#disbalance

My career began with the question: "Can true love go unrequited?"

Kuprin's character who said "love is always a tragedy" would be surprised by such a question. The Russian classics of the 19th century and even the early 20th century greatly respected unrequited love, and saw only utilitarianism in mutual love.

By the middle of the 20th century, tastes had changed. Love stories almost entirely passed into the genre of tabloid "women's literature" with the obligatory happy ending. True love now had to be mutual, otherwise it was not love but an illusion. Love came to be regarded as a kind of "chemistry"-a powerful instinct that finds, attracts, and binds two halves together forever, since it is impossible to resist chemical reactions. Schopenhauer would have been shocked to learn how much sugar coating had appeared on his gloomy idea of the call of kin. So would Berdyaev and Soloviev, who debated Schopenhauer.

The belief that true love is wise, kind, will choose the right person and ensure the union is infantile. Like everything infantile, it looks good at first glance, but on closer examination it turns out to be just selfishness.

Infantile consciousness has only two points of view: "the world is good and will give me everything I want" and "the world is evil, it will not give me anything, I should take it away". Some people think that to move from the first view to the second one means to grow up. But no. If the infantile had grown up, he would have realized that the world doesn't have to give him anything for nothing. He would realize that it is a good and fair idea that helps people become stronger and grow (what could be kinder than that?). To a true infantile, such an idea seems evil. Everything that does not serve his good seems evil to him, so he decides to become evil himself, without having grown up at all.

The level of maturity begins when man realizes that he is not the center of the world. The world is not subordinate to him and is not at enmity with him. He and the world are parity, separate, and must somehow interact with mutual interests in mind. Such a person tries to clearly divide the boundaries of responsibility. He begins to say something like "love depends on both, and if I am not loved, nothing can be done". This differs from the infantile position in that the infantile person thought that someone should love him, give him love. As a person grows up, he realizes that he may not be loved in return. Subjects have their own wills and interests, and only if these interests and wills coincide can we speak of reciprocity. That is, a semi-mature person takes a position that is no longer demanding, but still very passive. Strict boundaries dictate him not to interfere anywhere, not to offer anything, just to wait and hope that the will of the person he likes will choose him.

How does the position of a mature person differ from this?

Let us once again trace the changes that separate the infantile personality from the semi-mature one. Infantile perceives himself and the world as a whole, there are no boundaries between him and the world. Infantile does not have all parts of the personality and therefore believes that the world is his part. Like a parasite does not have a stomach or legs and uses the body of another animal.

But the fate of the adult parasite is sad, because other people always want to get rid of him. Any infantile person has every chance of becoming embittered when he realizes that the world does not want to serve him. But if parts of his personality have time to form, he may realize that he is separate and others are separate. He has not yet learned to interact from an independent mode, but at least it becomes obvious to him that there is him and there are others. You can't take advantage of others, they'll object. You can't expect anything from them, they have their own things to do. This is a wonderful realization, but not at the level of abstraction, but at the level of concrete situations. In these situations, one begins to take responsibility for one's needs and to provide for oneself. This marks the beginning of adulthood.

To fully mature as a person, it is not enough to realize one's own subjectivity and experience respect for another's subjectivity. This is just the outline of the personality. It is very difficult to maintain unless there is a healthy exchange with the world. A person who has already gained sovereignty, but who does not receive from the world what is necessary, either suffers or returns to infantile fusion. So, for example, having starved in boredom and loneliness, such a personality may think that self-sufficiency is bad and it is better to aim for someone else again. Respecting boundaries only makes sense when a person has made a lot of connections and gets everything they need. That's why trying to have good boundaries without any internal resources is a futile endeavor.

But back to the idea of love.

While the semi-mature personality has already drawn boundaries but is passively waiting for happiness, the mature personality is actively making connections with different areas of life. If such a person develops love, it is not out of nowhere, but with someone with whom she has already established a connection. And of course, this love will be mutual. But why of course?

Some people believe that sincere love is always mutual. But what if the same girl is sincerely loved by several people? Should she return love to each of them?

If you are loved by a person who is unnecessary and uninteresting, he does not become necessary and interesting. This can happen if you are lonely and suffer from the coldness and cruelty of the world. But if you have a lot of nourishing connections, see a lot of nice and open-minded people in the world, then you get love from all sides, and feel quite relevant. Let's assume that you don't mind having a loving relationship and even starting a family, but it's pretty clear that you're looking for someone you're mutually interested in. It is not "just love" that will determine your choice, but mutual feeling.

It seems that mutual feeling is either a consequence of pure chance, or the agreement of one to reciprocate another's love. Many cannot imagine how to technically guarantee mutual love and avoid mistakes.

In fact, only mutual love is possible in the real field of interaction. Unrequited love is always born in the field of illusions. People resort to illusions only in one case: when they lack energy in the real field and borrow energy from illusions. Illusions are a loan in the bank at a high interest rate. It's an energy boost at the expense of Nothing. It is experiencing some hypothetical things with such a high, as if they were already reality. Thanks to live emotions, the brain perceives illusions as reality and creates neural ensembles based on this. These ensembles provide one-sided connection with a person, one-sided immersion in the field of relations, and the situation when she loves him and he does not love her.

What does this look like in practice?

Imagine two girls who are asked out by an interesting young man. The same or different, it doesn't matter. With both, the young man was friendly, looked at each with genuine interest, told some great things about himself, asked questions, and made a connection with each girl. Let's say each of the girls is currently single and would like to have an affair to have fun over the Christmas holidays. And in fact, this niche in their lives is empty and it would be nice to fill it.

Let me say right away that a meaningful empty niche is already an energy hole. The niche must either be filled or irrelevant. The place that this niche could occupy in life (if it were filled) should be occupied by other things. For example, she spends her evenings with her friends, which she could spend with her boyfriend, and she is very happy. She doesn't pine or make up imaginary boyfriends, reminisce about exes, or look at couples with hatred. She's having fun with friends or doing something else. That is, the niche on one side is empty, and on the other side there is no hole there, its place is taken by something else. Therefore, if one girl has internal resources and the other does not, the former will not suffer from loneliness, while the latter will.

Because of this difference, having been on a date with an interesting guy who shows interest, one girl will just be happy, and the second… will start dreaming. Why doesn't she start dreaming first? Because she already has a lot of interesting things in her life and she has a place to take pleasant emotions. You can imagine that her life is filled like a closet with fancy dresses. She agrees to buy a new, more fashionable dress, but for this she has to give someone one of the old ones. But all the old ones are also her favorites and they also suit her very well, and they are very old relatively, some of them she has worn only once and would like to wear again. So if she would agree to throw something out of her closet, it would be for the sake of a very beautiful and comfortable dress, not for the sake of the king's new dress-empty and illusions. She's not interested in sitting at home in the evening and thinking about a new acquaintance, imagining how he is. She's not interested in discussing him with her friend for three hours straight. She is not interested in looking at the phone while waiting for it to ring and rehearsing a possible dialog. All of this gives her far less energy than her actual interesting endeavors. She doesn't mind seeing him again, but she doesn't mind imagining him for hours and dreaming about him because she has better things to do.

Sometimes women say that they had a favorite job, friends, hobbies and many other things to do, but then He appeared and everything became unimportant. Such women overestimate their affairs. None of the old business can stand competition with dreams of Him. Note, not with Him (that would be understandable), but with dreams about Him. He is not there yet, he hasn't called, he hasn't said anything, and the woman has already put aside all her "favorite" and "interesting" things to imagine and dream about Him. She is ready to throw all her favorite dresses out of the closet, making room for those that she hasn't bought yet and it's not a fact that she will buy. Isn't it true that you can do that only with unnecessary and long-worn dresses, but not with your favorite ones?

Because of this simple mechanism, the first girl is not at risk of falling in love unrequitedly, while the second girl has an almost 100% probability. The first one will only push favorite affairs out of her life if the new friend offers her a real alternative. She will agree to a date, but if he only talks about himself and pays little attention to her, she will get bored and remember what an interesting place she could have been in instead. She will agree to an affair, but if the affair brings her little positive emotions, she may run away to where she feels better. She has a lot of places she feels good about, that's the thing. So she will not be lured by empty promises and hints. She will not tolerate or hope for anything, as she has somewhere to get her joy right now. Only a girl who is hungry and has no other resources can find herself drawn into an unequal, unhappy relationship. She needs at least the hope of happiness if there is no happiness in her life.

With the permission of one of my clients, I want to tell the story of a miraculous transformation of chaos into cosmos. This will be helpful to those who are convinced that happy relationships are impossible with "bad" partners. There are few things in the world that are impossible for integrated personalities.

I'll call the client N and her partner D. They met by chance, when N came to a friends' house for some presentation, and D came there with an acquaintance to have a drink.

By that time he had been drinking for many years, and for the last six months without stopping. But since there were always many women around him, who agreed to cook for him and buy him quality alcohol, and to call a doctor with a drip for their money, he never got drunk to the end, but was just permanently drunk.

His last wife was either an actress or a model, who went to Europe and took his daughter with her. According to legend, he was terribly worried about it, couldn't forgive, couldn't forget. The young girl, that is, his ex-wife, was very much pitied by everyone. They say that he abused her, brought her to anorexia nervosa, she was in a mental hospital, but this is all according to legend, and he denied. His inner circle partly hated him, partly pitied him, and some did both. He stole girlfriends from all his friends, some of them even wives. In general, he was a real charmer, and acted (according to legend) on women magnetically. His model wife (or actress) was his fifth, but the child was only from her. The others did not dare to give birth because he (according to legend) did not want to. This last wife adored and supported him. She earned good money, traveled constantly to Europe, and finally some rich man persuaded her to leave this horrible husband who drank her blood.

He was a good painter once, had great hopes, and was known in narrow circles. However, he sold few of his paintings, and the last ones he simply burned and "quit painting" because his wife "betrayed" him and "took away his child".

He was a typical female bloodsucker: an alcoholic, a bum, a beggar and a womanizer, and, according to legend, an abuser as well. It is understandable that when N became interested in him, everyone discouraged her and begged her not to come near, not to approach, to run as far away as possible. It was obvious to everyone that he needed a victim, especially since she was wealthy and not as young as all of his exes. Older than him by three years, and he was over thirty. And she was quite pretty, but not very pretty, more like an ordinary woman, but a very strong person. She literally radiated strength. She was always happy, calm, confident, she was always active, she did everything well, she had a lot of energy. Basically, you could say she was the sun while he was decomposing in the swamp. At least that's how it looked to everyone.

Of course, I didn't believe in the success of their relationship either. But at least I thought she was a hundred times stronger than he was, so he would suffer. He'd try to reach for her, and then most likely he'd fail and give up, doing something nasty as a goodbye. I told her that honestly. I told her that nothing would come of their relationship, but that he couldn't ruin and trample her like everyone promised. Of course, she would have done it her way, but she was grateful for my words, because within a week her friends were calling her screaming "AAA" and "Noooo!" and telling her terrible things about him.

They met, by the way, in a spectacular way. He saw her at this presentation, drunk as always, and he came over and knelt down. And said to her quietly: "My angel, I recognize you, help me, I'm dying." And she did not falter, but blossomed from these sweet speeches and from his disheveled, unshaven and even dirty appearance. Then, of course, everyone began to wrinkle their nose and whisper that she was "in the shit", that this was a story about beauty and the beast. But, fortunately, it didn't turn out that way.

She went to his house, or rather to his "studio" that his ex-wife had given him. She talked to him all night, looked at his paintings and told him in the morning that she had fallen in love with him too. And I left. There was no sex, but there were kisses and all sorts of crazy revelations. And, as is common in such cases, mysticism that speaks of a soul mate, but I won't talk about that nonsense. Apparently, he used all the charm, hypnosis and sexuality he could muster. And she really really fell in love. She said something like "he's the best, he's the best, I wouldn't have believed it before" or something like that. And then her friends and acquaintances started calling her and discouraging her from talking to him. "I really want to have sex with him, I fell in love like a girl, - she told me very sadly. - But they tell me that he will infect me with AIDS, drive me crazy, charm me, then cheat on me, humiliate me, make me a masochist, deprive me of everything, and then throw my heart away. Is he really that terrible?" But I knew him very little and could not tell her anything. I advised her to do what she wanted and not to listen to anyone, because she was her own mistress (and a real mistress, that is, she definitely had a "center"). And I didn't risk anything, because no matter what I told her, she would do it her way, it was clear.

Attention: I am not writing this story for women to help alcoholics, drug addicts and abusers. Very many such women are in the cemetery. And it is better to remember about it. The point of the story is different. I want to tell you that the main thing is your own supports. If they are absent, even a good man can make you suffer a lot. And if there are a lot of them, even a monster has a chance to become a human. Or the monster will remain a monster, but it won't hurt the woman. She'll quickly become disillusioned and walk away.

At first, the story seemed like classic sex shamanism. D consistently took his "angel's" heart to pieces. The sex was fantastic and magical, constant night calls, constant love and, of course, fights. Well, he was the one fighting. He promised to throw himself out the window or call a prostitute if she "didn't come right away". There were some other ugly scenes that I don't even want to tell you about. He used every method he could to loosen her. But she wouldn't give in. She loved him, she talked about it, she was sad during fighting’s, but she was not jealous or involved in his madness. It was as if he was going crazy on his own, while she watched it from the sidelines like an angel. One day after another of his storms and jealousy scenes (although he was cheating, not her), she said she couldn't see him anymore. And refused to see him at all.

She got involved in a job from which she never once turned off. When I asked her if she was sad, she said that he had given her many wonderful hours (they had been together for four months), that she was grateful to him, but that she could see that he was wallowing in his marginality and that instead of wonderful hours there would be more and more sad ones. And she doesn't want to be hurt. So she made the decision to break up. She said that it was as good with him as it had never been and would never be with anyone else. But sex is not the main thing in life, and love should not only consist of passion. I asked her if she wasn't attracted to him. She would say, "I'm attracted to him, but I can see that the good things are over, and only bad things will come next". This man frightened her, and that was enough(!) not to strive for him, not to respond to any provocations. Not to throw herself on his neck when he suddenly appears where she is: to greet him calmly and go about her business, and if he hooks her, to leave. This was a super-iron lady. She didn't visit his social media page, where he spread a million painful hooks. She didn't respond to his emails, and when they got too shrill, she deleted them without reading. She told him only one thing: "Please, leave me alone, you don't want to change, live as you know". He threw tantrums, swearing that he would change, but only with her, and without her he could not. She replied that four months was enough for her to lose faith. He suffered constantly and complained to everyone. He disappeared for two months. Then he showed up again. Everyone felt sorry for N because they thought it was very difficult for her to withstand his siege. But she watched it calmly, didn't expect anything and told me that she didn't believe in his changes because she didn't see them. All in all, she had very good judgment and held herself perfectly. And not a single day, not a single evening she was not bored, because she started a new project and had new plans. She didn't have a lover because she felt sorry for D and wanted "him to calm down". I did not see her suffering, although I saw her love for D. But love did not cancel her conviction that he would hurt her, and she did not want to be hurt.

When D realized that provoking and hooking was useless, and there was only darkness ahead of him, and the light of his life had gone with her, he began to transform. What was he supposed to do? The more he transformed, the better she treated him. When he found a job, made repairs and quit drinking, she came back to him, but refused to live with him for a long time, saying that she did not trust him completely. He tried to accuse her of mistrust, but she didn't feel guilty for her mistrust. I don't trust, that's all. I love him but I don't trust him, I can date him, but I can't live with him. Sometimes he would try to blackmail her and pressure her, and she would immediately drift away. Each time she was ready to admit that the light at the end of the tunnel had finally gone out. And every time she said that he gave her happiness, thank him, but then there was only pain, and she didn't want pain. And he saw that she would never come and it was useless to pull her, he had to change completely or lose her.

Their struggle lasted about a year, and during that year D changed completely. He no longer drank, that is, he drank only two glasses of wine sometimes and nothing else. He found a job, started painting pictures because she said he needed to paint. He did renovations, cooked her meals all the time, and completely transformed himself. He started to play sports, got fit and bought a car (he hadn't driven for ten years because he drank). He changed completely and became different, even his image changed from very sloppy to very neat. No one believed in such a transformation, everyone was waiting for a huge setback. There were, but they were very small, and after every step backward, he jumped forward to regain the trust of his angel.

What kind of business he came up with I can't tell you, he was lucky (how else), but even before the business he was already making a decent living and selling his paintings. And was helping her with her work. And when he came up with his business, he got rich quick right away. And she took up creative writing. They were already living together, then they got married and moved to another country. Sometimes they take his daughter with them, she and his daughter have a great relationship. He gives his ex-wife money, although she has a wealthy partner and earns money herself. But he's still very protective of his ex-wife and daughter. He carries his N in his arms and has painted a hundred portraits of her. Apparently, he really believes that she is an angel. They've been together for seventeen years.

I'll leave the tamers of the shrew for a while and ask the women.

Women, do you want to know the simple secret to building a successful relationship?

For nothing someone thinks that there is no such secret, that there are no universal and simple recipes. In something there is no such thing, but here it is. And it has been known since antiquity.

The secret is simple: never make steps toward intimacy in response to a man's indifference or aggression.

It is also good to always encourage any right action of a man. But the main thing is the first one. Never, under any circumstances, break this rule from the very beginning. From the very beginning of the relationship - this is very important, because if you never observe this rule and suddenly start abruptly, the effect can be the opposite. Which I'll tell you later.

But if from the very beginning you consistently and clearly build a field of relationships in which it will be possible to receive love and intimacy from you only by giving you the same love and intimacy, in which every step backward of the partner will lead to a decrease in your interest, it will be almost impossible to draw you into a relationship with imbalance. You will always have someone with you who cherishes you, and anyone who doesn't will have no access to you.

It seems that this rule is not only logical, but simple. Why take a step toward intimacy with someone who is indifferent or aggressive? Isn't it the healthiest reaction to pull your hand away from the cold or fire? Isn't it mutual warmth and mutual pleasure that pushes people closer together?

Unfortunately, this is only true for holistic and mature people. Immature people are so fragmented and contradictory that it takes unthinkable strength to enforce this rule. And a scientific consilium to figure out where to apply this rule.

Pierre Janet first wrote about the internal fragmentation of the psyche and personality. He was a brilliant psychologist, who worked before Freud and even before Breuer, the author of the concept of "interiorization", on which the whole theory of unconscious processes and almost all psychology of the 20th century is based. Pierre Janet is less well known than those who made extensive use of his discoveries, because he went a step further and wrote many paradoxical things. He described various psychic phenomena in his books, and his "energy system" quite accurately explains a great many phenomena still considered mysteries. Janet studied female somnambulists and hystericals to understand the mechanism of mental automatism. Janet's main conclusion: a healthy psyche is characterized by great plasticity and at the same time integrity, its processes are coordinated and at the same time have great flexibility, so a person with such a psyche is practically immune to suggestion. The unhealthy psyche, "weak" as Janet called it, is uncoordinated, fragmented, each part acting on its own. To maintain at least some constancy, plasticity is disturbed, ideas are fixed, many become obsessive. Apart from cases of obvious pathology, when the fragmentation and fixity of the psyche is great, there may also be cases of normal underdevelopment. This is mostly the case at a young age, making young people contradictory, suggestible, prone to going to extremes and getting infected with affect. All I'm trying to talk about in this blog is that when there is a lack of personal development, an adult behaves in an infantile manner. In this case, being deprived of youthful advantages, such a person suffers more, as well as causes suffering to loved ones.

For the normal well-being of a personality, it needs at least a minimum of personal supports that it can independently maintain. An unformed personality needs a minimum of external resources and supports to feel its existence and security. A formed personality can for a long time make do only with internal ones. An unformed personality is quickly destroyed in extreme conditions, easily influenced, quickly infected by ideas, immediately surrenders "itself". A formed personality can resist and survive for quite a long time without any external supports. Its reserves are limited, but they can last for a very long time, depending on the strength of integration and the power of the inner core. But that's a lyric. The point is that if the personality is not fully formed and deprived of external supports, it turns into what Janet wrote about: a fragmented, contradictory, disorganized being incapable of self-control.

Let's imagine a woman like that. If no one takes control over her, she is in a chaos of feelings, ideas, emotions. She submits to almost any external movement, and it is difficult to resist, because her personality is fragmented and no one part of it outweighs. The sense of duty, the desire for pleasure, planning, defense against stress is activated. She wants to get away and fly, or on the contrary to behave strictly according to the rules, or like to be promiscuous, or disgusted by such hints. It would not be an exaggeration to say that she is looking for a "master". Of course, she is not constantly looking for someone, which would mean that her goals are unified, and her goals change, and in fact there are no goals at all. But in the moments of fatigue from her maya, anxiety, chaotic world or boredom and monotony, such a woman really wants to find someone to whom she could entrust herself.

After such an extensive digression, it should be clear why a woman, especially a young woman or a woman who has just come out of symbiosis (parental or marital), cannot build relationships consistently. A simple recipe is too complicated for her, she wants one thing or the other, and most importantly cannot contain any emotions. In response to rudeness there may be a passionate desire for intimacy to immediately relieve stress, and in response to affection suddenly begin boredom and an unbearable need to sarcasm. Guilt replaces aggression and vice versa. She literally "can't hold her own," acting stupid and destructive instead of being reasonable, confident, correct, and thus attractive to equally reasonable, confident, and correct people. No. She is scattered, disheveled, and torn energetically and emotionally. She flares up and cools down, energized and de-energized in the moment. The number of holes in her psychic field is unaccountable, and as soon as one is tightened, a new one appears.

Sometimes it is noticeable outwardly, and by behavior and speech almost always. That's why reasonable, confident and correct people shun her. Those who sense her weakness and the chaos inside are attracted to her. She is like a flower that exudes nectar that is too luscious or even too poisonous for people who are looking for healthy relationships and mutual love. But people who have the same chaos inside are drawn to her because they see their own in her. Or they have a certain rod, but very specific, more like a bumblebee's trunk, and they fly to this flower to collect honey. However, it is just not honey, and those flying are not bumblebees, and the woman is not a flower. So the little vampire's feet get stuck, he gets furious, and tears it off with the petals. And sometimes he finds a way to drink the nectar without being glued, but since it's more of a poison, he quickly goes mad. Or another scenario: a predatory flower slams its petals down and starts eating the brains of such insects. In general, the stories are many, they are fascinating and all about passionate and painful relationships.

It's true that most bitches are secretly or explicitly looking for a "tamer" man. So they unleash all their chaos on any man they like, hoping that he will somehow organize it or go to hell. Unfortunately, they are often dragged to hell as well.

There are two most popular interpretations of the phenomenon of "bitchiness", conventionally male and conventionally female. Male: spoiled by parents, selfish woman who is easier to leave than to correct, but if everything is not very bad, such a woman will be cured by love and respect for men, she will give up her selfishness and become a good wife. Female: a bitch is a woman disappointed in men, who is forced to behave this way for self-defense or revenge, and is cured by love, tenderness and tactfulness of a loving man.

As we can see, the two interpretations offer opposite models of behavior for the bitch's partner. The masculine urges to set hard conditions and, if the conditions are not met, to leave because “she doesn't love him”. Women's calls for long and hard work to gain the bitch's trust, enduring all of her antics and shake-ups in order to gradually “melt her icy heart”.

In fact, both models perform poorly. And both are good under certain conditions. The first model works when the man's conditions are not rigid, but clear and very fair, he is consistent, he is decent himself, he is interesting to the woman, he does not obey her, but does not offend her either.

In order to organize a more chaotic and contradictory partner and build the right field of relations, it is very important not to offend him/her yourself and not to deceive. You need to watch yourself and be very tactful, do not fall for provocations. In response to his/her rudeness, it is better to politely say goodbye, thus letting him/her realize his/her behavior and feel guilty. If you yourself regularly violate boundaries, attack and behave tactlessly, it is impossible to sort out where you are at fault and where the other is, and therefore impossible to build a field. In this case, a more chaotic partner will easily pull you into chaos and you will be surprised at your own insanity. To have a normal relationship, it is better to communicate with a more organized person, more stable and mature than yourself. And if your partner is less organized, you have to watch yourself very(!) carefully and be twice as stable.

Such a fair, but firm and consistent position really has a chance to charm the bitch and make her recognize in a man the one she wants to entrust the leadership. But is it good to give leadership to someone, even the kindest of men? Of course not. However, it can be better than driving yourself and others crazy and ruining your life. In general, it is the same submission, only not to one, but to everyone. It is best to take your personality into your own hands, at least gradually. And sometimes your partner can help in this, if he or she does not use the power, but gradually returns control to where it should be. But more on this crucial point later. For now, let us dwell on the fact that such a model can work and create something like a harmonious couple. But for this, the man must show himself to be a very decent person (who can be completely trusted), and the woman must turn out to be not so much a bitch as an unbalanced, contradictory, emotionally unstable person who strives to become an adult. A real bitch has learned to live in her own chaos and coexist with her own demons. Therefore, she will not go so easily under the power of a man. But more on that next.

The female model of taming a bitch (this "love, tolerate, gain trust") is highly criticized by men. No one wants to love, endure, conquer and end up being used and humiliated. Such a picture makes any man ready to become a monk. Men do not see the logic in showing women their weakness when they expect them to be strong. However, under certain conditions, the female model works too. And increases in the eyes of a woman's male strength. If a man manages to maintain a sense of dignity, not to humiliate and show only one weakness - love, he can well afford to "conquer a woman. At a certain point, showing his love, he can make it clear that his hopes are exhausted and relationships without reciprocity he is no longer interested. Most "bitches" will not be able to let go of such a man and will run after him, agreeing to get rid of bitchy behavior. Basically, these are all descriptions of the male model, just from a different perspective.

If you use the models in a straightforward way, they don't work at all. To "bend a bitch hard" means to be sent to hell at once or to be accepted and vengefully humiliated a little later. "Winning trust" by humiliating yourself means losing not only her respect, but also your own. In a word, any models are nothing, only inner harmony and one's own core matters.

The main thing to note is that effective behavior in both models is essentially the behavior of a very mature and internally stable person. An immature and unstable person will use both models excessively and make a mess of things. His emotions will muffle and blindside him all the time, for the bitch has an uncanny ability to blow up his brain. In either model, the partner will behave exactly the way an extremely hysterical and unstable girl behaves: send to hell, then apologize, then disappear, then demand something, then change his plans again. This is the best way to antagonize a partner who has a desire for a normal relationship. But a partner with the same chaos inside might like it. The other question is where those partners will end up together.

Incredibly, a mature person is able to pull an immature partner into a relationship that will help that partner mature. It is a relationship with a high degree of trust but also with the preservation of boundaries, with great warmth but a balance of contributions, with shared responsibility but personal obligations, with saturation with the energy of the outside world but without the coldness of distanced relationships. A person who is unwilling to develop will not be able to tolerate such a relationship. A person who wants to develop and is ready for it will find such relationships favorable. For those who have been cast away into chaos, there is a huge number of others like them, ready to dance around witches' fires with them, to drink each other's tears and blood, and to practice spell magic.

While women complain that men are unreliable (womanizers and scoundrels), men claim that women are insufferable (bitches and hysterical).

It is often not obvious to both that one is closely related to the other. For example, men try their best to demonstrate reliability, but soon they feel overwhelmed and need chaos. Or women try hard not to be bitches, but soon feel that repressed emotions are tearing them apart, and it is easier to make a scandal.

I'll give you an example of how you can deal with the causes of a problem rather than the effects.

When men get tired of women being "unbearable", they literally mean that women are hard to carry on their backs. Never mind that at the same moment women are saying that they carry "everything" on their backs. Women carry "everything" and men carry women themselves. At least that's how they perceive themselves, but they want to carry a light nymph, not a kicking horse. Unsuccessful knights, who dropped the burden halfway through, complain that women themselves do not know what they want, that their behavior does not obey logic, that they can be offended by nonsense, throw a tantrum. And also about the bitchiness of women and the fact that they do not appreciate a good attitude. Therefore, with them you need to behave very harshly and very consistently, otherwise they will get in over their heads and drive you crazy with contradictory messages.

A man who tries to fulfill all the desires of a woman condemns himself to hell. She ruins him financially and emotionally, and then brutally throws him away, humiliating and cheating on him. This is the main male bogeyman, it can be seen in the classics from century to century, already in Ovid, and the most frankly described by Mazoch in his "Venus". It is not without reason that this ridiculous work is still read: Mazoch was called by his contemporaries the second Turgenev, despite the entire gap in artistic value, and now many people have Turgenev in the dust, and Mazoch is reread, retold, screened. If you go to any pickup forum, you will hear the same scaremongering: you can't submit to women, you have to bend them softly or hard, only then there will be stability in a couple. In short, when a man tries to provide a woman with "reliability," he often believes that first of all he must overcome the demon in her, tame and humble her bitchiness. That is, men see the source of a woman's main unreliability in herself. Some women like to play along, offering to "tame" themselves, and some women do not play along, but sincerely believe that a bitch lives in them. Otherwise, how else to explain that from time to time in them "for no reason" there is anger and rage, which disappear without a trace, if the man does not give in to the tantrum. Therefore, women often write and say that they need a man who will be stronger than they are, and will be able to "keep them in line". No one wants a rapist, of course, but a gentle "tamer" - alas, many.

The classic strategy for taming a bitch was described by Shakespeare. His Katarina was a hysterical, a real madwoman, beating her younger sister and smashing heavy objects on the heads of her teachers, and even the groom immediately hit her in the face, and he, as a true nobleman, could not answer her in the same way. So the groom had to bend her not by physical force, but by subtle moral violence. And of course, she bent over and fell in love. When the Chinese shocked the world half a century ago by masterfully brainwashing several American spies into becoming passionate fans of their regime, their methods had not been a secret for centuries. Shakespeare laid out point by point how to brainwash a person quickly.

First, a person must be put in a situation of complete physical dependence (so that he does not run away). Secondly, deprive sleep and food to shake up the nervous system (here Shakespeare refers to hunters who tame falcons for hunting). Third, to keep in constant tension (not just in fear, but to impress with illogicality and unpredictability of actions, so that all patterns explode and there are no logical supports left, but only fear). Fourth, achieve a trance of mental overload. Fifth, reach out and make it clear that love and devotion is the best way to get safety and food, and the more love, the better. The Chinese researched, and Shakespeare foresaw, that the human psyche is so quick to update the flow of sensory information that it quickly rearranges all reference points when exposed to total influence.

It is important to pay attention to just one point: the less dependent a person is on someone, the less chance he has of instilling anything in that person. Total brainwashing is possible only with absolute dependence. Women can consider themselves safe if they remember that they should have their own work, their own professional goals, their own creative plans, and in general a lot of their own.

I am more interested in talking not so much about the risks of women who allow themselves to be tamed and made dependent and submissive, but about the risks of men who follow the path of the tamer. There are so many ways to arouse a human's interest and hold his attention, and then make that attention grow and expand.

At first, this strategy seems right to a man: the fewer friends a woman has, the less she is interested in work, the more attention she devotes to a man and the more she is in love. And vice versa: the more she is in love, the more attention she wants to devote to him, while she is less and less interested in work, friends disappear, hobbies cease to worry. If at the beginning of the relationship she could bitch, "test" the man, troll him and even hurt him, now she has turned into an ideal soulmate, agreeing to everything. The rapport, as pickup artists say, has been reached. This rapport may even begin to strain a man who is not ready for a serious relationship. In this case, the man may start to fight back and destroy the rapport, causing the woman in love agony. However, if he is interested in creating a family with her, if the woman seems to him beautiful enough, intelligent, suitable for him in everything, and he himself is not against becoming a husband and father, such a man may decide that everything is going just great. It is great that he replaces the whole world to his beloved. The disadvantages of this are seen far from immediately, if he himself is ready to spend a lot of time together. If he is passionate about work and sports, however, he may notice that sometimes a woman's extra dependence comes out sideways. She is too sad when he is delayed, she is always bored without him, she is overly jealous, although she apologizes for it. It's like a tamed demon is always trying to get out and ruin life.

It is logical that during such a period the couple has the thought of pregnancy. It seems to the man that the child will take up his wife's extra energy and give him some freedom from her control, and their couple additional connection and stability. And when the pregnancy occurs, it really does look that way. Alas. Soon many men, especially selfish men, begin to feel the lack of attention. Demanding and claims of a woman increase, because the woman begins to worry more about the future, but the attention, admiration and adoration becomes much less. She spends a lot of time socializing with other young mothers, reading, watching, thinking only about the baby and how to better build a nest, and almost ceases to be interested in sex. Or not, but it's not like that anymore. The man is not the center of attention. If the woman continues to work and be tired, the man may feel in the background, as if the woman got what she wanted from him, caught him in a trap, and now she is not interested in him as a man, but only as a breadwinner for the child and a material resource.

And again it seems to the man that it is necessary to increase her dependence, to deprive her of her remaining supports and then she will be more attentive to him. It seems to him that the reason for the problems is her residual independence. She considers the child not his, but hers, and in quarrels hints that she can handle it herself, if suddenly he doesn't really need it, please, he can be free, she doesn't insist, she only wants to be together on her terms, not like this. Instead of sharing his wife's passion for budding motherhood and allowing her to have her own footing, many men think the opposite. About knocking the supports out from under a woman's feet and guaranteeing yourself control of a situation where chaos ensues. Women have no idea of the panic that grips many men at this time. On the one hand, the demon in a woman tries to bend him and make him serve, now and then blackmailing him to leave or just tears (and the child suffers too). On the other side the dismal option is to abandon the child and remain a scoundrel and villain for life. In such circumstances, men are afraid to get too involved in fatherhood to prevent themselves from being manipulated even more, and instead of getting closer, they withdraw more. But to ensure control of the situation, actively seek ways to turn the wife into even more dependency. Both materially and emotionally.

Men do it by stupid, and sometimes even very stupid methods, unfortunately, quite effective in the early stages and therefore survivable. For example, they may lower their wife's self-esteem so that she does not rely too much on her independence and values them more. To cut off avenues to painful blackmail with a child, they may make it clear that they are less interested in the child than in dinner and sex. They try to look like complete cynics to fight back against the attempt to tug at their feelings. Or they may hint that there are other women who would be happy to feed and love them. When a woman is pregnant, such declarations are like knocking a bench out from under her feet with a noose around her neck. However, instead of seeing it all as a warning to increase their independence, many panic and capitulate. The woman agrees that she is responsible for the relationship, agrees to any conditions of the man and tries to behave in such a way that the man remains her husband and father of the child. At this point, the man feels that the bitch is finally tamed and the stability of the marriage is ensured for years to come. He is also confirmed in the correctness of the chosen strategy. But this is a sad delusion. Provided him not stability, but a guerrilla group collecting ammunition in the forest and waiting for the opportunity to start a war.