SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

My H’s transgressions were years and years ago. He is sick now, so mostly a moot point.

But, when we went to counseling and Retrouvaille back in the day, I tried unsuccessfully to get a question addressed to my satisfaction…maybe y’all can help.

H is totally conflict avoidant. He would rather do anything than "talk". About anything, but most especially about something where he is at fault. So…anything regarding that which I will not mention here.

I, OTOH, need (not only want)…NEED to talk it out with the intention of dealing with it then letting it go. Never had that chance.

So, counseling and Retrovaille both addressed this with the following perspective…

"You can’t force someone to talk when they don’t want to. Agree on a time to address the issue later." In fact, I was told to let THEM choose when that time should be.

OK, I understand that you can’t expect someone to discuss a difficult topic on demand. But this is my question…

WHY IS THEIR NEED TO WAIT TILL LATER SUPERCEDE MY NEED TO ADDRESS IT NOW?

Either way, one person gets their preference, while the other acquiesces.

Why is the rule that you can’t "force" someone to do something?

By refusing to talk "now", I am basically being forced to wait.

Why do my needs have to wait???????

I’ve been looking for a justification for this for many years.

Any input???

[This message edited by WhatsRight at 12:03 AM, Sunday, October 23rd]

You answered your own question. We can't force anyone to do anything. We can only control ourselves. I don't think it has anything to do with needs of either of you. You continued to stay with H even though he wouldn't give you what you need... if you truly needed it, I think you would have left. Thinking of a need like food/water/shelter... yet you've stayed.

From H's perspective, why go down that path if you weren't going to leave him? What good does it do for him?

WHY IS THEIR NEED TO WAIT TILL LATER SUPERCEDE MY NEED TO ADDRESS IT NOW?

WhatsRight, I'm 6 months past DDay this weekend and I am still struggling with this. I still feel the urgent need to know all of the truth, and WW is dragging it out as long as she can. Whatever her reasoning (or lack of reasoning) is, it can feel like torture.

I've read half a dozen different books about dealing with affairs since DDay. It seems like this behavior is typical. Though - I take it very personally and it continues to upset me. WW is so self-involved with her shame that she seems unable to empathize or be remorseful. I'm reading a book named 'Healing the Shame that Binds You' by John Bradshaw. It's starting to give me a little more understanding, but I have more to go.

Keep strong!

You answered your own question. We can't force anyone to do anything.

I beg to differ.

The truth of the matter is not that you may not be able to force anyone to do anything. It is that you cannot force anyone to talk to you. But simply by not talking to you, they are forcing you to wait.

I don’t want to give the wrong impression. I understand that my opportunity to have some resolution to this issue has come and gone.

But I have a thing with fairness. And so it very irritating to me. And those who don’t want to talk get to use the statement, "you can’t force someone to do something." That way, they get their way, but in the meantime, have forced you to wait.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 5:50 PM, Tuesday, October 25th]

I think it is just a fundamental unfairness.
You want something only he can provide.
He chooses to not provide it.
And there is nothing you can do. It is totally unfair, like most things associated with infidelity.

It is not fair. A partner who took your needs, wants, and desires into account would try to meet them - partially or fully- even if it was uncomfortable or even painful for them. But a partner that is more concerned about themselves will opt to put their own DESIRES ahead of yours.

I absolutely understand why you want that from him. But I have to agree that it may not be a NEED. Or, if it truly is a need, you have/had other needs that superseded that one, such as keeping your family intact. Or fears that were stronger than the need. Otherwise you would have left by now. But that doesn’t squelch your desire to have that one fulfilled.

I ** suspect** the advice was based on the presumption that an emotionally healthy person would get to a point where they could provide what you were asking. But we all know that cheaters are by definition not emotionally healthy people. And he never did the work to become an emotionally healthy person who would choose to support your needs/wants/desires.

My XWH also was not willing to talk about it as much as I wanted before I walked away. So I burned up the ears of my therapist for quite a while because I talk things out. It’s how I process and how I heal. But he probably couldn’t give the answers I thought I needed anyway. Because there is no good answer for what he did. I had to go around it to heal— maybe took longer, but can be done.

Where else can you go to get this out of your system? Journal, IC, talk to yourself while walking the pups? Your WH deciding to change is probably not going to happen. So where else can you get the relief you need?

I really wish your WH had done any of the work to be a good partner, especially in light of all you do for him. (((WR)))

Oh, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I will not be getting what I needed for so long. In fact I don’t really even feel that I "need it anymore.

I’m mainly venting right now about anyone, whether it be an offending party, or a therapist, who favors the one who wants to avoid the conflict over the one who wants to address the situation.

Therapists go through an academic system which developed over decades from various schools of thought. One school of therapy grew from a guy named Carl Rogers, who believed the number 1 rule of helpful counseling was to build "unconditional regard" for the client. From that, it followed that the client must first be mirrored, empathized with, and validated in their position above all other goals. Rogers opposed more "directive" or "didactic" approaches (teaching/advising or even gently confronting). The problem with that kind of therapy is the type of clients it works well with is not universal. It tends to be of limited usefulness with more pathological personality types, who are already generally disinclined to self-reflect. And coming from an "authority figure" such as a licensed therapist, such "unconditional regard" can validate the most pathological aspects of such a client. In simpler words: the therapist can be perceived as affirming bad behavior by their empathic response.

Therapy is not one size fits all, yet many therapists tend to use the Empathic Helper approach first, before any other. And therapists who bring that approach to couples counseling have injured many who were already victims of spousal betrayal. I am very sorry you had that kind of experience.

Yeah, I have friends and family for hugs and validation.

If I decide to use a professional, I want to do so to get some educated insight - not hand holding.

Sorry. Thanks for the explanation. But this is a real soap box issue for me, even though I am past the time when good relationship counseling would help my H and I.

I guess what burns me up so much is that people seem to throw around the "you can’t force someone to do something" statement. But it is totally true that when you refuse to have a conversation with me, you are forcing me to wait. I guess either way someone is getting "forced". I just think that it would make sense if it could be a fair distribution of people getting what they need.

"You really really are not in a place where you want to talk at this point? Sure, I will understand and will plan for a time in the near future when we both feel like it."

And maybe next time, even though you might not really feel like it, if I really NEED to talk about some thing right NOW, you could forfeit your comfort level and do that for me, just as I bit my tongue and waited to get what I needed from you.

I agree, it's 100% not fair.

Back in the day, ex-asshat told me HE didn't need to go to therapy with me because he was fine and I was the one with the problem. I wish I'd gone without him then but didn't. I only started therapy last year and got lucky the first time out of the gate - my IC is awesome. And she has no problem calling me on my stuff and helping me figure my way in addition to being empathetic.

Bearly hit the nail on the head:

Where else can you go to get this out of your system? Journal, IC, talk to yourself while walking the pups? Your WH deciding to change is probably not going to happen. So where else can you get the relief you need?

You won't get what you need from him, sadly. But you CAN get what you need yourself. And this whole experience has taught me that at the end of the day, you are who will have your back the most.

(((WR)))

Oh, no. You are all right. This will not be resolved with us. (My H and I) I have known that for a while. I’ve made a sort of peace about it.

But I’m a fairness freak. And just the thought that people - ESPECIALLY therapists - give credence to favoring one person’s need over another. 😩😡

Who in their right mind can think that it is an acceptable solution, that one person gets to duck out on there responsibility to be available to another, in the moment, while the other person must acquiesce EVERY SINGLE TIME. ESPECIALLY when the one who plays the delay card is the "transgressor".

OK, I guess I have run this into the ground.

Thanks for your input, everyone.

Although I still don’t feel I have an explanation. Or at least one that I feel treats both individual’s needs equally.

I KNOW it’s not fair. I guess I will never get an explanation that explains how ANYONE could think that it is.

😖

Funny you should use the saying "run this into the ground." It gives me inspiration for an analogy that may help answer the "why:"

Some critters make their burrows below ground and they retreat to their burrows whenever they feel the need. Once they are down in their safe places, there is little that can be done to coax them out into the open. A therapist dealing with a couple is really dealing with two separate individuals at the same time, and if one is down in a burrow, all they have left to work with is the one who showed up. I have felt this at times way back when we tried counseling as a "couple." If both parties are not "showing up" for the discussion, there isn't much that can be done in the way of counseling. I think therapists don't like pointing out when that happens, because they would have to terminate the session and it is easier - and more beneficial financially - to just shift focus to the party who is willing to work.

Another analogy would be a Zoom meeting where the recording equipment is all set up in one place, and one person sits down to use it for a working "meeting," but another person who was also supposed to tune in just gets up and leaves the room as the meeting starts. What will be done during that "meeting," without the input of the absentee party? It will have to be just something the remaining parties can discuss. The ones who show up are the ones who are available to work with.

I don't think it's about favoring one person over the other. I don't think anyone thinks it's a fair solution. I think it's the reality of the situation at that time.

I do get what you’re saying about fairness though, WR. I’ve been working on this in therapy with a different situation, and it’s frustrating. It feels impossible to make peace with bad things that have happened when the offending party seemingly gets to skip off into the sunset with no repercussions. Maddening for sure!

Thank y’all so much for these responses. That was a pretty brilliant analogy about the animal borrowing in the hole. I’m guessing if you knew his name, it would match my husbands! Ha ha

That makes perfect sense. Also, I am very aware of the phrase, "FAIR doesn’t mean everybody gets the same thing. It means everybody gets what they need."

Epic failing grade for that one!

As I pour over these responses, the nagging thought in the back of my brain goes back to someone’s comment about if the person is not willing to be present for another person, then there’s not much sense in discussing matters at all, because there is nothing to be gained. Because there will be no real relationship.

My relationship with my H has shifed. I have given up on making efforts to save our relationship that I think was fatally wounded with his actions…followed by him not being willing or able to do the work to heal. Which was actually the worst part of the whole situation for me. Our marriage not being worth the effort.

And now it is turned to existing peacefully together, and me showing him kindness and concern and providing care for him when he needs it. And in turn, he is appreciating that, and the irritations between us have subsided for the most part.

And as so many have experienced, either live-in separation, divorce, and/or death have not necessarily diminished the need (for me) to communicate about certain things.

I’m sure if we were still "working to heal" and he was reading this, he would say, "If you feel disrespected when you want to talk and I don’t want to talk, why don’t you understand that I feel equally disrespected when you try to make me talk when I don’t want to." And I get that. But the outcome has always been the same — it is always dealt with on his terms.

The solution is obvious…there is a compromise…one time talking at that time, and one time scheduling it for later.

I don’t think that I’m wasting my time on the fact that many times things are not fair in life. Sick children, war, famine, domestic violence… The fact that life isn’t fair is a no-brainer.

I think it’s more that I can’t COMPREHEND why ANYONE would feel that it’s ok for one person to always have it their way. But I guess only in a situation where both parties truly want to heal and are willing to do the work for that to happen, would it really matter. Because in the situation I have been describing, obviously the person who expects their way every time is not really willing to do the work.

Thanks for listening to my banter. As you can tell, it is very much a sore spot for me. But I feel a tremendous amount of empathy and sadness for those of you who are still struggling and are still facing this kind of an equity.

[This message edited by WhatsRight at 6:04 PM, Tuesday, October 25th]

But I guess only in a situation where both parties truly want to heal and are willing to do the work for that to happen, would it really matter.

WR - it was only when I was able to truly, deep down accept this situation that I REALLY started to heal. WH can't give me something that he doesn't have.

At some point, Charlie Brown should realize, accept that Lucy is gonna pull the football away so he should turn around and walk away. Let go of the need to try kicking that football.

It took me a very looooooooong time to get to this place, but I have found a level of peace that comes with acceptance and letting go. I hope that you can arrive at this place.

((((WR))))