GAL
rickb89: I really could not imagine how much it would sukk if this doesn't work out.

25yearsmlc: Well you NEED to imagine it. Yes...that's what I said.
Only when I imagined life without my h, but with me being happy
was I able to make the changes I wanted in my life and in me - ANYHOW....so flesh out the images of what you'd be doing without her. If she passed away and enough time had passed
what would your life look like assuming it's a healthy happy life? You're not shriveling up in the fetal position, right?

Are you going back to school or taking a class or joining a new church or taking Spanish or travelling or what? And with whom? (not OWs, but who else?)
and create as much of THAT life now, as possible. It's called GAL and it makes you happier and healthier and more likely to reconcile...and yet, if you don't, you're a lot farther down the road of recovery than you would be otherwise.

It's a win win....hope you get this. Make sense?


Some days I feel really detached and others, not so much. Now when thoughts of H enter my head, I'm saying to myself

We're not a couple, he does not want to be with me, I'm worth more than pining for someone who doesn't want ME.

Of all the old threads I've read, they all say this-DETACHING-creates success, no matter if there's reconciliation or not.

[BklynMom]

Thanks for reposting this - I too loved this post. I need to read this every day. I need to remind myself everyday to create the life I want.

[gunny]

Hello LADY,
I am enjoying your new thread, alot of great stuff here! Thanks!

[Accuray]

Hi Labug,

Sorry about your difficult day, overall you're doing great! Hold on to that. WRT your financial discussion with H, I would have it. It's carrot and stick. Your good attitude and all your positive changes are the carrot, and the bill coming due on the financials is the stick -- both will hopefully get him thinking more about the decisions he is making. Obviously you need to handle the discussion in DB fashion, but I get the sense you know how to do that.

Accuray

[Oneeleven]

Thanks for reposting that very wise morsel of advice

I am having a very difficult time with the same thing at the moment.

Hope your day gets better~

[Accuray]

Of all the old threads I've read, they all say this-DETACHING-creates success, no matter if there's reconciliation or not.

Interesting. In many books I've read, men tend to retreat in relationships as a coping or defense mechanism -- go to the man cave to escape being shamed, that kind of thing. Women then feel that they're not connected, and you have a downward spiral.

Now in DB, detaching is necessary because the other person doesn't want to be with you. It's a strategy to (a) give them space and (b) make you learn to be OK with giving them space. To some degree it's letting go of the rope and letting the tide take you where it will. This is successful in DB because you stop pursuing which takes pressure off the WAS.

In the case of reconciliation, I don't think the detaching is quite the same, but maybe I'm wrong. I wrestle with this. In the context of reconciliation, I find Schnarch's concepts of "Differentiation" and "Fusion" more useful. "Fusion" is like codependence where you need your spouse to validate you, and you have a reflected sense of self. "Differentiation" means that you are able to self-soothe, and define yourself as a person independent from your spouse. You are in your marriage not because you *need* to be, but because you want to be.

In the context of differentiation, I think you want to be with your spouse, but you don't lean on them as a crutch. Detaching to me implies learning not to want your spouse, but maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way.

Accuray

[Accuray]

I didn't finish that thought, sorry! The point about the "retreating" is if that was a walkaway factor, then "detaching" during reconciliation runs the risk of looking like retreating, right? That's what I struggle with. One of my W's historic complaints was that I would retreat and leave her alone.

Now, I'm hesitant to GAL or detach, because I don't want to foster that alone feeling again. If connecting is the opposite of detaching, then I think the strategy needs to change in reconciliation to differentiation rather than detachment.

Accuray

[jbnati]

I think detaching for me was a difficult concept to grasp. I tend to think of it as not letting someone else's emotional response to something control my feelings or emotions. I don't believe it's the same thing as disconnecting or withdrawal.

I think the GAL'ing for me has been about creating the life for myself I want to live. I am focusing on activities that put an extra spring in my step and that make me feel alive. I am surrounding myself with people with a positive outlook.

If that all makes any sense...

[labug]

I think the detaching and success was more about during the phase before reconciliation when you are DBing, letting the S miss you. If you reconcile then you slowly work toward the interdependence I've mentioned before, not expecting your partner to complete you but to complement you.

What I wanted to convey was that detachment is healthy and even necessary for building a new relationship.

[Accuray]

The complete vs complement thing is interesting to in this context. I do like the concept of "needing" the other person and being needed within reason. My wife and I have had the debate several times. I like the model where we are 85% whole and the marriage brings the following 15% to our lives. My wife likes the model where we are 100% whole by ourselves, and the marriage is benefit above that.

I can see and appreciate her point, and it is in line with Schnarch, I just don't like it.

It struck me that Labug referenced working toward interdependence which, as a choice of words, supports complete versus complement. In complement, there is no need for interdependence, there are two wholes who are choosing to share, but who do not *need*.

I like the philosophical debate, and I realize I'm on the side that will most likely be judged "wrong" by a healthy relationship yardstick, but I like the notion of comfort and security that the mutual need provides. The complement model suggests that any day, one partner or the other would get tired of sharing and walk out without feeling diminished, and the other partner would let them go without feeling diminished. From an evolutionary "pair bonding" standpoint, that doesn't feel like a marriage to me.

I think it's an interesting thing to think about anyway...

Accuray