# Why Deejo, MEM, and Wolf are right



## Conrad

I was speaking with a friend about this board the other day.

We were kicking around what I call the "chick" stuff about love languages, marriage builders, etc.

It dawned on me.

Love languages and meeting emotional needs works like a charm when you are the partner with the lower thermostat.

Yet, with some exceptions, this is a board filled with the "hot partners" looking to get some sort of response from the cooler partner.

So, when I hear people recommend the "chick" stuff to people here, it's often not the way to go.

Think of the MisterNiceGuy thread.

ONLY when he followed through on 1000 posts of advice to stop with the "chick" stuff and truly man up did he get anywhere.

So, is telling the warmer partner to "cool down" manipulation?

Of course it isn't.

And, while one size doesn't fit all in the world, it often does here.


----------



## greenpearl

All these men are working on themselves to become more confident, more charming, more attractive, more sexual! 

They stand up for themselves when they are being challenged, but you never see them use violence. Again, I reiterate, people can't be spoiled, if you spoil them, they will troll over you. But they have to be loved and respected, you give them a lot of love and attention, they faint for you. Please don't confuse spoiling with love! Spoiling is to let them do whatever they demand, love is to give them respect and emotional needs. 

They don't beg for sex. They don't beg for love. You can't beg, and people nowadays don't give when you beg!

You become amazing, they drool over you!


----------



## Catherine602

I agree that it is not manipulative, it's emotional intelligence. Its emotionally dysfunctional to repeatedly act the same way with the same poor results. People make changes in many areas of life based upon the response to their behavior, in the work place for instance, but in personal relationship there is resistance sometimes. 

I have read some post with comment about the cooling off advice as false and manipulative. It may not come naturally to the person making the change at first but we humans are very adaptable. The more you practice what works the more natural it feels and it becomes a part of you. 

We accept as normal that children change drastically as they age. To think that we adults are somehow fixed for the 50 or more years that we spend in adulthood seems to run counter to the natural order governing the rest of the universe. Actually, I think at times we may resist the necessity to adapt new behaviors to meet life's challenges because of this faulty belief. Life is never static, we are constantly challenged to grow and change. It is good for the soul.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## greenpearl

Catherine,

I have been thinking about this days, how can we become magnates, and people are just drawn to us. 

Of course not those provoking behaviors, I call nagging, complaining, belittling, and insulting provoking behaviors, no one is drawn to people like these.


----------



## MEM2020

Cat,
That is exactly where I have come out on this. My "default" emotional temperature is 80 degrees. My W is set at around 75. 

And yes - this fluctuates a bit for her. But generally that is where she is. What I "actually" radiate is about 70. This simply requires a bit of restraint. Not hard once you get used to it. When she wants more heat SHE gets warmer and I reciprocate. At some level this equates to her "catching" me. She doesn't have to get warmer by being sexual though often she does. She can simply do it through touch or talk. 

I don't pretend to understand "why" this works so well. I simply understand that it does. And I can also say that when I have occasionally not shown restraint, and hit 80-85 degrees she has responded in a consistent and very negative manner. 

It is also true that she likes to crank up the thermostat during the hour or so we spend together in bed at night. When I say she is at 75 - that is her average 'daily' temperature. Most nights during the golden hour, she is at 90+. She asks me if I love her and when I say "more than you can imagine", repeats "but do you love me", and we go back and forth a while like that. And that is my favorite hour of the day - and she tells me it is also hers. Thing is SHE wants to initiate that stuff. Fine by me. 

If I did not show a mild level of restraint in this area, she would love me a LOT LESS. And it also seems to make her tense/anxious. The thing is, I don't think she is all that unusual in this regard. And heck even if she were the only woman in the world like this that would be fine as well. 



Catherine602 said:


> I agree that it is not manipulative, it's emotional intelligence. Its emotionally dysfunctional to repeatedly act the same way with the same poor results. People make changes in many areas of life based upon the response to their behavior, in the work place for instance, but in personal relationship there is resistance sometimes.
> 
> I have read some post with comment about the cooling off advice as false and manipulative. It may not come naturally to the person making the change at first but we humans are very adaptable. The more you practice what works the more natural it feels and it becomes a part of you.
> 
> We accept as normal that children change drastically as they age. To think that we adults are somehow fixed for the 50 or more years that we spend in adulthood seems to run counter to the natural order governing the rest of the universe. Actually, I think at times we may resist the necessity to adapt new behaviors to meet life's challenges because of this faulty belief. Life is never static, we are constantly challenged to grow and change. It is good for the soul.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

GP,
Bravo!!!



greenpearl said:


> All these men are working on themselves to become more confident, more charming, more attractive, more sexual!
> 
> They stand up for themselves when they are being challenged, but you never see them use violence. Again, I reiterate, people can't be spoiled, if you spoil them, they will troll over you. But they have to be loved and respected, you give them a lot of love and attention, they faint for you. Please don't confuse spoiling with love! Spoiling is to let them do whatever they demand, love is to give them respect and emotional needs.
> 
> They don't beg for sex. They don't beg for love. You can't beg, and people nowadays don't give when you beg!
> 
> You become amazing, they drool over you!


----------



## alphaomega

Yes. The thermostat makes sense. And works. But I was also thinking about the dynamics of parts of it. 

First off, why is it the job of the higher temp person to cool off? Why not say? Look honey, your too cold. Time to heat up. 

Second...in essence. The thermometer scale interaction has parts to it that are passive aggressive by nature. You get a bit of disrespect, so you chill it down. Sometimes drastically. Never talk or tell why, until your partner acknowledges something was done wrong and THEY initiate the talk. This is classic passive aggressive behavior to a T. You passively intend to punish to draw out a response from your partner.

Interesting....to say the least. There are definitely part of it I don't understand either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH

Catherine602 said:


> I agree that it is not manipulative, it's emotional intelligence. Its emotionally dysfunctional to repeatedly act the same way with the same poor results. People make changes in many areas of life based upon the response to their behavior, in the work place for instance, but in personal relationship there is resistance sometimes.
> 
> I have read some post with comment about the cooling off advice as false and manipulative. It may not come naturally to the person making the change at first but we humans are very adaptable. The more you practice what works the more natural it feels and it becomes a part of you.
> 
> We accept as normal that children change drastically as they age. To think that we adults are somehow fixed for the 50 or more years that we spend in adulthood seems to run counter to the natural order governing the rest of the universe. Actually, I think at times we may resist the necessity to adapt new behaviors to meet life's challenges because of this faulty belief. Life is never static, we are constantly challenged to grow and change. It is good for the soul.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


All of it is about emotional intelligence, emotional control, management and manipulation. I don’t think that’s ever wrong when the motivations are sound.

A man can go from relative inner peace and calm to a raging lunatic in around 0.002 of a second. That rapid response to a “threat” is there for very valid reasons. But it’s exceedingly rarely warranted in any form of human relationship in the modern world, but more especially so in a marriage.

We do “affect” the emotions of others, there’s no doubt about that. The outcomes of these guys’ emotional intelligence is undoubtedly good tending towards excellence.

Bob


----------



## MEM2020

Not the way I do it. She ALWAYS gets a brief message that clearly shows WHAT I am responding to before I drop the temp. The goal is not to torment her into a higher state of self awareness. Nope. The goal is to say "this behavior was bad" - which might me done via clear body language or a single word. And THEN when she knows WHY you drop the temp.



alphaomega said:


> Yes. The thermostat makes sense. And works. But I was also thinking about the dynamics of parts of it.
> 
> First off, why is it the job of the higher temp person to cool off? Why not say? Look honey, your too cold. Time to heat up.
> 
> Second...in essence. The thermometer scale interaction has parts to it that are passive aggressive by nature. You get a bit of disrespect, so you chill it down. Sometimes drastically. Never talk or tell why, until your partner acknowledges something was done wrong and THEY initiate the talk. This is classic passive aggressive behavior to a T. You passively intend to punish to draw out a response from your partner.
> 
> Interesting....to say the least. There are definitely part of it I don't understand either.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH

alphaomega said:


> Yes. The thermostat makes sense. And works. But I was also thinking about the dynamics of parts of it.
> 
> First off, why is it the job of the higher temp person to cool off? Why not say? Look honey, your too cold. Time to heat up.
> 
> Second...in essence. The thermometer scale interaction has parts to it that are passive aggressive by nature. You get a bit of disrespect, so you chill it down. Sometimes drastically. Never talk or tell why, until your partner acknowledges something was done wrong and THEY initiate the talk. This is classic passive aggressive behavior to a T. You passively intend to punish to draw out a response from your partner.
> 
> Interesting....to say the least. There are definitely part of it I don't understand either.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That’s not my understanding of passive aggressive behaviour.

PA behaviour is when a person deliberately/consciously sets out to hurt another all the while disguising the fact that that is what they are doing. It’s rather akin to someone standing in front of you smiling at you while at the very same time they are stabbing you in the back and moving the knife around to make sure it hurts. It’s very painful (it’s meant to be) and unbelievable (it’s meant to be), it’s very well disguised. It’s thought out beforehand and that makes it premeditated.

There is absolutely none of that type of behaviour indicated by ANY of the men who post here.

Bob


----------



## BigBadWolf

I still consider the analogy of learning a musical instrument is proper in the context of whether "manning up" or "cooling the thermostat" is manipulation or not.

We all know music is affecting our own mood, and emotional, and playing an instrument well communicates many things effectively.

So learning scales, chords, key signatures, progressions, inversions, arpeggios, reading music, or any other "tools" of music craft, these things are not manipulation, nor are they good or evil in any such way.

They are merely tools.

So as a beginner is practicing scales, or learning something new, we all know it is often painful and not pleasant.

But after time, as these habits become learned, and the patterns and reflexes become easily done without thinking, then is it not possible for the master musician to express himself fluidly, whether in a sad piece of music, a dramatic piece, a jazz piece, or in an frantic piece, etc etc. 

And the result, with all the hard work and practice, making this look easy, as if he was born playing his instrument.

So we do not accuse the master musician of being manipulative with our emotions, or of hiding the fact that perhaps he was not born as a young child out of the womb as a master of his instrument. How absurd!

Yet, the good man perhaps in an unhappy marriage with little sex, taking the steps to master his own masculinity, to master his handling of conflict with the opposite sex, to master fitness tests, to master flirting, to master adjusting his "thermostat" or to master any thing else in the world speaking of "manning up" which is merely learning to be effective with the "tools" of masculine sexual structure, he is not in any way less than the master musician.

For there is no need to deceive ourselves, marriage is born from sexual attraction, and marriage is expected to be a sexual relationship.

Therefore, to understand and become effective in the art of masculine sexual attraction, this is most helpful for the man in maintaining the long lasting, exciting, happy marriage.

For the good man in marriage, this is not manipulation or something "defective" on his part to learn and implement these masculine tools. 

My strong opinion, the fact it is his RESPONSIBILITY for his happiness AND the happiness of his woman!


----------



## Davelli0331

I agree that there's definitely a difference between emotional intelligence and outright manipulation. I think anyone who would accuse a spouse who is upping his or her emotional intelligence of being manipulative is taking a pretty simplistic view.

I read a passage in a book that spoke to this topic. The author made a really interesting parallel: Is it manipulative to act professional at a job interview? You may burp, fart, and curse in your daily life, but would you do that in front of a hiring manager? Of course you wouldn't, at least not if you wanted the job. You'd be professional, well-spoken, and courteous. However, this isn't being manipulative, this is simply presenting and expressing a certain side of yourself so that you may improve your situation.

It's the same in a relationship IMO: As you gain emotional intelligence and insight into the relationship, you incorporate that insight into your daily actions and express a side of yourself to the betterment of your relationship.


----------



## Trenton

The question is whether or not you stay true to who you are while changing because if you can't sustain the change as it is unnatural and uncomfortable for you, then it is a temporary walk in someone else's shoes.

There is nothing wrong with self improvement, learning, trying new ideas, concepts or behaviors. 

But let's remember here. If a woman gives out lots of sex in the beginning of the relationship we accuse her of trying to seal the deal and being manipulative. If a man controls and withholds specific behaviors or attitudes that actually do come naturally to him in order to prompt a specific behavior from his wife, it's a similar selfish behavior. I'm just saying, let's call a spade a spade. 

*This is why I see the difference being in follow through and a true desire to transform and grow rather than an attempt to salvage a sinking relationship*. It has more to do with the motives behind the change than anything else.


----------



## AFEH

Don’t know about anybody else Trenton but I’ve gotten rather tired of your constant knocking of BBW. What is it you have such a desperate need to prove? Why do you consistently and constantly knock BBW? Aren’t you even just a little bit concerned with being seen as a troll as far as BBW is concerned?

As far as my marriage is concerned if I’d heard MEMs and BBWs messages long ago the dark times in my marriage wouldn’t have been so dark when my wife poked me. In fact I think we’d have soon come out of them laughing, together.

There is something you are missing Trenton and you’re missing it big time. It seems almost deliberate.

Bob


----------



## MEM2020

T,
Deep sigh. I like the sex analogy so we will stick with that. My behavior
Is simply the equivalent of letting your spouse initiate sex. And when
They do you respond very positively. So let's do the full analog 
Here. Let's say the W simply knows that her H strongly prefers 
To initiate. And allowed to do so he happily and frequently does so.
And while he is ok if she Initiates every once in a while, he responds
Badly to her doing so frequently. 

You are combining "rejection" with letting the other person "set the
Pace". I think the idea of "restraint" does not come naturally to
You. 

7]The question is whether or not you stay true to who you are while changing because if you can't sustain the change as it is unnatural and uncomfortable for you, then it is a temporary walk in someone else's shoes.

There is nothing wrong with self improvement, learning, trying new ideas, concepts or behaviors. 

But let's remember here. If a woman gives out lots of sex in the beginning of the relationship we accuse her of trying to seal the deal and being manipulative. If a man controls and withholds specific behaviors or attitudes that actually do come naturally to him in order to prompt a specific behavior from his wife, it's a similar selfish behavior. I'm just saying, let's call a spade a spade. 

*This is why I see the difference being in follow through and a true desire to transform and grow rather than an attempt to salvage a sinking relationship*. It has more to do with the motives behind the change than anything else.[/QUOTE]
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Bob,
Thank you for your kind words. I learn and benefit from your posts. 

I am going to make a general comment about Wolf. He has been very helpful to me over time. In fact more than any other poster Wolf helped me realize that I needed to shift gears and use more body language and tone of voice and fewer words. 

That single change in style may have helped my marriage more than any other thing I have done. And ummm, it isn't just me. In a marriage the "ancient" language works far better than the "modern" communication style of words and logic and reason. 

Wolf, this is my very belated thanks to you for opening my eyes. 



AFEH said:


> Don’t know about anybody else Trenton but I’ve gotten rather tired of your constant knocking of BBW. What is it you have such a desperate need to prove? Why do you consistently and constantly knock BBW? Aren’t you even just a little bit concerned with being seen as a troll as far as BBW is concerned?
> 
> As far as my marriage is concerned if I’d heard MEMs and BBWs messages long ago the dark times in my marriage wouldn’t have been so dark when my wife poked me. In fact I think we’d have soon come out of them laughing, together.
> 
> There is something you are missing Trenton and you’re missing it big time. It seems almost deliberate.
> 
> Bob


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if my husband had heard the message of the three mentioned, I wouldn't be here 17 years later about to pull the plug. Also, Bob is correct about his description of passive aggressive behavior. That describes my husband to a tee. That isn't temperature cooling, it is a deliberate action designed to hurt. Temperature cooling on the other hand is using your internal barometer to gauge the relationship. Come on too strong and somebody backs away. Come on too subtle and somebody looks to somebody else. It is a delicate balance to say the least but it is not manipulation or pass/agg behavior. This behavior is designed to improve the health of the relationship where as pass/agg behavior is designed to destroy it. 

Having said all that, I sometimes think that too much thought is put in to relationships. If you are checking the temperature of your relationship hourly/daily, perhaps there are other things going on. Sometimes a woman is just moody. Sometimes a guy is just moody. It doesn't always have to be seen as some sort of test. All kinds of daily activities can cause a person to be edgy. Idiot drivers, rude people, waiting in long lines at the grocery store, co-workers. It doesn't always mean the relationship is being tested. Don't we all have days like this? 

Bob, Trenton is not a troll and is entitled to her opinion. I can see where BBW's message would rub some the wrong way. It did me for a very long time. After much soul searching I realize I was wrong and I do want aspects of what he is saying. Trenton does not. That doesn't mean she is wrong, it just means for her, this approach wouldn't work. She is very good at pointing out the other side when a blanket statement is made. She doesn't pick on BBW or anybody else here. She doesn't like blanket statements and stands steadfast for both sexes that diversity occurs between all of us.


----------



## Trenton

MEM11363 said:


> T,
> Deep sigh. I like the sex analogy so we will stick with that. My behavior
> Is simply the equivalent of letting your spouse initiate sex. And when
> They do you respond very positively. So let's do the full analog
> Here. Let's say the W simply knows that her H strongly prefers
> To initiate. And allowed to do so he happily and frequently does so.
> And while he is ok if she Initiates every once in a while, he responds
> Badly to her doing so frequently.
> 
> You are combining "rejection" with letting the other person "set the
> Pace". I think the idea of "restraint" does not come naturally to
> You.


I'm confused by your post. I'm talking about a woman doing a set of behaviors (having sex frequently, being complimentary, etc.) to satisfy the man in the beginning but quickly changing this shortly after being married because she feels comfortable that her man will stay by her side and her desire dwindles.

In the above scenario (and it's quite simplistic, almost uncomfortably so), the woman is doing only what she has to in order to get this man to get with her. It's manipulative because she is not being herself, she is behaving a certain way temporarily in order to gain what she wants.

If we take man up and the man in the scenario feels miserable, sexually deprived and duped so he does a 180 and works on his own happiness. If the changes he makes are surface and contrived with only the idea that these behaviors will gain back his wife, it's manipulation.

If he's doing it because he wants to improve himself and recognizes that what he's become is not who he is at all, if he's learning and growing in knowledge, and becoming a better partner because who he is, is not who he's been then, viola, it's emotional and personal growth and all good.

Again, the problem is not with the method it's in recognizing that in order to truly help someone you've got to really be willing to dig, learn and listen as well. Generalizations are helpful in that they give us insights into ourselves and others but they are not the makers of perfect solutions for individuals.

Do I have a problem with restraint? I'm not sure I understood the context of your words because I didn't understand your post very well, but regardless, it depends. I'm very capable of self control. I feel no need to sugar coat my words or agree when I disagree. Will I do so in a volatile way that is disrespectful? No. 

Bob, you are entitled to your perception as I am mine. I can assure you that everything I do is deliberate. I don't randomly post things without reason or care. I mean what I say. Sometimes I change my opinion. With BBW I sometimes agree and will say so when I do. If I don't or I get an impression, I will share that as well. I didn't even address BBW directly in this thread so I'm confused by your post.


----------



## MEM2020

T,
From your earlier post:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If a man controls and withholds specific behaviors or attitudes that actually do come naturally to him in order to prompt a specific behavior from his wife, it's a similar selfish behavior. I'm just saying, let's call a spade a spade. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1. I AM CONTROLLING AND WITHHOLDING SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS from my W. 
2. Those behaviors - being more loving DO COME NATURALLY TO ME
3. Those behaviors - ME BEING HOTTER - are MAJOR LOVEBUSTERS to her. 
4. Me consciously choosing to show restraint in this area is completely intentional. The INTENT is to create an environment where my W doesn't feel emotionally crowded or anxious. In this "lower temperature" environment she feels comfortable loving me for all the "core" stuff I do that makes a marriage great. 

If this does not make sense to you I accept that in this area your frame of reference is so different than mine that we are simply to able to communicate. 




Trenton said:


> I'm confused by your post. I'm talking about a woman doing a set of behaviors (having sex frequently, being complimentary, etc.) to satisfy the man in the beginning but quickly changing this shortly after being married because she feels comfortable that her man will stay by her side and her desire dwindles.
> 
> In the above scenario (and it's quite simplistic, almost uncomfortably so), the woman is doing only what she has to in order to get this man to get with her. It's manipulative because she is not being herself, she is behaving a certain way temporarily in order to gain what she wants.
> 
> If we take man up and the man in the scenario feels miserable, sexually deprived and duped so he does a 180 and works on his own happiness. If the changes he makes are surface and contrived with only the idea that these behaviors will gain back his wife, it's manipulation.
> 
> If he's doing it because he wants to improve himself and recognizes that what he's become is not who he is at all, if he's learning and growing in knowledge, and becoming a better partner because who he is, is not who he's been then, viola, it's emotional and personal growth and all good.
> 
> Again, the problem is not with the method it's in recognizing that in order to truly help someone you've got to really be willing to dig, learn and listen as well. Generalizations are helpful in that they give us insights into ourselves and others but they are not the makers of perfect solutions for individuals.
> 
> Do I have a problem with restraint? I'm not sure I understood the context of your words because I didn't understand your post very well, but regardless, it depends. I'm very capable of self control. I feel no need to sugar coat my words or agree when I disagree. Will I do so in a volatile way that is disrespectful? No.
> 
> Bob, you are entitled to your perception as I am mine. I can assure you that everything I do is deliberate. I don't randomly post things without reason or care. I mean what I say. Sometimes I change my opinion. With BBW I sometimes agree and will say so when I do. If I don't or I get an impression, I will share that as well. I didn't even address BBW directly in this thread so I'm confused by your post.


----------



## Catherine602

Trenton - I think you are making a valuable point. If I am correct what you are saying is that to be truly intimate with a loved one you must be authentic, reveal the true you. I agree fully with that. If you present a false self, a spouse falls in love with what they think you are. The real person invariably emerges and the deception is detected. I believe that and I think we all have problems revealing ourselves in new relationships but in time maybe 2 yrs it all comes out. that why i beleive that the decision to marry should not be considered before 2 yrs. 

So where does changing behaviors come in to maintain sexual tension? Is it manipulation to grt what one wants or to main a mutually satisfying relationship. I'll use my relationship as an example - I would not be sexually attracted to my husband if he was p***y- wiped. Another words if he was not a little cool and independent and not able to show me anger when I do or say something or he acted in any way like he was fearful of losing me. 

That for some reason keeps me attracted. Is he really like this? Maybe not, when we first became friends at 16 yo, he let me get away with a lot, I had the upper hand for a long time because he was very much in love, I was too but he was the one who worried about losing me because I got a lot of male attension. 

We went though a period of conflict and he just changed from a loved besotted boy to a confident man. And I took notice and started to cater to him I did not want to lose him, I wanted no one else. He is still him but he knows what we need to keep things going. I know he did not change because he knew it would work - it was really by accident- he got weary of dealing with my s**t and withdrew probably to rest his emotions and noticed how I responsed. He was smart enough to do what was needed to keep me and I him. 

I don't think I was manipulated I got what I wanted and needed - a dominant man who is confident in his drawing power. That would not work for all women, so each couple has to adjust to give the other what they needs to be confident and happy in the relationship. You reveal your real basic self of course but that self is not just the way you interact with your spouse. You action are manipulative but not to hide what you are but to be what you need to be. 

If ones basic nature makes it impossible to ajust there interactions to keep the proper tension, then there may be an incompatibility.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## michzz

There are people who can hide their true nature for far longer than 2 years. My wife, for example.

But I basically agree, mutual manipulating behavior is not ideal.


----------



## Trenton

MEM11363 said:


> T,
> From your earlier post:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> If a man controls and withholds specific behaviors or attitudes that actually do come naturally to him in order to prompt a specific behavior from his wife, it's a similar selfish behavior. I'm just saying, let's call a spade a spade.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> 1. I AM CONTROLLING AND WITHHOLDING SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS from my W.
> 2. Those behaviors - being more loving DO COME NATURALLY TO ME
> 3. Those behaviors - ME BEING HOTTER - are MAJOR LOVEBUSTERS to her.
> 4. Me consciously choosing to show restraint in this area is completely intentional. The INTENT is to create an environment where my W doesn't feel emotionally crowded or anxious. In this "lower temperature" environment she feels comfortable loving me for all the "core" stuff I do that makes a marriage great.
> 
> If this does not make sense to you I accept that in this area your frame of reference is so different than mine that we are simply to able to communicate.


Mem, what you are changing is positive for the relationship and is obviously well in your range of normal behaviors as it comes naturally. You very well may attribute all your success to the helpful advice of Man Up philosophies but I believe focusing on the individual story and working to figure out the issues, with the person asking for help, provides quicker and more effective advice.

Let me try a different example. Husband is told to turn down the thermostat because he is doing a lot of household chores in the relationship as well as working and the men of these great forums have decided that this is too much for a man to do and the wife is taking advantage. Post after post reiterates..., "You are a doormat. Please check out the Man Up thread <insert link>. Then a small debate ensues about whether or not it's natural for men to become doormats. Isn't it natural for men to be providers? Is it the feminization of men that lead to this? <insert cliche about wanting and eating cake> <insert argument about feminists> Yadda Yadda.

Let's say Claire (the wife) really is having a hard time with her husband because she tells him how she feels but he doesn't listen to her. Her real anger and resentment comes from getting home each evening and sitting down to express herself but Buddy (husband) is always distracted by sports news and his love of carpentry that just so happens to coincide with the time Claire is unwinding and wanting to talk. He won't allow her time to talk and express herself but is ignorant that he even does this. As a result, even when Claire spells out the actual problem she has in the relationship that has created resentment and disconnect, Buddy can't hear the message and neither can we, because we think it's just another classic case of man up syndrome. 

Buddy gets support in these forums and instantly begins thinking...I do everything for this woman and she is still shutting me out, unresponsive in the bedroom and unappreciative of all I provide for her. It's time to work on my happiness, what I want and turn the thermostat down so that my wife will want to have sex with me.

Claire has had it. She wants a divorce and has begun confiding in a male friend at work who is indeed very interested in what she has to say. She doesn't even notice Buddy turning the thermostat down because she could care less. An EA is forming with the man at work and Buddy is still at home confused as to why Claire isn't responding.

In this case, if we as forum listeners can't do anything but provide support that creates entitlement and adds fuel to Buddy's already burning fire, what help do we really offer? Perhaps Man Up would work and it might eventually lead to the reconnection of the Claire and Buddy but at what cost? Wouldn't asking Buddy the right questions, considering all factors and getting opinions of both men and women with varying perspectives help Buddy more?...and with more speed?

OK, so this is long. It outlines clearly my problem with generic offerings of help or the idea specifically that we are not snowflakes and that all relationships between men and women are the same. This is what I can't fathom.

So I'm in the minority. I get that. I don't think this means I should lose the chance to address it.


----------



## MEM2020

T,
The scenario you describe is a very real fear I have. Meaning that the person lowering the temperature was getting a bad result NOT because of excess warmth, but because they are not meeting their partners needs. 

In my situation - my W routinely volunteers: You treat me like gold

If your sex life is screwed up my take on this is you start with all the basics. If you believe you really are a good, loving and considerate partner then you start asking yourself some questions:
1. does my partner seem "overall" happy
2. do they have "overall" reasonable expectations for life
3. how do they treat ME, compared to the way they treat others
4. do THEY seem motivated to be a good partner for ME

If not you have a sincere conversation. You ask why they aren't prioritizing you. IF you get a bunch of lip service you turn the thermostat down. And down again. Because the brutal reality is that when someone doesn't respect your needs - AND FULLY EXPECTS YOU TO KEEP MEETING THEIRS - getting angry is futile. 




Trenton said:


> Mem, what you are changing is positive for the relationship and is obviously well in your range of normal behaviors as it comes naturally. You very well may attribute all your success to the helpful advice of Man Up philosophies but I believe focusing on the individual story and working to figure out the issues, with the person asking for help, provides quicker and more effective advice.
> 
> Let me try a different example. Husband is told to turn down the thermostat because he is doing a lot of household chores in the relationship as well as working and the men of these great forums have decided that this is too much for a man to do and the wife is taking advantage. Post after post reiterates..., "You are a doormat. Please check out the Man Up thread <insert link>. Then a small debate ensues about whether or not it's natural for men to become doormats. Isn't it natural for men to be providers? Is it the feminization of men that lead to this? <insert cliche about wanting and eating cake> <insert argument about feminists> Yadda Yadda.
> 
> Let's say Claire (the wife) really is having a hard time with her husband because she tells him how she feels but he doesn't listen to her. Her real anger and resentment comes from getting home each evening and sitting down to express herself but Buddy (husband) is always distracted by sports news and his love of carpentry that just so happens to coincide with the time Claire is unwinding and wanting to talk. He won't allow her time to talk and express herself but is ignorant that he even does this. As a result, even when Claire spells out the actual problem she has in the relationship that has created resentment and disconnect, Buddy can't hear the message and neither can we, because we think it's just another classic case of man up syndrome.
> 
> Buddy gets support in these forums and instantly begins thinking...I do everything for this woman and she is still shutting me out, unresponsive in the bedroom and unappreciative of all I provide for her. It's time to work on my happiness, what I want and turn the thermostat down so that my wife will want to have sex with me.
> 
> Claire has had it. She wants a divorce and has begun confiding in a male friend at work who is indeed very interested in what she has to say. She doesn't even notice Buddy turning the thermostat down because she could care less. An EA is forming with the man at work and Buddy is still at home confused as to why Claire isn't responding.
> 
> In this case, if we as forum listeners can't do anything but provide support and add fuel to Buddy's already burning fire. Perhaps Man Up would work and it might eventually lead to the reconnection of the Claire and Buddy but at what cost? Wouldn't asking Buddy the right questions, considering all factors and getting opinions of both men and women with varying perspectives help Buddy more?...and with more speed?
> 
> OK, so this is long. It outlines clearly my problem with generic offerings of help or the idea specifically that we are not snowflakes and that all relationships between men and women are the same. This is what I can't fathom.
> 
> So I'm in the minority. I get that. I don't think this means I should lose the chance to address it.


----------



## Trenton

Catherine602 said:


> Trenton - I think you are making a valuable point. If I am correct what you are saying is that to be truly intimate with a loved one you must be authentic, reveal the true you. I agree fully with that. If you present a false self, a spouse falls in love with what they think you are. The real person invariably emerges and the deception is detected. I believe that and I think we all have problems revealing ourselves in new relationships but in time maybe 2 yrs it all comes out. that why i beleive that the decision to marry should not be considered before 2 yrs.
> 
> So where does changing behaviors come in to maintain sexual tension? Is it manipulation to grt what one wants or to main a mutually satisfying relationship. I'll use my relationship as an example - I would not be sexually attracted to my husband if he was p***y- wiped. Another words if he was not a little cool and independent and not able to show me anger when I do or say something or he acted in any way like he was fearful of losing me.
> 
> That for some reason keeps me attracted. Is he really like this? Maybe not, when we first became friends at 16 yo, he let me get away with a lot, I had the upper hand for a long time because he was very much in love, I was too but he was the one who worried about losing me because I got a lot of male attension.
> 
> We went though a period of conflict and he just changed from a loved besotted boy to a confident man. And I took notice and started to cater to him I did not want to lose him, I wanted no one else. He is still him but he knows what we need to keep things going. I know he did not change because he knew it would work - it was really by accident- he got weary of dealing with my s**t and withdrew probably to rest his emotions and noticed how I responsed. He was smart enough to do what was needed to keep me and I him.
> 
> I don't think I was manipulated I got what I wanted and needed - a dominant man who is confident in his drawing power. That would not work for all women, so each couple has to adjust to give the other what they needs to be confident and happy in the relationship. You reveal your real basic self of course but that self is not just the way you interact with your spouse. You action are manipulative but not to hide what you are but to be what you need to be.
> 
> If ones basic nature makes it impossible to ajust there interactions to keep the proper tension, then there may be an incompatibility.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Catherine, I get it. I just don't want it and I don't believe for a moment that because I am a woman I don't know what I want. My sense of deep connection in the bedroom with my husband comes from the fact that he knows every single aspect of me and when I lay down and look into his eyes our shared (known) insecurities slip away and there we are accepting one another and feeling pleasure that I've never felt with another. This authentic connection is exactly what I want.

So, if I get advice in these forums and I take it to heart I discuss it flat out with him and listen to what he thinks about it. If I am thinking about butt sex but I worry about pooping on him, I discuss it with him. Truth can't take away from shared intimacy if shared intimacy is authentic. I don't want to play a game.


----------



## MEM2020

*Restraint*

T,
Let me give you two completely valid examples of the "authentic" me. 
1. My W does something wrong. Not "I think it is wrong". Something that when it is calmly pointed out to her later she says "Oh - I am really, really, really sorry". 
2. I feel like saying "I am SO in love with you"

If scenario 1 happens in a bad context (I am really tired, stressed, etc) I feel fury. Real - genuine - fury. This is "authentically" me with my bad temper. The actual words that flow through my head in the moment are not printable. 

Externally it is a whole different world. What you would perceive is a brief flicker of anger on my face. If you aren't paying close attention you wouldn't even see it. And if you listen carefully you will hear me take one deep slow breath and let it out. 

Later when I am calm - truly calm I will ask a question "Why did you do ....."? And quickly and easily we get to resolution. I will likely say "I didn't like that - next time it would be better if..."

Because that fury was not even close to "proportional" to the situation. So basically the "authentic" me in that situation without restraint is like a large 2 year old. Why should my W have to deal with that? 

And if she asked me - were you "furious" in the moment. I would laugh and say "yep. I was already tense/edgy and that had a huge multiplier effect". 

As for item number 2. My W KNOWS I love her. She knows I really, really love her. If she wants to hear it - she merely needs to say it - or ask it. Me saying it whenever I "feel" like it, is no different than me saying the crazy, ugly crap in my head when I "internally" lose my temper. Pure, childish self indulgence. And every bit as destructive as 1. Maybe more so.




Trenton said:


> Catherine, I get it. I just don't want it and I don't believe for a moment that because I am a woman I don't know what I want. My sense of deep connection in the bedroom with my husband comes from the fact that he knows every single aspect of me and when I lay down and look into his eyes our shared (known) insecurities slip away and there we are accepting one another and feeling pleasure that I've never felt with another. This authentic connection is exactly what I want.
> 
> So, if I get advice in these forums and I take it to heart I discuss it flat out with him and listen to what he thinks about it. If I am thinking about butt sex but I worry about pooping on him, I discuss it with him. Truth can't take away from shared intimacy if shared intimacy is authentic. I don't want to play a game.


----------



## pidge70

I like you Trenton....you seem to say what I want to say but, I don't have the cajones to post.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

pidge70 said:


> I like you Trenton....you seem to say what I want to say but, I don't have the cajones to post.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I wish you would post when you read something you diagree with. I have learned more from people who disagree with me on this forum. One persons view of things is so tied up in their limited experience especially when an experience has been painful. It really helps to hear differing points of view not once or by a few posters but many times from many posters. 

Who cares who writes a post in disagreement, I'll bet there are 10 people who don't post who feel the same as you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## greenpearl

Catherine602 said:


> One persons view of things is so tied up in their limited experience especially when an experience has been painful. It really helps to hear differing points of view not once or by a few posters but many times from many posters.
> 
> Who cares who writes a post in disagreement, I'll bet there are 10 people who don't post who feel the same as you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_




:iagree:


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> If the changes he makes are surface and contrived with only the idea that these behaviors will gain back his wife, it's manipulation.


And importantly ... it's dumb and won't work.

That man you describe? He isn't kidding his wife ... he's kidding himself. 

C'mon Trenton ... virtually every interpersonal exchange between two parties is about manipulation. We only label it as such, when one party feels taken advantage of ...

If both enjoy it? We call that a relationship.


----------



## alphaomega

Trenton said:


> Mem, what you are changing is positive for the relationship and is obviously well in your range of normal behaviors as it comes naturally. You very well may attribute all your success to the helpful advice of Man Up philosophies but I believe focusing on the individual story and working to figure out the issues, with the person asking for help, provides quicker and more effective advice.
> 
> Let me try a different example. Husband is told to turn down the thermostat because he is doing a lot of household chores in the relationship as well as working and the men of these great forums have decided that this is too much for a man to do and the wife is taking advantage. Post after post reiterates..., "You are a doormat. Please check out the Man Up thread <insert link>. Then a small debate ensues about whether or not it's natural for men to become doormats. Isn't it natural for men to be providers? Is it the feminization of men that lead to this? <insert cliche about wanting and eating cake> <insert argument about feminists> Yadda Yadda.
> 
> Let's say Claire (the wife) really is having a hard time with her husband because she tells him how she feels but he doesn't listen to her. Her real anger and resentment comes from getting home each evening and sitting down to express herself but Buddy (husband) is always distracted by sports news and his love of carpentry that just so happens to coincide with the time Claire is unwinding and wanting to talk. He won't allow her time to talk and express herself but is ignorant that he even does this. As a result, even when Claire spells out the actual problem she has in the relationship that has created resentment and disconnect, Buddy can't hear the message and neither can we, because we think it's just another classic case of man up syndrome.
> 
> Buddy gets support in these forums and instantly begins thinking...I do everything for this woman and she is still shutting me out, unresponsive in the bedroom and unappreciative of all I provide for her. It's time to work on my happiness, what I want and turn the thermostat down so that my wife will want to have sex with me.
> 
> Claire has had it. She wants a divorce and has begun confiding in a male friend at work who is indeed very interested in what she has to say. She doesn't even notice Buddy turning the thermostat down because she could care less. An EA is forming with the man at work and Buddy is still at home confused as to why Claire isn't responding.
> 
> In this case, if we as forum listeners can't do anything but provide support that creates entitlement and adds fuel to Buddy's already burning fire, what help do we really offer? Perhaps Man Up would work and it might eventually lead to the reconnection of the Claire and Buddy but at what cost? Wouldn't asking Buddy the right questions, considering all factors and getting opinions of both men and women with varying perspectives help Buddy more?...and with more speed?
> 
> OK, so this is long. It outlines clearly my problem with generic offerings of help or the idea specifically that we are not snowflakes and that all relationships between men and women are the same. This is what I can't fathom.
> 
> So I'm in the minority. I get that. I don't think this means I should lose the chance to address it.


First off, there's no cliche about cake eating. It happens. I know. Why would me SO think it was ok to have her affair, but get irate with me when I want a divorce? Why would she continuously rub her affair in my face, but the instant we separate and I go for coffee with another woman, she freaks on me, saying I don't care about her anymore. Then, when she really understands that I don care about her anymore, she wants back in. Then when she gets back in, she starts up her affair again, but keeps talking to me about things we need to do to the house, what we need to buy, what trips we should go on next. Hmmm, feels like cake eating to me.

Second, doing chores isn't about manning up. I did all the chores. I just didn't do them for sex. If I did, then THAT makes me a Pu$$y, and THAT is what is being told to men about manning up.

There's a reason this advice works 95 percent of the time. Because 95 percent of the time these affairs are all textbook behavior. How many posts have you read about...wife having an EA? Etc.etc.etc. And they ALL sound exactly the same? I think about 95 percent of the ones I have read follow the same script.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## alphaomega

AFEH said:


> That’s not my understanding of passive aggressive behaviour.
> 
> PA behaviour is when a person deliberately/consciously sets out to hurt another all the while disguising the fact that that is what they are doing. It’s rather akin to someone standing in front of you smiling at you while at the very same time they are stabbing you in the back and moving the knife around to make sure it hurts. It’s very painful (it’s meant to be) and unbelievable (it’s meant to be), it’s very well disguised. It’s thought out beforehand and that makes it premeditated.
> 
> There is absolutely none of that type of behaviour indicated by ANY of the men who post here.
> 
> Bob


Your description of PA is the most extreme form. And from other posts, you had the most misfortune of experiencing.

PA in most cases is about being passive in...well your aggression. Most take the form of shutting down your emotions and remainng silent (passive), in an attempt to punish or get back at someone (aggression) in attepts usually to teach someone a lesson (pre meditation). In a lot of cases, this is not premeditated siciopathy, but learned behaviors. Perhaps from a dysfunctional youth, where straight talk got you beat or ridiculed, so PA was the safest way to rebel. keep that up for 10 years, it becomes second nature. Any trigger from your youth can set it off...wife criticizing you...making you feel small or worthless...you shut down because that's what you did all your life...but you stay shut down to punish until your wife apologizes. Lots of negative vibes come from you...wife goes...hey hon, what's wrong? You say..."Nothings wrong!". Wife thinks ok.....but your still giving negative harsh vibes. Until she goes...WTF?

Now, MEMs approach seems to work, because he indicated he explained why he's cooling off the temp...and gave clear indications of why he's cold. No guesswork there. And that's good. If there was guesswork...then that becomes PA behavior, because the SO wouldn't know WTF was up with the chill in the air.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH

alphaomega said:


> Your description of PA is the most extreme form. And from other posts, you had the most misfortune of experiencing.
> 
> PA in most cases is about being passive in...well your aggression. Most take the form of shutting down your emotions and remainng silent (passive), in an attempt to punish or get back at someone (aggression) in attepts usually to teach someone a lesson (pre meditation). In a lot of cases, this is not premeditated siciopathy, but learned behaviors. Perhaps from a dysfunctional youth, where straight talk got you beat or ridiculed, so PA was the safest way to rebel. keep that up for 10 years, it becomes second nature. Any trigger from your youth can set it off...wife criticizing you...making you feel small or worthless...you shut down because that's what you did all your life...but you stay shut down to punish until your wife apologizes. Lots of negative vibes come from you...wife goes...hey hon, what's wrong? You say..."Nothings wrong!". Wife thinks ok.....but your still giving negative harsh vibes. Until she goes...WTF?
> 
> Now, MEMs approach seems to work, because he indicated he explained why he's cooling off the temp...and gave clear indications of why he's cold. No guesswork there. And that's good. If there was guesswork...then that becomes PA behavior, because the SO wouldn't know WTF was up with the chill in the air.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


AO, I don’t disagree with what you say while at the same time don’t think there’s any aggression, active or passive, in MEM’s approach.

In fact I think MEM’s taken the aggression OUT of his approach.

Instead of reacting like an angry raging lunatic (Active Aggression) the instant his wife “pokes” him he “catches” that moment and holds it. That is seriously mature Emotional Awareness and Emotional Control.

He then spends some time “calming down” his emotions, seriously mature Emotional Management.

And then after a while he gets his wife to Giggle and Laugh, see her side of things and apologise!!!

Magical stuff


----------



## AFEH

From how I see things, there’s a lot that some people miss in both MEM’s and BBW’s strategies.

So what is it I think some of the women are missing?

I think there’s a few things. First off they’re missing the fact that these men (and men like Deejo) do in fact have a STRATEGY for handling the WOMAN in their wife. Just like us men, women also have their “dark side”. This is their “shadow” in Jungian terms. That shadow side of a woman can create havoc in a marriage if it is not managed and handled correctly. You know, this is when the woman may have her hormones raging, be under a lot of pressure re the kiddies, work, friends, relatives etc. And guess whose nearest to “poke”? Yes it’s the husband. I actually think poke is perhaps the wrong word, as it sounds like prod. Most men can get prodded without responding in an angry way. The “poke” is more like a very thin, very sharp blade going in.

Now a lot of men will respond to this poke in an angry, raging way. Most will know that a man can go from relative peace and calm to an angry rage is less than a quarter of a second. It seems a lot of women know it and know just how to get that response, it is very deliberate. This is called emotional manipulation, “pushing the buttons”.

But in responding to the poke in an angry way the man has totally lost it, whatever “it” happens to be at the time. And not only that, everything that went on before the “poke” is forgotten about, it’s just the angry rage that’s remembered and what may have been a small problem to start out with has ended in a massive problem between the couple. And the original conflict is forgotten about and never resolved.

But these men actually have a STRATEGY to cope with all of this and come out the other side laughing and joking as a couple.

Maybe that’s what some of the women don’t like about it all? That these men can no longer be emotionally manipulated to anger and that therefore their wives have lost a certain amount of emotional control of their men.

Bob


----------



## chillymorn

AFEH said:


> From how I see things, there’s a lot that some people miss in both MEM’s and BBW’s strategies.
> 
> So what is it I think some of the women are missing?
> 
> I think there’s a few things. First off they’re missing the fact that these men (and men like Deejo) do in fact have a STRATEGY for handling the WOMAN in their wife. Just like us men, women also have their “dark side”. This is their “shadow” in Jungian terms. That shadow side of a woman can create havoc in a marriage if it is not managed and handled correctly. You know, this is when the woman may have her hormones raging, be under a lot of pressure re the kiddies, work, friends, relatives etc. And guess whose nearest to “poke”? Yes it’s the husband. I actually think poke is perhaps the wrong word, as it sounds like prod. Most men can get prodded without responding in an angry way. The “poke” is more like a very thin, very sharp blade going in.
> 
> Now a lot of men will respond to this poke in an angry, raging way. Most will know that a man can go from relative peace and calm to an angry rage is less than a quarter of a second. It seems a lot of women know it and know just how to get that response, it is very deliberate. This is called emotional manipulation, “pushing the buttons”.
> 
> But in responding to the poke in an angry way the man has totally lost it, whatever “it” happens to be at the time. And not only that, everything that went on before the “poke” is forgotten about, it’s just the angry rage that’s remembered and what may have been a small problem to start out with has ended in a massive problem between the couple. And the original conflict is forgotten about and never resolved.
> 
> But these men actually have a STRATEGY to cope with all of this and come out the other side laughing and joking as a couple.
> 
> Maybe that’s what some of the women don’t like about it all? That these men can no longer be emotionally manipulated to anger and that therefore their wives have lost a certain amount of emotional control of their men.
> 
> Bob


:iagree:


----------



## MEM2020

You know Bob - your post made me realize something. 

The two things I referenced really ARE exactly the same. Rage. Love. My W likes that I am "less emotional" than she is. Maybe I would say she needs that. 

BTW - this is not nearly as one sided as it sounds. My W is very independent and self sufficient and not needy. She is great. 

I only beat the thermostat drum because there seem to be tons of guys getting a negative reaction for being too hot. And heck often it is the women posting about how their guy is just perfect, the woman can't figure out why she has zero desire for him etc. 




AFEH said:


> AO, I don’t disagree with what you say while at the same time don’t think there’s any aggression, active or passive, in MEM’s approach.
> 
> In fact I think MEM’s taken the aggression OUT of his approach.
> 
> Instead of reacting like an angry raging lunatic (Active Aggression) the instant his wife “pokes” him he “catches” that moment and holds it. That is seriously mature Emotional Awareness and Emotional Control.
> 
> He then spends some time “calming down” his emotions, seriously mature Emotional Management.
> 
> And then after a while he gets his wife to Giggle and Laugh, see her side of things and apologise!!!
> 
> Magical stuff


----------



## Trenton

Alpha, so call it what you will but it's still manipulation and not emotional intelligence. If we are saying that 95% of women that are in relationships where they've had an affair enjoy this type of manipulation as a way to ignite spark then 95% of women enjoy being manipulated and call it a relationship as Deejo said. It's the Brave New World of women and it's embarrassing.

And...the cake eating...I never, ever understood that expression. Why would you want a cake if you couldn't eat it too?


----------



## Trenton

AFEH said:


> From how I see things, there’s a lot that some people miss in both MEM’s and BBW’s strategies.
> 
> So what is it I think some of the women are missing?
> 
> I think there’s a few things. First off they’re missing the fact that these men (and men like Deejo) do in fact have a STRATEGY for handling the WOMAN in their wife. Just like us men, women also have their “dark side”. This is their “shadow” in Jungian terms. That shadow side of a woman can create havoc in a marriage if it is not managed and handled correctly. You know, this is when the woman may have her hormones raging, be under a lot of pressure re the kiddies, work, friends, relatives etc. And guess whose nearest to “poke”? Yes it’s the husband. I actually think poke is perhaps the wrong word, as it sounds like prod. Most men can get prodded without responding in an angry way. The “poke” is more like a very thin, very sharp blade going in.
> 
> Now a lot of men will respond to this poke in an angry, raging way. Most will know that a man can go from relative peace and calm to an angry rage is less than a quarter of a second. It seems a lot of women know it and know just how to get that response, it is very deliberate. This is called emotional manipulation, “pushing the buttons”.
> 
> But in responding to the poke in an angry way the man has totally lost it, whatever “it” happens to be at the time. And not only that, everything that went on before the “poke” is forgotten about, it’s just the angry rage that’s remembered and what may have been a small problem to start out with has ended in a massive problem between the couple. And the original conflict is forgotten about and never resolved.
> 
> But these men actually have a STRATEGY to cope with all of this and come out the other side laughing and joking as a couple.
> 
> Maybe that’s what some of the women don’t like about it all? That these men can no longer be emotionally manipulated to anger and that therefore their wives have lost a certain amount of emotional control of their men.
> 
> Bob


Errrr...no, what I don't like about it at all is that when a woman is engaging with her man to get what she feels/thinks she needs/wants out of a relationship you smack the term emotional manipulation on it but when a man does the same thing it is considered a gift to womankind/man'ing up/temperature control.

Like I said in the beginning, call a spade a spade.

And, again, the reason I dislike it is because contrary to what all the good men of these forums keep insisting, I disagree and do believe the ideas are based upon old, out-dated ways to use emotion to control women. Ironic that the very things you accuse women of doing that cause such disgust through your eyes are OK for women because they secretly want it and enjoy it.

Yeah, there is a better way for me.


----------



## AFEH

Trenton said:


> Alpha, so call it what you will but it's still manipulation and not emotional intelligence. If we are saying that 95% of women that are in relationships where they've had an affair enjoy this type of manipulation as a way to ignite spark then 95% of women enjoy being manipulated and call it a relationship as Deejo said. It's the Brave New World of women and it's embarrassing.
> 
> And...the cake eating...I never, ever understood that expression. Why would you want a cake if you couldn't eat it too?


You know Trenton there’s an emotional situation called “The Zone”. It’s a period of time, a week, month or a few years, maybe even a decade when everything in your life is at it should be. In these times you’re creaming it, you’re well and truly creaming it. Money’s flowing in, holiday’s galore. Kids are doing well at school, front and rear gardens are blooming and both partners are experiencing true bliss, true joy and happiness. They feel like the cats who’ve got the cream of life.

Have you ever been there Trenton, in the zone? Can’t think that you are right now because right now here you are constantly and consistently poking men, men who are trying to help other men out and men who want to be helped by other men. 

And you do it all in the name of Feminism. It gets very tiresome. But not only that your constant poking does get a response from people like MEM. But good Men like MEM should never feel the need to defend himself against feminists.

Bob


----------



## MEM2020

T,
You sound like every unhappy person I have ever dealt with. 

Everything is negative. Everything is unfair. Everything is manipulation. 

I don't know why you are unhappy but I hope you figure it out.




Trenton said:


> Errrr...no, what I don't like about it at all is that when a woman is engaging with her man to get what she feels/thinks she needs/wants out of a relationship you smack the term emotional manipulation on it but when a man does the same thing it is considered a gift to womankind/man'ing up/temperature control.
> 
> Like I said in the beginning, call a spade a spade.
> 
> And, again, the reason I dislike it is because contrary to what all the good men of these forums keep insisting, I disagree and do believe the ideas are based upon old, out-dated ways to use emotion to control women. Ironic that the very things you accuse women of doing that cause such disgust through your eyes are OK for women because they secretly want it and enjoy it.
> 
> Yeah, there is a better way for me.


----------



## Trenton

AFEH said:


> You know Trenton there’s an emotional situation called “The Zone”. It’s a period of time, a week, month or a few years, maybe even a decade when everything in your life is at it should be. In these times you’re creaming it, you’re well and truly creaming it. Money’s flowing in, holiday’s galore. Kids are doing well at school, front and rear gardens are blooming and both partners are experiencing true bliss, true joy and happiness. They feel like the cats who’ve got the cream of life.
> 
> Have you ever been there Trenton, in the zone? Can’t think that you are right now because right now here you are constantly and consistently poking men, men who are trying to help other men out and men who want to be helped by other men.
> 
> And you do it all in the name of Feminism. It gets very tiresome. But not only that your constant poking does get a response from people like MEM. But good Men like MEM should never feel the need to defend himself against feminists.
> 
> Bob


Bob I disagree with your assessment but it's a handy way to back up your beliefs rather than take a look at them. Yay for you, you must be in the zone or something.


----------



## Trenton

MEM11363 said:


> T,
> You sound like every unhappy person I have ever dealt with.
> 
> Everything is negative. Everything is unfair. Everything is manipulation.
> 
> I don't know why you are unhappy but I hope you figure it out.


OK. If you can read my words here and come to that conclusion you are far more insecure in your beliefs of this philosophy than I ever thought. Maybe you should stop believing that every person you deal with is the same if they exhibit a few similar behaviors or traits. You are wrong when it comes to me but I'm positive you're wrong so it doesn't bother me. I understand that you have to do what you're doing to reinforce your long-held, illogical philosophies.


----------



## AFEH

Someone spank Trenton's bum and send her out of the mens clubhouse lol.


----------



## Enchantment

Trenton said:


> Mem, what you are changing is positive for the relationship and is obviously well in your range of normal behaviors as it comes naturally. You very well may attribute all your success to the helpful advice of Man Up philosophies but I believe focusing on the individual story and working to figure out the issues, with the person asking for help, provides quicker and more effective advice.
> 
> Let me try a different example. Husband is told to turn down the thermostat because he is doing a lot of household chores in the relationship as well as working and the men of these great forums have decided that this is too much for a man to do and the wife is taking advantage. Post after post reiterates..., "You are a doormat. Please check out the Man Up thread <insert link>. Then a small debate ensues about whether or not it's natural for men to become doormats. Isn't it natural for men to be providers? Is it the feminization of men that lead to this? <insert cliche about wanting and eating cake> <insert argument about feminists> Yadda Yadda.
> 
> Let's say Claire (the wife) really is having a hard time with her husband because she tells him how she feels but he doesn't listen to her. Her real anger and resentment comes from getting home each evening and sitting down to express herself but Buddy (husband) is always distracted by sports news and his love of carpentry that just so happens to coincide with the time Claire is unwinding and wanting to talk. He won't allow her time to talk and express herself but is ignorant that he even does this. As a result, even when Claire spells out the actual problem she has in the relationship that has created resentment and disconnect, Buddy can't hear the message and neither can we, because we think it's just another classic case of man up syndrome.
> 
> Buddy gets support in these forums and instantly begins thinking...I do everything for this woman and she is still shutting me out, unresponsive in the bedroom and unappreciative of all I provide for her. It's time to work on my happiness, what I want and turn the thermostat down so that my wife will want to have sex with me.
> 
> Claire has had it. She wants a divorce and has begun confiding in a male friend at work who is indeed very interested in what she has to say. She doesn't even notice Buddy turning the thermostat down because she could care less. An EA is forming with the man at work and Buddy is still at home confused as to why Claire isn't responding.
> 
> In this case, if we as forum listeners can't do anything but provide support that creates entitlement and adds fuel to Buddy's already burning fire, what help do we really offer? Perhaps Man Up would work and it might eventually lead to the reconnection of the Claire and Buddy but at what cost? Wouldn't asking Buddy the right questions, considering all factors and getting opinions of both men and women with varying perspectives help Buddy more?...and with more speed?
> 
> OK, so this is long. It outlines clearly my problem with generic offerings of help or the idea specifically that we are not snowflakes and that all relationships between men and women are the same. This is what I can't fathom.
> 
> So I'm in the minority. I get that. I don't think this means I should lose the chance to address it.


The problem with the forum is that you only see one side of the relationship from one person's point of view. So, on TAM, you would only see the message from Buddy, but you would not know what is really going on with Claire and the relationship as you only see her through Buddy's lens.

I have no problem with offering somewhat 'generic' advice in the beginning. The ball has to start rolling somehow - the poster has to start becoming more aware and proactive. As far as things like the 180 being manipulative - I guess it all depends on the true intent of the individual trying to implement. It is intended to be implemented with the motive of bettering yourself, not manipulating your parnter to do what you want. I am sure there are individuals doing it that are trying to manipulate their partner - sometimes they come back and complain it is taking too long. That is not an individual who is committed to truly changing THEMSELF.

Your point of view is certainly valid - not only valid, but utterly true. Every person is a unique individual, every relationship is totally unique. However, as all things in life, you often have to do the best that you can with what you've got. As they say, each person's mileage may vary.


----------



## Trenton

AFEH said:


> Someone spank Trenton's bum and send her out of the mens clubhouse lol.


Ouch!


----------



## Trenton

Enchantment said:


> The problem with the forum is that you only see one side of the relationship from one person's point of view. So, on TAM, you would only see the message from Buddy, but you would not know what is really going on with Claire and the relationship as you only see her through Buddy's lens.
> 
> I have no problem with offering somewhat 'generic' advice in the beginning. The ball has to start rolling somehow - the poster has to start becoming more aware and proactive. As far as things like the 180 being manipulative - I guess it all depends on the true intent of the individual trying to implement. It is intended to be implemented with the motive of bettering yourself, not manipulating your parnter to do what you want. I am sure there are individuals doing it that are trying to manipulate their partner - sometimes they come back and complain it is taking too long. That is not an individual who is committed to truly changing THEMSELF.
> 
> Your point of view is certainly valid - not only valid, but utterly true. Every person is a unique individual, every relationship is totally unique. However, as all things in life, you often have to do the best that you can with what you've got. As they say, each person's mileage may vary.


I think if a group of individuals spoke to one another with their individual experiences and asked questions openly rather than kowtowing to a specific philosophy automatically, the advice would be better, more able to get to the bottom of what is actually the problem, express more possibilities and overall more helpful. You can see the boy's club mentality in this thread at play. I don't find it helpful at all.


----------



## AFEH

Enchantment said:


> The problem with the forum is that you only see one side of the relationship from one person's point of view. So, on TAM, you would only see the message from Buddy, but you would not know what is really going on with Claire and the relationship as you only see her through Buddy's lens.
> 
> I have no problem with offering somewhat 'generic' advice in the beginning. The ball has to start rolling somehow - the poster has to start becoming more aware and proactive. As far as things like the 180 being manipulative - I guess it all depends on the true intent of the individual trying to implement. It is intended to be implemented with the motive of bettering yourself, not manipulating your parnter to do what you want. I am sure there are individuals doing it that are trying to manipulate their partner - sometimes they come back and complain it is taking too long. That is not an individual who is committed to truly changing THEMSELF.
> 
> Your point of view is certainly valid - not only valid, but utterly true. Every person is a unique individual, every relationship is totally unique. However, as all things in life, you often have to do the best that you can with what you've got. As they say, each person's mileage may vary.


There was one guy using the 180 to manipulate and asked when it could be expected to work, as in how long. He was so far off base with the whole concept it was unbelievable.

It’s more the other way round. It’s so the person implementing the 180 can actually become aware of just how much they’re being manipulated by their partner!

Bob


----------



## Enchantment

AFEH said:


> You know Trenton there’s an emotional situation called “The Zone”. It’s a period of time, a week, month or a few years, maybe even a decade when everything in your life is at it should be. In these times you’re creaming it, you’re well and truly creaming it. Money’s flowing in, holiday’s galore. Kids are doing well at school, front and rear gardens are blooming and both partners are experiencing true bliss, true joy and happiness. They feel like the cats who’ve got the cream of life.
> 
> Have you ever been there Trenton, in the zone? Can’t think that you are right now because right now here you are constantly and consistently poking men, men who are trying to help other men out and men who want to be helped by other men.
> 
> And you do it all in the name of Feminism. It gets very tiresome. But not only that your constant poking does get a response from people like MEM. But good Men like MEM should never feel the need to defend himself against feminists.
> 
> Bob


Wow! I wish I could be in "the zone". I have found that it really doesn't matter whether you are in the zone or not, nearly as much as your attitude about it. You can be totally out of the zone, and still have a positive outlook on things. From that perspective you are truly the master of your own destiny, and it really does not matter what things may be going on around you that you have no control over. After all, in life, we truly have very little control over anything - mostly just ourselves, and sometimes even that is hard.


----------



## Enchantment

AFEH said:


> It’s more the other way round. It’s so the person implementing the 180 can actually become aware of just how much they’re being manipulated by their partner!
> 
> Bob


I agree to a point. Normally, the definition of manipulation means that there is some purposeful, skillful, willful, or artful process that is taking place. In some cases, a partner may be doing this, but in others they may simply be repeating existing patterns and behaviours that they have always had. So, does a person have to be aware of their behaviours in order to be considered manipulative? Personally, I don't care. I don't think it's worthwhile to go down a "tit-for-tat" road. Break the log jam - just work on bettering yourself. If you can do that, maybe you can get in to the 'zone' any old time.


----------



## AFEH

Enchantment said:


> I agree to a point. Normally, the definition of manipulation means that there is some purposeful, skillful, willful, or artful process that is taking place. In some cases, a partner may be doing this, but in others they may simply be repeating existing patterns and behaviours that they have always had. So, does a person have to be aware of their behaviours in order to be considered manipulative? Personally, I don't care. I don't think it's worthwhile to go down a "tit-for-tat" road. Break the log jam - just work on bettering yourself. If you can do that, maybe you can get in to the 'zone' any old time.


I’ve of the mind that everything a person does is for selfish reasons. They want something back for what they give out. So in that way everyone is manipulative. And some manipulate in a fully conscious manner while others manipulate in a subconscious manner.

And at the end of the day it all depends on the motivations for the manipulation. In essence as long as the motivations are I win/you win then all’s ok.

Bob


----------



## Enchantment

Trenton said:


> Errrr...no, what I don't like about it at all is that when a woman is engaging with her man to get what she feels/thinks she needs/wants out of a relationship you smack the term emotional manipulation on it but when a man does the same thing it is considered a gift to womankind/man'ing up/temperature control.
> 
> Like I said in the beginning, call a spade a spade.
> 
> And, again, the reason I dislike it is because contrary to what all the good men of these forums keep insisting, I disagree and do believe the ideas are based upon old, out-dated ways to use emotion to control women. Ironic that the very things you accuse women of doing that cause such disgust through your eyes are OK for women because they secretly want it and enjoy it.
> 
> Yeah, there is a better way for me.


A person, man or woman, can only be controlled if they allow it. As long as I have a breath in my body, and can make coherent thoughts in my mind, I can control my thoughts, my actions, and my reactions no matter what happens. It may not be easy, I may need to call upon a higher power, but it can be done. Where there's a will there's a way.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

The level of hostility aimed at Trenton has reached a fever pitch now hasn't it. I find it amazing that the men here can express their opinions about things but the moment Trenton dares to speak her mind, she is met with down right rudeness. She doesn't have to agree with you, you know and you don't have to agree with her either. Incredible.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> ONLY when he followed through on 1000 posts of advice to stop with the "chick" stuff and truly man up did he get anywhere.
> 
> So, is telling the warmer partner to "cool down" manipulation?


I have gotten that response when I talk about changing oneself in order to engender a change in the spouse. I think the key is motivation. The motivation is to bring love and peach to your marriage. That makes it problem solving. If your motive is to get laid and to hell with the b!tch, well that is manipulation.

But it DOES seem to me that one size does not fit all. One can man up, but if his actions in other areas of the relationship cause resentment, then he will have no success. 

It seems to me that people oft want simplistic answers. One recipe. Do this and all will be well. I don't think so. I think man up COMBINED with some of the "chick stuff", depending on the case in question, is the most likely to succeed.



> And, while one size doesn't fit all in the world, it often does here.



Ha! I should have read all the way down. Should I go back and just press

:iagree: ?


----------



## Enchantment

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The level of hostility aimed at Trenton has reached a fever pitch now hasn't it. I find it amazing that the men here can express their opinions about things but the moment Trenton dares to speak her mind, she is met with down right rudeness. She doesn't have to agree with you, you know and you don't have to agree with her either. Incredible.


I hope that I did not appear hostile. That was not my intent. If it appeared that way, I am truly sorry. My intent was to make the point that we truly are masters of our own destiny - man or woman. Trenton is making a very good point about the uniqueness of each individual and marriage, and I would not agree that she seems to be unhappy. She seems to be a very enlightened individual who cares and feels very deeply and is willing to express that - something we can all admire.


----------



## MEM2020

Enchantment,
Pattern recognition. It is my "thing". It just is. Always has been. The "nice guy" pattern has a "standard look" both from the female and the male side. And the COMMON THEME is confusion and frustration. 

On the female side it looks like this: "I have the best guy, but I just don't "feel love" for him". 

On the male side "She says I am a great guy, she loves me but is not in love with me".

I speak DIRECTLY to that pattern. It is real. It is very common. AND I have first hand experience working with a strategy that worked very well for me. 

At some point I will come up with a list of questions that will make it easier for folks to better understand to what degree their issues are "thermostat" related vs. other stuff. 




Enchantment said:


> The problem with the forum is that you only see one side of the relationship from one person's point of view. So, on TAM, you would only see the message from Buddy, but you would not know what is really going on with Claire and the relationship as you only see her through Buddy's lens.
> 
> I have no problem with offering somewhat 'generic' advice in the beginning. The ball has to start rolling somehow - the poster has to start becoming more aware and proactive. As far as things like the 180 being manipulative - I guess it all depends on the true intent of the individual trying to implement. It is intended to be implemented with the motive of bettering yourself, not manipulating your parnter to do what you want. I am sure there are individuals doing it that are trying to manipulate their partner - sometimes they come back and complain it is taking too long. That is not an individual who is committed to truly changing THEMSELF.
> 
> Your point of view is certainly valid - not only valid, but utterly true. Every person is a unique individual, every relationship is totally unique. However, as all things in life, you often have to do the best that you can with what you've got. As they say, each person's mileage may vary.


----------



## Mom6547

alphaomega said:


> Yes. The thermostat makes sense. And works. But I was also thinking about the dynamics of parts of it.
> 
> First off, why is it the job of the higher temp person to cool off? Why not say? Look honey, your too cold. Time to heat up.


It is a question of motivation. It would be nice if our partners were so motivated to please us that it were this simple. But often it is not. Humans are selfish by nature.

By cooling the temperature, you are shining a light on it in a way that risks the comfort of the cooler partner, it seems to me. The risk of loss motivates.

It is a really handy mental tool to get rid of the who is to blame/ who is responsible mindset in marriage. It tends to increase resentment and removes focus from where it should be *solving the problems*. If one decides to take action to solve the problems, and everyone winds up happier, who cares whose "job" it is or who is responsible or who is to blame...




> Second...in essence. The thermometer scale interaction has parts to it that are passive aggressive by nature. You get a bit of disrespect, so you chill it down. Sometimes drastically. Never talk or tell why, until your partner acknowledges something was done wrong and THEY initiate the talk.


Again it is a matter of motivation. When there is a sense of this is serious, the spouse takes the conversation more seriously. 



> This is classic passive aggressive behavior to a T. You passively intend to punish to draw out a response from your partner.


I think that is what it sounds like to me when BBW describes it. I think that is why I object to his version. I wonder if it is not a subtly of language thing. Because it does not sound like that at all when MEM describes it. It is basically using successful communication tools.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Enchantment said:


> I hope that I did not appear hostile. That was not my intent. If it appeared that way, I am truly sorry. My intent was to make the point that we truly are masters of our own destiny - man or woman. Trenton is making a very good point about the uniqueness of each individual and marriage, and I would not agree that she seems to be unhappy. She seems to be a very enlightened individual who cares and feels very deeply and is willing to express that - something we can all admire.


You weren't part of it. Trenton isn't unhappy either. She's on cloud nine in fact over some wonderful things happening in her life. She speaks her mind and for whatever reason that isn't acceptable. Lot's of angry people here.


----------



## MEM2020

Hey - she kept calling me a manipulative spade. I prefer to think of myself as a loving diamond. 

All I did was ask her to stop being a nattering nabob of negativism. Hey it worked for Spiro Agnew. Oh - well actually I guess not. Now that I think about it he ended up in jail for tax evasion....




Therealbrighteyes said:


> The level of hostility aimed at Trenton has reached a fever pitch now hasn't it. I find it amazing that the men here can express their opinions about things but the moment Trenton dares to speak her mind, she is met with down right rudeness. She doesn't have to agree with you, you know and you don't have to agree with her either. Incredible.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> But let's remember here. If a woman gives out lots of sex in the beginning of the relationship we accuse her of trying to seal the deal and being manipulative. If a man controls and withholds specific behaviors or attitudes that actually do come naturally to him in order to prompt a specific behavior from his wife, it's a similar selfish behavior. I'm just saying, let's call a spade a spade.


I think you are *assuming* that just because they are men that they consider a wife not having sex with him withholding. There is no direct link between the man up / thermostat conversation and the accusation from others that a woman OWES her husband sex. Quite the opposite. The men who espouse manning up are changing THEMSELVES to be attractive to their wives. Not whining that they don't put out.


----------



## AFEH

Geesh the terrible twins are back lol. Give them both a spanking and send them on their way.


----------



## greenpearl

Hey hey hey.....................................

The men's club has been peaceful for quite some time. 

Let's not ruin it!


----------



## Mom6547

AFEH said:


> I think there’s a few things. First off they’re missing the fact that these men (and men like Deejo) do in fact have a STRATEGY for handling the WOMAN in their wife. Just like us men, women also have their “dark side”. This is their “shadow” in Jungian terms. That shadow side of a woman can create havoc in a marriage if it is not managed and handled correctly.


I don't see what is so horrible about this. PEOPLE have faults. We have to handle the faults. There are a set of tools in the tool box that we use. We have setting personal boundaries, we have managing the temperature, we have love bank deposits, we have non violent communication skills... 

We teach children how to behave with these tools. What is wrong with teaching our partner how we expect to be treated with these same tools.

The tools must be used in a way to not violate either spouse's integrity. For me, one of the tools I need to use from time to time is personal boundary setting. I do not like to be take for granted on the practical front. If I feel like I am pulling more than my share of work, it is not simply a matter of feeling overworked. I feel resentful. I then apply limit setting. I tell him that I am beginning to feel resentful again. (As a matter of fact, having successfully set this limit in the past, this step is usually all it takes now.) Then I proceed to take my limit setting steps if needs be.

Did this always come naturally to me? No. I had to LEARN this skill. Does it make it inauthentic to me. No. I just learned a new skill that became part of me.

I do not feel I am manipulating him. I caused a change to his behavior, sure. But I did violate either of our integrity. I did not seek to punish or hurt him. I tried to reestablish peace and good feelings between us. 

It seems to me that cooling down is simply a tool to make communication effective as a subset of limit setting. Since its goal is to return peace and good feelings to BOTH PARTIES I don't see how it violates integrity. And the proof is in the pudding of how the wives are responding to their husbands. If they felt that their integrity was violated, their subconscious would have a hard time responding positively. Over time, they would be developing resentment, not positive feelings. 



> ....
> 
> But these men actually have a STRATEGY to cope with all of this and come out the other side laughing and joking as a couple.
> 
> Maybe that’s what some of the women don’t like about it all? That these men can no longer be emotionally manipulated to anger and that therefore their wives have lost a certain amount of emotional control of their men.
> 
> Bob


No. I think it has to do with some people look at life in a way that is a tad unrealistic. Remember back when you were a kid when you thought life was supposed to be fair? I think some people get stuck there intellectually. You see a lot of folk talking about which spouse SHOULD do this, and who is to blame and who is responsible. I think that the issue is people getting stuck in right fights fail to see that if a change is done and it is good... then it is good. I see these failures of comprehension go hand in hand.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> And...the cake eating...I never, ever understood that expression. Why would you want a cake if you couldn't eat it too?


Once you have eaten it, you don't have it anymore. The expression is backward. You can't eat your cake and still have it too would make more sense.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> Errrr...no, what I don't like about it at all is that when a woman is engaging with her man to get what she feels/thinks she needs/wants out of a relationship you smack the term emotional manipulation on it but when a man does the same thing it is considered a gift to womankind/man'ing up/temperature control.


There is a difference, in my opinion, between the motives of effective communication and the situation he describes, the POKE. I know the poke. I have done the poke. DH used to respond as a Nice Guy and kneel to me. Yuck! I did not realize I was doing it at the time. But when he finally set effective limits on it by cooling, and sending some good humor at me to highlight the poke, I was like... oh hey that was rude.

If you were talking about him saying that effective limit setting behavior was emotional manipulation, I would agree with you. But there are things that are objectively wrong to do. Taking your stress/anger whatever out on your spouse one of them. So a spouse must learn to respond in an effective manner. 

Women do tend to do the poke more than men.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> I think you are *assuming* that just because they are men that they consider a wife not having sex with him withholding. There is no direct link between the man up / thermostat conversation and the accusation from others that a woman OWES her husband sex. Quite the opposite. The men who espouse manning up are changing THEMSELVES to be attractive to their wives. Not whining that they don't put out.


Here I often hear the generalization that a woman puts out to get the man and then stops after the marriage begins. I am well aware there are hundreds of reasons as to why this happens (all of which are certainly not intentional) but chose that specific example as if it is done on purpose, it is a selfish manipulative behavior a woman would take to get the relationship she wants.


----------



## Mom6547

AFEH said:


> And you do it all in the name of Feminism. It gets very tiresome. But not only that your constant poking does get a response from people like MEM. But good Men like MEM should never feel the need to defend himself against feminists.
> 
> Bob


Why not? I never will understand this. You come to a forum, you need to put on your fire proof suit. Life isn't fair. If the thoughts cannot hold up to a discussion of feminism then they should be revised. So far, as far as I am concerned, to those expressing them and understanding them rightly, I think that they do. But I will never understand saying that someone should not HAVE to defend their position on internet.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> Here I often hear the generalization that a woman puts out to get the man and then stops after the marriage begins. I am well aware there are hundreds of reasons as to why this happens (all of which are certainly not intentional) but chose that specific example as if it is done on purpose, it is a selfish manipulative behavior a woman would take to get the relationship she wants.


Yah, you chose a specific example that does not happen to apply to the topic under discussion it seems to me.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> Once you have eaten it, you don't have it anymore. The expression is backward. You can't eat your cake and still have it too would make more sense.


Righto but why would you want a cake forever anyway?

I know it's a simple idiom and understand its meaning. I think it is sort of humorous though when you think about it.


----------



## greenpearl

Mom6547 said:


> Did this always come naturally to me? No. I had to LEARN this skill. Does it make it inauthentic to me. No. I just learned a new skill that became part of me.


For some positive traits, some people just have it naturally, and others have to try very hard to acquire it. 

My husband is naturally a calm and patient person. I was not. It took me quite a few years to achieve my peaceful personality, but I still get worked up sometimes. 

Talking to people on TAM has actually helped me a lot in this area. It is strange that I was not asking for advice directly, but just by interacting with all of you, it has helped me a lot.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> Righto but why would you want a cake forever anyway?


Are you really thinking the expression is about cake?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MEM11363 said:


> Hey - she kept calling me a manipulative spade. I prefer to think of myself as a loving diamond.
> 
> All I did was ask her to stop being a nattering nabob of negativism. Hey it worked for Spiro Agnew. Oh - well actually I guess not. Now that I think about it he ended up in jail for tax evasion....


She wasn't calling you anything. She was saying that this behavior to HER is manipulative and pointed out that if women were to do this, it would be viewed as manipulative and not some other fancy word. Wouldn't it? Would the guys here like to have this happen to them or would they view it as domineering and controlling behavior?


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> Yah, you chose a specific example that does not happen to apply to the topic under discussion it seems to me.


It does in that manipulation is manipulation. You can call it whatever you like to make it taste better or make yourself feel justified but it is still manipulation. If you want authentic then you should go for authentic. If you want to manipulate your behaviors to bring about a certain reaction from your spouse or create a certain level of satisfaction in your own life, then you should manipulate your behaviors, but why pretend you're actually growing in emotional intelligence rather than manipulating your behaviors and reactions? What offends the individual about what they're doing to make them call what they're doing something else?

In the scenario I gave about the woman it applies because the woman is clearly manipulating the scenario to bring about action. If a man turns the thermostat down or acts aloof to bring about certain behaviors in his wife and/or in his own life then that is also manipulation.

We can argue semantics forever. The real question is why so many readers find me saying that some of the principles of man up and 180 are manipulative? So much so that they aren't able to admit the obvious.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> Are you really thinking the expression is about cake?


Obviously not as I understand what an idiom is but I find pleasure in the irony.


----------



## magnoliagal

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Would the guys here like to have this happen to them or would they view it as domineering and controlling behavior?


Good question. So here I am the domineering one married to a PA man. I've had to cool off and tone down my personality to get more love and attention from my husband. Does that make me manipulative? Controlling? Selfish?


----------



## Trenton

Therealbrighteyes said:


> She wasn't calling you anything. She was saying that this behavior to HER is manipulative and pointed out that if women were to do this, it would be viewed as manipulative and not some other fancy word. Wouldn't it? Would the guys here like to have this happen to them or would they view it as domineering and controlling behavior?


No worries. I appreciate you feel a desire to defend me out of friendship but it doesn't bother me. I know the difference between thoughtful conversation and personal attacks that make no sense and don't apply so I can easily disregard them.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> It does in that manipulation is manipulation. You can call it whatever you like to make it taste better or make yourself feel justified but it is still manipulation.


Tell me this. What does the word manipulation mean to you? If manipulation is manipulation, then there can be NO setting of personal boundaries at all.




> If you want authentic then you should go for authentic. If you want to manipulate your behaviors to bring about a certain reaction from your spouse or create a certain level of satisfaction in your own life, then you should manipulate your behaviors, but why pretend you're actually growing in emotional intelligence rather than manipulating your behaviors and reactions? What offends the individual about what they're doing to make them call what they're doing something else?


Because you don't understand the word manipulation? I have described it in another post. Manipulation is different than setting personal boundaries on 2 specific ways

- motivation: the motivation to bring loving, peaceful, enriching change. Not motivated to punish or hurt
- integrity: Does not violate the integrity of either party.

The dictionary definition supports me somewhat

"to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings. "

Especially in an unfair manner. 

Another one

1: exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage; "his manipulation of his friends was scandalous" [syn: {use}] 

Shrewd or devious influence.

So manipulate does not mean to influence another. That is where the violation of integrity comes in.



> In the scenario I gave about the woman it applies because the woman is clearly manipulating the scenario to bring about action. If a man turns the thermostat down or acts aloof to bring about certain behaviors in his wife and/or in his own life then that is also manipulation.
> 
> We can argue semantics forever.


Actually I find being precise about language is not semantics. I think it is useful to understanding. 



> The real question is why so many readers find me saying that some of the principles of man up and 180 are manipulative? So much so that they aren't able to admit the obvious.


You feel you have proven "the obvious". It sure is not obvious to me. Why would you expect someone to "admit" something that was far from obvious? Simply because your mind has made many logical leaps to get there is seems obvious to you?


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> Obviously not as I understand what an idiom is but I find pleasure in the irony.


There is no irony. You assume that everyone is motivate like you. Why would you want a cake if you cannot eat it is a pretty simplistic view of the expression. I can imagine a situation very, very easily in which I would be challenged by two opposing choices.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> No worries. I appreciate you feel a desire to defend me out of friendship but it doesn't bother me. I know the difference between thoughtful conversation and personal attacks that make no sense and don't apply so I can easily disregard them.


Not out of friendship, out of principal. This is a forum where people express their thoughts and feelings and what applies to them and should not be ridiculed for doing so. 

Still interested to here from Mem or Deejo about if when did the same behavior as what is being talked about here, would it be viewed in such favorable light?


----------



## Trenton

magnoliagal said:


> Good question. So here I am the domineering one married to a PA man. I've had to cool off and tone down my personality to get more love and attention from my husband. Does that make me manipulative? Controlling? Selfish?


I would say yes. Do you know anyone who is not selfish, controlling and manipulative? No need to pretend we're selfless people because I don't think that's even possible. I think you know I've done the same. 

The difference for me (and no idea if this is the case for you) is that my husband knows each and every thing I'm doing and why I'm doing it. It's for us and our happiness together as partners and I expect the same from him. This is how one can be who they are and manipulate their world but do so while being completely with a partner and remain truly connected with their partner. Hence I keep talking about motive.

It's about motive and connection. I think it is strange to think that one can change their behaviors or learn a new skill that is intended to build a partnership/connection with another while leaving the other completely in the dark.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> It's about motive and connection. I think it is strange to think that one can change their behaviors or learn a new skill that is intended to build a partnership/connection with another while leaving the other completely in the dark.


I missed the part where leaving their partner in the dark was a necessary component. I cannot remember which person said it, but SOMEONE clearly stated that they TELL their wife what it is about.


----------



## Deejo

magnoliagal said:


> Good question. So here I am the domineering one married to a PA man. I've had to cool off and tone down my personality to get more love and attention from my husband. Does that make me manipulative? Controlling? Selfish?


Yup. Exactly like you were being for those years leading up to where you are now.

The difference is expectation and outcome.

'Manipulate' is about context. It isn't a negative word by default. The first reference from dictionary.com is the manner in which I use it:
1. Handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.

We are simply referring to 'handling' a situation to garner positive outcomes for both parties.
I have no problem with Trenton's use of the word ... but the examples she references deal in winners and losers. 'Man Up' in relationship terms is intended to yield balance and desire. 

Previously you were doing what felt 'right' ... and getting poor results in terms of the intimacy that you 'selfishly' desire. That's not a knock ... it's something we should all be selfish about. So now you are exerting a different type method of 'handling and controlling' how you respond. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> Yup. Exactly like you were being for those years leading up to where you are now.
> 
> The difference is expectation and outcome.
> 
> 'Manipulate' is about context. It isn't a negative word by default. The first reference from dictionary.com is the manner in which I use it:
> 1. Handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.


The definition you just used is the one for the use of the PHYSICAL, hand tool, automobile...

The definition that refers to behavior is decidedly negative.

Which brings us to ...



> We are simply referring to 'handling' a situation to garner positive outcomes for both parties.


While I am DO prefer the use of precise language, this is the bigger point. 



> I have no problem with Trenton's use of the word ... but the examples she references deal in winners and losers. 'Man Up' in relationship terms is intended to yield balance and desire.


That is where I feel she misses the boat as well.


----------



## MEM2020

I don't intentionally do ANYTHING to my W that I would not want done to me. And I start from that frame. I start from - what is a fair and constructive response to a situation I don't like. 






Therealbrighteyes said:


> She wasn't calling you anything. She was saying that this behavior to HER is manipulative and pointed out that if women were to do this, it would be viewed as manipulative and not some other fancy word. Wouldn't it? Would the guys here like to have this happen to them or would they view it as domineering and controlling behavior?


----------



## Davelli0331

All of the things discussed in this forum, e.g. the thermostat, fitness testing, manning up, etc, are simply useful metaphors for trying to understand the complexities of married life. They are not, IMO, definitive models for male-female interaction. They are, however, good tools to be applied to improve oneself, one's marriage, or to try to get a marriage back on track.

I don't really think I see that as manipulation. If I told my wife that some particular thing she did irritated me, and she stopped, would that be manipulation? She's changing her natural, personal behavior to illicit a particular response from me. That's not manipulation, not by my definition anyway.

If my wife told me that she had made changes to herself and how she interacts with me in order to take our marriage in a certain direction, would I feel manipulated? Of course not. I would honestly be very pleased. Pleased that my wife was working on improving herself, pleased that she understands that marriage is something that must be worked at and doesn't magically happen, and pleased that she's taking the time to give it so much thought and personal effort. I really *hate* people who b!tch about sh!t not improving yet never make any personal changes to get the reality they want. I would honestly see it as a huge sign of maturity.


----------



## Mom6547

MEM11363 said:


> I don't intentionally do ANYTHING to my W that I would not want done to me. And I start from that frame. I start from - what is a fair and constructive response to a situation I don't like.


That is part of the integrity part I was speaking of.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> Tell me this. What does the word manipulation mean to you? If manipulation is manipulation, then there can be NO setting of personal boundaries at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't understand the word manipulation? I have described it in another post. Manipulation is different than setting personal boundaries on 2 specific ways
> 
> - motivation: the motivation to bring loving, peaceful, enriching change. Not motivated to punish or hurt
> - integrity: Does not violate the integrity of either party.
> 
> The dictionary definition supports me somewhat
> 
> "to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings. "
> 
> Especially in an unfair manner.
> 
> Another one
> 
> 1: exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage; "his manipulation of his friends was scandalous" [syn: {use}]
> 
> Shrewd or devious influence.
> 
> So manipulate does not mean to influence another. That is where the violation of integrity comes in.
> 
> 
> Actually I find being precise about language is not semantics. I think it is useful to understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you have proven "the obvious". It sure is not obvious to me. Why would you expect someone to "admit" something that was far from obvious? Simply because your mind has made many logical leaps to get there is seems obvious to you?


I'm confused. What is your argument? Please explain to me why my conclusion is flawed and not obvious? How my use of manipulation used as defined is wrong in this case?

Arguing over the meaning of a word and its use is semantics. Is that not what we're doing?


----------



## magnoliagal

My husband isn't completely in the dark. He knows I'm in therapy, knows I'm on this board, knows full well what I'm trying to accomplish and he supports that. Scratch that it's beyond support it's more like when is your next therapy appointment and encouraging me to get on the internet more. 

He sees all of this as nothing but beneficial to HIM. So who is selfish again? LOL!!


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> It's about motive and connection. I think it is strange to think that one can change their behaviors or learn a new skill that is intended to build a partnership/connection with another while leaving the other completely in the dark.


You don't have to tell me that you intend to lose weight if I see that you are changing your diet, making time for the gym, and need to buy a new wardrobe.

Seeing you doing those things, having success, feeling better, and consequently, I feel better because you feel better ... do you think it appropriate that I call you disconnected, selfish and manipulative?

I like trying to understand you. I'm not trying to 'beat' you.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> I'm confused. What is your argument? Please explain to me why my conclusion is flawed and not obvious? How my use of manipulation used as defined is wrong in this case?
> 
> Arguing over the meaning of a word and its use is semantics. Is that not what we're doing?


It seems to me that you are likening unlike things. Then using the word to obfuscate and confuse yourself. You are saying that they are advocating manipulation when they are not. Actually understanding the meaning of the word is useful to conclude otherwise. You are seeing a male/female double standard that they are not advocating.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> I missed the part where leaving their partner in the dark was a necessary component. I cannot remember which person said it, but SOMEONE clearly stated that they TELL their wife what it is about.


Full disclosure is certainly not interwoven as part of the process. Someone clearly stated? I think it would be great if it was part of the process and this idea that women do not know what they want was erased entirely. I think you're purposely and unknowingly misleading yourself.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> It seems to me that you are likening unlike things. Then using the word to obfuscate and confuse yourself. You are saying that they are advocating manipulation when they are not. Actually understanding the meaning of the word is useful to conclude otherwise. You are seeing a male/female double standard that they are not advocating.


Actually, that's not at all what I said. Re-read the thread where I bold a sentence so that you can talk to me without jumping to so many conclusions. It seems to me that you are defining me as is convenient for you and only want to argue with me for argument's sake.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> Actually, that's not at all what I said. Re-read the thread where I bold a sentence so that you can talk to me without jumping to so many conclusions. It seems to me that you are defining me as is convenient for you and only want to argue with me for argument's sake.


That is actually a charge I would level at you. But not just me.


----------



## MEM2020

Mom,
OK - hmmm - I will make a distinction here because it is an important one. 

When dealing with specific behaviors that I dislike I ALWAYS briefly point to the behavior. Being angry/cold/distant when your partner doesn't know why is abusive. 

As for showing restraint in terms of how loving I am. Not having that conversation. WAY to weird. How do you tell someone that at your "natural" temperature they: feel anxious, take you for granted. Oh - and on top of that they lose their desire for you. I promised my father in law I would take good care of his daughter. She claims I have done an exceptional job. 

If you had told me 22 years ago how important "restraint" was I would have nodded and told you that I struggle with my temper. I never, ever would have thought that the same restraint was just as important on the love front. 




Mom6547 said:


> I missed the part where leaving their partner in the dark was a necessary component. I cannot remember which person said it, but SOMEONE clearly stated that they TELL their wife what it is about.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> You don't have to tell me that you intend to lose weight if I see that you are changing your diet, making time for the gym, and need to buy a new wardrobe.
> 
> Seeing you doing those things, having success, feeling better, and consequently, I feel better because you feel better ... do you think it appropriate that I call you disconnected, selfish and manipulative?
> 
> I like trying to understand you. I'm not trying to 'beat' you.


How do you know that would be the spouse's perception of a woman/man getting in shape? Might they not think that the spouse is getting in shape because they're having an affair or thinking about it? The point is, you don't know because their is a communication disconnect.


----------



## michzz

I've got nothing wrong with the idea of expressing likes, dislikes, and even boundaries.

What I have a problem with, is in attempts to manipulate by either gender. Once someone realizes they're being manipulated, resentment enters the picture.

Honest communication is far preferable to me.


----------



## Mom6547

michzz said:


> I've got nothing wrong with the idea of expressing likes, dislikes, and even boundaries.
> 
> What I have a problem with, is in attempts to manipulate by either gender. Once someone realizes they're being manipulated, resentment inters the picture.


I think THAT is half the definition of manipulation. THAT is the very crux of the difference between personal boundary setting and manipulation. You violate the others' integrity, they feel resentment.




> Honest communication is far preferable to me.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> That is actually a charge I would level at you. But not just me.


Well, I would agree that I'm arguing for argument's sake. I find the different POV's interesting.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> How do you know that would be the spouse's perception of a woman/man getting in shape? Might they not think that the spouse is getting in shape because they're having an affair or thinking about it? The point is, you don't know because their is a communication disconnect.


Ah ... so you DO just want to fight.

I used that analogy on purpose. Guess I manipulated you to see if you would give the response I thought you would. And you did ...
:FIREdevil:


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> Ah ... so you DO just want to fight.
> 
> I used that analogy on purpose. Guess I manipulated you to see if you would give the response I thought you would. And you did ...
> :FIREdevil:


Rat bastard! :rofl:


----------



## Trenton

I will add, that I have a point even if no one is willing to read it. I do not like to think this is all fruitless. I really do think adding full disclosure and open communication would be important.


----------



## MEM2020

Mich,
Can you give us some examples of "bad" manipulation?






michzz said:


> I've got nothing wrong with the idea of expressing likes, dislikes, and even boundaries.
> 
> What I have a problem with, is in attempts to manipulate by either gender. Once someone realizes they're being manipulated, resentment enters the picture.
> 
> Honest communication is far preferable to me.


----------



## greenpearl

I think my husband manipulates me by telling me clothes budget is unlimited if I wear size s! 

He also manipulates me by telling me my cooking is delicious! 


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## magnoliagal

I've been guilty of bad manipulation. It goes like this I do A expecting B in response. If it works I become the controller and if it doesn't I get angry.

A healthy version is I'm changing my behavior because I want to and my goal is for my marriage to flourish not because I'm trying to control. I also have my spouses best interest at heart. In bad manipulation I'm only thinking of myself.


----------



## themrs

Good conversation. I agree with the men and Trenton. 

I think it all comes down to motives. If your main reason for "manning up" is to get your wife to have more sex with you, then you are manipulating her to get what you want. If you just want to be a better person and hope that in doing so your wife will have more sex with you, then it's not manipulation and more sex is just a happy byproduct of being a better person.

The bottom line is though, if you want more respect you have to act more respectable. If you want more sex, then you have to become sexier. I think that is the crux of what the men are saying here.


----------



## alphaomega

Trenton said:


> I will add, that I have a point even if no one is willing to read it. I do not like to think this is all fruitless. I really do think adding full disclosure and open communication would be important.


Ok. Try it this way....

Your SO does something that you find extremely upsetting. You get upset. Go into a deep deep explanation of why your upset. BUT, your SO doesn't "get it". What do you do? You stay upset. Your temp goes down. Not through any "manipulation", but because your upset. Your SO sees this, because you've been walking around all day like this. So they start to reflect upon themselves, "maybe she/he is right? Maybe I WAS being an Ahole". A little more self reflection by the SO, and BINGO! "yes. I can see the point. I was being an a hole". Then they apologize. Big hugs and kisses. And the thermometer goes back up.

Why is this any different. Well, in fact, it's exactly the same thing. The only difference is with "manning up", you don't let it become personal..you keep your cool...and you don't walk around all day with a serious hate on. Why! Because your man enough to control your own behaviors.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## michzz

MEM11363 said:


> Mich,
> Can you give us some examples of "bad" manipulation?


Any *covert* actions designed to change another's behavior.

For example, let's say one person in the marriage has gained some weight that the other finds unattractive and also disconcerting because of health risks.

*Covert*: Buys a gym membership for the other and tells them it is for the both of them, when in reality it is not.

Overt: Sits their spouse down and and tells them about their concerns and proposes a way to change (i.e., gym membership). Lends support.


----------



## alphaomega

themrs said:


> Good conversation. I agree with the men and Trenton.
> 
> I think it all comes down to motives. If your main reason for "manning up" is to get your wife to have more sex with you, then you are manipulating her to get what you want. If you just want to be a better person and hope that in doing so your wife will have more sex with you, then it's not manipulation and more sex is just a happy byproduct of being a better person.
> 
> The bottom line is though, if you want more respect you have to act more respectable. If you want more sex, then you have to become sexier. I think that is the crux of what the men are saying here.


Yes. I never started manning up to get more sex. I manned up because I needed to get in control of my PA behaviors, and to take charge of my own life and destiny. If that journey makes me sexier, then that's awesome. If I get more sex because of it, well....that's awesome too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## themrs

magnoliagal said:


> I've been guilty of bad manipulation. It goes like this I do A expecting B in response. If it works I become the controller and if it doesn't I get angry.
> 
> A healthy version is I'm changing my behavior because I want to and my goal is for my marriage to flourish not because I'm trying to control. I also have my spouses best interest at heart. In bad manipulation I'm only thinking of myself.


This is what I'm doing too. To me though, at first it actually feels more like manipulation because I don't feel genuine. When I'm patient when I'd rather nag, it literally brings me to tears out of frustration. I have to do what feels most unnatural in order to get the results I desire. It's still a form of control, but it's just self control. I control myself in order to influence my husband in a positive way. The reason I don't think it's manipulation is because there is no way of knowing if it will produce the desired result, but I feel like a better wife when I'm not trying to force him to do something.


----------



## Trenton

Alpha,

I wrote these words as my first post on this thread I believe (granted I've been accosted by text for daring to ask any questions about this famed forum philosophy):

*There is nothing wrong with self improvement, learning, trying new ideas, concepts or behaviors. 

But let's remember here. If a woman gives out lots of sex in the beginning of the relationship we accuse her of trying to seal the deal and being manipulative. If a man controls and withholds specific behaviors or attitudes that actually do come naturally to him in order to prompt a specific behavior from his wife, it's a similar selfish behavior. I'm just saying, let's call a spade a spade. 

This is why I see the difference being in follow through and a true desire to transform and grow rather than an attempt to salvage a sinking relationship. It has more to do with the motives behind the change than anything else.*


----------



## alphaomega

michzz said:


> Any *covert* actions designed to change another's behavior.
> 
> For example, let's say one person in the marriage has gained some weight that the other finds unattractive and also disconcerting because of health risks.
> 
> *Covert*: Buys a gym membership for the other and tells them it is for the both of them, when in reality it is not.
> 
> Overt: Sits their spouse down and and tells them about their concerns and proposes a way to change (i.e., gym membership). Lends support.


I got one! 
Overt: wife has an EA because your not a real man.
Overt: you get separated.
Overt: you join the gym. Becomes a new obsession. You start getting ripped. 
Covert: enjoying your new body type, you start thinking about the ex while you are working out, humming the Celo Green tune in your head.."Fu(k You.". It seems to become your new theme song for a while until you just let it go.


True story. Lol.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> I will add, that I have a point even if no one is willing to read it. I do not like to think this is all fruitless. I really do think adding full disclosure and open communication would be important.


I have no argument with that point at all.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Michzz, you are very wise.


----------



## Davelli0331

themrs said:


> This is what I'm doing too. To me though, at first it actually feels more like manipulation because I don't feel genuine. When I'm patient when I'd rather nag, it literally brings me to tears out of frustration. I have to do what feels most unnatural in order to get the results I desire. It's still a form of control, but it's just self control. I control myself in order to influence my husband in a positive way. The reason I don't think it's manipulation is because there is no way of knowing if it will produce the desired result, but I feel like a better wife when I'm not trying to force him to do something.


Eventually, these behaviors will come naturally to you as you incorporate them into your core personality. The whole "be the person you wish to be" thing working in action. It seems artificial now, but this sort of thing is how we "reprogram" ourselves, so to speak. It really does work.


----------



## alphaomega

Trenton said:


> Alpha,
> 
> I wrote these words as my first post on this thread I believe (granted I've been accosted by text for daring to ask any questions about this famed forum philosophy):
> 
> *There is nothing wrong with self improvement, learning, trying new ideas, concepts or behaviors.
> 
> But let's remember here. If a woman gives out lots of sex in the beginning of the relationship we accuse her of trying to seal the deal and being manipulative. If a man controls and withholds specific behaviors or attitudes that actually do come naturally to him in order to prompt a specific behavior from his wife, it's a similar selfish behavior. I'm just saying, let's call a spade a spade.
> 
> This is why I see the difference being in follow through and a true desire to transform and grow rather than an attempt to salvage a sinking relationship. It has more to do with the motives behind the change than anything else.*


But your comparing apples and oranges. Anyone who thinks thier wife just wanted to seal a deal has some serious issues. Anyone man who wants to find out why their wife stopped having sex with them later on needs to man up, because they are not set anymore, and need to get that back. It shouldn't be manipulative, it should come from within. If it doesn't work out, and you still don't get sex because your wife still isn't into you...it's time to move on.

Doing an emotional adjustment doesn't have anything to do with this if the man "gets it". It's just about boundaries. If you correct a boundary, and your wife gives you some, then that's a bonus.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

alphaomega said:


> But your comparing apples and oranges. Anyone who thinks thier wife just wanted to seal a deal has some serious issues. Anyone man who wants to find out why their wife stopped having sex with them later on needs to man up, because they are not set anymore, and need to get that back. It shouldn't be manipulative, it should come from within. If it doesn't work out, and you still don't get sex because your wife still isn't into you...it's time to move on.
> 
> Doing an emotional adjustment doesn't have anything to do with this if the man "gets it". It's just about boundaries. If you correct a boundary, and your wife gives you some, then that's a bonus.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hey, I agree with you, but I've read it several times on these forums. If he does it without her knowledge with the intent to elicit a specific type of behavior, that is manipulative. Isn't that what I said? It all falls on intent and communication/connection.


----------



## themrs

Davelli0331 said:


> Eventually, these behaviors will come naturally to you as you incorporate them into your core personality. The whole "be the person you wish to be" thing working in action. It seems artificial now, but this sort of thing is how we "reprogram" ourselves, so to speak. It really does work.


No doubt. It's just like getting in shape. At first you'd rather have the cheeseburger and fries and you hate working out, but eventually you begin to actually crave salads and feel horrible if you miss a workout. It simply becomes who you are.

And just like with working out, once you start to see the positive effects the change has made you don't want to stop.


----------



## magnoliagal

themrs said:


> This is what I'm doing too. To me though, at first it actually feels more like manipulation because I don't feel genuine. When I'm patient when I'd rather nag, it literally brings me to tears out of frustration. I have to do what feels most unnatural in order to get the results I desire. It's still a form of control, but it's just self control. I control myself in order to influence my husband in a positive way. The reason I don't think it's manipulation is because there is no way of knowing if it will produce the desired result, but I feel like a better wife when I'm not trying to force him to do something.


This has got to be the hardest thing I've ever had to do. Self control in my world means letting go of control and that is so far from my natural tendency that yes it does bring tears of frustration. And you are right there is no way of knowing it will produce the desired result. Its a 180 for me and obviously I already know what didn't work right? LOL!!


----------



## MEM2020

I am never going to say "I do X,Y and Z" to create passion. 

When it comes to passion - talk is very overrated. 
When it comes to sex - talk can be very helpful. 



michzz said:


> Any *covert* actions designed to change another's behavior.
> 
> For example, let's say one person in the marriage has gained some weight that the other finds unattractive and also disconcerting because of health risks.
> 
> *Covert*: Buys a gym membership for the other and tells them it is for the both of them, when in reality it is not.
> 
> Overt: Sits their spouse down and and tells them about their concerns and proposes a way to change (i.e., gym membership). Lends support.


----------



## michzz

MEM11363 said:


> I am never going to say "I do X,Y and Z" to create passion.
> 
> When it comes to passion - talk is very overrated.
> When it comes to sex - talk can be very helpful.


We were not talking about the dance of seduction a couple indulges in and knows they're doing.

My example was about covert manipulation.


----------



## themrs

magnoliagal said:


> This has got to be the hardest thing I've ever had to do. Self control in my world means letting go of control and that is so far from my natural tendency that yes it does bring tears of frustration. And you are right there is no way of knowing it will produce the desired result. Its a 180 for me and obviously I already know what didn't work right? LOL!!


I'm right there with you. There have been times when all I wanted to do is tell my husband what he is suggesting will not work and list the reasons for him. Just saying, "Okay honey, whatever you think is best" makes me want to puke. But you know what? It gets easier. Once you really let go of control it is so freeing you wouldn't believe it. 

I equate it to letting my husband drive the car and just enjoying the view instead of worrying about how he's going to get us where we are supposed to be. You know what I mean? All I have to do is tell him where I want to go and I trust that he'll get us there. I can go to sleep if I want! I can read a magazine. I can do whatever I want to do in the passenger's seat and he has all the responsiblity of figuring out what is the best way. It's like letting go of a burden I didn't even want in the first place. I don't like driving! LOL!


----------



## MEM2020

Sure. 



michzz said:


> We were not talking about the dance of seduction a couple indulges in and knows they're doing.
> 
> My example was about covert manipulation.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I wanted to add that it is being tossed around that this is not used to manipulate more sex out of your partner however when a man posts about his lack of sex within his marriage the advice is to man up, pass the fitness tests, lower the temperature. In other words, manipulate in order to get more sex yet that is being denied in this thread. I'm confused.


----------



## themrs

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I wanted to add that it is being tossed around that this is not used to manipulate more sex out of your partner however when a man posts about his lack of sex within his marriage the advice is to man up, pass the fitness tests, lower the temperature. In other words, manipulate in order to get more sex yet that is being denied in this thread. I'm confused.


I don't think the advice is to manipulate, even though I can totally see how it can be viewed as that. 

Women are attracted to men who are in control of themselves emotionally and physically. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband, she's not attracted to him. The advice to man up is simply saying to do things that will cause the husband to be more attractive to his wife.

It would be like if a woman said her husband doesn't want to have sex with her. It can be assumed that he isn't attracted to her and logical advice would be for her to lose weight, put on some make up, buy fancy lingerie, etc. 

That's not manipulation. It's being the best you can be so that the other person notices and is attracted to you.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

themrs said:


> I don't think the advice is to manipulate, even though I can totally see how it can be viewed as that.
> 
> Women are attracted to men who are in control of themselves emotionally and physically. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband, she's not attracted to him. The advice to man up is simply saying to do things that will cause the husband to be more attractive to his wife.
> 
> It would be like if a woman said her husband doesn't want to have sex with her. It can be assumed that he isn't attracted to her and logical advice would be for her to lose weight, put on some make up, buy fancy lingerie, etc.
> 
> That's not manipulation. It's being the best you can be so that the other person notices and is attracted to you.


But the incentive is wanting more sex and the passing tests, the thermometer and whatever other complicated emotional crap can be tossed around, it still boils down to trying to herd your spouse in a certain direction. It's not being done for their benefit but for your own.


----------



## Davelli0331

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I wanted to add that it is being tossed around that this is not used to manipulate more sex out of your partner however when a man posts about his lack of sex within his marriage the advice is to man up, pass the fitness tests, lower the temperature. In other words, manipulate in order to get more sex yet that is being denied in this thread. I'm confused.


The subtext of the advice given to men on these boards complaining about lack of sex is that in many cases, the man is not being the best man he can be. The point of the advice given is not to become a better man so you can get sex, and if that's what a man does, then he's not doing it for the right reasons. The man should endeavor to become better *for his own sake*, so that he may be the best man, husband, and father that he can (my take anyway). As he does this, his wife may become more sexually attracted to him, but to me, that's just an added bonus.

Now, if a man is faking the funk, "trying to become a better man" so that he can get more sex but with no real intention of being a better person, that is IMO manipulation. But that's not in the spirit of the advice given on these boards.


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> But the incentive is wanting more sex and the passing tests, the thermometer and whatever other complicated emotional crap can be tossed around, it still boils down to trying to herd your spouse in a certain direction. It's not being done for their benefit but for your own.


I guess that is only the case if you view sex as a weapon or bargaining chip. If it engenders a feeling of loving care in him which he then reciprocates, it is, indeed, being done for everyone's benefit.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> I will add, that I have a point even if no one is willing to read it. I do not like to think this is all fruitless. I really do think adding full disclosure and open communication would be important.


I'm never going to knock open communication and disclosure, but again, this comes down to frame of reference.

My general frame of reference when I'm addressing an issue pertaining to 'Nice Guy' syndrome, is that they ARE trying to communicate openly. Very openly, to the point of being detrimental to the relationship. And while I agree that healthy communication is obviously a prerequisite for healthy marriages, so is a little mystery. Sometimes you can open up productive communication by NOT talking.

I am not and would not advocate deceit ... and I get the feeling that is the frame of reference some people are attaching to the behavior. That simply is not my interpretation. Deceit usually doesn't bring about good things.


----------



## themrs

Therealbrighteyes said:


> But the incentive is wanting more sex and the passing tests, the thermometer and whatever other complicated emotional crap can be tossed around, it still boils down to trying to heard your spouse in a certain direction. It's not being done for their benefit but for your own.


Let's assume the person considering doing a 180 feels that they have been doing way more of their share of the emotional heavy lifting in the relationship and haven't gotten what they need in return. 

They are simply doing the 180/thermometer or whatever to bring about more balance to the relationship. When the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it is necessary to create more balance in any way that you can. 

It's like when a woman does everything for her family and nothing for herself. Is it selfish if she turns off her phone for an afternoon and goes to the spa? Yes. It's the definition of selfish because she's doing it only for her enjoyment without concern for how her family will react to it. But it's also needed and she deserves the break. Whether or not her motivation is to simply get her nails done or to get her family to appreciate all the things she does for them is immaterial IMHO.


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> But the incentive is wanting more sex and the passing tests, the thermometer and whatever other complicated emotional crap can be tossed around, it still boils down to trying to herd your spouse in a certain direction. It's not being done for their benefit but for your own.


I simply fail to see that if I am behaving in a manner that makes you want me, and YOU feel good about wanting me ... why would you ever want to frame that in a negative light?

That IS the core of any good intimate relationship.


----------



## themrs

Davelli0331 said:


> The subtext of the advice given to men on these boards complaining about lack of sex is that in many cases, the man is not being the best man he can be. The point of the advice given is not to become a better man so you can get sex, and if that's what a man does, then he's not doing it for the right reasons. The man should endeavor to become better *for his own sake*, so that he may be the best man, husband, and father that he can (my take anyway). As he does this, his wife may become more sexually attracted to him, but to me, that's just an added bonus.
> 
> Now, if a man is faking the funk, "trying to become a better man" so that he can get more sex but with no real intention of being a better person, that is IMO manipulation. But that's not in the spirit of the advice given on these boards.


Even if he isn't doing it to become a better man, he most likely will in the end. 

It's just like with getting in shape. Even if your motive is to just fit into smaller clothes, you will get healthier in the end whether or not that was the goal.


----------



## Davelli0331

Deejo said:


> I simply fail to see that if I am behaving in a manner that makes you want me, and YOU feel good about wanting me ... why would you ever want to frame that in a negative light?
> 
> That IS the core of any good intimate relationship.


Are you kidding? I hate all this better sex my wife and I are having. /sarcasm


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> I simply fail to see that if I am behaving in a manner that makes you want me, and YOU feel good about wanting me ... why would you ever want to frame that in a negative light?
> 
> That IS the core of any good intimate relationship.


I wasn't framing it in a negative light. I was debunking what was written that this isn't sexually motivated. Of course it is. Steer your partner in a way to get what you want. That's all manning up/thermo/testing is about. It sure isn't about doing the dishes. 

I'm not saying that is a bad thing either, so don't jump down my throat. PLENTY of you know I want my husband to man up. Why? More sex. Period.


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I wasn't framing it in a negative light. I was debunking what was written that this isn't sexually motivated. Of course it is. Steer your partner in a way to get what you want. That's all manning up/thermo/testing is about. It sure isn't about doing the dishes.
> 
> I'm not saying that is a bad thing either, so don't jump down my throat. PLENTY of you know I want my husband to man up. Why? More sex. Period.


It is actually about improving the entire marriage dynamic NOT just "getting laid". You might note that the exchanges that MEM have posted have NOTHING to do with sex. But there is nothing wrong with improving the dynamic for the sake of better sex since better sex is GOOD FOR A MARRIAGE.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Mom6547 said:


> It is actually about improving the entire marriage dynamic NOT just "getting laid". You might note that the exchanges that MEM have posted have NOTHING to do with sex. But there is nothing wrong with improving the dynamic for the sake of better sex since better sex is GOOD FOR A MARRIAGE.


Of course sex is good for the marriage! Who said it wasn't. What I am saying though is the motivation behind manning up, et al is sexual and no not getting laid. More of a closeness, intimacy, etc. Fine, love making motivated.....happy now?


----------



## themrs

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I wasn't framing it in a negative light. I was debunking what was written that this isn't sexually motivated. Of course it is. Steer your partner in a way to get what you want. That's all manning up/thermo/testing is about. It sure isn't about doing the dishes.
> 
> I'm not saying that is a bad thing either, so don't jump down my throat. PLENTY of you know I want my husband to man up. Why? More sex. Period.


For the record, I agree with you. It is off putting. Instead of telling your spouse, "I love you and I want more sex in our marriage please" and accepting whatever they say you have to use what seems like trickery to get what you want. 

But the thing is, most people who are resorting to this have already tried everything else. They HAVE come right out and asked and were brutally rebuffed or simply given lipservice. 

You have to do what works and in most relationships, becoming a more attractive person gives better results than just communicating openly your desires. Actions certainly speak louder than words in this instance. So instead of viewing it as manipulation, you can just see it as letting your actions speak for you. You are saying with your actions what you want and doing the things you need to do in order to get them.

That's how it is in life in general, isn't it?


----------



## michzz

themrs said:


> For the record, I agree with you. It is off putting. Instead of telling your spouse, "I love you and I want more sex in our marriage please" and accepting whatever they say you have to use what seems like trickery to get what you want.
> 
> But the thing is, most people who are resorting to this have already tried everything else. They HAVE come right out and asked and were brutally rebuffed or simply given lipservice.


Who says that those kind of things were not tried AND there still is no traction?

I just think that at a certain point you have to walk away from someone instead trying to manipulate them into what you want them to be.


----------



## Mom6547

themrs said:


> For the record, I agree with you. It is off putting. Instead of telling your spouse, "I love you and I want more sex in our marriage please" and accepting whatever they say you have to use what seems like trickery to get what you want.


I think the problem for these men is that they have tried that and gotten a blow off.



> But the thing is, most people who are resorting to this have already tried everything else. They HAVE come right out and asked and were brutally rebuffed or simply given lipservice.
> 
> You have to do what works and in most relationships, becoming a more attractive person gives better results than just communicating openly your desires. Actions certainly speak louder than words in this instance.


Especially if by being a Nice Guy you are actively killing your wife's desire for you!


----------



## Deejo

For all of the talk about cajoling and manipulation, the reality in general is that putting 'Man Up' into practice is going to pi$$ your wife off in the short term ... not fill her with the desire to rub up on you and proclaim; "I'm not wearing panties ..."

And this is where it becomes important. This becomes the setting and enforcing of boundaries piece - and it is crucial to the exercise.

Both partners learn and rediscover what is, and isn't ok, it fosters balance, honor, respect, and admiration ... or makes it glaringly clear that those things aren't going to happen. At that point as others have stated in previous posts, it's time to walk.


----------



## themrs

Deejo said:


> For all of the talk about cajoling and manipulation, the reality in general is that putting 'Man Up' into practice is going to pi$$ your wife off in the short term ... not fill her with the desire to rub up on you and proclaim; "I'm not wearing panties ..."
> 
> And this is where it becomes important. This becomes the setting and enforcing of boundaries piece - and it is crucial to the exercise.
> 
> Both partners learn and rediscover what is, and isn't ok, it fosters balance, honor, respect, and admiration ... or makes it glaringly clear that those things aren't going to happen. At that point as others have stated in previous posts, it's time to walk.


I think you have made a really critical point. Initially, when a person does a 180 the other spouse will rebel against it. 

That's not generally seen with deceptive manipulation. Usually when someone is trying to pull one over on you, they make it so you are more comfortable with what they are doing not less.

Good point.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> For all of the talk about cajoling and manipulation, the reality in general is that putting 'Man Up' into practice is going to pi$$ your wife off in the short term ... not fill her with the desire to rub up on you and proclaim; "I'm not wearing panties ..."
> 
> And this is where it becomes important. This becomes the setting and enforcing of boundaries piece - and it is crucial to the exercise.
> 
> Both partners learn and rediscover what is, and isn't ok, it fosters balance, honor, respect, and admiration ... or makes it glaringly clear that those things aren't going to happen. At that point as others have stated in previous posts, it's time to walk.


That is EXACTLY how it works.

Edgy banter, being upbeat and fun... all good.

However, boundary enforcement is the acid test.

Many are afraid of losing their women as a result of standing up for themselves.

What they should fear more is keeping them without boundaries.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> For all of the talk about cajoling and manipulation, the reality in general is that putting 'Man Up' into practice is going to pi$$ your wife off in the short term ... not fill her with the desire to rub up on you and proclaim; "I'm not wearing panties ..."


See? It's about getting in her pants and that was my point. Saying it's because I want to be a good man is like me saying I wear a push up bra because it's comfortable. Sounds nice but we all know the real motivation. :FIREdevil:


----------



## Conrad

AFEH said:


> There was one guy using the 180 to manipulate and asked when it could be expected to work, as in how long. He was so far off base with the whole concept it was unbelievable.
> 
> It’s more the other way round. It’s so the person implementing the 180 can actually become aware of just how much they’re being manipulated by their partner!
> 
> Bob


That's exactly how it plays out.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> That is EXACTLY how it works.
> 
> Edgy banter, being upbeat and fun... all good.
> 
> However, boundary enforcement is the acid test.
> 
> Many are afraid of losing their women as a result of standing up for themselves.


That is true of men AND women. 



> What they should fear more is keeping them without boundaries.


That is also true of men and women!


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> See? It's about getting in her pants and that was my point. Saying it's because I want to be a good man is like me saying I wear a push up bra because it's comfortable. Sounds nice but we all know the real motivation. :FIREdevil:


Why would someone do something that is going to NOT get them into her pants if the motivation is to get in her pants?


----------



## michzz

Therealbrighteyes said:


> See? It's about getting in her pants and that was my point. Saying it's because I want to be a good man is like me saying I wear a push up bra because it's comfortable. Sounds nice but we all know the real motivation. :FIREdevil:


:iagree:


----------



## Conrad

Mom6547 said:


> Why would someone do something that is going to NOT get them into her pants if the motivation is to get in her pants?


Isn't this the point?

I work 13 days out of 14.

I treat my stepchildren like blood.

All I really want in my own house is respect and love.

How does a man interpret that he's loved?

It's usually pretty simple. You feed him and you f*ck him.

Preferably both.


----------



## MEM2020

Bright,
Hand on the bible I have never had a conflict between manning 
Up and getting laid. I do the "right" thing and getting laid is simply
A very nice side effect.


It's about getting in her pants and that was my point. Saying it's because I want to be a good man is like me saying I wear a push up bra because it's comfortable. Sounds nice but we all know the real motivation. :FIREdevil:[/QUOTE]
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Conrad

MEM11363 said:


> Bright,
> Hand on the bible I have never had a conflict between manning
> Up and getting laid. I do the "right" thing and getting laid is simply
> A very nice side effect.
> 
> 
> It's about getting in her pants and that was my point. Saying it's because I want to be a good man is like me saying I wear a push up bra because it's comfortable. Sounds nice but we all know the real motivation. :FIREdevil:


_Posted via Mobile Device_[/QUOTE]

It's about being your best and the byproduct of same is emotional closeness with your woman.

Sex naturally flows from that.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

OF COURSE we want to have sex with someone who cares for us deeply. Who doesn't?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Mom6547 said:


> Why would someone do something that is going to NOT get them into her pants if the motivation is to get in her pants?


That's my ENTIRE point. It's isn't about being a better dad or better husband.....at least not inititally. It's about sex. Period.
So why are we even arguing this? Why are the guys here saying it's deeper than that. It isn't. Lordy.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad said:


> Isn't this the point?
> 
> I work 13 days out of 14.
> 
> I treat my stepchildren like blood.
> 
> All I really want in my own house is respect and love.
> 
> How does a man interpret that he's loved?
> 
> It's usually pretty simple. You feed him and you f*ck him.
> 
> Preferably both.


The way it's sold around here makes it sound like the guys are going for the peace prize. Temp taking, fitness this that and whatever, 180 schmatty, backing off, cooling down. Yeah, it's all done to illicit the same thing..........sex. Interesting that if a chick did this to say get jewelry, she would be viewed very differently.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> Isn't this the point?
> 
> I work 13 days out of 14.
> 
> I treat my stepchildren like blood.
> 
> All I really want in my own house is respect and love.
> 
> How does a man interpret that he's loved?
> 
> It's usually pretty simple. You feed him and you f*ck him.
> 
> Preferably both.


He is at least as good of a cook as I am! Why would he need me to feed him!

But bright was quoting a post in which someone said it would make a wife angry. Not in the mood. And bright concluded from that it really was about getting in her pants. Logic fail seems to me.

But yes, sex is certainly one way to say love to my husband.


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The way it's sold around here makes it sound like the guys are going for the peace prize. Temp taking, fitness this that and whatever, 180 schmatty, backing off, cooling down. Yeah, it's all done to illicit the same thing..........sex. Interesting that if a chick did this to say get jewelry, she would be viewed very differently.


I don't know your story. I don't read it like that at all. Do you have a bitter marriage? 

Sometimes we read what we already see into things when they are not there. We all bring our own back story.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Michzz, you win. At least you are honest about your intentions.


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> That's my ENTIRE point. It's isn't about being a better dad or better husband.....at least not inititally. It's about sex. Period.
> So why are we even arguing this? Why are the guys here saying it's deeper than that. It isn't. Lordy.


Because your wrong?


----------



## themrs

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The way it's sold around here makes it sound like the guys are going for the peace prize. Temp taking, fitness this that and whatever, 180 schmatty, backing off, cooling down. Yeah, it's all done to illicit the same thing..........sex. Interesting that if a chick did this to say get jewelry, she would be viewed very differently.



Like I said, I agree with you on this point. However, I just don't think it's a bad thing. They aren't doing anything to intentionally hurt their wives, so even if their motivation is sex - so what?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Mom6547 said:


> Because your wrong?


Two dudes already confirmed it to be the case. Everybody is free to have their own opinion. I happen to think this way. I also happen to think that people drive sports cars to attract others, go to the gym to look hot for the opposite sex, dress nicely to impress others, work hard to earn money to attract the opposite sex.....it all boils down to sex. That isn't a bad thing at all. I don't think so at least.


----------



## Conrad

Mom6547 said:


> He is at least as good of a cook as I am! Why would he need me to feed him!
> 
> But bright was quoting a post in which someone said it would make a wife angry. Not in the mood. And bright concluded from that it really was about getting in her pants. Logic fail seems to me.
> 
> But yes, sex is certainly one way to say love to my husband.


My experience indicates that it's quite effective.


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Two dudes already confirmed it to be the case.


So it is true for those two dudes.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

themrs said:


> Like I said, I agree with you on this point. However, I just don't think it's a bad thing. They aren't doing anything to intentionally hurt their wives, so even if their motivation is sex - so what?


I never said it was a bad thing! I have said all along that saying it is for any other reason (initially) other than sex is bogus. :slap:


----------



## Conrad

Mom6547 said:


> So it is true for those two dudes.


Actually, if I'm included in that group, it's only one.

As I said, my marriage rated an "eleven" on the romance scale.

When my wife wanted us to live apart, she offered me the opportunity to continue having blazing hot sex with her.

I declined.

I wouldn't cross that boundary. A man should not be expected to support a household he is not welcome to live in.

So, they're gone - not me.


----------



## themrs

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I never said it was a bad thing! I have said all along that saying it is for any other reason (initially) other than sex is bogus. :slap:


I hear you. But in the case of men, sex = love. So you could easily replace the word sex with love and you would be saying the same exact thing.

Their main motivation is to get love (sex) from their wives.


----------



## Deejo

It's a code. That is my personal definition. Others may differ. 

I'm not getting in anyone's pants at the moment. I could have easily continued to do just that, if I wanted to be manipulative and make getting laid a priority ... but I chose not to. I ended the relationship because perpetuating it was against MY code.

I didn't have a code before. What I used to have was a 'chase the goal post' mentality. Tell me what makes you happy and I will do it. If you are happy, I will be happy. Your happiness is my happiness. If I make you happy, you will love me. What else can I do for you to make you love me? If I am open, and honest, and sensitive, and communicative, and cooperative, and submissive ... she will love me ... so that is what I will do.

Somewhere along the line .... I LEARNED that behavior. And the truth is, I see _that_ behavior as manipulative. "I will cater to your needs, because I believe in doing so, you will love me and meet my needs." So you give up on making YOUR needs, YOUR responsibility. It's a bad strategy, plain and simple. Your strategy for getting what you want and need, becomes based on hope. So ... I have LEARNED new behaviors. I will never, ever, "hope" my partner loves me again. She does, or she doesn't. I am either actively behaving in a manner according to my my code that fosters that, or makes it apparent that the relationship has gone as far as it can ... on my terms ... with respect for her terms.

It is about more than just getting laid. But the simple truth is that following it ... WILL get you laid.

Wait ... pushup bras aren't comfortable? Really?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> It's a code. That is my personal definition. Others may differ.
> 
> I'm not getting in anyone's pants at the moment. I could have easily continued to do just that, if I wanted to be manipulative and make getting laid a priority ... but I chose not to. I ended the relationship because perpetuating it was against MY code.
> 
> I didn't have a code before. What I used to have was a 'chase the goal post' mentality. Tell me what makes you happy and I will do it. If you are happy, I will be happy. Your happiness is my happiness. If I make you happy, you will love me. What else can I do for you to make you love me? If I am open, and honest, and sensitive, and communicative, and cooperative, and submissive ... she will love me ... so that is what I will do.
> 
> Somewhere along the line .... I LEARNED that behavior. And the truth is, I see _that_ behavior as manipulative. "I will cater to your needs, because I believe in doing so, you will love me and meet my needs." So you give up on making YOUR needs, YOUR responsibility. It's a bad strategy, plain and simple. Your strategy for getting what you want and need, becomes based on hope. So ... I have LEARNED new behaviors. I will never, ever, "hope" my partner loves me again. She does, or she doesn't. I am either actively behaving in a manner according to my my code that fosters that, or makes it apparent that the relationship has gone as far as it can ... on my terms ... with respect for her terms.
> 
> It is about more than just getting laid. But the simple truth is that following it ... WILL get you laid.
> 
> Wait ... pushup bras aren't comfortable? Really?


Absolutely cause and effect. How many guys come here when they are at the end of their ropes and sex is a 4 times a year thing? What is their motivator? What I am suggesting is that it is sex initially. 
I totally agree with you that changing behaviors either nets positive or negative results.
No, hon, push up bras aren't comfy. Neither are thongs or bikini waxes. I guess we do those for ourselves too. Nope, no sex motivation there.


----------



## credamdóchasgra

Deejo said:


> I will never, ever, "hope" my partner loves me again. She does, or she doesn't. I am either actively behaving in a manner *according to my my code* that fosters that, or makes it apparent that the relationship has gone as far as it can ... on my terms ... with respect for her terms.


I like this.

When someone needs to "man up," it's probably when HE (or she) doesn't like who he is anymore, not just because they're not getting what they want from the spouse.

If you have a code, you probably don't include a "doormat" clause in it.

But if you've been a doormat (or enabler) to the point that YOU no longer are comfortable or happy (ahem), then YOU do something to restore your OWN self-respect. I think the goal of "manning up" or whatever you want to call it, is to stop being so dependent on the whims of someone else's approval or affection. 

Bottom line, emotional stability, confidence, and cool affect are attractive.

So you follow your own code, become someone who YOU like better than a groveling doormat (i'm generalizing), and if your partner wants to respect or f**k you more--sweet. If they STILL don't want to respect or f**k you more--you are in a better and stronger position to make a call for yourself what you want, without depending on your spouse.


----------



## Trenton

Yeah, so in summary, it's manipulation at times with the hopes of a positive outcome and those who live by it want to pretend it's something else because they're uncomfortable with the idea that they would manipulate in order to get something they want from someone they are suppose to be in a partnership with because they personally are unhappy in that partnership. Furthermore, we should be grateful for those who teach it because it is creating happy women everywhere. Finally, don't question it because if you do you're an unhappy person, a feminist or don't like facts and most likely all three.

Check. Check. Check. Got it!

BTW Mem, when I said call a spade a spade I was referring to the ideology of man'ing up as manipulation and not you personally.

I can disagree with you and still value you as a person.


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No, hon, push up bras aren't comfy. Neither are thongs or bikini waxes. I guess we do those for ourselves too. Nope, no sex motivation there.


Then allow me a moment to pay respect to your noble efforts and sacrifices.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> Finally, don't question it because if you do you're an unhappy person, a feminist or don't like facts and most likely all three.


What does being a feminist have to do with it? I consider myself a feminist. 

And where do you get that anyone is telling anyone not to have their own opinion AND voice it?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Then allow me a moment to pay respect to your noble efforts and sacrifices.


Then allow me to pay respect to your manly mustache and musk of panther cologne.


----------



## themrs

Trenton said:


> Yeah, so in summary, it's manipulation at times with the hopes of a positive outcome and those who live by it want to pretend it's something else because they're uncomfortable with the idea that they would manipulate in order to get something they want from someone they are suppose to be in a partnership with because they personally are unhappy in that partnership. Furthermore, we should be grateful for those who teach it because it is creating happy women everywhere. Finally, don't question it because if you do you're an unhappy person, a feminist or don't like facts and most likely all three.
> 
> Check. Check. Check. Got it!
> 
> BTW Mem, when I said call a spade a spade I was referring to the ideology of man'ing up as manipulation and not you personally.
> 
> I can disagree with you and still value you as a person.


I agree with all of that but I don't understand how you can manipulate someone if you aren't trying to hurt them. My definition of manipulation includes being malicious and I just don't see where any of the men here are intentionally doing a 180 in order to hurt the ones they love.

I think of it like when I sneak veggies in my son's mac and cheese. I am being sneaky, but I'm not trying to hurt him. KWIM?


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Yeah, so in summary, it's manipulation at times with the hopes of a positive outcome and those who live by it want to pretend it's something else because they're uncomfortable with the idea that they would manipulate in order to get something they want from someone they are suppose to be in a partnership with because they personally are unhappy in that partnership. Furthermore, we should be grateful for those who teach it because it is creating happy women everywhere. Finally, don't question it because if you do you're an unhappy person, a feminist or don't like facts and most likely all three.
> 
> Check. Check. Check. Got it!


Absolutely! Now that's out of the way. Let's focus on something really important.


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Then allow me to pay respect to your manly mustache and musk of panther cologne.


It works 60% of the time, every time ...


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> What does being a feminist have to do with it? I consider myself a feminist.
> 
> And where do you get that anyone is telling anyone not to have their own opinion AND voice it?


Re-read from start to finish.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> Absolutely! Now that's out of the way. Let's focus on something really important.


Phew. I new your logical, handsome self would understand the validity and almost-importance of my diatribe.


----------



## Trenton

themrs said:


> I agree with all of that but I don't understand how you can manipulate someone if you aren't trying to hurt them. My definition of manipulation includes being malicious and I just don't see where any of the men here are intentionally doing a 180 in order to hurt the ones they love.
> 
> I think of it like when I sneak veggies in my son's mac and cheese. I am being sneaky, but I'm not trying to hurt him. KWIM?


Manipulation doesn't have to be negative although it's often used that way in regards to relationships.

If we used this definition: "Handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner". It would be less offensive. It's not the manipulation I necessarily have a problem with. It's the lack of honesty and actions taken against connection when connection is what is needed. It's the generalities involved and the lack of consideration for your partners side. I don't agree with it.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Manipulation doesn't have to be negative although it's often used that way in regards to relationships.
> 
> If we used this definition: "Handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner". It would be less offensive. It's not the manipulation I necessarily have a problem with. It's the lack of honesty and actions taken against connection when connection is what is needed. It's the generalities involved and the lack of consideration for your partners side. I don't agree with it.


Despite it's effectiveness at re-establishing the connection you want? Guess I'm struggling with understanding your position. It works, you acknowledge that it works, but you think it's unfair or disingenuous? I accept that we have an impasse. I do not see dishonesty or willful manipulation with intent to harm in what we talk about and share here. I'm still interested in the one thing; results. Two people that feel good about what they have chosen to share.

Just reread the beginning of the thread. Hard to tell where these go off the rails at times, but I really liked Catherine's comment:


Catherine602 said:


> I agree that it is not manipulative, it's emotional intelligence. Its emotionally dysfunctional to repeatedly act the same way with the same poor results.


and BBW's analogy to learning a musical instrument:




BigBadWolf said:


> So learning scales, chords, key signatures, progressions, inversions, arpeggios, reading music, or any other "tools" of music craft, these things are not manipulation, nor are they good or evil in any such way.
> 
> They are merely tools.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> Despite it's effectiveness at re-establishing the connection you want? Guess I'm struggling with understanding your position. It works, you acknowledge that it works, but you think it's unfair or disingenuous? I accept that we have an impasse. I do not see dishonesty or willful manipulation with intent to harm in what we talk about and share here. I'm still interested in the one thing; results. Two people that feel good about what they have chosen to share.
> 
> Just reread the beginning of the thread. Hard to tell where these go off the rails at times, but I really liked Catherine's comment:
> 
> 
> and BBW's analogy to learning a musical instrument:


There is nothing difficult about understanding my position. I acknowledge that I have seen it work based upon what I've read on these forums. I question its authenticity on several levels and for many reasons. I disregard and am repulsed by the bi-product spewed and reiterated by those named in this thread's title that regularly dispel that women do not know what they want and have already said so. My respect for the others dwindles in their illogical support of one another regardless of blatant flaws of which I've also previously said.

I never defined manipulation as willful with the intent to harm in this particular scenario and certainly this is not its only definition as I've already pointed out.

I'm interested in results too but feel there is a better, more salient way that is disregarded and lost within the lines clearly drawn and then shaded out by the sexes in these forums.

I am not at an impasse with you as you said you are with me. I am facing criticism because the majority agree with the ease and surface of success in the philosophy we are debating. Forgetting true human connection and believing in desperate times call for desperate measures is more suited for those who follow this philosophy.

Likening emotional intelligence with emotional manipulation for personal gain with only one partner knowing about the beginnings of a charade doesn't speak to me. Likening human interactions with learning to play a musical instrument speaks even less so for me. 

Forgetting that real connections are fiercely sought after yet only received when real vulnerability on both partners' parts and authentic acceptance is gained is discarded. Believing that lots of sex and one-up-men's-ship is the end game confuses the picture. 

I know from my own life and how I personally live that being myself is not a choice but rather a battle and a battle worth fighting. I don't do this through manipulation or pretending I am someone I am not, dabbling in techniques that may or may not enhance or end life as I currently know it. I face every day with a moral dilemma and take it all in. I filter it and try to understand it, grow from it and differentiate what I should and should not learn from.

If you connect with me you will have authentically connected and I will deeply care about you. It won't take much as I care about most everyone. What I will say might be flawed and it might be disregarded as childish (I've heard that record on repeat many times before), but what I say will be real. What you see is what you get.

So...my frustration with this philosophy/policy is that what you see is not what you get. It's not based in caring about what others you proclaim to love feel or their happiness, it is about the person's own flawed and selfish perceptions with the last ditch hope that the other feels the same or can be led to recognize they feel the same. It's almost as if each year that had passed before the day they found this philosophy was done so in ignorant mistake of which I don't subscribe to.

It is, in fact, selfish manipulation under the guise of pleasantries. It very well may work for many within this forum and even millions beyond but I will continue to ask...how authentic are these individuals and the connections they have with their significant others and the world around them?


----------



## MEM2020

T,
Since my name is in the title - please post a reply to this. What specifically am I "spewing" that you find offensive? I still don't get it. 

MEM



Trenton said:


> There is nothing difficult about understanding my position. I acknowledge that I have seen it work based upon what I've read on these forums. I question its authenticity on several levels and for many reasons. I disregard and am repulsed by the bi-product spewed and reiterated by those named in this thread's title that regularly dispel that women do not know what they want and have already said so. My respect for the others dwindles in their illogical support of one another regardless of blatant flaws of which I've also previously said.
> 
> I never defined manipulation as willful with the intent to harm in this particular scenario and certainly this is not its only definition as I've already pointed out.
> 
> I'm interested in results too but feel there is a better, more salient way that is disregarded and lost within the lines clearly drawn and then shaded out by the sexes in these forums.
> 
> I am not at an impasse with you as you said you are with me. I am facing criticism because the majority agree with the ease and surface of success in the philosophy we are debating. Forgetting true human connection and believing in desperate times call for desperate measures is more suited for those who follow this philosophy.
> 
> Likening emotional intelligence with emotional manipulation for personal gain with only one partner knowing about the beginnings of a charade doesn't speak to me. Likening human interactions with learning to play a musical instrument speaks even less so for me.
> 
> Forgetting that real connections are fiercely sought after yet only received when real vulnerability on both partners' parts and authentic acceptance is gained is discarded. Believing that lots of sex and one-up-men's-ship is the end game confuses the picture.
> 
> I know from my own life and how I personally live that being myself is not a choice but rather a battle and a battle worth fighting. I don't do this through manipulation or pretending I am someone I am not, dabbling in techniques that may or may not enhance or end life as I currently know it. I face every day with a moral dilemma and take it all in. I filter it and try to understand it, grow from it and differentiate what I should and should not learn from.
> 
> If you connect with me you will have authentically connected and I will deeply care about you. It won't take much as I care about most everyone. What I will say might be flawed and it might be disregarded as childish (I've heard that record on repeat many times before), but what I say will be real. What you see is what you get.
> 
> So...my frustration with this philosophy/policy is that what you see is not what you get. It's not based in caring about what others you proclaim to love feel or their happiness, it is about the person's own flawed and selfish perceptions with the last ditch hope that the other feels the same or can be led to recognize they feel the same. It's almost as if each year that had passed before the day they found this philosophy was done so in ignorant mistake of which I don't subscribe to.
> 
> It is, in fact, selfish manipulation under the guise of pleasantries. It very well may work for many within this forum and even millions beyond but I will continue to ask...how authentic are these individuals and the connections they have with their significant others and the world around them?


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> So...my frustration with this philosophy/policy is that what you see is not what you get. It's not based in caring about what others you proclaim to love feel or their happiness, it is about the person's own flawed and selfish perceptions with the last ditch hope that the other feels the same or can be led to recognize they feel the same. It's almost as if each year that had passed before the day they found this philosophy was done so in ignorant mistake of which I don't subscribe to.
> 
> It is, in fact, selfish manipulation under the guise of pleasantries. It very well may work for many within this forum and even millions beyond but I will continue to ask...how authentic are these individuals and the connections they have with their significant others and the world around them?


My body is still on friggin west coast time ...

Of course we are at an impasse. We've been doing this dance for months.

We have come to understand and accept about as much as we are going to understand and accept ... and that's ok.

You think this model of realigning relationship dynamics is damaged and unfair.

I think that your view of this model of realigning relationship dynamics is damaged and unfair. 

I recognize that you have your feelings. I have no wish to dismiss your feelings. But your feelings can't help me. 

I have made the changes I needed to make, not simply based upon what is discussed here - but the fact remains that what is discussed here, is consistently repeated elsewhere, in many forms of media. I will continue to adjust where necessary. Those changes have not made me a different person, I'm the same person with different responses and relationship tools. Tools and responses that yield better outcomes for myself and my partner, whether she's aware of it or not.


----------



## Sawney Beane

I don't have a dog in this fight. I think there's a vast volume of hot air, bunk and BS on all sides, as there inevitably is when you get philosophy / belief systems.

On some levels, some of the alpha'ing stuff sounds like "benevolent despotism" (google it - I didn't invent it) - all done for the best of reasons, everyone does OK under the system, but at the end of the day, it's still despotism, and many people find any form of despotism wrong on principle.


----------



## Mephisto

Trenton, you seem to deliberately misunderstand what anybody has said on this. You do not come across as thick, so I would have to say you are simply argumentative and enjoy argument for arguments sake.

But when you say that connection is all it takes and that manipulation is wrong, it begs the questions, "do you: wear make-up? a bra? take medication for any form of 'mental illness'? do you ever hold your tongue instead of saying what is on your mind? do you say please and thank you??" 

All of these things are designed to change how others see you, so are you manipulating EVERYONE around you, and therefore ALL your connections are in some way fraudulent, or do these things make for a better you and therefore better relationship with the people around you?

I am all for boundaries, but with my temper it is hard to gauge the correct measure and proportional response for anyone stepping on those boundaries. I think that this site helps to put things in perspective.... just my POV.


----------



## miserableinlove_35

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The way it's sold around here makes it sound like the guys are going for the peace prize. Temp taking, fitness this that and whatever, 180 schmatty, backing off, cooling down. Yeah, it's all done to illicit the same thing..........sex. Interesting that if a chick did this to say get jewelry, she would be viewed very differently.


Just putting my two bits in here. But almost nothing in history changed for the better due to saintly reasons, not at first. Men have been driven to procreate since.... well since life began. Without that drive the human race would have been lost. If men were here for other reasons we would have an overwhelming urge to do that. We would have muscles, and appendages, and hormones geared towards that acheivement. And we would be driven to change whatever was in our way to achieve it, be it an ocean or our own failures. Hating men for following thier core instincts, and learning how to better achieve that is simply fighting evolution. Would it be different if men were created to illicit..... knitted socks. Would women sneer at us and say "All you want from me is my yarn" To bring it home. My spouse isn't happy in our relationship, part of that is because I keep complaining about sex and trying to push her into it when she's not "feeling it". If by trying to better understand my role as a man/husband, and better understanding her way of thinking, I become better at making her feel secure, less agitated, showing her that I am worthy then why would my "initial" reasons be so bad? She's more comfortable with me, I get more loving. WIN/WIN


----------



## BigBadWolf

Trenton said:


> I disregard and am repulsed by the bi-product spewed and reiterated by those named in this thread's title that regularly dispel that women do not know what they want and have already said so.



http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...ats-attractive-my-wifes-input.html#post182124

Now dearest Trenton, what is up with all the fuss?


----------



## Trenton

Sawney Beane said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight. I think there's a vast volume of hot air, bunk and BS on all sides, as there inevitably is when you get philosophy / belief systems.
> 
> On some levels, some of the alpha'ing stuff sounds like "benevolent despotism" (google it - I didn't invent it) - all done for the best of reasons, everyone does OK under the system, but at the end of the day, it's still despotism, and many people find any form of despotism wrong on principle.


True Dat


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> Manipulation doesn't have to be negative although it's often used that way in regards to relationships.


Look it up. It does. Unless you are talking about the definition that is related to the use of hands (mano) like manipulating tools, it definitely does. 

This is where you say it doesn't To Me. Language is certainly a living thing. And usage over time may morph. But as of now, saying it doesn't mean something doesn't make it so just because it demonstrates your point for you.


----------



## Mom6547

Sawney Beane said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight. I think there's a vast volume of hot air, bunk and BS on all sides, as there inevitably is when you get philosophy / belief systems.


Here is the thing. This series of advices does not rise to the level of belief system until the guys who are trying to help other guys on this board get raked for it. 

The bottom line is men come here looking for advice. This is often the advice that they get. And it often helps them.

THAT is the main take away point from this thread, or should be, in my opinion.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> Look it up. It does. Unless you are talking about the definition that is related to the use of hands (mano) like manipulating tools, it definitely does.
> 
> This is where you say it doesn't To Me. Language is certainly a living thing. And usage over time may morph. But as of now, saying it doesn't mean something doesn't make it so just because it demonstrates your point for you.


I did look it up and post it. It does not have to apply to tools with the use of hands and it applies here perfectly and it does not have to be deviously. I will post what I just looked up again for you...

Manipulation –noun
*1. the act of manipulating.
2. the state or fact of being manipulated.
3. skillful or artful management.*
Origin: 
1720–30; < French, equivalent to manipule handful (of grains, etc.; see maniple) + -ation -ation
Manipulation | Define Manipulation at Dictionary.com

World English Dictionary
manipulate 
— vb
1.	( tr ) to handle or use, esp with some skill, in a process or action: to manipulate a pair of scissors
2.	*to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) *cleverly, *skilfully*, or deviously
3.	to falsify (a bill, accounts, etc) for one's own advantage
4.	(in physiotherapy) to examine or treat manually, as in loosening a joint

Did you look up where women who disagree with this philosophy are feminists? Where it was suggested that I have my bum slapped and get kicked out for typing what I was typing? Well, this is common place if disagreeing with this philosophy.

The bottom line for me is different than yours. If a philosophy upholds negative stereotypes that effect one sex or the other, even if it works, should be improved.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> 2.	to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or *deviously*
> 3.	to falsify (a bill, accounts, etc) for one's own advantage
> 4.	(in physiotherapy) to examine or treat manually, as in loosening a joint
> As opposed to what you actually mean which is influence which you will find here
> 
> Influence | Define Influence at Dictionary.com


----------



## alphaomega

Yes, it does help. I went from being a super Nice Guy that was afraid of my wife, had massive issues with conflict and passive aggressiveness, depression, and no sense of identity.

Now, I am strong in character, don't suffer from depression, not afraid to stand up to my boundaries, and fear no one. I control my own destiny now. I am a better person, a better father, and a better lover.


I found myself again through the advise on this forum, particularly via the three mentioned in the title (and you too Conrad), so if that seems like manipulation, then I am all for those reindeer games.

(inflate MEMs ego here)






Mom6547 said:


> Here is the thing. This series of advices does not rise to the level of belief system until the guys who are trying to help other guys on this board get raked for it.
> 
> The bottom line is men come here looking for advice. This is often the advice that they get. And it often helps them.
> 
> THAT is the main take away point from this thread, or should be, in my opinion.


----------



## Trenton

Mephisto said:


> Trenton, you seem to deliberately misunderstand what anybody has said on this. You do not come across as thick, so I would have to say you are simply argumentative and enjoy argument for arguments sake.
> 
> But when you say that connection is all it takes and that manipulation is wrong, it begs the questions, "do you: wear make-up? a bra? take medication for any form of 'mental illness'? do you ever hold your tongue instead of saying what is on your mind? do you say please and thank you??"
> 
> All of these things are designed to change how others see you, so are you manipulating EVERYONE around you, and therefore ALL your connections are in some way fraudulent, or do these things make for a better you and therefore better relationship with the people around you?
> 
> I am all for boundaries, but with my temper it is hard to gauge the correct measure and proportional response for anyone stepping on those boundaries. I think that this site helps to put things in perspective.... just my POV.


Actually, I will agree that I enjoy debate and flushing out viewpoints as I do learn from it so I won't disagree with you there. Everyone here has a choice as to whether or not they want to participate in this discussion. 

Having said that, I have struggled with this philosophy since first reading about it.

In addressing your points, I do wear makeup from time to time and I am polite and respectful but you are talking about interactions with others. The beauty of a partnership is that you find someone who accepts you "as is". Do I wear a bra when my husband and I make love or wear makeup when I go to bed? No. Are there times we engage in collective manipulation to enjoy our love life or other things together? Yes. 

The difference is that we are doing this with both of us being conscious of it with open communication and honesty. So what I am talking about is honesty with your significant other and how not doing this, as I've seen time and time again, promotes growth away from your spouse rather than towards. You couple that with this idea that women do not know what they want, so learning these skills is really a way to become the man the woman has no idea she wants. I disagree with this aspect as well.

I'm capable of understanding that this philosophy still does help many men. I've read it and would be pretty daft to discard what I've seen. All I'm saying is that it can be improved and it should be improved and, quite frankly, I've no idea why this idea that it can be improved and that there are flaws within the philosophy gets so many defensive.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> Trenton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or *deviously*
> 3.	to falsify (a bill, accounts, etc) for one's own advantage
> 4.	(in physiotherapy) to examine or treat manually, as in loosening a joint
> As opposed to what you actually mean which is influence which you will find here
> 
> Influence | Define Influence at Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> Mom, I get the deviously aspect of the definition. The question is why you don't get the skillfully (*or*) deviously aspect of the definition.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> Having said that, I have struggled with this philosophy since first reading about it.


Here is how you have lost credibility with me, T, on this topic and several others on this board. You don't struggle to understand what people are saying. You don't read what is written as intended by the author. You struggle to debunk based on your own issues wrt gender equality. You tell people that they have said things they never said. Anyone can make that mistake, but when corrected you dig in your heals and insist that they meant something else. Usually someone who has made a point knows what the point is that they were intending to make.

I came to this board thinking the Nice Guy stuff was a bunch of whooey. The man up stuff nothing more than anti-female bashing. But if you stop and really read what these guys are saying, there is a lot of sense to it. I can see the behavior of my husband doing it naturally. (I have to avoid reading BBW. I don't know if he is of the same ilk. Something about his writing style irks the tar out of me, and I cannot help thinking he really is just a pat the poor little wifey on the head type of guy.)

And as I said earlier, the proof is finally in the pudding. Their wives don't feel manipulated, their integrity remains intact. In fact, they are HAPPY. 

So when you see me drop off a conversation like this one it is because it has become a waste of time. Others who might be reading the board can make their own conclusions.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> My body is still on friggin west coast time ...
> 
> Of course we are at an impasse. We've been doing this dance for months.
> 
> We have come to understand and accept about as much as we are going to understand and accept ... and that's ok.
> 
> You think this model of realigning relationship dynamics is damaged and unfair.
> 
> I think that your view of this model of realigning relationship dynamics is damaged and unfair.
> 
> I recognize that you have your feelings. I have no wish to dismiss your feelings. But your feelings can't help me.
> 
> I have made the changes I needed to make, not simply based upon what is discussed here - but the fact remains that what is discussed here, is consistently repeated elsewhere, in many forms of media. I will continue to adjust where necessary. Those changes have not made me a different person, I'm the same person with different responses and relationship tools. Tools and responses that yield better outcomes for myself and my partner, whether she's aware of it or not.


I appreciate all of this, I really do. Of course, I do think if you went flat out for raw connection and found someone who accepted you with or without your new set of tools that you'd be happier and more connected in a relationship. I understand that this has to be mutual. That's why it's so tricky. I also understand that you're happy with where you are at now in your life and I fully respect that this philosophy helped you get there.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> Here is how you have lost credibility with me, T, on this topic and several others on this board. You don't struggle to understand what people are saying. You don't read what is written as intended by the author. You struggle to debunk based on your own issues wrt gender equality. You tell people that they have said things they never said. Anyone can make that mistake, but when corrected you dig in your heals and insist that they meant something else. Usually someone who has made a point knows what the point is that they were intending to make.
> 
> I came to this board thinking the Nice Guy stuff was a bunch of whooey. The man up stuff nothing more than anti-female bashing. But if you stop and really read what these guys are saying, there is a lot of sense to it. I can see the behavior of my husband doing it naturally. (I have to avoid reading BBW. I don't know if he is of the same ilk. Something about his writing style irks the tar out of me, and I cannot help thinking he really is just a pat the poor little wifey on the head type of guy.)
> 
> And as I said earlier, the proof is finally in the pudding. Their wives don't feel manipulated, their integrity remains intact. In fact, they are HAPPY.
> 
> So when you see me drop off a conversation like this one it is because it has become a waste of time. Others who might be reading the board can make their own conclusions.


So you can't admit that you were wrong in your definition and decide that I have zero credit. Here I proved that your definition of manipulation is wrong. You wrote threads focused on this, and I agree with you that they were indeed pointless, but suddenly when your defense is lost the entire thread is pointless?

You asked me about the words I typed about feminism/view points and where I got them from. It's all right here as I pointed out and you didn't read it. It makes me wonder why you ask questions, get proven wrong and then ignore it entirely or, in this case, decide the whole thing is pointless.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> So you can't admit that you were wrong in your definition and decide that I have zero credit. Here I proved that your definition of manipulation is wrong.


I don't think you understand how definitions work. If the definition of manipulate was the same as influence, they would not have added the descriptor they did. 



> You wrote threads focused on this, and I agree with you that they were indeed pointless, but suddenly when your defense is lost the entire thread is pointless?
> 
> You asked me about the words I typed about feminism/view points and where I got them from. It's all right here as I pointed out and you didn't read it. It makes me wonder why you ask questions, get proven wrong and then ignore it entirely or, in this case, decide the whole thing is pointless.


I did read it. You think more highly of your proofs than I do. I seem to recall you "proving" to me that I had to insist on a ticket from a police officer based on feminist principle completely unable to accept that there might be a stronger principle at work in my mind.

You regularly claim to be super clear, your proofs so perfect. How, then, could others have such a hard time agreeing with you? I came to this board agreeing with you. If I had a closed mind, I would still be there. I would have no difficulty coming to your side if your "proofs" were sound.

If it bothers you to lose credibility, that's a drag. But it is what it is. I am not the only one on here who does not think you seek understanding.


----------



## Conrad

Mom6547 said:


> Here is the thing. This series of advices does not rise to the level of belief system until the guys who are trying to help other guys on this board get raked for it.
> 
> The bottom line is men come here looking for advice. This is often the advice that they get. And it often helps them.
> 
> THAT is the main take away point from this thread, or should be, in my opinion.


Mom,

And, the advice is "especially" sound because we're almost always dealing with the "hot partner".

The cold partners aren't looking for nearly as many answers. My guess is this board is 80/20 people looking for a response from their significant other.


----------



## MEM2020

Amen



Deejo said:


> My body is still on friggin west coast time ...
> 
> Of course we are at an impasse. We've been doing this dance for months.
> 
> We have come to understand and accept about as much as we are going to understand and accept ... and that's ok.
> 
> You think this model of realigning relationship dynamics is damaged and unfair.
> 
> I think that your view of this model of realigning relationship dynamics is damaged and unfair.
> 
> I recognize that you have your feelings. I have no wish to dismiss your feelings. But your feelings can't help me.
> 
> I have made the changes I needed to make, not simply based upon what is discussed here - but the fact remains that what is discussed here, is consistently repeated elsewhere, in many forms of media. I will continue to adjust where necessary. Those changes have not made me a different person, I'm the same person with different responses and relationship tools. Tools and responses that yield better outcomes for myself and my partner, whether she's aware of it or not.


----------



## bill2011

If it is manipulation, it is for yourself and nothing more than changing your own behavior. The four wise men (can't leave out Conrad) have all given me great advice on my own self-improvement. I still don't know if my marriage will benefit from this yet but I am getting better everyday and that's all the matters.


----------



## MEM2020

Mom,
Yes to all of that. 

I went to dictionary.com for a definition. And the reason for choosing that source is that as an "online" product it is likely to have a current definition. If someone says to me "you are manipulating me", it means what the first definition listed in dictionary.com says. 

DICTIONARY.COM
ma·nip·u·late   
[muh-nip-yuh-leyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1. to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.
2. to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance: to manipulate a large tractor.
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.





Mom6547 said:


> Here is how you have lost credibility with me, T, on this topic and several others on this board. You don't struggle to understand what people are saying. You don't read what is written as intended by the author. You struggle to debunk based on your own issues wrt gender equality. You tell people that they have said things they never said. Anyone can make that mistake, but when corrected you dig in your heals and insist that they meant something else. Usually someone who has made a point knows what the point is that they were intending to make.
> 
> I came to this board thinking the Nice Guy stuff was a bunch of whooey. The man up stuff nothing more than anti-female bashing. But if you stop and really read what these guys are saying, there is a lot of sense to it. I can see the behavior of my husband doing it naturally. (I have to avoid reading BBW. I don't know if he is of the same ilk. Something about his writing style irks the tar out of me, and I cannot help thinking he really is just a pat the poor little wifey on the head type of guy.)
> 
> And as I said earlier, the proof is finally in the pudding. Their wives don't feel manipulated, their integrity remains intact. In fact, they are HAPPY.
> 
> So when you see me drop off a conversation like this one it is because it has become a waste of time. Others who might be reading the board can make their own conclusions.


----------



## Halien

I haven't contributed to the behaviors and intentions discussed on this thread, but looking at it from the outside, it seems that these discussions often pass over some critical assumptions that must exist at the core of who you are. I have no doubt that those on the title assume this foundation, and have probably discussed it, but people often miss it. AFEH often describes this well. Still, we're talking about behaviors, and whether their intent is good or bad, without being very clear about the foundation that must exist before they become natural and permanent.

I'll give an example. All of us who work in the business world are probably aware of the doormat types. These are people who seem to have accepted that life is just what it is, and they become the victim. At home, maybe the wife hopes they'll come up with the perfect vacation this summer. Full of spark and romance. She's arranged the last sixteen, now tells him to give it a try. They answer in a sequence of statements like this: "Well ... what do you have in mind?" Or "That sounds really stressfull, or "I can't imagine doing that", "People don't really do that, you know.", or even better, "I put some thought into it ... maybe later."

Before even talking about manning up, there needs to be a foundation. The first is integrity. Also, self respect must be cemented into their personality. With full confidence, a man must be able to say, "I will not be a doormat," "I will have a great sex life because I want you, and not because you owe me, and " if I do more chores, its because I demand more from myself when it comes to fostering a healthy environment." 

I only mention this because there is so much discussion regarding manipulation. But think about manipulation. Inherent within it is often the assumption of weakness, or some power that needs to be gained. In marriage, it often implies someone looking up to the person who holds the power, or in the converse state, someone with tremendous power who is sucking the life out of the weaker one. Self respect and integrity should eliminate the fear of manipulation, or being a doormat.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

miserableinlove_35 said:


> Just putting my two bits in here. But almost nothing in history changed for the better due to saintly reasons, not at first.


Please re-read what I wrote. I said from the VERY BEGINNING that manning up is initially sexually based. I haven't wavered from that. It isn't for saintly reasons as you pointed out and I agree with that. I also said from the very beginning that there is nothing wrong with that. Not sure where the man hating snipe came from but alas, you missed my point entirely.


----------



## Deejo

Halien said:


> I only mention this because there is so much discussion regarding manipulation. But think about manipulation. Inherent within it is often the assumption of weakness, or some *power* that needs to be gained. In marriage, it often implies someone looking up to the person who holds the power, or in the converse state, someone with tremendous power who is sucking the life out of the weaker one. Self respect and integrity should eliminate the fear of manipulation, or being a doormat.


The word I bolded, in my opinion, is where some take issue with these discussions. It is seen in terms of who has, or is exerting influence and power ... particularly if framed from the point of view of the male influencing power over the woman. Sawney Beane said as much with the benevolent despotism analogy.

If you were to ask a woman if she respects, values, and trusts the judgment of her husband, generally, she will feel inclined to say, yes.

If you were to ask a woman, if her husband leads the relationship and she is comfortable following his lead, you are likely to get a different response.

To me, context is everything. Those sentences above infer the same thing. One is implicit. The other is explicit. One is likely to elicit positive emotions and a positive response. The other is going to send up red flags, defensiveness and prompt questions of; "What do you mean?" The second question infers power and weakness, and that makes folks uncomfortable. 

I've seen it. Actually saw it this past weekend when staying with my brother and his partner in CA. I pay attention where I didn't before. I don't think that I'm smarter or wiser, or know things that others don't. I've done my due diligence and put into practice what I have learned. I certainly don't feel like I have anything to prove. Not to anyone other than myself.

Excellent summary, Halien.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> The word I bolded, in my opinion, is where some take issue with these discussions. It is seen in terms of who has, or is exerting influence and power ... particularly if framed from the point of view of the male influencing power over the woman. Sawney Beane said as much with the benevolent despotism analogy.
> 
> If you were to ask a woman if she respects, values, and trusts the judgment of her husband, generally, she will feel inclined to say, yes.
> 
> If you were to ask a woman, if her husband leads the relationship and she is comfortable following his lead, you are likely to get a different response.
> 
> To me, context is everything. Those sentences above infer the same thing. One is implicit. The other is explicit.


I can easily say that I trust my husband's judgement AND that he does not lead the relationship. I also trust MY judgement. That I trust my husband in no way infers that he is a leader.

That inference is a giant leap, in my opinion. 


The point that came to my mind about power is that the objections to this thread around power come from people to whom it matters who wields power. Personally, I don't CARE about power except insofar as it gets things done. The issue of power arises as a result of fearing the loss of it.


----------



## MEM2020

Bright,
When I first read your post my blood started to boil. Then I read it again. By the third time I was nodding. 

Are you saying that for most men the "trigger event" for manning up is that their sex lives are screwed up? 

Because I think that is true. It sure was for me. 

But what started out as an exercise in "how do I create desire" turned into a much bigger project more broadly "how do I become a better partner, including a recognition that I could help bring out the best in my W, just as she has done with me"

So the initial impulse: shallow, selfish, base. Oink oink

The resulting changes - a beautiful thing. 




Therealbrighteyes said:


> Please re-read what I wrote. I said from the VERY BEGINNING that manning up is initially is sexually based. I haven't wavered from that. It isn't for sainly reasons as you pointed out and I agree with that. I also said from the very beginning that there is nothing wrong with that. Not sure where the man hating snipe came from but alas, you missed my point entirely.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MEM11363 said:


> Bright,
> When I first read your post my blood started to boil. Then I read it again. By the third time I was nodding.
> 
> Are you saying that for most men the "trigger event" for manning up is that their sex lives are screwed up?
> 
> Because I think that is true. It sure was for me.
> 
> But what started out as an exercise in "how do I create desire" turned into a much bigger project more broadly "how do I become a better partner, including a recognition that I could help bring out the best in my W, just as she has done with me"
> 
> So the initial impulse: shallow, selfish, base. Oink oink
> 
> The resulting changes - a beautiful thing.


Yes, Mem. Take a look at the boards in the men's forum and also the sex forum. There is alot of "sexless marriage", "she doesn't want sex", "don't know how to get our sex lives back", etc. I haven't seen yet a post by a man saying "she doesn't communicate her feelings". 
My point is, when the sex life goes downhill for a man, that is when he starts looking around and seeing how he can man up. Nothing wrong with that at all, btw. In doing some of the things, he will start to notice other aspects of his relationship change, like you did. So all in all a very positive thing.
What I was saying and many argued with is that it isn't inititally motivated by some noble thing. It is a very basic thing and yet many wanted to discredit that or worse, call me a man hater. :scratchhead: We all use manipulation at certain times. I freely admit that I do.


----------



## Deejo

Mom6547 said:


> I can easily say that I trust my husband's judgement AND that he does not lead the relationship. I also trust MY judgement. That I trust my husband in no way infers that he is a leader.
> 
> That inference is a giant leap, in my opinion.


But if those elements I indicated are in place, you are not likely to be concerned about if and when he does lead.

Whereas if you believe that your husband can't find his ass with both hands, you would likely feel a bit less secure were he to declare, "This is what we are going to do ..." as opposed to, "Well honey, what do you think?"




> The point that came to my mind about power is that the objections to this thread around power come from people to whom it matters who wields power. Personally, I don't CARE about power except insofar as it gets things done. The issue of power arises as a result of fearing the loss of it.


Better said than I.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove

I recently read Awareness by Anthony DeMello.

One thing that really struck me in his book was the fact that ALL behavior that we exhibit toward each other and others is self-motivating/manipulative - ALL BEHAVIOR.

Everything we do is motivated by our desire to either get something in return or to feel good about ourselves - we don't do anything for nothing. Therefore we manipulate situations and people daily in order to get "what we need" out of the situation.

- When we give money or our time to charity - we're not just doing it to help others - we're helping ourselves, because giving to charity "makes us feel good." We are expecting to feel good, therefore we get something in return for the charity we give.

- When we cook our husband's favorite dinner - sure we're doing it because we know it's his favorite and we love him, but we're also doing it because it makes us feel good when he tells us how wonderful it was.

Every action = reaction.

All actions expect "something" in return. 

So what the "Alpha 3", as I like to refer to them as, are doing, is nothing more than each and every human being does every day on this earth.

We do things, all things, because we expect some type of payback - whether it be sex, more time, attention, ability to feel good about ourselves, increased self-esteem - something.

Nobody can be truly unselfish as unselfish requires us to put everyone's happiness above our own - impossible - our very human nature forces us to always, when the chips are down, put our OWN happiness above all others. 

Just some food for thought - it was a great book - thanks AFEH!


----------



## greenpearl

Deejo said:


> If you were to ask a woman, if her husband leads the relationship and she is comfortable following his lead, you are likely to get a different response.


If you asked me this question three years ago, I would just be bewildered and wouldn't know what you meant. 

I wouldn't be offended! Rather different from a lot of female members here. Simply because of my culture background! 

Now if you ask me this question, I will be happy to tell you that I choose to let my husband to lead our relationship and I am happy following his lead. Because my husband has shown me that he has the ability and he is loving towards me. 

He knows that I am impulsive when I make decisions, he tells me that directly. Many times because I listened to him, I didn't make silly mistakes, if I was just plain stubborn and wouldn't listen to my husband, I would have made a lot of silly mistakes. I say this, some others will then doubt my intelligence and tell me that I am dumb. OK! But now I have a smart husband to hold my horses, and he helps me make smart decisions, why not?! 

In some areas, he has good ideas. In some areas, I have good ideas. When I tell him my opinion, it makes sense, he happily adopts my idea. A couple makes up for each other, they do what is the best for their relationship!

Manipulation, I don't know anything about it. I never used this tool to get what I want, neither did my husband.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> But if those elements I indicated are in place, you are not likely to be concerned about if and when he does lead.
> 
> Whereas if you believe that your husband can't find his ass with both hands, you would likely feel a bit less secure were he to declare, "This is what we are going to do ..." as opposed to, "Well honey, what do you think?"


Yes.


----------



## MEM2020

Yep. 

I wasn't paying attention to my Wife's feelings. She was:
- Resentful I had gotten out of shape and stopped working out. 
- Frustrated I had become so "passive"
- Turned off by my passive, passive, passive, AGGRESSIVE responses 
- Confused by her total lack of desire for me
- Resentful that she had to keep having sex with someone she felt no desire for

Now I look back and I feel gratitude. I am glad that she was turned off by all that wasted potential. That she didn't/couldn't feel passion for someone who had really started to "check out". Ultimately she did the most powerful thing she possibly could. She began to stop loving me. 

So. Here's to you Mrs. MEM. Thanks for having high standards....



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes, Mem. Take a look at the boards in the men's forum and also the sex forum. There is alot of "sexless marriage", "she doesn't want sex", "don't know how to get our sex lives back", etc. I haven't seen yet a post by a man saying "she doesn't communicate her feelings".
> My point is, when the sex life goes downhill for a man, that is when he starts looking around and seeing how he can man up. Nothing wrong with that at all, btw. In doing some of the things, he will start to notice other aspects of his relationship change, like you did. So all in all a very positive thing.
> What I was saying and many argued with is that it isn't inititally motivated by some noble thing. It is a very basic thing and yet many wanted to discredit that or worse, call me a man hater. :scratchhead: We all use manipulation at certain times. I freely admit that I do.


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes, Mem. Take a look at the boards in the men's forum and also the sex forum. There is alot of "sexless marriage", "she doesn't want sex", "don't know how to get our sex lives back", etc. I haven't seen yet a post by a man saying "she doesn't communicate her feelings".


AHHHHHHH. I get you. When I read a man saying she doesn't want sex, I read my marriage sucks, I want to fix my marriage. When I read a woman write, he doesn't communicate her feelings, I read my marriage sucks, I want to fix my marriage. But you were talking about the trigger event that arrives one at my marriage sucks.

That said, I HAVE seen, though as you say no where near as often, my wife is distant, nothing I ever do is good enough...




> My point is, when the sex life goes downhill for a man, that is when he starts looking around and seeing how he can man up. Nothing wrong with that at all, btw. In doing some of the things, he will start to notice other aspects of his relationship change, like you did. So all in all a very positive thing.
> What I was saying and many argued with is that it isn't inititally motivated by some noble thing.


See that is where I think I differ from what you are saying. I DO think wanting to fix your marriage is a noble thing and that is the motivation with sex being the leading indicator for men.

But I am no mind reader.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

See, we can agree. Also, yes wanting to fix your marriage is noble. That isn't the initial motivator though for lots of guys here. It is sexually motivated in the beginning. They then begin to realize all the other things that are missing and set out to work on those too. My mentioning "noble" was in reference to a few posts here that said it was about being a better father, husband, co-worker and that is why they decided to man up. No, that wasn't the reason. The initial reason was something more primal. Of course, all those other areas benefited but that is why I said let's be honest about the initial motivation.


----------



## MEM2020

Bright,
Do you think men are generally more "self centered/selfish" than women?




Therealbrighteyes said:


> See, we can agree. Also, yes wanting to fix your marriage is noble. That isn't the initial motivator though for lots of guys here. It is sexually motivated in the beginning. They then begin to realize all the other things that are missing and set out to work on those too. My mentioning "noble" was in reference to a few posts here that said it was about being a better father, husband, co-worker and that is why they decided to man up. No, that wasn't the reason. The initial reason was something more primal. Of course, all those other areas benefited but that is why I said let's be honest about the initial motivation.


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> See, we can agree. Also, yes wanting to fix your marriage is noble. That isn't the initial motivator though for lots of guys here. It is sexually motivated in the beginning.


The difference between you and I is that I think those motivators are one in the same.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MEM11363 said:


> Bright,
> Do you think men are generally more "self centered/selfish" than women?


That's a tough question to answer. More? I think that men and women are vastly different in the way they behave.


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> That's a tough question to answer. More? I think that men and women are vastly different in the way they behave.


I am trying to figure out why I find your constant emoticon use irritating! The eyeroll one is particularly irritating. Why do you do that? Do you know that an eyeroll is a particularly dismissive gesture?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Not sure how to respond to that so I will just tape my fingers.


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Not sure how to respond to that so I will just tape my fingers.


It came out more nasty than I intended! I was just curious.


----------



## Conrad

Mom6547 said:


> It came out more nasty than I intended! I was just curious.


Next time, simply strive for "garden variety" nasty - like you are with me.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> Next time, simply strive for "garden variety" nasty - like you are with me.


I am nasty to you? Conrad, I do not understand you.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad said:


> Next time, simply strive for "garden variety" nasty - like you are with me.


Like calling me a retard?


----------



## Mom6547

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Like calling me a retard?


What are you talking about? Are you and Conrad the same person? Conrad keeps on and on about some reference to retards.


----------



## Deejo

Let's not wander too far off the range, folks ...


----------



## MEM2020

This is partly a delivery style thing. The way a typical reader will see your comment is: Manning up is just about a bunch of selfish guys wanting to get laid. 

I would describe it as: Manning up is about a bunch of guys who feel like their wives don't really love them (as a man and a husband) anymore, often don't know why and typically don't get helpful, candid responses from their wives when they ask what the problem is. We help those men HERE as best we can based on the information they provide. 

Further I will add my "bottom quintile" observations. For every selfish, shallow man who simply wants to come hard in a tight, warm, wet orfice he has a counterpart in the female populace who parasitically abuses her higher drive male partner by sexually starving him under the pretense that he needs to perform a never ending, ever changing list of herculean feats if he wants to get in her pants. If you wish to focus our threads on that subset of the human race, perhaps you can persuade the sys admin to create a "Jerry Springer online" section of the board. I promise not to come there. 





Therealbrighteyes said:


> That's a tough question to answer. More? I think that men and women are vastly different in the way they behave.


----------



## Mom6547

MEM11363 said:


> This is partly a delivery style thing. The way a typical reader will see your comment is: Manning up is just about a bunch of selfish guys wanting to get laid.


THIS is what I used to see.



> I would describe it as: Manning up is about a bunch of guys who feel like their wives don't really love them (as a man and a husband) anymore, often don't know why and typically don't get helpful, candid responses from their wives when they ask what the problem is. We help those men HERE as best we can based on the information they provide.


THIS is what took me a really long time to get.



> Further I will add my "bottom quintile" observations. For every selfish, shallow man who simply wants to come hard in a tight, warm, wet orfice he has a counterpart in the female populace who parasitically abuses her higher drive male partner by sexually starving him under the pretense that he needs to perform a never ending, ever changing list of herculean feats if he wants to get in her pants.


Except I suspect the VAST majority of time this doesn't even really exist but is a massive misunderstanding between two bitter people who have gotten stuck in a pattern of doom.




> If you wish to focus our threads on that subset of the human race, perhaps you can persuade the sys admin to create a "Jerry Springer online" section of the board. I promise not to come there.


That was funny.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MEM11363 said:


> This is partly a delivery style thing. The way a typical reader will see your comment is: Manning up is just about a bunch of selfish guys wanting to get laid.
> 
> I would describe it as: Manning up is about a bunch of guys who feel like their wives don't really love them (as a man and a husband) anymore, often don't know why and typically don't get helpful, candid responses from their wives when they ask what the problem is. We help those men HERE as best we can based on the information they provide.
> 
> Further I will add my "bottom quintile" observations. For every selfish, shallow man who simply wants to come hard in a tight, warm, wet orfice he has a counterpart in the female populace who parasitically abuses her higher drive male partner by sexually starving him under the pretense that he needs to perform a never ending, ever changing list of herculean feats if he wants to get in her pants. If you wish to focus our threads on that subset of the human race, perhaps you can persuade the sys admin to create a "Jerry Springer online" section of the board. I promise not to come there.


I am speachless, just speachless. I didn't say it was selfish and I even said it was a good thing. I was just suggesting that sex is the initital motivator. One minute your blood is boiling, the next you agree with me and now you tell me to create a Jerry Springer online. Seriously?


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove

Conrad said:


> Next time, simply strive for "garden variety" nasty - like you are with me.


:rofl:

Love her - but tact is not always her first language!


----------



## Trenton

Sigh. You have all lost credibility with me just because.


Excuse me while I go turn my thermostat down and freeze to death.


----------



## BigBadWolf

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes, Mem. Take a look at the boards in the men's forum and also the sex forum. There is alot of "sexless marriage", "she doesn't want sex", "don't know how to get our sex lives back", etc. I haven't seen yet a post by a man saying "she doesn't communicate her feelings".
> My point is, when the sex life goes downhill for a man, that is when he starts looking around and seeing how he can man up. Nothing wrong with that at all, btw. In doing some of the things, he will start to notice other aspects of his relationship change, like you did. So all in all a very positive thing.


Stop posting this type of stuff, or else it may get out that a man working on his sex appeal is really working on all the things that make him a better husband, father, employee, friend, and well rounded interesting person. 



> What I was saying and many argued with is that it isn't inititally motivated by some noble thing. It is a very basic thing and yet many wanted to discredit that or worse, call me a man hater. :scratchhead: We all use manipulation at certain times. I freely admit that I do.


Is that why when I encourage men to not be afraid to be selfish, and pursue their desires instead of putting their woman on a pedastal, it is often inferred I am a "woman hater"? 

Pursuing selfish motivation, to encourage this in a man, is the first step for him to stop so much of the dishonest behaviors that mask his true personality, hopes, ambitions, opinions, dreams, and wind up creating this "nice guy" archetype we discuss so often.

Nice guy = using dishonesty to appease, weak, not attractive. 

Selfish motivation = honest, real, strong, attractive. 

A martyr, it is not so good for creating and maintaining sexual relationships.


----------



## Trenton

BigBadWolf said:


> Stop posting this type of stuff, or else it may get out that a man working on his sex appeal is really working on all the things that make him a better husband, father, employee, friend, and well rounded interesting person.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why when I encourage men to not be afraid to be selfish, and pursue their desires instead of putting their woman on a pedastal, it is often inferred I am a "woman hater"?
> 
> Pursuing selfish motivation, to encourage this in a man, is the first step for him to stop so much of the dishonest behaviors that mask his true personality, hopes, ambitions, opinions, dreams, and wind up creating this "nice guy" archetype we discuss so often.
> 
> Nice guy = using dishonesty to appease, weak, not attractive.
> 
> Selfish motivation = honest, real, strong, attractive.
> 
> A martyr, it is not so good for creating and maintaining sexual relationships.


Hey, ya know, at least you're willing to call a spade a spade. I can respect that.

Do you believe that a woman does not know what she wants and a man becomes this nice guy to appease what the woman is saying she wants while she really wants the selfishly motivated man?

I'm just curious as at least you won't try to put sugar coating on top of it to make it easier for women to swallow. When we love our man, most women are willing to swallow the nasty tasting crap anyway and do so enjoying it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

BigBadWolf said:


> Stop posting this type of stuff, or else it may get out that a man working on his sex appeal is really working on all the things that make him a better husband, father, employee, friend, and well rounded interesting person.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why when I encourage men to not be afraid to be selfish, and pursue their desires instead of putting their woman on a pedastal, it is often inferred I am a "woman hater"?
> 
> Pursuing selfish motivation, to encourage this in a man, is the first step for him to stop so much of the dishonest behaviors that mask his true personality, hopes, ambitions, opinions, dreams, and wind up creating this "nice guy" archetype we discuss so often.
> 
> Nice guy = using dishonesty to appease, weak, not attractive.
> 
> Selfish motivation = honest, real, strong, attractive.
> 
> A martyr, it is not so good for creating and maintaining sexual relationships.


This was my point ENTIRELY! You say it and it is gospel, I say it I need my own Springer show? Flippin unbelievable.
BBW, YOU are a king among men.


----------



## Conrad

Mom6547 said:


> I am nasty to you? Conrad, I do not understand you.


I should have used the smiley. But, I know you don't like those


----------



## Trenton

Therealbrighteyes said:


> This was my point ENTIRELY! You say it and it is gospel, I say it I need my own Springer show? Flippin unbelievable.
> You are in a league all on your own BBW. You call it like you see it and don't sugar coat or make excuses for the motivations.


:rofl:

You're a woman and can't possibly know what you're talking about unless you are agreeing. Duh. Don't make me spank your bum and escort you out of the Men's Clubhouse blushing and giggling!


----------



## nice777guy

Trenton said:


> :rofl:
> 
> You're a woman and can't possibly know what you're talking about unless you are agreeing. Duh. Don't make me spank your bum and escort you out of the Men's Clubhouse blushing and giggling!


KNEW you two were a couple!

And I also have trouble understanding Conrad.

Trenton - I don't think being a niceguy necessarily has anything to do with how the woman is behaving. The wife/woman could be a totally reasonable person - I think its more about the man's insecurities - doing things to keep another person happy while hurting himself in the long run by ignoring his own needs.


----------



## MEM2020

ROTFL 

Wolf, 
I think that you being willing to call a "spade a spade" means that:
1. you won't call me "manipulative" in one post and then 
2. when you get broadly smacked for it swear you just meant I am a skilled user of hand tools in the next post, and then 
3. claim that you actually meant "manipulative" in a positive/or non-negative way in your next post. 
4. And finally when it is clear that you are the only person in the English speaking world who thinks "emotionally manipulative" in that context is not a negative, throw up your hands in disgust and tell the other person they just generally suck

If that is too sugar coated - I just can't help it. It is my nature to be tactful. I have to admit though that I couldn't dig through all the obfuscation behind "I generally don't like this approach - but can't defend an argument for specifically what I dislike" and "the motivation is selfish". 




BigBadWolf said:


> Stop posting this type of stuff, or else it may get out that a man working on his sex appeal is really working on all the things that make him a better husband, father, employee, friend, and well rounded interesting person.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why when I encourage men to not be afraid to be selfish, and pursue their desires instead of putting their woman on a pedastal, it is often inferred I am a "woman hater"?
> 
> Pursuing selfish motivation, to encourage this in a man, is the first step for him to stop so much of the dishonest behaviors that mask his true personality, hopes, ambitions, opinions, dreams, and wind up creating this "nice guy" archetype we discuss so often.
> 
> Nice guy = using dishonesty to appease, weak, not attractive.
> 
> Selfish motivation = honest, real, strong, attractive.
> 
> A martyr, it is not so good for creating and maintaining sexual relationships.


----------



## Conrad

*quoted for truth*




mem11363 said:


> rotfl
> 
> wolf,
> i think that you being willing to call a "spade a spade" means that:
> 1. You won't call me "manipulative" in one post and then
> 2. When you get broadly smacked for it swear you just meant i am a skilled user of hand tools in the next post, and then
> 3. Claim that you actually meant "manipulative" in a positive/or non-negative way in your next post.
> 4. And finally when it is clear that you are the only person in the english speaking world who thinks "emotionally manipulative" in that context is not a negative, throw up your hands in disgust and tell the other person they just generally suck
> 
> if that is too sugar coated - i just can't help it. It is my nature to be tactful. I have to admit though that i couldn't dig through all the obfuscation behind "i generally don't like this approach - but can't defend an argument for specifically what i dislike" and "the motivation is selfish".


----------



## Mom6547

MEM11363 said:


> I have to admit though that I couldn't dig through all the obfuscation behind "I generally don't like this approach - but can't defend an argument for specifically what I dislike" and "the motivation is selfish".


God that was funny.


----------



## Trenton

Ouch, I feel so gang banged all my holes hurt and the restraints are killing me.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> :rofl:
> 
> You're a woman and can't possibly know what you're talking about unless you are agreeing. Duh. Don't make me spank your bum and escort you out of the Men's Clubhouse blushing and giggling!


That is disingenuous and you know it. I started out agreeing with YOU, aggressively so if you might recall, until I was otherwise convinced. Bright has a legit claim it seems to me. But you are just embarrassing and no service to feminism.


----------



## Deejo

Ladies ... this isn't about you. 

Ok, ok, last one I swear ...


----------



## greenpearl

La la la....................................... 

Sometimes I feel you guys become good friends just because of arguing. 

One minute you are arguing, the next minute you become buddies, what's going on? 

Can someone explain this to me? 

Anyway, I am watching the show..................................


----------



## Mephisto

I honestly don't think Trenton could tell the difference between a spade and a shovel, what, with all her to-ing and fro-ing on this. So much for calling a spade a spade huh?

The fact is that everyone manipulates every person they interact with every day in every way. Whether it be overtly or covertly, through verbal communication or through body language. From simply asking for what they want from the other, to encouraging one behaviour or discouraging another, from a simple nod of approval to a grand parade in their honour. 

ALL interaction is a manipulation to some degree. Who really cares if the other person knows what you are doing or not, if it gets the desired result and they are happy with it then so be it! 

Anyone heard of Derren Brown? MASTER of manipulation, plenty of him on youtube. None of us are up to his standard, but at the end of the day, we are all just trying to get a happy life for ourselves. If subtle changes in our OWN behaviours can illicit the desired response in someone else then there is no real problem. 

Those who don't like it are simply in denial of what the reality of life is. Keep up the good work fellas!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Ladies ... this isn't about you.
> 
> Ok, ok, last one I swear ...


So if we covered ourselves in Ky Jelly and wrestled in a blow up kiddy pool while a bunch of overgrown frat boys watched, it wouldn't be about us? 

Top that visual, Burgundy. 

FWIW, this is a place of common ground. Marriages that need help. I appreciate the men here who steer me along. Some don't get me, many do. We are all colored if you will by our experiences. Childhood, lifetime experiences, hurt, love, pain, happiness, marriage, parenthood, etc. Each of our experiences are unique. It doesn't make me wrong and it doesn't make you right. It doesn't make you wrong and it doesn't make me right. We just are. 

Having said that, Burgundy when are you going to press Chris for smell 'o vision? Maybe I could glean a bit more from the men here if I knew how they smelled. My husband could be yelling his head off. If he has Prada cologne on; dim the lights, let the disco ball fall, get the circular bed rotating and let's have at it. Mirrors on the ceiling and the camera in the corner be damned.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> That is disingenuous and you know it. I started out agreeing with YOU, aggressively so if you might recall, until I was otherwise convinced. Bright has a legit claim it seems to me. But you are just embarrassing and no service to feminism.


I honestly never cared whether you agreed with me or not nor do I think it gives any more or less credibility to the argument so you don't have to keep repeating it. Please don't tell me what I know as I'm positive you have no idea. 

To say I am no service to feminism based upon this thread is really short sighted and ignorant but those do not seem to be traits you are unfamiliar with.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> To say I am no service to feminism based upon this thread is really short sighted and ignorant but those do not seem to be traits you are unfamiliar with.


It is my opinion that one attempts to speak for a movement, one should refrain from speaking from bias and prejudice and should use thought and argument. You have taken out so many logical fallacies when your arguments fail, it is not even funny.

So to anyone else who is reading this, I call that out.

Cheers.


----------



## Trenton

Mom6547 said:


> It is my opinion that one attempts to speak for a movement, one should refrain from speaking from bias and prejudice and should use thought and argument. You have taken out so many logical fallacies when your arguments fail, it is not even funny.
> 
> So to anyone else who is reading this, I call that out.
> 
> Cheers.


Right. So you ignore the long thread you posted in about women's equality (where we disagreed from the start) and I posted links, data and factual information to back up an *actual *argument about women's rights and decide to discredit me entirely based upon a conversation turned group mentality and think you call me out?

You do all of this without knowing anything I do in my life or ever having a one on one conversation with me? Yes, short sighted and ignorant indeed.


----------



## Deejo

I think we're good here


----------

