MEN how to destroy your marriage!

Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Surya
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 437

03 Aug 2010, 10:25 pm

Chronos: It was not so much as see, but hear. When I was younger, I was told to 'hear' the peoples voices and how they fluctuate and change during conversations, in books that I read - so I still do it when I read, including forum post, but doesn't help much; I still really suck at telling if something was funny or not etc



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

04 Aug 2010, 8:21 am

Erisad wrote:

Um...I'm a girl. So I would be the wife in this case. This may be going over my head because I've never had a boyfriend longer than 2 months so would have never thought this far ahead. I need to focus on becoming attractive enough to even keep a boyfriend for right now. XD


Right. Well, I was just responding in the context of the OP. To be more direct, I think the idea is that you DON'T want to destroy your marriage. The list at the beginning of the thread is more about what NOT to do in order to have a successful marriage.

If I may be perfectly honest, the pic you previously had up for your avatar was really pretty. Assuming that's how you actually look IRL, I'd date you if my circumstances were different.

If you want to do things like lose weight, and so on, by all means do so if it helps you feel more confident. Just don't kill yourself working TOO hard for it. There are MANY factors that go into being attractive. If I think you're beautiful, chances are I'm not the only one.

Regarding attractiveness in general, I had a very brief fling with a lovely young redhead once--brief because it wasn't really in her best interests to continue the relationship. This woman was not really overweight, but she did have a vaguely masculine bone structure. And I think she worked too hard at being attractive in a very feminine way--too much make-up, HUGE padded bra, you get the idea. I felt she had a terribly distorted view of herself and what it means to be "attractive."

What was kind of sad to me was the first time I saw her naked she actually apologized because she was "small-chested." She was so ashamed of her body she didn't even want to look at me, and the whole time I'm thinking how hot she looks. Things went really well once I got her to see that the things she thought were what makes a woman attractive really don't matter in the long run.

The things that really drew me in with this lady were really more how she carried herself, her walk, her sense of humor, common interests, conversation, her extroverted, flirtatious mannerisms, and the way her conversations with me just dripped with charm. I'm from the southeastern United States, so my upbringing was more along the lines of the "officer and a gentleman" mentality. So while she was attracted to that part of me, I was fascinated by her New England sophistication. For what the relationship was, we were a good pair.

All I'm saying is don't take your good, attractive qualities for granted. If you feel you have work to do, then by all means do so. Perhaps what you REALLY need more than anything is greater exposure to a wider variety of different types of men.



nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,059
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in the police state called USA

06 Aug 2010, 2:18 am

I thought talking true problems was being sensitive to her concerns :?


_________________
"I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem!"
~King Of The Hill


"Hear all, trust nothing"
~Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition #190
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition


ManErg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,090
Location: No Mans Land

07 Aug 2010, 8:24 am

AngelRho wrote:
Companionship CAN be guaranteed without regard to cost to one person or the other. Such partnerships are worthy of honor and protection, and we guard each other against possible threats to our relationship--such as friends who dislike one of us and don't hesitate to say so, "friends" of the opposite sex moving in on our "territory." We try to avoid all factors that may pose a negative influence on our relationship together. Sometimes the kinds of honest things we have to say to each other may not be what the other person wants to hear, but it's better to sacrifice momentary personal happiness to preserve unity, the joy of companionship that supersedes any personal demands.


I agree with what you say here. Although in some ways it goes against the trends I see around, especially with the emphasis we have on "you have a right to do and be whatever you want and everybody else just has to get out of the way". I've seen those examples you mention, about a friend who likes one partner and not the other, about opposite sex 'friends' hanging around suspiciously.

Initially I would have gone with the idea that "each individual can have the friends they want", when in a relationship. That the other partner has to be 'strong' and 'secure' enough to cope with these things. However, I now think this is really naive and perhaps these ideas are cultivated by greedy people who want to "have their cake and eat it", effectively exploiting the ideals of their partner! In the end the relationship (if it's got anything going for it) will suffer when one partner starts taking big decisions without consideration of the other.

However, I think you can have a perfectly good, totally committed relationship, including the principles you say, without actual marriage.


_________________
Circular logic is correct because it is.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Aug 2010, 1:05 pm

ManErg wrote:

However, I think you can have a perfectly good, totally committed relationship, including the principles you say, without actual marriage.


Well... That's a "yes" and "no" kind of thing which really doesn't apply to the discussion. It has more to do with what is defined as a "proper" commitment, and not everyone is going to agree with me on this. The thing I like about my marriage is the safety and security of it.

You mentioned "security." Here's what I think: People deal with "insecurity" issues all the time. The problem as I see it deals with whether one CAN trust his or her partner. I don't believe anyone is "immune" from the temptation of infidelity, and there is a fine line between "security" and taking someone for granted. You like to think you can trust your partner. But what kind of loving partner puts you in the position of feeling insecure? I think most women would have a difficult time living with me because I WILL speak my mind about certain friends I don't feel comfortable allowing my wife to hang out with, largely because of some bad habits, negative influence, and poor/unfair assessments of me. In summary, if someone tells you the same thing enough, you might start to believe it regardless of its truth. That is NOT something that a man really needs in his relationship with his significant other.

In the past, when my wife would ask me "Why don't you trust me around him/her?" I would affirm that it isn't my wife I distrust. I'd say, "I trust you just fine. But I don't trust him/her!" Women generally regard their friends higher than their men, and not without good reason. Men do the opposite ("bro's before ho's"), same reason. But when negative or unfair outside influences disrupt a meaningful relationship, THAT is when the lines are crossed. My family expects me to be a leader, and I will NOT tolerate these kinds of subversive influences, not from my own friends, my wife's friends, my children, or their friends. I absolutely refuse to engage in woman bashing (my bandmates have all come from bad marriages, and in the early days there was a lot of hostility towards women. The habit was broken for several reasons, one of which was my absolute refusal to speak up in these conversations, the other being the overwhelming kindness and grace of my wife.

So I think it's one thing to talk about being secure vs. insecure, but I think the values we place on these things are distorted. We value being "secure," but we translate "security" into permissiveness. I think that true "security" only exists as long as it is maintained in a healthy relationship. Each member of a family has to stay on guard for anyone to feel secure, and sensitivity to a person's insecurities goes a long way to building trust. One of the advantages of the marriage commitment is that it's not quite as easy to get out of as opposed to an ordinary non-marital relationship. Plus, long-term commitments outside marriage lack the legal protection of marriages. In the event that a marriage breaks up (assuming there are legitimate reasons why a marriage SHOULD break up), a long term marital relationship involves the accumulation of common property. The court system is supposed to help ensure an equitable division of assets agreed to by the complainants in order to stem future conflict. The court system offers no such protection for non-legal partnerships.

I don't mean to derail this discussion into the gay marriage argument, but I find this fact to be at odds with the same-sex marriage agenda. By avoiding the legalities of traditional marriage, homosexual couples have the opportunity to openly and actively demonstrate greater nobility and stability within their own relationships, negating the need for marriage altogether. Legal marriage brings with it the silliness of so many heterosexual relationships that too often fall apart, and I have to question the seriousness of seeking it in light of its insincerity. Perhaps gay marriage is a positive solution to the Biblically-based evils of homosexuality. You can get married so you can stop having sex just like the rest of us!
:lol:

In truth and in all seriousness, there are good reasons NOT to get married, also. It's a LOT of work and has higher consequences when it doesn't work out. Pairs that are ideal for each other, are like-minded, and committed to common goals are hard to find, that is, as naturally occurring. I think a mind has to be conditioned for it, and I think my relationship has worked out extremely well NOT because we are "perfect" for each other, but because of our willingness to commit to each other (and having children helps, too).