Hi...
I've been busy, thinking my own thoughts about my own things and thinking about your replies.
It's not easy to find time to sit at a computer and respond to emails. My 'mate' is making a definite effort to help today and she's gone for a walk with the children. I sat down to do other things and finished up here.
Didn't sit down to come here because I haven't finished my meditations regarding your varied responses - still don't really know what I want to say.
So that's gonna boil down to extra wordiness and lack of precision.
But might as well go with it while I'm here.
Before I get into detailed response, look at each post, think about it, reply to it, look at the next one, etc.... I can say this right off the top of my head, or off the cuff or whatever..... I'm surprised that people with so many posts on this forum can manifest such belligerence and uncharitable prejudice.....
But, I realised, this is a forum, not a collection of qualified 'counsellors'. It would be interesting to know considering, as I said, this is my first stop substitute for counselling, how many ( if any ) of the posters her are in fact qualified counsellors of any kind (given that qualifications will vary wildly in any case and sheer experience is, in fact, a qualification in itself) ?
Okay... on with the detailed stuff:
Well, first there seems to have been a sudden flurry of posts as I was writing mine, there... strange coincidence, eh?
Right, first: Montana. Said she was lost for words, back later. But also said her signature, which in itself speaks volumes.
Second: Noddy. What I thought was a very reasonable and sensible response. It helped me inasmuch as I felt I'd heard from a human being if nothing else.
Third Calamity Jane. I find her pretty immature. Let me tell you that a 66 year old can be married to a 29 year old for love, though, Jane, even if it can't happen the other way round. And I've got no proof that it can't happen the other way round.
And 'love' needs a lot of defining. It is almost entirely NOT what it is commonly thought to be. In fact I decided to love this girl. I made a cold decision (if you like) to manifest love and caring. In the spirit of 'it ain't what you say, it's what you do' and in the spirit of 'I've got so much... I ought to help a little someone who hasn't..'
And that's love.
But it's not mad, passionate, thoughtless, tempestuous, unbridled, savage lustful love. No. It's not. And it never pretended to be.
I won't talk too much.....
'Children first priority...' , 'appalled', fine words that I take it have their major function in giving expression to what you want us to think is the nature of your inner being - i.e. supremely children loving and therefore innately superior to anything else.
Despite the fact that you a pre-judging. And that's prejudice. And that's a no-no, not a virtue.
My question is, in fact, how to do the best for wife and children in this situation? You choose not to read it that way. After 14,691 posts.
So there's great significance there in different world views, apparently.
But I must not take too much time, too many words....
JPB said something measured and reasonable and didn't (unlike myself) waste any time or breath, words, RSI potential, by addressing every red herring in sight. In fact he asked very pertinent and reasonable questions and surmised what I think is very possibly the truth.
She wouldn't want me to leave her. She's not financially secure and independent. But let's not be uncharitable. There's far more to it than that. She can manage. But she doesn't want such a horrible story, such a horrible ending, such an incident in her life story. She has other motivations than pure 'look after myself' economic motivations.
She's also a normal human being and she's facing a strange country and struggling to find skills and opportunity and she needs help. A little fear and uncertainty is quite acceptable in these circumstances, I think.
O.K. enough, though I'd like to talk with JPB more.
EOE: Yeah, right, it does sound like she wanted it to go this way and then backpedalled. Well I made her backpedal by saying 'if you do this I'll do that' which is the typical argument, isn't it? This doesn't make her the villain.
She perhaps wanted it all her own way. Envisaged a fine future in dreamland where she gets her own place and does her own thing and finds lovers of her own age, etc., etc., whatever, whatever... and comes back whenever she likes, every day perhaps, and sees her children which she is completely relieved of any responsibility for the caring of... and maintains a good happy relationship with the chidren's father.
Well? I've met that before. It's very adult isn't it? Very grown up? The right way to be? The successful conclusion of an amicable separation?
So that's cool. Same as JPB I'd like to talk with you more.
But the second half: 'both of you have a take 'em or leave 'em...' was ameliorated by '... sounds like....' and that may be true. If so then I'm sorry. I mean, it IS true but it is NOT true.
It is true that both of us are willing to leave 'em to the other. It is NOT true that we're willing to do this because we don't care. It is BECAUSE we care that we're both hastily avowing to each other that we won't get in the way, won't bar access, won't hurt.....
Which all falls down, of course, when I say I'll go back home and take them with me. That's me the villain again.
Next was Montana for the second time, having finished her cogitations, found her tongue and happy to give vent.... with a broken heart, broken by my wife and I, our likening our children to useless swamp land.....
Hmmm. It's a bit by-the-bye but 'useless swamp land' nowadays is often seen to be the most precious asset in the vicinity. Yes, but that's by-the-bye.
Her 'main thrust', as I think they say nowadays or in recent times at any rate, was that one should '....fought to the bitter end...' for her children.
I'd surmise - like, being on the outside, a non-counsellor, a person in need, a faller-by-way, I can only surmise, I don't know - that it'd be better for the children to be 'owned' (or whatever category of possession Montana is supposing in her fight to the bitter end) by both parents as was their (I'd, again, surmise) birthright and for the nature of that 'owning' to parallel as much as possible the natural, however that can be worked out from studies of natural humanity, parents, families, child care, etc...
My 'main thrust' is that I find it startling that such a leap of prejudice be made and that such a direction be advocated at such an early and undefined stage by anyone, much less a person with 20037 posts, presumably all directed towards people with major problems.
The very word 'fight' is something I find inappropriate at this juncture and quite possibly inappropriate wholly in the context.
The next was Sullyfish who quoted me and queried me that I was in disbelief that 'she left'.
Well thanks for your input, Sully, but she didn't leave, yet, that's still in the offing and in fact the question was (amongst other things) '...should I make her go...'.
Secondly I don't think I'm in disbelief (but maybe I am). It's my feeling that I'm in belief and accepting of the situation but unable to find the appropriate answer, action, reaction (proaction?) to it.
Thirdly I think you misread the quote somewhat - it is a little semantically ambiguous and that's my fault. It could be read as meaning that I'd been angry, bad tempered and miserable for 5 years and I think that's the reading that you are reacting to.
But in fact it means that after 5 GOOD years ( no anger, misery, bad temper) she NOW reacts to its appearance. (What has prompted it hasn't been gone into.)
Next was Mame who only talked to Montana.
Next was shewolf with only 18180 posts and she only addresses Montana and I like what she says.
Then Montana surmises she might have missed something (rather than have imagined something) but tells us that her heart is still broken, which makes me, for one, somewhat concerned about the state of Montanas heart. If it gets broken so readily on so little evidence just what condition must it be in now? After 20037 posts?
And then shewolf hopes she's right and finally Montana also hopes she's right.
Well I guess I'm the one to settle that.
And I'll try.
I am not saying that I do not love my children.
Okay?
I am truly sorry this post has been so long.
Probably better if I'd made a short answer that avoided any reciprocation and just stated something of my own feelings/attitudes/actions at this time.
Why didn't I do that?
Dunno. Maybe something to do with what's happening. Concentrating on this is something I can cling to and understand and exercise some control over, whereas the potential changes in our family and my/our future are largely totally beyond my control.....
I remain,
yours faithfully and still...
flummoxed