I've seen several threads lately about a wife not feeling happy that her husband doesn't pay attention, or that she is bored and he's not doing enough to keep her happy.

What do women think is the job of a man, in terms of making her happy?

Maybe think the other way around. If you wife wasn't treating you well would it make you unhappy? why?

Wait, did you just change the discussion from being bored and ignored to being treated poorly?
I think if a spouse is treating you poorly, that is a bad sign. Being bored and expecting someone else to entertain you is a different thing from being treated poorly.

Now, I am not saying that expecting a spouse to entertain you is wrong. I'm asking where the line is supposed to be drawn here. I think this is a discussion worth having.

Having a relationship requires having meaningful communication between two people. If one person consistently refuses to contribute to normal substantive interaction and mutual caring, he/she can't expect the other person to be happy with their indifference and lack of commitment.

+1

Yes. I think if a spouse locks themselves in a room for most of the time that they are home and refuse to speak to you, that's not normal and a type of hostility.

Being bored is one thing. It's fixable. But I haven't seen any threads where the OP was saying she was bored and it was hubby's fault because he is responsible for keeping her entertained.

Being ignored and intentionally shut out is something else entirely.

The spouse who sequesters himself in a locked bathroom for over half the time he's at home, knows what he is doing. For whatever reason, spending time with his wife is not a priority. When she tried to communicate with him about it, he told her to clam up and stop complaining. That's not what somebody does when they're interested in having a good relationship.

If one person has checked out of the relationship, the other person can't fix it alone, no matter how hard they try.

I think each person can develop a health happy attitude that comes from within and not dependent on other people, places, circumstances.

It's a daily process - an attitude of gratitude that gains something from all experiences - good, bad, ugly, as I often say.

There are times and circumstances, in my view, that are deal breakers and the spouse is not under obligation to continue to live with the problem.

Personally, I am convinced that nobody can "make" me happy or "make" me mad, even though that is what we often say. It's more of a figure of speech. When I own my own power, I don't give others that kind of permission.

Learning to be OK with ourselves and not dependent on others to "make" us happy empowers us, especially as females.

Sure, we are happy about a lot of out lives, probably different for each of us. It's mostly a choice in how we approach our lives. (Criminal behavior excluded.)

It has to do with expectations also. When we have emotional attachments/bonds to unfilled expectations the result is: we are unhappy. (Little bit of Buddhism in there.)

There is a lot of adjusting to a lot of changing situations in a a long marriage relationship/partnership. To what extend can we adjust, be OK or draw the line in the sand? That, is very personal and often difficult.

You hit that one out of the park! BTW, those are the things I've been focused on and working on the past few years - it's a huge challenge, but I can smell the rewards . . . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2013 04:10PM by thingsithink.

Hello Jesus of Nazdac.

To answer your question Jesus (and Ididn't see the other thread I don't think), I can only answer for myself, but for me, I simply would want a man I loved to take an interest is what I was doing and what I said.

If possible there should be areas that are shared, eg certain favourite TV shows, the occasional movie, dancing, even taking walks together. No need to go over the top, but something done FAIRLY regularly, that is done together. Then there are the not shared interests. I am happy to go to antique car shows etc, if he is happy to at least comment on the latest craft I have made. I do not expect him to attend a doll show with me, but making it easy for me to go and asking if I enjoyed it would be nice. I don't expect him to be enthralled with my latest academic thesis, but a little interest in how it is going, and letting me vent on bad days would be great, while I can allow and assist the same when he has a bad day at work.

For me it is just about being cared about enough to both pay attention to and heard. I am HAPPY to do the same thing back, and be interested in his life.

By the way, and this is the kicker, I am single by choice, for many reasons, not the least are some of the reasons above. However when I have been happy in a relationship this kind of attention was there.

It was crucial for me to learn that my happiness was my own responsibility. Mine. Not anyone else's. Not my parents, not my employer's, not my friends or spouse.

I don't know if it was just how I was raised (my family) or being young (or even mormonism). Mormonism does promise happiness if you follow the cookie cutter model.

The truth is, one way is not going to make everyone happy. Humans - this world - life just isn't like that.

With that said - a lot of people never learned how to be in a relationship - never learned how to ask for space or attend to their partner.

I am a firm believer that life is too short. Lots of actions have consequences, but I agree with the pp that if someone is not willing to work on the relationship - there may be serious problems.

A strange suggestion for the OP about the husband- start acting as if you are already divorced or separated. Take care of yourself. Take care of your own needs. Stop engaging with him and see what happens. Don't be mean or rude, just detach wherever possible. Go to movies on your own. Take a class - go into nature.

Obviously I don't know the exact situation and this should be taken with a grain of salt (like most advice on the internets). But it seems to me that if one is headed towards divorce, might as well prepare for it. And if the other person doesn't want that - it may spur them into action. Maybe not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2013 09:39PM by ava.

What if one spouse decided they weren't going to bother having a physical relationship with the other one ever again? Is this somehow worse than withdrawing mental intimacy?

Having sex with an emotionally detached person sounds like a waste of time, rather like speaking to someone who doesn't listen and talk back. You might as well get a robot each and forget about each other.

Having physical intimacy with someone who has no interest in you as a person, who remains silent and whose only facial expression is of their own personal gratification is demeaning and objectifying. Boring silent men are crap lovers in my own very limited experience.

I think Mormon marriages are plagued with a serious emotionally stunted growth problem. The emphasis on the castle-temple wedding creates a fantasy. the emphasis on the man being the strong (yet subsurvient) leader who is solely responsible for finances and directing the family's spiritual (=emotional) needs creates a horrible dynamic.

Long before a young man and woman kneel at the altar to bow their heads and say ‘yes’, the morgue teaches this over and over. YW are taught that temple marriage is a life-long romantic experience, that loving husbands are nearly entirely responsible for the spiritual well-being and thus happiness of their wives. That a good relationship between a man and woman should be sufficient to meet all needs and desires, and that any sadness or depression that she might encounter may likely be the result of her husband’s inability to follow the commandments. At least he has the (priesthood) power to eradicate it if he cares enough.

Mormon women often come into marriage with unrealistically romantic expectations, which are certain to be dashed. Not only does this orientation set up a bride for disappointment and agitation in the future, it also places enormous pressure on her husband to deliver the impossible.

Unfortunately YM are taught many misconceptions too. He learned that his primary responsibility is to provide materially for his family. Go to college, enter a profession, be a priesthood leader, succeed at almost all costs, climbing the ladder of success and achieving an ever increasing standard of living as proof of worthiness in the lards kingdom. He may know he is in charge of the family spirituality, but he doesn't really equate that with ‘carrying his wife emotionally'. He's a loyal husband so what more could his woman ask for? He simply doesn’t understand what she wants and he's overwhelmed with other responsibilities, or worse, paralyzed by his inability to even begin to handle the expectations placed on him.

He tries to climb ladders and be a man, she is alone and pregnant. He's out there overwhelmed, she's at home angry. This mormon wife may be convinced that her low self-esteem and unhappiness are the result of her husband’s romantic failures. And she may be right, in part. He does bear some responsibility for providing love to her. However, it is wrong to believe that her contentment is exclusively his burden. No one should be expected to carry another person emotionally. Rightly or wrongly, the Mormon wife can feel he is mostly to blame. She tries to explain, he fails to understand. She becomes more aggressive in fighting for her needs, he becomes more passive. The pattern is obvious in some homes. The mormon man tries to satisfy his wife's need. But most mormon men don't really have the tools to understand women. They are taught a cartoon version. Mormon men don’t see it modeled by their father and his masculine competitive temperament is not given to romantic endeavors. Besides, his work takes every ounce of energy in his body. It is a total impasse. The pattern continues and gets worse. The man hates the conflict, she finds his avoidance infuriating. He becomes more silent; he runs. The cycle has become a vicious one. The more anger she displays for his un-involvement, the more detached he becomes. This inflames his wife with even greater hostility. She has said everything there is to say and it produced no response. Now she feels powerless and disrespected. Every morning he goes off to work where he can socialize with his friends, but she is stuck in the state of emotional deprivation.

At this point, there can be vicious passive aggressiveness by both parties. Ava above has a very good point. It probably seems counter intuitive, but one of the best ways to alleviate this cycle is to relieve the pressure. Get away from each other for a time. Develop skills and interests that are perhaps mysterious, renewing your attractiveness and allure. You simply can’t tear a guy to pieces and then expect him to meet your emotional needs. He’s not made that way. Rather than attacking an unresponsive man and driving him away, there is a method of drawing him in your direction. It is accomplished by taking the pressure off him. By pulling backward a bit, by avoiding the worn out accusations and complaints, by appearing to need him less, by showing appreciation for what he does right and for being fun to be with. Happiness is a marvelous magnet to the human personality.

Sometimes it is necessary to interject a challenge into the relationship in order to motivate a disengaged spouse. A demeanor of self-confidence, mysterious quietness and independence is far more effective in getting attention than a frontal assault.




Now for another take on the whole marriage dynamic and issues within.

A marriage is founded on attraction of many kinds--personality, sexual, emotional, spiritual, etc. It seems, on average, most females (not ever female, but on average) the largest part of fulfillment in marriage, at least initially, is emotional/mental—let's just say 60-80%. Yes, they desire intimacy as much, but find the emotional aspect is most fulfilling. For many men on average, the better aspect of marriage is sexual—say, again, 60-80%.

Once a couple is married ,marriage is the only legitimate way for a person to have sex (discounting open marriages). The bias is that the woman's emotional and personal fulfillment can be supported through a variety of means and people, not just her husband. Granted, she would always prefer him to be the one that fulfills the emotional needs. But she can go elsewhere to find this if needed. For the man, sex can only legitimately be met by his spouse. If his wife is not meeting his sexual needs, and he is faithful, his marriage becomes a prison.

The emotional aspect not being fulfilled can seem like prison, but we can find legitimate outlets in many ways when married. The wife can complain that the husband does not meet her emotional needs, but she isn’t forbidden from going elsewhere. The faithful man is stuck.

I realize this viewpoint is a little simplistic. It doesn't apply to all people in the least. But it probably has some truth behind it.

I see lots of people who are best friends with their spouses, and who laugh and enjoy each other's company.

Why would someone want to settle for a spousal relationship with someone where they are just treated as a room mate and as an object to have sex with when the other person fancies it?

Because they grow up on a culture where you should be married six months after getting home off your mission, and where sexual needs must remain unfulfilled until marriage.

I'm probably going to repeat what some others have said here, but, anyway.

Eleanor Roosevelt said that nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. SusieQ#1 touched on this a bit. I extrapolated that to realize that nobody can make you feel anything without your permission. Your emotions and your responses to them, are under your control.

Being single for my entire adulthood, I learned that happiness comes from within. If I feel lonely, getting into a relationship doesn't usually change that. I'll still feel lonely. I know a lot of women who will glom on to any man who pays them attention because to some of us, attention = love. And many of us have bought into the fairy tale that love = happiness. Love is really important, but it's not the ONLY thing that can make you happy. YOU have to make you happy. No one else can be inside your head and really understand what it will take, except you.

And then, yes, there's the pressure of expectation. As soon as a guy says to me, "I'll be happy if you... [insert something he wants me to do]." The trouble with that kind of thinking is that happiness is fleeting, so it ends up being predicated upon your list of demands and how well your partner meets those demands. When you expect that someone else's main job in life is to make you happy, that places a ridiculous amount of pressure on them. I've felt it. "You don't love me unless you..." Hey, that sucks!

I think that people who are happy do not place all the pressure on one single person to mindread and make them happy.They do what makes them happy and are partnered up with someone else who is doing the same thing. It could be that doing nice things for your partner makes you happy. So it's easy to conflate relationship with happiness, but many people do not stop to think that it's YOUR actions within the relationship that make you happy. Ask anyone who's been in an abusive relationship: There's no making the abusive partner happy because abusers constantly move the goalposts so the abused is always trying to find that magical combination of words and actions that will finally allow them to rest because the abuser is FINALLY happy. It's a gerbil wheel and you will never get anywhere with that.

Remember, we've drawn the analogy that the church is like an abusive spouse. The church tells you what actions to take to be happy, but it constantly moves the goalposts, so mormons are mostly constantly miserable.

I think it's fine and normal for spouses to depend on one another, to be interdependent. But the line is crossed when the relationship ventures into co-dependent. Projecting your issues on to another, not having boundaries, that sort of co-dependent behavior, where two people are so enmeshed with each other that they cease to nurture and feed their own individualtiy -- that's where it all falls apart.

Bottom line, you have to be responsible for getting your own needs met. There is nothing wrong with asking your spouse or partner to meet them, but if that person can't, then you have to find another way, not just blame them for your unhappiness.

dogzilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that people who are happy do not place all
> the pressure on one single person to mindread and
> make them happy.They do what makes them happy and
> are partnered up with someone else who is doing
> the same thing. It could be that doing nice things
> for your partner makes you happy. So it's easy to
> conflate relationship with happiness, but many
> people do not stop to think that it's YOUR actions
> within the relationship that make you happy. Ask
> anyone who's been in an abusive relationship:
> There's no making the abusive partner happy
> because abusers constantly move the goalposts so
> the abused is always trying to find that magical
> combination of words and actions that will finally
> allow them to rest because the abuser is FINALLY
> happy. It's a gerbil wheel and you will never get
> anywhere with that.
>
> Remember, we've drawn the analogy that the church
> is like an abusive spouse. The church tells you
> what actions to take to be happy, but it
> constantly moves the goalposts, so mormons are
> mostly constantly miserable.
>

Thanks, dogzilla. Great words!

I don't see the point of getting married if there's no emotional intimacy, and I think it creates a poor environment in which to raise children.

If one spouse dies, there would be no bereavement, because the other spouse could just get a replacement. The children would feel replaceable too.

I wouldn't want to bring up a puppy in that type of environment.

I don't think people should cling onto each other like smothering limpets, but never communicating with a spouse while still expecting physical intimacy sounds unfair unless you are into selfish robot roleplay.

I agree that bossing a partner about and wanting them to create your happiness is terrible, but just asking them to talk about their innermost thoughts once in a while is a reasonable request.

dogzilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>+1

You have to find that inside yourself. Each spouse, male or female, needs to have their own competencies, interests and things that bring them personal satisfaction. Each spouse needs to make a significant contribution to the family. One should NOT be overly dependent on the other, except in times of crisis (illness, difficult circumstances).

That said, you SHOULD expect your spouse to be sympathetic, kind, loving, available, supportive of you. You should expect your spouse to step up to the plate and give extra help when needed. That's what people who care DO.

I've seen way too many relationships where the woman is dependent on the man for everything, instead of finding her own power and her own joys. Many woman make themselves burdens or nags instead of partners.

I'm not saying it doesn't go the other way, too. Many men find themselves powerless in the kitchen and act like they need a "mother" instead of a wife.

It's simple: If you want to be married then you want to do whatever it takes to make your spouse happy. Whatever it takes.

If you don't want to do whatever it takes for your spouse to be happy, you're probably in an arranged marriage and you don't count.

If you're not in an arranged marriage, and you still don't want to do what it takes to make your spouse happy, you're a dick.

The thread about the dude spending 57% of his free time on the toilet reading sci-fi is exactly what you'd expect someone who doesn't want to be married to do...

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's simple: If you want to be married then you
> want to do whatever it takes to make your spouse
> happy. Whatever it takes.

That sounds like a recipe for co-dependency. Balance, my friend.

Good point. I guess I'm basing this off my relationship which would have the balance built in. Both my S.O. and I are easy-going and enjoy a little "I" time each day (i'll meditate and she'll read mags/watch soaps) so our version of making each other happy is just being best friends.

I guess if someone has a very needy S.O. who's more taker than giver that could be problematic.

So I retract my previous statement :)

There's no way to enjoy a fulfilling marriage without commitment.