AllYou! wrote:
> In news:vjjej5-4p3.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Doug Laidlaw <doug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mused:
>> As objectively as I can be, marriage can be a mystery. There
>> are things about my wife that I think don't meet my needs; I
>> have sensed in the company of other women that they would be far
>> more suitable in those regards. I could say that I waited too
>> long, until the field was limited.
>
> I would've felt better about this had you acknowledged that you
> understand that it's a mirage (i.e., not real). While there may
> very well be someone or other out there that would be a better fit
> for you, the chances that they can be found almost anywhere (which
> is what I infer by the phrase 'in the company of other women', as
> though it happens with almost any other women) are very, very slim.
> You were attracted to your DW because, at one time, you thought the
> same thing about her, and as you got to know her better, you felt
> that way increasingly more.
>
>
>> But despite all that, there is a solid bond between us. I find
>> the relation****p very satisfying and very dissatisfying at the
>> same time.
>>
>> As I said, a mystery.
>
> In this context, 'mysterious' is a relative term. and so it's not
> all that mysterious if you realize that all human interactions are
> filled with mysteries that we may never understand. You strike me
> as an incredibly intelligent, articulate person who is more than
> capable of figuring out how to have discussions with his DW so that
> you can explore those things that are dissatisfying in your
> marriage. The mystery for me is why you don't do more of that with
> her.
>
I can explore all I like. To her, it is irrelevant. I think that I
empathised with Xorra on this - it is like talking a different language.
The language, the concepts that I use, are like Greek to her. We were
both
loners - I because of depression, probably, and she because she was an
only
child. I want a momma; she wants a substitute father, she told me. Both
wanting to be followers makes both dissatisfied. Her father was a passive
type, but intelligent; her mother was the driving force. My father was
dominating, but my mother wasn't the opposite of hers. Neither of us was
exposed to much affection or display of affection in the home. We are
basically from very similar backgrounds, socially, financially, in
education and religion.
I do wish that we had done more interacting in the early days, but she
couldn't see the need. At about our second Christmas, I suggested that we
do a bit of marriage strengthening, only vaguely conceived. She thought it
unnecessary. Like many couples we became team workers, bringing up the
children as a team more than a couple. Before that, we were often a team
in the youth club where we met. That teamwork IMO, is the strength of our
relation****p. But we still tend to keep away from intimacy. My
depression
seems to add the barrier of anhedonia - the inability to enjoy things.
I am not looking for a better fit. I am more monogamous by constitution
than many. I keep coming back to the Hippie idea of one partner for each
of several qualities. It can't work, because really, that isn't what it
is
all about. A person as a whole is more im****tant than the sum of the
parts.
I know about "distant fields are always greener." Somebody else will
always have the missing piece of the jigsaw, but only the missing piece.
As you say, the ideal partner doesn't exist, and near enough can be made
to
work with a bit of application. In the days of arranged marriages, the
couple usually made it work, and some of those marriages were extremely
happy (if the arranging was done with their interests in mind, not the
parents' empire-building.)
I think that I tend to verbalise what others simply accept.
Doug L.
|
