Cemar on the other thread you joked about your wife putting you in a sexual moratorium. Its a 180 that puts you in control by you saying that you are not going to sex regardless of what she does. You in control of your sex life for a change.
You should read the book and especially do the exercises if you think this may relate to you.
I can respond to this because I heard a little bit of Dr. Laura tonight (she knows men perfectly). Men are action oriented creatures, we are physical in nature. We don't want to talk, we want to do. Men communicate through action, not words. If you ever watch men when they get together, they don't "talk", they "bond". Bonding tends to be very action oriented, they are either doing something physical like a sport, or they are TALKING about action. They are NOT directly getting in touch with their emotions.
So mens PRIMARY way of expressing emotion is through sex, thats what makes them men. To change this would make men .... women. God DESIGNED men this way. So men need women to speak to them WITHOUT WORDS! We all know that better communication is needed in marriage, but for men, this means the women must speak to him in HIS language, and that is through action, not words. And the PRIMARY means of doing this is through sex and physcial touch, and it will ALWAYS be that way.
Cemar, I'm not buying it, but it does make for a good deflection.
I agree that men tend to be action-oriented problem-solvers, but they aren't born suppressing their emotions. We are all human and we are all emotional beings. Men learn from their fathers, coaches, and other male figures and even their mothers that in order to be "real men" they must suppress their emotions, not cry, be a "big boy," etc. Suppressing a basic part of oneself is not healthy.
There are books on this topic, including one that cac bought for me while I was pg with S4: "Real Boys" by William Pollack, PhD, a clinical psychologist and codirector of the Center for Men at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He is an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, and a founding member and Fellow of the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity of the American Psychological Association.
Here's an excerpt from the Introduction:
Quote:
[Pollack] argues that there is enormous cultural confusion about how to raise our sons. He finds several causes for boys' current crisis of meaning. One is the early and harsh pressure to disconnect from their families that occurs when boys are toddlers and again in adolescence. Another reason is what he calls the "Boy Code," the rules and expectations that come from outdated and highly dysfunctional gender stereotypes. He tells of a boy, severely taunted at school, who grew more depressed even as he told his parents and teachers, "'Everything's just fine.'" And of a small sensitive boy who was not ready to part with his mother the first day of kindergarten. Johnny was shamed into letting go of her hand and, weeks later, he was still sobbing and throwing up after his mother dropped him off at school.
Pollack discusses how boys are made to feel ashamed of their vulnerable feelings and how they are called sissies or mamma's boys if they stay too sensitive or open.
Boys get mixed messages, "to be manly but empathetic, cool but open, strong yet vulnerable." They are misunderstood if they act tough, and misunderstood if they act nice. So many boys grow up avalanched by macho images that are unmitigated by the influence of real, kind men such as their grandfathers.
Pollack believes in boys' "hidden yearning for relationships." He argues that boys need more nurturing and permission to express their feelings than they currently get. They need emotionally present fathers with uniquely fatherly gifts such as father-son play. They need their mothers. Pollack empathizes with mothers who are expected to push sons away and yet are still held responsible for their sons' emotional health and behavior. A mother's central dilemma is, "How can I give the boy the love he needs and still prepare him for tough male culture?" Pollack sees relationships with parents as boys' main salvation. His bottom-line advice is excellent: "Stay connected, no matter what."
Pollack eloquently describes action love, or how boys and men show by kind deeds rather than speeches that they have strong affectionate feelings.
Cemar: Interesting point of view. So what about this "logical" OTHER side to what you wrote? In your world is this not true also? (To be clear I do not view men and women like this)
Women are emotion oriented creatures, we are verbal in nature. We don't want to do, we want to talk. Women communicate through words, not actions. If you ever watch women when they get together, they don't "do", they "talk". Talking tends to be very emotion oriented, they are either doing something emotional like expressing their feelings, or they are talking about expressing their emotions. They ARE directly getting in touch with their emotions.
So women's PRIMARY way of expressing emotion is through talking, that's what makes them women. To change this would make women .... men. God DESIGNED women this way. So women need men to speak to them WITH WORDS! We all know that better communication is needed in marriage, but for women, this means the men must speak to her in HER language, and that is through words, not only action. And the PRIMARY means of doing this is through talking and showing emotion, and it will ALWAYS be that way.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Boys get mixed messages, "to be manly but empathetic, cool but open, strong yet vulnerable." They are misunderstood if they act tough, and misunderstood if they act nice.
Isn't that a short description of the ideal man? If so, isn't that exactly what we should be encouraging boys to be?
a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.
Yes, I think so. But, as the author says, "only when we understand what boys are really experiencing, can parents and teachers help them develop more self-confidence and the emotional savvy they need to deal with issues such as depression, violence, drugs and alcohol, sexuality and love."
Reseachers have found that at birth, and for several months afterwards, male infants are actually more emotionally expressive than female babies. But by the time boys reach elementary school much of their emotional expressiveness has been lost or has gone underground. Boys at five or six become less likely than girls to express hurt or distress, either to their teachers or to their own parents. Many parents have asked me what triggers this remarkable transformation, this squelching of a boy's natural emotional expressiveness. What makes a boy who was open and exuberant unwilling to show the whole range of his emotions?
Recent research points to two primary causes for this change, and both of them grow out of assumptions about and attitudes toward boys that are deeply ingrained in the codes of our society.
The first reason is the use of shame in the toughening-up process by which it's assumed boys need to be raised. Little boys are made to feel ashamed of their feelings, guilty especially about feelings of weakness, vulnerability, fear, and depair.
The second reason is the separation process as it applies to boys, the emphasis society places on a boy's separating emotionally from his mother at an unnecessarily early age, usually by the time the boys are six years old and then again in adolescence.
The use of shame to "control" boys is pervasive; it is so corrosive I will devote a whole chapter to it in this book. Boys are made to feel shame over and over, in the midst of growing up, through what I call society's shame-hardening process. The idea is that a boy needs to be disciplined, toughened up, made to act like a "real man," be independent, keep the emotions in check. Shame is at the heart of how others behave toward boys on our playing fields, in schoolrooms, summer camps, and in our homes.
The second rason we lose sight of the real boy behind a mask of masculinity, and ultimately lose the boy himself, is the premature separation of a boy from his mother and all things maternal at the beginning of school. Mothers are encouraged to separate from their sons, and the act of forced separation is so common that it is generally considered to be "normal." But I have come to understand that this forcing of early separation is so acutely hurtful to boys that it can only be called a trauma--an emotional blow of damaging proportions. I also believe that is is an unnecessary trauma. Boys, like girls, wll separate very naturally from their mothers, if allowed to do so at their own pace.
As if the trauma of separation at age six were not wrenching enough, boys often suffer a second separation trauma when they reach sexual maturity. As a boy enters adolescence, our society becomes concerned and confused about the mother-son relationship. We feel unsure about how intimate a mother should be with her sexually mature son. We worry that an intense and loving relationship between the two will somehow get in the way of the boy's ability to form friendshps with girls his own age. As a result, parents--encouraged by the society around them--may once again push the boy away from the family, and, in particular, the nurturing female realm. Our society tells us this is "good" for the boy, that he needs to be pushed out of the nest or he will never fly. But I believe that the opposite is true--that a boy will make the leap when he is ready, and he will do it better if he feels that there is someone there to catch him if he falls.
This double trauma of boyhood contributes to the creation in boys of a deep wellspring of grief and sadness that may last throughout their lives.
I showed my H the link to the website for this book. He went to the site, took the "Nice Guy" test and got a 33. He will be purchasing the book soon. Thx for creating this thread.
When I read that Mr. Nice Guy stuff the other day, jesus, that was SOOOOO my xh. Things keep coming along that whisper in my ear "honey, you were NOT crazy." And I almost cry sometimes at how relieved I am to be out of that M. An example.
My kids play hockey, and yesterday I had to go over to my xh's to get him and the kids to sign some forms so we could get them signed up for the coming year. It was raining. I go over, and the three of them are waiting for me outside to sign the forms. I was not invited into his house because his mother was inside cooking dinner, and she hates me now. So we stood in the rain, with them signing papers, because everyone has to tip toe around grandma.
So my oldest son calls me last night to tell me that their dad got them a kitten. (My H hated cats when we were married). His new girlfriend loves cats, and she gave the boys a stray she found. I'm cool. I think it's pretty funny, actually, as I can see my xH's fcked up R patterns starting to emerge already. But anyway... my son says to me on the phone... "I'm just so surprised that dad let us get the cat... (me: why?)... because our house over here seems too clean to have a cat. (me: huh?) ... well, Nanny keeps this house way cleaner than our house. (me: you think our house is dirty?) ... no, it's just that Nanny cleans way more than you do."
I let it drop. That old sense of hyper-criticism I always used to feel when I was part of that family began creeping in again (I was starting to feel anxious that my house is in fact grossly dirty... which it isn't, but 16 years of conditioning sucks) . And there is a side of me that gets so pissed off... there is no way on the planet that my xH could ever be a single dad. He moved his mother in with him... she does the cleaning, the cooking, and spends more time with MY kids than he does, that is for sure... which is not the point of shared custody.
And I see how I stepped into the role of mother all those years ago, when xH's older two sons were still in school, and he married me. My shrink always used to say to me that my xH was looking for a mother figure he could have sex with, which to him, completely explained to him why I was LD. In retrospect, a lot of the time I spent with my shrink was him trying to get ME to see that I was not crazy or fcked up, or damaged. I was acting normally to a highly abnormal R dynamic. The fact that I was always willing to accept the blame for everything wrong with the R was what I was doing to contribute to the ongoing problems of the R (and the fact that I could not maintain healthy boundaries). But that is exactly how I was raised, and I was reliving childhood dynamics I could not even SEE.
Okay. I have to let it go. Actually, I have to go have a good cry because I cannot believe all the years of time and energy I put into that fcking marriage.
Nice Guys, as described in that book, are the worst type of man... they are SO mentally and emotionally abusive, it just takes my breath.
I think in a way, Mrs. NOP, you may have given me the final chapter I needed for emotional closure on my failed M.
I know, I know, this is a place to save Rs and marriages. Sorry.
MrsNOP, As you might already have guessed, this is MrH to a tee.
Corri, are you sure your xh fits into this mold? He seems to be WAY more concerned with his own needs and wants than the type of guy this book describes. I truly think your H was just your standard p/a controlling type of guy who masked his anger with occasional niceties.
MrH fits this mold so closely it scares me. To see it in black and white and really get a glimpse into the inner workings of his mind--and what he's not telling me but I've long *known* was there--is eery! Case in point: He vented on me the other night, calling names, cussing, just letting it all hang out in a way that he NEVER does. I was amused to see him acting like, well, a man. I laughed (not to his face) and blew it off. Later that night, I wanted sex but he didn't want to and I was confused as he was panting for it earlier in the day. The next day I asked him what was up and he said that he was "undeserving" and couldn't let himself partake.
This type of thought process is entirely foreign to me.
And Mrs, *I* am the one from the alcoholic family not him!?
However, his family was extremely tumultuous in its own way and his niche was that of the Good Son. Plus, as I've said on here many times, his mother tried to stamp out his budding adolescent sexuality by doing things like: Going through his bookbag every day trying to find notes from girls; listening in on another phone (the entire time) to *every* conversation he had with a girl, looking in his room for 'evidence'--of what I don't know; etc etc. I was his first girlfriend and he was 28 when we married. I'm not sure I knew all this before we got married; it sorta trickled out afterwards. I don't know that he knew how truly bizarre it was, to tell ya the truth. So shame played a huge role in his masculine upbringing and he is just now starting to shake it off.
I gotta get this book. Thanks for the recommendation. xo
