Here are the last 3 or 4 meaty posts. This will give you an idea what is going on.
Chris's post
SWN December 13 2004, 4:01 PM
You've turned around the "cause and effect" I used and intended, and of course logic fails there.
I am trying to convey this:
1. All men have "those" (possibly sexual) thoughts arise in our minds. (None disagreed.)
2. The thoughts come unbidden. (None disagreed.)
(So far, simple and straightforward.)
3. Controlling the thoughts is necessary; the degree to which any given man accomplished it seems to be seen in his behavior toward women. Some men (like you and me) never leer, ogle, or slobber...and thus may be said to "successfully" control the thoughts and prevent impulsive action arising therefrom. Some men (like Margie's husband) seem to have much more trouble with it and may cross the line into unacceptable behavior. Margie told us that he reports struggling with control of the thoughts. Even those of us who DO control them understand that some men may struggle even if we don't. (Think of alcohol and alcoholics: we "know" that alcohol can be a problem for some, even if we've learned to control our own use.)
This seems to be where the whole "problem" on this thread lives.
We never started talking about actual BEHAVIORS until several women were SHOCKED by our admissions of the thoughts we have. Several men hastened to add that having such thoughts is no excuse for bad behavior in the presence of our wives (or any other time)...and we were off to the races.
I'm trying to say, I don't agree with your assessment that there's a logical failure here. There is clearly a divergence between the self-reported behaviors of non-betraying men who post here, and the betrayed wives' perception of their betraying husbands, and I think that's where the "trouble" is really coming from.
Come back to the original post, please (for the umpte ...)
My H SAYS he has to fight the desire to lust after every decent looking female (and a few indecent looking ones, as well).
What part of 'perception' on her part is involved here? This is a very clear concern of hers based on his very clear statement.
Let's put it another way.
Please, male subscribers to this thread, who honestly make that statement to themselves, ie "I have to fight the desire to lust after every decent looking female and a few indecent ones" feel free to post that you honestly feel that way.
Lust defined as:
2 : usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS
3 a : an intense longing : CRAVING b : ENTHUSIASM, EAGERNESS
Post below if you are male and feel that way about just about every female you see.
I'm not talking about "lusting"; the definition is irrelevant. Take that out of the equation here.
"Fight the desire" comes first. I've been talking about fighting off the thoughts (or struggling with them) for weeks now.
Every one of us says we DO have to "fight the desire". Even you.
1. See the woman.
2. Thoughts start.
3. Fight the desire (to go further in our minds...not desire to act).
1-2-3.
Some stop the thoughts immediately (like you). Some let 'em run a little more. Some apparently struggle. But HAVING the thoughts, and dealing with them in some way is a NORMAL AND NATURAL progression. (Yes, I'm shouting now.)
We all admitted to "fighting the desire" to go further IN OUR MINDS one way or another.
Chris said "We never started talking about actual BEHAVIORS until several women were SHOCKED by our admissions of the thoughts we have."
A little history....
Margie posted her questions
-Is this true?
-Is every woman a potential sex object....?
-Do you have suggestions?
The following men responded
Cory
Bart
Bart (again)
DiegoDon
Bart
Bart(again)
Raypd
Chris
The first woman to respond was Kid who said:
>Yeah its ok to look once in a while...hell we all do, but don't degrade your partner by looking either.
Then Kat said:
>Ladies, relax.... it has nothing to do with us....
Raypd, Cory, and Bart all seemed to agree on the point that "lusting" that is hurtful to a man's wife is not a good practice. Raypd went a step further to suggest that he avoids lusting in a way that he wouldn't want to find his wife doing.
Lynndie said "Looking at other people is normal what happens after that first look is where it can go wrong." To me that seems like she was in agreement with Raypd's post also.
Jane joined in saying "Am I the ONLY woman who would admit to admiring handsome men?"
Bart responds with "If you give women a little freedome, a little independence (and some money), their sexuality starts to look remarkably like the sexuality of men. I believe she's more right than wrong. It's called lust and it has been around for a long time."
Bart also added "You can find men who won't admit to looking at other women. You can even find a few who truly don't. Some of them are interior decorators or flight attendants. You'll find the rest in a morgue or a cemetary."
Next Chris responded to Lynddie with this "Whoa. There's a big difference between what goes on between the ears, and what the hands, feet, and mouth do and say." and "How dare you judge it..." and "I think thought-policing is going waaay too far"
The rest is history. However, I don't see a single post from a woman saying or implying they were SHOCKED as has been asserted. Lynndie said "when a man looks at every woman and thinks sexual thoughts it is not a normal or good thing" which I believe is the statement on this thread that prompted the most defensive reaction from the men involved, but other than the phrase 'not normal' many of the same men have already agreed on this point.
>Some men... seem to have much more trouble with it and may cross the line into unacceptable behavior. This seems to be where the whole "problem" on this thread lives.
I would suggest that SWN has actually hit upon the primary cause of disagreement, which seems to have been the divergent understandings of the meaning of 'lust'. I think a few people assume that 'lust' is a passing thought, while other believe 'lust' only applies to leering and fantasizing.
Resolving and agreeing upon the meaning of ‘lust’ just might be what is needed.
>I'm not talking about "lusting"; the definition is irrelevant.
The original question asked about lust. If some people wish to respond to a different question, that's OK, but any resulting discussion becomes quite irrelevant if both parties are not aware of this. I think a lot of this disagreement comes from the fact that no one can read minds and KNOW when someone is responding to a different question.
My H also says he has to fight the desire to lust after every decent looking female and says that ALL men think this way. I basically told him that not all men think alike. I've been around his two brothers to know they do not think the way my H does. Both of his brothers are bachelors in their 50's who have not taken the interest to have a relationship outside of family. I have never observe to ever lust or have a desire for anyone. My H's brothers have proven him wrong. LOL
Lee
By the way, I find this thread a very interesting and
thought provoking. Fascinating, indeed!
I agree with the suggestions that at least some disagreements arise out of misunderstandings, probably because the same words are interpreted and then re-interpreted in different ways. We've got a "pro-lust" group that seems suspicious of puritanism. We've got the "pro-self-control" crowd that seems suspicious of the permissiveness of the "pro-lust" crowd. I doubt that anyone is as permissive or as puritanical as implied in the responses to their posts.
"It's good to be 'honest and open" about our desires" and "it's good to have self-control" are hard to disagree with. But at some point, I might give it a shot, just for the halibut.
The quote below was written on a slightly different subject but one that I've observed more then once.
He wrote:
<<<I watched an interesting show the other night. They were testing the idea that women have a more powerful response to fame than looks, which they did by measuring a woman's pupil dilation and heart rate. Now, the good-looking guy was only marginally handsome and the famous guy was barely a third-rate celebrity, but the test certainly seemed to work out.
The woman had no reaction whatsoever to the first two guys, the "good-looking" guy and the normal guy. But when the "famous" guy came in, (it wasn't even him, it was a double and he was easily the least handsome of the men), the woman's pulse rate went from a resting 68 up to 112 and her pupils dilated significantly.
So, gentlemen, don't bother working out, dressing well and showering, just do something to get your name out there!>>>
END QUOTE
I know this guy who's a marginal writer at best but knows some famous writers. One time he was at a DC seminar, which are always full of Georgetown "climbers". Two of the speakers were very well known policy guys and the third was a rich and famous author who... how do I say this, smells "different".
The author was by far the most "hideous" looking but he got an amazing amount of attention from women after the event. It was a contest to see which women would go to the greatest lengths to hurl herself at rich, fat, "different" smelling, and ugly author.
After a while things started to sort themselves out. Some of the women began to realize that the competition was to great for their first choice and began moving on to the other panelists. I love to watch the by play after events on C-span. You can see all kinds of interesting things
Later on the guy I know had dinner with the author and they were approached by two women who asked for an autograph, a big no-no, but all the women in the room stared at author all during dinner.
After dinner the author took off to the airport to catch a flight to NY and the guy I know was left to his own devices. He decided to go into the bar and have a few drinks and sort out his notes before heading up to his room and bed.
In a short time he was approached by three different women who just happened to pass by his table, all wanting to say that they had seen him with the author. Being married and growing uncomfortable with the fact that all these different women wanted to talk with him he left.
The bottom line is that all of us have things that "stimulate" us. I'm not sure that anyone is worse then the other.
I see that Tom didn't include me amongst the Posting men. HMMMMM. OK, I may be too man pretty, and therefore cause suspicion, but I swear I have the right equipment.
Sorry Will, I only went to the 18th post. However, I'm all for clearing things up.
Will is a man who added something important at the 23rd, 35th, 79th, and 92nd posts, not to mention a few others. I think Will basically agreed with Raypd, but later tempered his agreement saying that imaginings have contributed at least one instance of good sex with his wife. Will also shared with us his penchant for thoughts concerning Angelina Jolie. Apparently Will has a thing for crazy women.
Some years back (I was younger and not nearly as gray) I attended a conference with a colleague, out of town. The colleague was a very attractive woman about 10 years younger than me. Since we didn't know anyone else at the conference, we "normally and naturally" sat together in the auditorium for the plenary sessions and at meals.
At some point, I noticed that almost all the other younger, attractive women in the room had moved to sit within a few seats or rows from where we were, and the seating pattern persisted in subsequent sessions.
I hasten to add that I only "noticed" that these other women were attractive. I did not stare or drool. I did not sit and fantasize. I just noticed the phenomenon and thought it was kind of funny.
So Will, I think there's another element, sort of "schooling" behavior. If one attractive woman is with a man, others follow to see what the fuss is about.
Do they have a thing for me??? Well I hope so. Of course in light of my recent experiences, crazy needs a definition. Crazy with a knife doesn't interest me.
Chris, Crazy is like pornograpy. I know it when I see it. With Angelina all I see is a woman who can't live without me... even if she doesn't know it yet. That's why I hangout around her house and follow her on airplanes.
>>With Angelina all I see is a woman who can't live without me<<
That's all I see with Sandra ... Sandra Bullock, that is. But she coulda come up with a better name - Bullock is not the name of a leading lady, let alone America's sweetheart ... I'm sorry and I don't care if this is 2004 but Bullock was a bad choice.
A thought crosses a man's mind. His eyes glaze over momentarily, and he doesn't get that glazed look when he's, say, trying to read a new item on the menu or when he looks at a letter in the mail that isn't usual or familiar. It's a specific look that doesn't happen at other times and is very obvious to women who have picked up on it. It doesn't have to be just their partner who gets 'the look' on his face.....Once you've figured it out, you can see the look on strangers faces too. So as far as I can tell, the thought has affected his behaviour, to the point that it is noticeable by somebody else.
Some men seem to think that because it's a thought, others can't know what is happening. But I'm saying that because it's noticeable to others, how can that not be called behaviour? You can't see a thought. And it's not 'behaviour' that happens with other thoughts, so it's a particular kind of thought.
Anyway......let's say I see this behaviour/thought - and it bothers me - should I tell my spouse about it, or should I sit back like I do now and watch him when he doesn't know he's being monitored?
Good point FR. I doubt any of us can read the minds of our pets (Dr. Doolittle please?), but if we are having steak for dinner, I usually have a good guess where my dog's attention is focused based on her behavior and my past experiences with her. That said, it's important to remember that people can actually suppress a behavior to keep their thoughts hidden. It's also wise to remember that it's only a guess.
I'm pretty sure that I'm smarter than any of the dogs that have ever shared my house, and reasonably certain that my consciousness, thoughts, and behavior are far more complex than theirs.
I've never met a dog with morals or a conscience, either.
I guess if Mr. FR is a dog, maybe this comparison might be valid. Otherwise, I think your last remark holds: remember, it's just a guess.
I agree, and some guesses are more accurate, based on experience and behavoir observations. In addition, most people "wear their feelings on their sleeves" enough that a reasonable and inuitive person can observe and then make some pretty good guesses.
From what I hear on the street, women are know to have to decent intuition.
This message has been edited by tomj76 on Dec 15, 2004 3:10 PM
A point I have made more than once in this discussion ties into something someone else (you maybe?) has written on another thread: the essence of a good marriage is communication.
Since there is no way to know your spouse's thoughts unless you're told, the best practice when "intuition" tells you something is simply to ask for confirmation.
Of course, when one party thinks (or says) she knows better, then it is conceivable that she might accuse (outwardly by words, or inwardly by her own thoughts) the other of lying about his true thoughts. That leads nowhere good.
This is why "knowing" (or convincing oneself that one knows) what someone else is thinking is very dangerous territory. It sets up a no-win situation for the person whose thoughts are being "read".
Wouldn't it just be much better to ask? And when asking, wouldn't it just be much better to accept the answer from the person who gives it? And wouldn't it ultimately be much better to respect our spouses and let them have their private thoughts, without prying into them?
"Fixing" our spouse's thinking is darn near impossible. I think that's one of those things that must simply be accepted if one's spouse doesn't want to change. Forced change is never really appreciated by anyone.
Actually, Chris, my W's refusal to accept the answer 'Fine' to the question, "How's it going for you right now?" has done more to enhance our communication than anything else.
We were all young and in love once, and probably asked our beloved (or were asked)..."whatcha thinkin' right now". That's one thing.
Asking what one's spouse thinks about a person, place, or thing is something else. (Like, "what did you think of the dress that barely covered anything on the beautiful woman who just walked by.")
But "How are things going for you right now" is a really complicated, high-level question. "Fine" might be a good stalling answer if you're really not able to put it all into words "right now". An appropriate comeback to "fine" might be to use some of that vaunted intuition: "I can see this might not be a good time to ask...I'll leave you alone with your thoughts and we can talk later." That's respectful, polite, engaging, and shows acceptance. I hope that's what your wife does to "not let you off the hook".
Personally, I would never answer that question immediately until I'd really thought about it. Or until it was a little more specific. When I don't think things through, the dumbest and meanest stuff comes out of my mouth...and I know that. I'd expect anyone married to me to know, honor, and respect that too.
The last time I asked such a question, he lied (The question was "Can I trust you now?"). Just because I ask a question doesn't mean I'll get an honest answer. At least with silent observation, I get the uncensored reality.
Chris wrote >>I'm pretty sure that I'm smarter than any of the dogs that have ever shared my house, and reasonably certain that my consciousness, thoughts, and behavior are far more complex than theirs<<
I'm glad you're speaking for yourself, Chris, cuz one time I had this black lab that was really friggin smart. I started spelling words like W-A-L-K because if I said them out loud he'd be all over me like ugly on an ape. Unfortunately, it wasn't long before he was all over me whenever I spelled words like W-A-L-K. By the time he died, I swear his vocabulary was up around 10 to 20 thousand words.
FR wrote >>It's a specific look that doesn't happen at other times and is very obvious to women who have picked up on it. It doesn't have to be just their partner who gets 'the look' on his face.....Once you've figured it out, you can see the look on strangers faces too. So as far as I can tell, the thought has affected his behaviour, to the point that it is noticeable by somebody else<
I gotta hand it to you, FR - you've got a winning argument this time. Point, set, and match. I bow before superior debating skills. Not only that but what you say is true. "Thought" and "behavior" aren't so easily distinguished. To that extent, I'd have to agree that at the very least, if I am in one woman's company it's very rude of me to indulge in a sexual fantasy about another woman. I'm not sure about the privacy of a shower stall. I'll have to think about that.
And to answer your question, if your spouse's behavior is bothering you and you find it difficult to overlook, then I agree that you should tell him about it.
Chris wrote >>"Fixing" our spouse's thinking is darn near impossible. I think that's one of those things that must simply be accepted if one's spouse doesn't want to change<<
"Fixing" our spouse's behavior is almost as difficult, if I remember.
FR, I think I asked you this earlier in this thread, and perhaps in a couple of others over the last year. Wouldn't it be easier to control your own thoughts about his thoughts? I would seem to be the easiest way to bring yourself some peace.
Hmm. Let's see. There's the "180", the "pushmepullyou" (pursuer-distancer inversion), and the infamous 5-year plan. There's MC. There's IC. There's separation. There's a divorce filing.
Yer right. Can't fix thoughts OR behavior. Maybe if we coulda read minds, Bart. Ya think then?
Chris.
ps. I've always had retrievers and retriever mixes (except for the greyhound). EVERY one of 'em knew the word WALK. Also RIDE, TREAT, OUT, IN, SIT, DOWN, and occasionally STAY, and the present ones know CRATE. I was trying to get the smartest one to learn PAY BILLS and GO TO WORK, but it didn't quite take.
>>I wonder if dogs have to fight the desire to lust after every decent looking beetch (and a few indecent ones as well)?<<
It's a dog's life, man. They don't have to fight nothin'. They get to lust after a sofa if they want and nobody's gonna give a rat's ass. Try that at home and see where it gits ya.
I think "controlling" the thoughts your spouse is a lot different than "reading" a behavior that might betray those thoughts. As far as I can see, the only thing that has been suggested is the latter of those two.
>I had this black lab that was really friggin smart.
I think we had the same dog, but not 10,000 to 20,000 words. More like 50. But if you said, K-L-A-W, she'd still run for the door, leash in mouth.
> Personally, I would never answer that question immediately until I'd really thought about it.
This sounds like someone who is coming at this from a background involving a very adversarial relationship. I don't share that kind of experience, so my view on this subject is likely different. However, it sounds as if FR has experienced some stonewalling that he lead her to believe that she is better off trusting her instincts rather than her husband's spoken word, at least in certain circumstances. That seems reasonable to me that someone should use the best information they can find. We know that drawing conclusions based on non-verbal communication is far from flawless, but we also know all too well that the verbal stuff isn't totally without problems. I'm not reading any suggestions that a stubborn approach is best (i.e. "I can see what you're thinking, don't lie to me."). At worst, what I see is more like "I hear what you're saying and I see what you're doing, and it doesn't add up." I don't understand how that is something controversial.
This message has been edited by tomj76 on Dec 15, 2004 10:19 PM
<I'm glad you're speaking for yourself, Chris, cuz one time I had this black lab that was really friggin smart. I started spelling words like W-A-L-K because if I said them out loud he'd be all over me like ugly on an ape. Unfortunately, it wasn't long before he was all over me whenever I spelled words like W-A-L-K. By the time he died, I swear his vocabulary was up around 10 to 20 thousand words.>
<ps. I've always had retrievers and retriever mixes (except for the greyhound). EVERY one of 'em knew the word WALK. Also RIDE, TREAT, OUT, IN, SIT, DOWN, and occasionally STAY, and the present ones know CRATE. I was trying to get the smartest one to learn PAY BILLS and GO TO WORK, but it didn't quite take.>
<I think we had the same dog, but not 10,000 to 20,000 words. More like 50. But if you said, K-L-A-W, she'd still run for the door, leash in mouth.>
That aint nothin, my husky talks to ME. She has a different communication technique for every one of her demands.
When I get home after being away, her first resonse is "I wuuuvv oooohhh"!
If you don't believe me, ask Misha, she knows. Huskys talk, we listen. LOL
Tom wrote >>what I see is more like "I hear what you're saying and I see what you're doing, and it doesn't add up."<<
Yeah - most of us have probably had that particular sensation a time or two
>>This sounds like someone who is coming at this from a background involving a very adversarial relationship. I don't share that kind of experience <<
... and I hope you never will, Tom. Divorce has some strange and wonderous ways of turning life on its head ... avoiding an "adversarial relationship" can be harder than it looks. Long before I had considered studying for the first midterm in Affairs 101 (back when I was pretty cocky about my highly developed skills at avoiding marital discord, not to mention divorce) somebody explained to me that "divorce changes ya". At the time, I was pretty sure I understood what that meant but for some reason, it stuck with me anyway. Now, I don't know exactly how it changes a person but that might be a good subject for a thread ... maybe.
Dogs? How about one who loves to kill chickens and drops them on the front porch... with the owner of said chicken in hot pursuit. Plausible deniability seemed beyond reach. After the dogs departure (for bad chicken etiquette) we decided to keep one of the offspring. The chicken killing genes ran strong however, and this one met the same fait. The owner of the chickens was considering killing the owners of the dog(s) and ending his problems for all time.
The one I have now is a cow dog. She knows when to make herself gone. My oldest son is the same way. I never new who taught whom, but it worked for them both. I could never find either one when an unsavory discovery had been made, or work needed doing, or something got broke. Quite a skill actually.
Will
This message has been edited by willingtolearn on Dec 15, 2004 11:27 PM
I have a wascally, wuvable, pawott. He wolf-whistles. He snuggles up on my shoulder. He sings out to me in the morning as soon as he hears my bedroom door open. His cage is outside the backdoor (a glass sliding door) and there is a curtain covering the door. The curtain is split and you can see this bird jostling for my attention through the slit - there's like one eye peeking through the glass and through the curtain. He comes when I call him, he loves me. I've even let the love well up in my heart for this little guy. It's been a long time since that has happened for anyone or anything. He's let me love something again. My feathered miracle. He's always glad to see me, and his wings aren't clipped so he can fly away if he wants to. But the great thing is, he doesn't. He seeks me out and he stays with me, and always comes back to me.
I'm teaching him to say "I love you".
It's a riot watching him trying to elevate himself in the pecking order over my 7 year old. If you've ever faced a cranky parrot, you'll know they're not meek. Kudos to my 7 year old, she perserveres and puts him in his place.
>>owner of said chicken in hot pursuit. Plausible deniability seemed beyond reach<<
Hate when that happens.
>>I could never find either one when an unsavory discovery had been made, or work needed doing, or something got broke. Quite a skill actually<<
Perhaps they've been studying with my X. (Arr, arr, arrr)
>>I have a wascally, wuvable, pawott<<
I've heard this kind of thing about parrot's before. They DO have a "pecking order". They're social animals and they're smart as heck. In fact, if I remember right, I was listening to one of those phone in radio shows with an animal behavior specialist (veterinary psychiatry?) who was talking about the benefits of SSRI anti-depressants for parrot's with OCD. I'm serious.
>>Dogs? How about one who loves to kill chickens and drops them on the front porch... with the owner of said chicken in hot pursuit<<
With a cow dog, you might could wake up to find a small herd of cows, moo-ing on the front lawn, looking for an owner who had been deposited on the front porch.
>>"He wolf-whistles." ... I can't imagine you tolerating this kind of behavior ... <<
... which raises some disturbing questions about this parrot's fantasy life. Maybe the decision not to "clip his wings" should be reconsidered. I don't mean to sow the seeds of doubt but I can't help wondering if the neighbors might have spotted a parrot-eye peeking through *their* blinds.
Chris - Actually, 'Fine' was my avoidance behavior. It was my way of escaping the rather difficult job of verbalizing very difficult/denied feelings. While I don't have that problem any more, it can still be a habit. She is right to call me on that, and, yes, she's gotten much better at letting (anyone, much less) ME off the hook.
And I agree with TomJ about the adversarial thing ... having to think a while (always) is a work-around to open communication.
Then, again, I could be barking up the wrong tree ...
SWN
Can I please have my treat now?
This message has been edited by SoWhatNow on Dec 16, 2004 11:19 AM
The thing about a cow dogs is, all cows on porch are definitely living. This tends to amuse cow owners more then dead chicken owners. Not too mention that the dog is more then willing, in fact is quivering at the thought of, taking the cows back to where they belong.
This does not apply to pigs however. Pigs do not like to be hurded, and can easily be stressed to death by very persistant cow dogs, who really don't care if they heard cows btw. They will do geese, ducks, cats, they just don't care.
>>They will do geese, ducks, cats, they just don't care.<<
... or they can't tell the difference even if the did ...
... which brings me to an old story about another bird ... this time a horny rooster (a randy cock for those of us subject to a most noble and gracious Queen, sent hither and yon, victorious, happy and glorious).
Anyway, this rooster was a feisty little bugger and wasn't satisfied with the 20 or 30 hens which frequented the barn yard. One day, when Farmer Jones was returning from a hard day of disking and rotary cultivating, he found the rooster, with a pelvis more supple than Elvis', mounted on the back of a duck, and hanging on for all he was worth. The next day it was a goat. And the next, a pig.
Over the next few days, the rooster continued on his merry way up the barnyard heirarchy until finally, Farmer Jones returned one day to the house to find the rooster lying on his back in the gravel driveway, legs sticking straight up in the air, and turkey vultures circling overhead.
Farmer Jones shook his head and said out loud (but to no one in particular) "Well, I guess that old rooster finally overdid it". At that point, the rooster opened one eye and hissed "Shaddap a$$hole - they're about to land!"
My wife and I were out Christmas shopping today. My wife insisted that we go into Hooters for lunch. I sat there so self conscious the whole time, staring at the ceiling, looking at the pictures on the walls, the cracks in the wooden floor, some stupid paid advertisement on the monitor, my wife's silly grin (as though---go ahead---I dare you), everything but what I would normally be looking at. This thread is ruining my life. THANKS A LOT ! ! !
We were talking about thought-reading NOT being okay, not about open communication...which is the OPPOSITE of thought-reading. I was ADVOCATING asking (or being asked) about thoughts instead of thought-reading.
And it now seems as if you're both suggesting that it's always better just to blurt out whatever's on your mind, no matter how disorganized your thoughts (and without considering the potential for hurting your wife).
>And it now seems as if you're both suggesting that it's always better just to blurt out whatever's on your mind, no matter how disorganized your thoughts.
I don't think I ever said anything like that. If I did, I'd like to know where.
I wrote >> Personally, I would never answer that question immediately until I'd really thought about it. <<
Tom wrote >>This sounds like someone who is coming at this from a background involving a very adversarial relationship....I'm not reading any suggestions that a stubborn approach is best<<
First, you're guessing without knowing or asking, and then building a case...my very point.
I'm pretty sure that every relationship is adversarial at some point or another over something.
I personally tend to be VERY adversarial when someone tries (incorrectly) to read my mind or to tell me what I'm thinking or feeling. Or where I'm coming from.
And that's the context here: when/if someone tries to TELL me my thoughts, motives, or feelings, I'm not really open to sharing them. (And isn't the person doing so really demonstrating by her/his behavior that s/he isn't really open to knowing my thoughts, motives, or feelings?)
And secondly, you have labeled my idea of holding back on revealing my thoughts as "a stubborn approach"...one which I did say would be best for me to use, to avoid saying stupid or hurtful things. In applying a pejorative label ("stubborn") to what I said I'd do, and saying you don't see anyone advocating it, you are indicating disapproval and/or disagreement.
Forget it. It's breathing, it's making noise, it's got a life of its own. As the good Dr. Frankenstein found out, you can make it, but you can't make it go away.
>First, you're guessing without knowing or asking, and then building a case...my very point.
I am not trying to read your mind, just understand your written words. I have no other information to go on, so mind reading is impossible.
This is hardly a real time interactive medium. We all try to guess at what others are saying, and if we are good at communicating, we state what we thing we are reading in our own words. You've done the same thing, in fact in this very post. Any jumping to conclusions is not a hostile act, it only trying to speed up the process of communication by explaining what I'm thinking in more detail. You're certainly welcome to clear up any wrong thinking and wrong conclusions. A cordial tone helps keep defensiveness to a minimum as well.
>And secondly, you have labeled my idea of holding back on revealing my thoughts as "a stubborn approach"...one which I did say would be best for me to use, to avoid saying stupid or hurtful things.
This quote "Tom wrote >>This sounds like someone who is coming at this from a background involving a very adversarial relationship....I'm not reading any suggestions that a stubborn approach is best<<" distorts what I wrote. There are a lot of words skipped over in that tiny ellipsis. The full text was:
>This sounds like someone who is coming at this from a background involving a very adversarial relationship. I don't share that kind of experience, so my view on this subject is likely different. However, it sounds as if FR has experienced some stonewalling that he lead her to believe that she is better off trusting her instincts rather than her husband's spoken word, at least in certain circumstances. That seems reasonable to me that someone should use the best information they can find. We know that drawing conclusions based on non-verbal communication is far from flawless, but we also know all too well that the verbal stuff isn't totally without problems. I'm not reading any suggestions that a stubborn approach is best (i.e. "I can see what you're thinking, don't lie to me."). At worst, what I see is more like "I hear what you're saying and I see what you're doing, and it doesn't add up." I don't understand how that is something controversial.
I think you misread what I wrote. The context of "a stubborn approach" is referring to an idea you seem to be making a case against, not your "idea of holding back on revealing my thoughts". I used "a stubborn approach" to refer to your previous points regarding "mind reading". You seem to be telling us that anyone who depends on body language and behavioral cues to draw conclusions about the universalized thoughts and feelings of the subject will then demand there is no other possible explanation for the observed body language and behavioral cues. If that's not what you're suggesting, just say so.
I'm afraid that previous paragraph is not totally clear, so let me take a moment to attempt a better explanation:
Chris said "Of course, when one party thinks (or says) she knows better, then it is conceivable that she might accuse (outwardly by words, or inwardly by her own thoughts) the other of lying about his true thoughts. That leads nowhere good." That seems like Chris is saying that sometimes people are taking a suborn approach.
I said "I'm not reading any suggestions that a stubborn approach is best (i.e. 'I can see what you're thinking, don't lie to me.'). At worst, what I see is more like 'I hear what you're saying and I see what you're doing, and it doesn't add up.'" I'm addressing Chris' previous point.
If I've misunderstood Chris' point, I'd like to know.
>>You seem to be telling us that anyone who depends on body language and behavioral cues to draw conclusions about the universalized thoughts and feelings of the subject will then demand there is no other possible explanation for the observed body language and behavioral cues. If that's not what you're suggesting, just say so<<
I don't think I understood your point, here Tom. Would you please explain a little more?
>>You seem to be telling us that anyone who depends on body language and behavioral cues to draw conclusions about the universalized thoughts and feelings of the subject will then demand there is no other possible explanation for the observed body language and behavioral cues. If that's not what you're suggesting, just say so<<
>I don't think I understood your point, here...
I agree, that was confusing. I'll try to get it out more clearly.
Chris wrote:
>Of course, when one party thinks (or says) she knows better, then it is conceivable that she might accuse (outwardly by words, or inwardly by her own thoughts) the other of lying about his true thoughts. That leads nowhere good.<
I had the impression upon reading this that Chis saying:
-Some wives have used non-verbal means to determine what her husband is thinking.
-That those wives become strongly convinced that there is no other possible thoughts that could explain the observed behaviors.
-That those wives decide their husband is lying if he offers his true thoughts, since they are convinced they already know the right answer.
This approach to communication is what I was referring to when I spoke of "a stubborn approach". I understood that Chris was stating that FR (and any other woman who uses non-verbal information to understand her husbands thoughts) will always take this "stubborn approach" if her husband tells her about his thoughts and the explaination doesn't match her initial guess.
Each time I've read back through the posts on this thread I see many more points that there is more we all agreed on rather than disagreed on, so I don't understand why it seems difficult to find resolution to this discussion. However, it is what it is, so I'll keep working on it until we can find it.
To me it looks like we have the following agreements:
-That men often notice attractive women, even if only for a moment.
-That unbridled drooling, cat-calls, starring, etc. is usually considered anti-social behavior and should not be reinforced.
-That Will is attracted to crazy women, but crazy is a relative term anyway.
-That no one can read your mind, but people can make a reasonable guess
based on your outward behavior and your body language.
-That it's not wise to use only non-verbal communication to understand your spouse, but it's acceptable and even wise to include it with the understanding that it has inherent limitations.
-That many spouses have not been open about their thoughts, but their non-verbal communication betrayed them none the less.
-That dogs can learn to recognize words and parrots have a pecking order.
It seems that we presently disagree that:
-women who use non-verbal information to deduce the feelings and thoughts of their husbands are also unwilling to accept a different explanation.
or
-women who have stated on this thread that they have 'noticed' their husbands thinking about other women (based on the facial expressions, starring, and unbridled drooling) are often correct.
