While there are differences in the BODY, and resultant differences in what society has enforced as acceptable BEHAVIOR regarding the two sexes, there are more SIMILARITIES than one might realize.
Let's start with the supposition that we are NOT our bodies, but that we are SPIRITUAL beings who inhabit bodies much like drivers who drive cars. You don't have to believe that we are spiritual beings to see how workable it is. Humor me and come along for the ride.
What are the three key ingredients in ANY relationship? Do you know?
COMMUNICATION, COMMUNICATION, COMMUNICATION!
Okay, so that sounds feasible, doesn't it? But, now I must ask you, "Do you know the actual ingredients of an ideal cycle of communication?" If you don't, then how are you going to control any of your communication cycles with another person, especially one of the opposite sex?
Just as the painter must know how to mix his paint colors and how to place those colors upon a canvass in order to obtain his ideal painting, so must the creator of a relationship know the tools of communication in order to obtain his ideal "painting."
It is this lack of understanding of the tools of communication which is responsible for ALL communication breakdowns!
Unfortunately, it takes TWO to tango. So, all parties involved in any communication cycle need to know the tools in order to create the ideal result. But for now, let's just deal with the communication between a man and a woman.
Usually, a man and a woman meet and talk. If that goes well, they meet and talk some more. If that goes well, they get romantic. If that goes well, they date. If that goes well, they get can get married. If that goes well, they may have a family. If all of that goes well, they do not divorce and live happily ever after.
Obviously, things don't always go well and relationships fail. Could there possibly be some tools which could give someone a better chance to make a relationship succeed? YES!
Let's start with a basic formula for the cycle of communication. As with most of my information, it originates from my mentor, L. Ron Hubbard. His definition of a communication cycle is as follows:
"Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention, Attention, Duplication and Understanding."
I know. That's a bit confusing at first. So, let's just break it down for easier understanding.
Joe sees Mary at a party. He's attracted to her. So, he wants to begin or CAUSE a communication with her. Mary is on the other side of the room. So, Joe must make sure his communication reaches her over that DISTANCE. Thus, he walks over to her rather than to yell or send her a note.
Now, he wants Mary to like him. That is the EFFECT or result he hoping to obtain. So, he uses his INTENTION (or desire to make it happen) and places his ATTENTION on her. He then gets her ATTENTION by introducing himself and he hopefully finds out that she DUPLICATED exactly what he said and UNDERSTOOD it by introducing herself to him.
That's simple enough. But, how could even this simple exchange of communication go wrong if one of those steps were not correctly done? Let's take a look.
Joe sees Mary at a party. He's attracted to her. So, he wants to begin or CAUSE a communication with her. Mary is on the other side of the room. So, Joe must make sure his communication reaches her over that DISTANCE. He is too shy to walk over to where she is standing. So, he smiles at her from his side of the room. She does not SEE the smile. Thus, his communication did not travel the distance over to Mary. JOE DID NOT GET HER ATTENTION FIRST! You cannot communicate to a person without having their attention.
Okay, so let's say that Mary WAS looking at Joe when he smiled at her. And then, let's say Mary turned away because she found Joe attractive but was embarrassed. Joe did CAUSE the communication over the DISTANCE. He had Mary's ATTENTION and his INTENTION was to create the EFFECT of her smiling back at him. He did not get the desired EFFECT. What part was missing here?
HE DID NOT DUPLICATE AND UNDERSTAND HER RETURN OF THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE.
Mary was the CAUSE of her response to Joe's smile. That response was a shy turn of her head. She had Joe's ATTENTION over the DISTANCE. But, she lacked the INTENTION to create the EFFECT of showing Joe that she liked his smile. Thus NO DUPLICATION OR UNDERSTANDING took place!!!! Can you see that? Not completing one part of this simple formula can create a total MISUNDERSTANDING.
If Joe knew the communication formula, he could have then wondered why she turned away rather than to assume she rejected his smile. He may have walked over to her and introduced himself to see her response. By further communication with ALL the parts of the formula in tact, he could then know if Mary were really interested or not. This one little item could be the difference between success and failure in creating a relationship. But, I have more to "Cher..."
(If you find this topic of interest and wish to learn a few more tools on how to create a relationship as well as insight into the male/female roles, mental and emotional "filters," female expectations and others such tidbits, please leave a comment on my blog after first joining "google." If I get enough comments and hopefully more people clicking the "FOLLOW" button to join my blog, I will CAUSE more communication over the DISTANCE of the net and "Cher" more personal insights regarding "What Men Should Know About Women.")