Skip to main content

Excellent question

A Jungian analyst down in LA opens his professional site with this:
Why do we choose partners who fail to meet some of the important needs in our life, even though there was something about them that caused us to deeply love them initially?
Falling in love is an overpowering experience. To me, it is one of the most easily accessible signs of the reality of the unconscious, showing that we are often in the grip of forces we neither understand nor control.

When, with time, that ecstatic and tumultuous state subsides, it becomes clearer who the beloved idol really is. And every one eventually reveals feet of clay.

What sometimes happens then is that instead of the idealizing obsession we had in the beginning, we switch gears and what strikes us most are flaws. It's almost all we can see. Qualities that once drew us in now put us off. This change of view can feel deeply disappointing. Or even like betrayal.

But it's usually the case that our own projections and deep needs played a big role in mis-reading.

One of the tough things for a lot of men is learning to accept their partner for who they actually are.

Which is what we want for ourselves, too.

----

Popular posts from this blog

What makes a man a man?

"Common to many societies, men must 'impregnate women, protect dependents from danger, and provision kith and kin'." Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity David D. Gilmore, 1991 This much seems to be written, as it were, in the male body as its basic syntax, its classic form, in the primal language of testosterone: To make and raise children with females To protect the group from animal predators and other human males. To hunt and thus provide meat/fish. Sounds like it comes down to...well, sex and violence. Or, more alliteratively and less provocatively: Procreation, protection and protein. A place to start. I assume that the evolutionary theory is basically correct and that the hunter-gatherer society is the primal human organization that still fundamentally shapes us as a species. “Reading” the male physically and socially, I am hypothesizing that the male gender is meant for three fundamental purposes: procreating, protecting the group from anim...

Men On Strike Against Marriage

The decreasing numbers of men getting married is a natural response to the changes in the institution. The risks are far higher and the rewards far less reliable than they used to be. Men are not afraid of commitment; they're afraid of being ransacked. Check out this piece. And here's a similar take: