East7 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 As inspiration from Woggle's thread I have a "Theory" (Cheaters are relationship dominators) and I'm looking for examples about the relation between being a cake-eater and relationship dominator : I have always thought that in a R dynamics there is always a TAKER and a GIVER. The Giver is the one who loves the most, makes the most efforts into building a happy marriage (or R), gives the more attention, is the more family oriented, is the one selfless who puts the couple's needs before his own needs. The Giver is the one who always wants to make it work when the R is down. The Taker is the one who is a little detached and more individualistic (have outside hobbies, hangs the more with friends etc), makes less efforts into the R or M. He is the one who expects the more support and affection, the one who is more self-centered. His actions are always directed in what he wants the R or the M to be like. If he wants to move in another house, he decides to do so or convinces the spouse they need to go, if he wants a career change he convince the spouse to follow him. Everything seems like mutual agreements on outside, but actually the Taker is the decider ! Obviously the difference between a Taker and a Giver in a relationship is very subtle, on the outside, both seem to be equally invested in the R but there are always signs that there is one who is dominating a little more. IME, the Givers never cheat. The ones who wants to see if the grass is greener is the Taker. IMO the Takers are the most likely to cheat. On the other side of the triangle : the Takers (MM/MW) are the most likely to dominate the R with the AP. Again on the outside they are nice, saying loving words but looking at the core, they have the power on the A relationship. Most of the time the AP will be the one to compromise and make efforts. What's interesting is that, the dominating dynamic is reproduced with the reconciliation process. I know this may upset a lot of reconciled BS but I have noticed that : The success of reconciliation is mostly depending whether the Taker (cheater) decides to make the marriage work. While the Giver will have the instinct to put efforts into forgiving and rebuilding the M, the Taker will hesitate for a while or will put the blame on the Giver. Those who successfully reconcile it is because the Taker decides to reconcile, paradoxally he might be the one who cheated, still hold the power on the R.
OWoman Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 As inspiration from Woggle's thread I have a "Theory" (Cheaters are relationship dominators) and I'm looking for examples about the relation between being a cake-eater and relationship dominator : I have always thought that in a R dynamics there is always a TAKER and a GIVER. The Giver is the one who loves the most, makes the most efforts into building a happy marriage (or R), gives the more attention, is the more family oriented, is the one selfless who puts the couple's needs before his own needs. The Giver is the one who always wants to make it work when the R is down. The Taker is the one who is a little detached and more individualistic (have outside hobbies, hangs the more with friends etc), makes less efforts into the R or M. He is the one who expects the more support and affection, the one who is more self-centered. His actions are always directed in what he wants the R or the M to be like. If he wants to move in another house, he decides to do so or convinces the spouse they need to go, if he wants a career change he convince the spouse to follow him. Everything seems like mutual agreements on outside, but actually the Taker is the decider ! Obviously the difference between a Taker and a Giver in a relationship is very subtle, on the outside, both seem to be equally invested in the R but there are always signs that there is one who is dominating a little more. IME, the Givers never cheat. The ones who wants to see if the grass is greener is the Taker. IMO the Takers are the most likely to cheat. On the other side of the triangle : the Takers (MM/MW) are the most likely to dominate the R with the AP. Again on the outside they are nice, saying loving words but looking at the core, they have the power on the A relationship. Most of the time the AP will be the one to compromise and make efforts. It was the exact opposite in my H's M. He was the giver, she was the taker (big time!) She was a bully (not only in the R - she lost a job because of bullying colleagues at work) and very much dominated the M. She doesn't see herself as a taker, though - she sees herself as a misunderstood giver But then I guess few narcissists have the ability to see themselves as others see them.
Author East7 Posted February 23, 2011 Author Posted February 23, 2011 It was the exact opposite in my H's M. He was the giver, she was the taker (big time!) She was a bully (not only in the R - she lost a job because of bullying colleagues at work) and very much dominated the M. Maybe that's why he is an exception case of MM leaving. Takers don't leave the marriage, they are conscious that they have a Giver and they pick what is best for them.
notagame Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 As inspiration from Woggle's thread I have a "Theory" (Cheaters are relationship dominators) and I'm looking for examples about the relation between being a cake-eater and relationship dominator : I have always thought that in a R dynamics there is always a TAKER and a GIVER. The Giver is the one who loves the most, makes the most efforts into building a happy marriage (or R), gives the more attention, is the more family oriented, is the one selfless who puts the couple's needs before his own needs. The Giver is the one who always wants to make it work when the R is down. The Taker is the one who is a little detached and more individualistic (have outside hobbies, hangs the more with friends etc), makes less efforts into the R or M. He is the one who expects the more support and affection, the one who is more self-centered. His actions are always directed in what he wants the R or the M to be like. If he wants to move in another house, he decides to do so or convinces the spouse they need to go, if he wants a career change he convince the spouse to follow him. Everything seems like mutual agreements on outside, but actually the Taker is the decider ! Obviously the difference between a Taker and a Giver in a relationship is very subtle, on the outside, both seem to be equally invested in the R but there are always signs that there is one who is dominating a little more. IME, the Givers never cheat. The ones who wants to see if the grass is greener is the Taker. IMO the Takers are the most likely to cheat. On the other side of the triangle : the Takers (MM/MW) are the most likely to dominate the R with the AP. Again on the outside they are nice, saying loving words but looking at the core, they have the power on the A relationship. Most of the time the AP will be the one to compromise and make efforts. What's interesting is that, the dominating dynamic is reproduced with the reconciliation process. I know this may upset a lot of reconciled BS but I have noticed that : The success of reconciliation is mostly depending whether the Taker (cheater) decides to make the marriage work. While the Giver will have the instinct to put efforts into forgiving and rebuilding the M, the Taker will hesitate for a while or will put the blame on the Giver. Those who successfully reconcile it is because the Taker decides to reconcile, paradoxally he might be the one who cheated, still hold the power on the R. This is pissing me off.
TigerCub Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 This is pissing me off. Why? - East is just discussing a theory. Why does the post upset you so much?
What_Next Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 This theory might be more common, but it isn't an absolute. Of course theories rarely are. In my case my wife was the "giver" if that definition applies. It is also interesting to read your use of the male/female roles. This theory is a lot more likely to apply in relationships where the male cheats.
TigerCub Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Hey East As for your theory, I honestly don't know how accurate it is. I think the stereotypical cheater is most likely the Taker in the R and dominates it. (From the way xMM acted and tried to act with me at times - it didn't work well tho ) - I definitely think he fit that mould. But - I do think that there are different cases, and sometimes the cheater could in fact be the "giver" - but they've built up so much resentment and pain (from constantly giving and not being appreciated) that for whatever circumstances, they end up being the cheaters. Its a very interesting theory, but I honestly don't know if it really fits.
notagame Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Why? - East is just discussing a theory. Why does the post upset you so much? She fits the mold of taker.
Woggle Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Only if you let them be. You dump them instead of letting them dump you and the power shifts.
notagame Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Only if you let them be. You dump them instead of letting them dump you and the power shifts. I did the dumping and that's one thing I'm proud of.
Author East7 Posted February 23, 2011 Author Posted February 23, 2011 Hey East As for your theory, I honestly don't know how accurate it is. I think the stereotypical cheater is most likely the Taker in the R and dominates it. (From the way xMM acted and tried to act with me at times - it didn't work well tho ) - I definitely think he fit that mould. But - I do think that there are different cases, and sometimes the cheater could in fact be the "giver" - but they've built up so much resentment and pain (from constantly giving and not being appreciated) that for whatever circumstances, they end up being the cheaters. Its a very interesting theory, but I honestly don't know if it really fits. Hi sweetie in that case it is called revenge A. Only if you let them be. You dump them instead of letting them dump you and the power shifts. That's a good theory too.
Woggle Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 I did the dumping and that's one thing I'm proud of. Me too and boy do they hate when they are not the one doing the dumping.
Spark1111 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Well, I find this very interesting and true on many levels! If takers are self-centered, than yes, I believe that arrogant sense of self-entitlement will allow them to easily justify an affair, or many affairs. If givers become too beaten down, too underappreciated, well, then yes, I would think those are the people who have exit affairs. They are just done! What is interesting during reconciliation is the balance of power shifts in that the BS dumps the WS, or the truly remorseful WS starts to become a Giver..... The dynamics change somewhat. But I do agree the WS has to want to change.
TigerCub Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Hi sweetie in that case it is called revenge A. Oh, I always thought revenge As were more along the lines of "you cheated on me?! F*** you bitch, I'll show you what's what!" but I guess a revenge A could also be just an A as a means of getting revenge for a lot of hurt, emotional starvation and not being appreciated. ...never really thought about it like that before.
Author East7 Posted February 23, 2011 Author Posted February 23, 2011 but I guess a revenge A could also be just an A as a means of getting revenge for a lot of hurt, emotional starvation and not being appreciated. ...never really thought about it like that before. Ohhh ok. I don't really think that people who are really really hurt and miserable would pick an A instead of simply leaving.
OWoman Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Ohhh ok. I don't really think that people who are really really hurt and miserable would pick an A instead of simply leaving. It depends on the situation. A M is often more than just an R between two people - it's a whole ecosystem, with tangled familial Rs, interwoven finances and shared social systems. Many unhappy spouses would happily eject the other spouse from the system, but leave the system intact - but that is not typically possible. So rather than risking the collapse of the entire system, they remain in it unhappily and try to mitigate their unhappiness in other ways - of which an A is one such option.
OWoman Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Well, I find this very interesting and true on many levels! If takers are self-centered, than yes, I believe that arrogant sense of self-entitlement will allow them to easily justify an affair, or many affairs. If givers become too beaten down, too underappreciated, well, then yes, I would think those are the people who have exit affairs. They are just done! Both of these scenarios make a lot of sense. What is interesting during reconciliation is the balance of power shifts in that the BS dumps the WS, or the truly remorseful WS starts to become a Giver..... The dynamics change somewhat. But I do agree the WS has to want to change. Interesting... I know my H had to learn to give less, and to take more, in our R (both during the A and into the M). I guess either way - whether the M reconciles or ends - it can serve as a real wake-up call for both spouses to look at how they relate to each other, and to others (should they go on to other Rs) if they are prepared to put in the work.
NoIDidn't Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 East I'm the dominant personality in my marriage and I didn't cheat. But I'm not that big of a Taker like your theory suggests. I'm also not a huge Giver. Pretty balanced with Give-and-Take. My H would likely have called me "The Demander" around the time that he cheated because I insisted that he give as much as he took. So, yeah, he's pretty selfish (not in a bad way, mind you) and more of a Taker, but he's not the relationship dominator between the two of us. I hope that made sense. Interesting theory.
Author East7 Posted February 23, 2011 Author Posted February 23, 2011 It depends on the situation. A M is often more than just an R between two people - it's a whole ecosystem, with tangled familial Rs, interwoven finances and shared social systems. Many unhappy spouses would happily eject the other spouse from the system, but leave the system intact - but that is not typically possible. So rather than risking the collapse of the entire system, they remain in it unhappily and try to mitigate their unhappiness in other ways - of which an A is one such option. Yes they want to keep the benefit of the "system" that's why they are typically takers.
Stateandbroadway Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 I am the one who cheated. And by all accounts including my husbands, his families, my family, our friends. His own mother...I am most definetly the giver. Being the giver does not mean that you are a saint. In fact it's a part of my personality that i wish i could get a hold of. Sometimes being a giver means that you give to a fault and take advantage of yourself. I am a giver with "things" and i am certainly a giver emotionally. To this day, my husband who is going through some tuff stuff comes to me to talk, be counseled and soothed. It's been 1 year since D day. I think this is testament that even after hurting him so much, he still seeks solace in me, because that is my core personality. I on the other hand am scared to tell him things. He is emotionally stingy and self centered. His own mother (and they love each other) has expressed this. Obvoiusly something occured in me where i went off the ranch (long story). But i have been a giver to my detriment most of my life. I have so many examples of giving where i have been screwed by people who take advantage it's ridiculous. My husband will freely describe himself, perhaps not as a taker...although i would say he certainly has takish attributes...but certainly not a giver. Let's put it this way. If I had lost our house and every $ we ever worked, jeopordized our dreams and quite possibly have flushed them down the toilet due to arrogance....i doubt my huband would be here. Well guess who's here. The giver!!! That would be me. And yes people...I talked and talked and talked, begged and begged, cried, used self help, tried the emotional approach, tried the less emotional approach, tried anger, tried softness. I tried just about everything i could imagine before going down the unthinkable road.
seren Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Interesting theory, but while I am the Giver in my marriage, that is just my nature. I give because I care, not just about H but most people. H is not a Taker, I would say he is a reciever. In our relationship, I am the dominant personality, in fact in most of, well all really, I am the more dominant person. I am a take charge, sort it out, suck it up and get on with it type, simply because if the s*** hits the fan my brain kicks into organise and sort it out mode. probably comes from having a lifetime of having to. H, on the other hand, was brought up by a dominant mother and a passive father, his mother made all the decisions, sorted everything out and shielded her family from worry, similar to us. I am the decider, in fact our friends say that they wouldn't know how H would manage without me. Doesn't mean I am always happy with this, but I recognise that some people are leaders, some followers. However, I need H's support and he mine, I see us as more of a team and I take from H the strength of his support, belief in me and love and he me. We have different core qualities, but I cannot say that either of us have taken advantage of the other. I can see how in some relationships there are givers and takers, how some are nurturers and recievers, but I don't think that these traits predispose people to have A's. I suppose it depends on circumstances, personal qualities, and thinking about it, a nurturer is perhaps less likely to have an A as they tend to put others needs before their own and so might think of the consequences of their actions. A taker? yes, OK possibly they see that their gratification is a right and don't necessarily think of how their actions will affect others. The more I am thinking about, the more I can see the basis for the theory but cannot see it in our relationship, simply based on our core personality traits.
Author East7 Posted February 24, 2011 Author Posted February 24, 2011 Interesting theory, but while I am the Giver in my marriage, that is just my nature. I give because I care, not just about H but most people. H is not a Taker, I would say he is a reciever. In our relationship, I am the dominant personality, in fact in most of, well all really, I am the more dominant person. I am a take charge, sort it out, suck it up and get on with it type, simply because if the s*** hits the fan my brain kicks into organise and sort it out mode. probably comes from having a lifetime of having to. H, on the other hand, was brought up by a dominant mother and a passive father, his mother made all the decisions, sorted everything out and shielded her family from worry, similar to us. I am the decider, in fact our friends say that they wouldn't know how H would manage without me. Doesn't mean I am always happy with this, but I recognise that some people are leaders, some followers. However, I need H's support and he mine, I see us as more of a team and I take from H the strength of his support, belief in me and love and he me. We have different core qualities, but I cannot say that either of us have taken advantage of the other. I can see how in some relationships there are givers and takers, how some are nurturers and recievers, but I don't think that these traits predispose people to have A's. I suppose it depends on circumstances, personal qualities, and thinking about it, a nurturer is perhaps less likely to have an A as they tend to put others needs before their own and so might think of the consequences of their actions. A taker? yes, OK possibly they see that their gratification is a right and don't necessarily think of how their actions will affect others. The more I am thinking about, the more I can see the basis for the theory but cannot see it in our relationship, simply based on our core personality traits. Seren, thanks for your input. Funny thing is when I wrote the thread I thought of you as a perfect illustration of my theory (I was thinking Seren is the perfect Giver ...truly, Im not joking). I think that if you are the one who makes more often decisions, it doesn't make you a dominator. That's because you are the one who invest the more into the relationship Reading you I also think that your H is comfy with that as part of it reminds him of his protecting mother. Anyway, your H is definitely a taker. Was he a giver, he would never had an A. I can't imagine you having an A.. You know? Taker and Giver is a neutral statement, it is not supposed to be bad or good, nor it is unhealthy or means taking advantage on the other spouse. It only expresses the dynamic of a relationship. Perfect balance in a R almost never exists. Also the level of love you have for a person makes you a Giver or a Taker. The same person can be both. The more you love, the more likely you will be a Giver. I have been Taker and Giver depending on my relationships. Interesting is that my xMW was a perfect Taker. She was the Taker with her H and with me both. Her H was always the one to make compromise to make her happy. On the other side during the A I was also the giver, I would always try to make her happy while most of the time she wouldn't do things just to please me.
OWoman Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Yes they want to keep the benefit of the "system" that's why they are typically takers. It's not only takers who benefit from the system - givers benefit too, by having a system to nurture. Have you come across "the virtue of selfishness"?
Author East7 Posted February 24, 2011 Author Posted February 24, 2011 It's not only takers who benefit from the system - givers benefit too, by having a system to nurture. Have you come across "the virtue of selfishness"? IMO, givers don't like "middle" solutions. An A is a "middle" solution between still being married (the system) and having a relationship with someone else. Cake-eaters = Takers. Givers either divorce or work to keep the marriage. "The virtue of selfishness" ? A book ? Yes I have heard about it. I think a doze of selfishness can protect everyone from abuse, but we can't change our core personality from being altruistic to being selfish. I also explained in another post here that a person can be taker or giver not only depending on his personality but also depending to the level of attachment in the relationship. In a R if you are the one who is the more in love you will be more likely a giver.
Recommended Posts