[ADULT] About my (sexual and other) relationship with my husband

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

I think it contributes to both of your lives. Noticing a "flaw" informs you of what you prefer instead of that flaw, and it alerts you to the fact that you are focused on what you don't want creating the opportunity for a shift in perspective.

I wonder if you would elaborate on what you're thinking when you use the word "flaw" ?

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

i love you

Why thank you.

[inverse Paranoid]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

I don't need the concept of flaws in people to achieve anything that I want. And using that concept doesn't provide me or anyone or anything else with anything useful, that I see.

Of course, I do have internal concepts of characteristics of humans that I enjoy, and characteristics of humans that I don't enjoy. And of course, I do compare my experiences of other people with those things that I enjoy and don't enjoy. But those things don't equate to an idea of a perfect person. Rather, they're simply things that I, personally, have a particular experience around. Comparing a person with those things never leads to thinking that they have a flaw (or flaws). Instead, it leads to thinking that they simply match or don't match some particular characteristics that I enjoy or don't enjoy. THAT is useful to me. I don't project my evaluation of those characteristics onto the person, as an inherent flaw that THEY possess. Instead, I simply recognize whether I enjoy it or not, and I use that to inform my decisions about how to interact with the person.

I hadn't read this prior to writing my above comment. I can see now that what you're talking about primarily is attaching the thing that we consider a flaw to the person that appears to presenting it. Which is a lot easier to agree with because it doesn't dismiss the value of noticing and refining your own preferences.

However, I still think there's a value to attaching flaws to a particular person. No, it's not the most empowered way of thinking , but having the experience of thinking the other person has the problem (and that THEY need to change for resolution to be found) serves us more than abolishing that perspective from our worldview completely.

Abraham often talks about how the vibration of blame is higher than the vibration of guilt. In other words, putting the blame on someone else is much more empowering than continually beating yourself up for something. So if you decide that blame is not an empowering point of view and therefore vow to never blame anyone again, you are making it much more difficult for you to raise your vibration around things where having the freedom to blame someone else would make you feel better.

The same principle applies to noticing flaws. If the flaw exists in the person and not in your perspective, then you don't have to blame yourself for how you see things. It doesn't mean you're going to blame the person for exhibiting the flaw the rest of your life, it just means that when it feels better to blame someone else than it does to blame yourself, you have the freedom to do so. If you never allow yourself to project the flaw onto the person who's exhibiting it, then you have to take 100% responsibility for everything you don't like about what you're seeing. This may sound empowering in a certain conceptual sense, but it is incredibly disempowering when your vibration is already below the level of blame and you get stuck blaming yourself because you've made a commitment to not blaming others.

It's the same principle as people who denounces anger. Anger is a much higher vibration than powerlessness, or depression, or fear. So if you never give yourself permission to be angry, you'll be stuck in those feelings for much, much longer than if you simply accepted that there's a value to each emotion and allow yourself to use them appropriately.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

However, I still think there's a value to attaching flaws to a particular person. No, it's not the most empowered way of thinking , but having the experience of thinking the other person has the problem (and that THEY need to change for resolution to be found) serves us more than abolishing that perspective from our worldview completely.

Abraham often talks about how the vibration of blame is higher than the vibration of guilt. In other words, putting the blame on someone else is much more empowering than continually beating yourself up for something. So if you decide that blame is not an empowering point of view and therefore vow to never blame anyone again, you are making it much more difficult for you to raise your vibration around things where having the freedom to blame someone else would make you feel better.

Hmmm. I hadn't considered this. This is a very interesting perspective.

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

The same principle applies to noticing flaws. If the flaw exists in the person and not in your perspective, then you don't have to blame yourself for how you see things. It doesn't mean you're going to blame the person for exhibiting the flaw the rest of your life, it just means that when it feels better to blame someone else than it does to blame yourself, you have the freedom to do so. If you never allow yourself to project the flaw onto the person who's exhibiting it, then you have to take 100% responsibility for everything you don't like about what you're seeing. This may sound empowering in a certain conceptual sense, but it is incredibly disempowering when your vibration is already below the level of blame and you get stuck blaming yourself because you've made a commitment to not blaming others.

It's the same principle as people who denounces anger. Anger is a much higher vibration than powerlessness, or depression, or fear. So if you never give yourself permission to be angry, you'll be stuck in those feelings for much, much longer than if you simply accepted that there's a value to each emotion and allow yourself to use them appropriately.

I can definitely see how, if you somehow hold onto a concept of "flaws", while simultaneously placing blame for anything you don't like on yourself, that would not lead to very comfortable experiences.

If I can elaborate - after dropping the concept of "perfection", and thus dropping the concept of "flaws" - there would no longer be any "flaw" in your perception of the person. You would never encounter something that you considered a flaw in another person, and therefore the dilemma of deciding "where" the flaw exists (in the other person, or in your perception of them) would never arise.

Instead, you simply make a distinction between "the person" and "what I enjoy / what I want". It's similar to disliking a particular food. If you don't like a particular food, you probably don't think of that food as "flawed". And you probably also don't blame yourself for disliking the food. You simply acknowledge that you don't like it, don't assign that experience to the food as a "flaw", don't assign blame to yourself because you had that experience, and don't eat the food. In a similar way, using this perspective - if you notice that you don't like something about another person: you simply acknowledge that you don't like it, don't assign that experience to the other person as a "flaw", don't assign blame to yourself because you had that experience, and either don't engage that particular aspect of the person or don't engage the person at all. That's what I meant about "informing my decisions about how I interact with the person".

A single particular characteristic about a person could be perceived by one person as a "flaw", and the same characteristic could be perceived by a third person as something amazing and wonderful. What I mean to say here is - the person doesn't have a "flaw". No characteristic that any person has is a "flaw". Rather, another person perceives it as a flaw. In other words - in the experience of the person who saw the flaw, it is a flaw. The person who saw it created it, in their own experience, as a flaw. If you're looking around and seeing people as flawed - you're creating those flaws in your own experience. (I know this is dangerously close to the blame situation you mentioned above. ). I don't know about anyone else, but creating a person I care about (or any person!) as flawed doesn't seem like a very loving (or accurate!) thing to do. Often people say things like - no one is perfect; or, every person has flaws. Honestly, if you live in a world where you're creating Every Single Person on the planet as inherently flawed - well, that's not any kind of world I would want to live in.

I would definitely take any experience that I don't enjoy as My Experience, rather than assigning it to another person as a flaw. But, I would also not blame myself (or anyone else) for the fact that I had an experience I didn't enjoy. I don't think there's any need to do either of those things.

[inverse Paranoid]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

I wonder if you would elaborate on what you're thinking when you use the word "flaw" ?

When I think of a flaw, what I'm really saying is something I would prefer differently. It's probably not as damning as someone who thinks there's something seriously wrong with a person. It's just something that I think could be improved.

For instance, in the beginning of my relationship with my girlfriend there were many times that she would do things in ways other than what I prefer. Like the way she would give me head, or how sex was for us when she was on top. These weren't flaws per se, but after a while I started associating them with her because I didn't voice my preferences from the get-go. However, when I finally did present my feedback to her in the form of a flaw (such as, comparing the way she gave me head unfavorable to a story that my friend was telling us about him getting head) her performance / my experience improved pretty quickly. And we were now able to experience to distinctly different styles of giving head.

Now you may say that that's a benefit of communication and not criticism itself, but my habit of assuming the problem lies primarily in other people is also serving me tremendously. As I reach the point where I'm learning to internalize the problem more and more (and thus internalize the solution more and more), I'm coming more and more into alignment with the awesome experience of personal empowerment that I created through years of blaming others for my unwanted experiences.

Every time I felt powerless to change someone, I felt powerless myself, and my desire to step into my own power grew even more. And all that desire has fueled me in ways that I would never have experienced if I'd lived my whole life 100% in my own power.

I know that my whole argument may seem a little thin and anecdotal, but the benefits she has experienced through 10 months of being with someone who's got a very keen eye for when someone else has room to improve have been f-ing tremendous. And now that she's stepping more and more into her power, and my old ways of making the problem about her and not me are no longer working, I'm beginning to realize how much I desire to be able to see her in a way that feels good to ME without needing HER to change her behavior first. And as I get better and better at doing that, I will get better and better and focusing on what I DO want. And all those years of occasionally focusing on what I don't want have given me an incredibly clear vision of the joy that I want to live.


Why thank you.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

When I think of a flaw, what I'm really saying is something I would prefer differently. It's probably not as damning as someone who thinks there's something seriously wrong with a person. It's just something that I think could be improved.
..

Thanks for the great elaboration!

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

..
It's just something that I think could be improved.
..
I know that my whole argument may seem a little thin and anecdotal, but the benefits she has experienced through 10 months of being with someone who's got a very keen eye for when someone else has room to improve have been f-ing tremendous.

About the improvement: I would actually say that what you're seeing is not a way that the other person could *improve* in any objective sense. Rather, what you're seeing is a way that the other person could *change* to become a better match to what you, in particular, want. That change could actually be a *detriment*, in the eyes of another person (rather than an improvement).

I didn't think your argument was thin, at all. I think it's a really interesting perspective.

[inverse Paranoid]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

I don't know about anyone else, but creating a person I care about (or any person!) as flawed doesn't seem like a very loving (or accurate!) thing to do. Often people say things like - no one is perfect; or, every person has flaws. Honestly, if you live in a world where you're creating Every Single Person on the planet as inherently flawed - well, that's not any kind of world I would want to live in.

What if flaws were a good thing? What if everything you loved about everyone in the world was a gift and their flaws were simply another gift waiting to be opened? And every time you shifted your perspective from seeing a flaw, to seeing a gift your world got a little brighter?

Flaws and perfection are both forms of contrast. One appears as the ideal of everything you don't want, the other as a seemingly unattainable vision of everything you do want. If you eliminate both, you'll probably have less to reform and less to reach for, but is that really want you to live?

[AngelPsychic444]

I'd like to thank ssandra too, for all your wonderful post's and while I read them... I learn alot. And thanks for everyone else for contributing too...it does make much food for thought!!!

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

What if flaws were a good thing? What if everything you loved about everyone in the world was a gift and their flaws were simply another gift waiting to be opened? And every time you shifted your perspective from seeing a flaw, to seeing a gift your world got a little brighter?

What if everything you didn't like about a person was simply something you noticed that you didn't like? What if everything you didn't like about a person was a gift waiting to be opened, and you never needed to assign it to that person as a flaw in order to have that experience?

I agree with this approach, in general, to thinks that you don't like. And I don't think using a perfection/flaw categorization is necessary to use this approach.

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

Flaws and perfection are both forms of contrast. One appears as the ideal of everything you don't want, the other as a seemingly unattainable vision of everything you do want. If you eliminate both, you'll probably have less to reform and less to reach for, but is that really want you to live?

I disagree that eliminating your idea of a "perfect person", and thus eliminating the conceptual foundation for seeing "flaws" in people, results in having less to reach for. I guess if seeing flaws is somehow necessary for you to have some particular experience you want to have, then it wouldn't make sense to let that go. But I don't have any need to see flaws in people in order to have plenty of desire for things I do want, and plenty of experiences of achieving those desires.

[inverse Paranoid]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

About the improvement: I would actually say that what you're seeing is not a way that the other person could *improve* in any objective sense. Rather, what you're seeing is a way that the other person could *change* to become a better match to what you, in particular, want. That change could actually be a *detriment*, in the eyes of another person (rather than an improvement).

Yes, I would agree. But don't we benefit more when we've lived two distinctly different experiences of something than when we've stuck with one way the whole time? Every time we make a change to anything it could be an improvement or a detriment, in fact, it's usually both things simultaneously to different people seeing it from different perspectives. But in the variety that we experience through trying things differently we gain the opportunity to discover more and more about who we are and who we want to become.

I don't think life is about trying to find the best way to live and then sticking to it, it's about the evolution and expansion of who we are. It's about constantly reinventing ourselves as our lives, our desires, and our world change around us.

Contrast is the one constant in life. Even if you lock yourself in an unchanging room the rest of your life, the thoughts you think about that room will evolve, and certain thoughts will feel better to you than others. We control the throttle of change in our lives by our willingness to expose ourselves to contrast or stick to what we already know. If we already have a positive point of view on something we may sometimes hold it to the exclusion of other points of view, but sometimes — as counter-intuitive as it may sound — holding a negative, disempowering point of view is empowering than positive, powerful point of view we're used to; because it gives us the opportunity to expand. And in a universe alive with expansion, the only way to continue feeling your best is to expand along with it.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

Yes, I would agree. But don't we benefit more when we've lived two distinctly different experiences of something than when we've stuck with one way the whole time? Every time we make a change to anything it could be an improvement or a detriment, in fact, it's usually both things simultaneously to different people seeing it from different perspectives. But in the variety that we experience through trying things differently we gain the opportunity to discover more and more about who we are and who we want to become.

I don't think life is about trying to find the best way to live and then sticking to it, it's about the evolution and expansion of who we are. It's about constantly reinventing ourselves as our lives, our desires, and our world change around us.

I agree with every point you've expressed here. And I don't think any of this necessitates (or makes useful) using "flaws" in my perception of other people.

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

Contrast is the one constant in life. Even if you lock yourself in an unchanging room the rest of your life, the thoughts you think about that room will evolve, and certain thoughts will feel better to you than others. We control the throttle of change in our lives by our willingness to expose ourselves to contrast or stick to what we already know. If we already have a positive point of view on something we may sometimes hold it to the exclusion of other points of view, but sometimes — as counter-intuitive as it may sound — holding a negative, disempowering point of view is empowering than positive, powerful point of view we're used to; because it gives us the opportunity to expand. And in a universe alive with expansion, the only way to continue feeling your best is to expand along with it.

About this part - I certainly wouldn't take eliminating the use of "flaws" in my perception of other people to mean that I would cease changing, or attempt to cease changing. And I wouldn't take it to mean that I suddenly have no contrast (ie, things I do like, and things I don't like). And I wouldn't take it to mean that expansion ceases to happen. All of that still exists in my experience, even without the use of "flaws" in my perception of other people.

[agsags]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

About the improvement: I would actually say that what you're seeing is not a way that the other person could *improve* in any objective sense. Rather, what you're seeing is a way that the other person could *change* to become a better match to what you, in particular, want. That change could actually be a *detriment*, in the eyes of another person (rather than an improvement).

PWL, I think there are *objective* directions in which some people can improve. Surely, there is a big space of preferences where a different changes can make a person a better match for different people. But there are also changes which *objectively* align a person more with their Spirit and those positively affect everyone.

The problem is being able to differentiate whether the supposed "flaw/deficiency" comes from *my* preferences or if I actually see the other person (sometimes better than they can see themselves) without my "self" getting in the way. Does this make sense?

[inverse Paranoid]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

I disagree that eliminating your idea of a "perfect person", and thus eliminating the conceptual foundation for seeing "flaws" in people, results in having less to reach for. I guess if seeing flaws is somehow necessary for you to have some particular experience you want to have, then it wouldn't make sense to let that go. But I don't have any need to see flaws in people in order to have plenty of desire for things I do want, and plenty of experiences of achieving those desires.

I think that I haven't been specific enough in explaining where I'm coming from, and that's creating a little miscommunication. You see, I hold a very get-to-the-core-of-things point of view, so even when I'm talking about other people I'm largely focused on my deeper, conceptual understanding of how the universe works as a whole. So when I see you talking about the value of eliminating a certain concept, I'm not really debating you on how eliminating that concept might create immediate improvements for someone or not, I'm looking at it more holistically as to what the universe would look like with one less possibility.

I agree that there is a tremendous amount of value to narrowing your point of view at times to more easily allow for greater focus on what's most important to you, and it sounds like releasing the concepts of "perfect person" / "flawed person" does just that for you. My point of view was just a little too broad to the point where it seemed to minimize my ability to notice and express those benefits.

There may come a time when you choose to broaden your point of view and you may re-adopt the concepts of perfect/flawed people from a fresh perspective. Or you may choose to release even more concepts as you fine-tune your focus and hone in even more on what's important to you. I guess I'm forgetting that the perspective you hold in this moment isn't the perspective that you'll hold forever, so if I'm trying to argue you out of eliminating a point of view, then I'm not recognize the value you might experience from living life without it.

I think my original intention was to highlight the value that greater contrast (including seemingly disempowering perspectives) had to offer, but I got a little bogged down in discussing the specifics and may have obscured my point.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by agsags

PWL, I think there are *objective* directions in which some people can improve. Surely, there is a big space of preferences where a different changes can make a person a better match for different people. But there are also changes which *objectively* align a person more with their Spirit and those positively affect everyone.

The problem is being able to differentiate whether the supposed "flaw/deficiency" comes from *my* preferences or if I actually see the other person (sometimes better than they can see themselves) without my "self" getting in the way. Does this make sense?

Well, I think you can see where a person doesn't happen to match where they *want* to be. Again, I wouldn't ever see that as a flaw (or a deficiency). Again, I would instead simply see a mismatch between two different things - where the person is at, and where they want to be.

In other words, instead of seeing "a flaw" (in any situation, with any person), I make distinction between three separate things. Those three things I see are: what exists, what I want, and the discrepancy between them. Or, if it's in comparison with where the other person wants to be, I see: what exists, what the person wants, and the discrepancy between them. In other words - what exists is never flawed. It doesn't happen to match this other thing that Could exist - but it's never flawed or deficient as it is. It's simply NOT this other thing (and NOT any other of the infinite things it could be, for that matter).

[Plays With Life]

Thanks again for the elaboration, inverse Paranoid. -

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

I think that I haven't been specific enough in explaining where I'm coming from, and that's creating a little miscommunication. You see, I hold a very get-to-the-core-of-things point of view, so even when I'm talking about other people I'm largely focused on my deeper, conceptual understanding of how the universe works as a whole. So when I see you talking about the value of eliminating a certain concept, I'm not really debating you on how eliminating that concept might create immediate improvements for someone or not, I'm looking at it more holistically as to what the universe would look like with one less possibility.

I agree that there is a tremendous amount of value to narrowing your point of view at times to more easily allow for greater focus on what's most important to you, and it sounds like releasing the concepts of "perfect person" / "flawed person" does just that for you. My point of view was just a little too broad to the point where it seemed to minimize my ability to notice and express those benefits.

There may come a time when you choose to broaden your point of view and you may re-adopt the concepts of perfect/flawed people from a fresh perspective. Or you may choose to release even more concepts as you fine-tune your focus and hone in even more on what's important to you. I guess I'm forgetting that the perspective you hold in this moment isn't the perspective that you'll hold forever, so if I'm trying to argue you out of eliminating a point of view, then I'm not recognize the value you might experience from living life without it.

On the contrary, from my perspective this doesn't result in *narrowing* a person's perspective, or in eliminating any possibilities. Everything that is possible with the concept of flaws in your perception of people remains possible without that concept in your perception of people. In contrast to narrowing one's perspective, this is actually achieved by *adding* distinctions that you weren't making before. I think that *adds* to the diversity that you're experiencing in your perception of people.

I'm kind of curious, now - Have you seen on the forum that some people choose not to use the categorizations of right vs wrong? What is your perspective on that? Do you think of things as right or wrong?

Originally Posted by inverse Paranoid

I think my original intention was to highlight the value that greater contrast (including seemingly disempowering perspectives) had to offer, but I got a little bogged down in discussing the specifics and may have obscured my point.

Thanks for the re-focus. My take on this is: Thinking of the things you don't like in a different way doesn't affect the amount or quality of contrast you experience. The contrast still exists; the only thing you change is how you view the contrast you experience.

[Lauxa]

Sandra, I hope you can answer this question for me, forgive me if it is too personal.

Was your husband ever interested in hearing about your sexual encounters with other men or telling you about his encounters with other women? At the one end of the spectrum, there is pretend like it doesn't happen and on the other end is wanting to know all the details... so I am wondering how much you shared about this.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

Sandra, I hope you can answer this question for me, forgive me if it is too personal.

Was your husband ever interested in hearing about your sexual encounters with other men or telling you about his encounters with other women? At the one end of the spectrum, there is pretend like it doesn't happen and on the other end is wanting to know all the details... so I am wondering how much you shared about this.

It is somewhere in between. I personally wouldn't do the "pretend it doesn't happen" because to me that means that you actually aren't ok with it, just pretending to be...

He on the other hand doesn't want and/or like sharing all the detail. I could do that, but I can just as easily not do it.

So we would talk about what happened as he would talk about having dinner with a friend. Let me know that it happened, and if something extra special or interesting happened share that, but not relive every single detail of the conversation

[inverse Paranoid]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

On the contrary, from my perspective this doesn't result in *narrowing* a person's perspective, or in eliminating any possibilities. Everything that is possible with the concept of flaws in your perception of people remains possible without that concept in your perception of people. In contrast to narrowing one's perspective, this is actually achieved by *adding* distinctions that you weren't making before. I think that *adds* to the diversity that you're experiencing in your perception of people.

This is an interesting way of looking at it. Addition by subtraction. That's a concept I've only recently been exposed to and, even though you don't see it as subtraction, my choosing to focus on it as subtraction created a distinctly different view from how you saw it (which again added to our collective understanding of the subject!) Now that I see it as seeing things through a different lens, rather than eliminating something from your perspective, it broadens the possibilities rather than limiting them.

I'm kind of curious, now - Have you seen on the forum that some people choose not to use the categorizations of right vs wrong? What is your perspective on that? Do you think of things as right or wrong?

I don't really think in terms of right or wrong, I usually tend to think in terms of empowering or disempowering. The funny thing is that my perspective on right and wrong has shifted so much that I know see "wrongness" as the desirable one, and "rightness" as something closer to how I once saw wrong. An example would be if you can take something that seems so wrong from a certain perspective and learn to love it, then you've really broadened your perspective and increased your capacity to love. But if you cling to what you consider as "the right way" then you narrow it. But now I'm starting to see that even clinging to a view of "the right way" can broaden your perspective, because that unique lens exposes you to insight that otherwise wouldn't be visible.

Thanks for the re-focus. My take on this is: Thinking of the things you don't like in a different way doesn't affect the amount or quality of contrast you experience. The contrast still exists; the only thing you change is how you view the contrast you experience.

This is interesting, in a confusing sense. Kind of like when someone says something to you that you don't "get" but somehow know there's value there and so you don't dismiss it either. I believe my biases have sort of blinded me to the true value of what you're saying. I don't really know how else to say it, but at some point in this conversation my focus shifted from sharing what I know, to noticing that there's something new that I want to know; and sometimes in a "debate" like this — even if it's only a friendly discussion — it's hard to shift from teaching other people what you know to diving in and learning something the person you were just trying to teach just exposed you to.

[Plays With Life]

Thanks for these thoughts, inverse Paranoid!

[inverse Paranoid]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Thanks for these thoughts, inverse Paranoid!

You're very welcome. Thanks for all the enlightening discussion.

[butterflyeffect]

@sandra, I had a go at putting this into practice today!!!

I was doing grocery shopping earlier and one of the staff members was helping me find the particular yogurt I wanted. Anyway in the process of getting my yogurt he asked me out for coffee... I wasn't interested and started feeling really edgy about what sort of vibe im giving off that I can't "shop in peace".

Lol but then I realised after getting upset that it meant nothing about me or him. He was just exersizing his power as a human being to ask me if I wanted coffee and I was exersizing mine in declining. No more meaning than that and now I feel much calmer!!!

Its like magic.