Women gain happiness from seeing their partner upset

blackjack50 said:

Well said and very important. The "masculine" man image being a very hard thing to counter. The stoic mentality. I find myself falling into the trap. Not wanting to show weakness. I know it drives my girlfriend bonkers. Usually I try to talk about stuff because of that though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

It's not really a trap. As a matter of fact, not everyone wants their girlfriend to know everything about them.

However, during conflict or discussion of relationship threatening issues, heightened empathic accuracy can generate strong negative feelings toward one’s partner that might threaten the stability or well-being of the relationship. Research shows that less accuracy in such situations was related to increased feelings of closeness and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Kilpatrick et al., 2002; Simpson et al., 2003). These findings are typically interpreted to mean that perceivers protect themselves from the implications of their partners’ negative emotions by not attending to the emotions or assuming the partner’s thoughts and emotions are less negative than they really are. Indeed, studies have shown that motivated inaccuracy may act to preserve a relationship.

Click to expand...

If you only read the introduction to the study, and didn't mess around with any of the details and footnotes, you should come away with the impression that married couples are successful if they know enough about their partner. Like Goldilocks picking a bowl of porridge, too heated was unappealing, too cooled was unappealing, and her choice was just right. Now given that there are many more people than bowls of porridge, there are clearly many more choices. I would like to believe that an incorrect choice is made, as someone previously pointed out, due to "faulty wiring."

The thread turned to the topic of domestic violence, which is not at all what I expected. However, it raises an interesting question. Women are on average smaller and weaker than men. I claim that wives are on average smaller and weaker than their husbands, and that due to shifting attitudes toward domestic violence, wives run the risk of losing a great deal if they commit physical abuses in a non-consensual way.

If women truly enjoy seeing their partner upset, being physically or socially unable to abuse him won't change that. Hence, some women will seek out other ways to commit abuses. Some other abuses might include; paternity fraud, false rape accusations, or even cuckolding him.

Women who enjoy these things may not even realize how much happiness they stand to gain by fetishizing male pain. They may rationalize their actions, i.e. "it's best for the child," "his innocence is enough to acquit him if he is truly innocent," "if he really loved me, then he should preserve the sanctity of the marriage." Rationalization and sadism are not mutually exclusive, and there seems to be little overlap between any cognitive processes which might be responsible for either, except a simple cost/reward heuristic.

I think that such relations are absolutely normal)

Yelsy said:

I think that such relations are absolutely normal)

Click to expand...

which one?

the one where women like to communicate with their partner even if the partner is negative in approach because it is better than withdrawl/silence

or

domestic abuse with justification that the victim provoked the abuser?

_Sal said:

which one?

the one where women like to communicate with their partner even if the partner is negative in approach because it is better than withdrawl/silence

or

domestic abuse with justification that the victim provoked the abuser?

Click to expand...

That's reasonable. I don't think normal means the same thing for everyone.

Josie said:

So your title should've been "Women are happier when their significant other shares how he's feeling and why".

Click to expand...

If that had been the title, this thread would never have made it to page 8.

After having read the whole thread, I think it could have afforded an earlier death after all.

Celebrity said:

That's reasonable. I don't think normal means the same thing for everyone.

Click to expand...

none the less, normal is the median

_Sal said:

none the less, normal is the median

Click to expand...

Don't you think that laws or orders which are meant to protect the interests of one group may facilitate the abuses of another group of people? The average being representative of a sample in society does not have all the qualities of the bell curve. A measure of center alone does not indicate specific outliers... so what's normal for one man may not make another man as happy.

For instance, men are told not to abuse women. This is pretty common. Where are its origins? Did some historic person notice that men could endure harder, longer episodes of physical stress, or abuse?

The concept of men not fighting women might come from basic reproductive means. It does not make sense to physically violate the people who carry babies. It doesn't matter if it is before, after, or during pregnancy, since the long term effects of a physical injury can diminish the quality or quantity of children from a woman who gives birth.

Some men would be very upset if a law was passed that prohibited men from defending themselves. Although it is normal for one man to not hit a woman, it might not be normal for a victim of spousal abuses to endure emotional abuse.

How much abuse can one woman or one man take? In a civil society that is just, the amount of tolerable abuse should be zero. Why is it normal to abuse women? I know that some men are abused by women, and men fight men. None of the laws which have tried to guide people out of abusive relationships have successfully eliminated abuse. If abuse of women is not normal, then why is it that a lot of people do not take abuse of men seriously? Aren't men who are abused financially, physically and emotionally outliers?

Kobie said:

Jesus Christ, man. Stop trying to justify domestic violence there, Chris Brown.

Click to expand...

Agreed.


We have this stupid slogan here where I live. It says basically this (I am changing the name of the region for privacy)

Wellington, where domestic violence is not OK.

What a stupid saying/slogan as it implies that there are places where domestic violence IS OK.

Josie said:

So your title should've been "Women are happier when their significant other shares how he's feeling and why".

Click to expand...

yes, and if a man is not able to share enough for the woman then probably they should not be a couple. It seems a key issue to consider before the relationship is formed. Similiarly , if the guy has his heart set on a ski buddy, for example, then why marry a women who is not a skier??

James972 said:

yes, and if a man is not able to share enough for the woman then probably they should not be a couple. It seems a key issue to consider before the relationship is formed. Similiarly , if the guy has his heart set on a ski buddy, for example, then why marry a women who is not a skier??

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. That's why I would never date or marry someone who doesn't share my political views.

Josie said:

Makes sense to me. That's why I would never date or marry someone who doesn't share my political views.

Click to expand...

as but that's different. With 2 views you have democracy, you have a debate which is what democracy is , you bring all of world history into your house. How boring if you take all that off the table and how sad for the children to miss the huge education. Democracy is respecting those who disagree not shunning them or killing them or assuming you are morally superior which is the normal violent liberal bigoted attitude.

James972 said:

as but that's different. With 2 views you have democracy, you have a debate which is what democracy is , you bring all of world history into your house. How boring if you take all that off the table and how sad for the children to miss the huge education. Democracy is respecting those who disagree not shunning them or killing them or assuming you are morally superior which is the normal violent liberal bigoted attitude.

Click to expand...

Nah. I'd rather not spend my life arguing about politics with my man.

Josie said:

Nah. I'd rather not spend my life arguing about politics with my man.

Click to expand...

its like saying I'd rather participate in democracy in my family. Democracy is not arguing but thinking and you don't have to spend your life.

James972 said:

as but that's different. With 2 views you have democracy, you have a debate which is what democracy is , you bring all of world history into your house. How boring if you take all that off the table and how sad for the children to miss the huge education. Democracy is respecting those who disagree not shunning them or killing them or assuming you are morally superior which is the normal violent liberal bigoted attitude.

Click to expand...

Similarity is key to a long lasting relationship. Opposites don't generally attract and the more common people are the better the chances are that their realtionship will last. People don't want to spend their life with someone they don't agree with.

Henrin said:

Similarity is key to a long lasting relationship. Opposites don't generally attract and the more common people are the better the chances are that their realtionship will last. People don't want to spend their life with someone they don't agree with.

Click to expand...

opposites about say the need to raise you children properly would be a problem but opposites about political philosophy would be a huge plus for the growth and development of a family, particularily the children. These would be children suited for democracy , not civil war. Do you understand?

James972 said:

opposites about say the need to raise you children properly would be a problem but opposites about political philosophy would be a huge plus for the growth and development of a family, particularily the children. These would be children suited for democracy , not civil war. Do you understand?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. If couples with different political views have a higher probability to break up then it is more likely going to be a negative to children.

Henrin said:

I doubt it. If couples with different political views have a higher probability to break up then it is more likely going to be a negative to children.

Click to expand...

and if they have lower probability to break up it is good for children

James972 said:

and if they have lower probability to break up it is good for children

Click to expand...

Yes. That however isn't true when two people can't agree on politics. More than likely there is going to be a larger amount of differences in opinion that will affect their realtionship and thus increase the chances the realtionship will fail. Of course, people with a lot of differences can work out as a couple, but it's just not as likely to happen.

Henrin said:

Yes. That however isn't true when two people can't agree on politics. More than likely there is going to be a larger amount of differences in opinion that will affect their realtionship and thus increase the chances the realtionship will fail..

Click to expand...

if you have evidence of this I will pay you $1.00 Do you have any evidence? You miss the point, growth is about disagreeing. If humans agreed they would not be evolving. A couple compromises on where to go on vacation and everything else. They don't automatically become equal robots when married. Politics is no different. Maybe they are both Republicans but you see there are still huge differences among Republicans!!!