Last night I was doing my homework, drinking some tea, and eating some cookies when I had another revelation that may be a brain fart or a brain storm, depending upon your opinion.

When thinking of Economics (I have to take it because I've never taken undergrad Econ) and the point of shutdown for a company, my brain suddenly decided to relate it to romantic relationships. (Yeah, my brain works funny.)

Let me back up. The economic principle I'm referring to says that you shutdown a firm when the market price of the good you are producing falls below your average variable cost for producing the good. This means that the firm cannot afford its operating costs.

What could this possibly have to do with a romantic relationship, you ask. I'm so glad you've asked! I believe that a partner will continue to invest in a relationship as long as the emotional benefits outweigh the emotional costs. At the point where the emotional costs begin to equal or outweigh the emotional benefits, the person will go into withdrawal.

Is this withdrawal useful to the marriage? Most of us are afraid of withdrawal. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that, if your partner goes into withdrawal, you should leave him/her there until you can protect him/her from your hurtful behaviors. Conversely, if you go into withdrawal, you should stay there until your partner is capable of protecting you from his/her hurtful behaviors.

Why? I think that withdrawal buffers the pain. Someone goes into withdrawal (outside of infidelity, which is another facet altogether) when he/she cannot continue to feel the pain. He or she needs to disengage. To have someone (whether your spouse or yourself) re-engage while the behavior hasn't changed is to accelerate the pace of marital disintegration. It increases the hurt being felt.

Any comments on my thoughts?

I think you're right, Tak.

But it is also a risky tactic. Risky to the marriage, I mean.

It's also easy to, while in withdrawal, say, "Hey, things seem okay now." And come out before things really ARE okay.

I think that's why many spouses have false starts with their others, who have promised to changed, but haven't let the change congeal.

Regina

Yeah, I have a comment. I think we should talk about the tea and cookies!!! Can tea and cookies help us get through withdrawal? *duh*

Actually, I think your comparison of economics and relationships rings pretty true.

quote:

At the point where the emotional costs begin to equal or outweigh the emotional benefits, the person will go into withdrawal.

Yep. That detachment can be sanity-saving. Problem is that the other partner may not recognize it for what it is (self-protection)...instead they may see it as lack of love, or as I heard someone put it: "things nust be OK, she's quit complaining" .

Kathi

quote:

I believe that a partner will continue to invest in a relationship as long as the emotional benefits outweigh the emotional costs. At the point where the emotional costs begin to equal or outweigh the emotional benefits, the person will go into withdrawal.

Got a q -- Doesn't that also ring true to the WS? Coz that's what they most prob feel, the emotional positives that they get from staying with the OPs still outweight the cost of leaving them in order to come back to us. So when will the costs ever outweight the benefits for them? It might stay just abt even...and some companies still can run when it's break-even.

Or, they might not see the benefits of re-investing in the old company, after they have withdrawn their initial investments. Because we are in PP or some sort of non-communication, that the WS don't see what's good in our lives or what they had. Or they might always imagine the pain that they thought they had to always exist in the marriage.

~A

quote:

So when will the costs ever outweight the benefits for them?

When the costs of the A begin to be more than the benefits. When the WS realizes that what's he's given up-- wife, family, attatchment, etc-- are greater than the biochemical high. Remember the biochemical high is powerful--but it's short term. Attachment is more powerful in the long run.

quote:

Or, they might not see the benefits of re-investing in the old company, after they have withdrawn their initial investments. Because we are in PP or some sort of non-communication, that the WS don't see what's good in our lives or what they had. Or they might always imagine the pain that they thought they had to always exist in the marriage.

I think most BS in the beginning of PP, or comtemplating PP (like me), fear this and question it. How can PP let the WS see the changes, see that it's okay to come back. Well-- that's putting the power in their hands. Not where it belongs. The changes you make during PP are for you, not for them.

What PP does to the WS is send a clear message that "What you're doing isn't okay with me." Whatever need you were meeting with intermittent contact is immediately withdrawn from them. They are left holding their own bag, with no emotional support/connection to the person they have a deep attatchment to. Suddenly the BS is what they are longing for b/c they don't have it.

I have a problem with referring to this as a tactic. I don't think we have as much control over whether we are emotionally engaged or emotionally withdrawn as we might think.

Hi -

Maybe PP can be more tactfully described as an approach. A tactic to me implies a shallower level of commitment and complexity. It allows for the parties to setle down, take stock of reality, metabolize some of the bio-chemical soup, gain understanding of the interpersonal costs, the financial costs... PP allows for some perspective and healing. It seems to me that peace and grace can be fostered in one's heart and mind better when the pain of the A is not right under your nose.

ATB,
SB

I regret not useing PP. The legal realities in my state made PP a big gamble with regard to custody, a gamble I was unwilling to make.