Rule 2 - If you expect that another person should change their behaviour so that you can be happy, you're in for a long wait.

10 Principles, Rule 2

I now want to expand on the principles I wrote about last week. Here comes Rule 2!

If only my husband didn't yell…if only my mother would mind her own business…if only my wife would stop picking on me…THEN I'd be happy. No one is here to do things because you want them to. No one will willingly change simply because you want them to. Your happiness being dependant on the behaviour of another is simply a piece your errant view of life. (see Rule 1)

In actuality, waiting for another to change is a convenient way to avoid changing your side of the situation. It's also a way to always have someone else to blame for feeling miserable.

I'm having a rather interesting time counselling a couple. Separately, for now. They had a brief separation, of the court ordered variety, and they called and booked sessions. I'm working on teaching them better communication.

This week, the wife of the couple was off at a convention, so I only got to talk to the husband. He indicated that they'd had an OK week, but that things had gotten off the rails the night before. It seems that "Susie" has decided to go visit her parents, and expected "Bill" to go along. He wasn't interested. This did not go over well.

Susie tried several tacks:

First, she expected Bill to provide a suitable explanation for his choice. She was not impressed when he replied, "I just don't want to go."
She then tried, "I'm taking the kids and you'll be here all alone." He opined that he would no doubt find some way to pass the time, and then countered, "And if you want a break, you can leave the kids with me."
Susie: "You never do what I want." Bill" "Really? Never? What about yesterday?"
Susie: "Well, that doesn't count. You never want to go to my parents." Bill: "We were there last month."
Susie: "Obviously, you don't want our marriage to work." Bill: "What I don't want is to go to your parents."

Susie then stopped talking, other than to say, "Right. Um hum." She crossed her arms across her chest, sighed, and left the room. The kids were away for the night, so her final "comment" was to refuse to have sex with Bill - this had been their plan.

I congratulated Bill on his restraint and his willingness to avoid mud slinging. We also talked about how the week before the shoe had been on the other foot, when he came home and started issuing directives about bedtimes for their youngest. He smiled ruefully, and indicated that learning to communicate was, indeed, difficult. I agreed.

So, what's going on here? Well, Susie is playing the time honoured "If you love me, you'll do what I want you to" game. She likely wouldn't put it that way, unless pressed; few people actually utter the line. It's a deadly game.

Susie, with time on her hands, had decided that she wants to visit her parents, and had also decided that Bill "should" come along. Indeed, she  created a highly developed fantasy film (which is now playing in the local theatre of her head,) featuring herself and Bill and the kids. She'd had all day to script the movie in her head, and the script she wrote had Bill joyfully agreeing that going would be the most wonderful thing in the world. Then, Bill comes home.

Poof. Out the window goes the film. Susie can't understand why Bill won't "do it right." Doesn't he know that he was supposed to agree? Well, no, he doesn't. Because, you see, Bill is not privy to the film inside of Susie's head. Secondarily, even if he were, Bill is a free human being, and has a right to determine what he does with his weekend.

Of course, Susie has conveniently forgotten the many times she has refused one of Bill's requests. Or, if reminded, she will say, "Of course I refused. That was a stupid request. Why would I want to do that?"

From Susie's point of view, Bill is being stubborn. She is taking the role of "mother of a recalcitrant teenager" - she wants Bill to provide an "acceptable" reason for not wanting to go. Except that there are, for her, no acceptable reasons. She is not prepared to accept the idea that "I don't want to go" as a valid reason.

All of her subsequent attempts, from Bill's initial refusal, are based upon the idea that, just because she wants something, her partner is somehow obligated to provide it. Within this circle of silliness, the mark of "true love" is that one's partner will move heaven and earth to make one happy. There is no consideration for the wants or needs of the partner. It's, "If you love me, you will do this one thing for me." Except it is never just one thing.

Lots of people get into relationships looking to replace their parents. Or, if their upbringing was a bit weird, they are looking for a "good mother" or "good father" to substitute for the weird real ones. What's being said is this: "I want you to cater to my needs. If I'm angry, I want you to cheer me up. If I'm horny, satisfy me. If anything goes wrong, I want you to take the blame. If I want something, I want you to get it for me. If I'm stressing myself out, I want you to remind me to calm down and stay present. No matter how I behave, your response should be "Yes, dear, whatever you say." If you do all of this for me, all the time, then I will know you love me and I'll reward you. If you don't do this for me, all the time, I will make you pay."

Now, often, such people do find partners who are caregivers - who want to please their partner. So, initially, the "caregiver partner" accepts the blame, says yes when they want to say no, and generally treats the demanding partner like a little prince or princess. Almost always, the novelty wears off, and then the dancing begins.

The demanding partner feels betrayed. They're used to being deferred to, and now, this person they are in relationship with is actually saying no to them! How dare they! Don't they know whom they are saying no to? (I actually heard this from my mother. About 15 years ago, after 40 years of pretty much doing my mother's bidding, dad started to put his foot down and say no. Mom couldn't believe it. She called me, expecting me to set dad straight. I said, "Good for him. I figured that out when I was 17.")

Part of growing up is accepting that no one on the planet is responsible for me, except me. It's not Dar's responsibility to keep me happy, healthy, satisfied and on track. That's my job. Nor, when I upset or anger myself or screw up, is that Dar's fault, no matter how convenient she is, no matter how good I am at blaming her.

Dar and I choose to live together and share our lives with each other. That means that, in general, if there is a choice between being together and being apart, we'll pick "together." On the other hand, neither of us is required to do what we would rather not do. It also goes without saying that we have equal rights. There's no, "I can do this because I'm the man" stuff, or vice versa.

Which is not to say that we don't have agendas. To take Susie and Bill's issue, last week Dar decided she wanted to go visit her family. Her comment to me: "I'm going to see my family. I would like it if you chose to come along." Now, I know that, from past experience, I have a choice here. (I wouldn't be with Dar if she thought I didn't. Nor vice versa.) I can say yes or no based upon my desire for the weekend. I do not have to think, "Gee. What does Dar want me to do? I'd better go along with her."

If I chose to say no, Dar would have said, "Well, I'm disappointed, because I was looking forward to talking in the car on the way down and spending time with you there. I'll miss you." She would have been reporting what was up for her, naming her disappointments (which, you'll note, are all "unreal," as they are about what Dar imagined would have happened) and ending with an acknowledgement that I have the right to decide.

I did say yes to the trip, by the way. Mostly, I'd rather be with Dar than pretty much anywhere else. The reason for that, I am convinced, is that we do not, in the main, ever blame or demand or try to control the other person. Because of this, we know that decisions are "clean" - and therefore freely given.

If you find yourself thinking your partner "should" behave in a certain way to prove their love for you, give your head a shake. If you think you know better than your partner how they should be, time for another shake. If you think your happiness is dependent on the behaviour of others, get over yourself. You are responsible for you, and no one else cares.

If you are in relationship with someone and are endlessly trying to make him or her into someone else, think about what you are doing. Your job is NOT to make over your partner in the image you think is right for them. If you are no longer compatible, enter therapy and do not leave until the matter is resolved. If they refuse, plan an exit strategy.

In the end, you can't demand love. You are either loveable or you are not. The proof of love is not that the other person does what you want. The proof of love is that your partner stays intimately engaged with you, joyfully, without coercion.

Work on you. That's your job. End of story.