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.

----

UnLiberating Therapy

One of the ironies of most counseling and therapy nowadays is that it is constrained by the rules of Political Correctness. Political Correctness is a set of rules for speaking and thinking. No matter what you experience or think or feel, these rules tell you what the right attitudes are, the right words, the right thoughts. Anything that contradicts the rules is swiftly and harshly condemned. And so is the person who breaks them. Political Correctness infects the psychological world at all levels. This is ironic because when Sigmund Freud, the most famous of the founders of this new discipline, set out to investigate human psychology, he broke and contradicted some of the most powerful rules of his place and time. He talked openly and in detail about sex. In our culture we hear and speak about sex all the time. In his, it was a deeply taboo subject. Very much Politically In Correct. Part of the point of therapy is getting at the truth. And especially at truths that we...

Useless Men?

This incredibly brain-dead op-ed piece in the New York Times , written by a "man", informs us that since (male-created) technology allows women to have children on their own, men are no longer necessary. This is a wide-spread meme today and one more indication that men who are looking for an ally in solving their problems need to take care. My response to this ludicrous exercise in self-hatred is very simple: Women make babies. Men make civilizations. ---

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...

AndroTherapy SF

Search This Blog