Keep Wearing Wedding Band? [Thread #2]

[Wonka]

Surfer,


Pay per-view? You got that right! It's over at the Madison Garden!

Gump,

I am baaack!

I went back to your first thread and found this quote from you:

Thanks for explaining WW vs. WAS and sexual attraction. It helps me think through my own issues. FWIW, I think in my situation... my W is a mix of WW and MLC, with a splash of WAS. I guess I'm not sure what the main difference is between WW and MLC. Can't WW and MLC co-exist?

Next is from the most recent posting:

Wonka: I'd like to understand the difference between an MLC and WW, i.e., wayward -- not walkaway/WAS. Thanks. I look forward to your post.

My W seems to fit the model, "she's having a MLC, which led her to become wayward." I'm wondering if she might be just WW without the MLC component.

Gump, I can tell you with a pretty much 100% certainty that your W does not have MLC. As a reformed former bad-ass MLCer, I have assisted some newbies in the Newcomers forum by sending them over to the MLC forum because I could see very clearly that their WAS was in MLC.

To be clear, your W isn't both WW and MLC. It just cannot be done. Yes, MLCers can be WAS, but not WW.

I trust that you have read up Sandi's threads on WW. In essence, WW's are filled with resentment, rebellion, and contempt as a result of several factors such as: 1-unfulfilled expectations, 2-unrealistic expectations of a M, 3-feeling the burden of carrying the M on their backs, and/or 4-experiencing a series of disappointments that slowly erodes their love for their husbands.

In a WW scenario, their loving feelings for the H declines over a period of time and their own general hopelessness about the M begins to slide slowly into serious disenchantment. This is when the nagging stops because they have completely given up on the M. THIS IS WHERE the danger line is and the LBHs trip up big time over this because they erroneously think that the M is in a better place because the nagging has stopped. Whooops! BIG MISTAKE! Why? This is when the WW begins to withdraw all of her affections from the H and enters into the dangerous waters of fantasizing about other men that is supposedly able to fulfill all of her needs.

Cue OM on the stage. Then the WWs switch their allegiances, emotions, and heart over to the OM. This is when they are sucked into the heroin phase. They know what they're doing is very wrong, but keep doing it because of the "hit" it provides them thus giving them an unnatural high. Then you couple that addiction with their inner rebellion and contempt for the LBH. A potent mix for sure!

MLC? That's another ball of wax all together!

A word to the wise here---scratch that god-awful cliche about the middle-aged bald guy driving way in a red Ferrari with a young 20-something! That is the Paramount Pictures manufactured version of MLC. eye roll

The signposts of a true MLCer are the following characteristics:

-Number #1: Experienced the death of a loved one (99.9% MLCers have faced a signficant loss such as a close relative, best friend, or someone they hold dear in their hearts)
-Empty, dead shark-eyes look
-Memory lapses
-A deep-seated drive to "escape" from the pressures of M
-Recreate their childhood/teenage years where they were emotionally stunted (I acted like a 12-year old during my own MLC and had OW)
-Many will go through various "personality" changes through dress styles, hairstyles, experimentation with all sorts of things that are truly out of the ordinary
-Racing thoughts into the night
-Acute case of extreme tiredness
-Inexplicable restlessness
-Irrational thinking/irrational talks
-Coping skills are shot
-Empathy chip is severely cracked

Regardless of a WW, WAS, or MLCer, the underlying DBing principles applies to all three situations. The only difference is, in my view, that the WW needs a firm hand and a strong set of personal boundaries to head off their god-awful rebellious behaviors. Those WWs need to feel a real, genuine loss of the M *FIRST* before they are jolted out of their wayward mindset.

MLCers, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the loss of the M because they desperately WANT to escape the M and need a lot of time to work through their unresolved issues from their childhood/teenage years. Which is why many vets over in the MLC caution DBers that it could take years and years before they come out of MLC. Sadly, in some cases, they remain stuck and never come out of MLC.

In short, WW and MLC cannot co-exist. It is not scientifically or biologically possible at all.

I hope this helps in understanding the differences between a WW and a MLCer.

[Wonka]

Wax on, wax off

[CT1118]

To be clear, your W isn't both WW and MLC. It just cannot be done. Yes, MLCers can be WAS, but not WW.

I trust that you have read up Sandi's threads on WW.

Wonka,
I hadn't thought of it that way. I can understand why you would take this position. I can tell that you are really serious about this, but I may need a bit more time to think about it, yet I do have to say I feel differently.

Kidding, hope you took it as such, you are a master. Must bring 2x4 out though.

Seriously - Wonka major respect for you, learned much from you, but- have got to disagree.

WAS is the walk away spouse who does not leave the M for another man. So, yes, the MLC may not be leaving for the OM, an OM does not have to be present for an MLC to occur, but w/ many MLC's another partner is present and that makes the difference between a WAW MLC and a WW MLC. Here is the opening from Sandi's differential in the HW assigned to all newbies by Cadet:
Sandi2:
"I have started using the term wayward when posting about a wife involved in an A. Mainly b/c I feel that there is a major difference in the heart of a woman who does not have sights on another man and leaves the M for other reasons .....compared to the heart of one who has eyes for another man or who wants to conduct herself as though she were some wild, single girl looking for fun. It came to my attention some time back that there was some confusion, and I personally think it has to do with these two different women."

An OM/OH can and will often be a portion of the MLC just as easily as the ILBNILWY statement, the feeling of no love for the H from the start, and the M was wrong can be germane statements for both WAW and WW. These symptoms may overlap and be components of each; no differently than someone can be bipolar w/ suicidal idealization or be bipolar w/out suicidal idealization. There is an overwhelming amount of data showing that MLC often involves an OM/OW and that it was a contributor to the W/H being wayward. Yes, I agree w/ you the impetus was a mental disorder we know as MLC which included or did not include an A as but one symptom among many, but I contest you find many MLC research results which have an A listed as a normal and likely symptoms.

That said, your list of true MLC was correct. My WW has most of what you put below and then some. However, one does not require 10:10, 9:10 or even 8:10 symptotms to be categorized as all in or all out, the statistical break is usually around 30% to be in a club. I posted on a thread where my WW was absent of many if not most of the true A WW characteristics and why I believe she is MLC, but she is also definitely in an A, which definitely played a role in our S (albeit not as great of a role as her childhood, youth behavior, and escapism did), which meets Sandi's def. of the WW. Overlap exists by definition of symptoms. I agree, I do not think ForGump's WW is also MLC by way of his description(s).

Regardless of a WW, WAS, or MLCer, the underlying DBing principles applies to all three situations. The only difference is, in my view, that the WW needs a firm hand and a strong set of personal boundaries to head off their god-awful rebellious behaviors. Those WWs need to feel a real, genuine loss of the M *FIRST* before they are jolted out of their wayward mindset.

MLCers, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the loss of the M because they desperately WANT to escape the M and need a lot of time to work through their unresolved issues from their childhood/teenage years. Which is why many vets over in the MLC caution DBers that it could take years and years before they come out of MLC. Sadly, in some cases, they remain stuck and never come out of MLC.

This is true, which is why on my thread I spoke to changing my game up. My WW's childhood rules her day, and I speak heavily to the fact that she has claimed A means nothing, is BS, etc - repeated it many times, but she is still in an A, still meets WW definition as I first understood it here, per Sandi's distinction in my HW.

In short, WW and MLC cannot co-exist. It is not scientifically or biologically possible at all.

There is no scientific definition of WW. It has been stated here many times that the term was created on this board. Sandi speaks to that, she mentioned it on one of my threads a few days ago. I would loosely lend scientific license to WAW as MWD is a master's degree in social work who performed research on the condition, but do feel that is a stretch. MLC however is a well studied physiological disorder as it deals with brain functions and psychologically in terms of the interaction with the worldly experience around it combined with how those brain will process said interactions. As I understand, WW is a term assigned to indicative behavior for a person who has left their partner to become involved in a non-marital relationship w/ another - WAW is a term assigned to indicative behavior for a person who has left their partner for reasons homogeneous to that specific relationship alone. MLC is a medically classified brain disorder incumbent to the way some human brains process the natural human life sequence of reaching an understood point between birth and death which may include a gambit of symptoms that could or could not mimic those attributes associated with what we know here as WAW and/or WW. The WW and WAW are merely traits affiliated with certain behavior characteristics in a given situation while the MLC is abnormal response to a normal physiological process - coexistence is scientifically possible.

All that said, I feel like you and I just cut a single hair down the middle. Hope you know its all for understanding and its all for knowledge. Plus I got the feeling you have forgotten more about DB than I will ever retain. Thanks Wonka.

[Wonka]

CT,

Thanks for offering your perspectives on what you view as WAS, WW, and MLC.

For me, I speak from experience as a former MLCer and helped a lot of posters over in the MLC forum. Not all MLCers have OW/OM. The vast majority of them do because they feel dead inside the M and seek outside sources as a way to find "happiness" when in reality it comes from within all along. It took me a few years to really recognize my own MLC, come to terms with my journey into the MLC abyss, and forgive myself for whatever perceived 'mistakes' I have made throughout the journey.

Please understand that MLC is not on any of the APA or DSM-VI list of 'disorders' because many of the psychologists, often, either dismiss them as pure fiction that those people come up to with to evade personal responsibility or do not support the existence of MLC. It took one guy who actually went through his own MLC and wrote a book on his own experiences.

Now as for the WW label that is being used in recent time, full credit must go to Sandi for coining the term to differentiate from a WAS. Many WASes DO have A's and there have been some WASes who did not engage in an A although that is a rarity here in the DB forums. The key point that Sandi wants to drive through the many poor LBHs who stumble around here when dealing with a WW is their wayward mindset that is filled with true contempt for their LBHs. So both WW and a WAS (regardless if it is a female or male) can engage in As....however, the operative word is the "mindset."
Sandi is really helpful in decoding the mind of a WW to LBHs here for she does speak the language as a former WW.

On the other hand, I can pretty much decode the mind of a MLCer and a WAH. Some DBers probably can attest that I have supported many LBW with a WAH because I can (and) do think like a man. Many other DBers have contributed as well by sharing their experiences and wisdom.


WW=anger, contempt, rebellion
MLCer=lost, scared, confused

This ^^^ is why I stake my own claim that a WW-MLCer cannot co-exist based on my own personal experience and from hanging out at the MLC pool (aka forum) over the past 10 years or so. No, I have "not forgotten more about DB" at all.

As I understand, WW is a term assigned to indicative behavior for a person who has left their partner to become involved in a non-marital relationship w/ another - WAW is a term assigned to indicative behavior for a person who has left their partner for reasons homogeneous to that specific relationship alone.

WAW/WAS do leave the M for their AP. It is not an exclusive domain of the WW. Again, I point you to Sandi's view of what constitutes a WW: wayward mindset filled with near complete contempt and disrespect for the LBH [emphasis is mine]. These are outwardly manifested actions through raging, deliberate manipulation of the LBH's emotions to get what they want, and behaving & speaking in disrespectful ways.

MLC is a medically classified brain disorder incumbent to the way some human brains process the natural human life sequence of reaching an understood point between birth and death which may include a gambit of symptoms that could or could not mimic those attributes associated with what we know here as WAW and/or WW.

How do you know this? What 'medical' sources can support that ^^ statement/assertion?

For me, I am very much inclined to agree to a MLC-WAW pairing than MLC-WW pairing due to the attendant factors of the individual's mindset as explained in this current post and my earlier post.

Once again, I stress that MLC is not/has not been officially recognized as a so-called "medical disorder."

Perhaps Cadet or Job could post links to my threads titled "Informal Poll on MLC" and "A Voyage Into the Mind of MLC" (the first thread) that, hopefully, will give readers a much more broader understanding of the MLC mind.

Thank you for the thoughtful points, CT. This is a great learning process for all of us...I am still learning from you and others. Thank you for sharing.

[ForGump]

Wonka & CT1118 -- great posts, a great discussion. Your ideas really help me think things through.

Please forgive the clinical and academic nature of my ramblings below. This is my way of digesting everything I've been reading here, and to process what that means for my situation. My hope is that thinking this through would help me DB better. I'm not certain that it will, but I won't know unless I try.

My philosophy is that while it's helpful to come up with categories, ultimately human psychology is diverse and complex enough that individual psychologies and behavior patterns often do not fit neatly into categories.

1) WW & WAS vs. MLC

The main idea I learned from reading Wonka's post is that both WW and WAS value marriage as an institution, and their actions (going wayward or walking away) reflect their disappointment/disillusionment in something they WANT to value, something they "believe in." They are not having an identity crisis as a spouse. They WANT to be a spouse, just not to a bad or incompatible husband. In contrast, an MLCer is at a place where she does not particularly value marriage. She is not motivated by MARRIAGE not delivering what she wanted; she is motivated by the feeling that LIFE ITSELF has not yet delivered all she thought it should. They are having a type of identity crisis, about whether they want to be a spouse at all, and the feelings are strongly tied to their age and their aging physiology.

2) WW vs. WAS

Furthermore, I learned that the difference between WW and WAS is not just that WW involves an affair. There is a difference in attitude and maturity. WW's fog includes a strong dose of childlike rebelliousness, whereas WAS's sentiment is more of a capitulation. It's not all that irrational to give up after a long, losing battle with a bad marriage or a bad spouse.

Here is Wonka's list of risk factors leading to WW:

> 1-unfulfilled expectations,
> 2-unrealistic expectations of a M,
> 3-the burden of carrying the M on their backs, and
> 4-experiencing a series of disappointments that slowly erodes their love.

I think #1 and #4 are very rational phenomena, while #2 and #3 have unreasonable or unwise elements (boldfaced). If we fix the unreasonable elements, we could arrive at a list of risk factors for WAS:

> 1-unfulfilled expectations,
> 2-realistic expectations of M are unmet for a very long time,
> 3-spouse fails to carry his share of burden to keep M healthy, and
> 4-experiencing a series of disappointments that slowly erodes their love.

So, I would argue that a WW is someone who holds significantly immature views of how marriage works and how to address marital problems, and who reacts in an immature way to long-standing frustrations.

In contrast, I would say that a WAS is someone who has a fairly reasonable view of marriage, who is reacting fairly reasonably to a bad or incompatible partner (i.e., finally giving up) after trying to make it better for a long time.

I'm not saying WAS has done everything right -- just that relative to the WW, she has made fairly normal, mature efforts for a long time, and the problem is more with the spouse than w/ the WAS.

3) Is my wife WW or WAS?

Of Wonka's four WW risk factors, I believe my W has:

> 1-unfulfilled expectations,
> 2-unrealistic expectations of a M,
> 4-experiencing a series of disappointments that slowly erodes their love

And the emotional path she took also fits the one described by Wonka for WW:

> Their loving feelings for the H declines over a period of time.
> The WW enters into ... fantasizing about other men
> Cue OM on the stage. ... They are sucked into the heroin phase.

So my W fits WW fairly well ... but not perfectly. I think her expectations of M were not 100% unrealistic, maybe 80% unrealistic. And I think I did fail in small but significant ways to carry the burden. And I think her waywardness hasn't been 100% rebellious and immature. It has at least a certain layer of maturity and civility to it.

Since WW traits dominate, however, I'm OK to just call it WW.

3) Is my wife WW or MLC?

I must agree with CT1118 here, that WW and MLC are not perfectly exclusive. I don't think my W clearly accepts or rejects marriage. I think she feels both. She has said "maybe marriage isn't for me," but I think that was when she was feeling acutely guilty for giving up on our marriage which she recognizes has very good aspects. But I think she also believes that there is a better spouse out there for her. I think she is consciously or subconsciously replaying her mother's life, who went wayward in her 40's and after several years found a long-term second husband. So my W both wants and doesn't want marriage.

There is another strong argument for MLC: my W fears becoming middle-aged. She has expressed the disappointment in not being noticed by men any more, in losing the ability to have more children, and in the fear of having to go through peri-menopause and menopause.

So, I think there is a strong MLC component to my W.

4) What about psychological conditions and disorders?

I think BPD, narcissism, anxiety and depression all accentuate and exacerbate the problematic aspects of WW and MLC.

I think BPD helped my W and I fall in love faster, even though we have strong incompatibilities that should have given us pause. I think BPD and narcissism (both are rooted in intense insecurity) foster highly unrealistic views of marriage. I think BPD, narcissism and anxiety prevented my W from confronting and talking about problems in our marriage. I think narcissism and anxiety prevented us from finding and getting good quality individual and couples counseling. I think BPD worked as an incendiary agent when OM appeared on the scene and my wife fell into an EA -- it was a delusional fantasy, enabled by BPD and narcissism. I think BPD, narcissism and depression all accentuate her age-based MLC: her fear of losing attention from men, her fear of losing the ability to bear children, and her fear of becoming old.

5) My role

I don't want to write something so long and detailed without acknowledging, as honest as I can, my role in all of this. I acknowledged my failings in my marriage to a friend the other day, and she thought it sounded a little insincere. Well, I was sincere. Maybe I will learn more through this forum and through therapy, but I'm trying to be fully honest. This is from post #1 of this thread:

- I did suffocate her with too much attention.
- I did slide into a mothering role by helping her with everything she could not do for herself.
- I did emasculate myself by avoiding conflict w/ my W.
- I did emasculate myself by not letting my own character stand strong.
- I also failed often to tune into her emotional life and connect to her emotionally.
- I also failed often to tune into her sexual needs and connect better sexually.

I want to add to it:

- I saw some warning signs when we first fell in love, but I was in a fog (felt good!!!) so I did not slow down to understand the issues better.
- I failed to talk to my W about realistic and unrealistic expectations about M.
- I failed to see clearly her discontentment with our marriage.
- I failed to see clearly her fear of aging and mid-life.

6) How does this affect my DB?

I believe my W is mostly WW with a minor but strong MLC component, all exacerbated by BPD, narcissism, anxiety and depression. The fact that she doesn't seem to have a full blown MLC gives me a little hope. Maybe she won't be stuck in MLC for five years! On the other hand, the influence of BPD, narcissism, anxiety and depression are long-term, and unlikely to go away unless she, somehow, is treated professionally. And it's a catch-22: those conditions are themselves preventing her from getting help.

But, it's not all black-and-white. It's a matter of degrees. There is a possibility that the fog of WW might clear when the reality of a D hits. I think my W actually leans more towards believing in M, rather than not. I think I should keep working on being a lighthouse: the H that a woman would be a fool to divorce. I will have to keep reflecting on all of this.

[CT1118]

CT,

Thanks for offering your perspectives on what you view as WAS, WW, and MLC.

And to you as well

Please understand that MLC is not on any of the APA or DSM-VI list of 'disorders' because many of the psychologists, often, either dismiss them as pure fiction that those people come up to with to evade personal responsibility or do not support the existence of MLC. It took one guy who actually went through his own MLC and wrote a book on his own experiences.

Correct, MLC is not listed as a brain disorder there. Also, correct, the MLC is roughly considered a theoretical model to explain an physiological series of existential events which may or may not result in having classifiable mental disorders. However, it is being scientifically acknowledged that the subject of MLC, especially in females, requires significantly more research and little is know/understood beyond observational research which has medically cataloged and published. I shortened all of the above to 'disorder'. Perhaps I contributed to confusion by doing so.

On the WW/WAW - I have clearly misunderstood the terms and affiliated the presence of an A solely w/ WW and not w/ WAW, overlooked the contempt, anger, rebellion as being a necessary component of WW, and now realize I have not only misapplied the term WW to my own sitch, but potentially on others. Tremendous thank you for clearing this up for me. I assure you my WAW (see, learn quick) is scared, lost, and confused - all of those words coming from her own mouth and then some while offering me any attempt to explain how she feels.

[quote=CT1118]MLC is a medically classified brain disorder incumbent to the way some human brains process the natural human life sequence of reaching an understood point between birth and death which may include a gambit of symptoms that could or could not mimic those attributes associated with what we know here as WAW and/or WW.

How do you know this? What 'medical' sources can support that ^^ statement/assertion?

Hopefully I explained above adequately enough to answer this question.

Nice exchange and thank you for it. Now, I hope you will assist me w/ my sitch from time to time as I am fully vested in your MLC experience.

[JRuss]

This is a really interesting discussion. It is causing me to question my assumption that my W is a WW. She's not really "rebellious" at all and, most times, isn't angry at all (really just when I used to try to force R talks). She essentially just quit on our marriage and doesn't think there's anything (including MC or working with me) that would cause her to change her mind. She's sort of the opposite of rash or quick to act, having given me a two-year "head's up" that I'll not be married then.

Even if true, I'm not sure of the practical importance, other than it might suggest a little softer touch than sandi frequently urges w/r/t WWs.

This stuff is really hard.

[CT1118]

Thanks man. "This stuff is really hard" got me again, I laughed out loud.

I seem to be bouncing between soft and hard approach. That has mostly depended upon what I feel I have the energy for. I seem to get some results either way that I do not consider to be negative. My WAW ( I guess, now? I'll go w/ that) has never been negative or aggressive at me. Rebellious? I don't think so, I mean, unless having an A falls in there; but she has not refused to pick up kid or pay bills type stuff.

[RSG]

My W fits about 95% of Sandi's posts as WW. She was aggressive, fake cried to hit my emotions to get what she wanted, called me names, everything. The reason I believe the A has ended is not only the early July breakdown, but the way she talks to and treats me. It's getting better, softer, more respectful. She's not rebelling against me so much like before, it's more of against the status of W/Family. Thus, the new tattoos, hair and other forms of personal expression. She's a so-called free spirit....

She'll argue things with me, in a pretty decent way, but now that I stand up for myself again she backs down and agrees mostly. It's still mostly about her, but the Mom instincts are coming back and every once in a while she's decent towards me. Not to say sometimes THAT isn't for her either (ie be nice, DEMAND stuff in return) but treating me better than she has in a good while. I know I have got to continue NOT showing anger, or she'll bolt.

I feel like I have a frightened squirrel about 10 miles away, but it's so keen and scared any sudden movement will be spotted!

[ForGump]

She's not really "rebellious" at all ... given me a two-year "head's up" that I'll not be married then.

I think "mature and reasonable" is a good dimension to consider in a W who is going down the D path. On one end of that spectrum is "immature and rebellious" and on the other end is "mature and reasonable.

It seems to me that most people will exhibit a mix of both "mature and reasonable" and "immature and rebellious" reactions to a dissatisfying marriage.

The two-year countdown has a veneer of reasonableness to it, but I think it's at its core unreasonable and immature. If she's willing to share a life with you for two years, she should be willing to have conversations about your marriage like two mature adults.