Choosing ME before WE (advise book for women ) practical & balanced ???

caliber

Choosing ME Before WE, The Every Woman's Guide to Life and Love ... Herein lies both the invitation and the challenge of Choosing ME before WE: Know yourself. Be honest with yourself. Love yourself. Trust yourself. First. ...www.redroom.com/publishedwork/choosing-me-before-we-the-every-womans-guide-life-and-love - Christine Arylo-

Having read this book and finding that there is much valued information about knowing self

Only you can complete you "' Complete is not the same as enhance our life "

."He completes me " is one of the scariest statements.. words that give away her power

self-respect, and self-worth

.

She talks about greeting cards "Ill love you forever " declarations of only you !..promises

of forever ! She asks a question ...What is missing inside if I need a man to tell me his love is

forever ? Why can't it be enough that he loves me today ?

" Problems arises when we use romantic ideals to avoid truth !" she says

While all these statements may merit much truth and is self protection , what women

is there that develops a serious relationship that is not looking for commitment ? So I believe the title

Choosing ME before WE is good as a precautionary notes but still the title is Choosing

Me before We not instead of WE !!!!!isn't it step one then step two not just step one ???

I badly need your thoughts and input I do not wish to be dogmatic... but need some balanced ideas and viewpoints !

To me many of the arguments are like the question "free trade or protectionism which is best ? "

I think the answer lies balanced somewhere in the middle !

"sincerely wondering & pondering "

CAL

Big Tex

I haven't read the book, but instant reaction is that she is saying a woman (or a man) needs to be okay with themselves before they can give to another in a committed relationship. They need to like themselves to the point that personal boundaries are set and you do not depend on someone else to give you something emotionally that you need.

If you are looking at someone else to "complete" you, or to give that which you need, you are doomed to failure and the relationship is diminished. It won't fail necessarily but it won't be all that it could be.

Or at least I hope that's what she is saying. If not it's not a book worth reading.

Reminds me of a quote from that Woody Allen film, "Crimes and Misdemeanors ": "You will notice that what we are aiming at when we fall in love is a very strange paradox. The paradox consists of the fact that, when we fall in love, we are seeking to re-find all or some of the people to whom we were attached as children. On the other hand, we ask our beloved to correct all of the wrongs that these early parents or siblings inflicted upon us. So that love contains in it the contradiction: The attempt to return to the past and the attempt to undo the past."

So, again, we are better off correcting the wrongs inflicted on us, than depend on a hubby or boyfriend to do so.

Chris

caliber

BTT sorry but got no front page time after posting

mindmelda

A sister who once told me in a moment of distress that her elder husband was "a total bastard to live with" then a few months later mentioned how "husbandly ownership by a Christian man is so loving of God" in a conversation with me.

Very scary....One of the things that made me quit drinking the JW Koolaid.

If you make love conditional on anyone being the fulfillment of all your secret desires, I think you're always going to be disappointed, even depressed.

But, if you allow that everyone's going to be a jerk sometimes, you can have a much more realistic relationship.

It is choosing "ME" in a sense to not be overly dependent on others reactions and emotions, a healthy thing. But, man, what psychobabbly language there!

I don't think it's an "either or" situation as presented there.

caliber

Also in this book she talks about being separated several times over a 12 or 15 year relationship

I seriously wonder if her hard experiences has not cause her to have a bias , protectionist toward

even kindly, sincere men ? Her husband she found later had secret affairs , name called her and on at least

one occasion through a stappler at her head ! I wouldn't commit to such a person myself.. because people

are complex and every personality and situation is different ..with different attitudes and motivation !

Cal

Hope4Others

I have read the book and for many women they live to fit an image. Women are in auto pilot, they keep busy as possible, succeeding, socializing, and self medicating---doing what ever is necessary to avoid facing reality.

Do women really want a man who is uncentered and unconfident that he would really alter himself for anyone else, including you?

I think that we need to be who we are, we need to be true to ourselves. We need to be happy in ourselves and not be co-dependent for our happiness on anyone else. It is only by this that we can contribute to a happy relationship. It is necessary to inspire the other to grow and change by the choices you make for your own life. Not to push, prod, or drag the other along.

Both partners need to know they are whole without the other. Seperate and connected, they don't need each other to survive. Instead the choose to be together because the relationship allows ME, HE, and WE to flourish.

Only you can complete yourself.

hope4others

flipper

CALIBER- Well it has been said before in quotes ( I don't know where ) that a person has to love themself - before they are able to love another. That being said- yes there is a balance I feel between loving oneself and being totally self absorbed without concern for a persons romantic partner. Any relationship in order to work has to have a give and take in it and a respect for each other's views and boundaries. Where people mess up in my opinion in relationships is when one person gives too much- and the other takes too much and doesn't give back. It's like one partner becomes co-dependent on the other partner - then a lot of hurt can come when one partner stops giving , while the other one is still trying.

So communication is the key element . Some people like alone time more than others . But if a couple communicate their needs and differences then a happy medium can eventually be found. Better to find this stuff out during courtship than after marrying of course. That's why I liked E-harmony a lot- you find this info out in the first 6 months of dating instead of dating someone 2, 3, or 4 years and asking them, " You feel THAT way about THIS ? " And it being a total shock. Romantic ideals are great - if they are accompanied with truth and honsety. If it's just a smokescreen- it's useless

caliber

Flipper,..... Any relationship in order to work has to have a give and take in it and a respect for each other's views and boundaries

.

So true ones married life cannot run in parallel lines.. but as you say.. there must give and take allowing for differences not always

expecting perfect thought adaptation by the other party ;The lines sometimes twist and cross over then back the other way !

Unselfish true love and compassion naturally allow for these differences in my opinion !

Cal

Spook

The notion that relationships "should" be about self-actualization is an entirely modern one.

The history of humanity shows that for most of modern history marriage has been a practical matter or a political one. In a similar way, jobs have only recently been thought as a source of "fullfillment." This is a luxury which comes with the territory of being VERY wealthy and VERY free as a nation and culture.

I think it is sage advice to never believe your "self fulfillment" will come from someone else. If I get married it will be a largely practical one - if and when I decide to have children I'll marry someone I get along with who I think will make an excellent mother. I will not labor under the assumption of true and eternal love.

I think having a "lower" bar for relationships can actually make you happier.

That said, I think there is a variation in individual character. Honestly, I don't think I'm well cut out for marriage. I know many people who are. I'm stubborn, I don't like to compromise. I would never in my life apologize for something I didn't think was my fault. If one is less concerned with these things and more concerned with one's family, one's local community, enjoys spending time at home, dislikes being alone, does not have strong personal tastes, marriage can be better. I'm also more attracted to women who would make terrible mothers but who make excellent dates / girlfriends.

I would also recommend that those thinking about these subjects take an evolutionary perspective on psychology. It helps a great deal to try and distinguish your "instincts" from your choices and higher values. For guys, the instinct to want to bang everything in site is one which should probably be overcome to be the happiest overall. For women, I think the instinct to want or expect an emotional commitment should similarly be overcome.

At the end of the day, when I have other people in my life i want them to want to be there. I would never want someone around who doesn't want to be there. I wouldn't trust anyone who wants me around when I don't want to be there. And I can't imagine ever wanting to see someone every day for the rest of my life.

leavingwt

Spook,

Don't get married.

Your Good Buddy,

LWT

Choosing ME before WE (advise book for women ) practical & balanced ???

Share this