[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