I lurk and post from time to time and I had a couple questions that popped into the ole noodle...anyone who can shed light...bring it on.<P>For those of us whose partner is incapable of giving emotionally to us, do you feel that this is more than likely baggage from childhood, or merely someone who is cold and self absorbed, who wont allow themselves to show any compassion,sensitivity ect ect. due to ego.<BR>secondly, I have visited the divorcebusting site and similar principle are used in rebuilding. I can understand that backing off discussion of "our relationship" when a partner is unwilling to talk and being pushed further and further away...but I wonder for myself...what do I stand to gain by being the one who puts in energy to work on, find solutions, and communicate issues that come up calmly and without blame. How can a marriage grow healthy if there is an unwillingness to face problems. Perhaps I am hanging on to a pipe dream over here...thinking that one day...he will wake up and "get it" and put some energy into working on this union and To take responsibility for his actions/and lack of action.<BR>ruby <BR>Am I crazy? Perhaps!

Ruby--After my divorce and spending the last two yrs in therapy gettin to know me again and learning how to cope with divorce, I discovered I was married to an emotionally unavailable partner. I can relate to everything you say about trying to get through to them. I kept wondering what was wrong with me , why do I seem so needy. I think wee overcompensate for their undercompensating. My therapist told me that the emotional unavailability is a combination of the things you stated. I hope this is helpful.

db713, <BR>Oh do expand on what your councelor said...what about the over compensation on our part? Its got to be very unhealthy. So what did you just finally get so tired of being the glue that you left? If so...did the H ever come to acknowledge his lack of emotion? Just curious as to whether or not the saying....You never know what youve got till its gone holds true with the emotionally unavailable.<BR>ruby

ruby: I would like to participate but haven't found the answer to my situation yet. <P>I would like to ask an additional question. How many marriages have ended because of this, continue without affection or have been saved and affection returned.<P>

red,<BR> Surely we dont fall in love with and marry someone who is emotionally unavailable. I speak for myself and the qualities that my H showed in the courting stage is what sucked me into his soul. He showed me that I hung the moon....then boom...we married and thats when he bacame emotionally unavailable. Actual words:"if i do anything for you, or give you my heart you will walk over me" Sad part is that I never did anything but embrace his loving gestures. Its all about control i believe! Fear of rejection, fear of being dominated,<BR>Someone once said Fear is False Evidence Appearing Real....I think the emotionally unavailable fear the loss of the forementioned and other things that I didnt list. So I tell myself daily: I can either except that this is how he is and live with my love tank on Empty...or get out. Then the heart steps in and says"he showed you his heart before...its got to be there somewhere...surely he will eventually get it!<BR>Thats what keeps me hanging on...unhealthy? You bet your butt it is!!!<BR><p>[This message has been edited by ruby (edited February 09, 2000).]

I think I understand what both words mean independently, but I'm not sure what the combination "emotionally unavailable" means.<P>Everyone has a limbic system (mammalian part of the brain between the nerve stem and then cerebral cortex) of almost exactly the same size and development. The limbic system is responsible for the generation of basic emotions. We don't really know how the limbic system "thinks", because it doesn't communicate with the cerebral cortex all that well. (The cerebral cortex handles our higher cognitive capacity.) However, we do know why we "feel" the results of the limbic system processes. This is because the limbic system is so closely connected to the nerve stem that the results of whatever process there is actually cause muscles and stuff to tense up or loosen, adrenaline to be released, all kinds of neat physical and chemical things in the body.<P>The cerebral cortex isn't closely connected enough to do this, which is why we can't feel logic or reason. What we have to do is talk our limbic system in to feeling something as a result of a logical argument, which is challenging.<P>Since we all have a similar sized limbic system, and because it appears to be a largely "hard coded" section of the brain that doesn't "learn" much, I think we can safely assume most people "feel" approximately the same things.<P>Interestingly, all mammals have a limbic system, and our closest relatives, the great apes, have one as highly developed as our own. The logical conclusion is that a gorilla feels very much the same things you and I do, and is probably just as sophisticated when it comes to "emotional intelligence". However, the gorilla has a very small cerebral cortex in comparison, dooming him to extinction because he doesn't understand "retirement savings plans" and "frequent flyer programs".<P>I believe this why so many people do plain stupid things because "it feels right", like have affairs, what not. Thinking like a monkey with limbic system, and ignoring the big ol' brain God gave us, makes us act like big apes and not the people we are.<P>I have seen a lot of psychology suggesting the difference comes in is how we talk to ourselves, a cerebral cortex function, about a situation. How you "choose" to see the problem is the problem. The reason one person is afraid of heights and the other is not is largely to do with how they each "talk" to themselves about the situation. The reason one person is happy and another not, seemingly regardless of external circumstances, appears to be based on how each "chooses" to see the world. Is the glass half empty or half full? Actually, the glass is too big.<P>Anyway, I looked up the meanings of the words, to try and help me understand the phrase:<P>emotion i­mo¢shen, <BR>noun a moving of the feelings; agitation of mind; any of various phenomena of the mind, such as anger, joy, fear or sorrow, associated also with physical symptoms; feeling as distinguished from cognition and will (philosophy). <P>emo'tionally adverb. <P>available e­vâl¢e­bl, <BR>adjective at one's disposal, that one may avail oneself of; accessible; within reach; obtainable; to be had or drawn upon; valid (law); profitable (obsolete). <P>So, if we use these words correctly, when we say "emotionally unavailable", we have just made a very complicated statement. We have declared that "one may [not] avail oneself of any of various phenomena of the mind, such as anger, joy, fear or sorrow" of another person. Unless one believes in telepathy I believe that is impossible anyway.<P>To me, emotionally unavailable would really be similar to a phrase I just made up: "Logically unavailable". Come to think of it, it makes perfect sense now. I actually know a very large number of logically unavailable people.<P>I would think a more "fair" description of someone of this nature is that they choose not to participate in emotive conversations.<P>A lot of it comes down to basic personality types. Some types are more emotional in nature, preferring to use that part of the brain, while others are more logical in nature, preferring that type of the brain. It's like the "Myers-Briggs" NT (Rationals) vs. NF (Idealists) thing. (T standing for "Thinking" and F standing for "Feeling", N meaning they are both "iNtuitive".) I believe (and feel) that it is somewhat derogatory to refer to a "Rational" personality type as if he has some sort of psychological problem just because he or she happens to be a rational type, and we might be an idealist.<P>Maybe another thing that happens occasionally is that some people are looking for there spouse to say something that will cause them a certain emotional response (joy and its derivatives), rather than taking responsibility for creating that response themselves. If so the problem is emotional dependency, not emotional unavailability.<P>How we feel about things is all in how we see them. How we see them is our choice.<P>

nonplused,<BR>Quite the logical thinker you are and your research... quite thorough <P>I think most women are emotional where men tend to me more logical. Do you agree or disagree. Perhaps society has put these labels on the sexes and it is what we have come to accept and believe.<BR>anyhoo, we can call it the lack of emotive conversation just for you 8)<BR>Think about this... If you said or did something to your significant other, and you knew immediately after the action/words that it cut deep into and hurt your partner, Would you A: Not acknowledge that you have caused hurt<BR>b:Be quick to realize that your words or actions but still refrain from emotive conversation<BR>C: quickly emote and apologize because you recognize the words/actions were quite hurtful to the one you dearly love.<BR>D: Tell your SO to get over it.<P>My So would pick D. Guess he'd be logical.<P>Do you think an emoting conversationalist starts in the womb? or is it a quality that one develops thru the years?<BR>Ping<P>

Hi,<BR>First of all..{{{{{{ruby}}}}}<BR>I hope your situation improves. That is a big question..how do we get our spouses to take us seriously. I've been married for over 10yrs. My husband grew up in a home where he saw his father contantly belittle his mother. His mother even told me when we were dating..."dont let him treat you like this" <BR>I was young and in love so..I didnt see how big of a problem this was. I told him repeatedly not to talk to me that way...I've told him this again and again over the years of our marriage..he never changed. <BR>Finally about a month ago I told him...that I could not take another 10yrs like this..He was shocked..he didnt know we had a problem.<BR> It was a realy big deal for me to confront him this way. I have always believed that the only two reasons for divorce were physical abuse and adultery. I knew that if I told him to change or it's over.. I would have to be prepared to go through with it.<BR>I guess my courage came from being too miserable to do anything else. <BR> well, as you can imagine an emotional storm followed my ultimatum. We are still riding the emotional roller coaster...but he's trying to change..and I guess thats all I can ask for..I know things will not change over night..I'm taking one day at a time.<BR> It is impossible to build a happy marriage if only one person is working on it..believe me, I've tried.<BR> I'd like to comment on something nonplused said..about emotional dependency..<BR>The very nature of marriage is emotional dependency..after all we are supposed to become"one".<BR> Also..why is it that some people believe they can check their basic human kindness at the door when they are married? Whatever happened to treating others as you would have them treat you?<P>------------------<BR>mae

Ruby,<P>Logical thinker? Me? Do I sense sarcasm?<P>To answer your questions, in no particular order, my opinion:<P>There is nothing inherently logical about cruelty. I do not believe your choice D is indicative of a logical thinker at all. They may be claiming to be logical, but I would suggest what you have here is more like emotional cruelty which can only be motivated by his own emotions.<P>A person using "logical" would tend to stick to facts and issues. If they had done something that caused you to hurt, and they agreed with you that your assessment of the situation was accurate, I would imagine you would get an apology and a negotiated solution to try and rectify the situation. You probably wouldn't get a whole lot of crying and groveling, nor would you get much support if that is what you choose to do. Rather you would get acknowledgement of you views, a statement of their views, negotiation towards a mutually beneficial solution, and action.<P>That doesn't always mean you get your way, or that you are even going to be considered correct. There are three sides to every story, yours, his, and the truth. In the event a rational person does not agree with your assessment of his actions, he is unlikely to either apologize or feel responsible for the way you feel. You are the one making yourself feel that way after all. It's you choice how you want to see a situation.<P>An example might be if a man came home late from work because he got stuck in a meeting. Maybe the woman made a fancy surprise meal and he missed it. She is upset. In his opinion, maybe he couldn't leave the meeting and call, so there wasn't anything he could have done. Does he need to apologize because she might be disappointed? Probably not. She could have called to find out when he would be home before starting dinner, in which case he might have mentioned the meeting and sounded uncertain. So in this hypothetical situation, the woman is upset, but she really created her own emotions and must take responsibility for them.<P>On the other hand, if he said he would be home at 5 and came at 10:30 stinking of cigars and whisky, I bet we have a situation.<P>I do not believe that on the whole women tend to be more emotional and men more logical. First, there is no difference in brain structure that could explain such a difference. There are some chemical differences, mostly hormonal, which do appear to affect the emotions, so I suppose at certain times of the month maybe it's true. But strong emotions do not necessarily negate logical abilities. It's all in how you choose to use them.<P>Rational abilities do seem to be strongly influenced by education. This part of the brain is perhaps one of the most trainable.<P>My experience is that men are as likely or more likely to be irrational, and about some things, women are rational to the point of coldness. Relationships are a good example. Now that I am back in the dating world, I am amazed time after time to observe exactly how calculating women are when it comes to dating. Many have a 50 year plan including financial criteria, number of children, intellect, sometimes height and weight, everything. Then they start as high as they can on their list, dumping at any opportunity to move up a rung and moving down a rung whenever dumped. Very calculated if you ask me. Heartless, almost.<P>Men, on the other hand, often have no plan at all other than to avoid loosing their pool and beer nights to another marriage. The only criteria necessary for a date seems to be looks, and even that isn't so clearly defined.<P>I think a lot of "emotive" conversation can actually be manipulative, designed to influence another person to behave in a specific way. I don't think we would ever intend to make another person know how we feel unless we indented for that to cause a specific change in their behavior. Some times that is appropriate, some behavior is unacceptable. But other times it can be plain old manipulative. So it's hard to say without understanding a person's motive whether an "emotive" conversation is designed to be empathetic or manipulative. That's for both men and women.<P>NotThisMother,<P>The very nature of marriage is emotional dependency? I'm not ever getting married again then. I believe mature and independent people can build relationships based on interdependence, disinterested generosity, and mutual respect. Dependency is for children. They "need" you and cannot help it. Love amongst adults isn't based on needs, it's based on generosity.<P>I don't have any idea why some people check their kindness at the door once married. I know enough about transactional analysis to know that it always takes two to tango, and nothing is as simple as it seems if you look at both points of view.<P><p>[This message has been edited by nonplused (edited February 10, 2000).]

No nonplused,<BR>no sarcasm my friend but more a compliment. You seem to have a wealth of knowledge in Psychology in general....are you a therapist?<BR>Doctor? Your input is well taken.<P>I do think that your right in everything you have written and appreciate the clinical approach for lack of better words <P>I think perhaps I have gone off track, for all I was trying to convey is that it boggles my mind that some people can be what I term "cold,unfeeling,uncaring" to the ones they love,when hurtful words, actions...whatever have been used to purposely hurt the other..Knowing exactly what they are doing...vendictive behaviour...mostly out of anger. blah blah blah. let me try this again.<P>its this simple nonplused...answer this:<BR>You told your SO that she's ugly and a cow. You said these things out of being very pissed and the words just rolled off the tongue. Do you apologize or not? If your answer is yes I'd apologize...tell me why.<P>ruby

Great topic; I've posted on the infidelity board because of my fears that SO is being lured into an EA, but given that he IS a (self-admitted, even) EU man, I sometimes wonder why I worry!! I finally consulted a counselor about my jealousy related to my suspicions, and was basically told that my jealousy is perfectly normal given the lack of reassurance and security my EU man gives me. He's a good man, and I do love him, but "demonstrative" (verbally or physically) NOT!! I personally believes it stems from childhood (had a very domineering and controlling mother and emerged w/ the philosophy that you give a woman an inch, and she'll take a mile). He, too, believes that showing vulnerablitly makes him "weak" and makes a point of telling me that he doesn't need me or any woman, wouldn't be devestated if I left, etc. Music to my ears, as you can imagine, and doesn't exactly make me feel cherished. This is one I don't think Harley has addressed? His theories are great if both are willing, but what do you do with a man like this?? I'll be watching this posting w/ interest; thanks for introducing it.<p>[This message has been edited by quandry (edited February 10, 2000).]

Hi, gang. It's me again.<BR>I got on this website a few months ago because my husband complained of EU behavior in me. I got lots of good advice and basically tried some self-therapy.<BR>I believe my EU comes from my childhood. My mother was needy, spoiled, immature and threw temper tantrums regularly to make everyone toe the line and give her what she wanted, not just physically, but emotionally. When she was happy, the whole family better be happy too or there would be hell to pay. You get the picture.<BR>I think the result of that is that the very word "needy" makes my flesh crawl. As soon as I sense "need" from my parther I want to run and hide because I have been conditioned to think "manipulation" is soon to follow.<BR>Fortunately I have married a well balanced, patient man. He gives me lots of space and all the independence I want. He is very independent himself so it works out pretty well. I think it is much easier when the EU spouse is the woman -- I mean, I believe it is easier for a man to accept than a woman. Of course, I am never deliberatley cruel, I just go into these withdrawals.<BR>I am working on it and I think I am doing better, but as they say, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.<BR>Ruby, you do stir up some interesting conversation.

Ruby,<P>Well, that question is very personal now. What would I do?<P>First, if I ever called anyone an "ugly cow" at my age I would be extremely disappointed with myself. I would hope I am more mature than to get in to name calling. There was a time when I was more prone to do that, but I hope to efface myself by pointing out that I was only a kid and didn't know any better.<P>At this point, if for some drunken reason I had resorted to name calling, I would apologize as soon as I had the guts to show my face around the house.<P>That would be step one.<P>Step two has to do with the anger. <P>Some anger is good, it can be a message from your brain that something is happening to you which crosses your boundaries or it can indicate that your own perceptions are all screwed up. I find the best thing to do when I feel angry or threatened in a "serious" conversation with a woman is to step out and smoke a cigar. Most women just hate it when you do that in the middle of a "conversation", but it gives me time to calm down and figure out what the heck is going on.<P>I think Mark Twain said it best when he said "Smoking gives a wise man time to think, and a fool something to stick in his mouth". Sometimes I am able to see that I actually am not understanding the ladies point, other time it might be that I do understand it and I disagree. Once I think for a while I am usually ready to re-enter the conversation with hopefully a better understanding, or questions to clarify her point, or a partially thought out answer that addresses what she's really getting at.<P>It's easier to say than do, but I seem to be getting better with practice.<BR>