Look, I think it's kind of important here to reject a lot of the framing of this question. I'm no longer in a stage of my life where I'm interested in men, but you know, I did my time in a number...
Exemplary
Look, I think it's kind of important here to reject a lot of the framing of this question. I'm no longer in a stage of my life where I'm interested in men, but you know, I did my time in a number of flings in college and I have to say, whether A or B were men, women, or nonbinary I wouldn't be interested in either of them. These two people are not really on opposite ends of a personality spectrum, where one end is effusive and controlling and the other is laid back and passive. It's important, instead, when evaluating individual partners to think of them as individuals, and evaluate on a personal basis how well you get along with them and how well you fit together. Which, I guess, echoes what everyone here has already said. For me, both A and B have traits that I would consider dealbreakers: that being, being controlling and passive-aggression, instead of equitable respect and open communication. That's not to say that I wouldn't date a flawed person -- maybe, for instance, if B knew they were bad at communicating about issues in a relationship and was working on it, I'd be open to take that journey with them. I'm a pretty messy person too, after all. But I can't say, because I don't know B. I don't know whether they would make me smile, or challenge me in conversations, or come to art museums with me. Because B isn't real.
I think, underlying this post, I can see maybe emanations from the penumbra of some harmful views about relationships. Like, you say
[B] is too liberal in letting you do what you want
and it kind of makes my stomach churn. I'm someone who likes taking BDSM outside of the bedroom, and even in that context, in no healthy relationship is one partner "letting" the other do what they want. Your partner is not your dad, they are your equal. You live your own lives and make your own decisions, up until the point where you live a shared life and make some shared decisions, too. But I think a lot of people still come at heterosexual relationships with this misguided (patriarchal) assumption that one partner, the man, should be 'in charge,' should take care of the other partner but also 'rein her in' to an extent. To me, this is a deeply unhealthy view that does not capture what most women want out of a relationship. I certainly don't mean to accuse you of being a misogynist, but I do think that if people hold a view that one partner should control the other, they should rethink that. And honestly, a lot of this stems from men not seeing women as individuals. You will often see men asking "what do women want?" But each of us is a person, with her own desires and interior world and expectations for a relationship, so there's no productive way to answer that question.
This is a really well thought out explanation and I appreciate how it reinforces the importance of real emotional intimacy, mutual respect and the need to acknowledge the other person as an...
This is a really well thought out explanation and I appreciate how it reinforces the importance of real emotional intimacy, mutual respect and the need to acknowledge the other person as an individual as the basis for any relationship.
The sad thing is that in forming the original question, the poster has demonstrated thinly veiled misconceptions and prejudices.
It's definitely a challenging thing for some men, specially those hailing from strongly patriarchal societies to perceive women as equally capable, complete human beings and to stop relegating them the role of a possession. It's discourse like this that the world needs more of.
I’d rather be single. A man who might get abusive vs a man who might get sarcastic and passive aggressive?! This isn’t a choice I’d make. The emotional availability has nothing to do with it, and...
I’d rather be single. A man who might get abusive vs a man who might get sarcastic and passive aggressive?! This isn’t a choice I’d make. The emotional availability has nothing to do with it, and is far from the only important metric in a decision.
People show that they love you far more through their actions than their words.
Agreed, it is not a bimodal distribution I want to be any part of! It feels like both of these conjectured types of partner exhibit different presentations of a similar problem, something like:...
Agreed, it is not a bimodal distribution I want to be any part of!
It feels like both of these conjectured types of partner exhibit different presentations of a similar problem, something like: their kind treatment of you is dependent upon you behaving in a way that they like, and disagreements aren't discussed and worked out before they reach a point where they act out in a harmful way against you.
Also, the additional implication I receive is that mode of expression of love is linked to mode of abuse, or even that you can't have one without the other, and have to pick? maybe they're linked, but you can for sure have one without the other! I don't like the idea of expressing an opinion on how i prefer to be abused in a relationship
I agree with Adys and AgnesNutter, but let me take a shot in the dark here at what you might actually be asking, which I believe to be questions about expression of love? I personally believe that...
I agree with Adys and AgnesNutter, but let me take a shot in the dark here at what you might actually be asking, which I believe to be questions about expression of love?
I personally believe that there is not a spectrum between stoic and overt expression, I'm much more a believer (with a small grain of salt, nothing is less granular than human relationships) of something like the Love Languages principle.
If you're asking about the best way to communicate with your partner, or maybe if your (guessing again) stoicism would be an automatic no vs an overt partner, I highly recommend you read the link above. It gives a much more nuanced and, in my opinion, accurate representation of the ways humans can express love.
I recommend Chapman's book. It was a great read, I think the author was spot on – at least for me and my partner. We definitely speak different (love) languages, that book made me realize it and...
I recommend Chapman's book. It was a great read, I think the author was spot on – at least for me and my partner. We definitely speak different (love) languages, that book made me realize it and notice the patterns. Now when I see my partner do one of those things I see it as the expression of love towards me, whereas before those were nice things but I was not paying them enough attention, because they were not saying "I love you" in my language. But Chapman gave me a dictionary :)
I share the same sentiments that many of the other posters have already brought up. One thing that also stands out to me in this question is the basic premise that person A and person B actually...
I share the same sentiments that many of the other posters have already brought up. One thing that also stands out to me in this question is the basic premise that person A and person B actually do represent two ends of the spectrum and that their “good traits” would go hand in hand with their “bad traits”. I disagree completely with that assumption based on my own experience so, even putting aside the many bad vibes the rest of the post gives off, I don’t really know how it’s reasonable to answer.
Adys is completely right that if you have a question you should ask in more plain language. I really cannot tell if these hypotheticals aren’t actually hypothetical in your life or if they are meant to demonstrate something. But currently they are taking away from any question or point you may be trying to convey.
Flip the genders and read what you posted again. If a woman treated me (as a guy) in the deeply uncomfortable, abusive ways outlined in both of the hypotheticals, I would feel incredibly hurt,...
Flip the genders and read what you posted again.
If a woman treated me (as a guy) in the deeply uncomfortable, abusive ways outlined in both of the hypotheticals, I would feel incredibly hurt, betrayed and in all honesty would probably shut down and lose any feelings I had towards that person in an instant.
The correct answer is neither. Neither of these people are behaving appropriately towards people they should be considering an equal.
They both have work to do to understand where their behaviour stems from and what they need to work on to avoid perpetuating their own trauma to others.
I understand your question I think, even if I disagree with the entire premise. When younger I wouldn't have seen any issues with your descriptions. I was lacking any real sense of what adult,...
I understand your question I think, even if I disagree with the entire premise. When younger I wouldn't have seen any issues with your descriptions. I was lacking any real sense of what adult, healthy emotional closeness looked like between partners in life. I got scooped up by an abuser, and in that time of my life a question like yours wouldn't give me the ick.
First, a direct answer to the posted text: Today, both of these would make me simply stop spending time with this person and move on with my life. I wouldn't start a relationship with either of them to begin with.
I would like to explain more about what I've learned and come to realise so far in life, going further than the initial post asked for:
As I've grown older and have had several relationships fall apart, I see it very differently.
What I want is emotional maturity. And this is something that research very firmly establishes that men all over the world have less of.
It's not about putting words to your emotions. It's about understanding your emotions to begin with, and having a broad array of options for how to react to those emotions. This is where men often fall through.
They often see things as less nuanced, and more easily get ovrewhelmed and just shut up or ignore it. Both in themselves and when they notice emotions in others. It becomes a problem when things aren't comfortable or easy, or when they have to adapt their personal actions and viewpoints to accommodate someone else.
Markedly more present in personal relationships than at work. At work they can adapt and take input and adapt again quite well, usually. Even the most stubborn "well I didn't know you meant it that way" men can perfectly well understand what is meant when it's at work from a co-worker or boss.
It often turns to "giving up something of mine to accommodate..." instead of "I didn't even think of it as giving up something, it's just how it works best for the household".
This is obviously somewhat biological - seeing as it is a thing in the entire world, but also obviously somewhat cultural seeing as men raised by emotionally competent fathers are less inclined to get stuck in this mire. And I know that male examples is important here. Fathers or equivalent role models that are male.
It's not that emotionally mature role models stops boys and men from getting stuck in their emotional struggles, so much as how it models how to ask for outside guidance when needed - ideally from other emotionally competent men. It's that it shows them how to be a good friend to other men and women. It's that it shows them how to be a good partner, a good father etc.
Women have been telling those around us how to listen, how to better themselves, how to get their act togheter the whole time. If women alone could make boys and men learn this, nobody would ever have issues with this on the large, sociatal scale that it is. This is something that men must educate boys and men on for the impact to actually be effective.
I have to say I appreciate seeing more and more boys and men actually do this.
My theory is that men are the most sensitive gender. Research by the Gottmans for example show that men respond to potential stress/disagreement much faster and stronger than women. Newborn boys seek eyecontact with their caregivers almost twice as often as newborn girls. From when they come out of the womb, before they have yet to be shaped much by our responses to them. But men lack the immediate access to knowledge about what to do with that response in themselves.
So what I want in a man is someone that has good emotional maturity, and that means having been raised in a way that taught them how to manage their emotional circumstances.
As I age, I see that those men that had it that way growing up often partner up in their early adulthood and then tend to stay in those relationships. Whereas single men that are 30+ are increasingly more and more unable to handle themselves in relationships when the initial high wears off.
I remember reading that this tendency towards being inflexible and assuming their partners will accommodate affects male homosexual relationships too but worse since both parties assume this. It's a "gendered issue" in that it's not men doing this to women in relationships, it's men doing this in relationships full stop.
So I don't care how they show their emotional preference towards me as such. I care about how emotionally educated and mature they are when things are way past the initial high. When they're struggling, or when they are insecure.
I see so many relationships around me either stick from when they are in their 20's - or they are still looking for someone as they6 reach 30 years, 40 years old and more, but the relationships keep falling apart after 2-3 years. If the woman is emotionally immature the relationships usually fall apart much sooner.
This, OP. Though I would like to add that if you weren't raised in childhood to be emotional mature, you still can if you keep yourself really open to self reflection. It's hard and takes a while,...
This, OP. Though I would like to add that if you weren't raised in childhood to be emotional mature, you still can if you keep yourself really open to self reflection. It's hard and takes a while, but just the fact that you want to learn makes an almost immediate difference imho.
It doesn't mean throw yourself completely away! You'll become you but wiser and better.
Nuance is the name of the game, and really keeping in mind that others aren't NPC's but rather the protagonist of their own story, like you are yours.
Look, I think it's kind of important here to reject a lot of the framing of this question. I'm no longer in a stage of my life where I'm interested in men, but you know, I did my time in a number of flings in college and I have to say, whether A or B were men, women, or nonbinary I wouldn't be interested in either of them. These two people are not really on opposite ends of a personality spectrum, where one end is effusive and controlling and the other is laid back and passive. It's important, instead, when evaluating individual partners to think of them as individuals, and evaluate on a personal basis how well you get along with them and how well you fit together. Which, I guess, echoes what everyone here has already said. For me, both A and B have traits that I would consider dealbreakers: that being, being controlling and passive-aggression, instead of equitable respect and open communication. That's not to say that I wouldn't date a flawed person -- maybe, for instance, if B knew they were bad at communicating about issues in a relationship and was working on it, I'd be open to take that journey with them. I'm a pretty messy person too, after all. But I can't say, because I don't know B. I don't know whether they would make me smile, or challenge me in conversations, or come to art museums with me. Because B isn't real.
I think, underlying this post, I can see maybe emanations from the penumbra of some harmful views about relationships. Like, you say
and it kind of makes my stomach churn. I'm someone who likes taking BDSM outside of the bedroom, and even in that context, in no healthy relationship is one partner "letting" the other do what they want. Your partner is not your dad, they are your equal. You live your own lives and make your own decisions, up until the point where you live a shared life and make some shared decisions, too. But I think a lot of people still come at heterosexual relationships with this misguided (patriarchal) assumption that one partner, the man, should be 'in charge,' should take care of the other partner but also 'rein her in' to an extent. To me, this is a deeply unhealthy view that does not capture what most women want out of a relationship. I certainly don't mean to accuse you of being a misogynist, but I do think that if people hold a view that one partner should control the other, they should rethink that. And honestly, a lot of this stems from men not seeing women as individuals. You will often see men asking "what do women want?" But each of us is a person, with her own desires and interior world and expectations for a relationship, so there's no productive way to answer that question.
This is a really well thought out explanation and I appreciate how it reinforces the importance of real emotional intimacy, mutual respect and the need to acknowledge the other person as an individual as the basis for any relationship.
The sad thing is that in forming the original question, the poster has demonstrated thinly veiled misconceptions and prejudices.
It's definitely a challenging thing for some men, specially those hailing from strongly patriarchal societies to perceive women as equally capable, complete human beings and to stop relegating them the role of a possession. It's discourse like this that the world needs more of.
This is such a weird, loaded, and kind of creepy question with all that added context. If you have an actual question, there’s better ways to ask it.
I’d rather be single. A man who might get abusive vs a man who might get sarcastic and passive aggressive?! This isn’t a choice I’d make. The emotional availability has nothing to do with it, and is far from the only important metric in a decision.
People show that they love you far more through their actions than their words.
Agreed, it is not a bimodal distribution I want to be any part of!
It feels like both of these conjectured types of partner exhibit different presentations of a similar problem, something like: their kind treatment of you is dependent upon you behaving in a way that they like, and disagreements aren't discussed and worked out before they reach a point where they act out in a harmful way against you.
Also, the additional implication I receive is that mode of expression of love is linked to mode of abuse, or even that you can't have one without the other, and have to pick? maybe they're linked, but you can for sure have one without the other! I don't like the idea of expressing an opinion on how i prefer to be abused in a relationship
I agree with Adys and AgnesNutter, but let me take a shot in the dark here at what you might actually be asking, which I believe to be questions about expression of love?
I personally believe that there is not a spectrum between stoic and overt expression, I'm much more a believer (with a small grain of salt, nothing is less granular than human relationships) of something like the Love Languages principle.
If you're asking about the best way to communicate with your partner, or maybe if your (guessing again) stoicism would be an automatic no vs an overt partner, I highly recommend you read the link above. It gives a much more nuanced and, in my opinion, accurate representation of the ways humans can express love.
I recommend Chapman's book. It was a great read, I think the author was spot on – at least for me and my partner. We definitely speak different (love) languages, that book made me realize it and notice the patterns. Now when I see my partner do one of those things I see it as the expression of love towards me, whereas before those were nice things but I was not paying them enough attention, because they were not saying "I love you" in my language. But Chapman gave me a dictionary :)
I share the same sentiments that many of the other posters have already brought up. One thing that also stands out to me in this question is the basic premise that person A and person B actually do represent two ends of the spectrum and that their “good traits” would go hand in hand with their “bad traits”. I disagree completely with that assumption based on my own experience so, even putting aside the many bad vibes the rest of the post gives off, I don’t really know how it’s reasonable to answer.
Adys is completely right that if you have a question you should ask in more plain language. I really cannot tell if these hypotheticals aren’t actually hypothetical in your life or if they are meant to demonstrate something. But currently they are taking away from any question or point you may be trying to convey.
Flip the genders and read what you posted again.
If a woman treated me (as a guy) in the deeply uncomfortable, abusive ways outlined in both of the hypotheticals, I would feel incredibly hurt, betrayed and in all honesty would probably shut down and lose any feelings I had towards that person in an instant.
The correct answer is neither. Neither of these people are behaving appropriately towards people they should be considering an equal.
They both have work to do to understand where their behaviour stems from and what they need to work on to avoid perpetuating their own trauma to others.
I understand your question I think, even if I disagree with the entire premise. When younger I wouldn't have seen any issues with your descriptions. I was lacking any real sense of what adult, healthy emotional closeness looked like between partners in life. I got scooped up by an abuser, and in that time of my life a question like yours wouldn't give me the ick.
First, a direct answer to the posted text: Today, both of these would make me simply stop spending time with this person and move on with my life. I wouldn't start a relationship with either of them to begin with.
I would like to explain more about what I've learned and come to realise so far in life, going further than the initial post asked for:
As I've grown older and have had several relationships fall apart, I see it very differently.
What I want is emotional maturity. And this is something that research very firmly establishes that men all over the world have less of.
It's not about putting words to your emotions. It's about understanding your emotions to begin with, and having a broad array of options for how to react to those emotions. This is where men often fall through.
They often see things as less nuanced, and more easily get ovrewhelmed and just shut up or ignore it. Both in themselves and when they notice emotions in others. It becomes a problem when things aren't comfortable or easy, or when they have to adapt their personal actions and viewpoints to accommodate someone else.
Markedly more present in personal relationships than at work. At work they can adapt and take input and adapt again quite well, usually. Even the most stubborn "well I didn't know you meant it that way" men can perfectly well understand what is meant when it's at work from a co-worker or boss.
It often turns to "giving up something of mine to accommodate..." instead of "I didn't even think of it as giving up something, it's just how it works best for the household".
This is obviously somewhat biological - seeing as it is a thing in the entire world, but also obviously somewhat cultural seeing as men raised by emotionally competent fathers are less inclined to get stuck in this mire. And I know that male examples is important here. Fathers or equivalent role models that are male.
It's not that emotionally mature role models stops boys and men from getting stuck in their emotional struggles, so much as how it models how to ask for outside guidance when needed - ideally from other emotionally competent men. It's that it shows them how to be a good friend to other men and women. It's that it shows them how to be a good partner, a good father etc.
Women have been telling those around us how to listen, how to better themselves, how to get their act togheter the whole time. If women alone could make boys and men learn this, nobody would ever have issues with this on the large, sociatal scale that it is. This is something that men must educate boys and men on for the impact to actually be effective.
I have to say I appreciate seeing more and more boys and men actually do this.
My theory is that men are the most sensitive gender. Research by the Gottmans for example show that men respond to potential stress/disagreement much faster and stronger than women. Newborn boys seek eyecontact with their caregivers almost twice as often as newborn girls. From when they come out of the womb, before they have yet to be shaped much by our responses to them. But men lack the immediate access to knowledge about what to do with that response in themselves.
So what I want in a man is someone that has good emotional maturity, and that means having been raised in a way that taught them how to manage their emotional circumstances.
As I age, I see that those men that had it that way growing up often partner up in their early adulthood and then tend to stay in those relationships. Whereas single men that are 30+ are increasingly more and more unable to handle themselves in relationships when the initial high wears off.
I remember reading that this tendency towards being inflexible and assuming their partners will accommodate affects male homosexual relationships too but worse since both parties assume this. It's a "gendered issue" in that it's not men doing this to women in relationships, it's men doing this in relationships full stop.
So I don't care how they show their emotional preference towards me as such. I care about how emotionally educated and mature they are when things are way past the initial high. When they're struggling, or when they are insecure.
I see so many relationships around me either stick from when they are in their 20's - or they are still looking for someone as they6 reach 30 years, 40 years old and more, but the relationships keep falling apart after 2-3 years. If the woman is emotionally immature the relationships usually fall apart much sooner.
Obligatory not-everyone-is-the-same disclaimer.
This, OP. Though I would like to add that if you weren't raised in childhood to be emotional mature, you still can if you keep yourself really open to self reflection. It's hard and takes a while, but just the fact that you want to learn makes an almost immediate difference imho.
It doesn't mean throw yourself completely away! You'll become you but wiser and better.
Nuance is the name of the game, and really keeping in mind that others aren't NPC's but rather the protagonist of their own story, like you are yours.
I'd choose neither.
I care about myself more than abusive or neglectful men. Women are not rehabilitation centers for men.