Sunday, April 17, 2011
Theory # 47 Dads and Childbirth
I'm not sure if I should keep calling these things "theories," since they're more just opinion-filled ramblings, but what the heck.
I've been cleaning out my inbox, and ran across an article on fathers and childbirth. It wasn't a very in-depth article, mostly just introducing the notion that men who avoid involvement in the birth of their children will be more confident fathers.
Once I calmed down enough to think about it, it occurred to me that men feeling marginalized and passive during childbirth is symptomatic of relationships between the sexes in general.
Carl was present for the births of all three of our children. No, "present" doesn't really describe it. He was involved. It was truly a joint effort, though I was obviously doing the hard part. He didn't stand passively or stare at the TV; I didn't shush him when he talked to me. He was my advocate with the medical staff; he paid attention to when I needed ice chips or those tennis balls on my back, and when it was early enough in labor that I could be distracted by chatting. A nurse told us she'd never seen a couple work together so well during labor and delivery.
Which seems very sad to me. Why was that not the norm? My theory (ah-ha! there it is!) is that despite all the poetry, love songs, and romances out there, far too many couples don't really "become one." There may be love and attraction, but there's a real fear of losing oneself in a relationship, that it means giving up something. It is risky, but so is everything worthwhile. And really--if you can't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them in the first place?
Modern life encourages people to protect themselves first. Everyone knows someone--probably many someones--who's been in an abusive relationship or gone through an acrimonious divorce. And even if it miraculously hasn't touched you personally, it's all over the media. But protecting yourself also prevents you from being truly intimate with another person. The time for protecting yourself is when you're choosing that special someone. Once you've made a commitment, though, those walls need to come down.
If there's real intimacy, you don't lose anything by letting go of gender roles or accepting help from your partner. On the contrary, you gain. There seems to be a real tendency on the part of a lot of women to push men away and discourage them from helping, from the delivery room to changing diapers to vacuuming the rug. We may say we want help, but we complain that the towels are folded wrong, or the baby's clothes don't match. It's not that those things are that important--it's that we're protecting our territory. Many men, on the other hand, seem to view either asking for or giving help as dangerous dependence. Horrible generalizations, and both methods could be true of either gender, but the result is a lack of intimacy.
Yes, it's scary, and yes, it's risky. But the rewards are commensurate with the risks. If your relationship is loving and intimate, it's not a man hanging out in the delivery room while his wife gives birth because it's expected, or even because he wants to make her happy. It's a couple bringing their child into the world. If you can make that kind of connection, it spreads through the whole relationship. It's not so much compromise or give-and-take as it is having the same goals and priorities.
So how do you achieve that intimacy? One person can't do it alone. And you can't hold back or protect yourself, because it won't work. Putting each other first is key, as is honesty. And reminding yourselves over and over again why you're together and how important your relationship and family are to you. If you get the attitude down, the rest will follow.
Granted, all this sounds very idealistic, and I have to say that a lot of it is coming from 26+ years of marriage. We didn't always manage quite so well. For all I know, I'm just incredibly lucky, and this is just not possible for most couples. But I still think it's worth trying for.
Categories: Theories, TWBTS, Relationships
I've been cleaning out my inbox, and ran across an article on fathers and childbirth. It wasn't a very in-depth article, mostly just introducing the notion that men who avoid involvement in the birth of their children will be more confident fathers.
Once I calmed down enough to think about it, it occurred to me that men feeling marginalized and passive during childbirth is symptomatic of relationships between the sexes in general.
Carl was present for the births of all three of our children. No, "present" doesn't really describe it. He was involved. It was truly a joint effort, though I was obviously doing the hard part. He didn't stand passively or stare at the TV; I didn't shush him when he talked to me. He was my advocate with the medical staff; he paid attention to when I needed ice chips or those tennis balls on my back, and when it was early enough in labor that I could be distracted by chatting. A nurse told us she'd never seen a couple work together so well during labor and delivery.
Which seems very sad to me. Why was that not the norm? My theory (ah-ha! there it is!) is that despite all the poetry, love songs, and romances out there, far too many couples don't really "become one." There may be love and attraction, but there's a real fear of losing oneself in a relationship, that it means giving up something. It is risky, but so is everything worthwhile. And really--if you can't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them in the first place?
Modern life encourages people to protect themselves first. Everyone knows someone--probably many someones--who's been in an abusive relationship or gone through an acrimonious divorce. And even if it miraculously hasn't touched you personally, it's all over the media. But protecting yourself also prevents you from being truly intimate with another person. The time for protecting yourself is when you're choosing that special someone. Once you've made a commitment, though, those walls need to come down.
If there's real intimacy, you don't lose anything by letting go of gender roles or accepting help from your partner. On the contrary, you gain. There seems to be a real tendency on the part of a lot of women to push men away and discourage them from helping, from the delivery room to changing diapers to vacuuming the rug. We may say we want help, but we complain that the towels are folded wrong, or the baby's clothes don't match. It's not that those things are that important--it's that we're protecting our territory. Many men, on the other hand, seem to view either asking for or giving help as dangerous dependence. Horrible generalizations, and both methods could be true of either gender, but the result is a lack of intimacy.
Yes, it's scary, and yes, it's risky. But the rewards are commensurate with the risks. If your relationship is loving and intimate, it's not a man hanging out in the delivery room while his wife gives birth because it's expected, or even because he wants to make her happy. It's a couple bringing their child into the world. If you can make that kind of connection, it spreads through the whole relationship. It's not so much compromise or give-and-take as it is having the same goals and priorities.
So how do you achieve that intimacy? One person can't do it alone. And you can't hold back or protect yourself, because it won't work. Putting each other first is key, as is honesty. And reminding yourselves over and over again why you're together and how important your relationship and family are to you. If you get the attitude down, the rest will follow.
Granted, all this sounds very idealistic, and I have to say that a lot of it is coming from 26+ years of marriage. We didn't always manage quite so well. For all I know, I'm just incredibly lucky, and this is just not possible for most couples. But I still think it's worth trying for.
Categories: Theories, TWBTS, Relationships
Labels: relationships, the war between the sexes, theories
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Theory #37: Relationships: When Is It Love?
While talking with my daughter about her convoluted love life, I was struck with an intriguing notion.
She was complaining about being susceptible to bad-boy syndrome, saying that whenever a guy treats her badly, she really wants to make him like her, and then conversely, when that same guy is being sweet to her, she wants nothing to do with him.
And it works the same way in reverse. When she tells them she's finished, they want nothing more than to get back into her good graces. When she's being nice, they treat her like crap.
It's a vicious cycle, and I have theories about why it works that I'm not getting into now. But a light bulb went on when I thought about my own romantic history.
I, too, experienced the intense desire to please a guy that acted like a jerk, and felt nothing but uncomfortable disdain for a guy who'd do anything for me. And I'd always assumed it was the "nice guys finish last" syndrome, and that guys who were too nice lacked the confidence I was looking for.
I don't think that's so. Because there was one glaring exception, and I married him. Before, if a guy wanted to spend all his time with me, it would be nice for maybe a week or two until I'd just get disgusted with it. And the only guys I wanted to be around all the time were the ones who didn't want me around all the time. But Carl wanted to be around me all the time... and I wanted to be with him, too. The difference: I suppose you could call it timing or chemistry, but I think it's True Love™.
I told Dagny about it. Now, if she can just get off the merry-go-rounds long enough to find somebody she really loves to complete the experiment....
For now, though, that's going to be my answer when the kids ask me "how do you know when you're really in love?"
...more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
She was complaining about being susceptible to bad-boy syndrome, saying that whenever a guy treats her badly, she really wants to make him like her, and then conversely, when that same guy is being sweet to her, she wants nothing to do with him.
And it works the same way in reverse. When she tells them she's finished, they want nothing more than to get back into her good graces. When she's being nice, they treat her like crap.
It's a vicious cycle, and I have theories about why it works that I'm not getting into now. But a light bulb went on when I thought about my own romantic history.
I, too, experienced the intense desire to please a guy that acted like a jerk, and felt nothing but uncomfortable disdain for a guy who'd do anything for me. And I'd always assumed it was the "nice guys finish last" syndrome, and that guys who were too nice lacked the confidence I was looking for.
I don't think that's so. Because there was one glaring exception, and I married him. Before, if a guy wanted to spend all his time with me, it would be nice for maybe a week or two until I'd just get disgusted with it. And the only guys I wanted to be around all the time were the ones who didn't want me around all the time. But Carl wanted to be around me all the time... and I wanted to be with him, too. The difference: I suppose you could call it timing or chemistry, but I think it's True Love™.
I told Dagny about it. Now, if she can just get off the merry-go-rounds long enough to find somebody she really loves to complete the experiment....
For now, though, that's going to be my answer when the kids ask me "how do you know when you're really in love?"
...more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Friday, December 15, 2006
Theory # 33: Relationships that Work, or Those Romance Novels Aren't Too Good to Be True
Version 1: Spin
It seems that lately, I've been bombarded with people complaining about their relationships. Maybe all those holiday lights illuminate our loved ones' faults, or maybe with all the holiday stresses and the days getting shorter, we're expecting more from our relationships. Whatever it is, it's put me in a smug and preachy mood. Or, to put it more charitably, it's made me want to share what insights I've gained over 22+ years of a successful marriage.
Granted, I have The Perfect Husband. Perfect for me, at least. And it's tempting to just bask in the glow and pity everyone who had to settle for second best. But wonderful as he is, I can't really believe he's that unique. And much as I'd like to, I can't take the credit for making him that way. So why am I happy while my friends are complaining? It's all in how you look at things.
Ever have an assignment in school where you had to look at the same object or event from different perspectives? Or a debate class where you had to argue both sides of a question? It's that sort of thing. It's like politics, and putting a spin on things to make your side look good and the other side look bad.
Any decent marriage can look like a romance novel, if you put the right spin on it. And spinning it right, even to yourself, leads to being happier in the relationship, which in turn makes the relationship better. It's not a matter of hiding your head in the sand and ignoring real problems. It's a matter of focusing on the positives.
The irony is, when you focus on the negatives, a few things happen: you see more negatives, you create more negatives, and in all the sea of negatives, true problems get lost.
If you're looking for things to complain about, you'll find them. And the more you look, the more you'll find. And if you complain to your spouse about every little thing, they're going to come to the conclusion that there's no pleasing you, so why bother trying?
Ever look up at a clear night sky, somewhere away from city lights? It's awfully hard to pick out specific stars. It's the same thing with negatives in a relationship. Focus on them, and the fact that you haven't had a meaningful conversation since 1998 doesn't stand out much more than the dirty socks on the floor. But if you focus on the positives--add some overcast or city lights--only the most important ones stand out.
The same goes for positives. Look for them, focus on them, and you'll see them. And when you tell your spouse about them, they'll be more likely to repeat them, and to do other things they hope you'll like. Positive reinforcement. Psych 101. Sounds manipulative, but so is negative reinforcement, with much less appealing results.
Case in point. We had a lunch date yesterday. Yes, that's a euphemism. We did go out for lunch, to my favorite Indian restaurant, no less, but the... ahem... main course was taking advantage of an empty house and having sex without having to worry about being quiet and staying behind the locked bedroom door. In the middle of things, he stopped and pointed out all the things he likes about my body. It was effective, to say the least. And, avoiding TMI territory, it benefitted him, too, because one good turn deserves another, after all.
I've said similar things before (just click on "relationships"--it's one of my favorite topics), but I think it's important enough to repeat. Friends often tell me how lucky I am to have such a great husband/marriage, and I agree, but it's also because that's how I spin it. Maybe because my parents' marriage fell apart, and sucked before it did, part of my self-image is having a successful, happy marriage. Maybe it's pathological and if I were saner, I'd be bitching as much as everyone else. Eh. If it's a choice between sane/normal and happy, I'll pick happy and nuts.
Huh. Ever start writing, think you're going in one direction, then discover you've gone in a completely different direction? I thought I was going to write about men that actually talk, but it turned out to be about spin. Go figure.
...more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
It seems that lately, I've been bombarded with people complaining about their relationships. Maybe all those holiday lights illuminate our loved ones' faults, or maybe with all the holiday stresses and the days getting shorter, we're expecting more from our relationships. Whatever it is, it's put me in a smug and preachy mood. Or, to put it more charitably, it's made me want to share what insights I've gained over 22+ years of a successful marriage.
Granted, I have The Perfect Husband. Perfect for me, at least. And it's tempting to just bask in the glow and pity everyone who had to settle for second best. But wonderful as he is, I can't really believe he's that unique. And much as I'd like to, I can't take the credit for making him that way. So why am I happy while my friends are complaining? It's all in how you look at things.
Ever have an assignment in school where you had to look at the same object or event from different perspectives? Or a debate class where you had to argue both sides of a question? It's that sort of thing. It's like politics, and putting a spin on things to make your side look good and the other side look bad.
Any decent marriage can look like a romance novel, if you put the right spin on it. And spinning it right, even to yourself, leads to being happier in the relationship, which in turn makes the relationship better. It's not a matter of hiding your head in the sand and ignoring real problems. It's a matter of focusing on the positives.
The irony is, when you focus on the negatives, a few things happen: you see more negatives, you create more negatives, and in all the sea of negatives, true problems get lost.
If you're looking for things to complain about, you'll find them. And the more you look, the more you'll find. And if you complain to your spouse about every little thing, they're going to come to the conclusion that there's no pleasing you, so why bother trying?
Ever look up at a clear night sky, somewhere away from city lights? It's awfully hard to pick out specific stars. It's the same thing with negatives in a relationship. Focus on them, and the fact that you haven't had a meaningful conversation since 1998 doesn't stand out much more than the dirty socks on the floor. But if you focus on the positives--add some overcast or city lights--only the most important ones stand out.
The same goes for positives. Look for them, focus on them, and you'll see them. And when you tell your spouse about them, they'll be more likely to repeat them, and to do other things they hope you'll like. Positive reinforcement. Psych 101. Sounds manipulative, but so is negative reinforcement, with much less appealing results.
Case in point. We had a lunch date yesterday. Yes, that's a euphemism. We did go out for lunch, to my favorite Indian restaurant, no less, but the... ahem... main course was taking advantage of an empty house and having sex without having to worry about being quiet and staying behind the locked bedroom door. In the middle of things, he stopped and pointed out all the things he likes about my body. It was effective, to say the least. And, avoiding TMI territory, it benefitted him, too, because one good turn deserves another, after all.
I've said similar things before (just click on "relationships"--it's one of my favorite topics), but I think it's important enough to repeat. Friends often tell me how lucky I am to have such a great husband/marriage, and I agree, but it's also because that's how I spin it. Maybe because my parents' marriage fell apart, and sucked before it did, part of my self-image is having a successful, happy marriage. Maybe it's pathological and if I were saner, I'd be bitching as much as everyone else. Eh. If it's a choice between sane/normal and happy, I'll pick happy and nuts.
Huh. Ever start writing, think you're going in one direction, then discover you've gone in a completely different direction? I thought I was going to write about men that actually talk, but it turned out to be about spin. Go figure.
...more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Theory #30: Relationships: Compromise
We had a discussion on an email list a few days ago about what makes a relationship successful, and one of the factors mentioned was compromise.
...more
In previous discussions, "compromise" has gotten a bad name. It seems that a lot of people who are either single or in unhappy relationships view compromise as never getting what you want/need, that even if it is mutual, it means that whenever you really want something, you're going to have to settle for only part of it.
Maybe it's just semantics, or a skewed view of relationships, and I think it's true that people in relationships do need to learn to really compromise rather than having a continual battle with a winner and a loser. However, there are still some who view even true compromise as losing. As if giving in even a little is relinquishing part of their independence and personhood.
I'm not going to go into the psychological implications--I'm not qualified, nor do I want to explore it that deeply. I am well aware that it's not a simple, one-solution problem. However, one thing seems to stand out to me, and it's about how people look at things.
For example, last weekend, Carl wanted to go out and I wanted to stay home. We compromised by having one of our wine & cheese evenings upstairs. This weekend, we're going out. It wasn't an all-or-nothing decision. We've been together long enough to know that it will balance in the long run.
But that takes time and practice. Particularly in a new relationship, or one that's having other problems, even compromising on what to do on the weekend becomes a power struggle. Part of adjusting to a new relationship is finding the balance between your old single self and the new self that's part of a couple. Compromise takes on the meaning of giving up your single self, and it's only natural to rebel against that.
In that case, don't consider it compromise. Instead, consider it as a choice, an alternative, as wanting the relationship more than you want your life to go on exactly as it was before.
Looking at it logically, ask yourself if you really want to be in the relationship. If you do, then you really can't expect your life to be identical to what it was when you were single, with just the addition of regular sex. That's not going to happen, unless your relationship is with a blow-up doll. If you want a relationship with a real person, an individual with their own wants and needs, your life is going to change. And you're going to have to do things to make it work.
So when a conflict comes up, you have to decide if this is the one where you draw the line in the sand, or if you can give a little.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
...more
In previous discussions, "compromise" has gotten a bad name. It seems that a lot of people who are either single or in unhappy relationships view compromise as never getting what you want/need, that even if it is mutual, it means that whenever you really want something, you're going to have to settle for only part of it.
Maybe it's just semantics, or a skewed view of relationships, and I think it's true that people in relationships do need to learn to really compromise rather than having a continual battle with a winner and a loser. However, there are still some who view even true compromise as losing. As if giving in even a little is relinquishing part of their independence and personhood.
I'm not going to go into the psychological implications--I'm not qualified, nor do I want to explore it that deeply. I am well aware that it's not a simple, one-solution problem. However, one thing seems to stand out to me, and it's about how people look at things.
For example, last weekend, Carl wanted to go out and I wanted to stay home. We compromised by having one of our wine & cheese evenings upstairs. This weekend, we're going out. It wasn't an all-or-nothing decision. We've been together long enough to know that it will balance in the long run.
But that takes time and practice. Particularly in a new relationship, or one that's having other problems, even compromising on what to do on the weekend becomes a power struggle. Part of adjusting to a new relationship is finding the balance between your old single self and the new self that's part of a couple. Compromise takes on the meaning of giving up your single self, and it's only natural to rebel against that.
In that case, don't consider it compromise. Instead, consider it as a choice, an alternative, as wanting the relationship more than you want your life to go on exactly as it was before.
Looking at it logically, ask yourself if you really want to be in the relationship. If you do, then you really can't expect your life to be identical to what it was when you were single, with just the addition of regular sex. That's not going to happen, unless your relationship is with a blow-up doll. If you want a relationship with a real person, an individual with their own wants and needs, your life is going to change. And you're going to have to do things to make it work.
So when a conflict comes up, you have to decide if this is the one where you draw the line in the sand, or if you can give a little.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Friday, June 23, 2006
Theory # 27: Relationships: The Break-Up
We just went to see the movie The Break-Up last night, and boy, did it spark a lot of conversation. The writers, I think, nailed the behavior of people in relationships. The way they screw it up, that is.
Their problems come down to two basics: thinking and communicating. Not surprising, since in my overall Theory of Relationships, that's what it's all about: thinking--knowing yourself, understanding what you want, understanding your motivations; and communicating--letting your partner know what you want and how you feel. Pretty much everything else builds on that.
Warning: there are some mild spoilers ahead.
| The precipitating fight: she wants him to help out with the dinner; he wants to chill | They're both assuming the other knows what they want and is maliciously denying them, and neither is thinking about why these things are so important to them. | Neither comes out and tells the other what they want and why. instead, typically, she accuses, and he ignores/evades. |
| Before the fight: they're both building up resentments. She works very hard at keeping the apartment beautiful, making fancy dinners, etc. He works at his job, hoping to make enough money so she doesn't have to work. | Neither one of them is realizing that the other doesn't give a rat's ass about what they're supposedly doing for them. He doesn't care that the apartment is spotless. She doesn't want to quit working. They don't realize that they're not doing these things for each other--they're doing them for themselves. | They're not communicating, again, what they want and why they want it, or what they're doing and why they're doing it. Talking it out would 1) eliminate counterproductive assumptions, and 2) make them appreciate what the other person is doing. |
| The escalation: after the initial fight, it becomes a battleground, with each one trying to outdo the other, trying to force the other one to be the first to give in. | Again, neither one is thinking things through. They're not thinking about what's really the best way to get the other one back, or even about whether they really want the other one back. It's just become a game they have to win. | They're communicating only in challenges and ultimatums, and instead of having a good screaming fight where they keep going until they get to the real issues and hash them out, they cut short any attempts at communication. |
| The aftermath: they finally, and separately, come to their senses. She invites him to a concert. He makes dinner for her. | They're finally thinking about what they want and how to go about getting it. | She doesn't communicate that the concert is an olive branch, instead going out of her way to make it seem like it's no big deal. He finally does communicate how he feels about her and his willingness to change, but it's too late. |
I'm not sure if the relationship in the movie could have been salvaged--they both had some individual issues that they needed to work out, and they seemed to want such different things from life. But if they'd been thinking and communicating all along, they'd have discovered those issues much sooner and either dealt with them, learned to live with them, or broken up sooner.
...more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Friday, June 16, 2006
Theory # 26: Relationships: Variety is the spice of life
Giving credit where it's due: Doug's Thursday Thirteen post yesterday had me thinking:
So I talked to my husband about it. He was of the opinion that cheating was the point--that it's the excitement of doing something forbidden rather than the allure of the 3rd person. That makes sense, but I came up with another theory, too.
Which doesn't bother me in the slightest. People rarely have only one reason for doing something, and nothing involving human behavior is completely simple.
My theory is that people need variety. We get it in different ways, but we all need it to one extent or another. In fact, this explains another thing I've often wondered about: people who talk about sex on the dining table or in someone else's bedroom as being really risque.
In sexual relationships, I think you can have variety in different ways:
What I wonder is whether it's possible to substitute one form of variety for another. I suspect not, though that does seem to be behind a lot of relationship advice: roleplaying to simulate a variety in partners, and sex tips like Doug found in Cosmo.
Would that make a monagamous cheater like an ex-gay? Suppressing their needs for the sake of social acceptance? I'd hate to say that a tendency to desire variety in partners is as hard-wired as which gender you're sexually attracted to--not least because I'd have to stop thinking of cheaters as slimeballs.
...more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Don’t cheat in the first place, dumbass! Jeez. If you care that little about a relationship, leave the relationship.I've said something similar myself, and it had me wondering about cheating, and why so many people do it rather than just leaving the relationship first. Besides, you know, being a slimeball.
So I talked to my husband about it. He was of the opinion that cheating was the point--that it's the excitement of doing something forbidden rather than the allure of the 3rd person. That makes sense, but I came up with another theory, too.
Which doesn't bother me in the slightest. People rarely have only one reason for doing something, and nothing involving human behavior is completely simple.
My theory is that people need variety. We get it in different ways, but we all need it to one extent or another. In fact, this explains another thing I've often wondered about: people who talk about sex on the dining table or in someone else's bedroom as being really risque.
In sexual relationships, I think you can have variety in different ways:
- One is, of course, variety in partners, which is where cheating comes in, as well as swinging, threesomes, and other varieties of open relationships. Doing the same sorts of things in the same sorts of places, but with different people.
- Another is variety in place, like the dining table or the car. Same person, same kind of sex, different places.
- And then there's variety in the act itself, which is why we've had a great monagamous sex life for 22 years. I suspect part of the longevity of our marriage is due to the fact that we both find our sexual variety in the same way. Well, that, and good imaginations. Anyone who says there's a limited number of ways to have sex is just not trying.
- Any combination of the above.
What I wonder is whether it's possible to substitute one form of variety for another. I suspect not, though that does seem to be behind a lot of relationship advice: roleplaying to simulate a variety in partners, and sex tips like Doug found in Cosmo.
Would that make a monagamous cheater like an ex-gay? Suppressing their needs for the sake of social acceptance? I'd hate to say that a tendency to desire variety in partners is as hard-wired as which gender you're sexually attracted to--not least because I'd have to stop thinking of cheaters as slimeballs.
...more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Theory # 21: Relationships: It's not about love
Or at least it's not only about love.
My husband and I just watched a couple, friends of ours, break up. She wanted a baby, he didn't, and the conflict had them questioning their relationship. As he told my husband, the "spark" had gone out of their marriage and while he still loved her, he wasn't sure he was still in love with her.
Now, it's impossible to know what goes on in a marriage. Even the closest of friends can't know. Even someone living in the same house can't know. But my theory isn't directly about this particular couple--it's just inspired by and extrapolated from observation and experience.
Let's assume that a couple is truly, genuinely in love when they marry. Why, then, do some couples end up still happy 20+ years later, while others can't stand the sight of each other after 2? The answer can't always be that the unhappy couple was mistaken, that they weren't really in love. And I refuse to accept that "it just happens." Like love is some mysterious fog that comes and goes at random.
The initial attraction, yes, maybe. Some chemistry, some psychological connection happens that makes two people say "yes, this is the one out of all the other people in the world." I'm not going to try to think about the whys and wherefores of falling in love right now. I'm looking at the other end of the journey--the falling out of love.
My husband, by the way, subscribes to the mysterious fog theory. He thinks "it just happens." Which would worry me, if his actions didn't show otherwise.
I think the success or failure of a relationship is often due, not to emotion, but to action. Much is said and written about "keeping love alive," and it tends to take the form of dressing up in costumes and picking each other up in bars. That's not what I mean. I'm talking about little bitty everyday actions, that you make a choice about whether to do or not:
There are a zillion more examples, but that's the sort of thing I mean. Little things, and choosing one from the "goofus" side isn't a big deal once in a while, but it adds up, until eventually, that's all you're doing. And at that point, you start thinking that maybe the spark has gone out of the relationship.
I read an article a while ago (and I wish I could remember where, so I could cite it, and, even better, re-read it) that asserted that action => emotion, rather than the more usually held belief that emotion leads to action. That is, that acting in a loving way will ensure that you continue having loving feelings. It makes a certain amount of sense, even if it sounds rather cold-blooded.
As an example, here's a lesson I learned later than I think I should have. I learned it in relation to children, but it applies to marriage as well. When you've agreed to do something you really didn't want to do, pretend you're having fun, and after a while, it'll be true. When my daughter was small, I enjoyed playing everything with her except Barbies, and when she asked me to, I'd give in grudgingly, and keep thinking about other things I could be doing, looking at my watch, making it fairly obvious that I didn't want to be doing that. Then the light went on. What was I accomplishing by acting that way? Making both of us miserable. Punishing her for making me do something I didn't want? If I was going to do it anyway, what would I be losing by doing it cheerfully? It worked. Barbies still wasn't on my list of druthers, but we were both much happier. Note that I'm not advocating giving in on every issue, or doing things you absolutely do not want to do. But when you have already argued, negotiated, and one of you has acquiesced, the decision has been made. Live with it, cheerfully.
It works the same way with spouses, whether you're talking about an evening out, housework, sex, conversation, or the million other details of a life together. It's not love that makes me put down my book and talk politics with my husband when I'm right at a good part. It's not love that makes him call me daily whenever he's away from home even when it means standing outside a restaurant in the rain while his dinner's getting cold (he did this last night). Or at least it's not only love. It's a decision to do those little things that keep you connected, that keep you feeling in love.
Is that where our friends' marriage failed? I suspect so, though it's impossible to know. Maybe love is a mysterious fog that comes and goes unpredictably. But I doubt it.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
My husband and I just watched a couple, friends of ours, break up. She wanted a baby, he didn't, and the conflict had them questioning their relationship. As he told my husband, the "spark" had gone out of their marriage and while he still loved her, he wasn't sure he was still in love with her.
Now, it's impossible to know what goes on in a marriage. Even the closest of friends can't know. Even someone living in the same house can't know. But my theory isn't directly about this particular couple--it's just inspired by and extrapolated from observation and experience.
Let's assume that a couple is truly, genuinely in love when they marry. Why, then, do some couples end up still happy 20+ years later, while others can't stand the sight of each other after 2? The answer can't always be that the unhappy couple was mistaken, that they weren't really in love. And I refuse to accept that "it just happens." Like love is some mysterious fog that comes and goes at random.
The initial attraction, yes, maybe. Some chemistry, some psychological connection happens that makes two people say "yes, this is the one out of all the other people in the world." I'm not going to try to think about the whys and wherefores of falling in love right now. I'm looking at the other end of the journey--the falling out of love.
My husband, by the way, subscribes to the mysterious fog theory. He thinks "it just happens." Which would worry me, if his actions didn't show otherwise.
I think the success or failure of a relationship is often due, not to emotion, but to action. Much is said and written about "keeping love alive," and it tends to take the form of dressing up in costumes and picking each other up in bars. That's not what I mean. I'm talking about little bitty everyday actions, that you make a choice about whether to do or not:
| Kiss him goodbye in the morning | or | the dog's barking--I'll go let her in and catch him later |
| Call her when I'll be late coming home | or | it's only an hour, and besides, she's not my mother or my boss |
| have an actual conversation | or | oh, but there's a show on TV. we'll talk later |
| stay up and have sex | or | I'm too tired. How about a raincheck? |
| Thank him for helping out with whatever | or | Why should I thank him? It's his responsibility as much as it is mine. |
There are a zillion more examples, but that's the sort of thing I mean. Little things, and choosing one from the "goofus" side isn't a big deal once in a while, but it adds up, until eventually, that's all you're doing. And at that point, you start thinking that maybe the spark has gone out of the relationship.
I read an article a while ago (and I wish I could remember where, so I could cite it, and, even better, re-read it) that asserted that action => emotion, rather than the more usually held belief that emotion leads to action. That is, that acting in a loving way will ensure that you continue having loving feelings. It makes a certain amount of sense, even if it sounds rather cold-blooded.
As an example, here's a lesson I learned later than I think I should have. I learned it in relation to children, but it applies to marriage as well. When you've agreed to do something you really didn't want to do, pretend you're having fun, and after a while, it'll be true. When my daughter was small, I enjoyed playing everything with her except Barbies, and when she asked me to, I'd give in grudgingly, and keep thinking about other things I could be doing, looking at my watch, making it fairly obvious that I didn't want to be doing that. Then the light went on. What was I accomplishing by acting that way? Making both of us miserable. Punishing her for making me do something I didn't want? If I was going to do it anyway, what would I be losing by doing it cheerfully? It worked. Barbies still wasn't on my list of druthers, but we were both much happier. Note that I'm not advocating giving in on every issue, or doing things you absolutely do not want to do. But when you have already argued, negotiated, and one of you has acquiesced, the decision has been made. Live with it, cheerfully.
It works the same way with spouses, whether you're talking about an evening out, housework, sex, conversation, or the million other details of a life together. It's not love that makes me put down my book and talk politics with my husband when I'm right at a good part. It's not love that makes him call me daily whenever he's away from home even when it means standing outside a restaurant in the rain while his dinner's getting cold (he did this last night). Or at least it's not only love. It's a decision to do those little things that keep you connected, that keep you feeling in love.
Is that where our friends' marriage failed? I suspect so, though it's impossible to know. Maybe love is a mysterious fog that comes and goes unpredictably. But I doubt it.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Theory # 19: Relationships: Ex and the Single Girl
I had this brainstorm when reading Ex and the Single Girl by Lani Diane Rich. You don't have to have read the book to follow the theory, but it's a good book. Read it anyway. :)
the theory:
Anyway, Portia realizes that she's unconsciously sabotaged her previous relationship by making her ex feel like a failure. And the reason she did this was that she wasn't in love, thought she ought to be, because he was "perfect", and so she drove him away so it would be his fault it didn't work out, not hers.
That may be true, but I think there's another factor at work here, too. I recognize it, because I've done it myself. (See primarily Boyfriend v.3.0) I think she subconsciously made Peter feel like a failure because she wanted him to prove that he wasn't, or, and even more importantly, that he was confident enough that her subtle (and it was subtle--at a casual glance, she looked supportive) criticism couldn't undermine his sense of self-worth.
She wanted him to be strong enough not to need her approval and respect; strong enough to command it.
She was testing him, and he failed.
She did the same thing with Ian--the little sneer of the academic for genre fiction--but Ian passed the test.
Granted, it's not a very nice, kind, or attractive thing to do, but while it was deliberate, it wasn't consciously deliberate.
I think that it's a common, if not universal, need among women to find a man they can respect. Different women will find different traits respectable; will value various traits differently, but we're all (mostly) looking for someone we can respect. And I think we all (some of us, most of us), usually subconsciously, test the men we date. It's the courtship process.
I suspect that a lot of relationship problems come from ignoring those subconscious test grades.
Which is not to say that women are in sole control of relationships--not being male, I have no idea if men do the same thing or not. I'll have to ask my resident expert what he thinks and get back to you.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
the theory:
Anyway, Portia realizes that she's unconsciously sabotaged her previous relationship by making her ex feel like a failure. And the reason she did this was that she wasn't in love, thought she ought to be, because he was "perfect", and so she drove him away so it would be his fault it didn't work out, not hers.
That may be true, but I think there's another factor at work here, too. I recognize it, because I've done it myself. (See primarily Boyfriend v.3.0) I think she subconsciously made Peter feel like a failure because she wanted him to prove that he wasn't, or, and even more importantly, that he was confident enough that her subtle (and it was subtle--at a casual glance, she looked supportive) criticism couldn't undermine his sense of self-worth.
She wanted him to be strong enough not to need her approval and respect; strong enough to command it.
She was testing him, and he failed.
She did the same thing with Ian--the little sneer of the academic for genre fiction--but Ian passed the test.
Granted, it's not a very nice, kind, or attractive thing to do, but while it was deliberate, it wasn't consciously deliberate.
I think that it's a common, if not universal, need among women to find a man they can respect. Different women will find different traits respectable; will value various traits differently, but we're all (mostly) looking for someone we can respect. And I think we all (some of us, most of us), usually subconsciously, test the men we date. It's the courtship process.
I suspect that a lot of relationship problems come from ignoring those subconscious test grades.
Which is not to say that women are in sole control of relationships--not being male, I have no idea if men do the same thing or not. I'll have to ask my resident expert what he thinks and get back to you.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Monday, December 12, 2005
Theory # 15: Relationships: Boring Married Sex
Ah-ha! Some people think that emotions are fixed, immutable, and you have to be overwhelmed by passion to have/enjoy sex. So when they're married and have been with the same person for a while and they're no longer overcome by passion, they figure the excitement has gone out of the relationship and there's no longer any reason to have sex.
Which is complete nonsense. It reminds me of my son, who, when he was a picky eater aged 2 or 3, would respond to food with "but I'm not starving." He could only conceive of eating if he was famished. Just like you can enjoy a meal when you're merely hungry as opposed to starving, so can you enjoy sex when you're not overcome by passion.
This also explains those scenes in romance novels of long-married couples having rip-your-clothes-off urgent sex, which has long bothered me. If one must be overcome by passion in order to have sex, then long-married couples who still have good sex lives must therefore be in the same can't-wait state of horniness they experienced when they first met.
It just ain't so. That urgency mostly stems from uncertainty and rarity. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you're going to be ravenous whenever you get a chance to eat. But if you have a full pantry, things change.
In good married sex, the excitement doesn't come from "oh, boy! I'm going to get some!" It comes from knowing what you can do with each other and the trust that allows you to explore.
The other fallacy is that emotions are fixed and immutable. It says that if I'm not feeling like sex at this moment, that any attempt at seduction or changing my mind would constitute coercion on my husband's part or self-sacrifice on mine. Emotions are flexible. I noticed this first with anger. It's entirely possible to let go of anger without bottling it up. I'll have another post later on anger. But it's the same with sex.
Allowing for the possibility of becoming interested in having sex even when you're not initially interested makes for more sex, and better sex--assuming, that is, that it's a genuinely open-minded attitude rather than a grudging one.
...read more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Which is complete nonsense. It reminds me of my son, who, when he was a picky eater aged 2 or 3, would respond to food with "but I'm not starving." He could only conceive of eating if he was famished. Just like you can enjoy a meal when you're merely hungry as opposed to starving, so can you enjoy sex when you're not overcome by passion.
This also explains those scenes in romance novels of long-married couples having rip-your-clothes-off urgent sex, which has long bothered me. If one must be overcome by passion in order to have sex, then long-married couples who still have good sex lives must therefore be in the same can't-wait state of horniness they experienced when they first met.
It just ain't so. That urgency mostly stems from uncertainty and rarity. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you're going to be ravenous whenever you get a chance to eat. But if you have a full pantry, things change.
In good married sex, the excitement doesn't come from "oh, boy! I'm going to get some!" It comes from knowing what you can do with each other and the trust that allows you to explore.
The other fallacy is that emotions are fixed and immutable. It says that if I'm not feeling like sex at this moment, that any attempt at seduction or changing my mind would constitute coercion on my husband's part or self-sacrifice on mine. Emotions are flexible. I noticed this first with anger. It's entirely possible to let go of anger without bottling it up. I'll have another post later on anger. But it's the same with sex.
Allowing for the possibility of becoming interested in having sex even when you're not initially interested makes for more sex, and better sex--assuming, that is, that it's a genuinely open-minded attitude rather than a grudging one.
...read more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Theory # 13 Relationships: Opposites Attract
Opposites attract. Everyone says so, so it must be true, right?
I'm not so sure.
What is it you're referring to as opposites? Athletes attracted to couch potatoes? Mensa members attracted to illiterates? I'm afraid I don't see it.
Oh, there is the stereotypical preacher's daughter attracted to the town bad boy. But are they truly opposites? Isn't it more likely that what's attracting these two to each other is the recognition of parts of themselves that they've had to hide away for whatever reason?
In fact, I think that in general true opposites would have a very difficult time relating to each other. Not something like physical appearance--I've known plenty of short women with tall men and vice versa, or blondes with brunettes, whites with blacks, etc.--but those who are opposite from each other in their selves, their personalities.
I'd venture to say that for a successful relationship, it's important to have your strongly held values in common. Someone who's seriously, devoutly religious would not be comfortable with an avowed atheist. But that's strongly held values. A casual Baptist could no doubt do quite well with an agnostic.
Rather than opposites, I think it's complementary traits that cause the attraction, and even strengthen relationships. An outgoing partner may bring the shy partner out of his shell. A laid-back partner might keep the ambitious partner from being consumed by her work.
In my little world, love and respect go hand in hand, and it seems that it would be awfully hard to love someone who's the antithesis of all you hold most important.
read more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
I'm not so sure.
What is it you're referring to as opposites? Athletes attracted to couch potatoes? Mensa members attracted to illiterates? I'm afraid I don't see it.
Oh, there is the stereotypical preacher's daughter attracted to the town bad boy. But are they truly opposites? Isn't it more likely that what's attracting these two to each other is the recognition of parts of themselves that they've had to hide away for whatever reason?
In fact, I think that in general true opposites would have a very difficult time relating to each other. Not something like physical appearance--I've known plenty of short women with tall men and vice versa, or blondes with brunettes, whites with blacks, etc.--but those who are opposite from each other in their selves, their personalities.
I'd venture to say that for a successful relationship, it's important to have your strongly held values in common. Someone who's seriously, devoutly religious would not be comfortable with an avowed atheist. But that's strongly held values. A casual Baptist could no doubt do quite well with an agnostic.
Rather than opposites, I think it's complementary traits that cause the attraction, and even strengthen relationships. An outgoing partner may bring the shy partner out of his shell. A laid-back partner might keep the ambitious partner from being consumed by her work.
In my little world, love and respect go hand in hand, and it seems that it would be awfully hard to love someone who's the antithesis of all you hold most important.
read more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Theory # 7: Relationships: A Question of Trust
I recently read two books--romances--one contemporary and one historical--in which the main conflict between the hero and heroine was trust. It irritated me, because the characters had only just met each other, and yet were demanding the other trust them.
So I've been thinking about trust.
More even than love, I think, trust is the core of a good relationship.
Which is likely what the authors were trying to convey in the books that irritated me so much, but it was nonsensical for virtual strangers.
Back in theory # 1, I mentioned that the first step in training a husband is to pick the right one. And that goes for this theory as well. Those two romance authors did have one thing right--you shouldn't marry someone you don't trust.
Partly, trust is something you either have or you don't. But it can also be nurtured and developed. Modern life doesn't make trusting easy. Messages abound that people are untrustworthy, and even that you're naive at best or deliberately deluding yourself if you trust your spouse. Women's magazines are full of articles about "how to tell if he's cheating." Both sexes are bombarded with advice on how to protect yourself in the inevitable event of divorce. And we're all raised not to trust each other. Men only want one thing. Women will marry you then divorce you and take your house and your kids away. Both sexes view the other with suspicion.
Even worse, women know that men are hopeless with kids or with housework, that they're uncommunicative and that they're not in touch with their emotions. Men know that women are overly emotional, illogical, hopeless with anything mechanical, and addicted to shopping.
With all that, trusting your partner completely seems idiotic.
Marriages without complete trust can work, and the partners can be happy. But it's better with trust. Imagine having no doubt in your mind that your spouse will be there for you no matter what. Literally in sickness and health, for richer and poorer. Imagine being able to share your secrets and dreams freely without fear of rejection or ridicule. Imagine not having to keep track of your spouse's household chores as well as your own. That's what trust can give you.
The most important thing is being able to trust in your love for each other and your commitment to the relationship. Everything else stems from that. If you love your partner and are committed to the relationship, you're not going to do something that damages or endangers it, whether that's cheating or draining the savings account.
Trust goes against all we've learned about protecting ourselves, and I wholly agree that trust shouldn't be given profligately. But a spouse isn't just anyone. This is the one person you've decided to spend the rest of your life with. That's huge. It's overwhelming, if you think about it. So if you're willing to combine your life with theirs, it's not such a big leap to trust them, is it?
But we don't. We come into relationships prepared for failure. We hold a little bit of our selves back, protecting ourselves from heartbreak. We don't trust because we expect that trust to be broken. And in doing so, we risk the thing we're guarding against.
How do you develop trust? You start in small ways. Look at the small things in your relationship that indicate a lack of trust and change them. Then as trust grows in small things, move on to the bigger ones. People do tend to live up to--or down to--expectations.
You don't trust in a vacuum. This is your one-and-only, remember? There are reasons why you chose this person. Remember them. And talk. Not criticizing, not instructing, not threatening or demanding, just discussing. It doesn't happen overnight, nor should it. It takes a lot of practice, and it's a huge leap of faith. It's not for a marriage that's already in trouble. Obviously, you'd be foolish to blindly trust a spouse who's already got one foot out the door.
Which leads me to another theory: communication. You shouldn't trust blindly. And that's where communication comes in.
If you're communicating, you know this person. You love them, that's why you're married. And when you take the risk of trusting them completely, it sets you free.
read more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
So I've been thinking about trust.
More even than love, I think, trust is the core of a good relationship.
Which is likely what the authors were trying to convey in the books that irritated me so much, but it was nonsensical for virtual strangers.
Back in theory # 1, I mentioned that the first step in training a husband is to pick the right one. And that goes for this theory as well. Those two romance authors did have one thing right--you shouldn't marry someone you don't trust.
Partly, trust is something you either have or you don't. But it can also be nurtured and developed. Modern life doesn't make trusting easy. Messages abound that people are untrustworthy, and even that you're naive at best or deliberately deluding yourself if you trust your spouse. Women's magazines are full of articles about "how to tell if he's cheating." Both sexes are bombarded with advice on how to protect yourself in the inevitable event of divorce. And we're all raised not to trust each other. Men only want one thing. Women will marry you then divorce you and take your house and your kids away. Both sexes view the other with suspicion.
Even worse, women know that men are hopeless with kids or with housework, that they're uncommunicative and that they're not in touch with their emotions. Men know that women are overly emotional, illogical, hopeless with anything mechanical, and addicted to shopping.
With all that, trusting your partner completely seems idiotic.
Marriages without complete trust can work, and the partners can be happy. But it's better with trust. Imagine having no doubt in your mind that your spouse will be there for you no matter what. Literally in sickness and health, for richer and poorer. Imagine being able to share your secrets and dreams freely without fear of rejection or ridicule. Imagine not having to keep track of your spouse's household chores as well as your own. That's what trust can give you.
The most important thing is being able to trust in your love for each other and your commitment to the relationship. Everything else stems from that. If you love your partner and are committed to the relationship, you're not going to do something that damages or endangers it, whether that's cheating or draining the savings account.
Trust goes against all we've learned about protecting ourselves, and I wholly agree that trust shouldn't be given profligately. But a spouse isn't just anyone. This is the one person you've decided to spend the rest of your life with. That's huge. It's overwhelming, if you think about it. So if you're willing to combine your life with theirs, it's not such a big leap to trust them, is it?
But we don't. We come into relationships prepared for failure. We hold a little bit of our selves back, protecting ourselves from heartbreak. We don't trust because we expect that trust to be broken. And in doing so, we risk the thing we're guarding against.
How do you develop trust? You start in small ways. Look at the small things in your relationship that indicate a lack of trust and change them. Then as trust grows in small things, move on to the bigger ones. People do tend to live up to--or down to--expectations.
- Do you criticize her driving even though she's never had an accident? Stop. Trust that she's a competent driver.
- Do you remind him to take the trash out every Tuesday even though he's only forgotten once? Stop. Trust that he knows it needs to be done.
- Do you hesitate to leave him alone with the children? Stop. Trust that he loves the children, too, and even if he doesn't do things the same as you, it's not necessarily bad.
- Do you keep quiet about the details of your daily life? Stop. Trust that she loves you and is interested in you.
- Do you hesitate to reveal your sexual fantasies? Stop. Trust that he loves you, wants to please you, and won't reject you.
- Do you check up on her when she's out with friends or out of town on a business trip, suspecting that she's cheating? Stop. Trust that she loves you and that she's committed to the relationship.
- Do you keep a tight rein on the finances? Stop. Trust that he's concerned about the family and won't plunge you into debt.
You don't trust in a vacuum. This is your one-and-only, remember? There are reasons why you chose this person. Remember them. And talk. Not criticizing, not instructing, not threatening or demanding, just discussing. It doesn't happen overnight, nor should it. It takes a lot of practice, and it's a huge leap of faith. It's not for a marriage that's already in trouble. Obviously, you'd be foolish to blindly trust a spouse who's already got one foot out the door.
Which leads me to another theory: communication. You shouldn't trust blindly. And that's where communication comes in.
If you're communicating, you know this person. You love them, that's why you're married. And when you take the risk of trusting them completely, it sets you free.
read more
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Monday, October 03, 2005
Theory # 1: Relationships: Training Husbands
This is number one in my theories because... well, because it's the first one I felt like writing down. Plus, it's something I think I know something about, and am damn good at. After all, I've been married for 21 years, and it's a great marriage. Okay, maybe I'm not good at training husbands in general. Maybe it's just this one. But it's pretty easy, so I figure it's worth a shot.
read more
So there it is. Darla's Theory # 1: Training Husbands. Don't worry--I'll probably contradict myself a dozen times or more.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
read more
- Pick the right husband. I'll probably have a theory on how to do this later, so I won't go too far off on a tangent, but put simply: know the guy before you marry him. I knew Carl 6 months before we were married. Doesnt' seem long, but for 4 of those months, we spent every waking moment together, talking non-stop for hours and hours. We still didn't know everything there was to know about each other, but we knew how we thought about things, how we felt.
- Acceptance. Even once you've picked the right guy, he's not you. And he won't do things exactly the way you do. If you've asked him to change the baby/fold the towels/clean the bathroom and he does it all wrong--it doesn't matter. The baby won't be scarred for life because the Huggies are on backward, the towels will still dry you off if they're folded in quarters instead of thirds, and if he cleans the toilet with Comet instead of Lysol, it's still clean. Accept it. Doing it over again the right way will just piss him off and keep him from pitching in next time, and it'll make you feel all bitchy and resentful. Let it go. Accept it. It's not that big of a deal.
- Appreciation. Yeah, I know. A woman will work all day, come home & make dinner, clean the house, help the kids with the homework, do the laundry, and walk the dog, and nobody will say anything. A man will come home, take out one bag of trash, and expect a medal and a ticker-tape parade. It's ridiculous, I agree. But I suspect it's hardwired. So I say thanks. And I give him a huge hug and tell him I really appreciate it when he makes dinner. Mind you, the appreciation works both ways. I periodically point out everything I do, and get the same appreciation back. Don't expect him to notice when you've worked your ass off--you'll just get annoyed waiting--tell him. He's a man. Men don't do subtle.
- Trust. This is often mentioned as the most important element in a marriage, and is usually taken to mean fidelity. It's also important in training husbands, and is related to acceptance. If you ask him to mow the lawn/fix the leaky faucet/supervise the kid's homework, trust that he's going to do it (and accept that it might be different from the way you'd do it).
- Clarity. Men don't do subtle. If you want him to do something, tell him directly. Don't hint around, or say "it would be nice if..." He'll think it's just a wish list or a suggestion, and when you start repeating your hints or wishes, you'll get annoyed with him, and annoyed with yourself for sounding like a nag, and who wants to live like that?
- Sex. Good god, it's not a cookie, or a doggie treat handed out as a reward for good behavior. Don't tie sex to your husband training efforts--you're punishing yourself as well.
So there it is. Darla's Theory # 1: Training Husbands. Don't worry--I'll probably contradict myself a dozen times or more.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
