There is such a vital installation: "Do a good deed, and you will be rewarded handsomely"

This means that you must first give. Need to do good, to get a reply thanks. Must first do the work to get paid for it. What is interesting in books about personal development for wealth and business development are given absolutely the same plant. If you want to earn capital, if you want money, we must first give the money. Do not put stock in it, and give a reason.

Theme of money - the theme of other studies. But the example is indicative. And in two ways, either, "he and she" or "mother and child", the principle of "what you sow, so shall you reap." And this is the problem ... The problem is that we are a society of consumers. Imagine what thoughts come to mind first when planning (in dreams), the Union's future, "he and she? What are the conditions originally blurts out in private conversations? That parties want to conclude párnogo Union? "- That" she "give me? And that "he" will give me? Or - as a "she" will be with me on that?

But "what I would do for him, and that's a" what will I do for her "- such an idea is secondary. But what I want to get - it gets up in the first place. This is the original intent, the original aspiration. And if in a relationship, "two" top consumer dominates over the other, then such a union is conditional business agreement on a joint life. This alliance will not necessarily unstable. But this is not the union, where the main platform has feelings and mutual qualities - love, caring, respect, and the like. Those feelings and qualities without which a woman loses her feminine essence. Those feelings and qualities without which a woman withers - the flower fades. The man is better suited to such options for the relationship.

Here it is the problem of union of two ! In a union, "he and she" two - he and she - equal members of the union. But each requires different initially. It turns out that the approach based on modern manners of consumer disadvantage women in the opportunities and prospects, the foundation of which is spiritual. Men are more inclined towards an alliance, which is based here on this basis: that these relationships can take (getter same, what with his take). Women are more prone to the union, which is based on a different basis: that these relations can be given to invest. In the balance masculine and feminine selfishness altruism. That's the way people. So much we came up with the Creator.

But the syndrome of "consumer society" affects the relationship. Everyone wants to take. Everyone wants to get before. And straightness machismo here is in his comfort zone. A man he had arranged - to take. A woman, with its complex nature, "to sow reasonable, good and eternal" comes in a difficult situation. Get really want. First take. And also want to give. This need for female nature. But if only to give, then the male ego in the beginning will meet their needs and then take even more. Accustomed to receive. And in meeting their needs will assume that life is good and that everyone is happy (he is surely pleased!).

A woman gets into a situation that can be called "heavy women share." Express their desires, that in this situation logically - against the female essence. Similar actions relate primarily to the male kind. And when it becomes truly difficult, then the baton "to cry" takes the man. A woman "through clenched teeth," "bear the cross" of family life and pulls the whole family. Including his "master." And besides, you may want to try to teach a man, tell him, advise ... it's thankless work - to give advice.

The man himself must guess at the request of the woman

I'll give you a situation based on real facts. Names are not interesting, let it be He and She. He came from three or four day trip. And four hours later she has had to go to the airport - the trip. Four hours ... It is time to get done "everything." The first hour - the arrival, things mess, shower ... - no, much like eating. Second hour - the kitchen, a short, modest, but beautiful feast. Spiritual conversation. All done. All have been cooked (to her departure). Pleasant conversation flows like a spring creek. After meeting at the table pleasant conversation "about nothing" by itself has moved onto the bed.

And what was it? Prior to his departure for two hours. Well, what can be done in two hours, if all things in the meeting and preparing to leave already? So in this case described it was two o'clock in the stupid sense of the word. Or a stupid action. He and she had lain two hours in half-asleep (this is after several days of fasting and before a new parting), then the time came, and he took her to the airport. With the thought ... with displeasure. What was subsequently cause changes in the relationship.

And now the theme: He was dissatisfied with her passivity. Two hours of fate itself had meant for sex, for bright orgiosticheskih feelings of love for contact, with deep penetration and violent discharge of passion, accumulated over the previous separation. So what? ... - And nothing ... After the wires first, he emotionally drained in the society of friends-friends. And it is quite possible to assume that further detente has been in sexual contact. But then she was on the plane! Then, presumably, there was something, someone someone rebuke - is unknown and, most importantly, interesting. Let's take a "debriefing". Here. On these pages. Here's what happened. (I emphasize this point of view is exclusively for men, women here do not even ask - uncomfortable somehow "get into the soul", you know?)

He drove to the meeting, passionately desiring her, "would" advance representing something. And somehow implicitly, pictures of my subconscious, it seemed to him the initiative on her part. He did it all out. And she, presumably, make-believe something like that and obviously their own, their pictures. Came up with the initiative on his part. Pictures get something similar, and both are different. In both mental images of the assumed turbulent and passionate (after parting before parting!). But both parties the action itself began with expectations. Empty expectations and ran out of time. Which culminated in dissatisfaction. Maybe in recriminations.

But what was missing? But not enough to say out loud about his desire. He "wants"? He invented? - Well, tell me! She "wants"? She thought of? - Well, tell me! Either directly or allegorically. But do not be silent! Say, if you are not completely stupid. Tell me, if not quite an idiot. Why keep silent, then?! Is a second problem, which is denoted as follows: it is sometimes useful to keep silent. But not in this case! If you have thought of something - say so. If you have something you want - tell me. But when we kopim, kopim. Kopim thoughts and desires. Then they turn into resentment. Here then is really more useful to keep silent. But passively wait for half your guess about your desires is the same nonsense and straight path to conflict or dissolution of the Union.