Here is thought #4:

"A woman often tests a man to see if he is faithful to his truth and purpose. She tests him to feel his freedom and depth of love , to know that is is trustable. A good woman will love the childlike parts of a man, but she wants your life to be guided by your deepest truthes. She wants to feel that at your core you have grown beyond the need for praise and fancy toys. So she will test you. She might not be fully conscious of why she is doing it, but she will poke your weak spots, in order to feel your strenth. If you collapse you flunk the test. You have let the woman deflate you. You have demonstrated your dependence on her for external validation. Even if you are rich, you are a weak man. Your woman cannot trust you fully. The most loving woman will test you the most. She wants you to be your fullest, most magnificent self. She won't settle for anything less. Give her anything less than your fullest and freest self, and she will torment you. And, she's quite good at it."

OK, what do you think of them apples??

This is true for me. I've done this without really "purposing" to do it. Ultimately the outcome was the exact lack of trust mentioned. We want the safety zone so we can be ourselves. IMVHO... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
keep smilin

Justin-

Maybe you said this in another post, but what is the title of the book/ the author's name? I work in a bookstore & if it's any good maybe I need to bring it into our area.

Thanks
bookstoremama

It sounds like he's trying (poorly) to get at a few of the Harley basic concepts while putting in more of the trendy lamespeak.

Harley does some critical explaining that marital love is not unconditional. The above is telling you the same thing, but it's not fully honest because it makes it again sound like some strange female thing when it's just how all functional adults work.

It's got some ugly DJ's in it, like "she will poke your weak spots, in order to feel your strength". The fact is, we poke each other's weak spots at times because we're human and we goof up. How both parties respond at such a time DOES reveal vast amounts about their true character. But again, you can flip the gender roles on this and it's still equally true.

It's also hinting (again poorly) at some of the material explained so well in the "why women leave men" Harley article. In a nutshell, no one generally wants to be married to only a small compartmentalized slice of a person, because it's boring and not worth the bother. Being married to the whole person can be fun though.

sorry but as good ole Dr. Phil says...most women want a man she knows she can trust, he makes her feel safe, complete, and is her safe place to fall.

... quite true... for both sexes though...

I think this may occur both ways.
I also think, I should have done more testing before my M, because there was no substance behind the childlike qualities.
There are many ways we test each other and learn about each other while dating, but many times, we want so hard to believe in the facade, that we don't see what is behind the facade.

Me thinks this author really likes the sight of his thoughts on paper.

There are some goods thoughts here. The fact that a woman wants to fully trust a man & may ask for examples/proof of that is what a strong woman would do.

The fact that it's better to be involved with a strong, fully developed woman is a good aim & likely more fun, is worth the paper.

The poking of vulnerabilities doesn't strike me as something a healthy, strong, fully developed woman would do, consciously or not.

Nams,

I was trying to figure out what it was about the authors statements that didn't sound right, and you nailed it.

An emotionally healthy woman is not going to poke at a man's vunerabilites, because she realizes she has just as many and doesn't want them poked.

To me, it takes an emotionally stronger man to be able to share his vunerabilities, and how a women responds to that sharing would be more telling of HER character than His.

If she pokes at him in order to see just how vunerable he is He needs to run for the hills. If she respects and admires him MORE for his ablility to share them it can build a stronger trust bond between them.

This sounds like some of David Deida's writings...yes...no?

Heartmending, you are correct. The book is called "The Way of the Superior Man" by Deida. I did not want to give the name of the book or the author because I did not want to prejudice the replies.

Like a few other guys I know who are reading this book, it leaves us in a bit of a quandry. On one hand some of his teachings seem to make sense, but they are so general and his words so vaporous, that I have a hard time figuring out what I am really supposed to do!! Maybe that is part of my masculine energy which wants direct, specific action.

On the other hand his teachings about women leave me a bit mistified. You gals are already mysterious enough. Reading about feminine oceans of energy, that ebb and flow with no distinguishible pattern only makes you harder to understand.

Sometimes I think the easiest plan is just to enjoy the differences!

The spirit of this is just so wrong.

The nurturing instinct in me wants to see everyone around me reach their potential: husband, children, friends, etc. If I sometimes come across as a nag, that is a fault but it's not meant to torment or poke.

Both the man and the woman must be totally open (radical honesty) or the relationship will have problems. We all get in trouble when we try to hold a part of ourselves back. Our partners have a right to be upset if they sense us doing this.

I've never heard of the author, but from your description it sounds like the guy is basically making his living off the Forer effect, which refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.

It's what makes people so inclined to believe in things like astrology and so on. All you have to do is keep the statements vague enough and use phrasing that packs emotional appeal and/or punch, and presto, you're a guru.

A male friend of mine had shared a piece that Deida had written. I had never heard of him previously. I didn't mean to ruin your attempt at objectivity. It's just that I, too, have been pondering his ideas. I haven't come across many people who have been exposed to his writings or workshops.

I read "Dear Lover,a woman's guide to men, sex, and love's deepest bliss." In some ways the concepts he brought up were a relief. I had been struggling with some of the issues he raised before I was even aquainted with his ideas. I was wanting to feel "taken care of...protected" by my man, while feeling it was a betrayal of how hard women have worked for equality and independence.

I had been told by the marital counselor my exWS and I used, that I needed to learn to be more vulnerable with a man if I wanted true intimacy. For me, that often means being very open and asking for help and support. I don't do that easily, even though deep inside I want the support and help.

I do think there is something to the idea that we continue to shift as a species in our relationship dynamics. Going from the former breadwinning male and stay-at-home mom, to "equality" of men and women, to recognition that there are some differences between men and women in relationships. These differences are neither better or worse, but "are". The recognition,understanding, and acceptance of these differences can supposedly help create even greater openess, honesty, vulnerability, intimacy...almost at a spiritual level.... The idea that this type of understanding and acceptance can eventually help us to be more loving and accepting at a societal level.

Having said the above, I'm not sure I "got it" either! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> So, I read a bit of it at a time. Ponder some of the ideas that seem to make some sense to me...and let the rest go for the time being.

As to whether Deida is a "guru", I wouldn't know. I think that people make others "gurus", although the individual might encourage it. I do think that when new concepts are introduced they are often presented in the "extreme". It often takes this level of presentation to help someone start to grasp some basic understanding of a new concept.

Harley's MB concepts could be seen in this light by some. They are quite different from the way theories and counseling methods have been in the past in terms of problems with marriages/affairs. The "refinement" in recognizing that the principles don't work in cases of abuse or addiction are part of a learning process with new concepts.

I am fascinated by Deida's writings. But as with you and your male friends, it sometimes just adds to my confusion about relationship dynamics! For me, whatever the couple agrees works for them is fine. Traditional, equality, different but equal...etc Just don't try and impose that viewpoint on me, please.