|
Post by mypaintbrushes on Mar 18, 2018 17:52:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by surfergirl on Mar 18, 2018 19:41:10 GMT -5
Well, that was depressing.
In true ILIASM form, let’s unpack this: what is the light? How do we leave on the light, in retrospect?
|
|
|
Post by baza on Mar 18, 2018 19:45:35 GMT -5
It reads like the woman is still deeply immersed in "why chasing" and "scented candling" and is tiring of these unproductive side-bars - and it also reads like her spouse is pretty disinterested in doing any digging of his own to burrow down to the truth.
In short, it looks like a fairly typical ILIASM story.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Mar 18, 2018 20:00:04 GMT -5
If our spouse isn’t interested we can’t keep the light on by ourselves. It takes two.
|
|
|
Post by RumRunner on Mar 18, 2018 20:55:29 GMT -5
"Leaving the light on" in this story is more like "fishing with the wrong bait". Simply put, what you have is not what your partner wants! Sometimes it doesn't matter what you do or how you act, the end result will always be the same. There will be no catch tonight, or tomorrow night, or the night after!!!
|
|
|
Post by jim44444 on Mar 18, 2018 21:25:32 GMT -5
Emphasis mine.
How many times is the advise given to have a talk with our spouse? As if they had no clue that there is a problem. Of all the people who have talked to their spouse how many times has it fixed the problem? Near zero from what we have learned on this forum. Any talking needed to be done long ago, by the time we end up here the words have lost their power.
|
|
|
Post by elynne on Mar 19, 2018 1:16:45 GMT -5
Emphasis mine.How many times is the advise given to have a talk with our spouse? As if they had no clue that there is a problem. Of all the people who have talked to their spouse how many times has it fixed the problem? Near zero from what we have learned on this forum. Any talking needed to be done long ago, by the time we end up here the words have lost their power. I had a ‘talk’ with h this morning. I notice it is unbelievably difficult to communicate with him. Maybe with some of our spouses they are so avoidant and defended that a problem with communication is another symptom of a lack of intimacy.
|
|
|
Post by baza on Mar 19, 2018 1:34:58 GMT -5
In an ILIASM shithole context, it is convenient to take a position that "we" are communicating a very clear message and the recalcitrant spouse ain't listening. Yet, by their actions (or more correctly inactions) they are communicating a very clear message to "us" the disenfranchised spouse, and maybe it is "us" that are not listening to what they are communicating.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Mar 19, 2018 5:52:04 GMT -5
What a Baz said. They hear. They understand. They just don’t care.
Meanwhile the refused fail to see the clear evidence that their spouses don’t love them in the way that the refused experience Love. If I touched him while he was sleeping, my refuser would move to the very edge of the bed. Now I wonder at how I failed to recognize his lack of love.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 20, 2018 9:06:18 GMT -5
what is the light? How do we leave on the light, in retrospect? I think the author is not "why chasing", as much as wistfully wishing the actual "good old days" of romance could return. Or rather, they could return to it. But my reality is different from hers. Here's my take from my life: I do recall happier times with my marital sex life. But at one point, our marriage therapist asked us to recall those. She asked us to consider what was good about those times, and how to get back to it. We had no solutions at that time, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized: there was no point sufficiently good enough that I'd strive to "get back to". So to what do I owe the notion of "happier times"? I eventually figured out this: I was happy when sex was on an upswing. That is, after a bit of a lull, we would find a month or three where she was more in the mood, and I seemed to find the balance of "asking her enough" to make it happen, but not over asking and driving her away. Those "periods of improvements" were not themselves awesome closeness and/or swinging-from-the-chandeliers sex, but I was happy because a) things were improving, b) I figured we were on track to get UP to the level I was hoping would be wonderful, good for us both, and sustainable. But it never really happened. Forget the "light" of the marital intimacy of my past; at best it is a rather dim table lamp. Through my years in ILIASM, I have been handed a spotlight. I have used it to look backwards at the path I've tread, and found "she's just that way; I can no more change her libido than I can change her eye color". And: "there is insufficient 'there' there to warrant heading back" Enough looking back. I have my light. I need to use it to illumine my path forward, traversing that scary, dangerous, rocky canyon ahead of me: divorce. But it is the only way out of this damn valley.
|
|
|
Post by elynne on Mar 20, 2018 9:18:09 GMT -5
what is the light? How do we leave on the light, in retrospect? I think the author is not "why chasing", as much as wistfully wishing the actual "good old days" of romance could return. Or rather, they could return to it. But my reality is different from hers. Here's my take from my life: I do recall happier times with my marital sex life. But at one point, our marriage therapist asked us to recall those. She asked us to consider what was good about those times, and how to get back to it. We had no solutions at that time, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized: there was no point sufficiently good enough that I'd strive to "get back to". So to what do I own the notion of happier times? I eventually figured out this: I was happy when sex was on an upswing. That is, after a bit of a lull, we would find a month or three where she was more in the mood, and I seemed to find the balance of "asking her enough" to make it happen, but not over asking and driving her away. Those "periods of improvements" were not themselves awesome closeness and/or swinging-from-the-chandeliers sex, but I was happy because a) things were improving, b) I figured we were on track to get UP to the level I was hoping would be wonderful, good for us both, and sustainable. But it never really happened. Forget the "light" (I'm envisioning a table lamp) of the marital intimacy of my past. Through my years in ILIASM, I have been handed a spotlight. I use it to look backwards at the path I've tread, and found "there is insufficient there there to warrant heading back." Enough looking back. I have my light. I need to use it to traverse that scary, dangerous, rocky canyon ahead of me: divorce. But it is the only way out of this damn valley. But there is a way ‘out’. There’s a whole unexplored world out there outside of your dark valley. And there are a whole lot of us cheering you on as you search for and find happiness.
|
|
|
Post by choosinghappy on Mar 20, 2018 10:15:22 GMT -5
Great response @dan .
"...the more I thought about it, the more I realized: there was no point sufficiently good enough that I'd strive to "get back to"."
I have come to this conclusion as well. In fact, in an email conversation between H and myself, discussing how his (lack of) work-life balance has negatively affected our marriage, he said the following which I am sure he thought was reassuring:
"Things will get back to normal... I know our issues are not easy and we need to keep working through them but we will get through them and get back to normal."
To which I replied: "I don’t want them to go back to normal, I need them to go beyond that." Because "normal" for him means no sex, no touch, no intimacy.
He assured me: "We will make it better. Not normal."
There has been zero change since that convo 3 months ago.
We can all "talk" and even feel like we're communicating well with our refuser spouses until we're blue in the face but until and unless they are not only WILLING to take actions to improve things, but WANTING to do so, and then actually DO IT, it's all just talk.
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Mar 20, 2018 13:27:16 GMT -5
Great response @dan . "...the more I thought about it, the more I realized: there was no point sufficiently good enough that I'd strive to "get back to"." I have come to this conclusion as well. In fact, in an email conversation between H and myself, discussing how his (lack of) work-life balance has negatively affected our marriage, he said the following which I am sure he thought was reassuring: "Things will get back to normal... I know our issues are not easy and we need to keep working through them but we will get through them and get back to normal." To which I replied: "I don’t want them to go back to normal, I need them to go beyond that." Because "normal" for him means no sex, no touch, no intimacy. He assured me: "We will make it better. Not normal." There has been zero change since that convo 3 months ago. We can all "talk" and even feel like we're communicating well with our refuser spouses until we're blue in the face but until and unless they are not only WILLING to take actions to improve things, but WANTING to do so, and then actually DO IT, it's all just talk. Actions definitely speak louder than words for sure, but inaction sends a message too.
|
|
|
Post by tirefire on Mar 20, 2018 13:56:34 GMT -5
That _was_ depressing. I'm sure it resonates with a lot of folks here. Thank you for posting.
|
|
|
Post by WindSister on Mar 20, 2018 16:14:49 GMT -5
I think one needs to be totally honest about the past and not romanticize it. This author seemingly had a strong foundation from the start (her side of the story, anyway), but from what I have read here, most of us who ended up in a SM did NOT start out that way. So, correct, you can't get back to what was never there.
The light for me is more of a flame. I really and truly believe the way to keep it blazing is through appreciation. What you take for granted, dies, withers. But....BUT! It takes two fanning the flames. If one checks out, the fire will die.
Did this author and her spouse really work together to keep it lit? Doesn't seem like it. Could they get back? That depends how far gone they are and if both of them truly want to.
|
|