Then, yes, I agree that it has to do with the frame of mind. What I pulled from the definitions are "examination or consideration" for a discussion vs. "disagreement, opposition, contention, and altercation" for an argument. I believe they represent a different attitude coming into the exchange.
In my example of the boating/floating argument, I don't believe my H ever took my interests into consideration at all. Whatever I said, he immediately contested/overrode it, not even acknowledging it. It's almost like I'm not even there. I certainly don't feel human, rather just like a "thing" that's supposed to submit to his bidding. And the fact that he could go 6 years without going floating with me once, yet still expect me to go boating with him again exacerbates that feeling.
It's curious that you find this enjoyable. My H wouldn't have made it through reading my first post, much less ever responded to it. So I appreciate it, too! At least it's a little off the beaten track of what my mind usually chews on.
So I'm still curious to the end result. What is the line between asking/discussing and nagging? I tend to check out pretty easily, because of my reasoning in my earlier post. If a person says no, I believe they're entitled to that decision. Obviously, H doesn't feel that way. And you seem to have a least a somewhat different perspective. What am I missing? What logic says that we as an individual have a right to argue someone else into doing something for us, when they've stated they don't want to? The continental congress sitch is a different animal in my book; those people were defining laws for an entire country. I'm considering it on a one-to-one level, like going floating or boating. What gives my H the right/reasoning to say "no," that I can't just go floating without him, and I need to go boating with him. Again. And I don't just mean because he's selfish. I mean, when does another person become a "thing" to do your bidding, even against their own choice? Where's the line between this and stealing? Or rape? (Sorry.) A person should be able to say no without contest. My H has argued me to the point where I just give in, because I just don't have it in me to fight about it anymore. At what level is that okay?
Then don't fight about it. I think you're perfectly within you rights to tell him, "no. If you won't float with me, I won't boat with you." End of discussion. Walk away. Don't respond to any more arguments for his choice.
Have you tried that?
M:63 H:53 S:41, SS:28, SS:25, SD:23 M:15 T:16
Bomb:12/17/11, "I think we should go our separate ways." H moves to his mother's house, 4/1/12 12/21/12: H moves back home, piecing
Well, CV, I think the answer to your final question is both simple and complicated. Guess that makes it complicated in the end... hahahahaha.
Again, there are 3 entities here... you, your H and your M. You must preserve individual rights, but always also protect the "greater good," which would be the marriage. I just don't see how going floating with you is trampling on your H's individual rights. If, say, he would be in pain or had some fear towards it, then I would say it's best he protects his individual rights. But if he's just saying no just because he doesn't feel like it, then we have a case where he's ignoring the needs of the M... I'm not sure you are pushing your will necessarily by wanting to go floating... like you said, if it were simply about your will, you'd go yourself. But I think you have a mind towards the entity of M when you ask him to join you and the need of the M to have bonding time. When the answer is ALWAYS no about what you want to do, well, now we are back to trampling on one's individual rights. In this case, yours.
See, I don't blame you. In fact, I agree with you. I just think sometimes these things do need to be argued. Certainly more than I ever did. I can't sit here and say he never did what I wanted because I know while that is true, I did nothing to point that out to him. I did nothing to explain the importance. And by not doing that, I didn't have a mind towards the M either. It was all about me and my hurt feelings and fear of further rejection. At no point, until now, was I thinking well I need to talk with him further about this because this is seriously affecting the M. I never gave him a fair shot or the M because I was too busy being hurt.
You know what's interesting? This narcissism thing we talk about with our H's. With me? I've realized something... my self-esteem issues were just the other side of the same coin. I was as equally occupied with myself as my H was with himself. A narcissist is busy protecting his ego. Isn't someone with a poor self-esteem doing the same thing? I did nothing to protect the M. Again, I was too busy protecting my ego.
I don't see anything CV's H has done or said as being intentionally hurtful to CV. CV is feeling hurt by it, yes. But it is not intentional. Her H is a "flower child" bouncing around from thing to thing, living life as it pleases him (not as it serves him, but as it pleases him).
OTOH, it still appears that CV continues to intentionally withhold. Knowing that it hurts her H. If he won't *something* then she won't *something else*.
The intentions still appear quite polar, regardless of "reasons".
It is an interesting take KD. Not sure I see the same. I see a man whose intentions are to do what he pleases (and as it serves him) without regard to who it hurts (and he's been told repeatedly). I see CV's intentions as protecting herself. You read retaliatory... I read protecting. Retaliatory measures always escalate. This hasn't escalated. This is homeostasis.
My H wants to reconcile. He calls constantly. He's apologetic and kind. But he's not agreed to stop drinking. One could say that I'm withholding because I've not gone back. However, I am protecting myself.
CV is deeply hurt. To continue to cater to her H's needs with no regard to having her own met simply opens up for more hurt. What she's engaging in is a form of detachment.
Yes, I have walked away, and then he'll bring it up again later, and try again to get me to give in (assuming there's still time beforehand,) using every trick in the book. And then if I stick to my boundary, he'll bring it up afterwards in other discussions and tell me how unGodly I am, how I'm not a good wife, how us doing things separately is not what he had in mind when he got M'd, that if this is all I'm offering, then we might as well get D'd. To which I tell him, "Go ahead, D me." Then he says he'll never leave me, that he wants to work on things, that he'll go on a float trip with me (it's February!) that he'll do anything I ask because he wants to make things better. Unless I ask him to clean his pitted-out office, or to pay a bill on time, or to attend a meeting for S12 for school because I have class that night and can't. When he doesn't, he has a hundred excuses why, apologizes and promises to do better, has no understanding of my resulting anger, tells me I'm unforgiving and a perfectionist, too demanding with unreasonable expectations.
Currently, I'm not speaking to him at all. I'm avoiding him, going down to my office if he's on the main floor, etc., while he's acting like everything is fine. After about 5 days of this, I'll get sick of his ignoring the elephant in the room, and I'll lose patience with always having to walk away from what I was doing in order to avoid him, and tell him to leave me alone. He'll immediately pick up with the promises again, telling me how much he misses me, claiming how much he wants to make things work, arguing that we can't make it work if we don't communicate (which is true.) And he'll suck me back in to the endless circle discussion, which results in me throwing out some token request, which he'll manage to do this time, because it's a only token afterall, and because he's focused on getting something he wants in return, a token like watching a movie with me, of which he'll watch the first five minutes then fall asleep and think it still counts, and if I don't then I'm ungrateful. And then because he's fulfilled the token request in his mind, everything should be Norman Rockwell wonderful and the cycle starts all over again from the beginning.
If either of us want to reconcile this, communication is necessary. But our communication is dysfunctional at best, damaging at minimum.
God! I really hate that I can see this sooo clearly! I really hate that I can see my part in it and can't seem to break the cycle. I spend so much time thinking about the job I want when S12 goes off to college, one where I travel a lot and it gets me out of the house and away from him. I just can't see a way to do that now without giving up my time with S12. I just can't see how to break the cycle!
I wish I could understand what makes one person think another person is only there for their benefit?
I can't sit here and say he never did what I wanted because I know while that is true, I did nothing to point that out to him. I did nothing to explain the importance. And by not doing that, I didn't have a mind towards the M either. It was all about me and my hurt feelings and fear of further rejection.
See, I'm going to call B.S. on this. This isn't a R with another un-invested person or stranger. This is a R with someone that promised to love and cherish you forever. I would feel differently if you actually asked him to sit and watch 18 holes of golf with you, because then you've communicated your interest being that. But you asked about a play.
He has a responsibility to KNOW if he's pleasing you, to learn, to watch, to understand, and if he doesn't, to ask. Think of it when someone has a baby or adopts a dog. Neither of those other beings even have the ability to communicate their needs effectively. The parent seeks it out, they watch and listen. Is the baby crying? That's an obvious one. Is it eating well? Sleeping regularly? Active or lethargic? Skin rashes or dryness, hot to the touch? The dog owner does the same: is the dog eating? Chewing itself? Wagging it's tail or sulking in the corner? Balding in spots? Wheezing?
Everyone knows how to do it before they get M'd. It shouldn't become your responsibility to drag it out of him just because your S gets lazy. Fine, if they prefer to be lazy, then they have to know the likely consequences: D or A. Just like having a job. Get lazy on the job and you're not likely to have the job for long either.
KD, then I suspect you would also say that LIS's H is not "intentionally hurting her" with his alcoholism and drinking and his PA. That, yes, she is feeling hurt by it, but it's not intentional. He's just being a "flower child" living life as it pleases him.
I'm just not sure of your point, in either case? Or your suggestion in either case either.
