Report 2:
My Understanding of the Unity Model of Marriage
Jessica Lacy
Instructions for this report are at:
www.soc.hawaii.eduleonj/leonpsy21/409-g21-report2.htm

Question 2:

Contrast the three views of gender relationships expressed by Deborah Tannen in Gender Issues, Laura Schlessinger in The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, and Leon James in The Doctrine of the Wife. Give a summary of your analysis by creating a chart or table that shows the differences between them in a systematic way. Give your opinion on the elements or entries in your chart. How do your own views compare to what’s in the chart? How are your ideas influenced by these three different perspectives on marriage?

I have written the following flow charts as if I were teaching a seminar on three different methods of how to obtain and maintain a fulfilling marriage. Each listed item is specific to either husband (man), wife (women) or as a couple. I have organized each suggestion to pertain to social, interpersonal or relationship aspects of an individuals life. "Social" is how people act on a day to day basis, not necessarily effecting their spouse. "Interpersonal" is how a personal feels at the gut level, it is emotions, cognition's, and feelings of a man or a woman. "Relationship" is how the man and woman function as a couple.

Three very different perspectives: How to create a happy and lasting marriage

I. Dominate aka Restrictive and Authoritative
according to Dr. Laura Schlessinger

Socially:


Interpersonally:
- Men simply need love, support, and reassurance
- A man's silence is OK--it does not mean trouble
- Action is how men communicate

Relationship:
 - Giving to your husband is more powerful than controlling them.

2. Equate aka "one and the same" and "cultural normality and expectations" According to Dr. Deborah Tannen

Socially:

Interpersonally:

Relationship:
 "Unify" aka Enlighten, inseperatable, wholeness, oneness.
According to Dr. Leon James

Socially:
 Interpersonally:
 - "Higher spiritual love" vs. "lower spiritual love"
- You must change your inward cognition's to fully change your outward behaviors
- Once intentional wrong doings are no longer present, then true love can take place
Relationship:
 - You have become a single functional unit--two have become one.
- Women and men are complimentary of one another.

While writing this chart I began to notice a pattern: dominance encourages women to change, equity does not require anyone to change (it is the most accepting of the three) and unity encourages men to change.

It is hard for me to accept that I am the root of the problem and would need to change myself in a marriage. I cannot swallow my issues and ignore my innate desire to feel unified to my husband. This goes against everything Dr. Schlessinger's argues for a harmonious marriage. I do not agree with any of her suggestions.

I tend to find equity in relationships as the most harmonious for me at this point in my life. I want my boyfriend to be happy in our relationship. I do not want him to feel as though I am smothering him or demanding things from him that he simply cannot fulfill at this point in our lives. Once I am married I may find I want to unify with my husband on a more spiritual level.

I do find Dr. James' suggestions to be more applicable to my perceptions of relationships. Although I am certain men (or should I say "boys") of my age are not ready for that level of commitment or change in their own lives and in relationships. There is a certain degree of self centeredness, immaturity and narcissistic behavior boys of my age engage in. It is a wonder women of my age even find lasting relationships at this point in our lives!

Question 5:

Select six student reports on marriage from Generation 20, as listed in the Readings section of the Lecture Notes. You must select any two students from Report 1, any two from Report 2, and any two from Report 3. Summarize each of the six reports. Be sure to put a link to the students' reports. Add a General Conclusion Section in which you discuss your reactions to what they did – (a) their ideas, (b) their method, (c) their explanations. What did they gain from doing their reports? How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues?

Report 1:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/liwai/report1.htm
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/shortcake/report1.htm

Report 2:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/chrism/report2.htm
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/cheetara/report%202.htm


Report 3:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/howard/report3.htm
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/combs/report3.htm

Liwai's report is an analysis of several distinct perspectives on relationships and gender differences. The first section of her report summarizes three past generations' reports. The second section analyzes the Unity model, and the third section examines ten articles' content. The final conclusion section contains her own opinion.

Past student Ryan Higg's report was selected by Liwai for analysis. His report is explaining the "positive perspective". This means it is vital to maintain a positive and open minded outlook when trying to achieve a goal. Second article analyzed by author Krista Guiteras-Duncan examines the differences between men and women. These differences are exemplified through problem solving tactics, communication, and methods of child rearing. The final article written by Bridget Antonio analyzes the three fold self in terms of evaluating relationships and one's own negative feelings.

The second section of Liwai's report summarizes the three fold self. She briefly explains the sensorimotor, cognitive and affective dynamics of every individual. There is a brief explanation of the unity model and an example of how this model applies to her own life. She uses the model in conjunction with her coworkers and how important it is to make the attempt to understand each person's individuality and not make preconceived judgments.

Section three analyzes professionally authored articles concerning gender relationships and the innate differences between males and females. The first of ten articles titled:
Teacher's Classroom Strategies Should Recognize that Men and Women Use Language Differently http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/chronicle061991.htm analyzes women's preferences for open-ended questions, as opposed to debate styles of conversation. This debate style is referred to as "verbal sparring," a very good connotation of how debate tactics are employed. The authors of both article and report believe women are socially conditioned to prefer a distinct style of conversation.

The second article summary is written by our own expert in the field of relationship endeavors: Dr. Leon James. The Doctrine of the Wife http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/doctrine-of-the-wife2.htm Liwai describes James' article as a "manual for husbands". Her brief analysis seems to stray from the point of the article, she summarizes by stating: "couples must achieve conjugial love" and "we are socialized by our parents to inherit their psychology's and moral weaknesses".

Article three is an analysis of sexiest humor (a rather interesting topic for his particular author who enjoys the badgering of stereotypical female behavior). The enjoyment of sexist humor, rape attitudes, and relationship aggression in college students. 
www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2294/n9-10_v38/20914088/p1/article.jhtml
The author finds men's enjoyment of female directed sexiest humor to be a source of men's hostility towards women. Women then find themselves to be in a catch-22 in terms of responses to men's badgering, humorous tactics. Either women feel as though they must laugh (regardless of genuiness of finding humor in the joke) or if they do not laugh they are perceived as defensive.

The fourth article The Essential Feminine by Rev. Dandridge Pendleto http://www.newchurchissues.org/wip/MF/mf55dp.htm explains the concept of men as internal truth which converts to wisdom and women as internal love. Men are considered to be rational and logical, while women strive for conjugial love. Women are born with this innate desire to conjoin with their husbands.

Article five: The Difference between the Sexes from Divine Revelation and from Experience http://www.newchurchissues.org/wip/MF/mf01sh.htm argues men must submit to their wives by understanding and acknowledging their wives superior thinking. "Every cell in a man's body is different from every cell in a women's body" summarizes the basic argument of this particular article.

Article six also compounds on gender differences in a very different context: Gender Differences in Driving Norms.  Are Men More Aggressive Drivers Than Women? http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as99/lieberman/report2.html#gender
This article discusses the biological implications for aggressive driving behavior, which is the presence of testosterone in males. The article accounts for two theories of why aggression is present in anyone regardless of levels of testosterone. The first is the "frustration aggression theory" which is one's prevention from obtaining goals leading to frustration which results in aggression. The second theory is the "pay back" theory which states one is trying to receive repatriation for past wrong doings, the result is aggressive behavior.

Article seven elaborates on gender differences behind the wheels of cars. Gender Differences in Driving http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/459f98/yang/report1.htm The author states there are innate differences between males and females, these differences encourage various driving styles. These variations are socially acceptable, our culture allows men to drive aggressively and thus they take advantage of the acceptance of unacceptable behavior.

Article eight is concerning conversation tactics employed by individuals of both genders. Instructions for Studying Discourse in Talk Topic, Argument, Setting and Relationship
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy/instructor/talk/talk1.html
The author explains there are five elements of conversations, and "talking is an act while language is a system". Article nine expands of the eight by discussing the importance and difficulty when terminating a conversation, The Empirical Investigation of Conversation: The Closing Problem http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/499cl97/march/f5.html

The final article analyzed is called a "Transcript", it briefly discusses two distinct styles of conversation, fillers and interrupters.
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/409af96/morifuji/499/dinner1.html

The conclusion section to Liwai's report states "the unity model will not effect anyone anytime soon". She continues on by explaining people's unwillingness to connote themselves with religious implications and the model's discouragement from remarrying. She praises support for finding a man who would submit and explains she will find it very difficult to find a relationship that supports such a model. She ends by saying she disagrees with the model for herself, but men should take Dr. James' course.

The conclusion section actually made me laugh out loud. I was amazed with how many contradictions Liwai made in four short sentences. She feels like it would be wrong to ask her husband to submit for his own good, yet every women really does want conjugial love with her husband. Perhaps she feels she needs to allow herself to believe she does not want this due to cultural norms. She also refers to her own skepticism of religion in the world. I do not think she understands the majority of the population identities with some sort of higher power. Also she says people will be hindered by the unity model because they are not allowed to remarry. But who gets into a relationship and thinks "I'm going to divorce this person"?? No one does!! This "rule" should not be a deterrent for people who are willing to commit their lives to another person, it should actually encourage them to further their commitment.

While reading several opinions I did not see any real in-depth thinking or explanation behind the ideas. General sweeping statements were made in regards to relationships and gender differences, but no real explanations were made. Everything was done very briefly, there was no entire explanation or opinion formed. I do not think Liwai took away much from doing this report, she seemed stuck in their opinions. The articles she selected did not seem to impact her or sway her report in a coherent direction.

I was not all that impacted by any of the ideas presented in this report. One intreging notion of the unity model as a method for evaluating one's own negative feelings was something I had never considered before. I had always seen it as a "couple's thing", not so much an individual's reaction to relationships. This idea was not presented by Liwai, but by an article she had analyzed written by Bridget Antonio. Liwai's opinion on this article is simply: humans think and act based on what we think appropriate, not necessarily on better, more conventional methods of thinking tactics.

Second report one written by Shortcake was an entertaining experience for me, it also was a lesson in patience. Within my summary of her articles I will stress her side comments by quoting exactly what I read. It will be difficult for me to give a summary of content, there really was no explanation of the articles' main purposes. I will give my opinion on Shortcake's viewpoints and superficial explanations. With that said, at this point I would like to state a disclaimer for the reader: intense amount of sarcasm are seeping the lines of this critique. It truly was a painful read.

Shortcake begins her report by briefly summarizes Dr. Leon James' various classes: driving psychology, spirituality, cyber psychology, and Swedenbourg. She then rather disjointedly reconstructs the three fold self and marriage model's flow chart. There is no explanation of what this chart means to her. She introduces gender discourse, gives her opinion on the importance of interaction and a personal example of her favorite pastime: people watching. 

 The first article is a summary of Deborah Tannen's book: Gender and Discourse. She examines Tannen's goals, the different conversation styles between men and women. She gives her opinion on west and east coasters and how their various styles seem to effect their interaction.

Article two Teacher’s Classroom Strategies by Deborah Tannen
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/chronicle061991.htm
does not explain what topic is being discussed. It was not until I read closely did I begin to realize "classrooms are more hospitable to males". I cannot explain why this is the case. Shortcake is dumbfounded as to why she enjoys the company of males verses women, even though Tannen advocates women prefer the company of other women. Perhaps Shortcake should read the book in its entirety!

The third article's explanation was more painful for me to try and understand. The Doctrine of the Wife by Leon James
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/doctrine-of-the-wife2.htm
There is an attempt to explain the unity model of marriage, although I think the point was totally missed. Men, "follow a set of rules that go against the way men were designed", this is not what the model advocates! Shortcake seems to think men will be able to read their wives mind after their achieve unity--this is not the case! Even couples in unity cannot be mind readers, men will never know what a women wants based on intuition. This assumption is not the point of the unity model. I was pleased to know Shortcake attempted to her struggles with the concept of unity, at least she knew.

Article four focuses on the "technical jargon" used in the article, not the content. Article # 4  The Social Psychology of Relationship by Leon James
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/updates/lee/Section%208.3.html
The words were so difficult Shortcake "almost needed a dictionary!" God forbid a dictionary in college!! I did learn one new word: "textbookitis". This afflicts the common student who is oblivious to intellectual's true purposes behind their scholarly writings. Perhaps this condition is what afflicts Shortcake.

Article five states: "there were interesting survey questions", what these questions may be are a mystery to me. And why they are so interesting completely stumps me. I suppose you can see for yourself, Shortcake included a link, thank God. Rage-Depression Survey Results—Gender by Leon James and Diane Nahl
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/driving/surveys/rage_depression-gender.htm

 
The sixth article explains the differences in driving normality between men and women. For example, men have difficulty stopping and asking for directions, driving recklessly, etc. If this is vague Shortcake "suggests reading the full report for details". Was not it the authors job to explain the article so I would not have to read it?? In any case: Gender Differences in Driving Norms by Cara Lucy
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/459ss97/clucey/report2.html

Article seven spends more time critiquing the format of the report than the actual content, I still have no idea what the point of the article is. Shortcake does not like the flashing back button, it is distracting her. Perhaps that is the reason she did not understand the content. Gender Differences in Driving Norms by Sheri Lieberman
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as99/lieberman/report2.html

Article eight is "informative". What information the article supplies remains a mystery to me. Something about Skinner and Chromsky, two rather important figures in pschology's' history, I guess not important enough, they had no summary. The Behavioral Technology of Discourse Analysis
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/499s2000/banaag/file15.html

Article nine is actually rather insulting to me personally. According to Shortcake
I will not understand how the importance of conclusions in conversation because I have never had a speech class and have no real experience with public speaking. The Empirical Investigation of Conversation: The Closing Problem
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/499cl97/march/f5.html

The conclusion of Shortcake's report completely misses the point of the class. She admits she would not have enrolled if she had known the class was religious. I suppose that means she does not realize the importance of religion within psychology. Ask anyone who is overcoming addiction if they feel a connection to a higher power, they will readily agree. She also does not agree with the course content because it openly excludes homosexuals from achieving unity. If she were to think this through it would make logical sense. Women automatically want to conjoin to their partner, lesbian couples are already on that higher level. Homosexual men (if they are lucky enough to find a successful lifetime partnership) cannot achieve that higher level because there is no one to train the other how to achieve it.

The second report I reviewed is written by Chris. His report discussed cognitive behavioral techniques of altering one's perspective of positive and negative emotion. He did not give this particular label to his report's purpose, but while I was reading I came to realize this was precisely what his methods were employing.

Chris' report opens with his opinion on society and the influence of violence. He believes society is violent and this influences mainstream culture to become desensitized to violence. Simultaneous to desensitization is societies growing desire for spirituality, "but not in a religious way". I am really not sure why these opinions are included in the introduction, it is not discussed anymore throughout the report.

Chris designs a experiment concerning emotions. He gives examples of log entries from previous generation sixteen. He does an excellent job of explaining the methods of sampling in these entries. There are several distinct methods of recording one's emotions throughout the day, one is either red or blue or a combination of the two. Red is a negative emotion, blue is positive. He explains this process as the "emotional spin cycle".

An interesting point Chris makes about the cycle is one's emotions are "flip flopping" or "revolving". He believes emotions are habits; we get into a pattern of feeling a certain way, we train ourselves to feel and behave in a specific manner. Chris uses this realization to change his thinking patterns throughout his self observation logging, he coins the term "bridge technique" to explain this phenomenon. I recognized this adaptation as cognitive therapy.

Chris concludes this report with a positive reaction to his therapy. He finds this reversal of emotion to be an efficient method of changing the negative to positive. I find this affirmation to be very encouraging, it is not everyday I hear of one's attempt to change ones' perspective on life. It is of vital importance to maintain a positive outlook if one wants to live a happy, successful and fulfilling life. It is advantageous for psychology majors to attempt various therapies concerning their own lives before suggesting methods to others, this experiment provides that opportunity.

The second report two reviewed is Cheetara's experimental design involving two friends in a partnership. She openly admits to her skepticism concerning the unity model of marriage, she says it is "outdated". She also foretells of her disbelief in God's creation of humanity. I think this biases will influence her observations during her experiment.

Cheetara logs a couples daily activities for two weeks. She records how much time they spend together and the actives they are participating in. Her conclusion concerning the sensorimotor aspect is that these physical activities are what drive their communication and willingness to stay together as a couple. The cognitive aspects are coined "selective and biased" for both individuals. I am unsure of what these terms mean, there was no explanation. The affective is described as "motivations", I am unsure how Cheetara observed these motivations, there is no evidence of interviewing or open-ended surveys. Regardless of methods, Cheetah concludes the boyfriend's motivations are driven by his children, and the girlfriend's motivations are for her own education.

The conclusion of the experiment is the couple's relationship is based on external motivations; their sensorimotor selves. From what I briefly read this is true. Many of their actives require very little dialogue: surfing, television watching, having sex. There was no entries that said "having a conversation over dinner","talking on the phone", "laughing at one another's humor" or anything concerning cognitive or affective self.

An interesting point Cheetara states in her conclusion is "through caring about others one learns to appreciate ones' self". She says through doing this experiment and attending a gender discourse class her dialogue with her father has opened up tremendously. I am unsure of how this class has influenced her relationship with family, but in any case it is better to have an appreciation of the opposite sexes' methods of communicating, regardless of relationship. I appreciate her opinions, although I do not necessarily agree with her.

Report three by Howard concerns the media's influence on relationship's portrayals. She watched several episodes of "Sex and the City" and rated the anti unity values the show portrays. I think this show is not the best example to use when rating anti unity values in a relationship. None of the characters are married, many of them have no steady relationships whatsoever. Unity cannot be examined if there is no commitment. Regardless of this opinion a listing of the anti unity values were incorporated.

There were many values I thought did not apply to the unity model of marriage. The first of several is "women should not go to strip clubs". I totally disagree with this statement. Women do not objectify men while attending strip clubs. It is a social outing involving audience participation, and genuinely harmless entertainment. Generally the female audience is not sexually aroused by the dancing men. Even an unavailable women can participate in this social event, the social aspect is all male strip clubs are intended for.

A statement I totally disagreed with is "women should not have premarital sex because it objectifies the man". Again, women do not objectify men. Generally women are not visually stimulated by seeing a nude male, which makes it impossible to see him as a sex object. Yes women do have one night stands, but the average women would not eagerly have highly orgasmic sex with a stranger.

The statement "women need men to save them" is a very interesting fact of life. We women do need men, just as men need women. The unity model does not seem to argue with this, the two genders work together to form a single functioning unit.

I found it difficult to analyze a report that involved dating women. Of course a woman in the process of "interviewing" will not feel unified to a man, and vice versa. In this regard, until commitment is in action one should feel free to "date around" and think of oneself above their partner is question.

The conclusion of Howard's report three blames the media for influencing perceptions concerning values within a relationship. She believes society is tolerate to inappropriate behaviors because of the media's constant pressure. I do agree with her about this theory. Whenever I do watch television I find sex to be everywhere, on every channel and about every single issue regarding sex. We live in a "sex world". If women wanted society to change its perspective on femininity than all television stations would have to modify their programming to eliminate all suggestive materials. It is not healthy for couples to have preconceived notions of what men and women are like based on what the media says about sex.

The final report I reviewed is authored by Combs. She reports her findings from previous generations and analyzes anti unity values in the media. Her report did not contain many opinions, it is mostly factual and relatively brief.

The first report from Martin is a brief summary of some of Deborah Tannen's research in the gender communication field. She finds women tend to be more aligned and engaged than males. Combs seems to agree with this statement. The second report written by Howard is from Leon James' writings concerning unity in marriage. Comb disagrees with human's innate tendency for evil. She does agree there needs to be an intense amount of unity and no dominance within a marriage for it to succeed. The final report written by Bixel again looks at Tannen's work. She reports women have a tendency to bond over conversations concerning one's serious problems and issues.

The second half of Comb's report is analyzing one episode of "Everyone loves Raymond". I think she should have selected a different episode to analyze, it seems this particular thirty minutes revolved around the issue of Deborah and Raymond's children, not around their relationship as husband and wife. Regardless, some of the anti unity values Combs recognized are: deception of wife, and agreeing to disagree. Neither of these values are explained, she leaves it to the rating scale which is not present in her report.

I thought a very interesting point in Comb's conclusion is the media often portrays women are the wrongdoers in relationships. She also says unity is perceived as negative within mainstream media. I find this to be very true. The quality of men is declining: men do not give up seats, open doors, pay for dates, send flowers, woo his object of affection, etc. This perhaps could be blamed on the media's intolerance to unity. Before the days of sexually explicit television men were gentlemen, now in this modern society men are vulgar and all too often perceived as "sex mongers". I suppose if the shoe fits, wear it.

All of these six reports were fascinating for me to analyze. It helped me tremendously to read another students opinion on many controversial issues. I had the opportunity to really contemplate what I thought about many various gender issue, I even thought a tremendous deal about the role of religion in society. A common theme I saw was the denial of God. This disturbs me quite a bit. Several authors claimed one does not need to believe in God to ascend into heaven upon death. I then came to realize this is not the case. Why would someone go to heaven if they do not want to be there? And if someone denies the existence of the creator of the heavens then they obviously do not want to spend time with him. It is too bad our modern society encourages such an "uncool" attitude towards people who claim to have religion in their lives, it concerns me about the future of the world.


Question 6:

Consider Table 6 in the Lecture Notes, which is in the Section on Making Field Observations. It gives 20 examples of Behavioral Indicators of One's Relationship Model, along with Yes/No specifications for the three models. First explain what this table is trying to show and how it is doing that (give a couple of examples to illustrate concretely). Include brief explanations for what the three models are. Second, create a similar table of 20 new items that you make up yourself, and fill in the Yes/No columns. Calculate the percent overlap. Third, Discuss what your results show and how such an approach could be expanded to help couples be more aware of their interaction pattern.

Table 6 represents higher cognitive functions, including emotions and behaviors, within three levels of marriage. The table exemplifies growth within a marriage through three distinctive levels of behavior that effect a couple. The initial behavioral step is social. The second is happiness, and the third is spiritual. The dominance, equity and unity models critique these three levels through various situational behaviors and relationship indicators within a marriage.

The first (and briefest) level of behavior within a relationship is what has been characterized as the “social” level. This is when a couple maintains outside friendships, encourages their partner to have same-gendared outings, and maintains a emotional separation from their significant other. The couple generally listens to society and cultural stereotypes of gender roles, especially of man dominating women. This level places emphasis on satisfying the drive to live within a cultural norm. According to table 6 the behaviors in the social level concern status between men and women, personal and exclusive activities, and splitting up couples at weddings.

The second level of behavior within a relationship is referred to as “happiness”. This means there is a desire to create a feeling of love, warmth, caring, support, equality, and exclusivity within a relationship. To reach this level a couple gradually becomes dependent on one another, there is no longer a need to maintain outside friendships that may dominate a married couple’s interpersonal relationship. This level encourages a couple to simply “live with” one another, tolerating any differences, opinions, attitudes, and personality quirks. This includes any faults and who they may be as a negative person; there is no discussion, need or want of change. The idea behind behaviors listed in table 6 is the couple is trying to make one another happy through tolerance, agreement and equality.

The third level (and most difficult to reach) is identified as “spiritual”. This is described as an ability to foresee the relationship continuing on in the afterlife. This revelation encourages the husband to change his "bachelor" behaviors, which result in an alignment of husband with wife. As well as heavenly commitment this level is reached when total independence is shed by both partners. They need one another or they feel alone and lost in the world. Their love is so incredibly deep they are desperate for one another; being away from their soul mate is like living without heart or mind. Table 6 displays these behaviors by looking at the deepest, most interpersonal emotions.

Table 6 is describing these three cognitive behavioral levels through examples of behaviors and attitudes within a marriage. The three models (dominance, equity and unity) are designed to indicate whether a couple has advanced to the next stage in their relationship through various behavior indicators. The three models of dominance, equity and unity are used as guides (somewhat of a check list) for the three levels described previously.

The dominance model of marriage agrees with the social levels in relationships. For example, innate status differences are tolerated within this model. This encompasses a variety of different "social" behaviors; the wife playing the "women's role" and husband playing the "leader and head of the household" role. This is considered social because society determines the relationship's dynamics and individual roles. The dominance model also allows separate, personal activities a partner is not involved in. This is social because it allows a husband and wife the opportunity to remain separate and distinct from one another. Remaining isolated also encourages negativity towards a spouse, not alignment, wholeness, and togetherness. A third behavior the dominance model encourages is spitting up married couples at weddings. Culturally this is tradition. Unfortunately allowing society to determine the level of commitment a couple may enjoy is sacrificing higher levels of commitment within a relationship. Undermining the importance of marriage by seating guests separate from their spouse is a social problem within the dominance model.

The Equity model of marriage participates at the happiness level. Couples attempt to emotionally satisfy their partner through equality. No longer one dominates the other. As a couple they no longer react to the social pressures of having to behave a distinct way. There is a basic respect of different interests, opinions and individuality. Along with respect comes tolerating a partner's faults and innate tendencies; the couple simply "lives with" each other and who they are a person, there is no desire to change. Similar to the social level in the dominance model, this level allows for friendships outside the relationship, again this behavior allows a partner to share a part of themselves with someone outside of their marriage. The basic idea about the happiness level within the unity model is the attempt to make a partner happy by tolerating personal differences.

The third and final model is called unity. This is the highest level and is considered to be spiritual. What sets this apart from the previous two levels is deeper commitment a husband must make to his wife through his own intentional and willing changes in behavior. Post enlightenment the husband will do whatever a wife wishes, once the couple no longer exists on this earth they will continue on with their relationship as soul mates in the afterlife. The couple is so codependent they function better together verses separate, in fact when apart the couple feels anxiety. This level of spiritual commitment and love can only be reached when the husband decides to totally align and commit himself with his wife, he must loose his self interest and any negative feelings harbored towards his wife.

This is a table similar to table 6 in Dr. Leon James' lecture notes. The behavior is described, the three yes/no that follow are typical of the dominance, equity and unity models and if that behavior is indicative of the described behavior. What follows from this table is a calculation of percent overlap between the three models and the described behaviors.

Behavior:
Even when a husband "doesn't feel like it" a husband goes out of his way to do what his wife wants.
Dominance: Equity: Unity:
(Dom) (Equ)
No Yes Yes

When partners fight about their children the husband wins because he is the "head" of the household.

Dom: Equ: Unity:
Yes No No

A husband will change his style of dress for his wife if she requests it of him.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
No No Yes

A couple cannot agree on what movie to rent, so they rent two.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
No Yes No

The wife cooks/cleans/care takes because she should. A husband works because that's his role.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
Yes No No

Partners want to be close to one another.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
Yes Yes Yes

A wife does what she's told, even if she disagrees.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
Yes No No

A couple cannot see eye to eye on certain issues so they avoid them out of respect.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
No Yes No

A husband has a deep respect, understanding and obedience to his wife's motivations and decisions.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
No Yes Yes

A husband wants to change for his wife.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
No No Yes

Couples systematically and democratically rotate chores in the family.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
No Yes No

Favors are expected in return.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
Yes Yes No

After a long, hard day a husband does not need to sit and talk to his wife, even if she wants to.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
Yes Yes No

Wives should feel the need to dress sexy for their husbands all of the time.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
Yes No No

Wives make the ultimate decision and husbands should comply.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
No No Yes

A wife should have sex with her husband even if she doesn't feel like it.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
Yes No No

A husband should have sex with his wife even if he doesn't feel like it.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
No No Yes

A partner would die for their significant other.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
Yes No Yes

Partners believe in unconditional love.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
No Yes Yes

A wife needs to care for her husband.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
Yes Yes No        

Percent overlaps:
Dominance Vs Equity: 40% overlap
Dominance Vs Unity: 25% overlap
Equity Vs Unity: 45% overlap

These results show the unity model is most unique to couples. I believe these examples are typical of couples who have recently embarked on a relationship and are just learning how to live with one another. I think the change in lifestyle is especially difficult for men and that is why the unity model is the most difficult to adapt to. It is easiest to satisfy social norms in a immature relationship, the partners are used to having separate lives and relationships outside of the marriage. Once the couple can get past the simplistic social level, they can progress to satisfying one another through an equal relationship, which is easier than completely surrendering oneself to their partner. This is natural progression to a more mature relationship. The third level is relationship maturity, a complete surrendering of self fulfilling behavior and total allegiance to the wife.

Question 8:

Consider Table 5 in the Lecture Notes, which is in the Section on Making Field Observations. It lists Areas of Observation for observing interactions between the partners in a couple. Use some of the listed areas to make observations about the threefold self of a couple you know, or you and your partner as a couple. How do these data help you in assessing the quality of the partners’ relationship in relation to the nine zones of the unity model? How do you explain these observations--what do they show or why are things this way with that couple? Explain how you now understand gender relationships in terms of dominance, equity, unity, biology, culture, and spirituality.

As a couple my parents are best friends, confidants, partners, and equals. And it just so happens they are madly in love. They are soul mates conjoined within the unity model, and I'm confident they will be a couple upon passing thorough heaven's pearly gate. They are constantly thinking of one another and how they might make each other's experience in this life even more desirable. My dad works for his families' well being, while my mom makes the home a wonderful place to spend time. This arrangement works well for both of them. Although they are rather unusual individuals they have to much to offer young couple's who can learn from their strong bonds in marriage.

My mom claims she makes the decisions about the "day to day" issues, but she does gives my dad respect in his decisions when the time comes to make a life changing move. This is out of respect and regard for him as an individual, a man, her husband and an intellectual who is traditionally the head of the household. My dad likes and trusts having my mom make the decisions regarding the families' daily life and functioning.

The first area of observation is how a couple makes decisions regarding their physical selves, preferences, and discourse. My parents are in the unity model in this area of observation. For example, we often rent movies on the weekends. If we ever find ourselves in the video store together my dad completely surrenders himself to my mom's decision of what to rent. She never abuses this privilege either, "Chick flicks" are put on hold until my dad is not present. Not that he would ever turn down the opportunity to spend time with the family, she just spares him of having to watch a corny tear jerker (and frankly I would rather be spared the abuse as well!). The dad's surrendering of power seems insignificant to him, he does not see this gesture as pertaining to their unified relationship. I do see deep significance in allowing my mom the right to rent whatever video she feels like viewing.

By allowing my mom the right to make the decision of how they as couple and us as a family will physically spend our free time together gives her the decision making power in their relationship. My dad trusts my mom with the decision of how to our spend free time and he knows she will not let him down. This is how a couple operates within the unity model. In the equity model of marriage the decision of what to rent would alternate between husband and wife. The dominance model would promote the husband's decision of what video's would be watched and how free time is spent together.

A second area of observation in table 5 is in regards to how a couple thinks of themselves in relation to their partner. These include decision making tactics, opinions and beliefs, and cognitive influence. My parents are very mature in their relationship in this area as well, they are a model for a unified marriage in this area. My parents agree on everything: politics, religion, methods in child rearing, economics, morals, beliefs, etc. If there is ever disagreement between the two it is always my dad who steps down and takes my mom's side. He completely surrenders himself to her decisions regarding anything in life. Thankfully my mom thinks rationally, she never makes foolish decisions based on emotion instability, pressure or impulse. My parents make most decisions together after committed speculation, evaluation and prayer. They are open to each other's opinion, but it seems as though my mom's wisdom take precedence in the family matters.

In regards to the dominance model, the area of cognitive observation would have the man determine the families' decisions. He would always win the arguments because his wife submits herself to his decisions, allowing him to take control, form opinions, and influence her way of thinking. In the equity model "fair is fair" would determine the outcome of any disagreement and "live and let live" would determine a difference of opinion. Often issues will never be discussed due to the very nature of the difference of opinion. Equity marriages promote the idea that if something cannot be resolved, it should not be discussed and the difference itself should be respected.

The third area of observation in table 5 is in regards to how one perceives themselves, the world, and their own soul's existence. These perceptions stem from one's own morality and heart's consciousness and desires. For example, in my parent's marriage they think of each other always. There is never a moment they desire to be apart (although extenuating circumstances prevent this from occurring). As the years go by they grow more in their love, they are now more devoted to one another than they have been ever before, even after thirty three years of marriage.

There is one area they are not in complete devotion to one another, and that is when me or my brother become an issue. My parents have taken the position they will do anything for us, they would even disagree with one another if that meant making our lives easier. My parent's strongly believe in family ties, unconditional love, and only thinking of the children. This does not mean to say my parent's do not think of each other, they equally make decisions in the best interest of the family, not just for each other. They recognize we are one family unit, not a couple with two kids. I see their relationship in the affective to be midway between equity and unity.

Equity encourages thinking of all family members equally when making a decision, this is how my family operates. Unity encourages the husband to listen to his wife's decision regardless of the consequences, and dominance is vice versa. I can appreciate my families' methods in running a functional family, I'm extremely close to my brother, mom and dad. We are a family of best friends. I think if my parent's operated in the unity and dominance models in the affective observation, I would feel left out of the decision making process. And as a rational thinking individual this would offend my intellect and individuality. Some decisions are left out my control, but I'm always included in the reasons behind these decisions.

In terms of the biology, culture and spirituality there must be an underlying respect for personal and innate differences if growth within a relationship is desired. For example, one cannot evolve to the equity model from dominance if there is disrespect coming from the husband towards his wife concerning her femininity, ethic background or religious beliefs and practices influencing her lifestyle. Likewise a couple cannot evolve to the unity model from equity without the husband surrendering his masculine inherited "rights" to being a man, he must surrender himself to his wife's own spirituality and practices. These three areas determine who a complete and whole person is, connecting with the spouse in these areas allows for complete unity as a couple.

Table five relates ideas of how couples function within various stages of marriage, either through the physical senses, thought processes or the innermost being of an individual. I have examined several of the specific observations within these stages and related them to my own experiences observing a marriage which operates within the unity model. I compare my parent's marriage to relationships of others who do not function in the unity model, but rather within the dominance or equity models. I compare these areas of observation to the complete physical individual, including their ethnic background, religious practices, and physical genetic makeup.

Question 12:

Consider Table 9 in the Lecture Notes, which is in the Section on Making Field Observations. It lists two dozen AUVs – anti unity values that are commonly portrayed in the media – soaps, comedy, drama. Select at least two programs for which you can watch several episodes or shows. Briefly describe a few scenes from each show to illustrate the portrayal of gender interactions that are contrary to having a successful marriage. Describe the affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor aspects of these interactions. What are your reactions to these observations? What is your explanation as to why these interactions are portrayed so often? What might be the consequences for couples and society?


The first show I selected is situation comedy "Roseanne", circa 1993. Pre opening credits husband "Dan" sets the stage for the following thirty minute plot. He is planning to hold a reunion at his house. He claims the event is one of the three most important events in his life. Roseanne (Dan's wife of over twenty years) asks him if their wedding day was one of the other two events, he jokingly responds with a negative answer. She blows off his response and does not push the issue. The next scene introduces Roseanne and Dan's daughter Becky and her newly wedded husband Mark. Roseanne asks them if they are ready to eat a home cooked meal and Becky explains they had to stop at a fast food restaurant because Mark could not wait to eat.

The main conflict in this episode is between Becky and Mark. They are already having serious issues and doubts about their new marriage. Mark openly yells at her during the family party. He insists they leave, she objects and he storms out the room and tells her to shut up. She tells him to leave by himself, like he always does, and his response is "I have a better time without you anyway". When they do finally reconcile their differences concerning the party he chooses not to sit by his wife during the families' dinner. Becky later confides in her mother explaining her doubts about their marriage's potential success. She tells her they are no longer sharing a bed, talking or even getting along.

What bothered me most about this extremely dominating relationship was the way Roseanne defended her son-in-law. She told Becky she was acting "spoiled" when she gets mad at Mark for yelling at her. Roseanne tells Becky "he does not cheat on you or beat you, so why are you thinking of leaving him?". I think it is very dangerous to assume a marriage is healthy if there is no physical violence or infidelity. It is worth ending a relationship in which a husband completely dominates his wife, openly violates her individuality, and controls her emotions.

I was pleasantly surprised with Roseanne and Dan's relationship. Although I would not say they are quite at the unity model, they are definitely past dominance and well into equity. Dan includes his wife in his football party, he let's her say her piece and invites her in his card game. When he does embarrass her (which is bound to happen to create an effective plot) she tells him off in private. He then profusely apologizes to her, she then forgives him. In the final scene Roseanne tells Becky she can move back into the families' house. Becky asks Roseanne if she needs to ask Dan's permission, Roseanne laughs and says she never needs to ask Dan's permission for anything.

In terms of the sensorimotor interactions between Dan and Roseanne, they seem completely unified. They do everything together, he includes her in his social affairs and likewise she participates and includes him in her socializing. They physically are attached to one another, they sit near one another, make eye contact when communicating, hold hands, hug and kiss. They talk openly about the first time they made love as a dating couple, and joke about their current sex life. The sensorimotor aspect in Dan and Roseanne's relationship is a good example for how a couple should physically relate to one another.

The sensorimotor aspect in Becky and Mark's relationship is less admirable. They cannot stand doing things together, they do not share space in the same room, they sit apart, never hug, kiss or even openly share their affections. Becky reveals they no longer share the same bed, let only sexual relations. They do not appear to be in love, it is a wonder they married at all.

The cognitive interactions between Dan and Roseanne seem to be at the unity level. They understand, respect, admire and cherish each other. Dan listens to his wife's advice, apologizes when he offends her, trusts her intuition, is proud of her and loves her. Both perceive the other as perfect in all ways, it even seems like Dan cherishes Roseanne more than she seems to lead on. Roseanne jokes about Dan's weight and a pimple on his forehead, Dan shrugs it off and later tells Roseanne she is only getting more beautiful in her age.

Again Becky and Mark's relationship seems false and unrealistic. Becky again revels they no longer talk about anything of value. They do not seem to share any of the same interests or even like one another. This relationship is an extreme example of how a failed marriage may seem. It does not seem to even fit within the dominance model, at least in dominance there may be a little love in the relationship (as unbalanced as the relationship may be).

Finally in the affective aspect Dan and Roseanne are stuck at the equity level of marriage. Dan does fight with his wife about trivial things, he does not seem to let her make all of the decisions concerning the marriage and children. His apologies seem convincing, but his mistakes requiring these apologies seem childish and unenlightened. He does things without thinking of his wife first, he still seems to think of his social relationships and himself above everything else. It seems like Dan still needs his male friends to be happy, likewise Roseanne confides in her sister about issues concerning Dan and their marriage. If they decided to shed seemingly very important outside relationships and consult only each other they might find themselves closer to the unity model.

It almost seems pointless to discuss Becky and Mark's marriage in terms of the affective. They are so far from being connected in the internal sense. They do not even respect one another let alone feel unified enough to shed outside relationships, submit to Becky's desires, love unconditionally or even spend time together as a couple. Their marriage seems completely failed, not even at the emerging dominance level.

The second show I selected to analyze is situation comedy "The King of Queens". The show centers around married couple Doug and Carrie, they are in their early thirties, married for around eight years and have no immediate plans for children. Carrie's dad lives with them in their Queens, New York home. The episode I selected to analyze focuses on the issue of outside relationships.

The opening scene is Doug's friend's surprising him with tickets to an anticipated Met's game. Doug is obviously very excited about the chance to attend (he's an avid sports fan). In the midst of writing a note to his wife she comes home, slumps down on the sofa and exclaims she has just had the worst day of her life. It is obvious to the audience that Doug is not really listening to Carrie's story, he is thinking of only the upcoming sports event. Carrie asks him for a massage which he reluctantly gives her. Once the secret is revealed that Doug has plans to go out with the guys Carrie insists he go, she seems convincing that she truly wants him to have a good time with the boys.

While Doug is gone Carrie attempts to find an outing for herself to be involved in. She does not accomplish this goal. Upon Doug's arrival home Carrie shares with her husband that she is a little down about her lack of friends. She then suggests they spend more time together and forget their "friend night" which occupies their Friday nights and excludes one another from their own personal social life. Doug resists Carrie's suggestion and instead tells her to make friend's of her own.

Carrie does make a new friend, Jessica, who is the newest neighbor on the block. They become very close, very rapidly. During a family dinner (where Jessica is present) Carrie is paying close attention to her girlfriend while Doug is trying to share a story about his day at work. Doug gets upset Carrie does not seem to care about his stories.

Upon returning home from a Friday night spent with Jessica, Carrie shares with Doug she was hit on by the ticket taker at the bowling alley, so he'd "better watch out". Doug then shares he needs to talk to Carrie about their marriage and some issues they are having. Carrie's suggestions of dieting and foreplay are immediately dismissed by Doug who wants to discuss their outside relationships. Doug wants to spend more time together as a couple, he does not want Carrie to spend so much time with Jessica. So in light of this new issue he volunteers himself to go shopping with Carrie the following day.

It is obvious to the viewer Doug is uninvolved and bored with Carrie's dress shopping. He makes no real suggestions or offers her any opinions on the gown she is trying to find for an event for work. So Carrie does what any women would do, she calls her girl friend from the dressing room, has her meet her at the mall and pretend like it is an coincidence they have run into one another. Once Jessica shows up, Doug ditches out on the shopping spree.

In the final scene Doug and Carrie are discussing his obvious jealousy towards Carrie's new relationship. Carrie reassures him she is in love with Doug and likes no one better than him, she just needs a girlfriend. They end up with the agreement it is healthy to have friendships outside the marriage, they kiss and tell each other they love each other. They also agree they are not going to forego their "Friend Friday nights".

In terms of the sensorimotor aspect of their relationship Carrie and Doug seems to be on the equity level. Carrie asks for a massage from Doug, which he does but not without hesitation and obvious negativity towards the request. Doug is obviously astounded by Carrie's beauty, likewise Carrie likes Doug's overweight body and physical demeanor. They seem to be a very affectionate couple, they sleep facing one another, kiss openly and sit near each other. Carrie does make a comment about the lack of foreplay in bed and Doug dismisses her comment. There is obviously a reason she felt she needed to share this information with Doug (perhaps comedy relief) but he did not make any effort to change his behavior. This lack of sexual satisfaction is what is preventing Doug and Carrie from moving on to the unity model.

The cognitive aspects of Carrie and Doug's relationship seems to be at the equity level. They talk to each other as though best friends, not husband and wife. Maintaining outside friendships (which is of obvious importance to both of them) is preventing them from fully understanding and communicating efficiently with one another. They perceive their marriage to be a friendship, they do not fully grasp the concept of how deeply spiritual marriage is, this fundamental misunderstanding is what is preventing them from evolving into the unity model. It seems as though Carrie is not quite ready herself to progress, which is what is the message of the this particular situation comedy.

The affective aspects to Carrie and Doug's relationship is lacking in all levels of marriage. They both seem shallow, mismatched for one another and seemingly they are not really in love. It seems their kisses hold no substance, they are not truly coming from the heart (perhaps this is a lack of skill on the actor's part). Regardless of the circumstances their is no real depth to either of the characters, it is hard to analyze shallow characters affective selves if they do not seem to have an affective self.

Both of these shows show two common examples of how women think they should behave in marriages. Society tells women to let their husband do as they please, in order to build a happy and lasting marriage. Roseanne and Dan's relationship is an example of women encouraging their daughters to "settle" for a man. It is all too often in society women do settle in an unsatisfying marriage. Roseanne and Dan's relationship is a fairly good example of how a happy couple should function in a marriage, they respect and love each other and Dan listens to his wife.

On the other hand, Carrie and Doug's relationship is a terrible example of how to function as a couple. Carrie portrays the "easy going" wife, they are "liberated" by allowing each other to maintain their separate lives and friendships. Modern society encourages women to give their husbands freedom to behave in his own desired way, to not consider the wife or her will. Our culture wants women to submit, even though we are striving for equality.

Both of these relationships are good examples of how married couples are often portrayed in the media. Even though these two shows are designed for entertainment, a child of a single parent household might grow up watching these programs. That child's only exposure to how a couple functions may be through the television media, and that is not healthy.

For a young girl she may watch Carrie and assume it is all right to allow her husband whatever freedoms he desires. She may think it is unimportant to discuss her own feelings and issues. The only thing that may matter to her is that he is satisfying her sexually and financially (although it seems like Doug is doing neither). At an impressionable age the girl may watch Dan and Roseanne and think it is normal to quarrel about insignificant issues, and to forgive without truly letting things go.

For a young boy he may watch Dan and Roseanne's relationship and assume it is normal to "let oneself go" in a marriage. He may see Dan's obesity and assume because he is married his wife is sexually attracted to him and he can appear however he wants. He may see Doug and think it is normal to maintain friendships outside of the marriage, that it is normal when the couple spends their Friday night's apart.


Extra Credit: Question 7;

Analyze the book The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands by Laura Schlessinger. Use the unity marriage model in the Lecture Notes to characterize the threefold self of the husbands that wrote to her. Find 10 brief quotes from what they wrote, and analyze each one, showing the character of their threefold self. Discuss the author’s philosophy or psychology of relationships between men and women. How do you see her approach and what is your evaluation of it?

Dr. Laura Schlessinger, poor women, is stuck in an unhappy, unfulfilling, dominated marriage. She perceives women to be the threat to marriages, regardless of the issue. If a husband cheats on his wife, she obviously was not pleasing him. If a wife works hard then comes home tired and does not give her husband sex, she should. Anything a husband wants should give to him a golden platter, women need to care for their men. Dr. Laura uses real quotes from callers for dominance. Although she believes these examples are beneficial to marriages, they are truly detrimental to couples.


Dr. Laura opens her book with this quote, probably as a joke. Although it is more in-depth into the male psyche than purely entertainment. Men are constantly pigeonholed as either thinking of sex or food. Dr. Laura would argue "submit to a man's sensorimotor aspects and he will never want to leave. To make a man happy all a women need to do is feed him and give him sex". It is pathetic how often times women feel this is all she need to do for her husband to have a successful, lasting marriage. Thanks Dr. Laura! Great advice...

 Women have duties other than caring for their husbands. For a stay at home mom the priority is her children, not arousing her husband at all times of the day. A father should be visually stimulated by his wife caring for his children, even if she is comfortably clad in the privacy of their own home. Dr. Laura would expect women to dress scantily while taking care of the children. How impractical! It is true men are visually stimulated, but the sight of his wife alone should be enough for him to feel aroused, even if she does have sweats on.

If a man needs to be reminded than obviously he is not remembering! If this husband feels like his wife is treating him like a child, then he is probably acting like one. Dr. Laura believes the affective side of every individual male is in part due to his wife's opinion of him. If he perceives himself to be a child, he must act like one, and she treats him like one. Dr. Laura would argue if a man feels like he is being treated like a child, the wife needs to change her perception of her husband and her behavior towards him.

Maybe if this husband gave his wife something else to think about than she would feel like he is satisfying her. Women do not enjoy complaining, it only arises when there is something to complain about. Dr. Laura would agree with this husband that the wife needs to make the cognitive changes about her husband, thus the complaining would cease.


This is true if a husband is united to his wife. But because this quote can be found in the pages of Dr. Laura's dominance book, there is probably some reason why this husband's wife does not trust his abilities. Just because something is adequate does not mean that it is done in its entirety or even properly. Dr. Laura believes wives should be eternally grateful if their husbands do anything besides work and give them satisfying sex; husbands do not need to help out around the house.

"Blame the wife. It is her fault her husband slept with another woman. She was not doing something right in the marriage, she was not satisfying him sexually". Great advice Dr. Laura. Again she puts men on the pedestal in terms of what they put into a marriage and what wives are obviously not putting into marriage. She believes men are driven by their sensorimotor, forget the cognitive (if they love their wives they would not cheat) and especially rubbish to the affective (cheating is spiritually detrimental).

This is a terrible quote. It puts women down for needing emotional intimacy with their husbands. It encourages women to submit to their husbands wills, and not voice their own opinions. Dr. Laura would agree all of these things are vital to a successful marriage. Women should not press their husbands to talk about feelings, nor should they voice their opinions when their husbands do decide to talk.

This quote is funny because it actually puts men down quite a bit. As rational humans, there is an awful lot of cognitive activity going on in the cranium. To say our minds could possible shut off is akin to "brain dead". I suppose this is fairly accurate considering the men that write to Dr. Laura and the wives that agree with her.

Men are stupid. Women do not need to forgive their husbands for this, instead they need to train them how to be smart. Men are deserving of forgiveness for stupid mistakes, although those mistakes will never be forgotten. Dr. Laura would say wives need to forgive their husbands for all their faults regardless of the magnitude.


Funny how men want to be intimate with their wives, and wives only want intimacy through dialogue. This is far from the truth. Women want sex. Men want emotional intimacy. Perhaps not to the same extent, but to say that either sex would deprive the other of what they both want is absolutely ludicrous. Perhaps this husband's wife is "depriving" her husband of sex because he's a complete moron who cannot satisfy her sexually. If he's not doing something right (and he's a moron who does not listen to his wife's advice how to make it better for her) than of course she's not going to want to waste her time having unsatisfying sex!



Advice to future generations:

Expect a challenge. Throughout this semester I was intellectually stimulated, emotionally jolted, physically exhausted and FRUSTRATED! But with all difficult tasks comes a rewarding conclusion if perseverance is in one's vocabulary. The most aggravating aspect of this class was the uploading on my web pages. I truly had no idea had to do this task. Since I have accomplished it I feel much more confident in the abilities of my computer and the skills I have gained to use it to my computer to its fullest potential. I am grateful for taking a class that forced me to learn a new skill concerning technology. I am certain it will help me in the future.

In terms of course content, perserverance is also of utter importance. The concepts are exceptionally difficult to grasp, let alone accept. But if one does understand the ideas than acceptance is not such a long shot. I realized as soon as I completely understood the concepts presented it was easier for me to accept the realities of the ideas. Yes, do keep an open mind, be willing to change precognition's concerning relationships and gender and this class will seem like a breeze (especially if there is previous computer skill!).

Links of interest:

www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy21/classhome-g21.htm
www.soc.hawaii.edu/409bf2004/lacy/409b-g21-report2.htm