My H and I were taking surveys. Some MB and a few others from other sources. We came to one that asked us to rate the overall satisfaction of the M. For 20 years, I gave the M a 9.5 (we really were "that pair".) My H rated the 20 year M at a 7.5.

--Note: this was not a rating of the other person, just an overall satisfaction type of thing...

This floored me. In 20 years, he told me weekly how much he loved me, loved his life and family, thought I was wonderful...ect. I felt the same.

Now, for 20 years, I was the giver MOST of the time. My days were spent doing things for my family, cooking, cleaning, working full time and providing. I did the lion's share of ALL domestic things. Most of the time, my H just had to come home to a homecooked meal, polite, entertained clean kids and clean house. His job took up more hours.

He is a taker, (not in the bad sense of the word), but just someone who assumed the benefits of a good wife were just "normal due".

My question:
Do you think, that givers rate overall happiness higher than a taker.

Do you think takers tend to be more critical(?)<is that the word?> of the relationship? This is what keeps the giver "on their toes?"
While givers seem always to be looking for harmony- so they are more prone to accepting "goofs" and overlooking foibles?

Just my guess. How did/does it go in your M?

Note: I did not candy coat my M. I knew we both did things that were not deemed "perfect" to the other. But I believe I was more realistic in my expectations of family, thats all.

There is a saying, "Participation is the key to harmony," that makes sense to me in a lot of areas in life. As a personal example, where I live, there is a Homeowner's Association, and for years it felt as though the elected board was making decisions that suited them best. So I joined the board, and now I have input, too, into the agenda, and have time to think through how I want to vote. And because I'm at the meetings, I can see how the decisions represent the majority of those present, and not the select few. And I've seen that anyone who wants to join the board, there is room to do that.

The same way, if you are doing everything, it will be in the way that you are enthusiastic about. If he doesn't like something, he has two choices, take on the chore, or try to get you to do something in a different way then you are enthusiastic about. But if you both are contributing, whether by participating in POJA to think through together how you two want things done, or by actively participating in shared work, then I think you two would be both happier with the result.

In my M, I also worked and did the bulk of the domestic stuff. H gave me input, like what laundry detergent to use, and such, but because I did most of the actual work, I think I felt more connected, more investment, more pride in the results.

Good example.

I understand that YOU think you are the Giver and you think HE is the Taker, however you are looking at it only from your perspective. I am not saying you aren't correct, only that you are looking at what you did as GIVING and him as TAKING.

What I believe is that we tend to think of ourselves as 'doing what we should' and see anything lacking in our relationship typically as related to the spouse's "lack of giving appropriately".

Basically it all boils down to something I learned in my divorce...

IT ISN'T WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS GOING ON WHICH IS IMPORTANT... IT IS WHAT YOUR SPOUSE BELIEVES.

I don't mean this in a bad way, but a realistic way. I 'thought' I was giving everything to my wife, I was doing everything I could understand to do. However, she thought differently, and in her eyes, I wasn't doing enough of the "RIGHT" things. She couldn't tell me what they were, so I just plugged along and did what I THOUGHT I was supposed to be doing. And although I wasn't really happy with how things were going, I was 'happy enough'. It turns out SHE was having 4 affairs at the same time, so I believe evidence states clearly that MY perception was significantly different from hers. I didn't recognize it at the time, but looking back, I misinterpreted what she was asking me for.

So perhaps... what you are doing is akin to something which has been talked about on other threads. You are 'giving' what you feel is good, ie cards, gifts, a 'good home' environment etc. But what he is WANTING is lingerie, you to make dinner reservations sometimes, and words and actions of admiration.

You see... what you are doing might be great... but not what he really desires.

Cantfigureitout hit the nail on the head. The things you were doing were things you thought would make him the happiest but they apparently were not. My H similarly thinks that I should be blissfully happy if he just takes care of the yard and pays the bill. While I appreciate all that, there are other things that have a much greater impact on the level of happiness I feel in my marriage.

I concur with Mel & Cant.

Now, the real question is: What can you do to raise that rating?

Has nothing to do with me personally,

I agree that my H considered himself a GREAT giver, based on the fact he worked so hard, and treated us very well....

He admits I did all the "family" things. Someone had to.

My question was more about the nature of the taker and the giver. I know when I am in a "taker" mindset ( I know it is not an "all the time thing"- most people are BOTH), I can be very picky about things.
When I am in a giving mood (been called a "nester" a natural born middle child-arbitrator.) I am much more of a "helper/solver/fixer", and see things more positively.

I agree totaly with NED's earlier comment that the more involved (hands on) you are, - the usual role of a "giver"--

...the happier you are with the results.

Huh? It's your marriage of course it does

I don't think you understand...

You aren't the GIVER if you aren't giving the things they want to RECEIVE.

Me = lost.

[



My question:
Do you think, that givers rate overall happiness higher than a taker?

Do you think takers tend to be more critical(?)<is that the word?> of the relationship? This is what keeps the giver "on their toes?"
While givers seem always to be looking for harmony- so they are more prone to accepting "goofs" and overlooking foibles?

Just my guess. How did/does it go in your M?

[/quote]

This was the question. "Taker" does not mean to imply one good person and one bad one. Just the roles they play in a relationship.

Everyone is a giver and a taker at times. I think in every relationship (except MB ones!) that the balance of this askew- that is how problems can start.

I was just wondering if traditional "givers" are more content with the relationship than "taker".

Here's the answer: It depends.

If we are talking relatively psychologically healthy people, I don't think it's a case where givers are more content. I think it's a case were one has to already be content in order to consistently be a giver.

IMO, most people are content when things meet or exceed expectations. When things are meeting or exceeding expectations, one is generally more likely to be in giver mode. When things are not meeting or exceeding expectations, eventually people switch to a taker mode.

What has to be kept in mind is that expectations can often be unrealistic. The best example is the classic perfectionist. This person expects perfection, when it does not occur, they are not content, when they are not content, the tend to be more of a taker.

I have been thinking alot about this question and here is my relatively NEW opinion.

As a giver, you are in relative control of your good feelings, at least partially, within marriage. I know that I, as a giver by nature, would try to do something MORE or EXTRA in order to love my wife, and try to alleviate an issue. I would give a massage, buy jewelry, take the kids so she had alone time, etc etc etc. I could control what I did, and since my giving gave ME a sense of pleasure, I could also, to a mild degree, keep my Love Bank somewhat in the black. Simply because SHE was the target of my affection, she allowed me to 'LOVE' her by giving. So in some goofed up way, her existence in our relationship allowed ME to deposit Love Bank deposits ON HER BEHALF, by having someone to GIVE to for me. (If that convoluted thought makes sense.)

However, a TAKER is reliant almost solely upon what others are willing to GIVE them. And since, there is relatively little control over others, they are basically at the mercy of whomever is willing to give. Therefore, if she was 'needing' something and for some reason I wasn't 'giving' she was SOL. And since she had few ways to 'give' to me, in her playbook, she couldn't adjust the situation to either 1) Get the good feelings you get by GIVING or 2)Influence me by giving, thereby resulting in me ending up GIVING back to her.

So basically, I believe that yes, your assumptions are true to a degree. Givers, I believe, have more innate influence over their OWN hearts and sense of love. Takers rely almost solely upon others, who, unfortunately don't always do things in ways the 'Taker' Wants, and therefore, can't GET the Love they want.

IMO

I think it depends. I think most outside observers would conclude that I was the Giver and my wife was the Taker during the first 13 years of our marriage. She was definitely happier throughout this period.

I think the person whose "set point" is more toward happiness is likely to be happier whether they are a Giver or a Taker than the person tends to be more melancholy.

I agree. Happiness is a choice and comes from inside. I've seen people with little more than the shirts on their backs and they're happy whereas those with 'everything' are miserable.

I think that the ability to chose happiness affects more than being a 'giver' and 'taker'. I can see Cant's assessment that givers MAY feel happier because they are in control of their action and giving. However I think this is because, by exercising control over their lives - choosing to give, they may innately be more inclined to chose happiness.

However, Givers can be full of resentment, and misery - martyrs to their giving. There isn't happiness there.

I am learning this... more and more...

Vibrissa's comment which Cant quoted above is 100% true and it makes me wonder what the point of the original question was in the first place.

Also, what if a Taker is married to a Taker - what then?

Asking a question like this is useful how?

Let's say we determine that Givers (or Takers) are more happy in their relationships? SO WHAT? How does that info make it any less true that you need to meet your spouse's ENs and eliminate LBs?

Chris, when did you morph into ML?

LOL!!!!!!

You all are the best

The point is, for personal recovery to take place, you have to look at your past relationship and see how your actions influenced the relationship.
I was the "giver". I was happy, but it ultimately fell in on my head- always doing something for someone else (while does fill a "emotional void" I had at the time) is NOT the way to live your life.
I thought I was happy doing everything for everyone, but if I allowed myself to be the "taker" more-- it would have esablished a better balance.
I think I would be happier today.

I still think givers participate more (in thought and actions) this may be the key to "happiness".