Marriage: how to maintain it

[lillo9546]

I can't answer this as we have never been in this kind of position.

This is an intelligent answer

Gotcha. Can you describe an example of what you mean by disrespectful behavior?

Yes, why not

Your woman in a social situation, like a dinner with friends, or family, says out loud things like "Girls, don't get married...Only do it if you've found the rich man", or She might say "That man is so handsome, what's his name? Oh yes John! He is the one who..." and she would put a quality that her BF or Husband is missing, like a great physique, money, status, etc..
All in front of their boyfriend, husband, in front of other people.

Or, during one or more conversations, you notice that the woman always ends with a tone of "I was right", "Superior tone", "Not caring" rather than "being understanding".

Also, after kids are born, women usually have this disrespectful behavior more often, and they would likely do many other things as well:
- We are talking about "open and honest communication", and when you're open and honest, they might make fun of what you have to say, rather than answer honestly, or use that honesty against you.
- Making honesty and revealing your weaknesses seem bad to her, because it's like you're giving her a weapon to use against you.
- Not acknowledging your efforts. Things like "I do everything in here", etc., are fine, but belittling your efforts or activities, your hobbies. For example, I like to play tennis 1 day a week and sometimes that will be held against me.
- Getting bored when you are talking to them honestly. In fact, there have been women in my experience who preferred "marketing" to "product". I suspect that in this forum we are really looking for the opposite. That's why they ended up with Narcissists and their relationships are tumultuous.
But I still prefer honest, calm, no-holds-barred, direct talk.

[7Wannabe5]

@lillo:

Okay, gotcha, just classic "mean girl" or "bitchy." I will have to approach this a bit obliquely, because I tend more towards erring on the side of "bratty" rather than "bitchy" in relationship. For example, the manner in which Lucy usually disrespects Desi in "I Love Lucy" is "bratty" rather than "bitchy", although both behaviors may be functionally motivated by similar problems, such as perception of arrogance in the male. IOW, the difference is that some humans tend towards solving problems or disagreements by evoking hierarchy "I am not going to do what you say, because I am better than you or because you are lesser than me." and other humans tend towards solving problems or disagreements by evoking autonomy "I am not going to do what you say, because you are not the boss of me."

I'm not sure, but I think the "brattiest" type of human is an ESTP which is the "bad boy" type. So, one way to deal with somebody who is vibing bitchy is to not let her take you down in your weak juvenile feminine sensitivity, but rather make a counter move to your juvenile masculine "bad boy" quadrant instead. For example:

She Bitch: "Girls, don't get married...only do it if you've found the rich man."

He Brat: "OTOH, if you just want to be rough fucked in the alley by a hard-eyed hobo, I can likely make that happen for you. (grin and wink.)

She Bitch: "That John! He is so much fitter than present company!"

He Brat: " I agree! Why don't we go over and see if he would like to join us for a foursome with that cute little redhead at his table? (start to get up from your seat as though you might actually do this.)"

The reason why this is a better move than simply attempting to meet her "bitch" with your "dread dick" is that with the "dread dick" move you will be confirming her perspective that her only safety is in secure hierarchy. Females in adolescence, or extended adolescence in adulthood, also often have difficulties with "mean girls", and when I consider why this has almost never been a problem for me, it is because I don't care enough about having female friends to tolerate bitchiness, also I am sometimes simply oblivious to bitchy behavior if it gets in the way of something I want to do. Also, I am the oldest of 4 sisters, and we all err strongly on the side of "bratty", so the more "bitchy" female crews seem kind of alien and less fun to me. "Bratty" females also tend to belong to one or more variety of "tomboy", so they are secure enough in their own masculine functioning to not have to be "bitchy", because not entirely "brittle dependent" on having a man in her purse or compelled to compete with other females to secure male purse-holders. Unfortunately, I believe that there is a good deal of consumerism that is driven by a level of "bitchy" competition between females, but girls who play softball, play guitar in a rock band, or compete for high score in AP Chemistry are less likely to go there.

ETA: OTOH, a bitchy female is more likely to remain in a dysfunctional marriage than a bratty female, because "bitchy" is the means by which she is attempting to make the relationship work for her. There are also Level Green males who exhibit "bitchy" behavior in relationship. My first husband was quite "bitchy", but it took me a while to work this out due to the gender flip that often happens at Level Green. The difference between male-form-bitchy and male-dominant-azzhole behavior is that the male-dominant-azzhole may say something that hurts your feelings, but that was not his purpose. For example, if male-dominant-azzhole bluntly communicates, "You need to lose some weight, woman.", he will be happy if you actually do lose some weight because that is somehow in alignment with his rough purpose/vision/goal, but if male-form-bitchy tells you that you are too fat, he will not be happy if you actually lose the weight, because then he will have to come up with some other way to keep you down to his brittle-loser level of masculine energy.

[blink2ce]

@lillo9546 was your mother an awful bitch? If so, that may explain some things. Male children use their mother as a template to understand women. And female children use their father as a template to understand men. So if you mother was a raging bitch, then that is what you will continue to expect from women, especially in a relationship. And not only that, but in a twist of irony, because you expect to find these women, you will actually ATTRACT them towards you! Law of attraction or something like that. It is only after seeing your mother for who she really was that you can see other women for who they really are. This has been my experience for myself.

[lillo9546]

@blink2ce

Yes, I'm learning. And btw, I found out something actually cool https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mathemat ... ationships

I don't quite understand what this study concludes. What do they mean in pragmatic terms by negativity rate and positivity rate?

In short, from what emerged in the study, the best couples would be those who have a low negativity rate, and therefore, argue about everything?
I don't understand this point

Interestingly, Fry says she would have imagined that the best relationships would have a high negativity threshold, meaning they'd be focused on compromise and would bring up an issue only if it was "a really big deal." But in fact, the opposite is true.

"The most successful relationships are the ones with a really low negativity threshold," writes Fry. "In those relationships, couples allow each other to complain, and work together to constantly repair the tiny issues between them. In such a case, couples don't bottle up their feelings, and little things don't end up being blown completely out of proportion."

Happy couples, then, tend to have more positive interactions than negative ones, and thus are more likely to give each other the benefit of a doubt. When there is an issue, they're more likely to bring it up quickly, fix it, and move on.

[7Wannabe5]

I think marital success on the basis of constant bickering is more likely to occur in unions between J types. Easy-going P types are less likely to naturally encounter something that immediately bothers them to the level of bickering, so may feel harassed when in relationship with more bickering inclined J type. A coupling between two easy-going Ps is more likely to externalize the conflict to the boundary, as in "Hmmm, looks like the city sent us a weed ordinance violation notice. I guess one of us is going to have to mow the lawn one of these days. Do you want some pudding?"

Since I am fairly strongly P, one of my tricks for dealing with J types in relationship is to pretend that I care about certain things more than I do or otherwise trump his nagging. For example:

J guy: "Why didn't you put the eggs in the exact spot where I informed you that they belong in the refrigerator?"

P Me: "One way to solve this problem would be to simply not own a refrigerator. I would rather not own a refrigerator than have to waste brain cycles on ideal egg placement in refrigerator." (returns attention to interesting book.)

My other trick for addressing this sort of thing would be:

J Guy: "Why didn't you put the eggs in the exact spot where I informed you that they belong in the refrigerator?"

P Me: "Spank me, Daddy. Spank me hard."

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have not yet remained successfully engaged in relationship with significantly J man, so my methods may not be superior, perhaps roughly analogous to rolling watermelons out of the back of your truck to slow down the cops in pursuit.

[Cam]

You are filled with wisdom @7wb5. Next time I make the mistake of pouring my girlfriend tea in the mug not designated for tea drinking, I will request a firm and immediate spanking if she becomes upset.

[jacob]

[...] perhaps roughly analogous to rolling watermelons out of the back of your truck to slow down the cops in pursuit.

I have sooo many questions.

[lillo9546]

My long term girl was getting a little bitchy lately and hard to get along with.
I called her out, ignored her, and guess what???
The next day she was working to address the issue and went above and beyond to remedy the problem. If you're girl doesn't respond like this, she doesn't think you are #1.

This is not really gottman but I think in this case we have a "fight" that solve the issue.
Does this look healthy to you?

[7Wannabe5]

You are filled with wisdom @7wb5. Next time I make the mistake of pouring my girlfriend tea in the mug not designated for tea drinking, I will request a firm and immediate spanking if she becomes upset.

I should note that responding with a comment such as this is not towards the purpose of likely actually promoting such an erotic interaction. Another analogy would be it is like you are on one of those episodes of Star Trek where a planet of humans has been taken over by an AI Super-Computer, and you have to figure out the thing you could say or input that would lock the AI Super-Computer into an endless loop sub-routine, or cause a robot to start flailing its arms randomly about while flashing lights and emitting "Does not compute. Does not compute. Does not compute..."

I have sooo many questions.

The watermelons rolling out of the back of the truck with the cops in pursuit is comedic, and interactions between spouses who are split J/P are a frequent device in situation comedies. For example, in "The Cosby Show", Cliff Huxtable is an ENTP and Claire Huxtable is an ENTJ, and he is the funny criminal who tries to sneak a giant pastrami sandwich and she is the "cop" who busts him for it. In more modern sit-coms, the wife is more often the J, another good example would be "Everybody Loves Raymond", but in older sit-coms, the husband would be more often the J. For example, in "I Dream of Jeannie" , "All in the Family", and "I Love Lucy", the male is more J and the female is more P. It's also funny in same sex situations such as "The Odd Couple" or "Laurel and Hardy." Often the J character actually has the appearance of being more straight like a stick while the P character is more soft and rounded.

"I Love Lucy" is one of the best examples, because Desi is ESTJ, Fred Mertz is ISTJ, Ethel Mertz is ISFj, and Lucy is ENFP. Since Lucy is N user and the others are S users, she is the cleverest and most creative character. Ethel is softer J than Desi or Fred due to her F, so she is willing to go along with Lucy on her "funny criminal" adventures to a certain extent, but she is also always trying to warn her or hold her back. Because Desi and Fred are the most rigid sort of Js, the only way through them is around them with trickery and schemes. Then the climax of almost every episode is when Desi blows his top, because he discovers that Lucy did not obey his rigid directive, and then she bursts into tears, and then they make up. Very stereotypical mid-century modern marriage dysfunctional, but also pretty funny.

[Cam]

I should note that responding with a comment such as this is not towards the purpose of likely actually promoting such an erotic interaction. Another analogy would be it is like you are on one of those episodes of Star Trek where a planet of humans has been taken over by an AI Super-Computer, and you have to figure out the thing you could say or input that would lock the AI Super-Computer into an endless loop sub-routine, or cause a robot to start flailing its arms randomly about while flashing lights and emitting "Does not compute. Does not compute. Does not compute..."

That makes sense to me. Might still try it out though just to experiment. For science!

And then I will use the correct mug.

[7Wannabe5]

That makes sense to me. Might still try it out though just to experiment. For science!

Okay, very good. Be sure to report your results back to this thread so we can keep all of our critical data clean and consolidated.

And then I will use the correct mug.

And I will continue to resist the tyranny of the arbitrary! One fun thing about the practice of polyamory is that as a P type you can simultaneously be in relationship with three different J types each holding their own different belief on what sort of mug is correct (or actually two different J types and one fellow P type whose J wife lets him know which mug is correct), and this is very freeing. Kind of akin to how it's less likely that anything will be accomplished in a mixed parliamentary balance of powers system even if half of the representatives are towards an autocratic bent. For example, I felt perfectly free to ignore the three different text messages one of my poly-partners sent me this week informing me of the exact brand of cough drops I should purchase to combat my severe bronchitis, even though the last one was very direct with its "Did you get those cough drops yet?"

[Henry]

One fun thing about the practice of polyamory is that as a P type you can simultaneously be in relationship with three different J types each holding their own different belief on what sort of mug is correct (or actually two different J types and one fellow P type whose J wife lets him know which mug is correct), and this is very freeing.

It just occurred to me that in order to be polyamory, you really need to be a people person.

[7Wannabe5]

It just occurred to me that in order to be polyamory, you really need to be a people person.

Not really, although it certainly helps. I mean, you don't necessarily have to have a green thumb to do permaculture either. You just need a very basic systems level perspective and some interest in relationships with other humans. For example, I am roughly the same level of "people person" as Bugs Bunny playing a Librarian, and your clearly-not-a-people-person bud Elon apparently practices a neo-patriarchal form of polyamory.

OTOH, it is the case that the most frequent profession of somebody who practices polyamory is "educator', and the two humans I know who seem to be the most authentically core polyamorous in their functioning held the professions of "minister" and "diplomat." And polyamory also seems to require humans who are either innately or developmentally somewhat flexible in gender role and/or somehow balanced in masculine and feminine energy. For example, as a primarily heterosexual female you find Rod Stewart attractive, you are aware that part of this attraction is due to his hot mix of gender signaling, and you would also like to switch places with him on the below album art series so that you could take a turn at playing the central character, maybe subbing in late 1980s Jimmy Smits for the brunette*.






If you haven't read it yet, Miranda July's "All Fours" explores the creative cycle of a more introverted artist type through her integration of polyamory. The manner in which she develops this in relationship to how humans literally create spaces such as "home" and "room of one's own" and "couple's space" very much rhymes and chimes with my take on the intersection of polyamory and the psychological use of space and shelter explored in "A Pattern Language."


Swinging back to the topic at hand, monogamous practice can also definitely take place or develop to systems level perspective, but will manifest more as an exploration of the "we" existent within "us" at Kegan 5**. Maybe roughly the difference between inhabiting a novel with characters vs. inhabiting a permaculture project with plants. And, I suppose, if one were to devote the entire 30 years of adult-span life-energy gained through FIRE to the attempt, one could even do Kegan 5 level relationship with 5 different humans semi-simultaneously. As can be seen with Elon, it is our growing affluence and individualistic functioning that is allowing an approach to either/all/any of these possibilities for each/any/all of us.

*Extremely important note here being that polyamory need not have anything to do with literal time/place synchronized threesomes.

**Since the members of this forum are already quite advanced in adult development, I would even go so far as to suggest that this level of Kegan 5 functioning will eventually become necessary for most/many members of this forum if they are to maintain their marriages over the long run. For better or worse, it does sometimes happen that marriages break up at midlife due to one spouse achieving a higher level of adult development than the other. The center can not then hold for very long, because their very notion of "marriage" diverges. Actually, this is the problem that was addressed at the juncture of Traditional/Modern or Kegen3/Kegan4 in "Advice to a Young Wife from an Old Mistress" (1968.) The "young wife" being the woman in the traditional homemaker role and the "old mistress" being the more "sophisticated" woman who supports/partners with the man at his modern place of business. It's interesting to note that we have now come far enough along in this cycle that this is now not infrequently somewhat reversed; the man is married to his modern success driven female partner, but has an affair with the Nanny.

[jennypenny]

It's funny that a thread about making marriage work is now discussing polyamory.

[Henry]

Jeepers. I crack my Overton window to let a sentence in, and before I'm out of the first paragraph, I run into the Scarecrow singing "If I Only had a Train". I don't care how bad it gets, I'm not pulling straw out.

[7Wannabe5]

It's funny that a thread about making marriage work is now discussing polyamory.

I'd actually say it was more "boring form predictable" than "funny." Kind of like how I also can't stop myself from talking about Crohn's Disease, even though I am so over the topic. Still, I would be interested in your take on "All Fours."