# Can Women be Too Independent?



## deejov

Another post made me think of this. 

I have read that to a man, his instinct is to protect, provide, and please his wife. 

What if she doesn't NEED any of those things?

Would that lead to him feeling .... like he isn't wanted?


----------



## treyvion

deejov said:


> Another post made me think of this.
> 
> I have read that to a man, his instinct is to protect, provide, and please his wife.
> 
> What if she doesn't NEED any of those things?
> 
> Would that lead to him feeling .... like he isn't wanted?


They NEED those things, because they handle it one way or another with or without the man...

When a person is so independant that they do not value the contribution of the other relationship partner, it is going to lead to problems.

So men and women CAN be too independant for a marital type of relationship where sharing and mutual agreement is required.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I've said this before on TAM and I'll say it again. Most men are not at all intimidated by successful women. We don't hate them at all. The issue is if I were married to one where could I contribute? I can't speak for all men but something inside of me needs to feel like my wife needs me to provide an protect. 

I know we want to believe that we are all the same based on gender, but I don't think so. If this were the case why do successful women seem to seek out mates of equal or higher accomplishments. While successful men don't seem to place the same importance on that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

In the Marriage Builders literature, they talk about how Independent Behavior can be a marriage killer. They don't just mean doing things independently though, they mean when one spouse makes a decision or acts in a way that affects both people in the marriage, but they don't allow their spouse any say in whether they do the behavior or not. When we act and make decisions independently in marriage, a whole bunch of stuff can go wrong. So in the MB material, it is a whole concept in itself and can be what they call a Love Buster.

Independent Behavior

As for your question, I definitely think either a man or woman can just act or be too independent in marriage. But that is only if the other spouse is feeling neglected. If both spouses are very independent and they both truly want the dynamic to be that way, that can work out just fine. I have known many couples like this. This can work particularly well with people who don't need that much affection.


----------



## Giro flee

My husband travels very often for his job, so I think my being extremely independent has helped our marriage. I think it really depends on the two people and their circumstances.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Reformed said: "While successful men don't seem to place the same importance on that."

A lot of successful men do, though. Many of them want a wife who is their "equal". For instance, I know several couples who are both scientists, CPA's, lawyers or doctors.


----------



## RandomDude

Well if she doesn't desire my love or my affection, then sure I'll move on. I don't believe in needing, though the important part for me is whether she has the desire or not.

Like hey, if she can protect herself, well that's pretty cool, if she can provide for herself then hey I don't mind abit of contribution to the bills. Those things I can live with, after all, my first gf back in my youth was one of the most independent women I've ever met. I can live with equal partnership. But when it comes to companionship... hell you either desire it or you don't.

I don't believing in 'needing', hell even I've always kept a part of my heart to myself no matter what - like a bomb shelter so if everything falls apart I'll still be somewhat sane and can live without. I've also never allowed a woman to take over my position as a man no matter her independence, as for protection hell my first gf was one of the best fighters I've ever fought, and I fought alongside her when she is threatened and vice versa. As for providing we weren't married and we had our own independent finances, we never once leeched off each other. 

STBX was more of a "traditional female" I guess...

But anyways, back to the "needing", as I mentioned I always kept a bomb shelter; I don't allow myself to get to the stage where "I need her to survive". Unfortunately it's also something that has caused divide between me and STBX due to this hardening. It really shows nowadays as the hardened side of me has taken over completely and changed how I think, feel, and act. STBX wants us to try again, too late as I no longer feel anything.

I don't like the word "need", I prefer the word "desire"


----------



## SimplyAmorous

deejov said:


> Another post made me think of this.
> 
> I have read that to a man, his instinct is to protect, provide, and please his wife.
> 
> What if she doesn't NEED any of those things?
> 
> Would that lead to him feeling .... like he isn't wanted?


I just read this to my husband from the other room... he answered ..."Yeah, I would say YES... that's what a guys sole purpose is ...to take care of his family".

He's forever been the "Protect, Provide and Pleaser" type .... I dearly love him & respect him for being this way.... He would prefer me be in the home with the children over working a full time job... has nothing what so ever to do with trying to rule me, or fear I will do better than him....he just feels that's the MAN's place....he'd support anything I set my hands to....cheering me on, if I so wanted. I love having this option at my disposal, with his blessing to whatever makes me happy..and works for our family. 

I've always greatly appreciated men who are geared this way... I suppose the majority is all tipped on the Beta scales a bit...they get something out of saving those "Damsel's in Distress" ....but what the hell ~ Works for me!


----------



## Mavash.

treyvion said:


> When a person is so independant that they do not value the contribution of the other relationship partner, it is going to lead to problems.


I agree with this statement.


----------



## Cosmos

deejov said:


> Another post made me think of this.
> 
> I have read that to a man, his instinct is to protect, provide, and please his wife.
> 
> What if she doesn't NEED any of those things?
> 
> Would that lead to him feeling .... like he isn't wanted?


I'm independent enough to not _need _a man to do these things for me, but that isn't to say that I don't revel in having those things done for me. They make me feel loved and cherished.


----------



## greenpearl

Faithful Wife said:


> In the Marriage Builders literature, they talk about how Independent Behavior can be a marriage killer. They don't just mean doing things independently though, they mean when one spouse makes a decision or acts in a way that affects both people in the marriage, but they don't allow their spouse any say in whether they do the behavior or not. When we act and make decisions independently in marriage, a whole bunch of stuff can go wrong. So in the MB material, it is a whole concept in itself and can be what they call a Love Buster.
> 
> Independent Behavior
> 
> As for your question, I definitely think either a man or woman can just act or be too independent in marriage. But that is only if the other spouse is feeling neglected. If both spouses are very independent and they both truly want the dynamic to be that way, that can work out just fine. I have known many couples like this. This can work particularly well with people who don't need that much affection.


I think people can be independent, but they still need to respect their spouses. After people are married, most of the decisions people make will affect their spouses, so it is necessary to give their spouses respect and discuss with them. For example, my cousin decides to go to a motorcycle rally, this is his hobby. But he is married, his safety is important for his wife and kid. If he comes home safely, no problem; but if he comes injured, then his wife has to look after him, and their finance is affected.


----------



## RandomDude

Cosmos said:


> I'm independent enough to not _need _a man to do these things for me, but that isn't to say that I don't revel in having those things done for me. They make me feel loved and cherished.




I prefer your attitude compared to the attitude of _needing_ someone. But that's just me...


----------



## greenpearl

Financially, I can be independent. I have a skill and I make a good salary, I can support myself. 

But emotionally, I can't be independent. I need a man to love me and care for me. 

I am not even talking about protection. I can be smart enough not to get myself into trouble so I don't need anybody's protection. 

But I need a companion, someone to share my life and thoughts with. Someone to hold me and caress me. 

And I can't have sex with myself. I need a man to have sex with. 

Some people can be arrogant to think that they don't need anyone in their life, but they are only fooling themselves. Deep down they are lonely and empty.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Cosmos said:


> I'm independent enough to not _need _a man to do these things for me, but that isn't to say that I don't revel in having those things done for me. They make me feel loved and cherished.


:iagree:
There is a difference in not needing something done for you and not appreciating that it's done for you.


----------



## greenpearl

RandomDude said:


> I don't like the word "need", I prefer the word "desire"


Desire is a better word here. :iagree:


----------



## Faithful Wife

For me it comes down to affection. I'm a total affection wh*re and can't/won't live without it...that qualifies me as "needing him" because I can't give myself real affection. I don't have any pets or kids in the house anymore, so he has to take me on all by himself for affection. Thankfully, he's a wh*re for it, too.


----------



## ntamph

I think women want an equal or superior man in terms of career/personal success.

Never someone beneath them. High income wife or stay at home dad marriages have a very high divorce rate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Do they? Is that really documented, and is the research recent?

It seems more and more this kind of income dynamic can work with the right couple. I know a couple, she is a doctor, he is a SAHD. They seem completely happy, while his brother is an executive and his wife is a SAHM, who also seem completely happy. The brothers are both quite capable of large incomes, but the SAHD couple decided that her career was more rewarding to her than his was to him, so they picked her as the breadwinner together. He is far from the SAHD on the couch in sweats, however. 

It just takes the right mix.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> For me it comes down to affection. I'm a total affection wh*re and can't/won't live without it...that qualifies me as "needing him" because I can't give myself real affection. I don't have any pets or kids in the house anymore, so he has to take me on all by himself for affection. Thankfully, he's a wh*re for it, too.


We got the kids and we're still Affection Wh*res. Love your post FW.


----------



## greenpearl

Faithful Wife said:


> Do they? Is that really documented, and is the research recent?
> 
> It seems more and more this kind of income dynamic can work with the right couple. I know a couple, she is a doctor, he is a SAHD. They seem completely happy, while his brother is an executive and his wife is a SAHM, who also seem completely happy. The brothers are both quite capable of large incomes, but the SAHD couple decided that her career was more rewarding to her than his was to him, so they picked her as the breadwinner together. He is far from the SAHD on the couch in sweats, however.
> 
> It just takes the right mix.


I really agree with this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA...just imagine how much affection you both get when the kids are grown...all adult, all the time affection is quite exquisite. Empty nest rocks!

(not that full nests don't)


----------



## greenpearl

Faithful Wife said:


> SA...just imagine how much affection you both get when the kids are grown...all adult, all the time affection is quite exquisite. Empty nest rocks!
> 
> (not that full nests don't)


They can run around their house naked and play with each other! :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes...that was the point! My mother had a key to my house and used to just walk in anytime. When my nest became empty, I took her key back and told her "you don't want to end up walking in on us running around naked". She laughed, I giggled...I wasn't kidding.


----------



## greenpearl

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes...that was the point! My mother had a key to my house and used to just walk in anytime. When my nest became empty, I took her key back and told her "you don't want to end up walking in on us running around naked". She laughed, I giggled...I wasn't kidding.


:rofl: 

I could imagine!!!

We don't have children. The first thing my husband does after he comes home is to take off his clothes!!!


----------



## deejov

Cosmos said:


> I'm independent enough to not _need _a man to do these things for me, but that isn't to say that I don't revel in having those things done for me. They make me feel loved and cherished.


Cosmos,and Random, this closely hits what I was thinking.

And yeah, I have been told recently that I am "too independent" 'in this fashion for "most" men to understand. 

But I do desire these things. At times. It's not my default state. 
"Sometimes I want to feel like a woman". LOL

But more often than not lately, I don't think I feel I need those things. 

How does an independent woman show desire instead of need?


----------



## treyvion

greenpearl said:


> Financially, I can be independent. I have a skill and I make a good salary, I can support myself.
> 
> But emotionally, I can't be independent. I need a man to love me and care for me.
> 
> I am not even talking about protection. I can be smart enough not to get myself into trouble so I don't need anybody's protection.
> 
> But I need a companion, someone to share my life and thoughts with. Someone to hold me and caress me.
> 
> And I can't have sex with myself. I need a man to have sex with.
> 
> Some people can be arrogant to think that they don't need anyone in their life, but they are only fooling themselves. Deep down they are lonely and empty.


If you get a paycheck. You depend on other people and other people are in your life.


----------



## deejov

treyvion said:


> They NEED those things, because they handle it one way or another with or without the man...
> 
> When a person is so independant that they do not value the contribution of the other relationship partner, it is going to lead to problems.
> 
> So men and women CAN be too independant for a marital type of relationship where sharing and mutual agreement is required.


Trey,
I am a bit messed up on some of this, but trying to decide where I stand on it, personally.

For me, it's weakness to say that I NEED my spouse to provide, protect, please. Well, for anyone, not just my spouse.

To be personal, some of it is engrained as survival. I was "taught' to never rely on someone to manage my diabetes. 

I have an internal kinda thing... a need is to put the power of success or failure in someone else's hands. 

This goes against my diabetes thing. I should not ever do that. I should take full responsibility for it, because my life depends on it. 

But when it comes to connections with other people, my brain doesn't make a distinction. 

I *know* there is no harm in needing feelings. Right? 

How do "men" show caring, feelings, without losing their sense of strength?


----------



## RandomDude

Same, I've also been taught in my youth that needing is a weakness. Wanting something is a different story, desiring something/someone. Needing food, water, shelter is a human weakness and no way around it. But needing someone to live? That's a personal weakness IMO.

I've lived without STBX before I met her, and vice versa. Hell even though STBX has expressed that she wants to give us another shot, she has not said anything along the lines of "can't live without you" "I need you" etc etc. And quite frankly if she does, I would lose respect for her as well as worry what she may do to herself considering I don't feel as she does! 

Unfortunately even though it's good that she's not on her knees or something which I will absolutely hate... I worry about her continual joblessness even after all these months, it's almost like she needs a man, but right now she's living off the cash we split between ourselves and maintains her parents' financial support. She's 3 years older than me FFS and the mother of my child. She spouts all this stuff about working on our marriage yet has not worked on herself so right now I can't respect her enough to even feel anything towards her. Bah, but enough of my random rant.

Just saying... some guys (like me), like ladies we can walk side by side with, not having to hold their hand through everything. Despite STBX's rather spoiled lifestyle (rich parents), the last thing I want is for a woman to _need_ me. My daughter, sure, she's my dependent.

Hell come to think of it, this was a problem in itself during our marriage with me complaining that she won't get a job!


----------



## Mavash.

I believe it's a paradox.

I can protect, provide and please myself.

I also love for my husband to do these things for me.

Allowing him to care for me while maintaining my personal power is a beautiful thing.


----------



## RandomDude

^ That's not needing, well not to my definition ne ways


----------



## deejov

Interesting, RD.
Even more horrid... I used to think the same way, about my spouse. I don't want to hold his hand through everything.

But I learned recently... it's a male instinct to want to protect, provide, pleasure. When I reviewed our own personal reactions, I decided it was true, for us. He is constantly looking for assurance that he is a success, and is deeply afraid of failure.

Just as I linked needing to weakness, he links me not needing him as a failure, to be a man. What's his purpose then? Literally.

I wish I knew some RL men with independent wives. LOL!


----------



## deejov

Mavash. said:


> I believe it's a paradox.
> 
> I can protect, provide and please myself.
> 
> I also love for my husband to do these things for me.
> 
> Allowing him to care for me while maintaining my personal power is a beautiful thing.


Mavash, my muse. That's it. Said perfectly.
I suck at it.


----------



## Mavash.

deejov said:


> Mavash, my muse. That's it. Said perfectly.
> I suck at it.


LOL so did I until I figured it out.


----------



## RandomDude

? :scratchhead:

I would link the inability to protect, to provide, and to pleasure a failure. I would also link the loss of her desire as a failure. I would also link having a woman on her knees also a failure!!!

Which unfortunately, the latter is the case in our marriage, as I've broken her spirit somewhat throughout our marriage. That's another thing stopping me from even wanting to try to reconcile and hoping she just gives up - because of guilt.

I feel the purpose of us men during relationships is to enrich the lives of our spouse and vice versa. Of course we wish to be desired, but for me at least I don't like to feel needed. Bah, I really hate the word! Heh


----------



## Mavash.

RandomDude said:


> ^ That's not needing, well not to my definition ne ways


Agree.

I've debated the word 'need' on here so many times and lost. LOL

I won't go there again.


----------



## deejov

RD,
Is it still a failure when a woman doesn't even allow you the _chance _to protect, provide, please?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

greenpearl said:


> They can run around their house naked and play with each other! :rofl:


My husband could get weekends off, but instead he takes 2 week days...so we have time like that when they're in school.....we take advantage of outside too...neighbors planted way on top of the hill, can't see us ...just gotta watch that the Electric meter reader man & UPS man doesn't come down the drive...

Once we had Land Surveyors show up walking through the field... that was a trip hiding on the trampoline...(they got like 50 ft from us)......we kept quiet till they got further in the woods then we dashed for the door....We had a sheet though! 

Husband told that story to the guys at work but he conveniently left out the sheet - for extra effect. 



> *RandomDude said*: Hell come to think of it, this was a problem in itself during our marriage with me complaining that she won't get a job!


 Men really are different here, I didn't come with a silver spoon in my mouth...I've always been very very careful with money.......so my husband never felt this way..... 

I think if the wife is spending too much, they are fighting about $$, can't live within their means...it's best for her to go to work....I would complain too if I was a man in those circumstances... I had to keep my end of the bargain to run our family smoothly & not waste. 

I ran into a wife & Mom from my Mops group at the county Fair..hadn't seen her in years... the whole conversation digressed to her husband badgering her to get a job (obviously they had some marital issues)... I don't know her spending habits or anything.. so no comment there...they have a decent house, 3 kids.... but from her words...he'd belittle her, even in front of the kids... made her feel her contribution is worthless (I know she has raised some great kids)...but he'd be quick to tell her all women work today, so what is wrong with her..

After walking away from her that day... I hugged my husband real tight telling him how much I appreciate him... so thankful I wasn't married to that sort of man.... I do work outside the home though...I just don't talk about it... I don't make enough to boast I don't NEED my husband.... tomorrow I am helping cater a Reception in the afternoon...Fun fun


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Do they? Is that really documented, and is the research recent?
> 
> It seems more and more this kind of income dynamic can work with the right couple. I know a couple, she is a doctor, he is a SAHD. They seem completely happy, while his brother is an executive and his wife is a SAHM, who also seem completely happy. The brothers are both quite capable of large incomes, but the SAHD couple decided that her career was more rewarding to her than his was to him, so they picked her as the breadwinner together. He is far from the SAHD on the couch in sweats, however.
> 
> It just takes the right mix.


I don't know FH. It can work with the right couple but I still think its risky. My accountants are a married couple and they seem quite happy to me. Ridiculously happy actually. It does work for some couples, but if you're a man why take the chance? I think most men are better off doing the best they can to generate income.

I look at my sons and I can't advise them to be SAHDs. In all honesty I can't even advise them to choose a career path that "makes them happy". My father didn't. And neither did I. Take the path that allows you to provide as much as you can. 

Call me crazy but I don't think that too many successful men are in sexless marriages. I also don't think they are the one's posting about their wives being in an EA. In general I believe that men who are top earners garner more respect.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ReformedHubby said:


> Call me crazy but I don't think that too many successful men are in sexless marriages. I also don't think they are the one's posting about their wives being in an EA. In general I believe that men who are top earners garner more respect.


This may sound a little shallow... (as really BIG $$ has never been an allure for me personally)....BUT I remember when my husband went from Working in a Grocery Store (at least he was a Manager of a Dept not a bagger)... to the Job he has NOW -it was a $4 pay increase per hour just starting out... 

He brought home his new Orange hard hat the 1st day (or maybe it was yellow!).... a few others things... I remember this ADMIRATION coming over me, like he was sexier somehow...Like "Look at my Man, I am so proud of him" !- his landing this better Job... moving up! Yeah... a great *respect *there...... I do look highly up to a Responsible man - who can handle what's on his plate.. DO for his family... Oh yeah.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Call me crazy but I don't think that too many successful men are in sexless marriages."

OK...you're crazy. Many successful men neglect their wives. Many wives ain't down for doin' a man who is neglecting her.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> "Call me crazy but I don't think that too many successful men are in sexless marriages."
> 
> OK...you're crazy. Many successful men neglect their wives. Many wives ain't down for doin' a man who is neglecting her.


We had a $300k, physically fit like chippendales starved by his wife.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

deejov said:


> Another post made me think of this.
> 
> I have read that to a man, his instinct is to protect, provide, and please his wife.
> 
> What if she doesn't NEED any of those things?
> 
> Would that lead to him feeling .... like he isn't wanted?


My husband encourages my sense of independence. This is something he respects. We are not dependent on his salary, mine is able to cover us. I don't need that from him. When we moved overseas for a time, we were solely reliant on my income as he was unable to secure employment. He was proud of me that I could have 'our back' and was supportive and encouraging. As he takes pride in providing, this did affect him and I underestimated the impact of the move and what he was going through. 

As for being protected, this is something he is aware of. I may not 'need' this but I certainly appreciate it and do seek this in him. 

I think there's always a balance to be had. I need him as my best friend and lover and enjoy taking care of him in ways that I can (haha the cooking needs work!), just as he cares for me in the ways that he can too. While we may not need each other to function in this world, we still need each other.


----------



## greenpearl

ReformedHubby said:


> Call me crazy but I don't think that too many successful men are in sexless marriages. I also don't think they are the one's posting about their wives being in an EA. In general I believe that men who are top earners garner more respect.


They are not in sexless marriages, or they are not in sexless lives? 

I doubt that they are having a lot of sex with their wives, they might have a lot of mistresses who they can bang as much as they want. 

They are not here posting about their wives being in an EA, but I am certain that a lot of these successful men's wives are fooling around. While they are busy making money and achieving power, who is looking after their wives emotionally? 

Men who are top earners may be adored and respected by other people. But how much respect they get from their wives? Depends!


----------



## EleGirl

deejov said:


> Another post made me think of this.
> 
> I have read that to a man, his instinct is to protect, provide, and please his wife.
> 
> What if she doesn't NEED any of those things?
> 
> Would that lead to him feeling .... like he isn't wanted?


I think this goes both ways. In a good marriage both spouses protect, provide and please their spouse. 

While a women might not be the one to beat up an intruder, she might be the one who protects her family in another way. On the other hand, I have seen women who could do a better job of beating up that intruder than their husband could. 

My point? When a couple takes the marriage as a partnership, they can both do these things to the extent that fits their unique qualities. To me being desired is far more important than being needed.

To be needed mean that the husband/wife is a paycheck that is needed to pay the bills. Or husband/wife is needed to clean the house and take care of the children. We see a lot of marriages around here with those needs.. and those needs are filled. But the desire is gone. With no desire the relationship is dead.


----------



## RandomDude

deejov said:


> RD,
> Is it still a failure when a woman doesn't even allow you the _chance _to protect, provide, please?


Well IMO,

- If she doesn't even give me a chance to protect her... like as in:
Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow In Iron Man 2 (Fight Scene) Official HD - YouTube

Yeah, I would feel like a fail, especially if I DID stay in the car :rofl:
A man has natural instincts to protect, I wouldn't be threatened by a woman who can protect herself, but if I was paired with a woman who can fight like that, it would only serve as an inspiration to get better. Manly pride and all...

- If she doesn't even give me a chance to provide...

Well, I have my pride as a man, I can not allow a woman to do the financial heavy lifting without my own contributions. If I am able to work, I will work. With my past marriage I did appreciate STBX's contribution during our daughter's early childhood but my complaint is that considering when she hit school age she didn't take the initiative and capitalised her new free time - and we only have one child. If I was like her, I would feel like a fail indeed.

- If she doesn't even give me a chance to please...

Then I'll walk! This is different to the other factors, as if I don't feel desired then forget it, I'll find someone who desires me!


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> "Call me crazy but I don't think that too many successful men are in sexless marriages."
> 
> OK...you're crazy. Many successful men neglect their wives. Many wives ain't down for doin' a man who is neglecting her.


Good point, I reread my post and its not as simple as making a whole lot of money to keep your women happy. I've made a mental note to avoid posting while intoxicated going forward.


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> Men really are different here, I didn't come with a silver spoon in my mouth...I've always been very very careful with money.......so my husband never felt this way.....
> 
> I think if the wife is spending too much, they are fighting about $$, can't live within their means...it's best for her to go to work....I would complain too if I was a man in those circumstances... I had to keep my end of the bargain to run our family smoothly & not waste.
> 
> I ran into a wife & Mom from my Mops group at the county Fair..hadn't seen her in years... the whole conversation digressed to her husband badgering her to get a job (obviously they had some marital issues)... I don't know her spending habits or anything.. so no comment there...they have a decent house, 3 kids.... but from her words...he'd belittle her, even in front of the kids... made her feel her contribution is worthless (I know she has raised some great kids)...but he'd be quick to tell her all women work today, so what is wrong with her..
> 
> After walking away from her that day... I hugged my husband real tight telling him how much I appreciate him... so thankful I wasn't married to that sort of man.... I do work outside the home though...I just don't talk about it... I don't make enough to boast I don't NEED my husband.... tomorrow I am helping cater a Reception in the afternoon...Fun fun


Well, STBX went out shopping/spending time with friends/stayed at home and played video games while daughter was at school everyday. Hell it's not even about the money, I really just wanted her to do something constructive during the day. Taking care of the house doesn't take long - we had everything necessary to make our jobs easy, hell we even had a 5K vacuum cleaner. Sh-t it takes 2 hours every weekend to clean the house and thats it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> I think this goes both ways. In a good marriage both spouses protect, provide and please their spouse.


 I like what you say here, it's not a common thing to say of the woman though (if she is a SAHM anyway).....though I could list some things here... (*Protecting*)...I look out for my husband's health, make sure he eats right, gets his vitamins every am....I *provide* so much of what he'd struggle to do without me here on a daily basis (scheduling our larger family with this one going here, that one there, Doc appoints, Food shopping/ clothes/ feeding us, house in order, planning every vacation, paying every bill....and the *Pleasing* is a JOY. Maybe these are littler things, but It surely makes his life run smoother, so he can concentrate on the MAN stuff that I can't handle... and he's got time for the kids & our activities. 



> My point? When a couple takes the marriage as a partnership, they can both do these things to the extent that fits their unique qualities. To me being desired is far more important than being needed.
> 
> To be needed mean that the husband/wife is a paycheck that is needed to pay the bills. Or husband/wife is needed to clean the house and take care of the children. We see a lot of marriages around here with those needs.. and those needs are filled. But the desire is gone. With no desire the relationship is dead.


This is a very good point...How true what you say... Needs are fulfilled in zillions of these relationships but the passion / desire has dried up.... 

BUT....I happen to see NEED as DESIRE (so long as it's not born out of insecurity)....even attempted to explain this to Random Dude on that other thread...


> *Simplyamorous said*: I like to feel *NEEDED* by my husband.... I do look upon desire as need though...his desire is towards *me*, so he needs *me*, he'd rather be *WITH ME* - than go it alone...that is a deep craving... an emotional fulfilling, I just don't see a problem calling that a *"NEED"*... like it's a dirty ugly word.


 It appears to come down to HOW one personally views the WORD... some see nothing but WEAKNESS ..it shouts at them.... others are able to see BEAUTY (my vulnerability thread explains this some)......Geez, it's no wonder some people FEAR vulnerability like a plague ...since we can't tell which would be horrified if they opened up emotionally like that...

Random Dude is vilified by the Word, would trample it, put a dagger through it's .... I don't see it this way at all...IF a loving "*interdependence*" is what the foundation is made of ...and emotionally a couple still deeply craves (desires) each other.. we see each other as irreplaceable, of the highest value.... if one of us died, we'd feel like the words of this song.... 
 Everything I Own by Bread... our lives would never be the same.. sure we'd live ON...maybe even find someone else to love.... but a part of us would die with the one we love. Maybe only the sappy Romantics don't have a problem using the word "NEED"....this seems to be the picture I am getting. 

I used a song as an analogy on the other thread...copying & pasting here...



> Sanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't like to be "needed". I prefer to be wanted as in "Hey I like hanging out with you and having a good time and maybe jump in the sack. I also care about you and love our time together" kinda thing*. I hate clingy types. Sucks your energy away especially the ones who are clingy and claim they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> I do wonder if there is a divider of people in this....
> 
> I'm curious....So songs like this >> YOU'RE THE INSPIRATION ...that use the word *NEED* would be a turn off ? Because you wouldn't want a woman to FEEL this way about YOU, it's too "over the top"...you wouldn't feel this way in return..too sappy perhaps.
> 
> Do people really not like if their lover/ spouse says >>  once in a while..??
> 
> Maybe I am making a mountain out of this ... I remember a thread like this.. and everyone was Dissecting *WANT vs NEED*....it was established NEED was bad... it's like it carries automatic mounting insecurities with it or something.. to many, so it should never be used.
> 
> There is surely some separating factor between a healthy, even beautiful view of the term "need" showing great love & affection/ enjoying time together SO MUCH ...vs an unhealthy model (of co-dependency, or "needing" / clinging to someone who sees the other as a burden, a weight - NOT a joy to be around...but actually an annoyance)...which is very .
> 
> Just seems so many feel ...."You shouldn't "*NEED*" anyone.... you should only "*WANT*" THEM...
> 
> Using this song by Peter Cetera again.....
> 
> Notice *Want* is used once... *NEED* is used 3 times....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"You're The Inspiration"*
> 
> You know our love was meant to be
> The kind of love that lasts forever
> And I *want* you here with me
> From tonight until the end of time
> You should know, everywhere I go
> You're always on my mind, in my heart
> In my soul
> 
> Baby
> 
> [Chorus:]
> You're the meaning in my life
> You're the inspiration
> You bring feeling to my life
> You're the inspiration
> Wanna have you near me
> I wanna have you hear me sayin'
> No one needs you more than I need you
> 
> And I know, yes I know that it's plain to see
> We're so in love when we're together
> And I know that I need you here with me
> From tonight until the end of time
> You should know, everywhere I go
> Always on my mind, in my heart in my soul
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, in my opinion, that song would loose a great deal of it's luster, it's inspiration, it's beauty, without the word NEED in it.
> 
> Any thoughts ?
Click to expand...


----------



## RandomDude

> Random Dude is vilified by the Word, would trample it, put a dagger through it's ....






> I don't see it this way at all...IF a loving "interdependence" is what the foundation is made of ...and emotionally a couple still deeply craves (desires) each other..


Interdependence for me is teamwork 
I do this, you do that, I've got your back, you got mine. Trust.

Dependence by itself... needing someone to function individually... meh =/
Bleh! *stabs it through the heart*


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> Well, STBX went out shopping/spending time with friends/stayed at home and played video games while daughter was at school everyday. Hell it's not even about the money, *I really just wanted her to do something constructive during the day.* Taking care of the house doesn't take long - we had everything necessary to make our jobs easy, hell we even had a 5K vacuum cleaner. Sh-t it takes 2 hours every weekend to clean the house and thats it.


 I agree with you Random Dude... a woman who stays home has responsibilities she shouldn't be falling down on...if you are saying she wasn't keeping the house clean.. but goofing off with these other enjoyments....that's a NO NO !

I am a little rough when I see those threads where a husband works all day and comes home to a disaster with the wife whining.. "I need help", I don't care if she has 3+ kids, Unless she is sick, she is not using her time wisely... ...I feel bad for the man... as she is not carrying her weight...to be his helpmate.... in fact becoming a burden to him...any men is going to start to resent this. 

I will admit since finding TAM, my more meticulous nature of keeping a spotless house has waned some... but I still can't stand an unorganized house, or I get really grouchy...and cleaning doesn't take long at all...I am a whiz. 



> *Interdependence for me is teamwork
> I do this, you do that, I've got your back, you got mine. Trust.*
> 
> Dependence by itself... needing someone to function individually... meh =/
> Bleh! *stabs it through the heart*


----------



## RandomDude

Well it wasn't that the house wasn't clean, it was (most of the time) but it only took 2 hours a week for cleaning due to our system (I own/operate a restaurant/bar so I trained her how to be very efficient), it was just how she spent her spare time especially once our daughter got into school.

Which in her case, it was her either wasting it away in 8 hour gaming sessions, spending my money as she went out, enjoying her extravagance though she did cut down on it (she was much worse in the beginning), and to top it off, DEMANDING sex 3x a day when her energy could have been used elsewhere. And we have ONE child.


----------



## deejov

heartsbeating said:


> My husband encourages my sense of independence. This is something he respects. We are not dependent on his salary, mine is able to cover us. I don't need that from him. When we moved overseas for a time, we were solely reliant on my income as he was unable to secure employment. He was proud of me that I could have 'our back' and was supportive and encouraging. As he takes pride in providing, this did affect him and I underestimated the impact of the move and what he was going through.
> 
> As for being protected, this is something he is aware of. I may not 'need' this but I certainly appreciate it and do seek this in him.
> 
> I think there's always a balance to be had. I need him as my best friend and lover and enjoy taking care of him in ways that I can (haha the cooking needs work!), just as he cares for me in the ways that he can too. While we may not need each other to function in this world, we still need each other.


Heartsbeating, always nice to hear from you 

I love how you worded this. We do not have this partnership. He has asked for this specifically, almost how you have worded it, really.

But the truth is, I am a stronger person than he is. I work more hours per week, take care of everything, my son, and he is "spent" and overwhelmed by his share of what is to be done. 

I've tried not to hold that over him. It is what it is. It doesn't make me a better person. 

I've been working contract for a small private o&g company. Recently, they offered me an employee position, with a fair market salary (less than what I'm getting as a consultant) but they enticed me with a hefty valuable share option, as they want to go public next year. 

Instead of being happy for me about it, his response was "I'm jealous".

And I'm sure this is why he feels failure, which leads him to not try.


----------



## deejov

SimplyAmorous said:


> This may sound a little shallow... (as really BIG $$ has never been an allure for me personally)....BUT I remember when my husband went from Working in a Grocery Store (at least he was a Manager of a Dept not a bagger)... to the Job he has NOW -it was a $4 pay increase per hour just starting out...
> 
> He brought home his new Orange hard hat the 1st day (or maybe it was yellow!).... a few others things... I remember this ADMIRATION coming over me, like he was sexier somehow...Like "Look at my Man, I am so proud of him" !- his landing this better Job... moving up! Yeah... a great *respect *there...... I do look highly up to a Responsible man - who can handle what's on his plate.. DO for his family... Oh yeah.


I am similar. When we first got married, our wages were more close than they are now. He quit several jobs, progressing down in pay, while I continued to move up, quickly. (he made stupid choices)

He is trying to get himself back on track.


----------



## deejov

RandomDude said:


> Interdependence for me is teamwork
> I do this, you do that, I've got your back, you got mine. Trust.
> 
> Dependence by itself... needing someone to function individually... meh =/
> Bleh! *stabs it through the heart*


Great stuff!!
I will remove the word need from my vocab 
Goes along with trying to say could instead of should.


----------



## always_alone

deejov said:


> Instead of being happy for me about it, his response was "I'm jealous".
> 
> And I'm sure this is why he feels failure, which leads him to not try.


This is very, very common. Much ado is made here (and elsewhere) about women being hypergamous, but it's equally true that men are hypogamous. They prefer women to be younger, dumber, less experienced. Some will accept/look for equal, but few if any can handle women who are more successful. This isn't just my observation; a recent metastudy reported that women's success makes men feel bad about themselves.

What to do about it, though? I wish I had the answer for that. It's not like dumbing down or f*cking up is going to solve anything...


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> .* They prefer women to be younger, dumber, less experienced. Some will accept/look for equal, but few if any can handle women who are more successful. This isn't just my observation; a recent metastudy reported that women's success makes men feel bad about themselves.*


Pretty interesting that you know all of this stuff about men which I have never seen or heard, and I've been a man for most of my life.
Do you mind posting a link or something that clearly states that men prefer younger , " dumber " women to be their partners?

Or the all men generally feel bad about themselves when women are successful?

In our country , our Prime Minister is female. Every single one of her advisers are men.
Men put her in control of a male dominated party and men financed her political campaign to the tune of billions, even when women doubted that she could have won.
Male dominated trade unions backed her into office.
For the first time in our history, the voter turnout crossed 70% and she won by a landslide. Exit polls stated that an extraordinary high amount of men voted for her.

Sorry , but the results of your " study " does not translate into facts on all men.
I think it is either only representative of demographic of those surveyed, or being grossly misrepresented here.


----------



## deejov

I'm not sure the political "women in power" translates the same way? 
One is not emotionally attached to the PM. Your success to provide, protect, please, the person you love is not affected by who is running the country?


----------



## RandomDude

> few if any can handle women who are more successful.


The thing is, women aren't generally accepting of men who earn less than them either, so why should these men even try to handle such women who consider themselves out of their league? This is in the big city though 

The double standards are plain to see; men will accept a woman who earns less than her but it's less common vice versa, and even though a woman may accept a man who earns less than her over time due to society's expectations resentment will still build.

Now for me personally I avoid successful women for one reason alone; materialism. I've already achieved my own success financially during my years in marriage with my own business and have been sole provider from day one. Yet I do not go around boasting the success of my business over the last few years to everyone I meet and definitely not to prospective dates. I grew up a street kid and only found success much later in life, and as such; I believe in companionship and chemistry without the influence of wallet sizes.

One thing that STBX did impose on me is a certain standard. One thing good about her is that she was with me WAY before I owned my own business. Hard standard to crack! >.<! What if suddenly my city gets nuked and there goes my business, and then we'll have insurance companies going bankrupt and such and then saying "our policies do not cover the event of nuclear war"

Could I trust her to still have my back? How can she prove it?

The whole "men want stupid women" argument is rather silly IMO, unless of course they just want FWBs or a ONS and nothing serious. I don't go for materialistic women, whether she's successful or not.
Now yes, not all successful women are materialistic, I've met a few earlier this year when I seperated from my STBX. They didn't intimidate me at all but they didn't impress me either! lol


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Pretty interesting that you know all of this stuff about men which I have never seen or heard, and I've been a man for most of my life.
> Do you mind posting a link or something that clearly states that men prefer younger , " dumber " women to be their partners?


Sure. A link to a recent (2013) set of studies:
Men Feel Threatened When Girlfriends' Succeed | LiveScience

An older study from the American Journal of Sociology:
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

ETA:. Sorry, this link doesn't seem to work, but it's called Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles: The masculine Case, vol. 78, no. 4, 1973.

Yet another:
Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment

That should get you started. If you need more, let me know.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Sure. A link to a recent (2013) set of studies:
> Men Feel Threatened When Girlfriends' Succeed | LiveScience
> 
> An older study from the American Journal of Sociology:
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> ETA:. Sorry, this link doesn't seem to work, but it's called Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles: The masculine Case, vol. 78, no. 4, 1973.
> 
> Yet another:
> Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment
> 
> That should get you started. If you need more, let me know.



Thanks for posting the link.

But may I draw this to your attention.
*A*] This sample used was from a very small group of people during a SPEED DATING session.

*B*]No way can this sample represent men's overall preference of women who are" younger and dumber ", just like in no way can the sample of women polled in the exact same experiment represent women's overall preference of men who were rich, of a particular race , or from affluent backgrounds.

Here's the opening paragraph:

1]" *We study dating behavior using data from a Speed Dating experiment where we generate random matching of subjects and create random variation in the number of potential partners.* Our design allows us to directly observe individual decisions rather than just final matches
2].* Women put greater weight on the intelligence and the race of partner*,
3] *while men respond more to physical attractiveness.*
* 4]*Moreover, men do not value women's intelligence or ambition when it exceeds their own.*
5]*Also, we find that women exhibit a preference for men who grew up in affluent neighborhoods.* 
6]*Finally, male selectivity is invariant to group size,* 
7]*while female selectivity is strongly increasing in group size*."


Based on this opening paragraph, none of the observations support* your* theory .

" * 4]*Moreover, men do not value women's intelligence or ambition when it exceeds their own.*
Can you explain how an experiment done in a speed dating environment translates into " men don't value women's intelligence?"


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> This is very, very common. Much ado is made here (and elsewhere) about women being hypergamous,* but it's equally true that men are hypogamous. They prefer women to be younger, dumber, less experienced.* Some will accept/look for equal, *but few if any can handle women who are more successful. This isn't just my observation; a recent metastudy reported that women's success makes men feel bad about themselves.*
> 
> What to do about it, though? I wish I had the answer for that. It's not like dumbing down or f*cking up is going to solve anything...


Here's another excerpt that went on to explain the how's and why's .

Men Feel Threatened When Girlfriends' Succeed | LiveScience

Never mind he headline , read the research and come to your own conclusions.

" Ratliff and her colleague Shigehiro Oishi, of the University of Virginia, conducted a series of five experiments to look at how self-esteem may be affected by the success or failure of a romantic partner in heterosexual Americans and Dutch couples.

In one study, they recruited 32 undergraduate couples from the University of Virginia. Each participant was given a "test" of social intelligence. The participants read five different scenarios describing a problem someone was having at work or home and had to choose between two different pieces of advice to deal with that conundrum. The students were told there was a correct answer (determined by counselors) and their score on the test would measure their "problem-solving and social intelligence."

The methodology , ie: 
The How

The researchers didn't actually grade the tests and the participants were not given their own "scores," but they were told their partner scored either in the top or bottom 12 percent of all university students.

Hearing their partners' scores generally didn't shake the participants' explicit self-esteem, or how they said they felt about themselves in a questionnaire.

But the researchers also measured the participants' subconscious self-esteem, by giving them an Implicit Association Test, which gauges attitudes and feelings that people may not want to report through rapid word associations on a computer screen. Those with high self-esteem, for example, are more likely to associate the word "me" with words like "excellent" or "good" than words such as "bad" or "dreadful." 

Compared with men who believed their partner scored in the bottom 12 percent, men who were told their partner had ranked in the top 12 percent showed lower implicit self-esteem. There was not much difference in the implicit self-esteem of women who thought their partner scored high and women who believed their partner scored low, the experiment found.

The researchers said that similar experiments held true in the Netherlands, which has one of the narrowest gender gaps in labor, education and politics.

The why:

1]*Why the disparity? The researchers write that one possibility is that men are typically more competitive than women and thus may be more likely to see a partner's success as their own failure. Gender stereotypes may compound this effect.*

"There is an idea that women are allowed to bask in the reflected glory of her male partner and to be the 'woman behind the successful man,' but the reverse is not true for men," the researchers write.

2]*The researchers also point to previous studies showing that women tend to look for ambition and success when selecting a mate.*

3]"*So thinking of themselves as unsuccessful might trigger men's fear that their partner will ultimately leave them," Ratliff and Oishi wrote. They noted one of their experiments showed that men who were told to think about a time their partner was successful (in either the intellectual or interpersonal domain) were less optimistic about the future of their relationship than men who thought about their partner's failure.
*
The research was published online this month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology."


The Conclusion / Rational behind the findings

The researchers also point to previous studies showing that women tend to look for ambition and success when selecting a mate.

4]"*So thinking of themselves as unsuccessful might trigger men's fear that their partner will ultimately leave them,*" 

http://www.livescience.com/39288-men-feel-threatened-when-girlfriends-succeed.html
.....................................................................
Again,
Absolutely NO PART of this report gives the impression that men don't like women who are successful or more successful than them.
What the report clearly stated was that men are more competitive than women , which related to gender differences / stereotypes. 
It is also a well known fact that men are even more competitive with their own gender.

Again, no part of this study support your theory.


----------



## always_alone

deejov said:


> I'm not sure the political "women in power" translates the same way?
> One is not emotionally attached to the PM. Your success to provide, protect, please, the person you love is not affected by who is running the country?


Exactly! "Voting for" is not the same as dating or loving


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Absolutely NO PART of this report gives the impression that men don't like women who are successful or more successful than them.
> What the report clearly stated was that men are more competitive than women , which related to gender differences / stereotypes.
> It is also a well known fact that men are even more competitive with their own gender.
> 
> Again, no part of this study support your theory.


No, they just end up feeling bad about themselves, and worried that she will leave him, which translates to him being unenthusiastic and unsuportive when she succeeds, just like OP's husband.

Again, this is a very common response, and also leads men to not want to ask her out in the first place.

The study supports my point completely.


----------



## Caribbean Man

deejov said:


> I'm not sure the political "women in power" translates the same way?
> One is not emotionally attached to the PM. Your success to provide, protect, please, the person you love is not affected by who is running the country?



Anyway one looks at the statement,
It is patently FALSE.
And there's not a single shred of evidence to prove it.

That's why I used the obtuse example of politics.

Men are GENERALLY competitive against even their own gender.

So let me throw this out to you.

Can the same theory apply to gay couples?
Do you think a gay man would prefer if his partner was 
" younger & dumber " than him?

Put another way,
Does having a " young & dumber " woman ensure happiness in a marriage relationship?
Does having a smarter , older , better employed woman as a wife ensure happiness in that relationship?

what people , both men and women want from a prospective partner is ;
HAPPINESS.
We all have different needs and everyone defines happiness differently, 
and whosoever we think can help us in that direction, we would eventually choose.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> Anyway one looks at the statement,
> It is patently FALSE.
> And there's not a single shred of evidence to prove it.
> 
> That's why I used the obtuse example of politics.
> 
> Men are GENERALLY competitive against even their own gender.
> 
> So let me throw this out to you.
> 
> Can the same theory apply to gay couples?
> Do you think a gay man would prefer if his partner was
> " younger & dumber " than him?
> 
> Put another way,
> Does having a " young & dumber " woman ensure happiness in a marriage relationship?
> Does having a smarter , older , better employed woman as a wife ensure happiness in that relationship?
> 
> what people , both men and women want from a prospective partner is ;
> HAPPINESS.
> We all have different needs and everyone defines happiness differently,
> and whosoever we think can help us in that direction, we would eventually choose.


A smarter woman is going to let a man be a man, she will empower him because she will reap the benefits.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> No, they just end up feeling bad about themselves, and worried that she will leave him, which translates to him being unenthusiastic and unsuportive when she succeeds, just like OP's husband.
> 
> Again, this is a very common response, and also leads men to not want to ask her out in the first place.
> 
> The study supports my point completely.


Well I posted, _and quoted_ directly the study.
You have not.
You can interpret exact what _you want from it_,
But the study speaks for itself.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> Now for me personally I avoid successful women for one reason alone; materialism. I've already achieved my own success financially during my years in marriage with my own business and have been sole provider from day one. Yet I do not go around boasting the success of my business over the last few years to everyone I meet and definitely not to prospective dates. I grew up a street kid and only found success much later in life, and as such; I believe in companionship and chemistry without the influence of wallet sizes.


An unsuccessful woman might be worse for this, no? At least a successful woman can support her own materialism instead of depending on you. Indeed, she could even support your retirement.


I see a lot of men complain about this double standard, but I find it a bit disingenuous because they so often *want* the opposite --to be the higher earner, and they actually look specifically for women they can protect and provide for. Otherwise, they feel like they aren't fulfilling their role as man. Just ask many of the men here on TAM who say exactly that (despite CM's claim that he's never heard of such a thing).


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> A smarter woman is going to let a man be a man, she will empower him because she will reap the benefits.



A smarter woman is going to let her man be a man, she empowers herself , he empowers himself, they both empower each other , and are INTERDEPENDENT on each other.
They don't view each other as competition , but partners.
And they BOTH KNOW that's the _only way_ they can have a good relationship.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I posted, _and quoted_ directly the study.
> You have not.
> You can interpret exact what _you want from it_,
> But the study speaks for itself.


Okay. Here you go. How do you interpret this?




> *Men who believed that their partner scored in the top 12 percent demonstrated significantly lower implicit self-esteem than men who believed their partner scored in the bottom 12 percent. *Participants did not receive information about their own performance.
> 
> *Findings were similar in two more studies conducted in the Netherlands.* The Netherlands boasts one of the smallest gender gaps in labor, education and politics, according to the United Nations' Gender Equality Index. However, like American men, Dutch men who thought about their romantic partner's success subconsciously felt worse about themselves than men who thought about their partner's failure, according to both studies. They said they felt fine but the test of implicit self-esteem revealed otherwise.
> 
> In the final two experiments, conducted online, 657 U.S. participants, 284 of whom were men, were asked to think about a time when their partner had succeeded or failed. For example, some participants were asked to think about their partner's social success or failure, such as being a charming host at a party, or a more intellectual achievement or failure. In one study, participants were told to think of a time when their partner succeeded or failed at something at which they had succeeded or failed. When comparing all the results, the researchers found that *it didn't matter if the achievements or failures were social, intellectual or related to participants' own successes or failures -- men subconsciously still felt worse about themselves when their partner succeeded than when she failed.* However, men's implicit self-esteem took a bigger hit when they thought about a time when their partner succeeded at something while they had failed.
> 
> (emphasis mine)


----------



## deejov

In my case, the admitted truth is I have given the impression that I really don't want\desire the protect, provide,please. Seriously. It makes me uncomfortable. 

I'm stubborn as well as independent. 
I'm more likely to think... "suck it up, buttercup" than I am to ponder the sensitive male ego and appreciate how he may feel less of a man merely by the actions of my success.

But I am willing to explore that I am (most probably) wrong and need to be more sensitive to this. It is helping me to understand myself better. (gawd, the work never ends!).

My first stubborn thought is to simply move to another country where my independence is better appreciated :rofl:


----------



## ReformedHubby

My take on this is that I shouldn't have to apologize for my preference in mate. I'm the one that's going to have to go home to that person everyday. When I envisioned myself as a married man I wanted us to have traditional roles. I liked that my wife wanted to be a SAHM. 

I also don't like the assumption that SAHMs are dumb and lack ambition. My wife is college educated and made dean's list every semester. She's no dummy.


----------



## Mavash.

deejov the more I healed the more this concept just flowed.

Had nothing to do with the male ego it had to do with getting right with myself.

It became instinctual to live this way.

Stubbornness gone. Independence traded for interdependence. No longer uncomfortable with being cared for. 

'Suck it up buttercup' phrase reserved for trivial matters like being stuck in the express line behind someone who has far more than 20 items. 

Compassion took it's place for deeper ego type issues involving flawed humans such as myself.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Okay. Here you go. How do you interpret this?
> 
> Men who believed that their partner scored in the top 12 percent demonstrated significantly lower implicit self-esteem than men who believed their partner scored in the bottom 12 percent. Participants did not receive information about their own performance.
> 
> Findings were similar in two more studies conducted in the Netherlands. The Netherlands boasts one of the smallest gender gaps in labor, education and politics, according to the United Nations' Gender Equality Index. However, like American men, Dutch men who thought about their romantic partner's success subconsciously felt worse about themselves than men who thought about their partner's failure, according to both studies. They said they felt fine but the test of implicit self-esteem revealed otherwise.
> 
> In the final two experiments, conducted online, 657 U.S. participants, 284 of whom were men, were asked to think about a time when their partner had succeeded or failed. For example, some participants were asked to think about their partner's social success or failure, such as being a charming host at a party, or a more intellectual achievement or failure. In one study, participants were told to think of a time when their partner succeeded or failed at something at which they had succeeded or failed. When comparing all the results, the researchers found that it didn't matter if the achievements or failures were social, intellectual or related to participants' own successes or failures -- men subconsciously still felt worse about themselves when their partner succeeded than when she failed. However, men's implicit self-esteem took a bigger hit when they thought about a time when their partner succeeded at something while they had failed.
> 
> (emphasis mine)


Maybe you need to reread my posts.

Have you ever heard of sibling rivalry?
Do you know why it's more prominent among males?

Because men are GENERALLY more competitive.

Would a man have felt equally bad if his room mates passed their exams and he failed?

Do you think a man wouldn't feel bad if his MALE coworker got a significant job promotion and he didn't ?

Wouldn't a woman feel bad if both she and her husband were at the same level in their respective jobs , but he earned twice her pay?

Does that equate women not wanting men to be more successful?

Therein lies the problem with your conclusion of this study.
It frames men as jealous, petty ,insecure and downright stupid.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> My take on this is that I shouldn't have to apologize for my preference in mate. I'm the one that's going to have to go home to that person everyday. When I envisioned myself as a married man I wanted us to have traditional roles. I liked that my wife wanted to be a SAHM.
> 
> I also don't like the assumption that SAHMs are dumb and lack ambition. My wife is college educated and made dean's list every semester. She's no dummy.


:iagree:

I could have furthered my engineering degree.
I had opportunities to work in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait ,with multinational oil companies.
My wife was gainfully employed, owned a property , and very independent.
When we got married she decided she wanted to stay at home , because she was tired of the constant hustling.
Initially I was against it, and we fought over it, I wanted her to be financially independent, because she always was , before me.
We could have afforded for her to stay at home.
We have no kids.
I then decided then to start a business WITH MY WIFE INVOLVED so that we could BOTH WORK TOGETHER, MAKE MONEY and have a good life.
My wife doesn't have my level of education , and she makes the same amount of money as me.
She also has her own bank account , investments and revenue streams.
lol, sometimes I actually _borrow money_ from her.

Nobody could tell me that my wife is a " dummy " or that she's stupid, simply because of her level of education.
There are people higher educated than her and they envy her. She does what they cannot do.
In any event, she's older than me, and I married her because I love her, and she has my back in every sense of the word.
Not because she's stupid.
People marry whom they feel they could have a good relationship with.
These things are intricate and complex.
Everyone has their own ideals of what constitute a happy marriage.


----------



## deejov

Mavash. said:


> deejov the more I healed the more this concept just flowed.
> 
> Had nothing to do with the male ego it had to do with getting right with myself.
> 
> It became instinctual to live this way.
> 
> Stubbornness gone. Independence traded for interdependence. No longer uncomfortable with being cared for.
> 
> 'Suck it up buttercup' phrase reserved for trivial matters like being stuck in the express line behind someone who has far more than 20 items.
> 
> Compassion took it's place for deeper ego type issues involving flawed humans such as myself.


You are right, of course.
I will reserve this for practice, for the future times when I am in a real relationship and will need to exercise interdependence. 

It's kinda hard to get it right in my situation, it's more of a "this is what you did wrong" informational point at me. Which I will take. And work on. 
Peace.


----------



## RandomDude

always_alone said:


> An unsuccessful woman might be worse for this, no? At least a successful woman can support her own materialism instead of depending on you. Indeed, she could even support your retirement.


A woman's finances doesn't matter to me at the slightest. In fact, quite honestly I've never even cared about STBX's financial contributions; I was more p-ssed off about the fact that she did nothing all day and had no personal goals for herself either than free-loading off me - this problem became worse once our daughter entered school. Want to be a SAHM? Sure, but we have ONE child and she could have made better use of her spare time. Bah, but that's my past marriage anyway. Now I would love an independent woman sure, STBX used to be one before baby bells after all - but it seems with success in women comes a bigger head and sense of entitlement at least here in the big city where I live heh



> I see a lot of men complain about this double standard, but I find it a bit disingenuous because they so often *want* the opposite --to be the higher earner, and they actually look specifically for women they can protect and provide for. Otherwise, they feel like they aren't fulfilling their role as man. Just ask many of the men here on TAM who say exactly that (despite CM's claim that he's never heard of such a thing).


I've never noticed that amongst my mates and hell many of them are often paired with women more successful than them. None of them want someone as you say "dumber" than them. And none really care how much a woman earns - but rather her attitude, views that I also share with them.


----------



## Mavash.

deejov said:


> You are right, of course.
> I will reserve this for practice, for the future times when I am in a real relationship and will need to exercise interdependence.
> 
> It's kinda hard to get it right in my situation, it's more of a "this is what you did wrong" informational point at me. Which I will take. And work on.
> Peace.


Took me 14 years to get where I am. Married 22 years.

You do the math. Lol


----------



## deejov

I honestly don't "see" it is even IN him to step up that much.

The partnership, atm, is him doing his best. Which is less than half the bills, 5% of the housework, and cooking a meal once in awhile.

Allowing him to take care of me once in awhile? That would be nice. Hasn't happened yet though. 

Understanding that he hasn't done it because I make him feel like a failure. He feels like... "what could he possibly give me?" 
He doesn't feel confident that he could EVER make me 'happy' wasn't something I wanted to hear. 

It's not my problem he lacks the confidence, but I contribute to it one way or another. Compassionately, I could "help" with that. 

But I don't want to. I'm tired of helping.


----------



## Mavash.

I married a good guy after dating a whole slew of 'projects'.

I'm the one who messed it up not him.


----------



## deejov

I look forward to the good guys phase of my life. 

Although after this thread... finding one that will accept a non-materialistic simple life gal that just "happens" to make good money might be tougher than I thought. LOL


----------



## RandomDude

Just don't act snobby and you'll be fine!


----------



## Mavash.

deejov said:


> I look forward to the good guys phase of my life.
> 
> Although after this thread... finding one that will accept a non-materialistic simple life gal that just "happens" to make good money might be tougher than I thought. LOL


I found one. I'm like you and for 10 years I was the breadwinner. I'm not materialistic and a minimalist. Only reason I shop is because my husband likes me pretty. Lol


----------



## deejov

Thanks Mavash


----------



## always_alone

deejov said:


> I honestly don't "see" it is even IN him to step up that much.
> 
> The partnership, atm, is him doing his best. Which is less than half the bills, 5% of the housework, and cooking a meal once in awhile.
> 
> Allowing him to take care of me once in awhile? That would be nice. Hasn't happened yet though.
> 
> Understanding that he hasn't done it because I make him feel like a failure. He feels like... "what could he possibly give me?"
> He doesn't feel confident that he could EVER make me 'happy' wasn't something I wanted to hear.
> 
> It's not my problem he lacks the confidence, but I contribute to it one way or another. Compassionately, I could "help" with that.
> 
> But I don't want to. I'm tired of helping.


I get this. And whether or not it's worthwhile does depend on the dynamic you're living with. 

A friend of mine's h, for example, was super jealous of her success (they were in the same field and he took it as a personal affront that she garnered more respect and income than him). He would continually run her down and belittle her for having less education, or whatever. He would not -- could not --allow her to enjoy any of her success at all.

Needless to say, she wasn't very inclined to "help" him through it. And I don't blame her, as he was very hard on her self-esteem. They also split up over it. His idea.

BTW, he was also a guy who would swear up and down that he would never be intimidated by a woman's success --and "loved" independent, intelligent women.


----------



## RandomDude

Come live in Australia then! Blokes here couldn't care less about how much a woman earns. Downside = that's because blokes here are laid back and lazy as hell and let their women bacon bring!  (I'm kidding of course)


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Because men are GENERALLY more competitive.
> 
> Would a man have felt equally bad if his room mates passed their exams and he failed?
> 
> Do you think a man wouldn't feel bad if his MALE coworker got a significant job promotion and he didn't ?
> 
> Wouldn't a woman feel bad if both she and her husband were at the same level in their respective jobs , but he earned twice her pay?
> 
> Does that equate women not wanting men to be more successful?


Oh, so because men are competitive, it all makes sense now? They should feel bad when their wives succeed?

Interestingly enough, the reverse does not hold to be true. Women are pleased when their man succeeds according to the research. Is this because they are less competitive with their mates than men are, and don't have the same need to "win"?

Of course they get mad if they don't receive equal pay for equal work, as this is truly not fair. But they don't necessarily feel that they have to be more successful or "better" than their mates.


----------



## deejov

To be really blunt about this...
He lost his desire for sex because I was making more money, and I'm sooo independent, that I don't "need" him. At all. 

A grossly overrated version of "out of his league".

He needed me to say "I can't do this without you" for his confidence. To feel like it was a partnership. 

My truth is... yeah, no. I didn't see it that way. I saw him as weak when I was humming along taking care of everything and I couldn't understand why he just fell further into the hole. 
"pick it up a notch, partner".

Which was the worst thing I could have done ") Hindsight is wonderful.


----------



## RandomDude

Wait wait wat? So THAT was his excuse all along not to have sex?! Because you made more money than him!? Hell, sorry I haven't been following your updates Deejov... but WTF?!

THAT was THE reason?!
:slap:
Does he have any idea how pathetic that is?

Hell now this makes me wonder if independent-minded folk should strictly stick to their own.


----------



## Mavash.

Deejov ever see the movie the ugly truth?

It's a romantic comedy about this very thing.


----------



## Acorn

I will admit to being a guy who was married to a very independent woman. We had a lot of different incompatibilities and issues, so this wasn't the only issue of course, but it was one of the biggest ones.

Granted, we were both pretty immature at the time, so we aren't really a good example of how this dynamic should/could work.

I know I "shut down" for a while in both desire and effort around the house before I started therapy. I think it was because it was my extremely immature way of trying to force her to admit I was needed. Of course, she was equally immature, and would complain about how she needed help around the house, she needed help with the kids... she needed a lot of things in fact. The only thing she would not admit she needed was me.

We were enemies and not allies.

After the therapy I became a lot healthier and I'd like to think I have a much better balance and acceptance for independence and togetherness. My wife did not go through similar growth, so our only compatibility became independence... which made things ten time worse between us. The things I thought I needed her for were things I eventually realized I did not actually need, and the things she thought she didn't need me for were things she really missed. We have since drifted apart.

Not sure this is helpful to the thread at all but this thread is very interesting to me.


----------



## always_alone

deejov said:


> My truth is... yeah, no. I didn't see it that way. I saw him as weak when I was humming along taking care of everything and I couldn't understand why he just fell further into the hole.
> "pick it up a notch, partner".
> 
> Which was the worst thing I could have done ") Hindsight is wonderful.


Delivery/intent makes a difference too. I told my partner that I needed to feel that he was on board with our plans, and committed to working with me as a team.

Which was essentially saying "pick it up a notch", but in a way that conveyed that I was feeling left alone to carry everything. 

I don't know your situation at all, really, so don't know if it (or your h) is anything like mine. But it seemed to help.


----------



## ntamph

Faithful Wife said:


> Do they? Is that really documented, and is the research recent?


Stay-at-Home Dads Likely to Divorce

It specifically says that if a woman is happy in every area of her relationship but the husband loses his job, she will still divorce him.


----------



## toonaive

deejov said:


> Another post made me think of this.
> 
> I have read that to a man, his instinct is to protect, provide, and please his wife.
> 
> What if she doesn't NEED any of those things?
> 
> Would that lead to him feeling .... like he isn't wanted?


Then I would think this type of woman needs to look for a man and/or marriage that suits her mindset. Apparently there are some men out there that are not interested in protecting nor providing for a woman. . If all she wants is sex, then im sure she wouldn't have difficulty getting just that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Oh, so because men are competitive, it all makes sense now? They should feel bad when their wives succeed?
> 
> Interestingly enough, the reverse does not hold to be true. Women are pleased when their man succeeds according to the research. Is this because they are less competitive with their mates than men are, and don't have the same need to "win"?
> 
> Of course they get mad if they don't receive equal pay for equal work, as this is truly not fair. But they don't necessarily feel that they have to be more successful or "better" than their mates.


Seriously,
If that mindset works for your marriage, then who am I to disagree?
Added to that , you have the " research " to back it up.
That type of dynamic does not exist in my marriage and I doubt in healthy marriages.
But if it works for you then nobody here can and should try to convince of otherwise.


----------



## Acorn

always_alone said:


> Delivery/intent makes a difference too. I told my partner that I needed to feel that he was on board with our plans, and committed to working with me as a team.
> 
> Which was essentially saying "pick it up a notch", but in a way that conveyed that I was feeling left alone to carry everything.
> 
> I don't know your situation at all, really, so don't know if it (or your h) is anything like mine. But it seemed to help.


Not saying your relationship was like mine, but my wife used to think similarly to this and it always sort of amazed me.

If you have to tell someone to pick it up a notch, you are announcing that you are ahead in some fashion. The implication of course is that you left him behind in some fashion.

If you are saying that he is not on board with "our plans"... well, how can one not be on board with his own plans? More likely the plans were not "our" plans but the independent spouse's plans.

If you feel alone to carry everything, doesn't that imply that you need/want/desire your spouse? And if so, why is it so hard for independent folks to just admit that? Is it a vulnerability thing?

I know I am coming at it from more of a togetherness standpoint. Sometimes the independent posts sound funny to me. "I need him to step it up but tell him I need him? Pffft."


----------



## RandomDude

There is a big difference between desire and need (from dictionary.com):

DESIRE
1. to wish or long for; crave; want. 
2. to express a wish to obtain; ask for; request

NEED
1. a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation
2. a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary
3. urgent want, as of something requisite: 
4. necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case: 
5. a situation or time of difficulty


----------



## Caribbean Man

People have been having fulfilling, functional relationships for thousands of years without all of these useless constructs, and they have been successful.

I believe that we have become so modern and dysfunctional , that we have forgotten the basic principles.

Relationships are supposed to be functional even when a differential exist. 
Compare the use and function of a knife & fork.
Food can be eaten without a knife most of the times, but having a knife & fork makes it a lot easier , less messier.

People are different , we all have our strengths and weaknesses that makes us able to function in some capacities and unable to , in others.

If your relationship serves no positive function but only brings negative feelings then something is wrong with the dynamics of it.
Quite a lot of times that " something" has to do with power or the feeling of powerlessness and control, or a lack thereof.

Proper balance , not power struggles, is needed for a relationship to be functional and work.


----------



## Acorn

RandomDude said:


> There is a big difference between desire and need (from dictionary.com):
> 
> DESIRE
> 1. to wish or long for; crave; want.
> 2. to express a wish to obtain; ask for; request
> 
> NEED
> 1. a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation
> 2. a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary
> 3. urgent want, as of something requisite:
> 4. necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case:
> 5. a situation or time of difficulty


While this may be true, you are just begging to be asked, "So you need an oil change but you don't need me?"

Sometimes it's better to hear what the person is trying to say rather than play grammar cop, yes?


----------



## RandomDude

> While this may be true, you are just begging to be asked, "So you need an oil change but you don't need me?"


Well yes, I may need an oil change but I can do it myself 



> Sometimes it's better to hear what the person is trying to say rather than play grammar cop, yes?


I did hear what you were trying to say, but I also disagree with your stance


----------



## Acorn

RandomDude said:


> I did hear what you were trying to say, but I also disagree with your stance


What stance is that?


----------



## RandomDude

That you find no difference between desire and need in relationships


----------



## Acorn

RandomDude said:


> That you find no difference between desire and need in relationships


I think you may not be understanding me then...

I do think the words mean different things, but I also think that in the same manner that it is hard to define "love" for all people, some people are going to use need and some will use desire to express the same thing. For example, there will be some people that will be really turned on if their spouse says, "I need you naked right now.", and there are those that prefer to whip out dictionary.com and lecture them about how desire would be the more accurate term. To each their own.

You said in one of your earlier posts that you save a piece of your heart for yourself, so you won't get hurt. Some people choose not to do this, they are "all in" and willing to risk the hurt for the closeness. The spouse that is "all in" will feel the imbalance of vulnerability. When they are asking you to need them/desire them/whatever, my opinion is that they are referring to that imbalance, they are asking for the part that they have given you which you have not given them. Does not mean you have to do it, but I suspect if your focus is on need vs. want, you are not really understanding the true request on a deeper level.

Anyway, to me it has little to do with the actual term, and everything to do with a fear/perception of making someone a priority when you are simply an option for them.

YMMV of course.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I just can't in good conscience advise my sons that they should let their wife take care of them financially. I don't think it guarantees divorce but I do believe that it fosters resentment. 

I think most men are fine with supporting a SAHM if they have the means without building up resentment. They still value her contribution to the family unit, and generally don't mind being the sole financial provider. 

I don't think most women can support a SAHD without thinking of him as "not pulling his weight". I honestly think the sexes are just different in this way. Its a double standard, but from what I've seen most men that go against it are worse off for it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

The SAHD type of dynamic is like a tricky minefield .
It takes a certain level of maturity to successfully negotiate.


----------



## DesertRat1978

A lot of great posts so far. 

I do my best to be the companion and lover that she says that she needs. I make it very well known that I am attracted to her (physically and emotionally) and that I value her being there. However, I have started to wonder if the detachment is affecting our relations in the bedroom.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I'd only consider a woman too independent if she just doesn't want to do things with me; if all her activities/interests are exclusive and she doesn't care about mine.

Honestly, being too dependent on me is the more unattractive quality imo. I don't want a SAHM. I want someone who works and has a lot of their own interests and activities - a very strong sense of self. I find that more interesting and I can relate too it better.

Nothing drives me crazy like having someone who constantly has to be leeching.

Give me an independent woman.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Seriously,
> 
> That type of dynamic does not exist in my marriage and I doubt in healthy marriages.
> But if it works for you then nobody here can and should try to convince of otherwise.


I said that it was common, not that it was healthy or desirable or worked in my marriage. There is a difference.

And the truth is a lot of men are extremely put off by women who are intelligent, successful, or independent. I've literally watched men take a step back from me and say something like "well, I best not get too involved in conversation with you" the minute they found out what I did. I'm quite certain their reaction would've been very different if I'd said I was a stewardess.

I guess some of us are a little less perfect than you and your wife. Sux to be us.


----------



## Goldmember357

Yes

its ingrained in the dna of men by evolution to want to provide and lead/rule/have dominance over females.

Humans not naturally monogamous creatures, but even in times of no monogamy when women were more valued/treated better and held more power. EVEN then men still controlled the societies and led, things were efficient within. 

The women that men find most attractive desire/want to be led by a man.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

This competitiveness issue is really just about self-esteem imo. It could be argued that women are just as competitive as men (just watch two women brag about their kids lol). Rightly or wrongly, men tend to derive their value from what they do; their accomplishments and the social status that comes with it. Women, it seems to me, tend to derive more value from their personal relationships - SOs, friends, family etc.

Even leaving evolution out of it, there's clear social pressure on a man to be a good provider. Other men, even many women, have a tendency to raise an eyebrow if not downright look down upon the man who chooses to be a SAHD or otherwise provided for. In posts here where a husband is jobless, often the first thing said is that he should get a job. There's much less of that directed toward women unless she's lazy around the house. Society has certain expectations or perceptions and we all get colored by them.

Some guys will take it in stride even while they'd prefer to be the breadwinner, others will use it as motivation to excel, and still others will withdraw in defeat. I know a couple stay at home Dads. They try to embrace it, but they make it clear that its just what makes most sense for their family at the time, not that they desire it to be this way. It has a whole different flavor from what you hear from SAHMs.

Remove the things that many men derive their sense of worth from and I don't think it should be surprising when those men feel worthless. Everyone develops a sense of what they're supposed to be in life, gender role included. A good way to relate it might be to compare it to many women's need to be a good mother (note the pressure to be a SAHM and *better* care for your kids?). Make her feel like she's failed this appointed gender role as a mother and watch how quickly depression sets in. By contrast, men tend to have a laissez faire attitude toward child rearing (eh... they'll be fine). It doesn't contribute nearly as much to our sense of worth.

For men, achievement, status, leadership and providing are part of the blueprint most of us have for being men. 

Different genders with different things that have a tendency to influence their sense of worth, largely based on societal expectation. Not a diabolical plot to keep women down or ensure male dominance.


----------



## heartsbeating

Well, your thread inspired conversation with my husband. He encourages and supports independence - but of course we still help each other. We talked about our experience living overseas and I shared with him that I recognise now some of my actions were selfish, and having a greater understanding of what he would have been going through, my perspective and behavior would have been different. He shared in more detail how he'd felt, and maintained that he was proud to see me succeed in the ways that I was. No doubt, his support over the years helps inspire me and contributes to the confidence I had to do those things that did help us.

He also doesn't need me to need him for protection. If a woman can protect herself, more power to her, is his attitude. However he does see that it's part of his role if I need it.

We don't have children but he'd also have an expectation that I'd return to work once they're in school. And while traditionally, he recognizes the man would continue to work with the woman at home (for as long as needed or financially viable), he'd take a pragmatic approach of whoever has the most earning capacity would be the one to continue working. It comes down to math. In our case, he does earn more than me.

He appreciates and respects independence, he doesn't need me to need him in those ways - and now that I think about it, I likely wouldn't be with someone that didn't have this view, but he does feel there needs to be space for inclusion and caring. To him, that's where the balance for a relationship comes in.


----------



## RandomDude

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'd only consider a woman too independent if she just doesn't want to do things with me; if all her activities/interests are exclusive and she doesn't care about mine.
> 
> Honestly, being too dependent on me is the more unattractive quality imo. I don't want a SAHM. I want someone who works and has a lot of their own interests and activities - a very strong sense of self. I find that more interesting and I can relate too it better.
> 
> Nothing drives me crazy like having someone who constantly has to be leeching.
> 
> Give me an independent woman.


Agreed, my idea of a life partner is just that; a *partner*

End of story


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> *And the truth is a lot of men are extremely put off by women who are intelligent, successful, or independent. * I've literally watched men take a step back from me and say something like "well, I best not get too involved in conversation with you" the minute they found out what I did. I'm quite certain their reaction would've been very different if I'd said I was a stewardess.


This^^^right there , is the " mindset" that I'm referring to.
And maybe that's what's bugging men who are put off by you.


----------



## always_alone

Acorn said:


> If you have to tell someone to pick it up a notch, you are announcing that you are ahead in some fashion. The implication of course is that you left him behind in some fashion.
> 
> If you are saying that he is not on board with "our plans"... well, how can one not be on board with his own plans? More likely the plans were not "our" plans but the independent spouse's plans.


Sigh. So what am I supposed to say when I am the one who is working full time, doing all of the housework, all of the organization, bills, shopping cooking, and so on? "Yes, dear, you just go ahead and keep playing that video game, I'll take care of it all."

I'm exaggerating, but the truth was I was doing the lion's share of everything, and he was only adding to the load but suggesting we move house and so on. His plans, actually, and he seemed to want me to execute it all.

What should I have said?

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Clearly he's doing everything right, and I'm just a ballbuster who is making his life miserable. Why? Because I've said I'm independent and dared to suggest that a lot of men have a problem with this.

Yet there's quite a few men here saying the same thing. Maybe you will believe them.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not a diabolical plot to keep women down or ensure male dominance.


I never said it was diabolical. No one did. It is just the way that some men are. You can see it for yourself in some of the posts right here in his thread.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> This^^^right there , is the " mindset" that I'm referring to.
> And maybe that's what's bugging men who are put off by you.


*shrug*. Yep, clearly it's all my fault or delusion that some men can't stand independent women. Nevermind that it only takes an answer to an utterly innocuous question like what do you do for a living or what year are you born in. Never mind that I am by far not the only woman to experience this. Nevermind that a bunch of men say exactly the same thing --and even use evolution to justify it. 

Yep, clearly just my fault and or delusion. No man ever has had an ego problem about this.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> *shrug*. Yep, clearly it's all my fault or delusion that some men can't stand independent women. Nevermind that it only takes an answer to an utterly innocuous question like what do you do for a living or what year are you born in. Never mind that I am by far not the only woman to experience this. Nevermind that a bunch of men say exactly the same thing --and even use evolution to justify it.
> 
> Yep, clearly just my fault and or delusion. No man ever has had an ego problem about this.


I am not naive enough to assume that not a single man in America has a problem with successful women. My issue is that you are probably over blowing it. Generally speaking most men don't hate or resent successful women, these days we honestly don't care. I need the women on my staff to make my business successful. Why would I disrespect them? Perhaps you are mistaking men's indifference to your position as disrespect. 

Not to go on a total tangent, but as a black man a lot of what you're saying sounds an awful lot like my peers that blame racism for everything. Many of them refuse to see that perhaps their vantage point or attitude could be the root of their problems.


----------



## deejov

always_alone said:


> Delivery/intent makes a difference too. I told my partner that I needed to feel that he was on board with our plans, and committed to working with me as a team.
> 
> Which was essentially saying "pick it up a notch", but in a way that conveyed that I was feeling left alone to carry everything.
> 
> I don't know your situation at all, really, so don't know if it (or your h) is anything like mine. But it seemed to help.


No, I wasn't nice about it at all. He used booze to cope with his feelings of failure. I lost respect for him. Truthfully, he didn't have adequate coping skills for life. The stuff we dealt with was all sudden tragedy type of stuff. He retreated to his "hole" and I looked down on him for it. Compassion? Nah. I didn't have any.


----------



## deejov

RandomDude said:


> Wait wait wat? So THAT was his excuse all along not to have sex?! Because you made more money than him!? Hell, sorry I haven't been following your updates Deejov... but WTF?!
> 
> THAT was THE reason?!
> :slap:
> Does he have any idea how pathetic that is?
> 
> Hell now this makes me wonder if independent-minded folk should strictly stick to their own.


Yes, he knows. Not something he was gonna just "tell me".
Not just money.
We had some personal tragedies and he folded hard. I had no choice. I picked it up, and carried on. It is for these things that he feels so deeply ashamed and "unmanly".


----------



## deejov

Acorn said:


> I will admit to being a guy who was married to a very independent woman. We had a lot of different incompatibilities and issues, so this wasn't the only issue of course, but it was one of the biggest ones.
> 
> Granted, we were both pretty immature at the time, so we aren't really a good example of how this dynamic should/could work.
> 
> I know I "shut down" for a while in both desire and effort around the house before I started therapy. I think it was because it was my extremely immature way of trying to force her to admit I was needed. Of course, she was equally immature, and would complain about how she needed help around the house, she needed help with the kids... she needed a lot of things in fact. The only thing she would not admit she needed was me.
> 
> We were enemies and not allies.
> 
> After the therapy I became a lot healthier and I'd like to think I have a much better balance and acceptance for independence and togetherness. My wife did not go through similar growth, so our only compatibility became independence... which made things ten time worse between us. The things I thought I needed her for were things I eventually realized I did not actually need, and the things she thought she didn't need me for were things she really missed. We have since drifted apart.
> 
> Not sure this is helpful to the thread at all but this thread is very interesting to me.


This somewhat describes the dynamics we were fighting. 
Thanks, your comments are very helpful!!

I have grown, I think. He is trying. To be truthful. It's painful for me. But I am willing to listen.


----------



## RandomDude

=/ 

IMO he needs to be stronger or you just need to find yourself a stronger man Deejov. A man who would have been inspired and proud, not threatened and succumbed to defeat simply because you're a woman.

Your threads also reflect my belief that independent, strong women are also better partners because they don't give up easy. Your husband should appreciate your initiative/dedication but instead he decides to be an ass to make up for it?

Bah, I hope he is making steps to improve. If he was my mate the advice would be simply "grow some fking balls"


----------



## deejov

RandomDude said:


> =/
> 
> IMO he needs to be stronger or you just need to find yourself a stronger man Deejov. A man who would have been inspired and proud, not threatened and succumbed to defeat simply because you're a woman.
> 
> Your threads also reflect my belief that independent, strong women are also better partners because they don't give up easy. Your husband should appreciate your initiative/dedication but instead he decides to be an ass to make up for it?
> 
> Bah, I hope he is making steps to improve. If he was my mate the advice would be simply "grow some fking balls"


I did say that to him. Not one of most memorable moments. It's a wonder he talks to me at all LOL


----------



## RandomDude

Hell looks like you've done everything you could (again)

Shame really


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> I am not naive enough to assume that not a single man in America has a problem with successful women. My issue is that you are probably over blowing it. Generally speaking most men don't hate or resent successful women, these days we honestly don't care. I need the women on my staff to make my business successful. Why would I disrespect them? Perhaps you are mistaking men's indifference to your position as disrespect.
> 
> Not to go on a total tangent, but as a black man a lot of what you're saying sounds an awful lot like my peers that blame racism for everything. Many of them refuse to see that perhaps their vantage point or attitude could be the root of their problems.


Again, we are *not* talking about business or politics. We are talking about romantic/love relationships. And similar results were found in the Netherlands, which is vastly more equal in terms of employment and power than the USA is.

I am *not* blaming anything on sexism or men. Just pointing out a common reaction to women who are "too" independent. So many men here on TAM insist that the man's role is to lead, provide and protect, and if he can't do so, or is not allowed to do so by his ballbusting wife, then he is not fulfilling himself as a man? 

Why can't you see that I'm only describing the exact same thing from the perspective of the woman who is actually "too" independent? Why is it so easy to hear it from men who couch it in terms of how women should follow and submit to their man. Do you honestly think that men who want this type take too kindly to women who do not at all want this role?

No. They call them ball-busters and tell them they have an attitude problem (that they really should fix so that men like them better).


----------



## deejov

LOL! The co-dependent shrew to the rescue. I apologized for it.

I DO have a problem asking for help. 

Last xmas, I almost killed myself trying to help my son. At first, I begged him, crying, help me, I don't know what to do. He froze.
So I left. Went and stayed with my son.

The fact that I never asked him for anything for 3 months while I went without sleep is my fault.

The fact that I busted my azz on a project at work and got rewarded for it was my ambition.

I try to see how it looked to him. I should have asked for help. 
I did end up in ER... overdid it. But I survived. I am tough.

He looks at me like I'm superwoman. 

Yeah, I am too independent. For him. 
Meh, I need superman. Ha ha ha ha.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> Not to go on a total tangent, but as a black man a lot of what you're saying sounds an awful lot like my peers that blame racism for everything. *Many of them refuse to see that perhaps their vantage point or attitude could be the root of their problems.*


Yup.

It's a type of " victim syndrome."
I see it all the time, very easily identifiable.

I always say that it's easier to change your perception of the world , rather than to change the world. Seven billion people in the world , and everyone has a story.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I think regardless of gender if you have a 'I'm independent, I don't need know one, no one is going to control me ect' vibe going on it can appear as weakness (especially in business).


----------



## RandomDude

Kelly Clarkson - Miss Independent - YouTube

Bah all this talk of independent women... now this song is stuck in my head


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Again, we are *not* talking about business or politics. We are talking about romantic/love relationships. And similar results were found in the Netherlands, which is vastly more equal in terms of employment and power than the USA is.
> 
> I am *not* blaming anything on sexism or men. Just pointing out a common reaction to women who are "too" independent. So many men here on TAM insist that the man's role is to lead, provide and protect, and if he can't do so, or is not allowed to do so by his ballbusting wife, then he is not fulfilling himself as a man?
> 
> Why can't you see that I'm only describing the exact same thing from the perspective of the woman who is actually "too" independent? Why is it so easy to hear it from men who couch it in terms of how women should follow and submit to their man. Do you honestly think that men who want this type take too kindly to women who do not at all want this role?
> 
> No. They call them ball-busters and tell them they have an attitude problem (that they really should fix so that men like them better).


You're seeing my intention the wrong way. I'm not saying "submit to your man". I was explaining, not prescribing. If I must prescribe, I would say, "pick stronger, more successful or secure men."

If I were a successful woman, this would be imperative. There are men out there who are perfectly happy with themselves even while their wives lead in virtually every area. Most of us however will buck up to try and even things out. I'd think a successful woman is best off with a successful man for the best chance of having a good relationship.

Most men dont want to be in the traditional wife role I think; we want to be the man of the house. Most in that situation either become resentful or lazy I'd bet. Just guessing, I only know a couple.


----------



## RandomDude

> Most of us however will buck up to try and even things out.


Aye, and that includes me!


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I always say that it's easier to change your perception of the world , rather than to change the world. Seven billion people in the world , and everyone has a story.


I'm confused. Are you saying that I should just accept that men are like this because I can't change the world? Because, truth is I totally accept it and see it for what it is.

Or are you saying that I should change my perception just because one or two men here say that you totally dig "too independent" women? Let's just say, I will believe this more from the guys who are with women that they actually believe to be more successful, without feeling their egos are being challenged.

And BTW, how do you get "victim complex" out of it? Because I've noticed that it's common for men to get upset when their wives or girlfriends are too successful or too independent? I fail to see how this would make me a victim of anything.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I'm confused, are we talking "too independent" or "more successful"? Because to me, these are very different things.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're seeing my intention the wrong way.


I wasn't actually responding to you in that post. And I agree wholeheartedly that a "too independent" woman should date/marry someone who isn't threatened by her, and who can support and enjoy her success. Yes, I know that such men exist.

What I am responding to (although I shall give up soon because I'm clearly wasting my breath) is the idea that "guys aren't intimidated by successful women" and insinuation that I just need an attitude adjustment because I have a "victim complex"

I know that there are men out there who aren't at all perturbed by their women's success. But I also know that a *lot* of them do not want to be romantically involved with a woman who is more successful than they are. They *want* to be the hero, to have her look up to him and go to him for protection and support. They are very vocal about these wants, and make them known in thread after thread.

They say things like "there's nothing sexier than a damsel in distress" or "a man should always be the leader". I've seen more than one guy here explicitly say that the man *should* earn more, and *should* be the ultimate decision maker, accepting all responsibility. 

And yet when I point out that this essentially translates to wanting women to be less successful and less independent than they are, all hell breaks loose. Go figure.

Maybe they doth protest too much?


----------



## RandomDude

How does wanting to be a hero/leader equate to your conclusion that such men want as you said:



always_alone said:


> prefer women to be younger, dumber, less experienced.


I'll share a story with you, there was once during my teens my mates and a few ladies joined in a rock climbing session. There was this one girl, who was reaching the bell when so far none of my mates have managed to reach it. One of my mates said outloud to this lady while she was nearing the top (in reference to the bell) "If you do it, we ALL have to do it", and we all laughed.

And hey, she hit the bell. Guess what happened? Yup, we ALL had to do it. I was quite frankly impressed, secretly turned on, and wanted to even the score and impress as well. It's all within my nature and how we men work. She inspired us all to reach the bell

Of course we want to play hero, doesn't mean we want to keep women down to do so.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> Again, we are *not* talking about business or politics. We are talking about romantic/love relationships. And similar results were found in the Netherlands, which is vastly more equal in terms of employment and power than the USA is.
> 
> I am *not* blaming anything on sexism or men. Just pointing out a common reaction to women who are "too" independent. So many men here on TAM insist that the man's role is to lead, provide and protect, and if he can't do so, or is not allowed to do so by his ballbusting wife, then he is not fulfilling himself as a man?
> 
> Why can't you see that I'm only describing the exact same thing from the perspective of the woman who is actually "too" independent? Why is it so easy to hear it from men who couch it in terms of how women should follow and submit to their man. Do you honestly think that men who want this type take too kindly to women who do not at all want this role?
> 
> No. They call them ball-busters and tell them they have an attitude problem (that they really should fix so that men like them better).


Speaking on it strictly from a romantic stance makes it easier not more complicated in my opinion. Of the successful women I know, they don't want a relationship with a man that isn't their equal, and generally prefer someone that is even more successful. Basically we are talking about two groups that view themselves as incompatible with one another. A successful women's tolerance for an average or underachieving man in a relationship is low. This isn't all on the men. These women generally only prefer relationships with men that are in a very limited demographic.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> This isn't all on the men.


All I'm saying is that it isn't all on the women, either. 

No doubt some men respond like RandomDude and want to go after a woman who "shows them how it's done" (for lack of a better expression). But for many, their reaction would be to look for someone who makes them feel like a hero without them having to try too hard.

It's one thing to push yourself for a one-time event when you risk embarrassment in front of your mates. It's another thing altogether when you also go home to that person and live with them full time. It can take a fair bit of stamina and/or sense of self -- especially if he ends up falling on hard times (job loss, disability, etc.) at the same time that she is excelling.

Men here keep saying that it's the women who wouldn't have them. But truth is that they are just as likely to not want these women --even if they are (gasp) good looking.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> But for many, their reaction would be to look for someone who makes them feel like a hero without them having to try too hard.


I think my frustration with some of the view points in this thread is that I don't think there is anything wrong with this preference (except for the not trying hard part). We can't force people to be with partners they aren't attracted to physically and emotionally. I feel as though you are saying that men should want to be with one type of woman over another. Why aren't we allowed to purse a woman that meets our emotional needs? 

Whats wrong with wanting to feel like a hero when you walk through the door after a hard day's work? I don't walk through the door and berate my SAHM wife. I give her a prolonged hug and a kiss, greet the kids, grab a Heineken and sit down for dinner.


----------



## Acorn

One thing I find peculiar about this thread is how much words like "successful", "strong", and "strength" are tossed around to describe the independent folks, to the point where independence = strength.

This seems to be both true and false at the same time. A couple examples from the thread:

A person who is not "too independent" has no trouble asking for help when they need help. When a "too independent" person struggles with this, it comes across as weakness to others. It is hard to fathom why a person who believes they are so strong that they need to find stronger spouses would struggle saying, "Can you spare 5 minutes, I need your help." Especially when it is obvious that help is needed!

A person who is not "too independent" is not usually the one struggling with a fear of intimacy and/or lack of courage to become completely vulnerable in a relationship. There is a quiet strength to be able to know deep inside that you commit to a person, and though you may get hurt, you are strong enough to weather the storm and do not need to erect walls around your heart to protect yourself.

There are equal and opposite strengths in embracing vulnerability and non-independent thought. I think the people that really get it are the ones that can blend the strengths of each and create true interdependence. (Imagine being able to ask for help when it was appropriate, but be independent enough to get the job done if help was unavailable! What a concept!)


----------



## Acorn

always_alone said:


> But for many, their reaction would be to look for someone who makes them feel like a hero without them having to try too hard.


Some men have the emotional need of "admiration". These men will try to find a woman who has the capability of meeting that need in the same manner that women would be advised to seek partners that meet their needs.


----------



## samyeagar

In my experience, many women who describe themselves as independant also subscribe to the notion of 'I don't need no stinkin man' and that translates into a woman who is not able to fill my emotional needs.

When it comes to attraction, for me, career success, wealth, fame, things like that do absolutely nothing for me. Just because a woman is those things does not make me more attracted to her, nor does it turn me off, it just is, and I couldn't care less. I am more than capable of taking care of myself, cooking, cleaning the house, doing laundry, fixing my own car, I am successful at my own job. I don't need a partner for any of those things, nor do I care if she does any of those things. What I need is a woman who is supportive emotionally, is empathetic, who has my back, can carry on an intelligent conversation. My experience is that a lot of self described independant women are lacking what I need in the emotional department.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nothing drives me crazy like having someone who constantly has to be leeching.
> 
> Give me an independent woman.


If that's what you really want, then you might have to stop going for the ones who are 10 years younger and in need of rescue.
'cuz mostly those things don't go together very well.

Just saying!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> And yet when I point out that this essentially translates to wanting women to be less successful and less independent than they are, all hell breaks loose. Go figure.
> 
> Maybe they doth protest too much?


Was someone complaining about successful women? I don't feel that all hell has broken loose. Perhaps this is too gray a line, but its really not that men want a less successful woman. I Know I don't think at all about how successful a woman is in deciding to pursue her or not. But as I said, I think most men will put out a hell of a lot more effort to at least match their partner's success once they're with someone. Its not about her. Its about meeting one's own expectations as a man. I don't think its generally a problem regardless, I don't think many women are attracted to men less successful than themselves - and unlike men, women's attraction tends to be substantially influenced by her perception of his success (or at least his status as a "doer"; ie men in uniform).

I don't believe independence and success should be rolled into one though. I love an independent woman even while I love the role of squishing bugs for her and similar. Yep, makes me feel like I have a distinct role to play. Doesn't make her dependent on me for it. Many women say the same thing about cooking for their men.

As for success, being with a more successful woman would only cause me to kick my own efforts into higher gear to at least draw even and pull 50% of the load. I'm a pretty ambitious/driven person though. I've never met a woman in my dating pool who is as career/success/money focused as I am... and they're usually younger than me, so none of this has ever been an issue.

Does it bother you that most men place high value their ability to provide for a family? What do you think a man should desire his role to be?

I guess I just can't relate. The most successful woman I've dated was an IP lawyer, and I was just like "You're a lawyer? Cool!" If she made so much as to be carrying more than half the weight, I'd just do what it took to even it out... not get depressed, whine about her success, or refuse to be in a relationship with her.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> If that's what you really want, then you might have to stop going for the ones who are 10 years younger and in need of rescue.
> 'cuz mostly those things don't go together very well.
> 
> Just saying!


Very true! Goes with the territory of having grown up with a struggling single mom. The desire to swoop in and change someone's life, having been powerless for mom, is tremendous. I don't think that's a typical male thing so much as my own disorder.  Don't confuse this with my wanting a dependent woman. In my defense, my tendency isn't to keep such women in a state of needing rescue/support. I've always pushed them toward independence, even my ex wife who nearly quit college. I've never been with a woman that wanted to stay a leech... and I wouldn't be attracted to one that did. 

I still go 10 years younger because I need someone with that youthful energy, but I do purposefully try avoid relationships with women who don't have their sh*t together. Its something I have to stay vigilant about. However, there's a good University here and lots of entry level tech and medical jobs, so there's plenty of quality young women to choose from. 

I know my bad habits better than anyone.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> We can't force people to be with partners they aren't attracted to physically and emotionally. I feel as though you are saying that men should want to be with one type of woman over another. Why aren't we allowed to purse a woman that meets our emotional needs?


Love whoever you want. Choose whoever you want. I'm certainly not telling you who you should date or marry. Just stop pretending that it is "independence" or other associated qualities.

My frustration with this thread is that everyone keeps saying that I have some sort of "I don't need no stinkin' man attitude" just because I pointed out that men often prefer women who are dependent, do need/want to be rescued, and will not exceed their man's earning capacity, intelligence, or strength. Then in the next breath --or on the other threads --tell me exactly that in their own words.


----------



## RandomDude

One of my friends in the past who was a doctor also never complained about men intimidated by her success. She was gorgeous enough to have them line up too. Her problem was time; she never had enough time for anything serious. Hell this is even in the big city.

I'm sure there are men out there who don't feel secure when a woman is more successful than him, but I don't think they even count for 50%, let alone most of men. From what I've seen, they're a minority, at least here in Australia.


----------



## always_alone

Sorry, Deejov, if I've sidetracked or overtaken your thread too much.

My short answer to your OP is that yes, women can be too independent. 

But even if they are, they don't necessarily need to change -- just be aware of the effects it can have on others.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> From what I've seen, they're a minority, at least here in Australia.


Not at all what I've heard from the Aussie women that I know...


----------



## RandomDude

Funny, perhaps we're mixing with completely different crowds lol

Ever thought about that?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RandomDude said:


> One of my friends in the past who was a doctor also never complained about men intimidated by her success. She was gorgeous enough to have them line up too. Her problem was time; she never had enough time for anything serious.


This is why I didn't keep seeing the lawyer girl. Between our two schedules... we saw each other on morning runs and that's about it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Always, do you mind telling me what city you live in? I'm going to guess the northeast. New York? Boston?

Just curious.

Also, do you think your issue might not be with men so much as western culture? The pervasive opinion held by women and men that men should be good providers?


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> My frustration with this thread is that everyone keeps saying that I have some sort of "I don't need no stinkin' man attitude" just because I pointed out that men often prefer women who are _*dependent, do need/want to be rescued, and will not exceed their man's earning capacity, intelligence, or strength.*_ Then in the next breath --or on the other threads --tell me exactly that in their own words.


The part I bolded is why I take issue with your view. These aren't the adjectives I would use to describe my wife. I feel as though you believe that only a successful career woman can be independent, intelligent, and strong. This simply isn't true. Just because I didn't marry a fortune 500 CEO doesn't mean that I married some dumb bimbo who can't spell and is incapable of doing anything without me. 

At least where I live the over whelming majority of SAHMs have college degrees and many had careers. I can't help but think that you view them all as less intelligent, weak willed, oppressed individuals.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> At least where I live the over whelming majority of SAHMs have college degrees and many had careers. I can't help but think that you view them all as less intelligent, weak willed, oppressed individuals.


Nothing could be further from the truth! I do not look down on any woman for choosing to be a SAHM. Far from it. And I'm not trying to cast your wife in a negative light, nor am I going to make any assumptions about her intelligence or strength. I'm sure she's a lovely person with tons to offer. She probably has a long list of proud accomplishments, and I bet she even keeps you in check sometimes.

I will say, however, that SAHM is a dependent role, financially at the very least. Put a man in that same role (SAHD), and you will get a whole different dynamic == where very many of them feel like failures and/or are uncomfortable about their wives being the breadwinner or successful. This is so common, I'm honestly shocked that so many of you don't/can't see it.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Always, do you mind telling me what city you live in? I'm going to guess the northeast. New York? Boston?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Also, do you think your issue might not be with men so much as western culture? The pervasive opinion held by women and men that men should be good providers?


I'm not American, nor do I live in the US.

And no, I don't think it's western culture, at least not only that. When I lived in Asia, for example, I was in an area where there weren't very many white folks, and even fewer with blonde hair and blue eyes. And so I was fairly exotic, and consequently had quite a few guys hitting on me. Until, that is, they came to the fateful question that they all ask when trying to get to know someone: What year was I born in?

When I answered this question, they would literally get up from the table and walk away. This happened all the time. Why? Because according to Chinese astrology, women who are born in that year are "dangerous" to men and should be avoided at all costs. Such women will never obey, will talk back, will dare to challenge a man's judgement. They -- I mean we -- will eat him for breakfast. (I learned this from a woman who was teaching me how to cook, and who immediately stopped all lessons when she found out when I was born because "it doesn't matter. I won't ever have anyone to cook for anyway".)

Wild.

In the western world, I literally had men who had been coming on to me suddenly shut down the conversation the minute they found out what I did. Many told me explicitly that they found it/me too intimidating, and no longer knew what to say. Again, this happened all the time.

And it's not like there's anything special or unique about me. There are plenty of women out there who will sing exactly this same song.


----------



## RandomDude

So the Chinese skip an entire generation of women born on that one specific year? Never thought Chinese were so superstitious then again I never lived there, only know the Chinese here in AUS.

What do you do that is making you so intimidating to men anyways, if you don't mind me asking. Pro wrestler? Heh


----------



## deejov

Based on what I do for a living, and where I live, it's weird. It's a highly competitive city, the industry I work in is still quite "old school" meaning there is the men's club mentality. It doesn't bother me. I trust that I will get recognized for what I do, and I do my best. Male or female, I understand that I have to earn their respect, that I do know of what I speak. That is fair.


Personally, it is most likely a case of.. he was on downward spiral while I was working on myself, and moving up at work.
Bad combination. Throw in some crisis, and you get a broken man who's looking at me like I'm another dude. 

Meh. 

If I was a tad richer, I'd pay for what I "need" and this wouldn't be an issue. LOL :rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RandomDude said:


> What do you do that is making you so intimidating to men anyways, if you don't mind me asking. Pro wrestler? Heh


Damn! That was EXACTLY what I was gonna say!


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> So the Chinese skip an entire generation of women born on that one specific year? Never thought Chinese were so superstitious then again I never lived there, only know the Chinese here in AUS.
> 
> What do you do that is making you so intimidating to men anyways, if you don't mind me asking. Pro wrestler? Heh


Chinese astrology runs on a 60 year cycle -- so it ends up being one year out of every 60. Not all are superstitious about this, of course, but being asked what year you were born in was very, very common, and often had that same result.

As for what I do: I argued. But not even. I merely carried the potential for argument, and that was enough. But life is a lot mellower now that I'm in an entirely different field.


----------



## RandomDude

always_alone said:


> As for what I do: I argued. But not even. I merely carried the potential for argument, and that was enough. But life is a lot mellower now that I'm in an entirely different field.


So you were a politician? a professional critic? a lawyer?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Acorn said:


> I do think the words mean different things, *but I also think that in the same manner that it is hard to define "love" for all people,* some people are going to use need and some will use desire to express the same thing. For example, there will be some people that will be really turned on if their spouse says, "I need you naked right now.", and there are those that prefer to whip out dictionary.com and lecture them about how desire would be the more accurate term. To each their own.


 I agree with this... having had a few discussions on this forum over these 2 words....it's very obvious peoples "lenses" over the Terms are clearly different. And it's OK, neither is right or wrong.. if it's working, why fix it.. we are a couple who LIKES to use the WORD * NEED.*.. not every day...but now & then... doesn't bother us in the slightest... 
He says ... "*I want you*" ...and 

....I say ..."*I want you *"... and 

..I enjoy hearing these feelings poured out in love songs too...it's beautiful...even when it's sad...somehow..."LIke the flowers need the rain, you know I need you"... maybe that's my inspiration even. But clearly we are an "INTERdependent couple' in every aspect. 

Songs like [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHEsBYv0TY]I Need You with Lyrics - America ... and ...." When I Need You " Leo Sayer 



> I need you
> Like the flower needs the rain
> You know, I need you
> Guess I'll start it all again
> You know, I need you
> Like the winter needs the spring
> You know I need you
> I need you


Songs like those (and a zillion others) don't make it to #1 cause *NEED* is a dirty ugly word for how we feel ...when we're in love...when we're alive unto our deepest emotions for another person. 



> You said in one of your earlier posts that you save a piece of your heart for yourself, so you won't get hurt. * Some people choose not to do this, they are "all in" and willing to risk the hurt for the closeness. The spouse that is "all in" will feel the imbalance of vulnerability. When they are asking you to need them/desire them/whatever, my opinion is that they are referring to that imbalance, they are asking for the part that they have given you which you have not given them*.
> 
> *Does not mean you have to do it, but I suspect if your focus is on need vs. want, you are not really understanding the true request on a deeper level.*
> 
> Anyway, to me it has little to do with the actual term, and everything to do with a fear/perception of making someone a priority when you are simply an option for them.


 I resonate with what you describe here...We are both the "all in" type.... he makes vulnerability easy... I make it easy for him... we like it...Neither of us sees this as a weakness at all. It's the deepest of connection. Great post Acorn


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SA, at what point would you say an SOs need becomes smothering? Or do you not have such a point?


----------



## Created2Write

My dad was a SAHD. Best years of my childhood. He took my brother and I fishing so often that, looking back, it felt like we went fishing everyday. He never made us do our homework. We saved that for when mom came home.  He would pick us up from school, and then just do things with us. It was awesome. And when we were old enough, he went back to school, and got into computers. 

Just a tidbit there.  

As for my answer to the OP, yes I think women can be to independent, just like they can be too dependent. My grandmother was a "You don't need a man!" kind of woman, and was highly successful in her life; got a Master's degree in education with a minor in economics and was a teacher with special needs children for 30+ years. But, she made some very bad choices in her life; cheated on her husband for years while living with another man, made horrible business choices when her husband died with regards to the farm he'd owned and operated all his life, and wasn't the best of mothers to my mom. 

So, yes, women can be too independent.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> SA, at what point would you say an SOs need becomes smothering? Or do you not have such a point?


The only point I have is... people should hook up & BE with those who have similar levels of "enjoying each others company".. in a healthy way....an *INTERdependent* model... not being a burden but being a Help and a JOY to each other... irregardless of whether one calls it *need* , *desire*, *want*...I don't see that this matters...

The Romantic is more likely to use the term "NEED" just cause it's deeper.. and his attachment FEELS deeper to him/her ... it doesn't make him or her "smothering"... unless they stupidly attached themselves to someone who is on the opposite end of the Mr or Mrs MEGA Independent "I have no need of anyone, I am an island" type. Gawd....who would want that in a relationship.. Please spare me!...

NOW the unhealthy.... Taken from this thread http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/122298-neediness.html.. I offer my contribution post -which addresses your smothering symptoms question....





JustHer said:


> To me "neediness" is when a person relies on others to "make them happy". When we give over our own power to others, inevitably they will always come up short and fail us. We, on the other hand will never be "happy" because the ability to be happy only lies within ourselves.
> 
> A needy person is subconsciously a selfish person and even at times they can be emotionally harmful to others. The expectations they put on other to "fill them up" is unrealistic and draining.
> 
> An example of this would be someone who wants to hang out with you ALL the time. They never seem to be able to find anything to do on their own. They depend on you to fill their social calendar and put on a pity parry when you don't. They may have no interests or hobbies that bring them happiness, unless you do it with them, and they may insinuate that it is your fault when they don't have a good time.


What you describe here could be called "THE SPONGE" taken from THIS BOOK

Can read the Sponge Chapter here >> High-Maintenance Relationships - Les Parrott - Google Books



> High Maintenance Relationships: The Sponge
> 
> *The Anatomy of a Sponge*
> 
> Constantly in need; gives nothing back
> Clingy
> Stifling
> Needy
> Guilt-inducing
> Fearful
> Egocentric
> Smothering
> Crisis-oriented
> 
> *Understanding a Sponge*
> 
> Sponges suffer from terribly low self-esteem.
> Sponges are desperately trying to merge with another person in a vain attempt to feel better about themselves.
> 
> Sponges don’t posess enough self worth to stand on their own two feet, so they try to stand on yours.
> 
> Sponges, more than most other high-maintenance relationships, are crying out, strangely enough, to be needed.
> 
> The avaricious man is like the barren sandy ground of the desert which sucks in all the rain and dew with greediness, but yields no fruitful herbs or plants for the benefit of others.
> 
> *Do you know a Sponge? *
> 
> If you can answer yes to at least 10 of these questions then you are in a relationship with a Sponge.
> 
> *1*. Sometimes I feel that this person is attached to my side.
> *2*. Rarely does this person explore my needs and concerns.
> *3.* Sometimes it feels as if this person is literally soaking up my time and resources.
> *4.* This relationship may be close in some respects, but it is stagnant.
> *5.* This person almost always appears to be needy.
> *6*. When I say no to this person, I often feel guilty.
> *7*. This person is clingy and needy.
> *8*. I often feel smothered by this person.
> *9*. It sometimes feels as if this person is simply moving from one crisis to another.
> *10*. At times I feel as if this person is pulling me under.
> *11.* This person has a fear of missing out or being left out.
> *12*. I have difficulty setting boundaries with this person.
> *13. *I spend a disproportionate amount of time working on this person’s problems and concerns compared to my own.
> *14*. This person is not afraid to ask for a favor.
> *15*. This person often drains my energy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

JustHer's definition is exactly what I consider needy and why I don't use the word "need" in relation to love. The way I see it, need, desire and want are describing entirely different things. In a healthy romantic context, I think need is just used to convey a high level want. Its a romantic exaggeration meant to convey greater weight than "want" is generally thought to convey.

Strictly speaking, I've come to understand that I want to be wanted, not needed. Appreciated; not needed. If I'm the cornerstone not only of someone's happiness, but their sense of self, I don't think that person is very healthy. I want them to maintain their own identity and independence of me; to have a source of happiness that doesn't derive from me; its down right necessary to sustain my interest in them. Independence contributes new and unique things to a relationship. A certain amount even "makes the heart grow fonder" if you will. Its hard to crave what's always in your pocket. I already have a pet that needs me, depends on me for everything, follows me around the house and is at my beck and call.

Perhaps its just definitions, but the people I associate with needy are entirely life draining to me. Eventually you begin to ask the question: so, what do you bring to this? It seems like they have nothing to offer but their need of you... or rather, their need of *someone*... often anyone.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I never needed anyone til SO came along.I really had no use for people outside of my work life and volunteer work.
He changed that about me.I find it isn't that I HAVE to need him.I WANT to need him.It's very important for me to recognize there's a difference in wanting to need and needing to need.Might not make sense to anyone else but oh well! lol
To answer OP,I think both sexes can be too independent if they're not careful.


----------



## Created2Write

I need my husband, but not because I'm not myself without him. I'd be me whether he were in my life or not. I have a job, I'm working toward my career, I have my own interests and passions and tastes and styles. I'm completely, 100%, my own person; I was without him in my life, and I have been with him in my life. However, there are things I need him for; things my family, my friends and even myself can't give to me. Sexual fulfillment being the most important. Companionship I can get with friends and family. Trust I have with friends and family. Conversation, quality time, affirmation...I can get all of those with family and friends. Love I can get with family and friends. I need my husband for sexual fulfillment. Masturbation is fine and dandy, but has absolutely no comparison to his intimate touch. The love he and I have with each other isn't something that can be duplicated with a friend or family member, and our sexual relationship is as fulfilling as it is for me because of that love. It goes beyond the physical(which, by itself, is mind blowing) and reaches into my heart and soul, connecting us in the most powerful way possible. 

Might sound cheesy, but I think it's one of the most special things about our relationship, and it's why I need my husband in my life. I doubt I'd ever find that with anyone else.


----------



## deejov

Created2Write said:


> I need my husband, but not because I'm not myself without him. I'd be me whether he were in my life or not. I have a job, I'm working toward my career, I have my own interests and passions and tastes and styles. I'm completely, 100%, my own person; I was without him in my life, and I have been with him in my life. However, there are things I need him for; things my family, my friends and even myself can't give to me. Sexual fulfillment being the most important. Companionship I can get with friends and family. Trust I have with friends and family. Conversation, quality time, affirmation...I can get all of those with family and friends. Love I can get with family and friends. I need my husband for sexual fulfillment. Masturbation is fine and dandy, but has absolutely no comparison to his intimate touch. The love he and I have with each other isn't something that can be duplicated with a friend or family member, and our sexual relationship is as fulfilling as it is for me because of that love. It goes beyond the physical(which, by itself, is mind blowing) and reaches into my heart and soul, connecting us in the most powerful way possible.
> 
> Might sound cheesy, but I think it's one of the most special things about our relationship, and it's why I need my husband in my life. I doubt I'd ever find that with anyone else.


Thanks, Created. That was uplifting to read. 
Made me a little sad, too.


----------



## deejov

ScarletBegonias said:


> I never needed anyone til SO came along.I really had no use for people outside of my work life and volunteer work.
> He changed that about me.I find it isn't that I HAVE to need him.I WANT to need him.It's very important for me to recognize there's a difference in wanting to need and needing to need.Might not make sense to anyone else but oh well! lol
> To answer OP,I think both sexes can be too independent if they're not careful.


This speaks to me, because of course I wanted to be able to lean on him, at times. That was one of the good points of being married. I didn't HAVE to be completely independent all the time. I was married. We were a team. 

But the truth is... whenever something has happened, and I wanted support, he folded. For whatever reason. Doesn't matter.

He was wanting to talk about this stuff. The past week,he's been drinking again. It was once in awhile the past month, now he's back to 2 - 3 beers every night. Which is the fast slide to the weekend binge from hell and the 6 week cycles of "no drinking anymore" which only lasts for 2 weeks, and round and round it goes.

There is no talking anymore. I'm not willing to listen to the booze. His phone is securely on him at all times (which means he's hiding the "wanna go for beers" texts) and nothing he has to say is the truth right now. Getting drunk, driving drunk, and hiding it from me is his only goal in life at the moment. 

Meh. I have 6 weeks to ponder what he had to say. He won't consider it until he's fully ashamed of drinking again, and wants to know why we aren't a team, and what went so wrong.

Yeah. If only I could time my "wanting" to lean on him during his spells of wanting to sober up.


----------



## Mavash.

I don't know how you could ever lean on an alcoholic.

The nature of the disease dictates they can barely take care of themselves much less another human being.

Oh sure some function but I'm thinking just the basics not on a healthy level.

They survive they don't thrive.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

deejov said:


> This speaks to me, because of course I wanted to be able to lean on him, at times. That was one of the good points of being married. I didn't HAVE to be completely independent all the time. I was married. We were a team.
> 
> But the truth is... whenever something has happened, and I wanted support, he folded. For whatever reason. Doesn't matter.
> 
> He was wanting to talk about this stuff. The past week,he's been drinking again. It was once in awhile the past month, now he's back to 2 - 3 beers every night. Which is the fast slide to the weekend binge from hell and the 6 week cycles of "no drinking anymore" which only lasts for 2 weeks, and round and round it goes.
> 
> There is no talking anymore. I'm not willing to listen to the booze. His phone is securely on him at all times (which means he's hiding the "wanna go for beers" texts) and nothing he has to say is the truth right now. Getting drunk, driving drunk, and hiding it from me is his only goal in life at the moment.
> 
> Meh. I have 6 weeks to ponder what he had to say. He won't consider it until he's fully ashamed of drinking again, and wants to know why we aren't a team, and what went so wrong.
> 
> Yeah. If only I could time my "wanting" to lean on him during his spells of wanting to sober up.


You can't lean on an addict even when he wants to sober up.Addicts will suck the life from you until there's nothing left.


----------



## deejov

An active addict isn't a person who can even be in a relationship.
He did a good long run of not drinking at all.... almost 7 months. Sigh. He was making progress. He was working on himself, and talking to me about what his deep dark issues are. Not that I could fix them. But.. it was insight for me. 

Now that he is drinking again... there is nothing to talk about.
Thank goodness I am independent.


----------



## Mavash.

deejov said:


> An active addict isn't a person who can even be in a relationship.
> He did a good long run of not drinking at all.... almost 7 months. Sigh. He was making progress. He was working on himself, and talking to me about what his deep dark issues are. Not that I could fix them. But.. it was insight for me.
> 
> Now that he is drinking again... there is nothing to talk about.
> Thank goodness I am independent.


Which is why you 'were' perfect for him.

Every addict needs an enabler (aka independent person who can keep life going).

I read somewhere that the average addict can keep 6 people busy.


----------



## Created2Write

deejov said:


> Thanks, Created. That was uplifting to read.
> Made me a little sad, too.


I'm glad it was uplifting, and sad it made you sad. I believe everyone can find this kind of love. So, keep your chin up. You're a wonderful person.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> JustHer's definition is exactly what I consider needy and why I don't use the word "need" in relation to love. *The way I see it, need, desire and want are describing entirely different things.* In a healthy romantic context, I think need is just used to convey a high level want. Its a romantic exaggeration meant to convey greater weight than "want" is generally thought to convey.
> 
> Strictly speaking, I've come to understand that I want to be wanted, not needed. Appreciated; not needed. If I'm the cornerstone not only of someone's happiness, but their sense of self, I don't think that person is very healthy. I want them to maintain their own identity and independence of me; to have a source of happiness that doesn't derive from me; its down right necessary to sustain my interest in them. Independence contributes new and unique things to a relationship. A certain amount even "makes the heart grow fonder" if you will. Its hard to crave what's always in your pocket. I already have a pet that needs me, depends on me for everything, follows me around the house and is at my beck and call.
> 
> *Perhaps its just definitions*, but the people I associate with needy are entirely life draining to me. Eventually you begin to ask the question: so, what do you bring to this? It seems like they have nothing to offer but their need of you... or rather, their need of *someone*... often anyone.


 So you agree with JustHer...then surely also *"the Sponge*" definition I added to give a little more depth...down to a list of behaviors... So , again...it all boils down to how one chooses to look upon the word "*NEED*" .. ...you have grave issues using the term in any context....because it could be taken in a wrong light....what you find the most repulsive, you could spit out of your mouth... tying only "negativity" , weakness & the greatest of insecurities with it......in regards to opposite sex relationships.... 

Whereas some of us are just more OPEN with the word ...giving it freedom to mean all of these things, intermingled. Oh aren't interpretations FUN! 

By saying this >> "In a *healthy romantic context*, I think need is just used to convey a high level want. Its a romantic exaggeration meant to convey greater weight than "want" is generally thought to convey".. You can acknowledge some of us are still healthy - yet deeply romantic in our expression ....GOOD! Happy we agree.


----------



## heartsbeating

deejov said:


> Based on what I do for a living, and where I live, it's weird. It's a highly competitive city, the industry I work in is still quite "old school" meaning there is the men's club mentality. It doesn't bother me. I trust that I will get recognized for what I do, and I do my best. Male or female, I understand that I have to earn their respect, that I do know of what I speak. That is fair.


This might be a given to many here, but part of my own growth has been expressing and asking for help when I need it. Not necessarily from hubs but other areas in life such as work. In the past, I would just get on with it...I thought that was part of the deal. Now I let others in, express what I need and ask for help. In doing this, I've experienced there's a whole lot of support and help in return and things become much easier. 

With your husband, he does need to seek help first and I agree with the others who have posted about the addiction.


----------



## heartsbeating

deejov said:


> I've been working contract for a small private o&g company. Recently, they offered me an employee position, with a fair market salary (less than what I'm getting as a consultant) but they enticed me with a hefty valuable share option, as they want to go public next year.


On this note alone, I wanted to say congratulations to you. I hope that you can celebrate in some way. It would be lovely if you could include your husband to celebrate with you but otherwise, just something nice for yourself to pause and acknowledge your achievement.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> you have grave issues using the term in any context....because it could be taken in a wrong light....what you find the most repulsive, you could spit out of your mouth... tying only "negativity" , weakness & the greatest of insecurities with it......in regards to opposite sex relationships....


No, my issue is really how inaccurate the word is for what it is being used to describe. You need to breathe. Without your spouse, you may feel immense pain in the short run, but you'll live... and inevitably move on. There's a lot of "obviously I don't "_NEED them_, need them" in this thread. To which I'd say, then don't use the word "need". Its not only not needed, its inaccurate. Details people!!! Details!! Sheesh! 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Whereas some of us are just more OPEN with the word ...giving it freedom to mean all of these things, intermingled. Oh aren't interpretations FUN!


Hence the word: love. I love them. Why bother with need? Need doesn't sound half as good as love. Need is by definition lacking in will. Love is a bizarre sort of willful AND beyond will, all at once.

I just think its melodramatic to express love with the word need. I see it used and get cranky about definitions. But I guess that's why I'm not a romantic.


----------



## Created2Write

Context is everything. There _are_ situations where spouses need each other. Sex, for example. You can't have intercourse with just one person; it requires two. And, unless we're talking about adultery, we need our spouses to have sex. 

So it's not always inaccurate. It depends on what the need is.


----------



## Created2Write

And we have emotional needs, things we won't die if we don't get, but are necessary and required for us to have successful relationships with others.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I just think its melodramatic to express love with the word need. I see it used and get cranky about definitions. *But I guess that's why I'm not a romantic.*


 Yes..and that speaks it all , doesn't it.... and I so DIG the other end of the spectrum in men.....those gentleman romantic saps that love to protect & provide their women .....who appreciate those sappy drippy love songs oozing "NEED"... Oh I can just see your face >>

 

You'd throw me over the cliff ... and I'd throw you over too...ha ha...

To each their own .. this doesn't mean we couldn't find another, I know this.... Life goes on and sh** happens.... But in those moments, we greatly Love who we're with and use vulnerable words to express such deepness..I still say a hearty "so what"!

Believe me, I love to sit around and analyze till the cows come home myself... but this just doesn't bother me in the slightest.. 



> *Created2Write said:* And we have emotional needs, things we won't die if we don't get, but are necessary and required for us to have successful relationships with others.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes..and that speaks it all , doesn't it.... and I so DIG the other end of the spectrum in men.....those gentleman romantic saps that love to protect & provide their women .....who appreciate those sappy drippy love songs oozing "NEED"... Oh I can just see your face >>
> 
> 
> 
> You'd throw me over the cliff ... and I'd throw you over too...ha ha...
> 
> To each their own .. this doesn't mean we couldn't find another, I know this.... Life goes on and sh** happens.... But in those moments, we greatly Love who we're with and use vulnerable words to express such deepness..I still say a hearty "so what"!
> 
> Believe me, I love to sit around and analyze till the cows come home myself... but this just doesn't bother me in the slightest..


I like this SA. DH and I talked last night about a lot of this, and due to circumstances both before and after we've been together, we're both terrified to be vulnerable. To admit that we really do need the other person for our sexual and emotional fulfillment, insofar as our marriage is concerned. We both _say_ it, and yet we act completely the opposite. Almost to the point of pushing the other person away at times. 

Trust is an absolutely essential part to admitting that we need someone else. Others may not be so emotionally sensitive, and that's fine. They will have different needs, and will, therefore, be attracted to very different people. But it doesn't mean others are wrong in their need for relational fulfillment, or that they need a lecture in definitions.


----------



## RandomDude

Vulnerability is one thing though, dependence is another.


----------



## Created2Write

They are definitely different things, which I think is why some people get hung up on the word "need". It can mean dependence for some, and it can also mean vulnerability for others. Context is very important in determining which is it for people.


----------



## RandomDude

How could the word "need" not mean dependence? :scratchhead:


----------



## Created2Write

I guess, for me, it depends on what is needed...what the spouses depend on each other for. It doesn't have to be the clingy, needy, I-don't-have-an-identity-or-life-outside-of-my-relationship-with-you, that some see it as, although it is often that. Sometimes it's _good_ to need/depend on your spouse for things.

That's really all I meant. It's not that "need" doesn't mean depend, it's that it doesn't always deserve the negative connotation it's given.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *RandomDude said*: How could the word "need" not mean dependence?


 Is "dependence" the total boner killer then? 

Well I am so called "dependent" on my husband financially since all I earn a year is about $4,000... so what am I ....a leech.... does that make our loving less somehow....that it isn't "wanting"... "erotic"... "passionate"... 



Created2Write said:


> I like this SA. DH and I talked last night about a lot of this, *and due to circumstances both before and after we've been together, we're both terrified to be vulnerable.* To admit that we really do need the other person for our sexual and emotional fulfillment, insofar as our marriage is concerned. We both _say_ it, and yet we act completely the opposite. Almost to the point of pushing the other person away at times.


 REALLY.... I am ... like....surprised by some of this Created2Write..... I have always found it so easy .. to be vulnerable with my husband... .but maybe that's just because of How he has always treated me .....I don't know.....it wasn't until I became a sex fiend chasing him down....(when I became "NEEDY" in this area)...*that he became MORE vulnerable with me !! *... He was eating that up ! ~ Is there something wrong with us ?? So really.. I was missing some of his deeper expressed feelings for me over those years, cause ...well....he held back some... We've lived and learned here ... 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...r-its-pain-its-beauty-how-vulnerable-you.html



> Trust is an absolutely essential part to admitting that we need someone else.


 How true it is.



> That's really all I meant. It's not that "need" doesn't mean depend, *it's that it doesn't always deserve the negative connotation it's given.*


 Being a broken record here....exactly how I feel as well !


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> How could the word "need" not mean dependence? :scratchhead:


In order for me to be vulnerable to my husband, I need to be able to trust him.

In order to maintain my attachment to my husband, I need to spend quality time with him. 

There is a level of dependency in every good relationship. But it's not a negative from of dependency. An example of a negative type of dependency is for example a person who needs their spouse to spend every waking moment with them 24/7.. dependence that is out of control (or it's called being controlling.)


----------



## RandomDude

Interdependence =/= Dependence no?


----------



## deejov

RD,
I personally have thought about it as...

If I cringe at the thought of yet another thing I need to do for that person in my busy day, they are too dependent on me.

If I do things for them because it will make their day, and bring a smile to their face, that's interdependence.


----------



## RandomDude

I can agree with that.

I also see interdependence as teamwork, like sure I work, STBX took care of the home fort that's cool. Looking back it seems I was p-ed off over her laziness at times then anything in that regard; aka, she spent most of her time living it up while I was working, way too much free time and then demanded this and that.

Didn't help that I found her esteem was too dependent on me either.


----------



## deejov

I was self-esteem dependent, no doubt about it. I found my own sense of self worth (again), and sometimes I think that was bad for him, but good for me.


----------



## RandomDude

Huh? I don't see how knowing one's self-worth would be bad for your partner :scratchhead:


----------



## deejov

That was one thing he could give me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

What exactly are you all talking about with regard to vulnerability? Vulnerable to what?

I read all that stuff and I still have no idea what it is that you're vulnerable to, or what it is that we're supposed to be worried about... or even what it has to do with independence. Help! lol 



SimplyAmorous said:


> he admitted he was never "totally" vulnerable with me our entire marriage - he hid himself, his deep feelings, he feared my rejection, my reactions.


I'm pretty much an open book. What sort of vulnerable things do people hide? The only things I tend to hide are thoughts that are obviously hurtful, and I don't hide them because I'm vulnerable, I hide them because it does no good to say them. Saying something like "I'm really getting sick of you" probably wasn't going to be much help to my marriage.


----------



## Jellybeans

I hope that anyone can be independent enough to not have to rely on someone else to do everything for them. Men tend to die before women (mortality rate/lifespan rate) so a lot of times women in marriages/long relationships find themselves single/widowed at the end of their life, w/o their companion/husband. If a woman (or man) cannot function on their own, that is not good, I think.

But relationships have their good things. It's just that independence is a good thing.


----------



## anotherguy

I see you are all hammering out semantics, splitting hairs and making fine distinctions...

...carry on... 

to me.. an independant woman is a wonderful thing...as is an independant man. I'm not buying into the negative connotations or pejorative spin some my try to cast on it?


====
INDEPENDANT - not dependent: as 

a (1): *not subject to control by others - self-governing (2) not affiliated with a larger controlling unit* <an independent bookstore> 

b (1): not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2): not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3): not bound by or committed to a political party 

c (1): not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood) <independent of her parents> (2): being enough to free one from the necessity of working for a living <a person of independent means> 

d: showing a desire for freedom <an independent manner>


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

You're so romantic AG.


----------



## DesertRat1978

I will not belabor this but independence can be taken too far in a marriage. I was raised by a strong mother. We were taught to cook, clean, sew, etc. at an early age and by the time that we were teenagers we fended for ourselves quite often. They worked nights and so we had to be able to subsist on our own. So when I married, I insisted on having one that would not crumble when I was not around.

However, there comes a level of detachment when the bond starts to weaken. This level is different for everybody. The wife and I are completely independent when it comes to basic needs. Packing lunches, getting to work, laundry, shopping, etc. We have separate bank accounts and take care of our student loans separately. This arrangement worked for a while but now I think that our lack of interactions and lack of need for one another besides companionship has eroded the bond.


----------



## deejov

Tyler,
I would say that my situation would be similar.... detaching brought more independence, and no "bond" was left. He chose to call it "too independent" in my case, but I looked at it like I had no choice in the matter.

Not to be too personal, but here's where things broke, for me.
I had a m\c at 5 months. Being a T1D, I had some issues with bg control and needed some extra medical help for a few days. He was good during that time, making sure I had what I needed, medically.

Then, he vanished for 12 hrs. I was left to tell friends. (I thought he would have at least done that!). Went to drink it off. He came home around 3 am, and there I was.. sitting on the floor, consoling him as he is sobbing. THAT broke my respect for him.

I tried to understand that he wouldn't know how it affected me.
And he probably didn't know what to do anyways. 

The truth is, while he was out drinking it off, two of my friends (both males) came over, made me dinner, we played wii games for a distraction, and they really just sat with me. Which was what I needed.

I kept thinking.... well, if he didn't know what to do, why didn't he ASK?

Same thing happened yesterday. I was spilling my guts about being worried about my son, and all he said was "what are you going to do about it?". I did tell him that gee, sometimes it would have been nice to have someone say "I'm here for you".

I don't know how else to explain this, but it's like he doesn't have it IN him to just "be there" for someone. 

There have been other crisis' we have faced. Each time, he's just not there. I've had no choice but to suck it up and just deal with it. 

In the end, I've told myself that I am proud of it. I managed. By myself. I think that is a better alternative than being a victim about it. 

Now, I don't expect him to be there, do anything. I don't ask. I just live my own life. He's excluded, completely. 

I"m not really willing to let him back in. Why should I? To aggravate the wound by saying the word, I don't NEED him. I have proven that to myself. 

I would like to want to be able to ask, sometimes. Like yesterday, for example. Just tell me everything will be okay, reassure me that things will get better, give me some hope.

My friends do that. He isn't even capable of being my friend.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Deejoy,

Wow! I am unsure of what to say. 

We have a level of detachment that far exceeds most but not to this level. Some of it comes from the fact that I get stonewalled on so much that I feel like a roommate. Therefore I just play the role. However, we still help one another out when times are tough. We are both selfless a lot of the time and can put away our selfish needs to help the other out.


----------



## deejov

That counts for something, tyler. Being there when it matters.

Luckily, I am independent. I survive. But I dont' forgive and forget these days  Not to this level. I learn. Who to trust. Who to walk away from. It's all part of life. 

I hope things get better for you. Living like room-mates is hard on your soul.


----------



## honeysuckle rose

I used to be this way and I am envious of women who are able to feel this. That's just dead in me. I've taken care of myself for so long and been let down so much, it's not even an issue anymore in the sense that my default is, "I'll do it myself." This DOES make him feel unneeded. Honestly, he is. I hate to say it. But, I don't find great companionship with him. I have more in common with and share more with my gfs. I wish it weren't this way. But, it is. Too much difference in personality and world view, too old and too much crap in the history bin, I guess...




greenpearl said:


> Financially, I can be independent. I have a skill and I make a good salary, I can support myself.
> 
> But emotionally, I can't be independent. I need a man to love me and care for me.
> 
> I am not even talking about protection. I can be smart enough not to get myself into trouble so I don't need anybody's protection.
> 
> But I need a companion, someone to share my life and thoughts with. Someone to hold me and caress me.
> 
> And I can't have sex with myself. I need a man to have sex with.
> 
> Some people can be arrogant to think that they don't need anyone in their life, but they are only fooling themselves. Deep down they are lonely and empty.


----------



## honeysuckle rose

*You just hit the nail on the head. I am so detached from him and am so used to doing everything for myself, I just keep doing it to get it done when I want, how I want. It's just easier.*

However, there comes a level of detachment when the bond starts to weaken. This arrangement worked for a while but now I think that our lack of interactions and lack of need for one another besides companionship has eroded the bond.[/QUOTE]


----------



## SimplyAmorous

honeysuckle rose said:


> I used to be this way and I am envious of women who are able to feel this. That's just dead in me. I've taken care of myself for so long and been let down so much, it's not even an issue anymore in the sense that my default is, "I'll do it myself." This DOES make him feel unneeded. Honestly, he is. I hate to say it. But, I don't find great companionship with him. I have more in common with and share more with my gfs. I wish it weren't this way. But, it is. Too much difference in personality and world view, too old and too much crap in the history bin, I guess...





honeysuckle rose said:


> *You just hit the nail on the head. I am so detached from him and am so used to doing everything for myself, I just keep doing it to get it done when I want, how I want. It's just easier.*
> 
> However, there comes a level of detachment when the bond starts to weaken. This arrangement worked for a while but now I think that our lack of interactions and lack of need for one another besides companionship has eroded the bond.


I feel you effectively described what CAN happen when the intimacy slowly erodes and how some can become *TOO independent *...to the point of "Apathy".... where both feel they just don't need each other anymore...

This does take a hit on our marriages...many of us get a sense of *purpose *from feeling "needed"-- but also wanted, cherished like we are irreplaceable... this makes us feel highly valued.... even if it's all just an illusion... so what...we relish in it, it brings us happiness...(again it's about the purpose) 

Sure we could find another lover if ours dies on us... but damn, there is a mountain of emotion there.... Or should be, that's the thrill of being in love, being attached, bonded.


----------



## deejov

Apathy. I felt it this past few days, but used an excuse to cover it up. I"m not feeling great about it either.

H has been really quite sick, a bad flu is going around. Being diabetic, I've been avoiding him even more. I don't want to get it!

He needed to go to er on Friday (get checked out) and I bailed.
Said I didn't want to go where sick people are, maybe it's better to call a friend or your mom. (turns out he has pneumonia)

I was very clearly thinking that I did not want to be there for him. It was on purpose. But I lied anyways. 

Except his mom convinced him that it was the best move, and I really shouldn't be around all that stuff. No big deal. 

So my whole weekend has been spent forcing myself to do stuff for him. I don't want to, but my dads' voice in my head is speaking up. I was raised better. You help when needed. 

He has no sick days, he hasn't said a word about it so I reminded him to ask his boss about using his vacation days. He wanted to argue about that. I am pissy about the fact that I might have to pay his bills. He might be off work for awhile.

I am hating myself today. I should have left a year ago. I don't like myself for what I'm becoming. I do not want to pay his bills or do his laundry or help him out. That's pretty sad. 

He brought me flowers on his way home from er. To thank me for helping him the past couple of days. 

I suck.


----------



## Mavash.

Stop it deejo.....just stop it.

You do NOT suck.

Please stop saying that.

You've gone above and beyond what most reasonable people would have done given your situation.

Tell your dad in your head to shut up. LMAO!!!


----------



## deejov

Feeling better now. Just doing what I WANT to do for him, and finding ways to find my own privacy the rest of the time. He's still got reduced lung capacity, and not able to do a lot. Cranky, but who wouldn't be? Stuck at home and nothing to do. 

Karma or just the way my life goes... but I was feeling pretty low for a few days. Work changed... in really positive ways. Almost like I was starting to feel "oh, I don't think I can manage all of this" and poof some great stuff happened at work, and I felt a whole lot better!! Coming home from work is still a heavy weight.... but at least I can MANAGE what is going on now. Whew.


----------

