I once wrote about life-like dolls that functioned as companions for men. Now we seem to have taken this one or more steps further. These dolls are far more sophisticated than I ever dreamed they could be. They are very life-like and designed with custom features that duplicate women accurately – but appear to be the most subservient partner imaginable.

Is this what relationships have come to? Men are willing to shell out approximately $7000.00 or more to have a woman who is designed to answer most sexual whims and needs without emotion or communication? Is a hi-tech sex toy preferable to a sit-down and let’s-talk-it-out human, someone to have a heart-to-heart with or even to indulge in pillow talk?

In the near future, it is conceivable that even women as well may look to robots for sex and to fill emotional voids because the robot has the potential for programming it to be much more emotionally available than men may be generally thought to be. What is going on here?

David Levy wrote a book entitled, Love & Sex with Robots (The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships). Levy is an internationally recognized expert on artificial intelligence.

He said,  “…we examine the reasons people pay for sex with women and men who ply this particular trade. From perspective of sex with robots, what is interesting about the most frequently proffered reasons is that they indicate desires, and not only the desires for the sex act themselves, that could be satisfied by a sophisticated robot just as well as by a human prostitute.

“This being the case, it seems inevitable that just as humans desirous of sex but lacking sufficient opportunity will pay a professional for it, so there will come a time – and that time is almost with us – when people will be paying for sex with robots, either by paying the robot for regular use at home or by renting one by the hour or day.”

I think the time has already arrived. Not very long ago at a trade show, Adult Entertainment Expo, a sexy robot (Roxxxy) was introduced.  She had anatomy in the right places and was capable of changing personalities – most importantly – was sensitive to touch. The inventor, Douglas Hines, is convinced that there is a future for robotics.

I’m drawing up a list of what I consider to be advantages (somewhat tongue in cheek but not entirely): Doesn’t talk back, accepts commands, won’t balk at raunchy suggestions, will never cheat (unless you decide to share) and is cheaper than a wife in the long run. Obviously, there is no need for condoms unless one prefers to wear them (for the sake of reality) and no concerns about pregnancy. Auto-erotic sex for the robot never goes too far and there are no STD’s to worry about unless you lend or rent her – (I imagine one has to keep a store of antibacterial soap around in that case). All types of fetishes and even S & M (if you are so inclined) will be honored by a sexual robot – because she couldn’t care less.

The disadvantages: There’s no feedback, no conversation, no one to take a bubble bath with (can’t wet the components), she can’t drink champagne with you, can’t cook, can’t clean, and can’t dance (yet). For some men the challenge of pursuing a woman is gone – the triumph of winning the lass over is no more. Also, she can’t pick up the kids from school, go to PTA or teacher conferences or Google. Nor can she add a second income to the household budget  – all of which are disadvantages.

On the other hand, in the future she might be programmed to become a robotic surgeon or even a statistician – both well-paying jobs. The gentlemen in possession of one might even consider retiring. If the mechanical damsel were to be really worthwhile then she would have vacuum cleaning components attached to her toes so that she could sweep the carpet as she moved about, and it wouldn’t be unthinkable that she could diagnose your illness, sing you to sleep or give a back massage. Why not embed a computer so you can Google from her abdomen.

She can be programmed to say things like, “You are wonderful, brilliant and a fabulous lover.” “Where have you been all my life, you masterful, handsome creature.” Ahh, the unconditional love we are all looking for. As for not being able to cook? It’s overrated anyway as you can always get take out. Now if they had all those functions with a male robot – I’m in. Maybe I’d call him Moxxxy instead of Roxxxy.

Now, we come to the most complicated part. What if you fall in love with your robot? What if you want to marry your robot? Whew. You might think about changing her name to Sylvia. Remember the play, Sylvia, where a man fell in love with a sheep and cheated on his wife with the animal?

In a Huff Post article entitled, Can Loving a Robot Lead to Divorce, on December 21, 2011, journalist, Vicki Larson writes about the subject and the possible legal ramifications.

Larson interviewed Sonya Ziaja, a San Francisco attorney who answered potential legal issues where a “sexbot” had the potential to fall prey to “heart balm torts” – which I interpret as alienation of affection laws. In a rather loose explanation, it is where a spouse sues someone whom they blame for the demise of their relationship. Only 8 states have this type of tort, but it seems according to Ziaja suggestion that in the states where the law no longer applies they “…can adapt to new technologies by reviving old torts.”

Based on that concept, let’s say a spouse has an affair with a robot and said spouse falls in love with the machine (David Levy suggests that marrying a robot might be common happenstance in 50 years). Now he wants to leave his wife. Do you sue the manufacturer? Ziaja proposes the possibility exists, and that designers and manufacturers need to be mindful of this. Today, this notion is quite humorous – tomorrow? Who knows?

That doesn’t deter me from yearning for the robot that can clean, fold the laundry, do my taxes, budget my money, remind me when I’m overspending, apprise me of the best buy in a car or appliance, do my filing, do my bookkeeping, choose the best rates for insurance policies, advise me of the best mutual funds to buy, wash my hair (very slowly) and rub my feet at night – as well as all the other “stuff.” As a matter of fact, forget the other stuff. The robot can be asexual as long as it performs the other mentioned tasks.

Fran

This interview was inspired after reading a fascinating book written by Ken Singer, MSW that is very informative about childhood sexual abuse of males entitled, Evicting the Perpetrator: A Male Survivor’s Guide to Recovery from Childhood Sexual Abuse. The interview was conducted just before the news broke open at Penn State about the alleged sexual abuse of young boys. In view of many horrific abuse situations that have been exposed in recent years, this interview with Singer turns out to be a very timely, if an unfortunate, topic. If the scandal at Penn State turns out to be true, it would then become another hideous case of protecting the abuser. We need to ask, why cover ups of this sort take place – keeping the flow of money coming in, holding on to reputations and/or prestige?

All too often, with many other high-profile cases, those seem to be the reasons why abusers are shielded from exposure. It is an atrocity that protecting children isn’t first and foremost. The trauma and suffering to the victims is beyond calculation. Where is compassion for the children who are being brutalized? If it were the children of the enablers who were being abused, would they take the same stance of silence?

In the case of priests abusing children, many were insulated from punishment of their sexual crimes and were transferred to parishes where the abuse often continued. Those who committed crimes appear to lack the ability to empathize with the torment this type of behavior inflicts on children (which is really the ultimate issue). And setting aside empathy, it appears that victimizers and enablers are insolent enough to think they are above the law. This kind of behavior is an outrage to humanity!

For those reasons, I found Singer’s book to be vitally important. There are some technical aspects that deal with what happens to the brain when one experiences such abuse and he gives the long-term effects on the behavior of those injured. Then there is much about how to deal with the trauma and “evicting the perpetrator” from the effects of the abuse. “Soul murder” is the term Singer has found some survivors use to describe how their lives have been impacted.

What is unusual about Singer’s practice is that he doesn’t only treat men who are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, but he seeks to help the abusers as well.

Here are the questions and answers:

Metzman: What are the statistics on child sexual abuse?

Singer:  1 in 3 girls and 1 in 6 boys have experienced unwanted sexual contact from an older person by the time they are 18. 90% of victims know the perpetrators.

Metzman: What drew you to the practice of childhood male sexual abuse?

Singer: When I worked in the field of child protective services in the late 1970’s, I was hired as a supervisor for high risk families. I found out that most workers dumped incest cases on my department. It was frustrating and eventually we developed a model for treating childhood sexual abuse for all the affected family members. At the time the victims were interviewed by police, investigators from the prosecutor’s office, medical personal, and child protective services social workers. Sometimes we had to remove the child from the home if the police didn’t have enough to keep the alleged perpetrator in custody. When you remove a child from his room, house, neighborhood and perhaps change schools and place him in the home of a relative or stranger, it is disruptive to the child.

We developed a model known nationally for child protective services which included treating   offenders as well as the victims. No one wanted to do this at the time.

In grad school around the mid 70’s I took a course in family therapy and chose the topic of incest for a research paper. Again, I found not much information out there. And so my interest was really piqued. Within a few years a guy was accused unfairly but had been abused as a kid. I found no real research on male victimization.

Metzman: Was that the reason you limited your practice to male sex abuse?

Singer:  I’ve been working with adult and juvenile sexual abusers for over thirty years. Many of the abusers were themselves abused in childhood. The work I’ve done with male survivors has been out of necessity – it’s hard for me to turn away someone who’s been abused. There aren’t a lot of male survivor therapists out there.

Metzman: What percentage of abusers were abused as children?

Singer: I would estimate that 10% -15% of this group of offenders state they have been abused. Some might not be saying.

Metzman: That seems far less than what most people guess that percentage to be. Most people think that most abused children grow up to be abusers themselves.

Singer: Abusing others isn’t only an outcome of having been abused. Once bitten you will not necessarily bite back. The overwhelming majority of victims do not go on to abuse others. There are many other reasons for this type of behavior.

Metzman: What are the categories that perpetrators fall into?

Singer: Not all sex offenders are pedophiles. The majority of them are not. The general category-anyone who commits a sexual offense, include voyeurs, possession, distribution or manufacturing child pornography, statutory rape, and rapists of adults. Many priests accused of pedophilia are not necessarily pedophiles unless they are involved with pre-pubescent children – they are sex offenders of a different sort. The various categories of sex offenders are for instance; situational offenders, incest, pedophiles and ephebophilia (this is an attraction to adolescent boys or girls by adults). Pedophilia is a compulsive disorder when a man or woman sexually molests prepubescent children.

Metzman: How do you help patients who come to you?

Singer: I get most of my abuser referrals from the courts, lawyers and probation officers. I work primarily with men. It comes down to seeing only male survivors and offenders for the amount of time I have.

It is a kind of a dance to get patients or clients to open up. It’s not always too difficult as these people have come to me for help. I try to pace the patient and get to the heart of things slowly. Some will dump (their problems) and run and won’t come back because they might feel they unloaded too much. I try to get them to feel safe. I don’t even shake hands unless they ask to do it. Survivors generally back off from physical touch. My practice is exclusively juvenile and adult sexual offenders and male victims of sexual abuse. I’m one of the very few therapists to treat both populations (both abuser and survivor). It gives me better insight to what they’ve experienced and allows me to look deeply into both sides of the problem.

Metzman: Why treat the abuser?

Singer: I’ve adapted the model of treating offenders and survivors because the treatment is fairly similar. It comes from the battering cycle of domestic violence. Stressors, escape fantasies, distortions – all of that can lead to bullying and events of domestic violence. There’s that cycle of domestic violence – committing the deed, the  apologies, the truce and then repeating cycles. My thrust is to heal the guilt of a victim. Knowledge is power and I try to diminish the victimization trauma so that they no longer feel controlled by the perpetrator. Once the perpetrator is mentally evicted , the victim is empowered. It’s all about taking self-control of their environment.

Metzman: What types of therapy do you use?

Singer: My therapeutic approach is to empower the victim and get the abuser to understand the dynamics of his offending and develop alternate approaches to get their needs met. I use Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. There is, of course, Psychoanalytic Therapy which is Freudian and used by Freud’s successors. My feeling and the research literature bears out that CBT works best with offenders and survivors.

You are changing the belief systems and behaviors of offenders and survivors. For example, if an offender has had stressful day at work, or feels people are picking on him, he may decide he’s in need of controlling his environment and the result is that he will molest child, or numb out with alcohol or drugs, or some other dysfunctional coping mechanism.

Conversely, a survivor who has same negatives may abuse himself, drink, use drugs or sex and porno to relieve stress. The purpose of CBT is to change cognition of thinking that one is a loser and come up with alternative and better choices like working out at a gym. It’s about trying to get to self-improvement by empowering choices. One must be careful that the more productive choices don’t become a compulsive behavior that interferes with everyday life.

The whole thing for survivors or perpetrators is about controlling their environment. The offender wants control over another human – and it feels good temporarily. But it’s not permanent and generally doesn’t change the problem that he’s facing. Sexual abuse of children is a maladaptive attempt to control life. The offender gets control by controlling other people.

The survivor wants control too. He wants to be able to make love to his partner and be able to perform and have fair amount of environmental control. People want to have control of the environment and life as much as possible.

Metzman: Is sex abuse usually violent?

Singer: Pedophiles, professional child molesters, can spot a kid on playground who seems lonely or a kid whose father is emotionally unavailable. They are knowledgeable about the victim or are in the household or in the family for easy access. Again, most victims know or are acquainted with the abuser. Statistics show that 90% of victims are related or know the abuser.

Kids don’t have strength or knowledge to fight back. Most offenders I’ve dealt with don’t use physical force. They use their authority, bribery, power, coercion and intimidation to molest. It’s often not reported because of the child fearing he will get in trouble, not be believed, break up the family, or retaliation from the abuser. The victim might even fear that people will think he’s gay because “he went along with it” or didn’t report it and experienced sexual arousal.

There’s an excellent organization called CAP (Child Assault Prevention). They go out to schools and train kids to be assertive and recognize inappropriate behaviors. They train children for personal safety. NJ has CAP offices in all 21 counties. CAP also has an anti-bullying campaign and is one of several that is recognized. PTA organizations often bring CAP in.

Metzman: What are the long-term emotional effects on victims?

Singer: Depression, anxiety about certain situations reminiscent of the original trauma and flash-backs. There are also sexual identity issues, lack of trust, and relationship problems.

Metzman: Is this universal with all victims?

Singer: It’s hard to say. We know about the ones in treatment. Those not in treatment might be self-medicating or getting along just fine. In a survey of about 100 kids 13-20 years old in a residential drug/alcohol treatment program that I did a few years ago, 75% of boys and almost all of the girls experienced unwanted sexual touching. The numbers of victims increases with those who are incarcerated, in mental health programs, and drug and alcohol facilities. Often, the problem behaviors are just symptoms of unknown sexual abuse and unless you get to the roots of the behaviors, you are not treating the person.

Metzman: What compelled you to write this book?

Singer: Sexual abuse of boys was fairly much ignored before mid-70’s. Most research was with girls. Men are supposed to be stronger and often falsely believe that they should have fought back. Kids victimized can be sexual aroused. Boys might get an erection or have pleasurable sexual sensations and often times they think they contributed to the abuse.

As stated, not all sex abuse is violent. Offender grooms victim. The perpetrator does something for the victim, makes the victim think he’s special. Or they can blackmail the victim, threaten them or threaten the family.

Metzman: What do you most want to stress in this interview?

Singer: Dispelling the myth that if you’re victimized you will become a perpetrator. I’d also like to stress that prevention of sexual abuse is what every professional working in this field tries to accomplish.

Prevention consists of three points. PRIMARY (focusing on the population who have the potential to become victims). SECONDARY (helping victims to achieve more stable lives, have positive relationships and not become an offender). TERTIARY (working with offenders to prevent re-offense).

I want to change people’s opinions about “stranger danger” because most victims are related to or are acquainted with the perpetrator. Most offenders are not caught so relying on Internet notification of who is already in the legal system is not a good prevention strategy.

The book is important. It’s the only one that adapts the model of working with survivors to also treating the perpetrators. That a monster is preying on them is what I want to diminish and only then can they have empowerment – not live in fear or hold on to resentments.

There is a great website for men who experience sexual abuse in childhood or as adults (adult men as well as women can be sexually assaulted). It is http://www.malesurvivor.org. The website has loads of information for survivors, their partners, parents, and professionals. Another site has a discussion board and chat room where survivors can talk with other survivors. It is: www.stopitnow.org. The organization has a hotline that helps bystanders talk about suspicious behaviors or where potential offenders can talk confidentially before they act on their impulses/feelings.

Contact: Ken will answer at:  Ken.singer@comcast.net

An article in The New York Times by Sam Roberts, January 16, 2007 said: “For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.

“In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.”

When divorces occur, men are much more likely to remarry than women. At ages 45 and plus, around 1/3 of men remarry and approximately 25% of women. I was intrigued by this statistic and curious as to the reasoning behind it, and looked at it from different angles.

Most women are reluctant to leave a marriage for reasons such as; family, economics, image of stability and fear of traumatizing children. For another thing, they don’t want the stigma of failure as problems in marriages are usually attributed to woman.

I find that women will live with many flaws in their marriage before committing to the heart-rending deed of divorce. There are many women who know their husbands are cheating (either with women or men) who might even be keeping a mistresses. Still, they stick with the marriage.

No doubt, there are women who leave marriages because they are on a mission to find themselves and although the union is good, they leave. I believe they are in the minority. For the most part, when a woman wants out there is good, solid reason. Perhaps once out of a bad marriage many are reluctant to jump in again – especially if they have the means of earning a decent income.

In this modern world where the sexes are supposedly equal, women are still doing the majority of household chores. Tie that into a husband who is unresponsive to their needs, is emotionally distanced and/or underlying it all has little respect for women. Yes, there is still a strong prejudice that women are not as smart as men. It might be a nasty holdover from yesteryear but there it is – in your face.

Tension foments when domestic responsibilities are uneven. I’ve spoken to many married women who have that specific complaint: He lies around, and then when asked to do the tasks on his list, he says he will. When it doesn’t get done she begins to repeat her request over and over, and becomes a nag. Once that occurs he has a complaint about his wife to present to his buddies. The perception of a nagging wife is dangerous to the health of a marriage.

Although that type of situation takes on humorous characteristics with the cartoonish depiction of a nagging wife, the real implications of anger and resentment for both parties go a long way toward the destruction of a relationship. It sets up an infantile domestic setting. A nagging wife might remind the man of his mother and who can go to bed with your mother?

You might tell me I have an outdated notion of the “modern man.” I don’t think so by the numbers of women I’ve spoken to. Look at ads on TV depicting home situations. The wife is frantically running around after work, dragging in bags of groceries while the man sits around clueless until his wife calls everyone in to eat the dinner she’s prepared – usually some food the ad is touting. That type of ad is duplicated in various forms and is repetitive. There’s one where the kids are throwing things across the table and the wife is trying to control them and serve dinner while the man is blissfully unaware and munching happily on a sandwich. I don’t hear an outcry that this is inappropriate to today’s modern world.

In the series “Everyone Loves Raymond” it is no wonder the fictional main character, Raymond, complains about the lack of sex. It appears that the character ducks out of domestic chores when he can and plays golf on weekends while his overtaxed wife takes care of 3 very young children. There are times he exhibits sensitivity, but it seems to be forced out of him – usually by the wife character’s nagging. And this is done as comedy. I don’t find it funny.

We should never underestimate the power of the media and its subliminal influence. Very young children, both boys and girls, see these commercials and gender roles are allocated and imbedded into the unconscious. I believe these gender perceptions start at birth and especially surface later when teens (male and female) become social and all the way up into adulthood.

Haven’t you guys learned that men who participate in the household of their own free will get more and better sex? The man scrubbing the floor or doing the laundry is one hell of a sensuous guy.

In another section of the article above from The New York Times, Roberts said: “Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom.”

Today single women tend to prefer relationships where they see their significant other on weekends, and that goes for some who are married. In that type of arrangement, she has no worries about the division of domestic chores, arguments over bills, contention over time spent with her girlfriends and she might even have gained a sense of freedom she hasn’t experienced in a long time – if ever. The sense of empowerment can be most gratifying and not easily given up.

Of course, men have the option of dating/marrying women of varying ages. They can select women who are many years younger. It is socially acceptable. The flip side for females is that they are generally locked in because the men in their age category are dating younger women. Also, if they have children they might be less desirable to a man who is seeking marriage. He might be more inclined to find a younger woman with no children.

The tendency to rush into marriage too soon after becoming single is risky. Approximately 68% of second marriages fail. The percentages go up with subsequent marriages. Males might be too eager to reenter marriage because they miss the amenities society grants to men in that institution. They might be seeking remarriage because they want an easier and simpler personal life style – aided by the little woman.

When single women marry too soon after a divorce or widowhood, they, too, face a negative impact. If they are only seeking security and/or the image a married woman presents to society they might be overlooking red flags or perhaps recognizing them and putting them aside. There is still the misconception that marriage will change a spouse. This happens infrequently.

Single women often have a good support system with other women. Men usually don’t do that kind of networking. Women are more into making social arrangements than men. Men can become more dependent because they often lack the skills to keep a social life together. In marriage men might find relief from domestic responsibility and daily living decisions, leaving all that sissy stuff to their wives whereas women often feel put upon in taking up more and more tasks.

It might boost the success rate of second plus marriages if all newly single people would become more amenable to waiting longer. That hiatus should be used to discover reasons why the first or second (or more) time around failed. That means unearthing and understanding motivations and behavior. Once one develops insight into themselves, they are in a better position to find a satisfying relationship based on love, commonality of interests, communication, carefully planned blending of families or any other issues of importance in relationships. This is the path to being much more mature in a relationship and therefore better able to find contentment.

By SexyG

In two previous blogs I asked two questions. Is marriage obsolete and secondly, why people marry when they see a conflagration during courtship. In too many cases, it seems they hope to douse the raging fire once they say “I do.” That reversal rarely comes to pass.

In that vein, I’d like pursue the reason why marriages (including long-term relationships without marriage) fail or succeed. We spend an inordinate amount of time on the trials and travails of love in poems, songs, stories, novels, how-to books, psychological and sociological studies. We are in a constant state of romanticizing whether attached or unattached.

I’d love to see a study done that tells how often in a day people think about their relationships in a serious vein. We have statistics (that might be disputed) on how often men and women think about sex. Why not try to research the number of times someone thinks about the relationship they are presently in, evaluating the emotional and intellectual qualities. I suspect more thought is given to past romances like the one who got away, or the guy/gal someone still hopes to snag.

What is sorely needed is reflection to delve below the surface to exploit previous errors and attempt to come up with rational, intelligent answers for oneself. This is when romantic chemistry has to be set aside. In too many instances we have become overly dependent on chemistry to guide our happiness. Let us not forget the times chemistry has led us astray. If we possess unhealthy chemistry then a train wreck awaits.

When relationships go bad, it can throw us into a mental sink hole. Trying to breathe life into a relationship that has gone on life supports is a very sorry state. Look at art and music We are forever inventing poems that laud or scorn a significant other and singing songs of love-angst. What happens all too often is we find ourselves scraping the bottom of our hearts for those passionate flames when what actually remain are ashes of a burnt-out love.

I know we like to think of love as spontaneous. That can be very dangerous. We have to use our intellect way before meeting someone and as well as throughout the romance. It’s imperative that past failed choices be carefully scrutinized and mulled over thoughtfully. Otherwise we are open to repeat mistakes. There are certain steps to take before allowing ourselves to become inundated with anger and resentment from a failed relationship. Both people involved need to concentrate on the good qualities and be able to express what we perceive as annoying in order to avoid going through emotional hell when the end is in sight.

For starters let’s see who is getting married, who is not and all the reasons why. The New York Times, on March 2, 2010, published an article entitled, Study Finds Cohabitating Doesn’t Make a Union Last, by Sam Roberts. “Couples who live together before they get married are less likely to stay married, a new study has found. But their chances improve if they were already engaged when they began living together.

“The study of men and women ages 15 to 44 was done by the National Center for Health Statistics using data from the National Survey of Family Growth conducted in 2002. The authors define cohabitation as people who live with a sexual partner of the opposite sex.”

Yet, living together has become, generally, a ritual prior to marriage. We have gotten used to thinking that if we successfully live together we have a better shot at marriage. I have seen many situations where a couple live together for anywhere from a year to ten years and divorce within the first year of marriage. The article states that the proportion of women in their late 30s who had ever cohabited had doubled in 15 years to 61%.

Roberts goes on to say; “The study found that, over all, 62 percent of women ages 25 to 44 were married and 8 percent were cohabiting. Among men, the comparable figures were 59 percent and 10 percent.

“In general, one in five marriages will dissolve within five years. One in three will last less than 10 years. Those figures varied by race, ethnicity and sex. The likelihood of black men and women remaining married for 10 years or more was 50 percent. The probability for Hispanic men was the highest, 75 percent. Among women, the odds are 50-50 that their marriage will last less than 20 years.”

What is the upshot of all the statistics? I think they are instructive but they leave out the human equation. In all the years since formalizing relationships by marrying, it would seem that we have not learned much from past history.

Why are their more divorces now than years ago? I think people in marriages stuck it out because, by and large, women were not trained to earn money and it was more economical for the couple to hang together. I feel certain that their children sensed the tension and unhappiness even if there was not outright fighting.

The easy answer is that the offspring of feuding couples should have developed insights and dissected the reasons for parental discontent. In this way, they should attain the skills that allow them to avoid the pitfalls in their own relationships. The parental unhappiness they were exposed to should be the learning experience whereby one acquires the ability to choose relatively stable mates. That makes for a potentially happier marriage.

In most instances, these choices are left to chance, romantic chemistry or spontaneous combustion or whatever you choose to call it. It appears that when we do that we tend to repeat mistakes. If we don’t use rational thought and self-exploration, we go into marriage with the same poor emotional baggage that we absorbed from our mentor/parents throughout childhood. We must be cognizant of learning positive qualities rather than coming to adulthood with the negatives wired into our crippled emotional intelligence. The lack of self-exploration makes for bad mental health which ups the ante drastically to make a mistake in choosing a mate.

Denial creates a void that allows dysfunctional to overflow until it reaches its own level. That happens when a combination of universal issues such as power struggles along with issues unique to the individuals are ignored. And this can occur repeatedly in every relationship that an individual enters. It is a difficult task to unearth motives behind destructive behavior but quite doable – or should I say a necessity.

I know some serial wedders and they often come from an unhealthy background. They tend to marry their parents in disguise. Poor mate selection may duplicate personalities and an atmosphere similar to what we saw during our childhoods. The illusion is that we have another chance to attract the love we didn’t get from our parents. Unfortunately, the mate we picked just like the parents, is incapable of showing love. And the outcome is another broken marriage. We haven’t learned to listen to the warnings of our inner voice.

But the situation isn’t hopeless. If our parents have serious inadequacies, we need to look around to find better mentors. Watch the couples who speak to each other with obvious interest, and those who cultivate a healthy, affectionate, caring relationship. These are the qualities that create staying power for a deeper more romantic relationship. You have much more control over your relationships than you realize.

We must be cognizant of these factors if we want love and happiness with a spouse. You’ll have a much better shot at reversing what you’ve simply been calling bad luck in choices.

SexyG

Wild River Review is funded entirely by reader support and donations.

To support our mission and passion for good storytelling, please help support my work and make a tax-deductible donation by clicking here:  Wild River Donation.

Sign up with your email address below to join our mailing list and receiveWRR Monthly.