"Better to marry a man who loves you more than you love him"

[CLC2008]

No problem... I was trying to make the point .. how exactly do you measure how in love you are compared to someone else anyway? Some people have very good poker faces. There's a thread on the sexuality board where it went back and forth that a woman can fake multi O's but a man can fake a whole relationship.

 

Relationships aren't that static anyway. In my now defunct marriage it started off with her more into me then grew to be more equal. Then once we were married and she 'got me'? Then it started skewing the other way until the end when she lost it for me and I was left heartbroken because I still loved her.

 

So people don't even consider all this stuff because nothing is ever permanent! Just because it's that way one day doesn't mean it can't and won't change.

 

Hope you can find someone who is as into you as you are into them as much as you can tell. Most importantly someone who at least appears to have the wherewithal to understand that things most certainly will change and you have to roll with it and work together or even sometimes alone to keep things going.

 

Good points, especially this: Most importantly someone who at least appears to have the wherewithal to understand that things most certainly will change and you have to roll with it and work together or even sometimes alone to keep things going.

[sumdude]

Good points, especially this: Most importantly someone who at least appears to have the wherewithal to understand that things most certainly will change and you have to roll with it and work together or even sometimes alone to keep things going.

 

Thanks, I learned that one the hard way.

[CLC2008]

Thanks, I learned that one the hard way.

 

Yes. Don't we all. Hugs.

[FoxMulder]

Does this, then, mean that for a R to succeed, a woman should choose a man that she doesn't really feel strongly about?

 

No, why would any man want a woman who doesn't feel that strongly about him?

[samspade]

This is all about frame and power in the relationship - and a woman who loves her man less than he loves her is playing for the pants. It's a signal that he's in for years of marital "bliss" that will require him to check his balls at the door. Happens all the time in the US, given our penchant for breeding effeminate men and masculine women.

 

If you don't think being the man means being the leader and controlling the frame, good luck - you're in for a world of pain in your "equal partnership."

[Mme. Chaucer]

Before a woman can truly love a man, she must first 1) respect and 2) fear him.

 

Sorry but that's the way it is.

 

Sorry, but once again you are speaking utter malarky. I'm a woman! An OLD one! I've loved! More than once! I love now, and I don't FEAR HIM. Heaven forbid.

 

I speak the truth: Love and fear are not going to coexist well. I think that they are mutually exclusive.

 

Once again, rewe4reel, you demonstrate terrible lack of skill at understanding anything outside of your own immediate realm (which you may not understand either) combined with an astounding certainty that you are RIGHT. It's concerning.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I have seen alot of women saying this "Better to marry a man who loves you more than you love him" and similar things. But why do so many women think this way? Why is it better if the man loves the woman more? Isn't it best if both partners love each other equally much? To be honest, women who think this way seem rather selfish and not "fully" in love with their SO. I would never marry a woman if I knew she thought like that.

 

The entire construct where someone is the winner and someone the loser, someone gets more and someone gets less, creates a competitive spirit that I think is not healthy for MOST relationships (some probably do thrive on it).

 

"Love" is pretty huge, anyway. Far be it from me to be able to quantify it.

[Ruby Slippers]

Does this, then, mean that for a R to succeed, a woman should choose a man that she doesn't really feel strongly about?

Not at all. But I think it's wise to select a man who is crazy about you, rather than go after a guy you're crazy about and who might be lukewarm about you.

 

Let's say I have 10 guys in front of me. 3 of them are not interested in me at all, 3 are mildly interested, 3 are very interested, and 1 is totally enamored. I might not be interested in some of these guys for whatever reasons, but of the ones I am interested in, don't you think it makes sense to choose the one who is also most interested in me?

 

Let me use another analogy. Let's say I have five friends. 2 of them are only mildly interested in spending time with me. 2 are interested. And 1 can't wait to see me and hang out with me. I like all of these friends. Don't you think I'm going to have the best time with the 1 who can't wait to see me? She's going to appreciate my company and show it, and this will initiate a continuous loop of fun and goodness. The friends who aren't that interested in me and just want to hang out to pass the time -- my time with them is probably not going to be that rewarding.

 

And I'm sure most of us have had both employers who treasure us and express their appreciation for our good work, and employers who are lukewarm and corporate and blah about us. In which position were you happier? In which did you do your best work?

 

I run my own business, and the further along I go, the more I refine my client base to those clients who are crazy about me and the work that I do. This is good for me and good for them. It means I give them my best and they get my best. How does anyone lose here?

Edited May 28, 2010 by Ruby Slippers

[brainygirl]

I have never ever heard that said by anyone. And it doesn't make any sense. Marriage is hard work, why would I, or any woman, put myself in that situation with someone I didn't care for in that way?

 

And how can a couple who loves each other determine who loves the other one "more" anyway?

[Maxxx]

Not at all. But I think it's wise to select a man who is crazy about you, rather than go after a guy you're crazy about and who might be lukewarm about you.

 

Let's say I have 10 guys in front of me. 3 of them are not interested in me at all, 3 are mildly interested, 3 are very interested, and 1 is totally enamored. I might not be interested in some of these guys for whatever reasons, but of the ones I am interested in, don't you think it makes sense to choose the one who is also most interested in me?

 

Let me use another analogy. Let's say I have five friends. 2 of them are only mildly interested in spending time with me. 2 are interested. And 1 can't wait to see me and hang out with me. I like all of these friends. Don't you think I'm going to have the best time with the 1 who can't wait to see me? She's going to appreciate my company and show it, and this will initiate a continuous loop of fun and goodness. The friends who aren't that interested in me and just want to hang out to pass the time -- my time with them is probably not going to be that rewarding.

 

And I'm sure most of us have had both employers who treasure us and express their appreciation for our good work, and employers who are lukewarm and corporate and blah about us. In which position were you happier? In which did you do your best work?

 

I run my own business, and the further along I go, the more I refine my client base to those clients who are crazy about me and the work that I do. This is good for me and good for them. It means I give them my best and they get my best. How does anyone lose here?

 

 

I do not get any of this at all............ I surely hope that my wife to be does not feel at all like you......

 

Because this is the way I can see this playing out.....

 

Sitting in MC's office going over what went wrong in the marriage

 

Woman:"Well I never did love him as much as he did me"

Man: Ends up shocked at this statement

 

I don't care how you cut it this whole thread is all wrong...

[Woggle]

This is all about frame and power in the relationship - and a woman who loves her man less than he loves her is playing for the pants. It's a signal that he's in for years of marital "bliss" that will require him to check his balls at the door. Happens all the time in the US, given our penchant for breeding effeminate men and masculine women.

 

If you don't think being the man means being the leader and controlling the frame, good luck - you're in for a world of pain in your "equal partnership."

 

Very true. This is just another attempt to turn men into whipped puppies and we all know women don't love them.

[Britney23]

This reminds me of the How I Met Your Mother episode about the reacher-settler theory. "Every good relationship has a reacher and a settler." "Exactly, one person reaches for someone out of their league, the other one settles for someone below..

 

I have friends that feel that they have "settled" and although they love and care for their partner, it wouldn't surprise me if they cheated or had an affair because they are always looking for the next best thing or thinking they can do better. And i honestly would hate to be in a relationship like that. I don't think that's true love and it's not fair for the guy.

 

I think that my boyfriend and I love each other equally as much and that's the best situation to be in. When we first me he was so infatuated with me, more so than I was with him, and it kind of put me off. It made me think less of him because he was so into me (I guess it didnt make sense to me because no other guy had treated me that well). But I decided to give him a chance because he was so nice (and all my friends and family thought he was great) and it didnt take long to fall in love with him.

 

Now he is secure that I love him and that I'm not going anywhere and I feel the same way. He doesn't put me on a pedestal anymore but I feel way more comfortable being on the same level.

[Mr White]

This is all about frame and power in the relationship - and a woman who loves her man less than he loves her is playing for the pants. It's a signal that he's in for years of marital "bliss" that will require him to check his balls at the door. Happens all the time in the US, given our penchant for breeding effeminate men and masculine women.

 

If you don't think being the man means being the leader and controlling the frame, good luck - you're in for a world of pain in your "equal partnership."

 

Yeah, but it's also a pretty weak and misguided strategy. You can love a woman a lot, and still not be afraid to piss her off - if necessary. So, what is she gonna do if things don't go her way? Dump you? Okay...

JUST because a man loves a woman doesn't mean that he'll jump through hoops to "demonstrate" how much energy he's willing to invest into the relationship for her sake and self-gratification. The man who does that - without equal and complete reciprocation - is simply a wimp with no self respect.

I love my girlfriend very much, and I don't feel the need to engage in this stupid calculus, but if I ever begin to feel that my commitment is not 100% reciprocated, I will first bring it up, and then - if nothing changes - head for the door.

[Mr White]

Not at all. But I think it's wise to select a man who is crazy about you, rather than go after a guy you're crazy about and who might be lukewarm about you.

 

Let's say I have 10 guys in front of me. 3 of them are not interested in me at all, 3 are mildly interested, 3 are very interested, and 1 is totally enamored. I might not be interested in some of these guys for whatever reasons, but of the ones I am interested in, don't you think it makes sense to choose the one who is also most interested in me?

 

 

 

 

Well, DUH . Now, just switch the genders and see where does that leave you? (HINT: in the pile of lukewarm - and lonely - "strategists", while the rest of us cuddle with the affectionate honeys that can love without reservations )

[sally4sara]

Before a woman can truly love a man, she must first 1) respect and 2) fear him.

 

Sorry but that's the way it is.

 

I respect my husband, but I don't fear him. I know what living in fear is and its a sick thing to think it is part of a good relationship.

 

YOU fear him - he can attain what you cannot without coercion or being demanding of respect.

[Els]

Not at all. But I think it's wise to select a man who is crazy about you, rather than go after a guy you're crazy about and who might be lukewarm about you.

 

Let's say I have 10 guys in front of me. 3 of them are not interested in me at all, 3 are mildly interested, 3 are very interested, and 1 is totally enamored. I might not be interested in some of these guys for whatever reasons, but of the ones I am interested in, don't you think it makes sense to choose the one who is also most interested in me?

 

Let me use another analogy. Let's say I have five friends. 2 of them are only mildly interested in spending time with me. 2 are interested. And 1 can't wait to see me and hang out with me. I like all of these friends. Don't you think I'm going to have the best time with the 1 who can't wait to see me? She's going to appreciate my company and show it, and this will initiate a continuous loop of fun and goodness. The friends who aren't that interested in me and just want to hang out to pass the time -- my time with them is probably not going to be that rewarding.

 

And I'm sure most of us have had both employers who treasure us and express their appreciation for our good work, and employers who are lukewarm and corporate and blah about us. In which position were you happier? In which did you do your best work?

 

I run my own business, and the further along I go, the more I refine my client base to those clients who are crazy about me and the work that I do. This is good for me and good for them. It means I give them my best and they get my best. How does anyone lose here?

 

I agree it's best to go for a man who is very much into you. However, you're taking that a step further by saying that a R has the best success if the man is more into you than you are into him. Assuming that women and men have equal capacity to love, wouldn't this entail you choosing a man whom you love 'a little less than completely', in order to obtain the slight imbalance?

 

Again, I find this an intriguing point, and it may well have some truth to it. Just trying to understand.

[FoxMulder]

Not at all. But I think it's wise to select a man who is crazy about you, rather than go after a guy you're crazy about and who might be lukewarm about you.

 

Let's say I have 10 guys in front of me. 3 of them are not interested in me at all, 3 are mildly interested, 3 are very interested, and 1 is totally enamored. I might not be interested in some of these guys for whatever reasons, but of the ones I am interested in, don't you think it makes sense to choose the one who is also most interested in me?

 

Let me use another analogy. Let's say I have five friends. 2 of them are only mildly interested in spending time with me. 2 are interested. And 1 can't wait to see me and hang out with me. I like all of these friends. Don't you think I'm going to have the best time with the 1 who can't wait to see me? She's going to appreciate my company and show it, and this will initiate a continuous loop of fun and goodness. The friends who aren't that interested in me and just want to hang out to pass the time -- my time with them is probably not going to be that rewarding.

 

And I'm sure most of us have had both employers who treasure us and express their appreciation for our good work, and employers who are lukewarm and corporate and blah about us. In which position were you happier? In which did you do your best work?

 

I run my own business, and the further along I go, the more I refine my client base to those clients who are crazy about me and the work that I do. This is good for me and good for them. It means I give them my best and they get my best. How does anyone lose here?

 

But that goes both ways. Lets say I have 2 women infront of me both of which I am intrested in, one is mildy intrested in me and one is very intrested in me, I would offcourse pick the one who is most intrested in me... Again, why would a man want to be with a woman who doesn't feel that strongly about him? Why would a man want a woman who doesn't love him 100%?

[FoxMulder]

This reminds me of the How I Met Your Mother episode about the reacher-settler theory. "Every good relationship has a reacher and a settler." "Exactly, one person reaches for someone out of their league, the other one settles for someone below..

 

I have friends that feel that they have "settled" and although they love and care for their partner, it wouldn't surprise me if they cheated or had an affair because they are always looking for the next best thing or thinking they can do better. And i honestly would hate to be in a relationship like that. I don't think that's true love and it's not fair for the guy.

 

I think that my boyfriend and I love each other equally as much and that's the best situation to be in. When we first me he was so infatuated with me, more so than I was with him, and it kind of put me off. It made me think less of him because he was so into me (I guess it didnt make sense to me because no other guy had treated me that well). But I decided to give him a chance because he was so nice (and all my friends and family thought he was great) and it didnt take long to fall in love with him.

 

Now he is secure that I love him and that I'm not going anywhere and I feel the same way. He doesn't put me on a pedestal anymore but I feel way more comfortable being on the same level.

 

I completley agree... I don't think women who think like "Ruby Slippers" feel true love towards their man and I also think that it's only a matter of time before women like that leave their boyfriend/husband.

[FoxMulder]

I do not get any of this at all............ I surely hope that my wife to be does not feel at all like you......

 

Because this is the way I can see this playing out.....

 

Sitting in MC's office going over what went wrong in the marriage

 

Woman:"Well I never did love him as much as he did me"

Man: Ends up shocked at this statement

 

I don't care how you cut it this whole thread is all wrong...

 

Well you have to realise that women like "Ruby Slippers" are selfish, they only think about whats best for them as a woman.... Have you noticed that there hasn't been one single guy here that thinks the man should love more? It's ONLY women who want that because they are selfish... they want to have the upper hand in the relationship, and again thats only for their own good and their own benefit. NO man wants a woman who loves him less. NO man wants the woman to have the advantage.

 

If your soon wife thinks like "Ruby Slippers" maybe you should cancel the wedding? Women who think like that are not marriage/relationship material and it's only a matter of time before she leaves you... It's sad but true, would you really like to spend the rest of your life with a woman who doesn't feel that strongly about you and could basicly just take you or leave you? I hope everything works out for you and I really hope your soon wife doesnt think like "Ruby Slippers".

[Taramere]

But that goes both ways. Lets say I have 2 women infront of me both of which I am intrested in, one is mildy intrested in me and one is very intrested in me, I would offcourse pick the one who is most intrested in me...

Well, your choice isn't necessarily a choice every man would make. You want to go for the safe bet: The woman who is more interested in you...presumably because she's the one you think you would feel more secure and happy with. That's the criteria you fall back on in your selection. "Which one of these two women is more into me?"

 

It's not really any different from the criteria you're criticising some of the women on this board for. They're placing more importance on how the guy feels about them, than how they feel about the guy. You're indicating that you would do the same with regard to women.

 

Again, why would a man want to be with a woman who doesn't feel that strongly about him? Why would a man want a woman who doesn't love him 100%?

 

Possibly the woman who doesn't feel that strongly about him has more of the qualities he admires than the woman who does feel strongly about him. Whether it's physical attractiveness, or intelligence, or talent in a field he's passionate about...it could be that the draw is the woman herself, rather than how he perceives her as seeing/feeling about him.

 

When I've been in love, what it means for me is that when the person walks into the room then provided I'm in a generally okay mood, it's as though someone switched all the lights on....and it's that person who gives me that sensation. It's not the way they feel about me, it's the things about them that I admire that make me feel so strongly.

 

So if in any relationship, one must love a little bit more than the other, I would prefer to be in "the one who loves more" camp. For purely selfish reasons. You get far more of a buzz and a sense of happiness out of a relationship if you're the one who loves more. The downside is, of course, that you're the one who's going to hurt more if and when it ends. I think that's where people do give up their power to a certain extent, by loving. It makes them more vulnerable and more liable to get hurt. The worst cynics are, of course, the romantics who took that risk of loving to full capacity and had it backfire badly on them.

 

On the positive side, there's more honesty involved in being the person who loves. I think anyone who's plugging away in a relationship where they have to put on an act of loving that they don't really feel might well do themselves more psychological damage in the long run than the person who loves, gets hurt - but is at least being honest.

 

When I picture a woman who settles for a man who loves her, but who she doesn't love in return - I don't really think of a woman who has power over her husband. I think of a Stepford Wife type figure.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Taramere

[You Go Girl]

On the positive side, there's more honesty involved in being the person who loves. I think anyone who's plugging away in a relationship where they have to put on an act of loving that they don't really feel might well do themselves more psychological damage in the long run than the person who loves, gets hurt - but is at least being honest.

 

When I picture a woman who settles for a man who loves her, but who she doesn't love in return - I don't really think of a woman who has power over her husband. I think of a Stepford Wife type figure.

 

Excellent points Tamere--I agree completely.

 

One thing that hasn't been remarked upon is that anybody who seeks someone who 'loves them more' is looking for security, and selling themselves out. What rot of a life.

I prefer to love with abandon, risk it all, and suffer later if need be...at least I can say I truly loved, even if I lost. Go for broke! Hopefully my intellect will play a part in the decision making process.

Security is for banks.

[FoxMulder]

Well, your choice isn't necessarily a choice every man would make. You want to go for the safe bet: The woman who is more interested in you...presumably because she's the one you think you would feel more secure and happy with. That's the criteria you fall back on in your selection. "Which one of these two women is more into me?"

 

It's not really any different from the criteria you're criticising some of the women on this board for. They're placing more importance on how the guy feels about them, than how they feel about the guy. You're indicating that you would do the same with regard to women.

 

You completley misunderstand my post. If I am equally intrested in 2 women then offcourse I'm going to pick the one who is more intrested in me. But I get the sense that women like "Ruby Slippers" who thinks the man should love more thinks this is wrong and that as a man I should pick a woman I am really intrested in while she is not really that into me. I guess I just don't understand the logic behind that. Why would any man want a woman who doesn't feel that strongly about him? I think women have a severe double standard when it comes to this.

 

I do NOT want a woman who loves me MORE than I love her. Because I wouldn't want to be with a woman I don't love 100%... Women however don't care at all about finding someone they love, they only want to find someone who loves them. Atleast thats the impression I get.

 

I want the love to be equal and mutual. I don't want someone who loves me less than I love her... Nor do I want a woman who loves me more than I love her.

[FoxMulder]

When I've been in love, what it means for me is that when the person walks into the room then provided I'm in a generally okay mood, it's as though someone switched all the lights on....and it's that person who gives me that sensation. It's not the way they feel about me, it's the things about them that I admire that make me feel so strongly.

 

Yes and women think the opposite. Women only think about what the man feels about them and not about the person. Women only admire that the man loves them and not the things about them.

[Taramere]

Excellent points Tamere--I agree completely.

 

One thing that hasn't been remarked upon is that anybody who seeks someone who 'loves them more' is looking for security, and selling themselves out. What rot of a life.

I prefer to love with abandon, risk it all, and suffer later if need be...at least I can say I truly loved, even if I lost. Go for broke! Hopefully my intellect will play a part in the decision making process.

Security is for banks.

 

I agree...though I think sometimes people make the decision to settle down for security when they've been burned a few too many times. It's understandable, but I think staying single is the more honest option when a person's feeling that way. I know I wouldn't want to inflict myself, as I was at my bitterest, on anyone....regardless of how strongly they felt about me, and how sure they were that they could "heal" me.

 

Yes and women think the opposite. Women only think about what the man feels about them and not about the person. Women only admire that the man loves them and not the things about them.

 

I see. Very interesting.

 

I'm a woman, by the way. I'm pretty sure You Go Girl is also a woman. so is DonnaMaybe, and so are other posters who've placed importance on the art of loving and admiring as well as being loved and admired.

[You Go Girl]

Yes and women think the opposite. Women only think about what the man feels about them and not about the person. Women only admire that the man loves them and not the things about them.

 

You want to get a glimpse of just how wrong and jaded you are foxmulder?

 

Tamere IS A WOMAN.