[Standing Strong]

Hi ladies 

I had a series of questions which can only be answered by your unique perspective, experiences and biology 
A few of these may be really difficult to answer, or maybe to hear, and the intention is not to hurt, poke or anything of the sort.... but to understand what it is like to be a woman and what you go thru in the course of life. I will give examples of my perceptions/thinking (which could be right, wrong or somewhere in-between).

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and honesty..... 

Story which set off this series of questions:
This morning I had spin class. There was a substitute instructor this time. I'd never seen her before. She was obviously happy to be there, as most instructors like to project. As she gets on her bike and starts talking to us, she wishes us a good Sunday and then tells us that she won't be having a good Sunday as she will be remodeling her Kitchen with her Husband.  Over the course of the class and especially at the end, she shares that working with him is something she doesn't like, that she wished he would just do what she tells him to do, that she is always right and he is always wrong, and that he just needs to take instruction and not think on his own. 
I couldn't help but think "how bad would he feel if he was here to hear all that?". The thing is: people say what they really feel when they think there aren't consequences to them expressing themselves. Here was a woman, in her late 40's or early 50's, NOT in good shape, belittling her husband who was taking his Sunday to remodel HER kitchen. The poor guy..... I'd like to imagine that he viewed the work as an act of love (that's how I would be approaching it - but I admit that's me projecting something beautiful - I love working with W, but she sure doesn't seem to like it either).

The reason I bring this up for women to answer is this: It is generally thought by many men (not all) that at some point in a woman's life, she can (not always) care a lot less about her H as she turns inward, especially during/following empty nesting, 40+, menopause (?) or something else that I've missed (or don't know about).

Examples:
Case in point, I had thought a bit about this, and remember how my mom acted when she got to that age and how she has been since (up to now). I do remember her being MUCH more family and H oriented in her 20's, 30's and the 1st part of 40's. After that, she was MUCH more disengaged and didn't chase dad around anymore (she still doesn't). Once she had empty nested, seemingly everything changed drastically. Very noticeable to me is how much she cared about what he thought before, and afterward didn't care much about that at all. I remember thinking it was very cold, but now I wonder if this is a normal occurrence.
Example 2:
My cousin is a little older than me, 6 months or so. She was insanely beautiful when she was young. All my friends wanted to go out with her 
This last year she told me marriage was no longer an option for her, and she had given up. This puzzled the heck out of me, there were tons of guys she dated that wanted to marry her, and her answer was no. Fast forward to now, I don't think she has the offers anymore, but beyond that, I don't think she sees the utility in having a man. She does everything herself, and seems to like only relying on herself. She values her independence, and doesn't seem to want to sacrifice that at any price. She doesn't seem to put any importance on having a relationship at this point (age 45).
Example 3:
Building on Example 3.... The professional women I work with (around 200 of them)...... there's every age category: 20's 30's 40's 50's and up. I don't mingle much with the 20's, but the 30's on up I know very well. The marriage rate is about 25% married, 75% single. Of the mid 40's group, I've had several that I'm close to say they are done with dating, don't need a man, and have no designs on getting married (several of them just divorced their H's in the last 2-3 years)..... and then you get closer to the 60's bracket and those gals are horn-dogs..... I can't tell you how many have propositioned me, but I don't think they want relationships, they just want to boink.  So what I've observed (personally) the 30's are looking for relationships/marriage (had some hit on me), the 40's are totally out of it (none of them hitting on me, with the exception of the MLC'ers which I won't include in the count), the 50's and above (seemingly always hitting on me, VERY direct about physicality... enough to make me blush). So interesting. If it was one or two, then I'd call it an outlier but that's not what's happening.   

So my question is: Does there come a point in your life, where a man simply doesn't have the shine it used to have? And if this has happened to you, can you describe it? Or maybe it's not a complete loss of value, but a change in value? If that's the case, can you describe what it's like for you?
In all these cases (if it happens to be true), what do you think for the men who find themselves in this situation? Empathy? What do you think (As women) what they should do, or maybe can do to improve their situation? Can anything be done in their situation? Most men I know who find themselves there, just shut down (Almost universally, and I know A LOT personally). I can't say their reaction is good, bad or whatever..... but it is very male to react in this way. I do know they are universally shocked and had believed what had been in the 20's and 30's would continue on for the rest of life (the ones which married in their 20's of course, it's harder to keep track of the ones which married in their mid 30's and had been married for much less time).

I think back to that spin instructor this morning, and her husband who probably has no clue what she's really thinking/feeling. If he knew (maybe he does), then what should he do? Effort isn't going to do anything, he's going to be expending effort to do something for her without a real payoff. I know I have been in that place: doing big work in the hopes of melting a heart (like what would have happened in our 20's) but it doesn't work like that anymore. Are women conscious of this? If you do notice it, what do you DO with it? Bury it? Ignore it? Feel guilt and then put it away? Make an effort to change feelings? Or maybe you haven't experienced this at all?

Hope it's as fun to answer as it is to ask. 
More questions after seeing how this one goes.
Com'on ladies, let's probe the deep understanding of the female mind. HA!!
Time to make a man understand!! LOL!!

-SS

[KellBell]

hmmm. I think some of that may have to do with experiences. The women in their 40s probably got married in their early 20s and are now happy with a little independence post divorce. Jaded and taking time to finish raising kids and deal with life. Not looking for another man to take care of. And those who haven't married are independent and don't feel a man will make or break their happiness and quality of life.

My daughters are in their mid 20s and they don't want to get married until they are in their 30s. They want to establish themselves and their identities before getting married- which is a very practical and wise stance. They also want to have fun and travel prior to kids.

My mom is in her early 60s- and it's crazy the way I hear her and her friends talk about men or refer to relationships with them. They seem to think they are in their prime. Confident, independent and they don't feel they need a man permanently for anything. Companionship for events and sex is really all they have need of them for.

I can say- I am in my early 40s. Recently divorced. Not looking for anything right now. I'm going to enjoy this time raising my kids and being on my own. But I am open to dating and finding love again at some point. Would love to be married and have someone to retire with and spend time with. My bestfriend is just one year older than me and she is dating a 28 year old...so who knows. She doesn't see it being long term...just passing the time with him, but they have been together for 3 years. She still talks about her plans when she retires and he's not part of that vision. So here is where past experiences may come into play. Not sure. I don't think men lose their shine...I think women in their 40s are evaluating just how much they are wanting to invest in another man at this point. Probably have a checklist and if a guy comes along that ticks enough boxes then he may be worth the time, but until then. Fine being alone. I think women in their 30s are ready to get married and start families...serious dating. And women in their 20s...exploring who they are as individuals and having fun.

Not sure if any of that helps. Possibly a generational thing? And definitely generalizations on my part...maybe I'm an outlier...who knows. Interesting to be sure. I do see more and more 50-60 year old women coming into their own. It's a freeing thing for that generation of women to be able to call the shots, be independent and make their own decisions. Not needing a man and being able to be in control.

[MadLuv]

Hmmmm, well I am going to be 60 in less than 6 months. I am told I look to be in my 40’s. I cooked every night for my xh, packed his clothes for trips, pulled his clothes every morning for work, laundry, mowed. I pretty much did it all with all kids grown.  I was raised by a father that believed if it could be done it could be done by you. So, remodeling or hime improvements I was more knowledgeable. So, I am sure he felt a little less manly.

Cars, he handled. Before he started working massive hours and traveling we shared more of the home duties of laundry, dishes, mowing etc. So, our change came with his higher pressure job. I would prefer to be in my marriage. I doubt I will remarry, but I also am not going to give myself up all over the place. I have to feel connected to someone.

[MomOfSteel]

I’m not quite 40. I guess I would have remained happily married but now will not jump back into things anytime soon.  I think that women in their 40s are just starting to reclaim themselves to some extent.  I was looking forward to all my kids finally being in school, H established in his career and finally feeling like I had the means and time to start focusing on myself.  Well, joke was on me apparently.  I will say that I will likely be very gun shy about future relationships.  It’s not that I don’t want companionship or a partner, but I would rather be alone than risk going through this garbage again.  I also know I’m not mentally healthy enough to trust in having a healthy relationship.  It’s smarter to not worry about that and focus on the kids and figuring out a new plan for my life.  Im guessing that the others in my age range are just not willing to trust and be burned so readily right now. 

[KellBell]

I realized I may have missed what you were asking for on here. If you are asking about how a woman sees the value of a man at different ages...then I would say this.

20s- looking for someone to date, have fun with, travel etc. Nothing usually too serious. Looking for a friend, good company, supporting them emotionally in their quest to find themselves, career etc.

30s- looking for someone who will be a good father and husband. Someone who is reliable and steadfast. Same goals and visions for the future.

40s- not really looking for someone. Realizing it's ok to be on their own. If something great comes along that checks alot of boxes then great! Otherwise, focused on themselves, family/kids if they have them, their careers and friends.

50s and 60s- Really just a progression of 40s. Don't need a man full time. But it's nice to have one around once and while. Nice to have someone to go out with, dinner, events, double dates etc. Nice to have someone to help when you need it and talk with.

I agree with Madluv...we are in different age groups but both approached our marriages in the same way. We were equals with our spouses in the beginning. And as time passed and the family grew our roles changes. Our spouses worked more (providing more for the family) and we took over raising kids, keeping house, becoming less dependent on our husbands- for alot of reasons. Alot of times it was just easier and quicker for us to do what ever needed to be done instead of waiting for husband to get around to it. I wanted my husband to help around the house, fix things and be engaged. But it would either tick him off, never get done or cost us money as he would just hire it out. I know I put more energy into the house and kids as way to alleviate pressure off my husband. He was working and providing for us- so I thought by doing all the other stuff I was showing appreciation and contributing my half to the relationship. Making it easier for him, less for him and giving him time to relax when he was at home. And it worked for us. He would always compliment me and thank me for getting things done and how great things were. I honestly don't feel I pushed him out or made him feel unwanted or unneeded. He quit contributing. He quit participating. He quit engaging. And that was directly related to MLC. Before that- it was a dance we grew into and it worked for us.

I think most women looking for a man just want one that this open and willing to compromise. Relationships are not 50/50. It ebbs and flows. And at times and in certain aspects of the relationship it's 20/80 or 60/40. The ratio isn't what's important- it's about being on the same page. Knowing what each other wants and expects from the other- which then really just comes down to communications. So in short- no. Men don't lost their shine. A good man always shines. It's really about the state of mind the female is in.

[Standing Strong]

This is fantastic, thank you ladies 

So far, from the responses: There IS a change in the 40's. This is very interesting. Unclear is why? And how drastic is this shift? One theme that seems to span the responses is "reclaiming" life. What does this mean? Or perhaps, what is it like? And why at that time? Is it a re-evaluation of life? Restlessness? Freedom? Re-prioritization? I realize there is probably a big difference between being married or divorced during this time, but maybe it's not as different as it appears (maybe).

This also brings up the question of why? Historically, many women married and had babies in the 20's, leaving the 40's for empty nester time. I'm curious with the younger generations (and many of my generation  ) marrying and having children in the 30's, late 30's and even early 40's.... I wonder what effect (if any) that would have on this "40's reflection(?) change". Do babies trump shifting perception/desire? That's a curious question.

In a quick and maybe not accurate summery (so far) in two sentences:
20's - 30's = Men needed
40's onward = Men optional
What do you think? 

Keep going ladies, your thoughts and views are so very welcome, interesting and insightful     No judgements, just probing the female experience. I as a man find it utterly fascinating....

-SS

[MadLuv]

In a quick and maybe not accurate summery (so far) in two sentences:
20's - 30's = Men needed
40's onward = Men optional
What do you think? 

I think this is dependent on the woman. Some are not as self sufficient, but then mature and come into their own. Some like myself are raised to depend on no one. I think a lot is on your up bringing IMHO

[beyondblessed]

I definitely think there is a major shift in the way we think of our roles and the role of any man we allow to share our space...especially after ending up in a place such as this.  If we truly embrace the lessons of our life experiences,  we should manage to come out stronger, wiser and ultimately more independent.      After you've dedicated a better part of your life putting others needs and wants first, while neglecting your own, it seems a natural progression to me.

[Standing Strong]

Oh yes BB, I totally get that.
I know a lot of women who after getting D (Especially in 40's) and they openly say "I'm not doing that again". 
I'd imagine getting burned is one thing, but getting burned and arriving in a place where it's not as important to be attached has to be a double whammy.

I was talking to one of my professional female friends the other day. She has a small child, which she bore in her very late 30's. She was D'ed in the last couple years and is in her mid/late 40's now.... Doing the single mom thing. I asked her what life is like now..... she said it involves taking care of the kid, visiting/traveling, and drinking wine. She seems (on the surface) pretty happy, or at least content. She has zero desire to date or be involved with anyone. The odd thing is when she commented on her M, and said something to the effect of "I got my kid, that's what I wanted". Like that was the purpose, or objective of the M. I had to scratch my head...... I've heard this before..... from my cousin, and a few other female friends. This I don't understand. For me: if I had kids (I don't), they would be a side effect of a happy union with W, essentially an "add-on"..... not a primary objective. This seems to be reversed in many people I know (exclusively female), like the spouse is the add-on, and the kids are the primary. Is this a natural way of thinking? Or is it something people tell themselves once an R/M goes south? What is this? In men I know who are D'ed with kids...... they love their kids (of course) but in each conversation the men all said they wished things had been different with the wife. Not one of the women expressed any longing, regret or real compassion for the guy. What is that? Guys want a woman to love them..... it didn't seem like in conversations I had there was any love on the woman's side for the men afterward (but they all universally were very interested in the men contributing to the children's wellbeing and future - which does make sense and is understandable). It also seemed like the women wielded a lot of power to make the lives of the men more difficult as in each situation the women were the primary custodians of the kids and the men had to chase to see their kids. This position of control seemed to make them happy in a way. What is that? I wondered in my mind if this was a method of punishment, which could be extracted over many years (and a method of attention, for that matter). What do you think?

Obviously this isn't the case for every situation or person, just something I have observed in several situations. Is there a nature to this? And if so..... why?

-SS

[Standing Strong]

I should also explore the flip side of the coin too..... something else I've seen and don't understand either:

So I was talking about the observations of the 40+ and what I've seen there, but I also have seen the complete opposite with the late 30's female crowd (and in my family too)...... where there are a rash of marriages, or attempted marriages. Now that I think about it, yes..... I've noticed a big handful of these quicky marriages within the ages between 33 and 38..... and a run for the doors at 39 (as if in a panic). Women trolling almost.... and it makes me think about right before I was going to turn 40 and all of a sudden, gals I hadn't seen in 20 years were crawling out of the woodwork wanting to hook up, catchup, or whatever (they were all about to turn 40 as well). I didn't reach out to anyone, they all reached out to me. Now this is somewhat different I suppose as these people were mostly single (not all) and I'd imagine it's a totally difference ball of wax between a single never married woman and a several year (or longer) married woman.
Since all the ladies here were in the married for a while (or longer) category, I don't know if you'd understand this rush to marry or not, but it seems to be a thing. What are your thoughts about this? Do you think it's a normal something?

Time to flip the script and compare:
I have noticed in many men, they hit their 40's or later and they just hang it up if they aren't married already. Many of them don't want to marry anymore (not all, but a lot. Some just want to date, maybe live with someone, but marriage - no). I know is a real thing, and I think a lot of them are bitter for whatever reason. Mistrustful. Definitely a thing. For guys, the run for the doors (to get married) I think happens in their 20's. I know I was very motivated to marry young, and I did  I know several women in their late 30's who have married guys in their early to mid 20's and that seems to be more and more common.

What do you think? Ring any bells? See similar things? Any explanation for any of it?  I have some thoughts and assumptions, but I'm not alone in wondering about these things am I? HA!!

-SS   

[Finding Joy]

Standing, I think overall a women’s body is made to reproduce and a lot of those feelings are primal.  In our 40’s most women have kids that are much more independent, if they have kids, and  need to figure out who they are now that they are not so overwhelmed with motherhood.

Also, our culture expects women to be and do it all.  Personally I don’t buy into that, but many women get the short end of the stick in their marriages raising kids, working and doing the majority of the work at home. 

I personally would immediately start looking for another relationship leading to marriage if my marriage ended, because I know that’s what I want and I am whole.  I love having a best friend to live life with.  But, I think what you are seeing and noticing is a product of our broken society.

[Standing Strong]

Thank you FJ 

That you would say that (IMO) speaks volumes. I wonder too, if you are a product of a different time as well. You were married at the same age I was (20), and I feel similar in that should everything go south I don't like the thought of being alone either and would lean towards another R with the intention of M (I never dated just to date, if I didn't think they were potentially M material, I passed entirely).
To see the majority of people (now days, and in our same age group) being a complete 180 from that outlook.... it's a little confusing and distressing (to me). Are we just "old fashioned"? HA!! 

I do see what you mean about getting the short end of the stick (potentially), but I wonder if most men/husbands generally are pretty good? We LBS are in a bit of a different situation than "normal" people with our broken MLC spouses..... but if they hadn't broken, then would we have been "normal" too? Most of us report having good M's or good spouses until they went off the rails (and then we figure out there were a lot of problems we weren't aware of)...... I wonder if that hadn't happened, would we ever have known or cared? I also wonder, if there are changes in life (such as that primal children calling instinct going away), curious that it coincides with the area that MLC often happens. If that is true, and our spouses didn't break in MLC.... I wonder what would've happened in that time and in the R's "naturally". Know what I mean? We will never know since we got to experience MLC instead.... In the case of women, it's very interesting to me what that dynamic would be....... if there is a primal children instinct which influences women to want an H...... what happens when that goes away? How does a woman feel then? If we were to say the guy was good (assuming), what then? I'm guessing that's where "deep love" kicks in? Fills in the blanks? I do know that men (when they marry) assume the way a woman feels about them will not change over time but that's not true is it? I don't think a man who is truly in love with his W changes his feelings over time. Don't think it happens, actually I think a properly functioning man's feelings become more infatuated towards his W as time goes on.  That in itself would be an interesting topic to explore: the thinking, assumptions and construction of men (HA!!). 

I think the questions I'm asking are also difficult because the people who come here are pretty high quality people who actually deeply cared about their life, their marriage and their spouse. That doesn't seem to be the norm anymore does it? Everything is so disposable now days, even people. Broken society indeed..... maybe that is why I'm asking these questions: nothing makes sense to me!! HA!! 

I did have a further thought about what I've seen..... it's going to sound bad, but is this true....... I work with lots of professionals, and I didn't put it together, but the women in their 40's who said they weren't interested in an M anymore: They were all very well to do. They could 100% provide for themselves with ease. The women in the "rush" to get married, a lot of them were not well off. Actually most of them weren't, but a handful were (the handful were almost always the 39'ers). So I wonder if there is a baby component, and if there is a security/financial component. That would explain a lot, but it wouldn't be a very pretty dynamic. Certainly not a romantic one. What do you think about that? Is that a thing from a woman's perspective?

-SS     

[Treasur]

I found myself wondering what lay behind your questions tbh.
Are you trying to infer backwards to make sense of what might be going on with your wife?
Or are you trying to extrapolate out to a general view from a sample of women here?

Either way, Standing, your sample base is rather skewed surely.
My perspective would have been different before becoming an LBS.
And i’m not sure that my perspective now after being an LBS offers much useful about the perspective of an MLC wife. Or your own.

[Standing Strong]

Hi T 

General understanding, a lot of it just theoretical. My brain keeps going back to timelines as all of us naturally follow those throughout life. Everything has a time, everything a season (turn, turn.... LOL  ). Here and there I've listened to a few episodes of Suzanne Venker, what an interesting lady. Unique viewpoint. She doesn't cover MLC (at all) but in a nutshell she believes that women have been sold a lie about being able to "have it all" and that today's women are scrambling to put everything back into place (once they discover they can't have it all). According to her the problem itself revolves around time, stages in life, putting things in place, and deep anger at men (all things my MLC'er has talked about, and so it's interesting to me). Very complicated and multi-layered. Not that her opinion and perspective is the answer, but she does seem (to me) to be a very intelligent person attempting to understand the root issues of modern man/woman relationship dynamics and their underlying construction. Again, nothing to do with MLC but I as an individual would like to understand what makes a woman tick, and why. By the same token, I don't always fully understand my motivations, feelings or thoughts and that would be nice to understand as well.   

Yes, going back in time (for me) and trying to understand, that's part of it.... but also part is a "what if" as to what would have been experienced had all this MLC stuff hadn't happened.... but assuming MLC does come to a conclusion at some point you, I or anyone would then be dropped off with a person we haven't seen in who knows how long. I can only guess that person will restart at some point along the "normal person" timeline and continue on with life. Understanding what a person normally goes thru at the point they re-enter (I think) would be helpful, we are after all out of practice dealing with someone so closely.

For me, having a broken person here at home...... my thoughts do wander into "what would life be like if...... no MLC" (right? we all want what we can't have, it's human). We assume it would be rainbows and sunshine because at some point, it was. The only way to estimate what it would have been like, is to look at those of similar age and see what's happening with them. My limited sample size shows me it's riddled with problems. Since I can't do anything with my broken person (these years and years are being lost and missed, "regular" life skipped on by), I look closely at my friends and acquaintances..... what I find is a mess I can't explain. At the same time, my neighbors on both sides are young and have new babies and young children. I see that happy, confident, solid quality that comes with all that. Oh I know that feeling.... You know, back when you could never imagine the world falling apart (?). It puts things in a different perspective..... I know I thought that feeling would last forever, assumed it would (wrong!!..... HA!!). I am drawn to understand what the change is, what the difference is, and why. Someday, I'll have a W who has made it thru MLC. That by itself will result in someone different, but also her age and the changes which come with it will further make her different. This is a scary and distressing thing to a man...... men need to be needed. It isn't a want to be needed and useful, it's a need. IF there is a component which makes women more independent and have less need (at a certain age), then men need to understand it, adapt, and become useful in a new way. If there is a change that can't be bridged back to the emotional state that existed before, men need to know that also. I realize the core issue is one of connection. When you're young, connection is easy. If that naturally changes, then how does it change, what are the boundaries of that change, and what do we do to re-establish and maintain connection?

There... a jumble of thoughts, interesting what we get caught up processing when we're LBS's. I know I'm stuck trying to resolve these, and I've been unable to thus far..... because I'm not a woman. HA!! 

-SS   

[Curiosity]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, but haven’t really had much to contribute (and I’m still not sure I do, but chiming in anyway). The thing is… there’s not going to be a single answer to what makes a woman tick, or to what a woman wants in various stages of her life. Just like some women in this community would immediately seek a committed relationship if their marriages ended, and some would appreciate the independence that comes from being single; just like some women in this community are LBSs and some men (and women) in this community have MLC wives… I don’t think we can generalize and hope to understand all or even most women based on a single framework. Same is true for men, for that matter.

My father was either a walk away spouse or an MLCer - he has always been present as a father but is just not someone who makes a good spouse. He married and divorced multiple times, he had affairs… and finally seems to have decided he wants to date but not have a committed relationship. My uncle married his high school sweetheart and more than 50 years later, they are the image of soulmates, best friends, and true life partners. My dad and uncle came from the same parents, grew up in the same circumstances, live in similar communities and have similar socioeconomic statuses… and yet, their approaches to marriage and relationships are completely different.

For me… I appreciate the companionship of having a spouse or long term partner, even more than I need the romantic part of it. Ideally, I could have both… but what this has taught me is that nothing is permanent, and that not everyone values their promises the same way I do. Trust is not as easily given as it used to be, because I can never truly know what’s in someone else’s heart or mind. I think I would be far less likely to make a commitment to someone in the future, because I’m not sure I could believe in their commitment to me - but I also think I would  seek long term companionship from someone. I’m not sure whether that would be platonic or romantic; it would depend on the relationship. I am awed in some ways by people who can, after being betrayed as we all were by MLCers, truly commit their hearts and lives to another person. I’m not sure I could ever do that again - but it’s not because marriage and commitment and partnership have no meaning for me. In fact, it’s precisely because marriage means so much to me that I don’t think I could go there again - not because of any covenant marriage beliefs, exactly, but because it simply requires a level of absolute trust that I personally don’t think I can let myself have again.

[Standing Strong]

What an awesome response C  Thank you!

I had something to add also (which I thought was interesting).
I was talking to my mom last night, and the topic of this thread came up. She was interested and asked "what do you mean?"..... so I explained that I was asking how and if a woman's view/attraction/need/value of or toward a man/husband changes as time goes on.
She didn't understand at 1st, saying "I love your dad" HAHAHHAAHHA!! "Yes, I know that mom..... not what I'm asking"..... then the light came on and she understood...... "Oh.... I don't think women like talking about that"..... Ah Ha!! We have a winner (maybe). Then mom goes on to explain that things change when the kids are leaving and the need for your own territory becomes much stronger..... that in her case, she didn't want dad "on her stomping ground"". How interesting. She talked about her friends and how many of them don't want the inconvenience of dealing with someone, and that it's simpler to just worry about your own worries and not someone else's. How being tired of taking care of other people is a thing.

I was surprised at how open she was about this, although she hesitated at 1st..... and then *POOF* off to the races. 
The bit about "women don't want to talk about that"..... you gals have some secret club us boys aren't allowed to?  HA!!

-SS
 

[Ready2Transform]

Thank you for saying that, Curiosity! I have struggled with how or if to contribute to this thread. I think you summed it up for many of us! Plus we don't just exist as a collective group driven by instinct or hormones. Even in MLC world, it is the uniqueness of our experiences that are the main factors and predictors.

Does there come a point in your life, where a man simply doesn't have the shine it used to have? And if this has happened to you, can you describe it? Or maybe it's not a complete loss of value, but a change in value? If that's the case, can you describe what it's like for you?

I don't feel there has been any change in how I value men. Even though my xH and I started dating in our teens, our relationship was never a means to an end for me. He was my best friend, but I always had other goals, including starting my business young, getting a degree, traveling, working - all things I didn't need to do in tandem with him. He had that freedom as well - spent 8 years in the military, went to college for a while, pursued different job paths and hobbies, lived on his own, etc. I have always had male friends and colleagues, and the dynamic feels like it is the same on my end. But as to romantic or life partnerships, even with xH - I wasn't looking for financial stability (had less with him), I wasn't looking for a co-parent (no kids), or to fill some societal norm. For me, it was more about sharing my life with someone and being able to do things as a married couple more easily (like buy property, get health insurance, etc.). After going through divorce and all that it has entailed due to not picking a partner I was shared "fiscal similarities" with, I would have to weigh the pros and cons before entering into another marriage. But honestly, that doesn't sound as appealing as it did in my 20s, since I've now lived without that for so long. It's easier to make choices just for myself.

In a partner though, I still tend to look for the same things I did when I was young: physical attraction, similar interests and life goals, sense of humor. The men I have dated or had an interest in have not been big money guys or people I would have to change a great deal to be with. Sleeping on someone's couch might be a red flag, but sleeping in an apartment instead of owning would not. Being as co-dependent as my xH was and needing to attach to my life in some sort of symbiotic way where we are each others' everything would absolutely be a deal-breaker. I've seen that in some of my guy friends once they are in relationships, and at this age especially, it's weird. We should all have more of a sense of identity than that.

[beyondblessed]

Standing, I feel like I need to add, in case you haven't followed much of my thread, that I am getting married again in a little over a month.  Even having gone through the single worst experience of my life, I never doubted it was a HIM (the runaway) problem solely....not a "man" problem in general.  Every person comes with a unique set of characteristics,  traits, values, etc.  If life was a one-size-fits-all, it might be easier to understand and cope with, but damn, that would be boring.

Now, what I will say, is that I did date a lot after my D.  I saw a lot of what's out there in that dating pool, and it isn't at all pretty by and large.  At a certain point, I was just done with it because a very high % of the men I come in contact with came waving huge red flags...everything needy codependent issues, to not having any goals or direction, to not having any financial stability or assets, the list goes on and on.  To a woman like me, who was 100% financially stable and gainfully employed, with my own home, my own interests and goals, and liking my own company alone, I certainly wasn't going to waste anymore years than I already had previously,  dating or marrying a man who couldn't keep up or wasn't on my level.  The stunt my xh pulled only served to help me because I knew definitely going into dating again, all the traits, qualities and characteristics I was NOT going to accept.  It helped me treme6 in setting boundaries and keeping my standards high, and if that kept me from finding a partner again, then so be it.  Quite frankly, my life after the D has been the best it's ever been.  If my new guy hadn't shown me just how genuine and truly amazing he is, I would still be single and happily so.  So, I don't think you can just pinpoint one single aspect in what makes women or men act the way they do or make the choices they do.

[Standing Strong]

Hi BB and R2 

Such wonderful responses, thank you! 

After reading what you both wrote..... I have a new question to all the wonderful women here (related, question)...... All women are different (duh  ) I wonder: When you were younger and met your H's (and before that even)...... were you someone who chased? Or not?

I'm getting the impression that some have been very independent all along, which I would think is not typical especially going back in time... but it is becoming more of the norm nowadays. Since we're talking about something that was a few decades in the past for most of the ladies, it would be interesting to know.
If a woman isn't clingy attached at the start and during the M, then there is less to un-cling later (if that makes sense). What do you think about that idea? Would that be true of you? Or would you alternatively fall into the heavy attachment category? I wonder if there is a difference between the two when it comes to the later stages in a M.
I'm a man so it's different for me, but I know I was love-bombed by W and she chased me.... oh boy I loved it too.  HA!! Ours was absolutely a deep attachment type (for a long time, until those pre-MLC years began).
 
There does seem to be a reoccurring theme of mistrust, hesitancy and a desire for space/independence where you are now (wouldn't you say?)...... now this (I think) is totally natural considering everything all of you have gone thru and does put you apart from other women who have not experienced this trauma.  In that way, you are not like other women at all (IMO). You do not have the same shared experience as your peers. Hmmmmm, that's interesting too. I wonder how you've changed internally because of that damage. Is that something you have wondered? What you would have been like had all this not happened? I know I was severely damaged, but it did make me better, and I'm grateful for it. All the women here (I think) are very strong. I would guess too, that the damage endured made all of you much more emotionally mature than normal. I know you all have friends, you don't/didn't see "something" happen in those years among your "normal" peers in the 40's(ish) age bracket? I've asked several women I know (in person) about their friends and if everything is "normal" in their M's, they always say yes very quickly..... and then I ask how many have D'ed recently, or are in the middle of a D, and then when they think about it and I get something like "Oh, I hadn't really thought about it, yeah a lot have divorced recently, already are D'ed or are in the process".
The men on my team at work going back the last 15 years, 75% of were D'ed in their late 30's (That's 15 guys.... I don't know all the specifics, but I do know it wasn't because any of them cheated. They are all guarded and cautious now too. Very similar to what is described here about being ok alone, not rushing to another R, but I know they all would IF they could trust - and it's been described that way to me directly by three of them, with another two cohabitating but not ok with ever M'ing again).
You haven't noticed this? Maybe it's just the groups I run with.     

-SS

[kikki]

From Standing Strong.   The reason I bring this up for women to answer is this: It is generally thought by many men (not all) that at some point in a woman's life, she can (not always) care a lot less about her H as she turns inward, especially during/following empty nesting, 40+, menopause (?) or something else that I've missed (or don't know about).

It's been such a long time since I have posted, that I had forgotten how to quote   Took me a while.

I very much agree with Curiosity and R2T that we are all very much individuals, and our responses and reasons will vary, and that we continue to make choices based on the reasons we did in our younger years, I guess just with more life experience added into the mix.

I do have a particular interest in this topic as I work as a nurse specialist in Gynaecology.  I read this (below) a while ago, and kept the link as it mirrored something that I have noticed about my own life. After giving so much of myself (willingly and gladly) for the collective benefit of our whole family/business, and after the detonation by the MLCer, I realised that it was not an investment I had the energy or desire to make again.  Partly, for me because I do have my three (now grown sons) and partly because I have not met the right person who I feel would add rather than detract from my life.

https://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/article/what-to-know-about-menopause?utm_campaign=falcon&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_social-type=owned&fbclid=IwAR1phtiHtviLMqK9-BiShaekejo4Q229H8DO2O3gLbIiNANYGEcxryyzPBw

"It isn’t all doom and gloom!

While many women dread the perimenopause – and/or have heard their mums moan about it – it can actually be a very positive time and a pivotal moment in life. “The point of the menstrual cycle is to have sex and create another human, whether you do that or not, so oestrogen makes us interested in other people, and more social and accommodating,” says Hill. “When it goes, we don’t care so much about what other people think – and that is a huge gift.” She says it’s amazing to see her clients thrive as they begin to prioritise themselves, and forgo people pleasing in favour of doing what they want, when they want."

I do think that there is a biological/hormonal component to this attitude shift, and because we are all unique 'what we want and when we want it' will be expressed in a multitude of ways, that may or may not involve other people.

[beyondblessed]

SS, I was not a chaser when I was younger, but very much wanted, the house, the yard, the kids...everything I'd been taught that was marriage.  I have noticed, that many couples on here were left without the kids, though, as were we...and I've always wondered about that missing piece and if there is any correlation to the MLC?  In my case, I suffered 4 miscarriages,  and he never seemed to handle those disappointments well.  They put a lot of strain that other couples have never had to face.

You mention being love bombed by your ex, as was I, but of course, at that time I didn't have a clue what love bombing was...or that it was a huge red flag. Only after the runaway ran away did I come to learn it was a purely narcissistic trait having more to do with supply and attention, nothing to do with actual love or connection.  So, of course it makes sense when things got tough, he checked out emotionally and eventually all those things built up into the ticking time bomb inside him that became a bomb drop.

As far as hesitancy in pursuing new Rs, I see it more as doing a better vetting process.  Throughout the dating process, I always looked for actions to match their words.  My ex was notorious for grand ideas and words, always had a new "plan" that was more like a scheme and never followed thru completely.   He'd start many things and never finish a single one.  I knew that of I were ever to marry again, this guy needed to be a man who could do what he said he was going to do.  It took a lot of searching to find him, but it was worth it. 

I will say that I have always has an independent streak, and being with an avoidance personality like my ex, that was not a good match.  I probably did a lot of things he didn't like, but had no way of knowing that because he would never broach the subject.   There again, things he let build up with no expression of them until it all came to a head.

I can look back all day long and try to untangle the skein of where things went wrong, but to me, that serves zero purpose because Humpty Dumpty cannot be repaired.  I chose to take the lessons learned and apply them to the present, in the hopes of securing a more stable and thriving future.

[MomOfSteel]

So I’m just catching up but I’ll add my 2 cents again. I value marriage, when/if I start dating it will be to find another husband.  I want a meaningful lasting relationship.  I don’t have much interest in using a guy for intimacy or just to fill my time.  I will have a very hard time ever trusting.  I guess objectively depending on how my divorce settlement goes, I should not have to work if I’m smart, much less have the pressure to marry to survive.  I’m lucky in that regard.  I also realize that I want more out of a relationship now.  I want to truly be valued.  I want someone who is willing to love me fully with my flaws and be willing to honestly work hard to fix the inevitable problems that arise in relationship through counseling and compromise.  I don’t want someone who will betray me and leave me. I also want someone who will love my children as their own.  I think it’s a tall order to find these things in an available man.  I guess it will take more to turn my head at this point.  I have never viewed a man’s roll as to provide me with children.  I do look at my children as at least I have them. My marriage is a dumpster fire now but I have them.  They are a physical manifestation of the love I thought my H and I shared.   Im a person who is deeply loyal and wants a true connection and life long companion.  Nothing will change that.  I don’t want to be used so to view men as something to be used is not in my nature. 

I was not a chaser, I reciprocated.  Also, I was not clingy but I consider myself to be deeply attached or was and I guess still am to some extent.  I don’t think being clingy means there is more attachment.  My H was not clingy either and I do wonder if he was ever really attached to me.  I guess I feel like you love those who you serve and sacrifice for.  H is objectively pretty selfish I think it has intensified through the years.  That is why I question his attachment to me.  It seems like it would be easier to walk away if they never felt that deep attachment.  I question whether mine is a narcissist or if MLC is just making it seem that way and he just tended to be selfish before. 

I think your point that the people on this board in general have suffered an atypical trauma is valid.  I’m going to be working through the betrayal trauma for a long time, because I’m not an idiot like MLC H, I realize another person won’t make me whole and jumping into something without being healed is such a bad idea.  On some other divorce boards I am a part of that have nothing to do with MLC, I realize my situation really is different than most on the board.  Some are on their second divorce and admit they rushed into things a second time.  They were rebounding and hurt and didn’t give themselves the time to heal.  There also seems to be a lack of self awareness.  While my H certainly has major issues, I think most people on this board realize they have their own work to do.  I guess i also worry that if I meet someone how do I know they weren’t the problem as they likely have been divorced at this point too.  It feels like there will be baggage from both of us, families to blend, my own hard time of trusting fully it seems insurmountable to me.  It seems easier to give up and be alone.  Also, the whole internet dating thing really wigs me out so I don’t want to do that either.  I guess I should just start collecting cats now. 

I have a few friends who have been divorced and one moves through marriages like it is her job while the other doesn’t really date.  The one that doesn’t date had a horrible divorce.  It wasn’t MLC, but her ex was awful to her.  She is now happy and strong and is okay with being alone. 

[Ready2Transform]

When you were younger and met your H's (and before that even)...... were you someone who chased? Or not?

I would have to apply adult relationship styles to teens in order to answer that, which I don't think works. We were 17 and 18, liked each other, and started dating.

If a woman isn't clingy attached at the start and during the M, then there is less to un-cling later (if that makes sense). What do you think about that idea? Would that be true of you? Or would you alternatively fall into the heavy attachment category? I wonder if there is a difference between the two when it comes to the later stages in a M.

I think like LeftandBroken that there's a difference between having a deep relationship with someone and a need to cling. I would call clinging more a trait of co-dependence. I loved my xH very much, he was my best friend, and I stood for our marriage for over five years after he left, which included several years post-divorce. I didn't get the opportunity to experience the mundaneness of an older marriage (his choice), but up until the MLC behaviors started, he was still someone who would give me butterflies when our eyes met across a bookstore. I imagine it is the same thing you're referring to here:

I'm a man so it's different for me, but I know I was love-bombed by W and she chased me.... oh boy I loved it too.  HA!! Ours was absolutely a deep attachment type (for a long time, until those pre-MLC years began).

There does seem to be a reoccurring theme of mistrust, hesitancy and a desire for space/independence where you are now (wouldn't you say?)

I don't think I would call it mistrust necessarily. I think before entering into new relationships, those of us who are members of the exclusive LBS club find it better to make educated decisions. We've learned to take grace periods as standers. There isn't a rush if you want to have the kind of fulfilling relationship that didn't get to complete with our former spouses. It took a lifetime to build those bonds for most of us, so we're probably not going to get it after a few dates with some new person.

I wonder how you've changed internally because of that damage. Is that something you have wondered? What you would have been like had all this not happened? I know I was severely damaged, but it did make me better, and I'm grateful for it. All the women here (I think) are very strong. I would guess too, that the damage endured made all of you much more emotionally mature than normal.

I think enduring trauma (I keep wanting to say drama too, lol) does change us. The word "damaged" doesn't sit right with me. I wouldn't want my xH's MLC on my proverbial CarFax. The thing is, if you get the privilege of living a life, you will experience some traumatic events. I really wouldn't wish the pain of MLC on any spouse or family, but these are the cards we are dealt. Love is risk. Commitment is risk. I feel I have grown from this, but I'm sure most of us were pretty okay people before it, too. I'm probably a little less than halfway done with this life journey if I'm lucky, so there's going to be more pain. I'll probably grow from it too (even if I'd prefer to avoid it).

I know you all have friends, you don't/didn't see "something" happen in those years among your "normal" peers in the 40's(ish) age bracket? I've asked several women I know (in person) about their friends and if everything is "normal" in their M's, they always say yes very quickly..... and then I ask how many have D'ed recently, or are in the middle of a D, and then when they think about it and I get something like "Oh, I hadn't really thought about it, yeah a lot have divorced recently, already are D'ed or are in the process".

I think I got to be the first one around me to go through it (so lucky! ). We were in our late 30s. I've seen some definite MLC breakups, but truthfully, most were women divorcing men who were cheating on them. Some of those men were definitely in MLC.
 

The men on my team at work going back the last 15 years, 75% of were D'ed in their late 30's (That's 15 guys.... I don't know all the specifics, but I do know it wasn't because any of them cheated. They are all guarded and cautious now too. Very similar to what is described here about being ok alone, not rushing to another R, but I know they all would IF they could trust - and it's been described that way to me directly by three of them, with another two cohabitating but not ok with ever M'ing again).
You haven't noticed this? Maybe it's just the groups I run with.     

Not shocked at all. I see it less as a gender-specific thing to have this attitude. Unlike MLCers (male and female) who are looking for another person to solve their problems and provide a way to move from spouse-to-new-house without a shakeup in their lifestyle.

[OldPilot]

Something I have written about in the past but I will bring it up somewhat simply.

As we age and lose our hormones women become more like men
and men become more like women.

Measuring hormone levels, women lose estrogen and testosterone becomes a higher percentage of their make up.

Men are the opposite and lose testosterone and estrogen becomes a higher percentage of their make up.
This accounts for the changes in us.

Men cry more often and are more emotional as we age,
Women are more independent and motivated to do almost anything.

I am not sure if that helps with your question at all but I know it is something that I needed to learn
in the past few years.

[FrenchHusband]

Something I have written about in the past but I will bring it up somewhat simply.

As we age and lose our hormones women become more like men
and men become more like women.

Measuring hormone levels, women lose estrogen and testosterone becomes a higher percentage of their make up.

Men are the opposite and lose testosterone and estrogen becomes a higher percentage of their make up.
This accounts for the changes in us.

Men cry more often and are more emotional as we age,
Women are more independent and motivated to do almost anything.

I am not sure if that helps with your question at all but I know it is something that I needed to learn
in the past few years.

I read recently the same thing in a book dedicated to couples, also with a sexologist stating that sexuality of M and W are converging : W in bed are becoming more genital, she says, and men more emotional. Also for general life, I believe we are converging. Men who work on themselves can earn abilities that are viewed as feminin  : listening, cooperating, sensibility, emotional (as you write). The same goes for some women. I am writing generalities that may be viewed as sexist, I know, every person is different.
I think this evolution has to do something with MLC for the MLCers, and also what LBS may do during MLC. And also, I believe it is a way for W and M to become more independant and more whole.

That brings me now to the specifics : I begin to believe that during reconciliation and reconnection, there is a lot in common between male LBS and W LBS. , and there might be also some specifics. It is only a guess at this stage for me, also a topic I want to dig. By example, chasing and running are different for men and women. I have read in many books that it is "normal" for a M to be the chaser. And also I read that the M'desires awakens the W's desire. That is why, for a MLCM reconnecting, he is expected to chase. What about MLCW reconnecting ? How does it work ?
I am only a newbie, so only asking questions to myself and the community.

[Nas]

I have read in many books that it is "normal" for a M to be the chaser.

I don’t believe it’s ever “normal” for anyone to be “the chaser” in a healthy balanced relationship. A safe relationship is one without projection, assumptions and unexpressed expectations, where both parties are clearly expressing their needs and listening to (and really hearing) their partner express their needs without expecting anyone to mind read, read between the lines or perform a ritual of pursuit-distance.

[Songanddance]

Here and there I've listened to a few episodes of Suzanne Venker, what an interesting lady. Unique viewpoint. She doesn't cover MLC (at all) but in a nutshell she believes that women have been sold a lie about being able to "have it all" and that today's women are scrambling to put everything back into place (once they discover they can't have it all). According to her the problem itself revolves around time, stages in life, putting things in place, and deep anger at men (all things my MLC'er has talked about, and so it's interesting to me). Very complicated and multi-layered. Not that her opinion and perspective is the answer, but she does seem (to me) to be a very intelligent person attempting to understand the root issues of modern man/woman relationship dynamics and their underlying construction. Again, nothing to do with MLC but I as an individual would like to understand what makes a woman tick, and why.

I for one would have no interest in listening to Suzanne Venker.  The suffrage movement underwent huge challenges simply to give women the chance to vote.  In the UK women could not divorce their husband until 1928.  Women's pay to be commensurate with that of fellow male worker was only recognised in the UK in the late 60s early 70s.   I could go on.
As a happily independent woman before marriage, during marriage and children and after BD I have never thought I was "sold a lie" and I was able to provide my family with much and at no point have I ever thought that a woman can never have it all.  Sorry - but she is bonkers to spout that view and can only move to create further misogyny.

Why do you need to know what makes a woman tick?  There is no one size fits all and there is no singular approach to how a woman " ticks".   
What people not just women need more than anything else is to be listened to, to be respected and to have the right to choose.
Not only that as UM says - none of this will really help you with your W and her MLC. Listening to her and accepting her and leaving her to it is the only thing that she will need and more likely the only thing that may help her decide to return to the marriage when and if she wants to.

[MadLuv]

I think that most people that end up a MLCer have issues with true intimacy. In order to run, cheat etc. they have not ever fully attached to their partner in a deep enough way. That is unique to each MLCer and each relationship, but the deep seeded issues that keep a person from true deep intimacy lie in their history and are something they have developed to protect themselves from further hurt and and pain. That is only something they can dove in to find out why and that is why we can’t help them. They can only help themselves. IMHO

[Standing Strong]

Here and there I've listened to a few episodes of Suzanne Venker, 

I for one would have no interest in listening to Suzanne Venker. 

Why do you need to know what makes a woman tick?

Now THIS is very interesting to me. 
Full disclosure, I've listened to many of Suzanne's shows..... and generally speaking I think she's on the right track..... which is a traditional, roles based relationship viewpoint.
For me, is isn't the subject matter which is interesting... it's the reaction (yours S&D  ).
That response - and the justification of history: so interesting. I hear it all the time (from women especially at my work, but also in family and my MLC'er), and there's nothing wrong with it whatsoever (it is the prevailing modern viewpoint)...... but the question I have would be: "Is it true?". That's what's important. Is it true?

There's no doubt a woman can take care of herself, better herself, stand alone..... you know.... on and on: If the need and situation arises. This comes in a range of flavors from mild to extreme to beyond extreme (militantly extreme). The question I have is: Is this healthy? Does it produce a happy, complete, and satisfied woman? Or does it produce something angry, something skeptical, something bitter, something masculine?
Suzanne (if I understand her right) says "no" and that many women (not all) find this outlook to betray and let them down in life. This makes complete sense since we are opposites: masculine and feminine.... the difference is needed.

I would offer a guess that (for women) that the masculine (a man) can be associated with pain, mistrust, disappointment, and a slew of other negatives...... and the "Easy" solution is to "do it yourself". That seems trustworthy and safe, can be counted on, and requires nothing from anyone else. On the surface: a superior solution. This would especially make sense if a woman's base need for safety and security is true (is it?). Of course the core problem with all this is the one need every woman has until it is shunned, rejected and abandoned: A man's love, which can't be replicated, replaced or emulated.
What do you think? I am oh so curious. 

I do think the more we provide for ourselves the parts which would be taken care of by a counterpart, the more a counterpart (or potential counterpart) becomes disposable and unnecessary.

-SS           

[Songanddance]

For me, is isn't the subject matter which is interesting... it's the reaction (yours S&D  ).

There's no doubt a woman can take care of herself, better herself, stand alone..... you know.... on and on: If the need and situation arises. This comes in a range of flavors from mild to extreme to beyond extreme (militantly extreme). The question I have is: Is this healthy? Does it produce a happy, complete, and satisfied woman? Or does it produce something angry, something skeptical, something bitter, something masculine?

Does it produce a happy, complete, and satisfied woman?

In my case Yes.  I am happy, satisfied and I feel complete and more importantly I am grateful for my family, my opportunities, my lifestyle and, here's the rub, H's MLC!

Do I wish that I didn't have worries or concerns - of course.  But I've learned that being whole is accepting me as I am. It's not about my age or my hormones  or the history of the advancement of women. It's about living my best life.

This is the point you are missing - all people and not just women, don't have to be "independent" to be happy, complete or satisfied and neither do they need to be in a marriage to be happy, complete, or satisfied.  Happiness, the feeling of completeness and satisfaction with life is a choice and a choice with what you have and are.  My marriage failed at BD 10 yrs ago. I didn't choose that - none of us did as LBSers but in these last ten years I have done a lot of reflecting and am happy with me. 
And here's an irony - we will often hear the MLCer saying that "now they are happier and more complete with OP" and yet we know they are talking rubbish... because it's rooted in MLC depression. We all know our own truths and that's why we learn to work on ourselves.

Of course the core problem with all this is the one need every woman has until it is shunned, rejected and abandoned: A man's love, which can't be replicated, replaced or emulated.

More ironically now I am reacting; and your other comment that women become angry, skeptical, bitter because they're let down or betrayed is a further irony because men behave like this too: I know I've met a couple.  BTW the quote above could be inferred as somewhat  dismissive of same sex marriages.

MLC happens - I wish it didn't, for everyone, as it is truly devastating.  MLC is rooted in depression and all genders struggle with this and sadly some choose to destroy their marriage or long term relationship for what ever reason they think is valid at the time (see the script threads)  and often they genuinely can't explain or rationalise it once out of the crisis. 

And that is why we advise on here , to take the focus off the MLCer, focus on self and self growth, Live your best life in the situation you are in and leave the MLCer to it. 

[marvin4242]

SS I personally represent the 180 degree position to your worldview. I do not in any way see men or women as fundamentally "different." Rather I see both men and women indoctrinated and repeating the same cultural and societal roles that are thought and reinforced from a young age. Even the ideals of "masculine" and "feminine" are constructs. Psychologically what do you think is "masculine' or "feminine?"

If you understand we all have the exact same traits, pathways and forces it become more clear that there are variations in the individual. Then if you realize that when we keep reinforcing the same messages, signals and stories from birth by an early age we set these beliefs as if they are "truths." Look through out human history and across many cultures, not just the western Judeo-Christian one and you may see that some beliefs are not as universal as one thinks.

I will say that I see men mostly suffer from being told they are the ones in "charge," they are supposed to not be in touch with their emotions and some of their needs, that they must be "tough" whatever that means. And now men are also starting to suffer from body dysmorphia (a wonderful curse that we used to only reserve for women).

Sometimes you have to look outside the box to see the full picture. MLC is a personality crises, I personally think only reason we see any difference between men and women in MLC is because of all the hardened/damaged structures that are there due to "gender norms" before MLC.

edit: I cross posted with Songanddance's post which says some things better than mine. I missed the part about needing a "man's love." i would say one of the most important things I learned from this terrible experience was to NOT place my own needs and care into any other person or relationship, regardless of whether it is a marriage, a friendship etc.

[Nas]

“Of course the core problem with all this is the one need every woman has until it is shunned, rejected and abandoned: A man's love, which can't be replicated, replaced or emulated.”

SS, I have much to say about everything you wrote but particularly this quote.

Unlike Song, I don’t think the above statement “seems“ to discount same-sex marriage, I believe it absolutely 100% discounts anything beyond a narrow view of relationship that occurs between a woman and a man slotted into strict (antiquated) definitions of gender roles.
Leaving a side the fact that there really is not such a huge difference between men and women, what is it specifically about a man’s love that you think is so supreme that it is essential to *every* women’s true happiness and cannot be replicated, replaced or emulated? And why do you keep insisting *all* women are the same, think the same, feel the same and have the same needs, as if we all fell off an assembly line? And do you think that the women on this forum who are in same-sex marriages experienced a lesser version of “love”? 🤔

But beyond that, I wanted to ask you another question. Underlying a lot of what you write seems to be a fear that a woman’s independence will render men obsolete. What would it do to your seemingly narrow definition of “a man“ to admit that some women may want and seek out, but don’t need, a man’s love and not all women want it? I cringed (to put it mildly) at your assertion that a woman can be alone “if the need arises” but risks becoming “angry, skeptical, bitter and more masculine.” 🙄 You’ve essentially been alone during your wife’s crisis. What if we flipped your statement around to say that men can be alone if they have to be, if the need arises, but they then present as weaker and more feminine (i.e. less desirable to women who need a “man’s” love).  Probably doesn’t quite sound so innocuous now, does it?

Lastly, in my definition, love is supposed to be given freely and absolutely without ANY expectation. If it’s sincere, it doesn’t even have to be returned… hell, it doesn’t even have to be acknowledged. It doesn’t hinge on a reciprocal relationship. The words “need” and “love” together in the way you’re describing can be a recipe for disastrous codependency in the form of ceding responsibility for ourselves onto another.

[Treasur]

I’m going to try to avoid being drawn into the more specific issue here as others have made the points I would have made with more clarity.

What I will say is that what occurred to me, SS and other male LBS here toying with the gender pov, is that you may be failing to read the room appropriately.

Most LBS women here - by the nature of the forum - were, at best, finding themselves in a situation where their spouse (often but not always male) abandoned them, their children and the adult responsibilities that come with a shared life. At best. At worst, they were threatened, stolen from, abused and placed at risk with their health and basic survival. Given that, it is understandable that the ‘appeal’ of a ‘man’s love’ might rather lose its’ lustre for some of us women, no? And that independence, even with a side order of ‘masculine’ or ‘bitterness’, might feel like the only way to ensure one’s future safety…..

Most LBS tbh find themselves in a situation where, whatever the specific implicit and explicit nature of their individual relationship/marital ‘deal’ was, the other person unilaterally and rather spectacularly reneged on that deal. It is normal and perhaps rather sane to find oneself musing on whether that kind of ‘deal’ served you as well as you once thought it did, or if you should tackle your future - whatever that looks like - with a different set of operating principles.

It is not always so, of course, but I find it just as interesting to turn the question around and wonder why so many men behave with such a sense of entitlement and so little care and concern and respect towards the women and children in their lives. How did this become seemingly acceptable for so many men? Why do other men collude with it or accept it? Why do we women? But I would not presume to hold you responsible for explaining the behaviour of these kinds of men just bc you share their biological gender…..

If nothing else, MLC behaviour does seem to be an equal opportunity s$itshow! And there is perhaps a great danger in trying to compare MLC type apples with more typical and normal non-MLC pears, regardless of gender or sexual preference.

[Standing Strong]

Most LBS women here - by the nature of the forum - were, at best, finding themselves in a situation where their spouse (often but not always male) abandoned them, their children and the adult responsibilities that come with a shared life. At best. At worst, they were threatened, stolen from, abused and placed at risk with their health and basic survival. Given that, it is understandable that the ‘appeal’ of a ‘man’s love’ might rather lose its’ lustre for some of us women, no? And that independence, even with a side order of ‘masculine’ or ‘bitterness’, might feel like the only way to ensure one’s future safety…..

Most LBS tbh find themselves in a situation where, whatever the specific implicit and explicit nature of their individual relationship/marital ‘deal’ was, the other person unilaterally and rather spectacularly reneged on that deal. It is normal and perhaps rather sane to find oneself musing on whether that kind of ‘deal’ served you as well as you once thought it did, or if you should tackle your future - whatever that looks like - with a different set of operating principles.

Precisely T...... you just said what I did in different and more eloquent words 
I very much enjoy you perspective..... very perceptive.

THIS (imo) is one of the things which is so important, and yet difficult for LBS - the nature of the damage and the person that comes out the other end (the LBS that is). If we can talk about that, and understand it, then it will lose it's power and we can identify and adjust ourselves.
I think a good question is: What is the expected change in an LBS?  I mean we have potentials, both positive and negative traits we an acquire from this experience. Some would say that complete self-reliance is the optimal and necessary result. Many go this route, and it is understandable and probably natural. I would question this. Not to pick on one sex or the other, this appears to be slanting toward female, so I will question that side first. 
What is the "optimal" state of a woman? Following damage such as MLC, what can we expect a woman to "snap back" to? I think that's as valid a question as the question of what should be expected of a man to become following a W's MLC. I know for a man (me at least) the expectation is to burn out weakness and become more masculine: Increase strength on all fronts, increase leadership, increase vision...... move forward..... all while not picking up self-serving weakness of hardened heart, mistrust, closed emotions, withdrawing, hiding, blaming, or even anger. In essence: developing what makes a man, a man. That's what's important. Optimal and optimized. Life continues in such a situation. If we flip this to women, then what is the answer?

Back to women..... what is the adjusted "operating principles" following the damage of MLC, and the nature of the disillusionment and lack of safety of receiving love from a man? I think this is very important, and it does a disservice to not understand the dynamic so that woman can understand and undo (if desired) the changes which happen or are tempted to happen. Lot of questions about this, and while the questions are undoubtedly painful, is retreating into oneself, strength or avoidance? I only want good things for people, and I think that hurt people, damaged people, can only heal by looking at themselves. We ask this of the MLC'er, how is it we doesn't do this to ourselves? That the damage was undeserved, unfair and unwillingly inflicted doesn't undo that it exists.

I could be wrong, but isn't the point that all LBS should return to a state that existed before MLC, just better and improved? This is what is hoped for from the MLC'er and therefor due to mirroring, is also demanded of us?
The healing and removal of damage should produce a restored (and enhanced) feminine woman, just as it should produce a restored (and enhanced) masculine man. What examples do we have of restored MR's post MLC without this happening? I don't know of any, but maybe I've missed something. What I have noticed is that the ones that do seem to share a commonality that the person becomes stronger, more developed, and assertive within their gender role. If that is true: why? Of course we will get the response of "The MR doesn't matter anymore, nor is it desired", but that's a whole different can of worms.   
I think that asking questions is necessary, and key. Knowledge and wisdom resides there (and pain too).

Since the conversation hit a tender spot with "the love of a man", why is that? I said that I believe that once a woman shuns, rejects or abandons this, that something happens....... (I believe) something rather irreversible (at least to some degree) and can't be generally undone. Is this true? I think it is. The needed vulnerability and lack of safety is very unsavory. I get that. Something I have learned is that there is no reward without exposure. You could call it risk, but I think exposure is much more fitting. This is the opposite of safety, therefor, are woman less likely due to need of safety to take this step? I think so. Thus men are blessed in this regard... and it shows in the higher remarriage rates of men.   
 
The same mistrust and unwillingness of course can also happen in men, it isn't exclusive..... but should it be warned? If you, or me, or them, examines what they were before and what they become after, can we say it is all good? If the answer is no, then it is our responsibility to heal and discard the bad while retaining the good. The good of coming thru this MLC nightmare is priceless (IMO) but that would also mean that the potential bad is equally as powerful if allowed.
 
In a woman, maybe she is happy being in a changed and less trustful state..... maybe some think that is progress or strength.... but I really question that.
Similarly, I know many men who after a D (non-MLC) who themselves are mistrustful of women following such an event (and presumably some or many LBS men go thru the same - certainly we've seen expressions indicating that on this board). So what is the solution? In both I would question if the identification of what can happen with our thoughts and emotions, and allowing choice before-hand to override what could be..... instead of allowing an out of control process to dictate the outcome.
Conversely, for those who already have an outcome, and are struggling with something beyond their ability to change, understand, or affect.... then understanding what happened to them, and to undo those knots, not to stay where they are, but to return to what they were.... is that not our journey as mirror?     

Ohhhhh I love these conversations..... the deep, deep things..... the inner workings of people. 

Gotta ask questions of the other now.....

-SS     

[Standing Strong]

“Of course the core problem with all this is the one need every woman has until it is shunned, rejected and abandoned: A man's love, which can't be replicated, replaced or emulated.”


Unlike Song, I don’t think the above statement “seems“ to discount same-sex marriage, I believe it absolutely 100% discounts anything beyond a narrow view of relationship that occurs between a woman and a man slotted into strict (antiquated) definitions of gender roles.
Leaving a side the fact that there really is not such a huge difference between men and women, what is it specifically about a man’s love that you think is so supreme that it is essential to *every* women’s true happiness and cannot be replicated, replaced or emulated? And why do you keep insisting *all* women are the same, think the same, feel the same and have the same needs, as if we all fell off an assembly line? And do you think that the women on this forum who are in same-sex marriages experienced a lesser version of “love”? 🤔

But beyond that, I wanted to ask you another question. Underlying a lot of what you write seems to be a fear that a woman’s independence will render men obsolete. What would it do to your seemingly narrow definition of “a man“ to admit that some women may want and seek out, but don’t need, a man’s love and not all women want it? I cringed (to put it mildly) at your assertion that a woman can be alone “if the need arises” but risks becoming “angry, skeptical, bitter and more masculine.” 🙄 You’ve essentially been alone during your wife’s crisis. What if we flipped your statement around to say that men can be alone if they have to be, if the need arises, but they then present as weaker and more feminine (i.e. less desirable to women who need a “man’s” love).  Probably doesn’t quite sound so innocuous now, does it?

Lastly, in my definition, love is supposed to be given freely and absolutely without ANY expectation. If it’s sincere, it doesn’t even have to be returned… hell, it doesn’t even have to be acknowledged. It doesn’t hinge on a reciprocal relationship. The words “need” and “love” together in the way you’re describing can be a recipe for disastrous codependency in the form of ceding responsibility for ourselves onto another.

Ohhh NAS  How I greatly enjoy you. 

Same-Sex marriage: Why does that matter? Why would you call man-woman "narrow"? It isn't. The most recent I've seen says there are 68 million married couples in the USA, and 700k married same sex couples. So roughly 1%. That isn't to minimize that population, it is the acknowledgement that different dynamics exist within it - and to say otherwise (IMO) would do them a disservice. No, it must be in it's own bucket if you are to understand it. It is a separate issue.

So why insist that a woman needs/wants a man's love? Great question. So if we were to go back in time, in your life (or maybe some other woman's life) 12, 13, 16.... something. Were you crazy about guys? Sure you were. I've never met a girl who wasn't.... some more than others, but a defining characteristic of a girl/woman is that. Can it change? Sure. If we are to examine what changes so a woman no longer desires that..... what is behind that change? Life experience? Needs? Desire? Social conditioning? Instruction? Let's strip all that away for a moment and ask "without damage, without social engineering, without disappointment..... what would NAS (or some other woman) be like today? Let's say you fell madly in love, and he was good to you.... someone who didn't let you down, someone who didn't hurt you, and someone who was worthy of admiration and respect..... an idealized man..... what would that be like? Sure this is fantasy, but absent everything that would push you away from that theoretical fantasy ideal (and absent your current perception and preconditions), what would NAS (or some other woman) be like today? And would she be happy? I know "what-if's" are a nebulous thing, but in this case it would answer something even if you don't like (or reject) it. A significant portion of the women who come here thought they had an idealized MR which was only interrupted by MLC.... and they want what they had before back. Why is this? Can you say these R's were dysfunctional? Or just a ticking timebomb from an internally wrecked person? Absent the wreckage, what would their life have been like? Happy and full? Many have pointed to this exact expectation. So what is true? Were they co-dependent and flawed all along, and MLC opened their eyes to the truth that marriage itself produces co-dependency and weakness? No, of course not. Marriage by it's nature is the blending of two, something less than that is a partnership. Damage in the marriage produces a triggered response and deep emotional wounds due to the nature of the union and the assumed concept of safety therein.       

So the thing about flipping the script: doesn't bother me at all.  You see, men are loner by nature, and we see this in nature (in animals). Think about what comes to mind when someone says "hermit". Do you think of a female hermit? Of course not. The need for social interaction is different between men and women. How many women come here? How many men? And yes, men are far more likely to not meet whatever standard and thus be rejected by women.... but that isn't anything new to men either. When you were young, did lots of guys chase you? Of course they did. Now, flip the script: did you chase as many different guys as guys chased you? Of course not. Why? Selectivity of woman is different than the selectivity of men....... and this changes over time. I've heard woman talk about needing to be chosen until they realize that they choose.... and they're right. Men don't choose, women do: and it's always been that way. So when you say about flipping the script, and a man not being attractive: men are used to that. It's nothing new. Men attempt to be attractive, or they throw up their hands and stop trying. Happens in EVERY age group of men.

Ohhh, your last one (did I mention how much I enjoy you NAS? You are a thinker, and I like that).
Love..... HA!!! What kind of love? There are seven after all.
I guess some are free, but that's not what we are talking about is it?
Eros is what most think about when talking about love..... and it's highly conditional..... wouldn't you say? I mean, we're all here right? 

-SS

[Standing Strong]

I personally represent the 180 degree position to your worldview. I do not in any way see men or women as fundamentally "different." Rather I see both men and women indoctrinated and repeating the same cultural and societal roles that are thought and reinforced from a young age. Even the ideals of "masculine" and "feminine" are constructs. Psychologically what do you think is "masculine' or "feminine?"

If you understand we all have the exact same traits, pathways and forces it become more clear that there are variations in the individual. Then if you realize that when we keep reinforcing the same messages, signals and stories from birth by an early age we set these beliefs as if they are "truths." Look through out human history and across many cultures, not just the western Judeo-Christian one and you may see that some beliefs are not as universal as one thinks.

I will say that I see men mostly suffer from being told they are the ones in "charge," they are supposed to not be in touch with their emotions and some of their needs, that they must be "tough" whatever that means. And now men are also starting to suffer from body dysmorphia (a wonderful curse that we used to only reserve for women).

Sometimes you have to look outside the box to see the full picture. MLC is a personality crises, I personally think only reason we see any difference between men and women in MLC is because of all the hardened/damaged structures that are there due to "gender norms" before MLC.

edit: I cross posted with Songanddance's post which says some things better than mine. I missed the part about needing a "man's love." i would say one of the most important things I learned from this terrible experience was to NOT place my own needs and care into any other person or relationship, regardless of whether it is a marriage, a friendship etc.

Yes, I agree.... you and I are 180 degrees different from one another.  HA!!!
It doesn't matter if there are social constructs or not, what matters is the wiring and the hardware.
If someone were to say there is no difference, then they are blind.

Testes don't produce the same output as Ovaries..... not in hormone, nor in cell.
The effect on the body and mind is radically different, thus no social construct is going to overcome that. We are what we are.
Understanding the existing difference is important, and while it is difficult for one to understand the other - it is possible.

As for culture.... culture is not a bad thing. It exists for a purpose, and has brought us to where we are now. To seek the destruction/change of a culture is a culture of it's own. All thru history we see the warring of cultures, and most are extinct. I think it takes wisdom to see the good in a culture, appreciate what it has inside it, and requires lots of effort to preserve it. The question is "is it worth preserving?". In the end, it is the choice of a people to accept and live by the norms of a culture. When you have disruption inside a culture, then you have chaos..... and then you have to choose what has more value: old or new. The ideals of a people define who they are, and if they can continue together. Historically, people ununified by a culture are unable to continue as a group - and we see that today. It doesn't matter what other cultures have, don't have, or what their norms are. The Aztecs existed, the Mayans existed.... and now they don't. Did they have value? Who knows. Western culture (and whatever is trying to come out of it) will either succeed or fail. The funny thing about different cultures and it's effect on people is that they can't co-exist. Cultures (and their resulting dominant thought) are exclusive.

-SS 

[marvin4242]

If someone were to say there is no difference, then they are blind.

Well I have been called many choice words over the year but blind, uneducated, or simplistic have never been among them! 🙂

One of the current failures in western civilization is the confusion by many between opinion and fact/knowledge. We (as in the scientific community) have a great deal of verifiable information. We understand much better the roles of hormones, reproductive organs and we understand much better how the human mind works.  My comments were served from this collective knowledge, not opinion or belief handed down by others.

Culture tends to sometimes adapt and catch up to knowledge, and sometimes remains stuck in past ignorance. I for one prefer a culture that has empathy, understanding, care and tolerance. So as a member of my culture I try to promote these traits rather than harming others in the name of tradition and belief. What I am saying is we create our culture, so we can choose whether it is harmful or not.

I will echo others in saying diminishing of people by statistics or implied negation is harmful. To create false strict narratives of gender has and is very harmful. Remember women were considered not much more than property even recently and are still viewed that way by some “cultures” to this day. Sometimes it is very hard to see a truth if we don’t let go of our narrow lens.

[JohnnyBravo]

One of the current failures in western civilization is the confusion by many between opinion and fact/knowledge. We (as in the scientific community) have a great deal of verifiable information. We understand much better the roles of hormones, reproductive organs and we understand much better how the human mind works.  My comments were served from this collective knowledge, not opinion or belief handed down by others.

I will echo others in saying diminishing of people by statistics or implied negation is harmful.

Soooooooo.... Reducing people to statistics is bad, but reducing them to a series of hormonal/chemical reactions is good? Statistics are never used in science? Science is never clouded by opinion?

[marvin4242]

One of the current failures in western civilization is the confusion by many between opinion and fact/knowledge. We (as in the scientific community) have a great deal of verifiable information. We understand much better the roles of hormones, reproductive organs and we understand much better how the human mind works.  My comments were served from this collective knowledge, not opinion or belief handed down by others.

I will echo others in saying diminishing of people by statistics or implied negation is harmful.

Soooooooo.... Reducing people to statistics is bad, but reducing them to a series of hormonal/chemical reactions is good? Statistics are never used in science? Science is never clouded by opinion?

Hi JB

I am confused how am I reducing people To hormonal/chemical reactions? My point was the opposite.

A very common misunderstanding is that science by nature is designed to eliminate opinion, so yes science in the long arc always eliminates bias and opinion.

And using statistics is not the same thing as reducing people to statistics. Other posters pointed out that not all relationships were male/female and the response was something about how many people fall into this catagory. Is that not reductionistic?

[Treasur]

I’m a bit lost now on what Standing is actually asking…..or is it just me? 
Are you asking a more general question - perhaps paraphrased as ‘what do mature women actually want from men as romantic partners?’. Or is there an underlying more specific one which is a bit more like ‘what might my MLC wife want if she were to want me post-MLC?’ Or something else?

I’ve found though that this thread discussion has tickled along in the back of mind, for good or ill, so it’s obviously scratched some kind of personal itch. And I have been trying to work out personally what that itch might be about….

I think most of my most honest answers to any of your questions, Standing, would be some mix of ‘it varies’ and ‘I don’t know’. I’m not sure, as I said, quite what you’re asking or indeed what you are looking for by asking.

What I do know, I think, is that this life experience turned a lot of my previous beliefs and assumptions on their head. I was no longer comfortably able to believe a lot of the things I had believed before bc the reality in front of my nose challenged them. Beliefs about myself, my life, my marriage, my h, other people, about how the world seemed to work. And that was sometimes a rather unpleasant thing to work through. Even a bit frightening sometimes tbh. And there are a lot of things floating around in our collective zeitgeist at the moment which can also cause one to pull up sharply and pause to consider anew one’s own opinions and beliefs, particularly if others’ opinions and beliefs seem to be at odds with one’s own.

What I see in some of your posts is a drift towards questions hooked on things you seem to believe…that ‘men are designed to do x’ or young girls all look for y’ or ‘women of a certain age say z’. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions…..but there is perhaps a risk in navigating the MLC experience second-hand of cleaving too firmly to some beliefs as facts when life gets upended?

I also think there is a real danger inherent in comparing the wants/needs of MLC types against a notional norm, regardless of gender. MLC types, anecdotally, seem to have some common characteristics among the differences….a kind of deep inarticulate rage, a pattern of avoidance, a weird kind of self-obsessed entitlement and a sometimes quite shocking disregard for the effects of their behaviours on others. Most LBS here, of either gender, based on our posted words seem to share some deep-seated beliefs about loyalty, marriage vows, family and perhaps a tendency to over-function and hold themselves responsible when others don’t. I suspect this is not a coincidence….

I have no more emotional comprehension of how my former h could have done some of the things he did now than I did years ago. But the experience HAS changed my perspective on marriage and intimacy bc the cost to me was almost unsurvivably high. If you had asked me before, my answers would have been different bc I really liked my husband and I liked the marriage and life we had constructed together. I have known a lot of good men in my lifetime so I don’t think my current rather jaded perspective on the role of men in my own current and future life is about men….but I think it would be honest to say that this life experience broke something in me, flipped a switch off somehow that I have not yet found a way to reboot. Or even tbh much of a desire to turn the machine off and on again lol. So it’s about me. I find that a bit sad, maybe even a bit of a waste, bc I think as objectively as I can that I was a pretty good partner and I enjoyed most of being one. It just feels like a foreign country now where things were done differently.

I think what I valued most about the man in my life then were two things….a feeling that I was part of a team where someone would do their best with good intent on good days and bad. And a feeling of being held in deep regard, of being uniquely special, being treasured in all my imperfections such as they are. The first requires things like courage and honesty, words and actions matching. The second requires a kind of empathy and caring enough to look and listen, I think. And I do miss having those things in my life, that’s true. But I honestly believed - and took thousands of big and small actions over decades - that I had chosen to marry someone who valued my uniqueness enough to never intentionally cause me profound harm. And it turned out I was wrong about that.

I am still touched when I see signs of that kind of deep care and regard in others’ relationships. It is a treasure beyond words, I think….so some bit of the old me’s wants/needs must still be there. And I try to let that spirit infect other relationships I have with other humans even now….to be generous and respectful and as open-hearted as I can be, But the risk/reward balance, for me, is quite different after this life experience and the cost feels quite disproportionate to any of my failings as a human or a wife.

So today my answers to some of your questions would be rather different sadly. I think Margaret Atwood, the author, once said that men fear most that women will laugh at them….and women fear most that men will kill them. (Physically or metaphorically, I’m not sure which Atwood meant, maybe both.) For any women who has survived that kind of experience, that feeling of obliteration, I suspect that safety shades the lens on the perceived value of men close up in one’s life…….and one’s desire to construct parts of one’s life on them as part of a foundation is a more cautious one maybe. So, if you are a mature man looking to build a relationship with a mature women, I guess there are some differences depending on the prior experience of the women. And vice versa perhaps? And in that situation, the statistics and gender norms seem to me to be rather less telling than the deeply personal and individual perspectives. And an MLC wife? Yup, I got nothing 

[Nas]

I’m a bit lost now on what Standing is actually asking…..or is it just me? 


Same, I’m unclear what question is being asked at this point, but I picked out two points to highlight.

***

So if we were to go back in time, in your life (or maybe some other woman's life) 12, 13, 16.... something. Were you crazy about guys? Sure you were. I've never met a girl who wasn't.... some more than others, but a defining characteristic of a girl/woman is that. Can it change? Sure. If we are to examine what changes so a woman no longer desires that..... what is behind that change? Life experience? Needs? Desire? Social conditioning? Instruction? Let's strip all that away for a moment and ask "without damage, without social engineering, without disappointment..... what would NAS (or some other woman) be like today?

Your question as stated is asking me what would I (I can’t answer for any other woman) be today if, between the age of 12 and now, I hadn’t *lived a life*? I guess I’d be …I don’t know, dead? 🤷‍♀️
When I was 12 I had not lived life. Of course I viewed “boys” and “love” differently. There would be something seriously wrong if I never evolved or learned anything new and still viewed things the same way I did as a child or as a teenager, or even in my twenties or thirties. What you are calling damage, social engineering and disappointment is literally just the trajectory of “real life,” which includes growing up, embracing or rejecting beliefs, emotional growth and maturity, learning from mistakes. I have only ever lived in the real world, where the difficulties and disappointments of life have contributed in part to how I approach situations and relationships. Name me a person in middle age who isn’t shaped by their past experiences.

***

Let's say you fell madly in love, and he was good to you.... someone who didn't let you down, someone who didn't hurt you, and someone who was worthy of admiration and respect..... an idealized man.....


No one is the ideal person. So if I am idealizing him, it’s unhealthy, and I’m unhealthy and delusional. So this is a nonstarter for me. We can project whatever we want onto another but they can never be everything to us. I don’t deal in fairytales or fantasy. Whether or not I would be happy with this hypothetical Rick Astley you describe is a moot point because if I’m placing responsibility for my happiness on him, I’m already in trouble and so is he. In fact, he should RUN from this fictional scenario, and if he’s not self-aware and emotionally intelligent enough to run from it, he’s definitely not a good fit for me.

SS, I personally think you also do yourself a disservice when you rigidly assume that every man or woman you meet is this way or that way, because they must be because they are a man or a woman and this or that is how ALL men and ALL women think and feel. You miss out on really getting to know people on a deeper level. You make multiple assumptions in your posts and leave no room for the possibility that you might be wrong. Imagine how many people you know only your assumed version of that is potentially incorrect in multiple ways.

[readytofixmyselffirst]

Hello,

I think we could spend a lot of time on this statement:

No one is the ideal person. So if I am idealizing him, it’s unhealthy, and I’m unhealthy and delusional. So this is a nonstarter for me. We can project whatever we want onto another but they can never be everything to us. I don’t deal in fairytales or fantasy.

Yet, our MLCers often fall into this trap. Why do they see the alienator as the ideal person and everyone else sees a living trainwreck? My ex swore up and down that OM was perfect until he wasn't. If we see the inherent fallacies of falling for the perfect person, why do we even contemplate the existence of such a person?

Marvin noted our culture and society has created roles for men and women and the commercialization of our world has created an unhealthy appetite not only for products, but having the newest and greatest things ever. Even our social networks are filled with images of perfection. It all puts us in some hyper state to match.  In many ways, I liken it to the slot machines as you walk out on the floor in Vegas. You can hear the machines going off, coins dropping into trays and it seems everyone is winning. You just want to rush to your room, drop off your bags, and get out on the floor before all the money is gone. It's all fantasy and the casino is the one that makes the money, every hour, every day, every month, and every year. Yes, casinos go broke, but that is from the huge operational costs of the entire operation- not winnings going out the door.

So Nas, I would go one step further that not only are we sold the false notion of having the ideal mate, but having the ideal life. My feeling is that part of the identity crisis of the MLCer is that, how they are currently constituted is wrong, and through drastic change, they can be back on the path to an ideal life.

Let's say you fell madly in love, and he was good to you....

Once again, my opinion- no facts involved, that all of MLC is about feelings. Depression is being devoid of all feelings. MLC and depression seem intertwined.  So, its not about sex, its about feeling sexy, and it is not about love, but feeling in love again. The MLCer even recognizes it, but like any other drug addict, they cling to it. "I know she/he is a mess, but it's how she/he makes me feel."

From my own perspective from these well written words, I took my own mantra, "Ready, you'll never have the ideal wife or life, and you are not that ideal either,  just appreciate and love what you have."

Sometimes when you read the words of others, it can take you off the high horse you may find yourself sitting on.

There is also a lot of gold in this statement:

I think what I valued most about the man in my life then were two things….a feeling that I was part of a team where someone would do their best with good intent on good days and bad. And a feeling of being held in deep regard, of being uniquely special, being treasured in all my imperfections such as they are. The first requires things like courage and honesty, words and actions matching. The second requires a kind of empathy and caring enough to look and listen, I think. And I do miss having those things in my life, that’s true. But I honestly believed - and took thousands of big and small actions over decades - that I had chosen to marry someone who valued my uniqueness enough to never intentionally cause me profound harm. And it turned out I was wrong about that.

I believe the same. It is not about the ideal, it is loving the imperfections and realizing that we loved them despite their flaws and they loved us back despite all of our flaws. After years, I have come to accept that my exe's actions were not about me or our marriage. My ex now talks to me like we were long lost buddies. Tells our kids I was a great father and husband.

My gut feeling is that your h didn't give up on you, he gave up on himself.

Have an awesome day,

(((Ready)))

[Curiosity]

This is such an interesting discussion. On the one hand, sure, people born biologically female will tend to produce larger amounts of estrogen and progesterone than testosterone, and the reverse will be true for those born biologically male. But it’s not all or nothing. And it’s not really even binary - there are people whose sex chromosomes are something other than XX or XY, but even within those two groups, there are wide variations in absolute hormone levels. And then there is the social construct of gender, often conflated with (or at least overlaid on) biological sex. What all of this means to me is that it’s far too complex a subject to ever be able to pigeonhole all people into one of two groups.

There are nuances to gender, and there are individual variations in our personality traits that are based on a combination of our biology, our environment, and our psyche. I can be a nurturer and a loner and a leader; I can be a breadwinner or a homemaker (though realistically, most of us take on both of these roles). Much like hormones can exist and cycle to varying degrees in all people, personality traits can exist to varying degrees in anyone (and can change over the course of a lifetime). Society has decided that certain traits are masculine and certain traits are feminine, but humanity isn’t anywhere near that simple. There probably are some aspects of our personalities that are affected by our biology, and by the way our biology changes over the course of a month as well as the way our biology changes over a lifetime. But the labeling of our traits as inherently feminine or masculine is, I think, an oversimplification… albeit an oversimplification that is hammered into our minds from every direction from the moment of birth (and in some ways, even before birth).