Openness in the Marriage Relationship

[ryanh]

I completely agree.

In some cases I wonder if the purpose of full fledged openness is more to get it off the admitting chest rather than to be a strength to the relationship.

Yes, but lemonade can be made of those lemons. It serves a purpose for the admitter, and IF the couple can work through them, it can immensely strengthen their relationship IMO. So, the onerus is on the admittee to deal with it like an adult and get past it, right? Easier said than done.

[ryanh]

Redtide, I think that the replies to date show that there is no singular 'right' answer, but that it is largely dependent upon the individuals' feelings. Some couples will be fine with letting bygones be bygones. Others not. And with other couples, there will be disparate expectations. I think we are more familiar with the situation when it relates to libido levels. Some couples are very active (5+ times per week). Others are fine with very little activity (as little as once annually or even less!). But, when there is a disparate level of desire between the two partners, that’s when it becomes pathological to the relationship.

I wish I understood more about what your specific question is. I know your wife wanted to read through all the emails. So, it makes me think that she’s wanting to know everything you are discussing with a counselor. But then, I recognize that her admission recently (given in anger, right?) really gave you a sharp whack to the tenders. I could easily imagine that you are gun-shy and want to know what else she may be saying to the counselor.

Care to share a little more about what is going on? Advice could then be specifically tailored instead of generalities that may or may not apply.

[redtide]

I am thinking more of generalities, now. In my situation, my wife has seen everything. It's a non-issue. I'm thinking on a more "grand" scale - a more eternal scale. And I am thinking more on HER need for privacy, not mine.

I have pretty much taken the view that she should/can know everything about me (and I'm not just talking about my Internet affair of the past). I'm talking about childhood memories, discussions with a bishop, discussions with close friends . . . anything.

But I feel pause, because I'm not sure that I SHOULD know everything about her. Perhaps she needs privacy in communicating with a professional counselor. My wife has issues that she believes needs pyschological counseling, entirely unrelated to anything that I have done. These are issues that have been with her for a very, very long time, and for which she has taken medication over the years to "deal" with. She is trying to "escape" the medication, and I'm not sure that's the right desire/answer.

But in the end, I doubt that someone here can give me the "answer" to the detailed question. I think it requires an individual response. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Maybe I could individualize it well enough that someone here COULD give the right answer.

I'm also hesitant to rely solely on the Spirit for guidance. I have witnessed many people being led astray by SOLELY reliance on the Spirit, likely because they didn't ask the right question or interpreted an answer different than the Spirit intended. The Church itself has fallen short in this regard, at one time demanding that there be full disclosure of all details of an affair to the spouse, but now taking a more tempered stand that is more in line with the advice of professionals (it MAY be necessary for full repentance but it MAY be more harmful than good and thus NOT helpful at all and NOT required for repentance). The Church has reversed itself on prying into the sexually intimacy in the marriage as well.

So none of us are perfect. These might be policy issues, more than direct revelation was wrong issues, but we aren't perfect.

In essence, I'm thinking that the line is drawn where the two parties are comfortable. And that if information cannot be shared without hurting the other spouse, than the information should not be shared. Caution should be used to not confuse fear of "hurting" the other spouse with a desire to "hide" bad acts. I do believe that there is some danger in individual counsel regarding the marriage, without the other spouse present. And perhaps the line is drawn there, in that if the counselor or the discussion ever turns to a termination of the marriage, or an attack on the non-present spouse, that the non-present spouse be informed.

I don't have an answer. But I'm just wondering as I build a closer relationship to my spouse than I have had with any other human being. Before, I didn't really have this desire, and felt that we were close enough. Now, I'm afraid that I might smother her, because of overwhelming feelings to be "one".

Learning.

[ryanh]

You’re a good man redtide. Wish I had some of your qualities.

I do believe that there is some danger in individual counsel regarding the marriage, without the other spouse present. And perhaps the line is drawn there, in that if the counselor or the discussion ever turns to a termination of the marriage, or an attack on the non-present spouse, that the non-present spouse be informed.

Oh do I understand that! When the counselor sessions are private, the fate of the marriage may lie in the hands of one fallible individual. Been there, done that, felt the effects. Almost been divorced on several occasions because of it.

I'm also hesitant to rely solely on the Spirit for guidance. I have witnessed many people being led astray by SOLELY reliance on the Spirit, likely because they didn't ask the right question or interpreted an answer different than the Spirit intended.

I’m going to take some exception to the way that is worded. What is there better to rely on than the Spirit? The arm of flesh? I fully understand what you are saying about not asking the right question or interpreting the answer wrongly (had I been able to understand the answers I received, I fully trust I wouldn’t have married my wife). I think where I choke is the wording “being led astray”. Perhaps what you are saying is that we need to gain all understanding we can from all sources to have the best chance to understand what it is we are being told? Otherwise we risk leading ourselves astray thinking we understand what was revealed to us.

Seems to me that you are both entering a new period of growth in the relationship, and things are changing for the both of you. All I can suggest is patience (like the kind I always find so hard to muster ). After all, you two likely have an eternity to learn about all the nuances of what is going on right now, and become more one.

[redtide]

I'm certainly not trying to disparage the Spirit, only man's failed efforts to work with the Spirit. An example:

I know of a man who was solid - RM, great guy, great family, temple marriage. He began teaching the Gospel to a lady friend. They really were "just friends" at the time. She became converted to the Gospel and was baptized. Somewhere along the way, they developed strong feelings for one another. He prayed and searched his soul. He believe the Lord told him that SHE was his partner. They ended up having sex and he was excommunicated. I'm not sure what happened to the convert partner. The marriage ended in divorce.

He remained convinced throughout the Church discipline that the Spirit had advised him. He was sure that he was following the Spirit. This friend of mine knew what the Spirit felt like. He was solid. And I'm pretty sure that the Spirit did not tell him to commit adultery and leave his wife/kids behind.

But he did.

That's what I'm getting to.

[foreverafter]

I'm also hesitant to rely solely on the Spirit for guidance. I have witnessed many people being led astray by SOLELY reliance on the Spirit, likely because they didn't ask the right question or interpreted an answer different than the Spirit intended.

I have also seen countless people believe their inspiration to come from God when it actually is from the Adversary, especially when it comes in the temple. The Adversary's whisperings & answers to our prayers almost always sound more pleasing & easier than what the Spirit would tell us. These people almost never compare their inspiration to what the Prophets teach & thus are deceived. Personal revelation from Heavenly Father will never differ from what the Presidents of the Church have taught & thus the Prophets words are our 'Rod of Iron' to hold on to so we won't be deceived & led into forbidden paths. Thinking we are the exception to the rule is one of Satan's greatest deceptions that most people fall for.

Satans greatest deception of all that I see happening everywhere is when the Adversary tells people that it's ok to break their sacred temple & marriage covenants. It is the easier way in the short run & so usually the person follows it deceiving themselves that God is telling them it's ok to do so, but with closer study we see that the Prophets warn us to never break our covenants, but to keep them sacred, keeping our covenants is the grand test of life. Satan's greatest victory is to deceive us into breaking those covenants & he is getting most people to do so these days.

[ryanh]

I have also seen countless people believe their inspiration to come from God when it actually is from the Adversary

I can understand someone in Stake leadership positions seeing many instances of misunderstanding the Spirit leading to sin. I can comprehend that Area Presidencies and above might have had opportunity to see “countless”. But aside from that, it’s hard to fathom any of having access to enough personal lives and intimate details to know of “countless” false revelations. Not sure I buy scratch having free access to the House of the Lord either.

Satans greatest deception of all that I see happening everywhere is when the Adversary tells people that it's ok to break their sacred temple & marriage covenants. It is the easier way in the short run & so usually the person follows it deceiving themselves that God is telling them it's ok to do so, but with closer study we see that the Prophets warn us to never break our covenants, but to keep them sacred, keeping our covenants is the grand test of life. Satan's greatest victory is to deceive us into breaking those covenants & he is getting most people to do so these days.

What on earth are you referring to amidst all those generalities and obtuseifiscations? Divorce? Adultery? Must not be adultery as it is a little below common sense, or a need to check it against references to know that is not acceptable. Therefore, I would assume you are talking about divorce since you refer to “marriage covenants”. “the Prophets warn us to never” get a divorce? Show me where, and I’ll link to more than one general conference talk that indicate it IS justified by prophets and apostles for at least some circumstances.

[redtide]

Ryan. I'm addressing people who honestly believe that God has told them that engaging in sinful behavior is not a sin. They truly believe that the Spirit is guiding them. That can, and does, include adultery. After all, God sanctioned murder with Nephi, right? Take that and run with it and it's amazing what the Spirit can authorize.

Consider the case of Elder Richard Lyman. He was an apostle for 25 years.

>In 1943, the First Presidency discovered that Lyman had long been cohabitating with a woman other than his legal wife. In 1925 Lyman had begun a relationship which he defined as a polygamous marriage. Unable to trust anyone else to officiate due to the church's ban on the practice, Lyman and the woman exchanged vows secretly. By 1943, both were in their seventies. Lyman was excommunicated on November 12, 1943 at age 73.

Richard R. Lyman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can bet your bottom dollar that Elder Lyman believed that he was doing the right thing, and not engaging in sin. I also surmise that he "justified" his conduct by engaging in "secret vows." He didn't commit adultery because he "married" the woman.

All of that is poppycock, of course. But certainly Elder Lyman knew what the Spirit was and know what it felt like. Similarly, certainly others felt the Spirit through the efforts of Elder Lyman. But he was wrong in that one thing, that's for sure.

[Misshalfway]

I'm certainly not trying to disparage the Spirit, only man's failed efforts to work with the Spirit. An example:

I know of a man who was solid - RM, great guy, great family, temple marriage. He began teaching the Gospel to a lady friend. They really were "just friends" at the time. She became converted to the Gospel and was baptized. Somewhere along the way, they developed strong feelings for one another. He prayed and searched his soul. He believe the Lord told him that SHE was his partner. They ended up having sex and he was excommunicated. I'm not sure what happened to the convert partner. The marriage ended in divorce.

He remained convinced throughout the Church discipline that the Spirit had advised him. He was sure that he was following the Spirit. This friend of mine knew what the Spirit felt like. He was solid. And I'm pretty sure that the Spirit did not tell him to commit adultery and leave his wife/kids behind.

But he did.

That's what I'm getting to.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the Spirit did tell this man that this woman was "the one". Did the Spirit then direct all his following selfish actions? Why couldn't he have waited to act on these feelings until his first familial obligations were terminated and properly settled? He couldn't because he wasn't listening the the Spirit at all. He was listening to his impatient selfishness and his self pity and all the justifications he could! You are gonna have to show me a lot more to prove to me that this dude was "solid". Clearly he was not, nor do I believe he had a good idea of what the Spirit really sounded like. The scripture about "whited sepulchers" comes to mind.

And of course, he couldn't let go of the story because then, heaven forbid, he would have to be honest with himself and perhaps take responsibility for being a complete and total dork!

I think was you really want to say is that people aren't using their heads! They feel "feelings" and then they are setting aside the good sense God gave them. It is clear that God will not command in all things and that he wants us to learn to use our agency properly. And hopefully, we are learning from our mistakes as we endure to the end.

No these issues of communication and honesty/disclosure are not cut and dried. Some things are just said on a "need to know" basis. They are not a "one size fits all" sort of thing. And in my experience with marriage, it seems to be an on going learning process where we have to sometimes learn and apply updated ideas and tools to make our marriages better and to meet the needs of the present as we mature and develop into, hopefully, wiser and more capable beings.

My communication style at the beginning of my marriage certainly wouldn't work today. And I don't need to know all the details of my husband to feel close and supportive and a deep commitment. I trust him to tell me if something is important for me to know -- even if it is painful. And I trust myself to ask when I need to know something and that I will receive the information in compassion and with wisdom with regards to what to do next. I also trust that if there is a question or some issue is weighing heavily then we always have prayer to help us select the proper course.

[redtide]

>No these issues of communication and honesty/disclosure are not cut and dried. Some things are just said on a "need to know" basis. They are not a "one size fits all" sort of thing. And in my experience with marriage, it seems to be an on going learning process where we have to sometimes learn and apply updated ideas and tools to make our marriages better and to meet the needs of the present as we mature and develop into, hopefully, wiser and more capable beings.

Completely with you on that. And thanks. I'm learning that, and learning to be patient.

>My communication style at the beginning of my marriage certainly wouldn't work today. And I don't need to know all the details of my husband to feel close and supportive and a deep commitment. I trust him to tell me if something is important for me to know -- even if it is painful. And I trust myself to ask when I need to know something and that I will receive the information in compassion and with wisdom with regards to what to do next. I also trust that if there is a question or some issue is weighing heavily then we always have prayer to help us select the proper course.

That's a lot of trust. And that takes time. Thanks for sharing.

On the other issue you raised, about the feelings vs. the Spirit, I'm certain that you are close to the truth. Part of the problem is that we relate to the Spirit via feelings, and that is one of the criticisms of the LDS Church. Other churches say that we have to follow the Bible (at least the interpretation of a given church) and reference to the "Spirit" to reveal the truth is flawed. Of course, we disagree. And, I think that the LDS Church is right (obviously).

But, trust me, this guy was solid. He didn't have pornography issues. He magnified his callings. He certainly SEEMED to love his wife. It was a happy family. The wife was dumbfounded. She died a few years later (though she did remarry) and I'm convinced it was of a broken heart.

Here's another example (beyond the former 25-year apostle and my friend). I have solid information (I can't tell you how, so just bear with me) of a former LDS seminary principal who had inappropriate contact with a 16-yo girl. He violated the law, that seems clear. The sheriff has texts FROM the principal of inappropriate sexual comments made to the girl, and descriptions of genitals and what to do with them and these texts DO violate the law (even if the principal is truthful in denying sexual contact, something that I believe he DID engage in). This guy was SOLID. Great family, and described as a spiritual GIANT by those who knew him.

But he screwed up. I'm not sure whether he thought the Spirit was saying it was okay. But he did. Great people and righteous people mess up. They do. And, often, they justify their acts at the time being led astray, I believe, by promptings that THEY believe are from the Spirit. Obviously, they aren't. Maybe it IS the Spirit, but they are misreading what the Spirit said (as you infer might happen).

Deseret News | LDS seminary principal is arrested in sexual abuse

[redtide]

By the way, in our own stake we are upping the awareness of what can happen because of this LDS seminary principal. In fact, we are instructing bishops tonight. No adult is off limits. No adult is "safe." We have to protect the youth first, and help the adults avoid situations that lead to this stuff.

Another subject, but in my craw right now.

[Misshalfway]

I am with you, Red. I saw that story about the seminary teacher and it makes me sick to my stomach. I think you are right. I suppose we all must take a lesson from David who really did have it all.... including the trust of God. So, I think that you are spot on that any one of us can fall at any time. I still say whited sepulchers, though, because I believe that there is a lot of lying to ones self that happens deep within before these giganitic falls from grace.

And with regards to the whole "feelings" thing. I agree that sometimes we misinterpret emotions for spiritual feelings. I know I have done that before and been confused about something or acted on some feeling only to find out that God hadn't really commanded me or that I hadn't done proper spiritual preparation before I acted. The older I get, the less emotional I am when the spirit sends messages to me. Doesn't mean I don't feel profoundness in peace or comfort or the light of pure knowledge in my mind. It just means that I am less reactive and more contemplative.....and even more patient as I try to make sense of what I am being taught. I don't find as I get older that the struggle gets easier. I sometimes feel periods where the heavens are closed and I must move forward using my faith to get me through.

I don't know. This is my experience. I think that the brethren and all of our lessons and pleadings to keep prayer and study in our daily lives is to help us forge and maintain an accurate relationship with the Holy Spirit and also a sound understanding of the process by which Father works with us so we won't make these mistakes and fall to the deceptions of Satan.

I don't evaluate a person's righteousness anymore based upon what they do only. There are many mormons who know how to keep up appearances -- myself included. I think I was trained, indirectly of course, from the time I was very small.

[ryanh]

Continuing the turn this thread has taken before posting something related to the OP:

And of course, he couldn't let go of the story because then, heaven forbid, he would have to be honest with himself and perhaps take responsibility

there is a lot of lying to ones self that happens deep within before these giganitic falls from grace

Bingo! I think of Korihor's admission at the end of his life. I have a hard time accepting that the men referenced wern't in some capacity aware.

[redtide]

>I still say whited sepulchers, though, because I believe that there is a lot of lying to ones self that happens deep within before these giganitic falls from grace.

Yes. I agree. And often we will never know. With my friend, maybe he was in the depths of sin. It didn't FEEL or LOOK like it. And we certainly can't judge. How did the First Presidency miss the deceit of the apostle for so long??? But they did. Is it any wonder that a bishop or SP lets an unworthy person get a temple recommend, or that an unworthy person is called as bishop or what have you? (Note: We still have to follow their advice, but that doesn't change the inner flaw of the called person. God will make things right in the end, even if we DO follow flawed advice.)

Completely with you on just continuing to pray, study and stay close to God. If we do that, we should be okay.

>I don't evaluate a person's righteousness anymore based upon what they do only. There are many mormons who know how to keep up appearances -- myself included. I think I was trained, indirectly of course, from the time I was very small.

Bingo. Gets it. Totally agree.

[foreverafter]

By the way, in our own stake we are upping the awareness of what can happen because of this LDS seminary principal. In fact, we are instructing bishops tonight. No adult is off limits. No adult is "safe." We have to protect the youth first, and help the adults avoid situations that lead to this stuff.

Another subject, but in my craw right now.

I am very glad to hear that your stake is doing some educating. This is very good, better late than never. That guy fits the model of a "classic abuser". They hardly ever seem like the type. And abuse is far more rampant than most realize, it's happening in some form in most homes. Pres. Hinckley said over & over how the Church was educating it's Bishops & Stake Pres. & other leaders about all forms of Abuse.

Pres. Hinckley also said that protecting victims from abuse was the Church's #1 responsibility. But in all these years I have never met a leader who has really received such education on abuse, which makes abuse problems so much worse, for uneducated leaders too often easily fall for & can't detect abusers & usually disbelieve the abused spouse & minimize what's going on & don't apply the necessary consequences to stop the abuse & help the abuser repent, which then causes the abuse to get even worse.

It's easy to detect an abuser if you know the signs & what constitutes abuse & since most all marriage problems stem from some form of abuse going on, I would think it would be mandatory for all leaders to receive such education in the 1st few months in their calling. How many marriages & innocent spouses & children's lives could be saved, not to mention the eternal life of the abuser.

Edited July 16, 2009 by foreverafter

[Misshalfway]

Just a personal experience with regards to the disclosure of important info inside relationships......

We had a colossal family fight. All the extended family was involved. No one was seeing things in balance....just reacting and being defensive and causing more pain. This fight lasted almost two full years.

My FIL would call me on the phone to try to work things out. I appreciated our long and seemingly productive conversations as the issues were complex. I gave him lots of valuable information in hopes that he would share it with his wife and other family members so that we could perhaps understand the situation better and heal.

Later I found out that he had chosen never to share what he had learned because he was too afraid that it would hurt his wifes feelings or that she wouldn't be able to handle it.

So sad. The family fight is over, but hearts are still broken and relationships still strained. How much better it would have been had we had the courage to stop reacting and just listen to one another and then take steps to heal the damage. Oh well. There are some who honestly believe that time heals all wounds and that denial is easier than openly addressing things. Too often we "stay safe" instead of communicating and negotiating mutually beneficial solutions.

[ryanh]

"Classic Abuser"??? You really know that much about the guy? You're ready to start throwing stones?

Pres. Hinckley also said that protecting victims from abuse was the Church's #1 responsibility.

That is a Gross and inaccurate spin. President Hinkley stated: “In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse” (emphasis added). The Church has three missions, and last I knew, none of them were “protect those who have been abused”.

Furthermore, the context of his comments were after describing the abuse he was addressing as “who demeans her, who insults her, who exercises unrighteous dominion over her”; “who cuff their wives about, both verbally and physically”; “the sordid and evil abuse of children by adults”; “who abused a child sexually or physically”; “These acts are often criminal in their nature. They are punishable under the law.”

How is that all applicable to this thread?

[redtide]

I think that she's just saying that the first responsibility when dealing with a situation in which there is a victim IS the victim. That's to counter the perception that many felt that the confessor was attended to more than the victims.

It was a very real and unfortunate perception, sometimes perpetuated by the actions of well-meaning leaders.

>How is that all applicable to this thread?

May be my fault. I've been all over the place on this thread. My bad.

[redtide]

So sad. The family fight is over, but hearts are still broken and relationships still strained. How much better it would have been had we had the courage to stop reacting and just listen to one another and then take steps to heal the damage. Oh well. There are some who honestly believe that time heals all wounds and that denial is easier than openly addressing things. Too often we "stay safe" instead of communicating and negotiating mutually beneficial solutions.

Thanks for sharing.

[foreverafter]

The Church has three missions, and last I knew, none of them were “protect those who have been abused”.

If the Church cannot keep it's marriages protected & together than it cannot keep the Church together & fulfill it's other missions. The Proclamation warns that the disintegration of families (which abuse is almost always the cause of) will bring upon those who do it & even our whole nation, destruction & holocausts.

Righteous, safe & eternal marriages are the foundation of everything else the Church teaches & does & the center of everthing in Eternity. If a member is being abused or is an Abuser little else can be accomplished regarding the mission of the Church until such abuse is stopped, that's why it is the 1st responsibility of the Church to protect against abuse 1st & foremost.

Edited July 16, 2009 by foreverafter

[redtide]

It's part of the mission to perfect the saints. I completely agree that priesthood leaders are woefully undertrained to deal with many of these issues. The bishops that I talk to readily recognize this. But the Church doesn't WANT them to replace the marriage experts. Nonetheless, it would be better if they HAD more knowledge.

[ryanh]

If the Church cannot keep it's marriages protected & together than it cannot keep the Church together & fulfill it's other missions. The Proclamation warns that the disintegration of families (which abuse is almost always the cause of) will bring upon those who do it & even our whole nation, destruction & holocausts.

Righteous, safe & eternal marriages are the foundation of everything else the Church teaches & does & the center of everthing in Eternity. If a member is being abused or is an Abuser little else can be accomplished regarding the mission of the Church until such abuse is stopped, that's why it is the 1st responsibility of the Church to protect against abuse 1st & foremost.

Great and fine if that is your opinion, but state it as that. Enough of the claiming "the Prophets" said this or that and stating your opinion as if supported fact. It's your intrepretation, and not more than that. Not too different from misunderstanding the guidance of the Spirit because we are too wrapped up in or own unresolved issues and hurts.

[ryanh]

Although somewhat tangential to the topic in the OP, I thought this passage from a book might be thought provoking on motivations for sharing or not sharing all within a marriage. Background – the context of speaking of “intimacy” in this passage the author is talking about self-disclosure, not physical intimacy.

Other-Validated and Self-Validated Intimacy

Joan and Bill displayed the irony in marital gridlock: Bill was the one with "the problem and more control of their relationship. Joan’s dependence on his acceptance allowed Bill to run the show. He determined whether Joan was "intimate" or not simply by what he did in response. Not only could he control her behavior, he controlled its meaning: If he made a reciprocal response, they were "intimate." If he didn't, then they weren't. Don't mistake this for paradox, however. It’s simply differentiation surfacing where it is least expected: the person with the least desire for intimacy always controls intimacy in the relationship as long as partners are dependent on validation from each other.

Bill and Joan's relationship might sound uncomfortably familiar - or perfectly normal - and that's the problem. Twenty years ago, sociologists Gail and Snell Putney wrote a wonderful book about what they called the normal neurosis, the price of being "well adjusted" in contemporary society. They said our normal neurosis is our need to get indirect self-acceptance by appeasing others. It's what triggers the common post-sex quiz, "Was it good for you, dear?"-code for "Tell me I was good!"

This widespread need for a reflected sense of self has distorted our understanding of what intimacy is and how, we're supposed to get it. Enshrined in the popular view is the assumption that intimacy involves acceptance and/or reciprocal disclosure from your partner. We tell ourselves that intimacy (and marriage) takes two people who are willing to work at it-but, unfortunately, we rarely have the slightest inkling of our "job" assignments in this project.

Intimacy is the two-prong process of confronting yourself and self-disclosing to your partner. It isn't merely self-disclosure. Disclosing familiar and comfortable parts of yourself doesn't evoke the electricity of self-confrontation and personal growth common to intimate experiences. Intimacy also differs from meditation or solitary self-reflection. The interpersonal dimension - particularly the response you anticipate and receive from your partner - is as critical to the process as your feelings about what you're about to disclose.

How do icy, silent couples ever break through gridlock and discuss topics only one of them (or neither one) wants to face? To answer this question we need to look first at the two "types" of intimacy:

• Other-validated intimacy involves the expectation of acceptance, empathy, validation, or reciprocal disclosure from one's partner. As noted in Chapter 1, this is what is often mistaken for intimacy per se. Bill and Joan's emotional honeymoon and gridlock were predictable outgrowths of other-validated intimacy.

• Self-validated intimacy relies on a person's maintaining his or her own sense of identity and self-worth when disclosing, with no expectation of acceptance or reciprocity fr6m the partner. One's capacity for self-validated intimacy is directly related to one's level of differentiation; that is, one's ability to maintain a clear sense of oneself when loved ones are pressuring for conforming and sameness. Self-validated intimacy is the tangible product of one's "relationship with oneself."

Self-validated intimacy is a totally foreign concept to "normally neurotic" people-including therapists. Convinced that intimacy involves reciprocity, therapists who write on this topic have broken it down into two different types: "symmetrical" reciprocity wherein both partners disclose in equal measure, and "asymmetrical" reciprocity wherein one partner discloses and the other offers empathy, acceptance, and validation. The possibility that intimacy can occur without some facilitative response was never mentioned in the exhaustive literature review I conducted. In this omission, the type of intimacy most important to troubled marriages is overlooked.

How can you tell the difference between these two types of intimacy? Other-validated intimacy "sounds" like this: ''I'll tell you about myself, but only if you then tell me about yourself. If you don't, I won't either. But I want to, so you have to. I'll go first and then you'll be obligated to disclose-it's only fair. And if I go first, you have to make me feel secure. I need to be able to trust you!"

Self-validated intimacy in long-term relationships sounds quite different: I don't expect you to agree with me; you weren't put on the face of the earth to validate and reinforce me. But I want you to love me-and you can't really do that if you don't know me. I don't want your rejection-but I must face that possibility if I'm ever to feel accepted or secure with you. It's time to show myself to you and confront my separateness and mortality. One day when we are no longer together on this earth, I want to know you knew me. "

How much can you self-disclose without the guarantee of acceptance and validation from your partner? When you've achieved a high level of differentiation, revealing yourself is less dependent on your partner's moods or life's minor ups and downs. You're more capable of expressing who you are in the face of neutral or even negative responses from your partner. You can unilaterally push the boundaries of your relationship, and you feel less threatened when your partner starts (or refuses) to grow.

Self-validated intimacy involves providing support for yourself while letting yourself be known. Previously, I stated that differentiation is your ability to maintain your sense of self while in close contact with people who may pressure you to conform. That's why differentiation is the foundation of long-term marital intimacy. When you and your spouse try to mold each other to reduce your respective anxieties and keep your identities stable-which normally happens because of our natural tendency to reduce our anxiety through emotional connection - intimacy becomes the living embodiment of "holding onto yourself."

If you are willing and able to show yourself "as you are" and call things as you see them – unilaterally - your partner is less likely to silence you because you're not asking for anything in return-only the chance to say what you feel. Such a relationship can remain intimate even in times of conflict-like when one of you wants less intimacy than the other. Partners who aren't dependent on each other's validation to feel okay about themselves fuel their marriage with their unique strengths, rather than their mutual weaknesses. Other-validated intimacy is the expected currency in many marriages, but self-validated intimacy is the life jacket for partners in a troubled relationship.

Emotional Siamese Twins

Fusion fantasies and indirect self-acceptance make intimacy - meaning other-validated Intimacy - the contemporary Holy Grail. In truth, we've embraced a Siamese twin model of intimacy. The image of two people fused at the hip captures the essence of emotional fusion, as well as our common approach to intimacy. Think about how you would have to treat a Siamese twin. Every single movement would require consensus. If you didn't have your twin's validation and acceptance, you'd be in deep ... well, let's just say you wouldn't want to frighten or anger your twin. Reciprocity would be the Golden Rule. Empathy wouldn't be a choice. You'd be constantly aware of the tremendous impact your partner could have on you, even by doing self-destructive things.

The image of emotional Siamese twins also conveys how your partner's personal growth might affect you: the more your spouse becomes his/her own person, the more you would feel dominated, controlled, and perhaps torn apart. That's what we saw Bill and Joan exhibit in their use of borrowed functioning so that only one or them could be strong at one time. In an emotionally fused relationship ,when one partner starts to hold onto him or herself, the other partner feels controlled!

Expecting trust, validation, and shared reality only encourages fights about "what really happened." If you and your partner are constantly fighting about "reality," you're probably dependent on other-validated intimacy and you're really arguing about whose reality will become the dominant reality and whose anxieties will prevail. As we saw with Joan the "pro-intimacy" partner is not necessarily the more differentiated of the two. More often than not, the partner pushing for more other-validated intimacy is trying to reduce her anxiety and get a reflected sense of self. It shows up as never being able to let go of an argument, either continuing to press one's point of view or demanding an immediate apology or reconciliation. Remember, we pick partners at the same level of differentiation as ourselves.

The same emotional fusion that underlies our Siamese twin model of intimacy shows up in the familiar "we're in the same boat" notion of marriage. This idea gives a false sense of security because once you believe you're in the same boat, the next question is who's going to steer?! When you think you're cast adrift with a lunatic - because your partner sees things differently than you - you're likely to try pummeling him/her into steering in the direction you want to go. But when you realize spouses are always in two separate boats - and could sail in opposite directions (unless one grabs all the "supplies") - you're more likely to be kind and friendly to your fellow captain.

Other-validated intimacy occurs spontaneously in long-term intimate relationships between highly differentiated people. The difference is differentiated partners are not dependent on it. Other-validated intimacy is nice when you can get it, particularly when you don't need it - and, paradoxically, that's when you're most likely to get it!

When therapists prescribe other-validated intimacy for poorly differentiated people, they are confusing the destination with the process of how you get there. It's easy to think a little reciprocal support might get "communication" rolling when your relationship is the pits, but unfortunately, it's not that simple. Other-validated intimacy can artificially improve your functioning and make you feel better when it works, but it has many long-term drawbacks. Let me point out four:

1. Each partner becomes more dependent on the other's whims and less capable of true intimacy in times of stress. Reinforcing each other with other-validated intimacy becomes a constant but less viable preoccupation with the passage of time. No couple can maintain the continual other-validation ("support," "mirroring") poorly differentiated people require. Your partner and shifting circumstances can pull the support out from under you at any point. All that's required is a serious illness, a catastrophic event, or even a run-of-the-mill argument. We usually don't feel like exchanging praise when we're embittered or bruised, even when it promises to make things better. At those times, your level of functioning will depend on your capacity for self-validated intimacy, which means deteriorated functioning if you are accustomed to other validated intimacy.

To see how intimacy and differentiation work together as a system in marriage, think back to the point we discussed in Chapter 2 about borrowed functioning. For poorly differentiated people, other-validated intimacy is a form of borrowed functioning. Their level of functioning deteriorates from the level of their pseudo self down to the level of their solid differentiation when not supported by their partner or circumstance:

2. Other-validated intimacy leads you to hope your partner has his/her act together-at the same time it leads you to hope that he/she doesn't. Sharing our inner experience satisfies our basic urge for togetherness, but that's not the only reason we push for reciprocal disclosure. Another reason is that we want "ammunition" to use on our partner if he/she should use our disclosures against us. It makes us feel less bad about ourselves knowing our partner isn't perfect - that's what a reflected sense of self is all about. The problem is, it secretly makes us hope the people we love have things they are as insecure about as we are. Without realizing it, we slip into subtle competition.

3. Other-validated intimacy is inherently limiting because it leads to self presentation rather than self-disclosure. When you need a reflected sense of yourself and acceptance/validation from your partner, your most important priority becomes getting the response you want. To accomplish this less than virtuous goal, you start misrepresenting, omitting, and shading information about who you really are (self-presentation), rather than disclosing the full range of yourself (intimacy). Self-presentation is the opposite of intimacy; it is a charade rather than an unmasking.

Self-presentation is one way we adapt to our partner's differences in order to reduce our anxiety. Unfortunately, it, never provides the security and acceptance we crave, because we know our partner never really knows us. Attempts to cajole someone into making us feel secure only make us insecure, the same way trying to protect ourselves through other-validated intimacy offers no real protection at all. Self presentation creates an inherent paradox that sets the typical marital squirrel cage spinning. And as you'll see in a few minutes, self presentation brings us one step closer to emotional gridlock.

4. Other-validated intimacy allows one partner- to manipulate the other's reality. Earlier we looked at how intimacy ebbed and flowed in Bill and Joan's relationship. Another look at their past dependence on other validated intimacy reveals how it allows one partner to manipulate the other's experience. This long-remembered painful event occurred the day after their first child, Jena, was born. From her bed in the maternity ward, Joan reminisced with Bill about the moments after the delivery. "Wasn't that the most intimate thing we’ve ever shared? Joan asked dreamily.

Actually, Bill had been queasy about the blood and mucous on the baby. He also wasn't feeling as bonded to the infant as he thought he should. Trying to mask his true reactions, his response was a flat, “yeah, sure.”

Joan immediately felt devastated. She was confused and humiliated to think she could be so mistaken about what she'd felt. I thought we shared this experience! she protested inwardly. If it wasn’t intimate for Bill, how could it have been intimate for me? Intimacy takes two people, doesn't it? Her conclusion: Bill had wrecked her experience - a first experience never to be replaced, now a wound never to be healed! She threw this at him in their worst fights. "I'll never get over it! You can’t change history!” Joan asserted in one of our first sessions.

[redtide]

That is one of the most enlightening things I've ever read regarding relationships. All I can say is, "Wow" and "Thanks!"

That goes a loooooong way towards explaining some of our difficulties. One of the things that has bothered my wife immensely is that in the run up to the emotional affair, she had felt SO close to me and felt our marriage was becoming perfect, with a life-changing moment for her in her feelings towards me. But I did not feel that way. Things WERE better. We didn't fight as much. But I was not where she was.

Now, she's mad at me because I did not feel as she did. She wonders how her feelings could have been so wrong. Well, they weren't wrong. She WAS right. Her feelings WERE correct. But HER feelings were not MY feelings, and the fact that I felt different doesn't mean that her feelings were incorrect or false.

Wow.

What a wonderful revelation. I look forward to sharing it with my wife tonight. I hope that she "gets it" as I just did.

[ryanh]

The book is Passionate Marriage. I think I might have suggested it to you before, but I forget if I did or not. If not, sorry.

The author is CLEARLY not LDS, and there is less than desirable stuff to wade through in the book, but there are certianly plenty of enlightening ideas such as the above. It's been helpful to me too.