seamaid Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 This is something I've heard from my mother and a guy I know who recently proposed to a friend of mine: In a relationship, the man should want the woman more than the woman wants the man. The other way around, a woman wanting the man more than he wants her, is not so good. What do you think: true, not true? Ideally of course, both parties desire each other equally as much. This is not always the case, though.
zhsoj Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 I'm confused... How do you quantify desire? How sure can you really be that one party desires the other more? To me it seems each party would have to use a standard objective measure and then compare... As to my knowledge no such metric exists that can cover all aspects of "desire".
Author seamaid Posted January 26, 2009 Author Posted January 26, 2009 See your point. I guess it's not quantifiable. Maybe just by who chases the other person more? The person who puts in more effort overall? The person who pays more often... emails/calls more frequently... is more enthusiastic and eager about the relationship, or idealizes the other person more... things like that?
movingonandon Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 That's one of the dumbest things i've heard , where do I begin . But, let's stick with the original proposition for a second. How is it supposed to be good? If anything, it should be the other way around . The woman should be more on the hook than the guy, simply because women are more unreliable and inconsistent then men . So stronger attraciton is required to achieve some balance/stability in the relationship.
carhill Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 IME, the person who is more "inspired" by the relational dynamic has a greater risk of vulnerability, heartbreak, and loss of self-esteem should the relationship fail. Caring less or "liking less" makes for a less "deep" relationship but perhaps a less vulnerable one, for the person involved. I don't know that I'd assign gender to the dynamic, rather that the person who can carry that vulnerability and remain healthy is likely the best person to "like" more. I can often gauge a person's emotional health by their ability to be intimate (I don't mean sexually or romantically); real intimacy involves a lot of areas of the person's psychology and an "exposing" of themselves. MC taught me that compatibility in this area is exceedingly important to a successful relationship. As an example, I crave emotional and spiritual depth and intimacy and have no fear of it (and the attendant vulnerability) and my wife wants it, but fears it. I really didn't get that until going through MC. The dynamic creates essential incompatibility. Switch the genders. Does it make a difference? IDK. Are women wired to better handle such vulnerability and exposure than men are? Good question. Sociologically, I'd say yes. Genetically, unclear. I'm a mutant Sorry if that wasn't the answer you were looking for. Life's like that
Author seamaid Posted January 26, 2009 Author Posted January 26, 2009 Hehe, I apologize if it's so ridiculous to ask such a question. Let me try to rephrase: What I'm trying to get at is... might it not be better if the girl comes off less enthusiastic about the relationship than the guy (at least at first)? If she comes off as a bit uncertain or cautious, and wanting to take it slowly, as opposed to chasing after him like a eager puppy. I mean, she'd still encourage him and be warm and happy to see him and all that, but she wouldn't throw herself at him.
Author seamaid Posted January 26, 2009 Author Posted January 26, 2009 IME, the person who is more "inspired" by the relational dynamic has a greater risk of vulnerability, heartbreak, and loss of self-esteem should the relationship fail. Caring less or "liking less" makes for a less "deep" relationship but perhaps a less vulnerable one, for the person involved. I don't know that I'd assign gender to the dynamic, rather that the person who can carry that vulnerability and remain healthy is likely the best person to "like" more. I can often gauge a person's emotional health by their ability to be intimate (I don't mean sexually or romantically); real intimacy involves a lot of areas of the person's psychology and an "exposing" of themselves. MC taught me that compatibility in this area is exceedingly important to a successful relationship. As an example, I crave emotional and spiritual depth and intimacy and have no fear of it (and the attendant vulnerability) and my wife wants it, but fears it. I really didn't get that until going through MC. The dynamic creates essential incompatibility. Switch the genders. Does it make a difference? IDK. Are women wired to better handle such vulnerability and exposure than men are? Good question. Sociologically, I'd say yes. Genetically, unclear. I'm a mutant Sorry if that wasn't the answer you were looking for. Life's like that That's interesting that you picked up on the emotional unavailability aspect, Carhill. In my case, you're right on the money. I'm going on my first date soon with a guy I really like, but knowing my history, I have a distinct pattern of idealizing, fantasizing, and obsessing over guys I want and turning myself inside out for them, and I'm not doing that with him for some reason. I think I AM to some degree emotionally unavailable or just afraid of being vulnerable again... I really shudder at the idea of liking someone too much and then getting my heart broken again. At any rate, the good thing about being this way is I'm not acting blindly or madly. I'm not swept away by emotions. I feel very much in control and sort of cool-headed, dispassionate. If I lose his interest, it wouldn't devastate me. That feels very "safe" for obvious reasons. On the other hand, I want to feel passionate, head over heels, madly in love, all that stuff. That, to me, is real love. Yet I'm afraid to feel that way again. Maybe I'm not ready for it. I know the guy is definitely ready to feel that way towards me. I would like to reciprocate eventually. Is that what a "slow burn" is? Sorry if this thread is veering slightly off-topic... There's just a lot more to the story, underneath the question.
Adamagnet Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 . I'm going on my first date soon with a guy I really like, How do you know that you really like him if you haven't even been on a date yet?
Author seamaid Posted January 26, 2009 Author Posted January 26, 2009 How do you know that you really like him if you haven't even been on a date yet? Lots of long emails back and forth, as well as phone calls, for the past month. Met him online. So far we've hit it off very well. We're very similar, with lots of common interests, same values, same sense of humor. And he's ready to have a serious gf and settle down. I just don't feel all that ready to fall in love, even though he's totally a great candidate. While the imbalance of my feelings vs. his feelings worries me a bit, I suspect it could be beneficial in the long run. At least my uncertainty makes it unlikely that I'll get physically intimate too fast (as I have before, when acting on the impulses of love). And that may, in turn, make him respect me/desire me more and allow us to get to know each other without being compelled to just because of hormones. It's just a strange feeling because in the past when it comes relationships I've always had my heart dominate my head, and this time, it's the other way around.
Throne Of Lies Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 If this helps at all, a friend of mine who is a marriage counselor claims that 'the person who cares less has all the power in the relationship'. I could see how that would be true. Since you aren't in a relationship yet though, you can hit the enthusiasm pretty hard. It will boost his ego, if nothing else.
openbook08 Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 hmm... my friend said to me recently that there is a lover and the loved in each rship... not sure as ive only had one serious rship but if its so i was the lover & i definitely came off the worse in the end. my next rship i wanna feel what its like to be the loved. at the same time i like bein the lover ... i think with the right person it can be mutually beneficial if the roles can change - be similar - crossover, and thus lead to a very happy rship. heres hoping
Trialbyfire Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 This is something I've heard from my mother and a guy I know who recently proposed to a friend of mine: In a relationship, the man should want the woman more than the woman wants the man. The other way around, a woman wanting the man more than he wants her, is not so good. What do you think: true, not true? Ideally of course, both parties desire each other equally as much. This is not always the case, though. Gender-aside, when you have emotional relationship imbalance, it's not going to last. This is how many relationships end, through the less valued partner getting fed up with being taken for granted and finally walking.
LovieDove24 Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 Ugh. I agree the gender here doesnt matter. I always tend to get more wrapped up, over analyze and lose my mind. Not fun. I don't think thats a good idea for either the guy or the girl.
Dumbledore Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 If this helps at all, a friend of mine who is a marriage counselor claims that 'the person who cares less has all the power in the relationship'. Quoted for truth. The balance of power may change, but there is always one person with the baton.
AlektraClementine Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 This has me thinking a bit. In my relationship, the boyfriend is the one who reaches out the most. Calls the most/emails/texts/is more affectionate. I'm very affectionate but more often than not, he reaches first. He is consistent with compliments as well. I on the other hand, am far more reserved. His optimism intimidates me. Like carhil said, he shoulders the vulnerability with a certain confidence. I am not confident at all that this relationship is working from one day to the next. I wonder sometimes though, is it easier for him as a man to be so "plugged in" to this relationship because I'm a tough nut to crack? There may be something to this. Maybe it's not right. maybe it's not how it should be. But I wonder, if it the genders in my relationship were reversed, would a man be able to handle being on the receiving end of so many frequent calls, texts, declarations of adoration... etc... or would he bolt. I know that part of my behavior has a lot to do with the reactions I got in the past from being too eager too soon or to adoring too soon.
citizen67 Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 on a similar vein I have heard that it is better for the woman to be the better looking one in the relationship. possibly related to the guy being more head over heels?
Trialbyfire Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 on a similar vein I have heard that it is better for the woman to be the better looking one in the relationship. possibly related to the guy being more head over heels? Nah, that's just wishful thinking...
Author seamaid Posted January 26, 2009 Author Posted January 26, 2009 But I wonder, if it the genders in my relationship were reversed, would a man be able to handle being on the receiving end of so many frequent calls, texts, declarations of adoration... etc... or would he bolt. I know that part of my behavior has a lot to do with the reactions I got in the past from being too eager too soon or to adoring too soon. That's where I'm at, too. I have this revulsion to "being too eager too soon or too adoring too soon" now. The lack of control associated with it scares me and reminds me of how such enthusiasm and passion had been rebuffed in the past, or simply wasted on a relationship that wasn't meant to be. It feels safer this way, like I'm protecting my best interests, and I think that bit of standoffishness intrigues the guy (or girl, as the case may be). On the other hand, I feel like a normal relationship ought to start out with me doing my usual thing of being totally crazy in love (rose colored glasses, etc.), with none of this hesitation stuff in the way.
Trialbyfire Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 That's where I'm at, too. I have this revulsion to "being too eager too soon or too adoring too soon" now. The lack of control associated with it scares me and reminds me of how such enthusiasm and passion had been rebuffed in the past, or simply wasted on a relationship that wasn't meant to be. It feels safer this way, like I'm protecting my best interests, and I think that bit of standoffishness intrigues the guy (or girl, as the case may be). On the other hand, I feel like a normal relationship ought to start out with me doing my usual thing of being totally crazy in love (rose colored glasses, etc.), with none of this hesitation stuff in the way. Getting a healthy, viable relationship going isn't about playing games. If you're both emotionally available, that's when it flows naturally.
Author seamaid Posted January 26, 2009 Author Posted January 26, 2009 Nah, that's just wishful thinking... For the guy I presume? Yeah, the girl being better-looking doesn't mean he'll treat you like a queen forever. IME it depends on compatibility and mutual respect.
Trialbyfire Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 For the guy I presume? Yeah, the girl being better-looking doesn't mean he'll treat you like a queen forever. IME it depends on compatibility and mutual respect. Totally agree except in situations where the man is solely superficial. If so, just another form of non-viable relationship, someone not worth keeping!
Author seamaid Posted January 26, 2009 Author Posted January 26, 2009 Getting a healthy, viable relationship going isn't about playing games. If you're both emotionally available, that's when it flows naturally. Is it possible to make yourself emotionally available? Or is that something you just realize one day after some time to yourself?
carhill Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 Best marriages are where the guy is completely p*ssy-whipped (which I could equate to "liking more" I guess), but still does the slow burn on the couch every Sunday drinking beer, farting and watching the game. Perfect balance Discuss
Dumbledore Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 on a similar vein I have heard that it is better for the woman to be the better looking one in the relationship. possibly related to the guy being more head over heels? Spot on. You'll notice that these are the only relationships which work.
AlektraClementine Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 Getting a healthy, viable relationship going isn't about playing games. If you're both emotionally available, that's when it flows naturally. To be honest though, for me at least, it isn't at all about playing games. It is quite uncomfortable for me to be this way. I'm not "winning" anything. It's actually hard work for me push myself to be more emotional and vulnerable. After a year together I am only just beginning this process. He's very happy about it. I'm scared to death.
Recommended Posts