# Beginning my own "manning up" journey...



## TrueGentleman (Apr 29, 2009)

This is going to take some serious re-programming of my thought and behavior patterns. 

Reading through the "Nice Guy" discussions, as well as Glover's book, the typical "nice guy" traits and behaviors hit frighteningly close to home. For several years, I have been doing everything that I can to try to make my wife happy. I try to do everything that she asks me to. I respect her need to be alone at those times when she wants to be alone. I do my best to take care of her and make her feel special. For most of those years, I did virtually all of the housework, cooking and errands while we both worked full-time. When she fell into a deep depression and it was all that she could do just to get up and go to work, I took care of everything else. When the depression (and the anti-depressant medications) killed her sex drive, I waited patiently. 

And what did I end up with for all of my efforts? Drastically inflated expectations that I cannot possibly live up to. I feel exhausted and I am honestly trying my best to take care of everything on my plate, and I get "scolded" and criticized for such things as leaving crumbs on the counter, loading the dishwasher "wrong," leaving my shoes out by the door instead of putting them in the closet, buying the wrong brand of her conditioner, or not being on top of the expiration date on a coupon for 50 cents off. I was diagnosed with ADHD (Predominantly Inattentive) a few years ago, and she has very little patience for any forgetfulness or other inattentive behaviors, having accused me in the past of using it as an excuse. Oh, and even when she finally got off the anti-depressants, sex never went back to being more frequent than once every one to two months, and all of the fun toys (like the handcuffs that she gave me on our first Valentine's day to use on her) haven't been touched in years.

Now, that makes it sound like I'm miserable, and I'm not generally miserable. My wife is an incredible woman. She is beautiful, sexy, and intelligent. We share many of the same interests and values, and we are each other's best friend. We have a beautiful daughter who is almost a year old now. There are many things to be happy about. Sure, the whole sex thing lingers in the background, and from time to time I do feel upset or resentful about it. But generally, things are good. But when she's in a really crappy mood, she gets extremely critical (in that wonderful combination of dishing it out freely but extremely sensitive to being criticized). She starts getting angry with me about really trivial things, usually the result of me forgetting or not noticing something. She gets very condescending and says things that are belittling. If I'm feeling good about myself, I can usually weather it for a couple of days, but if it goes on long enough, I will eventually crack and I'll just feel hurt and start crying. After all, I'm trying my best to do everything right and I'm not perfect, so isn't she just being mean and unappreciative?

This is how I've approached romantic relationships all of my life (I'm 36 now). If I'm not getting the results that I want, then the obvious (to me) solution was to be even nicer.

Wow, this "Man up" stuff has been a rude awakening for me. After reading (and re-reading, and re-re-reading) the articles and discussion on the subject, I'm finally starting to break through my heavily-entrenched (and ultimately self-destructive) behaviors and thought patterns. I recognize that me not standing up to her when I did not like how she was treating me gradually eroded any respect that she had for me. My passivity, procrastination, and general wishy-washiness, coupled with my total focus on taking care of her needs while ignoring my own have probably done more to kill her sexual desire than the anti-depressants did.

Even what I used to see as venting her anger at a convenient and safe target (me) doesn't look the same to me anymore. Sure, sometimes I'm sure that's what it was, but I am now seeing the majority of those as s#!t tests that I have been failing over and over again. The worse she feels, the more likely she is to want to know that I can handle things, so it now seems natural that the s#!t tests start to come with greater and greater frequency. If I can't stand up to her, how can I handle all of the other things? And now that we have a baby, she thinks to her own parents' relationship; her mother was emotionally and verbally abusive to both her and her father, and her father was always promising to take her away from all of it and protect her, but never followed through. In the end, her father just stopped looking out for her altogether once she was about 13, as she "could take care of herself now." He was too afraid of and dominated by his wife, and didn't have the spine to stand up to her anymore. So OF COURSE my wife is going to be testing me frequently to make sure that I'm not like her father. And I've been failing this for a long time.

While I've always been too much of a people-pleaser, the entire relationship dynamic shifted dramatically (in the wrong direction) when she got depressed. I've gone on long enough already, so I wont get into that at the moment, but I'm seeing quite clearly that how I handled it was completely wrong.

So here I am, embarking on my own "man up" journey. It's both empowering and terrifying at the same time. I need to remember that these are going to be baby steps for the first little bit and not get discouraged. I've been making changes in my behavior and attitude for about 3 weeks now, and although I haven't yet encountered a major test of my resolve, I have been seeing some results. My wife has commented that she has noticed that I am taking care of small things right away and not putting them off until later. I've deflected a few minor s#!t tests with a bit of humor, instead of taking it personally and trying to talk to her about "how she spoke to me" later. I've deliberately dialed down the number of "I love yous" in a day and the frequency of affectionate gestures. I'm trying to stay upbeat and positive, regardless of her mood. I'm still struggling to get back in shape and to make the time for working out, but I'm at least getting the dog out for a walk every day (which wasn't happening before). I arranged for my mother to take the baby to her place for the evening (instead of coming over to babysit while we go out for dinner) so that we could have sex -- and I wasn't acting pathetic about it.

Right now, I'm trying to focus on the things that I think will lay the foundation for everything else: exercise and working out, eating healthier, keeping a positive attitude and not complaining so much, brushing off the minor s#!t tests with humor or a witty remark, and not tolerating behavior which shows a complete lack of respect (speaking to me like a child, condescending & sarcastic remarks, passive aggressiveness, etc).

Easier said than done, and I've often had trouble with remembering how I want to react "in the moment." She knows just which buttons to get me to react emotionally, and at that point I've already lost. All of this stuff about "manning up" and "s#!t tests" seemed like a juvenile game at first. It didn't feel like I should have to play these stupid games just to get what I want if I was being a "good husband." However, I understand it intellectually, and I now see that whether it is "fair" or not doesn't matter in the slightest. This stuff all touches on very primal aspects of humankind, and millions of years of evolution have favored these traits and behaviors. Men and women are simply hard-wired to behave and think in different ways when it comes to sexual attraction and mating, and I need to embrace that.

Writing about this here will hopefully help me stay on track. Any advice or words of encouragement would be welcome. 

But I don't _need_ any words of encouragement.:smthumbup:


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

If you've read her recently, you know the dishwasher is often a fulcrum for household changes.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Awesome post. Great initial strides. A few thoughts. If your schedule is really tight - spend a few dollars on adjustable dumb bells link below. They take up very little space - mine are in the closet when not in use. And I lift watching tv. 

As for your W getting you upset. Here is how I got past that as mine is a skilled button pusher. I "expect" her to be provocative. That way I am not surprised. I agree with you that humor is by far the best response. Sometimes teasing her when she is being ridiculous. Lacking a humorous response this is my spectrum from mild to WTF?
Mild:
1. Turning my head at her and giving her a quizzical look (this is the gentle version of why did you say/do that?). If she says "what"? in an irritated voice I just give her that gentle smile (meaning we BOTH know what you just did). Full unbroken eye contact. 

2. Slowly and deliberately rotating my body so I am facing her and giving her the exact same look. The full body amplifies the message. Same reaction if I get a "what"? Though I may add "Do I really need to explain why I am looking at you this way"? This is a lightly amused tone. But if she insists I briefly explain my view. If she even has a halfway decent explanation - I shrug and say "ok" - slowly which means I understand but don't like it. Or I say "next time X response would be preferable". But if her explanation is nonsense she gets a brief "I disagree" followed by a temporary "chill" in my behavior. 

3. Same as 2 except I walk up to her while giving her the "look". Disclaimer - this is not physical intimidation. I have never/will never hit my W. Same conversational path as above. VERY few words, mostly body language. 

Moderate:
4. Is that constructive? 
5. Would you like me to speak to you that way/like me to do that to you?

High impact:
6. I would NOT do that to you!
7. What did you just say to me?
8. Same as 7 with full on body language.
9. Same as 8, but at a distance of 18" - right at the edge of her personal space. More distance should be used if you have a big height diff - we don't. She should not have to stare "up" at you. That isn't nice.
10. "THAT is not acceptable" or "THAT is not even close to acceptable"

10 has a very specific meaning for us. It means all conversation, all interaction other than the minimum needed for kids/schedules stops until I get an unqualified apology. This is basically dropping the emotional temperature in the house to absolute zero. I use 10 very sparingly because I have a delightful if aggressive wife. She just doesn't push boundaries that far very often. Good thing for her. Frostbite hurts. During this time I am polite. Reserved but polite. 

1 - 10 unresolved - meaning she escalated - correspond to varying degrees of chill. This is BY FAR the most effective method for dealing with a boundary pushing, button happy spouse. 



Adjustable Dumbbells Reviews | Dumbbells Adjustable





TrueGentleman said:


> This is going to take some serious re-programming of my thought and behavior patterns.
> 
> Reading through the "Nice Guy" discussions, as well as Glover's book, the typical "nice guy" traits and behaviors hit frighteningly close to home. For several years, I have been doing everything that I can to try to make my wife happy. I try to do everything that she asks me to. I respect her need to be alone at those times when she wants to be alone. I do my best to take care of her and make her feel special. For most of those years, I did virtually all of the housework, cooking and errands while we both worked full-time. When she fell into a deep depression and it was all that she could do just to get up and go to work, I took care of everything else. When the depression (and the anti-depressant medications) killed her sex drive, I waited patiently.
> 
> ...


----------



## TrueGentleman (Apr 29, 2009)

Yeah, I read that. Got a laugh out of it, as it sounded all too familiar.

And now I'm able to see these things for what they really are, so I can change how I behave in response.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TrueGentleman (Apr 29, 2009)

Great advice, MEM. I'll re-read that a few times so that it sinks in. I'm my own worst enemy as soon as I start trying to "discuss" with her in such situations.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Atholk (Jul 25, 2009)

TrueGentleman said:


> This is how I've approached romantic relationships all of my life (I'm 36 now). If I'm not getting the results that I want, then the obvious (to me) solution was to be even nicer.


Read this... Married Man Sex Life: Why And How Nice Guys Strategize To Screw Themselves Out Of Sex And Happiness

It will likely explain things a great deal in a way that is truely a helpful framework for advancing on.

Good luck and we're all here for you.


----------



## F-102 (Sep 15, 2010)

TG, are you my doppelganger?


----------



## Janie (Apr 10, 2010)

I admire the changes you're making. You sound like a good person who deserves respect and you've decided to earn and expect it.



TrueGentleman said:


> All of this stuff about "manning up" and "s#!t tests" seemed like a juvenile game at first. It didn't feel like I should have to play these stupid games just to get what I want if I was being a "good husband."


These 2 sentences summarize the problem I've seen in the entire 'man-up' debate going on in this forum. Be careful with the game playing. Man up should not be about certain strategies to get what you want - you should not be following a rule book with scripted lines or physical maneuvers. While it is difficult to truly change your MO and behaviors - and a bit of instructional guidance can help initially - this is your life and the changes need to come from you and be sincere. If you are emulating someone else changes, it is unsustainable and downright confusing (and will be seen as inconsistent and weak by her).

If you are able to successfully 'man up' at home, you are merely asking to be treated as an equal in the relationship. You have a right to respect, kindness, thoughtfulness and good treatment. And you should not tolerate any less. But, this is who you need to be - regardless of the relationship you're in. 

It's not about getting what you want, but being who you want to be...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Janie,
It is easy to tell someone "what" to do. Your points below are all valid as far as the "what". That said, TG already "stated" he has an "execution" problem. 

His W pokes him and he typically initiates a "lengthy"? conversation which she dislikes. BTW my W is very similar in that regard. It took me a long, long time to come up with a communication style that is very clear and yet so concise that if you blink you would almost miss it. I bet he also talks about how she "hurts his feelings" when she does x,y,z. FCS I have to be teetering on the raw edge of madness to do that these days. The LAST thing my W wants to hear about is her fully mature male's "hurt" feelings. That said she seems to love the brief verbal sparring and then if she desires a little emotional space - all she has to do is escalate to feel the refreshing bite of "arctic chill" she knows will come her way. 

I am very, very predictable - and my W is quite intelligent. She seems to want/need/enjoy this "friction". Fine by me. 

The hardest part for me - I like words - was realizing that "less" is much more when it comes to "fitness tests" and that a half dozen words amplified by body language is often hands down the best thing to do. 




Janie said:


> I admire the changes you're making. You sound like a good person who deserves respect and you've decided to earn and expect it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## coops (Jan 24, 2011)

Janie said:


> These 2 sentences summarize the problem I've seen in the entire 'man-up' debate going on in this forum. Be careful with the game playing. Man up should not be about certain strategies to get what you want - you should not be following a rule book with scripted lines or physical maneuvers.



I won't lie, this is a subject of passion for me. Mostly cause I've had to work through all this after seeing my marriage almost fail. So if I come out a bit passionate you'll have to forgive me.

Here is the part most women don't understand about the "man up" thing. Its not about teaching tricks, its about unlearning all the wrong behaviors that have been forced on most males all their lives. 

Seriously try to imagine a world where its drilled into your head by media/teachers/parents/peers that men love a woman who is a nag because it helps him remember things? That if you nag a guy enough he'll feel you're helpful and want marry you and love you for all time. How about that he loves a woman that doesn't care about her appearance when they date cause that makes him feel comfortable. Would this sound stupid to you?

What if the media portrayed you as stupid in every sitcom and commercial? Ever notice its always the husband that is stupid or incompetent that needs his wife to make the decisions and save him when he screws up? Name a show today where they ever portray the wife as stupid/incompetent/unable to make a decision or in need of saving by the husband?

That's the world "most" men live in. We're bombarded with messages all day long telling us to do this and that for women only to see it fail miserably and blow up in our faces when women don't react as we're told they "should". Its cause all these messages men get every day of their lives is about how things "Should be" instead of "How things are". 

So if you don't get it, its cause you don't live it.


----------



## chiefinspector (Jan 31, 2011)

F-102 said:


> TG, are you my doppelganger?


I was thinking the exact same thing. This post gave me chills reading it, even down to the issues his wife had with her father.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

coops said:


> I won't lie, this is a subject of passion for me. Mostly cause I've had to work through all this after seeing my marriage almost fail. So if I come out a bit passionate you'll have to forgive me.
> 
> Here is the part most women don't understand about the "man up" thing. Its not about teaching tricks, its about unlearning all the wrong behaviors that have been forced on most males all their lives.
> 
> ...


But the real problem is that the couple isn't getting it together. There's a lack of honesty and honesty is what I value most. Also, women have their own stereotypes that they live with as well (I'm sure you've seen them on the pages of magazines and on billboards) so in that respect, the stereotypes are different but the damage they do to behavior & expectations is the same.

In TrueGentleman's case I think it seems to be working for him and teaching him self confidence almost as a side effect. It very well might be that man'ing up allows him to get the self confidence to ask for what he wants, which would be what the wife wanted all along anyway if she does indeed love him. This is actually what is escalating the change rather than following a list of manipulative behaviors scripted to elicit a specific response from a woman.

If balance swings too much so in the opposite direction then it's only a matter of time before the wife is unhappy again and the "Get out of an abusive relationship" books start being bought by the woman instead of the "man up" books by the man...lol

I don't like it because it seems unnatural but if it works for couples, even if not all couples, and the end result is their happiness, then it's a good thing.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

Repeat after me...

It's not a game designed to "control your spouse"

It's a discipline designed to "control yourself"


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

coops said:


> Name a show today where they ever portray the wife as stupid/incompetent/unable to make a decision or in need of saving by the husband?


"I Love Lucy" was a long time ago.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I agree 100 percent with this. Violate my boundaries and I will NEVER:
- yell / scream at you
- say mean or hurtful things to you
- tell you why YOU are broken 

HOWEVER they are MY boundaries and to ME they are very important. So you get a clear warning and then if you proceed the result is you get LESS and LESS of me. Less time and attention. Less love in all its myriad forms. Because I am NOT obligated to be loving while YOU are trampling my spirit. 




Conrad said:


> Repeat after me...
> 
> It's not a game designed to "control your spouse"
> 
> It's a discipline designed to "control yourself"


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Conrad said:


> Repeat after me...
> 
> It's not a game designed to "control your spouse"
> 
> It's a discipline designed to "control yourself"


So ya keep saying but then I continue to read and, no, it's a discipline that teaches you to control yourself with the intention to elicit specific reactions that you want from your spouse. I think you forgot to finish the second sentence there Conrad.

The story goes: Man meets woman and morphs into a pleaser because it's what he thinks his wife wants. Wife acts like a complete dork. Man thinks...hmmm, what the heck, I do this to please her. Man keeps asking why his ways didn't work and looks into why. Man finds book and forum and realizes if he behaved differently he would please her. So he again changes his behavior to again try and please her. It works so he keeps the change in place or it doesn't work and he keeps looking for a new method to change the dynamics of the relationship. In summary, man only thought he had to change to begin with because of his wife.

The story DOES NOT go: Man becomes a pleaser because he thinks it's what his wife wants. It is what his wife wants and he's happy because he's getting what he wants as well. Being a pleaser is making wife happy and both needs are being met but he decides, what the hell I think I need to change and work on controlling myself anyway. It doesn't go like this because his WHOLE reason for looking for a change is because his wife isn't putting out and she's not making him happy. 

If it works for the couple, it works and that is what matters and this is why I'm OK with it but it is what it is.

I keep saying my husband is a pleaser and it works for us. He continues because he's happy with it and I'm happy with it. Basically, we're not all the same.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

T,
This is a classic "emasculating" post. I do what I do to make my W happy because I love her. 

As for all this other stuff. Hmmmm. Lets see - she has had the good sense not to screw with our sex life because - oh that's right she is keenly aware what a BAD idea it is to antagonize me. 

So WHY did I get very good at all this "man up" stuff? 

Frankly because she had a lot of qualities like you do and this FORCED her to treat me with respect. 






Trenton said:


> So ya keep saying but then I continue to read and, no, it's a discipline that teaches you to control yourself with the intention to elicit specific reactions that you want from your spouse. I think you forgot to finish the second sentence there Conrad.
> 
> The story goes: Man meets woman and morphs into a pleaser because it's what he thinks his wife wants. Wife acts like a complete dork. Man thinks...hmmm, what the heck, I do this to please her. Man keeps asking why his ways didn't work and looks into why. Man finds book and forum and realizes if he behaved differently he would please her. So he again changes his behavior to again try and please her. It works so he keeps the change in place or it doesn't work and he keeps looking for a new method to change the dynamics of the relationship. In summary, man only thought he had to change to begin with because of his wife.
> 
> ...


----------



## coops (Jan 24, 2011)

michzz said:


> "I Love Lucy" was a long time ago.


I did say today for a reason =p Times were much different when I love Lucy was on TV.


----------



## coops (Jan 24, 2011)

Trenton said:


> I keep saying my husband is a pleaser and it works for us. He continues because he's happy with it and I'm happy with it. Basically, we're not all the same.


If we were talking about the mating habits of wild dogs, we'd look at it from a scientific point of view, and we'd probably find the odd dog that didn't follow the pattern, but we sure as hell wouldn't say "All dog mating patterns are different and unique to the dog" that would be stupid. 

Just because you happen to fall somewhere else on the curve that needs less expression of masculine behavior in order to be turned on by your husband, doesn't mean that all women are unique snowflakes and all relationships are different. 

Generally speaking, all women are the same. Generally speaking all men are the same. If we are going to dispense advice, it only makes sense to dispense advice that works for the largest majority of people.

The tips and tricks thing is almost a joke. Women/teen magazines have been giving women tips and tricks all their lives on how to please a man, how to act in ways that are more attractive to men etc. There is nothing wrong with dispensing advice through "tips". It's simply a method of teaching. 

Also its pretty unfair to be talking about being fake in order to attract the opposite sex. Ever wear a push up bra or make up? How about heels to seem a little taller? All we're saying is "hey this will help you be more attractive to your wife". I can't really see the problem here.

If you take a good look at our culture, how women are being taught vs how men are being taught, its borderline hypocrisy to tell men to just "be themselves". The problem, if I didn't make myself clear in my last post, is that men are not themselves now. They are the product of a feminist culture that has taught them _not be themselves_. Men are taught to act like emasculated lap dogs that are completely unattractive to their wives. 

Biologically speaking on a sexual attraction level, we as a culture have been teaching men to quite literally be as unattractive as possible in relationships. Perfect to be long term resource providers for women, but far from being attractive on a sexual level. 

As a result women are treating these men exactly as "resource providers" then going out with EA's and PA's on the side cause they have no real attraction on a sexual level with their "resource provider". We just want men to "man up" so they can be more than just comfort and resource providers for women. 

Being masculine and the leader in your relationship does not in anyway shape or form equal to abuse. Just because you've been indoctrinated to believe that if a man is the leader of the household, he must be abusing his wife, doesn't make it so. 

The reason our marriages and relationships are collapsing at an alarming rate is because we're all being taught to deny reality. I believe that the husband should be the leader of the household. That does not mean "Dominance" "Control" or "Abuse". The best leaders in the world lead without abuse or the need to exert control. 

It is not my belief because I feel it "Should" be that way. It is my belief because women are biologically programmed to sexually attracted to a man that acts like a leader and takes charge. Its time people stop living in "I wish it were so" la-la land and start accepting reality.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*brilliant post*

Coops,
This is pure gold. My observation regarding the "snowflake model" is this. When it comes to individual "skills and preferences" we are unique. When it comes to core interpersonal behaviors we are very similar to one another. 

I do have one question for you. How can a male succeed by being dominant in areas where his W is more skilled than he is? 




coops said:


> If we were talking about the mating habits of wild dogs, we'd look at it from a scientific point of view, and we'd probably find the odd dog that didn't follow the pattern, but we sure as hell wouldn't say "All dog mating patterns are different and unique to the dog" that would be stupid.
> 
> Just because you happen to fall somewhere else on the curve that needs less expression of masculine behavior in order to be turned on by your husband, doesn't mean that all women are unique snowflakes and all relationships are different.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Mem, I don't know why it's so challenging or emasculating to anyone to call a spade a spade. I don't mean to be insulting or emasculating.

I feel like there is this whole crowd of people wearing blue but they keep telling everyone they're wearing green because to them blue is an embarrassing color. I have no idea why blue is an embarrassing color because I love the color blue. I keep jumping up and down and trying to point this to them but they keep saying, "Nope. Nope. Nope. It's green. Go away. Shut up. It's green!"


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Trenton said:


> Mem, I don't know why it's so challenging or emasculating to anyone to call a spade a spade. I don't mean to be insulting or emasculating.
> 
> I feel like there is this whole crowd of people wearing blue but they keep telling everyone they're wearing green because to them blue is an embarrassing color. I have no idea why blue is an embarrassing color because I love the color blue. I keep jumping up and down and trying to point this to them but they keep saying, "Nope. Nope. Nope. It's green. Go away. Shut up. It's green!"


It's sea foam ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

In most of these cases the underlying problem is a true lack of respect. Respect for your partners priorities and feelings. That typically ALSO expresses itself in the bedroom but sexual frequency is - like the tip of the iceberg simple the most visible and quantifiable "symptom". 

As to your initial comment. Am I glad that being humorous, assertive, challenging and sometimes blatantly aggressive makes my W love me MORE? You bet your azz I am. But if responding that way to her shhiiiiiiyyyyiiiiitttttt tests just made her MORE aggressive - I would file. If she needs a doormat - Home Depot is just round the corner. 

You seem unable to grasp how many guys suddenly wake up and realize "I deserve better than this and I am not going to tolerate this bad treatment anymore"

For the NG - his WHOLE reason for changing HIS behavior should be and often is that he is being treated poorly. And poorly means his W is blatantly violating the two primary variants of the golden rule:
- Doing unto others as you WOULD have them do unto you AND
- Doing unto others as they HAVE been doing unto you

His behavioral change is focused on ENFORCING the golden rule. If that means she leaves him. That is likely best for both of them. But NG comes here "reinforcing" her behavior by being Mr. Loving on the outside while he is angry and resentful on the inside. And that is dishonest. 

As for this comment about "manipulation" I have an observation for you to consider. One reason YOU have so much passion in your marriage is that your H has set the marital "thermostat" at a temperature that is "uncomfortably" cool for you. He does it by prioritizing work over you. And the way you attempt to raise the temperature is with sex. If I were him - the distress I was causing you would bother me. So I would slowly raise the temperature until either YOU were comfortable OR I started to see bad side effects (like a loss of desire or increased aggression on your part) of the "warmer" temperature. And I would work to find a temperature that worked well for BOTH of us. 

I can "prove" his setting is sometimes "too" cold in a simple manner. It sometimes makes you so angry - "hell hath no fury - eh?" that you behave inappropriately - letting other men flirt with you. EA's - etc. 

MOST of the men on here have tried the "direct" approach. W provokes them. They get visibly upset and try to "discuss" it with her. She gets irritated, he gets more frustrated and the issue escalates. 

The so called "manipulation" suggested here boils down to:
- control your negative emotions
- respond to your spouse the way a "normal" person would react when treated the way you are being treated - don't let them treat you like a servant just because you are married



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The story DOES NOT go: Man becomes a pleaser because he thinks it's what his wife wants. It is what his wife wants and he's happy because he's getting what he wants as well. Being a pleaser is making wife happy and both needs are being met but he decides, what the hell I think I need to change and work on controlling myself anyway. It doesn't go like this because his WHOLE reason for looking for a change is because his wife isn't putting out and she's not making him happy. 





Trenton said:


> Mem, I don't know why it's so challenging or emasculating to anyone to call a spade a spade. I don't mean to be insulting or emasculating.
> 
> I feel like there is this whole crowd of people wearing blue but they keep telling everyone they're wearing green because to them blue is an embarrassing color. I have no idea why blue is an embarrassing color because I love the color blue. I keep jumping up and down and trying to point this to them but they keep saying, "Nope. Nope. Nope. It's green. Go away. Shut up. It's green!"


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

> But NG comes here "reinforcing" her behavior by being Mr. Loving on the outside while he is angry and resentful on the inside. And that is dishonest.


So, then, your point is that men actually aren't nice guys and are actually more of the man the "man up" philosophy teaches. So they take a long road back to themselves and their wife was just a catalyst to and from?

Convenient for men but for women, not so much. It seems to me that it is just more accepted to believe that women don't know what they want but I'm learning more and more that men may be projecting.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I am genuinely lost. What is it that I am suggesting that you feel is "unfair" to the W? BTW - the reason my W says "you treat me like gold" is that my "cool" behavior is DIRECTLY tied to her aggression/boundary pushing. So she gets warm/loving/kind/patient UNLESS she is being a bbiittcchh.

I seriously question whether you can tie your H's "cold wind" to specific behaviors of YOURS. And that is not "nice" of him. 




Trenton said:


> So, then, your point is that men actually aren't nice guys and are actually more of the man the "man up" philosophy teaches. So they take a long road back to themselves and their wife was just a catalyst to and from?
> 
> Convenient for men but for women, not so much. It seems to me that it is just more accepted to believe that women don't know what they want but I'm learning more and more that men may be projecting.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

*Re: brilliant post*



MEM11363 said:


> I do have one question for you. How can a male succeed by being dominant in areas where his W is more skilled than he is?


Just wanted to jump in and say this is an interesting question. I can identify different areas in my relationship which one or the other of us takes care of. Very basic example: my OH takes care of the car maintenance. He knows the basics and likes to learn more, I know the very basics and so leave it mostly to him. I take care of the finances, he openly admits he is terrible with managing money and admires my skill with it. I like doing it and would want to. I am now thinking how my OH would be dominant in money management even though he has not much to do with it?

On the face of it he isn't dominant with this and has no desire to as he believes I make a better job of it, which I do. Both happy with this, I don't look at him differently as we both bring different things to the table.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: brilliant post*

Exactly how we operate. Skill determines dominance. 




tobio said:


> Just wanted to jump in and say this is an interesting question. I can identify different areas in my relationship which one or the other of us takes care of. Very basic example: my OH takes care of the car maintenance. He knows the basics and likes to learn more, I know the very basics and so leave it mostly to him. I take care of the finances, he openly admits he is terrible with managing money and admires my skill with it. I like doing it and would want to. I am now thinking how my OH would be dominant in money management even though he has not much to do with it?
> 
> On the face of it he isn't dominant with this and has no desire to as he believes I make a better job of it, which I do. Both happy with this, I don't look at him differently as we both bring different things to the table.


----------



## coops (Jan 24, 2011)

Trenton said:


> So, then, your point is that men actually aren't nice guys and are actually more of the man the "man up" philosophy teaches.


This is the core problem with your thinking. You think being "nice" is the opposite of manning up. Being nice and being strong have nothing to do with one another. I can be the nicest guy in the world to my wife now as long as I strongly defend my boundaries. Repeat it, drill it into your head: Being a jerk does not equal manning up.

For about 5 years, I was lucky if we had sex once a month. I remember one time it went 6 months without sex. However since I've manned up, changed my behavior, set my boundaries things have changed. 

My wife and I have sex all the time now. We laugh and joke. We go on date nights, we watch movies and cuddle. This morning I got up at 7:30 on my day off while she was getting ready for work. I easily could have slept a few more hours but I decided to surprise her. While she was in the shower, I fried up the bacon, grated the cheese, cracked the eggs and made her an omelette. Is this abusive? Am I not acting like a man if I do something nice for her? 

Lots of things you've probably imagined are the opposite of manning up but they're not. They have nothing to do with it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I look forward to Trenton "explaining" specifically what behaviors she objects to. 

T,
It is easy to be "generally" critical of an approach. Be specific about WHAT is unfair about any of this. 






coops said:


> This is the core problem with your thinking. You think being "nice" is the opposite of manning up. Being nice and being strong have nothing to do with one another. I can be the nicest guy in the world to my wife now as long as I strongly defend my boundaries. Repeat it, drill it into your head: Being a jerk does not equal manning up.
> 
> For about 5 years, I was lucky if we had sex once a month. I remember one time it went 6 months without sex. However since I've manned up, changed my behavior, set my boundaries things have changed.
> 
> ...


----------



## coops (Jan 24, 2011)

*Re: brilliant post*



MEM11363 said:


> I do have one question for you. How can a male succeed by being dominant in areas where his W is more skilled than he is?


I think I might have a different view here. 

My wife is the better cook. There is no question about this. I respect her for it, I let her know how much I appreciate it when she does cook. There nothing wrong at all with your wife having certain skills that she excels at. I mean you want a strong wife, who's confident and feels good about herself right? That will be great for your kids right?

The difference is in how a skill affects the power structure in your relationship. On a daily basis, in everything you do, you should be exhibiting leadership, strength, adaptability and intelligence. 

So then subconsciously she'll be thinking "I'm the better cook because he doesn't apply himself to cooking. If he did he could be just as good as I am or better". In this case your power structure stays the same. She feels good she has skills you don't and brings them to the relationship to compliment you.

The problem, is when your relationship is in the mode where she doesn't respect your leadership, strength, adaptability and intelligence. Then it becomes "I'm the better cook cause this idiot can't fry up an egg". 

So I would suggest that its not so much the skills but the overall power structure of the relationship. That being said, if its so lopsided and she has way more skill in so many more areas then you that is a problem that you likely won't overcome.


----------



## TrueGentleman (Apr 29, 2009)

Trenton said:


> The story goes: Man meets woman and morphs into a pleaser because it's what he thinks his wife wants. Wife acts like a complete dork. Man thinks...hmmm, what the heck, I do this to please her. Man keeps asking why his ways didn't work and looks into why. Man finds book and forum and realizes if he behaved differently he would please her. So he again changes his behavior to again try and please her. It works so he keeps the change in place or it doesn't work and he keeps looking for a new method to change the dynamics of the relationship. In summary, man only thought he had to change to begin with because of his wife.


I would say that it often _starts_ this way. 

If the "Man finds book and forum and realizes if he behaved differently he would please her" then he is missing the point. It started that way for me, but through the process of reading the articles and discussions, I am arrving at "Man finds book and forum and realizes if he behaved differently he would please himself" and "Man find book and forum and realizes if he behaved differently _she would please him._" If the man is stuck on trying different behavior in order to please her, then he doesn't understand why his previous approach didn't work. Being a "pleaser" ends up being a losing strategy, not just in relationships, but in life.



Trenton said:


> The story DOES NOT go: Man becomes a pleaser because he thinks it's what his wife wants. It is what his wife wants and he's happy because he's getting what he wants as well. Being a pleaser is making wife happy and both needs are being met but he decides, what the hell I think I need to change and work on controlling myself anyway. It doesn't go like this because his WHOLE reason for looking for a change is because his wife isn't putting out and she's not making him happy.


Happiness is rarely a catalyst for change. If a man and wife are making each other happy and both have their needs met, then it is pretty certain that neither one of them is a "pleaser" in the sense we are talking about here.

The motivation for change may start from dissatisfaction with the marital relationship, but if a man is trying his best to please his wife and getting walked all over, odds are it's happening to him in most other aspects of his life as well.


----------



## TrueGentleman (Apr 29, 2009)

Janie said:


> These 2 sentences summarize the problem I've seen in the entire 'man-up' debate going on in this forum. Be careful with the game playing. Man up should not be about certain strategies to get what you want - you should not be following a rule book with scripted lines or physical maneuvers. While it is difficult to truly change your MO and behaviors - and a bit of instructional guidance can help initially - this is your life and the changes need to come from you and be sincere. If you are emulating someone else changes, it is unsustainable and downright confusing (and will be seen as inconsistent and weak by her).
> 
> If you are able to successfully 'man up' at home, you are merely asking to be treated as an equal in the relationship. You have a right to respect, kindness, thoughtfulness and good treatment. And you should not tolerate any less. But, this is who you need to be - regardless of the relationship you're in.
> 
> It's not about getting what you want, but being who you want to be...


I agree with you, and I may not have been clear about it in my original post.

The "manning up" process is ultimately about achieving individuation from one's partner. In the end, I need to be my own person, who does not require the approval of others to validate my own feelings and behaviors. It's about having the confidence to act based on my thoughts and feelings instead of allowing the wishes of others to override my own. It's about accepting that I can only change myself and letting go of the need to change my partner's behavior in order to ease my own insecurities.

When I'm in the moment, "being a more confident and independent person" is a rather broad and nebulous goal to strive for. Strategies which target specific behaviors are the starting point, as they are short, simple, and direct. If I'm getting upset and emotional, reminding myself to "be confident" is more or less worthless. Reminding myself to say "If you ask me nicely and without the attitude, I will be happy to do that for you" and then _not doing it until she asks me nicely_ is much more achievable. 

Over time, these "manning up" responses and behaviors will improve self-confidence. When I can confidently deflect or diffuse the s#!t tests and not get emotional, then I can keep my mind on the bigger picture of a more confident me. As long as she can push my emotional buttons so easily, I can't move beyond the moment.

For most of us "nice guys" on here, I think that to goal of "who you want to be" is almost always going to come later in the process. I'm not there yet, even though I know that is where I need to end up. "Getting what I want" is a step along the way though.


----------



## TrueGentleman (Apr 29, 2009)

Trenton said:


> But the real problem is that the couple isn't getting it together. There's a lack of honesty and honesty is what I value most.


There has been a lack of honesty, as I will often not tell her what I'm feeling if I think it will make her upset. At times I have been afraid of upsetting her or making her angry, partly because conflict makes me very uncomfortable, but also because her being angry with me is typically a more unpleasant experience than my alternatives. My wife values honesty above all else, but in the past I have found it difficult to be completely honest with her because I have been afraid of how she might react.



Trenton said:


> In TrueGentleman's case I think it seems to be working for him and teaching him self confidence almost as a side effect. It very well might be that man'ing up allows him to get the self confidence to ask for what he wants, which would be what the wife wanted all along anyway if she does indeed love him. This is actually what is escalating the change rather than following a list of manipulative behaviors scripted to elicit a specific response from a woman.


She has told me before that she finds confidence sexy and wishes that I would be more confident. However, in that context it's simply one more thing in a list of many that she wants me to do. I can't become more confident in order to please her, as I would still be defining myself by how she sees me, and that isn't confident.

I don't see the lists of behaviors as scripted to elicit a specific response from a woman, but as guidelines to help me keep a hold of myself when she starts treating me in a way that I don't like. If I let myself get dragged into a conversation, I end up getting flustered and completely losing any control over the situation. If I stay calm and diffuse or deflect the inappropriate behavior, then I feel in control of myself and the situation, and that boosts my confidence. As a side benefit, it will likely make me seem more attractive in her eyes.



Trenton said:


> I don't like it because it seems unnatural but if it works for couples, even if not all couples, and the end result is their happiness, then it's a good thing.


It feels unnatural to me as well, but my lifelong approach is not working and leaving me feeling worse about myself. 

But I think that it actually is a natural approach, as it looks to evolutionary psychology and considers the fact that there are biological differences in the brains of men and women. We are simply hard-wired to respond in certain ways. While there will always be some variation, we still have these hard-wired responses that have been selected over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Been busy, lots of interesting thoughts that I'd like to respond to but haven't had time till now. 

Consider the thousands, maybe even millions of different experiences, genetics and perceptions each individual (human) faces over a course of a lifetime coupled with the differences in hormone levels/responses/fluctuations, physical sensitivities and appearance. Now consider that you want me to place individuals on a scale, separated by gender and behavior alone. Then you want me to compare and make generalizations based upon those findings and credit them.

I would come to you and say some of this information is really relevant because of X/Y/Z but I can't really make a logical analysis or reach a clear conclusion because all of the missing information is making any conclusion I reach flawed. In other words, I need more information or your theory can't be proven.

You're placing me on a curve to discount my experience entirely and placing more weight on your outcome because your own experience and perception matches the information you've found. In this forum specifically I've read that many do have your experience but this alone doesn't give your theory validity as there are so many other resources/outlets/experiences that are not represented. Of course, you've built in a way to dismiss this by saying anyone with different experiences or perceptions in this particular forum is somewhere on the scale that makes them inconsequential.

When you say, "Generally speaking, all women are the same. Generally speaking all men are the same. If we are going to dispense advice, it only makes sense to dispense advice that works for the largest majority of people."

I think, this does make sense. Hence I have typed several times that if it works that is a good thing for the man and hopefully for his wife. However, it leads to a ditto response given to all who come for help which is not very helpful to those who fall somewhere off the curve. Also, since we can't read both sides of the relationship, and we are specifically talking about couples here, you are missing a helluva a lot of information to make such general conclusions. You don't even know where the wife falls on the scale and yet you are giving the man information solely based upon where he falls on the scale. Well, duh. 

My question is this, are we only trying to help men here or we trying to help couples? Generally speaking the man up concept believes that a man should find his own confidence and then, even if he eventually leaves his wife because she still doesn't respond, he is better off either way. Although I disagree on this too as I already stated. I think the man is unhappy in his relationship first and that's the actual catalyst for him looking for help, rather than a necessary unhappiness with self. In truth, the danger of tossing a relationship out with the dirty bathwater because you willingly gave advice without really knowing the situation and discounted an entire half of the equation by discounting the wife is quite high.

Yes, I fall off the scale. I have no doubt. Why do you think I keep telling you that the scale is flawed? I'm sure many others fall off the scale as well but don't vocalize it because they have no need. It's not relevant and it doesn't harm them. This leads me to only one question, how very flawed is your scale and this in turn brings me to my first two paragraphs. Very flawed. 

Overall, it bothers me because I wonder how many separations/divorces are a result of a man man'ing up instead of including his wife in his recovery as an equal partner. Now you can say, hey...that relationship would have ended eventually anyway because the man wasn't getting what he needed, but in truth you may have given him the tools needed to walk away without care.



coops said:


> If we were talking about the mating habits of wild dogs, we'd look at it from a scientific point of view, and we'd probably find the odd dog that didn't follow the pattern, but we sure as hell wouldn't say "All dog mating patterns are different and unique to the dog" that would be stupid.
> 
> Just because you happen to fall somewhere else on the curve that needs less expression of masculine behavior in order to be turned on by your husband, doesn't mean that all women are unique snowflakes and all relationships are different.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

TrueGentleman said:


> There has been a lack of honesty, as I will often not tell her what I'm feeling if I think it will make her upset. At times I have been afraid of upsetting her or making her angry, partly because conflict makes me very uncomfortable, but also because her being angry with me is typically a more unpleasant experience than my alternatives. My wife values honesty above all else, but in the past I have found it difficult to be completely honest with her because I have been afraid of how she might react.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To your first response, my husband is in a similar situation as you are and has had similar ways of dealing with me that lasted for much of our marriage. In valuing honesty I'm also stubborn so I voice how important honesty is and dissect everything he says so that even a false response can make him grow tired by my reaction. Where this got us to today is he's honest no matter what and I get a chance to respond and work through my issues. They aren't his issues, he's doing this as a service to me alone. I recognize this and I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.

To your second point, I agree with you that even if she sees confidence as important but you don't feel confident then you can't become confident with the sole intention of pleasing her. You have a right to be loved for both your flaws and your strengths and in not doing this she is at fault, not you. Still, confidence is not really a trait as much as it is feeling. The man up guidelines might very well work for you here because your behavior coupled by her responses seem to be what is making you feel a lack of confidence to begin with. 

For example, you want to be honest but you avoid it because of her response. Eventually, this leads to you feeling a lack of confidence because you are hesitant and don't know what to do about it which leads to a feeling of damned if you do, damned if you don't. How could this possibly lead to feeling confident. I don't think it can.

I imagine you both feel as though the other is not getting what you need but are frustrated because you both want to please one another and be pleased. 

Then the question is actually what pleases you and what pleases her as well as what doesn't please you and what doesn't please her. 

To your last point, evolutionary psychology is no different than modern day psychology in that it is the science of generalizing the human experience. No wonder it is so flawed! Look at treatments and self help books over the last fifty years as well as ads and the projections of stereotypes in media as our society deems them to be during certain times. You will find the changes are drastic and impossible to keep up with. If there truly was one way to be and a generalization was a natural thing would these guides and stereotypes not hold true and steady throughout?

You want an exceptional relationship with your wife that is based upon mutual respect, deep love and honesty--then you do the dirty work and you face one another. You can't control her responses ever but you can truly connect with her. The greater question may be whether or not the connection is what the individual wants in the relationship. 

Everything else is a band-aid type solution. If everything heals after the band-aid is in place, great! If it doesn't, there will be more pain. It very well may depend on how large the wound is.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Deejo said:


> It's sea foam ...


Undoubtedly correct. The irony is not lost on me.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> I am genuinely lost. What is it that I am suggesting that you feel is "unfair" to the W? BTW - the reason my W says "you treat me like gold" is that my "cool" behavior is DIRECTLY tied to her aggression/boundary pushing. So she gets warm/loving/kind/patient UNLESS she is being a bbiittcchh.
> 
> I seriously question whether you can tie your H's "cold wind" to specific behaviors of YOURS. And that is not "nice" of him.


Mem, I hope you can sort through my very long response to coops. I think I pretty much covered what I dislike about the man up thing. I don't think it's necessarily unfair to the wife as in some instances it could be quite a good thing for her. I think it can be unfair to both the husband and wife quite by mistake or a step in the wrong direction.

"Cold wind"? I need further definition. Do you mean his time management issues? I think my husband struggles with a different issue in regards to that. On one hand, he wants to please me which would be arriving on time, answering the phone and doing what I want, but on the other hand, he wants to perform well at his job and is resentful that I'm so demanding when he says that I should know he's not doing anything wrong besides trying to be a success at his job and provide for our family. Would you want to call your wife if when you did she yelled at you non stop and told you she wanted to keeeeel you? Heh.

This is what he has told me in all our conversations about it. In fairness to him, I know he is correct but working on how his behavior affects me is torture.

Recently he gave me several tools to recognize that what he was saying was true. I'm a...show me the proof!...kind of woman. So I have access to his work email and can see the files he forwards, work he's doing and when it's being done. You would think this would work for me but it doesn't. I still miss him and I still get upset that he is gone when the hours drag on.

This is why I'm so half sided on the issue. A part of me thinks it's really all on me. Well, I actually know it is. It's not fair of me to tell him he should be confident and successful but also tell him he has to be home when I need him. 

It's my issue and he is lost in how to deal with it. It goes deeper than this, obviously. This is what I keep saying about nuances. We have to know the facts to draw a conclusion. Individuals have to be honest, not only in giving their perception, but in giving blunt details that may or may not cause judgement that is counter productive to any help they may receive.

My husband is never cold without reason and his reasons are valid. He is my better half. I can't say that enough although he says the same about me. He doesn't think he is but I was wrong for de-valuing him for my own emotional gain for so long. Hence I'm working on myself so that I can be the woman he deserves. I don't think hot sex and admiration is all he deserves. He deserves a loving, supportive wife that is less confusing in her demands and desires and more comfortable in her own skin.


----------



## coops (Jan 24, 2011)

I appreciate you taking the time to write up a long response. It is well thought out and articulated well. That said, you've completely missed the point. 

You seem to think the issues or problems, like housework, finances, EA's etc are the root of the problem or that these problems are a result of unique people with unique genetics coming together to form unique couples. You're wrong. The issues only exist if she is: 

A) Not attracted to him anymore (or never was)
B) Not someone he should be married to

Her side is already told by her actions as the men describe it. If she was somewhere off the curve and was attracted to passive weak man that caters to her ever whim, then their marriage would be fine and they wouldn't be here discussing it. However, that isn't the case here. 

Use the Brad Pitt test. If Brad Pitt was the guy in the marriage would she be acting this way? If the answer is yes, he shouldn't have been marrying her in the first place. 99/100 the answer will be "She wouldn't act that way with Brad Pitt". 

He cannot know which of these two is the issue, unless he is behaving in a way that is attractive to his wife first. The man up advice is based on "What do most women find attractive?" and giving him that information. Since most women find a strong confident man attractive (read: probably 99% of women across the globe regardless of genetics) then giving him the advice to start acting like one, is the right thing to do. 

As to why the guy is doing it? Who gives a crap? I see you guys discussing it but it doesn't matter at all if its initiated cause the marriage is falling apart, cause he wants sex or cause the guy wants to go on a journey of self discovery. Whatever his motivations for starting the journey, if he continues on it, the results will be the exact same: growing to be a stronger healthier person. 

Now to address the whole baby with the bathwater thing. If after removing as many unattractive behaviors and increasing as many attractive ones as possible, if she does not come around then we have another A and B situation. 

A) The relationship was already over. Low attraction for too long causing resentment and anger that they cannot get past
B) She was never the right person for him. I'd go as far as saying damaged goods or not marriage material but I'm sure you wouldn't like that. 

I could dive deep into this subject but I'll try to stop writing novels. Either case here, he shouldn't be in the marriage and its time to move on. There is nothing wrong with this. It would be wrong to suggest that he needs to live unhappy because of a piece of paper.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

YES. 

In fact Coops THAT is the basis for my dead calm when my W initiates a "precipice dance" with me. I consistently bring my "A" game. If that isn't sufficient there is nothing to discuss other than the logistics of separation. 

As much as she claims to "hate" the fact that I am able to throw the "master switch" and project total detachment, it consistently brings her back in off the edge of the abyss within a day. And typically just "after" she apologizes for "losing it" and then she "saturates" me ummm physically, because the after affect of playing a high stakes game seems to excite her. 

This is the emotional analog to skydiving (which she loves) in that it only "seems" dangerous. It would however actually become dangerous if the instructor panicked....






coops said:


> I appreciate you taking the time to write up a long response. It is well thought out and articulated well. That said, you've completely missed the point.
> 
> You seem to think the issues or problems, like housework, finances, EA's etc are the root of the problem or that these problems are a result of unique people with unique genetics coming together to form unique couples. You're wrong. The issues only exist if she is:
> 
> ...


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

coops said:


> I appreciate you taking the time to write up a long response. It is well thought out and articulated well. That said, you've completely missed the point.
> 
> You seem to think the issues or problems, like housework, finances, EA's etc are the root of the problem or that these problems are a result of unique people with unique genetics coming together to form unique couples. You're wrong. The issues only exist if she is:
> 
> ...


I'm fond of your novels.

I have to ask, why would the odds be she wouldn't say no to Brad Pitt? Just on looks and standing alone? Weird. I think you simplify most everything while I seem to complicate it.

I think at this point we are missing one another's points and will have to agree to disagree though.


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

Trenton said:


> I think at this point we are missing one another's points and will have to agree to disagree though.


Where's the fun in that?

Besides, I don't even think you can agree to disagree!!!


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Let me sum up ...

Attraction in place

Needs of both partners being met

Both people are presumably happy with the relationship

It ain't broke.

'Man Up' does not apply to the above. It is either already in place, as in a case like MEM, or simply not required due to the circumstances, as is the case with OhGeesh - or perhaps your case as well.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

nice777guy said:


> Where's the fun in that?
> 
> Besides, I don't even think you can agree to disagree!!!


I need proof, statistics and case studies and yadda, yadda but I don't have them right now or the desire to go find them. If I get that desire and/or proof I'll re-focus.

It is frustrating to not be able to logically put to rest another's argument and to feel misunderstood. I should have said, I think we should agree to disagree for now...


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Let me sum up ...
> 
> Attraction in place
> 
> ...


I get the if it ain't broke, don't fix it thingy, but that's not what I'm addressing here. I'm addressing the damage you can be doing even if it is broke and doing it with the best intentions but wrong methods. The cause and effect is not as simple as it's being defined here. It can't be.

Deejo the man up thing does not promote connections, it promotes disconnection with the hope of possible, eventual reconnection. I think that's counter productive and very dangerous.

I guess the point is that the man that is taking these steps is at a point where he's willing to risk it all because something is better than nothing so there's nothing to lose. My point is, if you didn't script or generalize the problem you could attack the problem with the intent of mutual understanding and an eventual deeper relationship. I think the later is harder work without a guideline that can be easily followed and so it's less attractive and messy.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Trenton said:


> I get the if it ain't broke, don't fix it thingy, but that's not what I'm addressing here. I'm addressing the damage you can be doing even if it is broke and doing it with the best intentions but wrong methods. The cause and effect is not as simple as it's being defined here. It can't be.
> 
> Deejo the man up thing does not promote connections, it promotes disconnection with the hope of possible, eventual reconnection. I think that's counter productive and very dangerous.
> 
> I guess the point is that the man that is taking these steps is at a point where he's willing to risk it all because something is better than nothing so there's nothing to lose. My point is, if you didn't script or generalize the problem you could attack the problem with the intent of mutual understanding and an eventual deeper relationship. I think the later is harder work without a guideline that can be easily followed and so it's less attractive and messy.


You would need to specify what 'intent of mutual understanding' means and a methodology of accomplishing that ... probably well suited for it's own thread.

But ... I think you are overlooking a crucial point. By the time most guys are posting here, their wives have absolutely ZERO interest in working with them to get to a 'deeper relationship'. They have no attraction to, or respect for these men. I understand that you think this approach is one-sided, and you're correct. We only have one side to work with. But the methods, goals and guidelines still have their focus on producing two happy sides.

I like analogies ... so here you go.

My marriage is dying. It's on life support, barely breathing. To save it, open heart surgery is required. It is also a distinct possibility that the surgery will kill the patient. But without the surgery, the patient could stay on life support, maybe indefinitely but will never be whole or have 'quality of life'. But with surgery, the patient has a shot at a wonderful, balanced and fulfilling life.

Which do you choose?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Great analogy. BWT if demanding respect means you 'void' that little piece of paper saying you're married the marriage was already not only DEAD, but so dead it could not be "restarted" via defibrillation. 

And "my" scripts actually start with demanding an END to blatant DISrespect. I would never suggest a guy sit down with his W and start with a list of complaints about how she HAS been behaving disrespectfully. Because his lack of historical "self respect" is fully on HIM, not on her. 

Instead it is all a "forward looking" strategy for calmly, firmly and effectively refusing to allow her to treat YOU in a way, she would not allow you/or anyone else to treat her. 




Deejo said:


> You would need to specify what 'intent of mutual understanding' means and a methodology of accomplishing that ... probably well suited for it's own thread.
> 
> But ... I think you are overlooking a crucial point. By the time most guys are posting here, their wives have absolutely ZERO interest in working with them to get to a 'deeper relationship'. They have no attraction to, or respect for these men. I understand that you think this approach is one-sided, and you're correct. We only have one side to work with. But the methods, goals and guidelines still have their focus on producing two happy sides.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Deejo said:


> You would need to specify what 'intent of mutual understanding' means and a methodology of accomplishing that ... probably well suited for it's own thread.
> 
> But ... I think you are overlooking a crucial point. By the time most guys are posting here, their wives have absolutely ZERO interest in working with them to get to a 'deeper relationship'. They have no attraction to, or respect for these men. I understand that you think this approach is one-sided, and you're correct. We only have one side to work with. But the methods, goals and guidelines still have their focus on producing two happy sides.
> 
> ...


Oooooh like your analogy. I get it.

Man up is the best possible solution in these dire situations and we work with what we have because nothing else is on the table.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Correct. You can't even get anything else on the table. Did that really help? Or are you pretending to be agreeable whilst concealing your complexity?

I'm confident that mine is probably the scenario you describe. 'Manning Up' did not save my marriage ... but importantly, it also wasn't responsible for it's demise.

Manning Up made it clear that it was time to let the patient go ... pull the plug, grieve, move on.

In fact most of the elements worked. My ex DID find me more attractive. She behaved differently. It became more fun. But ... we couldn't get to the deep stuff. And at the end of the day, I knew that my expectations were higher than she was capable of delivering ... and she knew it too.

Manning Up has helped me re-anchor myself in relationship to my life. Honestly, had I not undertaken this exercise, I would probably still be pining for my ex, believing that if I had just done that ONE thing right, I could have fixed all of it for both of us - without really knowing what the one thing possibly could be. I'd be fat, single, unkempt, sitting around playing World of Warcraft in my underwear probably doped to the gills on anti-depressants.

Man Up is good for Men. As a corollary effect, it is also good for women.


----------



## eagleclaw (Sep 20, 2010)

Wow deejo. You illustrated, explained, and summed it all up in that analogy. You turned all those pages and pages of introspect into a clear, consise concept in one small post.

Well done.


----------



## coops (Jan 24, 2011)

Trenton said:


> I'm fond of your novels.
> 
> I have to ask, why would the odds be she wouldn't say no to Brad Pitt? Just on looks and standing alone? Weird. I think you simplify most everything while I seem to complicate it.
> 
> I think at this point we are missing one another's points and will have to agree to disagree though.


Brad Pitt is just an example. George Clooney maybe? I'm not quite up on who the hot male movie stars are :scratchhead:. I was aiming for someone that brings power, status, looks and a general masculine set of behaviors to the table. 

The idea there wasn't to say 99/100 women are attracted to Brad Pitt. The idea was to say "Replace the husband with a highly attractive male and 99/100 times observe the wives negative behaviors disappear". Maybe its 94/100, who knows and who really cares. It would be an astronomically high number so if I was a betting man, I'd play those odds. 

If you don't see why, you have to imagine someone that's feeling trapped and you'll start to see why the negative behaviors and resentment starts. They're trapped by the social stigma of divorce, financial reasons, kids in the picture, who knows but ultimately they're resentful of the fact that they have used up their "one pick" (used loosely here) on this guy that "Misrepresented himself" (again used loosely). 

She married a fun loving, strong, confident guy that was ready to face the world! Then she later starts to see him dedicate his life to her, does everything for her, completely adjusts himself based on her whims and feeling. She doesn't necessarily know why but eventually she starts to realize "This is so unattractive, why does he do this? Doesn't he get how weak hes looking?" and "So weak even I can control him, and if I can control this guy so easily he must be really weak. How is this guy going to do what is necessary when needed?" When I say necessary, I'm kinda talking on an subconscious biological level. Defend the family, secure resources etc. This is why the resentment starts to build. 

This is why fixing the root of the resentment is the proper route to fixing these relationships. Fix the attraction problem and you stop the resentment cycle. Then the healing can start.

If the issue wasn't base attraction, then the odds are very high it can never be resolved and both lives might be better just moving on, rather than wasting more of the best years of their lives figuring it out. 

And I guess the novels keep coming.... 

So on to keeping it simple vs complicated. The kiss method (keep it simple stupid) is in my opinion the best way to approach things. When you complicate things you create both misunderstanding and inaction. Its a very powerless way of living. 

The mind is a powerful tool and since you're taught to see complication in everything, its our default view for everything. So the mind looks for it and CREATES it when it cannot find it. This is a real danger. Its poor thinking. Any concept on this planet can be made as complicated as you desire. I'm there there is a math wiz out here that can write black boards filled with mathematical formulas to prove that 1+1=2. Or I can just show you two marbles. So, you should only complicate something as much as necessary to derive understanding. 

We're basically taught that everything from women to our financial system is so complicated that its beyond understanding. Its a control mechanism to take the power out of everyone's life. The mystery of women! So hard to understand? I don't think so. Its so counter to what we're taught to believe that most just can't accept the concept. 

This quote has always stuck in my mind:

"The process by which money is created is so simple that the mind is repelled." - John Kenneth Galbraith

So simple that the mind is repelled.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

coops said:


> Brad Pitt is just an example. George Clooney maybe? I'm not quite up on who the hot male movie stars are :scratchhead:. I was aiming for someone that brings power, status, looks and a general masculine set of behaviors to the table.
> 
> The idea there wasn't to say 99/100 women are attracted to Brad Pitt. The idea was to say "Replace the husband with a highly attractive male and 99/100 times observe the wives negative behaviors disappear". Maybe its 94/100, who knows and who really cares. It would be an astronomically high number so if I was a betting man, I'd play those odds.
> 
> ...


Oh how you move my indignation. If I were fully aware what I was indignant about I would match your long response. 

I don't think women are overly complicated though. I think that the intricacies of a relationship between a woman & man are complicated mostly because it is hard to empathize with someone that you can't truly emotionally understand because of biological differences. 

We should break down one relationship from beginning to end with both sides represented throughout. Any takers?


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Correct. You can't even get anything else on the table. Did that really help? Or are you pretending to be agreeable whilst concealing your complexity?
> 
> I'm confident that mine is probably the scenario you describe. 'Manning Up' did not save my marriage ... but importantly, it also wasn't responsible for it's demise.
> 
> ...


I giggled at your first paragraph, out loud even. I was serious. I get it. We're talking about the peak of negative on the scale of a relationship. It's past the time of reasoning and communication where all that's left is getting help for oneself.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Trenton said:


> I giggled at your first paragraph, out loud even. I was serious. I get it. We're talking about the peak of negative on the scale of a relationship. It's past the time of reasoning and communication where all that's left is getting help for oneself.


Yahtzee!


----------



## TrueGentleman (Apr 29, 2009)

Trenton said:


> Oooooh like your analogy. I get it.
> 
> Man up is the best possible solution in these dire situations and we work with what we have because nothing else is on the table.


That is exactly right. I've been trying to talk things out, using a variety of approaches, for years. I've been monumentally patient and understanding. Trying to talk about the issues inevitably ends up with me being the bad guy for bringing it up, and I get more upset because nothing was resolved AND she's more pissed off and resentful.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

Coops, your posts are incredible.

When man encounters a problem in a marriage (notably lack of sex) he starts trying to be nicer and nicer. This niceness is unmanly and unattractive to a woman. Therefore the solution is to act attractively. Part of that is showing strength and manliness. Part of it is being nice (but not in a weak and subservient way). It's not more effort to act manly than to act "subserviently nice". 
Keep going, your posts will help all men with marital problems.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

coops said:


> The mystery of women! So hard to understand? I don't think so. Its so counter to what we're taught to believe that most just can't accept the concept.
> 
> This quote has always stuck in my mind:
> 
> ...


This probably deserves it's own thread.

But I agree. The absolute biggest take away I have from my own journey is that my perception of women has changed ... utterly ... and completely.
Saying it has become 'better' or 'worse' really doesn't address the point. It is simply different ... far more grounded ... far less 'magical'.

Women are neither mysterious nor unpredictable, but you are correct whether it is through the filter of cultural osmosis, or being in awe or admiration of particular women in our lives, such as mothers or caretakers when we are children ... we ascribe characteristics to women that aren't necessarily applicable in adult terms.


----------

