Marriage Shock: the Cure
Question:
questions! Carol LEARN from the Past…Do not Live in it….Live to the FULLEST in the Present and to SET Goals….Grab onto the Future to follow GOALS and DREAMS!! (Carol)
Response:
Oh Andre, lighten up! jen
Response:
Oh Andre, lighten up!
Ah, more condecension… The refuge of those who don’t have a good answer is to divert the matter onto the person that they can’t respond properly to. Very interesting… jen
Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness " David Gelernter, " 1939 "
Response:
No, Andre, this wasn’t condescension, I really mean it: LIGHTEN UP!!! That was the whole point to my post — we’ve all got to lighten up (me incuded). That’s the key to successful relationships. Stop dwelling on moral rights and wrongs, and concentrate on pleasure and fun, which leads to trust and respect. It’s no fun to walk around expecting and suspecting bad out of people. In fact, it’s downright counterproductive. Andre, I’m sincerely sorry your ex burned you so badly. I have a hunch you enjoyed life’s pleasures and had more fun before all that. But I guess I could see how one could boomerang and adopt certain moral values as a result of such horrible treatment by a loved one. You had lots of fun, lots of pleasure with her… which led to lots of trust and respect to a level most of us could never imagine…. all to get thrown back in your face with the utmost disrespect and betrayal. You got burned. Badly. My deepest wish for you is to learn to trust again. Learn it’s okay to be yourself, have fun to the depth you did before, want what you wanted before, without it backfiring so terribly. Whether my ameteur psychology is totally offbase or what, I sincerely hope the best for you, don’t ask me why! 
This is my olive branch, if you choose to take it… jen * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
On the concluding pages, the author proposes her solution — here are a few nuggets to chew on — am interested in your thoughts (yes, even yours Andre!
How charmingly condescending… (since Andre has accused me of not being eloquent enough to get my point across effectively, I will take liberties here and type out the ‘point’ from the author’s own words.)
" Again, Andre, you are missing my points. Or, maybe the discussion is about subtleties that go too easily over your black-and-white head. " This was in response to my having written: " here’s to NO games, and NO lies, from anyone, hmm ? No ‘acting’ either ". I would still love to know what " point " you had, that required yet another set of condescension, when I was expressing a hope for more *honest* relationships, from the get go. Which, by your own words, appears to be somehting that you’ve not yet figured out how to make happen 24/7 in your own life, which is what kicked off a lot of this discussion. So, to me, your comment about my " not getting subtleties " reads as another *game* that *you* chose to play, only this one is with me, and not your present guy. Well, I *don’t* choose to play such games. I do reserve to myself the right to call anyone on their actions and words, as they have the same right towards my words and actions. So, I called you about what you were playing at, and got a snippy response, which, to be honest, I figured that you would come back with. As a result of my marriage, I now know a few of the games that *some* women play ( or, ought I write "…girls play ", as I don’t believe that men or women do this ? ), and I can see them coming from way off. Thank you for making my case for me. Onwards… First she raises this question: "Since staying in a marriage has become increasingly optional, why don’t we concern ourselves not with laws that make it harder to divorce but with relationships that will make the people who are unhappiest in it now — women — happier, so they will WANT to stay?" <big snip — i will add here, i think this applies to men as well — what would make men happier?
In many cases, about the same things that would make women happy. I can’t speak for what would make boys and girls happy, as that changes from moment to moment. And, I see the present spate of divorce as one element of the *immaturity* of many people who are chronologically adults in todays societies. Plus, here is one example of the author *ass*uming that one sex is more unhappy in the institution of marriage. I don’t see any *evidence* for this assumption, and it greatly weakens her case. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Then she challenges our typical response, that we all just need a good dose of "self-improvement," i.e., we are all just spoiled rotten with bad morals, so we don’t have the moral and emotional maturity to make a marriage work (men can be included here as well, but her book addresses it from the woman’s pov): "Self-improvement is immensely seductive — God knows every inch of women has been scrutinized, criticized, and measured, altered in the name of winning more love — but it will only sabotage, not ensure, the loving marriage you want. Conventional wisdon will always insist otherwise, because its ‘wisdon’ is broadcast to you from right inside the very structure you’re challenging. Step outside that framework. Better yet, don’t even go in. You can have marriage without following such pleasure-negating rules. "You are not a moral project, made even better by more and more giving, less and less wanting. The betterment of YOU, morally, only reinforces the single standard that declares men uncontrollable and unalterable and you endlessly flexible, responsive and accommodating. This is the very bargain that has left you in marriage shock, feeling all alone and wondering why you’re trying so hard while the Witness [her name for what I've been terming here "the voice of the Wife"], breathing down your neck, urges you to try harder still. "Isn’t it interestng that the culture still turns its eye accusingly, beseechingly, toward women to save the social order — by fixing and changing not it but HER [I might add, you could say HIM here, too, with different but similar effect]
Well, she’s just *so* wrong. I could write volumes on this, but other writers have done it better than I, and, for that matter, I have some appointments later this afternoon. So, I’ll limit myself to saying that the growth as people of most of the folks right on this NG flies in the face of her thesis. Then finally, she proposes her antidote (which took too long in coming, and then was only skimmed over, quite unfortunately IMO): She starts by explaining this survey they did at New Women magazine, polling women of every age on the primary purpose of marriage. (and no, Igor, it’s not a very scientifically valid poll, but interesting nonetheless — can’t prove, but provokes thought). Survey choices were: to raise a family, to foster spiritual growth, to build character, to be financially stable, to have fun.
… Which are not mutually exclusive goals. "The results; of five thousand women, those who chose ‘having fun’ as the primary purpose of marriage were most likely to call their marriages ‘great’. "They enjoy the best sex, get the most respect and attention from their husbands, think the least about divorcing, and would marry the same men all over again. In short, by all measures available, they have the most fun! "Yet, despite the clear and direct connection between valuing fun in marriage and having it, and the deeper and more global marital contentment claimed by those who chose it, a distinct minority of readers actually marked the ‘fun’ option.
Which says a lot about the old puritan ethic still being in North American society. We have loads of fun things to do, and the economy is based greatly around fun spending, but we still don’t want to *admit* that fun is important to all aspects of our lives. Well, it *is*. Woody Allen once said that sex is the most fun that you can have without laughing. I would add that it’s even better, when you *can* laugh as a part of it. "The readers’ inclination to trivialize fun becomes not baffling but sad, a powerful reminder of where pleasure fits into our heirarchy of values. Many of us still feel we betray our frivolity, our immaturity, to say outright, ‘what i want most is to have a fun, sexy thing going with my partner.’ yet the evidence is that this is the surest way to deep committment, profound trust, and close, spiritual bond we also want in marriage. Words like honor and duty, forever and compromise, phrases like settling down and taking responsibility– our good conduct– have a way of adding such weight to what started as an easy, fluid, breathing relationship that by the time family and children get thrown in, we begin to believe that pleasure is "selfish." Which is too bad. Because it isn’t. fun is sexy. It’s life-affirming. It’s subversive. It’s possibly what made you a couple in the first place.
And, it’s a great part of honouring your committments, as one reason that you made those committments was that the process of keeping with them, would be greater fun with the one that you chose to commit to. As I said, fun and committment are not two separate states of mind. In the women that the author cites, I would estimate that they have well integrated the two, to make for a great marriage for both spouses. "What’s more, it turns out that pleasure, rather than being something you can have for dessert once a month after loftier, worthier goals are met, seems instead to be the shortest route to these goals. Fun turns into trust; fun creates respect; fun produces a spiritual bond; fun generates intimacy. Seen this way, as a vital catalyst rather than an optional frill, fun– pleasure in relationships, is hardly trivial. "
Now here, I totally agree. Why choose to make a marriage, if fun isn’t going to be a great part of it ? But, as I’ve seen in other areas, many folks today think that " fun " is something that someone *else* makes for them, as opposed to the fun being something that they themselves, and with others, make for themselves. It’s the same as being happy. No one else can make you happy, or have fun, if you’re not already happy, and/or having fun. But, a great partner can make it possible for you to have greater happiness and fun, with them, as it is for them, too. Now: I ask all of you who read this far, answer honestly: how much ‘fun’ did you have in your marriage? How much of a priority was fun and pleasure? Did you put it at a higher priority before you were married? Do you think it’s really just natural to get complacent and lazy, or that we just EXPECT to get complacent, because as Wife or Husband or Father or Mother, you’re supposed to be serious, hard-working, etc., and put such fun and pleasure behind you? I.e., you just gotta grow up, that’s life, so quit whining and be an adult?
I bow to no one in my pursuits of fun, as a balanced part of my life, both before I even met the ex, as well as since. But, the key word is *balanced*. If, as we faced, the pursuit of unbridled " fun " creates the destruction of trust in the other spouse, as my ex chose, and it is held as *more* important than the most basic support tasks ( like getting enough $$ to pay the rent, while she demands her " fun " ), then the fun becomes an impediment to a good and healthy marriage. If anything, excess fun, at the expense of all else, is what did our marriage in. That doesn’t take away from me what my personal responsibility was, and what parts of it I failed to live up to. The issue here is that few people are two dimensional cardboard … read more »
Response:
No, Andre, this wasn’t condescension, I really mean it: LIGHTEN UP!!! That was the whole point to my post — we’ve all got to lighten up (me incuded). That’s the key to successful relationships. Stop dwelling on moral rights and wrongs, and concentrate on pleasure and fun, which leads to trust and respect. It’s no fun to walk around expecting and suspecting bad out of people. In fact, it’s downright counterproductive.
Yes, but Jen, you do have to understand that the view that you see, and that I present here, is but one facte of all of who I am. Here, we do deal and discuss those moral issues, and one effect is that others who are only reading and not writing can evaluate *all* of what they see, here, and put what they find useful to their use. I’ve recieved a bunch of e mail, over the last year, and more, expressing to me that those writers have indeed found utility in the stands that I have taken on these issues. Which is a *part* of what goes on in any such NG. There are times and places for this, and others for fun. Surely, with some of the OT stuff that I’ve written about ( and, I do try to limit that, as folks who have to pay for download time aren’t here for that ), it is clear to all that I like fun as much as the next modern human. What do you think was the *point* of my just done trip, by car, to Anaheim, CA, if not for fun, both there, and along the way ? As I’ve said, I take a back seat to the pursuit of fun, to no one. But, there is a time and a place for everthing. So, there’s no need to be so concerned about my not having enough fun. Like this coming weekend, where I’ll be in Albany, N.Y., at another con. Plus, October is looking like I might be out of town, *every* weekend, but the last, and that’s only ’cause our local con is that weekend. Anymore fun, and I might not survive it all… <g Andre, I’m sincerely sorry your ex burned you so badly. I have a hunch you enjoyed life’s pleasures and had more fun before all that. But I guess I could see how one could boomerang and adopt certain moral values as a result of such horrible treatment by a loved one. You had lots of fun, lots of pleasure with her… which led to lots of trust and respect to a level most of us could never imagine…. all to get thrown back in your face with the utmost disrespect and betrayal. You got burned. Badly.
Yes, I did. But, one way that I’ve handled it, is to examine all of what happened, to see what the total package of responsibility in the matter was, and to learn what that means, both about her, and who she was/is, as well as who I was/are now, and what part that played in the marriage, and the various decisions leading up to it. Let me be very clear on this. It wasn’t S&M/B&D that did us in, it wasn’t an " excess " of fun, either sexual, or otherwise, it wasn’t money pressures, though they were prominent as symptoms, it wasn’t any of that. I didn’t find myself " recoiling " from all of the former life patterns, instead, I looked at each one, and revisited some of them, in order to better understand my new feelings, and thoughts. For instance, I went to a friend’s " play " party at one con in the summer of ‘97. I didn’t participate, nor had I planned to. I just wanted to see what I would think and feel, in the aftermath of the separation. I got my answer, while also seeing that that form of expression was now back to a " neutral default " setting on me ( meaning that I didn’t want to do any of it, for myself, but that I also felt no animus towards the practices, either ). I further researched some of that area, as I wanted to understand the psychology of it, and how the ex fitted into all that. Again, I learned what I need to, and the matter’s been a distant back burner item, since. Yes, I was hurt, but, either consciously or unconsciously, I *chose* to not stay hurt. I chose to study the real issues in the aftermath of my marriage, including my own responsibilities, as I didn’t want to ever repeat any of the patterns that led me to that point. And, I chose to remake me, while keeping, and enhancing the various fun loving parts of myself. Hey, ask anyone who knows me from SF conventions. My deepest wish for you is to learn to trust again. Learn it’s okay to be yourself, have fun to the depth you did before, want what you wanted before, without it backfiring so terribly. Whether my ameteur psychology is totally offbase or what, I sincerely hope the best for you, don’t ask me why!
You know, I never stopped trusting. At all. What I did, and again, this was a matter of my *choice*, was to look at whom I was trusting, and why. Thus, I was able to see the few folks who were *not* worthy of my continuing trust… like the old pal, upon whose shoulder I let some of it out, and two months later, he and his eighteen year old roomie were sleeping with the ex… he’s now in the " I wouldn’t pee on him, if he were on fire… " list. I am fortunate in that that list is not a long one, and the continuing list, and a growing one at that, of folks in whom I can place trust, *is* a long one. So, if anything else, I am more straightforward about who I am, and the things that I do, and I make no apologies for any of that, at all. In addition to that, I now greatly reject any notions of " game playing " in the deeper parts of interpersonal relationships. I still leave room for the fun games, but for the ones that get in the way of communication, I just junk those. By *choice*. And, the newly well defined boundaries to my set of values and morals are a great aid in all that. I no longer " fear " any possible direction of any interpersonal relationship ( and, on a tangent, I am using the term " relationship " here in it’s broadest sense. I have relationships with my friends, my mom, the businesses that I do business with… ), as I always know what I want, and what I don’t. And, when I make a genuine mistake, I can see it fast, and deal with it right on the spot. So, no " fallout " coming to me from that direction, either… With that in place, I can now better give myself to " fun " with no fears of what may happen, as I always have my control over what happens to me, in my choices. Including the fun ones. This is my olive branch, if you choose to take it…
Well, I didn’t know that we were at " war ". It was all about communication to me. Which I am happy to continue with. Do olive branches need any watering ? jen
Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness " David Gelernter, " 1939 "
Response:
On the concluding pages, the author proposes her solution — here are a few nuggets to chew on — am interested in your thoughts (yes, even yours Andre! (since Andre has accused me of not being eloquent enough to get my point across effectively, I will take liberties here and type out the ‘point’ from the author’s own words.) First she raises this question: "Since staying in a marriage has become increasingly optional, why don’t we concern ourselves not with laws that make it harder to divorce but with relationships that will make the people who are unhappiest in it now — women — happier, so they will WANT to stay?" <big snip — i will add here, i think this applies to men as well — what would make men happier? Then she challenges our typical response, that we all just need a good dose of "self-improvement," i.e., we are all just spoiled rotten with bad morals, so we don’t have the moral and emotional maturity to make a marriage work (men can be included here as well, but her book addresses it from the woman’s pov): "Self-improvement is immensely seductive — God knows every inch of women has been scrutinized, criticized, and measured, altered in the name of winning more love — but it will only sabotage, not ensure, the loving marriage you want. Conventional wisdon will always insist otherwise, because its ‘wisdon’ is broadcast to you from right inside the very structure you’re challenging. Step outside that framework. Better yet, don’t even go in. You can have marriage without following such pleasure-negating rules. "You are not a moral project, made even better by more and more giving, less and less wanting. The betterment of YOU, morally, only reinforces the single standard that declares men uncontrollable and unalterable and you endlessly flexible, responsive and accommodating. This is teh very bargain that has left you in marriage shock, feeling all alone and wondering why you’re trying so hard while the Witness [her name for what I've been terming here "the voice of the Wife"], breathing down your neck, urges you to try harder still. "Isn’t it interestng that the culture still turns its eye accusingly, beseechingly, toward women to save the social order — by fixing and changing not it but HER [I might add, you could say HIM here, too, with different but similar effect] Then finally, she proposes her antidote (which took too long in coming, and then was only skimmed over, quite unfortunately IMO): She starts by explaining this survey they did at New Women magazine, polling women of every age on the primary purpose of marriage. (and no, Igor, it’s not a very scientifically valid poll, but interesting nonetheless — can’t prove, but provokes thought). Survey choices were: to raise a family, to foster spiritual growth, to build character, to be financially stable, to have fun. "The results; of five thousand women, those who chose ‘having fun’ as the primary purpose of marriage were most likely to call their marriages ‘great’. "They enjoy the best sex, get the most respect and attention from their husbands, think the least about divorcing, and would marry the same men all over again. In short, by all measures available, they have the most fun! "Yet, despite the clear and direct connection between valuing fun in marriage and having it, and the deeper and more global marital contentment claimed by those who chose it, a distinct minority of readers actually marked the ‘fun’ option. "The readers’ inclination to trivialize fun becomes not baffling but sad, a powerful reminder of where pleasure fits into our heirarchy of values. Many of us still feel we betray our frivolity, our immaturity, to say outright, ‘what i want most is to have a fun, sexy thing going with my partner.’ yet the evidence is that this is the surest way to deep committment, profound trust, and close, spiritual bond we also want in marriage. Words like honor and duty, forever and compromise, phrases like settling down and taking responsibility– our good conduct– have a way of adding such weight to what started as an easy, fluid, breathing relationship that by the time family and children get thrown in, we begin to believe that pleasure is "selfish." Which is too bad. Because it isn’t. fun is sexy. It’s life-affirming. It’s subversive. It’s possibly what made you a couple in the first place. "What’s more, it turns out that pleasure, rather than being something you can have for dessert once a month after loftier, worthier goals are met, seems instead to be the shortest route to these goals. Fun turns into trust; fun creates respect; fun produces a spiritual bond; fun generates intimacy. Seen this way, as a vital catalyst rather than an optional frill, fun– pleasure in relationships, is hardly trivial. " Now: I ask all of you who read this far, answer honestly: how much ‘fun’ did you have in your marriage? How much of a priority was fun and pleasure? Did you put it at a higher priority before you were married? Do you think it’s really just natural to get complacent and lazy, or that we just EXPECT to get complacent, because as Wife or Husband or Father or Mother, you’re supposed to be serious, hard-working, etc., and put such fun and pleasure behind you? I.e., you just gotta grow up, that’s life, so quit whining and be an adult? jen
Response:
Filed under: Interpersonal relationship
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.