SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

StillGoing, The orange is not literally an orange; rather the orange is simply a metaphor for whatever "need" your partner has expresses.

The orange compilation were more than 20 different SI members, both male and female, frustrated because their individual need (a figurative orange) were going unmet.

I mean if you had a fruit basket, garden and pastry shop that he brought, planted and built, why not just go get the orange yourself and enjoy it alongside the other shit? Not trying to be a prick, I truly do not understand.

Why? Because there is one, very specific thing that make me feel more appreciated than others; your "orange" is when when when your wife proudly brags about you to others about how awesome you are. Your "orange" is public admiration.

[This message edited by ladies_first at 8:11 AM, August 15th (Thursday)]

I read The Five Love Languages. My H only read part of it. With us, the benefits came when recognized and acknowledged how the other one was loving us in their love language, while also choosing to do what was unnatural to us to please the other in their language. It’s not easy. We need to make a conscious effort all the time. But it is easier and becoming my natural than before.

Yes, but the garden and pasty shop are ways she tries to show me love and she has a real difficulty that is not a personal issue about me, providing that orange.

If she was handing out oranges on the street to everybody like your H was hiding them in the car, that's entirely different IMO. It's not about can't, it's about won't, and deliberately and knowingly at that.

Most of us get hit with this stuff - lets use your orange scenario. Lets say your H wasn't a dick and really didn't have any oranges and to get one had to climb the tallest mountain in the world to get the one orange that grew once a year. Sometimes the orange wasn't there, or he fucked up trying to get it, but he built all that other shit because he loves you. Yes, fantasy situation, not saying that is the case for you.

So, pissed off that you don't have oranges, surrounded by things others would view as lavish gifts, you decide that since he can't get you some oranges you go to some other dude for them. They're rotten or squishy or nasty but he's giving you oranges.

Most of us getting hit with the emotional needs bullshit get hit like that. Your H is deliberately withholding that stuff and that is pure, unbridled selfish assholishness. It's that in your situation, he's using you to get what he wants without having to give something in return.

I can live without oranges if there's other fruit she's giving me (wow that got euphemistic), but I would not live without them while she was giving them out to someone else.

These things aren't one-offs where she says "Please get me flowers" - they're more akin to "Please bring me little gifts." That is a lot more than just remembering to buy shit once in awhile, it requires a thought mode that may be completely alien to an individual. Not bringing the occasional small gift isn't a powerful and destructive message unless it is read as such.

Let's say your boss is not an email person, but email is your preferred method of communication. If your boss said, "I dislike email, StillGoing, I just want you to stop by HQ occasionally and give me a verbal progress report." Well, a verbal progress report requires a thought mode that may be completely alien to your written cognitive skills. If your boss repeatedly asks for a verbal progress report, what are you going to do?

"Yes, but..."

That means you are verbally discounting my need for an orange.

Yes, I know you need an orange, BUT now I'm going to TELL YOU why I don't need an orange!

Most of us get hit with this stuff - lets use your orange scenario. Lets say your H wasn't a dick and really didn't have any oranges and to get one had to climb the tallest mountain in the world to get the one orange that grew once a year. Sometimes the orange wasn't there, or he fucked up trying to get it, but he built all that other shit because he loves you. Yes, fantasy situation, not saying that is the case for you.

I never asked him to climb the tallest mountain in the world for the PERFECT orange.

I want an orange. A simple orange. A grocery store orange (like grocery store flowers). I would be happy with any orange HE gave me. *I DON'T WANT THAT OTHER SHIT HE BUILT.*

[This message edited by ladies_first at 8:38 AM, August 15th (Thursday)]

I mean if you had a fruit basket, garden and pastry shop that he brought, planted and built, why not just go get the orange yourself and enjoy it alongside the other shit? Not trying to be a prick, I truly do not understand.

Is that really what you want me to do? You want me to go get an orange from another man, and enjoy it alongside all the stuff my H is giving me?

If the orange is a euphemism for sex, then, no, you shouldn't be getting that elsewhere. If the orange is an orange, there's no reason to starve just because your spouse can't or won't provide the orange.

I think that's where the discussion centers. Is your need for the orange so overwhelming that you can't live without it? Can you substitute another fruit? Or is that you feel that by not providing the orange, you spouse is devaluing your need? Anyway you answer, it still comes down to your "need" not being met. There are always alternatives to going out and getting fruit from another person. So, having your emotional need go unmet doesn't give you the right to cheat. At that point it's just an excuse. And a bad one at that.

Never read the love language book. Never will. Are you serious with that, Clark? Gifts is a love language?

What if the "gift" is "you're" still breathing? I wonder how much self inventory plays a role in some of this. I know I'm not in any way easy to be with. I acknowledge that fact up front. Cigarettes have warning labels. It's only fair.

I also know what I can offer. I work on what I don't like.

I believe that another can very much impact us. Why else would this site exist? There are people in excrutiating pain from a partners actions and inactions. If happiness was only our individual bailiwick how would this be true?

What I don't understand is marrying someone with a laundry list of things they aren't. If "you" love affection why on earth would "you" marry someone that isn't comfortable displaying it? You set up a "you're wrong" dynamic from the beginning.

The converse is also true. If you go into a marriage one way (enjoyment of sex, affectionate verbally and physically) you don't get to unilaterally pull that off the table or make the partner believe they have to keep "paying" for it. "If he/she would do more around the house"...what? If you're like that before you meet them how they hell are you not after and why is contribution to house work (especially if the criteria of cleanliness is yours and yours alone) somehow currency now? Did they clean your apartment when y'all were dating? Did you feel you needed to have all your shots when you went over to theirs? Where is the disconnect or shock if cleanliness is several tomes away from anything remotely resembling godliness after "I do"?

I guess what I will never understand is why the shopping list seems to grow after marriage. Isn't dating when all that is relevant? I'd be pretty pissed if my job now required Japanese when I showed up to work after that little detail was nowhere in my job discription or on my resume when I applied.

That's great in theory, uncertainone, but we all know the reality. When you're dating, you're on your best behavior. You don't leave your dirty socks lying on her living room floor. You don't belch at the table.

Once you're married, and the "honeymoon"is over, you are more comfortable and secure, so you come to the breakfast table in curlers or you don't clean the breakfast dishes til you're preparing supper.

And in actuality, people's needs change as they grow and mature. It's not rational to expect any different. So, while I'll agree that withholding meeting someone's needs should never be used as currency,I don't agree that you should always expect that your partner's needs (or yours) haven't changed over time.

At some point, you may realize that the orange really wasn't all that important in and of itself. The fact that your partner attempted to meet the need in the way he knew how will begin to register. Of course, none of this holds true if the partner is deliberately or maliciously withholding.

That's great in theory, uncertainone, but we all know the reality

That is my reality, LadyQ. I like sex. I didn't require my ex to be xyz to continue to like sex. I also enjoy food. I didn't let his moods interfer with eating. I'd be hanging from a fucking charm bracelet if I did.

I don't do curlers but I never did the makeup or glamour shot look before dates. Kinda hard to pull off when rappelling.

I was me. I honestly don't know how to be anything else nor would I want to be. When I was pissed it was not hidden or hints left like a perverted treasure hunt. No guessing.

I think people's needs change and grow as well. That was actually my point. Why? What does changing and growing actually mean to some people.

I don't think they do. I think they more emerge in some kind of hat trick. To me the only thing that changes after marriage is that you now have someone that has your six. It's now a team and if anyone fucks with one of you they're gonna get a double barreled response.

That concept doesn't seem to "change and grow" after marriage for some. It seems to vanish completely. Sad.

[This message edited by uncertainone at 9:53 AM, August 15th (Thursday)]

My needs: Food, water and shelter. Everything else is a want. Is there shit I won't put up with in a relationship? Absolutely. You'll never hear me calling those things "needs", though. If I need something, I'd damn well better be able to get it for myself.

[This message edited by h0peless at 10:25 AM, August 15th (Thursday)]

Let's say your boss is not an email person, but email is your preferred method of communication. If your boss said, "I dislike email, StillGoing, I just want you to stop by HQ occasionally and give me a verbal progress report." Well, a verbal progress report requires a thought mode that may be completely alien to your written cognitive skills. If your boss repeatedly asks for a verbal progress report, what are you going to do?

If I'm not able to do it, and said boss requires that for me to keep working there? Put in my 2 weeks notice then.

"Yes, but..."

That means you are verbally discounting my need for an orange.

Yes, I know you need an orange, BUT now I'm going to TELL YOU why I don't need an orange!

Whoa. Now you are telling me what I am thinking, feeling and why I am feeling that way.

I'm not discounting your stated need for an orange. I have been explaining why providing that orange may not be as simple as pulling one from my pocket and handing it to you.

I never asked him to climb the tallest mountain in the world for the PERFECT orange.

I want an orange. A simple orange. A grocery store orange (like grocery store flowers). I would be happy with any orange HE gave me. *I DON'T WANT THAT OTHER SHIT HE BUILT.*

You *want* or you *need* an orange?

I didn't say you wanted a perfect orange. I said for some people that is the only orange they can get. YOU turned it into a perfect orange, or an orange that because you see other people wandering around with sackfuls, means everyone has them ready to hand out. I said that some people do not have those sacks filled with oranges and to get them it can be an arduous process, so those of us lacking said sacks of fruit try to provide in other ways.

You don't want that, fine. Kick his ass out over an orange.

Is that really what you want me to do? You want me to go get an orange from another man, and enjoy it alongside all the stuff my H is giving me?

I think it's pretty obvious I did not, and I am insulted you'd do what you just did there.

eta:

There were a lot of triggers for me there in that last post so if I was hostile then I apologize. It was coming from somewhere else.

[This message edited by StillGoing at 10:47 AM, August 15th (Thursday)]

Why Don't You/Yes But

The first such game theorized was Why don't you/Yes, but in which one player (White) would pose a problem as if seeking help, and the other player(s) (Black) would offer solutions (the "Why don't you?" suggestion). This game was noticed as many patients played it in therapy and psychiatry sessions, and inspired Berne to identify other interpersonal "games".

White would point out a flaw in every Black player's solution (the "Yes, but" response), until they all gave up in frustration. For example, if someone's life script was "to be hurt many times, and suffer and make others feel bad when I die" a game of "Why Don't You, Yes But" might proceed as follows:

White: I wish I could lose some weight.

Black: Why don't you join a gym?

White: Yes but, I can't afford the payments for a gym.

Black: Why don't you speed walk around your block after you get home from work?

White: Yes but, I don't dare walk alone in my neighborhood after dark.

Black: Why don't you take the stairs at work instead of the elevator?

"Why Don't You, Yes But" can proceed indefinitely, with any number of players in the Black role, until Black's imagination is exhausted, and she can think of no other solutions. At this point, White "wins" by having stumped Black. After a silent pause following Black's final suggestion, the game is often brought to a formal end by a third role, Green, who makes a comment such as, "It just goes to show how difficult it is to lose weight."

The secondary gain for White was that he could claim to have justified his problem as insoluble and thus avoid the hard work of internal change; and for Black, to either feel the frustrated martyr ("I was only trying to help") or a superior being, disrespected ("the patient was uncooperative").

Superficially, this game can resemble Adult to Adult interaction (people seeking information or advice), but more often, according to Berne, the game is played by White's helpless Child, and Black's lecturing Parent ego states.

Shall I play green, StillGoing?

"It just goes to show how difficult it is to have an unemotional conversation about Emotional Needs."

If you decide to turn any response into "Yes but" then of course your game will play out the way you want it to.

My wife did what you just did to me for years. Telling me what I really meant, then taking what I said and turning it around as a hostile question to throw at me as if I was a lunatic asshole. I don't find it difficult to discuss this because the idea of emotional needs - which I still contend is bullshit - is difficult to discuss, I find it difficult because you are taking what I am saying as some kind of personal affront and then turning out the sarcasm. Go ahead and play both colors if you like. If you are unwilling to hear or process the other side of a discussion then there is no purpose to continuing it.

eta:

If the semantics offend you so much then perhaps changing the words to "I see that you wanted an orange. You were heard. I am unable to provide an orange so I will try to provide in other ways. If you choose not to accept that then so be it."

eta again:

Further, this:

Yes, but the garden and pasty shop are ways she tries to show me love and she has a real difficulty that is not a personal issue about me, providing that orange.

Was a statement about my own relationship with my wife. That you decided to feel your needs were discounted by my statement that MINE were not in that situation is entirely on you. The orange that I want, as I said, I can live without and I can learn to appreciate the other things provided and shown to me.

If you feel discounted by that then I am sorry, but I am not going to feel otherwise on your account.

[This message edited by StillGoing at 11:47 AM, August 15th (Thursday)]

I'm not playing to win, but I don't anticipate either of us compelling the other to change views.

I think emotional needs are bullshit because the way the concept is expressed places the responsibility of meeting those needs on other people.

Respectfully, I disagree. Personally, I find my emotional needs inextricable linked to my physical needs.

Edit: Respectfully, I disagree. Personally, I find my emotional needs inextricably linked to my physical desire .

If you decide to turn any response into "Yes but" then of course your game will play out the way you want it to.

My wife did what you just did to me for years. Telling me what I really meant, then taking what I said and turning it around as a hostile question to throw at me as if I was a lunatic asshole. I don't find it difficult to discuss this because the idea of emotional needs - which I still contend is bullshit.

I was triggered by your first post on the third page. Once my MC trained me to see the "Yes, But..." game, I'm less inclined to play.

There were a lot of triggers for me there in that last post so if I was hostile then I apologize. It was coming from somewhere else.

Once the emotional brain triggers, the rational brain takes a vacation.

How would you like to proceed?

(Honestly, I ask, not aggressively.)

[This message edited by ladies_first at 12:10 PM, August 15th (Thursday)]

On my end, I regularly text her asking where my keys (or phone) are, and make lists of two items when I go to the store (today it's a replacement spool for the edger and.. holy fuck I already forgot, I need to ask my 7 year old)(it was ant traps) so asking me to incorporate a habit that requires a regular routine AND mixing it up every time is going to fail at some point because I just don't work like that.

Actually, I think it's pretty cool that you and your wife have a system that works.

Respectfully, I disagree. Personally, I find my emotional needs inextricable linked to my physical needs.

Edit: Respectfully, I disagree. Personally, I find my emotional needs inextricably linked to my physical desire .

Well I can't say that you don't feel that way because I don't live in your head, but I don't understand how that relates to not placing that responsibility on someone else.

I was triggered by your first post on the third page. Once my MC trained me to see the "Yes, But..." game, I'm less inclined to play.

Triggers can obviously be difficult wherever they appear.

Once the emotional brain triggers, the rational brain takes a vacation.

How would you like to proceed?

(Honestly, I ask, not aggressively.)

From the understanding that "I" and "my" statements refer to me and mine, and are not a reflection on others unless specified.

Also, I am not trying to argue that your situation parallels my own; they are two different circumstances. I think your H was abusive, which goes a step beyond the nebulous concepts expressed here. Where I think emotional needs are bullshit is that they only seem to appear between people in an intimate relationship (setting aside developmental needs of children). When the very real feelings and emotions that exist are not simply being neglected (where many WS use this as an excuse to cheat), but manipulated to some cruel or selfish end then I feel it is, as I said, entering the realm of abuse.

I don't want you to feel attacked and I am sorry for being defensive over triggery shit.

One of the first books we started going through after DDay was "His Needs, Her Needs" which suggests that most people have the same needs, just that we rank them differently in importance.

As humans, we naturally project our own models upon others so it's fairly common for couples to project their most important need as also being similarly important to their mate, when in actuality it may not even be in the top 5. The book also suggests there are many relationships where both partner's needs are opposite/flipped so the MOST important for one is the LEAST important for the other.

I guess you could apply the apple/orange story here. If you think oranges are the coolest things in the world, think how confused you'd be when you keep giving them to your spouse and she just goes "bleh" because she's actually an apple person... and vice-versa as you really don't care for the apples she gives you, so the feelings and love expressions are missed by the exchange, leading to mismatched expectations and possibly hurt feelings.

I also subscribe to wincing_at_light's standpoint that many people, especially some waywards, are those fucking bottomless buckets that no matter how much "need" you throw in, it will never be enough nor make any difference. They are a blackhole of neediness and will just leave a trail of wreckage and destruction in their wake. Of course, they will point to their empty bucket as being all your fault when in actuality, you've become completely exhausted by stupidly dumping more and more in without any sign of any of it.

I also side with uncertainone that things should NOT change dramatically post dating. I know many religions do not agree, but this is also why I believe in cohabitation before marriage since there are some things you cannot measure until that point of actually living together. This isn't change, but just new discovery. The points you discover during dating should not change post-dating... that is disingenuous. But until you actually live with someone, you never know! I mean, their roommates may be covering their bad trash habits and who knows how they squeeze the tube of toothpaste?

But more profound are the dramatic "needs" changes that can be seen with some WS's, where someone that was at least semi-warm, caring, respectful and sexual becomes distant, disrespectful and almost entirely celibate (at least with their partner...) in first year or two.

So yes, I think emotional needs can be important but just not for everyone. If it's a top need of your spouse, well then I'd expect both spouses be willing to invest in meeting each other's #1 (and maybe #2/3) needs. But more often than not, especially on this forum, you seem to have one partner working very, very hard to try and provide for their WS's #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5th need, while the WS is only complaining how unfulfilled they are (endless buckets) and are off trying to fill that bottomless hole elsewhere as well...

I think emotional needs can be important but just not for everyone. If it's a top need of your spouse, well then I'd expect both spouses be willing to invest in meeting each other's #1 (and maybe #2/3) needs. But more often than not, especially on this forum, you seem to have one partner working very, very hard to try and provide for their WS's #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5th need, while the WS is only complaining how unfulfilled they are (endless buckets) and are off trying to fill that bottomless hole elsewhere as well...

Agreed. And now were back to inequity.

In "Not Just Friends" Shirley Glass writes:

Assumption: The person having an affair isn't "getting enough" at home.

Fact: The truth is that the unfaithful partner may not be giving enough. In fact, the partner who gives too little is at greater risk than the spouse who gives too much because he or she is less invested.

Ahhh... Now were back to the question: How do you measure investment?

*Affection

*Sexual Fulfillment

*Conversation

*Recreational Companionship

*Honesty and Openness

*Physical Attractiveness

*Financial Support

*Domestic Support

*Family Commitment

*Admiration

There are some who just take, and that's cruel and destructive.