Just to follow up on my post from yesterday. See below for my email and a follow up response from the MC. Let me know your thoughts. I guess I have trouble trusting my own judgement these days.
**************************************************
My Email
As I said in my last email, I am truly dumbfounded by your response. I think that the phrase that really clinched it for me though was:
Affairs only happen in marriages where communication is not possible.
That is one hell of a presumptuous assumption to be making. Maybe that was the cause of my husband's affair - but I am sure that there are plenty of marriages out there with good communication where affairs still happen (for all sorts of reasons). Finally, affairs happen because people make choices on how to handle situations that may not be ideal. I will not accept even 1% of the blame for WH's choice.
At this point, I am comfortable saying that I will not be coming to marriage counseling again and will also recommend that WH seek a new counselor who may have a more reasonable perspective.
**************************************************
MC's Response
Who asked you to accept blame for WH's choice? That is logically impossible. Did you read my point about marital breakdown not being an issue of blame? That the only way , in your marriage, that you each know how to hear each other or to talk to each other involves blame ...and, blame is toxic and a dead end?
Your marriage is in crisis. Your family is at stake. I don't need to tell you that. And, you remained fixed in your insistence that we approach the crisis as a question of blame. You are certain it is only an issue of blame, and WH's choice and behavior is 100% immoral in your beliefs....and, so he bears 100% blame for both ...both...for his choice/behavior (where you are 100% correct) and for the crisis in your marriage (where you are quite incorrect). The second part is impossible because marriage is a joint enterprise and the dynamics that ensue (including cases of total breakdown in communication) happen in the space "between" two people. Two people with their own, distinct, and apparently incompatible subjectivities. There are two subjects in a marriage not just an "I".
You effectively demean yourself to reduce your self to "a victim" in your marriage. You are very much more than that. And, if you won't let yourself be more than that in the marriage, then it is obviously over. There is no marriage possible between a all-responsible and all-powerful perpetrator and a spouse who is nothing other than a powerless and impact-less victim. Victims have no power, no depth, no will, no complexity, no effect on others. Truly. It is a horrible way to reduce a person...in this case yourself. WH lied and betrayed you continuously but he did not make you a victim. You insist on making that of yourself. For, if you insist that WH is nothing more than a criminal and you are a totally un-implicated bystander of an assault...then you will make yourself the opposite pole, a powerless and totally -reduced being that has become "victim" as the cornerstone of her identity in the marriage.
That path will mean that your marriage will end as I wrote you ...with you building a stronger and stronger prosecutorial case against an absolutely and 100% uncaring monster who you are certain has no capacity to ever learn to love . He doesn't know how to love you, nor do you know how to love him. This is not engaging in any hope for healing, it is 100% adversarial. If you remain here ...then, you need to take this to a lawyer. For...you must agree...you cannot prosecute and sentence in your own case, as victim # so and so. You need lawyers to fight that case, and you will surely find a capable one willing to build the case with you.
In the end, you will have the pleasure of tremendous, righteous rage and of lasting bitter anger that can't be metabolized. You will have missed an enormous opportunity to believe in yourself and in your marriage to grow and to heal. And, the children will undoubtedly suffer psychological consequences. Whenever there is this degree of animosity and polarization in the story of a marriage, the children will be more adversely affected than if their parents can find the resources to remain engaged in dialogue as adults in crisis, with professional help, even if they opt for divorce. They will have a monster as a father and a rageful and bitter mother. They will be forced to choose sides since the story is presented as having no complexity and no true "subjectivity"...their parents are reduced to just a two-dimensional victim and criminal. And the air remains poisoned with rage. This harms children, period.
If you insist on nothing else but this story of your marriage, a tale of all good and all evil, of all powerful and determinant and all powerless and victimized, you can never never re-construct a marriage...and here I mean, never....no matter how much responsibility/percent-culpability you could get WH to own and how much payment of damages you could extract. Victim and perpetrator will never be a marriage.
Indeed, I will retract "only" from the quote you highlight in your email. In a logical argument, one should never talk about "every" and "always". I apologize for that. The description about possible communication characterizes most of the couples who come to therapy, either after an affair, or not. That is what I can say without over-statement. Good call on that one.
I'm curious about your bafflement. You didn't recognize any similarities between your marriage and the reasoning I laid out regarding a mutually encountered impossibility of understanding each other ? A marriage where the partners have been emotionally distant and disengaged for years a marriage of silences and avoidance a marriage with what seems/seemed like unbridgeable gaps in understanding the other a marriage with simmering rage and disaffection a marriage of hopeless feelings?
Of course you don't have to return to see me, and I will respect that decision. I pledge to say/write no more. I have said my piece. But, if you both do decide that I might be able to help, then, I would be glad to remain involved as the couple therapist...as WH'a therapist if he so chooses...or, as nobody's therapist as you indicate you are feeling right now.
Think a bit, BS, of the time and effort I have chosen to invest in these communications today and see if you can muster a smidgen of doubt about my true intentions. If I wanted to be an advocate and supporter of WH at your expense, would I need to communicate with you about what I see happening to you? Spend half of my day for research and writing (about the nature of subjectivity and about the issues around sex and fidelity in marriage) writing to you? I could bad-mouth you all I wanted in my office with WH alone if I wanted to take his side and incite him and if I wanted to try to influence in a direction so that the marriage has no chance. I haven't sent WH any bcc of these emails. I have been talking impassioned just to you because I see you making your life worse. I came home from Shabbat services intending to try to follow the injunction to rest, because I don't. And, I answered you because I am upset , BS. You can tell I am upset. But, you will probably be certain that my upset is animosity towards you, that I have malevolent intent towards you. If I felt animosity, BS, I would never give you my time and passionate entreaties as I have today. It is easier to give not a speck of energy nor a speck of valuable caring to someone you feel so critical of or so much animosity towards. That is also the case between you and WH, by the way. There is a ton of caring still invested and buried behind the rage. Maybe I am giving voice to the caring that neither of you can express towards each other. Or, maybe, you will think, I am an incompetent and arrogant ass who couldn't care less about you? Probably what you will conclude. If so, that is a shame. I doubled down on my highly unusual means of trying to resuscitate this marriage....I've written you again and more impassioned. You will feel you know what I really am trying to do...to exonerate WH at your expense. You will think what you want. I have no more to say, finally.
[This message edited by Ivyivy at 8:45 AM, February 27th, 2014 (Thursday)]