Adler, like other Humanists, believed that people were not only good, but were constantly striving to be better, and to attain superiority. This is not to be confused with the desire to dominate, but rather to reach one's potential as a human and to contribute to society as much as possible. The negative aspects of this, however, appear in our choosing of love relationships, where we pick mates whom we know we can dominate. These "disturbed relationships", as Adler terms them, where we seek to hold power over a partner, or to choose a partner on the basis of the knowledge of their subordinate tendencies. I have witnessed several of my close friends in such relationships, where they believe that, although their partner is an alcoholic or is abusive, they can change them. Adler also speaks of unrequited love, or that which is unattainable, as a form of marriage avoidance, which, in typical Freudian thinking, may be masking a problem much deeper. Adler's theories, which, while probably more inciting to popular audiences, as their relevance and applicability are quite clear, seem only to focus on a minor part of the collective personality, as termed by Jung, and stem from the all-encompassing pieces of one's personality as described by Freud. So, while Adler's theories are of some importance to the study of personality, I find the latter two psychologists points to be effective. Karen Horney, deemed the feminist psychoanalyst by Funder and Ozer, offer a somewhat different perspective in "The Distrust Between the Sexes", as she explains that, although men and women may not get along because of their envy of each other, this is actually a positive thing. Horney describes the male need for social dominance and power as a direct result of "womb envy", which men experience due to their minor contribution to the formation of life. That