| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 26.1 | You mean all this pain isn't GIVING? | BACH::COCHRANE | Gee, this could be fun. | Fri Jul 25 1986 18:40 | 51 |
| Joe, I have backed up your opinions most of the time in
notes files. I am now going to violently disagree with you.
Have you ever been married?
As a woman who has tried to the point of exhaustion to save
her dying marriage (my husband has too), I find it rather
insulting that you are implying I haven't tried (or given as
the case may be) enough.
No, you can never truely know when you take those vows what
is going to come from the future. When you take them, you
truely believe, as Ian and I did, that whatever the future holds
you can face together. You truely believe that you will be able
to be there for each other no matter what. Problems are not something
you tend to count on your wedding day. Problems creep up slowly,
without you even realizing it, day by day looming larger and larger,
even in the best of circumstances where you communicate your needs
and desires to your spouse, even when you try to work out the wrinkles.
Suddenly you wake up one day to realize that you can't work out
the wrinkles anymore, that you're so caught up in your own pain
you *can't* be there for the other person, and you've moved so far
apart that the realization evolves into a kind of panic to "save
the marriage." That turns gradually into a kind of resentment that
the other party "can't have tried hard enough" to guilt that maybe
"I didn't try hard enough". And finally, you reach the stage that
I have (and my husband too) where you realize that you're doing
all you can, and what happens will happen.
No, I don't believe I've "thrown him away." Nor has he I. I haven't
grown above, beyond or away from him. I still love him and he me.
We may just not *belong* together. And a sense of belonging is
something that takes time to evolve. We haven't failed, as I said
before. We've just realized that maybe we aren't what the other
really needs, emotionally. And we can't see a lifetime of misery
for each of us just to adhere to a "sacred commitment." I love
him enough to want him to find the things out of life he wants.
Those things may not include me. And the things I'm looking for
may not include him. There's a deepness of love beyond commitment
that allows you the opportunity to want the best for someone you
love, without feeling the selfishness of not wanting to let go.
I'm not "Quiting," "throwing away," or "refusing to give." I'm
choosing to let go, taking the risk of rejection to see if our
relationship *can* work. It's the scariest thing I've ever done,
like stepping off of a cliff, and if we *do* get back together,
our relationship will be so strong that we will be able to face
crisis better and hopefully overcome them all.
THAT's not giving enough? Good Lord, man what do you WANT?
Mary-Michael
|
| 26.2 | Have you been there? | MMO01::PNELSON | Searching for Topeka | Fri Jul 25 1986 23:40 | 27 |
| RE: .0
I have 2 questions for you:
Have you ever been married?
Have you ever been divorced?
> Isnt "true" love absolutely unconditional?
Absolutely not! The only unconditional love I'm aware of is parental
love.
> Take a good look at you needs and how they may change in time. Then
> take a look at what you are vs what you are becoming. Consider all
> things as influential; everything has its part in the changing of you.
> Do this together after having each clearly established what you think
> you are and will be soon.
I'm 39 years old now, and the advice in the above paragraph seems
reasonable. I have a pretty good idea of what I am and in what
directions I'm growing and likely to grow in the future. But a
20 year old doesn't have the slightest inkling, and shouldn't be
expected to. Your life is just beginning at that point, and I don't
believe for a minute there's any way in the world to make even a
good guess at what changes will occur as you grow and mature.
(^: Positive Pat :^)
|
| 26.3 | love without marriage | ISWISS::GORDON | You wrote WHAT in TPU? | Sat Jul 26 1986 00:24 | 35 |
| Ok, I'm single, have read all the way through the divorce topic, and am
going to put my 2 cents in... (for reference, I'm 26)
My freshman & sophmore years of college, I was very much in love with a
girl at school. I came from a fairly liberal background, and she came
from a southern family, 2 sisters, all-girls-private high school, very
conservative background. The reasons for the demise of the original
relationship were numerous, but one of the driving forces was that I
kept pushing her to stand up for hersel, and in the end she did --
eventually she broke off the relationship.
We were barely civil to each other for a year, and then, after the
immediate pain had diminished, we became very close friends. Five
years later, we are still very close. I see her on the average of once
a year or so, and it happens that I stayed with her for a week within
the last month.
This last visit has made me realize now that had we met today, we
probably wouldn't even like each other, yet I love her dearly as
a friend, and can accept the fact that she and I are so very different
8 years later. People change, and love doesn't have to quit. I
don't have to live with her every day - that wouldn't work. But
I can still love her as much as I am able.
You may doubt that "I really know what love is", but I can say that
it is my own belief that I hope I love the person I do marry as
much as I do her. So I feel that love need not be tied to being
married and can survive a great many changes in the people who make
up the relationship - but don't try to tell me I have to stay with
someone to love them...
That's just one single programmer's opinion...
--Doug
|
| 26.5 | No luck, just lots of work | MMO01::RESENDE | Steve @MMO, MMO01::, DTN 356-6774 | Mon Jul 28 1986 04:50 | 37 |
| I'll second what Don said. People change. Time passes.
The world changes. The vows we made in our early 20s so
easily are pretty hard to reconcile when in our 30s we are
different people. I'm NOT saying vows are something to be
made lightly or broken lightly. But the fact must be stated
that we change through time. And that "vow", considered all
by itself, is not sufficient justification for continuing a
relationship which has otherwise deteriorated to the point
of no recovery. And when one person wants out, and the
other doesn't, well there's only one winner. And that's the
lawyers who handle the battle. Both parties will suffer.
I posted the original SOULMATE topic in "that other
conference" we all knew and loved (well most of us with one
disastrous exception). And what was discussed there was
that there are people who are made for each other and there
are people who have to make themselves for each other. And
most people who've been alive into their 4th decade will
have learned that we all grow at different paces (if at all
for some) and in different directions. Coordinating such
growth between two people in a life-long relationship is
more difficult than going it alone. But, in my humble
opinion, I'd opt for it over the alternative in a
nanosecond.
I interpret some of the ideas in .0 as somewhat cynical.
The dissolution of a marriage or any significant
relationship is no easy street, and I don't think most
people who've been through it choose so lightly. There's no
crystal ball I know of that will let us look and see if our
choice of a mate will turn out to be correct. I think it's
got to be a lot of hard work for both, and the only role for
luck is that you are fortunate enough to pick a mate who
will work as hard as you do. Cause if you don't, well I
don't know how it can succeed.
^Steve^
|
| 26.6 | am I kidding?| | KRYPTN::JASNIEWSKI | | Mon Jul 28 1986 21:31 | 39 |
|
I must appologise for my somewhat impersonal style of "yanking"
someones text (ah, the wonders of electronic editing) to start
a new topic. I'll think of my own idea next time. Also for the
cynicism, which I really do not want to become known for. Although
its true that I've NEVER been married, (: shouldnt be talking) I
do feel I know something about love, the foundation of marriage.
Agreed that when you're twenty, you dont really know; a totally
confident answer to "what I am" and "where I'm going" is really
beyond the scope of most folks at that age...
One thing that causes me to wonder is the mass reports of Love
experienced *with* a lot of pain. Is the pain really nescessary?
Is Love, as an entity, *necessarily* endowed with a conjugate
state of mind? Like a "yin-yang", Heaven-Hell, life-death, Day-Night,
sound-silence, +/- kinda thing - where to have one, you MUST
experience the other.
I have battled against that idea for a long time - I simply dont
believe it *has* to be so. I could be totally wrong; just because
everything else in nature works that way doesnt mean...
This is where my idealist belief in unconditional love comes from.
Yes, the same kind of love existing between two people as exists
between mother/father and son/daughter.
A family sets an example for it's offspring. All of you are more like
your parents than you know. A child feeling love-unconditional from
h/hr parents and seeing this given across the other family ties is
"set up" to be able to do this h/hr own. Isnt that wonderful?
My parents didnt get divorced and sometimes, "things" seemed like
hell to me; I often wondered why they bothered to stay together.
I was told that it was because of "me" but I dont think that was it.
I think I was being shown the most precious belief I now have.
Joe Jas
|
| 26.7 | Pain not required, but work is | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Tue Jul 29 1986 03:55 | 19 |
| Loving, especially unconditionally is hard work, at least in my
experience. The basic reason is that we humans are pretty
fallible creatures. That means first that you as a loved one
will at times fail and thus find it hard to love, and second
that the loved one will occasionally become, if not unlovable,
at least hard to love.
This has been equally for me in my relationship with my wife,
parents and kids. Usually it's at least partially my own
failing, but in all cases (well maybe not my 6-month old yet) it
is at least occasionally the other person's fault.
The important thing to remember is that these people are all
worth the effort, and that the difficulties are caused by human
nature, and not because the individuals in question are
exceptionally frail. Don't dwell on the failings or the bad
times, and try not to think of the failings as pain.
JimB.
|
| 26.8 | Love w/o pain? | MMO01::RESENDE | Steve @MMO | Tue Jul 29 1986 05:09 | 42 |
|
RE: < Note 26.6 > -< am I kidding?| >-
I guess it's my turn to be a cynic, so we're even. In
answer to your question about love being accompanied by
pain, I guess I'm of the mind that they do go together. At
this point in my life, I can sum up my feelings best by
"borrowing" a line from Gibran - "your joys are your sorrows
unmasked ... the deeper that sorrow carves into your being,
the more joy you can contain". Well, if that's true, boy
have I got a lot of joy due pretty soon?! ;'} Along with a
lot of other folks.
I think that love is the most wonderful thing going, better
than chocolate even, and far above watermelon in July. But
as Jim said, it's not free, it's a lot of hard work. And
there's nothing wrong with that.
Where I find the pain is that to love, you have to risk
yourself, to allow yourself to become vulnerable. To "fall"
in love, you run the chance of being wrong, or rejected, or
mistaken, or disappointed. And that means pain.
Now some folks get hurt and say "never again", never
allowing themselves the opportunity to love, so they won't
get hurt. I think that that is now allowing yourself to
live life to the fullest. It's a defense mechanism. But
for them, the risk of pain is too high to bear. I can
understand that. On the other extreme, there are some folks
who can "fall" into love over and over and don't seem to be
bothered as much when it fails. They just keep right on
trucking and try again. I admire their stamina. I can't
follow them though. I'm not sure I understand it. Perhaps
there's some difference in the depth of emotions or
something. One of the mysteries of life I guess.
Well, that's my 2 cents worth on pain and love for tonight.
Anyone else?
-Steve-
|
| 26.10 | Pain? | GENRAL::TAVARES | | Tue Jul 29 1986 14:27 | 5 |
| Life is the process of being. What we define as joy and pain are,
in reality, the process of life. How can you value one over the
other? What is, is, and what ain't, ain't. To put labels on the
experience of life, as joy or pain, diminishes from the experience;
and without the experience, the full experience, you are not alive.
|
| 26.11 | Women (people) who love too much | 5176::MCGOWAN | | Tue Jul 29 1986 15:11 | 17 |
|
"when being in love means being in pain we are loving too much.
when most of our conversations with intimate friends are about him,
*his* problems, his thoughts, his feelings - we are loving too much.
When we excuse his moodiness, bad temper, indifference, or putdowns
as problems due to an unhappy childhood *and* we try to become his
therapist, we are loving too much. When we read a self help book
and underline all the passages we think would help *him*, we are
loving too much. When we dont like many of his basic characteristics,
values, behaviors, but we put up with them thinking that if we are
only attractive enough and loving enough he'll want to change for
*us*, we are loving too much. When a relationship jeopardizes our
emotional well being and perhaps even our physical health and safety,
we are definately loving too much!
|
| 26.12 | Joe, open your eyes. | USFSHQ::LMARTEL | | Wed Jul 30 1986 19:16 | 34 |
| Joe, seems like you have a lot of wonderful ideas about life. That
is rare and so nice to see. But you have to open your eyes and
listen to what you claim to believe.
Yes, the pain is necessary - I was once told "If it's worth having,
it's worth the work/sacrifice/pain, etc"
This is difficult, I should be speaking to you rather than writing.
The point is, you seem to be very open minded, don't pre-judge people
and assume that all relationships are going to fall into your beliefs.
In actuality, I would guess that your type of love is very rare
and hard to find.
You see, it's not that we are being selfish or choosing to not work
at it, but you eventually get to a point where you realize that
no matter how hard you work, it is not going to do any good if the
other responsible party chooses to continue as it is.
Seems the more you give sometimes, the more they want. Where does
that end? BURN OUT! So, if you are at all concerned about your
own welfare, you choose to get out.
I have read a lot of your entries, and again, you seem to be a
fortunate person - and it seems we are being a little hard on you.
We just are trying to get our point across----> We have had a
relationship that we all thought would be forever, live through
anything, but we were wrong. The whole time, we loved, respected
and tried. We sacrificed. But enough is enough!
Nice talking to you.
Laura
|
| 26.13 | | ARMORY::CHARBONND | | Mon Nov 24 1986 10:51 | 20 |
| Question - when you took your wedding vows did you
a. vow to love one another forever ?
b. vow to maintain your relationship forever ?
c. vow to maintain your relationship even
if you no longer loved one another ?
I have a hard time believing that the way I feel about
anything or anyone will not change as time passes - for
better or worse. I would try to maintain a relationship
as long as I thought there was a measure of love in it,
but not longer.
|
| 26.14 | Yes, forever | DSSDEV::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Mon Nov 24 1986 15:54 | 58 |
| Quick answers to your question:
a. Yes, we vowed to love one another forever.
b. Yes, we vowed to maintain the relationship forever.
c. The vows are independent, so I believe that means that
Yes, we vowed to maintain the relationship even if we
failed the first vow and stopped loving one another.
Warning: My beliefs on this subject are quite strong, decidedly
normative, and differ from those of many in this file. You may
find that the following is absolutist and inflexible. Please
understand that I strongly believe that you have the right to
disagree with my views and to live by whatever principles you
have. I present my views here only for the sake of discussion
and not to try to force them on anyone else, which I feel would
be wrong.
That being said, I feel that the unconditional nature of our
wedding vows are critical to the relationship being a marriage
and to the success of the marriage. I would recommend that
anyone who is not ready to make unconditional vows consider
postponing marriage until they are ready to make unconditional
vows.
It is completely true that you can not predict how you will feel
for the rest of your life. As I have said, however, love is an
action that you perform and not just a passion which you
experience. You can promise to love someone forever even though
you can not promise to be attracted to them or lust after them,
or whatever. In the extreme, it is not even necessary to like
someone you love, although it is quite hard to keep from liking
someone you love.
I've written about this a lot in this file (and in others), and
will let it stand at this unless others wish to continue the
discussion.
JimB.
For reference, here are the vows etc. from our marriage. (They
are mine, but our vows were completely symmetrical.)
"Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together
after God's holy ordinance in the holy estate of matrimony? Wilt
thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and
in health; and, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto her,
so long as ye both shall live?"
Answer: "I will by God's help."
"I James take thee Selma to my wedded wife, to have and to hold
from this day forth, for better or worse, for richer or poorer,
in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do
us part, according to God's holy ordinance; thereto I plight
thee my troth."
"With this ring I thee wed, and with all that I am, all that I
have, I honour thee, in the Name of the Lord."
|
| 26.15 | A few thoughts... | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | | Mon Nov 24 1986 20:05 | 25 |
| I think Jim makes a very important statement in 26.14. One might
think after reading his views that they were biased and based on
religious beliefs. Whether or not this is true is one area for
discussion.
I think that there is a lack of committment in many areas of our
lives. We give up on raising our children, on employment contracts,
on friendships, all on the basis that it is no longer good for us.
Sometimes we have to do what is "right" not only morally but from
a legal point of view.
There has been a lot of "me first" philosophy around. Which is
okay if it is not carried to the extreme.
Basically marriage is a committment. If we grow out of it we have
a moral as well as a legal obligation to try to make it work for
the sake of the committment, the other person, and the family.
I am divorced but I feel that divorce was an easy solution in the
70's and not always the right one. Was it right for me? Yes.
But if I had chosen the path of trying to make it work (trying harder,
for I tried) that could have been right also.
|
| 26.16 | Who draws the line? | NEXUS::C_THWEATT | TWEETY | Thu Nov 27 1986 11:12 | 14 |
| re. 14
What happens in the case where a husband physically and
emotionally beats up his wife? What if that wife stays
with him and offers her support of him if he goes into
psychological therapy? What if that husband refuses because
he won't or can't face his problem? What if there are
children involved, who are not being beaten, but who *see*
and *hear* what goes on? Love is not in question here.
How long is she expected to put up with that kind of abuse?
Forever because of a vow?
I would be very interested in your replies.
|
| 26.17 | | TOPDOC::STANTON | I got a gal in Kalamazoo | Thu Nov 27 1986 17:12 | 15 |
|
re. 16:
The abusive husband has forfeited his part in any vow in this
situation. The wife & children should leave this relationship as
soon as possible, without conditions on when they return, if not
for herself then at least for the children.
This is an extreme situation with a pretty clear answer. To remain
in such a relationship is unhealthy for everyone, no matter what
vows were exchanged. I would be optimistic if the husband offered
to enter therapy, but refusing to accept any help is tantamount to
a decleration of total war on the wife. If she remains, she too
needs therapy.
|
| 26.18 | Easier said than done | CEDSWS::REDDEN | Laser Lock ON | Fri Nov 28 1986 09:40 | 31 |
| RE: .18
(gender modifications made as required)
>The abusive spouse has forfeited his part in any vow in this situation.
First, the only real vows I can make are to myself and God. Second,
how about the notion of "in sickness and in health"?
>This is an extreme situation with a pretty clear answer.
If I had been wise enough for the answer to be pretty clear, maybe
I could have been wise enough to avoid the situation. There are
lots of folks who remain in situations like this, which suggest
that the answer may not be all that clear, after all.
>I would be optimistic if the wife offered to enter therapy, but refusing
>to accept any help is tantamount to a decleration of total war.
Agreeing to enter therapy is absolutely not equivalent to accepting
help. In particular, dealing with a person who in inconsistent
in the use of a prescribed anti-psychotic medication is like playing
raquetball blindfolded.
>If he remains, he too needs therapy.
*Absolutely*
A person who has been in this sort of situation, either as a spouse
or a child, needs therapy whether they remain or not.
|
| 26.19 | Hard questions, hard answers, hard decissions | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Sat Nov 29 1986 03:41 | 102 |
| The problems raised in 26.16 are certainly not simple. Beyond
that, problems that you are dealing with in theory are quite
different than those you live through. Answering the questions
raised in .16 in the abstract is all well and good, but
predicting how you would cope with the situation is a pretty
"iffy" proposition. All that being said, here are my thoughts.
First, the problem didn't start with the spouse being seriously
beaten up. It started much earlier. The problem is, no doubt,
several problems. One might begin by asking why the two people
married in the first place. Was it an idyllic marriage that went
sour, or was it always a destructive relationship that just
escalated?
If it was a real marriage, a good marriage, then what went
wrong? How did it fail? Was it really all the fault of the
abusive spouse? I find that hard to believe. It seems to me that
not only does it take two to make a marriage work, but it also
takes two to really tear one apart.
If on the other hand it was always a destructive relationship,
then why did the abused spouse get involved? What were they
looking for? What did they mean by their vows? Are they in some
way responsible for getting involved in the situation?
These are hard questions, but if you are going to ask if it is
moral to break your holy vows, given before God, you have to
know what your responsibilities are. If the situation is in part
your own doing, then how does it give you the right to break
your vows? The easy answer is to say that none of the situation
is your fault, that the other partner is solely to blame, but
that may not always be honest. In fact, I would argue that it is
*almost* *never* honest.
I've talked about marriage a number of times in this file. As I
have said then, there are very important questions you must ask
*before* you marry. You must ask them because of the absolute
nature of the vows. You must ask if this is someone you truly
love. Do you value them, care for them, and consider them as
much as you do yourself? Really? Do they love you as well? Is
that love unconditional? If you use traditional marriage vows,
you are promising to love forever. You can't reasonably do that
if the love isn't unconditional.
You must ask if this is someone you can really trust. Why? Will
that trust crumble when it is first abused? Believe me, as all
men are frail, it *will* be abused--less often than it is
honored--but it will be abused. No imperfect human being can live
up to a complete trust.
Only after those questions have been asked, and answered
positively can you reasonably make an absolute commitment. I
would guess that the vast majority of marriages that fail do so
because the questions are never seriously asked or honestly
answered. They failed before they started.
So, back to our theoretical abused spouse. It seems to me that
either the relationship is a true marriage or it is not. Either
you made absolute vows or you didn't. In the case that you
didn't promise yourself, God and your spouse to love, honor and
cherish until death do you part, then there is nothing holding
you, and you are free to leave.
If, on the other hand, you did make eternal and absolute vows,
then the problem is to reconcile them with the situation. If the
situation built through your own complacency, then your own
responsibility for it is much clearer. If on the other hand your
love and your commitment were strong and you did everything
possible but the situation arose none-the-less it becomes less
clear. In either case the vows stand and if you break them that
is your act and your responsibility. It may be justified by
circumstance, but still you have broken them. It is the classic
"two wrongs do not make a right".
But it may not be necessary to break the vows. Vowing to love
and to cherish, to have and to hold, to honor and keep does not
require you to allow yourself to be beaten nor does it prevent
you from protecting your children. As to the last, clearly you
must get children out of this kind of a situation. They must be
protected. Doing so is, in fact, keeping your marriage vows, as
I see it.
Marriage vows do not require you to live with a spouse in a
dangerous situation. They do require you to stand by them and to
help them in all of their distress. Moving out may very well be
a necessary part of helping them. Again, I do not believe that
problems should be allowed to get to this point, but if they
have, they are both your problems to overcome. Overcoming them
will be far from easy. It may require living apart, it may
require professional assistance. It may require the aid of the
legal system. It may require you to strengthen and grow yourself
tremendously until you can provide the strength to help your
spouse overcome theirs.
As I said, it is not easy. It is far better to ask the hard
questions early, to make the right commitment and to keep it
strong. It is far better to understand marriage, love, trust,
and commitment from the beginning. It is better to take the
responsibility at the beginning, rather than seeking to blame at
the end.
JimB.
|
| 26.22 | What's in the gray area? | CEO03::REDDEN | Laser Lock ON | Sat Nov 29 1986 11:21 | 18 |
| RE: 19 -< Hard questions, hard answers, hard decissions >-
>The problems raised in 26.16 are certainly not simple. Beyond
>that, problems that you are dealing with in theory are quite
>different than those you live through. Answering the questions
>raised in .16 in the abstract is all well and good, but
>predicting how you would cope with the situation is a pretty
>"iffy" proposition. All that being said, here are my thoughts.
Jim - I'm sure glad you began your thoughts with these words.
It made it unnecessary to respond with a flame reflecting the
confusion I feel between your view and Suzanne's view (.20).
A year ago I could have fervently preached your view - Today,
I can say the words but I don't know what they mean, anymore.
Can you tell me more about the absoluteness, the totality, or,
perhaps, the irrevocability of marriage vows? Is it really
that unilateral? What is your duty *IF* what you are committed
to give is not longer wanted or even accepted?
|
| 26.24 | Not guilt, responsibility | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Sun Nov 30 1986 00:10 | 69 |
| Suzanne,
I did not mean to say that the abused spouse caused the abuse or
"was asking for it". Rather, and I suppose that it is a fine
distinction to make, I had meant that in this as in just about
any human relationship there are at least two people involved,
and that in some ways both people bear some responsibility for
it getting to whatever point it has. This doesn't mean that they
were provocative. It certainly doesn't mean that the victim is
more responsible than the victimizer, or at fault.
Virtually every divorced person I've ever heard speak of their
divorce, whether there was violence involved or not, has always
blamed their spouse. I think there are two reasons for this.
First it is extremely natural to engage in denial. We all shy
away from the concept that we have failed. It is very important
to us to believe that someone else was in control, that someone
else failed. Second, I feel that laying the responsibility at
the other person's feet is a significant contributor to the
failure of the marriage.
This avoidance of responsibility for one's own fate is an
extremely common source of problems, and not isolated to just
marriage. We all tend to retreat from responsibility and to
blame others. This was the trend I wanted to counter in my note
on the hard questions and hard answers and hard decisions of
marriage and divorce. But what I did not want to do is to try to
foist a burden of *guilt* upon the victim. In fact, guilt can
often be a way of shirking responsibility. "Oh, I'm terrible. I
deserve everything that's happening to me."
As I said you can honor your marriage vows by moving out on
someone. If that is what is needed to make them realize what is
going on, and to get them to shoulder their responsibility, it
can be an act of love and commitment. "Walking on eggs" as you
put it is very unlikely to be the right thing to do. It won't
make them face the problem. It won't solve the problem. It is
just a way of failing to face the issue, a way of letting the
destructive cycle continue and worsen. It fits in well with
guilt, but not with responsibility.
Absolute vows are vows to work on the relationship, to value the
spouse, to fix problems, to work, to *act*. You break your vows
when you give up on the other person, when you stop caring for
them, not when you get a divorce, not when you walk out on them.
When love turns to fear, when you start to "walk on eggs", I
would say you are already lost.
When I stress vows, by the way, I am stressing *your*own* vows,
not your spouses. When you get married, and say your vows you
are promising what *you* will do. They, and not your spouse's
vows are what you should be concentrating on. If you figure that
you don't have to work at a marriage because the other person is
stuck with you because of your vows, you are failing your own
vows and again shirking responsibility.
JimB.
PS: By the way, if you think I'm speaking from the perspective
of a no-effort perfect marriage, I'd be glad to discuss it with
you off line. Suffice it to say that I've made my mistakes, and
our marriage has had its ups and its downs. I know from my own
experience that a successful marriage comes only through hard
work. Precise details of the storms weathered are not, perhaps,
best written down in an open forum. (If I've screwed up should,
am I wise to talk about it in front of employers and coworkers?
And if my wife did, should I really speak badly about about her
in a conference? Beyond that discretion can be a very important
tool when building a successful relationship, no?)
|
| 26.27 | On the religious and ethical aspects | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Sun Nov 30 1986 02:09 | 44 |
| I'm perfectly aware that few, if any, of the members of this
file share my precise religious beliefs, and I don't feel that I
must impose my beliefs on others. I do feel, however, that each
person ought to live by whatever it is that they believe and
that they ought not to swear to what they don't believe.
If you don't believe in God, don't mention Him in your vows. If
you do mention Him in them, understand that it is far more
important whether He feels that you are wrong in breaking them
than whether I do. Similarly, if you don't believe you are
marrying forever, if your intentions are not absolute, if your
commitments aren't unconditional, then make your vows reflect
that. Don't swear to love until death parts you if you don't
mean it.
If you do forswear yourself, please understand that I will not
be alone in feeling that you are wrong. The most severe of your
judges (excluding perhaps God) may very well be yourself. Oath
breaking is a very hard thing to live with for most people.
Basically, its unwise, "bad karma", and just plain impolite to
say what you don't mean, and worse to take a false oath, and
that doesn't really depend very much on what your specific
religious beliefs are.
Also, I always talk about marriage in terms of absolutes and
unconditional commitments because that is how I define it. It is
quite true that many don't share this belief, and that some may
make conditional vows. That is their choice. I, as it happens,
don't believe that that is a real marriage, which among other
things means that I don't consider it wrong for such a liaison to
break up. (On the other hand my views on whether such a
relationship should include childbearing may be hard for some to
live with.)
In any event, as I have said elsewhere in this file, I have very
definite ethical and theological beliefs. They may mean that
some of the things that others are wrong in my eyes, but since I
believe all men err, I do not therefore hold those who commit
these wrongs to be any worse than anyone else. In particular, I
admire anybody who lives by their principles (assuming that the
principles are beneficent) regardless of whether I agree with
the specific principles they have.
JimB.
|
| 26.28 | (Gee, Suzanne, shall we let the others join in?) | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Sun Nov 30 1986 02:50 | 55 |
| To look at what I've said another way, if you are at the point
where you are walking on eggs, you've already lost, so hanging
around is acheiving nothing, you might as well leave, the
divorce is no additional failure. I absolutely agree that if you
are in a situation where you are having your nose broken and
your eyes blackened and the relationship isn't improving, then
the thing you should do is GET OUT.
As I said in 26.19, theorizing and talking in the abstract is
not a very good predictor of how you would act in a given
situation. I therefore have to bow to the expertise if anyone
who was or is actually involved in a seriously violent marriage.
That having been admitted to, I still feel that the proper
expression of love for a spouse who is becoming violent is to
help them out of their violence, and not to write them off. For
this to be successful, it would seem that it would have to
happen early or involve a spouse who wants to be helped.
To get it to a realm where my experience is a little more
applicable, I know that when I was a child and beaten regularly
by my contemporaries (which involved broken bones and the use of
weapons just so that you understand the degree we're talking
about here), it wasn't until I stopped being a victim that these
things stopped happening to me. I in no way feel that I was to
blame or that I am guilty for being beaten, but I will buy the
responsibility for not having managed to stop it earlier, and
for having allowed it to escalate to the broken bone level.
If my words are harsh or hard to live with, please understand
that it is in part because I don't feel others should allow
themselves to get to the point I was. Only by taking charge of
your own life, by approaching the world through love and
firmness of resolve can you really put an end to abuse, in my
experience.
(It was through love and mercy that I got the use of weapons to
stop. It was courage and reslove that ended the bone breaking
incidents. And it was turning my back on the violent elements of
the world that got me out of violent situations in general.)
Now domestic violence and the kind that I knew are different
beasts, and they, I imagine must be handled differently. None-
the-less, I feel that it is best avoided early and better
handled than run away from. That is how I would handle it.
Others may handle it differently, that is their decision and I
will respect it.
JimB.
PS: Suzanne, none of this should indicate that I feel anything
but respect and affection for you. We each have to make the hard
decisions for ourselves, search our own souls, and live our own
lives. I have always admired the spirit, courage and the
thoughtfulness you have shown. If we disagree on some things, we
probably agree on many more.
|
| 26.31 | what's wrong with being married seperate? | YODA::BARANSKI | Try Laughing when you feel like Crying... | Wed Dec 03 1986 16:49 | 14 |
| Suzanne,
I've noticed that you've concentrated on stating that ending the marriage is the
right thing to do for an abused spouse, rather then saying what is wrong with
remaining married, but living seperate to avoid the abuse.
In this way you can avoid the abuse, but remain true to your vows. In honesty,
I cannot say that I could do this, but that is what I feel would be 'the' right
thing to do.
Why do you feel that remaining married, but staying apart would be the wrong
thing to do?
Jim.
|
| 26.33 | Yes, you can do that... | YODA::BARANSKI | Try Laughing when you feel like Crying... | Thu Dec 04 1986 14:42 | 4 |
| I happen to know that having an abusive spouse is considered sufficient cause
for the marriage to be annuled in the Catholic church.
Jim.
|
| 26.34 | | ELMAGO::RMOORE | | Wed Apr 03 1991 12:09 | 8 |
|
The world hopes for the best but Jesus Christ offers the best hope.
RM
|
| 26.35 | If you drop your bombs, I'll put up my shields. | MISERY::WARD_FR | Going HOME---as an Adventurer! | Wed Apr 03 1991 14:23 | 8 |
| re: .34 (the indefatigible "RM")
Nah, I don't think so.
Frederick
|
| 26.36 | What .35 said | MR4DEC::RON | | Wed Apr 03 1991 15:19 | 0 |
| 26.37 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Wed Apr 03 1991 15:45 | 7 |
| I will point out to readers that Mr. Moore's participation is generally
limited to dropping little homilies as replies to notes which are often on
completely different subjects from the theme of his aphorisms. He does not
appear to actually participate in discussions. Folks might keep this in
mind when considering responding.
Steve
|
| 26.38 | <Tongue in cheek> | DECXPS::DOUGHERTY | The lovers, the dreamers...& me. | Wed Apr 03 1991 17:42 | 5 |
| People don't *really* do that, do they Steve????
:-)
Lynne
|
| 26.39 | | MR4DEC::RON | | Thu Apr 04 1991 17:15 | 12 |
|
Re: .37 by QUARK::LIONEL,
> ... Mr. Moore's participation is generally
> limited to dropping little homilies as replies to notes
> which are often on completely different subjects from the
> theme of his aphorisms.
Which is exactly the objectionable aspect of his responses.
-- Ron
|
| 26.40 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | Dragon Slaying...No Waiting! | Thu Apr 04 1991 17:30 | 4 |
| If he isn't going to keep in line with the subject of the note,
maybe someone should talk to him about it?
Skip
|
| 26.41 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Apr 04 1991 17:58 | 4 |
| I have, with no response. My advice would be to just ignore irrelevant
entries.
Steve
|
| 26.42 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | Dragon Slaying...No Waiting! | Thu Apr 04 1991 18:05 | 4 |
| Gotcha!
;-)
Skip
|
| 26.43 | | ROYALT::NIKOLOFF | Fearless | Fri Apr 05 1991 15:27 | 6 |
| yeah Skip, and free advice is worth every cent....;')
sorry, its 'spring-fever'
Mikki
|
| 26.44 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | Dragon Slaying...No Waiting! | Fri Apr 05 1991 17:29 | 7 |
| No problem Mikki.... I unnerstand..... time ta go fishin!
Ummm hmmmmm I guess I'm ratholing now.
Sorry!
Skip
|