Everybody has a little bit of each in them. But inevitibly each of us is a little bit more of one than the other.
Although I've said here before that I've really given up on ever getting our love life back to where it was before I married my wife, I still think about the dynamics of the situation from time to time. And I've almost reached the conclusion that the lack of sex is just a trigger for the anger and resentment I often feel. I wonder if the real cause is that I see my wife as a taker? I see myself as giving so much in this relationship (I've taken on the entire financial responsibility so she can go back to school, I clean but still live amongst clutter, I run her errands, I cook . . . . I do quite a bit when I think about it). Meanwhile she focuses on those things that are important to her (her schooling, her shopping).
So I wonder if the underlying cause of frustration in most of our relationships is that we tend to be the givers in our relationships and our LD spouses tend to be the takers? The marriage is out of balance...... Maybe along the way in our marriages the takers have become unequal in that they stopped the sexual contact without giving more of the other things to make up for the imbalance. Maybe sex was the only thing they ever really gave even in the beginning.
What do ya'll think? Does this make any sense at all?
You have an interesting point. But I think your point is one of perspective. We all give/take in different manners.
For example...I feel I'm constantly giving in our marriage. I often feel I'm doing the bulk of the work. I've learned recently though that my LDH gives/takes in a very different manner than I do. I'm pretty darn sure that if my LDH were asked if he was a giver he'd definitely say yes!
I guess that the difference in our styles of giving would be this...I'm more of a nurterer...I'm there for him emotionally and want that emotional connection that is enforced/promoted by ML. He is a provider...his definition of "giving" is materialistic and that perspective has been reinforced by some of his past relationships where he was used strictly for money. He was also put down constantly and deprived of sex (it was used as a weapon and often withheld completely for over a year at a time). He is now having to learn how to give emotionally and understand that ML with me is an integral part of meeting my emotinoal needs. Let me tell you that's a very difficult thing for someone to suddenly have to learn in their forties. He's making a stellar effort though
This is JMHO on this topic though...I'm sure you'll get many more perspectives from other people who are more wise than I.
Oh boy, another thread where we get to generalize about our LDSes! Let me be the first to jump in by saying my W is definitely a giver, Big Time. She gives to the kids, she gives to her mom, she gives plenty to me, just not exactly what I want. She gives until it hurts. So, no, your generalization doesn't work for me.
Many LDSes would retort "Why is it that my S won't give me x, y, and z? Why no EC?" So who is giving in that case?
Let me take your ball and give it opposite spin: Maybe your S gets more than she needs from the R. Maybe she thinks you're being needy. Maybe if you gave less to the R she wouldn't even notice. Are you giving because you like giving but are getting resentful because your S isn't as giving? Or are you giving in the spirit of hoping for a quid pro quo (my, I'm full of foreign phrases today!)? Either way, you have to fix your own attitude about why you are giving. Would giving less make you feel better or worse?
SM
"If we will be quiet and ready enough, we shall find compensation in every disappointment." Henry David Thoreau
Oh I agree . . . . and I know it was a generalization, but then again, most theories ARE generalizations
But Maybe if we re-define "giving". Ever heard the phrase "you're not really giving if you're only giving things that people don't need."? Or any other phrase similar to that?
Marriage is hard work. Our wives/husbands may spend hours tending to kids, parents, etc . . . and that is "giving", its just not giving to US. If I only pay the bills and clean the house, Im giving, but Im may not be giving things that she needs.
I guess what Im saying is, Is it really giving if we only give things that are easy/convenient/mutually needed?
Exactly! That's where meeting each other's needs come in. But first you have to discover/define what your partners "needs" are (which can be VERY different from your needs) in order to give them what they require...otherwise you could be participating in an exercise of futility.
Yup. =) Its the basic premise of all the marriage books we read. But it still makes me wonder, are LD's generally takers? I know its a broad generalization, but we can make those sometimes. And of course it depends on your point of view . . . . but if you define "giving" as we just did, what would an objective person classify the LD spouse as?
For instance . . . I would as an objective person say that Hairdogs wife is a definite Taker. She expects her needs to be met with little apparent thought of reciprocation unless it is convenient to her. Therefore she doesn't Give to provide equalibrium in the marriage.
She believes it is perfectly reasonable for her to expect Hairdog to accept the fact that she is Non-sexual while at the same time by default believes it to be Unreasonable for him to expect her to accept his sexuality. Its an illogical and irrational statement. She expects to be able to Take but not be required to Give.
I'm not trying to be stubborn or difficult here (really, I'm not)...I still just can't buy the generalization. The way I see it there are still two blatant sides of the coin.
I would as an objective person say that Hairdogs wife is a definite Taker. Ahhh...but the thing is...you aren't being objective. Sure, someone sitting on the HD side of things would probably view her that way...I would be inclined to say the same thing...but if I'm honest about it, as the HD person in my marriage I'm not objective either.
For instance . . . I would as an objective person say that She expects her needs to be met with little apparent thought of reciprocation unless it is convenient to her. Perhaps she views him as "needy" and therefore she feels like he's trying to take, take, take all the time too. (Sorry Hairdoggie for using you as an example here).
Therefore she doesn't Give to provide equalibrium in the marriage. Ok, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it to sound this way...but that statement reads as though it's up to her to find the happy medium...not up to both of them. Did I misunderstand you? I apologize if I did...it's just how it reads to me. If I didn't misunderstand you that just supports my thinking that it's very difficult for us to remain "objective".
In a way I did mean it to sound like its up to her. Now let me clarify that....
I realize that its all about eqaulization. Both working together to meet somewhere in the middle. BUT......I can't necissarily figure out how you go about showing love to me, I can only tell you how I would most like to be loved. If Hairdog has expressed to her how he wants to be loved then it IS up to her to find a way to express it so that it meets his need. Either that or it is up to her to "counter offer" so to speak so that they can begin to meet in the middle.
