Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Where are you and where are you going?
suomalainen
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by suomalainen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:05 pm

Holy shit, that is the most real thing you have ever said (written).

Now, tie it all back to your mom and you'll achieve the therapy realization holy grail! J/k, but not really, probably. Painful but ultimately freeing process, at least for me.

Augustus
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:15 am

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by Augustus » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:55 pm

My wife needs to work for her mental health, I happily pick kid up and drop kid off in exchange, as when she is happy the rest of us have an easier time being happy. Dropping kid off is easy, bitchy wife is much harder to deal with. You may find you're much happier if she is more emotionally stable. Give it a try, encourage it, I dropped ~45k in education for her, totally worth it IMO.

Jason
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:37 am

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by Jason » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:30 am

suomalainen wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:05 pm
Holy shit, that is the most real thing you have ever said (written).
Oh, I was joking about that too.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:17 am

@suomalainen:

I agree that trying to fix another human's emotions is like trying to drain a black-hole swamp, but I am wondering if you are neglecting to consider the possibility that your wife might choose to divorce you? What I see going on here is a classic pattern where nobody is truly willing to be the decision maker within the relationship. IOW, you are not offering your wife the straight-forward choice of going along with your plan or striking out on her own, because you are running some sort of covert script/contract in your mind only. So, your behavior has become largely passive aggressive rather than assertive.

Counter-example:

H: There is not enough good land here in New York to support our growing family. We need to go West.

W: (wringing hands)...but, my pianoforte, my sisters, our church...?

H: (actually attempt empathy AKA honoring preferences of other AKA the opposite or antidote for arrogance AKA cherishment) I know that you love your music and family and God. I remember when I first saw you in that blue dress playing the organ so sweetly and you stole my heart. I promise you that we will find a way to bring music, family and religion into our new home,... but we need to go West.

I would be offering your wife other advice in alignment with gender-dichotomy relationship theory if she were in the room, but one good thing about gender-dichotomy relationship theory is you can often just do your part and then your partner will naturally assume complementary better functioning. Basically, what you are doing is attempting to free trade Cherishment for Respect within the boundaries of your relationship.

What you are doing now is the often observed repressed grouchy guy thing. IOW, you don't quite have the balls to deal with the possible consequences of offering your wife clear leadership directive, so all you can do is sulk and occasionally snap. The fact that she is now seeking employment outside the home as solution, within a situation where this isn't economic imperative or in alignment with her own purpose in her masculine energy, is highly indicative of a semi-conscious attempt on her part to relieve the anxiety your behavior is provoking by becoming more of her own husband. My prediction is if the situation doesn't otherwise change, she will naturally choose to divorce you as soon as her own income + expected child-support/alimony/settlement = reasonable financial security in her mind. This conclusion will be greatly accelerated if/when she finds 3rd party support in social circle.


And, I don't want to hear anything along the lines of "But, 7WB5, that's not the way you behave yourself.", because I am an old woman who has already raised her children, and therefore I have earned the right to play around again :lol:

Jason
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:37 am

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by Jason » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:46 am

Ouch, Suo. I understood at least 63.85% of that post and it appears as though you are ruminating your way straight to divorce court.

suomalainen
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by suomalainen » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:40 pm

@7w5 To start to respond, I will admit that you and I are not on the same wavelength. I don't know what the cause of that difference is, but I've experienced it before with others (especially wife!), so I will start with this general caveat: to me, it seems that when you communicate what is in your head, you make certain assumptions that you suppose are common knowledge. I humbly suggest that those assumptions are NOT common knowledge, or at the very least, are not known to me. I will try to call out those possible hidden assumptions as I respond phrase by phrase:
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:17 am
but I am wondering if you are neglecting to consider the possibility that your wife might choose to divorce you?
No. We have openly discussed divorce. She has considered it. I have considered it. In each case, we have both decided that "what we have isn't perfect, but it is good". She is free to leave at any time. I am free to leave at any time. We remain married today only because we choose every day to remain so.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:17 am
What I see going on here is a classic pattern where nobody is truly willing to be the decision maker within the relationship.
Decide what? What decisions are you referring to? I decide some things. She decides other things. Other things we both shrug and go "meh". You are speaking in tongues here.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:17 am
IOW, you are not offering your wife the straight-forward choice of going along with your plan or striking out on her own, because you are running some sort of covert script/contract in your mind only. So, your behavior has become largely passive aggressive rather than assertive.
Ehhhhhhhhhh, I dunno. What "plan" do I have? What "plan" should I be offering her to decide about? There's really nothing covert about what's going on in my mind. I pretty much say it all.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:17 am
Basically, what you are doing is attempting to free trade Cherishment for Respect within the boundaries of your relationship.
No idea what those words mean and what you are trying to convey.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:17 am
What you are doing now is the often observed repressed grouchy guy thing.
Grouchy guy, yes. Repressed...not really any more, depending on what you mean by the word "repressed". Sexually repressed? Sure, I wouldn't mind a harem, but I enjoy our sex life. Religiously repressed? No. Repressed by having to work every day? Sure, I guess. Repressed by having kids? Sure, sometimes, but my mindset is getting better. Instead of feeling hemmed in by the kids and wishing I was doing something else or feeling like I'm "wasting my life" by raising kids and not pursuing other meaningful hobbies, I have worked (somewhat successfully) to adopt the view that my kids are my primary "meaningful hobby" for now and I don't have to feel FOMO or anxiety for not doing this pile of other things I would also like to do. I can do the kids now and squeeze in some other hobbies when I can, and when the kids grow up, I will naturally have more time for other meaningful pursuits.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:17 am
IOW, you don't quite have the balls to deal with the possible consequences of offering your wife clear leadership directive, so all you can do is sulk and occasionally snap.
What's with the leadership thing? Am I "supposed to" be a leader? In what way? And from where does this categorical imperative originate? I don't think I sulk or snap. About what do you think I sulk and snap? I have no interest in being an authoritarian leader where I tell her "you will go to work". She can do what she wants. I am doing what I want even if I have competing interests. All things considered, I wouldn't change anything. In those areas where I still feel some psychological...discomfort or...desire, I am considering alternatives. For example, @Augustus' poking me a few times to consider time off work (whether sabbatical style or part time style) continues to stew in my brain. It hasn't agitated me enough to action yet, but the agitation is there.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:17 am
this isn't economic imperative or in alignment with her own purpose in her masculine energy, is highly indicative of a semi-conscious attempt on her part to relieve the anxiety your behavior is provoking by becoming more of her own husband.
No idea what this means. Is "being a man" in your mind that I dominate her with my will? Some sort of old-fashioned gender role stereotype thing? Sorry, I don't want a weak wife, nor do I want a controlling wife. I want an equal, adult partner. No child-parent role play weirdness.

She stated that she is getting a job because she is tired of my resentment of her not having a job, so I take that at face value. Where I disagree with her is in her interpretation of my emotions. She is trying to project on me feelings that I do not have, so I push back. It appears that when I say X she interprets it as Meaning Y even though I intend to convey Meaning Z. Now that I am aware of that, it is on me to choose different words so that there is less chance of her misinterpreting me and so that I clearly convey to her the Meaning Z that I am attempting to convey. Regardless, it is on her to adjust her orientation to my words X and not cling to Meaning Y when I say "no, no, no, no, no, you misunderstood, what I meant was Meaning Z." She has a tendency to cling to Meaning Y notwithstanding my attempts at clarifying. "But you said X." "Which you misinterpreted as Meaning Y and you are trying to project Meaning Y on to me and I reject that projection. I said X attempting to convey Meaning Z, not Meaning Y. It is now your responsibility to accept that you either want to see me as conveying Meaning Y or you accept my clarification at face value that I intended and presently intend Meaning Z."

For those following along:

X was something like "I resent feeling like I exist to make everyone else's lives easy and convenient. That you guys pay no attention to what something costs because 'we can afford it'. Everything that you buy means I work longer. It's fine if we need it, but not if you are merely buying ease and convenience."

Meaning Y was something like "Suo resents wife for not working and spending 'suo's money'."

Meaning Z was something like "Suo resents thoughtless purchases. 'Thoughtless purchases' seem to be okay in wife's mind 'because we can afford it', but in suo's mind, we can only afford it if I work longer for it. In other words, your convenience is purchased at my inconvenience. How is that fair?"
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:17 am
My prediction is if the situation doesn't otherwise change, she will naturally choose to divorce you.
This is unlikely for many reasons, but she is free to do as she pleases. I have promised to support her if she does choose to leave me as I do not want her to choose to stay with me for my wallet only. She has my wallet either way. She has chosen to remain with me during the darkest parts of our marriage when we were fighting about far more important things that money and whether she buys frozen food or ingredients to make food and as things are much better now than they ever have been, I find it difficult to imagine that she leaves me now, unless something drastic happens/changes. Either way, I don't want to be with a woman who doesn't want to be with me, so we're either both in it or we're both out.

****
Again, I don't know if we're enough on the same wavelength to have a meeting of the minds, but the above is my attempt to make it as clear as possible. Thank you for the time and engagement to write your initial post, and I would be interested in your adding more color to your original post or the above so I can understand what it is you are trying to convey to me.

suomalainen
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by suomalainen » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:42 pm

@augustus That's where I'm coming out too, but again, I'm not going to push her in a direction that I think is best for her. I'm her partner, not her parent. (the latter sentence is more addressed to @7w5, but maybe she's not trying to suggest that either, I dunno.)

jennypenny
Posts: 5885
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by jennypenny » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:12 pm

@S--7W5 and I are very different, but I have to admit I was nodding along with her post. I understand that you don't quite get what she's saying, but stew on it a while.
"No. We have openly discussed divorce. She has considered it. I have considered it. In each case, we have both decided that "what we have isn't perfect, but it is good". She is free to leave at any time. I am free to leave at any time. We remain married today only because we choose every day to remain so."
She isn't free to leave any time. You said you'd support her if she left, which demonstrates that even if she leaves she's not gaining her independence. Her recent foray into potential jobs and salaries showed her just how dependent she is. Try to think about it from her perspective. As you say, you want a modern marriage that's two equal adult partners, but your arrangement is structured in a traditional way. Even though you see your division of responsibilities as equal and expect the two of you to interact as equals, she might not see it that way because of her dependence on your as her benefactor.

I'm not trying to come down on you and I hate that I sound like I'm lecturing. I'm only suggesting that you give what 7W5 said more thought and consider that some of the things you do in an attempt to make things more egalitarian (in your eyes) might be making things worse based on your wife's view of the situation. Equal doesn't always mean 50/50 ... it often means dividing up the realms equally, if that makes sense.

jennypenny
Posts: 5885
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by jennypenny » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:27 pm

I should add that I'm not necessarily saying that your wife is correct in feeling that way (if she does), only hoping to give you a sense of how she might view it so you can understand her better.

suomalainen
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by suomalainen » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:29 pm

@jp Consider me a dumbass. Break it down for me.

She says “I feel like you resent me for not having a job, so I will get a job.”

I truly don’t care either way. I will support her in every way either way. In my mind, she can address that emotion in multiple ways, including by accepting my clarification about what exactly I resent.

What am I “supposed to” do? In my eyes we are equal, but I am trying to raise a concern about the budget. That’s all. I just want her to be more mindful about spending and to stop saying/thinking ‘we can afford it’.

jennypenny
Posts: 5885
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by jennypenny » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:36 pm

You've told her how concerned you are about spending money but then say you don't care at all whether she gets a job to bring in more of it. You also say you want to be equals but then say you'll support her, even if she leaves. Can you see how that kind of stuff might confuse her and give off the kind of vibe that 7W5 was talking about?

suomalainen
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by suomalainen » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:05 pm

...not...really? First, I don’t really know what @7w5 was trying to say. But I guess what you are (and by extension she is) trying to say is that 1) on the one hand I’m saying I care about spending money and therefore I’m going to piss and moan about it but 2) on the other hand I say that I don’t care about her earning money WITHOUT asserting that that means that I think she must fall in line on the budget side?

And 1 vs 2 is contradictory? And 2 is passive aggressive?

And that the clearer thing would be to just say “get a job or stop spending money or leave if you won’t fall in line”? Isn’t that a controlling asshole approach?

I still don’t get it and clearly I’m missing something.

Augustus
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:15 am

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by Augustus » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:43 pm

Women will hate you if you don't passionately care about them. I think that's why they're all mad at you. She's your wife, you should give more of a shit about her future/life/feelings. My wife says relationships are plants, water them regularly or they die. Even if you can't fix it, show you care, regularly.

Saying things like they can leave and you'll support them roughly translates to I don't care about you, fuck off.

I think all women's most desired fantasy is storming out after yelling at a guy, and then the guy chasing them out the door saying baby come back!!!

It's romantic or something

suomalainen
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by suomalainen » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:53 pm

Telling my wife I support any decision she decides to make w/r/t her career or her relationship status with me....is...not giving a shit about my wife? Man, I really do not get it.

And this whole time I thought I was doing so great because I wasn't trying to tell her to take the goddamn nail out of her forehead.

Augustus
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:15 am

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by Augustus » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:57 pm

Yup, it's proof of the fact you don't care about her, if you cared you'd be all emo about it. Major faux pas dude.

Semi joking, but also not. Water the plant man, it's not that hard. Whether or not you actually grok it.

Augustus
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:15 am

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by Augustus » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:07 pm

Let me break it down for you:
When your wife cares about something she has an emotional response.
She expresses this to you, in order to share her feelings
This means she cares about the thing

Now here's what you're doing:
Caring about something, but not having an emotional breakdown when your wife threatens to leave you
Expressing your lack of emotional response to your wife
This means you do not care about the thing

Simple right? There's nothing else to it, don't overcomplicate it. Apply those rules it to your relationship, and the women will be happier.

You probably need to do the "baby come back!!!" thing really. Since you fucked up this bad already.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:16 pm

Augustus wrote:Saying things like they can leave and you'll support them roughly translates to I don't care about you, fuck off.
Exactly. But, you don't have to be all emo (as smart alec Augustus put it) about it yourself. A simple, sincere "I love you" would also serve the purpose. Simmering resentment is almost as good as a smack to the head in giving off the opposite signal. Once this sort of dynamic has gone on for too long, any woman with a bit of self-esteem will start to behave in a manner that reflects her internal disagreement with your message/signal of "You are not lovable." with her own response of "F*ck you, because I am." Then she will look around for confirmation of her take on reality.
No idea what this means. Is "being a man" in your mind that I dominate her with my will? Some sort of old-fashioned gender role stereotype thing? Sorry, I don't want a weak wife, nor do I want a controlling wife. I want an equal, adult partner. No child-parent role play weirdness.
Of course, you are both adults capable of freely entering into partnership contract, but you are also a man and a woman. Would you prefer to be married to Jason or Augustus, even if they were transported into the body of young Victoria Principal? If not, you will have to accept that you are a man that wants to be married to a woman, and your wife is likely a woman who wants to be married to a man. That is the core of your relationship as lovers. Do you want your lover to be your partner, or do you want your partner to be your lover? If you prefer the first then you may wish to consider gender-dichotomy theory. If you prefer the second, just consult any good book on contract negotiation, and also a book of 101 Sex Tips for When Things Start to Get Boring Because I am Just Fucking Myself Dressed in a Girl Suit.

Augustus
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:15 am

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by Augustus » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:43 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:16 pm
But, you don't have to be all emo (as smart alec Augustus put it) about it yourself. A simple, sincere "I love you" would also serve the purpose.
Trust me, he'll understand my lexicon better. What you're thinking of is called emo in man-words.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:38 am

Augustus wrote:Trust me, he'll understand my lexicon better. What you're thinking of is called emo in man-words.
lol- But, no, I don't agree with your analysis entirely. Too superficial, and also too Western and NT in perspective. John Wayne as Norwegian Engineer is not the only flavor of masculinity. As an NT female, I have been in relationship with many men who are naturally more "emo" than me. Think Vincent Van Gogh, Zorba the Greek, Ricky Ricardo, etc. It's not the manner of expression of emotion that matters. A woman who is open to your love is going to be like a well-tuned receiver capable of picking up the most subtle signal, and also capable of smelling when there is deceit behind a grand gesture.

So, you don't just throw up your hands and do it because that's what cuckoo-bananas girls like. You need to look deeper. Peel back another layer of the onion, and ask yourself under what circumstances do you naturally feel loving towards your woman? Counter-example:

M (arriving home) : Guess what? I got that big bonus and now we are 6 months closer to ERE!

W: Whatever. Billy was barfing all morning. Did you remember to pick up the butter like I asked?

This is just slight variation from classic example often offered in books on gender-dichotomy theory. If you asked this couple, they would probably state that they have an egalitarian partnership, but what is really going on is what is mostly called "parallel play" when observed in the behavior of children. Most modern or post-modern people would describe their marriage as "egalitarian partnership", but they really have no clue what that entails. They are just parroting the words, because that's the sort of relationship they believe they are supposed to have.

To the extent that the couple in the example above is in relationship, it is obvious that the wife, perhaps unconsciously, is somewhat in the role of the lead. Funny note would be that if you think of a young couple having an earnest intellectual conversation about their decision to get married, and one of them says something like "Of course, we will have an egalitarian partnership." in that moment, that "egalitarian" partner to the relationship is actually signaling desire to take the lead. In retrospect, I was signaling "soft lead" throughout most of my first very egalitarian marriage, because I didn't trust my very young, musician-type husband as far as I could throw him, and there were children in the mix right from the get-go, and that was my bad.

Maybe I am wrong, but I believe that if S did whatever possible to make the core of his relationship with his wife strong and vibrant and loving and sexy again, that would then reflect itself in the value and functionality of their overall partnership, and in the security of his children within the family structure.

Circling back round, according to sexual-dichotomy theory, the behavior most likely to make a man naturally and truly feel loving towards his woman (as opposed to just acting as-if emo) would be respectful behavior. This is a bit hard to actually describe or delineate. It's nothing like weak or passive or push-over obedience in the follow. A man won't "hear" respect from that sort of behavior because respect from a non-peer (or somebody who is signalling non-peer) is next to worthless. The best way I know to describe how to enact respectful behavior is summed up as "ONLY take a man literally."

You can see right away that this rule-of-thumb is relevant to Suo's situation, because he is currently frustrated because his wife did assign meaning beyond the literal to what he communicated. He did not say "Go get a job, and use the money you earn to buy crap like new bike helmets for the kids.Do not spend the money I earn on crap like new bike helmets for the kids." , but she is behaving as though that is what he said, so her behavior is disrespectful.

I know this is not the easiest concept to comprehend, so I will offer the example that I have found usually helps make it click when I am explaining to other women.( I would first note that obviously not all human cultures engage in dating, but most human cultures do engage in courtship, and generally males do the courting, so try not to summon up narrow arguments in objection to the following.) Conventional dating practice often leads to a dysfunctional behavior known as "waiting by the phone, hoping he will call you for a second date." Few people well tolerate the tension of leaving a decision about your future in the hands of another. So, a person in such a situation will tend towards looking for signs or assigning meaning to non-literal statements. For instance, "He kissed me and said "Goodnight, Beautiful" so that means that he will ask me out again." would be a typical thought structure in such a situation, but once a woman has internalized the concept behind the rule "ONLY take a man literally", she stops thinking or behaving in such a disrespectful manner, and her release of this tension is like a gift of freedom to both parties. OTOH, if a man says something like "I will call you on Wednesday about the movie on Friday." and then he does not call until Thursday, he has proven himself as unworthy of respect or adult partnership, and should be dropped like a hot potato unless you just want to have a bit of fun hanging out with an irresponsible adolescent. IOW, do not assign literal meaning to non-literal statements and do not make or accept excuses for the non-adherence to literal statements.

True story. The problem-scape in Suo's marriage is so classic and so common, the unhappily divorced man with whom I am currently sharing house-space, actually complained to me, in reference to his ex, just the other night "I didn't want to come home from work and tell her what to do. I didn't want to be married to a child. I wanted a partner." The good news for Suo and my housemate is that at least they did not make the fatal error of signaling submissive to their wives. Very difficult to ever get a woman into bed again, except with vibe of duty/mercy, once a guy has made that error. They both seem very masculine, but they both signaled "You are not worth the effort/hassle of assumption of leadership role." The error both wives made is subconscious assumption of childish brat stance. When women behave like "brats", they are often telling themselves that they are seeking respect, but what they really want is proof-of-worth-through-demonstration-of-effort-on-part-of-other-party. Once a woman is mature and self-aware in her ownership of her self-worth, less needy of other-validation, she can relax in her feminine energy and better respect a man. This is also a reflective function, because the practice of respect combined with the practice of strengthening and relaxing in her feminine energy will also allow a woman to be more mature and self-aware in her ownership or her self-worth. Not easy by a long-shot, but IMO and experience*, definitely best practice.

But, as I noted previously, your wife is not the person in the room, so the prescription for your half of the dance would be:

1) Behave as though you cherish your wife.

2) If you believe that you would feel more loving towards your wife if she followed you in some practice or directive, then you should clearly state that directive, AND you should follow through in a non-controlling-asshole manner (a skill I am sure you have demonstrated competently in other settings.) Whether you like it or not, general rule of thumb is that over the long run, the most efficient token with which you can pay P.O.P is leadership. There is no magical setting outside of your marriage in which this will not remain true.




*If you get real good at it, you can sometimes respect more than one man at the same time.-lol. Seriously, go with what I say, NOT what I do :lol:

EdithKeeler
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

Post by EdithKeeler » Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:54 am

Telling my wife I support any decision she decides to make w/r/t her career or her relationship status with me....is...not giving a shit about my wife? Man, I really do not get it.

And this whole time I thought I was doing so great because I wasn't trying to tell her to take the goddamn nail out of her forehead.
Speaking as a chick, what I would want to hear is along the lines of “I love you, and our relationship and our family is the best thing in my life, and I do not want to fuck that up. I’m sorry if sometimes I get a little crazy about the budget, but I worry about the financial health of our family—because it’s the most important thing. I do not want to jeopardize our family or our relationship. If you want to work, I absolutely support that, and if you don’t, I support that too. We do not need the money. I just ask that if you do decide to go to work, do something that you enjoy and fulfills you, because we don’t need the $$ enough to make you slog at something that makes you miserable. Now here’s some flowers because I love you, and I’ve made reservations at your favorite restaurant and the babysitter is on the way.”

I say this as someone whose relationship recently fell apart because he never watered the plant . (Augustus’s metaphor is spot on).

I don’t know about all of 7wannabe5’s stuff—it may be very true but I think it over complicates things. Everyone wants to be heard and understood. People (and I think especially women) want to feel safe and secure (telling your wife you’ll support her if she leaves does NOT do that (well, it wouldn’t for me)). And we all want to be told that we’re loved in a way that makes sense for us. Some want confirmation that they are good parents or good providers, some need sexual contact to really hear it, etc.
Last edited by EdithKeeler on Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply