29 Jul 2019, 11:00 am
Fireblossom wrote:
SecretOpossumCabal wrote:
Please don't divorce, here is wisdom from G.K. Chesterton:
"The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the first fear of death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential surrender.
In everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no one would do it, except for necessity or honor. It is then that the Institution upholds a man and helps him on to the firmer ground ahead. Whether this solid fact of human nature is sufficient to justify the sublime dedication of Christian marriage is quite an other matter, it is amply sufficient to justify the general human feeling of marriage as a fixed thing, dissolution of which is a fault or, at least, an ignominy. The essential element is not so much duration as security. Two people must be tied together in order to do themselves justice; for twenty minutes at a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage In both cases the point is, that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and force himself to be happy. Coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or what some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is essentially discouraging. If we all floated in the air like bubbles, free to drift anywhere at any instant, the practical result would be that no one would have the courage to begin a conversation. It would be so embarrassing to start a sentence in a friendly whisper, and then have to shout the last half of it because the other party was floating away into the free and formless ether. The two must hold each other to do justice to each other. If Americans can be divorced for "incompatibility of temper" I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.
-- What's Wrong with the World
Your husband has issues, but so will every other husband.
"The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the first fear of death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential surrender.
In everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no one would do it, except for necessity or honor. It is then that the Institution upholds a man and helps him on to the firmer ground ahead. Whether this solid fact of human nature is sufficient to justify the sublime dedication of Christian marriage is quite an other matter, it is amply sufficient to justify the general human feeling of marriage as a fixed thing, dissolution of which is a fault or, at least, an ignominy. The essential element is not so much duration as security. Two people must be tied together in order to do themselves justice; for twenty minutes at a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage In both cases the point is, that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and force himself to be happy. Coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or what some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is essentially discouraging. If we all floated in the air like bubbles, free to drift anywhere at any instant, the practical result would be that no one would have the courage to begin a conversation. It would be so embarrassing to start a sentence in a friendly whisper, and then have to shout the last half of it because the other party was floating away into the free and formless ether. The two must hold each other to do justice to each other. If Americans can be divorced for "incompatibility of temper" I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.
-- What's Wrong with the World
Your husband has issues, but so will every other husband.
So when will it be her husband's turn to face that pain?
He sounds pretty miserable already (which is why he needs to turn to substance abuse) and like many other people he could well fix himself, dissolving a marriage is nuclear option that should very rarely considered. Don't know why you're defensive about that.
Quote:
Angnix: I suggest you forget what's best for him for a sec and focus on what you need in order to be safe and happy. If he's in the way of those things, then having him out of your life is a very good option.
She will be very miserable if she does this, here is the thing about happiness, you CANNOT pursue happiness directly. People who do are the most miserable kinds of people living on impulse as soon as a suggestion arises, it's not any better than what her husband is doing in pursuing a momentary high, and it's no better than what simple animals do. These things which, while more direct, cause more harm in the long run. She needs to get her husband the help he needs, and by proxy of that, she will gain the happiness she wants.
But she is no different than any other wife, marriage is a sacrifice, and to derive substance from marriage you have to go into it as a servant, not as a benefactor. If the husband has gotten weak and the wife strong than she should pull him until he is strong enough to manage his own affairs again, after all, she certainly didn't marry him while he was in this state, what she liked about him is still there, albeit more dormant.
They're on a ship and this is just another storm that they should weather, one party shouldn't get the lifeboat and abandon the other, because the storm is only temporary. If we all throw that lifeboat as soon as the storm arrives then we may only be dooming themselves to a less sea-worthy vessel. Can you imagine if the crew said to the captain of the ship "sorry boss, you're on your own, i'm focusing on myself" as soon as things got rough?
Selfishness here is not an option. Selfishness during the storm only dooms both people, whereas both can still be saved. THAT is the better option. All marriages will have storms, from the least of them to the best.
29 Jul 2019, 11:13 am
29 Jul 2019, 10:37 pm
30 Jul 2019, 3:23 am
SecretOpossumCabal wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
So when will it be her husband's turn to face that pain?
He sounds pretty miserable already (which is why he needs to turn to substance abuse) and like many other people he could well fix himself, dissolving a marriage is nuclear option that should very rarely considered. Don't know why you're defensive about that.
Quote:
Angnix: I suggest you forget what's best for him for a sec and focus on what you need in order to be safe and happy. If he's in the way of those things, then having him out of your life is a very good option.
She will be very miserable if she does this, here is the thing about happiness, you CANNOT pursue happiness directly. People who do are the most miserable kinds of people living on impulse as soon as a suggestion arises, it's not any better than what her husband is doing in pursuing a momentary high, and it's no better than what simple animals do. These things which, while more direct, cause more harm in the long run. She needs to get her husband the help he needs, and by proxy of that, she will gain the happiness she wants.
But she is no different than any other wife, marriage is a sacrifice, and to derive substance from marriage you have to go into it as a servant, not as a benefactor. If the husband has gotten weak and the wife strong than she should pull him until he is strong enough to manage his own affairs again, after all, she certainly didn't marry him while he was in this state, what she liked about him is still there, albeit more dormant.
They're on a ship and this is just another storm that they should weather, one party shouldn't get the lifeboat and abandon the other, because the storm is only temporary. If we all throw that lifeboat as soon as the storm arrives then we may only be dooming themselves to a less sea-worthy vessel. Can you imagine if the crew said to the captain of the ship "sorry boss, you're on your own, i'm focusing on myself" as soon as things got rough?
Selfishness here is not an option. Selfishness during the storm only dooms both people, whereas both can still be saved. THAT is the better option. All marriages will have storms, from the least of them to the best.
This philosophy is the best fuel for codependency. Between toxic selfishness and "selflessness" that enables toxicity, there is a region of healthy boundaries. The philosophy above seems to ignore it, believing you are either sacrificing yourself everywhere or you are completely selfish, no middle ground.
30 Jul 2019, 9:26 am
SecretOpossumCabal wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
SecretOpossumCabal wrote:
Please don't divorce, here is wisdom from G.K. Chesterton:
"The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the first fear of death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential surrender.
In everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no one would do it, except for necessity or honor. It is then that the Institution upholds a man and helps him on to the firmer ground ahead. Whether this solid fact of human nature is sufficient to justify the sublime dedication of Christian marriage is quite an other matter, it is amply sufficient to justify the general human feeling of marriage as a fixed thing, dissolution of which is a fault or, at least, an ignominy. The essential element is not so much duration as security. Two people must be tied together in order to do themselves justice; for twenty minutes at a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage In both cases the point is, that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and force himself to be happy. Coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or what some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is essentially discouraging. If we all floated in the air like bubbles, free to drift anywhere at any instant, the practical result would be that no one would have the courage to begin a conversation. It would be so embarrassing to start a sentence in a friendly whisper, and then have to shout the last half of it because the other party was floating away into the free and formless ether. The two must hold each other to do justice to each other. If Americans can be divorced for "incompatibility of temper" I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.
-- What's Wrong with the World
Your husband has issues, but so will every other husband.
"The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the first fear of death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential surrender.
In everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no one would do it, except for necessity or honor. It is then that the Institution upholds a man and helps him on to the firmer ground ahead. Whether this solid fact of human nature is sufficient to justify the sublime dedication of Christian marriage is quite an other matter, it is amply sufficient to justify the general human feeling of marriage as a fixed thing, dissolution of which is a fault or, at least, an ignominy. The essential element is not so much duration as security. Two people must be tied together in order to do themselves justice; for twenty minutes at a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage In both cases the point is, that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and force himself to be happy. Coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or what some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is essentially discouraging. If we all floated in the air like bubbles, free to drift anywhere at any instant, the practical result would be that no one would have the courage to begin a conversation. It would be so embarrassing to start a sentence in a friendly whisper, and then have to shout the last half of it because the other party was floating away into the free and formless ether. The two must hold each other to do justice to each other. If Americans can be divorced for "incompatibility of temper" I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.
-- What's Wrong with the World
Your husband has issues, but so will every other husband.
So when will it be her husband's turn to face that pain?
He sounds pretty miserable already (which is why he needs to turn to substance abuse) and like many other people he could well fix himself, dissolving a marriage is nuclear option that should very rarely considered. Don't know why you're defensive about that.
Quote:
Angnix: I suggest you forget what's best for him for a sec and focus on what you need in order to be safe and happy. If he's in the way of those things, then having him out of your life is a very good option.
She will be very miserable if she does this, here is the thing about happiness, you CANNOT pursue happiness directly. People who do are the most miserable kinds of people living on impulse as soon as a suggestion arises, it's not any better than what her husband is doing in pursuing a momentary high, and it's no better than what simple animals do. These things which, while more direct, cause more harm in the long run. She needs to get her husband the help he needs, and by proxy of that, she will gain the happiness she wants.
But she is no different than any other wife, marriage is a sacrifice, and to derive substance from marriage you have to go into it as a servant, not as a benefactor. If the husband has gotten weak and the wife strong than she should pull him until he is strong enough to manage his own affairs again, after all, she certainly didn't marry him while he was in this state, what she liked about him is still there, albeit more dormant.
They're on a ship and this is just another storm that they should weather, one party shouldn't get the lifeboat and abandon the other, because the storm is only temporary. If we all throw that lifeboat as soon as the storm arrives then we may only be dooming themselves to a less sea-worthy vessel. Can you imagine if the crew said to the captain of the ship "sorry boss, you're on your own, i'm focusing on myself" as soon as things got rough?
Selfishness here is not an option. Selfishness during the storm only dooms both people, whereas both can still be saved. THAT is the better option. All marriages will have storms, from the least of them to the best.
I'm defensive because abuse is wrong, married or not and a marriage is no reason to tolerate it.
You're not her; how can you know she'd be happy? Besides, what if it's not happiness she wants to gain but safety? From what she's written, her husband seems to be emotionally abusive. Being with someone like that isn't safe.
If one is a servant in a marriage, then her husband should also be serving her. Why isn't he? Why should she serve him when he doesn't serve her and is abusive instead?
Also, our ideas of what a marriage is are clearly completely different. You say it's a sacrifice and a servant's job, but to me it is a deal usually made by two people in love (sometimes also made for financial benefit, which is also fine as long as both agree to it), who see each other as equals (not servants), and will both help each other out equally when needed, where both will have to make compromises, but only to a reasonable extent. Having to stay around and try to help an abusive spouse is not reasonable and thus doesn't have to be done unless one really wants to.
As for your ship examble, I think it's fine for the crew to abandon the captain if the reason the ship got in to the storm was that the captain steered it there despite the crew trying to warn and help him. Same goes for marriage. If a mistake is made, it can often be fixed, but some mistakes are too big and destructive and one must "abandon the ship" in order to survive.
30 Jul 2019, 1:12 pm
SecretOpossumCabal wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
SecretOpossumCabal wrote:
Please don't divorce, here is wisdom from G.K. Chesterton:
"The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the first fear of death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential surrender.
In everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no one would do it, except for necessity or honor. It is then that the Institution upholds a man and helps him on to the firmer ground ahead. Whether this solid fact of human nature is sufficient to justify the sublime dedication of Christian marriage is quite an other matter, it is amply sufficient to justify the general human feeling of marriage as a fixed thing, dissolution of which is a fault or, at least, an ignominy. The essential element is not so much duration as security. Two people must be tied together in order to do themselves justice; for twenty minutes at a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage In both cases the point is, that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and force himself to be happy. Coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or what some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is essentially discouraging. If we all floated in the air like bubbles, free to drift anywhere at any instant, the practical result would be that no one would have the courage to begin a conversation. It would be so embarrassing to start a sentence in a friendly whisper, and then have to shout the last half of it because the other party was floating away into the free and formless ether. The two must hold each other to do justice to each other. If Americans can be divorced for "incompatibility of temper" I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.
-- What's Wrong with the World
Your husband has issues, but so will every other husband.
"The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the first fear of death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential surrender.
In everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no one would do it, except for necessity or honor. It is then that the Institution upholds a man and helps him on to the firmer ground ahead. Whether this solid fact of human nature is sufficient to justify the sublime dedication of Christian marriage is quite an other matter, it is amply sufficient to justify the general human feeling of marriage as a fixed thing, dissolution of which is a fault or, at least, an ignominy. The essential element is not so much duration as security. Two people must be tied together in order to do themselves justice; for twenty minutes at a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage In both cases the point is, that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and force himself to be happy. Coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or what some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is essentially discouraging. If we all floated in the air like bubbles, free to drift anywhere at any instant, the practical result would be that no one would have the courage to begin a conversation. It would be so embarrassing to start a sentence in a friendly whisper, and then have to shout the last half of it because the other party was floating away into the free and formless ether. The two must hold each other to do justice to each other. If Americans can be divorced for "incompatibility of temper" I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.
-- What's Wrong with the World
Your husband has issues, but so will every other husband.
So when will it be her husband's turn to face that pain?
He sounds pretty miserable already (which is why he needs to turn to substance abuse) and like many other people he could well fix himself, dissolving a marriage is nuclear option that should very rarely considered. Don't know why you're defensive about that.
Quote:
Angnix: I suggest you forget what's best for him for a sec and focus on what you need in order to be safe and happy. If he's in the way of those things, then having him out of your life is a very good option.
She will be very miserable if she does this, here is the thing about happiness, you CANNOT pursue happiness directly. People who do are the most miserable kinds of people living on impulse as soon as a suggestion arises, it's not any better than what her husband is doing in pursuing a momentary high, and it's no better than what simple animals do. These things which, while more direct, cause more harm in the long run. She needs to get her husband the help he needs, and by proxy of that, she will gain the happiness she wants.
But she is no different than any other wife, marriage is a sacrifice, and to derive substance from marriage you have to go into it as a servant, not as a benefactor. If the husband has gotten weak and the wife strong than she should pull him until he is strong enough to manage his own affairs again, after all, she certainly didn't marry him while he was in this state, what she liked about him is still there, albeit more dormant.
They're on a ship and this is just another storm that they should weather, one party shouldn't get the lifeboat and abandon the other, because the storm is only temporary. If we all throw that lifeboat as soon as the storm arrives then we may only be dooming themselves to a less sea-worthy vessel. Can you imagine if the crew said to the captain of the ship "sorry boss, you're on your own, i'm focusing on myself" as soon as things got rough?
Selfishness here is not an option. Selfishness during the storm only dooms both people, whereas both can still be saved. THAT is the better option. All marriages will have storms, from the least of them to the best.
Do you know the history of this relationship? Have you read her many posts over the years? His regular viewing of porno, in a way that triggers her PTSD? His separation of his money for his own use, such as buying a puppy with back disability pay, but none to household expenses. His flirting and contact with other women? His belittling of her? And so on ....
30 Jul 2019, 1:55 pm
30 Jul 2019, 2:13 pm
30 Jul 2019, 4:52 pm
30 Jul 2019, 5:07 pm
30 Jul 2019, 6:17 pm
30 Jul 2019, 8:09 pm
30 Jul 2019, 8:18 pm
30 Jul 2019, 9:24 pm
31 Jul 2019, 1:37 am
31 Jul 2019, 4:54 am
