Thanks jophil, I've skimmed the threads from time to time while away and you've been giving excellent advice at every turn!
I wanted to take a break from SS as my wife and I were having our first baby. As I watched her go through being pregnant and having our mega-cute daughter it was like watching "machine code". No one thing (from my POV) seems to have made my wife feel more "secure' than having our daughter and caring for her. Just the other day I asked her a question "If women could have just one, which would make them feel more secure - to be in a healthy relationship with no child or to have a child with no relationship." As hard as she tried to give the programmed safe answer she couldn't help but pick the later. And then she sort of laughed as she listed off friends and co-workers who were in their 30's and early 40's who were (or are) in this exact same position. Women will provision their own security if needed. And they will go to great lengths to do it.
As I skimmed the threads over the past year I observed a common theme which I hadn't noticeed when immersed in SS more daily. It's how AFC's and even DJ's label women. As AFC's we tend to call them cowards, devious, cunning, strategizing, manipulators, liars, etc, etc, etc. Then as DJ's we both observe and learn to deal with the fact that women are covert, indirect and emotional. A lot of guys stop there (which is fine). But for me I kept hearing "a woman's primary need is security" only to have the conversation or thread move on in another direction.
Now, when my wife is acting or speaking indirectly (which she always will), I just quickly chalk it up to it's source - a woman's need to constantly feel a healthy amount of security which in turn places her in a frame where she feels the need to be indirect and covert. And when she gets emotional, it's probably just the outwardly observable affects of the security/insecurity equation being imbalanced.
When it comes to attraction it's interesting to apply the security theory. Why exactly is a woman seemingly more attracted to a guy who has other women around him? Sure, we often want what others have. But there must be more to it than that.
For guys it doesn't matter if 20 million guys think Marissa Miller is hot or just me - she's just plain hot in my opinion. You can even take this a step further. A guy could be told directly in no uncertain terms that the hotty across the bar with 10 chumps in orbit is the DSM Case Book example of the Cluster-B wack job AW and the guy would still find her desireable and want to close. Or reverse it. Surround a HB5 with a bunch of guys and even an AFC isn't going to show interest.
Yet for women it appears to be a lot different. I think when they see a guy with other women they need to know that they are as desireable as the other women he appears to have selected. That rings of a sense of underlying insecurity (w/r to physical appearance and the ultimate ability to bear her own child) which needs to be balanced. And a woman knows that if the guy can't provide at least some of the type of security that a woman needs he wouldn't be surrounded by all these women thus there must be something there (even if he's just a PUA he's provisioning some of the healthy type of security that all women need - validating their desireablity).
I could go on and on. And perhaps these are too broad of strokes being applied to too many situations and categories. Yet, there seems to be a lot more to the statement "a women's primary need is security" than one might think.
Sinistar was onto something here. I will research more posts on SS about security/insecurity.
So, I realise I'm replying to a 2008 thread but...
I think the character assassination and vindictive rage that post-breakup or divorcing women feel towards their man has to do with lowering the perceived high security image she thinks other women see in him, because he was just with me.
"If I can't have him, nobody will"
When I have witnessed my man responding to a woman's interest in him solely based on MY interest in him, I have always retreated. I refuse to compete with this new woman. Or accepting him 'forcing' me to compete with her to keep claim to him.
He responded to her. He is no longer secure to me/for me.
I often review and wonder if I merely feel rejection or do I also feel regret, at not competing with the other woman?
It's like I tell myself, his social IQ is too low for me, if he wasn't able to catch on to why she showed interest.
Or I tell myself, this is the end of his attraction to me.
So its time to go now.
In a way, releasing him to the new woman does me a favour. His disrespect/disloyalty will no longer be a source of pain.
I'm still trying to circumvent and shortcircuit my oneitis. Its challenging AF!
Especially when I feel like I would accept anything he does as he is loved unconditionally by me.
Its just that niggling little subconscious voice (is that the high selfesteem or the anti-doormat or is it actually a 'feminist' voice?, hard to say)...that tiny little voice that says "let him go"
I enjoy stream of consciousness writing. I think that's how I just wrote this post.
Over the last few weeks, I have concluded that security(personal safety-type security and that implicit trust type security that you are part of a team in your relationship) is really what I value most.
I always thought that honesty and courtesy and loyalty were my top important traits in a man.
Its security that's number one.
