What makes a marriage joyless and boring?

[Outcast]

These days, I've come to realize that my former ideal was unrealistic. There are in actuality THREE entities involved in a good two-person partnership; the individuals themselves accounting for two of the three, and the union of those two individuals being the third.

 

There is a marriage counselling theory that considers the relationship as an entity of its own so you're not off in left field.

 

Great post again LJ I see you're addressing the matter of 'standing on principle' - how, instead of biting his head off when he comes home grumpy because 'he shouldn't treat you this way', you step out of yourself and empathize with his situation. And of course, both partners need to do that for each other.

[Ladyjane14]

There is a marriage counselling theory that considers the relationship as an entity of its own so you're not off in left field.

 

I'd be interested in reading more about that if you can remember where you saw it.

[Outcast]

AHA!

 

I swear that mamma.com is by far the better search engine now. Google's lost all its precision. Mamma.com nails it much better and faster

 

The Couple as an Entity:

The Power of Treating the Couple as a Whole

http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/IPSpg00/Couples/Sheras.html

 

if you search on Sheras and couple you'll come across a bunch of references. They now call it 'Couple Power Therapy'.

[Craig]

Ladyjane, reading your post above about the THREE entities and then reading further and seeing you talk about "His team"... got me to thinking. Maybe there are FIVE entities in a good two-person partnership.

 

• The individuals themselves accounting for two entities
  
• The union of those individuals being the third entity
  
• HER team and HIS team being the fourth and fifth entities
  

 

Team to me, means there must be a leader of that team. Her team means that she is the leader, etc.

 

Thoughts.

[Becoming]

It used to be that I thought of my marriage as a blending of two individuals creating Unity. The goal being perfect partnership in which the two former individuals operate in unison to achieve happiness.

 

These days, I've come to realize that my former ideal was unrealistic. There are in actuality THREE entities involved in a good two-person partnership; the individuals themselves accounting for two of the three, and the union of those two individuals being the third.

 

Maybe success requires a certain omnipresence in all three aspects of the partnership. In other words, to be a constant player on all three teams....'yours', 'mine', and 'ours'.

 

I do think that in choosing "field position", it's wise to put your best effort where it's most needed. When your partner is in trouble, YOU are in trouble. Since you've been present on his team all along, you have an awareness of his needs, but it's time to put some sweat into it when he's having a tough time.

 

 

I think this is spot on! Nice one, LJ! The idea that you have to be a constant player on all three teams is right. Difficult, but right. And like all players on a team, we mess up and have to bear with one another's faults and forgive our missteps.

 

I want to think more about the five entities. I'm inclined to think maybe it's just four--individual 1, individual 2, unified team where 1 leads, unified team where 2 leads. However, it's a constant dance, isn't it? And maybe it breaks down when the partners can no longer follow the intricasies of the dance.

[Ladyjane14]

Thanks for the link Outcast. Very interesting reading. And I can see the merits in it for developing unity in couples who are having a difficult time achieving it.

 

I'm having a really hard time verbalizing the concept that I have on this though. It seems almost like I'm working from the other end of it. Sheras seems to suggest that we put quite a bit of time and energy into the third entity of 'Unity", but from my perspective....I wonder if we aren't neglectful of 'Individuality'.

 

I think it's probably pretty easy for people to conceptualize the idea of their 'coupleness' as a separate entity in their relationship, as in the ability to make decisions together which forward the general welfare of the family. Things like buying a new house, taking a new job, buying life insurance....these are pretty obvious cases of the need to utilize joint input.

 

The problem that I had (and that alot of people seem to have) is the concept of developing individuality for each partner in a way that is of equal importance in the health of the relationship. And to do that in a way that is inclusive of 'the small stuff'.

 

Two examples:

 

The first would be our Thanksgiving trip to see my family. I hadn't been home for Thanksgiving in years...so it was important to me, individually. My husband got on board and played a supporting role to getting that done.

 

However, he's a football fan. He's rooted for the same team for all the years that I've known him and even though it makes NO SENSE to me....it's important to him. As an individual he's a football fan. So, he didn't want to leave for our week-long trip until AFTER the Sunday game, and he wanted to be home BEFORE the next game. This cut down on my time with my extended family, but it was still necessary to support his individual desires.

 

Initially, the first thing I thought was...."I haven't been home in a long, long time. It's so selfish of him to make me wait because of FOOTBALL." But when I thought it over, he was in actuality already participating with my goal. How could I not give him the same support in his goal? While 'football' isn't a particular interest of mine, neither is 'visiting with the in-laws' of particular interest to him. So, I closed my mouth and supported his individual desire to be a football fan.

 

In this way, compromise was reached. He supported my individual wishes, and I supported his. He played a supporting role on my team. I played a supporting role on his.

 

I still see this teamwork thing as three teams....'yours', 'mine', and 'ours'. I am in the lead of my own "Individuality" team. He is a supporting player. But still, I am never alone. And vice versa.

 

I don't have to necessarily expect that he support me in whatever way I want. That's just not gonna happen. It smacks of demands and controlling behavior. What I have to do instead is gracefully accept whatever help he wants to give me in support of my team. And I have to acknowledge it as if it were a gift. That way, he knows I appreciate his contribution to MY team.

 

That's not always as easy as it might seem! Second example:

 

I inadvertantly let one of my housecats out last night. Now, I like that cat. But she's ALWAYS the one who gets in trouble around here...so my husband doesn't have the same appreciation for her that I do.

 

So, I'm outside in the cold with a flashlight looking for the cat. He gets his coat and shoes on, grumbling NON-STOP...."I don't like that cat anyway. She's not getting back in this house when she gets back. Why did you leave the door open?....etc."

 

I'm not happy about his attitude:mad: as you might imagine. But, I close my mouth and wait to see what develops.

 

Well, the cat is nowhere to be found, and finally we give up and go back in the house. But 20 minutes later, unbeknowst to me....my husband checks outside all the doors again, and there she is. He snatches her up, brings her back in the house....and his face is just BEAMING with pleasure as he presents me with my errant animal.

 

He acted like a total a*hole before, so what's up with that???

 

I have to think that because he's a constant player on my team (the pursuit of my individual goals), he's bound to get in the game. He's not sure if he can accomplish the task at hand, and he's been interrupted in his own individual pursuits by my carelessness in leaving the door open. Overall, he's less than "graceful" with his offer of support. BUT he's getting in the game anyway.

 

My temptation of course is to be reactive to the anger that he's showing....to be "less than graceful" in my acceptance of his "support", (which doesn't feel particularly nice and supportive at that moment I must say! )

 

But if I step back from that a little bit, I can see that his temper is engaged because he's stressed. If I ask myself why he's stressed, the only answer I can come up with is that he's afraid I won't get my cat back. I would be disappointed and worried, and I'd probably end up crying about it. My individual goals are important to him. He's on my team. He's on my side.

 

Not terribly "graceful", but still....supporting ME. If I had become reactive to his stress, I'd have never seen it. But I'm bound to my supporting role on his team, so I had to stop and assess the situation. When I did, I was amazed to discover that his temper was engaged because he was afraid that he would fail to please ME. Remarkable.

 

 

 

Craig and Becoming have brought up some interesting points in determination of the captaincy regarding the "Ours" team. And for that I think we're better off to share control completely with our partner. The marriagebuilders concept of POJA (The Policy of Joint Agreement) works well here because it calls for both partners to adopt "enthusiastic agreement" on whatever issue is at hand. I like that. It makes for dual captaincy of the 'Ours' team.

 

Dr. Phil suggests that when these kind of things come up....things that require both partners to work in unison....that we try to "fall in love" with our partner's idea for 15 minutes. You know, give it 100% enthusiasm for at least that long. Not a bad idea when you're working a problem that requires POJA. Overall, a good start.

 

It seems that there's alot of techniques for dealing with the larger issues. But I think that for some of the more mundane matters, our willingness to be a constant player on our partner's team is what often leads to compromise and harmony. I don't see more than three teams here. But surely, we ought to "play" on all of them simultaneously.

 

I'm a support player on my husband's 'Individuality' team. He ALWAYS leads that one. I'm 100% participitory, but I don't tell him what to do. I'm always on his side though, 'cause he's a good guy and he deserves it.

 

I'm required to WORK at allowing him to support my 'Individuality' team. It's really alot harder to do than you might think! He's not ME, and he doesn't do things the same way I do. So, I endeavor to understand his methods even when they aren't particularly graceful in my opinion. And I attempt to control my expectations so that I'll have more appreciation for what he freely offers.

 

I lead my own team, and I'll bristle if he tries to tell me what to do much as I imagine he would if I tried to lead his team.

 

In the matter of our "Unity" team, we have to share the captaincy of it, negotiating until we are BOTH enthusiastic about the decisions we make.