Role of men in a relationship

[Tiber2001]

You sound similar to my husband. I’m so sorry about both of your predicaments. I suggest finding a few good mentors and possibly a good Catholic therapist or spiritual director. You can have a wonderful relationship, but you’ll have to forgive your father (not necessarily to his face), and you might have to keep doing this for the rest of your life here on earth. Just the fact that you recognize your possible difficulty is huge. I think you’ll be fine and probably be a wonderful husband. You’ll definitely make some of the same mistakes as your dad, but you’ll recognize them, seek forgiveness from who you hurt, go to confession, and get on with life. Two steps forward, one step back. We all inherit SOMEthing undesirable. God bless you and take care!

 

[Xantippe]

Well, it starts with the unrealistic premise that most couples who are ready for marriage are still living with their parents, and much of it is based on that scenario.

I would also say that while group activities are a great way to get to know each other, at some point a couple do need to be able to get to know each other on a more personal level than is appropriate for people in a bit-serious relationship, and that requires one-on-one dating, not “dates” with other couples or with a younger sibling tagging along. “We were never able to have a private conversation before our wedding night” is a pretty good setup for a potential annulment.

As just one example: if one half of the couple has abusive parents, are they supposed to disclose that rather critical bit of information to the potential spouse while the abusers are present?

Or, perhaps one half of the equation has some sort of private issue that a potential spouse should be aware of, but not the general public. Details about, say, endometriosis or testicular tortion really do need to be shared before marriage, and a group date isn’t usually the best venue for them.

Example: “So, Fred, Bill, Sue and Evelyn, I thought I’d spend this evening telling all of you exactly what my private parts look like and how they function because Angela had a right to know at this point” is, er, not an appropriate lead-in to dinner conversation in most circles.

 

[EasterJoy]

Right.

One very interesting thing about Gottman is that he talks (I forget in which book) about how some conflicts in marriage are permanent, but do not need to be fatal for the marriage.

That is a very interesting fact to have on hand–that there can be a basic incompatibility without it being The End. To give a very minor example, I love travel and languages and (but rarely get to travel and haven’t left North America since the late 1990s), whereas my husband travels for business and dislikes it. I have literally had conversations with him where he talked about how TERRIBLE it was to have to go to Paris. (I have never been to Paris and of course I got to take care of everything and everybody at home while husband was suffering in Paris.)

There is material in that for quite a good fight, but I think we’ve ironed it out pretty well:

–we try to do a night or two away every year as a whole family
–my husband and I each take some of the kids to see family every year, and on my trip, I scratch the travel itch
–we have plans for me to travel with the kids
–we have plans for me (and/or the kids) to accompany him on business travel in the future

My husband is never going to love travel and I am never going to love being home all the time, but it is possible to figure out a) how to provide me with opportunities for travel and b) how to make it less miserable for him.

My thinking is that if you gain the habit of handling decisions, complaints and conflict in the way those things take place in contented relationships, you’ll be able to recognize someone you can go through life with and making the kinds of decisions that married couples make. If you are terrible at lodging complaints and terrible at handling them, if you don’t know how to give and take within a friendship without turning inside out emotionally, if you don’t know how to apologize, make amends, and go on with life after your inevitable mistakes and recognize someone who can do that with you, you’re not going to have an easy time at marriage.

 

[Norseman82]

Merry Christmas everyone!!
First time posting here.

Please I need advice,

I have had so many unsuccessful relationships, my dad is not a good role model with regards to treating women because he treats my Mum badly.
The moment I enter a relationship with a lady, I automatically predict failure, it never lasts, always ends badly.
In order to maintain a HAPPY and SUCCESSFUL relationship with a lady, what should I do, can someone suggest a detailed article online.
For the record, I believe I’m an attractive guy, good self esteem (insecure some days though).
My Dad messed up, I don’t want to go that road, I want to be responsible, I want my lady to be PROUD of me.

Thanks in anticipation.
God bless you all

As a male, I will say this: stop automatically predicting failure. You are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You recognize your dad’s mistakes, and don’t want to go that route, so you know what NOT to be like, which is important (as Xantippe said).

I would only add the best thing you can do is to be the best man you can be in the eyes of God and that will give you a clearer conscience and hopeflly that will overflow into confidence and success in other areas of life.

 

[Norseman82]

Stuff like how to react when angry?

Take up boxing or ice hockey? Hit the weights at the gym? Those may give you an outlet.

 

[E_7]

Also, re the courtship theory espoused by Joshua Harris: I’m a pretty big believer in the theory that if a couple can’t go to Starbucks for a cup of coffee without giving into lust and having sex on the coffee bar right there in front of God, the barista, and everybody, then there is absolutely no way they’re mature enough for marriage.

Where in the book Boy Meets Girl can I find that? It isn’t in there. The book is well written. One can personally disagree with Joshua Harris in some stuff, but the book is well written. You guys are taking this too far for I don’t know what purpose. Plus, the OP is mature and smart enough to discern and choose what he wants to believe, he isn’t a child that’s easily influenced.

In case the OP missed it thanks to other Joshua-Harris-focused posts, I also recommend Be a Man! by Fr. Larry Richards.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Where in the book Boy Meets Girl can I find that? It isn’t in there. The book is well written. One can personally disagree with Joshua Harris in some stuff, but the book is well written. You guys are taking this too far for I don’t know what purpose. Plus, the OP is mature and smart enough to discern and choose what he wants to believe, he isn’t a child that’s easily influenced.

In case the OP missed it thanks to other Joshua-Harris-focused posts, I also recommend Be a Man! by Fr. Larry Richards.

The theory behind most of Joshua Harris’ stuff is that you shouldn’t be alone with a member of the opposite sex until you’re married. This is a really bad idea for a lot of reasons.

(Interestingly, he seems to have matured somewhat since writing his books, and is beginning to walk those stances back a little.)

 

[chevalier]

Also, re the courtship theory espoused by Joshua Harris: I’m a pretty big believer in the theory that if a couple can’t go to Starbucks for a cup of coffee without giving into lust and having sex on the coffee bar right there in front of God, the barista, and everybody, then there is absolutely no way they’re mature enough for marriage.

Yes. On the other hand people on the opposite end of the spectrum no longer have any business marrying. This doesn’t sound romantic, but one of the purposes of marriage is to get sex drive under control, for people who wouldn’t bear to become ‘eunuchs for the sake of Heaven’. This is what makes me reluctant to question the readiness of the average person with control issues. Marriage is not a boon for elites, it’s as common as bread or potatoes, a thing for common. But yes, one is supposed to be capable of remaining faithful, and marriage shouldn’t be about just getting a sex partner either.

I really don’t see what’s so bad about that book unless you two have read it and found something that’s unbearable.

Can’t, for geographical reasons. Cross-continental shipment, taxes, customs and forex rates generally make American books a costly affair in my neck of the woods.

I haven’t read the actual books and won’t criticize them. However, the reaction I described in reference to courtship is quite literal — it really means that whenever I heard the word said, I cringe. Actually, I never hear it said, I only ever read it, but anyway.

When courtship talk starts I half expect people to fall into that unmistakable scholastic/chastising/preachy tone of a specific brand of 1850 English. It could theoretically be modern (and obviously it technically is, because they’ve just written it), but it’s like 200 years back and not really graceful about it. ‘Cheerfully accede to her husband’s wishes… admit her to his counsels… bla bla bla.,’ the blood-curdling liver-rending language that sends shivers down everybody’s spine who was not homeschooled from books printed in the 19th century. It makes me need a glass or two of Jack. I can write like that effortleslly, but in most cases I cringe at the thought, even if I’m writing some highly philosophical or legal stuff; there’s nearly always a better, more sensible way to write.

… And the same is true about the non-verbal customs and codes of behaviour. The stilted etiquette and elaborately enacted protocol that makes you think of a freaking Asian court… Ugh. I’m generally a history enthusiast and familiar with symbolics going far beyond the Victorian Era. I’ve used it myself when it’s been proper — and natural. But I normally don’t want to go there. Because it’s not natural. It’s stilted, it’s artificial, it’s not… human for it. And human act is a reference people who have the mind for that sort of thing should be able to understand in the context of marriage.

Ugh. Sorry. Ranting again.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I have taken the position that even a bad father is usually better than no father at all. At least, a son will have examples of what not to do and a daughter will have examples of what not to accept in a future husband. What they do with it is up to them, but they can’t say they didn’t know.

 

[Xantippe]

I have taken the position that even a bad father is usually better than no father at all. At least, a son will have examples of what not to do and a daughter will have examples of what not to accept in a future husband. What they do with it is up to them, but they can’t say they didn’t know.

???

I question that for a couple of reasons:

When it’s your parents, that’s your normal. A lot of times, you don’t realize that other people do things differently or that your family is weird or messed up in some way until you have a lot of experience outside your family.

Without a good example of some kind, a lot of people will never develop a healthy “normal.”

 

[RCinMT]

Here’s one by Dr. Greg Popcak: catholiccounselors.com/product/find-true-love/

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Where in the book Boy Meets Girl can I find that? It isn’t in there. The book is well written. One can personally disagree with Joshua Harris in some stuff, but the book is well written. You guys are taking this too far for I don’t know what purpose. Plus, the OP is mature and smart enough to discern and choose what he wants to believe, he isn’t a child that’s easily influenced.

In case the OP missed it thanks to other Joshua-Harris-focused posts, I also recommend Be a Man! by Fr. Larry Richards.

Isn’t there a passage where Harris’ fiancé is forced to apologize for relationships she had before she met him?

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

I have taken the position that even a bad father is usually better than no father at all. At least, a son will have examples of what not to do and a daughter will have examples of what not to accept in a future husband. What they do with it is up to them, but they can’t say they didn’t know.

No. No no no no no.

 

[Sarcelle]

Yes. On the other hand people on the opposite end of the spectrum no longer have any business marrying. This doesn’t sound romantic, but one of the purposes of marriage is to get sex drive under control, for people who wouldn’t bear to become ‘eunuchs for the sake of Heaven’. This is what makes me reluctant to question the readiness of the average person with control issues. Marriage is not a boon for elites, it’s as common as bread or potatoes, a thing for common. But yes, one is supposed to be capable of remaining faithful, and marriage shouldn’t be about just getting a sex partner either.

Can’t, for geographical reasons. Cross-continental shipment, taxes, customs and forex rates generally make American books a costly affair in my neck of the woods.

I haven’t read the actual books and won’t criticize them. However, the reaction I described in reference to courtship is quite literal — it really means that whenever I heard the word said, I cringe. Actually, I never hear it said, I only ever read it, but anyway.

When courtship talk starts I half expect people to fall into that unmistakable scholastic/chastising/preachy tone of a specific brand of 1850 English. It could theoretically be modern (and obviously it technically is, because they’ve just written it), but it’s like 200 years back and not really graceful about it. ‘Cheerfully accede to her husband’s wishes… admit her to his counsels… bla bla bla.,’ the blood-curdling liver-rending language that sends shivers down everybody’s spine who was not homeschooled from books printed in the 19th century. It makes me need a glass or two of Jack. I can write like that effortleslly, but in most cases I cringe at the thought, even if I’m writing some highly philosophical or legal stuff; there’s nearly always a better, more sensible way to write.

… And the same is true about the non-verbal customs and codes of behaviour. The stilted etiquette and elaborately enacted protocol that makes you think of a freaking Asian court… Ugh. I’m generally a history enthusiast and familiar with symbolics going far beyond the Victorian Era. I’ve used it myself when it’s been proper — and natural. But I normally don’t want to go there. Because it’s not natural. It’s stilted, it’s artificial, it’s not… human for it. And human act is a reference people who have the mind for that sort of thing should be able to understand in the context of marriage.

Ugh. Sorry. Ranting again.

I think you need not apologize.

I think your post is spot on.