He was so high-maintenance that he was exhausting. Yes, he was depressed--but even after I found him help (difficult enough to do for someone who had lost his job and had no health insurance) he would STILL require me to do all sorts of things for him without offering much in return (except sex--which I was too tired to enjoy).

Eventually, he found a new job, or more accurately his best friend found him a job. Then he proceeded to have an affair with the same friend's wife, breaking up their marriage, and ended up leaving town (with the best-friend's-wife).

My only regret is that I didn't have the chance to kick him out! Thank goodness someone ELSE gets to maintain him now!

Here's a quote from this interview:

"Middle-class men are feeling threatened right now because women don't need men to have a life."

What do you think it feels like to hear that, assuming the author has his facts straight? Everyone needs to feel important, to feel validated, to feel as if they matter, particularly to the person they, say, marry. Just stop for one second and consider what it feels like to be informed that, no, you're not important, no, you're not essential, no, you don't make enough of a difference to be necessary. You're a nice option, like a CD player in a car, but as soon as you can't or don't deliver the goods, you're gone. God help you if you have a problem, or get sick, or need some help,or are blocked for some other reason. Commitment? Principles? Values? Nah. You don't build a life together, you sort of acquire an accessory with a penis.

Any man who wasn't mentally ill would run like his ass was on fire upon hearing something like this. This is the Maureen Dowd symdrom. Be so insecure and so cagey and so competitive that the men in your life are forever being reminded that they're replacable, and then wonder why they're gone. The entire point of a relationship is to be of service and support to the other person, in whatever way you can, and if the other party won't let you out of some adolescent concept of "strength" then the whole thing becomes impossible.

Also, men put up with incredibly high-maintenance garbage every day, and just accept it. Last night my wife picked fights over a) how I gave our children their bath; b) reading them one extra story resulting in them going to sleep fifteen minutes late; c) eating a banana after dinner. This concluded with her, literally, throwing food at my car as I left. Why: because she was premenstrual. This happens all the time, and women insist that men just live with it, which we usually do. But when a man does this, there's a book about it. Unbelievable.

Both men and women need to stop blaming gender for our inability to communicate in relationships. PMS alone doesn't make women trash their husbands' cars,just as testosterone doesn't make men sink into codependent, "drama king" depression. People fight because they have problems with each other, and Japan all these problems on the deficiencies of a single gender is to ensure that they will never be solved.

Both men and women need to stop blaming gender for our inability to communicate in relationships. PMS alone doesn't make women trash their husbands' cars, just as testosterone doesn't make men sink into codependent, "drama king" depression. People fight because they have problems with each other, and to pin all these problems on the deficiencies of a single gender is to ensure that they will never be solved.

Sorry for the earlier error; must be hormones.

Interesting that you were talking about your wife's high-maintenance behavior. I've noticed that the most high-maintenance women tend to be married, and the least high-maintenance ones (the ones who can take care of themselves, and who want a partner and a friend, not a servant or a sugar daddy) tend NOT to be.

I hear complaints all the time (and see the behavior) that men I know put up with, and cannot figure out WHY they put up with it. But it does seem like the most demanding women (the ones who require flowers on every minor holiday, and jewelry on every major holiday; the ones who require a phone call at a certain time every day; the ones who refuse to cook dinner or clean house even though they're unemployed, etc.) are the ones men fall in love with and marry.

I would rather be with someone who wanted my company, than needed me for something I provide. And vice versa.

Why is it insecure to prefer to choose your partner out of want of their company than need for their assets/capabilities?

I thought men hated to be regarded as a walking wallet?

Maybe is it how you regard the difference between "want" and "need"

Oh - it cuts both ways - I see both the drama kings and the queens and the writer is correct - they do seek out people who they can drain, much to their partners detriment.

You rarely see a couple who are both seeking center stage with a neurotic need for reassurance. Though that would be a perfectly deserving pairing, the drama kings and queens of our world need someone to provide the audience.

Women are the sexual gatekeepers, barring rape which is a small percentage of sexual reproduction. They select, reward, and enforce behaviors in men over the generations. Men who behave a certain way are sexually rewarded by procreation of offspring, even in this era of birth control.

It is clear that the man women find most attractive is the one that is pursued by many other women, usually due to an outgoing, flirtatious personality. This archetype is even more preferred than the male with obvious money/power/looks. The social nature of women "anoits" men with attractiveness, a social bias far more powerful in women than in men, who are generally more objective, although the social relativism is still significant.

Strangely enough, that archetype matches quite precisely your "Drama King".

Want to blame this on someone? Go look in the mirror.