# Men: The curious case of connecting with them emotionally



## DonDuhDon (Dec 22, 2016)

pomPOM said:


> if he were to be decent he would have to write his own self-help book of ''how to heal from the aftereffects of sub-atomic's intimacy issues'' and give it as a ''ok, you can leave now'' farewell gift.


I'm very generous and "loving" (yuck) thus making me decent but once the girl messes up too many times then it's a dub. You can't fix something that's not broken, you move on.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Sub_Atomic said:


> No, not scared, just don't want to crash with the fighter jet. Because what do you do when your fighter jet gets hit? You eject.


I think the idea is you work through the shit together. Then you don't need to crash.

But who knows.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Sub_Atomic said:


> I'm very generous and "loving" (yuck) thus making me decent but once the girl messes up too many times then it's a dub. You can't fix something that's not broken, you move on.


Fair one. And if you don't move on. The girl knows you have no backbone and you become Matt as in door matt.


----------



## DonDuhDon (Dec 22, 2016)

Reality Check said:


> I think the idea is you work through the shit together. Then you don't need to crash.
> 
> But who knows.


 The thing is, it's easy to get my heart but it's hard to gain my trust. Once that trust is broken there's no working things out, it will be a never ending cycle of investigation. I always give pre-cautions and a blue-print for how I must be maintained throughout the relationship.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Sub_Atomic said:


> The thing is, it's easy to get my heart but it's hard to gain my trust. Once that trust is broken there's no working things out, it will be a never ending cycle of investigation. I always give pre-cautions and a blue-print for how I must be maintained throughout the relationship.


Fair point. I'm the same, it takes a while to earn my trust. But once its gone its gone. And I'm quite open about my boundaries. I generally go by a 3 strike rule. 

Its like getting a piece of paper. Crumpling it up. Then ironing it flat again. It just aint the same.
Also buying new vase is easier the gluing a smashed one back together.


----------



## DonDuhDon (Dec 22, 2016)

Reality Check said:


> Fair point. I'm the same, it takes a while to earn my trust. But once its gone its gone. And I'm quite open about my boundaries. I generally go by a 3 strike rule.
> 
> Its like getting a piece of paper. Crumpling it up. Then ironing it flat again. It just aint the same.
> Also buying new vase is easier the gluing a smashed one back together.


 Exactly.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

I actually have talent to emotionally connect with men if im just serious about it.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

pomPOM your post was interesting and also enjoyable. Refering to your post:

War and mafia movies can approach life in interesting useful ways (without talking about violence) as how to choose a wife, a friend, and build a family. There are golden lines on war and mafia movies worth taking in count for education. It is interesting the kind of bonds people can create during some experiences and having some people with relationships for years failing to create. My take on this (how to relate with women and men on relationships) is, many times people talk about protecting the woman. OK I agree, but many times it's not even considered if the woman should fight along the guy against the contradiction, it has become more an "always protect", and this breaks the bonds. I'm getting into trouble here probably if I fail to explain this, but many times when the guy dies or whatever and he is not there, the women must face such same situations and learn "she could do it!" and also how it feels to be there and then wonder "that's how this guy felt!", when you discover this after years and needing the other person not to be there... you are lacking emotional connection whatever your gender is (my opinion).

Yes loyalty is a complex topic. I don't have at this moment ways to express what I'm thinking on this. But yes a lot of people confuse it with being faithful. And you hit the nail on how people can not only misunderstand loyalty, but actually manipulate the other person in their favor, I also agree on your example not being the way people should act. Let's consider a common situation in my region: women will cause most debt in the relationship, then consider the guys responsibility to take care, this lacks not only responsibility but loyalty because it's dragging someone to the ground, and this will not be taken in count when the couple breaks (again lacking loyalty). Again, I agree with you (I'm refering to your post paragraph by paragraph, in order).

The following is tricky, complex.
* Yeah, unfortunately, and weirdly, that is the case. I wonder why though. Do you think this may be because women in general tend to try and bond through emotional matters while men more so on intellectual? Meaning - women through what they have emotions over and men through what interests them intellectually.*
There is the emotional bold, ok, and many men complain about their wives or GFs not actually showing any care on things that cause worries. But there is also the INVASION, not precisely about forcing a connection, but invading, as in the classic example of men complaining about the "and so, what are you thinking?", emotional connections involve an invitation and being vulnerable, not just "hey I Want to see, test and feel what you feel, open up, open up". 


Loyalty (I have an idea). There are far more examples in my region where, after the relationship fails, the woman approaches the guy for help (and gets it) than the other way around. So, you can be lovers but then not even friends?

* The thing is sometimes I just wanna be held and not feel alone, physically. Like there physically is someone standing behind me through whatever is happening. I tend to have difficulty accepting emotional advices tbh, unless I have asked for them specifically, myself. Otherwise they feel intruding and like assuming I don't know myself. 
*I think it's ok, and we all need that many times or some times. And I also get a HUGE positive idea on you being able to consider other people ideas. Many often think "Oh I'm not agreeing", one doesn't have to agree to consider other people ideas, it's about being mentally open and accepting the fact other people exist and think.

and yes totally agree on that too (gender), many women can fit many things we have talked about men. Nice thread.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Reality Check said:


> I disagree, the world does not need to know and it is none of the business of a lot of people. Me personally opening up to someone, is a sign of trust, comfort and interest.
> 
> If I told the whole world, it would lose its value. Opening up is reserved for certain people.
> 
> ...


What is "opening up"? 
It's that ideal I can't grasp. Rather than keeping tabs on "trust", "comfort", "interest" I primarily use "benefit in the moment" (it's only way I can describe it, no idea if it makes sense).

Lets take my bisexuality as an example. I have no need to hide it, deny it or present it. I can unknowingly create "weirdness" if the topic comes up in a social situation. To me peoples sexuality is nothing special at all, so when everyone assumes I'm straight...


----------



## ECM (Apr 8, 2015)

I'm not like stereotypical guys where people find it hard to emotionally connect or to be open. I'm a pretty open book, I have nothing to hide. Everyone knows who I am, my personality etc. 

And I'm very emotionally open too. I have never seen reason not to be. I can openly connect to just about anyone really. I don't need some "trust level" to do that, because I feel have nothing to keep secret anyway. 

I do not feel emotionally vulnerable nor closed off. I don't mind people coming to me for comfort, nor do I feel ashamed of going to others. 

In a relationship I feel it's simply important to be able to share everything with each other and to be honest.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

pwowq said:


> What is "opening up"?
> It's that ideal I can't grasp. Rather than keeping tabs on "trust", "comfort", "interest" I primarily use "benefit in the moment" (it's only way I can describe it, no idea if it makes sense).
> 
> Lets take my bisexuality as an example. I have no need to hide it, deny it or present it. I can unknowingly create "weirdness" if the topic comes up in a social situation. To me peoples sexuality is nothing special at all, so when everyone assumes I'm straight...


What is "Opening Up". Its when I start talking about past experiences and emotions and stuff. The walls come down.

However a person needs to be special to me for this to happen.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Reality Check said:


> What is "Opening Up". Its when I start talking about past experiences and emotions and stuff. The walls come down.
> 
> However a person needs to be special to me for this to happen.


I can tell anything to anyone who leaves enough space for someone else to say something. The problem is that people cannot take it. They fear being honest or you say a little too much, for any reason, with the result that they place you in the looney bin folder of their social circle. 

Sympathies or concerns or the like are very much disliked. You rarely meet someone you can hold an honest conversation with.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Perso Uno said:


> Honestly, it sounds like you just like the drama. That 'emotional roller-coaster' as some circles call it. A lot of people do, but I'm not that way. I'm not looking to get into emotional fights or anything of the sort, I'm just looking for that solid understanding that comes from having walked in someone else's shoes.


Well, I can see what would make you assume that but I'm actually pretty sure it's not the case (and I'm not being delusional about this). I actually really hate being part of drama, chaos or conflict. Enneagram 9w8. Observing it - fine. Being part of it - reallly, uncomfortable with it. 
Why I mentioned that after having fought immensely I felt like we could connect through the pain that came from it is because the ex I was referencing was actually an 8w9 and the one always stirring shit up. It came to a point where I could be so easily triggered by his stirring and conflicts that I would immediately turn to my 8 wing and start a power struggle, and while a nice little conflict avoidant cutesy pie on a regular basis, after i've been triggered I am seriously almost impossible to stop - until I feel like the opponent is in a way destroyed. So I would fight him until he would give up and crush into vulnerability. And that vulnerability and defeat, that FINALLY peace is what made me feel connected with him. 

But other than that I still agree with you - there is a quiet knowing of what the other may be feeling if you 2 have had similar painful experiences. It's a connection where words are not necessary.



> And honestly, it's not the vulnerability part that really got to me. That was a contributing factor, yes, but it wasn't the main one. It was the amount of effort that I had put into that day, the emotional investment that I put into her. I'd never felt that 'spark' before with anyone else and I didn't want to lose it. My not wanting to lose it probably heightened the experience for me quite a bit, I'm assuming. *Then of course there's the effort itself that I did that day and seeing her reaction. *
> 
> It was a lot of little things like that. I credit that moment as the moment that got me, but I certainly didn't realize it that day. It was a combination of different moments that all came together. It's just that one moment that I realized that I could really fall for her but didn't know that I actually had.


The idea of falling for some based on the things that you have done for them, what you have ''given'' and contributed is actually interesting and kinda new to me. I've been quite naive and idealistic, clinging to this belief that if something doesn't happen naturally without much effort, then it is just not ''meant to'' be or is just not real enough. But rationally thinking, if you out effort into someone, you out emotion into someone building a bridge for an emotional bond. Though this does kinda sounds like the usual ''if they are easy to get, then it feels not worth it. it doesn't feel like an accomplishment that we deserve''.



> Actually, feeling vulnerable makes you fall for the other person. You have a moment of weakness and the other person nurtures it, therefore creating a rush of feely goods in your brain. What's more, is after the vulnerable moment, you trust the other person more as a natural after effect of the moment. That makes you more invested in the other person.


PREACH!!!



> I don't think that you should feel silly about it. That's what helps to foster bonds between people. That's why army buddies are among the strongest bonds to possibly form as a man. Because when you're in the shit together, you experience the same powerful emotions as the guy next to you. You're after the same goal; to survive together. Going through an event like that creates incredible emotions that you naturally associate with whoever was there with you and that's what creates bonds between people.
> 
> But, my answer still isn't a 'hell yes' about trusting that instinct more and putting your faith and trust into people to be your hero. People have to earn that right first. But once they have, then yes, *allow someone to be your hero and they will associate those emotions of strength and power with you,* just as I did.


The bolded words are such dating wisdom for women I need to make it a quote (and give it a sunset background).... - by Perso Uno.



> That's what the typical 'nice guy' has trouble with; not having boundaries. And it's a huge issue that you do need to work on. If you don't have any boundaries it means that you don't have self-respect or love yourself. Because if you loved yourself enough you would have those certain lines that absolutely cannot be crossed.


I know. I'm gonna go ahead and blame it on being a 9 of not the highest health levels. TBH it's not even that I consciously decide - ok, I really want to keep this person around so I'm gonna lower my boundaries for them. No. I literally don't feel boundaries. I don't feel what it means either, even if I can rationalize what they would mean, what self-respect means. But when communicating with people I truly barely feel them.
Only lately after reflection I have been able to notice situations in which I would lower my boundaries just for the sake of not disturbing the other person. And I've successfully kept those boundaries up, disturbed the other person and done it with grace! I trusted my instinct of what felt like a move that would NOT make me happy in the long run.
My problem is also that to fill a deep void of meaninglessness that is constantly present in my life, I reach to sources of instant gratification. Keeping in contact with exes who I KNOW in just a moment will hurt me again, but that instant grat feels so good on the souring nothingness that I otherwise live in.
Saying no to these instant goods has also become a learning journey of mine.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

EccentricM said:


> I'm a pretty open book, I have nothing to hide.
> And I'm very emotionally open too.
> I have never seen reason not to be.
> In a relationship I feel it's simply important to be able to share everything with each other and to be honest.


I agree with your entire post and I can relate to it, decided to extract some lines to link it to a situation, where one can be open, share emotions etc but it's not up to you the connection when the other person decides to ignore you or disconnect.

It's a complex story (and long) to make sense that I would like to share but I will save space. Starts with a situation in my family and then discovered like 6 out of 10 men experience the same on theirs. I looked for help, they didn't. As usually people can go into denial and many of them said there was no problem on their wives ignoring what they feel, because at the end if they loose their job or whatever worries them, it's not up to them (the wives) to solve it. 

I was having trouble discussing this topic with such friends and mostly with males in my family (their situation, my PAST situation), so I finally saw the light and said: _*it's not about them solving your problems, it's just that they don't care*_. They don't have to solve it, only if they want to, can and if it's appropriate, but in "your" case your wife is deciding to... totally ignore your concerns and you like a domesticated pet think that's the ideal solution instead of acknowledging a problem. 

That's what I wanted to bring here, when a person be it a man or woman can be open but the other person only sits there hearing, but not listening or connecting.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

changos said:


> pomPOM your post was interesting and also enjoyable. Refering to your post:
> 
> War and mafia movies can approach life in interesting useful ways (without talking about violence) as how to choose a wife, a friend, and build a family. There are golden lines on war and mafia movies worth taking in count for education.


I have a feeling (at least from the few mafia movies I've seen) they also can give at least an idea (if not the closest to truth, still a strong idea) of what strong loyalty is.



> Yes loyalty is a complex topic. I don't have at this moment ways to express what I'm thinking on this. But yes a lot of people confuse it with being faithful. And you hit the nail on how people can not only misunderstand loyalty, but actually manipulate the other person in their favor, I also agree on your example not being the way people should act.


Yeah, I mean, it just seems like for some people ''loyalty'' is a justification for why people should praise them even when they don't deserve praisal. It's like a wall against blame. 



> Let's consider a common situation in my region: women will cause most debt in the relationship, then consider the guys responsibility to take care, this lacks not only responsibility but loyalty because it's dragging someone to the ground, and this will not be taken in count when the couple breaks (again lacking loyalty). Again, I agree with you (I'm refering to your post paragraph by paragraph, in order).


Yeah, again, ''loyalty'' being manipulated into ''you are supposed to support me'' over ''we are loyal to each other so we are a team and make decisions that are best for the both of us''.



> The following is tricky, complex.
> There is the emotional bold, ok, and many men complain about their wives or GFs not actually showing any care on things that cause worries. But there is also the INVASION, not precisely about forcing a connection, but invading, as in the classic example of men complaining about the "and so, what are you thinking?", emotional connections involve an invitation and being vulnerable, not just *"hey I Want to see, test and feel what you feel, open up, open up".*


Bows her head in guilty shame. The ridiculous thing though is that as following the ironic pattern of life, I tend to want to see, test and feel only those who are rather avoidant and not really wanting to be seen at all. And then it goes the other way around where I don't wanna be seen by those who wanna see, test and feel me. But that's already kind of a cliche...



> Loyalty (I have an idea). There are far more examples in my region where, after the relationship fails, the woman approaches the guy for help (and gets it) than the other way around. So, you can be lovers but then not even friends?


I wonder what your region then is, if you mention it often... if you don't mind my asking


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

One thing we rarely see is people considering _*dignity*_. It's like such word doesn't exist anymore. This applies to friendships, relationships, marriages, asking favors, doing favors, being loyal, etc. I understand what you say about loyalty (what people imply but it's actually manipulation). Loyalty won't hurt dignity, it's actually something we don't ask, it's offered. It's something you might win, but it's then offered to you, not a product or coupon people can "use".



pomPOM said:


> The ridiculous thing though is that as following the ironic pattern of life, I tend to want to see, test and feel only those who are rather avoidant and not really wanting to be seen at all. And then it goes the other way around where I don't wanna be seen by those who wanna see, test and feel me. But that's already kind of a cliche...


Emotional connections have a lot to do with intimacy and being vulnerable. It just expose our emotions and mostly the reasons behind our emotions. Can't say much but usually people who are strong, solve their problems, are independent etc, are easier to connect with others while not so easy allowing the connection the other way (in). I believe (just my opinion) that this doesn't matter that much, because over the years we tend to understand and need a connection, and we will not only seek it, but also allow it.



pomPOM said:


> I wonder what your region then is, if you mention it often... if you don't mind my asking


I live in Guatemala (Latin America). The thing with regions is, a lot of things depend on where you live. There is a thread about highly attractive women and if they/how fall in love etc, well my opinion is closely tied on how things are around here. I've seen in other countries women who are like that and go around just like regular citizens. In my region highly attractive women are the center of attention (from both men and women). Brought this up due to the fact that most relationships here (my region) follow a common pattern, so if a guy says "my wife is on huge debt" is actually pretty common, and people often confuse common with normality. Besides, it's very interesting how around here many complain about the men being so abusive machos, while in fact it's very surprising to see the dynamics from close distance and how men are treated (more than often), because despite such fame on machos, rarely... their wives care about their emotions, and many times show little to zero respect.

There was a thread on a spanish (local) forum on what "you" do when you argue with your wife, and 90% of responses go around "you don't do shit, you just go out, take a walk and expect her to forget it..." because it's a shitstorm, and many push on the "just say yes, yes yes yes" to anything they ask.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

BTW, forgot to say, it is very common on forums to say "most cases people do this" and it's real, while people say "bullshit" but it's just a different country, region, etc, both are right (and there is no right to just jump and disqualify other people opinions if things aren't like that where one/you live, or just because people fail to see it).


----------



## ECM (Apr 8, 2015)

> Actually, feeling vulnerable makes you fall for the other person. You have a moment of weakness and the other person nurtures it, therefore creating a rush of feely goods in your brain. What's more, is after the vulnerable moment, you trust the other person more as a natural after effect of the moment. That makes you more invested in the other person.





> That's what the typical 'nice guy' has trouble with; not having boundaries. And it's a huge issue that you do need to work on. If you don't have any boundaries it means that you don't have self-respect or love yourself. Because if you loved yourself enough you would have those certain lines that absolutely cannot be crossed.


I do not relate to this. At all. I would go as far for me personally to call it "BS". 

I have no boundaries with anyone, yet I have self respect. I don't let people take advantage of me or step on me, I just don't have secrets or anything to have a "boundary with". I just won't let a person insult me, disrespect me, attempt to hurt me, either socially or physically. I'm open, yet firm, and I will get rid of you if you act like an asshole or someone I see as unsavoury in accordance to my morals. If that is the case, I just wont talk to you about much in general at all.

My "feely" stuff, comes from an intense love for someone, and them loving me. Me loving who they are greatly, and them feeling the same about me. Appreciating my personality, my quirks, everything about me, and loving it and wanting to be with me because of who I am. That gives me the feels. Not some sort of... "release of secrets". 

The only boundaries I have are physical and sexual ones. Hugging, kissing, sex, admitting all my sexual fetishes, flirtation etc. Other than that... I can't think of any "lines" that only someone I loved could cross. I feel like it's because I'm "secure" enough in myself, brave enough, confidant and self respecting enough to be the polar opposite and to no have secrets and boundaries with people. I wish to be a beacon of truth and honesty, in that I can show people, men especially that it's ok and not "feminine" to be open with people (Cause I think it's BS). 


I have only ever been in good places because of it, as people know me for being open, and thus not a liar, and I gain high trust levels with all individuals I know. Girlfriends included. I feel I must put myself out there, because people need to know what they are getting into in the first place. That's how bad relationships are formed, secrets. You get so far, fall in love, find out something you don't like and fall out.

For me, the things you have to "unlock" in a relationship with me, is the amount of time I spend with you, how much I will personally sacrifice for you and the physical romantic interactions, I don't even "touch" people much on a normal day to day basis unless I am close to them. Most you'll get from me is a handshake. I'm physically rather "formal" with people. If people go to kiss me in a greeting, I do not do so back, I simply have the head to their side xD My lips are purely reserved for a lover. As are my hugs. Sometimes I have hugged in greeting of a friend, but only if they instigated it. My physical interactions are intense and passionate, but also reserved. 

Not to say I'm not animated with my interactions with people, on the contrary I'm very animated and warm in a social interaction. I don't go around just saying stuff about myself, but if it comes up in conversation, I'll just say whatever lol. Not an insecurity or lack of self worth on my part, but rather a sense of "I'm just a person like you, with experiences". I love to be connected to all individuals I interact with in such a way. The world is my family. 

The only secrets I have are ones "others" told me to keep private, or things between me and my lover, that we don't want public, such as things we get up to lol. As well as intimate details about others I know would not be appropriate to share.

(Oh, and my physical writing, I am ashamed of that because I have dysgraphia, so I never write physical letters by hand. So it is also a big sign of trust and love if I sent you a hand written note or letter and let you see my terrible writing xD I experienced such with my ex, where I sent her a letter, despite it looking like a 6 year old wrote it.)


----------



## Perso Uno (Sep 9, 2016)

EccentricM said:


> I do not relate to this. At all. I would go as far for me personally to call it "BS".
> 
> I have no boundaries with anyone, yet I have self respect. I don't let people take advantage of me or step on me, I just don't have secrets or anything to have a "boundary with". I just won't let a person insult me, disrespect me, attempt to hurt me, either socially or physically. I'm open, yet firm, and I will get rid of you if you act like an asshole or someone I see as unsavoury in accordance to my morals. If that is the case, I just wont talk to you about much in general at all.


That is the very definition of a boundary. So you're contradicting yourself here. 



> My "feely" stuff, comes from an intense love for someone, and them loving me. Me loving who they are greatly, and them feeling the same about me. Appreciating my personality, my quirks, everything about me, and loving it and wanting to be with me because of who I am. That gives me the feels. Not some sort of... "release of secrets".


Your feely stuff comes from a rush of chemicals in your brain. Being vulnerable is one way to release those chemicals. 



> *The only boundaries I have are physical and sexual ones.*





> *I have no boundaries with anyone*


But please, do go on. 



> Hugging, kissing, sex, admitting all my sexual fetishes, flirtation etc. Other than that... I can't think of any "lines" that only someone I loved could cross. I feel like it's because I'm "secure" enough in myself, brave enough, confidant and self respecting enough to be the polar opposite and to no have secrets and boundaries with people. I wish to be a beacon of truth and honesty, in that I can show people, men especially that it's ok and not "feminine" to be open with people (Cause I think it's BS).


Where on earth did you get the idea that having a boundary with someone, a line that they can't cross, has anything to do with being open? 
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/boundary 


> *Quote from the above website*A line which marks the limits of an area


That "area" can relate to just about anything. 

You don't allow people to walk all over you? Congratulations. That's what's known as a line that you won't let people cross. And if they do, then you cut them out of your life. You even admitted to it yourself. 




> I have only ever been in good places because of it, as people know me for being open, and thus not a liar, and I gain high trust levels with all individuals I know. Girlfriends included. I feel I must put myself out there, because people need to know what they are getting into in the first place. That's how bad relationships are formed, secrets. You get so far, fall in love, find out something you don't like and fall out.
> 
> For me, the things you have to "unlock" in a relationship with me, is the amount of time I spend with you, how much I will personally sacrifice for you and the physical romantic interactions, I don't even "touch" people much on a normal day to day basis unless I am close to them. Most you'll get from me is a handshake. I'm physically rather "formal" with people. If people go to kiss me in a greeting, I do not do so back, I simply have the head to their side xD My lips are purely reserved for a lover. As are my hugs. Sometimes I have hugged in greeting of a friend, but only if they instigated it. My physical interactions are intense and passionate, but also reserved.
> 
> ...


That was all off-topic... so I'll leave that one alone...


----------



## ECM (Apr 8, 2015)

@Perso Uno

Well, the way I read and took it is that I saw the post linking "secrets and boundaries" as one thing, and that if a person didn't have secrets they were worthless/were without self respect. If I was wrong in making that connection then I simply misread/misunderstood the post.

My definition of "boundary" in my terminology when I wrote was with "being secretive" or "closed off".


----------



## Perso Uno (Sep 9, 2016)

EccentricM said:


> @Perso Uno
> 
> Well, the way I read and took it is that I saw the post linking "secrets and boundaries" as one thing, and that if a person didn't have secrets they were worthless/were without self respect. If I was wrong in making that connection then I simply misread/misunderstood the post.
> 
> My definition of "boundary" in my terminology when I write was with "being secretive" or "closed off".


Not at all.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

EccentricM said:


> @Perso Uno
> 
> Well, the way I read and took it is that I saw the post linking "secrets and boundaries" as one thing, and that if a person didn't have secrets they were worthless/were without self respect. If I was wrong in making that connection then I simply misread/misunderstood the post.
> 
> My definition of "boundary" in my terminology when I wrote was with "being secretive" or "closed off".


Not really, if you have no boundries then you just let people walk all over you and have them take liberties.


----------



## ECM (Apr 8, 2015)

Reality Check said:


> Not really, if you have no boundries then you just let people walk all over you and have them take liberties.


Oh yeah, I get that. I misread via reading a "quote" of the posts that I responded to, in conjunction with the whole OP's topic on emotions and connecting to men. I badly cross wired. xD


----------



## Elena236 (Jan 6, 2017)

How can war movies give you a hint?


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Elena236 said:


> How can war movies give you a hint?


They portray a HIGHLY emotional environment, even if ''strong army men'' doesn't immediately resonate with emotional. War movies are filled with loss, grief, relationships, loyalty, bravery and ones relationship with these emotions. It's basically portraying one being pushed to their limits where everything starts spilling out. Not to mention, a view inside the relationships between men who together have been thrown into this environment can give an insight into what friendships look like when they are being tested. Highly emotional experiences test people and can also help bond people exposing them to very vulnerable parts of each other.
@EccentricM

Indeed. Boundaries in the whole psychological context and in the context of this conversation is about having self-respect, not allowing people to take advantage of you or walk over you or hurt you. Having boundaries means there are ways you CAN and CANNOT be treated, and if crossed the violators are most likely just deleted from your life.
In my case, having lack of boundaries means I forgive people too easily, I let them back into my life after they have mistreated me, I trust them too easily, I allow them to make certain comments that other's may find as disrespectful but I just don't feel them disrespecting me. 
It's got nothing to do with secrets and being open. That's more in the line of vulnerability and honesty.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

pomPOM said:


> I skimmed through the article not yet diving deper into it but what I'm grasping is that women actually tend to be more receptive of another's emotional needs? Isn't that contrary to what you observed in my ''spoilers'' tag?


No, I was responding to gender differences with theory of tend-and-befriend as a response to stress through connecting (or tending), which is said to be more likely the primary response of women, which perhaps may unravel a bit of the 'curious' mystery of men. I don't object to what you described in the spoiler, because it describes well what your need for 'emotional connection' entails, which you articulate in a later post: 



pomPOM said:


> I do think though that with men I have put in a different kinda vulnerability than with my girlfriends. With my girlfriends I go to analyze something, to receive an understanding, relatable opinion from people who may experience things similarly. But for men I have tended to seek more the ''hold me tight and tell me everything is going to be ok'' comfort and vulnerability. It seems more a case of seeking someone with more strength to protect me at the moment. But maybe I am missing something in my own behavior.



To put it simplistic, if he's going to protect you, who's going to protect him? 


This is perhaps when (peer) loyalty comes into play for men, as mentioned. You may associate that with tribalism but hey, even Tarzan wasn't alone. :tongue:

Mind you, this is just to paint the bigger picture on a gender level in terms of strategic behavior. Not to assert that men can't be connected with emotionally. Besides, personally I also connect emotionally like in sharing euphoria so what you mean is a specific emotional need, which you sort of generalize on 'curious' men. 

In that light as also mentioned here in this thread, while occasionally women might be endeared by triggered maternal instincts, and establishing an intimate connection, they're not looking to be your mother so to speak, at least not in a romantic context. The guy's emotional stability will be tested. 

Personally, most of my male and female friends I connect with emotionally, and I can't think of any other way really. 




pomPOM said:


> But yeah. I did mainly talk about my emotional connection to him, not his to mine mainly cuz that's the one I can be most sure of. However, I can elaborate on the part where I mentioned feeling comfortable because he too brings up emotional matters to discuss with me.
> I think he does feel emotionally connected and safe with me. He often times opens up about his concerns, about his pains, etc. Sometimes as a response to my questions, sometimes entirely of his own willingness and desire. And this does make me feel like our connection lays on a wavelength where one should not feel ashamed of having any sort of emotion. I don't feel like I am bothering him when being vulnerable with my feelings because I know he feels comfortable being vulnerable too and has a fine personal relationship with feelings.
> 
> I'm not sure of ''emotionally available'' is what I'm looking for. But maybe? Actually I hope so lol cuz that's the healthier human. But I think I have a distorted idea of what a emotionally available men look like from first impressions. The thing is, what I don't like nor feel comfortable with is something I call ''emotional impulsiveness'' which is what (and I hate being typist here but it's just easier to explain) I have noticed in more Fe users than Fi users. Emotional impulsiveness is basically spilling out your feelings in a very raw form with the expectation of a raw feedback to them. It's like raw emotional presence. Maybe because again it often entails ''words of affirmation'' which make me very uncomfortable.
> ...



Yeah, I get you. It's perhaps good to look into attachment theory. Sounds like you are avoidant yourself, although it also depends on the other so it's a bit relative I think. Because you fear being overwhelmed you gravitate towards avoidant types, but consequently the problem arises that they are not so emotionally available, and may experience you as possibly overwhelming, causing them to withdraw in response. Set aside the push-pull dynamics. It's interesting to read and know what motivations underlie it (and so to decrease fear of being overwhelmed, and know better how to deal with it). 

Btw avoidant types may appear as emotionally stable, but that's not necessarily the case. They are just hiding emotion, for strategic purposes. 

The Avoidant Attachment Style | The Breakup Cleanse
The Anxious Attachment Style | The Breakup Cleanse
fearful avoidant attachment | The Breakup Cleanse


Believe it or not I actually have a very long term mateship (and exgf) with a Fe-dom (being Fi-dom myself), and this may still lead to typical misunderstandings, but there are complementary aspects as well, else we wouldn't be able to be best mates for so long. I've 'earned' a secure attachment style, as they call it, although I'm still more inclined to avoidant behavior, under circumstances. When you move from one stage to another in a relation, there's always uncertainty, or 'need' to define 'what it is that we have'.

Oh, and it's been a while since this clip was posted, so wth:


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

I don't understand what it means to connect emotionally with a man. Do you mean you want to know what he is feeling all the time or?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Tropes said:


> The boredom test.
> Testing for that is actually one of my most important tests for relationship viability, I've had a few too many people who will only stick around for as long as I am entertaining. Take the person you feel you might have a connection with, someone who you already had amazing conversations with, and this one time - withhold. Speak about mundane and the boring, things that there's nothing much to say about, and observe if they are still interested in your company and in engaging you - pushing their own content so they'll have something to engage you with - or are simply looking for the nearest alternative distraction.


Interesting idea; maybe I should try it but it's practically in my blood to find the absurdities in any and every situation and crack a joke about it; honestly, it's almost like breathing to me.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)




----------



## ECM (Apr 8, 2015)

He's a Superhero! said:


>


 @Majority needs to see this video given his previous posts and claims on men an women/masculinity and femininity. I quote you on; "Men and Women are aliens", seems it's to the contrary. The 60's changed men and made them "feminine"? No, we simply removed the veils of male emotional oppression and "natural" male emotional and physical sensitivities.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

EccentricM said:


> @*Majority* needs to see this video given his previous posts and claims on men an women/masculinity and femininity. I quote you on; "Men and Women are aliens", seems it's to the contrary. The 60's changed men and made them "feminine"? No, we simply removed the veils of male emotional oppression and "natural" male emotional and physical sensitivities.


Yeah, men and women are far from being aliens from eachother.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Chesire Tower said:


> Interesting idea; maybe I should try it but it's practically in my blood to find the absurdities in any and every situation and crack a joke about it; honestly, it's almost like breathing to me.


Finally, someone who gets it, most people are all "Stop it" and "That's not funny" and "Dude it's a funeral" about it.

But I've learned that people who tune you in like a tv channel will tune you out just as easily. That doesn't mean you throw them all way - it's fine to have friends who are in it for the fun - but for a serious relationship, well... It's the difference between between being able to be fun and having to be fun. There's dancing and then there's.... Dancing:


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

mimesis said:


> To put it simplistic, if he's going to protect you, who's going to protect him?


Me, of course. In my own ways of strength. We are the safety island for each other and hopefully, when one needs comforting, the other is at a place where they can provide it.



> Yeah, I get you. It's perhaps good to look into attachment theory. Sounds like you are avoidant yourself, although it also depends on the other so it's a bit relative I think. Because you fear being overwhelmed you gravitate towards avoidant types, but consequently the problem arises that they are not so emotionally available, and may experience you as possibly overwhelming, causing them to withdraw in response. Set aside the push-pull dynamics. It's interesting to read and know what motivations underlie it (and so to decrease fear of being overwhelmed, and know better how to deal with it).
> 
> Btw avoidant types may appear as emotionally stable, but that's not necessarily the case. They are just hiding emotion, for strategic purposes.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I've been studying attachment styles too lately. You've observed rather precisely though I relate most to fearful-avoidant. Because I do desire romance, intimacy (I think I wouldn't be making this thread if I didn't), I want relationships, but when they are about to happen, I become avoidant. It becomes overwhelming, uncomfortable and I feel like either crying or running away to Mexico. But you are correct - I also tend to be attracted to avoidant types because they do not overwhelm me, however ironically, they activate my ''fearful'' side. 

TBH, after all these comments and discussio here I feel like the htread should have instead been called pomPOM: The curioous case of connecting to HER emotionally while not overwhelming her away to a foreign country. It has still been insightful about the emotional world of men though. 



> Believe it or not I actually have a very long term mateship (and exgf) with a Fe-dom (being Fi-dom myself), and this may still lead to typical misunderstandings, but there are complementary aspects as well, else we wouldn't be able to be best mates for so long. I've 'earned' a secure attachment style, as they call it, although I'm still more inclined to avoidant behavior, under circumstances. When you move from one stage to another in a relation, there's always uncertainty, or 'need' to define 'what it is that we have'.


How did you come to ''earn'' the secure attachment? Just pushing through your discomfort to a place where you realize - it's ok to open up, no one is after your guts?



> Oh, and it's been a while since this clip was posted, so wth:


Watched this clip too recently  TBH I've watched so much on the topic of vulnerability that I feel like I already know the way but I'm still not ready to take it... because fuuuuuuuuck evil ghosts and murderers have nothing on the fear of ''vulnerability''... in a way you don't even know where to ''go inside'' to get in touch with it, it's so secured behind steel walls.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

@EccentricM They are _as_ aliens to one another. Did I skip a word? In that case: my bad. 

On the positive side of things I imagine there must be a lot of Sci-Fi ...lovers here that would love to have sex with alien species.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Sometimes lack of emotions is just a state of equanimity and maturity. Babies cry all the time, children have outbursts also. Grown ups, as they mature, show less and less emotions. This is an indication of where there is health and maturity to be had, whereas emotions is just gonna bring you down into depressions or manias or such. Gotta observe babies and the elderly to understand your path in life.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Majority said:


> Sometimes lack of emotions is just a state of equanimity and maturity. Babies cry all the time, children have outbursts also. *Grown ups, as they mature, show less and less emotions. This is an indication of where there is health and maturity to be had, whereas emotions is just gonna bring you down into depressions or manias or such.* Gotta observe babies and the elderly to understand your path in life.


This indicates basically no understanding of the human psychology whatsoever. I don't have the time to educate you either!


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

pomPOM said:


> This indicates basically no understanding of the human psychology whatsoever. I don't have the time to educate you either!


Lol. Asians think otherwise. Ever heard if Zen?


----------



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

Majority said:


> Lol. Asians think otherwise. Ever heard if Zen?


This seems misguided.
Zen is an acceptance of feelings. What Buddhists, Stoics, and a multitude of Wise Men have told is in the past is to let go, accept the transience of feelings, and stop seeing what are arbitrary points on the horizon as fixed in time and space. They are inconsequential. Let go.

I use a Stoic quote because it is the quickest way to give a counter-example in English:


> Passions (πάθος) are emotions caused or reinforced by a belief something outside of one's control is good or bad. Feelings, on the other hand, are closer to perceptions we have, and not things either to be controlled or avoided; a Stoic "merely" should avoid being led by them to false beliefs about good and bad. The distinction is analogous to seeing an optical illusion, where "feeling" corresponds to "seeing" the illusion, while "passion" is corresponds to actually believing it.


The old and wise and mature learn to allow themselves to be vulnerable. They also begin to understand that what they thought mattered in their youth often doesn't. This is very different to the harmful idea that to grow up is to become expressionless and repressive of your feelings. That's toxic. Allow yourself to feel and express -- but don't forget that none of this is permanent.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Occams Chainsaw said:


> This seems misguided.
> Zen is an acceptance of feelings. What buddhists, stoics, and a multitude of Wise Men have told is in the past is to let go, accept the transience of feelings, and stop seeing what are arbitrary points on the horizon as fixed in time and space. They are inconsequential.
> 
> I use a Stoic quote because it is the quickest way to give a counter-example in English:
> ...


I can't help how you interpret my advice. Babies cry, children demand much, grownups less so, the elderly show least expression. My advice is to learn from the mature. Move away from childhood, be like the elderly. 

If you do what you said then emotions will go away. You will consume them and then there is nothing left. You considered the approach but the end result is the same.


----------



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

Majority said:


> I can't help how you interpret my advice. Babies cry, children demand much, grownups less so, the elderly show least expression. My advice is to learn from the mature. Move away from childhood, be like the elderly.
> 
> If you do what you said then emotions will go away. You will consume them and then there is nothing left. You considered the approach but the end result is the same.


I dont think they are. One is a hole. Repression is to choke down what you feel until it rips your insides and you become cold. You detach from yourself and the world. It isn't healthy, Majority, and it won't make you happy.

I used to think that letting go meant giving up on life. Could I challenge you to read around transcendentalism in each of the big traditions (Greek, Indian, Chinese)?* Through reading and then practicing I've found that equating it to a death or an absence is again misguided. A gentle introduction might be through mindfulness initially, since that is studied by Western academics and Eastern mystics both. I won't lecture too long -- My real reservation is in the idea that we ought to strive to be unemotional, no matter the cost. Thoroughly, no.

*I'm willing to PM further if you want to discuss this more. Here isn't the place.


----------



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

I want a place where I can be vulnerable. Where I can strip down all the bullshit I carry through the day and be with somebody who doesn't judge me too harshly for having moments of weakness. I want to share that with somebody and, in allowing me space to do that so that I can go back out into the world, I will love you.

My attachment is dismissive-avoidant. I spent a lot of time denying to myself and others that I need or even want people and then pushing them away when I get scared. I do, deep down. It's just hard for me. Show me I don't need to be invulnerable all the time and you'll have access to everything I have.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Fuck you @Occams Chainsaw, I missed your goddamn comments. Glad to see them around again! ¬_¬


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I attract very emotional men who are very comfortable being vulnerable with me and discussing their feelings ad nauseam. 
It doesn't bother me until I realize the sensitivity runs one way.... they aren't interested enough in who I am or how I feel. 
I make _them_ feel good and safe to open up.... that's all that matters. 

The challenge to me is connecting emotionally with someone who doesn't need a free therapist to heal them. I am always up for being empathetic, and the feedback I get about being an exceptionally patient, kind and understandable girlfriend is nice, but it too easily becomes, "I like you because you put up with my complaining, self-absorption". I think this is why mental connection is important to me. I need to feel someone is interested in me for more than being a emotional support to them.

I know I am a part of that dynamic, as even in non-romantic relationships I tend to draw people out emotionally. So I need to discern between healthy emotional vulnerability and connection and attracting "broken people".


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

OrangeAppled said:


> I attract very emotional men who are very comfortable being vulnerable with me and discussing their feelings ad nauseam.
> It doesn't bother me until I realize the sensitivity runs one way.... they aren't interested enough in who I am or how I feel.
> I make _them_ feel good and safe to open up.... that's all that matters.
> 
> ...


Who are YOU attracted to though?

Cuz I relate a lot. But I've noticed for me it is like there always has to be this dynamic of one being the therapist and the other being the patient. So I tend to attract emotional men or men who want to be emotional but haven't been able to be yet, whereas I'm attracted to men who don't put too much of themselves out or at least when they do it, they do it in a stable sorta way.
It seems like an ingrained sense of balance (a distorted and delusional balance though).
With less emotional or ''stable seeming'' men I feel like there is space for me to be more vulnerable and emotional. If the both of us were, it would be imbalance, a sinking ship.
Basically, I attract anxious men while I'm attracted to avoidant! Being fearful-avoidant myself is like being a swing between the 2.


----------



## Perso Uno (Sep 9, 2016)

OrangeAppled said:


> I attract very emotional men who are very comfortable being vulnerable with me and discussing their feelings ad nauseam.
> It doesn't bother me until I realize the sensitivity runs one way.... they aren't interested enough in who I am or how I feel.
> I make _them_ feel good and safe to open up.... that's all that matters.
> 
> ...


I believe that's the great curse of humanity. 

Because when people are being emotional around you and not allowing you yourself to be emotional it means that you have the opportunity to be in control of the relationship. They grow dependent on you while you grow out of love very quickly. They need you but you don't need them, which puts you in the drivers seat. But because you don't need them and you grow out of love you begin to seek space away from them, which only makes them grow more needy and try to fill that space themselves. 

One of the two parties will naturally begin to take control of the relationship, whether they want to or not. Then the other party's love will grow and the one in control withers and dies. 

To love is to not be in control. To be in control runs opposite of love. Humanity's curse.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

pomPOM said:


> Who are YOU attracted to though?Cuz I relate a lot. But I've noticed for me it is like there always has to be this dynamic of one being the therapist and the other being the patient. So I tend to attract emotional men or men who want to be emotional but haven't been able to be yet, whereas I'm attracted to men who don't put too much of themselves out or at least when they do it, they do it in a stable sorta way.It seems like an ingrained sense of balance (a distorted and delusional balance though).With less emotional or ''stable seeming'' men I feel like there is space for me to be more vulnerable and emotional. If the both of us were, it would be imbalance, a sinking ship.Basically, I attract anxious men while I'm attracted to avoidant! Being fearful-avoidant myself is like being a swing between the 2.


I don't realize it at first...but they are sad. I am again going through one of those books I recommended to you, and I identified a physical vibe I keep being drawn to, and it is a kind of tense look in the face. Someone kind of tense or sad. That's not true for everyone I've dated, but there is some pattern. 

Often, they are rebounding from a serious relationship and/or going through difficult personal issues. They are seeking an ego boost in the form of an emotionally soothing girlfriend. They aren't in a position to GIVE much, meaning they shouldn't even be dating.Of course, I don't see it at first. Guys who are immediately emotionally needy/whiny will turn me off. So I like these guys who have other stuff in common with me, but also register as complex. Once some rapport is built up, or perhaps as a part of building it, they begin to open up to me emotionally. I get sucked in, and before I realize it, I am playing free therapist.








Perso Uno said:


> I believe that's the great curse of humanity. Because when people are being emotional around you and not allowing you yourself to be emotional it means that you have the opportunity to be in control of the relationship. They grow dependent on you while you grow out of love very quickly. They need you but you don't need them, which puts you in the drivers seat. But because you don't need them and you grow out of love you begin to seek space away from them, which only makes them grow more needy and try to fill that space themselves. One of the two parties will naturally begin to take control of the relationship, whether they want to or not. Then the other party's love will grow and the one in control withers and dies. To love is to not be in control. To be in control runs opposite of love. Humanity's curse.


I don't get turned off by it. I resent the one-sidedness over time, and I'm trying to identify the signs faster before I get sucked in. Frankly, these guys are more likely to move on from me once they get the "healing" they desired or if they realize they aren't in a position to give back and they start to feel my building resentment over it.

I agree with the idea that love is not about control, but I don't think a healthy relationship means total selflessness. I think to be a good partner, you have to take care of yourself too, assert your needs, have standards. What I have not been asserting are my needs, and I may lack the compassion towards myself that I give to others. If I did that, then I wouldn't be so emotionally accommodating to the broken people. I could give them sympathy but then move forward towards those who can reciprocate.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

OrangeAppled said:


> I don't realize it at first...but they are sad. I am again going through one of those books I recommended to you, and *I identified a physical vibe I keep being drawn to, and it is a kind of tense look in the face.* Someone kind of tense or sad. That's not true for everyone I've dated, but there is some pattern.
> 
> Often, they are rebounding from a serious relationship and/or going through difficult personal issues. They are seeking an ego boost in the form of an emotionally soothing girlfriend. They aren't in a position to GIVE much, meaning they shouldn't even be dating.Of course, I don't see it at first. Guys who are immediately emotionally needy/whiny will turn me off. So I like these guys who have other stuff in common with me, but also register as complex. Once some rapport is built up, or perhaps as a part of building it, they begin to open up to me emotionally. I get sucked in, and before I realize it, I am playing free therapist.


Hmm. I think a physical vibe I keep getting drawn to is the sense that they are keeping something hidden, but not like a secret - more a potential? Like if I sense that there is a vast world inside of them but they are not comfortable with sharing it. They tend to give out this soft reservedness. And of course, it's magnetic, cuz then you so desire to be the one opening them up.
And I think many of them too sense that I can be someone to open up to. But eventually I become the one too infatuated with them and that I think scares them away. Cuz I don't have a problem with being a therapist as much although at one point it becomes too obvious they are here more for the comfort and understanding they are getting and less for getting to know me.

But I think that it may actually be more an issue of communication. I tend to ask a lot of questions moving the conversation forward and deeper. But I actually too tend to wait for questions from them - then I can answer and open up about stuff. But I feel like I'm invading their space if I just suddenly start talking about something without them asking. And I think maybe they assume that if I don't start expressing that I don't want to express?

Have you ever looked into attachment styles and what yours may be?


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

pomPOM said:


> 1. If you reflect on your experience, what do you think made you feel comfortable connecting to a woman (or ok, anyone) emotionally?
> 2. On the contrary - what tends to make you uncomfortable being emotionally vulnerable?
> 3. How do you feel about other's seeing you as an island for their emotional safety?
> 4. And how important is an emotional connection and vulnerability from yours and your partners side in a relationship?


1. I found I connect the best to women who are genuinely interested in how another person experiences a situation, and who like to discover that the way they feel about something might not be the way I feel about it. And who enjoy to figure out how to make the relation work despite perhaps having things that you feel different about. 

2. I have a lot of trouble connecting to women who believe there is such a thing as the "right emotions" to feel. With some women I feel like I was being interviewed instead of it being a two-way street. I'm not interested in someone who is just looking for validation of their own value set, where any deviant opinion is something to "work on". 

3. I understand that, feeling like there is someone that you can be vulnerable with about the way you feel without being judged. I've experienced that feeling where you think you can trust someone that way and they suddenly say something hurtful and judgmental. It feels like being unexpectedly punched in the face and will make you wary of ever being vulnerable with that person again. I'd never intentionally do that to someone I care about. Unintentionally it happens but I always apologize and talk it out until she feels safe again with me. 

4. Basically I want to get to the point where we can talk about literally anything without fear of getting judged for feeling a certain way. Which is of course different from having the same feelings. The trick in my view is always and at any moment in the relation treating each other as human beings of equal value. Not one person feeling "better" than the other one or making the other person feel "lesser".


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Alles_Paletti said:


> 1. I found I connect the best to women who are genuinely interested in how another person experiences a situation, and who like to discover that the way they feel about something might not be the way I feel about it. And who enjoy to figure out how to make the relation work despite perhaps having things that you feel different about.
> 
> 2. I have a lot of trouble connecting to women who believe there is such a thing as the "right emotions" to feel. With some women I feel like I was being interviewed instead of it being a two-way street. I'm not interested in someone who is just looking for validation of their own value set, where any deviant opinion is something to "work on".
> 
> ...


Oh, that Fi!


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

pomPOM said:


> Hmm. I think a physical vibe I keep getting drawn to is the sense that they are keeping something hidden, but not like a secret - more a potential? Like if I sense that there is a vast world inside of them but they are not comfortable with sharing it. They tend to give out this soft reservedness. And of course, it's magnetic, cuz then you so desire to be the one opening them up.
> And I think many of them too sense that I can be someone to open up to. But eventually I become the one too infatuated with them and that I think scares them away. Cuz I don't have a problem with being a therapist as much although *at one point it becomes too obvious they are here more for the comfort and understanding they are getting and less for getting to know me.*
> 
> But I think that it may actually be more an issue of communication. I tend to ask a lot of questions moving the conversation forward and deeper. *But I actually too tend to wait for questions from them - then I can answer and open up about stuff. But I feel like I'm invading their space if I just suddenly start talking about something without them asking. And I think maybe they assume that if I don't start expressing that I don't want to express?*
> ...


That's the point I start to get resentful, I guess. I don't think I would if I felt it was reciprocated more. 
I feel like I am pushing myself on people too. I think that's a self-esteem thing. I notice women who seem to attract people easily act like their mere presence is a gift  . 

My attachment style is generally a mix of avoidant and anxious, which I think is actually considered fearful, but not at an extreme (I was not abused as a child). I keep most people at arm's length because I don't like feeling dependent, and I have had long periods of being pretty socially isolated because of this. Growing up, I was accused of being cold and detached, and I suspect it stems from this. I see why I attract emotionally needy people... There's a false sense of intimacy because they open up to me, but I get to hide still. Yet, I come to resent them for this.

Dependency on people makes me anxious, which is why I avoid it. If I feel dependent on someone, then I can get in that cycle of feeling anxious/empty when they are not around, doubting the strength of our relation, then I get a hit of an emotional high when in contact with them. I don't usually do anything to seek reassurance though; instead I will withdraw even more & make conscious effort to detach, feeling I have been abandoned/rejected.
*Save**Save**Save**Save*​


----------



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

An unhealthy perspective:

This got me thinking about what emotional accessibility is, where it feels infringed, shuts down, and how a partner can feel as though they are seeing the real men, unobstructed. Rummaging through lead me to realise that there is a fear of devouring of the two of us in the process of opening up. Is comparing it to a black hole being dramatic? The mechanic works by primarily becoming completely and utterly obsessed to the extent that I both drain them of everything they have and are while also losing sight of myself. There's a lust for the object of desire and in wanting it fully but depending on how comfortable I feel about the psychological distance it can present as a consuming or a binding, as an aggressor or a partner, respectively. 

I wants to merge with my object. For a long time, I sensed the fear of that happening as my primary response and wrap myself up elaborately to create a barrier from people. But I notice for those who the defences don't work on and those who reach in a little and touch past the wool, as soon as there is an incline of connection I get uncomfortable because of the tension of love for the object and being afraid of damaging it and getting hurt, so there s a contortion due to lack/deficit/unfulfillment/anger/fear, and I act out.

The only way I could ever see myself ever embracing real connection with somebody where there isn't this strain of fears. Like Alles said (fully agree with his post), connection is most easily accessed -- maybe exclusively -- with me through a genuine, unjudging curiosity about individual emotional and/or value perspectives. That hand reaching in is all I can honestly be comfortable with. Judgement of those feelings leads to hurt at having been dismissed or rejected, etc. when vulnerable and so I get aggressive and/or have to close down again. Provided the connection is there with the conditions described as ideal by Alles, I've realised that there really is a love that develops and that it doesn't devour. It restores. It provides. It supports and builds up and makes whole. While there can definitely be the frenzy of losing (sweet frenzy), the end result is a finding - something that feels solid and real and safe. They have to be completely open for me and then I will for them; My soul for yours.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)




----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Choking Hazard said:


> This got me thinking about what emotional accessibility is, where it feels infringed, shuts down, and how a partner can feel as though they are seeing the real men, unobstructed. Rummaging through lead me to realise that there is a fear of devouring of the two of us in the process of opening up. Is comparing it to a black hole being dramatic? The mechanic works by primarily becoming completely and utterly obsessed to the extent that I both drain them of everything they have and are while also losing sight of myself. There's a lust for the object of desire and in wanting it fully but depending on how comfortable I feel about the psychological distance it can present as a consuming or a binding, as an aggressor or a partner, respectively.


Overall sounds like people don't trust their emotions being there for the best of them. A constant need to be in control, even if you let yourself be infatuated, not that much that the infatuation will invite in other, not so desired emotions.
I think black hole isn't too dramatic. Giving in requires letting go of your safety net while balancing on a rope set above a volcano. If you fall, you fall backwards, And if you were to fully give in you would not look down, analyzing how deep the volcano is. So if you fall, you fall with your eyes still upfront only observing how the hole keeps getting deeper and deeper never sensing whether there's an end to it or not.

I used not understand why do people say that the reason we fear vulnerability is because we fear being hurt. It somehow just didn't resonate. Until I was sitting next to a lover, just looking at him, feeling myself sink into the joy of having him and then hitting an existential crisis all in maybe an interval of 10 seconds? It felt like if I give into the joy then they are in control of my safety while I'm still balancing on that rope. Then it all made sense. Brene Brown who studied shame and vulnerability realized that Joy is the most vulnerable emotion you can have as you can only fall down, backwards, into the infinite crater from there on. And the freefall is the most powerless and scariest thing about it all.



> The only way I could ever see myself ever embracing real connection with somebody where there isn't this strain of fears. Like Alles said (fully agree with his post), connection is most easily accessed -- maybe exclusively -- with me through a genuine, unjudging curiosity about individual emotional and/or value perspectives. That hand reaching in is all I can honestly be comfortable with. Judgement of those feelings leads to hurt at having been dismissed or rejected, etc. when vulnerable and so I get aggressive and/or have to close down again. Provided the connection is there with the conditions described as ideal by Alles, I've realised that there really is a love that develops and that it doesn't devour. It restores. It provides. It supports and builds up and makes whole. While there can definitely be the frenzy of losing (sweet frenzy), the end result is a finding - something that feels solid and real and safe. *They have to be completely open for me and then I will for them;* My soul for yours.


Ou, but isn't this a dance of 2 heart shaped devils?
I also feel like a sense of no judgment listening, pure curiosity without the desire to change or influence me, just.... letting me be is what makes me feel comfortable opening up. It's a kinda unconditional love for you and your story. But this in my experience has been rather easily sensable. Except the ''no judgment'' people are a rarity.
I've also noticed there's a difference between judging who you are and judging what you do and I can accept the latter one because I feel like it still holds onto the fact that they believe in your potential? That they want you to actually be vulnerable and show your wonderful face to the world aligning your actions with your very being!!!

But the dance of the 2 heart shaped devils... Who's gonna make the first move at being vulnerable? Surely seeing that the other trusts you and has opened up opens you up a little too. Otherwise the 2 heartshaped devils will play the shielded pinky game poking one another, testing the waters.
One needs to be either more secure or more desperate to put out their whole, unshielded arm.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

SolonsWarning said:


>


Fuck. I once opened myself up to a partner like fully. He knew my deepest darkest secrets and desires. And then he used it against me while choking me against the wall and screaming my own darkness back into my face. I've never EVER felt this abandoned and betrayed. Honestly, I would have rather him run away. No physical harm will ever be as hurtful as your own vulnerabilities being used against you. Whoever said ''sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me'' is an idiot!!!


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

OrangeAppled said:


> That's the point I start to get resentful, I guess. I don't think I would if I felt it was reciprocated more.
> I feel like I am pushing myself on people too. I think that's a self-esteem thing. I notice women who seem to attract people easily act like their mere presence is a gift  .


Ouw yeah, which is why I also barely ever contact people first haha. But I can't say that makes them think my presence is a gift? Probably not, cuz it's usually just that first step I do not take, but when they have taken it I'm all in the conversation, baby.



> My attachment style is generally a mix of avoidant and anxious, which I think is actually considered fearful, but not at an extreme (I was not abused as a child). I keep most people at arm's length because I don't like feeling dependent, and I have had long periods of being pretty socially isolated because of this. Growing up, I was accused of being cold and detached, and I suspect it stems from this. I see why I attract emotionally needy people... There's a false sense of intimacy because they open up to me, but I get to hide still. Yet, I come to resent them for this.


Fearful-avoidant is basically what me and pobrecita call ''the house cat''. It's a - hey, human, pet me, pet me... yees scratch me there... a little more.. yees. yeees.. it feels so good... (half a second later) ok that's enough. That's enough I said - scratches their eyes out!!!!
Fearful avoidants want and desire intimacy and relationships like an anxious person does, but they also fear it and feel uncomfortable with it ending up playing the hot and cold game. Come here - go away. It's also a skewed idea of what vulnerability and intimacy even is and who can provide that for you. 
Like guys complaining that girls say they want ''nice guys'' yet end up running after bad boys? It's not that they were lying, they just don't know what they are even talking about. 
I think truly avoidant people don't even know that they desire intimacy.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

SolonsWarning said:


>


I know the feeling man, a few literal skeletons in the closet and bam, they are nowhere to be seen.

Seriously though, the very idea that you find in your partner a safe haven from judgement is interesting. It's inherently contradictory too, isn't it? The very fact we choose someone as a partner - the act of choosing - means judging them, judging them positively overall, but still judging them, and they've judged us, without judging each other two lovers wouldn't have gotten to the point of choosing each other in the first place. So when judgement is built right into the context, what does not being judged actually mean?


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Tropes said:


> I know the feeling man, a few literal skeletons in the closet and bam, they are nowhere to be seen.
> 
> Seriously though, the very idea that you find in your partner a safe haven from judgement is interesting. It's inherently contradictory too, isn't it? The very fact we choose someone as a partner - the act of choosing - means judging them, judging them positively overall, but still judging them, and they've judged us, without judging each other two lovers wouldn't have gotten to the point of choosing each other in the first place. *So when judgement is built right into the context, what does not being judged actually mean?*


I think coming into their story without pre-conditions? I mean no, that doesn't explain it.
Ok, let me compare to my ex who is the most judgmental person ever. He wanted me to open up NOT so he can get to know me with pure curiosity and appreciation for an individuals story, but because he wanted to see how well I fit his idea of either me or of how a woman should be and then he went on to attempt changing me and molding me into who he wanted me to be.

So I think... sure, people in general are judgmental beings, but that is an extension to look at hearing someones story for who they are and leaving your previous conditions outside vs. hearing ones story through the lense of your pre-conditions and judgments. 
Assuming that someone who leaves their judgments out of another's story is someone without a backbone is also a bit quick of an assumption. You can judge the person or you can judge what they do OR you can judge the space between you 2. If I sense that the person is just not good for me and I'm not good for them personally. That doesn't judge the person but our relation.

I don't know, I hope I'm making sense. But nevertheless, even if it's hard to put into words, I can recognize the 2 differences between people when faced with them. One listens to your story and compares it to a set of standards and whether you fit them, another listens to your story and compares them to your story (how true were you to yourself). I think the latter is a judgment made within the context of the person therefor not really coming in with pre-conditions.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

pomPOM said:


> I don't know, I hope I'm making sense. But nevertheless, even if it's hard to put into words, I can recognize the 2 differences between people when faced with them. One listens to your story and compares it to a set of standards and whether you fit them, another listens to your story and compares them to your story (how true were you to yourself). I think the latter is a judgment made within the context of the person therefor not really coming in with pre-conditions.


But isn't that - the first kind - inherent to the act of choosing to be with someone? If you and your ex didn't judge each other and compared each other to your standards conditions of what you want from a partner, how did you end up choosing each other to be together in the first place?

I am not arguing against feeling this way btw - I think it's a basic human need and that almost everyone seeks it, it's almost essential to what intimacy is, it's part of why the contradictory nature of it is so interesting: We want a partner to meet our standards, we want to meet theirs, and we want to be free of the pressure to meet any standards and to provide our partners with the same freedom. It's like a riddle all relationships are trying to solve.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Tropes said:


> But isn't that - the first kind - inherent to the act of choosing to be with someone? If you and your ex didn't judge each other and compared each other to your standards conditions of what you want from a partner, how did you end up choosing each other to be together in the first place?


Yeah, but there again is a difference in judging whether someone is compatible with you therefore good ''for you'' (or judging that space between you) over judging someone's very existence and character as ''good'' or ''bad''/''right, ''wrong''. I should have probably noted that in my above comment, I made it confusing.
So in the former you come in with universal pre-conditions while in the latter you come in with pre-conditions over whether you are fit for each other. In my case - he made universal judgments over me and tried to get me to change SO we can fit together . This fitting together isn't necessary for someone to judge another universally. While I judged US more than him. I judged our relationship and always said - we are not compatible. And he said - that's cuz you are evil, you need to be different.
But I don't know, talking from personal experience may make this unrelatable to other's. I overall lack the ability to judge people (unless I'm angry) and inherently over empathize. I also see people as good at their core, just molded by life with their understanding of the world and what is good and what is bad skewed. Or just they have been made to be bad or without their own fault have been pre-conditioned to be bad. Even if there are exceptions to my rule I don't want those exceptions to make me bitter and cautious over someone's goodness overall. 



> I am not arguing against feeling this way btw.


I know you are not, Tropes ^_^


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

pomPOM said:


> Yeah, but there again is a difference in judging whether someone is compatible with you therefore good ''for you'' (or judging that space between you) over judging someone's very existence and character as ''good'' or ''bad''/''right, ''wrong''. I should have probably noted that in my above comment, I made it confusing.
> So in the former you come in with universal pre-conditions while in the latter you come in with pre-conditions over whether you are fit for each other. In my case - he made universal judgments over me and tried to get me to change SO we can fit together . This fitting together isn't necessary for someone to judge another universally. While I judged US more than him. I judged our relationship and always said - we are not compatible. And he said - that's cuz you are evil, you need to be different.
> But I don't know, talking from personal experience may make this unrelatable to other's. I overall lack the ability to judge people (unless I'm angry) and inherently over empathize. I also see people as good at their core, just molded by life with their understanding of the world and what is good and what is bad skewed. Or just they have been made to be bad or without their own fault have been pre-conditioned to be bad. Even if there are exceptions to my rule I don't want those exceptions to make me bitter and cautious over someone's goodness overall.
> 
> ...


I have to admit, I am conflicted about it on a personal level. I do have the same desire - for a safe haven in intimacy - and the desire to provide it, but I also know that at face value I would seem more like your ex, I do agree that people are good at the core, or rather, that they always strive to be good in their own story, but I also know how meaningless that story can be, and that's also why I've grown increasingly judgemental about the leeway people provide themselves when constructing that story. I am growing more judgemental with time, what I judge people about is less and less about my own taste and compatibility and more about things which tend to apply universally, and it's getting harder to resolve the conflict between that and the desire for intimacy. 

There's also another layer in that the acceptance of judgement which is... Liberating. Comparing two relationships, in one we could easily sit together and joke about what cosmetic surgeries we'd buy the other, and rather than being offended we indulged easily and comfortably in the other's fantasy of ourselves. It a more recent relationship, saying something like that would have been rude and unthinkable. Yet the first one felt a lot more intimate and liberating for me, we were so completely comfortable with each other. Realistically I think that looking back it was an illusion - if the jokes about cosmetics were replaced with deeper judgments about ethics or psychology it would have exploded, by all accounts the woman with whom this was unthinkable was a way more decent person who did a much better job to judge herself on those levels, I was literally safer with her (Considering the first had an affinity to knives), but I could never really tap the same sense of mutual comfort and intimacy I felt with the one who knew she could say anything - and I could say anything - and it would all be good. In a weird way we gave each other permission to be ourselves, judgement included.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Haven't read all the latest comments, but I'd think the idea is screen first, be respectfully judgemental, and when you've bonded drop it all (almost). Rest and trust, for better and for worse, your stories are now entwined. I mean, you can still be judgemental but no more than you are towards yourself. People aren't perfect so there will be times when you get hurt or hurt the other, but you survive because you're tough and still an independent functioning adult and realize the other is too.

Not that I should comment this conversation, seeing I barely understand it, but some comments I think I've understood still...


----------



## TheJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> Haven't read all the latest comments, but I'd think the idea is screen first, be respectfully judgemental, and when you've bonded drop it all (almost). Rest and trust, for better and for worse, your stories are now entwined. I mean, you can still be judgemental but no more than you are towards yourself. People aren't perfect so there will be times when you get hurt or hurt the other, but you survive because you're tough and still an independent functioning adult and realize the other is too.
> 
> Not that I should comment this conversation, seeing I barely understand it, but some comments I think I've understood still...


When I'm being even half as judgemental as I am towards myself it still comes across as overly judgemental to some, though >.>


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

TheJ said:


> When I'm being even half as judgemental as I am towards myself it still comes across as overly judgemental to some, though >.>


Oh. So if you had a partner, who was equally judgmental on themselves, and there was this mutual respect from having done the screening, it would feel perhaps good if they could be vulnerable with you and unjudgmental towards you, and vice versa? There'd be a balance of trying to be better and also being accepted as you are. You could have a better, more nurturing relationship with them than you do with yourself.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> Haven't read all the latest comments, but I'd think the idea is screen first, be respectfully judgemental, and when you've bonded drop it all (almost). Rest and trust, for better and for worse, your stories are now entwined. I mean, you can still be judgemental but no more than you are towards yourself. People aren't perfect so there will be times when you get hurt or hurt the other, but you survive because you're tough and still an independent functioning adult and realize the other is too.
> 
> Not that I should comment this conversation, seeing I barely understand it, but some comments I think I've understood still...


During the screening you don't need to share at all, just to screen.

But in a relationship the question remains: You have a potentially judgemental thought, do you share it or do you not? Is it more of a safe haven if you are both free to share judgemental thoughts, or is it only a safe haven if you are both free from the burden of feeling judged by such thoughts? Which is more conducive to intimacy?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@Tropes I'd think you only share if it's within your right to be demanding that from them. Most often probably not.


----------



## TheJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> Oh. So if you had a partner, who was equally judgmental on themselves, and there was this mutual respect from having done the screening, it would feel perhaps good if they could be vulnerable with you and unjudgmental towards you, and vice versa? There'd be a balance of trying to be better and also being accepted as you are. You could have a better, more nurturing relationship with them than you do with yourself.


Hmm maybe. Let me explain it to you how it is for me, and maybe then you could be more specific, because I don't quite follow.

Not being able to say what you think, causes repression. Sympathy often works that way, when you put aside your own thoughts for the sake of what the other wants to receive. That might make them appreciate you more, but causes the opposite effect within you. I do not want to judge another person, but I start doing that when I feel repressed, and I start distancing myself, because it makes me feel like my own real thoughts aren't what the other person wants- basically denying myself the option to be myself with them. 
And that is why I see sympathy as an enemy of relationships, which is difficult because women often want sympathy, not solutions. I can't help but offer solutions though because that's what I see as true empathy- you're facing a problem, let me help you with this, here's what I know you should do, and I'm here to assist you with the steps needed. 
But that is often seen as judgemental, because people would rather complain about their problems, and making no move to solve them. I'm aware of this, I do that myself often too, but I do not require sympathy for it- I DO want solutions that I've not already thought of. 
I guess an ideal partner would be one that will do that for me, but also show sympathy when there isn't a good solution available, which is sort of what I do, and of course will be willing for me to do so too.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@TheJ Maybe it comes across as you looking down on them, not sure. Maybe they felt like they were being vulnerable revealing something that they're not proud of themselves and they didn't want to hear 'Fix it then' (not saying that's what you said). Like, why should you get to respond with your instinctual reaction to fix it, if that's not why they're telling you about their problems? Did they ask for your help? Do you want a relationship where an issue can be shared with you only if they're ready to start working on it? On the other hand, should they try to see that you're just trying to help and appreciate your concern even if it's not exactly what they hoped, should they try to deliver their message in a way that makes it more clear what they hope to get from you, should they stop whining about the same things for sympathy, yes.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

pomPOM said:


> For a while I've been wanting and wishing for the opportunity to come to a closer understanding of the emotional life of men and how one is to be able to connect on that level with them.
> 
> It has come to be of an even bigger importance now that I have learned I have only been able to connect emotionally to 1 man (who lives across the damn pond for christs sake yall) yet it seems to be a highly important component for me to feel I am having a meaningful relationship.
> 
> So ideally this would turn into an open discussion on the broad topic of men and their emotional lives; emotional connections. But to start off:


Great topic thanks for starting it.



pomPOM said:


> If you reflect on your experience, what do you think made you feel comfortable connecting to a woman (or ok, anyone) emotionally?


The answer here is tricky so bare with me. Ultimately there are many ways to connect with someone else. We all express the virtues and think in certain patterns. When we are immature we connect best and quickly with a partner who is either like us and has the same immaturities, or someone who is opposite us and upon whom we can become a codependent whole. Both of these are disastrous types of relationships. 

The only hope they both have is that everyone involved will mature and the end result then is two mature people both expressing whole and genuine love. 

Often instead what happens is both being immature they wound the other too much or themselves and a split happens. Not quite as bad, but similar, is the case where one partner matures and the other does not, and separation again can be the result. We seek a partner with similar wisdom/maturity to ourselves and consistent moral failures of the immature types are withering when we are older especially. 



pomPOM said:


> On the contrary - what tends to make you uncomfortable being emotionally vulnerable?


As expressed above, immaturity on my part or hers, either one, could cause an imbalance that would get in the way of this. I want to be clear here, there are just as many people immaturely demanding supposed vulnerability as there are immature people unable to express it. If I expose my emotions to someone and they respond with scorn that has less wisdom in it than my position, that is not going to make me want to share. Also, if they have issues and ask about them and refuse to understand or accept offered wisdom in which I believe, then they refuse to grow. That is a show stopper. 



pomPOM said:


> How do you feel about other's seeing you as an island for their emotional safety?


In some ways this is fine, but, the wide wide world is out there. You must be a part of it and risk exposure to it. I am the world also. In some ways I am not safe. In some ways the world is not dangerous. You have to sense both of these and grow out of any NEED for me. That NEED is codependence. Independence followed by a full on mature decision to stay with someone is maturity.



pomPOM said:


> And how important is an emotional connection and vulnerability from yours and your partners side in a relationship?


Connection and vulnerability are assumed and ubiquitous. They are almost rendered unimportant by their tacit existence if you follow. Dwelling on them is usually a bad idea. Accepting them and working with them are good ideas. Also I find people are often ready to support certain expected or 'cute' weaknesses in others, but will absolutely not entertain certain other weaknesses in others. I find that disingenuous and immature.



pomPOM said:


> My story with connecting emotionally with men
> 
> * *
> 
> ...



* *





If I get what you are saying here this seems wise and well done on his part. He realizes you have free will and can choose and only makes his awareness of what is and is not moral apparent. That is good.



pomPOM said:


> *2. *He listens and asks questions instead of feeling obligated to offer sympathetic responses as to not feel guilty. Sympathy makes me very uncomfortable. I never open my mouth with the hopes of hearing ''ohh you poor thing''. I open my mouth to receive a curious response that will further my ability to reflect. I want to be heard, that is what makes me feel validated, not someone saying my experience has been unjust to begin with.
> I think this also makes me feel like he is an emotionally stable island I can rest on, that my personal emotions aren't gonna weaken him in any way. It makes me feel comfortable and safe being given the time and respect to be heard but not feeling like my words are negatively influencing him!


This is mostly good, but, there is a trap here. If you cannot influence him, even with a wise statement of your own, then there is imbalance better you. He holds the truth, the strength in most ways and you may find yourself wanting in some way.



pomPOM said:


> *3.* The third reason why I think I feel comfortable being vulnerable with him is that he never brushes off my attempts at talking about emotional matters. And to add to that - he brings up emotional matters too. So it feels like he is an individual who lives on a similar wavelength that I do making me not feel out of place if an emotional question or a feeling that I wanna express comes up. I feel reciprocated and not shut down!


Yes, that is very good. Emotions are the foundations of all morality. We have to discuss them, especially with our partners.



pomPOM said:


> *4. *Another very own personal reason is based on my love languages. Words of affirmation is my least favored love language and if anything, they make me feel very uncomfortable and make me shut off. It seems like he fits this too. We show our appreciation for each other in subtle ways and only after a truly meaningful conversation has happened we may express in words how much we like each other. Then, it quickly moves to other matters.
> Too much verbal affirmation makes me feel like the connection is more pushed on than actually enjoyed and appreciated as common sense (common sense making it feel more natural therefor comfortable).


Agreed. Compliments make me worry. I'd rather just discuss things plainly, but not everyone is like this.



pomPOM said:


> Besides that, what has made it harder for me to connect with men emotionally has been that there always tends to be a sexual intention underneath our relations to begin with. So it is hard to get to a place where we would feel emotionally vulnerable because often time that emotional connection isn't even the first thing on our minds - a sexual attraction may be more prominent from the start. And even if it is not reciprocated, one of the duo feeling sexually attracted can be felt by the other making the relation feel awkward and as to having a hidden agenda, taking away the trust aspect of it.


To me this is another trap. Sex is union and healthy. Fearing or displacing it is a broken thing. If someone discusses thing with you and includes allusions to sex that is still healthy. You are right in that they should not have to and perhaps if you ask they can disinclude that. I also think tone can be followed. In other words if many men you knew were still angling for some nooky during an otherwise emotional moment I think you're mostly right that that polluted the moment. But be careful. Wanting sex to feel connected is not immature. Not wanting it from your partner is more broken. Agreed, that in some moments it is helpful to put that physical matter aside.



pomPOM said:


> But after all for a relationship to actually move anywhere an emotional connection is necessary.
> So far my relationships have happened very quickly. We jump in quickly based on a physical and sexual attraction and also a liking of the other's personality and being so focused on that we rarely move the connection into other reams. I also think that in cases when I do feel like the individual has the potential of having a deep emotional world that I can connect to, I tend to become so excited about that fact that I smother them with my attempts and connection on an emotional level. And therefor scare them away before we've even been able to actually get there.


Very true that neediness is immature and can drive people off. People want to feel like you are enough for yourself by yourself. Then you can be with someone. If you are not enough for yourself on your own, that worthlessness infects everything and oddly begins to reflect on them, as in they are an idiot if they are with worthless you. So holding your own worth solidly is wildly attractive. This is why confidence is so attractive. If a person loves themselves and still chooses you, the love they feel for themselves then reflects onto you. I am so great, I chose and was chosen by this great person. Everyone wins.



pomPOM said:


> So I wanna change that as I know (even if I don't feel that way from my experience) that men have an emotional world too and I want to be a part of one of those worlds one day.





Men are emotional but they mostly know to be careful expressing it in this world. If a woman becomes wildly emotional then she is still accepted. Men who do it are not accepted in general. Fruther, even women like you that say they want men to be vulnerable some or to be vulnerable to, often cant really handle it when the man does open up. This is especially true if the man is very emotional but has always held that back successfully in outer society because of man image issues. Then he lets go, and he is no longer just your rock, but also quicksand. Run away ... No. He still needs understanding as well. If you want to be a part of that you have to wade in and do the hard work also.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

I connect when the other party is warm and open, and seems to want to connect themselves, and when they seem smart enough that I don't have to repeat myself constantly to try to convey my meaning, which happens occasionally. Also, there are certain personality types I know I couldn't be fully open with because of the restrictions of their views. For example, when I go to the hairdresser, her perception of life is a kind of stereotypical ESFP one - everyone goes out to bars and gets drunk every weekend. I feel uncomfortable when she asks me if I'm going out later, because I know that if I reveal that I don't fit within the standard template of society, she'll view me as weird. Someone who views being weird as not a negative thing is easier to be open with.


----------



## TheJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> @TheJ Maybe it comes across as you looking down on them, not sure. Maybe they felt like they were being vulnerable revealing something that they're not proud of themselves and they didn't want to hear 'Fix it then' (not saying that's what you said). Like, why should you get to respond with your instinctual reaction to fix it, if that's not why they're telling you about their problems? Did they ask for your help? Do you want a relationship where an issue can be shared with you only if they're ready to start working on it? On the other hand, should they try to see that you're just trying to help and appreciate your concern even if it's not exactly what they hoped, should they try to deliver their message in a way that makes it more clear what they hope to get from you, should they stop whining about the same things for sympathy, yes.


Thank you Jamaia, helpful as always.
I guess that is the problem- I do not know what they expect of me, so I go with my gut reaction on how to show concern. You're right though, I do not want anyone to feel looked down upon, although it's certainly how it seems to come across, and I definitely don't want to force the other person to hide issues from me. 
To me it's just natural to analyze the situation in various ways and seek out solutions, feeling sorry for yourself isn't going to take you out of a bad state, actions will, therefore it just makes sense to me to offer ways to act. But somehow when I do that it seems like I do not care about the other person's feelings, when it couldn't be further from the truth, I simply do not want to validate self pity or self inflicted misery so as to not cause more harm than good.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

I forget, was sympathy the antelope and empathy the bear? If sympathy was the antelope, then I don't think sympathy is what they expect, @TheJ, they're probably expecting empathy or in some case perhaps just some attention. Post scriptum, fixing their problem is what I'd do too, so I should be able empathize with your trouble J, alas I'm not, haha, because you know. Sorry off topic @pomPOM or whoever is concerned .


----------



## TheJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> I forget, was sympathy the antelope and empathy the bear? If sympathy was the antelope, then I don't think sympathy is what they expect, @TheJ, they're probably expecting empathy or in some case perhaps just some attention.


Sympathy is the antelope, and Empathy the bear, but that video doesn't do the terms justice. 

Sympathy is when you show pity or what you believe is the right response to the bad feelings or bad circumstances of another. Empathy is when you imagine yourself to feel what another feels since you've been there or can put yourself in their shoes, and act accordingly. When I put myself in another person's shoes- I seek solutions for their issue, since that is what I'd do, and I wouldn't want people telling me "yeah the situation really sucks" no! tell me how to make it suck less damn it, I'm already well aware of how much it sucks!

Anyway yeah, sorry for derailing the thread. We can take this to PMs.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@TheJ Maybe just be quiet and look at your feet solemnly like the bear . I think you need to go a bit further to reach the useful empathic response, all the way to the moment of becoming aware that a situation sucks and try to keep that feeling, and not get ahead of them to the fixing part. Idk, sounds complicated...


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> I forget, was sympathy the antelope and empathy the bear? If sympathy was the antelope, then I don't think sympathy is what they expect, <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> @<b><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=300626" target="_blank">TheJ</a></b>
> <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->, they're probably expecting empathy or in some case perhaps just some attention. Post scriptum, fixing their problem is what I'd do too, so I should be able empathize with your trouble J, alas I'm not, haha, because you know. Sorry off topic <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> @<b><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=377962" target="_blank">pomPOM</a></b>
> <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> or whoever is concerned .


I think I know which video you arereferring to. It was Brene Brown again. 






I actually kinda hate this video cuz it really undermines sympathy and only showcases the negative sides of it.
TheJ mentioned it correctly. Every definition of sympathy that I have read implies some sort of action too. So sympathy also implies a sympathetic response. I also think that sympathy, unlike empathy, involves a judgment - cuz to feel sorry for someone you kinda need to address that something ''not good'' has happened.
Empathy on the other hand in its purest form is without a judgment. That's why empathy can relate to both those we deem bad and those we deem good. Empathy also, from all the definitions I have read, does NOT imply a response. It is just the action or state of understanding and/or feeling what another is feeling (or feeling with).
I think one reason why empathy in it's purest does not involve an action made towards the one you empathize with is because when you empathize, you kinda become the other person (or at least your idea of the other person). So it would almost be like reacting to yourself?

That's why I've said before that I am not very sympathetic but empathy comes naturally to me. And I believe not being sympathetic is not a positive. If you watched that video you may think it is, but it is not!!! You just simply need to know when and how to use it! There are times and people who really just want to be sympathized with. I think especially when they talk about specific events that you find disturbing in your life - you may want to hear that someone feels bad for you and feels like it was unjust for something like that to happen. I, personally, have a really hard time with sympathetic responses, I often times just cannot muster them out of my mouth. And that leaves me cold seeming and the other not comforted.

Empathy though.... that's why I prefer a partner who too would be rather empathetic and not necessary to be sympathetic - cuz I feel like empathy will leave judgment out!
@TheJ btw I relate to you when you say ''I empathize and then I want to bring practical changes to the situation/help them practically move forward''. I experience it as ''fuck this feels horrible, how can we change this''. But, tbh, I've observed something that is still just an anecdote but I think it has potential behind it to be universally true - it's the Te people who give out and prefer receiving practical advice and help and dislike receiving emotional help and advice. Because Te being an extraverted function is open to external influence (and is interested in influencing externally).


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

What you mentioned about feeling more like yourself and free to being yourself IF you can express your thoughts and judgments without feeling bad about it (or just that you feel like your judgments are welcomed) is interesting. To me it just shows how tiny the line is between comfort and discomfort.
I completely understand what you mena by it and how important it is to feel comfortable expressing such things. But I think there are very different ways to doing it. I also just think that again, haha... I'm just not compatible with people who wanna express universal judgments over me. And that is allll fine.
And the difference in doing it - and this is actually what they teach in communication methods - you can either judge the person or you can judge how the person makes you feel. One way is saying - you are cold. The other way is saying - I feel abandoned. You haven't told me you love me in a long time/haven't spoken to me in a long time. Again - one judges you, another judges how your actions are making me feel.
But tbh I'm just rationalizing something that isn't really a rational process right now. I honestly don't know how to explain the difference between people who I feel comfortable getting close to because they won't judge vs. those who will therefor I feel uncomfortable. It's literally a sense, a feeling that I get almost intuitively once I havebeen conversing with the person.



Tropes said:


> I have to admit, I am conflicted about it on a personal level. I do have the same desire - for a safe haven in intimacy - and the desire to provide it, but I also know that at face value I would seem more like your ex, I do agree that people are good at the core, or rather, that they always strive to be good in their own story, but I also know how meaningless that story can be, and that's also why I've grown increasingly judgemental about the leeway people provide themselves when constructing that story. I am growing more judgemental with time, what I judge people about is less and less about my own taste and compatibility and more about things which tend to apply universally, and it's getting harder to resolve the conflict between that and the desire for intimacy.


Yeah hmm. When reading this what came to my mind, and I'm not even sure whether it's relevante but what the hecks, is that the way I look at a lot of criminals, for instance, is like this - I look at their intentions, then I try understanding their life, what may have lead to them commiting a crime. That is where I try to empathize. But then I make a judgment over their place and their relation to the rest of the world. Like I try to separate THEM from who they are in relation to other's. Such as - I may actually empathize and understand them and not deem them bad if I see their intentions have been what I would call good, but I will still think that they have no place in society and that they need to be locked up for the greater good. I don't know it's just.... judgment over someones actual BEING feel extremely, extremely harsh! Because I feel like sooo many components come in making a person and so many of them out of their own powers. I'm also not very able to judge people who are not very aware of themselves. I think self-awareness is a skill. But I CAN judge those who ARE aware of themselves and their own problems but still choose to act upon them. Not always but thats a good starting poin t for a judgment I think. Because to me that implies I should question their intentions.

However, something I wanna say about people who tend to make universal judgments is that they seem to also be far more willing to work on relationships and adapt themselves/change. Because there's a greater good that is held as a standard and it probably feels right to attend to that greater standard. This is something I can say about my ex too - if he wasn't unhealthy and narcissistic, he could see his own misdoings too and would be willing to change expecting me to change too. Almost saying - you can be a better person.
Such people seem more successful in relationships tbh.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

* *






series0 said:


> The answer here is tricky so bare with me. Ultimately there are many ways to connect with someone else. We all express the virtues and think in certain patterns. When we are immature we connect best and quickly with a partner who is either like us and has the same immaturities, or someone who is opposite us and upon whom we can become a codependent whole. Both of these are disastrous types of relationships.
> 
> The only hope they both have is that everyone involved will mature and the end result then is two mature people both expressing whole and genuine love.


Yeah. In psychology our attraction to the opposite is called our attraction the a ''trigger''. It's major chance for us to actually grow from our issues cuz being exposed to a polar brings those issues to light. Our oppositewill trigger us and we can either use that to evolve or get scared of it and leave. 
And we already discussed upon the attraction and comfort with people who are of your own kind of ''fucked up'' earlier in this thread.



> As expressed above, immaturity on my part or hers, either one, could cause an imbalance that would get in the way of this. I want to be clear here, there are just as many people immaturely demanding supposed vulnerability as there are immature people unable to express it. If I expose my emotions to someone and they respond with scorn that has less wisdom in it than my position, that is not going to make me want to share. Also, if they have issues and ask about them and refuse to understand or accept offered wisdom in which I believe, then they refuse to grow. That is a show stopper.


This just once again reminds me of attachment styles and how secure attachment is open to but not in need of a companion/a relationship/an attachment.



> In some ways this is fine, but, the wide wide world is out there. You must be a part of it and risk exposure to it. I am the world also. In some ways I am not safe. In some ways the world is not dangerous. You have to sense both of these and grow out of any NEED for me. That NEED is codependence. Independence followed by a full on mature decision to stay with someone is maturity.


Hmm. But do you recognize instances where maybe the other doesn't pers se NEED your comfort, but they prefer it because it still feels better?



> Connection and vulnerability are assumed and ubiquitous. They are almost rendered unimportant by their tacit existence if you follow. Dwelling on them is usually a bad idea. Accepting them and working with them are good ideas. Also I find people are often ready to support certain expected or 'cute' weaknesses in others, but will absolutely not entertain certain other weaknesses in others. I find that disingenuous and immature.


I'm not sure if I follow this correctly. Do you mean emotional connection and vulnerability should be common sense and if you even need to think about them it pinpoints a problem on itself?



> If I get what you are saying here this seems wise and well done on his part. He realizes you have free will and can choose and only makes his awareness of what is and is not moral apparent. That is good.


I agree, which is basically what we have come to discussing in this thread and I am having a ahrd time putting into words how exactly this lack of personal judgment makes me fel so comfortable with him. But it is an ability to judge a concept without judging a person. or at least it feels similar to that.



> This is mostly good, but, there is a trap here. If you cannot influence him, even with a wise statement of your own, then there is imbalance better you. He holds the truth, the strength in most ways and you may find yourself wanting in some way.


Ya mean like I can't shake up his emotions? I can see that but I don't think it's actually the case. It really seems like a simple case of differing love languages and differing ways of showing care and support.



> To me this is another trap. Sex is union and healthy. Fearing or displacing it is a broken thing. If someone discusses thing with you and includes allusions to sex that is still healthy. You are right in that they should not have to and perhaps if you ask they can disinclude that. I also think tone can be followed. In other words if many men you knew were still angling for some nooky during an otherwise emotional moment I think you're mostly right that that polluted the moment. But be careful. Wanting sex to feel connected is not immature. Not wanting it from your partner is more broken. Agreed, that in some moments it is helpful to put that physical matter aside.


I agree, but I've experienced situations where sex just comes as a natural bi-product of a connection, where your minds intangling leads to your bodies intangling. But too often our reptile brains are overpowering and the drive to getting physical is what drives and motivates any other kinda relations. So you basically talk mainly in order to get in the bed afterwards. And this sounds more sad than it is. There is still a liking of the other and their character adn your connection, but that connection takes a second place behind wanting to jump on them. Especially if that connection is more intellectual - and then if you also are sexually attracted to them then damn. Hard to get past it.



> Very true that neediness is immature and can drive people off. People want to feel like you are enough for yourself by yourself. Then you can be with someone. If you are not enough for yourself on your own, that worthlessness infects everything and oddly begins to reflect on them, as in they are an idiot if they are with worthless you. So holding your own worth solidly is wildly attractive. This is why confidence is so attractive. If a person loves themselves and still chooses you, the love they feel for themselves then reflects onto you. I am so great, I chose and was chosen by this great person. Everyone wins.


That is a truthful description of a healthy state of mind and heart that we should all strive for. It's a journey though.



> Men are emotional but they mostly know to be careful expressing it in this world. If a woman becomes wildly emotional then she is still accepted. Men who do it are not accepted in general. *Fruther, even women like you that say they want men to be vulnerable some or to be vulnerable to, often cant really handle it when the man does open up. *This is especially true if the man is very emotional but has always held that back successfully in outer society because of man image issues. Then he lets go, and he is no longer just your rock, but also quicksand. Run away ... No. He still needs understanding as well. If you want to be a part of that you have to wade in and do the hard work also.


That IS the disastrous irony of life and relationships. Because those are the same fathers who raised us and whom we subconsciously look up to.
It's honestly quiote tragic that we have come to hold emotional suppression as ''manly'' and ''ballsy'' and that affects not only men but women and children and everyone really because it creates a false idea, desires and false ''comforts''. And then everyone is confused of what the heck is happening.


----------



## TheJ (Aug 3, 2015)

pomPOM said:


> I think I know which video you arereferring to. It was Brene Brown again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I also think empathy doesn't have to be about action, but when you do not act on it, nobody knows that you feel bad for them! You say that empathy isn't judgement, and yet it more often than not is- you're putting yourself in another person's shoes, that is you're deciding on things that you would do if you were them, then suggesting it to them- that in itself seems like judgement, like you're telling them they can't decide what to do for themselves, or that you're telling them to deal with it instead of whine (even if you don't say it like that at all, it's how it seems to come across).
And then it does the exact opposite of your intention to assist, your intention of going "I know what you're going through, this is what I would do to get out of this situation if I were you". Maybe I should just say this line in advance, to make sure they get that this is my intention? 

I also share your problem with sympathy. I can definitely be sympathetic when I want to, when someone tells me something that I cannot help with, that I know just sucks and all that can be done is wait for time to pass and things will be better- then I'm sympathetic. If someone died in your family, I'd show true sympathy just fine, because I feel your pain, my sympathy comes from empathy. 
But if for instance (real scenario that happened with someone i used to go out with) you fought with your housemate and decided to move to a different house within a few days, i'd want to know more and see what happened, seeing as that is a drastic action, not immediately say "ow poor you, he's such a douche" -I don't know the situation! How am I suppose to comfort you? what kind of obviously fake immediate reaction would that be... And yet it seems like girls expect this.
I see it all the time- girl complains, other girl comforts her and blaming the other person. Seems to me that's no help at all! it might happen again and again and again and the girl will never get what role she played in it, because it's always the other person's fault. And why is the other girl even doing that? because she wants to be a "supportive friend" so she will get the same kind of support in return. Luckily since I don't do that I won't ever have "friends" like that.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

TheJ said:


> I also think empathy doesn't have to be about action, but when you do not act on it, nobody knows that you feel bad for them!


Yeah, I agree, but that's why I say ''in it's purest form''. It would also not exactly feel bad ''for them'' but feel bad with them!



> You say that empathy isn't judgement, and yet it more often than not is- you're putting yourself in another person's shoes, that is you're deciding on things that you would do if you were them, then suggesting it to them- that in itself seems like judgement, like *you're telling them they can't decide what to do for themselves, or that you're telling them to deal with it instead of whine (even if you don't say it like that at all, it's how it seems to come across)*.


I still don't see that as a judgment or at least not the kinda judgment I was referring to when it came to sympathy. Sympathy at least to me feels more like a decision? A cerebral process in a way. I don't know how much I consciously decide the ''if I was them I would do this and that''. It again is more of an unconscious, intuitive experience where things just fall into place and you don't have to push on a thought, it comes naturally. The prior process may require an action to ''put yourself in someone elses shoes'' but then when you have out - the rest of empathizing seems to just come to you.
There is also the raw and present empathy of absorbing what someone else is feeling and especially if you know the context you can feel like you were them. Like seeing someone cry and also know the backstory to it - then feeling like crying yourself, but not with the ''poor you'' accompanying thought but simply because you feel pain and suffering.

Did I give off that impression lol? Damn it.... nooo I wouldn't say the bolded is anywhere near true. It's not really a sense of ''I know better what to do than you do'' but just this desire to help and improve the situation. Also I've barely ever told anyo ne or even thought that someone was just whining. This is actually what empathy is great at - it is patient. I also know better than to push a change on someone who may not even be ready to change. 




> And then it does the exact opposite of your intention to assist, your intention of going "I know what you're going through, this is what I would do to get out of this situation if I were you". Maybe I should just say this line in advance, to make sure they get that this is my intention?


Say the first part and then wait til they seem ready to hear the second part. They will probably come to you when they areready anyway. My most common reactions after empathizing are litterally swearing or making hurtful noises or facial expressions that genuine come out as I am empathizing  or ''I don't know what to honestly say but I am really happy you shared this. I can feel the hurt'' etc. Cuz hoinestly, I usually really DON'T know what to say 



> I also share your problem with sympathy. I can definitely be sympathetic when I want to, when someone tells me something that I cannot help with, that I know just sucks and all that can be done is wait for time to pass and things will be better- then I'm sympathetic. If someone died in your family, I'd show true sympathy just fine, because I feel your pain, *my sympathy comes from empathy*.
> But if for instance (real scenario that happened with someone i used to go out with) you fought with your housemate and decided to move to a different house within a few days, i'd want to know more and see what happened, seeing as that is a drastic action, not immediately say "ow poor you, he's such a douche" -I don't know the situation! How am I suppose to comfort you? what kind of obviously fake immediate reaction would that be... And yet it seems like girls expect this.
> I see it all the time- girl complains, other girl comforts her and blaming the other person. Seems to me that's no help at all! it might happen again and again and again and the girl will never get what role she played in it, because it's always the other person's fault. And why is the other girl even doing that? because she wants to be a "supportive friend" so she will get the same kind of support in return. Luckily since I don't do that I won't ever have "friends" like that.


YEEEES. My sympathy comes from empathy too but it is still hard to give a verbal sympathetic response. I remember my cousins grandma died and the funeral ceremony ended. I saw her across the streetvery upset and that made me cry and I just went there and hugged her for a while. I couldn't say anything still, I felt like ''I am so sorry'' would be such meaningless words. I think my tears already show that I AM sorry (although rationally I have a problem with this ''sorry'' thing when it comes to death). 
I WILL mutter some sympathetic response if I can see that the person really needs it but it will feel so forced and I'll probably wanna move o from saying much pretty quickly.

In your housemate situation I relate to how you approach the situation too, but maybe it has something to do with 9s wanting to mediate and see all sides? Cuz I can't just go and blame your housemate, a person with their own side of the story, just because you said they suck. It seems fake. What I would do is ask more questions about it hoping that my genuine curiosity is also somehow comforting them.

This reminded me how I found a way in which to comfort and encourage people when they feel hopeless and powerless. It may not work on everyone though probably, but it worked on a couple of my friends. When someone who felt depressed and like it will never change came to me seeking comfort, I told them smthn like this: I can imagine how it feels, I have too been down in the dark and it feels utterly paralysing. But honestly I'm not worried about you cuz I know you can kick ass. You have always been very self-conscious and good at improving yourself. I KNOW you will get better one day, it doesn't make sense for YOU not to!
I think it both hears them out as well as encourages them while basing the encouragement on objective facts - at least in that persons case. Because I really wasn't worried. She is a self-bending and improving ENFJ and usually has the motivation and willpower of a hungry lion. In fact, I watched an analysis of some kinda super popular UFC fighter who was so confident, no one understood how and why. And in the analysis it recognized that the fighter always refers to very objective factors that influence his chances of winning, such as - he has worked really hard, he has studied the opponents movements, he is always able to be very present and attentive. So why wouldn't he be confident?
That's a bit off an offtopic. But the ''referring to objective facts to feel confident'' felt also very relatable to me.


----------



## TheJ (Aug 3, 2015)

pomPOM said:


> Yeah, I agree, but that's why I say ''in it's purest form''. It would also not exactly feel bad ''for them'' but feel bad with them!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh I definitely didn't imply that you're anything like that. But it seems that I do come across this way when I do what I think is empathy. It's exactly the fact that it seems to be an unconscious, gut instict to do so- that shakes me up so strongly when a person reacts badly to it. It makes me self conscious and doubtful to the max when I see myself as trying to help and I get a reaction that indicates I did only harm- because then I know something went really bad in my thought process- need to fix fix fix myself.



pomPOM said:


> Say the first part and then wait til they seem ready to hear the second part. They will probably come to you when they are ready anyway. My most common reactions after empathizing are litterally swearing or making hurtful noises or facial expressions that genuine come out as I am empathizing  or ''I don't know what to honestly say but I am really happy you shared this. I can feel the hurt'' etc. Cuz hoinestly, I usually really DON'T know what to say
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is exactly what I did! But my genuine curiosity and looking to assist was interpreted as nosiness and looking for evidence to judge the girl with. Which in turn did make me judge her, because if you're that doubtful about something you did that any inquiry is interpreted as hidden judgement, then you know there's something off in your behavior >.> 



pomPOM said:


> This reminded me how I found a way in which to comfort and encourage people when they feel hopeless and powerless. It may not work on everyone though probably, but it worked on a couple of my friends. When someone who felt depressed and like it will never change came to me seeking comfort, I told them smthn like this: I can imagine how it feels, I have too been down in the dark and it feels utterly paralysing. But honestly I'm not worried about you cuz I know you can kick ass. You have always been very self-conscious and good at improving yourself. I KNOW you will get better one day, it doesn't make sense for YOU not to!
> I think it both hears them out as well as encourages them while basing the encouragement on objective facts - at least in that persons case. Because I really wasn't worried. She is a self-vending and improving ENFJ and usually has the motivation and willpower of a hungry lion. In fact, I watched an analysis of some kinda super popular UFC fighter who was so confident, no one understood how and why. And in the analysis it recognized that the fighter always refers to very objective factors that influence his chances of winning, such as - he has worked really hard, he has studied the opponents movements, he is always able to be very present and attentive. So why wouldn't he be confident?
> That's a bit off an offtopic. But the ''referring to objective facts to feel confident'' felt also very relatable to me.


It's a very individualistic thing I guess. With some- telling them good things about themselves would seem as overly optimistic and unrealistic and will not be appreciated. Some can even be offended by how the fact you're telling them they can do this when they are sure they can't is denying their own thoughts/emotions of the situation. I always liked the encouraging approach, but it definitely doesn't work on everyone. 
And I cannot agree more, it's an excellent way to give yourself a boost- reminding yourself exactly what external factors that work for you come into play when you're facing a situation- framing it into the perspective that will be most beneficial to you- it's a powerful tool to those who wield it right, but it seems not everyone can or want to do it.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

pomPOM said:


> For a while I've been wanting and wishing for the opportunity to come to a closer understanding of the emotional life of men and how one is to be able to connect on that level with them.
> 
> It has come to be of an even bigger importance now that I have learned I have only been able to connect emotionally to 1 man (who lives across the damn pond for christs sake yall) yet it seems to be a highly important component for me to feel I am having a meaningful relationship.
> 
> ...


I read that sex is a very good way for men to connect with women emotionally.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

Tropes said:


> Seriously though, the very idea that you find in your partner a safe haven from judgement is interesting. It's inherently contradictory too, isn't it? The very fact we choose someone as a partner - the act of choosing - means judging them, judging them positively overall, but still judging them, and they've judged us, without judging each other two lovers wouldn't have gotten to the point of choosing each other in the first place. So when judgement is built right into the context, what does not being judged actually mean?


I definitely get what you're saying. For me though it's more like I want someone to actually judge me for who I am, not for some superficial attribute or mistake in my past. Like say you have a few (metaphorical) skeletons and most people would just look the other way immediately. What you want isn't someone who's going to overlook if you are a bad person, just someone who is willing to see your flaws, but also give you time to show them your best attributes. Quite frankly most people have plenty of flaws and when we compare a person who has been honest about their flaws to someone who is hiding theirs it's no wonder the later often seems much more desirable. But then what happens a year later when they drop the act and you see their flaws come out? Better to just say, "this is me as I am take it or leave it".


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

SolonsWarning said:


> But then what happens a year later when they drop the act and you see their flaws come out? Better to just say, "this is me as I am take it or leave it".


Funny story: That's get you a place on the same god damn pedestal. 

You know what happens instead? The exact god damn thing as with people who hide their flaws. People still put you on a pedestal, but instead they perceive you as someone so comfortable with himself and his flaws that he's invulnerable to what anyone else might think, which can be true for many, but not when the else is someone you love, making it a pedestal you are bound to fall from. Now I got to the point that I actually need to outright tell people who show signs of being attracted to that that this is an illusion, because showing your flaws in the open and being comfortable with yourself has the unfortunate side effect of hiding the very same flaws that prevent most people from doing just that.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I wasn't gonna respond to this at first, because I'm usually lazy with these kinda topics to really put thought into it, since it can get really involved...but here goes.


* *







> If you reflect on your experience, what do you think made you feel comfortable connecting to a woman (or ok, anyone) emotionally?


I don't know, but I guess I can tell you what makes me uncomfortable. Being stereotyped/prematurely labeled based on something superficial (like something I said/did is similar to someone else who had a certain trait, so I'm assumed to share that trait because it's been generalized to all men..for example). The main ones I've gotten, seemingly more so from women (but I dunno if that's because I land on these kinds of topics with women more or because it's something women actually do more): 



Assuming I'm all shy and cutesy because they don't understand how introversion works;
Assuming I'm a passive person in general (see above lol..) and then proceeding to try to make my behavior fit what they wish;
Assuming I'm sexually submissive -- usually extrapolated from one of the above, which is hilarious because it's like a stereotype based on a stereotype, not even directly taken from my behavior but from their own assumptions they already made
Assuming I'm repressed somehow (i.e. sexually or emotionally)... because..well I think you can see the pattern...
Talking to me about 'women' in this way that makes me think they're catering to a perspective I'm assumed to have, along the lines of women are foreign creatures that I'm naive about and I'm indirectly asking for advice from someone enlightened. This is also funny to me, because it tends to come with them stereotyping women as a whole, giving me unsolicited "advice" about what women "want", "like", "can't stand" etc. (I usually think I'm having a conversation but it turns into this weird condescending thing).

Now why would I want to open up to someone who has created a stereotyped mental framework of me with no real basis in reality? When these assumptions start rolling in, I start to think I might've opened up "too much" already. Either that or I haven't opened up enough to move beyond stereotypes/superficiality...but in that case they don't deserve the inside layers. :tongue:

Sometimes there isn't active labeling going on like that, but I just feel that someone doesn't really know me, or care to find out. So that's more of a "why bother?" situation. No practical value of being vulnerable there. It could possibly just annoy the other person. 

So for the "ok, or anyone" bit, as an example, I find it very easy to open up to INTP men (I don't know any INTP women IRL so can't really speak to that). Which seems counter-intuitive given the way INTPs tend to be stereotyped, coupled with the way male-male interactions are stereotyped (acting stoic). But then being an NT myself I don't see them as emotionless robots. They usually seem comfortable discussing issues of vulnerability and emotional concerns, but it's framed in a philosophical, "yeah let's figure out all this complexity" way, which is much more digestible for me than two people spilling their guts at each other, wearing their hearts on their sleeves...not into that at all. It's totally weird. lol. 

(That said, INTPs have also made premature assumptions about me.. I just find that it usually clears up pretty quickly when they realize it was premature).

So essentially, if someone can approach issues of vulnerability as an adult (doesn't have to be an INTP, that's just a prominent example in my mind), I will be more comfortable with that. 

I'm also not comfortable with people dismissing something I consider important, but that's probably an issue of values-compatibility and could be Enneagram/MBTI related for example (Fi/Fe conflict seems to be an interpersonal concern of mine).




> On the contrary - what tends to make you uncomfortable being emotionally vulnerable?


Already answered this 




> How do you feel about other's seeing you as an island for their emotional safety?


I'm not sure what you mean by this.. but going by what you said in the spoilers, you're referring to someone whose emotions are detached from your own? So if you're distressed or something you can open up about it and it won't affect them? 

I'm okay with having that role, as long as it doesn't become exploited and turn into me being a therapist, being depended on to coddle someone, validate them etc. Which has happened, and then I lose my patience pretty quickly and all of a sudden I'm a heartless dick (because I was expected to be a therapist and can't fit that expectation). Actually, add "assumes I am a good therapist" onto my bulleted list above... that makes me uncomfortable. 

But yeah, I don't want my emotions to be dependent on someone else's, but that kinda goes both ways. I think emotions should be islands in a way. They need room to breathe  (again, could be a type thing and not everyone will see it this way...and there would likely be a compatibility issue there).



> And how important is an emotional connection and vulnerability from yours and your partners side in a relationship?


I think I'm generally open to a partner being vulnerable to a larger extent than myself. I'm not sure why, I just find it interesting to learn about vulnerability and it's somehow connected to romantic attraction for me. But with myself I guess I have this worry about crossing a line and being too vulnerable (maybe because people who've been that way with me have irritated me so much lol). So I'm more cautious and try to gauge how much they are interested in me being vulnerable. 

That said, I guess it depends what you mean by "vulnerable". I think of it as an ability to be open about your weaknesses, flaws, insecurities etc. And trusting someone to be willing to at least see where you're coming from when you bring them up. I don't think it should go too far beyond that, since just dumping all your vulnerability on someone else is a problem. And not wanting to discuss an emotional issue with someone else doesn't mean you're repressed either 




Now you see why I hesitated on responding to this.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

It seems quite simple for me. Life motto is after all: _It takes a genius to make something simpler._ Nvm.

When I see the other person being relaxed (mental, physical) around me and go at me from and to the same state. I know I can drop anything and not be rejected.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tropes said:


> Funny story: That's get you a place on the same god damn pedestal.
> 
> You know what happens instead? The exact god damn thing as with people who hide their flaws. People still put you on a pedestal, but instead they perceive you as someone so comfortable with himself and his flaws that he's invulnerable to what anyone else might think, which can be true for many, but not when the else is someone you love, making it a pedestal you are bound to fall from. Now I got to the point that I actually need to outright tell people who show signs of being attracted to that that this is an illusion, because showing your flaws in the open and being comfortable with yourself has the unfortunate side effect of hiding the very same flaws that prevent most people from doing just that.


But then, why is it a problem, falling of a pedestal, if it's bound to happen... Don't you think it's also on them, if they've let themselves believe you're immune to judgement, meaning that they might turn around and blame themselves for not seeing the obvious (that humans especially in love are vulnerable), and it might be alright?

I don't know, I mean it seems pretty obvious to me that someone who is almost overrelaxed is doing it to prevent disappointments later on, and that means they're probably sensible to being criticized esp "later on". Maybe it's different of course to someone who's fallen in love, but still I would think they might be able to take much of the responsibility for letting it get to that.


----------



## Ultio (Nov 22, 2016)

pomPOM said:


> For a while I've been wanting and wishing for the opportunity to come to a closer understanding of the emotional life of men and how one is to be able to connect on that level with them.
> 
> It has come to be of an even bigger importance now that I have learned I have only been able to connect emotionally to 1 man (who lives across the damn pond for christs sake yall) yet it seems to be a highly important component for me to feel I am having a meaningful relationship.
> 
> ...


You just answered your own questions. 



pomPOM said:


> My story with connecting emotionally with men
> 
> So, realizing that there has only been 1 guy I feel I have developed an emotional bond with was a bit frustrating. But then I tried analyzing why this specific person managed to gain my full on trust in being vulnerable myself and being open to let his emotions in as well.
> *1. **He has not expressed a single moral judgment over the things that I have been vulnerable with.* Not that he doesn't express his own stance on the moral question I may be touching, but he does not make it personal taking in consideration the circumstances that surround my very individual case.
> ...


Just reverse engineer those points. Or just simply, ask him - what led him to behave that way with you and reproduce the tactics with other men. 

I think you are over analyzing this. You connect when there is commonality - common objective, common enemy, common pain and suffering. It is something intuitive. How do you do this? It's simple - stop thinking about it and go *do something together*!


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

SolonsWarning said:


> I definitely get what you're saying. For me though it's more like I want someone to actually judge me for who I am, not for some superficial attribute or mistake in my past. Like say you have a few (metaphorical) skeletons and most people would just look the other way immediately. What you want isn't someone who's going to overlook if you are a bad person, just someone who is willing to see your flaws, but also give you time to show them your best attributes. Quite frankly most people have plenty of flaws and when we compare a person who has been honest about their flaws to someone who is hiding theirs it's no wonder the later often seems much more desirable. But then what happens a year later when they drop the act and you see their flaws come out? Better to just say, "this is me as I am take it or leave it".


And it's less about the judging aspect over all, and more about the result of the judging; A partner being a safe haven is them loving and caring for you in spite of all the things others would judge you negatively over. Not acting like they're not there- but accepting them. 

And yes, people have a very bad habit of hiding their flaws. Not excluding myself. But it's definitely healthier to present those things about yourself, as you would the good-- if you don't, you're just putting off the inevitable. They will accept you or they won't. I've been talking to someone for 2 months now and we've already delved into the topic. There's no point in saving serious topics for months to a year or more down the line if you want something possibly long lasting.

Like, "Hey, I can be insecure sometimes and xyz triggers this at times. It's not something I'm proud of, but you deserve to know." It's not hard in theory, but harder to put into practice, I suppose. But I'm doing it because I want something worthwhile. Not a surprise in a year when I realize my negative traits are highly incompatible with my partner, or vice versa.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

perpetuallyreticent said:


> Like, "Hey, I can be insecure sometimes and xyz triggers this at times. It's not something I'm proud of, but you deserve to know." It's not hard in theory, but harder to put into practice, I suppose. But I'm doing it because I want something worthwhile. Not a surprise in a year when I realize my negative traits are highly incompatible with my partner, or vice versa.


Yeah, I almost think I'm TOO open about my flaws early and that scares people off. I despise the fact that I am expected to hide parts of my past or parts of my personality. I'm, pretty sure that I am a good person and shouldn't have to hide anything, which is why the societal expectation to hide negative attributes pisses me off so much.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

(Post #1) 

It is very simplistic; especially for an NT myself. No effort necessary. Play it collected (&) relax; don't say much, just go "me too" when they start ranting about something. There isn't much strategic method(s). Don't ask them what they are feeling / thinking, either.

Do not care about their emotion(s) / pressuring people into anything. Then, they open up like a book skank in a library. If you deal the cards correct, you'll have their life story in (3) weeks. (2)-weeks if you're *nasty*.

Edit; I get many moral judgment(s) as well; however this seems_ reflexive_ from repetitively involving myself with (F)-dom / aux men and Xtian Catholic men as atheist, myself. (LOL). So perhap(s) scenarios differ.


----------



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

Catwalk said:


> I get many moral judgment(s) as well; however this seems_ reflexive_ from repetitively involving myself with (F)-dom / aux men and Xtian Catholic men as atheist, myself. (LOL). So perhap(s) scenarios differ.


I dont think that you understand how to use brackets: 'Perhap' isn't a word; It is always 'perhaps'. Why do you bracket the 's'? "Judgement(s)" could be used more more reasonably in this (eccentric) style, since there is 'judgement' and there are 'judgements'. Your meaning isn't clear; What are you trying to communicate with 'perhap(s)'?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Choking Hazard said:


> I dont think that you understand how to use brackets: 'Perhap' isn't a word; It is always 'perhaps'. Why do you bracket the 's'? "Judgement(s)" could be used more more reasonably in this (eccentric) style, since there is 'judgement' and there are 'judgements'. Your meaning isn't clear; What are you trying to communicate with 'perhap(s)'?


_Indeed_—it appear(s) I have *Choked*™.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

perpetuallyreticent said:


> And it's less about the judging aspect over all, and more about the result of the judging; A partner being a safe haven is them loving and caring for you in spite of all the things others would judge you negatively over. Not acting like they're not there- but accepting them.
> 
> And yes, people have a very bad habit of hiding their flaws. Not excluding myself. But it's definitely healthier to present those things about yourself, as you would the good-- if you don't, you're just putting off the inevitable. They will accept you or they won't. I've been talking to someone for 2 months now and we've already delved into the topic. There's no point in saving serious topics for months to a year or more down the line if you want something possibly long lasting.
> 
> Like, "Hey, I can be insecure sometimes and xyz triggers this at times. It's not something I'm proud of, but you deserve to know." It's not hard in theory, but harder to put into practice, I suppose. But I'm doing it because I want something worthwhile. Not a surprise in a year when I realize my negative traits are highly incompatible with my partner, or vice versa.





SolonsWarning said:


> Yeah, I almost think I'm TOO open about my flaws early and that scares people off. I despise the fact that I am expected to hide parts of my past or parts of my personality. I'm, pretty sure that I am a good person and shouldn't have to hide anything, which is why the societal expectation to hide negative attributes pisses me off so much.


I'll ask you two instead  (I'm such a argumentative conservative these days), but what do you look to gain from being pre-emptively open about your faults and insecurities? Why do you think it's a good idea and better than the old-fashioned way of starting off on your best behavior and slowly revealing more and more as you either get more relaxed or can't hide your flaws anymore?

Edit: @Choking Hazard @Catwalk I like @Catwalk's old style with the unnecessarily frequent ' 's better. They're pretty, there can't be too much of ''s. [Edit, I reread it and you weren't talking about ''s at all, sorry. I think Catwalk has still used them in an unconventional manner sometime. There should be more, imo.] My favorite is the :: though.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

Jamaia said:


> I'll ask you two instead  (I'm such a argumentative conservative these days), but what do you look to gain from being pre-emptively open about your faults and insecurities? Why do you think it's a good idea and better than the old-fashioned way of starting off on your best behavior and slowly revealing more and more as you either get more relaxed or can't hide your flaws anymore?


It's not some sort of, "strategy". It causes me moral angst to have to lie to someone, especially if I care about them. Therefore I would prefer not to have to do it.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

SolonsWarning said:


> It's not some sort of, "strategy". It causes me moral angst to have to lie to someone, especially if I care about them. Therefore I would prefer not to have to do it.


But surely there are options between lying and revealing everything. And between telling them about your flaws vs just doing your best and letting them experience you first hand. You could not lie but just let things unroll with natural pace, your flaws would become visible to them if and when they're relevant in the context of your relationship. Some of the things you've thought were your flaws may not ever even surface. Anyways, I was asking, what do you look to gain by being as open as you are early on? Is it just relieve from the moral angst of feeling like you're lying to them if you don't?


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> I'll ask you two instead  (I'm such a argumentative conservative these days), but what do you look to gain from being pre-emptively open about your faults and insecurities? Why do you think it's a good idea and better than the old-fashioned way of starting off on your best behavior and slowly revealing more and more as you either get more relaxed or can't hide your flaws anymore?
> 
> Edit: @Choking Hazard @Catwalk I like @Catwalk's old style with the unnecessarily frequent ' 's better. They're pretty, there can't be too much of ''s. [Edit, I reread it and you weren't talking about ''s at all, sorry. I think Catwalk has still used them in an unconventional manner sometime. There should be more, imo.] My favorite is the :: though.


For me it's about not wanting to waste time that doesn't need to be wasted. If you wait to reveal something about yourself, say, 7 months down the line when things are going fairly steady instead of a few weeks (or just, early on) into the relationship then you're just setting yourself and the other person up for heart break. Or at the very least, a bad time. 

Ideally, I'd like a long term, successful relationship. So I'm not going to wait so long to reveal whatever flaw I have (if it's something that could potentially be a deal breaker.. not something minor) just to prolong the inevitable. 

I'll admit I would have probably hidden my flaws a lot more a year or two ago. But now I'm more or less past it. I want someone who's going to communicate with me about anything and everything, so at some point we'll end up on the subject of likes/dislikes in a partner and clear that up fairly quickly. It makes things go smoother, imo.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

SolonsWarning said:


> Yeah, I almost think I'm TOO open about my flaws early and that scares people off. I despise the fact that I am expected to hide parts of my past or parts of my personality. I'm, pretty sure that I am a good person and shouldn't have to hide anything, which is why the societal expectation to hide negative attributes pisses me off so much.


I'm with you on that. 



Jamaia said:


> I'll ask you two instead  (I'm such a argumentative conservative these days), but what do you look to gain from being pre-emptively open about your faults and insecurities? Why do you think it's a good idea and better than the old-fashioned way of starting off on your best behavior and slowly revealing more and more as you either get more relaxed or can't hide your flaws anymore?
> 
> Edit: @*Choking Hazard* @*Catwalk* I like @*Catwalk*'s old style with the unnecessarily frequent ' 's better. They're pretty, there can't be too much of ''s. [Edit, I reread it and you weren't talking about ''s at all, sorry. I think Catwalk has still used them in an unconventional manner sometime. There should be more, imo.] My favorite is the :: though.


You're funny. 

I am pretty open about my faults once I get to talking with someone (though that in itself can take awhile, lol), but I tend to use self-deprecating humor.. though that still seems to elude people sometimes, and they think I'm bringing it up because I'm negative/insecure. Actually, this leads me to continue doing it, to get an idea of who is on the same "wavelength" as I am. 

I tend to see only showing your good side as sort of a self-serving bias. I had a lot more of an issue with the concept of "first impressions" in my teens, but I was able to rationalize it in terms of relevance to a situation. So like in a professional situation, your whole appearance and the impression you give shouldn't go beyond the context of the work environment. So it tends to lean towards your good side, as it revolves around skill sets and such. In a casual situation, of course there is a broader scope for what is considered "relevant", but once you start having a conversation about anything semi-personal then it's usually inevitable that flaws come out since that's in the realm of "getting to know someone". So there is a point where you have to actively omit things about yourself that could be relevant.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

perpetuallyreticent said:


> For me it's about not wanting to waste time that doesn't need to be wasted. If you wait to reveal something about yourself, say, 7 months down the line when things are going fairly steady instead of a few weeks (or just, early on) into the relationship then you're just setting yourself and the other person up for heart break. Or at the very least, a bad time.
> 
> Ideally, I'd like a long term, successful relationship. So I'm not going to wait so long to reveal whatever flaw I have (if it's something that could potentially be a deal breaker.. not something minor) just to prolong the inevitable.
> 
> I'll admit I would have probably hidden my flaws a lot more a year or two ago. But now I'm more or less past it. I want someone who's going to communicate with me about anything and everything, so at some point we'll end up on the subject of likes/dislikes in a partner and clear that up fairly quickly. It makes things go smoother, imo.


I was just wondering, since you gave an example of:


> "Hey, I can be insecure sometimes and xyz triggers this at times. It's not something I'm proud of, but you deserve to know." It's not hard in theory, but harder to put into practice, I suppose. But I'm doing it because I want something worthwhile. Not a surprise in a year when I realize my negative traits are highly incompatible with my partner, or vice versa.


You'd say that and then they'd respond in some way. Maybe there'd be a fruitful conversation. So, ideally when the issue does arise it's not a surprise, right?

But I was wondering if there really is much quality information being transferred when having that talk. 

Perhaps you saying that^ gives them the impression that you're actually on top of the issue, and they sort of expect you to deal with it and not let it become a problem. You may be thinking you're saying: "Compared to most other people I have extreme insecurity issues which I can be deal breakers in any romantic relationship and have caused me much trouble in my previous relationships, and I want you to seriously consider this before we go further", but they might even be going "phew" in their head: "Yay I found a sane one, she can articulate so well something all people deal with but most never admit."

If the other person continues to pursue the relationship after the talk, is that indication that the other person is fine with your issue? Of course not, you can't know how they'll actually deal with it even if they say they understand, you can't know if they do or don't. 

If you've had a talk about your "flaws", and the most major flaws are left out, isn't that kind of misleading and dangerous? Like telling someone: "Before we start this ride, I'll have you know there will be spiders", and they say: "I'm accustomed to spiders, I'm not afraid." "There are lizards too, they may bite", and they say confidently: "I'll catch the spiders and feed them to the lizards so they won't bite", and (you think "wow this guy is smart") so the ride begins, they keep an eye out for the few spiders and lizards and do just fine until the pack of hungry lions sneak up on them and eat them alive. Their last words a desperate cry: "You never said there'd be liooooooooo..." Moral of the story, if you must tamper with natural selection, just put up a general "PROCEED WITH CAUTION" sign and let them figure you out, they're a free agent just as much as you are and they may be able to do you some good if you don't decide how it's going to play out in advance.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> I was just wondering, since you gave an example of:
> 
> You'd say that and then they'd respond in some way. Maybe there'd be a fruitful conversation. So, ideally when the issue does arise it's not a surprise, right?
> 
> ...


I will respond to this later after work.  

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

perpetuallyreticent said:


> I will respond to this later after work.
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


You promised


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> You promised


Sorry I knew I'd get sidetracked. I'll get my laptop right now to respond.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> I was just wondering, since you gave an example of:
> 
> You'd say that and then they'd respond in some way. Maybe there'd be a fruitful conversation. So, ideally when the issue does arise it's not a surprise, right?
> 
> But I was wondering if there really is much quality information being transferred when having that talk.


Personally, I feel as though when the information is swapped between two people early on about faults they harbor or traits they have that may or may not be a deal breaker, it can be concluded for both of those people that things may not work out and that they shouldn't continue on. 



Jamaia said:


> Perhaps you saying that^ gives them the impression that you're actually on top of the issue, and they sort of expect you to deal with it and not let it become a problem. You may be thinking you're saying: "Compared to most other people I have extreme insecurity issues which I can be deal breakers in any romantic relationship and have caused me much trouble in my previous relationships, and I want you to seriously consider this before we go further", but they might even be going "phew" in their head: "Yay I found a sane one, she can articulate so well something all people deal with but most never admit."


I don't know about other people, but that is kind of what I'm saying when I'm coming clean about my negative traits. I'm trying to grow everyday and be the best me I can be, and that means fixing my flaws if at all possible. Working on them. I have a problem with self worth and insecurity. So those would be things I'd try to work on, and tell my to-be/partner with about it incase that's a huge deal for them. I just think communicating these things is a big deal, and opens up other kinds of communications that most couples early on avoid out of fear of feeling uncomfortable or invasive. Or out of feeling like they're revealing too much of themselves, which I don't even consider a thing. 



Jamaia said:


> If the other person continues to pursue the relationship after the talk, is that indication that the other person is fine with your issue? Of course not, you can't know how they'll actually deal with it even if they say they understand, you can't know if they do or don't.


This is true. People are unpredictable, that much I can't predict. But I just think, for me, it's common courtesy to reveal things early on, even if they still have a chance at turning sour. Of course in most relationships we hope for the best, and that includes how the person actually reacts in the situation when it presents itself.



Jamaia said:


> If you've had a talk about your "flaws", and the most major flaws are left out, isn't that kind of misleading and dangerous? Like telling someone: "Before we start this ride, I'll have you know there will be spiders", and they say: "I'm accustomed to spiders, I'm not afraid." "There are lizards too, they may bite", and they say confidently: "I'll catch the spiders and feed them to the lizards so they won't bite", and (you think "wow this guy is smart") so the ride begins, they keep an eye out for the few spiders and lizards and do just fine until the pack of hungry lions sneak up on them and eat them alive. Their last words a desperate cry: "You never said there'd be liooooooooo..." Moral of the story, if you must tamper with natural selection, just put up a general "PROCEED WITH CAUTION" sign and let them figure you out, they're a free agent just as much as you are and they may be able to do you some good if you don't decide how it's going to play out in advance.


Lol I love that analogy. That's a good point, some things I guess can't be revealed by just talking about them, and only really found out until you're in the moment with that person and in situations where those qualities/traits are brought out. 

Listen, I didn't say my way was fool proof! :shocked:


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

perpetuallyreticent said:


> Personally, I feel as though when the information is swapped between two people early on about faults they harbor or traits they have that may or may not be a deal breaker, it can be concluded for both of those people that things may not work out and that they shouldn't continue on.
> 
> 
> I don't know about other people, but that is kind of what I'm saying when I'm coming clean about my negative traits. I'm trying to grow everyday and be the best me I can be, and that means fixing my flaws if at all possible. Working on them. I have a problem with self worth and insecurity. So those would be things I'd try to work on, and tell my to-be/partner with about it incase that's a huge deal for them. I just think communicating these things is a big deal, and opens up other kinds of communications that most couples early on avoid out of fear of feeling uncomfortable or invasive. Or out of feeling like they're revealing too much of themselves, which I don't even consider a thing.
> ...


Lol, thanks @perpetuallyreticent ! Don't feel bad about keeping me waiting, I only spent until halfway through Sunday repeatedly hitting the refresh button... to no awail. (jk, I got distracted too but accidentally landed back in this thread)

I was thinking with the lions that the smart guy who was fine with spiders and lizards would've probably handled spiders and lizards just fine even without a warning, and if given full ownership he could've stayed alert and survived the lions of which no one knew to warn him about . But I'm not seriously of course arguing to keep quiet if there is something about you that is occupying your thoughts and is important to you. It just seems a bit catch-22ian to warn someone in advance about something that is impossible for them to really grasp anyway. It is about to enter their world line so they better be prepared to handle it on their own. Your prediction of it may even not be correct. Maybe instead of claiming to predict anything of future, tell it more anecdotally, from the point of view of sharing what in your perception has been going on in the past, not what for sure will be in the future. Just saying.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Chesire Tower said:


> Interesting idea; maybe I should try it but it's practically in my blood to find the absurdities in any and every situation and crack a joke about it; honestly, it's almost like breathing to me.


Oh, a fellow 5w4. :kitteh: 
And an INFJ? Must be that ol' Ni kicking in (sips coffee).
Well done, cuz.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Completely OT, but I love your Lord Byron quote.
Someday I'll have to hit the lottery so I can quit working and have enough time to like, you know, actually *read* or something.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

g_w said:


> Oh, a fellow 5w4. :kitteh:
> And an INFJ? Must be that ol' Ni kicking in (sips coffee).
> Well done, cuz.


Thanks; this is the second time today; I've gotten praise for a post that took me virtually no effort to make. I hope this becomes some sort of trend .:barbershop_quartet_


----------



## Ultio (Nov 22, 2016)

@perpetuallyreticent & @Jamaia - You guys present a good topic. Perhaps this can shed a bit more light on the matter:











I agree with perpetuallyreticent that important matters should be discussed before the relationship has progressed beyond a month, but at the same time somethings should be revealed gradually. And Jamaia, the logic you present requires the precondition that each partner's life revolve around the other to have an intuitive relationship that natural flows. 

I will try to respond in detail when I get some free time.

P.S. - this thread has been derailed to kingdom come.


----------

