Wow. Once again you have hit the nail on the head. I have been so very guilty in the past of having exactly these internal conversations, not recognizing that I was shutting my partner out of the decision-making process and hurting both of up (and our relationship). I was so busy anticipating his wants/needs and making decisions (and sacrifices) based on his wants/needs as I interpreted them, that I was ignoring the fact that I was developing resentment for my sacrifices and then expressing that resentment to someone who had absolutely no idea why I was so upset. (Apologies for the run-on thought there)
Once I realized what I was doing, I started making a conscious effort to engage him and actually learn his wants and needs and *gasp* talking before I/we make decisions. I still sometimes make sacrifices but now it is with understanding and appreciation and the resentment does not set in.
Vulnerability and intimacy are not easy but the end results are so-so-worth it. :)
I think you're a bit harsh in your assessment. As someone who has never totally let it all out, so to speak, due to being unable to totally trust, it's not something one can consciously control. I long for a partner who will nurture me to a place where I can feel safe enough to be totally open. But that would take a very special partner, one with clay feet and comfort with them. Someone who isn't afraid of a partner's competence, passion, fear. Because it's not passive-aggression that keeps one locked up, it's fear. And you can't peg it all on manipulative tactics. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes fear is enoough.
wemay have to agree to disagreemuch_adoSeptember 28 2006, 17:59:29 UTC
sometimes a cigar is a cigar, you're absolutely right. but IMO you're dead wrong when you say, "it's not something one can consciously control", because it *is* something you can control, because it's all about *you*. you *can* control what you do and don't trust, what you do and don't let out. you *can* do the work with your partner to find out where the common, level ground is WRT trust, and you *can* determine, if that ground doesn't exist, why it doesn't exist, what has to change in *both* of you to make it happen, or whether to walk away. all of this is absolutely in your control. that comfort rarely comes with the package, or develops overnight - it has to be built by joint effort over time, and your statement that you want someone else to do the nurturing to a place where you feel comfortable - someone else to do all the work to build you a safe place? where's *your* responsibility and effort in what should be a shareed process?? - speaks volumes, to me (as someone who historically defaulted to wanting other people to do all
( ... )
Re: wemay have to agree to disagreedamediniSeptember 28 2006, 18:11:12 UTC
Fair enough. Of course I'd be working hard to reach a trust point, the onus would not be entirely on a partner. But a partner's nurturing is certainly an important piece in the puzzle. Just as I'd nurture him. For me it takes two. If I could get there all by myself, I would no longer have the issues. I wasn't saying I wanted someone else to do all the work, but that I need help. But I still can't consciously control my lizard-brain fears. I'm very comfortable within myself, know my needs and limits, what I can offer and where I'm willing to go. Also the very few things I'm not willing to try. But my main point is that fear isn't always a passive aggressive tactic.
Re: wemay have to agree to disagreemuch_adoSeptember 28 2006, 18:19:12 UTC
you're correct there; i over-simplified the passive-agressive angle. it wasn't my intent to suggest fear was *always* thus. and yes, the process of nurturing (nurturement??) should always (ideally) be a two-way street. your original comment made it sound otherwise, so thank you for clarifying both points :)
I've been thinking about this. I think that there is an unstated assumption here that the listener has responded in a positive way in the past, to unfiltered talk, and still the speaker filters conversations.
If the listener has stomped all over the speaker for honest speech, then it honest speech isnt likely to be spoken again. There are after all 3 parts to a conversation -speaker, message and listener. They ALL have to work together or messages dont come through or are garbled, or in this case, filtered.
agreed; i guess the part that didn't carry forward from the original conversation is that all parties involved were engaged with positive intent in teh process; they entered the process of improvement with goodwill. that was the same underlying presupposition i had putting this post together. i'll edit the beginning of the post to make the implicit, explicit :)
as damedini suggests, people who have been betrayed in the past are less likely to presume their partners will always bear them goodwill.
Comments 8
Once I realized what I was doing, I started making a conscious effort to engage him and actually learn his wants and needs and *gasp* talking before I/we make decisions. I still sometimes make sacrifices but now it is with understanding and appreciation and the resentment does not set in.
Vulnerability and intimacy are not easy but the end results are so-so-worth it. :)
Reply
Because it's not passive-aggression that keeps one locked up, it's fear. And you can't peg it all on manipulative tactics. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes fear is enoough.
Reply
Reply
But I still can't consciously control my lizard-brain fears.
I'm very comfortable within myself, know my needs and limits, what I can offer and where I'm willing to go. Also the very few things I'm not willing to try.
But my main point is that fear isn't always a passive aggressive tactic.
Reply
Reply
If the listener has stomped all over the speaker for honest speech, then it honest speech isnt likely to be spoken again. There are after all 3 parts to a conversation -speaker, message and listener. They ALL have to work together or messages dont come through or are garbled, or in this case, filtered.
Reply
as damedini suggests, people who have been betrayed in the past are less likely to presume their partners will always bear them goodwill.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment