Settling vs. compromising?
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 07-11-2006 - 11:21am |
A few nights ago another single friend and I were talking about the many men we've dated. One of the main reasons we both feel we've never been married is b/c we've never met a man who seems to want to experience the same level of emotional intimacy as most women do. For example, most women I know want to share their feelings, experiences, etc. with their friends and their SOs and will ask questions to those people to encourage deeper conversation etc. However, most men I know are much happier simply getting surface answers. A common example (and a well known stereotype) is a man vs. a woman's desire to talk about their days when they get home. For example, all the men I've dated and even the guys I am friends with may ask about my day ,but as soon as I say "oh, my boss was being a real jerk today, it was a hard day." They'll respond with "that sucks, sorry to hear that" (or something similar) and then be ready to move on to the next topic. My woman friends on the other hand, are much more likely to say "what happened? tell me about it" and a long conversation will result. Hence I've always felt much more emotionally intimate with my woman friends than any man I've dated since it seems like my woman friends are much more interested in hearing and knowing about my life, the events that go on in it, and how I think/feel about these events. Therfore, I've always said I don't want to get married till I meet a guy who seems as interested in these type of conversations as my woman friends do & who I feel I am just as emotionally intimate with as I am with my female friends.
However, after the conversation with my friend the other night, I started asking lots of my married woman friends more about this. The ones who were married all acknowledged that generally yes, they do not share as much information with their husbands as they might with their girlfriends, simply b/c their husbands don't seem as interested in this level of "detail." To be honest this kind of shocked me. For me personally, having someone who is intricately involved and interested in my life, someone who wants to hear about the details of my day, my problems, my concerns and discuss them, seems like a prerequisite for marriage. I feel I don't want to marry someone who isn't my best friend and who I can't have similar conversations with that I have with my female friends--otherwise I'd always feel emotionally much closer to my female friends than my husband & he would always sort of be "second place" emotionally. To me, accepting anything less would be "settling" and I'd feel something was missing. However, after hearing my perspective, many of my married friends have suggested that if they'd waited for the same thing they'd never be married. That its a fact of life that men relate differently than woman and its wrong to think I'll ever meet a man who cares to be as emotionally intimate as my girlfriends do. That I shouldn't look to my (potential) husband to fill the same role my woman friends do and just accept that I am going to relate differently to him than I will to my female friends otherwise I will never get married (they're not pressuring me to get married, they just know a happy marriage IS one of my life goals). They do not consider it "settling" to have married a man they are less emotionally intimate with, just more an acceptance of a fact of life that acknowledges the differences btwn men and women & a difference in their expectations regarding marriage.
Anyways, these conversations really got me thinking & I'm starting to wonder if my maybe my married friends are right--am I expecting too much from a marriage or a man? LIke I mentioned, I personally have never met a man who is as emotionally intimate with me as my girlfriends (even my many male friends, dad and brother do not meet this expectation) and a large, informal survey of my friends who are married and in long term relationships would seem to indicate that they have not found this type of man either--rather they've seen that as something that just doesn't exist and a necessary compromise they need to accept if they truly want to choose marriage as a path in life. Maybe I do need to accept that men just aren't 'wired' to talk as intimately as woman and forget the idea that I need to be able to talk to a man like I do my woman friends before I consider him marriage worthy. On the other hand, part of me feels like accepting a man who I do not have that level of emotional intimacy with would be settling. I'd be interested to hear others thoughts or perspectives on this one....

Pages
If a friend said to you, they were looking for a husband who had great fashion sense so they could go shopping for clothes with them, and kept their place like a male Martha Stewart, but they were not gay. What would you say to them? Hold out for their perfect man, or settle for less?
Personally I view compromising as looking at the realities of life around us and figuring what you can and can't live with. Settling is dropping things you absolutely require to be happy.
Can you be happy without that level of intimacy? Billions of women have decided they can. Like your friends, they have chosen not to burden just one person in their life with meeting *all* their needs. Instead their needs are met through a variety of people in their life. Friends, husband, family, co-workers etc.
Can you find a man like you describe? Yes. Will you even be attracted to him in other ways? Possibly not. The man you describe would be extremely rare. That cuts down on your dating pool to an extreme that you might not ever find a good match.
Some women have decided their guy has to look Brad Pitt to be happy. They have a tough road ahead of them. Are they failing to compromise with reality, or are they just "not settling". Something to think about.
Brokk...
Hm. This is kind of a tough one for me, because I don't relate very well to a lot of other women. That deep emotional bonding kind of talking you describe often doesn't work for me--I give "male" responses too often, and tend to offend women by doing so. So take my thoughts for what they're worth.
I do have emotional intimacy with my husband, and he is my best friend. I feel like I can talk to him about pretty much anything. BUT...this doesn't include him listening to me whine about my bad days every time I have them, or being female in his responses to me. He's not a girl, and it wouldn't be reasonable for me to expect him to be one. When I want to get into details about, say, frustrations with another female friend who's got a desperate and worsening princess complex, I talk to my girlfriends. That's why I have them. But if I need to talk about the direction my new career is heading in, I talk to my husband. (And my friends, but usually my husband first and most often.)
It sounds to me like you're clinging to a romantic notion of one perfect true soul mate who will be your All and Everything. And that's a totally unrealistic fairy-tale. There is ***NO*** one person who is going to be everything to you. He (or she) simply does not exist. It doesn't matter if you're married for fifty years--you're still going to need other people in your life. Your husband will not replace your girlfriends, just as your girlfriends will not replace your husband. Realizing this truth and acting on it isn't "settling." It's not even compromising. It's accepting reality.
One other thing about your post bothers me a bit...when you described emotional intimacy, it was all about YOU. What your theoretical husband would do for you, how he would listen to you, support you, etc. You never mention the other side--how you will support *him*. Emotional intimacy in marriage is a two-way street. And men DO NOT want the same kind of emotional support women do--you're going to have to change your own paradigm in order to support a man emotionally. This may in fact include doing exactly the opposite of what you're used to with your girlfriends. It may mean offering solutions to problems rather than just listening sympathetically. It may occasionally mean NOT prying, just stepping back and letting him deal with things in his own head without asking too many questions. It may even mean ignoring problems completely and having wild monkey sex to get his mind off things.
One of the most important axioms of romantic relationships that sooo many women seem to forget is very, very simple. MEN ARE NOT WOMEN. If you seriously want a marriage that's just like an intimate emotional relationship with your best girlfriend, I would honestly suggest thinking about going gay. You'd get much closer to what you want than you ever will with a traditional marriage to a man.
--fc
Men and women just communicate differently. We want to vent. It stresses them out to not fix things for us. We get mad because we feel like they don't jsut listen without trying to control. They don't understand why we don't want them to solve our problems.
I remember reading somewhere (maybe even that book) a story of a woman who wanted a divorce. They agreed to counseling first. When asked by her H why she wanted a divorce she said "Because every day you gave me the crust off your toast. The crumbs. The worst part." He answered her back "I gave you the crust because I always thought it was the best part." She thought he was giving her the dregs and he thought he was giving her the best.
Partners have to communicate but I don't think we can expect a partner to communicate exactly how we want. We all have our own script. We all have experienced life differently. We may see the same thing in very different ways. We may communicate differently because of culture, our childhoods or genders.
There are some men who can communicate like a girl I'm sure but they are not the norm. Often I have found that they were raised with a bunch of sisters and just "get" women. But in our culture from the time men are little boys to be seen as sensitive is to be seen as a sissy, weak or gay. They learn from an early age to not be girly. I know my upbringing influences me every day. Try as I might I cannot seem to change the way I communicate about things. I am the type of woman who goes inside herself to try to resolve an issue and if I remain stumped it is then and only then I turn to intimate conversation with girlfriends, fam ily members or a therapist. I will chit chat with girlfriends about my child, home, some aspects of my relationship but I don't find that to be "intimacy" in the true sense. I have one gf and a couple of sisters I share my deepest and darkest with and even that is on a limited basis.
My partner is one of my best friends. I turn to him for support and intimacy in some matters. I know I can lean on him when I am sad about my dads and my sisters cancer and their impending deaths. I know I can watch our dd sleeping with him and he feels the warm fuzzies our love for her inspires but I know when he asks about my day he's really looking for an accounting not how I "felt" when a customer was a bonehead or a shipment didn't come in.
Guys are not girls. I too find my soulmate to be my gf of 27 years. Unfortuantely we are both straight.
"Can you be happy without that level of intimacy? Billions of women have decided they can. Like your friends, they have chosen not to burden just one person in their life with meeting *all* their needs. Instead their needs are met through a variety of people in their life. Friends, husband, family, co-workers etc."
Respectfully, I think you are interpreting my post in a harsh light. I'm not looking for my husband to fill ALL my needs and am not trying to "burden" him with being my one and only outlet--its not like he'll be the only person I'll be emotionally intimate and expect him to be the only person I talk to. I see it more as a base level emotional intimacy I am looking for that I require from all those I consider closest to me--be they a best friend, family member or romanitc partner. A similar example would be my need for trust---I need to trust all my friends, family and my SO in order to keep them in my life, but just because I need that from them doesn't mean I am looking for ONE of them to fill all my needs in that regard.
I guess to me it boils down to wanting a man who has a base level of interest and consideration for me that he cares about what's going on with me emotionally. No--I won't bore him with details of what type of sandwich I had for lunch, but yes, if I'm having trouble with a girflfriend or a boss that is troubling me, I'd like him to be interested in hearing about it and giving me feedback. To me simply saying "well most men aren't like that I'd better accept that", would be giving up something I need to be happy--in other words a base level of trust and intimacy. In a more extreme example, it'd be like saying "well most men are inconsiderate ding dongs, so if I want to get married I'd better just accept that and let it go." To me, if I can't find a man who I consider has basic, elementary traits of consideration than I guess you're right...I may never find a match for me.
Although men are not women, I guess to me its all about a base level of intimacy that I think is necessary in all my close relationships. I acknowledge, that PEOPLE (not necessarily GENDERS) have different desires for intimacy. Personally, I am a person who desires a high level of emotional intimacy and want to marry someone who is the same. I was hoping I wouldn't have to expect/settle ofr less consideration or intimacy from my romantic partner just becuase he's a MAN. Yes, various PEOPLE differ on their needs for intimacy, but I think that's one of the most important things that must match between a couple for a marriage to be a success. As you suggest, I probably would not be very happy married to a man who likes to deal with everything in his head--not b/c I am selfish and want everything my way, but b/c to me, being close to someone and feeling intimate with them is equal to sharing your thoughts, problems and concerns.
If as you say, this type is intimacy is truly split along gender lines and this is impossible to find in a member of a male gender (which is what I've been suspecting all along (hence the reason for my post)), then you're right...I'd probably have better luck going gay, b/c I would always feel something was missing from my marriage. Problem is, I'm not attracted physically to women in the least. So maybe the answer is I WILL have to settle if I decide a heterosexual marriage is really what I want.
"Respectfully, I think you are interpreting my post in a harsh light. I'm not looking for my husband to fill ALL my needs and am not trying to "burden" him with being my one and only outlet"
My apologies. My post was colored with the light of many past posts that suggested any emotional intimacy outside a marriage was considered an emotional affair, even if it is just a friend. Combine that with plenty of past posts from women who consider their future husband to be the sole source and outlet for everything they are and ever were. After all, how many women complain when their gf starts dating someone new and drops all her friends because she is investing everything in her new guy?
So forgive the tone. I was using a brush from many, to paint a picture of one. An unfair practice.
Brokk...
While there is no absolute rule for how one gender thinks, feels, acts, etc, there are some very real tendencies. And one of those is that men in our society tend not to be as emotionally open as women. Certainly there are exceptions. But they aren't thick on the ground.
As Brokk said, if this is an absolute requirement for you, you are going to seriously limit your pool of available candidates for marriage. In fact, you may well never find a man who meets this requirement. You may have to make a choice between your dream of marriage and your desire for such a deep level of emotional intimacy. Are you prepared to make that choice?
I must tell you, when I decided to get married I made some choices. My husband was not then and is not now Every Single Thing I Ever Wanted In A Man(tm). True, I got most of the big things I wanted, and even a bunch of the little things. But not everything. I've never regretted my choice to forgo the things my husband isn't and can't be, I love him, and I'd marry him again tomorrow, but sometimes I miss those things. To me, that's part of life and part of marriage. I'm sure there are things about me that my husband decided to live with, too.
I don't believe it's possible to have everything all the time. I've chosen to work at being happy with what I have, instead. But that's just me.
--fc
"I guess to me it boils down to wanting a man who has a base level of interest and consideration for me that he cares about what's going on with me emotionally."
Base level. I suppose everyone will have a different definition for that. To me, "base" is a pretty low bar. As low as it can be set, to encompass as many different people as possible. A base level for interest, consideration and caring for your emotional state, to me, really should encompass what 90% of all men are capable of. In reality, it sounds more like your base level only encompasses a very rare 1%.
I suppose it's like house cleaning and tolerance for clutter. It's not important how high or how low it is, it's just important that both people be within the same basic range.
Brokk...
No offense taken, I was just trying to illustrate that I truly am not looking for a man to fulfill ALL my needs but rather have a certain base level of intimacy I require from all those I consider "close" to me. (And since I want a husband I consider "close" I need that base level from him just like I do my GFs). Unfortunately I have not yet been able to find this in a man & worry that I never well since men just don't seem as interested in those things.
And I agree with you--way too many women rely way to heavily on their SO to provide all their needs and completely distance from their friends, family, etc. once in a relationship--i think this is so stupid and foolhardy--after all, who are you going to bitch to about your SO if you have no else to talk to??? ;) (this is a joke btw--sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across the best in email.)
"but rather have a certain base level of intimacy I require from all those I consider "close" to me."
You mentioned the men in your immediate family (father,brothers) don't have that. So you aren't close to them at all?
"after all, who are you going to bitch to about your SO if you have no else to talk to??? ;)"
Exactly! :-)
After all, we don't always have a message board handy to rant on. ;)
Brokk...
Pages