Good morning all! Welcome to our First Book Club discussion. Hopefully you’ve managed to get your hands on Passionate Marriage and have made it through the first couple of chapters – if not, no worries, you can still share your thoughts.


Introduction
A couple of things that really struck me in the introduction and I considered worth discussing were the idea that Romantic Love is a relatively NEW concept, in the scope of animal/human development. It’s been around for a fraction of time.


Our ideas of Romantic Love and Marriage have evolved only relatively recently, and when we have problems we turn to a relatively new science to fix them. What does that mean about our expectations for marriage? I know I often feel like I should ‘get it’ when it comes to marriage, and when I don’t that there is something wrong with me…. But maybe not ‘getting it’ is ok, is understandable given the nature of human development.
The introduction also has a summary of the structure of the book:

I can vouch for reading things in this first section I’ve never heard of before. The first few chapters seem to be defining terms and laying groundwork.


& Section 1: The Basics
In Section One Schnarch identifies several ‘Myths’ about marriage that he identifies in our society.

• Intimacy is Acceptance and validation from our partner.
• Good communication is getting our desired response from our partner.
• Intimacy is soothing; our partner should soothe us rather than make us feel more insecure.
• Sexual desire is a biological hunger, like our desire for food.
• Sex is a natural function
• Orgasm in sex does not lead to intimacy and eroticism

He also introduces the idea that while we may often get married for the ‘wrong’ reasons, this doesn’t mean that our union is doomed. He states that often we get married for the ‘wrong’ reasons because we aren’t old enough/ mature enough for the right reasons to even exist, which I found a powerful idea.
He presents the idea that marriage exists for more than to bring happiness and love. Marriage is also a ‘people growing’ process. Along with this is the idea that problems in marriage aren’t necessarily indicative of a problem within our relationship, that marriage itself can create problems for us to develop and grow through as we overcome them:


Finally he introduces some terms that he needs to define, and in fact will spend the next few chapters better defining:

Self Validated intimacy which is ““When you don’t expect your partner to validate or accept what you disclose, you validate yourself as you show your partner who you are.”

Non-Regressive Therapy which solves the problems of the past in the present.

Aaaand:

Differentiation (which is a big one, apparently as he spends a lot of time on it) which is “the process by which we become more uniquely ourselves by maintaining ourselves in relationship with those we love.”

There was a lot in here and it’s pretty dense, but hopefully y’all got something out of it. I’ll have to wait to post my write-up for Section 2 until this afternoon/evening. We closed on our house yesterday (yay!) and I’ll have to spend most of this morning running around, but I think we have enough here to get started!

Vibressa -

You did an excellent summary. I hope you don't move on to Section 2 quite yet, as I'm still stuck on Section 1.

I understand what differentiation is and how important it is for passion, but got stuck on the quantum model. I'll read it over again and hopefully more people will chime in.

Glad you closed on your house, BTW.

There's quantum and differentials in this book??? Cool! Guess I better crack open my brand new copy...

Yeah - I'll wait a bit on Section 2 - there was a lot in Section 1. As to the Quantum model, it took me several read throughs to 'get it'. It's not so much that it's complicated (it is a bit but not much) it's more the way he writes about it. He kinda dances around defining it.

Hopefully discussion will help us understand it better.

A couple of things I really liked about the first Section are the identification of the Myths. I can see how believing them has led to some dysfunction in our marriage, particularly the idea that 'Sex is natural'. I have often felt that there is 'something wrong' with me because I am not climbing the walls for sex.

I also LOVE the idea of seeing marriage as a 'people grower'. Problems, dysfunctions, struggles are an inherent part of the 'system' that is marriage. Marriage is something that will stretch you, grow you, change you. It's terrifying and wonderful at the same time.

I'll wait a few days to post Section 2, give people some time to get their books and discussion Section 1.

I just finished reading the intro and chapter one. While it was a bit easier going for me this time than the last, its still a hard slog.

I definitely understand the validation and differentiation aspect better than I did when I tried to read it 2 years ago - thanks in part I believe, to threads on MA about validation (LOL) and personal recovery, and self worth - not being a door mat, being in limbo, standing for all time.


I very much liked (and cheered) the comment about giving up on trying to avoid the inherent sexism of our language. On occasion I read something that has had so much effort made to be PC, that the message gets lost.

I am finding it very difficult to relate to the first couple. I don;t have as rich a fantasy life as Karen has, nor the same expectations of DH. I could get some regarding the second couple in that Joan felt she wasnt really the wife he would have chosen, given more choice. I have a very small, but still there, residual 'unwanted' feeling post affair. I assume this will pass.

I dont feel I have as much body dysmorphic issues as Karen, but I also feel uncomfortable with the Cloaca aspect of oral sex after intercourse, but also because I dont like the taste. I also dont like the taste of broad beans or parsely, so I am assuming its just one of those things.

Because I never read this book in its entirety, I can look forward with anticipation to how marriage and sex changes from being techniques, skills and performance; to 'tenderness, compassion and generosity'

I think I missed the quantum, either that or I was so busy trying to absorb the rest, it oozed in without me noticing

He doesn't talk about "quantum" until chapter 3 (unless I read the first two too fast). (And he misuses it somewhat - "phase transition" would be a more appropriate term, imo, but "quantum" sounds much cooler. )

The two most powerful ideas for me are (1) That nobody is ready for marriage, that marriage itself is what prepares a couple for marriage; (2) Differentiation, which I find to be a more nuanced concept than one might think. The figures contrasting the "conventional" view with what he's talking about are very useful.

He seems to talk a fair amount about validation. Just sayin'...

Fiddlr3 - great to see you! I was hoping that you'd chime into this discussion, especially when we get to self vs. other Validation.

Sorry I've been MIA the last couple of days - had to get moved in, but things have settled a bit. So lets get on to Section 2 and hopefully Monday we'll proceed through Sections 3 and 4. (That's where the Quantum stuff is)


Section 2 – Differentiation: Developing a Self-in-Relation
This Section begins with a description of something Schnarch terms a ‘Fusion Fantasy’ which he describes as the “fantasy of two (or more) bodies appearing to be controlled by a single mind – as if we’ve given up our separate identities and become part of a larger oneness.” The fusion fantasy is one half of a struggle within us as people: the desire to connect with others vs. the desire to exert our individuality.
The Fusion Fantasy is what leads us to become ‘fused’ within our relationships. It is what leads to a reflected sense of self, where we are only defined by our relationship to others. One of the drawbacks of this emotional fusion is Borrowed functioning, in which a couple seems to see-saw back and forth with one person weaker and the other seemingly more balanced.

He describes healthy functioning as Mutuality: “Going forward in your own development while being concerned with your partner’s happiness and well-being”


We often confuse Emotional Fusion with love – when it really isn’t.
Differentiation

• Doesn’t require distance – you don’t have to have ‘space’ in order to be differentiated
• Is not Autonomy or independence – a differentiated person is capable of close relationships, and can CHOOSE to be INTERdependent
• Solid but permeable – you feel comfortable ‘holding onto yourself’ (solid) but are open to change (permeable) if you CHOOSE to.
• Maintain a sense of self when your partner is away or you aren’t in a romantic relationship

An interesting element of Differentiation in relationships is that both marriage partners will usually have the same tolerance for intimacy and be about equally differentiated.

I'll throw my comments in a separate thread


mmmmm New Book Smell. I keep talking about this book to DH so much I think I'm going to have to buy a copy

Lil - one thing I noticed and appreciated in the intro - along with the language thing, was his desire to not be taken with 'blind faith'. If we believe his stuff - it is because we've found it to work for ourselves. Having read and then observed my own marriage these last few days - I can see a lot of truth in his work so far... and potential for it to help DH and I.

I, too, have had trouble connecting with the couples. I identified a teensy bit with Carol once Chapter 4 rolled around. But the concepts and the ideas are really resonating. But it was that way with the Harley books as well - and learning in general. Give me concepts, principles, ideas, and I'm good. I can see it and find applications. Tell me a story and I just can't relate... maybe it's the INTJ stuff

Overall I'm finding this a very powerful read - I can't wait to get into the later chapters. I think the slog is the introduction of the concepts, because they can be quite dense.

The idea of Differentiation makes a lot of sense, to me. I find it comforting and terrifying at the same time. Comforting in that it would be wonderful to be loved as I am, to be completely open with DH - good AND bad, to be known that way. But terrifying when I think of putting myself out there that much.

I also was a bit skeptical of the whole - partners are equally differentiated thing. I was convinced DH was more differentiated with me. In so many ways he seems to 'get' marriage better than I do... but as I read aloud and we talked we realized we really are both about equal.

I've also seen evidence of emotional fusion and borrowed functioning, even on the day to day level, between us. I don't know how to change it, but maybe we can figure it out.

As to the reflected sense of self - I think many of us have seen this. The best example that sprung to mind was the woman who gets so consumed when her children are born that she 'looses' herself. She becomes MOM, and that is all she is or knows how to be. I've seen, close hand, what happens when a woman lives that way, and it isn't pretty when the kids eventually leave... or try to. I'm sure it happens in many different ways, but that is the one that came to mind.

Great stuff - And yes, fidd - tons on Validation, but I'm ok with that

How are y'all doin? Thoughts?

Thanks for the welcome Vibrissa and for spearheading this discussion! I promise I'll behave and won't validate anyone here.

I like that he has named differentiation and appreciate the distinction between it and individuality. Harriet Lerner talks about something similar in that there is a certain amount of "individual work" and a certain amount of "intimacy work" that is done in a relationship. The fusion/individuality dichotomy is an expression of one spouse doing nearly all the individual work and the other doing nearly all of the intimacy work. I think this is also related to Al's discussion of avoider/clinger.

I find it ironic then that the way forward seems to be the more individual spouse moving towards a deeper connection and the fused spouse moving towards more individuality. In other words, becoming less differentiated (i.e. more like each other).

This is helping me realize how important conflict is in a relationship and how differentiation can greatly enhance dealing with it. And vice versa - only through conflict can we learn how to be both ourselves and connected at the same time.

I too was skeptical at first of the equal differentiation thing, but am recognizing that while it can't be "proved," it is a valuable idea to keep in mind. I think that confusing differentiation with individuality can tend to make one thing that the more fused partner is less differentiated, and Schnarch effectively shows how that is a misconception. I appreciate how he admits the conflict of being "more differentiated than thou" in couples learning this.

Like most therapists, he also seems to portray himself very well in the dialogues. As is typical, imo even when he gets to choose and edit the sessions, he still missed some opportunities to go deeper when he was working.

P.S. If you are a Mr. or a Ms. Monk, then you did pick up on the typo on page 61, right?

Hi gang,

Sorry... I haven't gotten the book yet. I will and catch up, hopefully very soon.

In the meantime: One thing, to fiddlr~~~~



Please, PLEASE, I'm begging you to listen... not EVERYONE thought your attempts were wrong (and I only use the word "wrong" because I can't think of another, more useful word right now).

Bottom line: Some of us, me included, APPRECIATED it.

I'm addicted to the book. And the most interesting thing to me is the part about self-validation rather than other-validation. That goes against what most people think.

I also like his comments on communication between couples. He says it's not that married couples don't communicate, but that they each know the other one doesn't want to hear their thoughts.

Well, I'm just up to the Acknowledgmets! (I needed to finish another book I was reading first.) So I'll just comment on the Introductory parts for now:





I was thinking about this, and I'm not sure I think it is completely accurate. Yes there used to be a lot more arranged marriages etc., but I think there were also marriages for love, weren't there? Like, for example, in the Bible there are several instances: Song of Solomon, and David and Bathseba, for instance. But maybe just the men had a choice?

Anyone else thinking there are historic examples of loving couples pre-12th century?




I really like a book that tells me *how* to read it, since I sometimes hem and haw over decisions like whether or ot to underline in it, etc. DH treats his books such that they look brand new after he reads them; I used to be the type of person that would *consume* books, and a well-worn book was a well-loved book. But I've started being more careful with books now, for DH. I liked that the author made the decision for me, and told me to underline things, and to NOT share it with my spouse.



I also noticed that, and am really glad to read that. It's a refreshingly different approach.

Halfway through Chapter 1.

Holy cow.

Ok, one item - but not even the more important item, but while it's on my mind:

Eating lower on the food chain is better environmentally. And insects are a perfectly reasonable source of protein (except for the ick factor). Stir-fried ants are acceptable as food in many places; they are edible, nutritious in protein, and safe to eat.

I can understand that logically, but I still would just rather not eat them.

Um, so..... I am sort of like Karen in ch. 1, but I'd really prefer to not taste either. Just because. Does that mean I have an unhealthy or unevolved (or undifferentiated or un-integrated) sexuality or self-image?

Small TJ:My kids sermon at church yesterday was on leviticus 11 and what is good food and what is not. Insects were a part of that. /TJ

I decided its just that its not so much as me dirty, him clean, but I dont like the taste.


R18 and TMI but relevant to Jaynes comment


So as I said before I assume its just like not liking the taste of parsley, or broad beans, or celery either.

Ok, need to get onto chapter 2. I hope it does get less sloggy as I come to grips with the information.

One thing I like is he identifies the various paradoxes of marriage throughout the book... and there are many, this being one of them. But I find a lot of it rings true.



I think our culture has conditioned us to believe that after we find 'the one' it is all just a ride off into the sunset. When conflict arises, we start to panic thinking 'something is wrong!!!' which can eventually shift to 'I picked the wrong partner... my soulmate is out there waiting for me somewhere'.

Conflict is inevitable in any relationship. I don't think we can avoid it. Picking one potential partner over another can minimize or exacerbate it, but no matter who you pick, there will be conflict. It doesn't mean the relationship is doomed, or there is a big problem. It's just part of the package.



haha, yeah I noticed that, too! But really if I were in his shoes I'd probably do the same thing. I tend to view the stories as fables rather than just the absolute, literal truth. Maybe it came out that way, maybe not, but it is useful for teaching the principle he wants to teach.




I thought of that as well – but I don't think that the ancient notions of Romantic Love were quite what they are today. I think the choice residing exclusively with men is part of it. But think of many of the stories of Romantic Love in those times. When they existed women had no say, and/or it was a tragedy. Their love caused them to often chose between society and each other.

I do think that what Modern Couples expect out of their romantic relationships today is drastically different even than those of just a few generations ago.



Do you think you have an unhealthy or unevolved sexuality or self-image? Did that ring true for you? Can you identify what it is that causes you to prefer not to taste? You don't have to answer those here.

To pull from something a few chapters ahead of this:


There is a difference between choosing not to because you don't like the taste, and not wanting to for other, deeper reasons.

Diet can also have a lot to do with the taste though... TMI warning





I started in Section 2 today. Meant to just read ahead to get ready for starting that discussion, and man it's a page turner.... read three chapters in one sitting. It gets a bit easier to read in section 2, simply because he has to spend so much time in the first section laying the groundwork and defining terms. Section 2 is where the practical stuff starts.

I am not reading this book because I do not want to torture myself - haha...but I can;t resist peeking on the thread. Here is a tip for you ladies who are put off by certain things:

Mentioned a thread discussing OS and DH read more of the book in 5 minutes than he has in 3 years Anyway he reminded me about those things you mentioned Herf, as well as reducing intake of coffee.

On a more serious note, he agreed that it is a flavour issue, not a comfort with the act issue on my side. Whew!

http://www.mixdrinx.com/recipes/Mixed-Drinks/Rum/Pineapple-Lime-Cocktail/

Not sure who's supposed to have one, so maybe both of you should

Ok, I'm not exactly sure why needs to be hidden behind a spoiler, but I'm sure wishing I'd put what I wrote behind a spoiler! I'd forgotten about spoilers.

Anyway, what exactly are you supposed to do with ? Is it like a tequila shooter... or you mean as a part of the general diet?

Ok, enough beating around the, um, ...



I'm ok with going my whole life without eating the head of a sushi shrimp, with its deep-fried antennae and eyeballs. I'm ok with going my whole life without eating rocky mountain oysters, although I love raw (ocean) oysters.

I'm also ok with beig a bit "vanilla" in the OS department. Does that make me a prude?

The man should drink pineapple juice and eat/drink limes. Doesn't hurt for the woman either. I don't know why it is a spoiler. We are all adults here.

I am getting the book soon so I can now talk....but after reading some of the comments I am afraid I might be some kind of hoochie mama.....

Pineapple and lime juice for both.

Women should avoid seafood before OS and take a bath instead of a shower. That makes everything delicious.

I'm loving the book, and know I need to make some changes before I date again.

I think he makes too big a deal out of the taste thing. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

I have had Rocky Mountain Oysters though (a band I was in did a gig at the Tucson Mountain Oyster Club). Tasted like chicken ...

I am very much enjoying the book, even though he doesn't seem to understand validation... For example, it is very invalidating to insist that one's spouse "read this" or even go to therapy so that they can be "fixed." It is invalidating to insist that one's spouse talk about their feelings when it is not safe to do so - and just as invalidating to stonewall about it altogether. In other words, Schnarch doesn't acknowledge the degree to which lack of validation was part of the problem, probably because he is pushing his own model and agenda. Which is fine, since it's his book and (so far at least) it seems to be a useful model.

Oh, and ...


So that'll fried ants with a pineapple juice chaser??

@fiddler:

ROFL!!!!!

Actually, with the pineapple juice and limes I was picturing the way you drink tequila shots:



So you have the lime, and the pineapple juice replaces the tequila, and instead of licking the salt from your hand, you...?

I have eaten snails, brains, kangaroo, trotters, and various animal organs - not rocky mountain oysters...yet. They're not so bad. Fried ants could be interesting.



That is an interesting comment about being 'vanilla' I don't think I am very adventurous, I know what my comfort zones are and I dont tend to exceed them. Having talked to as bunch of women over the years, some of what I do seems very exotic to some, and repressed to others. I don't think vanilla judgements can be made, not even by our sexual partner. DH knew what I was into when he married me, and I know we were not the first couple to ever get jiggy before getting married.

Nearly finished section 2 and I have comments!