What's in it for the man? Freedom!

Random,

Wonderful article! My husband Dan has expressed many times how much more assertive and in command he feels in all areas of his life since I completely surrendered control of our relationship over to him three months ago. What my husband and I call Domestic Discipline in a literal sense.

Domestic as in "harmonious home" and Discipline (which derives from the Latin word: "disciplina", which means teaching, learning),

which we call "wise correction".

What this site calls "Taken In Hand".

As Anna says, this has all been incredibly freeing for me as well. Instead of stopping and wondering whether what I'm about to do will cause some kind of argument or problem between us, I just go right ahead and do it. Dan will let me know if it's something he'd rather I shouldn't have done and I can correct the behavior accordingly. Unless I persist in doing it again, there are no repercussions and no need to worry.

Best of all, there are no more issues between us. Ever.

I no longer have to fear arguments, misunderstandings, or control battles any more. We are in agreement and it's incredibly freeing for me, as well as Dan.

Oh yes, I agree with that! If being married makes you feel trapped, why do it at all? If you want to have your own way all the time stay single and enjoy yourself!

This is certainly true, but if you are always single, there is no difficulty there. Just because a man decides to stay single doesn't mean he has fathered children.

I wouldn't want a man who felt "trapped" by me. I tend to be a rather needy and clingy person. Fortunately my boyfriend likes to be needed, and generally doesn't mind my clinginess. I am certainly the type of person who could make a man feel trapped in that "can't I get two inches of personal space EVER!" way. I would be devestated if he were to decide he felt trapped or didn't want me around.

I hope my boyfriend feels the way Random describes. I'd like to know that he can feel free even with me being a bit smothering.

I didn't think trolls were allowed to post here. I'm not even talking about the message. I don't mind disagreement, but "Good luck in changing yourself nevertheless"? The intended audience of this site is, in my understanding, those who crave male dominated relationships. I know Random certainly doesn't need me to jump to his defense, but I hate to see anyone personally attacked for expressing a view, even if it is just on a website. In my mind, what this "reader" did was attack, and they did it in the most cowardly way, not even bothering to register first to allow for a proper retort.

Sometimes "readers" should stay just that.

You say in your post:

"When you have the freedom to make all the decisions affecting your life, you feel free to pursue your goals, you feel effective, you feel that nobody is holding you back, stopping you get where you want to be."

I find it interesting that you seem to imply that YOUR LIFE is the only one that is affected. What about the woman's life, or do you feel that hers is worth considering?

Just a thought.

sylvie

This article really helped me see what may be going on inside my man's mind because he has expressed pretty much everything that was expressed by Random in this article.

I do, however, have one concern. He does indeed have the freedom to pursue his goals, as do I, but I sometimes feel as though he places his job as a priority over me simply because he knows that I am not going anywhere.

--) I wouldn't want a man who felt "trapped" by me. I tend to be a rather needy and clingy person. (--

HMPH!!! "Trapped". "Needy". "Clingy". I hate those terms. They are terms used as weapons by the colder of the two parties in the relationship. I have had those arrows fired at me in time past and bent over backwards to try to "mend the error of my ways" to balance things out. It never worked. It never will. When these terms are used in reference to a relationship that means both parties are incompatible and the relationship should end.

Mike Starre

Perhaps you may consider seeing a marriage counsellor. I don't know what else to say. From your words, though, you are in an unhealthy situation and that needs to be remedied.

Mike Starre

--) "Needy" is very hard for me to hear; I am "needy." (--

This is because when you hear it, it is an insult and deliberately meant to be so. As I said, the term is normally used in a derogatory manner by the colder of the two in a relationship. "Derogatory" in this case means the colder person holds the "needy" person in contempt!!!! Now, I don't know about you, but if and when I hold someone in "contempt", I do not love that person. Read this carefully and understand what I say: A relationship such as we all desire requires love, mutual reciprocal love. In any given relationship, if one partner regards the other with contempt, there can never be reciprocal love. Such a relationship, when contempt is detected, must be terminated by the "contemptee". Why? Simply because the "contemptor" has an undesirable advantage for an undesirable reason. The "contemptee" is merely a disposable toy that has no attached affection, and the "contemptor" has no emotional attachment to a disposable toy.

--) I do NEED another person in my life, (--

Yeah, so do I. But I can do without one who would choose to disrespect me in the manner in which you describe the disrespect shown you.

--) would probably be smothering to some men (--

"Smothering" to the wrong men. Again, please try to understand this: the men who view your desires as "smothering" are wrong for you. Give it no further thought than "Oops, I made a mistake, I need to search again"!!!!

--) I HAVE been smothering to some men. (--

Yeah, and what does that prove? To me, it says only that you were unfortunate enough to have been exposed to the wrong men, unappreciative men who have chosen to castigate you for what you desire. (--

--) I am "needy" because my childhood was spent with two narcissists who were incapable of giving me the attention I NEEDED. (--

OK, the explanation was informative but not necessary. We are both "needy" simply because of our emotional desires, regardless of the source or development of those desires. You have your needs and I have mine. The apparent difference between you and me is that you seem to accept disdain. I choose not to do so. The first sign of detectable disdain causes me to end the relationship without a thought of a backward glance. Pericles, please do yourself a favor. Have pride in yourself!! You want, you need, you have desires. Pride yourself in that, and take no shame from any outside source for what you find necessary in your own life. Never accept shame for what you desire and need. You only harm yourself if you do. Please understand this.

--) I am working on my excessive "neediness" (have been for many years) because indeed, not all of it is appropriate. (--

OK, dumb question, Why? My guess is because you have been deemed "worthless" by some a$$holes who think they are better than you, and probably because they can fake a lack of "neediness" better than you. Do you really want to change because a "politically correct" facade has been thrown in your face one too many times? Pease tell me this isn't so!

--) But in a relationship, one ought to be allowed to need each other. But in a relationship, one ought to be allowed to need each other. (--

Whew! I was beginning to wonder about you for the moment. Mutual need and mutual desire is essential in a relationship. Also, mutual levels of need and desire, as much as possible, I consider to be essential. The larger the disparity in such levels, the larger the possibility of the dissolution of such a relationship.

--) Also, having spent many years with men who thought of me as too needy (serial monogamy prior to one very long marriage), I can promise you the shoe was on the other foot when I have left, finally giving up on ever getting what I NEEDED from them, which was the love and attention I wanted and NEEDED. It amazed me how difficult it was for those men to admit they "needed" me, yet didn't want to "lose" me. Shoulda thought of that before they worked so hard to keep their distance and their precious, sanctified freedom. And none of them have married, no big surprise. (--

And there, I think, you may have gotten your unrequested revenge. I know you didn't want it, but if I were in your shoes, I think the taste of that would have been sweet!

--) Those who are unwilling to make the sacrifices you have to make to be in a relationship are always going to see you as too needy. (--

"Sacrifices"? That which makes a good relationship is never a sacrifice. If some point of a relationship can be viewed as a sacrifice, it is bad for at least one party, and ultimately bad for both.

--) So, thank you for clarifying that from a male perspective. (--

You are most welcome, but I disagree with your claim of clarifying this from a male perspective, even though I am most definitely a man. Rather, I would hope to have clarified this from a human perspective. We are all "needy", we just differ in degrees of such neediness. A good relationship has a good balance of the neediness of both partners.

--) It's wonderful to hear that there are some men who get it, who realise that needing someone is not the worst thing that can happen to you, and that it isn't of necessity a trap you're falling into. Actually, I feel sorry now for men like that. They are destined to be alone, and since intimacy terrifies them, that's a natural outcome. (--

Hmm, trap. It's only a trap if one falls into the hands of a user, and that is quite often difficult to tell. As for you feeling sorry for the men who treated you ill, well, all I can say is allow me to savor the unintended vengeance I myself have accrued. After all, there are women who have condemned me for my desires, and your statement of them being destined for loneliness just sweetens the pot for me. Apparently I am not as advanced as you are in the art of forgiveness; and truly, it is an art that few have the capacity to appreciate.

Mike Starre

Mike that's an outstanding post. Yes there is something derogatory coming from a person who views their partner as 'needy'. It's as though they're taking a position of being superior or implying that they're somehow 'sorted' because they have a lower level of need. I'm not sure I'd always agree though that:

"The "contemptee" is merely a disposable toy that has no attached affection, and the "contemptor" has no emotional attachment to a disposable toy."

I think the contemptor often needs the contemptee to confirm their image of 'superiority' or of being in control, their sense of identity. If the partner who more openly acknowledges their needs leaves, I think it can throw the contemptor off balance. You'd expect if they were so emotionally independent and lacking in need, they wouldn't mind their partner leaving. Often however they're completely thrown, saying "But I love you" in a shocked fashion (ignoring that they've constantly been communicating to their partner that their level of need is onerous).

I agree that if the contemptor can't change (and I believe it would probably need therapy to shift some people out of an emotionally isolated position) then it's probably in the contemptee's best interests to leave and find someone more compatible.

You'd think that if a person had such a low level of need they'd be more comfortable with someone with an equally low level of need. This isn't always the case however. They might have a low level of expressed need, even contempt for their partner who tries to connect to get their own needs met, but they still need some emotion coming in somewhere - from all their partner's efforts to get close. They just want to retain their own emotionally distant stance and have all the warmth and emotion in the relationship come from their partner - then tell them they're too needy if their partner expects them to do something in return.

People such as this are not that well cut out for intimate relationships in my opinion, which is why often, they do end up on their own after a series of partners have made an attempt with them.

As to the rest of your post, I applaud your assertive stance. I agree with you when you say:

"Mutual need and mutual desire is essential in a relationship. Also, mutual levels of need and desire, as much as possible, I consider to be essential. The larger the disparity in such levels, the larger the possibility of the dissolution of such a relationship."

It's too easy for women particlarly, I feel to try repeatedly with a relationship, feeling that they're somehow flawed and inadequate because their partner is giving out that they're too needy when often what's being expressed are normal, legitimate needs which would be welcomed and reciprocated by a different partner.

You make a good point also that that which makes a good relationship is rarely experienced as a sacrifice. If people are having to make too many compromises, are required to change themselves in some fundamental way just to stay in their relationship, perhaps they're not with the right partner.

--) I think the contemptor often needs the contemptee to confirm their image of 'superiority' or of being in control (--

I have always believed, from what I have seen and experienced, that the one who expresses the least need IS the one in control, and normally has an air of superiority entwined with contempt for the partner.

--) You'd expect if they were so emotionally independent and lacking in need, they wouldn't mind their partner leaving (--

This is surprising, but their true need often does contradict the lack of expression, often to the point of violence.

--) People such as this are not that well cut out for intimate relationships (--

Very true. This makes me wonder about my own fitness for such a relationship, because as a result of my past experiences I am very reticent about expressing my own needs. I never feel or express contempt, but I do show a somewhat cold exterior when I am afraid that a given relationship is blossoming too fast for my own comfort.

Mike Starre