[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.