Which gender ends relationships?

[hotpotato]

I do wonder what women get out of relationships nowadays.

 

I know one particular woman who:

 

works full time

comes home takes care of children including special needs child and home

 

It's a lot like being single.

[BlueIris]

You made me think of another question. What about the relationships where a woman does get reciprocated emotionally? Relationships where the man invests equally just as the woman does. But a woman still ends the relationship, such as on the basis they've fallen out of love with the man. Is there still a need for the woman to be in a relationship after that?

 

“Investment” and “support” are being used interchangeably in some posts. But there’s a difference. Emotional investment is a feeling, an internal state, whereas emotional support is contribution, action, giving. Investment without support has little value or benefit to the other person, or to the family if you have children. Failure to give emotional support while receiving it from others is draining, asymmetry, whether the person is invested or not.

 

“Is there still a need to be in a relationship after that”? Not that relationship. But I think most people consider being in a good and balanced relationship a positive.

 

I think the article is saying that “falling out of love” is sometimes because one partner is aware that the other doesn’t give emotional support and that women are more likely to end a relationship for that reason, not that they do not want to be in any relationship ever. They just want a different kind of relationship than that one was, and/or decide that being single is better than being in an emotionally imbalanced relationship.

 

As some posters pointed out, there are also men who give emotional support but didn’t receive it, or the imbalance was not sustainable. It appears that my boyfriend is one.

Edited February 4, 2015 by BlueIris

[Woggle]

It truly is amazing how well this actually works. All about psychology. Women expect men to fall apart when they leave them. When they don't .... they are completely confused. Always want what they can't have .... if they know you want them back they are not interested.

 

.

 

When some of the women I dated saw me being happy and enjoying life without them it's like it ate them up inside. It wasn't my intention because my mentality is if she doesn't want me then life goes on but being happy without seems to be the surefire way to get at a woman's ego.

[Cavallier]

When some of the women I dated saw me being happy and enjoying life without them it's like it ate them up inside. It wasn't my intention because my mentality is if she doesn't want me then life goes on but being happy without seems to be the surefire way to get at a woman's ego.

 

What very immature women you seem to be have attracted to.

[serial muse]

It truly is amazing how well this actually works. All about psychology. Women expect men to fall apart when they leave them. When they don't .... they are completely confused. Always want what they can't have .... if they know you want them back they are not interested.

 

On the larger discussion I think women are more likely to end marriages for a few reasons.

 

1 - They expect a great deal more from marriage. Women's expectations are just higher. They are taught from a young age to want marriage, to strive for commitment from men. "if you like it then you should have put a ring on it". A lot have some weird idea that some how life will be better when married. Seriously look at women who has recently been married and the photos they post online, Its a status thing - they make such a huge deal about the ceremony and the dress etc. Sadly many find the unrealistic expectations they had of what marriage will be aren't really the reality 5 years in.

 

2 - Men its almost the opposite. Men getting married means they have been tied down - losing their freedom. Its like how long can you hold out before you have to pop the questions. Now a lot of men do actually want to get married but they still don't have these ridiculous expectations going in that it will change their life and they will now have true happiness. So when they get to the real meat and potatoes of marriage 5 years in when the honey moon period has warn off they don't feel as let down as most women do.

 

3- Women and men often create unbalanced relationships where women do more of the house work. I don't hold men solely accountable for this (even though most women do) its as much womens fault as men. They normally offer to do these tasks at the beginning of the relationship due to wanting to be a good carer. Over time however the man perhaps takes this for granted the work the women does and the relationship becomes unbalanced. Women grow to resent the fact it has become a habit that the husband expects. People withdraw from relationships were one party is giving more then the other.

 

4- Women are more emotional and more likely to get bored in marriage. You can say what you want about men but we are normally pretty happy to just not rock the boat and sail down the river. Women will put up with many things but the one thing you can never do with a woman is bore them. I feel like they have an expectation that the men will provide them with happiness and entertainment and that a lot of women just get bored and want change. If a woman doesn't "feel" like she is in love then she will go looking for that feeling elsewhere.

 

so basically all women's fault all the time. got it.

 

sigh.

[Woggle]

so basically all women's fault all the time. got it.

 

sigh.

 

Of course not. Believe me there are plenty of men who ruin relationships all on their own but from experience I notice that the best way to get a woman interested in you again is to be happy without her. I have seen it time and time again. I just call it like I see it.

[Rejected Rosebud]

I'm going to play devil's advocate. What's the point for a woman to be in a relationship in the first place, if she has to end it, and she ends up being better off than the man post-breakup?

Well obviously it depends on the relationship and if it were working well, she wouldn't have "had" to end it and also she would not be better off without it than when she had it!! But this doesn't apply to every relationship!

[serial muse]

I want to point this out as well, because that's the perception I've gotten from the entire narrative of the article. Hence why I figured I ask why should a woman get into a relationship at all, especially since after a few relationships, maybe a failed marriage, educated, and happy with her professional success, it doesn't sound like a woman even needs to be in a relationship at all.

 

The article's main point seems to be that dividing emotional labors equally makes for happier marriages. So that doesn't really relate to the point above. Sure, if a wife is in a marriage that is inequitable when it comes to sharing emotional burdens, then she isn't, by definition, get as much out of it emotionally. So yes, that makes it a less attractive proposition. Of course it does. But the whole point is that it doesn't have to be like that. Both people should support each other emotionally, and if that means a paradigm shift to men taking on more and sharing more emotional burden and women taking on more and sharing more financial burden, then that doesn't really strike me as a bad thing, or as anti-marriage at all.

 

And yes, it is important to note as a corollary that there are men who bear the lion's share of emotional burden in their marriages, too.

[serial muse]

Of course not. Believe me there are plenty of men who ruin relationships all on their own but from experience I notice that the best way to get a woman interested in you again is to be happy without her. I have seen it time and time again. I just call it like I see it.

 

In fairness to all humanity, this is human nature. Men want what they can't have, too.

[Woggle]

In fairness to all humanity, this is human nature. Men want what they can't have, too.

 

True. I haven't experienced what it is like to date men so I can't really say. I just know that the more I have tried to please people in relationships the less pleased they are and the more I do what I want and they can take it or leave it the more attracted they are. Plenty of men I know have the same experience.

[serial muse]

True. I haven't experienced what it is like to date men so I can't really say. I just know that the more I have tried to please people in relationships the less pleased they are and the more I do what I want and they can take it or leave it the more attracted they are. Plenty of men I know have the same experience.

 

I believe you. It's just that I know lots of women who've had this experience too. And I think it's one of the places where we could make it less about men this and women that. It's a false dichotomy. And when I see someone reduce human interactions to "women be emotional, yo", as did the poster I quoted previously, I just throw up my hands in exasperation, because it immediately negates any logical or thoughtful argument women bring to the table, and it's condescending bullshxt.

[Justanaverageguy]

so basically all women's fault all the time. got it.

 

sigh.

 

I honestly wasn't meaning to place blame on either sex - but re-reading it I do sound like a bit of a one sided ass (perhaps jaded from my own past experiences.) I honestly think it is a cultural thing more then a sexes thing.

 

I believe it is more to do with the way people have been raised and the way society has defined gender roles. Women's roles have changed dramatically in the last 25 years but cultural beliefs haven't caught up.

 

I don't dispute that women by and large normally do a lot more of the work regarding the home and kids in the relationships. I just think the causes are more complicated then all men are lazy. I think the role of the woman used to be mainly in the home. Now that has changed and in the workplace they are basically the same as the man ..... but the home still hasn't transitioned to be equal in most cases. The result is unbalanced relationships which inevitably cause problems. But to blame men entirely for this I think is unfair. I think both sexes and society in general contribute to it.

 

Also I stand by what I said about Womens expectations regarding marriage and I do think it is a major contributor. I think a lot of women feel let down by marriage because they went in with some Hollywood fairly tale ideal they have been sold since childhood. Men don't have that same "ideal" to try and live up to.

[BlueIris]

I just think the causes are more complicated then all men are lazy.

…

But to blame men entirely for this I think is unfair.

.

 

I don’t “blame” men for it or say it’s only or primarily laziness. I agree that many men aren’t raised to do it or don’t know how for various reasons.

 

I was married twice, one an 18 year relationship (married 14 yr, 2 children) and the other a 3 year relationship (married 1.5 yr, but lived together in spurts, no kids). One just didn’t know how and couldn’t comprehend it, and the other was mentally ill and the imbalance was exacerbated by the high level of emotional caretaking he needed. that's kind of an outlier. But anyway, they couldn’t do it when needed.

 

If I want or need something my husband doesn’t or can’t give, divorce makes sense to me, for the welfare of both of us. He could blame me or I could blame him but what difference does it make? I took the blame in the first divorce- the more normal marriage, with kids- because “who’s to blame?” was important to him.

[Weezy1973]

I'm a woman. It's not a large part of MY self-identity to be viewed as the sole caretaker, as much as it's convenient for some men to be emotionally half-assed in a relationship and think they are entitled to all that nurturing and care that they don't feel like providing to their partner.

 

I think it's a really complicated issue that has been touched on throughout this thread and as many people have commented it's a combination of biological predispositions and environmental pressures that lead to this dynamic.

 

I find it interesting that when women (on LS and on various polls) are asked what they find to be the most attractive qualities in men, it's literally never "nurturing". The qualities that women almost exclusively list as being attractive in men are traditional masculine qualities. Height and muscles (so they feel protected), career/financial success, and confidence (like he'll be able to take care of anything that comes along) are often cited. Even the word "masculine" is often described in general as what women are attracted to in men. And then they marry those guys, and then divorce them because they weren't nurturing.

 

The qualities that let a man lay his life on the line to go to war for his family are often not aligned with the emotionally supportive, nurturing partner that many women want. Although there are a few men out there that can find a good balance of both, mostly it's like asking for a guy that's a professional athlete and a university professor at the same time. Not likely to happen. People just aren't wired that way.

[RedRobin]

I think it's a really complicated issue that has been touched on throughout this thread and as many people have commented it's a combination of biological predispositions and environmental pressures that lead to this dynamic.

 

I find it interesting that when women (on LS and on various polls) are asked what they find to be the most attractive qualities in men, it's literally never "nurturing". The qualities that women almost exclusively list as being attractive in men are traditional masculine qualities. Height and muscles (so they feel protected), career/financial success, and confidence (like he'll be able to take care of anything that comes along) are often cited. Even the word "masculine" is often described in general as what women are attracted to in men. And then they marry those guys, and then divorce them because they weren't nurturing.

 

The qualities that let a man lay his life on the line to go to war for his family are often not aligned with the emotionally supportive, nurturing partner that many women want. Although there are a few men out there that can find a good balance of both, mostly it's like asking for a guy that's a professional athlete and a university professor at the same time. Not likely to happen. People just aren't wired that way.

 

 

... and yet, that is the very same balance women are obliged to make everyday if they want to be viewed as competent in the world of business. Then they are supposed to turn that off and be 'mommy' to a grown man and children as well when they get home.

 

 

I don't believe you will find too many women getting upset with men who are more nurturing. What they don't want is another child to raise emotionally. Lots just want a partner and someone who is strong enough to manage his own affairs well enough not to be an undue burden on her all the time. I personally don't call that 'masculine'.

 

 

Self-sufficiency is a strong point with me, and I make no distinctions between male or female roles in that respect.

 

 

Regarding times of war and its impact on men... well, I think we are learning that a lot of that is social training too... not as much biological as some would like to believe. We are just recently learning about the long term impact that war has on men's psyches, with PTSD and all of that. They used to call it 'shell shock'.

[somedude81]

I strongly believe that women end the majority of relationships.

 

It just seems that relationships are all about trying to keep the woman happy so she won't leave.

 

Men are the pursuers, and it's hard to find a woman who is willing to enter into a relationship with him. Once somebody finally agrees, the man doesn't want her to leave so it's a constant game of trying to appease her.

 

In my opinion, men have more to gain from being in a relationship than women do. Women just seem to be more fine with being single than men are. That makes it much easier for a woman to walk away. When a man breaks up with a woman, it usually means that he has another woman that he's transferring to. Most men aren't going to break up with a girl and then be completely alone with nobody to sleep with.

[clia]

In my opinion, men have more to gain from being in a relationship than women do. Women just seem to be more fine with being single than men are. That makes it much easier for a woman to walk away. When a man breaks up with a woman, it usually means that he has another woman that he's transferring to. Most men aren't going to break up with a girl and then be completely alone with nobody to sleep with.

 

What do men have to gain that women don't?

[Weezy1973]

... and yet, that is the very same balance women are obliged to make everyday if they want to be viewed as competent in the world of business.

 

If men or women are going to achieve greatness in anything there will have to be sacrifices, including family. There are only so many hours in the day. Women are not obliged to do anything. If they want to be successful (depending on your definition) in business, they often will have to sacrifice time spent with family. That's reality. You can't have it all. Nobody can.

 

 

Then they are supposed to turn that off and be 'mommy' to a grown man and children as well when they get home.

 

If you, or any other woman, don't want a man that needs another "mommy", don't choose those men. If you don't want to be a mommy to your children, don't have children. It's not real complicated.

 

 

I don't believe you will find too many women getting upset with men who are more nurturing.

 

Yet, women never say they are attracted to men that are nurturing. Literally never. If that is at the top of their priority list, they could ignore the tall, fit men that seem to draw them like a bear to honey in favour of the kind, empathetic, nurturing man. But they don't. Women are not attracted to nurturing men.

 

 

What they don't want is another child to raise emotionally.

 

Then don't choose men that are like children. Really, not complicated at all.

 

 

Lots just want a partner and someone who is strong enough to manage his own affairs well enough not to be an undue burden on her all the time.

 

Then choose those men. Really, truly, not complicated. If that is one's priority, then it is easy enough to choose those men. Of course one might very well have to give up those men that excite you sexually, but make the choice!

 

I personally don't call that 'masculine'.

 

Wait. Are we allowed to make up our own personal definitions to words now? 'Cause that would be awesome!

 

 

Self-sufficiency is a strong point with me, and I make no distinctions between male or female roles in that respect.

 

Makes sense. Like attracts like. I'm guessing all your previous relationships have been with self-sufficient men. And if not, why not? What did you prioritize in place of self-sufficiency?

 

 

Regarding times of war and its impact on men... well, I think we are learning that a lot of that is social training too... not as much biological as some would like to believe.

 

Men have on average 10x the amount of testosterone as women. Are you contending that this makes no impact?

 

 

We are just recently learning about the long term impact that war has on men's psyches, with PTSD and all of that. They used to call it 'shell shock'.

 

Yes, trauma is trauma. Unfortunately men are expected (often by their wives) to be a rock, and not have emotions. We can both agree that not expressing your emotions is unhealthy. Yet many women find it to be an unattractive characteristic in men.

[Radu]

I feel like the odd man out ... i don't do the fade in anymore [did it once but she knew it was goodbye].

And i'm the one who generally wants a statement of 'what is this ?'.

[BlueIris]

Yet, women never say they are attracted to men that are nurturing. Literally never.

 

Actually sometimes we do. I'd use the term emotionally supportive. Nurturing is a bit more than I sought. But I did want the man who puts his arm around me, listens to me, is genuinely happy when I win and is emotionally generous with friends, family and me. They're golden. And to tie in the last part, the man I'm with is not only that but career military, retired. Pigeon holes are too small for people to fit into.

[Justanaverageguy]

Actually sometimes we do. I'd use the term emotionally supportive. Nurturing is a bit more than I sought. But I did want the man who puts his arm around me, listens to me, is genuinely happy when I win and is emotionally generous with friends, family and me. They're golden. And to tie in the last part, the man I'm with is not only that but career military, retired. Pigeon holes are too small for people to fit into.

 

I agree with Weezy. What women want at the very start of a relationship and after 2-3 years are completely different things 99% of the time.

 

In the attraction stage - humans revert to their dinosaur brains. For women that means physical appearance, strong confident successful assertive men. I've also often heard women say they are attracted to men who they feel "protected" with. That is just the way it works.

 

You say you want "nurturing" and "emotionally supportive". On a logical level I believe you do and in fact have possible trained yourself to look for this characteristic in a man because it is something you have come to understand that you need.

 

But it is not instinctual attraction .... you don't feel that primitive attraction feeling when you see someone with that characteristic. You don't feel uncontrollably drawn to a man who has this. Not in the same way you do with those other attributes mentioned above. If it was then you likely wouldn't have had bad experiences with men who didn't have this ....

 

Instinctual attraction operates more often then not outside our consciousness. You don't even realize why you are attracted to someone. You just "feel it". Its an emotion - not a logical thought out decision. It is not something you came to understand you needed after going through failed relationships. It is just there. It always has been and always will be. You feel it in your gut - Sometimes even if you don't want to and sometimes even if you are not allowed to. You are drawn to them without meaning to be - it just happens.

 

I think the nurturing value you are looking for comes later .... once the courting and lust part of the relationship has worn off. Maybe you are a little wiser now and able to ignore some of the instinctual stuff in favor of more logical reasoned out attributes you desire.

[Acacia98]

I happen to agree with the emotional weight and maintenance of the relationship being carried by the woman most of the time. My relationships have been pretty balanced, but yea, when they ceased being balanced, I dumped the guy... And the older I have gotten, I have afforded a lower cycle time to that imbalance before dumping them.

 

I don't see too much value in a committed relationship for most self sufficient women who have a solid social network unless her BF or H is a partner in most ways.

 

Haha! Story of my life, RedRobin.

[Acacia98]

I can certainly attest to the truth of the article. But it is a limited truth, not an absolute one. I have seen this dynamic at play in my life, but I don't think it has so much to do with gender. I think it has more to do with an individual's personality and the dynamics of the relationship he/she is in.

 

So, for instance, in some of my relationships, I have been the one who's ended up investing more emotional energy than the guy. Things start out more or less equal, then as time goes by, the guy relaxes and invests less energy. He feels comfy, maybe gets bored, and starts to take me for granted. And it ultimately gets to the point where I'm consistently putting more into the relationship than I'm getting out of it. When that happens, it's time for the relationship to end. So I break up with the guy. In reality, though, one could argue that the guy was the first to "break up": He "broke up" by deciding to make less time for us and to spend less on energy on us. And I already felt neglected and lonely by the time I was ending things. The fact that the guy has a harder time dealing with the break up than I do probably has something to do with the fact that, because he started taking me for granted a long time ago, I already went through a period of loneliness and "mourning" before I ultimately broke up with him. So I have had a longer time to deal with the realization that the relationship has no future. He, on the other hand, only becomes aware that there's no future when I officially end things. And that's because he doesn't understand that it takes reciprocity to make relationships work.

 

The above dynamic has not been the pattern for all my relationships. When I have dated guys who understand the importance of reciprocity, breaking up has tended to be a decision we've both arrived at simultaneously. And I have also seen situations where it's the men breaking up with the women because they're tired of putting more into their relationships than they're getting out of them.

[Justanaverageguy]

So, for instance, in some of my relationships, I have been the one who's ended up investing more emotional energy than the guy. Things start out more or less equal, then as time goes by, the guy relaxes and invests less energy. He feels comfy, maybe gets bored, and starts to take me for granted. And it ultimately gets to the point where I'm consistently putting more into the relationship than I'm getting out of it. When that happens, it's time for the relationship to end. So I break up with the guy.

 

I'm not going to disagree with you here I think quite a bit of what you say is usually true - but I still think there is more to it.

 

I think that most LTR follow a very specific pattern where the "love" wears off. Women being (in my opinion) more driven by emotions and feelings struggle a lot more when the attraction, love, companionship emotions start to wane during that period. Its a natural growing apart period after 3 - 5 years of most relationships. If the relationship is unbalanced at this point .... that's when it starts to fall apart.

 

The problem is I have seen in many relationships where a woman is happy - very happy - at first in completely unbalanced relationships. As long as they feel those deep emotions of "love" - balance is not a huge issue for them at first (this becomes less so as women get older and have maybe been through the process before). I have seen numerous women who actively contribute to causing the imbalance early in the relationship. You may laugh at me but I have had this happen with an ex when I was younger. They start almost forcibly doing things for their man as a way to show they care. My ex refused - and I mean refused - to let me do some basic things around the house I had always done myself which I had no problem doing. I actually felt weird and uncomfortable with her doing them for me.

 

She wouldn't let me wash my clothes because she wanted to do it. She wanted to make my lunch everyday for work. Lots of little things like this which she thought were things a woman should do to show she cared. Now I tried to find things to compensate - but still I felt I couldn't avoid an imbalance. She wanted to mother me. I didn't want to be a baby. I'd lived by myself before this and was comfortable and happy looking after myself. Things like this happen in a lot of relationships I've seen - Women have the mother gene. It starts as an offer. An expression of love to show you care. Over time though it is not good. It becomes a chore. When the feelings start to wane 3 years in .... the woman is no longer happy doing any of these things she offered to do at first.

 

That same ex who refused to let me wash my clothes - at year 3 she started asking why I never washed my clothes. "Why was it her job ?" So I told her it wasn't and that I had no problem doing this. I started washing my clothes again and I started washing her clothes too. But she didn't like that either - I didn't wash them "her way". Seriously I wasn't folding the bras and underwear correctly. So I told her fine we will wash our clothes separately. She can do hers and I will do mine - no issue. Then she became upset that I was leaving a full basket of washing sitting in the room for the entire week - because it was "making the room look untidy". I explained that I only needed to wash once per week. I had enough clothes to last so I only washed on Saturdays. So she then started washing them again herself with her washing and complaining about it constantly. I told her not to .... she did it anyway. So I started washing 3 times a week just to keep the peace. I'm not kidding this seriously happened.

 

I know men are hard to live with and can be lazy ..... but seriously most women TOTALLY underestimate how much effort men actually go to just to try an appease them. Its not just jumping through hoops - its jumping through hoops in the exact right sequence in the exact right way that the woman wants you to. But she doesn't tell you any of the specifics you have to try and decode what she wants through trial and error. I think some men just give up and say ..... its just easier if I let her do it - I won't get in trouble.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Justanaverageguy

[RedRobin]

I agree with Weezy. What women want at the very start of a relationship and after 2-3 years are completely different things 99% of the time.

 

In the attraction stage - humans revert to their dinosaur brains. For women that means physical appearance, strong confident successful assertive men. I've also often heard women say they are attracted to men who they feel "protected" with. That is just the way it works.

 

You say you want "nurturing" and "emotionally supportive". On a logical level I believe you do and in fact have possible trained yourself to look for this characteristic in a man because it is something you have come to understand that you need.

 

But it is not instinctual attraction .... you don't feel that primitive attraction feeling when you see someone with that characteristic. You don't feel uncontrollably drawn to a man who has this. Not in the same way you do with those other attributes mentioned above. If it was then you likely wouldn't have had bad experiences with men who didn't have this ....

 

Instinctual attraction operates more often then not outside our consciousness. You don't even realize why you are attracted to someone. You just "feel it". Its an emotion - not a logical thought out decision. It is not something you came to understand you needed after going through failed relationships. It is just there. It always has been and always will be. You feel it in your gut - Sometimes even if you don't want to and sometimes even if you are not allowed to. You are drawn to them without meaning to be - it just happens.

 

I think the nurturing value you are looking for comes later .... once the courting and lust part of the relationship has worn off. Maybe you are a little wiser now and able to ignore some of the instinctual stuff in favor of more logical reasoned out attributes you desire.

 

Totally disagree. The men I have always been attracted to from the beginning exhibit those 'nurturing' qualities... But we call it something else because that doesn't sound manly.

 

As I have gotten older, I have just gotten better at seeing if those qualities are sustained over time, or if they are an act just to win my favor.