It's all about the SPIN...
One thing that I think is becoming very apparent, in US society, is that SPIN is very important. In fact, spin is probably the single most important aspect of success, in social situations, and in politics.
Spin, in the manner in which I am using it, refers to the manner in which something, someone, or some situation, or statement, or action, is described. And, specifically, it is the art of being able to describe something from a perspective that empowers the person doing the spinning, or empowers someone or something that is important to that person.
For example: I am drinking a cup of coffee and accidentally drop it in the coffee shop, just after I take my first sip. There are various ways this can be described, such as:
Did you see that inconsiderate person who just splashed scalding hot coffee on everyone around them?
or
I feel bad for them...they just spilled all their coffee before they got a chance to get any significant amount of caffeine.
or
I swear, some people are so clumsy...someone like that is dangerous
or
I would not be surprised if that person did that on purpose to retaliate towards the person behind them, who bumped them earlier
The point is that just about anything can be described in just about any way someone chooses to describe it, and anyone listening to that person will probably adopt that person's description, unless they are aware of this whole 'spin' technique.
What I find, in my practice, is that people tend to 'spin' their own behavior and personality in a manner that benefits them, and they tend to 'spin' others' behavior and personality in a way that also benefits them. It is very unusual to encounter a person who is very balanced in their perspective on themselves and on others...it is a rarity. Probably one of the main reasons that most people do not try to control their 'spin' so that they are fair to others is that this is too painful to do, emotionally, in many cases, and generally doesn't benefit the person who controls their spin, because everyone else is not controlling their spin.
In other words, IMO, spin is a part of human nature, and a part of relationships. We all spin our stuff so that it benefits us...that is human nature. What I have noticed, however, is that there are also some people who not only spin things positively to benefit themselves, but will, with people whom they feel are in their family circle, spin things positively for them, when describing them to someone else. That is loving, in a way, but also may be dishonest, sometimes, and may harm another person, in the process.
Usually, when people find their way to my practice, they are in a difficult situation, with intense emotions, and lots to say. What I have learned, over the years, is that the more intensely negative the spin they put on another person, the more intense must be the depth of their anguish with that person. In many cases, the spin is somewhat inaccurate, because of this, and that can raise credibility issues, in regards to the person doing the spinning.
You can learn a lot about a person based on their 'spin' behavior. Some people, when they are very angry, give themselves permission to spin situations so that they appear unrealistically perfect and others appear unrealistically evil. Some people (far fewer), when they are angry, prohibit themselves from adjusting their spin, and redouble their efforts to maintain a fair approach to their spin. And, some people, when they are angry, rail against the spin that others are putting on them, and try to give a balanced spin of themselves. Some people try to have no spin, either for themselves, or for others.
What is very clear, however, is that spin is very much a part of social interactions, and we ignore its power, and its prevalence, at our own peril.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
IS AN AFFAIR A FORM OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE?
First things first...the term 'abuse' has been used more and more, in the recent past, to the point that just about anything can, and has been, called abuse. What we used to consider relatively normal behavior, such as yelling at someone when angry, or cursing at someone, or calling someone a name, now is considered emotional abuse, or verbal abuse. Losing your temper around someone is now considered a form of emotional abuse. Speaking in sexual ways, or commenting on someone's physique, can be considered a form of sexual abuse. Failing to pay sufficient attention to your child is now considered a form of psychological abuse. Manipulating someone into doing something, such as using a guilt trip, or cutting them down so that they want to do better, is now called psychological abuse. So, I think it would be safe to say that we've gone a little crazy, overall, in terms of what we are calling 'abuse.'
That being said, the question as to whether or not an affair is a form of emotional or psychological abuse certainly deserves a fair shake.
When considering whether an affair is a form of emotional or psychological abuse, one could simply look at the end result. Does it cause psychological, emotional, or physical harm? If the answer is yes, then one could define an affair as a form of abuse. However, doesn't abuse have to be intentional in order to be considered abuse? Well, actually, no...if we only called it abuse if it was intentional, then when someone has an emotional meltdown and starts screaming, and hitting, but they really did not mean to hurt anyone, they could make the same claim. So, no, it does not have to be intended to harm...the end result just needs to be that there was harm.
Of course, you may disagree. If you have ever had an affair, it may be very disturbing to be told that you were emotionally or psychologically abusing your partner. And you could always disagree with this conceptualization. Your choice. And, one could argue that the whole societal movement to expand the definition of abuse to include many new things is absurd, or excessive. This may be a valid argument, but probably not of much use at this point, because it does appear to be a strong movement that is propelling the expansion of the definition of abuse, and this movement does not appear to be losing steam.
Can an affair be a way of intentionally causing emotional or psychological harm to a partner? Absolutely. Sometimes, affairs are a way of retaliating; what we term 'passive-aggressive.' If the one having the affair feels as if they have been mistreated, or abused, by their partner, they may have an affair as a way of evening the score, so to speak, or as a way of re-asserting their 'power' in the relationship. In that scenario, they are not necessarily attempting to end the relationship, but rather to 'get even.' Still, if the result is emotional/psychological harm, then yes, it is abuse.
In some instances, when someone has an affair, they are aware that this will potentially harm their partner, if their partner finds out, and they may actually be very careless in terms of trying to hide the affair, because they may hope, on some semi-conscious level, that their partner WILL find out about it, and WILL feel abused, so that they will end the relationship, which is what the person having the affair was hoping for. In other words, they use the affair as a tool, in part, to destroy the relationship, because they were ready for the relationship to end but did not want to take the responsibility for ending it. This is a method that people use when they are very uncomfortable seeing themselves as a mean person; ending a relationship, in their view, is mean, but 'falling in love' with someone else, while in another relationship, is merely happenstance and not at all their 'fault;' it is just fate. So, in their view, they are not mean, but rather, simply being swept away by fate. Much easier to digest, for them, although it does not change how the other person feels, and does not make the harm any easier to digest, for them.
Can an affair sometimes not be abuse? That is a more difficult question. If an affair occurred, but it did not cause any emotional/psychological harm, then one could argue that it was not abuse. And, if the affair was 'approved' by the partner, perhaps it is not abuse. However, this is a slippery slope, because even 'open marriages' or 'open' relationships can cause emotional/psychological harm, even if both were consenting, in the beginning...sometimes (maybe oftentimes) the open relationship benefits one partner more than the other, or the other partner does not feel the way they thought they would feel, and it becomes an emotionally harmful situation. So, just because there was consent, prior to the act, does not mean it is not potentially emotionally or psychologically abusive.
In general, it does seem that there is a fair amount of support for considering an affair a form of mental abuse. And, if the impact on the partner is taken into consideration, when determining how serious a form of abuse it is, then in many instances, affairs may be one of the more serious forms of abuse. And, interestingly, affairs are one of the forms of abuse that no-one seems to call abuse, and which seems to fly under the radar as nothing more than one of the risks of 'love.' Interesting.
First things first...the term 'abuse' has been used more and more, in the recent past, to the point that just about anything can, and has been, called abuse. What we used to consider relatively normal behavior, such as yelling at someone when angry, or cursing at someone, or calling someone a name, now is considered emotional abuse, or verbal abuse. Losing your temper around someone is now considered a form of emotional abuse. Speaking in sexual ways, or commenting on someone's physique, can be considered a form of sexual abuse. Failing to pay sufficient attention to your child is now considered a form of psychological abuse. Manipulating someone into doing something, such as using a guilt trip, or cutting them down so that they want to do better, is now called psychological abuse. So, I think it would be safe to say that we've gone a little crazy, overall, in terms of what we are calling 'abuse.'
That being said, the question as to whether or not an affair is a form of emotional or psychological abuse certainly deserves a fair shake.
When considering whether an affair is a form of emotional or psychological abuse, one could simply look at the end result. Does it cause psychological, emotional, or physical harm? If the answer is yes, then one could define an affair as a form of abuse. However, doesn't abuse have to be intentional in order to be considered abuse? Well, actually, no...if we only called it abuse if it was intentional, then when someone has an emotional meltdown and starts screaming, and hitting, but they really did not mean to hurt anyone, they could make the same claim. So, no, it does not have to be intended to harm...the end result just needs to be that there was harm.
Of course, you may disagree. If you have ever had an affair, it may be very disturbing to be told that you were emotionally or psychologically abusing your partner. And you could always disagree with this conceptualization. Your choice. And, one could argue that the whole societal movement to expand the definition of abuse to include many new things is absurd, or excessive. This may be a valid argument, but probably not of much use at this point, because it does appear to be a strong movement that is propelling the expansion of the definition of abuse, and this movement does not appear to be losing steam.
Can an affair be a way of intentionally causing emotional or psychological harm to a partner? Absolutely. Sometimes, affairs are a way of retaliating; what we term 'passive-aggressive.' If the one having the affair feels as if they have been mistreated, or abused, by their partner, they may have an affair as a way of evening the score, so to speak, or as a way of re-asserting their 'power' in the relationship. In that scenario, they are not necessarily attempting to end the relationship, but rather to 'get even.' Still, if the result is emotional/psychological harm, then yes, it is abuse.
In some instances, when someone has an affair, they are aware that this will potentially harm their partner, if their partner finds out, and they may actually be very careless in terms of trying to hide the affair, because they may hope, on some semi-conscious level, that their partner WILL find out about it, and WILL feel abused, so that they will end the relationship, which is what the person having the affair was hoping for. In other words, they use the affair as a tool, in part, to destroy the relationship, because they were ready for the relationship to end but did not want to take the responsibility for ending it. This is a method that people use when they are very uncomfortable seeing themselves as a mean person; ending a relationship, in their view, is mean, but 'falling in love' with someone else, while in another relationship, is merely happenstance and not at all their 'fault;' it is just fate. So, in their view, they are not mean, but rather, simply being swept away by fate. Much easier to digest, for them, although it does not change how the other person feels, and does not make the harm any easier to digest, for them.
Can an affair sometimes not be abuse? That is a more difficult question. If an affair occurred, but it did not cause any emotional/psychological harm, then one could argue that it was not abuse. And, if the affair was 'approved' by the partner, perhaps it is not abuse. However, this is a slippery slope, because even 'open marriages' or 'open' relationships can cause emotional/psychological harm, even if both were consenting, in the beginning...sometimes (maybe oftentimes) the open relationship benefits one partner more than the other, or the other partner does not feel the way they thought they would feel, and it becomes an emotionally harmful situation. So, just because there was consent, prior to the act, does not mean it is not potentially emotionally or psychologically abusive.
In general, it does seem that there is a fair amount of support for considering an affair a form of mental abuse. And, if the impact on the partner is taken into consideration, when determining how serious a form of abuse it is, then in many instances, affairs may be one of the more serious forms of abuse. And, interestingly, affairs are one of the forms of abuse that no-one seems to call abuse, and which seems to fly under the radar as nothing more than one of the risks of 'love.' Interesting.
Monday, August 1, 2016
Marital Fitness
In this day and age, with the divorce rate around 50%, and having remained steady at that level for many, many years, it seems that a reconfiguration of the entire concept of marriage may be in order. Or, more specifically, it may be that we need to reconsider where we put our energy, in regards to how we think of marriage. In the 'good old days,' theoretically speaking, when a couple made a commitment to marry, it was generally accepted that the marriage would last, and that each person in the relationship would honor their commitment for a lifetime. However, this is not necessarily the case anymore, and it seems that, at best, the odds of a couple honoring their commitment for a lifetime are 50/50.
In addition to the distress caused by a failed union, which we will discuss in more detail in a following paragraph, it is also important to consider the other ramifications of a failed union. If one were to visit a financial advisor, prior to taking the vow of marriage, it is likely they would advise against the marriage, simply because of the fact that it is a gamble with 1:1 odds. And, this gamble is not an empty gamble, from a financial point of view. When someone agrees to marry, they accept, informed or not, the potential liability involved with a failed marriage. Specifically, they agree to be indemnified for a claim for alimony that may be filed against them, as well as a claim for child support that may be filed against them. Additionally, they agree to potentially giving up half or more of their retirement, and agree to potentially giving up half or more of any assets they own.
In addition to the financial risks involved with making a marital commitment, there is the emotional risk involved. When one makes a commitment to marriage, they are bonding themselves with another individual, emotionally, and are essentially agreeing to going through any emotional difficulties their mate may have, and their mate is agreeing to go through any emotional difficulties the other is going through. As well, they are committing to the emotional stress inherent in the joining of two souls; the insecurities, the worries, the jealousy, the hurt, the losses, etc. And, should the marriage fail, they are agreeing to going through the fallout that follows a failed union; the sadness, the sense of loss, the feeling that the rug has been pulled out from under you, the feeling that of failure, the anger at the other, and potentially other emotions.
And, in addition to the emotional trauma a person experiences with a failed marriage, there is the emotional trauma on the children. Children are fairly resilient, in many instances, and thus, some may be affected more than others. For those who are affected, the damage can be substantial. The child may feel anxiety about their own relationship with either or both of the parents, because they see how a supposedly solid relationship can end, meaning perhaps the relationship with one or both of the parents could end, for them, as well. There is the sense of loss of a family unit, which can be very important for some children. As well, there is the mourning of the loss of a mother and father who are together, which turns out to be very important to many children. As well, there is the emotional stress of adapting to a two-household situation, and the emotional stress of adapting to a step-parent. Further, many parents, once divorced, cannot stop themselves from attempting to convince the child or children that the other parent is horrible in one way or another, or not worthy of respect, or fatally flawed in one or more ways, etc, and the stress to the child is tremendous.
With everything just noted, it is a wonder that the idea of marriage is still so highly thought of, and it is a wonder that people keep getting into marriages blindly. If this were a financial investment, and you were told that there was an equal chance that you could increase your financial security, or that you could lose it all, how many would jump at the chance? What is it about marriage that is so attractive that so many people get into it, despite the poor odds? Simply put, in my opinion, it is that idea of pure love, and that idea of the perfect family. The possibility of achieving that pure love, and the idea of achieving the perfect family is so enticing that people are willing to take the (very high) chance that their relationship will not work out well.
When a smart person decides to take a risk, they tend to choose educated risks. 'Educated risks' are those risks that one takes that are based on collecting as much information as possible prior to taking the risk. That is easy enough to do if you are investing money, or if you are deciding on buy a new business, or if you are choosing to purchase a house, or a car, or anything else relatively major. All you have to do is look up information on the item, which you can find online, or in a book, etc. Once you have collected all of the information you can, you then can make a decision on the risk based on the facts that you have collected. But, what about when making a decision on a marriage?
What information is needed in order to make an educated decision on a marriage? According to The Daily Beast (5/2010), some of the identified factors that increase the risk of divorce include: weekly or more frequent arguments over finances, coming from parents of divorce, coming from parents who remarried after a divorce, one being a smoker while the other is not, if both you and your partner have had previous marriages, if you are a woman 2 or more years older than your husband, if you are below average intelligence, if you have twins or triplets, if you are a female serial cohabiter (lived with more than one mate prior to marriage), and if you are in a same sex marriage (particularly female-female). According to Good Therapy.org, values and money are two of the main things that couples fight about, and regular church goers and those who made more than $125K/year had much lower divorce rates. Another factor that predicted higher divorce rates was how important one or both thought their partners' appearance was. Other factors, interestingly, according to Mary Gillen on BridalGuide.com, included how many people were at the wedding, with weddings including 150 or more people lowering the chance of divorce greatly. As well, good communication was important. Further, how many times someone has been the one to end a relationship was, not surprisingly, another factor. According to Michael Fulwiler, quoting work done by Dr. Gottman, harsh, 'grinding down' sort of arguments, coupled with failed attempts to recover from them, and a build-up of bad memories about the other, or the relationship, are predictors of divorce. It seems likely that harsh arguments are more likely to occur in situations in which values do not match up, there are huge stressors occurring in the relationship, or the behavior of one or both of the spouses is a cause for concern. Also, it has been reported that if there are significant issues in the dating relationship, prior to the marriage, the marriage is much more likely to fail. And, longer courtships seem to be predictive of a lower divorce rate. According to Grover, et al. (1985), "a longer period of dating was associated with a higher probability of a happy marriage."
In the final analysis, then, it seems that the necessary advice for a couple contemplating marriage and wanting to know whether their union will be successful, is the following:
Date for a long time (i.e., preferably more than 2 years).
Make sure you have similar values, and no values that are very important AND opposed to the other
Make sure you and your future spouse will be financially stable, and that you will have sufficient income to prevent disaster.
If you are dating someone who comes from a previous marriage, or marriages, tread carefully...they may have commitment problems. You should probably insure that you date for a long time before making the leap.
If you are dating someone who comes from a family of divorce, be forewarned: They may value commitment and the longevity of marriage less, and may be more likely to 'jump ship.' Take your time, date for a long time, and really get to know their values in that area.
If you are dating someone who has always been, or has almost always been the one to end the relationship with those they have been with in the past, be forewarned: These individuals likely take commitment less seriously, and are more likely to repeat their pattern than to change strategies.
If you are not attracted to your partner, or if your attraction waxes and wanes, AND attraction is an important value for you, do not make any long-term commitments; it is unlikely that you will be motivated to keep the commitment.
If you have significant stress in the relationship, before marriage, don't up the commitment level. The chances that it will work out are much lower. If you are determined to make the relationship work, insure that you have had a substantial amount of time (i.e., 1, 2, or more years) without any significant stress, before going to the next level.
If both you and your partner are socially isolated, or if one of you is, and the other is not, understand that this is a risk factor: People who are more socially isolated have less access to support from loved ones, and are more likely to be overly dependent on the relationship for their support. And, there may be a reason they are socially isolated, such as that they do not play well with others, which may be an indication of how things are going to go with you.
If you cannot resolve conflict well with the other person, do not make any long-term commitments until that is no longer the case, and has no longer been the case for a long time (i.e., 1 or 2 years minimum).
Also, if you want to know how your partner is going to be with you, your best predictor is how they were with the partners before you. Yes, people can change, but often they don't, and they are much less likely to change if they think they were the victim.
And, consider Murphy's Law: If it seems to good to be true, it probably is.
If you would be interested in an assessment of your relationship, contact me on my website: jgevaluations.com
References
Anneli Rufus. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/05/19/15-ways-to-predict-divorce.html (May 19, 2010).
Zawn Villines. http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/factors-that-predict-a-stable-marriage-may-surprise-you-101414 (October 14, 2014).
Mary Gillen. http://www.bridalguide.com/blogs/bridal-buzz/happy-marriage-study.
Michael Fulwiler. https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-6-things-that-predict-divorce/ October 10, 2014.
Kaja Perina. https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200305/the-success-marriage May 1, 2003.
In this day and age, with the divorce rate around 50%, and having remained steady at that level for many, many years, it seems that a reconfiguration of the entire concept of marriage may be in order. Or, more specifically, it may be that we need to reconsider where we put our energy, in regards to how we think of marriage. In the 'good old days,' theoretically speaking, when a couple made a commitment to marry, it was generally accepted that the marriage would last, and that each person in the relationship would honor their commitment for a lifetime. However, this is not necessarily the case anymore, and it seems that, at best, the odds of a couple honoring their commitment for a lifetime are 50/50.
In addition to the distress caused by a failed union, which we will discuss in more detail in a following paragraph, it is also important to consider the other ramifications of a failed union. If one were to visit a financial advisor, prior to taking the vow of marriage, it is likely they would advise against the marriage, simply because of the fact that it is a gamble with 1:1 odds. And, this gamble is not an empty gamble, from a financial point of view. When someone agrees to marry, they accept, informed or not, the potential liability involved with a failed marriage. Specifically, they agree to be indemnified for a claim for alimony that may be filed against them, as well as a claim for child support that may be filed against them. Additionally, they agree to potentially giving up half or more of their retirement, and agree to potentially giving up half or more of any assets they own.
In addition to the financial risks involved with making a marital commitment, there is the emotional risk involved. When one makes a commitment to marriage, they are bonding themselves with another individual, emotionally, and are essentially agreeing to going through any emotional difficulties their mate may have, and their mate is agreeing to go through any emotional difficulties the other is going through. As well, they are committing to the emotional stress inherent in the joining of two souls; the insecurities, the worries, the jealousy, the hurt, the losses, etc. And, should the marriage fail, they are agreeing to going through the fallout that follows a failed union; the sadness, the sense of loss, the feeling that the rug has been pulled out from under you, the feeling that of failure, the anger at the other, and potentially other emotions.
And, in addition to the emotional trauma a person experiences with a failed marriage, there is the emotional trauma on the children. Children are fairly resilient, in many instances, and thus, some may be affected more than others. For those who are affected, the damage can be substantial. The child may feel anxiety about their own relationship with either or both of the parents, because they see how a supposedly solid relationship can end, meaning perhaps the relationship with one or both of the parents could end, for them, as well. There is the sense of loss of a family unit, which can be very important for some children. As well, there is the mourning of the loss of a mother and father who are together, which turns out to be very important to many children. As well, there is the emotional stress of adapting to a two-household situation, and the emotional stress of adapting to a step-parent. Further, many parents, once divorced, cannot stop themselves from attempting to convince the child or children that the other parent is horrible in one way or another, or not worthy of respect, or fatally flawed in one or more ways, etc, and the stress to the child is tremendous.
With everything just noted, it is a wonder that the idea of marriage is still so highly thought of, and it is a wonder that people keep getting into marriages blindly. If this were a financial investment, and you were told that there was an equal chance that you could increase your financial security, or that you could lose it all, how many would jump at the chance? What is it about marriage that is so attractive that so many people get into it, despite the poor odds? Simply put, in my opinion, it is that idea of pure love, and that idea of the perfect family. The possibility of achieving that pure love, and the idea of achieving the perfect family is so enticing that people are willing to take the (very high) chance that their relationship will not work out well.
When a smart person decides to take a risk, they tend to choose educated risks. 'Educated risks' are those risks that one takes that are based on collecting as much information as possible prior to taking the risk. That is easy enough to do if you are investing money, or if you are deciding on buy a new business, or if you are choosing to purchase a house, or a car, or anything else relatively major. All you have to do is look up information on the item, which you can find online, or in a book, etc. Once you have collected all of the information you can, you then can make a decision on the risk based on the facts that you have collected. But, what about when making a decision on a marriage?
What information is needed in order to make an educated decision on a marriage? According to The Daily Beast (5/2010), some of the identified factors that increase the risk of divorce include: weekly or more frequent arguments over finances, coming from parents of divorce, coming from parents who remarried after a divorce, one being a smoker while the other is not, if both you and your partner have had previous marriages, if you are a woman 2 or more years older than your husband, if you are below average intelligence, if you have twins or triplets, if you are a female serial cohabiter (lived with more than one mate prior to marriage), and if you are in a same sex marriage (particularly female-female). According to Good Therapy.org, values and money are two of the main things that couples fight about, and regular church goers and those who made more than $125K/year had much lower divorce rates. Another factor that predicted higher divorce rates was how important one or both thought their partners' appearance was. Other factors, interestingly, according to Mary Gillen on BridalGuide.com, included how many people were at the wedding, with weddings including 150 or more people lowering the chance of divorce greatly. As well, good communication was important. Further, how many times someone has been the one to end a relationship was, not surprisingly, another factor. According to Michael Fulwiler, quoting work done by Dr. Gottman, harsh, 'grinding down' sort of arguments, coupled with failed attempts to recover from them, and a build-up of bad memories about the other, or the relationship, are predictors of divorce. It seems likely that harsh arguments are more likely to occur in situations in which values do not match up, there are huge stressors occurring in the relationship, or the behavior of one or both of the spouses is a cause for concern. Also, it has been reported that if there are significant issues in the dating relationship, prior to the marriage, the marriage is much more likely to fail. And, longer courtships seem to be predictive of a lower divorce rate. According to Grover, et al. (1985), "a longer period of dating was associated with a higher probability of a happy marriage."
In the final analysis, then, it seems that the necessary advice for a couple contemplating marriage and wanting to know whether their union will be successful, is the following:
Date for a long time (i.e., preferably more than 2 years).
Make sure you have similar values, and no values that are very important AND opposed to the other
Make sure you and your future spouse will be financially stable, and that you will have sufficient income to prevent disaster.
If you are dating someone who comes from a previous marriage, or marriages, tread carefully...they may have commitment problems. You should probably insure that you date for a long time before making the leap.
If you are dating someone who comes from a family of divorce, be forewarned: They may value commitment and the longevity of marriage less, and may be more likely to 'jump ship.' Take your time, date for a long time, and really get to know their values in that area.
If you are dating someone who has always been, or has almost always been the one to end the relationship with those they have been with in the past, be forewarned: These individuals likely take commitment less seriously, and are more likely to repeat their pattern than to change strategies.
If you are not attracted to your partner, or if your attraction waxes and wanes, AND attraction is an important value for you, do not make any long-term commitments; it is unlikely that you will be motivated to keep the commitment.
If you have significant stress in the relationship, before marriage, don't up the commitment level. The chances that it will work out are much lower. If you are determined to make the relationship work, insure that you have had a substantial amount of time (i.e., 1, 2, or more years) without any significant stress, before going to the next level.
If both you and your partner are socially isolated, or if one of you is, and the other is not, understand that this is a risk factor: People who are more socially isolated have less access to support from loved ones, and are more likely to be overly dependent on the relationship for their support. And, there may be a reason they are socially isolated, such as that they do not play well with others, which may be an indication of how things are going to go with you.
If you cannot resolve conflict well with the other person, do not make any long-term commitments until that is no longer the case, and has no longer been the case for a long time (i.e., 1 or 2 years minimum).
Also, if you want to know how your partner is going to be with you, your best predictor is how they were with the partners before you. Yes, people can change, but often they don't, and they are much less likely to change if they think they were the victim.
And, consider Murphy's Law: If it seems to good to be true, it probably is.
If you would be interested in an assessment of your relationship, contact me on my website: jgevaluations.com
References
Anneli Rufus. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/05/19/15-ways-to-predict-divorce.html (May 19, 2010).
Zawn Villines. http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/factors-that-predict-a-stable-marriage-may-surprise-you-101414 (October 14, 2014).
Mary Gillen. http://www.bridalguide.com/blogs/bridal-buzz/happy-marriage-study.
Michael Fulwiler. https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-6-things-that-predict-divorce/ October 10, 2014.
Kaja Perina. https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200305/the-success-marriage May 1, 2003.
Kelly J. Grover, Candyce S. Russell, Walter R. Schumm and Lois A. Paff-Bergen. Mate Selection Processes and Marital Satisfaction. Family Relations. Vol. 34, No. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 383-386
Sunday, July 17, 2016
FACTS AND THOUGHS ON CHEATING
At some point, after you
discover your mate is cheating on you, or that they cheated on you in the past,
you are bound to wonder what will happen next.
And, a likely question, particularly if you are considering whether to remain
in a relationship with that individual, is:
will they do it again? And, if
they have left you for the other person, will it last?
Cheating is perhaps
one of the more devastating types of betrayal we know as humans. There is something about discovering that
your mate was involved in a whole other relationship with another, while with
you, that does not feel good, and does not feel right. It is a very painful realization, and one
that may take weeks, or months, or years, or perhaps a lifetime to get
over. People often develop Posttraumatic
Relationship Disorder from these situations.
It is not unusual for
people to try to stay together, after finding out that their partner cheated on
them. However, relationships require
trust, and once that trust has been broken, it is difficult to restore. And, one of the reasons, though not the only
reason that the trust is difficult to restore is that there is this question in
the back of the persons’ mind: Will they
do it again?
There has been
research in this area, to attempt to answer this question. There is no precise answer, but there are
ways to get to the most precise answer possible. For one, knowing whether your partner will
cheat again depends on the situation in which it occurred. If your partner cheated while drunk, or
otherwise intoxicated (we will term them ‘accidental cheaters’), then the odds
are better that they might not do it again, as long as they take care of the
issue with intoxication, and address any underlying issues related to their
choice to cheat. However, if your
partner was not intoxicated when they cheated, or if they cheated over a period
of time, rather than a one-night stand, the odds are against them, and you,
regarding whether or not they will do it again.
Stated more clearly, the odds are that they will cheat again. A research study conducted by Kayla Knopp at
the University of Denver, presented at the APA Convention in 2015, indicated
that cheaters were 3.5 times more likely to cheat again, compared to
non-cheaters. And, unfortunately, people
who have been cheated on are more likely to get into another relationship where
they will be cheated on.
Some people want to
know, if their relationship ends because of this, and the cheater tries to stay
with the person they left you for, how likely is that new relationship to
last.
There is a term used
within this area of thinking:
Poaching. It is the idea that one
gained their current partner by taking them from another relationship. So, in this case, the poacher would be the
person who approached your partner, and enticed them into a relationship. According to Foster, et. Al (2014),
“individuals who were poached by their current romantic partners were less
committed, less satisfied, and less invested in their relationships. They also
paid more attention to romantic alternatives, perceived their alternatives to
be of higher quality, and engaged in higher rates of infidelity compared to
non-poached participants.” So, in other
words, the person who took your partner from you now has to worry about being
cheated on, themselves, by your partner.
And, more than likely, they WILL worry, because in the back of their
head, they remember the way they got their partner; their partner needed to
agree to leave the person they were with, through deception, in order to make
it happen, and what is to say that they will not do this again?
What was interesting
to Foster, et al (2014) was that, contrary to conventional wisdom in this area,
it was the introverts who were most likely to be ‘poachable;’ in other words,
while they may not be the ones who are the most socially connected, and may not
be the ones who most easily connect with others, they were the ones most likely
to jump at an opportunity to start a new relationship, compared to
extroverts. It may be that they realize
that, because of their introversion, they are less likely to have opportunities
to move from one relationship to another, so when one of those scarce
opportunities presents itself, they jump at it.
If you are in a
relationship with someone who cheated on you, it is probably not correct to
ask: Will they do it again? Rather, it is probably more correct to ask: Do I wish to be in a relationship in which I
will have this uncertainty indefinitely?
Some solve the problem of the uncertainty by keeping one foot out the
door, so to speak, but then the question becomes: Do I want to be in a relationship in which I
must keep one foot out the door in order to maintain my own emotional
equilibrium in this situation? As stated
before, if the affair was more than a one-night-stand, and if alcohol or drugs
cannot be used as an explanation for the infidelity (the ‘accidental cheater’),
the odds that the cheater will cheat again go up. If the cheater has a history of cheating in
past relationships, this increases the odds that they will do it again in the
future. And, if the cheaters’ attitude
towards the cheating is anything other than alarm and disgust at their own
behavior, COUPLED WITH evidence that they took serious steps to insure that
this never happened again, then the odds go up that they will in fact do it
again. So, if the cheater cheated in
another relationship in the past, and if the cheating occurred for months, and
if the cheater essentially did nothing to fix their problem (lip service to
change is not enough; there needs to be evidence for a concerted effort, such
as months of therapy, or a spiritual awakening followed by long-term commitment
to that new awakening, or something else that was rather dramatic), then more
than likely they will do it again; it is just a matter of time. Knowing this, the question you probably
should be asking yourself is: Do I want
to be in a relationship with that risk?
There are partners who
do learn to live in a relationship with that risk; probably the most successful
approach to such an individual is to expect that they will cheat, and to insure
that you are able to cope with this, emotionally, when it happens. Again, as stated before, this may mean you
have to keep one foot out the door, so that when the cheating occurs, you can
regain your equilibrium by withdrawing from the relationship for whatever
period of time you need to heal yourself.
Or, it may mean that you never agree to a monogamous relationship with
the individual, and insist that they have other partners, so that the
requirement for faithfulness is skipped.
This, of course, requires a very liberal mindset, and very liberal
boundaries in a relationship, and most people are probably not interested in such
a setup, because most people want a secure relationship where they know that
the person is there only for them.
Do you think that
cheaters suffer from attacks of conscience, or from despair about their
behavior? Do they ‘get their
karma?’ It is likely that they do
experience anxiety and despair, when they are discovered, and everything falls
apart. However, it may well be that, for
the serial cheater (as opposed to the ‘accidental cheater,’), the anxiety and
despair is because they were caught, and they know they will face anger, and
negativity, and their security and stability will likely decrease for a
while. And, now they have the memory of
a horrible situation that they must somehow figure out how to repress, or
rationalize, and they know that they will need to expend a great deal of
emotional energy adjusting their thinking so that they can return to relative
peace. As well, they are likely worried
that they are going to lose something important to them, such as possessions,
or position, or something else that they value, including even perhaps the
relationship with the person they cheated on.
It is far less likely that they are worried about losing the love of
their life, because they have already convinced themselves that this is what
they will be getting from the new person, rather than from their established
relationship. And, while it may be
distressing for them to see their established partner in emotional pain, it is
more than likely because they do not want to have to deal with this, rather
than that they empathize with their partner.
One of the reasons that serial cheaters are serial cheaters is that they
cannot love in the true sense of the word, and thus do not have that barrier to
hurting another that someone who loves has.
What they call love is actually infatuation, or excitement over newness,
or the passion of having a new lover, or the acquisition of yet another person
in their life who craves them. They
confuse this feeling with the feeling of genuine love, and often do not seem to
learn, despite multiple journeys down the same road, that they will never
experience genuine love through this process.
In some ways, it is a sad life, because the serial cheater leaves behind
them a path of destruction in relationships, builds up a list of enemies who
may wish them harm, and never experience that feeling of true love that keeps
you warm at night and gives you hope that life will get better and better as we
go on.
What do
you get when you make somebody else’s partner your own? An analysis of
relationships formed via mate poaching.
Foster,
Joshua D.; Jonason, Peter K.; Shrira, Ilan; Campbell, W. Keith; Shiverdecker,
Levi K.; Varner, Sydneyjane C.
Journal of
Research in Personality, Vol 52, Oct 2014, 78-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.008
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Hope
If there is one feeling, or one concept that is more important than most, or even the most important one, it would be HOPE. If you think about it, hope is very necessary for a person to be able to go on, and the thing that is missing when someone gives up on life. It is the hope that goals will be achieved, or that there will be something beautiful or wonderful in the future, or that happiness is just around the corner, or that love is just around the bend, or that fortune, or fame, or something else good or wonderful is coming soon, that keeps a person going. When we need to give ourselves a reason to get up in the morning, or to go to work, or to do anything other than simply sit there and vegetate, it is hope that motivates us...hope for something.
It may sound like a simple thing, this thing we call hope, but it is essential. Without hope, we are lost.
If there is one feeling, or one concept that is more important than most, or even the most important one, it would be HOPE. If you think about it, hope is very necessary for a person to be able to go on, and the thing that is missing when someone gives up on life. It is the hope that goals will be achieved, or that there will be something beautiful or wonderful in the future, or that happiness is just around the corner, or that love is just around the bend, or that fortune, or fame, or something else good or wonderful is coming soon, that keeps a person going. When we need to give ourselves a reason to get up in the morning, or to go to work, or to do anything other than simply sit there and vegetate, it is hope that motivates us...hope for something.
It may sound like a simple thing, this thing we call hope, but it is essential. Without hope, we are lost.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
What is Love?
This is another in what may perhaps become a series on Love. I think that our society, and perhaps other societies, have an idealized view of love, or promote an idealized view of love, that simply is not obtainable on a permanent basis. In my humble opinion, Love is a crescendo of emotions, brought on by a complex combination of emotions one feels for a person. It is likely a combination of 'like,' respect, caring, interest, a feeling of being 'in sync' with the person, physical attraction, and appreciation/gratitude. I do not think that 'true love' is something that starts with a bang, but rather, something that ends with a bang, decades later, when one or both die after years together.
There is another idea of love that has been promoted heavily for decades now; it is the idea of being 'in love.' The problem with that ideal, however, is that it is short-lived. By definition, puppy love, or infatuation, or 'falling in love' is a intense, passionate, but also very temporary feeling that comes about because the person, at least for a little while, sees the other through idealistic lenses, and thus does not have a realistic appraisal of the other. As a result, they skip over the 'like' requirement, or the 'respect' requirement, or the 'caring' requirement, or perhaps even the feeling of being 'in sync,' and rely primarily on interest, physical attraction, and appreciation/gratitude. The problem with that is, as the person slowly comes out of the spell, and begins to make a realistic appraisal of their mate, there may be problems with respect, or with 'like,' or with being able to be 'in sync,' etc. As such, the relationship dies, because it was based on a foundation of quicksand, and was essentially doomed from the start.
Another thought: One cannot love someone if one cannot feel love. This may sound to be a simple truth, but the fact of the matter is, many people cannot feel true love. If you are curious as to what this feels like, it is probably the most like the feeling one has for their child, although, again, there are many people who cannot truly feel love for their child, so that may not even be a useful comparison for some. That feeling of love, which perhaps begins as a crescendo within the person, and not because they were already loving someone else, but because they have reached a point in their emotional evolution that they are able to experience such a feeling, is the necessary basic component of loving someone else. If one is not able to feel that feeling of love (and I'm not talking about infatuation), then they cannot truly love another. Oftentimes, people struggle to feel that feeling of love because of their own emotional issues; they may have negative emotions blocking the feeling, or emotional control problems (overcontrol, undercontrol) that make it hard for them to know what the feeling feels like. Also, if someone is raised with an example of love that is skewed, or incorrect, they may not even know how to recognize the true feeling of love, and may have no clue how to get to that feeling. And, many parents confuse their children by telling them that they love them, when in fact they do not, and the child grows up convinced that that 'not love' feeling that they feel is what love is.
I submit to you that one cannot truly love another, in the manner necessary to insure that a marriage will last to the end, or in a manner necessary to insure that the connection with your child continues to the end, unless you know what true love feels like, and unless you are able to consistently feel this feeling. And, it seems, in this day and age, that the true feeling of love is much less prevalent than in the past, because we are all searching for that feeling of infatuation, and rejecting anything that does not meet that feeling. In other words, because of our skewed definition of what love is, we are dooming ourselves to a live of insecurity and frequent transitions, as we 'fall out of love' and move on, again and again, to the next unhealthy relationship.
This is another in what may perhaps become a series on Love. I think that our society, and perhaps other societies, have an idealized view of love, or promote an idealized view of love, that simply is not obtainable on a permanent basis. In my humble opinion, Love is a crescendo of emotions, brought on by a complex combination of emotions one feels for a person. It is likely a combination of 'like,' respect, caring, interest, a feeling of being 'in sync' with the person, physical attraction, and appreciation/gratitude. I do not think that 'true love' is something that starts with a bang, but rather, something that ends with a bang, decades later, when one or both die after years together.
There is another idea of love that has been promoted heavily for decades now; it is the idea of being 'in love.' The problem with that ideal, however, is that it is short-lived. By definition, puppy love, or infatuation, or 'falling in love' is a intense, passionate, but also very temporary feeling that comes about because the person, at least for a little while, sees the other through idealistic lenses, and thus does not have a realistic appraisal of the other. As a result, they skip over the 'like' requirement, or the 'respect' requirement, or the 'caring' requirement, or perhaps even the feeling of being 'in sync,' and rely primarily on interest, physical attraction, and appreciation/gratitude. The problem with that is, as the person slowly comes out of the spell, and begins to make a realistic appraisal of their mate, there may be problems with respect, or with 'like,' or with being able to be 'in sync,' etc. As such, the relationship dies, because it was based on a foundation of quicksand, and was essentially doomed from the start.
Another thought: One cannot love someone if one cannot feel love. This may sound to be a simple truth, but the fact of the matter is, many people cannot feel true love. If you are curious as to what this feels like, it is probably the most like the feeling one has for their child, although, again, there are many people who cannot truly feel love for their child, so that may not even be a useful comparison for some. That feeling of love, which perhaps begins as a crescendo within the person, and not because they were already loving someone else, but because they have reached a point in their emotional evolution that they are able to experience such a feeling, is the necessary basic component of loving someone else. If one is not able to feel that feeling of love (and I'm not talking about infatuation), then they cannot truly love another. Oftentimes, people struggle to feel that feeling of love because of their own emotional issues; they may have negative emotions blocking the feeling, or emotional control problems (overcontrol, undercontrol) that make it hard for them to know what the feeling feels like. Also, if someone is raised with an example of love that is skewed, or incorrect, they may not even know how to recognize the true feeling of love, and may have no clue how to get to that feeling. And, many parents confuse their children by telling them that they love them, when in fact they do not, and the child grows up convinced that that 'not love' feeling that they feel is what love is.
I submit to you that one cannot truly love another, in the manner necessary to insure that a marriage will last to the end, or in a manner necessary to insure that the connection with your child continues to the end, unless you know what true love feels like, and unless you are able to consistently feel this feeling. And, it seems, in this day and age, that the true feeling of love is much less prevalent than in the past, because we are all searching for that feeling of infatuation, and rejecting anything that does not meet that feeling. In other words, because of our skewed definition of what love is, we are dooming ourselves to a live of insecurity and frequent transitions, as we 'fall out of love' and move on, again and again, to the next unhealthy relationship.
Monday, July 4, 2016
IS DIVORCE (SOMETIMES) ABUSE?
I would suggest reading my previous post, regarding Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder (PTRD) before reading this post. It points out how a person can be traumatized by the ending of a relationship, which then sets the stage for considering whether or not divorce can be a form of abuse.
Before going any further, please understand that the views expressed in this blog entry, and in my blog, in general, are my views, and my opinions, and as such, not necessarily reflective of mainstream thought in psychology, or mainstream thought, in general. Also, I admit to choosing a somewhat provocative title, deliberately, because I would like to, well, provoke thought. I understand there are other viewpoints, and I welcome you to express those.
In considering the question, I think it is first important to consider what we define as abuse. When you type in the word "abuse" in Google, Merriam-Webster does not have a definition of abuse that accounts for emotional or psychological abuse. However, Wikipedia does have such a definition. According to Wikipedia, Psychological abuse (also referred to as psychological violence, emotional abuse or mental abuse) is a form of abuse, characterized by a person subjecting, or exposing, another person to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder.[1][2][3]
Based on this definition, it does not seem a stretch to conclude that divorce can, at least in some situations, be a form of psychological abuse, because it often results in psychological trauma, such as anxiety, or chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (or what has been referred to as Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder). The reason that I say that it is "at least in some situations," is that there are times when it is quite clear to anyone who analyzes the situation that a divorce was the proper approach to the situation, because the other person in the relationship was a victim of terroristic behavior (i.e. physical abuse, sexual abuse, significant emotional abuse, etc). However, there are other times when it is not so clear, and in such cases, I believe it is fair game to consider the possibility that the person doing the divorce is being psychologically or emotionally abusive.
I think, before going any further, it is important to reflect on our current definition of psychological abuse. It used to be that the definition was very narrow...perhaps it was only used in situations in which the victim was subjected to extreme emotional stress, such as perhaps that which might occur in a torture situation, or in an extreme interrogation session, etc. However, as we, as a society, have explored this topic more, we have come up with a broader, and more inclusive definition of psychological abuse. Now, it can be considered psychological abuse if a parent neglects their child, for instance neglecting to act when their child is being bullied in school, or neglecting to act when their child is being put under emotional stress by the other parent, or by another person, etc. And, it is considered emotionally or psychologically abusive to call someone a bad name, or to tease them mercilessly, or to bully them verbally. Racism, or other types of 'isms' can also be forms of psychological abuse. If you agree with that, then it seems that we now consider it psychological abuse if we behave in a manner that causes the other to experience unnecessary or extreme emotional pain. And, in your personal life, I am sure you can probably come up with other examples of what you would consider psychological or emotional abuse. Or, perhaps you can think of a situation in our society, or somewhere in the world, where there is psychological or emotional abuse that has not been identified as of yet, or even that which has already been identified, but which was not mentioned here.
If one accepts that psychological abuse can come in various forms, and that it should be considered a possibility when the effect of the action of one person is that the other person is traumatized, then one may also want to consider that divorce can be, at least in some situations, a form of psychological abuse.
In many of the cases that I've come across, one of the people in the relationship does not want the divorce, while the other does. We, as a society, have come to a point that divorce is an accepted part of a relationship; the legal system supports divorce, there is not a lot of resistance, on a society level, to divorce, and it is considered to be an acceptable solution to difficulties in a marriage. No-one has to get approval for a divorce; one can get one even if the other person does not want it, and it is actually considered rather inappropriate or even sadistic to require a person to remain in a marriage if they want a divorce. So, from a societal point of view, nothing is stopping someone from getting a divorce. The sentiment is, I believe, that if it feels as if that is the right thing to do, then so be it.
However, what of the person who does not want the divorce? What do we think, or feel, for that person? Do we tell ourselves 'Well, they probably deserved it' and write it off in that manner? Or, do we say, of the person who initiated the divorce, 'Good for them for not staying in a bad situation?' Or, do we feel sadness for them, or does our heart go out for them? Perhaps we make our decision about how to feel based on the information we have about the divorce. If it sounds as if the person who did not want the divorce was a nasty person, then perhaps we feel no empathy for them, and decide they got what they deserved. If it sounds as if the person who initiated the divorce was a victim, we may cheer for them and feel the other person was just getting their karma. There are probably many ways in which we justify divorces, or absolve the person who initiated the divorce of any responsibility. And, as I am sure some of you will argue, there are times when that is completely appropriate, and where there should be sympathy for the 'victim' and no sympathy for the 'perpetrator.' However, in some of the other situations, is it fair to perhaps see the person who initiates the divorce as being the perpetrator, and the other person as being the victim? And, in those cases, does it make sense that the person may develop Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder?
Some people use leaving, or ending a relationship, as a form of retaliation. This seems to be an incontrovertible thought, in this writers' opinion, though certainly I am willing to entertain alternate viewpoints. In my opinion, there are some who will 'punish' the other person for whatever slights or transgressions they have committed by withdrawing from the relationship. And, in some instances, they do so by beginning another relationship while still in the marriage, and use their dissatisfaction with their mate as the justification for doing so; in other words, they let themselves off the hook for behavior that traumatizes the other, because they feel the other 'deserved' it. However, cut the picture in half, and look only at how the 'leaver' is behaving towards their mate, and what do you see? Cruel, uncaring, traumatizing behavior. So, does the end justify the means?
I believe, in the final analysis, that anytime we get to a point, as a society, that we can brush aside trauma as being 'deserved' or 'expected' or necessary, then we become a bit more calloused, and a bit more cruel, and a bit more like those who we do not want to be like. And, while one may tell oneself that it is ok for them to be that way, because of the circumstances, it is still cruelty, and it is still traumatizing.
One of the reasons it seems that this is a valid point of view is that the aftermath seems to be consistent with trauma. In all too many cases, after a divorce, there is a protracted war of tit for tat. One person fires the first shot, and the other returns fire, and this continues, back and forth, back and forth, sometimes for years. The former couple uses the children, money, or property to harm the other, in this perpetual game of attack and retaliation. And, if one traces the conflict back to its roots, at least in some instances, it starts with one of the people in the relationship feeling as if they have been harmed, and then justifying retaliation as the appropriate reaction to being harmed. But in the process, what terrible things each person can do: I have seen cases where the children are used as weapons to get at the other, perhaps by not letting the other see their kids, or perhaps by poisoning the children's thinking about the other, or perhaps by attempting to use custody limitations as a form of retaliation. I have seen couples work hard to assassinate the character of the other, and who have done dastardly deeds in the name of being a victim. I have seen couples who abuse the court system, with attacks and retaliation occurring between lawyers, over and over and over. It seems clear to me, then, that there is deep hurt, and one person or both giving themselves permission to be cruel or terrible to the other, based on how they feel they were a victim. So, it seems that if someone is convinced they are a victim of the other, such as if they have Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder, they do not feel any guilt for engaging in cruel, retaliatory behavior that they would otherwise find to be very wrong.
The solution? That is not so easy. We live in a country where free will is valued above most other things. No-one should be forced, in my opinion, to remain in a situation they want desperately to escape. However, I do believe we should raise our children to think in conciliatory ways, and we should teach them how to express themselves, set limits, and how to take care of themselves in a relationship, so that hopefully they do not reach a point that they feel they are a victim, or do not get to a point that they are a victim. And, we should encourage them to think with caution when they begin to describe themselves as a victim, because there are situations in which it takes two to tango, and they should be aware of their side of the dance. And, we should encourage our children not to go from feeling a victim, to giving themselves permission to be cruel, without at least some thought, and without at least some consideration of alternative approaches. And, for ourselves, I think it is wise to attempt to devise methods of coping that do not involve cruelty, and that do not traumatize others, regardless of our justification. And, when possible, we should make amends, with amends being more than just lip service to an ideal. And, we would be wise to remember the saying that is popular in 12-Step programs: Wherever you go, there you are.
I would suggest reading my previous post, regarding Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder (PTRD) before reading this post. It points out how a person can be traumatized by the ending of a relationship, which then sets the stage for considering whether or not divorce can be a form of abuse.
Before going any further, please understand that the views expressed in this blog entry, and in my blog, in general, are my views, and my opinions, and as such, not necessarily reflective of mainstream thought in psychology, or mainstream thought, in general. Also, I admit to choosing a somewhat provocative title, deliberately, because I would like to, well, provoke thought. I understand there are other viewpoints, and I welcome you to express those.
In considering the question, I think it is first important to consider what we define as abuse. When you type in the word "abuse" in Google, Merriam-Webster does not have a definition of abuse that accounts for emotional or psychological abuse. However, Wikipedia does have such a definition. According to Wikipedia, Psychological abuse (also referred to as psychological violence, emotional abuse or mental abuse) is a form of abuse, characterized by a person subjecting, or exposing, another person to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder.[1][2][3]
Based on this definition, it does not seem a stretch to conclude that divorce can, at least in some situations, be a form of psychological abuse, because it often results in psychological trauma, such as anxiety, or chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (or what has been referred to as Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder). The reason that I say that it is "at least in some situations," is that there are times when it is quite clear to anyone who analyzes the situation that a divorce was the proper approach to the situation, because the other person in the relationship was a victim of terroristic behavior (i.e. physical abuse, sexual abuse, significant emotional abuse, etc). However, there are other times when it is not so clear, and in such cases, I believe it is fair game to consider the possibility that the person doing the divorce is being psychologically or emotionally abusive.
I think, before going any further, it is important to reflect on our current definition of psychological abuse. It used to be that the definition was very narrow...perhaps it was only used in situations in which the victim was subjected to extreme emotional stress, such as perhaps that which might occur in a torture situation, or in an extreme interrogation session, etc. However, as we, as a society, have explored this topic more, we have come up with a broader, and more inclusive definition of psychological abuse. Now, it can be considered psychological abuse if a parent neglects their child, for instance neglecting to act when their child is being bullied in school, or neglecting to act when their child is being put under emotional stress by the other parent, or by another person, etc. And, it is considered emotionally or psychologically abusive to call someone a bad name, or to tease them mercilessly, or to bully them verbally. Racism, or other types of 'isms' can also be forms of psychological abuse. If you agree with that, then it seems that we now consider it psychological abuse if we behave in a manner that causes the other to experience unnecessary or extreme emotional pain. And, in your personal life, I am sure you can probably come up with other examples of what you would consider psychological or emotional abuse. Or, perhaps you can think of a situation in our society, or somewhere in the world, where there is psychological or emotional abuse that has not been identified as of yet, or even that which has already been identified, but which was not mentioned here.
If one accepts that psychological abuse can come in various forms, and that it should be considered a possibility when the effect of the action of one person is that the other person is traumatized, then one may also want to consider that divorce can be, at least in some situations, a form of psychological abuse.
In many of the cases that I've come across, one of the people in the relationship does not want the divorce, while the other does. We, as a society, have come to a point that divorce is an accepted part of a relationship; the legal system supports divorce, there is not a lot of resistance, on a society level, to divorce, and it is considered to be an acceptable solution to difficulties in a marriage. No-one has to get approval for a divorce; one can get one even if the other person does not want it, and it is actually considered rather inappropriate or even sadistic to require a person to remain in a marriage if they want a divorce. So, from a societal point of view, nothing is stopping someone from getting a divorce. The sentiment is, I believe, that if it feels as if that is the right thing to do, then so be it.
However, what of the person who does not want the divorce? What do we think, or feel, for that person? Do we tell ourselves 'Well, they probably deserved it' and write it off in that manner? Or, do we say, of the person who initiated the divorce, 'Good for them for not staying in a bad situation?' Or, do we feel sadness for them, or does our heart go out for them? Perhaps we make our decision about how to feel based on the information we have about the divorce. If it sounds as if the person who did not want the divorce was a nasty person, then perhaps we feel no empathy for them, and decide they got what they deserved. If it sounds as if the person who initiated the divorce was a victim, we may cheer for them and feel the other person was just getting their karma. There are probably many ways in which we justify divorces, or absolve the person who initiated the divorce of any responsibility. And, as I am sure some of you will argue, there are times when that is completely appropriate, and where there should be sympathy for the 'victim' and no sympathy for the 'perpetrator.' However, in some of the other situations, is it fair to perhaps see the person who initiates the divorce as being the perpetrator, and the other person as being the victim? And, in those cases, does it make sense that the person may develop Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder?
Some people use leaving, or ending a relationship, as a form of retaliation. This seems to be an incontrovertible thought, in this writers' opinion, though certainly I am willing to entertain alternate viewpoints. In my opinion, there are some who will 'punish' the other person for whatever slights or transgressions they have committed by withdrawing from the relationship. And, in some instances, they do so by beginning another relationship while still in the marriage, and use their dissatisfaction with their mate as the justification for doing so; in other words, they let themselves off the hook for behavior that traumatizes the other, because they feel the other 'deserved' it. However, cut the picture in half, and look only at how the 'leaver' is behaving towards their mate, and what do you see? Cruel, uncaring, traumatizing behavior. So, does the end justify the means?
I believe, in the final analysis, that anytime we get to a point, as a society, that we can brush aside trauma as being 'deserved' or 'expected' or necessary, then we become a bit more calloused, and a bit more cruel, and a bit more like those who we do not want to be like. And, while one may tell oneself that it is ok for them to be that way, because of the circumstances, it is still cruelty, and it is still traumatizing.
One of the reasons it seems that this is a valid point of view is that the aftermath seems to be consistent with trauma. In all too many cases, after a divorce, there is a protracted war of tit for tat. One person fires the first shot, and the other returns fire, and this continues, back and forth, back and forth, sometimes for years. The former couple uses the children, money, or property to harm the other, in this perpetual game of attack and retaliation. And, if one traces the conflict back to its roots, at least in some instances, it starts with one of the people in the relationship feeling as if they have been harmed, and then justifying retaliation as the appropriate reaction to being harmed. But in the process, what terrible things each person can do: I have seen cases where the children are used as weapons to get at the other, perhaps by not letting the other see their kids, or perhaps by poisoning the children's thinking about the other, or perhaps by attempting to use custody limitations as a form of retaliation. I have seen couples work hard to assassinate the character of the other, and who have done dastardly deeds in the name of being a victim. I have seen couples who abuse the court system, with attacks and retaliation occurring between lawyers, over and over and over. It seems clear to me, then, that there is deep hurt, and one person or both giving themselves permission to be cruel or terrible to the other, based on how they feel they were a victim. So, it seems that if someone is convinced they are a victim of the other, such as if they have Posttraumatic Relationship Disorder, they do not feel any guilt for engaging in cruel, retaliatory behavior that they would otherwise find to be very wrong.
The solution? That is not so easy. We live in a country where free will is valued above most other things. No-one should be forced, in my opinion, to remain in a situation they want desperately to escape. However, I do believe we should raise our children to think in conciliatory ways, and we should teach them how to express themselves, set limits, and how to take care of themselves in a relationship, so that hopefully they do not reach a point that they feel they are a victim, or do not get to a point that they are a victim. And, we should encourage them to think with caution when they begin to describe themselves as a victim, because there are situations in which it takes two to tango, and they should be aware of their side of the dance. And, we should encourage our children not to go from feeling a victim, to giving themselves permission to be cruel, without at least some thought, and without at least some consideration of alternative approaches. And, for ourselves, I think it is wise to attempt to devise methods of coping that do not involve cruelty, and that do not traumatize others, regardless of our justification. And, when possible, we should make amends, with amends being more than just lip service to an ideal. And, we would be wise to remember the saying that is popular in 12-Step programs: Wherever you go, there you are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)