Stung Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 With all due respect a relationship between two women is much different than one between a man and a woman. You don't have all these nasty gender issues that plague relationships today. A question was asked, of an American woman, if she had ever dated American women. She had not. I am an American woman who has dated American women, so I answered. I am married to a man, btw, and our marriage is not plagued by nasty gender issues. From what I have heard, your marriage isn't either. Also, I don't see somebody freaking out about cranberries as a gender issue, that's a personality issue. There are men who are boring, nitpicky, overly critical and demanding too, and I'm fortunately not attracted to them, either.
Untouchable_Fire Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Very true and if he doesn't tolerate it he is a man chauvinist pig who wants to control her. I think some people that knew us just expected me to let my ex cheat on me and treat me like garbage while I worked my butt off to support her. Here is a great article where the author expresses the views you this thread is meant to explore. http://www.articleonlinedirectory.com/Art/432347/127/can-a-good-man-like-my-husband-forgive-me-for-cheating.html The question posed is this: "I know I married a good man. But is he good enough and kind enough to forgive me for cheating? How do I get him to look past my cheating and see how much I still love him?" The implication is that only "REALLY GOOD MEN" can forgive cheating. In other words those of us who can't or won't are just low quality. As if this is the litmus test for separating the average from the good men. This is important because today virtually every man will be cheated on at some point in his life.
sanskrit Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 I am an American woman who has dated American women, so I answered. You kind of answered. How many women did you date exclusively, for how long, and on a side note, how did you come to settle down with a man in light of all these "great catches" of women you dated? Why aren't you with one of these women? As posted previously, mine all start great, with no indicia of the kinds of issues I describe, then 3-4 months in... voila, dating an entirely different woman than she represented herself to be when we met. And explored the "you are the common denominator" line of advice/insult years ago. It's BS for the most part, especially for men, as men approach, women select. Men approach a broad variety of women who fit basic parameters and then content ourselves with one of those among the women who respond favorably to our approaches. This isn't at all the same as the general way in which women attract mates or partners, and makes the "common denominator" cliche' ring fairly hollow for average men. Moreover, women paint their faces every day, wear clothing designed to conceal and camouflage, so a reasonable conclusion would be that subterfuge is second nature to them (if not, tell me why that's unreasonable), it being that easy to conceal visible physical flaws, then it is even more easy for them to conceal invisible character traits completely for quite some time. By the time the traits come out, the calculus becomes "is the time I've invested in this worth trying to turn this around or not?" and that has very little to do with common denominators and people pickers. As woggle alludes, some of them are so expert at concealment they can do it all the way up to marriage. Do men conceal things? Of course, to the same degree? absolutely not. There are men who are boring, nitpicky, overly critical and demanding too, Yes, there are definitely men who are those things, never said nor implied otherwise, not to the degree or in the numbers women are. Men have other failings, women are the chief "minutiae herders" that cause the "long-suffering" of men.
carhill Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Interesting insight on the 'common denominator' part. That is indeed a tricky area. From my perspective, if a man is too selective and deliberate, another, less selective man jumps in and usurps his position. Too broad and non-selective and the maskers can bite him in the ass. I suffered from the former for many years as I found getting to know a woman slowly, looking for honest signs of compatibility, often left me in the dust of men who would 'sweep her off her feet'. After about fifteen years of selective and deliberate, I switched and, although quantity did improve, history has shown that marked incompatibility ultimately increased as well, some obvious and some masked. I think the key error was swinging too widely from one philosophy to another rather than reaching a healthier middle ground. To the extent that those choices brought any 'abuse' (a bit strong, but topical) into my life, I was the common denominator, as I set the parameters of my participation in the dynamic. Since divorcing, I've swung back more to the selective and deliberate side and am beginning to see similar results as that of before, but not enough datapoints to be meaningful. So, rather than seeing myself as 'the common denominator' in the global sense, I choose to take responsibility for the specific choices I make and examine those individually. I would say the boundary of what I consider to be 'abuse' ('unhealthy' is a word I like better) is substantially lower than before being married, but that 'stuff' is processed in a different way. Now I see it as really good information about compatibility, rather than good and bad or right and wrong, and process it in a more positive intellectual way than with the emotions of the past. In the past, IMO, I was a 'minutiae herder' and I believe that was a legitimate complaint of my exW's. MC helped a lot with that, both understanding the psychology of getting caught up in and sometimes overwhelmed by details and how to alter behaviors and responses to detail overload. Time will tell if the changes stick. Life goes on
sanskrit Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) Man you really touched on some key points there, and I have been through the exact kind of pendulum swinging from the "too rational, left in the dust" extreme, to the "charismatic feet sweeper, getting the girl, but too fast" extreme. But in actuality, I was never either extreme, just added certain extra components to base behavior. Have been "fortunate" in life (or so I thought, having doubts now) to be able to attract women who are incredible on paper, top quartile of physical attractiveness, intelligence, wit, education, family background, socialization, etc., but they aren't happy at heart. The advantages I have been given in life make me generally happy and better adjusted (though ironically I have been severely depressed due to externals recently), I keep believing that people who are blessed with advantages should be happy in life at some base level, but don't find this to be the case with these women of my generation that I meet (most of them are perpetually on SSRIs). And the irony is that my inability to find happy, well adjusted women is making me... unhappy, and currently unfit to be an unbaggagey relationship partner It also touches on a key gripe, why are men beholden to agonize out this kind of trapeze act to find something that was evidently much easier to obtain in the past? I just feel like it should be much easier for men today than it is. I feel like we are expected to do a ton of work on ourselves that women aren't expected or accountable to do on themselves. Sometimes I feel like I'm channeling Professor Higgins were he inserted into early 21st century dating life. Poor Professor Higgins. Edited May 13, 2011 by sanskrit
carhill Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 I'm still laughing from your response in the bankruptcy thread Here's how I see it. I make changes, self-reflect and analyze to improve the quality of my life. Any byproduct which is evidenced by improved romantic relations is icing on the cake. I found my marriage, even though a 'failure', to be a great life lesson, one I would never have experienced if not for the 'abuse' Though of modest means, I interact a lot with 'advantaged' people and have close personal friends amongst that group. At the end of the day, and at the beginning, and all day long, we're all human. I don't assign expectations/inferences/stereotypes to 'advantages' at all. I do greatly value the advantages of humanity they bring into my life. I have heard some of what you share, about expectations, which may be one reason why those friends see me as a refuge, one without such expectations, where they can be human and vulnerable and 'normal'. Many potentials. The cat had something to say but he changed his mind. How much abuse from a pet can a good man take?
Recommended Posts