[megogirl]

We don't know the outcome. We truly cannot predict that.

True, but per my personal guru RCR:  "The relationship is superficial and thus, doomed for failure."

And so....I believe that.

[lawprofessor]

I see no posts retaliating against standers. Just posts saying many, if not most, will never reconcile and that many that are now standers, or were at first, stop being.

Standing for years on end or for life is not realistic for many people.

Non-standers do reconcile. Therefore, is there a point in standing if one sees standing as aimed at reconciliation? Standing is not required for reconciliation.

Anjae, I agree with you.  There have been assertions like that for years now that arise at fairly regular cycles.

While you and I tend to be literal-we look for the literal meaning of attack which is someone doing something in the realm of stating another poster is a fool, or inset negative of choice.  So you and I look around and find nothing of the sort happened and wonder just what the person is talking about.

We then do what Treasur did and ask for examples.  None are forthcoming usually.  And none are direct literal attacks if an example is given, that I can recall.

But what if it's a perception issue?

(What if instead of using the term attacked, they say they are uncomfortable because too many people are not Stander's so they perceive being in the minority as opposed to the majority where there is strength in numbers?  What if they feel vulnerable in the minority, if in fact standing is the minority position on HS?)

So a question is why would someone feel a generalized even factual statement is an attack?  Are they personalizing a non personalized statement?  If so, what do they get out of doing so?

Even if the writer of the statement is not directing the statement to that person, some do seem to feel it is a personal attack?

If we take that as accurate, what can writers do to mitigate that?  What if anything should they do?

What should writers do?  Self censor? Make some topics off limits?  Leave and go elsewhere?  Not discuss certain things just figuring the readers will notice on their own? 

Is the writer even responsible for mitigating that risk?

What if anything could be done to make the reader feel less like she was being attacked? 

Is it the responsibility of the writer how another reacts to a generalized statement?

Does the reader have any responsibility for how she perceived the written words and how she feels as a result?

Does it make a difference that it may be a perception rather than a literal verbal attack?

What if the converse is true as well, that non-standers feel attacked when Stander's respond with things like God hates divorce, you'll never be allowed to remarry in the church or take communion. Does that constitute an attack?  Or is that just a generalized statement of fact and different than an attack?

Anjae we both have been around long enough to have seen these assertions before.  I know where you stand on the answers to the above questions.  We both have been swiped at and accused of being too blunt or saying things in a not soft enough manner over various times.  Is it really worth it to post and get these sorts of responses from a few?  For me I'm well past the point of wanting to be involved in these sorts of things.  It's just not worth it anymore when no amount of rationalization will reach someone who is arguing personal feelings and perceptions.

Lp

[Not Applicable]

I think we need to be honest with ourselves. There are those whose religious views consider it virtuous to stand after a divorce even if there is a remarriage.

There are those who actually consider it immoral to be pining for their remarried spouse or acting as if the new marriage is less real than their previous one, considering it coveting someone else's spouse.

The fact is, we are never going to all agree on this. Everyone thinks their religious views are right and others are wrong.

But considering this forum does not all share the same views, stating anything as a moral absolute is going to come across as arrogant, offensive or even delusional to someone who does not agree. Blowback is to be expected.

So it's better to just state it as "this is what I believe". I think any reasonable person can respect differences in values when presented as such.

[SteelSpine]

I cannot speak for anyone else, but what Milly wrote (if that is what we are talking about) resonated with me.  I have felt that the tone of this board has become more firm, too firm, and that has not always been useful, to me at least.

But I also recognize that it is a logical evolution. This place is RCR's experiment, for lack of a better word.  And as the years go by, for whatever reason, the hopes the we all had - at least I know I did - when we came here, of a reconciled marriage, have not panned out. 
Lots of reasons for that, not the least of which is that RCR was the distancer in her marriage, whereas it think most of the rest of us were not.  And then there is the particular soup of variables that make up each of our individual stories.

But what I also see is that a long term LBS, who has healed from whatever abuse they have endured and is in no way standing, is not a great choice to give advice to a shell-shocked newbie.

[megogirl]

Yes, NYM

You absolutely said "to prove a point".  Just re-read your own statement to clarify.

[UrsaMajor]

New Thread: https://mlcforum.theherosspouse.com/index.php?topic=11055