Re: Re: Complete turn-around in relationship [First post]

[Guest guest]

Hi Becky,

The positive messages work well for myself and Ian. He doesnt/didnt have strong boundaries when I met him - on our first date he said he hated the way I dressed and moaned about everything, yet we had got on really well before this, via phone and email.

We adjusted to each other, and the struggle not to lose myself in the adjustment was hard for me until we learned about his AS and he became a lot calmer with himself, once he had stopped trying to be AS square peg in the NT hole.

Understanding what NT meant, and what AS meant, wasnt about learning limitations, but appreciating the differences.

Ian cant take sensory stuff, but he can carry the bin liner to the bin once I have bagged it up and tied it up so he doesnt smell the goop inside. Thus our partnership works.

He can tell me about films and books that are unusual or recalled by him, that I have forgotten or never come across in the first place, broadening my interests. I can broker social interaction when he wishes to have it, and know when he should avoid it altogether.

The irritating bits: lack of sponteniety, seeing the blooming obvious, being supportive without me asking.

Yet he has changed a lot. He knows me well, so I have become one of his expert subjects, just like Dr Who or the Romans. He knows my tones of voice, the faces I make, and my usual approach to things. I have had to demonstrate these in the past - I am sad, upset, flipping angry and your goolies are in danger.

Now, he can say, I know how you are looking so does that mean you are happy/sad/anxious? It doesnt mean he knows how to behave in response, but he does know what mood I am in, so he asks - and here is the big change - asks me what he should do. He asks me if I need anything from him. In all honesty, I sometimes say no, because he isnt able to move mountains in terms of mending the roof, going out to work in general terms, or getting my sister to speak to me at long last. I always tell him what it is I need, and also tell him if that means he cannot help, and what help I am going to get or try to get. So that he knows he hasnt failed, or that he shouldnt worry. For example, I am worried about not being paid this month, but I am going to see the bank. You cant help with that, but this is how I am going to deal with it. If he knows, he feels like he has the whole picture.

In the past he may have felt bad that he couldnt help, or that he had some obligation to make it all better, and feel a failure again. And I might have gone along with that, and also blamed him for my/his misfortunes too. But that doesnt get us anywhere. He cant help being the way he is, I cant help the way I am, and the world is a bustard. We can help each other deal with issues, boost our confidence, and manage ourselves better, and also make our way through the mire together. We can change to suit the situation, or at least acknowledge when we cant do any better than our current best.

When I am distraught, the very fact that he knows I need something, and that he asks if he can be part of that solution, is a huge breakthrough. No head in the sand ostrich, as he was when I met him. Loud humming, pretending he cant hear (metaphorically).

A lot of this approach has been brokered by timing - I know not to bombard Ian outright the minute I get through the door, or blether at him the minute we see each other after a long day. If he is ready to hear, he will ask how I am. He knows to ask when he feels ready, and I wait for the moment when he asks, so I save my angst/praise/important messages for that time.

Its frustrating at times, because I am bursting to tell him something, but it does pay dividends - when he is ready he listens, he asks, I get my moment to interact properly. It goes back to the planning and giving clear messages to one another, repeating and praising, so that he feels good about when he makes me feel good - and vice versa.

A lot of our interaction is still frustrating, I get miffed, and I dont think I will ever get used to having to choreograph my actions to suit how they impact on him.

In the end, it is knowing each other, talking about how you feel and what is good, that gets you to an even keel. Just as you say Becky, the way that we all negotiate our way around relationships, and my case, Ian has the compass but I do have the map! Well done to you for all your efforts, it sounds like you have worked hard.. good for you.....

PS. I am not getting all of 's or Steve's posts - I found a few of them in my old spam file, so apologies to you both for not knowing all of the previous threads. My spam filter has been rejecting overseas origin mails for some months, it appears, and I have only just realised. Sorry.

Judy B

To: aspires-relationships Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012, 12:43Subject: Re: Complete turn-around in relationship [First post]Hi , I wanted to take the opportunity to reply to you. I discussed this with my husband over the weekend, to secure an accurate opinion on his part over your translation of what happened between us.

I feel the need to respond directly, not because I have some sort of viscious mission, but simply because you interpreted my words, and I want the accurate perspective to be put forward.1) You yourself coin the term bad Aspie behaviour - I certainly did not state that the behaviour was bad, or make a judgement. It's simply behaviour that does or doesn't work in our relationship. I feel that labelling things as good or bad is devisive in the realms of disabilities and relationships in general.2)I believe that you have somewhat over applied logic to my personal situation. My husband also feels the same about this.3)[REWRITE]We went through something similar last year, and found that it was very helpful to our relationship how much my husband could change the way he responded to things once he understood the detail and priorities of what I was asking him to do, and once he focussed on them.**This is over simplified

and actually belittling the significance of what happened. "The keys there are understanding and focussing. He had thought forquite a long time, more or less since we got to know each other, thatthe relationship was working fine so there was no need to make anyspecial new effort to change anything with the way we were interacting."** My husband was in no doubt that our relationship was deteriorating badly as we had had many discussions, many arguments, and many upsets leading up to the final throwing out. I had told him clearly that I would be looking at divorce if things didn't work out, because like Moana, I was desperately unhappy, with the situation, and had to make the heart breaking decisions around rebuilding my life independently of him."It was a very big wakeup call shock to him when I threw him out, andit put him into a kind of survival mode where he re-assessed all hisbasic living priorities.

Despite his normal testosterone and malehormone levels, intimacy hadn't come naturally to him with me, and hedidn't feel that forcing or trying to fake such things would be honestor make much sense. He was able to get some release out of porn sinceit didn't require any pretence on his part.[/REWRITE]"** This appears to be over justifying the use of porn, merely as a tool. My husband says that he was aware of the wrongness of his addiction to porn, which he had resorted to, despite discussions about trying to reinvent our intimacy, a great deal of effort on my part to make myself more appealing, trying to make it more aspie friendly, and so on. He had become addicted to porn, and felt terribly guilty about it, and he was spent, so he literally had noting to give in sexual terms. It's also worth noting that he had previously had no problems with sexual relations prior, but because I had had a nervous breakdown 3 years

ago, there had been a great deal of stress which had affected both of our abilities for maintaining intimacy. And here is the nub of the thing - it's about tenderness, care and intimacy, not about a flat sexual interaction.Basically, my husband was abundantly aware that our relationship was in the mire and failing. There was no false illusion. However, due to his aspergers, he lacked the ability to generate alternative solutions, as he could not empathise with me, and didn't have the social imagination to cope with quite a complex situation. So instead, he did what he had previously done, disengaged with the home life, shut down and waited for it to pass, without doing anything, because he simply didn't understand what he needed to do. He wanted to do something, but at that time, I was unable to convey what I needed, as I didn't understand about aspergers either. This led to a crisis where I kicked him

out.This did provide motivation for him, initially, however, since then,we have worked on maintaining the motivation through other channels.This involves him needing positive feedback, that he is doing the right thing, and me learning to communicate that feedback in a positive way. Also, I have learned to change my expectations. I know I am never going to have the kind of relationship where he intuitively knows I need a hug or massage, and he's never going to share knowing glances, and finish my sentences. But note, I haven't lowered my expectations, I just have changed them. I have been clear with him that we both deserve respect and to be taken seriously. Whereas he had tended to take me for granted and simply not listen to me. I have had to assert my expectations around being heard and respected. That things that are important to me, may not be to him and vice versa, but that we both need to

respect eachother. Also, it's down to him to motivate himself to some extent if he wants us to stay together, just the same rules apply to me.I believe, , that you and I are coming from vastly different perspectives, and I appreciate from your postings that you do not seem to have or recognise the encouragement and reward for making effort, and perceive that this must come externally and be awarded, like getting a gold star for your homework, or a medal of recognition for effort. I beleive that the ultimate reward for the activities is being in a positive relationship that is content, secure and reasonably happy and stress free, on a day to day basis. Somewhere to both feel safe and appreciated. (In my case, Jon and I substitute for the other's weaknesses. Effectively I manage Jon's life, and help him with his interactions, and develop his social life. He helps me manage my condition be developing some

routines, planning and applied thinking about situations.)If that is not happening, is it the right relationship, with the right person? Are both partners contributing properly, without caveats or additional expectations? This applies to all relationships, all personalities across the board, regardless of disabilities or tendencies.Take Care, Becky> > > Gotta agree with Helen here.> >> > Logic does not secure or sustain a committed relationship. Love does.> > , Helen,> > Yes, I can agree with you both that love and respect are the > momentum

elements that should keep a relationship going, and I'll add > that that becomes particularly significant when the road is uphill.> > Aspie logic and rationality, though, are like kind of mountainous > terrain that can introduce uphill gradients for NTs, especially when an > NT's emotions are dominant.> > Love is such a subjective concept and for me personally it's quite a > difficult one, but I'm pretty sure it's not an inexhaustible element > that can be relied upon to provide the necessary momentum forever. It's > more like a fire. It needs to be tended and fed every so often, and it > can quite easily be extinguished with a bucket of cold water!> > > Love involves a level of non-self-referential blind trust, and if both partners are not on board with this notion, there's ultimately nothing in it for the partner

experiencing constant deprivation.> > OK, but I'd argue that having to resort repetitively to blind trust and > do things for your partner that you don't particularly like or don't > understand, is like going uphill; it slowly uses up the available > momentum and will eventually become exhausted unless some perceived > benefit for the individual comes out of it. Could be lucky and come to > a downhill stretch for a while, but basically in the longer run the > fire needs to be restoked or new energy put in somehow.> > > Long-term relationships, such as family relationships, thrive on commitment and a sense of duty to others that has a logical component to it, but only as "a starter.> > Yes, absolutely agreed. That sense of duty is like a length of rope. > It can only be extended so far, and then it reaches

its limit.> > " It's like what's environmentally necessary to keep a sour-dough > starter alive when making French bread. Kill the spark, and there goes > the batch AND one's claim to the product.> > To my mind. the fire of love needs more than just a simple spark to > maintain it. It needs to be refuelled and it needs to be protected from > the rain.> > Just a few thoughts, anyway.> > >------------------------------------ "We each have our own way of living in the world, together we are like a symphony.Some are the melody, some are the rhythm, some are the harmony It all blends together, we are like a symphony, and each part is crucial.We all contribute to the song of life."

....Sondra We might not always agree; but TOGETHER we will make a difference.ASPIRES is a closed, confidential, moderated list.Responsibility for posts to ASPIRES lies entirely with the original author. Do NOT post mail off-list without the author's permission. When in doubt, please refer to our list rules at: http://www.aspires-relationships.com/info_rules.htm ASPIRES ~ Climbing the mountain TOGETHER http://www.aspires-relationships.com

[Guest guest]

Thank you very much for your kind words. And I could not agree more that men and women do have different operating system. JCheers,Deb From: aspires-relationships [mailto:aspires-relationships ] On Behalf Of helen_foisySent: March-30-12 7:36 PMTo: aspires-relationships Subject: Re: Complete turn-around in relationship [First post] Hi Deb,More than two cents worth ... you have such a beautiful way of phrasing things, and such a loving attitude. And yes, it would be very unfair to expect a partner to read your mind .. whether they are AS or NT. Men's and women's operating systems are a little different from one another - Helen>> Thank you Helen! And again you said it far better than I. > > > > I must admit that because was not diagnosed until we were married for> 24 years there are many examples of times I have had to ask repeatedly for> something, and it look several years until we stumbled on the aforementioned> solution. And I do think that on those occasions where I have had to ask> repeatedly it was due to AS. was thinking like described and to> his mind my request was irrational and since he could not make sense of the> request his mind sort of went tilt. > > > > I agree that a label is certainly not an excuse but we as the NT spouse> can't expect the impossible from our partners. What I mean by that is we> cannot expect them to think like us or anticipate our needs. And it is up to> us to figure out ways to communicate in ways our partner can make sense of> what we are saying because they are less flexible than we are as far as> social communication is concerned.> > > > My 2 cents (about ¾ of a cent with inflationJ)> > Cheers,> > Deb>

[Guest guest]

, You are correct. The rule to a good relationship is it takes two to tango. J So yes cooperation is a requirement but that includes the acceptance that each party is an individual and “no” must always be an acceptable answer. But if the two parties are too unhappy about the ratio of disagreements that can be resolved without distress then it is likely the relationship will not be a happy one. And although I agree that agreeing to disagree without ill-will is necessary I think you may be reading something into at least my posts which is NOT there. I in no way expect to acquiesce to me more than I am willing to acquiesce to him. We both have needs and some of them are more important than others. You are correct that in part what is needed for one partner to hear “no” from the other is a good explanation but there also has to be enough give and take and each partner getting at least their basic needs met or it will eventually drive them apart. What I have learned about relationships and what I tell my kids is this: 1) You know you are in love when you want to do everything in your power, as long as it does you no harm to do so, to make your partner happy. Because their happiness is your greatest joy.2) You know you are in a good relationship when you are a better person in the relationship than you are without it. Or in other words, they bring out the best in you, and make you want to be the best you can be. (This would mean that they are both challenging you and supporting you to become that better version of you.) , can I ask you a question? If you were in a relationship where let’s say three quarters of the time you were told you could not do what you wanted to or that “no” was the prevailing answer in your relationship even when the things you are asking for are some of the most important things for you. Would that be tolerable? Even IF they gave you a bloody good reason for it? I also want to add that when we are “blaming” miscommunication that includes the fact that some of us are married to Aspies who do not have good communication skills and they would not be capable of giving us any reason, let alone a good one for why they are saying no. I love these chats with you and I’ve missed them. J Cheers,Deb From: aspires-relationships [mailto:aspires-relationships ] On Behalf Of EyreSent: April-10-12 6:23 AMTo: aspires-relationships Subject: Re: Re: Complete turn-around in relationship [First post] Helen, Deb, and all,Sorry I'm so late with this response, but I can now see another angle on this thread that perhaps we've been missing:We've been focussing on blaming miscommunication, lack of understanding, and different thought processes for our relationship difficulties, and assuming that if only those could be overcome, all our problems would magically melt away, leaving us with only an idyllic love scenario. Nice thought, yes, and no doubt those obstacles are real, but what about specific areas where partners simply *don't want* to cooperate and do what the other is asking. It's unlikely anyone will find a partner willing to do everything they ask, and it's not unreasonable. even in a good relationship, for the answer to some requests to be " no " .Q: Will you do the washing up tonight? A: No!Q: Will you fix the hole in my trousers pocket for me tonight?A: No!Q: Come and watch XYZ on TV with me tonight? A: No!Of course if the answer to every request is repeatedly no, no, no, that becomes a problem, but no two people are alike and we can't always expect instant cooperation on every request we make. Even the best of relationships needs to be able to handle some agreeing to differ and some refusals to do what's asked.Indeed I'll go so far as to suggest that a good measure of the strength of any partnership is how well it's able to handle such differences and refusals without generating ill-feeling.I could be wrong, but I just felt an unrealistic suggestion was creeping into this thread that if one partner has certain wishes and desires, then it's necessarily the other partner's duty to do their best to cooperate and say yes to all of them, whatever.But I must temper what I'm saying by adding that when partners refuse or disagree about something, then they still owe each other an understandable explanation why.--- Re: Complete turn-around in relationship [First post]Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:39:45 -0000To: aspires-relationships >> >> I second your point. I can get very frustrated when I reason through things and act on best intentions only for things to turn to mush. Particularly when I don't understand why.Hi Steve,This is exactly how the other partner often feels too! You really can't under estimate the impact that this kind of miscommunication has. If everything they tried over the years to have a better communication and intimacy fails, if they feel they are never really listened to unless it suits their partner because their partner wants something, it becomes very damaging to their self esteem.Since the problems sometimes only seem to manifest themselves in the home and no one else seems to have a problem with their partner (because the partner has really compartmentalized his private and work life) they start to doubt their own sanity and think they are the ones with the problem (hence the unofficial " CADD " label.)They start to think, " If the most significant person in my life doesn't hear me, maybe I'm the one who is off base, and I what I want or need doesn't matter .. I don't matter ... " Over time, this low self perception spills out into their interactions with just about everyone else they come into contact with, so it may be damaging to them socially and professionally as well. They may become people pleasers, never expecting anything in return, because that's how they perceive themselves now, they have value only if what they do makes others happy with them. They will continue to do this until they are sucked dry.Though some may believe they are acting in their partner's " best interest " if they are just doing what *they* feel is right and not specifically what their partner asked, it will just make the partner feel disregarded again. They should be honest at the outset and say (without anger) " I'm sorry, I don't know what you want, please help me to figure this out " and be prepared to really *listen* and make a *sustained effort* to meet those needs. Unfortunately, trying to do this retroactively after so many lost years may be like closing the barn doors after the horses got out.- Helen

[Guest guest]

said... ...when partners refuse or disagree about something, then they still owe each other an understandable explanation why.

I'm going one step further, and one step "before" 's statement.

Often, if partners adopt an intractable "no" attitude, regardless of whether they'll later agree to either give in, consider the statement or request of the other, or actually do -- but in a belated, time-inappropriate manner -- what was earlier requested or suggested, indeed not only has the horse left the barn, but the barn's on fire.

Explanations in such circumstances are like window dressing: the principal display speaks the loudest. The fru-fru's in the background are often dissembling, patent but unrecognized requests for "time to consider" or other such delays of what otherwise, given the history of exchanges in the relationship, are beyond what's useful to the requesting or suggesting party. In nearly all such instances, the timing and appropriateness of the response -- regardless of how well intended -- is too late, too much a part and parcel of a dysfunctional communication pattern, and may actually make ANYTHING said in the entire exchange so disagreeable as to turn off "the requester."

No. Logic does NOT dictate that you indicate refusal or disagreement first. In fact, "mere logic" proferred as an "explanation" is not only too little (or too much) but is, invariably, too late. Time. Time Time is of the essence, not only so that the give and take of discussion has an acceptable exchange RATE, but also an acceptable outcome that supports the concept of progress, satisfaction, and a civil agreement to disagree but to discuss the matter further, later, with appropriate "time buying" built into it as an assurance that the "let's talk later" isn't a "blow-off."

So, again, the way the refusing or disagreeing partner explains or comes to the refusal is just as important as saying nothing at all, In fact,almost everything said under toxic exchange circumstances only corrodes the relationship more. So, one initial suggestion is to NOT refuse, NOT disagree, and for heavens sake, not come up with conduct, body language you're capable of learning about, and becoming aware of your other indicia of "non-communicativeness."

A lead-up to refusal prior to the actual refusal itself offers the opportunity for both conversants -- not just the one conversant who's about to say "no" -- an opportunity for early conversational repair before the "no bomb" is dropped, often "once again." A proper rehearsal of how to say things that either reminds the other conversant of past promises fulfilled, of things done together despite minor differences for all kinds of reasons and often not even the first reasons that come to mind in both parties' minds...this is the way to offer openings to a path of accommodation and alternative outcomes that doesn't end up only with a brick wall of "no" at its single terminus.

If the "no sayer" is so committed to saying "no" that no amount of openness, vulnerability, persuasion, diversion and distraction could change the "no" into some response other than no, then you really don't have dialogue, no matter how much lipstick you smear on that pig's lips. If the heavy calculus of "wins versus losses" is more important to preserve than the playing of the game itself and even changing the games rules if considered mutually beneficial to both parties, the conversation may more likely end in dissatisfaction to one party.

You're talking about disagreement, difference, and saying "no." What you should be talking about is "getting to yes." It shouldn't take anyone more than a brief moment to remember that the majority of commited relationships, now, end in dissolution and divorce. Not the minority, and not the way it used to be two generations ago. NOW. So, knowing mere numbers allow more room for action by both partners should also convince a staunch position-taker that remaining immovable as the environment and conditions around oneself is, indeed, changing, will leave one "right" but friendless. Even if one is able to silo one's cantankerousness in a relationship to certain tasks or areas or agreed-upon avoidance of "don't go theres," eventually there will be the slip, the inevitably overlooked event or circumstance that begs a re-assessment of topical or role boundaries. If "that's the way it is" is a response to not acknowledge real external changes -- let alone actual changes one himself/herself has undergone -- maybe the charade will work for a while, but maybe it will wear thin, look old, and simply not work well. Perfectly good tools go out of fashion because what they're designed for has changed as well as the landscape, or our flexibility in choosing the right tools deteriorates. Deterioration/change aren't bad in and of themselves.

Life does that. We do that.

All the time.

So, saying "no first" without precedential words, actions, attitudes or deeds that indicate one's openness to negotiate, is only going to end up in with emotional spigots being tweaked closed on both sides. In one instance, the "emotional" partner may be aware of shutting off the tap, but even the other "unaware partner" isn't totally unaware of a change in his/her primitive emotional state.

So, explanatations that contain within themselves the constant suggestion of a "no" outcome are facially toxic. They may be used once, twice, perhaps a few times, but eventually they're going to be seen for what they are: a compromised and corrupted attempt to pre-empt the possibility of a meaningful, dual-participant conversation. And an overarching need to be "right and to win, no matter what."

In the face of all kinds of changes we're only partially in charge of, this isn't a good approach to even a patch-up.

Do consider going back to interest-based communication, the bare building blocks of mediation and fruitful outcomes to resolving differences. Start simply, with the Harvard Negotiation Project's "Getting to Yes." Authors Fisher, Ury, and Bruce Patton. Everything written later than the second edition is frosting. Go for the cake.

N. Meyer

(started with community-based lay mediation way back in 1978, and still workin' on it)

[Guest guest]

> Of course if the answer to every request is repeatedly no, no, no, that

> becomes a problem, but no two people are alike and we can't always

> expect instant cooperation on every request we make. Even the best of

> relationships needs to be able to handle some agreeing to differ and

> some refusals to do what's asked.

>

> Indeed I'll go so far as to suggest that a good measure of the strength

> of any partnership is how well it's able to handle such differences and

> refusals without generating ill-feeling.

You'll get no argument from me, . I completely agree with you.

Good relationships are all about compromise, give-and-take, and the

ability to do so as compassionately as possible.

> I could be wrong, but I just felt an unrealistic suggestion was

> creeping into this thread that if one partner has certain wishes and

> desires, then it's necessarily the other partner's duty to do their best

> to cooperate and say yes to all of them, whatever.

>

> But I must temper what I'm saying by adding that when partners refuse or

> disagree about something, then they still owe each other an

> understandable explanation why.

I didn't get that message from the thread. But I can understand how

someone who may have felt that sort of pressure in their own

relationships could become susceptible to that interpretation.

In any case, I agree with you that providing an explanation one way or

the other is a caring thing to do.

Best,

~CJ

[Guest guest]

> " Women marry men hoping they will change. Men marry women hoping they will

not. So each is inevitably disappointed. " LOL.

I've never seen that quote before, Helen. Too funny, and often too

true. I know that my late husband felt that way about me.

> What I was talking about though is bit different - an extremely unequal

relationship where one person does all the giving and accommodating, rarely to

see it reciprocated in kind, or otherwise. Through the lens of time I have come

to realize that AS alone doesn't explain that though; there are a whole

combination of factors - both his and hers - that combine to make a perfect

storm.

Yep. My own marriage is a perfect example of this dynamic in action.

Best,

~CJ

[Guest guest]

Great post, .  These concepts require quite a bit of Emotional

IQ though, something that is often beyond the abilities of many

Aspies... and dare I say, most NTs.  In my experience, anyway.

Best,

~CJ

said...

....when partners refuse or disagree about something,

then they still owe each other an understandable

explanation why.

I'm going one step further, and

one step "before" 's statement.

 

Often, if partners adopt an

intractable "no" attitude, regardless of whether they'll

later agree to either give in, consider the statement or

request of the other, or actually do -- but in a belated,

time-inappropriate manner -- what was earlier requested or

suggested, indeed not only has the horse left the barn,

but the barn's on fire.

 

Explanations in such circumstances

are like window dressing: the principal display speaks the

loudest. The fru-fru's in the background are often

dissembling, patent but unrecognized requests for "time to

consider" or other such delays of what otherwise, given

the history of exchanges in the relationship, are beyond

what's useful to the requesting or suggesting party. In

nearly all such instances, the timing and appropriateness

of the response -- regardless of how well intended -- is

too late, too much a part and parcel of a dysfunctional

communication pattern, and may actually make ANYTHING said

in the entire exchange so disagreeable as to turn off "the

requester."

 

No. Logic does NOT dictate that

you indicate refusal or disagreement first. In fact, "mere

logic" proferred as an "explanation" is not only too

little (or too much) but is, invariably, too late. Time.

Time Time is of the essence, not only so that the give and

take of discussion has an acceptable exchange RATE, but

also an acceptable outcome that supports the concept of

progress, satisfaction, and a civil agreement to disagree

but to discuss the matter further, later, with appropriate

"time buying" built into it as an assurance that the

"let's talk later" isn't a "blow-off."

 

So, again, the way the refusing or

disagreeing partner explains or comes to the refusal is

just as important as saying nothing at all, In fact,almost

everything said under toxic exchange circumstances only

corrodes the relationship more. So, one initial suggestion

is to NOT refuse, NOT disagree, and for heavens sake, not

come up with conduct, body language you're capable of

learning about, and becoming aware of your other indicia

of "non-communicativeness."

 

A lead-up to refusal prior to the

actual refusal itself offers the opportunity for both

conversants -- not just the one conversant who's about to

say "no" -- an opportunity for early conversational repair

before the "no bomb" is dropped, often "once again." A

proper rehearsal of how to say things that either reminds

the other conversant of past promises fulfilled, of things

done together despite minor differences for all kinds of

reasons and often not even the first reasons that come to

mind in both parties' minds...this is the way to offer

openings to a path of accommodation and alternative

outcomes that doesn't end up only with a brick wall of

"no" at its single terminus.

 

If the "no sayer" is so committed

to saying "no" that no amount of openness, vulnerability,

persuasion, diversion and distraction could change the

"no" into some response other than no, then you really

don't have dialogue, no matter how much lipstick you smear

on that pig's lips. If the heavy calculus of "wins versus

losses" is more important to preserve than the playing of

the game itself and even changing the games rules if

considered mutually beneficial to both parties, the

conversation may more likely end in dissatisfaction to one

party.

 

You're talking about disagreement,

difference, and saying "no." What you should be talking

about is "getting to yes." It shouldn't take anyone more

than a brief moment to remember that the majority of

commited relationships, now, end in dissolution and

divorce. Not the minority, and not the way it used to be

two generations ago. NOW. So, knowing mere numbers allow

more room for action by both partners should also convince

a staunch position-taker that remaining immovable as the

environment and conditions around oneself is, indeed,

changing, will leave one "right" but friendless. Even if

one is able to silo one's cantankerousness in a

relationship to certain tasks or areas or agreed-upon

avoidance of "don't go theres," eventually there will be

the slip, the inevitably overlooked event or circumstance

that begs a re-assessment of topical or role boundaries.

If "that's the way it is" is a response to not acknowledge

real external changes -- let alone actual changes one

himself/herself has undergone -- maybe the charade will

work for a while, but maybe it will wear thin, look old,

and simply not work well. Perfectly good tools go out of

fashion because what they're designed for has changed as

well as the landscape, or our flexibility in choosing the

right tools deteriorates. Deterioration/change aren't bad

in and of themselves.

 

Life does that. We do that.

 

All the time.

 

So, saying "no first" without

precedential words, actions, attitudes or deeds that

indicate one's openness to negotiate, is only going to end

up in with emotional spigots being tweaked closed on both

sides. In one instance, the "emotional" partner may be

aware of shutting off the tap, but even the other "unaware

partner" isn't totally unaware of a change in his/her

primitive emotional state.

 

So, explanatations that contain

within themselves the constant suggestion of a "no"

outcome are facially toxic. They may be used once, twice,

perhaps a few times, but eventually they're going to be

seen for what they are: a compromised and corrupted

attempt to pre-empt the possibility of a meaningful,

dual-participant conversation. And an overarching need to

be "right and to win, no matter what."

 

In the face of all kinds of

changes we're only partially in charge of, this isn't a

good approach to even a patch-up.

 

Do consider going back to

interest-based communication, the bare building blocks of

mediation and fruitful outcomes to resolving differences.

Start simply, with the Harvard Negotiation Project's

"Getting to Yes."  Authors Fisher, Ury, and

Bruce Patton. Everything written later than the second

edition is frosting. Go for the cake.

 

N. Meyer

(started with community-based lay

mediation way back in 1978, and still workin' on it)

[Guest guest]

Helen,

Thanks for your Tue, 10 Apr 2012 reply at 17:12:58 -0000.

What you say is reasonable too, but we shouldn't forget that in any

relationship we're talking about two different individuals with

different throught processes and different perceptions on things.

You wrote:

> ..... What I was talking about though is bit different - an extremely unequal

relationship where one person does all the giving and accommodating, rarely to

see it reciprocated in kind, or otherwise.

Right, but that perception of " extremely unequal " would most likely be

only the viewpoint of one of the partners. Chances are the other

partner would see it differently. Indeed the more disfunctional the

relationship, the more differently they'd be likely to see it.

The point I'm getting at is where is our reference here? Who is really

right and who is wrong? How can one side be justified in unilaterally

saying they are doing all the giving? They could be right, and maybe

in many of the cases we hear about here in Aspires they do appear to the

rest of us to be right, but theirs is just one side of the story. We

haven't heard the other side, so it's possible they could be wrong.

Not only could they be wrong, but we're back to the conundrum of what

is " right " and " wrong " in the first place.

For example I could go to town on here and explain to you all in a

well-written treatise what an exemplary well-behaved AS husband I am,

and how I've been so severely wronged by my NT wife. But I don't go

down that road because as only one side of the story, however

well-written, it would lack credibility amongst our readers.

So by the same token, before we unconditionally condemn any of our

partners as simply being " bad " or " uncooperative " , we should allow for

the possibility of there being another side to the story, even if we

don't understand it.

[Guest guest]

>> What I was talking about though is bit different - an extremely unequal

relationship where one person does all the giving and accommodating, rarely to

see it reciprocated in kind, or otherwise. Through the lens of time I have come

to realize that AS alone doesn't explain that though; there are a whole

combination of factors - both his and hers - that combine to make a perfect

storm.

>

> Yep. My own marriage is a perfect example of this dynamic in action.

Mine as well.

One of the problems with AS is that we don't always see the giving and

accommodating the other does. I know this was true in my marriage ... my ex

never noticed the work I was doing, or dismissed it because it wasn't Important

(capital intended) in his value set. I'm quite certain he believes with all his

heart that I did nothing to save our marriage.

Of course, he has a lot of other issues besides the AS.

--Liz

[Guest guest]

LizYou have hit the nail on the head here. It can be soul destroying to put in much effort on behalf of somebody for that effort to go unnoticed or even worse thrown back. I reckon that this can happen both ways AS-NT & NT-AS.I also expect that communication is the key here but that it is difficulty with communication that is at the heart of the problem.SteveConnected by MOTOBLUR™ Re: Re: Complete turn-around in relationship [First post] >> What I was talking about though is bit different - an extremely unequal relationship where one person does all the giving and accommodating, rarely to see it reciprocated in kind, or otherwise. Through the lens of time I have come to realize that AS alone doesn't explain that though; there are a whole combination of factors - both his and hers - that combine to make a perfect storm.> > Yep. My own marriage is a perfect example of this dynamic in action.Mine as well.One of the problems with AS is that we don't always see the giving and accommodating the other does. I know this was true in my marriage ... my ex never noticed the work I was doing, or dismissed it because it wasn't Important (capital intended) in his value set. I'm quite certain he believes with all his heart that I did nothing to save our marriage.Of course, he has a lot of other issues besides the AS.--Liz