Post by baza on Jun 27, 2016 22:29:05 GMT -5
In our common circumstances of ILIASM shitholes one of the key things that needs rigorous challenging is the concept of "us".
-
The theory that there is an "us" in play where the spouses are bound together, looking to cover each others back, mutually supporting each other, and putting the welfare of the marriage ("us") ahead of anything else.
-
So many of the stories here reveal that there is no "us" in play. There is no "we".
Rather that what there is, is "you" and "him" / "her" with no direct connective emotional link, but rather some intermediate link (kids or money for example) that tie the thing together.
There actually is no "us".
There is no "we".
No mutuality.
No reciprocity.
-
What there is, is two individuals running two different agenda's, only one of which is resulting in an outcome of making one of the spouses content.
And that one, ain't you.
-
"You" are (or have been) trying to build an "us".
Your spouse is (or has been) constructing an environment in which they are content, and if that results in you being disenfranchised and unhappy then that is just too bad for you. Your needs and aspirations are not a priority in their preferred environment.
There's no "us".
There is no "we"
There is him / her, and there is you.
-
If you continue to operate from a basis of there being an "us" in play, you are going to get right royally screwed over - and not in a good way.
Everything you do - in the interests of "us" - is going to be sucked up by "him / "her", and their contribution in to the "us" pool will be nothing, or limited to what is in THEIR best interests. Not the interests of "us" or "you".
You will exhaust and deplete yourself with your attempts to fill the bottomless pit of a non existent "us".
Your belief that there is an "us" (an illusion that the avoidant spouse is very keen for you to believe in) will be used against you.
-
The theory that there is an "us" in play where the spouses are bound together, looking to cover each others back, mutually supporting each other, and putting the welfare of the marriage ("us") ahead of anything else.
-
So many of the stories here reveal that there is no "us" in play. There is no "we".
Rather that what there is, is "you" and "him" / "her" with no direct connective emotional link, but rather some intermediate link (kids or money for example) that tie the thing together.
There actually is no "us".
There is no "we".
No mutuality.
No reciprocity.
-
What there is, is two individuals running two different agenda's, only one of which is resulting in an outcome of making one of the spouses content.
And that one, ain't you.
-
"You" are (or have been) trying to build an "us".
Your spouse is (or has been) constructing an environment in which they are content, and if that results in you being disenfranchised and unhappy then that is just too bad for you. Your needs and aspirations are not a priority in their preferred environment.
There's no "us".
There is no "we"
There is him / her, and there is you.
-
If you continue to operate from a basis of there being an "us" in play, you are going to get right royally screwed over - and not in a good way.
Everything you do - in the interests of "us" - is going to be sucked up by "him / "her", and their contribution in to the "us" pool will be nothing, or limited to what is in THEIR best interests. Not the interests of "us" or "you".
You will exhaust and deplete yourself with your attempts to fill the bottomless pit of a non existent "us".
Your belief that there is an "us" (an illusion that the avoidant spouse is very keen for you to believe in) will be used against you.
