In summary, we must consider each other’s
desires as if they were our own. This again
emphasizes the need for us to listen and to talk
to each other. How else can we understand
our spouse’s needs? Too often, we think only
from our perspective. A wife, for example, says
that she would like to change the furniture, but
the husband immediately thinks only of the
cost. He resists the idea. “It’s too expensive.
It’s a waste. What’s wrong with the furniture
we have now. It suits me fine. She is just like
other women– always wanting expensive
things for no reason at all. I’m going to put my
foot down this time. I don’t care what others
do,but I am not going to give into these
reckless demands.”
She senses his inner resistance. Tension
builds. Silence ensues as they both scream
inwardly. Angrily, but to herself, she complains:
“I never get what I need. It’s always about the
money. But I see him buy books and
-
magazines and clothes for himself. I wish Ihad enough money of my own so that I wouldnever have to beg him for anything. He alwaysmakes me feel awful–like I’m trying to wastehis money.” Either a loud bitter argument or aquiet resentful stalemate will follow. In eithercase, a part of the relationship will die and stayburied until some other issue resurrects thememory of that unresolved conflict to haunt thecouple again.All of this could have been avoided if thehusband had Listened to, Valued, and takenOwnership of his wife’s desires. This doesn’tmean that he had to agree immediately to buynew furniture. Perhaps the money really wasn’tthere. But his obligation was to get to the heartof the matter– to her heart– to find out why shewanted that new furniture. How? First, heshould have given her the benefit of the doubtby applying the Faith of Lovers:“(Love) believeth all things” (I Cor. 13:7). Inother words, he should have said to himself:“My wife is a reasonable, loving person.Though I don’t quite get it, I’ve got to believethat she has a good reason for wanting newfurniture.”This would have gotten him into the rightframe of mind for the next step which is to askquestions for understanding (ASK-where’s theacronym for this?). He would have been able toshow great respect for her request by askingquestions for clarification: “Wow, honey, Ihadn’t thought of that. What type of furniturewere you thinking of getting?” “You think thatwould make this room look better…” or, “Howdo you think it will change the way the roomlooks?” “Yes, I can see that now.” “On a scaleof 1-10, how important is it for you to make thischange right now?” or, “Do you think we needto do it right away?” or Can we see how wecan put some money together to get it done?”His goal should not have been toimmediately dissuade her because of his fears.His goal should have been to get to a mutualunderstanding through love. When heminimized her request, he diminished hervalue. He began to treat her as if she were awanton child with an idle request. When heresisted her desires without seeking tounderstand them, he entered into the
manipulation zone where his goal was to get
what he wanted–or to keep her from gettingwhat she wanted–by any means necessary.In the end, she might choose to drop theissue, but she knows that she has lostsomething that was important to her. She willremember the loss. She will also rememberthat she lost simply because she was not asskillful with words or as dominant andfinancially independent as he was. He mighthave saved money but lost his honey.