# More on empathy for men...



## Faithful Wife

So some of you know I’m working on a thing in my own head. I’m trying build empathy for men in myself, in mental places where I can’t actually empathize because I don’t have relevant experience.

I was originally focused on red pill men, but I’ve come to understand so far that I don’t need to make that distinction. That there are untold numbers of men who are feeling the same way that red pill men are, even if they have never heard of the red pill.

I had another thread before about empathy from women to men which is very relevant to this one:

https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html

That thread opened my eyes on a lot of things.

I’m aware that on other threads, I may not seem to be empathetic with men on some issues. Please for the topic of this thread understand that I’m working through things here that are specific. On this thread, I’m not going to discuss anything except this topic, and I will be attempt to stay on an empathetic path here. Others threads, no promises. :laugh:

Here’s where I’m at so far.

Men feel they are expected to protect women and children with their lives, but we don’t actually acknowledge or appreciate this.

Men feel that women are protected by society, by law, and by themselves and other men, but that they have no one to go to for protection of any kind. They are responsible for their own protection and that of all the women in their lives. They want to simply be acknowledged for this, but many don’t feel that they are.

Men are not afforded empathy by society generally, for many reasons but apparently mostly because we can’t stand to see the men who we need to protect us being vulnerable. And more specifically, a woman romantically involved with a man feels a loss of sexual attraction to him if he shows vulnerability of any kind (in enough cases that men on average can report this).

(Most) men do not experience the feeling of being sexually wanted by large numbers of women. Regardless of how women can explain how this isn’t a thing for us, men do wish they could feel the sensation of walking in a room and having most women’s eyes on them. They honestly wish to desire this and it’s really not weird for them to want that at all. They do feel hurt if they don’t experience this, a hurt that is on a level I can’t empathize with because I haven’t felt it. Maybe they wouldn’t describe it as a hurt. But when reading or hearing men’s words on this topic, you can hear the hurt. And because it is a universal and very common feeling, I’ve read enough words to understand intellectually that this is a big deal for them and therefore is deserving of empathy.

When you can’t feel empathy because of lack of direct experience, you have to start with sympathy, compassion and logic. I can logically deduce that if I was raised to believe that no one afforded me empathy, that I was expected to support and protect some other class of people, and that I wasn’t sexually desirable (that I can determine from my experience with the opposite sex), I would be pissed off and rebellious.

That’s where I’ve gotten to so far in building my bridge of empathy to understanding what men’s issues are.

This doesn’t address the family court issues, which I do understand and empathize with (enough to get it, at least). 

But starting here, I am trying to look at how life is for men in our time and society. And when I realize the list above is so very common, I’m just very sad. I don’t want it to be that way, but to change anything you’ve got to look at what is really happening to people.

On this thread, I’m not going to ask for empathy on women’s issues. I do think some work needs to be done there, but I don’t think it’s helpful here. I’m trying to first seek to understand. And right now I don’t even care if I’m understood in return. But maybe some mutual understanding can occur. 

Men or women, please share your thoughts about empathy for men. In society, but also in personal experience. Please comment on the list I made or add to it.


----------



## john117

Empathy can be helped by good ole thinking. Even if a person is as emphatic as a sofa, they can learn to look at more than one angle of an issue. Eventually that is a good way to start seeing things other people's way.

Of course, for many men, the sheer mention of more than one angle is tantamount to sacrilege...


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> Empathy can be helped by good ole thinking. Even if a person is as emphatic as a sofa, they can learn to look at more than one angle of an issue. Eventually that is a good way to start seeing things other people's way.
> 
> Of course, for many men, the sheer mention of more than one angle is tantamount to sacrilege...


I could say a lot about lack of empathy by men and lack of seeing another view. But that would have to be a separate thread and discussion. It’s important and relevant, but not what I’m trying to accomplish.

Even though it apparently should be easy for us all to have empathy for people even if we haven’t experienced what they have, it’s actually not easy nor does it come naturally. We aren’t quite that evolved yet.

In theory, as humans we should be able to empathize with any other human on the basis of our shared humanity. But that isn’t where we are. So until we are, we have to keep finding ways to develop empathy. In future generations maybe our efforts will result in their being able to empathize with any human issue without relevant personal experience first.


----------



## StarFires

I don't think I understand much of what you're saying, so I stand corrected here whenever necessary.




Faithful Wife said:


> Men feel they are expected to protect women and children with their lives, but we don’t actually acknowledge or appreciate this.


Here in the US, we express appreciation to our military personnel (comprised of both men and women) more openly and more often than our society ever did before. And more than some other countries. I remember Prince Harry mentioning that the Americans are better at that and the Brits need to get on board. Are men saying that's what they want the rest of society (women and children) to do? Every time we see a man, are we to tell him how much we appreciate bearing our expectation of protection? That doesn't mean they will protect us if such time or occasion should present itself or that such time or occasion ever will present itself. It only means we're acknowledging that they are expected to protect us. Right?



Faithful Wife said:


> Men feel that women are protected by society, by law, and by themselves and other men, but that they have no one to go to for protection of any kind. They are responsible for their own protection and that of all the women in their lives. They want to simply be acknowledged for this, but many don’t feel that they are.


Again, I'm confused. If society is made up of men, women, and children, and it is expected that 2/3 of society is protected by men, who is there left for men to go to for protection? If that is innately and traditionally their role, who else is left to do it for them. There's no 4th third of society, so who do they want to protect them? Again, what is the acknowledgement men seek? I'm not into whining. I can't relate to that. I can only relate to understanding what a person needs and wants. So what are you saying men want us to do? Acknowledgment in terms of what and how?



Faithful Wife said:


> Men are not afforded empathy by society generally, for many reasons but apparently mostly because we can’t stand to see the men who we need to protect us being vulnerable. And more specifically, a woman romantically involved with a man feels a loss of sexual attraction to him if he shows vulnerability of any kind (in enough cases that men on average can report this).


I don't think vulnerability of any kind would be accurate. It doesn't turn me off if my husband starts to cry. It actually turns me on. But it surely would turn me off he were to start whining. I can understand if a lot of men feel vulnerable in that they don't understand women, but I could not abide having to be the strong one all the time. I don't want to carry him. I need him to be stronger than me, and I need us to walk together. I think it's possible these complaints may be the result of society waning so far from religion and the Bible, which was often the basis of structure in society and still is in some religions. It sounds like there are a lot of men who don't know their roles and so society is getting lost in nomansland.



Faithful Wife said:


> *(Most) men do not experience the feeling of being sexually wanted by large numbers of women*. Regardless of how women can explain how this isn’t a thing for us, men do wish they could feel the sensation of walking in a room and having most women’s eyes on them. They honestly wish to desire this and it’s really not weird for them to want that at all. They do feel hurt if they don’t experience this, a hurt that is on a level I can’t empathize with because I haven’t felt it. Maybe they wouldn’t describe it as a hurt. But when reading or hearing men’s words on this topic, you can hear the hurt. And because it is a universal and very common feeling, I’ve read enough words to understand intellectually that this is a big deal for them and therefore is deserving of empathy.


I want to laugh so badly, but I won't and will just assume that surely you misrepresented that somehow or didn't word it correctly perhaps. Because if not, you're telling us that men say they want to be wanted.......and worshiped.......by multitudes of women. Please correct this as necessary, or re-word it....or something.



Faithful Wife said:


> When you can’t feel empathy because of lack of direct experience, you have to start with sympathy, compassion and logic. I can logically deduce that if I was raised to believe that no one afforded me empathy, that I was expected to support and protect some other class of people, and that I wasn’t sexually desirable (that I can determine from my experience with the opposite sex), I would be pissed off and rebellious.


Everything in perspective because none of it is as broad as you're making it sound. Expectation to support and protect another class of people is within the family unit. It isn't as though every man is expected to support every woman or protect every woman. So if you're telling us that men don't want to support or protect their family, or that they want a parade for it every day, then that is unreasonable, and it sounds like they want ALL the women in the room but don't want to be responsible for anything. Are you sure you are expressing men's feelings accurately, or am I reading all this the wrong way? You're talking about empathy, but what is there to understand here?


----------



## notmyrealname4

Faithful Wife said:


> (Most) men do not experience the feeling of being sexually wanted by large numbers of women. Regardless of how women can explain how this isn’t a thing for us, men do wish they could feel the sensation of walking in a room and having most women’s eyes on them. They honestly wish to desire this and it’s really not weird for them to want that at all. They do feel hurt if they don’t experience this, a hurt that is on a level I can’t empathize with because I haven’t felt it. Maybe they wouldn’t describe it as a hurt. But when reading or hearing men’s words on this topic, you can hear the hurt. And because it is a universal and very common feeling, I’ve read enough words to understand intellectually that this is a big deal for them and therefore is deserving of empathy.




A decent percentage of women probably want this ^^^ too.

*All* humans would like at least a couple of pairs of eyes looking at them appreciatively. And most of us do experience that, at least a few times, probably when we're young.

But for most of us [who aren't rock stars or models], entering a room, and having almost every member of the opposite sex feel desire for us is plainly ridiculous.

If you persist in wanting this; then want shall be your master.


----------



## Faithful Wife

notmyrealname4 said:


> A decent percentage of women probably want this ^^^ too.
> 
> *All* humans would like at least a couple of pairs of eyes looking at them appreciatively. And most of us do experience that, at least a few times, probably when we're young.
> 
> But for most of us [who aren't rock stars or models], entering a room, and having almost every member of the opposite sex feel desire for us is plainly ridiculous.
> 
> If you persist in wanting this; then want shall be your master.


I think my saying “all eyes in the room” is too much. I think most men would be happy if they just felt the gaze of some amount of women across their lives, enough to know they are (best term, forgive the crudeness) ****able.


----------



## Faithful Wife

StarFires said:


> I don't think I understand much of what you're saying, so I stand corrected here whenever necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here in the US, we express appreciation to our military personnel (comprised of both men and women) more openly and more often than our society ever did before. And more than some other countries. I remember Prince Harry mentioning that the Americans are better at that and the Brits need to get on board. Are men saying that's what they want the rest of society (women and children) to do? Every time we see a man, are we to tell him how much we appreciate bearing our expectation of protection? That doesn't mean they will protect us if such time or occasion should present itself or that such time or occasion ever will present itself. It only means we're acknowledging that they are expected to protect us. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm confused. If society is made up of men, women, and children, and it is expected that 2/3 of society is protected by men, who is there left for men to go to for protection? If that is innately and traditionally their role, who else is left to do it for them. There's no 4th third of society, so who do they want to protect them? Again, what is the acknowledgement men seek? I'm not into whining. I can't relate to that. I can only relate to understanding what a person needs and wants. So what are you saying men want us to do? Acknowledgment in terms of what and how?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think vulnerability of any kind would be accurate. It doesn't turn me off if my husband starts to cry. It actually turns me on. But it surely would turn me off he were to start whining. I can understand if a lot of men feel vulnerable in that they don't understand women, but I could not abide having to be the strong one all the time. I don't want to carry him. I need him to be stronger than me, and I need us to walk together. I think it's possible these complaints may be the result of society waning so far from religion and the Bible, which was often the basis of structure in society and still is in some religions. It sounds like there are a lot of men who don't know their roles and so society is getting lost in nomansland.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to laugh so badly, but I won't and will just assume that surely you misrepresented that somehow or didn't word it correctly perhaps. Because if not, you're telling us that men say they want to be wanted.......and worshiped.......by multitudes of women. Please correct this as necessary, or re-word it....or something.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in perspective because none of it is as broad as you're making it sound. Expectation to support and protect another class of people is within the family unit. It isn't as though every man is expected to support every woman or protect every woman. So if you're telling us that men don't want to support or protect their family, or that they want a parade for it every day, then that is unreasonable, and it sounds like they want ALL the women in the room but don't want to be responsible for anything. Are you sure you are expressing men's feelings accurately, or am I reading all this the wrong way? You're talking about empathy, but what is there to understand here?


I get everything you said. And for many years I approached men at TAM with those types of sentiments. Also I’m not saying I don’t still think them. 

It’s just that right now, I’m trying to understand it from their side. 

This thread is a spin off from a couple of others. I will link the prior empathy for men thread here tomorrow. If you read that one first, this one will make a little more sense.

But not all the sense.

This is a specific thought exercise for me on this thread. I know not everyone will understand what I’m getting at. That’s ok.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Faithful Wife said:


> I think my saying “all eyes in the room” is too much. I think most men would be happy if they just felt the gaze of some amount of women across their lives, enough to know they are (best term, forgive the crudeness) ****able.



I agree with you. I don't think you have to worry about being too precise; we all know what you mean, I'm sure.

I hope I'm not at odds with the conditions of your OP. This is to be a thread that focuses on men, and their experiences.

But I find that in this particular circumstance; I'm NOT empathetic to men. Because most of us are not going to experience being the sexual focus of most people in a room, unless we are truly, exceptionally attractive. You amended that to mean that men want to feel fookable by some amount of women in their lives. That's more reasonable. But again, there are many women who want that too; and have to go without it.

There are tons of guys who get plenty of admiration and adulation. Thinking back to junior high and high school, it seems like there were about equal numbers of "popular" guys and girls.

I'm not seeing that men have it any worse in this particular circumstance.

Yes, unfortunately, there are a minority of humans who have little to no sexual allure; even in their young years. That's sad. But men don't have a monopoly on this type of misery.


----------



## Faithful Wife

notmyrealname4 said:


> I agree with you. I don't think you have to worry about being too precise; we all know what you mean, I'm sure.
> 
> I hope I'm not at odds with the conditions of your OP. This is to be a thread that focuses on men, and their experiences.
> 
> But I find that in this particular circumstance; I'm NOT empathetic to men. Because most of us are not going to experience being the sexual focus of most people in a room, unless we are truly, exceptionally attractive. You amended that to mean that men want to feel fookable by some amount of women in their lives. That's more reasonable. But again, there are many women who want that too; and have to go without it.
> 
> There are tons of guys who get plenty of admiration and adulation. Thinking back to junior high and high school, it seems like there were about equal numbers of "popular" guys and girls.
> 
> I'm not seeing that men have it any worse in this particular circumstance.
> 
> Yes, unfortunately, there are a minority of humans who have little to no sexual allure; even in their young years. That's sad. But men don't have a monopoly on this type of misery.


All you’ve said is true. But my empathy for women in the same circumstances is fully developed.

I’ve found if I’m honest with myself, I automatically give more empathy to women than men, for the exact same issues (regardless of what the issue is).

I have a lot of thoughts about lack of empathy from men as well. But to me it’s a different topic.

I’m beginning to realize why they don’t have empathy for us. It may be in part at least because we don’t have it for them. It may be more than that, and empathy in general is a whole other topic. But right now I’m just trying to set aside my own desire for empathy and just employ my own empathy for them. To do so, I’ve had to try to consider what the life of our typical male in western society is.

On this thread I’m not asking them to do the same. I’m just trying to get to a place where I can empathize with them.

I love men.


----------



## sokillme

My question to you is why do you have such a hard time feeling empathy for men? 

Do you have a hard time feeling empathy for women? 

Do you think we are SO different? 

Tell me about the male relationships in your life. 

What was your relationship with your father like?

Do you have a son?

How about your husband?

Have you ever seen them suffer?

What do you think the want out of life?

Do you know any good men? 

What do you think their purpose is?

Redpill, women's studies, identity politics are just modern religions. It's not surprising that philosophies that aren't particularly empathetic to others attract people that have a problem with feeling empathy to begin with. I think that is precisely how it works. In the same way they say people are attracted to religions, because it makes them feel safe. First thing you need to do is lose your religion. I think this "religion" that people have been taught has made it hard for many people to empathize. It's had a real toxic affect on society and it's just getting worse. 

I will give you an example. You say you can't empathizes with men wanting to have women find them attractive the way a beautiful women does. Do you have a problem understanding that if you think of it from the perspective of a women who has been very obese all her life? If you do then no offense but this has nothing to do with men or women but more to do with just plain empathy. 

If you get it from the women's perspective then why do you assume that doesn't work exactly the same for men? Do you think we are that different? 

Maybe that is your problem, maybe you start with the premise that it has to be different. Maybe you were taught to think that but that is bull****. 

You get the court thing because intellectually you know that it's not different at all. But I think for a lot of this stuff the same is true. 

Now for some of these questions I think maybe not here but if you were to open up these questions to a large group of society you would get very large disparity of answers. 

This board is going to give you a bias sample. 

I mean no disrespect but lots of the men on this board are here because they have had very bad relationships with abusive women. Many of them would acknowledge that a big part of getting to that point was this kind of codependent white knight syndrome that we see over and over from men who end up in long term abusive relationships with narcissistic women. Lots of them had to work through that and are still working through that. They probably are going to have a harsher view on women and relationships then say a man who has had a great relationship with his wife which is his primary relationship. Something for you to think about. 

I for instance see some of the men in some of these movements and think they have a very narrow view which is probably because of their experience. So while I can empathize with a lot of their suffering I am not sure it's as universal as they think it is. But I think this about a lot of stuff gender or not. I don't think the problems we have are as big as we make them out to be and a great deal of them could be solved by saying "Stay away from *******s". We would probably be better served in the long term if we didn't think of it as a men and women problem and work more at helping people identify *******s sooner. 

This is not to discount there opinion but only to say there are others out there as well. 

As for myself. 

I have never been passed over because of my gender or my race, doesn't mean I can't empathize with how that would suck. Do I know from experience, No. But I am not sure I have to. I am not even sure I have to understand it, if you can prove to me it's a problem then even if I don't empathize on an emotional level I still think it's worth fixing. 



> Men feel they are expected to protect women and children with their lives, but we don’t actually acknowledge or appreciate this.


I don't feel that way. I married a good women who makes me feel appreciated. The biggest why she does that is by being emotionally vulnerable to me consistently and leaning on me for protection. This is the best complement she could give my life purpose. I really feel bad for men who don't get this, when your wife is being emotionally vulnerable she is giving you the greatest acknowledgment of your strength. But a straight up thank you is needed every once in a while too. I have close relationships with my Mother, sisters and even some female friends and this kind of stuff is at least passively acknowledged. Society as a whole is a different story but that goes to my criticisms of this modern religion that I spoke about above. My feeling on that is - we're men. We go to war, we fly planes with holes in our heads. If my wife appreciates me that is enough for me, I don't care about anyone else. 



> Men are not afforded empathy by society generally, for many reasons but apparently mostly because we can’t stand to see the men who we need to protect us being vulnerable. And more specifically, a woman romantically involved with a man feels a loss of sexual attraction to him if he shows vulnerability of any kind (in enough cases that men on average can report this).


I never felt the need particularly to have my wife see me as vulnerable frankly I hate that. I think I knew that instinctively but I like being strong for her. I will say that reading some posts here and even snippets of the books about female attraction I hate being seen weak even more. I get that strength is so obviously and aphrodisiac for women, makes sense, thank God I just got that instinctively. Maybe I got that from watching my father. Remember though lots of men today never had a father role model. I wish I had understood that when I first started dating like I do now. I said this in another post but I think sometimes people mistake emotional vulnerability with emotional intelligence. Wives want their husbands to be emotionally communicative but not necessarily emotionally weak. 

When I need emotional support and want to show vulnerability I have a small group of male friends who I go have a beer with. We talk about it for about 10 minutes and then we watch sports and talk about guy things. Yep that is about all I need but I do need it, and I get it from other men. It's very unfortunate that some men are unable to do this, but it's not women's or men's fault it the men themselves who have the problem. I find lots of these complains come from individuals who have a hard time with empathy and making connections. They assume it's societies fault and that therefore don't work on themselves as individuals. It's easier that way. 

I think I answered some of your other questions above. 

Frankly I don't care if society has empathy for me or not. All I want is a fair shake and to let me compete. My only problem is when I don't get that fair shake because of some assumption that there is something in my nature that makes me unable to feel empathy for instance. Or that I wouldn't protect a women who was being harassed at work. That my nature makes me toxic and oppressive. In that way though I understand that this is not very unlike probably how women feel when some men think their nature makes them weak or incapable of leading, not being smart enough. 

There is too much Men this and Women that. Granted I have only been here on earth some 40 something years but the one universal thing I see in all people is that they all feel vulnerable, sad, misunderstood, scared, unconnected and unhappy, lots of times. That is not a man or a women issue it's a human one. 

If you want to start to feel empathy about men just ask them questions.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Faithful Wife said:


> On this thread I’m not asking them to do the same. I’m just trying to get to a place where I can empathize with them.



That's a noble motivation.


I *can* say that men have my admiration/alliance [?] for being the ones that are conscripted for military service [although women do serve in the military too]. But certainly historically, men have had to sacrifice their bodies and sanity by serving in wars.

I still think that most women expect men to be the higher earner. I fault women for that, to an extent. Maybe it's different if you want children. But if what we want is equal rights, then why can't men earn less money, and still be desirable. That must be truly awful. To be a decent, likable, good-looking man; and receive rejection from women because of your bank account. I don't think women have ever received that type of discrimination [Jane Austen novels excepted].

I had a male coworker once reassure me that he would be willing to protect me physically if there was a robbery at our place of employment at night (large amount of $ and drugs on the premises). I remember thinking that it was sweet; but also interesting that somehow he felt he should reassure me. It was not a sexual thing. I think he genuinely felt that it was his place to protect any female in danger within his scope. So, yes, men are certainly socialized differently this way. And while I don't know if I want to depend on random men for this; I am touched when they have heartfelt concern.


----------



## Faithful Wife

@sokillme please read my original empathy thread linked above. 

My efforts to achieve empathy for men came about specifically because I do have empathy for the men close to me in my life. Son, brother, uncles, father, all of them.

But in reading at TAM over the years, I kept hearing that women generally lack empathy for men. I didn’t really believe it at first, but story after story by men poured in of examples of the women closest to them not having empathy at the times they needed it most. Like specifically when he is at the funeral of his parent or sibling. Or even worse, that she would openly exhibit a loss of sexual attraction to him in those times.

This was incredulous to me, because I’ve always felt (and shared in) empathy with men in my life while they went through deaths and tragedies. And as for my partner, I never felt a loss of attraction for them during those times. So I could not understand at all, either the woman’s side or the mans. 

So many men had stories like this that I finally had to believe them (and there was other evidence presented of a lack of empathy from women to men, they are on the link). I was astonished. And very saddened. 

And then I started trying to find places where I lacked empathy for men, too. And when I was honest with myself, I found those places. I’m working on that now.

This is not to say that men don’t lack empathy for women also. But I’m not concerned with that on this thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

notmyrealname4 said:


> That's a noble motivation.
> 
> 
> I *can* say that men have my admiration/alliance [?] for being the ones that are conscripted for military service [although women do serve in the military too]. But certainly historically, men have had to sacrifice their bodies and sanity by serving in wars.
> 
> I still think that most women expect men to be the higher earner. I fault women for that, to an extent. Maybe it's different if you want children. But if what we want is equal rights, then why can't men earn less money, and still be desirable. That must be truly awful. To be a decent, likable, good-looking man; and receive rejection from women because of your bank account. I don't think women have ever received that type of discrimination [Jane Austen novels excepted].
> 
> I had a male coworker once reassure me that he would be willing to protect me physically if there was a robbery at our place of employment at night (large amount of $ and drugs on the premises). I remember thinking that it was sweet; but also interesting that somehow he felt he should reassure me. It was not a sexual thing. I think he genuinely felt that it was his place to protect any female in danger within his scope. So, yes, men are certainly socialized differently this way. And while I don't know if I want to depend on random men for this; I am touched when they have heartfelt concern.


I think, based on what I’m learning, that the guy who offers to protect you out of his deep real feelings as a man, even though you are basically a stranger, is very often made to feel that even though he cares this much and is compelled to protect us, we don’t appreciate it at all. We expect it or demand it or at least, don’t appreciate it.

Like you said, you are touched by it. I am too when that happens. But I don’t think they know it. I think we are all conditioned to expect them to protect us, and then we don’t even really acknowledge it, it makes us look entitled. Sometimes we will even complain if strangers don’t offer to protect us. But we don’t make a show of appreciation when they do.

I’m not saying they want a show of appreciation. But I think they do know when we lack appreciation. And it feels bad to them, even if they aren’t sure why.


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> @sokillme please read my original empathy thread linked above.
> 
> My efforts to achieve empathy for men came about specifically because I do have empathy for the men close to me in my life. Son, brother, uncles, father, all of them.
> 
> But in reading at TAM over the years, I kept hearing that women generally lack empathy for men. I didn’t really believe it at first, but story after story by men poured in of examples of the women closest to them not having empathy at the times they needed it most. Like specifically when he is at the funeral of his parent or sibling. Or even worse, that she would openly exhibit a loss of sexual attraction to him in those times.
> 
> This was incredulous to me, because I’ve always felt (and shared in) empathy with men in my life while they went through deaths and tragedies. And as for my partner, I never felt a loss of attraction for them during those times. So I could not understand at all, either the woman’s side or the mans.
> 
> So many men had stories like this that I finally had to believe them (and there was other evidence presented of a lack of empathy from women to men, they are on the link). I was astonished. And very saddened.
> 
> And then I started trying to find places where I lacked empathy for men, too. And when I was honest with myself, I found those places. I’m working on that now.
> 
> This is not to say that men don’t lack empathy for women also. But I’m not concerned with that on this thread.


Please re-read my post I added a lot. I do that. 

What is your take on my point about the obese women?

My overall point is this is not a man or women thing it's a human nature thing.

I think it's just as common for the same sexes to not have empathy for each other.

I think it's a mistake to think gender has anything to do with it. 

If there is one thing universal to a lot of people on this board it's that they were married to *******s. So maybe their wife didn't have empathy at say a funeral not because she was a women but because she was an *******. 

Now it's also true that women don't want their men to be emotional weak, but what self respecting man wants to be that way anyway.

I don't agree with much of the premise I guess. I think there are problems but I don't think it's a gender problem, it's a problem that gets interpreted as a gender problem or spills into gender.

It's not - women don't have empathy towards men it's that there are a lot of women out there who are *******s. Full stop.


----------



## sokillme

So as I understand this I don't think this is a man and women issue as much as it is a you issue. No offense. Maybe we should deal with that. 



> My efforts to achieve empathy for men came about specifically because I do have empathy for the men close to me in my life. Son, brother, uncles, father, all of them.


Why do you think you have to be close to a man to feel this way? Do you think the typical man is different then your family? Why do you think that is? 

I go back to my idea that I think you have a hard time with this because you start with the premise that we are different. Try starting from the premise that we are mostly the same. If it would hurt a women emotionally then it would probably hurt a man emotionally just as much. In the same way you naturally understand physical pain is the same. Because they ARE the same.

I wonder if you suffer from the women's version of this thing that some men have where they see women as angels or in this case foreign beings that are unrelatable. I see people do this all the time. For some reason people think we are SO different men and women. I just don't see it. We are a little different and mostly in motivations. We are very similar when it comes to wants, needs and pain.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> Please re-read my post I added a lot. I do that.
> 
> What is your take on my point about the obese women?
> 
> My overall point is this is not a man or women thing it's a human nature thing.
> I
> I think it's just as common for the same sexes to not have empathy for each other.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to think gender has anything to do with it.
> 
> If there is one thing universal to a lot of people on this board it's that they were married to *******s. So maybe their wife didn't have empathy at say a funeral not because she was a women but because she was an *******.
> 
> Now it's also true that women don't want their men to be emotional weak, but what self respecting man wants to be that way anyway.
> 
> I don't agree with much of the premise I guess. I think there are problems but I don't think it's a gender problem, it's a problem that gets interpreted as a gender problem or spills into gender.
> 
> It's not - women don't have empathy towards men it's that there are a lot of women out there who are *******s. Full stop.


I definitely believe there are a lot of women who are just plain *******s, and that there are men at TAM who are married to one.

Also I believe there is a lack of empathy across the board in humans ... but this topic is a little different.

This is specifically about a lack of empathy from women toward men. I didn’t believe it myself before I heard some women at TAM say themselves that they were sexually turned off by their man if he exhibited vulnerability. And then heard story after story by men whose wives don’t necessarily seem like *******s otherwise, where their wives just completely shut down to them at times when they really needed empathy and support. They didn’t even need her to carry some load, they simply had a moment, and she was completely turned off.

Enough of these stories then matched up with other things I was reading by men and about what many men feel in society today.

Definitely not trying to speak for you or for all men. But there are so many with the same story, I can’t ignore that it is true in a huge number of cases (even when the wife isn’t an *******).


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> So as I understand this I don't think this is a man and women issue as much as it is a you issue. No offense. Maybe we should deal with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think you have to be close to a man to feel this way? Do you think the typical man is different then your family? Why do you think that is?
> 
> I go back to my idea that I think you have a hard time with this because you start with the premise that we are different. Try starting from the premise that we are mostly the same. If it would hurt a women emotionally then it would probably hurt a man emotionally just as much. In the same way you naturally understand physical pain is the same. Because they ARE the same.
> 
> I wonder if you suffer from the women's version of this thing that some men have where they see women as angels or in this case foreign beings that are unrelatable. I see people do this all the time. For some reason people think we are SO different men and women. I just don't see it. We are a little different and mostly in motivations. We are very similar when it comes to wants, needs and pain.


I am the poster child at TAM for “trying to see us as the same”. Usual complaints by men about my threads is that I rush in and explain how this or that issue is the same for women.

Ironic that you would tell me my problem may be that I start with the premise that we are different.

:laugh:

I’m sorry, I sometimes think people already know me and have a sense of my posts. You apparently don’t. That’s cool. This thread isn’t where I’m going to get to know you better. But maybe it will happen over time on other threads.


----------



## Luminous

FW, I posted the following in another thread a while back...

It takes an emotionally mature woman, to realise that the man is a human being, and can have moments of vulnerability, without losing sexual attraction to him as a result.

I have had both, from the same person, and it is quite disappointing, as well as very saddening, to have the one you love and support through thick and thin, not realise, or at least make a noticeable attempt, to see that men do have their moments of weakness, and whilst we don't normally mind being the 'rock', when those rare moments come, we need our women to 'get it', as it is a true sign of where the bond between us is.


----------



## StarFires

notmyrealname4 said:


> I had a male coworker once reassure me that he would be willing to protect me physically if there was a robbery at our place of employment at night (large amount of $ and drugs on the premises). I remember thinking that it was sweet; but also interesting that somehow he felt he should reassure me. It was not a sexual thing. I think he genuinely felt that it was his place to protect any female in danger within his scope. So, yes, men are certainly socialized differently this way. And while I don't know if I want to depend on random men for this; I am touched when they have heartfelt concern.


You labeled it but didn't realize that wasn't a socialization. Your employer didn't tell the male employees they were expected to protect the females. You and no one else told him that. He knows his role is all, and his role is a primal instinct to protect the weaker sex, to come to her rescue. The damsel in distress kind of thing. Men have always done it, and they do that because it's their nature. It's often that way in the animal world. Females are seldom head of the pride expected to protect the males. What this OP is telling us is that men don't want to be men, or that they want applause for it, and that they want the accolades from everyone in society, not just those they actually do protect and support.


----------



## Laurentium

Part of the problem is the term "empathy" is used in a lot of different ways. And yes, also, this is a pretty "special" population on this board, highly selected for certain difficulties. 

I think it's good you dropped the "red pill" part. That too is a term with so broad a meaning as to be useless. For some, it means little more than looking at human behaviour through the lens of ethology. For others it has a more political aspect. 

This from Sokillme I think nails it:


Sokillme said:


> I never felt the need particularly to have my wife see me as vulnerable frankly I hate that. I think I knew that instinctively but I like being strong for her. I will say that reading some posts here and even snippets of the books about female attraction I hate being seen weak even more. I get that strength is so obviously an aphrodisiac for women, makes sense, thank God I just got that instinctively. Maybe I got that from watching my father. Remember though lots of men today never had a father role model. I wish I had understood that when I first started dating like I do now.


I work as a psychotherapist, and I see the above all the time. Every day. If a woman in a couple sees her man crying and expressing vulnerable emotions, it makes her feel like "mummy" to him, and that turns off any sexual attraction. A lot of women even hate their husbands being mildly sick, like with a cold: they have to make the "man flu" jokes and so on. It stems from their deep fear of his being incapacitated. I'm not sure I'd use the word "empathy" about this. It's a fear, and it turns off desire. So men learn, as Sokillme said, to get their emotional support from other men. 



> I said this in another post but I think sometimes people mistake emotional vulnerability with emotional intelligence. Wives want their husbands to be emotionally communicative but not necessarily emotionally weak.


This is so true. It's an important distinction. What (in my experience) women have a problem with, is men who are not aware of their own emotions. That's not the same as wanting them to cry all the time. 



> My only problem is when I don't get that fair shake because of some assumption that there is something in my nature that makes me unable to feel empathy for instance. Or that I wouldn't protect a women who was being harassed at work. That my nature makes me toxic and oppressive.


Well, there has been a big political drive to develop a narrative of "toxic masculinity", but I suspect only the crazies are really listening to that kind of stuff. (as with red pill).


----------



## Laurentium

P.S. @Faithful Wife your message inbox is full


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> So some of you know I’m working on a thing in my own head. I’m trying build empathy for men in myself, in mental places where I can’t actually empathize because I don’t have relevant experience.
> 
> I was originally focused on red pill men, but I’ve come to understand so far that I don’t need to make that distinction. That there are untold numbers of men who are feeling the same way that red pill men are, even if they have never heard of the red pill.
> 
> I had another thread before about empathy from women to men which is very relevant to this one:
> 
> https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html
> 
> That thread opened my eyes on a lot of things.
> 
> I’m aware that on other threads, I may not seem to be empathetic with men on some issues. Please for the topic of this thread understand that I’m working through things here that are specific. On this thread, I’m not going to discuss anything except this topic, and I will be attempt to stay on an empathetic path here. Others threads, no promises. :laugh:
> 
> Here’s where I’m at so far.
> 
> Men feel they are expected to protect women and children with their lives, but we don’t actually acknowledge or appreciate this.


I find it extremely difficult to empathize with people who, as grown ups, stay locked in to the expectations of their upbringing or of society. My bad? I don't know. 



> Men feel that women are protected by society, by law, and by themselves and other men, but that they have no one to go to for protection of any kind. They are responsible for their own protection and that of all the women in their lives. They want to simply be acknowledged for this, but many don’t feel that they are.
> 
> Men are not afforded empathy by society generally, for many reasons but apparently mostly because we can’t stand to see the men who we need to protect us being vulnerable. And more specifically, a woman romantically involved with a man feels a loss of sexual attraction to him if he shows vulnerability of any kind (in enough cases that men on average can report this).


I DO have empathy for this situation. On the social front, there are things that men have a horrible time getting any kind of help for. But even my spinal reaction to your sentiment that women are protected by law and society made my back go up. But anyway, staying on the relationship front, there is a commonality, it seems for many, around this vulnerability issue. I cannot imagine being a supposedly loving relationship where you can't express yourself for fear of lessening yourself in your partner's eyes. How is real intimacy ever to be built? 



> (Most) men do not experience the feeling of being sexually wanted by large numbers of women. Regardless of how women can explain how this isn’t a thing for us, men do wish they could feel the sensation of walking in a room and having most women’s eyes on them. They honestly wish to desire this and it’s really not weird for them to want that at all. They do feel hurt if they don’t experience this, a hurt that is on a level I can’t empathize with because I haven’t felt it. Maybe they wouldn’t describe it as a hurt. But when reading or hearing men’s words on this topic, you can hear the hurt. And because it is a universal and very common feeling, I’ve read enough words to understand intellectually that this is a big deal for them and therefore is deserving of empathy.


This came up in conversation with my husband recently. At first, I failed miserably. I was like yeah whatever, you can't have that. It was an empathy miss because part of empathy is not just being able to see the entirety of a feeling through your own experience but at least trying to see through theirs. So I was ultimately able to "get it". 



> When you can’t feel empathy because of lack of direct experience, you have to start with sympathy, compassion and logic. I can logically deduce that if I was raised to believe that no one afforded me empathy, that I was expected to support and protect some other class of people, and that I wasn’t sexually desirable (that I can determine from my experience with the opposite sex), I would be pissed off and rebellious.


I can't get all the way here. I can feel empathetic to men who are not deemed sexually desirable while having not respect or empathy for certain resultant attitudes and behaviors. Being real, part of it is because I am type A and what to smack something with a brick for how ineffective to change getting pissed off and rebellious is. 



> That’s where I’ve gotten to so far in building my bridge of empathy to understanding what men’s issues are.
> 
> This doesn’t address the family court issues, which I do understand and empathize with (enough to get it, at least).


The family court thing burns me up. Apparently traffic court is similar but smaller potatoes. In the face of so much evidence to support that women are not blessed with magic parenting skills and are as likely as men to be **** parents, how can we still cling to the notion that fathers are dog food? 



> But starting here, I am trying to look at how life is for men in our time and society. And when I realize the list above is so very common, I’m just very sad. I don’t want it to be that way, but to change anything you’ve got to look at what is really happening to people.
> 
> On this thread, I’m not going to ask for empathy on women’s issues. I do think some work needs to be done there, but I don’t think it’s helpful here. I’m trying to first seek to understand. And right now I don’t even care if I’m understood in return. But maybe some mutual understanding can occur.
> 
> Men or women, please share your thoughts about empathy for men. In society, but also in personal experience. Please comment on the list I made or add to it.


I mentioned the experience where my husband shared his wish that he could be seen as highly attractive and desirable out and about. Compliments about looks are few and far between. This is interesting since they do happen to him, I suspect more often than for other men. But it is a big bummer to him to lack this... what? I am not sure. Validation?

It's funny. I find it weird when thinking about gender stuff in society. In the US, it has been such a short time that women have had any power in society. And I do find it hard to empathize with people whose reaction to change is to steadfastly refuse to consider whence it comes and rail against the change only. But I do recognize that it can be very complicated for men when they have so few (any??) models of stepping into this new world of female power and agency gracefully and still getting heard themselves. I compare a lot of male (white in particular since I do think race plays here and I don't know how... so I am leaving that alone) attitudes to a former boyfriend of mine. He had NO difficulty understanding and rejecting what people called *toxic *masculinity while being the embodiment of masculinity himself. He is sensitive, caring, compassionate (wuss to some? beta man?) while being strong physically, emotionally and practically. His upbringing was not standard. I wonder how your average American man would get there? Bridge the gap of macho BS he was raised with to get there. I don't imagine it is easy.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Faithful Wife said:


> So some of you know I’m working on a thing in my own head. I’m trying build empathy for men in myself, in mental places where I can’t actually empathize because I don’t have relevant experience.


I love this thread and understand your questions as well as your motivation. Hopefully, I can later add some input of value as my brain recovers from partying like I was half my age for 2 days over New Year's.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Faithful Wife said:


> So some of you know I’m working on a thing in my own head. I’m trying build empathy for men in myself, in mental places where I can’t actually empathize because I don’t have relevant experience.
> 
> I was originally focused on red pill men, but I’ve come to understand so far that I don’t need to make that distinction. That there are untold numbers of men who are feeling the same way that red pill men are, even if they have never heard of the red pill.
> 
> I had another thread before about empathy from women to men which is very relevant to this one:
> 
> https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html
> 
> That thread opened my eyes on a lot of things.
> 
> I’m aware that on other threads, I may not seem to be empathetic with men on some issues. Please for the topic of this thread understand that I’m working through things here that are specific. On this thread, I’m not going to discuss anything except this topic, and I will be attempt to stay on an empathetic path here. Others threads, no promises. :laugh:
> 
> Here’s where I’m at so far.
> 
> Men feel they are expected to protect women and children with their lives, but we don’t actually acknowledge or appreciate this.
> 
> Men feel that women are protected by society, by law, and by themselves and other men, but that they have no one to go to for protection of any kind. They are responsible for their own protection and that of all the women in their lives. They want to simply be acknowledged for this, but many don’t feel that they are.
> 
> Men are not afforded empathy by society generally, for many reasons but apparently mostly because we can’t stand to see the men who we need to protect us being vulnerable. And more specifically, a woman romantically involved with a man feels a loss of sexual attraction to him if he shows vulnerability of any kind (in enough cases that men on average can report this).
> 
> (Most) men do not experience the feeling of being sexually wanted by large numbers of women. Regardless of how women can explain how this isn’t a thing for us, men do wish they could feel the sensation of walking in a room and having most women’s eyes on them. They honestly wish to desire this and it’s really not weird for them to want that at all. They do feel hurt if they don’t experience this, a hurt that is on a level I can’t empathize with because I haven’t felt it. Maybe they wouldn’t describe it as a hurt. But when reading or hearing men’s words on this topic, you can hear the hurt. And because it is a universal and very common feeling, I’ve read enough words to understand intellectually that this is a big deal for them and therefore is deserving of empathy.
> 
> When you can’t feel empathy because of lack of direct experience, you have to start with sympathy, compassion and logic. I can logically deduce that if I was raised to believe that no one afforded me empathy, that I was expected to support and protect some other class of people, and that I wasn’t sexually desirable (that I can determine from my experience with the opposite sex), I would be pissed off and rebellious.
> 
> That’s where I’ve gotten to so far in building my bridge of empathy to understanding what men’s issues are.
> 
> This doesn’t address the family court issues, which I do understand and empathize with (enough to get it, at least).
> 
> But starting here, I am trying to look at how life is for men in our time and society. And when I realize the list above is so very common, I’m just very sad. I don’t want it to be that way, but to change anything you’ve got to look at what is really happening to people.
> 
> On this thread, I’m not going to ask for empathy on women’s issues. I do think some work needs to be done there, but I don’t think it’s helpful here. I’m trying to first seek to understand. And right now I don’t even care if I’m understood in return. But maybe some mutual understanding can occur.
> 
> Men or women, please share your thoughts about empathy for men. In society, but also in personal experience. Please comment on the list I made or add to it.


Maybe I am completely missing something here but I really don't see what you're worried about, or trying to be empathetic towards. I don't think I know any guy who is concerned they don't get any empathy for being a protector without having anyone to protect them and if a guy has issues because every woman in the world isn't attracted to them, that is really something you need not be concerned with. 

It's kind of like trying to understand someone who is depressed because they're not a billionaire. It's too bad they feel bad but they're desire is unreasonable and it's their problem. 

I don't think the guys you're describing need empathy, they need therapy. Maybe I need to have more empathy but I don't get it.


----------



## Tiggy!

Faithful Wife said:


> I definitely believe there are a lot of women who are just plain *******s, and that there are men at TAM who are married to one.
> 
> Also I believe there is a lack of empathy across the board in humans ... but this topic is a little different.
> 
> This is specifically about a lack of empathy from women toward men. I didn’t believe it myself before I heard some women at TAM say themselves that they were* sexually turned off by their man if he exhibited vulnerability*. And then heard story after story by men whose wives don’t necessarily seem like *******s otherwise, where their wives just completely shut down to them at times when they really needed empathy and support. They didn’t even need her to carry some load, they simply had a moment, and she was completely turned off.
> 
> Enough of these stories then matched up with other things I was reading by men and about what many men feel in society today.
> 
> Definitely not trying to speak for you or for all men. But there are so many with the same story, I can’t ignore that it is true in a huge number of cases (even when the wife isn’t an *******).


Does loss of sexual attraction mean loss of empathy?


----------



## Holdingontoit

To the extent this is asymmetrical, I think it is partly because of two gender-based distinctions.

First, as an over-generalization, I believe men typically find a much higher percentage of women in roughly their own age range "do-able" compared to the percentage of men who women find "do-able". Let us return to @Faithful Wife's analogy to me about "would you do the day old hamburger on a bar stool?". I think men and women are similar in that neither gender wants to have sex with someone "undesirable". But I think men are much less particular about where the line is between do-able and undesirable.

To turn this into a statistics issue, suppose men find 50% of similarly aged women sufficiently attractive to have sex. And suppose is not the same 50% of women for every man. So across a group, a substantial majority of women find themselves in the "do-able" category for a non-trivial percentage of men. On the other hand, suppose the typical woman only finds 20% of same-aged men desirable. Even if there is a large amount of non-overlap, it may still be the case that a large majority of men find themselves in the undesirable category for an overwhelming majority of women.

The second factor is quality of sex and risk of harm. Again as an over-generalization, I believe men typical find a much higher percentage of sexual sessions to be "OK or better" than women do. And most men are not afraid that if they consent to sex, something harmful will happen. So, in addition to the "is that person desirable or undesirable as a sex partner" issue, there is also the "is the sex likely to be satisfying for me and will this person abuse me" issue. So a woman is not only asking herself is the guy attractive enough to have sex with, but also whether he is likely to be able to please her and not to harm her. Whereas men, once they get over the "is she attractive enough" issue, there is not as much else to consider.

When you take those issues in combination, and then add in social norms that men are "supposed" to be the initiator / aggressor and women are not supposed to overtly display interest in sex, I think women are far less likely to display external signs of interest than men are. So men are more likely to "hunger" for external displays of interest than women are. Because women get their fill (or far more than they desire - catcalling, harassment, etc.). Men do not have the frame of reference to understand or empathize with the concept that, with respect to external expressions of interest from the opposite sex, there can be such a thing as too much. Because most of us hardly ever get any.

And when you are that hungry for long enough, yes, the day old hamburger on the bar stool looks enticing. Why do you think that, even now, I eventually give in and have sex with my wife?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Laurentium said:


> Well, there has been a big political drive to develop a narrative of "toxic masculinity", but I suspect only the crazies are really listening to that kind of stuff. (as with red pill).



Call me crazy if you like, but some of this resonates with me. What is oft misunderstood is that no one is claiming that masculinity itself is toxic but there are facets of what people *claim masculinity is*, even based in hind brain nature, which is toxic. In the social realm where discussions of power live, it is relevant.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> I don’t even know how to begin to reply to it. If a man ‘struggles’ with the concept of consent then he by definition is not ‘decent’.


I disagree. In fact, I think I saw you post something about it in another thread, maybe the good and bad lover one where you say something like one person's Dom is another person's illegal action or some such.

MUCH has been said on here around consent which makes it clear to me that many people don't really understand its scope.


----------



## Laurentium

NobodySpecial said:


> Call me crazy if you like, but some of this resonates with me. What is oft misunderstood is that no one is claiming that masculinity itself is toxic


Really? I'm sure I've heard people saying that.



> but there are facets of what people *claim masculinity is*, even based in hind brain nature, which is toxic. In the social realm where discussions of power live, it is relevant.


It's a tricky distinction. Let me check if I understood you. For example, people claim masculinity means aggression, and aggression is toxic? But they don't claim masculinity is toxic? Something like that?


----------



## Tasorundo

My wife and I had a talk last night, in which I laid out some emotional things I was feeling. We have done this before, and generally it is not very well received. She tends to see it as a failure on her part, and that she is responsible for my happiness, etc.

I do not feel she is very empathetic to me in general, but I think that has more to do with her emotionally stunted upbringing and use of SNRI/Tricyclic medications. In general I think she doesn't have much emotional response to anything.


I am very hesitant to bring up these kind of things to her, but it had been building for a while and I felt that it was important to get it out. The last time I let things linger it ended up with me having a ONS built on a foundation of multiple emotionally self-justified pillars. None of which are actually true, but in my mind it was not even a discussion.


I do feel that bringing them up makes me look week and ultimately may do more harm than good. Seeing as how a large amount of my feelings have to do with lack of feeling desired/loved. I certainly feel needed, just not for the things that I want to be needed for.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Laurentium said:


> Really? I'm sure I've heard people saying that.


That is of some serious interest to me. I'd love it if you shared if you came across it again. 



> It's a tricky distinction. Let me check if I understood you. For example, people claim masculinity means aggression, and aggression is toxic? But they don't claim masculinity is toxic? Something like that?


First of all, I think there is reason to support the idea that aggression is a natural trait of male humans. That itself is not toxic. I think that 2 things go wrong in the discussion:

1. Some (typically men) assert that aggression badly applied is a natural trait of male humans. 
2. Some (typically women) assert (in my view rightly) that aggression badly applied is toxic.

Did anyone think this was simple??  The fact that it is NOT simple is part of why I have sympathy (to the degree that I am unable to get to empathy) for guys who ask themselves what even the f?


----------



## Faithful Wife

StarFires said:


> You labeled it but didn't realize that wasn't a socialization. Your employer didn't tell the male employees they were expected to protect the females. You and no one else told him that. He knows his role is all, and his role is a primal instinct to protect the weaker sex, to come to her rescue. The damsel in distress kind of thing. Men have always done it, and they do that because it's their nature. It's often that way in the animal world. Females are seldom head of the pride expected to protect the males. What this OP is telling us is that men don't want to be men, or that they want applause for it, and that they want the accolades from everyone in society, not just those they actually do protect and support.


Nope, that’s not what I’m saying.

It isn’t about men wanting accolades.

It’s simply my attempt to create for myself an outline of what life is like for many men.

I’m not saying they want praise or that they “don’t want to be men”.

In fact, your response here is an example of the lack of empathy I’m talking about. Using words like “don’t want to be men” simply because I’m discussing that I do have empathy for them. 

Did you read the older thread linked in the first post? My thought process would make more sense if you did.

Men are not telling me to feel sorry for them or praise them. They were simply pointing out areas where women lack empathy for men, and it becomes obvious when I post these threads.

Once again: I am not saying men have empathy for women. They many times don’t. But I’m not trying find common ground, I’m just trying to find empathy for men by building a model of his life and then contemplate what it would be like to live in it. I am not asking anyone else to praise men, applaud them, whatever. You don’t even have to have empathy for them. I’m trying to build a bridge through compassion and empathy, but it’s my thing by choice. I’m not asking anyone to make the same choice.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

@faithfulwife

I'm impressed by this (and your may other) attempt(s) to learn and understand. I have seen others accuse you of starting lines of inquiry just to bait men into saying something self-incriminating; hopefully this thread will put such accusations to rest.

Now, regarding the current topic at hand....

I am not "men," I am just a man. In some ways a very "typical" man, and in others, quite different from what is perceived to be typical of my gender. That said, my take on this may be representative of manhood in general in some areas and not in other areas. 

First, with regard to the desire for empathy, I tend to be rather split on this. The typical, stoic, traditional male side of me says "Empathy.... we don't need no stinking empathy!" Really, I want to be, and for the most part am, that "strong" man who has a drive to share with, protect, and help others but doesn't want anyone doing anything on my behalf. So even in the face of perceived gender inequalities that do not favor men, I fell like "Yeah, bring it on. I've got broad shoulders. I can handle it." That said, I do at times rail against these unbalanced situations, but that is purely an intellectual exercise as I naturally rail against any inconsistencies. 

Not, truth be told, I do like it when I'm appreciated for being the exhibitor of those positive male traits of provider and protector. Even though those are inherent in the gender (for the most part), and therefore a sort of expected baseline (kudos only being applicable to those who go above and beyond the baseline), I still love being shown appreciation for these things, even if they are expected. Just as I show my wife appreciation for things which could reasonably be expected to be part of the baseline rather than exceptionalism. There's nothing wrong with sharing appreciation even for the little things and the things that are baseline expectations.

Regarding your issue of the legal situations involved in gender. I do see some concerns here, but for the most part, again purely an intellectual exercise for me, especially since I have not faced, and have no reason to ever expect to face them. Here's a few examples:
1. Custody disputes have long been favorable to women as the assumption has always been that, in general, women are more nurturing than men and, going further back, that the man is the primary breadwinner and should be free to do that. This granting of custody to the mother is based on these traditional gender stereotypes. Of course, there are exceptions where the woman has the higher earning potential and/or the man may be the more nurturing parent. But even in those cases, the presumptive position is still to grant primary custody to the mother. 
2. For most of history, the law failed to protect women from domestic violence and marital rape. It was horrible and unconscionable. There are far too many stories of abused and battered women in this world. Now, the pendulum has swung too far to the other side, where a mere accusation by a wife and result in immediate incarceration or, as a minimum, removal from the marital home and no contact/restraining orders, not only from the wife, but also the kids. Ugh. This pendulum needs to stop swinging, and come to rest in the middle. 
3. Again, this will never apply to me, but I see a disconnect in the whole "it's my body" thing with regard to paternity. Being that it is her own body, a woman is 100% in charge of whether or not she she has sex. If pregnancy results, she is then 100% in control of whether or not to bring that pregnancy to term. The father has zero rights. Which I don't dispute in and of itself. However, should she decide to bring that pregnancy to term, the father is on the hook for child support. Yes, he participated in the union that created the zygote, bot only the mother can make that clump of cells into an actual baby. Moreover, the same disconnect exists in the idea of who is responsible for birth control. If it's strictly the woman's body, and she's the only one who can get pregnancy, she should be taking care of herself (which can also include demanding her partner provide the birth control). The bottom line here is that, in the area of "reproductive rights," the woman has been granted 100% legal authority, but only a fraction of the actual responsibility. IMO, morally and legally, responsibility and authority should be aligned. 

I can't say I want to be "sexually wanted by large numbers of women." Maybe when I was single, but that was a looooooong time ago. I definitely want to be sexually wanted by one woman in particular. I think a lot of us men do have some difficulty with spouses who don't understand that. I know this works both ways and I know you think women are every bit as sexual as men, but I disagree on that point (in the aggregate. Certainly there are exceptions, maybe even many exceptions). If you were to draw bell curves of male and female sexual desire, they would not be a perfect fit. There would be a lot of overlap, but the male curve would be significantly to the right of the female curve. This is not just clinging to stereotypes and that we have sexually repressed women due to societal forces, it's science and physiology (the amount of testosterone being one important variable). That said, the reverse does happen often enough that this need not be considered as a one-sided gender issue. 

So I haven't drawn any real conclusions for you here, but I have shared one man's thought processes. Hopefully that is a useful, if narrow single data point in your quest for understanding.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> @faithfulwife
> 
> I'm impressed by this (and your may other) attempt(s) to learn and understand. I have seen others accuse you of starting lines of inquiry just to bait men into saying something self-incriminating; hopefully this thread will put such accusations to rest.
> 
> Now, regarding the current topic at hand....
> 
> I am not "men," I am just a man. In some ways a very "typical" man, and in others, quite different from what is perceived to be typical of my gender. That said, my take on this may be representative of manhood in general in some areas and not in other areas.
> 
> First, with regard to the desire for empathy, I tend to be rather split on this. The typical, stoic, traditional male side of me says "Empathy.... we don't need no stinking empathy!"


But badges... we DO need those! 
Sorry. Carry on.


----------



## 269370

StarFires said:


> Again, what is the acknowledgement men seek?



Yeah...I really don’t think ’we’ need any acknowledgement or endorsement from any, one or all group(s) of women (or men).
The only thing I wish for is not to be told at every opportunity that most of us, decent men, don’t understand consent and secretly want to rape people, because it’s in ‘our nature’. Stuff like that.
I think the best way to ‘empathise’ is first of all to stop getting brainwashed by the latest strain of feminism.
Everything else will fall into place after that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

My inbox has been cleared out now!


----------



## EllisRedding

I guess everyone is different. I am not an overly empathetic person, nor do I expect to receive empathy from anyone. However, I have found that even if I can't empathize with someone, just being able to let them talk while I listen (without trying to inject my own opinion ) is really all they are looking for. We can't be expected to fully empathize over circumstances / situations that don't apply to us or we have never experienced. If you look at TAM, you have all these topics come up that maybe we can relate to, maybe we can't. It is healthy to give different point of views and opinions, even if you can't quite empathize or relate to the person. Where it becomes troublesome is when you have a poster (not you FW, but I can think of a few posters who do this) who belittles and is condescending b/c what a member is saying does not match their own experience in their little bubble. 

When it comes to the idea about men wanting to get more attention (get ogled over), well, I think as mentioned here already, both men and women want to be desired. I have a feeling that with men in general, we have a tendency to make it rather obvious, so there may be this expectation of receiving the same type of attention from women. Just look at all the MEMEs about guys stalking women at the gym, there is some truth to that (and maybe the type of attention some men would hope to get from women).

Where I think things get a little confusing is thanks to social media. Things get amplified to a point where it is hard to tell if this is nothing more than a one off or some sort of movement. I have seen articles or comments about "toxic masculinity", the idea that all men are rapists, how a guy holding the door open or being chivalrous is sexist, how fathers day should not be celebrated, etc... Heck, there was a story pushed not too long ago at one of the Universities where a male student was considered in possible violation of the Title IX policy b/c he asked out a female (who said no). The reason, his physical size gave him power/authority over her... I honestly take a lot of this with a grain of salt , but social media is becoming worse at pushing stories they know will be divisive or made out to be much larger than is (I think this problem is only going to grow). Based on stuff I have come across, you could easily think that Men are under attack.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tiggy! said:


> Does loss of sexual attraction mean loss of empathy?


I don’t know. It doesn’t happen to me but it was described as va-clang by other women here. Apparently for some women, if he shows any weakness at all (including grief, such as at a funeral for a sibling), that the immediate response from their woman was va-clang.

Again, I don’t know why this happens or how prevalent it is. I just know it happens enough that several men here reported the same thing.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

There are many sides to all this.

I offer a couple comments or so.

Man needs the capability of being aggressive. Not to always being aggressive. And remember, people's description of what constitutes aggression will indeed vary.

Will a woman have a better relationship with a man, when she gives him praise time to time. Yes. And vice versa.
Praise when he completes or acts in a way society has deemed masculine? Yes.

Is this frequently required? No.


----------



## ConanHub

Interesting thread.

Mrs. C definitely has empathy for me and is actually more sexually receptive when I am emotionally hurt.

She has, however, displayed an alarming lack of response when I get sick.

When I have been physically or emotionally injured, she turns into Florence Nightingale with a healthy mix of sexy vixen.

When I have become ill, no matter how seriously, a wall comes up and I am worse than on my own because she becomes actively disgusting with me, often barely tolerating me.

She almost never gets sick so I don't know if that has anything to do with it.

She has stepped over me to do chores while I was incapacitated by a migraine on the floor.

We have had many talks about her attitude and she has learned to improve.


----------



## BluesPower

I am responding to the opening post, @faithfulwife, as I am late to the party. 

I think your efforts to understand things about things is noble. 

In your opening post you talk about men protecting women, and men wanting to be desired by lots of women, so first I will talk about these parts. 

I know that some of the, men being desired... is in some why related to the RP, the alpha/beta discussions that everyone has been having. But, while I will not get into that, it is all related in some ways. 

So a pretty girl walks into a bar, every male head turns, that is attention. Most men, never ever feel anything even close to that, they are happy if one girl turns to look at them. And for a lot of guys, one girl doesn't turn to look at them. 

I understand that this is hard for a lot of guys. Now, I don't turn every head in a bar these days, because I am not as pretty as I used to be. I'm 54, but I am not 34. But I do turn heads still, which makes your ego get stroked, and unfortunately lots of men never get this. 

But even in the old days, it was not my looks that turned heads, which a lot of guys cannot understand, and never will. It was my attitude. Then, like today, if it was a home bar for me, or a place that I played a lot, they knew me. And, when you arrive on the scene of a place like that, you have to work the room, shake everyone's hand, hug the girls you know, let everyone know that you are glad to see them. Point is, it is the attitude and the respect that you show people, and the social skills for lack of a better word, you have to make everyone feel special. 

Beyond the social aspect, as a musician and performer, it is business and just smart to do this. You have to make your friends, and the people that dig what you do, feel special, so you do...

What I just described, most men never experience for a lot of reasons. For a pretty woman, turning heads is a common thing, they get used to it. 

For me it is not about turning heads, it is really just saying hi to everyone, and letting fans know that I appreciate them. 

The only way any man can get as much attention as a woman, if you even wanted that and I don't really know why you would... the only way is to be SUPER DUPER GOOD LOOKING, a known musician or other artist, or a known athlete. There may be other ways, like super rich, but the above are about it. 

I don't understand why men would want to turn heads like a woman can, but I get that some people want attention and crave it. I find that you kind of get the attention that you actually give to people. For me, I get attention because I am likeable, and because I pay attention to people, so it seems that they pay attention to me. 

OK, so topic switch here...

Men protecting woman, and societal expectations. So, no matter how progressive a woman is, or society in general, men are expected to protect woman. Most of it is biology, we are bigger, stronger on average. Some of it is learned, but it is the way that it is. 

And, no, men do not really get "protection", right or wrong because we are men. This is what we live with as men, and I could give lots of examples, but I think most everyone understands that a man, abused by a woman, is usually laughed at, or at the very least looked down on. 

Happened to me... Ex went CRAZY, started hitting me, my adult boys had to pull her off or me several times. I could not would not hit her back, cause I am male, and even protecting myself by blocking her punches, I thought I was going to break her arm or leg by blocking her blows. If I grab her and hold her so she will not hurt me.... guess what assault by me. 

Now she did not really hurt me, but it was humiliating. And you just have no way to handle it except take it. If you leave the room, she follows, if you call the cops, the cops make you leave, unless you have bad cuts or have been stabbed, and have a witness. 

There were a couple of times though where she would throw something, get lucky, and hit me in the temple... She brought me down to my knees with that once, I was seeing stars. If she actually wanted to kill me that would have been the time, as I was almost out for about 30 seconds. 

But besides this kind of stuff, which sucks, it goes deeper in society. 

Let's talk about single moms, single dads, men and women taking care of a sick spouse... Which side of the street do you think society give more empathy too, you guessed it women. 

1) She is a great single mom, she works so hard and takes care of those 3 kids by herself. 
2) Yeah, he is single, has three kids, don't know why he is not married, must be something wrong with him.
3) I don't know how she does it, she works, takes care of the kids, and she takes care of her sick husband, what a woman, inspiring really
4) His wife is sick, he does his best to take care of her, the boys are kind of wild, I don't think he supervises them very well, he needs to make more money so he can do better for everyone...

These conflicting statements about similar situations is what I hear, from society and how they treat men and woman differently...

A single mom, is a hero... A single dad may have something wrong with him, and at the very least, no woman wants 3 kids from some other women.... However, a man, should not worry about and embrace and nurture any possible step children, and if he does not want to, he is a creep. 

There is an unfair bias toward men, their roles in society, and no matter how feminist and progressive some people are, that bias never goes away. 

What do men do about it, well most of us don't whine about it, we take it, understand it, lace up our boots and move forward, because we are men... it is what we do, and we are kind of stupid to boot...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

ConanHub said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> Mrs. C definitely has empathy for me and is actually more sexually receptive when I am emotionally hurt.
> 
> She has, however, displayed an alarming lack of response when I get sick.
> 
> When I have been physically or emotionally injured, she turns into Florence Nightingale with a healthy mix of sexy vixen.
> 
> When I have become ill, no matter how seriously, a wall comes up and I am worse than on my own because she becomes actively disgusting with me, often barely tolerating me.
> 
> She almost never gets sick so I don't know if that has anything to do with it.
> 
> She has stepped over me to do chores while I was incapacitated by a migraine on the floor.
> 
> We have had many talks about her attitude and she has learned to improve.


Fascinating. 

In our house, I'm the one who never gets sick. I suspect if I did, she'd take pretty good care of me.

.... on the other hand ....

I used to suffer significant physical injury rather regularly, mostly from extreme sports. No sympathy/empathy there. My impression was that every time she looked at my injured part, it reminded her that I was out doing something without her. Moreover, it also told her that I was probably not up to doing certain things with her at this time while in recovery (long walks in the woods, backpacking, travel, etc). So she felt like she got a double dose of raw deal.

It took her a while to realize that the same thing that drove me to careen down a steep, rocky mountainside at 30mph on a couple 2" wide tires is the same thing that made me the "manly man" she was attracted to. Oh, and the less release she gives me for all that testosterone, the more I need to let it run elsewhere. Then she realized that hucking a 20ft cornice on a couple of skis is better than unleashing all that testosterone on another woman, so I was given licence to ride/ski/hoop as much as I want.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> Inasmuch as I may continue to lack "obvious" humor, you continue to lack any interest in understanding beginning with reading comprehension. Cheers.




Sorry, I didn’t mean it to come off ass condescending. Just sometimes the stuff you write...I don’t know if I should laugh or cry 
(Sorry, that Emoji may probably symbolise sexual harassment, I will report it to Apple 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Tiggy! said:


> Does loss of sexual attraction mean loss of empathy?


I believe it's the other way around. To have empathy would cause the loss of sexual attraction.

There can be empathy for fathers, brothers and sons because there is no sexual attraction.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Yeah...I really don’t think ’we’ need any acknowledgement or endorsement from any, one or all group(s) of women (or men).
> The only thing I wish for is not to be told at every opportunity that most of us, decent men, *don’t understand consent and secretly want to rape people*, because it’s


For me, saying that consent understanding is not fully complete in our society by many men in particular does not in any way mean that any man secretly wants to rape people. Heck if that is an equivalency that ANYONE thinks then I think we have a pretty serious lack of understanding of the scope of consent.


----------



## uhtred

I think it is difficult to have empathy for a large group (eg billions of men) because there is so much variation, so many different situations. Different men face different challenges, some are wonderful decent human beings, other are the scum of the earth, most are just normal flawed humans. 

If you try to listen to what a group wants, the answers are inconsistent, they seem irrational and unreasonable - because men disagree on a great many things. Most men may themselves want a rational combination of things, but taken together it won't make sense. (same for women).

Some things that I see expectations for a fair number of men in western culture: (btw there are also expectations for women who face a *different* set of challenges)

Expectation of physical strength: Its just assume that I will carry the heavy suitcase, lift heavy things at home, carry the hiking gear etc. It's so expected that there is generally no even a comment / thank-you.

Expectation of mechanical skill: I'm generally expected to know how to fix things - despite my wife being an engineer (!).

Sex (ignoring my personal situation here): This is a mine-field for men (and for women, but maybe more for men). They are generally expected to be the more active / initiators for sexual activity, but at the same time need to walk a fine line to avoid harassment. (not assault - I think assault is NEVER a mistake). This basically means having a good ability to recognize other peoples feelings / interests - an ability that not all men have.

Work: Despite a lot of progress, I think society still tolerates stay-at-home women more than it tolerates stay-at-home men. Men are *expected* to work and have good careers. 

Expectation of emotional strength: Men don't cry (except maybe when they have to put their dog down). OTOH I had a female employee come into my office and break down crying because of a work / stress issue. I didn't in any way hold it against her. But I can only imaging what would happen if I cried in front of my boss.


----------



## Tiggy!

Faithful Wife said:


> I don’t know. It doesn’t happen to me but it was described as va-clang by other women here. Apparently for some women, if he shows any weakness at all (including grief, such as at a funeral for a sibling), that the immediate response from their woman was va-clang.
> 
> Again, I don’t know why this happens or how prevalent it is. I just know it happens enough that several men here reported the same thing.


But not feeling sexual towards someone and not having empathy for someone are two different things.


----------



## Laurentium

NobodySpecial said:


> That is of some serious interest to me. I'd love it if you shared if you came across it again.


Well, I googled, and the first result was this: https://medium.com/@stangoff/all-masculinity-is-toxic-in-ten-easy-steps-8ea43cb24617


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tiggy! said:


> But not feeling sexual towards someone and not having empathy for someone are two different things.


Yes, but it was described several times on the other thread about how if a man needed empathy in any given situation, his woman went va-clang on him. Not like he was saying “please empathize with me”, but in situations where it is obvious he does. 

You’d have to read the other thread to see the examples they gave. It doesn’t happen to me so I was unaware this was an issue.


----------



## EllisRedding

Since it has been brought up, curious to hear what the ladies think about showing empathy to guys who are sick (feeding off of @ConanHub post)? This seems to be a contentious topic at times, with references made to the "Man cold" as I am sure many have heard about. I remember at some point last year I must've posted on Facebook about being sick, I had left work early and gone home. The first two comments I got were from females, to the effect of "Boo Hoo" and how I expected the world to stop for me. I wasn't looking for empathy from anyone, I was just excited to finally get back to my bed lol. The funny thing, I had already worked 8 hours that day (so me leaving "early" from work I had already put in more hours than the females commenting, and was just going to rest before doing more work at home). One female then somehow turned it into a rant about how when her H gets sick he turns into a baby (so I guess the assumption was I would be doing the same thing being a guy and all). My W ended up stepping in and defended me (I am actually at the other end of the spectrum, somewhat to my W's dismay, I don't want help or empathy when I am sick, many times I don't say anything and keep it from my W until she finally figures it out because I look like a zombie lol). It just seems like when it comes to guys getting sick, it make some women skin crawl lol (maybe similar to how Conan described his W)

Side note, growing up I was always very active with sports. There would be times I would come home injured or limping. Now, normally you would expect your Mom to try and console you. In my case, my mom would see me hurt and her response would be "Keep playing the sport and see what happens to you". Maybe that is why I lack empathy lol.


----------



## Buddy400

Tiggy! said:


> But not feeling sexual towards someone and not having empathy for someone are two different things.


We're working here on the assumption that what the OP says is true.

If you don't believe it's true, then start another thread saying so or, better yet, resurrect the thread the OP referred to.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Laurentium said:


> Well, I googled, and the first result was this: https://medium.com/@stangoff/all-masculinity-is-toxic-in-ten-easy-steps-8ea43cb24617


Oh boy. That is a lot to handle. I get where the author is coming from, I guess, though they taught about introductory paragraphs in schools for a reason. I definitely can't get where that author is going though. But I am educated to the notion that in the social sphere there really is a sense that masculinity itself is toxic... whatever the hell that means. Thanks.


----------



## Buddy400

EllisRedding said:


> Since it has been brought up, curious to hear what the ladies think about showing empathy to guys who are sick


The societal meme is that men are weenies when sick.

I wonder if that's because they really are "weaker" when sick (which seems unlikely since men seem to be well aware of the need to be strong) than women.

Or if the meme is a reflection of a lack of female empathy for men who display weakness.


----------



## farsidejunky

FW:

In your last thread, I injected a concept into your thread that didn't seem to gain any traction there, yet it is incredibly relevant. 

That concept is dominance and submissiveness. 

I believe most (even if 60/40 or 51/49) women want to be sexually and/or emotionally submissive to their men. I believe most men want to be sexually and/or emotionally dominant with their woman. 

While you may desire to be sexually submissive to your partner, emotionally you are the opposite. 

When you apply this simple filter to how you are viewing things, it becomes much more clear.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> The societal meme is that men are weenies when sick.
> 
> I wonder if that's because they really are "weaker" when sick (which seems unlikely since men seem to be well aware of the need to be strong) than women.
> 
> Or if the meme is a reflection of a lack of female empathy for men who display weakness.


Honestly, I think it is neither. My highly unscientific study seems to support that men just don't WANT to push through illness. Maybe my circle is small. But sick Mammas still think their precious kiddos need to have organic kale hand picked for their dinner and men are like here are your pop tarts kids. Put me as sympathetic to the latter.

Also in the circles I am aware of, men don't WANT empathy in illness. They want to be left alone.


----------



## farsidejunky

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> In our house, I'm the one who never gets sick. I suspect if I did, she'd take pretty good care of me.
> 
> 
> 
> .... on the other hand ....
> 
> 
> 
> I used to suffer significant physical injury rather regularly, mostly from extreme sports. No sympathy/empathy there. My impression was that every time she looked at my injured part, it reminded her that I was out doing something without her. Moreover, it also told her that I was probably not up to doing certain things with her at this time while in recovery (long walks in the woods, backpacking, travel, etc). So she felt like she got a double dose of raw deal.
> 
> 
> 
> It took her a while to realize that the same thing that drove me to careen down a steep, rocky mountainside at 30mph on a couple 2" wide tires is the same thing that made me the "manly man" she was attracted to. Oh, and the less release she gives me for all that testosterone, the more I need to let it run elsewhere. Then she realized that hucking a 20ft cornice on a couple of skis is better than unleashing all that testosterone on another woman, so I was given licence to ride/ski/hoop as much as I want.


There is so much truth in this, at least in my anecdotal experience. 

Furthermore, this is exactly why many men in general are skeptical about women actually wanting what they say they want. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

Buddy400 said:


> I believe it's the other way around. To have empathy would cause the loss of sexual attraction.
> 
> 
> 
> There can be empathy for fathers, brothers and sons because there is no sexual attraction.


This. It isn't that empathy is lacking, it is the consequences of the empathy where the problems arise. 

#va-clang

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

farsidejunky said:


> FW:
> 
> In your last thread, I injected a concept into your thread that didn't seem to gain any traction there, yet it is incredibly relevant.
> 
> That concept is dominance and submissiveness.
> 
> *I believe most (even if 60/40 or 51/49) women want to be sexually and/or emotionally submissive to their men.* I believe most men want to be sexually and/or emotionally dominant with their woman.
> 
> While you may desire to be sexually submissive to your partner, emotionally you are the opposite.
> 
> When you apply this simple filter to how you are viewing things, it becomes much more clear.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


If I were FW, I would have dismissed this as a straight up faulty premise. Sexual submission is a very specific thing and does not occupy enough space to be anything other than one way to play. The idea of emotional submission is bordering on sick in my opinion.


----------



## farsidejunky

Tiggy! said:


> But not feeling sexual towards someone and not having empathy for someone are two different things.


Absolutely.

But based on that, do the consequences of needing the empathy make the situation better...or worse?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Since it has been brought up, curious to hear what the ladies think about showing empathy to guys who are sick (feeding off of @ConanHub post)? This seems to be a contentious topic at times, with references made to the "Man cold" as I am sure many have heard about. I remember at some point last year I must've posted on Facebook about being sick, I had left work early and gone home. The first two comments I got were from females, to the effect of "Boo Hoo" and how I expected the world to stop for me. I wasn't looking for empathy from anyone, I was just excited to finally get back to my bed lol. The funny thing, I had already worked 8 hours that day (so me leaving "early" from work I had already put in more hours than the females commenting, and was just going to rest before doing more work at home). One female then somehow turned it into a rant about how when her H gets sick he turns into a baby (so I guess the assumption was I would be doing the same thing being a guy and all). My W ended up stepping in and defended me (I am actually at the other end of the spectrum, somewhat to my W's dismay, I don't want help or empathy when I am sick, many times I don't say anything and keep it from my W until she finally figures it out because I look like a zombie lol). It just seems like when it comes to guys getting sick, it make some women skin crawl lol (maybe similar to how Conan described his W)
> 
> Side note, growing up I was always very active with sports. There would be times I would come home injured or limping. Now, normally you would expect your Mom to try and console you. In my case, my mom would see me hurt and her response would be "Keep playing the sport and see what happens to you". Maybe that is why I lack empathy lol.


This will be interesting for me to read also, if some women reply. 

I always loved playing nurse for my man. I looked at it as sort of a chance to role play. He’s normally up and healthy and kicking the worlds ass, but for this brief period of time he is on his back in bed, and I get to nurture him back to health. Which is something that feels natural to me and it also sparks my inner Nightengale. So when I hear women who va-clang about their man being sick or injured, I’m confused. However, it is also true that I’ve heard many women saying men are the biggest babies when they are sick. I have not observed this. So I am clueless if the women are being catty and mean or if men they are with really are big babies? I have had to assume the former, which isn’t to say there aren’t some men who maybe are big babies, but since I haven’t seen the men I’ve been with or any others being big babies, I don’t think it is a true statement to say that generally men are babies when they are sick.

My personal anecdote, my brother is a paraplegic. The level of pain he is in constantly is tragic. He pushes through it every day of his life. I see him as a sort of hero for the amount of bull**** he has to go through just to live life everyday. He doesn’t ask for empathy, but of course I have it for him constantly. When we go out in public, people sometimes can’t look at him because his condition makes them uncomfortable. And while I do understand that, it is also a weird little bit of the lacking empathy puzzle. Apparently if someone’s condition makes others uncomfortable, they have a hard time empathizing because they want to stop looking at it as fast as they can.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> FW:
> 
> In your last thread, I injected a concept into your thread that didn't seem to gain any traction there, yet it is incredibly relevant.
> 
> That concept is dominance and submissiveness.
> 
> I believe most (even if 60/40 or 51/49) women want to be sexually and/or emotionally submissive to their men. I believe most men want to be sexually and/or emotionally dominant with their woman.
> 
> While you may desire to be sexually submissive to your partner, emotionally you are the opposite.
> 
> When you apply this simple filter to how you are viewing things, it becomes much more clear.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I can understand this logically but since it doesn’t ring true for me in my own experience, I can’t really process it. I know it is true for others, though.

So what you are saying is that as a person who desires to submit to a dominant man, a woman cannot feel sexual toward him if he loses the role of dominant. Is that right?


----------



## Tiggy!

Buddy400 said:


> I believe it's the other way around. To have empathy would cause the loss of sexual attraction.
> 
> There can be empathy for fathers, brothers and sons because there is no sexual attraction.


So doesn't that mean if a wife has lost sexual attraction to her husband when he's venerable she's has empathy for her husband?


----------



## Tiggy!

Buddy400 said:


> We're working here on the assumption that what the OP says is true.
> 
> If you don't believe it's true, then start another thread saying so or, better yet, resurrect the thread the OP referred to.


What's true? That FW wife want's to become more empathetic?


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> I can understand this logically but since it doesn’t ring true for me in my own experience, I can’t really process it. I know it is true for others, though.
> 
> So what you are saying is that as a person who desires to submit to a dominant man, a woman cannot feel sexual toward him if he loses the role of dominant. Is that right?


I believe it is a spectrum. So the word 'cannot' is absolute whereas I believe it can be anywhere from that to just simply muddying the waters.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tiggy! said:


> What's true? That FW wife want's to become more empathetic?


He is talking about the va-clang effect, discussed at length on the other thread. I definitely saw enough examples to see it is common.

As for, if she has va-clang, doesn’t that indicate she did have empathy? I think so yes, but her empathy rising within her makes her then turn around and treat him badly. It doesn’t make sense. But it’s happening.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> I believe it is a spectrum. So the word 'cannot' is absolute whereas I believe it can be anywhere from that to just simply muddying the waters.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


This one will be hard for me, because I have read extensively by RP men about this phenomenon. So my mind is already full of what I think you are saying. And also because I know quite a lot about kink, which has filled my mind with many, many other sexual dynamics, and which prove to me that we aren’t all the same this way (not even close).

But I will try to start over with an open mind as we discuss it. Can you give an example that shows the dynamic you are talking about?


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> He is talking about the va-clang effect, discussed at length on the other thread. I definitely saw enough examples to see it is common.
> 
> 
> 
> As for, if she has va-clang, doesn’t that indicate she did have empathy? I think so yes, but her empathy rising within her makes her then turn around and treat him badly. It doesn’t make sense. But it’s happening.


The consequences of empathy is assuming it actually gets to the point of empathy.

Please note that my next statement is my theory rather than statement of fact.

The mental and emotional gymnastics that occur prior to empathy occurring is a problem. This includes avoidance to outright contempt for empathy towards a man (in the role of lover) out of fear that it their man might not be strong enough. 

I think whether this is known or unknown in the mind of the woman depends mostly on their EQ.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> This one will be hard for me, because I have read extensively by RP men about this phenomenon. So my mind is already full of what I think you are saying. And also because I know quite a lot about kink, which has filled my mind with many, many other sexual dynamics, and which prove to me that we aren’t all the same this way (not even close).
> 
> 
> 
> But I will try to start over with an open mind as we discuss it. Can you give an example that shows the dynamic you are talking about?


The spectrum? Or D/S in general?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually it’s just the same threadjack he does on all my threads. He can’t understand what I say, what I mean, what I’m trying to do...which he says over and over. I don’t understand, I don’t get it, it doesn’t make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> I would appreciate if others don’t join in his thread jack.



That’s (another) mischaracterisation. It’s mainly because most of these threads start out one way (as good will & desire to learn - which is great and I’m all for it) but it doesn’t take long for them to turn into something rather different and one realises that nobody actually wants to learn anything because the prejudices and misconceptions are rooted so deeply, that it’s very difficult to have an adult & ‘deep’ conversation about any of these things. That’s the reason why many people (where a different point of view would actually matter), don’t participate anymore.

Some of the most talented business men I have met, always make you feel at first like they are offering you much more than you eventually somehow end up with. I lost a lot on those deals. I have respect for this kind of talent! Was never any good at it myself.

Anyway - I didn’t mean to interrupt. Please carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> The spectrum? Or D/S in general?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I guess describe for me where you think D/s relates to the general population? As I think that was the point, that women generally behave in more submissive ways even if they don’t really know that’s behind their feelings?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess describe for me where you think D/s relates to the general population? As I think that was the point, that women generally behave in more submissive ways even if they don’t really know that’s behind their feelings?


I would love it if here or somewhere else the poster would describe also what those words even mean outside of kink.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess describe for me where you think D/s relates to the general population? As I think that was the point, that women generally behave in more submissive ways even if they don’t really know that’s behind their feelings?


Your second statement sums it up pretty well.

You mentioned kink in another post, but this has less to do with the sexual side and much more to do with the emotional side of dominance. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Nail

StarFires said:


> You labeled it but didn't realize that wasn't a socialization. Your employer didn't tell the male employees they were expected to protect the females. You and no one else told him that. He knows his role is all, and his role is a primal instinct to protect the weaker sex, to come to her rescue. The damsel in distress kind of thing. Men have always done it, and they do that because it's their nature. It's often that way in the animal world. Females are seldom head of the pride expected to protect the males. *What this OP is telling us is that men don't want to be men, or that they want applause for it,* and that they want the accolades from everyone in society, not just those they actually do protect and support.


Let me illustrate this for you so you can catch a tiny glimmer of what we are really talking about here. I went to a grocery store the other day. As I was collecting a cart a preschooler ran towards the door shouting for his mommy. I went into auto protect mode. (I'm 50'ish so I was trained to do this) I did not grab the child, I did not approach the child. I stood back and wached the child until mommy showed up. Why did I restrict my protective action to observation only? PAY ATTENTION (this is the bit you aren't getting) I only observed from a distance because 1) I didn't want to get arrested. 2)I didn't want to be beaten with a brick. and 3) I knew that mommy would be much more comfortable not seeing her tyke with a creepy old white man. 

You see we don't want a parade. We don't want a thank you. We don't want to neglect our manly instincts to protect. All we want is freedom from assault for doing it. It's not much to ask but too much to expect.


----------



## NobodySpecial

farsidejunky said:


> Your second statement sums it up pretty well.
> 
> You mentioned kink in another post, but this has less to do with the sexual side and much more to do with the emotional side of dominance.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I think I must be misunderstanding. What is the emotional side of dominance? What does it look like?


----------



## Affaircare

@Faithful Wife, 

I am so glad you started this thread--good concept to discuss! Before I jump in and comment, I want to read your previous thread and all of this thread, though, and that's going to take some time. I'll be reading today to catch up, and I'm hoping to comment by nightfall. 

Thank you for working on this.


----------



## Tiggy!

Faithful Wife said:


> He is talking about the va-clang effect, discussed at length on the other thread. I definitely saw enough examples to see it is common.
> 
> As for, if she has va-clang, doesn’t that indicate she did have empathy? I think so yes, but her empathy rising within her makes her then turn around and treat him badly. It doesn’t make sense. But it’s happening.


oh ok, I don't think I've read that thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I think I must be misunderstanding. What is the emotional side of dominance? What does it look like?


I do know what he means. I’m not sure I totally agree, but since this is one of those very common things men are saying, I’m trying to weave it into my working theory.

I think it basically means this: If your woman sees you in anything other than a manly, non needy role, she will emotionally feel unsafe, which then leads to va-clang. 

Is that right far side?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tiggy! said:


> oh ok, I don't think I've read that thread.


It is now linked on the first post of this thread.


----------



## farsidejunky

NobodySpecial said:


> I would love it if here or somewhere else the poster would describe also what those words even mean outside of kink.


I am in no way the authority on this oh, so I am only speaking from my experience. There are many others on this board who know a great deal more than I do on the subject.

Traits I associate with an emotionally dominant individual:

*Leadership
*Risk taking
*Uncompromising willingness to 'go it alone'
*The rock, or more emotionally stable individual in the relationship
*Tone setter for the family unit

These are just off the top of my head. There are many more I'm sure, but notice that most of them involve an absence of fear, or to be more clear, the absence of willingness to let fear significantly alter their trajectory.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

farsidejunky said:


> I am in no way the authority on this oh, so I am only speaking from my experience. There are many others on this board who know a great deal more than I do on the subject.
> 
> Traits I associate with an emotionally dominant individual:
> 
> *Leadership
> *Risk taking
> *Uncompromising willingness to 'go it alone'
> *The rock, or more emotionally stable individual in the relationship
> *Tone setter for the family unit
> 
> These are just off the top of my head. There are many more I'm sure, but notice that most of them involve an absence of fear, or to be more clear, the absence of willingness to let fear significantly alter their trajectory.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I can see using the word emotional STRENGTH. Not sure what dominance has to do with it. What does emotional submission look like?


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> I do know what he means. I’m not sure I totally agree, but since this is one of those very common things men are saying, I’m trying to weave it into my working theory.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it basically means this: If your woman sees you in anything other than a manly, non needy role, she will emotionally feel unsafe, which then leads to va-clang.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right far side?


 @GettingIt_2 said nearly exactly that. She said she didn't want it to be that way, but it was.

I believe many women react this way and don't know why.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiggy!

Faithful Wife said:


> I do know what he means. I’m not sure I totally agree, but since this is one of those very common things men are saying, I’m trying to weave it into my working theory.
> 
> I think it basically means this: If your woman sees you in anything other than a manly, non needy role, she will emotionally feel unsafe, which then leads to va-clang.
> 
> Is that right far side?


I wonder how much of this is Cultural?


----------



## farsidejunky

NobodySpecial said:


> I can see using the word emotional STRENGTH. Not sure what dominance has to do with it. What does emotional submission look like?


Strength is synonymous with dominance to me. How would you define emotional dominance?

What I described is a great start to defining it for me. I think it has a different meaning for you.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> .


I have to wonder how many people view their intimate relationships in terms of power struggle/upper hand, etc.


----------



## NobodySpecial

farsidejunky said:


> *Strength is synonymous with dominance to me*. How would you define emotional dominance?


That would explain it. Being literal

dominance:

"power and influence over others."

It is about power. So I am not sure I *would* define emotional dominance.



> What I described is a great start to defining it for me. I think it has a different meaning for you.


I think I got you.


----------



## farsidejunky

Okay, let me over simplify what I am saying so that it can give a foundational basis. 

Every relationship has a power structure...one partner leads more than they follow, and vice versa. It may be 90/10, it may be 51/49, and even more rare is the 50/50. Like I said earlier, a spectrum.

The one who leads more is the emotional dominant, and the one who defers to the others leadership more is the submissive. 

Where empathy runs into problems is when the dominant is in a position to need empathy. The less dominant/more submissive the person required to give empathy is, the more averse to providing empathy they will be.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I have to wonder how many people view their intimate relationships in terms of power struggle/upper hand, etc.


I don't know that the presence of a power differential necessarily implies a power struggle. But I don't know.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Just for fun:

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/dominance


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know that the presence of a power differential necessarily implies a power struggle. But I don't know.


I'm not sure either, but if not, but why worry about power differential in the first place?


----------



## NobodySpecial

farsidejunky said:


> Okay, let me over simplify what I am saying so that it can give a foundational basis.
> 
> Every relationship has a power structure...*one partner leads more than they follow*, and vice versa. It may be 90/10, it may be 51/49, *and even more rare is the 50/50*. Like I said earlier, a spectrum.


Far, help me out with this. How can the two bolded be true? I mean is that enough to demonstrate a false premise?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

farsidejunky said:


> Okay, let me over simplify what I am saying so that it can give a foundational basis.
> 
> Every relationship has a power structure...one partner leads more than they follow, and vice versa. It may be 90/10, it may be 51/49, and even more rare is the 50/50. Like I said earlier, a spectrum.
> 
> The one who leads more is the emotional dominant, and the one who defers to the others leadership more is the submissive.
> 
> Where empathy runs into problems is when the dominant is in a position to need empathy. The less dominant/more submissive the person required to give empathy is, the more averse to providing empathy they will be.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I think I'm tracking now. Thanks for the clarification... as it relates directly to the topic at hand.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I'm not sure either, but if not, but why worry about power differential in the first place?


Are you quoting me? I was stuck way back with the influence of dominance on empathy (empathy being the topic of the thread). Turns out we may be discussing a, shall we say,non standard definition of the word dominance.


----------



## farsidejunky

I would like to further add that this feels largely one way because I believe women are in general more submissive than men.

Modern culture would have us believe that this is shifting, but based on relationship satisfaction surveys from women, I tend to believe that our DNA drive is overriding our cultural drive. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

NobodySpecial said:


> Far, help me out with this. How can the two bolded be true? I mean is that enough to demonstrate a false premise?


I was being facetious when I used the term 'rare'. I do not believe they exist.

Many of you likely remember @Duguesclin, and his wife @jld. Dug used to say frequently that 50/50 relationships did not exist, and that a man who believed he was in that type of relationship was actually the submissive. At the time I didn't agree with him. I do now.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

FW, I'm sorry if this feels like a thread jack, but I believe it is the foundation for the lack of empathy.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Holdingontoit

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I have to wonder how many people view their intimate relationships in terms of power struggle/upper hand, etc.


Lots of us do. That doesn't mean it is a desirable or healthy way to view things. But it is "normal" in the sense of happening often.

A power imbalance is fine if the person holding more power likes being the dominant partner and the person holding less power prefers to be submissive. When the roles are reversed, the relationship suffers.

And in my experience, va-clang in the face of weakness or seeking empathy is a very common phenomenon.


----------



## NobodySpecial

farsidejunky said:


> I was being facetious when I use the term 'rare'. I do not believe they exist.
> 
> Many of you likely remember @Duguesclin, and his wife @jld. Dug used to say frequently that 50/50 relationships did not exist, and that a man who believed he was in that type of relationship was actually the submissive. At the time I didn't agree with him. I do now.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I am curious what you base this on? Personally, though I am certain that Dug and Jld's relationship was one of leader/follower model AND that it worked for them, I saw nothing compelling to indicate that ALL relationships behave this way. 

I think men in the 60+ leader category who has to maintain the appearance if invulnerability all the time ISN'T getting empathy from his wive when the va-clang happens. Furthermore, I actually have sympathy for that person.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> FW, I'm sorry if this feels like a thread jack, but I believe it is the foundation for the lack of empathy.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


No, I'm with ya. I do not have my head fully wrapped around it because I already have very developed ideas about kink and D/s. But I'm listening. I can't add much because it is not a deep understanding for me yet. So I'm reading.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> No, I'm with ya. I do not have my head fully wrapped around it because I already have very developed ideas about kink and D/s. But I'm listening. I can't add much because it is not a deep understanding for me yet. So I'm reading.


i really THINK that using dominance and submission as synonymous with leadership and follower-ship is muddying understanding.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> i really THINK that using dominance and submission as synonymous with leadership and follower-ship is muddying understanding.


But see...what I am trying to do is just hear him. I already know that my filters are saying "that's not true in my experience!" but if I keep trying to filter it that way, I can't hear him.

He is saying that he and many other men experience _the feeling_ that what he is saying is true. Whether it is true or not, I can't suss out right now and ultimately, is irrelevant (to my own thought experiment here). It is still something they are feeling, based on things they are seeing and their experience of the world around them.

If I also try to defend some other position while they are telling me this stuff, I can't hear them. I'm seeking to understand, regardless if what they are saying is any kind of ultimate truth. It is still their experience.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> But see...what I am trying to do is just hear him. I already know that my filters are saying "that's not true in my experience!" but if I keep trying to filter it that way, I can't hear him.
> 
> He is saying that he and many other men experience _the feeling_ that what he is saying is true. Whether it is true or not, I can't suss out right now and ultimately, is irrelevant (to my own thought experiment here). It is still something they are feeling, based on things they are seeing and their experience of the world around them.
> 
> If I also try to defend some other position while they are telling me this stuff, I can't hear them. I'm seeking to understand, regardless if what they are saying is any kind of ultimate truth. It is still their experience.


Oh. Ok. I DO get you. Takes me time, I guess.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> I was being facetious when I used the term 'rare'. I do not believe they exist.
> 
> Many of you likely remember @Duguesclin, and his wife @jld. Dug used to say frequently that 50/50 relationships did not exist, and that a man who believed he was in that type of relationship was actually the submissive. At the time I didn't agree with him. I do now.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I would say that @jld was the ultimate example of this puzzling mystery. A woman who loved her man more than anything, yet if he showed even the slightest change from complete stoicism, she basically became fearful to a degree I never understood. But she was kind and loving and protective of him in her way. Empathy = va-clang. And to her that made so much sense. I'm still confused. But listening.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I would say that @jld was the ultimate example of this puzzling mystery. A woman who loved her man more than anything, yet if he showed even the slightest change from complete stoicism, she basically became fearful to a degree I never understood. But she was kind and loving and protective of him in her way. Empathy = va-clang. And to her that made so much sense. I'm still confused. But listening.


So here is a question. Does EMPATHY = va-clang? Or would it be more like a DESIRE for empathy and understanding = va-clang?


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> So here is a question. Does EMPATHY = va-clang? Or would it be more like a DESIRE for empathy and understanding = va-clang?


I don't know. I think both/any. Did you refresh yourself on the original empathy thread (linked on the first post here)? Just skim it for descriptions of va-clang by both men and women. There were basically va-clang descriptions for all kinds of different scenarios.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't know. I think both/any. Did you refresh yourself on the original empathy thread (linked on the first post here)?


Ayuh.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Ayuh.


Welcome back, by the way sister :x


----------



## Faithful Wife

Can I make a request for this thread.....the me too topic, which I do want to get to and empathize about....can we leave that one for another thread? That topic is so huge and so potentially provocative that I'd like to handle it separately at a later time in my "empathy series" (lol).

It has been lightly mentioned on here and that's fine, I do get it (like Mr. Nail's description of why a man should never touch a child who is not his own, even if in order to protect them...that assumption of intent to harm is very hurtful to men and is part of why they push back against me too).

BUT...that topic is just so big, I need to get my head around some of these simpler issues first. Namely, understanding more clearly how the lack of empathy thing is affecting men.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> I would say that @jld was the ultimate example of this puzzling mystery. A woman who loved her man more than anything, yet if he showed even the slightest change from complete stoicism, she basically became fearful to a degree I never understood. But she was kind and loving and protective of him in her way. Empathy = va-clang. And to her that made so much sense. I'm still confused. But listening.


She is the far end of the spectrum. You are farther along in the opposite direction...emotionally speaking.

Imagine the varying degrees that lie between the two of you.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> She is the far end of the spectrum. You are farther along in the opposite direction...emotionally speaking.
> 
> Imagine the varying degrees that lie between the two of you.


Yes, her kink was spread throughout her entire life, her every thought and emotion. She was very self aware in that way, she understood her own feelings and made no excuses for them (in fact, she felt that all women secretly feel like she does and that we have been somehow changed by society to not be in touch with that side of ourselves).

Although I still can't relate to a lot of what she ever said, I definitely heard her multiple times talk about how if Dug was ever anything but stoic (he never was so, no worries) she would be immediately repulsed by him and would fear for her life (in an emotional/existential way, not a literal way).


----------



## EllisRedding

Yikes, this thread be moving fast...










OK, here is something my W and I were both trying to wrap our heads around, and maybe this goes along with the empathy theme, let me know...

A while back my W went out with a bunch of other married women. When she came home she told me she was shocked at how much the conversation was dominated by the women going off about their husbands. I feel like this isn't the first time, that it is somewhat accepted for something like this to happen. I know most of the husbands, and aside from an occasional airing of a gripe, we never have these types of conversations when we get together. Maybe they had legitimate gripes, who knows. I always thought the point was to protect your SO, not tear them down to other people. For example, I know one woman who was complaining about her H being lazy with doing things around the house. I have spoken with him, he runs a construction company all week, so when he finally has free time on the weekend the last thing he wants to do is home improvement. IDK, to a point I feel it is deemed ok to bash husbands, and to some extent I think this does have to do with lack of empathy (man up and take your punches). 

Just to clarify as well, I am not trying to make this out as women are evil or such. I am trying to think of it along the lines of what FW brought up, but from a guys perspective in terms of empathy towards men (or why they feel a lack of empathy). I have no doubt that there are plenty of ways where guys may show a lack of empathy towards women, but that is not the thread title  .


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> Are you quoting me? I was stuck way back with the influence of dominance on empathy (empathy being the topic of the thread). Turns out we may be discussing a, shall we say,non standard definition of the word dominance.


It was a bit of a sidetrack from the dominance discussion. you indicated you weren't sure if there was a correlation between there being a power differential and a power struggle. 

While I admitted I don't really know either I couldn't help but think, if one isn't worried about a power struggle, why bring up a power differential in the first place?


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Yikes, this thread be moving fast...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, here is something my W and I were both trying to wrap our heads around, and maybe this goes along with the empathy theme, let me know...
> 
> A while back my W went out with a bunch of other married women. When she came home she told me she was shocked at how much the conversation was dominated by the women going off about their husbands. I feel like this isn't the first time, that it is somewhat accepted for something like this to happen. I know most of the husbands, and aside from an occasional airing of a gripe, we never have these types of conversations when we get together. Maybe they had legitimate gripes, who knows. I always thought the point was to protect your SO, not tear them down to other people. For example, I know one woman who was complaining about her H being lazy with doing things around the house. I have spoken with him, he runs a construction company all week, so when he finally has free time on the weekend the last thing he wants to do is home improvement. IDK, to a point I feel it is deemed ok to bash husbands, and to some extent I think this does have to do with lack of empathy (man up and take your punches).
> 
> Just to clarify as well, I am not trying to make this out as women are evil or such. I am trying to think of it along the lines of what FW brought up, but from a guys perspective in terms of empathy towards men (or why they feel a lack of empathy). I have no doubt that there are plenty of ways where guys may show a lack of empathy towards women, but that is not the thread title  .


Yes there does seem to be a bit of a ***** session bonding that women experience when talking about their man. And for whatever reason, I don’t typically hear women in groups discussing the things they love about their men. 

I’m not sure why that is.

I know that for me, I’ve caught myself poking fun about something annoying my guy does to a friend at work, let’s say. And then I thought to myself “I wonder if she thinks I even like him, have I only just talked about his annoying habits to her?” And then when I thought about it, I felt uncomfortable about saying wonderful things about him to her. I felt something along the lines of “I don’t want to sound like he’s better than her husband or that I’m boasting”. I couldn’t really logic why I felt that way. It was weird. I still don’t understand it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes there does seem to be a bit of a ***** session bonding that women experience when talking about their man. And for whatever reason, I don’t typically hear women in groups discussing the things they love about their men.


I can confirm that this is pretty common in at least one friend group I used to be part of. Not a fan. 



> I’m not sure why that is.
> 
> I know that for me, I’ve caught myself poking fun about something annoying my guy does to a friend at work, let’s say. And then I thought to myself “I wonder if she thinks I even like him, have I only just talked about his annoying habits to her?” And then when I thought about it, I felt uncomfortable about saying wonderful things about him to her. I felt something along the lines of “I don’t want to sound like he’s better than her husband or that I’m boasting”. I couldn’t really logic why I felt that way. It was weird. I still don’t understand it.


At my last job, women would poke and even vent about their husbands. Men never did that. ONCE in a blue moon, they would refer to SHMBO. ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I can confirm that this is pretty common in at least one friend group I used to be part of. Not a fan.
> 
> At my last job, women would poke and even vent about their husbands. Men never did that. ONCE in a blue moon, they would refer to SHMBO. ...


There is one guy where I work who continually makes little jabs at his wife. It confused me for a long time. I couldn’t tell if he actually loves her or not.

After knowing him a long time, I finally concluded this is a sort of role they play. He’s the forever frazzled because his wife does so many (to him) pointless things, and she’s the forever frazzled wife because she has to do these things to keep the household at her own standards. It took me quite a while to suss this out.


----------



## Luminous

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes there does seem to be a bit of a ***** session bonding that women experience when talking about their man. And for whatever reason, I don’t typically hear women in groups discussing the things they love about their men.
> 
> I’m not sure why that is.
> 
> I know that for me, I’ve caught myself poking fun about something annoying my guy does to a friend at work, let’s say. And then I thought to myself “I wonder if she thinks I even like him, have I only just talked about his annoying habits to her?” And then when I thought about it, I felt uncomfortable about saying wonderful things about him to her. I felt something along the lines of “I don’t want to sound like he’s better than her husband or that I’m boasting”. I couldn’t really logic why I felt that way. It was weird. I still don’t understand it.


The 'women get together and have a ***** about their man' thing, might have more to do with the social hierarchy of the group of women in question (or overall confidence of the individual), rather than a lack of empathy.


----------



## 269370

Faithful Wife said:


> *Apparently for some women, if he shows any weakness at all (including grief, such as at a funeral for a sibling), that the immediate response from their woman was va-clang. *
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don’t know why this happens or how prevalent it is. I just know it happens enough that several men here reported the same thing.



No woman has actually written or said this (to the best of my recollection). If there’s a link to a post, I would be interested to read it.
I believe it was a couple of men who shared some stories (I think it was MEM and couple of others I think) who felt their partner felt that way. It doesn’t mean that that’s what their wives actually felt (total lack of empathy or ‘va-clang). I would be amazed if any wife had a va-clang moment when her husband’s relative just died...

What I DID read, were threads where some women felt put off by whiny husbands, who instead of taking responsibility for their feelings, would dump it on their wives. 

Now it’s really impossible to say what the objective reality of the situation was in each given situation.

Just correcting a possible mis-representation.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> We're working here on the assumption that what the OP says is true.
> 
> If you don't believe it's true, then start another thread saying so or, better yet, resurrect the thread the OP referred to.


Thanks @Buddy400

Hopefully everyone will at least either understand the topic, not threadjack, or start their own threads to discuss whether it is true or not. It is at least true for the several men who described it here, men who have contributed a lot over the years and I have a sense of their story.


----------



## 269370

EllisRedding said:


> Since it has been brought up, curious to hear what the ladies think about showing empathy to guys who are sick (feeding off of @ConanHub post)? This seems to be a contentious topic at times, with references made to the "Man cold" as I am sure many have heard about. I remember at some point last year I must've posted on Facebook about being sick, I had left work early and gone home. The first two comments I got were from females, to the effect of "Boo Hoo" and how I expected the world to stop for me. I wasn't looking for empathy from anyone, I was just excited to finally get back to my bed lol. The funny thing, I had already worked 8 hours that day (so me leaving "early" from work I had already put in more hours than the females commenting, and was just going to rest before doing more work at home). One female then somehow turned it into a rant about how when her H gets sick he turns into a baby (so I guess the assumption was I would be doing the same thing being a guy and all). My W ended up stepping in and defended me (I am actually at the other end of the spectrum, somewhat to my W's dismay, I don't want help or empathy when I am sick, many times I don't say anything and keep it from my W until she finally figures it out because I look like a zombie lol). It just seems like when it comes to guys getting sick, it make some women skin crawl lol (maybe similar to how Conan described his W)
> 
> 
> 
> Side note, growing up I was always very active with sports. There would be times I would come home injured or limping. Now, normally you would expect your Mom to try and console you. In my case, my mom would see me hurt and her response would be "Keep playing the sport and see what happens to you". Maybe that is why I lack empathy lol.




I’m not sure how much there is to it. If it comes to serious illnesses, a caring/loving partner will (usually) of course take care. I have seen this in my family where my mother took care of my dad until he passed away from a serious illness early on in his life. I have seen it with my wife, when there is any remote chance of something being more serious.

As far as ‘man colds’ go...generalising here but I think women just don’t want to encourage more whininess.
And men DO like to be taken care of (during any illness), because that’s what their mothers used to do. Women are the ones who usually prefer to be left alone when they are sick. At least that’s what I have seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Nail

A certain sister in law tried to draw Mrs. Nail into a rag on your man outing. She was uncomfortable. It's not in her personality / FOO dynamic. I backed up her feelings by assuring her that if she partook of that particular form of entertainment, I would return her single status.

And I'm a submissive male. As a take charge woman, she perfectly understands, that with authority, comes responsibility. The SIL (submissive female, trying to establish control from the bottom) doesn't get that connection and is often surprised when her words and actions yield unexpected results. Unexpected to her anyway, everyone else sees it coming for weeks.

I know plenty of people both male and female who work against their spouse. Many methods of control, many complaints, little digs, snips and snipes. I'm even finding myself doing it more and more as emotional separation increases. But the happy couples are an unsplittable team. They work together to defend the union. It probably takes a measure of empathy to do that. 

The opposite of empathy is the taking for granted. I read here today "Children are yours for the rest of your life, but husbands are yours till they find a new wife". That level of disregard for the person who should have been at the center of your life, spells disaster. You can't have empathy for a paper coffee cup. You use and you toss. If that is what men are to you you don't deserve a quality one.


----------



## 269370

farsidejunky said:


> I am in no way the authority on this oh, so I am only speaking from my experience. There are many others on this board who know a great deal more than I do on the subject.
> 
> Traits I associate with an emotionally dominant individual:
> 
> *Leadership
> *Risk taking
> *Uncompromising willingness to 'go it alone'
> *The rock, or more emotionally stable individual in the relationship
> *Tone setter for the family unit
> 
> These are just off the top of my head. There are many more I'm sure, but notice that most of them involve an absence of fear, or to be more clear, the absence of willingness to let fear significantly alter their trajectory.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk



Actually perhaps ‘dominance’ may not send out the right message (as it presumes a dominance ‘over’ somebody else).

Many marriages are in a constant state of power struggles, some very minor, some major where the powers keep shifting. Plus both partners may be ‘emotionally dominant’ in one aspect of their marriage while another partner may be dominant in another.

The saying that ‘behind every great man there is an even greater woman’ (or something similar) is often perfectly apt IMO. A marriage is supposed to be a ‘symbiosis’, greater than sum of its parts (ideally). 

Your partner may bring out certain qualities or emphasise a certain ‘strength’ in you, that otherwise wouldn’t be emphasised and vice versa. It’s a bit difficult to talk in generalities. A woman can easily be emotionally ‘in charge’ of the whole dynamic in the marriage without the husband ever suspecting it....It really is all relative. Especially nowadays where many men are more comfortable in more passive/submissive roles than in the past (again: what’s ‘passive’ and what’s ‘submissive’...).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Affaircare

I am about half way through the other thread (https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html) and have read everything on this thread, and I have to just say this: I am GOBSMACKED. 

I can see that this is a reality, especially have the several personal examples mentioned in both threads, but I would have never thought of this in a million years. As you all know, I'm with @Emerging Buddhist who is one of the manliest of men ever.  We truly follow the typical stereotype of he's moreso the leader and I'm moreso the follower and I like it that way. He's the commander and I'm the best second in command you'll ever find...and I'm proud to be! So as far as I can tell both by anecdotal evidence and personal experience, I get that whole dynamic. But one of the things I cherish the most about him is that to the whole rest of the world, he's the Rock of Gibraltar, and I am the only one who gets to see his vulnerable side. 

Now I can't tell if he shows me every vulnerability--probably not, honestly, because I'm a chick and I GET to be vulnerable and I don't share every single thing! But I think of it as a very special honor, reserved only for a select few to be able to see that side AT ALL. I will say that very often when he's sick or having trouble with something he really rebuffs "help" (and that is partly due to years of having no one who cared and partly due to learning how accept/receive it) and frankly it's something we both work on. We are both VERY self-sufficient. LOL 

But to my mind, I believe I think somewhat like you, @faithfulwife. I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I hold my own self to that, but I had no idea so many male humans felt like they were not able to get empathy from their female life partners! That is such a surprise! I would have thought that women (as a general gender) were good at nurturing et al and thus would extend empathy to those they love the most...but it sure seems not! 

On the exact other hand, I know that when EB is strong and stable, I feel like I have this great foundation of security under me. When he's not as strong or a bit shook, I feel like the earth firms up under my feet and I bear up under it. I don't know. Maybe I'm just not afraid of another's insecurity. Maybe I'm exceptionally rational (lol)...the exception and not the rule. But I am still just GOBSMACKED. I can't imagine living like that. 

I'll read on, and hopefully finish the other thread this afternoon and evening...but WOW. 

P.S. I want to just say out loud one thing: I always feel a little weird sharing the way things are with EB and I, because you know what? It's ours and private and I don't want to just say everything, you know? But at the same time, some of what's being discussed here is so relevant to what we're living that some sharing just is going to happen. Honey--I'm doing my best to talk about us but keep our stuff ours. :x


----------



## StarFires

Mr. Nail said:


> Let me illustrate this for you so you can catch a tiny glimmer of what we are really talking about here. I went to a grocery store the other day. As I was collecting a cart a preschooler ran towards the door shouting for his mommy. I went into auto protect mode. (I'm 50'ish so I was trained to do this) I did not grab the child, I did not approach the child. I stood back and wached the child until mommy showed up. Why did I restrict my protective action to observation only? PAY ATTENTION (this is the bit you aren't getting) I only observed from a distance because 1) I didn't want to get arrested. 2)I didn't want to be beaten with a brick. and 3) I knew that mommy would be much more comfortable not seeing her tyke with a creepy old white man.
> 
> You see we don't want a parade. We don't want a thank you. We don't want to neglect our manly instincts to protect. All we want is freedom from assault for doing it. It's not much to ask but too much to expect.


I don't know why people liked your post because you didn't address what I said, nor did you address the subject matter at hand. All you did was speak down to me as if I were a child who cannot possibly understand the written word or bother to empathize with another person's plight. And then, using your unrelated example, you created an entirely different topic as something to address. But your scenario wasn't about anything that I, a female, haven't done many times, and for the same types of reasons, and with the same types of concerns in not wanting anyone to think I might be acting suspiciously. I've even placed myself in harm's way to prevent a child from harm. So, we all, not just men, can and do place ourselves in protection mode out of concern for other human beings. But I didn't want accolades for it, which is part of the subject matter here and is what you specifically quoted me and then disagreed with. So when did anything turn into being about "freedom from assault?" It never did. It was just your active imagination.


----------



## Faithful Wife

StarFires said:


> I don't know why people liked your post because you didn't address what I said, nor did you address the subject matter at hand. All you did was speak down to me as if I were a child who cannot possibly understand the written word or bother to empathize with another person's plight. And then, using your unrelated example, you created an entirely different topic as something to address. But your scenario wasn't about anything that I, a female, haven't done many times, and for the same types of reasons, and with the same types of concerns in not wanting anyone to think I might be acting suspiciously. I've even placed myself in harm's way to prevent a child from harm. So, we all, not just men, can and do place ourselves in protection mode out of concern for other human beings. But I didn't want accolades for it, which is part of the subject matter here and is what you specifically quoted me and then disagreed with. So when did anything turn into being about "freedom from assault?" It never did. It was just your active imagination.


I was tempted to respond with similar ideas, that I wouldn't want a strange female touching my child, either. And that as a mom, I would do the same thing Mr. Nail did, I would stand back and watch, not approach the child, because I know I'm a stranger and the kid's mom or dad won't want me touching him/her.

And I was also going to say that men don't want strangers touching their own kids for any reason, either, so men do understand why it is a problem for other parents.

The reason I liked his post is that there is something "more" to it when it is a man in this circumstance. Men know this because they also don't want strange men around their kids, and they aren't going to assume a female stranger has the same capacity to harm that a male stranger does. But it is also true that women probably tend to voice this fear of men's potential harm, and to express it in many ways, and then to tie it back to the harm men can do to women in general, and me too stuff. So then the man has gone from being a potential child molester in our eyes to a potential rapist....all in the flash on her face.

Now, I'm not saying I agree that women all think all men are rapists or anything like that, and I've asked that we shelve the me too discussion for later. But what I'm hearing in many different ways is that men feel a pressure on them from women (and probably men, too) that says "hey, you potential rapist, don't you dare make a wrong move". It comes up for them in many different ways, which (I think) is why Mr. Nail used what seemed like a different topic when replying to you.

Again - - I am not saying all men think this or that I can even clearly state what they ARE thinking...I'm trying to listen and understand.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> I was tempted to respond with similar ideas, that I wouldn't want a strange female touching my child, either. And that as a mom, I would do the same thing Mr. Nail did, I would stand back and watch, not approach the child, because I know I'm a stranger and the kid's mom or dad won't want me touching him/her.
> 
> 
> 
> And I was also going to say that men don't want strangers touching their own kids for any reason, either, so men do understand why it is a problem for other parents.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I liked his post is that there is something "more" to it when it is a man in this circumstance. Men know this because they also don't want strange men around their kids, and they aren't going to assume a female stranger has the same capacity to harm that a male stranger does. But it is also true that women probably tend to voice this fear of men's potential harm, and to express it in many ways, and then to tie it back to the harm men can do to women in general, and me too stuff. So then the man has gone from being a potential child molester in our eyes to a potential rapist....all in the flash on her face.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm not saying I agree that women all think all men are rapists or anything like that, and I've asked that we shelve the me too discussion for later. But what I'm hearing in many different ways is that men feel a pressure on them from women (and probably men, too) that says "hey, you potential rapist, don't you dare make a wrong move". It comes up for them in many different ways, which (I think) is why Mr. Nail used what seemed like a different topic when replying to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Again - - I am not saying all men think this or that I can even clearly state what they ARE thinking...I'm trying to listen and understand.


This is very well put.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Affaircare said:


> I am about half way through the other thread and have read everything on this thread, and I have to just say this: I am GOBSMACKED.


I was too as I slowly came to realize how often this actually happens and to what extent.


----------



## Red Sonja

Affaircare said:


> I am about half way through the other thread (https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html) and have read everything on this thread, and I have to just say this: I am GOBSMACKED.


Yup, me too.


----------



## uhtred

Some airlines won't let men sit next to unattended children. 

I find that deeply offensive - the idea that because I am male, I am automatically suspected of being a child molester. (particularly offensive since I was molested by a woman when I was very young). 

The actually negative effect is small, I don't really care about sitting next to children, but the suspicion seems really objectionable.






Faithful Wife said:


> snip
> 
> Now, I'm not saying I agree that women all think all men are rapists or anything like that, and I've asked that we shelve the me too discussion for later. But what I'm hearing in many different ways is that men feel a pressure on them from women (and probably men, too) that says "hey, you potential rapist, don't you dare make a wrong move". It comes up for them in many different ways, which (I think) is why Mr. Nail used what seemed like a different topic when replying to you.
> 
> Again - - I am not saying all men think this or that I can even clearly state what they ARE thinking...I'm trying to listen and understand.


----------



## 269370

farsidejunky said:


> Okay, let me over simplify what I am saying so that it can give a foundational basis.
> 
> Every relationship has a power structure...one partner leads more than they follow, and vice versa. It may be 90/10, it may be 51/49, and even more rare is the 50/50. Like I said earlier, a spectrum.
> 
> The one who leads more is the emotional dominant, and the one who defers to the others leadership more is the submissive.
> 
> Where empathy runs into problems is when the dominant is in a position to need empathy. The less dominant/more submissive the person required to give empathy is, the more averse to providing empathy they will be.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk



But that was my point earlier on: the idea that the less dominant in the partnership is somehow averse to providing empathy may well mostly exist in the more dominant person’s mind. 
It is to me as likely that the dominant person may be as reluctant to ‘give up’ their dominance, as much as the less dominant person may be reluctant to provide empathy. 
It’s not really clear what the reality of each partnership’s dynamic actually is. At least as far as my marriage goes, it’s mostly fluid: my wife is tougher with some things than I am, just as I’m tougher when it comes to other things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> Some airlines won't let men sit next to unattended children.
> 
> I find that deeply offensive - the idea that because I am male, I am automatically suspected of being a child molester. (particularly offensive since I was molested by a woman when I was very young).
> 
> The actually negative effect is small, I don't really care about sitting next to children, but the suspicion seems really objectionable.


It is a really difficult topic, right? 

Personally though, I just think putting minors alone on a place is a bad idea, why do people do that?? I feel sorry for anyone who has to sit next to unattended minors, because who is there to make them sit still or behave?? But anyway.....your point is true. I don't know how to change things like that at all, but discussing it is a good start.


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> She has stepped over me to do chores while I was incapacitated by a migraine on the floor.



Maybe she thought you were trying to get out of unloading the dish washer 

I think if it’s a serious condition (and I’m not saying migraine isn’t, but it’s at least not life threatening), then it would (normally) be different, at least with us.

My wife fell on her ass today (we went ice skating). And she felt I was annoyed with her while she was in pain (I wasn’t annoyed with HER; I was just hungry and she was walking very slowly afterwards 
and she felt I didn’t ask her enough times (or with enough frequency) whether she was ok or how she was doing...In her eyes, I basically didn’t show her enough empathy during the time of pain. Does it mean I’m submissive or that I would ever act so carelessly if she was seriously injured? (I admitted I was a bit of an inpatient dumbass).
I think these kinds of misunderstandings happen to everyone, regardless of gender. Reactions can get misconstrued. Deep down, I know she cares and she knows I care. And that’s what matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

I think people realistically evaluating risks would help: while there may be cases of children being molested on planes or similar situations, I expect that the great majority of the problem comes from family members, not strangers.

The other issue is to take a wider view that discrimination is not OK. There is a general acceptance now that even though statistically a higher percentage African Americans are convicted of crimes than are Whites, it is not OK to apply extra suspicion to African Americans. (and I completely agree). I think that just needs to be extended - even if statics show that men commit more sex crimes than women, its not OK to be extra suspicious of men. (for the same sort of reasons). 


As an aside, I think children traveling alone depends on the age of the children. Below some age, I agree it is not a good idea.




Faithful Wife said:


> It is a really difficult topic, right?
> 
> Personally though, I just think putting minors alone on a place is a bad idea, why do people do that?? I feel sorry for anyone who has to sit next to unattended minors, because who is there to make them sit still or behave?? But anyway.....your point is true. I don't know how to change things like that at all, but discussing it is a good start.


----------



## farsidejunky

Speaking as a Moderator:

I have deleted somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 posts from this thread, mostly due to thread jacks and the associated bickering as a result.

Address the topic at hand. Stop the bickering. One and final warning.

Play nice, folks.


----------



## StarFires

Faithful Wife said:


> I was tempted to respond with similar ideas, that I wouldn't want a strange female touching my child, either. And that as a mom, I would do the same thing Mr. Nail did, I would stand back and watch, not approach the child, because I know I'm a stranger and the kid's mom or dad won't want me touching him/her.
> 
> And I was also going to say that men don't want strangers touching their own kids for any reason, either, so men do understand why it is a problem for other parents.
> 
> The reason I liked his post is that there is something "more" to it when it is a man in this circumstance. Men know this because they also don't want strange men around their kids, and they aren't going to assume a female stranger has the same capacity to harm that a male stranger does. But it is also true that women probably tend to voice this fear of men's potential harm, and to express it in many ways, and then to tie it back to the harm men can do to women in general, and me too stuff. So then the man has gone from being a potential child molester in our eyes to a potential rapist....all in the flash on her face.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying I agree that women all think all men are rapists or anything like that, and I've asked that we shelve the me too discussion for later. But what I'm hearing in many different ways is that men feel a pressure on them from women (and probably men, too) that says "hey, you potential rapist, don't you dare make a wrong move". It comes up for them in many different ways, which (I think) is why Mr. Nail used what seemed like a different topic when replying to you.
> 
> Again - - I am not saying all men think this or that I can even clearly state what they ARE thinking...I'm trying to listen and understand.


Faithful Wife, you're really marvelous. I appreciate your considerate perspective and prodigious ability to extrapolate. I just have to disagree. I'm not disagreeing that those things are true, but the fact that they are true tells me it's all just whining.....BECAUSE those things are true. And because men as a segment of society are not the only ones who have to live with, or rather live down, judgments and prejudices rooted in reality. 

When, honestly, the vast percentage of sex crimes on women and children are committed by members of the male species, it seems to me the complaining is because they want to be allowed to continue with impunity. And that's because of a probability that is so high it can easily be considered a fact that among the men doing all this whining, some of them are, themselves, perpetrators of something since the perpetrators obviously would have to comprise an inordinate percentage of society. There's just no way to know that percentage. Sex crimes against women are often unreported. Sex crimes on children are almost never reported, but that doesn't negate the truth that children over the centuries have grown up being sexually violated by their father, grandfather, brother, uncle, or close male family friend in disproportionate numbers compared to female family members and friends. These are statistics. Sex crimes on children has always been a serious problem. I bet you, yourself, know someone within your family and social sphere who was molested as a child. You probably know of more than one. I know of at least 4.

Moreover, I will not entertain the objections to the #MeToo Movement because, as the examples mentioned, the movement and complaints were not borne of women's imaginations. They are actual victims of authority abuse that led to illegal propositions and sex crimes. So, in effect, those who complain are saying they don't want it told. They want women to remain silent about it.

Therefore, since men have proven themselves capable of all manner of atrocity and abomination, it is only logical, and hardly unreasonable, that they are considered capable of all manner of atrocity and abomination, and suspected of such given certain situations.

All this means that, among those who don't appreciate being suspected or want "freedom from assault," there, indeed, are some who are committing the crimes and offenses and are effectively saying they want the freedom to continue without suspicion or reproach.

_Men are more likely to commit sexual violence in communities where sexual violence goes unpunished. (National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2004)._

This statistic proves that perpetrators take advantage of environments conducive to freedom to commit their crimes. To complain that one's actions might cause suspicion suggests they resent society closing ranks to create a less convenient environment. Otherwise, since we're talking about empathy, they would understand protections, which include fears and suspicion, have to be in place to protect the vulnerable.

I ask again, what is there to understand here?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

uhtred said:


> I think people realistically evaluating risks would help: while there may be cases of children being molested on planes or similar situations, I expect that the great majority of the problem comes from family members, not strangers.
> 
> The other issue is to take a wider view that discrimination is not OK. There is a general acceptance now that even though statistically a higher percentage African Americans are convicted of crimes than are Whites, it is not OK to apply extra suspicion to African Americans. (and I completely agree). I think that just needs to be extended - even if statics show that men commit more sex crimes than women, its not OK to be extra suspicious of men. (for the same sort of reasons).
> 
> 
> As an aside, I think children traveling alone depends on the age of the children. Below some age, I agree it is not a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a really difficult topic, right?
> 
> Personally though, I just think putting minors alone on a place is a bad idea, why do people do that?? I feel sorry for anyone who has to sit next to unattended minors, because who is there to make them sit still or behave?? But anyway.....your point is true. I don't know how to change things like that at all, but discussing it is a good start.
Click to expand...

Would you trust your small children to be chaperoned by a male or female you didn't know? I would and probably most people would choose the female. I dont think its wrong to think that either, gender defines us to a certain extent. Why are there so many female teachers as opposed to male teachers? Nothing really, some of my best teachers were male. But I think most men would lose their $hit if they had to put up with 26 little brats all at once.


----------



## Faithful Wife

StarFires said:


> Faithful Wife, you're really marvelous. I appreciate your considerate perspective and prodigious ability to extrapolate. I just have to disagree. I'm not disagreeing that those things are true, but the fact that they are true tells me it's all just whining.....BECAUSE those things are true. And because men as a segment of society are not the only ones who have to live with, or rather live down, judgments and prejudices rooted in reality.
> 
> When, honestly, the vast percentage of sex crimes on women and children are committed by members of the male species, it seems to me the complaining is because they want to be allowed to continue with impunity. And that's because of a probability that is so high it can easily be considered a fact that among the men doing all this whining, some of them are, themselves, perpetrators of something since the perpetrators obviously would have to comprise an inordinate percentage of society. There's just no way to know that percentage. Sex crimes against women are often unreported. Sex crimes on children are almost never reported, but that doesn't negate the truth that children over the centuries have grown up being sexually violated by their father, grandfather, brother, uncle, or close male family friend in disproportionate numbers compared to female family members and friends. These are statistics. Sex crimes on children has always been a serious problem. I bet you, yourself, know someone within your family and social sphere who was molested as a child. You probably know of more than one. I know of at least 4.
> 
> Moreover, I will not entertain the objections to the #MeToo Movement because, as the examples mentioned, the movement and complaints were not borne of women's imaginations. They are actual victims of authority abuse that led to illegal propositions and sex crimes. So, in effect, those who complain are saying they don't want it told. They want women to remain silent about it.
> 
> Therefore, since men have proven themselves capable of all manner of atrocity and abomination, it is only logical, and hardly unreasonable, that they are considered capable of all manner of atrocity and abomination, and suspected of such given certain situations.
> 
> All this means that, among those who don't appreciate being suspected or want "freedom from assault," there, indeed, are some who are committing the crimes and offenses and are effectively saying they want the freedom to continue without suspicion or reproach.
> 
> _Men are more likely to commit sexual violence in communities where sexual violence goes unpunished. (National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2004)._
> 
> This statistic proves that perpetrators take advantage of environments conducive to freedom to commit their crimes. To complain that one's actions might cause suspicion suggests they resent society closing ranks to create a less convenient environment. Otherwise, since we're talking about empathy, they would understand protections, which include fears and suspicion, have to be in place to protect the vulnerable.
> 
> I ask again, what is there to understand here?


I understand your position, I do. I’ve said all the words you have said before here. This thread and the 2 others like it I’ve created recently are the only place on TAM that you’ll see me trying to discuss these topics from a different POV (and note my thread count). Most of my posts are heavily feminist leaning and most men here know me as that (which is why some men here are also confused by what I’m getting at). I’m not asking you to understand, as I probably wouldn’t if I was reading this and it was someone else’s thread.

One thing I want to make clear though. No men here or elsewhere ever asked me for empathy or for me to take up this position. No one whined about anything. No one asked for a parade. 

This topic is something I am trying to work our for myself because of examples they had given. None of those examples were giving with a whiny “oh poor me I’m not appreciated” attitude.

As far as me too, yes, trust me bad things have happened to me and others I love. But when I said I didn’t want to take up that part of this discussion, I meant for right now. I hope to move along in this topic and get to the point where I can open a me too thread. But when I do that the thread will be about my own thought experiment here. 

I would not be opposed at all if you or anyone else wants to put up a different thread about how men lack empathy for women? I would join in that thread. Or create a thread about how this thread doesn’t sit well with you. I do want to discuss that with you but I don’t want to derail my thread.

Rest assured if you see me elsewhere on TAM, I’ll probably have my feminist flag flying. That’s who I am (something a lot of men here do not appreciate about me and they think I am a radical). I take up those battles on other threads. 

But this one is different.


----------



## farsidejunky

Are you saying the situation is acceptable?


StarFires said:


> Faithful Wife, you're really marvelous. I appreciate your considerate perspective and prodigious ability to extrapolate. I just have to disagree. I'm not disagreeing that those things are true, but the fact that they are true tells me it's all just whining.....BECAUSE those things are true. And because men as a segment of society are not the only ones who have to live with, or rather live down, judgments and prejudices rooted in reality.
> 
> When, honestly, the vast percentage of sex crimes on women and children are committed by members of the male species, it seems to me the complaining is because they want to be allowed to continue with impunity. And that's because of a probability that is so high it can easily be considered a fact that among the men doing all this whining, some of them are, themselves, perpetrators of something since the perpetrators obviously would have to comprise an inordinate percentage of society. There's just no way to know that percentage. Sex crimes against women are often unreported. Sex crimes on children are almost never reported, but that doesn't negate the truth that children over the centuries have grown up being sexually violated by their father, grandfather, brother, uncle, or close male family friend in disproportionate numbers compared to female family members and friends. These are statistics. Sex crimes on children has always been a serious problem. I bet you, yourself, know someone within your family and social sphere who was molested as a child. You probably know of more than one. I know of at least 4.
> 
> Moreover, I will not entertain the objections to the #MeToo Movement because, as the examples mentioned, the movement and complaints were not borne of women's imaginations. They are actual victims of authority abuse that led to illegal propositions and sex crimes. So, in effect, those who complain are saying they don't want it told. They want women to remain silent about it.
> 
> Therefore, since men have proven themselves capable of all manner of atrocity and abomination, it is only logical, and hardly unreasonable, that they are considered capable of all manner of atrocity and abomination, and suspected of such given certain situations.
> 
> All this means that, among those who don't appreciate being suspected or want "freedom from assault," there, indeed, are some who are committing the crimes and offenses and are effectively saying they want the freedom to continue without suspicion or reproach.
> 
> _Men are more likely to commit sexual violence in communities where sexual violence goes unpunished. (National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2004)._
> 
> This statistic proves that perpetrators take advantage of environments conducive to freedom to commit their crimes. To complain that one's actions might cause suspicion suggests they resent society closing ranks to create a less convenient environment. Otherwise, since we're talking about empathy, they would understand protections, which include fears and suspicion, have to be in place to protect the vulnerable.
> 
> I ask again, what is there to understand here?


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Laurentium

Faithful Wife said:


> I would say that @jld was the ultimate example of this puzzling mystery. A woman who loved her man more than anything, yet if he showed even the slightest change from complete stoicism, she basically became fearful to a degree I never understood.


That's exactly it. Given that you obviously understand that, I'm not sure what more you're asking.



> I'm still confused. But listening.


If you're confused, maybe it's because several almost unrelated topics are being discussed. (As I guess is normal on the internet). We have (at least) the above topic (how do women react to shows of non-stoic, soft emotions from men); are men asking for "accolades" and "parades" for what is essentially normal good behaviour (no); and are men more of a risk to unrelated children than women (unfortunately yes). Only the first of these is to do with men showing (or not showing) emotion.


----------



## Affaircare

I'm still working my way through the other thread (https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html) and on about page 20 @TheDudeLebowski brought up a thought I'd like to share even though I'm not quite done reading. He said: 



> I will add that I don't feel my wife is particularly attracted by my vulnerabilities. More so that she will empathize to the point of getting me back up on the horse. I'm still rather stoic about the subject with her. Lots of "que sera sera" quotes from me. While inside I'm definitely anxious. She can sense it, and responds to that accordingly. But she doesn't seem interested in me sexually at the moment. So her empathy is also self serving to a degree.


My thought is that to me it sounds like he's saying that because his wife isn't attracted to him in the moment that he's vulnerable, that it means or "feels like" she doesn't have empathy for him...as if empathy would mean the same as attraction! No attraction = no empathy ERGO empathy = attraction. 

Speaking as a female of the species, here's the thing: if someone (anyone...male or female) is opening up to me and showing vulnerability, in that moment I'm not thinking "Holy SMOKE, you are so hot!" I'm thinking more about being supportive, encouraging, or helpful. To my mind, showing vulnerability might equate to trust (closer at least) but it surely does not equate to empathy. I would think of empathy more like "I've walked in your shoes" "Been there done that and survived!" or listening actively. 

Now...if someone expresses vulnerability I can't say I'm "turned off" but I'd also say I'm not necessarily "turned on" either because sex isn't on my mind in the moment. The person and their suffering and caring for them IS on my mind! 

So what do you think? Is there something to this? I mean to a male human does empathy equate to sexual attraction? (shrug)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Laurentium said:


> That's exactly it. Given that you obviously understand that, I'm not sure what more you're asking.
> 
> 
> If you're confused, maybe it's because several almost unrelated topics are being discussed. (As I guess is normal on the internet). We have (at least) the above topic (how do women react to shows of non-stoic, soft emotions from men); are men asking for "accolades" and "parades" for what is essentially normal good behaviour (no); and are men more of a risk to unrelated children than women (unfortunately yes). Only the first of these is to do with men showing (or not showing) emotion.


Regarding my take on Jld, I can parrot her words but I have no idea why she felt that way. I do not feel the way she does and when she was here I directly discussed with her how I thought what she was saying was incredibly wrong. It was cruel, IMO. To expect a man to never once show any emotion. And for her to lay her entire emotional life on his shoulders, too.

But Dug was here too and when I would read their posts about each other and how much they loved each other, I had to just step back and see, well it works for them. I don’t understand it bit it’s works for them.

Then there was the sentiment by many people at TAM at the time, who were saying lots of women feel this way. And I was like, what??? No, we don’t! I have empathy for my husband and expect him to have normal emotions and I wouldn’t want to be with a 100% stoic man. But there were in fact quite a few women here at that time who did seem to echo some version of Jld’s feelings. So I was listening to those women too and trying to be open and understand how it could be that some women don’t want their man to show emotion.

There were also women like me arguing that we do have empathy and we don’t want to be dominated, things like that were coming up. Back and forth this went for a long time.

I never achieved total understanding of Jld’s position because I have never felt anything like what she described. I still don’t understand it because it feels cruel to me. But I can describe her position because she repeated it many times (she and I were respectful friends to each other, even though we couldn’t understand each other’s position sometimes).

I’m not at all confused on the many other topics on this thread or how they relate to women lacking empathy for men. To me this thread is a way to hear others thoughts on women lacking empathy for men or issues related to how the world lacks empathy for men in general. I’m not confused on my process here.

I am still and may always be confused on why a woman would va-clang on her husband because he was grieving at his siblings funeral. No amount of women saying this is how they feel will ever make me also feel it, so it will never actually understand it for myself.


----------



## Laurentium

Faithful Wife said:


> I am still and may always be confused on why a woman would va-clang on her husband because he was grieving at his siblings funeral. No amount of women saying this is how they feel will ever make me also feel it, so it will never actually understand it for myself.


Ah yes, the "why" question as to why someone feels how they feel, is pretty unanswerable.

All one can do is recognise that they do. 

As you and I have both said, the dynamic behind it is fear.


----------



## sokillme

I still don't get this whole vulnerability stuff. Do you guys mean if you ever show vulnerability then she is done or at the moment you are being vulnerable she doesn't want to jump into bed with you?

Like if she isn't kind to you when you are sick I have experienced that a little. I think it's hard for my wife to see me that way, I think it's because it scares her. OK so we deal with it. I am a big boy, I just call her out and then take care of myself. She has also gotten a lot better since I started jokingly calling her nurse ratchet and saying I need to go stay somewhere else. The point was made I think. This however doesn't man other wives are very good at this, but maybe bad at other things. 

But this whole she isn't attracted to me when I am vulnerable, like HOW OFTEN are you acting like that? If it's every once in a while? If so then so what? Assuming she regains her attraction when you act an attractive way. Like I am not particularly attracted to someone when they just go the bathroom or are smelly from working out, or whatever it is. Again I don't get why this is a problem? I am sure when I get home and take off my work cloths and put on my pajamas which tend to be t-shirt sweats I am not as attractive as when I am wearing a shirt and tie. People are attractive to different things. 

Now I have read stuff where a parent dies and the wife is nasty because she can't handle the sight of her husband crying, well then I just go back to the fact that she is just an ******* and I don't think that has anything to do with the fact that she is a women. This whole cause and correlation thing is not necessarily fact.

In that sense we need to make sure we are not doing the very same thing we complain about when it comes to the whole "Toxic Masculinity" stuff. A man acting like ******* isn't because of masculinity, it's because he is an *******. Same goes for women, it's not gender it's their character. I can say that with complete confidence as I know plenty of women who would never do this crap. If it had to do with their chromosomes then this would be typical. I don't think it is. I think there IS a large segment of vapid women out there just like there is a large group of chauvinistic men. But again I look at our culture. All one has to do is hear at the kind of music we listen to, and the watch kind of celebrities we have today. This kind of behavior is aspired to and celebrated. 

I DO think there is a point to be made that 21st century feminism isn't the least bit empathetic towards men and is in fact hostile in many cases, but it could just as easily be said that it's not the least bit empathetic to women who hold "traditional views." It's operates more like a religion now a days anyway with heretics and sacred unchallengable views. In my mind it has very little to do with helping women. 

One other thing I think there is a tendency to want to see ****ty behavior in ones spouse as beyond their control as it's hard to admit your spouse is and ******* in some ways. It's much easier for someone to believe my wife doesn't have empathy for me because she is a women then to admit I married and self centered *******. Sure that isn't what some of this is? I say that because so much of this conversation is such an outlier to my experience. 

However there are many men who come to this board are married to or have been married the worst of women, without having a different experience it's hard to know there is different. I say that not to discount the experience but to say that doesn't mean that is the norm. And with people who are involved with Red pill even more so. 

The answer to a lot of women who behave in the worst of these ways is **** those people. Then go find a better woman.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Affaircare said:


> I'm still working my way through the other thread (https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html) and on about page 20 @TheDudeLebowski brought up a thought I'd like to share even though I'm not quite done reading. He said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thought is that to me it sounds like he's saying that because his wife isn't attracted to him in the moment that he's vulnerable, that it means or "feels like" she doesn't have empathy for him...as if empathy would mean the same as attraction! No attraction = no empathy ERGO empathy = attraction.
> 
> Speaking as a female of the species, here's the thing: if someone (anyone...male or female) is opening up to me and showing vulnerability, in that moment I'm not thinking "Holy SMOKE, you are so hot!" I'm thinking more about being supportive, encouraging, or helpful. To my mind, showing vulnerability might equate to trust (closer at least) but it surely does not equate to empathy. I would think of empathy more like "I've walked in your shoes" "Been there done that and survived!" or listening actively.
> 
> Now...if someone expresses vulnerability I can't say I'm "turned off" but I'd also say I'm not necessarily "turned on" either because sex isn't on my mind in the moment. The person and their suffering and caring for them IS on my mind!
> 
> So what do you think? Is there something to this? I mean to a male human does empathy equate to sexual attraction? (shrug)


I don’t think the men were saying that these va-clang moments happened at times when they were even thinking of sex, either.

They just had a moment when they were off the horse for whatever reason, and they could see clearly that their woman had gone va-clang on them.

And by va-clang, I don’t think maybe you or I can actually empathize with those women. So it isn’t something we can feel probably. I don’t feel va-clang. It just doesn’t happen. Sure there are times when I am absolutely not interested in having sex at this instant, like if I have to rush my h to the ER for stitches or something. I’m just in emergency mode and also trying to stay calm and drive safely and also concerned about him. Sex is the last thing on my mind. 

BUT - I would still feel in those moments the same strong attraction to him I always feel. It just wouldn’t be all hyped up and ready to rock like if sex was on our minds. But there was no moment I ever felt a loss of physical or sexual attraction to him. Period. I mean we could be fighting but he was still always hot to me. He could be sick as a dog and he was still hot to me.

What we heard on the other thread was more like, a complete and sudden and total loss of attraction *for him* in those moments. Yes, true, sex was not on the table at the moment and she may have done actions to “take care of him” in a time of great need or something. But on top of sex not being on the table anyway, they went instant va-clang on him.

Some of them described this as an undeniable look on her face. Others said she actually used words that were clear, “I feel va-clang for you right now”.

I really don’t think it’s something you or I can even feel. It took me a long time to accept how often this happens because it’s so foreign to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> I still don't get this whole vulnerability stuff. Do you guys mean if you ever show vulnerability then she is done or at the moment you are being vulnerable she doesn't want to jump into bed with you?
> 
> Like if she isn't kind to you when you are sick I have experienced that a little. I think it's hard for my wife to see me that way, I think it's because it scares her. OK so we deal with it. I am a big boy, I just call her out and then take care of myself. She has also gotten a lot better since I started jokingly calling her nurse ratchet and saying I need to go stay somewhere else. The point was made I think.
> 
> But this whole she isn't attracted to me when I am vulnerable, like HOW OFTEN are you acting like that? If it's every once in a while then so what? Assuming she regains her attraction when you act an attractive way. Like I am not particularly attracted to someone when they just go the bathroom or are smelly from working out, or whatever it is. Again I don't get why this is a problem? I am sure when I get home and take off my work cloths and put on my pajamas which tend to be t-shirt sweats I am not as attractive as when I am wearing a shirt and tie.
> 
> Now I have read stuff where a parent dies and the wife is nasty because she can't handle the sight of her husband crying, well then I just go back to the fact that she is just an ******* and I don't think that has anything to do with the fact that she is a women. This whole cause and correlation thing is not necessarily fact.
> 
> In a sense we need to make sure we are not doing the very same thing we complain about when it comes to the whole "Toxic Masculinity" stuff. A man acting like ******* isn't because of masculinity, it's because he is an *******. Same goes for women, it's not gender it's their character. I can say that with complete confidence as I know plenty of women who would never do this crap. If it had to do with their chromosomes then this would be typical. I don't think it is. I think there IS a large segment of vapid women out there just like there is a large group of chauvinistic men. But again I look at our culture. All one has to do is hear at the kind of music we listen to, and the watch kind of celebrities we have today. This kind of behavure is aspired to and celebrated.
> 
> One other thing I think there is a tendency to want to see ****ty behavior in ones spouse as beyond there control as it's hard to admit your spouse is and ******* in some ways. It's much easier to say my wife doesn't have empathy for me because she is a women then to say I married and self centered *******. Sure that isn't what some of this is? I say that because so much of this conversation is such an outlier to my experience.
> 
> However SO MANY people who come to this board are married to or have been married to terrible *******s.
> 
> The answer is **** those people.


I hope some of the men will answer your questions at the top.

I would also ask you to read the other empathy thread to get an idea of what the men had said there. It’s not going to be possible to reconstruct it all here. Plus it’s very interesting reading. 

As for “well, if she’s that way she’s just a ***** then”, I used to agree with that. But I don’t think Mem would agree with you that his wife is “just a *****”, and I don’t anymore either.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Laurentium said:


> Ah yes, the "why" question as to why someone feels how they feel, is pretty unanswerable.
> 
> All one can do is recognise that they do.
> 
> As you and I have both said, the dynamic behind it is fear.


Do you mean va-clang specifically is rooted in fear?

I don’t know, I mean, consider that many women at TAM have described desiring what might be considered “fake fear” as something that really turns them on. This may be in the form of being physically dominated and even literally tortured. We have some women saying that any kind of sex that is “sweet” or romantic is va-clang. Some have wanted literally only a sadistic vibe from her man, or she can’t get turned on by him.

So how does that relate to fear making her va-clang? She can’t bear to see her husband being vulnerable because deep inside it makes her fear for her safety and children (subconsciously), but at the same time she demands that he be sadistic to her and basically, pretend to be a soul-less sexual monster. And if you can’t do this convincingly enough, va-clang.

That part is weird to me and not understandable.

But I accept it is happening quite frequently. Not necessarily the sadistic sex part, but lots of that too.


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> I hope some of the men will answer your questions at the top.
> 
> I would also ask you to read the other empathy thread to get an idea of what the men had said there. It’s not going to be possible to reconstruct it all here. Plus it’s very interesting reading.
> 
> As for “well, if she’s that way she’s just a ***** then”, I used to agree with that. But I don’t think Mem would agree with you that his wife is “just a *****”, and I don’t anymore either.


I just don't really relate to many of these criticisms. Much of this has not been my experience, and even in the cases where it is I just don't have any concern about it.

For instance not having heads turn when I walk into a room. First of all probably like 1% of the population has that. If you are women and unattractive your only chance is plastic surgery (but only then to a point). If you are guy and you are unattractive you can try to achieve wealth and fame. So in a sense we as men have a much better chance to change our status. We also have a much longer amount of time to do this, just look at the average actors in popular movies age as compared to actresses. I don't get why this is even a thing especially for men. I also am never going to be 6 foot 5 or the starting quarterback for the Jets. I am not posting on a board about that. 

So I don't turn heads when I walk into a room but by the time I got married I had gotten to the point that I could walking into a room, finding some women I was attracted to and charming the pants off her. I got great sanctification in that, in fact I had to use charm because I think I am attractive but I am no George Clooney. I was able to do pretty well depending on the circumstances. At that point then I really never worried about having heads turn. Sorry I just don't get it. Maybe I shouldn't post on this thread since I am really not sympathetic to these things. 

All I know is I care thousands of times more that my wife respects me then that she feels my pain. I make it a point to hide my pain from her, and have always did that. I can take care of myself in that respect. It's much more important to me that she feels safe then that I am being nurtured emotionally. Again that gives me purpose. She nurtures me in other ways and does a very good job. 

Maybe I am weird. Who knows. 

I also changed my post above again. Can't help it. So many spelling mistakes and badly written sentences!!:|


----------



## sokillme

> I am still and may always be confused on why a woman would va-clang on her husband because he was grieving at his siblings funeral. No amount of women saying this is how they feel will ever make me also feel it, so it will never actually understand it for myself.


I much more confused why the husband wants to **** his wife right after the sibling's funeral. 

What what what?!:surprise:


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> I much more confused why the husband wants to **** his wife right after the sibling's funeral.


He didn’t want to **** his wife right after his siblings funeral. Please read the other thread for context. Please don’t mock people when you don’t know the actual story we are discussing, or at least have your facts straight before you mock.


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> He didn’t want to **** his wife right after his siblings funeral. Please read the other thread for context. Please don’t mock people when you don’t know the actual story we are discussing, or at least have your facts straight before you mock.


It was just a joke. I am not mocking the person more of how weird the sentence was in the first place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> I just don't really relate to many of these criticisms. Much of this has not been my experience, and even in the cases where it is I just don't have any concern about it.
> 
> For instance not having heads turn when I walk into a room. First of all probably like 1% of the population has that. If you are women and unattractive your only chance is plastic surgery (but only then to a point). If you are guy and you are unattractive you can try to achieve wealth and fame. So in a sense we as men have a much better chance to change our status. We also have a much longer amount of time to do this, just look at the average actors in popular movies age as compared to actresses. I don't get why this is even a thing especially for men. I also am never going to be 6 foot 5 or the starting quarterback for the Jets. I am not posting on a board about that.
> 
> So I don't turn heads when I walk into a room but by the time I got married I had gotten to the point that I could walking into a room, finding some women I was attracted to and charming the pants off her. I got great sanctification in that, in fact I had to use charm because I think I am attractive but I am no George Clooney. I was able to do pretty well depending on the circumstances. At that point then I really never worried about having heads turn. Sorry I just don't get it. Maybe I shouldn't post on this thread since I am really not sympathetic to these things.
> 
> All I know is I care thousands of times more that my wife respects me then that she feels my pain. I make it a point to hide my pain from her, and have always did that. I can take care of myself in that respect. It's much more important to me that she feels safe then that I am being nurtured emotionally. Again that gives me purpose. She nurtures me in other ways and does a very good job.
> 
> Maybe I am weird. Who knows.
> 
> I also changed my post above again. Can't help it. So many spelling mistakes and badly written sentences!!:|


Are you reading all of the posts? Because I have already responded to these same questions...

But to repeat myself, no man has made “criticisms” in the words I used on my opening post. That was a summary I had written based on a couple of other threads that already happened and lots of conversation with many men at TAM who I respect. I summarized in my own words. I am doing this for my own reasons, but the men who were with me on those previous threads (some of them at least) do have an idea of what I’m getting at with this thought experiment because they watched it evolve in me as it happened.

Men are not asking me to go to bat for them. They are not trying to get us to understand about the lack of empathy. They are just stating some of their experiences, and I am working on trying to understand their thinking more clearly.

I may not do a good job at describing men’s lives, but please don’t put my words in their mouths. No one is whining or asking for empathy. 

I’ve said this quite a few times now.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> It was just a joke. I am not mocking the person more of how weird the sentence was in the first place.


OK cool, mock me and my words then.

But the person in the story is a guy I respect a lot here and the story he told was horrendous on numerous levels. So whether you know the story or the person or the context or if you even have the details right or not, you are mocking someone whose sister died and the events of that day. 

I word things badly sometimes, please don’t mock anyone on this thread except me, I guess. No one else has done or said anything deserving of being mocked.


----------



## Andy1001

Jld is a once off,her and dug are two of the oddest people I have ever came across.I used to read threads on tam and wait for jld to come in,knowing she would have a different view than anyone else.
There was a thread once about a woman who went to South Africa for a wedding without her husband and children.She had a short lived affair with a local,contracted hiv and possibly/probably had an abortion.Everyone was telling the husband to leave her mainly because she refused to discuss anything with him and it was his detective work that found out what he did.Jld was the lone voice advising him to prostate himself before his wife and beg forgiveness???
Another thread was an Indian man who’s wife (arranged marriage) had returned to India from the US to retrieve some certificates or other.While there she had repeatedly contacted an ex boyfriend and arranged meetings etc.She kept putting off her return date but didn’t realize her husband could read all her text messages via an iPad linked to her phone.It was suggested to him by many posters that he tell her to stay in India.Dug came in on that one and berated everyone who said she was doing anything wrong,his excuse was it’s a different culture and only natives understand it???
She was very kind to me on my thread which confused a lot of people including myself,and I got a few messages warning me to be careful with the advice she was giving me.
In my opinion jld wasn’t an ultra feminist,she really believes that men should subject themselves before their wives and accept whatever treatment they were given.She believes the female of the species is far superior to the male.
She is one of the most interesting people I ever conversed with albeit online.
On another topic do you ever sleep?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Andy1001 said:


> Jld is a once off,her and dug are two of the oddest people I have ever came across.I used to read threads on tam and wait for jld to come in,knowing she would have a different view than anyone else.
> There was a thread once about a woman who went to South Africa for a wedding without her husband and children.She had a short lived affair with a local,contracted hiv and possibly/probably had an abortion.Everyone was telling the husband to leave her mainly because she refused to discuss anything with him and it was his detective work that found out what he did.Jld was the lone voice advising him to prostate himself before his wife and beg forgiveness???
> Another thread was an Indian man who’s wife (arranged marriage) had returned to India from the US to retrieve some certificates or other.While there she had repeatedly contacted an ex boyfriend and arranged meetings etc.She kept putting off her return date but didn’t realize her husband could read all her text messages via an iPad linked to her phone.It was suggested to him by many posters that he tell her to stay in India.Dug came in on that one and berated everyone who said she was doing anything wrong,his excuse was it’s a different culture and only natives understand it???
> She was very kind to me on my thread which confused a lot of people including myself,and I got a few messages warning me to be careful with the advice she was giving me.
> In my opinion jld wasn’t an ultra feminist,she really believes that men should subject themselves before their wives and accept whatever treatment they were given.She believes the female of the species is far superior to the male.
> She is one of the most interesting people I ever conversed with albeit online.
> On another topic do you ever sleep?


This is what I do when I don’t have a boyfriend :laugh:


----------



## 269370

Affaircare said:


> I'm still working my way through the other thread (https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html) and on about page 20 @TheDudeLebowski brought up a thought I'd like to share even though I'm not quite done reading. He said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thought is that to me it sounds like he's saying that because his wife isn't attracted to him in the moment that he's vulnerable, that it means or "feels like" she doesn't have empathy for him...as if empathy would mean the same as attraction! No attraction = no empathy ERGO empathy = attraction.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a female of the species, here's the thing: if someone (anyone...male or female) is opening up to me and showing vulnerability, in that moment I'm not thinking "Holy SMOKE, you are so hot!" I'm thinking more about being supportive, encouraging, or helpful. To my mind, showing vulnerability might equate to trust (closer at least) but it surely does not equate to empathy. I would think of empathy more like "I've walked in your shoes" "Been there done that and survived!" or listening actively.
> 
> 
> 
> Now...if someone expresses vulnerability I can't say I'm "turned off" but I'd also say I'm not necessarily "turned on" either because sex isn't on my mind in the moment. The person and their suffering and caring for them IS on my mind!
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you think? Is there something to this? I mean to a male human does empathy equate to sexual attraction? (shrug)



It shouldn’t mean that. But unfortunately loss of attraction from his mate seems to be one of the worst ‘insults’ a man feels he can endure. It is questionable whether loss of attraction actually happens when a partner tries to empathise. Like you say, you are not thinking about sex IN THAT MOMENT. It doesn’t mean you experience actual ‘loss of attraction’. So I think some of it is man projecting, while part of it could be true (in some relationships; I don’t think it’s as widespread as it is made here out to be).

It’s funny because I noticed that my wife seems to know how this game works instinctively:
Whenever I go on about something none of us can fix, she listens caringly at first (usually) but then sometimes ****s me senselessly and the male part in my brain does feel like suddenly, everything is right in the world. And because I’m a male: everything was right in the world. Twice yesterday and once this morning

I’m not saying sex is a ‘cure for all’, for men. But it can definitely go a long time...I mean way, to help.

Whereas if it’s the other way around, I think listening alone to your spouse and just nodding thoughtfully, periodically, does most of the job. And the things to avoid for a man is to start interjecting with ‘clever solutions’ or ‘offer oral’, because that may make her feel like I’m invalidating her feelings and only thinking about sex/having ‘dancing stick people’ in my head.

I think to grow past it, as a man, one needs to really try and distance yourself from the notion that sex (or sexual attraction) = equals empathy. (Or rather, that lack of sex equals lack of empathy: I would have thought that on a rational level, most people know that this is not true in most situations). Sex is just one expression of love.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

StarFires said:


> When, honestly, the vast percentage of sex crimes on women and children are committed by members of the male species, it seems to me the complaining is because they want to be allowed to continue with impunity.



No. It means that innocent people want to continue to be treated as innocent people.

See if you find anything wrong with this sentence: “because statistics show that many crimes are committed by black people, it seems that the outrage against racism is so that they are allowed to continue with impunity.”

Somehow it is ok to say the former but not the latter whereas it is exactly the same mindset. And the scary thing is that people find it acceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Andy1001 said:


> In my opinion jld wasn’t an ultra feminist,she really believes that men should subject themselves before their wives and accept whatever treatment they were given.She believes the female of the species is far superior to the male.



This is the thing: I think it was exactly the opposite. She believed precisely BECAUSE the female species was by far inferior to the male, that’s why it deserved such extraordinary treatment. (Because females, in her eyes, were ‘faulty by design’ in some aspects).
I thought it was endearing in a way. I think she just wanted to see people through problems or for them to find redemption because she couldn’t fathom that anyone could do evil things.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Affaircare said:


> I am about half way through the other thread (https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html) and have read everything on this thread, and I have to just say this: I am GOBSMACKED.
> 
> I can see that this is a reality, especially have the several personal examples mentioned in both threads, but I would have never thought of this in a million years. As you all know, I'm with @Emerging Buddhist who is one of the manliest of men ever.  We truly follow the typical stereotype of he's moreso the leader and I'm moreso the follower and I like it that way. He's the commander and I'm the best second in command you'll ever find...and I'm proud to be! So as far as I can tell both by anecdotal evidence and personal experience, I get that whole dynamic. But one of the things I cherish the most about him is that to the whole rest of the world, he's the Rock of Gibraltar, and I am the only one who gets to see his vulnerable side.
> 
> Now I can't tell if he shows me every vulnerability--probably not, honestly, because I'm a chick and I GET to be vulnerable and I don't share every single thing! But I think of it as a very special honor, reserved only for a select few to be able to see that side AT ALL. I will say that very often when he's sick or having trouble with something he really rebuffs "help" (and that is partly due to years of having no one who cared and partly due to learning how accept/receive it) and frankly it's something we both work on. We are both VERY self-sufficient. LOL
> 
> But to my mind, I believe I think somewhat like you, @faithfulwife. I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I hold my own self to that, but I had no idea so many male humans felt like they were not able to get empathy from their female life partners! That is such a surprise! I
> would have thought that women (as a general gender) were good at nurturing et al and thus would extend empathy to those they love the most...but it sure seems not!


Sad to say it does not surprise me. I am grateful to FW for bring it up. There are a lot of women (subset of people) who are just selfish. Whether it is within the leader/follower model or the drag the husband around the nose hair model, they why of it may be different but the outcome similar. 

My husband is a pretty chill guy. He is good natured and nothing much fazes him, at least not for very long. But he DOES have down days or things that happen. What would it be like for him if he could not be himself with me? I know now how to "help" whether it is offer him a back run or more often to just leave him alone and take care of the home **** so he can process his feelings. "I am so sorry you are feeling this way. Do you want to talk? Do you want me to rub you? Or do you want me to take care of things while you sit on ass?" He usually chooses the latter. (I used to pester him to talk since that is MY way... Haaaaa.) 

What would it be like if he could not do that? Share with me something like maybe he did something wrong? We all do. Or he is upset about an interaction with a friend. (That happened last night.) I can imagine having and bottling feelings is not good. Resulting in things like anger. 



> On the exact other hand, I know that when EB is strong and stable, I feel like I have this great foundation of security under me. When he's not as strong or a bit shook, I feel like the earth firms up under my feet and I bear up under it. I don't know. Maybe I'm just not afraid of another's insecurity. Maybe I'm exceptionally rational (lol)...the exception and not the rule. But I am still just GOBSMACKED. I can't imagine living like that.
> 
> I'll read on, and hopefully finish the other thread this afternoon and evening...but WOW.
> 
> P.S. I want to just say out loud one thing: I always feel a little weird sharing the way things are with EB and I, because you know what? It's ours and private and I don't want to just say everything, you know? But at the same time, some of what's being discussed here is so relevant to what we're living that some sharing just is going to happen. Honey--I'm doing my best to talk about us but keep our stuff ours. :x


You guys seem amazing and truly happy. For myself I feel honored when you share. May you not have to console EB and empathize with his hurt over this thread.


----------



## 269370

Faithful Wife said:


> I am still and may always be confused on why a woman would va-clang on her husband because he was grieving at his siblings funeral. No amount of women saying this is how they feel will ever make me also feel it, so it will never actually understand it for myself.



Again: no woman has actually come out and said that on TAM. Please provide a link to the relevant post if you are making this claim.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> I think people realistically evaluating risks would help: while there may be cases of children being molested on planes or similar situations, I expect that the great majority of the problem comes from family members, not strangers.
> 
> The other issue is to take a wider view that discrimination is not OK. There is a general acceptance now that even though statistically a higher percentage African Americans are convicted of crimes than are Whites, it is not OK to apply extra suspicion to African Americans.


I know you are using an example to illustrate a point. But I do feel I have to make one comment here in terms of lessening the value of this example. Not to thread jack I hope. Black people are dis-proportionally arrested and convicted as systemic problem with our justice system as a reflection of the USian attitude, conscious and unconscious, toward black people. 

This makes me thing though. I am stepping carefully here since FW specifically asked not to address the post metoo culture. But I think I hear something in what you say about being convicted in the court of public opinion just for being male. I think back to many, many years ago when I was talking to a family member about domestic violence. I asked why don't they leave? I had no idea that that was something that was a common mantra of victim blamers. But. What if you DON'T understand why victims don't leave? What if you DON'T understand or even know about how that dynamic plays out? Having that question slapped back does not lead to any understanding.

I start to get the not all men response a little better. I don't love it. But I am starting to get it. 



> (and I completely agree). I think that just needs to be extended - even if statics show that men commit more sex crimes than women, its not OK to be extra suspicious of men. (for the same sort of reasons).
> 
> 
> As an aside, I think children traveling alone depends on the age of the children. Below some age, I agree it is not a good idea.


----------



## NobodySpecial

StarFires said:


> Faithful Wife, you're really marvelous. I appreciate your considerate perspective and prodigious ability to extrapolate. I just have to disagree. I'm not disagreeing that those things are true, but the fact that they are true tells me it's all just whining.....BECAUSE those things are true. And *because men as a segment of society are not the only ones who have to live with, or rather live down, judgments and prejudices rooted in reality.*


This is where I am thinking right now. I THINK this post is about... not that they are or are not the only ones. We, of course, know that they are not. *I* think that the social voice right now has swung so hard in the direction of the marginalized that male (white male) voices/ issues/ concerns are not heard. If I honestly believe, as I tell myself I do, that understanding is very important, than it behooves me to hear those voices. 

I was travelling for work recently. Having been formerly too skinny as a result of an illness (no boobs) and gain some weight, I got dressed in my shirt, cardigan and jeans and went to work. Driving home, I stopped at a store to get coffee. On my way into the store, a guy stood directly in my path, looked me up and down like I was a meal with a look on his face that said he would happily eat me whole, and would not let me pass. That had not happened in a LONG time. I was still a touch shaken when I got home, I told DH. He said damn I am sorry that happened to you. But also damn you look GOOD. (There was more convo, he did not come straight to that.) I was not best pleased. The convo came around to him telling me something like he doesn't know why that guy did that any more than I do aside from the fact that he is a world class a-hole. The fact that I was dressed to look good, whether I meant to or not, did not give him the right to be aggressive. Full stop. But if every conversation has to be along my narrative, how do we even talk? hmmmm. 



> When, honestly, the vast percentage of sex crimes on women and children are committed by members of the male species, it seems to me the complaining is because they want to be allowed to continue with impunity.


And here it gets sticky. I think some do. I think there are some people who like power and want to keep gender power shifted in male favor. I do. I really hate it when people ask things like what do women want, or in another board I participate in, how do I get a woman. Like we are either a hive mind or plug and play devices. So it seems that understanding that "not all men" do want a society of imbalanced gender power is the right thing to do.



> And that's because of a probability that is so high it can easily be considered a fact that among the men doing all this whining, some of them are, themselves, perpetrators of something since the perpetrators obviously would have to comprise an inordinate percentage of society. There's just no way to know that percentage. Sex crimes against women are often unreported. Sex crimes on children are almost never reported, but that doesn't negate the truth that children over the centuries have grown up being sexually violated by their father, grandfather, brother, uncle, or close male family friend in disproportionate numbers compared to female family members and friends. These are statistics. Sex crimes on children has always been a serious problem. I bet you, yourself, know someone within your family and social sphere who was molested as a child. You probably know of more than one. I know of at least 4.


I am thinking of my husband and father. It is tough. Because among the things I think I know, many people who look nice and shiny on the outside perpetrate these horrors. The numbers are higher than our society likes to really admit. Where do these animals live? What do they look like? I don't know. I KNOW they don't live in my house or in my immediate family. Speaking for my husband, father and sisters only. My father is dead now. But it seems to me people like my husband and my father are the ones who should be HEARD. That said, through, my husband would be the last to whine (yes I feel that a lot of it is whining) about the perceived persecution of men. 



> Moreover, I will not entertain the objections to the #MeToo Movement because, as the examples mentioned, the movement and complaints were not borne of women's imaginations. They are actual victims of authority abuse that led to illegal propositions and sex crimes. So, in effect, those who complain are saying they don't want it told. They want women to remain silent about it.


I don't think FW had any intention of squelching that so much as not having it lead the conversation here into the yahbuts. 



> Therefore, since men have proven themselves capable of all manner of atrocity and abomination, it is only logical, and hardly unreasonable, that they are considered capable of all manner of atrocity and abomination, and suspected of such given certain situations.


Yah know, and I am with you there too. Upon entering a dark and empty parking lot, I will have a key in my hand ready to strike. I don't carry mace anymore. And if it hurts a passer-by's feelings because HE is not a perp, I don't much care. 

Difficult.


> All this means that, among those who don't appreciate being suspected or want "freedom from assault," there, indeed, are some who are committing the crimes and offenses and are effectively saying they want the freedom to continue without suspicion or reproach.
> 
> _Men are more likely to commit sexual violence in communities where sexual violence goes unpunished. (National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2004)._
> 
> This statistic proves that perpetrators take advantage of environments conducive to freedom to commit their crimes. To complain that one's actions might cause suspicion suggests they resent society closing ranks to create a less convenient environment. Otherwise, since we're talking about empathy, they would understand protections, which include fears and suspicion, have to be in place to protect the vulnerable.
> 
> I ask again, what is there to understand here?


The thing I would love to understand is what is the difference in the mind of a good man and one who looks good on the outside and harbors some of the worst predication in their minds.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Regarding my take on Jld, I can parrot her words but I have no idea why she felt that way. I do not feel the way she does and when she was here I directly discussed with her how I thought what she was saying was incredibly wrong. It was cruel, IMO. To expect a man to never once show any emotion. And for her to lay her entire emotional life on his shoulders, too.
> 
> But Dug was here too and when I would read their posts about each other and how much they loved each other, I had to just step back and see, well it works for them. I don’t understand it bit it’s works for them.
> 
> Then there was the sentiment by many people at TAM at the time, who were saying lots of women feel this way. And I was like, what??? No, we don’t! I have empathy for my husband and expect him to have normal emotions and I wouldn’t want to be with a 100% stoic man. But there were in fact quite a few women here at that time who did seem to echo some version of Jld’s feelings. So I was listening to those women too and trying to be open and understand how it could be that some women don’t want their man to show emotion.


Some do. Some don't. The distracting thing about that whole dialog was the persistent instance that ALL do and are too stupid, willful, mentally and emotionally gutted by society to "get it". I did wonder at the time if Jld was not some super troll. Dug's posts, when they happened, sounded pretty robotic to me. That's neither here nor there. *I* can classify Jld's approach as something that would be wildly unhealthy for me and for my husband. And kids! I cannot imagine raising a son who thinks he has to take on the burden of someone else' volatile outbursts nor a daughter who could not manage her emotions who had to rely on a man for that. But I accept that it works for them, and seemingly others. 



> There were also women like me arguing that we do have empathy and we don’t want to be dominated, things like that were coming up. Back and forth this went for a long time.


Because we people need to categories things to understand them. And we step too far in trying to make similar things ALIKE. 



> I never achieved total understanding of Jld’s position because I have never felt anything like what she described. I still don’t understand it because it feels cruel to me. But I can describe her position because she repeated it many times (she and I were respectful friends to each other, even though we couldn’t understand each other’s position sometimes).


Here is the thing. Understanding does not NEED to mean complete lack of judgement for oneself. Jld neither needed nor wanted condonement or acceptance for her to continue on her path. That does not mean that I don't think I can have some understanding AND think it is pretty unhealthy. 



> I’m not at all confused on the many other topics on this thread or how they relate to women lacking empathy for men. To me this thread is a way to hear others thoughts on women lacking empathy for men or issues related to how the world lacks empathy for men in general. I’m not confused on my process here.
> 
> I am still and may always be confused on why a woman would va-clang on her husband because he was grieving at his siblings funeral. No amount of women saying this is how they feel will ever make me also feel it, so it will never actually understand it for myself.


There is the empathetic lack in individual relationships. I have been guilty of that. Learning. There is lack of empathy on the social front. In both cases, we can't learn what we don't understand.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Laurentium said:


> Ah yes, the "why" question as to why someone feels how they feel, is pretty unanswerable.
> 
> All one can do is recognise that they do.
> 
> As you and I have both said, the dynamic behind it is fear.


So you say on the first hand that the why of the feeling is not understandable then on the last that it is rooted in fear. For myself, in terms of personal understanding, I think there is a balance to be struck between accepting that a feeling is AND understanding where it comes from.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I hope some of the men will answer your questions at the top.
> 
> I would also ask you to read the other empathy thread to get an idea of what the men had said there. It’s not going to be possible to reconstruct it all here. Plus it’s very interesting reading.
> 
> As for “well, if she’s that way she’s just a ***** then”, I used to agree with that. But I don’t think Mem would agree with you that his wife is “just a *****”, and I don’t anymore either.


Here's the thing. As MEM says, there are definitely many (most?) who aren't. But I think we try awfully hard not to admit that some just are. Wastes of skin get married all the time.


----------



## NobodySpecial

sokillme said:


> I much more confused why the husband wants to **** his wife right after the sibling's funeral.
> 
> What what what?!:surprise:


I have been hesitant to share this. Pretty personal. Once a long time ago, my husband was having a bit of a crisis about himself, his value as a person. It was not a funeral tears kind of thing. It was basically trying to shed the negative BS of his upbringing which, on balance, lead him to believe that he had no value. He wanted sex not for a wild romp but to be accepted by me in the most person way. The biblical one body for the two of us who have no use for the bible. It was quick and pleasant and he felt home afterward lying in my arms. I can imagine someone shutting that down hard.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Again: no woman has actually come out and said that on TAM. Please provide a link to the relevant post if you are making this claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't remember the funeral specific scenario. But she posted an entire thread link with the content of what she is struggling with. It was not women who were primarily asserting this as I recall.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> It shouldn’t mean that. But unfortunately loss of attraction from his mate seems to be one of the worst ‘insults’ a man feels he can endure. It is questionable whether loss of attraction actually happens when a partner tries to empathise.


Ok I think I have a step in the thought process. For DH, it is not the lack of attraction but fundamental acceptance.


----------



## StarFires

NobodySpecial said:


> This is where I am thinking right now. I THINK this post is about... not that they are or are not the only ones. We, of course, know that they are not. *I* think that the social voice right now has swung so hard in the direction of the marginalized that male (white male) voices/ issues/ concerns are not heard. *If I honestly believe, as I tell myself I do, that understanding is very important, than it behooves me to hear those voices.*


Not when there's nothing to listen to. But I'm wondering why you singled out white males. Are other persuasions of little or no importance?



NobodySpecial said:


> I was travelling for work recently. Having been formerly too skinny as a result of an illness (no boobs) and gain some weight, I got dressed in my shirt, cardigan and jeans and went to work. Driving home, I stopped at a store to get coffee. On my way into the store, a guy stood directly in my path, looked me up and down like I was a meal with a look on his face that said he would happily eat me whole, and would not let me pass. That had not happened in a LONG time. I was still a touch shaken when I got home, I told DH. He said damn I am sorry that happened to you. But also damn you look GOOD. (There was more convo, he did not come straight to that.) I was not best pleased. The convo came around to him telling me something like he doesn't know why that guy did that any more than I do aside from the fact that he is a world class a-hole. The fact that I was dressed to look good, whether I meant to or not, did not give him the right to be aggressive. Full stop. But if every conversation has to be along my narrative, how do we even talk? hmmmm.


That's the talking being done now, and it's about time. You spoke of your experience, and no one will resent you for it, I don't imagine. But when 10 women speak of their same experience as yours, that is what gets resented. 100 women say they were raped and want protection, that gets resented. If a rapist is reported to be acting in a certain neighborhood, it's only reasonable a woman will be fearful and suspicious of strangers on the street at night, but that is also resented because they take it as personal assault on their character and don't want to be viewed as a possible suspect. Even in your own scenario, if you evinced any kind of offense to that guy's behavior or any kind of fear that he might harm you based on the way he was acting toward you, he would have been offended. But your response would be in direction relation and proportion to his behavior.

So, if you expect talking to mean that both genders come to a meeting of the minds, it will never happen because, from what men are saying, they want to be trusted and not suspected. In other words, women should place themselves and their children in harm's way so as not to offend their potential offenders. If that's not enough, they also don't want to be expected to protect anyone. And if they are expected to protect women and children, they want to be acknowledged for the expectation, not that they do anything, but that they are expected to do something. And, as I stated before that you quoted, among the men who are complaining there exists the perpetrators themselves, who feign objection with righteous indignation just to maintain the status quo of a relaxed (unfearful) and permissive (unsuspicious) environment they can continue to indulge in and pray on. They don't want protections in place to hinder their activity. 

So, why don't we all just stop teaching our kids not to talk to strangers and hang signs on our door "Rapists and murderers welcome here."



NobodySpecial said:


> And here it gets sticky. I think some do. I think there are some people who like power and want to keep gender power shifted in male favor. I do. I really hate it when people ask things like what do women want, or in another board I participate in, how do I get a woman. Like we are either a hive mind or plug and play devices. So it seems that understanding that "not all men" do want a society of imbalanced gender power is the right thing to do.


Because I don't believe all men abuse their power, I would never think or suggest that all men want a society of imbalanced power. But that's not the issue because I don't know of any public outcry by men promoting a society of balanced gender power. If there were, there wouldn't exist such an imbalance. And that's the problem. Public outcry by men, that I know of, are opposed to efforts that promote balance because it threatens their power.



NobodySpecial said:


> I am thinking of my husband and father. It is tough. Because among the things I think I know, many people who look nice and shiny on the outside perpetrate these horrors. The numbers are higher than our society likes to really admit. Where do these animals live? What do they look like? I don't know. I KNOW they don't live in my house or in my immediate family. Speaking for my husband, father and sisters only. My father is dead now. But it seems to me people like my husband and my father are the ones who should be HEARD. That said, through, my husband would be the last to whine (yes I feel that a lot of it is whining) about the perceived persecution of men.


Yes, I keep saying they are just whining too. But honestly, and I mean this in the most sincere and concerned way, you are just too incredibly naive. You have some hard lessons to learn about forming opinions about people because you only know them to the extent that you know them. You don't think men who rape women and molest children are somebody's father and also have a wife? You don't think their wife and children love them and have the highest regard for them like you do yours? You would be SHOCKED as they would be shocked to learn that one or more of these men you love are capable of doing despicable things. You said yourself the numbers are higher than we know, they are much higher. So, between every man in your family (including uncles and cousins), there is very likely a sexual deviant among them - these people you love and feel so certain about. I was never molested as a child but when I was 12, a neighbor and close family friend propositioned me more than once. This man was in his 50s with a wife, who was best friends with my mother, and three children that me and my sisters grew up playing with. Don't you think they would be shocked to know what he tried to do to me? And what if there was a youngster that he succeeded with? I can't imagine I was the only one he ever tried. I mean, I guess I should be grateful that he asked me and tried to get me to follow him to the basement, but how is that anything for a kid to be grateful for? But ordinarily, no request is made. Women and children are violated against their will by beloved husbands and fathers etc.



NobodySpecial said:


> Yah know, and I am with you there too. Upon entering a dark and empty parking lot, I will have a key in my hand ready to strike. I don't carry mace anymore. And if it hurts a passer-by's feelings because HE is not a perp, I don't much care.


Exactly. But that's what they're railing against, are offended about, and want to be acknowledged for.



NobodySpecial said:


> The thing I would love to understand is what is the difference in the mind of a good man and one who looks good on the outside and harbors some of the worst predication in their minds.


There is no recognizable difference. Predators don't come with signs and don't trumpet advanced warning.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't remember the funeral specific scenario. But she posted an entire thread link with the content of what she is struggling with. It was not women who were primarily asserting this as I recall.



I’m trying to avoid an unnecessary exaggeration, not trying to catch anyone out (just in case that’s what I’m going to be accused of next...) because the whole thing can snowball...Best to always refer to the original source when a big claim like this is made.

It is true a few women seem to find display of ‘emotional vulnerability’ unattractive. But then they should define what exactly they mean by emotional vulnerability. (When it crosses into neediness/whininess for example).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

Exhibit B. 

Your previous post was exhibit A.

Case closed.


StarFires said:


> Not when there's nothing to listen to. But I'm wondering why you singled out white males. Are other persuasions of little or no importance?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the talking being done now, and it's about time. You spoke of your experience, and no one will resent you for it, I don't imagine. But when 10 women speak of their same experience as yours, that is what gets resented. 100 women say they were raped and want protection, that gets resented. If a rapist is reported to be acting in a certain neighborhood, it's only reasonable a woman will be fearful and suspicious of strangers on the street at night, but that is also resented because they take it as personal assault on their character and don't want to be viewed as a possible suspect. Even in your own scenario, if you evinced any kind of offense to that guy's behavior or any kind of fear that he might harm you based on the way he was acting toward you, he would have been offended. But your response would be in direction relation and proportion to his behavior.
> 
> So, if you expect talking to mean that both genders come to a meeting of the minds, it will never happen because, from what men are saying, they want to be trusted and not suspected. In other words, women should place themselves and their children in harm's way so as not to offend their potential offenders. If that's not enough, they also don't want to be expected to protect anyone. And if they are expected to protect women and children, they want to be acknowledged for the expectation, not that they do anything, but that they are expected to do something. And, as I stated before that you quoted, among the men who are complaining there exists the perpetrators themselves, who feign objection with righteous indignation just to maintain the status quo of a relaxed (unfearful) and permissive (unsuspicious) environment they can continue to indulge in and pray on. They don't want protections in place to hinder their activity.
> 
> So, why don't we all just stop teaching our kids not to talk to strangers and hang signs on our door "Rapists and murderers welcome here."
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe all men abuse their power, I would never think or suggest that all men want a society of imbalanced power. But that's not the issue because I don't know of any public outcry by men promoting a society of balanced gender power. If there were, there wouldn't exist such an imbalance. And that's the problem. Public outcry by men, that I know of, are opposed to efforts that promote balance because it threatens their power.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I keep saying they are just whining too. But honestly, and I mean this in the most sincere and concerned way, you are just too incredibly naive. You have some hard lessons to learn about forming opinions about people because you only know them to the extent that you know them. You don't think men who rape women and molest children are somebody's father and also have a wife? You don't think their wife and children love them and have the highest regard for them like you do yours? You would be SHOCKED as they would be shocked to learn that one or more of these men you love are capable of doing despicable things. You said yourself the numbers are higher than we know, they are much higher. So, between every man in your family (including uncles and cousins), there is very likely a sexual deviant among them - these people you love and feel so certain about. I was never molested as a child but when I was 12, a neighbor and close family friend propositioned me more than once. This man was in his 50s with a wife, who was best friends with my mother, and three children that me and my sisters grew up playing with. Don't you think they would be shocked to know what he tried to do to me? And what if there was a youngster that he succeeded with? I can't imagine I was the only one he ever tried. I mean, I guess I should be grateful that he asked me and tried to get me to follow him to the basement, but how is that anything for a kid to be grateful for? But ordinarily, no request is made. Women and children are violated against their will by beloved husbands and fathers etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. But that's what they're railing against, are offended about, and want to be acknowledged for.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no recognizable difference. Predators don't come with signs and don't trumpet advanced warning.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

StarFires said:


> Not when there's nothing to listen to. But I'm wondering why you singled out white males. Are other persuasions of little or no importance?


No. Just that I am thinking of a group of people I hear are feeling attacked in a different manner as being a member of the white male group.



> That's the talking being done now, and it's about time. You spoke of your experience, and no one will resent you for it, I don't imagine. But when 10 women speak of their same experience as yours, that is what gets resented. 100 women say they were raped and want protection, that gets resented. If a rapist is reported to be acting in a certain neighborhood, it's only reasonable a woman will be fearful and suspicious of strangers on the street at night, but that is also resented because they take it as personal assault on their character and don't want to be viewed as a possible suspect. Even in your own scenario, if you evinced any kind offense to that guy's behavior or any kind of fear that he might harm you based on the way he was acting, he would have been offended. But your response would be in direction relation and proportion to his behavior.


Yup. I wonder how we change that dialog. I surely don't love that the entrenchment that not wanting to be indicted along with others seems to close that dialog down. 



> So, if you expect talking to mean that both genders come to a meeting of the minds, it will never happen because, from what men are saying, they want to be trusted and not suspected. In other words, women should place themselves and their children in harm's way so as not to offend their potential offenders.


True. How many times have I had this same conversation. We should all wear burkas. 

Bearing in mind that my attachment to the word empathy ends at understanding and does not go all the way to sharing. And it in no way has anything to do with sympathy.

I went to a fundraiser for a rape crisis center in the city a friend of mine lives in a while back. When I came home I learned that DH and a very good (male) friend of mine were cracking "jokes" and over sensitive feminists. I wanted to pack my children up then and there, leave and never look back.

But men are in our world. What ARE they thinking. DH admits he wasn't thinking. Not his monkeys. Not his circus. Haaaa haaa. Lack of introspection. Part of understanding is actually understanding when what they aren't thinking ISN'T motivated by pure evil. SOmehow that is almost worse.




> If that's not enough, they also don't want to be expected to protect anyone. And if they are expected to protect women and children, they want to be acknowledged for the expectation, not that they do anything, but that they are expected to do something. And, as I stated before that you quoted, among the men who are complaining there exists the perpetrators themselves, who feign objection with righteous indignation just to maintain the status quo of a relaxed (unfearful) and permissive (unsuspicious) environment they can continue to indulge in and pray on. They don't want protections in place to hinder their activity.
> 
> So, why don't we all just stop teaching our kids not to talk to strangers and hang signs on our door "Rapists and murderers welcome here."


Yah I hear you. I am always baffled by the response of men who claim that if rape every happened to their daughter they would "just" kill the rapist. Well ok you don't want to think/act/work to promote a society free of this kind of clearly but clearly don't want that behavior inflicted on yours. Baffling.




> Because I don't believe all men abuse their power, I would never think or suggest that all men want a society of imbalanced power. But that's not the issue because I don't know of any public outcry by men promoting a society of balanced gender power. If there were, there wouldn't exist such an imbalance. And that's the problem. Public outcry by men, that I know of, are opposed to efforts that promote balance because it threatens their balance power.


Ah yes. Why attribute to malice what could more easily attributed to ignorance, stupidity and laziness. I don't think that most men are necessarily entrenched in the desire to hold power. I think most people bounce from their day to day. It's not their monkey. It's not their circus. Derp is easy. But then speak up... and but not MEEEE. I actually know a guy one ring out of my overlapping circle of friends who is active in framing the conversation on good men really hearing about these issues from women. Instead of dismissing, how do the good and right minded men act as leaders and role models to re-frame the conversation. I wonder if he will get any traction.



> Yes, I keep saying they are just whining too. But honestly, and I mean this in the most sincere and concerned way, you are just too incredibly naive.


You are making the same mistake in terms of lack of understanding as you claim to not like. Attributing knowledge were you don't have it. 



> You have some hard lessons to learn about forming opinions about people because you only know them to the extent that you know them.


I know my father because I was raised by him. I know my sisters because I know my sisters very well. I know my husband. Make no mistake, if my child came to me and told me of abuse, I would take her very seriously. But it would come as a surprise. 



> You don't think men who rape women and molest children are somebody's father and also have a wife?


Of course I do. Fathers who rape their children are ... fathers. The person who molested me had a wife. 



> You don't think their wife and children love them and have the highest regard for them like you do yours?


Some do. Some don't. I can't claim to be an expert on the subject by any means. One case I know of, the family was interested in hiding the dirty little secret. I have read the same. Moms who knew all along and did nothing. I know the other scenario exists as well, of course.



> You would be SHOCKED as they would be shocked to learn that one or more of these men and love are capable of doing despicable things. You said yourself the numbers are higher than we know, they are much higher. So, between every man in your family (including uncles and cousins), there is very likely a sexual deviant among them - these people you love and feel so certain about.


You will note that I expressed my trust only in my father and my husband whom I have ample evidence. Even then, despite what I think I know, I would take any change in information very, very seriously. 



> I was never molested as a child but when I was 12, a neighbor and close family friend propositioned me more than once. This man was in his 50s with a wife, who was best friends with my mother, and three children that me and my sisters grew up playing with. Don't you think they would be shocked to know what he tried to do to me. I mean, I guess I should be grateful that he asked me and tried to get me to follow him to the basement, but how is that anything for a kid to be grateful for? But ordinarily, no request is made. Women and children are violated against their will by beloved husbands and fathers etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. But that's what they're railing against, are offended about, and want to be acknowledged for.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no recognizable difference. Predators don't come with signs and don't trumpet advanced warning.
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY. Which is why the only thing we have is to hear the voice of the people who may have some insight to this difference.
Click to expand...


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> I’m trying to avoid an unnecessary exaggeration, not trying to catch anyone out (just in case that’s what I’m going to be accused of next...) because the whole thing can snowball...Best to always refer to the original source when a big claim like this is made.
> 
> It is true a few women seem to find display of ‘emotional vulnerability’ unattractive. But then they should define what exactly they mean by emotional vulnerability. (When it crosses into neediness/whininess for example).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am not sure why you seem to think that the original source was not referenced, as it was. You think "they should" define what "they" are not even the ones concerned about the issue. Good luck with that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> Exhibit B.
> 
> Your previous post was exhibit A.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Far, this was a little bit cryptic, I’m not sure what you were getting at.

But also...I hope maybe someone will open another thread to debate and discuss this one, or to talk about the lack of empathy from men to women.

Here is something that I’m seeing rather clearly. It began on the other empathy thread and continues on this one. And that is that people, both men and women, have an automatic push back when empathy for men is brought up at all.

Men do it just as much and immediately begin talking about “whiners” and male insecurity at the very mention of the idea that men deserve empathy. They will want to be the first to say “well, I’m not in the same camp with those insecure whiners who want a parade for just being a normal man”. Keeping in mind, it is just the TOPIC of empathy that makes them so quick to point fingers at “whiny” men.

Women do it also, and are quick to note that men don’t deserve empathy because men commit most crimes. And lots of other reasons.

And it does paint this weird picture where men are literally shamed if someone ELSE like me even mentions that men (as a group) deserve empathy. People get real weird about it.

That was me also, before I began working on this issue for myself. I can remember my justifications for it, but they don’t make sense to me now that I’ve made this inner mental shift.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I know you are using an example to illustrate a point. But I do feel I have to make one comment here in terms of lessening the value of this example. Not to thread jack I hope. Black people are dis-proportionally arrested and convicted as systemic problem with our justice system as a reflection of the USian attitude, conscious and unconscious, toward black people.
> 
> This makes me thing though. I am stepping carefully here since FW specifically asked not to address the post metoo culture. But I think I hear something in what you say about being convicted in the court of public opinion just for being male. I think back to many, many years ago when I was talking to a family member about domestic violence. I asked why don't they leave? I had no idea that that was something that was a common mantra of victim blamers. But. What if you DON'T understand why victims don't leave? What if you DON'T understand or even know about how that dynamic plays out? Having that question slapped back does not lead to any understanding.
> 
> I start to get the not all men response a little better. I don't love it. But I am starting to get it.


In the case of unattended minors on an airplane, my thought is that a strange woman is also capable of molesting and/or creeping on a child. And that even though statistically it may be less likely to occur than by a male perpetrator, there is still a risk.

The airlines should not be responsible for trying to decide which stranger is more or less likely to molest your child on the airplane. It just shouldn’t be done, IMO. I know some situations make it a necessity, but I don’t think it should be on the airlines to determine in a parents absence which adult passenger seems the least likely to creep on your kid. It puts them in this very position we are discussing here. 

A friend of mine’s daughter was molested by a female teenage babysitter. Another friend’s son was molested by his much older female cousin. Another friend’s husband had been repeatedly molested by his mother throughout his childhood. 

To me, a stranger is a stranger when it comes to kids’ safety. Even if one group is statistically more likely to do harm, the other group is not at zero percent.


----------



## farsidejunky

Before I get into the following, I want to bring something to the forefront, because it makes my perspective much more relevant.

I have also been a victim of sexual assault. 20 years ago...too many drinks and I blacked out...only to come to in the middle of being assaulted. So please don't assume that I don't understand first-hand what people experience after a sexual assault.



NobodySpecial said:


> I went to a fundraiser for a rape crisis center in the city a friend of mine lives in a while back. When I came home I learned that DH and a very good (male) friend of mine were cracking "jokes" and over sensitive feminists. I wanted to pack my children up then and there, leave and never look back.
> 
> But men are in our world. What ARE they thinking. DH admits he wasn't thinking. Not his monkeys. Not his circus. Haaaa haaa. Lack of introspection. Part of understanding is actually understanding when what they aren't thinking ISN'T motivated by pure evil. SOmehow that is almost worse.


Lack of empathy is not limited to women.



NobodySpecial said:


> Yah I hear you. I am always baffled by the response of men who claim that if rape every happened to their daughter they would "just" kill the rapist. Well ok you don't want to think/act/work to promote a society free of this kind of clearly but clearly don't want that behavior inflicted on yours. Baffling.


Not really as baffling as one would think. Here is where we arrive at the other problem with victimhood (both legitimate and perceived) and a lack of empathy...what to do about it. Nobody I know is against promoting a safer society at large...not just against rape, but any violent crime. 

However, the push for "guilty until proven innocent" is against everything upon which our country was founded. We see it time and time again in the court of public opinion...which is exactly where it must remain. 

Being a man accused of assault does not automatically equal guilt. 

Being a woman claiming she was assaulted does not automatically equal truth.

This is the reason for the huge push-back...not whining, not victim ideology, but the repercussions of allowing the burden of proof to be altered. Because while many people have daughters, many of us also have sons, and I do not want a world where my son is forced to prove a negative.



NobodySpecial said:


> Ah yes. Why attribute to malice what could more easily attributed to ignorance, stupidity and laziness. I don't think that most men are necessarily entrenched in the desire to hold power. I think most people bounce from their day to day. It's not their monkey. It's not their circus. Derp is easy. But then speak up... and but not MEEEE. I actually know a guy one ring out of my overlapping circle of friends who is active in framing the conversation on good men really hearing about these issues from women. Instead of dismissing, how do the good and right minded men act as leaders and role models to re-frame the conversation. I wonder if he will get any traction.


This. I couldn't care less about power. Most men I know are the same way. Those who desire power will gravitate towards methods of doing so, just as most women will. I am more than willing to listen, support, and help women in their issues...until the above burden of proof is tinkered with...or the push continues to make women "more equal" than men in the eyes of criminal and/or family law. 




NobodySpecial said:


> You are making the same mistake in terms of lack of understanding as you claim to not like. Attributing knowledge were you don't have it.


Thank you for this.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> Far, this was a little bit cryptic, I’m not sure what you were getting at.


Starfires perspective is what you should read, top to bottom, to understand what we, as men, are up against.



Faithful Wife said:


> But also...I hope maybe someone will open another thread to debate and discuss this one, or to talk about the lack of empathy from men to women.


It is definitely an issue. It wasn't in the past. 

Is it the chicken or the egg? I can tell you that my empathy level for the individual woman is far from diminished. I don't know if you read this in my thread, but my wife lost her virginity to sexual assault, then stayed with the creep because of a cultural misconception of remaining with one's first.

That said, my empathy level for women in general continues to be eroded by modern politics and the push for tinkering with the burden of proof, as discussed in my post above. 

But that is a T/J.



Faithful Wife said:


> Here is something that I’m seeing rather clearly. It began on the other empathy thread and continues on this one. And that is that people, both men and women, have an automatic push back when empathy for men is brought up at all.
> 
> Men do it just as much and immediately begin talking about “whiners” and male insecurity at the very mention of the idea that men deserve empathy. They will want to be the first to say “well, I’m not in the same camp with those insecure whiners who want a parade for just being a normal man”. Keeping in mind, it is just the TOPIC of empathy that makes them so quick to point fingers at “whiny” men.
> 
> Women do it also, and are quick to note that men don’t deserve empathy because men commit most crimes. And lots of other reasons.
> 
> And it does paint this weird picture where men are literally shamed if someone ELSE like me even mentions that men (as a group) deserve empathy. People get real weird about it.
> 
> That was me also, before I began working on this issue for myself. I can remember my justifications for it, but they don’t make sense to me now that I’ve made this inner mental shift.


Interesting, isn't it? 

It ties into expectation of what a man should be.


----------



## ConanHub

@Faithful Wife

You little digger! Your curious, researching mind and heart are gems.

With your recent post, I was forced to look at my own bias.

I am as big a perpetrator of having a lack of empathy for men as any woman.

I obviously understand men and their positions in life at a level that women cannot but I have been less than empathetic towards many men and the issues being raised in this thread.

I don't really know what this self knowledge will result in but thanks for being a pesky investigator!


----------



## Livvie

I think it's so hard to generalize, because for every man/woman couple in which you could examine her empathy level for him, there is a lot of HISTORY, varying levels of emotional health, and personality traits.

I will say this: I know a man who is a wonderful, strong, attractive, giving, "manly" man. He showed and shared emotional vulnerability with me, in over his head about something, and even fear about dealing with the issue. It did not diminish my attraction to him one single bit. Quite the opposite. I was able to feel and show empathy and care and my attraction was not diminished in any way.

Contrasted to another man, manly as well, attractive. But had a history of trying to make me responsible for his feelings, stemming from his FOO issues, not anything I had done, and using withdrawal and withholding as a way to punish me. I had much less empathy for him, because I was all beaten down from the history of his emotional abuse of me.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Affaircare said:


> I'm still working my way through the other thread (https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html) and on about page 20 @TheDudeLebowski brought up a thought I'd like to share even though I'm not quite done reading. He said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thought is that to me it sounds like he's saying that because his wife isn't attracted to him in the moment that he's vulnerable, that it means or "feels like" she doesn't have empathy for him...as if empathy would mean the same as attraction! No attraction = no empathy ERGO empathy = attraction.
> 
> Speaking as a female of the species, here's the thing: if someone (anyone...male or female) is opening up to me and showing vulnerability, in that moment I'm not thinking "Holy SMOKE, you are so hot!" I'm thinking more about being supportive, encouraging, or helpful. To my mind, showing vulnerability might equate to trust (closer at least) but it surely does not equate to empathy. I would think of empathy more like "I've walked in your shoes" "Been there done that and survived!" or listening actively.
> 
> Now...if someone expresses vulnerability I can't say I'm "turned off" but I'd also say I'm not necessarily "turned on" either because sex isn't on my mind in the moment. The person and their suffering and caring for them IS on my mind!
> 
> So what do you think? Is there something to this? I mean to a male human does empathy equate to sexual attraction? (shrug)


I dont think you quite understand and its probably my fault for not explaining myself properly, but your sort of touched on it. There is a palatable turn off. I'm not expecting someone to get all hot and bothered when I talk about my stepdad's suicide for example. That's an extreme example even. Lets say I'm having a tough time at work for whatever reason. If I let that show, its the same turn off, as opposed to not mentioning it and saying "work was fine" when asked how my day went. So it's can really be something small even. The irony of it is some women like to say stuff like "men don't really open up about what is bothering them." If I had a crap day at work, say I screwed up somehow and I'm bothered by it, I'm not about to mention it because it impacts desire. 

Happy wife, happy life.... Well, rock solid hubby, wife pleases his chubby :grin2:


----------



## 269370

farsidejunky said:


> It ties into expectation of what a man should be.



I think that’s maybe because I wasn’t clear that when I used the word ‘whiny’, I meant whiny from the partner’s perspective: I wasn’t myself making any such judgements.
I definitely don’t need to ‘distance’ myself from other ‘whiny men’, because I can be a bit whiny myself and I don’t feel ashamed or bad about it. Sometimes my wife indulges me, sometimes she doesn’t. 
That’s because I don’t need to pretend to be someone else with my partner; I can just be myself. And not feel like I am being judged.
Sometimes she’s whiny too. Nothing that a loving kiss with a fist won’t sort out (@nobodyspecial  
Family guy reference, please don’t panic.)

Somehow it’s hard to keep this thread from falling off a cliff with all the extrapolations!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

@farsidejunky One of the reasons I made this breakthrough in myself was because after contemplation about what seems to be the lack of empathy by men about the me too movement, and reading all the stories here and also RP and other men’s voices...it was like all at once I just “got it”.

If a man is not a rapist or creep, which is the vast majority of men, then he has no idea what a rapist or creep is thinking or doing. He doesn’t empathize with creeps and can’t because he isn’t one.

So when they feel we are talking about “men” who need to be taken to task for being rapists and creeps, they feel that they and most men don’t deserve to be treated like criminals and resent the implication that it might be them who is the creep or rapist.

Once that smacked me (which is actually very simple and obvious) I realized how far the gap was for empathy between men and women on this topic especially, and that it was not going to move towards more understanding OR more safety for anyone because the two sides don’t have empathy for each other.

Then I refreshed myself on the concepts from the book Non Violent Communication. I wish the title was something different because it is not what it sounds like. It is a system of communication you can learn that allows you to hear what the other person is saying, even if you can’t have empathy through direct experience and even if they are using language that is offensive, off putting, defensive, angry, or similar.

It allows you to see past the “violent” (that is the book’s choice of word to describe what just amounts to angry and defensive words and language, all the way up to yelling and cursing or name calling) language and hear what the person really is trying to communicate. It teaches you that if you are going to focus on being offended by their words or the way they are saying them, or if you are busy in your head opposing what they are saying anyway, then you can’t hear them.

And that there are times when someone who is saying things that seem very offensive to you is actually trying to convey something you do want or need to know. 

Jld called this active listening, I think. (Though she was not actually capable of handling any kind of angry conversation with any man. She really deeply feared men).

Then I went back and started reading guys words with my refreshed active listening skills, or just the real intent to hear them this time.

The lack of empathy for men in society in general seemed so obvious now. And no, men were not whining because they don’t have it. But what they were doing was totally logical: they were not worried about having empathy for women, as obviously the entire world is empathetic to women, yet they are very clear on the fact the women do not afford them the same empathy. So why would they offer empathy to women, beyond their own close circle. And even in their close circle, why would a guy have empathy for his wife if she has none for him?

Previously I had been working from the assumption that “most women are more like me”, which a lot of us do (and sometimes it’s true). So that meant I assumed women had empathy for men, that they didn’t go va-clang on men for showing normal vulnerability, I thought women admired men’s emotions and expected them to have them. Like me.

That was a false assumption. I do see now that definitely not all women are like me. I don’t know how many are, but many apparently show a clear lack of empathy for their man, and emotionally move away from him or va-clang on him if he does have any weakness. 

So now that I’m seeing this non empathy loop between the groups, and seeing how both sides are like “why can’t you see how much this sucks for us?”, I’m finally getting somewhere in my own head at least. Getting to a place where I can see why this disconnect between the groups is happening.

I want to find common ground between the groups, for myself, and maybe others will find some too. To do that, it’s obvious to me now that I have not truly listened to what the men were saying before, because I was defensive and because they were using sometimes offensive language. But I really do want to hear them so my only way to do that is to drop all I thought before, stop defending “my side”, and actually listen to them. 

What I am hearing now is a whole different thing than what I heard before. And even if sometimes the words or language you guys use may be provocative still, I am not provoked because I’m truly seeking to understand. I don’t care for now if anyone understands me or my favorite gender issues...I’m not even going to go there because I don’t need to be understood in order to understand.

By simply understanding more here on these threads, my entire inner narrative has also shifted, and it’s like I can feel new neurons popping to life.


----------



## uhtred

The problem is that many, in fact the great majority of individual men have not committed those crimes. 

Look at the analogous situation. African Americans are convicted of violent crimes in the US at a much higher rate than are whites. Is it OK then to be suspicious of people who are black? To call the police if we see a black man acting "suspicious", in a wealthy neighborhood, or driving a fancy car? 

I would say "no" because the great majority of those *individuals* have not committed a crime and deserve to be treated fairly despite the statistics of people who look like time. Also because suspicion can lead to unwarranted arrest and sometimes unwarranted conviction. 

The same holds true for men and sex crimes. Undoubtedly men commit the majority of sex crimes, but it is still a small minority of men that do so. Scrutinizing all men increases the chance of false accusations and convictions. 


To address your other issue: yes, I *was* molested when I was about 4 years old. Not by a man, but by a female relative, a deeply religious woman who was trusted to babysit me and who was above suspicion because she didn't match the popular idea of a child molester. Despite ample evidence that something was wrong, no one took any action. I suspect she regularly molested her own daughter (similar age) as well. This is one of the additional problems with bias - not only can it result in unfair accusations, but it can blind people to the real culprits.

I do not want to live in world where people are judged by the behavior of others who look similar, have similar genetics, or similar culture. That has been an excuse for a wide range of atrocities and is at the root of a lot of evil in the world. 

I don't suspect middle-easterners or Muslims, of terrorism. I don't suspect Hispanics or blacks of being criminals. I don't assume Jews are part of some evil money-grabbing conspiracy. I don't assume women are out to soak men for all their money. I do not want to be part of a society that assumes men are potential sex criminals.









StarFires said:


> snip
> 
> When, honestly, the vast percentage of sex crimes on women and children are committed by members of the male species, it seems to me the complaining is because they want to be allowed to continue with impunity. And that's because of a probability that is so high it can easily be considered a fact that among the men doing all this whining, some of them are, themselves, perpetrators of something since the perpetrators obviously would have to comprise an inordinate percentage of society. There's just no way to know that percentage. Sex crimes against women are often unreported. Sex crimes on children are almost never reported, but that doesn't negate the truth that children over the centuries have grown up being sexually violated by their father, grandfather, brother, uncle, or close male family friend in disproportionate numbers compared to female family members and friends. These are statistics. Sex crimes on children has always been a serious problem. I bet you, yourself, know someone within your family and social sphere who was molested as a child. You probably know of more than one. I know of at least 4.
> 
> snip
> 
> Therefore, since men have proven themselves capable of all manner of atrocity and abomination, it is only logical, and hardly unreasonable, that they are considered capable of all manner of atrocity and abomination, and suspected of such given certain situations.
> 
> All this means that, among those who don't appreciate being suspected or want "freedom from assault," there, indeed, are some who are committing the crimes and offenses and are effectively saying they want the freedom to continue without suspicion or reproach.
> snip


----------



## uhtred

Completely agree with that! (sorry if I didn't make that clear)

But that is also part of the problem - suspicion can lead to bias and wrongful arrest and conviction. I don't want that to happen to members of any group (including men). I think it is vital that people be judged on their *own* behavior, not on that of people who look like or have similar genetics to them. 





NobodySpecial said:


> I know you are using an example to illustrate a point. But I do feel I have to make one comment here in terms of lessening the value of this example. Not to thread jack I hope. Black people are dis-proportionally arrested and convicted as systemic problem with our justice system as a reflection of the USian attitude, conscious and unconscious, toward black people.
> snip
> .


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> @farsidejunky One of the reasons I made this breakthrough in myself was because after contemplation about what seems to be the lack of empathy by men about the me too movement, and reading all the stories here and also RP and other men’s voices...it was like all at once I just “got it”.
> 
> 
> 
> If a man is not a rapist or creep, which is the vast majority of men, then he has no idea what a rapist or creep is thinking or doing. He doesn’t empathize with creeps and can’t because he isn’t one.
> 
> 
> 
> So when they feel we are talking about “men” who need to be taken to task for being rapists and creeps, they feel that they and most men don’t deserve to be treated like criminals and resent the implication that it might be them who is the creep or rapist.
> 
> 
> 
> Once that smacked me (which is actually very simple and obvious) I realized how far the gap was for empathy between men and women on this topic especially, and that it was not going to move towards more understanding OR more safety for anyone because the two sides don’t have empathy for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I refreshed myself on the concepts from the book Non Violent Communication. I wish the title was something different because it is not what it sounds like. It is a system of communication you can learn that allows you to hear what the other person is saying, even if you can’t have empathy through direct experience and even if they are using language that is offensive, off putting, defensive, angry, or similar.
> 
> 
> 
> It allows you to see past the “violent” (that is the book’s choice of word to describe what just amounts to angry and defensive words and language, all the way up to yelling and cursing or name calling) language and hear what the person really is trying to communicate. It teaches you that if you are going to focus on being offended by their words or the way they are saying them, or if you are busy in your head opposing what they are saying anyway, then you can’t hear them.
> 
> 
> 
> And that there are times when someone who is saying things that seem very offensive to you is actually trying to convey something you do want or need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Jld called this active listening, I think. (Though she was not actually capable of handling any kind of angry conversation with any man. She really deeply feared men).
> 
> 
> 
> Then I went back and started reading guys words with my refreshed active listening skills, or just the real intent to hear them this time.
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of empathy for men in society in general seemed so obvious now. And no, men were not whining because they don’t have it. But what they were doing was totally logical: they were not worried about having empathy for women, as obviously the entire world is empathetic to women, yet they are very clear on the fact the women do not afford them the same empathy. So why would they offer empathy to women, beyond their own close circle. And even in their close circle, why would a guy have empathy for his wife if she has none for him?
> 
> 
> 
> Previously I had been working from the assumption that “most women are more like me”, which a lot of us do (and sometimes it’s true). So that meant I assumed women had empathy for men, that they didn’t go va-clang on men for showing normal vulnerability, I thought women admired men’s emotions and expected them to have them. Like me.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a false assumption. I do see now that definitely not all women are like me. I don’t know how many are, but many apparently show a clear lack of empathy for their man, and emotionally move away from him or va-clang on him if he does have any weakness.
> 
> 
> 
> So now that I’m seeing this non empathy loop between the groups, and seeing how both sides are like “why can’t you see how much this sucks for us?”, I’m finally getting somewhere in my own head at least. Getting to a place where I can see why this disconnect between the groups is happening.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to find common ground between the groups, for myself, and maybe others will find some too. To do that, it’s obvious to me now that I have not truly listened to what the men were saying before, because I was defensive and because they were using sometimes offensive language. But I really do want to hear them so my only way to do that is to drop all I thought before, stop defending “my side”, and actually listen to them.
> 
> 
> 
> What I am hearing now is a whole different thing than what I heard before. And even if sometimes the words or language you guys use may be provocative still, I am not provoked because I’m truly seeking to understand. I don’t care for now if anyone understands me or my favorite gender issues...I’m not even going to go there because I don’t need to be understood in order to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> By simply understanding more here on these threads, my entire inner narrative has also shifted, and it’s like I can feel new neurons popping to life.


This...in spades. 

This is the problem with our entire society at large. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> This...in spades.
> 
> This is the problem with our entire society at large.


Yes, but I have to start small, in my own life, and in my lovely social group called TAM. I am not trying to fix the entire world, but on this one area in our little group here, I know I can at least achieve something for myself that will help ME stop contributing to the lack of empathy (overall) in society. And maybe it can start a new narrative. And a new platform for discussion. And then maybe some mutual understanding. And from there a domino effect will happen across the universe :laugh:

And maybe one day the battle of the sexes will be over and we can all just shut up and get it on (always my ultimate goal) >


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Again: no woman has actually come out and said that on TAM. Please provide a link to the relevant post if you are making this claim.


Yes. They have. @GettingIt2 specifically. 

If you're just going to insist women never react that way, then just insert a post every 20 posts or so that reads:

*******************************************************************************
* I, imp, do not believe that any woman on TAM ever said this and that women in general probably * don't do this. And I think the OP is way off track here. See thread XXX for counter-arguments
*******************************************************************************


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Yes. They have. @GettingIt2 specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're just going to insist women never react that way, then just insert a post every 20 posts or so that reads:
> 
> 
> 
> *******************************************************************************
> 
> * I, imp, do not believe that any woman on TAM ever said this and that women in general probably * don't do this. And I think the OP is way off track here. See thread XXX for counter-arguments
> 
> *******************************************************************************



Urrgh. Did GettingIt say that she lost attraction to her husband after he showed her his emotions *after a funeral? *
Because that’s what has been asserted and that’s the only assertion I challenged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Yes. They have. @GettingIt2 specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're just going to insist women never react that way, then just insert a post every 20 posts or so that reads:
> 
> 
> 
> *******************************************************************************
> 
> * I, imp, do not believe that any woman on TAM ever said this and that women in general probably * don't do this. And I think the OP is way off track here. See thread XXX for counter-arguments
> 
> *******************************************************************************




FYI:



GettingIt_2 said:


> As far as being empathetic with my husband when he is sick, hurt, has suffered a loss and and is grieving, etc. *I can and do feel much empathy. * That's not what I was referring to with the va-clange comment.



How do you (or others) jump to the conclusion that what is meant with her statement is that she is loosing attraction or not showing any empathy after her husband grieved at a funeral?

I don’t want to be anal about it but it is not good form to mis-characterise other people or their posts and then extrapolate. 

And no, I don’t want to argue that some women DON’T loose attraction or have difficulty with empathy. I was merely addressing the funeral comment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I start to get the not all men response a little better. I don't love it. But I am starting to get it.


I get that men are more sexually aggressive, I get that men are bigger and commit the overwhelming number of sexual assaults.

If you're a woman alone in an empty dark parking and notice a male figure, you'd be an idiot not to take precautions.

However, in other instances when most of a certain behavior is done by one gender, ethnic or religious group, people are lectured about how the few don't represent all members of that group.

Yet, it does seem that males don't get consideration.

It's as if, since we're more aggressive by nature, larger, and have a sex drive, we're all rapists in waiting.


----------



## Buddy400

farsidejunky said:


> Here is where we arrive at the other problem with victimhood (both legitimate and perceived) and a lack of empathy...what to do about it. Nobody I know is against promoting a safer society at large...not just against rape, but any violent crime.


I think the problem is that, since we may not always be in favor of their preferred policy for promoting a safer society (and for women and sexual assault particularly), we're seen as not supporting that goal.

We have the same good goals (of course, I don't know why so few refuse to assume good intentions).

We just differ as to what options would lead to the best results.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I get that men are more sexually aggressive, I get that men are bigger and commit the overwhelming number of sexual assaults.
> 
> If you're a woman alone in an empty dark parking and notice a male figure, you'd be an idiot not to take precautions.
> 
> However, in other instances when most of a certain behavior is done by one gender, ethnic or religious group, people are lectured about how the few don't represent all members of that group.
> 
> Yet, it does seem that males don't get consideration.
> 
> It's as if, since we're more aggressive by nature, larger, and have a sex drive, we're all rapists in waiting.


I know that’s not what women mean, but I can also see now very clearly (now) that it sounds and feels like that’s what women mean.

I don’t want to try to get men to understand what women really mean, on this thread. Because I’m just working on my understanding of how and why men feel the way they do.

It kind of doesn’t matter if we women think we are saying things men should be empathetic about, when many men already know from experience that many women do not have empathy for them (except in individual cases, and even then sometimes not or va-clang).

So they can only hear “you might be a rapist, please help women protects ourselves from you and all the other might be rapists”. At this point, the woman’s position is irrelevant. Because he can only hear what is reasonable and logical to HIM. And to him it is not reasonable or logical that he should have to figure out how rapists think, nor have empathy for an issue he doesn’t have experience with (though many men have). He does have empathy for actual violence against anyone and for victims of rape. But he is not going to speak or answer for rapists, because he isn’t one.

As much as I could talk more about how “that’s not what we are saying!”, again it doesn’t matter, because that’s what it feels to them we are saying.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> FYI:
> 
> How do you (or others) jump to the conclusion that what is meant with her statement is that she is loosing attraction or not showing any empathy after her husband grieved at a funeral?
> 
> I don’t want to be anal about it but it is not good form to mis-characterise other people or their posts and then extrapolate.
> 
> And no, I don’t want to argue that some women DON’T loose attraction or have difficulty with empathy. I was merely addressing the funeral comment.


I am certain (having participated in that thread at the time), that there was an earlier va-clang comment (that she refers to in your quote) that fits the bill. The funeral comment *was* by Mem and that was exactly what he was referring to (although you do point out correctly that a woman didn't write the post.

In summary, I am convinced that that thread documented the phenomena enough for FW to credibly base this thread on the theory.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I think the problem is that, since we may not always be in favor of their preferred policy for promoting a safer society (and for women and sexual assault particularly), we're seen as not supporting that goal.
> 
> We have the same good goals (of course, I don't know why so few refuse to assume good intentions).
> 
> We just differ as to what options would lead to the best results.


Actually, I don’t think we would differ on options as much if we could just get on the same page first.

But I think for men (and this is totally fair, given what I now understand), that’s not going to happen until me too movement supporters can begin using different language.

I don’t hold out hope that happens soon, but maybe we can start that movement.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I am certain (having participated in that thread at the time), that there was an earlier va-clang comment (that she refers to in your quote) that fits the bill. The funeral comment *was* by Mem and that was exactly what he was referring to (although you do point out correctly that a woman didn't write the post.
> 
> In summary, I am convinced that that thread documented the phenomena enough for FW to credibly base this thread on the theory.


There was also Sam Yager story about his sisters funeral. And one other mans contribution about his sons funeral and then right afterwards there was another tragic death. And I think one more besides Mem.

None of the posters were interested in sex in any way. They were not reporting that she turned him down for sex or anything like that. What they reported was her obvious and/or stated va-clang. All were men who love their wives. None were asking me or anybody to feel sorry for them. They all shared their story on my empathy thread because I asked them to.


----------



## Buddy400

Just on a personal note. I do not have an issue with women not having empathy for men (in general).

I just want to know what IS.

Then I can make informed decisions.

I also don't support trying to get men (in general) to change their nature (either to make men or women happier). Primarily because I don't believe it can be done. Whatever change will happen will be organic via DNA and culture over a great deal of time.

There is certainly nothing wrong with individuals trying to change for their own reasons.

And, it goes without saying (I would hope) that all men are required to refrain from illegal or immoral activity regardless of their nature.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I get that men are more sexually aggressive, I get that men are bigger and commit the overwhelming number of sexual assaults.
> 
> If you're a woman alone in an empty dark parking and notice a male figure, you'd be an idiot not to take precautions.
> 
> However, in other instances when most of a certain behavior is done by one gender, ethnic or religious group, people are lectured about how the few don't represent all members of that group.
> 
> Yet, it does seem that males don't get consideration.
> 
> It's as if, since we're more aggressive by nature, larger, and have a sex drive, we're all rapists in waiting.


What I am trying to do is balance two realities in my mind, that this guilt by association is present in a lot of people's minds. And the mantra of believing the victim has extended in scope from being dismissed out of hand as historically was the case and believing guilt as fact, period. Not Good. AND the dialog of yahbut not all men is similar in its effect to yahbut why don't domestic violence victims leave. Yabut not all men tue and at the same time its use tends to shut down the conversation on how to move forward toward a more equitable social reality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually, I don’t think we would differ on options as much if we could just get on the same page first.
> 
> But I think for men (and this is totally fair, given what I now understand), that’s not going to happen until me too movement supporters can begin using different language.
> 
> I don’t hold out hope that happens soon, but maybe we can start that movement.


To expand a bit further on this, part of the problem men have, I believe, is that they have seen women do horrible, criminal and nasty things, to them, to children, and to other women.

Including rape and molestation and other sexually deviant or coercive things, to men, women and children.

They are also aware what men are capable of and that men statistically do harm to others more often.

But that doesn’t mean the percentage of women who can do unimaginable harm is zero. 

And so even though men themselves may fear or be suspicious of women less than they are other men, this doesn’t mean they intrinsically trust women.

This is why they are so suspicious of false allegations. Which I do understand now. I am not saying false allegations are common, but I do know they do happen. So who cares if statistically it doesn’t happen very often? Any amount is wrong and the courts are set up to possibly convict an innocent man. Since it happens at all, why is it swept aside as if it doesn’t matter against the enormity of the amount of real rape that is happening?

I get this now. I am just trying to paraphrase it using my new understanding. I’m not saying I understand all of it or speak for men. But I do feel a huge relief within myself. It feels like I’ve understood something I’ve been struggling to understand for so long, and it was always right there in front of us. I do not want to be at odds with men, even though it would appear from my history here that I go out of my way to find it. It feels so good to actually see the glimpse into men’s thinking that I was hoping for. Because inside this view I see that they do have empathy for us and that they do love and want to protect us. We just keep insulting them with our words and language. I know we aren’t even meaning to do it, but that’s what’s happening.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I am certain (having participated in that thread at the time), that there was an earlier va-clang comment (that she refers to in your quote) that fits the bill. The funeral comment *was* by Mem and that was exactly what he was referring to (although you do point out correctly that a woman didn't write the post.
> 
> 
> 
> In summary, I am convinced that that thread documented the phenomena enough for FW to credibly base this thread on the theory.



I’m not trying to ‘discredit’ the ‘phenomena’ itself nor disprove that men feel whatever they feel.
However I think the sensible thing to do in this instance, would actually be to give WOMEN the platform (shock/horror!) to speak whether they do or do not loose attraction/empathy/whatever it is the men feel the women are loosing, when they show vulnerability, since it’s the women who are the ‘accused’ ones in this instance.
And as far as solving the world’s most serious problems , it has created not only more divide between men and women, but also between men themselves, due to all the confusion and conflating.
I just hope it can be contained 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## StarFires

Faithful Wife said:


> But also...I hope maybe someone will open another thread to debate and discuss this one, or to talk about the lack of empathy from men to women.
> 
> Here is something that I’m seeing rather clearly. It began on the other empathy thread and continues on this one. And that is that people, both men and women, have an automatic push back when empathy for men is brought up at all.
> 
> Men do it just as much and immediately begin talking about “whiners” and male insecurity at the very mention of the idea that men deserve empathy. They will want to be the first to say “well, I’m not in the same camp with those insecure whiners who want a parade for just being a normal man”. *Keeping in mind, it is just the TOPIC of empathy that makes them so quick to point fingers at “whiny” men.*
> 
> *Women do it also, and are quick to note that men don’t deserve empathy because men commit most crimes. And lots of other reasons.*
> 
> And it does paint this weird picture where men are literally shamed if someone ELSE like me even mentions that men (as a group) deserve empathy. People get real weird about it.
> 
> That was me also, before I began working on this issue for myself. I can remember my justifications for it, but they don’t make sense to me now that I’ve made this inner mental shift.


I think this is the crux of how I feel and what I'm saying. And I'll give you an example:

I used to have a printing business and would usually write (in essay form) the things that most printers require customers to write out themselves. I was working on an obituary/life history of a deceased person. His wife (my customer) was reading it aloud to her daughter. The daughter kept emphatically objecting to two lines that I'd written - the way I composed those two sentences and not that the information was incorrect. So, I made a suggestion of how I could word them differently, but she objected to that too. I asked her how would she like it to read, but she had no suggestions. I asked what in the wording did she specifically dislike, but she couldn't articulate what she believed to be the problem. I then had to tell her that you can't keep objecting to everything and have no other input to offer at the same time.

In other words, as I alluded to before, I am goal oriented. I need a bottom line, something I can address and translate into practical application. Otherwise, a person is just whining. In her case and in the case of men's complaints and concerns enumerated here, there either is no real problem, or the perceived offense is a necessary evil. Either way, there's nothing to address and no remedy.

I can't do it and I don't know how you do it or can hope that others will as you do. I'm talking about abiding some of these complaints. I feel like you're saying you (and that people generally should) empathize with whatever men complain about. You want us to say "Okay, I understand how you feel" and then muss their hair whether the complaints make sense and whether the complaints should, themselves, be non-existent since what offends them is rooted in necessity. How can society be expected to dispense with necessary protection devices - and our feelings regarding them - so that a few will not be offended? And if we're not expected to change in order to preserve and spare their feelings, then why complain? That's why I say it's just whining because there should also be understanding for the emergent protective response to the actions of others. I realize I'm addressing one thing that was stated, but it applies to several, if not many.



Faithful Wife said:


> Far, this was a little bit cryptic, I’m not sure what you were getting at.


But his meaning was quite clear as he intended to be insulting, and is what some men too often do to women - minimize and dismiss because, you know, I'm not deserving of my own intelligence and dissents. I play Scrabble online and had a frequent opponent that just last week I refused to play anymore. We were talking about the band Queen "the best band of all time to me," is what I said. He said he hated them and their songs were ridiculous (something to that effect). I stated they were all intelligent, educated men, and the meaning of their songs were often cloaked but could easily be understood if you think in the abstract. He erupted and told me I was crazy (another common put down) and then stated "Oh I forgot, it isn't possible to win an argument with a woman." Happens too often. But I don't care for this kind of whining and debasing either just because they can't understand what we say and have nothing cogent to offer.


----------



## farsidejunky

StarFires said:


> I think this is the crux of how I feel and what I'm saying. And I'll give you an example:
> 
> I used to have a printing business and would usually write (in essay form) the things that most printers require customers to write out themselves. I was working on an obituary/life history of a deceased person. His wife (my customer) was reading it aloud to her daughter. The daughter kept emphatically objecting to two lines that I'd written - the way I composed those two sentences and not that the information was incorrect. So, I made a suggestion of how I could word them differently, but she objected to that too. I asked her how would she like it to read, but she had no suggestions. I asked what in the wording did she specifically dislike, but she couldn't articulate what she believed to be the problem. I then had to tell her that you can't keep objecting to everything and have no other input to offer at the same time.
> 
> In other words, as I alluded to before, I am goal oriented. I need a bottom line, something I can address and translate into practical application. Otherwise, a person is just whining. In her case and in the case of men's complaints and concerns enumerated here, there either is no real problem, or the perceived offense is a necessary evil. Either way, there's nothing to address and no remedy.
> 
> I can't do it and I don't know how you do it or can hope that others will as you do. I'm talking about abiding some of these complaints. I feel like you're saying you (and that people generally should) empathize with whatever men complain about. You want us to say "Okay, I understand how you feel" and then muss their hair whether the complaints make sense and whether the complaints should, themselves, be non-existent since what offends them is rooted in necessity. How can society be expected to dispense with necessary protection devices - and our feelings regarding them - so that a few will not be offended? And if we're not expected to change in order to preserve and spare their feelings, then why complain? That's why I say it's just whining because there should also be understanding for the emergent protective response to the actions of others. I realize I'm addressing one thing that was stated, but it applies to several, if not many.
> 
> 
> 
> But his meaning was quite clear as he intended to be insulting, and is what some men too often do to women - minimize and dismiss because, you know, I'm not deserving of my own intelligence and dissents. I play Scrabble online and had a frequent opponent that just last week I refused to play anymore. We were talking about the band Queen "the best band of all time to me," is what I said. He said he hated them and their songs were ridiculous (something to that effect). I stated they were all intelligent, educated men, and the meaning of their songs were often cloaked but could easily be understood if you think in the abstract. He erupted and told me I was crazy (another common put down) and then stated "Oh I forgot, it isn't possible to win an argument with a woman." Happens too often. But I don't care for this kind of whining and debasing either just because they can't understand what we say and have nothing cogent to offer.


Starfires, please take a moment to reel yourself back in and avoid assigning intentions to what I posted. 

Or even better yet, take the time to ask my intentions, as I attempted to do with you. 

I am not sure if you deliberately ignored it, or just missed it...but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter.

My post was not meant to be insulting. You exemplified in your two lengthy posts exactly what many people are trying to illustrate.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

StarFires said:


> I think this is the crux of how I feel and what I'm saying. And I'll give you an example:
> 
> I used to have a printing business and would usually write (in essay form) the things that most printers require customers to write out themselves. I was working on an obituary/life history of a deceased person. His wife (my customer) was reading it aloud to her daughter. The daughter kept emphatically objecting to two lines that I'd written - the way I composed those two sentences and not that the information was incorrect. So, I made a suggestion of how I could word them differently, but she objected to that too. I asked her how would she like it to read, but she had no suggestions. I asked what in the wording did she specifically dislike, but she couldn't articulate what she believed to be the problem. I then had to tell her that you can't keep objecting to everything and have no other input to offer at the same time.
> 
> In other words, as I alluded to before, I am goal oriented. I need a bottom line, something I can address and translate into practical application. Otherwise, a person is just whining. In her case and in the case of men's complaints and concerns enumerated here, there either is no real problem, or the perceived offense is a necessary evil. Either way, there's nothing to address and no remedy.
> 
> I can't do it and I don't know how you do it or can hope that others will as you do. I'm talking about abiding some of these complaints. I feel like you're saying you (and that people generally should) empathize with whatever men complain about. You want us to say "Okay, I understand how you feel" and then muss their hair whether the complaints make sense and whether the complaints should, themselves, be non-existent since what offends them is rooted in necessity. How can society be expected to dispense with necessary protection devices - and our feelings regarding them - so that a few will not be offended? And if we're not expected to change in order to preserve and spare their feelings, then why complain? That's why I say it's just whining because there should also be understanding for the emergent protective response to the actions of others. I realize I'm addressing one thing that was stated, but it applies to several, if not many.
> 
> 
> 
> But his meaning was quite clear as he intended to be insulting, and is what some men too often do to women - minimize and dismiss because, you know, I'm not deserving of my own intelligence and dissents. I play Scrabble online and had a frequent opponent that just last week I refused to play anymore. We were talking about the band Queen "the best band of all time to me," is what I said. He said he hated them and their songs were ridiculous (something to that effect). I stated they were all intelligent, educated men, and the meaning of their songs were often cloaked but could easily be understood if you think in the abstract. He told me I was crazy (another common put down) and then stated "Oh I forgot, it isn't possible to win an argument with a woman." Happens too often. But I don't care for this kind of whining and debasing either just because they can't understand what we say and have nothing cogent to offer.


Girlllllll....please trust me that you and I are birds of a feather. I know you can’t right now, because you only know me from this thread.

But I am the TAM epitome of the “rabid third wave radical feminist” POV, even though I myself feel nothing rabid or radical about my POV.

For years at TAM I’ve been fighting the exact battle that is behind the sentiments in your post. And let me tell you, back in the day, I was doing daily battle against hoards of unbridled red pill, pick up artists, intel, and men’s rights guys. They at the time held a strong hold over TAM.

Sometimes one of them would see some of my feminist shrieking here (their words) and register an account just to send me a hateful PM. 

More recently, a lot of the most rigid of those guys have left or been banned. And things are more peaceful around here, with more decorum. And the guys I’m respectful of here are not always on my side about any issues, but I know they are decent men and we have a comraderie.

You probably haven’t realized yet that I’m the TAM penis thread queen. (My most recent penis thread is in the politics section). And that many men here think I’m some kind of psycho ****. And other negative descriptions of me that many feminists (including me) see as badges, not insults.

I regularly get mocked around here for my extreme liberal views on politics, gender issues, and everything else including drug use.

I wish you and I got to know each other on some of those other threads.

I’m not asking you to empathize with men. If you don’t, I understand why. It’s not a requirement that anyone understands what I’m doing here. I do understand you though, as you sound like my soul sister writing on my behalf. You may see what I mean on other threads if you stick around. I hope you do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> Starfires, please take a moment to reel yourself back in and avoid assigning intentions to what I posted.
> 
> Or even better yet, take the time to ask my intentions, as I attempted to do with you.
> 
> I am not sure if you deliberately ignored it, or just missed it...but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter.
> 
> My post was not meant to be insulting. You exemplified in your two lengthy posts exactly what many people are trying to illustrate.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


As a person who only recently can “see” this, I don’t actually expect others to see it. 

It will take more time and understanding. 

I can’t fault her. And if she could truly express herself with two-sided understanding and the right words, I bet we would find that she is very empathetic to men.

As I am.

Usually we who are actually deeply empathetic are very opposed to being told we are not.

Right?


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> As a person who only recently can “see” this, I don’t actually expect others to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> It will take more time and understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t fault her. And if she could truly express herself with two-sided understanding and the right words, I bet we would find that she is very empathetic to men.
> 
> 
> 
> As I am.
> 
> 
> 
> Usually we who are actually deeply empathetic are very opposed to being told we are not.
> 
> 
> 
> Right?


Touche. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Faithful Wife said:


> As a person who only recently can “see” this, I don’t actually expect others to see it.
> 
> It will take more time and understanding.
> 
> I can’t fault her. And if she could truly express herself with two-sided understanding and the right words, I bet we would find that she is very empathetic to men.
> 
> As I am.
> 
> Usually we who are actually deeply empathetic are very opposed to being told we are not.
> 
> Right?


It's all selective though, which I imagine is something you can agree with. I don't really believe outside of sociopaths, that anyone is more or less empathetic than the next person. No matter how empathetic you believe you are as a person because of XYZ examples, you can see another person as less empathetic simply because they aren't empathetic to those same XYZ issues. However, that person has ABC examples that prove the opposite, and they might see you as the one without empathy because you aren't empathetic to ABC issues. 

In the end, these are probably two equally empathetic people that both see the other as unempathetic and see themselves as a person with great empathy for others. Two people incapable of being empathetic towards one another claiming "I'm a person of great empathy, where you simply are not" which is kind of hilarious if you really think about it.


----------



## sokillme

So I read through about the first 3 pages of the linked thread. Is it wrong that I am more sympathetic to the women's point of view?

On a different note I always thought jld was a bigot who I called out on more then one occasion.


----------



## StarFires

Faithful Wife said:


> I can’t fault her. And if she could truly express herself with two-sided understanding and the right words, I bet we would find that she is very empathetic to men.


Uncanny how insightful you are. I'll join the army if they give me a battle to fight. But there's nothing to gain by whining because what has to be has to be, and some things are the way they are because they have to be that way. For the same reasons, there's a lot women have to suck up and swallow too. Empathy, or lack thereof, is a two-way street. But would you like to take on the divorce court, family court, and child support systems, I'll join the parade to champion their cause because I think men get the shaft on a whole. That's a cause and a battle we can win, or is at least worth fighting for. Wanna raise money for prostate cancer? That's a great cause too. Give me another one and I'll be there. Just don't whine, and don't try to maintain the status quo of exploitation and unbalanced power and opportunity.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TheDudeLebowski said:


> It's all selective though, which I imagine is something you can agree with. I don't really believe outside of sociopaths, that anyone is more or less empathetic than the next person. No matter how empathetic you believe you are as a person because of XYZ examples, you can see another person as less empathetic simply because they aren't empathetic to those same XYZ issues. However, that person has ABC examples that prove the opposite, and they might see you as the one without empathy because you aren't empathetic to ABC issues.
> 
> In the end, these are probably two equally empathetic people that both see the other as unempathetic and see themselves as a person with great empathy for others. Two people incapable of being empathetic towards one another claiming "I'm a person of great empathy, where you simply are not" which is kind of hilarious if you really think about it.


Well, right but that’s what our “man” and “woman” groups are always doing here and they aren’t getting anywhere.

How am I supposed to ask Starfires to have empathy for men when they don’t have it for her, and vice versa?

I don’t expect anyone else to do what I’m doing, not her and not you guys.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> So I read through about the first 3 pages of the linked thread. Is it wrong that I am more sympathetic to the women's point of view?
> 
> On a different note I always thought jld was a bigot who I called out on more then one occasion.


I don’t really care one way or the other, sokillme, but you actually participated in that other thread, by the way. If you want to conclude on page three that you get the point and don’t agree with me here, no problem. 

But please don’t expect me to discuss with you how wrong I am. I don’t care if you disagree but there’s no point in discussing it with me. You were asked to read the other thread so you could understand the context behind this one. The thread is over 30 pages long.

But sure. Page three and you’ve decided you know all the context, yeah, sure. Just stop reading and make your conclusions. I am not here to convince you or anyone of anything.


----------



## Emerging Buddhist

Empathy has a simple formula yet seems so elusive in relationships… many of those who struggle with empathy don’t realize that unlike compassion, empathy is tiring, it is a draining emotion because we tend to carry it with us unlike compassion, which is momentary then let go.

Love is many things many people, but in its most basic formula it is a combination of respect, compassion, and caring. Without one or all, empathy struggles because it needs these to be fed or else it goes weak.

Some say one must experience in order to be empathetic... I disagree. I've never had cancer yet have had family and friends suffer to the bitter end seen through my eyes so it is not a problem to understand the horrors such an illness brings and the on the ground ugliness of war has shown me a suffering I still struggle with, I'll drop a tear without shame in a heartbeat over the loss of any service member in action defending the oath they took, so here I own my empathy with full understanding.

No man is invulnerable, we all have our weak points in some form... only the closest to us know what those are and it is because we trust them. The problem with trust though is that when given to a person who would choose to use it against us, we react poorly in our disappointment when that trust is broken.

Especially a spouse or partner... they know all the gaps in the armor, the least empathetic take advantage of them and build an invisible disconnect to compassion. My ex hated leadership in any form with a passion... it wasn't until the last 3-5 years of our marriage did I understand why we struggled so greatly for 30 years, and then it wasn't just why we struggled, it was coming to understand just how UN-empathetic her behavior had been and just how it was so detrimental to any marital success that could have been possible. I was perpetually weak to her because I was willing to express how her actions hurt... that she really didn't show much respect, compassion, or caring was not an issue to her but I'll not bring any more of that up, it is past and done and I've no need to give that any more thought.

Our bigger hurdle is how we respond to people who show us little empathy... old experiences might have carried this baggage forward but when one realizes that not being shown empathy is less about oneself but more about the other, placed outside the relationship by choice and showing a lack of kindness inside the relationship, then you begin to look at it differently. 

My mind keeps drifting back to respect, compassion, and caring... loving-kindness in other words. This (loving-kindness) is agenda-less because it is unconditional, and conditions are something that get in the way of understanding true empathy.

Common ground? Drop defensiveness, be open to question your values, and develop a buffer of patience to respond and not react to the things that SEEM to offend, because they don’t really… offended is a choice that also gets in the way of empathy.

Think about it… not being offended doesn’t mean we agree with another’s behavior, making a choice to not be offended by comments that are fear-based or grounded in ignorance stops a cycle of unkind accusations and counter-accusations, blame-shifting, and self-serving bunkering… all that blocks empathy.

Back to relationships…

So I just read AC's post and she is spot on... it is a blessing to have someone in your life you can show a vulnerable side without wondering how it will be received. She is the one outside of my siblings that I have no hesitation with sharing my most foremost thoughts to. I am open with Cindy, and in being open one offers selflessness. While this seems selfish in some ways such as dumping your problems in someone else's lap, it is an open forum of practiced trust (yet again). 

One of the better lessons I am learning is to accept help without the fear of fallout, I had learned not to ask for help because of the ramification of belittlement… that was then, this is now and now provides me the loving interface that allows me to use the tools I learned that keep my heart open and judgement free and work on selflessness that allows help to be received. I cannot be strong and unwavering 100% of the time and when I need to be open, I can with trust and confidence that Cindy will be there with understanding, compassion, and empathy.

If that isn’t love I don’t know what is.


----------



## Curse of Millhaven

I think this is an interesting topic and I’d like to participate in it, but it’ll take me some time to marshal my thoughts and try to express them in a somewhat cogent manner.

I’m a little weird (ok, a lot weird) and I always feel like my thoughts on any given topic will be aberrant and unwelcome. I’m trying to get over myself so I'd really like to share my unvarnished thoughts here.

First tho I have to get this off my chest…I don’t think it’s right that people are dissecting another member’s (perceived) views, discussing her marital dynamic (out of context), and paraphrasing her when she no longer posts here and isn’t available to clarify or defend herself from possible misrepresentations. 

I miss jld’s presence here and thought she was refreshingly unique and interesting; I don’t think it's okay to scrutinize her and her husband in their absence. 



sokillme said:


> On a different note I always thought jld was a bigot who I called out on more then one occasion.


You can disagree with her but I think it’s disrespectful, unnecessary, and unfair to call her (or any member) names, even more so now that she no longer participates and cannot defend herself.


----------



## sokillme

Curse of Millhaven said:


> You can disagree with her but I think it’s disrespectful, unnecessary, and unfair to call her (or any member) names, even more so now that she no longer participates and cannot defend herself.


It's not like I didn't post that to her directly when she was here, which is probably part of why she stopped posting but you are right. I will amend my post to say I thought her posts were bigoted.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Faithful Wife said:


> Well, right but that’s what our “man” and “woman” groups are always doing here and they aren’t getting anywhere.
> 
> How am I supposed to ask Starfires to have empathy for men when they don’t have it for her, and vice versa?
> 
> I don’t expect anyone else to do what I’m doing, not her and not you guys.


Here's the thing, we've had a back and forth where you probably didn't feel i was listening or understanding you, amd I felt the same. However, we had the discussion. That's where it really starts. I also think its ok to say "I don't agree with you here" and that doesnt mean one lacks empathy. If I walked in your shoes through life with my own mindset that I have today, I'm not entirely sure how much would actually change in my thought processes. It's impossible to know really. 

I'm generally cynical, and its something I'm working on, but its an uphill battle for me and one I don't think I'll ever truly fix. I tend to just figure people are crappy and that is just part of the human experience that we all face. So my default is to instead of trying to find a place where I'm not judgemental, I just chalk it up to I'm pretty crappy myself and move on with the judgment lessened but not erased. Does that make sense? 

I think it's admirable that you are trying to approach this from your own angle, and I'm always willing to have the conversations and arguments, but I'm positive no matter how much we work on this issue it won't really change. If everyone had the same skin pigments, and were all the same gender, same religious beliefs, same political ideologies, humans would find some other lines in the sand and draw up new battle grounds. I just think its part of the human experience that is inescapable no matter what we do. There's my cynical side for you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Here's the thing, we've had a back and forth where you probably didn't feel i was listening or understanding you, amd I felt the same. However, we had the discussion. That's where it really starts. I also think its ok to say "I don't agree with you here" and that doesnt mean one lacks empathy. If I walked in your shoes through life with my own mindset that I have today, I'm not entirely sure how much would actually change in my thought processes. It's impossible to know really.
> 
> I'm generally cynical, and its something I'm working on, but its an uphill battle for me and one I don't think I'll ever truly fix. I tend to just figure people are crappy and that is just part of the human experience that we all face. So my default is to instead of trying to find a place where I'm not judgemental, I just chalk it up to I'm pretty crappy myself and move on with the judgment lessened but not erased. Does that make sense?
> 
> I think it's admirable that you are trying to approach this from your own angle, and I'm always willing to have the conversations and arguments, but I'm positive no matter how much we work on this issue it won't really change. If everyone had the same skin pigments, and were all the same gender, same religious beliefs, same political ideologies, humans would find some other lines in the sand and draw up new battle grounds. I just think its part of the human experience that is inescapable no matter what we do. There's my cynical side for you.


I don’t know what all you think might change or not change, but there’s already been a change in me. And that’s my goal.

I always enjoy your contributions.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Curse of Millhaven said:


> I think this is an interesting topic and I’d like to participate in it, but it’ll take me some time to marshal my thoughts and try to express them in a somewhat cogent manner.
> 
> I’m a little weird (ok, a lot weird) and I always feel like my thoughts on any given topic will be aberrant and unwelcome. I’m trying to get over myself so I'd really like to share my unvarnished thoughts here.
> 
> First tho I have to get this off my chest…I don’t think it’s right that people are dissecting another member’s (perceived) views, discussing her marital dynamic (out of context), and paraphrasing her when she no longer posts here and isn’t available to clarify or defend herself from possible misrepresentations.
> 
> I miss jld’s presence here and thought she was refreshingly unique and interesting; I don’t think it's okay to scrutinize her and her husband in their absence.
> 
> 
> 
> You can disagree with her but I think it’s disrespectful, unnecessary, and unfair to call her (or any member) names, even more so now that she no longer participates and cannot defend herself.


I love Jld, and I know if she drops by and reads my words about her, she won’t be offended. We had a friendship and were extremely supportive of each other, even when we disagreed on a topic. She is a very tender and sincere soul. She was misunderstood around here a lot, mostly because she was so unique that very few people could relate to her worldview.

Having said that, I also hope people will not talk her down on my thread. Thank you for making that sentiment.

Please come share when you have your thoughts together, I look forward to it. I hope you have time to refresh yourself on the other empathy thread first for some very relevant context.


----------



## EleGirl

Curse of Millhaven said:


> I think this is an interesting topic and I’d like to participate in it, but it’ll take me some time to marshal my thoughts and try to express them in a somewhat cogent manner.
> 
> I’m a little weird (ok, a lot weird) and I always feel like my thoughts on any given topic will be aberrant and unwelcome. I’m trying to get over myself so I'd really like to share my unvarnished thoughts here.
> 
> First tho I have to get this off my chest…I don’t think it’s right that people are dissecting another member’s (perceived) views, discussing her marital dynamic (out of context), and paraphrasing her when she no longer posts here and isn’t available to clarify or defend herself from possible misrepresentations.
> 
> *I miss jld’s presence here and thought she was refreshingly unique and interesting; I don’t think it's okay to scrutinize her and her husband in their absence.
> 
> You can disagree with her but I think it’s disrespectful, unnecessary, and unfair to call her (or any member) names, even more so now that she no longer participates and cannot defend herself.*


I agree with you one this. It's actually against forum rules to attack another TAM member as is being done on this thread.

Thanks for your post on this topic.


----------



## red oak

StarFires said:


> I don't want to carry him. I need him to be stronger than me, and I need us to walk together.


This is good example. 

Men expected to always be the strong one. If he goes through a rough patch women often resent having to support or carry him.

I have seem the same on other threads where a husband may be going through depression and the wife complained about having to carry the financial load. Yet he had done it for years.

Have seem it in real life. Husband works to burn out while wife switches jobs, has times between jobs yet when he needs time to recoup she has left calling him lazy, that she's not supporting any man.

Where is the empathy? Why is it okay for her, but if he does it, it's somehow wrong?

Quick point. Hard to write on phone


----------



## Faithful Wife

red oak said:


> This is good example.
> 
> Men expected to always be the strong one. If he goes through a rough patch women often resent having to support or carry him.
> 
> I have seem the same on other threads where a husband may be going through depression and the wife complained about having to carry the financial load. Yet he had done it for years.
> 
> Have seem it in real life. Husband works to burn out while wife switches jobs, has times between jobs yet when he needs time to recoup she has left calling him lazy, that she's not supporting any man.
> 
> Where is the empathy? Why is it okay for her, but if he does it, it's somehow wrong?
> 
> Quick point. Hard to write on phone


Yes, thank you. I’m seeing this in a new way.


----------



## Buddy400

StarFires said:


> But his meaning was quite clear as he intended to be insulting, and is what some men too often do to women - minimize and dismiss because, you know, I'm not deserving of my own intelligence and dissents.


I see so much of this in public life these days.

Farside was pointing out that your comments illustrated what he considers the "other side" of the discussion. And, obviously, he disagrees with it (which is natural in a discussion between two people on opposite sides of a disagreement).

However, there was nothing vaguely anti-woman about his comment. It's exactly the sort of thing that he would say in other situations involving men on the other side of the question.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I see so much of this in public life these days.
> 
> Farside was pointing out that your comments illustrated what he considers the "other side" of the discussion. And, obviously, he disagrees with it (which is natural in a discussion between two people on opposite sides of a disagreement).
> 
> However, there was nothing vaguely anti-woman about his comment. It's exactly the sort of thing that he would say in other situations involving men on the other side of the question.


I feel like I have a translator in my head now, because I can hear what both of them are saying, but neither can hear the other. 

And further, they both think they know what the other was saying, but they are both wrong about what the other was saying.

Previously, I would not have seen this, I would have understood what she was saying, and I would automatically be empathetic to it. I would have agreed with her. And I would not have understood him at all and I would have assumed what she assumed about what he said.

It’s like I CAN’T hear it the old way now. Literally as if I understand a new language that allows me to hear the meaning behind words and phrases that were foreign before.

It makes me sad now, because I can see exactly why both he and she can’t hear each other. 

And they are never going to, probably.

But the most ironic thing is that they are not very far apart from each other at all. They both are good people who are not misogynistic or man haters. They both love and have empathy for the opposite sex. They simply are using language that is so offensive to the other (not intentionally) that they can’t be heard. I’m talking specifically about farside and starfires right now.

They end up reinforcing the opposite of what they mean to say and the other person then takes what they said as evidence of their already held confirmation bias.

I know we all do this all the time, but specifically on the man woman side of many topics, the language used becomes much less conducive to any understanding. The language is both hostile and accusatory on both sides. And it’s the language that is causing the lack of understanding of each other’s points.

In other discussions we don’t see such hostile language, even when people disagree. I think this is just a cultural habit we have gotten into. But it has ballooned into a stand off, and just repeatedly insulting each other. Even though we really do want to understand and communicate!

I know I was one of the worst when it comes to this. I see now how there was no way I could have conveyed my real meaning when using certain language and phrases. Everything I was trying to say went out the window as soon as I insulted them (usually meaning a man or men in general) with my words. Yet I couldn’t figure out why they couldn’t understand me.

I don’t expect others to make this shift. In fact I’ll take my lumps from others here who only know me by my old understanding, and also my lumps from star fires who probably thinks I’m drinking some weird kool aid.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy400 View Post
Yes. They have. @GettingIt2 specifically. 



If you're just going to insist women never react that way, then just insert a post every 20 posts or so that reads:



************************************************** *****************************

* I, imp, do not believe that any woman on TAM ever said this and that women in general probably * don't do this. And I think the OP is way off track here. See thread XXX for counter-arguments

************************************************** *****************************


FYI:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GettingIt_2 View Post



As far as being empathetic with my husband when he is sick, hurt, has suffered a loss and and is grieving, etc. I can and do feel much empathy. That's not what I was referring to with the va-clange comment. 




inmyprime said:


> FYI:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you (or others) jump to the conclusion that what is meant with her statement is that she is loosing attraction or not showing any empathy after her husband grieved at a funeral?
> 
> I don’t want to be anal about it but it is not good form to mis-characterise other people or their posts and then extrapolate.
> 
> And no, I don’t want to argue that some women DON’T loose attraction or have difficulty with empathy. I was merely addressing the funeral comment.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I skimmed this thread a day or so ago, and considered jumping in to correct some misconceptions about my views in the OHTER empathy thread that seem to be gaining traction here . . . but decided not to. I see that @inmyprime has done the job for me--and I thank him for that. 

I'm not at all caught up on this thread so maybe this isn't even relevant here anymore, but to recap: my limitations are not in feeling empathy toward men. As stated, and I can and do. However, when I'm called upon to empathize, or when my role is to lead while my husband is "down," even for good and understandable reasons, I feel less sexual towards him. That doesn't mean I'd turn him down if he initiated, but I'm not likely to initiate or to be as responsive as when he's in control, emotionally and otherwise. 

Is that an unusual admission? One that is disappointing to men in general? Perhaps it's a little harsh to say that empathizing with my husband leads to "va-clang;" because that's not always the case. It is very situation dependent. I do have very low tolerance for prolonged whining, self-pity, or thrusting of responsibility upon my shoulders if that's not where it belongs. But who doesn't? It's not a gender thing--that's annoying behavior whether it's coming from a man or from a woman. And I have no problem saying that those sorts of behaviors will cause "va-clang" that would be very difficult for me to overcome.

Again, sorry to jump in without taking the time to figure out where this thread is contextually, but I saw the mention, and thought my stance on the issue needed some clarification since not everyone here is likely to have throughly read the other thread. 

GI


----------



## Buddy400

GettingIt_2 said:


> I'm not at all caught up on this thread so maybe this isn't even relevant here anymore, but to recap: my limitations are not in feeling empathy toward men. As stated, and I can and do. However, when I'm called upon to empathize, or when my role is to lead while my husband is "down," even for good and understandable reasons, I feel less sexual towards him. That doesn't mean I'd turn him down if he initiated, but I'm not likely to initiate or to be as responsive as when he's in control, emotionally and otherwise.


Thanks for straightening this out. I'd like to be specific in references but it would take (at least, it would take *me*) days to do so.




GettingIt_2 said:


> Is that an unusual admission?


I think so.



GettingIt_2 said:


> One that is disappointing to men in general?


Maybe, but only to men who believe that women are somehow required to work the way they'd like them to work. Rather than who they are. 

I love your posts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GettingIt_2 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Buddy400 View Post
> Yes. They have. @GettingIt2 specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're just going to insist women never react that way, then just insert a post every 20 posts or so that reads:
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************************** *****************************
> 
> * I, imp, do not believe that any woman on TAM ever said this and that women in general probably * don't do this. And I think the OP is way off track here. See thread XXX for counter-arguments
> 
> ************************************************** *****************************
> 
> 
> FYI:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by GettingIt_2 View Post
> 
> 
> 
> As far as being empathetic with my husband when he is sick, hurt, has suffered a loss and and is grieving, etc. I can and do feel much empathy. That's not what I was referring to with the va-clange comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I skimmed this thread a day or so ago, and considered jumping in to correct some misconceptions about my views in the OHTER empathy thread that seem to be gaining traction here . . . but decided not to. I see that @inmyprime has done the job for me--and I thank him for that.
> 
> I'm not at all caught up on this thread so maybe this isn't even relevant here anymore, but to recap: my limitations are not in feeling empathy toward men. As stated, and I can and do. However, when I'm called upon to empathize, or when my role is to lead while my husband is "down," even for good and understandable reasons, I feel less sexual towards him. That doesn't mean I'd turn him down if he initiated, but I'm not likely to initiate or to be as responsive as when he's in control, emotionally and otherwise.
> 
> Is that an unusual admission? One that is disappointing to men in general? Perhaps it's a little harsh to say that empathizing with my husband leads to "va-clang;" because that's not always the case. It is very situation dependent. I do have very low tolerance for prolonged whining, self-pity, or thrusting of responsibility upon my shoulders if that's not where it belongs. But who doesn't? It's not a gender thing--that's annoying behavior whether it's coming from a man or from a woman. And I have no problem saying that those sorts of behaviors will cause "va-clang" that would be very difficult for me to overcome.
> 
> Again, sorry to jump in without taking the time to figure out where this thread is contextually, but I saw the mention, and thought my stance on the issue needed some clarification since not everyone here is likely to have throughly read the other thread.
> 
> GI


Thank you, GI. I don’t think I was ever unclear on your position. I am glad you spoke for yourself here on this thread anyway though. I did understand you before, that you do feel empathy for your husband, you never said you didn’t. Just that feeling it may cause va-clang. 

Thanks again. Feel free to stick around either or both threads.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I think so.



I’m curious, why you (or others) think that this is an ‘unusual admission’?

(To quote the admission specifically: “I do have very low tolerance for prolonged whining, self-pity, or thrusting of responsibility upon my shoulders if that's not where it belongs. But who doesn't?”)

Is this really news? Would you not feel the same if your spouse did that to you?

This has nothing to do with ‘grieving at a funeral’ type of situation, which has become conflated with women finding ‘whining’ annoying (where the word ‘whining’ has become almost offensive to use for some reason). In which case I’m offended that it offends others 

Is this a question of emphasis? I seem to be getting a different message from her post; that there’s nothing unusual about it at all (to me).

And the fact that I completely ‘get’ what she is saying (in every one of her posts) seems to fly in the face of the assertions/premises on which these threads are rested that there are some ‘general misunderstandings between genders’.
I don’t actually believe there are. 

It is true that I do not understand some of the stupidity that comes out of the radical feminism but it has purely to do with stupidity and nothing to do with that stupidity being of any specific gender. There is plenty of stupidity in many other radical movements too.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Thanks for straightening this out. I'd like to be specific in references but it would take (at least, it would take *me*) days to do so.
> 
> I think so.
> 
> Maybe, but only to men who believe that women are somehow required to work the way they'd like them to work. Rather than who they are.
> 
> I love your posts.


I don’t think what we are reading here is news to a lot of men. Seems a lot of men have come in to report the same.

The post above by Red Oak was a perfect example. He even used the same words.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Faithful Wife said:


> I feel like I have a translator in my head now, because I can hear what both of them are saying, but neither can hear the other.
> 
> And further, they both think they know what the other was saying, but they are both wrong about what the other was saying.
> 
> Previously, I would not have seen this, I would have understood what she was saying, and I would automatically be empathetic to it. I would have agreed with her. And I would not have understood him at all and I would have assumed what she assumed about what he said.
> 
> It’s like I CAN’T hear it the old way now. Literally as if I understand a new language that allows me to hear the meaning behind words and phrases that were foreign before.
> 
> It makes me sad now, because I can see exactly why both he and she can’t hear each other.
> 
> And they are never going to, probably.
> 
> But the most ironic thing is that they are not very far apart from each other at all. They both are good people who are not misogynistic or man haters. They both love and have empathy for the opposite sex. They simply are using language that is so offensive to the other (not intentionally) that they can’t be heard. I’m talking specifically about farside and starfires right now.
> 
> They end up reinforcing the opposite of what they mean to say and the other person then takes what they said as evidence of their already held confirmation bias.
> 
> I know we all do this all the time, but specifically on the man woman side of many topics, the language used becomes much less conducive to any understanding. The language is both hostile and accusatory on both sides. And it’s the language that is causing the lack of understanding of each other’s points.
> 
> In other discussions we don’t see such hostile language, even when people disagree. I think this is just a cultural habit we have gotten into. But it has ballooned into a stand off, and just repeatedly insulting each other. Even though we really do want to understand and communicate!
> 
> I know I was one of the worst when it comes to this. I see now how there was no way I could have conveyed my real meaning when using certain language and phrases. Everything I was trying to say went out the window as soon as I insulted them (usually meaning a man or men in general) with my words. Yet I couldn’t figure out why they couldn’t understand me.
> 
> I don’t expect others to make this shift. In fact I’ll take my lumps from others here who only know me by my old understanding, and also my lumps from star fires who probably thinks I’m drinking some weird kool aid.


My experience here has been a little different. I stumbled upon TAM by accident and in desperation to save my marriage. Maybe it was just luck, but the first thread I read made initiated that profound shift that you seem to be having now after years on TAM. I suddenly could HEAR the other side, and accept it as valid and sincere, in a way I hadn't been able to before. I didn't sleep for like three days because I was so fascinated by the new perspective I'd very suddenly gained. My experience on TAM, since then, has been colored by some frustration with the shouting and disrespect and inability and unwillingness of folks on both sides to actually communicate with one another. However, I actually miss some of the more entrenched "red pill" men you used to mix it up with. It was a trip to be able to read both sides and GET IT. (Hence my screen name.) I didn't like the methods resorted to, but I was usually able to filter out the noise and hear the sincerely felt message beneath it . . . from both sides. While I do miss that "edge," you are probably right that TAM is a better place for the vast majority of posters without it. 

I also probably should point out that my husband and I both accept that there is a double standard in our marriage, and we are both okay with it. My emotional make up is definitely different than his, and he understands and accepts that. And I understand and accept that he is different from me. This also means that I have different expectations from him than I have from myself. I "get away" with things that, from him, would va-clang the daylights out of me. But he "gets away" with things that, while they might annoy or even anger me in the moment, don't shut me down sexually because they seem . . . okay for a man. 

In short: we are both total sexists in our marriage towards one another, behind closed doors, and are okay with that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GettingIt_2 said:


> My experience here has been a little different. I stumbled upon TAM by accident and in desperation to save my marriage. Maybe it was just luck, but the first thread I read made initiated that profound shift that you seem to be having now after years on TAM. I suddenly could HEAR the other side, and accept it as valid and sincere, in a way I hadn't been able to before. I didn't sleep for like three days because I was so fascinated by the new perspective I'd very suddenly gained. My experience on TAM, since then, has been colored by some frustration with the shouting and disrespect and inability and unwillingness of folks on both sides to actually communicate with one another. However, I actually miss some of the more entrenched "red pill" men you used to mix it up with. It was a trip to be able to read both sides and GET IT. (Hence my screen name.) I didn't like the methods resorted to, but I was usually able to filter out the noise and hear the sincerely felt message beneath it . . . from both sides. While I do miss that "edge," you are probably right that TAM is a better place for the vast majority of posters without it.
> 
> I also probably should point out that my husband and I both accept that there is a double standard in our marriage, and we are both okay with it. My emotional make up is definitely different than his, and he understands and accepts that. And I understand and accept that he is different from me. This also means that I have different expectations from him than I have from myself. I "get away" with things that, from him, would va-clang the daylights out of me. But he "gets away" with things that, while they might annoy or even anger me in the moment, don't shut me down sexually because they seem . . . okay for a man.
> 
> In short: we are both total sexists in our marriage towards one another, behind closed doors, and are okay with that.


I think there are a few different things that we both were able to hear and have a sudden shift about.

For instance, I think I remember you saying when you first came here that you did finally understand how and why your husband (and men generally) needed sex for an emotional connection. (Please feel free to correct my wording). But that wasn’t ever something I did not understand myself. So all along I have understood why men say a lot of the things they do in that arena.

But the RP stuff, yes I was far too focused on some of the more provocative things they would say to ever hear some of their deeper messages.

One of those messages was always “hey, guys, suck it up because she will va-clang on you for the smallest show of weakness”. This is theme woven through all of their writing.

I really didn’t believe that was a thing, until you actually came and described it for us. And then all the stories of so many other men describing the same thing.

The thing I’m actually understanding here (when I mentioned the translator) has less to do with either side’s issues, and mostly to do with the way things are being said and how hostile and insulting the “other side” is going to hear those words and phrases. 

Going forward, myself I will certainly be able to hear things differently. And I am glad that like @Buddy400 says, I am seeing the empathy issue for what it is, rather than what I wish it was.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Faithful Wife said:


> I think there are a few different things that we both were able to hear and have a sudden shift about.
> 
> For instance, I think I remember you saying when you first came here that you did finally understand how and why your husband (and men generally) needed sex for an emotional connection. (Please feel free to correct my wording). But that wasn’t ever something I did not understand myself. So all along I have understood why men say a lot of the things they do in that arena.
> 
> But the RP stuff, yes I was far too focused on some of the more provocative things they would say to ever hear some of their deeper messages.
> 
> One of those messages was always “hey, guys, suck it up because she will va-clang on you for the smallest show of weakness”. This is theme woven through all of their writing.
> 
> I really didn’t believe that was a thing, until you actually came and described it for us. And then all the stories of so many other men describing the same thing.
> 
> The thing I’m actually understanding here (when I mentioned the translator) has less to do with either side’s issues, and mostly to do with the way things are being said and how hostile and insulting the “other side” is going to hear those words and phrases.
> 
> Going forward, myself I will certainly be able to hear things differently. And I am glad that like @Buddy400 says, I am seeing the empathy issue for what it is, rather than what I wish it was.


You remember correctly; I was definitely missing something in my understanding of how sex in a marriage is crucial to a man's emotional and mental health. 

And yes, while I do think that claiming that women "va-clang" over any show of weakness is a rather dramatic assessment, the truth is that I believe that some, many (most?) women have a "primal" sexual response to men that is largely beyond their control. Yes, we can, should, and often do CHOOSE to still be sexual with and respond sexually to our male partners, even if it's not what our "lizard brain" is urging us to do. 

But one of the things I've learned since coming to TAM is how to really examine my own psycho-sexual response to my husband and his various demeanors and behaviors. And I did this at his behest. And I was honest with him with the results. He knows very well what will heighten my desire and my response to him sexually, what will dampen it but not kill it, and what will out-and-out shut me so far down that tolerating sex with him would be an extreme act of will on my part. 

And he doesn't always choose to act in ways that makes me feel the most sexual towards him--and he does this with awareness and without resentment or thinking poorly of me. (Because he knows about trust, and how not to betray it.) Sometimes he needs other things from me, and I'm happy to give him those things . . . he just won't get a NSA blowjob initiated by me on that day. But that's not the end of the world to him. There's always tomorrow!


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> So some of you know I’m working on a thing in my own head. I’m trying build empathy for men in myself, in mental places where I can’t actually empathize because I don’t have relevant experience.
> 
> I was originally focused on red pill men, but I’ve come to understand so far that I don’t need to make that distinction. That there are untold numbers of men who are feeling the same way that red pill men are, even if they have never heard of the red pill.
> 
> I had another thread before about empathy from women to men which is very relevant to this one:
> 
> https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html
> 
> That thread opened my eyes on a lot of things.
> 
> I’m aware that on other threads, I may not seem to be empathetic with men on some issues. Please for the topic of this thread understand that I’m working through things here that are specific. On this thread, I’m not going to discuss anything except this topic, and I will be attempt to stay on an empathetic path here. Others threads, no promises. :laugh:
> 
> Here’s where I’m at so far.





Faithful Wife said:


> Men feel they are expected to protect women and children with their lives, but we don’t actually acknowledge or appreciate this.


Absolutely correct.



Faithful Wife said:


> Men feel that women are protected by society, by law, and by themselves and other men, but that they have no one to go to for protection of any kind. They are responsible for their own protection and that of all the women in their lives. They want to simply be acknowledged for this, but many don’t feel that they are.


Also absolutely correct.



Faithful Wife said:


> Men are not afforded empathy by society generally, for many reasons but apparently mostly because we can’t stand to see the men who we need to protect us being vulnerable. And more specifically, a woman romantically involved with a man feels a loss of sexual attraction to him if he shows vulnerability of any kind (in enough cases that men on average can report this).


I don't show vulnerability very much to my spouse, for that reason. I'd like to be able to, but I'm sure that it would cause problems if I did it more frequently.



Faithful Wife said:


> (Most) men do not experience the feeling of being sexually wanted by large numbers of women. Regardless of how women can explain how this isn’t a thing for us, men do wish they could feel the sensation of walking in a room and having most women’s eyes on them. They honestly wish to desire this and it’s really not weird for them to want that at all. They do feel hurt if they don’t experience this, a hurt that is on a level I can’t empathize with because I haven’t felt it. Maybe they wouldn’t describe it as a hurt. But when reading or hearing men’s words on this topic, you can hear the hurt. And because it is a universal and very common feeling, I’ve read enough words to understand intellectually that this is a big deal for them and therefore is deserving of empathy.


I have never had that feeling either. I can't say that I'm upset by it particularly, but I can't say it is a positive never to have had that experience.



Faithful Wife said:


> When you can’t feel empathy because of lack of direct experience, you have to start with sympathy, compassion and logic. I can logically deduce that if I was raised to believe that no one afforded me empathy, that I was expected to support and protect some other class of people, and that I wasn’t sexually desirable (that I can determine from my experience with the opposite sex), I would be pissed off and rebellious.
> 
> That’s where I’ve gotten to so far in building my bridge of empathy to understanding what men’s issues are.
> 
> This doesn’t address the family court issues, which I do understand and empathize with (enough to get it, at least).
> 
> But starting here, I am trying to look at how life is for men in our time and society. And when I realize the list above is so very common, I’m just very sad. I don’t want it to be that way, but to change anything you’ve got to look at what is really happening to people.
> 
> On this thread, I’m not going to ask for empathy on women’s issues. I do think some work needs to be done there, but I don’t think it’s helpful here. I’m trying to first seek to understand. And right now I don’t even care if I’m understood in return. But maybe some mutual understanding can occur.
> 
> Men or women, please share your thoughts about empathy for men. In society, but also in personal experience. Please comment on the list I made or add to it.


You have made an excellent start. Thank you.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> All you’ve said is true. But my empathy for women in the same circumstances is fully developed.
> 
> I’ve found if I’m honest with myself, I automatically give more empathy to women than men, for the exact same issues (regardless of what the issue is).
> 
> I have a lot of thoughts about lack of empathy from men as well. But to me it’s a different topic.
> 
> I’m beginning to realize why they don’t have empathy for us. It may be in part at least because we don’t have it for them. It may be more than that, and empathy in general is a whole other topic. But right now I’m just trying to set aside my own desire for empathy and just employ my own empathy for them. To do so, I’ve had to try to consider what the life of our typical male in western society is.
> 
> On this thread I’m not asking them to do the same. I’m just trying to get to a place where I can empathize with them.
> 
> I love men.


It's not just you who have more sympathy for women in the same circumstances as men.
It's almost everyone, male or female.
This is called the "Women are wonderful effect", and has been studied fairly extensively.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_are_wonderful_effect)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Just a sort of note about empathy in general...in nature we seem to see empathy only very sparingly, as there isn’t much need for it. We can see groups of animals organizing and collaborating, so we can maybe apply empathy there, as they seem to know they have the same purpose as each other and that is how they can cooperate.

But adult animals are autonomous, and don’t need or exhibit empathy. They exhibit affection and lust toward each other, and at times will defend a mate.

We can see empathy for the young, but also a great desire to eat the young by almost every other animal that exists. Including the parents.

So the young can only be protected for so long and then they have to make it on their own, or die. All animals immediately start seeking their own autonomy when they are able or they are out of here (disregarding pets).

It seems that in humans, we likely came from ancestors who had very little use for empathy except as above, and our brains started getting bigger and with that came new types of empathy.

Being that empathy on this level is a new thing in our species, not an old thing that we lost, I think we are seeing evolution still happening.

Also, I am not saying that all people deserve empathy, or that all people should have a lot of it to offer. I think we have lots of different presentations of levels of empathy in individuals. I don’t think mankind has chosen any specific line of what kind of empathy works best for all of us, and maybe it never will. At least we don’t seem to be going backwards into a world of such little empathy that we barely notice if something eats one of our babies.

There is a lot of study already that shows that as groups, we tend to refuse empathy to some other groups. Usually this is about war and tribal violence. 

But the groups “men” and “women” have a certain type of “battle” built up for them right now. In the 70’s, they literally called it “the battle of the sexes”. It feels like we inherited this. I mean, I always wanted to cuddle, not battle. I didn’t start this fire. But there is clearly a lack of empathy between the groups, and I have lacked empathy, too.

Obviously I joined the me/them opposite side war, too. I hated it over there, though!

The empathy topic is one that I feel much more educated about now. It’s the basis for my understanding a lot of other things, too. And I think I have new ways to ask questions and really understand now. Which I will try to sweep into a new thread with new topics.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I can understand this logically but since it doesn’t ring true for me in my own experience, I can’t really process it. I know it is true for others, though.
> 
> So what you are saying is that as a person who desires to submit to a dominant man, a woman cannot feel sexual toward him if he loses the role of dominant. Is that right?


That sounds right to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GettingIt_2 said:


> You remember correctly; I was definitely missing something in my understanding of how sex in a marriage is crucial to a man's emotional and mental health.
> 
> And yes, while I do think that claiming that women "va-clang" over any show of weakness is a rather dramatic assessment, the truth is that I believe that some, many (most?) women have a "primal" sexual response to men that is largely beyond their control. Yes, we can, should, and often do CHOOSE to still be sexual with and respond sexually to our male partners, even if it's not what our "lizard brain" is urging us to do.
> 
> But one of the things I've learned since coming to TAM is how to really examine my own psycho-sexual response to my husband and his various demeanors and behaviors. And I did this at his behest. And I was honest with him with the results. He knows very well what will heighten my desire and my response to him sexually, what will dampen it but not kill it, and what will out-and-out shut me so far down that tolerating sex with him would be an extreme act of will on my part.
> 
> And he doesn't always choose to act in ways that makes me feel the most sexual towards him--and he does this with awareness and without resentment or thinking poorly of me. (Because he knows about trust, and how not to betray it.) Sometimes he needs other things from me, and I'm happy to give him those things . . . he just won't get a NSA blowjob initiated by me on that day. But that's not the end of the world to him. There's always tomorrow!


I am glad for your descriptions, and originally, it was only because you described va-clang that I did understand it. Hearing men describe it, I always filtered through and was offended by something in their words. But your words I didn’t filter, which was my predjudice toward empathy for a woman over a man....however, eureka! It did ultimately help me see later that what almost all of the men had already been saying. So I could retro-apply what I had already heard to my new understanding based on your words. It really was a light bulb.

I do think there are a lot of women like you and sadly, a lot who aren’t self aware enough to work with their own natural desires. I’m glad you and your hubby have it down in such (mostly) harmony in the dynamics. 

Here’s where I may still struggle a bit, is in not being able to relate to it myself. So I’m understanding many women are like you and the way I understand it in you is because it is (in part at least) also your kink. Because I’m not in that area in my own kink, I can only intellectually understand it. Which is why some of the guys here are thinking that I’m speaking for men who are whining. It’s because I am still using words that are “femmy” and somewhat loaded with that old “battle” tone. I’m working on it, it helps a LOT for you to just describe it because then it makes sense to everyone and I’m not saying it weird. :laugh:


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes there does seem to be a bit of a ***** session bonding that women experience when talking about their man. And for whatever reason, I don’t typically hear women in groups discussing the things they love about their men.
> 
> I’m not sure why that is.
> 
> I know that for me, I’ve caught myself poking fun about something annoying my guy does to a friend at work, let’s say. And then I thought to myself “I wonder if she thinks I even like him, have I only just talked about his annoying habits to her?” And then when I thought about it, I felt uncomfortable about saying wonderful things about him to her. I felt something along the lines of “I don’t want to sound like he’s better than her husband or that I’m boasting”. I couldn’t really logic why I felt that way. It was weird. I still don’t understand it.


A possible explanation is that perhaps your discomfort was partly because of an unconscious (instinctual) concern that telling another woman how wonderful your guy is might get her interested in taking him away.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> A possible explanation is that perhaps your discomfort was partly because of an unconscious (instinctual) concern that telling another woman how wonderful your guy is might get her interested in taking him away.


I get why that’s a thing now. I don’t know if it’s a fact, but I get why it’s a thing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> It's not just you who have more sympathy for women in the same circumstances as men.
> It's almost everyone, male or female.
> This is called the "Women are wonderful effect", and has been studied fairly extensively.
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_are_wonderful_effect)


In other circles, it is called female privilege. Which includes the above, and also includes the privilege women and children have of being protected by men, and also certain courtesies such as holding doors and killing spiders. There is usually a dash (or a lot) of beauty privilege included in female privilege. 

The privileges are one of those difficult topics for different groups to discuss, and I’ll open a separate topic about it because I do want to discuss it if we can.

I just wanted to throw this out there, tech, because I’m not unaware of my white female privilege. It’s an uncomfortable topic for me also, because people will rush to tell me I am claiming I was “born rich” or something. But I’m actually just describing a system that rewards me for things I never actually earned. The family court system is favorable toward women because of female privilege. It’s uncomfortable to say that even though it is true.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you mean va-clang specifically is rooted in fear?
> 
> I don’t know, I mean, consider that many women at TAM have described desiring what might be considered “fake fear” as something that really turns them on. This may be in the form of being physically dominated and even literally tortured. We have some women saying that any kind of sex that is “sweet” or romantic is va-clang. Some have wanted literally only a sadistic vibe from her man, or she can’t get turned on by him.
> 
> So how does that relate to fear making her va-clang? She can’t bear to see her husband being vulnerable because deep inside it makes her fear for her safety and children (subconsciously), but at the same time she demands that he be sadistic to her and basically, pretend to be a soul-less sexual monster. And if you can’t do this convincingly enough, va-clang.
> 
> That part is weird to me and not understandable.
> 
> But I accept it is happening quite frequently. Not necessarily the sadistic sex part, but lots of that too.


There are two different fears at work in these two different situations:
1. Fear of his ability to hurt her (aggression and strength), which can be exciting to some women, especially if there is no actual danger (your "fake fear").
2. Fear of his *lack *of ability to hurt her (weakness), which is frightening because it means he can't protect her from other dangers.


----------



## FeministInPink

sokillme said:


> I much more confused why the husband wants to **** his wife right after the sibling's funeral.
> 
> What what what?!:surprise:


I just had to respond to this right away, before reading any subsequent posts, so someone else may have already addressed or mentioned this.

Some people, when dealing with a death in the family, are spending a lot of time thinking about mortality (frequently their own), in addition to their grief. In this environment, it's not unusual to turn to sex and want to have a lot of sex, for two reasons: 1) they want something that makes them feel alive to counteract all their thoughts about mortality, and sex makes a person feel very alive; and 2) the act of sex with all the physical contact can be very soothing, and the endorphins released by sex can help ease their grief to a certain extent.

I think this may apply to men more so than women, specifically because of the idea of virility and vitality associated with men's sexuality, and the whole idea that men need sex to feel loved. I think a wife showing love to her husband in this way in the wake of a loss would mean a lot to him, potentially more than encouraging him to talk about his feelings... and he might open up more after sex because he feels safe and loved.


----------



## Curse of Millhaven

Ok, this will probably be all over the place, but hopefully won’t be too far afield from what Faithful Wife’s OP was seeking. I have a lot of thoughts on this topic and would really like to get them out. 

First, I’d like to preface what will no doubt be a long-winded post (sorry!) with the disclaimer that I mean no offense to anyone and I love (and hate!) men and women pretty much equally. I apologize in advance if I offend; that’s not my intention. 

Also I’m not feeling great and am kinda foggy-brained and dopey from being sick so please forgive any intellectual dead-ends or general jackassery.

I read the OG empathy thread when it was in action and saw the accounts of the men who are not getting the emotional support and validation they should from their partners. It made me sad and kinda angry. And I have to say, I really, _really _dislike the term “va-clang” because I think it’s insensitive and trivializes something incredibly hurtful to men and diminishes it to a snappy little onomatopoeia. Not to mention that it reduces how a woman perceives and relates to her partner based solely on whether her vagina is slamming shut or opening wide. Sorry but I think it’s vacuous and insulting to both men and women.

If my partner was keeping score of emotional “transgressions” and calibrating how he responded to me in difficult or everyday life situations on whether or not I was making his **** hard, I would be imperially pissed, disgusted, and tell him to **** right the **** off! 

I mean….. if I’m crying cuz my dog died and he (verbally or non-verbally) conveys…”sorry, babe, but major boner killer!” 
Feeling stressed and depressed cuz work and life…”suck it up, buttercup, you’re bringing Richard and the Twins down!” 
Being vulnerable and sharing my innermost feelings and angst…”yikes, what a **** show! Keep it to yourself cuz my anaconda don’t want none unless you’re numb, hon!”

Pretty sure I’d think he was a medical miracle…somehow living without a heart. How can anyone, male or female, feel it’s okay to do this to someone they love and have an intimate relationship with? If your attraction for your partner is so precarious that you have to pigeonhole them into a one-dimensional emotional straitjacket lest your desire wane and you view your genitals as some kind of gold-plated relationship barometer, I think your issues go much deeper than a lack of empathy. 

Anyway! I don’t think I struggle to have empathy and compassion for men (would be open to exploring the possibility that I might be full of **** and deluding myself tho!) and I usually strive to see things from multiple angles/perspectives. I’ve always been super-sensitive and pretty much an emotional sponge (which is exhausting and not necessarily healthy, I know), so I’ve always just felt for others. Often to a painful degree. 

When I read/hear about or someone shares their traumas, pain, losses, fears, or sadness with me, I have an emotional, visceral, and often physical response. My eyes well up, my stomach clenches, and I swear I feel my heart constrict with their pain. 

This happens whether it’s a man, woman, or child (or animal!) Pain and suffering are not gender-specific and neither is the need for support and compassion. 

All the men I’ve ever been close to/loved (my dad, my husband, my BFF, other close male friends, etc.) have been emotionally open with me and even cried in front of me. It has never negatively impacted how I view them as men, human beings, or fathers/husbands/friends, etc., or how much I respect them. Truthfully, I feel honored that they trust me enough to be that vulnerable. Being that I don’t easily trust anyone myself, I take this for the high compliment that it is.

And I don’t believe women are inherently kinder, better, or more deserving of empathy and understanding than men. I have first-hand experience with how callous and cruel some women can be. I love her, but my mom is like next level vicious and vindictive when she wants to be - five feet of raw animal rage and malevolence. I can appreciate how tough she is and how her life shaped her to be that way but having been subjected to her savagery I’m not really one to believe that women are always right, just, caring, or benevolent. 

I was close to my dad and saw the terrible things she did to him too (and in fairness, that he did to her in response), and how she used my brother and I as pawns and for leverage, so I understand that men can be victims of abuse, feel they have few support options/resources, and may fear the repercussions of bad marriages. 

In my own marriage, my love, respect, and attraction for my husband aren’t tenuous or dependent on him being a paragon of some one-sided, impossibly skewed standard of stoic “strength”. He has a lot of issues expressing himself, which is complicated by his Asperger’s and the fact that he was taught that showing emotion was “weak” and “soft”. He learned to swallow his pain and to keep everything in.

He never really talked about his feelings with previous girlfriends and has told me that I was the first woman he could open up to because he knew I “wouldn’t judge him”. Even still he continues to struggle and bury his emotions; so when I see that he is hurting/sad/anxious but can’t articulate it, I will go to him, lay my head over his heart and silently hug him with everything I am. That’s usually how I can get him talking and one of the few times he’ll allow himself to show “soft” emotions outside of when one of our animals/someone we love passes. 

I’ve had emotionally bare moments like this with my BFF who is a man (and beautifully gay to the gayest power, in case any judgmental folks wanna cast aspersions on our relationship!) and my other male friends too. They get the same heartfelt empathy, love, compassion, and support that my girlfriends get from me. 

I’ve never agreed with the notion that showing emotion is “weak” and that men are “strong” if they are unfeeling or emotionally shuttered. It seems that a lot of men and women equate "feelings" with "weakness" and a man who has emotional needs is effete and a “whiner”. I find it interesting that these same people seem to tolerate “emotional neediness” in women but not men. To me this suggests they view women as intrinsically weaker than men which is not exactly complimentary. 

I can’t fathom the pressure men must feel having to live up to some unrealistic standard of strength and invulnerability lest you be viewed as weak, flawed, and undesirable. How exhausting and isolating that must be! We’re all human; we feel pain, sadness, fear, terror, doubt, anxiety, grief, as well as joy, pleasure, love, and all the other fun stuff. We all experience a wide range of emotions and to relegate/confine someone to only be able to express a stifling select few, I think, is cruel and controlling. I feel like both men and women treat men unfairly in this regard. And I think it’s dehumanizing and terrible.

On an individual level I think most can at least understand the need for empathy and compassion when someone they know is hurting or in pain. Where it gets difficult and distant for many is when it involves empathy for groups of people in general. It’s much easier to dilute feelings of empathy across a large nameless, faceless mass of people and when taken to extremes, allows people to divest others of their humanity and see them as a scapegoated “other”, which paves the way for hate and has led to some of the worst atrocities, past and present. 

We’ve all heard the last part of this great Nietzsche quote…”if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee." But it’s taken it out of context and many don’t know the first part...”He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster”. As often happens, what we fight against we can end up becoming. So if you’re a narrow-minded “feminist” and vilify men as rapists in waiting, aggressors, and as the enemy, then you have effectively become what you’re waging a war against and you’ve allowed hatred to take root and infect your perspective. Same for MRAs who are misogynists.

When this happens there can be no understanding, no empathy, no unity, no healing, and we all lose. 

And we tend to project our deepest fears, insecurities, motivations onto others to have an outside target to hang our **** on and attack because we can’t face it within ourselves. To me that is the real weak, flawed, and insecure person, not the one who is strong, mature, secure, and aware enough to recognize that we all experience a wide range of emotions, we're all more alike than dissimilar, and are all deserving of empathy, understanding, and support.

I don’t know. I'll stop now. Sorry this is so verbose and everywhere and nowhere all at once. I feel like my sick addlepated mind isn’t articulating what I wanted to say about all this. I’m tired now and don’t even know if what I wrote makes sense. I hope it does. 

I think this is a very important topic that isn’t often discussed and I thank Faithful Wife for creating this and her other threads in an effort to further her development of empathy for men. And I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to verbally vomit all of this out. I often feel like an outsider here and everywhere really (it's okay, stay gold, Ponyboy!!!), so I'm grateful for the chance to express myself on a topic that means a lot to me. Thanks.


----------



## red oak

Faithful Wife said:


> Just a sort of note about empathy in general...in nature we seem to see empathy only very sparingly, as there isn’t much need for it. We can see groups of animals organizing and collaborating, so we can maybe apply empathy there, as they seem to know they have the same purpose as each other and that is how they can cooperate.
> 
> But adult animals are autonomous, and don’t need or exhibit empathy. They exhibit affection and lust toward each other, and at times will defend a mate.


There is empathy in wild nature among many of the same species. As with this topic one has to be versed in the language of the species to know it.





Faithful Wife said:


> It seems that in humans, we likely came from ancestors who had very little use for empathy except as above, and our brains started getting bigger and with that came new types of empathy.
> 
> Being that empathy on this level is a new thing in our species, not an old thing that we lost, I think we are seeing evolution still happening..


The species most similar to us, chimps and bonobos, have scientifically shown to exhibit empathy. 
As they are much more primitive I think it exhibits how far we have fallen as humans.

As you have succinctly stated we have been pitted against one another making it hard to see each other as actual co-operatives instead of enemies. 
The simple phrase "war of the sexes' causes us to dehumanize each other.
Unless a psychopath, no one can go to war and kill others without dehumanizing first. Reminds me of the Christmas in the trenches during ww1. Both sides met in the middle, danced and sang. When superiors called an end neither side would fight the other. After speaking, and understanding they saw the other side as alike. They had to replace with fresh troop.

As men we are expected to be more machine than human. As several men have stated they can't show too much emotion without repercussions. The old suck it up buttercup.

As women have stated they dont feel as much sexual desire if their man shows weakness. 

Where in such does a man get to be human? 
Where is he supposed to share his hurts, frustrations, and receive understanding when he can't get it from the one individual he is supposed to be able to get it from?

Despite what we are told it hasn't always been this way. All men once had an outlet. Single men once had friends and married men's wives once upon a time would listen and comfort without rejecting.


----------



## red oak

People just don't know what once was.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/bosom-buddies-a-photo-history-of-male-affection/

Read old books. Gilgamesh and Enkidu walking hand in hand. The bible.

Now it's put off as if they were closet homosexuals or bisexual. 

I have empathy for both sides man and woman, as I understand what has been taken from both, and the depths of it. I'm an eclectic who seeks knowledge. 

I see the casualties on both sides. 
Mens soaring suicide rate, drug and alcohol use, video game addictions.

Women increasingly prevalent nerve pill use, anti-depressants, drug use, alcoholism etc.

It saddening when one understands it.


----------



## 269370

FeministInPink said:


> I just had to respond to this right away, before reading any subsequent posts, so someone else may have already addressed or mentioned this.
> 
> 
> 
> Some people, when dealing with a death in the family, are spending a lot of time thinking about mortality (frequently their own), in addition to their grief. In this environment, it's not unusual to turn to sex and want to have a lot of sex, for two reasons: 1) they want something that makes them feel alive to counteract all their thoughts about mortality, and sex makes a person feel very alive; and 2) the act of sex with all the physical contact can be very soothing, and the endorphins released by sex can help ease their grief to a certain extent.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this may apply to men more so than women, specifically because of the idea of virility and vitality associated with men's sexuality, and the whole idea that men need sex to feel loved. I think a wife showing love to her husband in this way in the wake of a loss would mean a lot to him, potentially more than encouraging him to talk about his feelings... and he might open up more after sex because he feels safe and loved.



Yes. You can never really go wrong with sex...Fear is potentially the only type of emotion that can suppress desire for sex from your partner. Still. After funereal of a loved one, it wouldn’t be on my mind.
(Btw I don’t think that’s what MEM meant when he was telling his story: that his wife should have had sex with him when he was grieving. Just that he felt she doesn’t always know how to deal with the emotional side of him. It would be interesting to hear how his wife perceived it too, because knowing this from myself, I can get quite self conscious during and immediately after having been emotional or exposing that side of me. Obviously my wife is different so I can’t assume anything about his wife).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

I remember the original empathy for men thread, and I remember most of what it contained, though I did go back and skim.

I will go ahead and say that I cannot have much respect for any woman who would lose attraction to their husband just because he needed their support during a difficult time period is it that part of what we vow to do when we marry someone? So in my mind, a woman who loses attraction for a man just because hes human lacks empathy in general, probably not just empathy for a man.

I am not a man, so I can only speculate, but if I had spent most of my marriage trying to be the strong one, and my moment of crisis was met with my wife's drop in desire for me, it would hurt, and then it would just really tick me off. Seriously? I have been your rock for years and now that I really need you, your response is to not desire me just because I have a moment of weakness?

I will qualify it with this, however. There is a difference between a man like my current husband having a time of grief or great stress at work or sickness, and my ex husband, who used his chronic condition to milk sympathy And was always in a crisis of some sort. There is a definite difference between a man who goes through a season that is difficult and a man who is just kind of a baby.

The reason I lost attraction for my ex husband, in addition to his sexlessness and inability to keep a job and other things, was because everything was a whining drama, and it was always someone else's fault. That was in about empathy, it was about just not being able to take anymore.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Faithful Wife said:


> I do think there are a lot of women like you and sadly, a lot who aren’t self aware enough to work with their own natural desires. I’m glad you and your hubby have it down in such (mostly) harmony in the dynamics.
> 
> Here’s where I may still struggle a bit, is in not being able to relate to it myself. So I’m understanding many women are like you and the way I understand it in you is because it is (in part at least) also your kink. Because I’m not in that area in my own kink, I can only intellectually understand it. Which is why some of the guys here are thinking that I’m speaking for men who are whining. It’s because I am still using words that are “femmy” and somewhat loaded with that old “battle” tone. I’m working on it, it helps a LOT for you to just describe it because then it makes sense to everyone and I’m not saying it weird. :laugh:


I think my "kink" has much to do with my reaction to certain behaviors in a man. When I talk about behaviors which "dampen" my sexual desire, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who is an extreme sexual submissive, and for whom extreme dominance in the bedroom triggers something . . . very primal in me. There is no other way for that extreme sexual response to be brought to the forefront. Do I NEED that feeling in order to want and enjoy sex? Absolutely not. But I am aware of it, and my husband and I do have the sort of bond where I am able to be very open with him about it. It is that response that is "dampened" by some situations that (even reasonably) call for me to show empathy to a man. But in no way would I want to live 27/7 with a man whose dominance was so "on" that I felt that extreme response all the time. Who lives their ideal sexual fantasy all the time in a long-term marriage? Nobody I know. It's not something I see as desirable, let alone possible, in a marriage like mine--kids, a household, outside relationships and responsibilities, etc. 

I have had plenty of sex with my husband when that primal response is nowhere near present--we both really have to be in the mood to bring it on, and the stars have to be somewhat aligned with circumstances in our life. But I am aware of it, and it's a different sort of sexual experience for me AND for my husband when it's not present. 



FeministInPink said:


> I just had to respond to this right away, before reading any subsequent posts, so someone else may have already addressed or mentioned this.
> 
> Some people, when dealing with a death in the family, are spending a lot of time thinking about mortality (frequently their own), in addition to their grief. In this environment, it's not unusual to turn to sex and want to have a lot of sex, for two reasons: 1) they want something that makes them feel alive to counteract all their thoughts about mortality, and sex makes a person feel very alive; and 2) the act of sex with all the physical contact can be very soothing, and the endorphins released by sex can help ease their grief to a certain extent.
> 
> I think this may apply to men more so than women, specifically because of the idea of virility and vitality associated with men's sexuality, and the whole idea that men need sex to feel loved. I think a wife showing love to her husband in this way in the wake of a loss would mean a lot to him, potentially more than encouraging him to talk about his feelings... and he might open up more after sex because he feels safe and loved.


I relate very much to what your wrote. My husband's father passed away a few years ago. I remember clearly being extremely sexually drawn to him by his behavior and his response during that time--and it's not because he was being stoic and not showing emotion, etc. We did a lot of talking during that time, and it was a very bonding experience--including sexually--for us. 



Curse of Millhaven said:


> I read the OG empathy thread when it was in action and saw the accounts of the men who are not getting the emotional support and validation they should from their partners. It made me sad and kinda angry. And I have to say, I really, _really _dislike the term “va-clang” because I think it’s insensitive and trivializes something incredibly hurtful to men and diminishes it to a snappy little onomatopoeia. Not to mention that it reduces how a woman perceives and relates to her partner based solely on whether her vagina is slamming shut or opening wide. Sorry but I think it’s vacuous and insulting to both men and women.


I think you are right: the term has been "weaponized" here, and I regret that. I actually first encountered the term on another marriage forum (Married Man Sex Life Primer) when it was used by a (male) poster to describe behavior that is so extremely unattractive, that it "causes your wife's vagina to clang shut." The "so unattractive" aspect seems to have been dropped, or at least gets skimmed over, and, at least here on TAM, it gets used to describe any behavior that might elicit a drop in the ideal sexual response of a women. Saying that I am "va-clanged" when I want or need to show empathy towards my husband is not accurate. My husband rarely va-clangs me, and I agree with you that using it to shame men for what is totally normal and acceptable HUMAN behavior is wrong and cruel. That being said, I have seen, over the years, male behavior described here on TAM that, if my husband acted that way, might put me into a state of permanent va-clang. But that might simply be an issue of my not being compatible with that sort of man, and not a blanket condemnation of their behavior or expressed feelings on a matter. "Va-clang," while crude, has also been, at times, a helpful "short hand" for describing things that can and do affect women's sexual response--something that many men are eager to understand in their own journey to "getting it" about the opposite sex. 

No man should put up with poor behavior and emotional/sexual rejection and manipulation from his wife. Too many do.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

personofinterest said:


> I remember the original empathy for men thread, and I remember most of what it contained, though I did go back and skim.
> 
> I will go ahead and say that I cannot have much respect for any woman who would lose attraction to their husband just because he needed their support during a difficult time period is it that part of what we vow to do when we marry someone? So in my mind, a woman who loses attraction for a man just because hes human lacks empathy in general, probably not just empathy for a man.
> 
> I am not a man, so I can only speculate, but if I had spent most of my marriage trying to be the strong one, and my moment of crisis was met with my wife's drop in desire for me, it would hurt, and then it would just really tick me off. Seriously? I have been your rock for years and now that I really need you, your response is to not desire me just because I have a moment of weakness?
> 
> I will qualify it with this, however. There is a difference between a man like my current husband having a time of grief or great stress at work or sickness, and my ex husband, who used his chronic condition to milk sympathy And was always in a crisis of some sort. There is a definite difference between a man who goes through a season that is difficult and a man who is just kind of a baby.
> 
> The reason I lost attraction for my ex husband, in addition to his sexlessness and inability to keep a job and other things, was because everything was a whining drama, and it was always someone else's fault. That was in about empathy, it was about just not being able to take anymore.


Yay! POI is back! Hope ypur break was good!

I'll clarify something. Its not that my wife wasn't there for me, or the drop in sexual attraction was permanent. She's always been there for me. Perhaps it has something more to do with how some women are wired when it comes to their own sexuality. For example, a lot of them will decline a sexual pass when they are upset about something. There's plenty of jokes out there that men tell about saying no to their wives because we are sad. Which is the absurdity of the joke because most men compartmentalize by nature, and we can forget those feelings for a moment and have sex just fine. 

The best I've ever had it explained is Mark Gungor talking about the difference in men's and women's brains. Which is mostly a bit of comedy but also sort of true. I tend to the men just naturally compartmentalize and women tend to connect everything in life. There's advantages and disadvantages for both. Perhaps these women believe themselves as acting empathetic because they couldn't imagine wanting anything to do with sex when they are emotionally not in a good place at the moment. 

If my wife is upset, I'll hug and hold her and be physical but not sexual because she might feel offended I would make a move when she is really down. So maybe they feel that way. 

I'll tell you ladies, most men are very different. Wanna make me feel better when I'm down? There's a very simple solution indeed. As Mark would say, I'll close any other box, neatly pack it away, and open up the sexy time box and have a great time and feel better.


----------



## EllisRedding

farsidejunky said:


> This is the reason for the huge push-back...not whining, not victim ideology, but the repercussions of allowing the burden of proof to be altered. *Because while many people have daughters, many of us also have sons*, and I do not want a world where my son is forced to prove a negative.


I think this here is important to highlight, in particular the bolded. I always wonder, these people who are so quick to throw a guy under the bus, guilty until proven innocent, would they act the same way if it was their son being accused? As well, if you look at the current work environment. I am sure there are women who would have zero empathy over this, but the reality is as a male in the workplace, i think the safest bet is to take precautions when interacting with females. Yes, I understand this may sound ridiculous and I am not talking about avoiding anyone, just keep it strictly professional. A comment taken the wrong way, etc... for better or worse an accusation against a male can be extremely damaging. As someone who likes to keep things light and joke around, I do adjust depending on who I am talking to at work. Just not worth the risk, no matter how low. I know first hand of one female who apparently was keeping records of playful banter she was having with a male co worker, and when she was fired for work performance issues, decided to bring all this out to get herself a much better severance package... It is worth adding, there are men who are to blame for creating hostile/uncomfortable work environments, so I am happy to see change being made. I just feel that things have just pushed too far in the other direction. 



Buddy400 said:


> It's as if, since we're more aggressive by nature, larger, and have a sex drive, we're all rapists in waiting.


This type of thinking is seemingly more prevalent now. Or maybe it isn't, just that those who believe in this absolutely asinine idea are more vocal, IDK. A perfect example is that case at the University of Missouri where a male was accused of violating Title IX because he asked out a female who declined his advances. One of the apparent reasons, due to his physical size he had power/authority over.



Buddy400 said:


> *I think the problem is that, since we may not always be in favor of their preferred policy for promoting a safer society (and for women and sexual assault particularly), we're seen as not supporting that goal.
> *
> We have the same good goals (of course, I don't know why so few refuse to assume good intentions).
> 
> We just differ as to what options would lead to the best results.


Just seems to be the common thinking these days. If you aren't in exact agreement over an issue (or how to resolve), then you must be against such issue.



Buddy400 said:


> I also don't support trying to get men (in general) to change their nature (either to make men or women happier). Primarily because I don't believe it can be done. Whatever change will happen will be organic via DNA and culture over a great deal of time.


That is where we are at a crossroads. There is this push to redefine gender roles. I think trying to push people to be something they are not, something that is against their inherent nature, is just going to lead to a lot more unhappiness.

I actually just came across the below MEME. I think there is some reality to this, even if it is meant to be taken as humor.


----------



## personofinterest

> If my wife is upset, I'll hug and hold her and be physical but not sexual because she might feel offended I would make a move when she is really down. So maybe they feel that way.
> 
> I'll tell you ladies, most men are very different. Wanna make me feel better when I'm down? There's a very simple solution indeed. As Mark would say, I'll close any other box, neatly pack it away, and open up the sexy time box and have a great time and feel better.


This is very interesting, and something I have never thought about. As a woman, I can understand why another woman might not appreciate a sex invitation in the midst of emotional crisis. However, as ME, I have to say that sexual attention that was tender and very much in the "making love" realm would be PERFECT to soothe my hurting heart. We are all indeed different, I guess.

I wonder if, since man women wouldn't want a round in the sheets when they are hurting, they just assume men wouldn't either. I have yet to find a mood or emotional state in which my hubby wouldn't still like sex. However, my ex would use any and every variation in mood or feeling or energy level to make it clear sex was off the table.

I'm wondering if emotional stress might just amplify how women or men tend to be anyway? In other words, a woman like me will still want to jump her man's bones even when he has unloaded about how stressed he is at work and worried about it he is. While a woman with a less active sex switch in general might think of hubby's down times as another chance NOT to be sexual? That of course wouldn't apply to all women, but I bet it applies to some.

You also said that the libido drop isn't permanent. That I can see. When my husband, for example, was sharing some painful things with me about a past event, he got teary. I held his hand and rubbed his back, and my focal emotional was support, hurting WITH him, wanting to encourage him, etc. Sex wasn't in the forefront, and I didn't see that moment as sexual at all. However, I wasn't less attracted to him; I was just focused on his emotions at the time. It might have taken me a few minutes to downshift back into sexy mode, but it wouldn't have been about attraction. It would have been about shifting gears, if that makes sense.

So now that makes me wonder, are these men pouring out their hurt then immediately going for the grab lol? Because it may take some women a little bit to shift from "comforter" to "concubine" lol


----------



## 269370

GettingIt_2 said:


> I think my "kink" has much to do with my reaction to certain behaviors in a man. When I talk about behaviors which "dampen" my sexual desire, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who is an extreme sexual submissive, and for whom extreme dominance in the bedroom triggers something . . . very primal in me. There is no other way for that extreme sexual response to be brought to the forefront. Do I NEED that feeling in order to want and enjoy sex? Absolutely not. But I am aware of it, and my husband and I do have the sort of bond where I am able to be very open with him about it. It is that response that is "dampened" by some situations that (even reasonably) call for me to show empathy to a man. But in no way would I want to live 27/7 with a man whose dominance was so "on" that I felt that extreme response all the time. Who lives their ideal sexual fantasy all the time in a long-term marriage? Nobody I know. It's not something I see as desirable, let alone possible, in a marriage like mine--kids, a household, outside relationships and responsibilities, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I have had plenty of sex with my husband when that primal response is nowhere near present--we both really have to be in the mood to bring it on, and the stars have to be somewhat aligned with circumstances in our life. But I am aware of it, and it's a different sort of sexual experience for me AND for my husband when it's not present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I relate very much to what your wrote. My husband's father passed away a few years ago. I remember clearly being extremely sexually drawn to him by his behavior and his response during that time--and it's not because he was being stoic and not showing emotion, etc. We did a lot of talking during that time, and it was a very bonding experience--including sexually--for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are right: the term has been "weaponized" here, and I regret that. I actually first encountered the term on another marriage forum (Married Man Sex Life Primer) when it was used by a (male) poster to describe behavior that is so extremely unattractive, that it "causes your wife's vagina to clang shut." The "so unattractive" aspect seems to have been dropped, or at least gets skimmed over, and, at least here on TAM, it gets used to describe any behavior that might elicit a drop in the ideal sexual response of a women. Saying that I am "va-clanged" when I want or need to show empathy towards my husband is not accurate. My husband rarely va-clangs me, and I agree with you that using it to shame men for what is totally normal and acceptable HUMMAN behavior is wrong and cruel. That being said, I have seen, over the years, male behavior described here on TAM that, if my husband acted that way, might put me into a state of permanent va-clang. But that might simply be an issue of my not being compatible with that sort of man, and not a blanket condemnation of their behavior or expressed feelings on a matter. "Va-clang," while crude, has also been, at times, a helpful "short hand" for describing things that can and do affect women's sexual response--something that many men are eager to understand in their own journey to "getting it" about the opposite sex.
> 
> 
> 
> No man should put up with poor behavior and emotional/sexual rejection and manipulation from his wife. Too many do.




You and @Keke24 have helped me A LOT to navigate the ‘dark sides’ of the ‘extreme submissives’. For which I’m eternally grateful.

Having understood the psychological aspects of sexual dominance after our exchanges, I had a real A-HA moment. After which, it was like completely new levels of her sexuality have revealed themselves to me I didn’t know about (and neither did she).

Though I did some of the things instinctively that I knew she liked (through trial and error mainly, as she would never talk about it) but couldn’t really figure out why and for a long time felt that she must either have some kind of a psychological complex/hang up or ‘disorder’. I hated myself for giving her that kind of ‘treatment’ in bed, because it went all completely against my mental ideals of what love making should be about (don’t remember any of the princes holding the princesses by their hair while spitting in their faces/causing them pain or choking etc, after rescuing them - these tales seem very unrealistic now... Instead, i was beginning to have nightmares as I began to resemble ‘Bluebeard’ to myself, doing despicable things in his dungeon...). 

In any case that’s just the sexual aspect. And I don’t even think she is an ‘extreme’ submissive: she just has that element and it’s up to me how far I will take it with her. It’s not that she can’t enjoy it any other way (quite the opposite). We even switched a few times which she seemed to have had lots of fun with. And actually a lot of the times, we just ‘make love’. It’s a bit like keeping a fire place going: just keep adding the right ‘fuel’ and the fire will keep burning. But to trust and properly be comfortable to submit seems to produce something quite extraordinary from time to time. 

Anyway, I’m sure it sounds all too familiar to you but I just wanted to add that after more reading, I realised that this seems so common that it’s not at all clear what is an ‘aberration’ and what is ‘normal’. And men seem to know very little about how to deal or come to terms with it. Although some do and of course the ‘ugly’ side of it sometimes does come out: for example when men talk about women in derogatory ways when it’s not appropriate Then what happens is that it offends both women who can’t relate to it and women who can (because they may feel ashamed when it is pointed out to them in such manner). In view of this, I would say if anything, the misunderstandings perhaps exist more between women who naturally need to be ‘dominant’ in relationships and women who enjoy to submit, rather than men and women. (Many men just literally have no clue either way - of which I was one  - and just keep trying to find ways to wiggle themselves into the their wives’ vajayjays through trial and error. Or they give up).

Which leads back to feminism and various relationship power dynamics. There are women who will always fight or rebel (either intellectually or they actually cannot relate to it on the whole) against the idea that some women are actually perfectly comfortable assuming a certain role within a relationship or within society: not every woman wants to be a CEO; not every woman wants to be responsible for managing and be responsible for her husband’s emotions or endure the stresses that the husband is (more) comfortable enduring. It doesn’t mean it is the product of ‘evil society’, it’s how society evolved naturally. They may not understand that what they are rebelling against, may not be in many women’s interests (and why such big divide is beginning to emerge between various groups of women and why so many women feel they want to distance themselves from modern day feminism). Whatever differences exist and are inherent within the sexes, it doesn’t make one or the other superior or more valuable: denying or rebelling against it just seems counterproductive and self-sabotaging.

It is true I subconsciously felt uncomfortable or perhaps even threatened by women who do rebel a lot (especially when I don’t really understand what it is they are rebelling against). I just completely lack the tools to deal with that and compartmentalise it in my mind as ‘too high maintenance’. 

Perhaps subconsciously I need someone who I can rely on to play on ‘my’ team. I always envisaged my life to be a certain way and worked and fought VERY hard to get to where I am without any external ‘privileges’ that many are born into. My nature is perhaps screaming inside of me that the risks to be with someone who could sabotage all my goals* due to their ‘rebellious’ nature is perhaps too great. It doesn’t mean I need to be with a ‘push over’. Just someone with whom I can be sure that we can share certain goals and aspirations. Or rather: that our individual goals won’t interfere too much with each other, as to cancel each other out.

Society thrives best by people being symbiotically beneficial to one another. Empathy is a direct result of this mutual understanding.

*the goals are also quite simple and just because I view them as MY goals doesn’t mean they are selfish: in fact they are designed to benefit the ones that are closest to me mostly, on balance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

GettingIt_2 said:


> And he doesn't always choose to act in ways that makes me feel the most sexual towards him--and he does this with awareness and without resentment or thinking poorly of me.


That's the key.

He doesn't just do "whatever you require"; he makes informed choices.


----------



## Faithful Wife

@EllisRedding I think part of the shift I’ve made has come from the understanding that men do not view women as an inherently innocent group. They know we need their protection, but that is because we are (generally) more vulnerable, not because we are necessarily deserving of it as individuals. 

The meme demonstrates this very well. Why aren’t women called big whiny babies when they are emotive? Why aren’t they shamed for it, as in @uhtred example about a female colleague crying in his office, while he knows no man doing this would ever be tolerated. And the point isn’t that men should or want to break down crying all the time. The point is, are women actually experiencing more pain just because they may be more emotive about it? Is being emotive the only way any person can receive empathy? Because if it is, and we already know that a man is trained by the entire world on a daily basis to never emote, while women are encouraged to, then haven’t we set up the entire system to have empathy for women but not men?

And so the lack of empathy men have for women makes sense. Because the message seems to be “poor her, now protect her with your life, but poor you? You better hide and protect yourself, and don’t let one damn person know you slipped up like this.” So, seeing the incredible unfairness of this, it’s logical for men to become more and more indifferent towards women and especially women’s issues.

Add to this when a husband also knows his wife basically feels the same as society, and although he long ago had to accept this is just how things are, he still doesn’t like it and will automatically be rebellious against the notion that women need even MORE empathy, including his wife.

And when I step back even further, I can see how entitled this makes women look. And yes, we are constantly whiny, so we are also annoying.

I don’t want to comment specifically on the false allegations and the higher bar to prove innocence men face, because I don’t think I can get my mind around all of that at once, but of course it all makes so much more sense now. 

I do think if we could have a different conversation about those issues, there could be a lot more common ground and progress made. I think the main part of the problem is that women are also rapists, abusers, violent, aggressive, and dangerously insane. But women are not viewed or treated as if they are these things. If we could truly be fair in the legal and justice system and if women’s criminal doings were shown clearly and acknowledged by all of us, then we could all work to protect victims from perps, not just protect women from men. I think men would be more ready to help women go up against bad men, if women were more ready to help men go up against bad women. We have power as women, and they know we do. They know in some ways, they have no power against us at all, and that we will band together against any man (speaking generally but this happens in many circumstances).

Yes, bad men do horrific things. But so do bad women and society doesn’t seem to fear what the bad women do. Women are not labeled as potential criminals. And even though statistically men do commit more crimes, acts of aggression, etc, we can assume that all crimes are under reported and that crimes BY women are more likely to be under reported or dismissed.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> I will qualify it with this, however. There is a difference between a man like my current husband having a time of grief or great stress at work or sickness, and my ex husband, who used his chronic condition to milk sympathy And was always in a crisis of some sort. There is a definite difference between a man who goes through a season that is difficult and a man who is just kind of a baby.


Well said


----------



## Buddy400

Curse of Millhaven said:


> Pretty sure I’d think he was a medical miracle…somehow living without a heart. How can anyone, male or female, feel it’s okay to do this to someone they love and have an intimate relationship with? If your attraction for your partner is so precarious that you have to pigeonhole them into a one-dimensional emotional straitjacket lest your desire wane and you view your genitals as some kind of gold-plated relationship barometer, I think your issues go much deeper than a lack of empathy.





personofinterest said:


> I will go ahead and say that I cannot have much respect for any woman who would lose attraction to their husband just because he needed their support during a difficult time period is it that part of what we vow to do when we marry someone? So in my mind, a woman who loses attraction for a man just because hes human lacks empathy in general, probably not just empathy for a man.


To be clear, I don't think that any but the most jaded men feel that women do this consciously. Who would knowingly be like that?

For those who react this way, it's beyond conscious control.

And, it sure sounds bad so, for a woman to acknowledge this to herself or others in any way would take an enormous amount of self awareness.

Which is why @GettingIt_2 is such a wonder.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I don’t think what we are reading here is news to a lot of men. Seems a lot of men have come in to report the same.


I think it's an unusual *admission*.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> To be clear, I don't think that any but the most jaded men feel that women do this consciously. Who would knowingly be like that?
> 
> For those who react this way, it's beyond conscious control.
> 
> And, it sure sounds bad so, for a woman to acknowledge this to herself or others in any way would take an enormous amount of self awareness.
> 
> Which is why @GettingIt_2 is such a wonder.


Yes, I love her for it. Jld described it for us too, but she was less able to make herself clear sometimes because she had a unique viewpoint. But I know Jld and GI are not unique in this way we are discussing.

Also, I do think it is somewhat the same as what we refer to as a boner killer. When a man says this and he means it literally, it is a visceral reaction that is not under his control. Up or down, the boner does it’s thing mostly in response to other things in the mans environment. He isn’t controlling this consciously (but he does learn to either stoke the flame or extinguish it, as decorum dictates).

What GI is describing sounds the same. And I do think a man could be totally boner dead yet still have empathy for his wife or someone else and act accordingly.

Though, men probably don’t go limp over quite as many things in their environment, and men are far more in touch with their sexual responses (they can’t ignore an erection). 

Just bantering with you....assuming you agree, but correct me where I’m off. I’m not necessarily speaking from experience, just sexual understanding.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Anyway, I’m sure it sounds all too familiar to you but I just wanted to add that after more reading, I* realised that this seems so common that it’s not at all clear what is an ‘aberration’ and what is ‘normal’.* And men seem to know very little about how to deal or come to terms with it. Although some do and of course the ‘ugly’ side of it sometimes does come out: for example when men talk about women in derogatory ways when it’s not appropriate Then what happens is that it offends both women who can’t relate to it *and women who can (because they may feel ashamed when it is pointed out to them in such manner)*. In view of this, I would say if anything, the misunderstandings perhaps exist more between women who naturally need to be ‘dominant’ in relationships and women who enjoy to submit, rather than men and women. (*Many men just literally have no clue either way* - of which I was one  - and just keep trying to find ways to wiggle themselves into the their wives’ vajayjays through trial and error. Or they give up).


Well said. Especially the *bolded*.



inmyprime said:


> Which leads back to feminism and various relationship power dynamics. There are women who will always fight or rebel (either intellectually or they actually cannot relate to it on the whole) against the idea that some women are actually perfectly comfortable assuming a certain role within a relationship or within society: not every woman wants to be a CEO; not every woman wants to be responsible for managing and be responsible for her husband’s emotions or endure the stresses that the husband is (more) comfortable enduring. It doesn’t mean it is the product of ‘evil society’, it’s how society evolved naturally. They may not understand that what they are rebelling against, may not be in many women’s interests (and why such big divide is beginning to emerge between various groups of women and why so many women feel they want to distance themselves from modern day feminism). Whatever differences exist and are inherent within the sexes, it doesn’t make one or the other superior or more valuable: denying or rebelling against it just seems counterproductive and self-sabotaging.


I strongly agree will this. 

However, I hope it doesn't spark a "what is feminism?" or "feminism, good or bad" thread jack.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I love her for it. Jld described it for us too, but she was less able to make herself clear sometimes because she had a unique viewpoint. But I know Jld and GI are not unique in this way we are discussing.
> 
> Also, I do think it is somewhat the same as what we refer to as a boner killer. When a man says this and he means it literally, it is a visceral reaction that is not under his control. Up or down, the boner does it’s thing mostly in response to other things in the mans environment. He isn’t controlling this consciously (but he does learn to either stoke the flame or extinguish it, as decorum dictates).
> 
> What GI is describing sounds the same. And I do think a man could be totally boner dead yet still have empathy for his wife or someone else and act accordingly.
> 
> Though, men probably don’t go limp over quite as many things in their environment, and men are far more in touch with their sexual responses (they can’t ignore an erection).
> 
> Just bantering with you....assuming you agree, but correct me where I’m off. I’m not necessarily speaking from experience, just sexual understanding.


No corrections needed.

Totally agree with the above.


----------



## Holdingontoit

Many of you have read my advise to my DD: don't go to a party and drink and leave the party alone with a guy unless you intend to have sex with him. Because once you are alone with a guy after you both have been drinking, whether or not sex occurs is no longer solely up to you / under your control. Not that you shouldn't be able to go to a party and drink and go upstairs to listen to music and not get raped - in a perfect world you could do all that and never fear mistreatment. But we live in the real world, and in the real world if you are alone with a guy after you both have been drinking, then there is a non-trivial risk of a horrible outcome.

I have been accused of "victim shaming" when I say that. I am accused of placing blame on the victim. I agree that rape is 100% the "fault" of the perpetrator. Which I am told precludes placing any responsibility on the victim. I disagree. I think there can be more than 100% fault in the situation.

It is like a spouse choosing to cheat when their spouse repeatedly rejects them. The choice to cheat is 100% within the control of the cheater. And they are 100% responsible for their choice to cheat. But the betrayed spouse is also responsible for their choices and behaviors. If you repeatedly reject your spouse sexually, you shouldn't be shocked if they cheat. Doesn't make the cheating right. Doesn't mean the cheater isn't 100% responsible for their choice to cheat. But ongoing sexual rejection isn't entirely irrelevant, either.

So I think part of what bothers men is the idea that men if are 100% responsible for certain poor behaviors, then women have no responsibility at all to show empathy to men. Some men instinctively reject the idea that there is only 100% of responsibility to go around. Or the corollary that if men have to take 100% then there isn't any left to assign to women. I think this is an area where there are more than 100 percentage points to go around.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Buddy400 said:


> To be clear, I don't think that any but the most jaded men feel that women do this consciously. Who would knowingly be like that?
> 
> For those who react this way, it's beyond conscious control.
> 
> And, it sure sounds bad so, for a woman to acknowledge this to herself or others in any way would take an enormous amount of self awareness.
> 
> Which is why @GettingIt_2 is such a wonder.


Well thank you . . . but is it really that unusual to be tuned in to one's own sexuality and how it works? While the sexual response isn't something I can control, it's not like I make a running broadcast of the state of my sexual response to him. When it's a bit dampened, I'm guessing he doesn't even know. If I'm really turned off by something he's done to the point where he'd notice it, then it's likely I'm going to talk to him about it before it becomes an issue in our sex life. He can choose to change his behavior or not; I don't withhold sex because he's not behaving how I want him to or think he should. Am I on my knees begging for his ****? Maybe not; but I'm not being cold or refusing to respond if he reaches for me or tells me he's going to **** me, either. I don't ever tell him "no" if he wants sex; and I don't give him the "star fish" treatment--I absolutely summon all I've got to give each and every time. But quite honestly, what I've got to give is, at least in part, dependent on him. 



Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I love her for it. Jld described it for us too, but she was less able to make herself clear sometimes because she had a unique viewpoint. But I know Jld and GI are not unique in this way we are discussing.
> 
> Also, I do think it is somewhat the same as what we refer to as a boner killer. When a man says this and he means it literally, it is a visceral reaction that is not under his control. Up or down, the boner does it’s thing mostly in response to other things in the mans environment. He isn’t controlling this consciously (but he does learn to either stoke the flame or extinguish it, as decorum dictates).
> 
> What GI is describing sounds the same. And I do think a man could be totally boner dead yet still have empathy for his wife or someone else and act accordingly.
> 
> Though, men probably don’t go limp over quite as many things in their environment, and men are far more in touch with their sexual responses (they can’t ignore an erection).


I think you're on to something here with the comparison with "bone killer" (although the term seems as negative and crude to me as "va-clang" must sound to men.) A lowered or dampened sexual response doesn't preclude being able to and WANTING to show empathy. My husband has made it clear to me what sort of behavior lowers his sexual desire for me, and what heightens it. I do my best to always be attractive for him, but I'm human, too. And I really and truly believe he always does his best, too. Neither of us feels threatened by the way the other's sexual desire and response works, but we have gone to great lengths to understand it. It's made things a lot better in our marriage to be able to understand the ups and downs that our sex life has undergone in the past 30 years.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GettingIt_2 said:


> Well thank you . . . but is it really that unusual to be tuned in to one's own sexuality and how it works?


I'm not sure, but the case made by so many RP/PUA guys is that yes, many women (most?) are not sexually aware of their own arousal levels. Or at least, what they report that they "want" is not what actually "works". So she says she wants him to express himself, but if he does and it sounds in any way like he's laying some kind of burden on her, she may have a sudden feeling of loss of attraction/va-clang. He can see this happen and feel it happen, but she may deny it has happened. I think that is the point at which most women don't seem to say the same words you do, in those moments, to their husbands. Or at least many TAM men have reported that their wives do not use your words.

Now....does she actually know but she refuses to say it because she knows it may sound hurtful to him? Not sure. We don't seem to have very many women like you who can and will express this sentiment, so that's where it is fuzzy. Is it that she knows and won't say, or doesn't know herself sexually and says something opposite of what he experiences?


----------



## 269370

There are only a few things that can produce a ‘boner killer’ in me. Actually mainly just the one thing: it’s a certain tone of voice that remotely resembles nagging. It’s completely not about what she is saying, it’s literally just the tone (my ears switch off after two seconds and only hear that tone). 
It probably sounds condescending (and she never really nags) but that tone of trying to pick a fight...it does send me into a bit of an (internal) rage. 

I know she sometimes does it deliberately to make me more sexually aggressive (like a verbal slap across the face, so that I can take her harder). But sometimes it’s to do with her own **** (just to let some steam off and I get caught in the crossfire).

I remember once or twice, I told her something I was going to do to her sexually (a bit more elaborate than usual) and she became defensive and adopted that tone...I immediately backed off (due to major boner killer of a tone and also I thought maybe she is right, it’s taking it a bit too far and I respected it). When she noticed I was backing off, she become properly furious with me: 
That my job was to not only insist more forcefully but take it FROM her. Anything less would have been deemed as unacceptable. I realised that it’s a game and part of the foreplay (i never would have guessed otherwise) rather than any kind of nagging. Resistance was all part of it that i totally missed. Yet resistance feels too close to rejection (same thing really). And I wasn’t going to be stupid and be told twice..Although get it wrong and try to explain yourself to the police would have been pretty interesting...
But point is, I can now understand why constant rejection can lead to a permanent ‘boner killer’ for some men (and it does, I think).

It comes across like she is totally nuts. She is actually generally very sweet, balanced and down to earth. With this crazy wild side sometimes which confuses the hell out of me but I’m much closer at understanding it better than i was before. But it sometimes still happens that while my **** is abiding, my brain is still telling me: “****, this MUST be illegal in many places.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

The head sometimes says one thing while the body, something else. (You see this a lot with some gay people who cannot get themselves to come out of the closet because they imagine something entirely different in their minds what they think they should be feeling...if that makes sense). The discord/struggle between body and mind is a well known phenomena and women are by far not the only ones who are ‘privy ’ to this. I experienced it many times too (not so much with sexual stuff though).

While sometimes I think they know exactly what they feel and want, but won’t say. It’s impossible to know which one is which. The only chance is to work to improve communications and to trust. I learnt that one of the major mood killers for (some) women is to actually explain/articulate themselves what it is they need (sexually). I don’t know whether it is due to embarrassment or something else. Then again, others won’t be able to relate to it.
Heck, the mind is sometimes even in disagreement with itself (there are experiments that seem to prove that there are several personalities in all of us, and not just schizophrenic people).

Discovering it could be part of the fun though, depending on your perspective. 

Having said that, I always felt words were a bit overrated and very poor communicator especially when it comes to feelings or emotions. It has been a very short time since we are able to speak/communicate that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

GettingIt_2 said:


> Well thank you . . . but is it really that unusual to be tuned in to one's own sexuality and how it works?


I think it often is for women, much more so than for men.

When one hears about how a husband helping more around the house will make the husband more attractive to the wife.... I think most women really believe it.

Of course, they'll be happier if he helps more around the house (and he should), but it rarely results in increased sexual attraction.

There's the experiment where men and women were each wired up to physically measure their arousal while watching videos of a sexual nature. They were also be asked if they were aroused. For men, the two sets of data matched up. For women, not so much. 

I truly believe that many women have no idea as to what arouses them (or they have a feeling what it is but aren't happy about it). Which also explains why they can't tell their husbands what arouses them. they don't know.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> There's the experiment where men and women were each wired up to physically measure their arousal while watching videos of a sexual nature. They were also be asked if they were aroused. For men, the two sets of data matched up. For women, not so much.



Ah, but what would be a MUCH more interesting experiment is to first ask the woman whether she was aroused by the image after showing it to her and then ask again after she learns whether that image was arousing for her husband.

Because (some) women’s sexual drive is like an echo of the man’s, in some cases (I know some women won’t like this, because of the whole ‘own agency’ stuff which doesn’t actually nullify it if you take it further), the phenomena can partly be explained that way: she doesn’t know if she will like it because she doesn’t know how the man will react to it. She may know and be able to make up her mind with hindsight though, after she has been able to process the sum of her own experience plus that of husband’s.

Though that’s a dangerous thing to base first dates on...
Plus I’m talking mainly about my wife (at the risk of being accused of mansplaining this very complex issue...) and women similar to her.

Women’s sex drive is more complicated and fascinating than quantum mechanics.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

inmyprime said:


> Ah, but what would be a MUCH more interesting experiment is to first ask the woman whether she was aroused by the image after showing it to her and then ask again after she learns whether that image was arousing for her husband.
> 
> Because (some) women’s sexual drive is like an echo of the man’s, in some cases (I know some women won’t like this, because of the whole ‘own agency’ stuff which doesn’t actually nullify it if you take it further), the phenomena can partly be explained that way: she doesn’t know if she will like it because she doesn’t know how the man will react to it. She may know and be able to make up her mind with hindsight though, after she has been able to process the sum of her own experience plus that of husband’s.
> 
> Though that’s a dangerous thing to base first dates on...
> Plus I’m talking mainly about my wife (at the risk of being accused of mansplaining this very complex issue...) and women similar to her.
> 
> Women’s sex drive is more complicated and fascinating than quantum mechanics.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


While that experiment may be intended from a gene whiz or scientific/academic point of view, it doesn't seem on point here. Whether or not her actual arousal in part predicated by her husband's arousal is really irrelevant as to the discrepancy between her stated sources of arousal and her actual state of arousal. That disconnect (if an where it exists) is clearly at the heart of some sexual miscommunication. This holds back the woman as well as the man in maximizing their sexual potential.


----------



## Buddy400

@inmyprime
@Rocky Mountain Yeti

I must have messed up the description of the experiment.

Women were shown videos of a sexual nature while wired up to measure arousal. At the same time, they were asked if the video aroused them. The data reported by the physical measurement differed (often wildly) from their verbal responses.

When the experiment involved men, what was measured and what was said were largely in agreement.


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> While that experiment may be intended from a gene whiz or scientific/academic point of view, it doesn't seem on point here. Whether or not her actual arousal in part predicated by her husband's arousal is really irrelevant as to the discrepancy between her stated sources of arousal and her actual state of arousal. That disconnect (if an where it exists) is clearly at the heart of some sexual miscommunication. This holds back the woman as well as the man in maximizing their sexual potential.



Well yes, because I wouldn’t have thought that this insight is particularly surprising and needs measuring or proving...

I’m nevertheless interested: how exactly was woman’s arousal measured? 
(Does anyone have a link to the experiment?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

On the topic of disconnects, an anecdote from my admittedly narrow experience.

My wife once told me she had watched a porn with her peer group prior to meeting me (Blazing Zippers it was called)

I asked her if she got aroused and she honestly answered that she did.

.... but....

The fact that she had disgusted her. Nothing I could say about that being a natural response could assuage her concern. I made it clear I wasn't looking to bring porn into our marriage, only that we need not chastise ourselves for being human. I hoped go get her to realize that throwing off the shackles of sexual repression is not only a good, but a necessary thing. That understanding sex as a far wider world than procreation oriented intercourse could be wonderful for both of us.

It's been tough sledding and we've still got a way to go.

Hard for me to expect her to have empathy for me when she didn't even have empathy for herself.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

inmyprime said:


> Well yes, because I wouldn’t have thought that this insight is particularly surprising and needs measuring or proving...
> 
> I’m nevertheless interested: how exactly was woman’s arousal measured?
> (Does anyone have a link to the experiment?)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't know about that experiment in particular, but I know in some it's like sleep/dream studies or other psychological tests where they wire you up and measure activity in certain focused parts of the brain that specifically respond to the type of stimuli being presented.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> @inmyprime
> 
> 
> @Rocky Mountain Yeti
> 
> 
> 
> I must have messed up the description of the experiment.
> 
> 
> 
> Women were shown videos of a sexual nature while wired up to measure arousal. At the same time, they were asked if the video aroused them. The data reported by the physical measurement differed (often wildly) from their verbal responses.
> 
> 
> 
> When the experiment involved men, what was measured and what was said were largely in agreement.



No, I think I got it. And Rocky is right that my suggestion would measure something quite different... However I’m not sure it necessarily follows his conclusion that streamlined communication would necessarily increase their ‘sexual potential’.
It could well be that it would lose some of its mystery instead 
I don’t actually see this as a ‘handicap’! But a fascinating feature.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> There's the experiment where men and women were each wired up to physically measure their arousal while watching videos of a sexual nature. They were also be asked if they were aroused. For men, the two sets of data matched up. For women, not so much.


Did you actually read the study? Because what the results actually showed was a bit more fascinating than just being disconnected from reported arousal.

According to the wand they shoved up inside the women to detect blood flow, the one thing that hit the arousal button for EVERY woman was.......ta da! An erect penis. By itself, with no context and none of the rest of the man in the image.

Second runner up, an Adonis man with an erect penis.

Third runner up, anything that has a penis having sex with anything that has a vagina (ie: humans having sex or animals having sex).

Now...these results actually are what I would have said aroused me. Namely, an erect penis has the ability to keep haunting my mind all day long and zapping me with arousal over and over again.

But that doesn't seem like what other women would report "turns them on". Also, I'm not sure most women would distinguish between being "turned on" and being "aroused". I could be both or one or the other. 


So from this, couldn't we conclude that **** - in and of itself - does turn women on? She just doesn't know it?

See, when this study is brought up as part of the "women don't always know what turns them on" argument, I get confused, because the results of the study I think are important. The results are NOT that acts of aggression or rough sex or dominance turned on all of the women. The only thing that turned them all on were 1. the ****, 2. the Adonis, and 3. watching others have sex.

I think these results are somewhat important, and it doesn't fit at all with what GI has explained about her arousal (unless I'm missing something).


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I asked her if she got aroused and she honestly answered that she did.
> 
> 
> 
> .... but....
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that she had disgusted her. Nothing I could say about that being a natural response could assuage her concern.



Haha, well for us that would have been the cue at that point that it’s time to get the whip and the ropes out and do some serious punishing to slap the ****ty demons out of her sorry ass...
The thing is, once it stops being taboo it’s not arousing anymore.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Anyone have a link to the study?

I think mental arousal may be a different thing from physical arousal and that difference may be part of the confusion people have about what "arouses" them or others. What is most arousing may also not be what is most desirable - even in a sexual sense. 








Faithful Wife said:


> Did you actually read the study? Because what the results actually showed was a bit more fascinating than just being disconnected from reported arousal.
> 
> According to the wand they shoved up inside the women to detect blood flow, the one thing that hit the arousal button for EVERY woman was.......ta da! An erect penis. By itself, with no context and none of the rest of the man in the image.
> 
> Second runner up, an Adonis man with an erect penis.
> 
> Third runner up, anything that has a penis having sex with anything that has a vagina (ie: humans having sex or animals having sex).
> 
> Now...these results actually are what I would have said aroused me. Namely, an erect penis has the ability to keep haunting my mind all day long and zapping me with arousal over and over again.
> 
> But that doesn't seem like what other women would report "turns them on". Also, I'm not sure most women would distinguish between being "turned on" and being "aroused". I could be both or one or the other.
> 
> 
> So from this, couldn't we conclude that **** - in and of itself - does turn women on? She just doesn't know it?
> 
> See, when this study is brought up as part of the "women don't always know what turns them on" argument, I get confused, because the results of the study I think are important. The results are NOT that acts of aggression or rough sex or dominance turned on all of the women. The only thing that turned them all on were 1. the ****, 2. the Adonis, and 3. watching others have sex.
> 
> I think these results are somewhat important, and it doesn't fit at all with what GI has explained about her arousal (unless I'm missing something).


----------



## Curse of Millhaven

Buddy400 said:


> To be clear, I don't think that any but the most jaded men feel that women do this consciously. Who would knowingly be like that?
> 
> For those who react this way, it's beyond conscious control.
> 
> And, it sure sounds bad so, for a woman to acknowledge this to herself or others in any way would take an enormous amount of self awareness.
> 
> Which is why @GettingIt_2 is such a wonder.


I don’t understand your “clarification” in response to my post. 

Isn’t this whole thread and the other one based on the fact that regular decent men were reporting that their spouses lost attraction for them the moment they needed emotional support or displayed “soft” feelings? At least that was my understanding as to why FW created this series of empathy threads.

And I don’t consider MEM, Sam, GTDad, etc., “jaded” men. They (and others) reported blatant lack of empathy from their partners in the original thread. As far as I can tell from reading them, they all seem like good, honest men and loving partners. 

So no, I don’t think it’s accurate or fair to say “only jaded men” feel their partners consciously lack empathy.

And I do feel like it is a conscious (selfish) decision to withhold kindness and succor from your partner during their times of obvious need. If someone you love is hurting, such as from the loss of a loved one, it’s a pretty natural, unconscious response to want to give them support and compassion.

And I’m really not trying to be a contentious ******* here, but I feel like you’re attributing intentions to my post that aren’t mine. 

I don’t understand why you and others keep using GettingIt_2 as an example of women who lack empathy. She has said _*multiple times*_ (!!!) that she does indeed have empathy for her husband, does give him lovin’ even when her “primal response” has been dampened, and has been sexually attracted to him even when he was emotionally vulnerable. I mean she posted some of this on the same page as your post above.

Why are you trying to make her the poster girl for self-aware lack of empathy ladies?

I mean, what the heck…? *Taps microphone* Is this thing even on??


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> Anyone have a link to the study?
> 
> 
> 
> I think mental arousal may be a different thing from physical arousal and that difference may be part of the confusion people have about what "arouses" them or others. What is most arousing may also not be what is most desirable - even in a sexual sense.




Woah, it’s getting too complicated...It think the study was just supposed to show that mind and body CAN be more in a conflict/disagreement with women, than with men (when it comes to sex).
I’m not sure it matters whether all women get aroused about the same thing...

Having said that, I often tease my wife how can she not like this or that **** (when we watch porn) and she always SWEARS she doesn’t and would never dream of even looking at it without disgust unless it was mine....yet when I start dirty talking to her about all the things she secretly wants to do to it (that, which isn’t mine), I don’t need sensors to know what’s going on...it’s pretty obvious when we have to change the bedsheets...(edit: that could also be ‘wishful thinking’ on my part and she is just aroused about my arousal....).

Are some women more in tune when it comes to their body and their minds? Do some women need this disconnect in order to feel more extreme levels of arousal? And...which one is right or ‘authentic in the end’: body or mind...
Those are all questions that give me slightly the creeps...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> Anyone have a link to the study?
> 
> I think mental arousal may be a different thing from physical arousal and that difference may be part of the confusion people have about what "arouses" them or others. What is most arousing may also not be what is most desirable - even in a sexual sense.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15482445


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

inmyprime said:


> The thing is, once it stops being taboo it’s not arousing anymore.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


While I understand that to be the case much of the time, that's not so with my wife.


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> While I understand that to be the case much of the time, that's not so with my wife.



She was aroused, wasn’t she? (While at the same time also disgusted). You mean it wasn’t really possible to utilise it? That’s a different thing. In her case, perhaps the mind won over the body (this time). 
But then again we talk about women as if ‘they’ are all the same with all these experiments...That is clearly not the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Actually I don’t quite see it from the paper:

“In contrast to men, women showed little category specificity on either the genital or the subjective measure. Both heterosexual and homosexual women experienced strong genital arousal to both male and female sexual stimuli.”

It reads to me that while heterosexual men experienced arousal to female genitals or stimuli to those genitals, women’s arousal was ‘non specific’?

Is my reading wrong? I can’t seem to access the whole paper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

That’s an interesting article, referencing some of those studies:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...logical-arousal-equate-sexual-desire-in-women

“Fascinating research on the experience of sexual attraction in women shows that we may not consciously recognize which sex partners most strongly arouse us. While straight and gay men seem to accurately detect their sexual attraction toward women and men (respectively), straight women and lesbians often experience objective sexual arousal to potential partners of both genders (Chivers et al., 2004). But is the physical experience of genital arousal enough for women to feel sexually attracted to a potential partner? Or do women need to feel subjective feelings of sexual attraction as well?

In a previous post, I discussed research performed by Chivers and colleagues (2004) assessing sexual fluidity. These researchers presented heterosexual men and women, as well as gay men and lesbians, with different sexual films. One film depicted two women; one featured one man and one woman; and the last involved two men. The researchers measured participants’ self-reported, subjective sexual arousal as well as objective genital arousal. The results for men's sexual arousal were consistent; gay men exhibited more subjective and objective arousal to the film involving two men, and straight men experienced more subjective and objective arousal to the film involving two women. The authors’ findings regarding women's arousal, however, were surprisingly inconsistent. Although lesbians reported more subjective feelings of arousal to the film with two women, and heterosexual women reported that they were most strongly aroused by the film involving one man and one woman, *both lesbian and heterosexual women were equally physiologically aroused by all three films. The researchers interpreted these results to imply that women’s sexuality is more fluid or flexible than men’s; * however, none of the researchers suggested that women are inherently bisexual.” 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Very roughly summarizing the paper:

Heterosexual men are physically aroused by videos of women engaging in sexual activity with other women, but not of men engaging in sexual activity with other men.

Gay men are aroused by videos of men, but not those of women.

Both heterosexual and lesbian women are aroused by videos of both men and women.

The study made reasonable efforts to avoid selection bias in participants, and to avoid bias caused by negative reactions to same-sex, as opposed to opposite-sex sexual activity. 


The effects were large enough that IMHO they are unlikely to be caused by errors in the way the study was done. They are also consistent with earlier studies. 

The study is paywalled, unless you happen to have university or research access. 





inmyprime said:


> Actually I don’t quite see it from the paper:
> 
> “In contrast to men, women showed little category specificity on either the genital or the subjective measure. Both heterosexual and homosexual women experienced strong genital arousal to both male and female sexual stimuli.”
> 
> It reads to me that while heterosexual men experienced arousal to female genitals or stimuli to those genitals, women’s arousal was ‘non specific’?
> 
> Is my reading wrong? I can’t seem to access the whole paper.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

inmyprime said:


> She was aroused, wasn’t she? (While at the same time also disgusted). You mean it wasn’t really possible to utilise it? That’s a different thing. In her case, perhaps the mind won over the body (this time).
> But then again we talk about women as if ‘they’ are all the same with all these experiments...That is clearly not the case.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, it really wasn't.

And I hope it was implied in my posts that my wife is an individual and by extension, that I dont view women as a homogeneous group.


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> Very roughly summarizing the paper:
> 
> Heterosexual men are physically aroused by videos of women engaging in sexual activity with other women, but not of men engaging in sexual activity with other men.
> 
> Gay men are aroused by videos of men, but not those of women.
> 
> Both heterosexual and lesbian women are aroused by videos of both men and women.
> 
> The study made reasonable efforts to avoid selection bias in participants, and to avoid bias caused by negative reactions to same-sex, as opposed to opposite-sex sexual activity.
> 
> 
> The effects were large enough that IMHO they are unlikely to be caused by errors in the way the study was done. They are also consistent with earlier studies.
> 
> The study is paywalled, unless you happen to have university or research access.


Author Daniel Bergher compiled these and other studies, plus his own studies, made some conclusions, and detailed them in his book What Do Women Really Want?

He has also given ted talks and interviews. Here’s a snippet from the book:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jul/05/what-do-women-want-extract

In the book he detailed other studies, with a strange array of results.

I’m not sure these results have been duplicated. Or if anyone has tried or if they have moved on to some other way of trying to determine arousal in women.

For me, the studies had several flaws, and so did their conclusions. But it was interesting to read the results scattered throughout the book. I guess I’m fairly in touch with which erotic images make me thump down there, because I would match pretty much all of what they concluded about blood flow at least.

I do think people may draw different conclusions here, but the one thing they know is that you can measure a variation in blood flow inside of your body with a wand thingy. So there is something physical happening and changing that they can measure. It’s probably not very accurate, but maybe there will be other instruments they can try shoving up there that are more sensitive one day. A little bit of a sickening thought, while also fascinating and something I’m sure plenty of women would sign up for. (While others may think this is a gross and barbaric thing to do in the name of science.)


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> No, it really wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> And I hope it was implied in my posts that my wife is an individual and by extension, that I dont view women as a homogeneous group.




Yes of course, I mainly was referring to myself...I suddenly felt uncomfortable that perhaps some women reading some of the stuff in general might not be comfortable with this or the whole of its premise as it can be easily extrapolated into: “so your body wants something that means you want it”

There should be a distinction between using this biological/psychological quirk (I think it’s called ‘arousal non concordance’) as a game to play with your trusted partner, versus using it as an excuse to ignore consent on dates... I hope this distinction is clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

This was interesting...

https://www.futurity.org/are-we-hard-wired-for-empathy/


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you actually read the study? Because what the results actually showed was a bit more fascinating than just being disconnected from reported arousal.
> 
> According to the wand they shoved up inside the women to detect blood flow, the one thing that hit the arousal button for EVERY woman was.......ta da! An erect penis. By itself, with no context and none of the rest of the man in the image.
> 
> Second runner up, an Adonis man with an erect penis.
> 
> Third runner up, anything that has a penis having sex with anything that has a vagina (ie: humans having sex or animals having sex).


I read it once upon a time.

So, I assume that when women were asked if an erect penis with no context aroused them, they said "no"?

That fits with most women (not you) claiming that "dic pics" do not arouse them; in fact the opposite is usually claimed.

This seems to fit with the idea that many women do not necessarily understand their sexuality.

But not important enough to go 'round and 'round on.


----------



## Buddy400

Curse of Millhaven said:


> I don’t understand your “clarification” in response to my post.
> 
> Isn’t this whole thread and the other one based on the fact that regular decent men were reporting that their spouses lost attraction for them the moment they needed emotional support or displayed “soft” feelings? At least that was my understanding as to why FW created this series of empathy threads.
> 
> And I don’t consider MEM, Sam, GTDad, etc., “jaded” men. They (and others) reported blatant lack of empathy from their partners in the original thread. As far as I can tell from reading them, they all seem like good, honest men and loving partners.
> 
> So no, I don’t think it’s accurate or fair to say “only jaded men” feel their partners *consciously* lack empathy.
> (


I can't speak for the others, but I would guess that they'd say that their partner's lack of empathy was outside of their wife's conscious control. I know that my wife would rather not have that reaction. If I thought that my wife purposely and thoughtfully choose not to show empathy for me when appropriate, I'd have a hard time dealing with that.

And, we're not really complaining about it (MEM, Farside, RMY) as we're just pointing out that it happens. 



Curse of Millhaven said:


> I don’t understand why you and others keep using GettingIt_2 as an example of women who lack empathy. She has said _*multiple times*_ (!!!) that she does indeed have empathy for her husband, does give him lovin’ even when her “primal response” has been dampened, and has been sexually attracted to him even when he was emotionally vulnerable. I mean she posted some of this on the same page as your post above.
> 
> Why are you trying to make her the poster girl for self-aware lack of empathy ladies?
> 
> I mean, what the heck…? *Taps microphone* Is this thing even on??


I (and I would think most men here) think that @GettingIt_2 seems like a wonderful person who obviously has empathy for her husband. 

It just seems (and I'm really hesitant to try to put words in her mouth here) that sometimes feeling that empathy can affect her sexual attraction (primal response) to her husband. if so, I have no problem with that.


----------



## red oak

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> On the topic of disconnects, an anecdote from my admittedly narrow experience.
> 
> My wife once told me she had watched a porn with her peer group prior to meeting me (Blazing Zippers it was called)
> 
> I asked her if she got aroused and she honestly answered that she did.
> 
> .... but....
> 
> The fact that she had disgusted her. Nothing I could say about that being a natural response could assuage her concern. I made it clear I wasn't looking to bring porn into our marriage, only that we need not chastise ourselves for being human. I hoped go get her to realize that throwing off the shackles of sexual repression is not only a good, but a necessary thing. That understanding sex as a far wider world than procreation oriented intercourse could be wonderful for both of us.
> 
> It's been tough sledding and we've still got a way to go.
> 
> Hard for me to expect her to have empathy for me when she didn't even have empathy for herself.


That's the other side of the coin.

I think too few men understand what has been done to women. Such is why I feel sorry for both sexes.

The main difference is when men realize it its easier for us to do something about it. 
Then comes the issue of a man getting his wife to truly marry him and become his wife. Such is off topic but women usually already have a husband when they marry. Just majority of men have no clue and even fewer women would accept such. I know only a couple men who could voice what a marriage is, yet it can be seen subliminally stated in many threads here.

On topic. Very astute to recognize one must be able to show empathy for themselves to show it to another. 
Accolades! 
Careful how deep down the well you look.


----------



## Curse of Millhaven

Buddy400 said:


> I can't speak for the others, but I would guess that they'd say that their partner's lack of empathy was outside of their wife's conscious control. I know that my wife would rather not have that reaction. If I thought that my wife purposely and thoughtfully choose not to show empathy for me when appropriate, I'd have a hard time dealing with that.
> 
> And, we're not really complaining about it (MEM, Farside, RMY) as we're just pointing out that it happens.


Roger that, Buddy. 

And just so you know, I never said y’all “complained”. I said I thought the impetus for these threads was that regular decent dudes were “reporting” a lack of empathy in their partners. Reporting = “pointing out that it happens”. 

Truthfully, though, complaining about this would be totally understandable. 

And believe it or not, I can relate. My fella has Asperger’s and empathy is really difficult for him. (Like…Really. Difficult.) I’ve decided to find some of the blatantly insensitive stuff he does funny so I won’t have to jump on his head like a rabid spider monkey and rip his hair out. 

So yes, I get that it’s very hard to reconcile that the person you love is consciously deciding not to have empathy for you in your time of need, but…

It’s difficult for me to believe that an emotionally developed, non-disordered person would not be conscious of their partner’s need for comfort and support in grief, sadness, or in times of emotional vulnerability. 

Some of the men in the other empathy thread reported a conscious lack of empathy from their wives with more than one saying their spouse made it very clear they did not want to hear about their angst, depression, grief, etc., and shut them down quickly. 

To me that sounds like a very conscious decision on the wife’s part to silence her husband so as not to deal with his emotional needs.

Please understand, I’m not saying anything about your particular situation or your wife’s capacity for empathy or whether it’s within her control or not. I don’t know. 

I’m just going with what I read in the other thread reported by some of the other men dealing with this, which seemed pretty clear cut (and crappy) to me. 

I’m the wrong person to discuss all of this with anyway. I probably over-empathize and I’m of the mind that empathy is innate and that even animals have it. 

One of my fave nonfiction books is, Next of Kin by Roger Fouts. It’s a beautiful book about a researcher’s account of working and communicating with chimpanzees through sign language, particularly one named Washoe. One of the most touching parts in the book for me was when a researcher was out on leave after losing her pregnancy; when she returned Washoe comforted and empathized with her as she too had lost a baby. That always makes me tear up remembering it. 

Anyway, it’s been nice chatting with you but I’m gonna tap dance outta here now. I feel like I don’t have much more to offer on this topic and don't wanna sidetrack it. Take care.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I can't speak for the others, but I would guess that they'd say that their partner's lack of empathy was outside of their wife's conscious control. I know that my wife would rather not have that reaction. If I thought that my wife purposely and thoughtfully choose not to show empathy for me when appropriate, I'd have a hard time dealing with that.
> 
> And, we're not really complaining about it (MEM, Farside, RMY) as we're just pointing out that it happens.
> 
> 
> 
> I (and I would think most men here) think that @GettingIt_2 seems like a wonderful person who obviously has empathy for her husband.
> 
> It just seems (and I'm really hesitant to try to put words in her mouth here) that sometimes feeling that empathy can affect her sexual attraction (primal response) to her husband. if so, I have no problem with that.




Well...it wasn’t my understanding. I think it’s a language thing. When I said that a nagging tone affects my sexual desire, someone could also conclude that ‘some men loose sexual desire whenever their wife opens her mouth’.
And that’s not really an accurate picture...

I think a lot of women have been pretty clear that what they find unattractive is whininess and emotional neediness about stuff you can’t do anything about, mostly.

Example: if I started going on to my wife about how it sucks that we all have to die or that people are inherently selfish or stuff that none of us can do anything about and she tells me quit thinking about this stuff and try living in the moment or something like that and wouldn’t rip off her clothes straight away, I would not perceive it as her lacking empathy. I would perceive it as her being pragmatic in that moment and that she is trying to help me to snap out of it. I could see however that if I found myself constantly being in that state of depression and ignoring all her attempts to help me, she would find it off putting after a while. And it would be off putting.

But like i said earlier, i have not read from a single woman that they found it ‘off putting’ when their husband had a legitimate reason to grieve.

One can argue what’s a legitimate reason. One can also argue whether the husband perhaps misunderstood something. One can also argue whether women mean what they say. 
On the last part: while it’s interesting to delve into the subconscious, I do tend to still live my life by the principle that people (in general) do say what they mean, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary (which I think all of us agree on). But it can be tough.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I read it once upon a time.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I assume that when women were asked if an erect penis with no context aroused them, they said "no"?
> 
> 
> 
> That fits with most women (not you) claiming that "dic pics" do not arouse them; in fact the opposite is usually claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to fit with the idea that many women do not necessarily understand their sexuality.



I would like to read the study. (The info online doesn’t seem to support this).
But there is LOTS of info on ‘arousal non concordance’ and theories behind:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...n-get-physically-aroused-and-not-even-know-it


Some people want to find out answers to the big questions; like if there is a God or the purpose of our existence....All I want to know at the end of the day is whether my wife (subconsciously or consciously) finds random, beautifully looking **** pics arousing like I suspect she does and like she claims she doesn’t!! And if it turns out that she does, does it mean that women who say they DO find random **** pics arousing in fact, don’t? 

Does TAM offer a function for a subconscious poll?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Speaking of ****s (weren’t we always?):

Here’s 17 things women think when they first see your penis (apparently):

https://metro.co.uk/2015/08/02/17-things-women-think-when-they-first-see-your-penis-5319370/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I read it once upon a time.
> 
> So, I assume that when women were asked if an erect penis with no context aroused them, they said "no"?
> 
> That fits with most women (not you) claiming that "dic pics" do not arouse them; in fact the opposite is usually claimed.
> 
> This seems to fit with the idea that many women do not necessarily understand their sexuality.


I am not understanding this. I confess that I did not yet read the article, so perhaps this follows from something there that we are supposed to already get. Or does this post stand alone? I am trying to understand if you think that not finding erect penises arousing, by itself, means women don't understand their sexuality?


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not understanding this. I confess that I did not yet read the article, so perhaps this follows from something there that we are supposed to already get. Or does this post stand alone? I am trying to understand if you think that not finding erect penises arousing, by itself, means women don't understand their sexuality?



No. it’s not what it means. Read the Guardian article linked to upthread. 
However I think the conclusions (from the studies) seem a bit simplistic to me.

The other side of the coin would be this view:

https://youtu.be/L-q-tSHo9Ho

(I also am not sure it’s so straight forward either. While her talk explains how ‘unwanted arousal’ is, well, unwanted, it doesn’t explain the subconscious and sometimes not so subconscious desire to be submissive and subject yourself to ‘unwanted’ stimuli that were actually very much wanted, after all, and expressed so, with hindsight).

It comes down to basically which of the two (bodily response or mind) should be given a greater weighting.

To me personally, the balance must be somewhere in the middle: it means that while we should not deny and ignore our primal responses/biological quirks (because it can lead to repression which is not healthy either), the last say has to come from the mind, because that’s how the society is better off functioning.

Doesn’t answer the actual question of mine (in terms of the ULTIMATE meaning or ‘truth’) but maybe because it cannot be answered. Or perhaps because it’s a non sensical question to ask to begin with. But better understanding of this ‘quirk’ certainly helps navigating me through this in my marriage...(a bit).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

"It comes down to basically which of the two (bodily response or mind) should be given a greater weighting."

This is an interesting idea. I would say that there are definitely times when the mind and the body are in conflict. I would also unequivocal blee say that the only person who has the right to decide whether my mind or body will take precedence is me. That is why sometimes these types of studies make me nervous. Because I could probably name 2 or 3 people that I have and have not met who might make poor decisions based on the idea that her mind says one thing but her body says another

Honestly, I cannot think of one single helpful reason that a man would even need to worry about this period even if her head lights are flashing and her panties are wet, if she says no, that's really all you need to know.

And I am speaking about the universal you here not a particular you.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> "It comes down to basically which of the two (bodily response or mind) should be given a greater weighting."
> 
> This is an interesting idea. I would say that there are definitely times when the mind and the body are in conflict. I would also unequivocal blee say that the only person who has the right to decide whether my mind or body will take precedence is me. That is why sometimes these types of studies make me nervous. Because I could probably name 2 or 3 people that I have and have not met who might make poor decisions based on the idea that her mind says one thing but her body says another
> 
> Honestly, I cannot think of one single helpful reason that a man would even need to worry about this period even if her head lights are flashing and her panties are wet, if she says no, that's really all you need to know.
> 
> And I am speaking about the universal you here not a particular you.



Yes of course. For me it’s not so much about consent but understanding human mind (including my own) a bit better ‘cos I find it fascinating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

Exactly, that's why I wanted to clarify. I know you don't think this has anything to do with the validity of consent. I find people's behaviors and thinking fascinating as well. It's interesting how our minds work and sometimes don't work lol


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> "It comes down to basically which of the two (bodily response or mind) should be given a greater weighting."
> 
> This is an interesting idea. I would say that there are definitely times when the mind and the body are in conflict. I would also unequivocal blee say that the only person who has the right to decide whether my mind or body will take precedence is me. That is why sometimes these types of studies make me nervous. Because I could probably name 2 or 3 people that I have and have not met who might make poor decisions based on the idea that her mind says one thing but her body says another
> 
> Honestly, I cannot think of one single helpful reason that a man would even need to worry about this period even if her head lights are flashing and her panties are wet, if she says no, that's really all you need to know.
> 
> And I am speaking about the universal you here not a particular you.


I am with you here. The notion that information exists in this case does not mean one *should* "weight" any clear and specific way.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Exactly, that's why I wanted to clarify. I know you don't think this has anything to do with the validity of consent. I find people's behaviors and thinking fascinating as well. It's interesting how our minds work and sometimes don't work lol



What I would say though....if (for example), as a man, I was sexually molested or raped and had an erection, I would NOT be able to say that I wasn’t ‘horny’. (Maybe some guys will disagree, I don’t know).

Unless I was injected with something or took a pill, there is not an instance I can think of where hardness would not also coincide with horniness. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Also, a lot of guys seem to be thoroughly confused by the fact that their wives can go on for weeks/months without ever showing interest in ANY sexual activity and some even say that they are not especially interested and don’t care much for sex, yet when they DO have sex, those same guys report that their wives ‘love it’ and seem ‘very turned on’.
Unless it’s wishful thinking (I’m not sure it is), i can imagine why they are left confused and want to get to the bottom of it.

It’s just a very strange concept that you can be aroused by something yet not find it arousing.

I think what happens (and I know this from my wife because she TOLD me this) as a husband, you can become too careful/passive when it comes to sexual initiation because of these (fairly recent) norms or perhaps for the fear of doing something ‘too pushy’, accidentally (I’m talking about LTRs, not first dates). 

If my wife tells me not to ‘harass’ her for sex and I listen to her and she later lashes out at me why in the **** I didn’t harass her harder: which part of her body am I supposed to be listening to? 
For us, it’s not really such a problem because one way or another, we still end up ****ing but I imagine it can be a bit of a minefield for some married guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> What I would say though....if (for example), as a man, I was sexually molested or raped and had an erection, I would NOT be able to say that I wasn’t ‘horny’. (Maybe some guys will disagree, I don’t know).
> 
> Unless I was injected with something or took a pill, there is not an instance I can think of where hardness would not also coincide with horniness.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think that physical stimulation is enough to get a penis erect, but I don't know. Either way, even if you were "horny," if you didn't want sex with the woman who was assaulting you, it would absolutely be assault.

And if someone didn't believe you or mocked you because "you had an erection so you must have wanted it," they wouldn't be showing much empathy (see what I did there  )

Which brings up another point.....if a man IS traumatized due to assault of some kind, how would that affect a woman's empathy? Hopefully a woman would not lose attraction just because a man confided he had been abused or assaulted. I know some men - for whatever reason - no longer "want" a woman who has been raped or sexually abused. I wonder if it would be the same in reverse.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I think that physical stimulation is enough to get a penis erect, but I don't know. Either way, even if you were "horny," if you didn't want sex with the woman who was assaulting you, it would absolutely be assault.



Not sure. I could say that I wasn’t finding the woman who was having sex with me attractive but I couldn’t say the stimulation was unwanted (if it became erect).

I would however never be able to get it up if I felt in any way threatened or scared.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I think that physical stimulation is enough to get a penis erect, but I don't know. Either way, even if you were "horny," if you didn't want sex with the woman who was assaulting you, it would absolutely be assault.



And actually I remember now, it happened a few times when the stimulation was neither wanted nor did it become erect (long long time ago). Penis is the boss and I don’t think I ever had a disagreement with him.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> I think that physical stimulation is enough to get a penis erect, but I don't know. Either way, even if you were "horny," if you didn't want sex with the woman who was assaulting you, it would absolutely be assault.
> 
> And if someone didn't believe you or mocked you because "you had an erection so you must have wanted it," they wouldn't be showing much empathy (see what I did there  )
> 
> Which brings up another point.....if a man IS traumatized due to assault of some kind, how would that affect a woman's empathy? Hopefully a woman would not lose attraction just because a man confided he had been abused or assaulted. I know some men - for whatever reason - no longer "want" a woman who has been raped or sexually abused. I wonder if it would be the same in reverse.


I haven't really understood why a man loses attraction for a woman that had been raped or sexually abused either past or present.

I haven't experienced a loss of attraction from Mrs. C when she found out about my past. She is always empathetic and often wants to console me with sex if I'm up for it.

It would be interesting to hear if other men who are sas or csas had women lose attraction for them for being assaulted?


----------



## ConanHub

inmyprime said:


> What I would say though....if (for example), as a man, I was sexually molested or raped and had an erection, I would NOT be able to say that I wasn’t ‘horny’. (Maybe some guys will disagree, I don’t know).
> 
> Unless I was injected with something or took a pill, there is not an instance I can think of where hardness would not also coincide with horniness.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have had uncountable erections that just got in my way. I got them all the time when I started puberty, at age 10, and still do occasionally as I'm nearing 50.

I do not have to be aroused for erections.


----------



## EllisRedding

ConanHub said:


> I have had uncountable erections that just got in my way. I got them all the time when I started puberty, at age 10, and still do occasionally as I'm nearing 50.
> 
> I do not have to be aroused for erections.


Agreed. There are plenty of times where I have risen to the occasion and it wasn't because I was aroused. Morning wood is a perfect example. IDK, I just thought this was normal for dudes (helps explain why my friends always have erections when around me  )


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> It would be interesting to hear if other men who are sas or csas had women lose attraction for them for being assaulted?



I did have a few incidents over the course of my life (as a child and teenager etc) that were kind of ‘suspicious’ and probably not ok. But the problem is I can’t tell my wife about them without making some inappropriate jokes about them at the same time and she probably feels I’m either exaggerating, making it up or don’t care...

By ‘assault’, I presume you mean from a man? I know this is reverse sexism, but I wouldn’t consider a woman coming onto me (even aggressively) as ‘assault’. Unless she kidnapped me, put me in a van, tied me up and was getting off on me all night long...which is still kind of hot (see? that’s why wife will not take me seriously with this). 

As a guy, being stronger etc, there is no equivalence really in my mind, fighting off a horny woman....(compared with a woman fighting off a pervert man). It doesn’t mean a woman cannot injure you (which is not ok).

However I have friends who tried using that line on their wife to explain that one night at a New Year’s Eve party...Maybe there are some scenarios that would be considered ‘assault’ (woman to man) in which case I apologise about my insensitive ignorance in advance.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

I mean it’s more to do with ‘fear for your life/safety’ rather than ‘wanting or not wanting’ when it comes to women coming onto men, isn’t it?
If you KNOW you have the means to stop a sexual advance, it is just irritating whether if you are not certain you can, it is unacceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

I remember a study with similar results that was done many years ago (sorry, don't remember the name or any reference). 

Arousal from images / videos is of course complicated. Its not easy to separate whether straight men are not aroused by images of gay sex, from whether they have been conditioned from society to react with disgust to it, which cancels the arousal that would otherwise be there. 

The "grossness" factor is of course a big deal - as the authors mention, they have to worry if there is a selection effect in the people willing to engage in this sort of study. 

Another issue is how they select the "porn" used in the test. Was the action shown real or acted (possibly very badly) and was that the same for the male and female performers.

Still, I think a well-done study. I think its interesting data, but care is needed in applying it to real world situations. 

Eye-tracking is another approach, but I find that technology so scary that I really don't want to see it deployed. (I've seen studies where you can surreptitiously determine if a man is gay or straight just by tracking his eye motions when he is exposed to normal-looking images). (based on the study above, this might now work as well on women). 

All fascinating stuff. 

Of course not only is there individual variation, but "arousal" is not necessarily a measure of "sexual goodness". Just as most people don't think the sexual activity that gives them an O the fastest is the "best", many may not enjoy watching images that are the most arousing. 




Faithful Wife said:


> Author Daniel Bergher compiled these and other studies, plus his own studies, made some conclusions, and detailed them in his book What Do Women Really Want?
> 
> He has also given ted talks and interviews. Here’s a snippet from the book:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jul/05/what-do-women-want-extract
> 
> In the book he detailed other studies, with a strange array of results.
> 
> I’m not sure these results have been duplicated. Or if anyone has tried or if they have moved on to some other way of trying to determine arousal in women.
> 
> For me, the studies had several flaws, and so did their conclusions. But it was interesting to read the results scattered throughout the book. I guess I’m fairly in touch with which erotic images make me thump down there, because I would match pretty much all of what they concluded about blood flow at least.
> 
> I do think people may draw different conclusions here, but the one thing they know is that you can measure a variation in blood flow inside of your body with a wand thingy. So there is something physical happening and changing that they can measure. It’s probably not very accurate, but maybe there will be other instruments they can try shoving up there that are more sensitive one day. A little bit of a sickening thought, while also fascinating and something I’m sure plenty of women would sign up for. (While others may think this is a gross and barbaric thing to do in the name of science.)


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> I have had uncountable erections that just got in my way. I got them all the time when I started puberty, at age 10, and still do occasionally as I'm nearing 50.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have to be aroused for erections.



Hmmm...so did I but I would just put it down to being horny all the time...
Would you then say that if a girl appeared in front of you out of nowhere during one of those ‘unaroused arousals’, you would NOT have welcomed a little hand relief to tie you over till the next one? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Many people (men and women) can be sexually stimulated to orgasm without any consent. For some fear actually makes it happen faster. 

For many men erection != sexual desire. 





personofinterest said:


> I think that physical stimulation is enough to get a penis erect, but I don't know. Either way, even if you were "horny," if you didn't want sex with the woman who was assaulting you, it would absolutely be assault.
> 
> And if someone didn't believe you or mocked you because "you had an erection so you must have wanted it," they wouldn't be showing much empathy (see what I did there  )
> 
> Which brings up another point.....if a man IS traumatized due to assault of some kind, how would that affect a woman's empathy? Hopefully a woman would not lose attraction just because a man confided he had been abused or assaulted. I know some men - for whatever reason - no longer "want" a woman who has been raped or sexually abused. I wonder if it would be the same in reverse.


----------



## uhtred

I think its a complicated question, the idea of "want" is not at all simple.

If I get an erection (for whatever reason), "relief" is a physically desirable thing - but that isn't the same as wanting sexual interaction with a random person in real life. 

If it was a robot sex doll, then it might be convenient. Once its a real person, it gets complicated. Its a little like asking if I'm on a business trip and am feeling aroused, why don't I just hire a prostitute to come over and "relieve" me (In a way that doesn't involved disease risk).

Now if I were not in a relationship, were horny and ran into an attractive woman who enjoyed sexually stimulating men without wanting anything in return, would that be different? 

Or in a relationship, having my partner relieve me would be great as long as our overall sex life was reasonably balanced.

Sometimes taking matters into your own hands is just a simpler approach. 








inmyprime said:


> Hmmm...so did I but I would just put it down to being horny all the time...
> Would you then say that if a girl appeared in front of you out of nowhere during one of those ‘unaroused arousals’, you would NOT have welcomed a little hand relief to tie you over till the next one?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

inmyprime said:


> Hmmm...so did I but I would just put it down to being horny all the time...
> Would you then say that if a girl appeared in front of you out of nowhere during one of those ‘unaroused arousals’, you would NOT have welcomed a little hand relief to tie you over till the next one?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nope. I have to be in the mood for sex and an erection by itself doesn't mean I'm hot to trot at all.

I've tested it and tried to MB when I had one. The results were awful at best.

I have to be aroused in other areas to want sex. It is almost impossible for me to climax if I'm not aroused.

An erection for me is just annoying unless I'm feeling it upstairs first.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> Nope. I have to be in the mood for sex and an erection by itself doesn't mean I'm hot to trot at all.
> 
> I've tested it and tried to MB when I had one. The results were awful at best.
> 
> I have to be aroused in other areas to want sex. It is almost impossible for me to climax if I'm not aroused.
> 
> An erection for me is just annoying unless I'm feeling it upstairs first.


Can we start a new thread about erections? :grin2:


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> I think its a complicated question, the idea of "want" is not at all simple.
> 
> 
> 
> If I get an erection (for whatever reason), "relief" is a physically desirable thing - but that isn't the same as wanting sexual interaction with a random person in real life.



That’s not what I meant. (That erection = horniness = wanting a random person = good quality sex with any random person as long as erection and so on. Now regretting how I put it previously! )

It’s just the first step: erection = horny. No erection = not horny. Very simple. At least for me it always was.

For women, it seems there is no or very loose correlation between wet = horny (again, with exceptions). At least that’s what the science says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

This probably belongs in FaithfulWifes new thread.......

For me if an erection is the result of sexual thoughts, or images, then it is associated with feeling horny. 

Occasionally (or in the morning), I will get one randomly, and that isn't associated with horniness. 

That said, I am rarely in a mood where I would turn down sex. 



inmyprime said:


> That’s not what I meant. (That erection = horniness = wanting a random person = good quality sex with any random person as long as erection and so on. Now regretting how I put it previously! )
> 
> It’s just the first step: erection = horny. No erection = not horny. Very simple. At least for me it always was.
> 
> For women, it seems there is no or very loose correlation between wet = horny (again, with exceptions). At least that’s what the science says.
> 
> I think the fact that I only ever had intercourse with one person probably proves that one can be horny, but not uncontrollable (or that one would even need or want to control oneself).
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> This probably belongs in FaithfulWifes new thread.......
> 
> 
> 
> For me if an erection is the result of sexual thoughts, or images, then it is associated with feeling horny.
> 
> 
> 
> Occasionally (or in the morning), I will get one randomly, and that isn't associated with horniness.
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I am rarely in a mood where I would turn down sex.




Just one last question (sorry I don’t know where the new thread is...):

Leaving morning erections aside, could any of you guys envisage a scenario where you would be sexually assaulted (unwantedly), AND also sport an erection?
I think that was the original thing I wanted to ask...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> What I would say though....if (for example), as a man, I was sexually molested or raped and had an erection, I would NOT be able to say that I wasn’t ‘horny’. (Maybe some guys will disagree, I don’t know).
> 
> Unless I was injected with something or took a pill, there is not an instance I can think of where hardness would not also coincide with horniness.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My husband would tell you that every morning that he wakes up hardness does not coincide with horniness. Hardness is the effect sometimes when horniness is the cause, not the other way around. Or so he tells me.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> Can we start a new thread about erections? :grin2:


LOL! Sorry if this turned into a TJ.

I will gladly participate in an erection thread!:grin2:


----------



## uhtred

Sure.
I think I would get hard with appropriate (or inappropriate) physical stimulation, whether or not I wanted sex. 

Presumably different men are different. I expect its similar with women - some of whom can have Os when raped, despite having absolutely no sexual interest in what is going on (and quite the opposite). This causes all sort of issues when people think sexual arousal / orgasm implies consent. I've also seen reports that men who are raped (by other men) sometimes get erections and ejaculate. 

Its possible to imagine an ethical experiment to see how common this is, but it would not be easy to set up an unbiased test. 





inmyprime said:


> Just one last question (sorry I don’t know where the new thread is...):
> 
> Leaving morning erections aside, could any of you guys envisage a scenario where you would be sexually assaulted (unwantedly), AND also sport an erection?
> I think that was the original thing I wanted to ask...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not understanding this. I confess that I did not yet read the article, so perhaps this follows from something there that we are supposed to already get. Or does this post stand alone? I am trying to understand if you think that not finding erect penises arousing, by itself, means women don't understand their sexuality?


To clarify, I guess the question is "usually, do women consciously know what turns them on?".

I'm assuming it's a valid question based on what I've read and from stories here on TAM. I don't claim to know the truth (if it's even knowable).

We hear stories from men who ask their partner what turns them (the woman) on and it seems the woman often has no answers.

I've also heard stories involving women who found themselves "turned on" by thoughts, situations, etc which they would seem to prefer not having had that reaction to.

Research as alluded to above seems to indicate that, while women show the physical effects of being aroused by something (i.e. an erect penis with no context) but, when asked if the image arouses them, they say no.

So, the possibility is that what arouses a woman unconsciously and what she thinks should arouse her consciously are sometimes in conflict.

It seems plausible to me that women (especially in the times we live in) might feel as if they should be aroused my things that actually don't arouse them (men doing housework, men being emotionally open, etc) and the other way around.

Women like @Faithful Wife don't have this issue and it seems as if @GettingIt_2 might have had it but figured it out.

On the other hand, men don't seem to have much conflict between what consciously or unconsciously arouses them.

This is not in any way meant to imply that there is something "wrong" with women or "right" about men.

If (or when) this conscious / unconscious conflict occurs, I imagine that it would be problematic when trying to achieve sexual arousal.


----------



## personofinterest

> So, the possibility is that what arouses a woman unconsciously and what she thinks should arouse her consciously are sometimes in conflict.


I think this is true. However, the more important question is "what do we glean from this?"

Honestly, the safest answer is - nothing.

It is possible that watching a man pee on a woman (or vice versa) might arouse me. I have no idea. However, I don't WANT it to arouse me.

And if my husband tried to pee on me because "well you got aroused when you saw it, so you don't know what you want!"....yeah......NO

That would not end well.

So a man doesn't really NEED to know what my body might or might not say with regard to an act that I deem as absolutely off the table.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> But like i said earlier, i have not read from a single woman that they found it ‘off putting’ when their husband had a legitimate reason to grieve.


Just to be clear, we're only suggesting they find it "off putting" in a sexual desire sense.

One could be fully empathetic while having reduced sexual desire.

And, we're not saying that we have a big problem when we want to bang our wives while we're feeling emotionally weak and they refuse. 

We're just pointing it out as potential evidence that some women seem to lose sexual desire if their men are emotionally weak.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> "It comes down to basically which of the two (bodily response or mind) should be given a greater weighting."
> 
> This is an interesting idea. I would say that there are definitely times when the mind and the body are in conflict. I would also unequivocal blee say that the only person who has the right to decide whether my mind or body will take precedence is me. That is why sometimes these types of studies make me nervous. Because I could probably name 2 or 3 people that I have and have not met who might make poor decisions based on the idea that her mind says one thing but her body says another
> 
> Honestly, I cannot think of one single helpful reason that a man would even need to worry about this period even if her head lights are flashing and her panties are wet, if she says no, that's really all you need to know.
> 
> And I am speaking about the universal you here not a particular you.


Outside of a committed relationship, *ONLY* the woman "has the right to decide whether her mind or body should take precedence".

Even in a committed relationship, I'm very uncomfortable with anyone other than the women deciding this.

But, in a case like @inmyprime, where it's a very committed relationship, he's dedicated to fulfilling her needs, she seems unwilling or unable to reconcile the two and there is plenty of evidence that paying more attention to her body's response makes her happier, what should be done?

He could easily say to his wife that unless she specifically says that she wants something, he will refuse to do it. In his case, this clearly seems like it would have led to unhappiness on both their parts.

I think many women often are aware that what can actually arouse them but are scared to death to admit it as they believe that it would be used by men as an excuse for sexually assaulting them. 

Hiding the truth confuses the heck out of men. 

Acknowledging it and stressing the concept on "consensual non-consent" seems like a better idea to me.


----------



## personofinterest

Buddy400 said:


> Just to be clear, we're only suggesting they find it "off putting" in a sexual desire sense.
> 
> One could be fully empathetic while having reduced sexual desire.
> 
> And, we're not saying that we have a big problem when we want to bang our wives while we're feeling emotionally weak and they refuse.
> 
> We're just pointing it out as potential evidence that some women seem to lose sexual desire if their men are emotionally weak.


I think what may be confusing to many of us is the idea that grieving over the death of a close loved one is "weak." When my husband cried after we spent the day at the ICU wondering if his dad would live, I didn't think him weak, nor did it affect my desire for him.

I think we MAY be able to stipulate that a RARE number of women would lose attraction just because hubby cried at his dad's funeral, but I think it would be obvious error to assume that women as a rule do this.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> I think this is true. However, the more important question is "what do we glean from this?"
> 
> Honestly, the safest answer is - nothing.
> 
> It is possible that watching a man pee on a woman (or vice versa) might arouse me. I have no idea. However, I don't WANT it to arouse me.
> 
> And if my husband tried to pee on me because "well you got aroused when you saw it, so you don't know what you want!"....yeah......NO
> 
> That would not end well.
> 
> So a man doesn't really NEED to know what my body might or might not say with regard to an act that I deem as absolutely off the table.


Perfect example.

And then there's the fact that I would refuse to pee on my wife even if she begged me to.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> I think what may be confusing to many of us is the idea that grieving over the death of a close loved one is "weak." When my husband cried after we spent the day at the ICU wondering if his dad would live, I didn't think him weak, nor did it affect my desire for him.
> 
> I think we MAY be able to stipulate that a RARE number of women would lose attraction just because hubby cried at his dad's funeral, but I think it would be obvious error to assume that women as a rule do this.


I think the "funeral" stories were an extreme case meant to illustrate a more common phenomena.

As I've said, I don't really think that men wanting to have sex after grieving over the death of a close loved one and having their wife say "I'm not in the mood" is really a significant problem in society today.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I think this is true. However, the more important question is "what do we glean from this?"
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, the safest answer is - nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that watching a man pee on a woman (or vice versa) might arouse me. I have no idea. However, I don't WANT it to arouse me.
> 
> 
> 
> And if my husband tried to pee on me because "well you got aroused when you saw it, so you don't know what you want!"....yeah......NO
> 
> 
> 
> That would not end well.
> 
> 
> 
> So a man doesn't really NEED to know what my body might or might not say with regard to an act that I deem as absolutely off the table.



The other way around would be ON the table though, one would hope? 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Perfect example.
> 
> 
> 
> And then there's the fact that I would refuse to pee on my wife even if she begged me to.



That might actually be quite a challenge (given that it’s impossible to pee with an erection!).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

inmyprime said:


> That might actually be quite a challenge (given that it’s impossible to pee with an erection!).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hey, Hey... there's another thread running for that kind of talk!


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Hey, Hey... there's another thread running for that kind of talk!



Ah sorry. I realised too late...

Back to peeing with empathy then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I think what may be confusing to many of us is the idea that grieving over the death of a close loved one is "weak." When my husband cried after we spent the day at the ICU wondering if his dad would live, I didn't think him weak, nor did it affect my desire for him.
> 
> I think we MAY be able to stipulate that a RARE number of women would lose attraction just because hubby cried at his dad's funeral, but I think it would be obvious error to assume that women as a rule do this.


It wasn't confusing for the people who were early contributors on the other empathy thread, as we moved along together in the process, and people shared inexplicably sad stories, including of their wives' obvious and/or stated emotionally withdrawing and sexually shutting down on men while they were grieving a death (sometimes a death of a sibling or parent).

NOT ONE of these guys described wanting to have sex at that moment, what they described was seeing the woman they love palpably distance herself from him at those times.

It was never about being sexually rejected in those moments.

Here is one example:

_"My few experiences with being vulnerable was not taken well so I admit I purposely don’t show it anymore. I am reminded of the time 12years ago when I cried at the funeral of my friend who was murdered and my x told me I need to relax and calm down as if I was acting hysterically or something. Other examples with her and others but this was one that stood out when I read the opening post about lack of empathy. It’s for sure a real world thing."_

There were several other similar examples, none of which were about sexual rejection. They were just examples of how attraction goes missing when they were grieving. My point in discussing this was that it is quite a sharp contrast to how I feel, so it was shocking to read about it from several different men on that thread.


----------



## uhtred

I think its helpful for people to *understand* what arouses them. That doesn't mean that they should actually do those things, because arousal itself isn't the goal, but it might help guide their thinking to things that they do want to do. 

It might also help in situations where someone thinks that they *should* be aroused, but find that they are not. 




personofinterest said:


> I think this is true. However, the more important question is "what do we glean from this?"
> 
> Honestly, the safest answer is - nothing.
> 
> It is possible that watching a man pee on a woman (or vice versa) might arouse me. I have no idea. However, I don't WANT it to arouse me.
> 
> And if my husband tried to pee on me because "well you got aroused when you saw it, so you don't know what you want!"....yeah......NO
> 
> That would not end well.
> 
> So a man doesn't really NEED to know what my body might or might not say with regard to an act that I deem as absolutely off the table.


----------



## personofinterest

uhtred said:


> I think its helpful for people to *understand* what arouses them. That doesn't mean that they should actually do those things, because arousal itself isn't the goal, but it might help guide their thinking to things that they do want to do.
> 
> It might also help in situations where someone thinks that they *should* be aroused, but find that they are not.



I do too. I think it can be beneficial for a person to understand this because it can help them clarify their own boundaries and desires apart from just physiological response.


----------



## happiness27

Faithful Wife said:


> So some of you know I’m working on a thing in my own head. I’m trying build empathy for men in myself, in mental places where I can’t actually empathize because I don’t have relevant experience.
> 
> I was originally focused on red pill men, but I’ve come to understand so far that I don’t need to make that distinction. That there are untold numbers of men who are feeling the same way that red pill men are, even if they have never heard of the red pill.
> 
> I had another thread before about empathy from women to men which is very relevant to this one:
> 
> https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html
> 
> That thread opened my eyes on a lot of things.
> 
> I’m aware that on other threads, I may not seem to be empathetic with men on some issues. Please for the topic of this thread understand that I’m working through things here that are specific. On this thread, I’m not going to discuss anything except this topic, and I will be attempt to stay on an empathetic path here. Others threads, no promises. :laugh:
> 
> Here’s where I’m at so far.
> 
> Men feel they are expected to protect women and children with their lives, but we don’t actually acknowledge or appreciate this.
> 
> Men feel that women are protected by society, by law, and by themselves and other men, but that they have no one to go to for protection of any kind. They are responsible for their own protection and that of all the women in their lives. They want to simply be acknowledged for this, but many don’t feel that they are.
> 
> Men are not afforded empathy by society generally, for many reasons but apparently mostly because we can’t stand to see the men who we need to protect us being vulnerable. And more specifically, a woman romantically involved with a man feels a loss of sexual attraction to him if he shows vulnerability of any kind (in enough cases that men on average can report this).
> 
> (Most) men do not experience the feeling of being sexually wanted by large numbers of women. Regardless of how women can explain how this isn’t a thing for us, men do wish they could feel the sensation of walking in a room and having most women’s eyes on them. They honestly wish to desire this and it’s really not weird for them to want that at all. They do feel hurt if they don’t experience this, a hurt that is on a level I can’t empathize with because I haven’t felt it. Maybe they wouldn’t describe it as a hurt. But when reading or hearing men’s words on this topic, you can hear the hurt. And because it is a universal and very common feeling, I’ve read enough words to understand intellectually that this is a big deal for them and therefore is deserving of empathy.
> 
> When you can’t feel empathy because of lack of direct experience, you have to start with sympathy, compassion and logic. I can logically deduce that if I was raised to believe that no one afforded me empathy, that I was expected to support and protect some other class of people, and that I wasn’t sexually desirable (that I can determine from my experience with the opposite sex), I would be pissed off and rebellious.
> 
> That’s where I’ve gotten to so far in building my bridge of empathy to understanding what men’s issues are.
> 
> This doesn’t address the family court issues, which I do understand and empathize with (enough to get it, at least).
> 
> But starting here, I am trying to look at how life is for men in our time and society. And when I realize the list above is so very common, I’m just very sad. I don’t want it to be that way, but to change anything you’ve got to look at what is really happening to people.
> 
> On this thread, I’m not going to ask for empathy on women’s issues. I do think some work needs to be done there, but I don’t think it’s helpful here. I’m trying to first seek to understand. And right now I don’t even care if I’m understood in return. But maybe some mutual understanding can occur.
> 
> Men or women, please share your thoughts about empathy for men. In society, but also in personal experience. Please comment on the list I made or add to it.


I've spent years and a thousand conversations talking to my husband about HIS viewpoint in an effort, as you've said, to see things from his POV.

Coincidentally, we are both CSA survivors - both perpetrated by another man. We've had to work through this together. The effects on both of us have their differences and manifested differently in some ways. Quite a tangled web.

But, when we look at similarities, we can have common ground - the odd mix of shame and hyper-sexuality, which can really mess with your head when it comes to sex.

As far as men, I think they were much better at dealing with the world back in the sixties when it was more of a patriarchal society. I think, back then, you had both men and women participating in the patriarchy - so there was a degree of agreement as to how society and viewpoints were set. 

I remember the first time I had my patriarchal agreement attitude challenged by an older, stronger woman. At a gathering, she asked me a question - and my husband answered. He kept answering the questions for me until the woman said, "Excuse me, but I asked HER." My eyes got big and I got a bit nervous about how my husband would react. But I was in a safe place surrounded by a lot of strong women so I could step tentatively into the arena of trying out my own voice. There was no looking back after that.

My husband's attempts after that of keeping me in my place no longer worked. 

Eventually we divorced - because he had no respect for me as a person, only as an object to control. 

If men are feeling pressures now, because of my age and experience having lived in decades where women were, even with their permission, kept out of the conversations of any kind that didn't include passive roles - then if men are feeling pressure now, I tend to have less sympathy. Women did this for so long that men, if they feel disturbed or uncomfortable, I say, "Welcome to the club" - now let's talk about how we are BOTH human beings with some different needs and modes of operation. WE need to understand each other. But I will no longer sweep my opinions and preferences under the rug if that is the only way you can feel better about yourself. YOU want to have demands and desires...and so do I...let's have a recognition that goes both ways.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> It wasn't confusing for the people who were early contributors on the other empathy thread, as we moved along together in the process, and people shared inexplicably sad stories, including of their wives' obvious and/or stated emotionally withdrawing and sexually shutting down on men while they were grieving a death (sometimes a death of a sibling or parent).
> 
> NOT ONE of these guys described wanting to have sex at that moment, what they described was seeing the woman they love palpably distance herself from him at those times.
> 
> It was never about being sexually rejected in those moments.
> 
> Here is one example:
> 
> _"My few experiences with being vulnerable was not taken well so I admit I purposely don’t show it anymore. I am reminded of the time 12years ago when I cried at the funeral of my friend who was murdered and my x told me I need to relax and calm down as if I was acting hysterically or something. Other examples with her and others but this was one that stood out when I read the opening post about lack of empathy. It’s for sure a real world thing."_
> 
> There were several other similar examples, none of which were about sexual rejection. They were just examples of how attraction goes missing when they were grieving. My point in discussing this was that it is quite a sharp contrast to how I feel, so it was shocking to read about it from several different men on that thread.


Interestingly, when I lost my mother, with whom I was pretty tight, and at who's service I had to deliver the eulogy, I experienced none of this from my wife. 

There did seem to be a sort of distance there, but I understand that was just giving me some space to grieve in my way, which is exactly what she would want from me in the same circumstances. 

Even with someone you're intensely emotionally intimate with, it can be very difficult to really know what to say and when, or how much and when to interject your support, even if it comes with the best of intentions. You want to be there but you don't want to be pushy. 

But I was back after her the very next day and she was receptive. There appeared to be no loss of attraction, or if there was, it was very short lived. My impression was she had a very appropriate, loving, and caring amount of empathy for me at that time, and it didn't negatively affect anything else.

I said "interestingly" at the beginning of the tread because it seemed like a butterfly flapping its wings in Zimbabwe could cause her to lose interest. But this didn't.


----------



## Affaircare

First, I get a tickle out of how this discussion went from discussing va-clang in the face of empathy toward men...to discussing arousal. I think I can tell what's on your minds! LOL

Second, I would like to summarize/paraphrase to see if I'm getting the gist. This isn't about wanting sex at the moment of vulnerability, but rather, it's about fellas being able to see their women visibly va-clang if they expose a tender spot. So instead of responding with empathy (as an example, warmth, caring, compassion, kindness, tenderness) or at minimum having some understanding for what the guy was going through, she pretty much unconsciously reacted with a detaching, pulling back, cold kind of look on her face accompanied by actions. And the term "va-clang" (which I love, by the way!), is the term used to describe the reaction where the vajayjay snaps shut so soundly that it makes a clang sound! In other words, "Wait, what? You have a weakness? CLANG" accompanied by some sort of action that indicates some decrease in animal attraction.

Before I continue at all...is that paraphrase correct? Is this what we are discussing?

Edit to add: The reason I ask is twofold--for clarity, and to see if we can talk about situations that are not as major as va-clang due to crying at a funeral. I'm particularly curious about how empathy would be expressed "along the way" rather than at major moments...like on a day-to-day basis. What would it look like? Or is it only wanted in major moments? 

Specifically, since I was not aware this was even an issue, and since it's something new that I'm contemplating, I wonder about those who have experienced this--what do you'd recognize as empathy?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Interestingly, when I lost my mother, with whom I was pretty tight, and at who's service I had to deliver the eulogy, I experienced none of this from my wife.
> 
> There did seem to be a sort of distance there, but I understand that was just giving me some space to grieve in my way, which is exactly what she would want from me in the same circumstances.
> 
> Even with someone you're intensely emotionally intimate with, it can be very difficult to really know what to say and when, or how much and when to interject your support, even if it comes with the best of intentions. You want to be there but you don't want to be pushy.
> 
> But I was back after her the very next day and she was receptive. There appeared to be no loss of attraction, or if there was, it was very short lived. My impression was she had a very appropriate, loving, and caring amount of empathy for me at that time, and it didn't negatively affect anything else.
> 
> I said "interestingly" at the beginning of the tread because it seemed like a butterfly flapping its wings in Zimbabwe could cause her to lose interest. But this didn't.


Would you say that this mainly affects your wife when you are hurt or sick? (I think I read that on a post on this thread or the other one....)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Affaircare said:


> First, I get a tickle out of how this discussion went from discussing va-clang in the face of empathy toward men...to discussing arousal. I think I can tell what's on your minds! LOL
> 
> Second, I would like to summarize/paraphrase to see if I'm getting the gist. This isn't about wanting sex at the moment of vulnerability, but rather, it's about fellas being able to see their women visibly va-clang if they expose a tender spot. So instead of responding with empathy (as an example, warmth, caring, compassion, kindness, tenderness) or at minimum having some understanding for what the guy was going through, she pretty much unconsciously reacted with a detaching, pulling back, cold kind of look on her face accompanied by actions. And the term "va-clang" (which I love, by the way!), is the term used to describe the reaction where the vajayjay snaps shut so soundly that it makes a clang sound! In other words, "Wait, what? You have a weakness? CLANG" accompanied by some sort of action that indicates some decrease in animal attraction.
> 
> Before I continue at all...is that paraphrase correct? Is this what we are discussing?


The discussion has blossomed in a few different directions, and that's fine, I think my original points have been well understood by me and from here, people can take it where ever they want.

But yes I think @Buddy400 can describe for you if your post above reflects his thinking...if he sees this.


----------



## BluesPower

Wow, is this some thread...

So have we agreed that for whatever reason, that some women, possibly a significant percentage, have difficulty having empathy for men, even if they do not understand why? 

I think at least the anecdotal evidence, from some fairly normal men, seem to think that is the case.

I do, I have seen it. The thing is that I think most(?) men understand this from early on in life. 

Maybe that is just my experience? 

I think most men just think this is how it is, you never show weakness, no matter how much the women that you are with thinks she is enlightened (no offense to anyone), but you just never show any weakness. 

I don't think of it a lot, but I have recently. 

Does anyone think that it is easy for some (most?) men to always feel like you have to have your **** together even when you may be falling apart? 

It gets old from my perspective...


----------



## personofinterest

> If men are feeling pressures now, because of my age and experience having lived in decades where women were, even with their permission, kept out of the conversations of any kind that didn't include passive roles - then if men are feeling pressure now, I tend to have less sympathy. Women did this for so long that men, if they feel disturbed or uncomfortable, I say, "Welcome to the club" - now let's talk about how we are BOTH human beings with some different needs and modes of operation. WE need to understand each other. But I will no longer sweep my opinions and preferences under the rug if that is the only way you can feel better about yourself. YOU want to have demands and desires...and so do I...let's have a recognition that goes both ways.


If you read her original post carefully and the following clarifications, you will understand that 

A. The OP made it clear that this was NOT to be a "men do it too" thread and

B. Having empathy for men should not be some "reparations" issue for past generations

Yeah, 50 years ago some things sucked.

It's 2019. If a woman cannot find a way to empathize with a man she cares about or at least strive to understand how a portion of men may feel, then she cannot blame what people did in grandpa's day.

The above quote is exactly the kind of thing the OP is trying to STOP doing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> Does anyone think that it is easy for some (most?) men to always feel like you have to have your **** together even when you may be falling apart?
> 
> It gets old from my perspective...


Yes, I get this. This in itself is why I'm so alarmed about this topic. I am sad for men, not that they need my pity or whatever, just that they simply have no choice but to always be strong, even to the detriment of their own mental health. I think I would literally feel suicidal if this was me, but of course, that's because I'm a soft girly girl and have never been expected to take on my shoulders even half of what most men are expected to take on theirs (talking about mostly emotional issues right now). So I can't even handle the thought of it, and for you guys, it is just your life every day.


----------



## personofinterest

> So have we agreed that for whatever reason, that some women, possibly a significant percentage, have difficulty having empathy for men, even if they do not understand why?


No, I do not agree with this. I have no doubt men have experienced this, but I do not think this is pervasive. At all


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Would you say that this mainly affects your wife when you are hurt or sick? (I think I read that on a post on this thread or the other one....)


Two part answer:

First, I almost never get sick, and when I do, it is mild, short lived, and I generally can perform (in any way required) through it. From age 16 through 54, I have missed exactly one day of work (or school) due to illness. 

Injury on the other hand can be a problem. Not the injury itself, but how I got it. My injuries tend to come from extreme sports which I do without my wife. So the injury reminds her I was off doing something without her and she doesn't like it if my limitation I got without her then prevents me from doing other things with her. This is perfectly understandable, and I do my best, well first to not get injured in the first place, but second to not let the injury affect my performance in all aspects of life no more than it absolutely has to.

But even then, I don't think it affects her desire. Her desire isn't frequent, but when it comes, there's really no stopping it. It is a force of nature this mere mortal is scarcely able to resist. If she's in the mood, there's little sympathy for my discomfort, which is also okay by me as well. She likes to joke that I could be on my death bed with broken bones, shock, fatigue, IVs and oxygen, and I'd still be willing and able to execute a vigorous roll in the hay. That works for both of us.


----------



## BluesPower

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I get this. This in itself is why I'm so alarmed about this topic. I am sad for men, not that they need my pity or whatever, just that they simply have no choice but to always be strong, even to the detriment of their own mental health. I think I would literally feel suicidal if this was me, but of course, that's because I'm a soft girly girl and have never been expected to take on my shoulders even half of what most men are expected to take on theirs (talking about mostly emotional issues right now). So I can't even handle the thought of it, and for you guys, it is just your life every day.


Well thanks for this, but don't worry about me, at least. I carried the entire world on my shoulders with my Ex W, until I had a stoke. Wow, talk about no empathy from a wife, I laugh about it now. 

But, it did not phase me, I came out way stronger than I was to start with, and much more clear headed and determined, after it. 

Actually, it is the best thing, except my kids and new GF, that ever happened to me in my life. 

Talk about a wake up call.


----------



## uhtred

Its an interesting question /thought. I've always felt that somehow I had ultimate responsibility to make sure things were turn out OK. That while my wife and I share normal responsibilities, work etc, that somehow I had ultimate responsibility.

Of course its also possible many women feel the same way - that in the end *they* need to be the ones that have ultimate responsibility. 

For some couples both may feel that way, even if neither of them has ever discussed it. 




Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I get this. This in itself is why I'm so alarmed about this topic. I am sad for men, not that they need my pity or whatever, just that they simply have no choice but to always be strong, even to the detriment of their own mental health. I think I would literally feel suicidal if this was me, but of course, that's because I'm a soft girly girl and have never been expected to take on my shoulders even half of what most men are expected to take on theirs (talking about mostly emotional issues right now). So I can't even handle the thought of it, and for you guys, it is just your life every day.


----------



## Affaircare

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> First, I almost never get sick, and when I do, it is mild, short lived, and I generally can perform (in any way required) through it. From age 16 through 54, I have missed exactly one day of work (or school) due to illness.



:surprise: OH MY GOD! Are you Unbreakable?










:rofl:


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Affaircare said:


> :surprise: OH MY GOD! Are you Unbreakable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :rofl:


I was actually quite sick as a young child. Lots of colds, flus, strep, etc. We moved a lot so I got exposed to a lot. Had some real down time with pneumonia at age 15. Since then, pretty much nada. My theory is that I just got exposed to so much and had to fight off so much up to that point, that I developed antibodies to just about everything. 

But unbreakable? I wish. I have a variety of other issues which have crept up in my middle age. Not viruses mind you, but other health issues that have definitely slowed me down despite my determination to not let them do so. What fun is life without pain and struggle, eh?


----------



## BluesPower

uhtred said:


> Its an interesting question /thought. I've always felt that somehow I had ultimate responsibility to make sure things were turn out OK. That while my wife and I share normal responsibilities, work etc, that somehow I had ultimate responsibility.
> 
> Of course its also possible many women feel the same way - that in the end *they* need to be the ones that have ultimate responsibility.
> 
> For some couples both may feel that way, even if neither of them has ever discussed it.


This is what lots of people want, and I think very few people actually have. 

Example, with my GF, we agree that in this relationship, no one person "loves" the other more. In some respects we really feel like equals in that area we are balanced. A first for both. 

However, I don't want to assume things for her, some woman would call that controlling. However, when it comes to dinner plans, what we are doing for the day, some times I ask her want she would like to do. 

Occasionally she will have a preference, however, 9 or of 10 times she wants me to decide. And sometimes she actually get a little pissed off that, that I bother her (ask) with those details. She wants me to handle it. 

So I do, and I don't ask unless I just have no ideas that sound good. 

She wants me to be in charge, it makes her feel secure and loved so I do that. 

And you are right, in most situations, if things go bad, the wife (most of the time?) and absolutely society in general look at the man first, that is just how it is. 

You are ultimately responsible for everything and everyone in your purview, regardless...


----------



## PigglyWiggly

In times where I've been emotionally distraught, my wife has always asked. "what do you need?". She will provide a loving hug and a shoulder to cry on if that's what I need but never treats me as lesser of a man if something has me emotionally compromised. She has seen me be "the man" plenty of enough times to know that I'll be the first to step up in a situation where others are overwhelmed but later, when alone with my thoughts, I will express the feelings that I suppressed to get the situation taken care of. She loves this about me and I love her for being so supportive. I'm married to a strong woman who values honorability and integrity as masculinity in men but she never confuses false bravado and machismo for masculinity.


----------



## happiness27

PigglyWiggly said:


> In times where I've been emotionally distraught, my wife has always asked. "what do you need?". She will provide a loving hug and a shoulder to cry on if that's what I need but never treats me as lesser of a man if something has me emotionally compromised. She has seen me be "the man" plenty of enough times to know that I'll be the first to step up in a situation where others are overwhelmed but later, when alone with my thoughts, I will express the feelings that I suppressed to get the situation taken care of. She loves this about me and I love her for being so supportive. I'm married to a strong woman who values honorability and integrity as masculinity in men but she never confuses false bravado and machismo for masculinity.


Just at this moment, I realized that one of the things that causes us, as women and men, to continue hangups is just the use of the terms "masculine" and "feminine". We humans, at some point, (attributable to...where?) like to categorize things. THIS is masculine and THIS is feminine, for instance.

In fact, we are HUMAN. 

When we stop making columns and assigning values (this makes me a man or this makes me a woman), I think we can develop a different viewpoint. Because we are human, we all have times we demonstrate physical and emotional so-called "strength" and so-called vulnerabilities. Feeling something - anything - is something that is HUMAN...and down-right healthy in that we rise to the experiences or even just experience...anything.

I hate it that people have, in their walk of life, have had to put up with people who diminish us for being human, cause us hurt through ridicule or through the mis-guided veil of toughing us up. It's real life - but bear in mind that both men and women have experienced this. 

I remember, for instance, one odd experience in my life - really a trivial moment, if you will - where I was in my 30s and I was just doing something really simple. I was trying to open a window that was stuck. I had to figure out what was wrong with the window and try to solve the problem. Some thoughts came through my head at that moment - my dad and my brother, saying "You can't do that, you're just a GIRL"

Is the pain of those thoughts any greater or less than a guy hearing "Suck it up, ****head, don't be a wuss"?

Is it just me or is the pain similar? 

People say and do stupid stuff that hurts other people because people behave thoughtlessly, often passing down generational b.s. they, themselves, experienced from their own past. 

I fixed the damn window. But I do remember stopping for awhile and staring at the thing and feeling the anger finally for the lack of support that could so easily have been an alternative for either of those men. It was the times and the way THEY were taught to operate in the world - and if they had been more enlightened and and knew better, they'd do better. 

Maybe we all could *be* the people we wish others had been for us when we needed it.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

happiness27 said:


> Just at this moment, I realized that one of the things that causes us, as women and men, to continue hangups is just the use of the terms "masculine" and "feminine". We humans, at some point, (attributable to...where?) like to categorize things. THIS is masculine and THIS is feminine, for instance.
> 
> In fact, we are HUMAN.
> 
> When we stop making columns and assigning values (this makes me a man or this makes me a woman), I think we can develop a different viewpoint. Because we are human, we all have times we demonstrate physical and emotional so-called "strength" and so-called vulnerabilities. Feeling something - anything - is something that is HUMAN...and down-right healthy in that we rise to the experiences or even just experience...anything.
> 
> I hate it that people have, in their walk of life, have had to put up with people who diminish us for being human, cause us hurt through ridicule or through the mis-guided veil of toughing us up. It's real life - but bear in mind that both men and women have experienced this.
> 
> I remember, for instance, one odd experience in my life - really a trivial moment, if you will - where I was in my 30s and I was just doing something really simple. I was trying to open a window that was stuck. I had to figure out what was wrong with the window and try to solve the problem. Some thoughts came through my head at that moment - my dad and my brother, saying "You can't do that, you're just a GIRL"
> 
> Is the pain of those thoughts any greater or less than a guy hearing "Suck it up, ****head, don't be a wuss"?
> 
> Is it just me or is the pain similar?
> 
> People say and do stupid stuff that hurts other people because people behave thoughtlessly, often passing down generational b.s. they, themselves, experienced from their own past.
> 
> I fixed the damn window. But I do remember stopping for awhile and staring at the thing and feeling the anger finally for the lack of support that could so easily have been an alternative for either of those men. It was the times and the way THEY were taught to operate in the world - and if they had been more enlightened and and knew better, they'd do better.
> 
> Maybe we all could *be* the people we wish others had been for us when we needed it.


That's a beautiful thought you've expressed. I definitely understand and agree with the point you are making.


----------



## Affaircare

uhtred said:


> Its an interesting question /thought. I've always felt that somehow I had ultimate responsibility to make sure things were turn out OK. That while my wife and I share normal responsibilities, work etc, that somehow I had ultimate responsibility.
> 
> Of course its also possible many women feel the same way - that in the end *they* need to be the ones that have ultimate responsibility.
> 
> For some couples both may feel that way, even if neither of them has ever discussed it.


This is an interesting dynamic, in that it has piqued my curiosity. I have to confess, I don't think I feel EITHER way @uhtred, so I would love to hear more about how you got this feeling of being ultimately responsible. 

The dynamic I have with EB is definitely leader/follower--there's no doubt--and I'm very happy with that kind of submission, so I'm not a resentful feminist type here. However, he sure as shooting is not ultimately responsible in my mind--that means everything from chores to emotional support. From what I can tell, he's responsible for him, I'm responsible for me, and we both volunteer to consider the other as we make our choices. 

On some things, he's just got more skill so he takes the lead and I assist--on other things I have the talent and I lead where he assists. Emotionally, I support him (I believe--I'll let him speak for himself on that topic) and he surely supports me. By "support" I mean that when he's stressed, I make the house a haven and listen quietly--when I'm stressed he listens. Where the leader/follower part comes in is just our role of who's who. I give him my full mind, requests, etc. and in the end someone has to make the decision and start, and for us we have an accord that it's him. Most of the time if he says, "You want beef or chicken for dinner?" I could not care less...both are meat and tasty...so I don't say "I don't care" I say "Whichever makes you happy, dear" because that's what I mean! I have no preference. I'm not nagging him with no ideas. I'm not expecting him to guess which I want without telling him. (shrug) 

The part that piqued my curiosity though is the emotional side. I surely don't expect HIM to be responsible for me, my emotions, or making sure everything is okay. I mean, shoot, no one could do that for someone else! If I'm feeling something, that's for me to wrestle with, isn't it? I mean, yep, our spouses can influence how we feel, but in the end, we choose it ourselves. How could anybody expect someone else to be ultimately responsible that their world is okay? 

Seriously that doesn't seem realistic to me. Would you mind going into that a little more?


----------



## Buddy400

Affaircare said:


> First, I get a tickle out of how this discussion went from discussing va-clang in the face of empathy toward men...to discussing arousal. I think I can tell what's on your minds! LOL
> 
> Second, I would like to summarize/paraphrase to see if I'm getting the gist. This isn't about wanting sex at the moment of vulnerability, but rather, it's about fellas being able to see their women visibly va-clang if they expose a tender spot. So instead of responding with empathy (as an example, warmth, caring, compassion, kindness, tenderness) or at minimum having some understanding for what the guy was going through, she pretty much unconsciously reacted with a detaching, pulling back, cold kind of look on her face accompanied by actions. And the term "va-clang" (which I love, by the way!), is the term used to describe the reaction where the vajayjay snaps shut so soundly that it makes a clang sound! In other words, "Wait, what? You have a weakness? CLANG" accompanied by some sort of action that indicates some decrease in animal attraction.
> 
> Before I continue at all...is that paraphrase correct? Is this what we are discussing?
> 
> Edit to add: The reason I ask is twofold--for clarity, and to see if we can talk about situations that are not as major as va-clang due to crying at a funeral. I'm particularly curious about how empathy would be expressed "along the way" rather than at major moments...like on a day-to-day basis. What would it look like? Or is it only wanted in major moments?
> 
> Specifically, since I was not aware this was even an issue, and since it's something new that I'm contemplating, I wonder about those who have experienced this--what do you'd recognize as empathy?


If it were up to me, this thread would be about the need many women seem to have for their man to be emotionally solid (an "emotional rock"). I don't think it specifically about women losing sexual attraction for men when they are emotionally weak as much as it is women being attracted to male emotional strength and, conversely, being repelled (in a sexual way) by male emotional weakness.

Crying at a funeral and having the woman "pull away" is a rather extreme version of this, but related.

Women can have empathy for me (and other men), but it seems only at the cost of not desiring them sexually.

But, we're not pointing this out (at least, I'm not) because I want to have sex with my wife when I'm emotionally vulnerable and she refuses. That's not the point.

I also don't have any complaints, I'd be an emotional stoic even if I was single and rarely, if ever, have needed empathy from my wife. I do need respect and admiration from her (which I get plenty of). 

It would just be nice if women had a better feeling for what life is like as a guy.

Some examples: I've had some health issues lately. I recently spent two nights at the hospital and I spent most of our time together comforting her and telling her everything woul be alright.

I recently updated her on another problem and made a reference to a problem I'm having in one eye maybe making it's presence know in my other eye. She exploded into tears (and yet, I'm never supposed to hold anything back from her!). I'm not that concerned.

On the other hand, my being emotionally vulnerable to *her* doesn't seem to be a problem.

My wife is very intelligent, independent and a successful professional. When we met she made more money than I did. After trying to raise a kid while both being professionals, we agreed that she would stay home and prioritize her career (I was willing to make the deal either way, in retrospect I'm very glad it didn't go that way). She took a couple years off work and then worked part-time for another 10 or so. Being the exceptional talent that she is, after rejoining the workforce full-time she managed to out-earn me for a couple of years (I've been back in the lead for 3 or 4 years ). When getting our Social Security reports, she was surprised that she'd made less contributions than I and wondered how that could be. I pointed out that she'd spent a lot of time outside of the full time workforce. She pointed out several times that she'd made more than me before we met and, for a couple of years recently. I complemented her on her exceptional ability to return to the workforce and do so well but, at this point I was getting mildly irritated.

I said "yes, you are very talented and it was a great how you were able to rejoin the work-force and do so well. But is it possible that we can recognize that while still acknowledging that* I carried the ball for 15 years!*". 

When working part-time, she once asked when I thought she'd be able to retire so that she could focus on her art hobby. I suggested that a good time might be when I actually got to retire! I'm not sure that women realize that, for men, there really are very few choices; You work like every day until you're 66 or until you die. 

To be clear, I have a wonderful marriage and couldn't be happier (and I'm sure my wife feels the same). I don't want or need more empathy from my wife than I'm getting and I'm having all the sex with my wife that I'd like (whenever I want it).

And I'm biased as well. If I saw a guy being emotionally weak, I'd be the first one to say "What does she see in him".


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> That might actually be quite a challenge (given that it’s impossible to pee with an erection!).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What?? I just asked DH, is this TRUE?? I thought I had seen him do it. And apparently I have.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

NobodySpecial said:


> What?? I just asked DH, is this TRUE?? I thought I had seen him do it. And apparently I have.


Ha yes you can definitely pee with an erection. There is a meme that shows the positions a man takes while trying to pee with an erection. My wife laughs at my attempts with how i contort to try and get the right angle.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Buddy400 said:


> If it were up to me, this thread would be about the need many women seem to have for their man to be emotionally solid (an "emotional rock"). I don't think it specifically about women losing sexual attraction for men when they are emotionally weak as much as it is women being attracted to male emotional strength and, conversely, being repelled (in a sexual way) by male emotional weakness.
> 
> Crying at a funeral and having the woman "pull away" is a rather extreme version of this, but related.
> 
> Women can have empathy for me (and other men), but it seems only at the cost of not desiring them sexually.
> 
> But, we're not pointing this out (at least, I'm not) because I want to have sex with my wife when I'm emotionally vulnerable and she refuses. That's not the point.
> 
> I also don't have any complaints, I'd be an emotional stoic even if I was single and rarely, if ever, have needed empathy from my wife. I do need respect and admiration from her (which I get plenty of).
> 
> It would just be nice if women had a better feeling for what life is like as a guy.
> 
> Some examples: I've had some health issues lately. I recently spent two nights at the hospital and I spent most of our time together comforting her and telling her everything woul be alright.
> 
> I recently updated her on another problem and made a reference to a problem I'm having in one eye maybe making it's presence know in my other eye. She exploded into tears (and yet, I'm never supposed to hold anything back from her!). I'm not that concerned.
> 
> On the other hand, my being emotionally vulnerable to *her* doesn't seem to be a problem.
> 
> My wife is very intelligent, independent and a successful professional. When we met she made more money than I did. After trying to raise a kid while both being professionals, we agreed that she would stay home and prioritize her career (I was willing to make the deal either way, in retrospect I'm very glad it didn't go that way). She took a couple years off work and then worked part-time for another 10 or so. Being the exceptional talent that she is, after rejoining the workforce full-time she managed to out-earn me for a couple of years (I've been back in the lead for 3 or 4 years ). When getting our Social Security reports, she was surprised that she'd made less contributions than I and wondered how that could be. I pointed out that she'd spent a lot of time outside of the full time workforce. She pointed out several times that she'd made more than me before we met and, for a couple of years recently. I complemented her on her exceptional ability to return to the workforce and do so well but, at this point I was getting mildly irritated.
> 
> I said "yes, you are very talented and it was a great how you were able to rejoin the work-force and do so well. But is it possible that we can recognize that while still acknowledging that* I carried the ball for 15 years!*".
> 
> When working part-time, she once asked when I thought she'd be able to retire so that she could focus on her art hobby. I suggested that a good time might be when I actually got to retire! I'm not sure that women realize that, for men, there really are very few choices; You work like every day until you're 66 or until you die.
> 
> To be clear, I have a wonderful marriage and couldn't be happier (and I'm sure my wife feels the same). I don't want or need more empathy from my wife than I'm getting and I'm having all the sex with my wife that I'd like (whenever I want it).
> 
> And I'm biased as well. If I saw a guy being *emotionally weak*, I'd be the first one to say "What does she see in him".


Can you give an example of what that would look like so I can understand your perspective?


----------



## Buddy400

BluesPower said:


> Occasionally she will have a preference, however, 9 or of 10 times she wants me to decide. And sometimes she actually get a little pissed off that, that I bother her (ask) with those details. She wants me to handle it.
> 
> So I do, and I don't ask unless I just have no ideas that sound good.
> 
> She wants me to be in charge, it makes her feel secure and loved so I do that.


My experience as well.

The thing is that is seems as if women think we do stuff like this because we, as men somehow *need* to. 

I think we do this because it seems women want us to.

And then some women turn around and call us misogynistic pigs.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> My wife is very intelligent, independent and a successful professional. When we met she made more money than I did. After trying to raise a kid while both being professionals, we agreed that she would stay home and prioritize her career (I was willing to make the deal either way, in retrospect I'm very glad it didn't go that way). She took a couple years off work and then worked part-time for another 10 or so. Being the exceptional talent that she is, after rejoining the workforce full-time she managed to out-earn me for a couple of years (I've been back in the lead for 3 or 4 years ). When getting our Social Security reports, she was surprised that she'd made less contributions than I and wondered how that could be. I pointed out that she'd spent a lot of time outside of the full time workforce. She pointed out several times that she'd made more than me before we met and, for a couple of years recently. I complemented her on her exceptional ability to return to the workforce and do so well but, at this point I was getting mildly irritated.
> 
> I said "yes, you are very talented and it was a great how you were able to rejoin the work-force and do so well. But is it possible that we can recognize that while still acknowledging that* I carried the ball for 15 years!*".
> 
> When working part-time, she once asked when I thought she'd be able to retire so that she could focus on her art hobby. I suggested that a good time might be when I actually got to retire! I'm not sure that women realize that, for men, there really are very few choices; You work like every day until you're 66 or until you die.


I guess this is another area too far outside my experience for me to relate at all. No one has financially supported me since I was a minor. And even as an adult, the only person who ever came to my rescue financially was my mother (even though she barely has any money). Thankfully that was long ago and these days, I'm the one handing out loans and financially helping my mom, brother and kids when they need it.

In my 2 marriages, we earned roughly the same (though in my 2nd M, my H made a bit more than me, but I had more assets). At no time did anyone I was ever married to just "cover everything" while I didn't work. I don't even know what that would feel like.

When I hear women talk about being SAHM's or that they are living off alimony from their ex-h because he had already supported her ... and that means he should have to continue supporting her? I'm just confused by that.

(no shame to any SAHM's reading!)

It is just nothing I can relate to, at all. I don't understand, it would make me feel so afraid to not have any of my "own" money. To only have "his" money and then use it for things for "me"? 

When you have always worked and you have no way to survive without continuing to work...it just makes me feel odd about the fact that some people don't work ( again, no shame ladies! ). I used to wonder how did I get jilted out of this deal? But then eventually, I just looked at it like no, I don't really want to "depend" on someone like that. Of course I'd love to have a wealthy hubby and neither of us ever have to worry about money...but I know I would somehow feel weird about that. I want MY OWN money, that has nothing to do with anyone else. I want to know that MY money can never be taken away from me by someone else, because it is actually THEIR money.

I know that one income households don't see it like "his" money and "her" lack of money, but that is how it would always feel to me, I think.

And maybe this is all just indicative of what Jld always told me. Basically, that I'm the man. So I guess I can't expect to be supported like that, it is not my role. :laugh:


----------



## 269370

PigglyWiggly said:


> Ha yes you can definitely pee with an erection. There is a meme that shows the positions a man takes while trying to pee with an erection. My wife laughs at my attempts with how i contort to try and get the right angle.



Huh? How do you do it? I never manage to get anything out! It’s not so much the angle as the fact that the urethra is blocked when the **** is erect! Is my erection too hard maybe? (Sorry wrong thread again).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Googled it:

“Great question—yes, it is very normal. In fact, most men can’t urinate while erect—there is a muscle which typically closes off the tube where urine comes out while the penis is erect.”

Phew.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PigglyWiggly

inmyprime said:


> Huh? How do you do it? I never manage to get anything out! It’s not so much the angle as the fact that the urethra is blocked when the **** is erect! Is my erection too hard maybe? (Sorry wrong thread again).
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I dunno how I do it. I have to stand there a bit and wait for the valve to switch over. Under those circumstances, you have great flow and lots of pressure. >


----------



## happiness27

Buddy400 said:


> If it were up to me, this thread would be about the need many women seem to have for their man to be emotionally solid (an "emotional rock"). I don't think it specifically about women losing sexual attraction for men when they are emotionally weak as much as it is women being attracted to male emotional strength and, conversely, being repelled (in a sexual way) by male emotional weakness.
> 
> Crying at a funeral and having the woman "pull away" is a rather extreme version of this, but related.
> 
> Women can have empathy for me (and other men), but it seems only at the cost of not desiring them sexually.
> 
> But, we're not pointing this out (at least, I'm not) because I want to have sex with my wife when I'm emotionally vulnerable and she refuses. That's not the point.
> 
> I also don't have any complaints, I'd be an emotional stoic even if I was single and rarely, if ever, have needed empathy from my wife. I do need respect and admiration from her (which I get plenty of).
> 
> It would just be nice if women had a better feeling for what life is like as a guy.
> 
> Some examples: I've had some health issues lately. I recently spent two nights at the hospital and I spent most of our time together comforting her and telling her everything woul be alright.
> 
> I recently updated her on another problem and made a reference to a problem I'm having in one eye maybe making it's presence know in my other eye. She exploded into tears (and yet, I'm never supposed to hold anything back from her!). I'm not that concerned.
> 
> On the other hand, my being emotionally vulnerable to *her* doesn't seem to be a problem.
> 
> My wife is very intelligent, independent and a successful professional. When we met she made more money than I did. After trying to raise a kid while both being professionals, we agreed that she would stay home and prioritize her career (I was willing to make the deal either way, in retrospect I'm very glad it didn't go that way). She took a couple years off work and then worked part-time for another 10 or so. Being the exceptional talent that she is, after rejoining the workforce full-time she managed to out-earn me for a couple of years (I've been back in the lead for 3 or 4 years ). When getting our Social Security reports, she was surprised that she'd made less contributions than I and wondered how that could be. I pointed out that she'd spent a lot of time outside of the full time workforce. She pointed out several times that she'd made more than me before we met and, for a couple of years recently. I complemented her on her exceptional ability to return to the workforce and do so well but, at this point I was getting mildly irritated.
> 
> I said "yes, you are very talented and it was a great how you were able to rejoin the work-force and do so well. But is it possible that we can recognize that while still acknowledging that* I carried the ball for 15 years!*".
> 
> When working part-time, she once asked when I thought she'd be able to retire so that she could focus on her art hobby. I suggested that a good time might be when I actually got to retire! I'm not sure that women realize that, for men, there really are very few choices; You work like every day until you're 66 or until you die.
> 
> To be clear, I have a wonderful marriage and couldn't be happier (and I'm sure my wife feels the same). I don't want or need more empathy from my wife than I'm getting and I'm having all the sex with my wife that I'd like (whenever I want it).
> 
> And I'm biased as well. If I saw a guy being emotionally weak, I'd be the first one to say "What does she see in him".


What does "emotionally weak" look like?


----------



## uhtred

First, this is not requested / required / imposed , or maybe even recognized by my wife, it is all internal. 

Why is a really difficult question. As far as I can tell its just some long term deep conditioning - men are the last in the lifeboats, the ones who to into the reactor chamber to close the valve, the ones who are the "heroes". 

There are not a lot of movies where women heroically sacrifice themselves to save men, but a great many of the opposite. (Reverse the genders in Titanic, and imagine the guy sitting on the raft watching his girlfriend freeze to death). (spoiler - the ship sinks....).

I think life long exposure to that sort of attitude has ingrained in me the idea that "the buck stops here", that I have the final ultimate responsibility if comes to that. 

Whether I would act in the way that I feel is "correct" in such a situation is something I can't possibly know, I've only had one minor opportunity to take a risk to save a woman) but I hope I would. 


To me this permeates beyond the extreme Hollywood style situations. I will carry the heavy luggage or backpack. If she is stuck with a broken car, I'll get her but would not ask the same in reverse. I'll get some job, whatever it takes to make sure we don't run out of money. I'll take our dying cat with cancer to the vet to be killed (despite crying while I do it). 

I can't always make her happy, and that hurts me - not just because she is unhappy but from my own sense of failure from not fixing it. 


Again, this is all on *me*, and its quite possible my wife feels that *she* is the one to provide the ultimate backup. 







Affaircare said:


> This is an interesting dynamic, in that it has piqued my curiosity. I have to confess, I don't think I feel EITHER way @uhtred, so I would love to hear more about how you got this feeling of being ultimately responsible.
> 
> The dynamic I have with EB is definitely leader/follower--there's no doubt--and I'm very happy with that kind of submission, so I'm not a resentful feminist type here. However, he sure as shooting is not ultimately responsible in my mind--that means everything from chores to emotional support. From what I can tell, he's responsible for him, I'm responsible for me, and we both volunteer to consider the other as we make our choices.
> 
> On some things, he's just got more skill so he takes the lead and I assist--on other things I have the talent and I lead where he assists. Emotionally, I support him (I believe--I'll let him speak for himself on that topic) and he surely supports me. By "support" I mean that when he's stressed, I make the house a haven and listen quietly--when I'm stressed he listens. Where the leader/follower part comes in is just our role of who's who. I give him my full mind, requests, etc. and in the end someone has to make the decision and start, and for us we have an accord that it's him. Most of the time if he says, "You want beef or chicken for dinner?" I could not care less...both are meat and tasty...so I don't say "I don't care" I say "Whichever makes you happy, dear" because that's what I mean! I have no preference. I'm not nagging him with no ideas. I'm not expecting him to guess which I want without telling him. (shrug)
> 
> The part that piqued my curiosity though is the emotional side. I surely don't expect HIM to be responsible for me, my emotions, or making sure everything is okay. I mean, shoot, no one could do that for someone else! If I'm feeling something, that's for me to wrestle with, isn't it? I mean, yep, our spouses can influence how we feel, but in the end, we choose it ourselves. How could anybody expect someone else to be ultimately responsible that their world is okay?
> 
> Seriously that doesn't seem realistic to me. Would you mind going into that a little more?


----------



## PigglyWiggly

uhtred said:


> First, this is not requested / required / imposed , or maybe even recognized by my wife, it is all internal.
> 
> Why is a really difficult question. As far as I can tell its just some long term deep conditioning - men are the last in the lifeboats, the ones who to into the reactor chamber to close the valve, the ones who are the "heroes".
> 
> There are not a lot of movies where women heroically sacrifice themselves to save men, but a great many of the opposite. (Reverse the genders in Titanic, and imagine the guy sitting on the raft watching his girlfriend freeze to death). (spoiler - the ship sinks....).
> 
> I think life long exposure to that sort of attitude has ingrained in me the idea that "the buck stops here", that I have the final ultimate responsibility if comes to that.
> 
> Whether I would act in the way that I feel is "correct" in such a situation is something I can't possibly know, I've only had one minor opportunity to take a risk to save a woman) but I hope I would.
> 
> 
> To me this permeates beyond the extreme Hollywood style situations. I will carry the heavy luggage or backpack. If she is stuck with a broken car, I'll get her but would not ask the same in reverse. I'll get some job, whatever it takes to make sure we don't run out of money. *I'll take our dying cat with cancer to the vet to be killed (despite crying while I do it).
> *
> I can't always make her happy, and that hurts me - not just because she is unhappy but from my own sense of failure from not fixing it.
> 
> 
> Again, this is all on *me*, and its quite possible my wife feels that *she* is the one to provide the ultimate backup.


Wow this reminds me of our dead dog in the road and then the pet from another neighborhood being killed in front of our house. Who had to deal with all of that....the person with a penis. Neither was "my" puppy but I had to take care of it and it sucked.


----------



## Affaircare

Just to discuss "his" and "her" money a little more, I've had three situations:

*1st marriage*: ExH and I had 2 kids and began a $1 million technology business together. He was corporate Prez, I did all bookkeeping, ordering, bill paying, etc. So he got a salary of $6k/mo, and I got $2k/mo...and I got the kids off to school, did all school/teacher meetings, took kids to practices, etc. Our arrangement was that if we got childcare for the kids, it would have cost more than I would earn, so I worked while they were at school, and at night 9pm-12mid. Of course, in the divorce, he thought all the money was his, all the assets were his, and I hadn't contributed at all. 

*2nd marriage*: Dear Hubby did not have a degree nor a career where he stayed and climbed the ladder, so we both earned about $2k/mo and supported his kids and my kids. Then he got sick and just could not work dependably, so I got a job paying about $3k/mo and he did some graphic design as he could for maybe $1k/mo and took care of the home and the kids. Gradually, as he got more and more ill, he couldn't keep up so I worked more, he worked less, and I took over care for the teenagers and the chores. In the end, if I didn't earn it, we did without. 

*Now*: I decline to give numbers, but I'll just say that @Emerging Buddhist is a very good provider, and I make maybe half of what he makes. He works out of the home at a career he's had for more than a quarter century, so he's the BOMB at his job, and I work from home and love the work I do (lots of tech and some travel). I do a lot of the day-to-day chores (dishes, laundry) since I'm home, and we tackle projects together on the weekend, but EB really pitches in and is pretty self-sufficient in that if he sees X or Y or Z needs to be done, he doesn't say "Hey AC pitter patter let's get at'er" but just does it himself. 

I bring all this up because I've been in three shoes. I've been the one who worked but also took care of all home care and child care and it was utterly unappreciated! And yet, if I hadn't been there, the other party would have had to either pay someone or do all that work themselves! I've been the one who bears the burden of providing for the family, and I'll tell ya what: I'll never take that for granted *EVER*. It's a thankless job feeling that pressure to offer a certain lifestyle no matter what. AND now I'm the one who is learning how to let someone else care and be the provider. Oddly enough, that's tough because I'm like you, @faithfulwife...I don't want to be beholden to ANYONE and I want to be able to at minimum pay my own way and contribute equal to what I use, you know?


----------



## happiness27

PigglyWiggly said:


> Wow this reminds me of our dead dog in the road and then the pet from another neighborhood being killed in front of our house. Who had to deal with all of that....the person with a penis. Neither was "my" puppy but I had to take care of it and it sucked.



I had to do that once also. And, yes, it sucked. I wish I'd called animal control instead but I would had to have stared at the poor animal's body and I chose the lesser of two evils. Plus, I was mad as hell at the stupid neighbor who had tied their dog to a stake in his yard in 100+ heat. I hope I never have to do that again.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> If it were up to me, this thread would be about the need many women seem to have for their man to be emotionally solid (an "emotional rock"). I don't think it specifically about women losing sexual attraction for men when they are emotionally weak as much as it is women being attracted to male emotional strength and, conversely, being repelled (in a sexual way) by male emotional weakness.
> 
> 
> 
> Crying at a funeral and having the woman "pull away" is a rather extreme version of this, but related.
> 
> 
> 
> Women can have empathy for me (and other men), but it seems only at the cost of not desiring them sexually.
> 
> 
> 
> But, we're not pointing this out (at least, I'm not) because I want to have sex with my wife when I'm emotionally vulnerable and she refuses. That's not the point.
> 
> 
> 
> I also don't have any complaints, I'd be an emotional stoic even if I was single and rarely, if ever, have needed empathy from my wife. I do need respect and admiration from her (which I get plenty of).
> 
> 
> 
> It would just be nice if women had a better feeling for what life is like as a guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Some examples: I've had some health issues lately. I recently spent two nights at the hospital and I spent most of our time together comforting her and telling her everything woul be alright.
> 
> 
> 
> I recently updated her on another problem and made a reference to a problem I'm having in one eye maybe making it's presence know in my other eye. She exploded into tears (and yet, I'm never supposed to hold anything back from her!). I'm not that concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, my being emotionally vulnerable to *her* doesn't seem to be a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife is very intelligent, independent and a successful professional. When we met she made more money than I did. After trying to raise a kid while both being professionals, we agreed that she would stay home and prioritize her career (I was willing to make the deal either way, in retrospect I'm very glad it didn't go that way). She took a couple years off work and then worked part-time for another 10 or so. Being the exceptional talent that she is, after rejoining the workforce full-time she managed to out-earn me for a couple of years (I've been back in the lead for 3 or 4 years ). When getting our Social Security reports, she was surprised that she'd made less contributions than I and wondered how that could be. I pointed out that she'd spent a lot of time outside of the full time workforce. She pointed out several times that she'd made more than me before we met and, for a couple of years recently. I complemented her on her exceptional ability to return to the workforce and do so well but, at this point I was getting mildly irritated.
> 
> 
> 
> I said "yes, you are very talented and it was a great how you were able to rejoin the work-force and do so well. But is it possible that we can recognize that while still acknowledging that* I carried the ball for 15 years!*".
> 
> 
> 
> When working part-time, she once asked when I thought she'd be able to retire so that she could focus on her art hobby. I suggested that a good time might be when I actually got to retire! I'm not sure that women realize that, for men, there really are very few choices; You work like every day until you're 66 or until you die.
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, I have a wonderful marriage and couldn't be happier (and I'm sure my wife feels the same). I don't want or need more empathy from my wife than I'm getting and I'm having all the sex with my wife that I'd like (whenever I want it).
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm biased as well. If I saw a guy being emotionally weak, I'd be the first one to say "What does she see in him".




Maybe I’m delusional or ‘gaslighted’ but to me, the whole birthing and raising kids thing is a pretty massive responsibility and not something that can be simply quantified in monetary contribution terms.

In terms of being ‘the rock’; i never really felt uncomfortable being in that role that’s why maybe I dont see what the big fuss is about. Or perhaps my wife is just different.
Sometimes I do freak out about things and show it, and I don’t notice either lack of empathy or decline of sexual drive. I don’t feel I either miss it nor particularly need it.

I have observed women who are quite extreme submissives in relationships (not sexually) and the husbands have to always assume that strong role and I wasn’t sure whether the husbands are always comfortable in that element. However it is possible the husband feels he NEEDS to assume that role even though no one is actually expecting him to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

"Women can have empathy for me (and other men), but it seems only at the cost of not desiring them sexually."

Nope. Not accurate. Not even close. There may be a handful of women for whom this is true. But I will never believe that the vast majority of women are incapable of desiring and empathize in with a man.

And while IM being the fly in the ointment, I have no problem with terms like feminine and masculine. I am proud that my husband, who is mail, his masculine. And I feel absolutely no weakness or intimidation reveling in the fact that I am a feminine woman. It's fine to broaden our horizons and our descriptions of human beings, but there is no shame in a woman being feminine or a man being masculine. Just like there is no shame and a woman staying home with her children and stead of being corporate. Just like there is no shame and I woman desiring that her man be the head of household. What we have done when we imply the above is we have exchanged one set of discriminations for another set of discriminations. True tolerance is when we can accept all of the above.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> "Women can have empathy for me (and other men), but it seems only at the cost of not desiring them sexually."
> 
> Nope. Not accurate. Not even close. There may be a handful of women for whom this is true. But I will never believe that the vast majority of women are incapable of desiring and empathize in with a man.
> 
> And while IM being the fly in the ointment, I have no problem with terms like feminine and masculine. I am proud that my husband, who is mail, his masculine. And I feel absolutely no weakness or intimidation reveling in the fact that I am a feminine woman. It's fine to broaden our horizons and our descriptions of human beings, but there is no shame in a woman being feminine or a man being masculine. Just like there is no shame and a woman staying home with her children and stead of being corporate. Just like there is no shame and I woman desiring that her man be the head of household. What we have done when we imply the above is we have exchanged one set of discriminations for another set of discriminations. True tolerance is when we can accept all of the above.


It seems you are implying dichotomy where none exists. Do you think that there IS a problem with women being feminine and men being masculine? I mean, when I walk down the street, to the store, to my office, that is 99% of what I see.


----------



## farsidejunky

NobodySpecial said:


> What?? I just asked DH, is this TRUE?? I thought I had seen him do it. And apparently I have.


Let's not confuse possible with easy.

It's sort of like turning on a hose with a car tire parked on it. Sure, some liquid may come out, but only after the whole bunch of pressure is applied on the business side of that tire...which isn't exactly comfortable.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

I don't know why men want empathy from women. I dont want to deal with makeup, hair, menstration, and pregnancy. I'll be happy go kill and bring home dinner to avoid that! 

I do find it funny though that prostrate cancer is wildly underfunded compared to breast cancer even though they claim about the same number of victims. But then my GF explained it to me. Everyone likes boobies. She had me there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> "Women can have empathy for me (and other men), but it seems only at the cost of not desiring them sexually."
> 
> Nope. Not accurate. Not even close. There may be a handful of women for whom this is true. But I will never believe that the vast majority of women are incapable of desiring and empathize in with a man.


I don’t know if it’s a vast majority. But I think there is enough common experience by men to say that there is a significant amount of women who seem to fall into this category.

It does seem to me to be women who are sexually submissive (whether aware or not) who are the most likely to have the va-clang effect. 

And if I had to guess, I would say probably 30% of women fall into the submissive scale.

Now, I have my own personal thoughts on the amount of submissive women in the world, but that’s a different discussion. I’m not sure it’s such a “natural” position for women, and I could argue against any conclusions anyone has made about the nature of our ancestors and our evolution. But I do understand why people believe there is a natural submissive tendency in women.

So even if it’s less than 30%, there is some significant amount of women who lean submissive and I acknowledge that what the guys here have reported seems to all fall into a distinct pattern. Significant enough to consider the workings behind it, and explore what it might mean to men who are experiencing this.

And for now, I’m taking away any judgement of their stories or trying to do any searching for answers other than what the men themselves have concluded.

They aren’t saying their wives never feel sexy about them. They are saying it can come and go, and they know the things that make it go, so they avoid those things if they can, because they get more net sexy if they do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I don't know why men want empathy from women. I dont want to deal with makeup, hair, menstration, and pregnancy. I'll be happy go kill and bring home dinner to avoid that!
> 
> I do find it funny though that prostrate cancer is wildly underfunded compared to breast cancer even though they claim about the same number of victims. But then my GF explained it to me. Everyone likes boobies. She had me there.


Ok that’s sad. And prostates are important parts of the male sexual anatomy and therefore, they have to do with the penis. Don’t we all love PEENS, too?!?! God damn, find me a donation drive, I’m on this. Sign me up.


----------



## uhtred

Prostate cancer is slow and mostly affects older men. I think the lost years of life are lower than from breast cancer. 

Separately some diseases are more amenable to cures from more investment. 

The above said, I don't know if the funding ratio makes sense.



UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I don't know why men want empathy from women. I dont want to deal with makeup, hair, menstration, and pregnancy. I'll be happy go kill and bring home dinner to avoid that!
> 
> I do find it funny though that prostrate cancer is wildly underfunded compared to breast cancer even though they claim about the same number of victims. But then my GF explained it to me. Everyone likes boobies. She had me there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> Prostate cancer is slow and mostly affects older men. I think the lost years of life are lower than from breast cancer.
> 
> Separately some diseases are more amenable to cures from more investment.
> 
> The above said, I don't know if the funding ratio makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why men want empathy from women. I dont want to deal with makeup, hair, menstration, and pregnancy. I'll be happy go kill and bring home dinner to avoid that!
> 
> I do find it funny though that prostrate cancer is wildly underfunded compared to breast cancer even though they claim about the same number of victims. But then my GF explained it to me. Everyone likes boobies. She had me there.
Click to expand...

I get it that they don’t tend to fund as much money towards diseases that mostly older people face, because the clock is ticking, and there are fewer of them. 

But we are talking about something that affects the PEEN here. Seriously, more awareness, more money, and more research, now!

(Not sarcasm, just silly. But for reals, more money and research and cures, now.)


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

uhtred said:


> Prostate cancer is slow and mostly affects older men. I think the lost years of life are lower than from breast cancer.
> 
> Separately some diseases are more amenable to cures from more investment.
> 
> The above said, I don't know if the funding ratio makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why men want empathy from women. I dont want to deal with makeup, hair, menstration, and pregnancy. I'll be happy go kill and bring home dinner to avoid that!
> 
> I do find it funny though that prostrate cancer is wildly underfunded compared to breast cancer even though they claim about the same number of victims. But then my GF explained it to me. Everyone likes boobies. She had me there.
Click to expand...

I dont know they are both rather common for anyone over 40. I'm sure that you may be right to some extent but not to the extent that it regularly receives 3x more funding. Even the NFL, mostly watched by males, have a breast cancer awareness month but nothing for prostate cancer. The gonad marketing is way behind the booby marketing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I dont know they are both rather common for anyone over 40. I'm sure that you may be right to some extent but not to the extent that it regularly receives 3x more funding. Even the NFL, mostly watched by males, have a breast cancer awareness month but nothing for prostate cancer. The gonad marketing is way behind the booby marketing.


It seems like Armstrong did a lot for testicular cancer awareness, and then after his doling scandal, that kind of disappeared.

I hope more visible and influential men will take up these campaigns. Save the junk!


----------



## Affaircare

If we are having an empathetic penis fundraising drive, count me in! 

:rofl:


----------



## tech-novelist

inmyprime said:


> Also, a lot of guys seem to be thoroughly confused by the fact that their wives can go on for weeks/months without ever showing interest in ANY sexual activity and some even say that they are not especially interested and don’t care much for sex, yet when they DO have sex, those same guys report that their wives ‘love it’ and seem ‘very turned on’.
> Unless it’s wishful thinking (I’m not sure it is), i can imagine why they are left confused and want to get to the bottom of it.
> 
> It’s just a very strange concept that you can be aroused by something yet not find it arousing.
> 
> I think what happens (and I know this from my wife because she TOLD me this) as a husband, you can become too careful/passive when it comes to sexual initiation because of these (fairly recent) norms or perhaps for the fear of doing something ‘too pushy’, accidentally (I’m talking about LTRs, not first dates).
> 
> If my wife tells me not to ‘harass’ her for sex and I listen to her and she later lashes out at me why in the **** I didn’t harass her harder: which part of her body am I supposed to be listening to?
> For us, it’s not really such a problem because one way or another, we still end up ****ing but I imagine it can be a bit of a minefield for some married guys.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


*This* is why it is so difficult for men to "get it right".


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know they are both rather common for anyone over 40. I'm sure that you may be right to some extent but not to the extent that it regularly receives 3x more funding. Even the NFL, mostly watched by males, have a breast cancer awareness month but nothing for prostate cancer. The gonad marketing is way behind the booby marketing.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like Armstrong did a lot for testicular cancer awareness, and then after his doling scandal, that kind of disappeared.
> 
> I hope more visible and influential men will take up these campaigns. Save the junk!
Click to expand...

LOL. 'Save the Junk' campaign. Brilliant. See this is why men are dying like flies to gonad cancer. We need better marketing..


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> LOL. 'Save the Junk' campaign. Brilliant. See this is why men are dying like flies to gonad cancer. We need better marketing..


I agree, it was just an excuse to say junk.

But I would love to get suggestions for a campaign name. It has to be both manly and empathetic. Like Armstrong’s campaign was. It has to have good representation. Like the World’s Most Interesting Man, or similar (someone we can both admire and laugh with).

If you have ideas for how women could join the campaign, please share. We who love junk will carry any signs or wear any t-shirt with (legit) slogans you come up with. 

Maybe there already is such a campaign and we can just get on their bandwagon.


----------



## red oak

inmyprime said:


> Also, a lot of guys seem to be thoroughly confused by the fact that their wives can go on for weeks/months without ever showing interest in ANY sexual activity and some even say that they are not especially interested and don’t care much for sex, yet when they DO have sex, those same guys report that their wives ‘love it’ and seem ‘very turned on’.
> Unless it’s wishful thinking (I’m not sure it is), i can imagine why they are left confused and want to get to the bottom of it.
> 
> It’s just a very strange concept that you can be aroused by something yet not find it arousing.
> 
> I think what happens (and I know this from my wife because she TOLD me this) as a husband, you can become too careful/passive when it comes to sexual initiation because of these (fairly recent) norms or perhaps for the fear of doing something ‘too pushy’, accidentally (I’m talking about LTRs, not first dates).
> 
> If my wife tells me not to ‘harass’ her for sex and I listen to her and she later lashes out at me why in the **** I didn’t harass her harder: which part of her body am I supposed to be listening to?
> For us, it’s not really such a problem because one way or another, we still end up ****ing but I imagine it can be a bit of a minefield for some married guys.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sounds like sublimation. 
If I listened to my wife I would be up **** creek. 

It can get clearer if one delves into theoey of psychological castration, which can be temporary, all that energy must fo somewhere. 

The issue for the husband is having to deal with it, as it can get rather annoying. A large part of d/s is not listening to words but the body to provide what is needed not what's said they want.
The body never lies. There are always tells although one will either need to know their wife extremely well, and/or study body language with micro-expressions fairly deeply. But then you may notice too much about people you dont want to know. :nerd:

Also like every other mammal on the planet human sexuality does have seasonal spurts and lags.


----------



## Wolfman1968

Buddy400 said:


> Women can have empathy for me (and other men), but it seems only at the cost of not desiring them sexually.
> 
> But, we're not pointing this out (at least, I'm not) because I want to have sex with my wife when I'm emotionally vulnerable and she refuses. That's not the point.
> 
> I also don't have any complaints, I'd be an emotional stoic even if I was single and rarely, if ever, have needed empathy from my wife. I do need respect and admiration from her (which I get plenty of).
> 
> It would just be nice if women had a better feeling for what life is like as a guy.


From my personal observation, it appears that women lose their sexual attraction to vulnerable men because the men lose status/value in a woman's eyes when they are vulnerable. (In general, that is.)

It is my observation that women (in general) seem most attracted to men of greater social worth---rich guys, celebrity guys, high profile musicians (groupies), the "captain of the football team" types, etc. 

Women throw themselves at Mick Jagger because he is a famous celebrity; if he was a janitor, his looks would get him a lot fewer dates. On the other hand, I doubt men would throw themselves in the same proportion to, say, Roseanne Barr, even though she is also rich and famous.

So I suspect part of women's lack of empathy involves the perception that a man who needs support emotionally or financially is worth less/has less status, and is therefore more worthy of contempt than empathy. Maybe this springs from the same source that leads to the report that marriages are more unstable when husbands earn less than the wife. 



I also note that many of the women justify their attitudes toward men by saying that the men a "whining". Maybe they are, but can we be sure that what they are calling "whining" in men, they may be calling "justified anxiety" or "situational stress" or "venting" or whatever from women? In other words, given the lack of an external "Whine-o-meter" or "Vulnerability-o-meter" for comparing, how can we be sure that the threshold for unacceptable behavior is being applied equally to both sexes? Personally, I suspect it is not. And I think it is that kind of double standard that underlies some of the behaviors alluded to earlier in this thread---for example, women getting together and all complaining/talking down their men, while men don't seem to do the same about their women.


----------



## 269370

Wolfman1968 said:


> In other words, given the lack of an external "Whine-o-meter" or "Vulnerability-o-meter" for comparing, how can we be sure that the threshold for unacceptable behavior is being applied equally to both sexes?



SHOULD it be applied equally though? All I need to know that if I’m going through a difficult time, she’ll have my back. And vice versa. I can say that while I’m tougher and have certain responsibilities in some aspects, she has responsibilities and is tougher in other aspects. It’s probably not equal but it depends what it is we are measuring...(is it long and girthy?)

No matter what social or financial position one is in, life is still tough for everyone because misfortune can still strike anyone.

I do know men can feel and get bogged down by the feeling of having ‘the world on their shoulders’. But if you step out of the frame for a sec: do you reckon life could still go on without you? (Just as a mental exercise). I think some of that pressure we put onto ourselves. While other pressure is real. 

Mindfulness meditation is good to come to terms with a lot of those things...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GettingIt_2

Wolfman1968 said:


> I also note that many of the women justify their attitudes toward men by saying that the men a "whining". Maybe they are, but can we be sure that what they are calling "whining" in men, they may be calling "justified anxiety" or "situational stress" or "venting" or whatever from women? In other words, given the lack of an external "Whine-o-meter" or "Vulnerability-o-meter" for comparing, how can we be sure that the threshold for unacceptable behavior is being applied equally to both sexes? Personally, I suspect it is not. And I think it is that kind of double standard that underlies some of the behaviors alluded to earlier in this thread---for example, women getting together and all complaining/talking down their men, while men don't seem to do the same about their women.


My marriage improved massively after we stopped trying to make things "the same" between us. We are NOT the same. My weaknesses are not his weaknesses, his strengths are not my strengths. Tit-for-tat and score keeping never got us anywhere. 

One we let go of any expectation that there should be some sort of behavioral "sameness" in our marriage, it took a lot of pressure off. My husband is never going to be good at some things that I'm good at and that I prioritize, and vise versa. He does his best not to make things harder for me or to do things that piss me off or turn me off, and I do the same for him. But when we don't do a good job, we accept that the other person's reaction might not be what we IDEALLY would want it to be. 

My husband does his level best to show empathy with me in the ways that I need it, and I do the same for him. But that doesn't mean it's our strength to do it that way. The key is we both trust that the other person has made the effort to understand what the other person needs . . . and is _doing their best_, even if it's not "up to snuff" for what we envision might would be a better way of doing it.

ETA: That isn't to say that my husband and I tolerate on-going bad behavior from one another. He can, and has, called me on times when my "situational anxiety" has become a problem for him to empathize with. And I have talked to him about times I have trouble empathizing with certain behaviors from him. What we, as individuals (I won't say as "woman" and "man," although stereotypically speaking, that's what it boils down to) can accept and cope with from the other person is not the same. He can put up with more "expressed anxiety" from me that I can from him. Then again, I naturally express my anxiety differently than he does. For example, he would rather me do some venting to get through my anxiety than to have me withdraw emotionally and work through it on my own. And that works better for me, too. I would rather him withdraw a bit and work through issues on his own than vent about them to me . . . and that works better for how he naturally is, too.


----------



## BluesPower

personofinterest said:


> "Women can have empathy for me (and other men), but it seems only at the cost of not desiring them sexually."
> 
> Nope. Not accurate. Not even close. There may be a handful of women for whom this is true. But I will never believe that the vast majority of women are incapable of desiring and empathize in with a man.
> 
> And while IM being the fly in the ointment, I have no problem with terms like feminine and masculine. I am proud that my husband, who is mail, his masculine. And I feel absolutely no weakness or intimidation reveling in the fact that I am a feminine woman. It's fine to broaden our horizons and our descriptions of human beings, but there is no shame in a woman being feminine or a man being masculine. Just like there is no shame and a woman staying home with her children and stead of being corporate. Just like there is no shame and I woman desiring that her man be the head of household. What we have done when we imply the above is we have exchanged one set of discriminations for another set of discriminations. True tolerance is when we can accept all of the above.


Not trying to bang on you, because you know, love ya and all that. 

I forget what you are doing is called, it is akin to conformation bias, but different and a different word. 

But since you, in my opinion, are one of the smaller percentage of women that can feel empathy for your husband, even when he is in a weakened state, or having a hard time, to you, you see no problem because you don't do that. 

While I applaud women like you, FW, PiggleyWiggley's wife and others, lots (most I don't know but lots of women) have difficulty showing empathy for men or get turned off when they (men) are having a hard time. It is not whether or not you are fixing to have sex or not, it is a turn off for them.

THAT Is the reason that MOST men are accustomed to never showing weakness. We accept that this happens, we may not like it, but it is how it is, so we accept it, LIKE MEN. 

Even with my current GF, and literally she is one of the best women I have ever met, in almost every way, she had difficulty with this. 

Of all the GF's that I have ever had, I have had exactly one that acted the way that PW's wife acts toward him and is not turned off when he may be weak or down. ONE out of, well, lets just say a lot. 

And that GF, in this particular case, was CRAZY in love with me, in a way that was not healthy for her. It did not matter what I did, she loved me, and loves me still.

Even current GF, as wonderful as she is, really cannot get there. She wants and subconsciously expects me to always in control, always be completely strong, always have it together. In her case, she never really had that from a man, always wanted it. Now that she has that, she is not going to let go of it. 

Even she has trouble being empathic, and she is not a bad person at all. Quite the opposite...


----------



## personofinterest

Regarding whining....

I think definitely a woman's personality comes into play here. I would also say that her overall capacity for empathy and compassion in general is a factor.

I know for me, my current husband gripes about aspects of his job on a pretty regular basis. He talks about things that bug him and stress him, and sometimes he fantasizes about just giving the boos his keys lol. However, he still goes there every day and works his butt off.

My ex would complain about his job, and then go on to talk about how demoralized he was, how it wasn't fun anymore, how no one thinks he is doing a good job, and his work ethic would go down considerably. Then ,when he would lose said job, he would be "too depressed" to look for another one until it was dire.

For me, the distinction is easy but hard to explain. My current hubby vents, sometimes is grumpy for the evening, talks about what is going on, and then still does HIS part to work hard anyway.

The ex basically wallowed.

It is about the pattern, not a specific instance.

It never occurred to me that my ex whined and wallowed until I had been married to him long enough to see the pattern ( several years).

It may be different for other woman, but I wonder how many women say their man is whining because they have observed a long term pattern of him being rendered catatonic every time something goes wrong, meaning he basically checks out. I know I lost respect for ex not because he had tough times, but because he used those tough times to become self-obsessed and toss of all responsibility to every9one else while he slept and played Runescape.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> It seems you are implying dichotomy where none exists. Do you think that there IS a problem with women being feminine and men being masculine? I mean, when I walk down the street, to the store, to my office, that is 99% of what I see.


Oh not at all. I just think that it is silly to be offended by the words themselves.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

inmyprime said:


> SHOULD it be applied equally though? All I need to know that if I’m going through a difficult time, she’ll have my back. And vice versa. I can say that while I’m tougher and have certain responsibilities in some aspects, she has responsibilities and is tougher in other aspects. It’s probably not equal but it depends what it is we are measuring...(is it long and girthy?)
> 
> No matter what social or financial position one is in, life is still tough for everyone because misfortune can still strike anyone.
> 
> I do know men can feel and get bogged down by the feeling of having ‘the world on their shoulders’. But if you step out of the frame for a sec: do you reckon life could still go on without you? (Just as a mental exercise). I think some of that pressure we put onto ourselves. While other pressure is real.
> 
> Mindfulness meditation is good to come to terms with a lot of those things...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is a great recap of good stuff.
Same, for dear W and I.

And for people in general, once one realizes they can't control everything (rats!) and abdicate errantly being responsible for all that happens, life eases the pressure. 

Not endorsing not being king of your domain but realizing overly worrying about things truly beyond your control is wasted time and brain cells.

Building your ability to weather things that may come up, and comprehending some will be seen, some things unseen, is a better way to build your boat.


----------



## personofinterest

BluesPower said:


> Not trying to bang on you, because you know, love ya and all that.
> 
> I forget what you are doing is called, it is akin to conformation bias, but different and a different word.
> 
> But since you, in my opinion, are one of the smaller percentage of women that can feel empathy for your husband, even when he is in a weakened state, or having a hard time, to you, you see no problem because you don't do that.
> 
> While I applaud women like you, FW, PiggleyWiggley's wife and others, lots (most I don't know but lots of women) have difficulty showing empathy for men or get turned off when they (men) are having a hard time. It is not whether or not you are fixing to have sex or not, it is a turn off for them.
> 
> THAT Is the reason that MOST men are accustomed to never showing weakness. We accept that this happens, we may not like it, but it is how it is, so we accept it, LIKE MEN.
> 
> Even with my current GF, and literally she is one of the best women I have ever met, in almost every way, she had difficulty with this.
> 
> Of all the GF's that I have ever had, I have had exactly one that acted the way that PW's wife acts toward him and is not turned off when he may be weak or down. ONE out of, well, lets just say a lot.
> 
> And that GF, in this particular case, was CRAZY in love with me, in a way that was not healthy for her. It did not matter what I did, she loved me, and loves me still.
> 
> Even current GF, as wonderful as she is, really cannot get there. She wants and subconsciously expects me to always in control, always be completely strong, always have it together. In her case, she never really had that from a man, always wanted it. Now that she has that, she is not going to let go of it.
> 
> Even she has trouble being empathic, and she is not a bad person at all. Quite the opposite...


I think you are saying I am seeing this colored by my own glasses. And you are likely right.

You know....I am realizing more and more how much I learned from my mom and from my own parents' marriage. My mom was very good at empathizing and sympathizing with my dad while at the same time making sure she still saw him as "the man." I am not saying i am as good as she is, but it left the understanding that it was important. And it helped that my dad is a man's man but he could also cry and share feelings. My favorite picture of him and me is where we were taking pictures for my first wedding. Both of us were getting teary, and we looked at each other, and when I saw his tears, I whispered "just think about our matching noses" (we both have....prominent noses lol). The picture is of both of us laughing through the tears while looking at each other.

Anyway, I think because of the very good role models I had, I was somewhat in a bubble.

It's kind of like people who don't understand "those spouses who get so upset over sex!" If you have never spent years aching from rejection and lonlieness and watching months go by without being touched or desired by the ONE person you can be intimate with....you can't understand.

I guess this is the same kind of thing.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

BluesPower said:


> Not trying to bang on you, because you know, love ya and all that.
> 
> I forget what you are doing is called, it is akin to conformation bias, but different and a different word.
> 
> But since you, in my opinion, are one of the smaller percentage of women that can feel empathy for your husband, even when he is in a weakened state, or having a hard time, to you, you see no problem because you don't do that.
> 
> While I applaud women like you, FW, PiggleyWiggley's wife and others, lots (most I don't know but lots of women) have difficulty showing empathy for men or get turned off when they (men) are having a hard time. It is not whether or not you are fixing to have sex or not, it is a turn off for them.
> 
> THAT Is the reason that MOST men are accustomed to never showing weakness. We accept that this happens, we may not like it, but it is how it is, so we accept it, LIKE MEN.
> 
> Even with my current GF, and literally she is one of the best women I have ever met, in almost every way, she had difficulty with this.
> 
> Of all the GF's that I have ever had, I have had exactly one that acted the way that PW's wife acts toward him and is not turned off when he may be weak or down. ONE out of, well, lets just say a lot.
> 
> And that GF, in this particular case, was CRAZY in love with me, in a way that was not healthy for her. It did not matter what I did, she loved me, and loves me still.
> 
> Even current GF, as wonderful as she is, really cannot get there. She wants and subconsciously expects me to always in control, always be completely strong, always have it together. In her case, she never really had that from a man, always wanted it. Now that she has that, she is not going to let go of it.
> 
> Even she has trouble being empathic, and she is not a bad person at all. Quite the opposite...


Very interesting perspective and I appreciate you giving it.


----------



## uhtred

I think you have a good point. Maybe the issue is not as much whether men (or women for that matter) complain about difficulties, but what they actually do in the face of those difficulties.

Maybe details of the source of the complaints also matters. It may matter how serious the issues seem to the spouse (whose analysis may or may not be fair).






personofinterest said:


> Regarding whining....
> 
> I think definitely a woman's personality comes into play here. I would also say that her overall capacity for empathy and compassion in general is a factor.
> 
> I know for me, my current husband gripes about aspects of his job on a pretty regular basis. He talks about things that bug him and stress him, and sometimes he fantasizes about just giving the boos his keys lol. However, he still goes there every day and works his butt off.
> 
> My ex would complain about his job, and then go on to talk about how demoralized he was, how it wasn't fun anymore, how no one thinks he is doing a good job, and his work ethic would go down considerably. Then ,when he would lose said job, he would be "too depressed" to look for another one until it was dire.
> 
> For me, the distinction is easy but hard to explain. My current hubby vents, sometimes is grumpy for the evening, talks about what is going on, and then still does HIS part to work hard anyway.
> 
> The ex basically wallowed.
> 
> It is about the pattern, not a specific instance.
> 
> It never occurred to me that my ex whined and wallowed until I had been married to him long enough to see the pattern ( several years).
> 
> It may be different for other woman, but I wonder how many women say their man is whining because they have observed a long term pattern of him being rendered catatonic every time something goes wrong, meaning he basically checks out. I know I lost respect for ex not because he had tough times, but because he used those tough times to become self-obsessed and toss of all responsibility to every9one else while he slept and played Runescape.


----------



## personofinterest

> It may matter how serious the issues seem to the spouse (whose analysis may or may not be fair).


This is a tricky one, and I have been on the giving and receiving end of a trip up with this.

I would bet that many women can struggle with this. Just like some of my hurts or struggles might seem "silly to be upset about" or "no big deal" to someone else.....maybe, in my mind, what my spouse is stressed or upset about is not all that important.

But it is important to HIM. For me to unilaterally decide that because X issue isn't important to ME, it just isn't important period is extremely lacking in empathy. That fact that my husband IS important to me should be enough for me to be attentive to his struggles.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

personofinterest said:


> I think you are saying I am seeing this colored by my own glasses. And you are likely right.
> 
> You know....I am realizing more and more how much I learned from my mom and from my own parents' marriage. My mom was very good at empathizing and sympathizing with my dad while at the same time making sure she still saw him as "the man." I am not saying i am as good as she is, but it left the understanding that it was important. And it helped that my dad is a man's man but he could also cry and share feelings. My favorite picture of him and me is where we were taking pictures for my first wedding. Both of us were getting teary, and we looked at each other, and when I saw his tears, I whispered "just think about our matching noses" (we both have....prominent noses lol). The picture is of both of us laughing through the tears while looking at each other.
> 
> Anyway, I think because of the very good role models I had, I was somewhat in a bubble.
> 
> It's kind of like people who don't understand "those spouses who get so upset over sex!" If you have never spent years aching from rejection and lonlieness and watching months go by without being touched or desired by the ONE person you can be intimate with....you can't understand.
> 
> I guess this is the same kind of thing.


From your description of your parent's marriage, that is exactly how my marriage is. That must have been nice to grow up with.


----------



## BluesPower

uhtred said:


> I think you have a good point. Maybe the issue is not as much whether men (or women for that matter) complain about difficulties, but what they actually do in the face of those difficulties.


You are on to it here. As men, it IS ONLY what we do under poor circumstances, even if they are not of our own making, that matters.

That is where you get to show your strength and character without bragging. THIS is why me and other men have little empathy for men that are being weak in a relationship, or weak in infidelity, or whatever the situation is. 

We have been there, we have suffered, we kept up a brave face, NO ONE, offered a shoulder to cry on, most of us did not even allow ourselves to cry, except alone, in the dark. 

So yeah, we are hard on ourselves, and we are hard on other men, because we know what society expects from them and from us. 

Guys, that have come crying to me about their wives cheating get basically the same treatment from me in person and the same advice as I give on the internet.

The only difference, is we may grab a bottle, head to the woods, and have a drink. Other than that, I tell him that he just received a knock out blow, so how are you going to respond. And you going down for the count and let this beat you, or are you going to stand up and keep swinging...


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> Not trying to bang on you, because you know, love ya and all that.
> 
> I forget what you are doing is called, it is akin to conformation bias, but different and a different word.
> 
> But since you, in my opinion, are one of the smaller percentage of women that can feel empathy for your husband, even when he is in a weakened state, or having a hard time, to you, you see no problem because you don't do that.
> 
> While I applaud women like you, FW, PiggleyWiggley's wife and others, lots (most I don't know but lots of women) have difficulty showing empathy for men or get turned off when they (men) are having a hard time. It is not whether or not you are fixing to have sex or not, it is a turn off for them.
> 
> THAT Is the reason that MOST men are accustomed to never showing weakness. We accept that this happens, we may not like it, but it is how it is, so we accept it, LIKE MEN.
> 
> Even with my current GF, and literally she is one of the best women I have ever met, in almost every way, she had difficulty with this.
> 
> Of all the GF's that I have ever had, I have had exactly one that acted the way that PW's wife acts toward him and is not turned off when he may be weak or down. ONE out of, well, lets just say a lot.
> 
> And that GF, in this particular case, was CRAZY in love with me, in a way that was not healthy for her. It did not matter what I did, she loved me, and loves me still.
> 
> Even current GF, as wonderful as she is, really cannot get there. She wants and subconsciously expects me to always in control, always be completely strong, always have it together. In her case, she never really had that from a man, always wanted it. Now that she has that, she is not going to let go of it.
> 
> Even she has trouble being empathic, and she is not a bad person at all. Quite the opposite...




I understand what you are saying and that it happens but can’t really relate to it fully.

I don’t agree that it happens in such large numbers.

I think it’s like with the lack of sex: lack of empathy when down is likely not the core issue but a byproduct of the partnership not being quite in the right place.

If everything is fine in your marriage then that doesn’t even arise as the issue. (Obviously many marriages, especially many here, are NOT fine so it can be argued the consensus might be a bit skewed).

I am like I am with my wife. I am obviously different than how I was as a kid, when I felt I could get lots of empathy from my mother. But I also don’t want to be that kid anymore. (Though I still enjoy being silly sometimes).

I imagine it takes a lot of time before you can just be yourself and not worry about being judged when entering a new relationship. I wouldn’t expect there to be the same kind of understanding with casual relationships.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> It seems like Armstrong did a lot for testicular cancer awareness, and then after his doling scandal, that kind of disappeared.
> 
> I hope more visible and influential men will take up these campaigns. Save the junk!


Hahaha! I love "Save The Junk"!

STJ movement started right here on TAM!


----------



## personofinterest

Breast cancer uses "save the tatas"

So maybe....Save the Tee-Tees!

bwahahahahahaha


----------



## PigglyWiggly

BluesPower said:


> You are on to it here. As men, it IS ONLY what we do under poor circumstances, even if they are not of our own making, that matters.
> 
> That is where you get to show your strength and character without bragging. THIS is why me and other men have little empathy for men that are being weak in a relationship, or weak in infidelity, or whatever the situation is.
> 
> We have been there, we have suffered, we kept up a brave face, *NO ONE, offered a shoulder to cry on, most of us did not even allow ourselves to cry, except alone, in the dark. *
> 
> So yeah, we are hard on ourselves, and we are hard on other men, because we know what society expects from them and from us.
> 
> Guys, that have come crying to me about their wives cheating get basically the same treatment from me in person and the same advice as I give on the internet.
> 
> The only difference, is we may grab a bottle, head to the woods, and have a drink. Other than that, I tell him that he just received a knock out blow, so how are you going to respond. And you going down for the count and let this beat you, or are you going to stand up and keep swinging...


Wow, that sounds terrible to me. Alone and in the dark is never where my wife would find me. It sounds so lonely. It sounds like someone who is ashamed for having emotions, for being human. That doesn't sound healthy to me. Once the situation is handled, there is time for reflection and the emotions to come with that. To stifle that is to deny one of the parts that is so beautiful about humanity. I think my wife would greatly miss the part of me that shows compassion, empathy, hurt and suffering. I understand that your thinking is different as well as your gf's and it's great that you found each other. . Thanks for sharing!


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> It seems you are implying dichotomy where none exists. Do you think that there IS a problem with women being feminine and men being masculine? I mean, when I walk down the street, to the store, to my office, that is 99% of what I see.



Come again? What’s the 1% like? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

personofinterest said:


> This is a tricky one, and I have been on the giving and receiving end of a trip up with this.
> 
> 
> 
> I would bet that many women can struggle with this. Just like some of my hurts or struggles might seem "silly to be upset about" or "no big deal" to someone else.....maybe, in my mind, what my spouse is stressed or upset about is not all that important.
> 
> 
> 
> But it is important to HIM. For me to unilaterally decide that because X issue isn't important to ME, it just isn't important period is extremely lacking in empathy. That fact that my husband IS important to me should be enough for me to be attentive to his struggles.


I think this point ties in very closely to men struggling to show empathy for women, in that men see emoting as a need to solve a problem, versus venting frustration.

The problem often looks easy to solve, so we tell them how to solve it, and don't understand why it's such a big deal to begin with.

Men are missing the boat on two separate issues in that instance.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## BluesPower

inmyprime said:


> I understand what you are saying and that it happens but can’t really relate to it fully.
> 
> I don’t agree that it happens in such large numbers.
> 
> I think it’s like with the lack of sex: lack of empathy when down is likely not the core issue but a byproduct of the partnership not being quite in the right place.
> 
> If everything is fine in your marriage then that doesn’t even arise as the issue. (Obviously many marriages, especially many here, are NOT fine so it can be argued the consensus might be a bit skewed).
> 
> I am like I am with my wife. I am obviously different than how I was as a kid, when I felt I could get lots of empathy from my mother. But I also don’t want to be that kid anymore. (Though I still enjoy being silly sometimes).
> 
> I imagine it takes a lot of time before you can just be yourself and not worry about being judged when entering a new relationship. I wouldn’t expect there to be the same kind of understanding with casual relationships.


Same thing I was saying to POI... You don't see it in your life, you are not that way, your wife is not that way, so really what is the problem that everyone is talking about. 

And, the fact the FW has two thread on the subject kind of point to the fact that it is 1) a real issue, and 2) it happens to more men than some of us might think. 

Couple of examples: My wonderful GF, while almost perfect, does not exhibit a lot of E for me or hardly any men. Before she met me and all of my wonderfulness, she was pretty much done with men in general, and with good reason. 

But, I had the flu, BAD. I was so sick I could not get up to eat for 2 days, it was the respiratory flu not the other one. GF, teaches small kids, so she was worried that if she came over while I was contagious she might get her class sick. I totally get that, but I could have used her help when I was not contagious. And she still did not come over, and I was not upset, I kind have grown to accept that type of thing in my life. 

BUT, when we talked and I said I wish you would have come to see me... THIS IS WHAT SHE SAID....

With a somewhat started look she said, " You are right, I messed up, I should have come over to take care of you when it was safe. I JUST NEVER THOUGHT OF IT... You are such a bid, strong, independent man, that the thought of you actually needing my help or even wanting to be comforted NEVER EVEN OCCURED TO ME." 

It is ok babe, I get it... 

Now our relationship is the best one ever, in every way, but even so, my wonderful GF thinks like the above paragraph... I don't blame her, and I am not upset about it. I am used to it because I am a MAN...


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> Same thing I was saying to POI... You don't see it in your life, you are not that way, your wife is not that way, so really what is the problem that everyone is talking about.
> 
> And, the fact the FW has two thread on the subject kind of point to the fact that it is 1) a real issue, and 2) it happens to more men than some of us might think.
> 
> Couple of examples: My wonderful GF, while almost perfect, does not exhibit a lot of E for me or hardly any men. Before she met me and all of my wonderfulness, she was pretty much done with men in general, and with good reason.
> 
> But, I had the flu, BAD. I was so sick I could not get up to eat for 2 days, it was the respiratory flu not the other one. GF, teaches small kids, so she was worried that if she came over while I was contagious she might get her class sick. I totally get that, but I could have used her help when I was not contagious. And she still did not come over, and I was not upset, I kind have grown to accept that type of thing in my life.
> 
> BUT, when we talked and I said I wish you would have come to see me... THIS IS WHAT SHE SAID....
> 
> With a somewhat started look she said, " You are right, I messed up, I should have come over to take care of you when it was safe. I JUST NEVER THOUGHT OF IT... You are such a bid, strong, independent man, that the thought of you actually needing my help or even wanting to be comforted NEVER EVEN OCCURED TO ME."
> 
> It is ok babe, I get it...
> 
> Now our relationship is the best one ever, in every way, but even so, my wonderful GF thinks like the above paragraph... I don't blame her, and I am not upset about it. I am used to it because I am a MAN...



Yes we were spoilt by our mothers when it comes to the dreaded man flu   (I am only mocking with sympathy, because I also want to be taken care of when I’m sick...).

Did you actually tell her at the time you were sick that you needed her help? Do you honestly believe she would have still ghosted you?

Do you know why men are much more likely to get lost than women? Because they are too manly to ask for directions 

Just remember the magic words next time: ‘I need your help’. See what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BluesPower

inmyprime said:


> Yes we were spoilt by our mothers when it comes to the dreaded man flu   (I am only mocking with sympathy, because I also want to be taken care of when I’m sick...).
> 
> Did you actually tell her at the time you were sick that you needed her help? Do you honestly believe she would have still ghosted you?
> 
> Do you know why men are much more likely to get lost than women? Because they are too manly to ask for directions
> 
> Just remember the magic words next time: ‘I need your help’. See what happens.


Yes the conversations were had. She just did not really understand, and I was not going to beg, I am a man after all. She just did not really understand HOW sick I was. Even after I was not contagious I was still weak. 

She knows she was insensitive at the non-contagious stage, NOW. But she just did not understand it at the time. We will see what happens in the future. 

It is not a big deal, even knowing that when she is sick, I get her scripts filled, cook for her, bring her hot chocolate or whatever. I have done the above even before I was sick, and I have been sick once since we have been dating. 

This is kind of how it is. Will she be more sensitive next time, who knows? I don't really hold it against her. 

But this is the point of the entire thread... Women, some of them, the percentage is debatable, have difficulty feeling empathy for the men in their lives. Their sons or daughters...Florence Nightingale. Hubby, meh...


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> But this is the point of the entire thread... Women, some of them, the percentage is debatable, have difficulty feeling empathy for the men in their lives. Their sons or daughters...Florence Nightingale. Hubby, meh...


It still confuses me, because I always feel Florence for my man when he is sick or injured. It is almost like a bit of a relief, to have him be forced to rest and be taken care of, something I'd like to do more but men don't lay about and get taken care of. 

But I accept and believe the men's stories here. Many of them not only do not get taken care of, they also are basically shamed for having any weakness at all, and punished for it with loss of attraction in their partner.


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> Yes the conversations were had.


Which conversation was had? Did you tell her that you wish she could come over and help out/look after you and she explicitly declined?

It's easy for others to say "I would do this, I would do that" but none of us are in your or other people's relationships and have no clue how these conversations go, what is said, what is assumed and what is left out. From her reply, it's clear that had she known you needed her, she would have been there for you in an instant. My takeaway message would be that next time, I would express myself clearer. Even if just to find out if she really means what she says...
That has nothing to do with not taking these issues seriously or shaming. It's communications 101.


----------



## BluesPower

Faithful Wife said:


> It still confuses me, because I always feel Florence for my man when he is sick or injured. It is almost like a bit of a relief, to have him be forced to rest and be taken care of, something I'd like to do more but men don't lay about and get taken care of.
> 
> But I accept and believe the men's stories here. Many of them not only do not get taken care of, they also are basically shamed for having any weakness at all, and punished for it with loss of attraction in their partner.


Couple of things, For you @Faithful Wife, and other like you, this is not you. You can have empathy for men and not necessarily lose attraction. And while I think that is great, it is just that some woman have not learned or evolved enough to do that. 

Take, GF, for example. Politics aside, you would like her as a woman, everyone does... She is charming and her and I together are the "It" couple in our friend groups. 

And, in her defense, with some of the men, a term I use loosely, she was with, I don't have a problem with her loving who I am... strong, in control, yada yada yada and whatnot. 

So in her case, she is like a lot of woman, percentage unknown, she just does not really get it sometimes. 

And the second thing.... Well... She TAKES care of me really well in other ways...>


----------



## Buddy400

PigglyWiggly said:


> Can you give an example of what that would look like so I can understand your perspective?





happiness27 said:


> What does "emotionally weak" look like?


Thinking it over, I think the best description would be "wallowing' as defined by poi regarding her ex



personofinterest said:


> My ex would complain about his job, and then go on to talk about how demoralized he was, how it wasn't fun anymore, how no one thinks he is doing a good job, and his work ethic would go down considerably. Then ,when he would lose said job, he would be "too depressed" to look for another one until it was dire.
> 
> ....
> 
> The ex basically wallowed.
> 
> ......
> 
> It may be different for other woman, but I wonder how many women say their man is whining because they have observed a long term pattern of him being rendered catatonic every time something goes wrong, meaning he basically checks out. I know I lost respect for ex not because he had tough times, but because he used those tough times to become self-obsessed and toss of all responsibility to every9one else while he slept and played Runescape.



And here:



uhtred said:


> I think you have a good point. *Maybe the issue is not as much whether men (or women for that matter) complain about difficulties, but what they actually do in the face of those difficulties.*


My wife can be down; doubt herself, see no way forward and not be able to come up with a plan of action to make things better. 

That doesn't affect my feelings for her in the least. Actually, it's a great opportunity for me to take care of her (which makes me feel good about myself).

If a man reacted the same way, I'd feel (almost) contempt.

Not saying that's good (or bad).

Just the way it is.


----------



## uhtred

An interesting though experiment. Imagine a (straight) couple you know. Picture that they were in some horrible disaster and one of them had to sacrifice themselves to save the other. (it can be titanic / life raft, or distracting the terrorists, whatever). 

How would you feel if the man sacrificed his life to save his wife, vs if the wife sacrificed her life to save her husband. 

I know that for me that feeling is not at all symmetric. I somehow "expect" the man to be the one to sacrifice himself. I'm not backing this up "rationally", it is just what deeply seems right to me.


----------



## BluesPower

Buddy400 said:


> My wife can be down; doubt herself, see no way forward and not be able to come up with a plan of action to make things better.
> 
> That doesn't affect my feelings for her in the least. Actually, it's a great opportunity for me to take care of her (which makes me feel good about myself).
> 
> If a man reacted the same way, I'd feel (almost) contempt.
> 
> Not saying that's good (or bad).
> 
> Just the way it is.


This times a thousand... 

See as men, with our wives or SOs, we look for the opportunity to "take care" of our partners. Or we should if you have half a brain. 

When GF has issues a school, or whatever, I take that opportunity to listen, EMPATHIZE, and give her emotional support, which is what she needs. 

Men are in fact looked down upon if the don't do those things for their partners.

Again, this is the way that it is...


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> Couple of things, For you @Faithful Wife, and other like you, this is not you. You can have empathy for men and not necessarily lose attraction. And while I think that is great, it is just that some woman have not learned or evolved enough to do that.


Did you, or others, read the article I linked a few pages back? It talked about a study that seems to show there is a genetic predisposition to being empathetic or not empathetic. Something they could repeat and then also predict someone's empathy capacity based on whether they had this gene combination or not.

So I'm wondering if this is somewhat evenly distributed across the population, and if that means there is built in a certain percentage of women (and men) who are just less empathetic than others. So that at least in part, it could just be a predisposition rather than a man-woman thing.


----------



## personofinterest

BluesPower said:


> This times a thousand...
> 
> See as men, with our wives or SOs, we look for the opportunity to "take care" of our partners. Or we should if you have half a brain.
> 
> When GF has issues a school, or whatever, I take that opportunity to listen, EMPATHIZE, and give her emotional support, which is what she needs.
> 
> Men are in fact looked down upon if the don't do those things for their partners.
> 
> Again, this is the way that it is...



The interesting thing about ex? (not to pick on him incessantly)

He didn't do the above for me. He didn't listen and empathize. he tried to talk me out of it or poke holes in how I felt. I remember more than once feeling just....bereft and raw, crying, and I had to ASK for a hug.

My current H does those things like you do, instinctually.

I talk a lot about my ex, and I have shared some of the stuff, but here's the thing:

I picked him. I knew him for several years, and I picked him. And while some people do completely change personas after marriage, I really DON'T think most do. So all the clues, all the things that made him him, were there BEFORE I said I do.

And I still said I do.

I think my current hubby is a better man than my ex. But the only reason I got a better man the second time around is because I PICKED a better man. I paid attention.

Yes, my ex and I had a crappy marriage. But I cannot sit here and fall back on my fainting couch, as if I was a completely powerless and unsuspecting victim.

I am not sure what my point is in all this rambling.

But honestly, if a man is getting repeat performances of unempathetic women in his life.....he needs to change the women he picks.

And, as with sex or anything else, if something about a woman is THAT problematic for the man she is with, then he has a decision to make. Maybe that decision is to stay and take the bad with the good. Maybe the decision is to get some outside marital help. Maybe it's to leave.

I was not a victim of my husband.

I don't think anyone is a powerless vicrtim of their spouse, outside the outlier abuse victims or those whose cheating spouses have gaslit them into oblivion.


----------



## BluesPower

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you, or others, read the article I linked a few pages back? It talked about a study that seems to show there is a genetic predisposition to being empathetic or not empathetic. Something they could repeat and then also predict someone's empathy capacity based on whether they had this gene combination or not.
> 
> So I'm wondering if this is somewhat evenly distributed across the population, and if that means there is built in a certain percentage of women (and men) who are just less empathetic than others. So that at least in part, it could just be a predisposition rather than a man-woman thing.


While that could actually be true, and in fact, anecdotally, I think lots of people know or have met people like this. For me, to an extent, those people feel more like they lean toward sociopaths, not the full tilt but that they lean that way. 

However, I think that what your thread is about is another thing. Some of it cultural, some of it biological for women, and who knows what else. 

I personally believe the premise. And I believe that some percentage of women tend in some cases to lack empathy for men, and are turned off when they are in a weakened position... 

Why it is this way, who knows all the reasons, but to me it is a thing. But at the same time I accept that it is a thing, and I don't let it bother me too much...


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> If a man reacted the same way, I'd feel (almost) contempt.




Really? Why? This is completely not the reaction I feel, AT ALL, ever.



If a (male) friend of mine is down, I would take them out for a drink or once I arranged for a skiing trip together, another time, hiking, and it worked GREAT to take mind off. The 'wallowing' stuff...I am not sure that's what (at least) my friends or me personally actually need or want. We (typically) like to counteract depression with action. What's the most common advice on the CWI? Go to the gym/get in shape. Why? Because being pro-active actually HELPS guys. Some men may say they'd like to 'wallow' (do they?), but I don't think that actually is something that helps them.



You obviously need time to grieve (if something serious) but guys (at least the ones I know, including myself) don't need the kind of sympathy or empathy to encourage the 'wallowing' that some seem determined to tell them that they DO need.


----------



## BluesPower

personofinterest said:


> The interesting thing about ex? (not to pick on him incessantly)
> 
> He didn't do the above for me. He didn't listen and empathize. he tried to talk me out of it or poke holes in how I felt. I remember more than once feeling just....bereft and raw, crying, and I had to ASK for a hug.
> 
> My current H does those things like you do, instinctually.
> 
> I talk a lot about my ex, and I have shared some of the stuff, but here's the thing:
> 
> I picked him. I knew him for several years, and I picked him. And while some people do completely change personas after marriage, I really DON'T think most do. So all the clues, all the things that made him him, were there BEFORE I said I do.
> 
> And I still said I do.
> 
> I think my current hubby is a better man than my ex. But the only reason I got a better man the second time around is because I PICKED a better man. I paid attention.
> 
> Yes, my ex and I had a crappy marriage. But I cannot sit here and fall back on my fainting couch, as if I was a completely powerless and unsuspecting victim.
> 
> I am not sure what my point is in all this rambling.
> 
> But honestly, if a man is getting repeat performances of unempathetic women in his life.....he needs to change the women he picks.
> 
> And, as with sex or anything else, if something about a woman is THAT problematic for the man she is with, then he has a decision to make. Maybe that decision is to stay and take the bad with the good. Maybe the decision is to get some outside marital help. Maybe it's to leave.
> 
> I was not a victim of my husband.
> 
> I don't think anyone is a powerless vicrtim of their spouse, outside the outlier abuse victims or those whose cheating spouses have gaslit them into oblivion.


But see, the second time around, YOU HAD THE EXPERIENCE to pick better. 

I think a lot of us have made that mistake. And the next time we made better decisions. 

However, in other threads, when I talk about past relationships and GF, ok there were a lot and maybe that was bad, but I feel criticized for being so quick to dump or get out of a bad one or even one that I am not feeling. 

But when something happened with a GF or I was not feeling it I had the experience to GET OUT. 

Which is what we are suppose to do, right? 

Even with GF, at first I was not even in relationship mode, frankly I just thought she was beautiful. 

When I took her on our first date, she knocked my socks off, because she was so great. 

It took me about one minute to realize that I had literally stumbled onto someone that was super special...


----------



## personofinterest

Ugh, and with my last post, I think I lost some empathy. It was everything except "Well you picked them!" even though I didn't mean it that way.

Sorry about that


----------



## PigglyWiggly

personofinterest said:


> The interesting thing about ex? (not to pick on him incessantly)
> 
> He didn't do the above for me. He didn't listen and empathize. he tried to talk me out of it or poke holes in how I felt. *I remember more than once feeling just....bereft and raw, crying, and I had to ASK for a hug.
> *
> My current H does those things like you do, instinctually.
> 
> I talk a lot about my ex, and I have shared some of the stuff, but here's the thing:
> 
> I picked him. I knew him for several years, and I picked him. And while some people do completely change personas after marriage, I really DON'T think most do. So all the clues, all the things that made him him, were there BEFORE I said I do.
> 
> And I still said I do.
> 
> I think my current hubby is a better man than my ex. But the only reason I got a better man the second time around is because I PICKED a better man. I paid attention.
> 
> Yes, my ex and I had a crappy marriage. But I cannot sit here and fall back on my fainting couch, as if I was a completely powerless and unsuspecting victim.
> 
> I am not sure what my point is in all this rambling.
> 
> But honestly, if a man is getting repeat performances of unempathetic women in his life.....he needs to change the women he picks.
> 
> And, as with sex or anything else, if something about a woman is THAT problematic for the man she is with, then he has a decision to make. Maybe that decision is to stay and take the bad with the good. Maybe the decision is to get some outside marital help. Maybe it's to leave.
> 
> I was not a victim of my husband.
> 
> I don't think anyone is a powerless vicrtim of their spouse, outside the outlier abuse victims or those whose cheating spouses have gaslit them into oblivion.


Jeez, now that is heartbreaking. It reminds me of a favorite song of the wife and I... Come Undone by Duran Duran....."who do you need, who do you love when you come undone?" We both DESIRE to be that person for each other. We want to be that safe place for each other. I do not want to grow old with a woman who doesn't want to be that person for me. One day my penis won't work, I won't be able to beat up anyone or use my strength to overcome a situation. At that point, is what's left not a man? To some it seems that answer is NO. That is very sad to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> I personally believe the premise. And I believe that some percentage of women tend in some cases to lack empathy for men, and are turned off when they are in a weakened position...
> 
> Why it is this way, who knows all the reasons, but to me it is a thing. But at the same time I accept that it is a thing, and *I don't let it bother me too much*...


The bolded is how most of the men here have said it, too. That they know this is a thing, and they just long ago accepted it. 

I don't think any of the men here have ever sounded like they were asking me or anyone to have empathy for them. They have all just been sharing their stories here.


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> An interesting though experiment. Imagine a (straight) couple you know. Picture that they were in some horrible disaster and one of them had to sacrifice themselves to save the other. (it can be titanic / life raft, or distracting the terrorists, whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> How would you feel if the man sacrificed his life to save his wife, vs if the wife sacrificed her life to save her husband.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that for me that feeling is not at all symmetric. I somehow "expect" the man to be the one to sacrifice himself. I'm not backing this up "rationally", it is just what deeply seems right to me.



You thinking about the titanic movie? Well she should have helped him climb onto that stupid door she was floating on and they both should have died...(if only to piss all the feminists off...).
——
Man is typically the ‘conqueror’ and ‘protector’. And guess what, he normally likes that role. He may sometimes feel he’s not appreciated enough or whatever but he....(I have no idea why I’m saying ‘he’....) but WE would not typically want to trade that position for another, no matter what we say.

We say we need more empathy...but here’s another thought experiment: which would you honestly choose: your wife saying ‘poor you’ every 20 minutes empathetically or ride you like a stallion?

Next time you (the general you) say you feel your wife’s sex drive declines when you feel down, ask yourself: what was her sex drive to begin with? Because if her desire was high enough for you to begin with, even if it goes down a bit, it shouldn’t go down low enough for her to stop wanting you. And once you get ****ed properly, you should feel (typically) MUCH better. It’s a virtuous circle, but it works in both directions!





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you, or others, read the article I linked a few pages back? It talked about a study that seems to show there is a genetic predisposition to being empathetic or not empathetic. Something they could repeat and then also predict someone's empathy capacity based on whether they had this gene combination or not.
> 
> So I'm wondering if this is somewhat evenly distributed across the population, and if that means there is built in a certain percentage of women (and men) who are just less empathetic than others. So that at least in part, it could just be a predisposition rather than a man-woman thing.


I can easily believe that the distribution curve for empathy for men and women is roughly the same and that would result in similar empathy for non-romantic partners. Actually, I would expect women to score higher on what we might call "base empathy".

But, we're talking here about empathy affecting sexual attraction and I think there's a different distribution curve for that for each gender.

Overlay the two, and I think you'll see many more women having problems being empathetic towards their sexual partners than men.

But, of course, just guessing.


----------



## Buddy400

BluesPower said:


> However, in other threads, when I talk about past relationships and GF, ok there were a lot and maybe that was bad, but I feel criticized for being so quick to dump or get out of a bad one or even one that I am not feeling.
> 
> But when something happened with a GF or I was not feeling it I had the experience to GET OUT.
> 
> Which is what we are suppose to do, right?


But you had more of something than many men have: options (at least options that involved still having female companionship).


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> Ugh, and with my last post, I think I lost some empathy. It was everything except "Well you picked them!" even though I didn't mean it that way.
> 
> Sorry about that


I used to be convinced that when men around here talked about the lack of empathy (or loss of attraction when empathy is present), that they must have just picked extra-ordinarily cold hearted wives.

And in some cases, that may have been true...because there are SO MANY cases that have been shared. But after several guys I respect, whose wives do not sound like cold hearted *****es, kept describing the same general pattern, I finally had to drop my previous bias and just actually listen to them.

And even now, after 2 threads over 30 pages long each, there are still quite a few people wanting to push back against these guys and say "no, that's not true, your wife must be an anomaly".

I think since you can't relate to a woman like that at all (neither can I), you made the same false assumption I did, that more women are like us than are like "that". 

But really, it is clear to me now that this is a pattern that can be identified. It may not be the majority, but it is a significant number of men reporting this phenomenon. And we may not be able to find the "reason" this pattern is occurring. But the fact that it is occurring, I'm not going to push against that anymore. I think it is something very difficult for me to relate to, but it is certainly occurring in large numbers.

Also, again, the men are not saying that their woman never, ever has empathy for them. They are just saying that they know she will lose attraction for him and so they try very, very hard not to ever appear weak or vulnerable. They are not even upset about this, they just know it is the way it is and they adjust accordingly. I think that yes, some men would walk away from such a partner, but others would not because there is so much good to be gained, even if this one spot in the relationship isn't the way they would choose it to be.

So that means also, some of these women are not just *****es. They may have been conditioned to be less empathetic, but that does not mean they can't love, don't ever feel empathy, or that they don't deserve love themselves.

It is a very important topic, I think. Something that needed some hashing out. I'm very grateful for these 2 threads and what they have opened up for me, and hopeful it has been helpful for others, too.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Really? Why? This is completely not the reaction I feel, AT ALL, ever.


No reasoning involved, so I don't know why.

It's just the reaction I have.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Overlay the two, and I think you'll see many more women having problems being empathetic towards their sexual partners than men.



And how can you be sure it’s not the other way around?

The basic assumption here is: 

husband down = woman’s sexual attraction declines

Why can’t it be:

Woman’s sexual attraction is down = husband feels lack of empathy

Both are equally probable!

With of course thousands of shades inbetween.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> The bolded is how most of the men here have said it, too. That they know this is a thing, and they just long ago accepted it.
> 
> I don't think any of the men here have ever sounded like they were asking me or anyone to have empathy for them. They have all just been sharing their stories here.


It's easy for us to just accept it.

We don't have any emotions


----------



## 269370

That may well be true (that some of the men are reading and interpreting their wives reactions 100% accurately), but, being a guy, I’m always thinking pragmatically: what will actually HELP those guys? 

An outsider’s acknowledgement that they are right and their wives don’t really care as much for them, as they say they don’t? I’m not sure but maybe that’s what they need?
That’s my excuse for coming across perhaps a bit ‘impathetic’ on this thread anyway...(I really am not even if it doesn’t sound like it).

There was one thread that stuck with me and I don’t know if it was real...But a guy who was having treatment for cancer... his gf said she was embarrassed to be around him when he was sick. That...made me want to hurt myself when I read it: wtf is wrong with the world where this can be allowed to happen????
This made me feel sick for days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I can easily believe that the distribution curve for empathy for men and women is roughly the same and that would result in similar empathy for non-romantic partners. Actually, I would expect women to score higher on what we might call "base empathy".
> 
> But, we're talking here about empathy affecting sexual attraction and I think there's a different distribution curve for that for each gender.
> 
> Overlay the two, and I think you'll see many more women having problems being empathetic towards their sexual partners than men.
> 
> But, of course, just guessing.


Yes, I think the empathy thing has a direct correlation in some women to a lack of attraction, whereas this correlation probably doesn't exist as much or if at all in men. That's why it is relevant here, so many guys having experienced it. Nothing really to "do" about it, just a good conversation, and I think maybe....there could be some later growth from having had the discussion.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

This thread was an eye opener for myself as well. Honestly, I've never been in a relationship with a woman who wasn't as empathetic as myself. The women I have dated have pretty much all REQUIRED me to be me...ALL of me. My wife would think I was weak if I never cried or never showed that I was a vulnerable human being. She would think I wasn't comfortable with myself and that I was scared or too insecure to own who I am. My wife believes it takes balls for men to be who they are and not be the stereotypical neanderthal that some would claim makes a "real man". 

I seek out the strong woman that many of my contemporaries would say is "intimidating". To quote Doc Holliday in Tombstone, "That's just my game!" I have always found them to be empathetic and caring as long as I bring it and don't hold back because society says men can't cry or be vulnerable at times. There's a time to be a man and a time to simply be human. 

That's just me though. We must all seek someone who matches our wants, needs and desires and those aren't the same for everyone.


----------



## BluesPower

inmyprime said:


> An outsider’s acknowledgement that they are right and *their wives don’t really care as much for them*, as they say they don’t? I’m not sure but maybe that’s what they need?
> That’s my excuse for coming across perhaps a bit ‘impathetic’ on this thread anyway...(I really am not even if it doesn’t sound like it).


See the bolded point is where I feel you may not be understanding. 

It is not that some women don't care for their H's. Some of us are saying that they may not 'Feel empathy' for them and that when they are weakened, it is kind of a temporary turn off for them. 

Not caring or loving is a completely different thing. 

Bottom line, if I was not the "type" of man that I am, generally wonderful and strong so to speak, my GF would not have given me the time of day. 

I am the kind of man that she always wanted and never had, part ladies man, part intellectual, part bad boy, part of a lot of things. 

She loves me, and cares for me, and is sexually attracted to me. But, she does have trouble showing empathy for me or really any man.


----------



## BluesPower

Double post for some reason...


----------



## personofinterest

> Some of us are saying that they may not 'Feel empathy' for them and that when they are weakened, it is kind of a temporary turn off for them.


Or could it be that for most women, empathy doesn't equal sex, so maybe the problem ISN'T "women don't feel empathy for men," but that when women ARE feeling empathy for a man's pain, sex isn't what is on their minds.

I mean, it's not that big of a leap to conclude that sex isn't the focus of a woman's thinking when her man is in pain. This doesn't mean she is not attracted to him. Or that she cannot empathize.

Unless we treat attraction as some sort of moment by moment thing. Which seems odd. I mean, I am not thinking about sex with my husband when he's pooping either. Does that mean I lose attraction for him every time he goes to the restroom? And when he had a terrible gallstone attack, I wasn't thinking about having sex while I was holding his hand in the ER. Does that mean that I lost attraction for him? Or...even weirder, that I had no empathy?

I think the issue may be that men don't understand that someones WHEN women ARE empathizing, sex is not the first thing on their mind. Or, when they are concerned about the man they love, it may BE HARD TO SHIFT GEARS INTO SEX. jUST LIKE A MAN MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE GETTING IT UP THE NIGHT BEFORE THERE'S A BIG WORK MEETING WHERE HE FINDS OUT WHETHER OR NOT HE IS GETTING LAID OFF.

Okay, I didn't mean to shift into all caps - darn stupid gel fingernails.

So maybe what a man chooses to interpret as lost attraction is really, "I care so much about what you are going through that I wasn't thinking about sex at this precise moment."

And I wonder if a man chooses not to see the above as a possibility, what is the secondary gain he gets from deciding the woman who loves him is not capable of empathy or is not attracted to him.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

personofinterest said:


> Or could it be that for most women, empathy doesn't equal sex, so maybe the problem ISN'T "women don't feel empathy for men," *but that when women ARE feeling empathy for a man's pain, sex isn't what is on their minds.*
> 
> I mean, it's not that big of a leap to conclude that sex isn't the focus of a woman's thinking when her man is in pain. This doesn't mean she is not attracted to him. Or that she cannot empathize.
> 
> Unless we treat attraction as some sort of moment by moment thing. Which seems odd. I mean, I am not thinking about sex with my husband when he's pooping either. Does that mean I lose attraction for him every time he goes to the restroom? And when he had a terrible gallstone attack, I wasn't thinking about having sex while I was holding his hand in the ER. Does that mean that I lost attraction for him? Or...even weirder, that I had no empathy?
> 
> I think the issue may be that men don't understand that someones WHEN women ARE empathizing, sex is not the first thing on their mind. Or, when they are concerned about the man they love, it may BE HARD TO SHIFT GEARS INTO SEX. jUST LIKE A MAN MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE GETTING IT UP THE NIGHT BEFORE THERE'S A BIG WORK MEETING WHERE HE FINDS OUT WHETHER OR NOT HE IS GETTING LAID OFF.
> 
> Okay, I didn't mean to shift into all caps - darn stupid gel fingernails.
> 
> So maybe what a man chooses to interpret as lost attraction is really, "I care so much about what you are going through that I wasn't thinking about sex at this precise moment."
> 
> And I wonder if a man chooses not to see the above as a possibility, what is the secondary gain he gets from deciding the woman who loves him is not capable of empathy or is not attracted to him.


The bolded is what I was hoping to point out with my earlier post that my interpretation was that at such times, my wife was just giving me some space.


----------



## BluesPower

personofinterest said:


> Or could it be that for most women, empathy doesn't equal sex, so maybe the problem ISN'T "women don't feel empathy for men," but that when women ARE feeling empathy for a man's pain, sex isn't what is on their minds.
> 
> I mean, it's not that big of a leap to conclude that sex isn't the focus of a woman's thinking when her man is in pain. This doesn't mean she is not attracted to him. Or that she cannot empathize.
> 
> Unless we treat attraction as some sort of moment by moment thing. Which seems odd. I mean, I am not thinking about sex with my husband when he's pooping either. Does that mean I lose attraction for him every time he goes to the restroom? And when he had a terrible gallstone attack, I wasn't thinking about having sex while I was holding his hand in the ER. Does that mean that I lost attraction for him? Or...even weirder, that I had no empathy?
> 
> I think the issue may be that men don't understand that someones WHEN women ARE empathizing, sex is not the first thing on their mind. Or, when they are concerned about the man they love, it may BE HARD TO SHIFT GEARS INTO SEX. jUST LIKE A MAN MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE GETTING IT UP THE NIGHT BEFORE THERE'S A BIG WORK MEETING WHERE HE FINDS OUT WHETHER OR NOT HE IS GETTING LAID OFF.
> 
> Okay, I didn't mean to shift into all caps - darn stupid gel fingernails.
> 
> So maybe what a man chooses to interpret as lost attraction is really, "I care so much about what you are going through that I wasn't thinking about sex at this precise moment."
> 
> And I wonder if a man chooses not to see the above as a possibility, what is the secondary gain he gets from deciding the woman who loves him is not capable of empathy or is not attracted to him.


No, it is not that you are going to have sex that minute or in the next week. 

It is not about the sex. It is about some women seeing their H in a weakened state, lose some attraction for them. 

It has nothing to do with sex in the moment, it has to do with them feeling, how ever temporary, a loss of attraction.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> Or could it be that for most women, empathy doesn't equal sex, so maybe the problem ISN'T "women don't feel empathy for men," but that when women ARE feeling empathy for a man's pain, sex isn't what is on their minds.
> 
> I mean, it's not that big of a leap to conclude that sex isn't the focus of a woman's thinking when her man is in pain. This doesn't mean she is not attracted to him. Or that she cannot empathize.
> 
> Unless we treat attraction as some sort of moment by moment thing. Which seems odd. I mean, I am not thinking about sex with my husband when he's pooping either. Does that mean I lose attraction for him every time he goes to the restroom? And when he had a terrible gallstone attack, I wasn't thinking about having sex while I was holding his hand in the ER. Does that mean that I lost attraction for him? Or...even weirder, that I had no empathy?
> 
> I think the issue may be that men don't understand that someones WHEN women ARE empathizing, sex is not the first thing on their mind. Or, when they are concerned about the man they love, it may BE HARD TO SHIFT GEARS INTO SEX. jUST LIKE A MAN MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE GETTING IT UP THE NIGHT BEFORE THERE'S A BIG WORK MEETING WHERE HE FINDS OUT WHETHER OR NOT HE IS GETTING LAID OFF.
> 
> Okay, I didn't mean to shift into all caps - darn stupid gel fingernails.
> 
> So maybe what a man chooses to interpret as lost attraction is really, "I care so much about what you are going through that I wasn't thinking about sex at this precise moment."
> 
> And I wonder if a man chooses not to see the above as a possibility, what is the secondary gain he gets from deciding the woman who loves him is not capable of empathy or is not attracted to him.


But we have gone around about this several times on this thread and on the other one.

What you are saying has been explored, and is not what we are talking about. I don't know how many more times we can discuss it or explain that none of this is about being rejected for sex at any specific time. It is about an overall pattern some men see in their wives and have seen in many other women throughout their lives.


----------



## farsidejunky

Buddy400 said:


> It's easy for us to just accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have any emotions


Just to further prove your point, I ALMOST laughed at this...but then I caught myself. 

;-)

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I can easily believe that the distribution curve for empathy for men and women is roughly the same and that would result in similar empathy for non-romantic partners. Actually, I would expect women to score higher on what we might call "base empathy".
> 
> 
> 
> But, we're talking here about empathy affecting sexual attraction and I think there's a different distribution curve for that for each gender.
> 
> 
> 
> Overlay the two, and I think you'll see many more women having problems being empathetic towards their sexual partners than men.
> 
> 
> 
> But, of course, just guessing.



It’s funny but it’s my wife who always tells me (half-jokingly) that she doesn’t feel like I have any empathy for her and am just annoyed with her, whenever she gets sick.

I have absolutely NO idea where she gets it from as I NEVER feel it the way she thinks I feel it. For example when she coughs or sneezes and I ask her if she wants me to get her some tissues, to her, this is a clear sign that I am annoyed by the sound of her cough and want her to stop by bringing her tissues...This is clearly insane...

I don’t think she REALLY thinks that even though she sometimes says it...But this is just an illustration how perceptions can be so completely deceptive. (And how it is not true that only men can perceive lack of empathy from their partner: of course this can happen any way, perceived or real). Happens the other way around too.

These misunderstandings never last very long because we TALK. And they are kind of funny.
Imagine how many couples DON’T talk. Or don’t talk about stuff that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> No reasoning involved, so I don't know why.
> 
> 
> 
> It's just the reaction I have.



Can you be more specific? For example, if a close friend of yours comes to you to tell you his wife cheated on him, you would feel contempt towards your friend and his problem? I’m not sure I understand...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> See the bolded point is where I feel you may not be understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that some women don't care for their H's. Some of us are saying that they may not 'Feel empathy' for them and that when they are weakened, it is kind of a temporary turn off for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring or loving is a completely different thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line, if I was not the "type" of man that I am, generally wonderful and strong so to speak, my GF would not have given me the time of day.
> 
> 
> 
> I am the kind of man that she always wanted and never had, part ladies man, part intellectual, part bad boy, part of a lot of things.
> 
> 
> 
> She loves me, and cares for me, and is sexually attracted to me. But, she does have trouble showing empathy for me or really any man.



I was using the words ‘not caring’ as a synonym for ‘not showing empathy’ (and it IS a synonym) just because it has been overused on this thread and i wanted to give another word a go...

You can ‘not care’ temporarily, and it means exactly the same thing as ‘not showing empathy temporarily’. I’m happy to go and change it. But I don’t want to argue about word definitions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tech-novelist

It's not just women who may not have much empathy for men. It's also psychologists: 

"The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. "

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01...46300435&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

This is supposed to help men somehow... but I'm not sure how.


----------



## Buddy400

BluesPower said:


> She loves me, and cares for me, and is sexually attracted to me. But, she does have trouble showing empathy for me or really any man.


Same here.


----------



## NobodySpecial

tech-novelist said:


> It's not just women who may not have much empathy for men. It's also psychologists:
> 
> "The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. "
> 
> https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01...46300435&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
> 
> This is supposed to help men somehow... but I'm not sure how.


Loved this book on this topic... for boys.

https://www.amazon.com/Wonder-Boys-Parents-Educators-Exceptional/dp/1585425281


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> It's not just women who may not have much empathy for men. It's also psychologists:
> 
> "The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. "
> 
> https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01...46300435&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
> 
> This is supposed to help men somehow... but I'm not sure how.


Did you read the rest of it? They described these things as "harmful" because the people who exhibit those traits the most are the least likely to ask for help of any kind, but specifically health help. They were saying that men who have more of those markers are more likely to die of a preventable cause because they didn't go to the hospital for chest pain and it turned out to be a heart attack (one example). 

So they know men who exhibit these traits will definitely NOT seek out help and that was why on the whole, they are harmful (to the health of the guy). The guidelines seemed to help therapists suss out things from men, armed with the understanding that he may not be very forthcoming about anything to do with his health.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> So maybe what a man chooses to interpret as lost attraction is really, "I care so much about what you are going through that I wasn't thinking about sex at this precise moment."


I don't think that's it.

The men here aren't complaining about their women not having sex with them at these times. I don't know that a man here has even attempted it.

Men are sensing a general "withdrawal".

But, maybe that's because women who are sexually attracted to a man want to be "close" to him (emotionally and physically) and when they aren't they feel like they need some distance? 

The empathy reduces the attraction and the loss of attraction results in the distancing?


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you read the rest of it? They described these things as "harmful" because the people who exhibit those traits the most are the least likely to ask for help of any kind, but specifically health help. They were saying that men who have more of those markers are more likely to die of a preventable cause because they didn't go to the hospital for chest pain and it turned out to be a heart attack (one example).
> 
> So they know men who exhibit these traits will definitely NOT seek out help and that was why on the whole, they are harmful (to the health of the guy). The guidelines seemed to help therapists suss out things from men, armed with the understanding that he may not be very forthcoming about anything to do with his health.


Yes, I did read most of it.

I agree that some of the recommendations might be useful, and that some men are too competitive, etc., for their own health.

But I think the overall tone is not going to help anyone be more empathetic to men.


----------



## BluesPower

inmyprime said:


> I was using the words ‘not caring’ as a synonym for ‘not showing empathy’ (and it IS a synonym) just because it has been overused on this thread and i wanted to give another word a go...
> 
> You can ‘not care’ temporarily, and it means exactly the same thing as ‘not showing empathy temporarily’. I’m happy to go and change it. But I don’t want to argue about word definitions...


I think that has a different connotation... but the is just me...

However, the interweb does not list care as a synonym for empathy: 


understanding
affinity
appreciation
compassion
insight
pity
rapport
sympathy
warmth
communion
comprehension
concord
recognition
responsiveness
soul

These are the ones that I found, not the one particular web site is the be all end all... I don't ever get the last one...


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Or could it be that for most women, empathy doesn't equal sex, so maybe the problem ISN'T "women don't feel empathy for men," but that when women ARE feeling empathy for a man's pain, sex isn't what is on their minds.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, it's not that big of a leap to conclude that sex isn't the focus of a woman's thinking when her man is in pain. This doesn't mean she is not attracted to him. Or that she cannot empathize.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless we treat attraction as some sort of moment by moment thing. Which seems odd. I mean, I am not thinking about sex with my husband when he's pooping either. Does that mean I lose attraction for him every time he goes to the restroom? And when he had a terrible gallstone attack, I wasn't thinking about having sex while I was holding his hand in the ER. Does that mean that I lost attraction for him? Or...even weirder, that I had no empathy?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the issue may be that men don't understand that someones WHEN women ARE empathizing, sex is not the first thing on their mind. Or, when they are concerned about the man they love, it may BE HARD TO SHIFT GEARS INTO SEX. jUST LIKE A MAN MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE GETTING IT UP THE NIGHT BEFORE THERE'S A BIG WORK MEETING WHERE HE FINDS OUT WHETHER OR NOT HE IS GETTING LAID OFF.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I didn't mean to shift into all caps - darn stupid gel fingernails.
> 
> 
> 
> So maybe what a man chooses to interpret as lost attraction is really, "I care so much about what you are going through that I wasn't thinking about sex at this precise moment."
> 
> 
> 
> And I wonder if a man chooses not to see the above as a possibility, what is the secondary gain he gets from deciding the woman who loves him is not capable of empathy or is not attracted to him.



I am pretty sure this plays a big part: how we express empathy and what expressions we accept as empathy can vary GREATLY. It’s impossible to know without the other side what is really going on, because those are all one-sided accounts of situations that involve TWO people. And women who did speak, already said that they don’t ‘lose empathy’ when their guy is down. The most obvious explanation is that in many cases, it is a misunderstanding (like in Blues’ case).

My wife for example wants to be left alone (usually) when she is sick while I like to be taken care of (though most of the time I don’t mind either way). So I could do the wrong thing and she would assume I don’t care and vice versa.

I also like to have sex when I’m sick (within reason) and she doesn’t...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> No, it is not that you are going to have sex that minute or in the next week.
> 
> It is not about the sex. It is about some women seeing their H in a weakened state, lose some attraction for them.
> 
> It has nothing to do with sex in the moment, it has to do with them feeling, how ever temporary, a loss of attraction.



And how would you know what it is ‘they’ are feeling? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BluesPower

inmyprime said:


> And how would you know what it is ‘they’ are feeling?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because we know how we are feeling. I have seen it. I have felt it. 

Bottom like for a lot of women, believe it or not, weakness turns them off. 

Smart men know that, and never show it. 

I understand that you don't believe that it happens, which is fine. 

It happens...


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Can you be more specific? For example, if a close friend of yours comes to you to tell you his wife cheated on him, you would feel contempt towards your friend and his problem? I’m not sure I understand...


If a close friend of mine was cheated on and he was telling me about it; wondering what to do; looking for actions to take; I'd respect him, be understanding and try to help.

If he whined about "how could she do this to me?"; "but I love her SO much!"; "I just don't know how I can live without her"; "I'll forgive her anything, as long as she stays with me!". Different story.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I mean, I am not thinking about sex with my husband when he's pooping either.



Whereas sex is all I can think about while your husband is pooping. Crap. I meant wife. 
That also didn’t come out quite right...
I mean, it won’t make me STOP thinking about sex.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> Yes, I did read most of it.
> 
> I agree that some of the recommendations might be useful, and that some men are too competitive, etc., for their own health.
> 
> But I think the overall tone is not going to help anyone be more empathetic to men.


I agree that the tone and the words used sound like they are "blaming" or "shaming" men for having these traits.


----------



## 269370

tech-novelist said:


> It's not just women who may not have much empathy for men. It's also psychologists:
> 
> 
> 
> "The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. "
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01...46300435&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
> 
> 
> 
> This is supposed to help men somehow... but I'm not sure how.



It’s the toxic masculinity...What drivel. It would be funny if it wasn’t dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> I think that has a different connotation... but the is just me...
> 
> 
> 
> However, the interweb does not list care as a synonym for empathy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> understanding
> 
> affinity
> 
> appreciation
> 
> compassion
> 
> insight
> 
> pity
> 
> rapport
> 
> sympathy
> 
> warmth
> 
> communion
> 
> comprehension
> 
> concord
> 
> recognition
> 
> responsiveness
> 
> soul
> 
> 
> 
> These are the ones that I found, not the one particular web site is the be all end all... I don't ever get the last one...



Which other word would you use instead of empathy to describe what you were describing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> Because we know how we are feeling. I have seen it. I have felt it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom like for a lot of women, believe it or not, weakness turns them off.
> 
> 
> 
> Smart men know that, and never show it.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you don't believe that it happens, which is fine.
> 
> 
> 
> It happens...



I don’t not believe that it happens. Of course it happens. And I don’t doubt how you are feeling. I am just asking how you can know how THEY are feeling. Because you are talking about how you feel SHE felt about you. Shouldn’t she be able to tell you how she is feeling? And shouldn’t you believe her?
Why don’t you ask your gf whether she felt ‘turned off’ during the time you were sick rather than guessing? You don’t believe she will tell you the truth? If not, why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> If a close friend of mine was cheated on and he was telling me about it; wondering what to do; looking for actions to take; I'd respect him, be understanding and try to help.
> 
> 
> 
> If he whined about "how could she do this to me?"; "but I love her SO much!"; "I just don't know how I can live without her"; "I'll forgive her anything, as long as she stays with me!". Different story.



Ok so THAT’S the kind of tone/behaviour you feel your wife is not showing enough empathy towards? (If you exhibited it. I assume you gave an example using the same standards for your friend’s behaviour to illustrate where you would be lacking empathy, as you would for yourself).

Is it not possible that the feelings of ‘contempt’ appear from opposing showing those traits yourself and your wife’s reaction has actually very little to do with it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> Bottom like for a lot of women, believe it or not, weakness turns them off.



“Weakness turns them off” can you explain to me how this is NOT about sex?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> “Weakness turns them off” can you explain to me how this is NOT about sex?


Sexual attraction isn't just about sex.

If men had a choice between knowing that their wife was sexually attracted to then but, for some reason, couldn't have sex, I'd think that many would choose that over their wife having no attraction to them but having sex anyway.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Sexual attraction isn't just about sex.
> 
> 
> 
> If men had a choice between knowing that their wife was sexually attracted to then but, for some reason, couldn't have sex, I'd think that many would choose that over their wife having no attraction to them but having sex anyway.



I’m not so sure Blues would choose that 
A ***** in hand is better than 2 sexual desires in the bush, as they say.

I realise sexual attraction is not just about sex. I was just responding to the notion that for men, expression of empathy had nothing to do with expressing sexual attraction (of which sex is the most obvious way to express it).

The posts (by men) clearly show that this is not the case and that there’s a much bigger correlation between expression of empathy and expression of sexual attraction, as far as they are concerned.

How exactly would you measure the degree of sexual attraction on your partner’s behalf? That’s a totally subjective feeling and it’s not necessarily a feeling the partner might actually have - isn’t that quite obvious?
The only way you can objectively measure is if the frequency and desire for sex suddenly drops. Even then, they could just want to give you some space and being considerate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Here is a thought. Men typically want to take on the protector role of his wife and kids. Must be some hard wire coding into our brain. But I presume that women have the same wiring in reverse, they want their husband to be the protector of the family. 

Well if some dude cant keep his emotions in check and becomes whiney and despondent, she must be reaccessing whether this fella can really do his job if a Wooly Mamoth or Axe Weilding Viking was to threaten them. Would he even step up or would he ditch them and run for the hills?


----------



## tech-novelist

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Here is a thought. Men typically want to take on the protector role of his wife and kids. Must be some hard wire coding into our brain. But I presume that women have the same wiring in reverse, they want their husband to be the protector of the family.
> 
> Well if some dude cant keep his emotions in check and becomes whiney and despondent, she must be reaccessing whether this fella can really do his job if a Wooly Mamoth or Axe Weilding Viking was to threaten them. Would he even step up or would he ditch them and run for the hills?


Yes, that is the evolutionary psychology analysis of this issue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> Yes, that is the evolutionary psychology analysis of this issue.


I do understand much better now how all of that ties together.

I do not agree with the conclusions of evo-pshyche, but I understand why it seems logical. And I believe the men’s experience who have shared and who have accessed for themselves a pattern. I agree, there’s a pattern.


----------



## FeministInPink

Buddy400 said:


> If it were up to me, this thread would be about the need many women seem to have for their man to be emotionally solid (an "emotional rock"). I don't think it specifically about women losing sexual attraction for men when they are emotionally weak as much as it is women being attracted to male emotional strength and, conversely, being repelled (in a sexual way) by male emotional weakness.
> 
> Crying at a funeral and having the woman "pull away" is a rather extreme version of this, but related.
> 
> Women can have empathy for me (and other men), but it seems only at the cost of not desiring them sexually.
> 
> But, we're not pointing this out (at least, I'm not) because I want to have sex with my wife when I'm emotionally vulnerable and she refuses. That's not the point.
> 
> I also don't have any complaints, I'd be an emotional stoic even if I was single and rarely, if ever, have needed empathy from my wife. I do need respect and admiration from her (which I get plenty of).
> 
> It would just be nice if women had a better feeling for what life is like as a guy.
> 
> Some examples: I've had some health issues lately. I recently spent two nights at the hospital and I spent most of our time together comforting her and telling her everything woul be alright.
> 
> I recently updated her on another problem and made a reference to a problem I'm having in one eye maybe making it's presence know in my other eye. She exploded into tears (and yet, I'm never supposed to hold anything back from her!). I'm not that concerned.
> 
> On the other hand, my being emotionally vulnerable to *her* doesn't seem to be a problem.
> 
> My wife is very intelligent, independent and a successful professional. When we met she made more money than I did. After trying to raise a kid while both being professionals, we agreed that she would stay home and prioritize her career (I was willing to make the deal either way, in retrospect I'm very glad it didn't go that way). She took a couple years off work and then worked part-time for another 10 or so. Being the exceptional talent that she is, after rejoining the workforce full-time she managed to out-earn me for a couple of years (I've been back in the lead for 3 or 4 years ). When getting our Social Security reports, she was surprised that she'd made less contributions than I and wondered how that could be. I pointed out that she'd spent a lot of time outside of the full time workforce. She pointed out several times that she'd made more than me before we met and, for a couple of years recently. I complemented her on her exceptional ability to return to the workforce and do so well but, at this point I was getting mildly irritated.
> 
> I said "yes, you are very talented and it was a great how you were able to rejoin the work-force and do so well. But is it possible that we can recognize that while still acknowledging that* I carried the ball for 15 years!*".
> 
> When working part-time, she once asked when I thought she'd be able to retire so that she could focus on her art hobby. I suggested that a good time might be when I actually got to retire! I'm not sure that women realize that, for men, there really are very few choices; You work like every day until you're 66 or until you die.
> 
> To be clear, I have a wonderful marriage and couldn't be happier (and I'm sure my wife feels the same). I don't want or need more empathy from my wife than I'm getting and I'm having all the sex with my wife that I'd like (whenever I want it).
> 
> And I'm biased as well. If I saw a guy being emotionally weak, I'd be the first one to say "What does she see in him".





happiness27 said:


> What does "emotionally weak" look like?


Whew! this is quite the thread to keep up with... I just read like 10 pages of posts to catch. The above posts are from ~100 posts ago, but they clicked something for me and I had to respond. It's the question of the emotional rock, emotional weakness, and emotional vulnerability, because @Buddy400 brought up all three, and it made me think of Real Estate (for those of you who don't know, which I'm wondering how many people on here don't know at this point, Real Estate aka RE was my boyfriend for 2.5 yrs, and we just broke up a few months ago). Anyway...

RE was... a little emotionally unavailable, to put it simply, but he also had a lot of empathy for me. He had emotions, but didn't really show them much. Did a little too much self-medication with pot, TBH. But there was one emotion he definitely showed...

RE had a bad temper. Never directed at me, but he would fly off the handle about stuff other people did that really didn't warrant such an extreme reaction. This strikes me as emotional weakness... he was completely at the whim of his emotions, and let those emotions run amok and dictate his behavior. It was difficult for me to have empathy in these situations, because while the other person (from my perspective) was certainly in the wrong, RE's reaction in that moment was completely over the top and incredibly excessive relative to the severity of the slight or error of the other person, to the extent that it made RE seem completely out of control. He always calmed down quickly, but in that specific moment...va-clang. Once he calmed down and returned to his steady state, the va-clang went away, but it was certainly there for a moment or two.

Conversely, an emotional rock would still have such emotions... but not be at their mercy. The emotional rock could discuss his frustrations with me and I would have empathy for him, and provide support. And there would be no va-clang. There would be increased respect for the way he handled this situation. A man can still show emotions, and be an emotional rock for his partner. He can experience doubt, or fear, sadness, disappointment... he can experience the gamut of these, but_ if he is able to acknowledge and control his emotions rather than letting his emotions control him, then he is still stable._ He can still be a rock; he can still be her emotional rock while having emotions of his own.

(And most of the time, RE was a great emotional rock for me, FWIW.)

I believe emotional vulnerability falls into the second category of the rock--if you are secure enough in yourself and your relationship to express your true feelings to your partner, that isn't weakness. That's strength. It takes a lot of courage and trust to do that.

Conversely, if a man keeps up his defenses and avoids this type of emotional intimacy... THAT is emotional weakness. RE had a very difficult time opening up and being vulnerable, and really avoided emotional intimacy because it made him uncomfortable and, well, vulnerable. While it never caused me to va-clang, at times it definitely had me questioning his ability to be an emotional rock, when I wanted more emotional intimacy and he was keeping me at bay. The few times he really opened up to me and allowed himself to be vulnerable... those times captured my heart and earned my respect, because I know the courage it took him to do so, and I had loads of empathy for him in those moments. And if he had been feeling frisky at that moment, it would have been all systems go for me, because I felt so super connected to him in those moments.

That's pretty much how I see rock/weak/vulnerable.


----------



## sokillme

Here you go -
American Psychological Association: ‘Traditional Masculinity’ Is Harmful

Notices now it's not toxic masculinity, it's traditional masculinity. But anyone with a brain knew that was were they were going. This was always the endgame. The whole philosophy from the very beginning of this "toxic" masculinity stuff was about power. 

I see this as an assault on my nature. Straight up bigotry. Just wait until this becomes the standard taught in schools and it will. How do you think it will effect boys growing up when they are taught there very nature is harmful? Think it will be good? 

Disgusting.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FeministInPink said:


> Whew! this is quite the thread to keep up with... I just read like 10 pages of posts to catch. The above posts are from ~100 posts ago, but they clicked something for me and I had to respond. It's the question of the emotional rock, emotional weakness, and emotional vulnerability, because @Buddy400 brought up all three, and it made me think of Real Estate (for those of you who don't know, which I'm wondering how many people on here don't know at this point, Real Estate aka RE was my boyfriend for 2.5 yrs, and we just broke up a few months ago). Anyway...
> 
> RE was... a little emotionally unavailable, to put it simply, but he also had a lot of empathy for me. He had emotions, but didn't really show them much. Did a little too much self-medication with pot, TBH. But there was one emotion he definitely showed...
> 
> RE had a bad temper. Never directed at me, but he would fly off the handle about stuff other people did that really didn't warrant such an extreme reaction. This strikes me as emotional weakness... he was completely at the whim of his emotions, and let those emotions run amok and dictate his behavior. It was difficult for me to have empathy in these situations, because while the other person (from my perspective) was certainly in the wrong, RE's reaction in that moment was completely over the top and incredibly excessive relative to the severity of the slight or error of the other person, to the extent that it made RE seem completely out of control. He always calmed down quickly, but in that specific moment...va-clang. Once he calmed down and returned to his steady state, the va-clang went away, but it was certainly there for a moment or two.
> 
> Conversely, an emotional rock would still have such emotions... but not be at their mercy. The emotional rock could discuss his frustrations with me and I would have empathy for him, and provide support. And there would be no va-clang. There would be increased respect for the way he handled this situation. A man can still show emotions, and be an emotional rock for his partner. He can experience doubt, or fear, sadness, disappointment... he can experience the gamut of these, but_ if he is able to acknowledge and control his emotions rather than letting his emotions control him, then he is still stable._ He can still be a rock; he can still be her emotional rock while having emotions of his own.
> 
> (And most of the time, RE was a great emotional rock for me, FWIW.)
> 
> I believe emotional vulnerability falls into the second category of the rock--if you are secure enough in yourself and your relationship to express your true feelings to your partner, that isn't weakness. That's strength. It takes a lot of courage and trust to do that.
> 
> Conversely, if a man keeps up his defenses and avoids this type of emotional intimacy... THAT is emotional weakness. RE had a very difficult time opening up and being vulnerable, and really avoided emotional intimacy because it made him uncomfortable and, well, vulnerable. While it never caused me to va-clang, at times it definitely had me questioning his ability to be an emotional rock, when I wanted more emotional intimacy and he was keeping me at bay. The few times he really opened up to me and allowed himself to be vulnerable... those times captured my heart and earned my respect, because I know the courage it took him to do so, and I had loads of empathy for him in those moments. And if he had been feeling frisky at that moment, it would have been all systems go for me, because I felt so super connected to him in those moments.
> 
> That's pretty much how I see rock/weak/vulnerable.


Jld explained in a similar way.

That if she witnessed him out of control of his emotions, it was frightening to her.


----------



## Pac-Man

tech-novelist said:


> Yes, I did read most of it.
> 
> I agree that some of the recommendations might be useful, and that some men are too competitive, etc., for their own health.
> 
> But I think the overall tone is not going to help anyone be more empathetic to men.


I also think that there is a communication problem. I understood the the text very differently.

I don't think they want men to fight any natural tendency dictated by their hormones. They want men to not succumb to the cultural pressure to conform to stereotypical expectations.

If a man have a natural tendency to be stoic and self-reliant, that's ok. But now suppose that a man is in a bad emotional state for justifiable reasons and feel an urgent need to talk about it. If he "suck it up" silently because he don't want to look "gay" or he don't want to provoke the "Va-clang" in is wife, then it can become unhealthy. 

To some extent, it's natural for a heterosexual women to want to look sexy and feminine and it's natural for a heterosexual man to appear strong and masculine. But when a women who is not genetically disposed to look like a playboy bunny try too hard to get there, it can lead to unhealthy eating disorder. When a man try too hard to systematically "man up", "clam up" or be dominant, it can lead to psychological distress, alcoholism, suicide, violence... 

The APA deal with the worst cases. But on a lighter scale, a lot of men here have expressed the pressure they feel to not be a "whiner" while venting is considered normal for is wife. At some point, it can makes a man to feel alone and to perceive a lack of empathy toward him.


----------



## tech-novelist

Pac-Man said:


> I also think that there is a communication problem. I understood the the text very differently.
> 
> I don't think they want men to fight any natural tendency dictated by their hormones. They want men to not succumb to the cultural pressure to conform to stereotypical expectations.
> 
> If a man have a natural tendency to be stoic and self-reliant, that's ok. But now suppose that a man is in a bad emotional state for justifiable reasons and feel an urgent need to talk about it. If he "suck it up" silently because he don't want to look "gay" or he don't want to provoke the "Va-clang" in is wife, then it can become unhealthy.
> 
> To some extent, it's natural for a heterosexual women to want to look sexy and feminine and it's natural for a heterosexual man to appear strong and masculine. But when a women who is not genetically disposed to look like a playboy bunny try too hard to get there, it can lead to unhealthy eating disorder. When a man try too hard to systematically "man up", "clam up" or be dominant, it can lead to psychological distress, alcoholism, suicide, violence...
> 
> The APA deal with the worst cases. But on a lighter scale, a lot of men here have expressed the pressure they feel to not be a "whiner" while venting is considered normal for is wife. At some point, it can makes a man to feel alone and to perceive a lack of empathy toward him.


As far as I can tell, that is the whole point of this thread.

Of course it's FW's thread, so she has the last word on what its point is.


----------



## FeministInPink

Faithful Wife said:


> Jld explained in a similar way.
> 
> That if she witnessed him out of control of his emotions, it was frightening to her.


Oh, the first time I saw it happen, it scared the bejeesus out of me. I'd never seen anyone SO angry in my life, and over something SO small. My first thought was, so how long before he starts hitting me, and do I want to wait that long? He saw the terror in my face, and it completely knocked the wind out of his sails. We had a LONG talk after that... the next time he blew up about something, he made a point to say--right in the middle of his rant, still yelling--"I'M NOT MAD AT YOU YOU'RE GREAT I'M SORRY FOR YELLING I'LL STOP IN A MINUTE" and then kept on going on his rant. And after a couple minutes, he stopped. It's kind of funny, when you think about it.

As time went on, his rants seemed to lessen in frequency and became less severe. It was like my presence soothed him, or he became more mindful of it because he knew I didn't like to see him like that. But several of his friends commented to me that his temperament began to change significantly (for the better) after he and I started seeing one another.


----------



## 269370

FeministInPink said:


> Whew! this is quite the thread to keep up with... I just read like 10 pages of posts to catch. The above posts are from ~100 posts ago, but they clicked something for me and I had to respond. It's the question of the emotional rock, emotional weakness, and emotional vulnerability, because @Buddy400 brought up all three, and it made me think of Real Estate (for those of you who don't know, which I'm wondering how many people on here don't know at this point, Real Estate aka RE was my boyfriend for 2.5 yrs, and we just broke up a few months ago). Anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> RE was... a little emotionally unavailable, to put it simply, but he also had a lot of empathy for me. He had emotions, but didn't really show them much. Did a little too much self-medication with pot, TBH. But there was one emotion he definitely showed...
> 
> 
> 
> RE had a bad temper. Never directed at me, but he would fly off the handle about stuff other people did that really didn't warrant such an extreme reaction. This strikes me as emotional weakness... he was completely at the whim of his emotions, and let those emotions run amok and dictate his behavior. It was difficult for me to have empathy in these situations, because while the other person (from my perspective) was certainly in the wrong, RE's reaction in that moment was completely over the top and incredibly excessive relative to the severity of the slight or error of the other person, to the extent that it made RE seem completely out of control. He always calmed down quickly, but in that specific moment...va-clang. Once he calmed down and returned to his steady state, the va-clang went away, but it was certainly there for a moment or two.
> 
> 
> 
> Conversely, an emotional rock would still have such emotions... but not be at their mercy. The emotional rock could discuss his frustrations with me and I would have empathy for him, and provide support. And there would be no va-clang. There would be increased respect for the way he handled this situation. A man can still show emotions, and be an emotional rock for his partner. He can experience doubt, or fear, sadness, disappointment... he can experience the gamut of these, but_ if he is able to acknowledge and control his emotions rather than letting his emotions control him, then he is still stable._ He can still be a rock; he can still be her emotional rock while having emotions of his own.
> 
> 
> 
> (And most of the time, RE was a great emotional rock for me, FWIW.)
> 
> 
> 
> I believe emotional vulnerability falls into the second category of the rock--if you are secure enough in yourself and your relationship to express your true feelings to your partner, that isn't weakness. That's strength. It takes a lot of courage and trust to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Conversely, if a man keeps up his defenses and avoids this type of emotional intimacy... THAT is emotional weakness. RE had a very difficult time opening up and being vulnerable, and really avoided emotional intimacy because it made him uncomfortable and, well, vulnerable. While it never caused me to va-clang, at times it definitely had me questioning his ability to be an emotional rock, when I wanted more emotional intimacy and he was keeping me at bay. The few times he really opened up to me and allowed himself to be vulnerable... those times captured my heart and earned my respect, because I know the courage it took him to do so, and I had loads of empathy for him in those moments. And if he had been feeling frisky at that moment, it would have been all systems go for me, because I felt so super connected to him in those moments.
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much how I see rock/weak/vulnerable.



Yes I think there’s a big difference between emotional vulnerability and emotional instability and last bit: 

“The few times he really opened up to me and allowed himself to be vulnerable... those times captured my heart and earned my respect, because I know the courage it took him to do so, and I had loads of empathy for him in those moments. And if he had been feeling frisky at that moment, it would have been all systems go for me, because I felt so super connected to him in those moments.”

is pretty much how I always felt this is why I find it hard to reconcile some of what has been written by men and wondered if it is maybe due to some kind of communication error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

sokillme said:


> Here you go -
> American Psychological Association: ‘Traditional Masculinity’ Is Harmful
> 
> Notices now it's not toxic masculinity, it's traditional masculinity. But anyone with a brain knew that was were they were going. This was always the endgame. The whole philosophy from the very beginning of this "toxic" masculinity stuff was about power.
> 
> I see this as an assault on my nature. Straight up bigotry. Just wait until this becomes the standard taught in schools and it will. How do you think it will effect boys growing up when they are taught there very nature is harmful? Think it will be good?
> 
> Disgusting.


How is "that socializing boys to suppress their emotions can harm mental health" disgusting? They go on to talk about a number of things that are just facts. I think the relevant point lies in the word traditional more than masculinity. And I definitely don't think there is a desire to condemn male nature. A lot of people talk about things being "hard wired" as if it is fact that I question. One can state that male nature tends to be aggressive, for instance, without concluding that they are naturally violent. The challenge for educators, one that I think they are not doing a good job of, is fostering the helpful and good expression of the nature presented in boys. I could go on for a week about the problems with our education system, but one would have to tear it up from the roots to fix its many problems, this among them.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> How is "that socializing boys to suppress their emotions can harm mental health" disgusting? They go on to talk about a number of things that are just facts. I think the relevant point lies in the word traditional more than masculinity. And I definitely don't think there is a desire to condemn male nature. A lot of people talk about things being "hard wired" as if it is fact that I question. One can state that male nature tends to be aggressive, for instance, without concluding that they are naturally violent. The challenge for educators, one that I think they are not doing a good job of, is fostering the helpful and good expression of the nature presented in boys. I could go on for a week about the problems with our education system, but one would have to tear it up from the roots to fix its many problems, this among them.




I don’t think you (and others who are like-minded) understand the implications of this ‘research’.
It’s exactly the same mentality as coming to the conclusion: “how is saying that skin transplant would be harmful to African Americans when it’s clearly less advantageous to be of a certain skin colour? These are just facts based on statistics”.

Where do you think racism comes from? Usually it’s a combination from a profound misunderstanding of ‘facts’ and your own social ‘conditioning’, as well as personal circumstances.

I’m convinced there will be a profound moment in history where full implications of this type of thinking will rear its ugly head once again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

"“The few times he really opened up to me and allowed himself to be vulnerable... those times captured my heart and earned my respect, because I know the courage it took him to do so, and I had loads of empathy for him in those moments. And if he had been feeling frisky at that moment, it would have been all systems go for me, because I felt so super connected to him in those moments.”"

Exactly. Exactly.

I would bet all of my 2019 pay checks that the vast majority of women feel the above way instead of this idea that we are somehow empathetically deficient. Or that because a few women didn't want to pounce on their men after he was down that somehow means women vaklang every time a man shows feelings. I want to be open minded, but I am not going to call a skunk a Persian cat if it's really a skunk.


----------



## aine

If my husband showed emotions or is vulnerable I am empathetic and concerned. He is an Alpha so the rare times this happens it means it is serious and I must sit up and listen and engage.
However, he has let me down at a time in my life 8 years ago, when I really needed his love, support and empathy and that is something I won't forget, it shocked me that he didn't have my back, never saw it coming. 

Before this I had always been the emotionally strong one and didn't really need him that way, he was the one who needed me in the privacy of our home, due to work, difficult bosses, etc. He presents a very strong front to the outside world but I know the real him. We talked about it, I still don't think his explanations settled it for me and now I am less inclined to as empathetic as before. I just learned that I must rely on myself.


----------



## BluesPower

inmyprime said:


> Which other word would you use instead of empathy to describe what you were describing?


Now that is a really good question, and I don't know the answer. But it is a super good question...

Compassion, maybe, understanding, I really don't know?

Here is my take on a lot of this. I have seen this from a lot of woman, not all so I am not saying that.

Now while I understand that this "thing" happens, I am not really too concerned at one level. 

But for me, I get tired of always being strong, it gets old. I wish that I could fall apart like some women are allowed to do without repercussion. 

I understand that it will probably never happen for me, and I am cool with it. But just one time to have someone pick ME up and carry me through the mine field of life without thinking I am "less than" because I am weak at that point in time... You know that would be OK too...


----------



## farsidejunky

personofinterest said:


> "“The few times he really opened up to me and allowed himself to be vulnerable... those times captured my heart and earned my respect, because I know the courage it took him to do so, and I had loads of empathy for him in those moments. And if he had been feeling frisky at that moment, it would have been all systems go for me, because I felt so super connected to him in those moments.”"
> 
> Exactly. Exactly.
> 
> I would bet all of my 2019 pay checks that the vast majority of women feel the above way instead of this idea that we are somehow empathetically deficient. Or that because a few women didn't want to pounce on their men after he was down that somehow means women vaklang every time a man shows feelings. I want to be open minded, but I am not going to call a skunk a Persian cat if it's really a skunk.


The only way for this to be accurate is to diminish the first-hand experiences of the men who are posting on this thread and the previous one.

I am not emotionally unavailable.

I have a fairly high EQ.

I own my ****.

I rarely have emotional outbursts.

I'm the breadwinner in my family.

My wife runs nearly everything through me, even though I have never expected nor asked her to do so.

Yet time and time again I've seen it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

BluesPower said:


> Now that is a really good question, and I don't know the answer. But it is a super good question...
> 
> Compassion, maybe, understanding, I really don't know?
> 
> Here is my take on a lot of this. I have seen this from a lot of woman, not all so I am not saying that.
> 
> Now while I understand that this "thing" happens, I am not really too concerned at one level.
> 
> But for me, I get tired of always being strong, it gets old. I wish that I could fall apart like some women are allowed to do without repercussion.
> 
> I understand that it will probably never happen for me, and I am cool with it. But just one time to have someone pick ME up and carry me through the mine field of life without thinking I am "less than" because I am weak at that point in time... You know that would be OK too...


QFT.
@FeministInPink illustrated perfectly why this doesn't work.

Fear.

What was the primary underpinnings of dominance vs submission when I discussed it further upthread? 

Fear...or the absence of it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> The only way for this to be accurate is to diminish the first-hand experiences of the men who are posting on this thread and the previous one.
> 
> I am not emotionally unavailable.
> 
> I have a fairly high EQ.
> 
> I own my ****.
> 
> I rarely have emotional outbursts.
> 
> I'm the breadwinner in my family.
> 
> My wife runs nearly everything through me, even though I have never expected nor asked her to do so.
> 
> Yet time and time again I've seen it.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


The extreme resistance to the idea by both men and women is so weird.

But that used to be me too, so I get it.

It was ultimately you guys who I respect saying it, that finally made me let go of my old assumptions. And then once I actually started listening, I could hear all the other stories too. I still don’t know how many women are like that, but earlier I guessed at maybe 30%.


----------



## tech-novelist

inmyprime said:


> I don’t think you (and others who are like-minded) understand the implications of this ‘research’.
> It’s exactly the same mentality as coming to the conclusion: “how is saying that skin transplant would be harmful to African Americans when it’s clearly less advantageous to be of a certain skin colour? These are just facts based on statistics”.
> 
> Where do you think racism comes from? Usually it’s a combination from a profound misunderstanding of ‘facts’ and your own social ‘conditioning’, as well as personal circumstances.
> 
> I’m convinced there will be a profound moment in history where full implications of this type of thinking will rear its ugly head once again.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Or for an even closer parallel, imagine a research study that concluded "Women's passivity is responsible for their lower lifetime pay and greater vulnerability to being taken advantage of."

Can you imagine the response to that?


----------



## Tiggy!

tech-novelist said:


> Or for an even closer parallel, imagine a research study that concluded "Women's passivity is responsible for their lower lifetime pay and greater vulnerability to being taken advantage of."
> 
> Can you imagine the response to that?


I actually think that would be a great example of toxic femininity.


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> Now that is a really good question, and I don't know the answer. But it is a super good question...
> 
> Compassion, maybe, understanding, I really don't know?
> 
> Here is my take on a lot of this. I have seen this from a lot of woman, not all so I am not saying that.
> 
> Now while I understand that this "thing" happens, I am not really too concerned at one level.
> 
> But for me, I get tired of always being strong, it gets old. I wish that I could fall apart like some women are allowed to do without repercussion.
> 
> I understand that it will probably never happen for me, and I am cool with it. But just one time to have someone pick ME up and carry me through the mine field of life without thinking I am "less than" because I am weak at that point in time... You know that would be OK too...



Yes I totally get that and get this feeling A LOT too. But my point has always been: are we not putting this pressure onto ourselves? Will someone else’s words, such as ‘it’s ok to fall apart’, make this feeling somehow magically go away, if you really drill down?

It almost feels like a general frustration with some of the inevitability and reality of this world and I often get this too. However I see this as MY OWN frustrations and thoughts; I don’t see how my wife contributes to them in any significant way, certainly not consciously but even subconsciously. I just know i get this feeling periodically and try not to make anyone responsible for me feeling this way. 

I’m just appealing for honesty here because I think it could be helpful down the line...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PigglyWiggly

BluesPower said:


> Now that is a really good question, and I don't know the answer. But it is a super good question...
> 
> Compassion, maybe, understanding, I really don't know?
> 
> Here is my take on a lot of this. I have seen this from a lot of woman, not all so I am not saying that.
> 
> Now while I understand that this "thing" happens, I am not really too concerned at one level.
> 
> But for me, I get tired of always being strong, it gets old. I wish that I could fall apart like some women are allowed to do without repercussion.
> 
> I understand that it will probably never happen for me, and I am cool with it. But just one time to have someone pick ME up and carry me through the mine field of life without thinking I am "less than" because I am weak at that point in time... You know that would be OK too...


Do you ever forecast what a life as a senior citizen is going to be like with someone who thinks you are weak if you can't carry the ball 24/7/365?


----------



## 269370

farsidejunky said:


> QFT.
> @FeministInPink illustrated perfectly why this doesn't work.
> 
> Fear.
> 
> What was the primary underpinnings of dominance vs submission when I discussed it further upthread?
> 
> Fear...or the absence of it.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk



Fear that she thought he might be violent towards her. Not fear that he might share his innermost feelings or be completely open with her and that she won’t know what to do with it..

But I think it’s time for me to admit defeat...Everyone will see their world through their own lenses and exploring the possibility that other glasses are available too will only produce a headache!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

tech-novelist said:


> Or for an even closer parallel, imagine a research study that concluded "Women's passivity is responsible for their lower lifetime pay and greater vulnerability to being taken advantage of."
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the response to that?



But it’s still the toxic ‘traditional’ masculinity that is responsible for everything that those people feel they don’t have, including toxic femininity, though.
It’s obvious what the (final) solution should be because it’s backed up by ‘facts’: get rid of masculinity and suddenly everyone will be happier and live longer!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BluesPower

inmyprime said:


> Yes I totally get that and get this feeling A LOT too. But my point has always been: are we not putting this pressure onto ourselves? Will someone else’s words, such as ‘it’s ok to fall apart’, make this feeling somehow magically go away, if you really drill down?
> 
> It almost feels like a general frustration with some of the inevitability and reality of this world and I often get this too. However I see this as MY OWN frustrations and thoughts; I don’t see how my wife contributes to them in any significant way, certainly not consciously but even subconsciously. I just know i get this feeling periodically and try not to make anyone responsible for me feeling this way.
> 
> I’m just appealing for honesty here because I think it could be helpful down the line...


I knew that this question was going to come out. 

So you know all the dead bedroom threads, and I would get blasted because for me it did not work that way. How, for me, there was no relationship without great sex. Yeah, you can have great sex with out a relationship, but even for me, it is not the same. 

Now, also think about the Alpha/beta conversations, talk about confident men, sexual prowess, and all those other things...

So I get blasted because of the fact that as a male, I have been successful with woman. I am too cocky, too arrogant, yada yada yada... 

Here is the deal, society teaches us to be that way. I have not been successful in the sex department because I let myself be vulnerable with women. I can be, in very select situations, but not very often. 

I am not closed off emotionally, and I am able to emotionally support my partners. 

I cry at the polar bear commercials sometimes, or the dog ones, in private...

To me, when you start to figure things out in life, you really have no choice but to be strong. Taking kids to the ER bleeding all over the place is not the time to be emotional, no matter how much your wife is. 

Your wife has a car wreck and you make the scene, not time for emotion. In fact my GF, had a bad wreck leaving my house early on, in the R. Her car caught fire, I made the scene, and she was out of it. 

So I took charge, it grabbed her, took her to my car, told her to stay there and DO NOT MOVE...

I handled everything else, got what was not wet out of the car, and took her back to the house, and put her to bed. To this day, she thanks me for the way that I handled it. 

To this day, what she does not know, is how much I cried on my way to work. I realized that I almost lost the only, or at least the best, women that I ever loved. It effected me for about two weeks, until I got over the trauma.

What I am saying is, like many others, this is the way that it is. We may not like it all the time, but it is a reality. 

I am not sure that I explained that very well, but this is all I have got...


----------



## Buddy400

Pac-Man said:


> If he "suck it up" silently because .... he don't want to provoke the "Va-clang" in is wife, then it can become unhealthy.


So, he's "emotionally healthy" but his wife is no longer sexually attracted to him?

I'm not sure many guys would be willing to make this trade.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Buddy400 said:


> So, he's "emotionally healthy" but his wife is no longer sexually attracted to him?
> 
> I'm not sure many guys would be willing to make this trade.


It probably won't even work that way. 

If he "sucks it up" too long, that will negatively impact his mental health. In the end he ends up mentally disturbed AND celibate. The two seem to go together. Kind of an all or nothing deal for a lot of guys.


----------



## personofinterest

farsidejunky said:


> The only way for this to be accurate is to diminish the first-hand experiences of the men who are posting on this thread and the previous one.
> 
> I am not emotionally unavailable.
> 
> I have a fairly high EQ.
> 
> I own my ****.
> 
> I rarely have emotional outbursts.
> 
> I'm the breadwinner in my family.
> 
> My wife runs nearly everything through me, even though I have never expected nor asked her to do so.
> 
> Yet time and time again I've seen it.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


With YOUR wife. I would estimate that maybe a dozen men on this forum talk about this. Let's say ALL of their 3 closest male friends have mentioned it too. That is 48 people.

And 12 of those are on a forum whose topic makes it a pretty specific type of group.

I am not saying it doesn't happen. I am saying this idea that it is part of the pervasive female makeup cannot - CANNOT - be stated as fact. Or even an evidence-based hypothesis.

I know it happens. I hurt for the men whose wives or girlfriends truly do not empathize or truly stop desiring them at all. 

But no....it is not a TREND in the overall generalization of XY DNA.

I don't have to agree that women as a general rule do this in order to empathize with the men for whom it is true.

Disagreeing that it is pervasive is not minimizing. No...it's not.


----------



## personofinterest

Faithful Wife said:


> The extreme resistance to the idea by both men and women is so weird.
> 
> But that used to be me too, so I get it.
> 
> It was ultimately you guys who I respect saying it, that finally made me let go of my old assumptions. And then once I actually started listening, I could hear all the other stories too. I still don’t know how many women are like that, but earlier I guessed at maybe 30%.


I am not resistant to the truth that it happens. I am resistant to the opinion that it is a pervasive feature of the female gender.


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> Fear that she thought he might be violent towards her. Not fear that he might share his innermost feelings or be completely open with her and that she won’t know what to do with it..
> 
> But I think it’s time for me to admit defeat...Everyone will see their world through their own lenses and exploring the possibility that other glasses are available too will only produce a headache!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


For me, it was fear that once again he would lose a job, we would have to move, unemployment would be for an indeterminate time, and I'd have to ask my parents for help.....AGAIN.

So as soon as ex came home and flopped on the sofa and pulled the quilt over his head....or went to the bedroom and burrowed under the covers.....and then told me in his "I can barely talk" defeated voice that someone said something negative and now everyone must think he's a failure....

Yes, my stomach clenched with fear, and I began calculating how much a moving truck would cost.


I confess, the first time my current hubby was griping and said, "I have half a mind to go in and tell Joe to either hire some help or give me my last paycheck," a part of me panicked. But his work ethic was an observable pattern, and the overwhelming evidence that A. He would never leave a job without another good one and B. Sometimes he just needed to vent made that fear disappear.


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> I knew that this question was going to come out.
> 
> 
> 
> So you know all the dead bedroom threads, and I would get blasted because for me it did not work that way. How, for me, there was no relationship without great sex. Yeah, you can have great sex with out a relationship, but even for me, it is not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, also think about the Alpha/beta conversations, talk about confident men, sexual prowess, and all those other things...
> 
> 
> 
> So I get blasted because of the fact that as a male, I have been successful with woman. I am too cocky, too arrogant, yada yada yada...
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the deal, society teaches us to be that way. I have not been successful in the sex department because I let myself be vulnerable with women. I can be, in very select situations, but not very often.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not closed off emotionally, and I am able to emotionally support my partners.
> 
> 
> 
> I cry at the polar bear commercials sometimes, or the dog ones, in private...
> 
> 
> 
> To me, when you start to figure things out in life, you really have no choice but to be strong. Taking kids to the ER bleeding all over the place is not the time to be emotional, no matter how much your wife is.
> 
> 
> 
> Your wife has a car wreck and you make the scene, not time for emotion. In fact my GF, had a bad wreck leaving my house early on, in the R. Her car caught fire, I made the scene, and she was out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> So I took charge, it grabbed her, took her to my car, told her to stay there and DO NOT MOVE...
> 
> 
> 
> I handled everything else, got what was not wet out of the car, and took her back to the house, and put her to bed. To this day, she thanks me for the way that I handled it.
> 
> 
> 
> To this day, what she does not know, is how much I cried on my way to work. I realized that I almost lost the only, or at least the best, women that I ever loved. It effected me for about two weeks, until I got over the trauma.
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is, like many others, this is the way that it is. We may not like it all the time, but it is a reality.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure that I explained that very well, but this is all I have got...



You did explain well. Everything comes at a price: you choose to be a certain way and you get the associated ‘benefits’. You would be giving some of those benefits up if you chose to act (or be) as someone different and in particular, you would be paying a very different cost if you were with someone else altogether.

I’m all for taking a moment for being grateful for what we have, even if it doesn’t always seem to us like it’s perfect!
Ok, I’m going to shut up now, I promise! I’m beginning to irritate myself. And I have no empathy for that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Tiggy! said:


> I actually think that would be a great example of toxic femininity.


Good intentions.

However, instead of achieving equality by labeling parts of both femininity and masculinity as toxic, 

I think we'd be better off avoiding the use of the term "toxic" entirely.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

BluesPower said:


> So I get blasted because of the fact that as a male, I have been successful with woman. I am too cocky, too arrogant, yada yada yada...


You don't "get blasted" for arrogance based on your self proclaimed "success with women"

You get blasted for your arrogance in blindly assuming anybody who doesn't behave like you is, in your words "weak" or "a moron." As if everyone's situation is the same and as if it doesn't take incredible strength to do some of what others do... far more strength, actually, than quickly bailing on a relationship. 

So that being the case, you can also get blasted for being so blindly self absorbed as to be absolutely clueless as to why you're getting blasted in the first place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I am not resistant to the truth that it happens. I am resistant to the opinion that it is a pervasive feature of the female gender.


I don’t know if it is pervasive. And it very well could be that the self selected group who end up at TAM are somehow more likely to be in this situation.

And even though we are hearing only anecdotes, I am splicing together stories I’ve read over many years here and elsewhere. And it is not a small number or an insignificant amount of men who report this.

Of course, I’ve heard just as many or more stories by women whose husbands have no empathy for them. And even if the man did not lose his attraction to her if she needed empathy, it still hurt her and made her not trust him. It was overall bad for the relationship.

I also think there may be a pattern with the men here in that they are possibly more likely to be married to women who are not self aware of their own issues. Many men have described that they want to improve the relationship but the wife sees no problems needing to fix other than she just wants him to stop complaining. She’s not aware that her actions or attitude are actually robbing him of his love for her, minute by minute, as she remains stubbornly unaware.

I think men who have found their way to TAM are seeking their own self awareness, and they may not quite be all the way there by the time they arrive here, but many do seem to gain a lot of self awareness as they stick around for awhile. The same men’s wives don’t seem to be aware of how unhappy their husband is, or if he complains or tries to improve the relationship she just calls him a whiner.

Not knowing whether this is pervasive or not, but definitely understanding that many of the men I respect here have offered plenty of their own words on this topic and that I believe them. Even if this is “just” a TAM phenomenon, the concept did help me see why so much of the RP stuff rings true to so many guys. If their experiences didn’t match so many other men’s, they wouldn’t agree with it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/owning-pink/201408/women-please-stop-shaming-men

A good article about this topic.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Faithful Wife said:


> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/owning-pink/201408/women-please-stop-shaming-men
> 
> A good article about this topic.


Very interesting. My wife has 2 g/f s that absolutely dig my openness and I think they'd F me (my ego could be lying to me) just for the ability to connect on a deeper emotional level than what they've experienced with some men who are more closed off. These 2 gals are what I would call strong women so I wonder if that correlates in any way.

This thread has brought up some good questions that I can't wait to discuss with my wife during tub time and a sativa.


----------



## personofinterest

Faithful Wife said:


> I don’t know if it is pervasive. And it very well could be that the self selected group who end up at TAM are somehow more likely to be in this situation.
> 
> And even though we are hearing only anecdotes, I am splicing together stories I’ve read over many years here and elsewhere. And it is not a small number or an insignificant amount of men who report this.
> 
> Of course, I’ve heard just as many or more stories by women whose husbands have no empathy for them. And even if the man did not lose his attraction to her if she needed empathy, it still hurt her and made her not trust him. It was overall bad for the relationship.
> 
> I also think there may be a pattern with the men here in that they are possibly more likely to be married to women who are not self aware of their own issues. Many men have described that they want to improve the relationship but the wife sees no problems needing to fix other than she just wants him to stop complaining. She’s not aware that her actions or attitude are actually robbing him of his love for her, minute by minute, as she remains stubbornly unaware.
> 
> I think men who have found their way to TAM are seeking their own self awareness, and they may not quite be all the way there by the time they arrive here, but many do seem to gain a lot of self awareness as they stick around for awhile. The same men’s wives don’t seem to be aware of how unhappy their husband is, or if he complains or tries to improve the relationship she just calls him a whiner.
> 
> Not knowing whether this is pervasive or not, but definitely understanding that many of the men I respect here have offered plenty of their own words on this topic and that I believe them. Even if this is “just” a TAM phenomenon, the concept did help me see why so much of the RP stuff rings true to so many guys. If their experiences didn’t match so many other men’s, they wouldn’t agree with it.



I like this post because it acknowledges the complexity behind the issue. We cannot just say "women go dry when men are vulnerable." I mean, that is a nice RP sound byte, but it is way more complex than that, even if that is the bottom line perception.

I think in most cases, there are a myriad of things going on, and one of them is an unempathetic woman. And sometimes the reason the woman is or seems unempathetic is due to the myriad of other things.

If someone looked at my response to my ex's 5th or 6th self-inflicted job crisis in isolation, I would seem very unempathetic. If they were willing to look at the marriage as a whole....it would make more sense.

Much like the guy who spends 4 nights a week at the bar with his buddies might seem neglectful, but when you look at how his wife nags when he is home....it makes more sense.

A strong but loving man whose wife turns off when he needs her likely has a thoughtless wife who lacks empathy. A man who is constantly negative and drones about the same thing over and over, foisting his pain onto her on a regular basis....well, that woman might just be exhausted.

I think women who enjoy the damsel in distress role are more likely to wig out when their man is actually a vulnerable human. In that case, I think her lack of empathy is a symptom of her personality, NOT a symptom of her female DNA.


----------



## Holdingontoit

FeministInPink said:


> As time went on, his rants seemed to lessen in frequency and became less severe. It was like my presence soothed him, or he became more mindful of it because he knew I didn't like to see him like that. But several of his friends commented to me that his temperament began to change significantly (for the better) after he and I started seeing one another.


Well of course he had fewer angry outbreaks after being with you for a while. With all the late night escapades, he was too exhausted to express violent anger! :surprise: >


----------



## Holdingontoit

personofinterest said:


> For me, it was fear that once again he would lose a job, we would have to move, unemployment would be for an indeterminate time, and I'd have to ask my parents for help.....AGAIN.
> 
> Yes, my stomach clenched with fear, and I began calculating how much a moving truck would cost.
> 
> I confess, the first time my current hubby was griping and said, "I have half a mind to go in and tell Joe to either hire some help or give me my last paycheck," a part of me panicked.


In other words, until a long time later during which your husband proved repeatedly that he was going to be strong and protective toward you regardless of how he felt, when he admitted to weakness - you va-clanged. Or are you suggesting that you panicking and your stomach clenching in fear is not a va-clang?


----------



## PigglyWiggly

personofinterest said:


> I like this post because it acknowledges the complexity behind the issue. We cannot just say "women go dry when men are vulnerable." I mean, that is a nice RP sound byte, but it is way more complex than that, even if that is the bottom line perception.
> 
> I think in most cases, there are a myriad of things going on, and one of them is an unempathetic woman. And sometimes the reason the woman is or seems unempathetic is due to the myriad of other things.
> 
> If someone looked at my response to my ex's 5th or 6th self-inflicted job crisis in isolation, I would seem very unempathetic. If they were willing to look at the marriage as a whole....it would make more sense.
> 
> Much like the guy who spends 4 nights a week at the bar with his buddies might seem neglectful, but when you look at how his wife nags when he is home....it makes more sense.
> 
> A strong but loving man whose wife turns off when he needs her likely has a thoughtless wife who lacks empathy. A man who is constantly negative and drones about the same thing over and over, foisting his pain onto her on a regular basis....well, that woman might just be exhausted.
> 
> *I think women who enjoy the damsel in distress role are more likely to wig out when their man is actually a vulnerable human. In that case, I think her lack of empathy is a symptom of her personality, NOT a symptom of her female DNA.*


I don't know if this is true but it seems to be to me. I say this because I haven't encountered a lack of empathy from those I call "strong women" and they definitely haven't been the damsel in distress type. 

I love it that you ladies are digging and wanting to learn more. It's in conversations like this that I often find little gold nuggets to apply to my own marriage. :smthumbup:


----------



## FeministInPink

Holdingontoit said:


> Well of course he had fewer angry outbreaks after being with you for a while. With all the late night escapades, he was too exhausted to express violent anger! :surprise: >


Ha ha ha, you may be right.

But he also mentioned, on more than one occasion, while looking deep into my eyes, that he'd read that simply looking at a beautiful women lowers a man's blood pressure and stress level. 

And if that woman loves you and makes the effort to take good care of you, I would imagine that effect is intensified.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Pac-Man

inmyprime said:


> I don’t think you (and others who are like-minded) understand the implications of this ‘research’.
> It’s exactly the same mentality as coming to the conclusion: “how is saying that skin transplant would be harmful to African Americans when it’s clearly less advantageous to be of a certain skin colour? These are just facts based on statistics”.
> 
> Where do you think racism comes from? Usually it’s a combination from a profound misunderstanding of ‘facts’ and your own social ‘conditioning’, as well as personal circumstances.
> 
> I’m convinced there will be a profound moment in history where full implications of this type of thinking will rear its ugly head once again.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Some people are concerned that boys aren't allowed to be as they naturally are.

The APA is concerned that a strong cultural pressure to conform to extreme stereotypes of feminity or masculinity is unhealthy. They also think that because there may be differences in the various psychological problems typical men and typical women may experience, it can be useful to have guidelines that adress the issues that are particular to specific genders.

Those two set of concerns don't have to be in opposition. Actually, they go in the same direction: Let people be who they are and deal with them accordingly. 

Unfortunately, the APA is rather fuzzy in its communications (and probably in their ideas too). On the other hand, the right wings medias prefer to stir the pot of controversy by quoting the sentenses they don't like rather than finding commond ground. They throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> So, he's "emotionally healthy" but his wife is no longer sexually attracted to him?
> 
> I'm not sure many guys would be willing to make this trade.


Maybe he would be emotionally healthy enough to help his wife grow in introspection or find a better wife.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I think women who enjoy the damsel in distress role are more likely to wig out when their man is actually a vulnerable human. In that case, I think her lack of empathy is a symptom of her personality, NOT a symptom of her female DNA.


Yes, damsels would be one group I can think of.

Also (generally using the term) submissive leaning women.

Women who have spectrum disorders (general lack of empathy is part of many of those disorders).

And women who are *******s.

.......


That does seem to be potentially a lot of women when you think about it.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/owning-pink/201408/women-please-stop-shaming-men
> 
> A good article about this topic.


I'd read that previously.

From the article:

"The adult men in our lives need to know that it’s okay to get fired or make a bad investment or be unable to pay the mortgage. They need reassurance that we still love them when they’re collecting unemployment or when they can’t get the mayonnaise lid off the jar. They need to know we’ll love them even if they get sick. And they need to know that we don’t need them to pretend to keep it all together when they feel like falling apart. They need to be able to tell us that it hurts if we reject them sexually and that sometimes they look at porn not because we aren’t pretty enough, but because there’s no risk of rejection at a strip bar or on the internet"

Women can try to talk themselves into dealing with this sort of thing better.

But, can they really do it and still retain their sexual attraction?

I have my doubts. 

This seems like a guy trying to talk himself into being attracted to a 400 lb woman with a "great personality".


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Good intentions.
> 
> However, instead of achieving equality by labeling parts of both femininity and masculinity as toxic,
> 
> I think we'd be better off avoiding the use of the term "toxic" entirely.


I personally won't when it comes to conversations about society. When I am talking about red cars, no one thinks that there is a claim that cars are all red or that red is part of the nature of of cars. (Side note, it DOES seem TO ME particularly male in USian society to make this leap from talking about a thought, a man's situation, a set of men ... and extrapolate that to be an indictment of all/most/many men or an indictment of male nature. I PERSONALLY think this is a fear based reaction to social change. While totally understable, it is not helpful to understanding At All.) 

A little (and I mean a LITTLE) search on the term brings this up frm a feminist site "Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men. It refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth." Toxic masculinity actually describes a set of MYTHS of what masculinity is that yield toxic results.

As such, I, personally, won't avoid using that term when it describes the thing it is intended to describe. Since the term toxic femininity does not have a common societal meaning, I will reserve the right to use that where it describes what I intend to describe.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I'd read that previously.
> 
> From the article:
> 
> "The adult men in our lives need to know that it’s okay to get fired or make a bad investment or be unable to pay the mortgage. They need reassurance that we still love them when they’re collecting unemployment or when they can’t get the mayonnaise lid off the jar. They need to know we’ll love them even if they get sick. And they need to know that we don’t need them to pretend to keep it all together when they feel like falling apart. They need to be able to tell us that it hurts if we reject them sexually and that sometimes they look at porn not because we aren’t pretty enough, but because there’s no risk of rejection at a strip bar or on the internet"
> 
> Women can try to talk themselves into dealing with this sort of thing better.
> 
> But, can they really do it and still retain their sexual attraction?
> 
> I have my doubts.
> 
> This seems like a guy trying to talk himself into being attracted to a 400 lb woman with a "great personality".


Yeah I kind of cringed when I read that, because I could imagine all the women cringing at "it's ok to get fired or make a bad investment". I think even the thought of this causes a lot of va-clang. Not sure it can be changed.

I do think at least the concept could be spread around a bit, making everyone more aware of the need to give empathy to our spouses of all genders.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Pac-Man said:


> Some people are concerned that boys aren't allowed to be as they naturally are.
> 
> The APA is concerned that a strong cultural pressure to conform to extreme stereotypes of feminity or masculinity is unhealthy. They also think that because there may be differences in the various psychological problems typical men and typical women may experience, it can be useful to have guidelines that adress the issues that are particular to specific genders.
> 
> Those two set of concerns don't have to be in opposition. Actually, they go in the same direction: Let people be who they are and deal with them accordingly.
> 
> Unfortunately, the APA is rather fuzzy in its communications (and probably in their ideas too). On the other hand, the right wings medias prefer to stir the pot of controversy by quoting the sentenses they don't like rather than finding commond ground. They throw the baby out with the bathwater.


I don't actually think the APA is fuzzy. But I do think that their communication is oft misunderstood. (Not assuming that the communication failure is primarily theirs.) But otherwise, yes.


----------



## Pac-Man

FeministInPink said:


> Conversely, an emotional rock would still have such emotions... but not be at their mercy. The emotional rock could discuss his frustrations with me and I would have empathy for him, and provide support. And there would be no va-clang. There would be increased respect for the way he handled this situation. A man can still show emotions, and be an emotional rock for his partner. He can experience doubt, or fear, sadness, disappointment... he can experience the gamut of these, but_ if he is able to acknowledge and control his emotions rather than letting his emotions control him, then he is still stable._ He can still be a rock; he can still be her emotional rock while having emotions of his own.


Of course there's a difference between healthy expression of feelings and an out of control outbust.

Thats true for both gender.

In an ideal world, we would never see people "losing it". But we don't live in an ideal world and people aren't perfect. So, in extreme circomstances, an occasional outbust can be forgiven if its not violent.

On the other hand, even calm expression of bad feelings can be tiresome if it happens all the time. It's much more pleasant to come home to a smiling spouse than to someone who feel a need to vent every single day. 

Everthing I said so far applies to both gender.

The point is that on average, theres more pressure on men to be both always in control AND to refrain to express emotion that make them appear weak (sadness, anxiety, fear).

I am not someone who is picky about having a wife who is always in her best shape, dressed like a lady, well shaven everywhere alll the time. I still acknowledge that women in general feel more pressure too look good and put much more effort into looking good.

I think that even women who are personnally empathetic toward their mate could admit that there's generally a double standard about the emotional control and the expression of weakness.


----------



## MisterG

The hole in this argument is the assumption that only a relatively small number of men are affected ("maybe a dozen men on this forum talk about this"). 

But not so long ago you could say the same about not many boys complaining about being molested by priests, or not many women filing police reports about sexual assault. The fact is, very few people will complain when they know they will be ignored or get a negative response. 

It is not a surprise that few men speak up on this topic. This may very well be pervasive (it may even be typical). For now, no one can say how many are keeping quiet. 



personofinterest said:


> With YOUR wife. I would estimate that maybe a dozen men on this forum talk about this. Let's say ALL of their 3 closest male friends have mentioned it too. That is 48 people.
> 
> And 12 of those are on a forum whose topic makes it a pretty specific type of group.
> 
> I am not saying it doesn't happen. I am saying this idea that it is part of the pervasive female makeup cannot - CANNOT - be stated as fact. Or even an evidence-based hypothesis.
> 
> I know it happens. I hurt for the men whose wives or girlfriends truly do not empathize or truly stop desiring them at all.
> 
> But no....it is not a TREND in the overall generalization of XY DNA.
> 
> I don't have to agree that women as a general rule do this in order to empathize with the men for whom it is true.
> 
> Disagreeing that it is pervasive is not minimizing. No...it's not.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I'd read that previously.
> 
> From the article:
> 
> "The adult men in our lives need to know that it’s okay to get fired or make a bad investment or be unable to pay the mortgage. They need reassurance that we still love them when they’re collecting unemployment or when they can’t get the mayonnaise lid off the jar. They need to know we’ll love them even if they get sick. And they need to know that we don’t need them to pretend to keep it all together when they feel like falling apart. They need to be able to tell us that it hurts if we reject them sexually and that sometimes they look at porn not because we aren’t pretty enough, but because there’s no risk of rejection at a strip bar or on the internet"
> 
> Women *can * deal with this sort of thing better.


There. (Could not find a strikeout.)



> But, can they really do it and still retain their sexual attraction?


Yes. Woman also have socialization baggage. Many think it is as magical, weird and elusive and very, very, very much NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. This is wrong. Needn't be the case. 



> I have my doubts.
> 
> This seems like a guy trying to talk himself into being attracted to a 400 lb woman with a "great personality".


Nope. I don't.


----------



## personofinterest

Holdingontoit said:


> In other words, until a long time later during which your husband proved repeatedly that he was going to be strong and protective toward you regardless of how he felt, when he admitted to weakness - you va-clanged. Or are you suggesting that you panicking and your stomach clenching in fear is not a va-clang?



The first time he began having job troubles, i really thought his boss was a jackass. I felt for him and tried to encourage and uplift. And no, it had no effect on my desire for him sexually. Of course, this was the ex who never wanted sex. But anyway, it wasn't until later that I had the fear and distance response, which might be what some of that vaclang actually is.

With my current H, I had a "trigger" that first time or two, but I still wanted to have sex with him. Unless I am vomiting violently, I basically always want to have sex with him....well, even then I wish I felt better so I could


----------



## personofinterest

MisterG said:


> The hole in this argument is the assumption that only a relatively small number of men are affected ("maybe a dozen men on this forum talk about this").
> 
> But not so long ago you could say the same about not many boys complaining about being molested by priests, or not many women filing police reports about sexual assault. The fact is, very few people will complain when they know they will be ignored or get a negative response.
> 
> It is not a surprise that few men speak up on this topic. This may very well be pervasive (it may even be typical). For now, no one can say how many are keeping quiet.


Other than the comparison to boys being molested (which I confess made me do an eye roll) I definitely see your point.

HOWEVER, I never said it only affected a dozen men.

But neither will I believe this is some inherent trait of most females. I just won't. No one will convince me that this is encoded into female DNA. I am certain it happens more than I know. But it is not part of the female "makeup," as some seem to be insisting.

Just like the incapability to listen and shallowness is not an inherent part of male DNA, regardless of what frustrated females want to think.


----------



## personofinterest

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, damsels would be one group I can think of.
> 
> Also (generally using the term) submissive leaning women.
> 
> Women who have spectrum disorders (general lack of empathy is part of many of those disorders).
> 
> And women who are *******s.
> 
> .......
> 
> 
> That does seem to be potentially a lot of women when you think about it.


I don't know. I identify as sexually submissive, and am submissive in general to the man I am married to (using the untainted definition of submission). I still don't get repelled sexually by a man I love when he is vulnerable. In fact, since stoic non-emotion is so ingrained in men, particularly of my generation and older, I admire the strength it takes for him to open up, and the immense trust it must take for him to do that with me.

Like I said, I am sure more men than I know feel this way, and more women I know are like this.

But I will never believe it is some identifying female gene, or even that it is "most" women.


----------



## BluesPower

NobodySpecial said:


> I personally won't when it comes to conversations about society. When I am talking about red cars, no one thinks that there is a claim that cars are all red or that red is part of the nature of of cars. (Side note, it DOES seem TO ME particularly male in USian society to make this leap from talking about a thought, a man's situation, a set of men ... and extrapolate that to be an indictment of all/most/many men or an indictment of male nature. I PERSONALLY think this is a fear based reaction to social change. While totally understable, it is not helpful to understanding At All.)
> 
> A little (and I mean a LITTLE) search on the term brings this up frm a feminist site "Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men. It refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth." Toxic masculinity actually describes a set of MYTHS of what masculinity is that yield toxic results.
> 
> As such, I, personally, won't avoid using that term when it describes the thing it is intended to describe. Since the term toxic femininity does not have a common societal meaning, I will reserve the right to use that where it describes what I intend to describe.


So, now every one can bang on me for this. 

This is how I raise boys. My two boys, 22 months apart. The youngest was heavier and just as strong as the older. 

Along about, lets say 12 to 15, they both got the hormone change as young men do. And they started wanted to compete and basically not take **** off of each other. 

So one day, they get into it, and it was like MMA in my living room. This happened for about 2 to 3 years. 

They are going at it, they have to determine who is the toughest. It was brutal, and my Ex W tried to get in the middle of it. 

I literally had to grab her and keep her back. You do not get in the middle of two fighting dogs, ever. 

So after a few years of this, they both got tired of it, they determined that they were about equal and got over it.

Point being, this is how boys are, esp brothers. 

They actually went on to lead several really successful bands, in different genres and won some national awards and what not. So it did not damage their relationship, and they are close today. They don't play together as much because the oldest has been on the road with another group, and the youngest is still in collage. 

Point being that, boys will be boys, good and bad. If you stifle that, you end up having a weak man that does no one any good...


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I personally won't when it comes to conversations about society. When I am talking about red cars, no one thinks that there is a claim that cars are all red or that red is part of the nature of of cars. (Side note, it DOES seem TO ME particularly male in USian society to make this leap from talking about a thought, a man's situation, a set of men ... and extrapolate that to be an indictment of all/most/many men or an indictment of male nature. I PERSONALLY think this is a fear based reaction to social change. While totally understable, it is not helpful to understanding At All.)


This is common for both genders, try saying women (blank) without specifically using the terms some, many or most and one gets the same reaction (and even using those qualifiers doesn't always do the trick).


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I don't know. I identify as sexually submissive, and am submissive in general to the man I am married to (using the untainted definition of submission). I still don't get repelled sexually by a man I love when he is vulnerable. In fact, since stoic non-emotion is so ingrained in men, particularly of my generation and older, I admire the strength it takes for him to open up, and the immense trust it must take for him to do that with me.
> 
> Like I said, I am sure more men than I know feel this way, and more women I know are like this.
> 
> But I will never believe it is some identifying female gene, or even that it is "most" women.


I do not va-clang on my man either. In fact, my Florence Nightengale is usually engaged. So it is literally impossible for me to relate.

Also, I do not believe or adopt the "science" behind why this may be occurring if that "science" is just random evo-psyche crap.

But I don't know why it is occurring, just that it is occurring a lot more than I could have ever possibly understood before because I thought "most women were like me". 

Men are making some assumptions about lizard brains and such. That part is of no interest to me. I do understand though why they have sought answers for "why". Because it is such a common experience for them that they are confused and want to understand it. So far the lizard brain crap is all they have been offered, I think.

I can't offer anything better....though I am hoping to maybe figure out some ways to at least talk about the issue.


----------



## Tiggy!

Buddy400 said:


> Good intentions.
> 
> However, instead of achieving equality by labeling parts of both femininity and masculinity as toxic,
> 
> I think we'd be better off avoiding the use of the term "toxic" entirely.


I don't believe either masculinity or femininity are toxic, however the stereotypes and roles placed on both sexes can be.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I do not va-clang on my man either. In fact, my Florence Nightengale is usually engaged. So it is literally impossible for me to relate.
> 
> Also, I do not believe or adopt the "science" behind why this may be occurring if that "science" is just random evo-psyche crap.
> 
> But I don't know why it is occurring, just that it is occurring a lot more than I could have ever possibly understood before because I thought "most women were like me".
> 
> Men are making some assumptions about lizard brains and such. That part is of no interest to me. I do understand though why they have sought answers for "why". Because it is such a common experience for them that they are confused and want to understand it. So far the lizard brain crap is all they have been offered, I think.
> 
> I can't offer anything better....though I am hoping to maybe figure out some ways to at least talk about the issue.


I don't get the hostile reaction women have to the "Lizard Brain" idea. I don't see any push back from men when discussing their possible "primal needs" (or "Lizard Brains").

To me, it's just another way of describing the subconscious mind. 

It seems clear (and science based) that a human's personality is greatly affected by DNA (Steven Pinker in "The Blank Slate" claims that this is basic scientific knowledge among experts). Given that DNA is largely inherited and, therefore, subject to evolution, it seems obvious that much of our behavior is driven by subconscious factors that are not under our conscious control. It would seem a given that our current behaviors would have something to do with what behaviors were most successful (genetically) in the past.

However, that doesn't mean that every speculation on how the past influenced us is accurate (or even plausible).

And, it seems like the term is pretty specifically used by the Red Pill community. So, is it that using the term is thought to identify the speaker as a member of that community? 

Is the female hostility towards this idea possibly a response to memes such as "Women don't know what they want" or "Woman aren't as rational as men"?

Are there words other than "Lizard Brain" that would let us talk about the concept without immediately offending female sensibilities?


----------



## personofinterest

Tiggy! said:


> I don't believe either masculinity or femininity are toxic, however the stereotypes and roles placed on both sexes can be.



EXACTLY

Do the men who keep doing it not realize that when they say/type

"Women think...."

"Women do...."

"Women don't..."

that they ARE in fact referring to us as a single entity. This IS a generalization.

And then this whole "why are you reacting to science?" thing. I am not reacting to science. I am reacting to generalized opinion being accepted as fact.

It isn't fact.

There is no science to back up the assertion that women are encoded not to have empathy and attraction at the same time. It's ridiculous how tightly some are holding onto this false information.


----------



## Affaircare

BluesPower said:


> ... This is how I raise boys. My two boys, 22 months apart. The youngest was heavier and just as strong as the older.
> 
> Along about, lets say 12 to 15, they both got the hormone change as young men do. And they started wanted to compete and basically not take **** off of each other.
> 
> So one day, they get into it, and it was like MMA in my living room. This happened for about 2 to 3 years.
> 
> They are going at it, they have to determine who is the toughest. It was brutal, and my Ex W tried to get in the middle of it.
> 
> I literally had to grab her and keep her back. You do not get in the middle of two fighting dogs, ever.
> 
> So after a few years of this, they both got tired of it, they determined that they were about equal and got over it.
> 
> Point being, this is how boys are, esp brothers.


Similar story: my two boys got into it once, in the living room, and being a mom, I didn't really want them to fight and I sure-as-shooting didn't want them to break the living room! 

So I said: "THAT'S IT! We are taking this out the front yard and you two are going to have this out once-and-for-all. I'm done with the indoor wrestling. Let's settle this." 

Out we went! 

At first they mostly had that deer-in-the-headslights look (as if to say "Mom, you're role is to step in and tell us we can't do this") but I had had enough, so one started in on the other and it began. They fought like mountain lions for a while, and I let 'em (within some reason) do what needed to be done. In the end, they both clocked the other, both had bruises, and both just ended it with "Meh, we're done" and they never did a big fight like that again.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I don't get the hostile reaction women have to the "Lizard Brain" idea. I don't see any push back from men when discussing their possible "primal needs" (or "Lizard Brains").
> 
> To me, it's just another way of describing the subconscious mind.
> 
> It seems clear (and science based) that a human's personality is greatly affected by DNA (Steven Pinker in "The Blank Slate" claims that this is basic scientific knowledge among experts). Given that DNA is largely inherited and, therefore, subject to evolution, it seems obvious that much of our behavior is driven by subconscious factors that are not under our conscious control. It would seem a given that our current behaviors would have something to do with what behaviors were most successful (genetically) in the past.
> 
> However, that doesn't mean that every speculation on how the past influenced us is accurate (or even plausible).
> 
> And, it seems like the term is pretty specifically used by the Red Pill community. So, is it that using the term is thought to identify the speaker as a member of that community?
> 
> Is the female hostility towards this idea possibly a response to memes such as "Women don't know what they want" or "Woman aren't as rational as men"?
> 
> *Are there words other than "Lizard Brain" that would let us talk about the concept without immediately offending female sensibilities?*


To the bolded, I'm not sure.

However I could offer a very lengthy and incredibly brilliantly thought out dissertation about my own conclusions to the science that does exist and to respond to the conclusions made thus far by some.

But if I do that, there will still be no reason for you or anyone else to believe me or my conclusions (though I know many would). Thus it would still just be wheels on the bus.

I could talk in another thread sometime about why I think the words do matter, and that I have learned how our (women's) words have been harmful in the shaping of men's lives (any amount of weakness is shamed, "whiner!") and also in the me too discussion, I think women's words are insulting men and there is no moving past it to any understanding.

Now that I have my "translator", it is very clear to me which words and phrases (on both sides) harms or is off putting to the other side.

I would be happy to discuss some of that, if anyone actually wanted to learn to be more sensitive with their words in order to assist in communication. But that doesn't sound like a thread many people (at this point) would want to join.

However....maybe after a few threads in between. I'm kind of looking at this like a series of ideas and threads.


----------



## personofinterest

Affaircare said:


> Similar story: my two boys got into it once, in the living room, and being a mom, I didn't really want them to fight and I sure-as-shooting didn't want them to break the living room!
> 
> So I said: "THAT'S IT! We are taking this out the front yard and you two are going to have this out once-and-for-all. I'm done with the indoor wrestling. Let's settle this."
> 
> Out we went!
> 
> At first they mostly had that deer-in-the-headslights look (as if to say "Mom, you're role is to step in and tell us we can't do this") but I had had enough, so one started in on the other and it began. They fought like mountain lions for a while, and I let 'em (within some reason) do what needed to be done. In the end, they both clocked the other, both had bruises, and both just ended it with "Meh, we're done" and they never did a big fight like that again.


LOL

I am a woman, but my brother and I had BRUTAL fights. My dad once stopped by a field about 3 miles from our house and told us to get out and fight in the field until we were done. You have thought he told us to drown puppies. We were horrified and immediately united to protest lol

I'm not a big fan of fighting, but I will say I would rather my son punch someone in the face who bullied him than cower indefinitely and then one day hurt himself.

Back on topic. I do think men and woman are DIFFERENT, sorry. And yes, for hormonal growing boys, talking it out and writing in their diaries is not going to cut it.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> However I could offer a very lengthy and incredibly brilliantly


Well, as long as it's brilliant, I don't care how long it is!



Faithful Wife said:


> I could talk in another thread sometime about why I think the words do matter


I agree that words matter. A lot.

The last thing one wants to do when trying to bring someone over to one's line of thinking is use words that push them away.

That's why I'm looking for a different word.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> LOL
> 
> I am a woman, but my brother and I had BRUTAL fights.


My older sister and I also had fights.

The problem was, that as soon as I was string enough to win, I had to stop fighting her.

So the final score was Sister 738, Me 1


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Well, as long as it's brilliant, I don't care how long it is!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that words matter. A lot.
> 
> The last thing one wants to do when trying to bring someone over to one's line of thinking is use words that push them away.
> 
> That's why I'm looking for a different word.


There are way way too many offensive (to many women) words and phrases in the RP literature to even get started on it.

But also, that's too much to bite off anyway. Maybe we can nibble on it sometime?

As for my dissertation....I'm writing it now, it will take me a few years. :laugh:


----------



## personofinterest

Buddy400 said:


> My older sister and I also had fights.
> 
> The problem was, that as soon as I was string enough to win, I had to stop fighting her.
> 
> So the final score was Sister 738, Me 1


Not us.

I stopped fighting with him when I scared myself. he was 6'2" 260 and I was 5'9" and 125. And I almost killed him (well, not exactly, but I realized how out of control I was and ran out of the room). Yikes, never told that story before......


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> My older sister and I also had fights.
> 
> The problem was, that as soon as I was string enough to win, I had to stop fighting her.
> 
> So the final score was Sister 738, Me 1


I've got a couple of grandkids, the girl is older than the boy. She has been physically bullying him for his whole life. But I have told her several times that just because right now she is a lot bigger than him, one day she will be a shrimp next to him and she better hope he doesn't want revenge.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> EXACTLY
> 
> Do the men who keep doing it not realize that when they say/type
> 
> "Women think...."
> 
> "Women do...."
> 
> "Women don't..."
> 
> that they ARE in fact referring to us as a single entity. This IS a generalization.
> 
> And then this whole "why are you reacting to science?" thing. I am not reacting to science. I am reacting to generalized opinion being accepted as fact.
> 
> It isn't fact.
> 
> There is no science to back up the assertion that women are encoded not to have empathy and attraction at the same time. It's ridiculous how tightly some are holding onto this false information.


The assumption that "encoding" and "wiring" are the root cause of many patterns of behavior is common and INCREDIBLY unhelpful.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I've got a couple of grandkids, the girl is older than the boy. She has been physically bullying him for his whole life. But I have told her several times that just because right now she is a lot bigger than him, one day she will be a shrimp next to him and she better hope he doesn't want revenge.


Or how about picking on someone who is smaller than you is just a jerk thing to do regardless of some possible consequence to oneself?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Tiggy! said:


> I don't believe *either masculinity or femininity are toxic*, ...


That's the point I was making. It is not MASCULINITY that is toxic any more than CAR is red.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Or how about picking on someone who is smaller than you is just a jerk thing to do regardless of some possible consequence to oneself?


We tell her that too, but she doesn't care that she's being a jerk.


----------



## Pac-Man

Buddy400 said:


> So, he's "emotionally healthy" but his wife is no longer sexually attracted to him?
> 
> I'm not sure many guys would be willing to make this trade.


There’s a variety of experience out there…

Some men are exclusively attracted to the typical hourglass body, some have a slight preference for it. Some don’t mind about her shape if he love her. Some actually prefer when there is more to love.

Some women experience the Va-clang at any expression of weakness. Some don’t experience the va-clang, but find « manly man » more sexy. Some actually prefer the sensitive artist. Bill Clinton was said to be « metrosexual » and some women found his charming 

Let’s suppose a picky man lose his attration for is wife because she gained 40 lbs after 20 years of marriage and three pregnacy. He may express it without any diplomacy. Or he may become distant. Or he can be politically correct, try to hide it and keep the sex going at the same rate. In the last case, despite his effort, the wife may detect his lost of attraction.

She can react in different way : Extreme diet and/or plastic surgery. Or do moderate effort, and accept that her relationship is ok even if his lust of youth partially gone. Or find a more compatible man. Or she can think that all men are shallow pigs and stay single.

If a women experience the Va-clang when her husband express weakness, she can strongly push him to « man up ». Or she can become distant. Or she can try to be understanding and keep the sex going. Or she have empathy but the sex go down. Even if she intellectually understand that she must have empathy toward her husband, she may still have the reflex to push against that expression of weakness if it create a bad sensation in her body. And despite all her effort to be an understanding and loyal wife, her husband may intuitively sense her lost of attraction. (Yes, men can have intuition too. Especially the ones who have emotion to express).

He can react by becoming an unhealthy caricatural « Alpha ». Or he can accept that nature made his wife sexuality like that, do reasonable effort and accept her partial or intermittent lost of libido. He can decide to find a more compatible women. He can think that women are all shallow, picky and ungrateful and decide to go his own way.

Individual stories, preferences and reactions are all different. The fact is that a lot of men feel that there’s a double standard about the need to « bottle up ». This can be felt like simply annoying to navigate or it can be draining. I agree that those men may be over-represented on this forum. Most people came here with problems to solve.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> Since the term toxic femininity does not have a common societal meaning,



It does now.
I don’t think you understand how and when to use the word ‘socially constructed’, nor its meaning.
Try ‘naturally evolved’ instead.

How about rams that compete for the females by aggressively butting heads? Did the sheep society somehow conditioned them to do this? Or what about hens that prefer males with the largest claws? 

You need to stop basing your arguments on non-sense and stop using the word ‘toxic masculinity’ as if it’s a thing. It may have meaning for you but it is discriminating against a whole group of people and against the board rules.

There is no evidence whatsoever that there is anything about masculine or feminine traits that is the product of ‘social construct’.

What IS socially constructed are prejudices and misandry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pac-Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Now that I have my "translator", it is very clear to me which words and phrases (on both sides) harms or is off putting to the other side.
> 
> I would be happy to discuss some of that, if anyone actually wanted to learn to be more sensitive with their words in order to assist in communication. But that doesn't sound like a thread many people (at this point) would want to join.


I would be happy to read everything you have to say about that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> It does now.
> I don’t think you understand how and when to use the word ‘socially constructed’, nor its meaning.
> Try ‘naturally evolved’ instead.
> 
> How about rams that compete for the females by aggressively butting heads? Did the sheep society somehow conditioned them to do this? Or what about hens that prefer males with the largest claws?
> 
> You need to stop basing your arguments on non-sense and stop using the word ‘toxic masculinity’ as if it’s a thing. It may have meaning for you but it is discriminating against a whole group of people and against the board rules.


It is only discriminatory against a whole group if you don't understand what it means. I will not stop basing my arguments on things you don't understand.



> There is no evidence whatsoever that there is anything about masculine or feminine traits that is the product of ‘social construct’.


We talk about roles all the time.


What IS socially constructed are prejudices and misandry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

I am sorry you are upset. Feel free to block me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Pac-Man said:


> I would be happy to read everything you have to say about that.


Just briefly, specifically about the RP literature, what is top of the list most offensive to me is that there are many ways to describe subconscious actions without referencing hamsters. Even though the men tell each other that they also have hamsters, I don’t feel it is right to say that, either. It feels (to me) like a deliberate way to insult women while at the same time describing what she knows or doesn’t know, what she thinks or doesn’t think, and it paints her as completely un-self-aware.

There is the implication that the majority of women are unaware, and this is insulting and incorrect.

Though it is very true that many people of all genders are unaware and they act like *******s because of it. But there’s ways to describe this, words and phrases that have the same full impact of the sentiment without being provacative about it. 

It has been explained to me many times, however, that RP is not written for women. It’s man stuff and they need to be free to talk about things in ways that make sense to them and they aren’t concerned about the feelings of women when they are reading or writing the stuff. That makes sense to me, so I don’t know how anything I say could really change how those guys communicate (also I accept this is a male cultural thing they are doing and I can’t expect to fully understand it as I am from Venus, not Mars, so to speak).

What I’m hoping is to maybe start a new conversation, for people who do want to bridge their own gap between what is commonly referred to as “men’s” and “women’s” issues.

I don’t think either platform of RP or feminism is where to start from. But people who have a lot of knowledge and/or opinions about either or both of those may be interested in bridging their own gap.

Even though I do feel I have come quite a long way in bridging that gap for myself, I have not changed one idea or ideal from my usual feminist stock pile. The only thing that has changed is that I feel I can actually understand what the men (here) are saying now, and it is not what I heard before I had my translator.


----------



## red oak

Faithful Wife said:


> What I’m hoping is to maybe start a new conversation, for people who do want to bridge their own gap between what is commonly referred to as “men’s” and “women’s” issues.
> 
> I don’t think either platform of RP or feminism is where to start from. But people who have a lot of knowledge and/or opinions about either or both of those may be interested in bridging their own gap.
> 
> Even though I do feel I have come quite a long way in bridging that gap for myself, I have not changed one idea or ideal from my usual feminist stock pile. The only thing that has changed is that I feel I can actually understand what the men (here) are saying now, and it is not what I heard before I had my translator.


I have read lots of red pill stuff, although Roosh has some valid points he only looks at it from how it affects him. In a way he is still immature. 
Women aren't the way they are because they are woman. They and men are the way they are by design. 

Everyone would be better off to realize we have all been sold a bill of goods, and designed to benefit others at the expense of our own happiness and being able to live our own lives.

It is good to see one want to learn. It saddens me there are so few who are willing.


----------



## NobodySpecial

red oak said:


> I have read lots of red pill stuff, although Roosh has some valid points he only looks at it from how it affects him. In a way he is still immature.
> Women aren't the way they are because they are woman. They and men are the way they are by design.
> 
> Everyone would be better off to realize we have all been sold a bill of goods, and designed to benefit others at the expense of our own happiness and being able to live our own lives.
> 
> It is good to see one want to learn. It saddens me there are so few who are willing.


I don't understand what you mean. If women aren't the way they are because they are women, then what is their design? Who are people designed by?


----------



## Faithful Wife

red oak said:


> I have read lots of red pill stuff, although Roosh has some valid points he only looks at it from how it affects him. In a way he is still immature.
> Women aren't the way they are because they are woman. They and men are the way they are by design.
> 
> Everyone would be better off to realize we have all been sold a bill of goods, and designed to benefit others at the expense of our own happiness and being able to live our own lives.
> 
> It is good to see one want to learn. It saddens me there are so few who are willing.


My ultimate goal is to have more people coupling up happily and less people coupling up unhappily (and less people not coupling up if they want to) so that we can all have MORE sex, less discontent, and overall more, joy, health and happiness. 

The way these topics are polarizing to so many of us is just old now. I want to actually understand and communicate and stop just being at odds. I do think we can change our communication a little bit, and still keep all of our opinions and ideals. We can actually hear each other if we know how not to inadvertently insult each other with our word choice and phrasing. 

Keep in mind, I’m probably one of the most polarizing members here, and I have spent many written words on posts where I was clearly just being at odds because I had my teeth sunk into a bone (and I’m not saying that will never happen again, either!  )

But the moment I literally caught myself actively NOT listening to a man’s point...and felt that resistance to what he was saying, even though I also realized in that moment that I had no idea WHAT he was saying I also realized it wouldn’t have mattered because I was already posed to actively NOT listen.

This was what I had thought the men were doing (resisting listening) but I literally caught myself in the act of it. After that, I watched it happen several more times in myself. And that then led to a few threads and now this one. After that light bulb, it went fairly quickly for me to actually listen and stop resisting. 

To ask anyone else to do the same isn’t my goal. To continue the conversation with those who are interested in it is. And of course, always the ultimate goal of more sex for everyone.


----------



## Mr. Nail

NobodySpecial said:


> It is only discriminatory against a whole group if you don't understand what it means. I will not stop basing my arguments on things you don't understand.
> 
> 
> We talk about roles all the time.
> 
> 
> What IS socially constructed are prejudices and misandry.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> *I am sorry you are upset. Feel free to block me*.


And that right there is the empathy that any men can expect from the Ladies of the Lounge. Flat dismissal.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Do gerbils count?

(In lieu of the hamsters) 😊😊

Just to inject a little bit, albeit a small bit, of levity.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Do gerbils count?
> 
> (In lieu of the hamsters) 😊😊
> 
> Just to inject a little bit, albeit a small bit, of levity.


You can only hear that joke so many times before you start to believe it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> And that right there is the empathy that any men can expect from the Ladies of the Lounge. Flat dismissal.


But the poster in question is always quick to say "if you don't like what I'm saying, block me". Also the poster is actually saying he does not need or expect more empathy. He just wants to say whatever he wants to say. If people get fed up to a point with a specific poster, you can usually see it happening. We have a couple of guys who are throwing jabs at each other on this thread for personal reasons. I don't think we need to get into their dispute. Some of us have our opinions about what is happening between any 2 posters who seem at odds.

Please don't tie that back to the purpose of the thread, because it is not part of the discussion. And it certainly does not show that NS lacks empathy.


----------



## Mr. Nail

There is plenty of evidence through the entire thread, I've reached a suppotable conclusion. See the entire thread for evidence.
And it certainly does not show that NS *has* empathy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> *I am sorry you are upset. Feel free to block me*.
> 
> And that right there is the empathy that any men can expect from the Ladies of the Lounge. Flat dismissal.


How did I say that to "men"? I said that to one person who happens to be a man. You may have just made my case as perfectly as it ever could have been made. But my empathy for men does not extend to refraining from saying what I mean to appease someone simply because s/he does not understand it. Just doesn't.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> There is plenty of evidence through the entire thread, I've reached a suppotable conclusion. See the entire thread for evidence.
> And it certainly does not show that NS *has* empathy.


I do agree that there are a lot of posts on this thread that do exhibit a lack of empathy. I see posts from both men and women that lack empathy for men.

I have a special NS translator however, and I know she does have empathy for men and people in general.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> *I am sorry you are upset. Feel free to block me*.


And that right there is the empathy that any men can expect from the Ladies of the Lounge. Flat dismissal.[/QUOTE]

How did I say that to "men"? I said that to one person who happens to be a man. ANd I do not represent the Ladies Lounge. I am just me. You may have just made my case as perfectly as it ever could have been made. But my empathy for men does not extend to refraining from saying what I mean to appease someone simply because s/he does not understand it. Just doesn't.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> But the poster in question is always quick to say "if you don't like what I'm saying, block me". Also the poster is actually saying he does not need or expect more empathy. He just wants to say whatever he wants to say. If people get fed up to a point with a specific poster, you can usually see it happening. We have a couple of guys who are throwing jabs at each other on this thread for personal reasons. I don't think we need to get into their dispute. Some of us have our opinions about what is happening between any 2 posters who seem at odds.
> 
> Please don't tie that back to the purpose of the thread, because it is not part of the discussion. And it certainly does not show that NS lacks empathy.


I have no opinion of that poster. At least none I am interested in sharing. But I will not change my posting to appease a misunderstanding thus giving credibility to that faulty categorization of what I am saying. Not thrilled to be told what I should and must do. But it is what it is.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I have no opinion of that poster. At least none I am interested in sharing. But I will not change my posting to appease a misunderstanding thus giving credibility to that faulty categorization of what I am saying. Not thrilled to be told what I should and must do. But it is what it is.


Yes, I wasn't speaking for you, but myself...but also I did watch what lead up to your comment and so it was clear to me why you said it.

Also, your empathy looks lovely on you with that red dress. :x


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I do agree that there are a lot of posts on this thread that do exhibit a lack of empathy. I see posts from both men and women that lack empathy for men.
> 
> I have a special NS translator however, and I know she does have empathy for men and people in general.


Well, since this entire thread seems to be more about sympathy than empath anyway!! <Ducking> I appreciate your "sticking up for me" as it were. But I am not speaking some weird language that NEEDS translating. And some people are actually liking my replies, even GASP MEN! Some posters are going to see what they want to see and add evidence of their poor me attitude when they want to. I am good with that.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> That's the point I was making. It is not MASCULINITY that is toxic any more than CAR is red.


I agree. So when we talk about bad character, such as aggression in men, why not just call it "aggression" instead of "toxic masculinity"?


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Well, since this entire thread seems to be more about sympathy than empath anyway!! <Ducking> I appreciate your "sticking up for me" as it were. But I am not speaking some weird language that NEEDS translating. And some people are actually liking my replies, even GASP MEN! Some posters are going to see what they want to see and add evidence of their poor me attitude when they want to. I am good with that.


Awww...don't get me wrong, sister. I have not disagreed with anything you have said here on this thread. Also, you and my sister POI, I know for a fact you are both very empathetic, to men and everyone, and that you both have a very solid view point. I actually share your view points. All I am doing is using different language.

I have not said that the lack of empathy thing is a pervasive feature in women, nor that it is "most" women, nor that it is evolutionary based, nor that "most" men would agree. 

All I have said is that I am listening to the guys who are telling me how they *feel* about *their* experiences. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions they have come to about their own experiences, but I do want to just hear what those conclusions are without disputing them.

Can we have a new thread, that somehow addresses this issue from another angle? So that more experiences and viewpoints can be shared? I'm asking you, NS, essentially because I'm not sure how to even make that thread or if people would join it. I am just asking if there is a way we can talk more about any of this, from a different original frame. I would actually like to make a thread about lack of empathy from men to women, because I see a lot of that, but I'm afraid of where that would go.


----------



## personofinterest

> There is the implication that the majority of women are unaware, and this is insulting and incorrect.


I definitely agree with this.

Honestly, any generalization or assumption that assigns motives or idiocy to an entire group of people is both offensive and unintelligent.

It may "feel" as if an entire group, or even a majority of a group, is X.....that doesn't mean they are. And it doesn't mean someone experience is any less real to them.


----------



## FeministInPink

Pac-Man said:


> Of course there's a difference between healthy expression of feelings and an out of control outbust.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats true for both gender.
> 
> 
> 
> In an ideal world, we would never see people "losing it". But we don't live in an ideal world and people aren't perfect. So, in extreme circomstances, an occasional outbust can be forgiven if its not violent.
> 
> 
> 
> *On the other hand, even calm expression of bad feelings can be tiresome if it happens all the time. It's much more pleasant to come home to a smiling spouse than to someone who feel a need to vent every single day. *
> 
> 
> 
> Everthing I said so far applies to both gender.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that on average, theres more pressure on men to be both always in control AND to refrain to express emotion that make them appear weak (sadness, anxiety, fear).
> 
> 
> 
> I am not someone who is picky about having a wife who is always in her best shape, dressed like a lady, well shaven everywhere alll the time. I still acknowledge that women in general feel more pressure too look good and put much more effort into looking good.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that even women who are personnally empathetic toward their mate could admit that there's generally a double standard about the emotional control and the expression of weakness.


I think you make some really good points here, but I would like to draw attention to the example/statement (bolded by me) above.

When someone is constantly complaining about the same thing over and over, I think the issue ceases to he whether or not the partner had empathy. Even the most empathetic partner would lose patience in this scenario, and any frustration stems not from the fact that the complaining partner is being vulnerable, but because the complaining partner is being apathetic and refusing to take action and change his situation.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Nail

well when the choice is unaware or malicious, which would you like me to assume?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> well when the choice is unaware or malicious, which would you like me to assume?


Translator: from my position, it appears women have done and continue to do cruel/criminal things, which they are either aware of or they are not aware of. I'm speaking for myself, but implying there is a wider pattern. I am not naming what the cruel things are but implying there are many of them.


@Mr.Nail how did I do?


----------



## Mr. Nail

FeministInPink said:


> I think you make some really good points here, but I would like to draw attention to the example/statement (bolded by me) above.
> 
> When someone is constantly complaining about the same thing over and over, I think the issue ceases to he whether or not the partner had empathy. Even the most empathetic partner would lose patience in this scenario, and any frustration stems not from the fact that the complaining partner is being vulnerable, but because the complaining partner is being apathetic and refusing to take action and change his situation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


I had a man tell me that a dozen years ago about women and dieting. I still think it feels like strictly limited empathy. I have never seen any one ask for only a little empathy. "I want you to understand how I feel, but just a bit and certainly not for more than one day" never going to hear that


----------



## Mr. Nail

Faithful Wife said:


> Translator: from my position, it appears women have done and continue to do cruel/criminal things, which they are either aware of or they are not aware of. I'm speaking for myself, but implying there is a wider pattern. I am not naming what the cruel things are but implying there are many of them.
> 
> 
> @Mr.Nail how did I do?


I'm bamboozled I have no idea what you said. You might have said that some women are cruel and sometimes it is because they want to be and sometimes it is because they just are.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> I'm bamboozled I have no idea what you said. You might have said that some women are cruel and sometimes it is because they want to be and sometimes it is because they just are.


Dang. More tinkering is needed. Back to the discomboobulator translation engineering work room, with plenty of vodka.


----------



## personofinterest

Mr. Nail said:


> FeministInPink said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you make some really good points here, but I would like to draw attention to the example/statement (bolded by me) above.
> 
> When someone is constantly complaining about the same thing over and over, I think the issue ceases to he whether or not the partner had empathy. Even the most empathetic partner would lose patience in this scenario, and any frustration stems not from the fact that the complaining partner is being vulnerable, but because the complaining partner is being apathetic and refusing to take action and change his situation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> I had a man tell me that a dozen years ago about women and dieting. I still think it feels like strictly limited empathy. I have never seen any one ask for only a little empathy. "I want you to understand how I feel, but just a bit and certainly not for more than one day" never going to hear that
Click to expand...

 Are you saying that you are unable to distinguish the difference between someone having a time of crisis and someone who is constantly in a wood about something all the time?


----------



## personofinterest

Faithful Wife said:


> Mr. Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm bamboozled I have no idea what you said. You might have said that some women are cruel and sometimes it is because they want to be and sometimes it is because they just are.
> 
> 
> 
> Dang. More tinkering is needed. Back to the discomboobulator translation engineering work room, with plenty of vodka.
Click to expand...

 I feel the need to point out that you just said boob.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I feel the need to point out that you just said boob.


Yes, it is a very technical piece of equipment, as you can tell.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I agree. So when we talk about bad character, such as aggression in men, why not just call it "aggression" instead of "toxic masculinity"?



Because cars are red. It all makes perfect sense now. 
There’s no point arguing. I don’t know what I was thinking. 
Let’s just condition all the boys early on and cleanse them of their toxic masculinity and see how this will affect the ‘having more sex for everyone’ goal 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> To the bolded, I'm not sure.
> 
> However I could offer a very lengthy and incredibly brilliantly thought out dissertation about my own conclusions to the science that does exist and to respond to the conclusions made thus far by some.
> 
> But if I do that, there will still be no reason for you or anyone else to believe me or my conclusions (though I know many would). Thus it would still just be wheels on the bus.
> 
> I could talk in another thread sometime about why I think the words do matter, and that I have learned how our (women's) words have been harmful in the shaping of men's lives (any amount of weakness is shamed, "whiner!") and also in the me too discussion, I think women's words are insulting men and there is no moving past it to any understanding.
> 
> Now that I have my "translator", it is very clear to me which words and phrases (on both sides) harms or is off putting to the other side.
> 
> I would be happy to discuss some of that, if anyone actually wanted to learn to be more sensitive with their words in order to assist in communication. But that doesn't sound like a thread many people (at this point) would want to join.
> 
> However....maybe after a few threads in between. I'm kind of looking at this like a series of ideas and threads.


I think that might be very useful and would certainly join such a thread.


----------



## FeministInPink

Mr. Nail said:


> I had a man tell me that a dozen years ago about women and dieting. I still think it feels like strictly limited empathy. I have never seen any one ask for only a little empathy. "I want you to understand how I feel, but just a bit and certainly not for more than one day" never going to hear that


We will have to agree to disagree, then.

My XH complained about being fat on a pretty consistent basis, and while I was empathetic for a while, it got old after a while, because he refused to do anything about it, and made poor eating decisions/choices that contributed to him staying that way, and at points tried to blame me for buying food that kept him fat. And I was like, "Dude, I ask you to go grocery shopping with me EVERY week during which you could pick out healthy foods, and you always day no. Instead, you ask me to pick up X, Y, & Z for you, none of which are healthy. You can't blame this on me. I buy healthy food, and you don't eat it."

I'm overweight, and I don't like it, but I also don't complain about it because I know I have the choice to do something, and I haven't done that. If I make the choice to do something about it, sometimes dieting sucks and sometimes going to the gym sucks, but I'm not going to complain about it because I'm doing something about it, and I'm doing something good for me.

Now, if I'm doing everything right, and I'm not losing weight for whatever reason, I might complain about it and hope for some empathy--but I'm also going to do something about it, like go to the doctor and get my thyroid checked.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> But the moment I literally caught myself actively NOT listening to a man’s point...and felt that resistance to what he was saying, even though I also realized in that moment that I had no idea WHAT he was saying I also realized it wouldn’t have mattered because I was already posed to actively NOT listen.
> 
> This was what I had thought the men were doing (resisting listening) but I literally caught myself in the act of it. After that, I watched it happen several more times in myself. And that then led to a few threads and now this one. After that light bulb, it went fairly quickly for me to actually listen and stop resisting.


Any particular exchange?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Any particular exchange?


I can't recall the actual exchange, but I know the original light bulb was from a me too discussion. I remember thinking "just wow, how can he think that, and how could he have twisted my (or whoever's) words like that into something completely different than what we said". My next thought was "it must be because they just don't know what it is like for women ........" and there went the light bulb.

I obviously don't know what it is like to be a man, and all of these men were clearly feeling directly insulted by the discussion and it suddenly hit me that they must feel WE are saying that they are rapists or somehow responsible for what rapists do. That was the only thing that made his words make sense. And at first I still wrestled against it by saying "they can't possibly believe that is what we are saying?"

And from there....lots happened, and then here.


----------



## Mr. Nail

personofinterest said:


> Are you saying that you are unable to distinguish the difference between someone having a time of crisis and someone who is constantly in a wood about something all the time?


note: this is the second draft.

I am saying that it isn't important to me whether a person is always in a wood about something or whether the person is in a temporary crisis. I don't see limiting my understanding of their feelings as being less important in one situation or the other. 

I've been accused of not understanding what empathy is. If empathy is limited to only crisis times, I'm not very interested in getting any. 

There is a current going on here that a person has to "earn" empathy. No the current is that Men are expected to earn anything, which doesn't match other misadrous declarations.


----------



## personofinterest

Mr. Nail said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you are unable to distinguish the difference between someone having a time of crisis and someone who is constantly in a wood about something all the time?
> 
> 
> 
> note: this is the second draft.
> 
> I am saying that it isn't important to me whether a person is always in a wood about something or whether the person is in a temporary crisis. I don't see limiting my understanding of their feelings as being less important in one situation or the other.
> 
> I've been accused of not understanding what empathy is. If empathy is limited to only crisis times, I'm not very interested in getting any.
> 
> There is a current going on here that a person has to "earn" empathy. No the current is that Men are expected to earn anything, which doesn't match other misadrous declarations.
Click to expand...

 I was sort of with you and til the word misandry came up. And I am not sure if I am being set up to fail or not

I also never said that the only time someone deserves empathy is when they are in a crisis. One would almost have to be intentionally obtuse to comprehend what I read that way. Empathy is not about what people deserve. Empathy is about seeing things through another's eyes and feeling for them. However, I think most rational people can agree that there comes a time when what we call empathy can become in aibling. How many times does a betrayed husband come to this forum, and many of The same men talking about empathy on this thread give the betrayed husband tough talk because they do not want to coddle or enable him

If you can understand why enabling and coddling a betrayed husband who is in long term limbo is a badd idea, then you can certainly understand the difference between someone with no empathy and someone who has been down a certain road so many times that they can no longer drama up a lot of empathy yet again.


----------



## Mr. Nail

OK we have some common ground. We have an idea of what empathy is. and we agree that empathy does not need to be earned. 

Then we come up to this point that I disagree with you. empathy is NOT enabling. Enabling could come as a result of empathy, but tough talk could also come from empathy. men act on empathy differently. As a result we get it wrong with women all the time. Men do not coddle men when they have empathy, when men exercise empathy we tend to do it in a man way by wading in and fixing it. And it just bugs the heck out of women because they wanted tea and sympathy. That would be non enabling coddling which we have to learn.

So to return to the whole topic of this thread, can women have empathy for men? I'm not sure that most women can. What I am seeing is that women can share feelings with men unless he is annoying. but women are unable to give men empathy in a way that the men can understand it. Except for cowgirls. Some how girls raised on farms know when to hand a wrench, or run to town for parts, or dust off a cowboy. And they can do it with out the va-clang of loss of respect. 

Men will continue to tell you that they don't want or need empathy until you can offer it in a way they can receive it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> OK we have some common ground. We have an idea of what empathy is. and we agree that empathy does not need to be earned.
> 
> Then we come up to this point that I disagree with you. empathy is NOT enabling. Enabling could come as a result of empathy, but tough talk could also come from empathy. men act on empathy differently. As a result we get it wrong with women all the time. Men do not coddle men when they have empathy, when men exercise empathy we tend to do it in a man way by wading in and fixing it. And it just bugs the heck out of women because they wanted tea and sympathy. That would be non enabling coddling which we have to learn.
> 
> So to return to the whole topic of this thread, can women have empathy for men? I'm not sure that most women can. What I am seeing is that women can share feelings with men unless he is annoying. but women are unable to give men empathy in a way that the men can understand it. Except for cowgirls. Some how girls raised on farms know when to hand a wrench, or run to town for parts, or dust off a cowboy. And they can do it with out the va-clang of loss of respect.
> 
> Men will continue to tell you that they don't want or need empathy until you can offer it in a way they can receive it.


I am kind of getting this. It’s like, empathy is a love language and we can’t hear our partner “speaking” it to us if it’s in their language, not ours.


----------



## red oak

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't understand what you mean. If women aren't the way they are because they are women, then what is their design? Who are people designed by?


Short version: 
The RP say all women are the same, and its basically womans nature. 

I was saying those who are deceitful, lack empathy etc. Where raised or taught to be that way. Such isn't the inherent nature of being a woman.


----------



## Pac-Man

There’s an equilibrium to find between to confide our negative feelings and to keep a joyful atmosphere. 

Let’s suppose that a fairy give me the choice among two wishes :

a) I will be allowed to express everything on my mind and my wife will always listen empathetically without any loss of attration.

b) My wife will stop her regular complaining, venting, agressive tone and yelling.

I would pick the second. In my relationship, it’s the second face of the double standard that I find hard to live with : the fact that she feel entitled to complain all the time.

If she were complaining about me, then I could be the problem. But no, she’s complaining about her job, some rules, some services, a broken device, a computer bug, etc. I would say that she has a “low frustration tolerance” (you can google it). Aside from the complaining, she’s a good person with a big heart and good values.

She’s only like that when she’s with me, and sometimes with the kids or her own parent. Never when there’s someone else in the room with whom she’s less familiar. The last time we had a big discussion about the subject, I told her that she can’t be like that at work. She answered “Of course! I have to contain myself all day long at work, I want to be allowed to be myself at home". She feels entitled to vent at home, and it’s my spousal duty to listen.

At some point in the past, I would say things like “You already complained about that two times this week. Could we talk about something else?” Then she would accuse me of not understanding her or not caring about her. It always turned sour. I have learned to navigate it in better ways. But I feel that I am the only one who has to take into account my impact on her mood. It only goes one way. Emotions are contagious. In our case, she drags me down much more than I can cheer her up. But I have learned over time that “shut up and listen” is always the lesser evil, even if I had a bad day at work.

I am not saying that all women are like that. I am sure the situation is reversed in some couples where it’s the man who complains all the time. But I am quite confident that if the genders were reversed, I, as a women, would feel more entitled to tell her (him) when I can’t hear it anymore and to “suck it up”. And she, as a man, would feel less entitled to double down on the bad mood. She (he) would feel that bottling up is the only way to keep her (his) appearance of masculinity. 

Too some extent, not being concerned about the impact of our mood on another person is a kind of lack of empathy. Some men here perceive clearly that, when they have a moment of weakness, their wife have a bad reaction. So they stop. That’s a form of empathy! But we should not have to go too far in that direction. Both member of a couple should have their share of talking about their concerns and listening the concerns of the other.


----------



## Pac-Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Just briefly, specifically about the RP literature, what is top of the list most offensive to me is that there are many ways to describe subconscious actions without referencing hamsters.


Thank you for the post.

I am not familiar with RP. But in other contexts, I always thought that the hamster was the conscious train of thought, not something subconscious.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Pac-Man said:


> Thank you for the post.
> 
> I am not familiar with RP. But in other contexts, I always thought that the hamster was the conscious train of thought, not something subconscious.


I’m not positive who came up with the hamster term that ended up in so many RP blogs, but to them it is a very specific and developed idea. It’s a very negative thing, and I don’t even want to try to describe it in any of the terms they use. The basic idea is that women need to justify their own sexual feelings, and since they cannot just be self aware they make all kinds of justifications in their heads to explain away their untoward sexual behaviors because they cannot admit to themselves that they are horny for some rando. That’s the gist of it.


----------



## Wolfman1968

inmyprime said:


> SHOULD it be applied equally though? All I need to know that if I’m going through a difficult time, she’ll have my back. And vice versa. I can say that while I’m tougher and have certain responsibilities in some aspects, she has responsibilities and is tougher in other aspects. It’s probably not equal but it depends what it is we are measuring.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No. It doesn't necessarily have to be exactly equal, PROVIDED that both people "have each other's back", as you indicate. 

However, this thread is about certain women who seem to LACK empathy toward men and therefore by definition does NOT have their partner's back. Stating that their man is "whining" is then used as an excuse not to show empathy. My contention is that perhaps he really ISN'T "whining"---but rather that the woman doesn't have the empathy for a man who is vulnerable or overcome by misfortune/circumstance, etc. And because that woman doesn't HAVE empathy for men, she has no tolerance for hearing about his vulnerabilities/struggles, etc.; so it all becomes "whining" to her, when in reality it is just a modest display of emotional vulnerability. 


So, if, as you state, your wife "has your back", then she likely DOES have empathy for you and this doesn't apply to your situation.


----------



## FeministInPink

red oak said:


> Short version:
> 
> The RP say all women are the same, and its basically womans nature.
> 
> 
> 
> I was saying those who are deceitful, lack empathy etc. Where raised or taught to be that way. Such isn't the inherent nature of being a woman.


This makes me wonder, so were people who are honest and empathetic raised/taught to be that way? How much of this is nature, and how much is nurture?

My upbringing was a little whack in this respect. My mom always taught me to be empathetic towards other children and people, but she is almost completely lacking in empathy herself, especially when it comes to her husband and children. So much so that once I reached adulthood, I had almost TOO MUCH empathy and compassion for other people, to the point that it made me quite gullible and susceptible to manipulation by others, but had almost no empathy for myself, because I received very little empathy growing up. 

I think there is some empathy that is inherent and biologically wired, like a mother's response to a crying child. But the type of empathy that is necessary to maintain adult relationships and successfully engage in modern society? I think that is learned--I don't think we've evolved enough as a species yet for that to be nature.



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

FeministInPink said:


> This makes me wonder, so were people who are honest and empathetic raised/taught to be that way? How much of this is nature, and how much is nurture?
> 
> My upbringing was a little whack in this respect. My mom always taught me to be empathetic towards other children and people, but she is almost completely lacking in empathy herself, especially when it comes to her husband and children. So much so that once I reached adulthood, I had almost TOO MUCH empathy and compassion for other people, to the point that it made me quite gullible and susceptible to manipulation by others, but had almost no empathy for myself, because I received very little empathy growing up.
> 
> I think there is some empathy that is inherent and biologically wired, like a mother's response to a crying child. But the type of empathy that is necessary to maintain adult relationships and successfully engage in modern society? I think that is learned--I don't think we've evolved enough as a species yet for that to be nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Do you think your mom is on the spectrum, or maybe has a PD? Suggesting a possible primary cause of lack of empathy or at least a leaning in that direction?


----------



## Wolfman1968

inmyprime said:


> Yes we were spoilt by our mothers when it comes to the dreaded man flu
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Just an aside, there may be evidence that the so-called "man flu" is a real thing; in other words, men actually DO get sicker than women with the flu, and even have higher mortality rates with certain respiratory illnesses. 

Here is a British Medical Journal (BMJ) article on this:

https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5560


Or a summary of it which is not behind a paywall:


https://www.livescience.com/61164-man-flu-real.html



Actually, if you think about it, the concept that women and men may have different immune systems is not radical at all. Men and women have very different incidences of immune diseases (autoimmune diseases such as Lupus or Autoimmune hepatitis affect women at approximately 9-10 times the rate of men). I have heard one speaker speculate that it may have something to do with the fact that women need different immune responses so they don't reject fetal tissue during pregnancy (the speaker didn't present proof, just offered it as a hypothesis for future research).


----------



## FeministInPink

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you think your mom is on the spectrum, or maybe has a PD? Suggesting a possible primary cause of lack of empathy or at least a leaning in that direction?


Whatever it is, she's messed up. She's definitely not on the spectrum. She can see people's emotions and whatnot, she just thinks most of the time that others are too sensitive or overreacting, or stuff like that. PD, maybe... but more likely just super damaged, selfish, and lacking in emotional maturity and self awareness. And she's super insecure and has a lot of self-loathing.

People can just be crap people sometimes, and not have a diagnosis.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FeministInPink said:


> Whatever it is, she's messed up. She's definitely not on the spectrum. She can see people's emotions and whatnot, she just thinks most of the time that others are too sensitive or overreacting, or stuff like that. PD, maybe... but more likely just super damaged, selfish, and lacking in emotional maturity and self awareness. And she's super insecure and has a lot of self-loathing.
> 
> People can just be crap people sometimes, and not have a diagnosis.


Yes, I was just curious from something in your other post. I know a lot of spectrum people (and a few PD’s) so I probably see cues for that more often than is happening.


----------



## Laurentium

FeministInPink said:


> she just thinks most of the time that others are too sensitive or overreacting, or stuff like that. PD, maybe... but more likely just *super damaged, selfish, and lacking in emotional maturity and self awareness. And she's super insecure and has a lot of self-loathing*.


That does sound like a description of a cluster B PD.


----------



## Laurentium

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m not positive who came up with the hamster term that ended up in so many RP blogs, but to them it is a very specific and developed idea. It’s a very negative thing, and I don’t even want to try to describe it in any of the terms they use. The basic idea is that women need to justify their own sexual feelings, and since they cannot just be self aware they make all kinds of justifications in their heads to explain away their untoward sexual behaviors because they cannot admit to themselves that they are horny for some rando. That’s the gist of it.


I;d say that was Freud, though he didn't use the term hamster. As far as I'm concerned, "hamster" means unconscious rationalisations/defences, and men and women have them equally. But then I am anti RP.


----------



## 269370

Pac-Man said:


> At some point in the past, I would say things like “You already complained about that two times this week. Could we talk about something else?” Then she would accuse me of not understanding her or not caring about her. It always turned sour. I have learned to navigate it in better ways. But I feel that I am the only one who has to take into account my impact on her mood. It only goes one way. Emotions are contagious. In our case, she drags me down much more than I can cheer her up. But I have learned over time that “shut up and listen” is always the lesser evil, even if I had a bad day at work.



Yes and the whole point is that most if not ALL marriages function on these two different spheres to a degree: to her, you are not understanding/caring/empathetic about her venting. While you are thinking ‘why is she going on and overreacting about this stuff?’ 
And it can and does easily happen either way. 
But it most cases, it won’t be 100% symmetrical and it’s ok. It’s more about the balance.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Pac-Man said:


> Thank you for the post.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not familiar with RP. But in other contexts, I always thought that the hamster was the conscious train of thought, not something subconscious.



It’s the rationalisation hamster or mixing up cause and effect: nothing to do with gender though 

http://en.wikimannia.org/Rationalization_Hamster

He lives in all people’s brains, female or male.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Wolfman1968 said:


> Just an aside, there may be evidence that the so-called "man flu" is a real thing; in other words, men actually DO get sicker than women with the flu, and even have higher mortality rates with certain respiratory illnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a British Medical Journal (BMJ) article on this:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5560
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or a summary of it which is not behind a paywall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/61164-man-flu-real.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you think about it, the concept that women and men may have different immune systems is not radical at all. Men and women have very different incidences of immune diseases (autoimmune diseases such as Lupus or Autoimmune hepatitis affect women at approximately 9-10 times the rate of men). I have heard one speaker speculate that it may have something to do with the fact that women need different immune responses so they don't reject fetal tissue during pregnancy (the speaker didn't present proof, just offered it as a hypothesis for future research).




Yes of course I am not claiming it’s symmetrical again. But women also have a higher threshold for pain tolerance (that’s why a man wouldn’t be able to give birth very well. That and also not having much of a uterus ).
However given the exact same cold, it is likely the woman is going to make ‘less fuss’ about it.
While she is typically going to make more fuss about emotional stuff/distress (again, total generalisation).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

FeministInPink said:


> This makes me wonder, so were people who are honest and empathetic raised/taught to be that way? How much of this is nature, and how much is nurture?
> 
> My upbringing was a little whack in this respect. My mom always taught me to be empathetic towards other children and people, but she is almost completely lacking in empathy herself, especially when it comes to her husband and children. So much so that once I reached adulthood, I had almost TOO MUCH empathy and compassion for other people, to the point that it made me quite gullible and susceptible to manipulation by others, but had almost no empathy for myself, because I received very little empathy growing up.
> 
> I think there is some empathy that is inherent and biologically wired, like a mother's response to a crying child. But the type of empathy that is necessary to maintain adult relationships and successfully engage in modern society? I think that is learned--I don't think we've evolved enough as a species yet for that to be nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk




I think it must be a bit of both. Some ‘nature’ is present in everything. I do think that women do like their man to be ‘emotionally strong’ more often than not (there are partly biological reasons or this, so it’s nature) but it doesn’t follow that they are ‘not allowed’ to be weak or are ‘shamed’ for it. Some are, while others FEEL that they are. Pointless really to talk in generalities as it’s so situation-dependant.

When I’m doing well, career-wise, I feel my wife’s attraction for me sky rockets. Can I be sure that I’m perceiving it correctly, with all its nuances? It could be that I feel better about myself and this positivity transfers onto her who in turn reflects it back to me. I couldn’t say for sure and make a judgement who is responsible for what exactly. Reverse is true when I feel crap or insecure about myself. 
And the same with wife: she sometimes says that she sometimes feels crap and not attractive. Do I make her feel unattractive?
It’s too complicated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

Mr. Nail said:


> OK we have some common ground. We have an idea of what empathy is. and we agree that empathy does not need to be earned.
> 
> Then we come up to this point that I disagree with you. empathy is NOT enabling. Enabling could come as a result of empathy, but tough talk could also come from empathy. men act on empathy differently. As a result we get it wrong with women all the time. Men do not coddle men when they have empathy, when men exercise empathy we tend to do it in a man way by wading in and fixing it. And it just bugs the heck out of women because they wanted tea and sympathy. That would be non enabling coddling which we have to learn.
> 
> So to return to the whole topic of this thread, can women have empathy for men? I'm not sure that most women can. What I am seeing is that women can share feelings with men unless he is annoying. but women are unable to give men empathy in a way that the men can understand it. Except for cowgirls. Some how girls raised on farms know when to hand a wrench, or run to town for parts, or dust off a cowboy. And they can do it with out the va-clang of loss of respect.
> 
> Men will continue to tell you that they don't want or need empathy until you can offer it in a way they can receive it.


 Considering the majority of your posts, I am not surprised you feel this way. There are 6 to 8 man on Tam who all have a similar opinion of women in general, so it makes sense that you would choose to believe that most women do not show in pacy. My husband has no complaints. I showed him a bit of this thread last night, and I won't repeat what he said because I don't want to get banned. Apparently I can show empathy to him… and my son, and my father, and my father-in-law, and the male friends I have…. well, you get the idea. Have a nice day.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> I agree. So when we talk about bad character, such as aggression in men, why not just call it "aggression" instead of "toxic masculinity"?


Because in the larger social conversation, that is simplistic and inaccurate to describe the phenomenon. Bear in mind that I did not raise the term in this discussion. But in reacting to this particular thing as a 

1) condemnation of the very nature of maleness and
2) something that will drive me to sympathy

I can't get with. Thus my response.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Awww...don't get me wrong, sister. I have not disagreed with anything you have said here on this thread. Also, you and my sister POI, I know for a fact you are both very empathetic, to men and everyone, and that you both have a very solid view point. I actually share your view points. All I am doing is using different language.
> 
> I have not said that the lack of empathy thing is a pervasive feature in women, nor that it is "most" women, nor that it is evolutionary based, nor that "most" men would agree.
> 
> All I have said is that I am listening to the guys who are telling me how they *feel* about *their* experiences. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions they have come to about their own experiences, but *I do want to just hear what those conclusions are without disputing them*.


Are you asking for people NOT to share their thoughts on these conclusions? I can refrain.


----------



## NobodySpecial

red oak said:


> Short version:
> The RP say all women are the same, and its basically womans nature.
> 
> I was saying those who are deceitful, lack empathy etc. Where raised or taught to be that way. Such isn't the inherent nature of being a woman.


Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## 269370

red oak said:


> Short version:
> 
> The RP say all women are the same, and its basically womans nature.
> 
> 
> 
> I was saying those who are deceitful, lack empathy etc. Where raised or taught to be that way. Such isn't the inherent nature of being a woman.



That is true. However when words such as ‘toxic masculinity’ are used, one is making a sweeping statement regarding...well, masculinity.

If you think about it, this is completely at odds with the idea that ‘masculine traits’ are a social construct and people who insist on using it, don’t realise that it is an oxymoron, in the way they are using them.

It is true that certain traits CAN be the result of socialisation, but there is nothing that implies that ‘gender specific’ traits are any more ‘socialisable’ than any other traits are so it makes no sense to insist on sneaking ‘masculinity’ into it.

Some of it is mixing up cause with effect and some of it is muddled thinking. There have been many cases to disprove these ridiculous notions, the most notable one of David Reimer:

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-...gender-reassignment-controversy-johnjoan-case

Interestingly, there are no such generalist words used by RP (that i have seen) as they seem to be mostly complaining about stupidity within feminism. And this is a complaint against stupidity (that happens to include a number of women), not ‘toxic femininity’. But I haven’t delved into RP enough to have an opinion what it is they are exactly complaining about...

However when I begin to notice discriminatory words such as ‘toxic masculinity’, ‘rape culture’, ‘male privilege’ etc being used more in the mainstream, it makes me realise that we are moving into more divisiveness rather than unity. And of course the irony is that it’s the women who will suffer from some of these misconceived notions in the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> note: this is the second draft.
> 
> I am saying that it isn't important to me whether a person is always in a wood about something or whether the person is in a temporary crisis. I don't see limiting my understanding of their feelings as being less important in one situation or the other.


Ayuh. You hit on a key and important difference between empathy and sympathy, in my book. Empathy starts with UNDERSTANDING. You can have sympathy (feel badly) for someone without really having a good clue on what the problem is. The thing about understanding is YES first you have to listen. This can be the easiest step in many instance. But in order for the words to do more than bounce off your experience, a conversation that allows for greater understanding can be really helpful. I



> I've been accused of not understanding what empathy is. If empathy is limited to only crisis times, I'm not very interested in getting any.
> 
> There is a current going on here that a person has to "earn" empathy. No the current is that Men are expected to earn anything, which doesn't match other misadrous declarations.


Where is the current going on? This current of earning empathy. I have never seen it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

FeministInPink said:


> This makes me wonder, so were people who are honest and empathetic raised/taught to be that way? How much of this is nature, and how much is nurture?


I think it is near impossible to distinguish between what precisely is nature and what nurture. I think it is EASY to see that we are all raised to have certain expectations, and one of them is around our gender. 



> My upbringing was a little whack in this respect. My mom always taught me to be empathetic towards other children and people, but she is almost completely lacking in empathy herself, especially when it comes to her husband and children. So much so that once I reached adulthood, I had almost TOO MUCH empathy and compassion for other people, to the point that it made me quite gullible and susceptible to manipulation by others, but had almost no empathy for myself, because I received very little empathy growing up.
> 
> I think there is some empathy that is inherent and biologically wired, like a mother's response to a crying child. But the type of empathy that is necessary to maintain adult relationships and successfully engage in modern society? I think that is learned--I don't think we've evolved enough as a species yet for that to be nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Ayuh.


----------



## EllisRedding

FeministInPink said:


> This makes me wonder, so were people who are honest and empathetic raised/taught to be that way? How much of this is nature, and how much is nurture?


I think it is part due to your own personality and in part the people you were raised up around. I can say I didn't grow up in a particularly empathetic household. I mean, I knew my parents cared about me more than anything else, but it was not a very huggy/nurturing type environment. I mentioned this elsewhere, but my mom was the type where if I hurt myself, she was more likely to make a snide comment about how I probably caused it myself, so stop it lol. When I look back, that is exactly how my grandmother was, so in part I could see that My mom got that from her upbringing. 

I find that I do have to make a more conscious effort with my kids for example if they are sick or hurt themselves, where my gut reaction is to be more like my mom. At the other end though, my personality is one of a fixer. I can easily listen to someone, and quite honestly, my empathy towards them all depends on whether or not they are actually trying to fix whatever the issue is. If they are just venting and are not looking to make any effort to address, I have no empathy for them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Are you asking for people NOT to share their thoughts on these conclusions? I can refrain.


No, I did not mean “please refrain”. I just meant that I personally wanted to listen versus offer my thoughts to the guys, because I found I really couldn’t actively listen if I was also telling my side of the issue. I was explaining what I am doing, but not expecting anyone else to do that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> No, I did not mean “please refrain”. I just meant that I personally wanted to listen versus offer my thoughts to the guys, because I found I really couldn’t actively listen if I was also telling my side of the issue. I was explaining what I am doing, but not expecting anyone else to do that.


I hear you. But honestly, if I am really going to understand, I need to be able to place it somewhere in MY head too. Just hearing words is inadequate.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> Ayuh. You hit on a key and important difference between empathy and sympathy, in my book. Empathy starts with UNDERSTANDING. You can have sympathy (feel badly) for someone without really having a good clue on what the problem is. The thing about understanding is YES first you have to listen. This can be the easiest step in many instance. But in order for the words to do more than bounce off your experience, a conversation that allows for greater understanding can be really helpful. I
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is the current going on? This current of earning empathy*. I have never seen it.


It's not going on anywhere. At least not in this thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> I think it is part due to your own personality and in part the people you were raised up around. I can say I didn't grow up in a particularly empathetic household. I mean, I knew my parents cared about me more than anything else, but it was not a very huggy/nurturing type environment. I mentioned this elsewhere, but my mom was the type where if I hurt myself, she was more likely to make a snide comment about how I probably caused it myself, so stop it lol. When I look back, that is exactly how my grandmother was, so in part I could see that My mom got that from her upbringing.
> 
> I find that I do have to make a more conscious effort with my kids for example if they are sick or hurt themselves, where my gut reaction is to be more like my mom. At the other end though, my personality is one of a fixer. I can easily listen to someone, and quite honestly, my empathy towards them all depends on whether or not they are actually trying to fix whatever the issue is. If they are just venting and are not looking to make any effort to address, I have no empathy for them.


Did you have any sisters, and did your mom treat then the same, do you feel?


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I hear you. But honestly, if I am really going to understand, I need to be able to place it somewhere in MY head too. Just hearing words is inadequate.


NS, I’m confused. I am in no way having a problem with any of your posts or your process. Post on! It’s all good.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> NS, I’m confused. I am in no way having a problem with any of your posts or your process. Post on! It’s all good.


Just sharing the process of thought. We're good.


----------



## personofinterest

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you have any sisters, and did your mom treat then the same, do you feel?



THIS is an excellent question. And I think when the answer is, "No she treated them differently," it explains a few things. First, it explains the need men feel to suck it up 24/7. Second, because it was the part of life that creates most of our beliefs and responses (childhood), it explains why certain men are absolutely sure that most women don't show empathy. Their early environment shaped their bias.

The question is, how do we overcome this?

I mean, I have those biases too. Whenever someone says to me "That was good, but...." my inner POI cringes, and the compliment is completely cancelled out by what comes after the "but." Because that was how it went when I was growing up.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> I think it is part due to your own personality and in part the people you were raised up around. I can say I didn't grow up in a particularly empathetic household. I mean, I knew my parents cared about me more than anything else, but it was not a very huggy/nurturing type environment. I mentioned this elsewhere, but my mom was the type where if I hurt myself, she was more likely to make a snide comment about how I probably caused it myself, so stop it lol. When I look back, that is exactly how my grandmother was, so in part I could see that My mom got that from her upbringing.


My Mom was like this too. Luckily for me and my sibs, my Dad was NOTHING like this. It sucks because I think that kind of stuff is viewed as toughing up. The world is tough enough, we don't need help with that by being kicked in the teeth by Mom.



> I find that I do have to make a more conscious effort with my kids for example if they are sick or hurt themselves, where my gut reaction is to be more like my mom. At the other end though, my personality is one of a fixer. I can easily listen to someone, and quite honestly, my empathy towards them all depends on whether or not they are actually trying to fix whatever the issue is. If they are just venting and are not looking to make any effort to address, I have no empathy for them.


"Venting" is a word that makes me cringe. I try to think of it in terms of my kids sharing and working through their feelings. I am also a fixer. It took work for me to learn how to reflect back to them "I think what I hear you say is you feel like X. Is that right?" Or "I hear you." With no yahbutts, or have you? ... Turns out it is a good human skill, not just a skill with kids.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you have any sisters, and did your mom treat then the same, do you feel?


Yes, older sister. I got off easy with my Mom compared to my sister lol. I actually found my mom less empathetic towards my sister than me, something about that mother/daughter relationship which could be rather volatile! At times I did have empathy for my sister over this, but on the other hand she also went out of her way to make things difficult at home (she is a couple years older than me, and during her rebellious teenage years with parents who were always at each others throats, I was generally left as the one trying to pick up the pieces). After one bad argument my parents and sister were having, I actually pulled out a completely fake crying just to get it to stop, should've won an Oscar for that beauty lol.

I would say in general, even now, my Mom does show more empathy towards me vs my sister (but, my sister and I have completely different personalities, so I also believes that plays in as a big factor, and I do feel I have more earned it vs her).


----------



## minimalME

personofinterest said:


> The question is, how do we overcome this?


My mom treated my brother and I like night and day, with him being the golden child, and me being more the bother. 

It's interesting to talk to him about it, because he recognizes it, and he feels bad. Having said that though, my dad was very hard on him and not so much on me.

After reading this thread, I wrote to my son to ask if he felt treated differently - better, worse or the same. He hasn't responded yet, but from my pov, I tried really hard not to show favoritism - or to have different standards based solely on gender.

And we can't go back and change the past, so to answer your question, I think being willing to talk about it all helps. I'm very open to discussing how I failed as a parent.

My mom, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge any hurt she's caused.


----------



## NobodySpecial

minimalME said:


> My mom treated my brother and I like night and day, with him being the golden child, and me being more the bother.
> 
> It's interesting to talk to him about it, because he recognizes it, and he feels bad. Having said that though, my dad was very hard on him and not so much on me.
> 
> After reading this thread, I wrote to my son to ask if he felt treated differently - better, worse or the same. He hasn't responded yet, but from my pov, I tried really hard not to show favoritism - or to have different standards based solely on gender.
> 
> And we can't go back and change the past, so to answer your question, I think being willing to talk about it all helps. I'm very open to discussing how I failed as a parent.
> 
> My mom, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge any hurt she's caused.


Oh hell ya. I think you hit the nail on the head with breaking the cycle. Be willing to own your parenting ****.


----------



## Pac-Man

NobodySpecial said:


> Are you asking for people NOT to share their thoughts on these conclusions? I can refrain.


Please, don't refrain to comment negatively on my posts!

I post for two reasons:

1) Give back to the community. I have learned so much from other posters.

2) Testing my ideas. I want to learn whether I am wrong. It's much harder to progress when you keep everything in your own head. 

I went on a posting spree lately but I am a long time reader. I have been reading way before I created the Pac-Mac account. English is my second language. While I read it easily every day, writing requires much more effort for me.

By the way, I didn't want to ignore your post #503 about what I find fuzzy in the APA guideline. I feel bad about that. I just don't have the time to write everything I would like to write. And that one would require a significant amount of time. I am pretty sure we are in 95% agreement anyway.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think I did well with my kids. I have one boy, one girl. Of course I have regrets about certain moments, but overall we pulled it off.

My son is on the spectrum and sometimes struggles with empathy. But he’s come a long way now, age 30. He spent a lot of time coming to understand how his condition affects him, and in that he learned a lot of ways to get in touch with his empathy.

He also did a good job at putting “mom boundaries” on me when he was about 18-20 and he needed me to stop “treating him like a child” and speak to him like a man who is also my son. This was difficult because he was still very immature compared to others his age due to his autism. So I strongly still wanted to mom him. But we worked it out, I complied with his boundaries and we forged our new mom-adult kid relationship.

My daughter was much easier on all counts and still is. They have a great relationship with each other.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Of course my parents treated me and my brothers different than my sisters. We are different. But I will also say that I treated my first daughter differently than my second or last daughter, because they are different.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> That is true. However when words such as ‘toxic masculinity’ are used, one is making a sweeping statement regarding...well, masculinity.



I will try and touch this one last time. 

If I say two girls, one cup it as a contextual meaning that many, many people know because of how broadly "out there" a certain video is. If I say "helicopter parent" almost everyone knows that I am not likening all parents to helicopters. There is a contextual meaning to this term that stems from patterns we observe in a certain type of parenting that is being described with a certain type of parenting. It is so prevalent that one does not feel the need to write a disclaimer or description of what it means lest someone get confused and think that ANYONE is saying all parents are helicopters or that someone is talking about the nature of parents. 

Even when a person DOES attempt to clarify a specifically what it means in context, those explanations are simply ignored.

I don't roll with accepting faulty conclusions because someone won't try to understand what is written. So insofar as this term keeps being brought up, yah I won't be told not to use it because it means something it doesn't mean.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> Of course my parents treated me and my brothers different than my sisters. We are different. But I will also say that I treated my first daughter differently than my second or last daughter, because they are different.


My Dad treated us female children very differently based on our difference. He asked us what menstrual products we needed acquired at the store.


----------



## minimalME

NobodySpecial said:


> Oh hell ya. I think you hit the nail on the head with breaking the cycle. Be willing to own your parenting ****.


It's hard, and it's _very_ uncomfortable. 

In one of Jordan Peterson's talks he goes into seeing the monster within ourselves, and he references WWII and Hitler and all the people who followed - either silently on the sidelines or those who participated. 

He talks about how each and every one of us _are_ those people - how we're capable of doing and saying horrid things. And those who easily dismiss unspeakable behaviors and act as though they're so above it are the very people who'll go out into the world wreaking havoc and then justifying their actions.

I know that there are parts of me that I don't see that others do, but I'm painfully aware of my monster.



Mr. Nail said:


> Of course my parents treated me and my brothers different than my sisters. We are different. But I will also say that I treated my first daughter differently than my second or last daughter, because they are different.


Surely you can see that there's a vast difference between treating people differently because they're individuals vs. raising them differently because of immature egoism?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Pac-Man said:


> Please, don't refrain to comment negatively on my posts!
> 
> I post for two reasons:
> 
> 1) Give back to the community. I have learned so much from other posters.
> 
> 2) Testing my ideas. I want to learn whether I am wrong. It's much harder to progress when you keep everything in your own head.
> 
> I went on a posting spree lately but I am a long time reader. I have been reading way before I created the Pac-Mac account. English is my second language. While I read it easily every day, writing requires much more effort for me.
> 
> By the way, I didn't want to ignore your post #503 about what I find fuzzy in the APA guideline. I feel bad about that. I just don't have the time to write everything I would like to write. And that one would require a significant amount of time. I am pretty sure we are in 95% agreement anyway.


I don't even remember what we were talking about. But if you decide to write, I will go back and refresh myself. Cheers!


----------



## PigglyWiggly

FeministInPink said:


> *This makes me wonder, so were people who are honest and empathetic raised/taught to be that way?* How much of this is nature, and how much is nurture?
> 
> My upbringing was a little whack in this respect. My mom always taught me to be empathetic towards other children and people, but she is almost completely lacking in empathy herself, especially when it comes to her husband and children. So much so that once I reached adulthood, I had almost TOO MUCH empathy and compassion for other people, to the point that it made me quite gullible and susceptible to manipulation by others, but had almost no empathy for myself, because I received very little empathy growing up.
> 
> I think there is some empathy that is inherent and biologically wired, like a mother's response to a crying child. But the type of empathy that is necessary to maintain adult relationships and successfully engage in modern society? I think that is learned--I don't think we've evolved enough as a species yet for that to be nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


I was raised by cold, racist and bigoted parents. My father was the old school patriarchal type who believed "might makes right". I've seen him fight plenty, pull guns on people, assault people at redlights after road raging and just generally believing violence is how you settle disputes. He literally shares the morals and values of our current POTUS and believes that women are lesser than men and that Melania should be grateful to put up with Trump's adultery because she is getting a "free ride". In my father's book, empathy/sympathy and compassion "are for pussies." Unfortunately, I see that same attitude by a couple of posters on TAM and it bothers me a good bit. 
Not surprising is that he has been divorced 4x and of course believes women are generally *****s and need to be controlled. He was 32 when he impregnated my 15 year old mother with me.,,,,while he was married. He married another youngin (25) when he was 42. I ran as far away as possible from this "role model".


----------



## NobodySpecial

minimalME said:


> It's hard, and it's _very_ uncomfortable.


I get you. Coming to that conclusion felt very liberating _for me_. I KNEW I was not perfect. It is part of the human condition. Being able to say - hey I messed up, sorry, to my kids freed me not to feel like I HAD to be perfect all the time. It is still pretty important now that my kids are teens where one is an adult intern. Mom, you never grab a bag of groceries on the way in the house. That is pretty hypocritical to the we all pitch in stuff you sell us. I could go My House My Rules!! Or I can say, hey yah, you are right. And grab a bag of groceries.

Groceries is a small potatoes example. But those small potatoes over and over reinforce a basis of trust.



> In one of Jordan Peterson's talks he goes into seeing the monster within ourselves, and he references WWII and Hitler and all the people who followed - either silently on the sidelines or those who participated.
> 
> He talks about how each and every one of us _are_ those people - how we're capable of doing and saying horrid things. And those who easily dismiss unspeakable behaviors and act as though they're so above it are the very people who'll go out into the world wreaking havoc and then justifying their actions.


A
<swearword>
MEN

The human condition includes the capacity for incredible brutality.



> I know that there are parts of me that I don't see that others do, but I'm painfully aware of my monster.


I am gratefully aware of the monster. I can keep an eye on her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

PigglyWiggly said:


> I was raised by cold, racist and bigoted parents. My father was the old school patriarchal type who believed "might makes right". I've seen him fight plenty, pull guns on people, assault people at redlights after road raging and just generally believing violence is how you settle disputes. He literally shares the morals and values of our current POTUS and believes that women are lesser than men and that Melania should be grateful to put up with Trump's adultery because she is getting a "free ride". In my father's book, empathy/sympathy and compassion "are for pussies." Unfortunately, I see that same attitude by a couple of posters on TAM and it bothers me a good bit.
> Not surprising is that he has been divorced 4x and of course believes women are generally *****s and need to be controlled. He was 32 when he impregnated my 15 year old mother with me.,,,,while he was married. He married another youngin (25) when he was 42. I ran as far away as possible from this "role model".


How did you learn kindness and empathy (which you clearly have both)?


----------



## Mr. Nail

immature egoism equally to all!


----------



## ConanHub

Whoops!:grin2:


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Faithful Wife said:


> How did you learn kindness and empathy (which you clearly have both)?


Wow...I have thought about this for 10 minutes and don't have a real answer. I THINK I started learning by being around the people in highschool that I was taught to hate. Maybe I just wanted to be the opposite of my father in every way. You've given me something to ponder.


----------



## FeministInPink

EllisRedding said:


> I think it is part due to your own personality and in part the people you were raised up around. I can say I didn't grow up in a particularly empathetic household. I mean, I knew my parents cared about me more than anything else, but it was not a very huggy/nurturing type environment. I mentioned this elsewhere, but my mom was the type where if I hurt myself, she was more likely to make a snide comment about how I probably caused it myself, so stop it lol. When I look back, that is exactly how my grandmother was, so in part I could see that My mom got that from her upbringing.
> 
> I find that I do have to make a more conscious effort with my kids for example if they are sick or hurt themselves, where my gut reaction is to be more like my mom. At the other end though, my personality is one of a fixer. I can easily listen to someone, and quite honestly, my empathy towards them all depends on whether or not they are actually trying to fix whatever the issue is. If they are just venting and are not looking to make any effort to address, I have no empathy for them.





PigglyWiggly said:


> I was raised by cold, racist and bigoted parents. My father was the old school patriarchal type who believed "might makes right". I've seen him fight plenty, pull guns on people, assault people at redlights after road raging and just generally believing violence is how you settle disputes. He literally shares the morals and values of our current POTUS and believes that women are lesser than men and that Melania should be grateful to put up with Trump's adultery because she is getting a "free ride". In my father's book, empathy/sympathy and compassion "are for pussies." Unfortunately, I see that same attitude by a couple of posters on TAM and it bothers me a good bit.
> Not surprising is that he has been divorced 4x and of course believes women are generally *****s and need to be controlled. He was 32 when he impregnated my 15 year old mother with me.,,,,while he was married. He married another youngin (25) when he was 42. I ran as far away as possible from this "role model".


Both of your examples demonstrate what I was trying to get at with my example with my mom. @EllisRedding, you see elements of your parents' attitudes/behaviors in your own, and you have to actively work to be different. @PigglyWiggly, your post indicates that you have gone as far in the opposite direction as possible (I haven't read enough of your posts to get to know you, so I may be making assumptions). Both my sister and I have gone to great lengths to NOT be like our mother @EllisRedding our mother did the snide comment on the regular, too), and I've noticed similarity in our mother's behavior to that of our maternal grandparents, who, from stories told by aunts and uncles, I understand did NOT create a huggy/nurturing environment. So I wonder, since the three of us (four, if you count my sister) have gone to lengths to counteract the nurture influence, does that suppose that the other end of the spectrum we are striving for... does this other end represent nature? Is our nature driving us to override what has been nurtured?

Or is it all just nurture, and are we striving to nurture ourselves in a different way in adulthood?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I will try and touch this one last time.
> 
> If I say two girls, one cup it as a contextual meaning that many, many people know because of how broadly "out there" a certain video is. If I say "helicopter parent" almost everyone knows that I am not likening all parents to helicopters. There is a contextual meaning to this term that stems from patterns we observe in a certain type of parenting that is being described with a certain type of parenting. It is so prevalent that one does not feel the need to write a disclaimer or description of what it means lest someone get confused and think that ANYONE is saying all parents are helicopters or that someone is talking about the nature of parents.
> 
> Even when a person DOES attempt to clarify a specifically what it means in context, those explanations are simply ignored.
> 
> I don't roll with accepting faulty conclusions because someone won't try to understand what is written. So insofar as this term keeps being brought up, yah I won't be told not to use it because it means something it doesn't mean.


If I'm trying to bring someone around to my line of thinking and there are two terms I could use to describe something (both of which I'm convinced are accurate) and I get push back when using one, I switch to the other.

My objective is to communicate as well as possible, not be "right".


----------



## FeministInPink

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I was just curious from something in your other post. I know a lot of spectrum people (and a few PD’s) so I probably see cues for that more often than is happening.





Laurentium said:


> That does sound like a description of a cluster B PD.


With two votes for PD, this may be something to investigate. But this thread is not the place for that, given that my mother's potential PD is way off-topic. I do, however, appreciate your input


----------



## FeministInPink

Buddy400 said:


> If I'm trying to bring someone around to my line of thinking and there are two terms I could use to describe something (both of which I'm convinced are accurate) and I get push back when using one, I switch to the other.
> 
> My objective is to communicate as well as possible, not be "right".


You get it. When trying to communicate, it needs to happen in a way that the other party will understand and appreciate. Otherwise, it just seems like you are trying to argue them down.

Bravo. This is a nuance understood by few these days.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> If I'm trying to bring someone around to my line of thinking and there are two terms I could use to describe something (both of which I'm convinced are accurate) and I get push back when using one, I switch to the other.
> 
> My objective is to communicate as well as possible, not be "right".


Communication has two roles; sender and receiver. Prejudge my motives if you like. There are potentially people reading this who get what I mean. Peace out.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FeministInPink said:


> With two votes for PD, this may be something to investigate. But this thread is not the place for that, given that my mother's potential PD is way off-topic. I do, however, appreciate your input


I definitely don't want to go off about your mom (unless you do)...but I don't think PD's are off topic.

I listed earlier some "types" or groups of women who may be more likely to have less empathy. PD's and those on the spectrum were on my list because I think there are a lot more of both of those categories of people in the world than is obvious. Sometimes the lack of empathy is the first clue someone is on the spectrum or has a PD. Maybe there are quite a few more low empathy men AND women walking among us than some of us more empathetic people have realized.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Communication has two roles; sender and receiver. Prejudge my motives if you like. There are potentially people reading this who get what I mean. Peace out.


One of these 2 roles has been banned, so probably that particular communication is no longer necessary.

But the topic....it seems very big and sensitive, and I'd like to wade into it...but I'm literally afraid to do so.


----------



## minimalME

Faithful Wife said:


> But the topic....it seems very big and sensitive, and I'd like to wade into it...but I'm literally afraid to do so.


Are you talking about personality disorders? Is that the topic? Or empathy for men?


----------



## Faithful Wife

minimalME said:


> Are you talking about personality disorders? Is that the topic? Or empathy for men?


I don't even want to type the words........

The topic I was referencing in the post you quoted is..........toxic masculinity. :surprise:


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I definitely don't want to go off about your mom (unless you do)...but I don't think PD's are off topic.
> 
> I listed earlier some "types" or groups of women who may be more likely to have less empathy. PD's and those on the spectrum were on my list because I think there are a lot more of both of those categories of people in the world than is obvious. Sometimes the lack of empathy is the first clue someone is on the spectrum or has a PD. Maybe there are quite a few more low empathy men AND women walking among us than some of us more empathetic people have realized.


I have NO KNOWLEDGE about PD's. I hope I am not being righteously insensitive. I have wondered if lack of "nurturing" women's PD and autism diagnoses are a result of "expecting" women to BE nurturing. Sometimes people lack empathy because they are one rung down a tree of clueless rearing.


----------



## minimalME

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't even want to type the words........
> 
> The topic I was referencing in the post you quoted is..........toxic masculinity. :surprise:


Your wee little type made me laugh! 

I don't even know what toxic masculinity is? Or what it represents? :scratchhead:

The word 'toxic' does seem to get thrown around a lot these days though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I have NO KNOWLEDGE about PD's. I hope I am not being righteously insensitive. I have wondered if lack of "nurturing" women's PD and autism diagnoses are a result of "expecting" women to BE nurturing. Sometimes people lack empathy because they are one rung down a tree of clueless rearing.


Definitely quite a few PD's are also just straight up *******s and/or clueless.

But there is a marked lack of empathy (and also what they call lack of "theory of mind") present in PD'rs. Basically, they *literally* can't empathize, because they are trapped in a state of mind from childhood that did not develop along normal lines to understand how others are feeling. Usually due to trauma in childhood, but there may be another piece to it, science doesn't know for sure. However, most PD's tend to have been traumatized, victimized, neglected or abused during childhood. Thus in their developing years in early childhood, they remain locked in that space within themselves that most toddlers have. Normal development sees toddlers begin to want to be at peace with and interact with others in the world, and kids learn empathy incrementally but very solidly and obviously. Unless there is some other factors, like autism or extreme trauma (not always physical).

Some PD'rs appear to be very empathetic (usually BPD seem this way) but it is not actual empathy, it is just a behavior they are exhibiting. You can tell it isn't actual empathy because you can try to ask them if they understand how YOU feel and they cannot really say that they do. They will try, they will search their mind, they may make a guess, but it becomes clear they don't have empathy naturally flowing within them. Doesn't mean they don't care or love. It is just a limitation.

For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind


----------



## personofinterest

Mr. Nail said:


> immature egoism equally to all!


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## PigglyWiggly

I may be wrong but when i hear "toxic masculinity" i think of my dad. He feels justified when he decides to bully, mistreat, rip off, and manipulate because a real man takes advantage of everyone's weakness/es to become top dog.


----------



## personofinterest

PigglyWiggly said:


> I may be wrong but when i hear "toxic masculinity" i think of my dad. He feels justified when he decides to bully, mistreat, rip off, and manipulate because a real man takes advantage of everyone's weakness/es to become top dog.


That is DEFINITELY toxic.

When I think of toxic masculinity, I think of "Me man, you woman, you all alike, me right." As they either pat me on the head or insult me condescendingly.


----------



## NobodySpecial

PigglyWiggly said:


> I may be wrong but when i hear "toxic masculinity" i think of my dad. He feels justified when he decides to bully, mistreat, rip off, and manipulate because a real man takes advantage of everyone's weakness/es to become top dog.


Holy example, batman.


----------



## happyhusband0005

personofinterest said:


> That is DEFINITELY toxic.
> 
> When I think of toxic masculinity, I think of "Me man, you woman, you all alike, me right." As they either pat me on the head or insult me condescendingly.


Instead of using fancy terms like toxic masculinity can't we just go with a-hole.


----------



## NobodySpecial

happyhusband0005 said:


> Instead of using fancy terms like toxic masculinity can't we just go with a-hole.


Or Mansplaining.... <Now I am really ducking>


----------



## Faithful Wife

Do you all want me to start the new thread? I'm game...I'm just afraid.

I'm thinking of a thread title something like "Bad People and What to Do About Them". Then we can talk about toxic people, *******s, actual rapists (male and female), etc and discuss ways and ideas that can help us protect ourselves and others from those Bad People.

Then we can also discuss the reasons some groups use the word toxic, and why they want to still use that word as it means something very specific to them (and I don't think it means what others think it means, cue Princess Bride jokes).


----------



## uhtred

Not sure its that helpful. In most cases there is general agreement on what people are really bad in those ways - it might just devolve into arguing about terminology. 

Does use of the phrase "toxic masculinity", imply that masculinity is in general "toxic"? That useless argument can go on forever. [please don't start that here....]



Faithful Wife said:


> Do you all want me to start the new thread? I'm game...I'm just afraid.
> 
> I'm thinking of a thread title something like "Bad People and What to Do About Them". Then we can talk about toxic people, *******s, actual rapists (male and female), etc and discuss ways and ideas that can help us protect ourselves and others from those Bad People.
> 
> Then we can also discuss the reasons some groups use the word toxic, and why they want to still use that word as it means something very specific to them (and I don't think it means what others think it means, cue Princess Bride jokes).


----------



## happyhusband0005

NobodySpecial said:


> Or Mansplaining.... <Now I am really ducking>


How is a man going to be able to pat you on the head if you're ducking.>


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> Not sure its that helpful. In most cases there is general agreement on what people are really bad in those ways - it might just devolve into arguing about terminology.
> 
> Does use of the phrase "toxic masculinity", imply that masculinity is in general "toxic"? That useless argument can go on forever. [please don't start that here....]


I actually do want to know for myself what other people think we should do about actual bad people. It isn't that clear to me. This then gets into the false accusations debate, but there are also false accusations about murder, theft, and other things, and there are a lot of relevant questions, IMO.

I don't think it is just obvious that we all are in agreement about anything to do with Bad People. We all do seem to agree that they exist and that no one in the room is one of them. That seems to be the extent of our agreement.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you all want me to start the new thread? I'm game...I'm just afraid.
> 
> I'm thinking of a thread title something like "Bad People and What to Do About Them". Then we can talk about toxic people, *******s, actual rapists (male and female), etc and discuss ways and ideas that can help us protect ourselves and others from those Bad People.
> 
> Then we can also discuss the reasons some groups use the word toxic, and why they want to still use that word as it means something very specific to them (and I don't think it means what others think it means, cue Princess Bride jokes).


If it interests you, knock yourself out. When a thread like this one on empathy for men, it starts with a premise of patterns be they cultural, systemic... whatever. People seem to like to reduce these topics to realm of the individual interactions. Oh well.

There is tons a person could read about toxic masculinity. I think it is unlikely anyone would though it would make clear why these people use this word in the context in which they are using it. Then you are having a conversation about how mean people are who use that word. <Shrug.>


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I actually do want to know for myself what other people think we should do about actual bad people. It isn't that clear to me. This then gets into the false accusations debate, but there are also false accusations about murder, theft, and other things, and there are a lot of relevant questions, IMO.


I don't have a strong opinion on what we should do with "bad people" from our current legal system. The one difference between false accusations of other crimes is that the conversation of what to do about those crimes is not held hostage by the possibility of false accusation as is the case with rape.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Faithful Wife said:


> I actually do want to know for myself what other people think we should do about actual bad people. It isn't that clear to me. This then gets into the false accusations debate, but there are also false accusations about murder, theft, and other things, and there are a lot of relevant questions, IMO.
> 
> I don't think it is just obvious that we all are in agreement about anything to do with Bad People. We all do seem to agree that they exist and that no one in the room is one of them. That seems to be the extent of our agreement.


I'm down for ANY conversation. I truly believe you have good intentions and who doesn't want to converse with people who want to learn and are open minded.


----------



## NobodySpecial

happyhusband0005 said:


> How is a man going to be able to pat you on the head if you're ducking.>


Ouch! Nicely played, sir.


----------



## minimalME

Faithful Wife said:


> We all do seem to agree that they exist and that *no one in the room is one of them*.


I consistently feel like one of the bad people, so selfishly, I was hoping you'd start the thread to perhaps gain some insight.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't have a strong opinion on what we should do with "bad people" from our current legal system. The one difference between false accusations of other crimes is that the conversation of what to do about those crimes is not held hostage by the possibility of false accusation as is the case with rape.


That's why I want to ask "what DO we do with the REAL bad people" of the people are also concerned about false accusations.

Even the ones who are talking about false accusations know and acknowledge that the Bad People exist and there is a need to protect ourselves (and our spouses/kids) from them. So if we can separate the 2 topics - - one where we acknowledge the actual bad people and discuss what to do about them - - and another where we discuss false accusations and the reality of those and what we can maybe do about that. Keep them separate so as not to conflate. That was what I had kind of originally stated on my first post on the "bridge" thread.

Anyway I'm just babbling...


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think it is just obvious that we all are in agreement about anything to do with Bad People. We all do seem to agree that they exist and that no one in the room is one of them. That seems to be the extent of our agreement.


Missed this paragraph! I don't think we should do a darned thing about "bad people". I think there should be (and is, flawed though it is) a legal framework for dealing with people who infringe on others' rights. How good or bad someone is is their own business.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Missed this paragraph! I don't think we should do a darned thing about "bad people". I think there should be (and is, flawed though it is) a legal framework for dealing with people who infringe on others' rights. How good or bad someone is is their own business.


I think I had read that you (sorry if not you) had taken some self defense classes. Not sure if you took those classes in case of "bad people" or just because you wanted the skills, but it seems self defense classes is one thing people tend to "do" so that they feel at least a little safer about the fact that there are Bad People (violent) in the world and we don't really know where we might encounter one.

What I also had in mind was maybe talking about how do we notify someone when it seems they may be in danger, without being a judgmental ******* about the possibly dangerous person? 

What if someone we know is a Bad Person, and how can we potentially protect other people from that BP? Especially if we are still being harmed by that BP or the potential for that to happen is there?

How can we get Good Men to protect us from Bad Men? (not that they are not doing so every day already)

How can we expose more Bad Women and make it clear that they also pose a huge threat to people?

How can we create a conversation where Bad People is not assumed to be more men than women? 

How can we make it a safer conversation for everybody, by acknowledging how much crime happens against men by women with no recourse, and yet not shaming those men?

How does mental health play into all of this, and what are the clues and triggers to look for if a mentally ill person seems to be moving into a crisis that could result in violence?

Again, just babbling....I'm not asking you to join or agree. Just sorting my thoughts.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I think I had read that you (sorry if not you) had taken some self defense classes. Not sure if you took those classes in case of "bad people" or just because you wanted the skills, but it seems self defense classes is one thing people tend to "do" so that they feel at least a little safer about the fact that there are Bad People (violent) in the world and we don't really know where we might encounter one.


Nah. I took martial arts classes because I thought it would be fun and good exercise.



> What I also had in mind was maybe talking about how do we notify someone when it seems they may be in danger, without being a judgmental ******* about the possibly dangerous person?
> 
> What if someone we know is a Bad Person, and how can we potentially protect other people from that BP? Especially if we are still being harmed by that BP or the potential for that to happen is there?
> 
> How can we get Good Men to protect us from Bad Men? (not that they are not doing so every day already)


EEEEEEEEEEK. I don't want to live in a world where I need Gooood Mennnn to protect me (swoooooon) from those bad men! It would be ok with me if our lovely culture didn't seem ok with certain types of violence in its core.



> How can we expose more Bad Women and make it clear that they also pose a huge threat to people?
> 
> 
> How can we create a conversation where Bad People is not assumed to be more men than women?
> 
> How can we make it a safer conversation for everybody, by acknowledging how much crime happens against men by women with no recourse, and yet not shaming those men?
> 
> How does mental health play into all of this, and what are the clues and triggers to look for if a mentally ill person seems to be moving into a crisis that could result in violence?
> 
> Again, just babbling....I'm not asking you to join or agree. Just sorting my thoughts.




Let us know when those thoughts get sorted.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Hmmm ....I am a little surprised at the mocking tone about good men protecting us from bad men. Aside from the fact that it seems no one can protect anyone from bad women, I can easily see in my life every day that good men are protecting me from bad men. I literally have no choice as a woman than to depend on the protection of good men. If good women could protect me in all cases, then it wouldn’t be necessary to say specifically that I need to depend on good men to protect me. I am strong and am a fighter, and I feel as prepared as I could be physically if I were attacked. But I know on all levels that I am toast against anyone slightly bigger or stronger than myself. I don’t live in fear of this happening exactly because I feel protected by good men.

I don’t fear any woman physically. But if a woman was intent on killing or harming me, I’d be appreciative for any help I could get. Most likely that’s going to come from a man though (because another woman may not be able to overcome my attacker either, depending on the situation).

I do totally swoon over the good men of the world, because they are Good. That’s most of them (again talking about violent crimes). I feel safe almost every moment of my life because of the Good men.

If we lived in a society or parallel universe where women were physically bigger and stronger, then I would depend on women for protection and/or become an official protector myself.

Women do protect me every day also, and I need them too. They sometimes can protect me in emotional ways or by giving me support at a time that averts some crisis. They are also police, military, Good Samaritans, super heroes, and every other positive protective type of thing a person can be. But I still acknowledge that without Good men as the majority of my protection, I would not feel safe. 

It’s a privilege to feel safe, and I appreciate it.


----------



## minimalME

*


----------



## Affaircare

Okay people, I'm going to be very open here. Thanks to some of the discussion on this thread, I am made aware of the general consensus that female humans do the va-clang when the situation arises to show empathy to their man. I've been thinking about empathy and what it is and if I show it, etc. I've been having great discussions with EB about it (and as usual, he is a fountain of wisdom). 

A situation has arisen wherein I could show some empathy to a male human. 

Now, I think I'm one of the rare female humans that not only doesn't va-clang but also has demonstrated some empathy (i'm not adverse to knowing struggles and responding in a supportive way). BUT here's my concern: what *I* may think of as "empathy" and what a guy may think of as "empathy" may be two vastly different things!!

So I put my own agenda, needs, schedule, etc. aside and put everything into loosely held, on-hold mode in case I might be required to be flexible. I tried to put myself into the other person's shoes and think of them (their personality)...what they might be feeling. I listened when they were talking...just listened and tried to carefully think over what they had said. I did some "just being there" because let's be honest, sometimes you don't need to talk you just need something to sit there with ya--maybe hold hands or whatever, right? 

HERE'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW: What would be some concrete examples of what "empathy" would look like if you are a male human and got it the way that would seem like empathy to you? What exactly would it look like TO YOU? I get it, everyone will be a bit different due to different personalities, etc. but if we have any hope of "getting this" we females have to have an idea what we're shooting for! 

So here's the imaginary situation: You just found out your uncle in Ohio died. You love the man, but work is crazy, it's too far away, and you won't be able to be there in person. Your heart hurts and you have a little trouble concentrating at work. What would it look like if your spouse was empathetic to you?

GO!!!


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Hmmm ....I am a little surprised at the mocking tone about good men protecting us from bad men. Aside from the fact that it seems no one can protect anyone from bad women, I can easily see in my life every day that good men are protecting me from bad men. I literally have no choice as a woman than to depend on the protection of good men. If good women could protect me in all cases, then it wouldn’t be necessary to say specifically that I need to depend on good men to protect me. I am strong and am a fighter, and I feel as prepared as I could be physically if I were attacked. But I know on all levels that I am toast against anyone slightly bigger or stronger than myself. I don’t live in fear of this happening exactly because I feel protected by good men.
> 
> I don’t fear any woman physically. But if a woman was intent on killing or harming me, I’d be appreciative for any help I could get. Most likely that’s going to come from a man though (because another woman may not be able to overcome my attacker either, depending on the situation).
> 
> I do totally swoon over the good men of the world, because they are Good. That’s most of them (again talking about violent crimes). I feel safe almost every moment of my life because of the Good men.
> 
> If we lived in a society or parallel universe where women were physically bigger and stronger, then I would depend on women for protection and/or become an official protector myself.
> 
> Women do protect me every day also, and I need them too. They sometimes can protect me in emotional ways or by giving me support at a time that averts some crisis. They are also police, military, Good Samaritans, super heroes, and every other positive protective type of thing a person can be. But I still acknowledge that without Good men as the majority of my protection, I would not feel safe.
> 
> It’s a privilege to feel safe, and I appreciate it.


A member of the sisterhood will be stopping by shortly to revoke your feminist card. Hopefully you've already prepared for your new life as June Cleaver :wink2:


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't have a strong opinion on what we should do with "bad people" from our current legal system. The one difference between false accusations of other crimes is that the conversation of what to do about those crimes is not held hostage by the possibility of false accusation as is the case with rape.


Actually, I think the conversation about false accusations is the conversation that is held hostage. But that is a whole other thread.


----------



## Affaircare

Are you suggesting we don't vacuum with our pearls on? >


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> Actually, I think the conversation about false accusations is the conversation that is held hostage. But that is a whole other thread.


It seems that it has been opened in this thread. The reason I don't think the false accusation conversation is being held hostage is

- I have yet to see it raised for concern in its own right without being attached to the sexual assault conversation.
- Prior to metoo, it was a silent concern, if it was present as a concern at all.

That said, prosecuting people who make false accusations of any crime SHOULD be a slam dunk. I am down with that.


----------



## personofinterest

> Now, I think I'm one of the rare female humans that not only doesn't va-clang


See.....I don't think WE are the rare ones. I think the women who go va-clang and do not show empathy are the rarer ones. The men who have experienced these women are just so hurt by the experience they want to imagine that most women are walking around va-clanging with no empathy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Hmmm ....I am a little surprised at the mocking tone


If you are referring to me, I was not intending to be mocking. I was a bit horrified. Sorry if you felt I was making fun of you.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> See.....I don't think WE are the rare ones. I think the women who go va-clang and do not show empathy are the rarer ones. The men who have experienced these women are just so hurt by the experience they want to imagine that most women are walking around va-clanging with no empathy.


I find it pretty easy to believe that it is pretty derned prevalent. I think some women are pretty awful. Entitled princess is a real thing.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

I see a lot of projection by humans in general. 

Just a potentially crazy thought here. 

...but here goes...

Is it possible that men more often lack empathy themselves, so they project/perceive a lack of empathy in women, which is easily triggered given that the sexual attention of women is so commonly a source of male self worth.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Affaircare said:


> Are you suggesting we don't vacuum with our pearls on? >


Vacuum? PEARLS?? I mean either would be a challenge. But both at the same time??


----------



## personofinterest

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I see a lot of projection by humans in general.
> 
> Just a potentially crazy thought here.
> 
> ...but here goes...
> 
> Is it possible that men more often lack empathy themselves, so they project/perceive a lack of empathy in women, which is easily triggered given that the sexual attention of women is so commonly a source of male self worth.



Ooooooo I hope you have a bullet-proof vest lol


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I see a lot of projection by humans in general.
> 
> Just a potentially crazy thought here.
> 
> ...but here goes...
> 
> Is it possible that men more often lack empathy themselves, so they project/perceive a lack of empathy in women, which is easily triggered given that the sexual attention of women is so commonly a source of male self worth.


I think my husband would agree that this applies to him to some degree.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Vacuum? PEARLS?? I mean either would be a challenge. But both at the same time??


I was insulted that someone seemed to insinuate that I DO vacuum? Jeez, my sexbot does all of that nonsense for me. I’m not an animal.


----------



## minimalME

NobodySpecial said:


> I find it pretty easy to believe that it is pretty derned prevalent. I think some women are pretty awful. Entitled princess is a real thing.


I don't consider myself an enititled princess, but I can honestly say that after 20 years of trying to work on a sexless marriage, by the end of it all, my empathy towards my ex-husband was pretty far gone.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> If you are referring to me, I was not intending to be mocking. I was a bit horrified. Sorry if you felt I was making fun of you.


I guess knowing you felt “horrified” about something I said doesn’t feel much different than being mocked, because I have no reference to why you would be horrified.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess knowing you felt “horrified” about something I said doesn’t feel much different than being mocked, because I have no reference to why you would be horrified.


I think we are having a failure to communicate due to contextual misunderstanding. I don't care to go into details on why that sentence horrified me except to say I am pretty sure I did not take what you meant based on your later clarification.


----------



## NobodySpecial

minimalME said:


> I don't consider myself an enititled princess, but I can honestly say that after 20 years of trying to work on a sexless marriage, by the end of it all, my empathy towards my ex-husband was pretty far gone.


Obviously not all posts refer to all situations.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I see a lot of projection by humans in general.
> 
> Just a potentially crazy thought here.
> 
> ...but here goes...
> 
> Is it possible that men more often lack empathy themselves, so they project/perceive a lack of empathy in women, which is easily triggered given that the sexual attention of women is so commonly a source of male self worth.


Very astute. And DEEP man!!!!

Trying to think about it a little more...


----------



## Mr. Nail

Affaircare said:


> - snip -
> 
> HERE'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW: What would be some concrete examples of what "empathy" would look like if you are a male human and got it the way that would seem like empathy to you? What exactly would it look like TO YOU? I get it, everyone will be a bit different due to different personalities, etc. but if we have any hope of "getting this" we females have to have an idea what we're shooting for!
> 
> So here's the imaginary situation: You just found out your uncle in Ohio died. You love the man, but work is crazy, it's too far away, and you won't be able to be there in person. Your heart hurts and you have a little trouble concentrating at work. What would it look like if your spouse was empathetic to you?
> 
> GO!!!


It did take less than 30 seconds to come up with this answer. 

She would pack her bags and go to the funeral for me.


----------



## personofinterest

Mr. Nail said:


> It did take less than 30 seconds to come up with this answer.
> 
> She would pack her bags and go to the funeral for me.


So you would rather her go to the funeral than stay and support you in your grief? I hadn't thought of that.

If you couldn't afford the trip, would she just be up **** creek and an empathy failure?

This is interesting because I am wondering how many men would do this for another man, since we women are supposed to empathize the way men empathize.

Is this something you would ask her to do, or is she just supposed to know to do it? I am assuming it is the former, since men complain about women doing the latter.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I see a lot of projection by humans in general.
> 
> Just a potentially crazy thought here.
> 
> ...but here goes...
> 
> Is it possible that men more often lack empathy themselves, so they project/perceive a lack of empathy in women, which is easily triggered given that the sexual attention of women is so commonly a source of male self worth.





personofinterest said:


> Ooooooo I hope you have a bullet-proof vest lol


Not entirely off base. I'm not sure it is projection or just misinterpretation. Kind of a, "Hey that didn't look / feel like empathy". Several times I have suspected that many members of the forum are not aware that you can't say "**** You" with empathy.


----------



## personofinterest

Mr. Nail said:


> Not entirely off base. I'm not sure it is projection or just misinterpretation. Kind of a, "Hey that didn't look / feel like empathy". Several times I have suspected that many members of the forum are not aware that you can't say "**** You" with empathy.



I'll admit my empathy bucket for complete strangers isn't quite as big as my empathy bucket for loved ones. You can only try to be heard so many times before you just say f*** it.

I know that there are areas in my life where I tend to project. I try to keep in mind that not every (insert group or gender or whatever here) is not like MY (insert same). In fact, it may not even be a majority.

That doesn't make my experience any less real. Realizing it just makes me more capable of being objective.


----------



## Mr. Nail

personofinterest said:


> So you would rather her go to the funeral than stay and support you in your grief? I hadn't thought of that.
> 
> If you couldn't afford the trip, would she just be up **** creek and an empathy failure?
> 
> This is interesting because I am wondering how many men would do this for another man, since we women are supposed to empathize the way men empathize.
> 
> Is this something you would ask her to do, or is she just supposed to know to do it? I am assuming it is the former, since men complain about women doing the latter.


In this case the parameter was that I could not go. Because of work. 

Now you go and change the case to Uncle beloved dies unexpectedly and you can't afford to fly to Ohio for the funeral. That is a horse of a different color.

Here are some other ways she could show empathy. She could contact other members of his family and secure a recording and pictures. She could tighten the budget and get him there. She could share her memories of the uncle with him. She could get him his uncles lucky fishing hat before his aunt tosses it. 

Ask for or expect mind reading. Since I am already convinced that empathy has failed, why would I expect mind reading? No I would have to ask and EXPLAIN.


----------



## happiness27

I have listened to many on this thread including the OP and decided to shift my mindset to closely empathizing with my husband's POV. I feel like this shift was a good thing for both of us. I'm grateful for the thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

happiness27 said:


> I have listened to many on this thread including the OP and decided to shift my mindset to closely empathizing with my husband's POV. I feel like this shift was a good thing for both of us. I'm grateful for the thread.


Thank you for saying this, it made my day.


----------



## uhtred

For me:

First, separate the question of how we know someone is guilty. For the sake of argument, pretend that we are 100% sure of what someone did (how we get there is a different discussion).

Then, given a bad person, I see 3 goals:
Rehabilitate. Separate. Punish.

I don't see any point in using society's resource to "punish" someone, eg to make them miserable. I know that there is this desire for "retribution" at an individual level, but I don't see it being a global good.

Rehabilitate: If we can, then we should. (again assuming perfect knowledge). That turns the criminal into a functioning member of society again. Win. 

Separate: If we can't rehabilitate, then we need to separate to prevent further harm. I don;t have moral objections to death as a means of separation, but as implemented, it is so inefficient that I oppose it.


An aside about false accusations is that some things make the issue much more difficult for sex crimes. These tend to happen in isolation. Often its possible to prove sexual contact, but not consent. Frequently they happen when one or both parties are impaired by alcohol. There is a substantial gender imbalance in sexual assault, but its not so large that we can completely ignore the other direction. False accusations are rare, but not so rare that an accusation can meet the standards of legal proof.

In some ways conventional crime isn't so different. If you tell the police that a friend stole your car, and they claim that you loaned it to them, it might be difficult to get the accusation to stick if it was verified that you had frequently loaned your car out in the past. Sex crimes are different, among other reasons, that once you get your car back, most of the harm has been negated. 










Faithful Wife said:


> I actually do want to know for myself what other people think we should do about actual bad people. It isn't that clear to me. This then gets into the false accusations debate, but there are also false accusations about murder, theft, and other things, and there are a lot of relevant questions, IMO.
> 
> I don't think it is just obvious that we all are in agreement about anything to do with Bad People. We all do seem to agree that they exist and that no one in the room is one of them. That seems to be the extent of our agreement.


----------



## happiness27

Faithful Wife said:


> Thank you for saying this, it made my day.


Sometimes the simplest of ideas are the best. For some reason, it just resonated with me at just the right time. I was, like, "Really? Why don't you just lay down your arms and your resentments and expectations and just *be*?" Once I did that, it was incredibly easy. Who would have thought that a simple mind shift would work like that?


----------



## personofinterest

"Ask for or expect mind reading. Since I am already convinced that empathy has failed, why would I expect mind reading? No I would have to ask and EXPLAIN."

So in other words, you have ensured a womanCANNOT succeed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

happiness27 said:


> Sometimes the simplest of ideas are the best. For some reason, it just resonated with me at just the right time. I was, like, "Really? Why don't you just lay down your arms and your resentments and expectations and just *be*?" Once I did that, it was incredibly easy. Who would have thought that a simple mind shift would work like that?


Did it feel like your translator was turned on? :laugh:

That's how it felt to me. I can actually hear both sides now. And one side is not saying what I thought it was before my translator turned on.


----------



## Mr. Nail

personofinterest said:


> "Ask for or expect mind reading. Since I am already convinced that empathy has failed, why would I expect mind reading? No I would have to ask and EXPLAIN."
> 
> So in other words, you have ensured a womanCANNOT succeed.


No I just affirm that a specific woman WILL NOT bother. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## happiness27

Faithful Wife said:


> Did it feel like your translator was turned on? :laugh:
> 
> That's how it felt to me. I can actually hear both sides now. And one side is not saying what I thought it was before my translator turned on.


I just know him so well at this point - we've shared so much with each other. I think what happened was that I started looking into his expressions and his eyes a lot more and began to see his sincerity.

I think what I was doing before was projecting my own fears into his intentions. I have a lot of my own trust crap that I was hanging on to. I kept projecting my lack of trust into my perception of his intentions. What I decided was that - sometimes - in order to receive a change in the relationship, we have to change the only thing we can, which is ourselves. 

I knew this. I've known this a long time. I was being obstinate. One of the very early things I learned probably 30 years ago was that if I change myself, the things around me just naturally, organically change. 

Honestly, it was a big "DUH" I was very resistant to your initial post and idea. But the defect in me is my history of being a woman and the long history of women being in a submissive state. This can turn a person into a bit of a fighter. At some point, I realized I was fighting ghosts. 

Sometimes, the stars just align. I think these are called epiphanies.


----------



## personofinterest

"
I think what I was doing before was projecting my own fears into his intentions."

I think the above is VERY common. You just have the character and humility to recognize and work on it.


----------



## FeministInPink

minimalME said:


> I don't consider myself an enititled princess, but I can honestly say that after 20 years of trying to work on a sexless marriage, by the end of it all, my empathy towards my ex-husband was pretty far gone.


TWENTY YEARS?!? Grrrrlll, I lost empathy for my XH after just a few years of that sexless crap and his refusal to do anything about it.


----------



## happyhusband0005

I have a question for the men watching this thread. And sorry if this is a stupid question. Am I the only guy who has never thought I wish women had more empathy for men? There's a good chance I am somewhat broken.


----------



## FeministInPink

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I see a lot of projection by humans in general.
> 
> Just a potentially crazy thought here.
> 
> ...but here goes...
> 
> Is it possible that men more often lack empathy themselves, so they project/perceive a lack of empathy in women, which is easily triggered given that the sexual attention of women is so commonly a source of male self worth.


I think this is a really interesting idea. I think, in general, people tend to assume that other people think just like them, until they are proven otherwise. For example, my XH was a master manipulator... because he was raised by a master manipulator. He was immune to my tears when I was begging him to do something to save our marriage; I was being open, honest, and vulnerable, showing him my pain and hurt, but he assumed I was simply trying to manipulate _him_, because that is what he was constantly doing to other people as well.

When I was younger and in school, my mom was super judgemental about the other moms... but she assumed they were being judgemental about her. I know for a fact that they weren't. The other moms never had anything but good things to say about my mom, especially her skills as an artist.

I think having empathy could be very similar. If someone lacks empathy (and has to fake it), they may just assume that EVERYONE does that, and that the empathy that anyone shows them must be fake.


----------



## Faithful Wife

happyhusband0005 said:


> I have a question for the men watching this thread. And sorry if this is a stupid question. Am I the only guy who has never thought I wish women had more empathy for men? There's a good chance I am somewhat broken.


Quite a few men have stated that they aren’t actually concerned or bothered by it. This thread was made by me, and the men are responding at my request. None of them ever asked me to champion for this issue, it was my own agenda to make these empathy posts. 

But I do hope some of them will respond. 

I do feel like there has been some good things coming out of these threads. I’m not expecting any kind of huge immediate changes but I already feel some changes (in our community at least, and in some of our personal lives). I guess getting more empathy into men’s lives in general may not even be the goal of all of this but rather just to discuss the topic and look at it closer.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Faithful Wife said:


> Quite a few men have stated that they aren’t actually concerned or bothered by it. This thread was made by me, and the men are responding at my request. None of them ever asked me to champion for this issue, it was my own agenda to make these empathy posts.
> 
> But I do hope some of them will respond.
> 
> I do feel like there has been some good things coming out of these threads. I’m not expecting any kind of huge immediate changes but I already feel some changes (in our community at least, and in some of our personal lives). I guess getting more empathy into men’s lives in general may not even be the goal of all of this but rather just to discuss the topic and look at it closer.


I think this thread is great. I asked this out of genuine concern for myself. I posted a while back about the fact my daughter had asked me about the fact that I never cry not even when my father died. So I do wonder sometimes if I'm missing something as far as normal emotions go. I just don't get upset about stuff, I rarely am sad, most often I am in a good mood and nothing can really shake me even if everyone else thinks it should. I've always thought I was normal but I do wonder if I'm way more whacked than I think I am.


----------



## Faithful Wife

happyhusband0005 said:


> I think this thread is great. I asked this out of genuine concern for myself. I posted a while back about the fact my daughter had asked me about the fact that I never cry not even when my father died. So I do wonder sometimes if I'm missing something as far as normal emotions go. I just don't get upset about stuff, I rarely am sad, most often I am in a good mood and nothing can really shake me even if everyone else thinks it should. I've always thought I was normal but I do wonder if I'm way more whacked than I think I am.


Hmmm, well there’s no need to fix what aint broke, yeah? But it’s worth thinking about for yourself.

I have a female friend who went to a counselor once for a similar reason. She is fairly un-empathetic in general, but also needs and requires no empathy from others. I know she was raised with a mostly low emotional mom and sister. None of them cried. All of them also don’t laugh as much as other people, but they do laugh. Definitely not people who were so cold that it seemed like there was anything terribly off about them. But I think at some point she realized she feels sort of “flat” all the time, and she wondered if she would be more normal if she had more emotions.

Her counselor basically told her if there is nothing going sideways in your life as a result of having less emotions than others, he didn’t think there was anything to be done, per se. She could not identify anything wrong in her life, so she decided she must be ok and stopping seeing the counselor.

I will say, that was about 10 years ago, and she has actually changed since then. Not a huge amount, but she totally has more emotional range, she seems to show empathy more (even if she is not feeling it, she’s being supportive by showing it), she laughs more, and she’s just a bit warmer. She is a friend who I never hug (her vibe dictates this) but in the past 2 or 3 years, I’ve gotten at least 5 hugs from her.

I really think that just by considering the issue, it made her slowly improve it to a level that is clearly working well for her. She’s the same person, just a little but sunnier, funnier, and warmer.


----------



## Pac-Man

happyhusband0005 said:


> I have a question for the men watching this thread. And sorry if this is a stupid question. Am I the only guy who has never thought I wish women had more empathy for men? There's a good chance I am somewhat broken.


I don't know what it means about you. But it means that your WIFE is NOT broken. That makes you a... happyhusband.


----------



## Pac-Man

personofinterest said:


> That is DEFINITELY toxic.
> 
> When I think of toxic masculinity, I think of "Me man, you woman, you all alike, me right." As they either pat me on the head or insult me condescendingly.


When I think "toxic masculinity", I think about a silly pissing contest I don't want to be part of, even if they say that some chicks dig it. :grin2:


----------



## Pac-Man

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I see a lot of projection by humans in general.
> 
> Just a potentially crazy thought here.
> 
> ...but here goes...
> 
> Is it possible that men more often lack empathy themselves, so they project/perceive a lack of empathy in women, which is easily triggered given that the sexual attention of women is so commonly a source of male self worth.


That's possible. I would explore another possibility.

Let's Suppose that the level of empathy have great variations within each genders. So whatever gender have more on average, you will observe mismatches in every ways, just as we see couples with the woman taller than the man.

Empathy is not as self-evident as height. Aside some extreme case, the level of empathy may not be easily observable on the first few dates when we put our best foot forward and give all our attention to each other. Then there's the honeymoon period when we are blind to small irritants, especially when the sex is so good. Then, the discovery that someone has a low level of empathy coincide with the end of the honeymoon period...


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Communication has two roles; sender and receiver. Prejudge my motives if you like. There are potentially people reading this who get what I mean. Peace out.


So, are you not really engaging in a conversation? Just posing for the on-lookers?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> So, are you not really engaging in a conversation? Just posing for the on-lookers?


OK but....can’t we just kumbaya and all that? Not taking sides...just kind of asking because of you know, the whole thing I’m doing with the things and the progress thingys?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m not positive who came up with the hamster term that ended up in so many RP blogs, but to them it is a very specific and developed idea. It’s a very negative thing, and I don’t even want to try to describe it in any of the terms they use. The basic idea is that women need to justify their own sexual feelings, and since they cannot just be self aware they make all kinds of justifications in their heads to explain away their untoward sexual behaviors because they cannot admit to themselves that they are horny for some rando. That’s the gist of it.





inmyprime said:


> It’s the rationalisation hamster or mixing up cause and effect: nothing to do with gender though
> 
> Rationalization Hamster - WikiMANNia
> 
> He lives in all people’s brains, female or male.


But, it's really not a gendered idea.

Johnathon Haidt uses an example of a monkey (consciousness) riding an elephant (the subconscious). The monkey thinks he's controlling where the elephant goes.

Actually, he spends most of his time coming up with good reasons for going the direction in which the elephant is already leaning.

I believe this is a real thing for both genders.

However, I am never going to refer to it as "Lizard Brain" or "Rationalization Hamster" again.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> OK but....can’t we just kumbaya and all that? Not taking sides...just kind of asking because of you know, the whole thing I’m doing with the things and the progress thingys?


Sure. Sorry. Can we let her have the final retort?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Sure. Sorry. Can we let her have the final retort?


Gentlemen’s rules, of course.


----------



## red oak

inmyprime said:


> That is true. However when words such as ‘toxic masculinity’ are used, one is making a sweeping statement regarding...well, masculinity.
> 
> If you think about it, this is completely at odds with the idea that ‘masculine traits’ are a social construct and people who insist on using it, don’t realise that it is an oxymoron, in the way they are using them.
> 
> It is true that certain traits CAN be the result of socialisation, but there is nothing that implies that ‘gender specific’ traits are any more ‘socialisable’ than any other traits are so it makes no sense to insist on sneaking ‘masculinity’ into it.
> 
> Some of it is mixing up cause with effect and some of it is muddled thinking. There have been many cases to disprove these ridiculous notions, the most notable one of David Reimer:
> 
> https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-...gender-reassignment-controversy-johnjoan-case
> 
> Interestingly, there are no such generalist words used by RP (that i have seen) as they seem to be mostly complaining about stupidity within feminism. And this is a complaint against stupidity (that happens to include a number of women), not ‘toxic femininity’. But I haven’t delved into RP enough to have an opinion what it is they are exactly complaining about...
> 
> However when I begin to notice discriminatory words such as ‘toxic masculinity’, ‘rape culture’, ‘male privilege’ etc being used more in the mainstream, it makes me realise that we are moving into more divisiveness rather than unity. And of course the irony is that it’s the women who will suffer from some of these misconceived notions in the end.


I do agree on division. All the words spoken are intentional. 

The saying there is nothing new under the sun holds true again.
Everyone knows something is wrong in the world, but lacking the time or inclination to figure it out themselves they let others tell them with the above words.

I have been a observational participant all my life. What's sad is many of the things which allow a person to find the truth are now censored. Research, surveys, old dictionaries, old letters of thought, now all banned from your country, or not allowed through your serve. Wayback machine scrubbed of them. It's disheartening. 

That said to say. We are where we are as a result of the designers of society. . It was stated in the 1700's, 1800's. 

Few want to accept it but,


> We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind


 was known possible in 1800's and was even written about by karl marx.
Women were intentionally targeted to destabilize men.

The point being everyone was given a loony pill. Everyone should be showing compassion to one another and help each to overcome instead of attacking. (Referring to comments on toxic..rape culture..etc).


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> So, are you not really engaging in a conversation? Just posing for the on-lookers?


...


Deleted to stay with the spirit of the thread.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> OK but....can’t we just kumbaya and all that? Not taking sides...just kind of asking because of you know, the whole thing I’m doing with the things and the progress thingys?


Didn't see this. I replied. Sorry. Peace.


----------



## personofinterest

I wonder if we tend to be restricted in some areas of empathy due to our own past experiences or triggers? Here's what I mean: it's easy for me to feel and show unhindered empathy for certain situations in someone's life. Other situations trigger my own stuff.

For example, there was some thread here where the wife was concerned about finances. She works. Her hobby had been unemployed for months, and she had had to ask her parents for help.

I felt NO empathy for that husband. In fact, I almost felt disdain. And I know why - it triggered MY stuff.

So I know going in that if my husband ever DOES have serious employment trouble, I WILL need to push aside my past fear response, or it will impede my empathy.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

personofinterest said:


> I wonder if we tend to be restricted in some areas of empathy due to our own past experiences or triggers? Here's what I mean: it's easy for me to feel and show unhindered empathy for certain situations in someone's life. Other situations trigger my own stuff.
> 
> For example, there was some thread here where the wife was concerned about finances. She works. Her hobby had been unemployed for months, and she had had to ask her parents for help.
> 
> I felt NO empathy for that husband. In fact, I almost felt disdain. And I know why - it triggered MY stuff.
> 
> So I know going in that if my husband ever DOES have serious employment trouble, I WILL need to push aside my past fear response, or it will impede my empathy.


We bring our bias into most everything I would think. Some people are aware of that and make an attempt to remain as objective as possible when needed. That's the best we can do I believe.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Didn't see this. I replied. Sorry. Peace.


Dang, I was actually hoping to read your retort, as @Buddy400 had offered.

But you opted for the “upper class” touch and removed your reply.

Well played.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I wonder if we tend to be restricted in some areas of empathy due to our own past experiences or triggers? Here's what I mean: it's easy for me to feel and show unhindered empathy for certain situations in someone's life. Other situations trigger my own stuff.
> 
> For example, there was some thread here where the wife was concerned about finances. She works. Her hobby had been unemployed for months, and she had had to ask her parents for help.
> 
> I felt NO empathy for that husband. In fact, I almost felt disdain. And I know why - it triggered MY stuff.
> 
> So I know going in that if my husband ever DOES have serious employment trouble, I WILL need to push aside my past fear response, or it will impede my empathy.


Can I be Frank? (Ok Frank, shoot).

Your posts trigger me. You use a lot of snark, and although I have a sense of you now and I love your elite level snark, it makes me feel anxious when I read a lot of your posts.

I am literally afraid of you.

I don’t want to feel that way, it’s my stuff that makes me feel that way about your posts. And I’m aware that some people feel the same about my posts (especially in the past) because I’ve just let it fly here so many times and have an intermediate degree in snark. 

What I’m hoping is to just always understand you. But I usually can’t because I get so triggered by your posts. I’m trying to use my new translator when reading your posts, but I’m still not quite able to overcome my own triggers. 

Can I offer a humble “I really dig you and want to find where we have alignment but I’m admitting my vulnerability to your very powerful presence and I ask you for grace in discussing my struggle with it”.

Or if better, just a hey chicka, cool your jets sometimes.

I don’t know you well enough to know if I should go with the smarmy empathy plea, or the soul sister approach. :x


----------



## personofinterest

"We bring our bias into most everything I would think. Some people are aware of that and make an attempt to remain as objective as possible when needed. That's the best we can do I believe."

I can always tell I'm struggling when I can no longer be objective and am in reactivity mode. That's when I need to step back and figure out what is going on with ME. That's part of why I asked for a month ban.


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> I wonder if we tend to be restricted in some areas of empathy due to our own past experiences or triggers? Here's what I mean: it's easy for me to feel and show unhindered empathy for certain situations in someone's life. Other situations trigger my own stuff.
> 
> For example, there was some thread here where the wife was concerned about finances. She works. Her hobby had been unemployed for months, and she had had to ask her parents for help.
> 
> I felt NO empathy for that husband. In fact, I almost felt disdain. And I know why - it triggered MY stuff.
> 
> So I know going in that if my husband ever DOES have serious employment trouble, I WILL need to push aside my past fear response, or it will impede my empathy.


I have the same response to men in that situation. Barring physical or emotional injuries, I'm very severe towards unemployed men with families.

I actually have never viewed my attitude as bad however.

There has to be a point where men crack the whip on themselves and do what it takes to provide for their families.

I'm considering that I might need to alter my view a little but where to draw the line between empathy and condoning pathetic behavior could be confusing for me.

I'm not even convinced my attitude needs to change honestly.

Aside from FW opening my eyes towards my own bias, I feel like an alien 👽 peeping Tom, observing inexplicable behaviors.

Don't mind the green guy with antennas in the corner, I mean you no harm.:smile2:


----------



## personofinterest

FW, thank you. You know exactly how to tell the truth without forgetting people are human.

I used to do that very well. After some internet related trauma and some unpleasant hurts received from a very specific personality type.....I'm not as good at it.

I dont want to be that way. I dont want to give people and things of the past that much power. On the internet, I am too much like that tough mean kid whose hard shell covers up a gaping wound that shes NEVER going to let someone do to her again.

It's getting better....some. But I have a long way to go. I HAVE to learn not to step into the ring or dance with a couple of specific types of partners.

So thank you. Keep me in check anytime; you know how to do it without devaluing a person.


----------



## FeministInPink

personofinterest said:


> I wonder if we tend to be restricted in some areas of empathy due to our own past experiences or triggers? Here's what I mean: it's easy for me to feel and show unhindered empathy for certain situations in someone's life. Other situations trigger my own stuff.
> 
> For example, there was some thread here where the wife was concerned about finances. She works. Her hobby had been unemployed for months, and she had had to ask her parents for help.
> 
> I felt NO empathy for that husband. In fact, I almost felt disdain. And I know why - it triggered MY stuff.
> 
> So I know going in that if my husband ever DOES have serious employment trouble, I WILL need to push aside my past fear response, or it will impede my empathy.


I think people do tend to do this. I'm sure that I do. There were ways in which I could have been more empathetic to Real Estate in certain moments, and in these moments I was ABSOLUTELY triggered--and vice versa.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

FeministInPink said:


> I think people do tend to do this. I'm sure that I do. There were ways in which I could have been more empathetic to Real Estate in certain moments, and in these moments I was ABSOLUTELY triggered--and vice versa.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Yes, and that is exactly how Mem explained it. He was saying that the times his wife moved suddenly emotionally away from him when he was vulnerable, it was always also when she was frightened.

And he knows she has certain triggers which frighten her, so he is understanding about it.

Maybe what is really happening (in some cases) is that the wife is so triggered by her own stuff in those moments (may or may not have anything to do with her husband) that she panics and can’t feel empathy or compassion or sympathy, or anything other than fear.

POI, is your trigger about the thought of your H possibly losing his job from a time of poverty in your life? Or trauma surrounding money or lack of money? (Only share whatever you are comfortable with). Was the original fear from a real event, many events, perceived events?


----------



## red oak

May I say that one possible reason women don't have empathy for men is men don't have empathy for women?

99% of Women don't know what has been done to them. 99% of men are just complaining of the repercussions of what have been done to women and not looking at the true reasoning. However men are handicapped from doing anything because of the courts and women actually seeing it as an attack.

However the real attack came; to quote a book:


> The history I am going to tell you about is the history of a war, a bitter war. It is often called "The War between Men and Women." For far too many women and men too-it is still going on.
> It began toward the end of the eighteenth century....steam engine by Watt........ Ushered in the industrial revolution.
> Most of all, and most tragically, it changed the home..........It destroyed the home, at least as home was known up to that time.......
> Home, then, was, almost without exception, the center of all life, economic, social, and educational........
> Woman's place in this early family home was indisputably at the very center, an equal partner with her husband in the manifold duties, responsibilities, joys, hopes, and fears of the entire household...........
> Her reward....was the fact that she was needed, loved, held in the highest esteem by her husband and her whole family......As a woman she responded to the needs of her family and had no single occasion to question her worth or her abilities.
> If she died or became sick it was a disaster to the whole family....
> Very slowly, too, but everywhere, women woke as if from a centuries old dream of peace and happiness to find themselves dispossessed. Gone was their central place in the family home, gone their economic importance, gone their close working partnership with their mate, their functions of teacher and moral guide to the children. The child himself was gone to school, as the husband had gone to the mill or factory.
> (gone everything that had defined her worth, womanhood, and supported her ego.)
> She reacted violently and with rage at this depreciation of her feminine attributes, of her skills, of her functions. Unhappily this reaction was precisely the wrong one......
> Here's what she did. Looking about, she thought she spied the villain in the piece ( Actually was told). Who was it? None other than her partner through the centuries, man. It was he who had deserted her, who was responsible for her loss of self-respect as a woman, a mother, an equal socially and mentally and morally. He despised woman. Very well, she would show him. She would simply stop being a woman. She would ent the lists and compete with him on his own level. To hell with being a woman. She would be a man.
> Don't believe me?.......Lets take a look at facts. in 1792.............


I have a unique perspective as I have seen my grandparents almost always working side by side. Big thicket legacy: many worked side by side with their husbands. They were happier doing so they said in old age. They didn't like how modern couples were so distant. They taught their own children. 
Women were the center of all once upon a time. 
Now men watch sports, go golf while the woman stays behind. Where can one find companionship? how can one be husband and wife? when almost everything is done separately?

This is why I say if men want empathy perhaps it is better to show some. 
The way to show anyone empathy is to understand and change the interaction. If a woman needs to feel more important the best empathy is to make all things inclusive for her. 
And vice versa.

Just some light theorizing. Bites to chew on.


----------



## Faithful Wife

red oak said:


> May I say that one possible reason women don't have empathy for men is men don't have empathy for women?
> 
> 99% of Women don't know what has been done to them. 99% of men are just complaining of the repercussions of what have been done to women and not looking at the true reasoning. However men are handicapped from doing anything because of the courts and women actually seeing it as an attack.
> 
> However the real attack came; to quote a book:
> 
> I have a unique perspective as I have seen my grandparents almost always working side by side. Big thicket legacy: many worked side by side with their husbands. They were happier doing so they said in old age. They didn't like how modern couples were so distant. They taught their own children.
> Women were the center of all once upon a time.
> Now men watch sports, go golf while the woman stays behind. Where can one find companionship? how can one be husband and wife? when almost everything is done separately?
> 
> This is why I say if men want empathy perhaps it is better to show some.
> The way to show anyone empathy is to understand and change the interaction. If a woman needs to feel more important the best empathy is to make all things inclusive for her.
> And vice versa.
> 
> Just some light theorizing. Bites to chew on.


I personally do think that men lack empathy for women (at least on certain issues) and I have always assumed that is because men in general have less empathy than women in general (based on data). However, that data was derived concerning general empathy, not empathy for your spouse specifically. So I’m not sure what would happen if they took some more data (if it could be collected honestly) about men and women’s empathy for their partner.

The rest of the stuff you are saying is poetic and fascinating, but you can’t just point to one certain group of our ancestors and use their history to determine what all of humanity feels about women, or about how we have “evolved” as men in women in our day and age. 

But I like your posts and your energy. Thank you for contributing and please continue.


----------



## personofinterest

I always expected to work full time, so I never thought I'd be "taken care of." But I wanted a traditional marriage like what I saw with my parents. A partnership that was romantic, a hardworking husband, a great sex life, a man who shouldered the heavy decision-making (hopefully that wont start anything).

I was dumb. I should have known before we married about several things. He dragged his feet looking for a full time job - he'd worked part time since he was in grad school. He didnt find one until my summer teaching checks were about to end. He didnt really "do" decisions. He didnt care about sex. He pulled away when his full time job was, well, full time
Thst stress trumped everything, even his pregnant wife. 

I shouldered more and more. He got a different job.....got fired.....went through all his severance and the profit from the sale of our house. I worked some, but as a teacher, the school year was already underway. He played computer games and took it upon HIMSELF to find my birthparents....regardless of my discomfort and concerns.

He got another job.....lost it. Decided to change careers,,,spent 8 YEARS in grad school working as a GTA.....got another job, was lazy again.....lost it.....All the while everything is on me. Months and then years with no intimacy. Emotional manipulation every time I was about to leave him.

That's about 40% of the story. I left out power getting cut off, my parents giving us upwards of 30K in help, bill payments, a CAR.

So.....lots of triggers.


----------



## Faithful Wife

@personofinterest Yikes! Just reading that makes me want to hide under my bed.


----------



## anonmd

Faithful Wife said:


> @personofinterest Yikes! Just reading that makes me want to hide under my bed.


Kinda sounds like, you know, being the man :wink2: That must have felt terrible, I feel great empathy for POI . Hubby, not so much.


----------



## Rubix Cubed

@personofinterest

Is the above post about your current husband or an Ex?


----------



## Faithful Wife

anonmd said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> @personofinterest Yikes! Just reading that makes me want to hide under my bed.
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda sounds like, you know, being the man <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/TAMarriage_2015/smilies/tango_face_wink.png" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" ></a> That must have felt terrible, I feel great empathy for POI <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" ></a>. Hubby, not so much.
Click to expand...

Well but, do you mean being the man, if his woman is out destroying their credit and spending all of the money and going into debt?

Because a lot of men have excellent wives who either do or don’t contribute income to the household and who do keep up all the right investments, retirement accounts, bill paying, budgeting, etc. 

I do hear about quite a few awesome wives by the men at TAM who are like this. Also horrible ones who jacked all the family money out the window. 

Just figure that a man with a great financial partner must not worry as much about things like that. Yeah?


----------



## personofinterest

Rubix Cubed said:


> @personofinterest
> 
> Is the above post about your current husband or an Ex?


My ex husband.

My current husband.....I still pinch myself sometimes. He is wonderful. More wonderful than I deserve, really.


----------



## anonmd

Faithful Wife said:


> Well but, do you mean being the man, if his woman is out destroying their credit and spending all of the money and going into debt?
> 
> Because a lot of men have excellent wives who either do or don’t contribute income to the household and who do keep up all the right investments, retirement accounts, bill paying, budgeting, etc.
> 
> I do hear about quite a few awesome wives by the men at TAM who are like this. Also horrible ones who jacked all the family money out the window.
> 
> Just figure that a man with a great financial partner must not worry as much about things like that. Yeah?


See, I didn't hear/pickup anything about destroying credit or going in to debt, although the 30k from parents stuck out. Piss poor work ethic, failure to hold a FT job, no sex drive. Letting her pick up all that, what a puss. See, not every guy is gonna be smart enough or 'lucky' enough (insert your general political outlook here) to earn 6 figures. But if you can't hold down a full time job at SOME wage level pretty much defines failure as a man.


----------



## anonmd

Faithful Wife said:


> Well but, do you mean being the man, if his woman is out destroying their credit and spending all of the money and going into debt?
> 
> Because a lot of men have excellent wives who either do or don’t contribute income to the household and who do keep up all the right investments, retirement accounts, bill paying, budgeting, etc.
> 
> I do hear about quite a few awesome wives by the men at TAM who are like this. Also horrible ones who jacked all the family money out the window.
> *
> Just figure that a man with a great financial partner must not worry as much about things like that. Yeah*?


100%, agreed. I think I sometimes joke I'd be happy to lounge if my wife suddenly started dragging in big bucks. But i don't know, not totally ok with some of the younger guys stayin home with the kids. Sounds emasculating to me..

For the record, she has always worked, brings in a solid salary, say 40/60 her/me.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Hmmm ....I am a little surprised at the mocking tone about good men protecting us from bad men. Aside from the fact that it seems no one can protect anyone from bad women, I can easily see in my life every day that good men are protecting me from bad men. I literally have no choice as a woman than to depend on the protection of good men. If good women could protect me in all cases, then it wouldn’t be necessary to say specifically that I need to depend on good men to protect me. I am strong and am a fighter, and I feel as prepared as I could be physically if I were attacked. But I know on all levels that I am toast against anyone slightly bigger or stronger than myself. I don’t live in fear of this happening exactly because I feel protected by good men.
> 
> I don’t fear any woman physically. But if a woman was intent on killing or harming me, I’d be appreciative for any help I could get. Most likely that’s going to come from a man though (because another woman may not be able to overcome my attacker either, depending on the situation).
> 
> I do totally swoon over the good men of the world, because they are Good. That’s most of them (again talking about violent crimes). I feel safe almost every moment of my life because of the Good men.
> 
> If we lived in a society or parallel universe where women were physically bigger and stronger, then I would depend on women for protection and/or become an official protector myself.
> 
> Women do protect me every day also, and I need them too. They sometimes can protect me in emotional ways or by giving me support at a time that averts some crisis. They are also police, military, Good Samaritans, super heroes, and every other positive protective type of thing a person can be. But I still acknowledge that without Good men as the majority of my protection, I would not feel safe.
> 
> It’s a privilege to feel safe, and I appreciate it.


That is very good to hear.

Unfortunately, this is not a consensus belief of women in today's Western society. They are being told constantly that men are horrible and evil, and a lot of them seem to buy it, thus the mocking you note.

What I would like to say to women who think they are being oppressed in the US (or elsewhere in Western society) is "Go and live in a different society, e.g., in the middle East or Africa, for a few months, then come back and tell us whether you have been oppressed here. If you come back at all...".

Of course I don't say this because it is politically incorrect, but that's how I feel about it.


----------



## tech-novelist

happyhusband0005 said:


> I have a question for the men watching this thread. And sorry if this is a stupid question. Am I the only guy who has never thought I wish women had more empathy for men? There's a good chance I am somewhat broken.


I do wish women had more empathy for men, so I can't help you out there.
But it's not a stupid question at all. In fact, to me one of the points of this thread is that there aren't any stupid questions, so long as a question is asked with a sincere desire to learn.


----------



## tech-novelist

ConanHub said:


> I have the same response to men in that situation. Barring physical or emotional injuries, I'm very severe towards unemployed men with families.
> 
> I actually have never viewed my attitude as bad however.
> 
> There has to be a point where men crack the whip on themselves and do what it takes to provide for their families.
> 
> I'm considering that I might need to alter my view a little but where to draw the line between empathy and condoning pathetic behavior could be confusing for me.
> 
> I'm not even convinced my attitude needs to change honestly.
> 
> Aside from FW opening my eyes towards my own bias, I feel like an alien 👽 peeping Tom, observing inexplicable behaviors.
> 
> Don't mind the green guy with antennas in the corner, I mean you no harm.:smile2:


I'm also contemptuous of men with dependents who don't do everything in their power to provide for those dependents.

But if they really are unable to make it happen, despite their absolute best efforts, I will cut them a break.

For me, moral opprobrium should be reserved for bad behavior that is intentional or neglectful.


----------



## ConanHub

Jesus! @personofinterest !


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Well but, do you mean being the man, if his woman is out destroying their credit and spending all of the money and going into debt?
> 
> Because a lot of men have excellent wives who either do or don’t contribute income to the household and who do keep up all the right investments, retirement accounts, bill paying, budgeting, etc.
> 
> I do hear about quite a few awesome wives by the men at TAM who are like this. Also horrible ones who jacked all the family money out the window.
> 
> Just figure that a man with a great financial partner must not worry as much about things like that. Yeah?


My wife is very good with money. She won't waste a penny, and it horrifies her to see others do so. That is indeed a help in managing our money in retirement.

She has basically been a stay-at-home-wife for almost our entire marriage. She would have liked to continue her previous work (she's an RN) but there just isn't anything appropriate around here in the East Texas sticks.

Now I think she considers herself too out-of-date to work. But I think if she went to one of the local hospitals looking for a job as a floor nurse, if they had an opening they would probably respond "Can you start today?"

Fortunately that isn't going to be necessary barring some utter disaster, because we are doing fine without either of us working for pay.


----------



## Rubix Cubed

personofinterest said:


> My ex husband.
> 
> My current husband.....I still pinch myself sometimes. He is wonderful. More wonderful than I deserve, really.


 I didn't think you'd put up with that.


----------



## Pac-Man

Faithful Wife said:


> I personally do think that men lack empathy for women (at least on certain issues) and I have always assumed that is because men in general have less empathy than women in general (based on data). However, that data was derived concerning general empathy, not empathy for your spouse specifically. So I’m not sure what would happen if they took some more data (if it could be collected honestly) about men and women’s empathy for their partner.


I don't know which data your are talking about, but I find plausible that women have a greater hability to percieve, differenciate and label signals of emotions.

There's still a step to go from empathy as a perception to empathize as an action.

As we have seen exemples, a distressed husband is likely to have more impact on a wife life than a distressed friend or neighbour. So she's left with less energy to empathize.

But for day-to-day milder cases, I think that there's something else going on. Whether it's conscious or not, a woman may spontaneously think that an emotional female friend need her to "listen and empathize", but an emotional grown-up man just need a good kick in the butt to be back on track. She may have internalized the stereotype that emotional support is not something that her husband need. The husband manage to go without it and reinforce the strereotype by doing everything he can to look like "a real men". He doen't insist on the fact that he would have prefered support. But he still perceive his wife as low on empathy and write about it anonymously on an internet forum... :grin2:


----------



## red oak

Faithful Wife said:


> I personally do think that men lack empathy for women (at least on certain issues) and I have always assumed that is because men in general have less empathy than women in general (based on data). However, that data was derived concerning general empathy, not empathy for your spouse specifically. So I’m not sure what would happen if they took some more data (if it could be collected honestly) about men and women’s empathy for their partner.
> 
> The rest of the stuff you are saying is poetic and fascinating, but you can’t just point to one certain group of our ancestors and use their history to determine what all of humanity feels about women, or about how we have “evolved” as men in women in our day and age.
> 
> But I like your posts and your energy. Thank you for contributing and please continue.


I want to share a thought.

How does one show true remorse for anything? They change their ways. A liar will stop lieing. A cheater stops cheating. A thief returns what he stole. Etc....

How can one show empathy? Actions. 
A man cant' show a woman empathy, nor a woman a man, unless they know the problem. Yes, sometimes a person just needs to have physical comfort. I think lots of people having issues with empathy is in being unable to take action to rectify the situation for the better for the other party. Who likes to feel helpless.

A caveat to all this is most people find it hard to even speak what they need. Or if they can they feel as though it's a wrongful need. 

We all have a need to be needed. 
Take my previous comment. Most women really don't know they would feel better if men were to be more inclusive with their wives in their lives.
(To be fair most men don't know what their wives can do to make them feel better, or if they do why.)

Such takes a man listening between the lines. Not what she says but how she says it. 

My take for modern living is an actual devolution. We evolved through millennial to be as we were, not as we currently are. 

How have we progressed from the sense of belonging and worth 100yrs ago to the myriad nagging sense of something missing now with, what they call, an epidemic of unhappiness?
The poetic was a synopsis. 

As I have stated about the RP's. They are complaining. Yes they have a valid issue, but they aren't seeing the forest for the large tree they have planted in front of them. 

If a woman tells her husband she doesn't like him being gone so much, she may often just have a nagging feeling she's not important. The man hears she wants to control my actions.
Actuality: She wants to be more involved in her husbands life. Take me with you more. I want to be with you. Let's do things together.

For those who feel a change towards a husband who shows weakness I am curious if it is because they feel helpless to comfort or don't know what to do, and such makes them feel "less than" for lack of better term. They actually shut down to themselves? Just a thought I had. Would take some serious soul searching on the part of a woman.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> That is very good to hear.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is not a consensus belief of women in today's Western society. They are being told constantly that men are horrible and evil, and a lot of them seem to buy it, thus the mocking you note.
> 
> What I would like to say to women who think they are being oppressed in the US (or elsewhere in Western society) is "Go and live in a different society, e.g., in the middle East or Africa, for a few months, then come back and tell us whether you have been oppressed here. If you come back at all...".
> 
> Of course I don't say this because it is politically incorrect, but that's how I feel about it.


I hear you are angry, and I admit I’m not sure why. I understand it intellectually but not logically. 

There are so many sweet church ladies in the world who worship their husbands and are vet wives and who do everything they can to support their men, service men, and the rest of our Good men.

And non church wives and all other wives and women...a huge portion of us are entirely into Good men. We express this in numerous ways, some of us do have (just the right amount of) empathy/sympathy/compassion. Some of us are excellent providers and add to your wealth, happily and purposefully. 

Some of us love men so much we talk all day on message boards to them and about them.

I guess my point is...can you (for now) take my word for this, and assume at least “some” amount of women love men and feel at least some part of my post that you quoted? And maybe we don’t have a lot of empathy for for you during certain triggers we have, but as many of you have said already, that’s ok if she is generally into you and loves you and thinks you’re sexy, right?

That’s a lot of women, and don’t forget, all those happy husbands don’t find their way to TAM.

I know the hearts of the women I’m around, the lovelies in my family, the many friends and acquaintances....many feel essentially the same as I do. Some expressed their love and respect for men in different ways, but it was clear.

It’s kind of like we are all pissed at each other for what we have inherited. But the people who we inherited this from were just doing their best also. They struggled and this whole thing became an issue....but there was never any ACTUAL crisis, and I don’t think there is one now. (ETA: what I mean by crisis is like, the end of mating, period. Like if men and women just said aw, screw it, and stopped having sex at all.)

I think we are all pissed that we didn’t just inherit a world where this **** was figured out a bit better.

I think every feminist I know would agree with my post about Good men. Some may have to make some extra qualifiers than I did, but they know in their hearts what privilege means. Female privilege is a thing, and men protecting us is a privilege. It’s very hard not to recognize this.

But men are all pissed off at us, no matter what we do or say or believe as individuals! Even though I feel I get that their hearts are literally soaked with us. They love us and do protect us even if they feel resentful about it. In their hearts, they are compelled to do it no matter what. 

I am hoping that I can soften you up about the angry part. Like, go ahead and be angry at ******* entitled idiots. Any gender. But can you take a breath and look at how many good women there are? Even if we are still not quite getting it all, some of us are Good. Enough of us to maybe trust that we can possibly help. I don’t know how but I know that most of this **** was all of our parents and prior ancestors faults and we didn’t start this fire! :grin2:


----------



## Faithful Wife

red oak said:


> I want to share a thought.
> 
> How does one show true remorse for anything? They change their ways. A liar will stop lieing. A cheater stops cheating. A thief returns what he stole. Etc....
> 
> How can one show empathy? Actions.
> A man cant' show a woman empathy, nor a woman a man, unless they know the problem. Yes, sometimes a person just needs to have physical comfort. I think lots of people having issues with empathy is in being unable to take action to rectify the situation for the better for the other party. Who likes to feel helpless.
> 
> A caveat to all this is most people find it hard to even speak what they need. Or if they can they feel as though it's a wrongful need.
> 
> We all have a need to be needed.
> Take my previous comment. Most women really don't know they would feel better if men were to be more inclusive with their wives in their lives.
> (To be fair most men don't know what their wives can do to make them feel better, or if they do why.)
> 
> Such takes a man listening between the lines. Not what she says but how she says it.
> 
> My take for modern living is an actual devolution. We evolved through millennial to be as we were, not as we currently are.
> 
> How have we progressed from the sense of belonging and worth 100yrs ago to the myriad nagging sense of something missing now with, what they call, an epidemic of unhappiness?
> The poetic was a synopsis.
> 
> As I have stated about the RP's. They are complaining. Yes they have a valid issue, but they aren't seeing the forest for the large tree they have planted in front of them.
> 
> If a woman tells her husband she doesn't like him being gone so much, she may often just have a nagging feeling she's not important. The man hears she wants to control my actions.
> Actuality: She wants to be more involved in her husbands life. Take me with you more. I want to be with you. Let's do things together.
> 
> For those who feel a change towards a husband who shows weakness I am curious if it is because they feel helpless to comfort or don't know what to do, and such makes them feel "less than" for lack of better term. They actually shut down to themselves? Just a thought I had. Would take some serious soul searching on the part of a woman.


Lots of what you say is like mysterious poetry to me. 

I like it.

I’m just going to keep reading you, because it’s fascinating what you are saying. I’m not on board with all of it but certainly the spirit and tone of your posts are.....very loving and empathetic to all.


----------



## red oak

In reference to the last part of my last post I will share an experience I had with empathy, and how it caused me to react. And why I wondered what I did about a wife feeling helpless and shutting down. I will try to get through this. Without cursing. Been over a year and still makes me want to vomit.
Only writing this to make a point not to talk about the event.

Went to see someone who had a bad stroke. She was able to open her mouth when told to eat and take medicine. Sit up best she could when told. Could use one hand to point. Couldn't speak.

Hospital adult, "liaison" came into the room to talk to the family and recommended she be terminated(for lack of better word). In the room with her in there ,The doctor came in said her brain activity showed good. Then said it would probably be best to follow the liaisons advice. 

This woman starts writhing on the bed. The mother ****ers told the family it was just nerves she couldn't control. I'm not stupid. Was only family through marriage. She did not need life support.

I will stop there. Can't write no more and should be enough to understand. 

I had to leave. LEAVE! Nothing I could do. And take the one I took there with me. Was about to go into a violent rage as to me what they did was so outside the realm of common decency as to be completely intolerant.
I had to leave because there was nothing I could do. I was literally helpless. I left not because I didn't care, but out of helplessness and rage. For my own sanity. I withdrew.

Empathy as an action would be to alleviate the distress. Being unable to do so, Being unable to offer solace or comfort we had to withdraw.

If someone doesn't' know how to give comfort, whether man or woman, how does one handle it? I wonder if many don't withdraw and from thence comes the lack of sex drive to unite with their spouse in a loving act? Cold shoulder, or slackening of emotional intimacy?


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I hear you are angry, and I admit I’m not sure why. I understand it intellectually but not logically.


Did you mean "intellectually but not emotionally", or something else? I can't parse "intellectually but not logically".



Faithful Wife said:


> There are so many sweet church ladies in the world who worship their husbands and are vet wives and who do everything they can to support their men, service men, and the rest of our Good men.
> 
> And non church wives and all other wives and women...a huge portion of us are entirely into Good men. We express this in numerous ways, some of us do have (just the right amount of) empathy/sympathy/compassion. Some of us are excellent providers and add to your wealth, happily and purposefully.
> 
> Some of us love men so much we talk all day on message boards to them and about them.
> 
> I guess my point is...can you (for now) take my word for this, and *assume at least “some” amount of women love men and feel at least some part of my post that you quoted*? And maybe we don’t have a lot of empathy for for you during certain triggers we have, but as many of you have said already, that’s ok if she is generally into you and loves you and thinks you’re sexy, right?


I don't have to assume that. I know it.

You're one of them. So is my wife, and I know there must be many more.

I was specifically referring to "women who think they are being oppressed in the US (or elsewhere in Western society)".



Faithful Wife said:


> That’s a lot of women, and don’t forget, all those happy husbands don’t find their way to TAM.
> 
> I know the hearts of the women I’m around, the lovelies in my family, the many friends and acquaintances....many feel essentially the same as I do. Some expressed their love and respect for men in different ways, but it was clear.
> 
> It’s kind of like we are all pissed at each other for what we have inherited. But the people who we inherited this from were just doing their best also. They struggled and this whole thing became an issue....but there was never any ACTUAL crisis, and I don’t think there is one now. (ETA: what I mean by crisis is like, the end of mating, period. Like if men and women just said aw, screw it, and stopped having sex at all.)
> 
> I think we are all pissed that we didn’t just inherit a world where this **** was figured out a bit better.
> 
> I think every feminist I know would agree with my post about Good men. Some may have to make some extra qualifiers than I did, but they know in their hearts what privilege means. Female privilege is a thing, and men protecting us is a privilege. It’s very hard not to recognize this.
> 
> *But men are all pissed off at us, no matter what we do or say or believe as individuals! *Even though I feel I get that their hearts are literally soaked with us. They love us and do protect us even if they feel resentful about it. In their hearts, they are compelled to do it no matter what.
> 
> I am hoping that I can soften you up about the angry part. Like, go ahead and be angry at ******* entitled idiots. Any gender. But can you take a breath and look at how many good women there are? Even if we are still not quite getting it all, some of us are Good. Enough of us to maybe trust that we can possibly help. I don’t know how but I know that most of this **** was all of our parents and prior ancestors faults and we didn’t start this fire! :grin2:


I'm not pissed off at women who actually behave kindly towards men and appreciate men. 

As I said above, I know there are a lot of good women. I don't know what proportion of the female population that is, but there must be many of them.

I'm pissed off at entitled princesses who take us for granted and step on us because we are safe and easy to attack in today's western society.

(See https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/09/06/dalrocks-law-of-feminism/)

Obviously you're not in that category, so my anger isn't toward you.


----------



## Pac-Man

personofinterest said:


> I always expected to work full time, so I never thought I'd be "taken care of." But I wanted a traditional marriage like what I saw with my parents. A partnership that was romantic, a hardworking husband, a great sex life, a man who shouldered the heavy decision-making (hopefully that wont start anything).
> 
> I was dumb. I should have known before we married about several things. He dragged his feet looking for a full time job - he'd worked part time since he was in grad school. He didnt find one until my summer teaching checks were about to end. He didnt really "do" decisions. He didnt care about sex. He pulled away when his full time job was, well, full time
> Thst stress trumped everything, even his pregnant wife.
> 
> I shouldered more and more. He got a different job.....got fired.....went through all his severance and the profit from the sale of our house. I worked some, but as a teacher, the school year was already underway. He played computer games and took it upon HIMSELF to find my birthparents....regardless of my discomfort and concerns.
> 
> He got another job.....lost it. Decided to change careers,,,spent 8 YEARS in grad school working as a GTA.....got another job, was lazy again.....lost it.....All the while everything is on me. Months and then years with no intimacy. Emotional manipulation every time I was about to leave him.
> 
> That's about 40% of the story. I left out power getting cut off, my parents giving us upwards of 30K in help, bill payments, a CAR.
> 
> So.....lots of triggers.


That must have been hard. I guess that all along you were in a constant re-tinking about the best way to deal with it. And that's draining. You've got my full empathy.


----------



## Pac-Man

Faithful Wife said:


> I personally do think that men lack empathy for women (at least on certain issues)


I am now curious. Can you name the issues you have in mind?


----------



## personofinterest

anonmd said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well but, do you mean being the man, if his woman is out destroying their credit and spending all of the money and going into debt?
> 
> Because a lot of men have excellent wives who either do or don’t contribute income to the household and who do keep up all the right investments, retirement accounts, bill paying, budgeting, etc.
> 
> I do hear about quite a few awesome wives by the men at TAM who are like this. Also horrible ones who jacked all the family money out the window.
> 
> Just figure that a man with a great financial partner must not worry as much about things like that. Yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> See, I didn't hear/pickup anything about destroying credit or going in to debt, although the 30k from parents stuck out. Piss poor work ethic, failure to hold a FT job, no sex drive. Letting her pick up all that, what a puss. See, not every guy is gonna be smart enough or 'lucky' enough (insert your general political outlook here) to earn 6 figures. But if you can't hold down a full time job at SOME wage level pretty much defines failure as a man.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure where that came from either. I didnt destroy any credit. I never even had a credit card. He did a number on our credit though when he took out about 100K in student loans I didnt know about...


----------



## Pac-Man

red oak said:


> I want to share a thought.
> 
> How can one show empathy? Actions.
> A man cant' show a woman empathy, nor a woman a man, unless they know the problem. Yes, sometimes a person just needs to have physical comfort. I think lots of people having issues with empathy is in being unable to take action to rectify the situation for the better for the other party. Who likes to feel helpless.
> 
> A caveat to all this is most people find it hard to even speak what they need. Or if they can they feel as though it's a wrongful need.



When a read those lines, I thought that we are very close to saying the same thing, but using different words.


----------



## PreRaph

Faithful Wife said:


> Hmmm, well there’s no need to fix what aint broke, yeah? But it’s worth thinking about for yourself.
> 
> I have a female friend who went to a counselor once for a similar reason. She is fairly un-empathetic in general, but also needs and requires no empathy from others. I know she was raised with a mostly low emotional mom and sister. None of them cried. All of them also don’t laugh as much as other people, but they do laugh. Definitely not people who were so cold that it seemed like there was anything terribly off about them. But I think at some point she realized she feels sort of “flat” all the time, and she wondered if she would be more normal if she had more emotions.
> 
> Her counselor basically told her if there is nothing going sideways in your life as a result of having less emotions than others, he didn’t think there was anything to be done, per se. She could not identify anything wrong in her life, so she decided she must be ok and stopping seeing the counselor.
> 
> I will say, that was about 10 years ago, and she has actually changed since then. Not a huge amount, but she totally has more emotional range, she seems to show empathy more (even if she is not feeling it, she’s being supportive by showing it), she laughs more, and she’s just a bit warmer. She is a friend who I never hug (her vibe dictates this) but in the past 2 or 3 years, I’ve gotten at least 5 hugs from her.
> 
> I really think that just by considering the issue, it made her slowly improve it to a level that is clearly working well for her. She’s the same person, just a little but sunnier, funnier, and warmer.


I just have a few random thoughts which may or may not add up to much. Like many here I can't stand generalizations but I feel I have to state a few, at least to start.

Regardless of our sexual orientation, there's always going to be an erotic bond between men and women. I have lesbian friends. At times I'm pretty sure there's been some attraction and sympathy between us. When strong desires are in play that reach down to your sexual core, there's bound to be misunderstanding, disagreement and strife. Often enough, we want our way and we want the wo/man we love to accept and submit to our way, yet at the same time, we want them to love us freely without us demanding it of them. To me, there's no resolution to this, and yet somehow it's possible to find harmony. And good love, to me, is not trying to eradicate the deep-down difference between the sexes while at the same time cultivating the good things that bring two lovers together.

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" is one of the most pathetic things that some chick with a t-shirt has paraded around with, and those oh-so-liberated women deserve not to have single man even acknowledge their existence. Why is the imperative of so much feminism to be independent from men? What the hell does that even mean, being independent from men? Substitute "man" for "woman"? My entire life rebels against such stupidity and insensitivity. I was raised by women, women loved me, cared for me, I loved women all my life. Of course I am dependent on women. I love them. The will always be part of my life. That's why I can't ever be a part of MGTOW. I understand why there are men who are attracted to MGTOW (INCEL is far worse), I just think that it won't solve the problem. As you wrote very, very well FW, it's men that help protect women against other men who want to do violence to her. Women need to rely on men and if men no longer felt the obligation to protect women, it would be terrible

I do not ask a woman to feel as I do. I ask her to understand _that_ I am hurt, or down, or overburdened, or anxious, or tired, and that it happens, and that it wouldn't be right of her to simply see me in terms of what her expectations of me as a man are. The gesture of understanding is enough. 

I have noticed among quite a few women, even in my wife, times of little to no sympathy, and it is usually because they think _they_ deserve more sympathy, and whatever is hurting me is of lesser importance than what is hurting her, or them. All too many women have no intention of giving up on this very traditional difference between the sexes: men must be strong, women deserve to be cared for and protected. 

But adopting the traditional role reserved for men is something that too many men no longer identify with. There is no value in being a man. That's an overstatement, but when it creeps into the mind of many men, it takes on a reality of its own.

I'm not going to bash #MeToo, although I have nothing good to say about what this so-called "Third Wave Feminism" represents, or seems to, but the male-as-sexual-predator (the evil) from who all women (the good) must be protected by the Law is very destructive. As a university faculty member, I am disgusted by the way that higher education has become a day-care center, where faculty governance keeps dwindling in favor of bloated administrations that interfere with the teacher-student relationship in the name of protecting those innocent female students from the big bad professors who are going to take advantage of them with any opportunity they can. And it's often times Mommy and Daddy that demand this. None of them have any respect for the professor or for higher education. Fact is, the balance of power has shifted so much in favor of students backed by administrations, especially female students, that the faculty now live in fear. All it takes is for a student to make a complaint and your job is on the line, and you may lose it. And even if you don't you will be under suspicion from now on. If I dare utter even one wrong word in the classroom, I could be in real trouble, which forces me to act like a castrated male, which many of us greatly, and I mean _greatly_ resent.

I do not know what lies in store for relations between men and women, but when it comes to love, I'm certain they will find ways.


----------



## tech-novelist

PreRaph said:


> I'm not going to bash #MeToo, although I have nothing good to say about what this so-called "Third Wave Feminism" represents, or seems to, but the male-as-sexual-predator (the evil) from who all women (the good) must be protected by the Law is very destructive. As a university faculty member, I am disgusted by the way that higher education has become a day-care center, where faculty governance keeps dwindling in favor of bloated administrations that interfere with the teacher-student relationship in the name of protecting those innocent female students from the big bad professors who are going to take advantage of them with any opportunity they can. And it's often times Mommy and Daddy that demand this. None of them have any respect for the professor or for higher education. Fact is, the balance of power has shifted so much in favor of students backed by administrations, especially female students, that the faculty now live in fear. All it takes is for a student to make a complaint and your job is on the line, and you may lose it. And even if you don't you will be under suspicion from now on. If I dare utter even one wrong word in the classroom, I could be in real trouble, which forces me to act like a castrated male, which many of us greatly, and I mean _greatly_ resent.


I think we must be nearing peak insanity in this ginned-up war between the sexes. In the case of "higher education", at some point no one will want to go to college unless they are going into a field where a specific level of credential is legally required (e.g., medicine or the law).

I know if I had children I would not pay for them to go to college, nor even recommend that they do so, except in those circumstances.

And I say that as the first in my family history to graduate from college.


----------



## personofinterest

Oops, weird glitch


----------



## personofinterest

tech-novelist said:


> PreRaph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to bash #MeToo, although I have nothing good to say about what this so-called "Third Wave Feminism" represents, or seems to, but the male-as-sexual-predator (the evil) from who all women (the good) must be protected by the Law is very destructive. As a university faculty member, I am disgusted by the way that higher education has become a day-care center, where faculty governance keeps dwindling in favor of bloated administrations that interfere with the teacher-student relationship in the name of protecting those innocent female students from the big bad professors who are going to take advantage of them with any opportunity they can. And it's often times Mommy and Daddy that demand this. None of them have any respect for the professor or for higher education. Fact is, the balance of power has shifted so much in favor of students backed by administrations, especially female students, that the faculty now live in fear. All it takes is for a student to make a complaint and your job is on the line, and you may lose it. And even if you don't you will be under suspicion from now on. If I dare utter even one wrong word in the classroom, I could be in real trouble, which forces me to act like a castrated male, which many of us greatly, and I mean _greatly_ resent.
Click to expand...

I agree x1000


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure where that came from either. I didnt destroy any credit. I never even had a credit card. He did a number on our credit though when he took out about 100K in student loans I didnt know about...


Ok my point was misunderstood.

Your story about your ex, he was a horrible financial partner (among other things) and you had to carry the burden and all the stress.

And someone else said that’s what it’s like for men. Implying that they are usually the ones who carry the burden.

My response was, but if a man has a good financial partner for a wife, then he wouldn’t have the kind of burden POI had with her ex h.

So although most men may carry more of the burden and I do get that, some men do not have a crappy financial partner (like your ex h was). And so those men do not go through what you did with your ex and his debts, etc.

I don’t think all men have to carry a wife who is as crappy as a financial partner as your ex h was. Some men do, yes, but it’s not the average experience for men to have to carry the same weight you did. Though I feel sorry for the ones who do.


----------



## personofinterest

"I don’t think all men have to carry a wife who is as crappy as a financial partner as your ex h was. Some men do, yes, but it’s not the average experience for men to have to carry the same weight you did. Though I feel sorry for the ones who do."

I agree with this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> Did you mean "intellectually but not emotionally", or something else? I can't parse "intellectually but not logically".
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to assume that. I know it.
> 
> You're one of them. So is my wife, and I know there must be many more.
> 
> I was specifically referring to "women who think they are being oppressed in the US (or elsewhere in Western society)".
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pissed off at women who actually behave kindly towards men and appreciate men.
> 
> As I said above, I know there are a lot of good women. I don't know what proportion of the female population that is, but there must be many of them.
> 
> I'm pissed off at entitled princesses who take us for granted and step on us because we are safe and easy to attack in today's western society.
> 
> (See https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/09/06/dalrocks-law-of-feminism/)
> 
> Obviously you're not in that category, so my anger isn't toward you.


What I meant by intellectually but not logically, was that I can understand that you do feel this way because you are telling me that you are and you present your reasons, but I don’t see the logic in it because I don’t come to the same conclusions that you do about why things are the way they are.

For example and just making up numbers, if the percentage of entitled princesses in the US is 30%, to me it isn’t logical that you do seem to be angry at women in general. I know you say that you aren’t angry at Good women, but it does sound like you are angry at “most women”.

So I assume that is similar to how I am saying that I and other feminists I know feel mostly the way I do, but to men it sounds like most women are angry at most men, even though we aren’t.

I guess I’m not seeing the point of any of us remaining angry, because that won’t help or change anything. 

I know you aren’t necessarily trying to change anything. But if you could, if you thought maybe you could cause fewer women to act like entitled princesses, would you try, or just stay angry at them and not try? And the same question to angry feminists.


----------



## anonmd

personofinterest said:


> "I don’t think all men have to carry a wife who is as crappy as a financial partner as your ex h was. Some men do, yes, but it’s not the average experience for men to have to carry the same weight you did. Though I feel sorry for the ones who do."
> 
> I agree with this.


And i understood the point, once you (FW) pointed it out again. I didn't pick up on it the first time through cause the root cause of the problem was the underemployed general failure at manhood on his part. Did not intend any inference of women's handling of money or finances in any way. Some are very responsible, some not. Hell, the average American family is broke and has near zero saved for retirement. That is co-created by a team.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> What I meant by intellectually but not logically, was that I can understand that you do feel this way because you are telling me that you are and you present your reasons, but I don’t see the logic in it because I don’t come to the same conclusions that you do about why things are the way they are.
> 
> For example and just making up numbers, if the percentage of entitled princesses in the US is 30%, to me it isn’t logical that you do seem to be angry at women in general. I know you say that you aren’t angry at Good women, but it does sound like you are angry at “most women”.
> 
> So I assume that is similar to how I am saying that I and other feminists I know feel mostly the way I do, but to men it sounds like most women are angry at most men, even though we aren’t.
> 
> I guess I’m not seeing the point of any of us remaining angry, because that won’t help or change anything.
> 
> I know you aren’t necessarily trying to change anything. But if you could, if you thought maybe you could cause fewer women to act like entitled princesses, would you try, or just stay angry at them and not try? And the same question to angry feminists.


I'm not angry at most women. I'm angry at a system that enables bad women.

Before I explain what I mean, let me say that this isn't a serious problem to me personally. I'm happily married and expect to stay that way until death does us part.

However, I'm very concerned about the state of society and the place of men therein.

So let me put this in the first person even though it doesn't afflict me personally.

As a man, no matter how careful I am, there is *no way* that I can be sure that a woman who seems to be good, or even *is *good right now, will remain good. And if she does become (or turns out to be) bad, regardless of how careful I am in choosing her, I'm in a world of hurt.

Here's the best analogy I can come up with (using "the US" to mean any current-day Western society):

Every woman in the US has an invisible bomb strapped to her.
She can't remove it or disarm it.
She can set it off whenever she wants to, so long as there is a man in her life.
If she sets it off, that man's life is very likely to be ruined, whereas she is not only unharmed but will probably be enriched at his expense, especially if they have children together (see Real World Divorce: Custody, Child Support, and Alimony in the 50 States).
The more successful or wealthy the man, the greater the danger to him both in the likelihood that she will set it off and the cost if she does.

Of course this is also a terrible situation for women like you who actually have no intention of harming men and would never do so, but you are a secondary victim. Men are the primary victims.

Now can you understand why it is reasonable for men in the US to be terrified of getting involved with women in any way?


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> I'm not angry at most women. I'm angry at a system that enables bad women.
> 
> Before I explain what I mean, let me say that this isn't a serious problem to me personally. I'm happily married and expect to stay that way until death does us part.
> 
> However, I'm very concerned about the state of society and the place of men therein.
> 
> So let me put this in the first person even though it doesn't afflict me personally.
> 
> As a man, no matter how careful I am, there is *no way* that I can be sure that a woman who seems to be good, or even *is *good right now, will remain good. And if she does become (or turns out to be) bad, regardless of how careful I am in choosing her, I'm in a world of hurt.
> 
> Here's the best analogy I can come up with (using "the US" to mean any current-day Western society):
> 
> Every woman in the US has an invisible bomb strapped to her.
> She can't remove it or disarm it.
> She can set it off whenever she wants to, so long as there is a man in her life.
> If she sets it off, that man's life is very likely to be ruined, whereas she is not only unharmed but will probably be enriched at his expense, especially if they have children together (see Real World Divorce: Custody, Child Support, and Alimony in the 50 States).
> The more successful or wealthy the man, the greater the danger to him both in the likelihood that she will set it off and the cost if she does.
> 
> Of course this is also a terrible situation for women like you who actually have no intention of harming men and would never do so, but you are a secondary victim. Men are the primary victims.
> 
> Now can you understand why it is reasonable for men in the US to be terrified of getting involved with women in any way?


No tech.... really I can’t see it from your side, even with your link. Because I could provide links to all kinds of horrors that women face at the hands of men as well.

Even though it may be true that things are not balanced and not completely fair to either gender, I don’t see a way out if we just stay angry about the people who are *******s.

Also, although I do fear what life is like or going to be like for women who partner with horrible men, I don’t spend time worrying about them as a group and angry at the ******* men who they will end up with.

I assume that you don’t have any respect for men who really are horrible *******s, beat their wives and kids, live on computer games, cheat, gamble the kids college fund....those kinds of things right? And that even though we can’t make an accurate guess on “how many” men are like this, whatever the percentage is, you don’t seem to be angry at these men as a group. You only seem to be angry at the equivalent group of entitled princess *******s. 

In no way am I diminishing what you are saying about how a man can and does get screwed in our society. I just don’t see how holding on to anger at nameless groups helps anything. It does not change things for the better for the men you empathize with. It just keeps anger flowing around the world with no outlet.

I know that it is felt that feminists and women in general are doing the same thing. I’m trying to do my part to change this, for myself at least and maybe it can help a bit further than that. I want to actually communicate about the things that are making men and women so angry, but we can’t do that until we drop at least some of the anger first. Because we can’t actually hear what the other is saying through our anger. 

So...I’m not asking you to not be angry anymore. But maybe just to acknowledge that yes, you feel angry and you’ve felt that way for a long time and it’s justufied. But remaining angry just makes us stuck in a place where there can be no movement. 

We need your brilliant mind and others to help ease past some of these really prickly issues, to get to a point that we can even talk about it.

Omg, it’s like a peace summit!!!! That’s what I am suggesting, asking for, and trying to take the first steps myself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Question to anyone reading...does anyone here have experience with HS or college debate teams? I was wondering about maybe setting up some man/woman topics as a debate, with moderators or judges or however it works. If those who participate follow the debate rules, seems like it could be kind of fun and interesting. People could vote on a who the panel of judges would be (as I understand it, the “winner” is chosen on how they presented their debate, not whether the judges agree with their position or not, right?)


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> No tech.... really I can’t see it from your side, even with your link. Because I could provide links to all kinds of horrors that women face at the hands of men as well.
> 
> Even though it may be true that things are not balanced and not completely fair to either gender, I don’t see a way out if we just stay angry about the people who are *******s.
> 
> Also, although I do fear what life is like or going to be like for women who partner with horrible men, I don’t spend time worrying about them as a group and angry at the ******* men who they will end up with.
> 
> I assume that you don’t have any respect for men who really are horrible *******s, beat their wives and kids, live on computer games, cheat, gamble the kids college fund....those kinds of things right? And that even though we can’t make an accurate guess on “how many” men are like this, whatever the percentage is, you don’t seem to be angry at these men as a group. You only seem to be angry at the equivalent group of entitled princess *******s.


The difference is that horrible men, of whom there certainly are plenty, are not able to call the police and have their wives or girlfriends taken off in handcuffs just on their say-so, and are not rewarded financially for evicting them from their house and alienating them from their children (where applicable).

Horrible women can do those things (and more) while being applauded for being victims.

Get rid of the legal and social pressures in favor of horrible women and against good men, and I'll change my opinion of the balance of justice in the US.



Faithful Wife said:


> In no way am I diminishing what you are saying about how a man can and does get screwed in our society. I just don’t see how holding on to anger at nameless groups helps anything. It does not change things for the better for the men you empathize with. It just keeps anger flowing around the world with no outlet.
> 
> I know that it is felt that feminists and women in general are doing the same thing. I’m trying to do my part to change this, for myself at least and maybe it can help a bit further than that. I want to actually communicate about the things that are making men and women so angry, but we can’t do that until we drop at least some of the anger first. Because we can’t actually hear what the other is saying through our anger.
> 
> So...I’m not asking you to not be angry anymore. But maybe just to acknowledge that yes, you feel angry and you’ve felt that way for a long time and it’s justufied. But remaining angry just makes us stuck in a place where there can be no movement.
> 
> We need your brilliant mind and others to help ease past some of these really prickly issues, to get to a point that we can even talk about it.
> 
> Omg, it’s like a peace summit!!!! That’s what I am suggesting, asking for, and trying to take the first steps myself.


And I applaud your efforts. If every woman was like you, these problems would be negligible in extent.


----------



## anonmd

Faithful Wife said:


> What I meant by intellectually but not logically, was that I can understand that you do feel this way because you are telling me that you are and you present your reasons, but I don’t see the logic in it because I don’t come to the same conclusions that you do about why things are the way they are.
> 
> For example and just making up numbers, if the percentage of entitled princesses in the US is 30%, to me it isn’t logical that you do seem to be angry at women in general. I know you say that you aren’t angry at Good women, but it does sound like you are angry at “most women”.
> 
> So I assume that is similar to how I am saying that I and other feminists I know feel mostly the way I do, but to men it sounds like most women are angry at most men, even though we aren’t.
> 
> I guess I’m not seeing the point of any of us remaining angry, because that won’t help or change anything.
> 
> I know you aren’t necessarily trying to change anything. But if you could, if you thought maybe you could cause fewer women to act like entitled princesses, would you try, or just stay angry at them and not try? And the same question to angry feminists.


It's pretty simple, something along the lines of: I recognize as a progressive that a lot of what I would like to see happen in the world is not achievable unless we go back and fix what our opponents are justifiably upset about first, most of which involves an impact on US.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> The difference is that horrible men, of whom there certainly are plenty, are not able to call the police and have their wives or girlfriends taken off in handcuffs just on their say-so, and are not rewarded financially for evicting them from their house and alienating them from their children (where applicable).
> 
> Horrible women can do those things (and more) while being applauded for being victims.
> 
> Get rid of the legal and social pressures in favor of horrible women and against good men, and I'll change my opinion of the balance of justice in the US.
> 
> And I applaud your efforts. If every woman was like you, these problems would be negligible in extent.


I have empathy for anyone who has been victimized. Men or women. I see the unfairness in the justice system, and I also feel there is a way we can actually work towards changing that. 

It has to start with a lot of people talking about some proposed solutions instead of just being mad about the way things are.

I can feel empathy for a woman who really was raped or who really was beaten by a man, while still feeling empathy for a man who was the victim of the numerous horrific things that women can do to him and that the courts and police won’t help him.

It does sound like you don’t have empathy for actual women victims of actual Bad men. You seem to be saying that because police and courts may convict their abuser, that the abuse itself doesn’t deserve your empathy.

That doesn’t make sense to me, but it is how I’m interpreting what you are saying.

I do have empathy for men who are victims AND the double whammy that they will not get the same justice.

But what is an individual woman who really has been abused or raped or assualted supposed to do about that? Is she supposed to not report the crime since it would be unfair to the men who are victims of assault by women who will not get the same justice? 

I don’t see why any anger about actual victims makes sense, but I’m trying to.

I’m not asking you to join my efforts directly....but you already have indirectly and it’s too late, I’m not letting you out now. 

Because I think even the conversation we are having, as understood by others, is probably helpful in its way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

anonmd said:


> It's pretty simple, something along the lines of: I recognize as a progressive that a lot of what I would like to see happen in the world is not achievable unless we go back and fix what our opponents are justifiably upset about first, most of which involves an impact on US.


I get that but....it isn’t logical to me because that’s what men are supposedly so mad at feminists about. That women are already equals (or have even more rights than men) but that fems keep wanting to change even more things, which you may or may not agree they are justifyably upset about, but which will continue to have a (what men feel is a) negative impact on the US.

I do understand why the men’s rights movement came to exist. I think it also deserves a lot of credit for exposing what are unfair issues men face.

And like feminism, MRA is going to have opposition from many people just because of the polarized way we are all already communicating.

I think there needs to be a new platform, a new paradigm, a new conversation. One where we aren’t coming from always the victim side of our arguments, and one where we recognize the victimized of the other group.

Something that is actually discussing the real problems, not the “side” of feminism or MRA (or insert other ideology)....

Just as a tiny baby step....women being enlightened to the errors in the justice system is a good start. It has been opened for discussion by MRA putting the issue into enough spotlight that people are finally asking “wow, really? Am I not going to be treated the same by the police, even if she beat on me?” 

But the way to get more women to understand this issue will be by presenting it with empathy for the men who deserve the empathy, not by pointing out what an entitled ***** you females are since you can call the police and have any man arrested.

The same way that men feel most feminist framed articles and literature seem to always be saying “help us you men, even though you are the problem and a potential rapist, my entitled ass demands you protect me from YOU.”

I do understand now (not fully but enough) how men are hearing that tone in feminist literature. Even though I don’t hear it that way, I get it now why men do.

I do hear the same tone in men’s words and writing. Basically “we ain’t got time to hear about more whiny things you want since you already rule the world you horrible *****es”. I know that’s not what you’re saying but the tone is what they are hearing.

Neither side is presenting an argument that the other can hear.

I think there is a way to start the conversation over. We are all dealing with what our parents and previous generations left to us. We all took up our sides and tried to make changes, but we were already pissed at each other the moment we were born. Because it seeped into us, what our parents and the world around us was doing. And we all went along like soldiers in a line into our slots in the world.

I don’t think we need to be angry anymore. It’s kind of like being angry at the wind. But when do people sit around and look up articles about what an ******* the wind is, and how unfair it is, and how it has victimized so many people unfairly and and and and ....

I think we know enough about our history to accept that the wind is what it is, and move forward instead of just re-examining how we got here. We weren’t even born yet, “we” didn’t get here, we were dropped into it and now have to live in it. But we don’t have to accept that fate. We can change things just like our ancestors did.

We live in a different world than they did. They changed things over time and we will have to do it over time, too.

Most men and women want to love each other and be at peace. That’s the energy that makes me feel that we can actually make things better for everyone. Once we drop our swords, or better yet, we all take fencing lessons and make it a fair fight!!


----------



## personofinterest

I'll confess, my empathy goes to a bit of the eyeroll when a start hearing the "bad women are more dangerous than bad men" routine.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> I agree x1000


I thought #metoo was called out as NOT appropriate for this thread? What did I miss?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Question to anyone reading...does anyone here have experience with HS or college debate teams? I was wondering about maybe setting up some man/woman topics as a debate, with moderators or judges or however it works. If those who participate follow the debate rules, seems like it could be kind of fun and interesting. People could vote on a who the panel of judges would be (as I understand it, the “winner” is chosen on how they presented their debate, not whether the judges agree with their position or not, right?)


I paid for a good chunk of my bachelor's degree via a debate scholarship and have often served as a volunteer judge at the HS and collegiate levels.

I would have to put some thought into how such a structure could be adapted to an internet forum.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I paid for a good chunk of my bachelor's degree via a debate scholarship and have often served as a volunteer judge at the HS and collegiate levels.
> 
> I would have to put some thought into how such a structure could be adapted to an internet forum.


Yes!!! We would need your expertise and help with the structure of it. And how to judge the “winner”, a panel of judges we vote on?

I would say that we could let an open TAM vote decide the winner, but that won’t work because they wouldn’t be committing to voting for the best debater. They would vote for what side of the issue they believe. That’s why I figured it had to be a small panel of judges who understand the rules very well (the need for impartial treatment of the topic and focus on the debates presented for their strength alone).


----------



## Laurentium

red oak said:


> If a woman tells her husband she doesn't like him being gone so much, she may often just have a nagging feeling she's not important. The man hears she wants to control my actions.
> Actuality: She wants to be more involved in her husbands life. Take me with you more. I want to be with you. Let's do things together.


Yes, and that little misunderstanding is actually fairly gender-neutral. Could actually apply with the genders reversed, or between 2 gay guys or whatever.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I nominate the following for TAM team debate judges:

@uhtred

@FeministInPink

@Affaircare and @Emerging Buddhist

@john117

@Ursula

These are people who may hold opinions about the typical male/female topics around here, but they are classy and don’t get in the mud with us. :grin2:


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes!!! We would need your expertise and help with the structure of it. And how to judge the “winner”, a panel of judges we vote on?
> 
> I would say that we could let an open TAM vote decide the winner, but that won’t work because they wouldn’t be committing to voting for the best debater. They would vote for what side of the issue they believe. That’s why I figured it had to be a small panel of judges who understand the rules very well (the need for impartial treatment of the topic and focus on the debates presented for their strength alone).


A little judge training would be pretty easy. I could cover the basics of judging in just a few paragraph.

Explaining rules and structure would also take a few paragraphs, but I think I could do it concisely and with a minimum of academic/technical jargon such that it shouldn't scare away potential participants.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> A little judge training would be pretty easy. I could cover the basics of judging in just a few paragraph.
> 
> Explaining rules and structure would also take a few paragraphs, but I think I could do it concisely and with a minimum of academic/technical jargon such that it shouldn't scare away potential participants.


I love it! 

The reason I want to do this is so that each side can present their debate, but neither side is allowed to use language that is insulting or “violent”. We can have a list of words that can’t be used and that would clear up a lot of it. And then I’d like to say that snark, sarcasm and hyperbole are either not allowed, or they get so many negative points that it’s not worth it for a team to do that.

Maybe these things are already part of normal debate? I have never even watched one, I don’t think, unless it was in a movie and I always assume movies don’t represent things like that very well (they make it look trite).

The bigger picture should be that we can all read the actual debate behind each side, minus the language that makes us usually unable to hear the “other side”. We can still all end up feeling the same way, but maybe at least have heard the other side, and maybe they weren’t saying what you thought they were saying before.

My way of extending my translator to others via a specific limitation on what can be said so that the actual issues can be heard clearly. We still do not have to agree on how to fix anything.


----------



## red oak

Pac-Man said:


> When a read those lines, I thought that we are very close to saying the same thing, but using different words.


Yes.


----------



## anonmd

And there you have it. 3 line idea replaced with 100 lines explaining why you can't. Leads to 100 line explanation abbreviated to one word. Do you prefer snowflake or femi-nazi? I'm flexible 




Faithful Wife said:


> I get that but....it isn’t logical to me because that’s what men are supposedly so mad at feminists about. That women are already equals (or have even more rights than men) but that fems keep wanting to change even more things, which you may or may not agree they are justifyably upset about, but which will continue to have a (what men feel is a) negative impact on the US.
> 
> I do understand why the men’s rights movement came to exist. I think it also deserves a lot of credit for exposing what are unfair issues men face.
> 
> And like feminism, MRA is going to have opposition from many people just because of the polarized way we are all already communicating.
> 
> I think there needs to be a new platform, a new paradigm, a new conversation. One where we aren’t coming from always the victim side of our arguments, and one where we recognize the victimized of the other group.
> 
> Something that is actually discussing the real problems, not the “side” of feminism or MRA (or insert other ideology)....
> 
> Just as a tiny baby step....women being enlightened to the errors in the justice system is a good start. It has been opened for discussion by MRA putting the issue into enough spotlight that people are finally asking “wow, really? Am I not going to be treated the same by the police, even if she beat on me?”
> 
> But the way to get more women to understand this issue will be by presenting it with empathy for the men who deserve the empathy, not by pointing out what an entitled ***** you females are since you can call the police and have any man arrested.
> 
> The same way that men feel most feminist framed articles and literature seem to always be saying “help us you men, even though you are the problem and a potential rapist, my entitled ass demands you protect me from YOU.”
> 
> I do understand now (not fully but enough) how men are hearing that tone in feminist literature. Even though I don’t hear it that way, I get it now why men do.
> 
> I do hear the same tone in men’s words and writing. Basically “we ain’t got time to hear about more whiny things you want since you already rule the world you horrible *****es”. I know that’s not what you’re saying but the tone is what they are hearing.
> 
> Neither side is presenting an argument that the other can hear.
> 
> I think there is a way to start the conversation over. We are all dealing with what our parents and previous generations left to us. We all took up our sides and tried to make changes, but we were already pissed at each other the moment we were born. Because it seeped into us, what our parents and the world around us was doing. And we all went along like soldiers in a line into our slots in the world.
> 
> I don’t think we need to be angry anymore. It’s kind of like being angry at the wind. But when do people sit around and look up articles about what an ******* the wind is, and how unfair it is, and how it has victimized so many people unfairly and and and and ....
> 
> I think we know enough about our history to accept that the wind is what it is, and move forward instead of just re-examining how we got here. We weren’t even born yet, “we” didn’t get here, we were dropped into it and now have to live in it. But we don’t have to accept that fate. We can change things just like our ancestors did.
> 
> We live in a different world than they did. They changed things over time and we will have to do it over time, too.
> 
> Most men and women want to love each other and be at peace. That’s the energy that makes me feel that we can actually make things better for everyone. Once we drop our swords, or better yet, we all take fencing lessons and make it a fair fight!!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I get that but....it isn’t logical to me because that’s what men are supposedly so mad at feminists about. That women are already equals (or have even more rights than men) but that fems keep wanting to change even more things, which you may or may not agree they are justifyably upset about, but which will continue to have a (what men feel is a) negative impact on the US.
> 
> I do understand why the men’s rights movement came to exist. I think it also deserves a lot of credit for exposing what are unfair issues men face.
> 
> And like feminism, MRA is going to have opposition from many people just because of the polarized way we are all already communicating.
> 
> I think there needs to be a new platform, a new paradigm, a new conversation. One where we aren’t coming from always the victim side of our arguments, and one where we recognize the victimized of the other group.
> 
> Something that is actually discussing the real problems, not the “side” of feminism or MRA (or insert other ideology)....


I think the men's right's movement suffers from the same thing that feminism does, that the extreme views co opt the conversation. There are areas of laws in the US where they Just Don't Get an Equal Shake. Period. Change has started, and like all change, it seems too damned slow. Family law is the worst, it seems to me, though I am not sure if I am right from the point of view of said activists. 



> Just as a tiny baby step....women being enlightened to the errors in the justice system is a good start. It has been opened for discussion by MRA putting the issue into enough spotlight that people are finally asking “wow, really? Am I not going to be treated the same by the police, even if she beat on me?”
> 
> But the way to get more women to understand this issue will be by presenting it with empathy for the men who deserve the empathy, not by pointing out what an entitled ***** you females are since you can call the police and have any man arrested.
> 
> The same way that men feel most feminist framed articles and literature seem to always be saying “help us you men, even though you are the problem and a potential rapist, my entitled ass demands you protect me from YOU.”
> 
> I do understand now (not fully but enough) how men are hearing that tone in feminist literature. Even though I don’t hear it that way, I get it now why men do.
> 
> I do hear the same tone in men’s words and writing. Basically “we ain’t got time to hear about more whiny things you want since you already rule the world you horrible *****es”. I know that’s not what you’re saying but the tone is what they are hearing.
> 
> Neither side is presenting an argument that the other can hear.


Wha is interesting to me is that it does not seem TO ME to need to be "sided". There is nothing about feminism that precludes making strides toward justice in the family courts, for instance. There are many issues that are problematic that need to be solved, and it aint easy. WHat I don't see is this particular one being the feminist onslaught that MRA folks find elsewhere. Maybe I am wrong. But I would march in any march about men's rights in family court.



> I think there is a way to start the conversation over. We are all dealing with what our parents and previous generations left to us. We all took up our sides and tried to make changes, but we were already pissed at each other the moment we were born. Because it seeped into us, what our parents and the world around us was doing. And we all went along like soldiers in a line into our slots in the world.
> 
> 
> I don’t think we need to be angry anymore. It’s kind of like being angry at the wind. But when do people sit around and look up articles about what an ******* the wind is, and how unfair it is, and how it has victimized so many people unfairly and and and and ....
> 
> I think we know enough about our history to accept that the wind is what it is, and move forward instead of just re-examining how we got here. We weren’t even born yet, “we” didn’t get here, we were dropped into it and now have to live in it. But we don’t have to accept that fate. We can change things just like our ancestors did.
> 
> We live in a different world than they did. They changed things over time and we will have to do it over time, too.
> 
> Most men and women want to love each other and be at peace. That’s the energy that makes me feel that we can actually make things better for everyone. Once we drop our swords, or better yet, we all take fencing lessons and make it a fair fight!!


----------



## Faithful Wife

anonmd said:


> And there you have it. 3 line idea replaced with 100 lines explaining why you can't. Leads to 100 line explanation abbreviated to one word. Do you prefer snowflake or femi-nazi? I'm flexible


Guess I’ll take snowflake.

As a snowflake, it did feel good to me that a couple of people “liked” the same post of mine that you dismissed out of hand and turned into a reason to call me a name. At least I got to pick the name.


----------



## NobodySpecial

For example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mens-rights-activists/?utm_term=.b76ffa9974a9

The thing is, look as I might, I DON'T see a lot of MRA hits that I think of as genuinely sensible men's issues. Take this from the above article.

"Peterson bemoans that “no one cares about the men who fail.” To address this alleged injustice, he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy. Peterson sees such drastic interventions as necessary, because he believes today’s forgotten citizens, the victims of gender oppression, are men."

referring to an Incel who drove his car through a crowd, killing 10.

But let's talk about this one:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Men's Rights Activists

"Why is there 2000 domestic abuse centers for women but only one for men since men and women are equally likely to be abused?( That's not to say that those 2000 are not needed. The question is in regards to the number for men since men and women are equally likely to be abused.) "

Why, indeed? Why ARE there more domestic abuse centers for women? I have my thoughts. But I would like to hear what others think.

"What about work place deaths? Most of those are all male. Why? What about war deaths? Overwhelmingly men." 

I know nothing about work place deaths, so I l will let others illuminate those concerns. But war deaths seem pretty obvious. Women have been barred from combat. That said, our treatment of veterans is HORRIBLE. HORRIBLE. And I think it has a whole lot more to do with money than anything else. I think the war and military machine itself preys on economically and/or socially marginalized men. And that is horrible.

I would love to hear more on these issues and proposed solutions to them. I can get on board with a lot if it (as long we as leave off the incel inflammatory **** show.)


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I think the men's right's movement suffers from the same thing that feminism does, that the extreme views co opt the conversation. There are areas of laws in the US where they Just Don't Get an Equal Shake. Period. Change has started, and like all change, it seems too damned slow. Family law is the worst, it seems to me, though I am not sure if I am right from the point of view of said activists.
> 
> 
> Wha is interesting to me is that it does not seem TO ME to need to be "sided". There is nothing about feminism that precludes making strides toward justice in the family courts, for instance. There are many issues that are problematic that need to be solved, and it aint easy. WHat I don't see is this particular one being the feminist onslaught that MRA folks find elsewhere. Maybe I am wrong. But I would march in any march about men's rights in family court.


I think men need our help in changing family court law and raising awareness for those issues.

Feminists may not be standing in the way of progress in that area, but we are perceived as being silent on the issue. This makes us also appear to lack empathy for the issue or that we assume women are innocent creatures who never harm men.

I know that I do not feel that way, but since men perceive that feminists like myself feel that way, I’m seeing where we have an opportunity to bridge the gap with new discussion platforms and tools.

I think men feel we (feminists) are just paying lip service when we say we would march in any parade for men’s family court rights. To them that sounds the same as it sound to us like lip service when men say things like “of course I’m against actual rape” and then go on to discuss false allegations. I understand now that men are not paying lip service when they say that.

But I think men definitely feel it’s just lip service from us on their issues.

Even if we individually know we would champion for the rights of a male victim or victims, we are not going to be believed until we change the narrative. 

I want to be believed that I actually do care about men’s rights. I’ve found to do that, I can’t at the same time contrast them to women’s rights or lack of rights. Or else I have shifted the focus away from the problem they are trying to tell me about.


----------



## personofinterest

"I think the men's right's movement suffers from the same thing that feminism does, that the extreme views co opt the conversation. "

I agree so much with this. I think if we stopped judging a group by it's crazy outliers, wed make more progress.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> For example:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mens-rights-activists/?utm_term=.b76ffa9974a9
> 
> The thing is, look as I might, I DON'T see a lot of MRA hits that I think of as genuinely sensible men's issues. Take this from the above article.
> 
> "Peterson bemoans that “no one cares about the men who fail.” To address this alleged injustice, he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy. Peterson sees such drastic interventions as necessary, because he believes today’s forgotten citizens, the victims of gender oppression, are men."


I find the author to be sorely lacking credibility based on statements which are in direct contradiction to what Jordan Peterson really _does_. 

He has made helping women compete successfully in male dominated workplaces a key component of his practice. Whether it's helping women build the confidence to be aggressive like a man in salary negotiations, or helping them develop the sharp elbows necessary to get ahead in competitive environments, he has proven to be all about leveling the playing field for his clients. This is not the action of a man pushing for a return to patriarchy. This author (like many with politically driven agendas) is either badly misinterpreting Peterson's statements or deliberately misleading those not willing to or driven to seek out this controversial figure first hand. 

btw, I only learned of Peterson _from my wife_, who finds him fascinating and generally on target.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I think men need our help in changing family court law and raising awareness for those issues.
> 
> Feminists may not be standing in the way of progress in that area, but we are perceived as being silent on the issue. This makes us also appear to lack empathy for the issue or that we assume women are innocent creatures who never harm men.


Sigh. Here is where I am going to get some backlash. I can feel empathy for their situation while simultaneously not having a ton of sympathy for their not putting on the big boy panties to make change. Domestic violence awareness came from grassroots efforts of people involved, for example. Rape crisis centers, same. They want my help? Damn yeah. I'm in. 



> I know that I do not feel that way, but since men perceive that feminists like myself feel that way, I’m seeing where we have an opportunity to bridge the gap with new discussion platforms and tools.
> 
> I think men feel we (feminists) are just paying lip service when we say we would march in any parade for men’s family court rights.


How would anyone know? I can't even find any. And I have looked. And I already have a plate FULL of issues that are important to me.



> To them that sounds the same as it sound to us like lip service when men say things like “of course I’m against actual rape” and then go on to discuss false allegations. I understand now that men are not paying lip service when they say that.


I don't understand that. I DON'T see them at well advertised fundraisers for rape crisis centers. I DON'T see them on the donation list for our local domestic violence organization that serves both men and women, ANYONE who needs. I don't even see them going to their girl children's sporting events in the same number they go to their boys'. 



> But I think men definitely feel it’s just lip service from us on their issues.
> 
> 
> Even if we individually know we would champion for the rights of a male victim or victims, we are not going to be believed until we change the narrative.
> 
> I want to be believed that I actually do care about men’s rights. I’ve found to do that, I can’t at the same time contrast them to women’s rights or lack of rights. Or else I have shifted the focus away from the problem they are trying to tell me about.


I can hear the problem and empathize. And simultaneously not think *I* want to spearhead the solution.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I find the author to be sorely lacking credibility based on statements which are in direct contradiction to what Jordan Peterson really _does_.
> 
> He has made helping women compete successfully in male dominated workplaces a key component of his practice. Whether it's helping women build the confidence to be aggressive like a man in salary negotiations, or helping them develop the sharp elbows necessary to get ahead in competitive environments, he has proven to be all about leveling the playing field for his clients. This is not the action of a man pushing for a return to patriarchy. This author (like many with politically driven agendas) is either badly misinterpreting Peterson's statements or deliberately misleading those not willing to or driven to seek out this controversial figure first hand.
> 
> btw, I only learned of Peterson _from my wife_, who finds him fascinating and generally on target.


Cool. I would love to read more about him from a source that better reflects what he says. Google aint my friend. Do you know where I can find such?


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> For example:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mens-rights-activists/?utm_term=.b76ffa9974a9
> 
> The thing is, look as I might, I DON'T see a lot of MRA hits that I think of as genuinely sensible men's issues. Take this from the above article.
> 
> "Peterson bemoans that “no one cares about the men who fail.” To address this alleged injustice, he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy. Peterson sees such drastic interventions as necessary, because he believes today’s forgotten citizens, the victims of gender oppression, are men."
> 
> referring to an Incel who drove his car through a crowd, killing 10.
> 
> But let's talk about this one:
> 
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Men's Rights Activists
> 
> "Why is there 2000 domestic abuse centers for women but only one for men since men and women are equally likely to be abused?( That's not to say that those 2000 are not needed. The question is in regards to the number for men since men and women are equally likely to be abused.) "
> 
> Why, indeed? Why ARE there more domestic abuse centers for women? I have my thoughts. But I would like to hear what others think.
> 
> "What about work place deaths? Most of those are all male. Why? What about war deaths? Overwhelmingly men."
> 
> I know nothing about work place deaths, so I l will let others illuminate those concerns. But war deaths seem pretty obvious. Women have been barred from combat. That said, our treatment of veterans is HORRIBLE. HORRIBLE. And I think it has a whole lot more to do with money than anything else. I think the war and military machine itself preys on economically and/or socially marginalized men. And that is horrible.
> 
> I would love to hear more on these issues and proposed solutions to them. I can get on board with a lot if it (as long we as leave off the incel inflammatory **** show.)


On all of these issues, I have started my own journey by simply having empathy/sympathy/compassion, and listening. That’s what my empathy threads have been about, entirely. 

To just hear them. Because they do have those burdens, and after hearing them I personally felt happy to be a woman, specifically because the world of men is so much more dangerous and so much is expected of them, all while never being allowed to show any emotion. 

It isn’t the “fault” of feminists or even women that men are faced with this dangerous life. And I don’t think they even blame us for it.

They just feel that we don’t appreciate them laying their lives in harms way for us, they feel we are entitled and don’t understand the privileges that women receive on their backs (military, police, fire, workplace deaths).

So even if I personally can’t affect any identifiable progress on any of these issues, I feel at least I can listen openly, and express my appreciation, and acknowledge the privileges I have. 

In order to be heard myself, I have to say all of that without turning around and talking about women’s issues next. Just appreciate, and acknowledge my privilege, without then discussing men’s shortcomings or the injustices any other groups face.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> On all of these issues, I have started my own journey by simply having empathy/sympathy/compassion, and listening. That’s what my empathy threads have been about, entirely.
> 
> To just hear them. Because they do have those burdens, and after hearing them I personally felt happy to be a woman, specifically because the world of men is so much more dangerous and so much is expected of them, all while never being allowed to show any emotion.
> 
> It isn’t the “fault” of feminists or even women that men are faced with this dangerous life. And I don’t think they even blame us for it.
> 
> They just feel that we don’t appreciate them laying their lives in harms way for us, they feel we are entitled and don’t understand the privileges that women receive on their backs (military, police, fire, workplace deaths).
> 
> So even if I personally can’t affect any identifiable progress on any of these issues, I feel at least I can listen openly, and express my appreciation, and acknowledge the privileges I have.
> 
> In order to be heard myself, I have to say all of that without turning around and talking about women’s issues next. Just appreciate, and acknowledge my privilege, without then discussing men’s shortcomings or the injustices any other groups face.


You had proposed, yourself, needing women's help. I went from there since I thought it was part of the parameters of the discussion. If by help, you mean listen, I think that is a good idea. What I can't do is appreciate certain things that women have historically fought to do, like die in wars, and been denied.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> Cool. I would love to read more about him from a source that better reflects what he says. Google aint my friend. Do you know where I can find such?


Here's a link of a clip of Jordan Peterson at his most controversial, addressing the pay gap. It is often contentious to the point of pointlessness as the interviewer is asking questions not to understand, but to discredit, and often puts false words in his mouth. Even after filtering that out, his position might still be controversial, but he does a good job of explaining how he has worked with female clients to help them address the pay gap, at least on their own individual levels.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> You had proposed, yourself, needing women's help. I went from there since I thought it was part of the parameters of the discussion. If by help, you mean listen, I think that is a good idea. What I can't do is appreciate certain things that women have historically fought to do, like die in wars, and been denied.


I understand your last sentence. But it’s a different issue. Men are not saying they wish more women were dying in the military. Nor are they saying they want to keep us out.

They are simply saying that the majority have always and most likely will always (even if far more women join) be men. And that this carries a specific burden on them that we don’t face.

When we turn the table and talk about women being denied access to combat, they know we aren’t really listening to them.


----------



## minimalME

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Here's a link of a clip of Jordan Peterson at his most controversial, addressing the pay gap. It is often contentious to the point of pointlessness as the interviewer is asking questions not to understand, but to discredit, and often puts false words in his mouth. Even after filtering that out, his position might still be controversial, but he does a good job of explaining how he has worked with female clients to help them address the pay gap, at least on their own individual levels.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54


He's awesome. :smnotworthy:


----------



## Laurentium

NobodySpecial said:


> For example:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mens-rights-activists/?utm_term=.b76ffa9974a9
> 
> The thing is, look as I might, I DON'T see a lot of MRA hits that I think of as genuinely sensible men's issues. Take this from the above article.
> 
> "Peterson bemoans that “no one cares about the men who fail.” To address this alleged injustice, he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy. Peterson sees such drastic interventions as necessary, because he believes today’s forgotten citizens, the victims of gender oppression, are men."


I think this is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent Peterson. (By the WP, not by NS).


----------



## NobodySpecial

Laurentium said:


> I think this is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent Peterson. (By the WP, not by NS).


I would love a written explanation of what he IS saying. It would help me understand better than a combative interview. I can't find any such. His website says nothing. I don't feel quite right buying the book, even if I DIDN'T already have 50 things waiting for me to get through.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I would love a written explanation of what he IS saying. It would help me understand better than a combative interview. I can't find any such. His website says nothing. I don't feel quite right buying the book, even if I DIDN'T already have 50 things waiting for me to get through.


I think @tech-novelist or someone posted an article here or elsewhere recently. Anyone have the link?


----------



## anonmd

NobodySpecial said:


> Cool. I would love to read more about him from a source that better reflects what he says. Google aint my friend. Do you know where I can find such?



You could always go to the source https://jordanbpeterson.com/


----------



## uhtred

I know a lot of times I sound like a broken record, but I think at the heard of a lot of these discussion issues is that "groups" of people can hold self-inconstant ideas, even if each individual in the group's ideas may be consistent. That makes it too easy to attack the "other side" because their views don't make any sense. Add the inevitable vocal extremists to each side, and of course the common reasonable people who due to personal experience have a specific ax to grind, and its really difficult to have a reasonable discussion.


----------



## NobodySpecial

anonmd said:


> You could always go to the source https://jordanbpeterson.com/


Found a little bit on the blog link. Most of his site is a big book ad.


----------



## anonmd

With a link to his youtube channel and podcast where you can, you know, listen to him directly.


----------



## anonmd

Faithful Wife said:


> On all of these issues, I have started my own journey by simply having empathy/sympathy/compassion, and listening. That’s what my empathy threads have been about, entirely.
> 
> To just hear them. Because they do have those burdens, and after hearing them I personally felt happy to be a woman, specifically because the world of men is so much more dangerous and so much is expected of them, all while never being allowed to show any emotion.
> 
> It isn’t the “fault” of feminists or even women that men are faced with this dangerous life. And I don’t think they even blame us for it.
> 
> They just feel that we don’t appreciate them laying their lives in harms way for us, they feel we are entitled and don’t understand the privileges that women receive on their backs (military, police, fire, workplace deaths).
> 
> So even if I personally can’t affect any identifiable progress on any of these issues, I feel at least I can listen openly, and express my appreciation, and acknowledge the privileges I have.
> 
> In order to be heard myself, I have to say all of that without turning around and talking about women’s issues next. Just appreciate, and acknowledge my privilege, without then discussing men’s shortcomings or the injustices any other groups face.


Not to shabby for a snowflake.


----------



## NobodySpecial

anonmd said:


> With a link to his youtube channel and podcast where you can, you know, *listen *to him directly.


Not a fan. Ah well. I'll have to suck it up.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I have empathy for anyone who has been victimized. Men or women. I see the unfairness in the justice system, and I also feel there is a way we can actually work towards changing that.
> 
> It has to start with a lot of people talking about some proposed solutions instead of just being mad about the way things are.
> 
> I can feel empathy for a woman who really was raped or who really was beaten by a man, while still feeling empathy for a man who was the victim of the numerous horrific things that women can do to him and that the courts and police won’t help him.
> 
> It does sound like you don’t have empathy for actual women victims of actual Bad men. You seem to be saying that because police and courts may convict their abuser, that the abuse itself doesn’t deserve your empathy.
> 
> That doesn’t make sense to me, but it is how I’m interpreting what you are saying.


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I do have empathy for women who are actually abused. I believe the book should be thrown at men who abuse women (as well as anyone else who abuses anyone). 

In fact, women who are actually abused (beaten, robbed, raped, etc) are secondary victims of the women who make false accusations against men, because such false accusations make it more likely that people will doubt true accusations. Partly for that reason, I want to see false accusations punished severely; they make a mockery of justice.

This doesn't apply to honest mistakes or to anyone whose accusations don't result in a conviction. But there are several well-known (and I'm sure many more less-well-known) cases where it is obvious that the accusations were totally unfounded and meant to destroy someone's life by the mere accusation. Those accusers should be charged with making a knowingly false accusation and if convicted, serve hard time.



Faithful Wife said:


> I do have empathy for men who are victims AND the double whammy that they will not get the same justice.
> 
> But what is an individual woman who really has been abused or raped or assualted supposed to do about that? Is she supposed to not report the crime since it would be unfair to the men who are victims of assault by women who will not get the same justice?
> 
> I don’t see why any anger about actual victims makes sense, but I’m trying to.


Answered above: I'm not angry at actual victims, who deserve our empathy.



Faithful Wife said:


> I’m not asking you to join my efforts directly....but you already have indirectly and it’s too late, I’m not letting you out now.
> 
> Because I think even the conversation we are having, as understood by others, is probably helpful in its way.


I agree and will continue to the extent my other obligations allow. I'm retired, so I have a fair amount of time, but a lot of that time is going toward a major project of my own.


----------



## tech-novelist

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I paid for a good chunk of my bachelor's degree via a debate scholarship and have often served as a volunteer judge at the HS and collegiate levels.
> 
> I would have to put some thought into how such a structure could be adapted to an internet forum.


Perhaps we could take the debate off to a dedicated blog.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

tech-novelist said:


> Perhaps we could take the debate off to a dedicated blog.


I drew up a short debate primer. Will be happy to share if/when/where @faithfulwife and the group want.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I think @tech-novelist or someone posted an article here or elsewhere recently. Anyone have the link?


It wasn't me.

I've watched a few of his videos. My wife sends them to me because she likes his analysis. >


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I drew up a short debate primer. Will be happy to share if/when/where @faithfulwife and the group want.


Tech mentioned a blog which is a great idea, but having had a blog before, I know they are quite a bit of work.

We have the option to make a private group here, which maybe we can use for the judges to discuss their decision making. But they could also just do that via group PM.

Of course if judges even agree or want to join. Or debaters, for that matter.

I’m not sure if enough people are following along here to be aware of the idea. My thought is to start a thread in social, lay out the idea. Gather people who want to debate or judge. Lay out the rules (or you can present that upfront and we can dial it in). Pick the judges, teams, topics, timelines. 

I’m thinking it would roll out over a bit of time, it wouldn’t just be a flashmob debate. But I would love your take on how something like this can work in written format.

If I start the thread will you follow behind me with your primer? Also, should it be in politics or social?


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I do have empathy for women who are actually abused. I believe the book should be thrown at men who abuse women (as well as anyone else who abuses anyone).
> 
> In fact, women who are actually abused (beaten, robbed, raped, etc) are secondary victims of the women who make false accusations against men, because such false accusations make it more likely that people will doubt true accusations. Partly for that reason, I want to see false accusations punished severely; they make a mockery of justice.
> 
> This doesn't apply to honest mistakes or to anyone whose accusations don't result in a conviction. But there are several well-known (and I'm sure many more less-well-known) cases where it is obvious that the accusations were totally unfounded and meant to destroy someone's life by the mere accusation. Those accusers should be charged with making a knowingly false accusation and if convicted, serve hard time.
> 
> 
> 
> Answered above: I'm not angry at actual victims, who deserve our empathy.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and will continue to the extent my other obligations allow. I'm retired, so I have a fair amount of time, but a lot of that time is going toward a major project of my own.


OK, I finally actually heard you this time. 

This is a serious problem for men and is an injustice that should not be tolerated.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> It wasn't me.
> 
> I've watched a few of his videos. My wife sends them to me because she likes his analysis. >


She sounds hot. :laugh:


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> I know a lot of times I sound like a broken record, but I think at the heard of a lot of these discussion issues is that "groups" of people can hold self-inconstant ideas, even if each individual in the group's ideas may be consistent. That makes it too easy to attack the "other side" because their views don't make any sense. Add the inevitable vocal extremists to each side, and of course the common reasonable people who due to personal experience have a specific ax to grind, and its really difficult to have a reasonable discussion.


This is why I need you on the judges panel.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Faithful Wife said:


> OK, I finally actually heard you this time.
> 
> This is a serious problem for men and is an injustice that should not be tolerated.


How did I do that time, @anonmd?


----------



## uhtred

I'll claim that I'm rational but I'm often not impartial. I tend to be more advocate, than judge. I love reasoned, discussion, but haven't really been a fan of formalized debate. 






Faithful Wife said:


> This is why I need you on the judges panel.


----------



## uhtred

There is a very basic problem that is difficult to deal with (with sexual assault as an example):

False claims of sexual assault are rare, but not rare enough to meet the standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt". For example, lets say 5% of claims are false. (a statistic I saw somewhere). So, if a woman claims she was assaulted there is a 95% chance she is telling the truth.... but 95% isn't good enough because I am unwilling to take a 5% chance that I am ruining an innocent person's life. 

(I want < 1% : the "better 100 guilty go free, than an innocent man be punished" idea). 

So it is unavoidable that in order to avoid punishing factually innocent men, other factually guilty men will go free. I see no way to avoid this.

So we have to be careful about "believing" victims. If someone I know tells me that they were assaulted, I will "believe" them in that they will get my full empathy, support etc. But - as a juror that is not enough for me to send someone to prison, or as a person to say kill the person that they said was their assailant. 


The idea of punishing false accusers is tempting - but then we have another problem: I wan't 99% assurance that the false accusation was in fact false. Its not enough that we not be able to prove a crime occurred, we need to prove that one did not occur. That is a very different requirement. There will still be lots of cases where an accusation is made, but neither person can be punished. 

In addition, if we do punish false accusations, there will be fewer cases of people recanting accusations (which does happen). I have no idea what to do with someone who's false claim destroyed another person's life, but then they recanted and after a decade or more in prison are released.

In the end I think this will solve itself. We are rapidly moving toward a 100% surveillance society - in not too long the jury will be able to see exactly what happened, and a lot of the uncertainty will go away. I'm not looking forward to that, but I believe it is inevitable (and god helps us when it happens). 







tech-novelist said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I do have empathy for women who are actually abused. I believe the book should be thrown at men who abuse women (as well as anyone else who abuses anyone).
> 
> In fact, women who are actually abused (beaten, robbed, raped, etc) are secondary victims of the women who make false accusations against men, because such false accusations make it more likely that people will doubt true accusations. Partly for that reason, I want to see false accusations punished severely; they make a mockery of justice.
> 
> This doesn't apply to honest mistakes or to anyone whose accusations don't result in a conviction. But there are several well-known (and I'm sure many more less-well-known) cases where it is obvious that the accusations were totally unfounded and meant to destroy someone's life by the mere accusation. Those accusers should be charged with making a knowingly false accusation and if convicted, serve hard time.
> 
> 
> 
> Answered above: I'm not angry at actual victims, who deserve our empathy.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and will continue to the extent my other obligations allow. I'm retired, so I have a fair amount of time, but a lot of that time is going toward a major project of my own.


----------



## red oak

tech-novelist said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I do have empathy for women who are actually abused. I believe the book should be thrown at men who abuse women (as well as anyone else who abuses anyone).
> 
> In fact, women who are actually abused (beaten, robbed, raped, etc) are secondary victims of the women who make false accusations against men, because such false accusations make it more likely that people will doubt true accusations. Partly for that reason, I want to see false accusations punished severely; they make a mockery of justice.
> 
> This doesn't apply to honest mistakes or to anyone whose accusations don't result in a conviction. But there are several well-known (and I'm sure many more less-well-known) cases where it is obvious that the accusations were totally unfounded and meant to destroy someone's life by the mere accusation. Those accusers should be charged with making a knowingly false accusation and if convicted, serve hard time.
> 
> 
> 
> Answered above: I'm not angry at actual victims, who deserve our empathy.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and will continue to the extent my other obligations allow. I'm retired, so I have a fair amount of time, but a lot of that time is going toward a major project of my own.


As someone who experienced childhood abuse what you seem to be calling empathy I call sympathy. I partially agree. There should be some initial empathy, but it shouldn't turn into sympathy for then other's start coddling creating a sense of victim-hood, and such an incident then begins to define who they are, which helps neither them nor society, and causes a much deeper scar.


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> There is a very basic problem that is difficult to deal with (with sexual assault as an example):
> 
> False claims of sexual assault are rare, but not rare enough to meet the standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt". For example, lets say 5% of claims are false. (a statistic I saw somewhere). So, if a woman claims she was assaulted there is a 95% chance she is telling the truth.... but 95% isn't good enough because I am unwilling to take a 5% chance that I am ruining an innocent person's life.
> 
> (I want < 1% : the "better 100 guilty go free, than an innocent man be punished" idea).
> 
> So it is unavoidable that in order to avoid punishing factually innocent men, other factually guilty men will go free. I see no way to avoid this.
> 
> So we have to be careful about "believing" victims. If someone I know tells me that they were assaulted, I will "believe" them in that they will get my full empathy, support etc. But - as a juror that is not enough for me to send someone to prison, or as a person to say kill the person that they said was their assailant.
> 
> 
> The idea of punishing false accusers is tempting - but then we have another problem: I wan't 99% assurance that the false accusation was in fact false. Its not enough that we not be able to prove a crime occurred, we need to prove that one did not occur. That is a very different requirement. There will still be lots of cases where an accusation is made, but neither person can be punished.
> 
> In addition, if we do punish false accusations, there will be fewer cases of people recanting accusations (which does happen). I have no idea what to do with someone who's false claim destroyed another person's life, but then they recanted and after a decade or more in prison are released.
> 
> In the end I think this will solve itself. We are rapidly moving toward a 100% surveillance society - in not too long the jury will be able to see exactly what happened, and a lot of the uncertainty will go away. I'm not looking forward to that, but I believe it is inevitable (and god helps us when it happens).


I agree with much of what you wrote. I don’t think talking about these issues will solve all sides of the problem right now. 

What I’m understanding is this: false accusations are a serious problem to men not only because of the current me too climate, but also because the laws are stacked up against them.

It is true that the laws don’t always protect any specific woman either. People face injustice every day.

The reasons this topic is so important to them are still something I can’t empathize with, because it is true that I have the privilege of feeling that if I call the police, I will be believed and probably can be protected or justice can be sought for me. So I can only sympathize and have compassion for this issue which I most likely will never face.

I think hearing why and how this issue is frightening for men is important because as a feminist, I admit that I did not think this was a prevelent problem and therefore didn’t actually stop to hear men and actively listen. I thought “why do they keep bringing up this separate issue?”

Now I see that I need to hear their issue, and actually hear it no matter how infrequently it happens, and understand that the laws are honestly not really on the mans side in any assault or rape accusation. 

It would be like, if the pendulum swung the other way and women were assumed lying and police would arrest them if they called about an altercation with a man. And because this is true for them (they can’t be assured any justice when it comes to the police and he said she said) they are frightened about their freedoms being challenged at the whim of another.

If men could have women arrested on a whim, women and some men would be outraged. But if the system was set up at that time to see men as more likely victims than women, then who would we tell our outrage to?

I personally know what kind of psychos women can be, how dangerous and sadistic, how absolutely unsafe around my or any one else’s kids. Maybe there are fewer than men, but certainly no small number.

So I hope to look at the false allegations issue on its own. And me too on it’s own. Not in the same conversation. Maybe each could be topics for the debate teams. I’m sorry to hear you don’t have much interest in that, but I hope you will read or join along as we do it anyway.


----------



## Faithful Wife

red oak said:


> As someone who experienced childhood abuse what you seem to be calling empathy I call sympathy. I partially agree. There should be some initial empathy, but it shouldn't turn into sympathy for then other's start coddling creating a sense of victim-hood, and such an incident then begins to define who they are, which helps neither them nor society, and causes a much deeper scar.


I’m not sure I follow. There is one thing happening in a victim’s immediate surroundings, and another thing happens in a victim’s wider world that may or may not be empathetic to the victim (many in the victim’s outer world may not even know about the abuse).

I don’t see a lot of victims being coddled. 

But I think what does happen is that there is a cultural idea of women as victims. And this carries with it that we are the victims of men.

And even though many women who are abused or assaulted are victims of men, most men are GOOD. I would say that there are so many more good men than bad men that it’s not even close. I’m talking about in the US, I have no knowledge of elsewhere. But...wouldn’t all of the world’s societies have collapsed or fallen into anarchy by now if most men weren’t Good men? If men wanted to rise up and snatch the entire world away from women and enslave us, it would happen overnight and we’d have no chance against them. (Maybe some women would be so savvy as to know how to survive and escape, but it wouldn’t be very many).

I think if we can talk about how good men are, how the majority are good, and how they obviously protect us and haven’t just said screw it, I’m going caveman and taking the entire world away from anyone weaker than me. And talk about how they are victimized by others (women and police and everyone else) without turning the conversation back to women’s side of any issue.

Maybe I just understood what you mean by victim coddling as I’ve been writing this out.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Tech mentioned a blog which is a great idea, but having had a blog before, I know they are quite a bit of work.
> 
> We have the option to make a private group here, which maybe we can use for the judges to discuss their decision making. But they could also just do that via group PM.
> 
> Of course if judges even agree or want to join. Or debaters, for that matter.
> 
> I’m not sure if enough people are following along here to be aware of the idea. My thought is to start a thread in social, lay out the idea. Gather people who want to debate or judge. Lay out the rules (or you can present that upfront and we can dial it in). Pick the judges, teams, topics, timelines.
> 
> I’m thinking it would roll out over a bit of time, it wouldn’t just be a flashmob debate. But I would love your take on how something like this can work in written format.
> 
> If I start the thread will you follow behind me with your primer? Also, should it be in politics or social?


Will put it on your thread if theres interest.


----------



## red oak

Faithful Wife said:


> .
> Maybe I just understood what you mean by victim coddling as I’ve been writing this out.


What did you understand it as?


----------



## anonmd

Faithful Wife said:


> I agree with much of what you wrote. I don’t think talking about these issues will solve all sides of the problem right now.
> 
> What I’m understanding is this: false accusations are a serious problem to men not only because of the current me too climate, but also because the laws are stacked up against them.
> 
> It is true that the laws don’t always protect any specific woman either. People face injustice every day.
> 
> The reasons this topic is so important to them are still something I can’t empathize with, because it is true that I have the privilege of feeling that if I call the police, I will be believed and probably can be protected or justice can be sought for me. So I can only sympathize and have compassion for this issue which I most likely will never face.
> 
> I think hearing why and how this issue is frightening for men is important because as a feminist, I admit that I did not think this was a prevelent problem and therefore didn’t actually stop to hear men and actively listen. I thought “why do they keep bringing up this separate issue?”
> 
> Now I see that I need to hear their issue, and actually hear it no matter how infrequently it happens, and understand that the laws are honestly not really on the mans side in any assault or rape accusation.
> 
> It would be like, if the pendulum swung the other way and women were assumed lying and police would arrest them if they called about an altercation with a man. And because this is true for them (they can’t be assured any justice when it comes to the police and he said she said) they are frightened about their freedoms being challenged at the whim of another.
> 
> If men could have women arrested on a whim, women and some men would be outraged. But if the system was set up at that time to see men as more likely victims than women, then who would we tell our outrage to?
> 
> I personally know what kind of psychos women can be, how dangerous and sadistic, how absolutely unsafe around my or any one else’s kids. Maybe there are fewer than men, but certainly no small number.
> 
> So I hope to look at the false allegations issue on its own. And me too on it’s own. Not in the same conversation. Maybe each could be topics for the debate teams. I’m sorry to hear you don’t have much interest in that, but I hope you will read or join along as we do it anyway.


Now, that is better  Go forth and preach. If we started to hear that as part of the discussion vs. you getting shouted down, or your proposed Women's March getting cancelled because there were 'too many white women' signed up...

I doubt you'd survive sayin it with your name attached in a non-anonymous forum. But, I like it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

anonmd said:


> Now, that is better  Go forth and preach. If we started to hear that as part of the discussion vs. you getting shouted down, or your proposed Women's March getting cancelled because there were 'too many white women' signed up...
> 
> I doubt you'd survive sayin it with your name attached in a non-anonymous forum. But, I like it.


If I may offer...the problem seems to be that we need to stop conflating, contrasting and comparing men’s and women’s issues in the same conversation. A new conversation has to begin about the separate issues men face, and then we can discuss the issues that face all of us and society as a whole separately.

I think someone like me can begin the conversation or at least start the ball rolling, because I actually am a lifelong card carrying feminist. And there actually is no reason for me not to support men’s issues and men in general. And as a feminist, perhaps I can help by using some words and phrases other women are more likely to be sympathetic with. As a way to bridge the gap.

I’ve always preferred the label egalitarian over feminist, because I do actually want equality for all. Which means that if men or any other group is under privileged in basic human rights, I am obliged to notice the problem, not stay silent about it, not assume that they can fix it for themselves. I may not be able to help, but by being aware and not blind to issues that another group faces which I will never have to, I can at least be ready to help if I can. If I literally don’t know the problem exists, I certainly can’t help.

Anyway....I do actually feel that I can make a logical plea to others to hear (without pushback) some of the issues men are facing. Things that so far are not registering with some women because I see now how we have all been talking past each other and why.

As for surviving outside of an anonymous forum...I’m not concerned. I have some ideas.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Btw, for those who dislike the flippant nature of the term “woke”....I can offer you this.

I just got woke about a lot of very important human rights issues.


----------



## red oak

Faithful Wife said:


> If I may offer...the problem seems to be that we need to stop conflating, contrasting and comparing men’s and women’s issues in the same conversation. A new conversation has to begin about the separate issues men face, and *then we can discuss the issues that face all of us and society as a whole separately.*
> 
> I think someone like me can begin the conversation or at least start the ball rolling, because I actually am a lifelong card carrying feminist. And there actually is no reason for me not to support men’s issues and men in general. And as a feminist, perhaps I can help by using some words and phrases other women are more likely to be sympathetic with. As a way to bridge the gap.
> 
> I’ve always preferred the label egalitarian over feminist, because I do actually want equality for all. Which means that if men or any other group is under privileged in basic human rights, I am obliged to notice the problem, not stay silent about it, not assume that they can fix it for themselves. I may not be able to help, but by being aware and not blind to issues that another group faces which I will never have to, I can at least be ready to help if I can. If I literally don’t know the problem exists, I certainly can’t help.
> 
> Anyway....I do actually feel that I can make a logical plea to others to hear (without pushback) some of the issues men are facing. Things that so far are not registering with some women because I see now how we have all been talking past each other and why.
> 
> As for surviving outside of an anonymous forum...I’m not concerned. I have some ideas.


Definitely something could be discussed there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

red oak said:


> Definitely something could be discussed there.


I meant that it seems all of us, men/women, libs/cons, etc, seem to always conflate their issues when talking about other issues.

The conversations never go anywhere because everyone is talking about their own issue, no matter what the issue on the table is. There’s all this conflation all the time.

I’m not faulting men or women in this one more than the other. Both are doing it.

So my point was in order for women to hear men, we will have to have a separate conversation where women are somehow enabled to listen without pushback.

Men can’t do this (hear) right now either. They are still pushing back and not hearing. It is equally men and women doing this. 

But as a woman and a feminist, for myself I do not need to understand or empathize more with women because they have it 100% from me. I know what they are saying and I can hear them. So my work had to start on hearing men. That’s where I was not listening.

Now that I’ve listened, I can translate a few things and maybe help some understanding. But overall, men are going to continue to not be heard or understood if they keep conflating and pushing back. Women, same. So no one is more at fault, but no one seems to be moving toward better communication skills, either. It’s a stand off.

I’m going in to beg both sides for a peace summit. I don’t know if I’ll be toasted immediately or if I’ll have to take a few stabs at it before I can get them to hear me. I’ll bring alcohol and cookies to soften them all up, then hit them with it when they are half drunk and carb high.


----------



## uhtred

As an example of the situation:

Years ago my wife and I were foster parents for shelter care kids. (these are kids who need a place to stay for a few months, but expect to return to their families).

One was a 11 year old girl. She was slightly troubled - not at all surprising for a kid who was taken out of her house and sent to live with strangers. 

One evening I told her it was time to stop using the computer and go to bed and she didn't want to. She looked at me and said, "I'll tell them you touched me". 

Think about this situation and what the reaction would be if I were accused of molesting an 11 year old girl. She was out of her house because she had accused a relative of molesting her - that relative was of course facing criminal charges. (I have no idea if the molestation actually occurred). This was a *child* who had recognized that she had the power to destroy adult lives. 

There was a case in the news a few years back of a girl, (maybe 12?) who had her step father sent to prison for child molestation because the jury couldn't believe such a young child could have made up such a horrifying and detailed description of abuse. (I guess they don't know about the internet). She recanted many years later - after of course he had spent years in prison as a child molester, been divorced by a wife and family who believed him to be a monster, etc. 



(the really sad part was that we of course reported this, and thy took her and put her in a group home under much worse conditions - but no one could take the chance). 

The situation is bad enough that at work, by my organizations policy, if we have underage interns, we are required to never be alone in a room with them, never take them in our cars, without a 3rd person present etc. 


I still don't see this as a statistically huge risk, but it is out there. 


This particular injustice doesn't cancel the injustices women face, injustices add, they never cancel. There is a lot of injustice in the world - all we can do is try to stop them were we can. 







Faithful Wife said:


> I agree with much of what you wrote. I don’t think talking about these issues will solve all sides of the problem right now.
> 
> What I’m understanding is this: false accusations are a serious problem to men not only because of the current me too climate, but also because the laws are stacked up against them.
> 
> It is true that the laws don’t always protect any specific woman either. People face injustice every day.
> 
> The reasons this topic is so important to them are still something I can’t empathize with, because it is true that I have the privilege of feeling that if I call the police, I will be believed and probably can be protected or justice can be sought for me. So I can only sympathize and have compassion for this issue which I most likely will never face.
> 
> I think hearing why and how this issue is frightening for men is important because as a feminist, I admit that I did not think this was a prevelent problem and therefore didn’t actually stop to hear men and actively listen. I thought “why do they keep bringing up this separate issue?”
> 
> Now I see that I need to hear their issue, and actually hear it no matter how infrequently it happens, and understand that the laws are honestly not really on the mans side in any assault or rape accusation.
> 
> It would be like, if the pendulum swung the other way and women were assumed lying and police would arrest them if they called about an altercation with a man. And because this is true for them (they can’t be assured any justice when it comes to the police and he said she said) they are frightened about their freedoms being challenged at the whim of another.
> 
> If men could have women arrested on a whim, women and some men would be outraged. But if the system was set up at that time to see men as more likely victims than women, then who would we tell our outrage to?
> 
> I personally know what kind of psychos women can be, how dangerous and sadistic, how absolutely unsafe around my or any one else’s kids. Maybe there are fewer than men, but certainly no small number.
> 
> So I hope to look at the false allegations issue on its own. And me too on it’s own. Not in the same conversation. Maybe each could be topics for the debate teams. I’m sorry to hear you don’t have much interest in that, but I hope you will read or join along as we do it anyway.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I hear you are angry, and I admit I’m not sure why. I understand it intellectually but not logically.
> 
> There are so many sweet church ladies in the world who worship their husbands and are vet wives and who do everything they can to support their men, service men, and the rest of our Good men.
> 
> And non church wives and all other wives and women...a huge portion of us are entirely into Good men. We express this in numerous ways, some of us do have (just the right amount of) empathy/sympathy/compassion. Some of us are excellent providers and add to your wealth, happily and purposefully.
> 
> Some of us love men so much we talk all day on message boards to them and about them.
> 
> I guess my point is...can you (for now) take my word for this, and assume at least “some” amount of women love men and feel at least some part of my post that you quoted? And maybe we don’t have a lot of empathy for for you during certain triggers we have, but as many of you have said already, that’s ok if she is generally into you and loves you and thinks you’re sexy, right?
> 
> That’s a lot of women, and don’t forget, all those happy husbands don’t find their way to TAM.
> 
> I know the hearts of the women I’m around, the lovelies in my family, the many friends and acquaintances....many feel essentially the same as I do. Some expressed their love and respect for men in different ways, but it was clear.


I agree that not all women support the more vitriolic attacks on men.

Actually, I don't think that most do.

The opposition to the excesses of #MeToo hasn't come from men (mostly because they aren't allowed to have an opinion on the matter), the back lash has mostly come from other women.

I actually am convinced that that radical (what ever term refers to the more extreme feminists) feminists are a minority among women. 

And a lot of women (although rarely, for whatever reason, on these threads) support the male point of view on TAM.


----------



## personofinterest

> In fact, women who are actually abused (beaten, robbed, raped, etc) are secondary victims of the women who make false accusations against men, because such false accusations make it more likely that people will doubt true accusations. Partly for that reason, I want to see false accusations punished severely; they make a mockery of justice.


dingdingdingding!!!


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok my point was misunderstood.
> 
> Your story about your ex, he was a horrible financial partner (among other things) and you had to carry the burden and all the stress.
> 
> And someone else said that’s what it’s like for men. Implying that they are usually the ones who carry the burden.
> 
> My response was, but if a man has a good financial partner for a wife, then he wouldn’t have the kind of burden POI had with her ex h.
> 
> So although most men may carry more of the burden and I do get that, some men do not have a crappy financial partner (like your ex h was). And so those men do not go through what you did with your ex and his debts, etc.
> 
> I don’t think all men have to carry a wife who is as crappy as a financial partner as your ex h was. Some men do, yes, but it’s not the average experience for men to have to carry the same weight you did. Though I feel sorry for the ones who do.


I'd say that just as many men are crappy financial partners as women.

In my case, my wife is an excellent financial partner. But, I still carry the burden of being ultimately responsible for financial matters.

We we were first married, she wanted to be involved in paying the bills, etc. I *required* that I be involved (I have no idea how a guy can just hand over his paycheck to his wife and trust that everything will be ok), so I suggested that we do it together. It didn't take long before she stopped being involved and just started relying on me to handle it. 

My wife just gets very anxious about money and feels better not being involved. She'll occasionally question something but is satisfied with a quick explanation. We discuss any significant expenses and decide together.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Question to anyone reading...does anyone here have experience with HS or college debate teams? I was wondering about maybe setting up some man/woman topics as a debate, with moderators or judges or however it works. If those who participate follow the debate rules, seems like it could be kind of fun and interesting. People could vote on a who the panel of judges would be (as I understand it, the “winner” is chosen on how they presented their debate, not whether the judges agree with their position or not, right?)


The best format is to decide on an "audience" and an issue.

Poll the audience in advance for their opinions and compare against the audience opinions when the debate is over.

The side to move the needle in their direction is the "winner".

But I don't know that we need to know the winner as much as we just need to air the best arguments of each side. The crucial part of this is to ignore the bad arguments and focus on the best ones.

I'm not sure how that would be done. Have one "side" debate and vote for the "best argument" and then have the other "side" debate and vote on the best response? Then move on to the next issue?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> The best format is to decide on an "audience" and an issue.
> 
> Poll the audience in advance for their opinions and compare against the audience opinions when the debate is over.
> 
> The side to move the needle in their direction is the "winner".
> 
> But I don't know that we need to know the winner as much as we just need to air the best arguments of each side. The crucial part of this is to ignore the bad arguments and focus on the best ones.
> 
> I'm not sure how that would be done. Have one "side" debate and vote for the "best argument" and then have the other "side" debate and vote on the best response? Then move on to the next issue?


I put a thread in the general forum. And hopefully Rocky will join and add to it what he has come up with.

If there aren't enough people interested, maybe I can look into doing it another way or elsewhere if that would make a difference. If there are enough people, I hope we can have some fun with it! (While discussing totally serious and important topics).


----------



## Buddy400

tech-novelist said:


> The difference is that horrible men, of whom there certainly are plenty, are not able to call the police and have their wives or girlfriends taken off in handcuffs just on their say-so, and are not rewarded financially for evicting them from their house and alienating them from their children (where applicable).
> 
> Horrible women can do those things (and more) while being applauded for being victims.
> 
> Get rid of the legal and social pressures in favor of horrible women and against good men, and I'll change my opinion of the balance of justice in the US.


I think it's fair to say that the benefit of the doubt these days is with women.

Men are assumed to be horrible and women not horrible (not in society at large but in mass media and popular culture).

Not to say that there aren't a lot of horrible men.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> But what is an individual woman who really has been abused or raped or assualted supposed to do about that? Is she supposed to not report the crime since it would be unfair to the men who are victims of assault by women who will not get the same justice?


I feel great empathy for women who are abused, raped or assaulted.

They most definitely should report the crime and, if the authorities don't follow up aggressively enough (which has certainly HAS happened in the past), procedures need to be changed.

I do not feel empathy for a woman who was offended when a man at the water cooler talked about a Seinfeld episode in which Jerry can't remember a woman's name but knows that it was related to a woman's private parts. When the woman presses him for the name, he relates that it was "Mulva" and the guy get's disciplined for creating a hostile work environment. Or for a woman who has a man disciplined for making an unwanted advance when the man asked her for a date. As Laura Kipnis points out, how is one to know that an advance is unwanted unless the advance is made?


----------



## Buddy400

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I paid for a good chunk of my bachelor's degree via a debate scholarship and have often served as a volunteer judge at the HS and collegiate levels.
> 
> I would have to put some thought into how such a structure could be adapted to an internet forum.


My son is a college debate coach.

From his perspective, whoever argues the most politically correct viewpoint is the winner.


----------



## anonmd

I am still waiting for the prosecutions from the Kavanaugh affair. Oughta start with Feinstein and her staff. I am not holding my breath but it is REQUIRED for any progress to be made. Not negotiable. Not explainable. Not acceptable.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Wha is interesting to me is that it does not seem TO ME to need to be "sided". There is nothing about feminism that precludes making strides toward justice in the family courts, for instance. There are many issues that are problematic that need to be solved, and it aint easy. WHat I don't see is this particular one being the feminist onslaught that MRA folks find elsewhere. Maybe I am wrong. But I would march in any march about men's rights in family court.


In the "Red Pill" documentary (which was really mostly about MRA), the "feminists" really seemed to entirely pooh-pooh the idea that there was actually a problem with family courts. One guy they interviewed seemed to propose that men didn't really care about custody and were just using it for their own agendas.

I would agree that it seems as if people with basic feminist values would be supportive of men in these situations. But I didn't see much of that.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> "Peterson bemoans that “no one cares about the men who fail.” To address this alleged injustice, he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy. Peterson sees such drastic interventions as necessary, because he believes today’s forgotten citizens, the victims of gender oppression, are men."


I've read quite a bit of Peterson and have never heard him say anything remotely like " he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy"

I really recommend the "Red Pill" documentary.

It seems a little "whiney" but nothing very outrageous.

The documentarian did call herself a feminist (at least, at the beginning of the project).


----------



## minimalME

Buddy400 said:


> I've read quite a bit of Peterson and have never heard him say anything remotely like " he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy".


Yes, I've listened to hours and hours of his class lectures and public talks, and he doesn't say things like this.


----------



## personofinterest

I think people tend to see themselves more they way they WANT to see themselves than the way they come across at times. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard a self-proclaimed "new wave" type feminist SAY she was sympathetic to men's issues.....but if you listen to or read the whole of their conversation, it is apparent they are NOT. And the same can be said about the extreme Red Pill crowd. However, most extreme red pillers are more willing to own their obvious bias than the feminists I have encountered.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

...


----------



## anonmd

NobodySpecial said:


> Not a fan. Ah well. I'll have to suck it up.



It's good to listen to those you are not a fan of, at least for a while. I gave Dan Savage a good 2 years myself. Then the resistance thing got to be too much to take after 6 months or so, I dropped the subscription. Picked up it again for a listen a couple more times over the next year, nope - still too rabid. Too bad really.


----------



## Faithful Wife

anonmd said:


> It's good to listen to those you are not a fan of, at least for a while. I gave Dan Savage a good 2 years myself. Then the resistance thing got to be too much to take after 6 months or so, I dropped the subscription. Picked up it again for a listen a couple more times over the next year, nope - still too rabid. Too bad really.


I think she meant not a fan of podcasts/listening to materials that she would rather read.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> For example:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mens-rights-activists/?utm_term=.b76ffa9974a9
> 
> The thing is, look as I might, I DON'T see a lot of MRA hits that I think of as genuinely sensible men's issues. Take this from the above article.
> 
> "Peterson bemoans that “no one cares about the men who fail.” To address this alleged injustice, he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy. Peterson sees such drastic interventions as necessary, because he believes today’s forgotten citizens, the victims of gender oppression, are men."
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> minimalME said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've listened to hours and hours of his class lectures and public talks, and he doesn't say things like this.
> 
> 
> 
> @NobodySpecial
> 
> What do you think is going on when WaPo publishes something like this when (at least four) people on this thread who are very familiar with him say that they've never heard him say anything of the sort?
> 
> Just curious
Click to expand...


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I think people tend to see themselves more they way they WANT to see themselves than the way they come across at times. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard a self-proclaimed "new wave" type feminist SAY she was sympathetic to men's issues.....but if you listen to or read the whole of their conversation, it is apparent they are NOT. And the same can be said about the extreme Red Pill crowd. However, most extreme red pillers are more willing to own their obvious bias than the feminists I have encountered.


I see everyone doing it, I don't think one side of the argument is more open to hearing the other side. 

I also don't think any of us are doing it on purpose, it is just a thing that we are doing by habit, without noticing.

What I am hoping is to open the discussions on both sides, but for now I have only focused on listening to and empathy/compassion/sympathy for men. Because it does seem that this is an area that we as a society could do better on.

However, men are still not going to be "heard" while they are pushing back against everything, just like we (women) are doing all the time, too. Also, none of us actually ever hear someone if that someone is mocking us OR our position. If someone is mocking you and your position out the gate, what reason is there for you to hear their side?

Men - though they have my empathy - are no better than women at that. 

Hopefully, some spirited TAM debates can help the actual sides of these issues be heard, without the push back from anyone else. The points can stand on their own, as presented.


----------



## personofinterest

> Also, none of us actually ever hear someone if that someone is mocking us OR our position.


Absolutely. An intelligent person can debate and argue without mocking. When someone resorts to mocking, that tells me they aren't actually using their brain - and that includes me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mens-rights-activists/?utm_term=.b76ffa9974a9
> 
> The thing is, look as I might, I DON'T see a lot of MRA hits that I think of as genuinely sensible men's issues. Take this from the above article.
> 
> "Peterson bemoans that “no one cares about the men who fail.” To address this alleged injustice, he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy. Peterson sees such drastic interventions as necessary, because he believes today’s forgotten citizens, the victims of gender oppression, are men."
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> @NobodySpecial
> 
> What do you think is going on when WaPo publishes something like this when (at least four) people on this thread who are very familiar with him say that they've never heard him say anything of the sort?
> 
> Just curious
> 
> 
> 
> I don't normally look at Washington Post. But I have seen it listed as the heavily left biased news outlets. I just googled to find anything. I think that whoever interviewed him, likely did exactly as you said, went in to refute.
> 
> I wonder why you are calling me out like this? I specifically ASKED for this information.
Click to expand...


----------



## NobodySpecial

anonmd said:


> It's good to listen to those you are not a fan of, at least for a while. I gave Dan Savage a good 2 years myself. Then the resistance thing got to be too much to take after 6 months or so, I dropped the subscription. Picked up it again for a listen a couple more times over the next year, nope - still too rabid. Too bad really.


You misunderstand. I prefer to read than to listen. I do a lot of this stuff while I am waiting for compiles and the like and would prefer to read. But I will push through!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> In the "Red Pill" documentary (which was really mostly about MRA), the "feminists" really seemed to entirely pooh-pooh the idea that there was actually a problem with family courts. One guy they interviewed seemed to propose that men didn't really care about custody and were just using it for their own agendas.
> 
> I would agree that it seems as if people with basic feminist values would be supportive of men in these situations. But I didn't see much of that.


Well I don't know where to find this activism, so I am at a loss.


----------



## personofinterest

Sometimes, when there is no apparent activism outlet, it is a good start to simply acknowledge, empathize, and not pooh pooh or minimize.

Honestly, that is what I would like to see a lot of women do more of. For example, I am sick of hearing about how "rare" false accusations are and how losing your college funding or even admittance is "no big deal."


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Buddy400 said:


> My son is a college debate coach.
> 
> From his perspective, whoever argues the most politically correct viewpoint is the winner.


Academia was already well into it's hard left turn when I debated competitively long ago. That said, there was at least a critical mass of judges with integrity who were able to judge cases on their merits rather than whether or not they aligned with their preconceived biases. It'd be a real shame if that has changed.

One stabilizing factor is that most debate tournaments have 6 or 8 rounds and each side must argue both the affirmative and negative sides an equal number of times. This requires equal effort be put into cases for each side and also gives even the most slanted judges to keep their biases in check knowing the team may not be arguing from the heart, but rather out of necessity. It always seemed to help balance things out in the past.


----------



## farsidejunky

NobodySpecial said:


> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mens-rights-activists/?utm_term=.b76ffa9974a9
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, look as I might, I DON'T see a lot of MRA hits that I think of as genuinely sensible men's issues. Take this from the above article.
> 
> 
> 
> "Peterson bemoans that “no one cares about the men who fail.” To address this alleged injustice, he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy. Peterson sees such drastic interventions as necessary, because he believes today’s forgotten citizens, the victims of gender oppression, are men."
> 
> 
> 
> referring to an Incel who drove his car through a crowd, killing 10.
> 
> 
> 
> But let's talk about this one:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Men's Rights Activists
> 
> 
> 
> "Why is there 2000 domestic abuse centers for women but only one for men since men and women are equally likely to be abused?( That's not to say that those 2000 are not needed. The question is in regards to the number for men since men and women are equally likely to be abused.) "
> 
> 
> 
> Why, indeed? Why ARE there more domestic abuse centers for women? I have my thoughts. But I would like to hear what others think.
> 
> 
> 
> "What about work place deaths? Most of those are all male. Why? What about war deaths? Overwhelmingly men."
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about work place deaths, so I l will let others illuminate those concerns. But war deaths seem pretty obvious. Women have been barred from combat. That said, our treatment of veterans is HORRIBLE. HORRIBLE. And I think it has a whole lot more to do with money than anything else. I think the war and military machine itself preys on economically and/or socially marginalized men. And that is horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to hear more on these issues and proposed solutions to them. I can get on board with a lot if it (as long we as leave off the incel inflammatory **** show.)


NS:

It is impossible to have honest debate when somebody injects opinion into what is supposed to be a "fact" piece.

If anyone can show me where Jordan Peterson has said that the patriarchy should be restored, or that all women belong in the household, or anything near that for that matter, I'll eat my words.

Jordan Peterson is one of the most rational voices for men out there. When he can't get a fair shake from feminists in the media, it leads me to be even more hostile toward feminism in general.

In other words, it's red meat for the feminists and trigger bait for men's rights advocates.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> NS:
> 
> It is impossible to have honest debate when somebody injects opinion into what is supposed to be a "fact" piece.
> 
> If anyone can show me where Jordan Peterson has said that the patriarchy should be restored, or that all women belong in the household, or anything near that for that matter, I'll eat my words.
> 
> Jordan Peterson is one of the most rational voices for men out there. *When he can't get a fair shake from feminists in the media, it leads me to be even more hostile toward feminism in general*.
> 
> In other words, it's red meat for the feminists and trigger bait for men's rights advocates.


Thank you for saying this.....it is sometimes confusing from this side. I can feel the hostility but I never understood why before. I'm getting it, slowly.

Also, it never occurred to me before to think of triggers with regard to men and men's issues. Partially this is because I usually don't feel men give much respect to triggers in general, but also because I do find that if I examine my thoughts, I think men are "strong" and have no weaknesses or triggers to worry about.

But that's silly...of course they have triggers! It makes a lot more sense now that I can also understand - - when they are hostile, it is because they just got triggered (not to mean triggered in some mocking way, but in the literal way, where you have been repeatedly traumatized by something and now you cannot react objectively to it).


----------



## personofinterest

farsidejunky said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mens-rights-activists/?utm_term=.b76ffa9974a9
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, look as I might, I DON'T see a lot of MRA hits that I think of as genuinely sensible men's issues. Take this from the above article.
> 
> 
> 
> "Peterson bemoans that “no one cares about the men who fail.” To address this alleged injustice, he endorses bringing back patriarchy, urging women to embrace lives as housewives and to submit to a regime of enforced monogamy. Peterson sees such drastic interventions as necessary, because he believes today’s forgotten citizens, the victims of gender oppression, are men."
> 
> 
> 
> referring to an Incel who drove his car through a crowd, killing 10.
> 
> 
> 
> But let's talk about this one:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Men's Rights Activists
> 
> 
> 
> "Why is there 2000 domestic abuse centers for women but only one for men since men and women are equally likely to be abused?( That's not to say that those 2000 are not needed. The question is in regards to the number for men since men and women are equally likely to be abused.) "
> 
> 
> 
> Why, indeed? Why ARE there more domestic abuse centers for women? I have my thoughts. But I would like to hear what others think.
> 
> 
> 
> "What about work place deaths? Most of those are all male. Why? What about war deaths? Overwhelmingly men."
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about work place deaths, so I l will let others illuminate those concerns. But war deaths seem pretty obvious. Women have been barred from combat. That said, our treatment of veterans is HORRIBLE. HORRIBLE. And I think it has a whole lot more to do with money than anything else. I think the war and military machine itself preys on economically and/or socially marginalized men. And that is horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to hear more on these issues and proposed solutions to them. I can get on board with a lot if it (as long we as leave off the incel inflammatory **** show.)
> 
> 
> 
> NS:
> 
> It is impossible to have honest debate when somebody injects opinion into what is supposed to be a "fact" piece.
> 
> If anyone can show me where Jordan Peterson has said that the patriarchy should be restored, or that all women belong in the household, or anything near that for that matter, I'll eat my words.
> 
> Jordan Peterson is one of the most rational voices for men out there. When he can't get a fair shake from feminists in the media, it leads me to be even more hostile toward feminism in general.
> 
> In other words, it's red meat for the feminists and trigger bait for men's rights advocates.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yep


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> She sounds hot. :laugh:


She is!


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Btw, for those who dislike the flippant nature of the term “woke”....I can offer you this.
> 
> I just got woke about a lot of very important human rights issues.


This is one of the rare times when that term is applicable.
Bravo!


----------



## tech-novelist

uhtred said:


> As an example of the situation:
> 
> Years ago my wife and I were foster parents for shelter care kids. (these are kids who need a place to stay for a few months, but expect to return to their families).
> 
> One was a 11 year old girl. She was slightly troubled - not at all surprising for a kid who was taken out of her house and sent to live with strangers.
> 
> One evening I told her it was time to stop using the computer and go to bed and she didn't want to. She looked at me and said, "I'll tell them you touched me".
> 
> Think about this situation and what the reaction would be if I were accused of molesting an 11 year old girl. She was out of her house because she had accused a relative of molesting her - that relative was of course facing criminal charges. (I have no idea if the molestation actually occurred). This was a *child* who had recognized that she had the power to destroy adult lives.
> 
> There was a case in the news a few years back of a girl, (maybe 12?) who had her step father sent to prison for child molestation because the jury couldn't believe such a young child could have made up such a horrifying and detailed description of abuse. (I guess they don't know about the internet). She recanted many years later - after of course he had spent years in prison as a child molester, been divorced by a wife and family who believed him to be a monster, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> (the really sad part was that we of course reported this, and thy took her and put her in a group home under much worse conditions - but no one could take the chance).
> 
> The situation is bad enough that at work, by my organizations policy, if we have underage interns, we are required to never be alone in a room with them, never take them in our cars, without a 3rd person present etc.
> 
> 
> I still don't see this as a statistically huge risk, but it is out there.
> 
> 
> This particular injustice doesn't cancel the injustices women face, injustices add, they never cancel. There is a lot of injustice in the world - all we can do is try to stop them were we can.


If there is a 1% chance that taking a medication will kill or cripple me, I won't take it unless I'm desperate for a treatment for whatever is ailing me. I'd be likely to suffer a long time before taking that chance.

The same is true here.


----------



## MattMatt

The problem with the term "woke" is that it is overused and doesn't always mean what people think it means.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MattMatt said:


> The problem with the term "woke" is that it is overused and doesn't always mean what people think it means.


I'm very clear on what I mean.


----------



## uhtred

I think again the issue that different men have different concerns makes any message very blurred. It seems that "men" are complaining against *everything*, while individual men may just have specific complaints.

(apple same for women of course).

I don't really know how to fix the discussion. Its very easy for two people to discuss what each of them believe, but as soon as they talk about what *groups* believe, it gets really complicated.

For me, I see the biggest issues for men as:

Being suspected of sexual misconduct / crimes based on statistics

Less likely to get custody in divorce (if that is in fact still true - not sure)


I see the largest issues for women (if its my place to say)

Likely to suffer forms of job discrimination. 

Risk of harassment and assault due to their gender. 


Both have the issue that society still has significantly different expectations for men and women - a sword that cuts both ways.








Faithful Wife said:


> snip
> 
> However, men are still not going to be "heard" while they are pushing back against everything, just like we (women) are doing all the time, too. Also, none of us actually ever hear someone if that someone is mocking us OR our position. If someone is mocking you and your position out the gate, what reason is there for you to hear their side?
> 
> snip


----------



## Faithful Wife

The debate thread is in the politics section for anyone who wants to check it out!


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> I think again the issue that different men have different concerns makes any message very blurred. It seems that "men" are complaining against *everything*, while individual men may just have specific complaints.
> 
> (apple same for women of course).
> 
> I don't really know how to fix the discussion. Its very easy for two people to discuss what each of them believe, but as soon as they talk about what *groups* believe, it gets really complicated.
> 
> For me, I see the biggest issues for men as:
> 
> Being suspected of sexual misconduct / crimes based on statistics
> 
> Less likely to get custody in divorce (if that is in fact still true - not sure)
> 
> 
> I see the largest issues for women (if its my place to say)
> 
> Likely to suffer forms of job discrimination.
> 
> Risk of harassment and assault due to their gender.
> 
> 
> Both have the issue that society still has significantly different expectations for men and women - a sword that cuts both ways.


Yes, we all have our own agenda every time we join a debate. And we may align with several in any group, but if we have very strong opinions or outlier opinions, we may skew what people think that group “thinks”.

I have a lot more to say on that but...not for this thread.

As for myself, I honestly can’t think of any “problem” I have as a woman. Nothing that doesn’t also apply to men, anyway.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Duplicate post


----------



## red oak

Just curious if anyone knows why we are where we are in relation to relationships of all types, not just male to female?

How did it get to this point?


----------



## Faithful Wife

red oak said:


> Just curious if anyone knows why we are where we are in relation to relationships of all types, not just male to female?
> 
> How did it get to this point?


If you mean other romantic and sexual relationships, I have a clue on alternative relationships.

If you mean friendships and acquaintances, I feel pretty sure about those relationships in my own life

How did it get to this point?

Since I only understand these man/woman issues in the abstract, and can only apply my own understanding of history (which probably isn’t like most people’s) to mating and relationships, I have my own thoughts on how we got to this point.

But would be also happy to hear yours.


----------



## NobodySpecial

red oak said:


> Just curious if anyone knows why we are where we are in relation to relationships of all types, not just male to female?
> 
> How did it get to this point?


Why we got where?


----------



## personofinterest

red oak said:


> Just curious if anyone knows why we are where we are in relation to relationships of all types, not just male to female?
> 
> How did it get to this point?


Selfishness and entitlement would be my short answer.


----------



## red oak

NobodySpecial said:


> Why we got where?


To the point where empathy even needs to be a point of discussion. 
To the point most relationships seem to have an underlying contention whether romantic or platonic.


----------



## red oak

personofinterest said:


> Selfishness and entitlement would be my short answer.


:smile2: you betcha.
Accurate. When one becomes so focused on self they become unable to see how behavior affects another.

Although to me it is applicable to this thread I realized long ago I have a different perspective, and few see the web of connections so I digress. 

I leave it with a quote from an old psych article: "we know that the way to make oneself unhappiest is to focus on the self. Those who are able to get outside of themselves in the service of others generally report a greater sense of well-being. Individuals report the greatest sense of unhappiness when focused on the self. This self-conscious grooming has worked well in selling products, but has left many of us overly focused on the self and how others perceive us."


----------



## minimalME

@red oak

You might be interested in talks from Andrew Fellows. He goes into this topic at great length.

Narcissism - the Worldview of Self

Getting Out of My Head - the Problem of Introspection


----------



## AVR1962

ConanHub said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> Mrs. C definitely has empathy for me and is actually more sexually receptive when I am emotionally hurt.
> 
> She has, however, displayed an alarming lack of response when I get sick.
> 
> When I have been physically or emotionally injured, she turns into Florence Nightingale with a healthy mix of sexy vixen.
> 
> When I have become ill, no matter how seriously, a wall comes up and I am worse than on my own because she becomes actively disgusting with me, often barely tolerating me.
> 
> She almost never gets sick so I don't know if that has anything to do with it.
> 
> She has stepped over me to do chores while I was incapacitated by a migraine on the floor.
> 
> We have had many talks about her attitude and she has learned to improve.


I can relate....my ex would get the sniffles and he would be down. Someone had to keep everything going and that was me no matter how sick I was. And yes, it caused hard feelings.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't normally look at Washington Post. But I have seen it listed as the heavily left biased news outlets. I just googled to find anything. I think that whoever interviewed him, likely did exactly as you said, went in to refute.
> 
> I wonder why you are calling me out like this? I specifically ASKED for this information.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to "call you out".
> 
> I just see things like this happen all the time and I don't know if it's on purpose or if their confirmation bias is so overwhelming that they really see what they think they see.
> 
> I was looking for an opinion from someone who doesn't share my confirmation bias.
Click to expand...


----------



## ConanHub

AVR1962 said:


> I can relate....my ex would get the sniffles and he would be down. Someone had to keep everything going and that was me no matter how sick I was. And yes, it caused hard feelings.


Different situations actually.

I never stopped unless incapacitated. I did get migraines for a few years but worked through every type of flu, cold or infection someone could get.

I worked 14 or more hours a day on average during this time.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I will try and touch this one last time.
> 
> 
> 
> If I say two girls, one cup it as a contextual meaning that many, many people know because of how broadly "out there" a certain video is. If I say "helicopter parent" almost everyone knows that I am not likening all parents to helicopters. There is a contextual meaning to this term that stems from patterns we observe in a certain type of parenting that is being described with a certain type of parenting. It is so prevalent that one does not feel the need to write a disclaimer or description of what it means lest someone get confused and think that ANYONE is saying all parents are helicopters or that someone is talking about the nature of parents.



I know the thread has moved on but...really?

You don’t think there’s much of a difference using the phrase ‘helicopter parent’ and ‘toxic masculinity’?

Would it be ok for anyone to refer to ‘female idiocy’, with the same kind of caveat you put forward? I think ‘contextually’, everyone would also know what is being referred to and no one should find it offensive either, right? That’s the theory at least. 

The article goes much further actually. It refers to ‘traditional masculinity’ and not just ‘toxic masculinity’. What do they mean by it, ‘contextually’? All those times when all the good men died protecting women, traditionally?

You should seriously consider changing the language because it’s not helping your cause.


----------



## FeministInPink

I appreciate the nomination to be a judge for the debate thread(s), but I need to work on less screen time, not more.

But I like the idea, and hope y'all run with it.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

On empathy...

In my search for other side / ‘red pill’ material (to understand what this and other threads are objecting), I came across this video that explains why women looking for commitment and seeking out vulnerability in men are in fact potentially grooming them for suicide:






(A view I in no way endorse, at least not in the way it is presented in the video). Although I can possibly imagine how one might arrive at it if something pretty dramatic happened in your life.

It’s an interesting but weird way to look at the world: so do men who desire more empathy subconsciously want to be ‘groomed for suicide’? Or do women who stopped feeling or showing sufficient empathy to their husband’s in the ‘advance’ stages of their marriage are actually being more considerate by withholding empathy?
It’s a bit of a head scratcher for me. *
Something for a debate? 

The issue for me is that those types of videos/views are pretty much on the very fringe of society while ‘toxic masculinity’ and similar articles are now basically mainstream ‘facts’. It’s very easy to predict where this is heading...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> I know the thread has moved on but...really?
> 
> You don’t think there’s much of a difference using the phrase ‘helicopter parent’ and ‘toxic masculinity’?
> 
> Would it be ok for anyone to refer to ‘female idiocy’, with the same kind of caveat you put forward? I think ‘contextually’, everyone would also know what is being referred to and no one should find it offensive either, right? That’s the theory at least.
> 
> The article goes much further actually. It refers to ‘traditional masculinity’ and not just ‘toxic masculinity’. What do they mean by it, ‘contextually’? All those times when all the good men died protecting women, traditionally?
> 
> You should seriously consider changing the language because it’s not helping your cause.


I did not write the language. I have no cause. I tried to explain to you what it meant in the context in which it was coined. There is a series of posts about an MRA speaker whose roundly charged with some views that posters say is not his message. So, in order to be informed, I went in search of the actual message. Crazy to do when I could just take two of his words and get righteously indignant. 

You read what it means by traditionally and find you don't agree with it. At least you are informed.


----------



## minimalME

inmyprime said:


> It’s an interesting but weird way to look at the world:


I think it's all very sad. 

And I think his take on the motives of women is awful. 

You'd be very hardpressed to find a woman who doesn't care that men die in war. Or women who have romantic notions about men committing suicide???

To generalize to such an extent and make most women out to be flippant about the sacrifices and suffering of men is nonsense.


----------



## EllisRedding

So I think this highlights perfectly what many men may be feeling. Not sure if people have seen/heard about, but P & G decided to do an ad for Gillette around the MeToo movement, basically calling out all men for Bullying (b/c apparently only men bully) and their toxic masculinity. So once again, we have public shaming of men...


----------



## minimalME

EllisRedding said:


> So I think this highlights perfectly what many men may be feeling. Not sure if people have seen/heard about, but P & G decided to do an ad for Gillette around the MeToo movement, basically calling out all men for Bullying (b/c apparently only men bully) and their toxic masculinity. So once again, we have public shaming of men...


Ellis, do you experience these types of attitudes on a day to day basis from the women you come in contact with?


----------



## PigglyWiggly

EllisRedding said:


> So I think this highlights perfectly what many men may be feeling. Not sure if people have seen/heard about, but P & G decided to do an ad for Gillette around the MeToo movement, basically calling out all men for Bullying (b/c apparently only men bully) and their toxic masculinity. So once again, we have public shaming of men...


I watched the ad and thought they were telling the good men to call out the bad.....sort of "police your own". Why do you think our perspectives are so different?


----------



## EllisRedding

minimalME said:


> Ellis, do you experience these types of attitudes on a day to day basis from the women you come in contact with?


For the most part fortunately not lol. I do know a few women who do seem to have a hatred towards men, but overall no. Actually, that is where I have commented here before regarding. It is hard to gauge how much of this is purely media driven (i.e. the minority just seeming like they are bigger than they actually are, pushing divisive viewpoints) vs actually the growing mentality


----------



## EllisRedding

PigglyWiggly said:


> I watched the ad and thought they were telling the good men to call out the bad.....sort of "police your own". Why do you think our perspectives are so different?


Well, it starts off with the whole bullying thing, which is in no way a male specific issue (but the Ad comes across as such). It portrays men as a whole as problematic, and now the "good" ones need to step up. The simple truth, there are good and bad men out there just like there are good and bad women out there. Why make an ad (especially when the target audience for the product is male) that basically talks down to them. Why does a big corporation now all of a sudden feel like they need to be the moral police? I am all for guys stepping up, and holding others (men and women) accountable. The ad itself is garbage


----------



## 269370

PigglyWiggly said:


> I watched the ad and thought they were telling the good men to call out the bad.....sort of "police your own". Why do you think our perspectives are so different?




I don’t think your perspective is that different. However the presumption that this needs to be made into an ad or a public statement (as if regular men just stand by and enable/agree with bad behaviour) is kind of insulting in its own right. It’s not clear why it’s a gender issue. Unless one presumes there’s something inherently wrong with men.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PigglyWiggly

EllisRedding said:


> Well, it starts off with the whole bullying thing, which is in no way a male specific issue (but the Ad comes across as such). It portrays men as a whole as problematic, and now the "good" ones need to step up. The simple truth, there are good and bad men out there just like there are good and bad women out there. Why make an ad (especially when the target audience for the product is male) that basically talks down to them. Why does a big corporation now all of a sudden feel like they need to be the moral police? I am all for guys stepping up, and holding others (men and women) accountable. The ad itself is garbage


Again, why do you think we see it so differently? I don't feel talked down to or that the "moral police" are after me. I thought it was a great message. 

*Why make an ad (especially when the target audience for the product is male) that basically talks down to them.* Ask yourself that question again. Maybe they didn't.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

inmyprime said:


> I don’t think your perspective is that different. However the presumption that this needs to be made into an ad or a public statement (*as if regular men just stand by and enable/agree with bad behaviour*) is kind of insulting in its own right. It’s not clear why it’s a gender issue. Unless one presumes there’s something inherently wrong with men.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


ohhhh but some do. I've nearly toted several ass-whippings trying to correct some of these neanderthals. "might makes right" is still a thing for many men who haven't evolved.


----------



## EllisRedding

PigglyWiggly said:


> Again, why do you think we see it so differently? I don't feel talked down to or that the "moral police" are after me. I thought it was a great message.
> 
> *Why make an ad (especially when the target audience for the product is male) that basically talks down to them.* Ask yourself that question again. Maybe they didn't.


We have different POV, I honestly don't understand what you are asking. I view it different then you, no biggie. As per the bolded, don't really see the need to ask myself that again as I think my question stands lol.

At the end of the day, P&G is getting their name out there building off of stereotypes. Unless they get a huge consumer backlash, it is free publicity which for a company is not a bad thing.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

EllisRedding said:


> We have different POV, I honestly don't understand what you are asking. I view it different then you, no biggie. As per the bolded, don't really see the need to ask myself that again as I think my question stands lol.
> 
> At the end of the day, P&G is getting their name out there building off of stereotypes. Unless they get a huge consumer backlash,* it is free publicity which for a company is not a bad thing*.


well at least you somewhat answered your own question.....mystery solved


----------



## EllisRedding

PigglyWiggly said:


> well at least you somewhat answered your own question.....mystery solved


Lol, ok, didn't think it was a mystery (but as I stated, only worth it if it doesn't result in a huge backlash, which in the case of a company would mean lost sales). Whether or not it will, maybe it will lead to an increase in sales, don't know, don't really care lol.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

EllisRedding said:


> Lol, ok, didn't think it was a mystery (but as I stated, only worth it if it doesn't result in a huge backlash, which in the case of a company would mean lost sales). Whether or not it will, maybe it will lead to an increase in sales, don't know, don't really care lol.


"Why make an ad (especially when the target audience for the product is male) that basically talks down to them" 

ahhh sorry...i didn't realize you were being rhetorical


----------



## personofinterest

Maybe the one step pregnancy test could do a commercial where they applaud the woman with the positive result for the fact that poking a hole in her boyfriend's condom worked. Cause it's kind of the same sort of idea. Taking a small portion of a certain population and acting as if it is a vast portion. A small Portion of women trick their men into getting pregnant or hide the fatherhood of the baby. A small portion of men are predators. I bet that would go over well….. not. The pink hats would fly lol


----------



## EllisRedding

PigglyWiggly said:


> "Why make an ad (especially when the target audience for the product is male) that basically talks down to them"
> 
> ahhh sorry...i didn't realize you were being rhetorical


Glad I could enlighten you into the ways of business...


----------



## NobodySpecial

PigglyWiggly said:


> ohhhh but some do. I've nearly toted several ass-whippings trying to correct some of these neanderthals. "might makes right" is still a thing for many men who haven't evolved.


I see it even here. You don't see anyone howling when someone makes a statement like a recent one about men doing and saying anything to get laid. Shrug. Maybe that's what it means to be male.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

NobodySpecial said:


> I see it even here. You don't see anyone howling when someone makes a statement like a recent one about men doing and saying anything to get laid. Shrug. *Maybe that's what it means to be male.*


To some, I think you are right.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> PigglyWiggly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ohhhh but some do. I've nearly toted several ass-whippings trying to correct some of these neanderthals. "might makes right" is still a thing for many men who haven't evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> I see it even here. You don't see anyone howling when someone makes a statement like a recent one about men doing and saying anything to get laid. Shrug. Maybe that's what it means to be male.
Click to expand...

 I have called out several of the men on here who treat women like masturbation aids or act as if the 1st no is just practice. I've seen other people call them out to. So I'm not seeing a lot of neanderthals on Tam. There are around 6 men on here who just happened to post a lot in be really obnoxious, but other than that most of the men on here are normal good man.

I can always tell when someone is out there and really addicted to that red pill stuff because they call me a misandrist. Anyone who knows me and calls ME a misandrist has a pretty funny head.


----------



## EllisRedding

personofinterest said:


> I have called out several of the men on here who treat women like masturbation aids or act as if the 1st no is just practice. I've seen other people call them out to. So I'm not seeing a lot of neanderthals on Tam. There are around 6 men on here who just happened to post a lot in be really obnoxious, but other than that most of the men on here are normal good man.
> 
> I can always tell when someone is out there and really addicted to that red pill stuff because they call me a misandrist. Anyone who knows me and calls ME a misandrist has a pretty funny head.


Agreed. It is like anything else. When you have a few vocal people who push ideas that are going to be divisive, it may give the appearance of being a more widely held opinion when in reality it is not. I honestly don't see most men here on TAM running around pushing the idea of getting laid at all cost.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

personofinterest said:


> I have called out several of the men on here who treat women like masturbation aids or act as if the 1st no is just practice. I've seen other people call them out to. So I'm not seeing a lot of neanderthals on Tam. There are around 6 men on here who just happened to post a lot in be really obnoxious, but other than that most of the men on here are normal good man.
> 
> I can always tell when someone is out there and really addicted to that red pill stuff because they call me a misandrist. *Anyone who knows me* and calls ME a misandrist has a pretty funny head.


Hard to peg you as a misandrist with you having stated many times your love for the D.


----------



## personofinterest

EllisRedding said:


> Agreed. It is like anything else. When you have a few vocal people who push ideas that are going to be divisive, it may give the appearance of being a more widely held opinion when in reality it is not. I honestly don't see most men here on TAM running around pushing the idea of getting laid at all cost.


Exactly. And I'll be frank. I'd rather be in a room full of rabid redpillers than in a room with only a small handful of angry "new-wave" feminists. And no, my husband didn't tell me to say that lol

That aside, I can understand why men feel minimized when everything that bothers them is met with "well look at what women have to go through," "women have been oppressed for centuries!!" and the like. It's like saying you have a broken leg and someone pipes up and says "Well, one time I broke all the bones in my back and was in a coma! I win!"


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I did not write the language. I have no cause. I tried to explain to you what it meant in the context in which it was coined. There is a series of posts about an MRA speaker whose roundly charged with some views that posters say is not his message. So, in order to be informed, I went in search of the actual message. Crazy to do when I could just take two of his words and get righteously indignant.
> 
> You read what it means by traditionally and find you don't agree with it. At least you are informed.


You did not write the language however you unambiguously stated that you don't find anything wrong with the language used and also not going to stop using these inflammatory words as they mean a specific thing to you. I can only surmise that either you don't quite understand what the words you use mean or that you agree with the language.


----------



## Tiggy!

personofinterest said:


> Exactly. And I'll be frank. I'd rather be in a room full of rabid redpillers than in a room with only a small handful of angry "new-wave" feminists. And no, my husband didn't tell me to say that lol


Why? they're as bad as each other.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> You did not write the language however you unambiguously stated that you don't find anything wrong with the language used and also not going to stop using these inflammatory words as they mean a specific thing to you. I can only surmise that either you don't quite understand what the words you use mean or that you agree with the language.


I don't use the 2 words out of context in order to get myself hot under the collar. Peace.


----------



## 269370

EllisRedding said:


> Agreed. It is like anything else. When you have a few vocal people who push ideas that are going to be divisive, it may give the appearance of being a more widely held opinion when in reality it is not. I honestly don't see most men here on TAM running around pushing the idea of getting laid at all cost.


I wouldn't want to take any chances though, especially in today's overly connected society. And this is coming from someone who said the same thing to someone that didn't think there was a chance in hell that Trump would ever get close to a nomination.

Btw I played that red pill video to wife and she suddenly became extremely horny, especially after I told her that I am so sick of this whole feminism/red pill stuff that I am about to jump out of the window...Best sex ever! (this week).
See if there is a bridge around here somewhere > Always looking to improve sex life at any cost :smile2:


----------



## ConanHub

I liked the commercial overall but thought the bullying and fighting parts were off.

I grew up around a lot of females and they are far more viscous when they bully. When they fight, they fight on several levels and it might not ever be over.

I really liked the scene with the woman in the kitchen getting her butt groped. I wish he would have spanked her as well!😈


----------



## ConanHub

inmyprime said:


> I wouldn't want to take any chances though, especially in today's overly connected society. And this is coming from someone who said the same thing to someone that didn't think there was a chance in hell that Trump would ever get close to a nomination.
> 
> Btw I played that red pill video to wife and she suddenly became extremely horny, especially after I told her that I am so sick of this whole feminism/red pill stuff that I am about to jump out of the window...Best sex ever! (this week).
> See if there is a bridge around here somewhere > Always looking to improve sex life at any cost :smile2:


That video was hilarious!! Thanks for the laugh!:grin2:


----------



## Rubix Cubed

red oak said:


> Just curious if anyone knows why we are where we are in relation to relationships of all types, not just male to female?
> 
> How did it get to this point?


 I know I'm a little late to respond to this post, but I honestly figured someone else would articulate my thoughts on this issue better than I likely could.

IMO it is the current victim mentality that if you've been persecuted worse than someone else that somehow gives you some kind of high ground. This logic has lead to being offended by any and everything under the sun with people endlessly seeking reasons to be offended. Once down this rabbit hole, you can break down groups to minuscule proportions that are pitted against themselves. This becomes apparent when "they" (whoever they may be in any particular situation) begin to "eat" their own. All of this combined with social media that has almost zero repercussions for anti-social behavior and responses makes a toxic situation for almost anyone and everyone.


----------



## RubyRing

I think my experience and response to sick men, might be a bit a-typical from what I have read so far on this thread (have not read through this entire thread).

I tend to go into full on Florence Nightingale role when ANYBODY gets ill. Male, female, close friend, co-worker, etc. With my ex hubby, I did the whole bit, made him home made chicken soup (yes, I really do that, as home made soup is one of my cooking specialties), emptied his puke basin, wiped his fevered brow with a damp cloth, ran him to the doctors, went out to pick up meds, herbal suplements, whatever his treatment of choice. Same with my son, tended to him lovingly when ill. On the other hand, my ex-hubby had NO EMPATHY what so ever for illness in others, not me, not our son. In fact, he showed downright contempt towards anyone who was ill, treated it like a weakness not to be tolerated, and looked for ways to make the illness OUR fault. He verbally abused our son when he got whooping cough at age 12. (I did not know that whooping cough immunizations in infancy only lasted about 10 years). He screamed at him for coughing, as he couldn't stand the noise, and said he probably got the cough because he didn't wash his hands. I should have filed for divorce then and there. I had to not only provide nurturing for my son for being ill in the first place, but shield him from his father's rants. So while the ex enjoyed being coddled and babied by me when HE was ill, he hated to be in the presence of anyone else who was ill, and they bore the full brunt of his contempt. I believe his rage at ill people and his expectation to be coddled when ill (a coddling I gladly provide to anyone who is genuinely ill) stems from the fact that his mother was a nurse, who provided no sympathy to her children when they were ill. She actually told us this. She provided whatever medical care was necessary, ie: gave them meds, insured they drank enough fluids etc. but no sympathy. She was of the belief that if you coddled sick kids they would become hypocondriacs. Hence, in my unprofessional pschyco-analysis of my ex, the rage at other's illnesses was because it brought up these sad memories of a childhood of no sympathy when sick, by his mother, who made her living as a nurse. 

The wonderful man I am married to now on the other hand, is the Florence Nightingale of EVERYONE. He takes care of me with the utmost of compassion when I am ill, took care of my Dad before he passed away, so I did not have to take time off from work. (He was retired, I was not, we are both now retired) He takes his sick friends to the hospital and checks up on them, he still takes his ex-wife to her appointments when necessary, etc. However, when HE gets sick, he doesn't want to be taken care of, much as I might try. He has a "I'd rather be left alone, and take care of myself" attitude. I WISH he would let me nurse him when he is sick, but he is a very independent and doesn't like to lean on anyone, even if that person wants to be leaned on. While I do wish he would let me play the nurse maid when he needs it, I do love the loving way he cares for me, and everyone around him when need be.


----------

