The Lundy Book. So sad

[Abitwobblynow]

This book 'should I stay or should I go?' is just one of the saddest books I have read. Especially for a co dependent, whose life has depended on 'solving the problem'.

What I have discovered, is that after our lives have been rocked by infidelity, nothing has changed, and what is it that I am supposed to be working with?

If he had been shocked by himself (he was) to really face things, really work at looking at himself and make sure he never reverted to those strategies again (naaah, not worth it), then all of this would have been worth it.

But nothing has changed. I am sure I am batshitcrazy to want to talk about the affair, but he says that the few sparse sentences he gave me is enough, and I shouldn't be going on about it. So, for me, it is not going away.

Then, the Lundy book has opened my eyes to the complete futility of our non-transactions. Why is protecting and defending himself/his ego more important than anything else? It has always been this way!

What would happen if he acknowledged that I had a point? Would he blow up and die?

'(Meal) Take any plate you want. Oh no, not that one, I wanted it. [pointing out this is a double message requiring mind reading, rage, retreat. The new me insists on the point being made, conflict]

'You make it very hard for me to talk to you' [after I have erupted in hurt and frustration because he hasn't talked to me about something really important]

'No, it isn't' - instant flat response to everything.

[This one hurts] never touching me affectionately unless he wants sex. After sex the touching stops. I have raised this point several times over a 10 year period.

If I persist, turning the issue back onto me and my faults, issues he never brings up in his own time.

Has anyone read this book? What are your thoughts? Does anything I say echo in anyone's life, or am I batshitcrazy after all?

Sorry about the sad faces!
Have a great time at the show and hiking :)

The secret your H will not utter, the truth he will throw anything or anyone under the bus in order to guard, need not be that he is gay (or bi or whatever it was that my exH was willing to sacrifice everything for and destroy his own children's childhood for). It could be that your H's ego simply will not stand up to facing the fact that he is a rotten human being who has let everyone down.

The basic fact remains that he considers this to be more important than your relationship or your need to have the truth told to you and it will have the same effect.

Grieving is not weakness. There is much to grieve and it cannot be avoided.

At the same time, when exH moved out (not at a good time; I still had five children to take care of, the children still had to be told, and the house still had to be sold and we all still had a lot to come to grips with) we all heaved a sigh of relief; I found myself breathing deeply and standing up straight, and I was suddenly conscious that I hadn't done this in years. The children were palpably relaxed. We were almost giddy.

Oh God, another Catholic. What is wrong with what these people are taught?

My H went to a monastic school. When he was hitting puberty, his father took him aside and gave him a lecture on the evils of masturbating. I mean, what? All men masturbate. It's normal. So he wanted his boy to do what he couldn't??? How can you lie to and shame a child like this!
Then, the same lesson with a monk. I said to him: so you knew you did what he was telling you not to do, your friends around you knew, you knew he knew, you knew he knew you knew, and he knew you knew he knew you knew?! How many lies in that room? What CRAZY nonsense is this?

(At our school, we were told by the chaplain to explore ourselves! Good old CoE)

I read theology at uni. Whilst this is a beautiful, subtle religion and too clever for most, I do think that Catholic dogma (as opposed to scriptural study) encourages 'splitting' (when two irreconcilable views have to be held at the same time - like, being a good Catholic on one hand, taking contraception on the other).

When Martin Luther banged his 99 points on the door of that church, the rejection of the magisterium in favour of his theory of a personal relationship w. God, involving personal responsibility, is IMO the main difference between the two branches of Christianity.

And, Math, I really think 'this' (what you describe) is why we as a society need to work hard at accepting gays/allowing boys to be who they are. So they dont' feel they have to lie to and use women (to hide behind). I get so cross and sad when I hear about closet men, and the unsuspecting women they are actually making lonely and unhappy - along with themselves. Thank you for your story.

and FWH makes three! But I suspect hia family dynamics and social norms played a greater role in forming his sense of entitlement!

Wow.

Stunning story math.

My h a Catholic atheist. (he calls himself that, but he means a Catholic who no longer believes.

The splitting stuff interesting too. My h has been great at that.

I'm a Catholic too but not from the family exH grew up in, obv. I was taught that integrity was one of the highest values both at home and by any religious people in involved in teaching me.

exH was brought up in a home where his father was largely absent (saving the world as a hot shot surgeon and making pots of money) and worshipped from a distance while his mother ruled with an iron hand. He went to an exclusive RC boys' school in a fabulously wealthy area in the US. The football team was one of the best in the entire country. The ethos was sickeningly elitist and macho. The Catholic community in the city had raised itself from exclusion and poverty and had overcome prejudice to gain political domination for many years but the narrow lower middle class values had remained. One of the therapists I talked with had coincidentally grown up in the same community and pricked up her ears when I described it as incredibly cliquey. That was her impression too. She had gone to the all girls' school where the sisters of the boys went and agreed with my observation that you were no-one among the girls if you didn't have brothers and those brothers were in the boys' school, that mothers in the girls' school were nobodies unless they also had sons and those sons attended the boys' school.

exMIL was one of the queens of her own little society as she had married the Catholic community's biggest catch (exFIL's father was extremely prominent at national level), she had produced more sons than daughters, and she regularly had the priests from the boys' school over for dinner; there were even one or two who used to go with the family for holidays. I see exH's lack of integrity as a function of his relationship with his mother, who is truly the only woman who has ever been important to him in his life; she actively encouraged little chats together, long phone calls, etc., and did the same with all her other sons, insinuating herself into their relationships and bad-mouthing her daughters in law behind their backs. She couldn't stand it that we lived in another city and so couldn't pay her court every sunday at the dinner that was obligatory for the others, who all lived (and still live) within spitting distance of her, like a little colony. She played favourites with the granchildren. No-one ever hears anything from her any more of her absolute favourite since she grew up, dropped out of college and went off the rails.

No matter how you were created, everyone is capable of living with integrity. I have the utmost respect for gay people who come out and live the best lives they can. I make no excuses for my exH on the basis that it is hard for gay people. He didn't do me the honour of seeing me as a three dimensional human being, but used me as a prop in his relationship with his mother. When we first met I was 21 and he was 23 and we were married two years later. He proposed. He made the career plans. Nobody was putting a gun to his head. He was the first of his brothers to get married, and in contrast to his older brother, who was dating a divorced woman of common-or-garden Anglo/Scots/German origin who had two children and who was not at the time a Catholic, I was not just Catholic but Irish. It was like some sort of suitable wife bingo. I ticked all of his mother's important boxes and I think he thought he had won some competition when he brought me to introduce to her.

Catholics and theologians here too.

Makes you wonder eh?

The moment I realised that I didn't want to be with my husband was when the person I worked with took my hand and lead me to my car one afternoon. DH has never taken my hand, in all the years we've been together. No simple kindnesses at all, really. No cherishing.

This sent shivers down my spine.

I'm a Catholic too but not from the family exH grew up in, obv. I was taught that integrity was one of the highest values both at home and by any religious people in involved in teaching me

Maths, weird you say that, my truth too. OTOH the catholic men I have known have had a rather different interpretation sadly, dunno why.

I haten to add I love Mass and the family and sense of belonging.

But this dilemma described (of submitting to the authority of the church and being required to suspend the integrity of self) is 100s of years old not invented by Wobbly, so please don't flame me!

It is a measure that H is in there somewhere I suppose when he did not want his children brought up Catholic 'because I don't want their heads messed with the same shit I was given'.

Oh, Math. Do you remember Minority Report? I think back to moments meeting them/the secrets/unspoken agreements not to mention this and that and think of the pre-cog screaming, 'RUUUUUUUUN!

What massive red flag about Queenie MIL do you remember and decide to ignore?!

Above all else, Catholic doctrine holds that everyone has free will.

Arising from that, you are free to disregard any or all of the tenets of your religion. At the same time, it is recognised that you can repent and in fact the church insists that this must be of your own free will. I don't see encouragement of splitting in the psychological sense there, though there is some hair splitting certainly, and some cherry picking.

Basically, the church sees each individual adult as responsible for their own decisions and emphasises the role of an informed conscience. The rules are set forth and it is up to you to decide what to do about it. There will be no bolt from the blue striking you down if you decide you will follow some rules but not all, or ignore it all completely. What you do is up to you. All the church asks is that you think carefully about your decisions, and it sets forth the philosophy behind the rules regularly so that if you are interested you can give it deeper thought.

But do you think that sense of integrity (as a Catholic woman) Mathsanxiety, can be difficult for others to live up to?

Janelikesjam -- I got nothing in the way of simple loving touches either, for years and years, not even an arm around my shoulder.

About exMIL, one thing that stuck out in my memory from the first time we met was how she boasted to me that exH had scored an incredibly high score in some American high school exam which he would have sat about seven years before then, higher than any of his siblings, but that she had achieved a higher score back in 1949 when she had sat the same exam. Subtext -- her boys were brilliant; she was more brilliant. Even the best had fallen short of her achievement. Disparaging the achievements of others and comparing her children with each other was habitual for her.

The other thing was related to the question of talking about others behind their back. She openly mocked a family who had given an inexpensive gift to one of her daughters whose wedding provided the occasion for me to meet the family. The couple had gone to school, separately, at the exclusive boys' school and the corresponding girls' school, with exMIL and exFIL but the subsequent career trajectory of Mr D had not been anything like the glorious thing exFIL's was. They were lampooned mercilessly by her. And there was constant nagging at exFIL when he was home, constant put downs and sharp remarks, constant ridiculing of doctors (always spoken with eye rolling) and their shortcomings.

I put it all down to stress because she was single-handedly arranging a wedding for her oldest daughter with a catered luncheon reception in the back garden for three hundred people (large back garden). Even that fact should have raised a flag. The oldest daughter was treated as a nuisance and I got the impression that the venue for the reception was exMIL's choice. I never saw her treat this oldest DD (who had suffered from depression and battled both of her parents to explain that she needed to see a psychiatrist -- psychiatrists were all quacks according to exFIL) as anything but a nuisance whose problems dismayed her and whose 'dithering' (i.e. lack of ruthlessness about making decisions fast) delayed her. I only found out about the attitude to psychiatry much later or I would have run a mile.

In answer to that one, I think it might be, but I can't fully put myself in someone else's shoes so it's hard to say. Maybe a lot of it depends on personality, or on your expectations according to your upbringing, or experiences you went through.

My own Irish family on my mum's side were devout Catholics. Grandad had been involved in the IRA during the war of Independence and continued in the IRA on the Republican side during the Civil War that followed that. He was imprisoned under the Free State but managed to escape prison and a death sentence. The war ended and things settled down. He was by then used to doing his own thing, making up his own mind about matters that included matters of conscience (killing people); he had a kickass personality and went against the mores of the local community when a single mother who had been an orphan-servant (this was what passed for foster care in Ireland of the time) in a local house died of tb or pneumonia and was to be buried in a pauper's grave. Nobody wanted to have anything to do with her when she had the baby and nobody wanted to have anything to do with her after she died. Grandad offered part of the family plot. He possibly figured half of the community hadn't given him the time of day since the Troubles and his real friends would be there for help with lambing etc., just as he would be for them, since comradeship formed in war and civil war had been strong enough to overcome plenty of other moral issues, and he was right.

On my dad's side, his family were also devout Catholics, quite wealthy and had links to the deValera government. A cousin of my grandfather's was a professor of Moral Theology in a Jesuit seminary. Grandad was engaged in a running battle with the local parish priest who had sold the church campanile, that people had paid for a century earlier with scarce pennies, with no consultation or effort to fund the church's needs by any other route. Same priest, preaching from the pulpit, waved a blue hanky around and complained that the bishops had forbidden priests from open declarations of political allegiance, but that he would continue to declare his nevertheless. The blue hanky was a reference to the Irish fascists, the Blueshirts. Grandad, whose family always sat together in the front pew instead of separated into the men's and women-and-children's sides of the church, much to the chagrin of the priests, stood up and put on his hat and marched granny and the children all the way down the long aisle and out of the church.

FWH was brought up by a violent father who had been brought up by a violent mother. All good churchgoing Catholics, and highly respected members of society. So some explanation there.
However, (and to go back to Lundy) if abusive men still have free will, they still freely choose to behave the way they do.

That is what I believe too. They choose to do what they do, and they are getting some reward out of their behaviour.

Hmmmm, Math, I am not so sure the concept of free will is as emphasised in the Catholic Church as it is in the Protestant churches. As a protestant sitting in Mass I can hear the subtle authority of the Church in a way Catholics aren't even aware of, because it is all they know. So my ILs will describe themselves as 'good Catholics' or 'Call themselves good Catholics? [criticism]' It is the one major flaw of the Catholic church, that as long as you follow the tenets, that will make you a good Catholic and you will be saved. The deeper grappling (required by Protestants) is sort of slid away from. All human beings do it, but I have really noticed it now I live amongst Catholics, on things that are not too hard: like, I am a good Catholic. The church bans contraceptives. I need those. Am I wrong, or is the church wrong? That last question is unthinkable! If you try and engage a Catholic, they will either sliiiiiide, or decide you are attacking the church. Hmmmm where have I come across that defense mechanism before.......?

Please note that I consider the Catholic church to be the one true faith! If you look at the history of Chrisitianity of course it is. But this sliiiiiiding away in the mind from things that are problematic (splitting, denial, deciding it is too difficult to think about) will now, after the abuse scandal, have to be addressed.

I have never come across that sort of attitude ('call themselves good Catholics?') maybe because when you're Irish you think of everyone as being Catholic and therefore the whole Catholic business sort of fades into the background. Plus it's most unfashionable to consider yourself a Catholic now. It's hard to know really where 'Catholic' ends and 'Irish' begins; would people be the same if they belonged to some other religion or to none?

In the US, the only people who focus on being saved are the born again crowd, various protestant denominations in the south, and sects who set themselves apart in the west, and of course the JWs. A lot of the ethos of US Catholicism is about social justice, support for immigrants and other disadvantaged groups, and genuine ecumenism. The here and now is more important than the hereafter. Following the rules and only following the rules is positively frowned upon. Bearing witness out in the community is very much encouraged. The idea that the church could not be wrong is one that is not widely held in either the US or in Ireland. Too much has happened for that to ever be a popular opinion again, if it ever was (looking at the example of my grandparents). A minority probably believes it is never wrong. I may have been moving in the wrong Catholic circles of course

Friends of mine have remained the same friends, same personalities, while ditching Catholicism and joining the Quakers, becoming atheists or Buddhists or just people who wash their cars on Sunday mornings and don't give religion a second thought. They're the same people I always liked.

exH otoh, whom I no longer like, seriously considered conversion to Judaism once after we had attended a Bar Mitzvah. I think he was attracted to the obvious father-child importance in the ceremony and the electrified atmosphere when there was dancing at the end. Was it a religiously inspired impulse or something in his personality or in his sexuality that made him crave a relationship of tutelage with older men. He also craved excitement and stimulation and had a very plastic self image. I'm inclined to think that religion just gives a top coat to a tangled mess that can occur in anyone, and that the dynamic in the home is the place to look for the origin of most of the personality defects that Lundy Bancroft writes about.

The church bans contraceptives, but you are free to use them if you decide to just as you are free to make any other decision. As a Catholic, it is up to you to make your own decisions. You are a moral actor. You're supposed to take into account what the church says, but in the end you are free. If you feel remorseful afterwards, the church offers the sacrament of reconciliation. That is there because it is recognised that people fall short of the ideal, which the church holds out as something to aspire to in a serious way, but nevertheless welcomes people who decide they wish to express remorse if they conclude that something they have done has had a negative impact on their relationship with God or other people. (Though I would love to have been a fly on the wall whenever my exH went to the confessional).

Questions hardly ever boil down to 'am I wrong or is the church wrong?' because that sort of question edges out the virtues of humility and charity. The claim to authority is certainly there (the church takes itself seriously) but the acknowledgement that each individual has free will is also there. It is basic to the conception the church has of the nature of humans.

I sincerely hope that the church will continue to address the abuse scandal and really come to grips with whatever it was in itself that gave rise to it. Otherwise it will happen again.

Gosh, Math, looking back at what you wrote about your MIL: how were we so oblivious!

I can't change the past, but I wonder what non-insulting to their father can I tell my DDs?

What would you all tell DDs?

When exH decided to move out he told them in the car on the way to school when they were returning after the Christmas break. Then he dropped them at the curb and drove back home, parked the car in the garage at the back, came in the back door, hissed at me that he was going to leave as soon as he could find a place to rent, that he had told the children, then stormed off out the front door, slamming it in my face when I said 'You did what??'

I went to the school. They were all in class. Had a chat with the principal and a hug from the art teacher who was in the office. When the bell rang the principal called the classrooms and the DCs were released. I took them home and asked them how they were feeling. DD2 was crying, DS sat and looked blankly at the fridge. DD3 seemed puzzled by coming home, and turned on the tv. I talked with DS and DD2 (aged 13 and 11). exH had told them he was moving out and invited them to help him find a flat for himself.

After many hugs, I told them that I had had no idea this was going to happen, that they had deserved to be told in a different way, that there was nothing anyone could do about this, that they had not been the cause of this and that we would still be a family and we would be fine, but without one member. What I told them about the reason for it was that daddy had made choices that were incompatible with marriage and family life and that if they ever wanted to ask me anything else about it all they could.

DD3 was still watching tv and seemed unconcerned. It's very possible that she was in her usual morning semi-comatose state and hadn't heard a thing. She asked to go back to school for the afternoon and I brought her, had a chat with her teacher and the principal, and asked the art teacher if she would be available for the DCs if they wanted someone to talk to -- she was that sort of teacher, years at the school, very interested in the wellbeing of the children, and she said she had been about to suggest exactly that. I had taken DD4 to her kindergarten in the morning and I picked her up, didn't tell her anything right there and then.

In the afternoon, I went to DD1's school and picked her up. (She had got a lift to school from someone else that morning) I told her in the car and she had a lot more questions than the others did. It turned out that she had come across the same porn that I had and she had also hacked into exH's e-mail and found amorous letters there between him and a man whose e-mail address was at a local university, among other items that had made her toes curl. It killed me that she had known all of this and had not told me. It was a heavy burden for her to bear.

So far from ideal.

I think all the books recommend sitting the children down together and having a sort of family meeting where the parents put on a united face and reassure the children that although their world will never be the same again their world will be just the same, like a squaring the circle conference . I think the important things to say are reassurance that this is not their fault and there is nothing they can do to restore things, assurance that they still have the love and support of both parents (even if this is said through gritted teeth because you realise the limitations of your OH in the relationship department) I didn't say this bit and if it is possible, reassurance about the family home and family finances (maybe older children would have worries about the university fund). With older children, you can be sure that they would have noticed plenty that went on between you, unfortunately, and you could offer to answer their questions rather than volunteering information, or make it clear that you are ready and willing to talk whenever they want to. Maybe in answering their questions emphasise that while you and the ex have not found it possible to continue the relationship because of A or B or C, ex's relationship with the children can continue to go ahead with your blessing.

That seems very wise advice, Math.

Out of my five children, the eldest thought it was hugely funny that my h denied porn use, and claimed to disapprove it. He had blamed findings in him, and my son actually handed me a hidden DVD of h's a few years ago.

DD1 always suspected more than me, and found some the the evidence in the first place, pointing it out to me. After the big row, she told me she was in a new gay relationship, as she was sick of men.

DD2 had started to go off the rails a bit the previous year, and demanded to know why I put up with him as early as last summer. Actually, I think one of the reasons I had toughened up by September was her emerging view that I was putting up with too much shit. I hadnt realised that she was developing a hostile view of men, and that she thought me weak, as she had been conveniently able to get any material thing she wanted out of him (after I had said no).

DS2 was a bit withdrawn and played alot of Xbox (echoes of dad in the office all the time), whilst making the odd reference to his absences. He was also often asking if 'was OK'. DS3 was not concentrating well at school.

After we went to Relate and told them, I discovered that they had variously shared opinions about our marriage between them and thought we 'were not like other families' who went out together etc.

It is only now, Abitw, that they are letting on a fair bit more about what they previously knew or thought, because the rows and tension are over and they feel safe to do so.

So I would draw from that, that kids know more than we let on, and also draw conclusions from our behaviour as mothers about how to behave themselves in future, and what to put up with/not to put up with.

I also agree with you, Math, that the key messages are that it isnt their fault, they have permission to love both of you, but you dont have to share the blame.

Don't want to hijack your thread but just wanted to say hi, this book arrived today (had ordered it on urgent delivery!). Came home from work and basically read solid for two hours - am a quick reader! Lots of underlinings already. I haven't done the exercises but I do intend to. I can't say it's a sad book, to me there is a lot of hope in it, but facing up to the truth is a sad process. I think it's that combination of grieving for what you have lost (or perhaps never had) while at the same time moving forward and setting goals, it's a difficult balancing act and quite a lonely road. I will keep reading, and will find some time to do the exercises. I often need to read a book a good few times before I fully absorb it. Anyone else read this book? I guess I would be interested to hear from others who had read it, and whether or not it had helped you make the "big decision".

Read his other one "Why does he do that?" breathed a big sigh of relief...I was not mad, made safety plans then made him leave.........I bless St Lundy for his wisdom.....and years of working with these abusive people!!

I had the same reaction to Why Does He Do That? It wasn't all in my head!

I am very alone in a foreign country right now, and I cannot begin to tell you how much help you all are.

It is VERY hard to not wonder if I am crazy. Why can't I just carry on through life in my comfortable world without needing to be talked to, to want to 'know' him? He doesn't beat me, withhold money. Just himself. Why can't I accept that, that it is his choice to do so and that I should respect that choice?

Then I think about how he never touches me affectionately until he wants sex.... (my weakness is, I want it too)

There was a joke that sticks with me, it hurt so bad when I heard it:

Q: what is the skin around a vagina called?
A: a woman.