# Why women leave men they love



## MachoMcCoy

Why women leave or cheat - What every man should know

"Women leave because their man is not present. He’s working, golfing, gaming, watching TV, fishing… the list is long. These aren’t bad men. They’re good men. They’re good fathers. They support their family. They’re nice, likeable. But they take their wife for granted. They’re not present."

Yep. What he doesn't say is that by the time the man figures it out, it's usually too late.


----------



## Married but Happy

MachoMcCoy said:


> He’s working, golfing, gaming, watching TV, fishing… the list is long.


Which he may be doing to get away from her!

Sometimes, it's no surprise when she leaves.


----------



## Forest

He does make good points, that men should be aware of. He's not wrong; kinda one sided, though. 
Since he's pointing out the obvious generalizations he might have mentioned some for each partner; balance it out. An insatiable need for attention, compliments, control.

Wives: why your men are no longer "present"....


----------



## Constable Odo

and here I thought all along it was because our penises were under the statistical average of 5.5" ...


----------



## Anon Pink

Forest said:


> He does make good points, that men should be aware of. He's not wrong; kinda one sided, though.
> Since he's pointing out the obvious generalizations he might have mentioned some for each partner; balance it out. An insatiable need for attention, compliments, control.
> 
> Wives: why your men are no longer "present"....


Completely agree!

Girls, we need to learn to stop wanting attention so much from our husbands! He should be able to come home from work, have an hour to himself to collect himself, eat the dinner we've prepared while chatting with this kids as we remain silent in order to foster his relationship with the kids, then he can out the kids to bed while we clean up, and it's okay for him to watch TV the rest of the night and it's our fault for not enjoying the endless rounds of sports recap shows.

Girls, we need to stop wanting compliments endlessly! We need to be more mindful of how difficult it is for a man's very tired bran to come up with something personal to say and we must understand that we come across as needy when we want a compliment.

Girls, we need to let go over control! So what if he stuffs the towels into the closet in such a way that they must be unfolded in order to tell which are bath towels and which are hand towels. Or the sheets in such a way that we can't tell which are single, double, Queen or King. We need to stop controlling things!


----------



## Wolf1974

In my case my x was incapable of being in a healthy relationship. She never saw one growing up, didn't know how to function in one as an adult and I contributed to all that by doing the heavy lifting in the relationship .

She sabotaged it in a manner that she knew I would have to leave and did so successfully. 

For awhile I would argue that she never loved me as if it was something she deliberately held back. It's either that or she just isn't capable of loving a man at all cause she hates them. Not really sure which .

I know I was a good husband, just picked a really really bad wife and mother for my kids,  I doubt I wouldn't make good husband anymore


----------



## Deejo

Anon Pink said:


> Completely agree!
> 
> Girls, we need to learn to stop wanting attention so much from our husbands! He should be able to come home from work, have an hour to himself to collect himself, eat the dinner we've prepared while chatting with this kids as we remain silent in order to foster his relationship with the kids, then he can out the kids to bed while we clean up, and it's okay for him to watch TV the rest of the night and it's our fault for not enjoying the endless rounds of sports recap shows.
> 
> Girls, we need to stop wanting compliments endlessly! We need to be more mindful of how difficult it is for a man's very tired bran to come up with something personal to say and we must understand that we come across as needy when we want a compliment.
> 
> Girls, we need to let go over control! So what if he stuffs the towels into the closet in such a way that they must be unfolded in order to tell which are bath towels and which are hand towels. Or the sheets in such a way that we can't tell which are single, double, Queen or King. We need to stop controlling things!


Ma'am, please put the 2x4 down and step away.


----------



## homerjay

MachoMcCoy said:


> Why women leave or cheat - What every man should know
> 
> "Women leave because their man is not present. He’s working, golfing, gaming, watching TV, fishing… the list is long. These aren’t bad men. They’re good men. They’re good fathers. They support their family. They’re nice, likeable. But they take their wife for granted. They’re not present."
> 
> Yep. What he doesn't say is that by the time the man figures it out, it's usually too late.



Id say if they are not attentive, then they arent nice...


----------



## Deejo

Author says it at the bottom of the article:



> <Note – The gender dynamic outlined above is reversible. It can go both ways.>


I just wish men would stop acting like kicked little puppies.

If your wife is telling you there is a problem ... listen for cripes sake. Fix it. It's your job. 

And if it can't be fixed, or you don't much feel like fixing it, then let things go with some dignity for both people rather than letting the relationship further devolve into apathy, disrespect, or infidelity.

We see the exact dynamic that the author outlines here all of the time.

What he is describing virtually verbatim ... is walkaway wife syndrome.

Do we make poor choices in partners? Without a doubt.

I'm sure you would find the same comment from the other gender about their choice of spouses as well.

You know what I'd really like to see this year?

Men around here stop b!tching about how bad their marriage was, or is, and instead post or respond from a proactive, self-aware and positive place.

The 'I've been kicked in the balls, and don't know if I'll ever be the same' is really wearing f*cking thin with me.

Help each other, and we just might help ourselves.


----------



## Wolf1974

Deejo said:


> Author says it at the bottom of the article:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wish men would stop acting like kicked little puppies.
> 
> If your wife is telling you there is a problem ... listen for cripes sake. Fix it. It's your job.
> 
> And if it can't be fixed, or you don't much feel like fixing it, then let things go with some dignity for both people rather than letting the relationship further devolve into apathy, disrespect, or infidelity.
> 
> We see the exact dynamic that the author outlines here all of the time.
> 
> What he is describing virtually verbatim ... is walkaway wife syndrome.
> 
> Do we make poor choices in partners? Without a doubt.
> 
> I'm sure you would find the same comment from the other gender about their choice of spouses as well.
> 
> You know what I'd really like to see this year?
> 
> Men around here stop b!tching about how bad their marriage was, or is, and instead post or respond from a proactive, self-aware and positive place.
> *
> The 'I've been kicked in the balls, and don't know if I'll ever be the same' is really wearing f*cking thin with me.*
> 
> Help each other, and we just might help ourselves.


Hard not to feel like this was directed at me since I just posted something same.

Funny cause what I think is that men need more empathy and support from other men and recognition that while we may be emotionally strong we do get hurt,betrayed , stepped on, lied to and it ****ing hurts. 

We /me are not made of stone and what's worse when men do get betrayed they all too often have zero support system to rely upon. I had NO one to talk to....I came here

The "suck it up and get over it" you're a guy attitude is what is leading the problem...not a solution for it.


----------



## Deejo

Wolf1974 said:


> Hard not to feel like this was directed at me since I just posted something same.
> 
> Funny cause what I think is that men need more empathy and support from other men and recognition that while we may be emotionally strong we do get hurt,betrayed , stepped on, lied to and it ****ing hurts.
> 
> We /me are not made of stone and what's worse when men do get betrayed they all too often have zero support system to rely upon. I had NO one to talk to....I came here
> 
> The "suck it up and get over it" you're a guy attitude is what is leading the problem...not a solution for it.



Wasn't directed at you Wolf.

I'm not saying don't grieve. I'm not saying don't ask for, and get support, as well as giving it. I absolutely agree with your first paragraph.

The death of a marriage is one of the most sadly mundane and painful things we can experience. Add infidelity to that equation and it adds a whole other dimension to feeling like you've been gutted.

We just can't 'stay' there.

I found this place the same way you did.

I got great support. I want there to continue to be support.

What I don't want to see it become is a group of guys patting each other on the back, agreeing that a woman gutted them and then passive aggressively deciding to take some of that out here, upon women that AREN'T their ex.

There are dynamics we can foster to help ourselves heal, and there are dynamics we can foster that keep us stuck.

I don't want anyone to remain stuck.

Again, not directed at you. You've been around the block here, if I'm going to call someone out, I'll just do it.

Seven years on, I still want better outcomes for men, women, and marriage.

Sometimes that may mean ending the one you are in ... with dignity, rather than mutually assured destruction. 

There is a difference between grieving and healing, and b!tching and whining, and I'm pretty sure most of the guys that post here regularly have a sense for which is taking place.

Foster the former, coach away from the latter.

Any guy that comes here fresh I usually give a good deal of leeway to.
He gets a pass at verbally vomiting for some time. 

But if he's doing the same 2 to 3 years later? Whoever he is, we need to call him on it.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Hard not to feel like this was directed at me since I just posted something same.
> 
> Funny cause what I think is that men need more empathy and support from other men and recognition that while we may be emotionally strong we do get hurt,betrayed , stepped on, lied to and it ****ing hurts.
> 
> We /me are not made of stone and what's worse when men do get betrayed they all too often have zero support system to rely upon. I had NO one to talk to....I came here
> 
> The "suck it up and get over it" you're a guy attitude is what is leading the problem...not a solution for it.


Deejo is not saying to suck it up and get over it.

He's saying to "post or respond from a proactive, self-aware and positive place."

Complaining and self-pity solve nothing. Being "proactive, self-aware and positive".

I would say the same thing to a woman who came here talking like a victim and caught up in self pity. Actually I do that all the time... redirect the conversation to what they can do to change the situation, what they need to look at in themselves and try to help them develop a plan of action.


----------



## aine

Generally women will put up with a lot and try and keep their relationships intact over many years. For the most part they do not walk away from marriages at whim. It usually is a matter of not being able to take the neglect, abandonment, emotional abuse any longer. the problem is that the marriage looks fine on the outside and as long as the husband gets his food and sex things are pretty good from his perspective, why fix something that is not broken. Meanwhile she is whining about him not meeting her needs which are valid feelings, but to him they are complaints that are not based in facts. Unfortunately too often men stop tending to the emotional side of their relationship once they have 'caught' the wife. Now time to leave her and go into the world, provide and do all the things that interest him. Meanwhile she has to get on with things devoid of any or little attention except when he wants her to listen to his work problema or needs sex. I'm in such a marriage and it hurts like hell. I try to explain, he is defensive, unwilling to listen and even tells me that what I am feeling is not really what I am feeling. My problem is complicated by his drinking too, which just adds further misery. Men cherish your wives and those with husbands who cherish them, treasure their husbands. There are far too many marriages where this disconnect exists and it is soul destroying.




Past Quotes


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
If you want attention / time from your partner, try to make the time that they spend with you happy.

If all of your interactions are complaints, they will try to find ways to avoid you.


----------



## ocotillo

I agree with Deejo that two to three years is more than enough time to sort things out. 

It's not that I don't understand the angst when in a space of five minutes, a man can read two threads: One will tell him that paying too much attention to his wife will make him about as exciting to her as an ice cold bowl of lumpy oatmeal and he needs to find himself a hobby, go out with the boys and be mysterious. The other will tell him that this is exactly the sort of mistreatment that will make her leave. 

The plain truth is nobody can tell anyone else what the golden mean actually is.


----------



## Runs like Dog

What about all those stupid posters "If you love something let it go if it comes back blah blah blah"?

Funny how when you give a control freak all control they're even more miserable, isn't it?


----------



## Forest

Anon Pink said:


> Completely agree!
> 
> Girls, we need to learn to stop wanting attention so much from our husbands! He should be able to come home from work, have an hour to himself to collect himself, eat the dinner we've prepared while chatting with this kids as we remain silent in order to foster his relationship with the kids, then he can out the kids to bed while we clean up, and it's okay for him to watch TV the rest of the night and it's our fault for not enjoying the endless rounds of sports recap shows.
> 
> Girls, we need to stop wanting compliments endlessly! We need to be more mindful of how difficult it is for a man's very tired bran to come up with something personal to say and we must understand that we come across as needy when we want a compliment.
> 
> Girls, we need to let go over control! So what if he stuffs the towels into the closet in such a way that they must be unfolded in order to tell which are bath towels and which are hand towels. Or the sheets in such a way that we can't tell which are single, double, Queen or King. We need to stop controlling things!


Yep, there's an attitude you can warm up to. Endless condescension.


----------



## Forest

Wolf1974 said:


> Hard not to feel like this was directed at me since I just posted something same.
> 
> Funny cause what I think is that men need more empathy and support from other men and recognition that while we may be emotionally strong we do get hurt,betrayed , stepped on, lied to and it ****ing hurts.
> 
> We /me are not made of stone and what's worse when men do get betrayed they all too often have zero support system to rely upon. I had NO one to talk to....I came here
> 
> The "suck it up and get over it" you're a guy attitude is what is leading the problem...not a solution for it.


I think its the dreaded, "suck it and and get in touch with you feelings, then suck up to the women" paradigm, actually. That's the puppy cowering under the table scenario.


----------



## Deejo

Forest said:


> I think its the dreaded, "suck it and and get in touch with you feelings, then suck up to the women" paradigm, actually. That's the puppy cowering under the table scenario.


Yeah.

That right there, Forest.

That's exactly the kind of b!tching I'm talking about.


----------



## Deejo

I don't think there is a golden mean.

I do think at any given moment in a relationship, whether it's baseline is good or bad, there are things that either participant, man or woman can do to either; 

foster it, and make it a little better.

or

undermine it, and make it a little worse.


----------



## BetrayedDad

MachoMcCoy said:


> "Women leave because their man is not present. He’s working, golfing, gaming, watching TV, fishing… the list is long. These aren’t bad men. They’re good men. They’re good fathers. They support their family. They’re nice, likeable. But they take their wife for granted. They’re not present."


Guys do yourself a favor. Before you marry your woman. If you find she is the type that needs "attention" and "compliments" CONSTANTLY then walk away. They will never grow out of that mentality. There are plenty of less needy women out there.

Good provider, father and all around guy? And his payback for years of blood, sweat and tears is a walk away wife because she wants the honeymoon phase forever? Sounds like it's the husband being taken for granted.


----------



## MichinCC

Good communication is key. If there is some dissatisfaction, this needs to be said. However, if very little time is spent with the hurting spouse, it can be perceived as constant "b!tching" when he or she is trying to open the doors of communication. Communication requires presence. Yes, there are some who do probably b!tch a lot but there are some who would love to express their feelings so that the couple can be proactive in creating a mutually loving relationship--then the other time can be spent having positive interactions. Also, if a person in the relationship is purposely avoiding the other PLEASE COMMUNICATE. Neither men nor women can read minds and chances are if he or she is in it to win it then an opportunity to fix it would be nice. :smthumbup:


----------



## Anon Pink

BetrayedDad said:


> Guys do yourself a favor. Before you marry your woman. If you find she is the type that needs "attention" and "compliments" CONSTANTLY then walk away. They will never grow out of that mentality. There are plenty of less needy women out there.
> 
> Good provider, father and all around guy? And his payback for years of blood, sweat and tears is a walk away wife because she wants the honeymoon phase forever? Sounds like it's the husband being taken for granted.




<insert very loud groan and dramatic eye roll here>


----------



## Forest

Deejo said:


> Yeah.
> 
> That right there, Forest.
> 
> That's exactly the kind of b!tching I'm talking about.


So, that is b!tching, since I said it.

Yet it would be empowering or insightful if a woman said it in regard to the general spineless response men exhibit today when confronted by sexist double standards.

Where's that open minded side? Suffocated in PC correctness or estrogen?


----------



## Forest

BetrayedDad said:


> Guys do yourself a favor. Before you marry your woman. If you find she is the type that needs "attention" and "compliments" CONSTANTLY then walk away. They will never grow out of that mentality. There are plenty of less needy women out there.
> 
> Good provider, father and all around guy? And his payback for years of blood, sweat and tears is a walk away wife because she wants the honeymoon phase forever? Sounds like it's the husband being taken for granted.


Unfortunately the need for attention in some is so strong you just can't get away from them, anywhere.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

ocotillo said:


> I agree with Deejo that two to three years is more than enough time to sort things out.
> 
> It's not that I don't understand the angst when in a space of five minutes, a man can read two threads: One will tell him that paying too much attention to his wife will make him about as exciting to her as an ice cold bowl of lumpy oatmeal and he needs to find himself a hobby, go out with the boys and be mysterious. The other will tell him that this is exactly the sort of mistreatment that will make her leave.
> 
> *The plain truth is nobody can tell anyone else what the golden mean actually is.*


I completely agree with this post except for the bolded part.

There are two people who can figure that out...You and your spouse through communication and work. 

Take the time to make sure your spouse has other activities going on, hobbies, etc. And make sure they do the same for you. Make sure the workload of the house if divided fairly. Lastly, date your spouse. Spend time with them. Whip out the cribbage board after the kids are asleep instead of lounging in front of the TV. Do the little things that you both enjoy and that you did together when you were dating.


----------



## ocotillo

Dad&Hubby said:


> There are two people who can figure that out...


Figuring out what that is together and having a third party tell you what that is (Especially on the internet) are two very different things.


----------



## SamuraiJack

ocotillo said:


> Figuring out what that is together and having a third party tell you what that is (Especially on the internet) are two very different things.


Preach it!

Its very easy to dispense advice when you are missing 90% of the environmental variables, FOO, Childhood issues and whatever else is happening.


----------



## Deejo

Forest said:


> So, that is b!tching, since I said it.
> 
> Yet it would be empowering or insightful if a woman said it in regard to the general spineless response men exhibit today when confronted by sexist double standards.
> 
> Where's that open minded side? Suffocated in PC correctness or estrogen?


In those words?

Not so much.


----------



## homerjay

So pele dont take responsibility for their actions. What else is new?


----------



## BetrayedDad

Anon Pink said:


> <insert very loud groan and dramatic eye roll here>


Fair enough... I know plenty of women will disagree with my position and that's fine. It's clearly a "His needs, her needs" issue.

All I know is I've yet to meet a guy who's purposely looking for a really needy woman who he has to maintain 24/7 with compliments and attention for the rest of his life and trust me they exist. I've met plenty of girls with that mentality.

I feel sorry for the poor bastards that do so out of some sense of obligation to keep her happy. Rather than realizing she's responsible for her own happiness not him.


----------



## Wolf1974

Deejo said:


> Wasn't directed at you Wolf.
> 
> I'm not saying don't grieve. I'm not saying don't ask for, and get support, as well as giving it. I absolutely agree with your first paragraph.
> 
> The death of a marriage is one of the most sadly mundane and painful things we can experience. Add infidelity to that equation and it adds a whole other dimension to feeling like you've been gutted.
> 
> We just can't 'stay' there.
> 
> I found this place the same way you did.
> 
> I got great support. I want there to continue to be support.
> 
> What I don't want to see it become is a group of guys patting each other on the back, agreeing that a woman gutted them and then passive aggressively deciding to take some of that out here, upon women that AREN'T their ex.
> 
> There are dynamics we can foster to help ourselves heal, and there are dynamics we can foster that keep us stuck.
> 
> I don't want anyone to remain stuck.
> 
> Again, not directed at you. You've been around the block here, if I'm going to call someone out, I'll just do it.
> 
> Seven years on, I still want better outcomes for men, women, and marriage.
> 
> Sometimes that may mean ending the one you are in ... with dignity, rather than mutually assured destruction.
> 
> There is a difference between grieving and healing, and b!tching and whining, and I'm pretty sure most of the guys that post here regularly have a sense for which is taking place.
> 
> Foster the former, coach away from the latter.
> 
> Any guy that comes here fresh I usually give a good deal of leeway to.
> He gets a pass at verbally vomiting for some time.
> 
> But if he's doing the same 2 to 3 years later? Whoever he is, we need to call him on it.


I agree that men and women here do project and take things out on the other gender as a continued battle that had from thier previous realtionship. I also agree that, while you may be permanently changed from a bad relationship, you do have to move forward cause in life we have little choice but to.

I will have to defer to you and your experience here vs mine as I guess I don't see people here for years and years not moving forward. Hurt definetly but still moving forward. I admit that I only lurk in certain forums and not all of them. What I do see often in my couple years here is that we have a attitude that somehow men are to blame for all realtionship woes and they need to suck it up and get nothing in return. Sorry if I misunderstood your post that is how I took it.

I think we men have to be supportive of one another and become ok with talking more about emotions and feelings. Women as a rule do this far better than we do and as relationships become more about equal and the 50-50 I see us falling further and further behind in this area.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

ocotillo said:


> Figuring out what that is together and having a third party tell you what that is (Especially on the internet) are two very different things.


Won't argue that point LOL


----------



## Anon Pink

BetrayedDad said:


> Fair enough... I know plenty of women will disagree with my position and that's fine. It's clearly a "His needs, her needs" issue.
> 
> All I know is I've yet to meet a guy who's purposely looking for a really needy woman who he has to maintain 24/7 with compliments and attention for the rest of his life and trust me they exist. I've met plenty of girls with that mentality.
> 
> I feel sorry for the poor bastards that do so out of some sense of obligation to keep her happy. Rather than realizing she's responsible for her own happiness not him.


I have met plenty of girls like that too. And a few women like that. It's been my experience that with married women like that... Their husband can't be turned away with a hot poker. My late brother, for instance, married a very pretty prima Donna who made his life a living hell for 20 during their marriage and for the remaining 4 years of his life during his illness while divorcing. In the end, my dear brother had no one to blame but himself for we begged and pleaded with him not to marry her!

So I feel empathy for the stupid bastards who marry prima donnas, but lemme tell ya, any woman can spot a prima Donna a mile away. So when your sister says... Dude walk away... DO IT!!!!!


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> I have met plenty of girls like that too. And a few women like that. It's been my experience that with married women like that... Their husband can't be turned away with a hot poker. My late brother, for instance, married a very pretty prima Donna who made his life a living hell for 20 during their marriage and for the remaining 4 years of his life during his illness while divorcing. In the end, my dear brother had no one to blame but himself for we begged and pleaded with him not to marry her!
> 
> So I feel empathy for the stupid bastards who marry prima donnas, but lemme tell ya, any woman can spot a prima Donna a mile away. So when your sister says... Dude walk away... DO IT!!!!!


Ok honestly I have to agree here

I don't have the best picker when it comes to women. I want to assume the best get te worst. My life dramatically got easier when I made a few female friends and they meet my potential GF and sign off on her lol

My last Gf was only interested in marriage and not me. My friend saw that WAY WAY before I ever did. I wish I had her or a sister before I got married

Also reverse is true as I meet my female friends potentials. I can screen them pretty fast for what they are really intersted in.


----------



## norajane

BetrayedDad said:


> Fair enough... I know plenty of women will disagree with my position and that's fine. It's clearly a "His needs, her needs" issue.
> 
> All I know is I've yet to meet a guy who's purposely looking for a really needy woman who he has to maintain 24/7 with compliments and attention for the rest of his life and trust me they exist. I've met plenty of girls with that mentality.
> 
> I feel sorry for the poor bastards that do so out of some sense of obligation to keep her happy. Rather than realizing she's responsible for her own happiness not him.


If you're able to spot women who need 24/7 compliments and attention without even dating them, I'd expect the men who are dating them should also be able to see it while dating. And if they are not up to dealing with it, they have the choice not to marry that woman. 

The article in the OP did not say women wanted or needed 24/7 attention. It said there are some men who are too inattentive in that they spend too much time away from their families and take their wives for granted, the wives who are holding down the fort while the guys are golfing, gaming, whatever. And that those women who experience that kind of marriage with those kinds of men, will and do walk away at some point when they've had enough. 

It's not that different from men who finally decide to walk away because their wives don't have enough sex with them. So I don't know why it is difficult to acknowledge that neglect and taking spouses for granted is a real situation for people that are nowhere near the extreme end of things and needing 24/7 attention.


----------



## Anon Pink

NoraJane, you make the best posts!


----------



## norajane

Anon Pink said:


> NoraJane, you make the best posts!


Lol, I doubt I've ever changed anyone's mind on anything!


----------



## yeah_right

If you marry a woman simply because she's "hot", remember that she has been surrounded by beauty enablers all her life. She may very well be a clingy, needy prima donna because she was raised that way. And if you would look beyond her T&A, you might see it before it's too late. It's like driving an expensive Italian sports car...lots of expensive upkeep and constant attention to the tuning. Caveat emptor.

Also, if you see marriage simply as a way to have a housekeeper/babysitter who provides free sex while you spend all your free time gaming/hunting/biking/camping/gambling/bar-hopping/whoring/insert sports thing here/etc., you have a very good chance of experiencing walk-away wife syndrome when the kids leave. This might also happen if you are gone most of the time due to your high-paying job and think the money is enough for her. You might be better off just staying single and dating through life.

As I get closer and closer to 50, I'm seeing women I know divorcing...and another man has nothing to do with it. They are fed up, and I blame both for lack of communication and realistic expectations of marriage.


----------



## Deejo

I suppose my bottom line is this;

it's certainly a lot more entertaining and exciting for us to argue about who does what wrong, and who's fault it is.

Or we can use our time here to try to become better than when we found TAM in the first place.

I want better men and husbands, and better women and wives.


----------



## ocotillo

BetrayedDad said:


> Good provider, father and all around guy? And his payback for years of blood, sweat and tears is a walk away wife because she wants the honeymoon phase forever? Sounds like it's the husband being taken for granted.


It's easy when you read an article that's giving general advice to think of the obvious exceptions. And it doesn't get any more obvious than a woman who expects to be kept in Gucci shoes and a late model Escalade and then throws her husband under the bus in counseling. 

Given the fact that the author appears to be male and appears to actually be a professional marriage counselor, it's probably safe to assume that he's not going to be taken in that easily though. 

When he says that there is an emotionally absent man in a lot of problem marriages, (At least among his clientele) then he's _probably_ telling the truth.


----------



## jld

norajane said:


> Lol, I doubt I've ever changed anyone's mind on anything!


You have certainly enlightened me.


----------



## Deejo

ocotillo said:


> It's easy when you read an article that's giving general advice to think of the obvious exceptions. And it doesn't get any more obvious than a woman who expects to be kept in Gucci shoes and a late model Escalade and then throws her husband under the bus in counseling.
> 
> Given the fact that the author appears to be male and appears to actually be a professional marriage counselor, it's probably safe to assume that he's not going to be taken in that easily though.
> 
> When he says that there is an emotionally absent man in a lot of problem marriages, (At least among his clientele) then he's _probably_ telling the truth.


Which was pretty much my takeaway.

You have a male marriage counselor calling out other males.

I don't think this is something he'd just throw out there for the hell of it.

There is a difference to me between being willing and accountable versus, placing blame and responsibility.

The responsibility for the marriage belongs to the people in it.

50/50? I think that is an extraordinarily watered down phrase.

Own your stuff. If your partner isn't owning theirs call them on it. If that hurts their feelings, regardless of gender, what they choose to do with their behavior as a result is up to them.

We can't deal with something we can't 'see'.

Sometimes having our eyes opened does indeed require a 2x4, rather than a soft 'hey, dude ... your screwing up.'


----------



## Marduk

The only additional perspective I'd like to add is that it's an odds game.

Paying attention to your wife probably reduces the odds of her cheating or leaving, but not to zero. And it may not in all cases reduce the odds at all. Or, in a small number of cases, actually increase the odds because she's looking for space.

I used to think there were pretty straightforward ways to play the numbers game and think I was safe.

I was wrong.


----------



## Anon Pink

Deejo said:


> Which was pretty much my takeaway.
> 
> You have a male marriage counselor calling out other males.
> 
> I don't think this is something he'd just throw out there for the hell of it.
> 
> There is a difference to me between being willing and accountable versus, placing blame and responsibility.
> 
> The responsibility for the marriage belongs to the people in it.
> 
> 50/50? I think that is an extraordinarily watered down phrase.
> 
> Own your stuff. If your partner isn't owning theirs call them on it. If that hurts their feelings, regardless of gender, what they choose to do with their behavior as a result is up to them.
> 
> We can't deal with something we can't 'see'.
> 
> Sometimes having our eyes opened does indeed require a 2x4, rather than a soft 'hey, dude ... your screwing up.'




Excellent, balanced and soundly reasoned thoughts.

Can I have my 2x4 back now?


----------



## Deejo

Anon Pink said:


> Excellent, balanced and soundly reasoned thoughts.
> 
> Can I have my 2x4 back now?


That's a negative. There are suspicions that your 2x4 is loaded with an iron slug at one end. :bunny:

I'm comfortable with you having a foam bat.


----------



## vellocet

So let me see if I get this straight.

An article about men being cheated on, left, or whatever, when they didn't deserve it, and somehow if someone is appalled at the "its your fault" mentality, its b!tching?

Amazing.

Ok guys, you heard it. Don't ever defend yourself or complain of being cheated on or otherwise. Just sit there and take your lumps and keep quiet. Cheese and friggin rice.


----------



## chillymorn

Anon Pink said:


> Completely agree!
> 
> Girls, we need to learn to stop wanting attention so much from our husbands! He should be able to come home from work, have an hour to himself to collect himself, eat the dinner we've prepared while chatting with this kids as we remain silent in order to foster his relationship with the kids, then he can out the kids to bed while we clean up, and it's okay for him to watch TV the rest of the night and it's our fault for not enjoying the endless rounds of sports recap shows.
> 
> Girls, we need to stop wanting compliments endlessly! We need to be more mindful of how difficult it is for a man's very tired bran to come up with something personal to say and we must understand that we come across as needy when we want a compliment.
> 
> Girls, we need to let go over control! So what if he stuffs the towels into the closet in such a way that they must be unfolded in order to tell which are bath towels and which are hand towels. Or the sheets in such a way that we can't tell which are single, double, Queen or King. We need to stop controlling things!


no they just need to stop exaggerating everything and just be more realistic.

mybe they could just be honest and if they are unhappy they could file for divorce instead of cheating. and then sayin WELLL. I didn't get enough attention! so I felt that fvck him when this other guy(who by the way will most likely turn into someone who acts just like your present husband) gave me a compliment I just fell right ontop of his d!ck.


----------



## vellocet

chillymorn said:


> I didn't get enough attention! so I felt that fvck him when this other guy(who by the way will most likely turn into someone who acts just like your present husband) gave me a compliment I just fell right ontop of his d!ck.


chilly, reminded me of the joke Ron White told:



> MY WIFE CAME HOME WITH A STORY THE OTHER DAY.
> 
> SHE GOES, "I WAS IN THE PRODUCE DEPARTMENT TODAY,
> AND THIS GUY TOLD ME I WAS BEAUTIFUL."
> WELL, BABY, HE'S RIGHT. YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL.
> 
> "YEAH, BUT HE SAID IT."
> WELL, I'M SAYIN' IT NOW. YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL.
> 
> "YEAH, BUT HE SAID IT."
> 
> REALLY? YOU EVER OVERDRAW HIS CHECKIN' ACCOUNT?
> YOU EVER DRIVE HIS BRAND-NEW MERCEDES
> STRAIGHT THROUGH THE ****IN' GARAGE DOOR?
> 
> HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THAT GUY?


Moral of the story, the other guy doesn't have the baggage of going through the trials of life with her. Pretty easy to snog up to someone elses wife when that is the case.


----------



## yeah_right

I think the title of the article is misleading. The article itself discusses walk-away wives, the ones who leave with no new man to go to.

Also, here is part 2 of the article -
Why women leave men they love - PART 2

To me, there is no excuse for cheating. Period. But I think this particular discussion is not about that.

As a woman in this age category, I can easily understand how a woman will blow up and leave. Not excusing it, but women aren't always content to sit at home with just their kids and PTO and chores while H is out having fun with the guys, or simply ignoring her while he watches sports all night after work. I am not trying to oversimplify or bash men here...only tell you how many women feel. It's real. It's happening around me. The kids grow up and leave. Wife looks at husband who is absent physically or emotionally and wonders if she is going to spend her golden years married but alone. She'd rather join the red hat society and go on gambling bus trips than continue trying to get his attention.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

BetrayedDad said:


> Guys do yourself a favor. Before you marry your woman. If you find she is the type that needs "attention" and "compliments" CONSTANTLY then walk away. They will never grow out of that mentality. There are plenty of less needy women out there.
> 
> Good provider, father and all around guy? And his payback for years of blood, sweat and tears is a walk away wife because she wants the honeymoon phase forever? Sounds like it's the husband being taken for granted.


Wow. Based on these comments, the article could have been written about you, BD. None of us need it CONSTANTLY, but most of us DO need it CONSISTENTLY. That does NOT make us needy people. You think you're entitled to ignore your spouse because you work and dont beat your kids? Wrong. That attitude is exactly what the article was about. Makes me sad.


----------



## vellocet

Here is the problem. You can take my past situation for example.

My x-wife would complain that I ignore her which wasn't the case at all. If anything it was the opposite. She wanted to be a SAHM against my desires, but I gave in and agreed.

So here she is staying home with the kids LIKE SHE WANTED, but then complained about it.

So as her husband, what did I so? Something really REALLY stupid........I tried to help her. I watched the kids so she could go have some time with friends and always making time for us.

What a f'in moron I was. So excuse me if that article and the attitudes towards husbands in this thread doesn't just tickle the sh*t out of me.


----------



## Deejo

vellocet said:


> Here is the problem. You can take my past situation for example.
> 
> My x-wife would complain that I ignore her which wasn't the case at all. If anything it was the opposite. She wanted to be a SAHM against my desires, but I gave in and agreed.
> 
> So here she is staying home with the kids LIKE SHE WANTED, but then complained about it.
> 
> So as her husband, what did I so? Something really REALLY stupid........I tried to help her. I watched the kids so she could go have some time with friends and always making time for us.
> 
> What a f'in moron I was. So excuse me if that article and the attitudes towards husbands in this thread doesn't just tickle the sh*t out of me.


So ... which guy would you rather be?

The one with a wife who couldn't find her ass with both hands, and blames him, or the single guy that can now 'see' that behavior and would NEVER enable a partner to make their bad choices his fault again?

Or would you rather just be mad?

I don't much care about the ladies side of the fence. Primarily because I'm not on it.

Being good at relationships doesn't translate into kissing a woman's ass.


----------



## ocotillo

yeah_right said:


> I think the title of the article is misleading. The article itself discusses walk-away wives, the ones who leave with no new man to go to.


I was scratching my head over that. The word, "Cheating" is present in the web page title and as a meta tag on the page, but it's not part of the title of the article or in the actual text of the article. :scratchhead:


----------



## Deejo

ocotillo said:


> I was scratching my head over that. The word, "Cheating" is present in the web page title and as a meta tag on the page, but it's not part of the title of the article or in the actual text of the article. :scratchhead:


Works the same as here. It's marketing.

'Cheating' gets clicked.


----------



## BetrayedDad

vellocet said:


> So as her husband, what did I do? Something really REALLY stupid........I tried to help her. I watched the kids so she could go have some time with friends and always making time for us.
> 
> What a f'in moron I was.


Haha, you fell for that old trick too? You and me both, brother. I did the same exact thing and the whole time I thought how great it was for her to have a "GNO". 

I guess men aren't the only ones who use their SO's as built-in babysitters to go fvck around behind their backs.


----------



## Anon Pink

vellocet said:


> Here is the problem. You can take my past situation for example.
> 
> My x-wife would complain that I ignore her which wasn't the case at all. If anything it was the opposite. She wanted to be a SAHM against my desires, but I gave in and agreed.
> 
> So here she is staying home with the kids LIKE SHE WANTED, but then complained about it.
> 
> So as her husband, what did I so? Something really REALLY stupid........I tried to help her. I watched the kids so she could go have some time with friends and always making time for us.
> 
> What a f'in moron I was. So excuse me if that article and the attitudes towards husbands in this thread doesn't just tickle the sh*t out of me.



No one has called you a moron..not to your face at least. 


That is a very simplistic view of what happened in your marriage and very warped view of the attitude towards husbands in this thread. 

Some women are horrible people, some men are incredibly stupid. And some people go through periods where they are either horrible or stupid and sometimes both.

One day you'll get tired of being the victim and decide instead to be something else.


----------



## vellocet

Deejo said:


> So ... which guy would you rather be?
> 
> The one with a wife who couldn't find her ass with both hands, and blames him, or the single guy that can now 'see' that behavior and would NEVER enable a partner to make their bad choices his fault again?


I think its been well established by me....the single guy. I have removed myself from the bullsh*t of relationships for the very reasons popping up in these threads.



> Being good at relationships doesn't translate into kissing a woman's ass.


The way things are presented in this thread and others, could have fooled me.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> No one has called you a moron..not to your face at least.


I know. I'm calling myself one.




> That is a very simplistic view of what happened in your marriage and very warped view of the attitude towards husbands in this thread.


Yes I know, its a simplistic view...because I must have done something, evil man that I am, to have caused this.



> One day you'll get tired of being the victim and decide instead to be something else.


No victim here. And it will be impossible for me to ever be one again.


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> No one has called you a moron..not to your face at least.


Just so you know the significance of the avatar change didn't go unnoticed. 

Lucky for you Deejo is a benevolent god.


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> Works the same as here. It's marketing.
> 
> 'Cheating' gets clicked.


That part makes sense, but it does make for an unfortunate title when linking to the page.  

Why women leave or cheat - What every man should know


----------



## Deejo

You know the cheaters script?

Well there is one for TAM too.

If you are a guy who comes here and basically posts that he is afraid he's losing his wife (I'm not even talking about suspects infidelity) but the bedroom is dead, she doesn't respect him, and he wants to recover.

The standard female script is to be more attentive, thoughtful, and loving.

And I can tell you unequivocally, as an immediate remedy, that is absolutely the worst thing a guy can do. It makes things worse, not better.

The standard male script is to get an idea of what is going on? Is he a doormat, is he engaged, involved? Is his spouse entitled, angry, or mentally ill? Can't try to fix the marriage until we know where the man stands in it, and with himself.

I often prescribe destabilizing the relationship. Can't fix a broken dynamic if your partner insists you stay in it (even when they claim its not what they want, its what they know).

The goal in my eyes is always pretty straightforward; discovering if you have a partner that wants to salvage the relationship and work with you, or someone who has already mentally checked out and is only looking to sabotage things further.



Being 'present' is about as good a description as I can think of. Being present means that you have the ability to listen to, and see what is really going on. Being dialed into your partners feelings and your own.

No ass kissing need be involved.

Taking ownership is a different, and more powerful piece, whether the relationship weathers the storm or not.


----------



## Doorman

As a newcomer, I'm completely perplexed by this discussion. 

The article cited is about why women leave men. You could argue that the article says either "because the husbands are inattentive" or "because the wives didn't get what they want". Something to argue, alright.

Now, that sounds like a logical thing to discuss in a place called "The Men's Clubhouse". What is not logical, is that obviously several women are trying to steer the discussion, while calling out men that voice their opinions. Why is this tolerated? Further, the moderator is basically taking their side.

Doesn't this seem ridiculous to anyone else? What is the purpose of the forum, if men cannot voice their own opinions without backlash from women? Its completely out of bounds. It destroys any type of invitation for men to discuss things on their minds frankly and openly. 

This thoughtless disrespect of decorum kind of kills any benefit the forum might provide. Is this typical?


----------



## BetrayedDad

Doorman said:


> Is this typical?


Yes, welcome to the internet.


----------



## vellocet

Doorman, you aint seen nothing yet. Stick around.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> If you are a guy who comes here and basically posts that he is afraid he's losing his wife (I'm not even talking about suspects infidelity) but the bedroom is dead, she doesn't respect him, and he wants to recover.
> 
> The standard female script is to be more attentive, thoughtful, and loving.
> 
> And I can tell you unequivocally, as an immediate remedy, that is absolutely the worst thing a guy can do. It makes things worse, not better.


What about this?

Originally Posted by jld 
http://http://www.amazon.com/Hold-M...etime-ebook/dp/B0011UGLQK/ref=tmm_kin_title_0

Deejo recommended this book a few months ago. By rekindling your emotional connection, you may spark a physical connection, too.


jld That's exactly what worked for me as well as improving myself for myself.

55


----------



## Ripper

Doorman said:


> What is not logical, is that obviously several women are trying to steer the discussion, while calling out men that voice their opinions.


The Men's Clubhouse has a standard set of groupies that just can't help themselves. Its like your best friend's kid sister crushing on you, annoying yet charming in its own way.

Hello ladies.


----------



## Marduk

vellocet said:


> Here is the problem. You can take my past situation for example.
> 
> My x-wife would complain that I ignore her which wasn't the case at all. If anything it was the opposite. She wanted to be a SAHM against my desires, but I gave in and agreed.
> 
> So here she is staying home with the kids LIKE SHE WANTED, but then complained about it.
> 
> So as her husband, what did I so? Something really REALLY stupid........I tried to help her. I watched the kids so she could go have some time with friends and always making time for us.
> 
> What a f'in moron I was. So excuse me if that article and the attitudes towards husbands in this thread doesn't just tickle the sh*t out of me.


Here's the thing, man.

I've been there. In two different ways in two different marriages, I've been there. I've felt your rage, your powerlessness, your hoplessness... if that's what you're feeling. I f'ing hear you man.

There's a process to this all. Step one has to be try to help your wife, because that's what love is. You would hope for the same from her. And because you love and trust you gotta assume good intentions.

This is not wasted effort. This doesn't make you an idiot. It makes you a decent human being.

What comes next if your partner doesn't or can't respond to that is what is delightfully known as a 'wake up call.' That can come in various different forms, some more shocking and destabilizing than others, but the hope is the same -- that it's an act of compassion that puts your marriage back together. 

It's like the hail mary pass you throw to try to save the game when there's 3 seconds left on the clock, you're on your own 20 yard line, and down by 6. You gotta do it, 'cause that's all you have left.

And if that doesn't work, you go to the locker room, pick up the peices, and try to hold your head high because you did the best you could.


----------



## Deejo

I physically laughed out loud that there are men reading this and interpret it as my taking the side of women.

Own your sh!t. Deal with your sh!t. Dump your sh!t.

Or just keep rolling around in it because the smell gives you something to complain about.

As for 'tolerating' the women that choose to post here? If you can't ignore the words, then ignore the poster. That ability is in the user panel.


----------



## ocotillo

Doorman said:


> Doesn't this seem ridiculous to anyone else?


Wasn't the moderator's intent clear? --That he would like to see people heal and move forward instead of alternately picking at the scab and lashing out at the wrong people for years on end?


----------



## Doorman

Deejo said:


> I physically laughed out loud that there are men reading this and interpret it as my taking the side of women.
> 
> Own your sh!t. Deal with your sh!t. Dump your sh!t.
> 
> Or just keep rolling around in it because the smell gives you something to complain about.
> 
> As for 'tolerating' the women that choose to post here? If you can't ignore the words, then ignore the poster. That ability is in the user panel.


You're not very impressive. I can't imagine why you are a moderator. Do you actually moderate, and try to enforce a certain level of basic order and discussion, or just upbraid, curse, and back down from anyone that crosses boundaries and instigates? Is it just selective enforcement as you see fit?

Did you even give thought to answering any of my questions, in your position as moderator, or just decide to talk "sh!t" to impress the ladies? Don't disparage me for using the word "tolerate" when I'm made a valid observation, and sought answers. How about a direct answer?


----------



## RClawson

I think I understand Deejo's point. I believe I could fall in the category he described in his first post here. It has taken me 2 1/2 years to get to the point where I am getting IC (and maybe MC). 

I likely have been a broken record and that does get tiring. I do not understand my wife's actions or attitudes nor do I understand her unwillingness to admit that she could barely tolerate me for 3 years.

What I do understand is that I did not nor do I understand women. I knew it when I was a teenager but I thought I had it figured out as a young man (I know how naive). I did not understand how my own upbringing and family dynamic influenced me as a man, husband and father. I know now that I am just like my father. He is a kind and very loving man but not much of a leader in the home.

Now back to the initial issue at hand. I do not accept my wife's behavior even though she is happy as a clam now. I will be working to root out my / our issues and they will be confronted once and for all. and either we will build on what we have or go our separate ways.


----------



## Deejo

Doorman said:


> You're not very impressive. I can't imagine why you are a moderator. Do you actually moderate, and try to enforce a certain level of basic order and discussion, or just upbraid, curse, and back down from anyone that crosses boundaries and instigates? Is it just selective enforcement as you see fit?
> 
> Did you even give thought to answering any of my questions, in your position as moderator, or just decide to talk "sh!t" to impress the ladies? Don't disparage me for using the word "tolerate" when I'm made a valid observation, and sought answers. How about a direct answer?


I'm not trying to be impressive.

I'm here to help. I apologize if you don't feel safe and supported, and you found my colorful language offensive.

I'd like to know more about your story. Do you have a thread?


----------



## Deejo

RClawson said:


> I think I understand Deejo's point. I believe I could fall in the category he described in his first post here. It has taken me 2 1/2 years to get to the point where I am getting IC (and maybe MC).
> 
> I likely have been a broken record and that does get tiring. I do not understand my wife's actions or attitudes nor do I understand her unwillingness to admit that she could barely tolerate me for 3 years.
> 
> What I do understand is that I did not nor do I understand women. I knew it when I was a teenager but I thought I had it figured out as a young man (I know how naive). I did not understand how my own upbringing and family dynamic influenced me as a man, husband and father. I know now that I am just like my father. He is a kind and very loving man but not much of a leader in the home.
> 
> Now back to the initial issue at hand. I do not accept my wife's behavior even though she is happy as a clam now. I will be working to root out my / our issues and they will be confronted once and for all. and either we will build on what we have or go our separate ways.


I'm not criticizing anyone's tenure, or their issues RC.

It's how they choose to go about dealing with them. There is a difference between struggling with something where you don't feel like you can move, and enabling it.

Ironically we seem to have ended up in the very p!ssing match that I was decrying.

This isn't about what he did, or what she did. 

It's about what you are going to do. The big you ... not you RC.

All of the forums here are available to registered members. Men post in the Ladies Lounge, women post in the Clubhouse.

And that is not going to change.


----------



## Fitnessfan

yeah_right said:


> If you marry a woman simply *because she's "hot", remember that she has been surrounded by beauty enablers all her life. She may very well be a clingy, needy prima donna because she was raised that way. * And if you would look beyond her T&A, you might see it before it's too late. It's like driving an expensive Italian sports car...lots of expensive upkeep and constant attention to the tuning. Caveat emptor.
> 
> Also, if you see marriage simply as a way to have a housekeeper/babysitter who provides free sex while you spend all your free time gaming/hunting/biking/camping/gambling/bar-hopping/whoring/insert sports thing here/etc., you have a very good chance of experiencing walk-away wife syndrome when the kids leave. This might also happen if you are gone most of the time due to your high-paying job and think the money is enough for her. You might be better off just staying single and dating through life.
> 
> As I get closer and closer to 50, I'm seeing women I know divorcing...and another man has nothing to do with it. They are fed up, and I blame both for lack of communication and realistic expectations of marriage.


Beauty enablers? Really? You don't need to be "hot" to be clingy, needy or a prima donna. I don't really see what looks have to do with it. I know many "hot" women that are not clingy but rather very independent, intelligent women. Some women that one may consider average or not attractive are just as likely to be clingy or needy. Looks have nothing to do with it. Perhaps upbringing or personality but not looks.


----------



## Jellybeans

aine said:


> *Generally women will put up with a lot and try and keep their relationships intact over many years. For the most part they do not walk away from marriages at whim.* It usually is a matter of not being able to take the neglect, abandonment, emotional abuse any longer. the problem is that the marriage looks fine on the outside and as long as the husband gets his food and sex things are pretty good from his perspective, why fix something that is not broken. Meanwhile she is whining about him not meeting her needs which are valid feelings, but to him they are complaints that are not based in facts. Unfortunately too often men stop tending to the emotional side of their relationship once they have 'caught' the wife. Now time to leave her and go into the world, provide and do all the things that interest him. Meanwhile she has to get on with things devoid of any or little attention except when he wants her to listen to his work problema or needs sex.
> 
> Men cherish your wives and those with husbands who cherish them, treasure their husbands. There are far too many marriages where this disconnect exists and it is soul destroying.


Accurate.

:iagree:

Most women who leave their partners do not do so randomly. A lot of stuff usually happens to get her to that point.


----------



## Doorman

Deejo said:


> I'm not trying to be impressive.
> 
> I'm here to help. I apologize if you don't feel safe and supported, and you found my colorful language offensive.
> 
> I'd like to know more about your story. Do you have a thread?


If you're here to help then answer the questions that have twice been asked of you, and stop dodging and hedging.

Do I need "a thread" to post here?


----------



## RClawson

It does seem to me there is an overwhelming rise in divorces in the 40-55 demographic. I am amazed how many of my friends (both male and female) are in relationship crisis. 

I have said it once and I will repeat it. There is a major paradigm shift happening in this country. Women are becoming more independent and rely less on a man to "make them whole". There is both good and bad that I see in this. I think there are endless numbers of men scratching their heads and have no clue what is going on.


----------



## Jellybeans

norajane said:


> The article in the OP did not say women wanted or needed 24/7 attention. It said there are some men who are too inattentive in that they spend too much time away from their families and take their wives for granted, the wives who are holding down the fort while the guys are golfing, gaming, whatever. And that those women who experience that kind of marriage with those kinds of men, will and do walk away at some point when they've had enough.
> 
> It's not that different from men who finally decide to walk away because their wives don't have enough sex with them. So I don't know why it is difficult to acknowledge that* neglect and taking spouses for granted* is a real situation for people that are nowhere near the extreme end of things and needing 24/7 attention.


YES! NAILED IT!

Taking your partner for granted repeatedly/habitually = bad news for the relationship.


----------



## soccermom2three

Deejo said:


> You know the cheaters script?
> 
> Well there is one for TAM too.
> 
> If you are a guy who comes here and basically posts that he is afraid he's losing his wife (I'm not even talking about suspects infidelity) but the bedroom is dead, she doesn't respect him, and he wants to recover.
> 
> The standard female script is to be more attentive, thoughtful, and loving.
> 
> And I can tell you unequivocally, as an immediate remedy, that is absolutely the worst thing a guy can do. It makes things worse, not better.
> 
> The standard male script is to get an idea of what is going on? Is he a doormat, is he engaged, involved? Is his spouse entitled, angry, or mentally ill? Can't try to fix the marriage until we know where the man stands in it, and with himself.
> 
> I often prescribe destabilizing the relationship. Can't fix a broken dynamic if your partner insists you stay in it (even when they claim its not what they want, its what they know).
> 
> The goal in my eyes is always pretty straightforward; discovering if you have a partner that wants to salvage the relationship and work with you, or someone who has already mentally checked out and is only looking to sabotage things further.
> 
> 
> 
> Being 'present' is about as good a description as I can think of. Being present means that you have the ability to listen to, and see what is really going on. Being dialed into your partners feelings and your own.
> 
> No ass kissing need be involved.
> 
> Taking ownership is a different, and more powerful piece, whether the relationship weathers the storm or not.


I can tell you that if my husband had come here at the beginning of our marriage of our marriage for advice asking why I wasn't having sex with him and then being told to destabilize the relationship and not to be more attentive, we probably wouldn't be married now.

He was already being as inattentive as one could get. Spending hours at the gym, gaming, golfing, hunting, etc. then at 1 or 2am coming to bed and wanting sex. Hardly any conversation, engagement or flirting beforehand. I ate dinner alone and went to bed alone crying myself asleep. I felt very unloved. I would talked to him, he would feel guilty and get better for a while. To be honest, he really wasted my 20-something, before kids, hot body.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Depends on how each person is wired. Evolutionary, females will bond more through touch, and communication. It is the facts, and that is how most are wired to be. Logically, if you think about offspring, that is how mother and child bond also.

Evolutionary, men tend to be more of the drifter sex. Men form attachment by doing things together and co-habitation also form bonds for males. Males would hunt in groups and fight off predators in groups. Males also form attachments by simply being around each other. No words needs to be spoken.

So, maybe a little understanding of how the opposite sex operates is the first step in gaining the self-awareness to help both partners remained bonded. Bonds, especially when it comes to partners fade a lot faster than a biological bond.

So my best advice for a healthy relationship is figure out how the other forms attachments. What I posted above is just general.

The outlier are of course the too dysfunctional people out there. Face it, we are not all born with healthy empathic brains. There are certain factors that help form us into who we are. Our genetics, the way we were nurtured, culture, and the environment around us. Someone who grew up as a child abuse victim will seek an abuser, or they will unconsciously create chaos in their life because the drama is their norm. It is what it is.


----------



## Dogbert

It would be nice if there were schools for men and women that would teach them how to be husbands and wives. Sadly our parents are/were crappy teachers who knew probably less than their children.

Just like a drunk feels fearless and boasts that he can drive a vehicle safely while totally $hitfaced, so do delusional fools with too much oxytocin and dopamine in their brains feel that "With Love, everything is possible".


----------



## Deejo

Doorman said:


> If you're here to help then answer the questions that have twice been asked of you, and stop dodging and hedging.
> 
> Do I need "a thread" to post here?


Doorman, I've read your post several times and you'll have to forgive me, I just don't see questions.

But I'll give it a shot.



Doorman said:


> As a newcomer, I'm completely perplexed by this discussion.
> 
> The article cited is about why women leave men. You could argue that the article says either "because the husbands are inattentive" or "because the wives didn't get what they want". Something to argue, alright.
> 
> Now, that sounds like a logical thing to discuss in a place called "The Men's Clubhouse". What is not logical, is that obviously several women are trying to steer the discussion, while calling out men that voice their opinions. Why is this tolerated? Further, the moderator is basically taking their side.
> 
> Doesn't this seem ridiculous to anyone else? What is the purpose of the forum, if men cannot voice their own opinions without backlash from women?


If your expectation is that your posts won't be challenged, disagreed with, or critiqued, than this probably isn't the place for you. As I indicated, either gender is free to post, comment, and participate, as long as it is within the forum guidelines. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/2117-forum-rules-please-read-first.html



Doorman said:


> Its completely out of bounds. It destroys any type of invitation for men to discuss things on their minds frankly and openly.
> 
> This thoughtless disrespect of decorum kind of kills any benefit the forum might provide. Is this typical?


Absolutely.

And no, you don't need to have a thread to post here.


----------



## Deejo

soccermom2three said:


> I can tell you that if my husband had come here at the beginning of our marriage of our marriage for advice asking why I wasn't having sex with him and then being told to destabilize the relationship and not to be more attentive, we probably wouldn't be married now.
> 
> He was already being as inattentive as one could get. Spending hours at the gym, gaming, golfing, hunting, etc. then at 1 or 2am coming to bed and wanting sex. Hardly any conversation, engagement or flirting beforehand. I ate dinner alone and went to bed alone crying myself asleep. I felt very unloved. I would talked to him, he would feel guilty and get better for a while. To be honest, he really wasted my 20-something, before kids, hot body.


Yeah ... we get that one from the women too. Destabilize doesn't have to mean, 'punish', it means change the norm. It impacts him too.

It's not the advice I would have given to him. It's the advice I would have given to you.

And to be clear, that recommendation is usually given to guys who 'over love' their spouses. 

Did you read the article? Your husband was the target audience.

Instead we have everyone here losing their mind because I used the phrase 'kicked puppies' and 'sh!t'.

Cripes ... should we just stop making recommendations altogether? After all, the arguing is rather robust ...


----------



## chillymorn

For every woman who posts about their crappy inattentive husband who watches too much sports,plays too many video games, and only wants sex .

There a man posting that his wife doesn't want sex , he just can't understand he's a god provider gives her everything she asks for.

Now there are some of both genders that are dealing with pure bat$hit crazy . and they are either people married to BPD or narsassitc personality disorder. In that case well its a no win just get out as best you can

So which came first the chicken or the egg?

I know in my marriage my wife never once came to me and said I' m unhappy I need more this or that. But I have told her what I need only to be dismissed or minimal effort only to slip back to dismissed


----------



## ocotillo

chillymorn said:


> For every woman who posts about their crappy inattentive husband who watches too much sports,plays too many video games, and only wants sex .
> 
> There a man posting that his wife doesn't want sex , he just can't understand he's a god provider gives her everything she asks for.


The million dollar question is why there seems to be such a fatal attraction between between the two in both examples?


----------



## chillymorn

ocotillo said:


> The million dollar question is why there seems to be such a fatal attraction between between the two in both examples?


Unrealistic expectations! And resentment that he didn't,t read her mind!


----------



## Dogbert

chillymorn said:


> Unrealistic expectations! And resentment that he didn't,t read her mind!


On *BOTH* sides.


----------



## EleGirl

Doorman said:


> As a newcomer, I'm completely perplexed by this discussion.
> 
> The article cited is about why women leave men. You could argue that the article says either "because the husbands are inattentive" or "because the wives didn't get what they want". Something to argue, alright.
> 
> Now, that sounds like a logical thing to discuss in a place called "The Men's Clubhouse". What is not logical, is that obviously several women are trying to steer the discussion, while calling out men that voice their opinions. Why is this tolerated? Further, the moderator is basically taking their side.
> 
> Doesn't this seem ridiculous to anyone else? What is the purpose of the forum, if men cannot voice their own opinions without backlash from women? Its completely out of bounds. It destroys any type of invitation for men to discuss things on their minds frankly and openly.
> 
> This thoughtless disrespect of decorum kind of kills any benefit the forum might provide. Is this typical?


Yep, you are new here.

If you go to the women's forum you will find that the men do the same thing over there.

It's called discussion... we are all talk about everything. No one is excluded. Men and women can learn from each other by sharing.


----------



## Doorman

Deejo said:


> Doorman, I've read your post several times and you'll have to forgive me, I just don't see questions.


They are the groups of words, formed into a sentence, with a question mark at the end. This is an example of a question mark:

?

There were five (5) of them in my posts you just quoted, and ignored. Again. Is it possible you could re-read them and respond, or explain your lack of response? Is there some reason you refuse to discuss the issues I presented?

Are you a volunteer? You might revisit those rules you posted, and more closely examine #1, #4, and #5. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/2117-forum-rules-please-read-first.html


----------



## soccermom2three

Deejo, I did read the article and it really resonated with me. (I don't think some posters here did though.) 

Your right, that advice would have been good for me because I was orbiting around him wishing for attention. I even resorted to watching golf on T.V. with him, lol.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Doorman said:


> They are the groups of words, formed into a sentence, with a question mark at the end. This is an example of a question mark:
> 
> ?
> 
> There were five (5) of them in my posts you just quoted, and ignored. Again. Is it possible you could re-read them and respond, or explain your lack of response? Is there some reason you refuse to discuss the issues I presented?
> 
> Are you a volunteer? You might revisit those rules you posted, and more closely examine #1, #4, and #5. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/2117-forum-rules-please-read-first.html


Why so angry? Your post denotes some very hostile feelings. Care to share or start a thread?


----------



## ConanHub

Someone needs to get laid!

Anyway. Don't women usually fall out of love before they leave?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

soccermom2three said:


> Deejo, I did read the article and it really resonated with me. (I don't think some posters here did though.)
> 
> Your right, that advice would have been good for me because I was orbiting around him wishing for attention. I even resorted to watching golf on T.V. with him, lol.


I've watched Golf with my husband. He actually makes it rather interesting when he explains everything and he doesn't mind when I make fun of the announcers, the players or the stupid Quiet rule. If golfers are athletes you'd think they be able to hit the ball even if it noisy like in every other sport.


----------



## ConanHub

Do desperate housewives watch golf? &#55357;&#56841;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

It's hard to comment on this thread without picking sides. Of course that's the problem because there aren't sides but only context.

So anyway, I would hate for my wife to feel left out or unimportant to me. But she better speak up and say so if she does.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

ConanHub said:


> Someone needs to get laid!
> 
> Anyway. Don't women usually fall out of love before they leave?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I loved mine when I left, I would say I didn't feel close to him at the time and was very resentful.


----------



## ConanHub

*LittleDeer* said:


> I loved mine when I left, I would say I didn't feel close to him at the time and was very resentful.


Interesting. So you still loved him but the relationship was bad?

I've seen most women check out before leaving. I understand loving someone you can't be married to however.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## *LittleDeer*

ConanHub said:


> Interesting. So you still loved him but the relationship was bad?
> 
> I've seen most women check out before leaving. I understand loving someone you can't be married to however.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes I would have at the time described it as the classic ILYBNILWY. lol

But I think we had a dysfunctional marriage and certainly I wasn't happy at many different times. 

Most of those times were when things got hard, I felt abandoned. The last time I was really sick and he was angry at me for not doing all the stuff I normally did. 

I checked out. 

I still have so much guilt over it though. I don't think he was a horrible man, but we married young and my needs were not getting met. I suggested counseling so many times, and he would agree only to back out. 

I feel very sad that it didn't work out.


----------



## ConanHub

Sorry to hear that tiny doe! &#55357;&#56841;

I don't recall. Did you have success in a different relationship?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Coffee Amore

In case anyone wondered the ban was given by me.


----------



## yeah_right

Fitnessfan said:


> Beauty enablers? Really? You don't need to be "hot" to be clingy, needy or a prima donna. I don't really see what looks have to do with it. I know many "hot" women that are not clingy but rather very independent, intelligent women. Some women that one may consider average or not attractive are just as likely to be clingy or needy. Looks have nothing to do with it. Perhaps upbringing or personality but not looks.


I said "may" and did not speak in absolutes. Obviously there are clingy plain women and independent hot women. But yes, many beautiful women are given a free pass on things, or extra assistance or attention. And some can be spoiled by it. It is ok if we as women can acknowledge that as a gender we have some ways to improve. If you disagree, ok.

There is a male version of this too. The handsome "bad boy". He gets spoiled by the ladies. Can be a player or a user. Women think they can change him and give him a million chances while ignoring the perfectly nice, good man who may not be as buff or extroverted. And yes, I know that not all studs are d-bags and not all regular dudes are saints.

But I bet most people on this thread have seen plenty examples of the pretty people of both genders who may be a tad needy/shallow/clingy/greedy/etc.. It happens.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

ConanHub said:


> Sorry to hear that tiny doe! ��
> 
> I don't recall. Did you have success in a different relationship?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thank you Conan. Yes I have been with my current partner for over 3 years.


----------



## EleGirl

Thundarr said:


> It's hard to comment on this thread without picking sides. Of course that's the problem because there aren't sides but only context.
> 
> So anyway, I would hate for my wife to feel left out or unimportant to me. But she better speak up and say so if she does.



I don't see why there are any sides to pick.

The definition of a WAW is that she has been telling her husband for a long time that there is a problem. But he ignores it.

If a woman did the same thing to her husband, I'd have no problem seeing his side.


----------



## aine

RichardSharpe, you are absolutely right. But what do you do when you try to strike up a conversation and they are so absorbed by the work laptop, or messages on their phone they are barely listening to you? This happens alot. Or make arrangements to do something and don't turn up. That kind of treatment gets a bit old and frankly leads to withdrawal. The smiling happy wife waiting at the door for her hubby returning may have been relevant to the 1950's but if a woman is also working and doing everything else at home with little or no support, it is a little hard to play happy wifey. To me it is a matter of respect. Women need respect too. Sometimes people take each other for granted because they make the mistaken assumption that the other person will be there forever. As I said in an earlier post, women do take a lot of crap (and in many instances more than the man would) to keep homes stable and harmonious but a time comes when enough it really enough. A woman 'complaining' is actually a way to let the man know something is wrong but all he hears is 'whining' hence the shock for many men when their wives just (appear to) up and leave without warning.


----------



## aine

I am really amazed at the myriad of responses and some that seem to think that people are taking 'sides'. What is happening here is exactly what happens in marriages. The man thinks he is right from his perspective and the woman thinks she is right from hers. The point is, both are right and both are wrong. The title of the article is telling because is says why women leave MEN THEY LOVE. Not men they hate, want to cheat on, etc. Women are usually not very good at communicating their feelings (emotions) and husbands only want to deal with facts. Example, Wife: "you are going golfing again?" he hears : why are you golfing every day, when all she is saying , could you put me first and do something with me for a change. His response "i only went to the driving range once this week and played a game on Tuesday, this is only the third time." Wife gives up reaching out to her husband in the face of his factual data. Exchange completed and he goes to golf and she has failed to communicate and feels even worse. He is annoyed because here she goes again, nag, nag , nag. His needs are usually for sexual fulfillment and recreational companionship primarily but hers are for affection and conversation primarily, hence the dilemma.


----------



## aine

Vellocet, when arranging to mind the kids did you ever stop to think that perhaps your wife didn't want to meet her friends, maybe she just wanted to be with you? You should get a baby sitter. She wants to spend time with you but you have heard whiny complaints and attacks and have responded in fashion with defensiveness and complaints of your own. Women are not men and do not communicate like men. But such exchanges leave women alone, frustrated, unheard and undervalued. I don't think many men realise the depth of hurt that this kind of thing can do over a period of time until her hard becomes shredded and hardened and she decides not to let him in because all he does is hurt her. 

For men who want to change that hardened heart, they have a long climb. First they have to truly understand how she got to that place, take ownership for the hurts caused (some of it might be her own), put aside pride and selfishness, no blaming ( i hurt you because you did xyz), and maybe a counselor, if necessary.


----------



## aine

ConanHub said:


> Do desperate housewives watch golf? ��
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I played golf with him (he loved that recreational companionship) but now i work and study and take care of the home and don't have the time to spare. But i guess that is again a priority issue. I found if I played i would still have to come home and do everything by myself, no sharing of responsibility, so I stopped the golf. In other words I am taking the lion's share of relationship responsibility which left me resentful. (something along the lines of the Single married woman).


----------



## jld

aine said:


> Vellocet, when arranging to mind the kids did you ever stop to think that perhaps your wife didn't want to meet her friends, maybe she just wanted to be with you? You should get a baby sitter. She wants to spend time with you but you have heard whiny complaints and attacks and have responded in fashion with defensiveness and complaints of your own. Women are not men and do not communicate like men. But such exchanges leave women alone, frustrated, unheard and undervalued. I don't think many men realise the depth of hurt that this kind of thing can do over a period of time until her hard becomes shredded and hardened and she decides not to let him in because all he does is hurt her.
> 
> For men who want to change that hardened heart, they have a long climb. First they have to truly understand how she got to that place, take ownership for the hurts caused (some of it might be her own), put aside pride and selfishness, no blaming ( i hurt you because you did xyz), and maybe a counselor, if necessary.


I think you would enjoy this article, aine:

Reconciliation with a Hardened Wife


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

*LittleDeer* said:


> Yes I would have at the time described it as the classic ILYBNILWY. lol
> 
> But I think we had a dysfunctional marriage and certainly I wasn't happy at many different times.
> 
> Most of those times were when things got hard, I felt abandoned. The last time I was really sick and he was angry at me for not doing all the stuff I normally did.
> 
> I checked out.
> 
> I still have so much guilt over it though. I don't think he was a horrible man, but we married young and my needs were not getting met. I suggested counseling so many times, and he would agree only to back out.
> 
> I feel very sad that it didn't work out.


Yep, I am at ILYBNILWY as well.
IME someone can stay in this phase for years. Sometimes trying, sometimes just given up. 

Like the article where the women were scared that a man could just come and show them a bit of attention and steal then right out from under their husbands, I can relate. I keep away from men because I know I'm vulnerable and desperate. 

The standard man advice, the 180 stuff, go to the gym and get a life of your own, would only end up the final nail in the coffin.


----------



## ocotillo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The standard man advice, the 180 stuff, go to the gym and get a life of your own, would only end up the final nail in the coffin.


To be fair, that advice is intended for people at the opposite end of the spectrum who have been too accommodating, too compliant and too nice and their spouse has lost respect for them as a result. 

I can't quite wrap my mind around the how and why of losing respect for a spouse that is too nice to you, but apparently some people do.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> It's hard to comment on this thread without picking sides. *Of course that's the problem because there aren't sides but only context.*
> 
> So anyway, I would hate for my wife to feel left out or unimportant to me. But she better speak up and say so if she does.
> 
> 
> 
> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why there are any sides to pick.
> 
> The definition of a WAW is that she has been telling her husband for a long time that there is a problem. But he ignores it.
> 
> If a woman did the same thing to her husband, I'd have no problem seeing his side.
Click to expand...

There are no sides; just contexts. That's actually what my comment was saying. It's clear who the intended audience is for the article. Men (or women) who have become compacent and comfortable in marriage without paying attention to the how comfortable or happy their partner is. This leads to one partner having needs met and the other one not. Now I look at the first pages of this thread and see an additional context. It's the context of betrayed spouses who've heard similar arguments about needs not being met by their WS. Sometimes these were valid problems and other times they were just things the WS said to blameshift or rationalize thier bad choices.


----------



## anonmd

Anon Pink said:


> I've watched Golf with my husband. He actually makes it rather interesting when he explains everything and he doesn't mind when I make fun of the announcers, the players or the stupid Quiet rule. If golfers are athletes you'd think they be able to hit the ball even if it noisy like in every other sport.


I used to watch golf with my wife, then Payne Stuart died when the business jet he was riding in depressurized @ altitude. The commentary on Paynes fashion choices were most entertaining. 

I also used to PLAY golf with my wife fairly regularly, then we got married and that was the last time that happened


----------



## Deejo

Apparently you ladies didn't read my post either. Everyone hears what they want to hear.

The standard input for a guy, is the guy that HAS been trying, and WANTS his marriage to work.

If he has been detached, disinterested and disengaged all along, then that advice isn't for him ... it's for you.

What outcome can we otherwise possibly expect, if we are invested and then choose to invest more in a partner that wasn't responsive in the first place?

That is where a 180 or destabilizing at least resets the playing field so you can determine if you dig in, or start to dig out. 

If you are at the point in your relationship where you are concerned that another could 'scoop you up', you no longer have your spouse to blame. You are responsible (man or woman, I'm annoyed I even need to point this out for the gender warriors) for perpetuating circumstances that are no longer tenable.

The impression that I'm once again left with, is that either side of the divide would rather point fingers then take responsibility for repairing, or dissolving their marriage.

Only thing I had hoped to convey, per the link Macho provided was that men need to be responsible for whatever choice they make rather than feeling powerless and gutted.

There is nothing wrong with having those feelings and working through them. It is a problem if gutted and powerless is where you choose to remain.


----------



## Deejo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The standard man advice, the 180 stuff, go to the gym and get a life of your own, would only end up the final nail in the coffin.


And sometimes putting the final nail in the coffin is exactly what someone needs to step up and do.


----------



## vellocet

marduk said:


> There's a process to this all. Step one has to be try to help your wife, because that's what love is.


Hmm, so basically I should help her because I'm supposed to love her, but her love can part her thighs for someone else? Really?

Sorry, she didn't love me to do what she did. Not interested at that point.




> This is not wasted effort. This doesn't make you an idiot.


If reconciliation was my goal, no it wouldn't have. But I'm not going to bow down before here which is what some think should happen.

We have heard time and time again, especially from one poster in particular, that a betrayed husband should humble himself to his cheating wife. Sorry, THAT would make one an idiot.




> It's like the hail mary pass you throw to try to save the game when there's 3 seconds left on the clock, you're on your own 20 yard line, and down by 6. You gotta do it, 'cause that's all you have left.


No, the other play is to divorce. That was my choice.


----------



## vellocet

Deejo said:


> Dump your sh!t.


I did. She is history.




> As for 'tolerating' the women that choose to post here? If you can't ignore the words, then ignore the poster. That ability is in the user panel.


Then why didn't you ignore Forest instead of seeing fit to insult him?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ocotillo said:


> To be fair, that advice is intended for people at the opposite end of the spectrum who have been too accommodating, too compliant and too nice and their spouse has lost respect for them as a result.
> 
> I can't quite wrap my mind around the how and why of losing respect for a spouse that is too nice to you, but apparently some people do.


True, but keep in mind you are only getting one side of the story and only what 1 person feels. You never know what their spouse is thinking. 
My H's side could sound a lot different than mine because he does put effort in some places, just the wrong ones for me. Other things, he thinks he does enough but I don't agree. 

He works hard at his job, he's a good Dad, he compliments me and thanks me often, he's handy and can fix things, he says he helps around the house, he's in shape and girls flirt with him although he never flirts back or crosses any boundaries.

Sounds like a great, nice guy from his side. But I'm a WAW who is vulnerable to cheating and doesn't have sex with him.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> To be fair, that advice is intended for people at the opposite end of the spectrum who have been too accommodating, too compliant and too nice and their spouse has lost respect for them as a result.
> 
> I can't quite wrap my mind around the how and why of losing respect for a spouse that is too nice to you, but apparently some people do.


I think you are right about the spectrum, ocotillo. Some guys are Nice Guys, and some are really selfish. Depending on the kind of guy a woman is with, Deejo's advice could be very helpful, or very harmful.

And not every woman is willing to step up and be the leader when there are problems. She might not know how to do it, or feel like it's just not worth it to stay together if she has to discipline him in some way.

For myself, I am willing to pour my heart out to my husband, but that is about as far as I am willing to go to help the relationship. My transparency has to be enough for him to get our relationship in order. 

If I felt I had to use any other measures, I don't think I would feel attracted to him anymore. It would upset the comfortable balance of power too much.


----------



## ocotillo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> ...But I'm a WAW who is vulnerable to cheating and doesn't have sex with him.


Does he know this? Does he understand it? 

If he does not, (And it sounds like he doesn't) I would say that he is pretty typical of a spouse who can't or won't comprehend how something that seems trivial from their perspective could be so important to you.

I don't think that describes most of the people who find their way here looking for advice.


----------



## vellocet

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> True, but keep in mind you are only getting one side of the story and only what 1 person feels. You never know what their spouse is thinking.
> My H's side could sound a lot different than mine because he does put effort in some places, just the wrong ones for me. Other things, he thinks he does enough but I don't agree.
> 
> He works hard at his job, he's a good Dad, he compliments me and thanks me often, he's handy and can fix things, he says he helps around the house, he's in shape and girls flirt with him although he never flirts back or crosses any boundaries.
> 
> *Sounds like a great, nice guy from his side*. But I'm a WAW who is vulnerable to cheating and doesn't have sex with him.


So is he lying? Is he not all those things? What is it he is NOT doing exactly to your liking?
And does he know you would cheat if a good opportunity arose?


----------



## aine

Yes, many men want to work on the marriage when they see it's going south but a few bunches of flowers , and a quick fix check list doesn't cut it. Some will try for a month then give up although the wife has put up with and stuffed her feelings for years. There is no easy way to solve it but go through the uphill process of healing and forgiving.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> To be fair, that advice is intended for people at the opposite end of the spectrum who have been too accommodating, too compliant and too nice and their spouse has lost respect for them as a result.
> 
> I can't quite wrap my mind around the how and why of losing respect for a spouse that is too nice to you, but apparently some people do.


But it's often given to every guy regardless of the situation.

Also, some times guys will come here and list a gazillion things that they are doing. And through further questioning it turns out that they spend zero time with their wife. They don't see the need for it. Or they say that they are too busy. In these cases the 180 is also going to have horrible results. Instead they need to find a balance where they are both taking responsibility for their fair share of work, chores and child care but they also give each other time enough to rebuild and maintain the bond/love.


----------



## ocotillo

aine said:


> Yes, many men want to work on the marriage when they see it's going south but a few bunches of flowers , and a quick fix check list doesn't cut it. Some will try for a month then give up although the wife has put up with and stuffed her feelings for years. There is no easy way to solve it but go through the uphill process of healing and forgiving.


Be fair. Many men want to work on their marriage because they are married to female equivalents of SlowlyGoingCrazy's husband.  --Not bad people, just oblivious in one way or another.


----------



## EleGirl

Deejo said:


> Apparently you ladies didn't read my post either. Everyone hears what they want to hear.
> 
> The standard input for a guy, is the guy that HAS been trying, and WANTS his marriage to work.
> 
> If he has been detached, disinterested and disengaged all along, then that advice isn't for him ... it's for you.
> 
> What outcome can we otherwise possibly expect, if we are invested and then choose to invest more in a partner that wasn't responsive in the first place?
> 
> That is where a 180 or destabilizing at least resets the playing field so you can determine if you dig in, or start to dig out.


I got what you were saying. I’m sure that many of the other women did as well.
My comments have been about posters here who tell a guy who has not been trying to do the 180 when his wife says that she wants a divorce because she’s done trying. We have at least one like that right now. His wife had asked him do so specific things, like set up a date. He told her that he would and then blew it off. He did not consider it important. There were other things she said that he considered not important. Now he wonders why she wants out. In response a lot of people told him to do the 180. That’s what I’m talking about.

I agree with you that the woman (or man) whose spouse is seriously not meeting their needs has to destabilize the relationship. Doing the 180 would help that the spouse who is being ignored.



Deejo said:


> If you are at the point in your relationship where you are concerned that another could 'scoop you up', you no longer have your spouse to blame. You are responsible (man or woman, I'm annoyed I even need to point this out for the gender warriors) for perpetuating circumstances that are no longer tenable.


I’ve been in a relationship with this kind of problem. Other women here have as well. I’m sure that some of the men here have as well.
I did destabilize the marriage, it has zero impact except to get him angry and feeling that he was a victim. The result? Divorce. 
Perhaps the others here who say that they are going through this could tell us if they have tried de stabilizing, doing the 180, etc. 


Deejo said:


> The impression that I'm once again left with, is that either side of the divide would rather point fingers then take responsibility for repairing, or dissolving their marriage.
> 
> Only thing I had hoped to convey, per the link Macho provided was that men need to be responsible for whatever choice they make rather than feeling powerless and gutted.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having those feelings and working through them. It is a problem if gutted and powerless is where you choose to remain.


agreed


----------



## Dad&Hubby

The problem with articles and discussions like this is they are too myopic. 

The wife left because she was ignored...etc. etc.

That's ONE scenario and valid.

Other scenarios are the opposite....and this is gender neutral. 

Husbands and wives leave/cheat for a multitude of reasons.

Some of them are because of bad behavior by their spouse.
Some of them have deficiencies within who they are and cheat/leave even though their spouse does "everything right".

And there's a TON of in between that.

I fall into the category of (in speaking about my ex)..attentive husband...who worked too much but then didn't have any hobbies because all of my other time went to my family. My ex was a narcissist who set up her life with pieces that made her feel good about herself. I was a component...not a person. She cheated on me...because she could. She compartmentalized everything. 

I couldn't have done anything better (in a realistic way) with what we had....but she just wasn't interested in a monogamous equal relationship.

But that's MY specific scenario.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ocotillo said:


> Does he know this? Does he understand it?
> 
> If he does not, (And it sounds like he doesn't) I would say that he is pretty typical of a spouse who can't or won't comprehend how something that seems trivial from their perspective could be so important to you.
> 
> I don't think that describes most of the people who find their way here looking for advice.



I don't think people on TAM are immune to not knowing what their spouse needs and where to put their efforts. If they were this forum would die out pretty quickly. 



vellocet said:


> So is he lying? Is he not all those things? What is it he is NOT doing exactly to your liking?
> And does he know you would cheat if a good opportunity arose?


He's not lying, he is those things. The only one I would disagree with is that he helps around the house but he believes he does. I said I was vulnerable, not that I was waiting for a "good opportunity". If I wanted one of those I'd go find it. I don't. 

I don't think the women in the article want to either. They cried when they said it. It hurt them. It's just that they are vulnerable and have needs that are being unmet.


----------



## Deejo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> True, but keep in mind you are only getting one side of the story and only what 1 person feels. You never know what their spouse is thinking.
> My H's side could sound a lot different than mine because he does put effort in some places, just the wrong ones for me. Other things, he thinks he does enough but I don't agree.
> 
> He works hard at his job, he's a good Dad, he compliments me and thanks me often, he's handy and can fix things, he says he helps around the house, he's in shape and girls flirt with him although he never flirts back or crosses any boundaries.
> 
> Sounds like a great, nice guy from his side. But I'm a WAW who is vulnerable to cheating and doesn't have sex with him.


Then he's likely better off not married to you.

I'm pretty determined to upset everyone, apparently.

Because regardless of what we posit as a course of action, somebody says, "Yeah but what if..."

We don't get to weigh in on the what if's. We only get to deal with the person that feels their relationship is jeopardized to the point that they choose to create a login here and post.

So, I suppose I'm going to ask the women a question, I'd love an honest answer but I'm not sure there is one.

Do you really believe that most men are THAT out of touch that when they come here and post about the state of their marriage, that they are just flat out wrong?

Because that is what it sounds like. It sounds like you are presuming that they aren't seeing the big picture or they are misinterpreting the truth of their marriage.

And if you think they are, then why bother to address them at all, other than to give voice to your own bias?


----------



## vellocet

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> He's not lying, he is those things. The only one I would disagree with is that he helps around the house but he believes he does.


That's it? THAT is what makes you vulnerable to an affair? 

Or were you being sarcastic when you said:



> But I'm a WAW who is vulnerable to cheating


----------



## EnjoliWoman

ocotillo said:


> Does he know this? Does he understand it?
> 
> If he does not, (And it sounds like he doesn't) I would say that he is pretty typical of a spouse who can't or won't comprehend how something that seems trivial from their perspective could be so important to you.
> 
> I don't think that describes most of the people who find their way here looking for advice.


I disagree. I think it describes a LOT of people who come here! 

I could be personalizing this, too. I told my ex for years (at least 3) that his hurtful words were killing our marriage. Name calling, spitting, hitting - not conducive to a loving relationship. I even asked for MC which he declined saying he would only be told he had a temper and that he would try and control it. Which lasted about 2 weeks and upon his next outburst I quietly pointed it out, using it as an example of what was wrong in the marriage only to have him ignore it and excuse his behavior but not OWN it. But he will be the first to tell you he was completely blindsided by my leaving and never saw it coming.

In his case the difference was in the delivery. I talked to him everywhere about it. But after I left he said I should have sat him down at the kitchen table and spelled it out. I shouldn't have to do that for a man to know that calling your wife 'stupid' doesn't foster love and is not constructive.

I see post after post of people who aren't happy with their marriage for a number of reasons and of course we ask have they told their spouse and the overwhelming response is yes. 

The problem can be anything - sex, anger, lifestyle choices like video games or porn - but the bottom line is a spouse explains they are very hurt and unhappy, the response is often a half-hearted "OK" and then they forget about it.

When a spouse says there is a problem, ears should perk up. Most of us (not women - people) don't complain just to whine and moan. Most of us hold off until we've just had it - they've rolled eyes, sighed, slammed doors, used avoidance - until it MUST be addressed. But once it's addressed, lip service is performed and everyone goes off happy thinking it was resolved and then slip back into old ways and this cycle repeats itself over and over until one is fed up. And the other is oddly surprised.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> But it's often given to every guy regardless of the situation.


I know. It's tough to fight the zealotry of converts. It was especially humorous to me when an ex-marine turned highway patrolman who was here briefly got the standard man-up spiel. 



EleGirl said:


> Instead they need to find a balance where they are both taking responsibility for their fair share of work, chores and child care but they also give each other time enough to rebuild and maintain the bond/love.


Yes. Absolutely. And even that won't necessarily work with a partner who is too far off in their own little world.


----------



## ocotillo

EnjoliWoman said:


> I disagree. I think it describes a LOT of people who come here!


I think we're probably just saying the same thing in different ways. The balance of what you've said describes exactly what I was driving at. 



EnjoliWoman said:


> The problem can be anything - sex, anger, lifestyle choices like video games or porn - but the bottom line is a spouse explains they are very hurt and unhappy, the response is often a half-hearted "OK" and then they forget about it.


Exactly. The one giving the halfhearted, "Okay" and then forgetting about it is not likely to come here.


----------



## Anon Pink

Deejo said:


> So, I suppose I'm going to ask the women a question, I'd love an honest answer but I'm not sure there is one.
> 
> Do you really believe that most men are THAT out of touch that when they come here and post about the state of their marriage, that they are just flat out wrong?


I wouldn't say "most" but less than half.



> Because that is what it sounds like. It sounds like you are presuming that they aren't seeing the big picture or they are misinterpreting the truth of their marriage.
> 
> And if you think they are, then why bother to address them at all, other than to give voice to your own bias?


I spend the bulk of my time in SIM and I see men misinterpreting women and what women say and want all the time. I bother because sometimes the right word here or there can make a difference. 

Some of the other women participating in this thread have seen the same things. 

Men have a much more difficult time understanding women than women have understanding men.

If a marriage can be saved, it's worth trying. If a marriage shouldn't be saved, it's not worth the effort to post.

How does this amount to bias?


----------



## yeah_right

Deejo said:


> So, I suppose I'm going to ask the women a question, I'd love an honest answer but I'm not sure there is one.
> 
> Do you really believe that most men are THAT out of touch that when they come here and post about the state of their marriage, that they are just flat out wrong?



I think for many of these WAW situations, it's a matter of poor communication and pride. Women want men to be mind-readers and to make changes in what we may think are common sense issues. In my experience of trial and error in 20+ years of marriage is that men can't read women's minds. So women need to be up front and outline concisely what they want. "Husband, I need your help with the chores. Will you please take out the trash, clean the pee stains on the floor around the toilet and help the children with their homework?" They are problem solvers and good men will do their part. I firmly believe that most men are good!

If your husband is gone six nights a week for his personal non-work activities, you can't just roll your eyes, pout, withhold sex and expect he's going to cancel his plans and stay home with you. If you've been stewing for years he may simply think you're fine with it because you've never said anything.  But have a plan of what you want to do instead. Men often think telling them a problem with no suggestion of a solution is whining. I know it's hard for many of us women because we're taught to suppress ourselves, but open your mouth and talk to your man!

And both genders to add the word "compromise" to their vocabularies. No one should be asked to give up everything, but both spouses need to make adjustments through life as kids arrive, health deteriorates, etc. Behaviors that were fine at 25 aren't always fine at 45. Communicate!!!!!!


----------



## chillymorn

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> True, but keep in mind you are only getting one side of the story and only what 1 person feels. You never know what their spouse is thinking.
> My H's side could sound a lot different than mine because he does put effort in some places, just the wrong ones for me. Other things, he thinks he does enough but I don't agree.
> 
> He works hard at his job, he's a good Dad, he compliments me and thanks me often, he's handy and can fix things, he says he helps around the house, he's in shape and girls flirt with him although he never flirts back or crosses any boundaries.
> 
> Sounds like a great, nice guy from his side. But I'm a WAW who is vulnerable to cheating and doesn't have sex with him.


please if you could be so kind as to elaborate.

epically the wrong ones for me and the he doesn't do enough. 


and then if you could explain the way you feel about accepting your spouse because they are hard working good fathers do fix things around the house etc etc.

I mean you can"t have everything isn't there some room to just accept him as he is? as he should you. 

do you think he walking around thinking your the perfect wife or do you think he feels similar that he wishes you were more this or that but in the big scheme of thing he love the attributes you do have and they out weigh the things you don't have he accepts your flaws and love you in spit of them.


----------



## norajane

EleGirl said:


> I’ve been in a relationship with this kind of problem. Other women here have as well. I’m sure that some of the men here have as well.
> I did destabilize the marriage, it has zero impact except to get him angry and feeling that he was a victim. The result? Divorce.
> Perhaps the others here who say that they are going through this could tell us if they have tried de stabilizing, doing the 180, etc.
> 
> agreed


Yes, that was me, too. I was living with my bf (dated for 6 years total), and I was definitely in danger of being scooped up. I tried talking, writing, talking some more, crying, writing, talking. No joy. So I focused on other parts of my life - I had just finished grad school and got a new job, old and new friends, lots of summer concerts and parties, family and family events, dancing, etc. 

And then I found a new apartment and moved out, ending the relationship.

And yes, we were still having sex most of that time, though I really started to hate having sex toward the end and stopped. That was the only issue he actually noticed until I left.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

ocotillo said:


> I think we're probably just saying the same thing in different ways. The balance of what you've said describes exactly what I was driving at.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The one giving the halfhearted, "Okay" and then forgetting about it is not likely to come here.



Well, I think there are varying degrees the party who hasn't listened that end up here. A lot have not 'heard' the message and are on the verge of a divorce with the WAW or ILYBNILWY speech and it's often too late. Some come here because they DID truly HEAR their spouse and are trying to fix it before it's too late. All shades of grey here.


----------



## hookares

Some women leave when they no longer appreciate a roof over their head until it's too late.


----------



## norajane

And some women are perfectly capable of providing their own roof, dinners out, investments, and vacations. That is what has changed over the years which allows women the opportunity to leave a bad relationship instead of being stuck staying in one for financial reasons.


----------



## chillymorn

norajane said:


> Yes, that was me, too. I was living with my bf (dated for 6 years total), and I was definitely in danger of being scooped up. I tried talking, writing, talking some more, crying, writing, talking. No joy. So I focused on other parts of my life - I had just finished grad school and got a new job, old and new friends, lots of summer concerts and parties, family and family events, dancing, etc.
> 
> And then I found a new apartment and moved out, ending the relationship.
> 
> And yes, we were still having sex most of that time, though I really started to hate having sex toward the end and stopped. That was the only issue he actually noticed until I left.


ok so you just were not compatible great you figured it out before you got married.

what about the long time married couple with kids and then this happened is it because it just took them 20 yrs to come to this conclusion?

or is it because of them being unrealistic in their expectations?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

What my specific H does and doesn't do isn't my point. It'd be OT at this point anyway.

But yes, I think a situation often comes down to bad communication, not understanding each other's needs. Having different opinions on how much work the other is doing. It's not that they are so "out of touch" that they can't be helped. There's a lot that can be done in that situation, why wouldn't people try? At least examine some possibilities.


----------



## hookares

norajane said:


> And some women are perfectly capable of providing their own roof, dinners out, investments, and vacations. That is what has changed over the years which allows women the opportunity to leave a bad relationship instead of being stuck staying in one for financial reasons.


I would prefer that to what I have experienced.I would just have preferred it didn't take twenty years to be clued into the "leaving".


----------



## norajane

chillymorn said:


> ok so you just were not compatible great you figured it out before you got married.
> 
> what about the long time married couple with kids and then this happened is it because it just took them 20 yrs to come to this conclusion?
> 
> or is it because of them being unrealistic in their expectations?


One person cannot fix a relationship by themselves. If their spouse won't hear them and won't acknowledge that there are real problems, it leaves them looking at a lifetime of what they currently have, which they are miserable with. And some just can't stand the thought of their remaining years being lived in misery.

I do believe people stay stuck because of their children. And the hope, no matter how faint it is, that they can work through things. But, when the kids are older or out of the house? Then they have more time to think of themselves and what they want their lives to be like for the next 20 years. And some don't like what they see and have no more reason to stay.

It's also possible that things progressed from good, to less good, to ok, to not ok, to bad, to worse, to finally being unbearable during those 20 years.


----------



## chillymorn

the bottom line is resentment that has built up over the years kills marriages.

unmet expectations on both side builds resentment.


----------



## vellocet

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> What my specific H does and doesn't do isn't my point.


It may not be your point, but if his worst crime is that he doesn't help out quite as much as you'd like around the house, but does everything else fantastically, then this is the point that I'm making that sometimes the excuses to be "vulnerable" or to leave are pretty flimsy.


If I found myself in a committed relationship again and I was very attentive to her, but one little thing gave her some sense of entitlement to have an affair, or felt that one thing made her "vulnerable", then she'd be doing me a favor by leaving.


----------



## Thundarr

Dad&Hubby said:


> The problem with articles and discussions like this is they are too myopic.
> 
> The wife left because she was ignored...etc. etc.
> 
> That's ONE scenario and valid.
> 
> Other scenarios are the opposite....and this is gender neutral.
> 
> Husbands and wives leave/cheat for a multitude of reasons.
> 
> Some of them are because of bad behavior by their spouse.
> Some of them have deficiencies within who they are and cheat/leave even though their spouse does "everything right".
> 
> And there's a TON of in between that.
> 
> I fall into the category of (in speaking about my ex)..attentive husband...who worked too much but then didn't have any hobbies because all of my other time went to my family. My ex was a narcissist who set up her life with pieces that made her feel good about herself. I was a component...not a person. She cheated on me...because she could. She compartmentalized everything.
> 
> I couldn't have done anything better (in a realistic way) with what we had....but she just wasn't interested in a monogamous equal relationship.
> 
> But that's MY specific scenario.


:iagree:
Many points being made are true, false, and somewhere in between. They are likely true for the poster but that's only one scenario. I fell into the same category as you of being too attentive. And how your ex was sounds familiar too. I had shortcomings but my ex's history has proven that it wouldn't have mattered for us. So I left that marriage with a long list of things I needed to fix and things she needed to fix. I worked on my own shortcomings and it's been smooth sailing ever since. She didn't work on herself though because she's repeated the same mistakes since then. Too many people fall into the Either/Or trap thinking that one or the other has to be at fault and not some combination. Sure one person may have been more at fault but we've got to fix ourselves for our next partner if we want things to be better. Even the traits we look for in the next partner is something to fix in many cases.


----------



## norajane

vellocet said:


> It may not be your point, but if his worst crime is that he doesn't help out quite as much as you'd like around the house, but does everything else fantastically, then this is the point that I'm making that sometimes the excuses to be "vulnerable" or to leave are pretty flimsy.
> 
> 
> If I found myself in a committed relationship again and I was very attentive to her, but one little thing gave her some sense of entitlement to have an affair, or felt that one thing made her "vulnerable", then she'd be doing me a favor by leaving.


I think that part of the problem is that one partner doesn't see how important that issue is to the other partner, and even tries to invalidate it as being unimportant.

To you, housework might be considered a flimsy issue. To the wife that has spent a decade or two of her life feeling used as his maid, it's a huge issue regardless of how great her H might be otherwise. To her, it's grinding her down daily while he won't acknowledge he's taking her for granted.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Anon Pink said:


> Men have a much more difficult time understanding women than women have understanding men.


I wanted to center on this....

And why do you think that happens?


----------



## Thundarr

norajane said:


> And some women are perfectly capable of providing their own roof, dinners out, investments, and vacations. That is what has changed over the years which allows women the opportunity to leave a bad relationship instead of being stuck staying in one for financial reasons.


And thank goodness for that change. I would hate to imagine my wife was trapped into staying with me. I'll choose want over need all day long.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Thundarr said:


> And thank goodness for that change. I would hate to imagine my wife was trapped into staying with me. I'll choose want over need all day long.


Heck, I think I'm more trapped to my wife, than she is to me. LOL


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

vellocet said:


> It may not be your point, but if his worst crime is that he doesn't help out quite as much as you'd like around the house, but does everything else fantastically, then this is the point that I'm making that sometimes the excuses to be "vulnerable" or to leave are pretty flimsy.
> .


No, there is much more to it than that. I just meant in his list with his side of the story, that was the only one I would disagree with. 
His side wouldn't be a lie or wrong, it just isn't the whole story, there is still my side too. 
So when a guy comes on with his "list" I wouldn't assume he was just lying but I might wonder if there's another list on her side too and what they could do to get on the same page.


----------



## chillymorn

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> No, there is much more to it than that. I just meant in his list with his side of the story, that was the only one I would disagree with.
> His side wouldn't be a lie or wrong, it just isn't the whole story, there is still my side too.
> So when a guy comes on with his "list" I wouldn't assume he was just lying but I might wonder if there's another list on her side too and what they could do to get on the same page.


would this be true when a woman posts her side of the story also?

that's my point the truth lies in the middle except in the cases of infidelity or abuse or some other really bad conduct. but the vast majority of marriage there is stuff that you wish would be different. if you keep reminding yourself of their good qualities and let the not so good one slide you might find they are the person you feel in love with. 

instead of always saying he don't do this or that say he did do this and that!

in my humble opinion this is the reason why marriages fail. when you only recognize the bad and not the good, nobody is perfect.


----------



## Deejo

And how the hell did this thread end up being about women?


----------



## Anon Pink

Dad&Hubby said:


> I wanted to center on this....
> 
> And why do you think that happens?


Must
Not 
give in
To

Temptation.....







Shall I answer based on my own sitch? I could express the same sentiment several different ways and my husband won't hear it until he removes his defensive shields first.

Before you suggest, I am not responsible for his defensive shields. I didn't put them there have done my best to remove them but ultimately, they are his responsibility.

*He has removed his defensive shields subsequently our progress has been most welcome.

This doesn't mean he is anyone's yes man, I couldn't respect that. It means he is actually hearing what I am saying. It means he is grasping the nuanced emotions behind the words. It means he is being honest and authentic in return.


----------



## Deejo

Anon Pink said:


> Must
> Not
> give in
> To
> 
> Temptation.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I answer based on my own sitch? I could express the same sentiment several different ways and my husband won't hear it until he removes his defensive shields first.
> 
> Before you suggest, I am not responsible for his defensive shields. I didn't put them there have done my best to remove them but ultimately, they are his responsibility.
> 
> *He has removed his defensive shields subsequently our progress has been most welcome.
> 
> This doesn't mean he is anyone's yes man, I couldn't respect that. It means he is actually hearing what I am saying. It means he is grasping the nuanced emotions behind the words. It means he is being honest and authentic in return.


Well damn. That sounds like he is choosing to be 'present'.

Which is exactly where I suggested men start, before folks focused on puppies and destabilizing.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

chillymorn said:


> would this be true when a woman posts her side of the story also?
> 
> that's my point the truth lies in the middle except in the cases of infidelity or abuse or some other really bad conduct. but the vast majority of marriage there is stuff that you wish would be different. if you keep reminding yourself of their good qualities and let the not so good one slide you might find they are the person you feel in love with.
> 
> instead of always saying he don't do this or that say he did do this and that!
> 
> in my humble opinion this is the reason why marriages fail. when you only recognize the bad and not the good, nobody is perfect.


Yes it's true for both but positive thinking only goes so far. If your spouse isn't meeting your needs, it's hard to just live with because they are a good person otherwise. 

Look at SIM. Lots of men with wives who are good people, good Mothers but they don't meet their SF needs. Some can deal with it for a long time but most of the time, eventually, the unmet needs make all the good stuff not as important to you. 

It's the same thing. The women in the article, and me, have had unmet needs for so long they can't just suck it up and deal just because he's good in other areas anymore. They usually try for a long time before it comes to this. 

It's a hard choice to leave a spouse. For either gender. I don't think many just up and decide to do it on a whim. They try, they fail, they try again, they wait and eventually it's too much and they go.


----------



## Anon Pink

Deejo said:


> Well damn. That sounds like he is choosing to be 'present'.
> 
> Which is exactly where I suggested men start, before folks focused on puppies and destabilizing.



But you weren't listened to because...defensive shields.

Go back through this thread and I think the running theme among the women is that they are not heard by their husbands. The running theme from the men..They do everything and still she complains.

Tell a woman she needs to alter her communication style and she will do her best to do so because she WANTS to be heard.


----------



## ocotillo

EnjoliWoman said:


> ...A lot have not 'heard' the message and are on the verge of a divorce with the WAW or ILYBNILWY speech and it's often too late.


If we're talking strictly about WAW syndrome and the attendant symptoms of it, then I've already agreed with the author of the article linked to by the OP and will do so again here.

It seems to me though that the author's observation about a specific marital problem is being stretched to include all marital problems. --So much so that people here on TAM probably shouldn't be trusted because the unspoken other side of the story will surely be uncomplimentary enough to prove them liars.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

hookares said:


> Some women leave when they no longer appreciate a roof over their head until it's too late.


There's only so much crap worth putting up with when a woman can provide her own roof.

Not saying that's your situation but that is pretty insulting to women. We don't enter into a relationship to be provided for. We enter into a relationship out of love and expectations of a true partnership. That partnership can still mean a working man and a SAHM but the expectation is still loving partnership for the vast majority of women except a handful of super hot entitled women.


----------



## vellocet

norajane said:


> I think that part of the problem is that one partner doesn't see how important that issue is to the other partner, and even tries to invalidate it as being unimportant.
> 
> To you, housework might be considered a flimsy issue.


Not a flimsy issue in general. But used as an excuse to say one is vulnerable for an affair? Really? Come on. If this is the case, then its just going to have to be said that there is no pleasing someone that feels like they could stray or leave based on one issue like that.

Its issues just like this, not being able to fulfill and please every single little need or be perfect on every issue which is why I no longer bother with relationships.





> To the wife that has spent a decade or two of her life feeling used as his maid, it's a huge issue regardless of how great her H might be otherwise. To her, it's grinding her down daily while he won't acknowledge he's taking her for granted.



And he does everything else fantastically, according to her. Also said he is handy and can fix things. Perhaps he should feel entitled to be "vulnerable" because he does that and she doesn't?

I'm not saying not helping around the house isn't an issue that needs to be addressed. He says he does, she says he doesn't.

But all the other things he does great, this issue is enough for her to feel ripe for an affair or to leave over?

Really?


----------



## vellocet

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> No, there is much more to it than that.


You said the only thing you disagree with is the housework issue.

So ok, just what is it that you feel vulnerable for an affair over?

The thread is about Why women leave men they love. So enlighten us. What is it you feel vulnerable for an affair over?


----------



## vellocet

Deejo said:


> And how the hell did this thread end up being about women?


The title perhaps?


----------



## techmom

vellocet said:


> And he does everything else fantastically, according to her. Also said he is handy and can fix things. Perhaps he should feel entitled to be "vulnerable" because he does that and she doesn't?
> 
> I'm not saying not helping around the house isn't an issue that needs to be addressed. He says he does, she says he doesn't.
> 
> *But all the other things he does great, this issue is enough for her to feel ripe for an affair or to leave over?*
> 
> Really?


Yes, really...how many times have men come on TAM and stated that their wife is perfect, they have a loving relationship, she is an excellent mother, great cook, keeps a perfect house, BUT SHE DOES NOT DESIRE SEX WITH HIM OR DOES NOT WANT IT AS OFTEN.

He is usually told, by many male posters, that he needs to destabilize the relationship. He is told to stop being a "nice guy", do MMSL, lift weights etc.

Why isn't everything else she is doing enough for him?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Anon Pink said:


> Must
> Not
> give in
> To
> 
> Temptation.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Shall I answer based on my own sitch*? I could express the same sentiment several different ways and my husband won't hear it until he removes his defensive shields first.
> 
> Before you suggest, I am not responsible for his defensive shields. I didn't put them there have done my best to remove them but ultimately, they are his responsibility.
> 
> *He has removed his defensive shields subsequently our progress has been most welcome.
> 
> This doesn't mean he is anyone's yes man, I couldn't respect that. It means he is actually hearing what I am saying. It means he is grasping the nuanced emotions behind the words. It means he is being honest and authentic in return.


Thank you for stating what I bolded. The only issue I take with some posters (both men and women) is when they speak in absolutes, but in reality can only speak about their own personal situations or experiences.

The funny thing is I CONSTANTLY tried to get my ex to talk to me. I pushed marriage counseling (which she rejected)....Anything I could think of to try and fix our marriage and she just wasn't interested. She was content in how her world was. It would've required work from her end to actually get to a point of having a healthy relationship. 

So yes, you struggled with a husband who used defensive shields that prevented him from listening to you. My experience is very different from what you describe.

One of the big issues I've seen on TAM is that you have both the men and women who were the members in their respective relationships who were the fixers. Hence why they'd find their way to a forum. So the ladies are saying "(most) men do xyz" and the men arguing "no we don't"....they're both right....in their respective situations. It's an issue of demographics, not gender.

A husband who would rather go golfing than actually pay attention to his wife..isn't going to be the guy who comes here looking for solutions (as a general rule..there will be a few who come here AFTER the fact...but they also will say they ignored their wife and now how can he win her back).

Likewise..a woman like my ex wouldn't dream of coming to a site like this in a million years...That would actually take effort for the relationship and also require her to take some accountability for her own actions.

Anyway...

Edit: add a detail and change that to Thank (which is was supposed to be LOL)


----------



## Dad&Hubby

techmom said:


> Yes, really...how many times have men come on TAM and stated that their wife is perfect, they have a loving relationship, she is an excellent mother, great cook, keeps a perfect house, BUT SHE DOES NOT DESIRE SEX WITH HIM OR DOES NOT WANT IT AS OFTEN.
> 
> He is usually told, by many male posters, that he needs to destabilize the relationship. He is told to stop being a "nice guy", do MMSL, lift weights etc.
> 
> Why isn't everything else she is doing enough for him?


I see where you're going...and as much as I agree that destabilizing a relationship through the whole MMSLP (or whatever the initials are) and that whole process isn't the panacea that some make it seem.

I don't hear (at least in my opinion) them saying....now make sure your wife knows you're ripe to have an affair.

I see a big difference between destabilizing....and imploding a relationship. There's NEVER an excuse to have an affair.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

techmom said:


> Yes, really...how many times have men come on TAM and stated that their wife is perfect, they have a loving relationship, she is an excellent mother, great cook, keeps a perfect house, BUT SHE DOES NOT DESIRE SEX WITH HIM OR DOES NOT WANT IT AS OFTEN.
> 
> He is usually told, by many male posters, that he needs to destabilize the relationship. He is told to stop being a "nice guy", do MMSL, lift weights etc.
> 
> Why isn't everything else she is doing enough for him?


Sadly, this is just the kind of attitude that is leading to the downfall of marriage. I will certainly advise my son to never marry because he might fall for a woman who shares techmom's warped priorities and inability to recognize the difference between fantasy and reality.

Not that I'm trying to pick on you specifically, techmom. I'm just using you as an example of the cultural trend.

Women are entitled to perfection in a mate. If her husband doesn't sort his sock drawer the way she likes, well that is an important issue TO HER. So we certainly have no right to judge her decision to break her vows since her husband wasn't perfect. This stems from an inability, or an unwillingness, to see the difference between primary functions and ancillary benefits of marriage. If a woman decides that sex is unimportant in marriage, who are we to judge, right? If she decides that dusting is her love language, it would be rude to question it, right?

I don't tend to see that same level of consideration for men complaining of wives withholding sex. The standard female reaction in those threads is questioning what the husband did to trip his wife's sex reflex to the "off" position, where she is powerless to fulfill her marital obligations. If there are any threads where women empathize with the husband for marrying a less than perfect wife, or suggest that he is morally justified in leaving his wife because his preferred frequency should be respected by any and all, let me know.

For my son, it's very nearly a no-win situation. If he marries an earnest woman who takes marriage seriously as a life-long commitment, they can do almost everything right and still split up. If he marries an entitled princess who resents his lack of perfection, they're guaranteed to split up.


----------



## vellocet

techmom said:


> Yes, really...how many times have men come on TAM and stated that their wife is perfect, they have a loving relationship, she is an excellent mother, great cook, keeps a perfect house, BUT SHE DOES NOT DESIRE SEX WITH HIM OR DOES NOT WANT IT AS OFTEN.


Dunno. I was denied sex by my x-wife. I neither felt vulnerable for an affair or that I should leave. 

But if you think if everything else is perfect and its a legit excuse to leave or be ripe for an affair over laundry, hey, what can I say.

Maybe her husband can feel the same for not helping with the handyman work around the house too 

Amazing.


----------



## techmom

Dad&Hubby said:


> I see where you're going...and as much as I agree that destabilizing a relationship through the whole MMSLP (or whatever the initials are) and that whole process isn't the panacea that some make it seem.
> 
> I don't hear (at least in my opinion) them saying....now make sure your wife knows you're ripe to have an affair.
> 
> I see a big difference between destabilizing....and imploding a relationship. There's NEVER an excuse to have an affair.


The purpose of the destabilizing is to give her the impression that he does have other options besides her. MMSL talks about upping your sex rank, and to have your wife witness other women noticing you favorably and flirting. 

In other words, if I was this woman I would think that he was ripe for an affair. Which is the same thing that SGC is saying, she feels that she is not being considered in the relationship even though he is doing everything else.

Just like a male poster would say about a wife who was perfect in every way except she was not into sex as much as him.


----------



## ConanHub

Dad&Hubby said:


> I wanted to center on this....
> 
> And why do you think that happens?


Because when women talk I hear the "WA WA" sound off the Peanuts cartoon when a teacher is speaking to a student.

I am still trying to work on the "code breaker" that lets me understand my wife all the time. Right now it is about 60% of the time and she is outrageously in love with me. If I get to 80 or 90% she will probably build an alter and start offering sacrifices! &#55357;&#56841;&#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

vellocet said:


> The title perhaps?


Guess I wasn't being present ...


----------



## techmom

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Sadly, this is just the kind of attitude that is leading to the downfall of marriage. I will certainly advise my son to never marry because he might fall for a woman who shares techmom's warped priorities and inability to recognize the difference between fantasy and reality.
> 
> Not that I'm trying to pick on you specifically, techmom. I'm just using you as an example of the cultural trend.
> 
> Women are entitled to perfection in a mate. If her husband doesn't sort his sock drawer the way she likes, well that is an important issue TO HER. So we certainly have no right to judge her decision to break her vows since her husband wasn't perfect. This stems from an inability, or an unwillingness, to see the difference between primary functions and ancillary benefits of marriage. If a woman decides that sex is unimportant in marriage, who are we to judge, right? If she decides that dusting is her love language, it would be rude to question it, right?
> 
> I don't tend to see that same level of consideration for men complaining of wives withholding sex. The standard female reaction in those threads is questioning what the husband did to trip his wife's sex reflex to the "off" position, where she is powerless to fulfill her marital obligations. If there are any threads where women empathize with the husband for marrying a less than perfect wife, or suggest that he is morally justified in leaving his wife because his preferred frequency should be respected by any and all, let me know.
> 
> For my son, it's very nearly a no-win situation. If he marries an earnest woman who takes marriage seriously as a life-long commitment, they can do almost everything right and still split up. If he marries an entitled princess who resents his lack of perfection, they're guaranteed to split up.


My priorities are just fine. Men do the romantic things and such before marriage, I think that should continue. He should not become indifferent to her needs just because he ate the wedding cake. Just like some women have sex more often before they eat the wedding cake. You can call it bait and switch.

Another thing happens when both partners just grow apart, priorities they had before at age 20 are not the same needs they have at age 45 after 20 years of marriage. Marriage is a constantly changing thing, and we must adjust ourselves to it.

Many people, especially men, become bitter when the same thing they always did does not work forever to keep the relationship happy. When the wife expresses her concerns, it is seen as nagging. Men are action oriented and want definite solutions and answers to every problem presented. It is distressing to hear her concerns. But women need to feel that we are heard. If you close off then we close ourselves off, this can lead to less sex. Most men notice the sex problem as the main issue first before anything else.


----------



## ocotillo

Techmom,



techmom said:


> Why isn't everything else she is doing enough for him?


Wouldn't the answer to that question be basically the same as what the author of the article under discussion described? 

He pointed out that, "These aren’t bad men. They’re good men. They’re good fathers. They support their family. They’re nice, likeable."

We could just as easily ask, "Why isn't that good enough?" 

He explains why that isn't good enough and most of the ladies here have seemed to agree.


----------



## vellocet

techmom said:


> Many people, *especially men*


Hence the crux of your problem.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

vellocet said:


> You said the only thing you disagree with is the housework issue.
> 
> So ok, just what is it that you feel vulnerable for an affair over?
> 
> The thread is about Why women leave men they love. So enlighten us. What is it you feel vulnerable for an affair over?




In general-
I feel used, taken for granted, unloved, not heard. I have no _partner_. Yes, it includes his lack of house work, and that's a big one, but it's more than just that. I want acts of service, romance, time alone together, attention. I want him to listen to me without getting defensive or joking around, maybe a hug that doesn't involve an @ss grab. Some gentle touching and romantic seduction. Stop his love busters like drinking or raising his voice, spending too much. Fix things right when they are needed and not wait until I nag or just do it myself and then he'll try to take it over (I can fix things too BTW) 

I could complain all day and I think I have a few times p) but he's not a terrible person and sometimes that's enough, those days are getting less and less though. 
Just because he has some good things about him doesn't mean "everything else is perfect" Everyone has good and bad about them. We wouldn't have ended up with a person who had no good qualities.


----------



## norajane

Dad&Hubby said:


> A husband who would rather go golfing than actually pay attention to his wife..isn't going to be the guy who comes here looking for solutions (as a general rule..there will be a few who come here AFTER the fact...but they also will say they ignored their wife and now how can he win her back).


Lol, you obviously didn't read the thread this week by the guy who goes camping 8-12 weeks a year, plus other shooting events, and whose wife has been telling him and telling him to stop going away alone so often and spend more time with the family, and he doesn't want to stop his hobbies...


----------



## vellocet

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> In general-
> I feel used, taken for granted, unloved, not heard. I have no _partner_. Yes, it includes his lack of house work, and that's a big one, but it's more than just that. I want acts of service, romance, time alone together, attention. I want him to listen to me without getting defensive or joking around, maybe a hug that doesn't involve an @ss grab. Some gentle touching and romantic seduction. Stop his love busters like drinking or raising his voice, spending too much. Fix things right when they are needed and not wait until I nag or just do it myself and then he'll try to take it over (I can fix things too BTW)
> 
> I could complain all day and I think I have a few times p) but he's not a terrible person and sometimes that's enough, those days are getting less and less though.
> Just because he has some good things about him doesn't mean "everything else is perfect" Everyone has good and bad about them. We wouldn't have ended up with a person who had no good qualities.


*sigh* Ok that's QUITE a bit more than you inferred in your earlier post. Would have been pertinent to the discussion....don't you think?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

techmom said:


> The purpose of the destabilizing is to give her the impression that he does have other options besides her. MMSL talks about upping your sex rank, and to have your wife witness other women noticing you favorably and flirting.
> 
> In other words, if I was this woman I would think that he was ripe for an affair. Which is the same thing that SGC is saying, she feels that she is not being considered in the relationship even though he is doing everything else.
> 
> Just like a male poster would say about a wife who was perfect in every way except she was not into sex as much as him.


Okay, I see what you're saying...but I still think there's the root "intent" to the actions.

One is saying...I'm ripe for an affair...

The other is saying...although I WON'T have an affair....my wife needs to take the blinders off because I COULD if I wanted.

There is a difference...albeit a fine line (too fine for my tastes frankly...but still).


----------



## Dad&Hubby

norajane said:


> Lol, you obviously didn't read the thread this week by the guy who goes camping 8-12 weeks a year, plus other shooting events, and whose wife has been telling him and telling him to stop going away alone so often and spend more time with the family, and he doesn't want to stop his hobbies...


Nope, I didn't see that one.

I'd tell that guy to stop being an idiot..If you want that life...don't get married...or marry a women who loves camping as much you you LOL.

But it still doesn't take away my point.

The MAJORITY of people who come to this site are people who are looking for ways to fix their relationship and are more proactive...in turn...that's why there's always this weird gender war that seems to develop. The men and women are talking about unresponsive spouses a lot of times, and then it get equated to the gender as a whole...and then there's discourse...


----------



## chillymorn

Vulnerable for an affair! Vulnerable for an affair! If they let it happen 

Shows a poor moral person, a selfish person, someone who's vindictive, someone who excuses their part of the problem. Someone weak minded, 

Someone who took the cake and ate it also.

If this is how you feel then divorce before the affair!

I have felt this way 
But I would never act on it. And believe me I have had many opportunities but took the high road because I could not be able to do that to my family!


----------



## Dad&Hubby

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> In general-
> I feel used, taken for granted, unloved, not heard. I have no _partner_. Yes, it includes his lack of house work, and that's a big one, but it's more than just that. I want acts of service, romance, time alone together, attention. I want him to listen to me without getting defensive or joking around, maybe a hug that doesn't involve an @ss grab. Some gentle touching and romantic seduction. Stop his love busters like drinking or raising his voice, spending too much. Fix things right when they are needed and not wait until I nag or just do it myself and then he'll try to take it over (I can fix things too BTW)
> 
> I could complain all day and I think I have a few times p) but he's not a terrible person and sometimes that's enough, those days are getting less and less though.
> Just because he has some good things about him doesn't mean "everything else is perfect" Everyone has good and bad about them. We wouldn't have ended up with a person who had no good qualities.


The first question I always have is.

Has he changed in the relationship (for the worse)?

Or have your expectations changed during the marriage?

Or is it a combination of the two?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

vellocet said:


> *sigh* Ok that's QUITE a bit more than you inferred in your earlier post. Would have been pertinent to the discussion....don't you think?


I was telling my H's side. What he has said to me. You wouldn't know my side if H was the only one here telling his. To him, he's a reasonably good guy, good Dad, good worker and he is BUT.......

That's my list, every WAW has their own. That's where I relate to these women who are desperate for love and attention and can be vulnerable for an affair, wanting to leave but don't, yet. It makes it so much harder when they are not all bad.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

So, referring back to the OP's article....

My question...WHY? Why is it that so many men check out, stop being present in their relationships? I am not intending this as a man bash at all, so guys, dont get all defensive please. I honestly want to know. I have not only experienced it myself, but have SEEN IT happen in so many relationships around me...so many men would rather do pretty much anything else than interact with and spend time with their partner. :scratchhead: So...why?


----------



## vellocet

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I was telling my H's side. What he has said to me. You wouldn't know my side if H was the only one here telling his.


But when you say the only thing you disagree with, with no other commentary on things that you have a problem with, it left me with the impression that was the only issue you had.

Which is why I was so taken back by your "vulnerability"

So it makes more sense now. Not that I agree that it is still any excuse, but makes more sense than him just not doing the housework.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Techmom,
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the answer to that question be basically the same as what the author of the article under discussion described?
> 
> He pointed out that, "These aren’t bad men. They’re good men. They’re good fathers. They support their family. They’re nice, likeable."
> 
> We could just as easily ask, "Why isn't that good enough?"
> 
> He explains why that isn't good enough and most of the ladies here have seemed to agree.


Yes, and that was exactly techmom's point! Goes both ways.


----------



## ocotillo

3Xnocharm said:


> My question...WHY? Why is it that so many men check out, stop being present in their relationships?


One fairly obvious one is work. Men feel pretty good about themselves if they are good providers, but they don't necessarily realize that money may not be what's truly important to their wives.


----------



## yeah_right

I'd like to share a conversation I had with my H last night. We had some major issues two years ago and I was planning divorce due to his EA and me turning into a WAW. I was not without blame in the marriage, we weren't focused on each other, we weren't communicating properly, etc. I have learned the importance of recreational compatibility and he learned about my love languages. We are pretty much on he same wavelength now in every facet of marriage. Good times in my house.

Anywhooo, back to the conversation...H tells me he's worried over how to pay for a giant, long vacation he wants to plan for me...because he sees everyone on Facebook posting pics of their trips and he feels that he should be providing that. I asked if he wanted to go on a big trip. He said not really but it was for me. I asked when I had ever given any indication of wanting that. Answer - never. It might be nice but not something I've been pining for...something he would need to stress over funding. And why the he!! would you compare us to couples posting BS on social media.

I get it. He wants to provide for me. He feels it's his job. I appreciate that. It's just not what I need from him. My point is after 20+ years of marriage, lots and lots of communication and soul-searching...we still don't always know what the other wants. Men and women think differently. I wish I could buy a Rosetta Stone program, but the best we can do is keep talking, keep trying to understand. Once that stops, someone is bound to come on TAM at some point looking for help only to find us still bickering on this thread.


----------



## techmom

ocotillo said:


> Techmom,
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the answer to that question be basically the same as what the author of the article under discussion described?
> 
> He pointed out that, "These aren’t bad men. They’re good men. They’re good fathers. They support their family. They’re nice, likeable."
> 
> We could just as easily ask, "Why isn't that good enough?"
> 
> He explains why that isn't good enough and most of the ladies here have seemed to agree.


I agree as well, they just have this nagging need which is not met. If it is a dealbreaker or not is up to the individual.

Most male posters want marriage and the sex to last forever, just like most of the female posters want the marriage and the romance/communication to last forever. But it doesn't, both sides seem to think that the other side is moving the goalpost.

Men: why can't she be more adventurous in bed? I want anal, and some oral....why can't she talk dirty and show that she desires me!? I don't want duty sex!

Women: he doesn't listen to me, every time I state that I want something done he takes forever to do it...I tell him the same thing over and over and nothing happens...he still leaves socks on the floor after I told him time and time again not to...he disgusts me when he does this.

Both genders: why can't he/she be like they was when we first met?


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Yes, and that was exactly techmom's point! Goes both ways.


And it is still no less wrong. 

Yet here we still are. Each trying to out-justify the other.

Let's face it, if a man gets shut down sexually, he tends to get a lot of sympathy here from men in very similar circumstances.

While many of the ladies, of course wonder, what he did to shut down her libido.

It's like a treadmill.


----------



## Thundarr

3Xnocharm said:


> So, referring back to the OP's article....
> 
> My question...WHY? Why is it that so many men check out, stop being present in their relationships? I am not intending this as a man bash at all, so guys, dont get all defensive please. I honestly want to know. I have not only experienced it myself, but have SEEN IT happen in so many relationships around me...so many men would rather do pretty much anything else than interact with and spend time with their partner. :scratchhead: So...why?



My guess is that the projection of needs is the big killer. So some guy is working hard to be a good husband but he's doing things he thinks his wife needs rather than listening to what she says she needs. So things start going south and she becomes more unhappy at which point he works harder at doing the wrong things that he thinks she needs. This doesn't work and she remains unhappy and he thinks she doesn't appreciate all he's doing for her. It's kind of true because he's busting his butt doing things she doesn't find as important as he thinks she should. So in other words is just communication 101 and avoiding projection.


----------



## techmom

Thundarr said:


> My guess is that the projection of needs is the big killer. So some guy is working hard to be a good husband but he's doing things he thinks his wife needs rather than listening to what she says she needs. So things start going south and she becomes more unhappy at which point he works harder at doing the wrong things that he thinks she needs. This doesn't so she remains unhappy and he thinks she doesn't appreciate all he's doing for her. It's kind of true because he's busting his butt doing things she doesn't find as important as he thinks she should. So in other words is just communication 101 and avoiding projection.


And he thinks she is nagging and says to himself, she isn't happy with anything I do!

You just illustrated one of my previous posts perfectly.


----------



## techmom

Men in this society were not raised to acknowledge and express their full range of feelings. Being fearful and hurt were not allowed because men are always supposed to be strong like a rock, and not weak.

Women were raised to not make a fuss, to support and serve. This meant that we were not allowed to make demands or to express what we truly want, especially sexually.

Men were only allowed to express their vulnerability through sex. Women were taught that only bad girls enjoyed sex.

Men and women were not raised to communicate directly because our needs directly conflict each other.

Then society expects marriages to last and be the "happy ever after" like in the fairy tales.


----------



## Thundarr

techmom said:


> And he thinks she is nagging and says to himself, she isn't happy with anything I do!
> 
> You just illustrated one of my previous posts perfectly.


Yup. They end up in a stale mate working harder instead of working smarter until they stop working because it doesn't seem to be fixing anything anyway and start resenting and feeling unloved and under appreciated.


----------



## techmom

techmom said:


> Men in this society were not raised to acknowledge and express their full range of feelings. Being fearful and hurt were not allowed because men are always supposed to be strong like a rock, and not weak.
> 
> Women were raised to not make a fuss, to support and serve. This meant that we were not allowed to make demands or to express what we truly want, especially sexually.
> 
> Men were only allowed to express their vulnerability through sex. Women were taught that only bad girls enjoyed sex.
> 
> Men and women were not raised to communicate directly because our needs directly conflict each other.
> 
> Then society expects marriages to last and be the "happy ever after" like in the fairy tales.


Men and women want to be loved.

This is the one thing we are trying to communicate to each other. Through tout my time here in TAM, this is what I am hearing.

The way we raise our children in this society is wrong, we need to allow our kids to express their full range of emotions without calling them sissies or ***** and tomboys.

We can be so much more than this...


----------



## chillymorn

why do most guy think earning money is such a big need and a love language.

because at least in my marriage I hear alot of we need a new this we need a new that our carpet needs replaced. this is old and worn out.

my car is making a noise.I'd like one of these.


----------



## techmom

chillymorn said:


> why do most guy think earning money is such a big need and a love language.
> 
> because at least in my marriage I hear alot of we need a new this we need a new that our carpet needs replaced. this is old and worn out.
> 
> my car is making a noise.I'd like one of these.


Do you hear of other things that are needed, emotional needs being neglected?


----------



## chillymorn

techmom said:


> Do you hear of other things that are needed, emotional needs being neglected?


never once did my wife ever tell me that her emotional needs were neglected.

I have asked and she always always said that wasn't the case!


----------



## techmom

chillymorn said:


> never once did my wife ever tell me that her emotional needs were neglected.
> 
> I have asked and she always always said that wasn't the case!


Did you, at any time during your marriage, hear her say that she would like to spend more time with you or would like more care in another way besides material things?

Sometimes men don't know how to ask about emotional needs ...they just ask "what do you want" in order to stop the "nagging". A woman in that position does not want to be shut down further and will just state something that the hubby will feel comfortable in solving.

Not statin that this is right, it is what it is...


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> And it is still no less wrong.
> 
> Yet here we still are. Each trying to out-justify the other.
> 
> Let's face it, if a man gets shut down sexually, he tends to get a lot of sympathy here from men in very similar circumstances.
> 
> While many of the ladies, of course wonder, what he did to shut down her libido.
> 
> It's like a treadmill.


That's why your point about paying attention to the specifics of the situation, to the individual stories is so important. At least part of the reason for the treadmill is that the same solutions are trotted out no matter what the problem.

If you're a man, it's always destabilize, 180, alpha up. If you're not getting sex, you're a pathetic wuss who puts her on a pedestal, is way too nice, is catering to her every whim. Be cool, distant, give her nothing; she'll love it.

And if you're a woman, you're told to sex it up some more. Oh, and stop being so insecure, be confident, and just give him lots of sex. And if that doesn't work, we'll he's just broken, and you should dump him.


----------



## Forest

Deejo--

Is it possible that I could ask you a question, and not be banned?


----------



## Deejo

Forest said:


> Deejo--
> 
> Is it possible that I could ask you a question, and not be banned?


Sure what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Forest

Deejo said:


> Sure what could possibly go wrong?


I wondered why it is that you and a few others are permitted to belittle and degrade other posters, but when this "Doorman" comes around and asks you a few specific questions he is banned?

Were his questions beneath you? To me, your behavior has been much more juvenile and hateful than his. He asked questions, your responded in pretty petulant and dismissive way, now, he's banned.

What's the deal?


----------



## mjalex

Thank you so much for this share, Macho.

Personally, I'm always worried about the idea of cheating, from both angles. It's ingrained in society that at the slightest issue, it's alright to leave a partner, while it just shouldn't be true.

I'll make sure to appreciate my lover everyday, as she deserves my attention, gratitude, and respect. 
I bet this single post may repair some marriages on its own merit.


----------



## BradWesley

Forest said:


> I wondered why it is that you and a few others are permitted to belittle and degrade other posters, but when this "Doorman" comes around and asks you a few specific questions he is banned?
> 
> Were his questions beneath you? To me, your behavior has been much more juvenile and hateful than his. He asked questions, your responded in pretty petulant and dismissive way, now, he's banned.
> 
> What's the deal?


Deejo did not ban him.


----------



## Forest

BradWesley said:


> Deejo did not ban him.


That doesn't answer the question. Or even address it. Anyone can wash their hands of an inconvenient chore.


----------



## Coffee Amore

Forest said:


> I wondered why it is that you and a few others are permitted to belittle and degrade other posters, but when this "Doorman" comes around and asks you a few specific questions he is banned?
> 
> Were his questions beneath you? To me, your behavior has been much more juvenile and hateful than his. He asked questions, your responded in pretty petulant and dismissive way, now, he's banned.
> 
> What's the deal?


Just for the record, Deejo didn't request the ban. 

I'm not going to debate the ban with you. We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

Forest said:


> I wondered why it is that you and a few others are permitted to belittle and degrade other posters, but when this "Doorman" comes around and asks you a few specific questions he is banned?
> 
> Were his questions beneath you? *To me, your behavior has been much more juvenile and hateful than his. He asked questions, your responded in pretty petulant and dismissive way, now, he's banned.*
> 
> What's the deal?


I did not see this kind of behavior from Deejo at all... :scratchhead:


----------



## aine

Because women are not as direct as men. That is the way they are made fortunately or unfortunately. Male directness can be a blessing and a bane. Women's cloaking of the real issue can also be a bane or a blessing too. If both the man and woman approached issues with the same male directness, then there would be many more third world wars. Women on the most part are relationship builders and do not want to be so direct as it can be hurtful but in doing so they are not heard all the time. Men in many instances are not clued into the subtleties of the woman's communication style.


----------



## aine

vellocet said:


> You said the only thing you disagree with is the housework issue.
> 
> So ok, just what is it that you feel vulnerable for an affair over?
> 
> The thread is about Why women leave men they love. So enlighten us. What is it you feel vulnerable for an affair over?


If you have to put up with not having your sexual needs met for many years nor any recreational companionship or support for your career, etc would you feel you are ripe for an affair?
Same thing, woman gets no affection, no attention, no conversation, just sex (when he needs it) or made to watch his football game, golf, etc. Everything is about him (he thinks things are fine) but what about her needs?


----------



## aine

[The funny thing is I CONSTANTLY tried to get my ex to talk to me. I pushed marriage counseling....Anything I could think of to try and fix our marriage and she just wasn't interested. 


I am currently in that stage, he wants me to talk to him. When i try, he tells me I am wrong to feel this way and that and basically either denies or minimises my feelings. Heck they are MY feelings. So I don't want to talk to him anymore. Why does he bother now after I have spent years trying to be 'heard' to let him know we were drifting apart and things were not right in our relationship?
Now when the reality is hitting him, he is scrambling to give me flowers, call me, text me, write letters all about what he is doing and feeling, etc. 
I have no trust in him that if I were to succumb to his overtures that we would not be back at square one within a few months. I really don't want to throw away our marriage, it has so much potential and I've some in may extended family who did just that and don't seem to be any happier. But we have reached an impasse, and I don't know how to move forward.


----------



## aine

A husband who would rather go golfing than actually pay attention to his wife..isn't going to be the guy who comes here looking for solutions (as a general rule..there will be a few who come here AFTER the fact...but they also will say they ignored their wife and now how can he win her back).
Likewise..a woman like my ex wouldn't dream of coming to a site like this in a million years...That would actually take effort for the relationship and also require her to take some accountability for her own actions.
Anyway...[/QUOTE said:


> Spot on!


----------



## EleGirl

aine said:


> [The funny thing is I CONSTANTLY tried to get my ex to talk to me. I pushed marriage counseling....Anything I could think of to try and fix our marriage and she just wasn't interested.
> 
> 
> I am currently in that stage, he wants me to talk to him. When i try, he tells me I am wrong to feel this way and that and basically either denies or minimises my feelings. Heck they are MY feelings. So I don't want to talk to him anymore. Why does he bother now after I have spent years trying to be 'heard' to let him know we were drifting apart and things were not right in our relationship?
> 
> Now when the reality is hitting him, he is scrambling to give me flowers, call me, text me, write letters all about what he is doing and feeling, etc.
> 
> I have no trust in him that if I were to succumb to his overtures that we would not be back at square one within a few months. I really don't want to throw away our marriage, it has so much potential and I've some in may extended family who did just that and don't seem to be any happier. But we have reached an impasse, and I don't know how to move forward.


Is he listening to you now and accepting that you have the right to your feelings?


----------



## Thundarr

Forest said:


> I wondered why it is that you and a few others are permitted to belittle and degrade other posters, but when this "Doorman" comes around and asks you a few specific questions he is banned?
> 
> Were his questions beneath you? To me, your behavior has been much more juvenile and hateful than his. He asked questions, your responded in pretty petulant and dismissive way, now, he's banned.
> 
> What's the deal?


I get why you're annoyed Forest but Doorman has 12 or so posts total and 90% of them were adversarial and badgering in nature. What exactly do we expect to happen with new members coming in guns-a-blazing.


----------



## aine

always_alone said:


> If you're a man, it's always destabilize, 180, alpha up. If you're not getting sex, you're a pathetic wuss who puts her on a pedestal, is way too nice, is catering to her every whim. Be cool, distant, give her nothing; she'll love it.
> 
> 
> I've heard that before from the man I love ' i can never please you no matter what I do, the saying treat them mean and keep them keen is probably the best thing to do"


----------



## aine

EleGirl said:


> Is he listening to you now and accepting that you have the right to your feelings?


No, he tried for a while and then decided to give up and tell me he doesn't know what to do anymore, but still hasn't listened, still defensive, still minimising. I have sat down and written a list of all the things he has done to hurt me over the years (the ones I can remember), maybe I will give it to him one day when I leave. I do not understand how someone can be so obtuse.

He works hard, is a wonderful provider and a good father for the most part though. I wish I could be the type of woman who just takes the money, the things and build my own life independent of him. I have tried but doing that tears me up inside because that is not me, that is not why I got married.


----------



## EleGirl

aine said:


> No, he tried for a while and then decided to give up and tell me he doesn't know what to do anymore, but still hasn't listened, still defensive, still minimising. I have sat down and written a list of all the things he has done to hurt me over the years (the ones I can remember), maybe I will give it to him one day when I leave. I do not understand how someone can be so obtuse.
> 
> He works hard, is a wonderful provider and a good father for the most part though. I wish I could be the type of woman who just takes the money, the things and build my own life independent of him. I have tried but doing that tears me up inside because that is not me, that is not why I got married.


Why don't you start a thread of your own. Then we can address your marital issues there instead of hijacking this thread. There are things that you can do. But I'll address them on your thread.


----------



## aine

[Why don't you start a thread of your own. Then we can address your marital issues there instead of hijacking this thread. There are things that you can do. But I'll address them on your thread]

Maybe I should, didn't mean to hijack this one.  Got carried away


----------



## RandomDude

MachoMcCoy said:


> Why women leave or cheat - What every man should know
> 
> "Women leave because their man is not present. He’s working, golfing, gaming, watching TV, fishing… the list is long. These aren’t bad men. They’re good men. They’re good fathers. They support their family. They’re nice, likeable. But they take their wife for granted. They’re not present."
> 
> Yep. What he doesn't say is that by the time the man figures it out, it's usually too late.


All these excuses in articles like that, my ex-wife may have been many things but she was completely loyal despite being me rather absent during our first years of marriage. Granted, she visited and annoyed me at work, but she took our vows seriously as did I after marriage.

If it ain't working out, divorce. Simple. Men working their asses off to support their cheating wives is just not on, and in my opinion it's just not fking acceptable or excusable.


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> All these excuses in articles like that, my ex-wife may have been many things but she was completely loyal despite being me rather absent during our first years of marriage. Granted, she visited and annoyed me at work, but she took our vows seriously as did I after marriage.
> 
> If it ain't working out, divorce. Simple. Men working their asses off to support their cheating wives is just not on, and in my opinion it's just not fking acceptable or excusable.


The article is not about cheating wives.


----------



## RandomDude

Darn it, I saw the word "cheat" on the OP and decided to vent randomly, nevermind me, just letting off air after a hell of a week


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> That's why your point about paying attention to the specifics of the situation, to the individual stories is so important. At least part of the reason for the treadmill is that the same solutions are trotted out no matter what the problem.
> 
> If you're a man, it's always destabilize, 180, alpha up. If you're not getting sex, you're a pathetic wuss who puts her on a pedestal, is way too nice, is catering to her every whim. Be cool, distant, give her nothing; she'll love it.
> 
> And if you're a woman, you're told to sex it up some more. Oh, and stop being so insecure, be confident, and just give him lots of sex. And if that doesn't work, we'll he's just broken, and you should dump him.


You left out, thread jack and criticize regardless of whether or not the input is accurate.


----------



## Deejo

Forest said:


> I wondered why it is that you and a few others are permitted to belittle and degrade other posters, but when this "Doorman" comes around and asks you a few specific questions he is banned?
> 
> Were his questions beneath you? To me, your behavior has been much more juvenile and hateful than his. He asked questions, your responded in pretty petulant and dismissive way, now, he's banned.
> 
> What's the deal?


Can't possibly imagine that I can provide you with an answer at which you will nod, and say, "Ok, I get that."

I don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement that at times my posting is juvenile.

Hateful?

First time in 7 years that word has been used.

I called out your post with a smile on my face, not an angry frown, immediately following my telling Wolf that if I intended to challenge someone's thought process, I would do it directly. 

Women decided to chime in on a post about why women leave husbands they still love. And that rubbed some men the wrong way. They apparently felt hurt and insulted.

And consequently felt like my position was backing, and looking for kudos from the ladies, which I did, and still do find humorous.

My initial post was intended to provoke discussion. 

Your opinion is that I have been hateful and disrespectful.

My opinion is that this thread has done the very thing that I was decrying, it has become a p!ssing match.

Here is the fact of the matter.

You felt I was disrespectful. That is not how I want to conduct myself or be perceived. 

I recognize I don't control what people perceive.

I apologize. 

I'm not going to retroactively change my posts in this thread, given they have been seen and we've discussed them.

But it isn't my intention to ever shut anyone down, or to harm them.

If you have any further questions or comments, please PM rather than posting in-thread.


----------



## Forest

Deejo said:


> If you have any further questions or comments, please PM rather than posting in-thread.


:scratchhead: (because I can't find the smiley with duct tape on the mouth)


----------



## Joe Cool

Deejo said:


> I just wish men would stop acting like kicked little puppies.
> 
> If your wife is telling you there is a problem ... listen for cripes sake. Fix it. It's your job.
> 
> And if it can't be fixed, or you don't much feel like fixing it, then let things go with some dignity for both people rather than letting the relationship further devolve into apathy, disrespect, or infidelity.
> 
> We see the exact dynamic that the author outlines here all of the time.
> 
> What he is describing virtually verbatim ... is walkaway wife syndrome.
> 
> Do we make poor choices in partners? Without a doubt.
> 
> You know what I'd really like to see this year?
> 
> Men around here stop b!tching about how bad their marriage was, or is, and instead post or respond from a proactive, self-aware and positive place.
> 
> The 'I've been kicked in the balls, and don't know if I'll ever be the same' is really wearing f*cking thin with me.
> 
> Help each other, and we just might help ourselves.


Done. Been there twice and kicked its ass 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/long-term-success-marriage/253721-15-year-anniversary.html#post12018265


----------



## Deejo

Joe Cool said:


> Be good for each other.
> 
> Hope this helps you all.
> 
> :smthumbup:


Thanks for linking your post. Sums up exactly what I was referring to.

Working with one another, rather than against.

What I quoted above is about the most clear and succinct summary about how I feel, that I have ever read.

Be good for each other.


----------



## Joe Cool

Deejo said:


> Own your stuff. If your partner isn't owning theirs call them on it. If that hurts their feelings, regardless of gender, what they choose to do with their behavior as a result is up to them.
> 
> Sometimes having our eyes opened does indeed require a 2x4, rather than a soft 'hey, dude ... your screwing up.'


This is all that works for my wife and I. 

I insist on the 2x4 and forcefully call bullzhit with the same crystal clarity when she is missing reality. 

We have found it is vital for the other person to validate when a fair solid point is has been made that would alter the approach the other takes going forward. 

That tool allows the other to feel that they have been heard and the point will be acted upon. We also express exactly what the solution will be so we each know what to expect and if that will do it for the "injured" spouse.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

vellocet said:


> Which is why I was so taken back by your "vulnerability"
> 
> So it makes more sense now. Not that I agree that it is still any excuse, but makes more sense than him just not doing the housework.


Is "vulnerable to cheat" a bad thing though? Wouldn't understanding and accepting that prevent more infidelity?
IME- Men can sense this desperation and vulnerability even if you don't. So be prepared, understand your feelings and protect yourself from doing something stupid. 

I think understanding that a decent guy, good worker and good father _isn't enough_ is important too. The more those women try to tell themselves to stick it out because he's a "good man" the more they sink into their WAW mindset. 

So if women feel pressure to not explore these feelings of being vulnerable to cheat and having huge problems with what seems like little trivial things, the worse the problem gets.


----------



## Anon Pink

Joe Cool said:


> This is all that works for my wife and I.
> 
> I insist on the 2x4 and forcefully call bullzhit with the same crystal clarity when she is missing reality.
> 
> We have found it is vital for the other person to validate when a fair solid point is has been made that would alter the approach the other takes going forward.
> 
> That tool allows the other to feel that they have been heard and the point will be acted upon. We also express exactly what the solution will be so we each know what to expect and if that will do it for the "injured" spouse.


:iagree:

Joe, this is excellent. Though it may not be appropriate for all marital situations it exactly fits the difficulties in my marriage.

Over our 30 year marriage I had built up a huge amount of resentments and as we tried and tried to make it work, my husbands defensive shields prevented him from ever validating the mountain of hurt and disappointment I had. That mountain had to be acknowledged before it could be traversed. I could not let go and out it in the past until the past was acknowledge by him. 

Now that he has begun to lower those shields the resentments are truly being washed away.

To be clear, I do not hold grudges. I did not want these resentments. I didn't want to continue to feel these hateful emotions toward him. I wanted our marriage to work!!!

Lower your defenses and hear with your heart.


----------



## Anon Pink

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Is "vulnerable to cheat" a bad thing though? Wouldn't understanding and accepting that prevent more infidelity?
> IME- Men can sense this desperation and vulnerability even if you don't. So be prepared, understand your feelings and protect yourself from doing something stupid.
> 
> I think understanding that a decent guy, good worker and good father _isn't enough_ is important too. The more those women try to tell themselves to stick it out because he's a "good man" the more they sink into their WAW mindset.
> 
> So if women feel pressure to not explore these feelings of being vulnerable to cheat and having huge problems with what seems like little trivial things, the worse the problem gets.


Honestly SGC, don't bother. Some men will never get it and are thus doomed to repeat it time and time again.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> Honestly SGC, don't bother. Some men will never get it and are thus doomed to repeat it time and time again.


I think they know exactly the temptation they would feel if an attractive neighbor showed up at their door with a bottle of wine in one hand and two glasses in the other while an LD wife was out of town. The resistance is to the validity of the comparison.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Is "vulnerable to cheat" a bad thing though? Wouldn't understanding and accepting that prevent more infidelity?
> IME- Men can sense this desperation and vulnerability even if you don't. So be prepared, understand your feelings and protect yourself from doing something stupid.
> 
> I think understanding that a decent guy, good worker and good father _isn't enough_ is important too. The more those women try to tell themselves to stick it out because he's a "good man" the more they sink into their WAW mindset.
> 
> So if women feel pressure to not explore these feelings of being vulnerable to cheat and having huge problems with what seems like little trivial things, the worse the problem gets.


Taking care of your marriage should be a priority for both spouses. Communication is the key of course cause we aren't mind readers. Sometimes you think you are providing enough only to unknowingly have that fall very short. The only way to know where the gauge is is to communicate. I have read woman after woman say they told their spouses for years they were unhappy or what the problems were. I wish I could see that kind of relationship in action...has not been my experience at all on the RL but I don't doubt the women here at all. I have trouble understanding loving someone and them coming to me with a problem, repeatedly, and I just ignoring it. lol I'm just not built that way to rug sweep I guess 

I do disagree on the infidelity thing. No amount of loving and sacrafice automatically prevents someone from cheating. Cheaters, male or female, by nature are selfish and justifiers. If they want to cheat but want to feel ok about it they will just wait for the moment the other spouse slips up to say ok I'm good to go now. Thier is a solid reason cheating should not be on the table...you took vows not to cheat. If the marriage can not be fixed then get a divorce.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

I think it's pretty brave to admit one is vulnerable to anything, including cheating and in this forum especially including cheating. 

I think many men are here - especially those are getting very little sex as physical touch seems to be high on men's list of needs.

Being vulnerable is not admitting intent. It is simply acknowledging a potential weakness as a means to avoid that.

Think of a person dieting who has a weakness toward sweets. Admitting I'm easily tempted by cupcakes and therefore never buying any cupcakes and telling my spouse and friends to please not bring any over. So I make sure when I go out to eat that I drink a glass of water before I go, have a salad for my appetizer and order an entree high in protein. I do those things because I have learned that those things help make me feel full and I won't be tempted to order desert.

A person vulnerable to cheating can avoid being one-on-one with the opposite sex, never text or email or otherwise communicate with the OS except in a business context and they work on their marriage so that they feel satiated emotionally so that when they are in those situations, they are not tempted.

It's really just being self aware; she isn't admitting to thinking about cheating. She's being aware that her marriage is in trouble and she wants to avoid the pitfalls.


----------



## vellocet

aine said:


> Vellocet, when arranging to mind the kids did you ever stop to think that perhaps your wife didn't want to meet her friends, maybe she just wanted to be with you?


It was her that asked for me to watch them so she could be with friends. I happily agreed wanting her to have a good time with them.




> You should get a baby sitter. She wants to spend time with you but you have heard whiny complaints and attacks and have responded in fashion with defensiveness and complaints of your own.


Being happy to have her spend time with friends and accomodating her so she can is defensiveness and complaining? Wow...just...wow.


----------



## vellocet

aine said:


> If you have to put up with not having your sexual needs met for many years nor any recreational companionship or support for your career, etc would you feel you are ripe for an affair?


No. And I have already posted that this was my situation. I was sexually neglected by my x-wife. I didn't feel the need for an affair or to leave. I chalked it up to other priorities taking over...family, kids..etc.


----------



## RandomDude

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Is "vulnerable to cheat" a bad thing though? Wouldn't understanding and accepting that prevent more infidelity?


It's two sides of the same coin, being accepting and understanding can also lead to justification of infidelity, hence my post - in regards to excuses.


----------



## vellocet

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Is "vulnerable to cheat" a bad thing though?


Yes




> Wouldn't understanding and accepting that prevent more infidelity?


I would seek to understand and work on a relationship because one should. If the main motivator is to keep someone from cheating...no thanks. Not worth being with someone that will try to make excuses.

Again, moot point for me any longer, but if I was in a relationship and she came to me and said "we need to talk" and I listened, I would do my best to address her concerns, and she better be willing to address mine.

But if she came to me and said, "I'm vulnerable/ripe for an affair because of you". I'd tell her I understood and that I could have worked on things, but since you put it that way....there's the door.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

vellocet said:


> But if she came to me and said, "I'm vulnerable/ripe for an affair because of you". I'd tell her I understood and that I could have worked on things, but since you put it that way....there's the door.


I think the better approach would be "I'm vulnerable/ripe for an affair because" and instead of finger pointing, specify the needs - "because I don't feel emotionally connected anymore because I don't feel you ever focus on me when I talk to you" or whatever the deep reasons are.

How would you feel if THAT were the approach?


----------



## jld

I think her mentioning the word cheating feels like a threat to him. He responds defensively.


----------



## GTdad

EnjoliWoman said:


> I think the better approach would be "I'm vulnerable/ripe for an affair because" and instead of finger pointing, specify the needs - "because I don't feel emotionally connected anymore because I don't feel you ever focus on me when I talk to you" or whatever the deep reasons are.
> 
> How would you feel if THAT were the approach?


Can't speak for Vel, but in my case, in my marriage, I'd probably read that as a threat. "It's possible I'm going to cheat on you, and if I do it would be your fault." It wouldn't go well.

Where I differ with Vel is my belief that we're ALL vulnerable to an affair, some to a very minute degree, some more. We've debated that one to death, and I don't want to start it up again, but I also believe that our vulnerablity is also directly linked to the boundaries we impose on ourselves much more than what the other spouse may or may not be doing.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> I think her mentioning the word cheating feels like a threat to him. He responds defensively.


Or offensively, which is how I was taught to deal with threats.


----------



## RandomDude

jld said:


> I think her mentioning the word cheating feels like a threat to him. He responds defensively.


Agreed, personally I would break off / seperate / divorce on the spot.


----------



## jld

Plenty of people who thought they had strong boundaries on themselves have succumbed.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> Plenty of people who thought they had strong boundaries on themselves have succumbed.


But I'd hazard a guess that a much higher percentage of people without strong boundaries have succumbed.


----------



## jld

I think strong boundaries plus a spouse's sincere efforts to meet our needs is probably the best defense against cheating. I don't think it's an ironclad defense, though.

Life can be humbling.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening vellocet
On the other hand I WAS sexually rejected for many years and I did consider an affair. Now that our sex life has improved, an affair is no longer tempting.

If your partner is rejecting you, it is very easy to start thinking "what right does he/she have to force me to live a celibate life?" (this is assuming the rejection is not based on medical issues)



vellocet said:


> No. And I have already posted that this was my situation. I was sexually neglected by my x-wife. I didn't feel the need for an affair or to leave. I chalked it up to other priorities taking over...family, kids..etc.


----------



## vellocet

EnjoliWoman said:


> I think the better approach would be "I'm vulnerable/ripe for an affair because" and instead of finger pointing, specify the needs - "because I don't feel emotionally connected anymore because I don't feel you ever focus on me when I talk to you" or whatever the deep reasons are.
> 
> How would you feel if THAT were the approach?


The same. Because I don't see the difference between this and what I said. Still saying, I COULD cheat because of what YOU did/didn't do.


----------



## always_alone

GTdad said:


> Where I differ with Vel is my belief that we're ALL vulnerable to an affair, some to a very minute degree, some more. We've debated that one to death, and I don't want to start it up again, but I also believe that our vulnerablity is also directly linked to the boundaries we impose on ourselves much more than what the other spouse may or may not be doing.


If we're all vulnerable to an affair, why is it threatening to talk about it? 

Are we just supposed to shut up and pretend that we're much too superior for such terrible things, even though we all know it's never true?

Seems to me recognizing the truth of this, and acknowledging the known impending triggers is a step towards better communication and less rug sweeping.


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> Plenty of people who thought they had strong boundaries on themselves have succumbed.


I don't care


----------



## Married but Happy

vellocet said:


> The same. Because I don't see the difference between this and what I said. Still saying, I COULD cheat because of what YOU did/didn't do.


I see what you're saying, I think. In reality, they should be saying, "I could cheat because I think I can do better."

Often, they can - for a while.


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> If we're all vulnerable to an affair, why is it threatening to talk about it?
> 
> Are we just supposed to shut up and pretend that we're much too superior for such terrible things, even though we all know it's never true?
> 
> Seems to me recognizing the truth of this, and acknowledging the known impending triggers is a step towards better communication and less rug sweeping.


Because, even though we're all vulnerable to one degree or another, it always comes down to being our choice. Enjoli's phrasing of the question makes it sound too much like whether the spouse cheats or not hinges on what the other spouse is or isn't doing. That's a complete abandonment of personal responsibility in my book.

Now, if my wife said "I'm thinking about leaving/divorcing/separating because you're doing or not doing xyz", that would give us something constructive to work with.


----------



## RandomDude

Agreed, I also don't believe in any excuses when it comes to cheating in marriage, "I have kids, can't break up the family" "I have a house, not going to have to split/sell it" "I have a good income base from my spouse, not going to lose it"...

FK THAT, want to fk around? Abandon your vows and divorce, not pretend to uphold the vows keeping all the benefits while fking around at the same time. And now "I'm going to cheat if you don't do this or that"? Ha!



> Now, if my wife said "I'm thinking about leaving/divorcing/separating because you're doing or not doing xyz", that would give us something constructive to work with.


Now THIS, I can work with.


----------



## always_alone

Interesting. 

Have to say, though, I'm not really clear on the difference between "I'm going to cheat if you don't do x,y,z" and "I'm going to leave if you don't do x,y,z". Both sound fairly equally threatening to me, and either one would probably evoke pretty much the same reaction -- at least from me.

To my mind, it's the content of the x,y,z that makes the difference, not the phrasing of the threat.


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Have to say, though, I'm not really clear on the difference between "I'm going to cheat if you don't do x,y,z" and "I'm going to leave if you don't do x,y,z". Both sound fairly equally threatening to me, and either one would probably evoke pretty much the same reaction -- at least from me.


The possibility of my wife leaving reflects the quality of our relationship. I can work to improve the relationship.

The possibility (and not-so-subtle threat) of my wife cheating reflects the quality of her character. Not much I can do about her character, except maybe remove myself from its vicinity.


----------



## RandomDude

Cheating is unacceptable, simple. 

Leaving however, we all have (and should have) the right to leave.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Have to say, though, I'm not really clear on the difference between "I'm going to cheat if you don't do x,y,z" and "I'm going to leave if you don't do x,y,z". Both sound fairly equally threatening to me, and either one would probably evoke pretty much the same reaction -- at least from me.
> 
> To my mind, it's the content of the x,y,z that makes the difference, not the phrasing of the threat.


Both essentially end the marriage, but the first is adding that they will take every advantage of the marriage and their spouse before it ends.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Have to say, though, I'm not really clear on the difference between "I'm going to cheat if you don't do x,y,z" and "I'm going to leave if you don't do x,y,z". Both sound fairly equally threatening to me, and either one would probably evoke pretty much the same reaction -- at least from me.


Because, speaking for myself, saying that one will leave the relationship is saying that they can't take it anymore and need to leave a relationship that isn't working for them. If she is telling me this to help get me to work on the relationship, I'd be receptive. It might hurt to hear it, but its not something I can't work with.

As opposed to saying they are vulnerable to go out and get f****d by someone else...THEN that is something I'm not interested in working on any longer.

Talk to me, send out a cry for help, even say that the thought of leaving the relationship has entered their mind, and I'll be receptive.

Tell me you thought about going out and getting screwed by someone else.....no thanks.


----------



## Joe Cool

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> In general-
> I feel used, taken for granted, unloved, not heard. I have no _partner_. Yes, it includes his lack of house work, and that's a big one, but it's more than just that. I want acts of service, romance, time alone together, attention. I want him to listen to me without getting defensive or joking around, maybe a hug that doesn't involve an @ss grab. Some gentle touching and romantic seduction. Stop his love busters like drinking or raising his voice, spending too much. Fix things right when they are needed and not wait until I nag or just do it myself and then he'll try to take it over (I can fix things too BTW)
> 
> he's not a terrible person and sometimes that's enough, those days are getting less and less though.
> Just because he has some good things about him doesn't mean "everything else is perfect" Everyone has good and bad about them. We wouldn't have ended up with a person who had no good qualities.


Please tell me you told him all this just like that and all the other women on this thread did the sort of crystal clear once and for all ACTIONABLE REQUESTS the same way. That's the 2x4 and it is REQUIRED. 

I can not begin to tell you how much suffering my wife and I could have avoided if she used the 2x4 aka ACTIONABLE REQUESTS along with an OR ELSE type of seriousness. 

If you did not, then expect little to no improvement. If you did and he did not get seriously busy owning and fixing his $HIT then leave. 

Weiner-Davis says men are capable of REMARKABLE TURNAROUNDS. I did it twice right after a 2x4. 

Hope this helps and you heed the suggestion if you have not already.


----------



## always_alone

So none of you have ever been in the position, say, of thinking how nice it might be if you could just outsource some of your sexual needs, while still keeping your family intact? 

Or that being more attractive to/desired by the opposite sex is something that might be difficult or challenging for you to resist?


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> So none of you have ever been in the position, say, of thinking how nice it might be if you could just outsource some of your sexual needs, while still keeping your family intact?
> 
> Or that being more attractive to/desired by the opposite sex is something that might be difficult or challenging for you to resist?


No.


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> So none of you have ever been in the position, say, of thinking how nice it might be if you could just outsource some of your sexual needs, while still keeping your family intact?


For a fleeting moment or two, just like I still periodically daydream about being a rock star. But those thoughts are on me, not my wife. 



always_alone said:


> Or that being more attractive to/desired by the opposite sex is something that might be difficult or challenging for you to resist?


Of course, which goes back to what I was saying about imposing strong boundaries on myself. Again, those thoughts are on me, not my wife.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> If we're all vulnerable to an affair, why is it threatening to talk about it?
> 
> Are we just supposed to shut up and pretend that we're much too superior for such terrible things, even though we all know it's never true?
> 
> Seems to me recognizing the truth of this, and acknowledging the known impending triggers is a step towards better communication and less rug sweeping.


Feeling unhappy, unloved, unheard, unwanted, unromanced should all be voiced and wanting to walk away should be voiced. I don't see anything helpful about voicing a fear of falling into an affair though? That's like saying if I'm not happy then you can't trust me. It doesn't send a good message IMO.


----------



## yeah_right

always_alone said:


> So none of you have ever been in the position, say, of thinking how nice it might be if you could just outsource some of your sexual needs, while still keeping your family intact?
> 
> Or that being more attractive to/desired by the opposite sex is something that might be difficult or challenging for you to resist?


Sure, that's called fantasy. I do it with Michael Fassbender when I spend 1-on-1 time with myself. H knows all about it. But to seriously think about ruining my family for some secret outsourcing? Nope. I believe in the saying 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'. An outsourced dude could be a million times worse than the dude I have now.

If someone is knowingly hitting on me, a clearly married woman, then they're a d-bag and not sexy. If I'm so weak to fall for some cheesy compliments, then my self-esteem issues should be addressed in some therapy.

Some might try to say it's different for men or women, but I think there are plenty of people of both genders that have morals, standards and good boundaries. TAM can make it appear that all humans are hoes.


----------



## EleGirl

EnjoliWoman said:


> I think the better approach would be "I'm vulnerable/ripe for an affair because" and instead of finger pointing, specify the needs - "because I don't feel emotionally connected anymore because I don't feel you ever focus on me when I talk to you" or whatever the deep reasons are.
> 
> How would you feel if THAT were the approach?


"I'm vulnerable to an affair because I feel profoundly lonely and unloved." 

"I'm vulnerable to an affair because the lack of sex makes me feel so undesirable and unloved.

Those two statements are the same as saying the feelings of loneliness, disrespect, being undesirable, etc. are leading to my spouse responding to any attention I get from people of he opposite sex who are paying attention to them."


If my spouse came to me with something like one of the two above I would take is as them sharing something very important with me. I would be concerned about them and want to work with. It would be pretty clear that we have some serious work to do on our marriage. 

Here I thought that communication was so important in marriage. If my spouse cannot tell me of their feelings and vulnerabilities, then I guess the talk about communication just a bunch of feel good hot air.. that some are not serious about.

So I guess it's better if a person who has noticed that they are having a response to attention from the opposite sex to not say that to their spouse. Instead some think it's better to not tell the full depth of the hurt and vulnerability. Instead water it down and say that you are hurting because of lack of sex, or lack of time together, or any number of things that people can do to disrespect, ignore, and push away their spouse.

I prefer absolute honesty. I can deal with that.


----------



## yeah_right

Joe Cool said:


> Please tell me you told him all this just like that and all the other women on this thread did the sort of crystal clear once and for all ACTIONABLE REQUESTS the same way. That's the 2x4 and it is REQUIRED.
> 
> I can not begin to tell you how much suffering my wife and I could have avoided if she used the 2x4 aka ACTIONABLE REQUESTS along with an OR ELSE type of seriousness.
> 
> If you did not, then expect little to no improvement. If you did and he did not get seriously busy owning and fixing his $HIT then leave.
> 
> Weiner-Davis says men are capable of REMARKABLE TURNAROUNDS. I did it twice right after a 2x4.
> 
> Hope this helps and you heed the suggestion if you have not already.


I can't stress enough how this has worked for my marriage. I am so much better at talking to my H in a way he understands. It's not always easy for me. It's kind of like algebra, and I was never good at math. But it works. And he has learned to sense that I'm turning inward and drags the concise truth out of me rather than the vague feelings that he simply does not understand. It works both ways. I like the 2x4 analogy.


----------



## RandomDude

> I prefer absolute honesty. I can deal with that.


Sure, I would deal with it by showing her the door! 

As much as I would respect/appreciate it


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> So none of you have ever been in the position, say, of thinking how nice it might be if you could just outsource some of your sexual needs, while still keeping your family intact?
> 
> Or that being more attractive to/desired by the opposite sex is something that might be difficult or challenging for you to resist?


You just described the first 20 years of my marriage.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> "I'm vulnerable to an affair because I feel profoundly lonely and unloved."
> 
> "I'm vulnerable to an affair because the lack of sex makes me feel so undesirable and unloved.
> 
> Those two statements are the same as saying the feelings of loneliness, disrespect, being undesirable, etc. are leading to my spouse responding to any attention I get from people of he opposite sex who are paying attention to them."
> 
> 
> If my spouse came to me with something like one of the two above I would take is as them sharing something very important with me. I would be concerned about them and want to work with. It would be pretty clear that we have some serious work to do on our marriage.
> 
> Here I thought that communication was so important in marriage. If my spouse cannot tell me of their feelings and vulnerabilities, then I guess the talk about communication just a bunch of feel good hot air.. that some are not serious about.
> 
> So I guess it's better if a person who has noticed that they are having a response to attention from the opposite sex to not say that to their spouse. Instead some think it's better to not tell the full depth of the hurt and vulnerability. Instead water it down and say that you are hurting because of lack of sex, or lack of time together, or any number of things that people can do to disrespect, ignore, and push away their spouse.
> 
> I prefer absolute honesty. I can deal with that.


The subtlety is in the wording. Nobody is saying don't communicate the feelings...quite the contrary. It all hinges on the one word...cheat, instead of leave.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> "I'm vulnerable to an affair because I feel profoundly lonely and unloved."
> 
> "I'm vulnerable to an affair because the lack of sex makes me feel so undesirable and unloved.


Those statements would never come out of my mouth, because I would never feel that way. They would sound more like this...

"I'm vulnerable to ending this marriage because I feel profoundly lonely and unloved." 

"I'm vulnerable to ending this marriage because the lack of sex makes me feel so undesirable and unloved."


----------



## Fitnessfan

EleGirl said:


> "I'm vulnerable to an affair because I feel profoundly lonely and unloved."
> 
> "I'm vulnerable to an affair because the lack of sex makes me feel so undesirable and unloved.
> 
> Those two statements are the same as saying the feelings of loneliness, disrespect, being undesirable, etc. are leading to my spouse responding to any attention I get from people of he opposite sex who are paying attention to them."
> 
> 
> If my spouse came to me with something like one of the two above I would take is as them sharing something very important with me. I would be concerned about them and want to work with. It would be pretty clear that we have some serious work to do on our marriage.
> 
> Here I thought that communication was so important in marriage. If my spouse cannot tell me of their feelings and vulnerabilities, then I guess the talk about communication just a bunch of feel good hot air.. that some are not serious about.
> 
> So I guess it's better if a person who has noticed that they are having a response to attention from the opposite sex to not say that to their spouse. Instead some think it's better to not tell the full depth of the hurt and vulnerability. Instead water it down and say that you are hurting because of lack of sex, or lack of time together, or any number of things that people can do to disrespect, ignore, and push away their spouse.
> 
> I prefer absolute honesty. I can deal with that.


I agree 1000%


----------



## Jellybeans

Started writing to both of you but my computer had a meltdown after I typed a lot. GRR. Let me try again:



ConanHub said:


> Anyway. Don't women usually fall out of love before they leave?


A lot of resentment has usually seeped in by the time a woman leaves. Also, she has usually reached her threshold for being patient and "trying to make it work" so she is completely just exhausted of going round and round. I do believe there's some truth to the fact that when a woman is done, she is usually really done. 



*LittleDeer* said:


> But I think we had a dysfunctional marriage and certainly I wasn't happy at many different times.
> 
> Most of those times were when things got hard, I felt abandoned. The last time I was really sick and he was angry at me for not doing all the stuff I normally did.
> 
> I checked out.
> 
> I still have so much guilt over it though. I don't think he was a horrible man, but we married young and my needs were not getting met. I suggested counseling so many times, and he would agree only to back out.
> 
> I feel very sad that it didn't work out.


A lot of what you wrote resonates with me, LittleDear. I experienced a similar situation. I still loved my SO, but I couldn't do it anymore. I had been telling him for so long that I felt my needs were not being met, asked him to do couples counselling with me, did individual counseling, read books, did what I felt was try try try only to be met by someone who seemed to not be putting in the same effort. It felt one-sided and I felt lonely. The emotional connection was hurting for me. I didn't feel like we were partners and we seemed to be drifting apart. Despite me telling me over and over again that we needed to take a serious look at our dynamic, etc, he did not seem to care or "get it." When I told him I was done, really done, he looked surprised and I thought, WHY are you just now looking surprised when I've been telling you for eons now? If I treated him the way he treated me, he would have hated it. And I just got tired. So tired. I had no fight in me left. None. I was sick of it and I got off the merry-go-round. The most painful thing was that I loved him. But I was so tired of feeling like it was just me in our relationship. If you keep neglecting someone, they will eventually reach their breaking point. And I most certainly did.


----------



## RandomDude

@Samyeagar

Agreed, knowing loyal women in my life as well, including my crazy ex-wife (now co-parent and old friend), it's just not her to cheat let alone express the desire to do so.

What GTDad mentioned is pretty spot on:



GTdad said:


> The possibility (and not-so-subtle threat) of my wife cheating reflects the quality of her character. Not much I can do about her character, except maybe remove myself from its vicinity.


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> If my spouse came to me with something like one of the two above I would take is as them sharing something very important with me. I would be concerned about them and want to work with. It would be pretty clear that we have some serious work to do on our marriage.
> 
> Here I thought that communication was so important in marriage. If my spouse cannot tell me of their feelings and vulnerabilities, then I guess the talk about communication just a bunch of feel good hot air.. that some are not serious about.
> 
> So I guess it's better if a person who has noticed that they are having a response to attention from the opposite sex to not say that to their spouse. Instead some think it's better to not tell the full depth of the hurt and vulnerability. Instead water it down and say that you are hurting because of lack of sex, or lack of time together, or any number of things that people can do to disrespect, ignore, and push away their spouse.
> 
> I prefer absolute honesty. I can deal with that.


Yes, that is what I'm thinking too. I get why full transparency/honesty is scary, and I won't pretend that I am so great at it, or anything. But, I would much prefer working towards real honesty instead of protecting myself by saying these thoughts are just for me, and no matter what, my spouse will never be allowed to see them. 

Otherwise, communication is, as you say, just so much hot air, maybe keeping the balloon afloat, but highly vulnerable to the slightest pin-prick (if I may torture your analogy some).


----------



## EleGirl

My 2nd husband and I had worked through the "His Needs, Her Needs" and "Love Busters" book in the 2nd year of our marriage. Everything was wonderful as long as we were both doing that. By the end of the 3rd year he stopped completely.

My husband spent just about every waking hour playing computer games and surfing the internet. Well except for when he was coaching minor league football. I am not exaggerating.

There were many times when I told him that I was profoundly unhappy because he was not present in our marriage. He did about 1% of the "men's" work, 0% of the "women's" work, 0% of child care for his children (he had 100% custody), 0% of financial support. He spend 0 hours with me doing things year after year. It some point he also stopped sex. With 0 hours spent with me, obviously none of my emotional needs were being met.

I did 100% of the financial support, 100% of things inside the house, 99% outside the house, 100% of child care, 100% of managing our finances.

I tired weekly meetings, chore charts.. you name it, I tried it. He gave a lot of lip service. Yes, he understood. Yes, he'd start doing what was need. But then he went back to minor league football and computer games/surfing.

I was extremely clear with him about things. He did not care.

We are divorce now.

There are men who just do not care. I'm not saying that all men do not care. I'm saying that he is one of the men who that article is talking about.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Those statements would never come out of my mouth, because I would never feel that way. They would sound more like this...
> 
> "I'm vulnerable to ending this marriage because I feel profoundly lonely and unloved."
> 
> "I'm vulnerable to ending this marriage because the lack of sex makes me feel so undesirable and unloved."


I too would never say those things because I would leave before I would cheat. That's been proven by the say I handled my marriages in which my husbands neglected me horribly.

But the fact is that I would rather hear what I posted than nothing at all.


----------



## RandomDude

For me I just trust my gut as I know more than half the crap I hear is bullsh-t, it's too rare to find brutal honesty enough to even expect it.

Besides I can't expect something I can't give either (see omission thread)


----------



## Jellybeans

I agree, Ele. I rather someone tell me straight up instead of not communicating at all. How are you supposed to work on things if you don't communicate them to your partner?


----------



## Jellybeans

EleGirl said:


> There were many times when I told him that I was profoundly unhappy because he was not present in our marriage.
> 
> With 0 hours spent with me, obviously none of my emotional needs were being met.
> 
> I was extremely clear with him about things. He did not care.
> 
> We are divorce now.
> 
> There are men who just do not care. I'm not saying that all men do not care. I'm saying that he is one of the men who that article is talking about.


:iagree:

And if someone does not care and shows you they do not care through their repeated, habitual actions, all you are left thinking is, THIS is it? No, thanks. I'd rather be alone than be in a relationship feeling like I'm alone anyway (which was my experience, too, Ele).


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> You just described the first 20 years of my marriage.


And did you ever communicate this to her? In these terms?


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Those statements would never come out of my mouth, because I would never feel that way. They would sound more like this...
> 
> "I'm vulnerable to ending this marriage because I feel profoundly lonely and unloved."
> 
> "I'm vulnerable to ending this marriage because the lack of sex makes me feel so undesirable and unloved."


I've never made such statements either, as I've never actually been tempted to cheat or felt vulnerable to an affair.

But at the same time, the two threats, whether cheating or leaving, amount to the same thing, and the only real response is "tell me what's going on, and see if we can work it out, or you know where the door is."

Just because someone has considered what it might be like to boff other people isn't that clear a sign of character, is it? I mean, women are told time and time again just to get used to the idea that their men will be thinking of sex with others. They are only to get mad if he actually acts on it.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> I too would never say those things because I would leave before I would cheat. That's been proven by the say I handled my marriages in which my husbands neglected me horribly.
> 
> *But the fact is that I would rather hear what I posted than nothing at all*.


Right, and we all pretty much agree that communication is key, and needs to happen. The only sticking point is that one word...cheat...and that's a doozy. As others have stated, and me as well, the differences between using the word cheat as opposed to leave completely changes the context, meaning, and ultimately, my reaction.


----------



## GTdad

Jellybeans said:


> I agree, Ele. I rather someone tell me straight up instead of not communicating at all. How are you supposed to work on things if you don't communicate them to your partner?


I agree that even the implied threat of an affair if I didn't hypothetically change my ways is better than no communication at all, but the results are likely going to be different than expressing concerns some other way.

Telling me that you may well leave me if I don't change is probably going to give me some motivation to change.

But telling me you might cheat if I don't change is about as much as a relational hand grenade as telling me you might beat me to death in my sleep with a rusty gravel rake if I don't change. Both may well be honest, but in neither case am I going to be motivated to do much besides hit the eject button.


----------



## EleGirl

Jellybeans said:


> :iagree:
> 
> And if someone does not care and shows you they do not care through their repeated, habitual actions, all you are left thinking is, THIS is it? No, thanks. I'd rather be alone than be in a relationship feeling like I'm alone anyway (which was my experience, too, Ele).


My marriage to my son's father was worse in many ways. And yes I was clear, very clear, about how I felt about his mistreatment of me, his refusal to spend time with me, refusal to work as a team, and so forth. 

The only time he made a few changes the first time I destabilized things by leaving him. As soon as I went back he went right back. 

When I did finally leave him for good, he did not understand why... :scratchhead:

I too would rather be alone then go through that pain.


----------



## EleGirl

This thread is getting derailed as the topic is not really cheating. The topic of the thread is what the topic of the article is...

Why some women leave men who they love... because some men just do not pay attention to her needs, even when she tells him over and over and over and over.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Have to say, though, I'm not really clear on the difference between "I'm going to cheat if you don't do x,y,z" and "I'm going to leave if you don't do x,y,z". Both sound fairly equally threatening to me, and either one would probably evoke pretty much the same reaction -- at least from me.



Both are threatening, but the former is unethical. I don't think it's possible to mention it even abstractly without irreparably damaging an important element of trust in the marriage.

Maybe it would be clearer if we substituted, "Cheat" with some other unethical behavior? Wouldn't a violent sentiment even when it's expressed abstractly similarly damage trust?


----------



## Jellybeans

EleGirl said:


> This thread is getting derailed as the topic is not really cheating. *The topic of the thread is what the topic of the article* is...
> *
> Why some women leave men who they love... because some men just do not pay attention to her needs, even when she tells him over and over and over and over*.


:iagree:

And to that end, I have read a gajillion threads right here on TAM where a man says "My wife left me" and then the whole "I knew I was neglecting her" and "I haven't be good to her if I am honest..." follow. And those I always read like this: :banghead:

It's truly one of those: you don't know what you have til it's gone-things.


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> Just because someone has considered what it might be like to boff other people isn't that clear a sign of character, is it? I mean, women are told time and time again just to get used to the idea that their men will be thinking of sex with others. They are only to get mad if he actually acts on it.


Ah, the go-to rabbit trail. It may help if I mention that part of my self-imposed boundaries include my thought life as well, not just my actions. And in those moments I fail to control my thoughts, I would never place the blame on my wife, a la "I'm feeling vulnerable to cheat because you're xyz."


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> And did you ever communicate this to her? In these terms?


Not exactly in those terms, because that's not my communication style. But I was very clear that our issues were a source of great disappointment for me. 

Ultimately I finally figured out that I was asking for something not within her power to give. Every spouse has something in their personality that they cannot provide, and if that happens you overlap one of your basic needs, you're going to have this conversation one way or another. I'm much more generous than I used to be in considering it a personality flaw, because it's not just laziness or lack of caring.


----------



## Jellybeans

Spot on:

_Why Women Leave_

_No, the real reason for her leaving is deeper than the woman falling out of love. Indeed, a woman who still loves her husband may very well leave him in favor of this more compelling motivation. All of these symptoms are, in fact, merely evidence in a sort of emotional court case being tried in a woman's heart and mind, and once the verdict is in it's only a matter of time until the real lawyers get involved. *The reason is as simple as this - the woman has lost all sense of hope.*

*The loss of hope kills marriages from a woman's point of view. *Not the loss of love, because there may be hope for the return of love. Not the frustrations of a man who doesn't get it, because there may be hope that he'll change. Men, for reasons that occupy another wing of that bookstore entirely, will stick around even in the absence of love and hope, especially if things are quiet enough to allow for the viewing of a football game on the wide screen. *But women see the loss of hope as the death knell. It is the destination of all these other symptoms, in the same way that injuries lead to death*. The cause of the symptoms - bleeding, pain, dismemberment -- is the trauma, but the effect of the trauma is death. So it is with relationships from a woman's point of view. The cause may be that dirty laundry list of all-too-frequent relationship snafus, but the effect of them over time will be the loss of hope - which means death - that the woman can find happiness in her marriage to this man, even if some semblance of love remains. *If she's lost hope that things will ever change, she's gone*._

From: Why Women Leave | Family Tips | HCCUA.ORG


----------



## ConanHub

always_alone said:


> So none of you have ever been in the position, say, of thinking how nice it might be if you could just outsource some of your sexual needs, while still keeping your family intact?
> 
> Or that being more attractive to/desired by the opposite sex is something that might be difficult or challenging for you to resist?


I actually had to study infidelity to get a clue about it. I'm just not wired that way.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

EleGirl said:


> "I'm vulnerable to an affair because I feel profoundly lonely and unloved."
> 
> "I'm vulnerable to an affair because the lack of sex makes me feel so undesirable and unloved.
> 
> Those two statements are the same as saying the feelings of loneliness, disrespect, being undesirable, etc. are leading to my spouse responding to any attention I get from people of he opposite sex who are paying attention to them."
> 
> 
> If my spouse came to me with something like one of the two above I would take is as them sharing something very important with me. I would be concerned about them and want to work with. It would be pretty clear that we have some serious work to do on our marriage.
> 
> Here I thought that communication was so important in marriage. If my spouse cannot tell me of their feelings and vulnerabilities, then I guess the talk about communication just a bunch of feel good hot air.. that some are not serious about.
> 
> So I guess it's better if a person who has noticed that they are having a response to attention from the opposite sex to not say that to their spouse. Instead some think it's better to not tell the full depth of the hurt and vulnerability. Instead water it down and say that you are hurting because of lack of sex, or lack of time together, or any number of things that people can do to disrespect, ignore, and push away their spouse.
> 
> I prefer absolute honesty. I can deal with that.



In the winter of 2009 I told me husband, "I don't know whether to have an affair or divorce, but I do know I can't live like this any more."

Prior to that I had tried everything I knew to ignore my needs,more tend I didn't have them, ask for them to be met, complained about them not being met...and was met with total silence. He needed a serious kick in the nuts to hear how dire our relationship had become.

Now, 6 years later...after several false starts and half assed effort, he's finally dropped his defensive shields and is present.

I don't really give a hoot what other men or women might think of my statement. But it was the truth. I fantasizes constantly of meeting a man that would love me and make me feel loved and I am not very comfortable with men I don't know well. It was the truth and the truth needs to be acknowledged.


----------



## Jellybeans

Anon Pink said:


> *He needed a serious kick in the nuts* to hear how dire our relationship had become.


Made me laugh. :rofl:

I am glad it worked out for you guys, Anon. And I think brutal honesty is necessary.


----------



## Cletus

ConanHub said:


> I actually had to study infidelity to get a clue about it. I'm just not wired that way.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's not uncommon thinking among those never put in a position to consider it.


----------



## vellocet

EleGirl said:


> Here I thought that communication was so important in marriage.


It is. Again, I'd be very receptive to a SO coming to me with their concerns.

I am not receptive to a SO coming to me telling me she is vulnerable to parting her legs for another man because of what I did or didn't do. 

So lets say that I did listen to her and did decide to work on things after telling me they are ripe to get f***d by another man and I tend to her every need.

What then should I expect now that I can't trust her? What should I expect from her now that I know she was thinking of cheating?


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> I agree, Ele. I rather someone tell me straight up instead of not communicating at all. How are you supposed to work on things if you don't communicate them to your partner?


Yes, communicate with your partner. Don't emotionally blackmail them.


----------



## Joe Cool

3Xnocharm said:


> Why is it that so many men check out, stop being present in their relationships? I honestly want to know. ?


I will answer only for myself but I am guessing my reasons are somewhat common. It happened twice

First time - Incompetence. I had no idea romantic pursuit had to continue to maintain a loving relationship, I had to learn what the problem was on my own because my wife could not communicate it to me in a way I could comprehend

Second time - Complacency, laziness, wrong priorities (workaholic) Forgetting/Backsliding into old habits. Not being mindful of my wife's inability to identify and communicate why she is so miserable and upset with me in ACTIONABLE CONCRETE WAYS

Both times I 

1. felt she would always love me
2. thought love was enough



3Xnocharm said:


> so many men would rather do pretty much anything else than interact with and spend time with their partner. :scratchhead: So...why?


In both cases she was miserable to be around and her inability to verbalize the problem in a non 2x4 type manner did me no good and only made things worse so I went and did enjoyable things instead

In both cases, when she let me have it without all the typical female soften then blow to spare feelings indirect bull$**** way of communicating with men that does not work and that men blow off, I was given my needed wake up call and FIXED THE $HIT IMMEDIATELY


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> But at the same time, the two threats, whether cheating or leaving, amount to the same thing


No, they aren't. One is leaving a situation that doesn't improve.

The other is outright betrayal.




> Just because someone has considered what it might be like to boff other people isn't that clear a sign of character, is it?


No. Thinking that one COULD boff someone due to their circumstances is.


----------



## Cletus

vellocet said:


> It is. Again, I'd be very receptive to a SO coming to me with their concerns.
> 
> I am not receptive to a SO coming to me telling me she is vulnerable to parting her legs for another man because of what I did or didn't do.


You don't get to absolve yourself of all guilt that easily. If you have played a part in making your SO vulnerable, you'd better be receptive to hearing it. 



> So lets say that I did listen to her and did decide to work on things after telling me they are ripe to get f***d by another man and I tend to her every need.
> 
> What then should I expect now that I can't trust her? What should I expect from her now that I know she was thinking of cheating?


You should be thankful that she was polite enough to make it plain as the nose on your face before she did it. You don't get the moral high ground just because your spouse considers cheating. You only get that after she actually cheats. 

You should expect that she'll be as honest about whether or not you've corrected the problem as she was in informing you in the first place.


----------



## ConanHub

Cletus said:


> That's not uncommon thinking among those never put in a position to consider it.


I've actually been in most situations described by cheaters as to their justifications or just explaining the circumstances surrounding their affairs and I've been in worse. It has occurred to me to leave but not stick my penis where it doesn't belong.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vellocet

"I am ripe to go to the bed of another man because you aren't attentive to my needs"

"I appreciate your honesty. Now please leave."


----------



## Cletus

vellocet said:


> "I am ripe to go to the bed of another man because you aren't attentive to my needs"
> 
> "I appreciate your honesty. Now please leave."


That's a fine response as far as it goes. One that hopefully provides you with a little insight into how not to c*ck up your next relationship, assuming her complaints were valid.


----------



## Cletus

ConanHub said:


> I've actually been in most situations described by cheaters as to their justifications or just explaining the circumstances surrounding their affairs and I've been in worse. It has occurred to me to leave but not stick my penis where it doesn't belong.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'll not impugn your character, you seem like a good guy, but as a self-described man here who has to beat the women away with a stick, perhaps there are some situations you actually don't have as much experience with as some of the rest of us.


----------



## EleGirl

vellocet said:


> Yes, communicate with your partner. Don't emotionally blackmail them.


Saying that you are vulnerable to an affair or that you are ready to leave/divorce can both be looked at as emotional blackmail. 

Or they can be looked at telling the truth. Destabalizing the relationship is a very common suggestion given. 

Is it blackmail, or is it telling the truth. You are ready do leave if nothing is fixed.


----------



## EleGirl

So the thread has been turned into a discussion of cheating. 

I guess that works as a way to avoid the actual topic of the thread.


----------



## ConanHub

Cletus said:


> I'll not impugn your character, you seem like a good guy, but as a self-described man here who has to beat the women away with a stick, perhaps there are some situations you actually don't have as much experience with as some of the rest of us.


Wouldn't that make more opportunities to cheat? Anyhow. I've always been a relationship leaver but not a cheater.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> So the thread has been turned into a discussion of cheating.
> 
> I guess that works as a way to avoid the actual topic of the thread.


I think the article should have stuck to leaving. Their is no good reason to cheat but leaving, absolutely.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vellocet

Cletus said:


> That's a fine response as far as it goes. One that hopefully provides you with a little insight into how not to c*ck up your next relationship, assuming her complaints were valid.


Sure, I'm not just going to have someone basically tell me, "do as I want or I just might FK someone else"


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> I think the article should have stuck to leaving. Their is no good reason to cheat but leaving, absolutely.


The article did stick to leaving. There is NOT ONE word in the article about cheating.. NOT ONE.


----------



## Jellybeans

EleGirl said:


> So the thread has been turned into a discussion of cheating.


Par for the course.


----------



## Jellybeans

vellocet said:


> Yes, communicate with your partner. Don't emotionally blackmail them.


I'm confused - I never said anything about emotionally blackmailing someone. :scratchhead:



vellocet said:


> I am not receptive to a SO coming to me telling me she is vulnerable to parting her legs for another man because of what I did or didn't do.
> 
> So lets say that I did listen to her and did decide to work on things after telling me they are ripe to get f***d by another man and I tend to her every need.


Honestly, Vello, it sounds like you're projecting in this thread or are getting really worked up about something completely hypothetical. Your words sound very angry. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Cletus

ConanHub said:


> Wouldn't that make more opportunities to cheat? Anyhow. I've always been a relationship leaver but not a cheater.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Opportunities are no threat where there is no need. It's easy to drive past the gas station on a full tank. 

I'm with Dan Savage on the notion that leaving is often, but not always ,the most righteous path to take in a sexually mismatched and unsatisfying relationship. I'll take the abuse that comes from that position. Life is rarely as black and white as we like to pretend it is in these conversations.


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> The article did stick to leaving. There is NOT ONE word in the article about cheating.. NOT ONE.


WHOOPS!!! My bad. OP has a link to the article that contains the word cheat. That threw me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GTdad

EleGirl said:


> The article did stick to leaving. There is NOT ONE word in the article about cheating.. NOT ONE.


Enjoli posed a question which really caught my interest! I blame her, of course.


----------



## ocotillo

Isn't the best way for a woman to express the unmet need described by the article germane?


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> Opportunities are no threat where there is no need. It's easy to drive past the gas station on a full tank.
> 
> I'm with Dan Savage on the notion that leaving is often, but not always ,the most righteous path to take in a sexually mismatched and unsatisfying relationship. I'll take the abuse that comes from that position. Life is rarely as black and white as we like to pretend it is in these conversations.


I agree... leaving is the best thing to do when a couple is badly mismatched and/or one or both refuse to work together to fix things. And leaving sooner than later is better.


----------



## razgor

My wife has been telling me for years that I was messy and it drove her crazy. Being a typical man, I kind of wrote her off and attributed her complaining to nagging. 

Not that I intentionally wanted to make her life miserable, just I have a hard time understanding why it was so important to her! Does that sock on the floor *really* drive you nuts. Seems almost outlandish to me.

Same goes with romance, I have been fairly lack luster in the romance department. Mainly because I don't really think that way. It is not important to me.

Or texting and talking through out the day. Not something that is important to me. It is nice sure, but I don't feel neglected if we don't talk through out the work day.

As a man, I think I am doing my job as her husband when I bring home a steady paycheck, enough that she does not have to work full time. Being a good dad to our children and treating her well - in my opinion. 

The hard part is to listen to your spouse and go the extra mile for them! Work to meet her needs, not what you think her needs are.

I see men all the time falling into that trap. We think because we provide for our spouse, don't yell or scream at them, let them buy new outfits when they want - they should be happy! I have friends that say how unappreciative their wife is!

The best thing I ever did was to start listening to her, try to do romantic things - text her through out the day. Be present! (Ha, I still struggle with the neatness part. ) 

We are now getting along better then we ever have. And it really is not a lot of work, just give a little extra effort.


----------



## vellocet

EleGirl said:


> Saying that you are vulnerable to an affair or that you are ready to leave/divorce can both be looked at as emotional blackmail.


Sure, I suppose. But I differentiate the two as one acknowledging leaving due to things not being real good, while the other is betrayal and now you know how they think.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> Isn't the best way for a woman to express the unmet need described by the article germaine?


Yes, it is germane. But if that's the topic, the why focus on one one thing that a women would say. I doubt that most women would even think of saying that they are temped to cheat.

Instead most women say things like, I really want to spend time with you. Can we start having a weekly date?

Instead let's also talk about how to tell a husband that spending all his free time with the guys, on his hobbies, on the computer, etc is not working for her.

I mean to say these things in a way that the guy actually hears it and does not disrespect and dismiss her as just nagging.


----------



## vellocet

EleGirl said:


> So the thread has been turned into a discussion of cheating.
> 
> I guess that works as a way to avoid the actual topic of the thread.


Nobody is avoiding anything. It was brought up as one other thing people do when things don't go their way and it morphed from there.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

razgor said:


> I see men all the time falling into that trap. We think because we provide for our spouse, don't yell or scream at them, let them buy new outfits when they want - they should be happy! I have friends that say how unappreciative their wife is!
> 
> The best thing I ever did was to start listening to her, try to do romantic things - text her through out the day. Be present! (Ha, I still struggle with the neatness part. )


YES!!


----------



## EleGirl

Or how about we take all this wisdom and go help a current poster who has exactly this problem?


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/253897-confused-my-marriage-plz-help.html


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> I'm confused - I never said anything about emotionally blackmailing someone. :scratchhead:


I know you didn't. That's what it feels like to me. I said it.


----------



## ConanHub

Cletus said:


> Opportunities are no threat where there is no need. It's easy to drive past the gas station on a full tank.
> 
> I'm with Dan Savage on the notion that leaving is often, but not always ,the most righteous path to take in a sexually mismatched and unsatisfying relationship. I'll take the abuse that comes from that position. Life is rarely as black and white as we like to pretend it is in these conversations.


You may have a point Cletus. I'll consider.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joe Cool

aine said:


> Because women are not as direct as men.
> 
> That is the way they are made unfortunately. Male directness can be a blessing. Women's cloaking of the real issue can also be a bane.
> 
> Women do not want to be so direct but in doing so they are not heard.
> 
> Men are not clued into the subtleties of the woman's communication style.


THIS THIS THIS THIS is the 2x4. 

I went thru my relative H ELL TWICE because my wife could not tell me I NEED you to ...

1. hug and kiss me several times a day
2. tell me you love me at least once a day
3. do things to make my life easier so I know you give a $hit daily
4. listen to me without appearing distracted 
5. ask me a value my opinion
6. tell me im beautiful 
7. grab me, pull my hair, take me, etc
8. Etc

When she was blunt I was ALL OVER THAT $HIT PRONTO and we worked thru our mutual misery. When she beat around the phucking bush I spaced it and kept on doing the same ol hurtful oblibiousr neglectful things that caused our suffering

Cheese crackers ladies with the ****ing around. BLUNT PLEASE!

And we can solve all the heartache in the world right now!

Men are problem solvers with thick skins. STOP trying to spare their feelings by talking to them like they are women. Tell the problem and they either solve it or tell you it isn't going to happen and you can go from there. 

You know BE BLUNT


----------



## EleGirl

Joe Cool said:


> THIS THIS THIS THIS is the 2x4.
> 
> I went thru my relative H ELL TWICE because my wife could not tell me I NEED you to ...
> 
> 1. hug and kiss me several times a day
> 2. tell me you love me at least once a day
> 3. do things to make my life easier so I know you give a $hit daily
> 4. listen to me without appearing distracted
> 5. ask me a value my opinion
> 6. tell me im beautiful
> 7. grab me, pull my hair, take me, etc
> 8. Etc
> 
> When she was blunt I was ALL OVER THAT $HIT PRONTO and we worked thru our mutual misery. When she beat around the phucking bush I spaced it and kept on doing the same ol hurtful oblibiousr neglectful things that caused our suffering
> 
> Cheese crackers ladies with the ****ing around. BLUNT PLEASE!
> 
> And we can solve all the heartache in the world right now!


Not all women beat around the bush and say things indirectly. Some of us are very blunt. Some of us are able to identify exactly what our needs are and state them very clearly and even bluntly.


And some men do not respond no matter how clear and blunt their wives are.

I think it wrong to assume that all women, or even most, are not being very clear.


----------



## vellocet

Here is the thing. Lets say a SO of mine comes to me and tells me she's ripe for another man's bed because of how the relationship is going.

And lets say I work towards correcting all the things she wanted me to do.

For me, it would remain, that even though things improved, I just wouldn't feel real good about her after telling me that. It would always be in the back of my mind that I couldn't trust her, even if I bent over backwards to fulfill every one of her needs.

As opposed to saying she thought about leaving due to the circumstances. For me, I could deal with that a hell of a lot better.


----------



## yeah_right

EleGirl said:


> Yes, it is germane. But if that's the topic, the why focus on one one thing that a women would say. I doubt that most women would even think of saying that they are temped to cheat.
> 
> Instead most women say things like, I really want to spend time with you. Can we start having a weekly date?
> 
> Instead let's also talk about how to tell a husband that spending all his free time with the guys, on his hobbies, on the computer, etc is not working for her.
> 
> I mean to say these things in a way that the guy actually hears it and does not disrespect and dismiss her as just nagging.



When I was about to divorce, I put everything into a Word document. A lot of it was the EA evidence with spreadsheets, numbers and screenshots, but I had also kept a calendar of how often he was doing stuff for him only. When he visually saw how much time he was away from his wife and kids, he was shocked. He said he couldn't believe it, but he knew it was true. Facts are facts. Men seem to like facts on paper. Go figure.

Wives have every right to say "Honey, you have spent 26 days this month doing (insert fun man activity here) and 4 days with your kids. That's not best for your family. Please cut out a few evenings of (man diversion) and we will (insert concrete plan here). In addition, we will have more time for sex. Sex works so much better when we do it together."


----------



## EleGirl

How much clearer can a person be than to say something like.

"I feel like you do not want to spend any time with me. I am feeling rejected and hurt. Can we please start having a weekly date night? I would like it if you plan the dates every other week. I'll plan during the other weeks. Do you agree with this? If not what do you propose?"

Is that clear enough? Or is a 2x4 needed? Is the 2x4 used before, after, or during brinifng this up?


----------



## vellocet

yeah_right said:


> Wives have every right to say "Honey, you have spent 26 days this month doing (insert fun man activity here) and 4 days with your kids. That's not best for your family. Please cut out a few evenings of (man diversion) and we will (insert concrete plan here). In addition, we will have more time for sex. Sex works so much better when we do it together."


:iagree:


----------



## EleGirl

yeah_right said:


> When I was about to divorce, I put everything into a Word document. A lot of it was the EA evidence with spreadsheets, numbers and screenshots, but I had also kept a calendar of how often he was doing stuff for him only. When he visually saw how much time he was away from his wife and kids, he was shocked. He said he couldn't believe it, but he knew it was true. Facts are facts. Men seem to like facts on paper. Go figure.
> 
> Wives have every right to say "Honey, you have spent 26 days this month doing (insert fun man activity here) and 4 days with your kids. That's not best for your family. Please cut out a few evenings of (man diversion) and we will (insert concrete plan here). In addition, we will have more time for sex. Sex works so much better when we do it together."


I agree. However, in marriages like the ones the article is talking about the woman's very clear talk is take as nagging.


----------



## yeah_right

EleGirl said:


> How much clearer can a person be than to say something like.
> 
> "I feel like you do not want to spend any time with me. I am feeling rejected and hurt. Can we please start having a weekly date night? I would like it if you plan the dates every other week. I'll plan during the other weeks. Do you agree with this? If not what do you propose?"
> 
> Is that clear enough? Or is a 2x4 needed? Is the 2x4 used before, after, or during brinifng this up?


The word "feel" seems to be lost on some men. Because they can turn around and say "What are you talking about? I don't feel like I'm avoiding you."


----------



## vellocet

EleGirl said:


> How much clearer can a person be than to say something like.
> 
> "I feel like you do not want to spend any time with me. I am feeling rejected and hurt. Can we please start having a weekly date night? I would like it if you plan the dates every other week. I'll plan during the other weeks. Do you agree with this? If not what do you propose?"
> 
> Is that clear enough? Or is a 2x4 needed? Is the 2x4 used before, after, or during brinifng this up?


That is perfectly clear and if there were problems in a relationship, I'd be VERY receptive to this and would be taking it to heart.


----------



## EleGirl

yeah_right said:


> The word "feel" seems to be lost on some men. Because they can turn around and say "What are you talking about? I don't feel like I'm avoiding you."


Yea I know. I've said the same things using the word "think" in place of "feel". Then the guy interprets it in a similar fashion.

"What are you talking about? I don't think I'm avoiding you."

The bottom line is that this kind of guy is not concerned about their spouse. If they are happy, then that is all that matters.


----------



## EleGirl

vellocet said:


> That is perfectly clear and if there were problems in a relationship, I'd be VERY receptive to this and would be taking it to heart.


You might be VERY receptive and take it to heart.

But not all men do. That is the point of the article.


----------



## vellocet

EleGirl said:


> You might be VERY receptive and take it to heart.
> 
> But not all men do. That is the point of the article.


Ok


----------



## Married but Happy

A former manager at my company used to spend his weekends fishing whenever possible. His wife eventually left him. The only reason he went fishing was to get away from her nagging and controlling behavior (which was readily apparent to those of us who'd met her). He got peace and she got out - win-win!


----------



## always_alone

GTdad said:


> But telling me you might cheat if I don't change is about as much as a relational hand grenade as telling me you might beat me to death in my sleep with a rusty gravel rake if I don't change. Both may well be honest, but in neither case am I going to be motivated to do much besides hit the eject button.





ocotillo said:


> Both are threatening, but the former is unethical. I don't think it's possible to mention it even abstractly without irreparably damaging an important element of trust in the marriage.
> 
> Maybe it would be clearer if we substituted, "Cheat" with some other unethical behavior? Wouldn't a violent sentiment even when it's expressed abstractly similarly damage trust?


Ah! Didn't think of it that way ... but it makes sense.

I guess I've been desensitized by knowing all the various reasons my SO might cheat on me ...

Sorry for the threadjack, folks.


----------



## chillymorn

I wonder how many women think there being clear in their communication be are really just dropping vague hints and walking around all pi$$y and when asked whats wrong you get the if you don't know I'm not telling answer or the nothing which really means something which means you should drag it out of me.

I hate that $hit.

not sayin all women do this but In my experience a lot do.


----------



## EleGirl

Married but Happy said:


> A former manager at my company used to spend his weekends fishing whenever possible. His wife eventually left him. The only reason he went fishing was to get away from her nagging and controlling behavior (which was readily apparent to those of us who'd met her). He got peace and she got out - win-win!


Yea win-win.

But I wonder how things might have been different if they had actually listened to each other and actually cared about each other. The fact is that you do not know what really went on between them that led to the dynamics in their marriage.


----------



## vellocet

Cletus said:


> You don't get to absolve yourself of all guilt that easily. If you have played a part in making your SO vulnerable, you'd better be receptive to hearing it.


Receptive to "hearing" it, sure. I'm receptive to hearing about problems that need to be addressed. But if she wants to tie it to "I'll go to another man's bed if this isn't resolved", sorry, her character THEN is something I'm no longer interested in.

Thanks for the honesty, but at that point, I'm no longer interested in working towards the relationship under those threats.


----------



## EleGirl

Ok, so never tell your spouse that you feel so disrespected and vulnerable that you are noticing that you are reacting to it when some of the opposite sex pay attention to you and threat you right.

Instead just tell them that you are leaving them because the marriage just sucks and continue to disrespect and ignore your needs... no matter how clearly you have stated over and over again for years. 

We got that.


----------



## vellocet

You aren't listening, so never mind.

I'm tired of this sh*t. Somehow I'm some sort of bastard for acknowledging that I would be receptive to bringing concerns to me.....but if I say that if its tied to the threat of cheating that I'm no longer interested....boy that just aint right.

I get it, I should be happy that someone thought about cheating on me. Please

Moot point really as this is just one of the many reasons I'll never enter a committed relationship ever again.

But hey, if you all are ok with someone threatening cheating on you if you don't do as they want, have at it.

I'm out.


----------



## razgor

vellocet said:


> Receptive to "hearing" it, sure. I'm receptive to hearing about problems that need to be addressed. But if she wants to tie it to "I'll go to another man's bed if this isn't resolved", sorry, her character THEN is something I'm no longer interested in.
> 
> Thanks for the honesty, but at that point, I'm no longer interested in working towards the relationship under those threats.


I don't think too many men OR woman would work well with that threat. And, I really can not see some one actually threatening that. Unless they just don't care.


----------



## EleGirl

vellocet said:


> You aren't listening, so never mind.
> 
> I'm tired of this sh*t. Somehow I'm some sort of bastard for acknowledging that I would be receptive to bringing concerns to me.....but if I say that if its tied to the threat of cheating that I'm no longer interested....boy that just aint right.
> 
> I get it, I should be happy that someone thought about cheating on me. Please
> 
> Moot point really as this is just one of the many reasons I'll never enter a committed relationship ever again.
> 
> But hey, if you all are ok with someone threatening cheating on you if you don't do as they want, have at it.
> 
> I'm out.


No we get your point. You have repeated it very often on this thread. You are clear about that. We get it.

Some of us have a different take on it. We too are entitled to our view point on it. 

IMHO, saying that they are felling vulnerable is not saying that they are going to cheat. If they were going to cheat, they would have. JMHO


----------



## EleGirl

razgor said:


> I don't think too many men OR woman would work well with that threat. And, I really can not see some one actually threatening that. Unless they just don't care.


Saying I am felling vulnerable to cheating is not a threat. It's expressing how you are feeling. 

Saying I'm going to cheat is a threat.

These are two very different statements.


----------



## Joe Cool

EleGirl said:


> Not all women beat around the bush and say things indirectly. Some of us are very blunt. Some of us are able to identify exactly what our needs are and state them very clearly and even bluntly.


I have not suggesting that ALL women are ANYTHING. MANY ARE however and I believe it is a rather large majority and they would benefit from being blunt since the issue they are desperate to resolve gets entirely ignored otherwise by the only person that can take ACTION to resolve the issues being beat around the bush.



EleGirl said:


> Some of us are able to identify exactly what our needs are and state them very clearly and even bluntly.


Right and you posted an example farther down which I will also address so you get the point you are arguing against with minority exceptions I guess because they are distinguished from that which does or does not apply to your minority yet admirable helpful insightful approach.



EleGirl said:


> And some men do not respond no matter how clear and blunt their wives are.


Hence my suggestion to be blunt first AND GO FROM THERE. 



EleGirl said:


> I think it wrong to assume that all women, or even most, are not being very clear.


Agreed on the first part and not so much on the second. I think it is wrong to assume it is not a majority. 

If it were not then the Walkaway wife syndrome would not be a syndrome because men that don't want to lose their wives would address the issues if they knew it was going to come to that. 

Elegirl I ask you "How is it that virtually ALL of these men are SHOCKED their wife announces she is leaving if 

1. He does not want that
2. Weiner Davis says men are capable of remarkable turnarounds when put on CLEAR 2x4 NOTICE THEY WILL OTHERWISE LOSE THEIR WIFE (I have dne it twice)
3. SHE WAS BLUNT/CLEAR?

Answer: She wasn't clear enough or HE WOULD NOT BE SHOCKED

You made the mistake below which I will address there when you asked how much more clear can you be.


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> I agree. However, in they marriages like the ones the article is taking about the woman's very clear talk is take as nagging.


Right! There's often a big disconnect between what is said and what is heard.

"You spend too much time with your friends" = "She hates my friends"

"I need you to help around the house more" = "She doesn't want me to have any fun"

"You need to spend more time at home" = "She wants to control my every move"

"I'm feeling neglected" = "She is needy and insecure"

"I need you to pay more attention to me" = "She is a demanding princess who wants everything her own way"


----------



## 3Xnocharm

always_alone said:


> Right! There's often a big disconnect between what is said and what is heard.
> 
> "You spend too much time with your friends" = "She hates my friends"
> 
> "I need you to help around the house more" = "She doesn't want me to have any fun"
> 
> "You need to spend more time at home" = "She wants to control my every move"
> 
> "I'm feeling neglected" = "She is needy and insecure"
> 
> "I need you to pay more attention to me" = "She is a demanding princess who wants everything her own way"


:iagree:


----------



## razgor

EleGirl said:


> Saying I am felling vulnerable to cheating is not a threat. It's expressing how you are feeling.
> 
> Saying I'm going to cheat is a threat.
> 
> These are two very different statements.


IDK, I do not think the average person would respond well to their spouse saying either one. The first may not be a direct threat, but it is certainly an implied threat. And it is a very nasty, personal threat. That is likely going to get you the wrong kind of attention. it sure would not make me want to meet your needs.

Saying you are unhappy and will leave is still a threat. But you will probably get your spouses attention in a more positive manner.


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> Right! There's often a big disconnect between what is said and what is heard.
> 
> "You spend too much time with your friends" = "She hates my friends"
> 
> "I need you to help around the house more" = "She doesn't want me to have any fun"
> 
> "You need to spend more time at home" = "She wants to control my every move"
> 
> "I'm feeling neglected" = "She is needy and insecure"
> 
> "I need you to pay more attention to me" = "She is a demanding princess who wants everything her own way"


This sort of thing is a killer, and my wife and I are both guilty of putting unfair and negative spins on what the other is saying. We came to the point where we both agreed to specifically stop attaching a narrative beyond what was actually said. If there is any doubt, we have to ask for clarification before we have the right to be pissed off.


----------



## Joe Cool

EleGirl said:


> How much clearer can a person be than to say something like.
> 
> "I feel like you do not want to spend any time with me. I am feeling rejected and hurt. Can we please start having a weekly date night? I would like it if you plan the dates every other week. I'll plan during the other weeks. Do you agree with this? If not what do you propose?"
> 
> Is that clear enough? Or is a 2x4 needed? Is the 2x4 used before, after, or during brinifng this up?


If women were CLEAR their husbands would not be SHOCKED. SInce almost all husbands ARE SHOCKED in Wayward Wife Syndrome, your premise is flawed. Wives are NOT CLEAR NOR BLUNT

Now really let that sink in please. 

Well.....Did you? Is it sunk in yet. 

It is NOT POSSIBLE for a man to be SHOCKED his wife is leaving IF SHE WAS CLEAR. 

Here is how you make it more clear. 

1. Something has to change or I do not see us married in the future. I am sad all the time, I don't feel like I love you any more and I daydream about leaving every hour of every day because I am convinced you are unable to love me the way I need to be loved. If you don't want to be with me any more because you don't love me any lomger then lets be adults abut it and accept that and make arrangements to divorce. My friend tootie has a lawyer she used and the number is 123-345-5678

... then what you said.

2. I want to separate so I can examine if I want a future with you. Every day I cry myself thru the day when you are not here because I no longer feel loved by you as you have been emotionally unavailable for several years, do not hear my desperate cries for help and I am convinced you never will be able to make me happy again. I also doubt I will ever be able to forgive you or trust with my heart again. My walls are so high around my heart that...

... then what you said. 

THAT %HIT IS CLEAR and ANY MAN that does NOT WANT TO LOSE THE LOVE OF HIS LIFE will be SHOCKED and FIX or say I don't care and say fine lets divorce.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> So none of you have ever been in the position, say, of thinking how nice it might be if you could just outsource some of your sexual needs, while still keeping your family intact?
> 
> Or that being more attractive to/desired by the opposite sex is something that might be difficult or challenging for you to resist?


No. 

I took my marriage and vows seriously. My x wife did not


----------



## Kobo

ocotillo said:


> I agree with Deejo that two to three years is more than enough time to sort things out.
> 
> It's not that I don't understand the angst when in a space of five minutes, a man can read two threads: One will tell him that paying too much attention to his wife will make him about as exciting to her as an ice cold bowl of lumpy oatmeal and he needs to find himself a hobby, go out with the boys and be mysterious. The other will tell him that this is exactly the sort of mistreatment that will make her leave.
> 
> The plain truth is nobody can tell anyone else what the golden mean actually is.



There will always be continued adjustments


----------



## Anonymous07

Joe Cool said:


> If women were CLEAR their husbands would not be SHOCKED. SInce almost all husbands ARE SHOCKED in Wayward Wife Syndrome, your premise is flawed. Wives are NOT CLEAR NOR BLUNT.


I completely disagree. 

I was very clear with my husband about the problems we had in our marriage. I was blunt and straight forward about not being okay with how often he turned me down for sex, how he took me for granted, how I felt used, and so on. I told him exactly how I felt, but he still thought things were fine. What I said went in one ear and out the other. He was oblivious even with the issues laid out in front of him. Nothing got through to him until I told him I was done and said I couldn't take it anymore. I was ready to walk away and had researched the divorce process for the state we live in. It wasn't until I had one foot out the door that he started to listen and said he would change. He didn't think things were "that bad" because he was happy. His needs were met, but mine were far from being met.


----------



## yeah_right

Joe Cool is correct. H and I spent months arguing the wrong way. So I said no more about how I was feeling, no more silent treatment. When I handed him the spreadsheet and said I have an appointment with the divorce attorney next Thursday unless you immediately drop your "friend", your way too many activities and rejoin this marriage, the message was received.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Ladies...talk to them in man-speak. It works.


----------



## always_alone

Joe Cool said:


> If women were CLEAR their husbands would not be SHOCKED. SInce almost all husbands ARE SHOCKED in Wayward Wife Syndrome, your premise is flawed. Wives are NOT CLEAR NOR BLUNT
> 
> Now really let that sink in please.
> 
> Well.....Did you? Is it sunk in yet.
> 
> It is NOT POSSIBLE for a man to be SHOCKED his wife is leaving IF SHE WAS CLEAR.


I think you need to at least consider the possibility that sometimes THE MAN IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION.


----------



## yeah_right

always_alone said:


> I think you need to at least consider the possibility that THE MAN IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION.


Is it that they're not paying attention, or they no longer care? We hear a lot on TAM about the guys who were "blindsided" and are now crushed. But there are husbands who simply don't even LIKE their wives (and vice versa). No amount of blunt 2x4's will add love where it doesn't exist.


----------



## ConanHub

always_alone said:


> I think you need to at least consider the possibility that sometimes THE MAN IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION.


What was that?.... &#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anonymous07

yeah_right said:


> Joe Cool is correct. H and I spent months arguing the wrong way. So I said no more about how I was feeling, no more silent treatment. When I handed him the spreadsheet and said I have an appointment with the divorce attorney next Thursday unless you immediately drop your "friend", your way too many activities and rejoin this marriage, the message was received.
> 
> If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Ladies...talk to them in man-speak. It works.


I don't think you should have to threaten divorce for your spouse to wake up and start listening. It should happen long before that.


----------



## Married but Happy

EleGirl said:


> Yea win-win.
> 
> But I wonder how things might have been different if they had actually listened to each other and actually cared about each other. The fact is that you do not know what really went on between them that led to the dynamics in their marriage.


I don't need to know more than I observed and heard. He was a kind, family-oriented man involved in several charities, who clearly tried to do things that made her happy, and she was clearly never satisfied and demeaned him in public. He apparently cared, and she didn't. He was even kind to her after she left him. He's that kind of man.

He eventually met a woman who appreciates him, and is in a happy relationship now. It took finding the right partner, not trying to appease a broken one.


----------



## GTdad

Anonymous07 said:


> I don't think you should have to threaten divorce for your spouse to wake up and start listening. It should happen long before that.


You'd think so, wouldn't you.

But for some men and women things have to get to that point before the point is made.


----------



## yeah_right

Anonymous07 said:


> I don't think you should have to threaten divorce for your spouse to wake up and start listening. It should happen long before that.


Yes, and there should be world peace and no hunger.

People should be perfect, but they're not. 

I decided I'd rather have a better marriage than be right. And amazingly, so did he. So today, I am happily working on my third decade of marriage to my best friend. I didn't just threaten divorce. I already had the plans in place. It's a dam shame it came to that, but it worked...for me. My path is not the same as anyone else's. And that's ok.


----------



## Anonymous07

Married but Happy said:


> I don't need to know more than I observed and heard. He was a kind, family-oriented man involved in several charities, who clearly tried to do things that made her happy, and she was clearly never satisfied and demeaned him in public. He apparently cared, and she didn't. He was even kind to her after she left him. He's that kind of man.
> 
> He eventually met a woman who appreciates him, and is in a happy relationship now. It took finding the right partner, not trying to appease a broken one.


What you observed can still be far from the truth of what happened behind closed doors. 

From the outside, many people would look at my husband as the perfect man. He is highly respectful, a family man, always willing to lend a hand, and so on, but he's different at home. He is a great guy usually, but would tend to do his own thing, selfishly look to have his needs met first most of the time, not listen to me, denied sex, etc. We had a lot of problems in our marriage, but have worked through many of them. 

You never know the whole story unless you're in it.


----------



## Wolf1974

Pretty much seeing the resonated over and over. Not only this thread but others.

Wife. I clearly said what I need to be happy 
Husband. No clue she was unhappy

I have news for you if two people are involved in Communication and one had no clue about something then it was never effectively communicated. Notice I didn't say clearly I said effectively. 

Sure you can dismiss it as he just wasn't listening. But all of them? Just no way. I think their is a big gap between what women think they are communicating and what men are understanding and vice versa. Now you can get defensive about it or not but if you want effective communication you better learn how to talk to your spouse.

For example the last couple pages about threatening. I can tell you without a doubt that's a way wrong approach with me. If my gf said you do this or I'm cheating I would be packing her bags for her. But I also would never turn her away if she came and told me how she was feeling and would ask us to work on something. Some guys may respond better to the threat....maybe that's what it takes to resonate with them. 

Point being boys and girls is that if you want to be heard, understood and validated you better communicate in a manor the spouse gets it. That method would seemingly vary


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> Saying I am felling vulnerable to cheating is not a threat. It's expressing how you are feeling.
> 
> Saying I'm going to cheat is a threat.
> 
> These are two very different statements.


The future active indicative definitely carries more force, but if getting through to a man is truly your goal, you're going to have to give some thought to the rules based, linear way of thinking most of us are afflicted with.


----------



## Anon Pink

Wolf1974 said:


> Pretty much seeing the resonated over and over. Not only this thread but others.
> 
> Wife. I clearly said what I need to be happy
> Husband. No clue she was unhappy
> 
> I have news for you if two people are involved in Communication and one had no clue about something then it was never effectively communicated. Notice I didn't say clearly I said effectively.
> 
> Sure you can dismiss it as he just wasn't listening. But all of them? Just no way. I think their is a big gap between what women think they are communicating and what men are understanding and vice versa. Now you can get defensive about it or not but if you want effective communication you better learn how to talk to your spouse.
> 
> For example the last couple pages about threatening. I can tell you without a doubt that's a way wrong approach with me. If my gf said you do this or I'm cheating I would be packing her bags for her. But I also would never turn her away if she came and told me how she was feeling and would ask us to work on something. Some guys may respond better to the threat....maybe that's what it takes to resonate with them.
> 
> *Point being boys and girls is that if you want to be heard, understood and validated you better communicate in a manor the spouse gets it. That method would seemingly var*y



I've got two examples right here on TAM that the bolded is hogwash.

Me. I communicated bluntly and plainly, verbally and written and it wasn't until we attended a weekend Retrouvaille during which he heard the EXACT same things from the female speakers when the light bulb finally went off for him.

Another example is GettingIt, a female. Her husband spoke volumes trying to improve their near sexless marriage and it want until she came to TAM and started reading the EXACT same things from other men that she finally got it.

Point being boys and girls, those who are willing to hear WILL. Those who are not available to hear, will not.

Thus the ultimate threat, divorce you or outsource. You pick.


----------



## meson

Wolf1974 said:


> Pretty much seeing the resonated over and over. Not only this thread but others.
> 
> Wife. I clearly said what I need to be happy
> Husband. No clue she was unhappy
> 
> I have news for you if two people are involved in Communication and one had no clue about something then it was never effectively communicated. Notice I didn't say clearly I said effectively.
> 
> Sure you can dismiss it as he just wasn't listening. But all of them? Just no way. I think their is a big gap between what women think they are communicating and what men are understanding and vice versa. Now you can get defensive about it or not but *if you want effective communication you better learn how to talk to your spouse.*
> 
> For example the last couple pages about threatening. I can tell you without a doubt that's a way wrong approach with me. If my gf said you do this or I'm cheating I would be packing her bags for her. But I also would never turn her away if she came and told me how she was feeling and would ask us to work on something. Some guys may respond better to the threat....maybe that's what it takes to resonate with them.
> 
> *Point being boys and girls is that if you want to be heard, understood and validated you better communicate in a manor the spouse gets it. That method would seemingly vary*


Effectively communicating is what's needed. Just because you're happy doesn't mean your spouse is. Likewise just because you are unhappy doesn't mean you spouse is unhappy or even notices it. But it is not only talking to a spouse but it's really listening to your spouse. It's very easy to "listen" and dismiss what they are saying and continue on with the status quo. If your spouse is taking time to tell you that they are unhappy action is required to figure it all out other wise the marriage is at risk. 

I've been there and made that mistake. Fortunately it was reversible in my case.


----------



## Married but Happy

Anonymous07 said:


> What you observed can still be far from the truth of what happened behind closed doors.
> 
> From the outside, many people would look at my husband as the perfect man. He is highly respectful, a family man, always willing to lend a hand, and so on, but he's different at home. He is a great guy usually, but would tend to do his own thing, selfishly look to have his needs met first most of the time, not listen to me, denied sex, etc. We had a lot of problems in our marriage, but have worked through many of them.
> 
> You never know the whole story unless you're in it.


Of course you're right. However, that can be said about any relationship except the one you're in, and even here on TAM, we only get one side of the story, usually.

So, we can never really know, can we? But why pick on my post instead of every other poster? And we only have your word that your husband is different at home. What's his side of the story? And are his failings in response to yours, or vice versa? You see, it's not so clear cut. I'll accept your example if you'll grant that mine might also be valid. But if you want to keep nit-picking, I'm going fishing!


----------



## Jellybeans

Joe Cool said:


> If women were CLEAR their husbands would not be SHOCKED. SInce almost all husbands ARE SHOCKED in Wayward Wife Syndrome, your premise is flawed. Wives are NOT CLEAR NOR BLUNT
> 
> Now really let that sink in please.
> 
> Well.....Did you? Is it sunk in yet.
> 
> *It is NOT POSSIBLE for a man to be SHOCKED his wife is leaving IF SHE WAS CLEAR. *
> 
> THAT %HIT IS CLEAR and ANY MAN that does NOT WANT TO LOSE THE LOVE OF HIS LIFE will be SHOCKED and FIX or say I don't care and say fine lets divorce.


To be honest, I think the "shock" comes from the fact that he never thought she would leave. 

I have been in the relationship before where I reiterated repeatedly, over and over again, the problem and asked him to work on it with me til I realized - he just didn't care. I was met with "this is how it is and if you don't like it, you can leave."

So one day I did.

I wouldn't call that shocking. 



Anonymous07 said:


> I completely disagree.
> 
> I was very clear with my husband about the problems we had in our marriage. I was blunt and straight forward about not being okay with how often he turned me down for sex, how he took me for granted, how I felt used, and so on. I told him exactly how I felt, but he still thought things were fine. What I said went in one ear and out the other. He was oblivious even with the issues laid out in front of him. Nothing got through to him until I told him I was done and said I couldn't take it anymore. I was ready to walk away and had researched the divorce process for the state we live in. It wasn't until I had one foot out the door that he started to listen and said he would change. He didn't think things were "that bad" because he was happy. His needs were met, but mine were far from being met.


:iagree:


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> I've got two examples right here on TAM that the bolded is hogwash.
> 
> Me. I communicated bluntly and plainly, verbally and written and it wasn't until we attended a weekend Retrouvaille during which he heard the EXACT same things from the female speakers when the light bulb finally went off for him.
> 
> Another example is GettingIt, a female. Her husband spoke volumes trying to improve their near sexless marriage and it want until she came to TAM and started reading the EXACT same things from other men that she finally got it.
> 
> Point being boys and girls, those who are willing to hear WILL. Those who are not available to hear, will not.
> 
> Thus the ultimate threat, divorce you or outsource. You pick.


Which is exactly what I said. I did say that some aren't going to listen no matter what. Don't know how you missed That part but it is there. Not all men are evil and plotting to emotionally starve thier wives. I would have loved to have my x wife come and talk to me instead of cheating. Maybe our maririage could have been saved if she had. But she didn't. Truth is just flat out picked a bad woman. Some women here flat put picked a bad guy. But to say in all circumstances men don't listen is not even close to accurate Many just aren't getting it.


----------



## meson

Anon Pink said:


> Point being boys and girls, those who are willing to hear WILL. Those who are not available to hear, will not.


:iagree:

It is NOT enough to nod your head and say uh huh and sympathize when your spouse speaks. You need to consider what they've said and ACT on it.


----------



## Coffee Amore

meson said:


> :iagree:
> 
> It is NOT enough to nod your head and say uh huh and sympathize when your spouse speaks. You need to consider what they've said and ACT on it.


Agreed. I read somewhere, can't remember where, that true communication is when the recipient hears the message and in the way it was intended.


----------



## Anon Pink

Wolf1974 said:


> Which is exactly what I said. I did say that some aren't going to listen no matter what. Don't know how you missed That part but it is there. Not all men are evil and plotting to emotionally starve thier wives. I would have loved to have my x wife come and talk to me instead of cheating. Maybe our maririage could have been saved if she had. But she didn't. Truth is just flat out picked a bad woman. Some women here flat put picked a bad guy. But to say in all circumstances men don't listen is not even close to accurate Many just aren't getting it.




Sorry Wolf I did miss it. 

FTR, I don't think anyone in this thread has accused all men of anything. Its just that many of the men responding are BH with an axe to grind and whenever they see a post that warns husbands about listening, they feel defensive as if they failed to listen and that is NOT what anyone here is saying.

Remember my late brother, his psycho-b!tch ex wife was exactly how you talk about your ex wife. She had an affair with her boss and that's what finally broke up their marriage. Funny thing though, by then my brother didn't give a SH!t about where she slept. He just wanted to take care of his sons.


----------



## Jellybeans

That's where empathy/validation go a long way.


----------



## meson

Coffee Amore said:


> Agreed. I read somewhere, can't remember where, that true communication is when the recipient hears the message *and in the way it was intended*.


Exactly! My wife and I have developed a technique of rewording something and saying what we think was said to confirm we understand it and the intent. The key is to iterate until you get it right and camly correct any misunderstanding.


----------



## Wolf1974

Coffee Amore said:


> Agreed. I read somewhere, can't remember where, that true communication is when the recipient hears the message and in the way it was intended.


Exactly


----------



## Kobo

EleGirl said:


> I don't see why there are any sides to pick.
> 
> The definition of a WAW is that she has been telling her husband for a long time that there is a problem. But he ignores it.
> 
> If a woman did the same thing to her husband, I'd have no problem seeing his side.


I don't agree. Someone isn't ignoring you because they give you an answer you don't want to hear.


----------



## Jellybeans

Kobo said:


> I don't agree. Someone isn't ignoring you because they give you an answer you don't want to hear.


And when that answer is "I don't care to do anything different" or "this is how it's gonna be, if you don't like it, then leave" or "No, I refuse couples counseling" - it translates to - _I don't care. _

And that is why a lot of women leave, hence the thread topic/article. 

Also, if a partner is repeatedly unwilling to compromise and/or at least willing to meet their SO halfway, after being told something repeatedly that they are hurting in the status quo, then that is a great way to quickly erode the relationship.

It's already been mentioned in this thread but it's like a husband who continues to tell his wife that he wants to have a sexual relationship with her and he needs it and wants it to feel loved fulfilled in their relationship -- and she continues to ignore it. Or tell him "I'm just not in the mood" or "Sex just isn't as important to me as it is to you" or "Well this is how I am and how I am going to be" - this is the same level of waht you are saying about - the partner not "ignoring" them but perhaps saying "what they don't want to hear" which is - "We're not going to fck and that's that." 

It's an EXCELLENT way to destroy your relationship.


----------



## EleGirl

yeah_right said:


> Joe Cool is correct. H and I spent months arguing the wrong way. So I said no more about how I was feeling, no more silent treatment. When I handed him the spreadsheet and said I have an appointment with the divorce attorney next Thursday unless you immediately drop your "friend", your way too many activities and rejoin this marriage, the message was received.
> 
> If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Ladies...talk to them in man-speak. It works.


It works sometimes. I'm glad it worked for you.

It does not always work.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> Sorry Wolf I did miss it.
> 
> FTR, I don't think anyone in this thread has accused all men of anything. Its just that many of the men responding are BH with an axe to grind and whenever they see a post that warns husbands about listening, they feel defensive as if they failed to listen and that is NOT what anyone here is saying.
> 
> Remember my late brother, his psycho-b!tch ex wife was exactly how you talk about your ex wife. She had an affair with her boss and that's what finally broke up their marriage. Funny thing though, by then my brother didn't give a SH!t about where she slept. He just wanted to take care of his sons.


No and I do get that've aren't speaking of every man on the planet nor every woman. Having read some of the stories from some of the women where I honestly do believe they just picked bad men. Or they were good men at one point but checked out which immediately ends Any effective communication. 

My only point was that if you take man and woman who honestly love one another but Communicate in different styles thier are bound to be disagreements and misunderstandings. I have had some epic examples in my life, personal and professionally, where something I said was taken so wrong that it never occured to me that person could even take something that way. then later you find out they are upset and you just had no idea what even Happend. 

So I can see where you have marriage and two people actually love one another. One thinks they communicated effectively and the other has no idea the others unhappy. so we all have to find a way to clue the other one in if we want them to recognize the problem. I hate the premise of threatening to clue someone in how serious you are about something but I admit it can work. I have done it before. Not effectively as it only changed the behavoir for a short time but for that time the behavoir was changed.


----------



## EleGirl

Joe Cool said:


> Agreed on the first part and not so much on the second. I think it is wrong to assume it is not a majority.
> 
> If it were not then the Walkaway wife syndrome would not be a syndrome because men that don't want to lose their wives would address the issues if they knew it was going to come to that.
> 
> Elegirl I ask you "How is it that virtually ALL of these men are SHOCKED their wife announces she is leaving if
> 
> 1. He does not want that
> 2. Weiner Davis says men are capable of remarkable turnarounds when put on CLEAR 2x4 NOTICE THEY WILL OTHERWISE LOSE THEIR WIFE (I have dne it twice)
> 3. SHE WAS BLUNT/CLEAR?
> 
> Answer: She wasn't clear enough or HE WOULD NOT BE SHOCKED
> 
> You made the mistake below which I will address there when you asked how much more clear can you be.


I gave examples of how clear I was.. not once but many times.. 

But he was still shocked. 

Some women are not clear enough and their husband finally start listening after they get the shock of their wives starting to leave.

Some women are very clear, their husbands are still shocked when she hits him with the 2x4. And they will still claim that they love her.

We have no statistics to show how many fall into which group.


----------



## Wolf1974

staarz21 said:


> I wonder just how direct you need to be. I've been extremely direct with my H for YEARS. When I am not happy with something, I don't know how to sugarcoat it. I tell him what it is and what I need from him to help it.
> 
> Problem is when HE doesn't give a flying rat's behind about what I am unhappy about in the marriage. He does good for a while - then boom...right back to the same thing.
> 
> See, women leave when they realize that they aren't a priority. It's been 6.5 years now and I am on my last rope. I've tried for this long to make this work and if he screws up one more time....I am slamming the door behind me when I leave. He knows this. I've told him...
> 
> 
> I bet that when/if that day comes, he will ask me why I'm leaving.


well all I can say is direct with a consequence. for example if you don't do x I am going to be leaving you and the marriage cause I can't stay like this anymore. If he doesn't change after that then at the very LEASt he can't say he didn't have the information 

If it's to that point though I would guess he has already checked out. Sorry


----------



## EleGirl

Jellybeans said:


> To be honest, I think the "shock" comes from the fact that he never thought she would leave.
> 
> I have been in the relationship before where I reiterated repeatedly, over and over again, the problem and asked him to work on it with me til I realized - he just didn't care. I was met with "this is how it is and if you don't like it, you can leave."
> 
> So one day I did.
> 
> I wouldn't call that shocking.


Yep... in my experience the shock is not that he did not hear. It was that he did not believe that I would leave. He as shocked when I did leave and stay gone.


----------



## EleGirl

Kobo said:


> I don't agree. Someone isn't ignoring you because they give you an answer you don't want to hear.


Well then the they should not be shocked when their spouse leaves them.

If they refused to work with their spouse to make the marriage work for both of them, they deserve to be dumped.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> well all I can say is direct with a consequence. for example if you don't do x I am going to be leaving you and the marriage cause I can't stay like this anymore. If he doesn't change after that then at the very LEASt he can't say he didn't have the information
> 
> If it's to that point though I would guess he has already checked out. Sorry


More than likely he's shocked. He did not expect her to actually leave.


----------



## Anonymous07

EleGirl said:


> Yep... in my experience the shock is not that he did not hear. It was that he did not believe that I would leave. He as shocked when I did leave and stay gone.


:iagree:

My husband didn't take me seriously. He was shocked to find out that I was serious about leaving and would walk out the door right then. He viewed all of my complaints as "small issues", but they were huge to me.


----------



## Kobo

always_alone said:


> So none of you have ever been in the position, say, of thinking how nice it might be if you could just outsource some of your sexual needs, while still keeping your family intact?
> 
> Or that being more attractive to/desired by the opposite sex is something that might be difficult or challenging for you to resist?


Isn't that what porn is for...


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> So none of you have ever been in the position, say, of thinking how nice it might be if you could just outsource some of your sexual needs, while still keeping your family intact?
> 
> Or that being more attractive to/desired by the opposite sex is something that might be difficult or challenging for you to resist?





Kobo said:


> Isn't that what porn is for...


So now porn is cheating??? :scratchhead:


----------



## Kobo

always_alone said:


> I've never made such statements either, as I've never actually been tempted to cheat or felt vulnerable to an affair.
> 
> But at the same time, the two threats, whether cheating or leaving, amount to the same thing, and the only real response is "tell me what's going on, and see if we can work it out, or you know where the door is."
> 
> Just because someone has considered what it might be like to boff other people isn't that clear a sign of character, is it? I mean, women are told time and time again just to get used to the idea that their men will be thinking of sex with others. They are only to get mad if he actually acts on it.



Cheating and leaving someone are not the same thing at all. Considering cheating shows a lack of respect for your partner IMO. Thinking about ending it is done in just about every relationship at one time or another.


----------



## Kobo

Jellybeans said:


> And when that answer is "I don't care to do anything different" or "this is how it's gonna be, if you don't like it, then leave" or "No, I refuse couples counseling" - it translates to - _I don't care. _
> 
> And that is why a lot of women leave, hence the thread topic/article.
> 
> Also, if a partner is repeatedly unwilling to compromise and/or at least willing to meet their SO halfway, after being told something repeatedly that they are hurting in the status quo, then that is a great way to quickly erode the relationship.
> 
> It's already been mentioned in this thread but it's like a husband who continues to tell his wife that he wants to have a sexual relationship with her and he needs it and wants it to feel loved fulfilled in their relationship -- and she continues to ignore it. Or tell him "I'm just not in the mood" or "Sex just isn't as important to me as it is to you" or "Well this is how I am and how I am going to be" - this is the same level of waht you are saying about - the partner not "ignoring" them but perhaps saying "what they don't want to hear" which is - "We're not going to fck and that's that."
> 
> It's an EXCELLENT way to destroy your relationship.


Sure. All relationships aren't to be saved. Being ignored is casting yourself as the victim. They're not ignoring you, they don't agree with you.


----------



## EleGirl

Kobo said:


> Sure. All relationships aren't to be saved. Being ignored is casting yourself as the victim. They're not ignoring you, they don't agree with you.


You are right. They don't agree. They do not care if their spouse is happy or not. They are happy and that is all that matters to them.


----------



## Kobo

EleGirl said:


> Well then the they should not be shocked when their spouse leaves them.
> 
> If they refused to work with their spouse to make the marriage work for both of them, they deserve to be dumped.


It's not a refusal to make the marriage work. The 2 people in the marriage are still 2 people. My wife doesn't agree with what I consider a good level of cleaning. We've talked about it. She's listened, actions may change for a bit but she doesn't see the need to go to the level that I like to go to for cleaning. She's not ignoring me , she just doesn't agree. I could internalize this and say she doesn't respect my "feelings" , is inconsiderate of me and build up that resentment tabernacle or I could say I'm a little anal and I don't need my " feelings" justified at every turn.


----------



## Kobo

EleGirl said:


> You are right. They don't agree. They do not care if their spouse is happy or not. They are happy and that is all that matters to them.


Victim hood 101 right there. While that may be the case for some people I assume most people want their partners to be happy.


----------



## skype

Kobo said:


> It's not a refusal to make the marriage work. The 2 people in the marriage are still 2 people. My wife doesn't agree with what I consider a good level of cleaning. We've talked about it. She's listened, actions may change for a bit but she doesn't see the need to go to the level that I like to go to for cleaning. She's not ignoring me , she just doesn't agree. I could internalize this and say she doesn't respect my "feelings" , is inconsiderate of me and build up that resentment tabernacle or I could say I'm a little anal and I don't need my " feelings" justified at every turn.


If everything else is good and your most important needs are met, you need to let it go. My husband will not discard old, useless crap, but he is a good provider, great in bed, and a wonderful father. 3 out of four is good enough.


----------



## Jellybeans

Kobo said:


> Sure. All relationships aren't to be saved. Being ignored is casting yourself as the victim. They're not ignoring you, they don't agree with you.


OR they really are ignoring their partner and their repeated attempts to tell them something. It's not as if that really does not happen.



Kobo said:


> Victim hood 101 right there. While that may be the case for some people I assume most people want their partners to be happy.


Why do you deem those that say they are unhappy that their partner isn't meeting them halfway as though they are playing a "victim?" As if their needs/wants do not matter. 

This is exactly why people leave relationships. So it's pretty ironic what you are saying.


----------



## razgor

Anonymous07 said:


> :iagree:
> 
> My husband didn't take me seriously. He was shocked to find out that I was serious about leaving and would walk out the door right then. He viewed all of my complaints as "small issues", but they were huge to me.


I can see that. I think men get condition to ignore their wives complaints. She is nagging again or that is a small issue. It is easy to write off or ignore what they are saying. Especially when the complaining gets frequent. 

When times were rough in my marriage I could literally tune her out. I pretended to listen, shake my head, even able to repeat back what she just said - in case she asked me if I was even listening! But it was in one ear and out the other. Then again, I thought she was complaining about the trivial, minor details. Times are better now, but that is still a handy to skill to have when the kids start screaming at each other in the back of the car!

One thing we do now is have designated talk times. Weekly check ins. How are you really doing, what is bothering you. Are you happy. Things like that. During those times we give each other undivided attention. No TV, phones or kids. And we both get a chance to speak.

Personally, I think men do better in those more formal settings. It is more like a business meeting or personal review. Things the average man can relate to. There is a structure and we both know it is important.

Context is everything. The absolute worse time a woman should express her unhappiness is at a trigger point. For instance go on a rant about how unhappy you are because the dishes were not done. A lot of men just seem to write off their spouse as being unreasonable at that point.


----------



## Fozzy

razgor said:


> I can see that. I think men get condition to ignore their wives complaints. She is nagging again or that is a small issue. It is easy to write off or ignore what they are saying. Especially when the complaining gets frequent.
> 
> When times were rough in my marriage I could literally tune her out. I pretended to listen, shake my head, even able to repeat back what she just said - in case she asked me if I was even listening! But it was in one ear and out the other. Then again, I thought she was complaining about the trivial, minor details. Times are better now, but that is still a handy to skill to have when the kids start screaming at each other in the back of the car!
> 
> *One thing we do now is have designated talk times. Weekly check ins. How are you really doing, what is bothering you. Are you happy. Things like that. During those times we give each other undivided attention. No TV, phones or kids. And we both get a chance to speak.*
> 
> Personally, I think men do better in those more formal settings. It is more like a business meeting or personal review. Things the average man can relate to. There is a structure and we both know it is important.
> 
> Context is everything. The absolute worse time a woman should express her unhappiness is at a trigger point. For instance go on a rant about how unhappy you are because the dishes were not done. A lot of men just seem to write off their spouse as being unreasonable at that point.


I like this.


----------



## EleGirl

Kobo said:


> It's not a refusal to make the marriage work. The 2 people in the marriage are still 2 people. My wife doesn't agree with what I consider a good level of cleaning. We've talked about it. She's listened, actions may change for a bit but she doesn't see the need to go to the level that I like to go to for cleaning. She's not ignoring me , she just doesn't agree. I could internalize this and say she doesn't respect my "feelings" , is inconsiderate of me and build up that resentment tabernacle or I could say I'm a little anal and I don't need my " feelings" justified at every turn.


I don't think that any one here ( at least not the women) are talking about a need to have every one of their "feelings" justified at very turn. We are talking about some very specific "feelings/needs" with out which a marriage will break down to the point of divorce if not addressed.

There are different levels of issues in a marriage. Let's look at another one.

A husband spends zero time with his wife.. the only interaction is things like passing each other in the house as they go about their day.

She tells him that she feels completely disconnected to have him spend time with her. She asks for 1-2 hours a day and a 4-6 hours date every weekend. He agrees. But then he will not do this.. he will not spend any time with his wife.

If he disagrees, he should speak up. Not say that he agrees to spend time with her but then does not.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> You are right. They don't agree. They do not care if their spouse is happy or not. They are happy and that is all that matters to them.





Kobo said:


> Victim hood 101 right there. While that may be the case for some people I assume most people want their partners to be happy.


This thread is not about the people who care if their partners are happy. That is the point.

This thread is about the people who ignore their partners when their partners tell them very clearly that they are not happy, why and what they need to fix it.

It is not victimhood to think that your partner might actually care about you, but then you find out that they don't.


----------



## Kobo

Jellybeans said:


> Why do you deem those that say they are unhappy that their partner isn't meeting them halfway as though they are playing a "victim?" As if their needs/wants do not matter.
> 
> This is exactly why people leave relationships. So it's pretty ironic what you are saying.


That's not what was posted. What was posted is saying because of the disagreement the partner "doesn't care if their spouse is happy or not" 

That statement is far from the truth in the vast majority of relationships. It's an internalized "feeling". "They didn't do xyz so they must not care about me or my happiness."


----------



## EleGirl

Kobo said:


> Victim hood 101 right there. While that may be the case for some people I assume most people want their partners to be happy.


Spouse #1 says that they are not happy because of xyz. Let's say that xyz is that spouse #2 spends all their time out with friends and never spends any time with spouse #1.

So you are saying that spouse #2 disagrees that spouse #1 is unhappy and that's the reason way.

You also are saying that spouse #2 really does care about #1, but just does not want to spend time with #1. :scratchhead:

And if #1 thinks that #2 does not care about them and/or if they are happy in the marriage, then #1 is expressing victimhood, really? :scratchhead:


----------



## Kobo

EleGirl said:


> I don't think that any one here ( at least not the women) are talking about a need to have every one of their "feelings" justified at very turn. We are talking about some very specific "feelings/needs" with out which a marriage will break down to the point of divorce if not addressed.
> 
> There are different levels of issues in a marriage. Let's look at another one.
> 
> A husband spends zero time with his wife.. the only interaction is things like passing each other in the house as they go about their day.
> 
> She tells him that she feels completely disconnected to have him spend time with her. She asks for 1-2 hours a day and a 4-6 hours date every weekend. He agrees. But then he will not do this.. he will not spend any time with his wife.
> 
> If he disagrees, he should speak up. Not say that he agrees to spend time with her but then does not.


Sure, he should speak up. Verbally tell her what. His actions have. Tell her he's not the talkative type, after spending 10 hrs at work and 2 hours in traffic that he' doesn't have an extra hour to spare. Let's talk over dinner. and dishes. How about a 2.5 hour date that you plan because my brain is ready to explode from the work week.


----------



## EleGirl

skype said:


> If everything else is good and your most important needs are met, you need to let it go. My husband will not discard old, useless crap, but he is a good provider, great in bed, and a wonderful father. 3 out of four is good enough.


Of course if your most important needs are being met, there should be no reason to leave.

But that is not the case we are talking about.

I think that when a woman (or man) gets to the point of leaving it's usually because their most important needs are not being met. And their spouse does not respond to it when they try to tell their spouse why they their are not happy about things.


----------



## EleGirl

Kobo said:


> Sure, he should speak up. Verbally tell her what. His actions have. Tell her he's not the talkative type, after spending 10 hrs at work and 2 hours in traffic that he' doesn't have an extra hour to spare. Let's talk over dinner. and dishes. How about a 2.5 hour date that you plan because my brain is ready to explode from the work week.


But he does not do that. He does not talk about it. He just blows her off.

Now he has time and energy to go out with his friends and do things. He just does not have it for her.

This is the point.... she tells him what is wrong. He blows her off and hangs out with friends, etc.

But according to you, she practicing victim 101 if she read his actions to be that he does not care if she is happy in the marriage. He does not even want to be around her.


----------



## Kobo

EleGirl said:


> Spouse #1 says that they are not happy because of xyz. Let's say that xyz is that spouse #2 spends all their time out with friends and never spends any time with spouse #1.
> 
> So you are saying that spouse #2 disagrees that spouse #1 is unhappy and that's the reason way.
> 
> You also are saying that spouse #2 really does care about #1, but just does not want to spend time with #1. :scratchhead:
> 
> And if #1 thinks that #2 does not care about them and/or if they are happy in the marriage, then #1 is expressing victimhood, really? :scratchhead:


Because someone does not behave the way you want in a particular area does not mean they do not WANT and CARE that you are happy. Even though they don't agree with the amount of time you would like them to spend with you they are more than likely doing other things that they believe will make you happy. Working, chores, sex, notes, cooking, etc. 

Yes, IMO claiming your spouse doesn't care that you are happy because he doesnt do xyz is claiming victimhood. It's not a true statement in the vast majority of relationships.


----------



## Jellybeans

Kobo said:


> Because someone does not behave the way you want in a particular area does not mean they do not WANT and CARE that you are happy. Even though they don't agree with the amount of time you would like them to spend with you they are more than likely doing other things that they believe will make you happy. Working, chores, sex, notes, cooking, etc.


If someone knows they are hurting you and continues to do the behavior that hurts you, that is not "caring" at all. It is a blatant dismissal of someone else's feelings/concerns.


----------



## EleGirl

Kobo said:


> Because someone does not behave the way you want in a particular area does not mean they do not WANT and CARE that you are happy. Even though they don't agree with the amount of time you would like them to spend with you they are more than likely doing other things that they believe will make you happy. Working, chores, sex, notes, cooking, etc.


NO, in my two marriages.. they were not doing any of that. 

They did not work. 
They did not do chores.
They refused sex.
They did not write notes.
They did not cook. 

First husband quite his job and went to medical school on my dime. He did not ask how I felt about it. He announced that he did it and that if I did not like it could to fly a kite.

Second husband lost his job 2nd year of marriage and did nothing after that. He spent almost every waking hour on the computer playing games and web surfing. A small part of his time was spent coaching minor league football. HE spend zero (0) time with me or his children. I raised his two children and mine. I worked full time to support his children, my son and him. I did all the housework, yard work, shopping, cooking, etc. HE DID NOTHING BUT PLAY ON THE INTERNET.

And you are trying to tell me that I am playing victim if that bothered me? Really?



Kobo said:


> Yes, IMO claiming your spouse doesn't care that you are happy because he doesnt do xyz is claiming victimhood. It's not a true statement in the vast majority of relationships.


I think that you do not get it. There are some men (and women) who literally do not care about their spouse. They care about what they can get out of their spouse and that's about it.

If you want to accuse me have victim hood, then that's your problem. 

There are others here who have spouses who are just as uncaring as mine were. Some spouses do not care. This site is full of people who have spouses who could careless about them. Not everyone who is unhappy in their marriage is playing victim.

.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> More than likely he's shocked. He did not expect her to actually leave.


Then that's on him. However that's not what I see in the bulk of suprised posters here. They say they didn't know.


----------



## Kobo

Jellybeans said:


> If someone knows they are hurting you and continues to do the behavior that hurts you, that is not "caring" at all. It is a blatant dismissal of someone else's feelings/concerns.


So a man that doesn't spend the requested time with his wife but works, saves, cooks, cleans, fixes, protects does not care about his wife? Ok. Good luck


----------



## Kobo

EleGirl said:


> NO, in my two marriages.. they were not doing any of that.
> 
> They did not work.
> They did not do chores.
> They refused sex.
> They did not write notes.
> They did not cook.
> 
> First husband quite his job and went to medical school on my dime. He did not ask how I felt about it. He announced that he did it and that if I did not like it could to fly a kite.
> 
> Second husband lost his job 2nd year of marriage and did nothing after that. He spent almost every waking hour on the computer playing games and web surfing. A small part of his time was spent coaching minor league football. HE spend zero (0) time with me or his children. I raised his two children and mine. I worked full time to support his children, my son and him. I did all the housework, yard work, shopping, cooking, etc. HE DID NOTHING BUT PLAY ON THE INTERNET.
> 
> And you are trying to tell me that I am playing victim if that bothered me? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you do not get it. There are some men (and women) who literally do not care about their spouse. They care about what they can get out of their spouse and that's about it.
> 
> If you want to accuse me have victim hood, then that's your problem.
> 
> There are others here who have spouses who are just as uncaring as mine were. Some spouses do not care. This site is full of people who have spouses who could careless about them. Not everyone who is unhappy in their marriage is playing victim.
> 
> .


Sorry but I would say your selection criteria was off if you ended up with 2 duds like that. They aren't the majority. Please look at my post that the vast majority do not behave this way. Please understand that TAM does not represent gen pop


----------



## EleGirl

Kobo said:


> So a man that doesn't spend the requested time with his wife but works, saves, cooks, cleans, fixes, protects does not care about his wife? Ok. Good luck


Why would a person marry someone and then not want to spend time with them?

Keep in mind that she is also working, saving, cleaning cooking, fixing, etc.

What is the point of marriage if the couple has no relationship outside of chores?


----------



## Wolf1974

Kobo said:


> So a man that doesn't spend the requested time with his wife but works, saves, cooks, cleans, fixes, protects does not care about his wife? Ok. Good luck


Well yeah if that's what she needs and is communicating it. Some women and men don't care about those things but maybe time together is important. 

I have been with a woman who put her career first. She talked about how it meant more money and mores security and a better lifestyle. I don't care about any of that. I just wanted to be with my Gf and go do things.......together. That was what was important to me. Others might find your list important to them. That is basic compatability and hopefully established before getting married


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Why would a person marry someone and then not want to spend time with them?
> 
> Keep in mind that she is also working, saving, cleaning cooking, fixing, etc.
> 
> What is the point of marriage if the couple has no relationship outside of chores?


To be fair some people Do have marriages like thiis. They are in the business of keeping up with the joneses. So long as they are on the same page then ok


----------



## EleGirl

Kobo said:


> Sorry but I would say your selection criteria was off if you ended up with 2 duds like that. They aren't the majority. Please look at my post that the vast majority do not behave this way. Please understand that TAM does not represent gen pop


Yes, like a lot of people on TAM and in the world at large, my mate selector is broken.

Sometimes looking at extreme cases can help to identify issues that happen in the population at large.

On this thread we are talking about women who are in marriages with men who will not spend any time with them and how do nothing do meet their wife's most important emotianl needs. 

Several other women have posted about what is going in their marriages. These are not marriages in which they are squabbling about 4 hours a week vs. 6 hours a week. they re marriage in which the guy just blows her off. Sure he might work, so does she. He might clean, so does she. He might be a good father. She's a good mother. But there is no relationship between the husband and wife.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Then that's on him. However that's not what I see in the bulk of suprised posters here. They say they didn't know.


Usually, if you keep asking them questions and get them talking... they will talk about the things that their spouse has been nagging them about.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Usually, if you keep asking them questions and get them talking... they will talk about the things that their spouse has been nagging them about.


Nagging is NOT effective communication by any stretch. It puts most people on the defensive and shuts them down


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Nagging is NOT effective communication by any stretch. It puts most people on the defensive and shuts them down


But you see, she's not nagging him. She's telling him that there is a problem


It is he who is interpreting her saying that there is a problem to be nagging.

That is one of the points of the article. He is not paying attention to what she is telling him and pushing it aside as nagging.


----------



## Forest

Wolf1974 said:


> Nagging is NOT effective communication by any stretch. It puts most people on the defensive and shuts them down


This whole thing could be summed up with "do what I want or I'm gone."

Lots of talk about getting needs met without much thought of actively contributing.


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> This whole thing could be summed up with "do what I want or I'm gone."
> 
> Lots of talk about getting needs met without much thought of actively contributing.


Show me where I have done that... please. 

Show me where I have not actively contributed... please

And show where the other women on this thread have just talked, wanted something and not actively contributed.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> But you see, she's not nagging him. She's telling him that there is a problem
> 
> 
> It is he who is interpreting her saying that there is a problem to be nagging.
> 
> That is one of the points of the article. He is not paying attention to what she is telling him and pushing it aside as nagging.


Ok you are going back and forth...... are you talking about the article or what people are posting here. Cause here I see many posts about guys not knowing their spouse was unhappy. If the only form of communication they got from the wife was nagging I don't blame them a bit for tuning out. I would too.

Now if the wife was really just talking and he dismissed the whole thing as nagging then that's on him. I have had someone nag at me anD then later call that communication .they are not even close to the same. Much will be left to interpretation by both parties


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Ok you are going back and forth...... are you talking about the article or what people are posting here. Cause here I see many posts about guys not knowing their spouse was unhappy. If the only form of communication they got from the wife was nagging I don't blame them a bit for tuning out. I would too.
> 
> Now if the wife was really just talking and he dismissed the whole thing as nagging then that's on him. I have had someone nag at me anD then later call that communication .they are not even close to the same. Much will be left to interpretation by both parties


I'm talking about both... on this thread on in posts.

If someone tells their spouse that they are unhappy and why... is it nagging? Should their spouse pay attention?


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> I'm talking about both... on this thread on in posts.
> 
> If someone tells their spouse that they are unhappy and why... is it nagging? Should their spouse pay attention?


Again..... Telling someone you are unhappy and nagging is not a similar form of communication. most people, men or women, will not listen to ANYTHING when they feel attacked which is how nagging is interpreted. So I stand again by my statement. If a wife's only form of telling her spouse she unhappy by nagging and criticism that's going to only lead to defensiveness and shutting down.

If she sits down and communicates without belittling,attacking and criticisms and he doesn't listen than that's on him. 

They are not interchangeable forms of communication.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Again..... Telling someone you are unhappy and nagging is not a similar form of communication. most people, men or women, will not listen to ANYTHING when they feel attacked which is how nagging is interpreted. So I stand again by my statement. If a wife's only form of telling her spouse she unhappy by nagging and criticism that's going to only lead to defensiness and shutting down.
> 
> If she sits down and communicates without belittling,attacking and criticisms and he doesn't listen than that's on him.
> 
> They are not interchangeable forms of communication.


Just because some interprets what their spouse is saying as 'nagging' or 'attacking' does not mean it is.

Very often people will not listen and accept what their spouse is saying as a valid statement of how their own feelings, thoughts and needs. 

Instead many people get defensive as soon as their spouse starts to try to communicate. They immediately go into defense mode and/or shut their spouse out thinking of it as 'nagging'.

A man talks to his wife, pouring his heart out about why sex is so important to him and why her withholding hurts him. What she hears is that he his attacking her one more time, he is nagging and she shuts him out.

This problem is so pervasive that we have an entire industry to address it... Marriage Counseling. We have thousands of web sites and a lot of forums like this one to also help people with it.

To label someone who is trying to get across to their spouse that they are hurting something has to change as nagging is just down right disrespectful.


----------



## Cletus

I'm not sure you two are communicating well. Is one of you ready to check out of the relationship?


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> I'm not sure you two are communicating well. Is one of you ready to check out of the relationship?


Yep, I'm ready to just walk out and get a divorce... :rofl:


----------



## chillymorn

I agree with both of them ele and wolf.

This just show the difference in how men and women communicate or should I say miscommunicate!

Both Need to have thicker skin men need to be more in tune to how women communicate.and women need to be direct in how they communicate.
Both need to listen actively and try to meet each others needs.

By the time we realize this most times the resentment has been building so long its really tough to push it aside and try again. 

Or at least one side is done. And when I side is done most likely its done or too far gone to recover.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Just because some interprets what their spouse is saying as 'nagging' or 'attacking' does not mean it is.
> and just because someone nags and then says that they weren't doesn't make that true either. It isn't one sided no matter how you want it it be. If a spouse legitimately felt nagged then it doesn't matter if the other spouse meant it or not that's how it was interpreted
> 
> Very often people will not listen and accept what their spouse is saying as a valid statement of how their own feelings, thoughts and needs.
> 
> then that's a spouse who doesn't care. That's already been addressed. If someone has checked out of a marriage then nag or sit to communicate won't work cause they don't care
> 
> Instead many people get defensive as soon as their spouse starts to try to communicate. They immediately go into defense mode and/or shut their spouse out thinking of it as 'nagging'.
> 
> and some can only seemingly communicate with snide remarks and belittling statements....or nagging. Again it is left up to how both see it. You can't have it just one way and say hey any form of communication she chooses needs to be received and validated. Two people In a relationship both have feelings wants and desires
> 
> A man talks to his wife, pouring his heart out about why sex is so important to him and why her withholding hurts him. What she hears is that he his attacking her one more time, he is nagging and she shuts him out.
> so then this would be an ineffective form of communication. If that sort of delivery only makes her defensive then guess what it's not . working
> 
> This problem is so pervasive that we have an entire industry to address it... Marriage Counseling. We have thousands of web sites and a lot of forums like this one to also help people with it.
> 
> To label someone who is trying to get across to their spouse that they are hurting something has to change as nagging is just down right disrespectful.


That's how you are taking it because you make an assumption that it couldn't possibly be any other way. I have clearly stated that if you legitimately try and talk without nagging and it's ignored than that spouse doesn't care clearly. If they care but are nagged at so they shut down than that's on the person delivering the message


Maybe you don't mind being nagged at....I kinda doubt it but seems like you feel that's an effective form of communiction 
But I wonder Ele how effective Is it if the behavior just continues? I would think none.


----------



## Wolf1974

Cletus said:


> I'm not sure you two are communicating well. Is one of you ready to check out of the relationship?


Kinda proves the point about being defensive and not understanding huh


----------



## chillymorn

Wolf1974 said:


> That's how you are taking it because you make an assumption that it couldn't possibly be any other way. I have clearly stated that if you legitimately try and talk without nagging and it's ignored than that spouse doesn't care clearly. If they care but are nagged at so they shut down than that's on the person delivering the message
> 
> 
> Maybe you don't mind being nagged at....I kinda doubt it but seems like you feel that's an effective form of communiction
> But I wonder Ele how effective Is it if the behavior just continues? I would think none.


:iagree:


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Maybe you don't mind being nagged at....I kinda doubt it but seems like you feel that's an effective form of communiction
> But I wonder Ele how effective Is it if the behavior just continues? I would think none.


Red text :scratchhead:

Do I do not consider nagging effective form of communication. 

My point is that sometimes even clearly stating something is interpreted as attacking and nagging. 

We see that a lot on TAM.

My advice to people... state your needs clearly. If your spouse does not respond and start working with you to reach a compromise and fix it... state is one more time and include that you are now at the point where counseling is needed. IF they will not go to counseling and fix the marriage, divorce.

Don't waste your life on a spouse who will not take your concerns seriously.


----------



## Forest

EleGirl said:


> Show me where I have done that... please.
> 
> Show me where I have not actively contributed... please
> 
> And show where the other women on this thread have just talked, wanted something and not actively contributed.


I wasn't talking about you. That term has been used throughout this mess. What is this thread about, you?

In other news, the sharp tongued, nagging woman is every bit as applicable in this discussion as the beer bellied clod laying on the couch watching sports.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Red text :scratchhead:
> 
> Do I do not consider nagging effective form of communication.
> 
> My point is that sometimes even clearly stating something is interpreted as attacking and nagging.
> 
> We see that a lot on TAM.
> 
> My advice to people... state your needs clearly. If your spouse does not respond and start working with you to reach a compromise and fix it... state is one more time and include that you are now at the point where counseling is needed. IF they will not go to counseling and fix the marriage, divorce.
> 
> Don't waste your life on a spouse who will not take your concerns seriously.


I agree I just don't see this as one sided. Sometimes people want to be heard but can't seem to state their pain without belittling and critical statements. 

That also happens here on TAM... A lot


The only way to effect a change is for two people to communicate, agree on a course of action and move forward with it. No way that's happening if one feels attacked or one just doesn't care. Then that marriage is essentially over. I say essentially because some in sexless marriages stay forever it seems with nothing changing


----------



## Kobo

EleGirl said:


> Why would a person marry someone and then not want to spend time with them?
> 
> Keep in mind that she is also working, saving, cleaning cooking, fixing, etc.
> 
> What is the point of marriage if the couple has no relationship outside of chores?


He could have grown up in a home with that as an example of how marriage works. He could like a lot of alone time. Many reasons that don't equal that he doesn't care about her happiness. Could that mean the end of the relationship because that's a deal breaker? Sure


----------



## Kobo

EleGirl said:


> Yes, like a lot of people on TAM and in the world at large, my mate selector is broken.
> 
> Sometimes looking at extreme cases can help to identify issues that happen in the population at large.
> 
> On this thread we are talking about women who are in marriages with men who will not spend any time with them and how do nothing do meet their wife's most important emotianl needs.
> 
> Several other women have posted about what is going in their marriages. These are not marriages in which they are squabbling about 4 hours a week vs. 6 hours a week. they re marriage in which the guy just blows her off. Sure he might work, so does she. He might clean, so does she. He might be a good father. She's a good mother. But there is no relationship between the husband and wife.


And our sub-discussion is about whether or not 2 people can disagree with how different areas of a relationship should work and still care for each other. I believe they can. You apparently don't.


----------



## EleGirl

Kobo said:


> And our sub-discussion is about whether or not 2 people can disagree with how different areas of a relationship should work and still care for each other. I believe they can. You apparently don't.


You are twisting what I have said.

I have posted more than once on this thread that it's about communicating needs and feelings clearly, then talking about it. It about each spouse caring what the other feels, thinks and needs even if they do not agree with it. When two people do not agree on something they need to talk it out and negotiate a solution. And then they both need to follow through on whatever the agreed solution is.

When a person ignores what their spouse brings up and just blows them off it's showing indifference to their spouse's feelings and needs. That is not caring about their spouse.


----------



## EleGirl

Originally Posted by EleGirl View Post 


Kobo said:


> Why would a person marry someone and then not want to spend time with them?
> 
> Keep in mind that she is also working, saving, cleaning cooking, fixing, etc.
> 
> What is the point of marriage if the couple has no relationship outside of chores?





Kobo said:


> He could have grown up in a home with that as an example of how marriage works. He could like a lot of alone time. Many reasons that don't equal that he doesn't care about her happiness. Could that mean the end of the relationship because that's a deal breaker? Sure


Do you think that if a woman decides to withhold sex completely after marriage that she still loves and cares for her husband? Even though he tells her how much it hurts him to be rejected.. that it's ripping his heart out? If she ignores his telling her that, does she really care for him and his wellbeing?


----------



## yeah_right

I think the article, and original point of the thread, were about a husband and wife who love each other but aren't connected in the way most women want (refer to your standard love language and his needs, her needs). This was not meant to talk about the cheaters, relationships where one spouse is out of love or where one spouse is simply an a$$hat by contributing nothing to the family/household.

If the couple still has love, I think many problems can be solved, and divorces averted, with effective communication. And unfortunately, it probably needs to be the woman who changes her communication style vs. the man changing his level of emotional understanding. If you want to debate the fairness of the that, go for it, but I think saving the marriage is more important.

Example translation -
"Are you going out with the guys AGAIN?" = nagging

"You've been golfing 6 of the last 7 weekends. This weekend you and I are going alone for sushi, movie and then you're going to fvck me in the shower" = not nagging

The wife gets her quality time with husband, he doesn't feel nagged and both get a good dinner and sex. Win!


----------



## southbound

I had a walk away wife over four years ago. I thought things were fine. She asked for a divorce suddenly, but traced things back to about ten years or so. She basically said I didn’t like doing things she liked anymore, such as vacation spots, we didn’t communicate anymore, and I didn’t like playing board games.

Up to this point, she had mentioned those items before, but she never acted as though they were deal breakers or divorce material. Was I supposed to think because she wasn’t pleased that I wasn’t a board game player that it could lead to divorce some day? I never saw that example growing up.

I think what I saw growing up is part of who I am. I had a wonderful childhood. It was one of those Leave It to Beaver lives where everything seemed great. Back in those days, it seemed like a man being a good provider, good father, good person, and a man who did his share, was enough. Looking back, I never saw anything to the contrary. I’m sure that shaped me as a husband. I didn’t realize things that people consider needs. 

Did I blow off my wife’s complaints? I didn’t mean to. I had some things I wasn’t happy with too that seemed equal to her things, but it sure wasn’t divorce material. Someone mentioned if they need a 2x4 to get the point across. As a guy, I would sometimes say yes. I will admit, I thought the things she mentioned was just venting. It never dawned on me that not liking a vacation spot she wanted and not being all excited for the two months before it happened was saying to her that I didn’t care for her anymore. It never crossed my mind. So, if it were that important, yes, she needed a 2x4. 

I guess I was raised to be a little tough and always look at the good and not the bad. We talk of needs being met, but that isn’t always logical in other areas of life. If college had met my emotional needs, for example, I would have skipped a lot of the research papers and slept later, but that just isn’t how it works. That’s probably a lame example, but I assume the point is made. 

I didn’t write this to try and prove the women wrong, not at all, I’m just saying how my brain works, and how it apparently worked much differently than hers.


----------



## EleGirl

yeah_right said:


> I think the article, and original point of the thread, were about a husband and wife who love each other but aren't connected in the way most women want (refer to your standard love language and his needs, her needs). This was not meant to talk about the cheaters, relationships where one spouse is out of love or where one spouse is simply an a$$hat by contributing nothing to the family/household.
> 
> If the couple still has love, I think many problems can be solved, and divorces averted, with effective communication. And unfortunately, it probably needs to be the woman who changes her communication style vs. the man changing his level of emotional understanding. If you want to debate the fairness of the that, go for it, but I think saving the marriage is more important.
> 
> Example translation -
> "Are you going out with the guys AGAIN?" = nagging
> 
> "You've been golfing 6 of the last 7 weekends. This weekend you and I are going alone for sushi, movie and then you're going to fvck me in the shower" = not nagging
> 
> The wife gets her quality time with husband, he doesn't feel nagged and both get a good dinner and sex. Win!


I agree that is not nagging. But some people do not respond to that either.


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> I had a walk away wife over four years ago. I thought things were fine. She asked for a divorce suddenly, but traced things back to about ten years or so. She basically said I didn’t like doing things she liked anymore, such as vacation spots, we didn’t communicate anymore, and I didn’t like playing board games.
> 
> Up to this point, she had mentioned those items before, but she never acted as though they were deal breakers or divorce material. Was I supposed to think because she wasn’t pleased that I wasn’t a board game player that it could lead to divorce some day? I never saw that example growing up.
> 
> I think what I saw growing up is part of who I am. I had a wonderful childhood. It was one of those Leave It to Beaver lives where everything seemed great. Back in those days, it seemed like a man being a good provider, good father, good person, and a man who did his share, was enough. Looking back, I never saw anything to the contrary. I’m sure that shaped me as a husband. I didn’t realize things that people consider needs.
> 
> Did I blow off my wife’s complaints? I didn’t mean to. I had some things I wasn’t happy with too that seemed equal to her things, but it sure wasn’t divorce material. Someone mentioned if they need a 2x4 to get the point across. As a guy, I would sometimes say yes. I will admit, I thought the things she mentioned was just venting. It never dawned on me that not liking a vacation spot she wanted and not being all excited for the two months before it happened was saying to her that I didn’t care for her anymore. It never crossed my mind. So, if it were that important, yes, she needed a 2x4.
> 
> I guess I was raised to be a little tough and always look at the good and not the bad. We talk of needs being met, but that isn’t always logical in other areas of life. If college had met my emotional needs, for example, I would have skipped a lot of the research papers and slept later, but that just isn’t how it works. That’s probably a lame example, but I assume the point is made.
> 
> I didn’t write this to try and prove the women wrong, not at all, I’m just saying how my brain works, and how it apparently worked much differently than hers.


It does sound like your wife did not communicate clearly for sure.

That is why I like "His Needs, Her Needs". It makes people evaluate their own needs. And then they have to clearly tell their spouse what they are and how to meet them.. and both spouses do this.

My bet is that if she had thought deeper, it was more about you two not having common interests. The solution is to develop new common interests and/or rekindle old ones.


----------



## yeah_right

EleGirl said:


> I agree that is not nagging. But some people do not respond to that either.


Then I think that problem goes beyond this article. That's probably more of an issue where the love is gone or the spouse is just not a caring person. All the communicating in the world can't fix a selfish d-bag.


----------



## EleGirl

yeah_right said:


> Then I think that problem goes beyond this article. That's probably more of an issue where the love is gone or the spouse is just not a caring person. All the communicating in the world can't fix a selfish d-bag.


Actually, if I follow Kobo's argument. He's not a d-bag. He just does not agree with her. But probably still loves and cares for her.


----------



## Anon Pink

The bolded parts are the exact words my husband has said to me in his defense.




southbound said:


> I had a walk away wife over four years ago. I thought things were fine. She asked for a divorce suddenly, but traced things back to about ten years or so. She basically said I didn’t like doing things she liked anymore, such as vacation spots, we didn’t communicate anymore, and I didn’t like playing board games.
> 
> Up to this point, she had mentioned those items before, but she *never acted as though they were deal breakers or divorce material.* Was I supposed to think because she wasn’t pleased that I wasn’t a board game player that it could lead to divorce some day? I *never saw that example growing up.*
> 
> *I think what I saw growing up is part of who I am. I had a wonderful childhood. It was one of those Leave It to Beaver lives where everything seemed great. Back in those days, it seemed like a man being a good provider, good father, good person, and a man who did his share, was enough.  Looking back, I never saw anything to the contrary. I’m sure that shaped me as a husband. I didn’t realize things that people consider needs. *
> 
> Did I blow off my wife’s complaints? I didn’t mean to. I *had some things I wasn’t happy with too that seemed equal to her things, but it sure wasn’t divorce material. * Someone mentioned if they need a 2x4 to get the point across. As a guy, I would sometimes say yes. I will admit, I *thought the things she mentioned was just venting. It never dawned on me* that not liking a vacation spot she wanted and not being all excited for the two months before it happened was saying to her that I didn’t care for her anymore. It *never crossed my mind.* So, if it were that important, yes, she needed a 2x4.
> 
> I *guess I was raised to be a little tough and always look at the good and not the bad. *We talk of needs being met, but that isn’t always logical in other areas of life. If college had met my emotional needs, for example, I would have skipped a lot of the research papers and slept later, but that just isn’t how it works. That’s probably a lame example, but I assume the point is made.
> 
> I didn’t write this to try and prove the women wrong, not at all, I’m just saying how my brain works, and how it apparently worked much differently than hers.




While you were going along thinking you were following the fine example your parents set, your wife was pining for something different. I doubt board games was the deal breaker.

The underlined parts are things he has said MANY times when we would talk to try to work this out. I can't tell you how many times he has said "my role is to provide and I'm doing it." As if that's the only thing a wife wants from her husband. He just couldn't hear me.

I'm sorry Southbound, I hope the pain of the divorce is over. I didn't quote your post to pour salt in your wounds but to illustrate just how deaf those defensive shields can make us.


----------



## Joe Cool

Anonymous07 said:


> I completely disagree.
> 
> He was oblivious even with the issues laid out in front of him. *Nothing got through to him until I told him I was done and said I couldn't take it anymore*. I was ready to walk away and had researched the divorce process for the state we live in. It wasn't until I had one foot out the door that he started to listen and said he would change. He didn't think things were "that bad" because he was happy.


You disagree strangely right before you make my point for me. This is where you LISTEN instead of talk so you can grasp the point being made. Dozens of experts say men are SHOCKED about Walkaways announcements. You are just did it in your own post right above this. Cheese and crackers already.



always_alone said:


> I think you need to at least consider the possibility that sometimes THE MAN IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION.


That is my point. He isn't paying attention because his wife is talking to him like a woman. 



Anonymous07 said:


> I don't think you should have to threaten divorce for your spouse to wake up and start listening. It should happen long before that.


It isn't a threat but it is required to be clear, to avoid being ignored and to get the point across it's fix or else. That doesn't mean he will, it just means he will get your point it's a choice fix or lose the love of his wife forever. 



GTdad said:


> You'd think so, wouldn't you.
> 
> But for some men and women things have to get to that point before the point is made.


Right. All the men that are SHOCKED which is nearly all of them and not because they don't think you will leave. It's because they did not know it was even that serious because women are NOT CLEAR laying out the stark choice of CHOOSE FIX OR LOSE YOUR WIFE.

Elegirl mentions no statistics are available but that's an argumentative copout since experts on WALKAWAY WIFE SYNDROME quite unanimously agree the husbands are SHOCKED and its not because of the bull$**** asserted by some posters that prefer to talk instead of listen and learn by lobbing tiny minority expceptions instead of consider the point. 

Elegirl has benn in the forum for years, has been thru two marriages, and has posted over 20,000 times. She may be the only female on earth with those stats yet wants to represent her minority view as a possible norm since their are no stats available. That's absurd. 

It is well known husband after husband is SHOCKED by Wayward wife announcements and it isn't because they thought their wife wouldn't leave. 

Yes it is because they are not paying attention. WHY? 

Because their wife is not being CLEAR IN A MANNER UNDERSTOOD BY A MAN IT IS OOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEER UNLESS IT GETS FIXED PRONTO. 

Argue all you want and you are destined to repeat the same mistake as all the others that came before and will come after you. 

If you cant consider the point more intensely then you are beyond help so you do you.


----------



## EleGirl

Joe Cool said:


> That is my point. He isn't paying attention because his wife is talking to him like a woman.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Because their wife is not being CLEAR IN A MANNER UNDERSTOOD BY A MAN IT IS OOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEER UNLESS IT GETS FIXED PRONTO.


So it's a woman's responsibility to talk to her husband in the same manner as a man would speak. He has no responsibility to learn how women speak. 

That 'man speak' is to threaten to divorce. She has to do that for him to take her seriously.

Got it.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> I have a question here for the women here who feel that their husbands are not paying attention to the things that you are telling them. Are you being clear.. how clear? Can you give some examples of how clear you are being?


This still misses the point Ele. it's only clear if you understand the message.

I had a roomate that was a math teacher in one of our local high school. I suck at math and always have. She I guess felt a personal vendetta to get me to learn some. so she explains some algebra to me one night that her advanced high schoolers were learning

I promise you 100% she was being very clear in her message

I further promise you 100% I still have no idea what the hell she was talking about. 

She was clear but I still don't get it.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> So it's a woman's responsibility to talk to her husband in the same manner as a man would speak. He has no responsibility to learn how women speak.
> 
> That 'man speak' is to threaten to divorce. She has to do that for him to take her seriously.
> 
> Got it.


OR maybe they could handle things like adults and try and communicate in a manner that both feel heard. Both say thier part. Both walk away felling validated.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> This still misses the point Ele. it's only clear if you understand the message.
> 
> I had a roomate that was a math teacher in one of our local high school. I suck at math and always have. She I guess felt a personal vendetta to get me to learn some. so she explains some algebra to me one night that her advanced high schoolers were learning
> 
> I promise you 100% she was being very clear in her message
> 
> I further promise you 100% I still have no idea what the hell she was talking about.
> 
> She was clear but I still don't get it.


Math is quite a bit different than the needs of a spouse.

I need for use to spend more time together, we need to start having dates once a week... that's not a hard thing to understand. Nor is it a hard thing to do.


----------



## Joe Cool

EleGirl said:


> I have a question here for the women here who feel that their husbands are not paying attention to the things that you are telling them. Are you being clear.. how clear? Can you give some examples of how clear you are being?


I have a question for the wives that thought they were clear. 

Was you husband still SHOCKED when you packed your $hit and moved out and divorced his sorry azz because he didn't change anything while he begged and pleaded you to give him a chance to fix things while he swore the whole time he had no idea things were that serious?

If he was SHOCKED then despite your belief you were clear...

YOU WERE NOT

And it was not because he didn't think you would do it. It is because he did not realize it was a DEAL KILLER and LOSING YOU was a REAL AND VERY LIKELY PROBABILITY

Never mind answering because the answer is YES according to every expert I am aware of that has written about or ever discussed WALKAWAY WIFE SYNDROME. 

Every Phucking ONE OF THEM. EVERY SINGLE ONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION to my rather well read knowledge on the subject. 

If you want to fix your marriage damaged by your husbands neglect of your emotional and romantic needs then you MUST make it CLEAR it is FIX OR ELSE LOSE YOU or he will not COMPREHEND the seriousness of your NAGGING. 

Sorry. That's the way it is. 

CHOOSE Save marriage or PRETEND you were Not warned. 

TO BE CLEAR that does not mean your husband will care or fix the issue but STEP ONE is still to lay it out IT IS A CHOICE between 

FIX IMMEDIATELY OR LOSE YOU. 

Anything less is derelict. 

NEVER FORGET Michelle Weiner Davis says MEN ARE CAPABLE OF REMARKABLE TURNAROUNDS IIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFF...

They receive the message CLEARLY and want to fix your marriage.


----------



## soccermom2three

"I really want you to go to bed when I go to bed and not stay up until 2am playing on the computer every night." What is there not to get? What is not clear?


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> OR maybe they could handle things like adults and try and communicate in a manner that both feel heard. Both say thier part. Both walk away felling validated.


I agree. I've said over and over that they should listen to each other, talk about whatever is at hand, negotiate and meet each other's needs. 

But apparently that is not going to work because women do not use the same words that a man would.

Joe Cool says that will only work if she speaks like a man because men cannot understand women. And to speak like a man she has to threaten divorce.


----------



## EleGirl

I have a question here for the women here who feel that their husbands are not paying attention to the things that you are telling them. Are you being clear.. how clear? Can you give some examples of how clear you are being?


----------



## EleGirl

soccermom2three said:


> "I really want you to go to bed when I go to bed and not stay up until 2am playing on the computer every night." What is there not to get? What is not clear?


Does he acknowledge that you have told him this?


Has he started to go to bed at the same time with you? Or has he negotiated something different?

Or did he just ignore it?


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Math is quite a bit different than the needs of a spouse.
> 
> I need for use to spend more time together, we need to start having dates once a week... that's not a hard thing to understand. Nor is it a hard thing to do.


Bull it is for some men. If you were raised with the idea that going to work and paying the bills is all that is needed to make your wife happy then her complaining about not having commincation and date night is going to sound like a complete foreign concept to him. And plenty of men even here seem to be confused that's not the case so clearly it happens.


You assume way to much. Plenty struggle with these concepts of what it means to be a good spouse. as you pointed out earlier a billion dollar year industry in marriage books, marriage counseling, and communication wouldn't exist if everyone found these concepts easy. Divorce rate also wouldn't be as high as it is.


----------



## WandaJ

Whenever we have those shocked husband posting about their WAW, soon enough they admit she was saying those things to him, he just wasn't taking it seriously". It is hard to empathize when things work well for you.


----------



## Wolf1974

WandaJ said:


> Whenever we have those shocked husband posting about their WAW, soon enough they admit she was saying those things to him, he just wasn't taking it seriously". It is hard to empathize when things work well for you.


Taking what part seriously? What she was upset about or that she was leaving?


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Bull it is for some men. If you were raised with the idea that going to work and paying the bills is all that is needed to make your wife happy then her complaining about not having commincation and date night is going to sound like a complete foreign concept to him. And plenty of men even here seem to be confused that's not the case so clearly it happens.
> 
> 
> You assume way to much. Plenty struggle with these concepts of what it means to be a good spouse. as you pointed out earlier a billion dollar year industry in marriage books, marriage counseling, and communication wouldn't exist if everyone found these concepts easy. Divorce rate also wouldn't be as high as it is.


So you want sympathy for the good men who did not learn that a good husband spends time with his wife, talks to her, etc.

So I guess maybe more sympathy is also in order for the good women who are taught that sex is not something that women enjoy. She was taught that it's just for procreation. So when she is not adventuresome in bed or ends the sex life except when she wants a child, that understandable and acceptable. 

I don't see much or any sympathy on TAM for these poor misunderstood women.

Why are we to have such understanding only for men who do not get it?


----------



## soccermom2three

This was back in the early days. He would look guilty and it would get better for a while then he would just go back to whatever he was doing before. Now years, later he still goes to bed later than me but earlier than 2am. Maybe once a week he comes to bed when I'm still awake. I think at this point it is what it is. Ugh, last week we had a big blow up about this subject, coming to bed late and having sex at night and the morning, yada, yada. I don't feel safe talking about it here, the men are not very understanding.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> So you want sympathy for the good men who did not learn that a good husband spends time with his wife, talks to her, etc.
> 
> So I guess maybe more sympathy is also in order for the women who are taught that sex is not something that women enjoy. She was taught that it's just for procreation. So when she is not adventuresome in bed or ends the sex life except when she wants a child, that understandable and acceptable.
> 
> I don't see much or any sympathy on TAM for these poor misunderstood women.
> 
> Why are we to have such understanding only for men who do not get it?



Yes 100% you get sympathy for both. And if you are trying to get me to woman bash and say it's all her fault for the woes of the world don't bother. I don't see things through the singular lens of gender. I am advocating BOTH spouses need help and understanding. Sorry if your more comfortable blaming men. I'm more of a solution finder if we can fix good marriages


----------



## RandomDude

EleGirl said:


> So I guess maybe more sympathy is also in order for the good women who are taught that sex is not something that women enjoy. She was taught that it's just for procreation. So when she is not adventuresome in bed or ends the sex life except when she wants a child, that understandable and acceptable.
> 
> I don't see much or any sympathy on TAM for these poor misunderstood women.


LOL! Are you kidding me?

Have you really seen any man here who advocated or supported such a thing? Hell the men here are asking people how to give their wives mind blowing orgasm, though most of them would be thankful for their wives to even give them a chance!


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Yes 100% you get sympathy for both. And if you are trying to get me to woman bash and say it's all her fault for the woes of the world don't bother. I don't see things through the singular lens of gender. I am advocating BOTH spouses need help and understanding. Sorry if your more comfortable blaming men. I'm more of a solution finder if we can fix good marriages


I am not more comfortable blaming men. Not sure why you would even say that. Nor do I look at things through a single lense.

If a husband kept telling his wife that she is not meeting his needs and she just ignores it, I would be just as hard on her. And yes there are a good number of women who do this. 

Did you look at the 11 reasons men leave their wives thread? The quote below is from that thread. He was justified in leaving her. On that thread every woman who posted said that they agreed that those are good reasons for him to leave. It's not a male vs female thing. It's a people thing. 



> *3. When his wife became a glorified roommate.*
> 
> "The last year together we felt more like roommates than lovers. She stopped being interested in spending time with me, we stopped showering together and began sleeping at opposite times. She was generally unhappy all of the time. I really wanted to salvage the marriage, but I knew it was over when she finally told me that she just didn't love me."


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> LOL! Are you kidding me?
> 
> Have you really seen any man here who advocated or supported such a thing? Hell the men here are asking people how to give their wives mind blowing orgasm, though most of them would be thankful for their wives to even give them a chance!


I'm not sure what you are saying. 

What don't the men on here advocate or support?


----------



## RandomDude




----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


>


Why not answer my question?


----------



## RandomDude

It was a response to your quote, I assumed you would have picked it up. Your post here: 



> So I guess maybe more sympathy is also in order for the good women who are taught that sex is not something that women enjoy. She was taught that it's just for procreation. So when she is not adventuresome in bed or ends the sex life except when she wants a child, that understandable and acceptable.
> 
> I don't see much or any sympathy on TAM for these poor misunderstood women.


Implies that men don't have much or any sympathy for women in the above mentioned situations, which I jumped in to correct.

We're not 13th century!!! Some are sure, but definitely not in most countries.


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> It was a response to your quote, I assumed you would have picked it up. Your post here:
> 
> 
> 
> Implies that men don't have much or any sympathy for women in the above mentioned situations, which I jumped in to correct.
> 
> We're not 13th century!!! Some are sure, but definitely not in most countries.


I don't think that men on TAM have much sympathy at all for a wife who does not want sex with her husband or a wife who wants only missionary and will not do anything else.

What I see is men telling other men to just leave her. Sure some of the men stay in sexless marriages. But that is not usually the advice given.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> I am not more comfortable blaming men. Not sure why you would even say that. Nor do I look at things through a single lense.
> 
> If a husband kept telling his wife that she is not meeting his needs and she just ignores it, I would be just as hard on her. And yes there are a good number of women who do this.
> 
> Did you look at the 11 reasons men leave their wives thread? The quote below is from that thread. He was justified in leaving her. On that thread every woman who posted said that they agreed that those are good reasons for him to leave. It's not a male vs female thing. It's a people thing.


Dunno probably the consistent posts about how husbands don't do this or that without acknowledgement that maybe some just don't have the ability to really understand what is being communicated to them. True the real argument could be that if they were that way why did they get married in the first place but here we are just the same.

I don't see you acknowledge anything about the possbility that some just may not get it but Instead make some off the wall comment about women with low sex drives in marriage. Your post comes across as well we, TAM men I presume, blame women who don't know how to be sexual in marriage so let's blame men who don't know how to communicate...... Ok then that real solves how to fix communication issues or low sex issues as if that's what this thread was about anyway


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> I don't think that men on TAM have much sympathy at all for a wife who does not want sex with her husband or a wife who wants only missionary and will not do anything else.
> 
> What I see is men telling other men to just leave her. Sure some of the men stay in sexless marriages. But that is not usually the advice given.



Again. Men on tam....more one way gender talk. 

I have sympathy for her If she was perhaps deeply religious and thought this is what sex meant. Or CSA victim and had problems sexually.

I honestly would and HAVE many times called the guys on the carpet and said if you knew this prior to marriage and this was a deal breaker why did you marry her...that's totally on you sir,,,,,. Actually I'm not the only guy who says this but we are just the men of TAM so......

And yes regardless of the issue of why and even if she is getting divorced I would tell her she needs to work to improve this area of her life for her and her spouse.....same as I would and have told guys who struggle with commincation or like Ive done in this thread tell a guy that their is more to being a good husband than just working hard

But again I'm just a guy of TAM


----------



## RandomDude

Show me, where is there a thread with any woman who grew up in that type of culture and did not recieve sympathy?

As for leaving as advice, it's sound advice and yes it's a great option for both men and women when they are unsatisfied with their partners. Dead limbs are amputated for a reason.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Dunno probably the consistent posts about how husbands don't do this or that without acknowledgement that maybe some just don't have the ability to really understand what is being communicated to them. True the real argument could be that if they were that way why did they get married in the first place but here we are just the same.


We are on a thread that is talking about women who feel that their husband's are ignoring what the women are saying... to the point of the women giving up on the marriage. So of course I'm talking about that topic. Geez.. Are some men (and women) incapable of understanding their spouse. Absolutely. Are some incapable of addressing listening and talking things through with their spouse and being present. Abosolutely. At some point the spouse who has seriously unmet needs is most likely going to leave. That's a fact. 

Why marry them in the first place. Because a lot of this does not become clear until a couple has been married for some time. A lot of people. People change after marriage.

We could ask the same question of all the people here who have spouses who cheated... why did they marry a cheater? Well because the cheater did not show who they really are before marriage. That's why.



Wolf1974 said:


> I don't see you acknowledge anything about the possbility that some just may not get it but Instead make some off the wall comment about women with low sex drives in marriage. Your post comes across as well we, TAM men I presume, blame women who don't know how to be sexual in marriage so let's blame men who don't know how to communicate...... Ok then that real solves how to fix communication issues or low sex issues as if that's what this thread was about anyway



Boy are you twisting things. I brought up the LD or withholding women because they are in the same boat as a guy who does not get it. Neither of them get that their spouse has needs that are reasonable. Both hear their spouse's requests and talk as nagging and unreasonable. The two are relevant to the discussion because in both cases, there are people who apparently have no ability to understand what the other wants and needs according to your scenario.


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> Show me, where is there a thread with any woman who grew up in that type of culture and did not recieve sympathy?
> 
> As for leaving as advice, it's sound advice and yes it's a great option for both men and women when they are unsatisfied with their partners. Dead limbs are amputated for a reason.


There are women in the USA today whose were brought up to believe that women do not enjoy sex or that only bad women are enjoy sex, or that men just want sex and women don't. 

Just like there are apparently men who are brought up to believe that they only need to support their wife, and protect and fix some things around the house. That this is all marriage is. And they cannot understand when a wife actually want to spend time with them.


----------



## RandomDude

Well that be better 

I think your previous quote just rubbed me the wrong way in what was implied, tis all


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Again. Men on tam....more one way gender talk.
> 
> I have sympathy for her If she was perhaps deeply religious and thought this is what sex meant. Or CSA victim and had problems sexually.
> 
> I honestly would and HAVE many times called the guys on the carpet and said if you knew this prior to marriage and this was a deal breaker why did you marry her...that's totally on you sir,,,,,. Actually I'm not the only guy who says this but we are just the men of TAM so......
> 
> And yes regardless of the issue of why and even if she is getting divorced I would tell her she needs to work to improve this area of her life for her and her spouse.....same as I would and have told guys who struggle with commincation or like Ive done in this thread tell a guy that their is more to being a good husband than just working hard
> 
> But again I'm just a guy of TAM


We are on TAM. I can find a lot of examples here of threads that show what I was saying. So that's why I referred to TAM... it's a source that we both know. 

Your goal here seems to be to prove that any woman who, after years of clearly telling her husband that there are problems and tries to get him to work on the marriage with her is unreasonable and just does not understand the poor guy. As some one said.. its her fault for not talking like a man.

Have fun with that.

My goal is to help people realize that everyone, both men and women, need to take their spouse seriously, pay attention and work on filling each other's needs. A lot of people have no idea how to build a good, strong passionate marriage. It is something that our society does not teach people. So I try to give people, men and women, some tools to learn this.

If you want to take twist what I am saying to go for it. Have fun with that.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> We are on a thread that is talking about women who feel that their husband's are ignoring what the women are saying... to the point of the women giving up on the marriage. So of course I'm talking about that topic. Geez.. Are some men (and women) incapable of understanding their spouse. Absolutely. Are some incapable of addressing listening and talking things through with their spouse and being present. Abosolutely. At some point the spouse who has seriously unmet needs is most likely going to leave. That's a fact.
> 
> Why marry them in the first place. Because a lot of this does not become clear until a couple has been married for some time. A lot of people. People change after marriage.
> 
> We could ask the same question of all the people here who have spouses who cheated... why did they marry a cheater? Well because the cheater did not show who they really are before marriage. That's why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy are you twisting things. I brought up the LD or withholding women because they are in the same boat as a guy who does not get it. Neither of them get that their spouse has needs that are reasonable. Both hear their spouse's requests and talk as nagging and unreasonable. The two are relevant to the discussion because in both cases, there are people who apparently have no ability to understand what the other wants and needs according to your scenario.


I'm not twisting anything. You asked why I thought you were making this needlessly about gender and that's my thought on it. 

I have sympathy for both a man and woman who is trying for thier marriage but doesn't have the emotional or intellectual tools to get the job accomplished. I absolutely do and have adovcated for the support of both. Not just men. The thread was why women leave men they love. First off that's kinda off cause they don't leave when they are in love..they leave when they have checked out or when they have had enough.....

So the real question was why do they fall out of love or check out. Lots of reasons. One that was discussed was communication. I purposed that some spouses....spouses NOT just men.....love thier SO but don't know how to communicate that or show it. That's it. pretty simple premise really...few dozen pages of projecting that's not what happend in my marriage and here we are.

Funny thing is all this is irrelevant in some marriages. because some of us just pick bad apples. Sounds like you got two. I had one. Wish she would have communicated but she chose not to. My guess is she didn't cause she didn't really want to feel guilty about what she wanted to do. And FYi I knew my wife was a cheater. bEFORE I married her. I was just foolish enoughy to think I could change her... And yes I do take full responsibility for that


But just because one woman cheated on me I don't assume they all will


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> We are on TAM. I can find a lot of examples here of threads that show what I was saying. So that's why I referred to TAM... it's a source that we both know.
> 
> _*Your goal here seems to be to prove that any woman who, after years of clearly telling her husband that there are problems and tries to get him to work on the marriage with her is unreasonable and just does not understand the poor guy. As some one said.. its her fault for not talking like a man.*_
> 
> Have fun with that.
> 
> My goal is to help people realize that everyone, both men and women, need to take their spouse seriously, pay attention and work on filling each other's needs. A lot of people have no idea how to build a good, strong passionate marriage. It is something that our society does not teach people. So I try to give people, men and women, some tools to learn this.
> 
> If you want to take twist what I am saying to go for it. Have fun with that.


Nice try. I never said any of that but twist away as you like lol

Actually what I have said. Post after post after post is pretty much your last paragraph..... All my posts are there for you to read again but that's what I have been saying all along


----------



## aine

Wolf1974 said:


> Pretty much seeing the resonated over and over. Not only this thread but others.
> 
> Wife. I clearly said what I need to be happy
> Husband. No clue she was unhappy
> 
> I have news for you if two people are involved in Communication and one had no clue about something then it was never effectively communicated. Notice I didn't say clearly I said effectively.
> 
> Sure you can dismiss it as he just wasn't listening. But all of them? Just no way. I think their is a big gap between what women think they are communicating and what men are understanding and vice versa. Now you can get defensive about it or not but if you want effective communication you better learn how to talk to your spouse.
> 
> For example the last couple pages about threatening. I can tell you without a doubt that's a way wrong approach with me. If my gf said you do this or I'm cheating I would be packing her bags for her. But I also would never turn her away if she came and told me how she was feeling and would ask us to work on something. Some guys may respond better to the threat....maybe that's what it takes to resonate with them.
> 
> Point being boys and girls is that if you want to be heard, understood and validated you better communicate in a manor the spouse gets it. That method would seemingly vary


I think you have made a valid point. Threatening seems to be our (men and women) response or fall back mode if things are not changing. The reality is that ultimatums do not motivate anyone, if anything it may well make matters worse. So what is the alternative when you are hitting your head against a wall continually? Trying to 'motivate' your partner to meet your needs is thankless if they take and don't give. So then ultimatums seem to be the next best thing?


----------



## RandomDude

Ex-wife brought up divorce, I just went OK, bring it! And well... we're finished! But that's just me, still it's better than her going "Oh hey, I'm vulnerable to an affair because this/that" - it would have changed my whole impression of her.

Besides we're very civil nowadays and co-operative co-parents, and she's still the woman I trust the most when it comes to my daughter. Not something that seems to be common in divorced families.


----------



## Wazza

Anon Pink said:


> But you weren't listened to because...defensive shields.
> 
> Go back through this thread and I think the running theme among the women is that they are not heard by their husbands. The running theme from the men..They do everything and still she complains.
> 
> Tell a woman she needs to alter her communication style and she will do her best to do so because she WANTS to be heard.


My experience is that women have their own defensive shields. And they are often dismissive of what you might call male communication styles. This video really helped me understand the differences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg

I'm pretty typical (maybe) in that at the time of Mrs Wazza's affair there were certain things I didn't realise were problems, but they were big to her. From my perspective she didn't communicate her issues at all, and from her perspective I wasn't listening. I was focussed on the nail.

However, roll forward, and I reached a stage in my marriage where the kids were adults. I had stayed for their sake and that was done. So I had a discussion with her about the core issues I saw in the marriage, and everything I had said was stuff I had said before. Except that I told her I was wondering whether the marriage had a future, or whether we should move towards divorce.

It shouldn't have to me that way (in my view), but until I articulated that option...for whatever reason, she started taking the things that were important to me more seriously.

I doubt I am anything unusual. Anon, I think you are seeing the females side because you are female. You have your own blinders, but you aren't aware of them.

I think what really matters is an attitude of giving, not taking. From both sides.


----------



## aine

Joe Cool said:


> If women were CLEAR their husbands would not be SHOCKED. SInce almost all husbands ARE SHOCKED in Wayward Wife Syndrome, your premise is flawed. Wives are NOT CLEAR NOR BLUNT
> 
> Now really let that sink in please.
> 
> Well.....Did you? Is it sunk in yet.
> 
> It is NOT POSSIBLE for a man to be SHOCKED his wife is leaving IF SHE WAS CLEAR.
> 
> Here is how you make it more clear.
> 
> 1. Something has to change or I do not see us married in the future. I am sad all the time, I don't feel like I love you any more and I daydream about leaving every hour of every day because I am convinced you are unable to love me the way I need to be loved. If you don't want to be with me any more because you don't love me any lomger then lets be adults abut it and accept that and make arrangements to divorce. My friend tootie has a lawyer she used and the number is 123-345-5678
> 
> ... then what you said.
> 
> 2. I want to separate so I can examine if I want a future with you. Every day I cry myself thru the day when you are not here because I no longer feel loved by you as you have been emotionally unavailable for several years, do not hear my desperate cries for help and I am convinced you never will be able to make me happy again. I also doubt I will ever be able to forgive you or trust with my heart again. My walls are so high around my heart that...
> 
> ... then what you said.
> 
> THAT %HIT IS CLEAR and ANY MAN that does NOT WANT TO LOSE THE LOVE OF HIS LIFE will be SHOCKED and FIX or say I don't care and say fine lets divorce.


Women generally don't communicate this way. Why is the onus on them completely to communicate in a way that is generally alien to them. Surely if a man cares about his wife he will also try to understand, it should not be completely on the woman's shoulders, it should be both trying to figure out what is wrong and what can be done. I think this kind of 'take it or leave it approach' is why men end up shocked at their WAWS. If you care about your partner they shouldn't have to produce spreadsheets etc, I for one don't want my marriage to be another office meeting with reports etc.


----------



## Red Sonja

EleGirl said:


> I have a question here for the women here who feel that their husbands are not paying attention to the things that you are telling them. Are you being clear.. how clear? Can you give some examples of how clear you are being?


A few examples of what I have said to my husband (multiple times over the years):

"I need to have sex with you at least once a week. We can even pick a specific day of the week if that would work for you.”
“I need you to stay off of your laptop on week nights until after our daughter goes to bed at 8:30pm, she is young and needs your attention.”
“I need you to help me when I have a medical emergency. Please drive me to the emergency room the next time I need sutures.”
“I need you to stop calling me ugly names, screaming and acting out when you are angry. Please speak calmly to me and stop breaking things.”
“I need to know a few days in advance before you disappear (for days) into the desert with your astronomy equipment because I have to plan for it.”
“I need you to stop correcting my grammar, pronunciation and facts while I am speaking.”
“I need you to stop making nasty comments about the way I eat and drink.”
“I need you to get up and help me when I am carrying in a car load of grocery bags.”
“I would like to try marriage counseling, will you go with me?”

And finally:

“I am moving out as soon as I find a rental that allows me to keep my dogs. I will take {insert list of specific furniture}, my clothing, the car I use and my dogs.”

Is that clear enough? No matter, I no longer live with him and our daughter is now 21 years old. And, yes he acted enraged (at a level I had not before seen) and surprised when I did move out.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Joe Cool said:


> I have a question for the wives that thought they were clear.
> 
> Was you husband still SHOCKED when you packed your $hit and moved out and divorced his sorry azz because he didn't change anything while he begged and pleaded you to give him a chance to fix things while he swore the whole time he had no idea things were that serious?
> 
> If he was SHOCKED then despite your belief you were clear...
> 
> YOU WERE NOT
> 
> And it was not because he didn't think you would do it. It is because he did not realize it was a DEAL KILLER and LOSING YOU was a REAL AND VERY LIKELY PROBABILITY
> 
> Never mind answering because the answer is YES according to every expert I am aware of that has written about or ever discussed WALKAWAY WIFE SYNDROME.
> 
> Every Phucking ONE OF THEM. EVERY SINGLE ONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION to my rather well read knowledge on the subject.
> 
> If you want to fix your marriage damaged by your husbands neglect of your emotional and romantic needs then you MUST make it CLEAR it is FIX OR ELSE LOSE YOU or he will not COMPREHEND the seriousness of your NAGGING.
> 
> Sorry. That's the way it is.
> 
> CHOOSE Save marriage or PRETEND you were Not warned.
> 
> TO BE CLEAR that does not mean your husband will care or fix the issue but STEP ONE is still to lay it out IT IS A CHOICE between
> 
> FIX IMMEDIATELY OR LOSE YOU.
> 
> Anything less is derelict.
> 
> NEVER FORGET Michelle Weiner Davis says MEN ARE CAPABLE OF REMARKABLE TURNAROUNDS IIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFF...
> 
> They receive the message CLEARLY and want to fix your marriage.


Wow that's a huge rant. 

And yet instead of being open to the possibility that the wives had something important to say, you call it nagging. How utterly dismissive. 

I refuse to be with a man that I have to "Nag" it denotes to me that he is immature and not adult enough to be in a Marriage with. 

Does a woman have to hit a guy on the head with 2x4 to get his attention? I hope not. 

Jebus men own your shyte. Acknowledge that you didn't listen, didn't care to listen and should have done so, rather then palming off responsibility for your own failings over to her once again. 

Look at the post on the other thread, where women are reasonable enough to to say when the table were turned "Fair enough".


----------



## MachoMcCoy

Funny. I always thought the issue was that I was the only one who saw this as a problem (men SHOCKED to find out their wife had walked years prior even thought she explained it until she was "blue in the face"). 

Turns out we just hadn't adequately hashed out who is more at fault: men or women. 33 pages and not even a HINT of "So, what do we do about it?". 

So sad. It doesn't bode well for the future of marriage.


----------



## Forest

EleGirl said:


> I don't see much or any sympathy on TAM for these poor misunderstood women.


I don't think we are looking at the same TAM, then. This one thread has deteriorated into an absolute Russian dirge to the poor, misunderstood women. I think everyone is jumping ship.


----------



## RandomDude

Simple solution, man gives 100%, woman gives 100%, but that's unrealistic, it's always either 100/0, 20/80, 60/40, etc etc. 

50/50 ain't enough either.

Anyway we got a little side tracked with the word "cheat" on your link it seems.


----------



## MachoMcCoy

RandomDude said:


> Anyway we got a little side tracked with the word "cheat" on your link it seems.


I didn't create the link, I just copied and pasted.


----------



## Deejo

MachoMcCoy said:


> Turns out we just hadn't adequately hashed out who is more at fault: men or women. 33 pages and not even a HINT of "So, what do we do about it?".
> 
> So sad. It doesn't bode well for the future of marriage.


How 'bout that?


----------



## farsidejunky

Deejo said:


> Author says it at the bottom of the article:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wish men would stop acting like kicked little puppies.
> 
> If your wife is telling you there is a problem ... listen for cripes sake. Fix it. It's your job.
> 
> And if it can't be fixed, or you don't much feel like fixing it, then let things go with some dignity for both people rather than letting the relationship further devolve into apathy, disrespect, or infidelity.
> 
> We see the exact dynamic that the author outlines here all of the time.
> 
> What he is describing virtually verbatim ... is walkaway wife syndrome.
> 
> Do we make poor choices in partners? Without a doubt.
> 
> I'm sure you would find the same comment from the other gender about their choice of spouses as well.
> 
> You know what I'd really like to see this year?
> 
> Men around here stop b!tching about how bad their marriage was, or is, and instead post or respond from a proactive, self-aware and positive place.
> 
> The 'I've been kicked in the balls, and don't know if I'll ever be the same' is really wearing f*cking thin with me.
> 
> Help each other, and we just might help ourselves.


Or simply...MAN UP.


----------



## Wolf1974

MachoMcCoy said:


> Funny. I always thought the issue was that I was the only one who saw this as a problem (men SHOCKED to find out their wife had walked years prior even thought she explained it until she was "blue in the face").
> 
> Turns out we just hadn't adequately hashed out who is more at fault: men or women. 33 pages and not even a HINT of "So, what do we do about it?".
> 
> So sad. It doesn't bode well for the future of marriage.



No certainly not. Are the forefront of any great relationship is communication You don't have that it's really just a matter of time

I kinda think marriage is on its way out the door anyway and maybe thats just the way it should be


----------



## Wolf1974

aine said:


> I think you have made a valid point. Threatening seems to be our (men and women) response or fall back mode if things are not changing. The reality is that ultimatums do not motivate anyone, if anything it may well make matters worse. So what is the alternative when you are hitting your head against a wall continually? Trying to 'motivate' your partner to meet your needs is thankless if they take and don't give. *So then ultimatums seem to be the next best thing?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I think maybe I see it as the last ditch effort. So if instead of brinig up the issue that is ignored you state the new if we don't get counseling I will leave.
> 
> If they didn't care before then they won't care now If that's said. But then at least you know
> 
> If they do care but didn't know how serious this was that should be a wake up call that this has to get changed and if they do care would go to counseling I'm a big fan of it especially for fixing fundamental communicaton gaps
> 
> Finally if they don't care and then you leave then that's one them. nothing at all wrong with self preservation and at times divorce is the only way that's going to get done.


----------



## hookares

It would appear that poor choices don't begin with cheating by one or both marriage partners. I keep reading about wives insisting they are neglected by their spouse because their husband either works too many hours or they devote too much time to other interests outside the home. I suspect that both were happening before the marriage for one reason or another and the ladies decided to overlook it in the short term thinking something would miraculously happen to change him after marriage.
Young people don't always understand the term "necessity".


----------



## southbound

One thing I learned in marriage is that men and women are often geared so differently. I don't think we often have a break down in communication because we want to, but we are coming from such different areas. 

We have talked about men thinking the wife's requests are petty and not taking them seriously. Well, that is probably the case at times. Not because we don't care about them, but we are just basing it on our own feelings, which I see now is wrong.

Sure, I heard my x wife say she wished i would play board games more, but who would have thought that would cause her to think I didn't care for her anymore because i didn't very often?

If roles were reversed and I had been telling people that I was having trouble at home and thinking about divorcing my wife, and then hit them with the board game situation, I feel like I wouldn't have been taken seriously, yet it was a serious thing to her. 

Personally, I wasn't satisfied with our sex life at all, and I told her straight forward many times, but she never seemed to take that seriously. In return, I was not going to divorce her over it.

As a guy, I feel that if a person truly loved someone deep down to begin with, it will take a lot to lose attraction to them. If it's just infatuation, maybe not playing board games and not coming to bed when the other wants will do it.


----------



## yeah_right

I see defensiveness on both sides. I will just reiterate that a shift worked in my marriage. I started communicating more like a man on critical issues. Incredibly, two years later, he has the ability to listen like a woman. He can now sense when something abstract is bothering me and talks to me about it...even when it's dumb girl stuff. I'm sure in his mind he might be rolling his eyes...but that's no different from me sometimes thinking that being this blunt is akin to talking to a toddler learning to potty-train. 

But hey, it works (for us). We're happy, close to 25 years. It's worth it to me. So what if I had to make the change first? It's not a p!ssing match, but a partnership. When BOTH spouses are willing to compromise, you have a chance. And yes, I said compromise. Neither party can have it 100% their way the whole marriage. I guess I will count myself lucky.

Unfortunately, a lot of the examples of ex wives and husbands on this thread suggest that no amount of communication savvy would fix these issues. When you have an abusive, cheating, narcissistic spouse situation, the best communication is the divorce decree. This discussion is not about those marriages.


----------



## always_alone

It's actually kind of fascinating how this thread turned into a case study in its own subject matter. If it were a marriage, I'm betting the wives would be walking away, and the husbands would be SHOCKED.


----------



## always_alone

MachoMcCoy said:


> Turns out we just hadn't adequately hashed out who is more at fault: men or women. 33 pages and not even a HINT of "So, what do we do about it?".


A recap, for those who may have missed it:

1. Own your sh1t!
2. Listen! Don't assume that everything your spouse says is useless blah, blah, blah. If they are talking to you, they have something to say. Pay attention, you might learn something.
3. Recognize that you are not, in fact, the center of the universe. Just because you don't understand something or don't instantaneously agree doesn't mean it should be summarily dismissed.


----------



## Anon Pink

Wazza said:


> My experience is that women have their own defensive shields. And they are often dismissive of what you might call male communication styles. This video really helped me understand the differences.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg
> 
> I'm pretty typical (maybe) in that at the time of Mrs Wazza's affair there were certain things I didn't realise were problems, but they were big to her. From my perspective she didn't communicate her issues at all, and from her perspective I wasn't listening. I was focussed on the nail.
> 
> However, roll forward, and I reached a stage in my marriage where the kids were adults. I had stayed for their sake and that was done. So I had a discussion with her about the core issues I saw in the marriage, and everything I had said was stuff I had said before. Except that I told her I was wondering whether the marriage had a future, or whether we should move towards divorce.
> 
> It shouldn't have to me that way (in my view), but until I articulated that option...for whatever reason, she started taking the things that were important to me more seriously.
> 
> I doubt I am anything unusual. Anon, I think you are seeing the females side because you are female. You have your own blinders, but you aren't aware of them.
> 
> I think what really matters is an attitude of giving, not taking. From both sides.


Wazza, I can only comment from my own experience. About 10 years into our marriage I said to my H, "I can't be such a perfect wife that you have no complaints, nothing you wish I would change or do differently." Mind you, at that time we were nearly sexless. He said nothing. I mean silent. As in no reply.

I used to joke that his favorite food was a state secret, because he said nothing, silent, as in no words or sounds to indicate what he would prefer to eat. 

I realize my husband is unique in his lack of ability to express himself and I don't hold this infuriating issue against all men.

Again, using my marriage as the only way to relate to what you've suggested "an attitude of giving, not taking..." Been there done that burned the tee shirt. Wasn't until I decided to take off that he began to hear me.


----------



## MachoMcCoy

always_alone said:


> A recap, for those who may have missed it:


I did miss it. Thanks. So we cured the problem. Great. We're done. Good work TAM'ers. No more Walk Away Wives.

But wait. We really didn't settle who's fault it is...


----------



## skype

MachoMcCoy said:


> I did miss it. Thanks. So we cured the problem. Great. We're done. Good work TAM'ers. No more Walk Away Wives.
> 
> But wait. We really didn't settle who's fault it is...


That's because each case is different. You can't make generalizations about whether the husband or the wife is at fault. Both spouses have to really listen to each other. Both have to care about the health of the marriage. Why would you ignore a plea for change from your spouse? Why does it take the threat of leaving to wake you up?


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> A recap, for those who may have missed it:
> 
> 1. Own your sh1t!
> 2. Listen! Don't assume that everything your spouse says is useless blah, blah, blah. If they are talking to you, they have something to say. Pay attention, you might learn something.
> 3. Recognize that you are not, in fact, the center of the universe. Just because you don't understand something or don't instantaneously agree doesn't mean it should be summarily dismissed.


So long as this is EQUALLY applied to both spouses I say spot on. Especially number 3 sounds like a good number of people need to realize they aren't the center of the universe in thier relationship and that their way isn't always the best or only way


----------



## Mr.Fisty

You know what the article reminds me of. When World of Warcraft came out, people became addicted to the escapism. It was an escape into a different reality. Divorce rates spiked.

Only pertaining to the article. Some people avoid stress and pain at all costs. What sounds more rewarding, going out with friends, or cleaning a mess from a child. Home tends to represent more responsibility. Sometimes people block things out because they prefer to do what is rewarding. If they acknowledge that there are issues, they have to deal with it. Research shows that people with diseases, issues, will often avoid or ignore the problem until it reaches a crisis.

Just like video games are an escape, so is social networks, spending time at bars, and so on and so on. It is about avoidance. Someone with a drinking problem does not want to recognize that they have a drinking problem. Some people do not like to acknowledge that they might have an issue at home. It takes time and energy, and facing one's self. Who likes to admit that they are neglectful. Some people lack awareness because they hide behind a wall. Those with emotional walls will often lose the awareness of others around them. DevastatedandLost's husband is one example. She kept telling him what she needed to get over the affair, but he kept ignoring her and minimizing her emotions. In one of her threads, she talked to a male friend, and her husband reacted. When it sunk in that he could lose her, it was the turning point. He started seeking help, and finally brought down his walls enough to listen.


----------



## IIJokerII

BetrayedDad said:


> Guys do yourself a favor. Before you marry your woman. If you find she is the type that needs "attention" and "compliments" CONSTANTLY then walk away. They will never grow out of that mentality. There are plenty of less needy women out there.
> 
> Good provider, father and all around guy? And his payback for years of blood, sweat and tears is a walk away wife because she wants the honeymoon phase forever? Sounds like it's the husband being taken for granted.


 Knocked out of the park, Bravo!!!!


----------



## Wazza

Anon Pink said:


> Wazza, I can only comment from my own experience. About 10 years into our marriage I said to my H, "I can't be such a perfect wife that you have no complaints, nothing you wish I would change or do differently." Mind you, at that time we were nearly sexless. He said nothing. I mean silent. As in no reply.
> 
> I used to joke that his favorite food was a state secret, because he said nothing, silent, as in no words or sounds to indicate what he would prefer to eat.
> 
> I realize my husband is unique in his lack of ability to express himself and I don't hold this infuriating issue against all men.
> 
> Again, using my marriage as the only way to relate to what you've suggested "an attitude of giving, not taking..." Been there done that burned the tee shirt. Wasn't until I decided to take off that he began to hear me.


Giving in your way or his?


----------



## Wazza

MachoMcCoy said:


> I did miss it. Thanks. So we cured the problem. Great. We're done. Good work TAM'ers. No more Walk Away Wives.
> 
> But wait. We really didn't settle who's fault it is...


If you are focused on fault in your marriage you are in trouble. Would you have taken that approach when you were wooing your spouse?


----------



## IIJokerII

vellocet said:


> Here is the problem. You can take my past situation for example.
> 
> My x-wife would complain that I ignore her which wasn't the case at all. If anything it was the opposite. She wanted to be a SAHM against my desires, but I gave in and agreed.
> 
> So here she is staying home with the kids LIKE SHE WANTED, but then complained about it.
> 
> So as her husband, what did I so? Something really REALLY stupid........I tried to help her. I watched the kids so she could go have some time with friends and always making time for us.
> 
> What a f'in moron I was. So excuse me if that article and the attitudes towards husbands in this thread doesn't just tickle the sh*t out of me.


 And another one gets powed out of the park.

And this, with several other testimonies and stories and such proves one things; Men are emotionally handicapped by society and the media compared to woman. Like Vel, I gave my wife everything she ever openly wanted as best I could while making sure our children and household remained stable and happy. If you tell me your happy with life don't complain later and pro-rate it saying you were never happy.

I am not a mind reading clown, if you say nothing I hear nothing and cannot read minds or suggestions. Sure, I can read body language but am unable to translate what indeed sulking, moping or random irritation into in terms of words or interpretations but what do they mean?????

How many men here were, or still are "Nice Guy's" who did endless bow's and curtseys for their brides only to be rewarded with an unimpressed expectation of deliverance. I am SUPPOSED to go to work since that is what a responsible Father, ahem, Parent does, I am supposed to help clean up what didn't get done around the house because that is the sign of a man who cares......Regardless if NOTHING GOT DONE ALL DAY!!!. I am supposed to accept my sacrifices of life in lieu of others but acknowledge yours because somehow your matter more, I do not know why, but hot damn, I a know you'll make sure I at least follow suit and submit.

And despite this these women, who hinted, asked, pushed, demanded and then the worse, expected this and more while the scale of marital balance clearly in their favor eventually treat their men like crap since they lost respect for us. A Walk away Wife is just a cop out akin to the Mid Life Crisis men so often use when they go off the deep end. 

And who the hell is anybody here or elsewhere to tell someone how long they should mourn, or be angry or hurt by their betrayal!!! For this I do not see a sign of weakness but examples of people who got cut deep by the knife of betrayal. It goes to show that for some, or even many, the just get over it or time heals all wounds is not a blanket end result for all. Would any one here grab a rape victim by the shoulders and tell them ( Editors note* Them includes both genders and not "Them" as a group of Female victims before anyone fires a shot) hey, it. like happened 3 years ago, time to let that water pass and move on. FYI, something called trauma can be permanent.


----------



## techmom

Red Sonja said:


> A few examples of what I have said to my husband (multiple times over the years):
> 
> "I need to have sex with you at least once a week. We can even pick a specific day of the week if that would work for you.”
> “I need you to stay off of your laptop on week nights until after our daughter goes to bed at 8:30pm, she is young and needs your attention.”
> “I need you to help me when I have a medical emergency. Please drive me to the emergency room the next time I need sutures.”
> “I need you to stop calling me ugly names, screaming and acting out when you are angry. Please speak calmly to me and stop breaking things.”
> “I need to know a few days in advance before you disappear (for days) into the desert with your astronomy equipment because I have to plan for it.”
> “I need you to stop correcting my grammar, pronunciation and facts while I am speaking.”
> “I need you to stop making nasty comments about the way I eat and drink.”
> “I need you to get up and help me when I am carrying in a car load of grocery bags.”
> “I would like to try marriage counseling, will you go with me?”
> 
> And finally:
> 
> “I am moving out as soon as I find a rental that allows me to keep my dogs. I will take {insert list of specific furniture}, my clothing, the car I use and my dogs.”
> 
> Is that clear enough? No matter, I no longer live with him and our daughter is now 21 years old. And, yes he acted enraged (at a level I had not before seen) and surprised when I did move out.


I guess you needed to talk like a man. They have a movie out called "Think like a Man".

Geez, we don't get a break, men rule the workplace and the only way up the corporate ladder is to communicate more like a man. Be direct.

I thought that relationships were different, that we can relax and nurture each other and we don't need to hit each other on top of the head with 2x4s. 

Like I said in a previous post, most men were not equipped with the tools necessary to interact in a intimate relationship. The only thing they use is physical touch and sex, relationships are much more than that. Take away the sex and you take away their only means of communicating. Women are more in tune emotionally, which is why it boggles the mind that men are shocked when the wives finally leave after years of communicating issues in the marriage.

Some men see every request or problem as something that reflects bad on them. If it is not praise for a job well done it is seen as nagging. Every criticism is seen this way, as an attack.

Some men go through life with their defenses up, this is how most of them are raised. To fight, be strong, never let down your guard. Except through sex. Women have to feel safe emotionally in order to be open sexually. This is conflict waiting to happen.

The "nice guy" is just a man who stuffs his anger inside so deep that he hides his true feelings and just gives women what he thinks they want in exchange for what he really needs (covert contracts). This is just another version of the angry abusive guy.

Don't know where marriages will go from here, maybe we would have sense enough to show more affection to our boys, let them feel comfortable expressing their feelings of sadnes and hurt. And stop sex shaming our girls and teach them that sex is a wonderful thing. Then we can look forward to more compatible marriages.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> just gives women what he thinks they want in exchange for what he really needs (covert contracts). This is just another version of the angry abusive guy.


I think I get this....but what I don't see is how it is different from a woman who walks away from the marriage because her needs weren't met. Isn't that a covert contract too? And if not, what is it?

Don't all of us have a certain amount of "giving to get" in what we do? Is there something less valid about a guy doing it?


----------



## EleGirl

MachoMcCoy said:


> I did miss it. Thanks. So we cured the problem. Great. We're done. Good work TAM'ers. No more Walk Away Wives.
> 
> But wait. We really didn't settle who's fault it is...


Sure we have. Both people are at fault.

In this type of marriage... one person is not getting their point across in a manner that their spouse gets and the other person is not listening and/or dismissing what the other person is saying because it's not how they view things.

Both need to find a different way of doing things.


----------



## techmom

Wazza said:


> I think I get this....but what I don't see is how it is different from a woman who walks away from the marriage because her needs weren't met. Isn't that a covert contract too? And if not, what is it?
> 
> Don't all of us have a certain amount of "giving to get" in what we do? Is there something less valid about a guy doing it?


A woman walking away from a unfulfilling marriage is no different from a man walking away from a sexless marriage. Both have needs which were denied or unmet.


----------



## techmom

If you are compatible with someone and in a loving relationship, you wouldn't think in terms of giving to get. You would already be fulfilling each other's needs and would sense if something was off. This is what is called being emotionally in tune with one another, which is why quality time spent together and true intimacy is so important.

You can't be in tune with a person you only see on the weekends and week nights, even if you are sharing chores the emotional bond will erode. Add kids and it breaks even further. 

Until one day you are looking at that person thinking "what can I do for them so they can give me what I want?"


----------



## Wolf1974

techmom said:


> I guess you needed to talk like a man. They have a movie out called "Think like a Man".
> 
> Geez, we don't get a break, men rule the workplace and the only way up the corporate ladder is to communicate more like a man. Be direct.
> 
> I thought that relationships were different, that we can relax and nurture each other and we don't need to hit each other on top of the head with 2x4s.
> *
> Like I said in a previous post, most men were not equipped with the tools necessary to interact in a intimate relationship. The only thing they use is physical touch and sex, relationships are much more than that. Take away the sex and you take away their only means of communicating. Women are more in tune emotionally, which is why it boggles the mind that men are shocked when the wives finally leave after years of communicating issues in the marriage.*
> 
> Some men see every request or problem as something that reflects bad on them. If it is not praise for a job well done it is seen as nagging. Every criticism is seen this way, as an attack.
> 
> Some men go through life with their defenses up, this is how most of them are raised. To fight, be strong, never let down your guard. Except through sex. Women have to feel safe emotionally in order to be open sexually. This is conflict waiting to happen.
> 
> The "nice guy" is just a man who stuffs his anger inside so deep that he hides his true feelings and just gives women what he thinks they want in exchange for what he really needs (covert contracts). This is just another version of the angry abusive guy.
> 
> Don't know where marriages will go from here, maybe we would have sense enough to show more affection to our boys, let them feel comfortable expressing their feelings of sadnes and hurt. And stop sex shaming our girls and teach them that sex is a wonderful thing. Then we can look forward to more compatible marriages.



I'm assuming that this will be better received now that a woman is saying it instead of me but your right of course and I have said the same. 

I have honestly believed that if marriage is to survive into the future and restore to a higher success rate then probably what needs to happen is mandated marriage counseling before a marriage license is given. Course that would never happen cause government doesn't and should really care about the success or failure of marriage. But until both sides understand each other's needs and wants marriage is just going to errode.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> Like I said in a previous post, most men were not equipped with the tools necessary to interact in a intimate relationship. The only thing they use is physical touch and sex, relationships are much more than that. Take away the sex and you take away their only means of communicating. Women are more in tune emotionally, which is why it boggles the mind that men are shocked when the wives finally leave after years of communicating issues in the marriage.





techmom said:


> A woman walking away from a unfulfilling marriage is no different from a man walking away from a sexless marriage. Both have needs which were denied or unmet.


I don't agree with "more in tune emotionally". Tuned differently yes. Expressing emotions differently yes. 

If I only spoke English and my wife only spoke Chinese, it would seem blindingly obvious that we needed to learn a common language, be it English, Chinese or something else, to communicate. It would just be accepted that we had learned different languages, nobody would take it as a criticism. If she spoke English with a Chinese accent, I would appreciate that she had taken the trouble to learn English so she could communicate with me. I wouldn't deride her because she didn't speak the way I do.

Yet bring it to gender and both sides are complaining that the other doesn't speak their language.


----------



## EleGirl

IIJokerII said:


> And despite this these women, who hinted, asked, pushed, demanded and then the worse, expected this and more while the scale of marital balance clearly in their favor eventually treat their men like crap since they lost respect for us. A Walk away Wife is just a cop out akin to the Mid Life Crisis men so often use when they go off the deep end.


Not every marriage is like yours. Not every women who eventually gives up on her marriage is like your wife.

There are plenty of women who are not prima donas who are abusing their husbands. There are plenty who are giving 110% with a spouse who is not giving anywhere near that. These women are asking for very reasonable things only to be ignored and pushed away.

There are also plenty of men in the same situation. It sounds like you are a guy who was in a very similar situation.

To just brush off all women who leave their marriage after years of neglect as being like you wife is disregarding that there are women who have legitimate reasons to leave a marriage. Just as there are men who have legitimate reasons to leave a marriage.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> Yet bring it to gender and both sides are complaining that the other doesn't speak their language.


In a good marriage, both sides work to learn to understand the other's language and even speak it.

If I speak English and my spouse speaks Chinese, it makes sense that we would help each other lean our language. If my spouse does not know the English word for something... I can help by telling them what it is and by then learning the Chinese word.

If try to learn Chinese, but he just sites there looking at me with a blank look when I don't know the right words to use, things are not going to turn out very well.


----------



## techmom

Wazza said:


> I don't agree with "more in tune emotionally". Tuned differently yes. Expressing emotions differently yes.
> 
> If I only spoke English and my wife only spoke Chinese, it would seem blindingly obvious that we needed to learn a common language, be it English, Chinese or something else, to communicate. It would just be accepted that we had learned different languages, nobody would take it as a criticism. If she spoke English with a Chinese accent, I would appreciate that she had taken the trouble to learn English so she could communicate with me. I wouldn't deride her because she didn't speak the way I do.
> 
> Yet bring it to gender and both sides are complaining that the other doesn't speak their language.


I say "more in tune emotionally" because boys are denied expressing the full range of emotions when growing up. A human who is denied this is not going to automatically become emotionally in tune with his spouse.

Just like girls are raised with shame around sexuality are not going to automatically be sexual vixens with their spouse.

So, we can say that men are more in tune sexually. They use sex to express their emotions or love to their wives. This the heavy weight that sex carries on their end. Women are in tune with their emotions, we are allowed to cry and express fear and not have our "woman card" taken away. Men still have this macho persona they need to live up to.

Which is a wonder as to why all of this alpha /beta talk is popular on these boards. Alpha /beta are two sides of the same coin to me. Alpha is all macho and the beta hides his true feelings so to appear "nice", meanwhile is passive aggressive and operates by covert contracts.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> If you are compatible with someone and in a loving relationship, you wouldn't think in terms of giving to get. You would already be fulfilling each other's needs and would sense if something was off. This is what is called being emotionally in tune with one another, which is why quality time spent together and true intimacy is so important.
> 
> *You can't be in tune with a person you only see on the weekends and week nights, even if you are sharing chores the emotional bond will erode. Add kids and it breaks even further. *
> 
> Until one day you are looking at that person thinking "what can I do for them so they can give me what I want?"


Whether you think in terms of giving to get, most people gravitate towards relationships they want to be in, and marriages hit difficulties from both sides when people have a sense of unmet need. To me this is an obvious part of the dynamic of a relationship and I'd better take it into account. Do you see it the same way or is that just me thinking like a male? 

When my wife and I first met, I think we put a lot of effort into impressing each other. Where to go, what to wear, what to say and do. Later we took each other for granted, both of us. We didn't try as hard. It was easier to be disappointed about what we didn't have, as opposed to grateful for what we did. In effect I was requiring more from her and less from me. And she vice versa.

Tell me about the bolded bit. That sounds kind of doomed. Are you saying the only way to succeed as a couple is to spend every moment together? If not, what are you saying?


----------



## Dogbert

Talking in general terms, women have been shamed for attempting to express their full sexuality while men have been shamed for attempting to express their full emotionality. And BOTH men and women are equally guilty of doing the shaming.


----------



## techmom

Wolf1974 said:


> I'm assuming that this will be better received now that a woman is saying it instead of me but your right of course and I have said the same.
> 
> I have honestly believed that if marriage is to survive into the future and restore to a higher success rate then probably what needs to happen is mandated marriage counseling before a marriage license is given. Course that would never happen cause government doesn't and should really care about the success or failure of marriage. But until both sides understand each other's needs and wants marriage is just going to errode.


I agree, to a point. I feel that we need to raise our children differently than we have been doing for the thousands of years we have evolved. We are in the technology era, raising boys to be foot soldiers is not going to help humanity as it did in the past. Warfare nowadays is involving drones, sooner or later we will be using robots and such. Soon every interaction will be involving computers.

Raising our sons to be emotionally stunted and macho is not going to serve humanity. Their has to be a better way. Our boys are not going to thrive in this changing environment, and we will fall behind.

Marriage counseling after years of being trained to "fight!" "Conquer!" And "win!" Is not going to work. The key is to train boys to be in tune with emotions other than anger and hornyness.

We also need to raise our girls to embrace their sexuality. Then maybe they can be fully sexual in close loving relationships with their husbands instead of letting loose only when they are on a one night stand, when their is no chance of being reminded of the sex they were willing to partake in. Cutting off female sexuality taught girls that sex is bad, and if you do it you will forever be seen as a s!ut. So don't do the crazy acts with your husband who will remember it and "heavens forbid" remind you of it. Do it before marriage with guys you will, hopefully, never see again.

These things need to change if we hope for the institution of marriage to continue.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> I say "more in tune emotionally" because boys are denied expressing the full range of emotions when growing up. A human who is denied this is not going to automatically become emotionally in tune with his spouse.
> 
> Just like girls are raised with shame around sexuality are not going to automatically be sexual vixens with their spouse.
> 
> So, we can say that men are more in tune sexually. They use sex to express their emotions or love to their wives. This the heavy weight that sex carries on their end. Women are in tune with their emotions, we are allowed to cry and express fear and not have our "woman card" taken away. Men still have this macho persona they need to live up to.
> 
> Which is a wonder as to why all of this alpha /beta talk is popular on these boards. Alpha /beta are two sides of the same coin to me. Alpha is all macho and the beta hides his true feelings so to appear "nice", meanwhile is passive aggressive and operates by covert contracts.


I can't comment on the female side of this world view, but I can say your description of the male side does not match my experience.


----------



## techmom

Wazza said:


> I can't comment on the female side of this world view, but I can say your description of the male side does not match my experience.


Ok, fair enough.

So you were never told to tough it out after injuring yourself, for example falling and skinning your knee?

You was hugged and kissed offen as a child?

You were able to cry and express sadness, and was never called a sissy or to stop being a crybaby wuss, or something similar?

You had a good relationship with your dad who showed you that he was not afraid to show sadness and hurt?

Were you able to have male friends who you expressed full range of emotions with while growing up, and they didn't call each other ***, sissy or punk? Or something similar?

You don't have to answer these questions, I'm just trying to convey what it is to be raised to express oneself emotionally and without reproach.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> Ok, fair enough.
> 
> So you were never told to tough it out after injuring yourself, for example falling and skinning your knee?
> 
> You was hugged and kissed offen as a child?
> 
> You were able to cry and express sadness, and was never called a sissy or to stop being a crybaby wuss, or something similar?
> 
> You had a good relationship with your dad who showed you that he was not afraid to show sadness and hurt?
> 
> Were you able to have male friends who you expressed full range of emotions with while growing up, and they didn't call each other ***, sissy or punk? Or something similar?
> 
> You don't have to answer these questions, I'm just trying to convey what it is to be raised to express oneself emotionally and without reproach.


While I did play football and such, I was part of a geeky crowd at school, and at times something of a loner. I am going to answer you based on my experiences, but I may well be atypical because of that. 

I believe I understand the point you make, but I think it is more nuanced than you describe.

My father was more like the typical male you describe than I am, but he never sought to shape me accordingly. He introduced me to the beauty of music, poetry and literature. I was encouraged to explore creating of my own works in these fields, expressing my own thoughts and emotions, as well as absorbing the works of others. He also encouraged me to play football. I was exposed to a wide range of experiences and allowed to make my own choices as to preferences. 

I had my share of sadness in life. I don't ever recall being told to suck it up. I do recall seeing my father cry. Less often than my mother, but that was him. He had a harder upbringing than she did, and he overcame a certain amount of adversity to succeed in life. That was a factor in his character.

So for example, I am perfectly happy to express and explore my emotions, but there is a time and a place to do that, and a time and a place to put emotions aside and work a problem logically. He taught me that.

This might all be a different perspective on emotion than a female experiences, but it is not the absence of emotion. I am not some automaton who can not express himself emotionally except through sex.


----------



## techmom

Wazza said:


> While I did play football and such, I was part of a geeky crowd at school, and at times something of a loner. I am going to answer you based on my experiences, but I may well be atypical because of that.
> 
> I believe I understand the point you make, but I think it is more nuanced than you describe.
> 
> My father was more like the typical male you describe than I am, but he never sought to shape me accordingly. He introduced me to the beauty of music, poetry and literature. I was encouraged to explore creating of my own works in these fields, expressing my own thoughts and emotions, as well as absorbing the works of others. He also encouraged me to play football. I was exposed to a wide range of experiences and allowed to make my own choices as to preferences.
> 
> I had my share of sadness in life. I don't ever recall being told to suck it up. I do recall seeing my father cry. Less often than my mother, but that was him. He had a harder upbringing than she did, and he overcame a certain amount of adversity to succeed in life. That was a factor in his character.
> 
> So for example, I am perfectly happy to express and explore my emotions, but there is a time and a place to do that, and a time and a place to put emotions aside and work a problem logically. He taught me that.
> 
> This might all be a different perspective on emotion than a female experiences, but it is not the absence of emotion. I am not some automaton who can not express himself emotionally except through sex.


Ok, I have to say that you were raised differently than a majority of men.

My next question is , was you bullied in school because you was sort of a geeky outsider, or loner.

My female experience is this, I always had friends who I could hash out my thoughts and feelings with. We would have troubles in life growing up where we would just vent, or discuss and bond over similar experiences. Not necessary to come to solutions on every problem, but to bond and face the world together.

It maybe hogwash from where you and most men sit, but this was my experience with my friends growing up. We would offer advice and solutions to problems, but it was only part of the collaborative emotional experience not the main purpose.

I find that men just want to come to a conclusion immediately and go about their day doing more enjoyable things, and they don't like for the woman to mention problems. My husband gets defensive and throws out a quick solution so I won't mention the problem. The quick solution doesn't always work, and sometimes a problem needs a more collaborative effort to form a long term solution. He is not always present with me on this, which results in my feeling alone. He wants to hear praise and more praise, but that is not reality. A more emotionally in tune person would get this.

I'm not nagging. Previous posts by females in this forum stated things they said to their husbands to express their needs, I didn't see anything that sounded like nagging. These are just needs expressed throughout the course of a relationship. Try to get past the idea that "it is only nagging" and try to understand what is being said. That is the sign of really caring.


----------



## Forest

EleGirl said:


> Not every marriage is like yours. Not every women who eventually gives up on her marriage is like your wife.
> 
> There are plenty of women who are not prima donas who are abusing their husbands. There are plenty who are giving 110% with a spouse who is not giving anywhere near that. These women are asking for very reasonable things only to be ignored and pushed away.
> 
> There are also plenty of men in the same situation. It sounds like you are a guy who was in a very similar situation.
> 
> To just brush off all women who leave their marriage after years of neglect as being like you wife is disregarding that there are women who have legitimate reasons to leave a marriage. Just as there are men who have legitimate reasons to leave a marriage.


This I can agree with.

Some acknowledgement that it is not a fact of nature that men do not try and give a wife the necessary time and attention.
It should also be acknowledged that there are wives out there, that will not be happy regardless of the time and attention that is devoted to them. For some women, anything short of total enrapture every waking hour is not meeting expectations.

That's my problem with this article and discussion. Yes, men should take notice, because some men are negligent in this aspect. To suppose its more than "some" men, or is an inherent trait is grandstanding. Still, the article is trendy, and playing to an audience. This angle is considered timely and cogent right now. Its written by a MC, so its good for business, too.

50 years ago, or fifty years from now the cogent article du jour may be focusing on why women are not captivating their husband's attention. Why are husband's not more interested? Surely, the wife has done something to displease him...why else would he not enjoy her company more? Not sure if a marriage counselor or Victoria's Secret would publish it, but it'll come around.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> Ok, I have to say that you were raised differently than a majority of men.
> 
> My next question is , was you bullied in school because you was sort of a geeky outsider, or loner.
> 
> My female experience is this, I always had friends who I could hash out my thoughts and feelings with. We would have troubles in life growing up where we would just vent, or discuss and bond over similar experiences. Not necessary to come to solutions on every problem, but to bond and face the world together.
> 
> It maybe hogwash from where you and most men sit, but this was my experience with my friends growing up. We would offer advice and solutions to problems, but it was only part of the collaborative emotional experience not the main purpose.
> 
> I find that men just want to come to a conclusion immediately and go about their day doing more enjoyable things, and they don't like for the woman to mention problems. My husband gets defensive and throws out a quick solution so I won't mention the problem. The quick solution doesn't always work, and sometimes a problem needs a more collaborative effort to form a long term solution. He is not always present with me on this, which results in my feeling alone. He wants to hear praise and more praise, but that is not reality. A more emotionally in tune person would get this.
> 
> I'm not nagging. Previous posts by females in this forum stated things they said to their husbands to express their needs, I didn't see anything that sounded like nagging. These are just needs expressed throughout the course of a relationship. Try to get past the idea that "it is only nagging" and try to understand what is being said. That is the sign of really caring.


I honestly don't know how unusual my upbringing was. In one sense it supports your theory. Exploring my emotions through Beethoven, Mozart, Bob Dylan or Bruno Mars is a solitary thing. If I share that love with a friend, its a bond, but a more indirect one than voicing the emotions. But the emotions are still there and are still real. And I know many other guys who feel like me, and we share these experiences. Many of whom more fit the cliche of being jocks.

The need to solve a problem, yep that's me. I have learned that my wife does not always want the problem solved. I am still learning when to listen and when to act.  

*Edited to Add : *But can I say, sometimes problems need solving. Looking at my wife's and my relationship, sometimes we have been in a position to do things that were important to her because I acted as well as empathising. I am more of a planner than her. She gets the value of that now more than she did. Both of us are on a journey to common ground. It can't be just me. It's not fair to just expect the man to do all the changing! In a sense that's expecting him to fix the problem!!!!


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> Some acknowledgement that it is not a fact of nature that men do not try and give a wife the necessary time and attention.


Not one person here has said that it is the nature of men to not try and give a wife the necessary time and attention.

What has been said and what the article says is that SOME men do not do this and do not hear it (or something) when their wives bring it up in an attempt to fix things.

There are, by the women, do are just as obtuse when it comes to meeting their husband’s needs. There are “Walk Away Husbands” too.


Forest said:


> It should also be acknowledged that there are wives out there, that will not be happy regardless of the time and attention that is devoted to them. For some women, anything short of total enrapture every waking hour is not meeting expectations.


No one has disputed this either. 



Forest said:


> That's my problem with this article and discussion. Yes, men should take notice, because some men are negligent in this aspect. To suppose its more than "some" men, or is an inherent trait is grandstanding. Still, the article is trendy, and playing to an audience. This angle is considered timely and cogent right now. Its written by a MC, so its good for business, too.


The article is not talking about all men. It’s only talking about a subset of men who behave in a particular way that boils down to not paying attention to their wife’s reasonable needs. And yes he’s talking about his clients. 

It just so happens that there are many women here who have this very same thing going on their marriage. Go figure, this is TAM, so people come here to talk about the problems in their marriage. Just as there are men here with problem marriages, there are women here with problem marriages as well. Both have valid issues.


Forest said:


> 50 years ago, or fifty years from now the cogent article du jour may be focusing on why women are not captivating their husband's attention. Why are husband's not more interested? Surely, the wife has done something to displease him...why else would he not enjoy her company more? Not sure if a marriage counselor or Victoria's Secret would publish it, but it'll come around.


There are already plenty of articles on the internet about women not living up to what their husbands want/need. Check out Amazon. There are books there as well on the topic. I have no issue with such topics being writing about and/or discussed.

I agree that if a man does not want to spend time with his wife that there is a reason. But I also believe that he darn well better tell her what it is and not just ignore her. Because if he does not tell her then all she can do is to keep trying to talk about it and/or leave him. Why would he even want to stay married to a women who he did not want to be around?


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> I'm not nagging. Previous posts by females in this forum stated things they said to their husbands to express their needs, I didn't see anything that sounded like nagging. These are just needs expressed throughout the course of a relationship. Try to get past the idea that "it is only nagging" and try to understand what is being said. That is the sign of really caring.


You have me thinking. 

You have a bunch of women saying things that they all think isn't nagging, and the suggestion is their husbands should recognise this.

How much is it your husband's job to move to where you are (understand it's not nagging), and how much is your job to move to where he is (recognise it sounds like nagging to him and find a different means of expression).

If a bunch of women all say "That doesn't seem to be nagging in my book." then that is something guys should take notice of. But if all their husbands are seeing it as nagging, isn't that an equally valid perspective that the women should be thinking about?

Doesn't the way you wrote paragraph assume that your mode of expression is "right" and his is "wrong"? You actually seem to be implying that because he communicates differently your husband is not trying and doesn't care. Not attacking, but challenging your assumptions. Is your perspective objectively even-handed?

(Unless the women here don't expect the gender divide to be solved but are just empathising with each other via the forum, while us guys try and solve a problem that is as old as the human race  )


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> I honestly don't know how unusual my upbringing was. In one sense it supports your theory. Exploring my emotions through Beethoven, Mozart, Bob Dylan or Bruno Mars is a solitary thing. If I share that love with a friend, its a bond, but a more indirect one than voicing the emotions. But the emotions are still there and are still real. And I know many other guys who feel like me, and we share these experiences. Many of whom more fit the cliche of being jocks.
> 
> The need to solve a problem, yep that's me. I have learned that my wife does not always want the problem solved. I am still learning when to listen and when to act.
> 
> *Edited to Add : *But can I say, sometimes problems need solving. Looking at my wife's and my relationship, sometimes we have been in a position to do things that were important to her because I acted as well as empathising. I am more of a planner than her. She gets the value of that now more than she did. Both of us are on a journey to common ground. It can't be just me. It's not fair to just expect the man to do all the changing! In a sense that's expecting him to fix the problem!!!!


You are right that its not fair to expect the man to do all the changing or to fix all the problems.

I don't think that anyone here is expecting that. There has to be give and take.

If the couple cannot talk about the problems and the solutions, then there will be no progress. When there is no progress and pain is all that is left, the only reasonable solution is to split up.


----------



## techmom

Wazza said:


> I honestly don't know how unusual my upbringing was. In one sense it supports your theory. Exploring my emotions through Beethoven, Mozart, Bob Dylan or Bruno Mars is a solitary thing. If I share that love with a friend, its a bond, but a more indirect one than voicing the emotions. But the emotions are still there and are still real. And I know many other guys who feel like me, and we share these experiences. Many of whom more fit the cliche of being jocks.
> 
> The need to solve a problem, yep that's me. I have learned that my wife does not always want the problem solved. I am still learning when to listen and when to act.
> 
> *Edited to Add : *But can I say, sometimes problems need solving. Looking at my wife's and my relationship, sometimes we have been in a position to do things that were important to her because I acted as well as empathising. I am more of a planner than her. She gets the value of that now more than she did. Both of us are on a journey to common ground. It can't be just me. It's not fair to just expect the man to do all the changing! In a sense that's expecting him to fix the problem!!!!


Sometimes the problem does need solving. The wife also has to be willing to take the initiative to solve the problem. Some women are stuck on the "hubby is the leader" mode and won't take the steps. I will solve the problem if it is mine to solve, and I won't bother to mention it to hubby because he sees problems like whack-a-mole, whack it and be done. He doesn't appreciate listening and collaborative communicating.

Some problems take 2 to solve, this is where hubby and wife need to get on the same page. Granted, the only problems men tend to notice first are lack of sex, if they are still getting laid and the wife is stating issues, it is more likely interpreted as nagging.

Not to harp on the men of TAM, but the majority of the threads started by men are because of low desire for sex. Women start threads on a variety of issues.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> You have me thinking.
> 
> You have a bunch of women saying things that they all think isn't nagging, and the suggestion is their husbands should recognise this.
> 
> How much is it your husband's job to move to where you are (understand it's not nagging), and how much is your job to move to where he is (recognise it sounds like nagging to him and find a different means of expression).
> 
> If a bunch of women all say "That doesn't seem to be nagging in my book." then that is something guys should take notice of. But if all their husbands are seeing it as nagging, isn't that an equally valid perspective that the women should be thinking about?
> 
> Doesn't the way you wrote paragraph assume that your mode of expression is "right" and his is "wrong"? You actually seem to be implying that because he communicates differently your husband is not trying and doesn't care. Not attacking, but challenging your assumptions. Is your perspective objectively even-handed?
> 
> (Unless the women here don't expect the gender divide to be solved but are just empathising with each other via the forum, while us guys try and solve a problem that is as old as the human race  )


Sure, his interpretation of her expressing her truth as naggings is his realty/truth. 

What is the solution? That she stop talking to her husband?

Here are two situations.. they are not the some couple so not tied together.. Tell me your suggestion of how it should be handled by the woman.

1) He spends all his time doing things that do not include her. She is profoundly lonely and loosing her connection with him. So she tells him this and asks him to work with her on this. She asks can we set up date nights once a week. He interprets this as her attacking him and nagging. He does not do anything to spend any more time with her.

2) He spends most of his free time at night playing computer games and surfing the web. He comes to bed at about 2-3am every night as he does not need but 4 hours of sleep. They both work and need to be up early. She need a full 8 hours of sleep. When he goes to bed at 2-3 am he wakes her up almost every night for sex. At first this was sexy and she liked it. But now she's exhausted from it. So she tells him that she wants sex with him as much as he wants it with her. So could he please come to bed earlier and they can have a great romp in the hay. He interprets this as her attacking him and nagging. He does not change his behavior and still wakes her up at 2-3 am for sex when he comes to bed.

Ok what are your suggests for what these women should do to solve what they see as problems.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> You are right that its not fair to expect the man to do all the changing or to fix all the problems.
> 
> I don't think that anyone here is expecting that. There has to be give and take.
> 
> If the couple cannot talk about the problems and the solutions, then there will be no progress. When there is no progress and pain is all that is left, the only reasonable solution is to split up.


I think you are mid-divorce, yes? My comments here are general;, and not aimed at your situation in particular. 

I think some expect their partner to do more without realising. It's often easier to see other people's faults than your own. 

Sometimes there is a place for keeping working on a marriage and sometimes there is a place to give up and walk away. Each person gets to make that choice. 

But, while sometimes walking away is the only option, you need to consider that you were part of the marriage you are leaving. What behaviours did you bring into the marriage that led to the problems and pain? What behaviours will you take into the next marriage?


----------



## techmom

Wazza said:


> You have me thinking.
> 
> You have a bunch of women saying things that they all think isn't nagging, and the suggestion is their husbands should recognise this.
> 
> How much is it your husband's job to move to where you are (understand it's not nagging), and how much is your job to move to where he is (recognise it sounds like nagging to him and find a different means of expression).
> 
> If a bunch of women all say "That doesn't seem to be nagging in my book." then that is something guys should take notice of. But if all their husbands are seeing it as nagging, isn't that an equally valid perspective that the women should be thinking about?
> 
> Doesn't the way you wrote paragraph assume that your mode of expression is "right" and his is "wrong"? You actually seem to be implying that because he communicates differently your husband is not trying and doesn't care. Not attacking, but challenging your assumptions. Is your perspective objectively even-handed?
> 
> (Unless the women here don't expect the gender divide to be solved but are just empathising with each other via the forum, while us guys try and solve a problem that is as old as the human race  )


It has been expressed here in this thread many times by some male posters that the reason why men don't understand what their wife is saying is because she isn't talking like a man. This is the reason for my previous posts. If you love someone, and you were able to communicate enough to start a relationship, have sex, then decide that it is a good idea to get married, then maybe, just maybe they were able to communicate.

This whole thread is curious, men and women are able to communicate effectively in these relationships up until what point? At what point do men feel like everything is nagging?

Am I expecting too much of my husband to be able to communicate to me, and me to him? As you can tell from my posts, I don't use so-called "woman's speak". I am able to communicate effectively. I do the same in my marriage. 

For some reason, there is a disconnect...:scratchhead:


----------



## skype

techmom said:


> Not to harp on the men of TAM, but the majority of the threads started by men are because of low desire for sex. Women start threads on a variety of issues.


But if it weren't for the expectation of regular, enthusiastic sex, I doubt that many (most?) men would get married.

When they no longer feel loved due to sexual rejection, they start threads to see if there is any way to make their wives understand the depths of their unhappiness.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> Sure, his interpretation of her expressing her truth as naggings is his realty/truth.
> 
> What is the solution? That she stop talking to her husband?
> 
> Here are two situations.. they are not the some couple so not tied together.. Tell me your suggestion of how it should be handled by the woman.
> 
> 1) He spends all his time doing things that do not include her. She is profoundly lonely and loosing her connection with him. So she tells him this and asks him to work with her on this. She asks can we set up date nights once a week. He interprets this as her attacking him and nagging. He does not do anything to spend any more time with her.
> 
> 2) He spends most of his free time at night playing computer games and surfing the web. He comes to bed at about 2-3am every night as he does not need but 4 hours of sleep. They both work and need to be up early. She need a full 8 hours of sleep. When he goes to bed at 2-3 am he wakes her up almost every night for sex. At first this was sexy and she liked it. But now she's exhausted from it. So she tells him that she wants sex with him as much as he wants it with her. So could he please come to bed earlier and they can have a great romp in the hay. He interprets this as her attacking him and nagging. He does not change his behavior and still wakes her up at 2-3 am for sex when he comes to bed.
> 
> Ok what are your suggests for what these women should do to solve what they see as problems.


Hmmm...maybe I am a woman.... (peeks surreptitiously in trousers to make sure....)

In my marriage my wife gets excited about things and goes full bore into them, and it's been left to me to develop interests we could explore together. She seems to genuinely enjoy time together, but if I don't make it happen, it doesn't happen...whether it be dinner, a movie or a holiday away.

And my sex life is less frequent than I would prefer. As part of this I often fall asleep at night to the glow of my wife's iPad on Facebook, Plants vs Zombies, or whatever.

My solution.....keep working on communication. And its not perfect. But its that or walk away.

"For richer or poorer, for better or worse, in sickness or health..." . That was my promise. Bottom line. 

Not judging anyone who walks away...there have been times.....


----------



## techmom

skype said:


> But if it weren't for the expectation of regular, enthusiastic sex, I doubt that many (most?) men would get married.
> 
> When they no longer feel loved due to sexual rejection, they start threads to see if there is any way to make their wives understand the depths of their unhappiness.


Curious that this would be the part of the post you pick up, what about this in the context of the entire post?


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> It has been expressed here in this thread many times by some male posters that the reason why men don't understand what their wife is saying is because she isn't talking like a man. This is the reason for my previous posts. If you love someone, and you were able to communicate enough to start a relationship, have sex, then decide that it is a good idea to get married, then maybe, just maybe they were able to communicate.
> 
> This whole thread is curious, men and women are able to communicate effectively in these relationships up until what point? At what point do men feel like everything is nagging?
> 
> Am I expecting too much of my husband to be able to communicate to me, and me to him? As you can tell from my posts, I don't use so-called "woman's speak". I am able to communicate effectively. I do the same in my marriage.
> 
> For some reason, there is a disconnect...:scratchhead:


My thesis is that a man needs to try and talk more like a woman, and a woman needs to talk more like a man. I think the communication gap is always there, but we are all forgiving earlier in a relationship. In a marriage you have to make all sorts of decisions (financial, career, family) that bring you up against the communication differences. And what if sometimes life gets a bit much, and you just long for the "simple times" before you were married. 

There are some very definite hormonal things that occur, and I have found them to be real. The endorphins of early lust, the long term intimacy caused by non-sexual touch to trigger oxytocin. These things matter.


----------



## Basic"FairyDust"Love

techmom said:


> Most male posters want marriage and the sex to last forever, just like most of the female posters want the marriage and the romance/communication to last forever. But it doesn't, both sides seem to think that the other side is moving the goalpost.
> 
> Men: why can't she be more adventurous in bed? I want anal, and some oral....why can't she talk dirty and show that she desires me!? I don't want duty sex!


If this is the biggest thing on a man's mind then he needs to reevaluate. He should maybe look into being with a man. Men do plenty of anal and oral with each other since they don't have a vagina to penetrate.


----------



## Forest

Wazza said:


> My thesis is that a man needs to try and talk more like a woman, and a woman needs to talk more like a man.


By reading thru TAM, do you think any of this is already happening?


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> I think you are mid-divorce, yes? My comments here are general;, and not aimed at your situation in particular.


Nope, first divorce in 1996. Second in 2012.



Wazza said:


> I think some expect their partner to do more without realising. It's often easier to see other people's faults than your own.


That is true.


Wazza said:


> Sometimes there is a place for keeping working on a marriage and sometimes there is a place to give up and walk away. Each person gets to make that choice. .


Yep, and I made that choice.


Wazza said:


> But, while sometimes walking away is the only option, you need to consider that you were part of the marriage you are leaving. What behaviours did you bring into the marriage that led to the problems and pain? What behaviours will you take into the next marriage?.


You are speaking to the choir. 


Wazza said:


> Or was it all your partner's fault?


I am not perfect. I know this. I was willing to work on anything that my husband(s) wanted to up to the day I filed for divorce. 

First husband: Decided unilaterally to go to medical school. After that I supported him and our son financially and did all the housework, chores and child care. He refused to spend any time with me. He turned very angry, abusive and violent. I spent over $100K on his medical school and he moved over $100K of my earnings into a secret account. I later found out that he cheated on me during all of medical school and residency. (He did not display any of this anger, violence or propensity to cheat in the 5 years we dated before marriage). I tried talking to him, I tried counseling with him, you name it, and I tied it. His only response was anger.

Second husband: He came with full custody of his two children ages 10 & 12. After we married I found out that he had been cheating online and in person with women he met on the web while we were engaged in the 1st year of our marriage. We used the marriage builders material and reconciled. He lost his job in year 2 (he was an IT consultant with a 6 figure income). I helped him send out resumes, etc. I worked with him to start business endeavors – his ideas. I put out the money and time to support him. He never followed through. Instead he spent his time playing computer games, surfing the web and sometimes coaching minor league football. When he was at home, he stayed locked in his home office and would not spend any personal time with me. He also would not parent his children and ignored them. I became the de facto sole financial support. I did 100% of childcare, housework, yard work, cooking, shopping, managed finances, etc. (Before we married he was a hard working guy for 20 years. His ex says that he never cheated. His kids say that he use to spend a lot of time doing things with them. When I married him… he changed.)

So sure I have faults. I have no doubt that I am not perfect. But if my husband will not talk to me and be engaged with me, there is not a lot that I can do.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> Hmmm...maybe I am a woman.... (peeks surreptitiously in trousers to make sure....)
> 
> In my marriage my wife gets excited about things and goes full bore into them, and it's been left to me to develop interests we could explore together. She seems to genuinely enjoy time together, but if I don't make it happen, it doesn't happen...whether it be dinner, a movie or a holiday away.
> 
> And my sex life is less frequent than I would prefer. As part of this I often fall asleep at night to the glow of my wife's iPad on Facebook, Plants vs Zombies, or whatever.
> 
> My solution.....keep working on communication. And its not perfect. But its that or walk away.
> 
> "For richer or poorer, for better or worse, in sickness or health..." . That was my promise. Bottom line.
> 
> Not judging anyone who walks away...there have been times.....


Ok so you have no solutions other than the exact ones that the women here are saying that they have tried.

We keep trying to communicate and to get our spouse to work with us to make the marriage better.

So why are we being told that we are not doing it right if we are doing exactly what men do?


----------



## Wazza

I deleted the last sentence from my post Elegirl, but you were too quick for me.

I don't generally judge when people walk away from a marriage. You don't know what it is like until you are inside it. 

My wife is a more gregarious person than me. I have no doubt if we ever divorce, she has a lot of friends who think she is a nice person (and she is!!!) and would take her side. 

I know things about her that they don't. 

And ultimately, even though I am male, and constantly try to solve problems, I don't have a solution for this one.


----------



## EleGirl

skype said:


> But if it weren't for the expectation of regular, enthusiastic sex, I doubt that many (most?) men would get married.


Do you even realize that you have said here?

The only thing a man wants with a woman is sex. He does not want love, companionship, etc. 

If this is all men want, why do some men not cherish a women who never says no, is high drive, wants regular sex, is enthusiastic?




skype said:


> When they no longer feel loved due to sexual rejection, they start threads to see if there is any way to make their wives understand the depths of their unhappiness.


I do believe that this is what Tech Mom was saying. the only thing in the relationship that he seems to notice is the sex. As the marriage is falling apart, he does not notice it until the sex is affected.

A lot of women who start to withhold sex and lose sexual interest say that they get this way because they come to realize that sex is all their husband cares about. 

Food for thought here.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> I deleted the last sentence from my post Elegirl, but you were too quick for me.
> 
> I don't generally judge when people walk away from a marriage. You don't know what it is like until you are inside it.
> 
> My wife is a more gregarious person than me. I have no doubt if we ever divorce, she has a lot of friends who think she is a nice person (and she is!!!) and would take her side.
> 
> I know things about her that they don't.
> 
> And ultimately, even though I am male, and constantly try to solve problems, I don't have a solution for this one.


I don't have a solution either.... obviously, I left.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> Ok so you have no solutions other than the exact ones that the women here are saying that they have tried.
> 
> We keep trying to communicate and to get our spouse to work with us to make the marriage better.
> 
> So why are we being told that we are not doing it right if we are doing exactly what men do?


As a woman, do you sometimes look at us men and laugh at our feeble attempts at emotional communication (I think someone earlier described it as like talking to a toddler). I might think I am doing exactly what a woman does.....

I accept this is correct. I do my best, but I accept there will be some things I just don't get, and I factor that into my communication. It's important to recognise my limits.

Perhaps you aren't doing what men do. You just think you are. 

Maybe some of the women saying this have the same problem. I know my wife does. With all due respect to her, her idea of direct communication is as laughable as my expression of emotions. 

To extend my earlier analogy, I speak English, she speaks Chinese, and we find common ground by stumbling along in Afrikaans.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> Do you even realize that you have said here?
> 
> The only thing a man wants with a woman is sex. He does not want love, companionship, etc.
> 
> If this is all men want, why do some men not cherish a women who never says no, is high drive, wants regular sex, is enthusiastic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that this is what Tech Mom was saying. the only thing in the relationship that he seems to notice is the sex. As the marriage is falling apart, he does not notice it until the sex is affected.
> 
> A lot of women who start to withhold sex and lose sexual interest say that they get this way because they come to realize that sex is all their husband cares about.
> 
> Food for thought here.


I don't feel that way about marriage, and I know other guys who don't.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> I don't have a solution either.... obviously, I left.


Sorry. It sucks sometimes.....


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> I don't feel that way about marriage, and I know other guys who don't.


I know too many good men to believe what was posted. I was just challenging Skype to stop and think about what he posted.


----------



## techmom

Ok, I'll state this, the following is an example of how I would address my husband when I have an issue...

"Hubby, I like the way you help out around the house, however please don't leave the sponge soaking wet on the sink without wringing it out dry first, we would attract less roaches if you wring it out."

I started off with a compliment, followed by my issue, followed with a solution, ending with the reason why I'm concerned and bringing it up in the first place. 

Yet, the sponge is still soaking wet on the sink. Where did I go wrong?


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> As a woman, do you sometimes look at us men and laugh at our feeble attempts at emotional communication (I think someone earlier described it as like talking to a toddler).


No, I don’t look at men this way. I know plenty of men who can talk about their emotions. For example I don’t think that my husbands were unable to communicate their emotions. They had no problem when we were dating and first married. And I think that later they expressed their emotions very well… My first husband made it clear that I was beneath him and that he wanted nothing to do with me (except for the money I could provide to him). Remember that 70% of human communication is nonverbal


Wazza said:


> I might think I am doing exactly what a woman does.....


I’m not sure what you are saying? Are you saying that you laugh at what you perceive as some men not being able or communicate emotions? Or are you saying that you laugh at what you perceive as some women not being able to communicate emotions?


Wazza said:


> I accept this is correct. I do my best, but I accept there will be some things I just don't get, and I factor that into my communication. It's important to recognise my limits.


Everyone has limits.


Wazza said:


> Perhaps you aren't doing what men do. You just think you are.


I don’t think that men all men do the same thing. So to say that a women is communicating as men do it sort of nonsense. The only solution any man on this thread has given that is different from what the women have said they already do is to either to shut up and just accept their husband as is, or threaten to divorce him if he does not work on the marriage. So I don’t think that men and women are all that different. I don’t see any new solutions here offered by the men.


Wazza said:


> Maybe some of the women saying this have the same problem. I know my wife does. With all due respect to her, her idea of direct communication is as laughable as my expression of emotions.


Ok


Wazza said:


> To extend my earlier analogy, I speak English, she speaks Chinese, and we find common ground by stumbling along in Afrikaans.


 If it works for you, that’s good. Some couples never work this out.


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> Ok, I'll state this, the following is an example of how I would address my husband when I have an issue...
> 
> "Hubby, I like the way you help out around the house, however please don't leave the sponge soaking wet on the sink without wringing it out dry first, we would attract less roaches if you wring it out."
> 
> I started off with a compliment, followed by my issue, followed with a solution, ending with the reason why I'm concerned and bringing it up in the first place.
> 
> Yet, the sponge is still soaking wet on the sink. Where did I go wrong?


What you did wrong is that you don't just wring out the sponge yourself.


----------



## ocotillo

techmom said:


> Granted, the only problems men tend to notice first are lack of sex, if they are still getting laid and the wife is stating issues, it is more likely interpreted as nagging.
> 
> Not to harp on the men of TAM, but the majority of the threads started by men are because of low desire for sex. Women start threads on a variety of issues.


I have a slightly different take on this (As a man) For me, it is a question of magnitude - the difference between a burned meal and a burned down house.

I can forgive a sharp tongue now and then. I can forgive financial irresponsibility now and then. I'm happy to work with steep emotional hills and valleys. I'm happy to work with emotional neediness. I'm more than happy to spend forty five minutes or so each evening discussing every detail of her day, right down to people's facial expressions. I can work with a four degree comfort zone. I can forgive a $500 car repair escalated into a $5000 car repair. I'm happy to work with a lack of domestic skills. I don't mind more shoes than Imelda Marcos had scattered all over the house. On and on and on. --All things I can take in stride and nothing I would actually complain about. 

A lack of sex is greater than these things by an order of magnitude and the equivalent of the house on fire because now implicit and explicit promises she made in front or her friends, her family, her minister and her God (And me if that counts for anything..) are being broken. 

So with respect, I'm not sure if the direction you seem to be going necessarily follows. A person is not necessarily unobservant or emotionally distant simply because a lack of sex is their personal boundary.


----------



## southbound

techmom said:


> Ok, I'll state this, the following is an example of how I would address my husband when I have an issue...
> 
> "Hubby, I like the way you help out around the house, however please don't leave the sponge soaking wet on the sink without wringing it out dry first, we would attract less roaches if you wring it out."
> 
> I started off with a compliment, followed by my issue, followed with a solution, ending with the reason why I'm concerned and bringing it up in the first place.
> 
> Yet, the sponge is still soaking wet on the sink. Where did I go wrong?


That's a good point. I guess we just often don't take things as seriously as we should. On the other hand, do you correct everything that he might tell you in that same manner? 

I always tried to get the point across to my x wife that the garbage disposal wasn't designed to handle "all" kitchen waste. It would be a good idea to read the directions and see what it recommends to put and not to put. She never did it and just used it as if it could grind up steel and a gallon of lard and not blink.

That's why it was out of order a lot and why a new one was required after a few years; however, I just chalked it up to "one of those things" and went on. Although it made me want to bite a fork in two sometimes, it didn't cause me to lose attraction or consider divorce. 

I guess I put some of her complaints in the same category.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> I have a slightly different take on this (As a man) For me, it is a question of magnitude - the difference between a burned meal and a burned down house.
> 
> I can forgive a sharp tongue now and then. I can forgive financial irresponsibility now and then. I'm happy to work with steep emotional hills and valleys. I'm happy to work with emotional neediness. I'm more than happy to spend forty five minutes or so each evening discussing every detail of her day, right down to people's facial expressions. I can work with a four degree comfort zone. I can forgive a $500 car repair escalated into a $5000 car repair. I'm happy to work with a lack of domestic skills. I don't mind more shoes than Imelda Marcos had scattered all over the house. On and on and on. --All things I can take in stride and nothing I would actually complain about.
> 
> A lack of sex is greater than these things by an order of magnitude and the equivalent of the house on fire because now implicit and explicit promises she made in front or her friends, her family, her minister and her God (And me if that counts for anything..) are being broken.
> 
> So with respect, I'm not sure if the direction you seem to be going necessarily follows. A person is not necessarily unobservant or emotionally distant simply because a lack of sex is their personal boundary.


This is a very good post. I agree. In a situation like yours and you are doing all that a man can reasonable do, if our wife starts to withhold sex you will notice that and it will be your issue. 

What I think Tech Mom was trying to talk about are cases where there are issues as big a sex that are glossed over…. Until the sex life suffers.

Non-sexual intimacy and time spent together is as important to women as sex is for men. To me they are both equally important. For women, Oxytocin is a very important hormone. It is not only created in sex. The body creates lots of it when with time spent together building up non-sexual intimacy. If a woman’s oxytocin levels drop too low the result is that her bond to her SO/husband is lost and she will not even want him to touch her, much less have sex with him. The reason that the 15 hour a week number is given as essential for couples is that it takes about that much time for a couple’s oxytocin levels to remain high enough to maintain the bond that is needed for passion in a relationship. 

Just like hormones are what creates the romantic in-love felling in the first 18-24 months of a relationship, keeping oxytocin (and other brain chemistry) level high enough is what maintains the bond and desire in a marriage. This is especially true for women.

There are marriages in which the husband is not willing to spend time with their wife. He’s on the computer or with his friends for most of his free time. He comes to bed at 2-3 am every morning and wakes his wife up for sex (I’m using this example as it’s one that a woman posted). She’s asked him to come to be earlier so that they can have sex and she can get good sleep that she needs. He ignores her request and keeps up the 2-3 am thing. So she eventually refuses him sex at 2-3 am. Now he’s pissed, she is withholding. So suddenly sex is the issue.

Or again he spends no time with her, he is going his hobbies, spending time with friends, on the computer. She has told him that she is needs to have time with him. He blows her off and continues. Eventually she loses her desire for him. Few women, even HD women, will want sex with a husband who withholds all/most non-sexual intimacy. 

So when she stops wanting sex with him, suddenly he notices. He then usually blames her for their LD and frigid.

Tech Mom is not talking about your marriage. She’s talking about something that we often see here on TAM. (We see it on TAM because this is where we see people talking about marriage problems.)


----------



## Forest

IIJokerII said:


> And another one gets powed out of the park.
> 
> And this, with several other testimonies and stories and such proves one things; Men are emotionally handicapped by society and the media compared to woman. Like Vel, I gave my wife everything she ever openly wanted as best I could while making sure our children and household remained stable and happy. If you tell me your happy with life don't complain later and pro-rate it saying you were never happy.
> 
> I am not a mind reading clown, if you say nothing I hear nothing and cannot read minds or suggestions. Sure, I can read body language but am unable to translate what indeed sulking, moping or random irritation into in terms of words or interpretations but what do they mean?????
> 
> How many men here were, or still are "Nice Guy's" who did endless bow's and curtseys for their brides only to be rewarded with an unimpressed expectation of deliverance. I am SUPPOSED to go to work since that is what a responsible Father, ahem, Parent does, I am supposed to help clean up what didn't get done around the house because that is the sign of a man who cares......Regardless if NOTHING GOT DONE ALL DAY!!!. I am supposed to accept my sacrifices of life in lieu of others but acknowledge yours because somehow your matter more, I do not know why, but hot damn, I a know you'll make sure I at least follow suit and submit.
> 
> And despite this these women, who hinted, asked, pushed, demanded and then the worse, expected this and more while the scale of marital balance clearly in their favor eventually treat their men like crap since they lost respect for us. A Walk away Wife is just a cop out akin to the Mid Life Crisis men so often use when they go off the deep end.
> 
> And who the hell is anybody here or elsewhere to tell someone how long they should mourn, or be angry or hurt by their betrayal!!! For this I do not see a sign of weakness but examples of people who got cut deep by the knife of betrayal. It goes to show that for some, or even many, the just get over it or time heals all wounds is not a blanket end result for all. Would any one here grab a rape victim by the shoulders and tell them ( Editors note* Them includes both genders and not "Them" as a group of Female victims before anyone fires a shot) hey, it. like happened 3 years ago, time to let that water pass and move on. FYI, something called trauma can be permanent.


The lack of response to your post is telling. Someone would actually have to have backbone, rather than just a bully pulpit/vanity press personality to refute you.


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> The lack of response to your post is telling. Someone would actually have to have backbone, rather than just a bully pulpit/vanity press personality to refute you.


I did respond to his post. it takes no back bone to respond to it.

His post is saying that all women are like his (ex?)wife... demanding everything their own and all men bend over backwards to please them. Then the ungrateful wench leaves.

While I'm sorry that he went through that. All women are not like his wife.

Some women have husbands are who an awful lot like his wife.


----------



## techmom

ocotillo said:


> I have a slightly different take on this (As a man) For me, it is a question of magnitude - the difference between a burned meal and a burned down house.
> 
> I can forgive a sharp tongue now and then. I can forgive financial irresponsibility now and then. I'm happy to work with steep emotional hills and valleys. I'm happy to work with emotional neediness. I'm more than happy to spend forty five minutes or so each evening discussing every detail of her day, right down to people's facial expressions. I can work with a four degree comfort zone. I can forgive a $500 car repair escalated into a $5000 car repair. I'm happy to work with a lack of domestic skills. I don't mind more shoes than Imelda Marcos had scattered all over the house. On and on and on. --All things I can take in stride and nothing I would actually complain about.
> 
> A lack of sex is greater than these things by an order of magnitude and the equivalent of the house on fire because now implicit and explicit promises she made in front or her friends, her family, her minister and her God (And me if that counts for anything..) are being broken.
> 
> So with respect, I'm not sure if the direction you seem to be going necessarily follows. A person is not necessarily unobservant or emotionally distant simply because a lack of sex is their personal boundary.


So , sex is the only thing agreed upon during the wedding?

Aren't emotional needs important? Can a wife get her emotional needs met outside of marriage? Why not? If she can, then why do we have emotional affairs?

Sex is important, but it is not the only important thing in a marriage. If it was, then men wouldn't mind marrying one of the high desire women they knew before marriage. Instead they marry the so-called pure virginal bride they can take home to mother.


----------



## techmom

Forest said:


> The lack of response to your post is telling. Someone would actually have to have backbone, rather than just a bully pulpit/vanity press personality to refute you.


There are a few posts which were just rants, projecting what went on in their marriage instead of reading the previous posts. Jokers post was one of them. There were posts following his which explained our positions.

I'm sorry he was so hurt by his ex wife,but if he wants to improve and better his life he needs to realize that not every woman is his ex.


----------



## techmom

EleGirl said:


> What you did wrong is that you don't just wring out the sponge yourself.


Son of a gun....problem solved:smthumbup:


----------



## Forest

EleGirl said:


> I did respond to his post.


Yes, but that's rather a given.


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> Yes, but that's rather a given.


psst :lol:


----------



## Wolf1974

techmom said:


> I agree, to a point. I feel that we need to raise our children differently than we have been doing for the thousands of years we have evolved. We are in the technology era, raising boys to be foot soldiers is not going to help humanity as it did in the past. Warfare nowadays is involving drones, sooner or later we will be using robots and such. Soon every interaction will be involving computers.
> 
> Raising our sons to be emotionally stunted and macho is not going to serve humanity. Their has to be a better way. Our boys are not going to thrive in this changing environment, and we will fall behind.
> 
> Marriage counseling after years of being trained to "fight!" "Conquer!" And "win!" Is not going to work. The key is to train boys to be in tune with emotions other than anger and hornyness.
> 
> We also need to raise our girls to embrace their sexuality. Then maybe they can be fully sexual in close loving relationships with their husbands instead of letting loose only when they are on a one night stand, when their is no chance of being reminded of the sex they were willing to partake in. Cutting off female sexuality taught girls that sex is bad, and if you do it you will forever be seen as a s!ut. So don't do the crazy acts with your husband who will remember it and "heavens forbid" remind you of it. Do it before marriage with guys you will, hopefully, never see again.
> 
> These things need to change if we hope for the institution of marriage to continue.


Fair at the same time though can't have the blind leading the blind right? If a guy isn't ok at communication and being open then what are the chances of him teaching his son? Has to start somewhere.


----------



## Wazza

vellocet said:


> Here is the problem. You can take my past situation for example.
> 
> My x-wife would complain that I ignore her which wasn't the case at all. If anything it was the opposite. She wanted to be a SAHM against my desires, but I gave in and agreed.
> 
> So here she is staying home with the kids LIKE SHE WANTED, but then complained about it.
> 
> So as her husband, what did I so? Something really REALLY stupid........I tried to help her. I watched the kids so she could go have some time with friends and always making time for us.
> 
> What a f'in moron I was. So excuse me if that article and the attitudes towards husbands in this thread doesn't just tickle the sh*t out of me.





IIJokerII said:


> And another one gets powed out of the park.
> 
> And this, with several other testimonies and stories and such proves one things; Men are emotionally handicapped by society and the media compared to woman. Like Vel, I gave my wife everything she ever openly wanted as best I could while making sure our children and household remained stable and happy. If you tell me your happy with life don't complain later and pro-rate it saying you were never happy.
> 
> I am not a mind reading clown, if you say nothing I hear nothing and cannot read minds or suggestions. Sure, I can read body language but am unable to translate what indeed sulking, moping or random irritation into in terms of words or interpretations but what do they mean?????
> 
> How many men here were, or still are "Nice Guy's" who did endless bow's and curtseys for their brides only to be rewarded with an unimpressed expectation of deliverance. I am SUPPOSED to go to work since that is what a responsible Father, ahem, Parent does, I am supposed to help clean up what didn't get done around the house because that is the sign of a man who cares......Regardless if NOTHING GOT DONE ALL DAY!!!. I am supposed to accept my sacrifices of life in lieu of others but acknowledge yours because somehow your matter more, I do not know why, but hot damn, I a know you'll make sure I at least follow suit and submit.
> 
> And despite this these women, who hinted, asked, pushed, demanded and then the worse, expected this and more while the scale of marital balance clearly in their favor eventually treat their men like crap since they lost respect for us. A Walk away Wife is just a cop out akin to the Mid Life Crisis men so often use when they go off the deep end.
> 
> And who the hell is anybody here or elsewhere to tell someone how long they should mourn, or be angry or hurt by their betrayal!!! For this I do not see a sign of weakness but examples of people who got cut deep by the knife of betrayal. It goes to show that for some, or even many, the just get over it or time heals all wounds is not a blanket end result for all. Would any one here grab a rape victim by the shoulders and tell them ( Editors note* Them includes both genders and not "Them" as a group of Female victims before anyone fires a shot) hey, it. like happened 3 years ago, time to let that water pass and move on. FYI, something called trauma can be permanent.





Forest said:


> The lack of response to your post is telling. Someone would actually have to have backbone, rather than just a bully pulpit/vanity press personality to refute you.


If you want someone to say that these expressions of sadness are justified, well yes I think they are. But are they helpful?

I am a male who has been in close to the same position (I chose to persist in my marriage where Vellocet chose to end his....but mine hung by a thread for a long time). So I think I get it.

I've written in this thread about communication and bridging the gap between the genders. In the case of my wife there was a little bit of both. Maybe we could have avoided an affair, but I think there was always going to be a crisis of some sort. I am not Vellocet or IllJoker, I don't know what they went through, but I think it likely that their wives might say they didn't listen sometimes.

Vellocet left the thread. If he were still here, I would expect him to say that he might have had his faults but they don't make his wife's affair right. I'd agree with that. 

Marriages have problems. They lead to pain. Sometimes they lead to someone leaving, or infidelity. Nothing I do can ever change that my wife cheated. The only constructive discussion was whether the relationship had a future. And that required looking for positives, not picking at scabs.

As for how long it takes to get over it....well I never totally got over it and it's been 25 years. But until I put it into perspective and got on with life, the person I hurt most was me.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

I shared the article from the original post with my H. I've told him for some time now what I need to no avail, so I thought that showing him the article would at least let him understand why I feel as I do, that it's common, and this explain why I am where I am.

His response was to defend and then say, "Do what you need to do."

I think so many on this thread are too angry and defensive to take any of the article to heart. And that, folks, will lead to a walk away spouse.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

techmom said:


> There are a few posts which were just rants, projecting what went on in their marriage instead of reading the previous posts. Jokers post was one of them. There were posts following his which explained our positions.
> 
> I'm sorry he was so hurt by his ex wife,but if he wants to improve and better his life he needs to realize that not every woman is his ex.


Exactly. Way to many posting from projection of thier relationship. It's too bad cause some progress can be made when we let down the defenses of the past and listen to one another


----------



## techmom

Wolf1974 said:


> Fair at the same time though can't have the blind leading the blind right? If a guy isn't ok at communication and being open then what are the chances of him teaching his son? Has to start somewhere.


I don't know, but maybe we can start with the babies by showing both genders equal amount of affection. There were studies showing that when we know the gender of the child we tend to hug the boys less than the girls. We can also start with the toys, building blocks and Legos for both genders. Stop discouraging boys from playing with dolls or other toys considered girl toys. Let them become nurturing instead of just learning to destroy. Let girls play with trucks and encourage them to develop strength.

We will keep getting the same problems if we keep doing the same things that was done to us.


----------



## ocotillo

techmom said:


> So , sex is the only thing agreed upon during the wedding?
> 
> Aren't emotional needs important? Can a wife get her emotional needs met outside of marriage? Why not? If she can, then why do we have emotional affairs?


This will make the third time on this thread I have agreed with the author of the article cited by the OP. Again, it is not in his interest as a professional marriage counselor to lie about this or exhibit bias against men. If he says there is an emotionally distant husband in most cases of WAW syndrome I truly believe him.

It seems to me though (Again) that the author's observation about a fairly specific marital problem is being unfairly stretched to include all marital problems. It is fallacious to assume that what is true of the sample is true of the whole and believe it or not, a man can attend to his wife's emotional needs and still be unable to melt the ice. Humans are complex creatures and any single behavior you can name has many potential causes.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

I think women who are in unhappy relationships are in a tricky spot. If they try to be ok, to accept what is and be happy but are unable to do so until they hit a breaking point, they are walk aways. If they ask for what they need, they are complainers.

At one time I tried to voice my needs in as polite a way as I could. When that didn't get through, I moved to more direct communication. When that didn't work, anger and resentment came in. And he says he doesn't like how I talk to him... Well, if I could figure out how to talk to him that would make a difference, I would do that. But there is no way - he is unmovable.

I told him today that he doesn't care about us. He took offense. But he doesn't. If your child was sick and needed a doctor, would you ignore him? Would you let his illness grow and worsen until death was near? Of course not. But he did that with our marriage. It died a slow, needless death due to indifference and neglect. If you wouldn't let your child die, then why do you let your marriage die? Is it nagging, or is it a cry for help from the marriage itself? Let it die or give it the attention it needs to not only live, but thrive. The choice is yours.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

SurpriseMyself said:


> I think women who are in unhappy relationships are in a tricky spot. If they try to be ok, to accept what is and be happy but are unable to do so until they hit a breaking point, they are walk aways. If they ask for what they need, they are complainers.
> 
> At one times tried to voice my needs in as polite a way as I could. When that didn't get through, I moved to more direct communication. When that didn't work, anger and resentment came in. And he says he doesn't like how I talk to him... Well, if I could figure out how to talk to him that would make a difference, I would do that. But there is no way - he is unmovable.
> 
> I told him today that he doesn't care about us. He took offense. But he doesn't. If your child was sick and needed a doctor, would you ignore him? Would you let his illness grow and worsen until death was near? Of course not. But he did that with our marriage. It died a slow, needless death due to indifference and neglect. If you wouldn't let your child die, then why do you let your marriage die? Is it nagging, or is it a cry for help from the marriage itself? Let it doe or give it the attention it needs to not only live, but thrive. The choice is yours.


Are you going to leave and file for divorce? If you do, do you think he will be shocked?


----------



## SurpriseMyself

EleGirl said:


> Are you going to leave and file for divorce? If you do, do you think he will be shocked?


He knows. I've even told him when I'm going to look at apartments. No hiding here. Just haven't found a place that meets all my criteria and fits my budget.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

SurpriseMyself said:


> He knows. I've even told him when I'm going to look at apartments. No hiding here. Just haven't found a place that meets all my criteria and fits my budget.


So he is not shocked that you would leave him?


----------



## SurpriseMyself

EleGirl said:


> So he is not shocked that you would leave him?


Nope. He is in therapy, but it is too late. The marriage is dead. There is nothing left. I shared the article with him not to change him, but only to make him see that I am not unreasonable in my needs or requests. He came back with my dislike of his family, which wasn't the topic and a means of changing the topic to avoid the real issue.

He is right - I don't care for the values of his FOO. His father carries an empty soda bottle around our house and spits his chewing tobacco into it. His mother is so shelters in her southern, Bible Belt thinking that she thought my father, who was jewish, still believed in Jesus. His nephew is on his second marriage at age 24 and his niece is dropping out of college to marry a guy who works in a fast food restaurant. I know that sounds judgmental, but it is what it is. My family has PhDs, valedictorians, and entrepreneurs. His dad didn't finish 8th grade. It's hard to accept, but I looked past those differences since he wasn't like his family. But my H would rather point out where I struggle with his family than the real issues that caused our marriage to die.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wazza

Forest said:


> By reading thru TAM, do you think any of this is already happening?


Not enough.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> Ok, I'll state this, the following is an example of how I would address my husband when I have an issue...
> 
> "Hubby, I like the way you help out around the house, however please don't leave the sponge soaking wet on the sink without wringing it out dry first, we would attract less roaches if you wring it out."
> 
> I started off with a compliment, followed by my issue, followed with a solution, ending with the reason why I'm concerned and bringing it up in the first place.
> 
> Yet, the sponge is still soaking wet on the sink. Where did I go wrong?


First, this is a room-mates type argument. You don't have to be married for this sort of thing to be an issue. And I suspect there isn't a total cure for it. Some people are less tidy than others.

You spoke at him. Ask him what he things. Dialog.

Or you could try a mnemonic to remind him about the sponge. Hide roaches in his dinner. When he eats them, mutter about the sponge. Much more effective if you can serve them live.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> Or you could try a mnemonic to remind him about the sponge. Hide roaches in his dinner. When he eats them, mutter about the sponge. Much more effective if you can serve them live.


Gross ... :rofl:


----------



## techmom

Wazza said:


> First, this is a room-mates type argument. You don't have to be married for this sort of thing to be an issue. And I suspect there isn't a total cure for it. Some people are less tidy than others.
> 
> You spoke at him. Ask him what he things. Dialog.
> 
> Or you could try a mnemonic to remind him about the sponge. Hide roaches in his dinner. When he eats them, mutter about the sponge. Much more effective if you can serve them live.


I was using this as an example. Your solutions seem too passive agressive for me.

I speak directly to him as if he was an adult, asking him about what he thinks about a dripping wet sponge on the sink seems like I'm talking to a child.


----------



## EleGirl

SurpriseMyself said:


> Nope. He is in therapy, but it is too late. The marriage is dead. There is nothing left. I shared the article with him not to change him, but only to make him see that I am not unreasonable in my needs or requests. He came back with my dislike of his family, which wasn't the topic and a means of changing the topic to avoid the real issue.
> 
> He is right - I don't care for the values of his FOO. His father carries an empty soda bottle around our house and spits his chewing tobacco into it. His mother is so shelters in her southern, Bible Belt thinking that she thought my father, who was jewish, still believed in Jesus. His nephew is on his second marriage at age 24 and his niece is dropping out of college to marry a guy who works in a fast food restaurant. I know that sounds judgmental, but it is what it is. My family has PhDs, valedictorians, and entrepreneurs. His dad didn't finish 8th grade. It's hard to accept, but I looked past those differences since he wasn't like his family. But my H would rather point out where I struggle with his family than the real issues that caused our marriage to die.


That is sad.

Does he love his family? If so, your looking down on them can very well be a real issue for him. People often feel that if you look down on their family you are looking down on them.

I hate to see marriages that don't work out. I'm sorry it is ending this way.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

I can't believe this got to 39 pages. I haven't been able to keep up! Honestly, it boils down to one thing.

People leave people they love because they believe they are not loved in return. If it feels like you are giving and giving and giving and never receiving, sooner or later you reach the end of your rope.

Works the same way for either gender, hetero or gay relationship. 

The WAY in which that love is trusted is variable though. So so variable.

Some people feel unloved if they don't get sex when they would like it.
Some feel unloved if they are not recognized/respected for their hard work.
Others feel unloved if they get pestered for sex when they do not want it
Some feel unloved when they are treated like a nanny or an ATM.

These people may very well be dearly loved by their partner, but if the partner is expressing it in a way they don't understand, they assume it is absent, and leave when they get fed up.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> I was using this as an example. Your solutions seem too passive agressive for me.
> 
> I speak directly to him as if he was an adult, asking him about what he thinks about a dripping wet sponge on the sink seems like I'm talking to a child.


Passive aggressive.....I wonder if you took the roach thing seriously.... ? 

Take two. Being very direct.....if the story happened as relayed, and you were my wife, I would regard you as out of line.

It's his place as well. He gets a say. If he wants to leave a wet sponge around he has a right to. If it bugged him he'd do something. I can only conclude it doesn't bug him. 

The only reason for him to do something about it seems to be out of consideration for you. 

But you laid down the law. Your assumption seems to be that any reasonable person would do as you would. With respect, that is an arrogant assumption. He might have felt insulted or patronised. 

You tell him what to do, with no room for him to hold a different opinion as an equal, and you call that treating him like an adult. I suggest a dialog which considers his point of view and you see it as talking to him like a child. 

The way you tell the story, you don't even have any idea what he thinks, beyond that the sponge is still wet. He hasn't said anything. He hasn't been encouraged to say anything. Effective communication is two way. Surely that is true regardless of whether you have a peepee or a veejay.

Hope I haven't spoken too directly. I tried softening my words, but it wasn't possible to convey the message without being fairly direct.


----------



## yeah_right

Wazza said:


> Or you could try a mnemonic to remind him about the sponge. Hide roaches in his dinner. When he eats them, mutter about the sponge. Much more effective if you can serve them live.


I stopped cleaning bathrooms, floors and HIS laundry when he didn't listen. We were young, kids were young, both of us worked full-time but he just wouldn't do any household chores. I'm awesome, but not that awesome...I needed him to help. And he wasn't.

Two weeks later, the crud around the toilet grew, the floors felt gritty and he soon ran out of clean socks and underwear. Being a man, and a problem solver, he took it upon himself to clean. When he came out of the bathroom after hours of scrubbing, he declared it a difficult task and has been helping me ever since. I'm so glad he came up with the idea of helping with chores...

ETA - I made the toddler comment a while back. It was in jest and part of a larger story on how good he is with reading my emotions now. I do not feel that talking like a man is equivalent to preschool-speak. And my last sentence of the above paragraph may make it sound like I do not respect my H. But I do. I respect him, and genuinely like him. And I love his butt. And from hearing stories on this thread about spouses, I feel I need to log off shortly and give him a nice BJ because he makes me happy...

...even if I have to use one syllable words to ensure I'm understood. Ok, I'm kidding on the small words. Maybe.


----------



## Red Sonja

techmom said:


> "Hubby, I like the way you help out around the house, however please don't leave the sponge soaking wet on the sink without wringing it out dry first, we would attract less roaches if you wring it out."


The above is "laying down the law" :scratchhead:, looks like a suggestion or request to me.

Wazza, you must have thought all my statements to my husband in my post above were "passing legislation".


----------



## EleGirl

yeah_right said:


> I stopped cleaning bathrooms, floors and HIS laundry when he didn't listen. We were young, kids were young, both of us worked full-time but he just wouldn't do any household chores. I'm awesome, but not that awesome...I needed him to help. And he wasn't.
> 
> Two weeks later, the crud around the toilet grew, the floors felt gritty and he soon ran out of clean socks and underwear. Being a man, and a problem solver, he took it upon himself to clean. When he came out of the bathroom after hours of scrubbing, he declared it a difficult task and has been helping me ever since. I'm so glad he came up with the idea of helping with chores...


You are lucky that your husband responds to things this way.

When I married my son's father, he announced that he did not clean bathrooms. So, like you, I stopped doing them. No matter how bad they got he would not do anything. He complained that they were dirty. I agreed that they were indeed dirty. A so we went for a while. Eventually I hired someone to come in and clean the bathrooms. He complained that I hired someone to clean the bathrooms. But at least they got done. Though he would not stop complaining about having someone else clean them.. he wanted ME to do it.


----------



## yeah_right

EleGirl - You son's father was an a$$hat. Sorry, but none of this thread could save a jerk like him. 

My H usually just needs to understand the how/why of a situation. Once he learned that cleaning wasn't magical or fun, he helped. He has always told me he will help me with anything I need, but I have to tell him. He admits he's not going to figure it out on his own or read my mind. But the intent to be a partner to me is there. I know how lucky I am with that.


----------



## EleGirl

yeah_right said:


> EleGirl - You son's father was an a$$hat. Sorry, but none of this thread could save a jerk like him.
> 
> My H usually just needs to understand the how/why of a situation. Once he learned that cleaning wasn't magical or fun, he helped. He has always told me he will help me with anything I need, but I have to tell him. He admits he's not going to figure it out on his own or read my mind. But the intent to be a partner to me is there. I know how lucky I am with that.


Yes he is an ass hat. But he's not the only one out there. So I'm just using him as the poster child for ass hats. 

I'm am very glad that 1) you have been smart enough to figure out how to deal with your relationship in a very productive manner and 2) Your husband has figured out that chores are hard work.. I mean to say that the responds positively to your way of handling things.


----------



## Wazza

Red Sonja said:


> The above is "laying down the law" :scratchhead:, looks like a suggestion or request to me.
> 
> Wazza, you must have thought all my statements to my husband in my post above were "passing legislation".


Well, keep in mind that this thread is about women who walk away feeling they have communicated everything and not been heard. So I gave you my perspective on that communication approach. 

To me it was a demand phrased as a question. His input was not sought. His decision not to comply is seen as an issue. That's how I treat my kids, not my wife.

If I accept you theory it was just a suggestion, why is it an issue that the husband didn't take it up?

Edit to add : I went back and read your post. You were laying down the law but it should have been clear to him when you said you would like to try marriage counselling. Provided you spoke the sentences as per your post, and not something else that "means the same thing" then you were being pretty clear.


----------



## Red Sonja

Wazza said:


> Well, keep in mind that this thread is about women who walk away feeling they have communicated everything and not been heard. So I gave you my perspective on that communication approach.
> 
> To me it was a demand phrased as a question. His input was not sought. His decision not to comply is seen as an issue. That's how I treat my kids, not my wife.
> 
> If I accept you theory it was just a suggestion, why is it an issue that the husband didn't take it up?
> 
> Edit to add : I went back and read your post. You were laying down the law but it should have been clear to him when you said you would like to try marriage counselling. Provided you spoke the sentences as per your post, and not something else that "means the same thing" then you were being pretty clear.


I am genuinely confused Wazza could you rephrase what Techmom said so that it would not be "laying down the law"?


----------



## arbitrator

Married but Happy said:


> Which he may be doing to get away from her!
> 
> Sometimes, it's no surprise when she leaves.


*I can see the sense that this article makes! More especially with regard to my rick, skanky XW ~ but it really wasn't her that I was seeking escape from ~ it was her three deviant, thieving, thuggish, disrespectful, tattoo-laden, pot-smoking, meth-ingesting, alcohol-swilling, foul-mouthed kids that she had living with us that I greatly resented, thereby causing me to seek solace by staying away more with my officiating avocation, spending more and more time volunteeringly working at the ranch, anything that I could possibly do to stay away from the sight of those loutish potheads.

Mind you, I tried my very best to help them with what limited resources as a stepfather that I was, but they would have. Several times I had asked my XW to do something about them, more especially to throw them out of the house if they didn't change their ways, primarily because I did not want their deviant lifestyle of choice to impact the respectable one of my two straight-laced boys! She did nothing about it, only to keep funding their drug habits, buying them cars to drive, houses to live in, lawyers to represent them in criminal court, cigarettes during their incarceration, you name it! My words always fell on deaf ears ~ the support of those deviants always came first to her, probably because of the poor mother/role model that she was!

I freely admit that I stimulated that distance between us, because I wanted no part of being associated with that sordid lifestyle all while living in the prevalent conservative, family-oriented, community standards where we lived!

Now having confessed that, was I wrong in any way? Was she summarily justified in seeking out the other men from her past on FB, to later carry on her covert distant affairs with? Was it easier for her to spread her legs for them in some out-of-town hotel room than to sit down with me to try to seek a solution to what was truly bothering her in what was laying ahead as a threat to our marriage?

That is one part of the equation that I may truly never come to fully understand! 
*


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> Ok, I'll state this, the following is an example of how I would address my husband when I have an issue...
> 
> "Hubby, I like the way you help out around the house, however please don't leave the sponge soaking wet on the sink without wringing it out dry first, we would attract less roaches if you wring it out."
> 
> I started off with a compliment, followed by my issue, followed with a solution, ending with the reason why I'm concerned and bringing it up in the first place.
> 
> Yet, the sponge is still soaking wet on the sink. Where did I go wrong?





Red Sonja said:


> I am genuinely confused Wazza could you rephrase what Techmom said so that it would not be "laying down the law"?


Where has Techmom (a) checked that her hubby actually heard what she said and (b) understood why he hasn't done it? I see nothing wrong with the words she used as a first salvo, but she hasn't followed up and "closed the deal" so to speak. He's entitled to have a different perspective, and it carries the same weight as hers. I see no evidence that she has considered that.

It's entirely possible her hubby is a lazy ass who expects her to do all the house work. Or maybe he sees it differently. Or whatever. But she won't know unless she gets some feedback from him.

(JLD you are following this thread I think. If so, might it be helpful to post something about active listening). 

Red Sonja, in return, please help me to understand this. Women are supposed to be the emotional gurus and yet you seem not to see what is to me an obvious emotional subtext in that conversation. Do you really not see how being given an instruction (albeit phrased as a question) from someone who is supposed to be your equal, not your boss, could get your back up? Do you really think, based on context, that Techmom was just making a suggestion?


----------



## Red Sonja

Wazza said:


> Where has Techmom (a) checked that her hubby actually heard what she said and (b) understood why he hasn't done it? I see nothing wrong with the words she used as a first salvo, but she hasn't followed up and "closed the deal" so to speak. He's entitled to have a different perspective, and it carries the same weight as hers. I see no evidence that she has considered that.


I assumed that Techmom was answering EleGirl's question that asked for examples of how clear women are being with their husbands (post #454); I was also answering that question in my post. The statements in my post (and I assume Techmom's) are part of larger discussions with my husband. I don't think anyone can make assumptions about those discussions based on one statement taken from it.




Wazza said:


> Red Sonja, in return, please help me to understand this. Women are supposed to be the emotional gurus and yet you seem not to see what is to me an obvious emotional subtext in that conversation. Do you really not see how being given an instruction (albeit phrased as a question) from someone who is supposed to be your equal, not your boss, could get your back up? Do you really think, based on context, that Techmom was just making a suggestion?


Yes I do. I truly do not see an "emotional subtext" in Techmom's statement or in mine. I take what people write at face value without reading more into the words. Unless someone is actually speaking with emotion, in person, what emotional subtext is there to read? None, IMO. I dunno, maybe I'm not a "normal woman", I am an engineer and a math geek afterall :rofl:.


----------



## chillymorn

hers the answer.

because there selfish demanding spoiled little Disney tainted women who think life is all about their happiness.

this dose not pertain to all women who leave,abuse, drug/alcohol problems,cheating,etc are obvious reason to leave

other than that I think its too easy to get divorce.......this whole I fell out of love so now I'm going to divorce and take half of everything is just crazy.

I will advise my sons to not marry and if they feel they really want to marry they should protect their hard earned assets with a preenup. thet they should not marry a woman who can not suport her self and if she ever mentions she wants to be a stay at home mom to refuse.


this whole I've communicated till i'm blue in the face and I can't take it any longer. so i' am going to break up the family unit.

the break up of the family unit is a big reason that society is headed in the crapper. 


JMHO


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Here's his answer: don't leave me. You must stay; I don't care if you are happy. We must both settle for mediocre, unfulfilled lives. If you leave, I will be immensely bitter. I will warn my sons of the awfulness of marriage. But if you stay, I will show my sons that marriage is awful and unloving. 

There's plenty of lessons a child learns from living and observing a loveless, sexless, passionless relationship between their parents. Divorce is seeking, not settling. It is not a rejection of values, unless your values are that adults must be miserable and suffer in until the end of their days because that is noble. I wonder what is so noble about living that life? In what other area of life do accept that nothing can improve? Don't we believe in bettering ourselves in any way possible, but not our marriage? Accept? Why?!?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## chillymorn

you might be surprised how a stale marriage might turn around.

and your children can also learn that putting your family first is the glue that can keep it together. that life isn't all roses, that true love means accepting but keep trying has value!


----------



## SurpriseMyself

chillymorn said:


> you might be surprised how a stale marriage might turn around.
> 
> and your children can also learn that putting your family first is the glue that can keep it together. that life isn't all roses, that true love means accepting but keep trying has value!


Imagine your wife looked through Facebook on her cell while you were having sex. You asked her to stop, told her that made you feel like you didn't care, and she insisted that she does want to have sex with you and that she can do both things at the same time. You have this conversation for nearly a decade before you finally tell her you are leaving.

She says she will change. She understands why what she was doing during sex was rude and hurtful. So now she lays there on the bed, doing nothing. She's staring at you, waiting for you to climb on top and do what you say you want. You do and she is responsive, but it's not real. She's following a script of what she thinks sex should be. 

That is what I have been through with my H, only it was me asking for him to listen to me when we were discussing something important. He now drops everything he's doing and states straight into my eyes and waits. It would be like every time you kissed your wife, she immediately stripped naked, laid on the bed, and waited for you to do your business. 

It's not a stale marriage that's the issue. It's that some people just don't get it and never will.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

Wazza: How does that one statement sum up the entire conversation? In response to my statement my hubby stated that he forgot to wring the sponge out, I was reminding him for the umpteenth time to wring it out. He has complained of bugs in the past.

In response to chilly, how long do you think these issues need to be worked on when there is one partner doing all of the communicating and the other partner ignoring? How many years? Until the children are in college? When?

All around me I see marriages breaking up as soon as the last kid leaves the house. One of these kids stated, mom/dad spent all of that time arguing in the house when I was home living with them, now they finally divorced? It should have happened years ago!

Would you expect a man in a sexless marriage to stay for the long haul regardless of how his wife treats him?

If not, then why do you expect the women to stay in bad marriages then?


----------



## ocotillo

SurpriseMyself said:


> Imagine your wife looked through Facebook on her cell while you were having sex....
> 
> ....some people just don't get it and never will.


On one hand that's humorous, but kinda sad too, because it's not as farfetched as it might sound.


----------



## Deejo

techmom said:


> Ok, I'll state this, the following is an example of how I would address my husband when I have an issue...
> 
> "Hubby, I like the way you help out around the house, however please don't leave the sponge soaking wet on the sink without wringing it out dry first, we would attract less roaches if you wring it out."
> 
> I started off with a compliment, followed by my issue, followed with a solution, ending with the reason why I'm concerned and bringing it up in the first place.
> 
> Yet, the sponge is still soaking wet on the sink. Where did I go wrong?


Because the compliment was a setup. It isn't a compliment, it's a backhanded criticism.

You don't appreciate that I spent the last 30 minutes cleaning the kitchen. What is stuck in your craw is that I didn't dry out the sponge.

Same exact thing as "you load the dishwasher wrong."

If I do 90% of something right, and all you can focus on is the 10% I didn't ... and let me emphasize, you do this often ... I'm either going to stop doing the 90%, or not pay attention to the 10%.

Which would you prefer?

I had a similar experience with my ex.

Counselor asked us to list what the things were that really bothered one about the other. And I'm dead serious about this list;

Mine: Lack of intimacy, emotional distance, failure to take responsibility in the marriage. Completely, solely and unnecessarily focused on kids.

Hers: When he cleans the sink he often leaves bits of food in the drain.

So ... even when I would clean the sink 'correctly' that wasn't her focus or a point of appreciation. Instead, the dynamic that had been fashioned, dictated that she was waiting to jump all over the few times I didn't do it right.


----------



## NobodySpecial

techmom said:


> Ok, I'll state this, the following is an example of how I would address my husband when I have an issue...
> 
> "Hubby, I like the way you help out around the house, however please don't leave the sponge soaking wet on the sink without wringing it out dry first, we would attract less roaches if you wring it out."
> 
> I started off with a compliment, followed by my issue, followed with a solution, ending with the reason why I'm concerned and bringing it up in the first place.
> 
> Yet, the sponge is still soaking wet on the sink. Where did I go wrong?



I learned long ago that I don't get to control his expectation or satisfaction with cleaning. If I want him to do stuff, I have to let him do stuff. If I don't like the state of the sponge, but it is fine with him, then I deal with the sponge. The issue here is not the sponge but coming up with a solution to a roach problem. JMO.


----------



## Deejo

I just started putting the wet sponge in the microwave for 1 minute, btw. Disinfects it, and it needs to stay wet.


----------



## techmom

This dynamic goes both ways.

During sex he acts put off when I don't show excitement the "proper" way. Maybe he watches too much porn and/or comparing me to ex girlfriends of his. Which he did occasionally.


----------



## Deejo

Bottomline is, a couple needs to start looking at what cuts midway rather than both ways.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> Bottomline is, a couple needs to start looking at what cuts midway rather than both ways.


I don't know what that means. Can you clarify?


----------



## chillymorn

techmom said:


> Wazza: How does that one statement sum up the entire conversation? In response to my statement my hubby stated that he forgot to wring the sponge out, I was reminding him for the umpteenth time to wring it out. He has complained of bugs in the past.
> 
> In response to chilly, how long do you think these issues need to be worked on when there is one partner doing all of the communicating and the other partner ignoring? How many years? Until the children are in college? When?
> 
> All around me I see marriages breaking up as soon as the last kid leaves the house. One of these kids stated, mom/dad spent all of that time arguing in the house when I was home living with them, now they finally divorced? It should have happened years ago!
> 
> Would you expect a man in a sexless marriage to stay for the long haul regardless of how his wife treats him?
> 
> If not, then why do you expect the women to stay in bad marriages then?


each and every person has to make the tough choice when and if its time to end a marriage.

thats kind of why most are even on this site.

my point being is that its too easy to divorce. With that said I think and advocate it when you have thought it all out .

I see a fair bit of we grew apart type posts ones where it sound clearly resentment built up over little things after years of just not communicating. and these are the ones i'm talking about.

if your wife or husband shows absolutely no concerns to make your marriage better then by all means do what you have to.


----------



## NobodySpecial

chillymorn said:


> my point being is that its too easy to divorce.


I think it is too easy to get married.


----------



## NobodySpecial

techmom said:


> This dynamic goes both ways.
> 
> During sex he acts put off when I don't show excitement the "proper" way. Maybe he watches too much porn and/or comparing me to ex girlfriends of his. Which he did occasionally.


Do you like each other? This does not sound like attempted communication but a tit for tat blame game.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I had a similar experience with my ex.
> 
> Counselor asked us to list what the things were that really bothered one about the other. And I'm dead serious about this list;
> 
> Mine: Lack of intimacy, emotional distance, failure to take responsibility in the marriage. Completely, solely and unnecessarily focused on kids.
> 
> Hers: When he cleans the sink he often leaves bits of food in the drain.


Was your ex a WAW, Deejo?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Because the compliment was a setup. It isn't a compliment, it's a backhanded criticism.
> 
> You don't appreciate that I spent the last 30 minutes cleaning the kitchen. What is stuck in your craw is that I didn't dry out the sponge.
> 
> Same exact thing as "you load the dishwasher wrong."
> 
> If I do 90% of something right, and all you can focus on is the 10% I didn't ... and let me emphasize, you do this often ... I'm either going to stop doing the 90%, or not pay attention to the 10%.
> 
> Which would you prefer?


When someone criticizes my housekeeping skills, I typically offer one of two responses:
(1) If you disapprove of how I do things, you are more than welcome to take it over and do it right. 
(2) Oh, sorry, you're right, I should've done x, y, or z.

Which one I pick depends on whether the criticism is just so much micro-managing or if it really is something I should have done.

For example, my SO nags me to take out the compost, which I said I would do, and still haven't done. Fruit fly population is growing: "oops, my bad, I'll get on that right away."

Or my SO starts fussing over how I'm loading the dishwasher because he needs it done his way: "Right then. Since you know how this should be done, have at it." And let him do it.

What I'm trying to say in a long-winded kind of way is that in your example you're focusing on the criticism, getting your back up, and discounting the actual appreciation expressed as backhanded and not sincere --when it might in fact have been so.

Sometimes, it's better to just say, "you know what, you were right" instead of making a federal deal out of it. And when they're just being bossy, well let them do it themselves.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> He's entitled to have a different perspective, and it carries the same weight as hers. I see no evidence that she has considered that.


If he has a different opinion, should he not just tell her? Afterall, aren't men supposed to be the direct ones? :scratchhead:

I find it interesting that women are being accused here for failing to speak directly enough. But when they do speak directly, they are accused of not taking his feelings into account. :scratchhead:


----------



## arbitrator

Deejo said:


> Because the compliment was a setup. It isn't a compliment, it's a backhanded criticism.
> 
> You don't appreciate that I spent the last 30 minutes cleaning the kitchen. What is stuck in your craw is that I didn't dry out the sponge.
> 
> Same exact thing as "you load the dishwasher wrong."
> 
> If I do 90% of something right, and all you can focus on is the 10% I didn't ... and let me emphasize, you do this often ... I'm either going to stop doing the 90%, or not pay attention to the 10%.
> 
> Which would you prefer?
> 
> I had a similar experience with my ex.
> 
> Counselor asked us to list what the things were that really bothered one about the other. And I'm dead serious about this list;
> 
> * Mine: Lack of intimacy, emotional distance, failure to take responsibility in the marriage. Completely, solely and unnecessarily focused on kids.*
> 
> *Hers: When he cleans the sink he often leaves bits of food in the drain.*
> 
> So ... even when I would clean the sink 'correctly' that wasn't her focus or a point of appreciation. Instead, the dynamic that had been fashioned, dictated that she was waiting to jump all over the few times I didn't do it right.


*Deejo, Ol' Buddy!: I can't help but think that your XW was just simply looking for a reason of any kind!

I'm sorry, but in comparison to yours, that rationale of hers is pretty damn lame!*


----------



## chaos

always_alone said:


> If he has a different opinion, should he not just tell her? Afterall, aren't men supposed to be the direct ones? :scratchhead:
> 
> I find it interesting that women are being accused here for failing to speak directly enough. But when they do speak directly, they are accused of not taking his feelings into account. :scratchhead:


These are gender based generalizations. Some men and women fall outside of the bell curve of these generalizations.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> Wazza: How does that one statement sum up the entire conversation?


Why didn't you say this when I first responded? I raised the issue of what he thought, nothing was forthcoming. 

I guess I could have made up what I thought the conversation was and responded. 

Is it really a marriage breaker to you? If so, does he know?


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



EleGirl said:


> Why would a person marry someone and then not want to spend time with them?
> 
> Keep in mind that she is also working, saving, cleaning cooking, fixing, etc.
> 
> What is the point of marriage if the couple has no relationship outside of chores?


Some people seem to marry out of convenience. Person A likes person's B companionship, person B never realize person A is only into the room mate relationship until they were married. Person A is contented to have someone living in the same house, doesn't like to be alone, needs a mother, needs a father, etc. 

In their mind the idea of independent behavior is not wrong so they can't comprehend why people like person B complains or feels unhappy, even though all B wants is to be included in A's life.

My spouse knows nothing about what I do when he is away. He doesn't even know what I do when he is here and at work. He doesn't ask me much about my day, he doesn't know I went to a movie with my gf, he doesn't even know I go for lunches with my neighbor. When he is away he doesn't call as well to check if all is fine at home. 

He does the dishes and laundry when he is home because he wants to. But he doesn't mow the lawn as he hates it and Would wait till the grass grew as tall as to one's waist line. He doesn't like fixing things around the house so I end up doing it. He procrastinate until it gets worst or it can't be ignored anymore. I can't wait so I fix it. Some things can't be ignored! He is also a functional alcoholic. His time spent is mostly outdoor as he became a full time smoker after the marriage. He loves to read stuff, so his time spent is in front of the laptop, tablet, phone and or a book. I used to resent him and thought he was different before the marriage. There were signs but his true colors only emerged after the marriage.

On the other hand he loves animals, he is a kind person but he only does things that he LIKES.

My spouse doesn't know how I feel, he doesn't know when I feel sad, because I don't tell him anymore. There is no connection. We get along now because I ignored all his "faults" and do not nag or discuss with him about what's wrong. I seek to make me happy now and if anything I blame me for marrying him, that I was blind. 

I've told my spouse that when he gets old and need someone to clean his butt, he could get his best friend to do it (he would jump over the mountain for his friend). He thought I was being unreasonable that hanging out with his friends doesn't mean he care more for them. His responses to my views are always "it's different", "its not the same", "it makes no sense". Sometimes I think he just cannot tolerate that what I say makes sense, so he disagrees most of the time.

Few days ago he joked about how I could clean his butt when he gets old and I reminded him Nope, you will have to get M to do it for you. And I wasn't even joking. Lol. (Don't make me feel used, I don't like that. So get your buddy to wipe your butt when you are old and need someone to do it for you). 

Some people can only be friends, they probably only need someone to fill in their empty void, so some people will never be great spouse, not unless they make a change, on the other hand a very wise and old person told me we don't need to get our emotional needs fulfilled by our spouse, that we can get our emotional needs fulfilled by others like family and friends. Of course it's up to individual as well, most women prefer to have a best friend as their spouse, and would gladly clean their spouse butt when he is old, but realistically sometimes that will never happen, so I rather work on myself then seeking it from my spouse. And in my case, I may just hand him a big roll of toilet paper and a phone so he could call his best friend when he needs his butt wiped. Lol.


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



RandomDude said:


> Simple solution, man gives 100%, woman gives 100%, but that's unrealistic, it's always either 100/0, 20/80, 60/40, etc etc.
> 
> 50/50 ain't enough either.
> 
> Anyway we got a little side tracked with the word "cheat" on your link it seems.


I agree. Marriage is never 100/200, or 50/50. Sometimes it's 80/20 as you said. Sometimes it's 10/90. I've come to realize some people have the luck to get a spouse that's perfect and caring. Mine just care a different way. Sometimes it's pointless to talk more, so it's probably better to accept or leave. If we think back and be completely honest with ourselves, it's both parties fault. The signs were all there, we just ignored it. Though those signs before marriage were most likely subtle as we aim to please during courtship.

Our actions, body language, tone all says a lot. Not forgetting the receiver end has issues too, so that complicate matters. IMHO, patience is the key. And being realistic and accepting that sometimes our spouse just can't fulfill our emotional needs so we need to take charge and take the lead to make the change instead of expecting them to do it. 

A sudden thought came to mind. If you gentlemen could chime in.... Is it right to say you guys thought you asked her to marry you, so that basically said it all, that you want her to be in your life, so why is she complaining that you don't care? I never saw it this way but only now as I'm typing it.


----------



## farsidejunky

Canon in D said:


> A sudden thought came to mind. If you gentlemen could chime in.... Is it right to say you guys thought you asked her to marry you, so that basically said it all, that you want her to be in your life, so why is she complaining that you don't care? I never saw it this way but only now as I'm typing it.


When I did not understand things as they should be, yes, I did think that way. 

"Shouldn't it be enough that I put a ring on your finger, provide for us, and do most of what you ask of me?"

As shallow as this sounds, that was what I needed from her at the time. Be there, occasionally give me sex, etc. 

Then I woke up and realized several years had passed and we were both completely different people. And it was my fault for us getting there. She was looking for my leadership and I was giving it to my career.

We have to pay attention very closely if we are going to grow together. Or we can allow complacency or bitterness cause us to grow apart.

That is the real choice.


----------



## EleGirl

Canon in D said:


> Some people seem to marry out of convenience.


If a person marries for convenience and does not inform their intended that it's only a marriage of convenience. If they have no real intent to do things like spend time with their spouse, or show them love and affection, etc. then they have married under false pretense.

They deserve to be dumped.


----------



## EleGirl

Canon in D said:


> I agree. Marriage is never 100/200, or 50/50. Sometimes it's 80/20 as you said. Sometimes it's 10/90. I've come to realize some people have the luck to get a spouse that's perfect and caring. Mine just care a different way. Sometimes it's pointless to talk more, so it's probably better to accept or leave. If we think back and be completely honest with ourselves, it's both parties fault. The signs were all there, we just ignored it. Though those signs before marriage were most likely subtle as we aim to please during courtship.


Isn't that what WAW's finally realize? That the signs that he has no intention of filling her needs have been there for a very long time, if not from the start. So she leaves?



Canon in D said:


> Our actions, body language, tone all says a lot. Not forgetting the receiver end has issues too, so that complicate matters. IMHO, patience is the key. And being realistic and accepting that sometimes our spouse just can't fulfill our emotional needs so we need to take charge and take the lead to make the change instead of expecting them to do it.


There are changes that one person cannot make for another person. These are very often the big things.

A man married to a women who does not want sex with him cannot make her have sex with him. He certainly cannot make her desire him.

Short of him leaving her or accepting a sexless marriage, how can he take charge, take the lead and change?



Canon in D said:


> A sudden thought came to mind. If you gentlemen could chime in.... Is it right to say you guys thought you asked her to marry you, so that basically said it all, that you want her to be in your life, so why is she complaining that you don't care? I never saw it this way but only now as I'm typing it.


So she put a ring on his finger too. She's there. Why would he complain that she does not care if she does not want sex with him?


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



EleGirl said:


> If a person marries for convenience and does not inform their intended that it's only a marriage of convenience. If they have no real intent to do things like spend time with their spouse, or show them love and affection, etc. then they have married under false pretense.
> 
> They deserve to be dumped.


Problem is some aren't even aware they got married for the wrong reasons. And others like my spouse prefer to bury their head in the sand, like an ostrich. For him, it sucks when anything needs fixing, life is so much easier to not have to fix things and just ignore it away. This include fixing a toilet that never stopped flushing which he gave up and told me I have to live with that toilet. But I couldn't accept that, so me the never fixed a toilet wife got it fixed. 

Sometimes I wish my spouse is a handyman .....


----------



## EleGirl

Canon in D said:


> Problem is some aren't even aware they got married for the wrong reasons.


And that is why we have divorce.



Canon in D said:


> And others like my spouse prefer to bury their head in the sand, like an ostrich. For him, it sucks when anything needs fixing, life is so much easier to not have to fix things and just ignore it away. This include fixing a toilet that never stopped flushing which he gave up and told me I have to live with that toilet. But I couldn't accept that, so me the never fixed a toilet wife got it fixed.
> 
> Sometimes I wish my spouse is a handyman .....


If the toilet needs fixing, or anything else, I just do it myself. Or if I cannot I call a handyman, plumber, etc. Lie is too short for some to hassle with some things.

It's what I consider the big things, the things that I cannot do for myself, the things I got married for... to have someone I love in my life, to love and be loved. If that is not there I don't need to be married.


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



EleGirl said:


> And that is why we have divorce.
> 
> 
> 
> If the toilet needs fixing, or anything else, I just do it myself. Or if I cannot I call a handyman, plumber, etc. Lie is too short for some to hassle with some things.
> 
> It's what I consider the big things, the things that I cannot do for myself, the things I got married for... to have someone I love in my life, to love and be loved. If that is not there I don't need to be married.


Yes. But in my culture the man is the handyman, fix stuff while women care for the kids, cooks etc. I have, however, learn to accept and ignore, change my mind about the handyman part. What I was trying to say is my spouse doesn't like fixing anything. Not even the relationship, he wants everything to be easy for him. That's the man I marry, I can't blame him no more. Gotta change how I handle things like fix the toilet myself instead of getting annoyed at him for not wanting to deal with it.


----------



## Deejo

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know what that means. Can you clarify?


Active participation from both sides on compromise.

As has been said, looking for ways to be better FOR one another, rather than ways that drive a wedge.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Was your ex a WAW, Deejo?


No, I was.


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



EleGirl said:


> Isn't that what WAW's finally realize? That the signs that he has no intention of filling her needs have been there for a very long time, if not from the start. So she leaves?
> 
> 
> There are changes that one person cannot make for another person. These are very often the big things.
> 
> A man married to a women who does not want sex with him cannot make her have sex with him. He certainly cannot make her desire him.
> 
> Short of him leaving her or accepting a sexless marriage, how can he take charge, take the lead and change?
> 
> 
> 
> So she put a ring on his finger too. She's there. Why would he complain that she does not care if she does not want sex with him?


What if he does care but he is incapable of doing it because he is broken. My spouse is a kind person but he grew up without a dad in his life. his role model of a husband were all bad role models. I feel a lot of times differences occurred because people take it for granted and feel they are entitled to have their spouse behave or act a certain way because they are the spouse. Like how I used to expect my spouse to be the handyman because that's how it's being perceived in my culture. Yet I failed to recognize he is his own man, and I should lower my expectations to not expect him to be a handyman just because that's how it is seen in general that the man should be the one fixing stuff in the house.

About the sex part, I would think the man should figure out why the wife is rejecting sex. Especially if they were active before marriage. 

Btw I don't disagree with people leaving the marriage if they think they can't take it no more. I just thought sometimes it seems easier to blame then to look at ourselves. Depending on situation of course. Sometimes the spouse does indeed need a knock on the head.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Sometimes, it's better to just say, "you know what, you were right" instead of making a federal deal out of it. And when they're just being bossy, well let them do it themselves.


I absolutely agree with the concept you are conveying. We drove together today to an event for our daughter. Our conversation drifted into relationship territory, and this very subject came up. 

Now, we have the ability to look back and laugh. And we did laugh.

Context once again. I absolutely saw it as criticism at the time; from the woman I loved and wanted to be loved by, but just couldn't seem to get close to. It was just one more corrosive thing. A thousand little cuts means you still bleed out.

We talked about the difference between critical disagreement, versus witty banter, flirtatious disagreement ... and just how one even despite a disagreement actually makes you closer.


----------



## Red Sonja

EleGirl said:


> If the toilet needs fixing, or anything else, I just do it myself. Or if I cannot I call a handyman, plumber, etc. Lie is too short for some to hassle with some things.
> 
> It's what I consider the big things, the things that I cannot do for myself, the things I got married for... to have someone I love in my life, to love and be loved. If that is not there I don't need to be married.


This, exactly this. I am an engineer FFS, I can fix most anything mechanical, electrical or broken, been doing that all my life. If it’s something I don’t know how to do I can RTFM and learn how to fix it. If it’s something I don’t want to do then I hire someone who will.

I don’t care about chores, I see them as a minor thing that you must do to maintain your domestic life. I married for love, companionship and sexual intimacy/connection. I had those things with my husband for 5 years before marriage and for almost 3 years after marriage and then he completely stopped everything.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> It's what I consider the big things, the things that I cannot do for myself, the things I got married for... to have someone I love in my life, to love and be loved. If that is not there I don't need to be married.





Red Sonja said:


> I don’t care about chores, I see them as a minor thing that you must do to maintain your domestic life. I married for love, companionship and sexual intimacy/connection.



Hear, hear...


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



Red Sonja said:


> This, exactly this. I am an engineer FFS, I can fix most anything mechanical, electrical or broken, been doing that all my life. If it’s something I don’t know how to do I can RTFM and learn how to fix it. If it’s something I don’t want to do then I hire someone who will.
> 
> I don’t care about chores, I see them as a minor thing that you must do to maintain your domestic life. I married for love, companionship and sexual intimacy/connection. I had those things with my husband for 5 years before marriage and for almost 3 years after marriage and then he completely stopped everything.


I'm curious. Sorry if I do not know your story because I do not read every thread in TAM. Can you share why your husband stopped everything?


----------



## soccermom2three

Red Sonja said:


> I don’t care about chores, I see them as a minor thing that you must do to maintain your domestic life. I married for love, companionship and sexual intimacy/connection. I had those things with my husband for 5 years before marriage and for almost 3 years after marriage and then he completely stopped everything.


Yes! I don't care about chores. I don't care when he works two or sometimes 3 24 hour shifts it a row because that's what he needs to do and he loves his job but when he's home I need him to be present. I didn't get married to live like roommates that have sex and that's what it was feeling like up until about 2 and 1/2 years ago. I had to have (another) big talk with him and this one seemed to stick.


----------



## EleGirl

Canon in D said:


> *What if he does care but he is incapable of doing it because he is broken.* My spouse is a kind person but he grew up without a dad in his life. his role model of a husband were all bad role models.


If he is broken, or does not know how to do what is needed, then his wife will have to decide for herself if she can live with things the way they are. Some can. Some cannot.


Canon in D said:


> I feel a lot of times differences occurred because people take it for granted and feel they are *entitled* to have their spouse behave or act a certain way because they are the spouse. Like how I used to expect my spouse to be the handyman because that's how it's being perceived in my culture. Yet I failed to recognize he is his own man, and I should lower my expectations to not expect him to be a handyman just because that's how it is seen in general that the man should be the one fixing stuff in the house.


If I follow the above, that a woman (or man) it acting ‘entitled’ if they expect anything from their spouse. 

For example, I was married to a man who literally spend every waking moment in the home office with the door closed playing computer games and surfing internet. So I was “entitled” (a negative term) because I expected that he would help financially support his own children, actually parent his children, help around the house, spend some time with me. 

Really? I was wrong and ‘entitled’?


Canon in D said:


> About the sex part, I would think the man should figure out why the wife is rejecting sex. Especially if they were active before marriage.


I think that a woman who is married to a man who was sexually active before marriage should also figure out why he’s reject her for sex.
I also think that a woman whose husband spend time with her, went to places with her, did his fair share, etc…. before marriage stops it all after marriage. 
Sex is not the only thing that matters in marriage. And it’s not the only thing that some pull bait and switches with.


Canon in D said:


> Btw I don't disagree with people leaving the marriage if they think they can't take it no more. I just thought sometimes it seems easier to blame then to look at ourselves. Depending on situation of course. Sometimes the spouse does indeed need a knock on the head.


Yes sometimes the spouse does need a knock on the head. But hitting someone with a 2x4 is now illegal… so divorce is better.

Humans are chemical engines. There are brain chemicals that give us the feeling of being in love and/or loving someone. To maintain that feeling and the desire, most humans need to spend time with their spouse. Both non-sexual and sexual intimacy is what causes the body to make the brain chemicals.

It is basic biology that without non-sexual and sexual intimacy a person's levels of bonding/love brain chemicals fall so low that they fall out of love.

This generally happens sooner with women. And when a woman's bonding/love brain chemicals get extremely low, she no longer wants to be around the man or wants to have him touch her. 

That is basic human biology.

It is not 'entitlement' for anyone to expect that their spouse would interact with them in a way that maintained the bond and love.

And yes we are all entitled to have our spouses act in certain ways...

We are entitled to have our spouses not abuse us by yelling and calling us names.

We are entitled to have our spouses be partners and not push all of the responsibility of our household, children, etc onto us.

We are entitled to have our spouse spend some amount of time with us... I'm not saying every waking moment. The number usually give is about 15 hours a week because that seems to be what maintains the bond/love.

And if we do not get those basic things in marriage, we are entitled to leave it.


----------



## EleGirl

Red Sonja said:


> This, exactly this. I am an engineer FFS, I can fix most anything mechanical, electrical or broken, been doing that all my life. If it’s something I don’t know how to do I can RTFM and learn how to fix it. If it’s something I don’t want to do then I hire someone who will.
> 
> I don’t care about chores, I see them as a minor thing that you must do to maintain your domestic life. I married for love, companionship and sexual intimacy/connection. I had those things with my husband for 5 years before marriage and for almost 3 years after marriage and then he completely stopped everything.


While generally I do not care about chores, there are times when the issue is important.

For example I was the sole breadwinner. I'm an engineer and as is pretty normal in the field I have to work long hours at times. My husband's 2 children lived with us. So I supported us, did all the housework, cooking, shopping, childcare, etc. He spent his time on the computer playing.

Now at that point I did care about the chores. At that point is was not pulling his weight. He was not living up to his responsibilities. I cared about him not doing chores and taking care of even his own kids a WHOLE LOT.

This is the thing about needs. They change with circumstances. 

What might not be a need today... can become a big one tomorrow. Which is why couples have to be able to communicate and compromise.


----------



## Dogbert

Sometimes chores can be therapeutic. They tend to quiet the voices inside my head - or was it the bluetooth?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> No, I was.


Oh, I see: you are he gender reversal of the OP.

I can see why, then, you were focusing on the 10% criticism; you were appreciation starved. Here you are trying to talk to her about love and connection, and she comes back at you with food in the sink trap.

Demonstration of the principle that if you shut out your spouse and what's important to them, they will likely walk away.


----------



## EleGirl

Dogbert said:


> Sometimes chores can be therapeutic. They tend to quiet the voices inside my head - or was it the bluetooth?


It's the Bluetooth.. :rofl:

Now I found when I was in college, chores were a great excuse to not study.


The way I look at chores, cooking, etc is that I am blessed to have a home to take care of. I am blessed to have people I can cook a good meal for.

It's only when I am so exhausted that I cannot do it all that it becomes an issue. And yes I've been there.


----------



## Dogbert

If I had kids, I'd start them early










And I'd make damn sure that even Fido would own his $hit


----------



## Q tip

Fitnessfan said:


> I feel exactly the same way. The only chore we ever argue about is the laundry because he needs to stay the hell away from the laundry!!!


same here, but she needs to stay the hell away from the laundry!!!


----------



## Q tip

Deejo said:


> No, I was.


interesting. you were a WAW... any clothes I can borrow?


----------



## Red Sonja

Canon in D said:


> I'm curious. Sorry if I do not know your story because I do not read every thread in TAM. Can you share why your husband stopped everything?


I honestly do not know. All I know is that he purchased his first home computer (this was in 1989) and he began spending all his time at home on it. Over the years he has added other solitary hobbies, but the computer was the start.

He would not talk about _anything _... in the beginning he would literally remain silent when I attempted a discussion, in later years he would become defensive, blaming and insulting and cut the discussion off quickly.

He finally agreed to marriage counseling when I informed him of my plans to move out. We tried three different therapists (a LMFT, then two PhD psychologists). The first he did not show up for the scheduled appointments. The second two asked to meet with me privately, after seeing us both in joint sessions multiple times, in the private session they both told me that he is “very high on the narcissism spectrum” and basically that I would have to learn to live with his behavior or leave.


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



EleGirl said:


> If he is broken, or does not know how to do what is needed, then his wife will have to decide for herself if she can live with things the way they are. Some can. Some cannot.
> 
> If I follow the above, that a woman (or man) it acting ‘entitled’ if they expect anything from their spouse.
> 
> For example, I was married to a man who literally spend every waking moment in the home office with the door closed playing computer games and surfing internet. So I was “entitled” (a negative term) because I expected that he would help financially support his own children, actually parent his children, help around the house, spend some time with me.
> 
> Really? I was wrong and ‘entitled’?
> 
> I think that a woman who is married to a man who was sexually active before marriage should also figure out why he’s reject her for sex.
> I also think that a woman whose husband spend time with her, went to places with her, did his fair share, etc…. before marriage stops it all after marriage.
> Sex is not the only thing that matters in marriage. And it’s not the only thing that some pull bait and switches with.
> 
> Yes sometimes the spouse does need a knock on the head. But hitting someone with a 2x4 is now illegal… so divorce is better.
> 
> Humans are chemical engines. There are brain chemicals that give us the feeling of being in love and/or loving someone. To maintain that feeling and the desire, most humans need to spend time with their spouse. Both non-sexual and sexual intimacy is what causes the body to make the brain chemicals.
> 
> It is basic biology that without non-sexual and sexual intimacy a person's levels of bonding/love brain chemicals fall so low that they fall out of love.
> 
> This generally happens sooner with women. And when a woman's bonding/love brain chemicals get extremely low, she no longer wants to be around the man or wants to have him touch her.
> 
> That is basic human biology.
> 
> It is not 'entitlement' for anyone to expect that their spouse would interact with them in a way that maintained the bond and love.
> 
> And yes we are all entitled to have our spouses act in certain ways...
> 
> We are entitled to have our spouses not abuse us by yelling and calling us names.
> 
> We are entitled to have our spouses be partners and not push all of the responsibility of our household, children, etc onto us.
> 
> We are entitled to have our spouse spend some amount of time with us... I'm not saying every waking moment. The number usually give is about 15 hours a week because that seems to be what maintains the bond/love.
> 
> And if we do not get those basic things in marriage, we are entitled to leave it.


There are many broken people in this society, and yes, one can decide to stay or go. My definition of a person feeling entitled was referring to how a spouse expects the other to fill his or her void, that I'm the wife so you should open the door for me, that you should buy me gifts because it's my birthday, you should give me flowers because I'm your wife, you should give me a bj because that's what a wife should do. And if you don't do xx, then you must not care about me. It's the expectations I was referring to.

About your ex, I feel he should take care of the kids, that's his responsibility, I don't think feeling entitled about that is wrong. I was referring to vague instances that some spouse feel entitled and expect certain behavior from the other just because they are the spouse and the other should always please them. (About your statement about respect, everyone deserves respect, i don't think that's wrong).

My overall thoughts about expecting our spouse to fulfill our emotional needs is that not all partners are able to do that. Sometimes the signs were there before marriage, sometimes they got lazy, they took it for granted and/or have changed. 

Understandably we women need our emotional needs fulfilled because that's how we generally are, but if that many men are oblivious and couldn't understand why or are shocked, then perhaps, just perhaps we need to seek a different approach to voicing it. 

I am not implying some of you ladies or men are doing it wrong. In case anyone feels the need to respond and say you have tried everything. But what if your approach was wrong and you don't know or couldn't see it? Just what if.

Using myself as an example, I have voiced my grievances to my spouse many times about us not spending time together. I voiced my complaints to my spouse about stuff, and I suggested to him what we can do, but I failed to see I am part of the problem. I expected him to plan the outings, and when he did, I complain about stuff (partly because unresolved resentments). I didn't see it before, because I was blinded by my own issues with how I felt entitled to how he should do this, do that or understand this, that, know what I'm thinking etc. These are just some examples.

Though now my relationship with spouse is fine, it isn't ideal, at least not to my expectations or standard. My spouse would probably have done more if I was more encouraging and thank/appreciate/praise him, but I didn't in the past. As I change and stop complaining and take charge, I see a change in him.

Some women feel entitled to expecting men to behave in a certain behavior because they were brought up to think men should do xxx, women deserves xxx. For instance men should pay for everything, men should be handyman, men should be the provider, men should buy gifts and pamper the ladies, men should be a man and be the leader but man should also listen to the wife to do certain tasks as the way the wife wants it done. Sometimes our message confuses them. 

At the end of the day, whatever the reason is for a person leaving the other, I feel a lot of times the wrong means of communication, our individual issues and expectations affects the outcome. Many also make the mistake in expecting the other party to make us happy. What if, just what if, if we are truly fulfilled within our soul, would we or can we then be able to not blame the other party and appreciate/see the good in our spouse? Isn't it true happiness lies in our own hands?


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



Red Sonja said:


> I honestly do not know. All I know is that he purchased his first home computer (this was in 1989) and he began spending all his time at home on it. Over the years he has added other solitary hobbies, but the computer was the start.
> 
> He would not talk about _anything _... in the beginning he would literally remain silent when I attempted a discussion, in later years he would become defensive, blaming and insulting and cut the discussion off quickly.
> 
> He finally agreed to marriage counseling when I informed him of my plans to move out. We tried three different therapists (a LMFT, then two PhD psychologists). The first he did not show up for the scheduled appointments. The second two asked to meet with me privately, after seeing us both in joint sessions multiple times, in the private session they both told me that he is “very high on the narcissism spectrum” and basically that I would have to learn to live with his behavior or leave.


I'm sorry to know that. I hope you have found your happiness by now.

Interesting enough, my counselor told me he thought my spouse was a selfish person and that I should reconsider the marriage. He brought up the selfish comment because I had asked of his views of my spouse but I didn't ask his views about whether I should stay in or leave my marriage. Till today my spouse doesn't know what the counselor had said.


----------



## EleGirl

Canon in D said:


> There are many broken people in this society, and yes, one can decide to stay or go. My definition of a person feeling entitled was referring to how a spouse expects the other to fill his or her void, that I'm the wife so you should open the door for me, that you should buy me gifts because it's my birthday, you should give me flowers because I'm your wife, you should give me a bj because that's what a wife should do. And if you don't do xx, then you must not care about me. It's the expectations I was referring to.
> 
> About your ex, I feel he should take care of the kids, that's his responsibility, I don't think feeling entitled about that is wrong. I was referring to vague instances that some spouse feel entitled and expect certain behavior from the other just because they are the spouse and the other should always please them. (About your statement about respect, everyone deserves respect, i don't think that's wrong).
> 
> My overall thoughts about expecting our spouse to fulfill our emotional needs is that not all partners are able to do that. Sometimes the signs were there before marriage, sometimes they got lazy, they took it for granted and/or have changed.
> 
> Understandably we women need our emotional needs fulfilled because that's how we generally are, but if that many men are oblivious and couldn't understand why or are shocked, then perhaps, just perhaps we need to seek a different approach to voicing it.
> 
> I am not implying some of you ladies or men are doing it wrong. In case anyone feels the need to respond and say you have tried everything. But what if your approach was wrong and you don't know or couldn't see it? Just what if.
> 
> Using myself as an example, I have voiced my grievances to my spouse many times about us not spending time together. I voiced my complaints to my spouse about stuff, and I suggested to him what we can do, but I failed to see I am part of the problem. I expected him to plan the outings, and when he did, I complain about stuff (partly because unresolved resentments). I didn't see it before, because I was blinded by my own issues with how I felt entitled to how he should do this, do that or understand this, that, know what I'm thinking etc. These are just some examples.
> 
> Though now my relationship with spouse is fine, it isn't ideal, at least not to my expectations or standard. My spouse would probably have done more if I was more encouraging and thank/appreciate/praise him, but I didn't in the past. As I change and stop complaining and take charge, I see a change in him.
> 
> Some women feel entitled to expecting men to behave in a certain behavior because they were brought up to think men should do xxx, women deserves xxx. For instance men should pay for everything, men should be handyman, men should be the provider, men should buy gifts and pamper the ladies, men should be a man and be the leader but man should also listen to the wife to do certain tasks as the way the wife wants it done. Sometimes our message confuses them.
> 
> At the end of the day, whatever the reason is for a person leaving the other, I feel a lot of times the wrong means of communication, our individual issues and expectations affects the outcome. Many also make the mistake in expecting the other party to make us happy. What if, just what if, if we are truly fulfilled within our soul, would we or can we then be able to not blame the other party and appreciate/see the good in our spouse? Isn't it true happiness lies in our own hands?


It's very easy to judge that others just have not yet guessed the right way to communicate.. after years and decades of trying every thing they can think of.

At some point a person gives up because, well they just cannot go on.


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



EleGirl said:


> It's very easy to judge that others just have not yet guessed the right way to communicate.. after years and decades of trying every thing they can think of.
> 
> At some point a person gives up because, well they just cannot go on.


Not judging. Just suggesting may be. I will assume we all think we are right, no one likes to think they are wrong, including me, so just saying may be, depending on circumstances and situations, that some times people don't realize the approach to communication could be handled differently. 

I think everyone or most in TAM are good people. That we are here because we love/care for our partner and genuinely want a better relationship with our partners. But still.... We have different standards and approach to how we want things done. I am trying to say what we think is the right approach may not be right because the other party sees it a different way. I am saying for some of us whose spouse are not as bad (not cheaters, cares for the kids, help out in the chores, has a job etc) there could be a possibility that we were doing it wrong because we were hurt, angry, resentful, so much so that we couldn't even see straight, to the extent we can't even see or acknowledge when our spouse was trying.

I used to think I was reasonable about my complaint about my spouse. My very wise and old friend pointed out I was being a critical parent, that I couldn't see my spouse was unable to keep up with my expectations because he just isn't up to my "level" as she called it. I could never see what she was saying, but now I see it.

Sometimes we, or I, as an example, forget pain is pain. I can't say my version of pain hurts more than my spouse's pain, because pain is pain. When I ignored my partner's response about how I criticized him, I disagreed with him and went on the defensive saying he was acting sensitive, I failed to see I was doing exactly what he did to me. I negated his feelings when i brushed it away as unimportant and emphasized that my feelings were more important than his. 

I was once told practice makes perfect, but one can also keep practising the wrong way hence it can also be "practice makes it perfectly wrong".

Btw I thought it was funny when you said it is illegal to use a 2x4 to knock the head. I'm not that violent. I would probably use a roll of paper towel to do the job.

This is a great discussion. I learned something about myself today.


----------



## aine

EleGirl said:


> If he is broken, or does not know how to do what is needed, then his wife will have to decide for herself if she can live with things the way they are. Some can. Some cannot.
> 
> If I follow the above, that a woman (or man) it acting ‘entitled’ if they expect anything from their spouse.
> 
> For example, I was married to a man who literally spend every waking moment in the home office with the door closed playing computer games and surfing internet. So I was “entitled” (a negative term) because I expected that he would help financially support his own children, actually parent his children, help around the house, spend some time with me.
> 
> Really? I was wrong and ‘entitled’?
> 
> I think that a woman who is married to a man who was sexually active before marriage should also figure out why he’s reject her for sex.
> I also think that a woman whose husband spend time with her, went to places with her, did his fair share, etc…. before marriage stops it all after marriage.
> Sex is not the only thing that matters in marriage. And it’s not the only thing that some pull bait and switches with.
> 
> Yes sometimes the spouse does need a knock on the head. But hitting someone with a 2x4 is now illegal… so divorce is better.
> 
> Humans are chemical engines. There are brain chemicals that give us the feeling of being in love and/or loving someone. To maintain that feeling and the desire, most humans need to spend time with their spouse. Both non-sexual and sexual intimacy is what causes the body to make the brain chemicals.
> 
> It is basic biology that without non-sexual and sexual intimacy a person's levels of bonding/love brain chemicals fall so low that they fall out of love.
> 
> This generally happens sooner with women. And when a woman's bonding/love brain chemicals get extremely low, she no longer wants to be around the man or wants to have him touch her.
> 
> That is basic human biology.
> 
> It is not 'entitlement' for anyone to expect that their spouse would interact with them in a way that maintained the bond and love.
> 
> And yes we are all entitled to have our spouses act in certain ways...
> 
> We are entitled to have our spouses not abuse us by yelling and calling us names.
> 
> We are entitled to have our spouses be partners and not push all of the responsibility of our household, children, etc onto us.
> 
> We are entitled to have our spouse spend some amount of time with us... I'm not saying every waking moment. The number usually give is about 15 hours a week because that seems to be what maintains the bond/love.
> 
> And if we do not get those basic things in marriage, we are entitled to leave it.


My husband will say I shouldn't have expectations of him (along the same lines as this). Well duh, why the heck do I want to remain married to you? Of course there should be expectations, they may not always get met but we should endeavour to meet them for harmonious relationship, provided they are reasonable of course.


----------



## EleGirl

Canon in D said:


> Not judging. Just suggesting may be. I will assume we all think we are right, no one likes to think they are wrong, including me, so just saying may be, depending on circumstances and situations, that some times people don't realize the approach to communication could be handled differently.
> 
> I think everyone or most in TAM are good people. That we are here because we love/care for our partner and genuinely want a better relationship with our partners. But still.... We have different standards and approach to how we want things done. I am trying to say what we think is the right approach may not be right because the other party sees it a different way. I am saying for some of us whose spouse are not as bad (not cheaters, cares for the kids, help out in the chores, has a job etc) there could be a possibility that we were doing it wrong because we were hurt, angry, resentful, so much so that we couldn't even see straight, to the extent we can't even see or acknowledge when our spouse was trying.
> 
> I used to think I was reasonable about my complaint about my spouse. My very wise and old friend pointed out I was being a critical parent, that I couldn't see my spouse was unable to keep up with my expectations because he just isn't up to my "level" as she called it. I could never see what she was saying, but now I see it.
> 
> Sometimes we, or I, as an example, forget pain is pain. I can't say my version of pain hurts more than my spouse's pain, because pain is pain. When I ignored my partner's response about how I criticized him, I disagreed with him and went on the defensive saying he was acting sensitive, I failed to see I was doing exactly what he did to me. I negated his feelings when i brushed it away as unimportant and emphasized that my feelings were more important than his.
> 
> I was once told practice makes perfect, but one can also keep practising the wrong way hence it can also be "practice makes it perfectly wrong".
> 
> *Btw I thought it was funny when you said it is illegal to use a 2x4 to knock the head. *I'm not that violent. I would probably use a roll of paper towel to do the job.
> 
> This was a great discussion. I learned something about myself today.


I was of course joking about the 2x4 

It is a good discussion. Of course people need to look inward to see what they are contributing to a situation. People often do get caught up in the little things and loose the big picture.

There is an old joke about marriage counseling. 

A couple goes to MC and the woman tells the MC that she is unhappy because of this and that and goes on and on. The counselor is nodding and giving some input on ways to do things better. 

Finally her husband cannot take it any more. He blurts out to the counselor.. "You don't get it.. She left never puts the top on the toothpaste! I cannot take it any longer!"

The counselor looks shocked and replies... "Oh I did not realize that it was that bad. We need to talk about your divorce."

The point of the joke is that when all a person gets to the point that little, meaningless things bother them, the marriage is horribly broken. Little things are easily over looked in a strong marriage. They are the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back when things are bad.


----------



## alte Dame

I think the article in the OP is sadly on the money. I know that some of the men here take exception to its implications, but, for me, it just is what it is. After living life with a man for a long time and reading here for a few years, I think I would say that the male corollary to this woman's perspective is the feeling that women take their H's hard work at providing for granted.

So, both men and women can feel taken for granted, but for different reasons.

I have just gone through an extremely difficult few years that very much come down to the basic message of the article that started this thread.

For me, it isn't about what I expect from him, but what I want for myself for my own life. My H has for decades declared a life for himself that literally makes my life physically and emotionally difficult. He always said that he simply didn't want to give up any of the things in life that he loved, so he would do all of it (??). I was one of the things that he wanted in his life, but my impression was that I was a reliable item on his list, not the priority.

After working hard my whole life and raising children, I just started to ask how I wanted to live the rest of my life. The answer was painful and final. I didn't want to live it the way I had been living it, with him doing 'what he wanted' because what he wanted had debilitated me for decades.

I was just tired and done with it. But I LOVE this man. Just like the article says.

So, the last few years - and this is the reason I have stayed on TAM, I think - I have been in the process of deciding this. I made it very clear to my H that this wasn't just one of the disagreements that we have about this issue. This time it's game-changing for me.

My H has been very, very shaken. For the first time, he is willing to work with me on this divisive issue in our marriage. It's the eleventh hour for me, but I feel encouraged, mostly because I am calm in my decision-making. It is painful, painful, painful to realize that you are coming to a place where you could walk away from the love of your life.

I want to grow old with my H, but not the way we were living. So, for me, it has come down to a choice between a heartbreaking status quo or a heartbreaking exit from my marriage. At least the exit would allow me some peace about myself. My H has stepped up, though, so I'm hoping that there is now a third, better option. Time will tell.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Oh, I see: you are he gender reversal of the OP.
> 
> I can see why, then, you were focusing on the 10% criticism; you were appreciation starved. Here you are trying to talk to her about love and connection, and she comes back at you with food in the sink trap.
> 
> Demonstration of the principle that if you shut out your spouse and what's important to them, they will likely walk away.


Just that I find some of the ladies posts interesting. I had the flipped script version.

She was shocked when I told her I was moving out. Had been telling her if nothing changed I didn't have a lot of hope ... she just didn't think I'd do it.

The problem we have here of course, is selection bias.

If you are on a marriage forum where most of the participants are in deteriorating marriages or the marriage has ended, odds are you aren't going to have a whole lot of trouble drumming up support for why the opposite gender is absolutely awful.

I'm ok with breaking it down even further. Odds are there really isn't all that much wrong with the opposite gender. Odds are far better that you (the collective you) are just REALLY bad at picking good partners, or ... you're REALLY bad at being a good partner.


----------



## Fighting For Happiness

Fitnessfan said:


> The only chore we ever argue about is the laundry because he needs to stay the hell away from the laundry!!!


:lol:


----------



## Jellybeans

Deejo said:


> Just that I find some of the ladies posts interesting. I had the flipped script version.
> 
> She was shocked when I told her I was moving out. Had been telling her if nothing changed I didn't have a lot of hope ... she just didn't think I'd do it.


Flip the genders, and yep, same situation.

Person 1 tells Person 2 there's an issue, etc. Person 2 ignores this over and over again. Person 1 leaves/is done. 

Same thing.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> Just that I find some of the ladies posts interesting. I had the flipped script version.
> 
> She was shocked when I told her I was moving out. Had been telling her if nothing changed I didn't have a lot of hope ... she just didn't think I'd do it.


That is just the height of selfish ****ty. I don't really care at all about you. Just as long as you stay. You see that attitude a lot from many people.


----------



## chillymorn

alte Dame said:


> I think the article in the OP is sadly on the money. I know that some of the men here take exception to its implications, but, for me, it just is what it is. After living life with a man for a long time and reading here for a few years, I think I would say that the male corollary to this woman's perspective is the feeling that women take their H's hard work at providing for granted.
> 
> So, both men and women can feel taken for granted, but for different reasons.
> 
> I have just gone through an extremely difficult few years that very much come down to the basic message of the article that started this thread.
> 
> For me, it isn't about what I expect from him, but what I want for myself for my own life. My H has for decades declared a life for himself that literally makes my life physically and emotionally difficult. He always said that he simply didn't want to give up any of the things in life that he loved, so he would do all of it (??). I was one of the things that he wanted in his life, but my impression was that I was a reliable item on his list, not the priority.
> 
> After working hard my whole life and raising children, I just started to ask how I wanted to live the rest of my life. The answer was painful and final. I didn't want to live it the way I had been living it, with him doing 'what he wanted' because what he wanted had debilitated me for decades.
> 
> I was just tired and done with it. But I LOVE this man. Just like the article says.
> 
> So, the last few years - and this is the reason I have stayed on TAM, I think - I have been in the process of deciding this. I made it very clear to my H that this wasn't just one of the disagreements that we have about this issue. This time it's game-changing for me.
> 
> My H has been very, very shaken. For the first time, he is willing to work with me on this divisive issue in our marriage. It's the eleventh hour for me, but I feel encouraged, mostly because I am calm in my decision-making. It is painful, painful, painful to realize that you are coming to a place where you could walk away from the love of your life.
> 
> I want to grow old with my H, but not the way we were living. So, for me, it has come down to a choice between a heartbreaking status quo or a heartbreaking exit from my marriage. At least the exit would allow me some peace about myself. My H has stepped up, though, so I'm hoping that there is now a third, better option. Time will tell.


If you could please define priority in my life?

and how you feel that you expressed that he was your priority in life?

these are sincere questions.


----------



## Fighting For Happiness

I don't get this group 

"I don't want/I SHOULDNT have to threaten divorce to get my spouse to get a clue its a deal killer. Instead I will just stop complaining and let the resentment build until there is no love left, then spring it on my spouse I am done. Even though it is crystal clear others have had luck with ultimatums, I wont go there KNOWING if I don't it's over any way" 

Huh? WTF do you have to lose saying fix your $hit or it's over?

No $hot you don't want to and should not have to but YOU DO HAVE TO so do what you HAVE TO DO yes? What am I missing here?

I speak from experience. I have done it and it worked. Years ago my wife did it to me and it worked. 

What is wrong with explaining unresolved issues as deal killers tp your spouse as long as they really are and you do not abuse the technique with less serious b.s.? 

If that is the only shot you have at fixing your marriage I say let it fly.

The only alternative is letting resentment boil over until there is not chance of saving your marriage. 

I thank my wife for letting me know what I was screwing up and I returned the favor when she was being dense like I was before. 

We have saved our marriage from the brink three times with ultimatums. Two from her and one from me. 

Is it pride or stubbornness or what that causing you to pronounce you WILL NOT employ something that has been proven to work with Walkaway spouses? 

If you are the type that will not explain that the changes you are requesting are deal killers for you that will leave you no choice but to end the marriage, please explain why you would not try that first before bailing out for good. 

It seems to me the choice is easy. Either leave o chance of saving your marriage but refusing to lay it out that way or give it a shot and hope for the best. 

Please discuss this window into your world. What is the logic there refusing to employ a proven technique to save your marriage?


----------



## vellocet

Fighting For Happiness said:


> I don't get this group
> 
> "I don't want/I SHOULDNT have to threaten divorce to get my spouse to get a clue its a deal killer. Instead I will just stop complaining and let the resentment build until there is no love left, then spring it on my spouse I am done. Even though it is crystal clear others have had luck with ultimatums, I wont go there KNOWING if I don't it's over any way"
> 
> Huh? WTF do you have to lose saying fix your $hit or it's over?


*Absolutely nothing. And absolutely nothing wrong with it.* 

But say "I am vulnerable to an affair" or something along the lines of "I could get my needs fulfilled elsewhere"...and I'm no longer interested in working on anything.

If I have shyte to own, lets discuss. 

Let me know that you are more than capable of cheating, then no thanks. I don't want you at that point.

I know, this is about leaving, but someone in the course of the thread brought up cheating as another "threat".

I'd be receptive to working on things, even under the "threat" of them leaving.

Tie it to cheating....then don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.


----------



## southbound

It seems that wives often feel they aren't a priority in their husband's life. It seems he would rather be golfing or working in the garage than spending time with his wife. He doesn't seem to listen and is distant, which without being addressed, causes the wife to be WAW.

I wonder why the guy becomes that way. In general, how much responsibility for his change is on the wife? Let's assume that everything is hot and heavy in the beginning, as most new relationships are. At what point does the guy decide golf is more fun than his wife? Has she changed from the woman that caused his blood to boil in the beginning?


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> It seems that wives often feel they aren't a priority in their husband's life. It seems he would rather be golfing or working in the garage than spending time with his wife. He doesn't seem to listen and is distant, which without being addressed, causes the wife to be WAW.
> 
> I wonder why the guy becomes that way. In general, how much responsibility for his change is on the wife? Let's assume that everything is hot and heavy in the beginning, as most new relationships are. At what point does the guy decide golf is more fun than his wife? Has she changed from the woman that caused his blood to boil in the beginning?


I know for ME, I had a vision of "marriage" that did not allow for him to have his own. Yes I nagged. I was totally no fun. Got my butt handed to me on usenet before I figured it out. The one thing that bugged me is that I had to get it from somewhere else. He never said a word. He would have continued plowing along with narry a word.


----------



## EleGirl

Fighting For Happiness said:


> I don't get this group
> 
> "I don't want/I SHOULDNT have to threaten divorce to get my spouse to get a clue its a deal killer. Instead I will just stop complaining and let the resentment build until there is no love left, then spring it on my spouse I am done. Even though it is crystal clear others have had luck with ultimatums, I wont go there KNOWING if I don't it's over any way"
> 
> Huh? WTF do you have to lose saying fix your $hit or it's over?
> 
> No $hot you don't want to and should not have to but YOU DO HAVE TO so do what you HAVE TO DO yes? What am I missing here?
> 
> I speak from experience. I have done it and it worked. Years ago my wife did it to me and it worked.
> 
> What is wrong with explaining unresolved issues as deal killers tp your spouse as long as they really are and you do not abuse the technique with less serious b.s.?
> 
> If that is the only shot you have at fixing your marriage I say let it fly.
> 
> The only alternative is letting resentment boil over until there is not chance of saving your marriage.
> 
> I thank my wife for letting me know what I was screwing up and I returned the favor when she was being dense like I was before.
> 
> We have saved our marriage from the brink three times with ultimatums. Two from her and one from me.
> 
> Is it pride or stubbornness or what that causing you to pronounce you WILL NOT employ something that has been proven to work with Walkaway spouses?
> 
> If you are the type that will not explain that the changes you are requesting are deal killers for you that will leave you no choice but to end the marriage, please explain why you would not try that first before bailing out for good.
> 
> It seems to me the choice is easy. Either leave o chance of saving your marriage but refusing to lay it out that way or give it a shot and hope for the best.
> 
> Please discuss this window into your world. What is the logic there refusing to employ a proven technique to save your marriage?


I think that the reason the poster, whose name you left off their quote, thinks that way is that she thinks that if a person only changes because of a threat/ultimatum, it's not a sincere change.

I suppose the thinking is that if a person does not care enough to deal with issues when they are brought up and this goes on for a long time, they just do not care. So an ultimatum will only lead to a false response.

Sometimes when people fix things only because of a threat/ultimatum they hang on to a lot of resentment. If it does, the change is not sincere and leaks out in other ways, like passive aggressive behavior.


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> It seems that wives often feel they aren't a priority in their husband's life. It seems he would rather be golfing or working in the garage than spending time with his wife. He doesn't seem to listen and is distant, which without being addressed, causes the wife to be WAW.
> 
> I wonder why the guy becomes that way. In general, how much responsibility for his change is on the wife? Let's assume that everything is hot and heavy in the beginning, as most new relationships are. At what point does the guy decide golf is more fun than his wife? Has she changed from the woman that caused his blood to boil in the beginning?


If this is the case, then he should talk to her about it. Communicate... work on a fix.


----------



## EleGirl

FrenchFry said:


> When I handed out/was handed an ultimatum or threatened (either one, either way) the fact that it got so ridiculous that a gd threat had to be executed made me feel like the relationship pointless. Oh, and it didn't fix anything because 2 months later, the fear of the threat had worn off and everything was back to normal.


Yep, that's what I experienced too. Any improvement did not last. And the resentment from him, for the threat, became an underlying tone going forward.


----------



## Fighting For Happiness

EleGirl said:


> Sometimes when people fix things only because of a threat/ultimatum they hang on to a lot of resentment. If it does, the change is not sincere and leaks out in other ways, like passive aggressive behavior.


Right and 

1. sometimes it does work and more often than not it is the single identifiable catalyst that caused a spouse of the Walkaway to meaningful remarkable change and save the marriage

2. not bothering to try after all other approaches have been tried is absurd when the alternative is ending it any way

3. temporary relief is infinitely better than no relief at all. The breather can insert new life into an otherwise absurdly frustrating situation that creates hope

4. Ultimatums have worked more than passively checking out until love is completely dead

5. think of a defibrillator that can and often does revive the dead. That is what ultimatums can be. It shocks the system that desperately needs it. 

For those reasons, I'm not getting the refusal to make an ultimatum when there is nothing more to lose as without the change ultimatums can create by being clear about the seriousness of the issue

With all due respect some here seem hell bent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater with a gargantuan effort to dismiss every conceivable solution or suggestion presented because at some point with someone it didn't work even if others have said it worked for them. 

Sorry but that is what I am seeing.


----------



## Fozzy

And suppose the ultimatum is something along the lines of "Marriage Counseling or I walk"?

Or "quit drinking or I walk?"

I think there's still a time and place for an ultimatum.


----------



## EleGirl

Fighting For Happiness said:


> Right and
> 
> 1. sometimes it does work and more often than not it is the single identifiable catalyst that caused a spouse to change and save the marriage
> 
> 2. not bothering to try after all other approaches have been tried is absurd when the alternative is ending it any way
> 
> 3. temporary relief is infinitely better than no relief at all. The breather can insert new life into an otherwise absurdly frustrating situation that creates hope
> 
> 4. Ultimatums have worked more than passively checking out until love is completely dead
> 
> 5. think of a defibrillator that can and often does revive the dead. That is what ultimatums can be. It shocks the system that desperately needs it.
> 
> For those reasons, I'm not getting the refusal to make an ultimatum when there is nothing more to lose as without the change ultimatums can create by being clear about the seriousness of the issue
> 
> With all due respect some here seem hell bent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater with a gargantuan effort to dismiss every conceivable solution or suggestion presented because at some point with someone it didn't work even if others have said it worked for them.
> 
> Sorry but that is what I am seeing.


I am not sure why you think this is what you are seeing.

There are a lot of women who have posted a bit about their situation. 

Some have tried ultimatums and it worked in long run.

Some have tried ultimatums and they did not work in the long run.

Some do not want to try them because they feel that threatening their spouse with divorce is not right and/or that it will only lead to false results. 

I see women who have handles things in different ways and had different results.

So I have no idea why you are accusing every woman here of not giving ultimatums. We are individuals.


----------



## EleGirl

FrenchFry said:


> Yes, and again it goes both ways. We agreed to a no threat policy.
> 
> So, *Fighting For Happiness* you asked:
> 
> What happens, for example, your wife hears you say "I need more sex from you or it's over," and she obeys the spirit of the law--you get more sex--but she's Pintresting and tapping the clock while it's happening?
> 
> This is my experience with ultimatums. What gets laid down gets "obeyed," but it's seething with contempt and half-assed measures which then require another ultimatum and so on and so forth until the whole relationship is ultimatums and resentments as well.


And all the while the person getting the ultimatum starts shutting out the ultimatum giver because they are, after all only a snagging shrew.



FrenchFry said:


> I'm not saying they don't work. I'm saying that this form of speaking like a man still doesn't mean the man is willing or wanting to change or listen.


The more I think of it, I disagree that giving ultimatums is “speaking like a man”. This assumes that all men speak the same way. They don’t. Not by a long show. We see men here, a lot of them, who would never threaten to leave. There is not a secret decoder ring for how to talk like a man. 

There are plenty of men who will respond if their wife brings up an important need that is not getting met. 

There are men who if given an ultimatum will not respond well to it. It’s a threat and when threatened their back is against the wall. Either they go further into themselves and hide or they leave.

There are people, men and women, who just brush off what their spouse says because they are content and getting what they want. They do not care or cannot realize that their spouse has different feeling and needs than they do and that it’s important to address these if they want to stay married.


FrenchFry said:


> I think the point is--Walk Away Spouses are created after the ultimatum has been ignored for the last time.


an idea of how the brain works with love and human bonding.


----------



## EleGirl

Fozzy said:


> And suppose the ultimatum is something along the lines of "Marriage Counseling or I walk"?
> 
> Or "quit drinking or I walk?"
> 
> I think there's still a time and place for an ultimatum.


Only a few are saying that they would never use one. So I guess most of us agree.


----------



## Fighting For Happiness

EleGirl said:


> I have no idea why you are accusing every woman here of not giving ultimatums. We are individuals.


Every woman? 

I said "some"

As did you

Heated agreement? LOL


----------



## Fighting For Happiness

FrenchFry said:


> This is my experience with ultimatums. What gets laid down gets "obeyed," but it's seething with contempt and half-assed measures which then require another ultimatum and so on and so forth until the whole relationship is ultimatums and resentments as well.
> 
> I'm not saying they don't work. I'm saying that this form of speaking like a man still doesn't mean the man is willing or wanting to change or listen.
> 
> I think the point is--Walk Away Spouses are created after the ultimatum has been ignored for the last time


I don't think that is the point. First there are many points but very often the walkaway mentions (some say nags about) the spouse not being present without ever explaining it's deal killer importance. 

Rather the walkaway goes silent (gives up) while resentment builds and then they leave the stunned husband that thought things were fine because of the silence. No ultimatum is given and that is the reason the husband of the WAW is shocked. 

It is well known there is a period of silence, announcement of leaving followed by shock of the walkaways spouse. That is what the article is about. It is clear and common and there are thousands of articles about this pattern. 

Addressing why the shock happens is the opportunity to save thousands of marriages and that concept is getting lost with all the exception to this rule nonsense lobbed by two time losers that had a spouse that did not love them and lacked the maturity and commitment to buckle down and man up. That's a shame a solution gets buried by disagreeable exception lobbing people that couldn't save their own marriage more than once.

I can not believe there is any argument that the most common sad heart breaking outcome of divorce is better than an ultimatum that removes shock and thereby creates an opportunity for the walkaways spouse to fix their $hit. 

My wife was a walkaway 8 years ago and gave me the things need to change speech or I am not seeing us together because she cant do it. 

I manned up. Had I been doing the male version of "pinteresting" whatever that is and/or was not mature enough or interested enough to learn about how to be a great husband and I instead allowed resentment and a $hitty attitude to interfere with saving my marriage I would have lost my wife. 

Instead I righted the ship for another 7 years before dropping the ball and getting back on track again with the same honest approach as the first time. 

Don't like it? OK don't do it. 

For those that want to try it but have doubts from all the naysayers I suggest that their delivery sucks or their spouse does. 

I recruit and train lots of people for my work. Most are successful hires but some are not. When we pull aside a failing hire, sit them down and explain they are not making it, here is what they need to do to remain here and here is how we will suppot you in that, and give them a choice to give it a try or part company, many of them buckle down and get it done and succeed. 

The motivation to save a marriage is even higher. If you can't deliver an ultimatum correctly, then no wonder they done work for you. Your delivery sucks or your spouse is a bratty immature a$$hole. 

It didn't fail because ultimatums don't work. It failed because your spouse is a $hithead or your delivery was disrespectful or ineffective in some other way


----------



## Doorman

I was recently banned, because I asked a question of a mod on this thread. Click my profile, read my questions, and decide whether or not you believe a ban was the proper response. All I ask is that you be objective, and observe whether any inappropriate language, etc was used. I did ask questions, but was conscientiously trying to be respectful, and operate within the confines of the established rules. None of my questions were answered, but were met with scorn by a moderator. Shouldn't opinions be widely tolerated? What harm is in a voice, an opinion?

It seems that the yardstick for banishment is based upon primarily upon subservience to the establishment. Imagine John Lennon, and "moderator anonymous" as Richard Nixon. 

Is that what you feel is appropriate?


----------



## Fighting For Happiness

I see two cases in your post where the spouse gets it so making it clear so the walkaways spouse has an opportunity to fix his $hit is possible according to your own words above. 

Beyond that this isn't worth the hassle to me. 

If my wife came home and all my $hit was gone I think she would get the picture and vice versa. 

Should I try that before or after I have lost all hope if I don't think she is getting the serious nature of my complaints? 

The correct answer is before.(if I want to save my marriage). 

It's like a defibrillator shocking the dead back alive. 

Has that been tried by everyone here? Phuck no!

OK then stop saying everything has been tried. 

NO THE PHUCK IT HASNT. 

Is that drastic? Divorce is drastic. Giving up is drastic so who gives a $hit if it's drastic. It isn't as drastic as divorce or giving up.

If I can save one marriage I will help yu move your **** with my own hands. It would be awesome if a few people would get on board instead of saying it isn't possible. 

I would bet money no one that lost a spouse to neglect thought of that idea and it is straight-forward and completely reasonable before throwing away 10, 15, 20, 25 years of marriage to do EVERYTHING possible to pull a spouses head out of the a$$

Does it work. Maybe. That's good enough for some and others will yawn.

Whatever. 

I have never had a problem being heard. That skill can be learned.


----------



## Fighting For Happiness

FrenchFry said:


> Exactly what picture would she get?
> 
> I'm asking this not flippantly, but as an example.
> 
> The WA spouse would know exactly why they walked away.
> 
> The spouse who stayed could a) know exactly why b) not know exactly why.
> 
> B would say "I had no idea it was that bad, if I knew I would have changed."
> 
> That is the point of a Walk-Away Spouse.


Right so we agree again. Hurray. The WA's spouse gets it and is ready to fix it and that is the goal of the 750 posts of circular nonsense arguing about it that was totally unnecessary.


----------



## EleGirl

Fighting For Happiness said:


> "pinteresting" whatever that is


https://www.pinterest.com/ is a social media site that is very popular.


----------



## Fighting For Happiness

FrenchFry said:


> By here, do you mean here on TAM or here on this thread?
> 
> Because all WA spouses in this thread have issued ultimatums, begged, pleaded, cajoled and ultimately walked away.


NO! Jesus help me. 

With the utmost respect to you and your all powerful status, if you were not a mod I swear I would think you were trolling me.

Because of that, after this I am done. It isn't worth it to me to spoon feed bites this small.

I used the specific example of my wife coming home to all of my stuff being gone to get my point across that I was serious and she was not getting that it's deal-killer. 

Has everyone on TAM on this thread whatever tried that. 

NO they have not. 

Well then they have not tried everything. That is a plausible strategy to get a WA spouses attention AND their motivation. 

IF it didn't work then they are already packed to move. Seems like a winner to me and I would try that under the circumstances of aggressively considering divorce if impressive improvements are not immediate.


----------



## EleGirl

Fighting For Happiness said:


> If I can save one marriage I will help yu move your **** with my own hands. It would be awesome if a few people would get on board instead of saying it isn't possible.
> 
> I would *bet money *no one that lost a spouse to neglect thought of that idea and it is straight-forward and completely reasonable before throwing away 10, 15, 20, 25 years of marriage to do EVERYTHING possible to pull a spouses head out of the a$$
> 
> Does it work. Maybe. That's good enough for some and others will yawn.


Let me see if I am reading this right? Are you saying that no one (to include no one on TAM) who ended up divorce due to neglect tried given an ultimatum before? Or moved out as an ultimatum? This is right?

I want my money cause I win the bet.

I'm seriously thinking of starting a bit coin betting system for TAM


----------



## EleGirl

Fighting For Happiness said:


> NO! Jesus help me.
> 
> With the utmost respect to you and your all powerful status, if you were not a mod I swear I would think you were trolling me.
> 
> Because of that, after this I am done. It isn't worth it to me to spoon feed bites this small.
> 
> I used the specific example of my wife coming home to all of my stuff being gone to get my point across that I was serious and she was not getting that it's deal-killer.
> 
> *Has everyone on TAM on this thread whatever tried that. *
> 
> NO they have not.
> 
> Well then they have not tried everything. That is a plausible strategy to get a WA spouses attention AND their motivation.
> 
> IF it didn't work then they are already packed to move. Seems like a winner to me and I would try that under the circumstances of aggressively considering divorce if impressive improvements are not immediate.


Why do you think that no one on TAM has tried it. I talked earlier about me doing that. It was after trying everything else I could think of, to include MC, to get him to talk and work on things.

I moved everything of mine to an apartment. I had brought most of the furniture, dishes, etc etc into the marriage. It was all gone that day when he came home.

What did it do? I stayed gone for a while. He made promises and changes. We got back together. That was the end of his taking anything serious.

So I filed for divorce once I had my ducks in a row.


----------



## GusPolinski

Doorman said:


> I was recently banned, because I asked a question of a mod on this thread. Click my profile, read my questions, and decide whether or not you believe a ban was the proper response. All I ask is that you be objective, and observe whether any inappropriate language, etc was used. I did ask questions, but was conscientiously trying to be respectful, and operate within the confines of the established rules. None of my questions were answered, but were met with scorn by a moderator. Shouldn't opinions be widely tolerated? What harm is in a voice, an opinion?
> 
> It seems that the yardstick for banishment is based upon primarily upon subservience to the establishment. Imagine John Lennon, and "moderator anonymous" as Richard Nixon.
> 
> Is that what you feel is appropriate?


I am outraged at the miscarriage of justice that has clearly been perpetuated against you.

Or... not.


----------



## EleGirl

Another point about an ultimatum....

If the WAW/H uses shock and awe .... give an ultimatum and/or just moves out to give that ultimatum... and then the LBS (Left behind spouse) does not respond that they are shocked and want to fix the marriage...

The what we have is a WAW/H who just walked away. 

Then everyone can argue that they were just nags and did not do say the exact right magic words for their LBS's magic decoder code.


----------



## IIJokerII

EleGirl said:


> Not every marriage is like yours. Not every women who eventually gives up on her marriage is like your wife.
> 
> There are plenty of women who are not prima donas who are abusing their husbands. There are plenty who are giving 110% with a spouse who is not giving anywhere near that. These women are asking for very reasonable things only to be ignored and pushed away.
> 
> There are also plenty of men in the same situation. It sounds like you are a guy who was in a very similar situation.
> 
> To just brush off all women who leave their marriage after years of neglect as being like you wife is disregarding that there are women who have legitimate reasons to leave a marriage. Just as there are men who have legitimate reasons to leave a marriage.


 I am quite sure or at the very least willing to bet that the men here who have a so called walk away wife were able to recover far easier than those who dealt with a wife who left via another man. 

I am not saying that couples who are unsatisfied should remain together in spite of their indifferences and/or unresolvable conflicts. Unfortunately this is left to interpretation as to how a wife, or husband, was neglected or mistreated. Toss in entitlement and a dash of narcissism and you can have something a trivial to leaving a soda bottle on the counter to snoring as a reason for a wife to just up and leave for another man. 

Men usually leave under the ploy of getting NEW, not necessarily mind blowing, sex from someone who they rationalized as being superior to their wife, no matter the cost. 

In fact, I dare the TAM mod's to open a " Splitting on good Terms" forum. With the exception of the Rules and notes sticky I dare to see just how many good break up stories there are. 

Women don't leave men they love, they leave men they thought they loved, too ignorant to know that the Novelty of that giddy love last for a short period of time, and after that respect, honesty and having each others back is what matters most. I no longer have that novelty feeling for my dog when I come home, shall I just kick him outside and abandon him? Beat him? Mistreat him since I like him but I no longer find him fun? Kinds like ILYBINILWY.


----------



## Wazza

IIJokerII said:


> I am quite sure or at the very least willing to bet that the men here who have a so called walk away wife were able to recover far easier than those who dealt with a wife who left via another man.
> 
> I am not saying that couples who are unsatisfied should remain together in spite of their indifferences and/or unresolvable conflicts. Unfortunately this is left to interpretation as to how a wife, or husband, was neglected or mistreated. Toss in entitlement and a dash of narcissism and you can have something a trivial to leaving a soda bottle on the counter to snoring as a reason for a wife to just up and leave for another man.
> 
> Men usually leave under the ploy of getting NEW, not necessarily mind blowing, sex from someone who they rationalized as being superior to their wife, no matter the cost.
> 
> In fact, I dare the TAM mod's to open a " Splitting on good Terms" forum. With the exception of the Rules and notes sticky I dare to see just how many good break up stories there are.
> 
> Women don't leave men they love, they leave men they thought they loved, too ignorant to know that the Novelty of that giddy love last for a short period of time, and after that respect, honesty and having each others back is what matters most. I no longer have that novelty feeling for my dog when I come home, shall I just kick him outside and abandon him? Beat him? Mistreat him since I like him but I no longer find him fun? Kinds like ILYBINILWY.


There is a world of shades of grey in why marriages end. A world of scenarios between splitting on good terms vs wife leaving for another man. I've seen people destroyed by spouses who left without infidelity. 

Even when a woman has an affair, they aren't all the same. It can be a woman who was caught up in the novelty and "getting their needs met" as you say, or someone who tried to do the right thing in a marriage that wasn't working, and fell into infidelity in a moment of weakness.

Sometimes the husband's only mistake was to pick an unworthy spouse. Sometimes it is deeper and more complex than that. While it doesn't excuse the affair, sometimes the husband has played a part in weakening the marriage. How that might happen is something you can learn from this thread.

I've been there....while I reconciled. I know something of your pain. And I am sure that, until you work through that incredibly painful truth, I don't know how you put yourself in a better position for future relationships.

There is a lot of helpful information in this thread if you want to do that.


----------



## southbound

IIJokerII said:


> Women don't leave men they love, they leave men they thought they loved, too ignorant to know that the Novelty of that giddy love last for a short period of time, and after that respect, honesty and having each others back is what matters most. I no longer have that novelty feeling for my dog when I come home, shall I just kick him outside and abandon him? Beat him? Mistreat him since I like him but I no longer find him fun? Kinds like ILYBINILWY.


I've often thought this myself. I wonder if my x and other WAW's loved their husbands deeply to begin with. Do you really walk away from someone who is a good provider, good father, does his share, yet he is away more than you would like or he doesn't talk as much as you want, and a hundred other things in that category. Does a person really let thinks like that turn them against a partner they really love?

On the other hand, there are many wives who are intelligent and have the ability to leave and be ok, yet they continue with a man who is an alcoholic, is abusive, cheats, and other things in that category. I wonder if it's because they truly have a deep love for them? 'Tis a true puzzle.


----------



## farsidejunky

It is dependence, or codependency, not love.


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> I've often thought this myself. I wonder if my x and other WAW's loved their husbands deeply to begin with. Do you really walk away from someone who is a *good provider, good father, does his share*,


What of love are those things? Those things are being a human being. Those are just a thing that a person has to do.



> yet he is away more than you would like or he doesn't talk as much as you want, and a hundred other things in that category. Does a person really let thinks like that turn them against a partner they really love?


Love is fluid, and that sure as heck does not keep turning her toward.


----------



## southbound

NobodySpecial said:


> What of love are those things? Those things are being a human being. Those are just a thing that a person has to do.


What of love are those things? Apparently nothing these days. However, I heard my grandmothers speak highly of those characteristics.


----------



## Wazza

southbound said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> What of love are those things? Those things are being a human being. Those are just a thing that a person has to do.
> 
> 
> 
> What of love are those things? Apparently nothing these days. However, I heard my grandmothers speak highly of those characteristics.
Click to expand...

Marriage can be about duty. Which can be love, but not in the romantic sense. This is a notion less fashionable than it used to be.

Not taking sides, I can see pros and cons to the change. But it's unmistakeable.


----------



## EleGirl

IIJokerII said:


> * Women don't leave men they love, they leave men they thought they loved, too ignorant to know that the Novelty of that giddy love last for a short period of time, and after that respect, honesty and having each others back is what matters most. *I no longer have that novelty feeling for my dog when I come home, shall I just kick him outside and abandon him? Beat him? Mistreat him since I like him but I no longer find him fun? Kinds like ILYBINILWY.


So now I, and the other women on here to explained why they left or about to leave a marriage, are "too ignorant to know that the Novelty of that giddy love".

All women are not like your wife. We are not your wife.


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> I've often thought this myself. I wonder if my x and other WAW's loved their husbands deeply to begin with. Do you really walk away from someone who is a good provider, good father, does his share, yet he is away more than you would like or he doesn't talk as much as you want, and a hundred other things in that category. Does a person really let thinks like that turn them against a partner they really love?
> 
> On the other hand, there are many wives who are intelligent and have the ability to leave and be ok, yet they continue with a man who is an alcoholic, is abusive, cheats, and other things in that category. I wonder if it's because they truly have a deep love for them? 'Tis a true puzzle.


Some men walk away from good women.

Some Men cheat on good wives

Some men stay with very abusive, cheating wives.

Some men walk away from women who are not good wives according to them.


This is not a gender thing. 

Men walk away too.



I do not now what you consider trivial, not a good reason to leave.

Many people go into a marriage deeply in love only to have that chipped away at year after year.

This is not a gender thing.


----------



## southbound

Wazza said:


> Marriage can be about duty. Which can be love, but not in the romantic sense. This is a notion less fashionable than it used to be.
> 
> Not taking sides, I can see pros and cons to the change. But it's unmistakeable.


It appears you know what I mean. You recognize that things have changed over the years. The bad part is that i got my training and examples in my young years from the old school crowd, but found myself being married in the modern crowd. I was applying old ideas to current day. I guess that doesn't work too well.

When I was growing up, I saw older couples who seemed to share a deep love, but weren't necessarily throwing rose pedals at each other all the time. My grandmother often talked of my grandfather and about what a good man, hard worker, and good father he was. I don't recall any stories of any older people I knew leaving each other "just because." 

If I were able to go back today and tell my grandmother why my wife left me, I'm sure she would think I was trying to pull a not-so-funny joke on her, or she would think my x had cracked up.


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> It appears you know what I mean. You recognize that things have changed over the years. The bad part is that i got my training and examples in my young years from the old school crowd, but found myself being married in the modern crowd. I was applying old ideas to current day. I guess that doesn't work too well.
> 
> When I was growing up, I saw older couples who seemed to share a deep love, but weren't necessarily throwing rose pedals at each other all the time. My grandmother often talked of my grandfather and about what a good man, hard worker, and good father he was. I don't recall any stories of any older people I knew leaving each other "just because."
> 
> If I were able to go back today and tell my grandmother why my wife left me, I'm sure she would think I was trying to pull a not-so-funny joke on her, or she would think my x had cracked up.


Not everything was rosy for all couples under those old rules.

It might have been great for your grandmother some others you knew, but it was not for a good number of others.

Those old rules were not perfect either, not by a long shot.


----------



## EleGirl

IIJokerII said:


> Men usually leave under the ploy of getting NEW, not necessarily mind blowing, sex from someone who they rationalized as being superior to their wife, no matter the cost.


That is another way of saying that men who leave their wives are
too ignorant to know that the Novelty of that giddy love last for a short period of time"

{"ignorant" is your word, not mine.}


----------



## lifeistooshort

EleGirl said:


> Not everything was rosy for all couples under those old rules.
> 
> It might have been great for your grandmother some others you knew, but it was not for a good number of others.
> 
> Those old rules were not perfect either, not by a long shot.



Nobody in the good old days would leave a marriage over no sex, yet that's encouraged here all the time. People point to the old days when it suits them and conveniently forget about the not so good aspects.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## southbound

EleGirl said:


> Not everything was rosy for all couples under those old rules.
> 
> It might have been great for your grandmother some others you knew, but it was not for a good number of others.
> 
> Those old rules were not perfect either, not by a long shot.


I'm sure they weren't rosy all the time, but i don't think it was expected to be. A few thorns were part of life. The ones I knew is all I can go by. If it was good for them, that's at least a few examples of people who were happy even though each day may not have been a bed of roses. 

I don't think it dawned on them that marriage was supposed to be like the movies or else it was no good.




lifeistooshort said:


> Nobody in the good old days would leave a marriage over no sex, yet that's encouraged here all the time. People point to the old days when it suits them and conveniently forget about the not so good aspects.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm only speaking of my family and what I know. I'm not saying that every marriage was a winner in those days, but I know the people in my family had different ideas about what makes a good marriage than what people have today.


----------



## Anon Pink

IIJokerII said:


> I am quite sure or at the very least willing to bet that the men here who have a so called walk away wife were able to recover far easier than those who dealt with a wife who left via another man.
> 
> I am not saying that couples who are unsatisfied should remain together in spite of their indifferences and/or unresolvable conflicts. *Unfortunately this is left to interpretation as to how a wife, or husband, was neglected or mistreated. Toss in entitlement and a dash of narcissism and you can have something a trivial to leaving a soda bottle on the counter to snoring as a reason for a wife to just up and leave for another man. *
> 
> Men usually leave under the ploy of getting NEW, not necessarily mind blowing, sex from someone who they rationalized as being superior to their wife, no matter the cost.
> 
> In fact, I dare the TAM mod's to open a " Splitting on good Terms" forum. With the exception of the Rules and notes sticky I dare to see just how many good break up stories there are.
> 
> Women don't leave men they love, they leave men they thought they loved, too ignorant to know that the Novelty of that giddy love last for a short period of time, and after that respect, honesty and having each others back is what matters most. I no longer have that novelty feeling for my dog when I come home, shall I just kick him outside and abandon him? Beat him? Mistreat him since I like him but I no longer find him fun? Kinds like ILYBINILWY.


Almost 700 posts, maybe half are from women, maybe a third are women documenting their very own stories, including my own and the bolded was the conclusion you came to?


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> I'm sure they weren't rosy all the time, but i don't think it was expected to be. A few thorns were part of life. The ones I knew is all I can go by. If it was good for them, that's at least a few examples of people who were happy even though each day may not have been a bed of roses.
> 
> I don't think it dawned on them that marriage was supposed to be like the movies or else it was no good.


When I say it was not all rosy, I was not talking about the normal ups and downs in a good marriage. I was talking about bad things that people had no choice but to stay with.

In the old days divorce was almost impossible to get.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

There were no good old days. No fault divorce wasn't even an option until the 1960s. During that same decade, a bank could refuse to give a credit card to an unmarried woman. Women made 59 cents on the dollar compared to what a man earned. 

Given all of the above, I can't imagine women saw divorce as an option.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## southbound

EleGirl said:


> When I say it was not all rosy, I was not talking about the normal ups and downs in a good marriage. I was talking about bad things that people had no choice but to stay with.
> 
> In the old days divorce was almost impossible to get.


I knew that's what you meant, but some of the things that people consider serious today would have been considered a normal up and down back then, or maybe wouldn't even have registered at all. 

I remember my grandmother talking about a friend who divorced her husband because a typical day for him was that if he didn't like something about the food she fixed, he would turn the table over and have her clean up the mess, and then slap her around later. She never, however, mentioned anyone divorcing because the other didn't like their choice of vacation spot or because they didn't sit for an hour every night listening to the other talk about their day.


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> I knew that's what you meant, but some of the things that people consider serious today would have been considered a normal up and down back then, or maybe wouldn't even have registered at all.
> 
> I remember my grandmother talking about a friend who divorced her husband because a typical day for him was that if he didn't like something about the food she fixed, he would turn the table over and have her clean up the mess, and then slap her around later. She never, however, mentioned anyone divorcing because the other didn't like their choice of vacation spot or because they didn't sit for an hour every night listening to the other talk about their day.


So your grand parents and all the older people you know who had these wonderful marriages, they never spent time together, like doing things, talking, etc? They just did the business of supporting the household, raising children and taking care of the house & chores? Their relationships were just about running the family?


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Doesn't sound like a relationship much. There is nothing about knowing your partner intimately.

In neurobiology, people who are constantly in the in love stage, where they are often in the honeymoon phase constantly, tend to live longer, have better life satisfaction, and love to be around each other. When they are in the presence of their love one, it reduces stress, and in MRI scans, shows to limit feelings of pain as well. That is what a close loving relationship can give the other person. These research is new in the last few years. The more loving and intimate a relationship, the more life satisfaction and health each partner feels.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr.Fisty said:


> Doesn't sound like a relationship much. There is nothing about knowing your partner intimately.
> 
> In neurobiology, people who are constantly in the in love stage, where they are often in the honeymoon phase constantly, tend to live longer, have better life satisfaction, and love to be around each other. When they are in the presence of their love one, it reduces stress, and in MRI scans, shows to limit feelings of pain as well. That is what a close loving relationship can give the other person. These research is new in the last few years. The more loving and intimate a relationship, the more life satisfaction and health each partner feels.


Yep. Basically when love state is when a person has a lot of good brain chemicals being produced... lots of oxytocin, dopamine and other things that help keep people mentally healthy.

When those chemicals drop too low, the in-love feelings and bond are gone.


----------



## aine

EleGirl said:


> So your grand parents and all the older people you know who had these wonderful marriages, they never spent time together, like doing things, talking, etc? They just did the business of supporting the household, raising children and taking care of the house & chores? Their relationships were just about running the family?


When I think of my grandparents, they had a tough life, living through the 1930's meltdown and world war and raising five kids with little. Yet in their golden years there was so much affection and care for one another. No matter what, she would drop what she was doing and make his favorite tea and he would always pop out to get whatever she needed from the shops giving her an affectionate kiss or say something 'naughty' before leaving. They would spend the days reading and just talking. They had little use for TV except for the news. My grandma often told me he wasn't an easy man to live with as he had a temper but he was a caring man and loved her dearly. I think that was plain to see when you just observed them.


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> What of love are those things? Apparently nothing these days. However, I heard my grandmothers speak highly of those characteristics.


I am glad your grandmother was happy! The truth is times have changed. Clearly some of us think for the better more than others. If there was a time when taking responsibility for the children you chose to create (good father) was extraordinary and cause for back pats, I don't want to be part of it. 

Yes times have changed. I don't need a provider. I can provide for myself and my children. The comments about being rosy and casting rose petals is missing the point completely. Our life is very happy, but hardly rosy. What I have is a partner. Last night was not very rosy, for example. There was some stress around his work and some homework that we could not figure out. WOOOAAAA. Look at that word. We. 

It is not about candlelight dinners and shiny romantic bs. It is about partnership. It is about not doing the bare minimum and then thinking your spouse should stay based on a dress up occasion many years preciously. It is about remembering that your vows did not include just till death do us part, but love and cherish. 

It is about holding the bar higher than just "stay" and making an awesome life worth living. Which is a good thing since you only get one.

[Edit]
The point being that when my DH thinks about marriage, he does not think of rules, roles and epochs. Of what I should want because his iconoclastic image of wife brings up his grandmother. He thinks of ME, exactly as I am, the good the bad and the ugly. And he deals with ME. And we work together to build an US.
[/edit]


----------



## southbound

aine said:


> When I think of my grandparents, they had a tough life, living through the 1930's meltdown and world war and raising five kids with little. Yet in their golden years there was so much affection and care for one another. No matter what, she would drop what she was doing and make his favorite tea and he would always pop out to get whatever she needed from the shops giving her an affectionate kiss or say something 'naughty' before leaving. They would spend the days reading and just talking. They had little use for TV except for the news. My grandma often told me he wasn't an easy man to live with as he had a temper but he was a caring man and loved her dearly. I think that was plain to see when you just observed them.


that sounds like what I'm describing. that part where he wasn't an easy man to live with because he had a temper would be enough for someone to hit the road these days.


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> that sounds like what I'm describing. that part where he wasn't an easy man to live with because he had a temper would be enough for someone to hit the road these days.


Why shouldn't it be?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Mr.Fisty said:


> Doesn't sound like a relationship much. There is nothing about knowing your partner intimately.
> 
> *In neurobiology, people who are constantly in the in love stage, where they are often in the honeymoon phase constantly, tend to live longer, have better life satisfaction, and love to be around each other. When they are in the presence of their love one, it reduces stress, and in MRI scans, shows to limit feelings of pain as well. That is what a close loving relationship can give the other person. These research is new in the last few years. The more loving and intimate a relationship, the more life satisfaction and health each partner feels.*


This...Yes!... a couple can HAVE BOTH.. running the family AND all this... it's about being thankful for what you have ..and keeping resentments at BAY (I think this is the toughest for most couples for not fully resolving conflict- BECAUSE of our differences , one wants/ craves this, the other wants something else!)...

When we fully stay in tuned...we show more affection..we are more encouraging.. the little things DO add up to brighten our days, our mornings starting out with a kiss.. a little FRISKY... which in turn keeps our attitudes positive, loving....we then validate our spouse more....lots of love making.. it all revives these hormones...

I will say right now... if I had a husband who hardly talked to me...didn't think that was necessary.. if he sensed I was "down" and just let that roll off of him, not trying to find out what was wrong.. 

I would grow weary.. Oh I would talk to him but if I got the feeling he REALLY didn't CARE...I would start to detach...... just like any other woman would.. (not like I am going to badger someone to care)...

Of course I have a role in these things too... to be receptive to him.. doing my best to not NAG & turn him away, keep my complaining to a minimum, but yeah.. we should be talking about our day, sharing... cuddling up with each other.. if these things slowly come to a halt.. it's NOT good.. we NEED to revive that.. and frankly.. which partner wouldn't want those things?? 

That's the question for me... and when conflict arises.. AIR IT OUT.. find a middle ground, nothing wrong with some fighting now & then, it's when we neglect solving these conflicts that we emotionally lose our way with each other. 

The honeymoon can last.. This article explains this well...

Brain Study Reveals Secrets of Staying Madly in Love
What brain scans teach us about intense long-term passionate love ..it's not something to take for granted.. just because we took vows once upon a time.. but to continue to cultivate..


----------



## Jellybeans

I sometimes think that marriage works better for some kinds of peole versus others. Granted, ti comes down to the couple too. And I mean the marriages that are good, healthy, not the ones where people just stay together for kids/for the sake of being married/because they fear being alone/for financial reasons/or an arrangement.

Some people are just better suited for marriage/coupledom. 

But to the thread topic: women generally leave when they are done with the relationship. Something(s) has happened over time to get them to a point where they do not expect anything to get better. When the status quo is not bearable anymore. When they have reached their breaking point.


----------



## Jellybeans

Fighting For Happiness said:


> What is wrong with explaining unresolved issues as deal killers tp your spouse as long as they really are and you do not abuse the technique with less serious b.s.?
> 
> If that is the only shot you have at fixing your marriage I say let it fly.
> 
> I thank my wife for letting me know what I was screwing up and I returned the favor when she was being dense like I was before.


Missed the ENTIRE point of the thread. People in here have said over and over again how they DID tell their partner these things and partner chose to IGNORE them and not listen to the serious issues that concerned them, hence why they left.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> So your grand parents and all the older people you know who had these wonderful marriages, they never spent time together, like doing things, talking, etc? They just did the business of supporting the household, raising children and taking care of the house & chores? Their relationships were just about running the family?


I stayed after my wife's affair for the sake of my kids. so for a while, yes my marriage was about the family. No regrets on that front. 

Now my wife and I are older, and there is a lot of water under the bridge. We have a lot of history, and a great friendship. We don't have the passion of a new relationship, and I have to make a choice. I could leave my wife and go with someone new. Then I would have the passion but not the history.

The other side is, if I choose to leave, my wife gets no say in that choice. I can demolish her world and she doesn't get a say. OK, she had an affair years ago that hurt, and I could list various other grievances. But she is a very special person in my life, and even if I wanted to move on, I think I owe her something.

That doesn't invalidate what you are saying. I work on a good relationship, with talking and shared activities....and there have been time when "work" was the only appropriate world. 

Morally, do I just do what I want, regardless of how much it destroys my wife?


----------



## Wolf1974

Jellybeans said:


> I sometimes think that marriage works better for some kinds of peole versus others. Granted, ti comes down to the couple too. And I mean the marriages that are good, healthy, not the ones where people just stay together for kids/for the sake of being married/because they fear being alone/for financial reasons/or an arrangement.
> 
> *Some people are just better suited for marriage/coupledom*.
> 
> But to the thread topic: women generally leave when they are done with the relationship. Something(s) has happened over time to get them to a point where they do not expect anything to get better. When the status quo is not bearable anymore. When they have reached their breaking point.


YEs. This would defintely describe me. My x wife was the opposite. Couldn't handle an adult relationship. And likely never will be without some therapy. But of course that would be admitting she has a problem first 

So we were like Opposites In this regard


----------



## Married but Happy

People leave relationships when they feel that they can do significantly better - either by being alone or by finding someone better for them.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

IIJokerII said:


> Women don't leave men they love, they leave men they thought they loved, too ignorant to know that the Novelty of that giddy love last for a short period of time, and after that respect, honesty and having each others back is what matters most. I no longer have that novelty feeling for my dog when I come home, shall I just kick him outside and abandon him? Beat him? Mistreat him since I like him but I no longer find him fun? Kinds like ILYBINILWY.


You're right. I thought I loved someone. Then I realized I was naive - he wasn't who I thought he was. He was mean-spirited, judgmental, abusive, manipulative and hateful.

Women are not STUPID. We know the blush of romance doesn't last forever and want a true partner with a deeper love and appreciation after that fades. Same can be said for men - you think the hot and heavy, can't keep your hands off each other should last after the honeymoon phase? Both genders have to continue to nurture that. Complacency leads to taking each other for granted. That leads to frustration and dissatisfaction.


----------



## Dogbert

I wonder if the WAW is also adding to the list of reasons to the growing numbers of young men who have chosen to avoid marriage altogether.


----------



## EleGirl

aine said:


> When I think of my grandparents, they had a tough life, living through the 1930's meltdown and world war and raising five kids with little. Yet in their golden years there was so much affection and care for one another. No matter what, she would drop what she was doing and make his favorite tea and he would always pop out to get whatever she needed from the shops giving her an affectionate kiss or say something 'naughty' before leaving. They would spend the days reading and just talking. They had little use for TV except for the news. My grandma often told me he wasn't an easy man to live with as he had a temper but he was a caring man and loved her dearly. I think that was plain to see when you just observed them.


My grandparents were born in the late 1800's. They married when he was 19 and she was 14. They worked hard together to raise 5 daughters. They lived in NY city. She told me that they were very lucky because during the great depression one of them always had a job.

They were roommates who worked together to raise children. My grandfather got up in the morning, she cooked him breakfast and then he left for work during the week. He spend his evenings and weekends doing 'men's" work around their property and he did handyman things for people like old ladies. He was never home until bedtime.

She run the house, raised the children and handled their finances. 

They were respectful to each other. They were both good, kind peopel

They were married 56 years when he died at 75. She also told me that seldom would allow sex because she did not like to be touched by him like that. She also told me that she did not realize that she loved him until he was on his death bed.

She had 3 sisters. All of them married men who were abusive, cheated and so forth. From the outside, it appeared that these three women had husbands who were good providers, good fathers, did the man's work around the place. These women did all the stuff expected of a wife at the time. When I would visit them, you would never know the hell their marriages were.

And example of the worst times in one of their marriages is that one of my great aunts had breast cancer. When she told her husband, he became furious and beat the crap out of her. She did die from the cancer.

Divorce was of course not an option. The women supporting themselves and their children was not even an option. They did have jobs when it was needed for family finances, but the pay was so low they could not support themselves and their children. The pay for women was very low.

The two that were still alive when I knew them were clear that they would have divorced if it has been an option. It was not. So they just accepted the abuse, the cheating and so forth.

When their husbands died.. that was their divorce. They finally got relief.

In those days people did not talk about their marital problems. The only people who knew them were very few, very close family or friends.

While some had wonderful marriages. Many did not.


----------



## Jellybeans

Dogbert said:


> I wonder if the WAW is also adding to the list of reasons to the growing numbers of young men who have chosen to avoid marriage altogether.


I think most men who naysay marriage consider the financial implications/divorce possibility/commitment as more of the bigger reason for avoiding it altogether.

But, it's not gender specific. "I don't want a relationship because what if they leave one day?" Fact is, anyone can leave at anytime. Marriage isn't a security for that. Hence, divorce. And most divorces aren't mutual anyway. Love is a gamble. No guarantee of it lasting with someone til death do you part. You win some, you lose some.


----------



## EleGirl

Dogbert said:


> I wonder if the WAW is also adding to the list of reasons to the growing numbers of young men who have chosen to avoid marriage altogether.


Don't forget that there are also a growing number of women now who will not marry out of choice. Very few women who divorce ever remarry... it's like 29% now, down from 50% in the 1990's. 

It's not because there are not men out there interested. It's because the women chose this.

Women are more likely to cohabitate instead of going into a new marriage.

So this threat, that there are no men out there who want them so they need to stay in unhappy marriages does not work.

From my point of view? I'd rather be single and alone then in a bad and/or unhappy marriage.


----------



## Jellybeans

EleGirl said:


> When their husbands died.. that was their divorce. They finally got relief.
> 
> In those days people did not talk about their marital problems. The only people who knew them were very few, very close family or friends.
> 
> While some had wonderful marriages. Many did not.


Reminds me of my grandma. She told me that while she struck out and got a good one, that many women in those days simply did not ever leave, no matter the circumstance. Because they would have rather had a husband (cheating, lying, abusive, drunk, ill-spirited) than no husband at all. Single women/unpartnered women were frowned upon in that time. Also, women didn't have the opportunities they do today re: work, finances, etc. So she said a lot of them just sucked it up because of the stigma, prestige of saying you were a wife, and also $. Shlt, that still happens today. My grandparents were married til he died and she said she vowed never to get married again. Not that she had a bad marriage, but she wouldn't have wanted to do it again with someone.


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> Love is a gamble.


Precisely. And I don't like to gamble.




> No guarantee of it lasting with someone til death do you part. You win some, you lose some.


I've already lost. Now I'm guaranteed to never lose again. Can't lose what you don't gamble.


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> that sounds like what I'm describing. that part where he wasn't an easy man to live with because he had a temper would be enough for someone to hit the road these days.


This brings to mind the many threads on TAM by men who are profoundly unhappy in their marriages. They very often plan to only stay in the marriage until their children are grown and out of the house.

They are usually advised by the men here to divorce; to not stay for the children. They are told that they should not live in an unhappy, unfulfilling marriage for years/decades.

How is that any different from a women in the same situation?


----------



## ocotillo

Jellybeans said:


> I think most men who naysay marriage consider the financial implications/divorce possibility/commitment as more of the bigger reason for avoiding it altogether.


That's not been my impression from talking to men who feel this way, but it's a big world and I've only talked to about seven.


----------



## lifeistooshort

My grandparents on my mom's side were married 56 years until his death. Mom's father told my dad that when the youngest was born was the last time he got laid. He dealt with this by molesting his granddaughters and any female friends they brought around that he could get to.

None of this was reason to divorce. See how good the old days were?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Jellybeans said:


> Reminds me of my grandma. She told me that while she struck out and got a good one, that many women in those days simply did not ever leave, no matter the circumstance. Because they would have rather had a husband (cheating, lying, abusive, drunk, ill-spirited) than no husband at all. Single women/unpartnered women were frowned upon in that time. Also, women didn't have the opportunities they do today re: work, finances, etc. So she said a lot of them just sucked it up because of the stigma, prestige of saying you were a wife, and also $. Shlt, that still happens today. My grandparents were married til he died and she said she vowed never to get married again. Not that she had a bad marriage, but she wouldn't have wanted to do it again with someone.


In the past, an unmarried woman, especially a divorced woman was socially outcast.

One of my aunts (my mother's sister) married a guy who was just nuts apparently. I won't go into the details. But basically he fell apart mentally to the point just this side of insanity. He also became violent. So she left him. This was in the late 1940's.

My aunt and her daughter moved in with my grandmother. The humiliation and social stigma that my aunt faced was awful. She really had no choice but to leave. But that did not matter. The stigma affected the rest of her life. She was a divorcee and had no man.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Dogbert said:


> I wonder if the WAW is also adding to the list of reasons to the growing numbers of young men who have chosen to avoid marriage altogether.


For people who want to bemoan the lack of the good old days when women could not leave them despite any possible issues, this is probably the best bet.

But people who want to learn, grow, adapt and develop will learn to thrive and be happy in this brave new world of partnership.


----------



## EleGirl

More of the good old days..

My paternal grandparents married when she was 19. They were both from wealthy families and into the flapper era. 

Her family had cut her off financially because she was into the flapper scene and well that was not acceptable.

My paternal grandfather worked in the family business and travel a lot. He also did not work full time. He mostly played, traveled, etc. All without my paternal grandmother. He cheated constantly.

She worked as a nurse because he was very tight with the support he would give. She also raised their 4 son mostly on her own.

They remained married for life because that's what people did.


----------



## Jellybeans

vellocet said:


> Precisely. And I don't like to gamble.


Well it seems you have found the solution then. 



vellocet said:


> Now I'm guaranteed to never lose again. Can't lose what you don't gamble.


True enough. 

Marriage really isn't for everyone. And that's ok. 



ocotillo said:


> That's not been my impression from talking to men who feel this way, but it's a big world and I've only talked to about seven.


Lol. 



EleGirl said:


> In the past, an unmarried woman, especially a divorced woman was socially outcast.


It's fun being an outcast. 



EleGirl said:


> But that did not matter. The stigma affected the rest of her life. She was a divorcee and had no man.


This gave me a chuckle because it reminds me of all those articles/advice "How to keep a man" or "You can't keep a man" - we don't see many of those to the contrary. "You can't keep a woman." Funny.


----------



## EleGirl

NobodySpecial said:


> For people who want to bemoan the lack of the good old days when women could not leave them despite any possible issues, this is probably the best bet.


The only reason that I am talking about the 'good old days' is to answer to those who are going on about how women today are just leaving marriages for silly reasons and that in the past, marriage was great because people stuck it out, through the ups and downs. And they want that model for their own marriages. When if they are going to use that model, they cannot just pick and chose that the model really was and create a story book version of it.



NobodySpecial said:


> But people who want to learn, grow, adapt and develop will learn to thrive and be happy in this brave new world of partnership.


I agree with this completely.


----------



## EleGirl

Jellybeans said:


> This gave me a chuckle because it reminds me of all those articles/advice "How to keep a man" or "You can't keep a man" - we don't see many of those to the contrary. "You can't keep a woman." Funny.


:iagree:


----------



## Dogbert

Very few individuals truly have what it takes to be a good spouse. Those that do have what it takes to be a good spouse, don't have what it takes to choose an equally qualified partner.


----------



## razgor

EleGirl said:


> The only reason that I am talking about the 'good old days' is to answer to those who are going on about how women today are just leaving marriages for silly reasons and that in the past, marriage was great because people stuck it out, through the ups and downs. And they want that model for their own marriages. When if they are going to use that model, they cannot just pick and chose that the model really was and create a story book version of it.


I think some posters are simply mentioning that in the past society stressed that being a good husband was being a good man, good provider and taking care of your family. Values that do not matter as much to women today.

Now, that appears to be just a given. Being that does not make you a good husband. Just meeting bare minimum requirement, that may get you a WAW down the line.

Times change and the bar has been raised for a man who strives to be a good husband. It is not a bad thing, just leaves a number of men trying to play catch up.


----------



## Dogbert

Elegirl, are there any statistics from what socio-economic level most of the WAW are coming from? I ask because I remember an article or study that stated that people with college degrees, were less likely to divorce.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Hmm, I have an analogy for the common use of the WAW/H syndrome. In this hypothetical scenario, the husband keeps asking the wife for sex, but she keeps turning him down stating that he is incapable of giving her an orgasm, and she prefers using a vibrator. She is a good wife, takes care of the home and contributes to the household. He keeps asking and she keeps rejecting, reminding him that he is no good in the sack. Over time he learns to stop asking because his pride and ego are shredded. She feels relieved that he has stop asking. But he still has a sex drive and that has not gone away, similar to someone who needs intimacy to stay bonded. In this case, one of the ways the husband bond is through sex.

Negative outcomes or events have much greater weight on the scale. Imagine one spouse punching another spouse once a week. But, three times a week, the spouse who punches the other lavishes gifts on the assaulted spouse. In most cases, the negative would outweigh the positive. Negative occurrence is one of the main ways people learn. A wise person is someone who went through a lot of sh1t, and learned from it.

So the emotional issues that a wife may have is just white noise to some, a wife constantly rejecting her husband for sex destroys his pride and ego.


----------



## EleGirl

Dogbert said:


> Very few individuals truly have what it takes to be a good spouse. Those that do have what it takes to be a good spouse, don't have what it takes to choose an equally qualified partner.


The divorce rate is not where near 100%.

the divorce rate for marriages of women over the age of 25 and men over the age of 30 (at the time of marriage) in which the woman has a college degree have about a 25% divorce rate.

Cleary that cannot is not a true-ism.

Our society needs to do more to teach you people about the care and feeding of a marriage. This would help a lot.


----------



## Dogbert

EleGirl said:


> The divorce rate is not where near 100%.
> 
> the divorce rate for marriages of women over the age of 25 and men over the age of 30 (at the time of marriage) in which the woman has a college degree have about a 25% divorce rate.
> 
> Cleary that cannot is not a true-ism.


So is a take away, that the more college educated the individuals going into marriage are, the more likely they will have the necessary tools and the temperament to make their marriages work? Less WAW?



> Our society needs to do more to teach you people about the care and feeding of a marriage. This would help a lot.


Agreed. Unfortunately society is failing miserably in this department for quite sometime. It's up to committed individuals to educate and prepare themselves for the challenge of marriage.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> The only reason that I am talking about the 'good old days' is to answer to those who are going on about how women today are just leaving marriages for silly reasons and that in the past, marriage was great because people stuck it out, through the ups and downs. And they want that model for their own marriages. When if they are going to use that model, they cannot just pick and chose that the model really was and create a story book version of it.


I don't think I was replying to you? I don't know. I agree with what you are saying In addition, I guess my point is that the world has changed, like it or not. What anyone does with that information is THEIR CHOICE. They can choose not to play, thereby missing out on the benefits. Or they can choose to learn. 

People who think that they can go into marriage counting on someone else to do what they "should" based on their own interpretation of "should" are just plain making ineffective decisions.


----------



## Jellybeans

Mr.Fisty said:


> But he still has a sex drive and that has not gone away, similar to someone who needs intimacy to stay bonded.


To me it's the same. One partner's major needs (be it sex or intimacy) getting routinely rejected/denied after being told it's a BIG deal is basically a slap in the face to your partner. It's not cool. And it is not loving.


----------



## EleGirl

Dogbert said:


> Elegirl, are there any statistics from what socio-economic level most of the WAW are coming from? I ask because I remember an article or study that stated that people with college degrees, were less likely to divorce.



Most divorces occur in lower income brackets and among people who marry young.. women younger than 25 and men younger than 30.

I've read that marriage in which, at the time of marriage, the women is over 25 with a college degree and the man is over 30 are the least likely to divorce.

A recent national survey found that the most common reason given for divorce was “lack of commitment” (73% said this was a major reason). Other significant reasons included too much arguing (56%), infidelity (55%), marrying too young (46%), unrealistic expectations (45%), lack of equality in the relationship (44%), lack of preparation for marriage (41%), and abuse (29%). (People often give more than one reason, so the percentages add up to more than 100%.)


No one that I can find has done a study on WAW's specifically. I think that is because the term "WAW" is used as a negative term often implying that the woman left the marriage for a stupid/selfish reason. When studies on divorce are done, people have actual reasons. 


No one that I can find has done a study on WAW's specifically. I think that is because the term "WAW" is used as a negative term often implying that the woman left the marriage for a stupid/selfish reason. When studies on divorce are done, people have actual reasons.

"http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson3.pdf"


----------



## EleGirl

Dogbert said:


> So is a take away, that the more college educated the individuals going into marriage are, the more likely they will have the necessary tools and the temperament to make their marriages work? Less WAW?


Less divorce over all.

Are you assuming that WAW's leave for frivolous reasons? I'm just asking to get some clarity on your posts here today.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NobodySpecial said:


> *People who think that they can go into marriage counting on someone else to do what they "should" based on their own interpretation of "should" are just plain making ineffective decisions*.


 It's most definitely best to be very very OPEN & honest to how we envision a life together... 

In reality.. many things SHOULD be deal breakers in the dating stage.. it's never good to ASSUME it will all work out.. just because it should.. I'm all for a blue print and a plan to build towards.... then you go forth together to conquer .. 

So unless both have that shared vision.. that could get more than a little ROCKY when we learn one suddenly doesn't want kids or they want to wait till age 38.. or one expects to live in the city, and the other hates it.. 

On the emotional home front.. I cared a great deal that my Lover was my BEST FRIEND ...I liked to Be with my Guy...and do lots of things together.. didn't care about money, expensive anything, the simple things in life are the rage to me... but that's how I envisioned married life.. not 2 people doing their own thing then catching up a day or 2 later for a word to recap the week... that would not work for a woman like me... (for example).


----------



## Dogbert

EleGirl said:


> Less divorce over all.
> 
> Are you assuming that WAW's leave for frivolous reasons? I'm just asking to get some clarity on your posts here today.


No assumptions here. I asked because according to your post, and the study I read some time ago, divorce seems to be more prevalent in the lower socio-economic classes. So if that is the case, then it could be argued that a great chunk of WAW come from those lower socio-economic classes. This is not an indictment on the folks who make up these classes but an acknowledgement that financial issues weigh very heavily on them and many don't have the tools to handle them in a constructive fashion.


----------



## EleGirl

Dogbert said:


> No assumptions here. I asked because according to your post, and the study I read some time ago, divorce seems to be more prevalent in the lower socio-economic classes. So if that is the case, then it could be argued that a great chunk of WAW come from those lower socio-economic classes. This is not an indictment on the folks who make up these classes but an acknowledgement that financial issues weigh very heavily on them and many don't have the tools to handle them in a constructive fashion.


Add youth to the financial problems and yep you go it.

Also consider that reasons given for divorce were 50% due to infidelity and 29% for abuse.

So I would not call the majority WAW's not by a long shot.

There used to be a divorce lawyer who posted on TAM. He stated that the WAW thing way over blown. 75% of his female clients filed for divorce based on infidelity and/or abuse.

These are not what we call WAW's.


----------



## YupItsMe

POINT 1

Why women leave men they love = Blown off by Dense Incompetent Husband

What causes Dense, Incompetent Husband = Mindset that they WON the girl AND utter ignorance of the VITAL ingredient of ongoing romance

Why does husbands "WON the girl" mindset cause problems? 

Because. like a game that is WON, incompetent husbands think the game is over with a WIN in the WIN column. 

When incompetent husbands realize marriage is not a GOAL it is a PROCESS with many, many tiny wins and hopefully few tiny losses THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. 

Successful wives get that marriage is a living breathing thing that needs nourishment. Incompetent husbands think their wife is a trophy they won on a shelf that never gets dusted off and is long forgotten and less and less meaningful as time goes by. 

If I can be allowed to stretch a metaphor. Marriage is the trophy shelf not the trophy. That shelf needs to be loaded with trophies that represent the ongoing wins in a successful marriage and your wife is on your team. 

POINT 2

Failing husbands believe they can work hard, pay the bills, turn on NASCAR, a video game, go the bar every night or hang with their buddies 23.9 hours/6.9 days and then spend the other hour "getting some" from their prize. 

Sorry. 

But then WTF do I know? :lol:


----------



## farsidejunky

Clearly a lot about a lousy man, and very little about men.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

NobodySpecial said:


> For people who want to bemoan the lack of the good old days when women could not leave them despite any possible issues, this is probably the best bet.


Can you quote any posters here who have stated that they want women being abused in marriages?

For the record, even in the bad old days before no-fault divorce, women were legally able to divorce their husbands. They simply needed legal grounds to do so. Adultery and abuse have long been legal grounds for divorce in most of the Western world. So, while our mothers and grandmothers may have chosen to remain married to our fathers and grandfathers, many of them would have been legally entitled to divorce.

As an aside, are the two extreme examples of marriage really our only two options? Does any degree of commitment in marriage make it an inescapable trap?



> But people who want to learn, grow, adapt and develop will learn to thrive and be happy in this brave new world of partnership.


Here is a serious question for those who applaud the end of committed marriage in this brave new world. If commitment is toxic to marriage, wouldn't it also be toxic to parenting?

I've seen many people argue that one should only want to be married when one's spouse is enthusiastic about the marriage. If the enthusiasm ends from one party, both parties should eagerly divorce. Both people would be better off outside of the marriage.

Wouldn't the same thing apply to children? If one parent, or both parents, lost enthusiasm for parenting (maybe it just isn't what they expected), should the family eagerly split up and send the child to an adoptive family that would be more enthusiastic about raising the child? Would all parties be better off ending the family?


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

I want to add in for those who say that SAHD are less desired. I offer three points.

1. (and one that will apply to a smaller subset of marriages and is not what is being debated here but describes the situation nontheless). Homosexual marriages between two men will have this and it does not seem to cause any problems.

2. Women who engaged in masculine activities such as bike-riding, pants-wearing, smoking and pursuing jobs were once looked down as being butch and certainly undesired. I truly see SAHDs being more accepted in the future. That does not mean that right now SAHDs are not facing the issue of retaining masculinity, much as the women did in earlier generations to retain their femininity. 

3. Every time I read about a wife admitting to finding her husband less attractive or that it is truly what all women think, I tend to see it more as her issue. In my training in health care we had a class on Aging. One of the classes focused on SAHDs and working mothers due to the economic downturn. The class was full of women and we watched a video of a woman badmouthing her husband and desiring him less. The whole class was in outrage and deemed her actions towards him as selfish and ungrateful.

I know there will be those who say, "But yes, they say that out loud but if their husbands were at home they would lose respect for him as well"

Perhaps, but I still see it as a sign of the times and more of a besmirch upon the woman's character if she disdains her husband. It tells me she was looking more for a role than a life partner to support through the good and bad times. Many of the women who were outraged brought the idea of a pact where one partner carries the other in times of need. Those who want one partner to always carry them even when they are in need are not following through on their agreement.


----------



## YupItsMe

farsidejunky said:


> Clearly a lot about a lousy man, and very little about men.


If that is directed at me then I will ask you to note the EXTREME caution and care I took to preface every insightful assertion made with *"Incompetent" or Failing"* husband. 

In no way did I assert that good men do any of the things I suggest that ruin marriages. 

I forgive you for not noticing that. I would love an apology for your lack of due care reading carefully and the offensive intentional insult. 

I also invite you to my other posts to see if you still agree I know little about men. I doubt your reckless opinion would hold up under a smidgen of scrutiny. First of all I am one (a good man) and secondly I am happily married a decade and a half (good husband).

If it was not directed at me then carry on.


----------



## Jellybeans

YupItsMe said:


> Why does husbands "WON the girl" mindset cause problems?
> 
> Because. like a game that is WON, incompetent husbands think the game is over with a WIN in the WIN column.


This is spot on. I was dating a man and his communication was tapering off and off compared to how it was in the beginning (and I mean a lot). Granted I know not everything is the initial few weeks of dating (hello, relationships evolve) but when I asked him WHY I was hearing from him less and less he said "Because I already got you." Da fuq? You don't just stop doing things because you are more stable. You are supposed to continue what you did to get them in the first place! (Kindness, communication, flirts, etc).



SimplyAmorous said:


> In reality.. many things SHOULD be deal breakers in the dating stage..


The gospel truth. 

Sadly most people overlook these dealbreakers/red flags and then years later... well, you know. Have been guilty of it myself.


----------



## GusPolinski

With respect to question posited in the title of this thread...

Because they no longer love them enough to stay.


----------



## Dogbert

That guy you dated sounds like he came right out of a situation comedy like "The Big Bang Theory".


----------



## YupItsMe

Jellybeans said:


> "Because I already got you." Da fuq?


:rofl:

I feel yer pain. 

:scratchhead:



Jellybeans said:


> Sadly most people overlook these dealbreakers/red flags and then years later... well, you know. Have been guilty of it myself.


:iagree:

Endorphin/Ocytocin from new love for 18 months, I believe make us drunk with love which leads us to color blindness which leads to missing red flags and bad decisions


----------



## Wazza

Elegirl, why is it so important for you to prove that marriages in your grandparents day had issues?

As on of those who posted about changing values in marriage, I see things we could take from those days and things that we shouldn't.

Things that we should include a broader definition of what love is, and remembering that a married parent cannot change his or her situation without impact to other people.

Things that we shouldn't take include that it is a vey, very good thing for people to have the power to leave when a relationship becomes abusive.

Surely some people, of both genders, will work at a marriage better than others.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> This brings to mind the many threads on TAM by men who are profoundly unhappy in their marriages. They very often plan to only stay in the marriage until their children are grown and out of the house.
> 
> They are usually advised by the men here to divorce; to not stay for the children. They are told that they should not live in an unhappy, unfulfilling marriage for years/decades.
> 
> How is that any different from a women in the same situation?


You have three choices in this situation. Stay in an unhappy marriage, divorce, or fix the relationship.

True regardless of gender. And also true that you can't fix if your partner is a total write off. But how do you get to the point of knowing it is all them, and not you.


----------



## Jellybeans

Dogbert said:


> That guy you dated sounds like he came right out of a situation comedy like "The Big Bang Theory".


Some of my love life has been like a comedy.


----------



## Jellybeans

YupItsMe said:


> Endorphin/Ocytocin from new love for 18 months, I believe make us drunk with love which leads us to color blindness which leads to missing read flags and bad decisions


It leads to insanity. :rofl:


----------



## NobodySpecial

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Can you quote any posters here who have stated that they want women being abused in marriages?


No, I don't think I have seen anyone say that at all. If I implied that, I apologize.



> For the record, even in the bad old days before no-fault divorce, women were legally able to divorce their husbands. They simply needed legal grounds to do so. Adultery and abuse have long been legal grounds for divorce in most of the Western world. So, while our mothers and grandmothers may have chosen to remain married to our fathers and grandfathers, many of them would have been legally entitled to divorce.


I am sorry for them. There was a lot of stigma against divorced women back in the day. For my part, I am glad that the courts no longer can decide where my or my husband's quality bar is held. I would not choose to spend my life with someone, in misery, simply because he or she failed to abuse me. That bar is just ridiculously low to me.



> As an aside, are the two extreme examples of marriage really our only two options? Does any degree of commitment in marriage make it an inescapable trap?


Why the hell would anyone want to live the rest of their life in an inescapable trap? And what two extremes are we talking about? Is partnership extreme? It sure does not seem to be to me.



> Here is a serious question for those who applaud the end of committed marriage in this brave new world.


To whom are you speaking? You are replying to me. But I don't applaud the end of committed marriage. I just think there is more to committed marriage than simply staying. You know those pesky cherish and love vows that somebody keeps bringing up.


----------



## YupItsMe

Wazza said:


> you can't fix if your partner is a total write off.


Truer words never spoken. :lol: :smthumbup:


----------



## Wazza

YupItsMe said:


> Truer words never spoken. :lol: :smthumbup:


Ok.....so if you are going to zoom in on that outside of the context I said it in.......let's ask the question I implied.

How do you make sure it was your partner who was the write off? How do you make sure it wasn't you?


----------



## YupItsMe

Wazza said:


> Ok.....so if you are going to zoom in on that outside of the context I said it in.......let's ask the question I implied.
> 
> How do you make sure it was your partner who was the write off? How do you make sure it wasn't you?


I enjoyed the way you put that but it also appears you are in a serious mood so I will offer you an answer out of respect for your contribution to my all around good mood today. 

These are humble suggestions not meant to be presented as a convinced perspective. 

Here goes each is an independent standalone option or h ell do them all

1. do the exercises in self help marriage workbooks with or without your spouse as the identifier tool of who the writeoff is

2. IC or MC as the identifier tool of who the writeoff is

3. self reflect as the identifier tool of who the writeoff is

4. ask friends, family and total strangers as the identifier tool of who the writeoff is

5. read your azz off and develop the knowledge and ability to analyze as the identifier tool of who the writeoff is

6. say screw it who cares it isn't worth it and does not matter it just doesn't work


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Except for true deal breakers like adultery, abuse, and financial ruin, I think the issue isn't which partner to "write off." It's about the compatibility of the partners and whether the marriage should be written off.

If a wife can accept a husband who pays her no attention, then they are compatible. Another woman may not be able to accept that. A man may be able to accept a sexless marriage, or be LD himself, so again we have compatibility.

When we don't, it's called irreconcilable differences. It's not to say one person is unfit for marriage. Perhaps they are just unfit for their current partner.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

NobodySpecial said:


> Why the hell would anyone want to live the rest of their life in an inescapable trap? And what two extremes are we talking about? Is partnership extreme? It sure does not seem to be to me.


The extremes of commitment. If someone bemoans modern marriage too frequently ending in divorce for reasons like boredom, the obligatory response, as it has been in this thread, is to state that the alternative is to go back to the days where husbands and wives were locked in loveless and abusive struggles against each other for life.

Is there another alternative? If a husband gets sex three times a week, but wants more, can we tell him that he's not justified in divorcing his wife? If a wife isn't satisfied with her husband's $60k salary, can we tell her that she should stay in the marriage? Or must we have all (lifelong struggle with no escape) or nothing (zero commitment)?



> To whom are you speaking? You are replying to me. But I don't applaud the end of committed marriage. I just think there is more to committed marriage than simply staying. You know those pesky cherish and love vows that somebody keeps bringing up.


I'm asking a general question to anyone who is satisfied with the current state of marriage and divorce. In this country, commitment has been legally removed from marriage. Any person can divorce for any reason and suffer practically no consequences for his reasoning.

Yes, there is more to marriage than a commitment to stay. Loving and cherishing one's spouse are important vows. But I notice that nobody brings up the vows of staying for better or worse, richer or poorer, and in sickness and in health. Does one part of the vows trump other parts?


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> Elegirl, why is it so important for you to prove that marriages in your grandparents day had issues?
> 
> As on of those who posted about changing values in marriage, I see things we could take from those days and things that we shouldn't.
> 
> Things that we should include a broader definition of what love is, and remembering that a married parent cannot change his or her situation without impact to other people.
> 
> Things that we shouldn't take include that it is a vey, very good thing for people to have the power to leave when a relationship becomes abusive.
> 
> Surely some people, of both genders, will work at a marriage better than others.


Because there were posters who I felt were using an unrealistic vision of what the values of marriage was. 

Sure there are things that are good about the past. There are things that are bad as well. Just as there is good and bad today.


----------



## lifeistooshort

BronzeTorpedo said:


> The extremes of commitment. If someone bemoans modern marriage too frequently ending in divorce for reasons like boredom, the obligatory response, as it has been in this thread, is to state that the alternative is to go back to the days where husbands and wives were locked in loveless and abusive struggles against each other for life.
> 
> Is there another alternative? If a husband gets sex three times a week, but wants more, can we tell him that he's not justified in divorcing his wife? If a wife isn't satisfied with her husband's $60k salary, can we tell her that she should stay in the marriage? Or must we have all (lifelong struggle with no escape) or nothing (zero commitment)?
> 
> 
> I'm asking a general question to anyone who is satisfied with the current state of marriage and divorce. In this country, commitment has been legally removed from marriage. Any person can divorce for any reason and suffer practically no consequences for his reasoning.
> 
> Yes, there is more to marriage than a commitment to stay. Loving and cherishing one's spouse are important vows. But I notice that nobody brings up the vows of staying for better or worse, richer or poorer, and in sickness and in health. Does one part of the vows trump other parts?



I would argue that those are the vows often cited, to the exclusion of the love and cherish part. When one says "I took my vows seriously" what are they referring to? Typically it's the vow stay married and less often fidelity. How they actually treat their partner gets dropped from the equation, usually because that removes the victim status they're clinging to.

And for all practical purposes there is no middle ground. Once you introduce fault you open the floodgates to bias and abuse; people will concoct all kinds of stories to get a better deal. Who is going to prevent a spouse that can't stand them from leaving? Somebody that values the business arrangement, and now we're back to the love part.

You can't legislate a desire to behave like a spouse. You can force them to stay if you deem their reasons wrong, but that's it. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## YupItsMe

SurpriseMyself said:


> Except for true deal breakers like adultery, abuse, and financial ruin, I think the issue isn't which partner to "write off." It's about the compatibility of the partners and whether the marriage should be written off.


Word choice. 

"write off" = "incompatible"

Completely understandable omission of the obvious 

'write off" = "write off for me"



BronzeTorpedo said:


> I'm asking a general question to anyone who is satisfied with the current state of marriage and divorce. In this country, commitment has been legally removed from marriage. Any person can divorce for any reason and suffer practically no consequences for his reasoning.
> 
> Yes, there is more to marriage than a commitment to stay. Loving and cherishing one's spouse are important vows. But I notice that nobody brings up the vows of staying for better or worse, richer or poorer, and in sickness and in health. Does one part of the vows trump other parts?


Didn't you heat the vows that ended with "unless you piss me off or I change my mind" ?

Honestly, I think freedom is better than government control of personal decisions. It is not my problem or yours what the state of marriage is. Society is always under development with growing pains. In the end we will all be fine even if some positives are eroding and negatives gaining ground. They are replaced with new positives and negatives. 

There is always good with bad. I don't want my wife or daughter to stay in a marriage that causes a regretful life. I don't want yours to either, nor our friends, neighbors or even enemies. 

We are all better off with more happiness. 

Do I dare say if marriage is easier to get out of it seems it would lower infidelity because an unhappy spouse can leave without a ridiculous loss/stigma of the past cultural stances


----------



## SurpriseMyself

BronzeTorpedo said:


> The extremes of commitment. If someone bemoans modern marriage too frequently ending in divorce for reasons like boredom, the obligatory response, as it has been in this thread, is to state that the alternative is to go back to the days where husbands and wives were locked in loveless and abusive struggles against each other for life.
> 
> Is there another alternative? If a husband gets sex three times a week, but wants more, can we tell him that he's not justified in divorcing his wife? If a wife isn't satisfied with her husband's $60k salary, can we tell her that she should stay in the marriage? Or must we have all (lifelong struggle with no escape) or nothing (zero commitment)?
> 
> 
> I'm asking a general question to anyone who is satisfied with the current state of marriage and divorce. In this country, commitment has been legally removed from marriage. Any person can divorce for any reason and suffer practically no consequences for his reasoning.
> 
> Yes, there is more to marriage than a commitment to stay. Loving and cherishing one's spouse are important vows. But I notice that nobody brings up the vows of staying for better or worse, richer or poorer, and in sickness and in health. Does one part of the vows trump other parts?


If there were practically no consequences in divorce, there would be fewer people on TAM worrying about if they can make it financially after divorce.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GTdad

Deleted. But thanks for the opportunity to vent.


----------



## EleGirl

GTdad.. start a thread.. if you are going to tell her, you need to give her some evidence.


----------



## GTdad

EleGirl said:


> GTdad.. start a thread.. if you are going to tell her, you need to give her some evidence.


I'm not comfortable starting a thread with the attention it may bring. I'm on ethical thin ice as it is.

I just needed to vent.


----------



## YupItsMe

GTdad said:


> I'm not comfortable starting a thread with the attention it may bring. I'm on ethical thin ice as it is.
> 
> I just needed to vent.


You have. Now with love...

I suggest you delete it and go have a cool one.


----------



## GTdad

YupItsMe said:


> You have. Now with love...
> 
> I suggest you delete it and go have a cool one.


Sound advice. Thanks.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

lifeistooshort said:


> And for all practical purposes there is no middle ground. Once you introduce fault you open the floodgates to bias and abuse; people will concoct all kinds of stories to get a better deal. Who is going to prevent a spouse that can't stand them from leaving? Somebody that values the business arrangement, and now we're back to the love part.
> 
> You can't legislate a desire to behave like a spouse. You can force them to stay if you deem their reasons wrong, but that's it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I disagree with your doom and gloom scenario on considering fault in divorce. Divorce would obviously be granted in all cases, we could just consider fault in deciding custody and the division of assets. Why shouldn't a cheating spouse be considered differently than an abused spouse?


----------



## NobodySpecial

BronzeTorpedo said:


> The extremes of commitment. If someone bemoans modern marriage too frequently ending in divorce for reasons like boredom, the obligatory response, as it has been in this thread, is to state that the alternative is to go back to the days where husbands and wives were locked in loveless and abusive struggles against each other for life.


I don't know what this means. 



> Is there another alternative? If a husband gets sex three times a week, but wants more, can we tell him that he's not justified in divorcing his wife?


To whom does he need to justify himself?



> If a wife isn't satisfied with her husband's $60k salary, can we tell her that she should stay in the marriage?


Wait. You think someone can or should be able to tell someone else whether they should or should not "stay" in a marriage?

Anyway you are talking about such linear choices. Do people really think, if you don't make x amount of money, I am going to divorce you?


----------



## YupItsMe

Marriage needs ongoing modernization. No government should be able to decide how you wish to live your familial life because they don't like. The modern family choices should not be left up to majority rules. It is the cornerstone of freedom to make these choices without considering the governments majority rule. 

Fault is a stupid fight. Either it works for both spouses or it does not. 

No fault is progress and so is the ability for a woman to support her self so my and your daughters and perhaps eventually grand daughters are not trapped in a marriage with a loser.

I will teach her patience and flexibility but I will also teach her when to say enough is enough and don't get caught in a no win situation by believing in fairy tales.


----------



## NobodySpecial

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I disagree with your doom and gloom scenario on considering fault in divorce. Divorce would obviously be granted in all cases, we could just consider fault in deciding custody and the division of assets. Why shouldn't a cheating spouse be considered differently than an abused spouse?


Custody isn't about, and SHOULDN'T be about the parent's ****ed up love life. It should be about and ONLY about the best interest of the kids. IMO.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

YupItsMe said:


> Didn't you heat the vows that ended with "unless you piss me off or I change my mind" ?


Unfortunately, that part is implicitly understood these days. It probably won't be long before it's an explicit part of the vows.



> Honestly, I think freedom is better than government control of personal decisions.


I agree. But that's the system we have. I would love to see the government get out of marriage and divorce altogether and leave it to churches and private contracts.

I think it would be more fair. I doubt most couples would intentionally draw up a marriage contract that treated a cheating spouse the same as the betrayed spouse. But that's the legal environment we all marry into under the government.



> It is not my problem or yours what the state of marriage is. Society is always under development with growing pains. In the end we will all be fine even if some positives are eroding and negatives gaining ground. They are replaced with new positives and negatives.


I disagree. Broken homes are an epidemic in this country. And children from broken homes are jailed more often than two-parent kids. They do worse in school. And so on and so forth.



> There is always good with bad. I don't want my wife or daughter to stay in a marriage that causes a regretful life. I don't want yours to either, nor our friends, neighbors or even enemies.


I don't want my wife to regret marrying me. But I wouldn't mind paying her less spousal support if she decided that I was a great guy, but she was too bored to stay married to me. Ditto for my children.



> We are all better off with more happiness.


There's no evidence that divorce increases happiness. In fact, there's evidence that it doesn't.



> Do I dare say if marriage is easier to get out of it seems it would lower infidelity because an unhappy spouse can leave without a ridiculous loss/stigma of the past cultural stances


It would seem that way. But infidelity isn't decreasing.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

SurpriseMyself said:


> If there were practically no consequences in divorce, there would be fewer people on TAM worrying about if they can make it financially after divorce.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You misunderstood my post. I didn't state that there were no consequences to divorce. I stated that there were no consequences for the reasoning behind the divorce. In other words, a man divorcing his wife because she abuses him is treated the same as if he were cheating on her.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> Custody isn't about, and SHOULDN'T be about the parent's ****ed up love life. It should be about and ONLY about the best interest of the kids. IMO.


I disagree. As long as the other parent is fit in every way for the child, IMO, it is not in the best interest of the child to be raised by someone void of scruples or by someone that didn't think about their best interest when boning someone other than the child's other parent.

As long as the other parent wants custody and is a fit parent, wouldn't you think that person should be the preferred parent over someone that recklessly risked the well being of their child?


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know what this means.


It means that, when one poster states that his grandparents were committed to each other and viewed divorce as the nuclear option of last resort, and wishes that more modern couples shared their views, several posters will immediately state that old-fashioned marriages were horrific traps where women were routinely abused with no hope of escape. Therefore, it's much better for modern marriage to have no commitment at all so that spouses can divorce over which side of the bed each likes to use. 



> To whom does he need to justify himself?


To a divorce court.



> Wait. You think someone can or should be able to tell someone else whether they should or should not "stay" in a marriage?


I think a divorce court can use incentives to encourage people staying in marriage. If a man who gets sex three times a week understands that his reason for divorce will cost him more in money or time spent with his children than if he were legitimately being mistreated in his marriage, he would obviously be more likely to try to salvage his marriage.



> Anyway you are talking about such linear choices. Do people really think, if you don't make x amount of money, I am going to divorce you?


Of course. If people didn't think that way, they wouldn't object so strenuously to discouraging that thinking in divorce proceedings. Now, I'm not arguing that most spouses think along those lines. But it certainly happens.


----------



## YupItsMe

To Velocet

You are arguing what is best for the child therefore you do not disagree you just jumped the gun without considering the point.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

YupItsMe said:


> Fault is a stupid fight. Either it works for both spouses or it does not.


Should we expand that reasoning beyond family law? Say an employer hired you for a one-year contract, and then terminated you three months into the contract. Would you deserve the full compensation that your employer "vowed" to provide? Why? Wouldn't it be better for both of you to be out of the dysfunctional arrangement free and clear?


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

NobodySpecial said:


> Custody isn't about, and SHOULDN'T be about the parent's ****ed up love life. It should be about and ONLY about the best interest of the kids. IMO.


So, dissolving one's family over boredom with one's spouse isn't indicative of one's parenting skills or decision making, in your opinion?


----------



## EnjoliWoman

vellocet said:


> Precisely. And I don't like to gamble.
> 
> I've already lost. Now I'm guaranteed to never lose again. Can't lose what you don't gamble.


You also can't win.

I decided after my marriage that I refused to be the victim. Even though he was physically and verbally abusive, if I became bitter, he'd "won". I refuse to become jaded and bitter and be the victim. There are *plenty* of men who are NOT like my ex. And because I'm a lot more mature and read people better and know more things to look out for, my odds of winning are much higher this time.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

BronzeTorpedo said:


> So, dissolving one's family over boredom with one's spouse isn't indicative of one's parenting skills or decision making, in your opinion?


Certainly not parenting skills. In fact as a parent they'll likely be inventive, fun and entertaining - never a dull moment.

As to decision making - maybe and maybe not. It depends what they did to communicate the bored status before dissolving the marriage. (The 'family' doesn't dissolve, just the marriage. Kids are still part of mother's family and father's family.)


----------



## YupItsMe

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Should we expand that?


Expand just far enough so that YOU don't decide what is best for MY kids life choices. 

That would work. 

There some real a$$holes in my home town that want to legislate what color people cant paint their house.

I pray they shoot themselves in their reproductive system so the entire world can be rid of their controlling nanny state bull$hit thought process. 

Live and let live


----------



## YupItsMe

BronzeTorpedo said:


> So, dissolving one's family over boredom with one's spouse isn't indicative of one's parenting skills or decision making, in your opinion?


So being so oblivious, stale and lazy putting forth no effort to be an interesting person as to allow your spouse to get bored of you isn't indicative of one's parenting skills or decision making, in your opinion?

Your mind is made up. Government knows best and you do not know best. They decide. 

No thank you.


----------



## EleGirl

BronzeTorpedo said:


> It means that, when one poster states that his grandparents were committed to each other and viewed divorce as the nuclear option of last resort, and wishes that more modern couples shared their views, several posters will immediately state that old-fashioned marriages were horrific traps where women were routinely abused with no hope of escape. Therefore, it's much better for modern marriage to have no commitment at all so that spouses can divorce over which side of the bed each likes to use.


You of course ignore the point. 

In the “good old days” there were some very good marriages between people who loved each other. Yes they had their ups and downs. They were good, solid marriages.

Today there are many (probably just as many) good marriages between people who loved each other. Yes they had their ups and downs. They are good, solid marriages.

The point of giving examples from the past is to make it clear that the poster using the ‘good old days’ as a nostalgic example of how things should be done is a false picture. The marriage law and social practices in the past were not why there were some good marriages in the past. There were good marriages in the past for the same reason that there are good marriages today. It’s always been because sometimes (helpfully more often than not) two people get married who have the skills, behaviors, habits.. whatever.. to have a good marriage as partners who love each other deeply… yes through all the ups and downs.

What has changed is not the marriages are worse today but that people are not stuck in really bad marriages, in marriages between incompatible people.

Having laws that say that people cannot divorce unless some judge or jury you don’t know what is really going decides you leave is a really bad. It was bad in the past. And it would be bad today. It is very hard to prove adultery, abuse, even physical abuse.

Why anyone would want to stay married to a person who does not want to be married to them is something I don’t get.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

EnjoliWoman said:


> Certainly not parenting skills. In fact as a parent they'll likely be inventive, fun and entertaining - never a dull moment.
> 
> As to decision making - maybe and maybe not. It depends what they did to communicate the bored status before dissolving the marriage. (The 'family' doesn't dissolve, just the marriage. Kids are still part of mother's family and father's family.)


I disagree. In general, divorce hurts kids. Yes, there are specific examples where divorce will improve a child's well being. And I'm sure that every divorce parent out there will convince him/herself that he/she's the exception to the rule. But bailing on one's spouse in order to buy a Harley and find oneself makes one a poor parent. IMO


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

YupItsMe said:


> So being so oblivious, stale and lazy putting forth no effort to be an interesting person as to allow your spouse to get bored of you isn't indicative of one's parenting skills or decision making, in your opinion?


Of course it is. And an arbitrator could make a determination of who is more at fault. The boring spouse, or the spouse who left due to boredom.



> Your mind is made up. Government knows best and you do not know best. They decide.
> 
> No thank you.


You misunderstood my post. I've already stated that I would prefer private contracts to laws governing marriage. But we don't have private contracts. I'm simply stating that consideration of fault in dissolution proceedings is superior to ignoring fault.


----------



## Thundarr

Dogbert said:


> I wonder if the WAW is also adding to the list of reasons to the growing numbers of young men who have chosen to avoid marriage altogether.


I doubt it. No one goes into marriage thinking they will be the one to have trouble? That's what always happens to other people. No I think many men and women are just able to survive financially without being married. And many can just live at home with mom and dad. Those options are relatively new.


----------



## vellocet

YupItsMe said:


> To Velocet
> 
> You are arguing what is best for the child therefore you do not disagree you just jumped the gun without considering the point.


Uh no, she said that custody shouldn't be about the parent's f***d up love life. In the context of cheating, I stand correct with my opinion.

IMO, that's NOT in the best interest of the child...to be raised by someone who thought so little of their well being to do what they did.

What do YOU think the "point" was?


----------



## GTdad

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I'm simply stating that consideration of fault in dissolution proceedings is superior to ignoring fault.


I agree in principle, but practice is another matter. Encounter any judges or juries lately? I barely trust their ability to make a reasoned decision when the facts are largely undisputed, let alone trying to figure who was meaner to who in a marriage.


----------



## arbitrator

NobodySpecial said:


> Custody isn't about, and SHOULDN'T be about the parent's ****ed up love life. It should be about and ONLY about the best interest of the kids. IMO.


*If a married cheater makes deceptively poor and immoral personal decisions regarding having sex outside of their marital union, then what would suddenly make them have good judgment in making good and moral decisions in the interests of a child of whom they want custody of?

Or do they just want custody solely to keep from having to pay child support to the betrayed parent? 

In a way, that sounds greatly like another form of deceptive cheating to me! *


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

EleGirl said:


> The point of giving examples from the past is to make it clear that the poster using the ‘good old days’ as a nostalgic example of how things should be done is a false picture.


No more false a picture than portraying past marriages as horrific experiences where spouses welcomed the sweet embrace of death. Anyway, the point of the poster, which you ignored, was that past marriages had more commitment than modern marriage.



> The marriage law and social practices in the past were not why there were some good marriages in the past. There were good marriages in the past for the same reason that there are good marriages today. It’s always been because sometimes (helpfully more often than not) two people get married who have the skills, behaviors, habits.. whatever.. to have a good marriage as partners who love each other deeply… yes through all the ups and downs.


I would argue that the law and social practices of the past is why more marriages made it through the downs to experience the ups than modern marriages do.



> Having laws that say that people cannot divorce unless some judge or jury you don’t know what is really going decides you leave is a really bad. It was bad in the past. And it would be bad today. It is very hard to prove adultery, abuse, even physical abuse.


I'm not suggesting that spouses be trapped in marriage. I'm simply arguing that courts be free to consider fault when dissolving marriage. Why should we spend more effort writing the tax code to encourage driving electric cars than we do encouraging families to stay together?



> Why anyone would want to stay married to a person who does not want to be married to them is something I don’t get.


I'm equally baffled by people who argue that, during divorce proceedings, our society should remain neutral on adultery, abuse, and mistreatment.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

GTdad said:


> I agree in principle, but practice is another matter. Encounter any judges or juries lately? I barely trust their ability to make a reasoned decision when the facts are largely undisputed, let alone trying to figure who was meaner to who in a marriage.


Touche. But, like mandatory criminal sentences, removing all discretion from judges and juries is just as likely to produce stupid outcomes as relying on that discretion.


----------



## YupItsMe

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Of course it is. And an arbitrator could make a determination of who is more at fault. The boring spouse, or the spouse who left due to boredom..


Right someone other than the individuals in the marriage. Someone else knows best is your theme.




BronzeTorpedo said:


> You misunderstood my post. ..


No



BronzeTorpedo said:


> I've already stated that I would prefer private contracts to laws governing marriage. But we don't have private contracts. .


Guess who resolves private contract disputes. 

The courts which is the government. 



BronzeTorpedo said:


> I'm simply stating that consideration of fault in dissolution proceedings is superior to ignoring fault.


Uh huh


----------



## EleGirl

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Of course it is. And an arbitrator could make a determination of who is more at fault. The boring spouse, or the spouse who left due to boredom.


You assume that an arbitrator would be able to make a correct determination.

I've seen people whose marital situations I am very familiar with absolutely twisted in court in which a spouse who was clearly at fault lied up a storm but was able to convince the court of their lies. Arbitrators, judges, etc. are biased.


----------



## NobodySpecial

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I think a divorce court can use incentives to encourage people staying in marriage. If a man who gets sex three times a week understands that his reason for divorce will cost him more in money or time spent with his children than if he were legitimately being mistreated in his marriage, he would obviously be more likely to try to salvage his marriage.


Well I guess you can wish for that if you like. I don't see it happening. I think it would be incentive to only stay, which as I have said previously, is a pretty low quality bar.

I would rather stay married because I love my husband and he loves me. Thankfully that works for us.


----------



## YupItsMe

vellocet said:


> Uh no, she said that custody shouldn't be about the parent's f***d up love life. In the context of cheating, I stand correct with my opinion.
> 
> IMO, that's NOT in the best interest of the child...to be raised by someone who thought so little of their well being to do what they did.
> 
> What do YOU think the "point" was?


You both agree the only consideration should be what is best for the child. There is no argument on that. 

IF the cheater is the better parent your position is a loser


----------



## vellocet

YupItsMe said:


> You both agree the only consideration should be what is best for the child. There is no argument on that.
> 
> IF the cheater is the better parent your position is a loser


:scratchhead: Maybe you aren't understanding my stance.

I don't think the cheater is the better parent.

And we don't agree. NS doesn't think it should be a factor. I do. We differ in what the best interest of the child is.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Yes, there is more to marriage than a commitment to stay. Loving and cherishing one's spouse are important vows. But I notice that nobody brings up the vows of staying for better or worse, richer or poorer, and in sickness and in health. Does one part of the vows trump other parts?


Obviously everyone has a different perspective on this.. some put vows -in misery & annoyance until death.. above their own happiness...and they seem to feel this is honorable.. and some of them can handle it.. but sometimes their spouse is not of the same mindset as that... and for them.. their personal happiness is of more importance.. (I will not judge those people) 










This quote doesn't bother me .. IF it REALLY imply's a couple working through their issues/ conflicts with HIS caring about HER happiness and HER caring about HIS happiness.. anything less would NOT be acceptable to me personally.. 

I have a thread on sexual views here ...when reading a couple of these.. it struck me one day.... that we could also look at these in a *Marital sense*.. 

*** *One of the views is "*The Covenantal View*" about becoming one flesh"...about this permanent bond...a representation of God’s covenantal relationship, it is a life-uniting act.. 

In THIS VIEW.. the VOWS we take.. *that commitment trumps ALL*....*THIS IS PRIMARY*.. arranged marriages often hold a covenantal view.... Everything else is on a lessor scale.. if we are crying on our porch in loneliness because our H's never home, or he's so busy , he never hears us.. we feel pushed aside.. then he wants sex later.. and we don't feel loved, then we push him away.. oh well.. we took vows.. suck it up, "at least he's not beating me".. and "at least she didn't cheat on me".. could be the rationalizations. 

Meanwhile both are resentful, they live like roommates...for years.. after all, they have kids .. how common it can be. but oh so SAD.  

So ones physical needs, / Emotional needs...all those things laid out in "His Needs/ Her needs".. you can blow the book up, it doesn't matter.. outside of abuse & infidelity.. we are to STAY...and some find this HONORABLE.. some CAN live this way till death.. 

****Then right underneath this is the *Romantic view*.. for people who have THIS mindset ...this involves emotional attachment/ fulfillment and commitment...it's upping the scales on the vows -more strings you might say...(though frankly I feel the vows intended THIS all along- but OK)... it's about *mutually reciprocated intimacy -this is at the







of this view*.....

So those who CARE about their own happiness & fulfillment in a relationship will have this way of thinking above the Covenant view..IN the romantic view.. when the love goes , the whole house of cards comes down.. and someone wants out...

I hold a more Romantic view of Marriage.. my H knows this.... he is hardly worried about it , however...as frankly..he would not want to be with someone who didn't want to be with [email protected] he's spit on that anyway..and tell me to leave -if it ever came to that.. 

And I feel the [email protected]#$ I could not stand to be with a man who was just staying for vows.. (just sounds so COLD TO me... if my presence didn't bring him JOY .. what is the point -what a complete waste of living..... if he found someone else , craving greener grass... or even being single......I'd pack his bags for him... 

This doesn't mean, however.. trials don't come in, a couple may even fight & say "I hate you".. or "F*** you" in a moment.. ya know.. so long as your talking ..and both want to make it work...TO FIX IT - (like that old couple quote up there ) to get back to mutual affection, tenderness.. love making.. and really.. WE should give it our ALL if we have kids .... and sometimes this may take counseling, attending some marriage seminars.. whatever it takes.. ..a couple has to fight to get where they want to be....but it will always take 2.


----------



## NobodySpecial

BronzeTorpedo said:


> You misunderstood my post. I've already stated that I would prefer private contracts to laws governing marriage.


Yes! End civil marriage.


----------



## YupItsMe

vellocet said:


> :scratchhead: Maybe you aren't understanding my stance.
> 
> I don't think the cheater is the better parent.
> 
> And we don't agree. NS doesn't think it should be a factor. I do. We differ in what the best interest of the child is.


No you are forgive me being narrow minded that infidelity is not the only consideration. Any arbiter without the emotional investment in their argument that you are demonstrating will look at all factors. You are not grasping that infidelity is not a trump card that you think it should be. 

The only consideration should be the best interest of the child and you agree with that. 

Where you are missing reality is there are many other considerations to determine what is best. 

Jump up and down all you want that infidelity is the be all end all determining factor. It isn't 

Your experience and imagination apparently can not fathom countless circumstances where infidelity is irrelevant to the considerations of what is best for the child. 

I did not miss anything. You did. Sorry.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> :scratchhead: Maybe you aren't understanding my stance.
> 
> I don't think the cheater is the better parent.


Well that view is more sensible than a punitive approach, and that I respect. If I read you right, you are saying that their behavior demonstrates a lack of character that actually makes them a lesser parent. I cannot say I agree with that. But I can respect it.


----------



## EleGirl

vellocet said:


> :scratchhead: Maybe you aren't understanding my stance.
> 
> I don't think the cheater is the better parent.
> 
> And we don't agree. NS doesn't think it should be a factor. I do. We differ in what the best interest of the child is.


Cheating is not the worst thing that a spouse can do.

The BS could be an abuser/violent, a drug addict, mentally ill, a child molester, a violent criminal, or any other of a long list of seriously bad things.... or someone who has never spent any time parenting the child...


----------



## NobodySpecial

arbitrator said:


> *If a married cheater makes deceptively poor and immoral personal decisions regarding having sex outside of their marital union, then what would suddenly make them have good judgment in making good and moral decisions in the interests of a child of whom they want custody of?
> *


*
Yah. I am not really disputing that. Just not rating it as highly as some of the interesting bits of poor parenting judgments I made recently. I am still a rock star parent.*


----------



## EleGirl

NobodySpecial said:


> Yes! End civil marriage.


I doubt that private contracts would make it any better. The problem is not if the marriage is civil or under private contract.

If it's under private contract then disputes would be held in civil contract law courts. Those are no better than family court.

I Muslim world has private contracts for marriage. There are some basics set out by Shari'ah law, but couples can negotiate a lot. It does not make their marriages any better or their divorces any easier.


----------



## vellocet

YupItsMe said:


> No you are forgive me being narrow minded that infidelity is not the only consideration. Any arbiter without the emotional investment in their argument that you are demonstrating will look at all factors. You are not grasping that infidelity is not a trump card that you think it should be.
> 
> The only consideration should be the best interest of the child and you agree with that.
> 
> Where you are missing reality is there are many other considerations to determine what is best.
> 
> Jump up and down all you want that infidelity is the be all end all determining factor. It isn't


Ah, now I see. You glossed over my post and didn't read it.

Read it again.

"*As long as the other parent is fit in every way for the child*"

If there is something about the non-cheating parent that makes them unfit, that also needs to be taken into consideration.



> Your experience and imagination apparently can not fathom countless circumstances where infidelity is irrelevant to the considerations of what is best for the child.


As long as the other parent is fit in every way, infidelity, IMO, is not irrelevant.

As a father who loves his kids, I would have never done anything like gratify myself at the expense of their well being and need for their family.



> I did not miss anything. You did. Sorry.


No, you did. You didn't read my post. Sorry.


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



Mr.Fisty said:


> Doesn't sound like a relationship much. There is nothing about knowing your partner intimately.
> 
> In neurobiology, people who are constantly in the in love stage, where they are often in the honeymoon phase constantly, tend to live longer, have better life satisfaction, and love to be around each other. When they are in the presence of their love one, it reduces stress, and in MRI scans, shows to limit feelings of pain as well. That is what a close loving relationship can give the other person. These research is new in the last few years. The more loving and intimate a relationship, the more life satisfaction and health each partner feels.


That sounds like how I feel when I am with my pets. lol. They reduce my stress and makes me happy (and of course that should be the way in a relationship).


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> Well that view is more sensible than a punitive approach, and that I respect. If I read you right, you are saying that their behavior demonstrates a lack of character that actually makes them a lesser parent. I cannot say I agree with that. But I can respect it.


A lesser parent to a parent that is fit in all the other ways necessary. Not a lesser parent to the other that also has not given much consideration to their child's well being.


----------



## vellocet

EleGirl said:


> Cheating is not the worst thing that a spouse can do.
> 
> The BS could be an abuser/violent, a drug addict, mentally ill, a child molester, a violent criminal, or any other of a long list of seriously bad things.... or someone who has never spent any time parenting the child...


I don't disagree.

Do my earlier posts show up differently on people's screens or something? 
I said as long as the other parent is fit. The violent abuser, and all that other stuff you listed, wouldn't fit that bill, now would they?


----------



## YupItsMe

vellocet said:


> Ah, now I see. You glossed over my post and didn't read it.
> 
> Read it again.
> 
> "*As long as the other parent is fit in every way for the child*"
> 
> If there is something about the non-cheating parent that makes them unfit, that also needs to be taken into consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the other parent is fit in every way, infidelity, IMO, is not irrelevant.
> 
> As a father who loves his kids, I would have never done anything like gratify myself at the expense of their well being and need for their family.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did. You didn't read my post. Sorry.


Fit?

Parent 1 is a cheater, millionaire, with a Phd in Psychology and winner of ten parent of the year awards and lives in a mansion across from the alma mater where she works and the kid can go for free

Parent 2 is not a cheater, works two jobs at minimum wage, still wears a name tag at work, rents a mobile home, and dropped out of school in the 9th. 

Both have a heart of gold and love their kid thru and thru.

I am done. If you don't get it you never will.


----------



## EleGirl

vellocet said:


> I don't disagree.
> 
> Do my earlier posts show up differently on people's screens or something?
> I said as long as the other parent is fit. The violent abuser, and all that other stuff you listed, wouldn't fit that bill, now would they?


Who is going to determine who is fit?

It is very hard to prove most of the negatives I listed. A person can be an absolute horrific emotional abuser of their spouse and children. They can even be physically abusive and not leave any marks that can be proven to be from abuse. Abuse usually happens behind closed doors. Usually no one outside the household knows that it's going on.

But with your criteria, the court will give the children to the abuser because a woman (or man) leaving a horrific situation, got involved with someone on the way out.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> Who is going to determine who is fit?


Bingo. Must be the front row.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> I doubt that private contracts would make it any better. The problem is not if the marriage is civil or under private contract.
> 
> If it's under private contract then disputes would be held in civil contract law courts. Those are no better than family court.


I don't know a lot about different courts. But in contract law, rights and responsibility are outlined specifically with the course of action for failure to meet those responsibilities laid out explicitly. There are no baked in responsibilities baked into the conference based on our weird history with sexual relations.


----------



## Wolf1974

Dogbert said:


> Very few individuals truly have what it takes to be a good spouse. Those that do have what it takes to be a good spouse, don't have what it takes to choose an equally qualified partner.


I somewhat agree but more see it as lots of women would make great wives and spouses. They are all taken and rightfully so. I have a ton of male friends who have great wives. I am very envious to be honest lol


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Women today have more options. The talk of the "good old days" is a strong reminder.

We have options in many areas of our lives today that we didn't a few generations ago. So part of this discussion has to do with whether a woman exercises her options, uses her ability to choose. 

Many say that a woman should stay if her spouse ignores her needs. If he provides and is a good father, that should be enough.

But consider what options we exercise today now that they are available to us, and why we do so. If your child has a cleft palate, do you let them feel insecure or do you fix it through surgery. The child can live without it being fixed, but if you have the choice then you chose to do something that will benefit the child emotionally.

Notice the above example wasn't about physical pain or even a shortened life. It was about giving that child a better life based on how they feel.

You might say that no one else is hurt by the child fixing their palate, but the "fix" of leaving an irreparable marriage hurts others. It hurts your spouse and your kids. 

That isn't really true, though. If one spouse is unhappy, I highly doubt the other one is happy. Unless the unhappy one just keeps it to themselves for the rest of their days. It is more likely that their unhappiness bleeds into their marriage and affects their kids.

Some have mentioned that you should stay in a "good enough" marriage for the kids. But the truth is, children with parents in high levels of conflict actually fare BETTER after their parents divorce than those who continue to live in a high conflict home throughout their growing up years.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Cheating is not the worst thing that a spouse can do.
> 
> The BS could be an abuser/violent, a drug addict, mentally ill, a child molester, a violent criminal, or any other of a long list of seriously bad things.... or someone who has never spent any time parenting the child...


It isn't the worse thing perhaps. But let's not pretend it is nothing or irrelevant either. In many cases it is the ending and defining moment in a marriage. And I wish that it was counted in courts. Was a real eye opener that my x could bring a guy into our house, screw him on our bed 5 feet from my sleeping daughters and in the courts eyes no big deal.


----------



## Wolf1974

SurpriseMyself said:


> Women today have more options. The talk of the "good old days" is a strong reminder.
> 
> We have options in many areas of our lives today that we didn't a few generations ago. So part of this discussion has to do with whether a woman exercises her options, uses her ability to choose.
> 
> Many say that a woman should stay if her spouse ignores her needs. If he provides and is a good father, that should be enough.
> 
> But consider what options we exercise today now that they are available to us, and why we do so. If your child has a cleft palate, do you let them feel insecure or do you fix it through surgery. The child can live without it being fixed, but if you have the choice then you chose to do something that will benefit the child emotionally.
> 
> Notice the above example wasn't about physical pain or even a shortened life. It was about giving that child a better life based on how they feel.
> 
> You might say that no one else is hurt by the child fixing their palate, but the "fix" of leaving an irreparable marriage hurts others. It hurts your spouse and your kids.
> 
> That isn't really true, though. If one spouse is unhappy, I highly doubt the other one is happy. Unless the unhappy one just keeps it to themselves for the rest of their days. It is more likely that their unhappiness bleeds into their marriage and affects their kids.
> 
> Some have mentioned that you should stay in a "good enough" marriage for the kids. But the truth is, children with parents in high levels of conflict actually fare BETTER after their parents divorce than those who continue to live in a high conflict home throughout their growing up years.


I don't think they should stay as in trapped and no choice. What I do think is absent someting along the lines of cheating, abuse of any variety , or complete abandonment then effort should be made to fix a marriage prior to bailing ship. But if effort is made and neither can find what they are looking for then yes it's better of to be divorced. Life is too short and staying for the kids is likely hurting them more...I agree


----------



## lifeistooshort

Wolf1974 said:


> It isn't the worse thing perhaps. But let's not pretend it is nothing or irrelevant either. In many cases it is the ending and defining moment in a marriage. And I wish that it was counted in courts. Was a real eye opener that my x could bring a guy into our house, screw him on our bed 5 feet from my sleeping daughters and in the courts eyes no big deal.



That's a sh!tty thing your ex did. But the bigger issue of factoring infidelity in is the potential for all kinds of accusations and abuse. Courts don't have time to deal with all the accusations that will fly if people think it will gain them an advantage. I think my ex should've been penalized for being an abusive misogynist but it's the same principle.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

lifeistooshort said:


> That's a sh!tty thing your ex did. But the bigger issue of factoring infidelity in is the potential for all kinds of accusations and abuse. Courts don't have time to deal with all the accusations that will fly if people think it will gain them an advantage. I think my ex should've been penalized for being an abusive misogynist but it's the same principle.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It is pure fantasy. I wish cheating had bearing on the decision of custody but they don't wnd never will.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> It isn't the worse thing perhaps. But let's not pretend it is nothing or irrelevant either. In many cases it is the ending and defining moment in a marriage. And I wish that it was counted in courts. Was a real eye opener that my x could bring a guy into our house, screw him on our bed 5 feet from my sleeping daughters and in the courts eyes no big deal.


Sure in my darker moments, I wish that I could extract punishment from my ex for his years of cheating. But he is my son's father. To destroy him is to seriously harm my son further.

Let's not pretend I said, or even implied, that cheating is nothing or irrelevant.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Wolf1974 said:


> It is pure fantasy. I wish cheating had bearing on the decision of custody but they don't wnd never will.


I wish it had bearing on whether they are allowed to bring that person around your child. I can't imagine how much that would anger me!!! To know that person is spending time with my kids would really turn me upside down and inside out.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> I don't think they should stay as in trapped and no choice. What I do think is absent someting along the lines of cheating, abuse of any variety , or complete abandonment then effort should be made to fix a marriage prior to bailing ship. But if effort is made and neither can find what they are looking for then yes it's better of to be divorced. Life is too short and staying for the kids is likely hurting them more...I agree


You assume that people don't try to fix their marriage for a long time before divorce. Most do. Most people do not leave frivolously.

Using again my marriage to my son's father, I spent 10 years trying to get him work with me to fix the marriage. He just ignored it all.

So what you are suggesting is that when I filed for divorce, I would have had been forced by the courts to spend more time trying to fix something with someone who could care less about fixing anything. Or could I bring notes from counselors so I could get permission to divorce?


----------



## Wolf1974

SurpriseMyself said:


> I wish it had bearing on whether they are allowed to bring that person around your child. I can't imagine how much that would anger me!!! To know that person is spending time with my kids would really turn me upside down and inside out.


Hells yes!!! Luckily that never became an issue cause the OM dumped my x shortly after our divorce...but I was again shocked that I couldn't keep him away from my kids no matter what. Again perfect world if you could prove infidelity it would be awesome if you were automatically awarded sole custody. But just a dream. I fought for it and lost but least my kids know I fought


----------



## Jellybeans

EleGirl said:


> Why anyone would want to stay married to a person who does not want to be married to them is something I don’t get.


:iagree:


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> You assume that people don't try to fix their marriage for a long time before divorce. Most do. Most people do not leave frivolously.
> 
> Using again my marriage to my son's father, I spent 10 years trying to get him work with me to fix the marriage. He just ignored it all.
> 
> So what you are suggesting is that when I filed for divorce, I would have had been forced by the courts to spend more time trying to fix something with someone who could care less about fixing anything. Or could I bring notes from counselors so I could get permission to divorce?


That it your opinion Ele. Again not everything is about you and your x. I don't think that MANY who divorce have exhausted every means to fix the situation. What I think is that people today are very self satisfying and when they get, tired, aggravated or bored to look for a way out. And often times don't think things through. 

If you did that great I said then you should divorce. Once again you didn't read my entire post and twisted it. Your situation was covered


----------



## lifeistooshort

Wolf1974 said:


> That it your opinion Ele. Again not everything is about you and your x. I don't think that MANY who divorce have exhausted every means to fix the situation. What I think is that people today are very self satisfying and when they get, tired, aggravated or bored to look for a way out. And often times don't think things through.
> 
> If you did that great I said then you should divorce. Once again you didn't read my entire post and twisted it. Your situation was covered


But is it really that easy to leave a marriage and kids? Look how many people want to leave for good reason and don't because it's very hard to split up your lives.

People that aren't inclined to try everything would half a$$ it anyway. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

lifeistooshort said:


> But is it really that easy to leave a marriage and kids? Look how many people want to leave for good reason and don't because it's very hard to split up your lives.
> 
> People that aren't inclined to try everything would half a$$ it anyway.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I've seen countless examples of men and women leaving at a whim for another person, or to pursue a personal dream or just check out of a marriage so yes I would agree that those types aren't likely to really work at it and if they didn't yeah they will get the divorce they seek no doubt. 

But still others could benefit from not making quick decisions and trying to work things out. Can't save all of them but even if you could say save 5% that's a huge number.


----------



## Dogbert

What if there were no vows in marriage? What if we treated it solely like a business arrangement for the purposes of procreation and child rearing? Men and women living separately, in two households? Crazy? Maybe but it sure would be interesting as a social lab experiment. Now if we could only find some voluntary guinea pigs.


----------



## Wolf1974

Dogbert said:


> What if there were no vows in marriage? What if we treated it solely like a business arrangement for the purposes of procreation and child rearing? Men and women living separately, in two households? Crazy? Maybe but it sure would be interesting as a social lab experiment. Now if we could only find some voluntary guinea pigs.


I really don't think this is far fetched at all. I think marriage is on its way out and honestly maybe it just should be. So yes then only procreation would be tied up in the courts


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> That it your opinion Ele. Again not everything is about you and your x. I don't think that MANY who divorce have exhausted every means to fix the situation. What I think is that people today are very self satisfying and when they get, tired, aggravated or bored to look for a way out. And often times don't think things through.
> 
> If you did that great I said then you should divorce. Once again you didn't read my entire post and twisted it. Your situation was covered


I did get confused. In my mind, I mixed your thread of discussion with another one saying that a court/arbitrator should make the decision if enough has been done to save the marriage. I was arguing against the idea that a court/judge/arbitrator should have anything do making such a decision for anyone.



Wolf1974 said:


> That it your opinion Ele. Again not everything is about you and your x.


Further, I find it sadly amusing that someone who keeps using his own failed marriage as an example to support his arguments keeps making the above statement to me.

It's not all about you and your ex either. You are aware that people bring examples from their own life to help the discussion right? Surely you are not the only person here who can do that.


----------



## EleGirl

Dogbert said:


> What if there were no vows in marriage? What if we treated it solely like a business arrangement for the purposes of procreation and child rearing? Men and women living separately, in two households? Crazy? Maybe but it sure would be interesting as a social lab experiment. Now if we could only find some voluntary guinea pigs.


Wedding vows come from a time before contracts were writing. Most were verbal agreements. Today we keep the vows because people just love the whole show of a wedding. 

I actually am a wedding efficient. The vows are not required except to ask each person if they are entering the marriage of their own free will and agree to the marriage. Then they sign.

I've done weddings like that. No vows expect the affirmative statement of free will and agreement.

Married people can already do what you are suggesting... two households and sharing responsibilities of raising children.

I know two couples who have been doing this for years.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> I did get confused. In my mind, I mixed your thread of discussion with another one saying that a court/arbitrator should make the decision if enough has been done to save the marriage. I was arguing against the idea that a court/judge/arbitrator should have anything do making such a decision for anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Further, I find it sadly amusing that someone who keeps using his own failed marriage as an example to support his arguments keeps making the above statement to me.
> 
> It's not all about you and your ex either. You are aware that people bring examples from their own life to help the discussion right? Surely you are not the only person here who can do that.


You were the one who brought up your x...again....when my post had nothing to do with you or him...again...

I have no clue why you are hyper vigilant on everything I post. I guess at least you 1/2 way recognized that you made a mistake and then turned it around with some statement about my x. Using experience isn't the problem....my x was a cheater...not a bad communicator so has little relevance to this discussion anyway. Your x was a cheater and a bad communicator. Not all men are

Sad but you always have the option to ignor me if you want. But my opinions are just as valid as yours


----------



## Wazza

vellocet said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> Custody isn't about, and SHOULDN'T be about the parent's ****ed up love life. It should be about and ONLY about the best interest of the kids. IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. As long as the other parent is fit in every way for the child, IMO, it is not in the best interest of the child to be raised by someone void of scruples or by someone that didn't think about their best interest when boning someone other than the child's other parent.
> 
> As long as the other parent wants custody and is a fit parent, wouldn't you think that person should be the preferred parent over someone that recklessly risked the well being of their child?
Click to expand...

This stuff is hard and painful. You are not going to like what I am about to write, but it is too central to your point.

If someone cheats and leaves, I can see your logic (I don't agree with it but I see it.)

What about when one partner cheats and the other leaves? Haven't both put their own wishes first?

Is the fact that infidelity made the marriage intolerable a justification? If so, what else might be a justification?
Is someone who tries to have an affair, not get caught and preserve the marriage less guilty than someone who decides to end it?


----------



## Jellybeans

Personal said:


> I honestly can't remember what my marriage vows were.


Mine said something about a covenant...



Wolf1974 said:


> Sad but you always have the option to ignor me if you want. But my opinions are just as valid as yours


Nobody is going to ignore anyone! We are all going to discuss things as adults and be kind, rewind to one another.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Both you and Ele are good eggs. Carry one.


----------



## Dogbert

Speaking of weddings, I was watching "The last man on Earth" and the main character finds the last woman on Earth. She refuses to have sex with him until after they get married. He accepts and the two get married in a chapel. He is barely is able to say the words "I do(?)". And as they turn to walk down the aisle, he asks her "Why do we have to observe stupid traditions? We're the last two people left on Earth!" She responds "No we're not, silly". And as they open the doors to leave the chapel, they are met by a mob of people waiting for the "happy couple" to throw rice at them. The man's eyes grow wide with terror, then he goes into panic mode before realizing it was all a bad dream. He is still blissfully the last man on Earth.


----------



## Jellybeans

Haha. I am going to watch that movie, Dogbert.


----------



## Dogbert

It's a television series from Fox, Jellybeans.

In a previous episode he's watching Tom Hank's movie "Castaway" and criticizes it as being so fake because Hank's character draws faces on some coconuts, gives them names and talks to them. Guess what happens a few months later down the road? Yep he's talking to balls. They were even present at his bachelor party.

He even said farewell to his window display mannequin girlfriend


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> I have no clue why you are hyper vigilant on everything I post.


Hyper vigilant on everything you post? Hardly. If I were hyper vigilant on everything you post, I would have actually replied to everything you post. I have not today and never have

Here are the posts both of us made since YOU posted to ME arguing against something I said.

Wolf1974 8 posts in all, 3 to elegirl 
Elegirl 4 post in all, 3 to Wolf1974 


*Wolf1974 811 posted to elegirl about something I posted to vellocet in post 798*
Wolf1974 812 in reply to SurpriseMyself
Wolf1974 814 in reply to lifeistooshort
*elegirl 815 in reply to Wolf1974*
*elegirl 817 to Wolf1974*
Wolf1974 818 in reply to SurpriseMyself
*Wolf1974 820 in reply to elegirl*
Wolf1974 823 in reply to lifeistooshort
Wolf1974 825 in reply to dogbert
*elegirl 826 in reply to Wolf1974 *
elegirl 828 in reply to dogbert
*Wolf1974 829 in reply to elegirl*



Wolf1974 said:


> I guess at least you 1/2 way recognized that you made a mistake and then turned it around with some statement about my x.
> Here I 100% recognize my mistake and you twist that. Sad, very sad.
> 
> 
> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using experience isn't the problem....my x was a cheater...not a bad communicator so has little relevance to this discussion anyway. Your x was a cheater and a bad communicator. Not all men are
> 
> 
> 
> So since he was a cheater, no other aspects of the relationship matter? Really?
> Please show me were I said or implied that men are not like my ex?
> 
> 
> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but you always have the option to ignor me if you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is sad. Here I thought that we were all having a good discussion, exchanging different points of view. I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll post any darn thing I want to any person I want. If you do not want to have a discussion with me.. do not reply to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my opinions are just as valid as yours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree 100%. Since you challenged and discussed my opinions on this thread, I assume you were open to a mutual discussion. I guess not though, huh?
> 
> If you do not want me to reply to you.. don’t reply to me. It's pretty simple.
Click to expand...


----------



## southbound

razgor said:


> I think some posters are simply mentioning that in the past society stressed that being a good husband was being a good man, good provider and taking care of your family. Values that do not matter as much to women today.
> 
> Now, that appears to be just a given. Being that does not make you a good husband. Just meeting bare minimum requirement, that may get you a WAW down the line.
> 
> Times change and the bar has been raised for a man who strives to be a good husband. It is not a bad thing, just leaves a number of men trying to play catch up.


That's a good way to describe it, and basically what i was trying to say. I'm not saying marriages were better then just because it was the "good ole days," or that marriages were even better at all, but I believe people had different ideas about marriage then.

Being a good provider, good father, and good moral person who would never cheat is just a given today I suppose, nothing special. The dream of having a house with a white picket fence, a couple of kids, watching a little tv after supper, and decent jobs is no longer thrilling. These days people have to be adventurous, exciting, passionate about something, and the list goes on. 

For those of us who still would be ok with the picket fence, we are having to play catch-up.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Hyper vigilant on everything you post? Hardly. If I were hyper vigilant on everything you post, I would have actually replied to everything you post. I have not today and never have
> 
> Here are the posts both of us made since YOU posted to ME arguing against something I said.
> 
> Wolf1974 8 posts in all, 3 to elegirl
> Elegirl 4 post in all, 3 to Wolf1974
> 
> 
> *Wolf1974 811 posted to elegirl about something I posted to vellocet in post 798*
> Wolf1974 812 in reply to SurpriseMyself
> Wolf1974 814 in reply to lifeistooshort
> *elegirl 815 in reply to Wolf1974*
> *elegirl 817 to Wolf1974*
> Wolf1974 818 in reply to SurpriseMyself
> *Wolf1974 820 in reply to elegirl*
> Wolf1974 823 in reply to lifeistooshort
> Wolf1974 825 in reply to dogbert
> *elegirl 826 in reply to Wolf1974 *
> elegirl 828 in reply to dogbert
> *Wolf1974 829 in reply to elegirl*
> 
> 
> 
> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess at least you 1/2 way recognized that you made a mistake and then turned it around with some statement about my x.
> Here I 100% recognize my mistake and you twist that. Sad, very sad.
> 
> So since he was a cheater, no other aspects of the relationship matter? Really?
> Please show me were I said or implied that men are not like my ex?
> 
> This is sad. Here I thought that we were all having a good discussion, exchanging different points of view. I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll post any darn thing I want to any person I want. If you do not want to have a discussion with me.. do not reply to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100%. Since you challenged and discussed my opinions on this thread, I assume you were open to a mutual discussion. I guess not though, huh?
> 
> If you do not want me to reply to you.. don’t reply to me. It's pretty simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutual discussion yes. Not accusing
> 
> My statement stands don't like my posts don't respond of ignor it's up to you
Click to expand...


----------



## YupItsMe

Get a room Jeepers :rofl:


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> The dream of having a house with a white picket fence, a couple of kids, watching a little tv after supper, and decent jobs is no longer *thrilling*. These days people have to be *adventurous, exciting, passionate about something, and the list goes on*.


Interestingly, those of us who have said what many want that is different than picket fence days gone by mentioned none of these things.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Oh shyte the old soda bottle excuse can't be used any more? 

I used to feel so giddy, I could barely run up the front steps. Then it got boring after a couple of years. ( ok if I'm honest months a couple of months) so I'd ask my husband to sleep outside. 

Then came the soda bottle on the counter. And well that was just the absolute death of things. Once he also left the toilet seat up. Can you believe the nerve?


----------



## lifeistooshort

southbound said:


> That's a good way to describe it, and basically what i was trying to say. I'm not saying marriages were better then just because it was the "good ole days," or that marriages were even better at all, but I believe people had different ideas about marriage then.
> 
> Being a good provider, good father, and good moral person who would never cheat is just a given today I suppose, nothing special. The dream of having a house with a white picket fence, a couple of kids, watching a little tv after supper, and decent jobs is no longer thrilling. These days people have to be adventurous, exciting, passionate about something, and the list goes on.
> 
> For those of us who still would be ok with the picket fence, we are having to play catch-up.


The bar has been raised all the way around. In the past women weren't expected to provide bj's and porn sex on demand. Some duty sex was pretty much all that was expected.

Nobody compared their women to surgery enhanced and photoshopped garbage. And while there has always been some kind of porn the huge amounts of porn on demand have definitely shifted male expectations. 

Don't get me wrong, I like sex and think an active sex life is a good thing for everyone, but expectations have defenilitely been raised. It would never occur to a man of yesterday to leave a marriage over not enough sex and that's encouraged here all the time.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EnjoliWoman

There are MANY facets of this argument as we see displayed by the posts here.

Cheating doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'm certainly an advocate for doing whatever you can to fix a marriage. (BTW I am not a cheater or a cheatee - no "dog" in this fight.) But it takes two to make a marriage work and one to ruin it.

Now you can say the cheater ruined it. Was it a bad decision to move on before ending the marriage? Most will agree it was. But most cheaters also tried repeatedly to discuss what was wrong and tried to get their spouse to fix it. There is always the last straw. 

Boredom is just as valid of a reason for being unhappy as any other. Some people can alleviate boredom with hobbies but most people want their spouse to be a part of the equation when it comes to reinstating a zest for life.

As it relates to the children:
- A spouse is bored/unhappy. They talk, plan, try... finally something exciting happens - the affair. Spouse ends marriage. 

Children can be better off because they no longer have a moping, unhappy, short-tempered parent. Is having that unhappy parent in a unified family better than having one parent who turns their focus to the children and makes them feel secure and possibly relieved that there's no more depressed or angry parent around? they get to see that parent and when they do, that parent is fun and happy. 

- A spouse is bored/unhappy. They talk, plan, try... Finally spouse gives up resigned. Shuts down emotionally, tries to pick up a hobby or two, loses interest. Feels rejected and unloved. Is short tempered, unhappy, mopes around, depressed, doesn't laugh, smile, play anymore. 

Children are tiptoeing around because parent is short tempered and cranky. Or are sad because they never see that parent cheerful and just see them going through the motions.

This is the example they have of a marriage. Children have low expectations of a relationship now. It's a business arrangement to combines incomes for more purchasing power and to procreate to sustain the species.

I don't see one as worse than the other.


----------



## Wolf1974

lifeistooshort said:


> The bar has been raised all the way around. In the past women weren't expected to provide bj's and porn sex on demand. Some duty sex was pretty much all that was expected.
> *
> Nobody compared their women to surgery enhanced and photoshopped garbage. And while there has always been some kind of porn the huge amounts of porn on demand have definitely shifted male expectations.*
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like sex and think an active sex life is a good thing for everyone, but expectations have defenilitely been raised. It would never occur to a man of yesterday to leave a marriage over not enough sex and that's encouraged here all the time.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


while I think you make this point way too far........ I get the basic of what your talking about. Marriage is easy in and easy out and maybe that's the way it should be or ,like otherwise suggested , maybe it shouldn't occur at all anymore because men and women have unrealistic expectations for modern times. I would say it's comes from too much self entitlement in society. A successful marriage is hard work and would take two people working toward the better of it, and not themselves, to be successful. Rare to find two people like that today, then you have to get them together, then keep them together resisting tragedy, temptations, hard times and on and on


----------



## Wolf1974

EnjoliWoman said:


> There are MANY facets of this argument as we see displayed by the posts here.
> 
> Cheating doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'm certainly an advocate for doing whatever you can to fix a marriage. (BTW I am not a cheater or a cheatee - no "dog" in this fight.) But it takes two to make a marriage work and one to ruin it.
> 
> Now you can say the cheater ruined it. Was it a bad decision to move on before ending the marriage? Most will agree it was. But most cheaters also tried repeatedly to discuss what was wrong and tried to get their spouse to fix it. There is always the last straw.
> 
> Boredom is just as valid of a reason for being unhappy as any other. Some people can alleviate boredom with hobbies but most people want their spouse to be a part of the equation when it comes to reinstating a zest for life.
> 
> As it relates to the children:
> - A spouse is bored/unhappy. They talk, plan, try... finally something exciting happens - the affair. Spouse ends marriage.
> 
> Children can be better off because they no longer have a moping, unhappy, short-tempered parent. Is having that unhappy parent in a unified family better than having one parent who turns their focus to the children and makes them feel secure and possibly relieved that there's no more depressed or angry parent around? they get to see that parent and when they do, that parent is fun and happy.
> 
> - A spouse is bored/unhappy. They talk, plan, try... Finally spouse gives up resigned. Shuts down emotionally, tries to pick up a hobby or two, loses interest. Feels rejected and unloved. Is short tempered, unhappy, mopes around, depressed, doesn't laugh, smile, play anymore.
> 
> Children are tiptoeing around because parent is short tempered and cranky. Or are sad because they never see that parent cheerful and just see them going through the motions.
> 
> This is the example they have of a marriage. *Children have low expectations of a relationship now. *It's a business arrangement to combines incomes for more purchasing power and to procreate to sustain the species.
> 
> I don't see one as worse than the other.


True. One of the last things I struggle with is what to tell my daughters about marriage. I don't know if I believe in it or not. I go back and forth on its value in my own life so not sure what to guide them in with theirs. I do know that if the only objective is as you say combine incomes and procreate they don't need to be married for that. I guess the most important thing is to encourage the things I do know I believe in, prenup and pre martial counceling, and making a good decision in a spouse vs a bad decision and let them make the rest on their own


----------



## ocotillo

lifeistooshort said:


> It would never occur to a man of yesterday to leave a marriage over not enough sex and that's encouraged here all the time.


I honestly can't think of a time period when that would have been true.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Wolf1974 said:


> while I think you make this point way too far........ I get the basic of what your talking about. Marriage is easy in and easy out and maybe that's the way it should be or ,like otherwise suggested , maybe it shouldn't occur at all anymore because men and women have unrealistic expectations for modern times. I would say it's comes from too much self entitlement in society. A successful marriage is hard work and would take two people working toward the better of it, and not themselves, to be successful. Rare to find two people like that today, then you have to get them together, then keep them together resisting tragedy, temptations, hard times and on and on



Marriage has always been around and will continue to be around, but like all social constructs will continue to evolve. We're all still adjusting to shifting gender roles and expectations, and since social change often takes generations we're having growing pains. People will adjust and evolve like we always have. The human ability to adapt is the reason we've been so successful as a species.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vellocet

EleGirl said:


> Who is going to determine who is fit?


Hey, you are the one that brought up the violent abuser argument. So obviously you must have an opinion of who is fit and who is not.

But if you really need an answer to who is going to determine who is fit? I think that would be a judge.




> It is very hard to prove most of the negatives I listed.


I don't disagree. Which is why a lot of thing won't come into consideration when determining custody. I'm simply saying it should, but like you said, there needs to be proof. Sometimes hard to get.



> But with your criteria, the court will give the children to the abuser because a woman (or man) leaving a horrific situation, got involved with someone on the way out.


Nope. Again, read what I said. An abuser does not meet the criteria for being a fit parent, IMO. Are you purposely ignoring what I write to suit your own agenda? Or is it you just don't want to see that I actually agree with you?


----------



## vellocet

Wazza said:


> This stuff is hard and painful. You are not going to like what I am about to write, but it is too central to your point.
> 
> If someone cheats and leaves, I can see your logic (I don't agree with it but I see it.)
> 
> What about when one partner cheats and the other leaves? Haven't both put their own wishes first?


No. Because the one that is leaving is due to the cheating of the other. They didn't ask for this, they didn't throw this down on the family. 

If someone leaves because of infidelity, that's on the cheater.

In a case like that, its not in the best interest of the child for the betrayed spouse to stay in a marriage and be angry or depressed because of what their WS did. If they can work it out, great. But if they can't, that doesn't fall on the BS.


----------



## chillymorn

EnjoliWoman said:


> There are MANY facets of this argument as we see displayed by the posts here.
> 
> Cheating doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'm certainly an advocate for doing whatever you can to fix a marriage. (BTW I am not a cheater or a cheatee - no "dog" in this fight.) But it takes two to make a marriage work and one to ruin it.
> 
> Now you can say the cheater ruined it. Was it a bad decision to move on before ending the marriage? Most will agree it was. But most cheaters also tried repeatedly to discuss what was wrong and tried to get their spouse to fix it. There is always the last straw.
> 
> Boredom is just as valid of a reason for being unhappy as any other. Some people can alleviate boredom with hobbies but most people want their spouse to be a part of the equation when it comes to reinstating a zest for life.
> 
> As it relates to the children:
> - A spouse is bored/unhappy. They talk, plan, try... finally something exciting happens - the affair. Spouse ends marriage.
> 
> Children can be better off because they no longer have a moping, unhappy, short-tempered parent. Is having that unhappy parent in a unified family better than having one parent who turns their focus to the children and makes them feel secure and possibly relieved that there's no more depressed or angry parent around? they get to see that parent and when they do, that parent is fun and happy.
> 
> - A spouse is bored/unhappy. They talk, plan, try... Finally spouse gives up resigned. Shuts down emotionally, tries to pick up a hobby or two, loses interest. Feels rejected and unloved. Is short tempered, unhappy, mopes around, depressed, doesn't laugh, smile, play anymore.
> 
> Children are tiptoeing around because parent is short tempered and cranky. Or are sad because they never see that parent cheerful and just see them going through the motions.
> 
> This is the example they have of a marriage. Children have low expectations of a relationship now. It's a business arrangement to combines incomes for more purchasing power and to procreate to sustain the species.
> 
> I don't see one as worse than the other.


just excuses for being a weak moral character!

And I don't think everybody who was unhappy with their marriage communicates it before they cheat.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I guess I find this thread a little baffling. It almost seems like people are saying I don't WANT to care about her happiness. I want to care about what I want in terms of quality bar. And I want someone MAKE her stay with me. I know I must be misunderstanding.


----------



## Wolf1974

lifeistooshort said:


> Marriage has always been around and will continue to be around, but like all social constructs will continue to evolve. We're all still adjusting to shifting gender roles and expectations, and since social change often takes generations we're having growing pains. People will adjust and evolve like we always have. The human ability to adapt is the reason we've been so successful as a species.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't agree. Marriage for centuries was about ownership of women and using them, daughters, to maintain or build alliances and further power.

In most the world today marriage is simply a choice made. Hell even the societal pressure is easing on the notion of single parents and having kids and never marrying. More and more people are choosing not to ever get married. I saw a poll once few years back that this new generation of adults coming out of college are the first to prefer no marriage to getting married. I looked but couldn't find the study. Yes you can argue that was does a 20 something know about what they want for the rest of thier life but it does show a shift in the way of thinking. Yes marriage has evolved but even some things that evolve eventually die out. I am speculating that marriage will be one of those things, unless a sudden change in its structure is made and government is removed from it. I do think it will be around for a few more generations though


----------



## lifeistooshort

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess I find this thread a little baffling. It almost seems like people are saying I don't WANT to care about her happiness. I want to care about what I want in terms of quality bar. And I want someone MAKE her stay with me. I know I must be misunderstanding.


I think it's me along the lines of "I'm po'd because I have to, the fact that I have to means she has fairy tale expectations"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess I find this thread a little baffling. It almost seems like people are saying I don't WANT to care about her happiness. I want to care about what I want in terms of quality bar. And I want someone MAKE her stay with me. I know I must be misunderstanding.


Must be or we are reading different threads.... Who is advocating that someone be forced to stay? I think what some are arguing is that in some circumstances marriage is given up too easily without really trying to address or fix a problem. Sometimes people walk away for reasons other than a tangible problem like Bordem for example. I haven't seen anyone saying no matter what you can't leave. Marriage isn't prison


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wolf1974 said:


> Must be or we are reading different threads.... Who is advocating that someone be forced to stay?


The ones who advocate that courts decide what is "bad enough" rather than the participants to the marriage. 



> I think what some are arguing is that in some circumstances marriage is given up too easily without really trying to address or fix a problem. Sometimes people walk away for reasons other than a tangible problem like Bordem for example.


Am I inferring this being a negative where it is not being the case? To the degree I think this happens, which is not a lot, so what? Why would anyone want to be married to someone who is not all in? What should happen in this case? You cannot change the bored party.



> I haven't seen anyone saying no matter what you can't leave. Marriage isn't prison


Not no matter what. But the "matter" is to be decided by some external source of truth say the bar is at abuse or cheating. Not where THAT person puts the bar.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> The ones who advocate that courts decide what is "bad enough" rather than the participants to the marriage.


Courts deciding who is "bad enough" and forcing them to "stay" based on who is "bad enough"? :scratchhead: Courts cannot and should not be able to deny anyone a divorce on any grounds.

Now as far as my comments, saying the courts can decide who is "fit" to be a parent, that is with regards to divorce and custody.




> Not no matter what. But the "matter" is to be decided by some external source of truth say the bar is at abuse or cheating. Not where THAT person puts the bar.


Again, the comments, by me anyway, about some "external source of truth", a judge was my exact words, had to do with divorce and custody...not forcing someone to say. Nobody is saying that.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess I find this thread a little baffling. It almost seems like people are saying I don't WANT to care about her happiness. I want to care about what I want in terms of quality bar. And I want someone MAKE her stay with me. I know I must be misunderstanding.


Not me. I wouldn't want someone to stay with me if they don't want to. I'd rather they leave.

And I care about her happiness(if I am in a relationship), otherwise I'd leave. If things have gotten complacent and each other have been taken for granted, I'll be more than happy to talk about it, and do my best to work on my end of things. Even if she were to sit me down and tell me if things don't improve that she will have to leave. I'll take it to heart. Even though that could be seen by some as a "threat", its a "threat" I can live with.

The "threat" or comment I won't accept and be willing to work with is if I'm told by her that she is vulnerable to an affair, thinking about it, or outright saying she will get needs met elsewhere if I don't do as she wants.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> Again, the comments, by me anyway, about some "external source of truth", a judge was my exact words, had to do with divorce and custody...not forcing someone to say. Nobody is saying that.



It was not you. I am not going to go back and find the post.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

NobodySpecial said:


> Well I guess you can wish for that if you like. I don't see it happening. I think it would be incentive to only stay, which as I have said previously, is a pretty low quality bar.


I would be incentive to stay. And, given that the unhappy spouse is staying, that spouse would have incentive to improve the marriage.



> I would rather stay married because I love my husband and he loves me. Thankfully that works for us.


I'm glad that hoping that uncommitted love will conquer all has worked for you (so far). Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out so well for the rest of society.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

chillymorn said:


> just excuses for being a weak moral character!
> 
> And I don't think everybody who was unhappy with their marriage communicates it before they cheat.


Really? I think EVERYONE communicates their unhappiness. I find more that the spouse doesn't listen. Which you just demonstrated. It's not about YOU not listening, it's about HER lack of character. Yeah, that's it.

Proceed with being superior. It apparently serves you well.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

YupItsMe said:


> Fit?
> 
> Parent 1 is a cheater, millionaire, with a Phd in Psychology and winner of ten parent of the year awards and lives in a mansion across from the alma mater where she works and the kid can go for free
> 
> Parent 2 is not a cheater, works two jobs at minimum wage, still wears a name tag at work, rents a mobile home, and dropped out of school in the 9th.
> 
> Both have a heart of gold and love their kid thru and thru.
> 
> I am done. If you don't get it you never will.


Well, vellocet may not get your point, but I'm still trying. Really I am. So I'll play along.

OK. Assignment of sex is arbitrary and for ease of writing here. Parent 1 is the greatest parent ever. The fact that she is a cheater and wants to split up the family has absolutely no impact on the child. Parent 2 loves his kid, but can't provide for him. The kid would obviously be better off spending most of his time with Parent 1.

But there's a snag here. Because the decision of where the child must go will be made by a judge, who works for the government. And you've already established that government courts are bad things that never get the right answer. So, we can't rely on the discretion of a judge. In the tradition of Solomon, the only fair thing to do is to cut the child in half and give part to each parent. If only there were another way. But, alas.


----------



## Marduk

EnjoliWoman said:


> Really? I think EVERYONE communicates their unhappiness. I find more that the spouse doesn't listen. Which you just demonstrated. It's not about YOU not listening, it's about HER lack of character. Yeah, that's it.
> 
> Proceed with being superior. It apparently serves you well.


Not everyone.

Some people think that their partner should read their mind.

I mean, I'm sure there are usually signs. But some people just have trouble communicating emotions, especially negative ones.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

EleGirl said:


> But with your criteria, the court will give the children to the abuser because a woman (or man) leaving a horrific situation, got involved with someone on the way out.


Nobody has argued that infidelity should be considered to the exclusion of all other data. That argument is a flimsy straw man. What I, and others, have suggested is that infidelity should be considered along with all other data.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> It was not you. I am not going to go back and find the post.


Ok, sorry, wasn't sure to what comments you were referring.

And I didn't ask you to go back and find the post, because nobody is saying that. Can't find whats not there.


----------



## Deejo

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess I find this thread a little baffling.


Only a little?


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

SurpriseMyself said:


> You might say that no one else is hurt by the child fixing their palate, but the "fix" of leaving an irreparable marriage hurts others. It hurts your spouse and your kids.
> 
> That isn't really true, though. If one spouse is unhappy, I highly doubt the other one is happy. Unless the unhappy one just keeps it to themselves for the rest of their days. It is more likely that their unhappiness bleeds into their marriage and affects their kids.
> 
> Some have mentioned that you should stay in a "good enough" marriage for the kids. But the truth is, children with parents in high levels of conflict actually fare BETTER after their parents divorce than those who continue to live in a high conflict home throughout their growing up years.


You've done a marvelous job of summarizing the rationalizations people use to justify breaking up a family. And it certainly seems logical and intuitive. The only problem is that, in most cases, it's totally wrong.

Many different studies have established, in many different ways, that children of broken homes aren't as happy and well adjusted as children of intact homes.

It would certainly be great news for us if we could establish that doing whatever we want, with no consideration for the impact on others, was the best thing we could do for our families. Unfortunately, that's just not the case.

Now, I'm not here claiming to be holier than thou. It's entirely possible that, in the future, I'll leave my wife and kids, buy a sports car, and start chasing cheerleaders. But if I do, I hope I'll have enough courage to admit that I'm not doing it for the benefit of my kids.


----------



## Anon Pink

southbound said:


> That's a good way to describe it, and basically what i was trying to say. I'm not saying marriages were better then just because it was the "good ole days," or that marriages were even better at all, but I believe people had different ideas about marriage then.
> 
> Being a good provider, good father, and good moral person who would never cheat is just a given today I suppose, nothing special. The dream of having a house with a white picket fence, a couple of kids, watching a little tv after supper, and decent jobs is no longer thrilling. *These days people have to be adventurous, exciting, passionate about something, and the list goes on. *


But this is what some left behind spouses seem to forget or not connect.

When you two fell in love you acted passionate, adventurous, exciting, thrilling. As the relationship stablized, the relative effort into those areas decreased. Years later, no effort into those areas...and it goes on and on and on until the WAS is done. Hopefully, there had been many conversations. 

But what the article in the OP suggests, what many women here agree with and what many men here do not is that the passion and excitement left the building long ago and one spouse wanted it back while the other spouse never noticed it leaving.

So ignore the need for passion and excitement at your peril. If you want a life filled with paid work, house work and TV..best state that upfront because not too many people will be happy to sign on to that.


----------



## Wolf1974

marduk said:


> Not everyone.
> 
> Some people think that their partner should read their mind.
> 
> I mean, I'm sure there are usually signs. But some people just have trouble communicating emotions, especially negative ones.


Defintely 

:iagree:


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> But this is what some left behind spouses seem to forget or not connect.
> 
> When you two fell in love you acted passionate, adventurous, exciting, thrilling. As the relationship stablized, the relative effort into those areas decreased. Years later, no effort into those areas...and it goes on and on and on until the WAS is done. Hopefully, there had been many conversations.
> 
> But what the article in the OP suggests, what many women here agree with and what many men here do not is that the passion and excitement left the building long ago and one spouse wanted it back while the other spouse never noticed it leaving.
> 
> *So ignore the need for passion and excitement at your peril. If you want a life filled with paid work, house work and TV..best state that upfront because not too many people will be happy to sign on to that.*




Absolutely


----------



## Thundarr

Being unhappy and walking away is one thing and that's what I think the article was addressing. I do believe there are many people who just grow in different directions or look back on life and aren't happy with where they are and what they're doing. A lot of the time spouses will wait until the youngest kid is grown and then they execute their exit plan that's been there for years. It's unfortunate and sometimes unfair.

Now cheating and then leaving for the AP is a whole other ballgame. These spouses have little credibility. Once a third person is part of the picture there's no way to believe anything said because rationalization and history rewriting is going to happen no matter how things were before. It's apples and oranges.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> So ignore the need for passion and excitement at your peril. If you want a life filled with paid work, house work and TV..best state that upfront because not too many people will be happy to sign on to that.


--Reminds me of the Rita Coolidge song, _I Miss the Hungry Years._

Lots of young couples still struggling with student debt, and entry level positions do think that the economic security of high paying jobs and a nice house to show for it will make them happy. 

-Only it doesn't.


----------



## Fozzy

ocotillo said:


> --Reminds me of the Rita Coolidge song, _I Miss the Hungry Years._
> 
> Lots of young couples still struggling with student debt, and entry level positions do think that the economic security of high paying jobs and a nice house to show for it will make them happy.
> 
> -Only it doesn't.


I've found quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## Fozzy

ocotillo said:


> --Reminds me of the Rita Coolidge song, _I Miss the Hungry Years._
> 
> Lots of young couples still struggling with student debt, and entry level positions do think that the economic security of high paying jobs and a nice house to show for it will make them happy.
> 
> -Only it doesn't.


What you don't realize when your still young and struggling, and dreaming of financial security is that what you're really doing is basking in the still-untapped potentiality of your own life. Once you're older and secure, you have what you were dreaming of on the surface, but then you realize that you don't have as much life-potential left to look forward to.


----------



## Wolf1974

Fozzy said:


> What you don't realize when your still young and struggling, and dreaming of financial security is that what you're really doing is basking in the still-untapped potentiality of your own life. Once you're older and secure, you have what you were dreaming of on the surface, but then you realize that you don't have as much life-potential left to look forward to.


Kinda like youth is wasted on the young premise :rofl:


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess I find this thread a little baffling. It almost seems like people are saying I don't WANT to care about her happiness. I want to care about what I want in terms of quality bar. And I want someone MAKE her stay with me. I know I must be misunderstanding.


I think you're missing the point some of us are making. I don't think anyone marries wanting or intending to ignore the other person. And I doubt anyone marries wanting the marriage to be an inescapable prison.

But, some of us marry with a deep sense of commitment. And we would appreciate the same commitment in our spouse. I know that, if my wife had indicated to me before we wed that she was only in the marriage temporarily, until things hit a rough patch, I would never have married her.

And, to add insult to injury with the lack of commitment that exists in marriage, many people have their wealth and children held hostage by the capricious spouse. If you do everything right, your spouse can still take your kids, your house, and your retirement because he/she just doesn't like the cut of your jib anymore.

To rectify that threat, in a small way, I would appreciate if divorce courts stopped rewarding capriciousness the way they currently do. If one spouse bails on the marriage because of the need to "find himself," then he should get the short end of the stick in the division of assets. Nobody is saying that the court should refuse to permit the divorce.

Now, economic incentives like this would certainly decrease divorce. So, in a very indirect way, the courts would be encouraging people to stay married. But, if one can be enticed to stay in a marriage by a difference in the settlement amount, the marriage probably isn't as horrific as some on this thread may assume, anyway.


----------



## NobodySpecial

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I would be incentive to stay. And, given that the unhappy spouse is staying, that spouse would have incentive to improve the marriage.


The unhappy spouse has to stay. Why would that do anything to motivate the content spouse.



> I'm glad that hoping that uncommitted love will conquer all has worked for you (so far). Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out so well for the rest of society.


I did not say uncommitted. Quite the opposite. Committed to a different thing.Hope has nothing to do with it. That commitment drives my actions every day.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EnjoliWoman said:


> Really? I think EVERYONE communicates their unhappiness. I find more that the spouse doesn't listen. Which you just demonstrated. It's not about YOU not listening, it's about HER lack of character. Yeah, that's it.
> 
> Proceed with being superior. It apparently serves you well.


Some people are naturally more passive over others to their needs & try to make the best of it (my H is one of those people) .. to things that really SHOULD be brought up and communicated....then there are others who are so clear it would be like dumping water over another's head ..(that would be ME  ).... with many times trying to express what we desire, want , to go forth together... offering ideas.. communicating every which way to reach them.. ..

Then still.. there are others who EXPECT their spouse to read their minds.. they may throw subtle hints while resentment grows.. if the other is content enough & busy with other things..... it may fly right over their heads... 

This is one reason I feel it's so important to always be asking our spouse questions.. to seek out HOW THEY FEEL... pick their brains a little in a fun way.. to keep the verbal intimacy, so if something does come up, it's just easier to go there.. 

Lacking the tools for effective communication & misunderstanding how/ why the other is the way they are.. right there probably leads to many divorces....

If I had been asking the right questions in the past, I wouldn't have missed my H's unhappiness in the area of his wanting more sex... it wasn't all that bad but it could have been a lot better !! 

His being passive but *NOT one to leave over a little unhappiness* - should give him a few extra points.. just like I am one who *would leave over unhappiness* but I am not passive at all... I wear my feelings on my sleeve... very open, forthcoming ....I will over turn every rock to revive , reawaken , whatever to get my needs met- for us both to get back in the groove.... but too much rejection, not feeling cared about.. I'd have to get out.. 

The majority of those who were blindsided obviously were met with a passive Partner who downplayed her/his feelings, were secretive and would leave over unhappiness.. (not the best combination of traits there)

This would make sense to me. 

If you are one to NOT leave over unhappiness I guess it doesn't matter if you are on the passive side... you'll just stay in emotional Blaaaaah & room-matism....... but this doesn't mean our partners are LIKE US.... many times opposites attract anyway.. which explains our communication styles being so different, then missing each other so badly.. leading to being blindsided.


----------



## GTdad

Deejo said:


> Only a little?


This thread is fine if we have some idle time on our hands, but I'd urge the folks here to give Thound some support:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/private-members-section/255201-feeling-bummed-out.html


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> Some people are naturally more passive over others to their needs & try to make the best of it (my H is one of those people) .. to things that really SHOULD be brought up and communicated....then there are others who are so clear it would be like dumping water over another's head ..(that would be ME  ).... with many times trying to express what we desire, want , to go forth together... offering ideas.. communicating every which way to reach them.. ..
> 
> Then still.. there are others who EXPECT their spouse to read their minds.. they may throw subtle hints while resentment grows.. if the other is content enough & busy with other things..... it may fly right over their heads...
> 
> This is one reason I feel it's so important to always be asking our spouse questions.. to seek out HOW THEY FEEL... pick their brains a little in a fun way.. to keep the verbal intimacy, so if something does come up, it's just easier to go there..
> 
> *Lacking the tools for effective communication & misunderstanding how/ why the other is the way they are.. right there probably leads to many divorces....
> *
> If I had been asking the right questions in the past, I wouldn't have missed my H's unhappiness in the area of his wanting more sex... it wasn't all that bad but it could have been a lot better !!
> 
> His being passive but *NOT one to leave over a little unhappiness* - should give him a few extra points.. just like I am one who *would leave over unhappiness* but I am not passive at all... I wear my feelings on my sleeve... very open, forthcoming ....I will over turn every rock to revive , reawaken , whatever to get my needs met- for us both to get back in the groove.... but too much rejection, not feeling cared about.. I'd have to get out..
> 
> The majority of those who were blindsided obviously were met with a passive Partner who downplayed her/his feelings, were secretive and would leave over unhappiness.. (not the best combination of traits there)
> 
> This would make sense to me.
> 
> If you are one to NOT leave over unhappiness I guess it doesn't matter if you are on the passive side... you'll just stay in emotional Blaaaaah & room-matism....... but this doesn't mean our partners are LIKE US.... many times opposites attract anyway.. which explains our communication styles being so different, then missing each other so badly.. leading to being blindsided.


Bingo!


----------



## NobodySpecial

BronzeTorpedo said:


> And, to add insult to injury with the lack of commitment that exists in marriage, many people have their wealth and children held hostage by the capricious spouse.* If you do everything right*,


Talk 
About
The 
Entire
Point.

YOU don't get to decide what is right for HER. (Or him if you are a woman reading this.) People really don't up and upset their entire life for nothing. YOU don't get to decide that their mental health is less important to THEM than her staying with you for your convenience. 

The main point that I think people are not seeing, that I am trying to make, is that there is no objective criteria of what is "bad enough" to leave that anyone gets to make for another human being. You derisively use the term "finding themselves". But you have no idea what that might mean to them. It could be shorthand for "I have already told you this 5 million times, why would I think you would listen this time. And I am so done I don't care.

For the record, I don't support gender inequality in custody or child support.




> your spouse can still take your kids, your house, and your retirement because he/she just doesn't like the cut of your jib anymore.


I wholeheartedly support your activism in fighting this travesty in justice if it exists in your geography. Around here, custody is 50/50. Financial splits are 50/50. I hope your geography has the proper solution to this problem soon. I know I canvassed actively when these kinds of laws were being enacted.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> I wholeheartedly support your activism in fighting this travesty in justice if it exists in your geography. Around here, custody is 50/50. Financial splits are 50/50.


50/50 custody would be nice. But if there are states that say it WILL be 50/50, I'd like to know where they are.

Because my guess is even the states that say the norm is 50/50, if one parent wants to be the custodial parent and rejects the idea of 50/50, then 50/50 it won't be. And if the parent that wants to be the custodial parent is the mother....she will get it unless she is some sort of criminal, abuser, or drug addict, etc.

Maybe there are states that say 50/50, no exceptions. I don't know. But I know in good old Illinois, all the mother has to do is say she wants custody, and boom, she's got it. Around here the only way to get 50/50 is if both parents AGREE to it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> 50/50 custody would be nice. But if there are states that say it WILL be 50/50, I'd like to know where they are.
> 
> *Because my guess is even the states that say the norm is 50/50, if one parent wants to be the custodial parent and rejects the idea of 50/50, then 50/50 it won't be. * And if the parent that wants to be the custodial parent is the mother....she will get it unless she is some sort of criminal, abuser, or drug addict, etc.


Not here. 50/50. Period. Times they are changing. I know of more men paying CS and spousal support than women to boot. A close relative of mine is a lawyer who does a **** ton of divorces. She says the vast majority of her cases result in a 50/50 custody split. And her state is even more conservative than mine! North vs South issue?


----------



## vellocet

Well the I wish I live where you do. Fathers get bent over in Illinois


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> Well the I wish I live where you do. Fathers get bent over in Illinois


I am sorry to hear that. That is clearly wrong.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> I am sorry to hear that. That is clearly wrong.


My attorney even argued that I get custody, giving her joint, but I'd be the custodial parent, and also that she wouldn't have to pay me a dime in child support.

She didn't want that. She wanted the child support so that when she got remarried she could quit her job. Anyway, back to the thread.


----------



## Marduk

The thing is, courts can't mandate morality.

They can only mandate legality.


----------



## vellocet

marduk said:


> The thing is, courts can't mandate morality.
> 
> They can only mandate legality.


Sadly that is the case. That's why, when it comes to the courts, when they say they want what is best for the child...they really have no clue. Otherwise they wouldn't want a child raised by someone who is morally bankrupt.


----------



## Thundarr

Fozzy said:


> What you don't realize when your still young and struggling, and dreaming of financial security is that what you're really doing is basking in the still-untapped potentiality of your own life. Once you're older and secure, you have what you were dreaming of on the surface, but then you realize that you don't have as much life-potential left to look forward to.


It's the deception of seeking happiness from things and people rather than finding it internally. My ex and I struggled starting out but after 5-6 years of busting our butts we had our cute little house, two kids, and a couple of pets. I think it was a shock to her when have those things didn't change much. That's about the time she became unhappy, had an affair, and we eventually divorced. I wish it had been a learning experience for both of us but she re-married and repeated the same thing again.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> Sadly that is the case. That's why, when it comes to the courts, when they say they want what is best for the child...they really have no clue. Otherwise they wouldn't want a child raised by someone who is morally bankrupt.


I don't think it is sad. I don't want the courts deciding my morality. That is what my freedom and responsibility is FOR. I sure don't want a bunch of christian zealots determining my morality. I am an atheist. And in the country, I am allowed to be an atheist. And make my moral decisions.

The law is not for enforcing morals. It is for keeping us from each others' throats.


----------



## Wazza

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't think it is sad. I don't want the courts deciding my morality. That is what my freedom and responsibility is FOR. I sure don't want a bunch of christian zealots determining my morality. I am an atheist. And in the country, I am allowed to be an atheist. And make my moral decisions.
> 
> The law is not for enforcing morals. It is for keeping us from each others' throats.


I dont see it as a faith thing. It's a very secular discussion.

Marriage is a contract. It has the emotional dimension, but it also involves a lot of financial implications, and affects the lives of other family members, especially the children. I don't believe you should have unrestrained freedom in this matter because it only comes at someone else's expense. For example, custody is going to be a vexed issue, but the need for child support to be mandated is beyond dispute in my thinking, even though the way it plays out is hard on some parents sometimes.

I don't want the courts deciding morality because the law is an ass. But, like it or not, the law is forced to take black and white positions on things where right and wrong is extremely grey.


----------



## skype

This is a discussion, Yup. That means people are allowed to disagree with you. It does not make them morons or illogical.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wazza said:


> I dont see it as a faith thing. It's a very secular discussion.
> 
> Marriage is a contract. It has the emotional dimension, but it also involves a lot of financial implications, and affects the lives of other family members, especially the children. I don't believe you should have unrestrained freedom in this matter because it only comes at someone else's expense. For example, custody is going to be a vexed issue, but the need for child support to be mandated is beyond dispute in my thinking, even though the way it plays out is hard on some parents sometimes.
> 
> I don't want the courts deciding morality because the law is an ass. But, like it or not, the law is forced to take black and white positions on things where right and wrong is extremely grey.


Definitely the law needs to be involved. But not on moral basis. Leave morality to the people.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> The majority of those who were blindsided obviously were met with a passive Partner who downplayed her/his feelings, were secretive and would leave over unhappiness.. (not the best combination of traits there)


This part of your post got me thinking…. 
This is exactly what women on this thread who have left or will most likely be leaving has said. We have all given examples of very clear statements that were made… that is not passive aggressive at all.

Now, sure there are women AND men who are passive aggressive or who just hide their feelings and then one day spring the “I’m divorcing you because I’ve been unhappy for years.” On a totally, rightfully, unaware spouse.

There are also some women AND men “who have will overturn every rock to revive , reawaken , whatever to get my needs met”. But their spouse did not take them seriously, and might have even ignored them because the LBS is passive aggressive.

Since no studies have been done as to how many WAW/H’s fall into which camp, no one can say which is in the majority.

What is wrong it to say that if the LBS is shocked then it’s on the WAW/H that carry all the fault. And that is what I hear a lot of on this thread.

Keep in mind that just as men and women cheat at about the same rate, men and women walk away form good spouse at about an equal rate. This is not about either gender being good/bad. 

This thread is about a VERY PARTICULAR CASE. The case where a woman has been telling her husband that there are serious problems for a very long time, “who have will overturn every rock to revive, reawaken, whatever to get my needs met”.

This is not about passive aggressive women who never tell try to communicate and work on the marriage.

The definition of WAW/H is that the WA spouse has tried very hard to get through to a spouse who is not taking them seriously.


----------



## EleGirl

vellocet said:


> 50/50 custody would be nice. But if there are states that say it WILL be 50/50, I'd like to know where they are.
> 
> Because my guess is even the states that say the norm is 50/50, if one parent wants to be the custodial parent and rejects the idea of 50/50, then 50/50 it won't be. And if the parent that wants to be the custodial parent is the mother....she will get it unless she is some sort of criminal, abuser, or drug addict, etc.
> 
> Maybe there are states that say 50/50, no exceptions. I don't know. But I know in good old Illinois, all the mother has to do is say she wants custody, and boom, she's got it. Around here the only way to get 50/50 is if both parents AGREE to it.


Here it's 50/50 unless both parents disagree and want a different arrangement.

I had to prove that my ex was abusive. And even with that it was 60/40 with him having to do counseling with our son for a year.. then it went to 50/50. Court ordered.

I was fine with it. I originally offered 50/50 but he wanted 100% because according to him being raised by an MD is better than being raise 50% by a lowly engineer.

So the court ordered an evaluation.


----------



## hookares

MD's over Engineers? I have seen nut jobs in both professions.
But as far as the latter goes, all the women I've worked with were far more reliable when it came to decision making than many of the men.


----------



## YupItsMe

EleGirl said:


> This is exactly what women on this thread who have left or will most likely be leaving has said. We have all given examples of very clear statements that were made… that is not passive aggressive at all...


Agreed



EleGirl said:


> Now, sure there are women AND men who are passive aggressive or who just hide their feelings and then one day spring the “I’m divorcing you because I’ve been unhappy for years.” On a totally, rightfully, unaware spouse..


Is it passive or passive aggressive and are there different cases depending on which it is? I am not making an assertion. Question for discussion.



EleGirl said:


> There are also some women AND men “who have will overturn every rock to revive , reawaken , whatever to get my needs met”. But their spouse did not take them seriously, and might have even ignored them because the LBS is passive aggressive


Aggressive paired with passive not passive aggressive?



EleGirl said:


> What is wrong it to say that if the LBS is shocked then it’s on the WAW/H that carry all the fault. And that is what I hear a lot of on this thread.


This ignores the cases where the WA was timid or gave up and went silent planning the abandonment over years. You didn't do it this way but forgive me you seem hell bent on convincing others that your case is the norm it was your spouses fault. 

I agree it was his fault. I disagree you have nor I have reliable insight into what the norm is. It seems to me the silence period put the fault at the WA. The ignoring please is on the LBS. 



EleGirl said:


> Keep in mind that just as men and women cheat at about the same rate, men and women walk away form good spouse at about an equal rate. This is not about either gender being good/bad. .


:iagree:



EleGirl said:


> This thread is about a VERY PARTICULAR CASE. The case where a woman has been telling her husband that there are serious problems for a very long time, “who have will overturn every rock to revive, reawaken, whatever to get my needs met”..


Disagree but it seems that is what you keep trying to make it because it fits your personal situation. 



EleGirl said:


> This is not about passive aggressive women who never tell try to communicate and work on the marriage.”..


Plenty of the discussion is about that despite your objections to that part of the discussion. 



EleGirl said:


> The definition of WAW/H is that the WA spouse has tried very hard to get through to a spouse who is not taking them seriously.


That is your incomplete definition ignoring the subsets that are not in keeping with your situation.

-----------------

Being a comfortably confrontational person (aggressive) I wonder if the difference we are discussing are about being "confonrtational" versus "nonconfrontational" and if passive aggressive is misplaced and should be broken into a the opposing point of a "passive" paired with an "aggressive" and 

if "Passive' = "nonconfrontational" and if "aggressive" = "confrontational" 

AND if using the term passive-aggressive muddies the water too much to be worthy of its use. 

Are confrontational and non-confrontational more useful terms for the discussion. 

For the record, my wife and I are both confrontational and have saved our marriage three times with a confrontation that was heard and acted on. Her twice me once.

Also for the record when WE each STOPPED worrying about whose FAULT it was, owned are own $hit and focused on solutions instead of blaming and shaming we fixed our marriage. I think focus on fault is destructive, results in the equivalent of name-calling and ignores point three for the record

Also for the record, the single most effective tool in saving my marriage was when my wife or I said "That's a fair criticism" when the other was talking. It creates good will. 

NEVER when it was obvious the other was trying to determine FAULT did it results in anything good.

IF you are obsessing about fault and trying to save your marriage, in my experienced view, you wont succeed until you stop obsessing about whose fault it is. It is destructive. Take the blame for your $hit with dignity, let them save face and move on to fixing your marraige and being happy again


----------



## Wazza

EnjoliWoman said:


> Really? I think EVERYONE communicates their unhappiness. I find more that the spouse doesn't listen.


I think people express their unhappiness. It's not necessarily communicated. Big difference.

It then becomes easy to say the spouse didn't listen, and no doubt it's true sometimes.


----------



## YupItsMe

Wazza said:


> I think people express their unhappiness. It's not necessarily communicated. Big difference.
> 
> It then becomes easy to say the spouse didn't listen, and no doubt it's true sometimes.


:iagree: and fault is irrelevant to solving the puzzle of fixing the marriage. 

Keep trying to get the message thru until you are at your wits end and then it's time to leave and it wasn't you. 

In order to bake a cake, you must have all the ingredients or it does not turn out. 

Same with marriage.

Assigning blame or figuring out fault is not one of the ingredients needed to have a happy marriage. 

A caring, action-oriented problem-solving spouse and the ability to hear and be heard loud and clear are.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

NobodySpecial said:


> The unhappy spouse has to stay. Why would that do anything to motivate the content spouse.


People are generally motivated to improve their situation.



> I did not say uncommitted. Quite the opposite. Committed to a different thing.Hope has nothing to do with it. That commitment drives my actions every day.


I suppose we just have different definitions of commitment. I've always thought that talk was cheap. If a woman made vows to me, but refused to put them in writing, I would be suspicious of her commitment.

That seems to be what you're arguing. Let's take people at their word when they claim to be committed. But, it would be terribly unfair to expect them to put their money where their mouths are.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> There are also some women AND men “who have will overturn every rock to revive , reawaken , whatever to get my needs met”. But their spouse did not take them seriously, and might have even ignored them because the LBS is passive aggressive.


 I should know what LBS means.. it has to be something awfully simple & in front of my face but I can't figure it out...??

But of course...some spouses (male & female -even if you hit them with a brick .. and again and again, they brush you off, they put up a wall.. that's why I think it's best to leave a spouse like this, life is too short, get OUT ! )... so even if one does all they can, the other's actions basically have our hands tied behind our backs.. and nothing will change anyway...it's futile... 



> Since no studies have been done as to how many WAW/H’s fall into which camp, no one can say which is in the majority.
> 
> What is wrong it to say that if the LBS is shocked then it’s on the WAW/H that carry all the fault. And that is what I hear a lot of on this thread.
> 
> Keep in mind that just as men and women cheat at about the same rate, men and women walk away form good spouse at about an equal rate. * This is not about either gender being good/bad.*


 I didn't think I was implying that it was..I was very careful in my post to be gender neutral.. come on Elegirl , give me a little credit this time.. 



> *This thread is about a VERY PARTICULAR CASE. The case where a woman has been telling her husband that there are serious problems for a very long time, “who have will overturn every rock to revive, reawaken, whatever to get my needs met”.
> 
> This is not about passive aggressive women who never tell try to communicate and work on the marriage.*
> 
> The definition of WAW/H is that the WA spouse has tried very hard to get through to a spouse who is not taking them seriously.


 I wasn't paying any attention to the original post, just reading random posts on here & jumping in .. ..well I would be all for this wife leaving her husband -if she has done all you have suggested here.. why should she stay.. she has been met a brick wall.. and he's proven nothing she says affects him at all.. he's hardened to her.. and her needs.. Ya know, if he is not humble enough to own his own faults , and meet her half way.. what is there to work with.. at some point, you either decide to live with it -as is.. and stop banging your head against the wall.. or get out.. I wouldn't blame her, would you ?

And if she does.. this husband, in good conscience has no right to say he was blindsided then.. he was basically "warned" where this was heading.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

NobodySpecial said:


> YOU don't get to decide what is right for HER. (Or him if you are a woman reading this.)


But she gets to decide what is right for me? And why can't we use your standard for other laws? What if my peace of mind required me to punch my neighbor in the face? I would be arrested. But why? Don't I deserve to be happy? What right does a judge, or legislator, have to dictate the terms of my behavior?



> People really don't up and upset their entire life for nothing.


Of course they do. Don't pretend that people don't divorce for frivolous reasons. That's the entire reason why marriage vows exist. You promise to remain married to your spouse unless you have a really good reason not to. If people never left marriages unless they had great reason, they wouldn't have to take the vows.



> YOU don't get to decide that their mental health is less important to THEM than her staying with you for your convenience.


Except that it violates the vow he/she took. So, again, why can't I punch my neighbor? Why can't your employer violate your contract of employment? Who are you to claim that your right to be compensated under the contract you both signed trumps your employer's right to be happy by being rid of you?



> The main point that I think people are not seeing, that I am trying to make, is that there is no objective criteria of what is "bad enough" to leave that anyone gets to make for another human being.


And what you refuse to see is that you are treating divorce as an entirely different concept of law where the rules of the universe don't apply anymore. Now, if you're really serious about maintaining neutrality toward all behavior, then I assume you would be in favor of treating child molesters and spousal abusers favorably during divorce proceedings, correct? Or even repealing all criminal law entirely?

I also assume that you would use just as much enthusiasm for parents interested in abandoning their children. What if raising kids was really a drag? What if a parent's mental well being required them to drop off their child at an orphanage and live the single life again. Do we have the right to look down on those parents? Or is judgment too bourgeois?



> You derisively use the term "finding themselves". But you have no idea what that might mean to them. It could be shorthand for "I have already told you this 5 million times, why would I think you would listen this time. And I am so done I don't care.


It could mean that. Or, it could apply to a woman like Lucy Valantine, who stated, "my husband was a lovely chap. He was kind and gentle and my friends all loved him. There was nothing wrong with him, but it wasn’t enough. I wanted to change my life." So, she divorced him, got a tattoo, bought a motorcycle, and started traveling.


----------



## chillymorn

EnjoliWoman said:


> Really? I think EVERYONE communicates their unhappiness. I find more that the spouse doesn't listen. Which you just demonstrated. It's not about YOU not listening, it's about HER lack of character. Yeah, that's it.
> 
> Proceed with being superior. It apparently serves you well.


everyone!


so let me get this straight.

your opinion is that if the spouse communicated that they were unhappy enough then if they cheat its ok. it was because they were unhappy so they don't need to worry about the damage it dose to their children or their husband.

their not morally wrong it just happened so oh well!


we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## NobodySpecial

chillymorn said:


> everyone!
> 
> 
> so let me get this straight.
> 
> your opinion is that if the spouse communicated that they were unhappy enough then if they cheat its ok. it was because they were unhappy so they don't need to worry about the damage it dose to their children or their husband.
> 
> their not morally wrong it just happened so oh well!
> 
> 
> we will have to agree to disagree.


Hell no. That sure as heck not what I am saying.


----------



## NobodySpecial

YupItsMe said:


> :iagree: and fault is irrelevant to solving the puzzle of fixing the marriage.


A frickn' men.



> Keep trying to get the message thru until you are at your wits end and then it's time to leave and it wasn't you.
> 
> In order to bake a cake, you must have all the ingredients or it does not turn out.
> 
> Same with marriage.
> 
> Assigning blame or figuring out fault is not one of the ingredients needed to have a happy marriage.
> 
> A caring, action-oriented problem-solving spouse and the ability to hear and be heard loud and clear are.


ANd halleluhia


----------



## NobodySpecial

BronzeTorpedo said:


> But she gets to decide what is right for me?


You can only choose your actions. This is sort of life 101.




> And why can't we use your standard for other laws? What if my peace of mind required me to punch my neighbor in the face? I would be arrested. But why? Don't I deserve to be happy? What right does a judge, or legislator, have to dictate the terms of my behavior?


You don't deserve to be happy by requiring actions from someone else that do not violate your civil liberties.



> Of course they do. Don't pretend that people don't divorce for frivolous reasons.


I have no interest in THEIR reasons. They are theirs, not mine.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

NobodySpecial said:


> You can only choose your actions. This is sort of life 101.


But you usually have to face the consequences of your actions. That would be life 102. Why should divorce be the one exception to that rule? Or, should it be the only exception? Are you recommending the end of consequences in all areas of life, or just divorce?



> You don't deserve to be happy by requiring actions from someone else that do not violate your civil liberties.


My example required no action from anyone else. My neighbor just has to stand there while I sock him in the nose. I'm the only one who took action and I'm happy, so everything's good, right?



> I have no interest in THEIR reasons. They are theirs, not mine.


Sorry if I wasn't clear. We're not talking about your specific marriage. We're talking about marriage in general. So, the reasons of other people do come into play. Especially when you make claims like people don't divorce for nothing.


----------



## YupItsMe

For the record 

Bricks and 2x4's sometimes work and sometimes they don't. 

It is your choice whether or not to try them. 

If you chose not to use them then don't say you tried everything because your credibility is shot. 

If you did use them then we are not talking to you when we said you didn't try everything so relax. 

Investing energy in determining fault is taking energy away from your problem solving efforts.


----------



## jld

YupItsMe said:


> Investing energy in determining fault is taking energy away from your problem solving efforts.


:iagree:


----------



## YupItsMe

Who's fault is it when 

1. Your dog pees on your carpet
2. Your kid fails math
3. Your spouse does not comprehend your direct statement that "you are plotting divorce because s/he is a neglectful, oblivious, dense, deaf, self-centered bastard"

Who cares? Figure out what to do about it or have your dog, carpet, kid and marriage fail.


----------



## vellocet

chillymorn said:


> everyone!
> 
> 
> so let me get this straight.
> 
> your opinion is that if the spouse communicated that they were unhappy enough then if they cheat its ok. it was because they were unhappy so they don't need to worry about the damage it dose to their children or their husband.
> 
> their not morally wrong it just happened so oh well!
> 
> 
> we will have to agree to disagree.



I don't think anyone is saying cheating is ok.

What I feel the theme is, that if one communicated to their spouse, and cheated, that they simply don't feel bad for the BS.

They should have known, its their own fault the were cheated on.

*Makes me wanna*


----------



## SimplyAmorous

YupItsMe said:


> Investing energy in determining fault is taking energy away from your problem solving efforts.



Well this won't go over with a lot of people but I think it starts with some humility.. to just listen.. really listen and hear ALL THE HARD stuff the other has to say.. don't interrupt.. just listen at their feet.. then being able to admit where WE let them down too...this will stop the cycle of defenses with each other.. 

My husband feels the biggest problem in marriages is just plain old stubbornness , everyone wants to be right.. they want the other to cave first..and sometimes you just have to put the marriage first.. He's been a good example to me....


----------



## EleGirl

YupItsMe said:


> Is it passive or passive aggressive and are there different cases depending on which it is? I am not making an assertion. Question for discussion.


Good point. I’m sure that there this goes from just passive to passive aggressive depending on the couple.

Could also be that they are both passive or both passive aggressive. 

There are so many possibilities that to say that here is only one type of situation in which it might appear that one spouse is a WAW/H is impossible.

This is why I asked women on here to tell about what they have/had done so that we could talk about specific situations and not the vast array of possible ones. Guess that did not work out so well.


EleGirl said:


> There are also some women AND men “who have will overturn every rock to revive , reawaken , whatever to get my needs met”. But their spouse did not take them seriously, and might have even ignored them because the LBS is passive aggressive





YupItsMe said:


> Aggressive paired with passive not passive aggressive?


I am not sure if that is aggressive paired with passive. The word “aggressive” is usually used in a negative context when used to describe women.

Is it aggressive for a person to try everything they can think of and that is suggested from books and counselors) in an attempt to work on their marriage so that it was fulfilling for both spouses? I would not call that aggressive in a negative senses. I would call it doing the right thing.


EleGirl said:


> This thread is about a VERY PARTICULAR CASE. The case where a woman has been telling her husband that there are serious problems for a very long time, “who have will overturn every rock to revive, reawaken, whatever to get my needs met”..





YupItsMe said:


> This ignores the cases where the WA was timid or gave up and went silent planning the abandonment over years.


I went back and re-read the article. You are right. The article did not say whether or not the women have been passive or ‘aggressive’ (in a good way) in trying to get their husband to be present in the marriage. Since this thread started, I have read several articles that talk about this topic. I was thinking that the posted article said that they women have tried everything. It does not.


YupItsMe said:


> You didn't do it this way but forgive me you seem hell bent on convincing others that your case is the norm it was your spouses fault.


You have misunderstand what I have been doing on this thread. I asked women for specific examples of what they have done. That gives us something concrete to talk about. I believe that every woman, to the number, gave clear examples of very clear statements and attempts to engage their husbands. Some gave ultimatums.

Despite that, many (if not most) of the men on this thread have told the * women on this thread * that whatever we did, it was not enough. It was our problem because we did not communicate like a man, or men don’t listen because all women do is nag, we did not figure out the secret man code.

If some women had said that they kept it to themselves, he should have known.. then I would have addressed that. But I do not recall any women saying anything near that.

I have not been discussing general cases. It’s impossible to do that exempt to say yea it’s awful and the couple needs to work together. They need to get help.
I used by case as an example and discussion point because it’s the one that I know the most about. Not to convince anyone of anything about whose fault it was or was not. I could care less whose fault the breakup of my marriage was. I was giving examples of how clear and direct I was and how he responded to (or did not respond to) what I tried. I also answered questions about that marriage that I was directly asked.


EleGirl said:


> What is wrong it to say that if the LBS is shocked then it’s on the WAW/H that carry all the fault. And that is what I hear a lot of on this thread.





YupItsMe said:


> I disagree you have nor I have reliable insight into what the norm is.


Again you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that without knowing the situation, we cannot know who is or is not at fault. To simply say that the WAW/H is always at fault is not valid. To say that if the LBS is shocked, then the WAW/H did not try hard enough in most cases is to make a judgment that eh speaker had now basis of making. It would be just as incorrect for me to make the judgment that in most cases the LBS in the wrong. We haven’t a clue. There are no studies that I could find that have looked at this. I doubt that it would be possible to even objectively collect such data.



YupItsMe said:


> It seems to me the silence period put the fault at the WA. The ignoring please is on the LBS.


I disagree that the silence period puts the WA at fault. 

Insanity. “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."


If the WA spends years trying every darn thing possible to get the LBS to be present and work with them on the marriage, there comes a point where it becomes clear that there is nothing they can do to make a different. The only choices they have are to live with the marriage as is or to leave.

Why would anyone continue working on something that they have zero influence over?




YupItsMe said:


> Plenty of the discussion is about that despite your objections to that part of the discussion.


Yes there is a group of posters on this thread saying that basically all WAW are passive aggressive women who never tell try to communicate and work on the marriage and then leave the marriage for stupid things.

Most of the women, myself included, have argued that yes there are WAW who are like that. But there are many who are not. Not all women are like that. 

Most of those arguing that all WAWs are passive aggressive are telling the women here, who have given real examples from their real lives, that they are wrong, that they (the women posing here) are passive aggressive and have not found the secret of how to convince their husbands that they should be respected and listened to. And until the women find this secret way to talk to their husbands, whatever they say and/or do is nothing more than nagging.

When a man here posts that his wife left him for what he feels are frivolous reasons. Or he says that she never once voiced that there was a problem but then she walked out… I’m not about to tell that man that he just did not find the secret code to keep his wife and so it’s his fault that she walked. Why would I do that? I have no clue. He lived it. I did not.

Why are women who have given examples of very clear things they have said being told that they have not done enough?


EleGirl said:


> The definition of WAW/H is that the WA spouse has tried very hard to get through to a spouse who is not taking them seriously.





YupItsMe said:


> That is your incomplete definition ignoring the subsets that are not in keeping with your situation.


Nope, not by definition. I got that definition from reading books and articles about it. Here are a few. Every one of them includes that the WA spouse has tried very hard to get through to a spouse who is not taking them seriously. I you have an issue with the definition, then talk to the authors.
Get Relationship Advice and Solve Marriage Problems with Michele Weiner-Davis - Divorce Busting®
The Walkaway Wife Syndrome | DivorceNet.com
I Didn’t Even Know You Were So Unhappy… | Denver & Littleton's Bentley Marriage and Family Counseling, LLC


----------



## vellocet

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well this won't go over with a lot of people but I think it starts with some humility.. to just listen.. really listen and hear ALL THE HARD stuff the other has to say.. don't interrupt.. just listen at their feet.. then being able to admit where WE let them down too...this will stop the cycle of defenses with each other..
> 
> My husband feels the biggest problem in marriages is just plain old stubbornness , everyone wants to be right.. they want the other to cave first..and sometimes you just have to put the marriage first.. He's been a good example to me....


I can go along with that.

So the one assigning blame for their thoughts on straying or leaving need to also listen after their blamed spouse starts talking.

So lets pose this scenario, and I am only linking it to some "threat" or announcement of being vulnerable to cheat, since the "threat" of a SO leaving if things don't get better is one I can live with.

Lets say I sit down, I listen to everything, I take it to heart, I even have to sit there and take "I am vulnerable to an affair", or "do you want me to get my needs met elsewhere?"

And after that talk, things improve. I own my shyte, I work on everything she wanted. She is satisfied.

Now, I have a problem. I'm meeting her needs, but now I'm not liking that I was basically threatened with cheating, and yes, saying she is vulnerable to an affair is the same thing to me.
So now, there is an issue I think she needs to deal with....her thoughts of betraying me if I didn't do what she wanted.

How should she address that? How is she going to then, after me meeting her needs, fix what she did?


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well this won't go over with a lot of people but I think it starts with some *humility.*. to just listen.. *really listen and hear ALL THE HARD stuff* the other has to say.. don't interrupt.. just listen at their feet.. then *being able to admit where WE let them down* too...this will stop the cycle of defenses with each other..
> 
> My husband feels the biggest problem in marriages is just plain old stubbornness , everyone wants to be right.. they want the other to cave first..and sometimes you just have to put the marriage first.. He's been a good example to me....


:iagree:


----------



## southbound

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I think you're missing the point some of us are making. I don't think anyone marries wanting or intending to ignore the other person. And I doubt anyone marries wanting the marriage to be an inescapable prison.
> 
> But, some of us marry with a deep sense of commitment. And we would appreciate the same commitment in our spouse. I know that, if my wife had indicated to me before we wed that she was only in the marriage temporarily, until things hit a rough patch, I would never have married her.


Same here. If I had known that my x wife was only in it while things were peachy, then I would have passed.

If I ever find someone else that I want a relationship with, we will certainly have that big talk about what we want out of life; something I never did in depth when in my early 20s before I married.

I can also assure you that I will in no way mislead them trying to paint a rosier than reality picture of myself. I didn't do that before, but I also guess I didn't emphasize how easy i am to please in life and that I'm a very laid back kind of guy. 

I guess i didn't see the need to emphasize my personality before, but next time, I will certainly be sure they know that I'm a laid back guy who isn't into the rat-race that seems to be the norm today, and my idea of a good time is the sofa and a good movie. I want to make sure they know who i am.


----------



## NobodySpecial

BronzeTorpedo said:


> But you usually have to face the consequences of your actions. That would be life 102.


Absolutely. If it was a good decision, the consequence is that she will be happy. If it was a bad decision, she will be unhappy.



> Why should divorce be the one exception to that rule? Or, should it be the only exception? Are you recommending the end of consequences in all areas of life, or just divorce?


It would be impossible to eradicate consequences. That is what choice is all about.



> My example required no action from anyone else. My neighbor just has to stand there while I sock him in the nose. I'm the only one who took action and I'm happy, so everything's good, right?


Well I guess if you are ok with having violated his civil rights. Those do have legal consequence. I am fine with you writing to your legislator for the resumption of fault marriage. I would not support that legislation.



> Sorry if I wasn't clear.


You are mistaking me for not understanding. I understand you perfectly. I just don't agree with you.



> We're not talking about your specific marriage. We're talking about marriage in general.


Yah. And generally, recognizing what is in the sphere of your control and what isn't is a good thing to do.I advocate recommitting to genuine happiness. In its absence, I advocate moving along. It is pretty simple. Since I love my husband, if he was unhappy and was no longer interested in trying to solve it, I would have failed. I would hope he would do what it took to try for happiness. I would hope he would choose to do it with me. I would support him if he chose otherwise.



> So, the reasons of other people do come into play. Especially when you make claims like people don't divorce for nothing.


I did not claim people don't divorce for nothing. I claimed that YOU don't like THEIR reasons.


----------



## Wazza

It might be a statement of the obvious but.....life is not always fair. You don't always get what you want.

You can always find areas where you lose out for someone else's sake. And it's not fair!

Lots of us here (me included) go to great lengths to explain how right we are and it was our partner's fault.

I do believe things can reach a point where walking away is necessary, but I also believe at times it is right to subjugate your own needs to someone else's.

Love is an act.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> I don't think anyone is saying cheating is ok.
> 
> What I feel the theme is, that if one communicated to their spouse, and cheated, that they simply don't feel bad for the BS.
> 
> They should have known, its their own fault the were cheated on.


I have been focused on the leaving not the cheating. I don't think that is what being said at all, for my part.


----------



## vellocet

Wazza said:


> It might be a statement of the obvious but.....life is not always fair. You don't always get what you want.
> 
> You can always find areas where you lose out for someone else's sake. And it's not fair!
> 
> Lots of us here (me included) go to great lengths to explain how right we are and it was our partner's fault.
> 
> I do believe things can reach a point where walking away is necessary, but I also believe at times it is right to subjugate your own needs to someone else's.
> 
> Love is an act.


Is this in response to the scenario and questions I posed?


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> Is his in response to the scenario and questions I posed?


Your wife was a useless ***** and you are well rid of her? Ok, that was me.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> I have been focused on the leaving not the cheating. I don't think that is what being said at all, for my part.


I know. I'm referring to the ones that might apply the leaving "threat" equally to the cheating "threat"


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> Your wife was a useless ***** and you are well rid of her? Ok, that was me.


Oh, that scenario has nothing to do with my x-wife, because that's not how my situation went down.

Its the one I posed for the sake of argument


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> I know. I'm referring to the ones that might apply the leaving "threat" equally to the cheating "threat"


Has anyone said that? If so, I missed it.


----------



## vellocet

Wazza said:


> It might be a statement of the obvious but.....life is not always fair. You don't always get what you want.
> 
> You can always find areas where you lose out for someone else's sake. And it's not fair!


Which is why I'm not a big fan of reconciliation. I think too many times its one sided, gaslighting crap.

"Do as I want, or I'll go elsewhere" "Yes, you are meeting my needs, but I don't owe you peace of mind when it comes to the threats that I made to you".......no thanks.

If I reconcile and make good on need meeting with someone that made threats to me(of the cheating nature anyway), then she better bend over backwards to repair the damage of her words.




> I do believe things can reach a point where walking away is necessary, but I also believe at times it is right to subjugate your own needs to someone else's.


I don't. If one wants their needs met, they better damn well then reciprocate.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> Has anyone said that? If so, I missed it.


No, again, some people are thinking strictly about the "leaving", as you are, and some have also addressed the "cheating", and not making any distinctions in the outcome for the person not meeting said needs.


----------



## EleGirl

YupItsMe said:


> Being a comfortably confrontational person (aggressive) I wonder if the difference we are discussing are about being "confonrtational" versus "nonconfrontational" and if passive aggressive is misplaced and should be broken into a the opposing point of a "passive" paired with an "aggressive" and
> 
> if "Passive' = "nonconfrontational" and if "aggressive" = "confrontational"
> 
> AND if using the term passive-aggressive muddies the water too much to be worthy of its use.
> Are confrontational and non-confrontational more useful terms for the discussion.


Now I feel like I’m in logic class 


YupItsMe said:


> For the record, my wife and I are both confrontational and have saved our marriage three times with a confrontation that was heard and acted on. Her twice me once.
> 
> Also for the record when WE each STOPPED worrying about whose FAULT it was, owned are own $hit and focused on solutions instead of blaming and shaming we fixed our marriage. I think focus on fault is destructive, results in the equivalent of name-calling and ignores point three for the record


You used your marriage as an example (a good example) and so I will use mine as an example (good example because it makes my point)

My ex and I are both confrontational as you define it here. When things were going well between us, what you describe about your relationship here also could be used to describe ours. Trying to assign blame and dragging every silly/stupid little thing from the past is useless. Figure out the big picture and change both of your behaviors to fix things.

When we started to have problems, he continued to be confrontational. Someone earlier characterized him as a bad communicator. I disagree. He’s a great communicator. Silence and absence can be a very strong form of commutation. 70% of human communication is non-verbal. HE was communicating. But not about things to fix the marriage or any issues I’d bring up. He stopped being willing to anything but drag up stuff from the past and be critical/mean in the present. He also would not own his own **** or focus on solutions. The issue was that he did not care to solve anything. 

You are absolutely right that you and your wife handle conflict the probably the best way possible. But in order for a couple to do this, they have to BOTH be willing to do it.




YupItsMe said:


> Also for the record, the single most effective tool in saving my marriage was when my wife or I said "That's a fair criticism" when the other was talking. It creates good will.
> 
> NEVER when it was obvious the other was trying to determine FAULT did it results in anything good.
> 
> IF you are obsessing about fault and trying to save your marriage, in my experienced view, you wont succeed until you stop obsessing about whose fault it is. It is destructive. Take the blame for your $hit with dignity, let them save face and move on to fixing your marraige and being happy again


----------



## SurpriseMyself

BronzeTorpedo said:


> You've done a marvelous job of summarizing the rationalizations people use to justify breaking up a family. And it certainly seems logical and intuitive. The only problem is that, in most cases, it's totally wrong.
> 
> Many different studies have established, in many different ways, that children of broken homes aren't as happy and well adjusted as children of intact homes.
> 
> It would certainly be great news for us if we could establish that doing whatever we want, with no consideration for the impact on others, was the best thing we could do for our families. Unfortunately, that's just not the case.
> 
> Now, I'm not here claiming to be holier than thou. It's entirely possible that, in the future, I'll leave my wife and kids, buy a sports car, and start chasing cheerleaders. But if I do, I hope I'll have enough courage to admit that I'm not doing it for the benefit of my kids.


Parental Conflict and Marital Disruption

See for yourself. And by the way, I specifically said "high-conflict marriage" when I was saying children are better off if the parents divorce.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> I should know what LBS means.. it has to be something awfully simple & in front of my face but I can't figure it out...??


LBS = left behind spouse as opposed to the WAS


SimplyAmorous said:


> But of course...some spouses (male & female -even if you hit them with a brick .. and again and again, they brush you off, they put up a wall.. that's why I think it's best to leave a spouse like this, life is too short, get OUT ! )... so even if one does all they can, the other's actions basically have our hands tied behind our backs.. and nothing will change anyway...it's futile...


:iagree:



SimplyAmorous said:


> The majority of those who were blindsided obviously were met with a passive Partner who downplayed her/his feelings, were secretive and would leave over unhappiness.. (not the best combination of traits there)


Ok let’s go back to the above post that I was addressing. This thread is about WAWs. The definition of a WAW is a woman who has tried to fix issues in her marriage for years. Her husband does not take the things she brings up seriously. He is not present in the marriage. So he thinks he’s happy so everything is ok. Then after years of her trying and him ignoring, she leaves. In this syndrome, she has not been passive aggressive. She has done what you say you would do. And he has ignored it. Now that she actually leaves, he is shocked.

This is why I commented on your post.. 

Obviousy if a woman (or man) is passive aggressive, never tells their spouse that they are unhappy… a spouse who would have been more than willing to work on this… the passive aggressive WAW/H shoulders a HUGE portion of the fault.





SimplyAmorous said:


> I wasn't paying any attention to the original post, just reading random posts on here & jumping in .. ..well I would be all for this wife leaving her husband -if she has done all you have suggested here.. why should she stay.. she has been met a brick wall.. and he's proven nothing she says affects him at all.. he's hardened to her.. and her needs.. Ya know, if he is not humble enough to own his own faults , and meet her half way.. what is there to work with.. at some point, you either decide to live with it -as is.. and stop banging your head against the wall.. or get out.. I wouldn't blame her, would you ?
> 
> And if she does.. this husband, in good conscience has no right to say he was blindsided then.. he was basically "warned" where this was heading.


I also would not blame a man who left a wife like that. 

See we agree, 100%. :smthumbup:


----------



## SurpriseMyself

BronzeTorpedo said:


> But, some of us marry with a deep sense of commitment. And we would appreciate the same commitment in our spouse. I know that, if my wife had indicated to me before we wed that she was only in the marriage temporarily, until things hit a rough patch, I would never have married her.


I think it comes down to what someone considers commitment to the marriage. For some, it just means they won't leave. But that is very different from being committed to making the marriage work.

My H has never once said he's committed to making our marriage work. He has said plenty of times that he won't leave. There's a big difference.


----------



## EleGirl

YupItsMe said:


> For the record
> 
> Bricks and 2x4's sometimes work and sometimes they don't.
> 
> It is your choice whether or not to try them.
> 
> If you chose not to use them then don't say you tried everything because your credibility is shot.
> 
> If you did use them then we are not talking to you when we said you didn't try everything so relax.
> 
> Investing energy in determining fault is taking energy away from your problem solving efforts.


Determining fault is not the issue. The issue is what are people doing wrong. Those who used bricks are 2x4's were told, in this thread, that they did not do enough.. that they have to learn how to talk like a man so that men will understand.

But no one will tell what that means.. except for giving ultimatums which many did ... but were still told that was not good enough.

Solutions... what are the solutions? How to get a person who just is not taking I seriously to do so?


----------



## lifeistooshort

SurpriseMyself said:


> I think it comes down to what someone considers commitment to the marriage. For some, it just means they won't leave. But that is very different from being committed to making the marriage work.
> 
> My H has never once said he's committed to making our marriage work. He has said plenty of times that he won't leave. There's a big difference.


Yep, this was my ex. What kind of spouse he was wasn't important but he was staying. And he was never all that concerned with the kids until I left.

People like this are the biggest selfish cowards of all. They won't put forth any effort but they also won't make the difficult decision to leave. They'll stay, take what they can and do them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

YupItsMe said:


> Who's fault is it when
> 
> 1. Your dog pees on your carpet
> 2. Your kid fails math
> 3. Your spouse does not comprehend your direct statement that "you are plotting divorce because s/he is a neglectful, oblivious, dense, deaf, self-centered bastard"
> 
> Who cares? Figure out what to do about it or have your dog, carpet, kid and marriage fail.


Dogs, cats and carpet aside  

What do you suggest a person do in #3? That is the question at hand.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> Determining fault is not the issue. The issue is what are people doing wrong. Those who used bricks are 2x4's were told, in this thread, that they did not do enough.. that they have to learn how to talk like a man so that men will understand.


And why not? If we are solutions focused, we focus on solutions. 


> But no one will tell what that means.. except for giving ultimatums which many did ... but were still told that was not good enough.


Gah. Stop talking with words. Talk with actions. Measure your words and actions to only include the important stuff. I think it is pretty fair to say that many women want a LOT of change from their spouses after marriage. I remember my A Ha moment when I realized that if I had to change everything from my opinion on the importance of sponges, dishes and counters to be acceptable to my spouse how terrible unloved and unhappy I would be.



> Solutions... what are the solutions? How to get a person who just is not taking I seriously to do so?


Talk less. Do more.


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ And I don't mean do more housework. I mean
- Do more lightening up and letting go. Accepting. After all, we chose these guys.
- Where you must stand your ground, do it with effective limit setting.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> It might be a statement of the obvious but.....life is not always fair. You don't always get what you want.
> 
> You can always find areas where you lose out for someone else's sake. And it's not fair!
> 
> Lots of us here (me included) go to great lengths to explain how right we are and it was our partner's fault.
> 
> I do believe things can reach a point where walking away is necessary, but I also believe at times it is right to subjugate your own needs to someone else's.
> 
> Love is an act.


I think that everyone here would agree that there are times to subjugate your own needs to someone else's. I will bet that all of us have at times. Probably for long periods of time.

Yep you do not always get what you want. This goes two ways. One person will say that they have a need for X in their marriage. The other person says that they are happy and likes things exactly as they are and thus ignores the other’s request.

So which is it that has to give up with they want? Is there a way for both of them to have what they want? Can they both give a little so that both can have at least some of what they want making the marriage better for both of them?

Or is one of them obligated to give up an important need for years, decades, because the other is happy with things as they are. (Note that they are happy with the status quo know thing that their spouse is profoundly unhappy. Hence they are happy to get what they want and unwilling to subjugate their own needs to their spouse. )

This is a two way street.

Love is an act. But it does not mean that one spouse has to live in a situation that they find hurtful for years. It’s an act for both spouses.


----------



## chillymorn

EleGirl said:


> I think that everyone here would agree that there are times to subjugate your own needs to someone else's. I will bet that all of us have at times. Probably for long periods of time.
> 
> Yep you do not always get what you want. This goes two ways. One person will say that they have a need for X in their marriage. The other person says that they are happy and likes things exactly as they are and thus ignores the other’s request.
> 
> So which is it that has to give up with they want? Is there a way for both of them to have what they want? Can they both give a little so that both can have at least some of what they want making the marriage better for both of them?
> Or is one of them obligated to give up an important need for years, decades, because the others is happy with things as they are. (Note that they are happy with the status quo know thing that their spouse is profoundly unhappy. Hence they are happy to get what they want and unwilling to subjugate their own needs to their spouse.
> 
> This is a two way street.
> 
> Love is an act. But it does not mean that one spouse has live in a situation that they find hurtful for years. It’s an act for both spouses.


very well put!


----------



## EleGirl

NobodySpecial said:


> And why not? If we are solutions focused, we focus on solutions.
> 
> Gah. Stop talking with words. Talk with actions. Measure your words and actions to only include the important stuff. I think it is pretty fair to say that many women want a LOT of change from their spouses after marriage. I remember my A Ha moment when I realized that if I had to change everything from my opinion on the importance of sponges, dishes and counters to be acceptable to my spouse how terrible unloved and unhappy I would be.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk less. Do more.


I agree that there are things beside words that work. And try those for sure.

And that is what I asked... what are the solutions... you have given more things to try.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> I agree that there are things beside words that work. And try those for sure.
> 
> And that is what I asked... what are the solutions... you have given more things to try.


There is no try. Do. Or do not.

I think I will go watch Star Wars.


----------



## EleGirl

NobodySpecial said:


> There is no try. Do. Or do not.
> 
> I think I will go watch Star Wars.


OK I will reword that... 

I agree that there are things beside words that work. And do those for sure.

And that is what I asked... what are the solutions... you have given more things to do.


But when something is done and it is no more effective then words, we have 'tried' that action.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> OK I will reword that...
> 
> I agree that there are things beside words that work. And do those for sure.
> 
> And that is what I asked... what are the solutions... you have given more things to do.
> 
> 
> But when something is done and it is no more effective then words, we have 'tried' that action.


I was just joking around.


----------



## lifeistooshort

NobodySpecial said:


> There is no try. Do. Or do not.
> 
> I think I will go watch Star Wars.



I recommend Star Trek.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

lifeistooshort said:


> I recommend Star Trek.


Finally a post that makes sense


----------



## southbound

Wolf1974 said:


> It isn't the worse thing perhaps. But let's not pretend it is nothing or irrelevant either. In many cases it is the ending and defining moment in a marriage. And I wish that it was counted in courts. Was a real eye opener that my x could bring a guy into our house, screw him on our bed 5 feet from my sleeping daughters and in the courts eyes no big deal.


It's seems like it's no big deal in anybody's eyes either. I've noticed that people are very accepting of people's actions. An example is this:

I live in a small town, and i was with my daughter in a waiting room recently, and there were three couples there who had divorced and remarried due to them cheating and causing a bunch of drama.

I was amazed as to how other people who came in would talk to them as if they were the most wonderful creatures on earth. They would even inquire as to what they were doing as a couple; things like, "Oh, I hear you all are going to Florida this summer; oh, you'll like that." I'm sitting there about to puke.


----------



## lifeistooshort

EleGirl said:


> Finally a post that makes sense



I aim to please 

All hail Spock.....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

southbound said:


> It's seems like it's no big deal in anybody's eyes either. I've noticed that people are very accepting of people's actions. An example is this:
> 
> I live in a small town, and i was with my daughter in a waiting room recently, and there were three couples there who had divorced and remarried due to them cheating and causing a bunch of drama.
> 
> I was amazed as to how other people who came in would talk to them as if they were the most wonderful creatures on earth. They would even inquire as to what they were doing as a couple; things like, "Oh, I hear you all are going to Florida this summer; oh, you'll like that." I'm sitting there about to puke.


If you can walk into a waiting room, see three couples, and know the personal history of all 3, I'd say that town is too small!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

I know it's too late with me and my H. 

I think every woman who knows they are getting close to wanting to leave owes it to their man to speak up. And every woman who is done also owes it to her H to let him know so he won't waste his energy trying. The trick is to listen and take things seriously before it's too late.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wazza

vellocet said:


> Wazza said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be a statement of the obvious but.....life is not always fair. You don't always get what you want.
> 
> You can always find areas where you lose out for someone else's sake. And it's not fair!
> 
> Lots of us here (me included) go to great lengths to explain how right we are and it was our partner's fault.
> 
> I do believe things can reach a point where walking away is necessary, but I also believe at times it is right to subjugate your own needs to someone else's.
> 
> Love is an act.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this in response to the scenario and questions I posed?
Click to expand...

I wasn't writing with you in mind but I think its relevant to some of your posts.


----------



## Wazza

vellocet said:


> Wazza said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be a statement of the obvious but.....life is not always fair. You don't always get what you want.
> 
> You can always find areas where you lose out for someone else's sake. And it's not fair!
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I'm not a big fan of reconciliation. I think too many times its one sided, gaslighting crap.
> 
> "Do as I want, or I'll go elsewhere" "Yes, you are meeting my needs, but I don't owe you peace of mind when it comes to the threats that I made to you".......no thanks.
> 
> If I reconcile and make good on need meeting with someone that made threats to me(of the cheating nature anyway), then she better bend over backwards to repair the damage of her words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe things can reach a point where walking away is necessary, but I also believe at times it is right to subjugate your own needs to someone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't. If one wants their needs met, they better damn well then reciprocate.
Click to expand...

I understand the decision. Was it your decision? And what is the impact to your kids? Whose needs are uppermost in your thinking, theirs or yours?

I'm not criticising it, but I am articulating the impact of the decision. You could not make it fair but didn't you have the power to influence where the impact of the unfairness was felt?

Sorry, I worry what I am writing will be hurtful and I don't want that. But I can't engage with your ideas unless we talk about this stuff.


----------



## Wolf1974

SurpriseMyself said:


> If you can walk into a waiting room, see three couples, and know the personal history of all 3, I'd say that town is too small!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sadly I did grow up I'm a town like this. I thought he maybe was describing it lol


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> Love is an act. But it does not mean that one spouse has to live in a situation that they find hurtful for years. It’s an act for both spouses.


I did. For my kids. 

And in the process learned a lot about fixing the marriage, including things I could do better, that I would not have learned if I had walked.

It's not for everyone but I don't regret it.


----------



## southbound

Wazza said:


> I did. For my kids.
> 
> And in the process learned a lot about fixing the marriage, including things I could do better, that I would not have learned if I had walked.
> 
> It's not for everyone but I don't regret it.


This is exactly the reason that so many feel that walking away from a marriage for what some feel are petty reasons is bad. It's not that we want someone to be unhappy the rest of their life or that we don't care, but when i hear a story like this and the person admits that they don't regret it, it makes me wonder how many others would have not regretted it either had they stayed and worked a little longer.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

I think knowledge would help people become more self-aware. They did a study in Europe where couples went into counseling. In one group, they artificially gave the couples a synthetic oxytocin. The couples in this group were more willing to compromise, listen, work on the issues, and forgive the small stuff. No doctor will prescribe that spray. Scientist do not know if you constantly raise a hormone, will you be able to produce it naturally over time, and they do not know what effect it will have over the other hormonal system.

So, the stronger the bond, the less things like sponges, forgetting to throw out the trash, and all the other little things will matter less. In fact, if couples are able to constantly introduce the honeymoon phase time and time again, one spouse will probably remember to throw out the trash, and each spouse will probably give more oral sex. Couples that introduce the romantic phase has a higher sex life. For men, the dopamine is also needed to get an erection. The more in love you feel, the more dopamine is released. That is why people have so much sex while in the honeymoon phase. That is why a majority of therapist recommend working on the relationship aspect. It is better for families if the parents put their relationship over the children. Not saying neglect the children, but hire a babysitter, send them to relatives, or do what some of my relatives do, and that is take care of each other children when they want to have couple alone time. If couples want to reduce the chance of children growing up in a broken home, put the relationship first. Plus seeing their parents be loving towards each other, they might pick up those habits.

Here is something to consider. Think of a bond between an acquaintance, a friend, and a best friend. The closer the bond, the more you look past those flaws. If an acquaintance made you angry, you will most likely not forgive that person, and the more bonded you are, you would likely forgive your best friend and cut that person more slack. Pretty much, the higher the bond, the less you let certain irritation get to you.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

vellocet said:


> I can go along with that.
> 
> So the one assigning blame for their thoughts on straying or leaving need to also listen after their blamed spouse starts talking.
> 
> So lets pose this scenario, and I am only linking it to some "threat" or announcement of being vulnerable to cheat, since the "threat" of a SO leaving if things don't get better is one I can live with.
> 
> Lets say I sit down, I listen to everything, I take it to heart, I even have to sit there and take "I am vulnerable to an affair", or "do you want me to get my needs met elsewhere?"
> 
> And after that talk, things improve. I own my shyte, I work on everything she wanted. She is satisfied.
> 
> Now, I have a problem. I'm meeting her needs, but now I'm not liking that I was basically threatened with cheating, and yes, saying she is vulnerable to an affair is the same thing to me.
> So now, there is an issue I think she needs to deal with....her thoughts of betraying me if I didn't do what she wanted.
> 
> *How should she address that? How is she going to then, after me meeting her needs, fix what she did?*


You are suggesting that THOUGHTS, speaking our hearts in pain ... are on some plane with betrayal.... This can get really murky -*depending on it's delivery*.....so much of this should be spoken in a way that makes our spouse feel -you are hurting because you WANT MORE OF THEM.. they are WHO YOU ARE AFTER ... you miss THEM, talking to them, holding them, you want to get back to WHAT WAS..... if this is not spoken clearly before any thought of crossing a fence is uttered.. then it's going to be so much harder to live down... 

For the record, I am not talking about cheating. I am suggesting leaving first so a person is less likely to fall into the arms of another.....betraying someone you once loved, even if one has built a wall of resentment over the years --it's never the way to go ... 

I just feel the temptation to cheat will be much higher when a spouse is not happy at home, when the bed is cold, the affection is lacking... when what communication there is.. leaves us crying alone at night.. and they just long to be accepted & understood...(and wanted)

Vellocet...I am a HUGE proponent of what I call "a willing Transparency".... I could not be with someone who refused to share.. it would be a deal breaker in dating, HIGH on my list.. and honesty goes along with this.. I don't expect perfection -perfect thoughts.. that our feelings don't get out of whack, but I do expect honesty ...so I have something to work with.. to know where I stand.. 

I have a specific view on what you are asking.. 

My H COULD get away with saying that to me. ... in this instance.. He loved me , and wanted me.. *but I realized my actions or rejection LED him to that place*.. for speaking such a thing.. sure it would be hard to hear , it would crush me but also in that delivery, I would need to understand I have crushed him .. don't you see... If I didn't crush him.. he wouldn't be in that position...to be sitting there pouring this out to me..

(I am just using all that as an example, we never had this conversation )... but if I KNEW his heart never wanted that -but ME the whole time... Yes, I could get over a comment like that.. However, if I felt nothing I did was good enough.. he was a man who was never content & needed a variety of women... that is another animal altogether to asses....on how to go forward.. .. I just don't feel they are the same.. *One loves deeply but is in pain.. the other is selfishly motivated.*. 

The honest communication.. being vulnerable ... with humility can sort this out.. so I feel...

This was a part of my Transparency  thread...



> This is about being * Genuinely Authentic*, NO MASKS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is real life.......Sometimes our
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> may become unsettled/ conflicted for whatever reason, we are tempted to pick up a mask, maybe we wear many masks ! But with our spouse, we should need none. ....We need to take these unhealthy "stirrings" to our spouse , go to them humbly- heartfully ... at this point these things are very small "breaks", only seeds.... this is radical mind you -but this *IS *Transparency at it's core......
> 
> We do this.....because we LOVE & RESPECT our spouses, We throw away the excuses, no grass growing under our feet, we REFUSE to go the easy way of "hiding". ...... Never Never Never underestimate the power of Secrets, it is the beginning of every Slippery Slope that leads to the death of something that once was "beautiful".
> 
> .... A mountain the size of Everest is thrown in here when we are met with an overy sensitive highly offended spouse who will throw their hands up in the air & say 'I am not listening to this, I'm out of here!!" crying betrayal .....before listening. This is very very disheartening. Some likely need counseling dealing specifically with *communication *before true transparency can even be entertained.
> 
> ....I think of a old dusty transparent glass sculpture (this could be the spouse who is stuggling with something) ...and the hearer could either be a hammer -shattering its form to peices ....or a fine linen caring to shine & restore it's beauty again.
> 
> 
> 
> *Both partners must fully acknowledge :*
> 
> *Temptations* can befall ANYONE -look at the rate of infidelity, many who feel it could never happen to them- eat those words. We must be realistic, understanding human nature, even it's darker side, the heart can be SELFISH at times, wanting it's own. We, as well as our spouses, are capable of doing/saying CARELESS things, even for attention, a little excitement, our egos, having weak moments, overspending on impulse, we are also capable of verbal venom when HURT or just plain frustrated. What else is new under the sun. If you are above all of this, you are a rare person indeed. I, for one, am not.
> 
> But yet...we are damned determined, despite all of these unfavorable things about ourselves ......to do right by our spouse, chasing after a clear conscience -because we need to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror every day. For those with integrity, this is a MUST.
> 
> On the recieving end......we also understand the meaning of GRACE......Yes, it hurts, LOVE HURTS, but we must appreciate his/her honesty in coming forth, for not taking the easy slippery road to betrayal. When heartfelt communication is engaged in, sometimes their will be tears even, we offer understanding, it is not so easy to be in their shoes either. This is where we need to get to the ROOT of THE WHY'S.... what led to this place. What is missing, or is it just sinister? Determine to work through it ....commincation never stopping... To give wings to a budding resentment, and get back on the bridge of emotional connection, we patch these little breaks as we go along, never to revisit them in future arguments , or holding them against the other .


----------



## YupItsMe

@Elegirl 

I believe you mentioned something along the line of aggressive characteristics are looked at as a negative for a woman. 

Not at my house. We find passives boring, inefficient and uncourageous

I teach my daughter to go after what she believes in and not to take any $hit just LIKE HER MOM AND MY WIFE. 

I also recruit, interview, hire and train a lot of women. I look for aggressive. IF you want a more soothing term that means the same thing then call it assertive. 

I don't want any wall flowers on my bus. Stake your claim. Woman roar and all that jazz.

As far as what to do when you tried everything and it just wont fix, OK then leave. 

You claim women that have tried everything including bricks, 2x4s, ultimatums and talking like a man have been told that what they tried to save their marriage still isn't good enough is bull. 

You imagined that and have been unnecessarily defensive about it. It isn't there. No one said that. 

All that has been said is to make sure you do all you can to try your very best to remove any possibility that the shock the LBS experiences is not due to their failure in clear communication as a WA.

It is exhausting for you to keep insisting otherwise. It isn't there. You decisions and actions are hereby fully validated. Your husband did not hold up his end and you did everything you could do. A successful marriage was not in the cards because the vital ingredients that he was supposed to bring were not brought. 

It's not your fault. I imagine everyone agrees. There was nothing else you could do. 

It sucks and I am sorry. I am luckier than you. Mt spouse owned her $hit. I owned mine. You owned yours. Your spouse didn't 

It's not your bad. Nothing else you could do.

I feel for you. I would not trade. I do not want to lose my marriage over personal shortcomings and neither does my wife. 

It appears your spouse didn't thing that way. 

Not your fault.


----------



## Anon Pink

YupItsMe said:


> You claim women that have tried everything including bricks, 2x4s, ultimatums and talking like a man have been told that what they tried to save their marriage still isn't good enough is bull.
> 
> You imagined that and have been unnecessarily defensive about it. It isn't there. No one said that.


WHAT? This entire thread has been a few dedicated men vehemently swearing that they did everything and she still cheated, or left or wouldn't have sex, or her needs were outrageous/petty to begin with. Women who wrote what they said, when they said it and their H's response. Women who admitted to be WAW and admitted the shock their husbands professed when the marriage ended. WHAT? Have you read the thread?

Apologies to those men who actually took the opportunity to exchange ideas. Octillo, Deejo, Personal, Thundarr...others...

See these posts that contradict your assertion YupItsMe.
Forrest post # 3
BetrayedDad post#21
Chillymorn post # 48
Vellocet post # 47 in which cheating wife is read into the topic when it originally had nothing to do with the OP. 
Chillymorn post #86 and 88. The point of these two posts was to state that "he gave her what she asked for but it wasn't good enough" While this may have been accurate in his marriage, his post however, completely minimized the point of the op article. "That the men in his practice who have been shocked by their wives leaving them: didn't listen to what their wives are telling them. That they minimized her needs, that they discount her needs, that they do the bare minimum in meeting her needs."

Hookares 140 "some women don't appreciate a roof over her head."
Chillymorn 142 "unrealistic expectations"
Chillymorn 137 "accept him as he is"
Vellocet post 123 "you admit you would cheat if he didn't meet your needs.
Vellocet 147 "flimsy excuses to be vulnerable to cheat"

Enter the multiple posts in which women are told that they must not have been clear enough...

That article and this thread COULD have been so much more productive. The article wasn't intended to be a finger pointing battle of the sexes. But as you look back through this thread you will find COUNTLESS posts from men that minimize and discount whatever need their wife stated. (I refused to give her what she wanted because I felt it was ridiculous) Many posts from men stating she wasn't clear enough. (Ladies use a 2x4) and many posts from men stating that if she used the terms vulnerable to cheating she made her pleas for needs met null and void. (It's a threat, no it's a statement of feeling)

I've walked away from this thread so many times because it is pointless to debate. Those that can hear will. Those that can't ...won't.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> WHAT? This entire thread has been a few dedicated men vehemently swearing that they did everything and she still cheated, or left or wouldn't have sex, or her needs were outrageous/petty to begin with. Women who wrote what they said, when they said it and their H's response. Women who admitted to be WAW and admitted the shock their husbands professed when the marriage ended. WHAT? Have you read the thread?
> 
> Apologies to those men who actually took the opportunity to exchange ideas. Octillo, Deejo, Personal, Thundarr...others...
> 
> See these posts that contradict your assertion YupItsMe.
> Forrest post # 3
> BetrayedDad post#21
> Chillymorn post # 48
> Vellocet post # 47 in which cheating wife is read into the topic when it originally had nothing to do with the OP.
> Chillymorn post #86 and 88. The point of these two posts was to state that "he gave her what she asked for but it wasn't good enough" While this may have been accurate in his marriage, his post however, completely minimized the point of the op article. "That the men in his practice who have been shocked by their wives leaving them: didn't listen to what their wives are telling them. That they minimized her needs, that they discount her needs, that they do the bare minimum in meeting her needs."
> 
> Hookares 140 "some women don't appreciate a roof over her head."
> Chillymorn 142 "unrealistic expectations"
> Chillymorn 137 "accept him as he is"
> Vellocet post 123 "you admit you would cheat if he didn't meet your needs.
> Vellocet 147 "flimsy excuses to be vulnerable to cheat"
> 
> Enter the multiple posts in which women are told that they must not have been clear enough...
> 
> That article and this thread COULD have been so much more productive. The article wasn't intended to be a finger pointing battle of the sexes. But as you look back through this thread you will find COUNTLESS posts from men that minimize and discount whatever need their wife stated. (I refused to give her what she wanted because I felt it was ridiculous) Many posts from men stating she wasn't clear enough. (Ladies use a 2x4) and many posts from men stating that if she used the terms vulnerable to cheating she made her pleas for needs met null and void. (It's a threat, no it's a statement of feeling)
> 
> I've walked away from this thread so many times because it is pointless to debate. Those that can hear will. Those that can't ...won't.


Anon their were plenty of women who were minimizing on here as well. Discussions on here, like discussions in marriage, only happen when both parties are open to the exchange of ideas and not condescending attacks. 

If you remove the women are heartless *****es rants and the men are evil insensitive toad rants what you see is that we are NOT close in communication. If at a fundamental level you don't have communication you can't have a good relatioship or a productive topic. 

Seemingly a big part of the lost communication is the ability to read and not take it so personally. But rather to exchange ideas, even if it's not agree upon, to learn why the "other 1/2" feels the way they do.

I learned a lot here on why the WAW/H seems to occur.


----------



## Jellybeans

NobodySpecial said:


> I have been focused on the leaving not the cheating. I don't think that is what being said at all, for my part.





vellocet said:


> I'm referring to the ones that might apply the leaving "threat" equally to the cheating "threat"


I feel like a lot of these threads about women, despite the topic being about something else entirely, get turned into:

_SHE CHEATED!!!!!!!! She is scum, etc._ A witchhunt and then a debate about nothing related to the main topic. 

It's like that other Virgin/Wh0re thread - when women were asked to post what their experiences were, a lot of people came on and tried to downplay what the posters were saying about their experiences; as if those hadn't really been their experiences.

Just something I notice.


----------



## vellocet

Wazza said:


> I understand the decision. Was it your decision? And what is the impact to your kids? Whose needs are uppermost in your thinking, theirs or yours?
> 
> I'm not criticising it, but I am articulating the impact of the decision. You could not make it fair but didn't you have the power to influence where the impact of the unfairness was felt?
> 
> Sorry, I worry what I am writing will be hurtful and I don't want that. But I can't engage with your ideas unless we talk about this stuff.


The concept being discussed in this thread was not my situation. I wasn't facing any "threat", leaving, cheating or otherwise.

She cheated, I left. Whose needs are uppermost, my kids or mine? Always my kids. But she is the one that cheated, their need for an intact family and lack of is on her. She is the one that didn't think about their needs.


----------



## vellocet

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have a specific view on what you are asking..
> 
> My H COULD get away with saying that to me. ... in this instance.. He loved me , and wanted me.. *but I realized my actions or rejection LED him to that place*.. for speaking such a thing.. sure it would be hard to hear , it would crush me but also in that delivery, I would need to understand I have crushed him .. don't you see... If I didn't crush him.. he wouldn't be in that position...to be sitting there pouring this out to me..


Well that's you, not me. For me, lets say I could meet all of her needs after the "threat".

But now, I am going to be the one dissatisfied with things by what she said. Would that just be "tough sh!t" for me?


----------



## vellocet

> and many posts from men stating that if she used the terms vulnerable to cheating she made her pleas for needs met null and void.


No, it doesn't make her feelings null a void, but once I hear a word about getting it elsewhere, I'm simply no longer interested in working on it at that point. Because I could cave into that kind of blackmail and do everything she wants, but NOW I will have dissatisfaction having to think I'll have to look over my shoulder.



Anon Pink said:


> I've walked away from this thread so many times because it is pointless to debate. Those that can hear will. Those that can't ...won't.


Then take the plugs out of your ears. Those words apply to you as well.


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> I feel like a lot of these threads about women, despite the topic being about something else entirely, get turned into:
> 
> _SHE CHEATED!!!!!!!! She is scum, etc._ A witchhunt and then a debate about nothing related to the main topic.


I feel absolutely the same about men that cheat. They have given the rest of us a bad name as well.

As far as not relating to the main topic, well, even though the article didn't really mention cheating, for some reason it was in the title on the link on the first post(and although I wasn't the first one to bring up cheating, I was guilty of playing on the title of the link)

But we hear all the time about leaving or getting needs met elsewhere. So even though the article didn't touch on it, it is a part of it. Because that is what we are told, if someone doesn't leave, then they think about getting it elsewhere.

So it does address the topic, and it doesn't. Are we not to interject things for the sake of argument that are somewhat related to the topic?

Threads evolve, and I don't think tying the leaving part if needs aren't met to cheating if needs aren't met is not going so far off topic that it can't be discussed.

I have said that I would listen and work on my issues under a "threat" of leaving. I can live with that. I won't under the "threat" of cheating.


----------



## Jellybeans

Right but I was discussing this thread in particular and the other one. It just is a theme I notice over and over again when it's a topic about women that has nothing to do with cheating.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> ...and many posts from men stating that if she used the terms vulnerable to cheating she made her pleas for needs met null and void. (It's a threat, no it's a statement of feeling)


To be fair, Anon Pink, the question was actually asked (Page 16) so men naturally responded.

My response was not because I don't understand the feeling or don't understand temptation. --Believe me, I do.  

At the same time though, there is an ethical reason why verbal reference to a firearm, for example in an argument is still aggravated assault even when it's not phrased as a threat. --Creating the apprehension in the other person's mind is not materially different than the threat itself. 

There is an idea threaded throughout history that women are ethically inferior to men. You can find it in mythology, the Bible, the Quran, in anti-suffrage arguments of the 19th century and even in books aimed at helping a man fix a sexless marriage. I've objected to that idea almost from day one here on TAM.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> The article wasn't intended to be a finger pointing battle of the sexes. But as you look back through this thread you will find COUNTLESS posts from men that minimize and discount whatever need their wife stated.


And yet what was the very first post in this thread to make it a battle of sexes? .....post #5


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> Vellocet post 123 "you admit you would cheat if he didn't meet your needs.
> Vellocet 147 "flimsy excuses to be vulnerable to cheat"
> 
> Enter the multiple posts in which women are told that they must not have been clear enough...


Ahem, clearly taken out of context, which doesn't surprise me.

Those comments by me were when it seemed that the ONLY thing she had to complain about was not doing the housework like she would have liked.

She then LATER explained all the other things, not feeling loved, a laundry list of other things, etc.

To which my response was, even though not an excuse to cheat or think about it, that it made more sense now as opposed to feeling that way simply over house work.

But nice try :smthumbup:


----------



## Wolf1974

Jellybeans said:


> Right but I was discussing this thread in particular and the other one. It just is a theme I notice over and over again when it's a topic about women that has nothing to do with cheating.


I can see that. I didn't get the feeling that this thread was about cheating. I felt it was more about the breakdown in communication and not cheating. But that was the angle I was coming from so maybe I didn't see the it a prolific as you. 

I do agree that that way to many threads turn into projecting on gender issues and cheating issues. Both the genders are playing into that and some posters are forcibly pushing that agenda in every thread they are in.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> Ahem, clearly taken out of context, which doesn't surprise me.
> 
> Those comments by me were when it seemed that the ONLY thing she had to complain about was not doing the housework like she would have liked.
> 
> She then LATER explained all the other things, not feeling loved, a laundry list of other things, etc.
> 
> To which my response was, even though not an excuse to cheat or think about it, that it made more sense now as opposed to feeling that way simply over house work.
> 
> But nice try :smthumbup:


I find it hard to think of leaving and cheating as similar phenomenon. Cheating has the whole "fog" thing. Making stuff up in retrospect to justify yourself to yourself.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> *I find it hard to think of leaving and cheating as similar phenomenon*. Cheating has the whole "fog" thing. Making stuff up in retrospect to justify yourself to yourself.


I agree, which is why I can live with someone telling me they would leave if things don't improve. That's when I'd do the best I can to be a better partner, if indeed that was the real problem.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> I agree, which is why I can live with someone telling me they would leave if things don't improve. That's when I'd do the best I can to be a better partner, if indeed that was the real problem.


I am not sure where the notion of a cheat ultimatum came from. But that just sounds nutty to me.


----------



## Wazza

NobodySpecial said:


> I find it hard to think of leaving and cheating as similar phenomenon. Cheating has the whole "fog" thing. Making stuff up in retrospect to justify yourself to yourself.


I think leaving potentially has the same thing.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure where the notion of a cheat ultimatum came from. But that just sounds nutty to me.


It was just brought up as a point of argument. The OP had nothing to do with it (even though the link title was wrong and included cheating)


----------



## Anon Pink

My apologies Octillo I must have missed that post. Can you give my a post number?



ocotillo said:


> To be fair, Anon Pink, the question was actually asked (Page 16) so men naturally responded.
> 
> My response was not because I don't understand the feeling or don't understand temptation. --Believe me, I do.
> 
> At the same time though, there is an ethical reason why verbal reference to a firearm, for example in an argument is still aggravated assault even when it's not phrased as a threat. --Creating the apprehension in the other person's mind is not materially different than the threat itself.
> 
> There is an idea threaded throughout history that women are ethically inferior to men. You can find it in mythology, the Bible, the Quran, in anti-suffrage arguments of the 19th century and even in books aimed at helping a man fix a sexless marriage. I've objected to that idea almost from day one here on TAM.


You raise a very good point about the reference to a firearm during an argument being chargeable as aggravated assault. However, the most obvious difference is that 'vulnerable to cheating' cannot in anyway infer the potential death of the spouse. It does infer the potential death of the marriage and ...ONCE AGAIN Id like to point out that in my case the admission of an affair potential/divorce was AFTER repeated attempts to fix this marriage, followed by the 180 to emotionally separate, followed by reconciliation, followed by back sliding, followed by reconciliation, followed by back sliding..etc etc etc.

I'm curious why you felt compelled to include your second statement about the history of men's opinion of women being inferior. This is nothing new to women, we've lived. If I could I would award you with a blue ribbon sticker for being neither an apologist, a chauvinist, nor a revisionist, but an ally for respect for both men and women.






vellocet said:


> And yet what was the very first post in this thread to make it a battle of sexes? .....post #5



Try again...post #3 was the very first post to make this sexist.




vellocet said:


> Ahem, clearly taken out of context, which doesn't surprise me.
> 
> Those comments by me were when it seemed that the ONLY thing she had to complain about was not doing the housework like she would have liked.
> 
> She then LATER explained all the other things, not feeling loved, a laundry list of other things, etc.
> 
> To which my response was, even though not an excuse to cheat or think about it, that it made more sense now as opposed to feeling that way simply over house work.
> 
> But nice try :smthumbup:


Minimizing....

Vellocet, you fail to listen at every turn. You must always be right you can never be wrong and you must always have the last word. I therefore give you leave to reply to the post and tell me how wrong I am. I will give you final word on that too.


----------



## Anon Pink

vellocet said:


> I agree, which is why I can live with someone telling me they would leave if things don't improve. That's when I'd do the best I can to be a better partner, if indeed that was the real problem.


I'll tell you why I said it.

My husband didn't believe I would leave. He thought I was just nagging. He didn't take me seriously. Making the admission that I didn't know what to do next, have an affair or just divorce, was his wake up call that I was serious because men have always flirted with me and if I wanted to cheat it would have been so easy to do so. That he could see potentially happening. That was real to him. That woke him up...sort of.


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure where the notion of a cheat ultimatum came from. But that just sounds nutty to me.


It sounds nutty to be as well but here's a quote from the article and where I think it started from. 


> QUOTED FROM ARTICLE
> -----------------------------------
> Women in my office tell me “Someone could come and sweep me off my feet, right out from under my husband.” Sometimes the realization scares them. Sometimes they cry.


It's scary to think people feel this way because even good marriages have ups and downs. Maybe some of these women are sad that they would feel tempted but they wouldn't give into temptation. Either way, I'm with Vel and you on this one. Hearing those words from my spouse might spell the beginning of the end rather than being a wakeup call.


----------



## Thundarr

Anon Pink said:


> I'll tell you why I said it.
> 
> My husband didn't believe I would leave. He thought I was just nagging. He didn't take me seriously. Making the admission that I didn't know what to do next, have an affair or just divorce, was his wake up call that I was serious because men have always flirted with me and if I wanted to cheat it would have been so easy to do so. That he could see potentially happening. That was real to him. That woke him up...sort of.


Seems risky but I'm glad it made a difference and things are improving. But you know your husband and he knows you so maybe it wasn't risky at all. Every relationship is unique.


----------



## EleGirl

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure where the notion of a cheat ultimatum came from. But that just sounds nutty to me.


No one even suggested giving a cheat ultimatum. 

What was said by one poster is that her husband seriously neglects her needs. She has noticed that she is responding to men giving her complements and paying attention to her. So she is being very careful to avoid this and to protect herself and her marriage. 

She said something about wondering if explaining to her husband that she is reacting in a very bad way to the neglect, no time together, etc. It was not about an ultimatum. It was about a woman who is trying to figure out how to get her husband to take her emotional pain seriously. So she put out a post on here to get help and was wondering if talking to her husband about what she has noticed about herself would be helpful.

From there some spun it into a meet my petty demands or I'll cheat ultimatum. 

Note that no care or thought was given to a poster who poured what she is struggling with on here to get help. Instead she became the poster child for an immoral wife.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> No one even suggested giving a cheat ultimatum.
> 
> What was said by one poster is that her husband seriously neglects her needs. She has noticed that she is responding to men giving her complements and paying attention to her. So she is being very careful to avoid this and to protect herself and her marriage.
> 
> She said something about wondering if explaining to her husband that she is reacting in a very bad way to the neglect, no time together, etc. It was not about an ultimatum. It was about a woman who is trying to figure out how to get her husband to take her emotional pain seriously. So she put out a post on here to get help and was wondering if talking to her husband about what she has noticed about herself would be helpful.
> 
> From there some spun it into a meet my petty demands or I'll cheat ultimatum.
> 
> Note that no care or thought was given to a poster who poured what she is struggling with on here to get help. Instead she became the poster child for an immoral wife.


Ah. Gotcha.


----------



## EleGirl

Thundarr said:


> It sounds nutty to be as well but here's a quote from the article and where I think it started from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UOTED FROM ARTICLE
> -----------------------------------
> Women in my office tell me “Someone could come and sweep me off my feet, right out from under my husband.” Sometimes the realization scares them. Sometimes they cry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's scary to think people feel this way because even good marriages have ups and downs. Maybe some of these women are sad that they would feel tempted but they wouldn't give into temptation. Either way, I'm with Vel and you on this one. Hearing those words from my spouse might spell the beginning of the end rather than being a wakeup call.
Click to expand...

Was that article linked to on this thread? I do not recall it. 

Yes, saying things like that could lead to the end of the marriage. It could also lead to a wakeup call. Or it could lead to more just being ignored.

Giving the ultimatum of just leaving has exactly the same potential set of results.

I'm not advocating using an ultimatum of cheating. But it apparently has worked for some.

If my husband told me that the TO HIM the marriage was so bad that he was having strong urges to cheat, I would be glad that he told me what is going on with him. People have thoughts and feelings that just happen. I want him to tell me what he is thinking and feeling. If I make it unsafe for him to do this, it puts a HUGE wedge between us.

So.. if he tell me that I will pay attention and see what needs to be done to fix things. I do not want my husband to be in such pain.

Now if he said "I have cheated" or I found out that the did.. that's a completely different story. 

It's the difference between words, thoughts and actions. 

But that's me.


----------



## Thundarr

EleGirl said:


> Was that article linked to on this thread? I do not recall it.
> 
> Yes, saying things like that could lead to the end of the marriage. It could also lead to a wakeup call. Or it could lead to more just being ignored.
> 
> Giving the ultimatum of just leaving has exactly the same potential set of results.
> 
> I'm not advocating using an ultimatum of cheating. But it apparently has worked for some.
> 
> If my husband told me that the TO HIM the marriage was so bad that he was having strong urges to cheat, I would be glad that he told me what is going on with him. People have thoughts and feelings that just happen. I want him to tell me what he is thinking and feeling. If I make it unsafe for him to do this, it puts a HUGE wedge between us.
> 
> So.. if he tell me that I will pay attention and see what needs to be done to fix things. I do not want my husband to be in such pain.
> 
> Now if he said "I have cheated" or I found out that the did.. that's a completely different story.
> 
> It's the difference between words, thoughts and actions.
> 
> But that's me.


Yes the link is in the opening comment. So I'm trying to imagine how I'd react if that were said to me and I think it's one of those things where it has to be experienced to know one way or the other. Plus a bunch of other factors would come into play. You're right; not only has it worked for some but it's worked for at least one on this thread.


----------



## Deejo

EleGirl said:


> Was that article linked to on this thread? I do not recall it.


Damn Ele, for all of the talk about clear communication, and understanding, gotta admit I chuckled.

The quote is directly from the link in the original post that kicked off this whole kerfuffle.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

vellocet said:


> *Well that's you, not me. For me, lets say I could meet all of her needs after the "threat".
> 
> But now, I am going to be the one dissatisfied with things by what she said. Would that just be "tough sh!t" for me?*


Ok.. so you are the type who can't forgive something said....there are PLENTY of people LIKE YOU.... I am not one of them however.. neither is my husband.. so I guess we can say any darn thing to each other.. and we enjoy making up....that's all the FUN! 

I have a GF like this.. she will cut off any friend who hurt her with words.. her motto is .. since you can't take words back....don't speak anything ugly out of her mouth.... well guess what.. some of us are not so perfect.. (and it's not like she doesn't do it either behind the scenes- about those people)

She tried to dump me as a friend, playing the huge passive aggressive silent treatment BS that I seen her do multiple times to a handful of others -then hated them, would never forgive... well ya know what.. I wasn't going to allow her to do this so easily... 

I called her up & humbly asked her to come over, I wanted to talk to her, to please give me a chance.. .....Yeah I said something NASTY & hurtful in a careless moment that got back to her.. we took a long walk in my backyard.. it was emotional, there were tears... I humbled my sorry a** and explained EXACTLY where my head was at when I said the asinine comment that I did.. (I was hurt too ya see).. 

After we had this heart to heart.. she has called me her best friend for the last 16 yrs... So my point again is.. Communication can save 2 people.. and if one insists on being a stubborn mule ...and unforgiving ... it can divide & separate people FOR LIFE and they can miss many beautiful things that could have been... 

So I have a different take on this over you entirely.. that things spoken CAN be forgiven.. 

No.. I don't feel either spouse should feel like it's "tough sh**"... the one who spoke the hurtful thing needs to explain WHY they did it , the other has a right to question that to the depths.. so they can understand where they are at...and WHY.... *both need to work with each other until they BOTH feel secure again - in their love for each other*.. 

Another friend of mine was cheated on by her husband.. she stayed with him.. I helped her through that when her church wanted to ex-communicate him & divorce him.. .She did the right thing to stay... they are happy today.. family intact... thriving... ..If I asked her which would have been better.. his saying something like THAT to alert her .. or crossing that physical line...because he felt he couldn't talk to her...(he was rejected so much before that happened). .. I'm sure she would choose the other.. over what happened & how difficult it was to get through it...so she could be alerted to the WEIGHT of how he was struggling...

I don't know your story, was you cheated on? Do you feel your wife didn't express how lonely she was or whatever her issue was with you?? I said this in an earlier post.. if I felt my H wanted ANYONE else over me.. truly.. I would pack his bags.. I couldn't live with that.. NOW THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME..... NOT something said... before the physical crossing of the line takes place.. 

I wonder this.. what is worse.. someone who spoke if they got weak enough, being rejected, needs not met.. admitting they could fall into an affair... with the intention to ALERT ....(as Anon has explained)... And let's face it...the most unscrupulous people won't even GO there.. they will LIE, hide, fake it.. and sneak behind your back.. don't kid yourself!...

Or they feel ho hum about their marriage , still can't get over an old flame or maybe they have fallen in love with a co-worker.... I guess we all have our personal boundaries.. I'm not going to judge yours... you are entitled Reject that sort of ALERT as crossing a line .... It's your life.. 

But still.... the fact so many can NOT bring what is on their hearts to their spouses IS a huge problem... 



> *Anon Pink said: *M*y husband didn't believe I would leave. He thought I was just nagging. He didn't take me seriously. Making the admission that I didn't know what to do next, have an affair or just divorce, was his wake up call that I was serious because men have always flirted with me and if I wanted to cheat it would have been so easy to do so. That he could see potentially happening. That was real to him. That woke him up...sort of*.


 See... I give you a tremendous amount of credit for sticking it out as long as you have...I remember some of your threads ..... I can't see me doing that.. I would never have *that much patience* with a man feeling I was continually nagging & brushing me off.. for years... 

It's a shame SOME have to be reached by these unfortunate measures.. that BRICK I say.....








.... where nothing else did.. which is precisely WHY we have WALK AWAYS...



> *EleGirl said*: *Yes, saying things like that could lead to the end of the marriage. It could also lead to a wakeup call. Or it could lead to more just being ignored.*
> 
> Giving the ultimatum of just leaving has exactly the same potential set of results.
> 
> I'm not advocating using an ultimatum of cheating. But it apparently has worked for some.
> 
> *If my husband told me that the TO HIM the marriage was so bad that he was having strong urges to cheat, I would be glad that he told me what is going on with him. People have thoughts and feelings that just happen. I want him to tell me what he is thinking and feeling. If I make it unsafe for him to do this, it puts a HUGE wedge between us.*
> 
> *So.. if he tell me that I will pay attention and see what needs to be done to fix things. I do not want my husband to be in such pain.*
> 
> *Now if he said "I have cheated" or I found out that the did.. that's a completely different story.
> 
> It's the difference between words, thoughts and actions.
> 
> But that's me.*


I feel the same..


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> My apologies Ocotillo I must have missed that post. Can you give my a post number?


12020529. This is the question in its entirety from the bottom of page 16. It was directed specifically to Vellocet, but others naturally joined in since this is an open discussion:



EnjoliWoman said:


> I think the better approach would be "I'm vulnerable/ripe for an affair because" and instead of finger pointing, specify the needs - "because I don't feel emotionally connected anymore because I don't feel you ever focus on me when I talk to you" or whatever the deep reasons are.
> 
> How would you feel if THAT were the approach?






Anon Pink said:


> You raise a very good point about the reference to a firearm during an argument being chargeable as aggravated assault. However, the most obvious difference is that 'vulnerable to cheating' cannot in anyway infer the potential death of the spouse.


I picked that example only because it can be proven. The intent of the comparison is not to claim commonality with the acts themselves, but with the reason why threats don't have to be stated in some combination of the active voice / indicative mood. (i.e. It's enough to create an apprehension.) 

I would argue that we could insert any unethical act into the sentence, "I'm vulnerable/ripe for {Insert Act} because" and we would have the same problem. There is no, "Because" (In the sense of justification.) with something unethical. 




Anon Pink said:


> ...ONCE AGAIN Id like to point out that in my case the admission of an affair potential/divorce was AFTER repeated attempts to fix this marriage, followed by the 180 to emotionally separate, followed by reconciliation, followed by back sliding, followed by reconciliation, followed by back sliding..etc etc etc.


I apologize if I'm coming across as judgmental. That's not my intent. I have absolutely no way of knowing how frustrated you were and whether or not you were engaging in hyperbole or some other rhetorical device where it's a given that the words are not to be understood merely at face value. 



Anon Pink said:


> I'm curious why you felt compelled to include your second statement about the history of men's opinion of women being inferior.


Because of the topic of the thread; the nature of the question and who it was directed to. I think it feeds a very negative stereotype that I would like to see die and pointing that out was intended to give some context to the nature of my objection. (i.e. That it is more academic than personal.)


----------



## EleGirl

Deejo said:


> Damn Ele, for all of the talk about clear communication, and understanding, gotta admit I chuckled.
> 
> The quote is directly from the link in the original post that kicked off this whole kerfuffle.


That post is from 9 days ago...... I suffer from oldheimer's apparently.

I thought that Thundar was saying that a link at been posted to a different article.


----------



## EleGirl

I went back... page 8, post 112




SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yep, I am at ILYBNILWY as well.
> 
> IME someone can stay in this phase for years. Sometimes trying, sometimes just given up.
> 
> Like the article where the women were scared that a man could just come and show them a bit of attention and steal then right out from under their husbands, I can relate. I keep away from men because I know I'm vulnerable and desperate.
> 
> The standard man advice, the 180 stuff, go to the gym and get a life of your own, would only end up the final nail in the coffin.


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> ....




I just LOVE this emoticon! It's perfect for this thread!


----------



## Anon Pink

ocotillo said:


> 12020529. This is the question in its entirety from the bottom of page 16. It was directed specifically to Vellocet, but others naturally joined in since this is an open discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> I picked that example only because it can be proven. The intent of the comparison is not to claim commonality with the acts themselves, but with the reason why threats don't have to be stated in some combination of the active voice / indicative mood. (i.e. It's enough to create an apprehension.)
> 
> I would argue that we could insert any unethical act into the sentence, "I'm vulnerable/ripe for {Insert Act} because" and we would have the same problem. There is no, "Because" (In the sense of justification.) with something unethical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize if I'm coming across as judgmental. That's not my intent. I have absolutely no way of knowing how frustrated you were and whether or not you were engaging in hyperbole or some other rhetorical device where it's a given that the words are not to be understood merely at face value.
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the topic of the thread; the nature of the question and who it was directed to. I think it feeds a very negative stereotype that I would like to see die and pointing that out was intended to give some context to the nature of my objection. (i.e. That it is more academic than personal.)



No need to apologize. It was me who became impatient, though not at you. I just don't seem to be able to carry around patience. It falls out of my pockets, from my purse...just don't have much. 

I think I see the distinction you are making and that is the unethical nature of infidelity. No matter what or how, it is not a situational morality to you. 

I think we're relatively the same age... Growing up, infidelity was a given in the marriages I saw. When I entered marriage, I never believed my husband would remain faithful, physically. I just never wanted to know about it. I worried that he might fall in love with someone else, but it was a not worth worrying over him FVCKING someone else. That's how all men were when I was growing up and I thought it was normal. So, ethics...situational morality... Sticky sitch.


----------



## Deejo

EleGirl said:


> That post is from 9 days ago...... I suffer from oldheimer's apparently.
> 
> I thought that Thundar was saying that a link at been posted to a different article.


I'm not really criticizing. Just a humorous observation from a diagnosed ADD'er.

And for the record, males are diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder by a magnitude of 4 to 1 which may impact some of our communication (in)comprehension.


----------



## meson

This thread and the article linked in the OP resonated for me from the beginning. I was one of those husbands that did not meet many of my wife emotional needs and she began to withdraw. My lack of emotional nurturing caused the bonds built during our courting to decay and almost disappear. Knowing what I know now about the brain and how love and attraction works I understand that those neural connections that gave such great pleasure were being transformed into connections associated with pain and despair. The disappearance of those connections plus the conversion of some to negative associations created an environment where my wife was more vulnerable to an affair than before. If someone came along that fed her needs that I wasn’t and built up neural connections bonding her with him then she could start to have feelings for me and would be more likely to choose an affair if presented with the opportunity. 

I was responsible for creating an environment that put my marriage at risk. She certainly isn’t a serial cheater looking for a way to cheat. She never thought “hmm, I’m not getting my needs met so I’m going to cheat”. The vulnerability is much more subtle. The vulnerability is that the desire to create a positive feedback and feed a dopamine rush would more likely overwhelm the cognitive reasoning needed to not pursue it any further. That that it would for certain but the inhibition would be lowered. Deciding to cheat is on the cheater alone and the environment is not a justification for cheating. But it is a contributing factor nonetheless. Fortunately for me I worked on my marriage issues and communication in particular and for the past several years I have created an environment that is conducive to our marriage and not an affair. I turned it around. That to me is the important take away. It can be turned around for some where the marriage was good to begin with.

I’ve been watching this thread with amusement since the beginning when the detour over vulnerability changed the direction of the thread. Vulnerability was turned into a threat and an excuse to look for cheating. This is not what the linked article was about at all. It was simply letting husbands know that by not listening to your wife that you may end up not meeting her needs and you are adding risk to your marriage. To deny vulnerability as being legitimate is to logically absolve husbands from their responsibility towards the mental well being of there spouse. In other words there is nothing that they did that caused an affair. This is wrong. Some husbands play a big role in creating an environment that is conducive to an affair. The decision to cheat is all on the person who cheats. The environment does not excuse a cheater. But a spouse that knowingly or unknowingly is not meeting the needs of their spouse is a contributing factor to the affair.


----------



## Anon Pink

meson said:


> This thread and the article linked in the OP resonated for me from the beginning. I was one of those husbands that did not meet many of my wife emotional needs and she began to withdraw. My lack of emotional nurturing caused the bonds built during our courting to decay and almost disappear. Knowing what I know now about the brain and how love and attraction works I understand that those neural connections that gave such great pleasure were being transformed into connections associated with pain and despair. The disappearance of those connections plus the conversion of some to negative associations created an environment where my wife was more vulnerable to an affair than before. If someone came along that fed her needs that I wasn’t and built up neural connections bonding her with him then she could start to have feelings for me and would be more likely to choose an affair if presented with the opportunity.
> 
> I was responsible for creating an environment that put my marriage at risk. She certainly isn’t a serial cheater looking for a way to cheat. She never thought “hmm, I’m not getting my needs met so I’m going to cheat”. The vulnerability is much more subtle. The vulnerability is that the desire to create a positive feedback and feed a dopamine rush would more likely overwhelm the cognitive reasoning needed to not pursue it any further. That that it would for certain but the inhibition would be lowered. Deciding to cheat is on the cheater alone and the environment is not a justification for cheating. But it is a contributing factor nonetheless. Fortunately for me I worked on my marriage issues and communication in particular and for the past several years I have created an environment that is conducive to our marriage and not an affair. I turned it around. That to me is the important take away. It can be turned around for some where the marriage was good to begin with.
> 
> I’ve been watching this thread with amusement since the beginning when the detour over vulnerability changed the direction of the thread. Vulnerability was turned into a threat and an excuse to look for cheating. This is not what the linked article was about at all. It was simply letting husbands know that by not listening to your wife that you may end up not meeting her needs and you are adding risk to your marriage. To deny vulnerability as being legitimate is to logically absolve husbands from their responsibility towards the mental well being of there spouse. In other words there is nothing that they did that caused an affair. This is wrong. Some husbands play a big role in creating an environment that is conducive to an affair. The decision to cheat is all on the person who cheats. The environment does not excuse a cheater. But a spouse that knowingly or unknowingly is not meeting the needs of their spouse is a contributing factor to the affair.


Thank you! Thank You! Thank You!


----------



## skype

Page 66 and meson just summed up the whole thread. Amazing how someone whose username means "unstable subatomic particles composed of one quark and one antiquark" can have such emotional intelligence.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Meson said* : *My lack of emotional nurturing caused the bonds built during our courting to decay and almost disappear. Knowing what I know now about the brain and how love and attraction works I understand that those neural connections that gave such great pleasure were being transformed into connections associated with pain and despair. The disappearance of those connections plus the conversion of some to negative associations created an environment where my wife was more vulnerable to an affair than before. If someone came along that fed her needs that I wasn’t and built up neural connections bonding her with him then she could start to have feelings for me and would be more likely to choose an affair if presented with the opportunity.
> 
> I was responsible for creating an environment that put my marriage at risk.
> 
> But a spouse that knowingly or unknowingly is not meeting the needs of their spouse is a contributing factor to the affair.*


Male or Female, doesn't matter.. I couldn't agree more so!

You lived it.. you saw the error of your ways.. acknowledged it.. that what we do, or the emotional walls we put up....can have a detrimental effect on our spouse & our marriages.... that pain & despair leading to a very vulnerable place...*that just makes us human.. darn it*.. 

I can understand ANYONE in those shoes even if I haven't personally lived it....if anything I caused MORE of the hurt in my own marriage over the years.. so shame on ME.. 

True...Some can handle more than others...before they become weak & weary emotionally.. 

I have often felt had I been married to another man -he would not have put up with my sh** during infertility trying to schedule sex... that was difficult on my Husband... .. it's good we've been able to revisit *MY* mistakes.. I deserved to know how I hurt him... he's a very forgiving man, very understanding.....that sure helps..... and I was very remorseful... which I know he appreciated... it's brought us closer.


----------



## ocotillo

meson said:


> I’ve been watching this thread with amusement since the beginning when the detour over vulnerability changed the direction of the thread.


I would say that the detour was inevitable inasmuch as it springs directly from the question of how best to communicate to our spouse that our needs are not being met.

In the abstract sense, we are all vulnerable on any number of fronts. Hunger for example, could easily make you more vulnerable to the temptation to steal. A verbally abusive spouse could easily make you more vulnerable to the temptation to strike them. We're really only limited by imagination here.

It's one thing for a vulnerability to exist in a state of limbo as an abstract possibility in our minds. It's quite another thing to verbalize it, because once you've crossed that bridge, it will exist as a tangible possibility in your spouse's mind and you won't be able to undo it. 



meson said:


> But a spouse that knowingly or unknowingly is not meeting the needs of their spouse is a contributing factor to the affair.


Zero argument from me on this. The example I've given of an attractive neighbor showing up at your door with a bottle of wine in one hand and two glasses in the other was not hypothetical. That the vulnerability was real was undeniable, but I would argue that there are constructive and destructive ways to express it.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> Try again...post #3 was the very first post to make this sexist.


Nope, nice try. Lets analyze, shall we?



Forest said:


> *He does make good points, that men should be aware of. He's not wrong*; kinda one sided, though.
> Since he's pointing out the obvious generalizations he might have mentioned some for each partner; balance it out. An insatiable need for attention, compliments, control.
> 
> Wives: why your men are no longer "present"....


He agreed, but said it is one sided. Nowhere is sexism involved.

Then your post #5 came back with flippant sarcasm. You dismissed his post even when he agreed with the article.

Again, nice try.






> Minimizing....


No, that would be your flippant sarcastic reply.




> Vellocet, you fail to listen at every turn. You must always be right you can never be wrong and you must always have the last word.


:rofl::lol: Wrong, that would be you. There are many posts of yours that attempt to insult me that I have let go just because you simply aren't worth it.

But when I can prove you wrong, or your hypocrisy, like I just did above, I won't balk at the chance 




> I therefore give you leave to reply to the post and tell me how wrong I am. I will give you final word on that too.


 In our back and forths, this will be the first time that I can count, that I would actually get the last word in. So don't you go replyin on me now!!


----------



## meson

skype said:


> Page 66 and meson just summed up the whole thread. Amazing how someone whose username means "unstable subatomic particles composed of one quark and one antiquark" can have such emotional intelligence.


Actually it is quite relevant to the OP. I chose meson as a metaphor for marriage on purpose when I joined TAM. The two quarks are the spouses. You are right all mesons decay just as all marriages will end. Some marriages will last until death and some get annulled right away. What determines the decay or the end of the marriage? 

A meson decays when another quark interacts with a composite quark via an intermediate particle. These vector bosons as they are called in physics are like the neural connections I spoke of. All you need to do to get lots of muons to decay in a spot is to put blocks of lead in their path to slow them down and interact with nearby quarks from the lead. This is an experiment many grad students so. The way to slow mesons from decaying is to keep them in vacuum. So if my wife habitually goes to frat parties and meets guys on the make that is like putting a meson in lead. The probability of an interaction will increase. 

The point of the article from my analogy is to prevent competing neural connections from forming. You can do this by making sure the majority of interactions of you spouse is with you. This will create an environment where the meson will likely live longer. But it is not a guarantee because a vacuum fluctuation can induce a reaction. Likewise our marriage can end in the blink of an eye for a variety of reasons not related to our satisfying their needs.


----------



## meson

SimplyAmorous said:


> Male or Female, doesn't matter.. I couldn't agree more so!
> 
> You lived it.. you saw the error of your ways.. acknowledged it.. that what we do, or the emotional walls we put up....can have a detrimental effect on our spouse & our marriages.... that pain & despair leading to a very vulnerable place...*that just makes us human.. darn it*..
> 
> I can understand ANYONE in those shoes even if I haven't personally lived it....if anything I caused MORE of the hurt in my own marriage over the years.. so shame on ME..
> 
> True...Some can handle more than others...before they become weak & weary emotionally..
> 
> I have often felt had I been married to another man -he would not have put up with my sh** during infertility trying to schedule sex... that was difficult on my Husband... .. it's good we've been able to revisit *MY* mistakes.. I deserved to know how I hurt him... he's a very forgiving man, very understanding.....that sure helps..... and I was very remorseful... which I know he appreciated... it's brought us closer.


I should have stated more clearly that its for either spouse. I completely agree. 

Yes, that's the reason why it reason area with me, I've been through it. I finally recognized what was going on and broke the pattern. Then while my marriage was in great shape I developed feeling for someone I spent too much time with. Because my marriage was in good shape I could more easily see that what I was doing was wrong. I was in an EA. if my marriage had been in a bad place I may have escalated to cheating. But I chose not to and told my wife. 

And you know what she helped me. You've heard about way words rewriting marital history? Well it happens when the marriage is good as well. I had a discussion with my wife a few months ago and she had forgotten how bad our marriage was at one point. Feeding those neural connections works both ways. If I had disclosed when the marriage was bad she would have dumped me.


----------



## GTdad

meson said:


> Actually it is quite relevant to the OP. I chose meson as a metaphor for marriage on purpose when I joined TAM. The two quarks are the spouses. You are right all mesons decay just as all marriages will end. Some marriages will last until death and some get annulled right away. What determines the decay or the end of the marriage?
> 
> A meson decays when another quark interacts with a composite quark via an intermediate particle. These vector bosons as they are called in physics are like the neural connections I spoke of. All you need to do to get lots of muons to decay in a spot is to put blocks of lead in their path to slow them down and interact with nearby quarks from the lead. This is an experiment many grad students so. The way to slow mesons from decaying is to keep them in vacuum. So if my wife habitually goes to frat parties and meets guys on the make that is like putting a meson in lead. The probability of an interaction will increase.
> 
> The point of the article from my analogy is to prevent competing neural connections from forming. You can do this by making sure the majority of interactions of you spouse is with you. This will create an environment where the meson will likely live longer. But it is not a guarantee because a vacuum fluctuation can induce a reaction. Likewise our marriage can end in the blink of an eye for a variety of reasons not related to our satisfying their needs.


<GTdad grunts to hold up his end of the conversation>

Seriously, well done.


----------



## southbound

After reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that I reach when reading a lot of threads here: Relationships are waaaay more complicated than I ever thought, and too complicated for me, especially since I am a laid-back, logical guy who isn't the king of excitement and likes the simple things in life.

It might have been different if I had gotten a clue on some of this stuff growing up, but I didn't, so it may be too late for this dog to learn new tricks; I don't think I even have a desire to learn any new tricks.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

I've come to the same conclusion, SB. Some of it is because of threads like this, and some from posters who say things like they are envious of another guy who is "dripping in quality p----."

If men think like that, I'd rather just stick with friends and a good vibrator the rest of my days.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

It just occurred to me that this entire thread proved how utterly true the article from the OP is! Take this bit:

"Men – I’m not saying this is right or wrong. I’m telling you what I see. You can get as angry or hurt or indignant as you want. Your wife is not your property. She does not owe you her soul. You earn it. Day by day, moment to moment. You earn her first and foremost with your presence, your aliveness. She needs to feel it. She wants to talk to you about what matters to her and to feel you hearing her. Not nodding politely. Not placating. Definitely not playing devil’s advocate."

How many men got angry and indignant on this thread? How many ignored the women on here saying that we need to be heard, that it matters?

Funny how we can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> *After reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that I reach when reading a lot of threads here: Relationships are waaaay more complicated than I ever thought, and too complicated for me, especially since I am a laid-back, logical guy who isn't the king of excitement and likes the simple things in life.
> 
> It might have been different if I had gotten a clue on some of this stuff growing up, but I didn't, so it may be too late for this dog to learn new tricks; I don't think I even have a desire to learn any new tricks*.


You've been saying this for years now...

I've said this many times over too... there is nothing wrong with being a laid back guy & enjoying the simple things in life.. there are women who dig that...

Maybe I missed it but I didn't notice any of the women on this thread saying anything negative against these things.... ..at least not on this thread....

The word "Excitement" can mean different things to different people also... I tend to think you deem excitement as a faster paced Lifestyle.. on the run, etc.. but "excitement" could be as SIMPLE as just hanging out together ....laughing, sharing your day with your spouse....

I get excited with the thought of just enjoying a Netflix movie later with my H after we've shut the kids out...with a bowl of chips in our lap... I feel enthusiasm comes from within..but of course how we are treated by our spouses DOES play a huge hand in this... that is very logical -even!

...So much of this is just about staying in tuned with your woman's feelings.. being able to recognize when she is upset ....even if she may be subtle at times... not everyone is as forthcoming.. it doesn't make them bad people......but if we love.. we seek to stay close/ emotionally connected... isn't a barometer of "affection" very telling for all of us... if you feel it slipping...open that up.. be pro-active...

Maybe the problem is.. some men just don't FEEL the way we do.. aren't as sensitive to it.. I don't know.. Just as many women aren't as understanding to their husband's sexual needs.. it really is the divider of the sexes... generally speaking of course.


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> You've been saying this for years now...
> 
> I've said this many times over too... there is nothing wrong with being a laid back guy & enjoying the simple things in life.. there are women who dig that...
> 
> Maybe I missed it but I didn't notice any of the women on this thread saying anything negative against these things.... ..at least not on this thread....
> 
> The word "Excitement" can mean different things to different people also... I tend to think you deem excitement as a faster paced Lifestyle.. on the run, etc.. but "excitement" could be as SIMPLE as just hanging out together ....laughing, sharing your day with your spouse....
> 
> I get excited with the thought of just enjoying a Netflix movie later with my H after we've shut the kids out...with a bowl of chips in our lap... I feel enthusiasm comes from within..but of course how we are treated by our spouses DOES play a huge hand in this... that is very logical -even!


I'm sure there are people who like to catch a movie from time to time with a bowl of popcorn on the sofa, but it seems these days it's more the exception that the rule. Most people these days are always busy, and when they're not "work-busy," they're on a vacation or other activity so they can keep busy.

Don't get my wrong, I'm not a lazy bum, but I just don't care for the busy lifestyle that most people lead these days. It's one thing for people to "say" they like to be laid back, but doing is another.

I am acquainted with a single man in his 40s, and he says when he talks to single women sometimes, they make it sound like all they do go to their job and then sit home and relax, but when he starts dating them, they are much busier than he thought they would be.

If you find a woman who likes the laid back lifestyle on a regular basis, you let me know, I don't think I've ever met one. I don't mean to throw that just at women, being busy applies to men as well. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Maybe the problem is.. some men just don't FEEL the way we do.. aren't as sensitive to it.. I don't know.. Just as many women aren't as understanding to their husband's sexual needs.. it really is the divider of the sexes... generally speaking of course.


I think you hit it on the head for me. I would never intentionally treat someone poorly or ignore their feelings, but I just don't need much of that myself, I don't feel that way, so I guess i can't relate. It;s not that I required a lot of emotional stuff and was just too ornery to return it.

My brother and i often joke that we are emotionally dead compared to most people. I don't need to sit down everyday and tell somebody about my day, or have someone make a big deal over my birthday, and a million other things. And when i say make a big deal over my birthday, I mean that I don't care if nobody even mentions it; however, I'm a happy guy, so i just can't relate to all the emotional stuff. I'm sure that's weird.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

SB - I'm that woman. A great Saturday is cruising through the flea market, or repainting a room in the house, or going for a hike. I don't need romance or compliments or constant attention. 

But what I do need is exactly what SA described. When sitting on the sofa watching a movie with my partner, I need to feel connected to him. Even if we barely speak. Simple simple!

And I don't need him to listen to my woes with friends - who said what about who/gossip crap. I have no use for women who care what label is on their purse or who made their shoes. I don't need constant emotional support to help me through. Just occasionally listen when I'm struggling with a problem so I can figure out a solution.

In fact, I'm a lot like a guy in that respect. I don't want to talk about problems - I want to find solutions! 

And yet I am ignored by my H. He doesn't think conversation is necessary. He doesn't even know what I'm talking about when I explain that nothing more than a knowing smile from across the room gives me emotional connection.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## southbound

SurpriseMyself said:


> SB - I'm that woman. A great Saturday is cruising through the flea market, or repainting a room in the house, or going for a hike. I don't need romance or compliments or constant attention.
> 
> But what I do need is exactly what SA described. When sitting on the sofa watching a movie with my partner, I need to feel connected to him. Even if we barely speak. Simple simple!
> 
> And I don't need him to listen to my woes with friends - who said what about who/gossip crap. I have no use for women who care what label is on their purse or who made their shoes. I don't need constant emotional support to help me through. Just occasionally listen when I'm struggling with a problem so I can figure out a solution.
> 
> In fact, I'm a lot like a guy in that respect. I don't want to talk about problems - I want to find solutions!
> 
> And yet I am ignored by my H. He doesn't think conversation is necessary. He doesn't even know what I'm talking about when I explain that nothing more than a knowing smile from across the room gives me emotional connection.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sounds good to me. I would enjoy cuddling on the sofa and just relaxing.


----------



## chillymorn

SurpriseMyself said:


> I know it's too late with me and my H.
> 
> I think every woman who knows they are getting close to wanting to leave owes it to their man to speak up. And every woman who is done also owes it to her H to let him know so he won't waste his energy trying. The trick is to listen and take things seriously before it's too late.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:


----------



## SurpriseMyself

So is it so much to ask that he respond when I speak to him? He doesn't. Even when I've asked for it over and over. It's not like I'm a constant talker. But he doesn't. If I speak to him, I don't get a nod and sometimes no eye contact. When there's a problem between us, he just ignores it. Forever! Seriously - we haven't had sex in 7 years now and he's never even brought it up once. It's because I shared with him some personal things about sex that I had hoped we could work through. What he heard was that I don't like sex and he just checked out! It's crazy!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

SurpriseMyself said:


> *So is it so much to ask that he respond when I speak to him? He doesn't. Even when I've asked for it over and over. It's not like I'm a constant talker. But he doesn't. If I speak to him, I don't get a nod and sometimes no eye contact. When there's a problem between us, he just ignores it. Forever! Seriously - we haven't had sex in 7 years now and he's never even brought it up once. It's because I shared with him some personal things about sex that I had hoped we could work through. What he heard was that I don't like sex and he just checked out! It's crazy!*


 I am shaking my head reading your post.. how in the world have you stayed this long in this atmosphere.. of nothingness.. what is wrong with him... ? I mean that seriously... did he come from a family of severe dysfunction that he can't talk if someone brings up an issue.. 

How did you do this.. was it faith that kept you holding on.. HOPE somehow against HOPE he would change? What was he like when you dated.. early marriage.. what happened between then & the last 7 yrs ?


----------



## southbound

SurpriseMyself said:


> So is it so much to ask that he respond when I speak to him? He doesn't. Even when I've asked for it over and over. It's not like I'm a constant talker. But he doesn't. If I speak to him, I don't get a nod and sometimes no eye contact. When there's a problem between us, he just ignores it. Forever! Seriously - we haven't had sex in 7 years now and he's never even brought it up once. It's because I shared with him some personal things about sex that I had hoped we could work through. What he heard was that I don't like sex and he just checked out! It's crazy!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm not much of a talker myself, and i consider myself an introvert, but this behavior startles even me. I don't understand his lack of response, and how could someone think no sex for 7 years is normal? Does he remain silent all the time? Does he ever even mention that he enjoyed a meal? How would he react if you suddenly buckled over in unexplained pain? Would he even respond?

I'm also interested in your responses to SA's questions.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

He will speak if there's nothing else going on and if he thinks I'm just chit chatting about innocuous stuff. In fact, he can go on and on about stuff. I've heard way too many times about how **** Vitale is biased against his basketball team, or some topic like that. But nothing of substance, really. If I discuss politics he will play devils advocate. 

When I was younger and we were dating, he would listen to me talk about my struggles with sister and other personal things. But I moved past those things. I grew up.

What happened is that life got real. We had kids - kids with problems that we need to help them with. He was unemployed for 18 months. I lost 3 family members in 3 years. 

And he didn't support me trough those things. He didn't want life to be hard, but it has been for a while. Such is our life. 

What he doesn't get is that our relationship should have been our safe place. We should have supported each other. But it was just the opposite.

It is said that traumatic events don't build character - they reveal it. His character is to isolate, to shut out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

His father is also a non talker. I remember his mom telling his dad that if they moved away from her hometown, he better talk to her! She repeatedly has said that it her husband wants to watch TV, she will just sit next to him quietly and work crossword or sodoku puzzles. If it's a topic his dad isn't interested in, he will say nothing. When they are at our house, he will sit on the sofa saying nothing. Not reading a book, not watching TV, not talking to his wife. She will sit next to him and do her puzzles. So from his FOO, this is normal for a man. She even described how when she first married him he wouldn't say "pass the salt" at the table. He would just grunt and point! Not making this up.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## soccermom2three

I don't need to be entertained by my husband but he needs to spend some (not all) time with me instead on his numerous hobbies. Also, he needs to show affection besides when he wants sex at 2am. He did ask ME to marry HIM, for heaven's sake.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

southbound said:


> I'm not much of a talker myself, and i consider myself an introvert, but this behavior startles even me. I don't understand his lack of response, and how could someone think no sex for 7 years is normal? Does he remain silent all the time? Does he ever even mention that he enjoyed a meal? How would he react if you suddenly buckled over in unexplained pain? Would he even respond?
> 
> I'm also interested in your responses to SA's questions.


He doesn't ask how was your day. He doesn't thank me for cooking dinner or say that he enjoyed it. If I doubled over in pain, he will respond. 

He basically talks when he wants to, and he talks at rather than with me. Hope that makes sense.

And he doesn't think that no sex is normal. He wants to have sex with me. But since I shared my struggles, he just shut down because otherwise he'd have to work with me in fixing something personal and intimate between us. Heaven knows he doesn't want to do that. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

SurpriseMyself said:


> It just occurred to me that this entire thread proved how utterly true the article from the OP is!


TAM is full of men and women who feel like they've tried everything and it still wasn't good enough. I can see the anguish on both sides. 

It is disheartening (As a man) to read in one thread that you've tried too hard and to read in another that you haven't tried hard enough.


----------



## YupItsMe

This tread make me want to vomit because it does not seem anyone benefitted from it despite valiant effort and sincere motives by the participants.


----------



## southbound

ocotillo said:


> TAM is full of men and women who feel like they've tried everything and it still wasn't good enough. I can see the anguish on both sides.
> 
> It is disheartening (As a man) to read in one thread that you've tried too hard and to read in another that you haven't tried hard enough.


True. It's like I said, it's just too complicated for me.


----------



## alphaomega

"Men around here stop b!tching about how bad their marriage was, or is, and instead post or respond from a proactive, self-aware and positive place."

It took me a few month but I finally realized my wife left me bacause I was a d(ck.

I, hopefully, learned from that and am not a **** anymore..I think...

Does that count? 

Of course...I have to add...

Fk you beotches! This is how I roll!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *YupItsMe said:* *This tread make me want to vomit because it does not seem anyone benefitted from it despite valiant effort and sincere motives by the participants*.


 Why do you feel this way.... I have a different take.. I think it's good to learn how other people are... so we don't assume everyone is geared like WE are, or thinks like us.. let them speak !... it's still helpful information... 

For some...it's too much work...they are too stubborn, for others it's just not worth a relationship... they're too set in their ways.. 

What else is new under the sun. Before I landed on this forum.. I think I had blinders on my eyes.. I assumed every human being wanted Romantic Love.. that the greatest JOY in life is to feel Loved and share that with someone special....

Specifically Southbound's contributions here has taken that belief of mine and destroyed it.. that some really would rather be alone.. that brings them more happiness / contentment over trying to understand or please the opposite sex..

I still like to pick on him though! 



southbound said:


> I think you hit it on the head for me. I would never intentionally treat someone poorly or ignore their feelings, *but I just don't need much of that myself, I don't feel that way, so I guess i can't relate. * It;s not that I required a lot of emotional stuff and was just too ornery to return it.


 and we could substitute SEX for the EMOTIONAL here... how many spouses here are married to someone who JUST DOESN'T NEED SEX , they just don't understand their husband (or wife)... what's the big deal really, it's just some squeaking of the bed.. they could take it or leave it.. 

I wonder if you can understand *the sadness *in that -for those who just wouldn't want to be with a spouse like that ... who would grow weary.. wonder what's over the fence?? As that's an emotion...and we CRAVE more. 

When you repeatedly say this.. "It's like I said, it's just too complicated for me."...It's like bowing out, like TRYING to understand a woman .... it's too much work or something.... and really.. that's OK... if you find another compatible with that.. ....maybe this is not nice to say...but I guess I don't see this as all that different -just less severity over what SuprisedMyself has said about her husband there.. 

...when it gets difficult, he reverts to his shell.. to the detriment of his marriage.. he also has learned this same behavior from his Father (God bless his Mother for putting up with him , how lonely she must have felt too-sitting in boring old silence knitting all the time!)...plus it's obviously in the genes.. 

This question was asked on another thread here ... what percentage of sex is Physical and what is Emotional - asked to the men... I may start a thread topic on this.. as I have my own theory on it... I wonder how much it relates to one's make up -to those who just don't NEED the emotional or relate to why that's important.. to those who care a great deal.. they want to feel "The WOW"... the enthusiasm , the excitement of their lover.. (I know my Husband thrives on this...and he's more of a FEELER)...

The majority of articles speaking what a MAN wants most in the bedroom is good old  
He doesn't want to DO a starfish (New word for me reading on TAM).... can we just turn this around and understand WHY a woman cares, yearns to feel emotionally heard, wanted , loved.. TALKED too - just because... even if the guy doesn't NEED this.. SHE DOES.. or the vast majority of us do.. 

My Lord women--- get to know the nature of your man before you marry him !! Save yourself ! Many women here THINK I cater to men on TAM.. but this thread has turned me around some.. listening to some of these stories.. I feel really really really bad for any woman who has to deal with some of these men.. Curious Suprisemyself.. given how you get basically NOTHING at home for emotional support.. you must have a decent # of GF's , or family members to help you feel you are a part of something ... how do they feel about what you are dealing with, have dealt with.. are they supporting your leaving him ??



> *Southbound said*:
> *My brother and I often joke that we are emotionally dead compared to most people. I don't need to sit down everyday and tell somebody about my day, or have someone make a big deal over my birthday, and a million other things. And when i say make a big deal over my birthday, I mean that I don't care if nobody even mentions it; however, I'm a happy guy, so i just can't relate to all the emotional stuff. * I'm sure that's weird.


Ya know...you've heard of High Maintenance, Low Maintenance....you sound like a "NO MAINTENANCE MAN"...and although this may sound GOOD ..it has it's issues as well.. in regards to relationships... 

Many of us want to feel we can BRING something to our spouses...(I wouldn't understand the women who could care less about this).....that our men NEED us (to some damn degree!)...or why did they marry us... it speaks to have and to HOLD... to cherish.. is this not "FEELING"... this is not robot behavior...We want to feel we make a difference in their lives... that they want us.. that what we do .. share, give..our comments has *some effect* on them.. to brighten their day.... Or even pi$$ them off (I'd never want that to go away...I'll take both happily!)

I can't even imagine how crushed I would feel if I planned something special and my H had little to no emotional response, or I knew deep inside.. he could care less, he could take it or leave it.. eventually.... I'd loose the will to even bother with him... 

It's soooo Blaaaaahhhhhhh.... Maybe I am reading you all wrong but this is how I interpret so much of what you say..


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> Why do you feel this way.... I have a different take.. I think it's good to learn how other people are... so we don't assume everyone is geared like WE are, or thinks like us.. let them speak !... it's still helpful information...
> 
> For some...it's too much work...they are too stubborn, for others it's just not worth a relationship... they're too set in their ways..
> 
> What else is new under the sun. Before I landed on this forum.. I think I had blinders on my eyes.. I assumed every human being wanted Romantic Love.. that the greatest JOY in life is to feel Loved and share that with someone special....


Believe me, I have certainly learned that people certainly have different ideas about things! I just wish I had known some of this stuff years ago. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Specifically Southbound's contributions here has taken that belief of mine and destroyed it.. that some really would rather be alone.. that brings them more happiness / contentment over trying to understand or please the opposite sex..
> 
> I still like to pick on him though!


I'm glad I have at least helped you see another side of things, as you have done the same for me! 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Ya know...you've heard of High Maintenance, Low Maintenance....you sound like a "NO MAINTENANCE MAN"...and although this may sound GOOD ..it has it's issues as well.. in regards to relationships...


I've certainly come to realize that. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I can't even imagine how crushed I would feel if I planned something special and my H had little to no emotional response, or I knew deep inside.. he could care less, he could take it or leave it.. eventually.... I'd loose the will to even bother with him...


Here's the thing with this. I see a lot of people celebrating someone else's birthday, and it seem like the celebration is more for the enjoyment of the planner than the receiver. 

I would be fine with something special for my birthday, but is it too much to ask to do something I would enjoy, even if it seems low key to everyone else. For me, Don't have a surprise party with a bunch of people over, or don't take me to a restaurant and have them come out clapping and sing happy birthday while the guests toot party horns. Don't make a big deal out of it at my workplace.

DO, take me out to my favorite restaurant, just me and my significant other, or take me to a movie that you know I would like, or just stay home and fix a meal that I like and watch a movie later. Actually do something that I would enjoy, not something stereotypical of a modern birthday party. I would show appreciation to that very much. Is that too much to ask? 



SimplyAmorous said:


> It's soooo Blaaaaahhhhhhh.... Maybe I am reading you all wrong but this is how I interpret so much of what you say


I probably am blah compared to most people's lifestyle these days, but that's just who i am. I think my issue is that I'm so inwardly happy and content, I don't need a lot of outer stuff to be happy. I'm not constantly longing to do something new or plan the next vacation so i can be happy. Isn't it weird that being a happy guy actually works against me in relationships. Maybe if I get stressed and sad someday, I'll do better in relationships. Don't take that literally, but you see what i mean.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> Here's the thing with this. I see a lot of people celebrating someone else's birthday, and it seem like the celebration is more for the enjoyment of the planner than the receiver.


 Has this been your experience , is this what your ex did Southbound ? or you've heard too many stories of other men -saying just this... while the guy just wants to go crawl under a rock...

True .. women can get caught up in throwing a party.. we like to play Hostess.. (some of us & we care about our guests too).. but you are a 100% RIGHT on this.. that as the Birthday man/ woman, son or daughter... we should seek to know what they would ENJOY...after all, *it's THEIR DAY*... seeking their  & happiness should be paramount in our planning...









As for myself.. I DO seek this out.. I ASK directly "What would you enjoy?".... Our sons like sleep over parties.. Pizza, ice cream cake.. 

But yeah. .. it matters to me that what I do is received with Open arms... I want the day to be memorable for them... We should all do that.. 



> I would be fine with something special for my birthday, but is it too much to ask to do something I would enjoy, even if it seems low key to everyone else. For me, Don't have a surprise party with a bunch of people over, or don't take me to a restaurant and have them come out clapping and sing happy birthday while the guests toot party horns. Don't make a big deal out of it at my workplace.
> 
> *DO, take me out to my favorite restaurant, just me and my significant other, or take me to a movie that you know I would like, or just stay home and fix a meal that I like and watch a movie later. Actually do something that I would enjoy, not something stereotypical of a modern birthday party. I would show appreciation to that very much. Is that too much to ask?*


 See, like above... there is not a thing wrong with what you just wrote here... that you would VERY MUCH APPRECIATE it if the woman took enough time to get to KNOW what YOU would enjoy...and cater to YOU on your special day... being the more introverted man you are, you would prefer NOT being the center of attention... that makes sense. 

I wonder if those things were happening.. and you expressed "Please don't .".. and offered .."but I would really appreciate it if you dd THIS - the home cooked meal, intimacy later with a movie".. ... and if your suggestions were ignored ?? If so... of course you would be UPSET.. any of us would. You tried to communicate...and it got you nowhere, just more of the same...almost like a slap on the face.. 



> *I probably am blah compared to most people's lifestyle these days, but that's just who i am. I think my issue is that I'm so inwardly happy and content, I don't need a lot of outer stuff to be happy. I'm not constantly longing to do something new or plan the next vacation so i can be happy. Isn't it weird that being a happy guy actually works against me in relationships. Maybe if I get stressed and sad someday, I'll do better in relationships.* Don't take that literally, but you see what i mean.


 I liked the rest of your post. but now you are being sarcastic ... It has absolutely nothing to do with being sad & stressed at all... nothing. 

Look....you spoke the " I would show appreciation to that very much " phrase in this post....you even had a suggestion for a woman to work with.. there is light !...There is hope.. Now I am being sarcastic ... You redeemed my blaaaah thoughts here... your idea of celebrating is more low keyed, that's all... this doesn't = emotionless or thankless or , I'd rather just go feed the cows today...


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> I liked the rest of your post. but now you are being sarcastic ... It has absolutely nothing to do with being sad & stressed at all... nothing.


Sure, that's a little tongue in cheek, but you see what I mean. My contentment within does cause me to not look for a lot of emotional stuff from other people or to always be looking for something to do to have fun outside of my everyday life. In return, I don't have the fire within me to keep someone in a relationship filled. Most people are not that fulfilled just off of their own fuel.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> Sure, that's a little tongue in cheek, but you see what I mean. *My contentment within does cause me to not look for a lot of emotional stuff from other people or to always be looking for something to do to have fun outside of my everyday life. In return, I don't have the fire within me to keep someone in a relationship filled. Most people are not that fulfilled just off of their own fuel.*


I always get the feeling you look cross-eyed or even  on those who may struggle to be as content /happy as you are - being alone... I'd really like to be a fly on the wall listening to the things you & your brother say when you get together in this regard...as neither of you seem to understand those who *want more*.. like there is something inherently wrong with us, in our wiring, to seek romantic companionship with another.. or speak of how they miss _______ or _______ when they were in love, even if it didn't last...they miss aspects of it -deeply. 

I guess it would be like ME trying to understand how anyone could derive pleasure or excitement watching a bunch of grown men throwing a football around. I just don't get it.. I am not wired to find that the least bit entertaining...or fulfilling... but some are near fanatical for their teams... I'd bet some of these fans would think there is something wrong with myself & H for not caring about those things...

But yes, as you spoke...it's very TRUE...having THAT with another... it creates *A FIRE *that burns within -and we have the ability to re-ignite each other...for some of us, it doesn't get any better than that...it's our java in the morning







& makes every sunset "more meaningful". 

I believe man & women was designed to seek romantic attachment...because of the hormones within our bodies & how these affect our minds, hearts, libidos .....or what is sex all about...really...

Are we supposed to just *BE* like the animals I ask?? ...and those who try to stay celibate (Priests , Monks), what a JOKE.. look at all the corruption covered up. Just wasn't intended to be that way...

I was reading an article the other day that spoke of man's "aloneness need" , and that it was intended for women to fulfill this.. I found it "beautiful".... though like anything else.. others will disagree, have a different perception... My perception seeks EROS -so this makes sense. 

It speaks this in Brene Browns wonderful book The Gifts of Imperfection -Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are ...I felt it was eye opening to many things I always felt .... but she laid out so clearly...



> "After collecting thousands of stories , I'm willing to call this a FACT: A deep sense of love and belonging is an irreducible *need* of all women, men and children. We are biologically, cognitively, physically, and spiritually wired to love , to be loved, and to belong.
> 
> When these needs are not met, we don't function as we were meant to. We break. We fall apart. We NUMB...We ache...We hurt others. We get sick.
> 
> There are certainly other causes of illness, numbing and hurt, but the absence of love and belonging will always lead to suffering.


 Now that doesn't have to be Romantic love....for instance.. our teens have a band Director, he is very loved, never married/ single...wholly devoted his life, his passion to music, to teaching these kids...our boys, the band members LOVE this man!..... I believe this fulfills him.. just like a career can for some people if they are helping others.. these needs can be met without a significant other. 

The hardest thing for those who seek EROS love...is to be very careful not to "jump in" with someone they are not compatible with / the chemistry lacking because they are feeling lonely...as this can surely cause a train wreck down the road.


----------



## Healer

ocotillo said:


> TAM is full of men and women who feel like they've tried everything and it still wasn't good enough. I can see the anguish on both sides.
> 
> It is disheartening (As a man) to read in one thread that you've tried too hard and to read in another that you haven't tried hard enough.


I see that play out time and time again. Guy didn't do enough, show enough affection, pay enough attention, etc. etc., wife cheats and or walks away.

Guy does too much, is too nice, tries too hard, etc. etc., wife cheats and or walks away.


----------



## Wolf1974

Healer said:


> I see that play out time and time again. Guy didn't do enough, show enough affection, pay enough attention, etc. etc., wife cheats and or walks away.
> 
> *Guy does too much, is too nice, tries too hard, etc. etc., wife cheats and or walks away.[/QUOT*E]
> 
> That's what I was told. Very confusing message indeed. Especially since all the realtionships I have been in I have never felt that someone did too much for me making them love me less. It's just not something I can never really relate to.


----------



## Wazza

Too much focus on what you can get vs what you can give, from both genders.....


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Wolf1974 said:


> Healer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that play out time and time again. Guy didn't do enough, show enough affection, pay enough attention, etc. etc., wife cheats and or walks away.
> 
> *Guy does too much, is too nice, tries too hard, etc. etc., wife cheats and or walks away.[/QUOT*E]
> 
> That's what I was told. Very confusing message indeed. Especially since all the realtionships I have been in I have never felt that someone did too much for me making them love me less. It's just not something I can never really relate to.
> 
> 
> 
> Because typical gender roles are that men get waited on by their woman. Ever go to your parents house and your dad offer to cook you your favorite meal or do your laundry? Ever have your dad in the kitchen washing dishes after the meal while you and dear old mom catch he ball game with your feet up?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
Click to expand...


----------



## Wolf1974

Healer said:


> I see that play out time and time again. Guy didn't do enough, show enough affection, pay enough attention, etc. etc., wife cheats and or walks away.
> 
> Guy does too much, is too nice, tries too hard, etc. etc., wife cheats and or walks away.





SurpriseMyself said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because typical gender roles are that men get waited on by their woman. Ever go to your parents house and your dad offer to cook you your favorite meal or do your laundry? Ever have your dad in the kitchen washing dishes after the meal while you and dear old mom catch he ball game with your feet up?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> 
> 
> Yep to all the above except laundry
> 
> My dad has and still does a crap ton for my mom. She does much for him as well it's never one sided. But even though my mother through her entire career made more than double what my father made she never belittled him and always appreciated him. She never took for granted how into family first he was. Because she had the high powered job she was required to work long hours and travel for work. it was just us boys figuring everything out. I learned to cook from my father and I'm great at it
Click to expand...


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Certainly not in my house or my H's. His mom makes his dad a cooked breakfast every morning. She packs him drinks and snacks if they go on trips. If my H comes home, he gets his favorites for dinner. He even gets a special dish minus the vegetables he doesn't like.

My dad did nothing like that. He cooked what he liked to eat and that's what everyone ate. Never heard him ask once what anyone wanted for dinner. And he loved to cook, so that's why he did it. My mom always did dishes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> Has this been your experience , is this what your ex did Southbound ? or you've heard too many stories of other men -saying just this... while the guy just wants to go crawl under a rock...


Not so much, but it's like it disappoints people if they don't get to do this kind of stuff. It's as if they think you're saying you don't want it, but deep down really do. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I always get the feeling you look cross-eyed or even  on those who may struggle to be as content /happy as you are - being alone... I'd really like to be a fly on the wall listening to the things you & your brother say when you get together in this regard...as neither of you seem to understand those who *want more*.. like there is something inherently wrong with us, in our wiring, to seek romantic companionship with another.. or speak of how they miss _______ or _______ when they were in love, even if it didn't last...they miss aspects of it -deeply.


Maybe not cross eyed; I do realize I'm the minority; I know that most people desire relationships and are willing to put up with a lot to have one. I guess I even feel the way i do more having been married once. I've just got this "been there, done that" feeling, and it not particularly something I crave again. 

I know most people get back into the dating field almost immediately, but i just don't seem to need it. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I guess it would be like ME trying to understand how anyone could derive pleasure or excitement watching a bunch of grown men throwing a football around. I just don't get it.. I am not wired to find that the least bit entertaining...or fulfilling... but some are near fanatical for their teams... I'd bet some of these fans would think there is something wrong with myself & H for not caring about those things...


Great example, and I'm right with you on this. I never understood what was so exciting about people throwing a ball around. I'll never understand the mentality of hard-core sports fans; I could start a thread just on that.


----------



## Wolf1974

SurpriseMyself said:


> Certainly not in my house or my H's. His mom makes his dad a cooked breakfast every morning. She packs him drinks and snacks if they go on trips. If my H comes home, he gets his favorites for dinner. He even gets a special dish minus the vegetables he doesn't like.
> 
> My dad did nothing like that. He cooked what he liked to eat and that's what everyone ate. Never heard him ask once what anyone wanted for dinner. And he loved to cook, so that's why he did it. My mom always did dishes.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


WEll clearly we were raised different but that still doesn't answer to me how being too caring and affectionate or doing as much as you can for your spouse shuts the love down or makes them fall out of love with you. Just something I don't get


----------



## southbound

Wolf1974 said:


> WEll clearly we were raised different but that still doesn't answer to me how being too caring and affectionate or doing as much as you can for your spouse shuts the love down or makes them fall out of love with you. Just something I don't get


I don't get that either. It makes no sense to me at all.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Because it is emasculating for one. I don't want a door mat. I didn't like the dynamic between my parents and I don't want that in my relationship. I want a strong man who is my equal. And he should treat me as a strong woman. I'm a bit of a feminist, so I also don't like it when a man opens my car door or pulls out my chair for me. Those are nice gestures, but they also are from a time when women were possessions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

Ok. Well my x certainly wasn't a feminist like you describe but she may have felt I was a doormat. Her exact words were you made everything too easy. Never complained and always gave in to make me happy. If a woman was doing all that for me and I was doing all that for her I would call that a great relationship


----------



## SurpriseMyself

“When two partners always agree, one of them is not necessary." - Dale Carnegie


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Wolf1974 said:


> Ok. Well my x certainly wasn't a feminist like you describe but she may have felt I was a doormat. Her exact words were you made everything too easy. Never complained and always gave in to make me happy. If a woman was doing all that for me and I was doing all that for her I would call that a great relationship


It's hard to explain. I worked with a guy who was always doing over the top stuff for his wife. Big surprise birthday parties, posts on FB about how she was so great. Her posts back that he was so great. I found it nauseating. But hey, it worked for them. I just know very few couples like this. I can think of maybe two.

And he was pretty feminine to me. At first I thought he was gay.


----------



## Wolf1974

It's not about agree but putting each other first, trying to make the others life easier. Giving of yourself to one another .

No one wants someone to always agree with them


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Wolf1974 said:


> It's not about agree but putting each other first, trying to make the others life easier. Giving of yourself to one another .
> 
> No one wants someone to always agree with them


But you just said you "Never complained and always gave in to make [your SO] happy."

Doesn't that mean you will never argue? Especially if both of you do that?


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Wolf1974 said:


> It's not about agree but putting each other first, trying to make the others life easier. Giving of yourself to one another .
> 
> No one wants someone to always agree with them


Also remember the love languages. If her's isn't Acts of Service, then your efforts will go unappreciated.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Wolf1974 said:


> WEll clearly we were raised different but that still doesn't answer to me how being too caring and affectionate or doing as much as you can for your spouse shuts the love down or makes them fall out of love with you. Just something I don't get


Wolf, I grew up much like your family did. My grandfather and father did most of the cooking and very involved in housework. 

I too have never felt the "being loved too much" as a reason to drive me away.

I do understand why the 180 works in cheating/infidelity as a way to make you #1 again and to show the other person that they do not have emotional control.

But in a healthy relationship I don't think loving too much is a problem. And while some people call a man doing things around the house a doormat, I stand by the fact that a person becomes a doormat when you see them that way and start treating them that way. The action of cleaning dishes does not have the value doormat applied to it. It comes from someone's perspective from the outside attaching those two activities together.

That is different from a co-dependent relationship where one's identity is subsumed and cannot stand on its own two legs. Again, the act of cleaning does not mean that one's identity is lost.

TLDR: Loving too much is BS for a spouse to walk out


----------



## Wolf1974

SurpriseMyself said:


> But you just said you "Never complained and always gave in to make [your SO] happy."
> 
> Doesn't that mean you will never argue? Especially if both of you do that?


No that is what SHE said to me. I did give in often but that never meant I always agreed with her or we never fought. 2 different things


----------



## Wolf1974

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> Wolf, I grew up much like your family did. My grandfather and father did most of the cooking and very involved in housework.
> 
> I too have never felt the "being loved too much" as a reason to drive me away.
> 
> I do understand why the 180 works in cheating/infidelity as a way to make you #1 again and to show the other person that they do not have emotional control.
> 
> But in a healthy relationship I don't think loving too much is a problem. And while some people call a man doing things around the house a doormat, I stand by the fact that a person becomes a doormat when you see them that way and start treating them that way. The action of cleaning dishes does not have the value doormat applied to it. It comes from someone's perspective from the outside attaching those two activities together.
> 
> That is different from a co-dependent relationship where one's identity is subsumed and cannot stand on its own two legs. Again, the act of cleaning does not mean that one's identity is lost.
> 
> TLDR: Loving too much is BS for a spouse to walk out


I don't think so either but it's thrown around a lot here, on TAM. It doesn't matter for me anymore cause I would never give more than I get ever again.


----------



## Wolf1974

SurpriseMyself said:


> Also remember the love languages. If her's isn't Acts of Service, then your efforts will go unappreciated.


I never read the book but understand the concept. You may be right. Thing I did weren't appreciated


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Maria Canosa Gargano said*: *I too have never felt the "being loved too much" as a reason to drive me away.
> *
> I do understand why the 180 works in cheating/infidelity as a way to make you #1 again and to show the other person that they do not have emotional control.
> 
> But in a healthy relationship I don't think loving too much is a problem. And while some people call a man doing things around the house a doormat,* I stand by the fact that a person becomes a doormat when you see them that way and start treating them that way. The action of cleaning dishes does not have the value doormat applied to it. It comes from someone's perspective from the outside attaching those two activities together.*
> 
> *That is different from a co-dependent relationship where one's identity is subsumed and cannot stand on its own two legs. Again, the act of cleaning does not mean that one's identity is lost.*
> 
> TLDR: Loving too much is BS for a spouse to walk out


 Love your post here..:smthumbup: There seems to be some delicate balance a man needs to walk to hold his woman's *respect* many times... if they tip those scales catering too much to her...some women will take advantage... (notice : Men are just as guilty !- taking advantage of the goodness & very giving nature of their wives)....

I think 2 marital ingredients are needed to keep these things at bay .... 

*1.* * Being very careful to DO our part*.. as to not be a burden on our spouse (we need to be able to stand on our own 2 legs -as mentioned in your post)...we each have responsibilities -to each other/ to the family... which is something hopefully *GIVEN* without too much argument ...

and 
*2.* *An appreciative spirit* - acknowledging each others efforts... when one does something extra... say







in some way.. offer a back rub, pay it forward somehow ...not everyone agrees with me on this ..... but that's how we are... when I help my H outside with body work, some project he's doing.... it's not that I expect it ...Not at all... but Yet...He always takes the time to let me know he appreciated me helping him.. 

And I uplift him too for getting to things before I need to NAG!!.. That sure helps things run smoother in our family ! 

I'm not a Acts of service woman, I don't care if my H ever touches a dish... I am more than happy to serve him, it's a labor of love.. though I don't cater to our teen sons... as I tell them their wives will HATE ME -so often times I allow them to fend for themselves.. cause they will be splitting these chores someday.. 

Loving TOO MUCH.. heck...my H is this type anyway... what is there not to love !

What I *couldn't* deal with is >> living with an emotionally Unavailable man... I like to feel needed... that what I live for ...my family & catering to his needs... has some value to him... when a man is emotionally there for a woman, his nature is "validating".. he is in tuned to her feelings.. her wants, desires.. he shows he cares.. I like to feel I have an EFFECT on my husband.. not just a piece of the furniture to be over looked. 

And this goes both ways of course.. if he didn't appreciate my Loving on him like that.. if he found that annoying, TOO MUCH... being the sensitive woman I am.. I would feel that... and back away.. but it would surely steal something from our connection... my bubbly demeanor would loose some of it's Fizz towards him even.. and that would be a shame.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

SA - did your H see this growing up? Mine did not and that was more common in the South. My H told me about a guy he knows whose mother laid out his clothes for him every day until he left home to get married. Then his wife laid them out. They saw this as showing love. The irony is that guy eventually got divorced.

FOO matters here. It's hard to create something you have never seen. And many don't want. How many times have I read on TAM that all a man needs to be happy is for his woman to keep his belly full and his penis empty. Not anything is sign up for!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Wolf1974 said:


> WEll clearly we were raised different but that still doesn't answer to me how being too caring and affectionate or doing as much as you can for your spouse shuts the love down or makes them fall out of love with you. Just something I don't get


Because you inherently reduce the value of your love and affection if you provide it in excess of what your partner requires. 

If you undermine the value of your love and affection, eventually you undermine the respect your partner has for you. And once you hit those waters, it's often too late to recover.

That dynamic is exactly why the 180 was created.


----------



## razgor

Deejo said:


> Because you inherently reduce the value of your love and affection if you provide it in excess of what your partner requires.
> 
> If you undermine the value of your love and affection, eventually you undermine the respect your partner has for you. And once you hit those waters, it's often too late to recover.
> 
> That dynamic is exactly why the 180 was created.


So the winning strategy is to do the bare minimum that keeps your partner happy?

IDK, I can see your point if you went way over board their needs. To where you got annoying. But where is that line between keeping a happy partner and creating an ungrateful partner?


----------



## SurpriseMyself

razgor said:


> So the winning strategy is to do the bare minimum that keeps your partner happy?
> 
> IDK, I can see your point if you went way over board their needs. To where you got annoying. But where is that line between keeping a happy partner and creating an ungrateful partner?


How do you expect someone to be grateful for something they didn't want? Again, back to the 5 love languages. By giving what the person didn't ask for, you are assuming their love language is the same as yours. And you possibly are also ignoring their love languages that will bond them to you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

razgor said:


> So the winning strategy is to do the bare minimum that keeps your partner happy?
> 
> IDK, I can see your point if you went way over board their needs. To where you got annoying. But where is that line between keeping a happy partner and creating an ungrateful partner?


Exactly my point. Where is this line between the two extremes so you do just enough but not too much. 

I can't say I agree with the notion that it's better to purposely not give as much as you would like for fear of it not being appreciated. 

I have instead adopted the philosophy that I will do for others but if it's not being returned I'm out. Seems the healthier way to look at it vs purposely holding back to me


----------



## NobodySpecial

razgor said:


> So the winning strategy is to do the bare minimum that keeps your partner happy?
> 
> IDK, I can see your point if you went way over board their needs. To where you got annoying. But where is that line between keeping a happy partner and creating an ungrateful partner?


Understanding THEM vs just aiming at the dart board.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> Because you inherently reduce the value of your love and affection if you provide it in excess of what your partner requires.
> 
> If you undermine the value of your love and affection, eventually you undermine the respect your partner has for you. And once you hit those waters, it's often too late to recover.
> 
> That dynamic is exactly why the 180 was created.


Holy crap.

That hit me right between the eyes. That's _exactly_ what I do.

Thanks, Deejo.


----------



## Deejo

razgor said:


> So the winning strategy is to do the bare minimum that keeps your partner happy?
> 
> IDK, I can see your point if you went way over board their needs. To where you got annoying. But where is that line between keeping a happy partner and creating an ungrateful partner?


The line is at keeping your partner ATTRACTED.

That may mean you need to do a hell of a lot more, or a hell of a lot less.

Anyone that thinks relationships and needs are static are kidding themselves.


----------



## Deejo

I'm linking this old thread as a reference. 

The language and the context was different, but the outcomes were effectively the same.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/16221-how-about-them-apples.html


----------



## razgor

Deejo said:


> I'm linking this old thread as a reference.
> 
> The language and the context was different, but the outcomes were effectively the same.
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/16221-how-about-them-apples.html


I get what you are saying. But honestly, after skimming over the website linked in the other post - I immediately thought of another thread:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...ther-article-men-giving-up-pursuit-women.html

Basically it sounds like a Herculean effort to sustain a long term marriage. I am willing to try But I guess it does give me an excuse if it does not work: woman are just crazy.  (jk)


----------



## Thundarr

razgor said:


> So the winning strategy is to do the bare minimum that keeps your partner happy?
> 
> IDK, I can see your point if you went way over board their needs. To where you got annoying. But where is that line between keeping a happy partner and creating an ungrateful partner?


That's probably a bad strategy as well. I don't know anyone perfect with when to be more or less attentive but defending how you expect to be treated when the eye rolling, snarky, PA stuff starts is a good catch all.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

SurpriseMyself said:


> SA - *did your H see this growing up? Mine did not and that was more common in the South. My H told me about a guy he knows whose mother laid out his clothes for him every day until he left home to get married. Then his wife laid them out. They saw this as showing love. The irony is that guy eventually got divorced.*
> 
> *FOO matters here*. It's hard to create something you have never seen. And many don't want. How many times have I read on TAM that all a man needs to be happy is for his woman to keep his belly full and his penis empty. Not anything is sign up for!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I do not know what FOO is ??? or seeing what exactly in his growing up years ?? 

My H's parents were Traditional...she was the SAHM ... but they were not very close ...she was very much into the kids / crafts... and he spent lots of nights hanging with friends after work... 

Their biggest contention was - she was a hoarder...if she'd leave , he'd start burning things ... It really did get out of hand.. (ironically he came from a family that was so clean they could eat off the floor) -talk about opposites !... 

So No.. I can't say his Mother was living up to catering to his dad... as he would have greatly appreciated a clean organized house to come home to...and she couldn't provide it.. then she'd complain to him she wanted a bigger house.. 

I used to think "are you crazy woman!"...how could she ask him that!! It was their greatest contention.. But they stayed together till the end.. I don't think they had much in common really. 

I think when people say ---the way to a man's heart is through his stomach & keeping his balls emptied..it's just 2 of the top things that come to many men's minds -that they would appreciate the most... a warm meal after a long days work and lots of sex / a wife who shows desire.. Those things are very important to my own husband.. he'd say that.. But by no means = they don't care or need other things.. 

It's just like with us.. we have our top needs too, if you ask a variety of women to list our top 2 or 3 needs... I bet there'd be a variety of answers...because we do have different love languages , etc.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

razgor said:


> Basically it sounds like a Herculean effort to sustain a long term marriage. I am willing to try But I guess it does give me an excuse if it does not work: woman are just crazy.  (jk)


When changing one's personality to better attract women, it is hard at first and gets easier over time. But, the sanity and motivations of women haven't really changed. Society has. We are constantly preached to that marriage is for suckers. Commitment has been removed from marriage. Child support is the new family paradigm. Single parents aren't frowned upon, or even treated neutrally. They're applauded as heroes.

So, marriage is an increasingly risky endeavor. Even if you find a traditionally minded woman who believes that marriage is a life-long sacrament that requires commitment through good times and bad, there's no guarantee that she will continue to hold that view in a few years. And, if she ever changes her mind, the legal system, and even the Church, in the West will allow her to divorce and claim support for the most flimsy of reasons, or no reason at all.


----------



## Joe Cool

Yes or no? 

Why WAWives leave men they love according to those WAWives = Heart numbing romantic and emotional neglect and the absolute density of solid marble about comprehending that. 

What WAWife losing husbands hear when their WAWives tell them this = ungrateful ***** doesn't appreciate that I made lots of money while I was gone, that I need time for my hobbies and buddies, WAWife you aren't one of them and WAWife you don't understand how important it is that I get laid very frequently in a "you are getting what you need from me" kinda way (and don't try none of that duty sex either)

What WAWife saving and satisfying husbands hear when their WAWives tell them this = Holy moly you are upset and I hear you that marriage IS NOT AN EVENT IT'S A PROCESS and that process needs the fuel of ongoing, consistent, romantic pursuit in my top three love languages. 

Did I win? What do I get? 

Answer: A ridiculously satisfying, epically beautiful marriage to a deeply touched, completely fulfilled, giddy azz, sparkling wife that wants to be that which completes me and blows my hair back like a typhoon 

(if she's not nuts or unable to forgive an excusable lack of competence a husband without formal training anywhere reasonably or noticeably available in ANY culture)

^ Speaking of nuts, why is that?


----------



## southbound

razgor said:


> So the winning strategy is to do the bare minimum that keeps your partner happy?
> 
> IDK, I can see your point if you went way over board their needs. To where you got annoying. But where is that line between keeping a happy partner and creating an ungrateful partner?


You have a good question here, and I say again, that's why it's all too complicated and too much drama for me anymore. i just don't think it should be that delicate to do what has to be done in a relationship.


----------



## Red Sonja

Joe Cool said:


> Yes or no?
> 
> Why WAWives leave men they love according to those WAWives = Heart numbing romantic and emotional neglect and the absolute density of solid marble about comprehending that.
> 
> What WAWife losing husbands hear when their WAWives tell them this = ungrateful ***** doesn't appreciate that I made lots of money while I was gone, that I need time for my hobbies and buddies, WAWife you aren't one of them and WAWife you don't understand how important it is that I get laid very frequently in a "you are getting what you need from me" kinda way (and don't try none of that duty sex either)
> 
> What WAWife saving and satisfying husbands hear when their WAWives tell them this = Holy moly you are upset and I hear you that marriage IS NOT AN EVENT IT'S A PROCESS and that process needs the fuel of ongoing, consistent, romantic pursuit in my top three love languages.


In my case the answer is NO, to all three points ... not even close.


----------



## Joe Cool

Red Sonja said:


> In my case the answer is NO, to all three points ... not even close.


An enigma? Youre doomed


----------



## WandaJ

The more of that thread I read the more I am convinced that many men are simply caught by surprise. "what? it worked for thousands years, why it does not work anymore now?

Another part of the probrem here, why we cannot find consensus between men and women on TAM - those of us who are here, are usually the one that TRIED to work on their marriage. Men and women. With so so results. And now, instead of learning from the other side perspective's, it's jumping on it and faulting the other sex for his/her own marriage.

Guys, you can cry all you want that she was a b.." leaving you without warning. True is that there were many warnings. Either learn from this for your future relationship or yell that it is her fault that you did not care to listen. It is like going through your life still faulting your parents for all your problems and mistakes.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

WandaJ said:


> *Another part of the probrem here, why we cannot find consensus between men and women on TAM - those of us who are here, are usually the one that TRIED to work on their marriage. Men and women. With so so results. And now, instead of learning from the other side perspective's, it's jumping on it and faulting the other sex for his/her own marriage.
> *
> .



I cannot talk about any other part of your post, but the part I bolded to be true at times here. Gender wars go on in these threads that I have never experienced in RL. Some of it is eye-opening and I have learned to look through men's eyes much more and to see what is on the mind's of other women.

But sometimes I have to let some of the comments go because it goes nowhere. 

From both men and women.

But I think its a small majority and quite honestly I get much more out of TAM because the majority of people are opening up their hearts to share the beauty and pain of their lives.


----------



## Joe Cool

Guys? 

What guys? 

All guys? 

WTF?

I just got done saying Husbands of WAWives are "as dense as marble"


----------



## yeah_right

Stopped by this thread to see it's still going strong with no resolution or full agreement by the sexes. Not a shocker.

I have a new example of WAW I learned about this past weekend. Friends of my parents. She's 54, he's 70. Married 33 years. He was an oil & gas exec. Traveled a lot. She always complained to my mom that he was never home. He just threw tons of cash at her and kept traveling. They never had kids so in her late 30's she started a career out of boredom. She's good at it and makes excellent money. Created her own circle of friends and gave up trying to change her H. A few months ago he retires and announces they will move to a small home out in the country...in another country. He will not be swayed. Basically, she says h3ll no and now wants a divorce. He is totally shocked and does not understand. My parents have talked to both of them. Dad says she should be grateful for the great lifestyle she's had all those years. Mom says he should have been home more because now he's almost a stranger in his own house. 

Sad all around, but shows how different men and women feel about these things.


----------



## Wolf1974

WandaJ said:


> The more of that thread I read the more I am convinced that many men are simply caught by surprise. "what? it worked for thousands years, why it does not work anymore now?
> 
> Another part of the probrem here, why we cannot find consensus between men and women on TAM - those of us who are here, are usually the one that TRIED to work on their marriage. Men and women. With so so results. And now, instead of learning from the other side perspective's, it's jumping on it and faulting the other sex for his/her own marriage.
> 
> Guys, you can cry all you want that she was a b.." leaving you without warning. True is that there were many warnings. Either learn from this for your future relationship or yell that it is her fault that you did not care to listen. It is like going through your life still faulting your parents for all your problems and mistakes.


Ohh you learn. Sometimes the lesson for many of us is to have higher standards and not attempt relationships with women who are too damaged to have healthy adult relationships.


----------



## Wazza

WandaJ said:


> Another part of the probrem here, why we cannot find consensus between men and women on TAM - those of us who are here, are usually the one that TRIED to work on their marriage. Men and women. With so so results. And now, instead of learning from the other side perspective's, it's jumping on it and faulting the other sex for his/her own marriage.


Very true.



WandaJ said:


> Guys, you can cry all you want that she was a b.." leaving you without warning. True is that there were many warnings. Either learn from this for your future relationship or yell that it is her fault that you did not care to listen. It is like going through your life still faulting your parents for all your problems and mistakes.


I think this is case by case. If you see this as an extension of the first point, some women - and men - don't put in enough effort to effectively communicate. In some cases it seems to be active disdain for the partner's style. 

If I warn my wife in Northern Swahili and she doesn't speak it, she hasn't been warned.


----------



## Wazza

BronzeTorpedo said:


> When changing one's personality to better attract women, it is hard at first and gets easier over time. But, the sanity and motivations of women haven't really changed. Society has. We are constantly preached to that marriage is for suckers. Commitment has been removed from marriage. Child support is the new family paradigm. Single parents aren't frowned upon, or even treated neutrally. They're applauded as heroes.
> 
> So, marriage is an increasingly risky endeavor. Even if you find a traditionally minded woman who believes that marriage is a life-long sacrament that requires commitment through good times and bad, there's no guarantee that she will continue to hold that view in a few years. And, if she ever changes her mind, the legal system, and even the Church, in the West will allow her to divorce and claim support for the most flimsy of reasons, or no reason at all.


You can't guarantee certainty. If you marry without having a plan for what to do if it falls apart you are being naive.

Accepting this is actually liberating. I will make a serious effort to be close to my wife and meet her needs, but I'm not going to be something I am not. She is very special to me, but after decades of marriage, she knows me. Either she wants me or she doesn't. If the marriage ends, I will be ok.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

yeah_right said:


> Stopped by this thread to see it's still going strong with no resolution or full agreement by the sexes. Not a shocker.
> 
> I have a new example of WAW I learned about this past weekend. Friends of my parents. She's 54, he's 70. Married 33 years. He was an oil & gas exec. Traveled a lot. She always complained to my mom that he was never home. He just threw tons of cash at her and kept traveling. They never had kids so in her late 30's she started a career out of boredom. She's good at it and makes excellent money. Created her own circle of friends and gave up trying to change her H. A few months ago he retires and announces they will move to a small home out in the country...in another country. He will not be swayed. Basically, she says h3ll no and now wants a divorce. He is totally shocked and does not understand. My parents have talked to both of them. Dad says she should be grateful for the great lifestyle she's had all those years. Mom says he should have been home more because now he's almost a stranger in his own house.
> 
> Sad all around, but shows how different men and women feel about these things.


I could use this example in my own marriage.. 1st of all.. I would NEVER NEVER NEVER be happy married to a rich man who was never home.. I know that.. My husband knows that.. I like to spend time with my man..that is a huge part of my happiness... 

IN our beginnings.. he worked in a Supermarket...lousy job.. yeah....we talked about his taking Truck driving School but decided against it because he would have to start out over the road.. which was UNACCEPTABLE for both of us.. I told him outright, I would be too lonely and it wouldn't be good....He also agreed he'd HATE the time apart.. 

We both agreed If I had to work full time along side of him but we had every night together, this is what we'd do....that we could LIVE and thrive with that .. Not the other..

Both should be satisfied.. This wife sacrificed her Needs/ wants / desires for money, a high class lifestyle.. can't imagine marrying someone 16 yrs older either...would really suck when her sex drive goes up in mid life, that would be tormenting -then he was never home! [email protected]##... 

I don't feel any woman who enjoys TIME with her husband should settle for a marriage like that... it will come back to BITE.. just as it did..


----------



## razgor

southbound said:


> You have a good question here, and I say again, that's why it's all too complicated and too much drama for me anymore. i just don't think it should be that delicate to do what has to be done in a relationship.


I thought about this thread last night and to be honest I think it is not that delicate. We are talking about really two extremes on the spectrum. 

At one end you can be too disengaged from your spouse and meet very few of her emotional needs. Where she always wants something more and leaves or latches on to the first man who gives her attention. At the other end you go overboard and are constantly lavishing attention to your spouse to the point where it turns her off. Either end is bad. But I think there is a LOT of room between those two extremes.

I think the winning strategy is to figure out where you sit on that curve and work to move yourself to the middle ground. I think you are a lot like me. I do not naturally lavish attention to my partner. And I really do not require a lot of attention from my partner. I am also an introvert and a loner to a degree. I think for people like my self, it would be extremely difficult to give too much attention to your spouse over an extended period of time. It just goes against my nature. I will always have to work at being romantic and giving her the attention she needs.

On the other hand, someone like Deejo who seems to be a crazed romantic should try to tone it down a bit. Ha, sorry Deejo, that was my impression from you in the thread you linked. 

So rather just throw your arms up in the air and say women are too crazy, try to figure out if you are at either extreme and work to improve them.


----------



## Deejo

Oh I'm still pretty much a crazed romantic. Tone it down? Hell no.

I just decided I've got too much love in me for one woman to handle.

https://youtu.be/fGXSRISBu3Y


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Wazza said:


> You can't guarantee certainty. If you marry without having a plan for what to do if it falls apart you are being naive.


I'm not bemoaning a lack of certainty. I'm bemoaning the lack of commitment. Sometimes, tragedy strikes a committed family and drives them apart. For example, the death of a child can tear apart even the most loving and committed of spouses. What I find distressing is that one spouse can go from committed to a flake and there's nothing that can be done about it.



> Accepting this is actually liberating.


Is driving a 30 year-old car that burns a quart of oil a week liberating? Is living with the Sword of Damocles over your head liberating? I wouldn't think so. I would much rather be secure in a relationship with a committed woman than trying to gauge just how fast I should run in circles to keep my uncommitted spouse from taking my children and half my wealth away.

True, I would survive a divorce. But I would much rather thrive in a committed marriage than merely survive because my wife didn't want to tolerate me leaving the toilet seat up anymore.


----------



## Constable Odo

My SO has already informed me if I get fat, she'll dump me.

I've already told her, once I lose my marbles (I'm just shy of 16 years older than her) its okay if she abandons me in my wheelchair at the dog-track with a "Hello, My Name Is: Odo" sticker on my chest.

Now that we have a clear understanding of our boundaries, our relationship can grow and thrive.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Deejo said:


> Because you inherently reduce the value of your love and affection if you provide it in excess of what your partner requires.
> 
> If you undermine the value of your love and affection, eventually you undermine the respect your partner has for you. And once you hit those waters, it's often too late to recover.
> 
> That dynamic is exactly why the 180 was created.


I came late to the party as I was busy the last few days but I agree with you. 

I think it depends on the dynamic of the duo. What would create an unhealthy dynamic with one partner is what fulfills the needs of another partner.

I am very much like SimplyAmorous where spending time with my SO is much more important to me than other ways of expressing love. 

I also think respect is not just dependent on what you do but on the person giving the respect. There are just people in this world who do not respect others. Lets say you are in a relationship with that person and they will look down on EVERY act of service you give to them as you being weak and subservient. Switch them out for a new partner and they will view every act of service you give to them as a reason for them to respect you more.

I see the "enough love, not enough, too much" as something that is IN the dynamic of both partners. It cannot be determined by "this act means too much, and that act means too little".

I think it also depends on if the relationship has become co-dependent or not which has to do with identities being subsumed and not with exactly what actions the people are doing. 

But other people have brought the thread in a more productive direction, I just wanted to clarify. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> What I *couldn't* deal with is >> living with an emotionally Unavailable man... I like to feel needed... that what I live for ...my family & catering to his needs... has some value to him... when a man is emotionally there for a woman, his nature is "validating".. he is in tuned to her feelings.. her wants, desires.. he shows he cares.. I like to feel I have an EFFECT on my husband.. not just a piece of the furniture to be over looked.



I always love your posts. While I don't express on TAM the way I feel in my relationship, it is very much aligned with how you feel. That is why I enjoy your posts so much, they speak to the romantic in me.


----------



## yeah_right

SimplyAmorous said:


> I could use this example in my own marriage.. 1st of all.. I would NEVER NEVER NEVER be happy married to a rich man who was never home.. I know that.. My husband knows that.. I like to spend time with my man..that is a huge part of my happiness...
> 
> IN our beginnings.. he worked in a Supermarket...lousy job.. yeah....we talked about his taking Truck driving School but decided against it because he would have to start out over the road.. which was UNACCEPTABLE for both of us.. I told him outright, I would be too lonely and it wouldn't be good....He also agreed he'd HATE the time apart..
> 
> We both agreed If I had to work full time along side of him but we had every night together, this is what we'd do....that we could LIVE and thrive with that .. Not the other..
> 
> Both should be satisfied.. This wife sacrificed her Needs/ wants / desires for money, a high class lifestyle.. can't imagine marrying someone 16 yrs older either...would really suck when her sex drive goes up in mid life, that would be tormenting -then he was never home! [email protected]##...
> 
> I don't feel any woman who enjoys TIME with her husband should settle for a marriage like that... it will come back to BITE.. just as it did..


That makes sense. But this happened gradually, over 30+ years for this couple. They came to the USA from a small European country, she was just out of her teens. Humble beginnings. Very close at first but as his career took off. I'm sure it was "I'll just work hard for a few years so we can be secure...". Marriage wasn't "bad", they just now look back and realize they didn't spend enough time together. The money he earned is not as fulfilling to him as the act of earning it. Now in their golden years they have conflicting goals. Because they were not communicating, the emotional connection is broken. Sad.


----------



## Deejo

I thought the other thread would be a useful reference. It isn't so much about walkaways, but it highlights one woman's indication of studying and talking with lots of other women who invariably acknowledge that their marriages didn't suck ... but they wanted some excitement and some strange.

And subsequently we then get the NAWALT crowd ... which I get. Do I think any and all women are going to up and leave their men if that one little magical thing is, or isn't done that lights them up?

No I don't.

Do I think the numbers and the dynamic is substantial enough that BOTH genders should pay better attention to the marital dynamic they foster?

Hell yes.

People come here very, very hurt. Despite the protestations here, my goal is not to dog pile on them.

But ... if you want to come here and do nothing but b!tch about the partner that chose to leave, include or exclude affairs at your choice, without taking a look at yourself, then my patience for that belief system has a threshold.

Because if most of what you do on these boards looks bitter and angry, then guess what most participants here are going to think you are in your real life?


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

yeah_right said:


> That makes sense. But this happened gradually, over 30+ years for this couple. They came to the USA from a small European country, she was just out of her teens. Humble beginnings. Very close at first but as his career took off. I'm sure it was "I'll just work hard for a few years so we can be secure...". Marriage wasn't "bad", they just now look back and realize they didn't spend enough time together. The money he earned is not as fulfilling to him as the act of earning it. Now in their golden years they have conflicting goals. Because they were not communicating, the emotional connection is broken. Sad.


 That is very sad as I can see how if I had not had discussions about marriage and had people tell me what can happen, I could easily see that happening to me without me ever knowing what the problem was but just feeling like something was wrong.

I don't know if you read the 5 Love Languages book or any other marriage book. But a common theme was of a festering problem for years in the marriage. The marriage counselor says, "Hey, I think its this really obvious thing thats happening but since it happened over a long time you all just adjusted to it like it was normal when its not. Now just go do this simple thing".

In a lot of those stories its like a lightbulb went off in the couple's heads and in a few months the festering problem was resolved as it was out in the light.

I think some sort of marriage education on communication, common problems and the such would help in showing couple's how to avoid pitfalls and overcome festering problems.

That may not have been relevant in this couple's situation at all. But the "we went from this wonderful place to this stinking hole and I don't know what the problem is but we just accepted it until it became too much" brought me on that tangent.


----------



## Anon Pink

Deejo said:


> I thought the other thread would be a useful reference. It isn't so much about walkaways, but it highlights one woman's indication of studying and talking with lots of other women who invariably acknowledge that their marriages didn't suck ... but they wanted some excitement and some strange.
> 
> And subsequently we then get the NAWALT crowd ... which I get. Do I think any and all women are going to up and leave their men if that one little magical thing is, or isn't done that lights them up?
> 
> No I don't.
> 
> Do I think the numbers and the dynamic is substantial enough that BOTH genders should pay better attention to the marital dynamic they foster?
> 
> Hell yes.
> 
> People come here very, very hurt. Despite the protestations here, my goal is not to dog pile on them.
> 
> But ... if you want to come here and do nothing but b!tch about the partner that chose to leave, include or exclude affairs at your choice, without taking a look at yourself, then my patience for that belief system has a threshold.
> 
> Because if most of what you do on these boards looks bitter and angry, then guess what most participants here are going to think you are in your real life?


Two things..

1. I am not angry. I just have a passionate nature! 

2. I went to the promo site for the living in limbo book. I couldn't find what I was looking for and am wondering if you can direct me. Has this woman had her suppositions peer reviewed at all?

I think she made some relatively good points, in the promo page. But since the price of her book is comparatively astronomical, and the book only promises to explain but not to address the issues inherent in the stages of marriage she describes, I see snake oil written all over it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I would much rather be secure in a relationship with a committed woman than trying to gauge just how fast I should run in circles to keep my uncommitted spouse from taking my children and half my wealth away.


People keep throwing around the word "uncommitted" as if that is what anyone is saying. It is WHAT we are committed to that is different from some of us than for others of us. My husband is secure in the knowledge that I am committed to a loving, caring, giving, happy relationship. What he can never be secure in is the knowledge that I will stay regardless of how much he phones his marriage in.

No one is asking for hoop jumping or circle running. What those of us have commented on on this thread want, and some of receive, is love, understanding, communication, HEARING.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

razgor said:


> I think the winning strategy is to figure out where you sit on that curve and work to move yourself to the middle ground. * I think you are a lot like me. I do not naturally lavish attention to my partner. And I really do not require a lot of attention from my partner. I am also an introvert and a loner to a degree. I think for people like my self, it would be extremely difficult to give too much attention to your spouse over an extended period of time. It just goes against my nature. I will always have to work at being romantic and giving her the attention she needs.*


 I just want to point something out with your comment.. even Introvert/ Loners can not be boxed here.. 

If an Introvert is a *FEELER* (over a *Thinker*) for instance on Temperament tests.... and has *TIME* and/or *TOUCH* (affection) at the top of his love languages ...(all true of my Husband).. this could render such men very Romantic ... great listeners... and enjoys doing most everything with the wife... That's been my experience.. 

And he would also classify himself as *LONER* too.... one of his common nonchalant sayings is "I hate people" ....he is not one to get involved, start conversations too much but he'll talk if someone talks to him.... would prefer to sit by the Exit sign... -wouldn't care to be the center of attention out & about..... 

I'm pretty affectionate *now*.. but for our 1st 19 yrs.. He craved more from ME.. but he never complained ...or said anything.. so in this way.. he wasn't one to OVERLY do these things.. though I look back and feel he should have talked to me about it.. He would just say...he was happy..I gave ENOUGH.. which I probably did cause I've always been a TIME / TOUCH woman who liked to have him by my side.. like we'd watch movies every night -he'd run his fingers through my hair, scratch my back.. (Kept me really happy!!)....he'd NEVER tire of this.. I used to ask him about it.. ...He just wanted more sex & to hold me at night instead of me stupidly putting a baby in bed with us...









I've never felt he was TOO MUCH.. just right actually... It took me coming to this forum & reading countless stories to realize ...how high on my bar my H really is in comparison to the norm -so it seemed.....that would include Extroverts who love people around people even.. We're all multi-faceted.. 



> *So rather just throw your arms up in the air and say women are too crazy, try to figure out if you are at either extreme and work to improve them*.


 :iagree:


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

NobodySpecial said:


> People keep throwing around the word "uncommitted" as if that is what anyone is saying. It is WHAT we are committed to that is different from some of us than for others of us.


And it's those differences that define the level of commitment. I'll use women since the thread is about women leaving, but this would apply to men as well. If Amy is willing to stay in her marriage unless her husband behaves outrageously (beating, cheating, serious addiction, etc.), and Betty is willing to stay in her marriage as long as her husband remembers to put the toilet seat down and put his socks in the hamper, then Amy is clearly more committed to the marriage than Betty is. Now, as long as Betty clearly communicates her lack of commitment to her husband before marriage, I'll have little sympathy for her husband when she leaves. But, if Amy communicates her greater commitment and then, after five years, suddenly adopts Betty's attitude and takes off, I'll have much more sympathy for her husband. In fact, I support some kind of consequence for her bait and switch.



> My husband is secure in the knowledge that I am committed to a loving, caring, giving, happy relationship.


Of course. Only a fool would leave a relationship where everything is great. Saying that you will stay with your husband as long as everything is awesome isn't commitment. That's why the wedding vows state for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health. I certainly wouldn't be willing to marry a woman who insisted on changing her vows to, "for better, for richer, and in health."


----------



## CuddleBug

I've been married to Mrs.CuddleBug for over 15 years now and this is what I've learned so far.

When I get home from work, I always immediately do about 20 minutes of chores, so they never pile up.

Then I crash on the couch, snuggle up under a blanket, watch some tv to unwind and have a mini nap.

Mrs.CuddleBug gets home by the time I'm starting to nap on the couch and she has no chores to do. I got the mail, newspaper and gave the cat fresh water and food.

She gets annoyed at me because I'm napping on the couch!!! I've told her many times, cuddle on me under the blanket. I'll wrap myself around her, she can have a mini nap and when we wake up, we feel refreshed and tell each other a bit about each others days.

She does this from time to time and loves it, but for the majority, she gets annoyed and you always have a nap on the couch!!!

She knows I am the type of guy that leaves work at work. Unless its important, I chill when I get home. She always has to talk about her day, every day and then to her parents on the phone for an hour or two.......every day!!!

On days I don't work and Mrs.CuddleBug does, as soon as she gets in the door, I put my arms around her, my hands in her back pockets and pull her into me. She then puts her arms around me and almost falls asleep, while I sway us side to side. She loves this.

When I get to bed later than she does, I usually sensually rub her feet. She rolls over, I cuddle up to her back for a bit, warm her up and then leave her be. She likes this too.

We watch some tv together, movies, hockey and ufc and there are some tv shows that we both watch alone.

When we do upgrades for our place, I try to get her to do them with me. We work together and get alone fine now.

She always models her new clothes for me and I always stop what I'm doing, I tell her she's hot and sexy, and get her to sit on my lap while I hug her.

It would take a lot for Mrs.CuddleBug to cheat and leave. She isn't the type of woman to party, drink, or go to the bars and pubs with her girlfriends, etc. But then again, I don't do that either and that's one of the reasons she married me.

Depends on the type of person you are. If you need a lot of attention and that means sex as well, and your hubby or wifee isn't as attentive and has a low sex drive, I could see the wifee or hubby cheating or leaving.


----------



## razgor

NobodySpecial said:


> My husband is secure in the knowledge that I am committed to a loving, caring, giving, happy relationship. What he can never be secure in is the knowledge that I will stay regardless of how much he phones his marriage in.


IDK, that statement just bothers me. I know that nothing is certain in a marriage, but to me it really changes how I would approach a marriage. 

To me, being in a marriage is a long term commitment. I may make short term sacrifices so things will be better for US in the long term. For instance, I helped put my wife through a masters program. She hardly worked and it was a financial burden for me during that time. But it was done under the expectation that WE would live better in the long term. 

If my wife told me that statement from the get go, then I would view her less as a wife and more as a girl friend. If there is no long term commitment, no loyalty then there is no marriage. And that really changes what I will sacrifice to just help you.


----------



## razgor

SimplyAmorous said:


> I just want to point something out with your comment.. even Introvert/ Loners can not be boxed here..
> 
> If an Introvert is a *FEELER* (over a *Thinker*) for instance on Temperament tests.... and has *TIME* and/or *TOUCH* (affection) at the top of his love languages ...(all true of my Husband).. this could render such men very Romantic ... great listeners... and enjoys doing most everything with the wife... That's been my experience..
> 
> And he would also classify himself as *LONER* too.... one of his common nonchalant sayings is "I hate people" ....he is not one to get involved, start conversations too much but he'll talk if someone talks to him.... would prefer to sit by the Exit sign... -wouldn't care to be the center of attention out & about.....
> 
> I'm pretty affectionate *now*.. but for our 1st 19 yrs.. He craved more from ME.. but he never complained ...or said anything.. so in this way.. he wasn't one to OVERLY do these things.. though I look back and feel he should have talked to me about it.. He would just say...he was happy..I gave ENOUGH.. which I probably did cause I've always been a TIME / TOUCH woman who liked to have him by my side.. like we'd watch movies every night -he'd run his fingers through my hair, scratch my back.. (Kept me really happy!!)....he'd NEVER tire of this.. I used to ask him about it.. ...He just wanted more sex & to hold me at night instead of me stupidly putting a baby in bed with us...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never felt he was TOO MUCH.. just right actually... It took me coming to this forum & reading countless stories to realize ...how high on my bar my H really is in comparison to the norm -so it seemed.....that would include Extroverts who love people around people even.. We're all multi-faceted..


True, though I am more a thinker then a feeler. However, I mentioned it because Southbound seemed to be very similar to me. And he struggled with the same things I did.


----------



## Deejo

Anon Pink said:


> Two things..
> 
> 1. I am not angry. I just have a passionate nature!
> 
> 2. I went to the promo site for the living in limbo book. I couldn't find what I was looking for and am wondering if you can direct me. Has this woman had her suppositions peer reviewed at all?
> 
> I think she made some relatively good points, in the promo page. But since the price of her book is comparatively astronomical, and the book only promises to explain but not to address the issues inherent in the stages of marriage she describes, I see snake oil written all over it.


1. I absolutely recognize that. Sometimes your passion is scary.

2. I understand the whole peer reviewed or validated sort of stuff, but in this ... it falls under I don't need a panel of people confirming for me what I already know.

I mean c'mon, does the woman have professional credibility outside of being a wayward herself? No more than Athol is a relationship expert.

These truths are self evident. Women cheat, or walk away from their marriages. A lot. Far more than most average people suspect.

Is it worthwhile to figure out why this happens and try to address the underpinnings, or is it preferable to just point the finger and blame 'Women'.

Hopefully you know where I stand on that little nugget.

I wouldn't buy the book either. If it were ten bucks ... I probably would have picked it up.

Being able to discuss this stuff is important. At least I think it is. And the fact that I think it is ... well, makes it important.


----------



## NobodySpecial

razgor said:


> IDK, that statement just bothers me. I know that nothing is certain in a marriage, but to me it really changes how I would approach a marriage.
> 
> To me, being in a marriage is a long term commitment. I may make short term sacrifices so things will be better for US in the long term. For instance, I helped put my wife through a masters program. She hardly worked and it was a financial burden for me during that time. But it was done under the expectation that WE would live better in the long term.


We do the same thing. I am not sure why you think the thing to which we are committed is a short term thing?



> If my wife told me that statement from the get go, then I would view her less as a wife and more as a girl friend. If there is no long term commitment, no loyalty then there is no marriage. And that really changes what I will sacrifice to just help you.


Interestingly, we see it as a STRONGER commitment, driving behavior that creates a loving environment. Anyone can commit to staying and phoning it in.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

razgor said:


> True, though *I am more a thinker then a feeler. However, I mentioned it because Southbound seemed to be very similar to me. And he struggled with the same things I did.*


Not at all surprised you are a *T *(Thinker) over an *F* (Feeler).. I had that predicted -given what you said in your last post.. 

It's something I have noticed on this forum... the great majority of MEN who are T over F feel like you and Southbound. ....he is HIGH on the Thinking scale.. (of course I don't know what your love languages are , but I assume TIME is not near the top)...many men think they are TOUCH because they love sex, but it's not so -unless they are naturally affectionate. 

When I 1st came to TAM. so many of Southbounds posts jumped out at me.. . things he would say.. being older fashioned..country boy.. enjoying the "simple things" in life, mentioning his Grandparents, so much sounded like my Husband... I actually was very curious why a woman would LEAVE a great man like that !! It didn't make sense to me.. 

As time went on, more posts , temperament tests later, love languages come up -he spoke how he didn't need ANY OF THEM.. never heard anyone say that !..*.Do other men feel this way ??* 

Add that to being highly Logical -to the point of not understanding the emotional needs of women.. not such a good mix -if the wife is more on the Emotional / Feeler side..for sure. 

I have to admit, I have noticed a pattern.. with Men who are THINKING.. not to mention reading many temperament profiles.. it points out this is one of their weaknesses - addressing the emotional needs of their significant other, it's almost like it is "NOISE" to some men..


----------



## razgor

Deejo said:


> I mean c'mon, does the woman have professional credibility outside of being a wayward herself? No more than Athol is a relationship expert.
> 
> I wouldn't buy the book either. If it were ten bucks ... I probably would have picked it up.


Come on! Now some one has to get the book and tell us if it holds the secret decoder ring to women! :rofl:


----------



## coffee4me

razgor said:


> I do not naturally lavish attention to my partner. And I really do not require a lot of attention from my partner. I am also an introvert and a loner to a degree. I think for people like my self, it would be extremely difficult to give too much attention to your spouse over an extended period of time. It just goes against my nature. I will always have to work at being romantic and giving her the attention she needs.


This is me. Reminds me of a thread where I explained to JLD about how I would have to try and think everyday to hug a partner if that's what they needed. It doesn't come naturally and I would fail miserably if that's what they needed. 

I would probably sit in my car on my way to work and think sh!t did I hug today? I forgot! Crap! I need to remember tomorrow. Note to self hug SO before I leave. 

Tomorrow comes. Rinse repeat.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

coffee4me said:


> This is me. Reminds me of a thread where I explained to JLD about how I would have to try and think everyday to hug a partner if that's what they needed.* It doesn't come naturally and I would fail miserably if that's what they needed.
> 
> I would probably sit in my car on my way to work and think sh!t did I hug today? I forgot! Crap! I need to remember tomorrow. Note to self hug SO before I leave.
> 
> Tomorrow comes. Rinse repeat*.


And really... this is the reality, isn't it....Some of these *love languages* can end up being LIKE A CHORE, something to cross off our lists in the day.. when we are mismatched.. 

This is why I think it's so helpful to find another who lives & thrives in what we crave too... I have to ask... is TOUCH at your bottom Coffee4me?? 
My H is a huge HUG monster







/ Cuddler / Kisser...... he cuddles before the alarm goes off.. hugs, kisses me before he walks out the door for work...as soon as he gets home, he looks for me to kiss again... I am so spoiled in this.. it's his natural urge to do these things ... if I wasn't receptive.. it would hurt him... he'd feel something is missing...


----------



## coffee4me

I think gifts is at my bottom SA, I could give a rats a$$ what a guy can buy me but if you make me something . Acts of service is at the top of my list. 

I hug friends in greeting etc. I hug family if they need it but I don't think they need it everyday  touch is not at the bottom in the middle. 

The men in my family are the huggers. They all give big bear hugs everyday and us women just take it because we are not huggers. Lol


----------



## SimplyAmorous

coffee4me said:


> *I think gifts is at my bottom SA, I could give a rats a$$ what a guy can buy me but if you make me something . Acts of service is at the top of my list.*


 I think when something is homemade, there is an extra special-ness to it. I feel this way also... I tell him don't even waste your money on a card, I'd prefer you write a sentence on a napkin over that !

*Gifts* are at the absolute bottom for us both ...coming in at a whopping ZERO ... . *Acts of service* one notch up over gifts...

My GF - who is clearly Acts of Service (talking about this one day) told me how she needs her SPACE..she can only take so much Touchy feely -then she has to have a breather.... she used to tell me how angry she'd get when her 1st Husband didn't take out the garbage ..it got to the point she'd allow it to spill over on the kitchen floor.....all the while I am thinking how crazy this was.... .just take the darn thing out [email protected]# ..

(I didn't say that.. I just listened)....he missed the mark in about every way possible.. but I think when we listen to others complaints, it often reveals what their love languages ARE... it's what bothers them the most.. when it's not given, expressed.



> *I hug friends in greeting etc. I hug family if they need it but I don't think they need it everyday  touch is not at the bottom in the middle. *


 and how about this.. even though I am HIGH in touch.. only with my H... I never reach to hug anyone.. I am receptive if they initiate it though... it's not my natural thing to do... growing up noone in my family were big huggers even.. 

To this day.. I would never get a massage from a stranger, that would be too weird for me.. I also never liked it when they asked us to hold hands in church....I'd rather not.. So it's weird.. just with my family I feel that way.. with the kids.. lots of hugs & things.. I'd have to say .. I "grew" in this...his rubbing off on me..

When I first met his Family... on his dad's side..they were those old school Italians who came at you with open arms/ a big  , would grab you & squeeze ...I wasn't used to that !....but really I adored that side of his family...they made me feel so Welcome!


----------



## Wazza

You can make a commitment. You can look for someone who will commit as well. But people change.

I am very committed to my marriage, but I understand it much better than I did when I made my vows.

For me, part of my self-worth was wrapped up in the relationship and when my wife had her affair that went.

My wife is a decent, moral, caring, committed person, and a good choice. But I know from bitter experience not to take the marriage, or her commitment, for granted. She has a breaking point. She hit it once.

You can legislate commitment to the legal structures of a marriage, but you can't legislate a heart. It comes down to imperfect, fallible people. Starting with all of us here.

This is just how it is. Sure, look for commitment, but anyone who takes it for granted is ignoring reality.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wazza said:


> My wife is a decent, moral, caring, committed person, and a good choice. *But I know from bitter experience not to take the marriage, or her commitment, for granted. She has a breaking point.* She hit it once.
> 
> *You can legislate commitment to the legal structures of a marriage, but you can't legislate a heart.* It comes down to imperfect, fallible people. Starting with all of us here.
> 
> *This is just how it is. Sure, look for commitment, but anyone who takes it for granted is ignoring reality*.


Words of Wisdom Wazza!


----------



## Anon Pink

Deejo said:


> 1. I absolutely recognize that. Sometimes your passion is scary.
> 
> 2. I understand the whole peer reviewed or validated sort of stuff, but in this ... it falls under I don't need a panel of people confirming for me what I already know.
> 
> I mean c'mon, does the woman have professional credibility outside of being a wayward herself? No more than Athol is a relationship expert.
> 
> These truths are self evident. Women cheat, or walk away from their marriages. A lot. Far more than most average people suspect.
> 
> Is it worthwhile to figure out why this happens and try to address the underpinnings, or is it preferable to just point the finger and blame 'Women'.
> 
> Hopefully you know where I stand on that little nugget.
> 
> I wouldn't buy the book either. If it were ten bucks ... I probably would have picked it up.
> 
> Being able to discuss this stuff is important. At least I think it is. And the fact that I think it is ... well, makes it important.



I do know where you stand on that. This is the men's clubhouse, in a thread talking about why women leave or cheat. A woman who cheated wrote a book promising some answers...for a ridiculous sum I might add. (And I think she is still cheating...the consumer!)

Yes, the woman does have to have professional credibility outside of her experience in order to apply her ideas to an entire gender. Otherwise she is writing an autobiography and duping us into believing she is every woman, NAWALT

Self help books are too generalized and Athol Kay is most certainly not a relationship expert. He has boiled down a message to make it very simple for anyone to follow without spending any time what so ever gaining true insight into the why's and what for's of their behavior. He has a place in putting forth an idea, but that's all.

The trouble with being able to discuss this is it can't really be done in general terms unless all involved in the discussion are actually OPEN to hearing things they may not like to hear. Women might not like to hear that they can be fickle, bore easily, become emotionally confused, lack constancy. Men might not like to hear their defensiveness keeps them from knowing their wives desires, their steady emotional state while infuriating in some respects is a godsend in others. The man who wears his favorite boxers for years on end, until there is no full seam left, before he finally throws it out can never hope to understand why his wife has become bored with him.

So yes, this is a topic that needs discussion. I just think the discussion is better in small groups with a professional in attendance.

Also, I wanted to say you posted a link to a thread from several years ago. I read parts of that thread. It didn't get near the contentiousness it would have today. There was no battle of the sexes, there were minimal accusations painting all women one way or the other. It was a method driven thread. It was refreshing to read. It made me wish more threads today could be absent of the gender bashing.


----------



## Wazza

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Is living with the Sword of Damocles over your head liberating? I wouldn't think so. I would much rather be secure in a relationship with a committed woman than trying to gauge just how fast I should run in circles to keep my uncommitted spouse from taking my children and half my wealth away.


The sword is always there and always had been. All we are talking about is whether you know and accept it.

Sure you can change the balance. Remove the power to do this so easily from the woman. Go back to the system where a woman did not have the economic power to leave a man who would come home from the pub and beat the stuffing out of her.

Still a sword, you just change where it's aimed. How do you avoid that?

What's liberating is knowing what you are dealing with, because you can make informed choices.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Well ...finally after pages & pages...I clicked on the article written by that woman (a Marriage counselor).. I felt it was a good article, an honest article ..

It's true.. many women will leave good well intentioned men if/when they feel they are emotionally drowning , that he doesn't FEEL her, see her , hear her.... one woman said in her office "“Someone could come and sweep me off my feet, right out from under my husband.” -then she cried.. 

From the article: 



> Men – I’m not saying this is right or wrong. I’m telling you what I see. You can get as angry or hurt or indignant as you want. Your wife is not your property. She does not owe you her soul. *You earn it. Day by day, moment to moment. You earn her first and foremost with your presence, your aliveness. She needs to feel it. She wants to talk to you about what matters to her and to feel you hearing her. Not nodding politely. Not placating.* Definitely not playing devil’s advocate.
> 
> *She wants you to feel her. She doesn’t want absent-minded groping or quick release sex. She wants to feel your passion. Can you feel your passion? Can you show her? Not just your passion for her or for sex; your passion for being alive. Do you have it? It’s the most attractive thing you possess. If you’ve lost it, why? Where did it go? Find out. Find it. If you never discovered it you are living on borrowed time*.


Yes.. Husbands need to be present emotionally for their wives..this speaks of committing just 5 minutes a DAY (now I would say that is NOTHING personally) - heck...."His Needs /Her Needs" speaks of 15 hours a week of undivided attention , focusing on each other to maintain a healthy closeness/ connection... (I guess each couple can decide what works for them.. what is ENOUGH to sustain & nourish their souls towards each other )....... 

Otherwise it could slowly unravel into apathy...resentment...numbness... looking over the fence.... We are as much emotional creatures who long to be fulfilled as our husbands are seeking fulfillment through the physical union with us... 

Both need heard , understood ...and pleased.. in these ways...

Seems a fair trade to me ...


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> Not at all surprised you are a *T *(Thinker) over an *F* (Feeler).. I had that predicted -given what you said in your last post..
> 
> It's something I have noticed on this forum... the great majority of MEN who are T over F feel like you and Southbound. ....he is HIGH on the Thinking scale.. (of course I don't know what your love languages are , but I assume TIME is not near the top)...many men think they are TOUCH because they love sex, but it's not so -unless they are naturally affectionate.
> 
> When I 1st came to TAM. so many of Southbounds posts jumped out at me.. . things he would say.. being older fashioned..country boy.. enjoying the "simple things" in life, mentioning his Grandparents, so much sounded like my Husband... I actually was very curious why a woman would LEAVE a great man like that !! It didn't make sense to me..
> 
> As time went on, more posts , temperament tests later, love languages come up -he spoke how he didn't need ANY OF THEM.. never heard anyone say that !..*.Do other men feel this way ??*
> 
> Add that to being highly Logical -to the point of not understanding the emotional needs of women.. not such a good mix -if the wife is more on the Emotional / Feeler side..for sure.
> 
> I have to admit, I have noticed a pattern.. with Men who are THINKING.. not to mention reading many temperament profiles.. it points out this is one of their weaknesses - addressing the emotional needs of their significant other, it's almost like it is "NOISE" to some men..


I will have to admit, I didn't understand the emotional needs of my x wife, and from what i hear, I guess that could be applied to emotional needs of women in general. With me, it's simply based on what i saw when I was raised, and how i feel on the inside. I don't need it, so i guess it's difficult for me to understand why it is so serious with others.

Sure, I suppose all the emotional stuff is good, but I don't need it. You said it's almost like noise to men; I suppose that is a good way to put it. It's not because we want to be mean, ignore, or don't want someone to be happy, but it just doesn't register with some of us, so it's difficult to address.

It's tough to make a comparison, but maybe it's similar to when you take your kid into a store. I'm sure there is stuff down every isle that they want and ask for, but obviously a parent doesn't buy everything they point at. We assume it's natural to want everything they see, but not logical for a parent to buy them everything they want. At the same time, I don't think parents feel they are treating their kids terribly if they don't get them everything. As I said, I think it's normal for a kid to want a lot, but not normal for a parent to buy everything they want.

If a kid is asking for food because they are hungry, or a coat because they are cold, and we ignore that just because we want to, that seems harsh, but not getting a child a toy every time they enter the store probably doesn't feel terrible to the parent, and it probably isn't logical to think, "If I don't get my kid everything they want, they may decide to disown me when they're 18." I don't think many kids actually do that either.

That may be the most terrible comparison anyone has ever read. There are no two things exactly alike, so comparisons are tough, but I'm just trying to show how some men may consider their wife's requests "noise" just the way we do our children's requests at times. We just don't always understand the importance. Us thinkers may not understand that not being home as much as the wife wants or not talking about our day will drive her to divorce. Some of us just don't get it.


----------



## ConanHub

Gotta admit. A lot of this seems way over my head. But then, much of how people behave has always mystified me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well ...finally after pages & pages...I clicked on the article written by that woman (a Marriage counselor).. I felt it was a good article, an honest article ..
> 
> It's true.. many women will leave good well intentioned men if/when they feel they are emotionally drowning , that he doesn't FEEL her, see her , hear her.... one woman said in her office "“Someone could come and sweep me off my feet, right out from under my husband.” -then she cried..
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.. Husbands need to be present emotionally for their wives..this speaks of committing just 5 minutes a DAY (now I would say that is NOTHING personally) - heck...."His Needs /Her Needs" speaks of 15 hours a week of undivided attention , focusing on each other to maintain a healthy closeness/ connection... (I guess each couple can decide what works for them.. what is ENOUGH to sustain & nourish their souls towards each other ).......
> 
> Otherwise it could slowly unravel into apathy...resentment...numbness... looking over the fence.... We are as much emotional creatures who long to be fulfilled as our husbands are seeking fulfillment through the physical union with us...
> 
> Both need heard , understood ...and pleased.. in these ways...
> 
> Seems a fair trade to me ...


Someone pruposed earlier a weekly or monthly time out to check in with your spouse about his/her needs being met. Apologies I think maybe that was Anon but can't remember for sure and not digging back through the whole thread.

Anyway I still think that, and yours is a great idea. Both spouses have needs and wants and both need to communicate them. Dropping communication hints during everyday conversations may not be enough. If you had a scheduled 30 min serious discussion once a week where you are both really tuned in an listening maybe we could come to a better understanding of where each spouse is at. True it maybe be forced fed communiction but sounds likes for some that is exactly what needs to happen


----------



## SurpriseMyself

So I said to my H this morning that I don't understand why the vast majority of men need sexual intimacy. Why do they expect something that is just so unnatural to women?


----------



## Married but Happy

SurpriseMyself said:


> So I said to my H this morning that I don't understand why the vast majority of men need sexual intimacy. Why do they expect something that is just so unnatural to women?


Interesting.

What if he'd said: I don't understand why the vast majority of women need emotional intimacy. Why do they expect something that is just so unnatural to men?

However, I disagree that sexual intimacy is unnatural to women - just some women. And I don't think that emotional intimacy is unnatural to men - just some men (and in part it is cultural, in that men are normally trained to hide their vulnerabilities and feelings).


----------



## NobodySpecial

Married but Happy said:


> Interesting.
> 
> What if he'd said: I don't understand why the vast majority of women need emotional intimacy. Why do they expect something that is just so unnatural to men?


I don't think emotional intimacy is unnatural to men.


> However, I disagree that sexual intimacy is unnatural to women - just some women. And I don't think that emotional intimacy is unnatural to men - just some men (and in part it is cultural, in that men are normally trained to hide their vulnerabilities and feelings).


I would doubt it is a matter of nature. But one of nurture.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Emotional intimacy is not just about vulnerabilities. But about sharing joy, fun, laughs, thoughts, cares...


----------



## ConanHub

SurpriseMyself said:


> So I said to my H this morning that I don't understand why the vast majority of men need sexual intimacy. Why do they expect something that is just so unnatural to women?


Is it unnatural? There seem to be a lot of desperate, horny women posting on TAM.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## cons

sexual intimacy unnatural?????!!!!

Please don't speak for me


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Well, I need to fess up. I didn't say that to my H, nor do I believe it.

I wrote that because my H said to me today that he thinks that emotional intimacy is unnatural for the vast majority of men, and that he doesn't understand why women need it.

Sorry to do a bit of a trick there. I did it so that the men who read that might understand women a bit more, and also to show that after all of the back and forth with my H, he still doesn't get it. There's no getting through to him, it seems.


----------



## ConanHub

SurpriseMyself said:


> Well, I need to fess up. I didn't say that to my H, nor do I believe it.
> 
> I wrote that because my H said to me today that he thinks that emotional intimacy is unnatural for the vast majority of men, and that he doesn't understand why women need it.
> 
> Sorry to do a bit of a trick there. I did it so that the men who read that might understand women a bit more, and also to show that after all of the back and forth with my H, he still doesn't get it. There's no getting through to him, it seems.


Kinda thought so. He is wrong about all us men BTW.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Anon Pink said:


> I do know where you stand on that. This is the men's clubhouse, in a thread talking about why women leave or cheat. A woman who cheated wrote a book promising some answers...for a ridiculous sum I might add. (And I think she is still cheating...the consumer!)
> 
> Yes, the woman does have to have professional credibility outside of her experience in order to apply her ideas to an entire gender. Otherwise she is writing an autobiography and duping us into believing she is every woman, NAWALT
> 
> Self help books are too generalized and Athol Kay is most certainly not a relationship expert. He has boiled down a message to make it very simple for anyone to follow without spending any time what so ever gaining true insight into the why's and what for's of their behavior. He has a place in putting forth an idea, but that's all.
> 
> The trouble with being able to discuss this is it can't really be done in general terms unless all involved in the discussion are actually OPEN to hearing things they may not like to hear. Women might not like to hear that they can be fickle, bore easily, become emotionally confused, lack constancy. Men might not like to hear their defensiveness keeps them from knowing their wives desires, their steady emotional state while infuriating in some respects is a godsend in others. The man who wears his favorite boxers for years on end, until there is no full seam left, before he finally throws it out can never hope to understand why his wife has become bored with him.
> 
> So yes, this is a topic that needs discussion. I just think the discussion is better in small groups with a professional in attendance.
> 
> Also, I wanted to say you posted a link to a thread from several years ago. I read parts of that thread. It didn't get near the contentiousness it would have today. There was no battle of the sexes, there were minimal accusations painting all women one way or the other. It was a method driven thread. It was refreshing to read. It made me wish more threads today could be absent of the gender bashing.


Thread is what, five years old?

We certainly had our disagreements, but it definitely seems decorum and courtesy has shifted with the times.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Wazza said:


> The sword is always there and always had been. All we are talking about is whether you know and accept it.
> 
> Sure you can change the balance. Remove the power to do this so easily from the woman. Go back to the system where a woman did not have the economic power to leave a man who would come home from the pub and beat the stuffing out of her.
> 
> Still a sword, you just change where it's aimed. How do you avoid that?
> 
> What's liberating is knowing what you are dealing with, because you can make informed choices.


The legal process of divorce has changed dramatically over the last few decades. Our government now encourages divorce and gives women (usually the custodial parent post-divorce) a significant threat-point over their husbands. Rather than acknowledge this fact, most people across the political and cultural spectrum in the West simply tell men to man up and stop whining about the threat-point. If they simply submit to their wives, their wives will probably allow them to see their children and keep their financial stability intact.

I also disagree with the caricature of marriage in the past consisting of an unhappy wife having no choice but to submit to regular beatings by her husband with the encouragement of the Church and the State. In fact, happiness surveys show that wives of decades past were happier than wives today. I don't know if evidence is available for the prevalence of violence against women in the past versus today. I imagine it would be difficult to obtain. Most of what I've seen comes from dishonest advocacy groups claiming that 98% of women are victims, or repeating disproven myths like the Superbowl Sunday spike in violence, or the rule-of-thumb.

I would believe that long-term violence against women has trended down. And I acknowledge that women have more economic options today than in the past, which would explain some of the rise in divorce rates. But I absolutely disagree with identity politics justifying an unfair system by claiming that a group must be punished for the sins of their great-grandfathers.

I'll probably never see a just divorce system in my lifetime. But, it probably won't matter because the divorce system is destroying marriage as an institution. When few marry, few can divorce. Child support will still be a problem. But, declining birthrates may similarly solve that.

None of this do I find liberating. Sad, but not liberating.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> Yes, the woman does have to have professional credibility outside of her experience in order to apply her ideas to an entire gender. Otherwise she is writing an autobiography and duping us into believing she is every woman, NAWALT


The comparison between Langly and Kay is a good one because both are informal researchers weaving together information from a variety of sources.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Eric Hoffer, for example was a longshoreman who wrote a seminal work on the psychology of mass movements that is held in very high regard today and he was eventually awarded an honorary doctorate and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. 

Unfortunately, this genre is also the playground of quacks, so a fair amount of skepticism is probably healthy. 

Personally, I found _Women's Infidelity_ to be vomit worthy for the lack of any personal responsibility the author seemed to feel. To be fair though her second attempt was more constructive.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Deejo said:


> Thread is what, five years old?
> 
> We certainly had our disagreements, but it definitely seems decorum and courtesy has shifted with the times.


If my prior post was deemed discourteous or lacking decorum, I apologize.


----------



## Wolf1974

ConanHub said:


> Kinda thought so. He is wrong about all us men BTW.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yep pretty much. I need emotiinal intimacy as well. If I didnt I wouldn't care about communication but I do. 


I also couldn't be with a woman who didn't feel sexual intimacy was a necessity.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

BronzeTorpedo said:


> The legal process of divorce has changed dramatically over the last few decades. Our government now encourages divorce and gives women (usually the custodial parent post-divorce) a significant threat-point over their husbands. Rather than acknowledge this fact, most people across the political and cultural spectrum in the West simply tell men to man up and stop whining about the threat-point. If they simply submit to their wives, their wives will probably allow them to see their children and keep their financial stability intact.
> 
> I also disagree with the caricature of marriage in the past consisting of an unhappy wife having no choice but to submit to regular beatings by her husband with the encouragement of the Church and the State. In fact, happiness surveys show that wives of decades past were happier than wives today. I don't know if evidence is available for the prevalence of violence against women in the past versus today. I imagine it would be difficult to obtain. Most of what I've seen comes from dishonest advocacy groups claiming that 98% of women are victims, or repeating disproven myths like the Superbowl Sunday spike in violence, or the rule-of-thumb.
> 
> I would believe that long-term violence against women has trended down. And I acknowledge that women have more economic options today than in the past, which would explain some of the rise in divorce rates. But I absolutely disagree with identity politics justifying an unfair system by claiming that a group must be punished for the sins of their great-grandfathers.
> 
> I'll probably never see a just divorce system in my lifetime. But, it probably won't matter because the divorce system is destroying marriage as an institution. When few marry, few can divorce. Child support will still be a problem. But, declining birthrates may similarly solve that.
> 
> None of this do I find liberating. Sad, but not liberating.


This really is fairly ridiculous. My H won't move out, so I have to. Most judges want the kids to remain in the family home, so that is already a strike against me. But I am only asking for equal custody anyway, so I believe that won't be an issue.

In my state, you must live in separate residences for one year before you can be granted a divorce. You are encouraged to draft a separation agreement with your partner so that when the divorce is final, they judge usually just goes with what is in the document (unless it is unfair in some way).

If you are unable to negotiate a separation agreement, or you decide not to, then the judge will decide all matters. And it will be equitable distribution.

This is why I mentioned in another post that I'd like my H to go with me to a neutral third party to discuss what we want in the separation. We can do it that way, or we can each hire attorney's by the hour. Mediation in my state works the same way, so there's pretty much no way getting around using an attorney where I am. Hello costly divorce.

And because I work and make decent money, his child support payments will likely be around $250 a month.

So while men want to think they are getting shafted in some way, at least in my state they certainly are not.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

SurpriseMyself said:


> This really is fairly ridiculous.


Sorry about that. My signature only intermittently attaches to my posts. So, I'll simply say that my argument was about generalities. In most cases, mothers become the custodial parents. In no way did I mean to imply that your specific divorce wouldn't be perfect and fair and wonderful for everyone involved. I'm simply acknowledging that the system, in general, is biased.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Sorry about that. My signature only intermittently attaches to my posts. So, I'll simply say that my argument was about generalities. In most cases, mothers become the custodial parents. In no way did I mean to imply that your specific divorce wouldn't be perfect and fair and wonderful for everyone involved. I'm simply acknowledging that the system, in general, is biased.


I see what you are saying, and I think many men feel that it is. And i'm sure there are plenty of examples on both sides.

My H was sure he would be financially ruined. He was furious about it. Then I asked him if he'd actually looked into it or if he was just going off of hearsay/what his friends told him. He said he didn't look into it yet.

When he did, he found that because I work and make good $, his child support payments will be very low. He isn't complaining any more. By law, he will also get to claim the kids on his tax returns unless I negotiate to have us alternate from year to year.


----------



## Anon Pink

ocotillo said:


> The comparison between Langly and Kay is a good one because both are informal researchers weaving together information from a variety of sources.
> 
> This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Eric Hoffer, for example was a longshoreman who wrote a seminal work on the psychology of mass movements that is held in very high regard today and he was eventually awarded an honorary doctorate and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
> 
> Unfortunately, this genre is also the playground of quacks, so a fair amount of skepticism is probably healthy.
> 
> Personally, I found _Women's Infidelity_ to be vomit worthy for the lack of any personal responsibility the author seemed to feel. To be fair though her second attempt was more constructive.


So you actually read both of her books? You actually plunked down the 80 bucks? 

I saw some reviews and several mentioned the first book was a waste but the second book had solid stuff in it. Does she give any sort of insight for men and women to use as guidelines to halt or sway what she calls the natural progression of marriage? A list of Do's and Do Not's perhaps?


----------



## Wazza

coffee4me said:


> This is me. Reminds me of a thread where I explained to JLD about how I would have to try and think everyday to hug a partner if that's what they needed. It doesn't come naturally and I would fail miserably if that's what they needed.
> 
> I would probably sit in my car on my way to work and think sh!t did I hug today? I forgot! Crap! I need to remember tomorrow. Note to self hug SO before I leave.
> 
> Tomorrow comes. Rinse repeat.


Missed this one yesterday. It's gold.

Yeah it is great when you just mesh, but over a long marriage it isn't always going to happen. Sometimes you have to meet each others needs through a conscious effort.

Thanks for reminding me. I try, but I am sure I don't always get this one right.


----------



## Wazza

southbound said:


> I will have to admit, I didn't understand the emotional needs of my x wife, and from what i hear, I guess that could be applied to emotional needs of women in general. With me, it's simply based on what i saw when I was raised, and how i feel on the inside. I don't need it, so i guess it's difficult for me to understand why it is so serious with others.
> 
> Sure, I suppose all the emotional stuff is good, but I don't need it. You said it's almost like noise to men; I suppose that is a good way to put it. It's not because we want to be mean, ignore, or don't want someone to be happy, but it just doesn't register with some of us, so it's difficult to address.
> 
> It's tough to make a comparison, but maybe it's similar to when you take your kid into a store. I'm sure there is stuff down every isle that they want and ask for, but obviously a parent doesn't buy everything they point at. We assume it's natural to want everything they see, but not logical for a parent to buy them everything they want. At the same time, I don't think parents feel they are treating their kids terribly if they don't get them everything. As I said, I think it's normal for a kid to want a lot, but not normal for a parent to buy everything they want.
> 
> If a kid is asking for food because they are hungry, or a coat because they are cold, and we ignore that just because we want to, that seems harsh, but not getting a child a toy every time they enter the store probably doesn't feel terrible to the parent, and it probably isn't logical to think, "If I don't get my kid everything they want, they may decide to disown me when they're 18." I don't think many kids actually do that either.
> 
> That may be the most terrible comparison anyone has ever read. There are no two things exactly alike, so comparisons are tough, but I'm just trying to show how some men may consider their wife's requests "noise" just the way we do our children's requests at times. We just don't always understand the importance. Us thinkers may not understand that not being home as much as the wife wants or not talking about our day will drive her to divorce. Some of us just don't get it.


I think seeing this as a gender divide is simplistic. I don't fit the male stereotype that has been discussed here, and I don't think I am the only one. I know women who don't fit the female stereotype.

People are who they are. Relationships are about meeting people where they are, and finding common ground. Not about molding someone into a Stepford partner who fits like a jigsaw piece and will perfectly meet your needs.


----------



## Deejo

Wazza said:


> People are who they are. Relationships are about meeting people where they are, and finding common ground. Not about molding someone into a Stepford partner who fits like a jigsaw piece and will perfectly meet your needs.


I'm a special and unique snowflake ... just like everybody else.


----------



## meson

Deejo said:


> These truths are self evident. Women cheat, or walk away from their marriages. A lot. Far more than most average people suspect.
> 
> Is it worthwhile to figure out why this happens and try to address the underpinnings, or is it preferable to just point the finger and blame 'Women'.
> 
> Hopefully you know where I stand on that little nugget.
> 
> I wouldn't buy the book either. If it were ten bucks ... I probably would have picked it up.
> 
> Being able to discuss this stuff is important. At least I think it is. And the fact that I think it is ... well, makes it important.


:iagree:

Being able to discuss this is important. Pointing the finger and blaming "Women" is really a symptom of the problem and is an example of the denial that kills marriages. Getting rid of denial and really doing a measurement of your relationship is the key.

One thing I'm am trying to do is to make my wife one of my hobbies. I'm trying to study her more and give her the focus that I give my hobbies. Figuring her out is crucial. I've learned something recently since I've started to refocus. I've posted about how I turned around my marriage, blah, blah blah. The fact is while that was true in the past couple of years due to work issues with my career I've been a bit neglectful of a few things. She has been bringing up several issues with our home and retirement that I let slide and didn't notice. When you are distracted by other issues these things are not obvious. But now that I've been looking more it's obvious. The key is to look and listen putting time into figuring out what she is concerned about. 

I don't want to make the same mistake twice but I was setting myself up for that while patting myself on the back. Now my wife and marriage is one of my hobbies.

Because of this refocus and her reinvigorating certain aspects of her personality and career I discovered a hidden desire that I pushed her into. She for many years was frugal and made conservative financial decisions and was the typical sacrifice yourself for kids etc. it was time to buy a new car and she was looking at some and had an interest in a sports car. But she then started to go the get the best value for the family event mode. Emotionally she was trying to talk herself out of her real desire. Once I realized this I went into action and found something that we could afford that suited her desire. I had to convince her to take a test drive and gave up one of my activities to take her. I planted the seed and found counter arguments to everything she threw up. She bought finally naught the car and it tapped into a bit of her soul and she has been thankful ever since. 

This was an example of NOT listening to the spouse but reading her inner desire. Now that I study her I can see more and more things that need action and I'm starting to move on them. 

I highly recommend making your spouse your hobby.


----------



## Q tip

Deejo said:


> I'm a special and unique snowflake ... just like everybody else.


yep, except my self centered needs trump your generous giving nature..!


----------



## Deejo

Wazza said:


> Relationships are about meeting people where they are, and finding common ground. Not about molding someone into a Stepford partner who fits like a jigsaw piece and will perfectly meet your needs.


With the right technology, innovation and ethical lapse, I'm confident we can get there.


----------



## skype

Deejo said:


> With the right technology, innovation and ethical lapse, I'm confident we can get there.


3D printing.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

I just want to chime in and say that I am really appreciating this conversation and those who have contributed. I have found myself nodding along in one post to going "Wait...maybe that wasn't right" to outright disagreeing in others. 

It's been a long way (Almost up to 100 pages guys) but its been worthwhile.


----------



## Wazza

BronzeTorpedo said:


> The legal process of divorce has changed dramatically over the last few decades. Our government now encourages divorce and gives women (usually the custodial parent post-divorce) a significant threat-point over their husbands. Rather than acknowledge this fact, most people across the political and cultural spectrum in the West simply tell men to man up and stop whining about the threat-point. If they simply submit to their wives, their wives will probably allow them to see their children and keep their financial stability intact.
> 
> I also disagree with the caricature of marriage in the past consisting of an unhappy wife having no choice but to submit to regular beatings by her husband with the encouragement of the Church and the State. In fact, happiness surveys show that wives of decades past were happier than wives today. I don't know if evidence is available for the prevalence of violence against women in the past versus today. I imagine it would be difficult to obtain. Most of what I've seen comes from dishonest advocacy groups claiming that 98% of women are victims, or repeating disproven myths like the Superbowl Sunday spike in violence, or the rule-of-thumb.
> 
> I would believe that long-term violence against women has trended down. And I acknowledge that women have more economic options today than in the past, which would explain some of the rise in divorce rates. But I absolutely disagree with identity politics justifying an unfair system by claiming that a group must be punished for the sins of their great-grandfathers.
> 
> I'll probably never see a just divorce system in my lifetime. But, it probably won't matter because the divorce system is destroying marriage as an institution. When few marry, few can divorce. Child support will still be a problem. But, declining birthrates may similarly solve that.
> 
> None of this do I find liberating. Sad, but not liberating.


You are conflating a lot of things I said, and in the process missing my point.

What's liberating is to accept the truth and plan on it, rather than try to prop up and live by an attractive fantasy.

I don't think divorce law is perfect right now, but it is a complex area. There are no perfect solutions. Like you I believe in commitment. In general I think I believe in it more than most on TAM. My views on marriage are quite conservative. But I think that is a moral, rather than legal, thing.

Specifically, I agree that custody is in general not handled fairly. I am not in the US and I think its a worldwide problem. You guys talk state by state. I see country by country, and I don't know anywhere that has a perfect system. But that's because its a messy problem, not directly because of anyone's lack of commitment.

And when I read about divorce in places like California, where a wife can apparently cheat on her rich husband and then take him to the cleaners, in effect raping him emotionally and financially, I get furious. It does seem like fault should be a consideration. Until you think about the acrimony generated by proving fault. Is that really the best thing when two people who are at each others throats need to work together the best they can for the sake of dependent children? How does a legal system solve stuff like this?

In general I think it is a good thing that women are more equal, and I encourage the significant women in my life to be financially independent (including my wife). In a world where some people have always not taken marriage seriously (by my conservative standards) that means some will walk away. But overall I think it is better than the alternative.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

skype said:


> 3D printing.


ew ....


----------



## Wazza

skype said:


> 3D printing.


Be careful what you wish for....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEzH40l-Dg8


----------



## skype

Wazza said:


> Be careful what you wish for....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEzH40l-Dg8


The Japanese love vending machines. Maybe the next product? :rofl:


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Wazza said:


> Be careful what you wish for....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEzH40l-Dg8


Can't pay me to click on that link!


----------



## Married but Happy

skype said:


> 3D printing.


When they have one like in "The Fifth Element", count me in.


----------



## skype

Married but Happy said:


> When they have one like in "The Fifth Element", count me in.


_Her_ was good, too.

Her (2013) - IMDb


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> So you actually read both of her books? You actually plunked down the 80 bucks?


It's been awhile, but yes. The first book was published almost exactly 10 years ago and didn't cost anywhere near that much back then. All I can say about the price today is that the more outrageous it gets, the more alternatives to actually paying for it there will be...



> Does she give any sort of insight for men and women to use as guidelines to halt or sway what she calls the natural progression of marriage?


The second book is about recognizing the alleged phenomenon described in the first book and combating it. 

Whether this is helpful or not depends on whether you accept the premises of the first book.

IMHO that stands in marked contrast to this thread which has focused on *legitimate* grievances and dissatisfactions a wife might have with her husband.


----------



## Wazza

skype said:


> The Japanese love vending machines. Maybe the next product? :rofl:


That would be this link. (This one probably NSFW) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teqAkeTSuHs


----------



## Wazza

SurpriseMyself said:


> Can't pay me to click on that link!


It's safe. Trust me, I'm on the internet!


----------



## Q tip

so, what was the original topic about? preventing your Japanese Geisha Robot leaving you???


----------



## Deejo

I can't wait 'til we get to cosplay.

We started this thread out a bit bumpy but it's come around nicely.

If I had to sum up my position in a nutshell, I just want people to recognize, own, and deal with their sh!t, rather than looking to dodge, offload, or blame someone else for it.


----------



## Q tip

Deejo said:


> I can't wait 'til we get to cosplay.
> 
> We started this thread out a bit bumpy but it's come around nicely.
> 
> If I had to sum up my position in a nutshell, I just want people to recognize, own, and deal with their sh!t, rather than looking to dodge, offload, or blame someone else for it.


now, i'm offended!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

meson said:


> *I highly recommend making your spouse your hobby*.


Golden :smthumbup: You are such an asset on this thread.. as you have BEEN THERE....could have lost it all ..but the 2 of you turned it around-due to your dedication to your marriage..... it CAN BE DONE...and you're lovin' it ...many rewards !! 



Wolf1974 said:


> Both spouses have needs and wants and both need to communicate them. *Dropping communication hints during everyday conversations may not be enough. If you had a scheduled 30 min serious discussion once a week where you are both really tuned in an listening maybe we could come to a better understanding of where each spouse is at. True it maybe be forced fed communiction but sounds likes for some that is exactly what needs to happen*


I think that's very sad if something like this (tapping into each other) has to be force fed.. I guess that's when the spouse who desires it needs to use a little creativity to shake things up , make it FUN while you share. That's all. 



southbound said:


> I will have to admit, I didn't understand the emotional needs of my x wife, and from what i hear, I guess that could be applied to emotional needs of women in general. *With me, it's simply based on what i saw when I was raised, and how i feel on the inside. I don't need it, so i guess it's difficult for me to understand why it is so serious with others.*


 Appreciate the honesty Southbound... as Wazza pointed out.. I don't think the majority of men fit this description (or stereotype).. 

I have a question though.. in all seriousness.. if you don't NEED anything in the emotional from a woman.. does that mean she could just lay there like a starfish for you sexually and you'd be perfectly content with that ?? if not, how would you describe this.. isn't this emotional.. craving a woman's enthusiasm, longing for her desire for you..... 

I was thinking about Stepford wives earlier before I came home to read this thread.. (still never seen this movie!)...but would men really be happy with that type of women.....emotionless...just do for them... "NO DRAMA" ...that should be music to your ears. 

I've come to the conclusion ...after years on TAM... that I prefer "needy" men... jeez that must sound pathetic !!.. not the type who can't get sh** done.. or stand on his own 2 feet , not who whine & complain (just for something to do)... but men who literally would be upset /hurt/ FEELING SOMETHING INSIDE IS MISSING if his wife wasn't there enough for him...if she didn't desire him....if she didn't want to spend time with him..if she didn't ___________. Hell yeah, I WANT THAT in a guy!! 

This is WHY I am so empathetic to such men on the forum even.. I see them as MY type [email protected]#$.... If JLD reads this. or Dug...... I can just see them shaking their heads.... that I need help ! ha ha She goes for the strong tower unmovable type .. and I like those sensitive Sappy Betas. 

I don't think I fit the stereotypical anything.. I prefer introverted men -Thinkers are only good for Debate.. FEELERS are the LOVERS [email protected]#$.. ..and I would leave a man over sex.. My H is too predictable in bed.... had many fights over this.. however he makes up for it in loving the act & all that affection.. so ya know.. we can't have it all.. but we can make up for some lack when the scales are tipped in another direction I guess. 



> *Sure, I suppose all the emotional stuff is good, but I don't need it. You said it's almost like noise to men; I suppose that is a good way to put it. It's not because we want to be mean, ignore, or don't want someone to be happy, but it just doesn't register with some of us, so it's difficult to address.*


 Glad you appreciated my NOISE analogy... it could also be looked upon an annoyance and "WORK" to those who don't get it, and again..I see such sadness in this.. that alone would bother some women.. I know I am one of those types.. 



> It's tough to make a comparison, but maybe it's similar to when you take your kid into a store. I'm sure there is stuff down every isle that they want and ask for, but obviously a parent doesn't buy everything they point at. We assume it's natural to want everything they see, but not logical for a parent to buy them everything they want. At the same time, I don't think parents feel they are treating their kids terribly if they don't get them everything. As I said, I think it's normal for a kid to want a lot, but not normal for a parent to buy everything they want.
> 
> If a kid is asking for food because they are hungry, or a coat because they are cold, and we ignore that just because we want to, that seems harsh, but not getting a child a toy every time they enter the store probably doesn't feel terrible to the parent, and it probably isn't logical to think, *"If I don't get my kid everything they want, they may decide to disown me when they're 18." * I don't think many kids actually do that either.


 This part made me think of sheltered religious kids who go hog wild when they enter college.. I do think if a child has been deprived in some areas.. not allowed to breath.. they will rebel -for instance.. and seek MORE when they are FREE, even resenting what the parents has deprived them of -if they see it in other families all around them.



> That may be the most terrible comparison anyone has ever read. *There are no two things exactly alike, so comparisons are tough, but I'm just trying to show how some men may consider their wife's requests "noise" just the way we do our children's requests at times. We just don't always understand the importance. Us thinkers may not understand that not being home as much as the wife wants or not talking about our day will drive her to divorce. Some of us just don't get it.*


Having a little difficulty with the analogy -because it's about a store, buying kids something...basically "spoiling"..... Love / giving of the inside of ourselves doesn't require buying anything at all... you often talk about the *simple things* in life..you know most of them are completely FREE... Kids play, they dream.. so do healthy adults -so long as they take care of their responsibilities in life, paying their bills, working every day.. treating their brother with kindness... 

Nothing wrong with wanting to PLAY TOO when they have some free time --that's the spice of life, it rejuvenate many of us !

If a man feels loving his wife in what emotionally uplifts HER is reduced to Spoiling" like we do with "gimme gimme" hands in the toy store...I would offer that ...by pleasing her .. it will come back to bless you....she will then THRIVE more with you.. hopefully that would be "catchy" in it's own way.... and it need not cost anything... so why wouldn't HE do it.. 

I know the answer.. BECAUSE he doesn't see the NEED..he only hears babies crying (Why can't people just be satisfied to be alive !)...isn't that [email protected]# He doesn't Enjoy the hassle.. maybe he doesn't want to PLAY those games with her... that's the bottom line here.. and really.. that's disheartening...it rips the







out of anything given.. because it's "force fed" again....he doesn't "GET' what makes her tick.. and it's too much work ...

Similar to the attitude "'money doesn't grow on trees"... we tell our kids in a frustrated moment to end the noise....neither does our emotions flow like water....so we remind our wives by how we don't reach to touch hers & connect...

It's discounted because you don't FEEL IT... but she does feel the withholding.. it's just very unfortunate... 

I see this magnitude of disconnect almost like trying to get blood out of a Rock.. 

And of course...wives can be spoiled -if a man bends over backwards and she takes advantage of his goodness.. in those cases, he needs to reign it in ...to bring back some healthy balance.. 

I can't see this EVER being a problem to those who aren't feeling it emotionally though.. only to those who love too hard and are urged to please (more the FEELERS)...


----------



## Anon Pink

ocotillo said:


> It's been awhile, but yes. The first book was published almost exactly 10 years ago and didn't cost anywhere near that much back then. All I can say about the price today is that the more outrageous it gets, the more alternatives to actually paying for it there will be...
> 
> 
> 
> The second book is about recognizing the alleged phenomenon described in the first book and combating it.
> 
> Whether this is helpful or not depends on whether you accept the premises of the first book.
> 
> IMHO that stands in marked contrast to this thread which has focused on *legitimate* grievances and dissatisfactions a wife might have with her husband.



Excellent, thank you Octillo! I was very curious about the second book but wasn't going to give her a penny to to find out.


Ah...another contentious point ...to some. What is legitimate?


----------



## chillymorn

the simple answer is just because they don't love them anymore.

which begs an answer What is love.

to forsake all others, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, 


OR 


until you don't meet my needs anymore and after having an affair I just ain't that into you.

I'm not saying that men and women that leave a relationship because they drifted apart is some oh my god the sky is falling.

But I am sayin that marriage is a out dated institution. and not really worth the paper its written on. might as well say let just cohabitate and keep all things separate that way when the going get tough we can both get going!


----------



## Wolf1974

*I think that's very sad if something like this (tapping into each other) has to be force fed.. I guess that's when the spouse who desires it needs to use a little creativity to shake things up , make it FUN while you share. That's all. 
*

I get that. I think its kinda sad as well. But if it helps communication and prevents the walk away effect and the followed shock I think it could be a good thing or least a lesser of two evils. 

Been a long time since I was in pre marital counseling so wonder if anything like this is ever recommend there or in martial counseling.


----------



## Wolf1974

chillymorn said:


> the simple answer is just because they don't love them anymore.
> 
> which begs an answer *What is love.*
> 
> to forsake all others, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer,
> 
> classic version
> OR
> 
> 
> until you don't meet my needs anymore and after having an affair I just ain't that into you.
> 
> modern version
> 
> I'm not saying that men and women that leave a relationship because they drifted apart is some oh my god the sky is falling.
> 
> But I am sayin that marriage is a out dated institution. and not really worth the paper its written on. might as well say let just cohabitate and keep all things separate that way when the going get tough we can both get going!


can't fault the logic here. That's what I do and does seem a more reasonable solution to live together and not get married again. I'm a bit conflicted cause I do actually believe in the "classic version" of love, commitment and marriage. But to make that one work you have to find someone willing to work on issues and put a relationship ahead of the self. Not easy to find these days for men or women


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Wolf1974 said:


> can't fault the logic here. That's what I do and does seem a more reasonable solution to live together and not get married again. I'm a bit conflicted cause I do actually believe in the "classic version" of love, commitment and marriage. But to make that one work you have to find someone willing to work on issues and put a relationship ahead of the self. Not easy to find these days for men or women


That's my point of view as well. And what makes it more tragic is that you can't simply choose classic marriage or modern marriage. All marriage is modern. So, you can choose a spouse who shares your classic views and pretend you have a classic marriage. But, at any point in the future, either spouse can simply walk away and you're both forced to go through a modern divorce.


----------



## Anon Pink

chillymorn said:


> the simple answer is just because they don't love them anymore.
> 
> which begs an answer What is love.
> 
> to forsake all others, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer,
> 
> 
> OR
> 
> 
> until you don't meet my needs anymore and after having an affair I just ain't that into you.
> 
> I'm not saying that men and women that leave a relationship because they drifted apart is some oh my god the sky is falling.
> 
> But I am sayin that marriage is a out dated institution. and not really worth the paper its written on. might as well say let just cohabitate and keep all things separate that way when the going get tough we can both get going!


Do not mistake vows for a feeling.

If the actions and behavior that caused the feeling to form, disappear for a long enough time, the feeling also disappears. 

But this is not the situation in all cases. 

Sometimes people fall in love because the other person meets their emotional needs at that point in time. We all grow and change. If we fail to grow and change along with our spouses, we risk growing apart.


----------



## chillymorn

Anon Pink said:


> Do not mistake vows for a feeling.
> 
> If the actions and behavior that caused the feeling to form, disappear for a long enough time, the feeling also disappears.
> 
> But this is not the situation in all cases.
> 
> Sometimes people fall in love because the other person meets their emotional needs at that point in time. We all grow and change. If we fail to grow and change along with our spouses, we risk growing apart.


then why have vows in the first place?

is it to trick people into a false sense of security?

I think vows need a major update!

no I don't I think marriage is a dead archaic antiquated and useless!

just the most stupid thing a couple could do. the risk of getting paired up with someone who would take half of all you worked for.

50/50 chance of getting a divorce who in their right mind would take those odds.


----------



## chillymorn

Vow definition, a solemn promise, pledge, or personal commitment:


----------



## SurpriseMyself

chillymorn said:


> then why have vows in the first place?
> 
> is it to trick people into a false sense of security?
> 
> I think vows need a major update!
> 
> no I don't I think marriage is a dead archaic antiquated and useless!
> 
> just the most stupid thing a couple could do. the risk of getting paired up with someone who would take half of all you worked for.
> 
> 50/50 chance of getting a divorce who in their right mind would take those odds.


They don't take half of all you worked for. All that the two of you have worked for together is divided in half. There's a big difference.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

chillymorn said:


> Vow definition, a solemn promise, pledge, or personal commitment:


But pastor, he/she vowed to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part!

Pastor: Yes. And how long has this marriage been dead?


----------



## Forest

SurpriseMyself said:


> They don't take half of all you worked for. All that the two of you have worked for together is divided in half. There's a big difference.


Who decides what was "worked for together", though?


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Forest said:


> Who decides what was "worked for together", though?


That's pretty clear where I live. If you bring tangible assets into the marriage, they are yours. It's called separate property. I'm sure every state has their own laws. In my state we can draw up the division before the divorce and as long as the judge thinks its fair, he/she will sign it.


----------



## chillymorn

SurpriseMyself said:


> They don't take half of all you worked for. All that the two of you have worked for together is divided in half. There's a big difference.


the laws don't care if you worked together they just devide it up 50/50. and a lot of time its really not 50/50.

marital property look it up.

if you buy a house before your married and then get married immediately half of that house is your spouses.

there are many instances where it not All that two of you worked for.


----------



## Canon in D

Someone mentioned in this thread about people remembering the till death do us part of the vows but forget to love and cherish. I've remembered that ever since. I don't know if it's right to say this, but perhaps people also forget to respect the other half. That causes a lot of problems.


----------



## Thundarr

chillymorn said:


> the laws don't care if you worked together they just devide it up 50/50. and a lot of time its really not 50/50.
> 
> marital property look it up.
> 
> if you buy a house before your married and then get married immediately half of that house is your spouses.
> 
> there are many instances where it not All that two of you worked for.


In the two states I've lived in, equity is considered pre-marital assets. No matter, it generally takes a while to build equity together. If I'm doing more and my wife is doing less then at some point it comes back on me for still choosing to stay in an unbalanced marriage. If I see that imbalance and get out early then there's very little to split normally. That would be me owning my part of it.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

SurpriseMyself said:


> They don't take half of all you worked for. All that the two of you have worked for together is divided in half. There's a big difference.


"Worked for together" is a vague concept that is disregarded in legal proceedings. "Earned while married" would be a better description. Some spouses are financial drains on their marriages. Yet the court often considers them as having contributed to the financial success of the marriage equally.


----------



## Thundarr

BronzeTorpedo said:


> "Worked for together" is a vague concept that is disregarded in legal proceedings. "Earned while married" would be a better description. Some spouses are financial drains on their marriages. Yet the court often considers them as having contributed to the financial success of the marriage equally.


The court takes into consideration that both partners willingly chose to stay in the relationship. During that time the assets gained or lost were part of the joined efforts or lack of. It's really not the court's business or concern why someone chose to stay.


----------



## Anon Pink

chillymorn said:


> then why have vows in the first place?
> 
> is it to trick people into a false sense of security?
> 
> I think vows need a major update!
> 
> no I don't I think marriage is a dead archaic antiquated and useless!
> 
> just the most stupid thing a couple could do. the risk of getting paired up with someone who would take half of all you worked for.
> 
> 50/50 chance of getting a divorce who in their right mind would take those odds.


Perhaps you're right Chilly?

What if the vows mentioned never taking each other for granted, never stop dating each other, never become boring and dull and never give the TV more of your attention than you do your spouse? But doesn't this also mean To Love (a verb) to Cherish (another verb) to have and to hold (more verbs) the same thing? 

So who broke the vows? The spouse who stopped showing care and concern, stopped loving, cherishing, having and holding or the spouse who came to understand she was not being loved and decided to take her chances elsewhere?

You now what? This isn't a divorce law thread. Dice orcs happen AFTER a spouse leaves. This thread is discussing why a wife leaves, not divorce law. Start a new thread if you want to b"tch about that.


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> Appreciate the honesty Southbound... as Wazza pointed out.. I don't think the majority of men fit this description (or stereotype)..


I can't be anything but honest on this. In other words, do you feel that most men do understand what women want? that's fine, i can't argue with what's in other people's heads. Maybe I just live in an area where men, including me, are relationship ignorant. I say that tongue in cheek, but perhaps there is some truth. I know a lot of people with seemingly great marriages and guys who love their wives, but if you press them for information, I don't know a single guy(in my neck of the woods) who would say, "Oh, I totally get my wife, no puzzles here, let me explain everything to you."

I remember when i confided in a male friend when my marriage was in trouble. I confided because it appeared he had a great marriage. It appears he and his wife did have a great marriage and he loved being married, but i mentioned that I didn't understand something, and he said something like, "Oh, you'll drive yourself crazy if you try to understand everything your wife does; I've just learned when to go with the flow." 

The weird part is, when i was in my teens and early 20s, I wanted to punch guys when i would hear them make comments about not understanding women. It's not that I had had an experience at that age that proved that i understood women, but i just knew i was a good guy who didn't like drama and liked getting along. I thought, "The reason guys don't understand women is that they don't try." After i had some relationship experiences of my own I thought that maybe they tried a little harder than i thought. 

Let me say this, I'm not saying that I don't understand the women because they are strange, I'll take the blame. I just don't get it. I'm too much of a thinker and not so much an emotional guy. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I have a question though.. in all seriousness.. if you don't NEED anything in the emotional from a woman.. does that mean she could just lay there like a starfish for you sexually and you'd be perfectly content with that ?? if not, how would you describe this.. isn't this emotional.. craving a woman's enthusiasm, longing for her desire for you.....


That would not be the most desired scenario at all. We often overgeneralize, as i probably have when i say I don't need any emotional stuff. Sure, it's all great. I don't read posts of people who enjoy the emotional things and think they are crazy, but apparently i just don't need as much. The lack of that stuff would not cause me to divorce someone.

Speaking of that, I'm sure we all have specific situations and, therefore, our comments spawn from our experiences. Maybe some WAW's do it because being with their husband is like being with a stone statue who hasn't shown an interest in any kind of intimacy in forever. In my case, I didn't see a lot of difference. 

I thought we were pretty much like we always were. I still told dumb jokes, she still snickered, I still rubbed her feet while we watched tv, etc. Then, she suddenly said she was no longer happy and didn't feel love for me the way she once did. I didn't get it. You know my entire story, SA, but that's it in a nutshell. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I was thinking about Stepford wives earlier before I came home to read this thread.. (still never seen this movie!)...but would men really be happy with that type of women.....emotionless...just do for them... "NO DRAMA" ...that should be music to your ears.


I'm not familiar with Stepford wives, but no drama sure sounds appealing. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Having a little difficulty with the analogy -because it's about a store, buying kids something...basically "spoiling"..... Love / giving of the inside of ourselves doesn't require buying anything at all...


I was trying to make the point that people are always wanting or asking for something. I just get the feeling sometimes that when a guy has a WAW, some feel like, "You heard her say she wanted to spend more time with you, and she wanted to discuss her day more, and the list may go on, and you ignored it because your a brute, so shame on you." I'm just saying that we all want things. Heck, there were things in my marriage that I wished were different. 

It would have been nice if when I had to work late, she would have kept the supper leftovers in the oven or fridge, instead of sitting on the table in open air cold as a wedge and turning brown. It would have been nice when I said something like, "I'd like to go to that concert; what do you know, it's only a few days from my birthday," and she might have actually remembered instead of acting like she thought I was kidding. I would have enjoyed it if she was more of a take charge person when something needed to be done instead of saying, "Oh, you'll have to take care of that, I don't know anything about that." But you know what, I wasn't going to divorce her over it. I wasn't in misery over it. In the grand scheme of life, those things seem awfully petty, but she had her own version of similar items that apparently drove her to divorce. That's what causes me to scratch my head. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> (Why can't people just be satisfied to be alive !)...isn't that [email protected]#


I know people can't help but be who they are, but I'm a person who relishes the gift of life a lot. Just being alive with little to complain about makes me mighty happy. I'm a guy who feels that if i have a roof over my head, food on the table, and no drama, I'm quite joyous; anything else just feels like a bonus. I know that sounds as boring as dust to most, but it's me. I'm not constantly striving for more, more, more.

That's not an attitude that i had to train to achieve, or convince myself I should be that way based on some philosophy of life, it's just my nature. 

If I had to describe it, I suppose happiness is my default feeling/emotion. It's what I seem to go to bed and wake up with. It takes some kind of action to change that.

I know people who seem the opposite. Their default emotion seems to be discontentment, and they are always reaching for something to make them happy.


----------



## chillymorn

southbound , you summed it up perfectly!


----------



## chillymorn

Thundarr said:


> In the two states I've lived in, equity is considered pre-marital assets. No matter, it generally takes a while to build equity together. If I'm doing more and my wife is doing less then at some point it comes back on me for still choosing to stay in an unbalanced marriage. If I see that imbalance and get out early then there's very little to split normally. That would be me owning my part of it.


I agree but life decisions happen and if you make decisions based on whats best for your family if you were to stay married. And then she divorces you your SOL.

its not just women who do this more and more women are feeling the sting of a spouse who doesn't pull his weight or he did and then slowly positioned himself so that a divorce would really be financially distasteful.

nothing you can do but take your lumps and move on I guess.


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



southbound said:


> I can't be anything but honest on this. In other words, do you feel that most men do understand what women want? that's fine, i can't argue with what's in other people's heads. Maybe I just live in an area where men, including me, are relationship ignorant. I say that tongue in cheek, but perhaps there is some truth. I know a lot of people with seemingly great marriages and guys who love their wives, but if you press them for information, I don't know a single guy(in my neck of the woods) who would say, "Oh, I totally get my wife, no puzzles here, let me explain everything to you."
> 
> I remember when i confided in a male friend when my marriage was in trouble. I confided because it appeared he had a great marriage. It appears he and his wife did have a great marriage and he loved being married, but i mentioned that I didn't understand something, and he said something like, "Oh, you'll drive yourself crazy if you try to understand everything your wife does; I've just learned when to go with the flow."
> 
> The weird part is, when i was in my teens and early 20s, I wanted to punch guys when i would hear them make comments about not understanding women. It's not that I had had an experience at that age that proved that i understood women, but i just knew i was a good guy who didn't like drama and liked getting along. I thought, "The reason guys don't understand women is that they don't try." After i had some relationship experiences of my own I thought that maybe they tried a little harder than i thought.
> 
> Let me say this, I'm not saying that I don't understand the women because they are strange, I'll take the blame. I just don't get it. I'm too much of a thinker and not so much an emotional guy.
> 
> 
> 
> That would not be the most desired scenario at all. We often overgeneralize, as i probably have when i say I don't need any emotional stuff. Sure, it's all great. I don't read posts of people who enjoy the emotional things and think they are crazy, but apparently i just don't need as much. The lack of that stuff would not cause me to divorce someone.
> 
> Speaking of that, I'm sure we all have specific situations and, therefore, our comments spawn from our experiences. Maybe some WAW's do it because being with their husband is like being with a stone statue who hasn't shown an interest in any kind of intimacy in forever. In my case, I didn't see a lot of difference.
> 
> I thought we were pretty much like we always were. I still told dumb jokes, she still snickered, I still rubbed her feet while we watched tv, etc. Then, she suddenly said she was no longer happy and didn't feel love for me the way she once did. I didn't get it. You know my entire story, SA, but that's it in a nutshell.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with Stepford wives, but no drama sure sounds appealing.
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying to make the point that people are always wanting or asking for something. I just get the feeling sometimes that when a guy has a WAW, some feel like, "You heard her say she wanted to spend more time with you, and she wanted to discuss her day more, and the list may go on, and you ignored it because your a brute, so shame on you." I'm just saying that we all want things. Heck, there were things in my marriage that I wished were different.
> 
> It would have been nice if when I had to work late, she would have kept the supper leftovers in the oven or fridge, instead of sitting on the table in open air cold as a wedge and turning brown. It would have been nice when I said something like, "I'd like to go to that concert; what do you know, it's only a few days from my birthday," and she might have actually remembered instead of acting like she thought I was kidding. I would have enjoyed it if she was more of a take charge person when something needed to be done instead of saying, "Oh, you'll have to take care of that, I don't know anything about that." But you know what, I wasn't going to divorce her over it. I wasn't in misery over it. In the grand scheme of life, those things seem awfully petty, but she had her own version of similar items that apparently drove her to divorce. That's what causes me to scratch my head.
> 
> 
> 
> I know people can't help but be who they are, but I'm a person who relishes the gift of life a lot. Just being alive with little to complain about makes me mighty happy. I'm a guy who feels that if i have a roof over my head, food on the table, and no drama, I'm quite joyous; anything else just feels like a bonus. I know that sounds as boring as dust to most, but it's me. I'm not constantly striving for more, more, more.
> 
> That's not an attitude that i had to train to achieve, or convince myself I should be that way based on some philosophy of life, it's just my nature.
> 
> If I had to describe it, I suppose happiness is my default feeling/emotion. It's what I seem to go to bed and wake up with. It takes some kind of action to change that.
> 
> I know people who seem the opposite. Their default emotion seems to be discontentment, and they are always reaching for something to make them happy.


I'm curious. Did you use to argue with your ex or did you just give her whatever she complains about?


----------



## Thundarr

chillymorn said:


> its not just women who do this more and more women are feeling the sting of a spouse who doesn't pull his weight or he did and then slowly positioned himself so that a divorce would really be financially distasteful.
> 
> nothing you can do but take your lumps and move on I guess.


This is true. I worked with a guy years back who's wife quit her job, had an affair, and then divorced him all within a couple of years. He made good money but lived like a pauper because his child and spousal support were outrageous. So even though I think some people cook themselves, I know that others are screwed over too.


----------



## southbound

Canon in D said:


> I'm curious. Did you use to argue with your ex or did you just give her whatever she complains about?


We rarely had arguments, and we never had one that was a serious one until she asked for a divorce. 

I suppose I "didn't" give her what she complained about, even though i wouldn't exactly call what she did complaining; it was more like just making statements.

She was passive and just kinda went along with what i said. If she asked to go to her family's house to play games and i said I didn't really want to, she just let it go; it wasn't really my thing, although I did do it quite a bit over the years. 

Then, when she hit me with the divorce, she told me of how I had robbed her of a great pleasure by not going to her family's house more and playing games. That's one example.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> Speaking of that, *I'm sure we all have specific situations and, therefore, our comments spawn from our experiences. Maybe some WAW's do it because being with their husband is like being with a stone statue who hasn't shown an interest in any kind of intimacy in forever.*


 And any woman who left THAT - I would support.. that is not cherishing and honoring, I would see it as emotionally NEGLECTFUL.. 



> *I thought we were pretty much like we always were. I still told dumb jokes, she still snickered, I still rubbed her feet while we watched tv, etc. Then, she suddenly said she was no longer happy and didn't feel love for me the way she once did. I didn't get it. You know my entire story, SA, but that's it in a nutshell. *


 And you already know I consider your EX, from your telling ... horribly neglectful to assert her Unhappiness when it should have been uprooted YRS BEFORE.....you 2 never fought...both conflict avoidant ..maybe she assumed nothing would make a difference, she didn't want to be a NAG... (that's drama after all)...you are who you are,... How can we know when people don't communicate... then just Up & leave.. I agree with you...It doesn't make any sense! 



> I was trying to make the point that people are always wanting or asking for something. I just get the feeling sometimes that when a guy has a WAW, some feel like, "You heard her say she wanted to spend more time with you, and she wanted to discuss her day more, and the list may go on, and you ignored it because your a brute, so shame on you." I'm just saying that we all want things. Heck, there were things in my marriage that I wished were different.
> 
> *It would have been nice if when I had to work late, she would have kept the supper leftovers in the oven or fridge, instead of sitting on the table in open air cold as a wedge and turning brown. It would have been nice when I said something like, "I'd like to go to that concert; what do you know, it's only a few days from my birthday," and she might have actually remembered instead of acting like she thought I was kidding. I would have enjoyed it if she was more of a take charge person when something needed to be done instead of saying, "Oh, you'll have to take care of that, I don't know anything about that." But you know what, I wasn't going to divorce her over it. I wasn't in misery over it. In the grand scheme of life, those things seem awfully petty, but she had her own version of similar items that apparently drove her to divorce. That's what causes me to scratch my head.*


 And I say this in all seriousness.. any woman who gives a damn to save her marriage would NOT be that careless and brain dead to not honor these small things.. 

Did you ask for these things ?? did she know. .. or did you both *live on assumptions* for all these years because you DIDN't have those heart to heart talks ? I scratch my head for any couple who doesn't GO THERE.. or you can't tell by someone's daily VIBE they are just not happy anymore... I can't relate to that at all.. Hell, when I have the slightest sad look, my H is all over me asking me what is wrong - it's wonderful ! 

Had you done the small things she craved and she put in effort to please you in the things listed here.. then feeling your delight & appreciation coming back at her.....it would have been a good start to reconnecting.. 

None of us can answer why she left you...what wasn't ENOUGH for her -to sustain ENOUGH happiness to honor "the death do us part".. .. I know we feel very differently on this ...although I am a HUGE pleaser..I will give my man the freaking world.. but in return, I expect his deep love , enthusiasm to be with me..and care about my feelings too... if that dies a slow death - so will my enthusiasm to remain.. 

It doesn't matter if others judge that.. he understands it.. and he's hardly worried about it .



> *She was passive and just kinda went along with what i said. If she asked to go to her family's house to play games and i said I didn't really want to, she just let it go; it wasn't really my thing, although I did do it quite a bit over the years.
> 
> Then, when she hit me with the divorce, she told me of how I had robbed her of a great pleasure by not going to her family's house more and playing games. That's one example*.


 this is the major killer with Passives.. everything she held inside turned into a slow seething resentment against you....so much better to FIGHT in the early stages .....so you know what you are up against...and can meet each other half way.....

I am sure it baffles MANY here...these complaints, about family game time...what is that [email protected]#$%...it had to be so much more.


----------



## 4x4

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've come to the conclusion ...after years on TAM... that I prefer "needy" men... jeez that must sound pathetic !!.. not the type who can't get sh** done.. or stand on his own 2 feet , not who whine & complain (just for something to do)... but men who literally would be upset /hurt/ FEELING SOMETHING INSIDE IS MISSING if his wife wasn't there enough for him...if she didn't desire him....if she didn't want to spend time with him..if she didn't ___________. Hell yeah, I WANT THAT in a guy!!
> 
> This is WHY I am so empathetic to such men on the forum even.. I see them as MY type [email protected]#$.... If JLD reads this. or Dug...... I can just see them shaking their heads.... that I need help ! ha ha She goes for the strong tower unmovable type .. and I like those sensitive Sappy Betas.
> 
> I don't think I fit the stereotypical anything.. I prefer introverted men -Thinkers are only good for Debate.. *FEELERS are the LOVERS [email protected]#$*.. ..and I would leave a man over sex.. My H is too predictable in bed.... had many fights over this.. however he makes up for it in loving the act & all that affection.. so ya know.. we can't have it all.. but we can make up for some lack when the scales are tipped in another direction I guess.


:smthumbup: 

Yes we are! My ideal next marriage will consist of making love, making a comfortable and calm home, and making babies.


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



southbound said:


> We rarely had arguments, and we never had one that was a serious one until she asked for a divorce.
> 
> I suppose I "didn't" give her what she complained about, even though i wouldn't exactly call what she did complaining; it was more like just making statements.
> 
> She was passive and just kinda went along with what i said. If she asked to go to her family's house to play games and i said I didn't really want to, she just let it go; it wasn't really my thing, although I did do it quite a bit over the years.
> 
> Then, when she hit me with the divorce, she told me of how I had robbed her of a great pleasure by not going to her family's house more and playing games. That's one example.


Perhaps going with her to her family's house to play games is spending quality time with her, or she took it that you don't like her family who are precious to her. 

Sorry, I'm not trying to analyze your relationship, and I don't know your story. And of course that's the past. Just sharing what popped into my mind.


----------



## Wazza

chillymorn said:


> But I am sayin that marriage is a out dated institution. and not really worth the paper its written on. might as well say let just cohabitate and keep all things separate that way when the going get tough we can both get going!


When it comes to the law I agree with you. We need laws about division of property, and what happens to the children. Beyond that, what legal sanctions do we need about marriage? 

Spiritually, I believe in lifelong marriage, no divorce just because times get tough. But that is a personal decision. I don't think it should have the force of law.


----------



## Wazza

SimplyAmorous said:


> I was thinking about Stepford wives earlier before I came home to read this thread.. (still never seen this movie!)...but would men really be happy with that type of women.....emotionless...just do for them... "NO DRAMA" ...that should be music to your ears.


I haven't seen the movie either.

My wife hates confrontation, and tries to be a Stepford wife, and it creates a whole lot of communication issues. Problems need to be addressed, not buried and glossed over until they are too big to contain and explode.


----------



## Wazza

SurpriseMyself said:


> But pastor, he/she vowed to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part!
> 
> Pastor: Yes. And how long has this marriage been dead?


Not what it meant. Any pastor who says that is diametrically opposed to what the scripture teaches.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Wazza said:


> Not what it meant. Any pastor who says that is diametrically opposed to what the scripture teaches.


Yea, I know that wasn't what it meant and that a pastor probably would never say that.

My point is that do our vows really mean that no matter how miserable and lonely and frustrated you are, you must stay? No matter how many times your spouse responds with anger or defensiveness when you try to address issues? Should we just accept our lot and live as best we can and suffer on? Is that what marriage is to you, because that isn't what it is to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wazza said:


> *I haven't seen the movie either.*


* Here is a clip of the 2004 movie...

The Stepford Wives (6/8) Movie CLIP - It's a Whole New Me (2004) HD 




My wife hates confrontation, and tries to be a Stepford wife, and it creates a whole lot of communication issues. Problems need to be addressed, not buried and glossed over until they are too big to contain and explode.

Click to expand...

I think that would be very difficult and wholly frustrating...

My H is odd...he is passive and also HATES confrontation... BUT... and this BUT saves him in my book.. he will NOT run from it, or try to put on an act.... he will be HONEST if I ask him how he is feeling.. he doesn't mind my digging at all....so he is very easy to deal with.. and communicate with...however, he is never going to be one to "rock the boat" if it's not something that matters too much..

He has gotten better with me in telling me "WHAT FOR!"... or what is on his mind if he is not happy... since I lambasted him (I'm exaggerating) -because in the past he was too passive when he wanted more sex.... he even started to have some resentment towards me and I didn't even realize all this was going on under the surface....

At my leading, coming to learn this... I was very saddened ....but also angry , a range of emotions ...as I felt I had a right to know how he was feeling....darn it... he's my other half, I wouldn't want him feeling like that!! Shake me... let me know!




SurpriseMyself said: Yea, I know that wasn't what it meant and that a pastor probably would never say that.

My point is that do our vows really mean that no matter how miserable and lonely and frustrated you are, you must stay? No matter how many times your spouse responds with anger or defensiveness when you try to address issues? Should we just accept our lot and live as best we can and suffer on? Is that what marriage is to you, because that isn't what it is to me.

Click to expand...

 I've seen the difference between a miserable marriage (lots of fighting , nothing in common-basically they married too young, My Mother didn't love him) and one that is so fulfilling - I can't even remember a blow out.. in comparing my fathers experience with my Mother.. then marrying my step Mother.. and I was a casualty of that. 

I vote to GET OUT.. if a person needs depression drugs to cope or has to throw themselves in all kinds of hobbies just to stay with someone whose presence annoys them, living like room mates.... ya know what .. Life is too short.. 

Preachers divorce too .... For good reason , those options are available..*


----------



## chillymorn

SurpriseMyself said:


> Yea, I know that wasn't what it meant and that a pastor probably would never say that.
> 
> My point is that do our vows really mean that no matter how miserable and lonely and frustrated you are, you must stay? No matter how many times your spouse responds with anger or defensiveness when you try to address issues? Should we just accept our lot and live as best we can and suffer on? Is that what marriage is to you, because that isn't what it is to me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No I agree that's what marriage is not.

But I think that many people are in a good enough marriage. but are unrealistic as to what a normal healthy marriage looks like.

they might be obsessing about some small things that they would like to have and reading and visualizing that the grass is greener on the other side. that they deserve this or that. and in some case it truly is a bad marriage and it needs to end. But I feel in my gut a fair portion of them are just because they convinced themselves that they can't be happy because their perceived needs are not being met.

they get all fired up and set themselves up to be vulnerable and then the newness of an affair with the endorphin flowing they all of the sudden throw out their marriage because let face it a new love is a powerful feeling so powerful that many throw their established family away for this new feeling. That way statically second marriages and relationships with the affair partner do not fair very well.

lots of therapist and study's show that many people who divorce are not as happy as they thought they would be and even regret their decision. I'm not talking about situations where it is very obvious where there needs to be a divorce. Such as abuse, cheating, drugs or alcohol dependency. etc,etc

but everybody has to decide for themselves about what is a good reason for dissolving a marriage.


----------



## razgor

SimplyAmorous said:


> And you already know I consider your EX, from your telling ... horribly neglectful to assert her Unhappiness when it should have been uprooted YRS BEFORE.....you 2 never fought...both conflict avoidant ..maybe she assumed nothing would make a difference, she didn't want to be a NAG... (that's drama after all)...you are who you are,... How can we know when people don't communicate... then just Up & leave.. I agree with you...It doesn't make any sense!


Which is why I like having designated talk times! It may be force fed and unspontaneous. But it gets issues out in the air and more importantly you can weed out the daily gripes to focus on what matters!




SimplyAmorous said:


> Did you ask for these things ?? did she know. .. or did you both *live on assumptions* for all these years because you DIDN't have those heart to heart talks ? I scratch my head for any couple who doesn't GO THERE.. or you can't tell by someone's daily VIBE they are just not happy anymore... I can't relate to that at all.. Hell, when I have the slightest sad look, my H is all over me asking me what is wrong - it's wonderful !


My own wife *hates* it when I ask her whats wrong. To the point where she tells me stop asking her that. She believes she is very clear when something is bothering her. But guess what, I don't! She can be hard to read, even after all these years. I am naturally happy, she gets moody for lots of reasons or no reason at all. So I try to cheer her up, where before I would have just left her grumpy butt on the couch and do my own thing.

Not every person is great a communicating. And sometimes both of you stink at communicating

I get you and your husband are great match. A lot of people who get married are great matches in a lot of ways. And poor matches in others. You just got to work to overcome the areas where you are not great matches.

On the subject of loyality. While it is very important to me. I think people forget the old saying "Loyalty is earned not given". You never can stop trying to earn that loyalty. I think for some guys it is fairly easy for a women to keep that loyalty. And some people need a lot more effort to earn it.

Perhaps men just need to make a woman work a little harder to earn their loyalty.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

chillymorn said:


> No I agree that's what marriage is not.
> 
> But I think that many people are in a good enough marriage. but are unrealistic as to what a normal healthy marriage looks like.
> 
> they might be obsessing about some small things that they would like to have and reading and visualizing that the grass is greener on the other side. that they deserve this or that. and in some case it truly is a bad marriage and it needs to end. But I feel in my gut a fair portion of them are just because they convinced themselves that they can't be happy because their perceived needs are not being met.
> 
> they get all fired up and set themselves up to be vulnerable and then the newness of an affair with the endorphin flowing they all of the sudden throw out their marriage because let face it a new love is a powerful feeling so powerful that many throw their established family away for this new feeling. That way statically second marriages and relationships with the affair partner do not fair very well.
> 
> lots of therapist and study's show that many people who divorce are not as happy as they thought they would be and even regret their decision. I'm not talking about situations where it is very obvious where there needs to be a divorce. Such as abuse, cheating, drugs or alcohol dependency. etc,etc
> 
> but everybody has to decide for themselves about what is a good reason for dissolving a marriage.


If you'd be happier ALONE.. I think it's better to divorce....as it's true, many won't find that special someone who fits like that glove....it gets really complicated after our younger yrs, our 1st loves....cause then everyone you meet seems to have a truck load relationship hurts & baggage , throw kids in the mix, their problems.....so much fear of vulnerability ..if they've been cheated on, they struggle to trust, many vow to NEVER marry again.. that would take a cold day in hell ..... I've watched what our single GF's go through, even some single guy friends.... it's very sad.

Though my one GF found love after 15 yrs single (and did marry again 2 yrs ago)... so it happens.. for her...leaving her husband was a relief, it helped get her confidence back.. she was happier alone.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

razgor said:


> My own wife *hates* it when I ask her whats wrong. To the point where she tells me stop asking her that. She believes she is very clear when something is bothering her. But guess what, I don't! She can be hard to read, even after all these years. I am naturally happy, she gets moody for lots of reasons or no reason at all. So I try to cheer her up, where before I would have just left her grumpy butt on the couch and do my own thing.


I've heard so many speak like this about their spouses.... I am the complete opposite of this.. if I am in a mood .. it IS *the communicating *that brings me out of it & back to my bubbly self..... to feel brushed off, his blocking communication (which he doesn't do) would make me *worse*... Funny how different personalities can be. 



> *On the subject of loyality. While it is very important to me. I think people forget the old saying "Loyalty is earned not given". You never can stop trying to earn that loyalty. I think for some guys it is fairly easy for a women to keep that loyalty. And some people need a lot more effort to earn it.*
> 
> Perhaps men just need to make a woman work a little harder to earn their loyalty.


I looked this up, it's usually we hear about *RESPECT *being earned..... most articles on Loyalty were about customer /client loyalty.. I thought this write up was very good..would fit in this discussion...



> So if loyalty is lost, I believe it isn’t disappearing on its own and it isn’t gone from every place or relationship. Instead, the loss of loyalty seems situational—meaning that when you think it’s missing, then something is causing it to erode. To help stop this loyalty erosion, let’s explore how loyalty is formed and lost and how we can earn it back.
> 
> We become loyal when we believe in something or someone. We exhibit loyal behaviors when we trust that the person or thing we’re loyal to will be good to us and will follow through on promises made. We are loyal to people or things that we believe enrich our lives.
> 
> When loyalty is lost, it’s because we’ve done something that’s eroded trust. We haven’t put others’ best interests in front of our own. We’ve failed to keep our word or promises, or we haven’t enriched others as much as we have been enriched—meaning we’ve gotten more out of the relationship than they have.
> 
> Loyalty is something that is developed—or lost—as a direct result of our own actions, behaviors, and motives. The bad news is that when you’re experiencing a lack of loyalty from others, it’s because of something you’ve done—or not done. The good news is that earning loyalty is within your control.
> 
> *** *Give hope*: Develop a unified vision on where your firm will be in five years. Gather input from all generations and disciplines in the firm. Make sure the vision represents the voice of your young people, because they will inherit the result and carry it into the future. Help your clients develop their own five-year vision, too, for their organizations and themselves individually. Invest the time to give your people and clients something in their future that they can believe in. (For more on developing a vision, see my June 2012 column “Does Your Firm Have a Vision for Its Future?”)
> 
> *** *Make and keep promises*: Be clear about what you stand for as an individual and as an organization. Define your values and make sure your behavior mirrors what you say you’re committed to or believe in. Carefully make commitments so that you don’t overcommit and underdeliver.
> 
> *** *Follow through*: Do the proactive work ... Keep your promises and commitments—no matter what the effort. Don’t allow yourself to rationalize not producing your committed results. Excuses erode loyalty while results rebuild it.
> 
> *** *Admit failure*: When you make a mistake, miss a commitment, or don’t meet an objective, be transparent, honest, and humble enough to admit it. Apologize without excuse and ask what you can do to overcome any challenge the failure has created. Affirmatively commit to changed behavior in the future—and then follow through.
> 
> ** **Give it first*: Donald T. Regan, former U.S. Treasury secretary, said, “You’ve got to give loyalty down, if you want loyalty up.” How loyal are you to your clients, partners and team members? How much faith and trust do you exhibit? How much leeway do you give them when they make a mistake or admit a failure? To earn the loyalty of others, your behaviors and actions have to reflect that you’re loyal first.


----------



## jld

SA, I very much think that article on loyalty is how men could approach re-earning the respect (trust) of their wives. Thank you for posting it.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

I thought the quotes sounded cynical, even by my standards. They were written for a business relationship. And that's exactly what modern marriage is. The participants aren't spouses, they're shareholders.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

What SA said about the spouse not communicating makes it worse is absolutely true for me.

To Chilly's point, my H does many many things that make him a great husband. He is neat and organized and a good earner and helps with a ton around the house. But our inability to resolve our conflicts out shadows the good. It has damaged our relationship to the point that I'm leaving.

If only he could communicate without defensiveness and anger. If only he would work with me to solve our issues. 

In the end, I'm leaving a very good man who has some flaws that are particularly bad for us in terms of sustaining a marriage.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## coffee4me

Great article in loyalty SA. I definitely see those principles reflected in my family dynamics that span generations.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I thought the quotes sounded cynical, even by my standards. They were written for a business relationship. And that's exactly what modern marriage is. The participants aren't spouses, they're shareholders.


It's true I took out the business aspect.. but I don't see a darn thing wrong with any of it.. We can look at our marriages any way we want...after all we are living them...

I personally see more Romance / friendship / teamwork over a business relationship, that's all too serious & no fun ... No passion.. screw that !


----------



## Wazza

SurpriseMyself said:


> Yea, I know that wasn't what it meant and that a pastor probably would never say that.
> 
> My point is that do our vows really mean that no matter how miserable and lonely and frustrated you are, you must stay? No matter how many times your spouse responds with anger or defensiveness when you try to address issues? Should we just accept our lot and live as best we can and suffer on? Is that what marriage is to you, because that isn't what it is to me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Be gentle, for everyone is fighting their own internal personal battles that you don't mecessarily see or understand.

I alaays have three choices. Accept my lot, walk away...or keep trying.

Marriage is a social institution (family), an economic institution, and a place to be loving (in a deeper than romantic sense. ILYBINIWY is nonsense in my thinking. It encapsulates a mentality that trivialises the meaning of love)

I've been through some awful times and been near divorce. I know how it hurts and I am not going to tell anyone else what their breaking point should be. But for me, I assume that any problem is partly my fault and work to keep addressing things. 

Sometimes it's not my fault. My wife is a good woman, but she's human and every human has issues. At such times, I try to see my role as being a friend beside her as she works on them, not a spouse who throws her away because she hasn't lived up to my expectations or met my needs at that point.

At other times the problems are mostly or even totally my fault. I just can't see it at the time. And most of us find our own faults easier to forgive and accept than the faults of others.

I could write posts about how I tried everything and she just wasn't responsive on certain issues. She could no doubt write the same about me. And we could sigh, sadly part, and go and repeat the experiment with someone new, who seems perfect until we know them better. To me that reduces a new wife to the status of other major purchases.....a consumerist transaction. I find that distasteful.

You learn things by staying through the dry times.


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*



Wazza said:


> At other times the problems are mostly or even totally my fault. I just can't see it at the time. And most of us find our own faults easier to forgive and accept than the faults of others.
> 
> You learn things by staying through the dry times.


I like everything that you said and I have a question for this part. Could you explain how or what made you realize "At other times the problems are mostly or even totally my fault."? Through books, talking with friends or just thinking about it on your own?


----------



## Wazza

Canon in D said:


> I like everything that you said and I have a question for this part. Could you explain how or what made you realize "At other times the problems are mostly or even totally my fault."? Through books, talking with friends or just thinking about it on your own?


All of those in different circumstances.

And sometimes, just having enough time to stop being pig headed and climb off my high horse on some issue where I know I am wrong, at least partially, but don't want to admit.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Wazza said:


> Be gentle, for everyone is fighting their own internal personal battles that you don't mecessarily see or understand.
> 
> I alaays have three choices. Accept my lot, walk away...or keep trying.
> 
> Marriage is a social institution (family), an economic institution, and a place to be loving (in a deeper than romantic sense. ILYBINIWY is nonsense in my thinking. It encapsulates a mentality that trivialises the meaning of love)
> 
> I've been through some awful times and been near divorce. I know how it hurts and I am not going to tell anyone else what their breaking point should be. But for me, I assume that any problem is partly my fault and work to keep addressing things.
> 
> Sometimes it's not my fault. My wife is a good woman, but she's human and every human has issues. At such times, I try to see my role as being a friend beside her as she works on them, not a spouse who throws her away because she hasn't lived up to my expectations or met my needs at that point.
> 
> At other times the problems are mostly or even totally my fault. I just can't see it at the time. And most of us find our own faults easier to forgive and accept than the faults of others.
> 
> I could write posts about how I tried everything and she just wasn't responsive on certain issues. She could no doubt write the same about me. And we could sigh, sadly part, and go and repeat the experiment with someone new, who seems perfect until we know them better. To me that reduces a new wife to the status of other major purchases.....a consumerist transaction. I find that distasteful.
> 
> You learn things by staying through the dry times.


You do learn, and I'm sure there are plenty if benefits to staying. I see so many in my own; probably why it's been so hard to make a decision.

But I also think about my mom. She separated from my father within a month of the last of their 5 kids left the house. They had been married 32 years at that point.

They reconciled a few months later, but I always wondered if it was the right decision.

When I was 25 and she was showing early signs of Alzheimer's, she told me that she felt like she was killing time just waiting to die. 

What to do with that has been in the back of my mind a long time. My mom never got to travel like she wanted to. She had about 5 years in retirement before her Alzheimer's started. I hate it for her and this haunts me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wazza

SurpriseMyself said:


> You do learn, and I'm sure there are plenty if benefits to staying. I see so many in my own; probably why it's been so hard to make a decision.
> 
> But I also think about my mom. She separated from my father within a month of the last of their 5 kids left the house. They had been married 32 years at that point.
> 
> They reconciled a few months later, but I always wondered if it was the right decision.
> 
> When I was 25 and she was showing early signs of Alzheimer's, she told me that she felt like she was killing time just waiting to die.
> 
> What to do with that has been in the back of my mind a long time. My mom never got to travel like she wanted to. She had about 5 years in retirement before her Alzheimer's started. I hate it for her and this haunts me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Did you father stop your mother from booking a plane ticket?


----------



## jld

SM, have you shared these concerns about Alzheimer's with your husband?


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Wazza said:


> Did you father stop your mother from booking a plane ticket?


In a way, yes. They had limited means in retirement and spent their discretionary $ on his dream to retire in the mountains. There was no $ left to travel. To give you an idea, my dad gave me all he could to help pay for my wedding: $1,000. They lived very frugally in retirement out of necessity.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

jld said:


> SM, have you shared these concerns about Alzheimer's with your husband?


I have, and he says he understands why I would feel that way. I don't really talk about it with him anymore, though. I'm the past he has said I'm a hypochondriac. I've also commented, when I was forgetful, that I must be getting Alzheimer's. His response is to tell me I'm not. 

Either way, I don't know how much difference it can make to tell him or not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

SurpriseMyself said:


> In a way, yes. They had limited means in retirement and spent their discretionary $ on his dream to retire in the mountains. There was no $ left to travel. To give you an idea, my dad gave me all he could to help pay for my wedding: $1,000. They lived very frugally in retirement out of necessity.


Was retiring in the mountains substantially more expensive than retiring elsewhere?


----------



## jld

SurpriseMyself said:


> I have, and he says he understands why I would feel that way. I don't really talk about it with him anymore, though. I'm the past he has said I'm a hypochondriac. I've also commented, when I was forgetful, that I must be getting Alzheimer's. His response is to tell me I'm not.
> 
> Either way, I don't know how much difference it can make to tell him or not.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If I were you, I would share my heart with him. Just keep holding your feelings up to him. Be completely vulnerable.

You want to have tried everything before you leave.


----------



## Anon Pink

SurpriseMyself said:


> You do learn, and I'm sure there are plenty if benefits to staying. I see so many in my own; probably why it's been so hard to make a decision.
> 
> But I also think about my mom. She separated from my father within a month of the last of their 5 kids left the house. They had been married 32 years at that point.
> 
> They reconciled a few months later, but I always wondered if it was the right decision.
> 
> When I was 25 and she was showing early signs of Alzheimer's, she told me that she felt like she was killing time just waiting to die.
> 
> What to do with that has been in the back of my mind a long time. My mom never got to travel like she wanted to. She had about 5 years in retirement before her Alzheimer's started. I hate it for her and this haunts me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I've had a similar and probably irrational fear for years. How to find the balance between saving for the future and recognizing that everything you've put off may never happen due to failing health.

"I don't want to wait for us to travel to Europe TOGETHER until retirement. By then we'll both be too arthritic to walk for long." And it's coming true for me and I'm pissed! My body is falling apart and the thought of all the hopes and dreams I once had...it's just sad. It's too late for most of it, I'm convinced.

So, surprise myself, I strongly suggest you not wait another day. Get out there and make your life as wonderful as you can!


----------



## Wazza

SurpriseMyself said:


> In a way, yes. They had limited means in retirement and spent their discretionary $ on his dream to retire in the mountains. There was no $ left to travel. To give you an idea, my dad gave me all he could to help pay for my wedding: $1,000. They lived very frugally in retirement out of necessity.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Would she have had the means to travel and fund her retirement had she divorced?

Ita a really good example you've raised.


----------



## Zouz

Anon Pink said:


> Forest said:
> 
> 
> 
> He does make good points, that men should be aware of. He's not wrong; kinda one sided, though.
> Since he's pointing out the obvious generalizations he might have mentioned some for each partner; balance it out. An insatiable need for attention, compliments, control.
> 
> Wives: why your men are no longer "present"....
> 
> 
> 
> Completely agree!
> 
> Girls, we need to learn to stop wanting attention so much from our husbands! He should be able to come home from work, have an hour to himself to collect himself, eat the dinner we've prepared while chatting with this kids as we remain silent in order to foster his relationship with the kids, then he can out the kids to bed while we clean up, and it's okay for him to watch TV the rest of the night and it's our fault for not enjoying the endless rounds of sports recap shows.
> 
> Girls, we need to stop wanting compliments endlessly! We need to be more mindful of how difficult it is for a man's very tired bran to come up with something personal to say and we must understand that we come across as needy when we want a compliment.
> 
> Girls, we need to let go over control! So what if he stuffs the towels into the closet in such a way that they must be unfolded in order to tell which are bath towels and which are hand towels. Or the sheets in such a way that we can't tell which are single, double, Queen or King. We need to stop controlling things!
Click to expand...

Annon do u marry me !


----------



## chillymorn

Happiness comes from within grasshopper!

Boo hoo I'm not happy.

And most likely you never will be!


----------



## southbound

chillymorn said:


> Happiness comes from within grasshopper!
> 
> Boo hoo I'm not happy.
> 
> And most likely you never will be!


I can't agree more. When I was younger, if I had heard that "happiness comes from within," I'd have thought it was a psychological statement that was crazy, but as time has passed, I've had life experiences, and I have looked at myself deeply, I agree that happiness comes from within 100%.

As I wrote earlier, I think being happy and content is my standard setting/emotion. I'm not looking for something to "make" me happy, I just kinda wake up that way, and if it changes, it takes big blow.

I think some are just the opposite. Some people wake up every morning wondering what can somebody else do today to "make" them happy, or what can they do to make themselves happy. Or if their toast isn't buttered like it has been the other mornings, it's "boo hoo, I'm not happy." 

I guess that's why it's difficult for me to understand why some people leave a marriage over things that would barely register with me. I think to myself, "really, that makes a person unhappy enough to divorce?":scratchhead:

When my x wife and I were in the process of slitting up, she even used the term that she needed to do something to "make her happy." 

It may sound weird, but when I divorced, a lot of people around me told me that i handled it better than anyone they had ever seen. Sure, I was down in the dumps a while, but it's almost like that inward happiness that I usually had was eating away at the bad stuff just like an aspirin works to relieve a headache.


----------



## southbound

There is a powerful video here in the "Life After Divorce" topic called _A Child of Divorce,  which I think gives a child's perspective rather well, which makes me understand why people will leave a marriage over nothing even more. Of course, there is always the argument that the children won't be happy if one of the parent's isn't happy in the marriage. I'm sure things can be bad enough that it is true at times, but not in my case. As far as my kids were concerned, they had the perfect life, but who cares about their happiness, it's all about the happiness of one of the parents. If I had to pick my happiness or my kids happiness, I know which I would pick._


----------



## meson

southbound said:


> I can't agree more. When I was younger, if I had heard that "happiness comes from within," I'd have thought it was a psychological statement that was crazy, but as time has passed, I've had life experiences, and I have looked at myself deeply, I agree that happiness comes from within 100%.
> 
> As I wrote earlier, I think being happy and content is my standard setting/emotion. I'm not looking for something to "make" me happy, I just kinda wake up that way, and if it changes, it takes big blow.
> 
> I think some are just the opposite. Some people wake up every morning wondering what can somebody else do today to "make" them happy, or what can they do to make themselves happy. Or if their toast isn't buttered like it has been the other mornings, it's "boo hoo, I'm not happy."
> 
> I guess that's why it's difficult for me to understand why some people leave a marriage over things that would barely register with me. I think to myself, "really, that makes a person unhappy enough to divorce?":scratchhead:
> 
> When my x wife and I were in the process of slitting up, she even used the term that she needed to do something to "make her happy."
> 
> It may sound weird, but when I divorced, a lot of people around me told me that i handled it better than anyone they had ever seen. Sure, I was down in the dumps a while, but it's almost like that inward happiness that I usually had was eating away at the bad stuff just like an aspirin works to relieve a headache.


This is important. There are a lot of broken people where no amount of work will enable them to be happy or satisfied. Some of them will be walk away wives or disappearing husbands. The things mentioned by the OP article or by others to help reconnect spouse just won't work for some. 

Fortunately my wife believes she is ultimately responsible for her happiness and she has a desire to improve things. Without this a reconnection may never happened for us. But I would not have known if I didn't try. And thats part of the point a lot of people are not trying that could be and they need to be aware that their lack effort may be an issue.


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> There is a powerful video here in the "Life After Divorce" topic called _A Child of Divorce,  which I think gives a child's perspective rather well, which makes me understand why people will leave a marriage over nothing even more. Of course, there is always the argument that the children won't be happy if one of the parent's isn't happy in the marriage. I'm sure things can be bad enough that it is true at times, but not in my case. As far as my kids were concerned, they had the perfect life, but who cares about their happiness, it's all about the happiness of one of the parents. If I had to pick my happiness or my kids happiness, I know which I would pick._


_

You could have picked the happiness of your kids. You could have chosen to meet your wife's needs. You didn't._


----------



## southbound

NobodySpecial said:


> You could have picked the happiness of your kids. You could have chosen to meet your wife's needs. You didn't.


True, but as with a lot in this thread, interpreting that is often confusing. She was the one who decided divorce was the answer to everything and would make everything awesome.


----------



## hookares

Why women leave men they love??
They don't "love them". They like what
the saps can provide them until it just
no longer enough.


----------



## Wazza

southbound said:


> True, but as with a lot in this thread, interpreting that is often confusing. She was the one who decided divorce was the answer to everything and would make everything awesome.


I don't know the details of your story, so have no idea how what I am about to say will apply to you. It's a general comment, that I think might have some applicability.

A marriage is like a marathon. If you are really committed to it, sometimes you just have to put your head down, ignore the pain, and keep going.

And a marriage takes two. I have the power, should I choose, to unilaterally destroy my marriage, and there is nothing my wife could do about it.

You have to decide whether marriage is about your own needs, or something more. If it's about your needs, then ok, it's about you. That is a selfish perspective (statement of fact, not intended as a criticism). But it also lacks creative thinking. I have needs my wife does not meet, and probably never will. She has needs I don't meet, and probably never will. When it comes to sexuality we are committed to monogamy (and our sex life has had good and bad, it isn't perfect) so thats a special case. Other needs can be met in a variety of ways and by a variety of people.

It's helpful for me to know my wife could unilaterally end things. It stops me taking stuff for granted. Its another motivator to work at doing things for her. 

But if she went into a mindset where I was responsible for her happiness, then I become her whipping boy whenever she's unhappy. I don't think that is realistic or workable. Her issues are hers. I will support her, but I mostly didn't cause them, and I can't always change them. So I won't play. And this becomes much simpler now our kids are adults. I will try and meet her needs, and if what I do isn't enough, I will remind her of her vow, and whether she chooses to honour it will be up to her.

Our next major life change will be from middle age to old age. That is a time when companionship and support, with decades of constancy behind it, and a partner who fits like a shabby but comfortable pair of old shoes, will mean a lot. I could throw that all away because, for example, our sex drives are not all that well matched, we have different standards of neatness, or we don't always want to talk at the same time or about the same things. (All issues we have, and all issues I have seen raised as potential marriage enders on TAM). 

For me its a question of whether you delay gratification, sacrificing something good for the promise of something better.


----------



## Wazza

hookares said:


> Why women leave men they love??
> They don't "love them". They like what
> the saps can provide them until it just
> no longer enough.


What is love?

And are men any different?


----------



## EleGirl

hookares said:


> Why women leave men they love??
> They don't "love them". They like what
> the saps can provide them until it just
> no longer enough.


This is a pretty broad statement and quite an insult to the women on this thread who gave very good reasons for why they have left or feel that they have no option but to leave a marriage.

Women as a whole are not a shallow as you seem to think.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> I could throw that all away because, for example, our sex drives are not all that well matched, we have different standards of neatness, or we don't always want to talk at the same time or about the same things. (All issues we have, and all issues I have seen raised as potential marriage enders on TAM).


You have seen some on TAM bring up some of these issues, and others that might seem trivial on the surface. However, it could very well be that others are experiencing these things to a degree that is far beyond what you and your wife have dealt with. It is very hard to know what a person is dealing with when we get only a brief description and their other half is not here to fill in the rest of the story.


Wazza said:


> For me its a question of whether you delay gratification, sacrificing something good for the promise of something better.


For some, that which is going on in their marriage and household is not just an issue of delaying gratification and/or sacrificing for a promise of something better later. Sometimes it’s very clear that there will not be anything better later. Some people will never be there for their spouse… not now, not in their old age, not ever.


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> I can't agree more. When I was younger, if I had heard that "happiness comes from within," I'd have thought it was a psychological statement that was crazy, but as time has passed, I've had life experiences, and I have looked at myself deeply, I agree that happiness comes from within 100%.
> 
> As I wrote earlier, I think being happy and content is my standard setting/emotion. I'm not looking for something to "make" me happy, I just kinda wake up that way, and if it changes, it takes big blow.


While it might be true that happiness comes from within, it's not always true that un-happiness also comes from within.

For example, were you happy when your wife left and divorced you? I'll bet that there was a time when you were not so happy.

I can think of many examples of situations in which a person would be very unhappy because of their situation. Now it is true that a person does generally have the ability to change their situation so that they can put themselves in a situation in which they can make a life for themselves that allows for them to feel "happiness" from within.

Everyone who has choices is responsible for their own happiness. And sometimes that means to leave a situation that is not good for them.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> You have seen some on TAM bring up some of these issues, and others that might seem trivial on the surface. However, it could very well be that others are experiencing these things to a degree that is far beyond what you and your wife have dealt with. It is very hard to know what a person is dealing with when we get only a brief description and their other half is not here to fill in the rest of the story.


I have an advantage over you. I know my complete story. And I am going to look you in the eye and tell you that there have been problems in our marriage far worse than what have caused others on TAM to divorce.

We got through them because I made a central decision after my wife's affair that some things in life are worth more than my happiness and gratification. The unexpected bonus is that I discovered other deeper wellsprings of happiness and gratification in the process. 

This isn't an attack or judgement on anyone who chose to walk away. It is an experience of mine that might be a useful input to others. There are no guarantees in life, but sometimes commitment and sticking it out brings rewards that a WAW or WAH will never know. Just as I will never know what they got that I didn't.



EleGirl said:


> For some, that which is going on in their marriage and household is not just an issue of delaying gratification and/or sacrificing for a promise of something better later. Sometimes it’s very clear that there will not be anything better later. Some people will never be there for their spouse… not now, not in their old age, not ever.


And some spouses have unrealistic and unreasonable expectations of what "being there for them" means. This is not a judgement of any individual, just a statement that the coin has two sides.

What I do know is things that matter to me at some point in my life often become surprisingly unimportant with the perspective of years. Or sometimes you learn something new.

My wife is crap at talking about feelings and expressing affection. Useless at communication. And we'd obviously had bad times. I wondered what I meant to her. When my kids were adults, I contemplated ending the marriage. 

What it took was seeing the look on her face as I was lying on a bed in the ER of out local hospital not knowing if I would still be alive an hour later, to communicate the depth of her feelings. I had to wait through almost thirty years of marriage, good and bad, for that moment. 

It doesn't solve our communication problems, but it makes me realise I didn't understand her perspective at all, because I was measuring her by how I would handle things.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> While it might be true that happiness comes from within, *it's not always true that un-happiness also comes from within.*


Not always, but I think it is true more often than not.



EleGirl said:


> I can think of many examples of situations in which a person would be very unhappy because of the situation. Now it is true that a person does generally have the ability to change their situation so that can put themselves in a situation in which they can make a life for themselves that allows for them to feel "happiness" from within.


You can change your situations sometimes. You can also change how you respond to it.



EleGirl said:


> Everyone who has choices is responsible for their own happiness. And sometimes that means to leave a situation that is not good for them.


Does a human being have any moral obligation to care about the happiness of others? If they have such an obligation, how does it apply when they must choose between their happiness and that of another?


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> I have an advantage over you. I know my complete story. And I am going to look you in the eye and tell you that there have been problems in our marriage far worse than what have caused others on TAM to divorce.
> 
> We got through them because I made a central decision after my wife's affair that some things in life are worth more than my happiness and gratification. The unexpected bonus is that I discovered other deeper wellsprings of happiness and gratification in the process.
> 
> This isn't an attack or judgment on anyone who chose to walk away. It is an experience of mine that might be a useful input to others. There are no guarantees in life, but sometimes commitment and sticking it out brings rewards that a WAW or WAH will never know. Just as I will never know what they got that I didn't.


I am one of the few here who really believe that most marriages can reconcile after an affair. So I’m glad to hear that you did this. I think it takes a much stronger person to reconcile than it takes to just walk away.

While there have been problems in your marriage that are far worse than what has caused some others on TAM to divorce, there are also people whose situations are very different from yours. It takes two to keep a marriage together and two to make it work. It only takes one to destroy the marriage. Sometimes the person who appears to be walking away is not the one who has broken the marriage. They give up because the other is not willing to work on the marriage. 

If your wife had not ended her affair and had not worked to reconcile, would you have stayed with her? 




Wazza said:


> And some spouses have unrealistic and unreasonable expectations of what "being there for them" means. This is not a judgement of any individual, just a statement that the coin has two sides.
> 
> What I do know is things that matter to me at some point in my life often become surprisingly unimportant with the perspective of years. Or sometimes you learn something new.
> 
> My wife is crap at talking about feelings and expressing affection. Useless at communication. And we'd obviously had bad times. I wondered what I meant to her. When my kids were adults, I contemplated ending the marriage.
> 
> What it took was seeing the look on her face as I was lying on a bed in the ER of out local hospital not knowing if I would still be alive an hour later, to communicate the depth of her feelings. I had to wait through almost thirty years of marriage, good and bad, for that moment.
> 
> It doesn't solve our communication problems, but it makes me realise I didn't understand her perspective at all, because I was measuring her by how I would handle things.


Like you, I have an advantage in that I know the entire story of my marriage and I can assure you that no sane person would have stayed. I rather doubt that even you would have.

Sure there are people, men and women who leave marriages for frivolous reasons. But far from all who leave their marriage do.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> While it might be true that happiness comes from within, it's not always true that un-happiness also comes from within.





Wazza said:


> Not always, but I think it is true more often than not.


We have no clue how often a person’s unhappiness comes from within or comes from external circumstances. I’m not arguing that in every case that unhappiness comes from without. I only stated that unhappiness not always come with within. 



Wazza said:


> You can change your situations sometimes. You can also change how you respond to it.


Sure people can change how they respond to a situation. But sometimes the changes that it would take are not acceptable.

I’m not sure what you are arguing here. Are you arguing that a person you believe that a person must always stay in a marriage and find their own way to happy in it regardless of what the situation is? Because that’s what it sounds like you are saying. 


Wazza said:


> Does a human being have any moral obligation to care about the happiness of others? If they have such an obligation, how does it apply when they must choose between their happiness and that of another?


Do you believe that a person should sacrifice their own wellbeing to make their spouse happy? Is that what you are saying? How far should a person go in sacrificing their own wellbeing for their spouse?


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> If your wife had not ended her affair and had not worked to reconcile, would you have stayed with her?


For about a decade she did nothing to help reconcile. And I stayed. So to some extent the answer is yes.

I contemplated leaving when the kids were adults. Maybe I would have, maybe not. How do you tell? 

This is all personal for all of us. The truth is, maybe I would have been happier if I had left her all those years ago. I'll never know. Your marriage might have turned out amazing if you had just hung in there a bit longer. You'll never know.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> We have no clue how often a person’s unhappiness comes from within or comes from external circumstances. I’m not arguing that in every case that unhappiness comes from without. I only stated that unhappiness not always come with within.
> 
> 
> Sure people can change how they respond to a situation. But sometimes the changes that it would take are not acceptable.
> 
> I’m not sure what you are arguing here. Are you arguing that a person you believe that a person must always stay in a marriage and find their own way to happy in it regardless of what the situation is? Because that’s what it sounds like you are saying.
> 
> Do you believe that a person should sacrifice their own wellbeing to make their spouse happy? Is that what you are saying? *How far should a person go in sacrificing their own wellbeing for their spouse?*


I'm raising questions about the nature of happiness. I'm suggesting that in our current society we are pretty shallow at it. And the result is we often don't find that which we seek.

And the bit I bolded is the million-dollar question. I am not suggesting it should be without limits, but yes I do believe we should at times put the needs of others ahead of our own.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> For about a decade she did nothing to help reconcile. And I stayed. So to some extent the answer is yes.
> 
> I contemplated leaving when the kids were adults. Maybe I would have, maybe not. How do you tell?


Your wife cheated for a decade? Or she stopped her affair but did nothing to reconcile.



Wazza said:


> This is all personal for all of us. The truth is, maybe I would have been happier if I had left her all those years ago. I'll never know. Your marriage might have turned out amazing if you had just hung in there a bit longer. You'll never know.


Or it might have just gone on and on and on with him cheating, being abusive, etc.

But the bottom line is that it was not frivolous to leave. It was not just looking out for my own happiness at his expense. Which is what is being suggested here.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> I'm raising questions about the nature of happiness. I'm suggesting that in our current society we are pretty shallow at it. And the result is we often don't find that which we seek.
> 
> And the bit I bolded is the million-dollar question. I am not suggesting it should be without limits, but yes I do believe we should at times put the needs of others ahead of our own.


I am also talking about the nature of happiness. It's far more complicated than "happiness is from within".

Sure we should put the needs, happiness and wellbeing of others ahead of our own sometimes. 

I don't really know if we are shallow at doing this in our society. Generally I tend to not judge others because I do not know the entirety of their situation. They are also not obligated to explain it to me, to my satisfaction. Instead I believe that each person has to make these decisions for themselves.

I can assure you that I put my husband's needs and my son's needs ahead of my own for decades. There came a point where I could no longer put my husband's ahead of my own. At some point someone had to care about me and I was the only one who did. My husband did not care, nor did he ever put my needs ahead of his own.. never.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> I am also talking about the nature of happiness. It's far more complicated than "happiness is from within".
> 
> Sure we should put the needs, happiness and wellbeing of others ahead of our own sometimes.
> 
> I don't really know if we are shallow at doing this in our society. Generally I tend to not judge others because I do not know the entirety of their situation. They are also not obligated to explain it to me, to my satisfaction. Instead I believe that each person has to make these decisions for themselves.
> 
> I can assure you that I put my husband's needs and my son's needs ahead of my own for decades. There came a point where I could no longer put my husband's ahead of my own. At some point someone had to care about me and I was the only one who did. My husband did not care, nor did he ever put my needs ahead of his own.. never.


I'm judging certain values propagated in society today, I guess. But I am not judging individuals. This thread is about sharing ideas for dealing with a difficult situation. I'm sharing mine. 

I do see a contradiction in your post. You seem to want me not to judge, and yet you seem to want me to agree that you were justified in leaving your marriage. 

Why is it more complex than just "happiness is from within". Might be a useful discussion. I think it would be directly relevant in a thread about why people get unhappy enough to walk away from a marriage. Others may disagree.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> Your wife cheated for a decade? Or she stopped her affair but did nothing to reconcile.


The affair went on for about 8 months after I discovered it.



EleGirl said:


> Or it might have just gone on and on and on with him cheating, being abusive, etc.
> 
> But the bottom line is that it was not frivolous to leave. It was not just looking out for my own happiness at his expense. Which is what is being suggested here.


I did not use the word frivolous, nor did I think it.

Was he happy that you left? Or did you leave in spite of his feelings?


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> I'm judging certain values propagated in society today, I guess. But I am not judging individuals.


I guess what I am arguing is that it’s not all that simple. The issues are far more complex than the idea that people are just selfish today. Society has never been perfect, and never will be. Society has changed. Today people are given the latitude to decide for themselves if they will stay in a marriage. This makes sense when we look at other changes.

Just taking into consideration the changes in life expectancy makes it clear that society has to change. Longer lives puts a very different kind of pressure on marriages. Prior to the industrial revolution, the average life expectancy was 30 years. In 1900 the average life expectancy in the USA was up to 48 for whites and 33 for African Americans. Today it’s up the about 79. 



Wazza said:


> This thread is about sharing ideas for dealing with a difficult situation. I'm sharing mine.


Yes, and yours is a good example of a marriage that you and your wife have made work through the good times and the bad times. I can appreciate that. 



Wazza said:


> I do see a contradiction in your post. You seem to want me not to judge, and yet you seem to want me to agree that you were justified in leaving your marriage.


You seem to misunderstand. I get the impression that you are saying that since you and your wife have worked it out, that anyone who did not do what you two have done is being selfish, etc.

My argument is that this is that while it’s great that you and your wife have worked it out, not all couples can work it out. And it’s not always because the one who left was being selfish and putting their happiness ahead of that of others. There are legitimate reasons to leave a marriage. 


Wazza said:


> Why is it more complex than just "happiness is from within". Might be a useful discussion. I think it would be directly relevant in a thread about why people get unhappy enough to walk away from a marriage. Others may disagree.


This is a good discussion. Why is it more complex than just "happiness is from within"? Because some things will lead a person to be unhappy in their marriage. 

A person can be happy with the rest of their life but unhappy with their spouse, hence with the marriage. Do we need examples of this?


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> The affair went on for about 8 months after I discovered it.


So for 8 months the affair continued. Then for the remainder of the next decade she did nothing to reconcile but stayed?



Wazza said:


> I did not use the word frivolous, nor did I think it.


Then what are you saying? That a person who leaves is putting their own needs ahead of their spouses regardless of how horrific the marriage is? You point does not seem to be clear.



Wazza said:


> Was he happy that you left? Or did you leave in spite of his feelings?


That depends on the time of day, the position of the moon and his whims. One moment he was yelling that he was glad. Other times he was saying that he did not want a divorce.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> You seem to misunderstand. I get the impression that you are saying that since you and your wife have worked it out, that anyone who did not do what you two have done is being selfish, etc.


To be clear, I have already said I contemplated ending my marriage, and I don’t blame anyone else who did so.



Wazza said:


> This isn't an attack or judgement on anyone who chose to walk away.





Wazza said:


> When my kids were adults, I contemplated ending the marriage.


With that as context….



EleGirl said:


> My argument is that this is that while it’s great that you and your wife have worked it out, not all couples can work it out. And it’s not always because the one who left was being selfish and putting their happiness ahead of that of others. There are legitimate reasons to leave a marriage.





EleGirl said:


> That depends on the time of day, the position of the moon and his whims. One moment he was yelling that he was glad. Other times he was saying that he did not want a divorce.


We all want to have things the way we want them. We all want our needs to be met. And yet none of us are comfortable being called selfish. It’s an interesting mind game we play.

I think I am getting that you chose to end your marriage for what you regard as valid reasons, to do with your happiness. And you did it without regard to the wishes of your ex. Was that a selfish act? Take the word as a descriptor, not a value judgement. 

There are a bunch of other people of both sexes who have made similar decisions. And I almost became one of them at one stage. It’s not impossible that I might reach that point again in the future. Who knows? 

I am saying that, when I was forced by my values to make an unsatisfactory marriage work for an extended period of time, I stopped looking to make my wife into what I thought was a good wife, and instead just focussed on feeding whatever was positive, and looking to be content. For me that was transformative. I found deeper happiness, and a better marriage.

There will always be something you want and don’t have. There will always be an imperfection in your spouse. (Remember, your spouse can say the same thing about their spouse). If you are too quick to walk away you are practicing being dissatisfied. If you are too quick to write your spouse off, you may be missing their point of view. And it may be you, not them, that is wrong.

Does that make sense? I’m not sure I can explain it much better.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Thought this might be good to put on this thread.. Marriage Builders has an article called *>>* Why Women Leave Men.. same author of His Needs, Her Needs: Building an Affair-Proof Marriage: 

Some snippets of the article ...



> Men's perceived failure to satisfy their wives is punctuated by the fact that women file for divorce twice as often as men. In other words, their unhappiness with marriage often results in divorce.
> 
> When all forms of spousal neglect are grouped together, we find that it is far ahead of all the other reasons combined that women leave men. Surprisingly few women divorce because of physical abuse, infidelity, alcoholism, criminal behavior, fraud, or other serious grounds. In fact, I find myself bewildered by women in serious physical danger refusing to leave men that threaten their safety.
> 
> *Simply stated, women leave men when they are neglected. Neglect accounts for almost all of the reasons women leave and divorce men*.
> 
> I have little trouble convincing most men that verbal and physical abuse are legitimate reasons for their wives to leave. And there has been increasing social pressure on men lately to avoid hurting their wives physically and verbally, which makes my job even easier.
> 
> But neglect is a much tougher sell, and it is also much more difficult to overcome than abuse. While it is the most important reason women leave men, it is hard to convince men that it is a legitimate reason, something they should avoid at all costs.
> 
> Some of the common complaints I hear from women is, "He ignores me except when he wants sex, he sits and watches television when he could be talking to me, he rarely calls me to see how I'm doing, he hurts my feelings and then never apologizes: Instead, he tells me I'm too sensitive."
> 
> Most husbands are mystified by these complaints. *They feel that their wives demand too much,* and that most other women would be ecstatic if married to them. Their wives have become spoiled, take their efforts for granted and have unrealistic expectations.
> 
> *Do women expect too much of their husbands or are men doing less for their wives than they should?* I've proven to husbands over and over again that their wives usually do not expect too much of them, and when they understand and respond to their wives' frustration, the complaining ends and a terrific marriage begins.
> 
> What's more, their wives are not expecting more effort from them. Instead, they expect efforts in a different direction. It isn't more difficult to please women these days, it simply requires a change in the priority of effort.
> 
> *What are women looking for in men? They want a soul mate, someone they trust who is there for them when they have a problem, who takes their feelings into account when decisions are being made. Someone to whom they feel emotionally connected.*


and the article ends like this...



> Men who follow the Policy of Joint Agreement think about their wives throughout the day, because as they make decisions they ask themselves how their wives would feel. Phone calls are made whenever there is any doubt. As time passes, these men become increasingly sensitive to their wives' feelings.
> 
> If men consider their wives feelings in each decision they make, asking their wives when there is any uncertainty, they create a compatible lifestyle. The Policy of Joint Agreement helps create understanding, emotional bonding, intimacy and romantic love in marriage. Men that learn to take their wives feelings into account meet their most important emotional needs. They also learn to overcome the selfish habits that make their wives so unhappy, because these habits do not meet the standard of mutual agreement. Over time, they experience what every couple hopes to create in marriage: A loving and compatible relationship.
> 
> A woman doesn't leave the man who has invited her into every room of his house. That's because she doesn't stand outside the rooms of his house feeling like a stranger. She is welcomed into his entire home as his cherished life partner.


 I Have the type of marriage this author is talking about.. and I am a happy woman.. just imagining NOT having these things he speaks of.. would render me very unsettled and greatly annoyed with my Husband....and I would cause a FUSS about it because I'm not the passive type.. but after a while if the man proves he thinks you are too much of a drain, nag, irritant.... in this way..... why should she keep talking, wasting her breath...she realizes he doesn't care, his actions speak it loud & clear...he doesn't get Her.... he never will.... it's all for nothing, only makes her feel like a Burden.. screw that.. IN this way... I greatly understand the woman on this thread.. imagining being in their shoes...and WHY they left these men. 

I wholly have a distaste for men bringing this back on women feeling we are too damn hard to please.. or all this "we should be so happy within ourselves".... that's just an excuse for your lack many times.. Come on now.. just as women need to look to satisfy your sexual needs (and believe me, I am ON YOUR SIDE IN THIS!!!) but MEN need to look to satisfy their wives emotional needs.. it's just that simple.. but we all make excuses & try to justify ourselves when we just don't have the same needs.. and for those men who have NO emotional needs or Love Languages.. how in the world is a man like that going to understand a [email protected]#$ 

And of course, I wouldn't deny SOME people aren't happy with ANYTHING.. it's almost like a personality flaw, they were born to complain.. the wet blanket.. maybe born with a silver spoon in their mouths..... that's NOT what is being talked about here....

This author Willard F. Harley...he gets it ... take a moment & read the entire article - please. 

To understand your wives.. you 1st need to acknowledge she has legitimate needs from you.. to do any less....you render this discussion useless.. ....coming back to VOWS/ commitment with no substance, no leaning towards her & what satisfies her soul.


----------



## Dogbert

Dr Willard Harley Ph.D said:


> Surprisingly few women divorce because of physical abuse, infidelity, alcoholism, criminal behavior, fraud, or other serious grounds. In fact, I find myself bewildered by women in serious physical danger refusing to leave men that threaten their safety.


This is very telling about how women are more willing to remain married to bad men than to good men who may or may not have a clue about their neglect. It helps to reenforce the belief that only scumbags can be certain to have wives that will stand by them. Perhaps the husbands with WAW are better off in the end that their wives left them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Dogbert said:


> *This is very telling about how women are more willing to remain married to bad men than to good men who may or may not have a clue about their neglect. It helps to reenforce the belief that only scumbags can be certain to have wives that will stand by them. Perhaps the husbands with WAW are better off in the end that their wives left them.*


This is something SOuthbound has said a # of times on TAM... that he doesn't understand.. Frankly I don't understand it either... Dr Willard Harley is just giving the facts as a Marriage Therapist to what he sees in his Practice over & over & over..... 

Here is something else *I don't understand*, just as some of you men can't understand why women need so much...

HOW ANYONE would even WANT to stay with someone who no longer wants to be with you....who wants OUT.. basically is NOT happy being with you... that is utterly obnoxious to me!!! I would RECOIL from this so bad.. I'd throw up on it even. 

There has to be a firm willingness to get back to loving , mutual intimacy.... FIND YOUR WAY BACK, fight for it da** it.. because its worth it ...love is worth the effort... both giving their ALL to do it... or forget it...half a$$ed in this area would not work for me.... this is HOW some of us feel...










Just as some men here can't comprehend some of us women & feel we need too much.. we should just be happy.. to stay in these dry un-communcative marriages where they feel like roommates for years on end.. or they know the other wants out but is just staying for the kids, or vows... that , to me, is so lifeless... so UN inspiring.. how do any of these people not feel like dead weight....just living every day to die someday.. nothing to look forward too but the same old, same old.. BLaaaaahhhhhh

Yes.. some of us NEED.. one requirement I have in a marriage is that my partner WANTS me.. that he WANTS to make it work, that there is giving effort on his behalf.. (and I on my own end)...

My H is the type that wouldn't even have sex with me if I wasn't emotionally feeling it.. Imagine if I was a walking robot to him... We'd both be empty shells.. On the flip side.. it's not such a bad thing.. because it compels us to seek to meeting each others needs -to keep us in tune...

I found this article earlier - to how important these things are ...and the flip side... The Unhappy Marriage: Stay or Go? Is Divorce Necessary? 



> The allure of romantic love lies in the intimacy it creates.
> 
> *The Magic of Intimacy:* Intimacy brings lovers together and renders us vulnerable. When we are intimate, we feel empowered but we’re also at the mercy of the one we love. Intimacy evokes a powerful mix of emotions – we feel vulnerable, yet valued and embraced. When you experience intimacy, it acts like a field in the world of physics, where all the rules of regular relationships change.
> 
> Your beloved can make you feel special unlike any one else.
> 
> In fact, he or she can heal you as well.
> 
> The promise of marriage is in its ability to mend our wounds. Our most intimate relationships are often therapeutic: they’re able to rehabilitate us psychologically and emotionally. Marriage encourages us to expose ourselves to our partners and lay bare our weaknesses; and in so doing our lovers are agents of healing.
> 
> *The Dark Magic of Intimacy:* Yet, the very vulnerability that makes intimacy intensely special can be its greatest undoing.
> 
> When our partners criticize or invalidate us, we feel rejected.
> When our partners are neglectful or dismissive - we feel intensely hurt.
> The pain induced by a partner can be unbearable. When the people we most care about become destructive and hurtful, we react. The very intimacy that can heal early life injuries can invoke those injuries once again.
> 
> And, once one party is triggered, you can bet the other will respond.
> 
> When attacked, some become defensive, while others attack. Does your partner, for instance, retreat and disengage emotionally? Others simply check out. They feel the relationship has deteriorated and doesn’t justify the effort needed to repair it.
> 
> Others will endure an unhappy marriage for the sake of commitment and to honor vows that they made. And then there are those that will fight for the relationship because they believe in it; they see a future and aren’t ready to give up on the history they’ve created together.....


----------



## southbound

After reading over this thread, it seems to me that nobody is going to change their view about anything; probably because we are all coming from different experiences when we relate our beliefs. It may seem to me like someone left a marriage because the other wouldn’t put the toilet lid down over the years, but it may run much deeper than that. We can all “come back” on each; if I say my grandparents had a great marriage based on other things, then someone is always ready to tell of how bad it was then and that women had it bad then but couldn’t leave. 

It may not be an excuse, but as I’ve written before, I just didn’t see this stuff demonstrated growing up. My parents and I lived in a community with grandparents, aunts, uncles, great aunts and uncles, and they all had marriages that I saw no signs of trouble, but I guess after reading all this, they were apparently all miserable but just couldn’t leave. 

Apparently they all did me a disservice by pretending they were in a happy marriage because their man was a good man who provided for them and was a good father. The reasons that my x wife left me for would have been laughed at by them. 
Another thing that puzzles me is that needs can be so diverse. I guess that’s duh statement, but it seems like it this day and time, it is believed that people should get whatever they want, and if they don’t the other has failed, and people aren’t allowed to think something is overboard or a little extreme. If someone wants to say they are a stickler about leaving the toothpaste cap off, and they told their husband time and time again over the years and he just wouldn’t listen and continued to leave it off, so the wife felt that he didn’t love her because he wouldn’t listen, so she lost feelings for him. Nobody is allowed anymore to say that’s overboard, but we have to accept it as sensible. 

When we talk about needs, I believe there are always two needs in each situation, one for each person, so how do we balance. For example, my x wife saying it was such a big deal that I didn’t want to play board games with her family very much, and it robbed her of a great pleasure. At the same time, my need was not to do it. It literally drove me insane to sit around for hours playing board games, I hated it. In her mind, however, I was the bad guy for not meeting her need, and I’m sure I didn’t meet it just to spite her, it had nothing to do with the fact that I hated it. 

Looking back, my wife's strategy i think was to change me. It had nothing to do with checking herself from within or looking at things from my shoes, but it was all about changing me. She acted as though I would just suddenly develop a joy for board games with her family and then things would be great in that department. 



Dogbert said:


> This is very telling about how women are more willing to remain married to bad men than to good men who may or may not have a clue about their neglect. It helps to reenforce the belief that only scumbags can be certain to have wives that will stand by them. Perhaps the husbands with WAW are better off in the end that their wives left them.


This totally leaves my brain baffled. A woman is more likely to stay with a man who physically abuses her or is an alcoholic than with a good man who doesn't give her the attention she desires. I'll never get that.

Again, here is where my family left a wrong example. If any of the men in my family had hit their wives, they probably would have left. My grandmother was a strong woman. If my grandfather had decided to make a punching bag out of her, she would have left because that just wasn't acceptable to them. 




Wazza said:


> We all want to have things the way we want them. We all want our needs to be met. And yet none of us are comfortable being called selfish. It’s an interesting mind game we play.
> 
> I think I am getting that you chose to end your marriage for what you regard as valid reasons, to do with your happiness. And you did it without regard to the wishes of your ex. Was that a selfish act? Take the word as a descriptor, not a value judgement.


I agree. 

Someone mentioned that women leave husbands they don't really love. I think that may be true with some WAW's. Take me for example, I wasn't all that different after years of marriage than I was when we married. I was always laid back, introverted, and didn't always go with what her family liked, but she was more than ok with it then. I don't know if I've mentioned recently, but my wife actually pursued me in the courtship. She was the one who let it be known she liked me, then she called. I have always said that when we first married, I probably could have said we wouldn't have electricity or running water for a month and she would have said, "Oh, that's ok, we'll make it." Any differences in our personalities and way of doing things in the beginning was just looked at as something for humor. Apparently things wore thin with her over the years.

It is sometimes mentioned that divorce should be more difficult, but after giving it thought, I think marriage should be made more difficult. I think that classes on marriage should be a requirement or something. If I had known about all this emotional needs stuff as a young man, and had known that my family apparently set a bad example of what it took to have a good marriage, maybe I would have faired better.


----------



## Thundarr

Dogbert said:


> This is very telling about how women are more willing to remain married to bad men than to good men who may or may not have a clue about their neglect. It helps to reenforce the belief that only scumbags can be certain to have wives that will stand by them. Perhaps the husbands with WAW are better off in the end that their wives left them.


Hysterical bonding can be euphoric; an infatuation. So during the make up phase of co-dependent and abusive relationships a need is being met in spades. A lot of people who stay in bad relationships will tell you that when it's bad it's bad but when it's good it's great. In contrast, being an even-keeled guy who's responsible and respectful is not euphoric at all. It's simple. Emotional connection is a primary need of a lot of women. It's messed up that this trumps abuse sometimes though.


----------



## southbound

Thundarr said:


> Hysterical bonding can be euphoric; an infatuation. So during the make up phase of co-dependent and abusive relationships a need is being met in spades. A lot of people who stay in bad relationships will tell you that when it's bad it's bad but when it's good it's great. In contrast, being an even-keeled guy who's responsible and respectful is not euphoric at all. It's simple. Emotional connection is a primary need of a lot of women. It's messed up that this trumps abuse sometimes though.


I'm sure you are correct, and this goes against what i thought was true until i started coming here. It almost sounds like a belief from an alternate universe that somehow a man producing an abusive relationship can somehow hold the attention of and excite a woman more than an even-keeled, responsible, respectful guy because it's too simple. That just makes my brain go haywire, but I'm sure there is much truth to what you wrote.


----------



## 4x4

SimplyAmorous said:


> Just as some men here can't comprehend some of us women & feel we need too much.. we should just be happy.. to stay in these dry un-communcative marriages where they feel like roommates for years on end.. or they know the other wants out but is just staying for the kids, or vows... that , to me, is so lifeless... so UN inspiring.. how do any of these people not feel like dead weight....just living every day to die someday.. nothing to look forward too but the same old, same old.. BLaaaaahhhhhh
> 
> Yes.. some of us NEED.. one requirement I have in a marriage is that my partner WANTS me.. that he WANTS to make it work, that there is giving effort on his behalf.. (and I on my own end)...
> 
> My H is the type that wouldn't even have sex with me if I wasn't emotionally feeling it.. Imagine if I was a walking robot to him... We'd both be empty shells..


Sounds like my marriage except switch the genders. I always felt like she was just happy existing with me. No passion or desire expressed. I stayed because I was too committed and passive. She didn't express her desire for me till I was leaving.


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> After reading over this thread, it seems to me that nobody is going to change their view about anything;


For those that this is true for, I find it sad. I am glad that I can learn and grow. I think it is a measure of the depth of dysfunction to cling to said dysfunction tenaciously.



> It may not be an excuse, but as I’ve written before, I just didn’t see this stuff demonstrated growing up.


Is your learning ability limited to your experiences growing up? Have you turned yourself off since?


----------



## southbound

NobodySpecial said:


> For those that this is true for, I find it sad. I am glad that I can learn and grow. I think it is a measure of the depth of dysfunction to cling to said dysfunction tenaciously.


I suppose saying we don't understand would have been better than saying we won't change. Believe me, if I ever have the desire to be in another relationship, I'll certainly approach it differently.



NobodySpecial said:


> Is your learning ability limited to your experiences growing up? Have you turned yourself off since?


No, but it's too late for that marriage now; I'm divorced. One has to admit, though, when you grow up having a happy childhood, what you see does have an impact. I guess it goes with the old saying of old dogs learning new tricks. I held these beliefs until my early 40s as well.

One thing that amazes me too is the response from women I talked to concerning my divorce. I talked to women in happy marriages that were my age, younger, and older. I let them know that if they understood why my x left me to let me have it, don't be afraid to hurt my feelings, and I was very honest in what i told them, yet none of them seemed to understand either. I certainly got different opinions when I came here, but nobody in my life seemed to get it. I even had people from her own family telling me they thought she had issues. 

My wife and i even met with one couple to talk before we actually got divorced, and the other woman told me later that she didn't understand why she wanted a divorce; said it didn't make any sense to her. She said, "I kept waiting for the big thing that was so bad, but i never heard it."

But can I change, you bet I can. If I ever get into another relationship, I'll know to pay attention to everything that is mentioned that she wants. If it seems minor or major, I'll give it my full attention.

I doubt I'll ever care for another relationship. The fact that I so innocently and ignorantly messed up badly enough to cause a divorce doesn't set well. I'm sure that I would never please the needs that I read about on this forum. I might give it my all, but somewhere down the road, my nature would kick in, and I'd discover that I'm not giving all the attention she needs. I'm the calm, logical, responsible good guy who's never even had a traffic ticket. I've learned that just doesn't hit the excitement trigger with most women. I guess some of us just aren't cut out for marriage.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> It is sometimes mentioned that divorce should be more difficult, but after giving it thought, I think marriage should be made more difficult. * I think that classes on marriage should be a requirement or something. If I had known about all this emotional needs stuff as a young man, and had known that my family apparently set a bad example of what it took to have a good marriage, maybe I would have faired better*.


I AGREE with this...we had pre-marital counseling by a Pastor, it was a requirement for him to marry us.. I remember him being very impressed with our dynamics, especially how we communicated .... though looking back, I think he should have hammered me -on how important sex was to a man! .... But hey, that was in a church... figures! 

Ya know Southbound, you speak MUCH about your Grandparents, but you have to realize something.. Many people back then, DID NOT AIR their dirty laundry and wouldn't want to show anything that could discourage young children.. this doesn't by any means = they were hiding the bad though.. I recall you saying you can't remember any fights from your parents even .. the worst might by over what she rolled the chicken in, shaken' bake or something else .... 

Can I say this.. you obviously came from extremely laid back genes...*probably on both sides even*!...I mean I don't recall you ever speaking about your parents being all LOVEY DOVEY either....it's all so "even keel"... so it sounds like they were a GOOD match then, *compatible*.. 

But YOU, however, seemed to hook up with the most Emotional woman in the darn town.. she was overly sensitive, she came from a Loud obnoxious highfalutin drama making family -where you wanted to RUN from the house.... she knew you couldn't stand them....which probably hurt HER in ways you may never realize as she/ her personality , was a part of them even, it's so much more than just about the game playing.. it always is. 

You 2 were not compatible like at all.. She had red flags from you.. her chasing after you -when you wasn't giving her much attention at all, you'd let weeks go by not even thinking of calling her.... *Something compelled her to keep chumming up to you- the elusive one ...maybe she felt if she could JUST HOOK YOU... she could win you in other ways, (she surely miscalculated her power!)....that she could have so much of an effect on you.... maybe you are attractive physically which drew her in...and she kept holding on*.... happens all too often with women. 

And it would make sense... in the beginning.. you did GIVE MORE.. you were at your emotional BEST... in that whirlwind phase -even a Southbound might experience.. even being on the poor side.. sometimes I think without all the excess.. people find they are closer.. because that's all they have.. not many other distractions.. 

FUnny thing is.. I guess we all look at our Grandparents marriage through our own filters.. I learned my Grandfather waited for 15 yrs for My grandmother...I guess she was quite the independent diva back then (in the 20's) had a good job at a Pottery & didn't care about marriage/ kids .. but he never gave up on her.. he didn't want anyone else (talk about LOVE !)... He treated her like Gold.. and had a great work ethic...(it's very possible to do both).... they went on to have 2 sons, my father the youngest.... it was HER stories of HIM that inspired ME ...can I find a LOVE LIKE THAT?? ... so devoted and true .... He died when I was about 5 yrs old.. but I felt I knew him through my Grandmothers stories...and so many pictures of the 2 of them & their yrs together..... she brought* the romance *alive when she spoke of him.


----------



## Dogbert

Since women have been shamed for expressing their sexuality throughout history, it is possible that "neglect" could also be code for sexless marriage.


----------



## EleGirl

Dr Willard Harley Ph.D said:


> Surprisingly few women divorce because of physical abuse, infidelity, alcoholism, criminal behavior, fraud, or other serious grounds. In fact, I find myself bewildered by women in serious physical danger refusing to leave men that threaten their safety.





Dogbert said:


> This is very telling about how women are more willing to remain married to bad men than to good men who may or may not have a clue about their neglect. It helps to reenforce the belief that only scumbags can be certain to have wives that will stand by them.


There are studies that have been done about the response to abuse in a relationship. It turns out that both positive and negative attention cause the body to produce high levels of oxytocin and other feel good chemicals. 

For example, people who grow up in a family where they are abused develop a very strong oxytocin response towards their abuser? Why? They speculate that the body's response of producing oxytocin and other feel good hormones to abuse is a survival mechanism. Oxytocin is called both the bonding/love hormone and the amnesia hormone. It helps a person forget the abuse, or to see it as not as bad as it is. And since the abuse causes their brains to produce and uptake tons of oxytocin, dopamine, endorphins, etc... it also bonds them to their abuser.

Men who grow up in abusive situations have the same response as women do. Men also tend to stay with abusive women for the same reasons.




Dogbert said:


> Perhaps the husbands with WAW are better off in the end that their wives left them.


This makes about as much sense as a person staying in a abusive relationship.

A person who neglects their spouse is abusive. Neglect is a form of abuse. But with neglect there is not enough interaction between the spouses, the production of oxytocin and other feel good hormones is very low. When that happens, the neglected spouse will with draw from the neglector, they will end up not wanting to be near them.. .the bond it broken. Once broken, if no measure are taken to rebuild it, the neglected spouse will most likely leave. That is human biology.


----------



## Anon Pink

.


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> Can I say this.. you obviously came from extremely laid back genes...*probably on both sides even*!...I mean I don't recall you ever speaking about your parents being all LOVEY DOVEY either....it's all so "even keel"... so it sounds like they were a GOOD match then, *compatible*..


Apparently I did come from very laid back genes, at the far end of the laid-back spectrum. I don't suppose I gave it deep thought as a kid; I suppose i realized it to a degree, but not to the point that I later realized it. I didn't come from a loud home, even when everybody got together, the house wasn't trembling with noise. I didn't come from a family who had emotional issues all the time. Nobody was complaining about something all the time. As you said, it was even-keel. My dad worked, and was not a fan of kids lying around being lazy; on the other hand, he was not in the rat race; he was laid back and chilled out, as was my mom and grandparents. My brother and i are the same way these days. I never saw that it had any negative impact except with relationships. Most people these days are looking for a higher energy. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> But YOU, however, seemed to hook up with the most Emotional woman in the darn town.. she was overly sensitive, she came from a Loud obnoxious highfalutin drama making family -where you wanted to RUN from the house.... she knew you couldn't stand them....which probably hurt HER in ways you may never realize as she/ her personality , was a part of them even, it's so much more than just about the game playing.. it always is.


Looking at my situation after it's all said and done, I'm sure you are right here. I guess we focused on what we had in common and thought that was good. We both shared the same religion, and that was a biggie. We were both in the same economic class, and we both came from just common folks. 

It did seem like we clicked in those days, but I'm the most laid back guy in town, and she's the most emotional woman in town.

Here's the thing about that; she didn't express it in the early days. She always seemed to be the logical, calmer one of the bunch. To be honest, if she had personally demonstrated the dramatic characteristics of her family when we met, that would probably have been an issue with me. I suppose after all those years, however, her nature was burning to be released, and all those years of calmness finally took it's toll.



SimplyAmorous said:


> You 2 were not compatible like at all.. She had red flags from you.. her chasing after you -when you wasn't giving her much attention at all, you'd let weeks go by not even thinking of calling her.... *Something compelled her to keep chumming up to you- the elusive one ...maybe she felt if she could JUST HOOK YOU... she could win you in other ways, (she surely miscalculated her power!)....that she could have so much of an effect on you.... maybe you are attractive physically which drew her in...and she kept holding on*.... happens all too often with women.


I agree that I gave off red flags. I wasn't much different then than now aside from the natural maturity we all experience as the years pass. It's not like I chased her and promised her the moon or hid the real, clam me until we were married. that's one thing i can say, I never put on a show. it was obvious from the beginning that we we came from different personalities. It was obvious right away that i was from a calm bunch.



SimplyAmorous said:


> And it would make sense... in the beginning.. you did GIVE MORE.. you were at your emotional BEST... in that whirlwind phase -even a Southbound might experience..


I'm sure you're right here. Even though i didn't try to hide the real me, I'm sure we all show our polished self in the beginning and have a little more tolerance of things we don't like during the honeymoon phase.(SA, I know you are still in the honeymoon phase, but I'm sure you know what I mean). 



SimplyAmorous said:


> even being on the poor side.. sometimes I think without all the excess.. people find they are closer.. because that's all they have.. not many other distractions..


I see truth to this. When she was expressing her desire for a divorce and how I had changed in her mind, I asked when this started. She ran it back to the year we built our new house, aka "dream home." She didn't say the new home had anything to do with it, but the year she ran it back to was the new house year. I felt like us moving up and getting a new home was the beginning of our downfall. 

I'm not using that as an example that stuff always causes problems, but something must have changed in our case. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Ya know Southbound, you speak MUCH about your Grandparents, but you have to realize something.. Many people back then, DID NOT AIR their dirty laundry and wouldn't want to show anything that could discourage young children.. this doesn't by any means = they were hiding the bad though.


I'm sure there is always things that happen behind closed doors that we aren't aware of. But I don't think explaining away our grandparents appearance of a happy marriage by saying they were probably really miserable is always the truth.(SA, I'm not saying those are your views, but it does seem to pop up a lot at the mention of past generations). 

I believe that they just viewed things differently. Who knows, my grandmothers might have had some of the same complaints that WAWs have today, but to them, it wasn't as big of a deal as it is today; it didn't drive them to a mental place that they wanted to get a divorce. 

I was actually close to my grandparents and great aunts. I honestly believe they would have told me at some point if their marriage wasn't happy, I really do. Their husbands all passed away several years before they did, and all I ever heard was good stuff about them. 

Sure, they would tell things the husbands did that were silly, or times they would "straighten them out" about something, or even times they "laid down the law," as they put it, but they could barely get through it without laughing their heads off.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> To be clear, I have already said I contemplated ending my marriage, and I don’t blame anyone else who did so.
> 
> With that as context….
> 
> We all want to have things the way we want them. We all want our needs to be met. And yet none of us are comfortable being called selfish. It’s an interesting mind game we play.
> 
> I think I am getting that you chose to end your marriage for what you regard as valid reasons, to do with your happiness. And you did it without regard to the wishes of your ex. Was that a selfish act? Take the word as a descriptor, not a value judgement.


I have no problem with the use of the word ‘selfish’. Selfish can be good in some situations. It can protect us from further harm. Sometimes we have to put ourselves first. This is especially true after years and decades of putting a selfish, mean and neglectful spouse first.



Wazza said:


> There are a bunch of other people of both sexes who have made similar decisions. And I almost became one of them at one stage. It’s not impossible that I might reach that point again in the future. Who knows?
> 
> I am saying that, when I was forced by my values to make an unsatisfactory marriage work for an extended period of time, I stopped looking to make my wife into what I thought was a good wife, and instead just focussed on feeding whatever was positive, and looking to be content. For me that was transformative. I found deeper happiness, and a better marriage.
> 
> There will always be something you want and don’t have. There will always be an imperfection in your spouse. (Remember, your spouse can say the same thing about their spouse). If you are too quick to walk away you are practicing being dissatisfied. If you are too quick to write your spouse off, you may be missing their point of view. And it may be you, not them, that is wrong.
> 
> Does that make sense? I’m not sure I can explain it much better.


It makes sense when talking in generalities. But when applied to individual people and their marriages, it comes off as judgmental. You have no idea why others have left their marriages. You do not have the advantage of their knowledge of their own situation because you were not there. Even when people here talk about their marriages, they are only giving a very small part of the entire picture.

I'm glad it worked for you. It does not work for everyone. To assume that anyone who left their marriage did not try to work on things in the same way you did is in my opinion not valid. You have no idea what the factors were in my marriage.


----------



## lifeistooshort

southbound said:


> Apparently I did come from very laid back genes, at the far end of the laid-back spectrum. I don't suppose I gave it deep thought as a kid; I suppose i realized it to a degree, but not to the point that I later realized it. I didn't come from a loud home, even when everybody got together, the house wasn't trembling with noise. I didn't come from a family who had emotional issues all the time. Nobody was complaining about something all the time. As you said, it was even-keel. My dad worked, and was not a fan of kids lying around being lazy; on the other hand, he was not in the rat race; he was laid back and chilled out, as was my mom and grandparents. My brother and i are the same way these days. I never saw that it had any negative impact except with relationships. Most people these days are looking for a higher energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at my situation after it's all said and done, I'm sure you are right here. I guess we focused on what we had in common and thought that was good. We both shared the same religion, and that was a biggie. We were both in the same economic class, and we both came from just common folks.
> 
> It did seem like we clicked in those days, but I'm the most laid back guy in town, and she's the most emotional woman in town.
> 
> Here's the thing about that; she didn't express it in the early days. She always seemed to be the logical, calmer one of the bunch. To be honest, if she had personally demonstrated the dramatic characteristics of her family when we met, that would probably have been an issue with me. I suppose after all those years, however, her nature was burning to be released, and all those years of calmness finally took it's toll.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that I gave off red flags. I wasn't much different then than now aside from the natural maturity we all experience as the years pass. It's not like I chased her and promised her the moon or hid the real, clam me until we were married. that's one thing i can say, I never put on a show. it was obvious from the beginning that we we came from different personalities. It was obvious right away that i was from a calm bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're right here. Even though i didn't try to hide the real me, I'm sure we all show our polished self in the beginning and have a little more tolerance of things we don't like during the honeymoon phase.(SA, I know you are still in the honeymoon phase, but I'm sure you know what I mean).
> 
> 
> 
> I see truth to this. When she was expressing her desire for a divorce and how I had changed in her mind, I asked when this started. She ran it back to the year we built our new house, aka "dream home." She didn't say the new home had anything to do with it, but the year she ran it back to was the new house year. I felt like us moving up and getting a new home was the beginning of our downfall.
> 
> I'm not using that as an example that stuff always causes problems, but something must have changed in our case.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there is always things that happen behind closed doors that we aren't aware of. But I don't think explaining away our grandparents appearance of a happy marriage by saying they were probably really miserable is always the truth.(SA, I'm not saying those are your views, but it does seem to pop up a lot at the mention of past generations).
> 
> I believe that they just viewed things differently. Who knows, my grandmothers might have had some of the same complaints that WAWs have today, but to them, it wasn't as big of a deal as it is today; it didn't drive them to a mental place that they wanted to get a divorce.
> 
> I was actually close to my grandparents and great aunts. I honestly believe they would have told me at some point if their marriage wasn't happy, I really do. Their husbands all passed away several years before they did, and all I ever heard was good stuff about them.
> 
> Sure, they would tell things the husbands did that were silly, or times they would "straighten them out" about something, or even times they "laid down the law," as they put it, but they could barely get through it without laughing their heads off.



Your grandparents may well have been very happy, I'm sure many couples were. Many couples are happy today. There are lots of stories from centuries ago where marriages were business deals but the couple seemed really happy. But you can't use your grandparents to paint a picture of marriage in general, and their happiness doesn't negate all of the other lousy stuff going on so to make the comment that your family seemed happy and therefore that generation had it all figured out and really cared about commitment doesn't work.

Frankly if your grandparents gave you the impression that they didn't need to put much effort into their marriage and were still happy they did you a disservice.


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> I doubt I'll ever care for another relationship. The fact that I so innocently and ignorantly messed up badly enough to cause a divorce doesn't set well. I'm sure that I would never please the needs that I read about on this forum. I might give it my all, but somewhere down the road, my nature would kick in, and I'd discover that I'm not giving all the attention she needs. I'm the calm, logical, responsible good guy who's never even had a traffic ticket. *I've learned that just doesn't hit the excitement trigger with most women.* I guess some of us just aren't cut out for marriage.


Since we cannot talk to your ex and only have the bit of info that you have given, it's hard to talk about your situation on many levels.

But the bolded words struck me as what might be a serious misunderstanding. Most women are not looking for excitement. What they want is a partner who is present and engaged in their marriage/relationship.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

4x4 said:


> Sounds like my marriage except switch the genders. I always felt like she was just happy existing with me. No passion or desire expressed. I stayed because I was too committed and passive*. She didn't express her desire for me till I was leaving.*


See... ..stirring the Pot so to speak.....getting to the point of threatening a divorce.. You know what.. a shame it takes *THAT* to wake some people up [email protected]# 

It's a wonder YOU didn't reach the point , in all those years , to throw her sudden changing (desire all of a sudden) back in her face.. seriously.. ..a "I've had enough, there is nothing left inside me to give, I can't get that loving feeling back again...TOO LATE Honey!"...

Without her fully recognizing how she hurt you, that you didn't deserve it.. I don't know how you would be able to get past it ... .just saying.... but it's beautiful to find that level of forgiveness and reconciliation -when a couple CAN find their way back.. 

She almost did one of these then >> Don't Know What You Got (Till It's Gone) ....but you spared her ...


----------



## southbound

lifeistooshort said:


> Your grandparents may well have been very happy, I'm sure many couples were. Many couples are happy today. There are lots of stories from centuries ago where marriages were business deals but the couple seemed really happy. But you can't use your grandparents to paint a picture of marriage in general, and their happiness doesn't negate all of the other lousy stuff going on so to make the comment that your family seemed happy and therefore that generation had it all figured out and really cared about commitment doesn't work.
> 
> Frankly if your grandparents gave you the impression that they didn't need to put much effort into their marriage and were still happy they did you a disservice.


Whenever I mention my grandparents, it is never my intent to act as though they represent that entire generation. It's often difficult to get things across in words, but if I have given that impression, I'm saying now that I didn't mean to.

I'm just giving my personal experience. I don't know what everybody else was doing, but i know what I saw in my home and neighborhood. maybe if I could have seen that plus some highly dramatic, unhappy marriages, that would have caused me to asked some questions and learn more.


----------



## bandit.45

lifeistooshort said:


> Your grandparents may well have been very happy, I'm sure many couples were. Many couples are happy today. There are lots of stories from centuries ago where marriages were business deals but the couple seemed really happy. But you can't use your grandparents to paint a picture of marriage in general, and their happiness doesn't negate all of the other lousy stuff going on so to make the comment that your family seemed happy and therefore that generation had it all figured out and really cared about commitment doesn't work.
> 
> Frankly if your grandparents gave you the impression that they didn't need to put much effort into their marriage and were still happy they did you a disservice.


You know, I think parents and grandparents back then saw it as a sort of duty to put on a unified front in front of the kids. My grandparents outwardly seems to have a very loving and devoted partnership. I never saw them apart. 

Years after they passed away I heard stories and anecdotes about some of the troubles they had early in their marriage, during the post war 1940s and 50s. Their marriage actually got off to a rocky start. There was no infidelity, but they spent many years struggling and not getting along. But they pushed through it and ended up with a solid relationship later on. 

Problem is, people today don't have the resolve to push through and solve their issues and grow and mature past them. It's sad really. Marriage is disposable these days.


----------



## bandit.45

EleGirl said:


> Since we cannot talk to your ex and only have the bit of info that you have given, it's hard to talk about your situation on many levels.
> 
> But the bolded words struck me as what might be a serious misunderstanding. Most women are not looking for excitement. What they want is a partner who is present and engaged in their marriage/relationship.


Most women. 

Not all....


----------



## Canon in D

*Re: Re: Why women leave men they love*

.


----------



## Deejo

Some thoughtful posts.

GF and I discussed this.

After all, she has walked away from 3 husbands.

Infidelity was never part of the equation.

When we had the whole 'what do you need to make this work and feel fulfilled?' talk, she gave a very consistent and serious answer;

"I need a grown up, and someone who does what they say they are going to do. "

I've dated more than a little bit, and I've heard a number of women acknowledge that when they were younger, they were excited about the prospect of marriage, the idea of marriage. 

And quite often as South pointed out, they weren't looking forward to accepting the husband they had, they were focused on changing the man they married into the man they imagined being married to.

I'm sure the reverse is true as well, when men imagine their wives meeting their needs in the form of providing 3 squares and washing their dirty socks.

It simply isn't like that any more.

I think it's safe to say that expectations are higher on both sides.


----------



## Dogbert

Originally, marriage was a vehicle designed for survival of the species. Now we want to "pimp my ride" marriage.


----------



## southbound

bandit.45 said:


> You know, I think parents and grandparents back then saw it as a sort of duty to put on a unified front in front of the kids. My grandparents outwardly seems to have a very loving and devoted partnership. I never saw them apart.
> 
> Years after they passed away I heard stories and anecdotes about some of the troubles they had early in their marriage, during the post war 1940s and 50s. Their marriage actually got off to a rocky start. There was no infidelity, but they spent many years struggling and not getting along. But they pushed through it and ended up with a solid relationship later on.
> 
> Problem is, people today don't have the resolve to push through and solve their issues and grow and mature past them. It's sad really. Marriage is disposable these days.


Good post, and that's all I'm saying about the past generations. I don't think for one minute that my grandparent's days were all filled with bliss and that they never had a negative emotion toward each other; however, stuff like physical abuse or cheating was not in the picture, and the men were good providers and fathers, and were good moral men. So, other things that came up may not have put a glowing smile on each other's face, but they worked through it, and in the end, most were glad they did. 

When I hear a story from an older couple who talk about the rough patches they had, but they worked through it and as the years went by were so glad they did, it just makes me wonder if everybody gives it that much effort. 

I spoke with a couple my age when i was was getting a divorce, and the woman shared a story with me in front of her husband. He already was aware, but she said she went through a phase where she could barely stand him. She said, "I barely cared if he took another breath for a while." She said she dreaded him coming home and being around the house.

She said she felt like for a while he drifted, and she was on birth control and under work stress to boot. She said she eventually decided to get off birth control, change jobs, and whack him over the head with a frying pan to get his attention(she was being sarcastic with that one), and she said things did turn the other way. She said, "Now, we're so close, it would probably make you sick if i told you any stories about us now." She said she was sure glad she didn't leave and didn't know what she would do without him now. She said it would have been a huge mistake.

It sounds like she had reason to leave doesn't it. If you barely care whether your spouse takes another breath and you don't want them around, that sounds miserable doesn't it, but she stayed and is glad she did. 

So, I'm not saying that everybody who leaves a marriage is crazy, but I wonder if everybody waits long enough and tries everything they can. If somehow we could look into the future and know it would never work and that our misery would take us down, then I say, go ahead and divorce. However, we can't look into the future, and i would just want to be sure I gave it my all before allowing my spouse's nature to cause me to leave.


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo said:


> Some thoughtful posts.
> 
> GF and I discussed this.
> 
> After all, she has walked away from 3 husbands.
> 
> Infidelity was never part of the equation.
> 
> When we had the whole 'what do you need to make this work and feel fulfilled?' talk, she gave a very consistent and serious answer;
> 
> "I need a grown up, and someone who does what they say they are going to do. "


Do you have a theory of why she repeated this three times? Broken picker possibly? (no offense  ). Or a fondness of shiny new things? I'm just curious. I'd have the urge to ask her like you did but at the same time I'd have to wonder if she really knows the reason.


----------



## EleGirl

Dogbert said:


> Originally, marriage was a vehicle designed for survival of the species. Now we want to "pimp my ride" marriage.


Bonding in pairs and forming family groups is driven by our biology. It's just like dog packs and lion prides. The biochemistry of a species determines it's behavior in many ways.

The issue is thought that our society has change so much that it does not fit our biology. We no longer need to tight family groups to survive. 

When a person's basic needs are met... food, shelter, safety, they start looking to have other needs met... pleasure, education, medical care, and so forth.

As society changes so does marriage. Changes in marriage (or family groups) has been going on since the dawn of time.

It used to be that wealthy men who could provide shelter, food and safety had most of the wives and poor men found it hard to get a wife. Why? Because a woman and her children were more likely to survive if she was married to a rich man. Polygamy was common because it ensure the survival of offspring.

If she married a poor man, she and her children would very likely to die from exposure to the eliminates, starvation, raiding parties, and so forth.

Then it got to the point where one-on-one marriage was more advantageous.

Today things have changed even more. Our basic needs are pretty easily filled, so both men and woman look for more in marriage than just basic survival.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> It did seem like we clicked in those days, but I'm the most laid back guy in town, and she's the most emotional woman in town.
> 
> Here's the thing about that; she didn't express it in the early days. She always seemed to be the logical, calmer one of the bunch. To be honest, if she had personally demonstrated the dramatic characteristics of her family when we met, that would probably have been an issue with me. I suppose after all those years, however, her nature was burning to be released, and all those years of calmness finally took it's toll.


 How else was she going to win you over if she didn't calm her jets and BE what you wanted her to be...she knew that was her only chance.. 

She probably did yearn to release what was churning inside.. IF she was really different from her own family.. you'd think.. *she wouldn't have enjoyed being around them*.. 

Take me for example...a # of relatives on my Mothers side.. I don't like them or enjoy them.. I'd happily go to my grave & never see them again....some DRAMA there.. High strung...I'd pull out my hair if I had to live with a couple of them!..I got along best with the men on that side... they were just more reasonable, calmer, easier to talk to or something....many times I found myself being the Peacemaker between 2 of my aunts who seen life in 2 drastically different ways.. it helped me see early on.. People are freaking NUTS.. how do I bring some calm to this.. becauses I sure as heck don't want to be like [email protected]# (My dad always thought my Mothers side was crazy too -but he was good friends with my Uncle for yrs after the divorce)...

So if your ex still enjoyed her family, spent much time with them... she obviously was OK with their behaviors.. or she'd , too want to pull her hair out.. 

She probably DID temper herself down for you -to win your affections... 



> I see truth to this. When she was expressing her desire for a divorce and how I had changed in her mind, I asked when this started. *She ran it back to the year we built our new house, aka "dream home." She didn't say the new home had anything to do with it, but the year she ran it back to was the new house year. I felt like us moving up and getting a new home was the beginning of our downfall. *
> 
> I'm not using that as an example that stuff always causes problems, but something must have changed in our case.


 Well what changed.. less time together.. more stress.. you said *BUILT our new home*.. I've heard people say that's one of the quickest ways to divorce court.. the disagreements over plans, the stress of contractors , etc..... Take this article for example..

Build A Home Without Getting A Divorce - 5 Questions You Should Ask Yourself Before Taking The Dive - 



> I'm sure there is always things that happen behind closed doors that we aren't aware of. But I don't think explaining away our grandparents appearance of a happy marriage by saying they were probably really miserable is always the truth*.(SA, I'm not saying those are your views, but it does seem to pop up a lot at the mention of past generations). *


 You know I am not one to always feel this.. as my Grandparents on my Dad's side was a beautiful example to me.. she wasn't one to spare the bad either.. just really Open & honest.. no matter the subject. 

Now on my Mothers side.. and you see.. we can learn from all these examples.....My Grandmother, similar to your wife.. *chased my Grandfather*.. he was in a Band, the story goes the 1st time she saw him, she said she was going to marry him.....they were both dancers, they won competitions together ... this was their thing... what brought them together I guess...

But the sad part was... my Grandfather was a bit of a flirting playboy.. from his own mouth.. he'd told me he had a few GF's while he was married.. he shared these things with me in his 90's ...she died years before...he was more in love with someone else over my Grandmother even, I guess he wanted to get some things off his chest...he died at 97 last yr)..never lost his memories. quick as a whip... and still flirting with the nurses no less !

Oh she put up with him ...they seemed NORMAL happy to me.. no physical abuse.. but some spats.. OH Yes....but then they'd make up... it wasn't boring.. it was more lively.. He was a good Provider & all.. his work ethic impeccable.. so there again.. is the old stigma many knew from our Grandparents...MEN could cheat - but the wife is STUCK !

And for me....yet another reason I don't think women should ever ever ever chase a man!!... and don't marry a FLIRT either !.... you may get him.. but does he really want YOU above all?? ...I would always wonder.. 

So yeah... our Grandparents stories...they do influence us in ways we still hold today, some 40 yrs later.... just as someone else who had an ABUSIVE Grandfather -would feel very strongly to NEVER NEVER NEVER depend on a man.. or if they seen their Mother STUCK like that. Impressions we grow up with ARE BIG...it's true. 



> *I believe that they just viewed things differently. Who knows, my grandmothers might have had some of the same complaints that WAWs have today, but to them, it wasn't as big of a deal as it is today; it didn't drive them to a mental place that they wanted to get a divorce*.


 when options are not there.. you do the best you can.. I enjoy watching the Waltons.... though every time I watch that show, I can't help but notice the things that TODAY, so many would be up in arms over, things spoken or implied (even though it seemed fine back then)...the vast majority of women didn't work...the man was the HEAD of that household...females had their place pretty much.. ...so you darn well better MARRY WELL.. or you'd be screwed! Still enjoy the show though...













> *Sure, they would tell things the husbands did that were silly, or times they would "straighten them out" about something, or even times they "laid down the law," as they put it, but they could barely get through it without laughing their heads off*.


...and this sounds Enjoyable.. something I would see on the Waltons.. always loved the Banter between Grandma and Grandpa !!


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> It makes sense when talking in generalities. But when applied to individual people and their marriages, it comes off as judgmental. You have no idea why others have left their marriages. You do not have the advantage of their knowledge of their own situation because you were not there. Even when people here talk about their marriages, they are only giving a very small part of the entire picture.
> 
> I'm glad it worked for you. It does not work for everyone. To assume that anyone who left their marriage did not try to work on things in the same way you did is in my opinion not valid. You have no idea what the factors were in my marriage.


For the record I have made NO judgement on your marriage, other than that the act of leaving put your needs ahead of your spouse's. I believe that you have said that yourself. And I have not said it was wrong. I have even said I contemplated the same thing.

I am not judging. To persist in reading that into my words means you are totally missing the point of what I am saying.


----------



## bandit.45

Hey you guys...what the hell is going on? You guys are actually discussing this issue rationally...listening and taking in other opinions....in a civil and respectful manner. WTF? No feminist or macho chest thumping. This is nice folks. 

This isn't the TAM I'm used to. If there is a doob being passed around pass it my way.


----------



## bandit.45

Wazza said:


> For the record I have made NO judgement on your marriage, other than that the act of leaving put your needs ahead of your spouse's. I believe that you have said that yourself. And I have not said it was wrong. I have even said I contemplated the same thing.
> 
> I am not judging. To persist in reading that into my words means you are totally missing the point of what I am saying.


Nice save Wazza. Now STFU and let it die.


----------



## Forest

lifeistooshort said:


> Frankly if your grandparents gave you the impression that they didn't need to put much effort into their marriage and were still happy they did you a disservice.


I think that's a stretch, and disservice to his grandparents. Its looking to minimize people who may have just been less selfish, more thoughtful and appreciative, and better at fostering a happy marriage.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Forest said:


> I think that's a stretch, and disservice to his grandparents. Its looking to minimize people who may have just been less selfish, more thoughtful and appreciative, and better at fostering a happy marriage.



Disagree. Some people in those days were happy while others simply sucked it up and stayed married. And I'd be careful about throwing around the term "selfish".....my grandparents generation could be as selfish as anyone but there was an understanding that you didn't leave your marriage. Period. Even with abuse or adultery it was encouraged to look the other way, especially if you were a woman. I'd counter-argue that many people today who complain about selfishness when their spouse leaves them were quite selfish as spouses themselves, they're just po'd that their spouse could and would leave over it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

bandit.45 said:


> Hey you guys...what the hell is going on? You guys are actually discussing this issue rationally...listening and taking in other opinions....in a civil and respectful manner. WTF? No feminist or macho chest thumping. This is nice folks.
> 
> This isn't the TAM I'm used to. If there is a doob being passed around pass it my way.



Make sure it comes with cheetos 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Forest

lifeistooshort said:


> Disagree. Some people in those days were happy while others simply sucked it up and stayed married. And I'd be careful about throwing around the term "selfish".....my grandparents generation could be as selfish as anyone but there was an understanding that you didn't leave your marriage. Period. Even with abuse or adultery it was encouraged to look the other way, especially if you were a woman. I'd counter-argue that many people today who complain about selfishness when their spouse leaves them were quite selfish as spouses themselves, they're just po'd that their spouse could and would leave over it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Do you believe "The Greatest Generation" and the one preceding it, are not quite as deserving of the praise and respect that has been directed their way? 

I've lived and worked around folks from every generation of the 20th Century, and see no comparison between those elders the Baby Boomers and following generations. Those people that lived thru the depression and WWII make the latter generations look very egocentric.


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> How else was she going to win you over if she didn't calm her jets and BE what you wanted her to be...she knew that was her only chance..


Probably true. I just can't figure out what was so attractive about me that she decided to set her sights on me; it's not likely that she was homely or didn't date other people.



SimplyAmorous said:


> She probably did yearn to release what was churning inside.. IF she was really different from her own family.. you'd think.. *she wouldn't have enjoyed being around them*..


True. Her situation with her family was rather complex. On one hand, she would always say that she hated drama, and believe me, there was always something going on in her family, some big things and some small. they could get into it over a sneeze.

They were a family of six, and about a thousand aunts and uncles on both sides. Nobody could ever get along all at once. There always had to be a little friction between somebody. However, they were not a come-to-blows family or one where everyone would verbally let each other have it. They handled it by tongue wagging with each other about the other one and pouting. 

She never expressed wanting to stay away for any length of time, but would verbally act as though the drama bothered her. 
In my opinion, they could get upset over the most childish things; somebody's feelings were always hurt over a this or that. 

there were times when she would get off the phone with one of them and be ready to bite a nail in two. She would say they were crazy, and I would support her in it. Later, however, she acted as though I didn't like her family. heck, i was just supporting her. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Well what changed.. less time together.. more stress.. you said *BUILT our new home*.. I've heard people say that's one of the quickest ways to divorce court.. the disagreements over plans, the stress of contractors , etc..... Take this article for example..


Here's another oddity, but we never had a single issue while building. We had heard this, and people would joke with us that we would probably get into while we were building, but we didn't. Our issue was with the people who were building; they were late, didn't do the work they were supposed to, or the wrong door would be sent. We always said "We got along fine, but we'd like to shoot the people who are building it."



SimplyAmorous said:


> when options are not there.. you do the best you can.. I enjoy watching the Waltons.... though every time I watch that show, I can't help but notice the things that TODAY, so many would be up in arms over, things spoken or implied (even though it seemed fine back then)..


True, and I wonder when we make a big deal of things today that once were ok, are we just reacting today the way we should have reacted all along, or are we making mountains of mole-hills. Oh, I know I left that door wide open, but I'm obviously talking about the smaller annoyances in life. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> ...and this sounds Enjoyable.. something I would see on the Waltons.. always loved the Banter between Grandma and Grandpa !!


Right. I know some real-life older couples like that. They act like they're just waiting for the right moment to slap the other one, but it's just them.


----------



## Dogbert

Forest said:


> Does this mean you believe "The Greatest Generation" and the one preceding it, are undeserving of the praise and respect that has been directed their way?
> 
> I've lived and worked around folks from every generation of the 20th Century, and see no comparison between those elders the Baby Boomers and following generations. Those people that lived thru the depression and WWII make the latter generations look like egocentric pirates.


One was raised during famine. In order to survive as a group, everybody had to sacrifice. They don't ascribe to happily ever after. They learned to value the intangibles that give life meaning and the work that entails to keep them present.

The latter was raised during feast. Survival and sacrifice are alien concepts to the affluent who have never experienced any degree of famine. They believe that their eternal soulmate is out there just waiting for them to turn all their dreams into reality, without any effort on their part.

No comparison indeed.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Forest said:


> Do you believe "The Greatest Generation" and the one preceding it, are not quite as deserving of the praise and respect that has been directed their way?
> 
> I've lived and worked around folks from every generation of the 20th Century, and see no comparison between those elders the Baby Boomers and following generations. Those people that lived thru the depression and WWII make the latter generations look very egocentric.


Who, pray tell, coined this term "the greatest generation"? So they they were somehow leaps and bounds ahead of everyone before them? Our revolutionary forefathers? Lincoln's generation? So somehow the WWII generation just had something nobody before them and nobody after them did? I dispute this notion.

Every generation has its positives and negatives. The WWI generation thought the WWII generation was a bunch of scandalous idiots. The great depression was hard yes, and it's not like I have no idea what hardship is either as a big chunk of my family came over here to get away from communist, anti-semitic Russia and Hitler, but what about Washington's troops and the hardships through those winters? This is the path you're going to take if you're going to start comparing generations.

Want to compare generations? My father's father left my grandmother in the 1950's with three young children so he could drink. Do you have any idea what it was like for a single woman with kids in those days? My mom's father told my dad that after their last child was born was the last time he ever got laid. Know how he made up for that? By molesting his own daughter and granddaughters.....my grandmother knew all about it and did nothing because in the good 'old days of the 50's you simply pretended like nothing was happening and stayed married. Oh, and my grandfather was a navy vet from WWII so he was part of this "greatest generation". My father stuck around, worked hard and raised us but somehow he wasn't part of this so called greatest generation.

It's not productive to compare generations, each one's world is different.


----------



## techmom

Forest said:


> Do you believe "The Greatest Generation" and the one preceding it, are not quite as deserving of the praise and respect that has been directed their way?
> 
> I've lived and worked around folks from every generation of the 20th Century, and see no comparison between those elders the Baby Boomers and following generations. Those people that lived thru the depression and WWII make the latter generations look very egocentric.


Would you want to live back in the depression/WWII era? Food was scarce, jobs were few, and children were working in factories. Or would you like to stay in the present era?

The point I think you are making is that you admire that generation because they didn't have a choice but to work things out. If a spouse left it meant starvation for the family. Women had no choices back then, so they had to be sure that they married the right guy.

Which meant the following:

No premarital sex
Parents had some control over who their girls married, if they didn't like you forget it
Men had to stay and support the family, no complaining. Having sex meant having kids because no adequate birth control was available. So you had to decrease the frequency of sex or else wifey may die from bearing too many kids.

So, with inconveniences like that, do you still want to wax poetic about the good old days?


----------



## lifeistooshort

techmom said:


> Would you want to live back in the depression/WWII era? Food was scarce, jobs were few, and children were working in factories. Or would you like to stay in the present era?
> 
> The point I think you are making is that you admire that generation because they didn't have a choice but to work things out. If a spouse left it meant starvation for the family. Women had no choices back then, so they had to be sure that they married the right guy.
> 
> Which meant the following:
> 
> No premarital sex
> Parents had some control over who their girls married, if they didn't like you forget it
> Men had to stay and support the family, no complaining. Having sex meant having kids because no adequate birth control was available. So you had to decrease the frequency of sex or else wifey may die from bearing too many kids.
> 
> So, with inconveniences like that, do you still want to wax poetic about the good old days?



Let's not forget the frequency with which men on this forum are advised to divorce over lack of sex. Nobody in the so called "greatest generation" would leave a marriage over lack of sex, yet men here are advised to do it all the time. So women who leave men that don't meet their needs are selfish but men who leave over a lack of an acceptable sex life are somehow not selfish?


----------



## techmom

Birth control was the savior of many married couples sex lives, because getting intimate didn't mean having a baby every time. Men these days are so spoiled, grandpa had to learn to control his desires. Especially after grandma pushed out the fifth child.


----------



## lifeistooshort

techmom said:


> Birth control was the savior of many married couples sex lives, because getting intimate didn't mean having a baby every time. Men these days are so spoiled, grandpa had to learn to control his desires. Especially after grandma pushed out the fifth child.


Don't think women of the "greatest generation" gave much oral either. I guess that would be ok with the men of today though because she was "committed"?

There's ups and downs to to each generation.


----------



## techmom

lifeistooshort said:


> Don't think women of the "greatest generation" gave much oral either. I guess that would be ok with the men of today though because she was "committed"?
> 
> There's ups and downs to to each generation.


Oral!? Shush, such things were not mentioned back then....I think that is a totally modern day construct. 

Which brings me to this story...

One day I was sitting with my grandma watching TV, something came up hinting about oral sex. My grandma knew nothing about it. She had 7 pregnancies which resulted in 5 children including my father. She would always mention how girls were so loose nowadays, doing things with boys that girls back in her day never knew existed. She told me to never be loose, never let boys do things to you because they are only after one thing. 

You can ask my husband if he thinks these teachings of my grandmother was a good thing.


----------



## Deejo

Thundarr said:


> Do you have a theory of why she repeated this three times? Broken picker possibly? (no offense  ). Or a fondness of shiny new things? I'm just curious. I'd have the urge to ask her like you did but at the same time I'd have to wonder if she really knows the reason.


She believed she had a broken picker. First marriage at 22, second at 27. First marriage her words were, "I married my best friend. Being best friends didn't translate. To this day, he is still single, has lots of money, and can't understand why he can't keep a woman."

#2 Wanted a caretaker. He also didn't disclose to her that he had a debilitating disease. Made it clear he didn't want children and became more bitter and angry the sicker he got ... and directed it at her.

#3 She discovered after marriage was an alcoholic. Nail in the coffin was when he drove with their 19 month old daughter in the car when he was drunk.


Me? Apparently I've proven to be an adult, don't need a caretaker, and keep my word.

That, and I tend to like a challenge. She was terrified to tell me the truth of her circumstances, but to her credit, she did.

I just responded with, "You'll have to try harder than that to scare me off."

She has a huge heart. She has become more cautious about who she gives it to, which let's face it, more of us should do.

Her big heart I think is a big part of how and why she wanted to get it right previously.

Will she walk out on me someday?

Not if I beat her to it. 

In the meantime, things are quite normal and quite good.


----------



## Forest

lifeistooshort said:


> Who, pray tell, coined this term "the greatest generation"? So they they were somehow leaps and bounds ahead of everyone before them? Our revolutionary forefathers? Lincoln's generation? So somehow the WWII generation just had something nobody before them and nobody after them did? I dispute this notion.
> 
> Every generation has its positives and negatives. The WWI generation thought the WWII generation was a bunch of scandalous idiots. The great depression was hard yes, and it's not like I have no idea what hardship is either as a big chunk of my family came over here to get away from communist, anti-semitic Russia and Hitler, but what about Washington's troops and the hardships through those winters? This is the path you're going to take if you're going to start comparing generations.
> 
> Want to compare generations? My father's father left my grandmother in the 1950's with three young children so he could drink. Do you have any idea what it was like for a single woman with kids in those days? My mom's father told my dad that after their last child was born was the last time he ever got laid. Know how he made up for that? By molesting his own daughter and granddaughters.....my grandmother knew all about it and did nothing because in the good 'old days of the 50's you simply pretended like nothing was happening and stayed married. Oh, and my grandfather was a navy vet from WWII so he was part of this "greatest generation". My father stuck around, worked hard and raised us but somehow he wasn't part of this so called greatest generation.
> 
> It's not productive to compare generations, each one's world is different.





techmom said:


> Would you want to live back in the depression/WWII era? Food was scarce, jobs were few, and children were working in factories. Or would you like to stay in the present era?
> 
> The point I think you are making is that you admire that generation because they didn't have a choice but to work things out. If a spouse left it meant starvation for the family. Women had no choices back then, so they had to be sure that they married the right guy.
> 
> Which meant the following:
> 
> No premarital sex
> Parents had some control over who their girls married, if they didn't like you forget it
> Men had to stay and support the family, no complaining. Having sex meant having kids because no adequate birth control was available. So you had to decrease the frequency of sex or else wifey may die from bearing too many kids.
> 
> So, with inconveniences like that, do you still want to wax poetic about the good old days?




Why the misdirected lecturing? 

Lifeistooshort says some guy's grandparents did him a disservice by not telling him their marriage was harder than he perceived. That in itself is discourteous. You can make a point without dissing grandma. She then disagrees that those people were less selfish than the subsequent generations. It was an A or B question. Now, the answer is being expanded into a donnybrook of tearing down past generations, and historic diversions.

If you go along with that- little wonder you are unfamiliar with the origins of the term "The Greatest Generation".

I never made any statement about the good old days, longing for the past. Just called inaccuracies. Fess up, we're soft, whiny selfish people today. That's why we're here on TAM. Those people would be out hoeing or cooking right now.


----------



## techmom

Forest said:


> Do you believe "The Greatest Generation" and the one preceding it, are not quite as deserving of the praise and respect that has been directed their way?
> 
> *I've lived and worked around folks from every generation of the 20th Century, and see no comparison between those elders the Baby Boomers and following generations. Those people that lived thru the depression and WWII make the latter generations look very egocentric.*


What, in your opinion, makes the latter generations egocentric? Do you think that if economic conditions were not as harsh back then that they would have been egocentric as well?


----------



## Forest

techmom said:


> What, in your opinion, makes the latter generations egocentric? Do you think that if economic conditions were not as harsh back then that they would have been egocentric as well?


The latter generations do not equate work and thrift with food and shelter they way early generations did. The earlier generations worked and saved or starved. Watched their kids go to the orphanage. That was life, and it was common. Not so today. Food and shelter are often provided by the state.

Would people have been egocentric then? Maybe so. But that wasn't the case. When it hit the fan, they rose to the challenge. The deserve the credit without lots of second guessing.

How do you think that would go today?

Ever seen a woman with salon nails, and her kids running around Walmart in their pajamas?

A man with a big new truck, and his kids eating on food stamps?

We have a completely different reference point today. We can't really imagine the hardship. Those generations responded with a good degree of self denial, so there families could survive. Not every single person, but more than not.


----------



## techmom

Forest said:


> The latter generations do not equate work and thrift with food and shelter they way early generations did. The earlier generations worked and saved or starved. Watched their kids go to the orphanage. That was life, and it was common. Not so today. Food and shelter are often provided by the state.
> 
> Would people have been egocentric then? Maybe so. But that wasn't the case. When it hit the fan, they rose to the challenge. The deserve the credit without lots of second guessing.
> 
> How do you think that would go today?
> 
> Ever seen a woman with salon nails, and her kids running around Walmart in their pajamas?
> 
> A man with a big new truck, and his kids eating on food stamps?
> 
> We have a completely different reference point today. We can really imagine the hardship. Those generations responded with a good degree of self denial, so there families could survive. Not every single person, but more than not.


My point was, to give the generations in the past the same economic opportunities we have today, would they have to hold onto things that were not working if they knew that they could replace it easily? If grandpa was introduced to porn back 100 years ago, Internet porn, would he stay with grandma and vanilla sex?


----------



## southbound

Forest said:


> The latter generations do not equate work and thrift with food and shelter they way early generations did. The earlier generations worked and saved or starved. Watched their kids go to the orphanage. That was life, and it was common. Not so today. Food and shelter are often provided by the state.
> 
> Would people have been egocentric then? Maybe so. But that wasn't the case. When it hit the fan, they rose to the challenge. The deserve the credit without lots of second guessing.
> 
> How do you think that would go today?
> 
> Ever seen a woman with salon nails, and her kids running around Walmart in their pajamas?
> 
> A man with a big new truck, and his kids eating on food stamps?
> 
> We have a completely different reference point today. We can really imagine the hardship. Those generations responded with a good degree of self denial, so there families could survive. Not every single person, but more than not.


I like this explanation. People today, myself included, just have a completely different reference points than past generations. I remember my parents sometimes telling me when I would "want" something, they would sometimes say, "We don't always get everything we want in life, but we'll be ok." I'm sure that's not what's told today. Today, we must have all physical and emotional needs met as soon as possible, or our life is in the gutter and changes need to be made. 

After giving it some thought, I wasn't raised to think life was all about a bed of roses anyway. I didn't grow up thinking that i would always have my heart's desires, or that my spouse must cater to my every need, or that I shouldn't experience any discomfort in life. I guess since i didn't expect it, I'm not down that I don't have it.


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> I like this explanation. People today, myself included, just have a completely different reference points than past generations. I remember my parents sometimes telling me when I would "want" something, they would sometimes say, "We don't always get everything we want in life, but we'll be ok." I'm sure that's not what's told today. Today, we must have all physical and emotional needs met as soon as possible, or our life is in the gutter and changes need to be made.
> 
> After giving it some thought, I wasn't raised to think life was all about a bed of roses anyway. I didn't grow up thinking that i would always have my heart's desires, or that my spouse must cater to my every need, or that I shouldn't experience any discomfort in life. I guess since i didn't expect it, I'm not down that I don't have it.


I know plenty of parents today who tell their children things like: "We don't always get everything we want in life, but we'll be ok." I know I told my kids that often. They accepted it.. what else could they do?

Most people do not have the money to buy themselves and/or their children everything that they want.


----------



## Forest

techmom said:


> My point was, to give the generations in the past the same economic opportunities we have today, would they have to hold onto things that were not working if they knew that they could replace it easily? If grandpa was introduced to porn back 100 years ago, Internet porn, would he stay with grandma and vanilla sex?


Why does it matter? If Ben Franklin had met a heroin dealer would her have not flown his kite? If Ghandi had video games would he have played them all day, and not done a darn thing else? You can "if" anything and everything to tweak things to your liking, if you don't like reality.

I'm not going to dismiss the good things people did, just because they weren't born in a different year. That's what happened. They achieved.


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo said:


> She believed she had a broken picker. First marriage at 22, second at 27. First marriage her words were, "I married my best friend. Being best friends didn't translate. To this day, he is still single, has lots of money, and can't understand why he can't keep a woman."
> 
> #2 Wanted a caretaker. He also didn't disclose to her that he had a debilitating disease. Made it clear he didn't want children and became more bitter and angry the sicker he got ... and directed it at her.
> 
> #3 She discovered after marriage was an alcoholic. Nail in the coffin was when he drove with their 19 month old daughter in the car when he was drunk.
> 
> 
> Me? Apparently I've proven to be an adult, don't need a caretaker, and keep my word.
> 
> That, and I tend to like a challenge. She was terrified to tell me the truth of her circumstances, but to her credit, she did.
> 
> I just responded with, "You'll have to try harder than that to scare me off."
> 
> She has a huge heart. She has become more cautious about who she gives it to, which let's face it, more of us should do.
> 
> Her big heart I think is a big part of how and why she wanted to get it right previously.
> 
> Will she walk out on me someday?
> 
> Not if I beat her to it.
> 
> In the meantime, things are quite normal and quite good.


Thanks for replying. 
Guy #1 young, best friends, probably naive. It happens so she gets pass.
Guy #2 caregiver. Maybe a knee jerk reaction to dynamic's from #1.
Guy #3 alcoholic. Yea I think her picker was off too after three strikes.
Guy #4 once bitten twice shy, non-committal. It might work :smthumbup:. You guys are likely neither in a rush.


----------



## techmom

Forest said:


> Why does it matter? If Ben Franklin had met a heroin dealer would her have not flown his kite? If Ghandi had video games would he have played them all day, and not done a darn thing else? You can "if" anything and everything to tweak things to your liking, if you don't like reality.
> 
> I'm not going to dismiss the good things people did, just because they weren't born in a different year. That's what happened. They achieved.


By the same token, don't dismiss people nowadays when they say that they were dissatisfied with their relationships and had to leave. Sexual and emotional satisfaction in marriage is not a luxury, it is a requirement. We live in a different day and time, we have technological advances which makes our lives easier. We should be thankful that we don't have to worry about where our next meal is coming from.

Men don't have to do back breaking work to earn a living and women are not doomed to having 5 plus children if they don't want to. And people are not doomed to staying in sex starved or emotionally starved relationships.


----------



## Forest

techmom said:


> By the same token, don't dismiss people nowadays when they say that they were dissatisfied with their relationships and had to leave. Sexual and emotional satisfaction in marriage is not a luxury, it is a requirement. We live in a different day and time, we have technological advances which makes our lives easier. We should be thankful that we don't have to worry about where our next meal is coming from.
> 
> Men don't have to do back breaking work to earn a living and women are not doomed to having 5 plus children if they don't want to. And people are not doomed to staying in sex starved or emotionally starved relationships.


Eh, I wasn't even thinking about that stuff. Just people that have done the hard things and those that haven't.

I thought this idea of why people leave had been abandoned as completely transparent.

People all leave for the same reason, regardless of sex, religion, color, etc. They are not getting what they want.

It is all the same. "Unmet needs".

With some its "I need someone who's there for me", or "I need someone to cater to my whims", "I need someone less controlling".

With others its "I need more sex, "I need someone less fat", "I need someone younger".

Heck. Those reasons sound selfish. That's ironic.

You wanna leave? Go. You deserve it. That's not selfish, is it?

Oh, by the way. You don't think men still do back breaking work to earn a living? You're wrong.


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> Eh, I wasn't even thinking about that stuff. Just people that have done the hard things and those that haven't.
> 
> I thought this idea of why people leave had been abandoned as completely transparent.
> 
> People all leave for the same reason, regardless of sex, religion, color, etc. They are not getting what they want.
> 
> It is all the same. "Unmet needs".
> 
> With some its "I need someone who's there for me", or "I need someone to cater to my whims", "I need someone less controlling".
> 
> With others its "I need more sex, "I need someone less fat", "I need someone younger".
> 
> Heck. Those reasons sound selfish. That's ironic.
> 
> You wanna leave? Go. You deserve it. That's not selfish, is it?


is that last sentence sarcastic?


----------



## techmom

Forest said:


> Eh, I wasn't even thinking about that stuff. Just people that have done the hard things and those that haven't.
> 
> I thought this idea of why people leave had been abandoned as completely transparent.
> 
> People all leave for the same reason, regardless of sex, religion, color, etc. They are not getting what they want.
> 
> It is all the same. "Unmet needs".
> 
> With some its "I need someone who's there for me", or "I need someone to cater to my whims", "I need someone less controlling".
> 
> With others its "I need more sex, "I need someone less fat", "I need someone younger".
> 
> Heck. Those reasons sound selfish. That's ironic.
> 
> You wanna leave? Go. You deserve it. That's not selfish, is it?
> 
> Oh, by the way. You don't think men still do back breaking work to earn a living? You're wrong.


You misread my post, I stated the following...

Men don't *have to* do back breaking work to earn a living and women are not doomed to having 5 plus children if they don't want to. And people are not doomed to staying in sex starved or emotionally starved relationships.


----------



## techmom

I celebrate technology because it gives people choices where we had none before. :smthumbup:


----------



## RandomDude

What has technology wrought?










:slap:


----------



## lifeistooshort

Forest said:


> Why the misdirected lecturing?
> 
> Lifeistooshort says some guy's grandparents did him a disservice by not telling him their marriage was harder than he perceived. That in itself is discourteous. You can make a point without dissing grandma. She then disagrees that those people were less selfish than the subsequent generations. It was an A or B question. Now, the answer is being expanded into a donnybrook of tearing down past generations, and historic diversions.
> 
> If you go along with that- little wonder you are unfamiliar with the origins of the term "The Greatest Generation".
> 
> I never made any statement about the good old days, longing for the past. Just called inaccuracies. Fess up, we're soft, whiny selfish people today. That's why we're here on TAM. Those people would be out hoeing or cooking right now.



Let's correct this. I never said his grandparents held out on him, I said IF they'd given the impress that the marriage was effortlessly happy it was a disservice. That's all.

Then I get a response about the so called greatest generation and I pointed out that it's pointless to pit generations against each other because each one's world is different and we all play the hand we're dealt in the world we live in. 



There's nothing special about any one generation, we all have positives and negatives. While you look down on current generations there's plenty of expectations you have that your grandfather didn't. We all play our hand.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Forest

techmom said:


> You misread my post, I stated the following...
> 
> Men don't *have to* do back breaking work to earn a living and women are not doomed to having 5 plus children if they don't want to. And people are not doomed to staying in sex starved or emotionally starved relationships.


I'll stand by the fact that many men *have to* do back breaking work to earn a living.


----------



## Forest

EleGirl said:


> is that last sentence sarcastic?


No, unless you were so certain and sure that you made a vow, and gave someone reason to believe you were committed.

People really need to own their shlt, I've been told. Don't you agree? No more bitcching and bellyaching?


----------



## Created2Write

EleGirl said:


> So the thread has been turned into a discussion of cheating.
> 
> I guess that works as a way to avoid the actual topic of the thread.


Yep. I get that there are resentments in relationships, and I get that there are more resentments in some relationships than in others, but there is no such thing as a relationship which dies entirely because of one person. Both people contribute to the toxic atmosphere which leads to the downfall of the marriage. To act otherwise is to set one's self up to face the situation again and potentially lose another spouse.


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> No, unless you were so certain and sure that you made a vow, and gave someone reason to believe you were committed.
> 
> People really need to own their shlt, I've been told. Don't you agree? No more bitcching and bellyaching?


Sure people need to own their ****. Are you suggesting that I did not?


----------



## EleGirl

Created2Write said:


> Yep. I get that there are resentments in relationships, and I get that there are more resentments in some relationships than in others, but there is no such thing as a relationship which dies entirely because of one person. Both people contribute to the toxic atmosphere which leads to the downfall of the marriage. To act otherwise is to set one's self up to face the situation again and potentially lose another spouse.


I believe that this is the case most of the time. But there are times when one person can destroy a marriage pretty much all on their own.

That's not to say that the other is perfect. But it's to say that sometimes one person some something so wrong based solely on their own choice to do it.

It takes two people to make a marriage work. But it can take only one to destroy it.


----------



## Forest

EleGirl said:


> Sure people need to own their ****. Are you suggesting that I did not?




Yall can just return to your klatch.


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> I hope you see might point that those words were actually spoken by Deejo (pg1), but vs men, which you applauded. Yet, when it is reversed, you find it angry, "off the handle", and come down on it.


That was on page 1. Deejo's post was on topic. He was not talking to all men. He was talking about men that are in the situation discussed in the linked article. 

Further, your post was not aimed directly at me. Deejo’s post was not aimed at any one particular poster. 

I commented on that post of yours because after all these pages of discussion, it's clear that most here are saying that both spouses need to pay attention to the other. Both spouses need to work to fix things. But when one spouse will not there is not a lot that the other can do. That is the problem.



Forest said:


> I just wish women would stop acting like kicked little puppies.
> 
> If your husband is telling *you* there is a problem ... listen for cripes sake. Fix it. It's *your* job.
> 
> And if it can't be fixed, or *you* don't much feel like fixing it, then let things go with some dignity for both people rather than letting the relationship further devolve into apathy, disrespect, or infidelity.


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> Yall can just return to your klatch.


:scratchhead:


----------



## Created2Write

EleGirl said:


> I believe that this is the case most of the time. But there are times when one person can destroy a marriage pretty much all on their own.
> 
> That's not to say that the other is perfect. But it's to say that sometimes one person some something so wrong based solely on their own choice to do it.
> 
> It takes two people to make a marriage work. But it can take only one to destroy it.


Granted there can be cases when one person contributes more toxicity to the relationship than the other, perhaps even _a lot_ more. But unless the other spouse was perfect in their emotional turmoil and never had a bad day, I maintain that it takes two. 

That isn't meant as blame, either. Just perspective. Looking at my entire marriage, I have been the more consistent participant with regards to meeting emotional needs and doing what needed to be done for the relationship. There was a time when I thought walking away was a very real possibility for me because my husband simply wouldn't change. Said he would. Promised he would. Promised over and over. Would make changes for a week, two weeks...maybe a month if I was lucky, and then settle back into his old habits for months on end. Still, I was far from innocent. My resentment was strongly felt and, sometimes, strongly shown. I had bad days where I would lash out at him, days when he would get on my nerves regardless of what he did, days when I couldn't be around him without snapping and getting angry. While my feelings and frustration was understandable, it only served to justify his lack of effort. 

Granted, my situation is only one situation. For myself I find it hard to believe that any marriage died solely due to the actions of one spouse.


----------



## Created2Write

klatch: a casual gathering of people, especially for refreshments and informal conversation. 

.......


----------



## EleGirl

Created2Write said:


> klatch: a casual gathering of people, especially for refreshments and informal conversation.
> 
> .......


I know the meaning of the word. I'm not sure what or who he thinks I need to get back to... what klatch???


----------



## EleGirl

Created2Write said:


> Granted there can be cases when one person contributes more toxicity to the relationship than the other, perhaps even _a lot_ more. But unless the other spouse was perfect in their emotional turmoil and never had a bad day, I maintain that it takes two.
> 
> That isn't meant as blame, either. Just perspective. Looking at my entire marriage, I have been the more consistent participant with regards to meeting emotional needs and doing what needed to be done for the relationship. There was a time when I thought walking away was a very real possibility for me because my husband simply wouldn't change. Said he would. Promised he would. Promised over and over. Would make changes for a week, two weeks...maybe a month if I was lucky, and then settle back into his old habits for months on end. Still, I was far from innocent. My resentment was strongly felt and, sometimes, strongly shown. I had bad days where I would lash out at him, days when he would get on my nerves regardless of what he did, days when I couldn't be around him without snapping and getting angry. While my feelings and frustration was understandable, it only served to justify his lack of effort.
> 
> Granted, my situation is only one situation. _*For myself I find it hard to believe that any marriage died solely due to the actions of one spouse*_.


A man and his wife are having a disagreement one day. It gets heated and he beats the living tar out of her.

Another couple are having a disagreement. The husband is holding their one year old daughter. The wife grabs a butcher knife and goes after her husband. 

A couple has dated for 2 years and gets married. Two years after they are married, she finds out that he has been cheating with several women around the country when he travels for his job. This went on from the day they met so it was from long before they married.

A man is laid off from his job. He never looks for another job. Instead he spends every waking hour closed up in the home office playing computer games and surfing the web... a lot of his activities are things like interactive sex sites. He refuses to interact with his wife and children. He refuses to help around the house, cook,... basically refuses to do anything. This goes no for the next 10 years.

Just 3 that I know of that I think it's pretty clear that while one spouse is not perfect.. as no one is perfect, there is one spouse who broke the marriage.


----------



## Anon Pink

Forest and Southbound,

When you guys got married did you expect to feel loved by your wife? Did you feel loved?


----------



## Created2Write

EleGirl said:


> I know the meaning of the word. I'm not sure what or who he thinks I need to get back to... what klatch???


I posted the definition for my own sake. I wasn't sure of its definition, and having looked it up, was rendered even more confused by his statement. I'm hoping it was meant sarcastically and not sincerely.


----------



## techmom

Forest said:


> I'll stand by the fact that many men *have to* do back breaking work to earn a living.


Most men I know do not have to perform manual labor to earn a living because of tech advances, but maybe you know better


----------



## Created2Write

EleGirl said:


> A man and his wife are having a disagreement one day. It gets heated and he beats the living tar out of her.


I should have clarified my statement. Barring extreme circumstances, I find it hard to believe that a marriage died solely due to the actions of one spouse. And abuse is, imo, an extreme circumstance because I don't believe most marriages are physically abusive.



> Another couple are having a disagreement. The husband is holding their one year old daughter. The wife grabs a butcher knife and goes after her husband.


Another extreme circumstance that I don't think applies to the majority of marriages. And yet another example of my poor choice of words. 



> A couple has dated for 2 years and gets married. Two years after they are married, she finds out that he has been cheating with several women around the country when he travels for his job. This went on from the day they met so it was from long before they married.


Another extreme that likely doesn't apply to most. 



> A man is laid off from his job. He never looks for another job. Instead he spends every waking hour closed up in the home office playing computer games and surfing the web... a lot of his activities are things like interact sex sites. He refuses to interact with his wife and children. He refuses to help around the house, cook,... basically refuses to do anything. This goes no for the next 10 years.


Another extreme. 



> Just 3 that I know of that I think it's pretty clear that while one spouse is not perfect.. as no one is perfect, there is one spouse who broke the marriage.


I get the point. I chose my words poorly. In the above situations, the faults of the other spouse are rendered irrelevant in the heinousness of the "bad" spouse's actions. In most cases, or at least in a great many cases, this isn't so. 

I only say this because of some of the more...bitter posts written by some who seem to acknowledge no personal responsibility in their marriages outside of holding a steady job and being a good parent. A person can be a good, or even great, individual...hard working, time efficient, caring, kind, honest...and still fail at meeting their spouses needs, and thus find themselves divorced. And while they may blame their ex for the downfall of their marriage because their ex chose to leave them, I think it's more likely that, while both contributed negatively to the relationship, one fought harder to put good into it, while the other merely reaped the benefit of that. 

One of the biggest breakthroughs for my husband was in the realization that, just because he wasn't meeting my needs, didn't mean I thought him to be a horrible person. In his mind if he was a great guy, as I have always believed him to be, it must follow that he was meeting my needs and being there for me in the ways I needed him to be. It took years for him to understand that the two could be separate...he could be a great man _and_ not be meeting my needs. Unfortunately, "being a great man" was not, in itself, meeting my emotional needs. Nor does being "a great woman" meet his. But because he was truly a great man, he was willing to learn what my needs were and put in the effort to speak love to me in the ways I understood it. Likewise, I for him. 

Anyway, I hope my point is more clear. I'm operating on little sleep at the moment and didn't do well expressing myself with the first post.


----------



## Created2Write

techmom said:


> Most men I know do not have to perform manual labor to earn a living because of tech advances, but maybe you know better


In his defense, in fields like construction and painting houses and the like, there is a lot of manual labor done, but I wouldn't call it "back breaking". My husband has worked in a couple of those fields for years, and while it was certainly exhausting and strenuous, it was honest work he was proud of. He felt fulfilled by it and took pride in it.


----------



## EleGirl

Created2Write said:


> I should have clarified my statement. Barring extreme circumstances, I find it hard to believe that a marriage died solely due to the actions of one spouse. And abuse is, imo, an extreme circumstance because I don't believe most marriages are physically abusive.
> Another extreme circumstance that I don't think applies to the majority of marriages. And yet another example of my poor choice of words.
> Another extreme.
> I get the point. I chose my words poorly. In the above situations, the faults of the other spouse are rendered irrelevant in the heinousness of the "bad" spouse's actions. In most cases, or at least in a great many cases, this isn't so.


Yes they are extreme cases. The last two of them are the cases of some who are posting on this thread and who are being chastised by some (not you) as being selfish, for divorcing. The idea that a person is married and has to stay for life regardless of the circumstance is nonsense (I know that you did not advocate that but some seem to be.)



Created2Write said:


> I only say this because of some of the more...bitter posts written by some who seem to acknowledge no personal responsibility in their marriages outside of holding a steady job and being a good parent. A person can be a good, or even great, individual...hard working, time efficient, caring, kind, honest...and still fail at meeting their spouses needs, and thus find themselves divorced. And while they may blame their ex for the downfall of their marriage because their ex chose to leave them, I think it's more likely that, while both contributed negatively to the relationship, one fought harder to put good into it, while the other merely reaped the benefit of that.


I agree that the above is true in many cases. 


Created2Write said:


> One of the biggest breakthroughs for my husband was in the realization that, just because he wasn't meeting my needs, didn't mean I thought him to be a horrible person. In his mind if he was a great guy, as I have always believed him to be, it must follow that he was meeting my needs and being there for me in the ways I needed him to be. It took years for him to understand that the two could be separate...he could be a great man _and_ not be meeting my needs. Unfortunately, "being a great man" was not, in itself, meeting my emotional needs. Nor does being "a great woman" meet his. But because he was truly a great man, he was willing to learn what my needs were and put in the effort to speak love to me in the ways I understood it. Likewise, I for him.
> 
> Anyway, I hope my point is more clear. I'm operating on little sleep at the moment and didn't do well expressing myself with the first post.


Yes it’s clear. I agree with you. This is why I suggest the HN/HN and Love Busters books so much. If people would just listen to each other, really hear each other, and work together a lot of marriages would be a lot better and many saved.

I’m glad that you and your husband have worked it out.


----------



## Forest

EleGirl said:


> Well gee, isn’t what exactly what women are saying? If one spouse is telling the other that there is a problem, then fix it!!!! It’s not just the woman’s job to fix problems. It takes two to do that. When one or both refuses to fix the problems, the marriage will generally fall apart.
> 
> So I’m really not quite sure why you are going off the handle here and so angry.
> 
> 
> 
> We are on TAM right? I thought so. This is the forum dominated by men complaining about their wives. So I find this really an odd statement for you to make.
> 
> If you don’t like what women post, I suggest that you don’t read what we post.
> 
> 
> 
> :scratchhead:


I hope you see might point that those words were actually spoken by Deejo (pg1), but vs men, which you applauded. Yet, when it is reversed, you find it angry, "off the handle", and come down on it.


----------



## Forest

techmom said:


> Most men I know do not have to perform manual labor to earn a living because of tech advances, but maybe you know better


You need to get out from behind your computer more then. Sure tech advances have created more machines, but not to the point hard manual labor is displaced. Ever seen a oil rig crew, iron workers, utility workers clearing a right of way? Fiber optic cable being laid? A house framed, roofing panels placed, pipe fitting, landscaping? Watched the goings on at a major construction site, or loading dock?

Specifically about back breaking: I'm definitely sure you must have never tied rebar in a concrete form, poured or cut concrete, or run a concrete trowel in the August sun. This list could get long.

Maybe the men you know are just superior.


----------



## naiveonedave

techmom said:


> Most men I know do not have to perform manual labor to earn a living because of tech advances, but maybe you know better


as if working for a large company as a professional is not mentally 'back breaking'.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> as if working for a large company as a professional is not mentally 'back breaking'.


I don't find it so.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

techmom said:


> By the same token, don't dismiss people nowadays when they say that they were dissatisfied with their relationships and had to leave. Sexual and emotional satisfaction in marriage is not a luxury, it is a requirement. We live in a different day and time, we have technological advances which makes our lives easier. We should be thankful that we don't have to worry about where our next meal is coming from.
> 
> Men don't have to do back breaking work to earn a living and women are not doomed to having 5 plus children if they don't want to. And people are not doomed to staying in sex starved or emotionally starved relationships.


I agree with this.. I really do.. BUT... and this is a Big BUT.. I will always feel that the reason most people end up in divorce is of 2 reasons.... 

*1*. They are good decent loving people but JUST ARE NOT COMPATIBLE , they jumped in too quick, missed red flags...and could be a wonderful spouse to someone else who loves & appreciates what they are, what they bring... 

*or *

*2.* They have addictions, dysfunctions, they bring too much baggage, little self awareness, it wouldn't matter who they attached themselves to... they would slowly sabotage the relationship.. 

Now others will likely NOT agree with me on this.. but I feel there are far more Fcked up selfish narcissistic drug addicted , drunken, partying type personalities, loose sexual boundaries than ever in our history.... which is not in any way helping relationships today (and marriages & families)..... 

People are so hell bent against religion that they throw other worthy aspects of morality/ values (almost like they are dirty words today) out the window... It's not something I personally respect... or think is good for society as a whole...


----------



## NobodySpecial

SimplyAmorous said:


> People are so hell bent against religion that they throw other worthy aspects of morality/ values (almost like they are dirty words today) out the window... It's not something I personally respect... or think is good for society as a whole...


Let us not mistake lack of religion for lack of morality. There are plenty of self proclaimed religious with no moral back bone. And plenty of us atheists with plenty of moral back bone.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> as if working for a large company as a professional is not mentally 'back breaking'.


Sure it's both a menta strain. It's also hard on one's health to have to sit at a desk for hours every day.

Women do it as well.


----------



## Created2Write

Personally I'm not sure what the point is regarding the manual labor that some men do to ear a living...Unless it's being implied that the men who do manual labor to earn an income are somehow more entitled or justified in neglecting their wives, it really shouldn't matter what kind of work the husband or wife does. Neither is an excuse to neglect one's spouse. 

If a woman holds a full time job and works hard to bring home a paycheck, she's still expected to meet the emotional and physical needs of her husband, and rightly so. It's not enough for her to simply work and be a great mother. Why is it so incredulous to state the reverse? That it's not enough to simply work and be a great father?


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> It takes two people to make a marriage work. But it can take only one to destroy it.


Yep. Some cases can be pretty extreme too. 

I had a good friend when I was younger who's wife went stark raving mad and had to be committed. It was very sad.


----------



## Dogbert

But then what was the point of getting married if one is not willing to spare at least of few minutes of honest active listening or TLC? Minutes that could make a world of difference to the person we married.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NobodySpecial said:


> Let us not mistake lack of religion for lack of morality. There are plenty of self proclaimed religious with no moral back bone. And plenty of us atheists with plenty of moral back bone.


I knew that was coming...yeah I probably deserved it .. not enough forethought in my post.. but really... on both sides, there is good and bad....believe it or not, I have nothing against those who don't believe in God. I am somewhere in between myself.. It does bother me though, if someone speaks of their faith ...here at times.. others mock it like they are all stupid ...I find it offensive...no different than you being offended when you feel someone is dumping on atheists.. It's the same thing. 

And I WOULD stick up for an atheist if they were mocked...I've done in debates! My favorite debater is the late Christopher Hitchens..I have 3 of his books but most of my dear friends are christians (I suppose I am not making much sense at this point am I !)...

I should not have mentioned Religion, or morality (obviously we all have a different idea on that). The proper word would have been ETHICS .....less attaching to "world views".. that people *should* (and yes I think they SHOULD!!!!)...tell the truth, not go behind their partners back & cheat, leave people hanging, manipulate, think of how the other person would feel, have grace, pay something forward, don't bow down to money while you screw someone else, or use others...if you do something wrong, owe up to it.. make it right, if you destroy someone's property, pay for it... stuff like that.. Would we all agree.. I hope so.. 

This is truly my belief...










I spent the afternoon watching this movie ..  Les Miserables: 

1st time I ever seen it.... the way the poorer people were treated for 1 mistake, stealing bread breaking the law = going to prison, back breaking work.. The Uma Thurman character, she was in love, got pregnant, then was called a wh*** thrown from her job... in desperation prostituted herself so she could pay for her daughters keep .. the lack of grace & ugly judgement on these people was DEPLORABLE and inhumane..... That was a great movie.. however if I was the lead character Jean Valjean...yeah, given the chance I would have shot that Inspector Javert.. it was great to see the ending where finally...some heart.. and he let him go...


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> People are so hell bent against religion that they throw other worthy aspects of morality/ values (almost like they are dirty words today) out the window... It's not something I personally respect... or think is good for society as a whole...


I think I know what you mean. One does not have to have religion to have morals, but morals are usually something associated heavily with religion, and some people are so against religion, it's almost like they want to do everything that religious people would consider "sinful" just to scoff at it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SimplyAmorous said:


> I knew that was coming...yeah I probably deserved it ..


No worries. I certainly did not attribute any ill will to you.


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> I think I know what you mean. One does not have to have religion to have morals, but morals are usually something associated heavily with religion, and some people are so against religion, it's almost like they want to do everything that religious people would consider "sinful" just to scoff at it.


I don't know a single person like that despite the fact that atheism is common up here. These awful people raise their children well, volunteer for community and all the rest. Most people are fundamentally good... or maybe damaged.


----------



## lifeistooshort

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know a single person like that despite the fact that atheism is common up here. These awful people raise their children well, volunteer for community and all the rest. Most people are fundamentally good... or maybe damaged.



I am Jewish and not atheist, and I would argue that if you require threats of punishment by a deity to do the right thing you're not particularly moral. It's nice if religion teaches morality but it shouldn't be required to be a decent human being.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## southbound

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know a single person like that despite the fact that atheism is common up here. These awful people raise their children well, volunteer for community and all the rest. Most people are fundamentally good... or maybe damaged.


That's great that you don't, I can name several. They wouldn't necessarily bother with labeling themselves an atheist or be interested in a discussion of creationism vs evolution, but just don't have much use for anything religious. They tend to follow their own drummer, and he's not from a gospel band. Again, just talking about people i know.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Southbound said*:* I think I know what you mean. One does not have to have religion to have morals, but morals are usually something associated heavily with religion, and some people are so against religion, it's almost like they want to do everything that religious people would consider "sinful" just to scoff at it.*


 I sometimes put quotes on this forum from Proverbs ....... I DO see much wisdom in parts of the Bible.. my H is not religious at all.. he'd be falling asleep beside me in church back in the day.. he'll just say... so much is common sense..."if you avoid this ... this won't happen" type thing. 

I have read many articles from a christian perspective that I dearly love & have wanted to rip the scriptures out -before I put them on this forum... cause I know others will take issue with it..might even dismiss it entirely.. I don't know.. I am sensitive to this ....it's similar to how I feel when anything older fashioned is put down (which is what we were speaking of pages back..."Grandma & Grandpa's day"...people feel different about it, depending on what experiences they have had or seen growing up.... 

I personally resonate more with *the GOOD* from that time... over *the bad*...it seemed more innocent.. the romance of those days..

Of course I acknowledge it wasn't ideal for women (unless they loved their role & had a loving attentive Husband).....there was BAD ...... but it wasn't ALL BAD.... (and I know you feel this way as well - which is one of the things we have in common Southbound )... 



NobodySpecial said:


> *I don't know a single person like that despite the fact that atheism is common up here. These awful people raise their children well, volunteer for community and all the rest. Most people are fundamentally good... or maybe damaged.*


Then on the other hand .... I used to watch Larry King on CNN yrs ago.... I caught a # of shows where they had 3 guests of different Faiths... these always got a little heated (to me that is learning & entertainment at the same time!).....

I distinctly remember watching this one with an *Atheist* (I forget who)... *John Macarthur *(Evangelical Christian with radio program/books ) and *Depak Chopra.*..kinda like a spiritual new age Guru...
...and I gotta tell you.. the Christian came off soooooo judgmental and Block headed, I mean he was downright RUDE ...I was like shaking my head.. doing this







...thinking Jesus would not have been pleased!!!.. 

Sometimes people go TOO FAR in trying to change another or brow beat them with scripture .. & those 2 men do not share his "foundational belief" - it was pointless ...it just made him look really really BAD...

The Atheist came off far more CARING for our world/ for people - simply because he believed we LIVE HERE , this is ALL WE GET, we share this world.. this is what we leave to our children & their children.. this is our purpose!..... so take care of it... where Macarthur kept going on (and on & on) how we are not of this world... this will all pass away...and it won't be our concern... That was just NOT helpful ...like at all ! 

I will listen to anyone..ya know.. Just one of those programs I won't easily forget.. I was a christian at the time, or tried to BE.. but always a questioner.. always up for listening to anyone's point of view..

I appreciate many authors, another Atheist I enjoy is *Sam Harris*..he is a very moral Atheist !!..He has went out of his way to explain how Science proves morality (and some feel that is far fetched but I love the idea!).... I have his book on this.. but never got around to reading it. 

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Talk Video | TED.com


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> I sometimes put quotes on this forum from Proverbs ....... I DO see much wisdom in parts of the Bible.. my H is not religious at all.. he'd be falling asleep beside me in church back in the day.. he'll just say... so much is common sense..."if you avoid this ... this won't happen" type thing.
> 
> I was a christian at the time, or tried to BE.. but always a questioner.. always up for listening to anyone's point of view..


This is a difficult topic, because even religions vary so much, even Christian religions. My daughter was talking with me today about some things one of her teachers said; he is some kind of Christian preacher. We are Christians, but his philosophy is much different than ours.

Just like where you wrote that you were a Christian "at the time" is a head-scratcher for my belief. And I gotta tell you, I hear people joke about falling asleep in church, but if a preacher can't stir enough spirit in his sermon to keep you awake, you probably weren't missing much anyway.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> This is a difficult topic, because even religions vary so much, even Christian religions. My daughter was talking with me today about some things one of her teachers said; he is some kind of Christian preacher. We are Christians, but his philosophy is much different than ours.
> 
> Just like where you wrote that you were a Christian "at the time" is a head-scratcher for my belief. And I gotta tell you, I hear people joke about falling asleep in church, but if a preacher can't stir enough spirit in his sermon to keep you awake, you probably weren't missing much anyway.


I said that sinners prayer probably 3 times in my life.. I was baptized... ironically so was husband right beside me ... I tried to live rightly... even burning Rock CD's... but what was the point, if those songs came on the radio, I was singing them anyway.. I took MUCH GUILT for enjoying Soap operas, reading romances with steamy pages, R rated movies, touching my BF ... these were my SINS.... so religion was a pain in my butt to some extent ...our church was BIG on purity.. in your heart, your mind.. 

Yet I wanted to believe I was "good enough"..I definitely rode the fence in a # of areas, some would condemn me, then others say "Oh that isn't so bad!"... I was always very honest which had others telling me I was sinful- need to repent.... I think it was all *a striving* but not really in the heart, I mean who wants to go to hell -if this is what you are taught.. it's a Guilt trip...

Most of the books I bought were written by Christians -and again, I found much wisdom, good things on those pages.. it wasn't like I hated it all... I would have thrown my interests in other places .... always fascinated to WHY people believe as they do also.. .

All the while I always questioned like a Doubting Thomas....REASON...the open mind.. I could never trample that...but yeah.... this has always caused me some conflict with other christians. It is what it is.. I finally come to ACCEPT MYSELF as GOD made me when I started to LOOSE my religion..

Not sure how else to explain it.. I've had a # of very specific prayers answered throughout my life -against the odds -and it's very hard to just discount those things.. It's a quandary to me..so I still believe in GOD. 

They say there is over 33,000 different Denominations.. How can anyone claim the corner of truth in this world?!.... I am more inclined to believe.. what we believe about the afterlife is less important than HOW we LIVE NOW/ treat other people.... that is the only thing that makes sense to me.. 

The Facts and Stats on 33000 Denominations: World Christian Encyclopedia (2001, 2nd edition)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

southbound said:


> I think I know what you mean. One does not have to have religion to have morals, but morals are usually something associated heavily with religion, and some people are so against religion, it's almost like they want to do everything that religious people would consider "sinful" just to scoff at it.


I'm an atheist. It's not quite as simple as is being related...

Nobody does sinful things because they are against religion, and while morality exists with or without religion, there is a reason we associate it so strongly with religion. It is simply the shared principles of right and wrong behavior. This begs the question of what is right and wrong. This question has been wrestled with for centuries, but ultimately, most philosophers come down to various notions of social order. That which encourages social cooperation is thought good and that which is harmful to social cooperation is thought bad. More recently, the understanding of natural rights, or individual rights has weighed in - and limits applied to social moral tyranny. Religion is only associated with morality because moral questioning is the origin of religion. Imagine the earliest wrestling with moral issues as mankind achieved this level of intelligence and awareness. "Wise men" were called upon to settle disputes and difficult questions of right and wrong, and what should be. It's human nature to seek help for difficulty, but whom do you seek when no human can help? It doesn't take much of a leap to see how someone in such a position would look to nature or the spiritual (particularly under the influence of "seeing" drugs) for some guidance ("I saw a falling star! This must be a sign!"). Such people trusted with this task would have been viewed with a mystique not unlike the clergy. It is even the same today when we speak of our intellectual elites, leaders and judges. It's inevitable that these judgments and determinations form a common law, a dogma... eventually a religion. And just like modern law, all sorts of stupid concepts make their way in. Think of the origin of Christianity... it wasn't Jesus who founded the religion. It began as a fractured mess of highly divergent views, only to be forced into a common, more consistent cannon by the first Council of Nicaea. Men getting together and choosing what they thought should be in the religion, and what shouldn't be... 300 years after Jesus. Completely according to the arbitrary story they desired to tell. Still, this set of information, whether Christian, pagan or what have you... contains a number of nuggets of wisdom. Instead of right and wrong being taught in a rational philosophical sense, you have it being taught in a theological/divine command sense, among a population in which most people can't even read, much less apply deep rational thought. As such, even I as an atheist consider religion to have been a useful and mostly beneficial vehicle for early education and social order. It was a necessary step.

I'm not sure I've ever met someone who does something religion considers "sinful" just to scoff at it. The issue is that the "sin" isn't necessarily in violation of social order and cooperation, or lacks justification in denying someone natural rights. The sin itself isn't a reflection of good and evil, and is instead, arbitrary. Muslim prohibition from eating pork for example. Anal sex. Sex out of wed lock. Homosexual sex. etc etc.

In the past few hundred years, the value of individual freedom and rights has forced many things once considered harmful to society (sex out of wed lock, illegitimate children, homosexual sex, etc - sin), to be reconsidered. It's a greater depth of understanding of the various ways in which perceived social good fails to balance with violation of individual freedom. Yes, homosexual sex doesn't create children, but what harm is done? Particularly in a modern world where birth is controlled and most sex doesn't produce children - nor is producing children necessarily a good thing. It therefore makes no rational sense to view it as immoral. Rather, the disallowing of the freedom to do so is deemed immoral. It has no justification on the basis of social cooperation or order.

The morality of most religions is rather primitive. The bible for example, has no qualm with slavery. Islam has no qualm with beheading apostates. Today however, we have greater respect for individual rights and freedom. The balance has swung more toward the individual, and protecting him from unreasonable oppression of society. It is recognition that social order doesn't mean much if we're all slaves. Today, greater care must be taken in determining the limits of individual rights.

Nobody engages in sin just to spite religion. The sins they engage in simply aren't immoral by any standard of reasoning. "God said so", is no reasoning.


----------



## Created2Write

Just because one believes in the idea of sin, doesn't mean they are _un_reasonable. And while some may only be able to answer "Because God says so", it's a disservice to many thousands of people who identify with religion to apply such a heavy blanket statement to those who are "religious".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

If one believes in the idea of sin, one is applying faith, not reason. This is because the basis of sin is divine command. Sin is whatever the divine being or text one has faith in says it is. There's no reasoning involved. It's the arbitrary will of the divine. If God said, "Don't eat cupcakes", eating cupcakes would be a sin. It doesn't have to make sense or be understood. It's divine command.

That is not to say such a believer is unreasonable in their every day life.

If I rephrase the final sentence of my post to remove the negative, the meaning remains the same:

"God said so" is no reasoning = "God said so" is faith. That's no disservice to anyone.

Nice Cinderella pic btw.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If one believes in the idea of sin, one is applying faith, not reason.


The presence of faith is not the absence of reason. 



> This is because the basis of sin is divine command. Sin is whatever the divine being or text one has faith in says it is. *There's no reasoning involved.*


I beg to differ. There may not be reasoning you are willing to accept, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.



> It's the arbitrary will of the divine. If God said, "Don't eat cupcakes", eating cupcakes would be a sin. It doesn't have to make sense or be understood. It's divine command.


Oversimplification. As someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God, you also wouldn't, and likely don't, believe that a deity is intelligent and has very good _reasons_ for the guidelines they set. 



> That is not to say such a believer is unreasonable in their every day life.
> 
> If I rephrase the final sentence of my post to remove the negative, the meaning remains the same:
> 
> "God said so" is no reasoning = "God said so" is faith. That's no disservice to anyone.


The implication is the disservice. You're implying that faith, in itself, is unreasonable and that is a very wide brush to use. Not, imo, an accurate representation of people of faith. 



> Nice Cinderella pic btw.


Thank you. It's part of my weekend job.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> The presence of faith is not the absence of reason.


It is a failure of full understanding of the full meaning of the word by its definition.

By this definition

the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

Dvl is right. Faith flies in the face of logic. Believing what is not explained by logic. This is what I expect he meant.

By this defintion

a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

You are right.

See? You are both right.


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> The presence of faith is not the absence of reason.


C2W,

Are you familiar with the story of the conversion of C.S. Lewis and the pivotal conversation with J.R.R. Tolkien that was part of it? 

If something along those lines happened to me, I'd likely be a believer too and to hell with reasonable explanations and reason. 

And there's nothing insulting in that.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> It is a failure of full understanding of the full meaning of the word by its definition.
> 
> By this definition
> 
> the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.


I disagree. People who have faith _also_ can and do have the power to think, understand and form judgments by a process of logic. Having faith doesn't eliminate one's ability to use their brain. That's why there are so many different denominations of faith, different interpretations of religious texts. Because people use reason and logic to test the previous interpretations. This is why religions evolve. 



> Dvl is right. Faith flies in the face of logic. Believing what is not explained by logic. This is what I expect he meant.


I still don't agree. Logic doesn't negate my faith, it merely offers a different viewpoint. Logic may not be able to explain faith, but it doesn't follow that having faith means there is no logic to that faith, or that those who believe possess no logic. 



> By this defintion
> 
> a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
> 
> You are right.
> 
> See? You are both right.


I understand what he's saying. Religion and faith have almost always been seen as an absence of logic and real understanding of the world. It probably always will be. And, unfortunately, there are extreme religious groups that don't do anything to disprove such a statement. (Westborough Baptist Church, anyone?) As a person of faith, I can say with absolute certainty that what I believe, while it may seem so to some, _isn't_ illogical. I'm not saying that belief/faith is the same as logic, because I think the two are different. But I don't believe them to be mutually exclusive. 

Anyway...the thread wasn't about religion, so that's the last I'll say on it. I'm willing to discuss further in a thread or in a PM.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> C2W,
> 
> Are you familiar with the story of the conversion of C.S. Lewis and the pivotal conversation with J.R.R. Tolkien that was part of it?
> 
> If something along those lines happened to me, I'd likely be a believer too and to hell with reasonable explanations and reason.
> 
> And there's nothing insulting in that.


I am, yes. C.S. Lewis is one of my all time favorite writers. He was absolutely brilliant in so many ways and it's greatly due to his influence that I believe what I do.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> The presence of faith is not the absence of reason.


For my part, I did not mean to suggest this is not the case. But where the faith comes into play wrt sin, god existence and his word on right and wrong, faith is the absence of logic. It may not be the absence of reason in the sense that you have a reason for believing. But it is, by definition, the absence of evidence.

strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I really don't see much difference between manual labor and intellectual labor. In some jobs either can be easy. In some jobs either can be difficult. They can both be stressful.






Created2Write said:


> Personally I'm not sure what the point is regarding the manual labor that some men do to ear a living...Unless it's being implied that the men who do manual labor to earn an income are somehow more entitled or justified in neglecting their wives, it really shouldn't matter what kind of work the husband or wife does. Neither is an excuse to neglect one's spouse.
> 
> If a woman holds a full time job and works hard to bring home a paycheck, she's still expected to meet the emotional and physical needs of her husband, and rightly so. It's not enough for her to simply work and be a great mother. Why is it so incredulous to state the reverse? That it's not enough to simply work and be a great father?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
This is a very complicated topic with very deep philosophical issues.

Can god be evil? If god tells me to murder my neighbor, is that murder good?

Is there good and evil without the concept of god? 

Is a true believer really good, or just self serving by considering the certainty of eternal damnation or bliss?


I do what *I* believe is good. If god wants me to do differently then he can explain himself to me. Otherwise I will happily take my place among the damned .





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If one believes in the idea of sin, one is applying faith, not reason. This is because the basis of sin is divine command. Sin is whatever the divine being or text one has faith in says it is. There's no reasoning involved. It's the arbitrary will of the divine. If God said, "Don't eat cupcakes", eating cupcakes would be a sin. It doesn't have to make sense or be understood. It's divine command.
> 
> That is not to say such a believer is unreasonable in their every day life.
> 
> If I rephrase the final sentence of my post to remove the negative, the meaning remains the same:
> 
> "God said so" is no reasoning = "God said so" is faith. That's no disservice to anyone.
> 
> Nice Cinderella pic btw.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> For my part, I did not mean to suggest this is not the case. But where the faith comes into play wrt sin, god existence and his word on right and wrong, faith is the absence of logic. It may not be the absence of reason in the sense that you have a reason for believing. But it is, by definition, the absence of evidence.
> 
> strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.


Again, I don't agree. It's true that in my faith I am asked to believe in what I can not see or touch, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence in my life that what I believe is true, or that my having faith is illogical. Faith isn't so much the absence of logic or evidence, as it is the necessary step to understanding the difference between logic and faith, and the willingness to see the evidence. Logic and faith are not the same, but nor are they mutually exclusive.

Anyway, that's all I have to say.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ocotillo said:


> C2W,
> 
> Are you familiar with the story of the conversion of C.S. Lewis and the pivotal conversation with J.R.R. Tolkien that was part of it?


Are you referring to the argument from morality?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I disagree. People who have faith _also_ can and do have the power to think, understand and form judgments by a process of logic.


I left a LOT out of my post, because when I expound on something people tend to get more offended than if I relate bits at a time.

Reason doesn't negate faith and having faith in God doesn't mean you don't think or use logic in many other aspects of life. They are somewhat opposite approaches to truth. Just because you take something on faith doesn't mean you're wrong. I got into the subject only to show sin as being arbitrary. You and a muslim probably have different ideas of what are sins. Faith can literally be any arbitrary thing. Reason requires justification. Why is it this thing? How does it work? Can I repeat it? Reason requires understanding. Faith does not. Hence, "God works in mysterious ways." You don't need to understand anything, you just need to have faith. That's what I was getting at. If there is a faith underlying reason, it is that things can be understood. Faith can never be understood. One can never understand and explain God.

Here's something I originally said in that prior post before I condensed it:

I reason that the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe this because I have seen it rise every day, I know of the earth's rotation, and I understand the relationship of the earth and sun. I have no reason to believe it won't rise. Now, I've never proven the earth is round. Yet, I could prove it mathematically or sail around it if I so choose. How I could prove it is available. This is never the case for a matter of faith. There is no proving that this is a sin while that is not. The bible which documents the claim is not proof. It's simply a transfer of faith. You have to have faith that the bible is the word of God... which cannot be proven.

You could similarly have faith that the sun will not rise tomorrow. Believing the sun will rise, likely wouldn't be out of faith but reason (you've seen it before). You've never seen the sun not rise. You don't have a reason why the sun wouldn't rise. Yet, you could totally assume the sun will not rise. You might just have a feeling that the sun won't rise tomorrow. You could have faith in it.

You could be right. Some unknown power might suddenly stop the earth's rotation and the sun doesn't rise. But reason rules most of your life because it's far more reliable.

The faithful don't lack the ability to think or reason. They do so in their every day lives. We all do so in some respect or another. The faith I place in scientific institutions for example, enables me to not have to test everything myself. But I place that faith because I know I *could* test everything myself. Sometimes, that faith is even misplaced - mistakes and malfeasance occur.

Religious people make a different exception to reason. A different faith. Faith in tradition. Mom and dad always trusted this, so I should trust this. There's no way to prove whether what mom and dad believed was accurate... so this is a true blind faith. Usually, they don't even flinch... because it's been introduced to them as children, long before they develop the ability to reason. You believe a man rose from the dead. If I tell you I rose from the dead, you wouldn't believe me. You suspend reason for the former, and apply it to the latter. You've never seen someone rise from the dead and can't determine how such a thing would work, so your rational mind rejects it. Your rational mind wasn't developed when you were exposed to supernatural concepts. It's always been there, and it's always been accepted. Seems totally normal to believe that this guy rose from the dead. Because of that, it takes an active rejection. An active effort to reconcile the fact that you wouldn't accept a claim that someone rose from the dead today without extraordinary evidence, but you accept that someone did 2000 years ago without extraordinary evidence.

Otherwise, it is part of your culture... part of you and your fit in the community.

So understand that when I say faith is knowledge without reason, I'm not saying that people with faith don't think or aren't reasonable. In the majority of aspects in life and reasoning, a theist and an atheist are indistinguishable. A theist just makes a few exceptions... with no reason. Faith.


----------



## ocotillo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Are you referring to the argument from morality?


No, Lewis was not a man likely to be convinced by reason alone, especially given the fact that it was actually leading him in the opposite direction. What he described smacks of the supernatural. --A growing conviction of the presence of the Divine accompanied be the wind kicking up at the appropriate moment. 

If someone bases their faith in part on a personal testimony of this sort, I can respect that, but since these things are impossible for the rest of us to either confirm or deny, they stand outside of the realm of reason by nature. --Which was the whole point of bringing it up.


----------



## Dogbert

From why women leave men they love to morality and religions. Threadjack?


----------



## Red Sonja

Dogbert said:


> From why women leave men they love to morality and religions. Threadjack?


Don't forget the U-turn through the land of infidelity.


----------



## Dogbert

Red Sonja said:


> Don't forget the U-turn through the land of infidelity.


I'm on the bus but it's full of WW with their POSOM griping about how their BH did not meet their emotional needs. Forgot my glasses and got on the wrong bus :rofl:


----------



## EleGirl

If you all want to discuss religion, non-religion and morality, there is a forum for that. Why not open a thread and have at it.

At this point it's a thread jack here.


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> I really don't see much difference between manual labor and intellectual labor. In some jobs either can be easy. In some jobs either can be difficult. They can both be stressful.


Hi Richard,

I agree with you that intellectual labor can be as exhausting and stressful as manual labor. I've done both.

This is idea that some seem to have that men are more entitled because some men (not all) do manual labor is just nonsense.


----------



## Created2Write

Was just going to say the same thing, Ele. 

So, Dvls...if you want to discuss morality, religion, faith, logic...feel free to PM me or open a thread in the religious debate forum.  It's not relevant here.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I agree it's off topic. I was responding to southbound and going with the flow of conversation.

Back to why women leave men they love...


----------



## Thundarr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Back to why women leave men they love...


I'm afraid this subject is more perplexing than a religious debate.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Thundarr said:


> I'm afraid this subject is more perplexing than a religious debate.


It's really not as perplexing as the men here make it. 

Think of it this way: a woman wants her emotional needs met the way a man wants his sexual needs met. If man asks for sex, doesn't get it, then drops the subject for years until he finally leaves, he is a walk away Husband.

But most men do ask for sex. And a lot of women ask for emotional connection. It's just that she's high drive (need for emotional connection) and he's low drive.

In my case, I'm high drive and he's no drive. In fact, he's a virgin and would stay that way forever if I had said nothing. He won't become high drive or even middle of the road because it's not important to him. And thus we are mismatched: HD/LD on emotional needs.

And men here also need to stop arguing that a woman is not right to have emotional needs. You wouldn't accept being told you don't have sexual needs. Stop arguing and start listening.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

SurpriseMyself said:


> It's really not as perplexing as the men here make it.


I hereby decree March to be Gender divide month at TAM. No the topic isn't perplexing but 1,300 comments of talking at each other and sweeping generalizations is perplexing to read. Everyone wants to be heard but not many are gatekeepers to help others be heard. Why women leave men they love. The reasons vary. Sometimes it's what the linked article suggest and sometimes it's not.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Thundarr said:


> I hereby decree March to be Gender divide month at TAM. No the topic isn't perplexing but 1,300 comments of talking at each other and sweeping generalizations is perplexing to read. Everyone wants to be heard but not many are gatekeepers to help others be heard. Why women leave men they love. The reasons vary. Sometimes it's what the linked article suggest and sometimes it's not.


Boys are rotten, made out of cotton. Girls are sexy, made out of pepsi


----------



## Thundarr

lifeistooshort said:


> Boys are rotten, made out of cotton. Girls are sexy, made out of pepsi


Lifeistooshort is toolate. It's April already


----------



## lifeistooshort

Thundarr said:


> Lifeistooshort is toolate. It's April already


Boys can be rotten and girls can be sexy in April


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Thundarr said:


> I hereby decree March to be Gender divide month at TAM. No the topic isn't perplexing but 1,300 comments of talking at each other and sweeping generalizations is perplexing to read. Everyone wants to be heard but not many are gatekeepers to help others be heard. Why women leave men they love. The reasons vary. Sometimes it's what the linked article suggest and sometimes it's not.


Reasons absolutely vary. The key is listening to understand rather than being defensive. And once you understand, then taking action.

I've tried as nauseum to discuss this with my H. He gets defensive when I bring it up. Says that he can live without his needs being met and this implies that I'm selfish that I am asking for mine. He's seeing a counselor but makes excuses when it comes to action. He says I need to just be happy and back off for a not and then MAYBE he will try to connect emotionally. I told him that I have given him most of my 20s, all of my 30s, and now that I'm in my 40s that "maybe" isn't good enough. He has never made it past the "treat me nicer" thought. He hasn't asked hmm self what is she really needing and I capable of giving that to her. He isn't committed as far as I can tell. If you don't spend any time considering solutions then, in my world, you are expecting someone else to fix the problem for you or you are ok with the status quo.

He says he wants someone to tell him exactly what to do. He needs specific instructions. But when I tell him, he gets sad, silent, and sheepish or he gets angry and defensive. Where is the commitment? He demonstrates commitment by staying, but that isn't a commitment I want. To me there's nothing sadder than his implies proposal that I stop asking for my needs to be met. Two people who spend the rest of their lives together, neither getting their needs met and pretending that is fine is such a waste of life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

SurpriseMyself said:


> Reasons absolutely vary. The key is listening to understand rather than being defensive. And once you understand, then taking action.
> 
> I've tried as nauseum to discuss this with my H. He gets defensive when I bring it up. Says that he can live without his needs being met and this implies that I'm selfish that I am asking for mine. He's seeing a counselor but makes excuses when it comes to action. He says I need to just be happy and back off for a not and then MAYBE he will try to connect emotionally. I told him that I have given him most of my 20s, all of my 30s, and now that I'm in my 40s that "maybe" isn't good enough. He has never made it past the "treat me nicer" thought. He hasn't asked hmm self what is she really needing and I capable of giving that to her. He isn't committed as far as I can tell. If you don't spend any time considering solutions then, in my world, you are expecting someone else to fix the problem for you or you are ok with the status quo.
> 
> He says he wants someone to tell him exactly what to do. He needs specific instructions. But when I tell him, he gets sad, silent, and sheepish or he gets angry and defensive. Where is the commitment? He demonstrates commitment by staying, but that isn't a commitment I want. To me there's nothing sadder than his implies proposal that I stop asking for my needs to be met. Two people who spend the rest of their lives together, neither getting their needs met and pretending that is fine is such a waste of life.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You do realize that if you decide you've had enough and dump him you'll be deemed a WAW right? And he'll claim he had no idea it was that bad.


----------



## Thundarr

SurpriseMyself said:


> Reasons absolutely vary. The key is listening to understand rather than being defensive. And once you understand, then taking action.
> 
> I've tried as nauseum to discuss this with my H. He gets defensive when I bring it up. Says that he can live without his needs being met and this implies that I'm selfish that I am asking for mine. He's seeing a counselor but makes excuses when it comes to action. He says I need to just be happy and back off for a not and then MAYBE he will try to connect emotionally. I told him that I have given him most of my 20s, all of my 30s, and now that I'm in my 40s that "maybe" isn't good enough. He has never made it past the "treat me nicer" thought. He hasn't asked hmm self what is she really needing and I capable of giving that to her. He isn't committed as far as I can tell. If you don't spend any time considering solutions then, in my world, you are expecting someone else to fix the problem for you or you are ok with the status quo.
> 
> He says he wants someone to tell him exactly what to do. He needs specific instructions. But when I tell him, he gets sad, silent, and sheepish or he gets angry and defensive. Where is the commitment? He demonstrates commitment by staying, but that isn't a commitment I want. To me there's nothing sadder than his implies proposal that I stop asking for my needs to be met. Two people who spend the rest of their lives together, neither getting their needs met and pretending that is fine is such a waste of life.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My sorry SurpriseMyself. I've read a lot of your comments on various threads and I wish I knew how to help. But most anything I can think of trying to help is things you've already heard or already tried. The desperation you feel has built up over time as you keep asking for things you need and keep on feeling like it's being dismissed. And then the kicker is that if you some day decide enough and walk away then your husband might be one of the guys fussing about WAWs acting like it was a surprise to him.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

lifeistooshort said:


> You do realize that if you decide you've had enough and dump him you'll be deemed a WAW right? And he'll claim he had no idea it was that bad.


That may be a sad truth, even as I told him just this morning that I want emotional connection with him and he told me that women get that from other women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Thundarr said:


> My sorry SurpriseMyself. I've read a lot of your comments on various threads and I wish I knew how to help. But most anything I can think of trying to help is things you've already heard or already tried. The desperation you feel has built up over time as you keep asking for things you need and keep on feeling like it's being dismissed. And then the kicker is that if you some day decide enough and walk away then your husband might be one of the guys fussing about WAWs acting like it was a surprise to him.


Thanks, Thundarr. That you would even ask yourself what advice you could give means a lot. He keeps insisting that I should be happy that he helps around the house and spends time with the kids and brings in a good salary. He says that I should be happy with that. But of that were all that was needed in a relationship, then why did it take him until his 40s to get married? His response is that most people are superficial. That his height (he's short) and the fact that he lost his hair young in life meant that women didn't consider him. To which I responded that women who aren't superficial are looking for a man who makes the laugh, who connects with them, who makes them feel loved. That his nice guy ways of never being aggressive or opinionated and fading into the background made it so that the women who aren't superficial didn't see in him what they wanted because he flattened out his personality to "nice." He got very mad at that and said I didn't understand.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

SurpriseMyself said:


> Thanks, Thundarr. That you would even ask yourself what advice you could give means a lot. He keeps insisting that I should be happy that he helps around the house and spends time with the kids and brings in a good salary. He says that I should be happy with that. But of that were all that was needed in a relationship, then why did it take him until his 40s to get married? His response is that most people are superficial. That his height (he's short) and the fact that he lost his hair young in life meant that women didn't consider him. To which I responded that women who aren't superficial are looking for a man who makes the laugh, who connects with them, who makes them feel loved. That his nice guy ways of never being aggressive or opinionated and fading into the background made it so that the women who aren't superficial didn't see in him what they wanted because he flattened out his personality to "nice." He got very mad at that and said I didn't understand.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yours and his could be one of Dr Harley's stories in his book His Needs / Her Needs. One focus of the book is that needs are specific to each person and that we work really hard sometimes doing the wrong things. In other words we project our own needs and work hard to do these things for our partner instead of realizing they need different needs than we do. I don't remember if you guys have read that book but it would really be good for your husband (and maybe you too) to hear that the way the book spells it out. He maybe working hard at the wrong things. That leaves you feeling unheard and him feeling unappreciated.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

We have a copy of His Needs/Her Needs and he's read it and taken the test. He knows what my needs are and I know what his are.

The problem is that he can't put it into practice. When things are bad in our relationship, he reverts to doing more of what I don't need. He'll do even more laundry, handle logistical things for the kids, offer to drop the kids off at school if I'm running late in the morning. So there are times I truly feel bad that he's doing all this and that it isn't what I need. Even as he knows that my #1 is quality time. He views quality time as being in the same room together in the evening. It's like we are acquaintances next to each other on a trip, not lovers and parents of the same children. And what he needs from me, Words of Affirmation, are really hard when he's doing so much of what I don't need from him. For the longest time he said he didn't need that, but now admits he does. But I feel like if I tell him how great he is for doing those things, then he'll do more and more of those things rather than what I need.

In fact, he says he doesn't know where to begin when it comes to emotional connection. He says he needs me to tell him what to do. Last night I got him to try a vegetable he'd never tried before (he doesn't like or want to eat vegetables). He said that once he tried it, he liked it. That I need to do that when it comes to emotional connection. But it isn't that simple. He's got to open himself up to it, and that I can't tell him how to do. And thus we remain stuck.


----------



## Thundarr

I didn't go back to search but I thought I remembered almost this same exchange some time back. Either you and I or me reading you and another TAM member. I seem to remember thinking I hope it gets better not knowing what to say that might help. Keep trying and good luck.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Surprise, your hb is emotionally stunted and doesn't know how to give you what you need. He needs a lot of professional help. He sounds willing to try to see if you can get him there. 

If he refuses you'll need to decide what you can live with. Either accept what he can give or make it clear you're leaving unless he gives it his all. If in the end he can't you'll have to male a decision.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

SM, have you talked to Anon Pink? So much of what you say reminds me of what she has gone through.


----------



## PieceOfSky

lifeistooshort said:


> You do realize that if you decide you've had enough and dump him you'll be deemed a WAW right? And he'll claim he had no idea it was that bad.


I'd like to think that by the time one has come to face the reality of their partner's perpetual indifference and unsuitability as a partner, and has walked decidedly away, that he or she won't give a hoot what anyone else deems or claims. 

Life is too short.


----------



## lifeistooshort

PieceOfSky said:


> I'd like to think that by the time one has come to face the reality of their partner's perpetual indifference and unsuitability as a partner, and has walked decidedly away, that he or she won't give a hoot what anyone else deems or claims.
> 
> Life is too short.


I'm sure that's true. It simply addresses the greater issue of the so called WAW syndrome, which I think it greatly overused because it suggests she just upped and left for no good reason.

There is a reason and very often her husband knew all about it and just deemed it not a big enough deal to address. Then when she walks she's a WAW because he didn't realize is was a big enough deal for her to leave. Unfortunately it shouldn't come to that, if it bothers your spouse it is a big deal.


----------



## Thundarr

PieceOfSky said:


> I'd like to think that by the time one has come to face the reality of their partner's perpetual indifference and unsuitability as a partner, and has walked decidedly away, that he or she won't give a hoot what anyone else deems or claims.
> 
> Life is too short.


The waters are muddied on both sides. So the presumption by lifeistooshort is that some will falsely claim their partner was a WAW. She's right because some do that. The flip side of that is that some cheaters and leavers will falsely claim they tried and tried. That's equally true.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Thundarr said:


> The waters are muddied on both sides. So the presumption by lifeistooshort is that some will falsely claim their partner was a WAW. She's right because some do that. The flip side of that is that some cheaters and leavers will falsely claim they tried and tried. That's equally true.



Some cheaters will claim they tried, and some did. Typically the ones who have exit affairs. The crappy decision to cheat doesn't mean they didn't try, it means they made the crappy decision to cheat. The two are mutually exclusive.

But then again, cheaters aren't walk aways. They're cheaters. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## IIJokerII

EleGirl said:


> So now I, and the other women on here to explained why they left or about to leave a marriage, are "too ignorant to know that the Novelty of that giddy love".
> 
> All women are not like your wife. We are not your wife.


 Ele,

My statement(s) are not an attack on you or woman in genera, but more often than not most WAW's lay down the words of feeling neglected or their needs not met. Now if those needs are to not be cheated on, abused, or otherwise mistreated than by all means, gtf out of their, immediately.

But this is not the case as most woman say they are simply unhappy and fold tent and leave, but more often than not there is another man waiting in the wings. I like my house, but do not love it like I did when I moved in, I like my job, but am not excited anymore to go to work, I love my vehicle, but lost that new car feeling a long time ago. Now I know the first thing people will cite is that these are non living things, and my reply to that is so, what difference does it make?

I interact with these things on a daily basis and at one time felt like I more complete or self satisfied by these things. Did I need them to make me happy in life, no, but did I feel a little more accomplished, sure thing. 

When we, men and women, are starting to fall for another it matters not any, every and all imperfections or potential imperfections the other has or may have. It is not until the "Giddy" glow is faded away that we begin to see these things. And to add as well, most unhappy or dissatisfied husbands are either sedated or tolerant of their marital health, most here are unofficial nice guys, or were at one point, and who do you think trained us to jump thru the very hoops to get to that point? The very same woman who pushed for that and then in turn up and left due to marital "Dissatisfaction"....


----------



## NobodySpecial

IIJokerII said:


> Ele,
> 
> My statement(s) are not an attack on you or woman in genera, but more often than not most WAW's lay down the words of feeling neglected or their needs not met. Now if those needs are to not be cheated on, abused, or otherwise mistreated than by all means, gtf out of their, immediately.
> 
> But this is not the case as most woman say they are simply unhappy and fold tent and leave, but more often than not there is another man waiting in the wings. I like my house, but do not love it like I did when I moved in, I like my job, but am not excited anymore to go to work, I love my vehicle, but lost that new car feeling a long time ago. Now I know the first thing people will cite is that these are non living things, and my reply to that is so, what difference does it make?
> 
> I interact with these things on a daily basis and at one time felt like I more complete or self satisfied by these things. Did I need them to make me happy in life, no, but did I feel a little more accomplished, sure thing.
> 
> When we, men and women, are starting to fall for another it matters not any, every and all imperfections or potential imperfections the other has or may have. It is not until the "Giddy" glow is faded away that we begin to see these things. And to add as well, most unhappy or dissatisfied husbands are either sedated or tolerant of their marital health, most here are unofficial nice guys, or were at one point, and who do you think trained us to jump thru the very hoops to get to that point? The very same woman who pushed for that and then in turn up and left due to marital "Dissatisfaction"....


I have been married for 20 years. I am giddier now than when we met. HE does that to me.


----------



## IIJokerII

Anon Pink said:


> Almost 700 posts, maybe half are from women, maybe a third are women documenting their very own stories, including my own and the bolded was the conclusion you came to?


 Is this really so hard to believe? The largest forum population is Coping with Infidelity, although I was guided to recognize that people in a happy marriage need not look for message forums to broadcast their success, they are living it. 

This is also not a conclusion, I do not get idea's akin to an indoctrinated zealot, but most people's stories here are filled with such unbelievable details it is getting to the bizarre. In many ways I should be thanking my STBXW's OM as I finally had an avenue to step on and look at my marital home and see it had been on fire and a dump for oh so long. 

But I do not believe all woman out there are this way, although I will not dismiss the fact that men and women have the potential to be this way. Most will claim that this statement is an embellishment and who am I to claim what others will or will not do? I respect the fact that the danger exists in me to hurt another, and must govern my actions to keep from doing so. 

But to go back to my original claim, most men I know who split from their wives, despite whatever anger or other dissatisfying aspect, without another man or woman involved were able to regain a friendship or other amicable relationship. And I seriously doubt any woman here would say they just love the OW, she is awesome, takes care of my kids, etc.... I will call BS on that one.


----------



## IIJokerII

NobodySpecial said:


> I have been married for 20 years. I am giddier now than when we met. HE does that to me.


 This is not universal, and right on for having a happy marriage. I do in fact envy you.


----------



## NobodySpecial

IIJokerII said:


> This is not universal, and right on for having a happy marriage. I do in fact envy you.


Definitely not universal. Because people give up. They decide that their spouse SHOULD be happy simply because they are not being abused or cheated on. They decide that since they make a salary, their spouse SHOULD be grateful. Well it does not work that way. I am happy because my husband is mentally and emotionally present every day... except the odd day where he is having a bad day... he gets a pass on those days.

Too many people let marriage happen to them instead of DOING it.


----------



## PieceOfSky

lifeistooshort said:


> I'm sure that's true. It simply addresses the greater issue of the so called WAW syndrome, which I think it greatly overused because it suggests she just upped and left for no good reason.
> 
> There is a reason and very often her husband knew all about it and just deemed it not a big enough deal to address. Then when she walks she's a WAW because he didn't realize is was a big enough deal for her to leave. Unfortunately it shouldn't come to that, if it bothers your spouse it is a big deal.


I confess I am not all that familiar with the meaning attached to the WAW term. It sounds like a term ripe for misuse.

In the Considering Divorce/Separation, SIM, CWI, and Private areas of the board, it seems like most posters are struggling to hold on to their marriage and hope to salvage it...and sometimes they suffer miserably for years on end. My previous reply was not a disagreement to what you said -- it likely would happen that way in many cases. I was just wanting to encourage anyone who reaches that point to not worry about what others think. Or if I may quote AP, "Run Forest, run!"

Btw, I noticed the last sentence in my previous post was your user name. I did that completely unaware I was doing so! I am now concerned I am too easily influenced by the subliminal messages embedded in peoples' user names. I am just lucky yours was one I was already a believer in. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PieceOfSky

NobodySpecial said:


> Definitely not universal. Because people give up. They decide that their spouse SHOULD be happy simply because they are not being abused or cheated on. They decide that since they make a salary, their spouse SHOULD be grateful. Well it does not work that way. I am happy because my husband is mentally and emotionally present every day... except the odd day where he is having a bad day... he gets a pass on those days.<br />
> <br />
> Too many people let marriage happen to them instead of DOING it.


<br />
<br />
I suppose people make that sort of mistake in other parts of life, too -- sleepwalking, neglecting. To live life well, it takes thought and action, both require motivation and energy. <br />
<br />
I'm glad you and your H are DOING it (no pun intended). It is good to hear from folks living well.<br />
<font size="1"><i>Posted via Mobile Device</i></font>


----------



## Thundarr

PieceOfSky said:


> I confess I am not all that familiar with the meaning attached to the WAW term. It sounds like a term ripe for misuse.


Bingo.


----------



## lifeistooshort

PieceOfSky said:


> I confess I am not all that familiar with the meaning attached to the WAW term. It sounds like a term ripe for misuse.
> 
> In the Considering Divorce/Separation, SIM, CWI, and Private areas of the board, it seems like most posters are struggling to hold on to their marriage and hope to salvage it...and sometimes they suffer miserably for years on end. My previous reply was not a disagreement to what you said -- it likely would happen that way in many cases. I was just wanting to encourage anyone who reaches that point to not worry about what others think. Or if I may quote AP, "Run Forest, run!"
> 
> Btw, I noticed the last sentence in my previous post was your user name. I did that completely unaware I was doing so! I am now concerned I am too easily influenced by the subliminal messages embedded in peoples' user names. I am just lucky yours was one I was already a believer in.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ha ha, I thought it was a shot at my username! I suppose great minds think alike 

The term is very abused. Typically to absolve responsibility, imho. This way people can feign ignorance and have victim status. There probably are some cases where a wife just up and walks and nobody could see it coming but I don't believe that's true most of the time. 

I agree that if you're at that point don't worry about what others think. They don't have to live your life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

lifeistooshort said:


> The term is very abused. Typically to absolve responsibility, imho. This way people can feign ignorance and have victim status. There probably are some cases where a wife just up and walks and nobody could see it coming but I don't believe that's true most of the time.


I agree. It's why the term is polarizing. Someone actually walking away without previous warning or with no red flags must be a small percent of those who leave.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

I have a friend who will one day be a WAW. She is saving for the day she can leave, in secret. Her H takes her for granted and she does the vast majority of things around the house and works 60+ hours a week. I encouraged her to tell him and work in their marriage, but she has no interest in doing so. I find it perplexing, but she knows him and believes he is incapable of change.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## marriedandlonely

MachoMcCoy said:


> Why women leave or cheat - What every man should know
> 
> "Women leave because their man is not present. He’s working, golfing, gaming, watching TV, fishing… the list is long. These aren’t bad men. They’re good men. They’re good fathers. They support their family. They’re nice, likeable. But they take their wife for granted. They’re not present."
> 
> Yep. What he doesn't say is that by the time the man figures it out, it's usually too late.


Why do women leave the man they love,that is a very interesting question 
I have heard the word LOVE said but the actions and reactions leave me as a very confused married man of 42 years as I said to an aquaintence days ago I don't think we ever truly know a mate is it because we continually change or maybe our needs change but I can honestly say I am more mixed up after years of married life than when I was young and single
At least then you could give a female friend a kiss and cuddle and the outcome was usually fairly predictable but???????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Marduk

If you're confused about the WAW term, the thinking behind it, and the attraction to it (from both sides) just go and read/watch "Eat, Pray Love," the attendant Oprah shows on this book and movie, and the subsequent phenomena around it.


----------



## Red Sonja

IIJokerII said:


> This is also not a conclusion, I do not get idea's akin to an indoctrinated zealot, but *most people's stories here are filled with such unbelievable details *it is getting to the bizarre.


And that is the reason I never told anyone IRL about my husband’s behavior toward me and our daughter, I did not think anyone would believe it. It’s also part of the reason I endured and tried to work on the marriage alone for 28 years.

His behavior was so different from anything I had ever observed in IRL (or prior to marriage) and so appallingly lacking in empathy and human-kindness that it kept me in an almost constant state of confusion. Add to that the fact that he exhibited those “human qualities” ONLY with people outside of our family and my confusion was complete.

So yes, I thought anyone who could be a potential confidant would think I my story was “unbelievable”, as you say. To note, there was no infidelity involved on my part or his (as far as I know).


----------

