Do you prefer a partner you can "save"?

[Anonanonon]

A bit controversial, I guess, however its something I wanted to ask after something a colleague said. Basically, she admitted a big part of what attracted her to her new(ish) partner is the fact he professed to admiring her intelligence (she has a Masters degree, he left school at 16) and the fact she felt she could "really make a difference to his life" (he was unemployed and living with his ex on a council estate when she met him). Her previous relationship, which she finished to see this new guy, was actually pretty egalitarian - she has nothing but praise for her ex and it struck me how that's often seen as the ideal on these Boards. Yet, it wasn't what she wanted. Her new guy doesn't really contribute as much as her ex and is much more the traditional male "emotionally reticent" type (e.g. sulks when he gets upset rather than communicates) but this really doesn't seem to bother her (though I guess, with her ex providing a lot of child care, she doesn't need as much help)!

Then there's another friend, who seems to always date guys where there's some kind of "mothering" involved. The first had serious phobias, the second was a student 15 years her junior and the last was significantly on the ASD spectrum.

I'm not judging their choices - I know love is blind, etc - but it just struck me how these (and other) women seemed to actually prefer and seek out men that would be labelled "cocklodgers" or a "manchild" on these Boards. And, when I see all the complaints here about these types of men, how few decent men there are, how many posts to "LTB", etc I just find myself completely baffled as to why? Do some people just prefer to be the one playing a more parental role in a relationship? And is that necessarily wrong?

Not in a million years! I prefer fully functioning adults.

I think it's co-dependence usually. The need to feel needed, which I think may be rooted in low self esteem, because they don't really believe they can be loved just for themselves in a relationship of give and take, but have to be offering a kind of one-way flow of energy and martyrdom to his altar as well.

Also women are sold this absolute bullshit about the transformative power of love, and that the only thing that matters is you love him. (Spoiler - it isn't and it doesn't).

Also, the social expectation that women are care-givers to men and will do their emotional labour for them.

I would look at her DF and her DF/DM relationship - I think there will be similarities.

God, no. But I certainly know a lot of emotionally unhealthy people who do. They’ve messed their lives up pretty dramatically and lost a lot of people around them for their bad life choices. Personally, I like an equal and to spend my energy developing myself instead of someone else.

No, those sort of men repulse me, no matter how good looking.
I like to be with someone I can respect.

Don't ever get with someone because you think they need saving or you could save them as you'll resent it later when things go off track or don't work out. I've been there.

It's a good question and one I've pondered over more recently. I've definitely been guilty of ending up with men who had some type of issue, maybe that's not the best way to put it. Men who have either had a problem or have had something lacking, which meant I was the care giver or making me the one who gave more than i got. Even my ex husband who was ultimately a nice enough bloke on the surface, but younger than me, shit with money and had no idea how to run a house, manage money or cook when I met him. After him I'd had enough (sub consciously I'd recognised this pattern although I'd never considered it at this point).
My last relationship was controlling and very abusive. I think that I mistook control for strength and he definitely played on the he was a real man and I needed saving aspect of it, which was novel for me. In reality he was more fucked up than anyone else I'd been with.
Months of therapy made me ask the same question you have in your post, a pp touched on the fact that it was definitely a low self esteem thing and ultimately led me to an abusive relationship.
I can now recognise my strengths, my attributes and that gives me the emotional intelligence to accept and develop my weaknesses. If I ever got into a relationship he would have to be my equal, and I don't mean in a materialistic sense. Although I would expect him to be financially viable. I guess I can say I know my worth now.

No, but men who are drawn to me seem to. Luckily I've chosen well.

When I mean save I'm referring to:

Their Mental health issues
Their Financial issues

Mostly

I did this when I was younger and totally learned from it. I would never do it again (I'm happily married now).

The man I was with was awful. I.mean he wasnt particularly a bad person, but wasnt working, no assets, living with friends and just generally on his arse.

I thought if I helped him he would be eternally grateful and love me (didn't realise that at the time). I thought he had been a victim of shit circumstances. I had been at one point too managed to drag myself out of poverty, buy my own house and become liquid.

I honestly was stupid enough to believe I could save this man, then allowed myself to be pulled down by him. Constant battle to make him work, not waste his money and he was a bit of a twat.

You can save animals you can't save men. I'm married to a brilliant man and he is nothing like my ex. I had to work on myself.

I see the types of men like my ex all the time. All excuses and everyone elses fault for problems in their life. They are parasites.

No way. I don't think I've ever planned to be with someone like that... But looking back my first marriage he was.

I had alot of reflecting and a huge boost of self worth since that time and I really set myself some standards after 10 years of a fixer upper.

I'd never do that to myself again.

No I've never been one to deliberately seek someone to rescue, but I was spectacularly bad at knowing when to leave shit relationships when younger. I can see how I could have ended up in that rescuer dynamic if I'd met that type of man - being oblivious to red flags, low self-esteem and a lack of healthy boundaries could easily have headed me down that path. Instead I ended up in a dv relationship (although there was a fair amount of financial abuse/cocklodgery going on too). Not sure my outcome was better...

At a certain point though I realised my choices were making me miserable and sorted my shit out. I guess the rescuer dynamic isn't as painful as being in an abusive situation, so maybe it's easier to ignore the dysfunction than it is to do the work to break those patterns.

It's very easy to look on and think wtf at these relationships, but if you've never experienced a stable, respectful loving environment, you just have no clue what a good relationship looks like, so don't walk away from situations that most people would run screaming from.

I have previously been in relationships with alcoholic men. After the sudden death of my last partner I went into therapy. I'd unconsciously become a 'rescuer' at great cost to me.

Now I'm in a relationship with someone who doesn't need rescuing. The difference is wonderful.

God no. Works the other way too. See also women who claim their DH "saved them".

Hell no

God no.

I have a close family member who has only ever dated partners who are less intelligent than them. I’ve never understood it! I think they did once admit it was a control thing. But no, that’s not for me.

I enjoy having a DP who is (on paper) much more intelligent than I am. It doesn’t always feel like it as he’s not particularly interested in politics or current affairs but he can sort out things easily that make my head spin. I have no interest in someone more complex mental/emotionally than I am. That would be exhausting.

Never felt sorted enough myself to do any rescuing. If anything it's the other way round - I'm not a disaster zone by any means but DP is the kind of rock I could never be for myself.

I've known of a few women who seem drawn repeatedly to being rescuers though. It actually worked in one case, a friend who was at rock bottom in various ways really thrived when he had a partner to support him and they're now happily married - but obviously there's a world of difference between supporting someone who wants to save themselves and trying to take on a project of fixing someone who doesn't want to change.

Some really nasty comments here about how men like that are repulsive. Have a cookie for apparently being born as fully capable and sensible adults but not everyone has been able to swan through life without hitting rock bottom once or twice. I for one am glad I had friends and a partner who could show me sympathy and support at times when I felt as far from a functioning adult as you could get. Showing similar support in return isn't about debasing yourself by becoming a rescuer, it's about showing compassion.

I find men who are uneducated and emotionally unintelligent an absolute turn off.

Do you think she will eventually get bored of the conversations?

God no. I need an equal not a project or another child!

People don’t change and how is it a partnership anyway if one person is saving the other? It’s anything but.

A bit (although DH is different - was very down when we met but it was obviously circumstantial and was quickly resolved).

I remember once looking around at my friends' husbands when we were all gathered together and wondering which one I fancied - the successful high-earning barrister? The triathlete? The renowned journalist? The chap who'd built his own successful business? Ah, no, the monosyllabic emotionally blocked one with a minimum wage job. So I think I'm prone to it. Not sure if it's about saving or being the one to "lead" the relationship.

@Wheresmykimchi

What's that triangle people talk about? I've seen it before. Rescuer, victim....?

Yes, the Karpmann Drama Triangle. Putting yourself in one of the "roles" effectively creates or drags people into the others. So if you position yourself persistently as a Victim, you will attract or force people into being both your Rescuer and your Persecutor, because you need them to make your role work. The roles can also switch - a partner can sometimes be your Rescuer and then switch into berating you for your helplessness and become the Persecutor. The triangle can perpetuate itself endlessly and the only way out is to refuse to be drawn into one of the roles.

I've taken these words, from Alice Sebold's memoir Lucky, as a motto ever since I read them: "No one ever pulls anyone back from anywhere. You save yourself or you remain unsaved."

Also when we focus on fixing other people it means we avoid our own.

Respectabitch does it always start with the victim though? I'm married to a classic rescuer and I've bridled against it and had to do that quite forcefully and we have reached a better balance but if he went off and married someone else that would still be his personality type ifyswim.

@Hampotsandonions

Respectabitch does it always start with the victim though? I'm married to a classic rescuer and I've bridled against it and had to do that quite forcefully and we have reached a better balance but if he went off and married someone else that would still be his personality type ifyswim.

Not necessarily, no. Someone who really likes or gets something from being a Rescuer will try to seek out or create a Victim, yes. And by "create a victim", I don't mean anything sinister, but merely try and position the other person as being in need of rescuing/encourage them tacitly to assume that role.