Just some insights anyone willing to share points of views.

Views: 426

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Lack of trust.

Not having a bond, if a marriage is held together by "things" that aren't each other. If a marriage is held together just for example the childrens sake, the mortgage, appearances etc. A marriage should be held together by each other, if everything was removed the couple should want to stay together.

Just my 2 cents.

A marriage isn't an entity that exists on its own.   It is entirely a product of the participants.  It is toxic if you're toxic; it won't be if you're not.  As for what constitutes a toxic spouse ... did you have anything more specific?

There are very few occasions where marital problems are one-sided.  If a marriage isn't working, there's probably something each spouse can do to push in the right direction.

JB

But one spouse cannot be the only one pushing; it takes two working together.  If you can't work together at the same time then it's over.

One of the main problems marriages have is that it is made up of two individuals.  When it gets to the point where any one individual cannot or will not look at things from the other individual's perspective then there is going to be problems.  When it gets to that point things will start becoming a tit-for-tat battle.  "Well he/she did this so I'll do that".

To start fixing the marriage you have to both agree to forgive and not bring up the past.  This is one of the hardest things to do especially when arguing.

Take the biggest problem (one or maybe two) the hot button thing and work on that first, ignore the rest while you work on those; again this is hard as it is not (really) just one or two things but a whole slew of things that have built up over time.  Once you get that thing down work on the next 'hot button issue' but don't forget the previous issue(s).  But, again, you both have to agree to this in writing with signatures.

 

BUT, what do I know, I'm having difficulties in my marriage so take it for what it's worth.

I disagree, with a few exceptions.  One spouse can very often change the entire tone of the marriage ... generally, by visibly and intentionally putting their spouse before themselves, by giving the wife/husband what she/he needs even if you're not getting it back.  By sacrificing rather than struggling.  It ain't easy in a toxic environment ... but, it can right the ship.

 

Like I said, there are exceptions.  But, most people who think they're an exception, haven't tried it ... and probably aren't.

 

JB

Thank you for your input and sincerity.

I'll back that up, having experienced some very difficult times in my marriage.  Thanks to some dedicated communication from both of us, it's better now than it's been in years.

Hey Rick
Just because there are problems doesn't mean you haven't hit the nail on the head with your post. It's so easy to have problems in a marriage, but so tough to find solutions that give enough satisfaction to two people to be workable. Speaking from my own experience. Obviously this is why it is so critical to choose a good spouse, but given enough time and a few poor decisions, even the best marriage can turn into the proverbial hot mess.

A toxic marriage is one that harms, rather than aids, the well-being of the spouses and/or their children.

I very much agree with this definition.  Dysfunctional is not the same a toxic.  There are some situations that you can "live with", but a toxic situation is one that is actively destroying the participant.

One that involves contempt.  That's also a doomed marriage.

Lol..

RSS

Latest Activity

Regular Joe replied to Karl Helweg's discussion Paranoia and the virtue of hospitality?
"For whatever it's worth, there HAVE been loads of couchsurfing nightmares and most of them have been experienced by women. "
3 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Josh Allen's discussion If you can tell me what religion you are then you are in a prison.
"I didn't mean to get that metaphysical about it. ;)  I meant something more along the lines of our own biases, prejudices, preconceived notions, reactions to certain types of stimulii, etc. As open-minded and free as we think we are, there…"
7 minutes ago
Matt T. replied to Josh Allen's discussion If you can tell me what religion you are then you are in a prison.
"I haven't had that much experience posting with Josh, so I'll have to take your word on this.  Stinks to hear such quashing of opposing opinions, but 'tis the power of the internet."
11 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Caleb's discussion Socks with Brown Shoes
"Except that jeans are meant to expose the socks unless you're one of those fashioney cuff the jeans to show some ankle kind of guys. "
14 minutes ago
John Muir replied to Jack Bauer's discussion Nevada Ranch War ... in the group The Great Debate
"Well, said massacres were what - 15 years ago? 20 years ago? In a large country, with many large law enforcement divisions, abominations, blunders, and miscarriages of justice unfortunately will happen. They're intolerable. They must be studied…"
15 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Caleb's discussion Socks with Brown Shoes
""As for jeans, I'm always at a loss as to what color to wear as "matching socks to pants" just seems weird...." Just wear black socks then. Not dress socks. Casual black socks."
15 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Caleb's discussion Socks with Brown Shoes
"Casual shoes with shorts . . . I'm not the fashion police but . . . "
16 minutes ago
John Muir replied to Jack Bauer's discussion Nevada Ranch War ... in the group The Great Debate
"Not the kind of tactical team needed for a massacre. Just the kind of team appropriate for the work. I know guns and body armor look scary to unarmed people, but in the American public is heavily armed. Rural folks such as myself and this idiot…"
37 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service