— and How to Create It Without Becoming a Simp or an A**hole
I’ve been quiet long enough that a few readers reached out to check on me.
Which, honestly, made me laugh.
Yikes.
I appreciate it, truly. And yes, I’m fine. Nothing bad happened. No implosion, secret drama, or midlife disappearance or makeover. Quite the opposite. I’ve been deeply immersed in building new resources for men and women, around a subject I can’t seem to get away from lately.
Emotional safety.
Men reach out to me about this every few days. I hear from men (and women) with different relationships, histories, and different levels of frustration, but the same distilled questions underneath.
What does emotional safety even mean?
How does a man create emotional safety in a relationship?
How do I know if I’m emotionally safe, or if I’m the problem?
And often, unspoken but loud:
Why does being told I’m “not emotionally safe” feel so insulting?
Most of the men I work with are not dangerous or outwardly volatile men. They’re not threatening or abusive toward their partners. They’ve never been physically aggressive, never tried to intimidate their partner, and would never knowingly make their home unsafe in the ways the word usually implies. So when that label shows up, it doesn’t feel clarifying for most men. It feels confusing, and for many men, deeply unfair.
Let me let you in on a pretty obvious, but often overlooked truth. For a large swath of men, especially between about 35 and 55, no one ever taught us what emotional safety actually is. What we were taught instead was something far more subtle and far more damaging.
To be nice.
Be agreeable. Be helpful. Don’t rock the boat. Anticipate needs. Keep her happy. Smooth things over. Take responsibility for the emotional climate of the relationship, and keep it pegged at 70º even without fail.
And years later, when we are told as men that we aren’t emotionally safe, we’re often staring at a mess we don’t understand how we helped create.
That’s where the “simp” conversation sometimes enters the room.
Why the Word “Simp” Exists at All
“Simp” hasn’t been a part of my vocabulary for most of my life. I’ve been with my wife, Zelda, since I was seventeen. I didn’t date around or spend time in online men’s spaces. I’ve never had an online dating profile, and have never taken my most troubling life and relationship challenges to Reddit for anonymous basement dwellers to help me sort out. To me, “simp” has always been a word thrown around in those arenas, and I have spent little time marinating in this culture.
So when I started hearing the word, usually thrown between men as an insult or a warning, I had to stop and ask what they were actually pointing at.
What I eventually realized is that “simp” is a crude word for a very real pattern.
It’s not about kindness, generosity, or care, but about a man outsourcing his sense of self, safety, and authority to the relationship itself.
And that’s why this word hits a nerve.
A Video That Names the Pattern (But Not the Root)
A few days back, I was scrolling YouTube, actively trying to find something thought-provoking that was not about the Epstein files, ICE raids, or the collapse of the dollar and the Western monetary system, when a title caught my attention.
“The Conversation That Destroys Marriages.”
It’s a great title.
The video is by John Griffin from Life 2.0. I’ll link it later, because it’s worth watching. Not because I agree with what it share, but because it captures something real that many men experience, often for the first time, when they start waking up.
To be clear, John is not directly talking about emotional safety. He’s talking about how men become simps. And on that front, he’s often dead on.
The video centers around a moment most men recognize instantly.
It usually begins on an unremarkable day. You’re tired. You finally get a chance to sit down and relax. You’ve been working hard, providing, handling responsibilities, and your nervous system is enjoying a few moments to start winding down.
And then you hear it.
“You’re not helping enough.”
“You never…”
“You always…”
Sometimes it’s said calmly. Sometimes it’s sharp. Sometimes it’s outright yelling. Sometimes it’s been building for weeks and finally spills over. The delivery varies, but the effect is the same.
What’s happening in that moment is not yet the “mind-reading” accusation. That comes next.
First comes the criticism. The global language. The sense that whatever you’re doing, it isn’t enough, and hasn’t been for a while.
Then, usually after some back-and-forth, some defensiveness, or some silence, it sharpens into something more specific.
“I just need you to know what needs to be done.”
“You should just know what I need without me having to tell you.”
“I don’t want to have to ask.”
This is the pivotal point.
It’s where frustration turns into expectation, and where many men feel the ground shift under their feet. The problem is no longer a missed task or a bad day. It’s now a character issue. Awareness. Attunement. Being the kind of man who just knows.
Most men don’t experience this as a defining moment when it happens. They experience it as irritation, tension, and something they’d really prefer not to repeat. At the same time, many men also feel a genuine concern for their partner, a degree of self-reflection, and an earnest desire to show love by taking her words seriously.
A good man should care about this, right?
And that’s exactly how the simp process begins.
John names this moment well. Where his analysis is helpful is in showing men that this isn’t a one-off misunderstanding or a fluke of a bad week. It’s a pattern, and it’s common.
Where my work diverges is in what we say that moment actually means, and what a man should do next.
What John is Dead On About How Men Become Simps
John’s core observation is simple.
There is a near-universal moment in long-term relationships where a man is told, explicitly or implicitly, that he isn’t enough. He’s not doing enough, noticing enough, or anticipating enough. And when that happens, most men respond by trying harder (because most men subconsciously already believe they aren’t enough.)
They say, “Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.”
They over-function.
They appease.
They accommodate.
They abandon themselves quietly, while telling themselves they’re being loving.
This is exactly how a man becomes a simp.
Not through kindness, generosity, and love, but through neediness, fear of disconnection and externalizing their safety into her moods.
John is spot on about that.
He’s also accurate in saying that this path leads somewhere ugly. Over time, more criticism creeps in, respect erodes, and intimacy and sexual connection often dry up. The man feels evaluated rather than trusted, and he either collapses or hardens.
Where John and I part ways in perspective is not in diagnosing the simp pattern, but in explaining why it happens and what actually reverses it.
Where I See the Root Cause Differently
John frames that initial moment, the “you’re not helping enough” moment, as the beginning of female irrationality, manipulation, or an unfair shifting of responsibility.
I see something else happening underneath.
That moment is often the first time the relationship exposes how both partners are viewing and sourcing safety.
One partner is overwhelmed and externalizing it.
The other is sufficiently controlled, or conditioned, to internalize responsibility and stay that way at all costs.
Most men are rewarded early in life for this. We’re praised for keeping it together, swallowing discomfort, regulating ourselves, and not letting emotion spill out onto others, especially when it comes to our own fear, anger, or confusion. So when pressure shows up in the relationship, we do what we’ve always done.
We pull it inward.
That mismatch is the spark.
Most women, in that moment, are not being malicious or trying to set a trap. They’re experiencing overwhelm that feels so familiar inside their own body that it doesn’t register as private. Or, even if it does, it feels like something that must be expressed, and expressed now.
It feels obvious to them, so they assume it should be obvious to us, too.
That doesn’t make the expectation fair. It makes it human.
But here’s where meaning enters the room.
For many men, female emotional intensity doesn’t just feel uncomfortable. It feels dangerous.
Not logically dangerous, but viscerally so.
We learn early on that angry or distressed women spell trouble in some form. Punishment. Withdrawal. Shaming. Escalation. Loss of peace. Loss of approval. Loss of safety. So when emotion ramps up, especially fast or loud or repetitive emotion, something deep in us reacts.
It feels like a tornado touching down.
Some men may admire a tornado from a distance. A few may even chase them. But most men, when the sky turns green and the wind starts howling, head for a bunker and pray their new double-wide doesn’t turn into splinters.
That’s not a character flaw. That’s meaning-making.
Now flip the lens.
For many women, male emotional withdrawal doesn’t feel neutral or calming. It feels terrifying in its own way.
Flatness. Silence. Unpredictability. The sudden sense that connection is slipping through their fingers. The feeling that the man they’re talking to is no longer really there.
To her nervous system, that absence feels like abandonment in real time.
So here’s what’s actually happening.
She experiences intensity as an attempt to restore connection.
He experiences intensity as a threat to safety.
He experiences withdrawal as regulation.
She experiences withdrawal as danger.
Same moment. Completely different meanings.
This is the point where John sees manipulation to be confronted. But I see dysregulation surfacing for the first time.
And that difference matters, because it determines what kind of man can even exist in the moment that follows.
Why Most Men Can’t Show Up Differently… Yet
Here’s the part that rarely gets talked about on YouTube videos and Instagram reels.
I’m not convinced most men can actually show up differently in that moment yet, not because they’re uncaring, selfish, or weak, but because they are not emotionally safe or secure themselves, and they have never been taught what that even means.
So when the critiques begin, and I’m using that word loosely and intentionally because in many cases there is no malice or cruelty in a woman’s heart, something important gets misunderstood. For many couples, this is the first domino. This is the moment that quietly kicks off a long-overdue growth process for both people, even though it almost never feels like growth at the time.
Earlier, I used the image of a tornado for a reason.
For many men, female emotional intensity doesn’t just feel uncomfortable. It feels dangerous in a very old, bodily way. The sky darkens, the pressure drops, the wind picks up, and something inside us reacts before thought ever has a chance to catch up. We don’t sit around analyzing the weather. We look for cover.
Most men don’t feel brave in that moment. They feel hunted.
So they do what men have always done when a storm hits. They head for a bunker and hope the damage is minimal. That bunker might look like silence, appeasement, frantic fixing, emotional shutdown, or disappearing into self-analysis, but the goal is the same. Survive the storm without everything turning into splinters.
There is, however, a difference between a man who hides from storms (the simp) and a man who can stand in one.
An emotionally safe man isn’t someone who never encounters intensity by managing it really well. He’s someone who has done enough inner work that intensity no longer feels like annihilation. Think Lt. Dan in Forrest Gump, strapped to the mast, laughing in the middle of the hurricane. That steadiness doesn’t come from bravado, dominance, or pretending the storm isn’t real. It comes from a man who has become solid enough inside himself that he no longer needs the weather to change in order to stay present.
Most men aren’t there… yet.
Until they are, emotional intensity will continue to register as threat rather than connection.
Marriage and long-term relationships will naturally bring this to pass in time.
There’s something here for women, too.
Few men feel good being chased by what feels like a Wifenado. Even a good, loving man, who genuinely wants to hear you. When intensity ramps up, most men are not interpreting it as “oh, she’s reach toward me and wants connection.” They’re interpreting it as a threat, an attack, a danger, a failure, or an impending loss. That doesn’t mean women are wrong for feeling what they feel, but it does mean that the way distress is often expressed collides directly with how men naturally respond under pressure.
You might not yet know what actually helps a man stay present in those moments. That doesn’t make you manipulative or malicious. It makes you human. And he is not acting badly when he freezes, withdraws, or goes inward. He is doing exactly what men naturally do when they feel overwhelmed by emotional force.
This is where the meanings we each make become decisive.
John interpreted his wife’s complaints as an attempt to control him rather than to communicate with him. While that is pretty normal, the meanings we give to a moment directly shape how we respond and what happens next. A meaning that she was feeling overwhelmed and didn’t have an effective way of saying so may have led to a different outcome (not that I am judging his outcome)
Both partners tend toward interpreting the other’s response as evidence of something being wrong. She experiences his withdrawal as a lack of care or connection. He experiences her intensity as accusation or threat. Both interpretations make sense, but neither is complete.
Both partners have growth opportunities here, but only insofar as they are willing to let go of the idea that their partner is “doing it wrong.”
Blame never produces deeper connection, intimacy, or togetherness. Insisting your partner is bad, deficient, or unsafe is itself not emotionally safe. You cannot experience more safety from someone by being equally unsafe toward them.
When both partners dig in, when both insist the other must change first, and when both cling to their interpretation as the truth, something locks up.
That is emotional and relational gridlock.
Two Very Different Responses Men Learn
In John’s framework, once a man recognizes the pattern, he’s encouraged to do the opposite of what created the simp dynamic in the first place. Instead of appeasing, he’s told to confront early, set hard boundaries, and be willing to walk.
There is some truth in this, and I affirm it. A man or a woman who is unwilling to lose the relationship will always lose themselves. If a man’s sense of stability depends on keeping the relationship intact at all costs, he is already compromised. The same is true for a woman. Setting aside who you are “for the relationship” is a zero-sum game.
Where I see men get into trouble in this Red Pill–informed approach is in what happens next.
Embedded in this perspective is the idea that a woman can emasculate you, that she can take your masculinity away through criticism, disrespect, or withdrawal. But that belief quietly assumes something that should give us pause. It assumes masculinity is something bestowed by a woman, and something she can revoke.
If that’s true, then masculinity isn’t internal at all. It’s conditional. It’s fragile. It lives outside of you, in her moods, her approval, her behavior. And once you accept that premise, you’re already powerless, no matter how confrontational or detached you become.
A woman cannot emasculate a man unless he already believes his masculinity is something she controls.
That’s the part I want men to slow down and really sit with.
What often happens instead is that men flip strategies without changing the underlying belief system. They don’t actually move from external anchoring to internal authority. They simply invert the polarity. Instead of clinging, they threaten. Instead of appeasing, they withhold. Instead of collapsing inward, they harden outward.
Those shifts can feel intoxicating, especially for someone who has silenced and erased himself for years. Anger can feel like power. Hardness can feel like strength. But anger and hardening are not a clean or integrated form of power. They’re reactive. Just ask Anakin Skywalker how that story ends.
If the only way a man can feel solid is by signaling that he’s ready to leave, he’s still living an externally anchored life. He has just changed the lever he’s pulling. Power becomes leverage. Safety becomes distance. Masculinity becomes opposition.
Follow that road far enough, and the safest place for a man is no longer inside the relationship at all.
Stay single.
Stay guarded.
Stay ready to walk.
For some men, at certain stages, that is the most effective way to stop the hemorrhaging of their core identity. There is nothing inherently wrong with leaving a relationship, choosing solitude, or starting over.
But those are not the only ways to be powerful, and they are not the highest expression of masculinity.
This is where emotional safety finally comes into focus.
Emotional safety is not being nice. It is not appeasing, managing her emotions, or trying to stay one step ahead of disappointment. It is also not threatening to leave, so you can feel solid again. None of those positions is stable, and none of them is actually safe.
I define emotional safety, at least for a man, as …being anchored in myself while remaining relationally present.
An emotionally safe man does not collapse when his partner is distressed, and he does not explode when expectations are unclear. He does not posture, perform, or withdraw in order to feel powerful or protected. He stays with himself instead of disappearing into reactivity or self-erasure.
What that looks like, in real life, is fairly simple, even if it’s not easy. He clarifies rather than guesses. He owns what is his to own, without taking responsibility for what isn’t. He can hear her experience without absorbing it as a verdict on his worth, and he can stay present without rushing to fix, defend, or disappear.
Most importantly, he stops managing her emotional state and takes responsibility for his own.
That is how a man creates emotional safety in a relationship. Not through tactics, scripts, dominance, or submission, but through abiding in his own internal authority even when the world around him feels like a Tornado. When a man is sourced from himself, he no longer needs the relationship to stabilize him, and paradoxically, that’s when he becomes someone a relationship can actually find containment and rest within.
How to Know If You’re Emotionally Safe (or Not)
Emotional safety isn’t a switch you flip. You’re not either “safe” or “unsafe” as a man. It’s a capacity, and like most capacities worth having, it’s built over time from several underlying ingredients working together.
Most men don’t need a checklist to know where they are with this. They already feel it in their bodies and in their reactions.
If you feel compelled to fix her emotions when she’s upset, that’s information. If you notice anxiety rising when she’s unhappy, that’s information. If you find yourself swinging between appeasing her and pulling away to protect yourself, that’s information. If the stability of the relationship determines whether you feel steady or unsteady inside yourself, that’s information too.
None of these are moral failures; they’re indicators. They point to where your sense of safety is being sourced, and where it isn’t yet.
This is the part many men miss.
That early “squawking,” the frustration, the criticism, the tension, often contains an opportunity. Not an opportunity to comply faster or dominate harder, but an opportunity to grow into a deeper kind of groundedness than you’ve ever been asked for before.
When that opportunity is missed, men tend to polarize. Some collapse into appeasement and become simps, losing themselves in the process. Others harden into detachment and call distance “strength.” Both positions feel like relief compared to chaos, but neither one is freedom.
Emotional safety develops when a man builds the internal capacity to stay present under pressure, to remain anchored when intensity shows up, and to hold connection without handing himself over or shutting himself down. That capacity isn’t made of one thing. It’s composed of multiple elements working together, some emotional, some nervous-system related, some deeply tied to identity and self-trust.
I’ll be unpacking those components in more detail soon, because most men were never taught how this capacity is actually built, only how to judge themselves for not having it. If this conversation matters to you, make sure you’re on my email list so you don’t miss what’s coming next.
The Opportunity Most Men Miss
If you’re in this moment, married, partnered, separated, or single, hear this clearly.
This is not a failure. It’s an invitation.
An invitation to live the rest of your days as a grounded, present, masculine man who trusts himself. A man who does not need to manage, appease, or threaten in order to feel solid. A man who can stay connected without losing himself, and stay himself without disconnecting.
You do not need to end your marriage to become that man. You do not need to avoid relationships to stay that man. And if you do choose to leave, you leave from strength, not resentment, not bitterness, and not as an escape.
Marriage is not the goal.
Singleness is not the goal.
Internal authority is the goal.
Helping men navigate this exact territory is what I do. I work with men who are serious about their path, men who are tired of swinging between collapse and detachment, and who are ready to build the kind of internal stability that makes emotional safety possible in real life, not just in theory. If that’s you, you can learn more about working with me here: https://svenmasterson.com/work-with-me
For men who sense there’s a deeper layer to this, but aren’t ready for coaching yet, my book The Unchained Husband maps this ground in detail. It exists because so many men reached the same crossroads, saw the pattern clearly, and didn’t want to swing to the opposite extreme. You can explore the book here: https://unchainedhusbandbook.com
This work isn’t about becoming nicer or harder.
It’s about becoming anchored.
Stay Powerful.
Recent Comments