TheTallOne Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 While dating... what are the signs? I defintely know that the majority of girls don't want a doormat for a guy, they want one with a spine... some see it as a challenge, others see it as a way of knowing that the guy is emotionally strong. I know of one big one; 1) Always being at her beck and call.
basscatcher Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 While dating... what are the signs? I defintely know that the majority of girls don't want a doormat for a guy, they want one with a spine... some see it as a challenge, others see it as a way of knowing that the guy is emotionally strong. I know of one big one; 1) Always being at her beck and call. 2.) Being nice no matter what he does. 3.) Putting up with his shyt. 4.)forgiving him over and over http://abuse101.com/emotionalabuse.html
Author TheTallOne Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 2.) Being nice no matter what he does. 3.) Putting up with his shyt. 4.)forgiving him over and over http://abuse101.com/emotionalabuse.html Thanks for the link.
basscatcher Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 This got me thinking about being a Doormat or one who treats others as a doormat. TheTallOne-Sorry I am posting this in your thread It seems to maybe correlate with your situation--Maybe mine also. I did a search for 'signs of being a doormat' and I found this. I can't post the weblink because of advertising promotions on the website. You can however look for the weblink by doing a search. I highlighted some areas I thought were beneficial to descrbing being a doormat and the perpetrator. How is it that some people get the worst of every interaction, consistently confuse his or her own best interests with the inters of others? Counselor and therapists in the co-dependency field can certainly recognize the pattern in their clients, (if not in themselves) --the one in which a seemingly well-intentioned person is walked on, dumped on, ripped off--Doormat stuff! Being a Doormat is never easy. But it can be especially disillusioning to have a working knowledge of co-dependent and addictive relationships, to have read the books and attended the workshops, and still wake up with mud on you face. Perhaps the Gestalt psychology folks have a point. They say that often it's not enough just to know something. We human beings have to feel something and experience it on a deep, deep level before we are shook up enough to really get the message of change. It is said the longest journey in the world is the twelve-inch journey between your head and your heart! So here is a fresh outlook on Doormat behavior. The old, Brand X definition of co-dependency was based on the medical model, the disease model and the pathology model. Not so here. My approach is based on the wholeness model developed from the theories of Virginia Satir and Carl Jung. This approach is the mature version for the discriminating viewers who want to feel good about themselves while learning to feel good about themselves. Perhaps Doormat behavior really signifies a misplaced trust in power in all of its forms--power over the self and others, power of others to help us in some way. There is an ancient South American legend that tells of the time when the gods created the earth. They looked for a place to hide power because they realized it was a possibly dangerous force that might be found and used in a destructive fashion. The gods considered the top of the mountain and the bottom of the sea, but ruled these out because power was too dangerous to hide in one place. So the gods decided to divide the power up and place it in the hearts of men, women and children. All human beings have a drive for power, it is the essence of survival. Power drives start in infancy and continue though out life. Derived from the Latin, potre--which means to be able--power is morally neutral. Power can be used for good or ill purposes. Power comes in two basic forms: Coercion, or verbal or physical threat, or Persuasion, which requires acceptance of the person going along with some authority. This acceptance is based on the previous social conditioning of the person being approached with a power demand or request. Some types of control are adaptive in that they strengthen self worth. Having an internal sense of control results in individuals taking responsibility for the choices they make and what happens to them. According to the latest research, the more control a child is given over everyday life choices, the better. Both career and personal outlooks brighten in later life when the child learns to make decisions, learn from them and correct mistakes. But when childhood power drives are filtered through anxiety and fear, the result is social control and manipulation. This type of control robs people of self esteem. The primary negative law of power as known by dysfunctional people and governments all over the world is Them that has it, tries to keep it. Remember the childhood game of King or Queen of the Hill? The object was to remain in charge through brute force. We were taught as youngsters that power was dualistic: 'If I have the power, then you don't,' or 'If you have the power, then I won't have any.' Power could not be shared. Putting the power in one person or in one camp creates a type of mind set that fosters anger, tension and competition. In fact, it is hard to think of a greater waster of human potential for all parties concerned than the domination/submission model. This model has fostered destructive behavior, aggression and violence on the part of those in control. It has encouraged resentment, passive aggressive behavior and rebelliousness on the part of the submissive person who had to learn manipulation in order to survive. This old model has stifled the growth of both victim and victimizer as it precludes trust, affection and true intimacy. Doormats have generally learned to give their power away or use it in a passive aggressive fashion. It is something they have learned growing up in a 'closed' family system. A closed system is one where energy is spent in trying to keep things from changing. In this kind of home environment, one or more members bent on maintaining the status quo, help keep the power structure off balance. Since communication often promotes change and change and threatens the status quo, closed family systems do things by unspoken agreement. Them that has the power keeps it. This arrangement allows dependence on alcohol, drugs, abuse or out of control sexual needs to flourish. Closed systems prevent problem solving, personal growth and moving forward. The family motto becomes 'Don't rock the boat.' Individuals who grow up in closed systems do not get their early emotional and psychological needs met and often develop compulsive, dysfunctional behaviors as a result. One of the most debilitating attitudes emerging from such an environment is a kind of moral masochism, described by psychoanalyst Ester Meneker. Moral masochism is an insufficient separation from the parent due to fear or loss and abandonment. Described this way, moral masochism should be distinguished from sexual masochism which is an unconscious need for punishment. Moral masochism is an adaptive defense mechanism to over come the child's fear of abandonment. Modern day feminists writers describe moral masochism as a dependency issue. It is inevitable in human beings because of the long emotional and physical dependence of the child on the family. Dependency becomes increasing worse in children who have harsh, domineering parents. Unfortunately, when the child grows up, there are more than enough domineering, intimidating types to play 'parent.' In The Fire From Within, Carlos Castaneda calls people who use adversive control Petty tyrants. Adversive control includes power trips such as yelling, glaring, sighing, blaming and pouting to keep family members under control. A petty tyrant is someone who bullies, torments or otherwise tries to oppress you. There are some great examples in literature and in the movies of strong people standing up to petty tyrants. Jesus Christ before Pilate, Sir Thomas Moore before King Henry VIII, Joan of Arch before the king of France, and Mr. Roberts before the ship's captain in the movie, Mr. Roberts. In each case, the hero stood firm, calm and collected in the face of persecution. Castaneda says it is lucky to stumble onto a petty tyrant because you can learn about control, self discipline and self respect in your dealings with him. There is a challenge in dealing with a seemingly impossible person in a position of power. He even recommends that you go out and look for one so that you can practice facing them with discipline and inner strength. Virginia Satir described the 'Benevolent Dictator' who practices a friendlier, but equally tyrannical form of control. Domineering parents are examples of this type of oppressor. Benevolent dictators want to the be the Dear Abby of the Universe and offer solutions to everyone's problems but their own. They may even be correct in the assessment of how things are and how to correct them. Benevolent dictators become so caught up in other people's problems that they unconsciously use others to avoid the personal responsibility of looking at their own actions. They can play the role of the expert who gives advice as a coping mechanism to avoid looking at their own unresolved needs for power. They smile and act nice to you, but the bottom line is-- 'You had better do as I say.' They treat others as problems to be solved and people to be controlled. They send a message that you are not grownup enough to figure out your problem on your own and take the consequences. Their bottom line is 'I KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU AND YOU HAD BETTER DO IT!' The tactics of a benevolent dictator creates helplessness in people who agree to play their hidden power games. This fits neatly into the Doormat's perceived need to live in perpetual atonement for past, present and future sins. Doormats turn their own personal power over to others. They communicate statements like, 'Whatever you want is okay. It's all right with me. You decide for me. I'll go along with whatever you want.' They ask permission for things that other people just take for granted and go ahead and do. 'Could I have a hamburger?' when ordering food from a waitress is an example of co-dependent talk. Say what you want straight out instead of asking permission when it is appropriate. Doormats often have an excess of apologizing for small discomforts. Those who are around Doormats often recognize their submissiveness and begin to take control of the situation. It's as if Doormats wear a T-shirt saying 'Available for demeaning!' Giving in to others is consistent with closed family systems which teach manipulation and submissiveness rather than straight communication. Letting other walk over you is learned in households where adults have used becoming hurt as a technique of discipline and control: 'If you don't do what I say, I'll be hurt and disappointed in you.' Children from such systems learn to keep quiet and be the good kid.' They learn the basic rules of dysfunctional families: 'Don't talk, don't trust and don't feel.' When they transgress these family rules and speak out, they feel guilty. They go through life ruled by the guilt that they have internalized. In an open system, energy is spent in promoting change, and there is a balance of power. There are checks in place to keep the power from going out of balance. Keeping everything fixed and stable is not as important as the growth and development of all individuals. The open system provides increased energy that transforms itself into something new. Individuals are treated with love, respect and concern. Family members are encouraged to be productive and grow. The good news is that one can always cash in one's Doormat status in exchange for self-respect. But this requires letting go. If the attachment is to an addicted partner, letting go may mean allowing the other person to hit bottom and seek professional help. Negative energy from abusive relationships must be released in order to allow the power of the other person and to unfold. The scriptures of all religious traditions tell us that we are to be of a loving and open heart. We are our brothers' keepers, but we can learn to do that in ways that do not cripple them. A keeper in the old sense of the word meant a jailer, custodian or warden. We can truly become our brothers' keeper by keeping their spirit intact. We can give other people the tools they need to help themselves. Of course, it also means releasing one's own over zealous need to heal. And putting the Benevolent Tyrant to rest in ourselves. When you learn to be primarily accountable to yourself, the stage is set for other people to have more choices. They may choose to accept responsibility and take care of themselves, or they may find someone else to take care of them. Relationships will certainly change and there are no formulas to predict which way they will go. But you can be mindful of your own control issues. As the ex-Doormat moves from a model of enabling to a model of empowering, great gifts begin to reveal themselves. The greatest gift we can give ourself and others is our own well being. Another gift is to allow the person to be him or herself even with all their shortcomings. A third gift is getting a balance of power in the relationship and learning and using the healthy skills of open systems. When we get a clear understanding of the misuse of power in relationships, we can work to clean up our system.
blind_otter Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 The easiest way to become a doormat is not having good boundaries.
Author TheTallOne Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 The easiest way to become a doormat is not having good boundaries. And how does one judge the rationallity of those boundaries? Yourself I assume? @ pada... good read, thanks.
Woggle Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Respect yourself and only have people in your life that respect you as much as you respect yourself.
Author TheTallOne Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 Respect yourself and only have people in your life that respect you as much as you respect yourself. I agree. What I mean is... When someone you are dating asks you for something (something small.. like a drink, and you won't be going out of your way to get it for them), yet, they (probably.. but not 100% sure) might be able to get it themselves. Are they testing you, or just asking for some help?
blind_otter Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 And how does one judge the rationallity of those boundaries? Yourself I assume? @ pada... good read, thanks. By what other standard? Someone else's? THAT would make no sense (codependency) and would result in someone who is excessively needy and clingy. Ostensibly we are self-aware enough to know our limitations, emotionally and physically. Someone told me recently that it's a good thing to have conditions for your love, and if those conditions are not met it's healthy to disengage.
STLguy Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 If someone I'm dating is going to consider me weak for getting them a drink that they asked for they are not someone I want to date anyway. I do things for my girlfriend because I want to, because I know she'll do the same thing for me if I asked. A relationship isn't about bulls*** tests, if you have to worry about every little thing she asks for having an ulterior motive then you are in an unhealthy relationship IMO.
Dinnj1 Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 when your mind says... "I don't like the way I feel or the way I'm being treated.." and your heart says... "it's ok... I forgive you, because you're so special" then chances are... you're a doormat in her eyes. the heart and mind have to agree... THEN you'll be emotionally strong.
gfto Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 I agree. What I mean is... When someone you are dating asks you for something (something small.. like a drink, and you won't be going out of your way to get it for them), yet, they (probably.. but not 100% sure) might be able to get it themselves. Are they testing you, or just asking for some help? Depends on the context, but 99.9% of the time it's a test. A woman with a good attitude doesn't pull that kind of crap. She wants to see if you'll roll over and do what she told you to.
SuperMonk Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 I dated a girl that was a doormat not only to me but to many others. Of course me saying this I do not take advantage of anyone nor her, any kind of relationship with me is beneficial and seemingly fair. This irked me and I tried to train her so she would say NO to her friends when they wanted to make her do something. She didn't and I gave up, my passion and spirit was gone and so was the relationship. Women are herd creatures, sad.
monkey00 Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 i think the underlying factor of being a doormat is seeking a validation (not particularly dating), whether it may be your boss, co-worker, friend, SO. if constantly seeking it, you'll never get the respect you truly deserve. Above all else, one should respect him/herself first before others. this should be the priority list as it goes - 1-you 2-family 3-friends 4-your date (SO) of course there should always be exceptions where circumstances may change.
starlight2025 Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 i think the underlying factor of being a doormat is seeking a validation (not particularly dating), whether it may be your boss, co-worker, friend, SO. if constantly seeking it, you'll never get the respect you truly deserve. Above all else, one should respect him/herself first before others. this should be the priority list as it goes - 1-you 2-family 3-friends 4-your date (SO) of course there should always be exceptions where circumstances may change. I disagree. My priority list goes like this: 1. The true God & Savior Jesus Christ 2. family 3. my girlfriend 4. friends 5. strangers 6. myself What the majority of people consider doormat behavior I consider self sacrifice and treating others the way I would like to be treated. This doesn't mean others are going to treat me the way I would like. I have no control over how others are going to treat me. I can only control how I'm going to treat others. I strive to do for others what I would like them to do for me. If any woman sees my self sacrificing behaviors as doormat behavior then she's probably not someone I would be interested in dating in the 1st place. You can't make generalizations like that about all women. Some women see me as weak other women see it as kindness. Bottom line is I do not feel forced to make sacrifices in a relationship. I do it because I want to. I believe a guy is better off erroring on the side of being a doormat than erroring on the side of being a jerk. All this talk about nice guys finishing last is a bunch of crap!
Walk Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Interesting topic... So if we set boundaries, even if they are outrageous, then they are good because we set them? Since we're only concerned about ourselves and not others? When do you take others views into consideration? If my bf asked me to wash and wax his car, and I said hell no, do it yourself... then I've set a boundary, right? But if he worked 2 jobs, paid all the bills, and also cooked, cleaned and carried me everywhere we go, would my boundaries be correct? (Obviously his would be screwed up if he did all that - it's hypothetical.) How do you know when your boundaries are correct, or if what other people are telling you should be listened to? Also, if you feel your boundaries have been crossed, but no one else feels they have been, then are you wrong? What defines boundaries, and why do we have them? Are they explicitly for our own interest, or were they developed for a more social context? Weak men not getting laid, while strong men get all the girls... Why do we set them? What level is appropriate? How do you define if they are or not, without outside interpretation? How do you know if the outside interpretation is correct or attempting to manipulate your boundaries? I like the comment about when your mind and heart agree. That's good advice. But how do you make them agree? And which one do you listen to? And how do you know which one is right?
blind_otter Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Interesting topic... So if we set boundaries, even if they are outrageous, then they are good because we set them? Since we're only concerned about ourselves and not others? When do you take others views into consideration? If my bf asked me to wash and wax his car, and I said hell no, do it yourself... then I've set a boundary, right? No, this is not a boundary. This is being a jerk. Do you have a reason for saying no? Are you injured? Pathologically afraid of cars? That's a boundary -- something you set to keep others from accidentally wandering into sensitive areas. Not random. This is a huge issue -- if you do not understand what appropriate boundaries actually ARE, chances are, you don't have them, or they aren't well defined. So people will continually violate you and your emotions because they don't know where you need them to stop and step back. How do you know when your boundaries are correct, or if what other people are telling you should be listened to? Rule number one, no one else should EVER tell you how you "should be feeling" -- that is your responsibility. To understand and define your own emotions, and to understand and define where you end and others begin. To understand that no one is psychic, and though you may have brought up something you're sensitive to in the past, you need to continually remind others of your boundaries. It's not in most people to remember that kind of thing. I have a lot of s*** going on in my life and it's helpful to have gentle reminders. [quote Also, if you feel your boundaries have been crossed, but no one else feels they have been, then are you wrong? That means you haven't clearly defined your boundaries to others. THis can happen for many reasons - you assume they know because you mentioned it once, or you assume they just magically know, or because you don't understand yourself or have enough self-confidence to stand up for things when people violate your boundaries. What defines boundaries, and why do we have them? Are they explicitly for our own interest, or were they developed for a more social context? It's for both. As Robert Frost said, Good fences make good neighbors. You know where you end and others begin, what YOUR needs are, versus what others needs are, and the two shouldn't bleed together in a messy brown skind inside your head. How do you define if they are or not, without outside interpretation? Why would you need outside interpretation? Do I need outside interpretation to tell me I'm an alcoholic? No, I know I am. I set the boundaries for myself because I know what hurts me and what doesn't. I am self-aware enough to see what areas of myself need work, and gentle enough with myself to not challenge myself in those areas until I feel ready. And which one do you listen to? And how do you know which one is right? Reading this question made me feel sad. You should know what is right inside yourself.
jerbear Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 I like the comment about when your mind and heart agree. That's good advice. But how do you make them agree? And which one do you listen to? And how do you know which one is right? I have listened to my heart and it hurt me many times. If I listen to my mind, guess what, miss the opportunity. Add in a 3rd item, thinking with the other head; now that really messes things up for a guy. I am not that type that takes 2 out of 3 view. For me, even the dissenting feeling gets to say something. If my heart and other head says "YEAH BABY!" my mind says "She is getting pregnant" guess which wins if I DON'T want a kid?
alphamale Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 I disagree. My priority list goes like this: 1. The true God & Savior Jesus Christ 2. family 3. my girlfriend 4. friends 5. strangers 6. myself All this talk about nice guys finishing last is a bunch of crap! But you have finished last STARLIGHT....look at your list above, you are #6. that's last place.
Guest Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Depends on the context, but 99.9% of the time it's a test. A woman with a good attitude doesn't pull that kind of crap. She wants to see if you'll roll over and do what she told you to. It's pretty sad when people start keeping scorecards. People who love each other do favours for each other without keeping score. Sometimes you get her a drink. Sometimes she buys him an extra treat. It's not about 'tests'. It's about thinking that you are a pair and are at the point where you naturally do kind things for each other. If you live your life with a chip on your shoulder and dread being a 'doormat' to the extent that you refuse to participate in this exchange of kindnesses, then you really aren't suited to be in a relationship, IMHO.
Art_Critic Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 But you have finished last STARLIGHT....look at your list above, you are #6. that's last place. :lmao:
Vertex Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 It's hard to tell sometimes if you're a doormat. There's nothing wrong with doing things for people -- it's when you're doing it to a sick extent without any real justification (ie. the other person is not doing nearly as much for you, conversely). It's usually just a "use your best judgment" sort of thing. If you feel like things are reciprocated well, then go onward, if not, someone's a doormat being taken for granted or taken advantage of. What is hard for me though, is when sometimes saying no in an imbalanced relationship can make the other person mad... but in such a case maybe you are better off elsewhere.
alphamale Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 It's hard to tell sometimes if you're a doormat. It is the "doormats" who don't know that they are doormats. The non-doormats, however, know that they are not doormats.
monkey00 Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 It's hard to tell sometimes if you're a doormat. There's nothing wrong with doing things for people -- it's when you're doing it to a sick extent without any real justification (ie. the other person is not doing nearly as much for you, conversely). It's usually just a "use your best judgment" sort of thing. If you feel like things are reciprocated well, then go onward, if not, someone's a doormat being taken for granted or taken advantage of. to me there are 2 extremes: a) doing nice things while secretly having an agenda (hoping to get something in return) b) doing nice things without expecting anything in return. generally it's rare to run into a B person, unless of course it's one of your good friends or close family. But my opinion is there's a reason behind every action. ex: you help your friends out and vice versa, it's what friends do and it helps maintain the friendship. i think the problem of doormats are they posess a self-compromising attitude. they easily do nice things for people without having the person earn it...it's a similar concept to earning someone's respect. and that's where nice guys fail with women. Not sure why but most people are generally suspicious of a person who is nice to them for no reason/does nice things (unless if it's their job at a store or etc.). As they suspect there's always an agenda. unless of course you run into guy B, but even then you could still be suspicious one way or another. a complicated topic of discussion really...it involves the Ego, respect and anything else you can think of. but then again there's karma, well who knows.
Walk Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Why would you need outside interpretation? Do I need outside interpretation to tell me I'm an alcoholic? No, I know I am. I set the boundaries for myself because I know what hurts me and what doesn't. I am self-aware enough to see what areas of myself need work, and gentle enough with myself to not challenge myself in those areas until I feel ready. I'm assuming though that outside influences helped you realize you were an alcoholic. If your work was affected, your relationships, other people telling you over and over, your health, and finances... These were the outside interpretations I was talking about, not necessarily only from one person saying something. I assume if only one person had a problem with your drinking and nothing else was affected, then you would have no basis to believe you were an alcoholic. Maybe I'm wrong... In your answers you said that boundaries had to be set for a reason. I was kind of under the impression that most people had reasons for everything. Or could justify nearly anything they do, even killing someone. I guess I'm wondering how to know if the boundaries you have set are fair and reasonable, and not overly exuberatant, or too little. I think many doormats do have boundaries, but are set so low that others feel encouraged to blow past them. For those people, they need a more realistic set of boundaries. If boundaries are set for a reason, and the other persons reason for you not to have boundaries there seems more logical to the doormat then I think they have a tendency to go along with the other persons logic. So I don't think it's as easy as saying "trust your gut", or don't do it if it's uncomfortable. There are too many things in this world that cause us discomfort that still need to be done. Doormats need to logic out the reasons for why they have set their standards and boundaries at specific limits, evaluate what is gained from them (more personal space, free time, energy, etc) and re-adjust any that are out of wack with their goals in life. But I don't think the philosophy of don't do it if your uncomfortable works... it's too vague. I think doormats need a clearer view of why boundaries are set, and how it will help or hinder their life in specific situations. What can be gained now. Like the gf who would never say no. She's fighting against the discomfort of offending her friends over the reward of personal time. Her personal time may not have gained her as much as she lost from saying no to the friend. What do the positives and negatives of a situation equal? It's the same reason we do everything. Pro's and con's, and how it affects us. Most doormats are scared that the negatives (saying no to someone and how it affects them) will far out weigh the positives. Ie. Standing up to your boss and telling him your not working overtime which causes you to get fired. Or not standing up and keeping your job. Fear, and negative outcomes. I wasn't asking because I don't have boundaries. I was asking to clarify the underlying thought process of setting boundaries. How you came to them, and how you set them.
Recommended Posts