Training Your Spouse

[a4a]

So true. Why should men get mad and offended? They can learn to get what they want! This is not just about WOMEN training MEN. I think some people are confused about that. Works both ways.

 

 

If you think about it ...... training benefits both parties in the long run. You both get a reward. Win Win Situation.

 

The dog sits when told you give him/her a treat, the dog sat and satisfied your desire to have him/her sit.

[Touche]

That's exactly why I don't think it's manipulation. It's extremely direct and blunt. And that works very well with men in particular. Otherwise all they hear from women is blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

The tone of voice is especially important. Can't stress that enough.

 

And Kenyth...no one is talking whips...ONLY carrots.

[a4a]

A word of advice. The carrot works much better than the whip in the long run.

 

Yes but at times you have to bring out the whip to get the horse to even take heed that you have a carrot for them.

 

 

 

You cannot train a spouse in anger, just like an animal... it does not work. But firmness is needed from time to time.

[blind_otter]

Not true. I have first hand experience in "training" that age group. As long as the motivation is there' date=' a man (or woman) of ANY age group can be trained.[/quote']

 

Sadly I'm more inclined to believe my 75 year old father who has lots more life experience.

 

Honestly from what I've seen on these boards, I would tend to believe him anyways. The success rates for US marriages are dismal at best. If this is the tactic women in this country use in their relationships, no wonder it's so dismal.

 

Emotional guerilla warfare. You dish it out, don't get upset if it gets dished out to you, in a different form.

 

JMO. Approaching a relationship with this viewpoint makes me believe that one or the other partner has to have a sense of superiority. That they are more emotionally developed or better than their partner in some way. That they view the man as emotionally and intellectually inferior.

 

My quesiton is -- why would you want to be with someone you consider inferior to you in some way?

[Touche]

Yes but at times you have to bring out the whip to get the horse to even take heed that you have a carrot for them.

 

 

 

You cannot train a spouse in anger, just like an animal... it does not work. But firmness is needed from time to time.

 

You're right. And I was wrong about saying it's all about ONLY the carrot...you must use the whip so to speak occasionally. And that can take on various forms.

 

And so true that this method NEVER works if done in anger. Never. Firmness is KEY. Confidence in your voice is KEY. You must leave NO doubt about your expectations. A "take it or leave it" attitude works like a CHARM.

[alphamale]

The success rates for US marriages are dismal at best.

Well b_o, thats mainly because people marry for "love" instead of for more objective matters. Love is probably one of the worst reasons to marry anyone...its totally subjective and almost always fades over time.

[Touche]

Sadly I'm more inclined to believe my 75 year old father who has lots more life experience.

 

Honestly from what I've seen on these boards, I would tend to believe him anyways. The success rates for US marriages are dismal at best. If this is the tactic women in this country use in their relationships, no wonder it's so dismal.

 

Emotional guerilla warfare. You dish it out, don't get upset if it gets dished out to you, in a different form.

 

JMO. Approaching a relationship with this viewpoint makes me believe that one or the other partner has to have a sense of superiority. That they are more emotionally developed or better than their partner in some way. That they view the man as emotionally and intellectually inferior.

 

My quesiton is -- why would you want to be with someone you consider inferior to you in some way?

 

You got it ALL wrong. And hasn't your father been married like 4 times or something? I am successfully married ELEVEN YEARS..that should count for something.

 

And of course I wouldn't be upset if it gets "dished out" It DOES. And I don't get upset. Go back and re-read what I've written. My spouse has ME trained too! You don't get that.

 

In no way do I feel superior to him in any way, shape or form. I just know how to get what I want from our marriage - just like he does. It's not a TACTIC and we have a very good marriage. So there go your theories.

 

The proof is in the pudding, honey.

[Sassy]

Well b_o, thats mainly because people marry for "love" instead of for more objective matters. Love is probably one of the worst reasons to marry anyone...its totally subjective and almost always fades over time.

 

Alpha if you don't marry for love then what do people marry for ?

[justagirliegirl]

Well b_o, thats mainly because people marry for "love" instead of for more objective matters. Love is probably one of the worst reasons to marry anyone...its totally subjective and almost always fades over time.

 

I think many rush in and marry for lust.

 

All the posts on here about how the feelings fizzle out and they end things just because of that. I don't think they will ever be happy with one person for very long because they expect that high from lust to last forever.

[bab]

The success rates for US marriages are dismal at best. If this is the tactic women in this country use in their relationships, no wonder it's so dismal.

 

Oh, so wanting something from you partner, not getting it, and feeling disappointed with them is a MUCH better scenerio then TELLING them what you want and expect??? Right.......

[blind_otter]

You got it ALL wrong. And hasn't your father been married like 4 times or something? I am successfully married ELEVEN YEARS..that should count for something.

 

And of course I wouldn't be upset if it gets "dished out" It DOES. And I don't get upset. Go back and re-read what I've written. My spouse has ME trained too! You don't get that.

 

In no way do I feel superior to him in any way, shape or form. I just know how to get what I want from our marriage - just like he does. It's not a TACTIC and we have a very good marriage. So there go your theories.

 

The proof is in the pudding, honey.

 

He's been married to my mother over 35 years.

 

I'm not upset, it's not my theory. I'm inclined to believe someone who is older, calmer, wiser, and more experienced, who has lived on every continent on the planet.

[blind_otter]

Oh, so wanting something from you partner, not getting it, and feeling disappointed with them is a MUCH better scenerio then TELLING them what you want and expect??? Right.......

 

I don't see how "training" is telling someone anything. It seems like emotional manipulation, which isn't really positive communication skills AFAIK.

 

Jeez. talk about the fires of hell raining down on me.

 

I just disagree, I don't have to believe what you believe in just because you think it's right!

 

[Curmudgeon]

I find that premise disingenuous. It's not a matter of spouses "training" one another. It should be a matter of accomodating and enhancing one another. A true partnership and mutuality are what make a relationship work for the long-haul.

[a4a]

 

My quesiton is -- why would you want to be with someone you consider inferior to you in some way?

 

It has nothing to do with being inferior. It has to do with communication.

If you put me in a room of people that did not speak english only klingonese and I had to really pee....... how would I figure out to communicate my need to find a bathroom? I have to figure out how to communicate my needs in a way that they understand to get a response to :where the hell is the bathroom?

 

If jumping up and down (nagging) does not work, If sitting in the corner crossing your legs does not work, then I have to find a way to make them understand I gotta pee. Just because they do not understand my need or desire to pee does not make them inferior. I have to figure out how to communicate my need...... that is all this is. My need to pee is not going to just go away.

 

My H knows that I am doing this..... he went way out of his way to make me happy with a time consuming and thoughtful gesture last night..... he was so pleased that he had made me happy..... as so was I. Neither of us were inferior......we both won.

[blind_otter]

I don't think "training" is the right term, though. Even with animals, I train my dogs to do things because they don't understand verbal communication. I can't tell them to stay off the G-D- sofa.

 

I mean you can't go around squirting your H with a watergun when he does stuff you don't like. That's what I think when I hear the word "training" -- specificity in your use of the language facilitates communication.

[a4a]

I think many rush in and marry for lust.

 

All the posts on here about how the feelings fizzle out and they end things just because of that. I don't think they will ever be happy with one person for very long because they expect that high from lust to last forever.

 

I think because the inital communication in the start is shallow at best. Marriage is not so unlike a business. The paycheck is a bit different but it is indeed a partnership.

[alphamale]

Alpha if you don't marry for love then what do people marry for ?

- companionship or life partner

- to have kids and raise a family

- someone to take care of you

- financial support

- emotional support

- basic survival

 

and there are a host of other reasons to marry besides "love"

[a4a]

I don't think "training" is the right term, though. Even with animals, I train my dogs to do things because they don't understand verbal communication. I can't tell them to stay off the G-D- sofa.

 

I mean you can't go around squirting your H with a watergun when he does stuff you don't like. That's what I think when I hear the word "training" -- specificity in your use of the language facilitates communication.

 

That is what you are hearing in this thread. The basic idea is to communicate.... why is the word training so offensive? It is training, conditioning, teaching, ect......

 

Do you get offended at the term of "on the job training"?

[Sassy]

- companionship or life partner

- to have kids and raise a family

- someone to take care of you

- financial support

- emotional support

- basic survival

 

and there are a host of other reasons to marry besides "love"

 

Thanks Alpha for being nice and not bashing.. I just wanted to see what you thought as a man.

[catgirl1927]

I think because the inital communication in the start is shallow at best. Marriage is not so unlike a business. The paycheck is a bit different but it is indeed a partnership.

 

B_O, I think this illustrates why you and I feel so much differently about marriage than these ladies do. And no, there does not appear to be room for disagreement with them.

[blind_otter]

I'm not offended! Jeez.

 

I don't care what you guys do to your H's. I just wouldn't do it myself.

 

Whyyyyy is that so baaaaaaaaad?

[jerbear]

Alpha if you don't marry for love then what do people marry for ?

 

This is what I've heard and seen people say & do:

 

1) I had a dream of him so married him, they are now divorced

2) Had money; 3 kids later, broke and not much

3) The high school jock; now security guard

4) Prom queen, upset housewife with money, divorced w/o kids

5) He looked good, divorced because of money issues

6) He has potential, still married (so far 3 couples and 5+ years)

[a4a]

I don't think "training" is the right term, though. Even with animals, I train my dogs to do things because they don't understand verbal communication. I can't tell them to stay off the G-D- sofa.

 

.

 

My gosh why can't you tell your dogs to stay off the sofa and expect them to not get on it....... takes a little time and training.... but certainly not a huge training issue at all.

 

Of course dogs understand verbal communication... more so tone of voice.

Sit does mean sit to a dog that has been trained... although I can get a trained dog to sit with the word Booger as well,it boils down to tone of voice and body language the dog is cued with.

[a4a]

I'm not offended! Jeez.

 

I don't care what you guys do to your H's. I just wouldn't do it myself.

 

Whyyyyy is that so baaaaaaaaad?

 

It is not bad ...free will.

But you asked why would you be with someone you see as inferior?.. nothing to do with that.

[blind_otter]

My gosh why can't you tell your dogs to stay off the sofa and expect them to not get on it....... takes a little time and training.... but certainly not a huge training issue at all.

 

Of course dogs understand verbal communication... more so tone of voice.

Sit does mean sit to a dog that has been trained... although I can get a trained dog to sit with the word Booger as well,it boils down to tone of voice and body language the dog is cued with.

 

I'm saying I can't lecture them into doing what I want. They don't understand what the words mean. That's what training means, to me - behavioral modification through cues that are not necessarily based on the verbal content of the communication.