[ChristinaHedge]

I know a woman who's husband was on a great income and was let go from his job. He had great qualifications, but could not find another job at the same level. He steadfastly refused to work unless he could get a job of the same level.
She begged and pleaded and threatened and tried to shame him. Nothing worked. In the end she went back to work and supported the family.
That was his values and his line in the sand.
We all have them.
Now, do I think he was right to do that to his two young kids and wife? No. Would I in the same situation? No. If anyone put ME in that situation I would give them an ultimatum and kick them to the curb.
They are still together (or were last time I checked). He was still not working and had become a house husband. The kids are a lot older now and do not need as much work though. She was worn ragged and not happy.

My reason for saying what I was saying, is that I have seen this kind of thing before. Whatever psychological barrier or entrenched value is too much for them to cross. If I was hard up for money, I would clean toilets for a living if the situation asked for it. If my relationship was suffering I would grab onto help with both hands. Maybe I have a position I will not bend for? Neither of those are that inflexible.

I honestly, again from what little I read, saw the same situation. I think if someone gives a definite "No" it normally means no and playing for an eventual yes...I dunno, I do not think it is constructive.

The default answer would be to communicate honestly the real options and if he still in knowledge of exactly how bad it is, says something like, "Well that may all be true but I still will not go to therapy, no matter what", well you have your answer.

I am sorry to hear what you are going through. Would not wish that on an enemy.

[jen1447]

The main thing I don't get about any quasi-sympathetic-to-the-guy type responses on here (and I'm not pointing the finger at anybody in particular) is the 'don't negotiate with terrorists' rule. If we were talking about him just underperforming as a partner or even possibly cheating or things of that nature, that would be one thing. Those issues could possibly be worked around. But this guy has shown distinct abuser/controller traits, and the fact is that those types of people are dangerous and essentially a grave risk to have around you intimately. They can potentially ruin your life. They can potentially even do worse.

If I discovered tomorrow that my BF had murdered his last GF, I wouldn't say "well we'll see if we can work it out." He'd be out of the picture the moment I found out, no negotiations, no questions asked, no "call me laters." Because you don't negotiate with terrorists. And believe it or not, abusers/controllers are closer to the murderer side of the spectrum than the decent guy spectrum, both in terms of general risk assessment and clinically. They usually possess various psychopathic traits, much like murderers and other violent criminals. They are many examples where they've actually become murderers by eventually murdering their partners.

So in that light, it's plainly baffling to me that anyone would say "look at both sides" or "maybe you can fix him." No. You can maybe fix a guy who doesn't understand that he shouldn't go to the bar 7 nights a week. You shouldn't even entertain the notion of playing ball with a psychopath, and anybody who's maybe just wading in the shallow end of the psychopath pool is still too psychotic to have anything to do with.

[calibri~]

Christina, thank you for your further comments. I struggle to see a parallel between what I am discussing here, and the example of your friend, but appreciate the point about people having lines they are unwilling to cross.
What confuses me somewhat is that I've given the impression that I'm trying to trick my SO into doing something he finds morally or personally objectionable. I'm not clear on what you would do in my situation...you'd say in black and white what the problems were and that the options were struggle on, therapy or break up, then after some rages he votes to struggle on but nothing will change for the better....what then? He doesn't want to leave me but I'm unhappy. He's content to continue like this indefinitely rather than try to solve the issues or contribute to the choice to part.

Jen. I must be tired. I don't understand what you are saying. I get the terrorist thing, but people posting in defense of those posted about? I think it's perfectly fine, especially if the mental health or status of the poster is in question. Do you think my SO could be dangerous?

[effy2014]

I think that you are getting closer to the point of two choices -- keep being unhappy or make the decision to split. Your SO is not being much help in the process because (in my view) he lacks the capability to change. You are grossly under appreciated in this relationship and, because of this, question whether unhappiness with him is better than unhappiness alone.

I loved your self description -- you have so much to offer and will find someone else who can give you what you need.

[jen1447]

Jen. I must be tired. I don't understand what you are saying. I get the terrorist thing, but people posting in defense of those posted about? I think it's perfectly fine, especially if the mental health or status of the poster is in question. Do you think my SO could be dangerous?

Sorry calibri, we must both be tired - I don't follow the first part of your question either. Can you rephrase?

As to the dangerous question, I don't know him at all so I can't say specifically. But profiling of abusive personality disorder types in domestic situations is a pretty advanced science now, and all I can say is that your guy pretty distinctly demonstrates some of the widely accepted traits of such a person. In my book, that's good enough reason to stay far, far away. You don't want to roll the dice on a borderline dysfunctional person in a limited reward potential relationship and 'find out' that he was dangerous firsthand after all.

[atskitty2]

I think for me, calibri, what it boils down to is something like this: You're not happy, there's no indication that there's improvement in the works, so, end it.

You're unhappy in this relationship. That's reason alone to end it. Never mind the other circumstances here that tip the scales toward not spending your life with this man.

If I remember correctly, no children are between you? No marriage? So those "complications" are non-existent.

Obviously, we don't know the dynamics here, as we don't know you or him, but all you have described, I just don't see what's so complicated to figure out here. All we have in life is to be happy, go and find some for yourself!

[CHANDLERS WISH]

Could he be dangerous?

I believe that if you weren't talking here, getting stronger within yourself however slight that is and that will improve over time, no. But then, we don't know him.

I think he "has" been dangerous in as much as destroying the core of your every being.

I'm glad you have this thread.

You've already googled is persona and traits and noted some really 100% frightening realities about your guy.

Do we deserve to do this to ourselves? Do we not own ourselves and in that , allow someone to "join" us?

[calibri~]

The main thing I don't get about any quasi-sympathetic-to-the-guy type responses on here ....it's plainly baffling to me that anyone would say "look at both sides"...

^ about this - I am not sure I agree that people shouldn't voice some concern or consideration for the other party. In a forum like this only one side of any story will be told and if a poster, such as myself, displays some emotional or psychological instability or history thereof - it is definately worth questioning whether their story is a bit biased, or whether they are denying part of the truth to themselves.

I think I've said before that I am very anxious that there is something deeply wrong with me - the way that I treat people, that I deal with problems etc, as implied by my SO - this can either me due to him having a problem, me having a problem, or an unhappy combination of the two. Its good to get an alternative perspective because despite all the things that I complain about and that make me sad, I do not think that my SO is a bad person, I just just dont understand his logic or values sometimes.

That said, I do appreciate that there are situations where it can be harmful to the poster to apparently have their abusive partners negative messages affirmed by a bunch of strangers.

[calibri~]

atskitty - I appreciate your advice. In your place I would be saying teh same thing. It is somehow different when it is you that is the one doing the decision making etc...perhaps I aught not to still be discussing things here - I don't want to be frustrating people that I am failing to take action or responsibility for my own life...

Chandlers wish - what do you mean by " Do we not own ourselves and in that , allow someone to "join" us? " I think my brain is on a go-slow this week.

[jen1447]

Okay, that makes sense and I agree with you, sorry/thanks lol. I guess to narrow down the premise of my objection as concisely as possible, it's this -

1. A member relates to us over the course of two threads and a few weeks that their partner is an abuser/controller personality type and engages in controlling and at least borderline abusive behavior.
2. Another member responds to this that the abuser/controller's feelings should be taken into consideration and that they may be right and that the victim partner might be to blame for setting him off or being inconsiderate of his abusive/controlling sensibilities.

That in a nutshell I don't and never will get, and I suspect the reason anyone's said anything along those lines is that they didn't know the full story before posting. Consideration of there being two sides to every story is fine, but if anyone actually thinks the two things enumerated above, given all the facts, they're out of their mind and pretty much need to be shouted down. Which I fully intend to do on your behalf because I'm a calibri fan and a defender of women and any underdogs in general.