[beyondblessed]

Here's the thing, at least for me, that the circumstances of what we all are deeming to be MLC in our spouse (or ex-spouse in my case) is similar, but also uniquely different.
For that reason alone, a person could never predict who will attempt a return anymore than we could predict who would fall victim to a MLC.

We are all different.  The problems in our Ms and Rs were different.  The only real thing that is the same is that our partners decided to leave the relationship.  I personally think my xh is an emotionally weak individual, who is suffering from bipolar, but that is just my assessment, and doesn't change what he decided to do.  It is just a label, nothing more.  It doesn't make this hurt any less or give the situation anymore clarity, so it really doesn't matter.

What is important to acknowledge though, is that you must start living a life based on you....your likes, dislikes, beliefs, values, etc.  What you believe affects your choices, and ultimately it is your choices and actions that will be the main attracting force in your life.   What you perceive, you believe, and what you believe, you achieve.  Live for you.  That's all you can do.

[Anjae]

I also don't think RCR was trying to destroy hope. But that is how it come across to me. I and not a stander, and I still dealing (or am I?) with the fallout of MLC, I know most marriages will not reconcile and, yet, to me there was a curb hope tone in the blog post.

It may be the wording, it may be how I read it.

The parts of the blog post about focusing on us I agree with 100%.

Hope is not a commodity of limited quantity where one's gain is another's loss.  Support is not a zero sum either.  I think we should all have hope in ourselves, our choices, our beliefs, our strength in living through this, our decisions in how to get through this, and our support systems which includes our faith and spirituality, to name just a few things.  HS is large enough and has enough love to offer hope and support to both standers and those not standing I should hope. 

I could not agree more.

I would not like to see HS become a place where there is only one type of people/idea(s). That would not be interesting, would not allow for thought, would not allow for growth.

[terrified_in_TN]

WoW, this thread blew up in a hurry.  Just a couple points:  It seems there is a divide here among two main differing view points on RCR recent blog post.  Some seem to think RCR has changed her "stance"; I don't see it that way.  I forgot who said it, but I just see her as presenting her findings after x amount of time of observation.

Again, I appreciate the honesty of her findings.  There was a couple posts that inferred that the LBS is so shell shocked in the beginning that they needed a soft place to land and weren't ready for the reality of the likelihood of the survival of their marriage.  I disagree.  As HARD as this is for ALL of us, at no time should the 'odds' be hidden, or the likelihood be "sugar coated".

And even though this is the first time I recall RCR mentioning the odds dwindling with time, I did not take away a lack of hope in her message at all.

Just remember, HOPE and ODDs are NOT mutually exclusive.  But it would be nice to know up front EXACTLY what you are up against.  I don't see how presenting the truth can be bad in any way-even if its not what we want to hear at the time.

-T

[Onward]

Back again; different tack.

I don't think RCR has introduced any new findings. It's made clear there are no stats and data that are kept. And the researchers here would probably agree it would be difficult to track any data on this forum that would make for valid research.

I suspect instead she was using an expression to encourage people to focus on themselves and not 'expect' that standing will bring about a reconciliation. Which is absolutely true.
In my opinion (which is well known), there were discouraging elements to the content and delivery of that message.

There is research which identifies that, of separated couples, only a percentage of them get back together. And of those that get back together, "most" do so within a certain period of time. Generally, the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle for those who like to get fancy) seems to apply to reconciliation, too.

It is impossible to find all of the potential variables regarding time, children, OP, etc., so I'm not even suggesting it. Those are an 'individual milage will vary' scenario.

Keep in mind percentages are not probability, and probability is not the same as odds. This is why words, and interchangeable use of words, paint a different picture than the numbers do.

Lets take a look at some percentages, and apply them to the probability of reconciliation, and what they would mean in terms of odds, in the hope that numbers might balance what -- in my opinion - words did not.

Odds are not guarantees of course. In my younger days I was a pari-mutual teller at the local horse race track, so I got to know odds -- and the good and the bad of unlikely odds --  pretty well.

Lets say that only 1% of separated couples reconcile. (That's low by the way - the research I've seen is generally between 10% and 20% of separated couples reconcile). I've rounded some of the percentages to keep things simple in the chart below.

If 1% of separated couples reconcile, the odds are 1:100 for reconciliation
At 2%, odds are 1:50 will reconcile
at 3%, odds are 1:33 will reconcile
at 4%, odds are 1:25 will reconcile
At 5%, odds are 1:18 will reconcile
at 10%, odds are 1:9 will reconcile
at 15%, odds are 2:11 will reconcile
at 20%, odds are  1:4 will reconcile.
at 25%, odds are 1:3 will reconcile.
at 31%, odds are 5:11 will reconcile
at 50% odds are 1:1

I don't know about anyone else, but even at 1%,"the odds" are more favourable than CallingHeart's lottery ticket.

And even at the lower end of the research, if 10% of separated couples reconcile, the odds are 1 in 9 one *could* see a reconciliation.

Just wanting to add a little dose of context to "the odds".
Gamblers and standers, rejoice. 

[Trustandlove]

That made me smile, Onward  . 

And for the record, I agree with you -- there is nothing wrong with the message that standing doesn't mean your spouse will return, but I also agree that it did sound discouraging.  It is in the delivery, I think. 

And I am definitely one who knows that standing doesn't bring about a return in and of itself.  The MLCer still has to go through their journey (or not), and then decide to do so....

And so do we.  I'm still a work in progress.... 

I went back and read her articles on standing, where she absolutely encourages standing, while at the same time absolutely states that it isn't a guarantee.  I think where some are worried is that it may appear, even if not at all intended, that she is moving from that position, which she may not at all be doing. 

[Seekingpatience]

When I first stumbled onto this site, I was a mess. A hot blubbering mess of bewilderment and yes denial. 

In the early days, I needed hope and structure, a framework that would make sense of nonsense that is Bomb-drop. I asked H point blank whether it was an exit affair during MC. If he wanted so much to be gone, I would not stand in his way.  Honestly, it would have been a relief because it would then make some sense of his totally bizarre behaviour.

Of course the path of MLC never did run smooth  and "cake eating" with a clinging boomerang would continue at an accelerated rate for the next 8 months. I needed to learn so much, amongst the many lessons, these stood out :

Hope vs Expectation
the Unconditionals vs Boundaries
Letting go while still Standing

Each little step in the process comes when the lesson is learnt and the lesson was learnt when I was ready -- physically, mentally and spiritually. Not before. I came here for clarity and a shoulder and a safe venting place. I got that in spades but the journey is my own, nothing "happened" or clicked inside me till I was ready. But I wouldn't have made it without fellow LBSers walking alongside, cheering, commiserating and sharing their research and experiences.

I don't think this is a place of "my way or the highway" or even "I told you so". Trying to second guess what the articles are "meant to say" or the intent of the articles behind what is plain reading of the articles, is again IMHO, an exercise which would sap what little positive energy I still have/had.

Saying "do this" or "do that" is less productive, I think, than saying "look inside yourself, what are the alternative actions you can take and can you live with the consequences of those actions?"

Because all we have, at the end of the day, is ourselves. That is why the mirror work was essential and imperative for me and I believe so many here at the start. I didn't want to think of my H as "bat$hiT" crazy or a horrible "a$$h**e" for any length of time because it just brought with it a whole host of negative energy into MY life. And I could not view my H in that way and still have compassion for him. I just took it to mean (this is a long lesson to learn btw  ) that it was his journey and his lessons to learn.

So many of us have decades with our spouses. If they had always been this way, it would not have been unexpected. Sure, milder forms of behaviour we see existed but that I think is of the human condition but to take their behaviour at this time as characteristic of their core personality? I think that is one of the hallmarks of MLC -- the blindsided spouse.

I may not be able to "love my MLCer back" but I can "love myself back" to wholeness and healing. That is my hope. That is what I got from the article and all the RCR articles.

Peace and strength.

[Roma]

I read the article and saw no difference than when I first came. Then saw the rumblings RCR changed her stance so I read again, then again and again  trying to find a difference and see none.

I trust in the MLC process according to my understanding. I don't feel 'standing' per se will help reconciliation yet if you really gain understanding of MLC, then you see exactly what the process is.

 I feel if you were committed to your R before MLC, then you stay committed during and after whether you call it standing or not. I don't feel religion should have anything to do with your values and morals, yet that is an entirely different topic.

If your words were true when you committed to your R, they should remain true in 'sickness' and health. (my opinion) Reconciliation should happen once the MLCer heals their issues and the MLC was a successful one. I fully trust the process.

[Thunder]

BBHelp and Terrified,

I completely agree with both of you.  Very well said.

I guess what I'm hearing is some long time standers took this as an assault on their standing, which I don't understand.
I thought RCR made some very valid points in her article.  I didn't find it discouraging at all.

It's more in tune with how I think now, 6 years later.  If I had read this as a newbie I doubt I would have seen it as discouraging.
It's more realistic, yet I would have found it was giving me truths to think about.  One of the first articles I read when I first joined this site was the stages of MLC, which were so helpful for me in understanding what my H was going through.  Problem is I saw the "2 year" time frame and hung my hope on that.

I think any of us who have been at this for awhile have learned 2 years is usually only the beginning, not the norm.
I think you can gently support people without giving them false hope.  Hope, but not unrealistic hope.
To me it's more important we concentrate on their healing.

Hope this made sense, I'm still on my first cup of coffee of the morning. 

[OldPilot]

I suspect instead she was using an expression to encourage people to focus on themselves and not 'expect' that standing will bring about a reconciliation.
Which is absolutely true.

I agree!!

[Phoenix]

It seems there is a divide here among two main differing view points on RCR recent blog post.  Some seem to think RCR has changed her "stance"; I don't see it that way.

I guess what I'm hearing is some long time standers took this as an assault on their standing, which I don't understand.
I thought RCR made some very valid points in her article.  I didn't find it discouraging at all.

I read the article and saw no difference than when I first came. Then saw the rumblings RCR changed her stance so I read again, then again and again  trying to find a difference and see none.

It can be useful to reread both this blog and the earlier artcles to see that this is not a change in stance. I don't recall RCR advocating standing forever for all LBS, as a general course of action, but she does acknowledge Covenant Keepers and the length of time as a personal decision as long as standing is not static. One reason a reposting of a fundamental message, can be useful when a group has been around for a period of time, is that original interpretations, and the way things are communicated to or understood by newbies may take on a life of their own. Someone in a position like RCR might feel that the message or perception is skewing in a certain direction, or an important aspect is being missed leading to potential misunderstandings,  or a sense that if an LBS does everything exactly "right" a spouse will return and if the spouse does not, it must mean the LBS did something wrong or is not as worthy, or doesn't have as strong a faith, or was not as loved as much as an LBS whose spouse does return. This can have devastating consequences to the rest of a person's life and to their psyche. So whatever RCR was seeing on the board, that led to her believing this was an important blog, I believe she was trying to do right by the members.

I have noticed that if I read the same book at different stages in my life, I perceive entirely different things from it and my view of what the author was saying may change. But I don't always revist books and I go through life with only the earlier understanding of it from an my earlier set of perceptions and experiences. It can be difficult to go back through the MLC articles and revisit the memories of those early days or we may have read them so many times we think we have them memorized, so a new blog may encourage more people to revisit a fundamental message and have a clearer understanding of what an author was trying to communicate or, in RCR's case, she may have determined that with more observation and experience, she would have said things differently or more directly and feels it's important to do that now. As others have mentioned here, that doesn't however mean a change in stance or anything that is more discouraging. It may simply be that we took different things from the articles in earlier days or didn't take in the parts that we weren't ready for and that, seeing those pieces now, feels like a change.

Beyond the articles and blogs, one of things that is different on the board now from the early days is that we aren't all at the same place. It was much more simple when we were all newbies and all on a similar timeline and in a similar place and were a small connected group with optomistic hope because time had not shown us anything different. Being up to 4000 members is a huge change as is the fact that enough years have past that we know more, have observed and experienced more. Some have left the board, some have remained standers, some no longer identify as standing, some have divorced by choice or force, some have new partners in their lives, and some have reconciled or are in process. This growing, aging board requires more tolerance, more patience, more caution with our words, more understanding and compassion, more walking in another's shoes. It also, and naturally, creates subdivisions based on beliefs, timelines, stages, and so on. It's not manageable to keep up with 4000 people so there is a natural gravitation toward certain shared beliefs, stages, circumstances, etc. That is normal and does not need to be errosion of the board or the message. It just requires more diligence to also remain an overall community because, no matter where we are on our own journey and the decisions we make that are best for us in any given moment, we all came here very similarly treated and very similarly devastated seeking understanding and support. That has not changed.

Phoenix