Oh Wise Ones (that’s you, Sweethearts, in case you don’t recognize yourselves),
I need advice. Conundrum is as follows. For reasons not important this minute, though urgent as they are, I need to make contact with someone. A friend. Her husband has made it clear years ago that such contact is not to take place under any circumstances.
Naturally, initially I didn’t take his dictum seriously. After all, in my opinion, couples don’t come as parcels. Free will and all that. So I suggested to her a “clandestine” meeting (coffee). She replied she couldn’t. Because they have “no secrets” from each other. Well, all I can say her husband sure has done a good job at brainwashing. Brilliant, don’t you think, spouses being appendages to each other? What next? Mind police in the marital drawing room?
Anyway, that’s some time ago. Yet, god damn it, I need to make contact with her. However, and this is where Catch 22 chases its own tail, if I do [make contact with her], indeed my subterfuge in my professional capacity catching her out as a business contact, a potential client, will she still “report” me back to sa(i)d husband and all hell will break loose? Again?
What is it with some people that they can’t stand their ground? And before you ask, she herself has pleaded with him many times. No doing.
So, now what? And trust me. This is not airy fairy funny. It’s serious, it’s complicated and it needs to be resolved.
U
Bitch on the Blog 
My advice, because a marriage is involved,is not to contact her.
Comment by rummuser — September 4, 2016 @ 15:08 |
This may sound harsh, Ramana. But, noting the time between my posting and your reply only taking eight minutes doesn’t indicate you taking my predicament seriously, given it any thought. Not, of course, that you haven’t admitted to, occasionally, being “flippant” before.
U
Comment by bitchontheblog — September 4, 2016 @ 15:22 |
When I am angry I tend to spring into (physical) action. Hence I have just done the washing up. Thanks for that.
With your response you have shown that cultural, and otherwise, divides exist. Leaving aside the urgent reason (nothing self indulgent) I need to contact her, you are saying it’s ok for one partner to FORBID the other to see someone they want to see? For the SAKE of THEIR marriage?
“Holy” matrimony, to have and to hold, to cherish … bla bla bla bla. You could have fooled me.
U
Comment by bitchontheblog — September 4, 2016 @ 16:14 |
Ursula, my comment on John’s blog was intended as tongue-in–cheek humor. I’m sorry that you didn’t see it that way.
Comment by Jon V. — September 4, 2016 @ 16:52 |
Thanks for coming over here, Jon. No need to be sorry. There is virtually no “demographic” (from cradle to grave) that can’t be made fun of. However, what is one person’s tongue-in-cheek is another’s ouch. I, heterosexual woman, notice that gay men’s humour can be pretty crass when directed at women. It’s almost as if nothing is off limits. Straight men wouldn’t get away with a fraction of it.
As to anything directed at gay men: Many are so very sensitive when it comes to THEIR “demographic” I prefer to walk on eggshells. It’s safer. Unless, of course, they send themselves up. Which doesn’t happen often unless you are Julian Clarey. So, by way of example, once upon a time I was friends with Gay Guy; he appeared to worship the very ground I was walking on, when – woe betide me – he broke it all off because I’d said “preference” instead of “orientation.” Leaving aside that I was heartbroken, and most certainly bewildered at my apparent faux pas: How the hell am I supposed to be familiar with gay lingo and not see a landmine the moment I step on it?
U
Comment by bitchontheblog — September 4, 2016 @ 18:22 |
If you need to contact her, then it sounds like you’re not asking for advice, you’re complaining about the consequences and her relationship with her husband. Not everyone plays by your rules.
Thanks for the idea for my blog post tomorrow: Ain’t It Awful. Our approach to life is so different I won’t be offering it as advice.
That said, good luck!
Comment by cheerfulmonk — September 4, 2016 @ 17:59 |
I am sorry, Jean. Neither you nor Ramana actually read my post properly. Or, if you did, you don’t understand. I am NOT complaining. I asked for advice how best to go about an almost insurmountable conundrum, a catch 22, without hurting anyone.
Why so hostile, Jean: “Not everyone plays by your rules”. No. Most certainly not. Everyone plays by that husband’s rules. And I mean “everyone” including other members of their extended family – by their own admission. The other day someone said why people considered him and his whims as final. You know, the one. The one everyone tiptoes around and dare not question.
If you take my heartfelt post as “Ain’t it awful” then you most certainly are not as wise as I thought you might be.
Thanks for the good luck.
U
Comment by bitchontheblog — September 4, 2016 @ 18:30 |
No, no hostility, you just didn’t give us enough information to work with.
Comment by cheerfulmonk — September 4, 2016 @ 22:11 |
PS You still seems to be complaining about the husband instead of looking at your options. He is what he is.
Comment by cheerfulmonk — September 4, 2016 @ 22:21 |
I AM looking at my “options”, Jean. Why do you think I’d ask for advice?
And I am sorry, whatever you say, this has nothing to do with “complaining”. It is not self indulgent – anything but.
You say “he is what he is”. So? If that’s an excuse then I suppose we can all sit back and shrug our shoulders instead of building bridges.
U
Comment by bitchontheblog — September 5, 2016 @ 13:03 |
This has me wondering about the back story, which undoubtedly both needs to be told and needs to Hillaried. Since I come from a similar relationship where the length of time has resulted in the electromagnetic emanations from our neural systems being in perfect sync, I can appreciate the dilemma. The best I can do is to suggest finding a discrete third party (DF – Discrete Friend) who is the focal point of the meeting with PF (Paranoid Friend) and somehow U happen to show up. The seemingly stochastic nature of the encounter will allow a sufficiently cluttered neural field so that HPF (Husband of Paranoid Friend) is not able to see the clearly calculated Newtonian trajectory. But as I suggested at the beginning, the real course of action is dictated by the back story, and only U know that.
Comment by Looney — September 4, 2016 @ 21:30 |
I also think a third party needs to be involved.
He has isolated her so she is unsupported and she is terrified of him.
I wish you luck
Comment by Kylie — September 4, 2016 @ 23:26 |
It’s not that easy. She is not “terrified” of him. She loves him and wants to keep the peace. At any price.
U
Comment by bitchontheblog — September 5, 2016 @ 13:07 |
Just Do It – how bad will be the Flow-Down to you Be…
Comment by cedar51 — September 5, 2016 @ 06:00 |
the question is, how bad will the flow down to Ursulas friend, be?
Comment by Kylie — September 5, 2016 @ 06:58 |
You misunderstand, Catherine. I can’t “just do it” – because she won’t (without telling him). Essentially everyone knows that there is a very easy solution to resolve the impasse between him and me, but if the one who is the naysayer keeps saying “No” you can’t make him. Sod the rest of us.
U
Comment by bitchontheblog — September 5, 2016 @ 13:07 |
I couldn’t actually come up with any kind of consequential suggestions after letting my comment “simmer” over night. Fortunately, I’m not very familiar with anyone who has the kind of relationship you describe. After a bit of thought, I did think of a few, but all I really know of them is second hand and all, I think, are of an “older, more ‘traditional’ ” generation. Not that that kind of tradition is positive in any way. (And, remember, when I’m taking about “older”, I’m 64.)
My initial thoughts were a letter, email, or even, if necessary, talking to the husband.
Not much help, I suppose.
Comment by Mike Goad — September 5, 2016 @ 18:57 |
Thanks, Mike. Forgive me for smiling at your suggestion of “talking to the husband”. When he hears my voice on the phone he puts it down. Considering that in real life he is a gentleman that is quite something.
Recently I bumped into them. He accused me of ambush. Considering that they were visiting the city I live in, ambling in my immediate neighbourhood, I fail to grasp why my meandering through a park adjacent to my abode amounts to ambush. Next I’ll be deemed a stalker.
U
Comment by bitchontheblog — September 6, 2016 @ 10:52 |
I have no useful advice. I’ve never known anyone who was forbidden to contact me by their husband. Hard to see how she can “love” him in that situation. Hatred would seem more natural.
Comment by nick — September 6, 2016 @ 19:54 |
My dear Nick, better “no useful advice” than useless advice. Sometimes we, even I, have to accept our limitations. Better than hot air. So, thanks for piping up at all.
It’s so darned interwoven. Jean aka Cheerful Monk is likely (and she is right ) to advise to just walk away. I wish. I wish. I wish. But I can’t – for reasons if only I could disclose them would be obvious to anyone.
U
Comment by bitchontheblog — September 6, 2016 @ 21:11 |