PDA

View Full Version : Controversial topic.



Nateskate
03-09-2005, 05:14 PM
I'm slowly slipping into the older generation. But the core of most romance from the beginning was a prince rescuing a princess. And to be honest, if you look at most romantic commedy, this is the basis.

Now, you've had a somewhat pivotal change in this, being the woman who doesn't want to be saved. Yet, in these romantic commedies, you still have the eventually recognition that this world conquoring woman, who resists love, who is herself saving the world, or climbing atop it, she eventually comes to realize she doesn't want to save the world, and eventually lets some guy "save her from being super-over-achiever".

Question, and I'd like to hear from young and old on this. Deep down, do you woman secretly wish to be rescued (from anything). Is that the core of romantic fantasy?

I'll be honest. I kind of see the "Prince of Tides" guy gets rescued, as a sort of appealing alternative. But I also can't help having that inner desire to be a knight who rescues. I think that's hardwired.

mistri
03-09-2005, 05:55 PM
Women don't all want the same thing, you know.

If you look at Harlequin, for example, their Harlequin Presents (Modern Romance in the UK) series, often emphasises the heroine being swept off her feet (and often being saved from something (herself, career, whatever) in the process.

Their Harlequin Romance series (Tender Romance in the UK), is more about women looking for a man to be by their side throughout life.

Some women might only want to read one type of book. Others will read a broad range. Some women will fantasise about being saved; others won't.

Nateskate
03-09-2005, 06:45 PM
Women don't all want the same thing, you know.

If you look at Harlequin, for example, their Harlequin Presents (Modern Romance in the UK) series, often emphasises the heroine being swept off her feet (and often being saved from something (herself, career, whatever) in the process.

Their Harlequin Romance series (Tender Romance in the UK), is more about women looking for a man to be by their side throughout life.

Some women might only want to read one type of book. Others will read a broad range. Some women will fantasise about being saved; others won't.

Sticks head in the grinder-riskier question:

Okay, first, I don't mean this in that being rescued means giving up a career, or artistic aspirations, or taking a step down the ladder.

My question though is what is deep down in the heart? Is the "macho"- "I don't need you, can take you or leave you," bit, overdone? Obviously, not everyone needs a relationship, and definitely not equally. I don't doubt that. Believe it or not, I believe that some have, whether they recognize it as such, dare I said it? The gift of celebacy- in which that desire isn't there, or at least so diminished it can easily be ignored. Obviously if that is the case, then biologically that desire for "other" may not be there.

However, in most woman, who have "desire for a relationship", who generally don't feel like an Island, what is the core of that desire? My gut feeling from having known "power women", most of them don't love being "power women" and those who appear most adept at it, have actually become rather cold and calloused, having hardened a part of themselves. (Perhaps being forced to, in that necessity demanded they pull up their bootstraps and fight to rise above)

Does Romantic Commedy have any basic truths? I think the fact that we love it, is because often it hits home. You have a woman who claws, scratches, and fights to climb a corporate ladder to prove she's every bit as tough as a guy, but deep down, she has that other desire, to be vulnerable in the hands of a strong man. If it is such an appealing picture for them to be this amazone, and simply want to discover this understanding buddy-co equal with no expectations, then why aren't movies and books that depict that, very popular? Those are the guys who always get dumped by Meg Ryan -Sleepless in Seatle, You've Got Mail. She wants Hugh Jackman, who doesn't "need her" or put his masculinity on a coat rack by the door.

In a sense, Cold Mountain's appeal wasn't the satisfaction she could do it all by herself in the end. You wanted Jude Law to make it back, and take the load off her shoulders. There was something entirely dissatisfying about the end of that story, though it was compelling up to the end.

Susan Gable
03-09-2005, 07:28 PM
Boy, Nate, you ask interesting questions. :)

I think romance speaks to the deep-seated desire in all of us to be loved, cherished, cared for.

I'm a very independent woman, strong, more logical than emotional despite the emotional books I write <G>, and there are moments when my husband feels like I don't need him for anything. But when push comes to shove, and my back is against the wall, do I need him? You betcha. Is it a need to be "rescued?" Ummm...I don't know if I'd call it rescued. It's a need to sometimes be able to let my guard down and let someone else be the strong one. The need to sometimes be taken care of because sometimes it gets tough taking care of yourself. I need stroking and nurturing as much as the next person/woman.

There's just something wonderful about having someone to share your life with. A friend you can always count on.

Even the strongest/toughest woman (or man) gets lonely.

And you certainly can't pair your strong heroine with a whimpy guy, so he has to be strong enough to rescue her if she needs it. He also has to be strong enough to let her rescue him if he needs it. :D Only a strong guy can let his woman be as strong as he is, or stronger at times. And I mean that emotionally more than physically, but physically as well.

Susan G.

maestrowork
03-09-2005, 07:40 PM
I don't write "romance" but I write story with strong love themes. In my first book, the heroines save the male protagonist. And in a subtler way, he helps them, too.

But I agree... just because deep down you (as a woman) want to find someone who loves and cherishes you, etc. doesn't mean you're a weakling. This being "romance" genre, you're talking about love and relationship here (and not about some independent man or woman who is perfectly happy being single...)

I don't think the "who rescues whom" is a true premise either. I think some very good romance or love stories are about the guy and the girl (or some variations) saving each other -- sometimes from their bad relationships, situations, etc., sometimes from themselves.

Take Pretty Woman (I know, it's not a "romance" novel but bear with me -- it's based on Pygmalion) for instance. Sure, Edward saves Vivien like the Prince in shining armor. But SHE also saves him. And that's why their relationship is so strong, because they save each other, they're meant to be together. And she turns out to be strong, independent, resourceful, and the ending would have been fine if Edward never comes back for her -- we know she will do just fine. The ending is actually about HIM being saved -- by going back to Vivien, he saves himself. This being romantic comedy, there's a happy ending. It taps into our desire for loving and being loved back, and it goes both ways.

We've come a long way from the "Someday my prince will come" days.

Susan Gable
03-09-2005, 07:45 PM
I don't think the "who rescues whom" is a true premise either. I think some very good romance or love stories are about the guy and the girl (or some variations) saving each other -- sometimes from their bad relationships, situations, etc., sometimes from themselves.


Absolutely! Done right, both characters should bring something to the other.

Oh, and Nate? I'm LOL as I'm going over the proofs for my July book. I just realized that my heroine says to the hero, "When I need rescuing, cowboy, I'll let you know." And she DOES. LOL! (And when she needs him is when she needs someone to run interference for her with her parents - particularly her mother.)

Susan G.

Nateskate
03-11-2005, 12:49 AM
Boy, Nate, you ask interesting questions. :)

I think romance speaks to the deep-seated desire in all of us to be loved, cherished, cared for.

I'm a very independent woman, strong, more logical than emotional despite the emotional books I write <G>, and there are moments when my husband feels like I don't need him for anything. But when push comes to shove, and my back is against the wall, do I need him? You betcha. Is it a need to be "rescued?" Ummm...I don't know if I'd call it rescued. It's a need to sometimes be able to let my guard down and let someone else be the strong one. The need to sometimes be taken care of because sometimes it gets tough taking care of yourself. I need stroking and nurturing as much as the next person/woman.

There's just something wonderful about having someone to share your life with. A friend you can always count on.

Even the strongest/toughest woman (or man) gets lonely.

And you certainly can't pair your strong heroine with a whimpy guy, so he has to be strong enough to rescue her if she needs it. He also has to be strong enough to let her rescue him if he needs it. :D Only a strong guy can let his woman be as strong as he is, or stronger at times. And I mean that emotionally more than physically, but physically as well.

Susan G.

I appreciate your responce. It's very honest. My question may sound different to people of different generations. I doubt human nature changes that much, although human behavior does. Once upon a time, people needing other people was just assumed. Now, there's this tendency towards invulnerability, invincibility, "I don't need other people to be happy..."

In my mind, I think there is a notion, especially in younger people, that there is a virtue in not needing someone. "I don't need anyone..." Well, is that honest? Is that really what they feel, or is that more of a reaction to the world they've seen, where you harden yourself against being hurt and disappointed?

I don't mind needing other people. In fact, over they years I've gotten better at it. And I'm not ashamed of it.

Nateskate
03-11-2005, 12:54 AM
I don't write "romance" but I write story with strong love themes. In my first book, the heroines save the male protagonist. And in a subtler way, he helps them, too.

But I agree... just because deep down you (as a woman) want to find someone who loves and cherishes you, etc. doesn't mean you're a weakling. This being "romance" genre, you're talking about love and relationship here (and not about some independent man or woman who is perfectly happy being single...)

I don't think the "who rescues whom" is a true premise either. I think some very good romance or love stories are about the guy and the girl (or some variations) saving each other -- sometimes from their bad relationships, situations, etc., sometimes from themselves.

Take Pretty Woman (I know, it's not a "romance" novel but bear with me -- it's based on Pygmalion) for instance. Sure, Edward saves Vivien like the Prince in shining armor. But SHE also saves him. And that's why their relationship is so strong, because they save each other, they're meant to be together. And she turns out to be strong, independent, resourceful, and the ending would have been fine if Edward never comes back for her -- we know she will do just fine. The ending is actually about HIM being saved -- by going back to Vivien, he saves himself. This being romantic comedy, there's a happy ending. It taps into our desire for loving and being loved back, and it goes both ways.

We've come a long way from the "Someday my prince will come" days.

There's no doubt women want to save men. But in a context. They see the "MAN" worth saving. They aren't looking to save a wimp, but to transform a bound frog into a prince. In a sense, they believe in the strength, and want him to believe. So, there is saving going on, on both sides.

No doubt, we men want to save as well. And nothing is as frustrating as feeling impotent (and I don't mean sexually), unable to be what she needs. We want to feel like we make a difference. That is deep seeded, not that we are tollerated because we can tell a good joke, but that somehow we've made someone else's world better.

In fact, there is an innate attractiveness in a woman that realizes they are benefited by our being there. I'll be frank, feeling expendible really s*cks.

maestrowork
03-11-2005, 02:06 AM
I remember when my male protagonist became really quite unlikable, a wavering, self-absorbed, clueless buffoon, I was worried that my readers would be turned off (if they have the expectations of seeing a dashing hero in my book). But one of my readers' comments put me at ease: "it's that moment when I want to take him aside and feed him soup." I think we can always tap into that savior/mother/father nature. As long as the protagonists have redeeming values...

veinglory
03-11-2005, 02:22 AM
I love very soft, even effeminate men. Looking at shonen ai comics and a good number of books I don't think I am alone in that, although hardly in a majority...

Nateskate
03-15-2005, 01:19 AM
I love very soft, even effeminate men. Looking at shonen ai comics and a good number of books I don't think I am alone in that, although hardly in a majority...

We're still waiting to see if there are any Amens out there? Can you give more examples perhaps?

veinglory
03-15-2005, 02:05 AM
The rise of the snag or metrosexual? http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july232004/she3.asp

maestrowork
03-15-2005, 03:02 AM
Vein, marry me now.

Or I'll die a thousand deaths, buried deep under the mountains of my sorrow.

Lisa Y
03-15-2005, 04:09 AM
Funny I should find this thread today. Last night, I babysat my friend's daughters. I read 3 fairy tales :Fairydust (abridged versions!) to the 3 year old. One was Cinderella, one was Sleeping Beauty, and one was Snow White. I was thoroughly disgusted with them when I was through. Why? Because I feel I was poisoned by them as a child.

I say this partially to be funny, but also, there is some truth to it. Yes, I have wanted to be "rescued" my whole life and can honestly say that as a teen and young adult, I "waited" for that "man" to come and "take me away". At nearly forty (and married) I am still "waiting" for that "man" to "take me away".

I do believe that the allure of the romance novel for many women (not all) is that expectation that was ground into us as young girls. I know I sound like a feminist, but really, I'm not. I just hate the thought of those two girls I babysat last night "waiting" for their prince.:Soapbox:

Nateskate
03-15-2005, 03:59 PM
The rise of the snag or metrosexual? http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july232004/she3.asp


Strength and sensitivity are not antagonistic to each other. I actually think men had poor role models for many years, because we had so many fathers going off to war in every generation. They sired a few kids, disappeared for years, in a country coming out of a depression. So, you had lack of natural bonding and natural affection. "Toughen up son...pull up your bootstraps..."

There is a healthy strength, and it is not devoid of sensitivity. It should be natural for men to hug, not pull away, as it is in many mediteranian cultures. And we have stereotyped roles to a great degree. But again, most of this can be explained culturally.

I think what you are seeing is more of a natural man. However, sensitivity devoid of strength isn't natural either. That's why I needed a clarification. I've rarely seen a woman who liked a wimp. And being strong enough to be yourself is not being a wimp.

However, I'm a little less on the "glit/glam" side of the metrosexual thing, because to me that's just one more superficial adornment that is more of a distraction from who a person really is.

Nateskate
03-15-2005, 04:03 PM
Funny I should find this thread today. Last night, I babysat my friend's daughters. I read 3 fairy tales :Fairydust (abridged versions!) to the 3 year old. One was Cinderella, one was Sleeping Beauty, and one was Snow White. I was thoroughly disgusted with them when I was through. Why? Because I feel I was poisoned by them as a child.

I say this partially to be funny, but also, there is some truth to it. Yes, I have wanted to be "rescued" my whole life and can honestly say that as a teen and young adult, I "waited" for that "man" to come and "take me away". At nearly forty (and married) I am still "waiting" for that "man" to "take me away".

I do believe that the allure of the romance novel for many women (not all) is that expectation that was ground into us as young girls. I know I sound like a feminist, but really, I'm not. I just hate the thought of those two girls I babysat last night "waiting" for their prince.:Soapbox:

Strange as it may seem, I think women help create good men, in the sense that men want to be good mates/lovers. BUT, men don't want to ask men. And a woman who takes the time to learn "MAN" which is a means of communication that is foriegn to some women, and translates the feminine perspective into the language of MAN, women can be great teachers.

Lisa Y
03-15-2005, 05:21 PM
I think I'm a lousy teacher

Nateskate
03-15-2005, 10:19 PM
I think I'm a lousy teacher

Well, you start by being a student first. Teaching comes latter. If you are a good student, eventually you have potential to be a great teacher.

Few people get really good relationship teaching. My parents certainly didn't equip me, and neither did my school. And most certainly, I didn't get it from t.v. In my confused youth, I even tried the infamous Clint Eastwood scowl, thinking that was cool, and wondering if the Don Johnson half-shaven look might work, because my best friend's girlfriend liked it. All of those, "What were you thinking stupid things that people do." Well, not all people, just us, "What were you thinking people". You try your best with the knowledge you are given, but unless you find someone who knows more than you, you are stuck guessing, and for years I guessed wrong.

But I was an eager learner, and through years of studying, figured at least enough things out to be passable.

MacAllister
03-19-2005, 11:24 PM
I've rarely seen a woman who liked a wimp. And being strong enough to be yourself is not being a wimp.

Hand-in-hand with that, passive and ineffectual women are similarly unattractive.

WhisperingBard
03-19-2005, 11:45 PM
Interesting discussion.

I suppose the ideal would be someone who loves us enough to want to help us spread our wings and fly, but will be there for us if we crash and burn.

Did I just mix my metaphors? :D

scullars
03-20-2005, 08:47 PM
Like someone's already mentioned, love isn't about someone "rescuing" the other; it's more a matter of interdependence, mutual reliance. There are still women who fantasize about men "rescuing" them (usually from financial woes) only because they still buy into that media-induced concept. As for me, the only woe I would need "rescuing" from is my self-imposed hermitage. But even so, it's interesting that recent articles indicate women have put off marriage (much as men used to do) because they are now finding other resources for those attributes that supposedly men brought to the relationship. Friendship, financial independence, even the de-stigmatization of raising children outside of marriage has changed some of the themes you find reflected not only in women's lives, but in literature as well. Man as lover and friend should now be the impetus of the romance theme.

For a lot of us, we never relied on waiting for a "white knight on a horse" to rescue us; if we'd waited around for him, we'd be homeless and starved to death.

Nateskate
03-21-2005, 02:50 AM
For a lot of us, we never relied on waiting for a "white knight on a horse" to rescue us; if we'd waited around for him, we'd be homeless and starved to death.

This is tricky in my book. Some people stop believing in the White Knight. That's different than not wanting one.

And for the record, I don't believe relationships are for everyone. Some people can absolutely find companionship and be more than satisfied with healthy friendships.

I can absolutely say without a doubt, as a male, I want to rescue a princess. There's something in me that wants to not only be needed, but to be relevent. I've seen many women who did well without any male in their lives. That doesn't mean they were happy with life that way. They were often disallusioned. But that's what attracts some to romance, a desire to see what they haven't felt.

So, is there something down in their core that wants to believe in the fairy tale? I think so.

Nothing would break my heart more than the feeling "I'm totally irrelevant." In some way, I have to know I've made someone's life better. If my wife could take or leave me, and simply tolerates me as one of her options. If I knew she absolutely felt that way, I'd say "cut me loose. If you feel I'm a burden and not a blessing, then please don't do me any favors."

To me, saying "You are not necessary" is extremely emasculating. And I'm being hoest, if that's how someone felt about me, there wouldn't be any reason to stay in that relationship.

sgtsdaughter
03-21-2005, 03:03 AM
yeah . . . i'll fall into the vien that i too want to be rescued on some level--even though that statement goes against my feminist grains. but, being rescued doesn't mean from a tangible object or event. being resuced can be from myself, the dulldroms of life, the traffic of new york, or little things like that . . . hope it helps.

annessa

Richard
03-21-2005, 03:10 AM
At least it's not as bad as Hollywood's atrocious gender coding. Superman: Takes on evil aliens. Catwoman: Takes on evil face cream.

WhisperingBard
03-21-2005, 05:14 AM
I can absolutely say without a doubt, as a male, I want to rescue a princess. There's something in me that wants to not only be needed, but to be relevent.

I stopped believing in the "white knight" deal around the time I realized that real-life, everyday people wrote the books I was reading as a young girl and (gasp!) they were making it all up! Kind of put a different spin on things. ("What do you mean my prince might never come? It happens in all the books!")

It seems to me that being "relevant" and being "needed" can be two entirely different things.

I don't "need" my husband in my life, but I do so "want" him there. And I find him very relevant. :D Seems to work for us.

Lisa Y
03-21-2005, 04:11 PM
For a lot of us, we never relied on waiting for a "white knight on a horse" to rescue us; if we'd waited around for him, we'd be homeless and starved to death.

Well, yes, this is true. I didn't want to starve to death or to be homeless. "He" wasn't anywhere in sight. I went to college, started career. I'm now married but not to a knight. In some ways, I am the knight. No one rescued me, I took care of myself and now, I support my family. Yet there is still that nagging longing for "him"...

Nateskate
03-21-2005, 04:41 PM
I stopped believing in the "white knight" deal around the time I realized that real-life, everyday people wrote the books I was reading as a young girl and (gasp!) they were making it all up! Kind of put a different spin on things. ("What do you mean my prince might never come? It happens in all the books!")

It seems to me that being "relevant" and being "needed" can be two entirely different things.

I don't "need" my husband in my life, but I do so "want" him there. And I find him very relevant. :D Seems to work for us.

It might be semantics then. I don't believe "need" has to do with "Survival". I can live without anyone else in my life, but life wouldn't be satisfying to me if I felt like I was walking around with an empty hole in my soul.

My wife doesn't "need" a footrub or backrub. She doesn't need someone to dig giant holes in the garden to plant trees or shrubs. She doesn't "need" someone to sit there for thirty minutes while she unwinds about her stressful day, or to draw a bath. No, she'd be quite capable of surviving.

If that's viewed as a "strength", to be able to survive on my little island ("Wilson!"), it's not a strength I want to brag about. I'd want to accept the weakness that I absolutely know my life will not be as full and I'd have a hole inside without someone there.

I want to feel like my life makes a difference. That the world is a better place because I'm there.

Call me a wimp, but I need love. I need approval. I need to feel relevant and that I contribute something that enhances life. Spiritually, emotionally, it's not that I couldn't survive without that, but I doubt I'd want to. It's not the prolongation of days that appeals to me. It's the prolongation of being relevant, giving and receiving that makes me look forward to the future.

I am not a rock, and I am not an island. "A rock feels no pain, and an Island never cries"

Moondancer
03-21-2005, 04:56 PM
Like someone's already mentioned, love isn't about someone "rescuing" the other; it's more a matter of interdependence, mutual reliance.

Well folks a little bit about me .... =-) ... I'm known as JamesC well that's what my friends call me. I'm an Electrician by trade ...... and a bit of a flirt by night ... =-) ..... good thing Stephanie my new wife isn't the jealous type or I would be in trouble ...... =-) We met in Vchat a few years ago and became friends ....=-) well in October of 99 she made the mistake of flirtin with me in Vchat ... *grin * and that's when I started chasing her all over the net ....... *innocent smile * ... and it only took me two months to get her phone number .... oO( bout time I thought ) ... and then the courtship started ....... First a phone call on Christmas eve ....... oO( just a short one bout 6 hours ) ....... Then the second call on Christmas day oO( once again a short one only 18 hours ) and then it began .... One phone call after the other ... till we decided that it would be cheaper for me to move to Nashville ...... lol and the rest is a love story for the net . We were married on April 20th and been on a honeymoon ever since.

Howdy, y'all, I'm Moondancer, or Stephanie, as my friends call me. James thought I was stuck up because I'm quiet.... *grin*.... He's right about those phone calls..... most of the time we were afraid to look at the time.... oO(2 a.m. most nights, oslt)...... Ladies, he is a very good flirt and a lot of fun to flirt with.... so good I didn't think he was serious..... *grin*..... I was used to him acting like that ..... he did say once that he was as serious he could be...oO(but you know JamesC).... *innocent smile*.... I spend most of my time at home now, taking care of things here and enjoy a few hobbies (painting, cooking, writing, and crafts)....... while I look for work that doesn't keep me gone most of the time...... I like my weekends with James too much to give them up........ *devilish grin*.... don't know what got into me that day when I flirted with him in Vchat.... my friends know that's not a normal thing for me...sort of a driveby flirt....... scared me so bad I didn't see JamesC for awhile afterwards...oO(he'll never let me forget that)...... when we did see each other again I was complaining about my job and he tried to get me to come to Michigan.... said there was a job there I would be perfect for.....oO(I was, too)....... *grin* ..... I disappeared again for a bit after pushing him at some other lady whose name I forget now..... then we started talking, really talking, and learned that we were soulmates.... January 30,the night he moved here I was so nervous.... all he had ever seen was a picture.... he drove thru a blizzard to get here...... called bout every 3 hours or so too..... when I opened the door he was holding a red rose and a blanket that we had both talked about....*devilish grin*... I took both out of his hands, threw them on the table and just held onto him forever..... it's been a honeymoon ever since.

Rescuing? Yes, we rescued each other, but there is more to it than rescuing. It's about finding that one person in the world who makes you complete whatever your hopes and dreams are for the future. And faith. Before we met there were times I was so lonely I cried myself to sleep, not for a lack of friends but for the lack of the ONE person, but the dream was there. The first year together was kind of funny because so many things we had dreamed about came true. Actual dreams, we knew what the other looked like before we ever saw a picture of any kind because of those dreams.

We're nothing special the way the world equates the word. Just two ordinary people with ordinary lives, trying to build a future that suits us the best we can. I'm no herione, he's no hero (except to me).

Moondancer
03-22-2005, 06:11 AM
I'm sorry I stopped the thread... want I should delete the previous post?

mommie4a
03-22-2005, 06:35 AM
Question, Deep down, do you woman secretly wish to be rescued (from anything). Is that the core of romantic fantasy?


Hi Nate - I too think this is a great question, and probably will never be solved, except on a personal level for any one of us. My take?

First, secretly wanting to be rescued and the core of romantic fantasy - I'm not sure they're mutually exclusive but I do think that fantasy implies unattainable in reality. And I think that we can find a mate, even more than one person, who fits that rescuer mold - those complimentary souls exist, they are not fantasy.

I think where it gets complicated is when two people need to be rescued at the same time, or both are forging forward, not needing the other. Because in the former situation, each one may be so down, they can't help the other, let alone themselves. In the latter situation, each one is so consumed by their goals that they risk not noticing or supporting the other one's triumphs.

This reflects my experiences and what I've observed in other relationships.

On a gut personal level, I'm just plain ole selfish! I want to be rescued when I want, and I want to rescue my husband when I think he needs it, not necessarily when he's being narcissistic.

For me, the real fantasy would be having the moods and needs ebb and flow in perfect synchronization in perpetuity. And, after the tsunami, we know that can't happen!

Phew - thanks for letting me write!

Nateskate
03-22-2005, 11:51 PM
Hi Nate - I
I think where it gets complicated is when two people need to be rescued at the same time, or both are forging forward, not needing the other. Because in the former situation, each one may be so down, they can't help the other, let alone themselves. In the latter situation, each one is so consumed by their goals that they risk not noticing or supporting the other one's triumphs.

For me, the real fantasy would be having the moods and needs ebb and flow in perfect synchronization in perpetuity. And, after the tsunami, we know that can't happen!

Phew - thanks for letting me write!

I read Tolkien's Letters, and Biography. He was orphaned as was his wife. And he wrote a revealing letter to Christopher, the son he leaned on. And in it mentioned how he and his wife tried to save each other. And in ways they failed.

Sometimes you find two wounded people trying very hard to save each other, but they are two screwed up people whose own weaknesses, needs, and coping mechanisms make that impossible, at least to do gracefully.

But apart from that, its a noble goal to work towards that synchronization. Yet, I find that doesn't happen without sacrifice. Two people demaning their rights can't get there. Only two people who are willing to lay down their lives for each other, which to some degree is risky.

mommie4a
03-22-2005, 11:58 PM
its a noble goal to work towards that synchronization. Yet, I find that doesn't happen without sacrifice. Two people demaning their rights can't get there. Only two people who are willing to lay down their lives for each other, which to some degree is risky.

You are right. It can't happen without sacrifice. That's been my experience anyway. Someone, I don't recall who, has said that it's all in the striving anyway - it's not like you get to some plateau and rest there forever once you reach it. Too many variables. So maybe it's got something to do with being able to accept some modicum of chaos or knowledge that there will be imbalances and, knowing that, you've equipped yourself to handle those imbalances because you're with someone who, as you say, would lay down his or her life.

It's risky, but the rewards are pretty good too.

Alphabeter
03-23-2005, 03:39 PM
Ya know I'm just gonna go on and create a world where all the fairy tales were born of matriarchal societies. Then the boys can complain while I sit on my throne and surf porn of quarters bouncing off butts.

TMI? or NEC? :Coffee:

Nateskate
03-23-2005, 06:06 PM
You are right. It can't happen without sacrifice. That's been my experience anyway. Someone, I don't recall who, has said that it's all in the striving anyway - it's not like you get to some plateau and rest there forever once you reach it. Too many variables. So maybe it's got something to do with being able to accept some modicum of chaos or knowledge that there will be imbalances and, knowing that, you've equipped yourself to handle those imbalances because you're with someone who, as you say, would lay down his or her life.

It's risky, but the rewards are pretty good too.

If you ask me, it begins with a philosphy of life. If you look at a successful marriage as "how good I feel" at given points in time, you can hit some pretty rough bumps where you feel pretty miserable. But if you see it as a process, as your quest to love someone as much as possible, to learn how to project that love in a way they can receive it, you are constantly striving for a goal.

Knowing "I'm not there yet" is only a bump in the road. And part of my desire to be the greatest lover requires me to work on all the "me" issues. We generally make the mistake of thinking we can take this other person, and squish them into this mold of "The perfect lover who will love me the way I want", rather than the "Until I'm the perfect lover who loves them the way they need, how can I expect them to be my perfect lover...I'll work on me, and see what happens."

I honestly want to be the perfect lover. And strangely, I think deep down most guys do too. But they tend to look at their unhappiness as stemming from their wive's imperfections. Well, once you make it real to them, and force them to see the world from their wife's perspective, they realize how woefully far from the mark they are. And that realization takes away the hypocracy. "oh, I'm no picnic..." It's not that they intend to be relatively defective. They just don't have much insight into that unless someone clubs them over the head with the truth.

"If you aren't loving her the way she needs, and you are doing this and that irritating thing...and for whatever foolish reason, not doing this and that, no wonder she does what she does...you start making these changes in you, and let's see what happens in her..."

People get frustrated because they impute motives. "He/she just doesn't love me." Well often that's not the real case. It's they are dissalusioned because they had expectations that aren't being fulfilled. Either they have unrealistic expectations, or more likely, there's something that can change that should.

In general, if you can sell it to a guy he's doing something wrong and there's a better way to do it, he doesn't want to be the only defective guy not doing it.

mommie4a
03-23-2005, 06:35 PM
Nate, you sound pretty enlightened to me, and I've been married 14 years to a guy who's done a lot of work on himself (not that I haven't).

I think "the perfect lover" is in relation to whom ever you're loving. But for sure it requires an ability to listen and respond, not just demand or have needs.

Ever read Kierkegaard? He wrote something called The Either/Or. Philosophy. Big on romantic love and what it is and why you can't have it all the time and how humans want it to happen over and over and over even though in the end, making it happen over and over is not satisfying. That's his take anyway.

And, last, if you're even asking these questions and thinking these thoughts, well - you are way ahead of the game. Because lord knows, there's a lot of men and women out there who don't even bother to think about these things. Of course, those may be the folks who already think that they're perfect!?

Nateskate
03-23-2005, 10:29 PM
Ever read Kierkegaard? He wrote something called The Either/Or. Philosophy. Big on romantic love and what it is and why you can't have it all the time and how humans want it to happen over and over and over even though in the end, making it happen over and over is not satisfying. That's his take anyway.

And, last, if you're even asking these questions and thinking these thoughts, well - you are way ahead of the game. Because lord knows, there's a lot of men and women out there who don't even bother to think about these things. Of course, those may be the folks who already think that they're perfect!?

It may sound like I'm only generalizing, but I'm not. I know from experience that most men want to be a good lover/father.

They biggest problem is that men are generally poorly informed, and unfortunately they aren't like women, delving into magazines and books on relational issues.

The biggest trick is actually getting them to some place where they can listen to someone who can alert them they need to buy a vowel. It's like those guys who have to get past their pride, and will drive around lost for four hours, who finally give in when their gas tank is almost empty.

It's not that they really think they know where they are, they know they're lost. They're just too stubborn to admit that. But once they find out the way that will get them to their destination, they're actually happier.