I agree completely. Yet, it doesn't really help to say that to a mom of a rape or murder victim does it? Hence, we don't take firstly into account why an abuser is doing what he is doing, as interesting as that may be, but rather, we first deal with effects of his behaviour. Because, from abuse, it is very hard to protect oneself. But any abuser CAN make a decision not to hurt another. Hence, we all care more for the abused person then the abuser.
This isn't about physical, sexual or emotional abuse. It's about someone with a mental illness having a problem with spending.
Money isn't precious. Loosing it isn't the same as being raped or murdered or abused.
I never said she shouldn't get her finances out of harm's way and help from financial afar, and if he was violating her physically I would say, cut ties completely, he's dangerous.
If we reversed this and a man came on saying that his wife had a spending problem, she was a shop-aholic, and over the last year she's gotten them over their heads in consumer debt. When he found out about her behavior, he left with the kids and she went out and shopped some more with her friends instead. And he mentioned she said that she "wouldn't shop so much" if he hadn't bought a house that she didn't agree with. Which may be her way of saying "I feel you didn't respect my opinion on the house even _if_ I signed on the dotted line, I felt railroaded into it now I don't feel so much like respecting your opinion on _my_ spending." And then he told her to "Go get help" in order to "stop behaving in an unwifely way."
I don't know about you, but my spidey senses would be tingling over that. And yes, the OP _did_ mention something about getting angry whenever her husband behaved in a way she felt a husband shouldn't.
So just reverse that. "I'm so infuriated at my wife because she's behaving in a way a wife _shoudn't_." How does that sound? Like the husband actually cares about his wife or how she functions in his life?
They say that wrong analogies lead to wrong conclusions. If your mom was diagnosed with cancer and YOU went out to a strip joint, would that be OK? See, that's a better analogy. Cancer comes from without, without our own free will. Separation and marriage problems are our own doing. It is OK to try and forget one has a cancer; it is not ok to try and forget one has a wife and kids. Never.
If, for whatever reason, I couldn't be with my mother. Perhaps she needed to be alone at the time. And I went out to a strip club instead. I think she'd consider it irrelevant.
Remember, he couldn't actually _be_ with his family because his wife was gone. If his wife was accessable to him _and_ wanted him around and he went out to have fun, that's a different story.
Or, alternatively, he could have seen his wife's desire for a seperation as a way she was punishing him and he decided to go "have some fun" to punish her right back. Don't know, I don't know his side of the story.
No, he said "take it or leave it". There is a world of difference. "Accept me as I am" could also mean "Please accept me for who I am..." but "take it or leave it" can only be understood as a very arrogant thing to say after you've spent tens of thousands of your kids and wife's money on gambling and strippers.
And his. The money was _theirs_. He's just screwed himself over, loosing that money. He's shooting himself in the foot as well. I'm sure, as soon as someone comes around that says "I care about you", he'll have that "oh crap" moment when he realizes he was cutting off his nose to spite his face.
"Take it or leave it, this is who I am" is what he said, precisely. Which is an upset, angry way of saying "Accept me as I am." Which, again, could be (COULD BE) a way of saying "I want you to care about me before I even consider getting help."
That is not to say that she doesn't care about him, but perhaps she hasn't expressed it in an explicit way that he understands. Not her fault. But something she could attempt, from financial afar, if she wants to salvage the relationship.
In any learned behaviour, psychological problem or simple psychological game, there is always a "trigger". If he is married to her, then she would be the most likely trigger. Just like a long legged, sexy and happy girl may be a trigger for some rapist to attack her. And would that make rape OK? No.
Why do you insist on equating this with physical violation? This isn't a random attack out of the blue, but something that happened within a mutual dynamic. It's unfair not to consider both sides. Not even if his wife was making mistakes, and I am sure she did otherwise her name would be Jesus, is he entitled to doing what he did.
Please stop saying this, all of you.
Where did I say he was _entitled_ to do what he did? I was saying he may have experienced X of her actions as hurtful, which may offer an insight into why he suddenly started acting out and refuses to get treatment.
No one is entitled to answer percieved abuse with more abuse. No one.
If the OP decides to try and salvage the relationship, from financial afar, engaging in a witch-hunt of "who's the big bad abuser?" isn't going to help.
It was useless for me in dealing with the relative I mentioned. It just set up a cycle of abuse and retaliatory abuse. The only thing that stopped it was when I said, "you're obviously hurting, and I know you're not abusing me on purpose, I want you to know I care about you."
Anyway, I promised myself I wouldn't respond, and look at this.