# Emasculating a man? Is that even possible?



## jld

I have heard this mentioned here on TAM. But to me, that does not even seem possible. How can you take masculinity away from a man? Isn't that something inside of him, his essence?

I cannot see how anyone can take my femininity away from me. It is my essence. 

How do you take someone's essence away?

I am not even sure they can surrender it. Wouldn't your essence always spring forth, at some point?


----------



## that_girl

The men who are emasculated have let their wives beat (not literally) it out of them.

But it isn't just the wife's fault. He let it happen. He could stand up to her. He could tell her where to stick her bullshet.

To me, it's a product of a deeper issue. I don't think men with a strong sense of self could let it happen, but I don't know.

I do think at some point, any man would roar and stop the madness.

But I can see how it could happen. A man wants to please his wife and the wife thinks she runs the show.


----------



## treyvion

jld said:


> I have heard this mentioned here on TAM. But to me, that does not even seem possible. How can you take masculinity away from a man? Isn't that something inside of him, his essence?
> 
> I cannot see how anyone can take my femininity away from me. It is my essence.
> 
> How do you take someone's essence away?
> 
> I am not even sure they can surrender it. Wouldn't your essence always spring forth, at some point?


It's done by supressing someones personality and their actions.

A wife could emasculate her man, especially if he is a loyal man who won't cheat on her by doing the following:

1. Act more masculine than him.
2. Cut him off from sex and intimacy
3. Degrade him and brow beat him
4. Don't do anything which is helpful for him

There are more levels to it, but a sexless situation with a female who is opressive to you will start to affect your mind, which affects your masculinity. If you do not cheat, your stress will go up, your testosterone will go down, and your feeelings of well being will too.

Testosterone can go up and down just like masculinity.


----------



## treyvion

that_girl said:


> The men who are emasculated have let their wives beat (not literally) it out of them.
> 
> But it isn't just the wife's fault. He let it happen. He could stand up to her. He could tell her where to stick her bullshet.
> 
> To me, it's a product of a deeper issue. I don't think men with a strong sense of self could let it happen, but I don't know.
> 
> I do think at some point, any man would roar and stop the madness.
> 
> But I can see how it could happen. A man wants to please his wife and the wife thinks she runs the show.


We "let" it happen, because we "love" her and don't want to "hurt" her. We think she will stop, and make ourselves think it's not that bad, just like a abused female.

Also if you are tough you could just take it thinking you are being tough, when your really just being stupid.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

jld said:


> I have heard this mentioned here on TAM. But to me, that does not even seem possible. How can you take masculinity away from a man? Isn't that something inside of him, his essence?
> 
> I cannot see how anyone can take my femininity away from me. It is my essence.
> 
> How do you take someone's essence away?
> 
> I am not even sure they can surrender it. Wouldn't your essence always spring forth, at some point?


What a great post. I think you've nailed something with this. 

A man can't have his masculinity taken from him, but I can see where, in order to avoid fights or discourse he "gives it away".

I'll give you an example

A wife corrects her husband in front of others on something that is opinion based (the wife's opinion is equally valid as the husband's so it's just the wife "needing to be right"). The husband can choose to not get into a debate at that moment. That's him "giving up his masculinity" to keep the peace. 

Did the wife emasculate her husband, not without his consent...But many relationships wouldn't survive if the man "kept his masculinity" at all times.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Emasculation ...when you want someone with a penis to be exactly like someone with a vagina 

Men allow themselves to be emasculated as that_girl stated. 

Of course, some(not all) feel anytime a woman steps up and does something a man can do she's emasculating men.


----------



## John Lee

I wonder why you're asking


----------



## treyvion

Dad&Hubby said:


> What a great post. I think you've nailed something with this.
> 
> A man can't have his masculinity taken from him, but I can see where, in order to avoid fights or discourse he "gives it away".
> 
> I'll give you an example
> 
> A wife corrects her husband in front of others on something that is opinion based (the wife's opinion is equally valid as the husband's so it's just the wife "needing to be right"). The husband can choose to not get into a debate at that moment. That's him "giving up his masculinity" to keep the peace.
> 
> Did the wife emasculate her husband, not without his consent...But many relationships wouldn't survive if the man "kept his masculinity" at all times.


You see... It's not the ONE time that the husband allowed himself to be corrected or subjugated in front of others that took his masculinty, it is the many hundreds to thousands of times, which do train your mental response. It subjugates you over time, and it IS LESS masculine.

I had an Alpha friend, isn't the smartest, but he used to always embarrass his wife in front of others and I thought it was strange because it is not my style. The thing was he would respond to nitpicks that could've degraded him, but he never allowed it by responding in a more embarrassing way. She is an Alpha female... Years later, I see how doing that never allowed him to be degraded other than he sometimes makes his wife look stupid. It's not my style, like I said, but I see what he was doing.


----------



## that_girl

treyvion said:


> We "let" it happen, because we "love" her and don't want to "hurt" her. We think she will stop, and make ourselves think it's not that bad, just like a abused female.
> 
> Also if you are tough you could just take it thinking you are being tough, when your really just being stupid.


Right. My point was to the OP that it's not something that a wife or partner can do alone. It's a 2 party game. You bring up abused females, and it's like that. They don't CAUSE their abuse but they stay and it continues to happen.

I watched my mother browbeat my stepdad. Around me alone, he was this funny, cool, good story-tellin, adventurous guy. He and I would listen to real rock and roll (hahahaha omg) and drink Diet Rites and eat cornuts in his truck. He coached all my softball teams and taught me how to build things out of the scraps of wood and drywall from his work. We went water skiing and fishing and until I got boobs (that was hard for him hahaha), we would box and wrestle. He was my DAD.

But around my mom he was so....so....emasculated. It was like a different guy. He even acted STUPID (which I think is so my mom wouldn't ask him to do anything anymore). She would nag and he'd just hang his head. He became very small around her. 

I watched this for years until their divorce when I was 12. Later in life I needed therapy for issues I recognized were like my mother and I didn't want to be like her.

But to watch my dad be like that...like he was just there for her and her biddings. Ew.

He got better after the divorce for 6 years. He was the GUY  My dad was just who he was supposed to be. and when he remarried, he married a woman JUST LIKE MY MOM. :scratchhead: I never understood. That woman ran him like a scared puppy. She made him get rid of all female friends (that we had for years!) even his female dentist. And he did! Damn. Then he had to get rid of me....because she didn't like me (I was 18). And he did. I didn't talk to him for about 8 years.

My point is, he was a guy's guy unless around women ...maybe he liked it or maybe it was some deep seeded mommy issues? I dunno.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

Very good. 

No one else can emasculate you. Many men self emasculate in an attempt to please their wives. 





jld said:


> I have heard this mentioned here on TAM. But to me, that does not even seem possible. How can you take masculinity away from a man? Isn't that something inside of him, his essence?
> 
> I cannot see how anyone can take my femininity away from me. It is my essence.
> 
> How do you take someone's essence away?
> 
> I am not even sure they can surrender it. Wouldn't your essence always spring forth, at some point?


----------



## Fenix

treyvion said:


> You see... It's not the ONE time that the husband allowed himself to be corrected or subjugated in front of others that took his masculinty, it is the many hundreds to thousands of times, which do train your mental response. It subjugates you over time, and it IS LESS masculine.
> 
> I had an Alpha friend, isn't the smartest, but he used to always embarrass his wife in front of others and I thought it was strange because it is not my style. The thing was he would respond to nitpicks that could've degraded him, but he never allowed it by responding in a more embarrassing way. She is an Alpha female... Years later, I see how doing that never allowed him to be degraded other than he sometimes makes his wife look stupid. It's not my style, like I said, but I see what he was doing.


No, he's just an ass with poor coping and communication skills.


I agree with the OP. Emasculation is a silly concept and one that is defended by weak men who are uncomfortable with all facets of their being. Be centered in yourself and respect yourself and you do not have to be worried about appearing to be less of a man, because really who gives a damn...as long as you are happy with yourself.


----------



## that_girl

Dad&Hubby said:


> What a great post. I think you've nailed something with this.
> 
> A man can't have his masculinity taken from him, but I can see where, in order to avoid fights or discourse he "gives it away".
> 
> I'll give you an example
> 
> A wife corrects her husband in front of others on something that is opinion based (the wife's opinion is equally valid as the husband's so it's just the wife "needing to be right"). The husband can choose to not get into a debate at that moment. That's him "giving up his masculinity" to keep the peace.
> 
> Did the wife emasculate her husband, not without his consent...But many relationships wouldn't survive if the man "kept his masculinity" at all times.


But why does he have to keep the peace? I mean, if I was to do that to my husband in public, holy crap! I'm just a betch and should be shot down.


----------



## that_girl

ScarletBegonias said:


> Emasculation ...when you want someone with a penis to be exactly like someone with a vagina
> 
> Men allow themselves to be emasculated as that_girl stated.
> 
> *Of course, some(not all) feel anytime a woman steps up and does something a man can do she's emasculating men*.


Well, now that's just silly.

If something needs to be done and I can do it, I do it. It's not about if I think my husband is a man and should do it lol.

If he's around, he'll usually do it anyway, but...that's like saying if a man cooks or vacuums or changes a diaper that he's taken away some of my femininity. :lol: it's just what needs to be done.


----------



## jld

Fenix said:


> No, he's just an ass with poor coping and communication skills.
> 
> 
> I agree with the OP. * Emasculation is a silly concept and one that is defended by weak men who are uncomfortable with all facets of their being.* Be centered in yourself and respect yourself and you do not have to be worried about appearing to be less of a man, because really who gives a damn...as long as you are happy with yourself.


:iagree:


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Very good.
> 
> No one else can emasculate you. Many men self emasculate in an attempt to please their wives.


I think what you mean is they give away their power?


----------



## treyvion

Fenix said:


> No, he's just an ass with poor coping and communication skills.
> 
> 
> I agree with the OP. Emasculation is a silly concept and one that is defended by weak men who are uncomfortable with all facets of their being. Be centered in yourself and respect yourself and you do not have to be worried about appearing to be less of a man, because really who gives a damn...as long as you are happy with yourself.


Woah now nellie!!!! Politics does WORK. So this "appearance" over time becomes your supported "personality", so we cannot allow it.

His wife is an Alpha who will make most men look degraded, but he doesn't allow one step in that direction. Like I said, it is not my style, he's not killing her at all, and it does make it look like she could've been treated better, but you know what, they have adjusted over the years and are much better to each other...

I don't think weak men become emasculated. I think men in love do, when they get with women who will do it, and they don't respect or understand how it works.


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> I wonder why you're asking


Because I think men hide behind this idea, instead of taking responsibility for themselves.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

treyvion said:


> You see... It's not the ONE time that the husband allowed himself to be corrected or subjugated in front of others that took his masculinty, it is the many hundreds to thousands of times, which do train your mental response. It subjugates you over time, and it IS LESS masculine.
> 
> I had an Alpha friend, isn't the smartest, but he used to always embarrass his wife in front of others and I thought it was strange because it is not my style. The thing was he would respond to nitpicks that could've degraded him, but he never allowed it by responding in a more embarrassing way. She is an Alpha female... Years later, I see how doing that never allowed him to be degraded other than he sometimes makes his wife look stupid. It's not my style, like I said, but I see what he was doing.


Exactly. You're discussing how a man can be an emasculated husband, where I was talking about the specific situations where the emasculation occurs.

Yes this is something that happens over time and needs to be dealt with. HOW the man deals with it is critical.

My wife is very blunt with no tact. I love her honesty. Early in our relationship she'd say things that could be construed as emasculating but it was just that she didn't word things delicately. I would let it slide, in the moment, because I'm not going to embarrass her in front of others for something that was actually an innocent mistake, and I don't want to squash her openness. But we'd ALWAYS address it later, or on the very poor situations, I'd turn it around with humor but making sure she got the point. After 10 years together, I can't tell you the last time it happened. 

Now there are other women who try to dominate a relationship, that's a problem. If you pair one of those women with a man who wants to keep the peace and make his wife happy, eventually he'll be stripped of his masculinity. My first marriage was that way.

After I divorced I went 180 degrees the other way and realized I was really just being an a$$ LOL. My wife now has the middle ground Dad&hubby on this issue. I'm not going to lose my masculinity, but I also am masculine enough where I don't have to earn it through suppressing my wife.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

that_girl said:


> But why does he have to keep the peace? I mean, if I was to do that to my husband in public, holy crap! I'm just a betch and should be shot down.


I'm not saying that he actually HAS to keep the peace. Just that a lot of men do. Also if you look at my last post, I tried to explain how, in my current marriage, I've left issues alone at the moment, but later dealt with them.

Don't get me wrong, if my wife was just an outright betch...yeah she'd get it between the eyes. But luckily she's never gone in that direction LOL.


----------



## sinnister

I understand what you're saying JLD and now that I thought about it I agree with you. I dont think a mans masculinity can ever truly be taken away. Just repressed by a domineering spouse.

But its never really gone. Unless the man never had it to begin with...which is true for some dudes I guess.


----------



## treyvion

Dad&Hubby said:


> Exactly. You're discussing how a man can be an emasculated husband, where I was talking about the specific situations where the emasculation occurs.
> 
> Yes this is something that happens over time and needs to be dealt with. HOW the man deals with it is critical.
> 
> My wife is very blunt with no tact. I love her honesty. Early in our relationship she'd say things that could be construed as emasculating but it was just that she didn't word things delicately. I would let it slide, in the moment, because I'm not going to embarrass her in front of others for something that was actually an innocent mistake, and I don't want to squash her openness. But we'd ALWAYS address it later, or on the very poor situations, I'd turn it around with humor but making sure she got the point. After 10 years together, I can't tell you the last time it happened.


I'm glad you were able to conteract with humor. However in this day and age I'm not so against her being slightly embarrassed if she would have let you be embarrassed. Problem is, it is a tricky ordeal especially if it "her" audience.



Dad&Hubby said:


> Now there are other women who try to dominate a relationship, that's a problem. If you pair one of those women with a man who wants to keep the peace and make his wife happy, eventually he'll be stripped of his masculinity. My first marriage was that way.


And this is how it happens. A man who tries to keep the peace or is tough and can take the pain. Over time he's emasculated. 

Now women you might not want to hear this part but say you got the battle axe wife sexless even, but a man hangs with his guys, is a mans man, even has girlfriends and things. That battle axe will not appear to "emasculate" him. Because they all know he's the man.



Dad&Hubby said:


> After I divorced I went 180 degrees the other way and realized I was really just being an a$$ LOL. My wife now has the middle ground Dad&hubby on this issue. I'm not going to lose my masculinity, but I also am masculine enough where I don't have to earn it through suppressing my wife.


Right. There should be no need to suppress her. She should know you are the man and treat you as such. The problem is todays society, they will know you are the man and a forthright man and hate it and attack it and try to shrink it.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

treyvion said:


> We "let" it happen, because we "love" her and don't want to "hurt" her. We think she will stop, and make ourselves think it's not that bad, just like a abused female.
> 
> Also if you are tough you could just take it thinking you are being tough, when your really just being stupid.


Exactly. It's funny, the husband doesn't respond negatively partially out of respect. This is where the problem comes into play. Because he changes his behavior out of "respect", he thinks his wife will as well. In reality, the wife loses respect everytime the husband just let's it happen so it's a slippery slope type of situation.

I love her and respect her so I will let it slide. See HOW MUCH I love and respect her because I keep letting it slide.

This man has no back bone, look how I can embarrass him. Wow, he just keeps taking it, I'll try and embarrass him more.

Now not all wives who act this way ACTIVELY think this way, but it's there.


----------



## BradWesley

that girl hit the nail on the head. The man is willing to give up his masculinity.

In the socio-sexual hierarchy, this sort of man, the Omega Man, if you will is the bottom rung of the ladder. Unfortunately he is the doormat of society.


----------



## sinnister

that_girl said:


> Right. My point was to the OP that it's not something that a wife or partner can do alone. It's a 2 party game. You bring up abused females, and it's like that. They don't CAUSE their abuse but they stay and it continues to happen.
> 
> I watched my mother browbeat my stepdad. Around me alone, he was this funny, cool, good story-tellin, adventurous guy. He and I would listen to real rock and roll (hahahaha omg) and drink Diet Rites and eat cornuts in his truck. He coached all my softball teams and taught me how to build things out of the scraps of wood and drywall from his work. We went water skiing and fishing and until I got boobs (that was hard for him hahaha), we would box and wrestle. He was my DAD.
> 
> But around my mom he was so....so....emasculated. It was like a different guy. He even acted STUPID (which I think is so my mom wouldn't ask him to do anything anymore). She would nag and he'd just hang his head. He became very small around her.
> 
> I watched this for years until their divorce when I was 12. Later in life I needed therapy for issues I recognized were like my mother and I didn't want to be like her.
> 
> But to watch my dad be like that...like he was just there for her and her biddings. Ew.
> 
> He got better after the divorce for 6 years. He was the GUY  My dad was just who he was supposed to be. and when he remarried, he married a woman JUST LIKE MY MOM. :scratchhead: I never understood. That woman ran him like a scared puppy. She made him get rid of all female friends (that we had for years!) even his female dentist. And he did! Damn. Then he had to get rid of me....because she didn't like me (I was 18). And he did. I didn't talk to him for about 8 years.
> 
> My point is, he was a guy's guy unless around women ...maybe he liked it or maybe it was some deep seeded mommy issues? I dunno.


Sometimes women like that float a guys boat.

Me no likey, but sometimes...on very rare occasions - I can see the appeal. I really like strong women.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Both sexes need to learn you can be strong without being domineering and disrespectful.


----------



## that_girl

I so want a man who can just throw back my sarcasm and eff around with me! OMG!

As it is, H doesn't like sarcasm so I've curbed mine. I got rid of it all together, but that's just not who I am. I was dying. 

I'm not talking mean sarcasm....just banter. He won't do it. Arg.

But I see nothing wrong with jabs in public if one of the partners is being an a$$.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

treyvion said:


> I'm glad you were able to conteract with humor. However in this day and age I'm not so against her being slightly embarrassed if she would have let you be embarrassed. Problem is, it is a tricky ordeal especially if it "her" audience.


I would never embarrass my wife because every time in the past that something "emasculating" happened, it was 100% unintentional. My wife completely respects me, but she's just not a great orator. So by recognizing what's inside her, it allowed me to temper my response. Also it's not like it happened often. Only a handful of times in a decade, and more early in the relationship.




> And this is how it happens. A man who tries to keep the peace or is tough and can take the pain. Over time he's emasculated.
> 
> Now women you might not want to hear this part but say you got the battle axe wife sexless even, but a man hangs with his guys, is a mans man, even has girlfriends and things. That battle axe will not appear to "emasculate" him. Because they all know he's the man.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. There should be no need to suppress her. She should know you are the man and treat you as such. The problem is todays society, they will know you are the man and a forthright man and hate it and attack it and try to shrink it.


Becareful of the "theys". Women, just like men, are a lot more complex than to generalize. There are PLENTY of women who would NEVER attack it and try and shrink it. Lots of women LOVE their husband's masculinity and try and build it up. My wife is one of them.


----------



## MEM2020

Part of being masculine is taking care of your spouse. Part of it is taking care of yourself. 

An example of healthy positive masculinity - situation below - looks like this: 

Husband shares an opinion (not a fact)
Wife directly contradicts 

Husband responds to the group with: As you can see there is room in our marriage for differing opinions. 



Another example of masculinity:

Husband states a fact: X
Wife contradicts

A secure guy, tends to be sure of his facts before he speaks. AND a secure guy is unthreatened by contradiction. And he has a playful competitive sense to him. So he says: 

I'm pretty sure about X. But if you want to wager an act of service on this, I won't stop you. Loser freshens the others drink. 

And if his W accepts the wager: He finds the nearest computer - or smartphone, proves his point, downs his drink, smiles and holds his empty glass out for his W. 





Dad&Hubby said:


> What a great post. I think you've nailed something with this.
> 
> A man can't have his masculinity taken from him, but I can see where, in order to avoid fights or discourse he "gives it away".
> 
> I'll give you an example
> 
> A wife corrects her husband in front of others on something that is opinion based (the wife's opinion is equally valid as the husband's so it's just the wife "needing to be right"). The husband can choose to not get into a debate at that moment. That's him "giving up his masculinity" to keep the peace.
> 
> Did the wife emasculate her husband, not without his consent...But many relationships wouldn't survive if the man "kept his masculinity" at all times.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

that_girl said:


> I so want a man who can just throw back my sarcasm and eff around with me! OMG!
> 
> As it is, H doesn't like sarcasm so I've curbed mine. I got rid of it all together, but that's just not who I am. I was dying.
> 
> I'm not talking mean sarcasm....just banter. He won't do it. Arg.
> 
> But I see nothing wrong with jabs in public if one of the partners is being an a$$.


LOL sarcasm is a lost art in my opinion. My mother in law is FINALLY starting to understand my sarcastic humor. She never knew if I was serious or joking. LOL.

PS when I mentioned humor, sarcasm qualifies. I meant I wouldn't berate my wife in public if she has just done something "emasculating".


----------



## Dad&Hubby

MEM11363 said:


> Part of being masculine is taking care of your spouse. Part of it is taking care of yourself.
> 
> An example of healthy positive masculinity - situation below - looks like this:
> 
> Husband shares an opinion (not a fact)
> Wife directly contradicts
> 
> Husband responds to the group with: As you can see there is room in our marriage for differing opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of masculinity:
> 
> Husband states a fact: X
> Wife contradicts
> 
> A secure guy, tends to be sure of his facts before he speaks. AND a secure guy is unthreatened by contradiction. And he has a playful competitive sense to him. So he says:
> 
> I'm pretty sure about X. But if you want to wager an act of service on this, I won't stop you. Loser freshens the others drink.
> 
> And if his W accepts the wager: He finds the nearest computer - or smartphone, proves his point, downs his drink, smiles and holds his empty glass out for his W.


Haha, my wife and I have done this...except the act of service was different  (her idea :smthumbup


----------



## treyvion

Dad&Hubby said:


> Exactly. It's funny, the husband doesn't respond negatively partially out of respect. This is where the problem comes into play. Because he changes his behavior out of "respect", he thinks his wife will as well. In reality, the wife loses respect everytime the husband just let's it happen so it's a slippery slope type of situation.


You got it! We don't believe in disrespecthing them, especially in front of others. However when you are the only one adhering to this way then it's not helping you one bit, unless it is your audience and they don't like it.

BTW, many people are political or feel they should be dominant so they will almost always belittle or reprimand in front of others to provide they are ahead of you.



Dad&Hubby said:


> I love her and respect her so I will let it slide. See HOW MUCH I love and respect her because I keep letting it slide.
> 
> This man has no back bone, look how I can embarrass him. Wow, he just keeps taking it, I'll try and embarrass him more.


But it may be a really strong man who doesn't want to disrespect or embarrass his wife.



Dad&Hubby said:


> Now not all wives who act this way ACTIVELY think this way, but it's there.


It's there in enough numbers that our sons should be made aware of it. Personally I don't want mine dealing with it. 

I'd just rather them have someone who doesn't do it from the get-go.


----------



## that_girl

And the "get go" means in the home growing up, no?

I can only imagine if I was a son, what my mother would have done to me. eesh!

I dated a guy briefly in college whose mother ran him. "Oh, I see you dressed yourself...it doesn't match...lemme help." "Oh, how cute you're trying to patch the wall" (that we busted a hole in being...well...lol....) "Is that how you're going to wear your hair? Oh ok." This guy was TWENTY  And I watched him cater to his mom and her stupid comments....and I couldn't date him anymore.

Kids learn by example what is acceptable and what is not. If the home is dysfunctional, they think it's acceptable...when it's not.


----------



## murphy5

jld said:


> I have heard this mentioned here on TAM. But to me, that does not even seem possible. How can you take masculinity away from a man? Isn't that something inside of him, his essence?
> 
> I cannot see how anyone can take my femininity away from me. It is my essence.
> 
> How do you take someone's essence away?
> 
> I am not even sure they can surrender it. Wouldn't your essence always spring forth, at some point?


How? well, if a woman berates, belittles, and generally toys with the man's ego...that will do it. Lets say they are in bed, she is climaxing, then she says "god I wish you had a big **** like X's husband, she says sex with him is ALWAYS GREAT". i.e. just when the guy thinks he did a good job, his ego is dashed mercilessly. Enough of that and he might be afraid of his own shadow, OR if he has balls he threw the shrew out long ago...one or the other.


----------



## that_girl

WOW! People say that? 

Well, I guess they do. My husband asked me if I could make myself tighter (right during sex).  Rude. Nothin' wrong with mah lady bits.


----------



## Anonymous07

Some people think that doing anything 'masculine' will emasculate your man. 

I like doing a lot of hands on work, as I grew up with brothers and have always been close with my dad who taught me a lot about home improvement. Supposedly I was hurting my husband by doing some of that type of work.


----------



## that_girl

:rofl: That sounds so silly and whiny to me.


----------



## Anonymous07

My husband has never said anything about it to me and doesn't mind. Don't know why others think I am "hurting" him.


----------



## jld

Anonymous07 said:


> My husband has never said anything about it to me and doesn't mind. Don't know why others think I am "hurting" him.


I don't know why they would think that, either. I am sure your husband appreciates the help.

May I ask who these people were?


----------



## EleGirl

Dad&Hubby said:


> What a great post. I think you've nailed something with this.
> 
> A man can't have his masculinity taken from him, but I can see where, in order to avoid fights or discourse he "gives it away".
> 
> I'll give you an example
> 
> A wife corrects her husband in front of others on something that is opinion based (the wife's opinion is equally valid as the husband's so it's just the wife "needing to be right"). The husband can choose to not get into a debate at that moment. That's him "giving up his masculinity" to keep the peace.
> 
> Did the wife emasculate her husband, not without his consent...But many relationships wouldn't survive if the man "kept his masculinity" at all times.


Curious....

If a wife says something that is opinion based, and then her husband gives his opinion which is different but equally valid... is her husband saying it because the husband "needing to be right". Does this take away her femininity?

Or is it valid for people in a conversation to express their view/opinion of things?


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> I have heard this mentioned here on TAM. But to me, that does not even seem possible. How can you take masculinity away from a man? Isn't that something inside of him, his essence?
> 
> I cannot see how anyone can take my femininity away from me. It is my essence.
> 
> How do you take someone's essence away?
> 
> I am not even sure they can surrender it. Wouldn't your essence always spring forth, at some point?


So ... you're saying that a man who lacks confidence, is very sensitive, doesn't want conflict, allows himself to be bullied by his spouse, and/or peers, and doesn't know how to express his needs adequately isn't masculine?

I'm really not being sarcastic ... and yes, I suppose this is a trick question.


----------



## treyvion

Dad&Hubby said:


> I would never embarrass my wife because every time in the past that something "emasculating" happened, it was 100% unintentional. My wife completely respects me, but she's just not a great orator. So by recognizing what's inside her, it allowed me to temper my response. Also it's not like it happened often. Only a handful of times in a decade, and more early in the relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Becareful of the "theys". Women, just like men, are a lot more complex than to generalize. There are PLENTY of women who would NEVER attack it and try and shrink it. Lots of women LOVE their husband's masculinity and try and build it up. My wife is one of them.


Well your lucky


----------



## NobodySpecial

My husband could be emasculated by me to some degree. It is part of a trusting and intimate relationship to care about what I think of him. But in the final analysis, if I were to do that, he has the strength and integrity not to tolerate it.


----------



## unbelievable

How do you emasculate men? For starters, you create conditions where fathers are optional or are replaced by support checks, welfare checks, or even by mothers with jobs. Next, you raise boys without significant adult male influence. You send those boys to school where they are punished for behaving like boys. You take away all opportunities for rough or martial boy play. Your school removes all images of warrior heroes and replaces them with images of female leaders or leaders who are only technically male. When they get home, they watch TV where men are portrayed as ignorant dupes in need of supervision and correction by their wives and sometimes by their kids. At the same time, you extol the virtues of males who behave like women. Your government assists by kicking out warriors for behaving like men and replacing them with minimally acceptable bodies of feminine or questionable gender. You get rid of the draft so those who are only technically male know from birth they will never be called upon to be warriors so there is no motivation on the part of parents or teachers to teach them to develop their masculinity. You do all in your power to demonize manual labor and military service and you perpetuate the myth that those who choose these fields are too ignorant for "real" employment (which you define as indoor, non-strenuous work in a cubicle located in some urban crime den). You perpetuate the myth that the primary function of education and labor is to satisfy one's own selfish desires or interests and you pooh pooh the idea that the duty of a man is to support his wife and children.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

unbelievable said:


> How do you emasculate men? For starters, you create conditions where fathers are optional or are replaced by support checks, welfare checks, or even by mothers with jobs.


 By not sticking around,fathers have made themselves optional in MANY cases. How many times do you hear the same old story about the father running off or not stepping up to do his part. Do you realize women would rather have a father around to help her out than just get a government check or support check? 


unbelievable said:


> Next, you raise boys without significant adult male influence.


Again,it's a man's choice to walk out on his boy unless the man is dead.


unbelievable said:


> You send those boys to school where they are punished for behaving like boys. You take away all opportunities for rough or martial boy play. Your school removes all images of warrior heroes and replaces them with images of female leaders or leaders who are only technically male. When they get home, they watch TV where men are portrayed as ignorant dupes in need of supervision and correction by their wives and sometimes by their kids.


Agree.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

EleGirl said:


> Curious....
> 
> If a wife says something that is opinion based, and then her husband gives his opinion which is different but equally valid... is her husband saying it because the husband "needing to be right". Does this take away her femininity?


Masculinity equates with respect. If you equate femininity with respect...then yes. Now that's an interesting topic. How people define masculine vs. feminine. You'd think they should be very similar and yet in some ways they aren't in many people's minds, like this issue about respect.



> Or is it valid for people in a conversation to express their view/opinion of things?


Uhhmmm, what I described has to do with a person cutting into a conversation with the sole purpose of putting their spouse "in their place" type of behavior. Like say a husband is having a conversation in the living room with a group. He makes an opinion and his wife hears it while she's out on the deck. She disagrees with him so she makes it a point to storm into the living room, call him stupid and correct him. Even though they are both opinions.

Of course if they're having a normal conversation about, say politics, and the husband and wife have a differing opinion and they're both contributing to the conversation, then it's not an issue.

Does that help clarify what I was trying to describe?


----------



## BradWesley

unbelievable said:


> How do you emasculate men? For starters, you create conditions where fathers are optional or are replaced by support checks, welfare checks, or even by mothers with jobs. Next, you raise boys without significant adult male influence. You send those boys to school where they are punished for behaving like boys. You take away all opportunities for rough or martial boy play. Your school removes all images of warrior heroes and replaces them with images of female leaders or leaders who are only technically male. When they get home, they watch TV where men are portrayed as ignorant dupes in need of supervision and correction by their wives and sometimes by their kids. At the same time, you extol the virtues of males who behave like women. Your government assists by kicking out warriors for behaving like men and replacing them with minimally acceptable bodies of feminine or questionable gender. You get rid of the draft so those who are only technically male know from birth they will never be called upon to be warriors so there is no motivation on the part of parents or teachers to teach them to develop their masculinity. You do all in your power to demonize manual labor and military service and you perpetuate the myth that those who choose these fields are too ignorant for "real" employment (which you define as indoor, non-strenuous work in a cubicle located in some urban crime den). You perpetuate the myth that the primary function of education and labor is to satisfy one's own selfish desires or interests and you pooh pooh the idea that the duty of a man is to support his wife and children.


Your moniker pretty much sums up your post!


----------



## that_girl

Mothers having jobs makes men less masculine? LOL! No.

And most men choose to walk away from a family. Most single moms do not choose to be single moms. That's on the men.


----------



## that_girl

BradWesley said:


> Your moniker pretty much sums up your post!


:iagree:

Although, as a teacher, I am very aware of letting boys be boys and not punishing them for it.


----------



## bandit.45

jld said:


> I have heard this mentioned here on TAM. But to me, that does not even seem possible. How can you take masculinity away from a man? Isn't that something inside of him, his essence?
> 
> I cannot see how anyone can take my femininity away from me. It is my essence.
> 
> How do you take someone's essence away?
> 
> I am not even sure they can surrender it. Wouldn't your essence always spring forth, at some point?


Okay. 

"Wife, you are the ugliest woman I have ever come across. Your tits sag, you have an ass the size of Pittsburg and you smell like fish. If I weren't afraid of having to pay you alimony I'd drop you like a bag of rattlesnakes you are so unattractive. How the hell did you ever have boyfriends, and what kind of fvcking dope was I smoking to make me ever agree to marry your ugly ass?

As your husband barely can stomach having sex with you. Old Ms. Maloney our next door neighbor, 78 years old she may be, is more sensuous than you. Even with her teeth out. I can't wait until these kids are grown so I can go out and find myself a woman who looks and smells like a woman. Holly, your best friend? Now she is a woman! Why couldn't you look like her? You don't even try. 

And don't get me started how much you suck as a mother. It took you three miscarriages before you even managed to carry one of my kids to term. Loser. 

You are clueless and hopeless when it comes to making halfway logical decisions concerning our kids. Seriously, if I had a quarter for every time I had to fix one of your fvckups, I would buy myself an NFL team.

The kids think you are a joke.....You know that. If your children despised you even more than they do,I would not be surprised if they burn little effigies of you in the back yard. The best part of every day is when you leave to go to the store. We like to gather around the kitchen bar and makes jokes about what a loser you are. "




Shall I continue?


----------



## sandc

I find it mildly amusing that you're asking in the Ladies Lounge if men can be emasculated. Go over to the man cave and ask the same question. Equally amusing to me is I am here browsing the ladies lounge. 

But yes, some men can be emasculated. Water wears away rock given enough time. Constant disrespect, insults, making them feel like nothing is ever good enough, can wear away at a man's psyche. 

Women have tremendous power to either build a man up or tear him down. An encouraging woman can make a man unstoppable. Use your power for good.


----------



## that_girl

That's just abuse....either to a male or female.

Do people really talk like that? 

So sad


----------



## that_girl

sandc said:


> I find it mildly amusing that you're asking in the Ladies Lounge if men can be emasculated. Go over to the man cave and ask the same question. Equally amusing to me is I am here browsing the ladies lounge.
> 
> But yes, some men can be emasculated. Water wears away rock given enough time. Constant disrespect, insults, making them feel like nothing is ever good enough, can wear away at a man's psyche.
> 
> Women have tremendous power to either build a man up or tear him down. An encouraging woman can make a man unstoppable. Use your power for good.




Best when both partners encourage and both people are unstoppable.

I tried for years to encourage my husband. Either I'm bad at it or he isn't interested.

But I think love makes you want to encourage your partner to be the best they can be....


----------



## sandc

that_girl said:


> Best when both partners encourage and both people are unstoppable.
> 
> I tried for years to encourage my husband. Either I'm bad at it or he isn't interested.
> 
> But I think love makes you want to encourage your partner to be the best they can be....


Absolutely. And absolutely right it goes both ways.


----------



## John Lee

I think what's missing from this discussion is the societal aspect. The playing field of acceptable behavior from men and women is not level. Women can get away with doing things men can't. So no, I don't think that a woman doing "male" tasks is emasculating. However there are women who have a way of trying to make you fight with one hand tied behind your back -- they're aggressors and victims at the same time, and anything aggressive you say back makes you a bad guy. The kind of person who yells at you and then acts like you are abusive if you yell back. Men are at a disadvantage in this situation, because aggression from them is perceived as more threatening.

Maybe "emasculating" is not the right word for this -- they can't take your balls, but they can sure bust them sometimes.


----------



## John Lee

that_girl said:


> That's just abuse....either to a male or female.
> 
> Do people really talk like that?
> 
> So sad


Well then I feel like we're just playing a semantic game, which makes me want to ask, again, why is the OP asking? Did someone accuse her of it?


----------



## that_girl

Huh?

I just have never heard things like that. That's all. Would be so sad, to either a husband or wife, to hear those things.


----------



## that_girl

I think the OP is responding to another thread about masculinity, but I could be wrong.


----------



## bandit.45

that_girl said:


> Best when both partners encourage and both people are unstoppable.
> 
> I tried for years to encourage my husband. Either I'm bad at it or he isn't interested.
> 
> But I think love makes you want to encourage your partner to be the best they can be....


Your ex is broken. Nothing you could have done would have changed it.


----------



## bandit.45

that_girl said:


> I think the OP is responding to another thread about masculinity, but I could be wrong.


Jld is just spewing more of her mysandrous crap like always.


----------



## EleGirl

Dad&Hubby said:


> Masculinity equates with respect. If you equate femininity with respect...then yes. Now that's an interesting topic. How people define masculine vs. feminine. You'd think they should be very similar and yet in some ways they aren't in many people's minds, like this issue about respect.


Women deserve respect every bit as much as men do. If masculinity equates with respect I would say that so does femininity. Masculinity/femininity are the basic traits of persons of either gender. And respect should be the basis of how a person of one sex treats a person of the other sex.
For example when a man treats a women with disrespect, he’s trying to remove her femininity (an adult trait) and to force her into the mold of a child. The same goes when a woman shows disrespect to a man.



Dad&Hubby said:


> Uhhmmm, what I described has to do with a person cutting into a conversation with the sole purpose of putting their spouse "in their place" type of behavior. Like say a husband is having a conversation in the living room with a group. He makes an opinion and his wife hears it while she's out on the deck. She disagrees with him so she makes it a point to storm into the living room, call him stupid and correct him. Even though they are both opinions.
> 
> Of course if they're having a normal conversation about, say politics, and the husband and wife have a differing opinion and they're both contributing to the conversation, then it's not an issue.
> 
> Does that help clarify what I was trying to describe?


Yes, the clarity was needed. 

In the first instance that’s disrespectful. I’ve seen men to this to their wives quite often, probably as often as I’ve seen women do it. It’s boorish in either case.

In the second, that’s a conversion.


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> Jld is just spewing more of her mysandrous crap like always.


There is nothing in JLD's OP that is hateful to men.


----------



## that_girl

And I do think men can browbeat a woman's femininity out of her.

If my husband or any man talked to me like what Bandit posted, I would just be a shell of a woman, especially if I wasn't strong in myself OR I just accepted that this was my life and it happened a lot.

I'm sure I'd let myself go in appearance...try to please him more so he'd maybe say "nice things", etc.

So I guess it goes both ways. Emotional/verbal abuse sucks a person's soul out....that in a sense takes the essence of that person.

Bandit: he's not my ex yet. Ya. But it's ok.


----------



## jld

The OP asked, because she has heard several times, here on TAM, about men being emasculated by women, and she wonders how that is possible. She does not think it is.

She is wondering, however, about the definition of masculinity vs. personal power vs. self-image.

And she answered John Lee's question in post 17.


----------



## John Lee

Have you ever heard of a woman saying stuff like "You can't do anything right" "Idiot" "Useless" "good for nothing" "All you can do is ___", because enough of that kind of language could be interpreted as "emasculating." If you want to just call it "abuse" I guess that's ok, but as I said, things have different contexts for a man vs. a woman.


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> Okay.
> 
> "Wife, you are the ugliest woman I have ever come across. Your tits sag, you have an ass the size of Pittsburg and you smell like fish. If I weren't afraid of having to pay you alimony I'd drop you like a bag of rattlesnakes you are so unattractive. How the hell did you ever have boyfriends, and what kind of fvcking dope was I smoking to make me ever agree to marry your ugly ass?
> 
> As your husband barely can stomach having sex with you. Old Ms. Maloney our next door neighbor, 78 years old she may be, is more sensuous than you. Even with her teeth out. I can't wait until these kids are grown so I can go out and find myself a woman who looks and smells like a woman. Holly, your best friend? Now she is a woman! Why couldn't you look like her? You don't even try.
> 
> And don't get me started how much you suck as a mother. It took you three miscarriages before you even managed to carry one of my kids to term. Loser.
> 
> You are clueless and hopeless when it comes to making halfway logical decisions concerning our kids. Seriously, if I had a quarter for every time I had to fix one of your fvckups, I would buy myself an NFL team.
> 
> The kids think you are a joke.....You know that. If your children despised you even more than they do,I would not be surprised if they burn little effigies of you in the back yard. The best part of every day is when you leave to go to the store. We like to gather around the kitchen bar and makes jokes about what a loser you are. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I continue?


If the woman being told this stays around and lets her husband talk to her like this at all, she's not a victim. 

If she internalizes this nonsense, she's also a participant.

She a participate. It takes 2 to have a relationship as ugly as this. If she filed for divorce and left, he'd be talking in the mirror to himself.


----------



## EleGirl

John Lee said:


> Have you ever heard of a woman saying stuff like "You can't do anything right" "Idiot" "Useless" "good for nothing" "All you can do is ___", because enough of that kind of language could be interpreted as "emasculating." If you want to just call it "abuse" I guess that's ok, but as I said, things have different contexts for a man vs. a woman.


It's the same thing when this kind of garbage is thrown at a man as it is when it's thrown at a woman. In both cases it's a spouse attempting to belittle the other and to take away their essence.... male or female.

And if anyone willingly stays in a relationship where this happens on a regular basis they are not a victim. They choose to be there.

Of course if on the other hand the spouse is and idiot, useless and good for nothing.. then the person who is married to the idiot is stupid for staying with them. And then they are the willing participate in a pathetic marriage.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Emasculating a man is definitely possible I've seen it happen before. A very close relative in fact. His wife would always talk to him as though he were a child in front of his friends and family, and even their kids. She would even refer to him as another one of her "kids". He literally had no say so in anything, and as it turns out we found out later they were also sexless.

Much of being a man is _feeling_ like a man. I think there are all kinds of things that can happen to a man to make him feel like less of man. Losing a job, having his wife cheat on him or constantly treat him like crap, even being belittled by a man that is stronger.

To me being masculine aka manly is a feeling. Anything that disrupts that feeling and shakes ones confidence to me would be considered emasculating.


----------



## that_girl

John Lee said:


> Have you ever heard of a woman saying stuff like "You can't do anything right" "Idiot" "Useless" "good for nothing" "All you can do is ___", because enough of that kind of language could be interpreted as "emasculating." If you want to just call it "abuse" I guess that's ok, but as I said, things have different contexts for a man vs. a woman.


Yes! I have. My mother to myself. lol. Which is why I haven't talked to her in 7 months. Finally broke free 

I haven't heard women say things like this to their husbands..maybe about their husbands (which irritates me). 

I have heard most of these things from women to men on TV. Gross. We don't have TV but from what I remember in the early 2000s.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> So ... you're saying that a man who lacks confidence, is very sensitive, doesn't want conflict, allows himself to be bullied by his spouse, and/or peers, and doesn't know how to express his needs adequately isn't masculine?
> 
> I'm really not being sarcastic ... and yes, I suppose this is a trick question.


I think he is giving his power away. I don't think it has anything to do with his masculinity.

I think you still have your masculinity no matter how little power you have. A man who is being tortured by the secret police is still masculine. It is his sexual identity. That does not change.

His self-image is something else again. He determines that, and how it fits in with the scenario you describe.


----------



## bandit.45

that_girl said:


> Yes! I have. My mother to myself. lol. Which is why I haven't talked to her in 7 months. Finally broke free
> 
> I haven't heard women say things like this to their husbands..maybe about their husbands (which irritates me).
> 
> I have heard most of these things from women to men on TV. Gross. We don't have TV but from what I remember in the early 2000s.


TV has gotten horrible. Disney is the worst.


----------



## that_girl

ReformedHubby said:


> Emasculating a man is definitely possible I've seen it happen before. A very close relative in fact. His wife would always talk to him as though he were a child in front of his friends and family, and even their kids. She would even refer to him as another one of her "kids".


 AAHHHH !!!! nothing I HATE MORE than women referring to their men as children!

"I have 3 kids but with my husband, that makes 4."
"He's like an extra child. Gawd."

I want to punch them in the face. I can take a guess of how their life is and it makes me sad and irritated that their husband doesn't gtfo.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

bandit.45 said:


> Jld is just spewing more of her mysandrous crap like always.


wow really? 

It's no secret I'm not a cheerleader for JLD but damn,Bandit,I think you've got this one all wrong.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

that_girl said:


> AAHHHH !!!! nothing I HATE MORE than women referring to their men as children!
> 
> "I have 3 kids but with my husband, that makes 4."
> "He's like an extra child. Gawd."
> 
> I want to punch them in the face. I can take a guess of how their life is and it makes me sad and irritated that their husband doesn't gtfo.


OH I HATE that sh*t. It makes me feel violent. seriously.


----------



## that_girl

bandit.45 said:


> TV has gotten horrible. Disney is the worst.


Oh god, yes!

Those disney shows where the kids run everything and every adult is an idiot....and every dad is a doofus but moms are strict and boring.

No no. Not in this home. I realized the shows were like this when my daughter was about 10/11. We had a BIG talk about it because her attitude was reflecting those shows. And we got rid of the DVDs.

But the fathers on most Disney shows are basically a walking credit card with no brains and no desire to raise people....the "fun" guy. And he usually cowers to the mother. SO ew.


----------



## bandit.45

ScarletBegonias said:


> wow really?
> 
> It's no secret I'm not a cheerleader for JLD but damn,Bandit,I think you've got this one all wrong.


I don't think so. But feel free to disagree.


----------



## ticktock33

In theory no, but it matters what the man feels makes him a man.
If those things are gone, he can feel like he isn't a man anymore. 

It's the big issues like most men feel like if they can't give their families what they need and want, they aren't manly enough. If they need their wives to be the rock sometimes and lean on them. Sex is huge too, it's natural for men to need to have sex and have that release. If they aren't getting that especially if they are in a relationship, it makes them crazy....sometimes literally. 

But like you are saying JLD, the men have to ask themselves why these things are happening. Did they do something or not do something to get themselves into the situation that made them feel this way in the first place?

After they figure this out, then what can I do to fix it and do better? How can I improve and get a plan going? No one can make you feel a certain way without you knowing it and give it the time of day in the first place. It sounds much easier said than done though.

As far as the "weak" men, I think it starts from birth. Boys NEED their fathers there, they need to have a man to show them how to be men. There are a lot of men that were raised with single mothers and turned out to be secure and happy. But there are quite a few that go way off course because they don't know what to do. Mothers can have the best intentions, but it doesn't substitute for a positive male figure. Fathers are critical boys (and girls for that matter).

Then that boy grows up and doesn't know and it can go a lot of different directions. One of them is feeling defeated and weak and letting people walk all over him. Finding women that are controlling and he lets them do it because he just wants to be loved and to be happy.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *SandC said*: *But yes, some men can be emasculated. Water wears away rock given enough time. Constant disrespect, insults, making them feel like nothing is ever good enough, can wear away at a man's psyche.
> 
> Women have tremendous power to either build a man up or tear him down. An encouraging woman can make a man unstoppable. Use your power for good*.


 This is how I see it also.. :iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

Like SandC said & so many of the examples given....when we undermine, it's never good enough..we ignore his needs...we speak over him...
*a man starts to FEEL emasculated*.....

In how he handles this ....will determine if he will keep feeling emasculated... or regain his center in the relationship, HIS RESPECT .. 

Some women can get out of hand...if she is the more dominate personality in that house and she looses respect for him.. The war of wills IS ON... 

It can start by some men (the more passive types) not wanting to Rock the boat....or they allow so much before the Boat is ready to sink... 

The times I read about this word on TAM -and it hit me to how a woman can DO the greatest harm to her man....I think of things like sexless marriages ...(but he stays for the kids, or whatever it may be)... or if his wife cheated on him... blindsiding him....what this can do to his psyche...something like that can shake anyone's foundation.. 

Ironically I used this word earlier in a post.. I probably didn't use it right in that example...(it was about physical strength).. 

I looked up the meaning...



> *Emasculated* :
> 
> *1*. to deprive of strength or vigor; to weaken, enfeeble, debilitate, erode, undermine, cripple.
> 
> *2. *deprive (a man) of his male role or identity.
> 
> *Urban Dictionary said *:
> 
> *1*. To have been rendered less of a man, or been made to feel much less of a man through humiliation. This term is most often used to describe a male dou**b** who has been "p****whipped" by his woman.
> 
> _The fact that lame Ed has chosen to neglect his friends and be home before midnight on a Friday night is proof that he has allowed himself to become completely emasculated by his girlfriend._
> 
> *2*. Castrate, expurgate, to render effiminent. To remove the (male) genitals from.
> 
> _He was mentally emasculated by the harsh tone in her voice._


----------



## that_girl

Being raised by a single mom doesn't make a man weak. It can, but it isn't what always happens.

Weak men can be raised by other weak men. It happens. My brother is ruined. I try to help but....he's just like our father and lets women walk all over him and treat him like garbage.


----------



## that_girl

And it's no surprise that my "friends" (term used lightly because it was from a mommy group) who treat their men like children and call them as such have HORRIBLE sex lives and they complain about that too.

Well, if a man is treated like your child, it's hard to want to make love to him and if he feels like you don't respect him, he's not going to be the best in bed.


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> Emasculating a man is definitely possible I've seen it happen before. A very close relative in fact. His wife would always talk to him as though he were a child in front of his friends and family, and even their kids. She would even refer to him as another one of her "kids". He literally had no say so in anything, and as it turns out we found out later they were also sexless.
> 
> Much of being a man is _feeling_ like a man. I think there are all kinds of things that can happen to a man to make him feel like less of man. Losing a job, having his wife cheat on him or constantly treat him like crap, even being belittled by a man that is stronger.
> 
> To me being masculine aka manly is a feeling. Anything that disrupts that feeling and shakes ones confidence to me would be considered emasculating.


But you see how he is giving his power to her, right? He would not have to internalize what she is saying. He could set boundaries, even his own personal mental boundaries. 

And unlike a prisoner being tortured by the secret police, he has physical freedom, too.

Whose responsibility is it, ultimately, RH, for how you feel about yourself?


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> I think he is giving his power away. I don't think it has anything to do with his masculinity.
> 
> I think you still have your masculinity no matter how little power you have. A man who is being tortured by the secret police is still masculine. _It is his sexual identity_. That does not change.
> 
> His self-image is something else again. He determines that, and how it fits in with the scenario you describe.


I agree that sexual identity does not change, but there is so much more to being a man then just having the right parts. As a man my masculinity is a part of my self image. I honestly feel that it is a state of mind. Part of it is just how we're wired, the other part is behaviors we've learned.


----------



## bandit.45

If anyone has doubts just go read through Horizon's thread. 

Male emasculation out there fir everyone to see in all it's glory. 

Or SteveK.... Look at what he has become.


----------



## that_girl

It's pure emotional abuse. Call it what you want, but that's what it is.

Sometimes it happens and you don't realize it until it's so far gone, it's a way of life.


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> AAHHHH !!!! nothing I HATE MORE than women referring to their men as children!
> 
> "I have 3 kids but with my husband, that makes 4."
> "He's like an extra child. Gawd."
> 
> I want to punch them in the face. I can take a guess of how their life is and it makes me sad and irritated that their husband doesn't gtfo.


I hate that when a man is not acting like a child. But when a man choses who act like a child then he's earned it...

For example a guy who spends from 8 am to midnight playing video games and surfing the internet... I mean this literally every day of the year, or years. And he refuses to get a job, help around the house, the yard or help raise the kids. A guy like this is a child of his own choosing. 

Likewise a woman who does similar things has put herself in the position of being a child.

If a spouse called either of them useless I would not find fault in doing that. The truth is after all the truth.

And after telling the truth, they should kick the child out.


----------



## unbelievable

that_girl said:


> Being raised by a single mom doesn't make a man weak. It can, but it isn't what always happens.
> 
> Weak men can be raised by other weak men. It happens. My brother is ruined. I try to help but....he's just like our father and lets women walk all over him and treat him like garbage.


Being raised by a woman doesn't make a man weak but it does produce a male who has had no strong male role model. How is a boy supposed to know how a proper male is supposed to act as a father and a husband if he's never seen one? Not everything with a penis is a man.


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> If anyone has doubts just go read through Horizon's thread.
> 
> Male emasculation out there fir everyone to see in all it's glory.
> 
> Or SteveK.... Look at what he has become.


They allow themselves to be treated like this.


----------



## jld

bandit.45 said:


> If anyone has doubts just go read through Horizon's thread.
> 
> Male emasculation out there fir everyone to see in all it's glory.
> 
> Or SteveK.... Look at what he has become.


I don't know Horizon, but SteveK . . . how is he not allowing all of what has happened?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

This thread is making me feel terribly sheltered and naive. I've just never heard anyone I know talk that way to or about their husbands or even about men in general. I've never even thought of treating someone like the examples being given. It doesn't seem like emasculation. It seems like outright emotional abuse and bullying.


----------



## that_girl

Well, most single moms aren't in a bubble. Uncles, grandfathers, friends...all can be role models.

My nephew is a fine young man. Raised by a single mom when his father chose to "travel" and bailed when my nephew was 6 months old. Nice. 

But his grandpa is AWESOME and his uncles are amazing (dad's brothers).


----------



## that_girl

ScarletBegonias said:


> This thread is making me feel terribly sheltered and naive. I've just never heard anyone I know talk that way to or about their husbands or even about men in general. I've never even thought of treating someone like the examples being given. It doesn't seem like emasculation. It seems like outright emotional abuse and bullying.


And that's what I was saying.

Can emasculation be more subtle?

I've been talked to like Bandit's post. It got me all flustered inside. Because it's pure ABUSE.


----------



## ticktock33

that_girl said:


> Being raised by a single mom doesn't make a man weak. It can, but it isn't what always happens.
> 
> Weak men can be raised by other weak men. It happens. My brother is ruined. I try to help but....he's just like our father and lets women walk all over him and treat him like garbage.


I didn't mean that a woman raising boys makes them weak.
What I meant was that it's best if boys have their dads around. Those men should be strong and positive , teach them how to be good men. I think it's very tough for women to raise boys and vice versa. But I think that is obvious.


----------



## Caribbean Man

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Very good.
> 
> No one else can emasculate you. Many men self emasculate in an attempt to please their wives.


...and other women , who don't really care about them or their opinions.

I don't think one can really " strip" a man of his masculinity unless he lets them.

Problem is quite a lot of men don't even know if they are men. They are self emasculated men who have no clue what what means to be a man.
I see it here on TAM quite a lot.

However , I don't think men like that have anyone to blame, society or women , but themselves for their emasculation.


They need to learn how to respect themselves.
No one else can do it for them beside themselves.


----------



## EleGirl

unbelievable said:


> Being raised by a woman doesn't make a man weak but it does produce a male who has had no strong male role model. How is a boy supposed to know how a proper male is supposed to act as a father and a husband if he's never seen one? Not everything with a penis is a man.


All through history there have been a lot of boys raised by women only. Somehow they managed to grow up.

I'm not sure that you can start deciding which men are proper men and only allow those who you think are proper men to have children.


----------



## MEM2020

That is just plain abusive. 




that_girl said:


> WOW! People say that?
> 
> Well, I guess they do. My husband asked me if I could make myself tighter (right during sex).  Rude. Nothin' wrong with mah lady bits.


----------



## Duguesclin

ReformedHubby said:


> I agree that sexual identity does not change, but there is so much more to being a man then just having the right parts. As a man my masculinity is a part of my self image. I honestly feel that it is a state of mind. Part of it is just how we're wired, the other part is behaviors we've learned.


So a woman has full control over your self image? 

Why would you give her that power?


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> So a woman has full control over your self image?
> 
> Why would you give her that power?


 Yep seems to me that a man who gives a woman full control over his self-image is not "masculine" to start with.


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> But you see how he is giving his power to her, right? He would not have to internalize what she is saying. He could set boundaries, even his own personal mental boundaries.
> 
> And unlike a prisoner being tortured by the secret police, he has physical freedom, too.
> 
> Whose responsibility is it, ultimately, RH, for how you feel about yourself?


Well..... we're not all super men with no emotions. We can be hurt, and hurt badly. Even more so by the ones we love and sacrifice for. So, yes I am responsible for how I feel, but if I get home today and wife is banging my gardener I would feel both devastated and _emasculated_. 

That was an over the top example but the point I'm trying to make is the words and actions of the ones we love will always affect us, even more so they way that we feel about ourselves. If my wife had no ability to influence the way that I feel about myself that would mean that I didn't love her.


----------



## Caribbean Man

A woman raising a boy does not automatically make him weak.

I was raised by my mother and grandmother after my dad divorced her when I was around 6 or 8 yrs.

But my mother was a very strong woman, and I had a whole barrage of positive male influences around me.

The lessons I've learned in life about self respect ,standing tall , tenacity and having the will to fight,

I learnt mostly from both my mom
and my grandmother.


----------



## unbelievable

EleGirl said:


> All through history there have been a lot of boys raised by women only. Somehow they managed to grow up.
> 
> I'm not sure that you can start deciding which men are proper men and only allow those who you think are proper men to have children.


There have been men raised by wolves who managed to grow up, boys raised in orphanages and on the streets. If we can no longer distinguish between a proper (good) man and a worthless piece of crap waste of DNA, we have far larger problems which I doubt we will ever overcome. 

The obvious way to make sure only proper men make babies is for women to raise their standards on who they will have sex with. A lazy male bird doesn't get to mate. American males are probably the only species where the more worthless one is, the more likely they are to have mating opportunities.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Duguesclin said:


> So a woman has full control over your self image?
> 
> Why would you give her that power?


Full control, no. Influence definitely.


----------



## MEM2020

Bandit,

Sorry man. We all grasp the basic theme of hateful / horrendous behavior.

But the truth is we aren't slaves or prisoners. A strong person removes themselves from toxic situations. 

And in the interim, they realize the other person is simply trying to hurt them and they minimize interaction. And just ignore cruel comments. 


QUOTE=bandit.45;9377330]Okay. 

"Wife, you are the ugliest woman I have ever come across. Your tits sag, you have an ass the size of Pittsburg and you smell like fish. If I weren't afraid of having to pay you alimony I'd drop you like a bag of rattlesnakes you are so unattractive. How the hell did you ever have boyfriends, and what kind of fvcking dope was I smoking to make me ever agree to marry your ugly ass?

As your husband barely can stomach having sex with you. Old Ms. Maloney our next door neighbor, 78 years old she may be, is more sensuous than you. Even with her teeth out. I can't wait until these kids are grown so I can go out and find myself a woman who looks and smells like a woman. Holly, your best friend? Now she is a woman! Why couldn't you look like her? You don't even try. 

And don't get me started how much you suck as a mother. It took you three miscarriages before you even managed to carry one of my kids to term. Loser. 

You are clueless and hopeless when it comes to making halfway logical decisions concerning our kids. Seriously, if I had a quarter for every time I had to fix one of your fvckups, I would buy myself an NFL team.

The kids think you are a joke.....You know that. If your children despised you even more than they do,I would not be surprised if they burn little effigies of you in the back yard. The best part of every day is when you leave to go to the store. We like to gather around the kitchen bar and makes jokes about what a loser you are. "




Shall I continue?[/QUOTE]


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> Well..... we're not all super men with no emotions. We can be hurt, and hurt badly. Even more so by the ones we love and sacrifice for. So, yes I am responsible for how I feel, but if I get home today and wife is banging my gardener I would feel both devastated and _emasculated_.
> 
> That was an over the top example but the point I'm trying to make is the words and actions of the ones we love will always affect us, even more so they way that we feel about ourselves. If my wife had no ability to influence the way that I feel about myself that would mean that I didn't love her.


But even feeling it, temporarily, does not mean you _are_ emasculated, RH. 

Sure, you would be hurt that she was unfaithful. But that is not a reflection on your identity. Unless you let it be.


----------



## that_girl

But some families are two parent and the sons are still "weak". I've known a few. I see my other sister and how she treats my nephew...and her husband says nothing. It's icky to me. Momma's boy and super sheltered. Whiny an complainy too. My BIL seems like a good man...strong, resourceful, fun...so why is he letting my sister ruin his kid? I have no idea.


----------



## ticktock33

I think men need to stop letting women run them and stand up for themselves. But the problem is that society tells them that they can't, they just have to go along with everything or never hear the end of it. 

But in personal relationships, men have to nip it in the bud right away. If she is talking to him like a child and being abusive, he needs to set boundaries and tell her to not cross it. He has to be authentic from the beginning and not try to be something that he isn't.


----------



## Stingray

ScarletBegonias said:


> By not sticking around,fathers have made themselves optional in MANY cases. How many times do you hear the same old story about the father running off or not stepping up to do his part. Do you realize women would rather have a father around to help her out than just get a government check or support check?
> Again,it's a man's choice to walk out on his boy unless the man is dead.


The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. If women prefer fathers in the household to support checks, then these women aren't behaving rationally by kicking the fathers out of the households in favor of support checks.


----------



## ticktock33

that_girl said:


> But some families are two parent and the sons are still "weak". I've known a few. I see my other sister and how she treats my nephew...and her husband says nothing. It's icky to me. Momma's boy and super sheltered. Whiny an complainy too. My BIL seems like a good man...strong, resourceful, fun...so why is he letting my sister ruin his kid? I have no idea.


Maybe he thinks she is doing the right thing or don't want to cross her.


----------



## over20

that_girl said:


> And it's no surprise that my "friends" (term used lightly because it was from a mommy group) who treat their men like children and call them as such have HORRIBLE sex lives and they complain about that too.
> 
> Well, if a man is treated like your child, it's hard to want to make love to him and if he feels like you don't respect him, he's not going to be the best in bed.


Excellent post.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

EleGirl said:


> Women deserve respect every bit as much as men do. If masculinity equates with respect I would say that so does femininity. Masculinity/femininity are the basic traits of persons of either gender. And respect should be the basis of how a person of one sex treats a person of the other sex.
> For example when a man treats a women with disrespect, he’s trying to remove her femininity (an adult trait) and to force her into the mold of a child. The same goes when a woman shows disrespect to a man.


I completely agree with you. I just had never thought, in an outright way, of putting commanding respect as a quality of femininity. I know I do. I respect my wife for all that she is to me, my children and my family. I respect her for her mind, sense of humor and love. She's the emotional rock of our family. She's mended old broken bridges in my family, because 
"it's wrong to let a family be broken". She's just an amazing woman. I made the comment I made about equating it because I don't think that connection is made often enough.




> Yes, the clarity was needed.
> 
> In the first instance that’s disrespectful. I’ve seen men to this to their wives quite often, probably as often as I’ve seen women do it. It’s boorish in either case.
> 
> In the second, that’s a conversion.


Exactly. And you're right about this being a gender neutral issue. Both genders do it to each other. My comments focus on a wife "emasculating" her husband because that's the topic of this thread.


----------



## MEM2020

This is exactly right. 

And it is very important to differentiate between mean spirited behavior intended to reduce your self confidence and constructive criticism / healthy debate. 




NobodySpecial said:


> My husband could be emasculated by me to some degree. It is part of a trusting and intimate relationship to care about what I think of him. But in the final analysis, if I were to do that, he has the strength and integrity not to tolerate it.


----------



## Stingray

jld said:


> I think he is giving his power away. I don't think it has anything to do with his masculinity.
> 
> I think you still have your masculinity no matter how little power you have. A man who is being tortured by the secret police is still masculine. It is his sexual identity. That does not change.
> 
> His self-image is something else again. He determines that, and how it fits in with the scenario you describe.


If, by masculinity, you mean having a Y chromosome, then you aren't using the term properly. What you actually mean is maleness. Masculinity goes beyond having a Y chromosome.

And it can be influenced by outside factors. A man who is violently raped, Shawshank-style, will feel emasculated. A man who is cuckolded will feel emasculated. It won't have anything to do with him, or his actions, but the effect will be real.

Also, it can be about the balance of roles in a relationship. Imagine a husband starts coming to bed wearing women's lingerie. Also, he wants his wife to use a dildo on him in most of their sexual encounters. The wife might start to feel less feminine because her husband is appropriating feminine behaviors in the relationship. She didn't do anything, but most women would have problems with their husbands behaving that way.


----------



## EleGirl

Stingray said:


> The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. If women prefer fathers in the household to support checks, then these women aren't behaving rationally by kicking the fathers out of the households in favor of support checks.


The fact that most divorces are initiated by women does not mean that all or most of those women chose to file for divorce frivolously. There was a divorce lawyer who used to post here. He statement on this topic is that in most of the cases he has seen the women who filed, file for good cause.. mostly abuse and/or adultery.

I have filed for divorce 3 times. Every one of reasons that anyone here would tell me were good reasons to file.. abuse (emotional/physical, even attempted murder, and adultery).

But hey I filed 100% of the time.

Generally the reason the woman files is that the marriage is clearly over and she's not the children. So she needs to have things like child support established. It's not because women file because for frivolous reasons or because it's fun.


----------



## MEM2020

Reformed,
Of course you would. We all would. We would FEEL emasculated in the moment. 

But we would quickly begin to respond either in a masculine way or not. We would have the choice to actually emasculate ourselves by tolerating that type behavior or to address it directly in a constructive manner. 





ReformedHubby said:


> Well..... we're not all super men with no emotions. We can be hurt, and hurt badly. Even more so by the ones we love and sacrifice for. So, yes I am responsible for how I feel, but if I get home today and wife is banging my gardener I would feel both devastated and _emasculated_.
> 
> That was an over the top example but the point I'm trying to make is the words and actions of the ones we love will always affect us, even more so they way that we feel about ourselves. If my wife had no ability to influence the way that I feel about myself that would mean that I didn't love her.


----------



## that_girl

EleGirl said:


> The fact that most divorces are initiated by women does not mean that all or most of those women chose to file for divorce frivolously. There was a divorce lawyer who used to post here. He statement on this topic is that in most of the cases he has seen the women who filed, file for good cause.. mostly abuse and/or adultery.
> 
> I have filed for divorce 3 times. Every one of reasons that anyone here would tell me were good reasons to file.. abuse (emotional/physical, even attempted murder, and adultery).
> 
> But hey I filed 100% of the time.
> 
> Generally the reason the woman files is that the marriage is clearly over and she's not the children. So she needs to have things like child support established. It's not because women file because for frivolous reasons or because it's fun.


So true. Of all my divorced friends, the women all filed. And for reasons of adultery, porn, and abuse.

I have yet to meet a man in my personal life who has filed for divorce. 

But then again, my mother filed divorce and I'd say she was 80% the problem in that marriage...then again, I'm sure my stepdad wasn't easy to live with either. I dunno.


----------



## MEM2020

It would be normal to feel emasculated due to someone else's behavior. 

But ultimately how we feel over time is driven more by what WE do after the fact. 





Stingray said:


> If, by masculinity, you mean having a Y chromosome, then you aren't using the term properly. What you actually mean is maleness. Masculinity goes beyond having a Y chromosome.
> 
> And it can be influenced by outside factors. A man who is violently raped, Shawshank-style, will feel emasculated. A man who is cuckolded will feel emasculated. It won't have anything to do with him, or his actions, but the effect will be real.
> 
> Also, it can be about the balance of roles in a relationship. Imagine a husband starts coming to bed wearing women's lingerie. Also, he wants his wife to use a dildo on him in most of their sexual encounters. The wife might start to feel less feminine because her husband is appropriating feminine behaviors in the relationship. She didn't do anything, but most women would have problems with their husbands behaving that way.


----------



## Stingray

EleGirl said:


> The fact that most divorces are initiated by women does not mean that all or most of those women chose to file for divorce frivolously.


True. Conversely, the fact that most noncustodial parents are men doesn't mean that all, or most, of those fathers frivolously walked away from their children.


----------



## jld

Stingray said:


> If, by masculinity, you mean having a Y chromosome, then you aren't using the term properly. What you actually mean is maleness. Masculinity goes beyond having a Y chromosome. Well, I am not a psychologist. I looked up the definition online, and it first mentioned sexual identity, and then the characteristics traditionally corresponding to it.
> 
> And it can be influenced by outside factors. A man who is violently raped, Shawshank-style, will feel emasculated. A man who is cuckolded will feel emasculated. It won't have anything to do with him, or his actions, but the effect will be real. I can understand he would feel violated, or hurt, or disrespected, but why emasculated? I don't think a man with a strong self-concept would feel that way. I don't think he would give other people his power.
> 
> Also, it can be about the balance of roles in a relationship. Imagine a husband starts coming to bed wearing women's lingerie. Also, he wants his wife to use a dildo on him in most of their sexual encounters. The wife might start to feel less feminine because her husband is appropriating feminine behaviors in the relationship. She didn't do anything, but most women would have problems with their husbands behaving that way. He would certainly appear more feminine, but why would her feelings about her own sexual identity change? It is his problem, not hers. Again, why are we giving our power away?


----------



## EleGirl

Stingray said:


> True. Conversely, the fact that most noncustodial parents are men doesn't mean that all, or most, of those fathers frivolously walked away from their children.


That's true. But in most cases 'noncustodial" does not mean that a man is excluded from their children's lives. 

Walking away from children means that the father makes no attempt to see the children and does not provide child support. These things are 100% in the hands of father.


----------



## John Lee

I think your take is very cold and unrealistic, JLD. Would you say to a woman whose husband behaves abusively "the power is entirely yours. He can't make you feel any way if you don't let him. And you can walk away. So don't blame him." 

We marry people for various reasons. Sometimes things change throughout the course of the marriage. Sometimes a person starts becoming increasingly abusive, and you aren't just in a position to walk away the second they start becoming abusive. Sometimes things are complicated - you have kids, a house, a life together. Maybe the abuse isn't non-stop unbearable but it's enough that it gradually eats away at you. She undermines you in subtle ways, gets insulting in fights but not all the time. You really think in that situation it's 100% in the man's power, that he should blame no one but himself?


----------



## that_girl

Stingray said:


> True. Conversely, the fact that most noncustodial parents are men doesn't mean that all, or most, of those fathers frivolously walked away from their children.


Truth. I know a few women who play games with the kids and the ex. It's disturbing.

My dad did walk away though. And my stepdad.

And my older daughter's father. lol.

But anything is possible. And just because a woman gets the children in a divorce doesn't mean she's the most fit parent.


----------



## EleGirl

MEM11363 said:


> It would be normal to feel emasculated due to someone else's behavior.
> 
> *But ultimately how we feel over time is driven more by what WE do after the fact*.


I think that this is the operative point. An initial response to being subjected to abusive language/behavior is what it is. But what we do in response is what matters the most. We can stand up to the abuser and walk if we need to; or we can stay and let the abuse continue and erode us. But when a person does nothing it's a choice. 

I do recognize that there are situations when a person cannot leave but in the Western world, such situations are few and far between.


----------



## that_girl

I think all fathers should fight to see their kids.

Sorry. If I was told I couldn't see my kids, no way in hell would I just roll over and go away.


----------



## EleGirl

John Lee said:


> I think your take is very cold and unrealistic, JLD. Would you say to a woman whose husband behaves abusively "the power is entirely yours. He can't make you feel any way if you don't let him. And you can walk away. So don't blame him."


The abuser's choice to abuse is 100% on them.

The victim has 100% of the power over what they choose to do (in today's society). There are options. And yes I tell this to women in abusive situations all the time. Getting her to realize that that crap being said/done to her have nothing to do with who she is and getting her to realize that the power of how she reacts, what she does and if she stays or leaves it is completely hers to own.

I also tell them that if they stay they are no longer a victim but a participant. This is the message that they have to get because an abused person has to start taking responsibility for their own reaction and act associated with the abuse.




John Lee said:


> We marry people for various reasons. Sometimes things change throughout the course of the marriage. Sometimes a person starts becoming increasingly abusive, and you aren't just in a position to walk away the second they start becoming abusive. Sometimes things are complicated - you have kids, a house, a life together. Maybe the abuse isn't non-stop unbearable but it's enough that it gradually eats away at you. She undermines you in subtle ways, gets insulting in fights but not all the time. You really think in that situation it's 100% in the man's power, that he should blame no one but himself?


And so when things start to change you get help. You don't have to walk, but you can work on it. 

Part of what we (meaning society) needs to do is to educate people on how and where to get the help they need. And educate them on what is unacceptable behavior that needs intervention.


----------



## BaxJanson

It's very simple to say "well, if a man's being abused, then he should just leave. He's allowing himself to be abused. If he were a real man, he'd put a stop to it - set some boundaries - say something."

It's not that simple. 

Once, I expressed to my wife that since my son was starting to climb, I'd like to start thinking about moving him from a crib to a toddler bed.

Her response was to start crying. When I asked what was wrong, she responded that it hurt her to know that I didn't care if she was getting a chance to rest during his naptimes, since he'd be out and crawling around all the time.

When I protested that I was just looking for her feedback, to strike up a conversation about it - and that I actually wasn't trying to reduce her free time, she started crying harder and lightly hitting herself.

When I asked her to calm down and just talk to me, she responded that she could never talk to me, because I was always so wrapped up in winning the conversation, proving that I was right, that it genuinely didn't matter if my son stuck his finger in the power outlet and died - so long as I won the argument. And it hurt her and made her sad that she had married such a stubborn, selfish person that I would not care about my kids like that.

Looking back, knowing what I know now, there are dozens of ways to have responded. At the time, however, I was trapped - mentally.


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> I think your take is very cold and unrealistic, JLD. Would you say to a woman whose husband behaves abusively "the power is entirely yours. He can't make you feel any way if you don't let him. And you can walk away. So don't blame him."
> 
> We marry people for various reasons. Sometimes things change throughout the course of the marriage. Sometimes a person starts becoming increasingly abusive, and you aren't just in a position to walk away the second they start becoming abusive. Sometimes things are complicated - you have kids, a house, a life together. Maybe the abuse isn't non-stop unbearable but it's enough that it gradually eats away at you. She undermines you in subtle ways, gets insulting in fights but not all the time. You really think in that situation it's 100% in the man's power, that he should blame no one but himself?


I know I challenge men, John. I know I expect a lot from them. I think they are capable of a lot.

Men need boundaries. They need to know their limits. I didn't realize, before marriage forums, that this was such a problem for men. It is not for my guy. It is not for most of the guys I see around me. 

That is what MEM and CM and justtryin and some other guys on here are trying to do: show men that they have to take responsibility for themselves. Your woman will respect you more for taking responsibility for your life, and not blaming her, or your boss, or Obama.

I can't respect men if I pity them, John. I know they are better than that.


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> I think all fathers should fight to see their kids.
> 
> Sorry. If I was told I couldn't see my kids, no way in hell would I just roll over and go away.


One of my exSIL's tired to cut her ex (my brother) out of their daughter's life. She actually went into hiding. My bro was in the Army and about to get out when she pulled this. He got emergency leave, came stayed with me. I did the snooping/research to find her and got him to an attorney. He fought to get his 50% custody.

On the other hand two of my sisters left abusive men. Both of their ex's got visitation (this was in the early 60's). Neither of the father's paid a penny in child support while their sons grew up and neither of them even tried to spend any time with their sons. No one prevented them from seeing their children. This is what is called walking away from their children.


----------



## ReformedHubby

MEM11363 said:


> Reformed,
> Of course you would. We all would. We would FEEL emasculated in the moment.
> 
> But we would quickly begin to respond either in a masculine way or not. We would have the choice to actually emasculate ourselves by tolerating that type behavior or to address it directly in a constructive manner.


We're on the same page. I was addressing the OP's assertion that it wasn't possible for a man to be emasculated. Its possible for anyone. That doesn't mean that you can't recover from it. I don't think emasculation is permanent, but there are situations that can make a man feel that way.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ReformedHubby said:


> *Well..... we're not all super men with no emotions. We can be hurt, and hurt badly. Even more so by the ones we love and sacrifice for. So, yes I am responsible for how I feel, but if I get home today and wife is banging my gardener I would feel both devastated and emasculated.
> 
> That was an over the top example but the point I'm trying to make is the words and actions of the ones we love will always affect us, even more so they way that we feel about ourselves. If my wife had no ability to influence the way that I feel about myself that would mean that I didn't love her.*


I THINK LIKE THIS.... but really does it matter if there is a division on how we view this.. as it seems there is 2 camps here on this thread....

I know me & JLD doesn't see this one "eye to eye".. we seem to go rounds on threads using our H's as examples.. (oh it's fun though!)..... she would not be able to stomach a man she is capable of emasculating, she would see him as completely and utterly weak (she must have Superman or Iron Man) -which is sounds she does !....







... I was going to say Jesus (like that one post - ha ha ) but he was rather a humble figure in comparison. 

Me on the other hand, it does not threaten me or bother me that I can HURT my dear husband.. frankly I would be annoyed if he was such a Stoic Unmovable unshakable figure that nothing I could do would affect him.. He'd just get up and say "I am IRON MAN"... No ,that is too un-emotional for my tastes...I'd want to brand him with a hot iron if he was like that !

Without some of that good stuff.(the Emotional highs) so goes the romance like a withered stick.. I want his sensitivity -to be moved by MY enthusiasm...to how I treat HIM...only this makes sense to me.. 

But here is why it doesn't matter to me if I am right or wrong ...or my H is Iron Man ...ultimately...

Bringing it back to what *SandC *said *>>* us women need to use our power / our influence for Good ... reminding our dear husbands with actions, gestures, how we respond to their touch...how we adore them & they turn us on (for instance) -what guy doesn't want some of that !... I think most would move mountains if they were treated right by their wives...

So let us go forth and built one another up.. (sounds like a scripture !)



> *MEM11363 said* :*Reformed,
> Of course you would. We all would. We would FEEL emasculated in the moment.
> 
> But we would quickly begin to respond either in a masculine way or not. We would have the choice to actually emasculate ourselves by tolerating that type behavior or to address it directly in a constructive manner.*


 I can buy this.... Very good..:smthumbup:.... What a great discussion..

Jld ... this was a good one !


----------



## jld

BaxJanson said:


> When I asked her to calm down and just talk to me, she responded that she could never talk to me, because I was always so wrapped up in winning the conversation, proving that I was right, that it genuinely didn't matter if my son stuck his finger in the power outlet and died - so long as I won the argument. And it hurt her and made her sad that she had married such a stubborn, selfish person that I would not care about my kids like that.
> 
> Looking back, knowing what I know now, there are dozens of ways to have responded. At the time, however, I was trapped - mentally.


Very honest of you to say this, Bax. I think a lot of us can relate to being mentally trapped at one time or another. But we don't have to stay that way.

I talk endlessly about Active Listening, because I think it works so well at getting down to inner feelings and root causes. Once we know what they are, we can really work on solving them. Then the behavior changes, because we have attacked the root.


----------



## that_girl

Yea. My daughter's father thinks a once a year visit for a week (he moved out of state without telling us! LOL douche) makes him a dad. She has corrected him recently though. She said while he is the person who helped make her and helped raise her for a few years in childhood, he is not her dad. She has a dad who lives with her and deals with her daily BS. lol I love my kid.  Her dad doesn't pay child support and I don't even bother. He never wanted kids so I don't push it. But it's been ON HIM. She is here. She is real. Don't complain when she's grown that she forgets to invite you to things in her life. When kids don't call you grandpa. You haven't earned it.

And Bax, that example is a bit nuts. Hitting herself? Does she suffer from mental illness? Maybe PPD? I can see how you'd feel emotionally trapped but at some point, don't you just want to say, "Just cut the shet and listen to what I'm saying. This isn't about you, it's about the safety of our child. If he climbs out and hurts himself then it's on you." Dang.


----------



## Stingray

EleGirl said:


> I think that this is the operative point. An initial response to being subjected to abusive language/behavior is what it is. But what we do in response is what matters the most. We can stand up to the abuser and walk if we need to; or we can stay and let the abuse continue and erode us. But when a person does nothing it's a choice.
> 
> I do recognize that there are situations when a person cannot leave but in the Western world, such situations are few and far between.


Yes, it is a choice. But often, there is no good option. If a wife emasculates her husband, the husband might decide that dealing with the emasculation is a better option than paying most of his wealth to his wife and her lawyer and hoping that he is able to see his kids about half as much as he is used to. If his wife decides to play games with visitation, he might see his kids rarely, if ever.

In Christianity, the only Biblical reasons for divorce are adultery or abandonment. Emasculation doesn't rise to the level of justifiable divorce for devout Christians. So some men may feel trapped because of their religious beliefs.


----------



## EleGirl

BaxJanson said:


> It's very simple to say "well, if a man's being abused, then he should just leave. He's allowing himself to be abused. If he were a real man, he'd put a stop to it - set some boundaries - say something."
> 
> It's not that simple.
> 
> Once, I expressed to my wife that since my son was starting to climb, I'd like to start thinking about moving him from a crib to a toddler bed.
> 
> Her response was to start crying. When I asked what was wrong, she responded that it hurt her to know that I didn't care if she was getting a chance to rest during his naptimes, since he'd be out and crawling around all the time.
> 
> When I protested that I was just looking for her feedback, to strike up a conversation about it - and that I actually wasn't trying to reduce her free time, she started crying harder and lightly hitting herself.
> 
> When I asked her to calm down and just talk to me, she responded that she could never talk to me, because I was always so wrapped up in winning the conversation, proving that I was right, that it genuinely didn't matter if my son stuck his finger in the power outlet and died - so long as I won the argument. And it hurt her and made her sad that she had married such a stubborn, selfish person that I would not care about my kids like that.
> 
> Looking back, knowing what I know now, there are dozens of ways to have responded. At the time, however, I was trapped - mentally.


Our society provides very little to help married people figure out how to handle situations like this. Sure there are plenty of counselors, books, etc. But people need to know before marriage what can happen and how to approach it.

When you found yourself mentally trapped, what help did you look for?


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> she would not be able to stomach a man she is capable of emasculating, she would see him as completely and utterly weak


This is the thing. I would not be able to respect such a man, not in _that_ way. If I cannot respect him, I cannot love him in that marital way. 

I cannot trust myself to a man who I could "emasculate." I would always have to be watching out for his feelings, always careful with my words, always observant of my actions, lest he be damaged somehow. 

How would he ever be strong enough to protect me, if he is so fragile?

I need someone stronger than myself for me to give myself to him.

And my husband does not agree that "all" men would feel emasculated by infidelity. Hurt, disrespected, disillusioned? Yes. Emasculated? No.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
We've all read stories on here. Spouse changes, becomes abusive or neglectful. 

And the recipient of this behavior either asserts or doormatifies them self. 

Asserting might be creating and executing a plan to exit while firmly conveying that they aren't ok with what's happening. 

This guy has a great story. His W was a certain type of feminist. The kind that is anti male. 

He allowed her total control of their sex life for a decade. He allowed her to manipulate him with the promise of a tiny amount of sex. 

One day - he suddenly awakens. And he makes a simple plan. It looked something like this:
- No more pretending
- No more lying - to myself and others
- Zero tolerance of sexual manipulation
- I'm going to take care of my sexual and emotional needs since my W cannot be trusted to do so

He stops chasing his wife. Stops initiating sex. Tells her that until she is willing to behave in a respectful and sexually acceptable manner, they won't be having sex at all. 

Cancels valentines day. Tells their close friends and family that he is in a long term sexless marriage and is very unhappy about it. 

His W flips out. He's now outed her to their social network. She's embarrassed. She tries to blameshift. He refuses to take the blame for her poor behavior. She complains that he isn't romancing her. 

He is calm but firm. You've teased me and rejected me for the last time. It takes a year. The old marriage is dead. She sits down with him and commits to a minimum of weekly sex. No head games. No manipulation. 

That was 3 years ago. 

Most weeks they have sex a couple times now. She comes to bed with a loving mindset. 

Their entire dynamic is now - give give. Instead of give - take. 

She is also much happier now. 




John Lee said:


> I think your take is very cold and unrealistic, JLD. Would you say to a woman whose husband behaves abusively "the power is entirely yours. He can't make you feel any way if you don't let him. And you can walk away. So don't blame him."
> 
> We marry people for various reasons. Sometimes things change throughout the course of the marriage. Sometimes a person starts becoming increasingly abusive, and you aren't just in a position to walk away the second they start becoming abusive. Sometimes things are complicated - you have kids, a house, a life together. Maybe the abuse isn't non-stop unbearable but it's enough that it gradually eats away at you. She undermines you in subtle ways, gets insulting in fights but not all the time. You really think in that situation it's 100% in the man's power, that he should blame no one but himself?


----------



## unbelievable

The world has enough people who exist only to butter their own toast, who focus on what's best for them, who may be trespassing on their boundaries, etc, etc. Is it manly for a father to leave a hateful, psychotic bat but leave his children in her primary care? Seal their fate with not only her abuse but also with whomever a psychotic bat might wish to hook up with this week? If men looked primarily to their own interests, the wedding business would become extinct in about a week. There are an abundance of studies proving the disadvantages kids have when dads leave. Leaving my ex when my daughter was 2 would have been the far easier course. That would have taken no courage or strength. Staying until my daughter was nearly grown took nearly super human strength. Any fool can run from a bad situation. Staying didn't do much for me but I am convinced it was best for my daughter and her success into adulthood seems to suggest I was right. Not all women are lying narcissists but my wife was both and she has the papers to prove it. 
For me to leave a woman, she has to really be bad. I have the patience of Job. If she's too bad for me to tolerate living with, she is too bad to leave my kid with. Since the courts in my state at the time considered only vaginas and penises and favored vaginas, I was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I expect many men are faced with the same difficult choice. Running off and joining the circus or buying a Harley and hitting the road isn't a manly decision in my book. Doing what is best for your child, even if it hurts, is.


----------



## EleGirl

Stingray said:


> Yes, it is a choice. But often, there is no good option. If a wife emasculates her husband, the husband might decide that dealing with the emasculation is a better option than paying most of his wealth to his wife and her lawyer and hoping that he is able to see his kids about half as much as he is used to. If his wife decides to play games with visitation, he might see his kids rarely, if ever.
> 
> In Christianity, the only Biblical reasons for divorce are adultery or abandonment. Emasculation doesn't rise to the level of justifiable divorce for devout Christians. So some men may feel trapped because of their religious beliefs.


In order to feel 'emasculated' a man has to internalize the nonsense being thrown at him. Just because he's married to someone who does this does not mean that he has to own it.

I lived with this sort of thing for a long time. Now when it's done to a woman it's usually called abuse. But I can tell you that it does the same thing that it does to a man... it eats away at your very core. But there came a day when I realized that I was being pretty stupid and letting it eat at my core. From that day forward nothing he said really affected me. And from that day forward I was able to deal with it all in a much better matter.

It would be better for his children to see him not being mistreated half the time then to see him being mistreated all the time.


----------



## sandc

jld said:


> Very honest of you to say this, Bax. I think a lot of us can relate to being mentally trapped at one time or another. But we don't have to stay that way.
> 
> *I talk endlessly about Active Listening,* because I think it works so well at getting down to inner feelings and root causes. Once we know what they are, we can really work on solving them. Then the behavior changes, because we have attacked the root.


Sorry but that made me giggle out loud. :lol:


----------



## MEM2020

Bax,
We've all been hit by a blitz - and rendered speechless in the moment. I would have been clueless in the moment if that happened to me. 

Afterwards I would have asked myself:
- How often do I 'focus more on winning' than anything else
- How often does my W go BSC and whether there is a pattern to it
- What works best with her when she does go BSC
- Does my wife need mental health counseling (hitting herself)






BaxJanson said:


> It's very simple to say "well, if a man's being abused, then he should just leave. He's allowing himself to be abused. If he were a real man, he'd put a stop to it - set some boundaries - say something."
> 
> It's not that simple.
> 
> Once, I expressed to my wife that since my son was starting to climb, I'd like to start thinking about moving him from a crib to a toddler bed.
> 
> Her response was to start crying. When I asked what was wrong, she responded that it hurt her to know that I didn't care if she was getting a chance to rest during his naptimes, since he'd be out and crawling around all the time.
> 
> When I protested that I was just looking for her feedback, to strike up a conversation about it - and that I actually wasn't trying to reduce her free time, she started crying harder and lightly hitting herself.
> 
> When I asked her to calm down and just talk to me, she responded that she could never talk to me, because I was always so wrapped up in winning the conversation, proving that I was right, that it genuinely didn't matter if my son stuck his finger in the power outlet and died - so long as I won the argument. And it hurt her and made her sad that she had married such a stubborn, selfish person that I would not care about my kids like that.
> 
> Looking back, knowing what I know now, there are dozens of ways to have responded. At the time, however, I was trapped - mentally.


----------



## EleGirl

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> We've all read stories on here. Spouse changes, becomes abusive or neglectful.
> 
> And the recipient of this behavior either asserts or doormatifies them self.
> 
> Asserting might be creating and executing a plan to exit while firmly conveying that they aren't ok with what's happening.
> 
> This guy has a great story. His W was a certain type of feminist. The kind that is anti male.
> 
> He allowed her total control of their sex life for a decade. He allowed her to manipulate him with the promise of a tiny amount of sex.
> 
> One day - he suddenly awakens. And he makes a simple plan. It looked something like this:
> - No more pretending
> - No more lying - to myself and others
> - Zero tolerance of sexual manipulation
> - I'm going to take care of my sexual and emotional needs since my W cannot be trusted to do so
> 
> He stops chasing his wife. Stops initiating sex. Tells her that until she is willing to behave in a respectful and sexually acceptable manner, they won't be having sex at all.
> 
> Cancels valentines day. Tells their close friends and family that he is in a long term sexless marriage and is very unhappy about it.
> 
> His W flips out. He's now outed her to their social network. She's embarrassed. She tries to blameshift. He refuses to take the blame for her poor behavior. She complains that he isn't romancing her.
> 
> He is calm but firm. You've teased me and rejected me for the last time. It takes a year. The old marriage is dead. She sits down with him and commits to a minimum of weekly sex. No head games. No manipulation.
> 
> That was 3 years ago.
> 
> Most weeks they have sex a couple times now. She comes to bed with a loving mindset.
> 
> Their entire dynamic is now - give give. Instead of give - take.
> 
> She is also much happier now.


Very good example. It's what I'm talking about.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> In order to feel 'emasculated' a man has to internalize the nonsense being thrown at him. Just because he's married to someone who does this does not mean that he has to own it.


:iagree:


----------



## Stingray

jld said:


> I cannot trust myself to a man who I could "emasculate." I would always have to be watching out for his feelings, always careful with my words, always observant of my actions, lest he be damaged somehow.


I understand the basic urge of such an attitude toward men. But, as I posted earlier, for many men the choice to stay with a wife who emasculates them is made for religious, economical, or fatherly reasons. Would you dismiss a man whose commitment to God is more important to him than his commitment to your tingles?



> And my husband does not agree that "all" men would feel emasculated by infidelity. Hurt, disrespected, disillusioned? Yes. Emasculated? No.


Has be experienced being cuckolded? From my research, one really can't anticipate one's reaction in advance.


----------



## jld

sandc said:


> Sorry but that made me giggle out loud. :lol:


----------



## that_girl

You're a good man, I guess. No one stuck around with my mom LOL I had to endure her abuse until last year when I finally said "enough". She went into a rage and blew up my phone and email but I didn't reply. It was really twisted.

My mom is also narcissistic. I don't blame my dads (step and bio) for leaving HER but to be so scared of her and not even fight for me was stupid. 

Thankfully I am successful and responsible despite their drama...I just had to work out a lot of issues I had regarding men. In therapy.


----------



## jld

Stingray said:


> I understand the basic urge of such an attitude toward men. But, as I posted earlier, for many men the choice to stay with a wife who emasculates them is made for religious, economical, or fatherly reasons. Would you dismiss a man whose commitment to God is more important to him than his commitment to your tingles?
> She is not emasculating you. She has her own issues. Do not internalize her problems! DO NOT GIVE HER THAT POWER!!!
> 
> Not sure what the last sentence means, but my husband defines himself as a "Catholic man." I think men who sincerely try to live out their faith are admirable.
> 
> Has be experienced being cuckolded? No, but neither has MEM. And I don't plan for dh to experience it, either!From my research, one really can't anticipate one's reaction in advance.


----------



## that_girl

Stingray said:


> Would you dismiss a man whose commitment to God is more important to him than his commitment to your tingles?



Yes. He is not a martyr and to act like one would make me lose more respect for him. If I was already a shrew, this would give me more fuel for the fire, I'm guessing.

If a god wants his people to live like this and not fight back, then yea, I'd dismiss it all.

Saying you're staying in an abusive marriage because it's what god would want, is a cop out.


----------



## Stingray

EleGirl said:


> In order to feel 'emasculated' a man has to internalize the nonsense being thrown at him. Just because he's married to someone who does this does not mean that he has to own it.


True. But our nature is to internalize these things. Especially for men. If a husband mistreats his wife in public, everyone thinks he's a jerk. If a wife mistreats her husband in public, everyone thinks he's weak. And he will naturally feel weak because of it.



> It would be better for his children to see him not being mistreated half the time then to see him being mistreated all the time.


Studies have shown children of divorce to be worse off than children of married parents. Yes, some marriages can be so bad that divorce is better for children. But for the average case, that's not true.


----------



## EleGirl

Stingray said:


> I understand the basic urge of such an attitude toward men. *But, as I posted earlier, for many men the choice to stay with a wife who emasculates them *is made for religious, economical, or fatherly reasons. Would you dismiss a man whose commitment to God is more important to him than his commitment to your tingles?



A man cannot be emasculated unless he choses to allow it to happen.

He can chose to stay, he can stand up to his wife and can choose to not feel emasculated.



Stingray said:


> Has be experienced being cuckolded? From my research, one really can't anticipate one's reaction in advance.


You mean being cheated on? Women are cheated on as well. It's as devastating for a women when she's cheated on as it is for a man when he's cheated on.

While a person's first reaction to infidelity is usually devastating, the person can realize that their spouse cheating on them does not mean that they are less of a man or woman. It means that their spouse chose to do something lousy.


----------



## that_girl

So if I'm being abused and I choose to stay for the children, is that ok?

lol No, it's not.

And it's not ok for men either.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

that_girl said:


> I think all fathers should fight to see their kids.
> 
> Sorry. If I was told I couldn't see my kids, no way in hell would I just roll over and go away.


Fighting and winning are two different issues.

During the early stages of my divorce. I decided that my ex should get the house, I was trying to have an amicable divorce and do what was best for the kids. I was working and she was a SAHM. It would be easier for me to rebuild my financial situation. PS this is also the "advice" I was given by the judge.

Okay fine. Then the court imposed severe pendente lite support orders and I protested, how am I supposed to have my kids 50% of the time, when I'm going to have to go out and get a second job just to maintain these orders, get a 2 bedroom apartment for me (and my daughter and son to stay) in the city (cheapest place) next to where they live.

The judge "recommended" every other weekend and one night a week for dinner but with joint custody. Well fine. I had to work extra anyway, so I lost the 50% physical custody. THEN my ex decides to play the "sick" game. Where the kids are sick all of the time so they can't see me. I take her to court and the judge tells ME that I shouldn't look to remove the kids from their "normal" environment when they're sick. All of her decisions are based around "the best interest of the child". She'd be tempted to revoke the joint custody if I pushed the issue as well.

This did nothing but give my ex a power trip so she did it more.

There was a span where I hadn't seen my son and daughter for 6 months. Mostly due to them being so "sick" and partially because I had to work extra (to pay the unfair support arrangements) and my ex wouldn't swap weekends with me when I did have to work.

So sometimes even fighting doesn't change things.

Now, I got lucky. When the divorce was being finalized, I got a new judge who couldn't believe the previous orders and forced my ex to give me the kids even if they're sick because "what difference does it make if you are taking care of them in bed or your husband is taking care of them in bed." I couldn't get the 50% custody though because by that point I couldn't maintain my apartment and the support orders, so I had to move into my parents house for about 6 months to catch back up. But I was in my parents house when the divorce was finalized so I didn't have a "stable" environment for 50% physical custody.....

Yeah...All because I got tired or my ex doing a lot of the bad behavior discussed in this thread and me reclaiming my masculinity LOL.

EDIT: PS this isn't a betch session about the courts and unfairness etc. I also wouldn't change anything.

I was tired of looking in the mirror and not recognizing and not liking the man looking back at me. I've been a 100 times better father to my children having them less time, than I would've been had I stayed with their mother. I miss not having them 50% of the time, but they've done okay. The difficulties they have would've been the same because their mom has one set of standards and I have another. That issue would've existed even at 50% custody.


----------



## that_girl

But at least you can say you tried.

The kids will know you tried and know what the mom did in time.

Sometimes it's not about winning but about giving a sh1t. My dads just walked away. See ya! Ok then.


----------



## MEM2020

Sting,
But that's not what we are saying. 

If you choose to stay with a toxic spouse, you are responsible for protecting yourself. It requires discipline, but it is not complicated. 
1. You do a true in-house 180. 
2. You decline to join any social events unless your spouse demonstrates they can play nice in a group setting. Or you openly 180 them in those group settings. 

This whole theme of: I have to lie here and bite the pillow while I take it up the azz - is foreign to me. 

I guess I have an allergy to victimology. 




Stingray said:


> I understand the basic urge of such an attitude toward men. But, as I posted earlier, for many men the choice to stay with a wife who emasculates them is made for religious, economical, or fatherly reasons. Would you dismiss a man whose commitment to God is more important to him than his commitment to your tingles?
> 
> 
> Has be experienced being cuckolded? From my research, one really can't anticipate one's reaction in advance.


----------



## EleGirl

Stingray said:


> True. But our nature is to internalize these things. Especially for men. If a husband mistreats his wife in public, everyone thinks he's a jerk. If a wife mistreats her husband in public, everyone thinks he's weak. And he will naturally feel weak because of it.


If a man mistreats his wife in public, people tend to think that he’s a jerk. And they wonder why she’s stupid enough to stay with the jerk.

If a woman mistreats her husband in public people think that she’s a jerk. And they wonder why he’s stupid enough to stay with a jerk.

You are making too many excuses for men who chose to put up with a woman who is a jerk/abusive. We teach people how to treat us. As long as he allows her to treat him this way she will continue to do it. If he tells her that he will leave if she continues, and he backs it up with not putting up with her nonsense anymore (in a healthy manner) she will have to stop.




Stingray said:


> Studies have shown children of divorce to be worse off than children of married parents. Yes, some marriages can be so bad that divorce is better for children. But for the average case, that's not true.


A case where the either spouse is being abused is not ‘the average’ case. That’s the point. When you stay and allow our children to watch your wife abusing you year after year you are teaching your sons to expect this treatment, you are teaching your daughters to act like their mother and you are teaching your children that you do not deserve respect.


----------



## Stingray

jld said:


> She is not emasculating you. She has her own issues. Do not internalize her problems! DO NOT GIVE HER THAT POWER!!!


That's like telling your nose not to bleed if your husband punches it. DON'T GIVE HIM THAT POWER!!!



> I think men who sincerely try to live out their faith are admirable.


Even if their faith commands them to remain married to shrewish women rather than to reclaim their power by leaving?


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> Yes. He is not a martyr and to act like one would make me lose more respect for him. If I was already a shrew, this would give me more fuel for the fire, I'm guessing.
> 
> If a god wants his people to live like this and not fight back, then yea, I'd dismiss it all.


People completely misinterpret that Bible. There is nothing in it that says that a person has to stay in an abusive marriage. It even says that if a person is married to a non-believe to let them go. Well a person who is being abusive is a non-believer based on their actions. 

A stanch Catholic can even chose to just move out and not live with an abusive spouse. People use religion as an excuse to not do the heavy lifting and to place the blame no the other person.



that_girl said:


> Saying you're staying in an abusive marriage because it's what god would want, is a cop out.


:iagree:


----------



## that_girl

If that is what your religion teaches, that abuse is ok, then I don't know what to say about that.

Again, I think it's a cop out. Blaming your victim status on god is lame.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

that_girl said:


> But at least you can say you tried.
> 
> The kids will know you tried and know what the mom did in time.
> 
> Sometimes it's not about winning but about giving a sh1t. My dads just walked away. See ya! Ok then.


I've know quite a few women who experienced the same as you. They WANT their children's fathers to see the kids. They promote it.

It's why I get so angry with father's like that. I had to fight and claw to get every minute I've had with my kids. (to my ex's credit though, she's gotten better over the years, she doesn't promote, but she doesn't fight) And here I was, a Dad who just wanted more time and to be a part of his kid's lives and I get the woman who fights.


----------



## treyvion

EleGirl said:


> People completely misinterpret that Bible. There is nothing in it that says that a person has to stay in an abusive marriage. It even says that if a person is married to a non-believe to let them go. Well a person who is being abusive is a non-believer based on their actions.
> 
> A stanch Catholic can even chose to just move out and not live with an abusive spouse. People use religion as an excuse to not do the heavy lifting and to place the blame no the other person.
> 
> 
> 
> :iagree:


When you are religious in the Christian religion, in many cases it is not completely understood that an excessive of mental or other forms of abuse or neglect or forced sexlessness are reasons to stay.

There is alot of pressure to try to make it work and not leave your marriage.


----------



## that_girl

Your kids will appreciate that you fought for it though  

I don't understand the men that walk away. I'd scratch someone's face off to get to my kids. But...I guess it's better they walk away than stay and be sh1tty fathers (my bio dad was an addict).


----------



## Stingray

MEM11363 said:


> This whole theme of: I have to lie here and bite the pillow while I take it up the azz - is foreign to me.
> 
> I guess I have an allergy to victimology.


Sure. There are things that a man can do. But some men are limited.

I don't think I'm trying to make these men victims as much as I'm trying to dispel the fallacy of people posting about how easy it is to stop mistreatment. Sometimes, mistreatment can be remedied by a simple act, statement, or even look. That's when it's easy. Often, it can't be. I'm simply recognizing the second case.


----------



## WyshIknew

bandit.45 said:


> If anyone has doubts just go read through Horizon's thread.
> 
> Male emasculation out there fir everyone to see in all it's glory.
> 
> Or SteveK.... Look at what he has become.


But is that necessarily the wife's 'fault'. It's not really fair of me to criticise another poster from a different thread so I'll just speak generically.

In a similar scenario is it more likely that the man is predisposed to 'emasculation' or is emasculated already?

I'm likely regarded as Mr Beta by many guys here but I'd have stopped that shet dead in it's tracks.

My mother in law picks and criticises my poor father in law mercilessly to the point that it gets embarrassing.

Mrs Wysh has tried this and she gets told to wind her neck in.

"You are not your mother and I am not your father. Pack it in."


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Stingray said:


> That's like telling your nose not to bleed if your husband punches it. DON'T GIVE HIM THAT POWER!!!
> 
> 
> *Even if their faith commands them to remain married to shrewish women rather than to reclaim their power by leaving?*


I have to disagree with you on the bolded part.

I'm assuming we're speaking about the bible. Well the bible spends more time talking about the man being the head of the household and being strong etc. etc. than it does about not divorcing.

So you can't use the bible as an excuse for staying with a shrew while also not being strong enough to "put the shrew in her place."

DISCLAIMER: Please look at the context of the conversation before you go off on my "shrew in her place" statement. It's tongue in cheek way of summarizing the bible's description of a husband and wife relationship, with an edge to it's wording. I personally believe a marriage is a partnership. I just don't want to derail the thread over a tongue in cheek comment.


----------



## jld

Stingray said:


> That's like telling your nose not to bleed if your husband punches it. DON'T GIVE HIM THAT POWER!!!
> 
> I know it hurts. That is why you have to put up a shield.
> 
> First, mental. You tell yourself it is her anger talking, or frustration, or BPD, or whatever. You refuse to take it in as truth.
> 
> Like MEM said, sometimes it has to be physical, like removing yourself from her presence.
> 
> Eventually, you may get strong enough behind your shield that you find you do not need it anymore, or not as often. You find yourself genuinely curious as to why she behaves that way.
> 
> When you are really strong, you try active listening.
> 
> 
> Even if their faith commands them to remain married to shrewish women rather than to reclaim their power by leaving?
> 
> Use MEM's ideas for living with a challenging woman. Consider what I have said here about active listening.
> 
> Did you read what Bax wrote, about how he trapped himself mentally? But how he could have tried other approaches?


----------



## treyvion

Okay so you guys are saying that it should be nearly impossible to emasculate a man... It's really pretty simple.

What if you have a loyal and loving man who doesn't want to cheat and does not want to leave his family, also he doesn't want to embarrass his wife or disrespect her.

What if this wife:

1. Makes him sexless and affectionless.
2. Does not help him with bills and puts a heavy load of the household resonsibility on him
3. Cheats on him, esentially rendering him a cuckhold
4. Pulls all priority away, and looks at him in a dim light beneath her like a small dog, due to her affairs.5
5.  Socially blocks him out, with rumours, public humiliation, group against person triangulations and greater.

Now this man hangs in there:

1. He does not want to break his family up
2. Is forced to be sexless
3. Pays his bills and is a responsible man
4. Is embarrassed over and over again
5. Projections on him through her attention that she gives him, which is piss poor
6. Projections from him socially and by her famly/friends which is that he's less than a man.

This goes on for 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 18 months and this has been the picture all around him, except around several of his outside friends which do not support the viewpoint.

He's not getting sex, hugs, kissed, admired and treated like man by a woman....

It will be a demasculation versus when the process started.

He will have to cheat on her or leave to start to reverse it.

The reversal will not happen over night.

Just as a process stripped him down, he will need another process to build him up.

It doesn't happen over night, but in tiny tiny bits and pieces... You wake up one day and just know it's less.


----------



## EleGirl

Stingray said:


> That's like telling your nose not to bleed if your husband punches it. DON'T GIVE HIM THAT POWER!!!?


Not a good analogy.

A bloody nose is caused by the mechanical failure of a blood vessel. It's a one stage event that a person has no control over.

A person reacts to an emotional situations in two stages. 

The first stage is just raw feelings. Once this stage usually last only few seconds to a few minutes. Then comes the cognitive stage. A person then has a choice. They can cognitively choose to just let the raw feeling rule them, or they can chose to evaluate the situation. After evaluation then can chose who to act/react. A person can even train themselves to react certain ways in the raw feelings stage. 

For example my ex used to come home from work, walk in the door and yell at me for whatever I was or was not doing. He’d all me names, insult me and even start pushing me around.

At first I would have the raw reaction of being upset and trying to prove that what he was saying was wrong. I am not what he called me, etc.

Then one day I realized that that this was about him. He was upset with his day or did not like himself and he took it out on me. On that day (it literally was one day that this realization dawned n me) he walked into the house and started his yelling. I looked at him and said “Boy you must have had a bad day. Go do something to calm yourself down. After looking at me in shock he started yelling at me again. I looked at him and said “NO STOP IT. Go I’m not going to let you take it out on me. “He then went off can came back later a lot calmer.

Over time I learned more things that stopped most of is abuse (emotional and physical). 

After that one day, I did not internalize anything negative he said to me. It was my choice and I chose to ignore the garbage that came out of his mouth. 

I know what I’m talking about here because I’ve lived it and done it. I’ve seen many people implement taking back their power in their lives.

QUOTE=Stingray;9380498]Even if their faith commands them to remain married to shrewish women rather than to reclaim their power by leaving?[/QUOTE]

NO faith commands a man to not take back their power. In most cases if you take back your power (as we are calling it here) the verbal abuse will stop.


----------



## Stingray

EleGirl said:


> People completely misinterpret that Bible.


True. People will often interpret and reinterpret statements until the interpreted meaning is exactly the opposite of the original statement. That happens with divorce quite frequently.

The New Testament commands couples to stay married except for two very limited exceptions where divorce is permitted (not commanded). Yet many modern Christians have interpreted those passages to permit divorce for any and every reason, or for no reason at all.



> Well a person who is being abusive is a non-believer based on their actions.


If you define sinners as non-believers, then there aren't very many believers out there.


----------



## treyvion

Dad&Hubby said:


> I have to disagree with you on the bolded part.
> 
> I'm assuming we're speaking about the bible. Well the bible spends more time talking about the man being the head of the household and being strong etc. etc. than it does about not divorcing.
> 
> So you can't use the bible as an excuse for staying with a shrew while also not being strong enough to "put the shrew in her place."
> 
> DISCLAIMER: Please look at the context of the conversation before you go off on my "shrew in her place" statement. It's tongue in cheek way of summarizing the bible's description of a husband and wife relationship, with an edge to it's wording. I personally believe a marriage is a partnership. I just don't want to derail the thread over a tongue in cheek comment.


Women hate to hear about "submission" in the bible.

So we have these fire breathing demons who refuse to "submit" to a man...

Here goes the deal, they are so adimant in their refusing to "submit" in that, they wont' do anything which HELPS a man and will outright work against him...

The submission in the bible is a dual submission. Wife submit to your husbands... 

Husbands love your wives like christ loved the church...

Ok, so jesus died for the church and sacrificed himself - sounds like a submission to me.

Wives, simply respect your husbands and work with him is what it's saying.

Many refuse to do this, this day and age.


----------



## BaxJanson

EleGirl said:


> When you found yourself mentally trapped, what help did you look for?


I didn't. I stayed put year after year. I learned not to talk to her about my ideas. I learned not to have ideas. I learned not to talk to other people. I learned I was a horrible father, contributing nothing but a paycheck to the family - and not even a good one, at that. I learned the things I did were flawed at best, sinister at worst. I learned that not agreeing with her made her want to kill herself. And I learned that every complaint I had, every dissatisfaction was my fault, and proof that I was an evil person or a failure. I learned that my confidence, my good moods made her afraid for her safety; my depression brought her down. Every time I resisted the lessons I was being taught, that resistance was further proof of my perfidy and failure to listen to her properly. 

When I left, I left because I was too much of a failure as a husband, a man, a human being to do anything else. The only thing I was still doing right was staying for the kids, keeping the family together. Leaving meant failing even in that - becoming that vile, evil, selfish man.

It's taken (and is taking) a lot of work, prayer, and time to undo that damage.


----------



## that_girl

If people want to live by the bible, that's their business.

It isn't how it is in this home so it doesn't matter what the bible says.

And to trust in a book and live your marriage by a book written and translated over the many years to control people...well...I don't think that's a good idea. I'd never let someone abuse me because the bible says so.

And I won't submit to anyone. That doesn't mean I don't help or work with or take care of my family or husband.

But again, we're not biblical, thankfully.


----------



## jld

But the man is supposed to go first, right? Sacrifice for her?

He earns her love, her trust. When she can trust him, she can submit to him. 

She probably cannot resist submitting to him!


----------



## WyshIknew

treyvion said:


> Okay so you guys are saying that it should be nearly impossible to emasculate a man... It's really pretty simple.
> 
> What if you have a loyal and loving man who doesn't want to cheat and does not want to leave his family, also he doesn't want to embarrass his wife or disrespect her.
> 
> What if this wife:
> 
> 1. Makes him sexless and affectionless.
> 2. Does not help him with bills and puts a heavy load of the household resonsibility on him
> 3. Cheats on him, esentially rendering him a cuckhold
> 4. Pulls all priority away, and looks at him in a dim light beneath her like a small dog, due to her affairs.5
> 5. Socially blocks him out, with rumours, public humiliation, group against person triangulations and greater.
> 
> Now this man hangs in there:
> 
> 1. He does not want to break his family up
> 2. Is forced to be sexless
> 3. Pays his bills and is a responsible man
> 4. Is embarrassed over and over again
> 5. Projections on him through her attention that she gives him, which is piss poor
> 6. Projections from him socially and by her famly/friends which is that he's less than a man.
> 
> This goes on for 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 18 months and this has been the picture all around him, except around several of his outside friends which do not support the viewpoint.
> 
> He's not getting sex, hugs, kissed, admired and treated like man by a woman....
> 
> It will be a demasculation versus when the process started.
> 
> He will have to cheat on her or leave to start to reverse it.
> 
> The reversal will not happen over night.
> 
> Just as a process stripped him down, he will need another process to build him up.
> 
> It doesn't happen over night, but in tiny tiny bits and pieces... You wake up one day and just know it's less.


But these things don't generally happen in a vacuum surely?

If he'd have cracked down on the nonsense when it started he wouldn't have been in this position.

If you put up with this stuff from the get go you are halfway to being emasculated already.


----------



## Stingray

Dad&Hubby said:


> I'm assuming we're speaking about the bible. Well the bible spends more time talking about the man being the head of the household and being strong etc. etc. than it does about not divorcing.
> 
> So you can't use the bible as an excuse for staying with a shrew while also not being strong enough to "put the shrew in her place."


The Bible commands men to both lead their households AND not to divorce their wives. However, the Bible also commands wives to submit to their husbands. Why would the Bible do that if the husbands could simply do all the work through leadership? The obvious answer is that the husband leading the marriage requires a cooperative wife.


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> That doesn't mean I don't help or work with or take care of my family or husband.


That is all it really means, I think.


----------



## EleGirl

treyvion said:


> When you are religious in the Christian religion, in many cases it is not completely understood that an excessive of mental or other forms of abuse or neglect or forced sexlessness are *[not] *reasons to stay.


Did you leave the word "not" out of that sentence on purpose?



treyvion said:


> There is alot of pressure to try to make it work and not leave your marriage.


I'm Catholic, I know what the Bible says. No one is obligated to stay in an abusive situation. Whether they divorce or not is a secondary issue.

A lot of the kinds of things being talked about here, can be solved by a person standing up to their spouse, getting counseling, taking anger management classes, etc.


----------



## that_girl

lol Well, many people don't think of it that way. I'm not submitting. No one is forcing me to do it. I am not rolling over because someone "won". That's submission. 

And a man has to earn the right to be the head of a household. Having a penis doesn't make someone qualified to be the leader. Believe me. This is something I deal with daily. He's not who I thought he was.


But how'd this become a religious, biblical talk? lol I'll stay out until it's over.


----------



## jld

Stingray said:


> The Bible commands men to both lead their households AND not to divorce their wives. However, the Bible also commands wives to submit to their husbands. Why would the Bible do that if the husbands could simply do all the work through leadership? The obvious answer is that the husband leading the marriage requires a cooperative wife.


True, but there is much you can do to inspire cooperation.


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> lol Well, many people don't think of it that way. I'm not submitting. No one is forcing me to do it. I am not rolling over because someone "won". That's submission.
> 
> But how'd this become a religious, biblical talk? lol I'll stay out until it's over.


----------



## EleGirl

treyvion said:


> Okay so you guys are saying that it should be nearly impossible to emasculate a man... It's really pretty simple.
> 
> What if you have a loyal and loving man who doesn't want to cheat and does not want to leave his family, also he doesn't want to embarrass his wife or disrespect her.
> 
> What if this wife:
> 
> 1. Makes him sexless and affectionless.
> 2. Does not help him with bills and puts a heavy load of the household resonsibility on him
> 3. Cheats on him, esentially rendering him a cuckhold
> 4. Pulls all priority away, and looks at him in a dim light beneath her like a small dog, due to her affairs.5
> 5. Socially blocks him out, with rumours, public humiliation, group against person triangulations and greater.
> 
> Now this man hangs in there:
> 
> 1. He does not want to break his family up
> 2. Is forced to be sexless
> 3. Pays his bills and is a responsible man
> 4. Is embarrassed over and over again
> 5. Projections on him through her attention that she gives him, which is piss poor
> 6. Projections from him socially and by her famly/friends which is that he's less than a man.
> 
> This goes on for 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 18 months and this has been the picture all around him, except around several of his outside friends which do not support the viewpoint.
> 
> He's not getting sex, hugs, kissed, admired and treated like man by a woman....
> 
> It will be a demasculation versus when the process started.
> 
> He will have to cheat on her or leave to start to reverse it.
> 
> The reversal will not happen over night.
> 
> Just as a process stripped him down, he will need another process to build him up.
> 
> It doesn't happen over night, but in tiny tiny bits and pieces... You wake up one day and just know it's less.


What you present is no different than a woman in the same position whose husband does exactly the same thing.


From personal experience he can learn to not internalize her shet and stand up to her. Why is it any different than when this happens to a woman?


----------



## MEM2020

100% agree that it can be very hard. 

That is why it feels so darn good when you do it. 




Stingray said:


> Sure. There are things that a man can do. But some men are limited.
> 
> I don't think I'm trying to make these men victims as much as I'm trying to dispel the fallacy of people posting about how easy it is to stop mistreatment. Sometimes, mistreatment can be remedied by a simple act, statement, or even look. That's when it's easy. Often, it can't be. I'm simply recognizing the second case.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

jld said:


> But the man is supposed to go first, right? Sacrifice for her?
> 
> He earns her love, her trust. When she can trust him, she can submit to him.
> 
> She probably cannot resist submitting to him!


Define sacrifice. Because a lot of those men who allow themselves to be emasculated probably think they are sacrificing for her. 

I am with MEM regarding no patience for victimhood. But it goes both ways, as does accountability.


----------



## Stingray

jld said:


> But the man is supposed to go first, right? Sacrifice for her?
> 
> He earns her love, her trust. When she can trust him, she can submit to him.
> 
> She probably cannot resist submitting to him!


Nope.


1 Pet 3; said:


> Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.


Christian wives should submit to their husbands, period.


----------



## jld

Sting, it is really hard to stand up to people, or to ignore their unkind, untrue comments, and to retrain yourself to see them as unhappy, unhealthy people. 

But it is freeing!


----------



## that_girl

:rofl:

Dear lawd.

I know I was going to stay away but that is the exact reason why I blow off the bible.

Sarah called her man her LORD. That's just surely written by a man to control women.


----------



## jld

Stingray said:


> Nope.
> 
> Christian wives should submit to their husbands, period.


Are there not some verses before that for the husband?


----------



## EleGirl

BaxJanson said:


> I didn't. I stayed put year after year. I learned not to talk to her about my ideas. I learned not to have ideas. I learned not to talk to other people. I learned I was a horrible father, contributing nothing but a paycheck to the family - and not even a good one, at that. I learned the things I did were flawed at best, sinister at worst. I learned that not agreeing with her made her want to kill herself. And I learned that every complaint I had, every dissatisfaction was my fault, and proof that I was an evil person or a failure. I learned that my confidence, my good moods made her afraid for her safety; my depression brought her down. Every time I resisted the lessons I was being taught, that resistance was further proof of my perfidy and failure to listen to her properly.
> 
> When I left, I left because I was too much of a failure as a husband, a man, a human being to do anything else. The only thing I was still doing right was staying for the kids, keeping the family together. Leaving meant failing even in that - becoming that vile, evil, selfish man.
> 
> It's taken (and is taking) a lot of work, prayer, and time to undo that damage.


Yea a person can get beat down. And a lot of people just take it instead of looking for the help they need. 

We teach people how we can be treated. 

In order to recover completely and learn to not let this repeat in your life, you have to accept your part in enabling it. And you need to find resources so that you can get help as soon as an issue arises... not years after it destroys you.


----------



## that_girl

jld said:


> Are there not some verses before that for the husband?


Not in most people's minds.

Just submit! Who cares if your husband is a jerk or a swine. SUBMIT because you have the vagina.

:rofl: Good grief.


----------



## over20

treyvion said:


> Women hate to hear about "submission" in the bible.
> 
> So we have these fire breathing demons who refuse to "submit" to a man...
> 
> Here goes the deal, they are so adimant in their refusing to "submit" in that, they wont' do anything which HELPS a man and will outright work against him...
> 
> The submission in the bible is a dual submission. Wife submit to your husbands...
> 
> Husbands love your wives like christ loved the church...
> 
> Ok, so jesus died for the church and sacrificed himself - sounds like a submission to me.
> 
> Wives, simply respect your husbands and work with him is what it's saying.
> 
> Many refuse to do this, this day and age.




Great explanation :smthumbup:


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> Not in most people's minds.
> 
> Just submit! Who cares if your husband is a jerk or a swine. SUBMIT because you have the vagina.
> 
> :rofl: Good grief.


Yeah, well, I am not on board with that.


----------



## treyvion

that_girl said:


> lol Well, many people don't think of it that way. I'm not submitting. No one is forcing me to do it. I am not rolling over because someone "won". That's submission.
> 
> And a man has to earn the right to be the head of a household. Having a penis doesn't make someone qualified to be the leader. Believe me. This is something I deal with daily. He's not who I thought he was.
> 
> 
> But how'd this become a religious, biblical talk? lol I'll stay out until it's over.


Submit did not mean that he makes all the decisions or that you roll over. It means to respect and support.


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> :rofl:
> 
> Dear lawd.
> 
> I know I was going to stay away but that is the exact reason why I blow off the bible.
> 
> Sarah called her man her LORD. That's just surely written by a man to control women.


Please people, let's not turn this into a discussion of the Bible and religion. Your (generic you) interpretation of the Bible has nothing to do with a general discussion like this thread was intended to be about.

I don't want to discuss people's interpretations of the Bible since there are over 30,000 protestant sects.. thus 30,000 interpretations and that does not include "personal interpretations". There is just not enough time in this lifetime to discuss the nuances of every interpretation.


----------



## Stingray

jld said:


> Are there not some verses before that for the husband?


The next verse addresses husbands.
"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

However, nothing in the commands to wives makes their responsibility to submit to their husbands contingent on their husbands' behavior. To the contrary, they are commanded to submit even if their husbands are non-believers.


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> Not in most people's minds.
> 
> Just submit! Who cares if your husband is a jerk or a swine. SUBMIT because you have the vagina.
> 
> :rofl: Good grief.


Yep they forget about the man being commanded to serve his wife and put her needs ahead of his own... go figure.:rofl:


----------



## that_girl

I wasn't interpreting the bible. I was just laughing at the reasons things were posted.


----------



## jld

Tall Average Guy said:


> Define sacrifice. Because a lot of those men who allow themselves to be emasculated probably think they are sacrificing for her.
> 
> I am with MEM regarding no patience for victimhood. But it goes both ways, as does accountability.


He has to earn her respect, TAG. And continue to earn it.

He has to be responsible and make wise decisions. Not all day playing video games.

You are very different from my husband. Dh is not scared a woman is going to use him. He is not ever watchful of that.


----------



## treyvion

EleGirl said:


> Yep they forget about the man being commanded to serve his wife and put her needs ahead of his own... go figure.:rofl:


It's in the satanic bible, where a male grows into adulthood looking for a master. She will cuckhold him and allow him to live, take all his time and labor for her own.


----------



## EleGirl

Stingray said:


> The next verse addresses husbands.
> "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."


Verse name & number please.



Stingray said:


> However, nothing in the commands to wives makes their responsibility to submit to their husbands contingent on their husbands' behavior. To the contrary, they are commanded to submit even if their husbands are non-believers.


----------



## that_girl

EleGirl said:


> Yep they forget about the man being commanded to serve his wife and put her needs ahead of his own... go figure.:rofl:


lolll How convenient.

Geez. I don't know why so many topics about men and women get turned into a religious discussion. :sleeping:


----------



## that_girl

jld said:


> He has to earn her respect, TAG. And continue to earn it.
> 
> He has to be responsible and make wise decisions. Not all day playing video games.
> 
> You are very different from my husband. Dh is not scared a woman is going to use him. He is not ever watchful of that.


OH MAN! I know of a husband (not mine) who plays video games non stop. If my friend let him run the home and be the head of the house, they'd all starve and die in a pile of filth.

lol....


----------



## jld

Stingray said:


> The next verse addresses husbands.
> "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."
> 
> However, nothing in the commands to wives makes their responsibility to submit to their husbands contingent on their husbands' behavior. To the contrary, they are commanded to submit even if their husbands are non-believers.


Well, there is another part of the Bible that tells men to sacrifice for their wives _first_. Ephesians, maybe?


----------



## EleGirl

treyvion said:


> It's in the satanic bible, where a male grows into adulthood looking for a master. She will cuckhold him and allow him to live, take all his time and labor for her own.


I guess so 'cause I sure don't find it


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Yep they forget about the man being commanded to serve his wife and put her needs ahead of his own... go figure.:rofl:


:iagree:


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> Not in most people's minds.
> 
> Just submit! Who cares if your husband is a jerk or a swine. SUBMIT because you have the vagina.
> 
> :rofl: Good grief.


Sadly too many people take it this way. It's a complete, purposeful misinterpretation as is the misquote that was pasted above.


----------



## BaxJanson

Oh, I've learned. I no longer accept the behavior I once did. I recognize there is a lot I could have theoretically done to stop the process. If it happens today (I cannot WAIT until the D is finalized) I do not allow it in my life or my head. But neither do I feel ashamed for being beaten by a master swordswoman when I was unaware we were dueling - indeed, when I trusted her to have my back. The first step in winning a battle must be to learn you are in one, what the rules are, and what the stakes are.

I do not feel that language like "just man up/put your foot down/don't allow that kind of behavior" is conducive to that learning process. It can - particularly to a person who is inclined to be harder on oneself than others - read as trivializing and dismissive.


----------



## Stingray

jld said:


> Well, there is another part of the Bible that tells men to sacrifice for their wives _first_. Ephesians, maybe?


Yes, Ephesians commands husbands to love their wives and care for them. It also commands wives to submit themselves to their husbands. But there is no part of the Bible where wives are encouraged to lead their husbands into behaving properly by withholding their submission. Although many people have interpreted the statements to mean exactly that.


----------



## that_girl

Ima break away from the biblical nonsense...

In the beginning of my marriage, my husband could do no wrong in my eyes. He was a man of his word. He made good money decisions. He stood by me. He was my rock. I supported him emotionally, I was absolutely in love with this bright, clever man.

Then over the years, I caught him in some lies. He really screwed us with some money issues (which were decisions, not something he couldn't help). He started breaking promises...no longer a man of his word. He started drinking more. He fell into his hole.

Dynamics changed. I look at the marriage and wish I had a man like I had with him in the beginning...but I don't know if i ever will again. Is he emasculated? Well, he put himself there. I can't risk more of the same bs, especially with our money and bills... we almost lost the house because of his selfish decision behind my back.

If you want the respect of a man, then act like one. If you want to be shady and sneaky and lie and only "do you", then you don't deserve to be the head of any home. Sorry...just what it is.

My husband and I have acknowledged his issues. I worked on mine. I don't bring up the past in arguments. I don't put him down although I have lost my sh1t but I'm a fair fighter.

But I'm on the brink of leaving.

But I think maybe sometimes a man does it to himself. I have no choice but to run this home now. I don't trust he has the "best at heart" in his mind for our family anymore. I can't trust that he'd be a good leader. So now it's my job. We agreed to very traditional roles when we married....it's hardly worked out that way.


----------



## over20

jld said:


> Well, there is another part of the Bible that tells men to sacrifice for their wives _first_. Ephesians, maybe?


Great memory...Ephesians 5:22-33


----------



## EleGirl

BaxJanson said:


> Oh, I've learned. I no longer accept the behavior I once did. I recognize there is a lot I could have theoretically done to stop the process. If it happens today (I cannot WAIT until the D is finalized) I do not allow it in my life or my head. But neither do I feel ashamed for being beaten by a master swordswoman when I was unaware we were dueling - indeed, when I trusted her to have my back. The first step in winning a battle must be to learn you are in one, what the rules are, and what the stakes are.


Oh I get what you are saying. I put up with it for too long before a light went off in my head. One of the things that I try doing on TAM is to show people that there is another way to handle things and the sooner they do it the better.



BaxJanson said:


> I do not feel that language like "just man up/put your foot down/don't allow that kind of behavior" is conducive to that learning process. It can - particularly to a person who is inclined to be harder on oneself than others - read as trivializing and dismissive.


I think that a person has to hear some hard truths about their situation. If done right it wakes them up. There has to be something offered besides things like "don't put up with it". There have to be solutions offered. What are constructive ways to not put up with the abuse.


----------



## jld

BaxJanson said:


> Oh, I've learned. I no longer accept the behavior I once did. I recognize there is a lot I could have theoretically done to stop the process. If it happens today (I cannot WAIT until the D is finalized) I do not allow it in my life or my head. But neither do I feel ashamed for being beaten by a master swordswoman when I was unaware we were dueling - indeed, when I trusted her to have my back. The first step in winning a battle must be to learn you are in one, what the rules are, and what the stakes are.You do not sound emasculated, Bax.
> 
> I do not feel that language like "just man up/put your foot down/don't allow that kind of behavior" is conducive to that learning process. It can - particularly to a person who is inclined to be harder on oneself than others - read as trivializing and dismissive. There needs to be further instruction beyond just Do not accept it! But you have to start somewhere..


So glad you are in a better place, Bax. Best wishes for the future!


----------



## jld

Stingray said:


> Yes, Ephesians commands husbands to love their wives and care for them. It also commands wives to submit themselves to their husbands. But there is no part of the Bible where wives are encouraged to lead their husbands into behaving properly by withholding their submission. Although many people have interpreted the statements to mean exactly that.


Well, I grew up a Catholic, but I do not follow a religion. 

I like having a secure, smart husband. I usually trust his decisions. 

But I certainly speak my mind. And I will always obey my conscience.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

jld said:


> He has to earn her respect, TAG. And continue to earn it.
> 
> He has to be responsible and make wise decisions. Not all day playing video games.
> 
> You are very different from my husband. Dh is not scared a woman is going to use him. He is not ever watchful of that.


But what is sacrifice?


----------



## that_girl

When all that was written about marriage in the bible, weren't women also thought of as property and sent to marry with a dowry of cows and goats in order for the man to accept her?

lol Ok then.


----------



## CluelessWif

Oh, I have watched it. The process was terrible. Just like any abuse text-book case. He married her after her divorce and took her two girls in like they were his own. He paid for her to be a SAHM and was really damned happy. Then the kids grew up and everything changed. 

She started making public jokes about how men are useless, interchangeable creatures ruled by their sex drive, created for the enjoyment of women. I am a feminist, an ideology based on equality. I found her behavior humiliating and abhorrent. He suffered a heart problem that caused some ED. She would tell him that a 'man' wants to have sex with his wife and how she wished she had a 'real man' to put it to her. Then she went out and found her 'real man.'

He is now a bachelor and doesn't care about anything. Hates women but he is miserable because all he ever wanted in life was to grow old with his wife and play with his grand kids.

This man wasn't weak. Still isn't. He is an army veteran and did a pretty high risk sport for twenty years. He is a Ford/Harley guy, a real man's man. But men love their wives. Men have been told for their entire life that a real man cherishes his woman and provides her a safe place to grow (this is true). But in this case she 'grew' into an abuser and he grew into a victim/enabler. It happens just as an abused woman looses her self-esteem. IMO masculinity is the man word for self-esteem.


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> lolll How convenient.
> 
> Geez. I don't know why so many topics about men and women get turned into a religious discussion. :sleeping:


Because when someone cannot prove a point they have to show that women must submit? Could that be?


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> I have heard this mentioned here on TAM. But to me, that does not even seem possible. How can you take masculinity away from a man? Isn't that something inside of him, his essence?
> 
> I cannot see how anyone can take my femininity away from me. It is my essence.
> 
> How do you take someone's essence away?
> 
> I am not even sure they can surrender it. Wouldn't your essence always spring forth, at some point?


Yea it's a label for when some guy needs to set some boundaries with his partner. Interchangeable with doormat.


----------



## that_girl

Well, thank goodness the bible doesn't run my life. lol.


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> When all that was written about marriage in the bible, weren't women also thought of as property and sent to marry with a dowry of cows and goats in order for the man to accept her?
> 
> lol Ok then.


No.... a Jewish woman got her inheritance as at the time she married. Her husband also gave her a 'bride gift' that was supposed to be substantial enough to support herself if things went wrong, he died, etc. If they divorced she took her inheritance and the bride gift with her.


----------



## Duguesclin

Tall Average Guy said:


> But what is sacrifice?


One definition could be giving up short term pleasures for long term benefits.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Men identify almost completely feelings of personhood with feelings of "manhood." so for a man, "emascualtion" is essentially a gender-specific synonym for "humiliation." In that sense it is definitely possible to "emascualte" a man. 

some ways are more gender-specific than others.
I think one way a woman can easily emasculate a man is to cheat on him. and I don't think there are many husbands that would not feel emasculated by that. it then depends on the after-actions of the husband whether he reclaims what feels like his 'manhood.' e.g. I think its much easier for him to reclaim it under those circumstances if he divorces his wife.


----------



## Stingray

EleGirl said:


> Because when someone cannot prove a point they have to show that women must submit? Could that be?


I brought up religion as one reason that a man could have for refusing to divorce an emasculating wife. And that led to several different people giving their own personal interpretations of the Bible's statements, and down the rabbit hole we went.

Now, if the women on this thread want to publicly proclaim that their commitment to feminism trumps their commitment to God, that's fine. It's a personal choice and it's no skin off my nose. I won't belittle their choice by posting a bunch of LOLs and eye-rolling emoticons.


----------



## Duguesclin

For me the result of emasculation, in reality or figuratively, means that something has been removed that makes you unable to be a man anymore.

I just do not comprehend how someone's wife's affair can make him suddenly not be a man.

If my wife had an affair, I would feel shame, I would be hurt, I would be angry, but I still would be a man in the whole sense of the term.


----------



## jld

Stingray said:


> I brought up religion as one reason that a man could have for refusing to divorce an emasculating wife. And that led to several different people giving their own personal interpretations of the Bible's statements, and down the rabbit hole we went.
> 
> Now, if the women on this thread want to publicly proclaim that their commitment to feminism trumps their commitment to God, that's fine. It's a personal choice and it's no skin off my nose. I won't belittle their choice by posting a bunch of LOLs and eye-rolling emoticons.


Is that how you see the discussion, as belittling? That is a sincere question. 

I don't. We had women and men alike saying that it is unwise to give your power away to anyone. And I bet most of us have been guilty of giving our power away. We know of what we speak.

I will just speak for myself. I find your commitment to your family admirable. I do think children benefit from both parents in the home. 

I understand there are many reasons this may not be able to happen, but I respect men who stay with their wives, when it is reasonable, even if only for the sake of the kids. And I know I am in the minority on this.

I think MEM has offered good suggestions for men on how to stay with their wives while not accepting abusive treatment.

And I certainly respect the right of a man or woman to seek a divorce.


----------



## EleGirl

Stingray said:


> I brought up religion as one reason that a man could have for refusing to divorce an emasculating wife. And that led to several different people giving their own personal interpretations of the Bible's statements, and down the rabbit hole we went.
> 
> Now, if the women on this thread want to publicly proclaim that their commitment to feminism trumps their commitment to God, that's fine. It's a personal choice and it's no skin off my nose. I won't belittle their choice by posting a bunch of LOLs and eye-rolling emoticons.


Why did you feel that you had to post that women have to submit to their husbands? It had nothing to do with anyone who has posting on this thread.

A man is commanded to put her needs before his own and to serve his wife. That is another way that to say that he also submits to her needs.

Now on to the bit about using the Bible to allow oneself to be abused. There is nothing in the Bible that tells anyone to do that. There are ways to deal with people who are overbearing and even emotionally abusive. These things work.


----------



## treyvion

Duguesclin said:


> For me the result of emasculation, in reality or figuratively, means that something has been removed that makes you unable to be a man anymore.
> 
> I just do not comprehend how someone's wife's affair can make him suddenly not be a man.
> 
> If my wife had an affair, I would feel shame, I would be hurt, I would be angry, but I still would be a man in the whole sense of the term.


Your STILL a man, just LESS of a man before emasculation.


----------



## treyvion

Duguesclin said:


> For me the result of emasculation, in reality or figuratively, means that something has been removed that makes you unable to be a man anymore.
> 
> I just do not comprehend how someone's wife's affair can make him suddenly not be a man.
> 
> If my wife had an affair, I would feel shame, I would be hurt, I would be angry, but I still would be a man in the whole sense of the term.


If she cheats on you over a period of time, your sense of self will dwindle and you can even lose the capability to have an erection. You may feel unworthy of love even for a while until you get your senses.

And when you do get your senses, if you still bask in the cuckhold attention she's giving you and count on her for support, your self view over time will become diluted.


----------



## that_girl

If a man wants to blame god/bible for enduring abuse then yes, I will laugh and roll my eyes because that is just nonsense. Sorry, but it is.

And just because I know what I'm worth as a human doesn't mean I am a feminist (I think that agenda got way crazy). I just know I don't have to endure certain behavior and if I was religious, I'd resent a god who thought I should.


----------



## Duguesclin

treyvion said:


> Your STILL a man, just LESS of a man before emasculation.


What is less of a man?

Before or after the wife's affair, I am still the same guy.

Is it because somehow you would view me lesser?


----------



## Thundarr

nuclearnightmare said:


> Men identify almost completely feelings of personhood with feelings of "manhood." so for a man, "emascualtion" is essentially a gender-specific synonym for "humiliation." In that sense it is definitely possible to "emascualte" a man.


That makes sense. It explains why cheating, openly flirting, talking down to him (especially publicly), etc are both emasculating and humiliating. They're the same darn thing.


----------



## treyvion

Duguesclin said:


> What is less of a man?
> 
> Before or after the wife's affair, I am still the same guy.
> 
> Is it because somehow you would view me lesser?


It would be yes, the outside parties could view them lesser...

But the most important thing is YOU view yourself lesser.

You view yourself lesser due to the sum result of the actions and treatments you have recieved.

Remember, it's not always ALLOWED. Sometimes the only thing you can do is LEAVE.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> That makes sense. It explains why cheating, openly flirting, talking down to him (especially publicly), etc are both emasculating and humiliating. They're the same darn thing.


You don't have to let other people define you, Thundarr. You can define _yourself._


----------



## Stingray

jld said:


> Is that how you see the discussion, as belittling? That is a sincere question.


I don't generally see discussion as belittling. However, LOLs and laughing/eye rolling emoticons aren't discussion. Those are simply dismissive/belittling tactics meant to avoid or quash discussion.

You have said that you were raised Catholic, but aren't a practicing Christian. That's fine with me. I'm not threatened by non-believers.

And if someone wants to discuss Christianity, or Christian marriage, I'll be happy to oblige. Even is that someone is a non-believer.


----------



## jld

treyvion said:


> You view yourself lesser due to the sum result of the actions and treatments you have recieved.


Only if you let other people define you.

Not every man gives other people the power to define him.

Do you feel powerless, treyvion?


----------



## treyvion

jld said:


> You don't have to let other people define you, Thundarr. You can define _yourself._


Go to a group who is gatekeeper for one of your paths... And say they heavily marginalize you and do not respect you...

It define you and can affect your psyche through all the negative reinforcement.


----------



## jld

Stingray said:


> I don't generally see discussion as belittling. However, LOLs and laughing/eye rolling emoticons aren't discussion. Those are simply dismissive/belittling tactics meant to avoid or quash discussion.
> 
> You have said that you were raised Catholic, but aren't a practicing Christian. That's fine with me. I'm not threatened by non-believers.
> 
> And if someone wants to discuss Christianity, or Christian marriage, I'll be happy to oblige. Even is that someone is a non-believer.


We have a traditional marriage, and I think there is a lot of wisdom in the holy books. I don't go for everything in them, but I do try to learn from them.

I know I used some laughing emoticons, but it was not meant to belittle. I do want to encourage open, thoughtful discussion.


----------



## treyvion

jld said:


> Only if you let other people define you.
> 
> Not every man gives other people the power to define him.
> 
> Do you feel powerless, treyvion?


NO, I don't.

However being in a bad situation versus a good one in a good one where your needs are met, you are looked at in a positive light and respected you will feel like a million bucks.

Say you manage yourself exactly the same, but consistently disrespected, looked at in a negative light, needs are not met you will not feel like a million bucks.

So the sum results of how your brain percieves you being treated DOES affect your state of mind. You'd have to be a jedi to not allow it.


----------



## jld

treyvion said:


> Go to a group who is gatekeeper for one of your paths... And say they heavily marginalize you and do not respect you...
> 
> It define you and can affect your psyche through all the negative reinforcement.


I am not sure what the first sentence means, but you should not hang with people if you don't feel good with them, treyvion. That is the beauty of a free society like America.

We all have negative forces around us. Did you see what one poster wrote about me earlier? I have had this happen countless times.

But I don't have to internalize what other people think. I can define myself, and think my own thoughts.


----------



## Stingray

EleGirl said:


> Why did you feel that you had to post that women have to submit to their husbands? It had nothing to do with anyone who has posting on this thread.


Au contraire. I originally brought up religion as a reason a man may have for refusing to divorce. Dad&Hubby deduced that I was talking about the Bible, specifically the New Testament, and brought up the Biblical commands for husbands to exercise headship. In response, I brought up the Biblical commands for wives to submit to their husbands. The headship/submission commands go hand in hand.



> A man is commanded to put her needs before his own and to serve his wife. That is another way that to say that he also submits to her needs.


Please quote chapter and verse commanding husbands to submit to their wives. If those words are in the Bible, I've missed them. I imagine that you're misinterpreting the commands for husbands to lead their wives as commands for husbands to submit to their wives.



> Now on to the bit about using the Bible to allow oneself to be abused. There is nothing in the Bible that tells anyone to do that. There are ways to deal with people who are overbearing and even emotionally abusive. These things work.


The New Testament commands couples not to divorce except for two reasons. Adultery and abandonment are the only reasons for divorce allowable in the New Testament. Abuse isn't given as one of the two allowable justifications for divorce. Now, separation would be allowable. And I agree that there are other tactics that can be tried within the marriage.


----------



## Thundarr

Stingray said:


> I brought up religion as one reason that a man could have for refusing to divorce an emasculating wife. And that led to several different people giving their own personal interpretations of the Bible's statements, and down the rabbit hole we went.


I'm sure religious conviction is the reason a lot of men and women stay in marriages that others wouldn't. It's kind of a mixed bad of good and bad for me. I think having that line in the sand gives the partner free reign to do and say anything and there's never fear of consequence. It turns into the nasty little spiral where because they treated you bad and you took it then they lose respect and treat you even worse.

Then again sometimes people use religion as an excuse because standing up can be scary.


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> I am not sure what the first sentence means, but you should not hang with people if you don't feel good with them, treyvion. That is the beauty of a free society like America.
> 
> We all have negative forces around us. Did you see what one poster wrote about me earlier? I have had this happen countless times.
> 
> But I don't have to internalize what other people think. I can define myself, and think my own thoughts.


I don't deny that there is some truth to this, but I think you carry it too far. Humans are human, and there's only so much most people can take without being affected. Not everything in every person's situation is 100% their own fault.


----------



## richie33

Watched my mother emasculate my father for decades. He basically was not allowed to have much relationship with his kids, they weren't divorced, same house. I just remember hearing my mother telling my father to " shut up, these are my kids" for many years when it came to raising us.You can guess how our relationship is now.


----------



## jld

treyvion said:


> NO, I don't.
> 
> However being in a bad situation versus a good one in a good one where your needs are met, you are looked at in a positive light and respected you will feel like a million bucks.
> 
> Say you manage yourself exactly the same, but consistently disrespected, looked at in a negative light, needs are not met you will not feel like a million bucks.
> 
> So the sum results of how your brain percieves you being treated DOES affect your state of mind. You'd have to be a jedi to not allow it.


What you need is support. And to start putting up defenses against her treatment. And to learn techniques for dealing with her, including active listening, when you are ready.

If you always let other people have the last word on who you are, trey, you will always be at their mercy. You will never be your own man.

And remember what MEM said? Because all this is so hard, you feel really proud of yourself when you accomplish it.


----------



## treyvion

jld said:


> I am not sure what the first sentence means, but you should not hang with people if you don't feel good with them, treyvion. That is the beauty of a free society like America.
> 
> We all have negative forces around us. Did you see what one poster wrote about me earlier? I have had this happen countless times.
> 
> But I don't have to internalize what other people think. I can define myself, and think my own thoughts.


I will attempt to say it differently:

Say for one of your endevours thats a priority to you.

You have to walk a path, and the path goes through a group or body of people.

This group decides to say that you are less than you are, not assist you, disrespect you, and also monitor you like a hawk, and actively works to set you back.

As part of the lack of support you are disrespected and treated less than as long as you are dealing with them.

And this is a path you decided to go and was the only way you were aware of to go.

If you continue on this path you will become marginalized which means diminished. It means your capabilities and you in your full self is not respected or utilized.

Over time, this can get into your psyche and affects how you feel about your self.


----------



## treyvion

jld said:


> What you need is support. And to start putting up defenses against her treatment. And to learn techniques for dealing with her, including active listening, when you are ready.
> 
> If you always let other people have the last word on who you are, trey, you will always be at their mercy. You will never be your own man.
> 
> And remember what MEM said? Because all this is so hard, you feel really proud of yourself when you accomplish it.


I was giving an example. This is not me.

I simply understand how this works, and it's best to have personal power and personal responsibiity. It's also best on top of this to have a strong base of external support.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> You don't have to let other people define you, Thundarr. You can define _yourself._


I wasn't implying that others define us. I've never liked the concept of emasculating because it's meaning is ambiguous. 

But I like nuclearnightmare's definition that emasculating is a gender specific synonym for humiliating. Anyone can be humiliated. But there needs to be h3ll to pay for it.


----------



## jld

treyvion said:


> I will attempt to say it differently:
> 
> Say for one of your endevours thats a priority to you.
> 
> You have to walk a path, and the path goes through a group or body of people.
> 
> This group decides to say that you are less than you are, not assist you, disrespect you, and also monitor you like a hawk, and actively works to set you back.
> 
> As part of the lack of support you are disrespected and treated less than as long as you are dealing with them.
> 
> And this is a path you decided to go and was the only way you were aware of to go.
> 
> If you continue on this path you will become marginalized which means diminished. It means your capabilities and you in your full self is not respected or utilized.
> 
> Over time, this can get into your psyche and affects how you feel about your self.


Yes, I understand this. Every person who has gone against the grain, simply because they thought it was the right thing to do, has felt this. 

It is hard. You question yourself big time. But even that is an opportunity for growth.

You don't have to stay where you don't feel like you are doing a service. And yes, you do need support.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> I wasn't implying that others define us. I've never liked the concept of emasculating because it's meaning is ambiguous.
> 
> But I like nuclearnightmare's definition that emasculating is a gender specific synonym for humiliating. Anyone can be humiliated. But there needs to be h3ll to pay for it.


It is just pride, Thundarr.

All the truly great men have had to look beyond their pride, and do the right thing. That is what made them great.

And they found out who their real friends were.


----------



## treyvion

jld said:


> Yes, I understand this. Every person who has gone against the grain, simply because they thought it was the right thing to do, has felt this.
> 
> It is hard. You question yourself big time. But even that is an opportunity for growth.
> 
> You don't have to stay where you don't feel like you are doing a service. And yes, you do need support.


If you do this you have to find your OASIS of support and good water


----------



## EleGirl

treyvion said:


> Your STILL a man, just LESS of a man before emasculation.


Is a woman less of a woman if her husband cheats? 

Does she really bear that responsibility?


----------



## MEM2020

Dug,
I think it would shake most men's belief in themselves. 

But then, I thought about this for a while. Asked myself what were some of the worst things M2 has said to me. 
- I want a divorce (said totally out of the blue)
Months later...
- I don't ever want to sleep with you again (also said totally out of the blue)

Both times I felt sad. But - not emasculated. It might sound crazy but both of those times I realized that it wasn't about me. I was confused. Because I didn't know what it was about. But somehow I was sure that it wasn't about me. 

And that enabled me to respond in a constructive fashion. M2 wanted WW3.

She expected resistance, aggression, pressure, anger and fear. 

And instead got immediate acceptance. 

Divorce? 
Oh, you don't want to be together anymore. Ok. I'm really going to miss you. Would you like me to get an apartment, or do you prefer to move out? 

And you're right Dug. I didn't feel emasculated at all. It wasn't about me. It was about her. 

Turns out, sanity can be just as contagious as craziness.





Duguesclin said:


> For me the result of emasculation, in reality or figuratively, means that something has been removed that makes you unable to be a man anymore.
> 
> I just do not comprehend how someone's wife's affair can make him suddenly not be a man.
> 
> If my wife had an affair, I would feel shame, I would be hurt, I would be angry, but I still would be a man in the whole sense of the term.


----------



## EleGirl

Stingray said:


> Au contraire. I originally brought up religion as a reason a man may have for refusing to divorce. Dad&Hubby deduced that I was talking about the Bible, specifically the New Testament, and brought up the Biblical commands for husbands to exercise headship. In response, I brought up the Biblical commands for wives to submit to their husbands. The headship/submission commands go hand in hand.


Why did you think it was necessary for you to tell women here on this thread that they have to submit to their husbands? It has nothing to do with the conversation here.



Stingray said:


> Please quote chapter and verse commanding husbands to submit to their wives. If those words are in the Bible, I've missed them. I imagine that you're misinterpreting the commands for husbands to lead their wives as commands for husbands to submit to their wives.


I won't discuss Biblical interpretation with you because your personal interpretation means nothing to anyone but you. I have also already stated that I will not discuss it here. 



Stingray said:


> The New Testament commands couples not to divorce except for two reasons. Adultery and abandonment are the only reasons for divorce allowable in the New Testament. Abuse isn't given as one of the two allowable justifications for divorce.


I won't discuss Biblical interpretation with you because your personal interpretation means nothing to anyone but you. I have also already stated that I will not discuss it here. 



Stingray said:


> Now, separation would be allowable. And I agree that there are other tactics that can be tried within the marriage.


This is what is on-topic for this thread.


----------



## that_girl

Isn't abuse abandonment in a way? I mean, if I'm being abused, I have been abandoned and no longer have a safe home to live in.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> It is just pride, Thundarr.
> 
> All the truly great men have had to look beyond their pride, and do the right thing. That is what made them great.
> 
> And they found out who their real friends were.


We must be coming at this with different context. If I'm off base on what you're saying feel free to correct me.

pride? I think you're saying a man's pride makes us quick to take offense and say we're being emasculated. And you're also saying great men are not slaves to their pride and therefore cannot be emasculated. My thought: If all men and women avoided being around people who treat them like crap then there's no need for a word like emasculate. Pride is a tangent topic IMO.


----------



## Thundarr

EleGirl said:


> Is a woman less of a woman if her husband cheats?
> 
> Does she really bear that responsibility?


IMO it's not a defining characteristic. It's a feeling. Men and women alike feel really small and insignificant at first when they've been cheated on. They feel humiliated and unsure. To me that's how men think it is to "feel emasculated". Again I don't know why we have that word. There are plenty of others that fit the bill and work for both genders.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Thundarr said:


> IMO it's not a defining characteristic. It's a feeling. Men and women alike feel really small and insignificant at first when they've been cheated on. They feel humiliated and unsure. To me that's men think it is to "feel emasculated".


I get what you're saying. I don't think its manly to lose control of your emotions for any reason. A lot of men don't. So anything that reminds you that you too are vulnerable would feel emasculating to a lot of men myself included. 

Its easy to say that one shouldn't _feel_ less of a man because they were cheated on, but the problem is most of us as men were taught we shouldn't _feel_. So when a lot of men are feeling pain we feel like we aren't behaving in the way a man should. Feeling anger would be more acceptable, but not pain. Y


----------



## Aspydad

that_girl said:


> When all that was written about marriage in the bible, weren't women also thought of as property and sent to marry with a dowry of cows and goats in order for the man to accept her?
> 
> lol Ok then.


You probably already know this, but for a very large part of the world today - that is exactly how it is.

Romantic Marriage is a very new concept relatively speaking.

Had lunch with a guy from Bangladesh just this week. He tells me he is married and has two young children. Got married about four years ago after he had been out of college a few years. I asked him if he met his wife in college. He says no – “I met my wife one day prior to marrying her.” I was like wow! - how’s that working for you? - he says "meh - so so." 

She gets maried and then moves to the other side of the world where she knows no one.

How submissive do you suppose his wife is?


----------



## that_girl

Sucks to be here. And I say that in all honesty.

He's not even happy about his life.

Lame.

Maybe she's not all that submissive since he thinks it's "meh. so so."


----------



## EleGirl

Thundarr said:


> IMO it's not a defining characteristic. It's a feeling. Men and women alike feel really small and insignificant at first when they've been cheated on. They feel humiliated and unsure. To me that's men think it is to "feel emasculated". Again I don't know why we have that word. There are plenty of others that fit the bill and work for both genders.


I think that many men think that what they feel and the assault on their masculinity is worse than what women feel/suffer from infidelity. I've actually had that conversation with some men.

I really do not think it's any different. But I think that many men tend to react differently because they feel that they need to save face. Women are more likely to internalize the hurt.


----------



## GusPolinski

that_girl said:


> And most men choose to walk away from a family. Most single moms do not choose to be single moms. That's on the men.


Speaking _very generally_, for every single mother out there, there is also a single dad... right?

Also, if it weren't "possible" to emasculate a man, why would the word even exist?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> *This is the thing. I would not be able to respect such a man, not in that way. If I cannot respect him, I cannot love him in that marital way.
> 
> I cannot trust myself to a man who I could "emasculate." I would always have to be watching out for his feelings, always careful with my words, always observant of my actions, lest he be damaged somehow*.


 I can understand what you mean here...I have never felt I had to walk on egg shells (that would annoy me with just friends let alone my Husband!).... I really DO let it ALL hang out.. and to be honest, sometimes I need to reign it in!... but he's told me he wouldn't change this about me. ..it's really why he trusts me so much.... he will take the GOOD with the Bad.. the scales have far more good.. so it's all Good !



> How would he ever be strong enough to protect me, if he is so fragile?
> 
> *I need someone stronger than myself for me to give myself to him.*


 I think all women would feel this...of course... I am with those who say "*the feeling*" of being emasculated could be a *temporary thing*...(and should be)...

I kinda see this in a light of stuffing men's feelings in a way (and JLD -you are for complete transparency) - but can a man REALLY GO THERE .. it doesn't seem so..

So Being a man means pushing it UNDER.. he is expected to swallow...well ideally...*work through* his fears, these damaging power dynamics -to not internalize.... but he must do this ALONE...this is what makes a man...a REAL MAN can shoulder whatever is thrown at him... it will certainly help if he had a strong foundation in his upbringing ! 

So Jld, if you read of a man speaking of feeling emasculated on TAM, or humilated...what do you see.. a Mouse.. no sympathy ??

I wonder at what age our sons are expected to have this transformation from the Boy to the MAN.....this is surely his deepest shame... to even speak of it..

Many instinctively KNOW their women may loose it on the floor, and fall apart inside to see him not having it all together... I guess...he has to be the brave one with the Front at all times.. Men need to beware of being too vulnerable with women.. maybe not such a good thing...??

Ya know...it talks in "No More Mr Nice Guy" and "Hold on to your N.U.T.S" how a man SHOULD NEVER SPEAK TO HIS WIFE about reading these books... to work it out all on his own, or a mentor, a small group of male supporters.... I was thinking when I read that...well this depends on the wife! ...I guess the author knows of what he speaks...... 

I don't consider my Husband weak, he never complains , he is selfless, giving , faithful, a man of his word... there is a bucket load of Respect there....

Now Had I attached myself to a man who played video games all day, told endless white lies...blew his money or drank it away... a lousy father..... honestly I'd probably eat him alive.. I'd have to get out -the disrespect that would fly out of my mouth --it wouldn't be pretty... but then again.. choosing someone like that -would be disrespecting myself & any life I wanted to build for my children....



> *And my husband does not agree that "all" men would feel emasculated by infidelity. Hurt, disrespected, disillusioned? Yes. Emasculated? No*.


 Was just talking to my husband about this thread... about this - imagining how he might FEEL.. if I cheated on him.. if he would feel emasculated or like your H said.. HURT, disrespected , disillusioned.. he would be ANGRY..he'd never look at me the same again...yet he couldn't answer if he could separate these emotions.....he ends up saying " you are making my brain work too hard... do you see the smoke coming out".. ha ha 



Stingray said:


> *True. But our nature is to internalize these things. Especially for men. If a husband mistreats his wife in public, everyone thinks he's a jerk. If a wife mistreats her husband in public, everyone thinks he's weak. And he will naturally feel weak because of it*.


Ok truth time... I asked him IF he ever felt emasculated by me.. he thought for a moment and said YES... it was a long time ago and I went off on him in public, in a store... he cant remember what about, or the store...*just how it made him FEEL*.... I don't remember this either.. 

He felt humiliated and embarrassed... He didn't talk to me about it afterwards either .. so I was a bad wife !!.... though I don't feel he internalized this -as he brushed it off on *MY BAD BEHAVIOR* -which it was.. (I had my moments of being frustrated & grouchy those yrs I couldn't conceive  - sometimes he got the brunt of this...and it wasn't his fault!!)... he said that was the only time he felt that way .... even when he wanted more sex (never anything near sexless) -this was just HURT, some resentment there, but not "emasculating"..



> *Tall Average Guy said*: *Define sacrifice. Because a lot of those men who allow themselves to be emasculated probably think they are sacrificing for her.
> 
> I am with MEM regarding no patience for victimhood. But it goes both ways, as does accountability*.


 I heartily agree.. :iagree:


----------



## that_girl

GusPolinski said:


> Speaking _very generally_, for every single mother out there, there is also a single dad... right?


Um. What? lol.

And I think the OP wondered if it is an internal or external factor that emasculates a man.


----------



## GusPolinski

that_girl said:


> And I think the OP wondered if it is an internal or external factor that emasculates a man.


It's both. An external stimulus triggers an internal reaction.


----------



## that_girl

I wonder how many men are single dads in the aspect of having the children 24/7 or there abouts and having to do 90% of the work or more.

Sure my dad was single. And he was a dad. But that didn't make him a single dad. Same with my ex. He's single. He's the father of my daughter but he's no "dad".


----------



## Caribbean Man

This thread is running and running!

A question just popped into my head, and i don't mean it as a threadjack.

But what is the female version to male " emasculation?"


----------



## GusPolinski

that_girl said:


> I wonder how many men are single dads in the aspect of having the children 24/7 or there abouts and having to do 90% of the work or more.
> 
> Sure my dad was single. And he was a dad. But that didn't make him a single dad. Same with my ex. He's single. He's the father of my daughter but he's no "dad".


Honestly I couldn't say but, I'd think that, whenever mom doesn't have the kids, dad has them, and then he's in the same boat. That's assuming, of course, that he isn't an absolute deadbeat.


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> I wonder how many men are single dads in the aspect of having the children 24/7 or there abouts and having to do 90% of the work or more.
> 
> Sure my dad was single. And he was a dad. But that didn't make him a single dad. Same with my ex. He's single. He's the father of my daughter but he's no "dad".


Technically a single dad/mom is a person who is raising child(ren) without the other parent involved.


----------



## EleGirl

GusPolinski said:


> Honestly I couldn't say but, I'd think that, when mom didn't have the kids, dad would have them, and then he'd be in the same boat. Assuming, of course, that he isn't just an absolute deadbeat.


When 2 parents are sharing custody, either has the child all the time. So neither is raising the child on their own.


----------



## GusPolinski

EleGirl said:


> Technically a single dad/mom is a person who is raising child(ren) without the other parent involved.


I don't know that I've ever heard the terms "single mom" or "single dad" used in such a way that would cause me to infer that. Or maybe I've just been thinking that they refer to a mom or dad that is not married.


----------



## that_girl

GusPolinski said:


> Honestly I couldn't say but, I'd think that, whenever mom doesn't have the kids, dad has them, and then he's in the same boat. Assuming, of course, that he isn't just an absolute deadbeat.


When I think single mom, I think of a woman raising people while the man either sends a check, or not. Maybe he gets a weekend or something but that's hardly being a parent. Parents are people who are there as much as possible and deal with all of life-- not just weekends.

I was a co-parent for 5 years. Her dad had her 1/2 the week and it was great. He was present. All conferences, all performances, homework, baths, drama...discipline. It was balls to the wall parenting for he and I. Then he just left. So I was a single mom for 2 years. Did it on my own. Now he doesn't really see her at all (once a year for a week because he moved 2 states away). I'm not a single mom because I'm married, but still. He's no single dad.


----------



## GusPolinski

that_girl said:


> When I think single mom, I think of a woman raising people while the man either sends a check, or not. Maybe he gets a weekend or something but that's hardly being a parent. Parents are people who are there as much as possible and deal with all of life-- not just weekends.
> 
> I was a co-parent for 5 years. Her dad had her 1/2 the week and it was great. He was present. All conferences, all performances, homework, baths, drama...discipline. It was balls to the wall parenting for he and I. Then he just left. So I was a single mom for 2 years. Did it on my own. Now he doesn't really see her at all (once a year for a week because he moved 2 states away). I'm not a single mom because I'm married, but still. He's no single dad.


Fair enough. I guess I'm just a bit out-of-date regarding the terminology.


----------



## that_girl

Mrs. John Adams said:


> You may emasculate a man with a figurative 'emasculation' but the word literally means taking his se* organ and removing it. Equivalent for women is called female genital abuse, and is an initiation rite in some countries to this day. It is a human rights violation to perform this act, and many women's rights groups are rightly fighting this.


Which is why when a man seems "Whipped" by his woman, they say she has his balls in her purse or in a jar under the sink. We've all heard that before. I cringe when I do.

I think for a woman, there is no word because women are "supposed" to be weaker and milder. Who cares if she doesn't feel "feminine". Am I wrong?

They tend to slap the word "abuse" on women when they are treated this way. Emotional abuse. Verbal abuse. Mental abuse. It's just as debilitating and cruel. So usually the woman gets the label "victim" or "abuse survivor" when she finally leaves (if she does).

Either way, I think it's upsetting that people who supposedly "love" one another would ever want to break their mates down so low that they don't feel like a complete, wonderful, amazing being. It's soul sucking and it's wrong.


----------



## that_girl

e·mas·cu·late
iˈmaskyəˌlāt/
verb
verb: emasculate; 3rd person present: emasculates; past tense: emasculated; past participle: emasculated; gerund or present participle: emasculating

make (a person, idea, or piece of legislation) weaker or less effective.
"our winner-take-all elections emasculate fringe parties"
synonyms:	weaken, enfeeble, debilitate, erode, undermine, cripple; More
remove the sting from, pull the teeth out of;
informalwater down
"the opposition emasculated the committee's proposal"
* deprive (a man) of his male role or identity.*
"he feels emasculated because he cannot control his sons' behavior"
archaic
castrate (a man or male animal).
Botany
remove the anthers from a flower.


----------



## that_girl

A female would just be disempowered? Is that a word? LOL I dunno.

But the whole sexual revolution had woman trying to empower themselves because for so long they were told their place and were expected to accept it.


----------



## EleGirl

GusPolinski said:


> I don't know that I've ever heard the terms "single mom" or "single dad" used in such a way that would imply that. Or maybe I've just been thinking that they refer to a mom or dad that is not married.


"Single" mom/dad can mean a parent who is not married.

However it's often used to mean a parent who is raising a child without the other parent involved whether the parents were ever married or not.

Than other people use it to women when they have the primary custody of a child even if the father is very involved. I think this definition is wrong because it minimizes the effort the father contributes.


----------



## that_girl

That's why I always said I'm a CO-PARENT when her dad was in it with me.

.....

I did find that an equivalent to emasculate is defeminate. Still not a word? hahaha. But I don't think this to be true.

I think trying to take the SELF out of anyone is what the core of this is. Trying to break someone. Trying to take away power. Trying to make someone live beneath you in status. 

male or female, it's wrong.


----------



## GusPolinski

Question... What term would a man or woman who is both single and a parent (and, presumably, an involved parent) use to describe himself or herself to others? I ask because I don't believe that I've ever heard anyone mention in conversation that he or she is a "co-parent"; I've only ever heard "I'm a single mom" or "I'm a single dad".


----------



## that_girl

GusPolinski said:


> Question... What term would a man or woman who is both single and a parent (and, presumably, an involved parent) use to describe himself or herself to others? I ask because I've never heard anyone mention in conversation that he or she is a "co-parent". I've only ever heard "I'm a single mom" or "I'm a single dad".


Well, however they want to describe themselves is up to them. But when I hear "single mom/dad", I assume the other parent isn't around.

My daughter's best friend is raised by her dad. Single dad. Mom took off when child was a year old. Drug user.

I liked using co-parent because it was exactly what I was. He was a GREAT FATHER when he was one. I didn't want to diminish that or make people think something that wasn't true (that I was single. And a mom. AND the dad wasn't around.)


----------



## GusPolinski

Ugh. I should've listened to the nagging voice in my head that's been telling me to just stay out of this thread. Some of the posts in the first half are so frustrating that I cannot muster the presence of mind to respond intelligently to them.


----------



## that_girl

Mrs. John Adams said:


> that girl...you are correct...to be so selfish that you would do that to the person you love is beyond comprehension...and sadly...i have done it...


Well, imo, it is not love. It's not even selfish. It's beyond that. It's the need to control something because one cannot find control within themselves. Happy people don't treat other people like crap...they just don't!

When someone has to dominate over another that they "love", that is not love. That is a reflection of the one trying to dominate the other...low self esteem, etc. It is not love. That person doesn't love themselves so how could they possibly show love for another person? 

Love doesn't want to win or break someone. Love wants to celebrate and lift people up...sure things can get crunchy at times, but LOVE makes sure that you can work it out respectfully and with love. 

That's just how I see it anyway. Anything short of love isn't love and THAT has been my work lately. Words are cheap. Just because someone says they LOVE you, doesn't mean it's true. Sure they may love that you're around for them to abuse, but they do not love you. The do not love YOU as a beautiful being all your own.


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> This thread is running and running!
> 
> A question just popped into my head, and i don't mean it as a threadjack.
> 
> But what is the female version to male " emasculation?"


Maybe when a man would say he's being emasculated, a woman in the same circumstance would say she's being emotionally abused. But it's not a direct correlation. I still think emasculation is almost the same thing as humiliation.


----------



## Philat

Hell yes it's possible. I believe the essence of the concept has to do with the subject's social or familial role, standing, status etc. (in other words, how he is perceived by others and himself) rather than some inviolable inner self. Degrading or negating this stature (humiliation, as Thundarr suggests, is an example) constitutes emasculation. The wife who cheats on her husband emasculates him in the eyes of those who know (including the husband himself if he knows). The family breadwinner in an earlier age was emasculated if he lost his job or means to support his family. His identity as the family's means of support was taken from him.

That which constitutes masculinity in the familial and social sense may have changed over time, but it can still be taken away. Emasculation makes one less masculine (a social concept), not less male (an inherent characteristic).

My two cents.


----------



## Thundarr

that_girl said:


> Love wants to celebrate and lift people up...sure things can get crunchy at times,


ewww, you reminded me of a joke.

So this sleaze ball goes to a brothel. Ends up in a dark room with a woman but then stops. 
Her; hey what's up? 
Him; I don't know, it's .... scratchy or something (crunchy). 
Her: wait a sec; then they start back it's like magic. 
Him: Afterwards: that was awesome, what did you do? 
Her: I picked off the scabs.
Her: smiles.
Him: frowns.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

EleGirl said:


> Is a woman less of a woman if her husband cheats?
> 
> Does she really bear that responsibility?


I think she would feel devalued, yes. Feel like less of a person.


----------



## that_girl

Thundarr said:


> ewww, you reminded me of a joke.
> 
> So this sleaze ball goes to a brothel. Ends up in a dark room with a woman but then stops.
> Her; hey what's up?
> Him; I don't know, it's .... scratchy or something (crunchy).
> Her: wait a sec; then they start back it's like magic.
> Him: Afterwards: that was awesome, what did you do?
> Her: I picked off the scabs.
> Her: smiles.
> Him: frowns.


............................................... :banhim:





:rofl:


----------



## Thundarr

that_girl said:


> ............................................... :banhim:
> :rofl:


Clearly it was a tale of karma. Na just an intrusive thought. I'm taking chantix now so I pull the intrusive thoughts card.


----------



## MEM2020

Mrs J,

I like you. Always have. 

I get why you had the affair. It made you feel special. 

But I don't understand why you told your H that the other man was hotter than he was. I don't understand why you described the affair in a manner that seemed intentionally hurtful to Mr. J.

The affair - is like robbery - you get something good from it.

But the manner in which you described it, felt like vandalism. You crushed him - the guy who loved you. But I don't see how that benefitted you. 






Mrs. John Adams said:


> that girl...you are certainly entitled to believe what you believe...
> I can speak for no one but myself...


----------



## nuclearnightmare

that_girl said:


> Which is why when a man seems "Whipped" by his woman, they say she has his balls in her purse or in a jar under the sink. We've all heard that before. I cringe when I do.
> 
> I think for a woman, there is no word because women are "supposed" to be weaker and milder. Who cares if she doesn't feel "feminine". Am I wrong?
> 
> They tend to slap the word "abuse" on women when they are treated this way. Emotional abuse. Verbal abuse. Mental abuse. It's just as debilitating and cruel. So usually the woman gets the label "victim" or "abuse survivor" when she finally leaves (if she does).
> 
> Either way, I think it's upsetting that people who supposedly "love" one another would ever want to break their mates down so low that they don't feel like a complete, wonderful, amazing being. It's soul sucking and it's wrong.


I think you have a point here. Both strength and weakness are acceptable states for a woman. For a man, strength only. So emasculation has no real equivalent for a woman. The woman can be humiliated and feel less human, less valued as well result. But not less "feminine" per se.


----------



## Thundarr

MEM11363 said:


> Mrs J,
> 
> I like you. Always have.
> 
> I get why you had the affair. It made you feel special.
> 
> But I don't understand why you told your H that the other man was hotter than he was. I don't understand why you described the affair in a manner that seemed intentionally hurtful to Mr. J.
> 
> The affair - is like robbery - you get something good from it.
> 
> But the manner in which you described it, felt like vandalism. You crushed him - the guy who loved you. But I don't see how that benefitted you.


I won't answer for MJ but transparency dictates someone answering questions in a way that lets the BS know any question asked will be honestly and fully answered. I suspect when WSs avoid trickle truth then the BS learns quickly to stop asking questions that are better left un-asked. It's the trust that questions will be answered that's most important IMO.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Is a woman less of a woman if her husband cheats?
> Of course not.
> Does she really bear that responsibility?


He cheated. He owns it. 

Her reaction to it is on her.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> pride? *I think you're saying a man's pride makes us quick to take offense and say we're being emasculated. And you're also saying great men are not slaves to their pride and therefore cannot be emasculated. * My thought: If all men and women avoided being around people who treat them like crap then there's no need for a word like emasculate. Pride is a tangent topic IMO.


Yes, I think pride has a lot to do with it, especially when we are talking about other people's reaction. If the couple were on a deserted island the rest of their lives, I think they would not worry about what other people would think.

I think secure men cannot feel "emasculated." 

What do you think secure _means?_


----------



## EleGirl

nuclearnightmare said:


> I think you have a point here. Both strength and weakness are acceptable states for a woman. For a man, strength only. So emasculation has no real equivalent for a woman. The woman can be humiliated and feel less human, less valued as well result. But not less "feminine" per se.


You obviously have no clue what women feel when they find out that they have been cheated on. yes feeling like she has no value, or less "feminine" is one of the feelings. It's one of the major feelings.


----------



## that_girl

jld said:


> He cheated. He owns it.
> 
> Her reaction to it is on her.


Most don't "own it" as you say. This causes a lot more pain than the act itself...at least for me it did (Old LTR). The lies, the way they make you feel crazy when you ask questions, all of it. If they simply "owned it" it would probably be a lot better.

Her reaction is on her. But it's still not easy or something that one gets over right away. I'd cope a hell of a lot better now than I did as a younger woman. Yet it's still a stab to the heart and that takes time to heal.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> He cheated. He owns it.
> 
> Her reaction to it is on her.


My point is that a men and women are not devalued when their spouse cheats. 

The BS might feel bad, but they are not devalued.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I kinda see this in a light of stuffing men's feelings in a way (and JLD -you are for complete transparency) - but can a man REALLY GO THERE .. it doesn't seem so.. It could be that many men cannot, right now. But if we don't challenge them to, they may never even try.
> 
> So Being a man means pushing it UNDER.. he is expected to swallow...well ideally...*work through* his fears, these damaging power dynamics -to not internalize.... but he must do this ALONE...this is what makes a man...a REAL MAN can shoulder whatever is thrown at him... it will certainly help if he had a strong foundation in his upbringing ! Men used to be asked to do hard things, SA. Why not now?
> 
> And working on his character offers so many lifelong benefits. A secure man knows freedom in a way an insecure man will never know.
> 
> Insecure men are dependent on other people's reaction to them, not their own independent assessment of themselves.
> 
> So Jld, if you read of a man speaking of feeling emasculated on TAM, or humilated...what do you see.. a Mouse.. no sympathy ??
> I have felt sorry for some of these guys, the humble ones. They come on and they are really lost. They need comfort, and guidance, and support.
> 
> They need to be told that they are be responsible for the way they choose to handle this. They can make their lives more difficult, or easier, depending on how they proceed.
> 
> When I see the prideful ones who are stuck in anger and bitterness and blaming for months or years or decades . . . I just think they are lost, and yes, extremely weak.
> 
> Many instinctively KNOW their women may loose it on the floor, and fall apart inside to see him not having it all together... I guess...he has to be the brave one with the Front at all times.. Men need to beware of being too vulnerable with women.. maybe not such a good thing...??
> 
> I think he needs to be himself. He needs to feel his feelings. And he needs to own his recovery.
> 
> His recovery is not his wife's responsibility. It is his.
> 
> She owns her affair and her own recovery. Each tub must stand on its own bottom.
> 
> *Honestly, if there is emasculation, I think men do it to themselves.*


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> This thread is running and running!
> 
> A question just popped into my head, and i don't mean it as a threadjack.
> 
> But what is the female version to male " emasculation?"


Well, according to Wikipedia, emasculation is the removal of the male sex organs, the penis and testicles. Certainly the removal of the testicles was practiced for centuries (eunuchs).

So I guess the female equivalent would be a complete hysterectomy, and removal of the clitoris.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Well, according to Wikipedia, emasculation is the removal of the male sex organs, the penis and testicles. Certainly the removal of the testicles was practiced for centuries (eunuchs).
> 
> So I guess the female equivalent would be a complete hysterectomy, and removal of the clitoris.


If you're looking for the female equivalent of the textbook definition of emasculation, don't forget about the ovaries, which would be the female analog to the testes.


----------



## that_girl

Emasculation also means depriving a man of his male role.


----------



## GusPolinski

that_girl said:


> Emasculation also means depriving a man of his male role.


Or of any measure of the pride and satisfaction that comes w/ such.


----------



## that_girl

GusPolinski said:


> If you're looking for the female equivalent of the textbook definition of emasculation, don't forget about the ovaries, which would be the female analog to the testes.


It is the removal of the uterus. Many woman remove this and are still feminine. 

I have one ovary. I'm not half a woman  

I think for woman, in the physical sense of removal-- removing her breasts would be as bad as rremoving a man's penis.

Both are "out there". No one knows I have one ovary unless I tell them. But if I had no breasts...if they were removed...I would feel more self conscious...just as a man would if he lost his penis.

Please, take my uterus! It's infected and causes me much pain and suffering


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> When i told my husband all those hurtful things....we were laying in bed in the dark....he was asking me questions...and i was answering him.
> I talk too much...always have...I could not see his reaction to the things i was saying....and i was nervous...which i talk even more when i am nervous...i was rattling.....and he was silent...he laid there as i rattled...quietly...no response...and i just kept talking.
> I don't even remember all the things i said...but he does....he played them over and over in his mind
> 
> I am not making excuses...please please do not misunderstand me....I was vile....totally so unfeeling...as i said all those terrible terrible things to him....
> 
> and yet...he still wanted me...don't you see? even after what i had done this man...who i destroyed still loved ...me.
> 
> I can never explain how sorry i am ...how if i could...i would do anything to undo what i have done....how i understand the gift he has given me....how i will never take for granted his love and forgiveness.


Mrs. Adams, I wish I could somehow convince you to absolve yourself of your sin. I think you finished serving your penance a long time ago.

You were transparent with him. He asked, and you gave him everything in your heart. 

What he chose to do with it _is on him._


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> If you're looking for the female equivalent of the textbook definition of emasculation, don't forget about the ovaries, which would be the female analog to the testes.


Does a complete hysterectomy not include the ovaries?


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> I think secure men cannot feel "emasculated."
> 
> What do you think secure _means?_


Security is a state of mind so a secure person can have moments of insecurity. That's why I think it's best to apply logic over emotion when possible. Many secure adult children have to face this when their parents divorce or when they find out things their mom or dad has done. Foundation shaking information usually brings about some level of insecurity in everyone. Having a spouse cheat for example is another foundation shaking event.

So what does security mean? It means a person feels worthy. They feel worthy even knowing that the right partner can make them a better person.


----------



## that_girl

Or maybe taking away a woman's ability to have children.

Or losing her vaginal cavity (this happened to a HS friend of mine who had a weird cancer and they had to cut out her vagina and recreate it   )


----------



## that_girl

jld said:


> Does a complete hysterectomy not include the ovaries?


Yes...and the cervix....oye. There was a time I had to think about this. I was scared shetless. I am not ready for menopause. Or the inability to orgasm, as that can happen without the cervix in tact.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Does a complete hysterectomy not include the ovaries?


Does it? Now I'm not so sure. I honestly thought that it was the removal of only the uterus.


----------



## that_girl

One must find inner security. And that's hard to do. It's part of my self-work though.

In this moment I am ok. I am ok in this moment.

I have said that to myself 1,000 a day at some points lately.


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> Or maybe taking away a woman's ability to have children.
> 
> Or losing her vaginal cavity (this happened to a HS friend of mine who had a weird cancer and they had to cut out her vagina and recreate it   )


Right. These are all physical acts that definitely create a loss. Removal of the breasts, complete hysterectomy, infertility, vaginal cavity, yep, a definite, permanent loss.

Hurt feelings, even deeply, deeply hurt feelings, on the other hand, are much more easily repaired.


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> One must find inner security. And that's hard to do. It's part of my self-work though.


:iagree:

Developing it, and maintaining it, is work for all of us. And only we can do it.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> Security is a state of mind so a secure person can have moments of insecurity. That's why I think it's best to apply logic over emotion when possible. Many secure adult children have to face this when their parents divorce or when they find out things their mom or dad has done. Foundation shaking information usually brings about some level of insecurity in everyone. Having a spouse cheat for example is another foundation shaking event.
> 
> So what does security mean? It means a person feels worthy. They feel worthy even knowing that the right partner can make them a better person.


Well, when I think of security, I think of a secure building. It is protected from outside elements. It is safe inside. Think of a well-secured fortress.

Things may be crazy and uncontrollable outside, but inside, it is warm and snug. Inside, it is peaceful.


----------



## over20

GusPolinski said:


> Ugh. Somehow I knew that I should have just stayed out of this thread. Some of the posts in the first half are so frustrating that I cannot muster the presence of mind to respond intelligently to them.


Brings back bad memories of the 102 pg thread eventually closed by French Fry.. posted by the OP about how a cheating wife gets pregnant by OM and should expect a husband to forgive and raise the OM baby...hmmm


----------



## norajane

that_girl said:


> Or maybe taking away a woman's ability to have children.


Infertility makes a lot of women feel "less than." (I think some men also might feel emasculated if they are the ones who are infertile.)

At the same time, if a woman chooses not to have kids, she might get attitude from some people wondering what's wrong with her for not wanting kids, and that it's unfeminine or unwomanly to not want to be a mother. They may not be trying to make her feel "less than" a woman, but by being so shocked that such a woman exists, that's how it comes across.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Well, when I think of security, I think of a secure building. It is protected from outside elements. It is safe inside. Think of a well-secured fortress.
> 
> Things may be crazy and uncontrollable outside, but inside, it is warm and snug. Inside, it is peaceful.


There are few buildings "secure" enough to weather something as fierce as a _category 5 *hurricane*_ w/o suffering significant structural damage. And for some time after the storm clears, words like "warm", "snug", and "peaceful" are little more than pleasant memories.

I will now wait for ^this to be twisted into a passive-aggressive snipe.


----------



## that_girl

jld said:


> Well, when I think of security, I think of a secure building. It is protected from outside elements. It is safe inside. Think of a well-secured fortress.
> 
> Things may be crazy and uncontrollable outside, but inside, it is warm and snug. Inside, it is peaceful.


And that is similar to what I envision when I center myself. Me. On a rock. The storm blows around me. But I am centered.

I can't tell you how much that has helped me. 

My therapist helped me a ton. The one thing I take from her that really started my process of self-work 3 years ago was: You cannot control others, you can only control yourself.

Things that happen, good and bad, and how I react is all within me. When bad things happen, I center myself then allow myself to feel all the things. I feel them until I'm done feeling them and then I ask myself, which of these feelings serve me as a being? Sometimes none of them do so I work on releasing them. Other times, some emotions do serve me so I go from there.

I am proud of my work on myself. Not in a "haha Im better than all you mortals!" Lol but in a "holy crap I am doing it.!"

Before all this, storms controlled me. It was no way to live. I felt like I was at the whim of everything and I was bad at expressing myself in a loving but firm way. I was bad at feeling things. I tried to control everything and everyone and I was not a nice person.

Before, anything my husband did was felt as a direct insult to me. Now, I know who I am and so his actions, while not pleasing sometimes, fall flat on me because I know they are not about me...but about him. I can only control myself.

My process of work is far from over...but now I love doing it...at first it was scary and counterintuitive. Now it's just who I am.


----------



## GusPolinski

over20 said:


> Brings back bad memories of the 102 pg thread eventually closed by French Fry.. posted by the OP about how a cheating wife gets pregnant by OM and should expect a husband to forgive and raise the OM baby...hmmm


Yep, we've certainly done this "dance" before.

Ah, the memories...


----------



## MEM2020

Mrs. J,
I've always liked you because it's obvious you have a good heart. That's a lot of why you and Mr. J really love each other.

I've said some things to M2 I truly wish I could take back. I think that's true for all of us. 

Long term Love always comes with some deep pain. It just does. 

You two are both lucky to have each other. 




Mrs. John Adams said:


> When i told my husband all those hurtful things....we were laying in bed in the dark....he was asking me questions...and i was answering him.
> I talk too much...always have...I could not see his reaction to the things i was saying....and i was nervous...which i talk even more when i am nervous...i was rattling.....and he was silent...he laid there as i rattled...quietly...no response...and i just kept talking.
> I don't even remember all the things i said...but he does....he played them over and over in his mind
> 
> I am not making excuses...please please do not misunderstand me....I was vile....totally so unfeeling...as i said all those terrible terrible things to him....
> 
> and yet...he still wanted me...don't you see? even after what i had done this man...who i destroyed still loved ...me.
> 
> I can never explain how sorry i am ...how if i could...i would do anything to undo what i have done....how i understand the gift he has given me....how i will never take for granted his love and forgiveness.


----------



## jld

Mrs. Adams, the way I am with my husband is how I would be with any man in a relationship. It is my sexuality, my essence. I can't repress it.

My husband does not need it, Mrs. Adams. He does not ask for it. I have to give it, for my own fulfillment.

If my husband were Mr. Adams, he would tell you that you paid the price many years ago, Mrs. Adams. You don't owe him anymore. 

He would tell you to take off the hair shirt (medieval garment of penance) you have worn for 30 years. 

He would pick you up off your knees, Mrs. Adams, and carry _you._


----------



## Duguesclin

GusPolinski said:


> There are few buildings "secure" enough to weather something as fierce as a _category 5 *hurricane*_ w/o suffering significant structural damage. And for some time after the storm clears, words like "warm", "snug", and "peaceful" are little more than pleasant memories.
> 
> I will now wait for ^this to be twisted into a passive-aggressive snipe.


An affair is no category 5 hurricane.


----------



## GusPolinski

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Jld... You have no idea...


Mrs. Adams, this is really all that you needed to say.


----------



## over20

Yep..and we are only on pg 22..should we start making bets now? I can put a in a $50...I think this thread won't make it to 40 pgs...TAMer's are tired of this kind of debate.


----------



## that_girl

norajane said:


> Infertility makes a lot of women feel "less than." (I think some men also might feel emasculated if they are the ones who are infertile.)
> 
> At the same time, if a woman chooses not to have kids, she might get attitude from some people wondering what's wrong with her for not wanting kids, and that it's unfeminine or unwomanly to not want to be a mother. They may not be trying to make her feel "less than" a woman, but by being so shocked that such a woman exists, that's how it comes across.


Oh yes. I have a child-free friend who loves her live with her husband and cat. You wouldn't believe what people say to her face simply because she does not want children.

Then I have friends who are single and older and never had children. Their pain is real too.

That's why I wish I could donate fertility. I really do. I am fertile and yet done with having babies AND my uterus is so scarred and yucky, having another baby would be a bad idea anyway. 



Ahhh life. How bittersweet it is.


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> An affair is no category 5 hurricane.


This may very well be true for _some men_, but not for those of us who can actually be bothered to invest ourselves emotionally w/ regard to our wives, marriages, and families.

By the way, are you monogamous? Is your wife?


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> Brings back bad memories of the 102 pg thread eventually closed by French Fry.. posted by the OP about how a cheating wife gets pregnant by OM and should expect a husband to forgive and raise the OM baby...hmmm


That's not what she said in the thread. She said that her husband is raising her child from a previous relationship. She also said that she believes that if she had a child from an affair that she believes her husband would not take it out on the child and raise the child. Keep in mind that she has never had an affair so her thoughts on that are speculative.

Then she asked what others thought.


----------



## that_girl

Gus, I don't think it's passive aggressive to think that the comforts of security become a distant memory after a marital crisis (Whatever it is).

I certainly felt like they were distant memories when my husband walked out on us 3 years ago without warning. Just got an apartment and left. Boom.

Then I started realizing that those feelings of security shouldn't be expected to come from someone else, just myself. Sure, someone can help make things stronger, but my security has to be mine. Something no one can take away with selfish behavior.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> Yep..and we are only on pg 22..should we start making bets now? I can put a in a $50...I think this thread won't make it to 40 pgs...TAMer's are tired of this kind of debate.


If you don't like the topic of this thread, then don't participate.

As far as I've seen, this is the only thread we've had on whether or not one person and 'emasculate' another. 

But hey, you do what whatever you want.


----------



## Duguesclin

GusPolinski said:


> This may very well be true for _some men_, but not for those of us who can actually be bothered to invest ourselves emotionally w/ regard to our wives, marriages, and families.
> 
> By the way, are you monogamous? Is your wife?


I feel sorry for people that have to go through an affair. I have not experienced it but I am sure it is very painful. 

But you should keep things in perspective, there are actually a lot of worse things that can happen. For example I had a colleague that was in flight AF447 that disappeared over the Atlantic. I am sure her husband would have preferred dealing with an affair than dealing with this.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> That's not what she said in the thread. She said that her husband is raising her child from a previous relationship. She also said that she believes that if she had a child from an affair that she believes her husband would not take it out on the child and raise the child. Keep in mind that she has never had an affair so her thoughts on that are speculative.
> 
> Then she asked what others thought.


No, I only have children with my husband. We have been married 20 years, and have five children, age 19 down to 5.

Yes, we both said we would accept a child from an affair by the other. I did say that if the mother were still alive, I would want my husband to divorce me and go be with her. I would not feel right having a young mother by herself.

We are monogamous.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Duguesclin said:


> I feel sorry for people that have to go through an affair. I have not experienced it but I am sure it is very painful.
> 
> But you should keep things in perspective, there are actually a lot of worse things that can happen. For example I had a colleague that was in flight AF447 that disappeared over the Atlantic. I am sure her husband would have preferred dealing with an affair than dealing with this.


Is pain really comparable though?
I'm personally not sure it is.


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> Then I started realizing that those feelings of security shouldn't be expected to come from someone else, just myself. Sure, someone can help make things stronger, but my security has to be mine. Something no one can take away with selfish behavior.


:iagree:


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> That's not what she said in the thread. She said that her husband is raising her child from a previous relationship. She also said that she believes that if she had a child from an affair that she believes her husband would not take it out on the child and raise the child. Keep in mind that she has never had an affair so her thoughts on that are speculative.
> 
> Then she asked what others thought.


Oh please.. is what I am going to say for now...if a man would have posted the VERY SAME ISSUE...meaning that a WH cheats and gets the OW pregnant and should expect his loving wife to accept the innocent baby and forgive him.....

I call BS....that thread was 102 pgs long....demeaning men for NOT accepting a WW love child...re read it.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> No, I only have children with my husband. We have been married 20 years, and have five children, age 19 down to 5.
> 
> Yes, we both said we would accept a child from an affair by the other. I did say that if the mother were still alive, I would want my husband to divorce me and go be with her. I would not feel right having a young mother by herself.
> 
> We are monogamous.


Thanks for correcting that. I do remember however the basics of your post.. that he would be willing to accept a child from an affair. I have a lot of respect for both of you for this stance.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Jld said* : And working on his character offers so many lifelong benefits.


 I am ALL for working on Character.. (women too of course).....I think your husband would enjoy my thread on this...swing it past him ... 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...thy-praise-honor-minus-alpha-beta-debate.html

Though I think all men struggle with some of those --but I don't think we need to throw them under the bus for it...we are only human after all.. if my H was perfect, I'd feel more imperfect in his presence...



> I think he needs to be himself. He needs to feel his feelings. And he needs to own his recovery.
> 
> His recovery is not his wife's responsibility. It is his.
> 
> She owns her affair and her own recovery. Each tub must stand on its own bottom.


 Do you really think it is wrong or weakness for a couple to WANT to help each other muddle through this...all the heartbreaking emotions..and how one/ they may have hurt each other (no story is alike).....I can't go there....I completely understand Mrs John Adams post to you... utterly.. I would BE and feel just as she does had I been in her shoes.. 

So if the man cheated... do you see it the same, the wife should stand tall and not need his ongoing love, re-assurance .. or is it different for the woman...because she is more vulnerable and emotionally weaker? Is this another double standard ? 

To really listen/ hear their stories of those who have waded through it and came out the other side.. and are happy and thriving today, how can we tell them they did it wrong... if they are content and view it differently than yourself.. ya know.. they are one of the marital success stories!! 

Again, I ask...does our individual views really matter on this?.. .. if the Love and will is there.... if one WANTS to help the other stand..if they are both benefiting ..and the feedback loop has been this thriving energizing gift to each other wrapped in forgiveness.. and reawakened passion ...


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Thanks for correcting that. I do remember however the basics of your post.. that he would be willing to accept a child from an affair. I have a lot of respect for both of you for this stance.


Thanks, Ele. 

We just feel like the children have to come first.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> Oh please.. is what I am going to say for now...if a man would have posted the VERY SAME ISSUE...meaning that a WH cheats and gets the OW pregnant and should expect his loving wife to accept the innocent baby and forgive him.....
> 
> I call BS....that thread was 102 pgs long....demeaning men for NOT accepting a WW love child...re read it.


No if a man posted saying that his wife would accept a love child as would she and asked what others thought ... that is not demeaning to anyone.

I read it as it went on. It was not demeaning to men. A man has every right to reject a child born from an affair his wife has. He also has very right to accept the child.

Trying to shut people up and shame them into not having discussions on topics that they find important or worthy of discussion is not cool.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Thanks, Ele.
> 
> We just feel like the children have to come first.


Me too. 

I might kick my husband out or not.

But the child would be my children's half sibling so the child would be in my life and my children's life no matter what. It's reality.


----------



## over20

jld said:


> Thanks, Ele.
> 
> We just feel like the children have to come first.



So you jld would accept your husband lover's baby?


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> I feel sorry for people that have to go through an affair. I have not experienced it but I am sure it is very painful.
> 
> But you should keep things in perspective, there are actually a lot of worse things that can happen. For example I had a colleague that was in flight AF447 that disappeared over the Atlantic. I am sure her husband would have preferred dealing with an affair than dealing with this.


Dug, *it is extremely painful*, and the way in which it affects a man _is both very similar to and entirely different from the experience of having lost a loved one_, and for someone who has not experienced it to insinuate that I am somehow flawed, weak, or unworthy for experiencing anguish and trauma (_that I did not consciously choose to feel_, no less) as a result _*is nothing short of the ABSOLUTE HEIGHT OF INSULT*_.

Infidelity has been known to cause many of the same symptoms that present themselves in cases of post-traumatic stress disorder, and many of those who have experienced it for themselves have been diagnosed w/ the disorder. Would you seek to minimize the severity of a clinically-diagnosed and universally-recognized medical condition as troubling as PTSD?

Having said all of this, I will freely and readily admit that, for any man who just doesn't give a sh*t about his wife, marriage, or family, none of this may apply.


----------



## EleGirl

TiggyBlue said:


> Is pain really comparable though?
> I'm personally not sure it is.


I think that the pain is different.

It hurts to lose a spouse. But when a spouse dies they it's usually not at their own hand and it's not done to hurt the other person. So it's a painful but natural event.

With an affair it's a lot like losing a spouse but the hard was done intentionally by the very person who promised to love and protect you.

I don't know which is worse.


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> No if a man posted saying that his wife would accept a love child as would she and asked what others thought ... that is not demeaning to anyone.
> 
> I read it as it went on. It was not demeaning to men. A man has every right to reject a child born from an affair his wife has. He also has very right to accept the child.
> 
> Trying to shut people up and shame them into not having discussions on topics that they find important or worthy of discussion is not cool.


Ele did you read the whole thread...if you did you then as a progressive female would also be fine with raising your WH love child....

Fair is fair


----------



## jld

SA, I feel bad for Mrs. Adams. I don't know why Mr. Adams needs so much help. 

Sure, it is their business, but when I see women feeling so guilty, and responsible, this far on, I cannot help but feel compassionate towards them and want to lift their burden.

I think if I cheated, SA, that of course Duguesclin would be angry, and hurt, and would cry. And I know he would forgive me. I know him. He would end up carrying me, helping me to forgive myself.

He is strong, SA. He just is. And he loves me, utterly.

And yes, he definitely sees me as weaker than himself. Right or wrong, I know that is how he sees me.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> SA, I feel bad for Mrs. Adams. I don't know why Mr. Adams needs so much help.
> 
> Sure, it is their business, but when I see women feeling so guilty, and responsible, this far on, I cannot help but feel compassionate towards them and want to lift their burden.
> 
> *I think if I cheated, SA, that of course Duguesclin would be angry, and hurt, and would cry.* And I know he would forgive me. I know him. He would end up carrying me, helping me to forgive myself.
> 
> He is strong, SA. He just is. And he loves me, utterly.
> 
> And yes, he definitely sees me as weaker than himself. Right or wrong, I know that is how he sees me.


And here we have it... Confirmation that Mr. jld is, in fact, human, and capable of human emotion no less.

Wow. _Fascinating._


----------



## that_girl

My best friend got pregnant while in divorce filings. Pregnant by another man. She hadn't cheated, and she was on the depo shot. It was not planned. It was a tragic time. She asked me if she should abort. THAT was so telling of her pain over this because she doesn't believe in abortion.

The pregnancy was discovered and her STBX was welcoming. The boyfriend took off...

From finding out she was pregnant to the birth, she and her husband worked things out. I don't know how, but I do know a TON Of IC therapy was happening for her husband.

He's accepted this child as his own and is very much about this child. I didn't understand it, I still don't, but it's what works for them. He's on the birth certificate. It's his child as far as he can see. His family won't accept it. They call her a wh0re. He stopped all contact with his family.

So I know it does happen. I don't know if I would be that way, but hey, love is love. I get to see them soon!! Going on vacation to where they live


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> No if a man posted saying that his wife would accept a love child as would she and asked what others thought ... that is not demeaning to anyone.
> 
> I read it as it went on. It was not demeaning to men. A man has every right to reject a child born from an affair his wife has. He also has very right to accept the child.
> 
> Trying to shut people up and shame them into not having discussions on topics that they find important or worthy of discussion is not cool.


It was/is demeaning to men......the responses from men and a lot of women here on TAM were that the cheating woman is to blame AND the man deserves to take all assets...he is the victim...jld..is the one who proposed the idea that a WW's love child should be accepted by her loving husband......maybe that gets back to the whole emasculating question on this thread title......which I would never do


----------



## Duguesclin

GusPolinski said:


> Dug, *it is extremely painful*, and the way in which it affects a man _is both very similar to and entirely different from the experience of having lost a loved one_, and for someone who has not experienced it to insinuate that I am somehow flawed, weak, or unworthy for experiencing anguish and trauma (_that I did not consciously choose to feel_, no less) as a result _*is nothing short of the ABSOLUTE HEIGHT OF INSULT*_.
> 
> Infidelity has been known to cause many of the same symptoms that present themselves in cases of post-traumatic stress disorder, and many of those who have experienced it for themselves have been diagnosed w/ the disorder. Would you seek to minimize the severity of a clinically-diagnosed and universally-recognized medical condition as troubling as PTSD?
> 
> Having said all of this, I will freely and readily admit that, for any man who just doesn't give a sh*t about his wife, marriage, or family, none of this may apply.


I am not trying to minimize anything, just trying to give some perspective. You are free to think that an affair is equivalent to a category 5 hurricane. I just do not agree.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> Ele did you read the whole thread...if you did you then as a progressive female would also be fine with raising your WH love child....
> 
> Fair is fair


Progressive female or not.... if I accept recovery of my marriage I would accept his child. I could not reject a child, the child is innocent.

If I did not want to recover my marriage and I had other children with him, sure I would accept the love child as a sibling to my children. It's called reality.

One of my brothers has an ex who cheated on him. they already had a child. She left for the other guy. So their daughter went back and both between my brother's and his ex's while growing up. The half sister (love child) spent almost as much time at my brother's house as my niece did. There were long periods of time when the two girls lived with my brother, his new wife and all their children. I actually consider this "love child" to me my niece. The girls are in their 40's now and both of them are at all of our family functions.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

norajane said:


> *Infertility makes a lot of women feel "less than." (I think some men also might feel emasculated if they are the ones who are infertile.*)


 I often feel I was spared this fate -even while going through infertility because we at least had 1 son during those "almost 7 yrs trying"...

When I would get really down about it (my dream was a larger family).. I would remind myself -"but at least I have him"....

... Though my H would have never wanted me to feel "less than"- he would have been that encourager by my side if we never had any children...This I know... but what if I had a man who counted on it ...who was getting impatient during those yrs...and I felt his rising resentment that my body was cursed or I couldn't do what other women could so easily 

That "less than" feeling would jump to utter despair of the unfairness of life, what has come upon me... of not being a REAL woman ...because I was barren, I could not do what came easily/ natural to other women.....this would have dragged me down into Hell ..

Through that experience ... I had the greatest compassion for such women, such couples... even though I didn't taste how deeply sorrowful THEY felt with no children wading through it.

I feel this would be *comparable* to emasculating a man.. 

Even scripture compares the barren womb to a desert thirsting for water, the grave & a consuming uncontrollable fire... 



> Proverbs 30:16 *"The grave; and the barren womb; The earth that is not filled with water; And the fire that saith not, "It is enough."*
> 
> The grave is never satisfied. No matter how many are buried today, cemeteries will take more tomorrow. Though death cuts men down by the thousands, there is room for more. The grave never says, "It is enough!" It has an insatiable desire for the bodies of men.
> 
> *The barren womb is never satisfied*. In Bible times, women craved bearing children. Rachel said to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or else I die" (Gen 30:1). The barren womb has an insatiable desire for children.
> 
> The earth that is not filled with water is never satisfied. Dry ground absorbs water applied to it and is still dry. The water disappears, and the ground demands more. Though much water is supplied, it yet wants more. The dry ground has an insatiable desire for water.
> 
> The raging fire is never satisfied. As long as it can find combustible material, it will continue to burn. It never approaches a forest or house and stops due to lack of desire to burn. The raging fire has an insatiable desire to burn anything it can touch.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> It was/is demeaning to men......the responses from men and a lot of women here on TAM were that the cheating woman is to blame AND the man deserves to take all assets...he is the victim...jld..is the one who proposed the idea that a WW's love child should be accepted by her loving husband......maybe that gets back to the whole emasculating question on this thread title......which I would never do


When the husband cheats and has a love child, do you believe that the wife deserves to get all the assets?


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Progressive female or not.... if I accept recover my marriage I would accept his child. I could not reject a child, the child is innocent.
> 
> If I did not want to recover my marriage and I had other children with him, sure I would accept the love child as a sibling to my children. It's called reality.
> 
> One of my brothers has an ex who cheated on him. they already had a child. She left for the other guy. So their daughter went back and both between my brother's and his ex's while growing up. The half sister (love child) spent almost as much time at my brother's house as my niece did. There were long periods of time when the two girls lived with my brother, his new wife and all their children. I actually consider this "love child" to me my niece. The girls are in their 40's now and both of them are at all of our family functions.


That is a great story, Ele, and shows a lot of maturity on the part of your brother.

The children are innocent. And your brother realized that.


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> Progressive female or not.... if I accept recover my marriage I would accept his child. I could not reject a child, the child is innocent.
> 
> If I did not want to recover my marriage and I had other children with him, sure I would accept the love child as a sibling to my children. It's called reality.
> 
> One of my brothers has an ex who cheated on him. they already had a child. She left for the other guy. So their daughter went back and both between my brother's and his ex's while growing up. The half sister (love child) spent almost as much time at my brother's house as my niece did. There were long periods of time when the two girls lived with my brother, his new wife and all their children. I actually consider this "love child" to me my niece. The girls are in their 40's now and both of them are at all of our family functions.


Ele you would accept your cheating lovers child...really?


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> My best friend got pregnant while in divorce filings. Pregnant by another man. She hadn't cheated, and she was on the depo shot. It was not planned. It was a tragic time. She asked me if she should abort. THAT was so telling of her pain over this because she doesn't believe in abortion.
> 
> The pregnancy was discovered and her STBX was welcoming. The boyfriend took off...
> 
> From finding out she was pregnant to the birth, she and her husband worked things out. I don't know how, but I do know a TON Of IC therapy was happening for her husband.
> 
> He's accepted this child as his own and is very much about this child. I didn't understand it, I still don't, but it's what works for them. He's on the birth certificate. It's his child as far as he can see. His family won't accept it. They call her a wh0re. * He stopped all contact with his family.*
> 
> So I know it does happen. I don't know if I would be that way, but hey, love is love. I get to see them soon!! Going on vacation to where they live


Now that is love! :smthumbup:


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> I am not trying to minimize anything, just trying to give some perspective. You are free to think that an affair is equivalent to a category 5 hurricane. I just do not agree.


In terms of widespread collateral damage, in which entire communities are lost? No. Duh.

But to the person (or persons) experiencing devastating -- though perhaps very localized -- damage? Yes, absolutely.

Now, I'm not saying that one cannot recover from an affair. That is entirely possible. Many have done it, myself included. But make no mistake, affairs inflict tremendous amounts of pain to those on the receiving end of the betrayal. And, in many cases, those who perpetrate said betrayal have no shortage of their own pain w/ which to contend.

Does the anguish last forever? No, _but you never forget it_.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> It was/is demeaning to men......the responses from men and a lot of women here on TAM were that the cheating woman is to blame AND the man deserves to take all assets...he is the victim...jld..is the one who proposed the idea that a WW's love child should be accepted by her loving husband......maybe that gets back to the whole emasculating question on this thread title......which I would never do


JLD was not saying that all men must accept their wife's love child. She said that she and her husband about accept each other's love child should this ever happen.

Then a lot of the people on the thread said what you say here. So how is it demeaning to men if JLD was giving her opinion about her own life and asked others what they think. And how was it demeaning to men if most people don't think a guy should accept his wife's love child.

As an aside: I think it's up to every man and every woman to decide for themselves how they want to react to their spouse's love child should their spouse have one. That is not demeaning. That's empowering.


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> When the husband cheats and has a love child, do you believe that the wife deserves to get all the assets?


Please do not twist my words....I am very wary of this thread ...it smells bad..


----------



## that_girl

jld said:


> Now that is love! :smthumbup:


It is. He cause a lot of damage though in their 8 year marriage. She filed divorce when he joined an apocalyptic cult  and wanted to take their other children with him to their camp  It was a bad year. Omg. ( or maybe it was 2 years) For a while, he stopped paying their rent (he had moved out to the camp she was a SAHM) and she was evicted and homeless, living in ONE ROOM with four children in a house of an older man she knew. It was hard. 

But they are working through it all. An inspiration, really. The way she was able to forgive but not be a doormat is really inspirational.


----------



## jld

We did not have trouble conceiving, but even if we had, we would have adopted. As much fun as it is to be just the two of us, I think we just would not have been satisfied without children.

I had a bit of a hard time when I found out I had to stop at five. I wanted two more. But I worked through it. And really, I am lucky to have my five.


----------



## GusPolinski

that_girl said:


> My best friend got pregnant while in divorce filings. Pregnant by another man. She hadn't cheated, and she was on the depo shot. It was not planned. It was a tragic time. She asked me if she should abort. THAT was so telling of her pain over this because she doesn't believe in abortion.
> 
> The pregnancy was discovered and her STBX was welcoming. The boyfriend took off...
> 
> From finding out she was pregnant to the birth, she and her husband worked things out. I don't know how, but I do know a TON Of IC therapy was happening for her husband.
> 
> He's accepted this child as his own and is very much about this child. I didn't understand it, I still don't, but it's what works for them. He's on the birth certificate. It's his child as far as he can see. His family won't accept it. They call her a wh0re. He stopped all contact with his family.
> 
> So I know it does happen. I don't know if I would be that way, but hey, love is love. I get to see them soon!! Going on vacation to where they live


I can't say that I (completely) understand it either, but I could respect that guy. And if he'd gone the other route, and proceeded w/ an amicable, dignified divorce, I'd respect him all the same for that.

Either decision would seem to indicate a certain decisiveness on his part, and _*that's* what I respect_.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> Ele you would accept your cheating lovers child...really?


Did you read my post? Try reading what is posted alright? 

I tend to deal with reality. A child was created and it's not going away.

I can tell you that the lives of my brother and my entire family have been enriched by having his ex's "love child", my niece, in our lives.


----------



## that_girl

over20 said:


> Please do not twist my words....I am very wary of this thread ...it smells bad..


Why does it smell bad? Am I missing something?


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> It is. He cause a lot of damage though in their 8 year marriage. She filed divorce when he joined an apocalyptic cult  and wanted to take their other children with him to their camp  It was a bad year. Omg. ( or maybe it was 2 years) For a while, he stopped paying their rent (he had moved out to the camp she was a SAHM) and she was evicted and homeless, living in ONE ROOM with four children in a house of an older man she knew. It was hard.
> 
> But they are working through it all. An inspiration, really. The way she was able to forgive but not be a doormat is really inspirational.


Wow, you've got some great stories there, tg!

She sounds like a very strong woman.


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> JLD was not saying that all men must accept their wife's love child. She said that she and her husband about accept each other's love child should this ever happen.
> 
> Then a lot of the people on the thread said what you say here. So how is it demeaning to men if JLD was giving her opinion about her own life and asked others what they think. And how was it demeaning to men if most people don't think a guy should accept his wife's love child.
> 
> As an aside: I think it's up to every man and every woman to decide for themselves how they want to react to their spouse's love child should their spouse have one. That is not demeaning. That's empowering.


Ok, i see your point. Then please stop telling me that my opinion is wrong on certain threads...I can also speak my mind and beliefs and you will respect me....right? Yes, empowering is the word right?


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Did you read my post? Try reading what is posted alright?
> 
> I tend to deal with reality. A child was created and it's not going away.
> 
> *I can tell you that the lives of my brother and my entire family have been enriched by having his ex's "love child", my niece, in our lives.*


I love that attitude, Ele. And somehow, from you, it does not surprise me.


----------



## that_girl

GusPolinski said:


> I can't say that I (completely) understand it either, but I could respect that guy. And if he'd gone the other route, and proceeded w/ an amicable, dignified divorce, I'd respect him all the same for that.
> 
> Either decision would seem to indicate a certain decisiveness on his part, and _*that's* what I respect_.


From what I know of what he said to her about it was, "This is YOUR baby. I love YOU. That means I love this baby. This baby is OUR baby now. Why? Because you are my WIFE. I know I effed things up and left and all of that. You did what you were supposed to do---try to move on---and this child is a part of YOU. So it's also a part of me." Basically it was good things lol.

She has only been with her husband and this other guy in her whole life. And the baby is precious  Looks like her husband which is weird but there is NO WAY he could be the father.


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> Did you read my post? Try reading what is posted alright?
> 
> I tend to deal with reality. A child was created and it's not going away.
> 
> I can tell you that the lives of my brother and my entire family have been enriched by having his ex's "love child", my niece, in our lives.


Ele, you still didn't answer the question....would you accept your lovers....love child ?....hmmm just type the Y or N key on your keyboard...


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> From what I know of what he said to her about it was, "This is YOUR baby. I love YOU. That means I love this baby. This baby is OUR baby now. Why? Because you are my WIFE. I know I effed things up and left and all of that. You did what you were supposed to do---try to move on---and this child is a part of YOU. So it's also a part of me." Basically it was good things lol.
> 
> She has only been with her husband and this other guy in her whole life. And the baby is precious  Looks like her husband which is weird but there is NO WAY he could be the father.


Too funny on the last paragraph!

And I love the attitude of the husband! :smthumbup:


----------



## that_girl

If my husband had a child from cheating...oooh I'd be HOT. HOT HOT. (Couldn't happen, he's been snipped) but if it did...wow.

That being said, it's my daughters' sibling. I would try to work with the mother for visitation. Siblings need each other.

My dad took off from my mom and got another woman pregnant before divorce was final. Married that woman soon after. My sisters (twins) were born. My dad left that family soon after (gawd, good guy ) My mom and my step mom got us together every year, twice a year until I could drive out myself to see them. We are close to this day. I love my sisters.

It was hard for my mom and I'm sure it was hard for my stepmom. They were the "OW" to each other...or whatever...but they'd sip coffee and make small talk for their children to know each other.

My sister is getting custody of her ex's daughter (she has a son with her ex). He didn't cheat but had the child a year after he left my sister. it's my sister's mentality that the child is her son's sister so she doesn't want them split up. The mother is in and out of rehab and no one wants to take the child so my sister is fighting for her.

Love is love.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> That is a great story, Ele, and shows a lot of maturity on the part of your brother.
> 
> The children are innocent. And your brother realized that.


I can understand if a person cannot handle their spouse's love child. It would be hard for a lot of people. But others can. 

I just could not shut out a kid when their half siblings are getting to do things. It would hurt me to hurt a child like that. But that's me. 

I have 7 siblings. He is the oldest of my 3 brothers.. and a younger than I am.

He is an extra ordinary man. Least anyone things he's a push over... he has black belts in a few types of martial arts. He's a Vietnam error vet. He'll be retiring soon from a long career as an engineer at one of the large engineering firms. He's a strong man in every way.


----------



## GusPolinski

that_girl said:


> From what I know of what he said to her about it was, "This is YOUR baby. I love YOU. That means I love this baby. This baby is OUR baby now. Why? Because you are my WIFE. I know I effed things up and left and all of that. You did what you were supposed to do---try to move on---and this child is a part of YOU. So it's also a part of me." Basically it was good things lol.
> 
> She has only been with her husband and this other guy in her whole life. And the baby is precious  Looks like her husband which is weird but there is NO WAY he could be the father.


Well, in his case, I'd say that his wife turned out to be his saving grace. Considering all of the ridiculously gut-wrenching stuff he'd put her and their kids through, if she were willing to take him back, I'd say that he chose pretty wisely at jumping at the chance, and even w/ another man's child in tow.


----------



## hambone

ScarletBegonias said:


> Emasculation ...when you want someone with a penis to be exactly like someone with a vagina
> 
> Men allow themselves to be emasculated as that_girl stated.
> 
> Of course, some(not all) feel anytime a woman steps up and does something a man can do she's emasculating men.



So does that equally apply when a guy steps up and does something to a woman? Like bully her or worse?


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> Ok, i see your point. Then please stop telling me that my opinion is wrong on certain threads...I can also speak my mind and beliefs and you will respect me....right? Yes, empowering is the word right?


The only time I told you that you were wrong was when you implied that I was lying that some of the men on TAM have a 3 date sex or dump them rule. And you were wrong about that because some of them have posted about that.

I have not stated that your opinions about anything are wrong. Opinions are not right or wrong. They just are, and everyone has atleast one on most topics.


----------



## jld

Yeah, this idea that a man who would accept another man's child is a pushover or a doormat is just crazy. "Gentleness can only be expected from the strong," as the saying goes.

Ele and tg, these are great stories tonight! I love them!

Tg, I know you have had a hard time with your mom, but wow! She and the OW were able to set aside their differences for the sake of the kids. I have to respect that.

So glad you both shared these!


----------



## that_girl

GusPolinski said:


> Well, in his case, I'd say that his wife turned out to be his saving grace. Considering all of the ridiculously gut-wrenching stuff he'd put her and their kids through, if she were willing to take him back, I'd say that he chose pretty wisely at jumping at the chance, even w/ another man's child in tow.


Yea. They had 4 together. What's another one :rofl:

In all reality, I was weary. I was worried and skeptical.

But the man has changed. They've been back together for about 1.5 years now with no glitches. Both have grown in many way. Proof is in the pudding.


----------



## EleGirl

hambone said:


> So does that equally apply when a guy steps up and does something to a woman? Like bully her or worse?


If you had read the thread you would know that yes it applies in the case of a woman too.

After the initial reaction a person has to an event, they have complete control over how the act/react to it.


----------



## that_girl

My friend has a tattoo on her arm that reads:

It takes courage and strength to be gentle and kind.

Truth.


----------



## GusPolinski

that_girl said:


> Yea. They had 4 together. What's another one :rofl:
> 
> In all reality, I was weary. I was worried and skeptical.
> 
> But the man has changed. They've been back together for about 1.5 years now with no glitches. Both have grown in many way. Proof is in the pudding.


Well, I hope that he's getting his thorazine on the reg.


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> My friend has a tattoo on her arm that reads:
> 
> *It takes courage and strength to be gentle and kind.*
> 
> Truth.


:iagree:


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> From what I know of what he said to her about it was, "This is YOUR baby. I love YOU. That means I love this baby. This baby is OUR baby now. Why? Because you are my WIFE. I know I effed things up and left and all of that. You did what you were supposed to do---try to move on---and this child is a part of YOU. So it's also a part of me." Basically it was good things lol.
> 
> She has only been with her husband and this other guy in her whole life. And the baby is precious  Looks like her husband which is weird but there is NO WAY he could be the father.


I remember you posting about your friend. Thanks for the update. Wow I'm surprised because he was really going off the deep end for a while there. It's interesting that they are able to work it out even after all of that.

Babies pick up on their parent's facial expressions very quickly. It's probably why the baby seems to look like him.


----------



## that_girl

GusPolinski said:


> Well, I hope that he's getting his thorazine on the reg.



He gets to go to work! She's the SAHM with 5 kids under 6  They do a good job of living simply and efficiently without needing assistance from anyone. But I've seen videos of her "average day" and I would eat my children. Omg.

I once wanted 7 kids. It was a joke of the family. I have 2. nine years apart. not on accident.

But I am a teacher so I get 30 a year


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> He gets to go to work! She's the SAHM with 5 kids under 6  They do a good job of* living simply and efficiently* without needing assistance from anyone.


Yep, this is the secret to big families.


----------



## that_girl

EleGirl said:


> I remember you posting about your friend. Thanks for the update. Wow I'm surprised because he was really going off the deep end for a while there. It's interesting that they are able to work it out even after all of that.
> 
> Babies pick up on their parent's facial expressions very quickly. It's probably why the baby seems to look like him.


Well, between me and everyone here...her boyfriend looked JUST LIKE her husband. I even mentioned it cause I thought it was funny/creepy.

So there's that. lol. Probably helps a bit.


----------



## GusPolinski

EleGirl said:


> If you had read the thread you would know that yes it applies in the case of a woman too.
> 
> *After the initial reaction a person has to an event, they have complete control over how the act/react to it.*


If you're talking about outward or external reactions, then yes, I'd agree. If you're talking about inward or internal reactions, though... I'll say perhaps, but only to a degree. Certain feelings will persist for a time, and whether or not you want them to really has no bearing on the matter.

After all, we can suppress our feelings, but we have them nonetheless.


----------



## GusPolinski

that_girl said:


> he gets to go to work! She's the sahm with *5 kids under 6*  they do a good job of living simply and efficiently without needing assistance from anyone. But i've seen videos of her "average day" and i would eat my children. Omg.
> 
> I once wanted 7 kids. It was a joke of the family. I have 2. Nine years apart. Not on accident.
> 
> But i am a teacher so i get 30 a year


Holy. Crap.


----------



## that_girl

But they can be released with work. I do it often. If it doesn't serve me, I release it. It was hard at first. Took a lot to let go. Now it's easier.


----------



## that_girl

GusPolinski said:


> Holy. Crap.


LOL But they are SO DAMN CUTE! (four girls and a boy. The boy is 2nd and her hardest but he's a boy so she let's him be a boy, but damn...lol. I couldn't do it!!)

And 2 will start school next year  That's the light at the end of the tunnel. Kids grow up. Enjoy it now cause it's fleeting.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> Ele, you still didn't answer the question....would you accept your lovers....love child ?....hmmm just type the Y or N key on your keyboard...


From my previous post.... 



EleGirl said:


> Progressive female or not.... if I accept recovery of my marriage I would accept his child. I could not reject a child, the child is innocent.


That means yes.


EleGirl said:


> If I did not want to recover my marriage and I had other children with him, sure I would accept the love child as a sibling to my children. It's called reality.


That also means yes.

What would you do if your husband had a love child? Would you emotionally hurt an innocent child by not allowing them around their siblings?


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> The only time I told you that you were wrong was when you implied that I was lying that some of the men on TAM have a 3 date sex or dump them rule. And you were wrong about that because some of them have posted about that.
> 
> I have not stated that your opinions about anything are wrong. Opinions are not right or wrong. They are and every one has at least one on most topics.


Thank you, yet Daisy girl...I am not sure of the poster name.. for sure..posted on the same thread down from me that she was thinking about sleeping with her new man. after 3 dates ...you accepted her posts but attacked mine.....never the less it is what is...now worries Ele..


----------



## GusPolinski

that_girl said:


> But they can be released with work. I do it often. If it doesn't serve me, I release it. It was hard at first. Took a lot to let go. Now it's easier.


Well, OK. Maybe I should have alluded to _emotional management_ instead of _emotional suppression_.

Either way, the emotions are still there, but they're sort of redirected (and, hopefully, constructively).


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> It was/is demeaning to men......the responses from men and a lot of women here on TAM were that the cheating woman is to blame AND the man deserves to take all assets...he is the victim...





EleGirl said:


> When the husband cheats and has a love child, do you believe that the wife deserves to get all the assets?





over20 said:


> Please do not twist my words....


I did not twist your words. I simply asked you if you felt that if under the same circumstances, if a woman should get all the assets. Why is it so hard to answer such a simple question? Just types Y or N on your keyboard.


over20 said:


> I am very wary of this thread ...it smells bad..


She asked a simple question here. We’ve had a very good discussion up to now. The best way to handle threads that you don’t like is to stay off them. I do that often.


----------



## Wolfman1968

that_girl said:


> And most men choose to walk away from a family. Most single moms do not choose to be single moms. That's on the men.


Not correct. Most divorces are initiated by women. The vast majority, in fact.

With primary custody, the mother can use the children as weapons, and often do. There was a thread recently about a father who tried to be involved but his ex alientated his children from him.

Regardless, it is an uphill battle for the father to remain involved in the face of an antagonistic mother. I'm not saying it can't be done often, but it is very difficult.


----------



## EleGirl

GusPolinski said:


> If you're talking about outward or external reactions, then yes, I'd agree. If you're talking about inward or internal reactions, though... I'll say perhaps, but only to a degree. Certain feelings will persist for a time, and whether or not you want them to really has no bearing on the matter.
> 
> After all, we can suppress our feelings, but we have them nonetheless.


I have leaned that I have a whole lot more control over my reaction to things. I learned this when I was living with an abusive husband during a period of time when I could not leave him (long legal story) so I had to find a way to be safe and to deal with not letting his vile words and actions bring me own. 

It's very doable.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
I am very hard wired for monogamy. 

Not saying I couldn't cheat. Just saying I have no desire to. 

Thing is, I wouldn't leave M2 if she had a single affair. I'd leave her if she refused to end it when discovered. But, just for having one. No. 

It wouldn't make me - not love her. And I would trust her not to do it again. 

I am almost certain that she would feel far, far worse than I would. 

That said, I don't think M2 could get over it if I had an affair. She is way more possessive and jealous than I am. And that's ok, she's been honest about that from day one. 






jld said:


> No, I only have children with my husband. We have been married 20 years, and have five children, age 19 down to 5.
> 
> Yes, we both said we would accept a child from an affair by the other. I did say that if the mother were still alive, I would want my husband to divorce me and go be with her. I would not feel right having a young mother by herself.
> 
> We are monogamous.


----------



## that_girl

Wolfman1968 said:


> Not correct. Most divorces are initiated by women. The vast majority, in fact.
> 
> With primary custody, the mother can use the children as weapons, and often do. There was a thread recently about a father who tried to be involved but his ex alientated his children from him.
> 
> Regardless, it is an uphill battle for the father to remain involved in the face of an antagonistic mother. I'm not saying it can't be done often, but it is very difficult.


Initiated by women but for what reason? Happy people don't file divorce. People don't use children as pawns just "because".

Marriage takes two. One person has to file. I filed. I was not the one effing up my marriage. Filing and doing all that paperwork was the worst thing I've ever had to do. It was awful. I'd shake when walking into the court house. It wasn't pleasant...but what choice did I have? He left! said he was done.

My friend filed, her husband was openly and rudely cheating on her.

My other friend filed, her husband left to live in some cult and was threatening to take her children AND take on more wives (crazy)

Another friend filed because her husband beat the crap out of her ONCE and that was enough.

My colleague filed because her husband left and drained the accounts and never came home 

SO maybe more women file because they have more reason? maybe men don't file as much because it's too much work? My husband LEFT ME and still wouldn't file. :rofl: The eff?

Most single moms don't CHOOSE to raise children on their own. I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who have used their children as pawns. Even my friend with the crazy husband allowed supervised visitations. 

Or maybe I just hang around good women? I don't know.

Sure there are women who do this. I'm sure they do it on purpose...wait until they'll get a good alimony to file for divorce and then rake the man over the coals.

Sure some men fight to see their kids. All I have known in MY LIFE are men that walk away.

But to say that more women file divorce is misleading. Maybe they were the ones to do it because the man wouldn't and just maybe the women had good reason.


----------



## Wolfman1968

that_girl said:


> That's just abuse....either to a male or female.
> 
> Do people really talk like that?
> 
> So sad


Sure they do.

That's the essence of the stereotype "henpecking shrew" wife.
The flip side would be a "controlling, verbally abusive" husband.

It's just that in the henpecking wife situation, the man is seen as "emasculated" (and therefore an object of scorn), whereas in the "verbally abusive" husband, the woman is seen as a victim.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> Thank you, yet Daisy girl...I am not sure of the poster name.. for sure..posted on the same thread down from me that she was thinking about sleeping with her new man. after 3 dates ...you accepted her posts but attacked mine.....never the less it is what is...now worries Ele..


Argh.. why is this so hard for you to get?

I don't care if and when someone sleeps with their date, 1st, 2nd, 3rd or whatever.

WOM posted asking if women had a 3 date rule. I replied to him that some men on TAM have that rule. (which is a fact) I replied that to him as a bit of a joke, it was meant to be light hearted.

You posted to me about how this was not true. So I replied to you that you are wrong because some men on TAM do have a 3 date sex or dump them rule. It is a fact that some do.

I was only replying to you trying to say that some men on TAM do not have that rule.


----------



## that_girl

Wolfman1968 said:


> Sure they do.
> 
> That's the essence of the stereotype "henpecking shrew" wife.
> The flip side would be a "controlling, verbally abusive" husband.
> 
> It's just that in the henpecking wife situation, the man is seen as "emasculated" (and therefore an object of scorn), whereas in the "verbally abusive" husband, the woman is seen as a victim.


Oh I see it as bad on both sides 

I just have not witnessed someone talking like that to another human being. So sad and angering! 

I do know about it though from parent to child. My mother talked to me like that. Couldn't divorce her though. Just had to cut her out of my life after 37 years of sh1t. Best 7 months of my life thus far.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolfman1968 said:


> Sure they do.
> 
> That's the essence of the stereotype "henpecking shrew" wife.
> The flip side would be a "controlling, verbally abusive" husband.
> 
> It's just that in the henpecking wife situation, the man is seen as "emasculated" (and therefore an object of scorn), whereas in the "verbally abusive" husband, the woman is seen as a victim.


The abused women is usually seen as pretty stupid for staying.


----------



## Wolfman1968

that_girl said:


> Initiated by women but for what reason? Happy people don't file divorce. People don't use children as pawns just "because".
> 
> Marriage takes two. One person has to file. I filed. I was not the one effing up my marriage.
> 
> My friend filed, her husband was openly and rudely cheating on her.
> 
> My other friend filed, her husband left to live in some cult and was threatening to take her children AND take on more wives (crazy)
> 
> Another friend filed because her husband beat the crap out of her ONCE and that was enough.
> 
> My colleague filed because her husband left and drained the accounts and never came home
> 
> SO maybe more women file because they have more reason? maybe men don't file as much because it's too much work? My husband LEFT ME and still wouldn't file. :rofl: The eff?
> 
> Most single moms don't CHOOSE to raise children on their own. I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who have used their children as pawns. Even my friend with the crazy husband allowed supervised visitations.
> 
> Or maybe I just hang around good women? I don't know.
> 
> Sure there are women who do this. I'm sure they do it on purpose...wait until they'll get a good alimony to file for divorce and then rake the man over the coals.
> 
> Sure some men fight to see their kids. All I have known in MY LIFE are men that walk away.
> 
> But to say that more women file divorce is misleading. Maybe they were the ones to do it because the man wouldn't and just maybe the women had good reason.



Look, all I was doing is responding to your statement that men "walk away" and women "don't choose to be a single mom". 

That's just not factually accurate. Women file the majority of the time. That's a statistic that can be verified. All your personal anectodotes don't change that.

I don't know of any research that specifically proves WHY women file more, but I suspect that at least part of the reason is that the biased family system in the US....they are assured of having primary custody of the children in numbers that far exceed the fathers having primary custody. Again, a verifiable statistic.


----------



## that_girl

Whoever files divorce, I'm sure it's for good reason. I don't live in the home, I don't know what goes on. 

And men also pull shady things during divorce. 

There are shady men and women. I know that. 

Women may use their children as pull. Men use money and assets. 

I guess it's just not in my nature to be one of those women. Even as angry as I was at my husband...as much as I wanted to rip his face off with my teeth at some points...I was absolutely fair in the divorce.


----------



## GusPolinski

Wolfman1968 said:


> Look, all I was doing is responding to your statement that men "walk away" and women "don't choose to be a single mom".
> 
> That's just not factually accurate. Women file the majority of the time. That's a statistic that can be verified. All your personal anectodotes don't change that.
> 
> I don't know of any research that specifically proves WHY women file more, but I suspect that at least part of the reason is that the biased family system in the US....they are assured of having primary custody of the children in numbers that far exceed the fathers having primary custody. Again, a verifiable statistic.


Not that this is at all germane to the topic of this thread, but it's not enough to simply look at whether men or women file more often than the other, as many of those who choose to simply walk away from a marriage (and whether it's the husband or the wife) simply can't or won't be bothered w/ something as menial and mundane as actually filing for divorce.


----------



## that_girl

Wolfman1968 said:


> Look, all I was doing is responding to your statement that men "walk away" and women "don't choose to be a single mom".
> 
> That's just not factually accurate. Women file the majority of the time. That's a statistic that can be verified. All your personal anectodotes don't change that.
> 
> I don't know of any research that specifically proves WHY women file more, but I suspect that at least part of the reason is that the biased family system in the US....they are assured of having primary custody of the children in numbers that far exceed the fathers having primary custody. Again, a verifiable statistic.


Well, sure, I believe the custodial aspect of the law is bogus sometimes. Sometimes the mother is not the best parent to have sole custody.

I didn't say ALL men walk away. Just the majority that I know in cases of a woman who gets pregnant and they aren't married...or after a divorce. 

And even though women file most divorces, that doesn't mean they were the cause of the divorce. 

I don't like statistics that just say "Women file most divorces". So what? I'm sure they had their reasons. I wouldn't have filed just willy nilly.

And true, some women make it HELL for the man to see his kids. Some men fight...some give up. But if a woman is truly a single mom...raising kids ALONE without help or the dad around, it's either because he died or left.


----------



## Wolfman1968

EleGirl said:


> The abused women is usually seen as pretty stupid for staying.



I am not convinced that is true. 

For professional reasons, I regularly read/take Domestic Violence educational courses. One of the tenets of that is that the victim (which is universally always represented to be the woman in these courses) is NOT to be judged on the decision of staying in an abusive relationship. 

As these sorts of courses are introduced into more areas of society (universities, police training, etc.), this is becoming the de facto attitude, I believe.

In fact, the inability to leave or inability to see the opportunity to leave is the whole basis for "Battered Woman Syndrome" defense in trials where the woman kills the man.

So, to link this back to the original poster, if a man sees no way out because he believes he will lose his children, pay unjust alimony, etc. from a biased court system, will he not be stuck in his abusive situation and become "emasculated"?


----------



## jld

Wolfman1968 said:


> So, to link this back to the original poster, if a man sees no way out because he believes he will lose his children, pay unjust alimony, etc. from a biased court system, will he not be stuck in his abusive situation and become "emasculated"?


If we are using emasculated as an emotional term, then I just have to refer back to the idea of not giving away our power, not letting forces outside ourselves determine how we see ourselves.

You do have to be careful, though, to consider what other people are saying to see if there is some perhaps painful truth to it. We can learn from true comments, however hurtful.


----------



## Wolfman1968

ScarletBegonias said:


> This thread is making me feel terribly sheltered and naive. I've just never heard anyone I know talk that way to or about their husbands or even about men in general. I've never even thought of treating someone like the examples being given. It doesn't seem like emasculation. It seems like outright emotional abuse and bullying.


Then maybe the conclusion is that emotional abuse and bullying is one way to emasculate a man.

And, for the record, I HAVE heard plenty of women talk about their husbands like that. So it does exist.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolfman1968 said:


> Look, all I was doing is responding to your statement that men "walk away" and women "don't choose to be a single mom".
> 
> That's just not factually accurate. Women file the majority of the time. That's a statistic that can be verified. All your personal anectodotes don't change that.


If filing was equal we would expect men and women to file for divorce 50% of the time. Instead women file about 2/3 of the time… or 66%. This mean that women filing for divorce is about 16% higher than would be expected. Women are only 16% more likely to file for divorce than men. 

There used to be a divorce attorney who posted on TAM. His answer to this is that most of the women who he is aware of file to get out of marriages with abuse, alcoholism, and other such problems, etc. He stated that he has seen very few women leave a marriage for frivolous reasons. 

Keep in mind that usually when a divorce is filed the marriage is seriously broken. Either spouse could have filed based on the marriage going bad. The person who files is probably the one who has the need for some kind of relief provided by filing. Women are usually the primary care givers of the children. So they usually file to get child support started. So it makes sense that the woman would be the one to file. And it makes sense that a guy who thinks he’ll have to pay court ordered child support is going to resist filing even if the marriage is bad, even if he’s already long gone.



Wolfman1968 said:


> I don't know of any research that specifically proves WHY women file more, but I suspect that at least part of the reason is that the biased family system in the US....they are assured of having primary custody of the children in numbers that far exceed the fathers having primary custody. Again, a verifiable statistic.


This is true. Generally the mother is the primary care giver to the children. Generally the primary care giver gets primary physical custody. It is getting more and more common for 50/50 physical custody to be awarded. This makes sense to me.

Again the one who feels they have a need (she will get child support) is often the one who files.


----------



## Wolfman1968

jld said:


> If we are using emasculated as an emotional term, then I just have to refer back to the idea of not giving away our power, not letting forces outside ourselves determine how we see ourselves.
> 
> You do have to be careful, though, to consider what other people are saying to see if there is some perhaps painful truth to it. We can learn from true comments, however hurtful.


But is it as simple as that? Although there are certainly examples of people who overcome the message of outside forces, is that true for the majority of humans? Is that how human psychology works?

Because it seems to me, that society is taking the position that outside forces ARE one of the greatest determining factors in a person's self-image. Hence we have all these "Women In Science" messages/programs/etc. to combat the supposed biased messages that girls get about STEM carreers not being for women. Or the belief that poor performance by ethnic minorities in school, society, etc. , are caused negative/racist messages by society? (So there are special "Image Awards", "X ethnic group achievement awards", etc.). It sure sounds like US society believes that outside messages are crucial in a person's self-image and success in life, so these positive messages must be given.

So, if society beleives that negative messages can affect people's self-image in so many ways--so much so that we have special programs to combat these messages--why wouldn't criticism of a man from the people who he respects most (wife, girlfriend, mother, etc.) equally be able to destroy his masculine self-image? If, as some posters seem to imply, it is only the minority of "weaker" men who essentially "allow" their masculinity to be destroyed, would you then say it is the "weaker" members of ethnic minorities who "allow" their self image to be destroyed?

By my way of thinking, human psychology and human reaction would be the same in all cases. The original poster, JLD, posted that she did not believe that men can be emasculated, but rather they (as in the quote above) "give away their power". So isn't that equally true in all other situations as well?


----------



## Wolfman1968

EleGirl said:


> If filing was equal we would expect men and women to file for divorce 50% of the time. Instead women file about 2/3 of the time… or 66%. This mean that women filing for divorce is about 16% higher than would be expected. Women are only 16% more likely to file for divorce than men.


Actually your math is not correct. Women's 66% of the filing can't be 16% higher than men, because men do not file 50% of the time.

Taking your 2/3 number (I have read 70%, but, close enough), women file 100% more than men. Women file 2 out of 3, men file one out of three. That makes them file at double the rate. Double the rate = 100% increase.

And, for the most part, I don't feel that either men OR women file for "frivolous" reasons for the most part. (Sure, there are exceptions). So why double the rate for women? I believe it is because they will tolerate a bad situation less than a man because the courts favor them in custody, etc. Just look at all the posts by men here on TAM where they keep hoping to work things out, swallow the BS their cheating spouse feeds them, because they know that if they divorce they will be cut out of a large part of their childrens' lives.

Even under the typical circumstances, when you don't have a hostile mother trying to alienate the kids, the de facto situation of only seeing your children every other weekend is heartbreaking to most fathers. Of course they're going to be less likely to file, and more likely to put up with abuse...and become emasculated in the process (bringing it back to the whole point of the thread).


----------



## EleGirl

Wolfman1968 said:


> Actually your math is not correct.


No my math is right. You did not understand what I said. I will try again below.


Wolfman1968 said:


> Women's 66% of the filing can't be 16% higher than men, because men do not file 50% of the time.


I DID NOT SAY THAT MEN FILE 50% OF THE TIME.

I said that if all things were equal in filing we would expect that men and women would file at the same rate, 50/50. Why would we expect that? The cause the population of spouses is 50% male and 50% female.

But women file 66% of the time and men 33% of the time. So men file at a rate 16% lower than the 50% that we would expect. And women file at a rate 16% higher than the 50% that we would expect.



Wolfman1968 said:


> Taking your 2/3 number (I have read 70%, but, close enough), women file 100% more than men. Women file 2 out of 3, men file one out of three. That makes them file at double the rate. Double the rate = 100% increase.


Cleaver way to twist the numbers to make them look worse than they are to those who are not versed in numbers and math. 

You are ignoring that the population of spouse is 50/50 male female. So look at the delta from what would be expected 50/50.


Wolfman1968 said:


> And, for the most part, I don't feel that either men OR women file for "frivolous" reasons for the most part. (Sure, there are exceptions). So why double the rate for women? I believe it is because they will tolerate a bad situation less than a man because the courts favor them in custody, etc. Just look at all the posts by men here on TAM where they keep hoping to work things out, swallow the BS their cheating spouse feeds them, because they know that if they divorce they will be cut out of a large part of their children’s' lives.


On TAM most of the men dump their cheating wives without giving any thought or chance for reconciliation. And most for the men posting to them brow beat any man who wants to reconcile. 


Wolfman1968 said:


> Even under the typical circumstances, when you don't have a hostile mother trying to alienate the kids, the de facto situation of only seeing your children every other weekend is heartbreaking to most fathers. Of course they're going to be less likely to file, and more likely to put up with abuse...and become emasculated in the process (bringing it back to the whole point of the thread).


The only problem with this assumption is that most divorces, about 66%, are in a marriage that has no minor children at the time of the divorce. A good % of these are in marriages where there have never been children. Both men and women are more likely to stay in a marriage if there are underage children involved. 

I stayed in an abusive marriage for several years longer than I wanted to due to legal issues related to child custody (not women do not always have the upper hand in divorce). And staying did not do the female equivalent of ‘emasculating’ me. Instead it made me stronger because I went to counseling, read books and learned a lot about how to set boundaries, how to anger from escalating and other such things. I emerged stronger.


----------



## BaxJanson

Looking back at the original question, I'm thinking another way to emasculate a man is through a lack of responsibility. I've certainly heard my fair share of Peter Pan syndrome/play video games all day stories. A man who is protected and sheltered from the stress of responsibility will rarely show up as a man. Uncalloused skin will blister; untempered blades will break. I'd say I see a lot of this in society today, and yes, I'd say its emasculating, as well.


----------



## EleGirl

BaxJanson said:


> Looking back at the original question, I'm thinking another way to emasculate a man is through a lack of responsibility. I've certainly heard my fair share of Peter Pan syndrome/play video games all day stories. A man who is protected and sheltered from the stress of responsibility will rarely show up as a man. Uncalloused skin will blister; untempered blades will break. I'd say I see a lot of this in society today, and yes, I'd say its emasculating, as well.


In this case it's the man choosing to play the games and ignore any responsibilities. That's on him. 

In the past there were plenty of men who ignored all responsibility. they hung out at the pub all day, at the park with friends. video games just make it even easier because they never have to even leave the house.


----------



## ReformedHubby

EleGirl said:


> In this case it's the *boy* choosing to play the games and ignore any responsibilities. That's on him.
> 
> In the past there were plenty of *boys* who ignored all responsibility. they hung out at the pub all day, at the park with friends. video games just make it even easier because they never have to even leave the house.


Sorry EleGirl, I had to fix that part. Part of the masculinity of "real" men is not recognizing some men as men based on their actions, lack of action, or behaviors.


----------



## Cosmos

It's interesting that despite the fact that both genders can and do undermine one another, there is only a term for it when women do it to men. This certainly doesn't mean that women undermine men more than vice versa, it's just that it's somehow seen as more acceptable because traditionally:-

Male/Female = Dominant/Subordinate​
Women's roles have changed dramatically over the last 50 odd years. Women have become more visible and assertive in society, and both genders need to adapt to it rather than feel threatened by / abuse it.


----------



## BostonBruins32

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Very good.
> 
> No one else can emasculate you. Many men self emasculate in an attempt to please their wives.


Exactly. 

I also think there is something around the whole stereotype of settling down. There are jokes about things men give up once thier married and or start a family (hobbies or lifestyles or big boy toys). It's a sterotype, but there is something there. This stereotype represents a guy emasculating to please his wife. Often time driven by giving in to her pressures, in an effort to keep the peace. She sorta drives it, but it's him allowing/doing it to himself.

yet at the end of the day the wife never wanted him to emasculate. She pushed for it but didnt want it. In comes attraction problem.

sorry jld..thread hijack from a guy whos been reading/exploring too much..


----------



## Cosmos

BostonBruins32 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I also think there is something around the whole stereotype of settling down. There are jokes about things men give up once thier married and or start a family (hobbies or lifestyles or big boy toys). It's a sterotype, but there is something there. This stereotype represents a guy emasculating to please his wife. Often time driven by giving in to her pressures, in an effort to keep the peace. She sorta drives it, but it's him allowing/doing it to himself.
> 
> yet at the end of the day the wife never wanted him to emasculate. She pushed for it but didnt want it. In comes attraction problem.
> 
> sorry jld..thread hijack from a guy whos been reading/exploring too much..


I don't believe it was a threadjack, BB. In fact think what you said is quite relevant.

When we enter into a relationship, we do have to make certain compromises, but those changes shouldn't mean changing who we are or giving up relationship-friendly hobbies/pursuits.

My SO is an avid photographer, and as the relationship has progressed he's done less and less of it. I've now realized that this is because he possibly felt that he needed to spend ALL his free time with me, which of course he doesn't. I'm now encouraging him to arrange weekend photo shoot outings with one of his friends.


----------



## Cosmos

ScarletBegonias said:


> This thread is making me feel terribly sheltered and naive. I've just never heard anyone I know talk that way to or about their husbands or even about men in general. I've never even thought of treating someone like the examples being given. It doesn't seem like emasculation. It seems like outright emotional abuse and bullying.


Same here. In fact, I wouldn't hang out with women who talked about men that way. I have a son and SO whom I love and respect too much to listen to insulting claptrap about their gender.


----------



## BostonBruins32

Cosmos said:


> I don't believe it was a threadjack, BB. In fact think what you said is quite relevant.
> 
> When we enter into a relationship, we do have to make certain compromises, but those changes shouldn't mean changing who we are or giving up relationship-friendly hobbies/pursuits.
> 
> My SO is an avid photographer, and as the relationship has progressed he's done less and less of it. I've now realized that this is because he possibly felt that he needed to spend ALL his free time with me, which of course he doesn't. I'm now encouraging him to arrange weekend photo shoot outings with one of his friends.


good for you. I think sometimes its gone on too long to rekindle without seeming weird. So you have to force it.

Example, I got away from hiking with friends upon marriage. Hiking trips take a day or an overnight. My wife has said over the last few years "oh you should do some hiking trips " etc.. unfortunately when I tell her my plans for going hiking in 3 weeks she will give me a reaction as if I just blew up the bathroom and shes disgusted. Eventually I got to a point where I didnt feel like this fight anymore, so I asked less and less.

Then I had an epiphany, see my thread, and I've decided that I dont care about her reaction. taking manhood back. taking self back. In the end, I'd imagine she likes me better this way. its a great question, why do women encourage men to stop doing xyz masculine things or why do women criticize (nagging wife stereotype) so much, and then become confused when they lose attraction to this new man they've molded.


----------



## Mr. Nail

This thread has also left me feeling bad. It started out with the proposition that emasculation can't exist then promptly moved to the assertion that if it does indeed exist it is the victims fault that it does exist. The ensuing 25 pages have just been rehashing that point. 
I get it I agreed to be married, thereby giving up my manhood. the only way I can get it back is by getting divorced.
MN


----------



## over20

that_girl said:


> Why does it smell bad? Am I missing something?


Yes...it was before you came back. Threads like this one, very controversial about men, or course, seem to pop up once a week lately..:scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

BostonBruins32 said:


> good for you. I think sometimes its gone on too long to rekindle without seeming weird. So you have to force it.
> 
> Example, I got away from hiking with friends upon marriage. Hiking trips take a day or an overnight. My wife has said over the last few years "oh you should do some hiking trips " etc.. unfortunately when I tell her my plans for going hiking in 3 weeks she will give me a reaction as if I just blew up the bathroom and shes disgusted. Eventually I got to a point where I didnt feel like this fight anymore, so I asked less and less.
> 
> Then I had an epiphany, see my thread, and I've decided that I dont care about her reaction. taking manhood back. taking self back. In the end, I'd imagine she likes me better this way. its a great question, why do women encourage men to stop doing xyz masculine things or why do women criticize (nagging wife stereotype) so much, and then become confused when they lose attraction to this new man they've molded.


Because a lot of men don't understand _their_ woman.

Lots of times they are clueless.

Understanding women and understanding _your_ woman are two completely different things.
If your wife employs doublespeak as a legit means of communication, then you must first address it , explain that it is not acceptable and why , then agree on an acceptable form of communication for both of you.

In your case , ignoring her reaction was a positive step , but I think you need to go further , identify and address the root cause of the communication problem.


----------



## Philat

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> I am very hard wired for monogamy.
> 
> Not saying I couldn't cheat. Just saying I have no desire to.
> 
> Thing is, I wouldn't leave M2 if she had a single affair. I'd leave her if she refused to end it when discovered. But, just for having one. No.
> 
> It wouldn't make me - not love her. *And I would trust her not to do it again. *
> 
> I am almost certain that she would feel far, far worse than I would.
> 
> That said, I don't think M2 could get over it if I had an affair. She is way more possessive and jealous than I am. And that's ok, she's been honest about that from day one.


Admirable, MEM. But I think I'd wait until actually experiencing the thing before making assertions like the bolded.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> Same here. In fact, I wouldn't hang out with women who talked about men that way. I have a son and SO whom I love and respect too much to listen to insulting claptrap about their gender.


Removing yourself from them is one option. Asking them about it, gently probing, is another, i.e., Seeking to Understand, and then To Be Understood. 

Which one do you think yields more growth, for both parties?


----------



## jld

Mr. Nail said:


> This thread has also left me feeling bad. It started out with the proposition that emasculation can't exist then promptly moved to the assertion that if it does indeed exist it is the victims fault that it does exist. The ensuing 25 pages have just been rehashing that point.
> I get it I agreed to be married, thereby giving up my manhood. the only way I can get it back is by getting divorced.
> MN


The assertion is that everyone needs strong boundaries and to be in charge of their own self-image. We all have power and we have to accept responsibility for what we do with it.

We can all be victims, Mr. Nail. Do we want to stay in victimhood? 

When I hear, "She emasculated me," I hear, "I have no power. I gave it all to her."

You can take your power back. You can use it to protect yourself.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> I have heard this mentioned here on TAM. But to me, that does not even seem possible. How can you take masculinity away from a man? Isn't that something inside of him, his essence?
> 
> I cannot see how anyone can take my femininity away from me. It is my essence.
> 
> How do you take someone's essence away?
> 
> I am not even sure they can surrender it. Wouldn't your essence always spring forth, at some point?


This has a lot to do with what I tend to post about. Yes, I think a man can be emasculated. 

Indeed it is about integrity and essence. We can also say that for this to happen the man must cooperate.

Let's put aside for the moment those who are inherently weak, have low self esteem, poor boundaries and or low integrity. 

Many men, including myself, lead life to some extent with some type of armor around them. It is a protection mechanism. Many of us have been taught to suck it up and rub some dirt on it. That we have to endure and take the hurt and protect others. That ultimately we are to sacrifice for the greater good and those who cannot defend themselves even. 

Also I am amazed on TAM sometimes when people go about attacking the male ego and how men's feelings and needs are discounted and ridiculed. This all plays into it.

So a man takes a real risk when he lets down his guard. But he can take a certain amount of hurt here.

Not letting down your guard can be very lonely. To have true intimacy with a woman IMO, you have to take off the armor. Let them in. Arguably, a man should maintain some amount of integrity in any case. But suffice it to say that if you get hit by the right thing you can be destroyed. Is it permanent? Fo some it can be. It may just cause the man to never trust again.

I am not talking about small things that chip away. The man must have boundaries. I am talking about big ticket items. Like banging his boss or the guy who says all women are slvts. Just shooting from the hip here. Depth of betrayal. The less the man cares about the woman the less hurt there would be. So not caring is a type of armor. I think a sexless marriage can get to this point especially if the man stays for the children.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Removing yourself from them is one option. Asking them about it, gently probing, is another, i.e., Seeking to Understand, and then To Be Understood.
> 
> Which one do you think yields more growth, for both parties?


Members of either gender who go on rants about the opposite gender rarely want to understand or be understood, IME. Their issues tend to go a lot deeper than what they're ranting about.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> The assertion is that everyone needs strong boundaries and to be in charge of their own self-image. We all have power and we have to accept responsibility for what we do with it.
> 
> We can all be victims, Mr. Nail. Do we want to stay in victimhood?
> 
> When I hear, "She emasculated me," I hear, "I have no power. I gave it all to her."
> 
> You can take your power back. You can use it to protect yourself.


I agree but when a man locks talons with the woman at altitude. Joins with her and plummets towards the ground he puts himself at risk. Risk versus reward.
If you never make yourself vulnerable .... are you truly intimate?


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> SA, I feel bad for Mrs. Adams. I don't know why Mr. Adams needs so much help.
> 
> *Sure, it is their business, but when I see women feeling so guilty, and responsible, this far on, I cannot help but feel compassionate towards them and want to lift their burden.*
> 
> I think if I cheated, SA, that of course Duguesclin would be angry, and hurt, and would cry. And I know he would forgive me. I know him. He would end up carrying me, helping me to forgive myself.
> 
> He is strong, SA. He just is. And he loves me, utterly.
> 
> And yes, he definitely sees me as weaker than himself. Right or wrong, I know that is how he sees me.



Somewhere along the continuum of this thread, the idea seems to be seeping in that how a man forgives / handles an affair is a yardstick of the measure of his masculinity.

An yes it is Jld, but not in the context of which you are framing your argument.

You see, how he handles the aftermath of an affair is relative to the relationship dynamic ,and a host of other inextricable , related issues before , during and after the affair.

It is a complex and different as our DNA.

IMO,the aftermath of an affair cannot be " business as usual.."

Affairs don't happen out of the blue, there are deep underlying issues that cause them and many of those issues revolve around a person's core values.

Personal healing and so forth are also relative to the relationship dynamic of the couple.
Some people lack deep empathy so they don't see the need for deep introspection and for the necessary work of restorative justice.

For example, in some jurisdictions, when a person is convicted of serious crimes , the state gives the convict the option of apologizing face to face,to the victims of collateral damage , and their family.
But apologizing doesn't absolve the convict from his sentence or lessen his sentence. Neither does it absolve his guilt, rather, it makes him see and feel the full brunt of his wrongdoing.

By apologizing, what he does is take full responsibility for his actions after he realizes the weight of his transgressions and how it affects the family and society.

But most of all, by apologizing face to face to them, he is also doing his part by helping them to release the anger and bitterness they have towards him.

That's why judging a man's masculinity based on how he handles the aftermath an affair is tricky business.


----------



## GusPolinski

Entropy3000 said:


> This has a lot to do with what I tend to post about. Yes, I think a man can be emasculated.
> 
> Indeed it is about integrity and essence. We can also say that for this to happen the man must cooperate.
> 
> Let's put aside for the moment those who are inherently weak, hvae low self esteem, poor boundaries and or low integrity.
> 
> Many men, including myself, lead life to some extent with some type of armor around them. It is a protection mechanism. Many of us have been taught to suck it up and rub some dirt on it. That we have to endure and take the hurt and protect others. That ultimately we are to sacrifice for the greater good and those who cannot defend themselves even.
> 
> Also I am amazed on TAM sometimes when people go about attacking the male ego and how men's feelings and needs are discounted and ridiculed. This all plays into it.
> 
> So a man takes a real risk when he lets down his guard. But he can take a certain amount of hurt here.
> 
> Not letting down your guard can be very lonely. To have true intimacy with a woman IMO, you have to take off the armor. Let them in. Arguably, a man should maintain some amount of integrity in any case. But suffice it to say that if you get hit by the right thing you can be destroyed. Is it permanent? Fo some it is may be. It may just cause the man to never trust again.
> 
> I am not talking about small things that chip away. The man must have boundaries. I am talking about big ticket items. Like banging his boss or the guy who says all women are slvts. Just shooting from the hip here. The less the man cares about the woman the less hurt there would be. So not caring is a type of armor. I think a sexless marriage can get to this point especially if the man stays for the children.


Thank. God. Now where's the Honey Badger?


----------



## GusPolinski

Entropy3000 said:


> I agree but when a man locks talons with the woman at altitude. Joins with her and plummets towards the ground he puts himself at risk. Risk versus reward.
> *If you never make yourself vulnerable .... are you truly intimate?*


And there it is, in a nutshell.

BOOM.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Thank. God. Now where's the Honey Badger?


Honey Badger don't care.


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> the point i keep trying to make to you JLD and you seem to keep missing is this...HE DOES
> 
> The more remorseful I have become...the more my husband trusts me. The more he trusts me, the more he lets go, the more he lets go, the closer we become, the closer we become, the more he helps me do the work.
> 
> 
> what part of this statement do you not understand?
> 
> I don't want or need your sympathy. Your respect? absolutely.
> *But do not continue to destroy my husband *about something you obviously do not understand. I have tried patiently to explain it to you...but it seems on this one particular subject...you cannot "get it".


Is that how he feels, that I am "destroying" him? Why is he giving me that power? 

Mr. Adams, would you like to address this?

I am trying to provoke thought. I am trying to make him feel compassion for _you,_ Mrs. Adams.

I saw your and his posts from a few months ago saying that you would have to take all responsibility for not only your affair, but his, for the rest of your life. That because you "emasculated" him, you would have to spend the rest of your life building up his self-esteem and self-confidence.

Did I misunderstand those posts, Mrs. Adams? Mr. Adams?

It's funny, I always think of dh as the strong one here, the one carrying the marriage. But I cannot imagine really and truly feeling like I would need him to build me up the rest of my life, or that someone else has the ability to "destroy" me. Even I recognize more power in my life, more responsibility _for_ my life, than that.

And I cannot imagine my husband giving anyone, including me, that kind of power over his life, to "destroy" him. His self-concept just would not allow that.

If anything, I am always trying to break through, and get him to listen to me!

I am going to decide how I feel about myself, how I use my power. 

I appreciate support as much as the next person, but I am not going to totally give away my own power, even to someone I trust as much as dh. 

I started this life without him, and I will likely die without him, too, considering how much longer women typically live than men. I am not going to put all responsibility for my self-image onto someone outside of myself. Inefficient.

I have to say, this thread is challenging my own ideas about power. I think it was what FW was trying to say to me six months ago. I think norajane was trying to tell me the same thing even before that. GettingIt has been trying, ever so patiently, to explain it more recently. I just was not ready to hear it.

I am now!

I may feel like dh has more power than I do, but actually, I have my own power. I may willingly cede some, or quite a bit, to him, but it is my own choice to do that. I could choose to stop it at any time. 

Just recognizing this feels very empowering to me.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> Members of either gender who go on rants about the opposite gender rarely want to understand or be understood, IME. Their issues tend to go a lot deeper than what they're ranting about.


But doesn't world peace start with understanding, Cosmos? Don't we have to start somewhere?

This is my concern with the Kick them out of your life approach. Not that I have not done it myself. 

I do it when I either am too weak to take on understanding them, or I just have no interest. But it is not a pro-active approach, imo.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> And there it is, in a nutshell.
> 
> BOOM.


A real man is willing to take the risk for the right woman. This is why all the discussion about choosing that woman and why the criteria are that man's alone.

It takes a brave man, yes with alpha tendencies to make themselves vulnerable. Is it Beta? Sure. But a "real" man is a combination of these. Bravery and compassion. Confident and caring.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> I agree but when a man locks talons with the woman at altitude. Joins with her and plummets towards the ground he puts himself at risk. Risk versus reward.
> If you never make yourself vulnerable .... are you truly intimate?


I think you can be vulnerable from a position of strength, from a position of owning your own power.

I am thinking the most rewarding intimacy comes from two strong individuals who make themselves vulnerable to each other, while still owning their own power, their own responsibilities.


----------



## Entropy3000

Cosmos said:


> Members of either gender who go on rants about the opposite gender rarely want to understand or be understood, IME. Their issues tend to go a lot deeper than what they're ranting about.


This is a given. :iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> A real man is willing to take the risk for the* right* woman. This is why all the discussion about choosing that woman and why the criteria are that man's alone.


This is very true.

But it seems a hard pill for some women to swallow.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> I think you can be vulnerable from a position of strength, from a position of owning your own power.
> 
> I am thinking the most rewarding intimacy comes from two strong individuals who make themselves vulnerable to each other, while still owning their own power, their own responsibilities.


We are talking nuance here. What you say may be practical, but if you are all in you are all in. It is like getting too close to a black hole.

If your focus is on protecting yourself you are holding back. And that may be rational.  But I am just saying that good men can be all in and be destroyed. This is true of women of course as well. But the topic was about being emasculated. 

But why is this a flaw? Persoanlly I feel this side of myself is the best part. My soft side. I do protect it. You have to earn your admittance though. 

Not interested in safe sex or safe love personally.


----------



## jld

Entropy, what do you think a woman thinks of a man who you say can be "destroyed?"


----------



## ReformedHubby

Entropy3000 said:


> _A real man is willing to take the risk for the right woman. This is why all the discussion about choosing that woman and why the *criteria* are that man's alone.
> _
> It takes a brave man, yes with alpha tendencies to make themselves vulnerable. Is it Beta? Sure. But a "real" man is a combination of these. Bravery and compassion. Confident and caring.


:iagree:

Criteria is a big part of it. I've put some thought into this. I used to think that I was able to easily separate sex and emotion simply because I am a man. Now that I'm older and I look back into the past I know better. I used a completely different set of criteria for short term vs long term relationships. I wasn't consciously aware of it then. So for a short term fling I honestly did not care what they did or said about me if things went bad. I was never emotionally invested anyway. 

But for someone I was close to, someone that I let "in", they could absolutely hurt me. There are lots of powerful men that could have anyone that they want that have been hurt and yes felt emasculated by the woman that they love. Most don't stay down forever, but it does happen.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Entropy, what do you think a woman thinks of a man who you say can be "destroyed?"


The right women will get it. The type of woman who you could be vulnerable with. Those are the ones that matter anyway. The ones who want a machine, a sex toy or a worker drone may not want that. The ones who want a loving relationship with a real caring human being will seek these men out. men are people too. Not monsters and not super heroes ... at least with the woman they love.

The woman who realizes she is being given a gift. Maybe she will realize having another man's child might just be a bad thing. I am not her father as they say. I am her lover and her best friend.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> The right women will get it. The type of woman who you could be vulnerable with. Those are the ones that matter anyway. The ones who want a machine, a sex toy or a worker drone may not want that. The ones who want a loving relationship with a real caring human being will seek thes men out. men are people too. Not monsters and not super heroes ... at least with the woman they love.
> 
> The woman who realizes she is being given a gift. Maybe she will realize having another man's child might just be a bad thing. I am not her father as they say. I am her lover and her best friend.


Well, it is best to be yourself, to accept yourself just the way you are. 

That is probably the number one thing I have learned on TAM: You have to accept yourself and be who you are.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> But doesn't world peace start with understanding, Cosmos? Don't we have to start somewhere?
> 
> This is my concern with the Kick them out of your life approach. Not that I have not done it myself.
> 
> I do it when I either am too weak to take on understanding them, or I just have no interest. But it is not a pro-active approach, imo.


Oh, for sure, JLD, but I've learned to pick my battles wisely. 

My signature says it all!


----------



## Thundarr

Duguesclin said:


> I feel sorry for people that have to go through an affair. I have not experienced it but I am sure it is very painful.
> 
> But you should keep things in perspective, there are actually a lot of worse things that can happen. For example I had a colleague that was in flight AF447 that disappeared over the Atlantic. I am sure her husband would have preferred dealing with an affair than dealing with this.


That's a good perspective to already have when something happens but it's not so easy to learn when the sh!t's hitting the fan. Even though it's been decades back, I distinctly remember putting things into perspective during separation. Until that point though, it seemed like "the end of the world....of warcraft".


----------



## jld

Okay, Mrs. Adams. Thanks for your response.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> Oh, for sure, JLD, but I've learned to pick my battles wisely.
> 
> My signature says it all!




Why did you take off the one on unmet needs, Cosmos? I thought that was very good.


----------



## pidge70

Ah but see, when you engage her, it gives her power. Careful, she isn't sure how she should use it.


----------



## that_girl

I love being vulnerable. With the right person.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Oh mr Adams...you did that with such grace and eloquence...I am the one who got violently pissed and wanted to come through my iPad and strangle the crap out of her for not listening...lol
> 
> I am proud of you


Dear Mr and Mrs Adams. You are both a testament to grace and love. I see in you what I aspire toward. Your presence on these boards is a gift.


----------



## Thundarr

EleGirl said:


> I did not twist your words. I simply asked you if you felt that if under the same circumstances, if a woman should get all the assets. Why is it so hard to answer such a simple question? Just types Y or N on your keyboard.
> 
> She asked a simple question here. We’ve had a very good discussion up to now. *The best way to handle threads that you don’t like is to stay off them.* I do that often.


Oh no we can't do that. It's much better to join the discussion, stress about it, interpret quotes loosely, project our contexts and insecurities, have our quotes interpreted loosely and projected upon, and call each other passive aggressive names :smthumbup:. And the best part is we get to read our angry posts the next day and wonder what the point was.


----------



## NobodySpecial

pidge70 said:


> Ah but see, when you engage her, it gives her power. Careful, she isn't sure how she should use it.


I think her entire modus operandi is to justify her own fluffy weakness. HER man is such a masterful super dude, allowing her to be a sniveling weak tool. And ain't that grand! Shouldn't all men be like that?


----------



## jld

Thanks for your response, Mr. Adams. I thought you had written posts where you said you had been "emasculated." I thought Mrs. Adams had written that, too. 

I know it is hard to have our thoughts challenged. We are all being challenged to grow here. It is normal to feel angry and threatened when we feel challenged.


----------



## pidge70

NobodySpecial said:


> I think her entire modus operandi is to justify her own fluffy weakness. HER man is such a masterful super dude, allowing her to be a sniveling weak tool. And ain't that grand! Shouldn't all men be like that?


----------



## NobodySpecial

pidge70 said:


>


Hey in another thread, I gave you a hard time. I want you to know that I am sorry. I was dead wrong. I did not understand what your scene was. Please accept my apology. And may the spirit of contrition allow me not to get in trouble for being off topic.


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> I know it is hard to have our thoughts challenged. We are all being challenged to grow here. It is normal to feel angry and threatened when we feel challenged.


You're not getting it jld. No one is bothered by your definition of masculinity and the attributes you feel that _your_ man should have. By now we all know it. You draw ire in these threads because you insinuate that those of us who live differently than you are flawed.


----------



## pidge70

NobodySpecial said:


> Hey in another thread, I gave you a hard time. I want you to know that I am sorry. I was dead wrong. I did not understand what your scene was. Please accept my apology. And may the spirit of contrition allow me not to get in trouble for being off topic.


No worries, I actually have no clue what you are talking about.


----------



## pidge70

ReformedHubby said:


> You're not getting it jld. No one is bothered by your definition of masculinity and the attributes you feel that _your_ man should have. By now we all know it. You draw ire in these threads because you insinuate that those of us who live differently than you are flawed.


Well duh, we are all so "weak" for letting her words "hurt" us.....sometimes I seriously feel the need to hurl reading some of the tripe posted here.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ReformedHubby said:


> You're not getting it jld. No one is bothered by your definition of masculinity and the attributes you feel that _your_ man should have. By now we all know it. You draw ire in these threads because you insinuate that those of us who live differently than you are flawed.


Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

On masculinity as I love it in my husband.

Character
Integrity
Fatherhood


What he isn't is a particular leader. No headship there. I wear those pants. What he loves about me is my strength. What I love about him is his tolerance. He puts up with me! He is wonderful. And looks exactly nothing like what jld wants in a man.


----------



## Marcus588

Seems as if there is a bit of a double standard here. To the women saying "A man won't let a woman emasculate him" would you say that "A woman won't let a man make her feel less of a woman"? Why are so many here happy to sympathize/empathize with a woman who's man construes actions that makes her feel less than a person yet not the other way? 

If a mans actions cause a woman to feel inferior or less than she gets all the sympathy/empathy in the world, but if a womans actions makes a man feel the same, well, he just has "issues" and "should man up". Seems like quite the double standard to me.


----------



## that_girl

:rofl: Pidge, lolll

And Thundarr, every time I see your picture there, I want to just run up and rub your head and scratch your ears and snuggle the sh1t outta you. Err, that dog. 

And it's weird to me that people are shet-talking another poster...in her own thread...like she isn't here or going to read it. Am I missing something? This is ok? I mean, just address her, no?


----------



## NobodySpecial

pidge70 said:


> No worries, I actually have no clue what you are talking about.


Family and parenting sub board. I was quite wrong. Glad it was not bad for you for me to be a big fat meanie.


----------



## that_girl

Marcus588 said:


> Seems as if there is a bit of a double standard here. To the women saying "A man won't let a woman emasculate him" would you say that "A woman won't let a man make her feel less of a woman"? Why are so many here happy to sympathize/empathize with a woman who's man construes actions that makes her feel less than a person yet not the other way?
> 
> If a mans actions cause a woman to feel inferior or less than she gets all the sympathy/empathy in the world, but if a womans actions makes a man feel the same, well, he just has "issues" and "should man up". Seems like quite the double standard to me.


You really have to listen to the whole show.

(meaning, you have to read all the posts...it's a doozy! lol You are right, but it's been addressed. And addressed again.)


----------



## pidge70

that_girl said:


> :rofl: Pidge, lolll
> 
> And Thundarr, every time I see your picture there, I want to just run up and rub your head and scratch your ears and snuggle the sh1t outta you. Err, that dog.
> 
> And it's weird to me that people are shet-talking another poster...in her own thread...like she isn't here or going to read it. Am I missing something? This is ok? I mean, just address her, no?


You've been gone a while young grasshopper. Just wait, you will learn the ways.


----------



## that_girl

pidge70 said:


> You've been gone a while young grasshopper. Just wait, you will learn the ways.



UGH! PIDGE! What does that MEAN!? GDamit.


So we can now shet talk people?! WOot! :bounce:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *jld said:* I think if I cheated, SA, that of course Duguesclin would be angry, and hurt, and would cry. And I know he would forgive me. I know him. *He would end up carrying me, helping me to forgive myself.*


 Ok...so here is one of those Double standards some women carry .... but it works for the 2 of you......as you & his thoughts are purely in alignment.. no conflict.. He is the Tree, you are sitting in the branches (as you said in another post)...

Every couple may share some strong views that others would take offense to..because it wasn't their way or path to healing.. and this is OK. we don't have to all be the same.. 



> *He is strong, SA. He just is. And he loves me, utterly.
> 
> And yes, he definitely sees me as weaker than himself. Right or wrong, I know that is how he sees me*.


 I will not diminish you or tell your husband he needs to find a stronger wife.. really, that would cause something in your husband to rise up and defend you.. or it should. I have seen numerous posts in the past here suggesting Men who seek out weak women are insecure.. now if I said this to your husband (which I am not).. he'd be offended.. and so would you! Can you see that this goes both ways? 

Because your views & his are so high on the bar in this direction.. that when you speak on these things , you DOWN others, you call them "insecure" -unworthy of a woman's respect. *I am in the camp that feels "this feeling of emasculation" SHOULD be temporary.*.. the man needs to deal with it (but so do us women to pick ourselves up -and not play victim).. 

I don't know, I celebrate men & women's differences but I want a FEELING breathing vulnerable man who is ALL IN .. the last posts here by Entrophy .. I resonate with his every word ... I feel what he speaks gets to the heart of it...where things are being missed, focusing on Power... we are Human, MEN have feelings too... Men are not super Heros... like that song I put in your other thread days ago.... This is the sort of man I WANT in my life.. this IS the most worthy type FOR who I am.... this is SECURE enough for me....



> Superman by Ronan Keating......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been heading in the wrong direction
> Hiding from my own protection
> Running but my heart was standing still
> I guess you saw the light inside me
> Your love has been a torch to guide me
> I hope I can be all that you deserve
> 
> Well I'm no superman
> But I'll love you that best I can
> And you know I'm just flesh and bones, but with you
> I feel I'm flying
> *Don't you know I'm no superman
> But I'll always be your man*
> 
> I was searching for a heart that's beating
> As fast as the way I'm feeling
> Trying to find some peace there in my soul
> You know it was your love that saved me
> The answer to my prayers you gave me
> And I hope I'll be all you deserve
> 
> I'd fight for you
> I'd die for you
> You know I would
> Hold back the night, light up the sky
> Oh if I could, I'll always be your man...yeah





GusPolinski said:


> Well, OK. * Maybe I should have alluded to emotional management instead of emotional suppression.
> 
> Either way, the emotions are still there, but they're sort of redirected (and, hopefully, constructively)*.


 Yes.. in the face of these feelings coming upon a GOOD MAN , a WORTHY MAN... this should be his path.. not to suppress .. but to Manage..and redirect ...in a healthy way.. in this he will regain what was temporarily clouding him..



jld said:


> *jld said:* If we are using emasculated as an emotional term, then I just have to refer back to the idea of not giving away our power, not letting forces outside ourselves determine how we see ourselves.


 there is one thing we can not escape unless we are made of ICE...stone or steel...when we allow those we love into our lives, when we get to sharing our souls with another... *we also invite the RISK of pain, losing them, betrayal*.. I don't see it as Power , this takes our humanity away -but overlooking the vulnerable soft side somehow...or I am just missing it myself...

I want those things from my Husband, the RISKS are worth the rewards of the deepest of love. And even if I can rip his heart out.. if it didn't hurt him, I would NOT feel loved at all ! This is my perspective . ...you can't see THIS side ? 



> *You do have to be careful, though, to consider what other people are saying to see if there is some perhaps painful truth to it. We can learn from true comments, however hurtful.*


 This is a part of being self aware , being open to constructive criticism of those who care about us or are a part of our lives.. ON a forum -this is really not important though.. we are sharing, learning, but no one here should be "overly" upset over others opinions..



Mrs. John Adams said:


> the point i keep trying to make to you JLD and you seem to keep missing is this...HE DOES
> 
> The more remorseful I have become...the more my husband trusts me. The more he trusts me, the more he lets go, the more he lets go, the closer we become, the closer we become, the more he helps me do the work.
> 
> what part of this statement do you not understand?
> 
> I don't want or need your sympathy. Your respect? absolutely.
> But do not continue to destroy my husband about something you obviously do not understand. I have tried patiently to explain it to you...but it seems on this one particular subject...you cannot "get it".


 *REMORSE*.... this hasn't been thoroughly talked about here.. In any affair.. if one can easily forgive when the other has not shown DEEP remorse, I would question if the healing was complete... me and H was talking about this in the am... in regards to Remorse. I was saying If I cheated on him, I would have to eat dirt before him and grovel on the ground -we were being light hearted about it (because it hasn't touched our lives so we can do that) but IF it did.. YES.. in order for HIM to forgive me from HIS HEART.. I would have to show him DEEPLY my remorse.. I have read books on forgiveness.. it's THAT important, this is not gender specific .. he said to me "If you didn't feel bad, you wouldn't think it was a MISTAKE".. let's face it --that is NOT OK.. then we get into the whole "feeling like a doormat" by staying with a spouse, for the kids, for God, whatever, when they didn't show proper remorse, not about POWER.. but about 2 people speaking, showing Love and care towards each's feelings, to overcome something that HURT them both.. and they are working together in unison to overcome it..

Again , these are the success stories, allow them their FULL STORY ..and how they personally healed.. we don't have to all be the same.. as you said in one of your posts...."Seeking to Understand, and then To Be Understood."

We need to give that to others ...here on TAM.. 



Entropy3000 said:


> This has a lot to do with what I tend to post about. *Yes, I think a man can be emasculated. *
> 
> Indeed it is about integrity and essence. We can also say that for this to happen the man must cooperate.
> 
> Let's put aside for the moment those who are inherently weak, have low self esteem, poor boundaries and or low integrity.
> 
> Many men, including myself, lead life to some extent with some type of armor around them. It is a protection mechanism.* Many of us have been taught to suck it up and rub some dirt on it. That we have to endure and take the hurt and protect others. That ultimately we are to sacrifice for the greater good and those who cannot defend themselves even.
> 
> Also I am amazed on TAM sometimes when people go about attacking the male ego and how men's feelings and needs are discounted and ridiculed. This all plays into it.*
> 
> *So a man takes a real risk when he lets down his guard.* But he can take a certain amount of hurt here.
> 
> Not letting down your guard can be very lonely. *To have true intimacy with a woman IMO, you have to take off the armor. Let them in. Arguably, a man should maintain some amount of integrity in any case. But suffice it to say that if you get hit by the right thing you can be destroyed. Is it permanent? Fo some it can be. It may just cause the man to never trust again.
> 
> I am not talking about small things that chip away. The man must have boundaries. I am talking about big ticket items. Like banging his boss or the guy who says all women are slvts. Just shooting from the hip here. Depth of betrayal. The less the man cares about the woman the less hurt there would be. So not caring is a type of armor. I think a sexless marriage can get to this point especially if the man stays for the children.*














jld said:


> I think you can be vulnerable from a position of strength, from a position of owning your own power.
> 
> *I am thinking the most rewarding intimacy comes from two strong individuals who make themselves vulnerable to each other, while still owning their own power, their own responsibilities.*


What you are calling Power..I would be calling .."while owning their own HAND"....and in the responsibilities sense, I would call this "INTERdependence"...it's the most healthy set up, but even in it.. we still lean on each other and HELP each other.. 



jld said:


> *Entropy, what do you think a woman thinks of a man who you say can be "destroyed?"*


 Let me answer this one...If his very foundations were not ripped away upon learning I slept with another man - and enjoyed it, my heart was for another...
How I would feel ...I'd seriously THINK ..he doesn't care about me, better stay with my affair partner !... 

The fact I DO know it would destroy my husband is comforting to me jld.. COMFORTING.. this is the security I have that his love runs deeper than the ocean for me.. I am his EVERYTHING.. he is ALL IN.....that is a gift to me... that measure of love, I can never do anything to harm this wonderful man.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Thanks for your response, Mr. Adams. I thought you had written posts where you said you *had been "emasculated."* I thought Mrs. Adams had written that, too.
> 
> I know it is hard to have our thoughts challenged. We are all being challenged to grow here. It is normal to feel angry and threatened when we feel challenged.


The use of the past tense "had been" is key here. This is not something that persists.


----------



## Marcus588

that_girl said:


> You really have to listen to the whole show.
> 
> (meaning, you have to read all the posts...it's a doozy! lol You are right, but it's been addressed. And addressed again.)


Ah, I only read the first page.

I just felt this was along the lines of, how if a woman is with a man that is verbally/emotionally abusive people who say she is weak to stay get torn down with stuff like "Oh, it's not always that easy, she is a victim and even strong women can stay in abusive relationships" yet if a man is going through the same thing well he is just an idiot for staying.


----------



## that_girl

I'd never think of a man being an "idiot for staying". I'd think his wife is a b1tch.

But I see your point. Society, as a whole, tends to side with the woman in most cases. But any woman who treats her mate like that deserves a punch to the neck. Honestly. What grown person (man or woman) needs to act like that? And why do they think it's ok? Good grief!

Also, I suspect when/if men stand up to it, they are now the bad guys for yelling/being angry, etc. Whereas a woman who stands up to it is a hero. Yay for her.

I think it goes back to the belief that men are stronger than women and therefore cannot be abused by women. This is not always true and if done "right", the abuse can be subtle and you don't even know it's happened until it's a way of life.

I do NOT advocate domestic violence, but sometimes, when watching a show and the wife is just HORRIBLE to her mate, I just envision him giving her a good right hook. To the moon, Alice!

lol. I dunno. I'm a bit twisted.


----------



## Caribbean Man

that_girl said:


> Also, I suspect when/if men stand up to it, they are now the bad guys for yelling/being angry, etc. Whereas a woman who stands up to it is a hero. Yay for her.
> 
> *I think it goes back to the belief that men are stronger than women and therefore cannot be abused by women. This is not always true and if done "right", the abuse can be subtle and you don't even know it's happened until it's a way of life.*


Yup.

Agreed 100%

Men are conditioned from an early age to accept abuse , especially physical abuse from their women as normal.
The minute he responds, and stand up for himself, he becomes the bad guy.

People assume he must have provoked his "poor wife" to anger.

No.

Shouting and screaming is not appropriate.
Throwing tantrums or other things is not appropriate
Slamming doors is not appropriate
Hitting is not appropriate


Violence and abuse is _never_ an appropriate response to solving _any _type of problem in a relationship.


----------



## that_girl

I think boys are trained to not show or express emotion too.

I hear parents tell their boys all the time to "suck it up", "it's not so bad" (this takes away any power the kid has on his own feelings) or my favorite, "Why are you crying like a little girl!?" (like being a girl is a BAD THING. WTF? I never tell my girls to "act like a boy and be tough!" That would be ridiculous and would say that they don't have the toughness as girls.)

I taught my girls to be tough but not by comparing them to boys. I don't know why boys are compared to girls when they are feeling weak and emotions (we're HUMAN!) and I really don't know why "being a girl" is used as an insult.

So then boys grow up angry but they don't know how to express it. We teach our daughters how to express emotion, but not boys. It's weird.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Ok...so here is one of those Double standards some women carry .... but it works for the 2 of you......as you & his thoughts are purely in alignment.. no conflict.. He is the Tree, you are sitting in the branches (as you said in another post)...
> 
> Every couple may share some strong views that others would take offense to..because it wasn't their way or path to healing.. and this is OK. we don't have to all be the same.. We cannot be the same. And there are some men who are happily submissive, and some women who are happily dominant. I think that has been a big revelation to me. I really have to work to wrap my mind around that.
> 
> But people keep telling me, and eventually I will really and truly get it.
> 
> I will not diminish you or tell your husband he needs to find a stronger wife.. really, that would cause something in your husband to rise up and defend you.. or it should. Why? If we are secure in ourselves, why would we feel we have to defend ourselves? We cannot prove who we are anyway. And we are growing and learning here, too. I have seen numerous posts in the past here suggesting Men who seek out weak women are insecure.. now if I said this to your husband (which I am not).. he'd be offended.. and so would you! Do you remember my Kink thread, where OldFaithful told me that Duguesclin likes being with me because I need him, and he likes feeling needed? I had never thought of it that way before. I did not realize that at all. But when I showed him her post, he said she was right, that he really enjoys being needed by me. I was shocked that a poster on the internet could identify something that I myself could not see. There is a lot we can learn here, if we can listen.Can you see that this goes both ways? Not following you here, but I would like to.
> 
> Because your views & his are so high on the bar in this direction.. that when you speak on these things , you DOWN others, you call them "insecure" -unworthy of a woman's respect. If I thought they had to stay there, I would not say anything. But I think they can get stronger, by owning their power. It's why we tell people they are not forced to stay in abusive situations, right? We try to get them to see their power, and use it for the highest good. *I am in the camp that feels "this feeling of emasculation" SHOULD be temporary.*.. the man needs to deal with it (but so do us women to pick ourselves up -and not play victim)..
> 
> I don't know, I celebrate men & women's differences but I want a FEELING breathing vulnerable man who is ALL IN .. the last posts here by Entrophy .. I resonate with his every word ... I feel what he speaks gets to the heart of it...where things are being missed, focusing on Power... we are Human, MEN have feelings too... Men are not super Heros... like that song I put in your other thread days ago.... This is the sort of man I WANT in my life.. this IS the most worthy type FOR who I am.... this is SECURE enough for me....
> Your husband is definitely secure, SA. I definitely felt that from him.
> 
> And one of my husband's weaknesses is that he is not emotional. Our strengths are our weaknesses pushed to extreme. Dh will never be as feeling as some of the men on TAM. It is just not in his nature. He can work on it, but it will never be natural for him.
> 
> 
> Yes.. in the face of these feelings coming upon a GOOD MAN , a WORTHY MAN... this should be his path.. not to suppress .. but to Manage..and redirect ...in a healthy way.. in this he will regain what was temporarily clouding him.. Yep.
> 
> there is one thing we can not escape unless we are made of ICE...stone or steel...when we allow those we love into our lives, when we get to sharing our souls with another... *we also invite the RISK of pain, losing them, betrayal*.. I don't see it as Power , this takes our humanity away -but overlooking the vulnerable soft side somehow...or I am just missing it myself... By power, I don't mean something we use against the other person. I guess I mean Agency, the ability to act in our own behalf. Is that clearer?
> 
> I want those things from my Husband, the RISKS are worth the rewards of the deepest of love. And even if I can rip his heart out.. if it didn't hurt him, I would NOT feel loved at all ! This is my perspective . ...you can't see THIS side ? Yes. And I discussed this with friends once. Because my husband is hard to move . . . he is hard to move. The highs are not very high, and the lows are not very low. He is very stable, very steady.
> 
> If I needed more than that, it would not work with us.
> 
> This is a part of being self aware , being open to constructive criticism of those who care about us or are a part of our lives.. ON a forum -this is really not important though.. we are sharing, learning, but noone here should be upset over others opinions.. We can't take it personally. I know, most of us do, but I hope it is only momentary. I hope that when people look back later, they realize it was not worth getting upset that someone on the internet disagreed with them, and told them so.
> 
> Me personally, as H would say, I just like to argue - but I'm KIND about it ! I think being open and honest is a kindness, even if it stings at first. It challenges us to review our own beliefs.
> 
> We don't learn as much from people who always agree with us. That is why it is good to be challenged. And it doesn't mean we have to change our views! It is just a chance to review them.
> 
> *REMORSE*.... this hasn't been thoroughly talked about here.. In any affair.. if one can easily forgive when the other has not shown DEEP remorse, I would question if the healing was complete... me and H was talking about this in the am... in regards to Remorse. I was saying If I cheated on him, I would have to eat dirt before him and grovel on the ground I feel the same. But it would come from me, not from dh. I would hate myself for hurting him. And I would be a fool to do it. -we were being light hearted about it (because it hasn't touched our lives so we can do that) but IF it did.. YES.. in order for HIM to forgive me from HIS HEART.. I would have to show him DEEPLY my remorse.Sounds normal.. I have read books on forgiveness.. it's THAT important, this is not gender specific .. he said to me "If you didn't feel bad, you wouldn't think it was a MISTAKE".. let's face it --that is NOT OK..Nope, it's not. then we get into the whole "feeling like a doormat" by staying with a spouse, for the kids, for God, whatever, when they didn't show proper remorse, not about POWER.. but about 2 people speaking, showing Love and care towards each's feelings, to overcome something that HURT them both.. and they are working together in unison to overcome it..Yep, sounds beautiful, and very healthy.
> 
> Again , these are the success stories, allow them their FULL STORY ..and how they personally healed.. we don't have to all be the same.. as you said in one of your posts...."Seeking to Understand, and then To Be Understood." [/COLOR]
> 
> We need to give that to others ...here on TAM.. Yes, we do. We do each other a favor when we are honest and open with each other. But that does take courage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are calling Power..I would be calling .."while owning their own HAND"....and in the responsibilities sense, I would call this "INTERdependence"...it's the most healthy set up, but even in it.. we still lean on each other and HELP each other..
> 
> If his very foundations were not ripped away upon learning I slept with another man - and enjoyed it, my heart was for another...
> How I would feel ...I'd seriously THINK ..he doesn't care about me, better stay with my affair partner !... Sorry, had to laugh here! Of course he would care. And his actions and words would show you that.
> 
> The fact I DO know it would destroy my husband is comforting to me jld.. COMFORTING.. Interesting. Thank you for sharing that. Thought-provoking for me. this is the security I have that his love runs deeper than the ocean for me.. I am his EVERYTHING.. he is ALL IN.....and I enjoy holding that as a gift to me.. that measure of love, I can never do anything to harm this wonderful man.


Is that last line a double-entendre, SA? 

I hope I am not giving the impression that dh does not love me. He loves me very much.

But no, I cannot destroy him. I know that. As much as I could hurt him, I just cannot destroy him. 

And I would not want to. I love him, too.

I know, I get silly idealistic about him, but I do think I could put dh's name in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. 

You cannot destroy Love. It is too powerful. And it would forgive you for trying. 

If I died, he would go on. He would feel the loss every day, but he would go on. We have children; he would have to.


----------



## Duguesclin

ReformedHubby said:


> You're not getting it jld. No one is bothered by your definition of masculinity and the attributes you feel that _your_ man should have. By now we all know it. You draw ire in these threads because you insinuate that those of us who live differently than you are flawed.


I do not understand how can someone not be bothered and angry at the same time on this subject. It should be one or the other. If no one was bothered by it, the thread would have died quickly.


----------



## that_girl

I just think it's interesting to read others' views.

I am not "bothered" by it as much as I would be if it was happening in my own home.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I teared up reading that post Mrs John Adams.. dam*ed emotional ME.. ..it all makes beautiful sense ... it's very giving, it's filled with understanding and how I see what love is really made of..


----------



## Caribbean Man

So can we all agree that different marriages would have a different type of relationship dynamic that dictates exactly how each couple would respond to issues [ like infidelity] that threaten the stability of the marriage?

That each of us have different capacity to love , forgive and reconcile, that we are all on a path towards learning exactly how to do that , and how we respond will always be dependent upon any number of variables, culture , socio economics , self awareness, to name a few.

But it doesn't make one marriage better than the others or one man more
" masculine" than the other.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Duguesclin said:


> *I do not understand how can someone not be bothered and angry at the same time on this subject.* It should be one or the other. If no one was bothered by it, the thread would have died quickly.


It can be both. What I meant by the post is that no one is bothered by the relationship dynamic between you and your wife. If it works for you that's great. That's the part that everyone is cool with.

What makes folks angry is that your posts simultaneously insinuate that those that do not share your viewpoint are flawed or even worse weak. This is the reason why the thread is so "lively".


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Wolfman1968 said:


> Then maybe the conclusion is that emotional abuse and bullying is one way to emasculate a man.
> 
> And, for the record, I HAVE heard plenty of women talk about their husbands like that. So it does exist.


Did I say it didn't exist? No.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScarletBegonias

hambone said:


> So does that equally apply when a guy steps up and does something to a woman? Like bully her or worse?


Oh Hambone, you know I believe in equality. Yes,it equally applies.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScarletBegonias

ReformedHubby said:


> It can be both. What I meant by the post is that no one is bothered by the relationship dynamic between you and your wife. If it works for you that's great. That's the part that everyone is cool with.
> 
> What makes folks angry is that your posts simultaneously insinuate that those that do not share your viewpoint are flawed or even worse weak. This is the reason why the thread is so "lively".


They both do this often which is why almost every thread Jld starts becomes this way. It's interesting for sure.


----------



## Marcus588

that_girl said:


> I'd never think of a man being an "idiot for staying". I'd think his wife is a b1tch.
> 
> But I see your point. Society, as a whole, tends to side with the woman in most cases. But any woman who treats her mate like that deserves a punch to the neck. Honestly. What grown person (man or woman) needs to act like that? And why do they think it's ok? Good grief!
> 
> Also, I suspect when/if men stand up to it, they are now the bad guys for yelling/being angry, etc. Whereas a woman who stands up to it is a hero. Yay for her.
> 
> I think it goes back to the belief that men are stronger than women and therefore cannot be abused by women. This is not always true and if done "right", the abuse can be subtle and you don't even know it's happened until it's a way of life.
> 
> I do NOT advocate domestic violence, but sometimes, when watching a show and the wife is just HORRIBLE to her mate, I just envision him giving her a good right hook. To the moon, Alice!
> 
> lol. I dunno. I'm a bit twisted.


I am reminded of a controversial video awhile back.

After extremely tight Jets victory over Patriots, male Jets fan punches female Pats fan in face - NY Daily News

You can see the guy trying to leave, then the woman runs up and hits him so he turns around and hits back and yet he gets demonized in it. He didn't even hit her hard enough to knock her down! If a woman is "tough" enough to run at a guy and hit him with his back turned no less than surely she can expect retaliation in kind.


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> It can be both. What I meant by the post is that no one is bothered by the relationship dynamic between you and your wife. If it works for you that's great. That's the part that everyone is cool with.
> 
> What makes folks angry is that your posts simultaneously insinuate that those that do not share your viewpoint are flawed or even worse weak. This is the reason why the thread is so "lively".


We are all flawed, RH. And we all have our weaknesses. We want men to own their power and use it for good. Specifically, we would like to see them help women and children.

Many people are expressing their opinions, in many different ways. I don't feel any need to tell anyone not to express themselves, or to tell them how to do it. I don't feel any need to report anyone, either. 

I think letting people speak freely is a great advantage of an online forum.


----------



## John Lee

I guess I just don't understand why the two most "secure" people who have ever walked the earth, apparently, spend so much time on an internet message board talking about how awesome they are and subtly putting other people down. That's about all I have left to say on this thread.


----------



## Thundarr

John Lee said:


> I guess I just don't understand why the two most "secure" people who have ever walked the earth, apparently, spend so much time on an internet message board *talking about how awesome they are and subtly putting other people down.* That's about all I have left to say on this thread.


We all do this some depending on the topic and often by accident. It's more about validation of self and ideals. Which happens to be the same reason it comes across as offensive or judgmental to others (feeling judged about self and ideals).


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> I guess I just don't understand why the two most "secure" people who have ever walked the earth, apparently, spend so much time on an internet message board talking about how awesome they are and subtly putting other people down. That's about all I have left to say on this thread.


Gosh, I did not realize that is how I come off. 

I can tell you I am not secure. That is why I am here. It's how I got here. I couldn't figure out why I was so dependent on dh, always leaning on him, always relying on him. I thought there was something wrong with me.

I am growing in confidence. And threads like this are helping me see my own power. I learn a lot from the exchanges. Actually, the attacking ones probably help me the most. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, as the saying goes.

Dug would never come here if I did not ask him, John. He really only spends time voluntarily on business forums. I am the one always asking him to participate here. Practically begging, actually.

I show my love through words. I do it with friends, too. I am a gusher, I guess.


----------



## MEM2020

Bax,

You've begun your journey, and that's a beautiful thing. 

You will know you have reached the halfway point when you read a post like the one below and shake your head. 

At the 'halfway' point you'll realize that:

Another way for a man to *self emasculate *is to avoid responsibility, and waste his time engaged in child's games. 




QUOTE=BaxJanson;9387898]Looking back at the original question, I'm thinking another way to emasculate a man is through a lack of responsibility. I've certainly heard my fair share of Peter Pan syndrome/play video games all day stories. A man who is protected and sheltered from the stress of responsibility will rarely show up as a man. Uncalloused skin will blister; untempered blades will break. I'd say I see a lot of this in society today, and yes, I'd say its emasculating, as well.[/QUOTE]


----------



## ticktock33

I don't think that's what she is saying, I think you are reading into it way too much.She never said that they don't have problems or that they are perfect. 
But she and dug are happy with the dynamic and it works for them and she wants to show others that are open to it that it's ok. 

I don't think she is looking down on anyone at all!

Take what you want and leave the rest, there's no need for the attacks.


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> JLd....WOW...see the way i perceive you is that you and dug think you have the perfect marriage...no issues at all...totally secure in each other. He is dominating...and you want it that way...and it works beautifully for you.
> 
> You appear to be judgmental and condescending to men who cannot possibly live up to your expectations...only dug can do that because he is so secure in his masculinity.
> 
> I am amazed at this new revelation.
> 
> it puts a whole new spin on the way you seem to perceive others.


Lol, Mrs. Adams. This is another reason I don't think it is a good idea to put people on ignore, or stop communicating. The more we talk, the more bound we are to understand each other. Even if we pull our hair out getting there! 

I think you make a good point about most men not being able to live up to my expectations. My therapist said that once, too.

It's hard for me to accept that. I feel like if we don't ask more of men, they won't do more. 

Men seem to like challenge. If we set the bar higher, they might try to meet it. 

That is my thinking, anyway. 

And about my marriage . . . I couldn't figure out why the D/s kept coming up here. Dug is Dug with me or without me, you know? It's just his personality. He just doesn't take things personally.


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Yes that's what she is saying...but she can't seem to do it without ridiculing others who live differently...or so it would appear...
> 
> Look..I like this woman...she is amazingly intelligent and compassionate....and in the short 7 months she has been here she has started more threads than anyone I know. She is a thinker..and I don't think she has a vile bone in her body...
> 
> If she thought....if she knew she had hurt me...I am sure she would be the first to console me.
> 
> I harbor no I hard feelings toward Jld at all...none
> Does she frustrate me? Uh...YES! She tends to NOT listen...but I admire her and I respect her. I disagree with her...but I am glad she is here.


(((((Mrs. Adams))))) (((((Mr. Adams)))))

I don't hate you. I care about you. Okay, I care about Mrs. Adams more. 

I have just seen so many women hurting in my 44 years. I feel so bad for them. I feel like women try so hard, they want to do the right thing, be good to their families. But they are not perfect. And then they beat themselves up so much for that.

I love it when men reach out to women, and carry them, relieving them of their burdens. I think women appreciate it so much, instead of going it alone.

Ha ha, SA -- that is the _romantic _in me!


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> But sweetheart..do you understand...my bar is also high...and my husband surpasses it...
> 
> Your bar and my bar may not be in the same place...but* he only has to please me...*not you.


That's true, Mrs. Adams.


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Mr Adams has carried me 42 years...even when he should have thrown me away...
> 
> I could not have a man who treats me with more respect and admiration...this man..adores me.
> 
> You have misunderstood...I give to him because I want to..he doesn't ask...
> 
> You seem to think he mistreats me...nothing could be further from the truth. He is kind and loving and gentle and he takes care of me...and I reciprocate.


I got that from your last post, that you are not required to do what you do, that it is voluntary.

Glad to hear you are happy, Mrs. Adams.


----------



## Lyris

You keep saying you're getting it, that you understand, that it's dawning on you that not everyone wants what you do. But every thread you start gives the lie to that. You don't believe any of us. You think we're deluded and secretly we want what you've got.

Even one of your last posts here, saying if a woman lifts her expectations, maybe a man will rise to meet them shows that. 

You asked a question in this thread, what do you think a woman would think of a man she could destroy? I'll tell you what I think, because I know I have that power as does my husband. And I adore, respect and love him. I cherish him. He cherishes me. 

If I thought my husband would continue to love me no matter what I did, then I'd probably start behaving badly. I'd take him for granted and it would be a bad situation all around. 

Many many people have said this about you jld. That you seem disingenuous and rigid and subtly disrespectful. When that many people are saying the same thing, time to look at what you're doing to contribute.


----------



## that_girl

coffee4me said:


> TG I don't think this is true of all boys. I did not teach my son not to show his emotions, he was always that way. He does not show his emotions in public or in the moment. That does not mean he does not have them or that he suppressed them. He processes pain, sorrow and hurt differently, later and in private and that's ok.
> 
> I've read a lot of literature that state's I should be teaching him differently but why would I want to change his nature. He feels that he should be strong in the moment of crisis and he is expressing an emotion- strength. The emotion he has no problem expressing openly is happiness and love, he's generous with the bear hugs.


Oh i never mean all of anything when I talk. That would be wrong about everything.

As a teacher, I have to work harder with my boys (5th grade) to talk about things because they'd rather knock each other out. I recognize this is a male trait, but when I ask why they are angry, they don't know. lol. My girls have no trouble talking about how they feel, and who did what, and why, and how and when. Omg.



I just meant in general, the way people raise boys vs. girls is different. Starting from babyhood. 

It's good your son acknowledges his emotions. That's healthy.

My DD14 talks NOW about everything. But before age 13, she hid all emotions. I was worried for a while.


----------



## that_girl

I've never once thought if I could destroy my husband.

The thought has never crossed my mind. 

I have wanted to claw his eyes out, but that was anger in response to some actions of his. It faded quickly.

But to destroy...no. Not even in divorce filing did I set out to destroy. I was still fair. 

I don't think he could be destroyed. He is a resilient human like I am. Most people get in holes once in a while...it's the best place to grow from.

Our marriage is our marriage. Good, bad, ugly, awesome...whatever...it's our marriage so he and I make the rules. No one else has to live this life for us. No one else has to deal with the fall out. Sure, i get great advice and look at it and gather information. But in this lifetime, this is my work.


----------



## Centurions

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> (((((Mrs. Adams))))) (((((Mr. Adams)))))
> 
> I don't hate you. I care about you. Okay, I care about Mrs. Adams more.
> 
> *I have just seen so many women hurting in my 44 years. I feel so bad for them. I feel like women try so hard, they want to do the right thing, be good to their families. But they are not perfect. And then they beat themselves up so much for that.*
> 
> I love it when men reach out to women, and carry them, relieving them of their burdens. I think women appreciate it so much, instead of going it alone.
> 
> Ha ha, SA -- that is the _romantic _in me!


You know what my 1st thought was reading this.. I've seen more Men in my 47 yrs who've felt like this..and I felt the women didn't appreciate them! I know part of this stems from what Ive seen in my own family.. I learned a few weeks ago, my Dear Grandfather courted my Grandmother for like 14 yrs before she gave into to marrying him. I am thinking to myself. LORD.. did he have some patience!! -should have dumped her & moved on....

I seen my Mother hurt my Father.. and I feel I have hurt my Husband more than he's ever hurt me.. I lived with my Inlaws and felt his DAD was way too lenient with his Hoarding wife...(Husband's Mom)... she was always complaining to me ..and all I could think was.. If I was him, I'd tie you up somewhere and get 5 dumpsters hauled to the house ... she took advantage too - I adored his dad.. too easy maybe. 

I have a GF who cheated on her husband, another who refuses sex and he's a good christian man who would never leave her.. 

Believe me JLD.. this goes BOTH ways.. no matter what we have seen ...each and every situation is unique..


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> How can you take masculinity away from a man?


With a knife?

--Sorry. Couldn't resist.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ocotillo said:


> With a knife?
> 
> --Sorry. Couldn't resist.


There is such a thing.. Penectomy - Wikipedia

One of the saddest threads I ever came across here was by a man who got cancer and had his penis removed -shorty after they married (he was 28)... he wanted so bad to please his wife...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/72804-sex-after-penectomy.html


----------



## Duguesclin

ocotillo said:


> With a knife?
> 
> --Sorry. Couldn't resist.


Or with one of jld's posts. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> Or with one of jld's posts.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Or, apparently, by exchanging wedding vows w/ her.


----------



## that_girl

rude.


----------



## pidge70

that_girl said:


> rude.


To be fair, Dug was kinda rude as well.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Duguesclin said:


> Or with one of jld's posts.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I know you are joking but cutting posts from someone you have zero emotional attachment to are quite harmless no matter how manipulative they may or may not be.

No I believe it has to be about betrayal.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Jld said*: Do you remember my Kink thread, *where OldFaithful told me that Duguesclin likes being with me because I need him, and he likes feeling needed? I had never thought of it that way before. I did not realize that at all. But when I showed him her post, he said she was right, that he really enjoys being needed by me.* I was shocked that a poster on the internet could identify something that I myself could not see.


 There are personalities like this.. my Husband is like yours in this respect, it even speaks it in his temperament profile..the ISFJ  ...

says this on the opening line " ISFJs are characterized above all by their desire to serve others, their "need to be needed." In extreme cases, this need is so strong that standard give-and-take relationships are deeply unsatisfying to them; however, most ISFJs find more than enough with which to occupy themselves within the framework of a normal life" ...when I read this the 1st time, I just about killed over laughing.. it fit him soooo well... 

I really don't see anything wrong with it.. I prefer men who feel this way.. yet who wants to speak that too loud.. then someone will come along and say "Eww that is so NEEDY" in some negative connotation...or "You are so Needy" ..

Which I really don't feel either one of us are... we just very much ENJOY having someone to hold and love...ya know...



> If I thought they had to stay there, I would not say anything. But I think they can get stronger, by owning their power. It's why we tell people they are not forced to stay in abusive situations, right? We try to get them to see their power, and use it for the highest good.


 well , true, all perspectives are Welcome here...if you hit upon one where your particular dynamics are at play.. who knows.. could be the saving post of the day.. 

I don't often find posters here who seem to fit a similar story as Me & H....except the women coming here with a Jacked sex drive... the issues we've had were odd ones.. .. so I spend the majority of my time thinking outside of the box...hmmm..wonder what the best way to deal with that would be.. just imagining being in their shoes.. 



> *. By power, I don't mean something we use against the other person. I guess I mean Agency, the ability to act in our own behalf. Is that clearer?*


 I suppose it is clear but I am still fond of the other helping with that --sorry I am stuck there - that is how I see marriage.. if the other wants out (a divorce)...then we're on our own...but if we're sticking together...we're ALL IN...we wade it together... we carry each other...



> Yes. And I discussed this with friends once. Because my husband is hard to move . . . he is hard to move. The highs are not very high, and the lows are not very low. He is very stable, very steady.
> 
> If I needed more than that, it would not work with us.


 ..Ok...this is honest .... so your "good" with what is.. or have made peace with it over the years . I know your H is not exactly Romantic..(I don't mean flowers, cards, chocolates, just the sensitive little gestures, highly affectionate, would mention love songs, mushy stuff)... in this way, you have rather low expectations I would say..


----------



## Entropy3000

And to be honest some marriages seem more like FWBs than what some of us desire.

In those cases there is less commitment


----------



## EleGirl

Marcus588 said:


> Seems as if there is a bit of a double standard here. To the women saying "A man won't let a woman emasculate him" would you say that "A woman won't let a man make her feel less of a woman"? Why are so many here happy to sympathize/empathize with a woman who's man construes actions that makes her feel less than a person yet not the other way?
> 
> If a mans actions cause a woman to feel inferior or less than she gets all the sympathy/empathy in the world, but if a womans actions makes a man feel the same, well, he just has "issues" and "should man up". Seems like quite the double standard to me.


Boy did you miss the point made in the first 20 or so pages of the thread. Clearly both men and women can be victimized in similar ways by their spouses. And in both cases (men and women) where the abuse occurs the victim needs to come to a point where they realize that they have options. There are things that they can do to stop living like that. And if they then chose to do nothing they become participants/enablers.


----------



## GusPolinski

Look, here's the deal... There are exactly two types of men that "cannot be emasculated" by _any_ outside influence, most especially a spouse's infidelity...

1) an emotional android

2) one completely devoid of masculinity

Having said that, I wouldn't presume to know which of the two any given "un-emasculate-able" man happens to be.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Look, here's the deal... There are exactly two types of men that "cannot be emasculated" by _any_ outside influence, most especially a spouse's infidelity...
> 
> 1) an emotional android
> 
> 2) one completely devoid of masculinity
> 
> Having said that, I wouldn't presume to know which of the two any given man happens to be.


Well put sir.

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## kilgore

i would never want my penis or testicles removed. is that a helpful contribution?


----------



## Entropy3000

kilgore said:


> i would never want my penis or testicles removed. is that a helpful contribution?


I vote no.


----------



## bandit.45

This thread has jumped the shark. The premise was retarded to begin with. 

I'm cleaning my .338 Winchester Magnum, getting ready to go to the range tomorrow to spend the morning with other gun lovers. Come December 1 of this year I will be on the side of a mountain in Northern Arizona, hoping for a chance to blow a big bloody hole in a 1,200 pound bull elk. 

Masculinity is fun.


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> This thread has jumped the shark. The premise was retarded to begin with.
> 
> I'm cleaning my .338 Winchester Magnum, getting ready to go to the range tomorrow to spend the morning with other gun lovers. Come December 1 of this year I will be on the side of a mountain in Northern Arizona, hoping for a chance to blow a big bloody hole in a 1,200 pound bull elk.
> 
> Masculinity is fun.


So when I go out to fire my shot gun, 9MM, etc. does it make me masculine as well?

I've been a very good shot since about age 10. My dad made sure that all 8 of his children and my mom could do that.


----------



## bandit.45

EleGirl said:


> So when I go out to fire my shot gun, 9MM, etc. does it make me masculine as well?
> 
> I've been a very good shot since about age 10. My dad made sure that all 8 of his children and my mom could do that.


Yes it does. You become a woMAN. 

But do you munch on bloody raw Elk liver cut fresh and hot from the gut? I do. Yum.


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> Yes it does. You become a woMAN.
> 
> But do you munch on bloody raw Elk liver cut fresh and hot from the gut? I do. Yum.


No you don't... :rofl:

Hey I had a Oryx head in my side-by-side freezer before my stepson took it to the taxidermist. I guess that makes me really MACHO woMAN!!! I'm cool


----------



## MEM2020

Well Gus,
If what you say is true, it's a miracle on par with a biblical miracle. Because emasculated men don't have intensely passionate marriages. 

And one thing I say with certainty is that JLD and Dug have an intensely, sexually passionate marriage. 

It's a remarkable accomplishment to remain fully engaged and yet not at all destabilized when your spouse goes BSC.





GusPolinski said:


> Or, apparently, by exchanging wedding vows w/ her.


----------



## Wolfman1968

EleGirl said:


> No my math is right. You did not understand what I said. I will try again below.
> 
> I DID NOT SAY THAT MEN FILE 50% OF THE TIME.
> 
> *I never said you did. I understand perfectly what you say, but, if I am to be permitted a return assumption about your level of understanding, you don't seem to understand Biostatistics. (see below)*
> 
> I said that if all things were equal in filing we would expect that men and women would file at the same rate, 50/50. Why would we expect that? The cause the population of spouses is 50% male and 50% female.
> 
> But women file 66% of the time and men 33% of the time. So men file at a rate 16% lower than the 50% that we would expect. And women file at a rate 16% higher than the 50% that we would expect.
> *No, because the 50% rate at the same population incidence is an unfounded/unproven assumption. You cannot assume that it "should" be 50/50 AT THE SAME POPULATION INCIDENCE and then calculate the change from that. What you really are measuring is an event, which is typically expressed in an incidence, which is a ratio #events/population. In this case, the event is "filing for divorce". The Centers for Disease Control (CDC website: FASTSTATS - Marriage and Divorce) says that the divorce rate in any one year is 3.6 per 1000 population. That means, using your number of 2/3 of divorces filed by women, 2.4 divorces are filed by women per 1000 population and 1.2 divorces per 1000 by men.
> If you say women are only filing 16% higher than expected, then women "should" be filing at 2.06/1000 population (2.06 x 116% = 2.4). But why "should" the women number be only 16% lower than it currently is? You can just as easily argue that the women "should" be filing at the same rate as men, 1.2 divorces per 1000 population, in which case the women's rate is indeed double, as I stated. *
> 
> Cleaver way to twist the numbers to make them look worse than they are to those who are not versed in numbers and math.
> *It is not "twisted". It is called RELATIVE RISK. It is the STANDARD way of expressing an increased incidence between 2 populations. Look it up in either Wikipedia or Google it.
> Look, if 2/3 of the heart attacks in 50-year-olds occurred in men and 1/3 in women (assuming equal populations of men and women), we say that men are twice as likely to get a heart attack at age 50 as a woman. We don't say men are "16% increased for heart attack and women 17% decreased" based on some imaginary 50-50 ratio. We say the rate per 1000 population is double, or 100% increased, over women. This is standard Biostatistics, not a "twist". It's really not up for debate, this is how it is done. If anything, it's your working of the numbers that's a "twist". I am not a statistician, but I have to intepret Biostatistics on some level every day in my professional life.
> The data show that there is something different about the situation of men and women that leads to women being TWICE AS LIKELY AS MEN (or men half as likely than women, if you prefer) to file for a divorce per 1000 population.*
> 
> You are ignoring that the population of spouse is 50/50 male female. So look at the delta from what would be expected 50/50.
> *No, you DON'T look for the "delta". That is not the accepted way of expressing or interpreting epidemiological data. See above.*
> 
> On TAM most of the men dump their cheating wives without giving any thought or chance for reconciliation. And most for the men posting to them brow beat any man who wants to reconcile.
> *First of all, TAM posting is not necessarily representative of the entire population, or even of the entire TAM audience (lurkers plus posters). I only referenced TAM to illustrate one of many potential reasons for the differnces between male and female divorce filing rates. Secondly, divorces occur for many reasons, not just cheating. So your statements don't invalidate anything I have posted. *
> 
> The only problem with this assumption is that most divorces, about 66%, are in a marriage that has no minor children at the time of the divorce. A good % of these are in marriages where there have never been children. Both men and women are more likely to stay in a marriage if there are underage children involved. *First of all, I didn't say minor children were the ONLY reason for the difference between male and female filing rates; I believe that the court bias when it comes to children is indeed a factor, but there are others, such as alimony (and court bias there, or even when there is no bias), possibly social factors, etc. As such, the exact % of marriage with minor children is not a "problem" as you say, because there are MANY factors (and many ways the court can be biased in the absence of minor children). But to address your percentage, A. Nichols in a recent article in the Michigan Law Review (Feb 2014, 112 Mich L Rev 663) says that 65% of divorces DO involve minor children. I quote that legal publication as I cannot find separate census data regarding this issue.*
> 
> I stayed in an abusive marriage for several years longer than I wanted to due to legal issues related to child custody (not women do not always have the upper hand in divorce). And staying did not do the female equivalent of ‘emasculating’ me. Instead it made me stronger because I went to counseling, read books and learned a lot about how to set boundaries, how to anger from escalating and other such things. I emerged stronger.*I have already stated, it seems to me that women get more support and are seen sympathetically as "victims" of an abusive man, but a male victim of an abusive wife is seen as "emasculated", that there is something wrong with him for not standing up/leaving. Therefore, I wouldn't expect you to have experienced the female version of "emasculation".*




The bottom line is, there is a BIG difference between female and male divorce filing rates. The woman's rate is DOUBLE by ACCEPTED, STANDARD measures. 

I know this post is veering off the original post's question, so I won't be posting about these statistics any longer. I just felt I had to defend myself against an accusation of "twisting" numbers when the reality is that MY method of presentation is the correct, established way to express population differences (Relative Risk) and the alternative method is the actual "twist". I felt a personal affront by the dishonest implication. It's something I do in my professional life, and this thinly veiled insult (and inaccurate one, at that) did not sit well with me. I won't post further on this.


----------



## Dreald

Spot on post Wolfman1968. Problem is, you used facts to back up your position. Using facts will never compete with how a woman "feels"!

LOL. And Women Wonder "Where Have All The Good Men Gone?" Guess what, we've left the plantation. So all you independent women can stand on your own two feet and live with the life choices with no White Knight or Blue Pill Beta to save your a$$ from your own two-hands.


----------



## Dollystanford

Well if being an independent woman means I don't have to settle for someone like you then I'm delighted to be one


----------



## bandit.45

Now now kids. Play nice.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I'm so glad I don't have to wonder where all the good men have gone. It's nice already being married to one who adores ALL of my qualities...even that pesky independent side I have. It's funny,I asked him if he ever saw me as one needing to be saved from my own two hands..he laughed and said "what kind of fake alpha trash have you been reading that tells you that you need someone to save you from yourself?"

*sigh* he's hawt.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Dreald said:


> Spot on post Wolfman1968. Problem is, you used facts to back up your position. Using facts will never compete with how a woman "feels"!
> 
> LOL. And Women Wonder "Where Have All The Good Men Gone?" Guess what, we've left the plantation. So all you independent women can stand on your own two feet and live with the life choices with no White Knight or Blue Pill Beta to save your a$$ from your own two-hands.


Independent women are not complaining about "where have all the good men gone". There are still plenty of good men who love independent women. A large part of being an independent woman is that we are happy with ourselves and with the good men who love us.

We don't need or want "White Knights" because they do what they do to make themselves feel good. We don't need Blue Pill Beta's because they sap our energy. We don't need these sorry types to save our a$$. They need to save their own a$$es.


----------



## bandit.45

EleGirl said:


> No you don't... :rofl:
> 
> Hey I had a Oryx head in my side-by-side freezer before my stepson took it to the taxidermist. I guess that makes me really MACHO woMAN!!! I'm cool


You shot an Oryx?

I hate you.

Lucky. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bandit.45

I prefer independent women. 

Fewer gifts I have to buy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

Dreald said:


> Spot on post Wolfman1968. Problem is, you used facts to back up your position. Using facts will never compete with how a woman "feels"!
> 
> LOL. And Women Wonder "Where Have All The Good Men Gone?" Guess what, we've left the plantation. So all you independent women can stand on your own two feet and live with the life choices with no White Knight or Blue Pill Beta to save your a$$ from your own two-hands.


When you're allowed to play again, riddle me this, why would we want a dependent woman instead of an independent one? Other than low self esteem or codependency, I can't think of a reason any man would prefer that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

bandit.45 said:


> *I prefer independent women.
> 
> Fewer gifts I have to buy.*





> *EleGirl said:** We don't need or want "White Knights" because they do what they do to make themselves feel good. We don't need Blue Pill Beta's because they sap our energy. We don't need these sorry types to save our a$$. They need to save their own a$$es*.


It saddens me that once upon a time, the concept of a White Knight meant something honorable.. but it has been reduced to a word of mockery today ...

I have compared my Husband to a White Knight & myself to the Damsel ...given my home life when we met...I guess a bad choice of words as it reduces us both to utter fools.. him a doormat serving the queen & sacrificing his very soul to a hapless weak woman... 

A blessing we were too stupid to realize any of this mattered at the time...and we didn't judge each other..as it all played out pretty damn good! 

I have never felt controlled, put down, he has never made me feel less than him....we worked together... 

I want to believe Good men like that will always exist for some of us who do so greatly appreciate ALL they bring...

and I've never cared about gifts....seriously at the bottom of my love Languages.. I was even cheaper than him!

All types of women out there.. all types of men....must we mock each other...

Myself and H met JLD.. we spent a full day together, talking, sharing.. it was a lot of Fun...I know many here see her as a sh** stirrer ...I guess I just see a curious woman... a little feisty.. I can relate to that! We like the "Deep Stuff"..small talk would bore us both.. right JLD? 

Her marriage is different than many.. even my own!! WE had some hearty laughs over those [email protected]# .... 

Jld is a pleaser.. she is naturally a submissive... she married a man who appreciates that quality in her... it works for THEM...

Sometimes we fail to see what works for one couple ...what their preferences are / their marital Dynamics... another couple would seriously SPIT AT..or it could even cause resentment ...



> *Thundarr said: **When you're allowed to play again, riddle me this, why would we want a dependent woman instead of an independent one? Other than low self esteem or codependency, I can't think of a reason any man would prefer that*.


 Now the way JLD's belief that a Secure man can never "FEEL" emasculated-with his armor he can push that off ..... it was a put down to those who admit they can ...

Now here in this post...I see a similar thing happening .... it's a put down to men who may *prefer* a Stay at Home Mother for instance ....insinuating that such men have low self esteem or are co-dependent .. ...so it continues. Maybe I should get my Husband to answer.



> *Mrs. John Adams said: **mr adams says i am an independently dependent woman...do you think that is a political answer?*


 :smthumbup:


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> You know what my 1st thought was reading this.. I've seen more Men in my 47 yrs who've felt like this..and I felt the women didn't appreciate them! I know part of this stems from what Ive seen in my own family.. I learned a few weeks ago, my Dear Grandfather courted my Grandmother for like 14 yrs before she gave into to marrying him. I am thinking to myself. LORD.. did he have some patience!! -should have dumped her & moved on....
> 
> I seen my Mother hurt my Father.. and I feel I have hurt my Husband more than he's ever hurt me.. I lived with my Inlaws and felt his DAD was way too lenient with his Hoarding wife...(Husband's Mom)... she was always complaining to me ..and all I could think was.. If I was him, I'd tie you up somewhere and get 5 dumpsters hauled to the house ... she took advantage too - I adored his dad.. too easy maybe.
> 
> I have a GF who cheated on her husband, another who refuses sex and he's a good christian man who would never leave her..
> 
> Believe me JLD.. this goes BOTH ways.. no matter what we have seen ...each and every situation is unique..


SA, do you feel I am not seeing things from the man's point of view? That I am being too hard on them, and too easy on women? 

I have been told on TAM that I am a misandrist, for expecting too much from men, and a misogynist, for not expecting enough of women. Is it also possible to be a misandrist for not expecting enough of men, and a misogynist, for expecting too much of women?

*Are these the three main worldviews on the sexes, as least as seems to be described on TAM?*

*1. Men are weak and need to be protected by women. *Men are at risk of being deprived of sex in marriage, and by financial devastation in divorce, by ruthless and selfish wives. Other women are a threat to the marriage, and the wife must be watchful.

Men can absolutely be emasculated by women, mainly through women's infidelity, but also by women's speaking harsh, critical words to them. Men must be protected from this. Their self-esteem is at risk. 

Modern feminist society has conspired to give women unprecedented power over men, mainly through the court system, which insists on giving alimony to women and favoring them in child custody decisions. This must be fought, and one vehicle is Men's Rights Activism.

*2. Men and women are equal. Neither is more capable or at risk than the other.* Other than a brief period of pregnancy, and a few years when children are small, there should be no special consideration for women. To think otherwise insults women, and is misogyny.

Power is equal in a marriage. Each has equal agency, equal possibility of changing the marriage through changing their behavior and owning their power. Each has equal responsibility for owning their power and contributing to the marriage.

Child custody should be 50/50, thus negating the need for any child support. Alimony is unnecessary and should be done away with. Ideally the woman has worked full-time throughout her marriage. If not, she will be allowed alimony for a brief period of time, at which point she will be completely responsible for herself and her share of child economic responsibilities. 

*3. Women are weak and need to be protected by men. * They are at risk of being sexually and possibly financially abused by men. While they can be encouraged to empower and defend themselves against men's sexual overreach, laws are needed to protect them in the case that softer measures do not work.

Women are entitled to men's protection during pregnancy and lactation, and to their financial support if they are SAHMs. SAHMs are entitled to alimony if there is a divorce, to compensate for years not devoted to establishing a career. Child custody favors women.

Men have full responsibility for attracting women and keeping their attraction. He is expected to be in complete control of himself at all times, and to inspire her devotion. He cannot be emasculated by anyone but himself. She is an addition to his life, not his main driver.


*Are those accurate descriptions, or not? Is it possible to mix and match within the descriptions?*


----------



## that_girl

:rofl:

These guys.

More men should file divorce. Can't help if they're too scared to. Boohoo. 

 Tongue in cheek but godam...if you only believe statistics, you don't have the whole picture.


----------



## that_girl

Dollystanford said:


> Well if being an independent woman means I don't have to settle for someone like you then I'm delighted to be one


Ain't that the truth! Lol!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Jld people are people. People are weak or strong to varying degrees. And everyone is responsible for their own selves. Period.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> SA, do you feel I am not seeing things from the man's point of view? That I am being too hard on them, and too easy on women?
> 
> I have been told on TAM that I am a misandrist, for expecting too much from men, and a misogynist, for not expecting enough of women. Is it also possible to be a misandrist for not expecting enough of men, and a misogynist, for expecting too much of women?


 I never even heard of these words till I came here.. and I still don't know how to pronounce them...

I also feel they get thrown around way TOO EASY in attempts to shut someone down.. I've been accused of FEEDING the misogynist men... I seems to me anytime you have a sexual view or an older fashioned way of viewing marriage & come up against a certain brand of Feminist, this gets thrown around.. 

What I see from you JLD ...is a woman who has seen more hurt and pain at the hands of men in your family, all around you .. as you have described in various posts here.....and it has put a very sour taste in your mouth.. so your brain automatically assumes if there are marital issues, the women is probably the SERVER , the timid one most likely aiming to please ...so therefore the man has to be at fault.. 

And you look up so highly to your H because he was NEVER an abuser and is more devoted to your children than any you have ever encountered.. it even bothers YOU -cause you want more time with him.. 

Would you say all of the above is true ?? I need to think on these breakdowns you gave..


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> It saddens me that once upon a time, the concept of a White Knight meant something honorable.. but it has been reduced to a word of mockery today ...
> 
> I have compared my Husband to a White Knight & myself to the Damsel ...given my home life when we met...I guess a bad choice of words as it reduces us both to utter fools.. him a doormat serving the queen & sacrificing his very soul to a hapless weak woman...


I’m smart enough to be able to unserstand that context is king. There is the idea of the truly honorable white knight who slays dragons when truly needed. Those kinds of good men exist. They actually exist in large numbers. A real white knight does not have a covert contract in which he expects to be fawned over and get sexual favors for his good deeds. He does the good deeds because he is strong and can do them.. because they are the right things to do.

But there is another type of man who plays at being a “White Knight” (not the quotes, they are important). This kind of man is not a doormat. He is not sacrificing his very soul for a hapless weak woman. Nope, he’s a guy who does favors for women with the expectation of her fawning all over him and even providing him with sex as a payment for his deeds. These are guys who make covert contracts. When a “White Knight” is married, he generally ignores his wife, does not give the kind of support that is needed such as doing his fair share about the house/yard, spending time with his wife, etc. Instead he puts his time and energy into finding needy women to try to get attention and sex out of them. These guys are not real white knights. The “white knight” label comes from the man’s fantasy that he’s out rescuing needy women.

My ex (step kids dad) is a “white knight”. He had on-line & real life affair with needy women he met online. He would listen to them crying about whatever and tell them that they were wonderful, beautiful and how if he was their man that he would save them. Then they would tell him how wonderful he is… which always ended in cybersex and phone sex. When he travelled to their town he met them for in-real-life sex. He also made sure that he sent them Valentine ’s Day, b-day, xmas, etc cards, flowers, gifts, etc.

Now I was his wife… I got NOTHING from him on any holiday. Nothing for my bday. He refused to do anything around the house, the yard, etc. If I needed help on anything he ignored me. He also left raising his children to me. But hey he was a hero (“White Knight”) to a lot of women in exchange for admiration and sex. (keep in mind that we had a pretty wild, almost daily sex life and plenty of admiration until I found out about his affairs.)


SimplyAmorous said:


> A blessing we were too stupid to realize any of this mattered at the time...and we didn't judge each other..as it all played out pretty damn good!


You have a good marriage. Good for you!!! I mean that. 
But why do you try to put down other people who have had bad experiences like this? We are not referring to you or your marriage. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I have never felt controlled, put down, he has never made me feel less than him....we worked together...


Good for you. You have a good marriage. But that does not mean that those of us who have had bad experiences need to shut up and cannot express what we have experienced.


SimplyAmorous said:


> I want to believe Good men like that will always exist for some of us who do so greatly appreciate ALL they bring...


It think that most, women appreciate what good men bring to a relationship. But not all are good men. Do you known that? Can you understand that some women struggle with men who are not good men?


SimplyAmorous said:


> and I've never cared about gifts....seriously at the bottom of my love Languages.. I was even cheaper than him!


Good for you. I’m not big on gifts either.


SimplyAmorous said:


> All types of women out there.. all types of men....must we mock each other...


Why are you offended when a woman talks about not so good men that we have known?


SimplyAmorous said:


> Myself and H met JLD.. we spent a full day together, talking, sharing.. it was a lot of Fun...I know many here see her as a sh** stirrer ...I guess I just see a curious woman... a little feisty.. I can relate to that! We like the "Deep Stuff"..small talk would bore us both.. right JLD?


I agree on this.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Now the way JLD's belief that a Secure man can never "FEEL" emasculated-with his armor he can push that off ..... it was a put down to those who admit they can ...


JLD has asked questions and given her take on things. She learns from the input of others. I think it’s all good. I would not be surprised to find out that she opinion was modified some by this thread. That’s a good thing.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Now here in this post...I see a similar thing.... it's a put down to men who may *prefer* a Stay at Home Mother for instance ....insinuating that such men have low self esteem or are co-dependent .. ...so it continues.


Um.. that post is not a putdown to SAHM’s. SAHMs can be very independent. You are independent in many ways. A dependent person is a person who cannot make decisions, cannot do things on their own. I have no doubt that if anything ever happened to your husband (God forbid) that you would find a way to take care of yourself and your children. You have even talked about the things that you and your husband have done to ensure that you will be alright in that circumstance.


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> You shot an Oryx?
> 
> I hate you.
> 
> Lucky.


In the 1950's herds of them were imported to NM. As a US Veteran we get preference for the hunting licenses. I have steaks in the freezer.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> When you're allowed to play again, riddle me this, why would we want a dependent woman instead of an independent one? Other than low self esteem or codependency, I can't think of a reason any man would prefer that.





SimplyAmorous said:


> Now the way JLD's belief that a Secure man can never "FEEL" emasculated-with his armor he can push that off ..... it was a put down to those who admit they can ...
> 
> Now here in this post...I see a similar thing happening .... it's a put down to men who may *prefer* a Stay at Home Mother for instance ....insinuating that such men have low self esteem or are co-dependent .. ...so it continues. Maybe I should get my Husband to answer.
> 
> :smthumbup:


Respectfully SA, you should know better than to think that was my comment's intended implication. Ask your husband if he wants to you feel like you're not capable of surviving without a man. Not without him but without any man. That was my meaning between dependence and independance. That also is directly in context with the quote my comment addressed. SAHM is a choice that independent women make all of the time. It should not affect emotional independence.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> Elegirl said : Good for you. You have a good marriage. But that does not mean that those of us who have had bad experiences need to shut up and cannot express what we have experienced.


 If this is what you see when I post ... I feel very misunderstood..and misread.. this would never be my intentions here....in fact it makes me feel very bad that you see me in this light.. 

It's not like I am the only person on this forum who reads something, then offers a counter view.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I never even heard of these words till I came here.. and I still don't know how to pronounce them...
> 
> I also feel they get thrown around way TOO EASY in attempts to shut someone down.. I've been accused of FEEDING the misogynist men... I seems to me anytime you have a sexual view or an older fashioned way of viewing marriage & come up against a certain brand of Feminist, this gets thrown around..
> 
> What I see from you JLD ...is a woman who has seen more hurt and pain at the hands of men in your family, all around you .. as you have described in various posts here.....and it has put a very sour taste in your mouth.. so your brain automatically assumes if there are marital issues, the women is probably the SERVER , the timid one most likely aiming to please ...so therefore the man has to be at fault..
> 
> And you look up so highly to your H because he was NEVER an abuser and is more devoted to your children than any you have ever encountered.. it even bothers YOU -cause you want more time with him..
> 
> Would you say all of the above is true ?? I need to think on these breakdowns you gave..


My default thinking is #3 above. And certainly, it is due to my upbringing. 

I am challenged by the stories here of women as lazy and selfish. That is hard for me to believe, based on the women I have known, but everything is possible.

The thread, and what I am learning in general on TAM, even if at a glacial pace, is moving me towards #2. I think I am comfortable at a midway point between them. I believe I have made a contribution to society by breastfeeding and homeschooling five children. I do fear #2 does not value that. 

And, rightly or wrongly, the romantic in me loves being carried by my man, loves his strength and stability, his unconditional commitment to our family. In my heart of hearts, I think equal marriage is a rip-off for women. I think she will always end up doing more. Dh says the man will go up to the line of 50%, feel he has met his obligation, and do no more. 

That could be its own thread!


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> If this is what you see when I post ... I feel very misunderstood..and misread.. this would never be my intentions here....in fact it makes me feel very bad that you see me in this light..
> 
> It's not like I am the only person on this forum who reads something, then offers a counter view.


Of course you are not the only person who offers counter views. 

However, you know that when people use the term “white knight” (in quotes) that they are not putting you and your husband down. They are not insulting good men or saying that all men are people who do deeds as a covert contract for attention and sex. 

I was also responding to that guy’s comment about women needing “Blue Pill Beta” men.

Where did I say that women do not want or need good men?


SimplyAmorous said:


> I have compared my Husband to a White Knight & myself to the Damsel ...given my home life when we met...I guess a bad choice of words as it reduces us both to utter fools.. him a doormat serving the queen & sacrificing his very soul to a hapless weak woman...


But here you make it sound like people are trying to reduce you and your husband to utter fools. I’m sadden that you think that is what I was trying to do. Please do not internalize this stuff because it has nothing to do with you and your husband. No one is trying to reduce the two of you in any way. You and your marriage a great examples of a couple who have built something wonderful.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Thundarr said:


> Respectfully SA, you should know better than to think that was my comment's intended implication. Ask your husband if he wants to you feel like you're not capable of surviving without a man. Not without him but without any man. That was my meaning between dependence and independance. That also is directly in context with the quote my comment addressed. SAHM is a choice that independent women make all of the time. It should not affect emotional independence.


I guess for me ...Independent women = women who work and bring home the bacon...that's what lights up in my brain when the word is used...as it's so often implied in this way...

Obviously there are others ways to use the word.. comparing for example... one of my favorite books....about "Boundaries".. ... it speaks of Emotional boundaries, Mental boundaries, Physical and Spiritual.. so in this way, I suppose Independent - could be meant in other ways also..

My bad.  ..I figured it out... 13.7 % is what I contribute financially...I probably do feel "lessor" inside sometimes about it...but that's on me.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> The thread, and what I am learning in general on TAM, even if at a glacial pace, is moving me towards #2.


Maybe it's not my place to ask, since I'm not Christian, but wouldn't Christian theology in some ways lead you towards #2?

In other words, if in Christ, "there is neither male nor female", then wouldn't gender neutral moral obligations apply just as much to women as to men?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *EleGirl said *However, you know that when people use the term “white knight” (in quotes) that they are not putting you and your husband down. They are not insulting good men or saying that all men are people who do deeds as a covert contract for attention and sex.
> 
> I was also responding to that guy’s comment about women needing “Blue Pill Beta” men.


 In regards to White Knight...would you believe it if I said.. I personally don't like how the word has been changed over the years ... (and you're right in your explaining that it has a very negative connotation to it .. it's known as a syndrome now... I read about it not long ago - in regards to another thread....It was eye opening ..and I was thinking ..I wish they wouldn't have slaughtered the meaning like that.. It bugged me... Chivalry is on the chopping block now. 

I have no idea what a Red pill/ Blue Bill or "Blue pill Beta" even means, never watched the movie talking about these pills.. so I am clueless ...?? Even the term Beta has so many meanings that I don't even want to use it anymore...

Because everyone has a different view of it.. Athol Kays book talks about GOOD BETA and I agreed 100% with him.. those were honorable traits.. (Family man, brings home the bacon, faithful, affectionate, the woman feels secure).. but then if one is a Pick up Artist convert and reads their literature.. BETA is ALL PATHETIC, there is nothing good to be found ... it is all weakness ..WUSS Ville...and a man needs to weed it out.. Alpha gets credit for all the good.. . 

So who is right.. It doesn't even matter...it just makes sense that there is much misunderstanding ..as we are viewing these things through our own learned or perceived definitions or how we connect it..we may even be oblivious to the newer re-invented use of the term.

That is just a little rant of mine..


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> My default thinking is #3 above. And certainly, it is due to my upbringing.
> 
> I am challenged by the stories here of women as lazy and selfish. That is hard for me to believe, based on the women I have known, but everything is possible.
> 
> The thread, and what I am learning in general on TAM, even if at a glacial pace, is moving me towards #2. I think I am comfortable at a midway point between them. I believe I have made a contribution to society by breastfeeding and homeschooling five children. I do fear #2 does not value that.
> 
> And, rightly or wrongly, the romantic in me loves being carried by my man, loves his strength and stability, his unconditional commitment to our family. In my heart of hearts, I think equal marriage is a rip-off for women. I think she will always end up doing more. Dh says the man will go up to the line of 50%, feel he has met his obligation, and do no more.
> 
> That could be its own thread!


I don't think that #2 does not value that women's contribution such as nursing a child. What it does do is to value that both parents contribute a lot to raising a child. Not all parents chose to have the same % contribution to child raising tasks. #2 gives the chance for couples to make those choices for themselves.

For example no all mothers can nurse. If the baby is not breast fed, then the father can do half (or some %) of bottle feeding.

With some couples, even with breast feed women express their milk. So again the dad can bottle feed the baby.

Or they can chose to do as you and your husband have done.

#2 means that your are equal in decision making and in rights. It does not mean that you both have to do 50% of every thing or that any one person's contribution does not count.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Maybe it's not my place to ask, since I'm not Christian, but wouldn't Christian theology in some ways lead you towards #2?
> 
> In other words, if in Christ, "there is neither male nor female", then wouldn't gender neutral moral obligations apply just as much to women as to men?


Dh and I grew up Catholic, and that has certainly influenced our thinking. I spent some time in evangelical groups in college, and left religion at 21, when, in a class on discrimination, I finally realized that the Bible was not literally true.  I know, how did it take me so long? Again, I am a slow learner. 

Certainly, in our marriage, we are both giving it our all. But to us it does not mean I need to earn money, nor that dh can sit on the couch while I am doing housework. If he could not earn money anymore, I would have to, and he always helps with whatever is going on at home, when he is not working.

Do you have specific obligations in mind, ocotillo?


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> In regards to White Knight...would you believe it if I said.. I personally don't like how the word has been changed over the years ... (and you're right in your explaining that it has a very negative connotation to it .. it's known as a syndrome now... I read about it not long ago - in regards to another thread....It was eye opening ..and I was thinking ..I wish they wouldn't have slaughtered the meaning like that.. It bugged me... Chivalry is on the chopping block now.
> 
> I have no idea what a Red pill/ Blue Bill or "Blue pill Beta" even means, never watched the movie talking about these pills.. so I am clueless ...?? Even the term Beta has so many meanings that I don't even want to use it anymore...
> 
> Because everyone has a different view of it.. Athol Kays book talks about GOOD BETA and I agreed 100% with him.. those were honorable traits.. (Family man, brings home the bacon, faithful, affectionate, the woman feels secure).. but then if one is a Pick up Artist convert and reads their literature.. BETA is ALL PATHETIC, there is nothing good to be found ... it is all weakness ..WUSS Ville...and a man needs to weed it out.. Alpha gets credit for all the good.. .
> 
> So who is right.. It doesn't even matter...it just makes sense that there is much misunderstanding ..as we are viewing these things through our own learned or perceived definitions or how we connect it..we may even be oblivious to the newer re-invented use of the term.
> 
> That is just a little rant of mine..


It was my ex who taught me to use the term "white knight in shinning armor" in regards to his type of behavior. I used it about him before I realized that it was being used as an actual term.


He taught me this because he proudly called himself a white knight. He's a writer. He wrote stories and poems about being a white knight. I thought it was cute until I found out what he really meant and what he was doing. Then I came think of him as a "White Knight".

By the way, there is a long history of stories/literature going back centuries about the "white knight" types. The concept is not new at all.


----------



## Entropy3000

There is a modern definition of White Knight that is a bit perverted in my opinion.

Nothing wrong with being a Gentleman IMO. In fact by my view that is a quality man. This has nothing to do with the modern definition of White Knight however.

People love to spin things. And all I know is that everything has both yin and yang and shades of grey. Context matters.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Do you have specific obligations in mind, ocotillo?


I was thinking of your tagline which appears to be from Chapter 21 of _The Way of the Superior Man_ in the context of this thread.

Both the OT and the NT continually stress the destructive power of the tongue; the need to bridle one's tongue, not letting a rotten saying proceed from one's mouth; that it's what comes out of a person's mouth that defiles; to let one's speech always be gracious; etc., etc., etc., --All of which would ostensibly apply just as much to women as to men. 

It's not that I disagree with Deida's advice if a man finds himself in that situation, but at the same time, I don't see the situation itself as entirely harmonious with Christian theology (?)


----------



## Duguesclin

EleGirl said:


> #2 means that your are equal in decision making and in rights. It does not mean that you both have to do 50% of every thing or that any one person's contribution does not count.


I do believe that for many men they do mean to do no more than 50%. This very idea of a 50/50 relationship is dangerous because there is the tendency to make sure that one does not do more than the other. I think a healthier way is that everyone gives 100% and does not look back.

I have seen it many time and read it here as well, women want to be self reliant in case their SO is not up to the mark. I rarely see a man worrying about that. A father is more likely to leave a mother and children than a mother leaving the father and children.

I think a 50/50 is a bad deal for women.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Heh Heh.

That's why I absolutely love the idea of " gender flipping."

So lemme flip it around and ask this question.

Any woman out there prefer to marry a fully _independent man_, one who doesn't need them ?

























Lol, I thought so.

Marriage is about _interdependence._
My wife is a strong independent woman, but when we started having a relationship , she willingly gave up some of her independence and I do so too.
Now we _depend_ heavily on each other in varying degrees at different times for everything, from advice to money to having our emotional and sexual needs met.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Duguesclin said:


> I do believe that for many men they do mean to do no more than 50%. This very idea of a 50/50 relationship is dangerous because there is the tendency to make sure that one does not do more than the other. I think a healthier way is that everyone gives 100% and does not look back.
> 
> I have seen it many time and read it here as well, women want to be self reliant in case their SO is not up to the mark. I rarely see a man worrying about that. A father is more likely to leave a mother and children than a mother leaving the father and children.
> 
> *I think a 50/50 is a bad deal for women*.


50 / 50 is a bad deal for _anybody_, period.

Give me 100% and i'll give my all.

The minute one or both parties starts " keeping score" and thinking of an " exit strategy" in marriage, your marriage is in a state of what structural engineers call " pre collapse."


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> I do believe that for many men they do mean to do no more than 50%. This very idea of a 50/50 relationship is dangerous because there is the tendency to make sure that one does not do more than the other. I think a healthier way is that everyone gives 100% and does not look back.
> 
> I have seen it many time and read it here as well, women want to be self reliant in case their SO is not up to the mark. I rarely see a man worrying about that. A father is more likely to leave a mother and children than a mother leaving the father and children.
> 
> I think a 50/50 is a bad deal for women.


I agree that 50/50 can be misconstrued. It also often leads to people measuring what they and their spouse do just to make sure they themselves are not good "too much".

In life, I live by the 110% rule. If both spouses go above and beyond, the relationship will thrive.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> *Are these the three main worldviews on the sexes, as least as seems to be described on TAM?*
> 
> *1. Men are weak and need to be protected by women. *Men are at risk of being deprived of sex in marriage, and by financial devastation in divorce, by ruthless and selfish wives. Other women are a threat to the marriage, and the wife must be watchful.
> 
> Men can absolutely be emasculated by women, mainly through women's infidelity, but also by women's speaking harsh, critical words to them. Men must be protected from this. Their self-esteem is at risk.
> 
> Modern feminist society has conspired to give women unprecedented power over men, mainly through the court system, which insists on giving alimony to women and favoring them in child custody decisions. This must be fought, and one vehicle is* Men's Rights Activism*.


 I've never read anything about these Men's Rights Activism groups.. .. I would think the majority of men in this group similar to women who have been abused by men and turn to Feminist groups ....some become more radical than others.. but both sides feel cheated by their personal experiences with the opposite sex..and end up reading this sort of literature, seeking it out.. 



> *2. Men and women are equal. Neither is more capable or at risk than the other.* Other than a brief period of pregnancy, and a few years when children are small, there should be no special consideration for women. To think otherwise insults women, and is misogyny.
> 
> Power is equal in a marriage. Each has equal agency, equal possibility of changing the marriage through changing their behavior and owning their power. Each has equal responsibility for owning their power and contributing to the marriage.
> 
> Child custody should be 50/50, thus negating the need for any child support. Alimony is unnecessary and should be done away with. * Ideally the woman has worked full-time throughout her marriage.* If not, she will be allowed alimony for a brief period of time, at which point she will be completely responsible for herself and her share of child economic responsibilities.


 that this suggests that Ideally I should be working full time ... well I don't live up to this one.......
I still think it's going too far for one to suggest "it deserves to be called misogyny" and it's insulting if the husband wants to take care of his wife.. I cant get past that.. I'm sorry. That makes men who believe in protecting and Providing while the wife stays home with her children beyond the younger years a misogynist . If I am reading too much into that, then I am.. but it seems to imply this... and I don't care for that.. 

Putting those 2 things aside..this is sure the most balanced view... the most Inter-dependent view for a working marriage..



> *3. Women are weak and need to be protected by men. * They are at risk of being sexually and possibly financially abused by men. While they can be encouraged to empower and defend themselves against men's sexual overreach, laws are needed to protect them in the case that softer measures do not work.
> 
> Women are entitled to men's protection during pregnancy and lactation, and to their financial support if they are SAHMs. SAHMs are entitled to alimony if there is a divorce, to compensate for years not devoted to establishing a career. Child custody favors women.
> 
> Men have full responsibility for attracting women and keeping their attraction. He is expected to be in complete control of himself at all times, and to inspire her devotion. He cannot be emasculated by anyone but himself. She is an addition to his life, not his main driver.


 I don't like the use of the word "entitled"..it's just an ugly word...if it said "in this view, the husband feels the duty & need to carry his family financially during pregnancy & the early yrs" it would come off better than the woman saying she is "entitled".. 

And there is far too much focus on the man with this one.. "Men have full responsibility for keeping their attraction"... so what of us women?? That's important for us to uphold too.... I don't think Child custody should favor women either.. every situation is different. 

This one is kinda sad .. I mean.. we need Laws..special protections... we are weak, it's like we almost expect to be abused or something...if a woman even went into a relationship with THIS mindset.. her Husband would probably feel her trembling just to have sex with him! In the ending, saying she is "an addition" to his life... Well I think it's more than that.. half of the driving force.. not just "an addition"..


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Heh Heh.
> 
> That's why I absolutely love the idea of " gender flipping."
> 
> So lemme flip it around and ask this question.
> 
> Any woman out there prefer to marry a fully _independent man_, one who doesn't need them ?


Well, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I do feel at least somewhat this way with Dug. He is a very low maintenance guy. He says he needs me, and I know sexually I am desired, but I do feel dispensable outside the bedroom. I am the one always seeking closeness, always asking for his attention.

Now, he tells me I am _not_ dispensable. I had the kids and breastfed them and am now homeschooling them, but believe me, I feel like I would be _much_ easier to replace than he is. 

I feel like he can do it all. I know I cannot. I just make his life easier.


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> Heh Heh.
> 
> That's why I absolutely love the idea of " gender flipping."
> 
> So lemme flip it around and ask this question.
> 
> Any woman out there prefer to marry a fully _independent man_, one who doesn't need them ?


Being an independent woman does not mean that the independent woman does not need her husband and all that he contributes to her life. I'm not sure why people equate 'independent women' with the idea that they do not desire/need good men. :scratchhead:




Caribbean Man said:


> Lol, I thought so.
> 
> Marriage is about _interdependence._
> 
> My wife is a strong independent woman, but when we started having a relationship , she willingly gave up some of her independence and I do so too.
> 
> Now we _depend_ heavily on each other in varying degrees at different times for everything, from advice to money to having our emotional and sexual needs met.


No one here has suggested that this is not how a good marriage works for a independent woman and a good (also independent) man.


----------



## Duguesclin

jld said:


> Well, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I do feel at least somewhat this way with Dug. He is a very low maintenance guy. He says he needs me, and I know sexually I am desired, but I do feel dispensable outside the bedroom. I am the one always seeking closeness, always asking for his attention.
> 
> Now, he tells me I am _not_ dispensable. I had the kids and breastfed them and am now homeschooling them, but believe me, I feel like I would be _much_ easier to replace than he is.
> 
> I feel like he can do it all. I know I cannot. I just make his life easier.


It is not that it is true, it is just _your feeling_!


----------



## Entropy3000

EleGirl said:


> Being an independent woman does not mean that the independent woman does not need her husband and all that he contributes to her life. I'm not sure why people equate 'independent women' with the idea that they do not desire/need good men. :scratchhead:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one here has suggested that this is not how a good marriage works for a independent woman and a good (also independent) man.


I agree. Being independent means different things to different people. 

If there is a constant priority to prove independence that to me indicates a real problem.


----------



## EleGirl

Entropy3000 said:


> I agree. Being independent means different things to different people.
> 
> If there is a constant priority to prove independence that to me indicates a real problem.


I agree that a constant need to prove independence is a problem. Some men and women do this. It's exhausting to have to deal with.


----------



## MEM2020

CM,
There's a spectrum in feminism. 

At one end, very pro woman. These women tend to say things like:
- Its important to me to be financially self sufficient. Or 
- I am financially self sufficient. Or
- It's important for women to be financially self sufficient 

They tend to:
- focus on removing systemic barriers to equality
- assume I'm rational and fair unless I prove otherwise and
- have kept their sense of humor

At the other end of the spectrum, I find a markedly anti-male mindset. These are women who say things like:
- I don't need a man 






Caribbean Man said:


> Heh Heh.
> 
> That's why I absolutely love the idea of " gender flipping."
> 
> So lemme flip it around and ask this question.
> 
> Any woman out there prefer to marry a fully _independent man_, one who doesn't need them ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I thought so.
> 
> Marriage is about _interdependence._
> My wife is a strong independent woman, but when we started having a relationship , she willingly gave up some of her independence and I do so too.
> Now we _depend_ heavily on each other in varying degrees at different times for everything, from advice to money to having our emotional and sexual needs met.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I was thinking of your tagline which appears to be from Chapter 21 of _The Way of the Superior Man_ in the context of this thread.
> 
> Both the OT and the NT continually stress the destructive power of the tongue; the need to bridle one's tongue, not letting a rotten saying proceed from one's mouth; that it's what comes out of a person's mouth that defiles; to let one's speech always be gracious; etc., etc., etc., --All of which would ostensibly apply just as much to women as to men.
> 
> It's not that I disagree with Deida's advice if a man finds himself in that situation, but at the same time, I don't see the situation itself as entirely harmonious with Christian theology (?)


Well, it seems like the writer is advising people to be careful of what they say, thinking that can prevent trouble in relationships. I disagree.

I do recall that Jesus said it is from the heart that the mouth speaks. This is more helpful material to work with.

I am emotional and Dug is not. I am always emoting; he is not. As such, his words have greater impact than mine.

Dh says, "When there is a tantrum, _someone_ is not listening." He knows who that someone is. 

I do not yell right off the bat. If I am shouting, it is to get through to the guy I have tried to talk to calmly how many times before.

Dug is not interested in controlling my behavior, ocotillo. He does not feel threatened by it. If anything, he values my transparency, as that is the window to my heart. He would rather have that material to work with, to truly be able to understand me, than a quiet, repressed tongue.


----------



## MEM2020

SA,
Glad you mentioned that. It does seem like many of the guys in the men's activist groups believe they have been screwed by family court bias. 

That said, most of the men in those groups, seem to be generally angry at women as well as being angry at the family court system. 




SimplyAmorous said:


> I've never read anything about these Men's Rights Activism groups.. .. I would think the majority of men in this group similar to women who have been abused by men and turn to Feminist groups ....some become more radical than others.. but both sides feel cheated by their personal experiences with the opposite sex..and end up reading this sort of literature, seeking it out..
> 
> that this suggests that Ideally I should be working full time ... well I don't live up to this one.......
> I still think it's going too far for one to suggest "it deserves to be called misogyny" and it's insulting if the husband wants to take care of his wife.. I cant get past that.. I'm sorry. That makes men who believe in protecting and Providing while the wife stays home with her children beyond the younger years a misogynist . If I am reading too much into that, then I am.. but it seems to imply this... and I don't care for that..
> 
> Putting those 2 things aside..this is sure the most balanced view... the most Inter-dependent view for a working marriage..
> 
> I don't like the use of the word "entitled"..it's just an ugly word...if it said "in this view, the husband feels the duty & need to carry his family financially during pregnancy & the early yrs" it would come off better than the woman saying she is "entitled"..
> 
> And there is far too much focus on the man with this one.. "Men have full responsibility for keeping their attraction"... so what of us women?? That's important for us to uphold too.... I don't think Child custody should favor women either.. every situation is different.
> 
> This one is kinda sad .. I mean.. we need Laws..special protections... we are weak, it's like we almost expect to be abused or something...if a woman even went into a relationship with THIS mindset.. her Husband would probably feel her trembling just to have sex with him! In the ending, saying she is "an addition" to his life... Well I think it's more than that.. half of the driving force.. not just "an addition"..


----------



## jld

MEM and CM, those gals who say they don't need a man, unless they are lesbian or bi or asexual, are probably just scared. They have probably been very, very hurt by the men in their lives.

Do you remember that quote from SA, "It takes a strong man to handle a broken woman?" It truly applies to these women.


----------



## Entropy3000

EleGirl said:


> I agree that a constant need to prove independence is a problem. Some men and women do this. It's exhausting to have to deal with.


And you are correct it works both ways. Absolutely tedious and it drains the energy from a marriage.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
Do you raise your voice to Dug in public? In front of the kids?

Do you use profanity with him/towards him?







jld said:


> Well, it seems like the writer is advising people to be careful of what they say, thinking that can prevent trouble in relationships. I disagree.
> 
> I do recall that Jesus said it is from the heart that the mouth speaks. This is more helpful material to work with.
> 
> I am emotional and Dug is not. I am always emoting; he is not. As such, his words have greater impact than mine.
> 
> Dh says, "When there is a tantrum, _someone_ is not listening." He knows who that someone is.
> 
> I do not yell right off the bat. If I am shouting, it is to get through to the guy I have tried to talk to calmly how many times before.
> 
> Dug is not interested in controlling my behavior, ocotillo. He does not feel threatened by it. If anything, he values my transparency, as that is the window to my heart. He would rather have that material to work with, to truly be able to understand me, than a quiet, repressed tongue.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Mrs. John Adams said:


> *We each have strengths and weaknesses..we recognize those in each other and in ourselves...*.and supply the need of the other...whatever it might be..


My point exactly.

I think people get married for all different kinds of reason , and these reasons vary from couple to couple.
However, generally speaking, they get married because they have needs that they hope would be met by their partner.

If no such needs exist , then it might just be a _friends with benefits _ arrangement.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> I agree that 50/50 can be misconstrued. It also often leads to people measuring what they and their spouse do just to make sure they themselves are not good "too much".
> 
> *In life, I live by the 110% rule. If both spouses go above and beyond, the relationship will thrive.*


Yup, agreed, especially with the last part.

I'm reading your post and singing John legend's hit song,
" _All Of Me Loves All Of You_ " in the background of my mind..

[Thanks SA!]


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Do you raise your voice to Dug in public? In front of the kids?
> 
> Do you use profanity with him/towards him?


In public I get a stern look. In the house, with the kids around, hell breaks loose, her words are flying (including bad ones). 

When we were first together and she would get upset, I got angry. But I quickly realized that JLD cannot lie. Everything comes out. 

Instead of getting angry, I started to listen to what she was saying, and address the underlying issue. Often it was my lack of sensitivity to her feelings that triggered the anger.

Later we learned about active listening. This has been a great tool to help me understand her. It has also helped me with my kids and at work.


----------



## MEM2020

We're in bed watching 'The good wife' and there are a bunch of scenes where this husband is being a total bastard. 

I look at M2 and say: You are SO LUCKY.

She turns sideways, says: I'm the luckiest person I know.
Shaking my head: Nope, second luckiest


You start treating marriage like a zero sum game, you often end up in a race to zero. 




Caribbean Man said:


> Yup, agreed, especially with the last part.
> 
> I'm reading your post and singing John legend's hit song,
> " _All Of Me Loves All Of You_ " in the background of my mind..
> 
> [Thanks SA!]


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Do you raise your voice to Dug in public? In front of the kids?
> 
> Do you use profanity with him/towards him?


I'm transparent with him, MEM. I don't hold back, in any area, in any way.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> We're in bed watching 'The good wife' and there are a bunch of scenes where this husband is being a total bastard.
> 
> I look at M2 and say: You are SO LUCKY.
> 
> *She turns sideways, says: I'm the luckiest person I know.
> Shaking my head: Nope, second luckiest*
> 
> 
> You start treating marriage like a zero sum game, you often end up in a race to zero.


That's the right attitude. :smthumbup:

And MEM, you have _earned_ that.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I do recall that Jesus said it is from the heart that the mouth speaks. This is more helpful material to work with.


That might not be a good example, because it's a continuation of the, "You will know a tree by its fruit" motif, with the implication that you can tell the condition of a person's heart (i.e. good or bad) by what comes out of their mouth. 

I'm not trying to comment on your marriage. That's none of my business and not where I was headed with this.

I'm pointing out what seems to be an assumption of lesser moral responsibility here which I think ultimately does a disservice to women.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> That might not be a good example, because it's a continuation of the, "You will know a tree by its fruit" motif, with the implication that you can tell the condition of a person's heart by what comes out of their mouth.
> 
> I'm not trying to comment on your marriage. That's none of my business and not where I was headed with this.
> 
> I'm pointing out what seems to be an assumption of lesser moral responsibility here which I think ultimately does a disservice to women.


I don't know if I am qualified to speak on moral responsibility, but I do think knowing what is in your wife's heart is a key to understanding her. 

And using that knowledge to meet her emotional needs can only help you build a happier, more satisfying marriage with her.


----------



## MEM2020

Dug,
Unfiltered can be good. 

That said, your daughters may have trouble finding husbands who are ok being screamed at in front of the children, when that same conversation could easily be had behind closed doors. 

As for your sons, I have a somewhat different concern. 

Most women who scream at their husbands in front of the children also engage in a lot of other toxic behavior. Not sure your sons will recognize that pattern as a giant red flag when evaluating potential mates. 




Duguesclin said:


> In public I get a stern look. In the house, with the kids around, hell breaks loose, her words are flying (including bad ones).
> 
> When we were first together and she would get upset, I got angry. But I quickly realized that JLD cannot lie. Everything comes out.
> 
> Instead of getting angry, I started to listen to what she was saying, and address the underlying issue. Often it was my lack of sensitivity to her feelings that triggered the anger.
> 
> Later we learned about active listening. This has been a great tool to help me understand her. It has also helped me with my kids and at work.


----------



## MEM2020

And yet, at a friends dinner party, the most you'd give him is a stern look. That's healthy. That's restraint. It doesn't preclude full transparency when you get home. 

That type situation might require that you wait several hours until you two are in private. 

And yet at home, when you're at most a 30 second walk to the bedroom door, you choose not to wait. 




QUOTE=jld;9401762]I'm transparent with him, MEM. I don't hold back, in any area, in any way.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Caribbean Man

MEM11363 said:


> You start treating marriage like a zero sum game, you often end up in a race to zero.


:iagree:

Sometimes when we argue and things get difficult,I take my wife in my arms, I'll look herin her eyes and say it this way;

_" Hun,if we fight each other , we loose. It's just you and me against the world..."_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Duguesclin said* : It is not that it is true, it is just _your feeling_!


 Awe... Listen to him JLD !! 



> Originally Posted by *EleGirl *:
> Being an independent woman does not mean that the independent woman does not need her husband and all that he contributes to her life. I'm not sure why people equate 'independent women' with the idea that they do not desire/need good men.


 I want to comment on this.. this is something I feel you are reading into MY posts ..as I mention "all that he contributes to my life" and "good men"... when I express myself, I in no way am suggesting that anyone on this thread isn't thankful or appreciative of their husbands...

If anything..(in the back of my mind )....I always find it so very sad when I read thread after thread of men who work all day, they provide for their families.. they have a SAH wife ...they come home to a messy house....hit or miss if food is on the table...and they complain HE NEEDS TO DO MORE... then refuse him sex- because he is not helping enough or she is tired..

I do feel these Good men are being taken advantage of & their wives are not appreciating them.. In my world...unless she has sextuplets or is disabled.....I'd feel a complete waste of breathe if I expected my H to help me with my stuff... I've always felt HIS load is heavier...if I was to compare the 2.... I wouldn't think by expressing thankfulness I would be insulting anyone...

Then after these horrible marital experiences with a SAHM like this...these men will say "NEVER AGAIN" ... and really.. who could blame them! But this is very sad to me.. if I have anyone in mind .. it is stories like these... completely unrelated to Working women..


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM11363 said:


> Dug,
> Unfiltered can be good.
> 
> That said, your daughters may have trouble finding husbands who are ok being screamed at in front of the children, when that same conversation could easily be had behind closed doors.
> 
> As for your sons, I have a somewhat different concern.
> 
> Most women who scream at their husbands in front of the children also engage in a lot of other toxic behavior. Not sure your sons will recognize that pattern as a giant red flag when evaluating potential mates.


I am not worried about my kids because we do not try to pretend. They see the whole thing. They see how it starts and how it gets resolved. It is important they be exposed to the real life at an early age. 

We hide very little (sex is obviously behind closed doors), but besides that it is important they see how we handle issues.

When our older son was diagnosed with cancer, we did not hide anything. We had to make tough decisions, one of which was whether or not we should have him treated in the US (we were in India at the time). It was clear that we had the responsibility and that in no way they were made to be part of the decision, but it was important they see the process and struggles we had to go through. It can only make them stronger adults. This is also why we believe so much in homeschooling.

We have now a 19 year old and I am just amazed at her ability to go through life. She is certainly stronger and more rounded than I was at her age.


----------



## MEM2020

Dug,
If the kids are turning out great and you two are happy, that's what matters. 

How old were the two of you when you married? 




Duguesclin said:


> I am not worried about my kids because we do not try to pretend. They see the whole thing. They see how it starts and how it gets resolved. It is important they be exposed to the real life at an early age.
> 
> We hide very little (sex is obviously behind closed doors), but besides that it is important they see how we handle issues.
> 
> When our older son was diagnosed with cancer, we did not hide anything. We had to make tough decisions, one of which was whether or not we should have him treated in the US (we were in India at the time). It was clear that we had the responsibility and that in no way they were made to be part of the decision, but it was important they see the process and struggles we had to go through. It can only make them stronger adults. This is also why we believe so much in homeschooling.
> 
> We have now a 19 year old and I am just amazed at her ability to go through life. She is certainly stronger and more rounded than I was at her age.


----------



## Caribbean Man

MEM11363 said:


> *And yet, at a friends dinner party, the most you'd give him is a stern look. That's healthy. That's restraint. It doesn't preclude full transparency when you get home.
> 
> That type situation might require that you wait several hours until you two are in private.
> 
> And yet at home, when you're at most a 30 second walk to the bedroom door, you choose not to wait.*


I really , really appreciate when you make post like these MEM.

I learn quite a lot about handling anger , and fixing a difficult communication dynamic between couples from post like this one.

I've never seen anybody either on TAM or real life explain it quite like you.


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM11363 said:


> Dug,
> If the kids are turning out great and you two are happy, that's what matters.
> 
> How old were the two of you when you married?


She was 24 and I was 27.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> I really , really appreciate when you make post like these MEM.
> 
> I learn quite a lot about handling anger , and fixing a difficult communication dynamic between couples from post like this one.
> 
> I've never seen anybody either on TAM or real life explain it quite like you.


What is the difficult communication dynamic?


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> What is the difficult communication dynamic?


Most people would consider screaming and profanity to be pretty poor communication.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I don't know if I am qualified to speak on moral responsibility, but I do think knowing what is in your wife's heart is a key to understanding her.


I suspect it's probably a much bigger issue in my marriage (Jewish, agnostic secular humanist + Conservative Christian fundamentalist)

If my wife, as a "True believer" was willing to ignore the more than fifty times the Bible says something to the effect of, "Let your utterance be always with graciousness" I wouldn't arrive at a very complimentary understanding of her at all. 

Thankfully though, she's always been as transparent as glass to me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> What is the difficult communication dynamic?



I mean like when tempers flare, and both parties or one party is angry , and maybe justifiable so.

Resolving or dealing with such a situation without causing things to escalate out of control or leaving any residual bad feelings or long term resentments.


----------



## Duguesclin

NobodySpecial said:


> Most people would consider screaming and profanity to be pretty poor communication.


You can't stop at the word, you have to look at the emotions that underlie them.

If I felt threatened by them, then we would have to find another way to communicate. 

To be honest, they are probably necessary to get me to listen.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Duguesclin said:


> You can't stop at the word, you have to look at the emotions that underlie them.
> 
> If I felt threatened by them, then we would have to find another way to communicate.
> 
> To be honest, they are probably necessary to get me to listen.


It's your life. Personally I would not want to be with someone with so little self control that they cannot control their language OR with someone who needs to be yelled at to listen.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Duguesclin said:


> You can't stop at the word, you have to look at the emotions that underlie them.
> 
> If I felt threatened by them, then we would have to find another way to communicate.
> 
> *To be honest, they are probably necessary to get me to listen.*


Now there is some hard honesty.. I think ANY WOMAN would grow greatly frustrated if she felt her H was not hearing her.. 

Because you see your own hand in this.... you are able to give her Grace.. it's surely something to work on though..on both ends...


----------



## Duguesclin

Caribbean Man said:


> I mean like when tempers flare, and both parties or one party is angry , and maybe justifiable so.
> 
> Resolving or dealing with such a situation without causing  things to escalate out of control or leaving any residual bad feelings or long term resentments.


One partner has to stay cool, for sure. Otherwise it will escalate.

I know she leans on me, so it is on me to stay cool. If I could not, she would not be able to trust me. Without her trust, the marriage would be seriously compromised. 

She knows how far she can go. When our son was diagnosed with cancer, I was a mess the first few days. She had to carry us both. But it was not sustainable. I had to get back on my feet for the sake of my family.

I think what avoids the long term resentments is getting the feelings out, as soon as possible.

Some people may be picky about how or where they come out. I am not.


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> Heh Heh.
> 
> That's why I absolutely love the idea of " gender flipping."
> 
> So lemme flip it around and ask this question.
> 
> Any woman out there prefer to marry a fully _independent man_, one who doesn't need them ?





EleGirl said:


> Being an independent woman does not mean that the independent woman does not need her husband and all that he contributes to her life. I'm not sure why people equate 'independent women' with the idea that they do not desire/need good men. :scratchhead:





SimplyAmorous said:


> I want to comment on this.. this is something I feel you are reading into MY posts ..as I mention "all that he contributes to my life" and "good men"... when I express myself, I in no way am suggesting that anyone on this thread isn't thankful or appreciative of their husbands...


Follow the quoted discussion above. I posted that in response to a post by CM, not to a post of yours.


simplyamorous said:


> If anything..(in the back of my mind )....I always find it so very sad when I read thread after thread of men who work all day, they provide for their families.. They have a SAH wife ...they come home to a messy house....hit or miss if food is on the table...and they complain HE NEEDS TO DO MORE... Then refuse him sex- because he is not helping enough or she is tired..


Yes that’s rotten for a woman to treat her husband that way. I do not understand how a woman can treat her husband this way. There are also a lot of threads posted here by women whose husband’s treat them similarly. I also do not know how a man could treat his wife this way. 

There are also a lot more posts on here by both men and women whose spouses mistreat them in different ways. There are apparently a lot of rotten people out there looking to mistreat good people. Good people are easy to mistreat because they would never do what is done to them. It’s all rotten.

I’m sure that mistreatment by SAH spouses happens more often to men than to women because men are the sole bread winner in about 30% of marriages. While women are the primary breadwinner in about 25% of marriages. I think that a SAHH/W should do most of the housework, child rearing, cooking, shopping, etc. When a SAH spouse does not do this without good cause (perhaps illness), I think that their neglect is a form of abuse. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I do feel these Good men are being taken advantage of & their wives are not appreciating them.. In my world...unless she has sextublets or is disabled.....I'd feel a complete waste of breathe if I expected my H to help me with my stuff... I've always felt HIS load is heavier...if I was to compare the 2.... I wouldn't think by expressing thankfulness I would be insulting anyone...


I think that SOME, not all, good men are being taken advantage of by some pretty badly behaved women. I also think that SOME, not all, good women are taken advantage of my some pretty badly behaved men.

What I don’t’ get is the emphasis on only one gender, as though all of one gender are good and the members of the other gender are mostly mistreating the other. Or that men are more sympathetic. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Then after these horrible marital experiences with a SAHM like this...these men will say "NEVER AGAIN" ... and really.. who could blame them! But this is very sad to me.. if I have anyone in mind .. it is stories like this.. completely unrelated to Working women.. (just for the record)


Just like a guy will often come out of this type of marriage and say that he does not need a woman, a woman who has a bad experience is likely to come out of it saying that she does not need a man as in “If that’s what I have to put up with in marriage I’m better off on my own.”


----------



## that_girl

I don't NEED a man. Nor should a man NEED a woman.

Wanting someone in your life to share it and go through it is different than saying 'I need you because I'm a woman who needs a man." No.


----------



## EleGirl

that_girl said:


> I don't NEED a man. Nor should a man NEED a woman.
> 
> Wanting someone in your life to share it and go through it is different than saying 'I need you because I'm a woman who needs a man." No.


Semantics. Perhaps we need (LOL) to now define the words "need" and "want".

I do not need a man in that I'm ok without one. I'm better off right now without one then I was with one in the long run when I was married.

But would a like to have a good man in my life? Sure. I would like to. I would like to find a 'super man' like the ones people here talk about to share my life with. It's a want, not a need. 

But if I had such a man in my life, I would come to 'need' him in particular in a passionate way.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Semantics. Perhaps we need (LOL) to now define the words "need" and "want".
> 
> I do not need a man in that I'm ok without one. I'm better off right now without one then I was with one in the long run when I was married.
> 
> But would a like to have a good man in my life? Sure. I would like to. I would like to find a 'super man' like the ones people here talk about to share my life with. It's a want, not a need.
> 
> But if I had such a man in my life, I would come to 'need' him in particular in a passionate way.


You deserve a 'super man,' Ele, because you are a 'super woman.' 

And you are right to accept only a Win/Win, or No Deal. I truly believe it is the only way to go.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> You deserve a 'super man,' Ele, because you are a 'super woman.'
> 
> And you are right to accept only a Win/Win, or No Deal. I truly believe it is the only way to go.


Aw thanks.. I've had a few offers since my divorce but none that I'm interested in.


----------



## Thundarr

SimplyAmorous said:


> I guess for me ...Independent women = women who work and bring home the bacon...that's what lights up in my brain when the word is used...as it's so often implied in this way...
> 
> Obviously there are others ways to use the word.. comparing for example... one of my favorite books....about "Boundaries".. ... it speaks of Emotional boundaries, Mental boundaries, Physical and Spiritual.. so in this way, I suppose Independent - could be meant in other ways also..
> 
> My bad.  ..I figured it out... 13.7 % is what I contribute financially...I probably do feel "lessor" inside sometimes about it...but that's on me.


Yea I wanted to make sure you knew my comment wasn't along those lines. There are judgmental people with any debate regarding life style choices but SAHM vs WM in particular seems to leave everyone feeling judged. Either choice is right IMO. Obviously that's a topic I'll choose my words very carefully on .


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> Yea I wanted to make sure you knew my comment wasn't along those lines. There are judgmental people with any debate regarding life style choices but SAHM vs WM in particular seems to leave everyone feeling judged. Either choice is right IMO. Obviously that's a topic I'll choose my words very carefully on .


When you are like me, and have done both, you are completely worthless!


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

I'm attempting to make a point that I believe you would prefer not to understand. 

If you would like, I will explain it in a different manner. 

Alternatively, I can drop it. Not everyone accepts medicine as readily as they administer it. 





jld said:


> I'm transparent with him, MEM. I don't hold back, in any area, in any way.


----------



## MEM2020

Agree with that. 

When someone volunteers the statement: I don't need a man 

I perceive that as an expression of fear/distrust. 

BTW - I'm not questioning the accuracy of the statement. I believe that most women who say that truly are self sufficient. 

I also believe that most people are more likely to thrive inside a healthy mutually beneficial pair bond. 

Before I got married my mindset was: I would rather be lonely, than badly paired. That hasn't changed. 

To be gender neutral about it, I would have the same view of a man who said: I don't need a woman. 

And now - in the spirit of accuracy - I'll site the numerous studies on this theme. 

Statistically: Single men fare worse than single women. They are more self destructive. 

Biologically it seems that women have less need of a partner than men. 





jld said:


> MEM and CM, those gals who say they don't need a man, unless they are lesbian or bi or asexual, are probably just scared. They have probably been very, very hurt by the men in their lives.
> 
> Do you remember that quote from SA, "It takes a strong man to handle a broken woman?" It truly applies to these women.


----------



## Thundarr

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I like to think of us as co-dependent on each other...equal in every way and treated as such...we are both respectful of the other.
> We each have strengths and weaknesses..we recognize those in each other and in ourselves....and supply the need of the other...whatever it might be. He obviously makes more money than I do...but the money is "our" money. There has never been two separate money accounts....
> 
> Everything is "ours"...and for us...this works. It might not for everyone else...and I could certainly see in the case that a couple has divorced and remarried others....there could be a reason to keep things separate.


Using co-dependent to present that notion will confuse people. It's been widely used to define unhealthy dependency. Interdependent is more accurate to express a healthy dependence dynamic I believe.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> I'm attempting to make a point that I believe you would prefer not to understand.
> 
> If you would like, I will explain it in a different manner.
> 
> Alternatively, I can drop it. Not everyone accepts medicine as readily as they administer it.


MEM,

You are telling me that I should not speak disrespectfully to my husband. I should not raise my voice, nor use profanity, and certainly not call him names. And most definitely I should not be doing this in front of our children.

Is that the lesson?

Also, you are saying that my daughter will be just like me, and will not find a husband. My sons will see how I deal with stress and choose women like me, who are clearly BSC, and likely otherwise toxic. I don't know what the otherwise toxic means, though.

I think you had other worries, but my screen only lets me see 15 posts previous, and yours is farther back. Sometimes when I open another window, I lose what is in my reply screen. Since I have already written quite a bit here, I don't want to lose it. Otherwise I would address your other concerns.


----------



## NobodySpecial

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> I'm attempting to make a point that I believe you would prefer not to understand.
> 
> If you would like, I will explain it in a different manner.
> 
> Alternatively, I can drop it. Not everyone accepts medicine as readily as they administer it.


To hell with that. *I* want your wisdom. As do many on this board.


----------



## sidney2718

bandit.45 said:


> You shot an Oryx?
> 
> I hate you.
> 
> Lucky.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Was the oryx armed?


----------



## sidney2718

Mrs. John Adams said:


> mr adams says i am an independently dependent woman...do you think that is a political answer?:rofl:


Mr. Adams is a wise man.


----------



## sidney2718

jld said:


> MEM and CM, those gals who say they don't need a man, unless they are lesbian or bi or asexual, are probably just scared. They have probably been very, very hurt by the men in their lives.


I'd put it a bit differently. I'd replace "man" by "partner".

For all our affairs, unfaithfulness, and so on, we really are pairwise bonding people. We can be totally alone, but most of us find it difficult. When we don't have a special partner, we often hang out in packs, all male or all female or whatever.


----------



## jld

sidney2718 said:


> I'd put it a bit differently. I'd replace "man" by "partner".
> 
> For all our affairs, unfaithfulness, and so on, we really are pairwise bonding people. We can be totally alone, but most of us find it difficult. When we don't have a special partner, we often hang out in packs, all male or all female or whatever.


Basically, people are social creatures. 

What do you think about the idea that it is easier for women to be alone, than men?


----------



## sidney2718

SimplyAmorous said:


> Awe... Listen to him JLD !!
> 
> I want to comment on this.. this is something I feel you are reading into MY posts ..as I mention "all that he contributes to my life" and "good men"... when I express myself, I in no way am suggesting that anyone on this thread isn't thankful or appreciative of their husbands...
> 
> If anything..(in the back of my mind )....I always find it so very sad when I read thread after thread of men who work all day, they provide for their families.. they have a SAH wife ...they come home to a messy house....hit or miss if food is on the table...and they complain HE NEEDS TO DO MORE... then refuse him sex- because he is not helping enough or she is tired..
> 
> I do feel these Good men are being taken advantage of & their wives are not appreciating them.. In my world...unless she has sextuplets or is disabled.....I'd feel a complete waste of breathe if I expected my H to help me with my stuff... I've always felt HIS load is heavier...if I was to compare the 2.... I wouldn't think by expressing thankfulness I would be insulting anyone...
> 
> Then after these horrible marital experiences with a SAHM like this...these men will say "NEVER AGAIN" ... and really.. who could blame them! But this is very sad to me.. if I have anyone in mind .. it is stories like these... completely unrelated to Working women..


I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. Before retirement I got up, went to work, and came home. I helped out with some things, but mostly I didn't.

My father's life was pretty much the same. He got up, went to work, and came home. He helped with some things, but mostly he didn't.

But my wife had life much easier than my mother did. My mother went shopping most every day. We had no freezer and frozen food was just being invented. Meat didn't keep in the fridge more than a day or two. Fruit went out of season and vanished. The washing machine (and we were lucky to have one) had a mangle for squeezing the water out of the finished wash and there was no dryer.

I could go on and on. My mother worked from the time she got up until she went to bed. But it was what women did then. There was no other choice.

And clearly she did not work out of the house.

We've come a long way since then.


----------



## jld

For sure, SAHM means something different in 2014 than in 1954. 

Sidney, do you remember the show Queen for a Day?


----------



## sidney2718

jld said:


> Basically, people are social creatures.
> 
> What do you think about the idea that it is easier for women to be alone, than men?


I suspect that that is societal. I don't think it is innate. In our modern society women tend to be more nurturing than men. A woman "alone" will often have female friends. Most men don't have that sort of relationship with other men. Some do, but only some.

More: I think that women mostly dress and act for other women. As long as other women accept her she's not really alone. I don't think that sort of thing applies to men.

I have to add that first, this is right off the top of my head. I really need to think more about it. Second, I've never been a woman, so my only knowledge of their behavior comes from spending a lifetime observing them, mostly in my own family. All my children and all their children are female.


----------



## sidney2718

jld said:


> For sure, SAHM means something different in 2014 than in 1954.
> 
> Sidney, do you remember the show Queen for a Day?


I sure do. And I never heard the term "SAHM" in 1954.


----------



## jld

sidney2718 said:


> I suspect that that is societal. I don't think it is innate. In our modern society women tend to be more nurturing than men. A woman "alone" will often have female friends. Most men don't have that sort of relationship with other men. Some do, but only some.
> 
> More: I think that women mostly dress and act for other women. As long as other women accept her she's not really alone. I don't think that sort of thing applies to men.
> 
> I have to add that first, this is right off the top of my head. I really need to think more about it. Second, I've never been a woman, so my only knowledge of their behavior comes from spending a lifetime observing them, mostly in my own family. All my children and all their children are female.


I think it is innate. I think it is hard for most men to go without sex with a woman, if they are hetero. Some manage it, but I think it is a big struggle for most men.

Yep, back in 1954, most every mom who was not wealthy or working (and that was probably few) was a SAHM. And like you said, working hard with wringer washers and gardens and sewing every day. That was certainly my mom. My parents did not have an indoor toilet until the mid-fifties, when they already had four kids!

My mom was on Queen for a Day. My parents talked about that for the rest of their lives. They were so excited. They got a washer and dryer, air conditioning, and new shoes for all their kids. 

They also met some celebrity, and had dinner at some famous club in LA. Oh, they were thrilled, let me tell you! So different from their well, not exactly impoverished, but it probably felt like it, existence back home!


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I too remember Queen for a day...lol
> 
> In 1983 a SAHM had become a horrible thing....i think the tides have turned and it is now a respected position again. Now it is en vogue to stay home, breast feed, even home school your children.
> Not so when I was a young mother....and i was a SAHM....one of the few in my neighborhood....i had my children natural childbirth...i breastfed...much to the dismay of others...and i did not work outside the home. I got oh...you don't work? as they rolled their eyes at me. It was a very hard time for me.


I bet that was hard, Mrs. Adams! And good for you for breastfeeding, even though you did not have any support!

I had four of my five kids at home, the third in the hospital, because he was so big (over 13 lbs.). Do you remember anyone having home births when you had your kids? It seems like it was popular until 1950 or so, and then died out until the early 80s.

What made you decide to be a SAHM, and breastfeed?


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> My son was born in a naval hospital...I used the lemaze method of childbirth...i had always wanted to breast feed my children and I had always wanted to be a mom....thoughts of working never entered my head once I married at age 17. I breast fed him until he was 18 months old.
> 
> My daughter was born almost 4 years later in a birthing room in a local hospital also using the lemaze method...home births became popular again after the birth of my children. I breast fed my daughter until she was 2.


That's cool! :smthumbup:

I breastfed each kid at least 2 1/2 years. They weaned themselves.


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> yes both of my children weaned themselves as well....baby led weaning. I so missed it for years and not for one second regretted having done that for them.
> 
> My children are my blessing JLD...just as yours are. I pray for your son daily....


Thanks, Mrs. Adams. 

Children are a blessing. And a lot of work! 

I really feel lucky to have had a traditional life. I know we are out of style, lol, but I see the long term blessings, and I am so grateful to dh for having had this vision.

It was like I was lost, and one day he swooped into my life and shared his vision with me (in actuality, he waited a few days ). He offered me a life with him, with certain conditions (lol, or so I thought--now I realize I could have negotiated!), and I accepted it. 

I think I got a great deal!


----------



## EleGirl

sidney2718 said:


> Was the oryx armed?


No, it was legged


----------



## heartsbeating

Anonymous07 said:


> Some people think that doing anything 'masculine' will emasculate your man.
> 
> I like doing a lot of hands on work, as I grew up with brothers and have always been close with my dad who taught me a lot about home improvement. Supposedly I was hurting my husband by doing some of that type of work.


I'm not suggesting these things are masculine or feminine.

Batman noticed tone in my arms and so I couldn't resist flexing my biceps for him lol. He affectionately said, "Damn! I'm going to need to up my game!" And said to keep at it, as my hard work is paying off. 

Spider in the house this morning... he said I ought to be able to get it. I replied that I'd have to spray it and would rather not if he could get it. He took care of the spider while I stood back a few meters. He's not the type who needs to be needed in these ways - but I'm the type who needs him to deal with spiders.


----------



## heartsbeating

that_girl said:


> Best when both partners encourage and both people are unstoppable.
> 
> I tried for years to encourage my husband. Either I'm bad at it or he isn't interested.
> 
> But I think love makes you want to encourage your partner to be the best they can be....


Golden!


----------



## heartsbeating

John Lee said:


> Have you ever heard of a woman saying stuff like "You can't do anything right" "Idiot" "Useless" "good for nothing" "All you can do is ___", because enough of that kind of language could be interpreted as "emasculating." If you want to just call it "abuse" I guess that's ok, but as I said, things have different contexts for a man vs. a woman.


I'd call that bullying / disrespect... and lack of self-respect to allow it.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've never read anything about these Men's Rights Activism groups.. .. I would think the majority of men in this group similar to women who have been abused by men and turn to Feminist groups ....some become more radical than others.. but both sides feel cheated by their personal experiences with the opposite sex..and end up reading this sort of literature, seeking it out.. I think they do it because they don't feel fairly treated. Both feminist and men's rights groups try to address those grievances. Some do not do it in healthy ways, though.
> 
> that this suggests that Ideally I should be working full time ... well I don't live up to this one.......Yeah, I don't either.
> I still think it's going too far for one to suggest "it deserves to be called misogyny" and it's insulting if the husband wants to take care of his wife.. I cant get past that.. I'm sorry.Why be sorry? It's your opinion, and we are all just sharing our opinions. That makes men who believe in protecting and Providing while the wife stays home with her children beyond the younger years a misogynist . If I am reading too much into that, then I am.. but it seems to imply this... and I don't care for that.. That is my stumbling block with equal marriage, too. Well, I have a couple, lol. But this insistence on both working concerns me, as with enough pressure, everyone may be forced to. For example, doing away with alimony laws.
> 
> Ele did say it really means just the power to make decisions. But once money gets involved (no more alimony), it just seems kind of risky.
> 
> I really do wonder if SAHMs are going to die out. I guess a prenup might take care of that, though.
> 
> Putting those 2 things aside..this is sure the most balanced view... the most Inter-dependent view for a working marriage..I think for most people, it is the ideal. It is an improvement over what many women used to have.
> 
> I don't like the use of the word "entitled"..it's just an ugly word...if it said "in this view, the husband feels the duty & need to carry his family financially during pregnancy & the early yrs" it would come off better than the woman saying she is "entitled".. Sounds good!
> 
> And there is far too much focus on the man with this one.. "Men have full responsibility for keeping their attraction"... so what of us women?? That's important for us to uphold too.... I don't think Child custody should favor women either.. every situation is different. The idea is that the man is responsible for the marriage. It's his marriage, so he needs to be fully invested in it. As he seeks to serve his wife, she will serve him. The onus is on him.
> 
> This one is kinda sad .. I mean.. we need Laws..special protections... we are weak, it's like we almost expect to be abused or something...if a woman even went into a relationship with THIS mindset.. her Husband would probably feel her trembling just to have sex with him! I think it was this way in the past, and still in some countries.In the ending, saying she is "an addition" to his life... Well I think it's more than that.. half of the driving force.. not just "an addition"..Could even say she *is* the driving force, the reason he does everything he does . . .


----------



## MEM2020

This is like the funhouse version of active listening. I say X, and you repeat back 3X.

That's ok. I did offer to clarify. 

If you and Dug are both fine with your occasional melt down, that is perfectly fine. It's fairly obvious to all, that in between melt downs, you are very loving towards Dug. 

I'm just suggesting that you are plenty capable of limiting those melt downs to a private setting. 

I guess that means you believe it is beneficial for the kids to see you completely lose it, and Dug to do that Jedi mind control thing. Maybe it is. 

As for your children. I'm sure you've done a great job overall. I was simply suggesting that:
- Daughters who believe it is their God given right as women to scream at and call their male partners names, might find that a large portion of the male population doesn't respond as well as Dug to that type behavior. 
- Sons who accept being screamed at like that, may find their partners steadily getting more aggressive. 

Just something to consider. 

So - being really precise: this is solely about doing this type stuff in front of the kids....




jld said:


> MEM,
> 
> You are telling me that I should not speak disrespectfully to my husband. I should not raise my voice, nor use profanity, and certainly not call him names. And most definitely I should not be doing this in front of our children.
> 
> Is that the lesson?
> 
> Also, you are saying that my daughter will be just like me, and will not find a husband. My sons will see how I deal with stress and choose women like me, who are clearly BSC, and likely otherwise toxic. I don't know what the otherwise toxic means, though.
> 
> I think you had other worries, but my screen only lets me see 15 posts previous, and yours is farther back. Sometimes when I open another window, I lose what is in my reply screen. Since I have already written quite a bit here, I don't want to lose it. Otherwise I would address your other concerns.


----------



## heartsbeating

Caribbean Man said:


> A woman raising a boy does not automatically make him weak.


And it's interesting how different circumstances can affect us either positively or negatively. My husband was raised in a single mother house-hold. There was a lack of healthy communication. He learned coping mechanisms as a child that he's been unlearning as an adult. He has (what I would consider) a low tolerance for those who don't take responsibility for themselves, as that's how he viewed his mother; as being a victim to circumstance. Growing up he recognized that it wasn't a healthy dynamic. He chose to move out and go it alone. That was the best thing he could have done for himself at the time - he wasn't equipped to know how else to handle. The way he interacts with her in recent years, has changed drastically, such as not tolerating her tantrums.

He didn't have positive male role models around him. His father wasn't around when he was growing up. He had a chance to bond with him as an adult but I think both him and hubs recognized that being a father was one of his limitations. He learned to accept that's just not the cards he was dealt. He's done alright off his own back.

In many ways, he sought various role models as he got older through observation and learning from others. We are meant to be social creatures - the finger can't point at itself. There does come a time where you need to become your own role model though, regardless of upbringing. 

When we lived overseas for a time, I was carrying us financially. Hubs wasn't able to secure employment. He was both proud and glad that I could have our back, while at the same time, it affected how he felt about himself. At the time I deeply underestimated what that meant to him and his sense of pride.


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM, which do you think would be more helpful to address: my wife's melt downs or my not listening in the first place?


----------



## MEM2020

Elegirl,

Truly you are aces. 

My - thing - is subtext. 

But I never understood exactly what that expression really meant until I read your post below. 

When a woman says: I don't need a man 

I knew it was some expression of fear, but didn't really get it. Now I think I do. 

I don't need a man

Means: I don't want to get into a situation where I DO feel like I need a particular man.

It's about trust. About being burned, or having close friends who have been burned. 




EleGirl said:


> Semantics. Perhaps we need (LOL) to now define the words "need" and "want".
> 
> I do not need a man in that I'm ok without one. I'm better off right now without one then I was with one in the long run when I was married.
> 
> But would a like to have a good man in my life? Sure. I would like to. I would like to find a 'super man' like the ones people here talk about to share my life with. It's a want, not a need.
> 
> But if I had such a man in my life, I would come to 'need' him in particular in a passionate way.


----------



## MEM2020

Dug,
You refer to this as 'not listening'. Is that truly accurate? Here's what I am asking:
- Is this a failure to listen and comprehend or
- Is this a failure to comply with JLD's requests

Because I don't believe this is about listening/comprehension. 

It seems more about you being the emotionally cooler partner and JLD feeling ignored, deprioritized. 

Nothing like a good screaming melt down to raise the emotional temperature in the house. 

M2 cares about 10% about whether or not I listen/comprehend / empathize. And 90% whether I actually do what she wants. 

-----
Please don't lose sight of something that is important to me. I think you have a terrific wife who crazily loves you and is an excellent and devoted mother. 

That thing she said about: if you had an affair and a love child, her wanting you to be with the OW so she wouldn't be alone. The thing about JLD, she's so unfiltered - I know she is telling the truth. That's like a 1/1000 on the selflessness scale. Only 1/1000 people are that selfless. 

She scores above average on the BSC scale, but has a giant heart. 





Duguesclin said:


> MEM, which do you think would be more helpful to address: my wife's melt downs or my not listening in the first place?


----------



## MEM2020

QFT

Sadly this type behavior is just as common in men as women. It is bullying / disrespect. And to try to label it as worse, when the woman is doing it, is nonsense. In my humble opinion. 




heartsbeating said:


> I'd call that bullying / disrespect... and lack of self-respect to allow it.


----------



## Thundarr

Duguesclin said:


> MEM, which do you think would be more helpful to address: my wife's melt downs or my not listening in the first place?


I'm not Mem; no matter. Neither are first to address. So long as you're aware that your kids are being witness to the dynamics and can misinterpret what they see. I'm guessing you'd like for your kids to both be able to listen to as well as not curse their partners. Some equate these qualities with having respect for your partner. To a large degree what matters is how your children's interactions are interpreted by their partners. Perception is reality after all. If youf daughter falls for a guy who finds fighting in front of the kids as very disrespectful then it'll hurt her in the long run. My belief is that most men will become very defensive when cursed at in front of their kids.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> Follow the quoted discussion above. I posted that in response to a post by CM, not to a post of yours.


 Listen Elegirl....and I surely am not going to bother you again...

I completely understand you were not speaking to me -but to CM...but your 1st post on here (#546) in response to mine I felt was very cutting and I believe that came in response to misreading me.. this is all I am trying to get across to you..... 

You spoke as though you are smart enough to know context (translation - I am not)...

All the "good for you's" with !! on a forum this sounds very sarcastic , especially repeating it 3 times in a row to everything you wanted to say to me... then adding "why do you try to put down other people who have had bad experiences like this?" - I guess I don't feel I put anyone down by saying I am thankful....and appreciative......then you suggest I want everyone else to shut up... (that hurt!)

I don't expect people to all be NICE on here.. believe me, but YOU.. someone who is pretty damn respectable..I was kinda taken a back by that...



> Yes that’s rotten for a woman to treat her husband that way. I do not understand how a woman can treat her husband this way. There are also a lot of threads posted here by women whose husband’s treat them similarly. I also do not know how a man could treat his wife this way.
> 
> There are also a lot more posts on here by both men and women whose spouses mistreat them in different ways. There are apparently a lot of rotten people out there looking to mistreat good people. Good people are easy to mistreat because they would never do what is done to them. It’s all rotten.
> 
> I’m sure that mistreatment by SAH spouses happens more often to men than to women because men are the sole bread winner in about 30% of marriages. While women are the primary breadwinner in about 25% of marriages. I think that a SAHH/W should do most of the housework, child rearing, cooking, shopping, etc. When a SAH spouse does not do this without good cause (perhaps illness), I think that their neglect is a form of abuse.


 Here we agree, I also agree each spouse should give that 110% as you spoke back there in another post.. 



> I think that SOME, not all, good men are being taken advantage of by some pretty badly behaved women. I also think that SOME, not all, good women are taken advantage of my some pretty badly behaved men.
> 
> What I don’t’ get is the emphasis on only one gender, as though all of one gender are good and the members of the other gender are mostly mistreating the other. Or that men are more sympathetic.
> 
> Just like a guy will often come out of this type of marriage and say that he does not need a woman, a woman who has a bad experience is likely to come out of it saying that she does not need a man as in “If that’s what I have to put up with in marriage I’m better off on my own.”


 Just because I didn't mention the other sex by no means = I feel they get a free pass.. I DO NOT , repeat DO NOT think all men are wonderful ...that would be absolutely CRAZY.. This is JLD's thread... many feel she is giving the woman a pass.. she admitted because of her life experiences, she tends to feel the women are more innocent.. My posts to her was to shed a little light that this is not always so.. 

Just because I didn't mention that I have a GF whose Husband is a male chavanist pig , when she speaks he doesn't even look at her.. he is rude condescending, she has cried to me...I have another GF whose 1st husband cheated on her repeatedly.. of course MALE SLIME exists.. I can not stand certain types of men, are you kidding me ... I am pretty vocal about it here ... Guys who just use women and throw them away.. I despise men like this.. 

For the record, I think you are VERY balanced.. and give very good advice, if I didn't respect you on here, this would not bother me so much .. but I'll get the hell over it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Thundarr said:


> Yea I wanted to make sure you knew my comment wasn't along those lines. There are judgmental people with any debate regarding life style choices but SAHM vs WM in particular seems to leave everyone feeling judged. Either choice is right IMO. Obviously that's a topic I'll choose my words very carefully on .


I'm just being sensitive today - can I blame PMS!? I know you mean well Thundarr!


----------



## heartsbeating

NobodySpecial said:


> Jld people are people. People are weak or strong to varying degrees. And everyone is responsible for their own selves. Period.


Shimmy!


----------



## heartsbeating

jld said:


> I don't know if I am qualified to speak on moral responsibility, but I do think knowing what is in your wife's heart is a key to understanding her.
> 
> And using that knowledge to meet her emotional needs can only help you build a happier, more satisfying marriage with her.


I'm curious by this.

I haven't read all of the thread and jumped forward and landed on this page... so bare with me. I can't help but wonder, is it possible to be transparent without the raised voices and emotions of a tantrum? 

I read the posts on this page and to me, being transparent would be communicating what the core issue is. That might require digging past the surface emotion to get to what it's about - not emotional tantrums for another to be forced to listen to. What if the real issue was talked to, with the feeling of wanting to understand and be understood, wouldn't that lend the listener to being more open?


----------



## jld

heartsbeating said:


> I'm curious by this.
> 
> I haven't read all of the thread and jumped forward and landed on this page... so bare with me. I can't help but wonder, is it possible to be transparent without the raised voices and emotions of a tantrum?
> 
> I read the posts on this page and to me, being transparent would be communicating what the core issue is. That might require digging past the surface emotion to get to what it's about - not emotional tantrums for another to be forced to listen to. What if the real issue was talked to, with the feeling of wanting to understand and be understood, wouldn't that lend the listener to being more open?


Let me see if I can explain this better. It will probably be long and boring, though, just to warn you.

I don't start off screaming. By the time I get there, I have told Dug 4 or 5 times, probably minimum, what I want (good point, MEM!). I do not want a new car or mink coat. 

Things I have had tantrums over in the past? Time alone with him. It is almost always time alone with him, or some variation on that, like a vacation without the kids. To feel like a priority. His attention.

But to make this less emotional, I'll tell you about what I wanted 10 or 12 years ago. I wanted a budget. I was scared I was spending too much money. I did not feel financially safe. I was afraid I was not doing a good enough job saving money.

Everybody I knew had a budget, and I wanted to be like everybody else, I guess. I thought it would be fun to sit down together and make categories and challenge ourselves to spend less. More than anything, I wanted us to do it _together._

Dug said we didn't need one. He says budgets make people spend up to the limit of the budget. Okay. 

But I got scared again, asked for the budget again. No, was the answer, and he was back to watching the game. 

Meanwhile, I am reading financial stuff and getting scared. I start tracking my own spending and feel scared. I ignore all the areas where I spend less than anybody else and focus on the areas I spend more. I bring this up to Dug and hear, "We're doing fine. Stop worrying," and he goes to do something with the kids.

Inside, I get more and more scared . . . and each time the budget idea gets mentioned, No is the answer, and he goes back to his computer.

So after a few weeks, and reading too much financial stuff I don't really understand, and tapping into my deep lifelong (well, before ds's cancer, that put it into perspective) financial anxiety, I hear a detached No one too many times. And all my anxiety comes pouring out. In my head, we have Not Done Enough, and _Time Is Running Out!_ And Things Must Change Immediately!

Now, we were probably saving 15% of his income at that time. Not a ton, but not bad for ten years ago. But undoubtedly I wanted to save 25%. Or more likely, thought I _should_ save 25%. Nobody really _wants_ to save money. But we all know it is the responsible thing to do. And some of us feel like we must do the responsible thing, or we have a hard time sleeping at night.

But of course, you don't change financial things without the help of the other partner. You have to be on the same page. And Dug is stubborn. And doesn't worry about much.

The time for him to do active listening is before I get upset. Yes, it is great that he will do it in crisis mode, but it doesn't have to get to crisis. 

But Dug doesn't feel a sense of urgency over my issues. If he addresses them or not, not a big deal to him. What is the worst that is going to happen? I might yell a little, but a half an hour later I will be apologizing to him. And he knows it.

So there is no incentive for him to change, to listen, to give me what I want. I'm not going anywhere. I don't have any real power over him. And I keep giving him mine, because I am always seeking his approval.

I don't have the confidence to make my own decisions, negotiate with him, and settle on a decision. When I disagree with Dug, I rarely feel like I am right. I feel like it is much safer to go with what he thinks. He is a very smart man, at least in my eyes.

Now, one thing I am thinking, after reading your and MEM's post, and turning it over in my mind here as I write this, is that I could tell Dug, as my anxiety is building, This is really important to me. I not only need you to look at me, and really listen, but I need you to, if not give me what I am asking for, then really explain not only why not, but do the active listening until I am really and truly at peace with what you want us to do instead. If I can't achieve peace on this, it will keep coming up.

It is extremely important to me to be in harmony with Dug, and yet I cannot ignore my own conscience. When Dug and my conscience are not in harmony, I am in deep inner conflict. I do think some advance active listening could help this.

Thanks for making me think this through, heartsbeating and MEM.

And MEM, when you take the time to share your thoughts with someone, it is a kindness. And when you persist, it is an even greater kindness. Thank you.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Listen Elegirl....and I surely am not going to bother you again...
> 
> I completely understand you were not speaking to me -but to CM...but your 1st post on here (#546) in response to mine I felt was very cutting and I believe that came in response to misreading me.. this is all I am trying to get across to you.....
> 
> You spoke as though you are smart enough to know context (translation - I am not)...
> 
> All the "good for you's" with !! on a forum this sounds very sarcastic , especially repeating it 3 times in a row to everything you wanted to say to me... then adding "why do you try to put down other people who have had bad experiences like this?" - I guess I don't feel I put anyone down by saying I am thankful....and appreciative......then you suggest I want everyone else to shut up... (that hurt!)
> 
> I don't expect people to all be NICE on here.. believe me, but YOU.. someone who is pretty damn respectable..I was kinda taken a back by that...
> 
> Here we agree, I also agree each spouse should give that 110% as you spoke back there in another post..
> 
> Just because I didn't mention the other sex by no means = I feel they get a free pass.. I DO NOT , repeat DO NOT think all men are wonderful ...that would be absolutely CRAZY.. This is JLD's thread... many feel she is giving the woman a pass.. she admitted because of her life experiences, she tends to feel the women are more innocent.. My posts to her was to shed a little light that this is not always so..
> 
> Just because I didn't mention that I have a GF whose Husband is a male chavanist pig , when she speaks he doesn't even look at her.. he is rude condescending, she has cried to me...I have another GF whose 1st husband cheated on her repeatedly.. of course MALE SLIME exists.. I can not stand certain types of men, are you kidding me ... I am pretty vocal about it here ... Guys who just use women and throw them away.. I despise men like this..
> 
> For the record, I think you are VERY balanced.. and give very good advice, if I didn't respect you on here, this would not bother me so much .. but I'll get the hell over it.


I had no intention of being mean or sarcastic or whatever to you. I was trying to say something that I just don't think that I articulated well. It might be because I'm sick.. running a fever and not very clear headed right now. I apologize for posting while mush headed.

And by the way I do think "Good for you!!".. I mean it. You and your husband have forged a good marriage and raised a good family. You are an inspiration. That's really all I meant.

When I wrote "Good for you" in the previous post, I was concerned that you might take it as sarcasm did not have the energy to think it through more. sloppy writing = people not getting my point.


----------



## heartsbeating

jld said:


> But of course, you don't change financial things without the help of the other partner. You have to be on the same page. And Dug is stubborn. And doesn't worry about much.


Your example with the budget sounds to me that you wanted him to do what you said. My perspective is that you're shifting responsibility onto him. It comes across as though it's his fault that you became financially anxious. He's stubborn and doesn't worry about much? You're stubborn and perhaps worry too much.

Why did you keep going back and pushing the same point? Did you have an expectation of him in your mind that he'd suddenly react differently? Or were you latching onto something that could somehow warrant not taking more responsibility for your own behavior and emotions, dealing with the anxiety that was beginning to build? 

Do you trust him? And then, can you trust yourself to do what you need to do or to learn, even if he doesn't want to along with you?

Being on the same page - doesn't mean being on _your_ page. Couples can have similar goals but different approaches. Or we have our own goals and learning and can still be supportive of one another.




jld said:


> But Dug doesn't feel a sense of urgency over my issues. If he addresses them or not, not a big deal to him. What is the worst that is going to happen? I might yell a little, but a half an hour later I will be apologizing to him. And he knows it.
> 
> So there is no incentive for him to change, to listen, to give me what I want. I'm not going anywhere. I don't have any real power over him. And I keep giving him mine, because I am always seeking his approval.


Eek. The sentence of having power stood out to me here. I'm not seeking to control or power over my husband. This is where mutual respect and understanding is important rather than any kind of power struggle. 

Do you want to be your own person but within the marriage? Instead of seeking his approval? I dig when my husband is proud of me and expresses that and at times I seek guidance from him as I trust his views. This doesn't mean I'm always going to agree with him or follow it. I'm my own person within our marriage. 



jld said:


> I don't have the confidence to make my own decisions, negotiate with him, and settle on a decision. When I disagree with Dug, I rarely feel like I am right. I feel like it is much safer to go with what he thinks. He is a very smart man, at least in my eyes.


If you want to change this, it's about you. How is confidence built? To me it's doing things you wouldn't normally. This doesn't have to be extreme like climbing a rock face if you're scared of heights or anything but could be as simple as making a decision and rolling with it. 

While your husband may be smart *waving to Dug* ...that ought not to diminish the confidence you have within yourself. Why is it 'safer' to go with what he thinks? What's at risk if you don't? Does it matter if something doesn't work out as planned? Isn't that how we continue learning? 



jld said:


> And MEM, when you take the time to share your thoughts with someone, it is a kindness. And when you persist, it is an even greater kindness.


Agreed!


----------



## heartsbeating

jld said:


> I don't start off screaming. By the time I get there, I have told Dug 4 or 5 times, probably minimum, what I want (good point, MEM!).


Telling someone that same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is a waste of energy. 



jld said:


> Things I have had tantrums over in the past? Time alone with him. It is almost always time alone with him, or some variation on that, like a vacation without the kids. To feel like a priority. His attention.


You just want his extra time and his ...kiss. (couldn't resist). This is very important. He needs to be aware of just how important this is to you and your marriage. 

Actions speak louder but has this been discussed between you?


----------



## heartsbeating

Side note: Elegirl... I hope you feel better real soon!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Happy we cleared that up Elegirl.. it's like Jld always pounds, so long as you keep talking to each other, whatever the contention may be (whether it be with family, friends, Husband, wife, cyber persona, you just may realize they had their own things going on in those moments).. 

You were sick, I was being extra sensitive...it happens.... (can I say especially women, or is that being sexist?)... If I was more like Dug over here.. nothing would flinch me.. I'd be Iron Woman...







(and I know he wouldn't be bothered that I said this either)....

I was so excited to see the exchanges between Mrs John Adams and Jld -that they have come to some understanding as well.. I know they are both lovely women , good hearts... I was hoping they could find some clarity .. and this thread brought that about..


----------



## jld

heartsbeating said:


> Your example with the budget sounds to me that you wanted him to do what you said. My perspective is that you're shifting responsibility onto him. It comes across as though it's his fault that you became financially anxious. He's stubborn and doesn't worry about much? You're stubborn and perhaps worry too much. For sure, I worry too much. And I don't trust my own judgment. That is why I look to him. I do feel like he has better judgment than I do, most of the time. His judgment is rarely based on emotion, like mine often is.
> 
> Why did you keep going back and pushing the same point? Sometimes when we hear something often enough, it takes root in us. Sometimes hearing it once is not enough. Did you have an expectation of him in your mind that he'd suddenly react differently? Yes. It has happened in the past, but usually only after long exposure to a different way of thinking.Or were you latching onto something that could somehow warrant not taking more responsibility for your own behavior and emotions, dealing with the anxiety that was beginning to build? I think the truth of the matter is that while I felt we could be saving more, I did not want to. I knew if we made it a joint project, we could. But by myself, I would not do it.
> 
> Do you trust him?In the big ways, yes. To get some little chore done right away, no. Dug tends to wait to get things done. He has made progress on this, but will probably never have the sense of urgency that I do. And then, can you trust yourself to do what you need to do or to learn, even if he doesn't want to along with you? Trust myself to go it alone? No, not really. It is pretty rare for me to go out on my own like that, unless I am really sure of myself.
> 
> I am not a "really sure of myself" kind of person in many areas. When I am really sure of myself, I usually just do it.
> 
> I never eat dairy or eggs. I will occasionally buy them for the family, as a treat, but I don't touch the stuff. I feel so much better without them, and I am convinced it is the road to health.
> 
> I can listen to people talk about meat-based diets all day, and they are certainly welcome to do what they want, but I will stick to the vegan diet. I am just convinced about it.
> 
> I think, writing this, that that really is the key: being convinced myself.
> 
> Dug mostly eats vegan with me, but if he is travelling, or if the kids are having a treat, like cheese pizza, he will eat it with them. He doesn't feel like it is a big deal. I, on the other hand, know that if I eat that stuff, cramps and diarrhea will come, and maybe bladder problems, too. To me, it is not worth it.
> 
> Being on the same page - doesn't mean being on _your_ page. Couples can have similar goals but different approaches. Or we have our own goals and learning and can still be supportive of one another.
> 
> Well, the way it seems to work here is that whoever has the stronger conviction usually leads in that area. Dug became convinced of the vegan diet, first because of the literature I had read and showed him, and secondly because of how he felt when we first went vegan back in the mid-90s. But he never would have done this on his own.
> 
> When I met him, I was planning on working full-time all my life. I envisioned meeting someone and having one child, all later in life. But then we met, and he had a different vision. I just kind of swallowed it. To me, it was a package deal. Have the number of kids he wanted, breastfeed and homeschool them like he said, or do not marry him. I did not see the possibility of negotiating.
> 
> And yet, I really am happy how things turned out. I know I would not have come up with that on my own. It just was not in my head at all.
> 
> I think when one partner has an idea in mind that is very strong, and very good, it can be worth just going for it. Especially if it is something that only requires self-discipline.
> 
> And really, that is all that saving money idea was: exerting some self-discipline. But I did not want to do it. If he had wanted to do it, I would have gone along. But neither of us really, bottom line, wanted to do it.
> 
> Eek. The sentence of having power stood out to me here. I'm not seeking to control or power over my husband. This is where mutual respect and understanding is important rather than any kind of power struggle. Well, the only power we really have is personal power. I don't worry about whether Dug is following the vegan diet for me to do it. I am convinced about it. He appreciates my doing it, and since I am the one at home buying the groceries, that makes it the normal and customary diet of the house. And because that habit has been developed, he takes it elsewhere, too.
> 
> He would not have done it without me, but he is grateful for my leadership in that area. Sometimes you can know something is right in your heart, but struggle to do it. Someone else doing it beside you, as just a normal part of their life, can really get you going. You just fall into it. And take it as a habit. And after a while, you wonder why you did it any other way. But you know you would not have gotten there on your own.
> 
> Do you want to be your own person but within the marriage? Instead of seeking his approval? I dig when my husband is proud of me and expresses that and at times I seek guidance from him as I trust his views. This doesn't mean I'm always going to agree with him or follow it. I'm my own person within our marriage.
> 
> I think I am scared of this. There have been so many times that I thought something was a good idea, and when I asked him about it, he saw it differently, and just sounded so convincing. I usually drop it there, unless it just will not let go of me. Then I will keep seeking out information, and show it to him. Sometimes he will change his mind, if the data I present is stronger than what he based his position on. Sometimes he just does not feel like changing his mind. He usually eventually does, though, given enough solid evidence, and enough time. Sometimes this can take a long time, though.
> 
> If you want to change this, it's about you. How is confidence built? To me it's doing things you wouldn't normally. This doesn't have to be extreme like climbing a rock face if you're scared of heights or anything but could be as simple as making a decision and rolling with it. I think I have to really want it. If I had really wanted to up our savings rate ten years ago, I would have just done it. I would not have waited for his interest to develop. I would have just done it.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that I did not really want to do it. I knew I would go along with it if he led the way, but he did not want to do it, either.
> 
> Dug is much more moderate than I am. I am much more inclined to look at radical ideas. I find them intriguing.
> 
> While your husband may be smart *waving to Dug* ...that ought not to diminish the confidence you have within yourself. Why is it 'safer' to go with what he thinks? What's at risk if you don't? Does it matter if something doesn't work out as planned? Isn't that how we continue learning?
> 
> He knows a lot of things I don't. He has more education, and way, way more work experience.
> 
> For sure, we learn from our mistakes. But why not try to avoid mistakes in the first place, if we can?
> 
> Agreed! It is really important that we challenge each other's thoughts here, if we really believe in what we are saying. Someone once said that TAM is like intensive therapy. So true.
> 
> There are things I read on this forum and think, Gosh, that's crazy! And they just go out of my mind. Or I wonder how anyone can think that way. Although, with reading long enough, I start to understand why, though I may still not agree that it is the best course of action.
> 
> But there are other things that make me go, Hmm, that might be useful. And if I turn those ideas over long enough in my mind, I might get an action plan together . . .
> 
> And that is why I think it is dangerous to put people on ignore. For sure, we all have our limits, and some people are just unhappy and post out of their unhappiness. We have to sift through to find the good ideas sometimes.
> 
> But often an idea is rejected, not because it does not have merit, but because it is new and different and requires us to change our thinking. It takes humility and some confidence to try something new.
> 
> It is a service someone does for us, when, out of sincere conviction, they keep posting something to us, even when we don't want to hear it. Sometimes we are not ready to change, but the idea can take root in our minds. And eventually it grows on us, and we use it. And then we wonder why it took so long for it to get through to us.


----------



## jld

heartsbeating said:


> Telling someone that same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is a waste of energy.
> 
> I guess that has not been my experience. I think if you have a sincere conviction about something, you need to say it. There is a reason you have that feeling, and it might be that that person needs to be exposed to that idea.
> 
> They can do what they want with it, of course, but your job was to expose them.
> 
> I covered this in my last post, but I think it is really good when people just say what they feel. If it is not a good idea, it will fall away. Or even if it is a good idea, if it is not the time for action, action will not happen.
> 
> But it often takes repeated exposure to good ideas for them to take root.
> 
> You just want his extra time and his ...kiss. (couldn't resist). This is very important. He needs to be aware of just how important this is to you and your marriage. He knows. But he has to come to it in his own time. I won't stop sharing my feelings in any way. I could learn to share them more calmly. I think if I felt more confidence in myself, I would share them more calmly. The emotion comes from my own fear, my own anxiety that time is running out, and we must act quickly.
> 
> Dug does not have a sense of urgency about the things I feel are important. So I can either drop it; keep speaking about it, while realizing there is little chance of immediate change; or just take it on myself. Eventually, if I feel strongly enough about something, I will just do it, with or without him.
> 
> The problem is that with something like this, wanting to spend time together, we both have to want it.
> 
> Actions speak louder but has this been discussed between you? Sure, many, many, many times. He says the kids have to come first. He has always said that.
> 
> It is changing, though, now that the kids are getting older. He always said it would, that we would have more time just for the two of us once they were older. I just thought it was risky to wait so long. But you cannot spend time together just by yourself, you know? It takes two. And I was not going to force it. I am not one to just schedule a vacation and get a sitter, just because I want to. If there is not mutual agreement, I don't think it would be very satisfying anyway.
> 
> Then again, maybe I am wrong. Maybe that is the way to go. Just schedule it, do it, and he would end up happy we did. Didn't think of it that way before . . .


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sidney2718 said:


> I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. Before retirement I got up, went to work, and came home. I helped out with some things, but mostly I didn't.
> 
> My father's life was pretty much the same. He got up, went to work, and came home. He helped with some things, but mostly he didn't.
> 
> But my wife had life much easier than my mother did. My mother went shopping most every day. *We had no freezer and frozen food was just being invented. Meat didn't keep in the fridge more than a day or two. * Fruit went out of season and vanished. The washing machine (and we were lucky to have one) had a mangle for squeezing the water out of the finished wash and there was no dryer.


 One of my favorite old time classics is "*East of Eden*" with James Dean...it showed the excitement and ordeal of early Refrigeration...hauling ice on the trains.. then it all melting, their experiment didn't work yet.



> I could go on and on. My mother worked from the time she got up until she went to bed. But it was what women did then. There was no other choice.
> 
> And clearly she did not work out of the house.
> 
> We've come a long way since then.


I don't see why anyone could take this the wrong way..How can we deny our Grandparents worked sooooo much harder.. I've sat & listened to the stories of my 97 yr Old Grandfather where he left home , jumping on trains at age 14 because there wasn't even food for all the siblings...he'd find farms to work -just for his keep & meals...

And his Mom.. she had it TOUGH...if we had a time machine ...we'd surely be on our knees thanking God for the conveniences of today... I think where we fall is the endless pleasurable distractions today...it's good to have credit ...our Grandparents didn't....but living on it becomes too tempting for most.. and this has it's downside..

I remember my Grandma's wringer washer -well vaguely...

There are things I/we did in our early marriage where others might think we had a screw loose... We did things the hard way -just to save money..(we were bound & determined to get a country home even though he didn't have that great of a job)...and my jobs weren't nothing to write home about either..

I refused to buy pampers...used cloth diapers on the 1st 3... hung them on the line..didn't buy a dryer until 7 yrs into our marriage, he bought his 1st 4x4 in pieces (cab/ bed/ motor/ tranny all separate) -hauling it home on a flat bed...(steal deal at $600 -thousands in new parts) ....we spent a # of our days in the junk yard -pulling our little boy in a wagon with our lunches....

Hated the Price of natural Gas in 2nd house -(was killing us)...so going backwards, we built a chimney -installed a wood /coal furnace.. . one of our monster wood piles back then...before he got to splitting it....








..

He was thinking of getting one of those outdoor furnaces for this house. but we decided against it.. too much slaving to wood, it's so time consuming.. we just want to relax now.. those were our Busy yrs...but it had it's purpose. Once we got the dryer, I'd never go back, once I started using pampers -what a Joy!

But way back then... literally families had no choice... people ate out of their gardens , if you didn't tend to your wood furnace, you'd freeze.....if the woman didn't do her thing..while the man was working... they'd all starve !

As much as I prefer some of the older fashioned ways.. I would never never never want to live back then....the time saving conveniences, viagra!.. Imagine worrying a child might come down with Polio!...The medical advances of today are amazing......I've often thought had I lived back then...I might have died in childbirth..


----------



## ScarletBegonias

My mother was a spoiled rotten brat her whole life and it showed in the way she treated people...men in particular. As far as I know to this day she is still actively cutting the balls off her husband and any other man who dares question her about anything she says and does. 

My grandmother didn't seem to have it all that tough either. She worked long hours in an office after she went back to school but she didn't have to work long before my grandfather was injured at the auto plant and they retired w/his settlement money. My grandfather was a hard worker. Even after his injury and their retirement he went to the country and became a farmer. He still is even though he's always getting hurt and ending up in the hospital for overworking himself. 

It makes me wonder how it was for my great grandparents. I know it wasnt easy but I wish I had details.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Happy we cleared that up Elegirl.. it's like Jld always pounds, so long as you keep talking to each other, whatever the contention may be (whether it be with family, friends, Husband, wife, cyber persona, you just may realize they had their own things going on in those moments).. Yeah, you have to keep talking. It is when the talking stops that you really have problems. That is when the trust has gone. And that can be difficult to get back, if people are sensitive.
> 
> SA, you and Ele are two of my favorite people on TAM. Sincere people. You are both mature, and reasonable, and I think you have good hearts. And you are able to be vulnerable.
> 
> And you are both very ladylike! That is certainly not PC to say!
> 
> I really value the conversations I have with both of you.
> 
> You were sick, I was being extra sensitive...it happens.... (can I say especially women, or is that being sexist? And this is the problem with PC: we cannot just speak from our hearts without having to watch for the PC speech police to show up. And how are we going to solve problems if we cannot speak openly about them in the first place? Free speech is critical!)... If I was more like Dug over here.. nothing would flinch me.. I'd be Iron Woman... You know, he is pretty calm. But he can be pushed to emotion, too.
> 
> I found that out last night. I was shocked.
> 
> I wanted to talk to him about something, and asked him several times. All of a sudden, he raised his voice and said, "Wait!" very sharply! I was stunned. That is not like Dug. He is usually so calm. I guess it was because he was tired. He had just arrived at his apartment after the 6 hour drive, and it was late.
> 
> I could not speak. I just stared at him. I could not believe it. And I felt so scared. I still do. I could cry, just thinking about it right now. It was just so unlike him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (and I know he wouldn't be bothered that I said this either).... No, nothing anybody writes on here bothers him, in any way, trust me . . . That is why MEM is smart to go through me, because he probably already realizes that Dug is not going to listen.
> 
> I was so excited to see the exchanges between Mrs John Adams and Jld -that they have come to some understanding as well.. Lol! I think we have agreed to disagree! I know they are both lovely women , good hearts..Thanks, SA! . I was hoping they could find some clarity .. and this thread brought that about.. It is fun to talk to Mrs. Adams. I did not realize we had some things in common.
> 
> You know, we don't have to agree on everything to get along. And nobody should be forced to agree if their heart is not in it.
> 
> We learn the most when we can be open and honest with each other. I think being open and honest with each other, with sincere motives, really is showing love.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't see why anyone could take this the wrong way..How can we deny our Grandparents worked sooooo much harder.. I've sat & listened to the stories of my 97 yr Old Grandfather where he left home , jumping on trains at age 14 because there wasn't even food for all the siblings...he'd find farms to work -just for his keep & meals...
> I think sidney means that SAHMs do not have it hard today like they used to. Some SAHMs would get mad about that, instead of trying to see where he was coming from.
> And his Mom.. she had it TOUGH...if we had a time machine ...we'd surely be on our knees thanking God for the conveniences of today... I think where we fall is the endless pleasurable distractions today...it's good to have credit ...our Grandparents didn't....but living on it becomes too tempting for most.. and this has it's downside..Exactly. We can have more today, so most people go for it. Credit can be a slippery slope.
> 
> I remember my Grandma's wringer washer -well vaguely...
> 
> There are things I/we did in our early marriage where others might think we had a screw loose... We did things the hard way -just to save money..(we were bound & determined to get a country home even though he didn't have that great of a job)...and my jobs weren't nothing to write home about either..
> 
> I refused to buy pampers...used cloth diapers on the 1st 3..Lol, me, too! I did keep a package of disposables on hand, though, if we did an overnight, and I could not take my diaper pail. Sometimes I did take the diaper pail, though, lol!. hung them on the line..didn't buy a dryer until 7 yrs into our marriage,Lol! I hung it out, too, or on racks in the house. We got a dryer in 2008, I think. I was tired of waiting for clothes to dry in winter, and running to the laundromat when I was too impatient. Dh's mother has lived her whole life without one. She is more patient than I am! he bought his 1st 4x4 in pieces (cab/ bed/ motor/ tranny all separate) -hauling it home on a flat bed...(steal deal at $600 -thousands in new parts) ....we spent a # of our days in the junk yard -pulling our little boy in a wagon with our lunches.... Lol. We had one used car for 8 years. Even now, dh will not buy new cars. Just doesn't believe in it.
> 
> Hated the Price of natural Gas in 2nd house -(was killing us)...so going backwards, we built a chimney -installed a wood /coal furnace.. . one of our monster wood piles back then...before he got to splitting it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> He was thinking of getting one of those outdoor furnaces for this house. but we decided against it.. too much slaving to wood, it's so time consuming.. we just want to relax now.. those were our Busy yrs...but it had it's purpose. Once we got the dryer, I'd never go back, once I started using pampers -what a Joy! Lol, I loved using cloth diapers! I even bought a book on them, many years back. Thought it was interesting to see all the different kinds. I do really like having a dryer, though. In winter, it used to take so long for clothes to dry, and diapers, especially. Sometimes a couple days, as dh kept the heat turned down.
> 
> But way back then... literally families had no choice... people ate out of their gardens , if you didn't tend to your wood furnace, you'd freeze.....if the woman didn't do her thing..while the man was working... they'd all starve ! Yep, all had to pitch in. And when one got really sick . . . yikes!
> 
> As much as I prefer some of the older fashioned ways.. I would never never never want to live back then....the time saving conveniences, viagra!.. Imagine worrying a child might come down with Polio!...The medical advances of today are amazing......I've often thought had I lived back then...I might have died in childbirth.. I hemorrhaged after my first 3 births. I would have been a goner for sure.
> 
> I think what you mean is that you like old-fashioned values. Is that it?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I don't start off screaming. By the time I get there, I have told Dug 4 or 5 times, probably minimum, what I want (good point, MEM!). I do not want a new car or mink coat.


 Jld , I just want to say .. I don't think your plight here would be easy.. I really feel if he could just step up here and give you what you are asking... I just don't feel you would BE in this position .. I almost hate seeing you get beat up over these things, cause I can understand YOUR FRUSTRATION in this.. just imagining it is enough for me !!!.. It's something my husband has always given me ...and I know just how MUCH that does mean to me.. 

Most women I think would just stuff and grow resentment or have to get out.. 



> Things I have had tantrums over in the past? Time alone with him. It is almost always time alone with him, or some variation on that, like a vacation without the kids. To feel like a priority. His attention.


 Every woman on this forum would be upset and angry over these things.. again, I think you are a very sacrificial woman, almost too much to be honest.. 



> But to make this less emotional, I'll tell you about what I wanted 10 or 12 years ago. I wanted a budget. I was scared I was spending too much money. I did not feel financially safe. I was afraid I was not doing a good enough job saving money.
> 
> Everybody I knew had a budget, and I wanted to be like everybody else, I guess. I thought it would be fun to sit down together and make categories and challenge ourselves to spend less. More than anything, I wanted us to do it _together._
> 
> Dug said we didn't need one. He says budgets make people spend up to the limit of the budget. Okay.
> 
> But I got scared again, asked for the budget again. No, was the answer, and he was back to watching the game.
> 
> Meanwhile, I am reading financial stuff and getting scared. I start tracking my own spending and feel scared. *I ignore all the areas where I spend less than anybody else and focus on the areas I spend more.* I bring this up to Dug and hear, "We're doing fine. Stop worrying," and he goes to do something with the kids.
> 
> Inside, I get more and more scared . . . and each time the budget idea gets mentioned, No is the answer, and he goes back to his computer.


 it's funny you only focused on what you thought you were over spending on.. I bet you really didn't need one.. . I just imagine you as a very thrifty woman... not frivolous at all. I used to go to the Library and read all sorts of books on saving, bought the  Tightwad Gazette: Books ...and really I can say....we never made a budget.. I do think looking back we could have splurged more than we did though. So I guess I am one who doesn't feel a budget is necessary if you are frugal to begin with.. 

It's kinda like eating right, on your Vegan diet, I think that comes pretty easy to you -to stay in line... so why bother all the extra fuss.. just separate what is a NEED and what is a WANT as it comes.. some wants we found permissable (SLR cameras, the sky was the limit for me - our family vacations, but then I refused to spend over $1.50 on a box of cereal (at one time).. seen nothing wrong with buying our clothes at consignment shops, we never drank water out...it all works out. 



> S (well, before ds's cancer, that put it into perspective)


 This would put anything into perspective. 



> Now, we were probably saving 15% of his income at that time. Not a ton, but not bad for ten years ago. But undoubtedly I wanted to save 25%. Or more likely, thought I _should_ save 25%. Nobody really _wants_ to save money. But we all know it is the responsible thing to do. And some of us feel like we must do the responsible thing, or we have a hard time sleeping at night.


 I think people want to save, they just don't have the discipline..we all struggle in some area, I struggle with eating right or exercising.. in comparison. 



> The time for him to do active listening is before I get upset. Yes, it is great that he will do it in crisis mode, but it doesn't have to get to crisis.


 He is on here. WHY DUG >> You know how this train is going to go down the tracks....it's not healthy for either one of you.. I guess in this instance. I am going to say for DUG to use his Power- and his will to look at you, to focus and hear you at the onset of your concerns.. do you ask him.. "Dug, I REALLY need to have a heart to heart with you" and choose a time & place to sit - no distractions.. so you can look in each others eyes -this will calmly address your concerns.... 

I also feel you will feel so much better about yourself even.. if this part of your communication can be overhauled and laid to rest.. you are crying out to be HEARD.. Dug has all the tools to help you -meet you half way.. this is the loving thing to do... 




> I don't have the confidence to make my own decisions, negotiate with him, and settle on a decision. When I disagree with Dug, I rarely feel like I am right. I feel like it is much safer to go with what he thinks. He is a very smart man, at least in my eyes.


 It sounds you just need to FEEL heard and HIS Reassurance, after he has heard you, he can explain to you how he feels and why this or that isn't such a good plan, etc.. and in this I bet you feel the comfort and security, I'd say you are probably very easy to deal with.. it's just that you NEED his hearing you out... and his explaining, taking that time.. am I right JLD... in this YOU FEEL LOVED ?



> Now, one thing I am thinking, after reading your and MEM's post, and turning it over in my mind here as I write this, is that I could tell Dug, as my anxiety is building, *This is really important to me*. I not only need you to look at me, and really listen, but I need you to, if not give me what I am asking for, then really explain not only why not, but do the active listening until I am really and truly at peace with what you want us to do instead. If I can't achieve peace on this, it will keep coming up.


 I see you as crying out here in this post.. this is what you NEED.. may he hear you ...and come half way...(I'm far behind on your posts here )


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Jld said:* For sure, I worry too much. And I don't trust my own judgment. That is why I look to him. I do feel like he has better judgment than I do, most of the time. His judgment is rarely based on emotion, like mine often is.


 If you could both just move to the center with each other during these heated conflicts, I think it could go a long long way - to divert the outbursts.. 












> Trust myself to go it alone? No, not really. It is pretty rare for me to go out on my own like that, unless I am really sure of myself.


 you did awfully fine for yourself on that Road trip with your son !! I don't think I would ever drive that far away without my H ! YIKES ! Baby steps.. the more you DO ... the more confident you will become ... 



> When I met him, I was planning on working full-time all my life. I envisioned meeting someone and having one child, all later in life. But then we met, and he had a different vision. I just kind of swallowed it. To me, it was a package deal. Have the number of kids he wanted, breastfeed and homeschool them like he said, or do not marry him.* I did not see the possibility of negotiating.*


 but you do this negotiating on this forum all the time, you speak up -even where you feel you might be stepping on the mans toes.... I hope being here is helping you see ...that it's OK for us to have needs, voice them, wants.. it's our life and future too...

With myself being the more assertive between me & H.. I come up with more ideas, the brain stormer .. but I must have his input.. and of course he brings things to me.. but when one is naturally more passive -they may not make a fuss...I just think it's the duty of the other to seek out how they feel... make sure they are on the same page, seeking their feedback... 



> It is a service someone does for us, when, out of sincere conviction, they keep posting something to us, even when we don't want to hear it. Sometimes we are not ready to change, but the idea can take root in our minds. And eventually it grows on us, and we use it. And then we wonder why it took so long for it to get through to us.


 This is very true!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *jld said:* I am not one to just schedule a vacation and get a sitter, just because I want to. If there is not mutual agreement, I don't think it would be very satisfying anyway.
> 
> Then again, maybe I am wrong. Maybe that is the way to go. Just schedule it, do it, and he would end up happy we did. Didn't think of it that way before . . .


If you don't feel he is on board..-just not into going...this will likely show in his demeanor and that could crush the experience... 

BUT... on the other hand ..if Dug allowed you - and encouraged you to Plan something for just the 2 of you.. to get away.. and he is ON BOARD.. Do it.. plan it.. make some memories... it may be just what you both need...

If I waited for my H to plan a vacation of any sort, we'd never leave the house, I've taken on every detail since the beginning of our marriage.. I've packed every bag...I make sure it works with his schedule, our kids... All he does is look over the vehicle (don't want to break down).. he might not even know where we are going -till he sits in the drivers seat.....He doesn't care.. he's on board with his attitude.. and this is all I NEED..


----------



## jld

SA, just briefly, and thanks for your last post, your husband is so different from mine. Just so different. I mean, they have some great things in common, like being so kind and committed to their wives and families. But let me tell you, your husband is absolutely sweet compared to mine. Your husband is attentive, he listens, he is gentle. He is just such a sweetheart. 

Dug is a good man. He is kind, and I would say gentle, but not in the same way your husband is. Your husband is sensitive. I just felt that from him, that he not only cares about people's feelings, but is very in tune with them. I bet I would never raise my voice, much say anything hurtful, if I were married to a man like that.

But I cannot get through to Dug. I mean, it is like penetrating a fortress. And I feel like I stand outside that fortress with my slingshot. And then, after many tries, someone opens a door and says, "We heard someone yelling out there. What is it?" And then I can go in and state my case. 

But I love that fortress, as much as it frustrates me! And I can't stop wanting to be close to it. It is like there is a magnet inside it, with my name on it.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
That imagery was ROTFL - good. 

Many married folks hit the melt down point after being ignored more than a certain amount. 






jld said:


> SA, just briefly, and thanks for your last post, your husband is so different from mine. Just so different. I mean, they have some great things in common, like being so kind and committed to their wives and families. But let me tell you, your husband is absolutely sweet compared to mine. Your husband is attentive, he listens, he is gentle. He is just such a sweetheart.
> 
> Dug is a good man. He is kind, and I would say gentle, but not in the same way your husband is. Your husband is sensitive. I just felt that from him, that he not only cares about people's feelings, but is very in tune with them. I bet I would never raise my voice, much say anything hurtful, if I were married to a man like that.
> 
> But I cannot get through to Dug. I mean, it is like penetrating a fortress. And I feel like I stand outside that fortress with my slingshot. And then, after many tries, someone opens a door and says, "We heard someone yelling out there. What is it?" And then I can go in and state my case.
> 
> But I love that fortress, as much as it frustrates me! And I can't stop wanting to be close to it. It is like there is a magnet inside it, with my name on it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> SA, just briefly, and thanks for your last post, your husband is so different from mine. Just so different. I mean, they have some great things in common, like being so kind and committed to their wives and families. But let me tell you, your husband is absolutely sweet compared to mine. Your husband is attentive, he listens, he is gentle. He is just such a sweetheart.
> 
> Dug is a good man. He is kind, and I would say gentle, but not in the same way your husband is. Your husband is sensitive. I just felt that from him, that he not only cares about people's feelings, but is very in tune with them. I bet I would never raise my voice, much say anything hurtful, if I were married to a man like that.
> 
> But I cannot get through to Dug. *I mean, it is like penetrating a fortress. And I feel like I stand outside that fortress with my slingshot. And then, after many tries, someone opens a door and says, "We heard someone yelling out there. What is it?" And then I can go in and state my case.
> 
> But I love that fortress, as much as it frustrates me! And I can't stop wanting to be close to it. It is like there is a magnet inside it, with my name on it.*


 I think you just described , without even thinking about it -the internal conflict women have being attracted to men they can not control.. like the strong Alphas (I know you hate those terms!)..they generally don't show much emotion, never any rush to cater to their woman... she waits.... yet even if it drives her half batty sometimes...dealing with these men..they can't seem to let them go or get them out of their system...


----------



## MEM2020

J,
The budget stuff - priceless. 

BTW: 15% - that's good

25% - almost unheard of.

In our house, I was you regarding having a budget, and M2 was Dug. She didn't want/need one. She was responsible with money. We did it her way and everything turned out well.





jld said:


> Let me see if I can explain this better. It will probably be long and boring, though, just to warn you.
> 
> I don't start off screaming. By the time I get there, I have told Dug 4 or 5 times, probably minimum, what I want (good point, MEM!). I do not want a new car or mink coat.
> 
> Things I have had tantrums over in the past? Time alone with him. It is almost always time alone with him, or some variation on that, like a vacation without the kids. To feel like a priority. His attention.
> 
> But to make this less emotional, I'll tell you about what I wanted 10 or 12 years ago. I wanted a budget. I was scared I was spending too much money. I did not feel financially safe. I was afraid I was not doing a good enough job saving money.
> 
> Everybody I knew had a budget, and I wanted to be like everybody else, I guess. I thought it would be fun to sit down together and make categories and challenge ourselves to spend less. More than anything, I wanted us to do it _together._
> 
> Dug said we didn't need one. He says budgets make people spend up to the limit of the budget. Okay.
> 
> But I got scared again, asked for the budget again. No, was the answer, and he was back to watching the game.
> 
> Meanwhile, I am reading financial stuff and getting scared. I start tracking my own spending and feel scared. I ignore all the areas where I spend less than anybody else and focus on the areas I spend more. I bring this up to Dug and hear, "We're doing fine. Stop worrying," and he goes to do something with the kids.
> 
> Inside, I get more and more scared . . . and each time the budget idea gets mentioned, No is the answer, and he goes back to his computer.
> 
> So after a few weeks, and reading too much financial stuff I don't really understand, and tapping into my deep lifelong (well, before ds's cancer, that put it into perspective) financial anxiety, I hear a detached No one too many times. And all my anxiety comes pouring out. In my head, we have Not Done Enough, and _Time Is Running Out!_ And Things Must Change Immediately!
> 
> Now, we were probably saving 15% of his income at that time. Not a ton, but not bad for ten years ago. But undoubtedly I wanted to save 25%. Or more likely, thought I _should_ save 25%. Nobody really _wants_ to save money. But we all know it is the responsible thing to do. And some of us feel like we must do the responsible thing, or we have a hard time sleeping at night.
> 
> But of course, you don't change financial things without the help of the other partner. You have to be on the same page. And Dug is stubborn. And doesn't worry about much.
> 
> The time for him to do active listening is before I get upset. Yes, it is great that he will do it in crisis mode, but it doesn't have to get to crisis.
> 
> But Dug doesn't feel a sense of urgency over my issues. If he addresses them or not, not a big deal to him. What is the worst that is going to happen? I might yell a little, but a half an hour later I will be apologizing to him. And he knows it.
> 
> So there is no incentive for him to change, to listen, to give me what I want. I'm not going anywhere. I don't have any real power over him. And I keep giving him mine, because I am always seeking his approval.
> 
> I don't have the confidence to make my own decisions, negotiate with him, and settle on a decision. When I disagree with Dug, I rarely feel like I am right. I feel like it is much safer to go with what he thinks. He is a very smart man, at least in my eyes.
> 
> Now, one thing I am thinking, after reading your and MEM's post, and turning it over in my mind here as I write this, is that I could tell Dug, as my anxiety is building, This is really important to me. I not only need you to look at me, and really listen, but I need you to, if not give me what I am asking for, then really explain not only why not, but do the active listening until I am really and truly at peace with what you want us to do instead. If I can't achieve peace on this, it will keep coming up.
> 
> It is extremely important to me to be in harmony with Dug, and yet I cannot ignore my own conscience. When Dug and my conscience are not in harmony, I am in deep inner conflict. I do think some advance active listening could help this.
> 
> Thanks for making me think this through, heartsbeating and MEM.
> 
> And MEM, when you take the time to share your thoughts with someone, it is a kindness. And when you persist, it is an even greater kindness. Thank you.


----------



## TiggyBlue

ScarletBegonias said:


> It makes me wonder how it was for my great grandparents. I know it wasnt easy but I wish I had details.


Having the details of what my great grandparents life was like on my mum's side (and grandparents on my dad's side) was like I'm extremely grateful that my life wasn't as though.


----------



## vellocet

I can say that the only way I ever felt emasculated was when I was cheated on. Its like I felt like less of a man because she wanted all that strange.

That feeling of emasculation did not last long and cheating would be the only way I'd have ever felt that way. I just wrote her off as a POS.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Finally I think I am understanding the point of this whole thread. I am so glad that it is finally helping.
MN


----------



## John Lee

JLD, with all due respect, it sounds to me like what you are really saying is that you have certain baggage, and your husband has learned to deal well with your particular baggage. That's how all good relationships are -- we all have our particular baggage, and the right person is often the person who loves our good qualities more than they dislike our bad qualities (or they are able to put up with or are not bothered by our particular difficulties).

This is fine. What I don't like, is that you're extrapolating from this that your relationship is the archetype of a good relationship -- the woman always has this kind of baggage and the man's job is always to deal with it. Many women simply don't get into the kind of rages you describe, and many men when confronted with it simply don't put up with it in the first place, they walk away and don't come back. According to you, this would actually make them lesser men, because they're not dealing with your "challenges" and they're not following the "way of the superior man" or whatever. This seems laughable to me.


----------



## jld

coffee4me said:


> Jld love the description . I think I mentioned to you before that I relate more to your husbands personality than to yours.
> 
> For me, yelling and a huge display of emotion is not going to get you in the fortress. I'd much rather tune that out, I don't view it as productive; unless its a lively debate  It comes off as insensitive but if someone is yelling I'm typically trying to filter out the noise and find an actionable problem to solve. It's not that I don't care about the other persons feelings, I do care I'm trying to figure out how to address the issue and that does not typically involve me getting emotional.
> 
> You are much more likely to catch my attention with a direct question or series of questions that sparks a conversation. Don't stand outside with a slingshot aimed at the door, shoot a question taped to an arrow over the fortress wall.
> 
> Like the budget issue. If you came at me with, I want to make a new budget because I think we spend too much. My initial response knowing we are doing fine is- why bother (read not productive) we are fine financially. If you kept coming with the exact same request building emotion my response is irritation then on to exasperation to your heighten emotional state, I give in and we discuss it.
> 
> If your initial approach was something like, I want to have XYZ in savings for a specific reason (goal) can we look at the budget to see if that's possible or can you show me how that fits into our current financial picture. It's a specific action (looking at the budget) for a specific reason to obtain the goal. (Productive)
> 
> I might be way off base but that's a suggestion.


Thanks, coffee. I will show this to dh.

You do seem like an unemotional person, very logical. That is dh, too. I am intensely emotional. I think I am that outlet for him, like he is that stable base for me. We meet different needs in each other.

And about specific goals . . . I hear what you are saying. I did not have any particular thing I wanted. It was just that feeling that we should be "doing better," whatever that meant. 

I feel a lot better financially now, ten years on. The 20s and 30s are hard, I think, for a lot of families. You're paying big bills, like a mortgage, and saving for cars or remodeling, or whatever, plus saving for retirement. It can just feel overwhelming. You want to pay everything as soon as you can, but it takes time, and requires patience. And some of us are not very patient!

I have a question for you, coffee: Was your first husband really unemotional, too, or the opposite, or somewhere in the middle? Did that have a big effect on the relationship?


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> JLD, with all due respect, it sounds to me like what you are really saying is that you have certain baggage, and your husband has learned to deal well with your particular baggage. That's how all good relationships are -- we all have our particular baggage, and the right person is often the person who loves our good qualities more than they dislike our bad qualities (or they are able to put up with or are not bothered by our particular difficulties). Yes. I think that is what SA meant by saying that I have low expectations in the romance department. It would be nice, but I know dh is never going to be romantic. It is not a need for me; emotional stability and security is a need for me. It is just a huge magnet for me.
> 
> This is fine. What I don't like, is that you're extrapolating from this that your relationship is the archetype of a good relationship -- the woman always has this kind of baggage and the man's job is always to deal with it. Many women simply don't get into the kind of rages you describe, and many men when confronted with it simply don't put up with it in the first place, they walk away and don't come back. According to you, this would actually make them lesser men, because they're not dealing with your "challenges" and they're not following the "way of the superior man" or whatever. This seems laughable to me. Do you think it makes them "stronger?" Anyone can walk away, John. Working through the problems takes a lot of courage and humility.
> 
> That said, we all need to be ourselves. That has to be the most important lesson we can learn on TAM: Be yourself. If they do not want to be with those women, I think they are doing the women a favor by leaving. Win/Win, or No Deal.


----------



## NobodySpecial

> Do you think it makes them "stronger?" Anyone can walk away, John. Working through the problems takes a lot of courage and humility.


Smarter and more egalitarian to expect one's partner to be a grown up.


----------



## jld

coffee4me said:


> In my marriage he was more emotional and talkative, good grief . I know I need someone who is a tad more expressive of emotions to even things out. I would say he was an average guy for his generation. In the beginning of our relationship we were teenagers, I think he came to be used to the way I am because I was not able to change some of my ways. When you say "your generation," may I ask which generation? I was thinking you were mid-forties. What would you say would be characteristics of his generation? Just curious, btw. Seemed like an interesting statement you made.
> 
> I know that is something that many people in marriage struggle with, wanting the other person to change how they engage with them. Compliments, hugs, saying I Love You, etc. Some people need to hear that and its perfectly understandable. But if you are the person trying to remember to do those things it's exhausting and not because you are an a$$ and don't want the other person to feel valued. It's hard to be the person being asked to go against their nature and worse yet to be criticized for it while trying to conform to what your spouse does naturally. This is true. I will never get as much affection and attention as I want with dh. Just isn't going to happen. And I will never have the tech ability that I am sure he would love for me to have.
> 
> But the differences are also what attract us to our partners. I would never want Dug to be emotionally needy. We could not have two of those in this marriage! But along with that comes accepting that he is not romantic, not emotional, and not very expressive.


----------



## coffee4me

> In my marriage he was more emotional and talkative, good grief . I know I need someone who is a tad more expressive of emotions to even things out. I would say he was an average guy for his generation. In the beginning of our relationship we were teenagers, I think he came to be used to the way I am because I was not able to change some of my ways. When you say "your generation," may I ask which generation? I was thinking you were mid-forties. What would you say would be characteristics of his generation? Just curious, btw. Seemed like an interesting statement you made.


Yes, mid forties. I think I've been reading to much what is the ideals for modern, more emotionally expressive men.  more the expectations of my son's generation. 

The men I know who are my age are alike in that they exercise emotional control and they do feel that it's part of their masculinity. That to them does not seem to be a negative thing, as it is portrayed in society today. They did not become angry, violent men because they learned to control their emotions. In many ways I see that it can be an empowering feeling and necessary when dealing with issues of survival. No matter how strong he viewed me , he was protective and in our generation this is a normal emotion. Many in today's society view that as a negative emotion in men- you know women are empowered, no need to protect them etc.


----------



## jld

coffee4me said:


> Yes, mid forties. I think I've been reading to much what is the ideals for modern, more emotionally expressive men.  more the expectations of my son's generation.
> 
> The men I know who are my age are alike in that they exercise emotional control and they do feel that it's part of their masculinity. That to them does not seem to be a negative thing, as it is portrayed in society today. They did not become angry, violent men because they learned to control their emotions. In many ways I see that it can be an empowering feeling and necessary when dealing with issues of survival. No matter how strong he viewed me , he was protective and in our generation this is a normal emotion. Many in today's society view that as a negative emotion in men- you know women are empowered, no need to protect them etc.


Such an interesting post, coffee, thank you!

My daughter is 19, and she has told me the guys she knows are all very nice, very respectful, very egalitarian . . . and not interesting to her. She is an engineering major, unemotional, very steady (just like her dad, really). She is going to Switzerland for her junior year, but you know, the guys of that generation are probably like that there, too.

She sure does not want to be a SAHM. She loves her studies and wants to either do long studies (med school, or a PhD) or own her own business. She may work in industry, though, if she decides to put off grad school.

She is very driven, capable, hardworking, all of that, but she still appreciates a gentleman. She just doesn't want him to be _too_ gentle, I think.  

Mainly she wants a really smart one. She is not going to be attracted to any guy who is not smarter than she is. And she is the type that would rather be alone than settle. I am so glad for that.

Dh does not understand men who are emotional. To him, that is what women are. But he has always been even-tempered. His dad told me you never knew when dh had a test in school (the French education system is pretty rigorous, and even moreso when dh was young -- he is 47).

And he does not understand when men do not provide for their families. To him, that is the least a woman should expect. 

But a lot of the young gals do not see it that way, and really, a lot of older gals, too. I would guess that among men in their 20s, that idea even seems archaic.


----------



## lancaster

Sure it can happen my wife just called me a loser and a coward lastnight. Now, I am not one to put up with that sort of rubbish, or am I. As it happened lastnight I am now thinking well, that was then, she will not do it again in front of my son. 

That is kind of how emasculation happens. Men also abuse women in a similar fashion.


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> And he does not understand when men do not provide for their families. To him, that is the least a woman should expect.
> 
> But a lot of the young gals do not see it that way, and really, a lot of older gals, too. I would guess that among men in their 20s, that idea even seems archaic.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. That young men/women no longer think men have to be the SOLE breadwinner? That young men/women no longer think men have to be the PRIMARY breadwinner? That young men think they don't have to provide for their families at all? What does your husband's idea of "provide for their families" mean -- earn all the income? Earn more than half the income?


----------



## John Lee

coffee4me said:


> The men I know who are my age are alike in that they exercise emotional control and they do feel that it's part of their masculinity. That to them does not seem to be a negative thing, as it is portrayed in society today. They did not become angry, violent men because they learned to control their emotions. In many ways I see that it can be an empowering feeling and necessary when dealing with issues of survival. No matter how strong he viewed me , he was protective and in our generation this is a normal emotion. Many in today's society view that as a negative emotion in men- you know women are empowered, no need to protect them etc.


I think "emotional control" is part of being an adult, not just being a man.


----------



## John Lee

Anyway coffee I agree with you that this stuff about men becoming bottled up is a little overblown. I saw this video claiming that "man up" is a harmful thing to say to boys, and I'm not sure I agree with that.


----------



## jld

lancaster said:


> Sure it can happen my wife just called me a loser and a coward lastnight. Now, I am not one to put up with that sort of rubbish, or am I. As it happened lastnight I am now thinking well, that was then, she will not do it again in front of my son.
> 
> That is kind of how emasculation happens. Men also abuse women in a similar fashion.


Do you know why she said those things?

What did you do after she said them?


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> Do you know why she said those things?


Why would it be ok for her to say them under any circumstances? There's a difference between criticizing someone's actions and criticizing their being.


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> Why would it be ok for her to say them under any circumstances? There's a difference between criticizing someone's actions and criticizing their being.


Sorry, exciting moment in the Germany v. Algeria match.

You just feel like she should not have said anything that criticizes his being, and it doesn't matter why. You might even feel appalled that I would ask why. It doesn't matter, to you. It is just wrong behavior and must be condemned immediately. Is that right?


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> Sorry, exciting moment in the Germany v. Algeria match.
> 
> You just feel like she should not have said anything that criticizes his being, and it doesn't matter why. You might even feel appalled that I would ask why. It doesn't matter, to you. It is just wrong behavior and must be condemned immediately. Is that right?


I recognize that it's inevitable that people will sometimes say things they don't mean in a fight, but no I don't think it's acceptable to call names, I think it's abusive, not to mention counter-productive to resolving anything.


----------



## John Lee

Actually let me rephrase that. It is not acceptable behavior TO ME. Especially in front of children, who are very sensitive and vulnerable to that behavior, and can experience a lot of distress at thinking "My dad/mom is a ___" or "My dad/mom thinks my mom/dad is a ___"


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> Actually let me rephrase that. It is not acceptable behavior TO ME. Especially in front of children, who are very sensitive and vulnerable to that behavior, and can experience a lot of distress at thinking "My dad/mom is a ___" or "My dad/mom thinks my mom/dad is a ___"


You feel like it would damage the children, put doubts in their heads about the value of their parents.

What do you think would be the best way to resolve the name-calling?


----------



## sidney2718

jld wrote:


> As much as I prefer some of the older fashioned ways.. I would never never never want to live back then....the time saving conveniences, viagra!.. Imagine worrying a child might come down with Polio!...The medical advances of today are amazing......I've often thought had I lived back then...I might have died in childbirth.. I hemorrhaged after my first 3 births. I would have been a goner for sure.


I did live back then, or close to it. Polio was an enormous problem. It scared my parents, who were not openly afraid of anything. I grew up in the pre-antibiotic era. The only "wonder drug" we had were "sulfa drugs".
Penicillin didn't come into civilian use until after WWII. And if you got a real disease, you spent a week at home from school, sometimes quarantined.

But still, it was far better than my grandparents life back in the "old country".

There's been some mention of childbirth in this thread. My mother's two children, my brother and I, were born in the hospital simply because the chance of misfortune was much smaller. My grandmother lost five or her eight children before they were teen-agers.

And then we in the US entered the Golden Age. Jobs were plentiful, unions were negotiating decent salaries and folks were buying houses right and left. It got so good that in my upper middle class suburban high school, somewhat over half the kids in my graduating class went to college. I'd guess that far fewer than half their parents finished high school.

But along with the new conveniences like washing machines, came a need for a second salary to allow one to buy them. Where once a decent job meant that one (male) wage earner could support a family, by the time the sixties rolled around one needed two wage earners. Of course along with that came a second car, more than one TV set, a bigger house, and so on.

Not to worry. Our grandchildren will consider how we live now as being on a par with the stone age.


----------



## ocotillo

ScarletBegonias said:


> My mother was a spoiled rotten brat her whole life and it showed in the way she treated people...men in particular.


I wouldn't go quite that far to describe my mother, but I'm not far from it. 

She was one of those, "Happy accidents" that parents at the time tended to have. Her siblings ranged from 9 to 18 years older than her. She was the "Baby" with even her brothers and sisters being closer to parents than brothers and sisters.

My father and mother were deeply in love, but she had a tendency to fuss like an angry parakeet when she was unhappy.


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> You feel like it would damage the children, put doubts in their heads about the value of their parents.
> 
> What do you think would be the best way to resolve the name-calling?


The best way to "resolve" it is to not do it, if you're the name-caller, and to tell the person doing it that it's completely unacceptable to you and that you will not tolerate it (in my experience it's best to say this sort of thing after the fight has cooled down). And also to explain why it's unacceptable, particularly with children involved, but to be clear, I'm not saying it's ONLY unacceptable with children involved.


----------



## jld

Lol, sidney, the first half of the quote comes from my friend SimplyAmorous!


----------



## NobodySpecial

John Lee said:


> Actually let me rephrase that. It is not acceptable behavior TO ME. Especially in front of children, who are very sensitive and vulnerable to that behavior, and can experience a lot of distress at thinking "My dad/mom is a ___" or "My dad/mom thinks my mom/dad is a ___"


Absolutely. Calling someone worthless? There is never a why to that that is going to make it ok. And because I am a fluttery, emotional female definitely isn't it!


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> The best way to "resolve" it is to not do it, if you're the name-caller, and to tell the person doing it that it's completely unacceptable to you and that you will not tolerate it (in my experience it's best to say this sort of thing after the fight has cooled down). And also to explain why it's unacceptable, particularly with children involved, but to be clear, I'm not saying it's ONLY unacceptable with children involved.


So you don't really want to resolve it, you just want to stop it. Is that correct?


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> You feel like it would damage the children, put doubts in their heads about the value of their parents.
> 
> What do you think would be the best way to resolve the name-calling?


Effective limit setting.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> So you don't really want to resolve it, you just want to stop it. Is that correct?


Resolve HER bad behavior? Why would he do that? When a person accommodates or appeases someone else' bad behavior, it only encourages them not to take responsibility for ti themselves.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Effective limit setting.


Would you like to describe that?


----------



## that_girl

You can resolve someone calling you names. When they do it, you tell them they can't talk to you that way and if they continue to do so, you will walk away. Let them badger on, then walk away.

I don't converse with people who call me names. Why would I allow my spouse to call me names?  It's not ok. Be firm. The kids will see that...and make their own assumptions of who the 'wrong person' is. The mom. If dad keeps his cool and just says, "You cannot talk to me that way. It's not ok." and keeps repeating it, either the wife listens or she doesn't. If she doesn't, then the marriage has major issues.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Would you like to describe that?


I could go to the library and check out a half a ton of books on the subject for you!


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> I could go to the library and check out a half a ton of books on the subject for you!


So nothing in particular you recommend?


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> You can resolve someone calling you names. When they do it, you tell them they can't talk to you that way and if they continue to do so, you will walk away. Let them badger on, then walk away.


Would you call that resolving the issue, or stopping the behavior? Do you think there is a difference between them, or not? 

Or does it not matter, as long as the behavior stops?


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> So you don't really want to resolve it, you just want to stop it. Is that correct?


First of all, I don't tolerate it to begin with, so it doesn't happen, so I'm not sure what the "it" you're referring to is that I don't "want to resolve." 

It is not my job or interest in life to resolve a woman's own inability to behave like an adult or to communicate in an adult way. I am not interested in that kind of relationship.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Would you call that resolving the issue, or stopping the behavior? Do you think there is a difference between them, or not?
> 
> Or does it not matter, as long as the behavior stops?


The behavior for which he is not responsible IS the issue.


----------



## that_girl

People call names in a relationship because they, themselves, usually feel bad about something else.

You don't randomly call your spouse a "loser". I'd want to know why she said it but I'd shut the name calling down first.

Luckily, this isn't an issue in my relationship. It's not an issue for me in my life at all, actually. Name calling, to me, shows immaturity. If I call my husband a loser, what's that say about me? Yea.

But some people are just name callers. No real reason, it's how they fight. So shut it down and keep your dignity and know it's their problem, not yours.

You train people how to treat you.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> So nothing in particular you recommend?


Yes. I would very specifically recommend learning about setting boundaries in relationships. That is the very thing, in particular, that I would recommend.


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> First of all, I don't tolerate it to begin with, so it doesn't happen, so I'm not sure what the "it" you're referring to is that I don't "want to resolve."
> 
> It is not my job or interest in life to resolve a woman's own inability to behave like an adult or to communicate in an adult way. I am not interested in that kind of relationship.


Okay, that's fair. You know the limits of your curiosity about the reason behind her behavior.

Basically, as long as the behavior stops, you're good. Case closed?


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> People call names in a relationship because they, themselves, usually feel bad about something else.
> 
> You don't randomly call your spouse a "loser". I'd want to know why she said it but I'd shut the name calling down first.
> 
> Luckily, this isn't an issue in my relationship. It's not an issue for me in my life at all, actually. Name calling, to me, shows immaturity. If I call my husband a loser, what's that say about me? Yea.
> 
> But some people are just name callers. No real reason, it's how they fight. So shut it down and keep your dignity and know it's their problem, not yours.
> 
> You train people how to treat you.


So you feel like first stop the behavior, and then ask questions?

Just to understand further, what do you do with the answers you get?


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Okay, that's fair. You know the limits of your curiosity about the reason behind her behavior.
> 
> Basically, as long as the behavior stops, you're good. Case closed?


Once she has control of herself and can speak like a grown up, her issues, whatever they are, can be heard. In ANY other relationship in the world, no one gets themselves heard by calling names. My toddler learned that when he was 2. WHEN you can speak appropriately, THEN I will listen to you.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Yes. I would very specifically recommend learning about setting boundaries in relationships. That is the very thing, in particular, that I would recommend.


So setting boundaries and enforcing them. The main thing is stopping the behavior. Does that about sum it up?


----------



## that_girl

Dunno. I'm not there at the moment nor is it an issue in my life.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> So setting boundaries and enforcing them. The main thing is stopping the behavior. Does that about sum it up?


Are you being intentionally obtuse?


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Once she has control of herself and can speak like a grown up, her issues, whatever they are, can be heard. In ANY other relationship in the world, no one gets themselves heard by calling names. My toddler learned that when he was 2. WHEN you can speak appropriately, THEN I will listen to you.


So stop the behavior, then possibly look at issues?

Do you think the marital relationship is a unique relationship with the opportunity to go deep inside, in a loving and safe atmosphere, to resolve issues that may manifest in various unhealthy ways?

Or should we just stop the behavior, and call it a day.


----------



## that_girl

Ima stop posting in this thread and call it a day. Damn.


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> So setting boundaries and enforcing them. The main thing is stopping the behavior. Does that about sum it up?


This is like a bad parody of "active listening." You got the active part right, but you're not actually listening.


----------



## ocotillo

SimplyAmorous said:


> I think you just described , without even thinking about it -the internal conflict women have being attracted to men they can not control.. like the strong Alphas (I know you hate those terms!)..they generally don't show much emotion, never any rush to cater to their woman... she waits.... yet even if it drives her half batty sometimes...dealing with these men..they can't seem to let them go or get them out of their system...



Some men are good with their wives for (Pardon the crudeness of the analogy) the same reason they're good with animals. 

They just have a talent with living things and can tell at a glance what is wrong and what is needed. I think this stands entirely outside of the "Alpha" and "Beta" paradigm. People who don't have this talent probably have equal talents in other areas because everyone has their gifts.

If jld needs to (Metaphorically speaking) smack Dug upside the head with a 2 X 4 to get his attention, I certainly don't judge them for that. They both seem happy to me.


----------



## pidge70

that_girl said:


> Ima stop posting in this thread and call it a day. Damn.


I told ya......


----------



## heartsbeating

jld..... I'd love for you to gain confidence back within yourself. Sure, with mistakes in life we can try to avoid or limit them but only up to a point. There has to be room for learning and growth from simply trying stuff. And if something doesn't work out, it doesn't mean we don't know how to make smart choices, it's just that that was the best we knew at the time and then we learn a different way of approaching it.

In my opinion, the more you voice in a healthy way, and take control for yourself, the more confidence you will actually gain.

I understand the fortress metaphor. Not within my own marriage but I know that dynamic well. From what I observed, the boiling point of frustration that lead to the tantrum may end up with the receiver either 'giving in' or simply shutting down - and purposely not listening. 

Tantrums aren't my style. I also know that my husband wouldn't tolerate it. He'd call me out on such behavior. That's not to say that I don't express though and that he doesn't know what's in my heart. When I bring a concern to my husband, I do have an expectation that he will listen and we discuss. At times, it's good when he doesn't agree with me as that challenges my own thought process. There was a situation not that long ago where I asked his opinion. While I listened and considered his view, I decided to follow my own thoughts instead. Months later, I told him that he 'called' it. I needed to understand it better for myself though, by experiencing it and that's what I did. 

Wishing you the best, jld.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Jld. When YOU need something, YOU take responsibility for achieving it. YOU feel you are spending too much. YOU want a budget. Write a budget! This is not rocket science. If you are scared and cannot go to your husband with a simple "I am scared" then you have other fish to fry.

MMMM gotta have fried fish soon.


----------



## pidge70

NobodySpecial said:


> Jld. When YOU need something, YOU take responsibility for achieving it. YOU feel you are spending too much. YOU want a budget. Write a budget! This is not rocket science. If you are scared and cannot go to your husband with a simple "I am scared" then you have other fish to fry.
> 
> MMMM gotta have fried fish soon.


Catfish is one of the many items we will have on our 4th of July menu. Come on over!


----------



## NobodySpecial

pidge70 said:


> Catfish is one of the many items we will have on our 4th of July menu. Come on over!


Anyone allergic to peanuts? I make a damned good Thai peanut noodle.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> So you don't really want to resolve it, you just want to stop it. Is that correct?


When I was little, I remember my dad fussing at mom about her hair brained ideas. They attempted to argue behind closed doors but walls are thin and tempers flare so we heard just fine. I suspect that when a label fits so well then it's different somehow. I love her but.... hair brained was an accurate description. Crazy schemes that made no sense and never worked but took time and money....

Anyway I've never accused a gf, ex, or my wife of having hair brained ideas. I guess my thought is that when it's obvious a label is sort of earned, I suspect it's less harmful for kids to see. Maybe?


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> This is like a bad parody of "active listening." You got the active part right, but you're not actually listening.


I think I am understanding you. But I had three of you I was asking, and I wanted to make sure.

There is something I have not understood, but I think I am starting to. Many people do not want to go deep inside the other person. They simply want to be treated a certain way, and they are happy. They have no interest in anything further.

But we could go deeper. We could ask ourselves _why _people behave the way they do. Maybe people have _reasons_ they think and behave the way they do. If we can figure out the reason _why_, we can help them figure out _how_ to deal with their emotions in healthier ways. Understanding how what _we_ do, if anything, plays into the emotions of our spouse, can be interesting, too. 

But we don't have to go deep. We could just focus on the behavior and how to stop it.

Threatening people with a withdrawal of our attention, like leaving the room, or our commitment, like divorce, often works. We could, in a country without laws against it, threaten them with violence. These are all likely to be successful in stopping the behavior we don't like.

And if we are satisfied with that, then our work is done.


----------



## pidge70

NobodySpecial said:


> Anyone allergic to peanuts? I make a damned good Thai peanut noodle.


No peanut allergies here....sounds delish.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> I think I am understanding you. But I had three of you I was asking, and I wanted to make sure.
> 
> There is something I have not understood, but I think I am starting to. Many people do not want to go deep inside the other person. They simply want to be treated a certain way, and they are happy. They have no interest in anything further.
> 
> But we could go deeper. We could ask ourselves _why _people behave the way they do. Maybe people have _reasons_ they think and behave the way they do. If we can figure out the reason _why_, we can help them figure out _how_ to deal with their emotions in healthier ways. Understanding how what _we_ do, if anything, plays into the emotions of our spouse, can be interesting, too.
> 
> But we don't have to go deep. We could just focus on the behavior and how to stop it.
> 
> Threatening people with a withdrawal of our attention, like leaving the room, or our commitment, like divorce, often works. We could, in a country without laws against it, threaten them with violence. These are all likely to be successful in stopping the behavior we don't like.
> 
> And if we are satisfied with that, then our work is done.


Although I'm beginning to think you are either trolling or simply incapable of listening to other people, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and make myself clear: I 100% believe in trying to get to the bottom of my spouse's emotions and to explore them. However, I do not believe in exploring said emotions with a person who is being abusive until that person has calmed down and stopped speaking in an abusive way. Further, by rewarding the insults, I teach the person that the way to get my attention is to insult me.


----------



## heartsbeating

John Lee said:


> Although I'm beginning to think you are either trolling or simply incapable of listening to other people, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and make myself clear: I 100% believe in trying to get to the bottom of my spouse's emotions and to explore them. However, I do not believe in exploring said emotions with a person who is being abusive until that person has calmed down and stopped speaking in an abusive way. Further, by rewarding the insults, I teach the person that the way to get my attention is to insult me.


Gold! 

:iagree:


----------



## COGypsy

jld said:


> But we could go deeper. We could ask ourselves _why _people behave the way they do. Maybe people have _reasons_ they think and behave the way they do. If we can figure out the reason _why_, we can help them figure out _how_ to deal with their emotions in healthier ways. Understanding how what _we_ do, if anything, plays into the emotions of our spouse, can be interesting, too.


Lots of people ask themselves why people behave like they do and spend their entire lives looking for reasons why people do what they do and help people figure out their own motivations.

We call them psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers....and probably many other titles describing that sort of job.

That's all well and good for a job, but when it comes to a home life, I want a reasonably self-actualized adult partner. Not a science project.


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> Although I'm beginning to think you are either trolling or simply incapable of listening to other people, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and make myself clear: I 100% believe in trying to get to the bottom of my spouse's emotions and to explore them. However, I do not believe in exploring said emotions with a person who is being abusive until that person has calmed down and stopped speaking in an abusive way. Further, by rewarding the insults, I teach the person that the way to get my attention is to insult me.


I think you are clear. You want the "bad behavior" to stop first. That is the priority. Nothing can happen before that stops.

How are you "rewarding the insults?" Do you think not leaving the room is rewarding her?

I am just realizing something. To you this may be obvious, but it was not to me, until you just mentioned it. 

John, to you this is about reward/punishment. Is that right? Reward her with attention if she talks in the way you decide, or punish her with your withdrawal until she behaves the way you decide she should?


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I think I am understanding you. But I had three of you I was asking, and I wanted to make sure.
> 
> There is something I have not understood, but I think I am starting to. Many people do not want to go deep inside the other person. They simply want to be treated a certain way, and they are happy. They have no interest in anything further.


That is actually not what you are hearing at all. What you are hearing is that each participant in the dialog comes ready to address issues in a mature and responsible way. I will go anywhere, anytime with DH. And the places we've gone! The issue is being able to trust your partner to be a grown up! 


Going deeper cannot be an excuse to allow someone not to own their own behavior. It does not make anyone manly to tolerate infantile behavior.


----------



## NobodySpecial

John Lee said:


> Although I'm beginning to think you are either trolling or simply incapable of listening to other people, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and make myself clear: I 100% believe in trying to get to the bottom of my spouse's emotions and to explore them. However, I do not believe in exploring said emotions with a person who is being abusive until that person has calmed down and stopped speaking in an abusive way. Further, by rewarding the insults, I teach the person that the way to get my attention is to insult me.


It is pure justification. She wants to continue to be able to behave badly. It doesn't seem like much of a problem for the two of them, so I am not sure what the thing is. But somehow it is more acceptable if it is about "men" and "women" for her.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Some men are good with their wives for (Pardon the crudeness of the analogy) the same reason they're good with animals. Very patient, very understanding, very trustworthy -- the animals can feel it. And they let down their defenses. They feel safe. And their behavior shows that.
> 
> You know, I think that is an excellent analogy, actually.
> 
> They just have a talent with living things and can tell at a glance what is wrong and what is needed. I think this stands entirely outside of the "Alpha" and "Beta" paradigm. People who don't have this talent probably have equal talents in other areas because everyone has their gifts. Yes, we all do. We are all bringing something to this world.
> 
> If jld needs to (Metaphorically speaking) smack Dug upside the head with a 2 X 4 to get his attention, I certainly don't judge them for that. They both seem happy to me. Yep, we are. But it never hurts to review what you are doing and see where you could improve.
> 
> Honestly, if we didn't challenge ourselves in different areas, life would be boring!


----------



## Lyris

jld said:


> I think you are clear. You want the "bad behavior" to stop first. That is the priority. Nothing can happen before that stops.
> 
> How are you "rewarding the insults?" Do you think not leaving the room is rewarding her?
> 
> I am just realizing something. To you this may be obvious, but it was not to me, until you just mentioned it.
> 
> John, to you this is about reward/punishment. Is that right? Reward her with attention if she talks in the way you decide, or punish her with your withdrawal until she behaves the way you decide she should?


You've said this, or very similar, before. You asked MEM if expecting decent behaviour was controlling. You've often talked about rewarding and punishing. You're not 'just realising' anything.

Stop being so disingenuous.


----------



## jld

Lyris said:


> You've said this, or very similar, before. You asked MEM if expecting decent behaviour was controlling. You've often talked about rewarding and punishing. You're not 'just realising' anything.
> 
> Stop being so disingenuous.


There is a chapter at the beginning of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People that talks about the difference between controlling people and using empathy to work with them more effectively. I knew the controlling was limited in its effectiveness, but I did not link it to reward/punishment, though it seems obvious now. 

And I did not think of leaving the room as a punishment, though it certainly is. I only thought of it in terms of how frightening it must feel to be abandoned like that. 

I think the only way it would not be a punishment is if it is framed in terms of the limits of the person leaving the room, as in, he himself cannot handle staying.

I'm a Seven Habits fan. Not a control fan. And if I had reread the Seven Habits recently, all this would have been clearer sooner.

And I had to look up "disingenuous."


----------



## sidney2718

John Lee said:


> First of all, I don't tolerate it to begin with, so it doesn't happen, so I'm not sure what the "it" you're referring to is that I don't "want to resolve."
> 
> It is not my job or interest in life to resolve a woman's own inability to behave like an adult or to communicate in an adult way. I am not interested in that kind of relationship.


I fully agree. Adults need to behave like adults. If you wouldn't do it out on a crowded public sidewalk, don't do it at home in front of the kids

And I don't think going into the bedroom with your spouse to have a yelling match is OK either, but it is at least better than giving the kids front row seats at the tournament.

When fighting one should have some rules such as one person gets to speak at a time with no interruptions. And nobody should monopolize the conversation. Both parties should be allowed to have their say in reasonably small chunks of time.

Can I do this? Not always. If I'm angry, or if my wife is, well then rules tend to go. But we were always more careful when the kids were home. Now as empty nesters, we aren't always so careful.

And we certainly don't fight in front of family or friends. All it does is make them uncomfortable.


----------



## sidney2718

jld said:


> I think I am understanding you. But I had three of you I was asking, and I wanted to make sure.
> 
> There is something I have not understood, but I think I am starting to. Many people do not want to go deep inside the other person. They simply want to be treated a certain way, and they are happy. They have no interest in anything further.
> 
> But we could go deeper. We could ask ourselves _why _people behave the way they do. Maybe people have _reasons_ they think and behave the way they do. If we can figure out the reason _why_, we can help them figure out _how_ to deal with their emotions in healthier ways. Understanding how what _we_ do, if anything, plays into the emotions of our spouse, can be interesting, too.
> 
> But we don't have to go deep. We could just focus on the behavior and how to stop it.
> 
> Threatening people with a withdrawal of our attention, like leaving the room, or our commitment, like divorce, often works. We could, in a country without laws against it, threaten them with violence. These are all likely to be successful in stopping the behavior we don't like.
> 
> And if we are satisfied with that, then our work is done.


Well, NO.

The aim is to create an environment where two people can not only live together, but can create a safe and harmonious atmosphere for children. Those sorts of behavior patterns are called "manners".

Beyond that we are all different. Some folks like to probe their partners to find out how and why they tick. Some don't. Some folks don't like being probed at all. Others don't mind. Married folks are like that. They explore each other's limits. That's a process that should have begun before they married though.

I'd try not to confuse the two. Manners are always important. Where I come from name calling is rude. And probing has been replaced by having lived with someone long enough so that we can tell with a glance what sort of mood the other person is in.

As far as threats go, DON'T make them. They can ruin your marriage. Of course I'm not talking about trivial stuff such as "if you don't clean out the garage all you are getting for dinner is beans!"

At the same time, leaving the room is better than standing toe to toe and let the one with the louder voice be the winner. Threatening divorce is NEVER OK. If the marriage is in that much trouble, much private time spent in discussion is mandatory.


----------



## RoseAglow

jld said:


> There is a chapter at the beginning of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People that talks about the difference between controlling people and using empathy to work with them more effectively. I knew the controlling was limited in its effectiveness, but I did not link it to reward/punishment, though it seems obvious now.
> 
> And I did not think of leaving the room as a punishment, though it certainly is. I only thought of it in terms of how frightening it must feel to be abandoned like that.
> 
> I think the only way it would not be a punishment is if it is framed in terms of the limits of the person leaving the room, as in, he himself cannot handle staying.
> 
> I'm a Seven Habits fan. Not a control fan. And if I had reread the Seven Habits recently, all this would have been clearer sooner.
> 
> And I had to look up "disingenuous."


JLD, would do you me a favor? Would you go google "marital conflict management" or "how to resolve arguments"? 

In every resolution management books, articles, zines etc. I have ever read, it is always recommended to fight fair, no yelling, take a break from the emotion and come back when all parties are calmer.

This is true in any conflict- whether it is marital, workplace, childhood, etc. The only time yelling is an appropriate, accepted reaction to conflict is in a time of great danger. 

IMO people are asking if you are obtuse or just not hearing them because there a zillion ways to bring up issues without throwing a tantrum. In fact, the vast majority of adults are able to resolve conflict without throwing tantrums. This is true in boardrooms, PTA meetings, and bedrooms. 

There is no black-and-white line where "throw a tantrum, yell and scream and curse in front of my children" means that someone is being "authentic" whereas taking some time, calming down, and re-visiting the issue means that both parties are not authentic. There is no rule to say that the "calm down and discuss rationally" route excludes any deep diving, etc. In fact, it is my personal belief that much more deep diving, trust, and partnership can grow when both adults are behaving like adults. 

I would bet my house, my savings, that the author of the "7 habits of highly effective people" would NOT include "throwing tantrums" on his/her list of "how to be effective". 

I don't think your husband has done you any favors in indulging you in this habit. He takes the blame, HE isn't listening, yes. But that is because he loves and knows you, and for whatever reason- apparently you feel that are so weak that you can't hurt him- I think that because of your background, you associate his indulgence with an act of love. And so it works in your relationship.

Outside of your and his particular relationship, it is widely acknowledged that the person throwing the tantrum has a problem. If the REAL cause of a tantrum was "someone wasn't being heard" then there would be tantrums thrown in most classrooms, business meetings, client/customer interactions, etc. But this is not what happens; people are generally able to work it out without tantrums, or yelling, etc.

Removing oneself from a person who is yelling, cursing, etc is no more "punishing" than removing oneself from someone who is outright lying, or threatening one, or cheating, or doing any other damaging behavior.

You seem to feel that a Man is a Man when he is not "hurt" by his woman screaming at him. I disagree 100% with this. Most men- and women- would be hurt by their spouse yelling. 

IMO, you feel so weak that you state that you are no threat to your husband. I promise you, if you were ticked off enough and believed in your power, of course you could be a threat. You could kill him in his sleep. You could bang his dad or his brother or his best friend. You could go Lorena Bobbit on him. Any wife worth her salt could absolutely destroy her husband- you could kill all of your children and yourself, do you not think your husband would be destroyed? If you and your children were driving somewhere, and you were all killed in a car crash, do you think he would be A-OK? (BTW this works vice-versa, too.)

From your posts, it seems that you still see yourself as powerless. This is not Dug's fault; it is not your fault. You are a caring, very smart, very dedicated, and very persistent woman. You are just working out your own particular issues- and we all have them!! You have married a man from another country; you have lived in several countries; you have home-schooled your children! From my perspective, you are an accomplished and effective mother and wife and woman. You have more power than you know. 

My own experience of reading your posts is that you except much more out of men than you do out of women. This is the common issue that people bring up. From what I read, this is because in general, you feel that most women get a bad deal and that men let them down. Well, I am one of those Evil Feminists- I work for women to see and feel and recognize their power. I am not speaking about Power Over Men- no. I am speaking about woman's power- your very own, your intrinsic, wonderful, creative, lovable power. 

And in that vein, I say to you. find another way outside of tantrums. Find a Safe Word, that lets your guy know that You Are SERIOUS. Put stickers on your refrigerator, put Post-It-Notes on his car steering wheel. Do what you need to do to say This Isn't Going Away, but don't give up your power by losing your control.

I also want to say: it surely seems that you and your husband have a *great* relationship. I am bringing this particular issue up because I have seen you post about it numerous times, and i really disagree with it. I don't believe that accommodating unfair fights is a good practice at any time, so I am posting now. But, overall, if this is the worst of your issues, well, this is a terrific problem to have!


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> I think you are clear. You want the "bad behavior" to stop first. That is the priority. Nothing can happen before that stops.
> 
> How are you "rewarding the insults?" Do you think not leaving the room is rewarding her?
> 
> I am just realizing something. To you this may be obvious, but it was not to me, until you just mentioned it.
> 
> John, to you this is about reward/punishment. Is that right? Reward her with attention if she talks in the way you decide, or punish her with your withdrawal until she behaves the way you decide she should?


JLD, he's just telling you that he will not tolerate abusive behaviour. 

It isn't about reward or punishment. It's about having healthy boundaries and removing oneself from an abusive situation rather than becoming a part of it.

The only person who is responsible for bad behaviour is the person behaving badly, and it is up to them to exercise some self-control and/or seek professional help.


----------



## John Lee

coffee4me said:


> Lol John, I've seen that in several videos that are speaking on behalf of men and saying that's a terrible phrase to tell a boy. "man up" but I haven't seen any backlash over telling a girl "pull your big girl panties up". So it's now not ok to tell a boy to step up but it's ok to tell a girl to.


Exactly, this. In my opinion learning to "man up" is great for self-esteem. It's power. This is something I think we have backwards today -- self-esteem doesn't come from having people tell you everything you do is good, it comes from learning to do things, from mastering your environment, from growing stronger. I mean there are extremes I don't agree with, like abusing a child and telling them to "man up" and take it, but overall I think "man up" is a great motivator. Anyway, that's a complete tangent to the conversation.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> JLD, he's just telling you that he will not tolerate abusive behaviour.
> 
> It isn't about reward or punishment. It's about having healthy boundaries and removing oneself from an abusive situation rather than becoming a part of it.



Well, I think what a few posters have described here _is_ all about controlling and rewarding/punishing. And if that feels most comfortable to a couple, and they are happy to work within that dynamic, why not?

I do think there is an alternative to making rules and consequences, though. But it requires a paradigm shift. We have to be able to see through the other person's eyes.

When a man's wife calls him a bastard or a loser, he does not have to take that personally. He does not have to give her his power, if he does not want to. He can say something like, Wow, you are upset. You are really upset with me! 

It does not mean he agrees with her. He is not saying he is a bastard and a loser. He is just acknowledging her anger, motivated by her frustration, which really just reflects the hurt she feels. And that hurt might even have been unintentional.

And I bet she will then tell him why. And he can think about what she says, and what he can do about it, if anything. Just leaving her is not exactly opening the communication pathway.

Unless she has specifically requested it. There are women here who have said they want their husbands to leave the room if they raise their voices. It makes them feel better. Then, by all means, leave the room! The goal is meeting needs, after all. And realistically, the needs of the weaker person, male or female, are probably going to be the priority.

I doubt many women, or at least the ones I know, raise their voices for no reason. I don't know anyone personally with BPD. I know tons of overworked, stressed out gals, though. I bet they would love some empathy from their husbands. I bet most would be floored by it.

Just read your addition to your post. Cosmos, we all know that both people in a marriage are affected by either's behavior. Why not take a team approach? I doubt any marriage counselors are going to be against a team approach. And I doubt they will be against Active Listening, either.

And if people feel aggressed or threatened by loud voices and harsh words, then I would agree it is best they remove themselves from what is overwhelming to them. We all have our own limits, male and female. But we can own that, and not use it as an occasion to try to control the other person. 

I just do not think trying to control another person is sustainable. And it creates an attitude of judgment, as evidenced by this "calling out" idea, "bad behavior," etc. 

Empathy can cause a person to reflect on their behavior. It focuses on needs, and how to better meet them. And that, imo, _is_ sustainable.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Well, I think what a few posters have described here _is_ all about controlling and rewarding/punishing. And if that feels most comfortable to a couple, and they are happy to work within that dynamic, why not?
> 
> I do think there is an alternative to making rules and consequences, though. But it requires a paradigm shift. We have to be able to see through the other person's eyes.
> 
> When a man's wife calls him a bastard or a loser, he does not have to take that personally. He does not have to give her his power, if he does not want to. He can say something like, Wow, you are upset. You are really upset with me!
> 
> It does not mean he agrees with her. He is not saying he is a bastard and a loser. He is just acknowledging her anger, motivated by her frustration, which really just reflects the hurt she feels. And that hurt might even have been unintentional.
> 
> And I bet she will then tell him why. And he can think about what she says, and what he can do about it, if anything. Just leaving her is not exactly opening the communication pathway.
> 
> A woman calling her H a bastard or a loser is _very much _about control, IMO. It is a negative method of trying to elicit a reaction in order to get her needs met. It is up to _her _ to reflect on _her_ behaviour rather than for her H to respond / enable it.
> 
> Unless she has specifically requested it. There are women here who have said they want their husbands to leave the room if they raise their voices. It makes them feel better. Then, by all means, leave the room! The goal is meeting needs, after all. And realistically, the needs of the weaker person, male or female, are probably going to be the priority.
> 
> I doubt many women, or at least the ones I know, raise their voices for no reason. I don't know anyone personally with BPD. I know tons of overworked, stressed out gals, though. I bet they would love some empathy from their husbands. I bet most would be floored by it.
> 
> Just read your addition to your post. Cosmos, we all know that both people in a marriage are affected by either's behavior. Why not take a team approach? I doubt any marriage counselors are going to be against a team approach. And I doubt they will be against Active Listening, either.
> 
> And if people feel aggressed or threatened by loud voices and harsh words, then I would agree it is best they remove themselves from what is overwhelming to them. We all have our own limits, male and female. But we can own that, and not use it as an occasion to try to control the other person.
> 
> It isn't a case of being overwhelmed or threatened. It is about respect and personal boundaries. It is _not _OK to shout at others and call them names.
> 
> I just do not think trying to control another person is sustainable. And it creates an attitude of judgment, as evidenced by this "calling out" idea, "bad behavior," etc.
> 
> Trying to control others is never sustainable. This is why I believe that if someone is habitually trying to control their spouse by verbally abusing them in order to get their needs met, they should seek counseling.
> 
> Empathy can cause a person to reflect on their behavior. It focuses on needs, and how to better meet them. And that, imo, _is_ sustainable.


----------



## Entropy3000

coffee4me said:


> Lol John, I've seen that in several videos that are speaking on behalf of men and saying that's a terrible phrase to tell a boy. "man up" but I haven't seen any backlash over telling a girl "pull your big girl panties up". So it's now not ok to tell a boy to step up but it's ok to tell a girl to.


Man up can have good and bad connotations.

Manning up can be a very positive thing.

Man up should never be you do not matter.

Context is everything here.


----------



## John Lee

Entropy3000 said:


> Man up can have good and bad connotations.
> 
> Manning up can be a very positive thing.
> 
> Man up should never be you do not matter.
> 
> Context is everything here.


I agree with this. When a partner says "man up" to mean "stop caring about how I treat you" is when I have a problem with it. "Man up" should never mean "stop having feelings." But "man up" can be used to mean "stop letting your anxiety and insecurity prevent you from handling this situation." It's a fine line. I think when a wife uses it on her husband, it's very loaded.


----------



## jld

Cosmos, I appreciate your response. 

I am all about meeting needs in relationships. I don't think problems will be solved permanently until needs are met. And I am sorry you removed your second signature.


----------



## Lyris

Man up, woman up. It means grow up and take responsibility for yourself.


----------



## EleGirl

Well the thread made it over 40 pages.. there goes that prediction. 

This thing is growing like weed. Don't know if I can catch up. Is there a Reader's Digest version?


----------



## Deejo

Yet you don't see your 'fortress' analogy as a form of either self-protection or control on your husband's part? 

Take it a step further. Would you be nearly as loving and understanding if dug were to train his canons on you standing at the gate rather than inviting you in once you have behaved sufficiently poorly to get his attention?

Isn't that rather contradictory?

I am always intrigued and interested what we have the opportunity to learn here. I do not question that you and your husband have a fulfilling marriage. Seriously, kudos.

But I have to confess, what you seem to consistently define as strength, love, patience and tolerance on your husband's part ... looks to me, when I read it, more like indifference, or ... control, or perhaps influence is a better word choice.

I don't doubt that he loves you. But he decides when and how he's going to deal with you ... on his terms, whether applying active listening or not. And obviously, it works pretty well, as the two of you are still attracted and committed to one another.

You think he's attractive and masculine. And when it comes down to it, that's all that really matters.

I suppose I find it interesting which of you is actually the more challenging partner to be married to from an outsiders perspective?


----------



## Deejo

EleGirl said:


> Well the thread made it over 40 pages.. there goes that prediction.
> 
> This thing is growing like weed. Don't know if I can catch up. Is there a Reader's Digest version?


The Readers Digest version?

Nobody agrees.


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> Well the thread made it over 40 pages.. there goes that prediction.
> 
> This thing is growing like weed. Don't know if I can catch up. Is there a Reader's Digest version?


That's funny I think I was the one that made the bet....:rofl:


----------



## EleGirl

Deejo said:


> The Readers Digest version?
> 
> Nobody agrees.


I'm shocked, absolutely shocked... :rofl:


----------



## over20

over20 said:


> Yep..and we are only on pg 22..should we start making bets now? I can put a in a $50...I think this thread won't make it to 40 pgs...TAMer's are tired of this kind of debate.


Yep...I am eating my words....but nobody else put in.....:rofl:


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> That's funny I think I was the one that made the bet....:rofl:


Yep you did.... this thread has taken so many twists and turns no one even knows where they are anymore.


----------



## over20

Very True


----------



## Deejo

Emasculation is a synonym for willful disrespect on the part of a woman for her male partner, usually in an effort to challenge, mock, hurt ,undercut or highlight some failing in his manhood or character.

Whether or not the man is emotionally harmed by the attack/outburst, is a distinct factor in whether emasculation has taken place.

The subtext of the thread from my perspective, is that jld doesn't believe that what a wife, girlfriend, lover, says should have that kind of power over a man's perception of himself. But it's been a circuitous discussion.

Booyah ...


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> Emasculation is a synonym for willful disrespect on the part of a woman for her male partner, usually in an effort to challenge, mock, hurt ,undercut or highlight some failing in his manhood or character.
> 
> Whether or not the man is emotionally harmed by the attack/outburst, is a distinct factor in whether emasculation has taken place.
> 
> The subtext of the thread from my perspective, is that jld doesn't believe that what a wife, girlfriend, lover, says should have that kind of power over a man's perception of himself. But it's been a circuitous discussion.
> 
> Booyah ...


Deejo, do you believe that a man can be emasculated?


----------



## jld

Rose, I might be asking too much from the majority of men. They may not be able to do it. I would believe many would not want to.

I think empathy is a powerful tool. I think it is underutilized. Followed by an action plan, I think it can solve many, many problems. Where Dug and I have gone wrong is not following up with an action plan.

I have a strong character, and I needed a man with one at least as strong as my own. But not every woman needs that. Or even wants it.

I do think there is a strong emphasis for many on controlling people through rewards and punishments. I have a couple books by Alfie Kohn that I never read more than a few chapters of that talk about this. I need to get them out and study them.

Many perspectives are shared on TAM, and mine is just one. I think all need to be heard. I did not realize before coming to marriage boards that my philosophy was so seemingly rare. I suppose it is challenging. To me it just seems normal.


----------



## Deejo

After reading six-plus years of horror and heartbreak here?

Yes I do.


----------



## norajane

Deejo said:


> But I have to confess, what you seem to consistently define as strength, love, patience and tolerance on your husband's part ... looks to me, when I read it, more like indifference, or ... control, or perhaps influence is a better word choice.
> 
> I don't doubt that he loves you. But he decides when and how he's going to deal with you ... on his terms, whether applying active listening or not.


It come across as paternal to me. Children have tantrums; parents forgive them. At some point, they start teaching them that tantrums will not be tolerated and to use words to express themselves instead. Teenagers also act out and throw tantrums, sometimes when they feel they aren't being heard by their parents.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

That was good Deejo! :smthumbup:

Jld... I think Rose Aglow had some wonderful advice up above.. she captured so much -just seems she "gets" the underlying reasons you DO what you do...and feel as you feel ...about Men..all of it... 

I've read your husband's posts here... he acknowledges his not listening to you.. even saying acting up like this is what gets his attention!



> *Duguesclin said*: *Often it was my lack of sensitivity to her feelings that triggered the anger.*
> 
> Later we learned about active listening. This has been a great tool to help me understand her. It has also helped me with my kids and at work.





> *Duguesclin said*You can't stop at the word, you have to look at the emotions that underlie them.
> 
> If I felt threatened by them, then we would have to find another way to communicate.
> 
> *To be honest, they are probably necessary to get me to listen*.





> *Duguesclin said*One partner has to stay cool, for sure. Otherwise it will escalate.
> 
> I know she leans on me, so it is on me to stay cool. If I could not, she would not be able to trust me. Without her trust, the marriage would be seriously compromised.
> 
> She knows how far she can go. When our son was diagnosed with cancer, I was a mess the first few days. She had to carry us both. But it was not sustainable. I had to get back on my feet for the sake of my family.
> 
> *I think what avoids the long term resentments is getting the feelings out, as soon as possible.
> 
> Some people may be picky about how or where they come out. I am not*.


Unfortunately , as much as we might want, even pray, cry and lash out ....we can't change our spouses... we can only change ourselves.. I can sympathize a 100 times... I don't think it would be easy to BE in your shoes...any more than others are focusing on what he has to deal with! 

Beings this has been your & his fighting dynamic for probably a very long time now...it's not going to be easy to change.. but do you want it.. do you want to lay down the "flying into him" /resorting to name calling.. and whatever goes on??

I am sure you don't want to do these things, you probably hate yourself afterwards for loosing it like that.. knowing you have reached your breaking point (again)... 

I found this in an article..(though about co-workers) -it sounds DUG is living the proper response even..except he never walks out of the room... 



> *Throwing Temper Tantrums*
> Like two-year-olds, people who throw temper tantrums believe they are entitled to get their own way. They therefore feel free to abuse anyone who thwarts their desires. Unfortunately, this group often includes immature high-level executives who believe that having power gives them the right to treat others any way they like.
> 
> *The Proper Response*: The best response to a tantrum is no response at all. Stay quiet and calm until the tantrum thrower calms down enough to have a civilized conversation. If it goes on too long, politely excuse yourself and leave. Never show fear, anger, or any other emotional response, since that will be very rewarding to the tantrum thrower. When someone acts this childish, you must be the adult.


Found this in another article


> Doctors said when people get angry their pulse rate soars. If it climbs above 100 it can actually interfere with rational thinking. One tip to calm down quickly is to count to 10. In some cases counseling may be warranted.





> How to Handle Temper Tantrums | Real Simple
> 
> Here’s the classic three-point plan for managing a meltdown, followed by specific strategies for every age.
> 
> 1. *Anticipate*
> We all have temper triggers. For a toddler, it may be getting dressed for preschool; for an adult, it may be talking about the credit-card bill after three glasses of wine. If you’re aware of the triggers, you may be able to avoid the tantrum. (Allow time for multiple Croc changes; put off the budget meeting until morning.) Also, remember the acronym HALT: Tantrums often happen because the thrower is hungry, agitated, lonely, or tired, says Harrington.
> 
> 2. *Wait*
> When someone is having a tantrum, don’t throw a tantrum yourself. It will only add fuel to the fire. “Don’t yell back in the middle of the outburst,” says Harrington. “Offer choices, get out of the situation, or just take a breath. Often it will pass.”
> 
> 3. *Validate*
> *One reason people throw tantrums is that they want to be heard,* says Susan Orenstein, a psychologist in Cary, North Carolina, who focuses on marriage and relationships. “They grow louder and more animated as a way to get attention and show you that this issue is important to them.” So let the tantrum thrower know you feel his pain. This doesn’t mean you have to agree.
> 
> A simple “I understand you’re angry” will suffice. With kids, it’s also important to let them know that it’s OK to express emotion, but in an appropriate way. You might say to a toddler, “I understand that you’re frustrated that you can’t get the refrigerator open,” and then explain a better way to react: “If you would ask me to please help you, I’d love to.”


----------



## Deejo

norajane said:


> It come across as paternal to me. Children have tantrums; parents forgive them. At some point, they start teaching them that tantrums will not be tolerated and to use words to express themselves instead. Teenagers also act out and throw tantrums, sometimes when they feel they aren't being heard by their parents.


Yeah, but I don't blame my child for screaming at me if they have been calmly asking for my attention and I have been ignoring them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNkp4QF3we8


----------



## over20

:


Deejo said:


> After reading six-plus years of horror and heartbreak here?
> 
> Yes I do.


:allhail:


----------



## jld

Adults have tantrums. And they are not all going to respond to, "Go get counseling," or "This is your problem; solve it yourself." I think very few are going to stand to attention and say, "Why yes! That is what is needed! Let me go take care of that right now!"

Empathy, on the other hand, is immediately available. And free. And not hard to figure out.

Validation can be employed in almost every situation. Seek to understand, and then to be understood. Active Listening. 

Active Listening can defuse so many problems. I read recently that it is taught at the State Dept. Many business executives have undergone training in it. I truly believe it is an underemphasized technique for resolving marital conflict.

Active Listening, followed up by an action plan, seems pretty promising to me. I'll let you know how it goes.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Cosmos, I appreciate your response.
> 
> *I am all about meeting needs in relationships. I don't think problems will be solved permanently until needs* are met. And I am sorry you removed your second signature.


Absolutely! But we should never attempt to manipulate / control overs in order to get those needs met. In fact we shouldn't have to. If direct communication about our needs isn't possible, I think counseling should be our next option.


_"We are only as needy as our unmet needs"_


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Adults have tantrums. And they are not all going to respond to, "Go get counseling," or "This is your problem; solve it yourself." I think very few are going to stand to attention and say, "Why yes! That is what is needed! Let me go take care of that right now!"
> 
> Empathy, on the other hand, is immediately available. And free. And not hard to figure out.
> 
> Validation can be employed in almost every situation. Seek to understand, and then to be understood. Active Listening.
> 
> Active Listening can defuse so many problems. I read recently that it is taught at the State Dept. Many business executives have undergone training in it. I truly believe it is an underemphasized technique for resolving marital conflict.
> 
> Active Listening, followed up by an action plan, seems pretty promising to me. I'll let you know how it goes.



JLD, I'm afraid the very best of people are going to shut down when they're verbally abused. Calling one's spouse a bastard or a loser is not going to dispose that spouse to listen further. Actively or otherwise.

Adults are no longer children who cannot control their temper tantrums, and their spouses aren't their parents.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Adults have tantrums.


No. They don't.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cosmos said:


> JLD, I'm afraid the very best of people are going to shut down when they're verbally abused. Calling one's spouse a bastard or a loser is not going to dispose that spouse to listen further. Actively or otherwise.
> 
> Adults are no longer children who cannot control their temper tantrums, and their spouses aren't their parents.


The other thing to consider is that she seeks to put an undue burden of empathy on the victim of the verbal abuse. The ONLY issue of concern is the reason for the verbal abuse without concern for the lack of empathy that is the abuse itself.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> JLD, I'm afraid the very best of people are going to shut down when they're verbally abused. Calling one's spouse a bastard or a loser is not going to dispose that spouse to listen further. Actively or otherwise.
> 
> Adults are no longer children who cannot control their temper tantrums, and their spouses aren't their parents.


Cosmos, I am not _advocating_ for verbal abuse. I _am_ saying that it is possible, at least for some people, to look past the words, to _why _those words are being said. And I don't think it takes a degree in psychology, or fees to a psychologist, to do it.

And I think the reality is that people over the age of 18 _do_ have temper tantrums, they _do_ have affairs, they _do_ overspend. True, we can just judge them, and call it a day. It does seem like many people are satisfied to stop there.

Or we can go further, try to figure out why they did it, what our hand may have been in it (if any), and work on resolving the issue. It takes patience, and curiosity, and the ability to _not take it personally._ It is not easy, but if at least some people are able to do it, then it _is_ possible.

I am getting the feeling that many people are _frightened_ by emotions. Specifically, by _words._

Why giving people that power over us? How is that helpful to us?


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> The other thing to consider is that she seeks to put an undue burden of empathy on the victim of the verbal abuse. The ONLY issue of concern is the reason for the verbal abuse without concern for the lack of empathy that is the abuse itself.


No one is _obligated _to use empathy. Judging and controlling seem satisfactory to many people.

I think if you are scared of someone's words, you are giving them power over you. Remember, _Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me_? Unless I _let_ them.

I think this is the concern some posters have. They think if they "allow" verbal abuse, they are _giving_ power to the other person.

I would submit that it is by _taking their words personally _that we give them power. We are not forced to believe those words, in any way.

We cannot control other people, but we can _take responsibility _for allowing them to affect us.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I don't want to be with someone I have to play power games with. Do I "judge" someone for not being a worthy partner and thus not partnering with them? Damned straight. And I consider this to be a Very Good Thing.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't want to be with someone I have to play power games with. Do I "judge" someone for not being a worthy partner and thus not partnering with them? Damned straight. And I consider this to be a Very Good Thing.


I think power is a part of every relationship. Whether it becomes a game (seeking power over the other, as opposed to owning our own power) is another thing.

And absolutely, we are not obligated to be in personal relationships. Adult relationships are a free market.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I think power is a part of every relationship. Whether it becomes a game (seeking power over the other, as opposed to owning our own power) is another thing.


I very much don't. I think that considering power important is sad.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> I very much don't. I think that considering power important is sad.


Everybody has power, NS. Or perhaps I should say _agency._ The ability to make decisions regarding how we perceive and interact with the world. 

We all have it. We all use it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Everybody has power, NS. Or perhaps I should say _agency._ The ability to make decisions regarding how we perceive and interact with the world.
> 
> We all have it. We all use it.


Do you choose to use yours to learn and grow into a responsible adult in control of her behavior? Or do you choose to cede yours to your husband?


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Do you choose to use yours to learn and grow into a responsible adult in control of her behavior? Or do you choose to cede yours to your husband?


Some of both.


----------



## Racer

I just know my response to it… there are three and it depends on my mood, how far she went, and how often it’s repeating.

Carrot, ambivalence, stick.

Carrot: It’s empathy. So I’m the rock, I know she’s under a lot of pressure, and I did something to tip her over that edge. So I let her pop, egg her on, and treat it more like scream therapy. Then we laugh at how insane and emotionally overwhelming she can get. No harm, no foul. It has a prerequisite of me acknowledging to myself I did something wrong and in good enough humor that I won’t take it personally.

Ambivalence: I just don’t care. I don’t respond to it, show zero emotion, tune her out. This is her issue and I’m not going to be a whipping post. It can go to carrot IF she acknowledges that it’s really not about me. This is the normal when I don’t feel I did anything wrong at all. She becomes a ghost rattling her chains. It can evolve to the stick.

Stick: This is those times she goes overboard and crosses those boundaries. The big tantrum. The stick isn’t about whatever she’s angry over. It’s about how she chose to deal with that anger by focusing it on me. My entire goal is to make this reaction extremely unpleasant for her. What it doesn’t do is give her any rational or irrational reason to ever just come at me like that and expect I’ll keep backstepping until I cave in. That’s how she used to operate. She knew, because I loved her, that there was some point, some line in the sand I wouldn’t cross and she’d get her way because I’d try to appease her. That didn’t work out so hot for me; I learned and evolved. “That got ugly fast…”

The problem with this; I must have emotional detachment from her. That’s not a good thing for the marriage. I don’t care as much or as deeply. Perception switch from “us” to “her and I”.


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> And I think the reality is that people over the age of 18 _do_ have temper tantrums, they _do_ *have affairs*, they _do_ overspend. True, we can just judge them, and call it a day. It does seem like many people are satisfied to stop there.
> 
> Or we can go further, try to figure out why they did it, what our hand may have been in it (if any), and work on resolving the issue. It takes patience, and curiosity, and the ability to _not take it personally._ It is not easy, but if at least some people are able to do it, then it _is_ possible.


So you think the appropriate response to an affair is to have empathy and to "try to figure out why they did it"?


----------



## that_girl

Dear lord. When you get cheated on, we'll see how much empathy you have, how much you won't take personally, how deep you want to go to understand your husband's position.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Empathy is good paired with consideration and effort.
IMO someone can empathize and validate someone's feelings until the cows come home, unless they work on themselves to become a better communicator/more respectful/ more considerate ect (whatever the issue is) then from my perspective all there doing is pacifying their partner rather than putting effort into about changing the dynamics.


----------



## that_girl

At some point, empathy for a person wears out. People who don't help themselves after time and time again of the same issue lose empathy from others. At some point, it's just done.

If the person can't see that, and wants to milk everyone for empathy then it's their problem when people start ignoring/pulling away/breaking up with them.

Empathy isn't unconditional.


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> So you think the appropriate response to an affair is to have empathy and to "try to figure out why they did it"?


From what I have read, men and women have affairs for different reasons. I read that men often are very happy with their wives, but want variety on the side, basically just sex. I read that women are usually looking for emotional validation. I have also read that some people, male and female, are serial cheaters. It is just in their nature, and cannot likely be cured.

My understanding from TAM is that transparency is paramount after an affair. There must be no contact with the affair partner. 

From what I have read on male affairs vs. female, it seems like it may not be possible to take a male cheater back. It may just be in his nature to cheat. He would really have to work on his self-control in order for reconciliation to work.

For a female cheater, it may be possible to work things out, if you find out why she cheated, the needs that were not being met, and together find ways of meeting those needs. Obviously, the transparency and no contact are critical. It seemed more hopeful, at least from what I have read.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I would submit that it is by _taking their words personally _that we give them power. We are not forced to believe those words, in any way.


I think there are probably some cultural perceptions that vary greatly when it comes to taking what others say to heart.

My wife and her family are Norwegian. Norwegians are notoriously thick skinned. They don't get offended very often and they don't understand why anybody else would. They laugh at us here in the U.S. and say that being offended is our national pastime.

I also live in a border state with nearly a 50/50 mix of Anglo and Hispanic in the larger cities. If a Hispanic person likes you, they will change your name to a diminutive. (e.g. If your name is Tom, you will become, Tommy.) This reflects the fact that their culture is sensitive to a wide range of subtle nuances in speech and there is a gentle give and take in verbal communication. Use of the diminutive takes the sting out of disagreement or criticism and emphasizes the fact that it should not be construed as personal rancor. 

I can see both viewpoints here and think married couples really have to take their spouse's culture and communication style into consideration.


----------



## NobodySpecial

that_girl said:


> At some point, empathy for a person wears out. People who don't help themselves after time and time again of the same issue lose empathy from others. At some point, it's just done.
> 
> If the person can't see that, and wants to milk everyone for empathy then it's their problem when people start ignoring/pulling away/breaking up with them.
> 
> Empathy isn't unconditional.


Empathy

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

There is nothing that prevents empathy along with self control. That strikes me as the correct balance.


----------



## vellocet

that_girl said:


> Dear lord. When you get cheated on, we'll see how much empathy you have, how much you won't take personally, how deep you want to go to understand your husband's position.


*You rock!!!!!*


----------



## that_girl

NobodySpecial said:


> Empathy
> 
> the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
> 
> There is nothing that prevents empathy along with self control. That strikes me as the correct balance.


Yes, I know what empathy means.

My point was that after dealing with someone for a while who won't deal with themselves (even though the issues are known), empathy can run dry.


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> Yes, I know what empathy means.
> 
> My point was that after dealing with someone for a while who won't deal with themselves (even though the issues are known), empathy can run dry.


Absolutely. Empathy without an action plan, and its execution, may very likely not yield change.

I would encourage you to divorce your husband, btw. Win/Win, or No Deal.


----------



## that_girl

lol I make my own decisions. No encouragement needed in either direction. But thanks.


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> lol I make my own decisions. No encouragement needed in either direction. But thanks.


I am sure you will be fine. But I am surprised you kept him this long. You seem like a decisive person.


----------



## that_girl

Well, That's just the way it is


----------



## Acorn

jld said:


> From what I have read on male affairs vs. female, it seems like it may not be possible to take a male cheater back. It may just be in his nature to cheat. He would really have to work on his self-control in order for reconciliation to work.
> 
> For a female cheater, it may be possible to work things out, if you find out why she cheated, the needs that were not being met, and together find ways of meeting those needs. Obviously, the transparency and no contact are critical. It seemed more hopeful, at least from what I have read.


I think what you are going to find long term is that self control is vital for either gender for preventing an affair. In your example, women would not need to be entirely dependent on a man to meet her needs and prevent her affair if she had the self control to prevent it herself.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Cosmos, I am not _advocating_ for verbal abuse. I _am_ saying that it is possible, at least for some people, to look past the words, to _why _those words are being said. And I don't think it takes a degree in psychology, or fees to a psychologist, to do it.
> 
> And I'm saying that it is up to the person who has the need to use those words (which, IMO, are abusive) to learn a more effective way of communicating. Sure, the other person might learn to understand why the person acts that way, but it isn't up to them to fix the problem.
> 
> And I think the reality is that people over the age of 18 _do_ have temper tantrums, they _do_ have affairs, they _do_ overspend. True, we can just judge them, and call it a day. It does seem like many people are satisfied to stop there.
> 
> Healthy communication is key. Losing control of ourselves is a choice, and once we've lost control we're no longer listening.
> 
> I certainly have a temper, but it is up to me to keep it reined in, rather than to unleash it and expect others to work around it.
> 
> Or we can go further, try to figure out why they did it, what our hand may have been in it (if any), and work on resolving the issue. It takes patience, and curiosity, and the ability to _not take it personally._ It is not easy, but if at least some people are able to do it, then it _is_ possible.
> 
> Sure, but I don't believe that the time to do so is whilst the that person is in tantrum mode. Hence my belief that leaving the person to calm_ themselves_ down is possibly the healthiest option.
> 
> I am getting the feeling that many people are _frightened_ by emotions. Specifically, by _words._
> 
> Why giving people that power over us? How is that helpful to us?
> 
> Actually, I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing people with healthy boundaries saying that they refuse to take responsibility for or enable someone else's bad behaviour.


----------



## jld

Acorn said:


> I think what you are going to find long term is that self control is vital for either gender for preventing an affair. In your example, women would not need to be entirely dependent on a man to meet her needs and prevent her affair if she had the self control to prevent it herself.


Yes, the decision to cheat is on the cheater. It just seemed, from what I have read, that reconciliation may be more likely with female cheaters, if the reason was unmet emotional needs, and if the couple worked on them together.


----------



## that_girl

I don't give a rat's a$$ why someone thinks it's ok to verbally abuse me.

I shut that sh1t down quickly. You teach people how to treat you. I don't care what their reasons are, it's not ok with me.

I'm the same in my classroom. I don't give a rat's a$$ why a kid cusses. It just won't happen in my room.

Learn bigger, better words. Period.

If you're an adult, act like one. And no, adults don't throw tantrums.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Adults have tantrums. And they are not all going to respond to, "Go get counseling," or "This is your problem; solve it yourself." I think very few are going to stand to attention and say, "Why yes! That is what is needed! Let me go take care of that right now!"
> 
> Empathy, on the other hand, is immediately available. And free. And not hard to figure out.
> 
> Validation can be employed in almost every situation. Seek to understand, and then to be understood. Active Listening.
> 
> Active Listening can defuse so many problems. I read recently that it is taught at the State Dept. Many business executives have undergone training in it. I truly believe it is an underemphasized technique for resolving marital conflict.
> 
> Active Listening, followed up by an action plan, seems pretty promising to me. I'll let you know how it goes.


I find it interesting that you don't presume that most adults already incorporate Active Listening, and empathy.

I learned it from my mother. She had a very simple operational procedure, the more escalated whoever she was dealing with became, the more calm she became.

And depending upon how one chose to conduct themselves once in that interaction, she would either defuse, de-escalate and resolve the interaction (such as with her children, friends or colleagues), or with calculated, icy precision, she would deconstruct them and their argument, culminating in her tearing their heart out and showing it to them with a look that would make your blood freeze. (Work colleagues, her ex-husband, and generally belligerent people)

It was wondrous to behold. I'll never forget the day I saw her do it to a young sales manager in her office. Everybody feared this guy ... and he respected my mother.

Yes ... my mother emasculated him, at least in the eyes of everyone else. The very fact this guy chose to 'get into it' while I was present, was pretty telling about his conduct. He walked into her office in a rage, left quietly with his tail between his legs. My mother emerged from her office with a big, calm smile. "C'mon honey, lets go grab lunch."

So these kinds of interactions can certainly be painted as reward vs. punishment, but that is certainly not how I would interpret it. 

I've dated hyperbolic women. Truth be told, I rather fancy them. 

But there comes a point, where to make the boundaries and rules of engagement clear (call it an action plan if you will), I employ the same tactics mom used, or even more succinctly, such as Racer indicated: Carrot, Ambivalence, Stick.

We use the refrain around here often when it comes to taking the func out of dysfunctional ... we teach others how to treat us.


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> Yes, the decision to cheat is on the cheater. It just seemed, from what I have read, that reconciliation may be more likely with female cheaters, if the reason was unmet emotional needs, and if the couple worked on them together.


Let me know how that works out for you.


----------



## jld

Cosmos, either person can leave at any time, for any reason. They may end up taking the same possible lack of agency into the next relationship. 

While the conflict is happening, they are both losing out. Why not consider using all possible resources to fix it?

Losing control of one's power may have more than one definition. And it is certainly a choice how to use one's power.

If a person can handle the emotion, and is able to show empathy, and thus defuse the conflict, why not? Is leaving the room a commandment from the marriage gods?  From what I read on TAM, it looks like it.

If you make your reaction dependent on their action, you will forever be controlled by them. Developing the ability to hear beyond the words, and see into the heart can give you freedom. What they do no longer dictates what you do.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Jld...as you can see from nearly every response on here.. for the last 10 pages or so...this behavior is not acceptable in the realm of normal marital conflict...calling your husband _____ , ____ and _______ even if your H doesn't seem to mind it!!..which is a 1st ever admitted on TAM !! 

Racer said in the ending of his post .....


> The problem with this; *I must have emotional detachment from her*. That’s not a good thing for the marriage. I don’t care as much or as deeply. Perception switch from “us” to “her and I”.


Do you believe some of this has happened with your husband -due to the consistent tantrums throughout the years? What was your beginnings like.. surely you didn't feel early on that -you had to jump through these sort of hoops ...sling shot in hand aiming at the fortress window...for him to give you eye contact , take a moment & listen to your concerns....before you started feeling like this...









. Just wondering if things were different when he was home more, when he had more TIME ??

Have you ever sat him down, asking these sort of questions....How you can feel more heard/ cared for ....(as you feel this is what can alleviate your blowing up on him?)...so he can work with you to find more *healthy ways *to express he is there for you, he is listening.....which will make it easier for you to not go off like a stick of dynamite ?

I really don't think many women would be able to live as you do.. there is a tremendous amount of pressure on you and I don't feel you are getting your emotional needs met hardly at all.. 

Going by this list in "*His Needs/ Her Needs*"...can you explain to us where you feel you need more... 



> 1. Admiration
> 2. Affection
> 3. Conversation
> 4. Domestic support
> 5. Family commitment
> 6. Financial support
> 7. Honesty and openness
> 8. Physical attractiveness
> 9. Recreational companionship
> 10. Sexual fulfillment


I am going to take a guess that you are lacking greatly in *>> * Admiration (also explained as "Respect"), Affection, conversation, recreational companionship and even in Openness, as you have said he is not near as transparent as you are... Am I way off??

You've been together 20 plus years, this is your life..you have built a family together.... I know you are not going anywhere and you love him.. I guess in your world, these other things (Financial support, Family commitment, etc) outweight the rest..... just as with you.. all you do for the family (home schooling , Faithful wife /Mother handling the fort at home 22 days out of the month in his absence) outweighs your tantrums and name calling ..in his world..

If you and him could write out how you'd envision a better conflict style..meeting each other half way.. if he is too busy in a moment, to give you a time that he will be ALL EARS...and hold to that (for instance)...and for you.. to learn to calm the raging beast with other distractions when you feel this is rising within you...Music, read something. ..write in a journal !.... I don't know.. call a friend (vent!)... Post on TAM ! This would be something to work on...there is always challenges in our marriages...


----------



## jld

I don't think she emasculated him, Deejo. Then again, I don't think anything but self-emasculation is possible. I think she did him a favor.


----------



## jld

I have to go get ds from swimming, but just briefly, SA, I asked him once how we could manage these occasional conflicts, and he told me, Take a deep breath? 

And then he said that he really did not think it was on me. He said if he would listen at the beginning, it would not go that far.

We are talking about it, though. Why not always try to improve things?


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> If a person can handle the emotion, and is able to show empathy, and thus defuse the conflict, why not? Is leaving the room a commandment from the marriage gods?  From what I read on TAM, it looks like it.
> 
> If you make your reaction dependent on their action, you will forever be controlled by them. Developing the ability to hear beyond the words, and see into the heart can give you freedom. What they do no longer dictates what you do.


So, here is what I have been trying to determine since you started the conversation;

Whose job is it to enter the empathy, and active listening launch codes?

Don't know how to frame this without it sounding like a knock, but again I'll do so with the acknowledgment that obviously you and dug make it work.

But ... 

it seems like you employ these tools in a reactionary fashion, rather than proactively.

In other words, from what I gather, you consider these conflict resolution tools once you are in the thick of conflict. Whereas if they are incorporated as part of active change and interaction ... then they become a deterrent to conflict in the first place, no? 

Again, using your fortress analogy for your husband, if 'empathy' were his default setting, would you have to stand outside the gates shouting to be let in, in the first place?

Which is why I wondered about dug's 'default' setting. Is it indifference, empathy, or lack of awareness? Not all guys or women for that matter are empathetic. If he's willing to work at being empathetic, as you point out ... that's an acknowledgment of his investment in you and the relationship.

And ironically, means that YOU have the emotional power in any given interaction. I just don't think you see it that way ... and that appears to be your default setting.

As to the emasculation piece, again, I fall back on a simple truth; you can't emasculate me if I really don't give a sh!t about what you have to say. 

I don't know that most people would define that as 'emotional strength'.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I don't think she emasculated him, Deejo. Then again, I don't think anything but self-emasculation is possible. I think she did him a favor.


So wait. You can be completely unhinged that he did not write you a budget, never occurring to you that you could do that. Because you are female.And he cannot be unhinged. Because he is male.

Got it.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Cosmos, either person can leave at any time, for any reason. They may end up taking the same possible lack of agency into the next relationship.
> 
> I don't see it as a lack of agency, JLD. I see it as personal responsibility and healthy boundaries.
> 
> While the conflict is happening, they are both losing out. Why not consider using all possible resources to fix it?
> 
> Indeed. But it takes two to cooperate... If one person chooses to continually operate from a position of anger and lack of control, the other person can choose to not cooperate with that.
> 
> Losing control of one's power may have more than one definition. And it is certainly a choice how to use one's power.
> 
> If a person can handle the emotion, and is able to show empathy, and thus defuse the conflict, why not? Is leaving the room a commandment from the marriage gods?  From what I read on TAM, it looks like it.
> 
> I don't know about the 'marriage gods' but, personally, I will eventually remove myself rather than continue to indulge someone else's bad behaviour.
> 
> If you make your reaction dependent on their action, you will forever be controlled by them. Developing the ability to hear beyond the words, and see into the heart can give you freedom. What they do no longer dictates what you do.
> 
> We are not responsible for other people's actions. We are only responsible for our reaction to it, and sometimes it is best to remove oneself rather than engage. That way we are neither controlled or controlling.
> 
> Once someone has lost control sufficiently to start calling the other person names, healthy communication is temporarily suspended.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Curious. Why don't you use the quote feature?


----------



## BaxJanson

Words are knives.

A person may not mind pain being done by them - may be able to ignore it, to let it pass, to shrug it off. But when wielded with intent, they do damage. A little bit. A cut. A scratch. Then another.

A person will heal, given time between scratches. But the healing will never be the same. Scar tissue, callouses, nerve damage is done. What is left after is not the same as what came before. It is... insensate. Tough. Unfeeling. Callous.

I applaud your devotion to personal responsibility. I fail to see you applying to yourself. 'If everyone else is responsible for themselves, then I can do what I want - any pain or damage is them, not me.' But it requires everyone around you to be flawless in defense, or else they will take damage.

Or, instead of requiring everyone to take absolute responsibility for their reactions to your actions, you could start by taking responsibility for your own actions. Speak with gentleness and love - you can still be honest.

"The words of the reckless pierce like swords, but the tongue of the wise brings healing."


----------



## that_girl

Death by 1000 cuts.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Jld...as you can see from nearly every response on here.. for the last 10 pages or so...this behavior is not acceptable in the realm of normal marital conflict...calling your husband _____ , ____ and _______ even if your H doesn't seem to mind it!!..which is a 1st ever admitted on TAM !! He's not threatened by it. He's secure in himself. He doesn't hear my words and take them in. He looks past them to the feeling behind them. My words do not define him. He defines himself. He does not give me his power.
> 
> Racer said in the ending of his post .....
> 
> Do you believe some of this has happened with your husband -due to the consistent tantrums throughout the years? What was your beginnings like.. surely you didn't feel early on that -you had to jump through these sort of hoops ...sling shot in hand aiming at the fortress window...for him to give you eye contact , take a moment & listen to your concerns....before you started feeling like this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Just wondering if things were different when he was home more, when he had more TIME ?? I have always been transparent with him, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I don't hold back in any way. I am a passionate person, I guess.
> 
> Have you ever sat him down, asking these sort of questions....How you can feel more heard/ cared for ....(as you feel this is what can alleviate your blowing up on him?)...so he can work with you to find more *healthy ways *to express he is there for you, he is listening.....which will make it easier for you to not go off like a stick of dynamite ? He knows what I want/need. He is just not always willing to give it. He would rather do things the way he wants, and suffer the consequences, I guess. Because to him, the consequences are not a big deal. And he doesn't understand why they are for other men.
> 
> I really don't think many women would be able to live as you do.. there is a tremendous amount of pressure on you and I don't feel you are getting your emotional needs met hardly at all.. I think I have great emotional needs. Dh probably tries harder than most men would be able to, and certainly more than many would want to. I am always seeking greater closeness, greater communion with him.
> 
> Going by this list in "*His Needs/ Her Needs*"...can you explain to us where you feel you need more... I probably could never get enough of the top three, lol. Honestly, I ask him for words of affirmation, for a hug or to sit on his lap, and I am always begging for conversation. I love our discussions. And I think they are one of the top things he loves about me.
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to take a guess that you are lacking greatly in *>> * Admiration (also explained as "Respect"), Affection, conversation, recreational companionship and even in Openness, as you have said he is not near as transparent as you are... Am I way off?? I am demanding, SA. I give it all and I expect to get it all, too. I don't hold back in my marriage. I am always seeking to please, and I apologize for my shortcomings. Dh is not planning on another wife, and I want to fulfill him as much as possible.
> 
> You've been together 20 plus years, this is your life..you have built a family together.... I know you are not going anywhere and you love him.. I guess in your world, these other things (Financial support, Family commitment, etc) outweight the rest..... just as with you.. all you do for the family (home schooling , Faithful wife /Mother handling the fort at home 22 days out of the month in his absence) outweighs your tantrums and name calling ..in his world.. For sure. We are all in, until death, I guess. What is best for the family has been the theme. I just wanted a little more of him for myself, and that has caused some frustration.
> 
> I can't say that I never say No to dh, but I really hate to do that. Even when I did not want to do things, or they were hard, I did them, like moving to France and India. And I am so glad I said Yes! We learned so much from those experiences.
> 
> I want to give to him as much as I can. I feel like he has given much to me.
> 
> A friend told me that I have made tremendous deposits in dh's emotional bank account, by doing the things he wanted, basically giving my life to him, and the outbursts are like withdrawing pennies.
> 
> Dh told me has always felt deeply respected by me. I could not respect him if he did not earn it. And when my respect is shaken, I certainly let him know!
> 
> If you and him could write out how you'd envision a better conflict style..meeting each other half way.. if he is too busy in a moment, to give you a time that he will be ALL EARS...and hold to that (for instance)...and for you.. to learn to calm the raging beast with other distractions when you feel this is rising within you...Music, read something. ..write in a journal !.... I don't know.. call a friend (vent!)... Post on TAM ! This would be something to work on...there is always challenges in our marriages...We are going to talk about it this weekend. The thing is, SA, for dh, the outbursts are the Budget discussion all over again . . . not really a problem, in his eyes. But a huge problem for the folks on TAM!


----------



## that_girl

If your words fall on deaf ears, why continue to use them? I don't know what kind of words you use though.

I am a passionate person, but I don't go into tantrums or hurtful words.


----------



## NobodySpecial

that_girl said:


> If your words fall on deaf ears, why continue to use them? I don't know what kind of words you use though.
> 
> I am a passionate person, but I don't go into tantrums or hurtful words.


Yah this whole men and emasculating chest hair thing basically boils down to neither of them knowing how to speak to each other.


----------



## norajane

jld said:


> And then he said that he really did not think it was on me. He said if he would listen at the beginning, it would not go that far.


So why doesn't he listen to you? Seems that would be the easiest resolution. So why won't he listen to you?

He doesn't respect you and your thoughts/requests?
He doesn't care what you think/want?
He thinks he knows better?
He doesn't take you seriously?
He likes your tantrums?

Why doesn't he listen?


----------



## that_girl

Maybe he doesn't listen because he tunes out tantrums and hurtful things.

I know I wouldn't listen to someone if they just "went off" and started telling me mean stuff. I am good at tuning out.


----------



## Cosmos

that_girl said:


> If your words fall on deaf ears, why continue to use them? I don't know what kind of words you use though.
> 
> I am a passionate person, but I don't go into tantrums or hurtful words.


:iagree:

If I have something I need to discuss with SO, I tell him that something's troubling me and I need to discuss it with him. This is then an indication that we both need to listen and be heard....

It's pointless for me to try to do this whilst I'm angry, because by then I'm no longer thinking logically. Taking time out, though, helps me to regroup and communicate with him more effectively.


----------



## that_girl

Was this WHOLE THREAD created so you could feel justified or excused for treating your husband like crap? Implying that if he gets hurt or feels like crap from your treatment, that it's all on him? That you hold no responsibility?

Wow.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

that_girl said:


> Maybe he doesn't listen because he tunes out tantrums and hurtful things.
> 
> I know I wouldn't listen to someone if they just "went off" and started telling me mean stuff. I am good at tuning out.


:iagree: Dh has a very low tolerance for people going off on him and throwing tantrums. His mother does sh*t tests and has frequent tantrums as a way to get his attention. It drives him further from her. 

I tune out tantrums from adults too. We just don't have time for those kinds of games and crappy behavior in our life. 

Also,being female does not equal being emotionally unstable and unable to control your passionate side but some would love for everyone to believe that it does.

If you treat someone poorly that's YOUR problem to fix not theirs.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cosmos said:


> If I have something I need to discuss with SO, I tell him that something's troubling me and I need to discuss it with him. This is then an indication that we both need to listen and be heard....


 See I am thinking her Husband is NOT giving her the consideration that your SO is....it really sounds to me like he ignores her trying to talk much of the time.. why isn't anyone harping in this?? 

This is HUGE... it's a part of the puzzle..that if not corrected from his end.. nothing can really go forth in a good way.. Oh she can stop her tantrums ...(and do some of those things we are all suggesting here).. but there is a possibility ...if he still doesn't bend more on HIS END... she will then start to internalize her pain & anger.....resentment will build to mountain proportions... she will shut down.. really this is what the majority of people do in their marriages.. then she'll realize he is not such a great guy after all.. Respect greatly lost...

I think by her blowing up, she looks at herself very badly.. then can still appreciate him somehow, feeling he is so forgiving and a good man, because he doesn't hold it against her... 

Does this make any sense to anyone? I am just thinking out loud. 

This idea that he completely doesn't take her anger seriously in the moment ..I feel this is because he has become desensitized to it...the problem with this is...if a man does this enough, he may start to rationalize ....other areas where he doesn't have to take her seriously... a very bad thing...

In no way am I defending tantrum throwing....I just feel HE has work to do in this also...(2 working together for a shared goal).... Otherwise, for your sanity Jld.. you are going to need other outlets in your life...as to not be so tied to him... less emotionally dependent on this man..... start doing more things for yourself when he is away.. Get out more..It's almost like you are single /with Children -yet you have someone who provides for all of you..and he's there for you -when it's convenient for him. 

It's just a feeling I get - I want to be wrong on this..that I am way off the mark...but I think that's how I would feel. Ya know.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Emasculating a man? Is that even possible?*



SimplyAmorous said:


> See I am thinking her Husband is NOT giving her the consideration that your SO is....it really sounds to me like he ignores her trying to talk much of the time.. why isn't anyone harping in this??
> 
> This is HUGE... it's a part of the puzzle..that if not corrected from his end.. nothing can really go forth in a good way.. Oh she can stop her tantrums ...(and do some of those things we are all suggesting here).. but there is a possibility ...if he still doesn't bend more on HIS END... she will then start to internalize her pain & anger.....resentment will build to mountain proportions... she will shut down.. really this is what the majority of people do in their marriages.. then she'll realize he is not such a great guy after all.. Respect greatly lost...
> 
> I think by her blowing up, she looks at herself very badly.. then can still appreciate him somehow, feeling he is so forgiving and a good man, because he doesn't hold it against her...
> 
> Does this make any sense to anyone? I am just thinking out loud.


What I've been pondering all along.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> See I am thinking her Husband is NOT giving her the consideration that your SO is....it really sounds to me like he ignores her trying to talk much of the time.. why isn't anyone harping in this??
> 
> This is HUGE... it's a part of the puzzle..that if not corrected from his end.. nothing can really go forth in a good way.. Oh she can stop her tantrums ...(and do some of those things we are all suggesting here).. but there is a possibility ...if he still doesn't bend more on HIS END... she will then start to internalize her pain & anger.....resentment will build to mountain proportions... she will shut down.. really this is what the majority of people do in their marriages.. then she'll realize he is not such a great guy after all.. Respect greatly lost...
> 
> * I think by her blowing up, she looks at herself very badly.. then can still appreciate him somehow, feeling he is so forgiving and a good man, because he doesn't hold it against her... *
> 
> Does this make any sense to anyone? I am just thinking out loud.
> 
> *This idea that he completely doesn't take her anger seriously in the moment ..I feel this is because he has become desensitized to it...the problem with this is...if a man does this enough, he may start to rationalize ....other areas where he doesn't have to take her seriously... a very bad thing...*
> 
> In no way am I defending tantrum throwing....I just feel HE has work to do in this also...(2 working together for a shared goal).... Otherwise, for your sanity Jld.. you are going to need other outlets in your life...as to not be so tied to him... less emotionally dependent on this man..... start doing more things for yourself when he is away.. Get out more..It's almost like you are single /with Children -yet you have someone who provides for all of you..and he's there for you -when it's convenient for him.
> 
> It's just a feeling I get - I want to be wrong on this..that I am way off the mark...but I think that's how I would feel. Ya know.


My thoughts exactly, especially the highlighted part.

I remember attending a marriage retreat some years ago, and one of the counselors told me that each marriage had it's own peculiar dynamic. Not just relationship issues but peripheral issues that in turn affect the relationship , positively or negatively.
She said that even bickering and arguing was a valid form of communication and interaction.
Even though it is not the ideal , a couple can understand each other ,eventually grow and change that dynamic.
What is important is identifying the real source of the communication issue , and dealing with it.
Identifying the source and dealing with it isn't_ that _simple for everyone as we believe.
Some relationships are more complicated.

She said the real problem starts when one partner shuts off in that area , and the domino effect takes place.


----------



## jld

I have to catch up on the posts, but I just read part of your last post to dh (he called for a minute), SA, and he said you are right that this is on him, that he needs to listen. He told me that since he is gone a lot, he expects issues. And he did say that it is a risk, that bit you mentioned about just taking me for granted. 

Why wouldn't he? If your spouse always did what you wanted, with a little verbal fuss that, because of your temperament, didn't bother you, wouldn't it be easy to fall into taking your spouse for granted, too?


----------



## NobodySpecial

SimplyAmorous said:


> See I am thinking her Husband is NOT giving her the consideration that your SO is....it really sounds to me like he ignores her trying to talk much of the time.. why isn't anyone harping in this??
> 
> This is HUGE... it's a part of the puzzle..that if not corrected from his end.. nothing can really go forth in a good way..


Nope. You are spot on.


----------



## John Lee

jld said:


> I have to catch up on the posts, but I just read part of your last post to dh (he called for a minute), SA, and he said you are right that this is on him, that he needs to listen. He told me that since he is gone a lot, he expects issues. And he did say that it is a risk, that bit you mentioned about just taking me for granted.
> 
> Why wouldn't he? If your spouse always did what you wanted, with a little verbal fuss that, because of your temperament, didn't bother you, wouldn't it be easy to fall into taking your spouse for granted, too?


I don't really have a problem with how you and your h manage your relationship, as long as it works for both of you. I only have a problem when you start lecturing everyone else as though your marriage is a model for everyone. I don't think I would be happy in the kind of marriage you have, because I have certain differences from your husband. I'm not really interested in how you think I should be as a man, and I think most other men here aren't either. We didn't ask.


----------



## NobodySpecial

John Lee said:


> I don't really have a problem with how you and your h manage your relationship, as long as it works for both of you. I only have a problem when you start lecturing everyone else as though your marriage is a model for everyone. I don't think I would be happy in the kind of marriage you have, because I have certain differences from your husband. I'm not really interested in how you think I should be as a man, and I think most other men here aren't either. We didn't ask.


This. I sure as heck hate the things she claims women are like too. Hey, genders CAN get along!


----------



## Racer

SimplyAmorous said:


> See I am thinking her Husband is NOT giving her the consideration that your SO is....it really sounds to me like he ignores her trying to talk much of the time.. why isn't anyone harping in this?? .


Some of it depends on what is being said and how often… I know my wife, each and every day brings up two points: 1) Her day at work sucked and 2) she has a headache (or some other body issue). Decades, every single day. 

So when the tune changes to “you aren’t there for me emotionally and don’t seem to cut me any slack when I don’t feel good” I’m not exactly on-board with changing my ways because that would mean each and every day I treat her like she’s not feeling well and had a bad day. On top of it, I can’t make her work day better, I can’t make her headache go away. All I can do is take it into consideration. And I do: I consider it to be her ‘normal’ day, so I tune it out until I sense a change. 

So I guess my question would be whether it’s normal daily venting or nagging. Or is it that deeper kind of expressing yourself to your husband that he tunes out?


----------



## Cosmos

SimplyAmorous said:


> See I am thinking her Husband is NOT giving her the consideration that your SO is....it really sounds to me like he ignores her trying to talk much of the time.. why isn't anyone harping in this??
> 
> This is HUGE... it's a part of the puzzle..that if not corrected from his end.. nothing can really go forth in a good way.. Oh she can stop her tantrums ...(and do some of those things we are all suggesting here).. but there is a possibility ...if he still doesn't bend more on HIS END... she will then start to internalize her pain & anger.....resentment will build to mountain proportions... she will shut down.. really this is what the majority of people do in their marriages.. then she'll realize he is not such a great guy after all.. Respect greatly lost...
> 
> I think by her blowing up, she looks at herself very badly.. then can still appreciate him somehow, feeling he is so forgiving and a good man, because he doesn't hold it against her...
> 
> Does this make any sense to anyone? I am just thinking out loud.


Yes, it does make sense. 

If this is the case, I'd say they're caught in a catch 22 situation, with JLD's H possibly just hearing 'noise' when she tries to communicate with him. Something has to change - on both sides - and as JLD is the one who is most affected by this impasse, I'd say it has to start with her.



> This idea that he completely doesn't take her anger seriously in the moment ..I feel this is because he has become desensitized to it...the problem with this is...if a man does this enough, he may start to rationalize ....other areas where he doesn't have to take her seriously... a very bad thing...


It sounds like her H's default setting has become to tune out whenever he hears what he perceives as 'noise.' Somehow, JLD has to change this dynamic by being more assertive when there is an issue and by clearly telling him that she needs his full attention in order for them to both address it. She then needs to train herself to stay in her adult ego state (logical) throughout the conversation, and they both need to maintain eye contact and focus on listening and being heard. The wooden spoon method can be useful for this. Whoever holds the spoon gets to speak!

If they make it a habit to start communicating about difficult issues this way, it could hopefully become the norm for them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Racer said:


> Some of it depends on what is being said and how often… I know my wife, each and every day brings up two points: 1) Her day at work sucked and 2) she has a headache (or some other body issue). Decades, every single day.
> 
> So when the tune changes to “you aren’t there for me emotionally and don’t seem to cut me any slack when I don’t feel good” I’m not exactly on-board with changing my ways because that would mean each and every day I treat her like she’s not feeling well and had a bad day. On top of it, I can’t make her work day better, I can’t make her headache go away. All I can do is take it into consideration. And I do: I consider it to be her ‘normal’ day, so I tune it out until I sense a change.
> 
> So I guess my question would be whether it’s normal daily venting or nagging. Or is it that deeper kind of expressing yourself to your husband that he tunes out?


Normal every day...Not at all....HE IS ONLY HOME WITH HER 8 DAYS A MONTH.. and his primary focus is on the kids.... if people here do not realize how little time these 2 have with each other...you will never be able to understand JLD.. this is not the normal marital situation.. 

I am with my husband every day...really he puts me before the kids (isn't this what we advocate on TAM)...If I acted like what you just described, he'd want to throw me over the freaking cliff somewhere, I get that.. That's hard for a man to take.. 

She misses him... they've never went on a vacation -just the 2 of them... Many things the rest of us enjoy on a daily basis & pretty much take for granted.. she doesn't have in her life... 

It's just something to keep in mind....


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> So, here is what I have been trying to determine since you started the conversation;
> 
> Whose job is it to enter the empathy, and active listening launch codes? Who is able to do it? Who is going to benefit from it?
> 
> Instead of assigning blame, and feeling self-righteous, how about just getting the job done?
> 
> Don't know how to frame this without it sounding like a knock, but again I'll do so with the acknowledgment that obviously you and dug make it work. Please do not worry about hurting my feelings. Speaking your truth is more important than anyone's feelings, though some people are able to be gentle as well as truthful.
> 
> The truth hurts, but we can benefit so much if we have the maturity to hear it.
> 
> And sometimes we realize what we thought was truth really wasn't. But we could not see that before someone challenged us.
> 
> But ...
> 
> it seems like you employ these tools in a reactionary fashion, rather than proactively.That is what I have been saying. Empathy is not enough. Dug and I need an action plan, and we need to not just draw it up, but use it.
> 
> In other words, from what I gather, you consider these conflict resolution tools once you are in the thick of conflict. Whereas if they are incorporated as part of active change and interaction ... then they become a deterrent to conflict in the first place, no? Absolutely!
> 
> Again, using your fortress analogy for your husband, if 'empathy' were his default setting, would you have to stand outside the gates shouting to be let in, in the first place? Exactly. He is not naturally empathetic. He is an engineer, and a farm boy before that. He is used to hard work. It is not the words of a woman, or probably even a man, that are going to get to him. You have to hit him with his son's cancer to hurt him.
> 
> Which is why I wondered about dug's 'default' setting. Is it indifference, empathy, or lack of awareness? Not all guys or women for that matter are empathetic. If he's willing to work at being empathetic, as you point out ... that's an acknowledgment of his investment in you and the relationship. Sometimes I think it is lack of awareness. He can be kind of clueless. Not much bothers him, so he assumes it doesn't bother anyone else, either. And I feel stupid sometimes for bringing up things that I guess should not bother me, either, but do.
> 
> And ironically, means that YOU have the emotional power in any given interaction. I just don't think you see it that way ... and that appears to be your default setting. I am the communication leader, that's for sure. I think there is a lot I don't see in myself, Deejo. TAM is helping me with that.
> 
> As to the emasculation piece, again, I fall back on a simple truth; you can't emasculate me if I really don't give a sh!t about what you have to say. Yes! Don't give your power away! Decide for yourself who you are. Don't let other people's judgment of you determine it.
> 
> Listen to what they say, if you are strong enough, because there might be something you can learn in there. But let the falsehoods and mean-spirited remarks fall away. That is the other person's insecurity speaking. You don't have to embrace it.
> 
> And be happy you are not them. It is their unhappiness or limited capacity for empathy that makes them be unkind.
> 
> I don't know that most people would define that as 'emotional strength' How would you define emotional strength, Deejo?.


----------



## Cosmos

SimplyAmorous said:


> Normal every day...Not at all....HE IS ONLY HOME WITH HER 8 DAYS A MONTH.. and his primary focus is on the kids.... if people here do not realize how little time these 2 have with each other...you will never be able to understand JLD.. this is not the normal marital situation..
> 
> I am with my husband every day...really he puts me before the kids (isn't this what we advocate on TAM)...If I acted like what you just described, he'd want to throw me over the freaking cliff somewhere, I get that.. That's hard for a man to take..
> 
> She misses him... they've never went on a vacation -just the 2 of them... Many things the rest of us enjoy on a daily basis & pretty much take for granted.. she doesn't have in her life...
> 
> It's just something to keep in mind....


_8 days as month_? Is this a permanent thing? I couldn't survive in a part-time relationship like that...

Context is everything...


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> Was this WHOLE THREAD created so you could feel justified or excused for treating your husband like crap? Implying that if he gets hurt or feels like crap from your treatment, that it's all on him? That you hold no responsibility?
> 
> Wow.


It was started because I have read several times here about men being emasculated by women. I did not understand that. To me, if a man feels emasculated, he has allowed himself to feel that way. He has given away his power. 

If he does not feel good with her, and they can't work it out, they don't have to stay together. He doesn't have to blame her.

The thread has taken some turns, though. This is one of the turns. I am sure there will be others.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> How would you define emotional strength, Deejo?.


There are different kinds I think.

Not allowing your emotions to overwhelm you in the face of adversity. 

Doing or saying the very thing that you are most afraid to do or say.

Putting the feelings and needs of those you love before your own.

Doing the right thing, when the right thing will cost you.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SimplyAmorous said:


> Normal every day...Not at all....HE IS ONLY HOME WITH HER 8 DAYS A MONTH.. and his primary focus is on the kids.... if people here do not realize how little time these 2 have with each other...you will never be able to understand JLD.. this is not the normal marital situation..
> 
> I am with my husband every day...really he puts me before the kids (isn't this what we advocate on TAM)...If I acted like what you just described, he'd want to throw me over the freaking cliff somewhere, I get that.. That's hard for a man to take..
> 
> She misses him... they've never went on a vacation -just the 2 of them... Many things the rest of us enjoy on a daily basis & pretty much take for granted.. she doesn't have in her life...
> 
> It's just something to keep in mind....



Somebody could probably help her if she would ask cogent questions instead of this men are this and women are that tripe.


----------



## jld

We did have two vacations together without the kids. In 2005, we went for 3 days to the Czech Republic, while the kids stayed in France with dh's parents. Then in March of this year, dh took me to CA for a few days. That was just great, that trip in March. I was really struggling emotionally in Jan and Feb, and just that time together in March really made me feel better.

To dh, when you have kids, they are the priority. When the kids are grown, then you can go back to each other being the priority.


----------



## that_girl

Wrong.

Your spouse has to be a priority or when the kids are grown and gone, you won't know or like each other.

Time with kids is important too but they also have to see mom and dad put each other first.

Children don't rule the world.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Is he your priority jld?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cosmos said:


> *8 days as month? Is this a permanent thing? I couldn't survive in a part-time relationship like that...
> 
> Context is everything..*.


In her "Husband key to long term success" thread, she said 4 days a month if I am recalling right...my mouth was hanging on the ground.. but she has since said it is about 8 days a month.. When Avon Pink entered that thread.. I had to agree with her assessment of what was really happening in regards to these tantrums...(post # 132)



> * Avon Pink said* :, it is kind of obvious you put more faith and trust in your husband than you do yourself. While I think that is sweet, it also worries me. When you place this child like adoration onto another, when you give up all control, you place a tremendous burden on the other person. I spoke of this before and the situation you describe above, with your isolation and commitment to raising your children in the way you and your husband felt was best, actually he felt it was best and you went along with it, is the perfect example of that burden.
> 
> You were put in an untenable situation. You looked to your husband to lead, well the burden of leadership is ensure the safety and well being of everyone they lead. Within the home, that leadership also includes relative happiness.
> 
> You were cut off from all support, raising little ones who demand every bit of your attention and energy. They leave you totally drained, as you know.
> 
> ...You didn't express your needs very well, it appears. Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't have a nervous break down or go into a serious depression....
> 
> I guess a huge portion of being able to trust in a marriage is also being able to trust yourself to know what you need, your partner to trust you to know what you need and to communicate it. If your husband is going to lead, you have to be able to speak up for yourself and to know that there are some times when you have to say "no, this is too much I need a break!"
> 
> They weren't temper tantrums you had, they were complete emotional break downs of a woman over taxed, over wrought, who needed, desperately so, some time away and alone! Time to revisit and call them what they really were.
> 
> That is the burden of leadership too. To realize the mistakes you've made and take steps to not repeat them, after a hearty apology and a trip to the islands....:smthumbup: His mistakes were honest mistakes, but they remain mistakes and lapses in caring for you.



Me too Cosmos, I'd NEVER be able to handle a relationship like this, I say constantly a Workaholic would be a deal breaker for me...(but for some it works, I guess)... I'd rather be dirt poor / scrap being a SAHM , working full time along with him...so I wouldn't be clutching my pillow every night alone...Skyping would not be cutting it.. Temporary would be one thing.. it hasn't been temporary for them for a long long time... but she can answer this for herself.

Glad to hear you've had a couple Vacations JLD!

When I allowed the kids to be more of my focus - my H suffered some for that, the fact we always did everything together anyway, it wasn't so bad for us... but it could have been better.. we're emotionally closer now...and this hasn't hurt the children at all.


----------



## Lyris

Emotional strength is allowing yourself to be vulnerable. If you are truly unable to be hurt - really really hurt - by what the person you are supposed to love says or does to you, you are either unable to feel deeply about them, or not allowing yourself to feel deeply about them.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> We did have two vacations together without the kids. In 2005, we went for 3 days to the Czech Republic, while the kids stayed in France with dh's parents. Then in March of this year, dh took me to CA for a few days. That was just great, that trip in March. I was really struggling emotionally in Jan and Feb, and just that time together in March really made me feel better.
> 
> To dh, when you have kids, they are the priority. When the kids are grown, then you can go back to each other being the priority.


Frankly, JLD, no wonder you get emotional... I'm sorry if I've been a little harsh on you. I didn't know your circumstances.

I do believe that we have to make our young children a priority but, personally, I believe we should put one another first and then jointly put the children's needs above our own. IMO, no husband or wife should ever feel that they're in second place to their kids.


----------



## jld

I think it is hard to say everything about a marriage on a message board. We are used to our lives, and we forget other people do not know the basics about us. Dh is home 8-10 days a month. He is looking for a foreign assignment, so that we can live together again, but we don't know when/if that will happen.

Dd19 says that dh and I are independent, unconventional people. She says that ds12 is just like his dad: no emotion. He is just great with computers, and really all things technical. And we homeschool in a very freestyle way, so he has ample time to explore his interests. 

I do idealize my husband. He has told me many times I need to stop that, that he is not a perfect man, and that I need to see reality. This thread is really helping that along. 

That was an interesting post, Caroline, about the pill taking power away from men. I would not call it emasculation, as I think only the man can do that to himself. But it did take his power over his wife away, I would agree. It was women's _liberation_, after all.


----------



## that_girl

Whaa? :scratchhead:

lol

(in regards to TTL)


----------



## jld

AP was right in that post, about those "emotional breakdowns." I remember crying when I read that. I felt like someone was considering _me_.


----------



## sidney2718

jld said:


> I don't think she emasculated him, Deejo. Then again, I don't think anything but self-emasculation is possible. I think she did him a favor.


For me, emasculation is a process, not a simple task. I've seen men worn down by their wives or their bosses making them meek and fearful and wanting to run from their emasculator's presence.

That's my view.

It is also my impression that this conversation, and it has been one despite its occasional rough edges, is too general and too vague. People continue to talk past each other... :scratchhead:


----------



## jld

sidney2718 said:


> For me, emasculation is a process, not a simple task. I've seen men worn down by their wives or their bosses making them meek and fearful and wanting to run from their emasculator's presence.
> 
> That's my view.
> 
> It is also my impression that this conversation, and it has been one despite its occasional rough edges, is too general and too vague. People continue to talk past each other... :scratchhead:


Do you think men have a hand in their own emasculation, sidney?


----------



## sidney2718

jld said:


> We did have two vacations together without the kids. In 2005, we went for 3 days to the Czech Republic, while the kids stayed in France with dh's parents.


Aha! Dug is really French! That explains his relatively obscure TAM name. I've been wondering for months. :scratchhead:


----------



## jld

sidney2718 said:


> Aha! Dug is really French! That explains his relatively obscure TAM name. I've been wondering for months. :scratchhead:


Lol. Someone asked if it were his real name once. _Non. _

It would be pronounced Doog in French. Just fyi.


----------



## sidney2718

Threetimesalady said:


> IMO, the emasculation of man started with the birth of the pill...This would make it the early 1960's....Before this we women (if we wanted to be in control) would use a diaphragm to insure the no pregnancy level in sex....These could be a real pain in the neck and they were seldom used...I know as I used one after we were married and was pregnant within 40 days...After that my husband used a condom and it was that way until he had his vasectomy immediately after our third child was born...In all my married life I have never used the pill...
> 
> I believe the pill has given women a new domination over man....Even if she is married she does not fear pregnancy from another man...She is more ready to have sex with other men as she grows....Cheating is more easy and all the rules of relationships can and often are broken...To her a man is readily available...He, too, has changed...In many ways lost respect for what used to be...He becomes the stud and we are the winners as we can just open our legs and be satisfied...Or can we?....
> 
> I know a different world than most of you women do....I love my world...Oh, I get mad at him every once in a while, but he is still my lord and master...He was and is the one who owns me body and soul and will be until the day I die...
> 
> What I speak about has traveled all the way down through the family life chain...Children having children...Many have different fathers...He's not there as why should he be...He doesn't even know if he is the Father...And we can sing "You've Come A Long Way Baby"...but, what have we accomplished????????...
> 
> I lived in a different culture than women do nowadays...and I thank God that I did everyday....Take care...Caroline.....


Very poignant. I grew up in roughly the same time period. My wife used a diaphragm and had no troubles with it. But I feel that all in all things are better now. Yes, society has changed and things have not yet settled down. My wife and I raised our daughters NOT to be owned by anybody and to be always capable of earning their own living. I think we were right.


----------



## sidney2718

jld said:


> Do you think men have a hand in their own emasculation, sidney?


Since they are the ones being changed, yes I do think so. People vary.

That said, emasculaters can be male as well as female. It is what is behind that alpha/beta classification some on TAM enjoy doing.


----------



## jld

sidney2718 said:


> Since they are the ones being changed, yes I do think so. People vary.
> 
> That said, emasculaters can be male as well as female. It is what is behind that alpha/beta classification some on TAM enjoy doing.


Could you elaborate, please? It was an interesting reply.


----------



## sidney2718

jld said:


> Lol. Someone asked if it were his real name once. _Non. _
> 
> It would be pronounced Doog in French. Just fyi.


Only for short. The name _du Guesclin_ is rather famous among medieval military historians. And I fully understand why he chose it.


----------



## sidney2718

jld said:


> Could you elaborate, please? It was an interesting reply.


Alpha/beta? Some folks like to classify husbands as "alphas" or "betas". Alphas take no nonsense from their wives, kick them to the curb if they even look at another man, and every so often feel the need to beat their chests with their fists while emitting jungle howls.

Betas, on the other hand, are considered emasculated men in that they will consider reconciliation with a wife that had an affair, learn how to change diapers, sometimes give in to their wives, and so on.

Yes, I am using a bit of satire, but I think that's (relatively) safe here.


----------



## Duguesclin

I feel I need to give some input to all the comments I have read.

First of all, JLD shows and demands total transparency. I hope it is very obvious in these threads. Very few people are capable of this. I do not spend a huge amount of time on TAM, but, from what I see, someone will come on and complain about his or her spouse and very seldom try to understand how they contributed to the problem.

JLD describes how she handles life. Please keep it mind she writes based on her environment and her background. You read it with yours. So it is a major source of misunderstanding.

On the tantrums, they are few and far between and when they happen, they are short lived. I am as guilty for not listening as she is for using bad words. We are not perfect. I prefer the words to the silent treatment. We all have issues and it needs to come out. For us, that is how it works and I am fine with it.

The kids see the arguments. They see what works and what does not work. But most of all, they see things progressing. 

We do not set boundaries, we stretch them. Boundaries come naturally. What we want is to push them.

And yes, life is intense. There are demands made all over the place. So there are frictions and they appear in different ways. We do our best to satisfy everyone, but sometime one is shorted and there is an issue to address. 

For us, life is a constant change. In our family, some are right now in Europe, some in the US, and I will be in Asia later this month. Sunday morning I woke up on the left side of my wife. When I go home Thursday night I might fall asleep on the left side. We live in change and we embrace it. And this might be what some people find hardest to comprehend.


----------



## jld

Does Dug sound defensive? Or maybe protective of me? I kind of wondered about that too when I read it.

Dug can handle whatever you want to tell him, directly. Don't be afraid to share your feelings. We learn more from straight up speech than nuance. I am not sure we understand nuance, anyway. 

Please don't feel you need our approval in any way. You don't. We are all just sharing our opinions here.


----------



## john117

COGypsy said:


> Lots of people ask themselves why people behave like they do and spend their entire lives looking for reasons why people do what they do and help people figure out their own motivations.
> 
> 
> 
> We call them psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers....and probably many other titles describing that sort of job.
> 
> 
> 
> That's all well and good for a job, but when it comes to a home life, I want a reasonably self-actualized adult partner. Not a science project.



With the right training even science project spouses can be entertaining 

I'm speaking from experience as one of the listed professions above married to a Manhattan Project's worth of a wife...

=======================

Regarding the thread, one needs to distinguish between the important stuff, the stuff that is not important but makes us feel good, and the non important stuff. The deal breakers vs the irrelevant.

The first key to success is to frame decisions or problems in such a way as to make any decision or solution a fait accompli. 

If the spouses want to fight over who emasculates who, well, good luck with that. 

The second key to success is to really know your spouse and of needed play to (or against) their fears, beliefs, culture, etc. If you can't predict your spouse's reaction to a tee after a decade or two of marriage then your spouse is either a non deterministic BSC person or you aren't paying attention...


----------



## mablenc

Threetimesalady said:


> IMO, the emasculation of man started with the birth of the pill...This would make it the early 1960's....Before this we women (if we wanted to be in control) would use a diaphragm to insure the no pregnancy level in sex....These could be a real pain in the neck and they were seldom used...I know as I used one after we were married and was pregnant within 40 days...After that my husband used a condom and it was that way until he had his vasectomy immediately after our third child was born...In all my married life I have never used the pill...
> 
> I believe the pill has given women a new domination over man....Even if she is married she does not fear pregnancy from another man...She is more ready to have sex with other men as she grows....Cheating is more easy and all the rules of relationships can and often are broken...To her a man is readily available...He, too, has changed...In many ways lost respect for what used to be...He becomes the stud and we are the winners as we can just open our legs and be satisfied...Or can we?....
> 
> I know a different world than most of you women do....I love my world...Oh, I get mad at him every once in a while, but he is still my lord and master...He was and is the one who owns me body and soul and will be until the day I die...
> 
> What I speak about has traveled all the way down through the family life chain...Children having children...Many have different fathers...He's not there as why should he be...He doesn't even know if he is the Father...And we can sing "You've Come A Long Way Baby"...but, what have we accomplished????????...
> 
> I lived in a different culture than women do nowadays...and I thank God that I did everyday....Take care...Caroline.....


I'll respectfully have to disagree, I don't feel birth controll emasculates a man in any way, but it as given women control in regards to having children. It was also opened up many opportunitys for women. By having lot of children, the poor were even more poor and it was a never ending ciircle. Many women also died durning child birth, especially the ones that had complications from too many pregnancies. It ages and takes a toll on womens bodies.

I think we have come along way, and have accomplished many things. I feel we can offer more to our children. Not only in a material way but, by showing them that hard work regardless of gender can take you places. By showing them that there is more to life than the home life. That one can become productive members of society. That women now have a choice in what they do with their lives. We can dream big and get there too!

I also think the progress its great for men, now they do not have to carry a burden of sustaining a family alone. Now his wife is a partner. If something happens to him, he knows his wife can take over. Now a disability is not as scary, the family can continue to have an income. 

I am glad I was born in this day and age, I am considered a life time partner and take pride that I can and have stepped up when my spouse was unable to. I'm sure my son will be as proud as my husband is of my accomplishments and the fact that I have put my family first. I'm a hard worker and I'm proud of it.

I am treated equally not less, I am a blessing to my spouse as he is to me. I don't see him as my owner but as my partner and that doesn't make me respect him any less.


----------



## jld

For sure women are in a better position than they used to be. And it should only get better, as they get more education and more money. 

My daughter was just saying today that she is glad to be young now, with so many opportunities available for women. They can really carve out whatever life they wish.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Hey Jld.. I am like your husband in one respect... I can NOT stand the Silent treatment .. I would rather have a BRAWL over that..

You get it out there.. and it gets resolved.. 

It sounds like you & Dug fit the *Volatile fighting style*.. but yet have some of the *"Hostile"* mixed in there due to the name calling.. though if your marriage exceeds the 5 to 1 ratio.... According to author John Gottman, marriage relationship researcher...he explains negative interactions are balanced by positive ones in stable marriages. The dynamics of the balance between negativity and positivity are what separate contented couples from discontented ones....


Here are the styles laid out :

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...ead-4-types-5-1-ratio-marriage-conflicts.html



> *1. *Volatile Couples
> 
> For volatile couples, conflicts erupt easily, and are fought on grand scale, but of course, making up is even greater! These couples have passionate disputes, and frequent and passionate arguments.
> 
> According to Gottman, while volatile fight openly, they argue with a lot of wit, display fondness for each other, and have a great time making up. It seems that their volcanic arguments are just a small part of their warm and loving relationship.
> 
> It appears that passion and fighting lead to better relationships which include making up, laughing, and affection. So despite the level of their argument, they still resolve their differences.
> 
> Volatile couples see themselves as equals, and exhibit individuality and independence in their marriage. They are open with each other about their positive and negative feelings, and their marriages tend to be passionate and exciting.
> 
> Gottman’s research indicates that their frequent arguments are balanced out by their positive interactions such as touching, smiling, paying complements, and laughing, and so on. So these couples stick together for the long haul.
> 
> *2. *Validating Couples
> 
> Couples who are validators, fight more politely. They are calmer during conflicts, and behave like collaborators as they work through their problems. These couples often compromise, and seek to work out their problems steadily for mutually satisfying results. The mutual respect that they have for each other, limits the amount and level of their arguments.
> 
> The emphasis is on communication and compromise, so even if they have heated discussion, they validate each other. They do this by expressing empathy for, and understanding each other’s point of view. Very evident, is their display of care, calm, and self-control even when they discussing hot topics.
> 
> Validating couples try to persuade their partners, and find a common ground in the end. During conflict, they let each other know they value their opinions, and see their emotions as legitimate. In disagreement, validating couples, let their partners know they still consider their feelings, even though they don’t necessarily agree with their position.
> 
> *3.* Conflict-Avoiding Couples
> 
> Conflict-avoiding couples rarely argue, and it seems that they avoid confrontation at all cost. When they discuss their conflicts they do so mildly and carefully, as they don’t feel that there is much to be gained from getting openly angry with each other.
> 
> These couples agree to disagree, and rarely confront their differences, that could end up in deadlocked discussions. According to Gottman, conflict-avoiding couples believe that their common ground and values are much greater than their differences, and this makes their differences insignificant or easy to accept.
> 
> These couples have an avoidant style of marriage, so rather than discussing a conflict with their partners, some spouse often try to fix the situation on their own, or hope that with the passage of time the problems will work themselves out.
> 
> *4. *Hostile Couples...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hostile couples argue often and hotly, and their arguments are caustic and harmful. Insults, putdowns, and sarcasms prevail when they argue. These couples fail to maintain the 5 to 1 ratio of positivity to negativity in their conflicts, and there is clearly more negative than positive in the relationships.
> 
> Hostile couples’ discussions are characterized by too much criticisms, contempt, defensiveness, and withdrawal. Their communication is unhealthy, they don’t listen to what each other is saying, and conflicts are dangerous to their relationships.
> 
> Some hostile couples try to actively address their disagreements, but this is usually ineffective. Others remain more detached, uninvolved, and critical of each other, with brief spurts of attack and defensiveness. These couples are meaner to each other than the other three types of couples..


----------



## john117

jld said:


> For sure women are in a better position than they used to be. And it should only get better, as they get more education and more money.
> 
> My daughter was just saying today that she is glad to be young now, with so many opportunities available for women. They can really carve out whatever life they wish.


She will change her mind if she ends up in a male dominated world of engineering... 

And this is one reason that stresses working women quite a bit. Think what it takes to be a woman with the clipboard and hard hat riding around a factory full of male heavy manufacturing workers in a golf cart... The workers were not the issue of course, most of them were super nice, but you have this feeling in the back of your head that they aren't listening because you're a woman... And you're a foreigner, and you're trying to tell them that your clipboard has the answers. 

My wife spent a decade doing just that, from high heels and 3 piece suits to bunny suit and hard hat. She made great friends and got a lot of things done, but on many occasions she felt she was not being heard because she's a woman.

Anyone who things this does not boil over at home needs to rethink. 

Likewise SAHM's may encounter the other side of this coin, with the same impact.

That's where the self confidence comes into play. Take the golf cart, drive around all the way to the lunch room and deliver yet another lecture on process improvement... Yet this boosts self ego by leaps and bounds, then the expectation grows, the ante is raised...

Let me put it another way. I'm as liberated feminism wise as the next European born and raised guy, but I think one has a better chance to succeed in a marriage if their spouse does not work (in a high pressure, high stakes job at least). Just personal view, btw, so spare me the pitchforks.


----------



## jld

Lol, SA, no fear of the silent treatment here. We sure are not a conflict-avoider couple! We must have had an ancestor or two that slipped in from Southern Europe. 

It is so calming to have the kids away for the summer. So peaceful here. I can see why moms enjoy when their kids go to school!

Oh, I have to tell you a funny story. I got a message from the kids in France this morning, and pictures of the two youngest with cuts and bruises on their faces and shoulders, and what looked to be a black eye. I thought they had been scratched by cats, or beaten up!

I called over there right away, and ds9 was laughing. He told me they had gotten some Halloween-type makeup to make themselves look like zombies. And here I was all worried! And they were of course laughing when I called. He said they knew I would call right away. Naughty kids, scaring Mom like that! 

Dug is coming home Thurs night for the 3 day weekend, so we are looking forward to that. I talked to him this evening about how maybe I should lower my expectations of time with him, and that way I would not be disappointed. He said that would not be healthy. He said I need to keep pushing him. 

I really do think I should try not to be so demanding, though, and just be grateful for what he can give. I think sometimes on TAM, there is a lot of focus on what our partner should be doing for us, instead of thankfulness for what they are already doing. I guess there is a balance needed.

You know, Dug is getting older, and he works so hard. I almost felt guilty tonight, after he read the posts I made. He works hard all day, often works more at night, or has a meeting with China late at night or early in the morning. He exercises and studies German, and then tries to spend some time talking to me. 

Remember that post you made on General today, SA, about having a grateful attitude? I think I need to keep gratitude front and center in my mind.


----------



## jld

John, I am shocked! You think it is better if a wife does not work? Liberated john?! 

J/k!


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John, I am shocked! You think it is better if a wife does not work? Liberated john?!
> 
> 
> 
> J/k!



My older girl came close to being an NBA wife last March and may yet become one .

We will find out after next season's NCAA March Madness :rofl:


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> My older girl came close to being an NBA wife last March and may yet become one .
> 
> We will find out after next season's NCAA March Madness :rofl:


That will be fun for you. You should get some good tickets! :smthumbup:


----------



## john117

Don't get me started on NCAA playoff ticket pricing practices... Esp for non students...


----------



## Eagle3

_Don't get me started on NCAA playoff ticket pricing practices... Esp for non students... _

Not to threadjack but John curious on your point here if you are talking about the NCAA basketball touney. Outside of the Final Four the other rounds are pretty easy to get tickets to and not out of this world expensive. I only say this as college basketball is my favorite thing to watch and every year me and 2 of my buddies pick a region and attend. This year will be our 18th.


----------



## john117

If you want to watch any playoff game sure. But let's say you root for University of Michigan, the first few rounds will be cheap like $30-40 but they play like in New Orleans or Tampa or what not. By the time the tourney gets to Elite 8 or such and the game is closer say somewhere in the Midwest prices for tickets get ugly, $150 or more if you can get them.

Oh well. Hopefully Mr. Right will get drafted next year so we won't have to deal with those pesky ticket prices. Otherwise he will end up in Latvia so...


----------



## Eagle3

John, PM me next year around the tourney if you are looking for tix. $150 for a game is insane and their are ways around them. I have been to 2 Final Fours and both times for around $200 and that includes 3 games. Those Ann Arbor people are ripping you off.


----------



## jld

Hi, Eagle! So glad to see you on the thread! :smthumbup:


----------



## jld

Caroline, do you think men are entitled to a woman's respect, or do they have to earn it?


----------



## that_girl

Too much sex?

Tire of it?

 

No.


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> Caroline, do you think men are entitled to a woman's respect, or do they have to earn it?


Respect is earned whether you are a man or woman and its a two way street.

What is the real purpose of this question? Because the answer is pretty obvious.


----------



## vellocet

john117 said:


> Don't get me started on NCAA playoff ticket pricing practices... Esp for non students...


Just wait, if players are able to unionize, expect the price to go up even more.


----------



## jld

vellocet said:


> Respect is earned whether you are a man or woman and its a two way street.
> 
> What is the real purpose of this question? Because the answer is pretty obvious.


Actually, I think I have seen it a lot here, that a man just deserves respect from his wife. I think that is entitlement mentality.


----------



## mablenc

that_girl said:


> Too much sex?
> 
> Tire of it?
> 
> 
> 
> No.


:nono: no such thing as too much.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Have you seen a decline in manners since you were young, Caroline? Or is it basically the same as it always was?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Threetimesalady said:


> Hi jld....Great question...I believe that we women must demand respect from a man...Only when I get this (either today or in my yesterdays) would I have had give him a chance to know me...
> 
> Here is a good and true example: About ten years ago I went into a Barnes and Noble to get a book...On the way in some 50's something man was coming out all decked out in his varsity jacket from our local football team...He thought he was king of the road...When he pushed through the door instead of waiting for me who was coming in we met hand on...I was shocked...Real gentleman...So, I, being who I am and not at a loss for words said to him "You sure are one f***ing gentleman"....On my husband's life that's what I said...Unbeknown to me three older women were standing next to him waiting to leave after him...He stood and looked at me and the women stood and applauded me and told me "atta way to go" for saying what I did....
> 
> Maybe this is what I am talking about...He forgot to remember and I reminded him....Thanks....


I cannot understand why people are troubled by jerks in public. That guy was a jerk, not worth your time.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Have you seen a decline in manners since you were young, Caroline? Or is it basically the same as it always was?


I have definitely seen a decline in manners. But it has nothing to do with gender relations. It has to do with entitlement mentality and parents raising their kids with it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Threetimesalady said:


> I know, but tell me this at that time...I was royally PO and he was gonna know it...Kind of embarrassed, but so goes life...


A lady would have graciously ignored it.


----------



## treyvion

NobodySpecial said:


> I cannot understand why people are troubled by jerks in public. That guy was a jerk, not worth your time.


Well he didn't encroach him self or deviate his path because he felt like she wasn't worth the time or effort.


----------



## NobodySpecial

treyvion said:


> Well he didn't encroach him self or deviate his path because he felt like she wasn't worth the time or effort.


I was playing.


----------



## treyvion

NobodySpecial said:


> I was playing.


I was just pointing out how some of these self involved jerks may look at it.


----------



## sidney2718

mablenc said:


> I'll respectfully have to disagree, I don't feel birth controll emasculates a man in any way, but it as given women control in regards to having children. It was also opened up many opportunitys for women. By having lot of children, the poor were even more poor and it was a never ending ciircle. Many women also died durning child birth, especially the ones that had complications from too many pregnancies. It ages and takes a toll on womens bodies.
> 
> I think we have come along way, and have accomplished many things. I feel we can offer more to our children. Not only in a material way but, by showing them that hard work regardless of gender can take you places. By showing them that there is more to life than the home life. That one can become productive members of society. That women now have a choice in what they do with their lives. We can dream big and get there too!
> 
> I also think the progress its great for men, now they do not have to carry a burden of sustaining a family alone. Now his wife is a partner. If something happens to him, he knows his wife can take over. Now a disability is not as scary, the family can continue to have an income.
> 
> I am glad I was born in this day and age, I am considered a life time partner and take pride that I can and have stepped up when my spouse was unable to. I'm sure my son will be as proud as my husband is of my accomplishments and the fact that I have put my family first. I'm a hard worker and I'm proud of it.
> 
> I am treated equally not less, I am a blessing to my spouse as he is to me. I don't see him as my owner but as my partner and that doesn't make me respect him any less.


I agree with this. The development of the pill not only liberated women, it liberated men as well. No longer did a sexually desirous man have to curb his libido because he and his wife could not afford another child.

And I no longer have to read about families put a child up for adoption because they just couldn't handle another mouth to feed.

And no longer did women look 60 when they were just 40 because of pregnancy after pregnancy.

I'd not worry about birth control "ruining" women. Many women are nest builders and many men are protectors of the nest. Birth control isn't going to change that.


----------



## sidney2718

JLD:

Did you get around to discovering who Duguesclin was?


----------



## treyvion

sidney2718 said:


> I agree with this. The development of the pill not only liberated women, it liberated men as well. No longer did a sexually desirous man have to curb his libido because he and his wife could not afford another child.
> 
> And I no longer have to read about families put a child up for adoption because they just couldn't handle another mouth to feed.
> 
> And no longer did women look 60 when they were just 40 because of pregnancy after pregnancy.
> 
> I'd not worry about birth control "ruining" women. Many women are nest builders and many men are protectors of the nest. Birth control isn't going to change that.


Hell, she could look older than she needs to due to a lack of sex! Yes that's possible! It's possible for a man and possible for a woman too.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> Actually, I think I have seen it a lot here, that a man just deserves respect from his wife. I think that is entitlement mentality.


Respect is like trust. It can be lost in an instant but is slow to regain. A lot of people think they deserve respect (men and women alike) but they don't do the things to earn it.


----------



## jld

sidney2718 said:


> JLD:
> 
> Did you get around to discovering who Duguesclin was?


I read that he was a military man from humble Breton origins. He won four out of six battles.

There must be more than that that makes him special, though. Would you like to fill me in, sidney?


----------



## sidney2718

treyvion said:


> Hell, she could look older than she needs to due to a lack of sex! Yes that's possible! It's possible for a man and possible for a woman too.


Sure. But we don't often see women who are used up after 11 pregnancies in 16 years.


----------



## sidney2718

jld said:


> I read that he was a military man from humble Breton origins. He won four out of six battles.
> 
> There must be more than that that makes him special, though. Would you like to fill me in, sidney?


The short of it is that he was the most brilliant general the French came up with during the 100 Years War. He was probably more important than Jean d'Arc in securing victory for France. He was also probably the only French general the English were afraid of.

For his efforts he was not only made Constable of the French Army, basically the commanding officer under the king, but when you Google the name a dozen or more hotels in present-day France come up.

A simple English short biography is at:

Bertrand du Guesclin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you read French, see:

Bertrand Du Guesclin â€” WikipÃ©dia

Not everybody has a wiki page...


----------



## jld

sidney2718 said:


> Sure. But we don't often see women who are used up after 11 pregnancies in 16 years.


My mom had 9 kids in 8 years, sidney, the last 3 being triplets. She had 3 miscarriages. 

Exhausted, resentful of my dad the rest of her life . . . yep, that was the life of women before birth control.


----------



## that_girl

I'm glad I have control over my body and what someone does or doesn't do to it or if I have babies or not.

I'm glad my daughter's have that right too.

Women are more than baby poppers. And women enjoy sex just as much as men.


----------



## that_girl

That sounds a lot like the guys I dated 

I never felt slighted because of women's lib. Doors were opened, etc.

Although tonight I heard some young men talking about some chick and it was disturbing. 

But to say "loose girls" and "good girls" Is shame that no woman needs. Those boys weren't considered "loose" for sleeping with those girls. 

My grandparents were married 64 years. They adored each other. They knew each other for a month before he went to war. They married before he left. There was about 30 years in there of sheer hell and 4 kids. Domestic abuse (but they were "the family" of parties...always the host and hostess), alcoholism until he passed away, lies, secrets. Maybe the last 20 years were "good". 

We found journals of my gramma's after she passed about the unseen horrors. Just wow.

If she had what women have now, she'd have left that man who beat her until my mother couldn't recognize her in the morning. She would have left the man who molested 2 of her children. She would have left the man who would drink and throw things and hurt her.

They were codependent. They "loved" each other. But godam if she couldn't have been more. She wanted to be more. It said so in her journals. A writer...but she wasn't allowed to work.

But she was a "good" Catholic woman.


----------



## bandit.45

jld said:


> My mom had 9 kids in 8 years, sidney, the last 3 being triplets. She had 3 miscarriages.
> 
> Exhausted, resentful of my dad the rest of her life . . . yep, that was the life of women before birth control.


If she was so resentful why did she keep having sex with him?

Sex is what makes babies. Did she understand that?


----------



## that_girl

Oh yea, Bandit. Just stop having sex. lol. Not all marriages are sweet and kind. Maybe she tried and he wouldn't let her stop.

In regards to TTL's post, I think it's also how we raise our children. My daughter's can have agency over their beings without giving up manners and the such. Boys can still be raised to have manners as well.


----------



## over20

jld said:


> My mom had 9 kids in 8 years, sidney, the last 3 being triplets. She had 3 miscarriages.
> 
> Exhausted, resentful of my dad the rest of her life . . . yep, that was the life of women before birth control.


That was some women, but not all women.......


----------



## Lyris

Were you a woman before birth control?


----------



## over20

Who are you referring to?


----------



## Lyris

I would have thought that was obvious. You. As my post was directly below yours.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NobodySpecial said:


> A lady would have graciously ignored it.


I agree with this... when you are dealing with any kind of stranger out in public ..... best to get out of their way and NOT interact with them.. I do not trust strangers .... the only confrontation they would get from me is... if they came at me with physical harm or one of my children.. in that case, I will become Mama BEAR......

We are not going to change people and if we stoop to their level calling them a ________, they will feel even more justified to spit in our faces. 

I feel empathy is being lost today and society itself is becoming more narcissistic .. people seem to gravitate to success over Relationships ...immediate pleasure over commitment ... what to do!!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Thundarr said:


> *Respect is like trust. It can be lost in an instant but is slow to regain. A lot of people think they deserve respect (men and women alike) but they don't do the things to earn it*.


:iagree:


----------



## EleGirl

Threetimesalady said:


> Not this one at that time...He pushed a button and the cat reflexes awakened...Remember I am three times a lady...This was one of the three....I guess she is the one my husband loves...You see despite age I have never changed...This is the secret of living...Never grow old and be yourself...Maybe this is my excuse for still being as wild as the wind, but I love it and so does he....


I was raised quite a bit different. A man who used the f-word in mixed company was a low life scum.. a women who used it ever was ... just as bad.

You were upset that he did not pay attention to where he was going and that you were coming through in the opposite direction. His mind was probably elsewhere. You have no idea what he was dealing with on that day. Just because he was dressed in that manner does not mean that there was not something bad going on in his life. Or he might have just been spaced out.

Your choice or words were as rude as him not paying attention to everything and everyone around him, even those coming through the door from the opposite direction.

That's just my take on it. 

Yea people are ruder today. I see rude and foul mouth people in most stores, in the mall .... When I was a young, this sort of thing was rare.


----------



## jld

that_girl said:


> Oh yea, Bandit. Just stop having sex. lol. Not all marriages are sweet and kind. * Maybe she tried and he wouldn't let her stop.*
> 
> In regards to TTL's post, I think it's also how we raise our children. My daughter's can have agency over their beings without giving up manners and the such. Boys can still be raised to have manners as well.


That was pretty much it. My dad was not going to hear no. When she was 80 years old, and he was 82, she put her foot down: No more sex. My dad found another woman for the last year of his life.


----------



## jld

Personal said:


> If you have something to say I can't see any reason to fear saying it even if others don't agree with you.


:iagree:

We learn the most when we are all honest and open with each other. We don't have to give in to groupthink.



> I am a strong male and have never considered myself to be otherwise. I own being a caveman (+ thinking and feeling) as well. *I am comfortable and confidant in my own skin, Women simply don't take that away from me. I can't see why other men can't be the same.*


You are singing my song, Personal.



> Why should you regret who you are, most people do the best they can think to do at whatever time. Who you are today is built upon who you were yesterday. I don't feel you should be scared of who you are.


We are all just learning and growing, Caroline. That is the reason we are on TAM.


----------



## mablenc

I grew up in a church that didn't allow birth control, I disagree that men value their wife more or that they are a prized possession. On the contrary, the in general they are not valued, they are seen like baby makers. Most of the women there had 5+ kids. My spouse and I were the only couple to hold hands. We decieded that I would be on birth control, I was never treated any differently by him and that was never an issue. He has never said "birth control is going to make you cheat". 

My mother refused to get me on the pill for sever cramps, she did feel like you TTL, that I would turn loose. I married a virgin at the age of 23, I am who I am. Unfortunately, I had to live with 
Miserable cramps for years. 

I think affairs have been going on for as long as mankind has existed. Birth control does not affect morals, it is the person. It's a choice.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> Actually, I think I have seen it a lot here, that a man just deserves respect from his wife. I think that is entitlement mentality.


I don't disagree that certain men, and women, have that mentality.

I was commenting on your question to C



> do you think men are entitled to a woman's respect, or do they have to earn it?


Its obvious that nobody is just automatically entitled to it "just because".

However one could take the stance that they are entitled to someone's respect until they do something to lose it.

If a man is a jackass from the get go, then he isn't entitled to Jack Schidt, same as a woman.

If a man goes into a possible relationship with someone and isn't an azzhole or isn't acting clingy, whatever, then does that mean that he is disrespected until proven respectable?

I guess what I'm asking is, what is the criteria for not respecting someone right off the bat? And if it takes "earning", how long does that take?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I'm somewhat unclear on the concept of making someone earn your respect. 
From where I'm standing everyone starts out with my respect until they do something to show me they are undeserving of it.At that point,they would have to earn it back.
But we're all people.No one is entitled to more or less respect at first meet. From a female perspective,to make a man you've only just met earn your respect when they haven't done anything to prove they aren't worthy of it seems unfair...

I guess I'm trying to say I feel respect should be a benefit of the doubt thing. Worthy until proven unworthy.


----------



## vellocet

Threetimesalady said:


> Hi jld....Great question...I believe that we women must demand respect from a man...Only when I get this (either today or in my yesterdays) would I have had give him a chance to know me...
> 
> Here is a good and true example: About ten years ago I went into a Barnes and Noble to get a book...On the way in some 50's something man was coming out all decked out in his varsity jacket from our local football team...He thought he was king of the road...When he pushed through the door instead of waiting for me who was coming in we met hand on...I was shocked...Real gentleman...So, I, being who I am and not at a loss for words said to him "You sure are one f***ing gentleman"....On my husband's life that's what I said...Unbeknown to me three older women were standing next to him waiting to leave after him...He stood and looked at me and the women stood and applauded me and told me "atta way to go" for saying what I did....
> 
> Maybe this is what I am talking about...He forgot to remember and I reminded him....Thanks....


Right there, that guy wasn't entitled to respect right off the bat.

But, if he had held the door open for you, would he still have to go through some "earning" process to get your respect?

I guess what I'm getting at is:

Azzholes: not entitled to respect.

Great people: entitled, or at the very least deserving of it.


----------



## jld

MEM, I asked my therapist yesterday about what you said about how my meltdowns in front of the kids are bad, and about how I should go into the bedroom with dh when I do them.

She said that the issue is how secure the kids feel about their parents' marriage. She said that if kids feel that their parents are committed to one another, they will see it as just Mom and Dad's way of resolving conflict. 

She said that if the kids feel the marriage is at risk, it could be an issue.


----------



## vellocet

ScarletBegonias said:


> I'm somewhat unclear on the concept of making someone earn your respect.
> From where I'm standing everyone starts out with my respect until they do something to show me they are undeserving of it.At that point,they would have to earn it back.
> But we're all people.No one is entitled to more or less respect at first meet. From a female perspective,to make a man you've only just met earn your respect when they haven't done anything to prove they aren't worthy of it seems unfair...
> 
> I guess I'm trying to say I feel respect should be a benefit of the doubt thing. Worthy until proven unworthy.


Bumped for truth and I completely agree


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> MEM, I asked my therapist yesterday about what you said about how my meltdowns in front of the kids are bad, and about how I should go into the bedroom with dh when I do them.
> 
> She said that the issue is how secure the kids feel about their parents' marriage. She said that if kids feel that their parents are committed to one another, they will see it as just Mom and Dad's way of resolving conflict.
> 
> She said that if the kids feel the marriage is at risk, it could be an issue.


I don't see how their security in the marriage matters. DH's parents have been together since high school yet his mother's meltdowns in front of them scarred DH for life. DH and his brother turned to drugs as an escape from the "conflict resolution" his parents employed. 

I guess some kids weather it better than others.


----------



## jld

vellocet said:


> Its obvious that nobody is just automatically entitled to it "just because".


I am not sure that is obvious. I hear regularly that women should just respect their husbands, period. I do not always hear qualifiers.



> If a man goes into a possible relationship with someone and isn't an azzhole or isn't acting clingy, whatever, then does that mean that he is disrespected until proven respectable?


I think adult relationships are a free market. You do not have to stay with anyone who does not treat you in a way you feel comfortable with.



> I guess what I'm asking is, what is the criteria for not respecting someone right off the bat? And if it takes "earning", how long does that take?


I am wondering if respect is different from manners. Certainly we should all use good manners, though that may be defined differently by different people.

I think earning trust takes as long as it takes. You know when you have it. You have to decide how much you want it, I guess. If you are no longer interested in earning it, you can always stop the relationship.


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> I don't see how their security in the marriage matters. DH's parents have been together since high school yet his mother's meltdowns in front of them scarred DH for life. DH and his brother turned to drugs as an escape from the "conflict resolution" his parents employed.
> 
> I guess some kids weather it better than others.


I will show her your post, and see what she says.

How did your dh get out of drugs, SB?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> I will show her your post, and see what she says.
> 
> How did your dh get out of drugs, SB?


I'm not disputing your therapist,just offering a real life perspective on it. 

Dh stopped using drugs other than weed after his brother overdosed on heroin and died.


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> I'm not disputing your therapist,just offering a real life perspective on it.
> 
> Dh stopped using drugs other than weed after his brother overdosed on heroin and died.


So sorry, Scarlet.


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> I am not sure that is obvious. I hear regularly that women should just respect their husbands, period. I do not always hear qualifiers.


Again, I agree. That's why I said "just because"


----------



## that_girl

My mom had many meltdowns around me and my stepdad. (Usually about their marriage or her feelings or whatever).

I thought she was insane as I got older (she is, kinda...I no longer speak to her). But it was not something I needed to see as a child.


----------



## Caribbean Man

mablenc said:


> I think affairs have been going on for as long as mankind has existed. Birth control does not affect morals, it is the person. It's a choice.


:iagree:

In Biblical times there was Pothiphor's wife who almost raped her husbands young manservant , Joseph. David and Bathsheba , Herod and his brothers wife.

Monogamy was supposed to get rid of or at least limit affairs. The Sumerians ,one of the earliest civilizations had specific laws prohibiting extramarital affairs . Unfortunately their historical writings also gives details of numerous court cases dealing with extramarital affairs.

With respect to human behavior and sexuality, there is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## sidney2718

Threetimesalady said:


> Because I am a glutton for punishment I am going to leave another post...What I was trying to say, but not too intelligently, was that we women have emasculated them by becoming too easy pickings....This was a new gift from the pill...No more did we worry about what would he think or would we get pregnant, instead we kind of all joined hands and became another breed of women...Not that this is wrong, but the way it was...Now if a man sees this happen he is going to be happy with this new situation...However, how will he treat us in the long run?...Which of us will be special?...Before this he was the male stud who sought out the female...Now she is far too often waiting for him with open arms...She will even invite him for the night...Back in my olden days (and I will agree they were) this never would have happened...There was a different respect for each other...And it is my belief that by allowing this that we took from man the one prized possession and that being the strong male image from yesterday that he had owned...Our caveman of the past...The one that we would adore all the rest of the days of our lives...
> 
> What I am saying are words of an older woman...I am sure that people will laugh at these words and make fun of me here, but we will be married 56 years later this year and gone together at that time for 58 years and during that time and before our marriage I only knew him 47 days....He was the male God to me...I adored him with every breath I took and will until the day I die...and he feels the same about me...and I was a virgin before I married...I will add that I, too, was tempting and let my boss mess around with me before I was married...That part of me I don't regret...That taught me what lived within me and it scared the crap out of me...
> 
> I will leave this post on unless I get the holy living stuffing beat out of me, but I must put it on....


Why would anyone beat you up for posting your views? But I do have something to add. There were a large number of affairs back then too. The major difference was pregnancy scares. We rarely have them now, but boy did we have them then.

College boys then were like college boys now and the women just as willing. More than one girl I knew in high school would vanish for a year (she was off visiting grandma or something) and then come back as if nothing happened. We all knew what happened and the baby put up for adoption.

I agree with you about the new reality. There's always a new reality. I doubt anyone wants to go back to the days of arranged marriages.


----------



## sidney2718

that_girl said:


> that sounds a lot like the guys i dated o.o
> 
> i never felt slighted because of women's lib. Doors were opened, etc.
> 
> Although tonight i heard some young men talking about some chick and it was disturbing.
> 
> But to say "loose girls" and "good girls" is shame that no woman needs. Those boys weren't considered "loose" for sleeping with those girls.
> 
> My grandparents were married 64 years. They adored each other. They knew each other for a month before he went to war. They married before he left. There was about 30 years in there of sheer hell and 4 kids. Domestic abuse (but they were "the family" of parties...always the host and hostess), alcoholism until he passed away, lies, secrets. Maybe the last 20 years were "good".
> 
> We found journals of my gramma's after she passed about the unseen horrors. Just wow.
> 
> If she had what women have now, she'd have left that man who beat her until my mother couldn't recognize her in the morning. She would have left the man who molested 2 of her children. She would have left the man who would drink and throw things and hurt her.
> 
> They were codependent. They "loved" each other. But godam if she couldn't have been more. She wanted to be more. It said so in her journals. A writer...but she wasn't allowed to work.
> 
> But she was a "good" catholic woman.


bravo!


----------



## sidney2718

bandit.45 said:


> If she was so resentful why did she keep having sex with him?
> 
> Sex is what makes babies. Did she understand that?


Do you understand that the social expectation was that a wife would ALWAYS allow her husband sex. Many women still managed to deny it. But also not only were many beaten, but for a long time the cops would not even warn the husband and never thought of arresting him.

There was, until the early 1960s, the clear expectation that the woman obeyed the husband. Period.


----------



## sidney2718

Lyris said:


> I would have thought that was obvious. You. As my post was directly below yours.


Now now. As it happens, you can write a post you expect to be next to the one you are talking about, only to find that one or two others have managed to post in between.


----------



## Thundarr

If I'm not mistaken, sidney2718 and Threetimesalady have over 100 years of successful marriage between the two of them. That's amazing.

And they both seem so sane . Needless to say, I respect that you guys know a thing or two :thumbup:.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> MEM, I asked my therapist yesterday about what you said about how my meltdowns in front of the kids are bad, and about how I should go into the bedroom with dh when I do them.
> 
> She said that the issue is how secure the kids feel about their parents' marriage. She said that if kids feel that their parents are committed to one another, they will see it as just Mom and Dad's way of resolving conflict.
> 
> She said that if the kids feel the marriage is at risk, it could be an issue.


This surprises me, JLD... Young children don't have the ability to analyze / assess how secure their parents' marriage is. They just hear anger and this can be very frightening and cause them to grow up with no end of problems of their own...

It wasn't until I was around 40 that I learned that my father had never actually physically assaulted my mother. I'd grown up in a home where angry arguments were frequent, and my parents had thought it was enough to make us children leave the room when they were in progress. Those 'marital tiffs' caused all of us no end of problems later on.


----------



## heartsbeating

Cosmos said:


> This surprises me, JLD... Young children don't have the ability to analyze / assess how secure their parents' marriage is. They just hear anger and this can be very frightening for them, and cause them to grow up with no end of problems of their own...
> 
> It wasn't until I was around 40 that I learned that my father had never actually physically assaulted my mother. I'd grown up in a home where angry arguments were frequent, and my parents had thought it was enough to make us children leave the room when they were in progress. Those 'marital tiffs' caused all of us no end of of problems later on.


This surprises me too.

I heard my parents arguing as a child and teen. Well, more like my mother getting highly frustrated and shouting at my dad while he shut down in silence. I didn't consider their commitment level, it was just feeling angry tension. I've a memory of my brother putting his arm around me and telling me everything would be okay, as we heard the shouting and doors slamming. 

At that age, I had an urge to just go. I didn't even know why. She caught me as I was about to climb out the window and I couldn't even explain what I was doing. I was about 7. 

As a teenager, her and I ended up in some feisty arguments. It wasn't learning healthy communication. Her frustration, depression, my dad's silence, just seemed to worsen. I didn't know how to deal with it all and sought escapism. Thankfully I quickly wised-up to the path I was starting to head down and changed direction.

The one time I stormed away and slammed a door after hubs and I moved in together, he told me to cut that sh*t out as it was disrespectful. That was the last time I did such a thing. Most of us have to unlearn stuff we grew up around. I'd be surprised if it didn't have some impact on the children though. I had some very determined thoughts on their relationship and what I would and wouldn't put up with as an adult. They wouldn't have known I was observing in that way.


----------



## Cosmos

Heartsbeating, I'm afraid that it's a 'gift' that just keeps on giving...

By age 11 I was OCD and so anxious, depressed and hyper-vigilant that when I was sent to bed, I used to hide behind the coats in the hall until my mother was 'safely' in bed. Needless to say, it was around that time that my schoolwork became badly affected, too...

Thank God for therapy!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Just relating some of my own Young experiences....what I seen.. felt.. and heard from others -in how their parents handled ANGER and frustration..

I remember my Mother and Father basically having Brawls in the living room when I was a young girl.. (I could hear it)....Back then I didn't know what it was about. but I learned later on ...she didn't want to have sex with him, she wasn't attracted to him, she was naive when she married & wasn't happy... my Father was highly frustrated with her..now.. my Mother has always said...that my Father was a good Man & he didn't deserve what she put him through... I'm going to take my mom's words for that -really she was the more difficult to deal with.

So in my world- even though I was a casualty of divorce ... that was the BEST thing for my parents... I really don't think they could have met half way... it was a train wreck......

IN comparison.. I never heard my Dad & step Mom fight (who he married a week after the divorce) ....I can't recall even one Big exchange between the 2 of them...(yet when I'd go over her house before her divorce because her daughter & me were friends-I'd see Her husband near beating her up - it was SCARY , I was afraid to go over there!...(my step Mom was my Mom's best friend , a crazy web there )

SO WOW.... I got to see how important "true compatibility " is....-as when my step Mom & Dad got together.. they had lively conversations , may have disagreed.. but never anything that would cause my stomach to be in knots or think "Just let me out of here!!"... I didn't like her but she was Perfect for my Father and met his every need...and he did for her as well..... 

Our kids never see us FIGHT







....we only do that behind closed doors - and keep our voices hushed.... now there have been times where I wasn't in such a good mood -(maybe he had to leave for work & we didn't get a change to air it out)....and I will be honest and say to one of the kids (cause it's obvious I am out of sorts).... "OH me and Dad are having it out about something.. so I'm irritated right now..but we'll work it out...we always do"... though this is very rare -because we usually have it worked out in a couple hours of deep talking.. listening and just coming together.. 

I think it's so very important that our kids see the Lively bubbly interactions ...the banter, even some flirting between their parents.. it's very reassuring that the foundation is a free flowing one...if there are fights, tension filled moments..... it needs to be balanced with more of the Happy times.. MUCH MORE...(before our kids)

Then we have the passive aggressive model ....2 cousins of mine...their parents - they didn't fight in front of the kids but the TENSION was so THICK, they didn't talk, they ignored each other -just sour roommates.... but stayed married till the last girl went to college ..and my cousins said how ridiculous it was, they should have just divorced yrs before that, she hated feeling the Coldness in the house.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> This surprises me, JLD... Young children don't have the ability to analyze / assess how secure their parents' marriage is. They just hear anger and this can be very frightening and cause them to grow up with no end of problems of their own...
> 
> It wasn't until I was around 40 that I learned that my father had never actually physically assaulted my mother. I'd grown up in a home where angry arguments were frequent, and my parents had thought it was enough to make us children leave the room when they were in progress. Those 'marital tiffs' caused all of us no end of problems later on.


I can ask her more about it. I am going to show her SB's post, anyway.

I am thinking that people here are getting concerned based on their own experience with parents arguing. Is that right?

I think we tend to project our own experiences onto other people. When we have fears, we are especially likely to project.

A therapist knows us in person. She knows many things about us, maybe other family members. She gets a feel for us live, so to speak.

I know, for myself, I believe in getting it all out. Holding it in is so destructive. I would just shut down. I would do whatever the man I was with said, but it would all just stay inside, and definitely come out in a more destructive way. Or I would just leave him.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> I can ask her more about it. I am going to show her SB's post, anyway.
> 
> I am thinking that people here are getting concerned based on their own experience with parents arguing. Is that right?
> 
> I think we tend to project our own experiences onto other people. When we have fears, we are especially likely to project.
> 
> A therapist knows us in person. She knows many things about us, maybe other family members. She gets a feel for us live, so to speak.
> 
> I know, for myself, I believe in getting it all out. Holding it in is so destructive. I would just shut down. I would do whatever the man I was with said, but it would all just stay inside, and definitely come out in a more destructive way. Or I would just leave him.


I don't believe it's necessarily a case of just projecting. It's not only what our own very real experiences have taught us, but also the journey we've been on in order to heal.

I believe this is a pretty balanced view of the problem:-

Parents' Fighting May Have Long-Lasting Effect on Kids


----------



## jld

_Kindergarteners whose parents fought with each other frequently and harshly were more likely to grow into emotionally insecure older children who struggled with depression, anxiety and behavior issues by 7th grade, the study authors found._

Well, I think frequently and harshly are probably the key words there. I don't get mad that often, and it usually lasts a few minutes. I'm like a firecracker, Cosmos.  

When I am just furious, yes, sparks fly. Dh has said, "Change your tone of voice!" a few times, pretty sharply, in the middle of that. It just makes me scream louder.

I think you have to look at the whole dynamic of the family. There is so much we don't say on the forum. Nobody sees it all here, you know? And you can't feel body language, etc.

Our ds15 mentioned a few months ago he would like a marriage like ours. It was just out of the blue. 

The kids just don't seem affected, Cosmos. If I felt they were, that would surely be a factor. And I am listening to the therapist. She just didn't seem to think it was a big worry, either.

She said that adults have temper tantrums. She said that while it may be ideal for that not to happen, few people live in an ideal way. What I have understood from her is that working through things is the priority. She seems to think we have a great marriage.

Okay, got to watch the France v. Germany match now. Very exciting!


----------



## Cosmos

JLD, as you say, the therapist knows your individual situation better than any of us here.

How long will your H still be working abroad? That must be a very difficult situation to deal with.


----------



## mablenc

Cosmos said:


> This surprises me, JLD... Young children don't have the ability to analyze / assess how secure their parents' marriage is. They just hear anger and this can be very frightening and cause them to grow up with no end of problems of their own...
> 
> It wasn't until I was around 40 that I learned that my father had never actually physically assaulted my mother. I'd grown up in a home where angry arguments were frequent, and my parents had thought it was enough to make us children leave the room when they were in progress. Those 'marital tiffs' caused all of us no end of problems later on.


You bring up a great subject, my mother always threw us in the middle of my parents arguments. We had to witness and participate in the whole fight.

We knew things we should not have, including things about their sex life. it's a very odd position to be in. I think it was her way of ganging up on my dad. 

At least your parents sent you guys to the other room, not that it helped as you guys new what was going on.

It created insecurity for me, feeling they would divorce at any minute as well feeling disappointment and building resentment towards my dad. He was my world. Now I see that my mother was wrong about many things and used us as leverage. 

We try not do argue in front of my son.


----------



## jld

Mablenc, that is what my therapist was talking about: the question is how secure the kids are in their parents' marriage.

He is not actually abroad, except a week or two a month, Cosmos. He lives in another state, comes home on the weekend. Our marriage is pretty elastic. We just stretch to accommodate whatever the family needs.

The blowups are more my own emotional, intense personality plus his cluelessness/no big deal attitude and lack of urgency. I could not be in a marriage where I was afraid of my husband. I just have to be able to give everything to him, everything that I feel, think, just all of it. He has to be able to handle it, or we would not be together. For his part, because he is so calm, my energy is stimulating. He told me he could not be with someone like himself. He would be bored.

I just don't think there are rules that fit everybody. You have to be able to look at the whole picture.

Okay, back to the game. Break through, France!


----------



## john117

My kids spent their teenage years watching my marital fireworks. They each handled the situation differently. 

They both chimed in to the tune of "divorce the witch" (I think they used a term that rhymes with witch ) but were smart enough to comprehend that witch dollars pay for tuition at the same exchange rate as John dollars so...

Long term I don't know. The older is too caught up with her school to worry about dating, but she's preserving her now in its 4th year (last 1 year long distance) relationship. Like me she understands the concept of marrying into a good family and the guy's family is beyond exceptional. Having a CEO dad helps too! But the guy needs to mature a lot... Thankfully there's lot of college ahead for both so...

The younger is a mystery, no idea how despite her looks and personality she never attracted anyone in our HS and unless she's going all covert on us, her first year in college. I wonder if she's too intimidating (she thinks she is) or mom's fatwas have taken root. I'm keeping an eye on her but as I said she's way too unapproachable so far.


----------



## jld

You know, that really is the test. How will the kids turn out? Such a long term project, parenting.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> I just don't think there are rules that fit everybody. You have to be able to look at the whole picture.


Yes, this is true (even though I can't condone fighting in front of children). 

From what I gather, your H loves your children so they have the security of feeling loved and cherished by both parents. My father was indifferent (to put it mildly) to his children - apart from his only son, whom he loathed and belittled from early childhood... Our only security came from our mother, so I guess their frequent arguments had an even greater impact.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> Yes, this is true (even though I can't condone fighting in front of children).
> 
> From what I gather, your H loves your children so they have the security of feeling loved and cherished by both parents. My father was indifferent (to put it mildly) to his children - apart from his only son, whom he loathed and belittled from early childhood... Our only security came from our mother, so I guess their frequent arguments had an even greater impact.


Lol, Cosmos. You don't have to. We can just discuss our feelings and thoughts and everybody can decide how they want to see it. 

Yeah, see, people focus on some external thing, like fighting. They don't look at the _whys_ behind it. The _whys_ are the problem. That is what kids feel that makes them anxious.

And the whys are a whole lot harder to tackle than the fighting . . . 


Thinking a little more on this . . . I think it is scarier when the father yells. He is bigger, generally, and at least in the past, had more power, could become violent physically as well as verbally. That is why I would not advise a woman to stay in the room if her husband were verbally abusive, and she felt threatened. Maybe even if she did not feel threatened? Would depend on her vibes from him, I guess. I think there is a real threat to her if he proceeds to physical violence. I just don't see the sexes the same way, I guess.

Cosmos, so sorry your father was unhealthy. I am sure your mother coped the best she could, and tried to shield you from your father's dysfunction. I think you mentioned you were in a physically abusive relationship before your current one. So sorry, Cosmos. So sorry.


----------



## jld

Just to harp on this a little further . . .

I want people to get feelings out there. I think feelings do way more harm stuck inside than they do out here, exposed to the open air. 

I know it is scary. I know it is hard. But we have to open our hearts. We are not going to heal if we do not get the feelings out and look at them. And it is not as scary to look at them out here in the sunshine as it is when we are crouching down, holding them and hiding them, in the corner of a dark closet.

I have spent most of my life feeling scared of other people. I have missed out on so much because of my fear. If people said mean-spirited words to me, I ran away. I was so scared of them. I so foolishly gave them my power.

But the longer I am here, the more I believe that mean-spirited words cannot hurt us. Unless we let them. They are just a tool that some people use to express their own sorrow and disappointment in life. They don't know another way. Or are not able to use it.

The challenge moving forward is to try to understand them. And to offer empathy. And if we cannot offer empathy, and let's face it, sometimes we cannot, we at least do not have to let those words pierce our hearts. We are not powerless. 

We cannot be emasculated, or, what was it called? Effeminated? Others only have power to hurt us if we give that power to them. We don't have to.


----------



## Cosmos

> Yeah, see, people focus on some external thing, like fighting. They don't look at the _whys_ behind it. The _whys_ are the problem. That is what kids feel that makes them anxious.
> 
> And the whys are a whole lot harder to tackle than the fighting . . .


The whys are certainly the main issue, but it's _how_ the parents handle their issues that are likely to influence their children most.




> Thinking a little more on this . . . I think it is scarier when the father yells. He is bigger, generally, and at least in the past, had more power, could become violent physically as well as verbally. That is why I would not advise a woman to stay in the room if her husband were verbally abusive, and she felt threatened. Maybe even if she did not feel threatened? Would depend on her vibes from him, I guess. I think there is a real threat to her if he proceeds to physical violence. I just don't see the sexes the same way, I guess.


Abuse is abuse, JLD, no matter which parent is doing it. The scariest thing for me was hearing my mother so deeply upset... I think the effect would probably be the same if it was the mother verbally / emotionally abusing the father...



> ...I think you mentioned you were in a physically abusive relationship before your current one. So sorry, Cosmos. So sorry.


Thank you. 

Strangely enough, it was _because_ of what I'd witnessed as a child that made me a _very_ poor target for an abuser. He was dealt with very swiftly and with very little mercy, I can assure you.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> The whys are certainly the main issue, but it's _how_ the parents handle their issues that are likely to influence their children most.
> 
> I think if there are whys, they are going to manifest somehow. Maybe a parent becomes withdrawn or sleeps all the time, maybe too much money is spent, too much time going out, etc. The whys, imo, are the main issue, and they are going to affect the kids, however they are expressed. Let's work on the whys.
> 
> Abuse is abuse, JLD, no matter which parent is doing it. The scariest thing for me was hearing my mother so deeply upset... I think the effect would probably be the same if it was the mother verbally / emotionally abusing the father...
> 
> I am sure it did distress you. I am sure you felt protective of her.
> 
> As for the second part, well, we see this differently, I guess.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Strangely enough, it was _because_ of what I'd witnessed as a child that made me a _very_ poor target for an abuser. He was dealt with very swiftly and with very little mercy, I can assure you.
> 
> I think it was the total experience of growing up in your family that made you a target for an abuser, and predisposed you to accepting him. And I am glad he was shooed away quickly.
> 
> I don't think we are going to get around dealing with the reasons for conflict in the family, Cosmos. I think they have to come to light for them to be resolved.


----------



## Cosmos

> I think it was the total experience of growing up in your family that made you a target for an abuser, and predisposed you to accepting him. And I am glad he was shooed away quickly.


Unfortunately, this is often the case in abusive relationships. However, I don't think it applied in my situation. I'd never been in an abusive relationship before, and was in my 50s when I met him. One thing my childhood had taught me was to choose men _very_ carefully and have zero tolerance for any form of manipulation or abuse. The minute he showed his true colours he was history.


----------



## heartsbeating

jld said:


> We cannot be emasculated, or, what was it called? Effeminated? Others only have power to hurt us if we give that power to them. We don't have to.


And my view is that to stop that happening, means to first put a stop to the disrespectful and/or bullying behavior. The person doing the disrespecting then needs to check themselves.

My thoughts on this won't shift, just as your thoughts to addressing the 'why' will remain. And so, I'll step off the merry-go-round.


----------



## jld

heartsbeating said:


> And my view is that to stop that happening, means to first put a stop to the disrespectful and/or bullying behavior. The person doing the disrespecting then needs to check themselves.
> 
> My thoughts on this won't shift, just as your thoughts to addressing the 'why' will remain. And so, I'll step off the merry-go-round.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts, heartsbeating.


----------



## bandit.45

that_girl said:


> Oh yea, Bandit. Just stop having sex. lol. Not all marriages are sweet and kind. Maybe she tried and he wouldn't let her stop.
> 
> In regards to TTL's post, I think it's also how we raise our children. My daughter's can have agency over their beings without giving up manners and the such. Boys can still be raised to have manners as well.



Well she's making out like the woman had no choice in the matter. 

So she was being raped? I just want to understand the circumstances.


----------



## jld

bandit.45 said:


> Well she's making out like the woman had no choice in the matter.
> 
> So she was being raped? I just want to understand the circumstances.


You are right, bandit. My mother could've said no. She gave the power to my dad. And blamed him all her life.

When she finally did say no, he found a girlfriend.


----------



## extremneed

jld said:


> I have heard this mentioned here on TAM. But to me, that does not even seem possible. How can you take masculinity away from a man? Isn't that something inside of him, his essence?
> 
> I cannot see how anyone can take my femininity away from me. It is my essence.
> 
> How do you take someone's essence away?
> 
> I am not even sure they can surrender it. Wouldn't your essence always spring forth, at some point?


My husband even crippled did not allow it, I wish he did, we tried to take it away for 32 years, Now its almost like he has turned into the alpa wolf, Its only his way


----------



## Fozzy

ScarletBegonias said:


> I'm somewhat unclear on the concept of making someone earn your respect.
> From where I'm standing everyone starts out with my respect until they do something to show me they are undeserving of it.At that point,they would have to earn it back.
> But we're all people.No one is entitled to more or less respect at first meet. From a female perspective,to make a man you've only just met earn your respect when they haven't done anything to prove they aren't worthy of it seems unfair...
> 
> I guess I'm trying to say I feel respect should be a benefit of the doubt thing. Worthy until proven unworthy.


*slow, standing clap*

I'm not sure if this was in reply to TTL's bookstore story, but I think it's equally applicable to the original point of the thread. Can a wife emasculate a husband without him giving her the knife? Maybe, maybe not. I think if people started out with a *mutual *respect for each other by default, a lot of it would be a moot point. Obviously with the caveat that nothing is done to justify losing the respect.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

I think that the "essence" of a person can be damaged badly under certain horrible circumstances...their concept of self. I think PTSD (e.g. post combat) has a strong element of that to it. Torture victims struggle mightily - psychologically - after they are released. Yes I think it is accuarte to say that such people feel like 'less of a person.' their essence feels diminished. and like I've said if we're talking about men then if he feels like less of a person he also feels like less of a man.

and some marriages can be so bad that 'torture' can be a reasonable parallel.....


----------



## alexm

nuclearnightmare said:


> I think that the "essence" of a person can be damaged badly under certain horrible circumstances...their concept of self. I think PTSD (e.g. post combat) has a strong element of that to it. Torture victims struggle mightily - psychologically - after they are released. Yes I think it is accuarte to say that such people feel like 'less of a person.' their essence feels diminished. and like I've said if we're talking about men then if he feels like less of a person he also feels like less of a man.
> 
> and some marriages can be so bad that 'torture' can be a reasonable parallel.....


That is so well-said.

My ex wife, over the period of ~14 years, slowly emasculated me without me even noticing until it was too late. Whether she intended to do it or not, I'll never know. She essentially moulded me into what she wanted (or thought she wanted), and I guess the sheer fact that it worked made her not respect me, and everything spiralled out of control. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, with her.

To answer the OP's question briefly - it is entirely possible to have one's essence of manhood surgically removed... It got to the point with my ex wife that she was actively flirting with other men in my presence and I didn't even notice, for the most part. She had me so trusting of her, that it didn't even occur to me what was going on half the time.

One incident in particular, this guy struck up a conversation with both of us, somewhere or other. I guess after chatting for a little bit, he determined that we were not a couple (as it likely wasn't very evident at all), so he started putting the moves on her. Seriously, I didn't even realize what was happening until he asked her for her phone #. She of course was flattered, but told him she was married. He glanced at me, back to her, and said something along the lines of "to this guy?"

And THAT'S when I finally realized how bad it was. When I replayed the whole thing in my mind, I saw how stupid and beta I was, so much so that guys were hitting on my wife in front of me and I didn't even notice. I thought he was just a friendly guy, talking to both of us. If that sort of thing looks like it may happen now, I make it abundantly clear it's not going to. Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were standing outside of a restaurant together, somewhat dressed up, and this guy stared her up and down while walking towards us, and kept his eyes on her while passing by, so much so that his head had practically 180'd. He stopped for a very brief moment and took half a step, looking like he was going to turn around and come back, then noticed that I was staring him down, too. We had an alpha male staring contest for what seemed like too long, but I didn't look away, and he finally admitted defeat, I guess, and walked away. But he did turn around once more and looked me directly in the eyes, and I hadn't taken mine off him. I think he got the message.

With my current wife, I make sure that it's obvious we are a couple, whether it's by holding hands, standing closer to her, etc. As with any married couple, Alpha or Beta, some guys will still get a little too close for comfort every now and again, and I have no problem staking my territory. But neither does she, and that makes a huge difference as well. My ex wife almost welcomed it and allowed it, which does not give off the right signs to any approaching dirtbags.

But after that incident, up until several months after she left for another guy, I felt like I wasn't a man at all. Up til that point, that type of thing never occurred to me. It was a slow and steady brainwashing of mental and emotional abuse that she executed with absolute perfection. If I was a psychologist, I'd almost want to study her methods, it was that good.

Before I met her, I was an Alpha male, through and through. After 14 years, I was about as beta as you can get. With my current wife, I am a good hybrid between the two - alpha where it matters most ("marking my territory", provider, taking charge, etc.) and beta when it's appropriate (handling much of the household chores (I work from home), and other less "manly" things) but also maintaining the alpha male hat if/when necessary.

It's worked so far. But I still sometimes have flashbacks, almost, to how I used to be and feel deep shame.


----------

