My Primary and I are moving - Secondary pushing me away - Help!

THIS.The Philosopher's ex regularly accused him of putting work before his family (while occasionally, his job made extra demands, they were not extreme or long-lasting.) Um...., he was the their only source of income; she was a stay at home mom who lived in a beautiful house, and the Philosopher doted on her. It didn't matter how many times he explained to her that he worked because he was putting the well-being of his family first, she never got it. He wasn't putting her first.

I do have to say, however, that Gralson used to use this excuse with me, and I wasn't buying it. He said, he worked so much because I'm in school and he "has to" work that much so we can "live". I said, no you don't. We can live on less. You work so much because you like your job, you love working, and you enjoy the power of making money and being able to buy nice things. Nothing wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade. I've always said, I would be happy living in a shack on the beach, and I mean it. That doesn't mean that, if there's money around, I won't buy nice things. But I don't need those things to be happy. What I do need, however, is companionship and love in my life. I don't need Gralson, but if he wasn't sharing a fair chunk of his time with me, I wouldn't stick around just for the things his money can buy.

So like this Philosopher's wife, I don't accept "I'm working for us" because what most people want from their partners is time together. Nice things are not a substitute for intimacy and "us time."
 
I do have to say, however, that Gralson used to use this excuse with me, and I wasn't buying it. He said, he worked so much because I'm in school and he "has to" work that much so we can "live". I said, no you don't. We can live on less. You work so much because you like your job, you love working, and you enjoy the power of making money and being able to buy nice things. Nothing wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade. I've always said, I would be happy living in a shack on the beach, and I mean it. That doesn't mean that, if there's money around, I won't buy nice things. But I don't need those things to be happy. What I do need, however, is companionship and love in my life. I don't need Gralson, but if he wasn't sharing a fair chunk of his time with me, I wouldn't stick around just for the things his money can buy.

So like this Philosopher's wife, I don't accept "I'm working for us" because what most people want from their partners is time together. Nice things are not a substitute for intimacy and "us time."

Hrm. Yes. I can see where never seeing each other would be an issue. That said, unlike Gralson, as a rule, the Philosopher usually worked 9 - 5. Hardly the same as "never around." And in fact, he left his ex due to her disinterest in emotional intimacy.

I must have hit one of your pet peeves - one that I would share if the circumstances were extreme and unnecessary - however the point I think you were trying to make, as was I, is that the relationship needs to have a certain amount of flexibility and serve the people within it. It is not a failure just because it may not fit within a recognizable configuration. If people are adaptable, and it is possible to maintain the bond, there are many ways a relationship can be made to work. Given that you are talking about the possibility of leaving all of your loves for a year or more, it would seem you and they are highly adaptable. However, given your last comment, apparently, there are parameters to your willingness to be flexible.
 
Last edited:
unlike Gralson, as a rule, the Philosopher usually worked 9 - 5. Hardly the same as "never around." And in fact, he left his ex due to her disinterest in emotional intimacy.

Wow, yeah. 9-5 is pretty normal. What was she complaining about exactly? That he wasn't able to earn an income without leaving the house or something? Maybe she could have tried being the breadwinner for a year, see how that goes. Lots of people have to work 70 hrs/wk just to avoid choosing between groceries and rent.

I must have hit one of your pet peeves - one that I would share if the circumstances were extreme and unnecessary - however the point I think you were trying to make, as was I, is that the relationship needs to have a certain amount of flexibility and serve the people within it.

I wouldn't say pet peeve, but it was a trigger with us for a while. The point I was trying to make is that I think doing things for yourself is healthy and independent. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you're doing it for someone else. Sometimes doing things for yourself can benefit other people, like working hard at a job and bringing home enough money that your kids can grow up in a better part of town and your wife can buy nice things. But that still doesn't mean you're "doing it for them."

NVC taught me that, really, you never want to do anything for anyone else. You want to do it because it brings you satisfaction and fulfillment to help another person get the most out of life by helping them meet their needs. When you do something "for someone" it's because you've been manipulated or coerced into doing something you don't really want to do. That spoils the energy behind it and makes it into a negative experience for both the giver and the receiver.
 
Last edited:
Wow, yeah. 9-5 is pretty normal. What was she complaining about exactly? That he wasn't able to earn an income without leaving the house or something? Maybe she could have tried being the breadwinner for a year, see how that goes. Lots of people have to work 70 hrs/wk just to avoid choosing between groceries and rent.

What was she complaining about exactly is an excellent question! Basically it seemed she felt his attention should be on her 24/7 with no reference to circumstance - unless she wasn't in the mood for his attention, and then he was supposed to be able to read her mind and tell the difference. Either way being wrong resulted in a temper tantrum from her.

So yeah, logic had zero bearing on her perceptions or behavior.

I wouldn't say pet peeve, but it was a trigger with us for a while. The point I was trying to make is that I think doing things for yourself is healthy and independent. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you're doing it for someone else. Sometimes doing things for yourself can benefit other people, like working hard at a job and bringing home enough money that your kids can grow up in a better part of town and your wife can buy nice things. But that still doesn't mean you're "doing it for them."

NVC taught me that, really, you never want to do anything for anyone else. You want to do it because it brings you satisfaction and fulfillment to help another person get the most out of life by helping them meet their needs. When you do something "for someone" it's because you've been manipulated or coerced into doing something you don't really want to do. That spoils the energy behind it and makes it into a negative experience for both the giver and the receiver.

I agree. While I enjoy helping others, I do it because *I* enjoy it. :)
 
Back
Top