View Full Version : Difficult to love?
Ultralight
8-23-18, 5:59pm
Do you think some of us are simply more difficult to love than others? Perhaps because of quirks or idiosyncrasies in our personalities?
Williamsmith
8-23-18, 6:08pm
Do you think some of us are simply more difficult to love than others? Perhaps because of quirks or idiosyncrasies in our personalities?
No. People who know how to love, put their partners interests first. It’s that simple. Don’t have to make it complicated.
Teacher Terry
8-23-18, 6:12pm
Every crooked little teapot has a crooked little lid:))
Chicken lady
8-23-18, 6:19pm
I think that there are people it would be hard for me to love, and people it would be hard for you to love, and people it would be hard for Alan to love... but they are probably mostly not the same people.
some people are more able to love, and some people are more likely to be loved because they have traits that make them appeal to more people and meet more people. Rather than more or less loveable, it might be helpful to think of them as broadly or narrowly loveable.
I don’t love the man who beat my heart daughter. But his mother does.
What are you loving?
I love those who exhibit qualities that I appreciate - intelligence, analytical, thoughtful empathic, enthusiastic, serene... These may well be very different than another's choice.
UL, this is not a physical thing at all. There are gorgeous people but I don't love them for that. There are those who are very unique in appearance that I really cherish for who they are in their daily lives including how they think and act.
ApatheticNoMore
8-23-18, 7:05pm
I think some of us make it hard to love us. I'm not referring to you particularly UL, though it could be true, but like I could know that from a discussion board (I mean sure you troll and can be annoying here, but I really don't think a discussion board has that much in common with a relationship). I think *I* do sometimes in relationship, I act in ways that are hard to love (don't imagine anything real extreme mind you, but i get quarrelsome etc.).
I don't know that I believe one must put their partners interest first. One should consider one's partners interest, compromise etc.. But really still isn't one's ultimate responsibility oneself? Yea, I think so. It doesn't mean something silly like one gets everything they want, it is about what it gets down to in a truly hard choice.
Ultralight
8-23-18, 7:36pm
No. People who know how to love, put their partners interests first. It’s that simple. Don’t have to make it complicated.
So if I put my partner's interests first and she puts my interests first I imagine us standing in front of a doorway saying:
"You first, honey."
"No, you."
"Really, I insist."
"I am more insistent."
"Actually, I am the insistentest about you going first."
"No, you!"
And so on.
iris lilies
8-23-18, 8:13pm
Sure, pretty people are easier to love. If they have a spark of wit or smarts, they are easy to adore.
Thats just the way it is here in human land, we humans are vulnerable to beauty.
My bulldogs are beautiful TO ME and I fall in love with them faster than I would long snouted, long legged, smart dogs. I like ‘em dumb, sweet,soft, squishy faced.
Every crooked little teapot has a crooked little lid)
Or there's a lid for every pot...
Teacher Terry
8-24-18, 10:01am
It took me 3 marriages to get it right. I think you need to find someone where your personalities are compatible, you are attracted to them and you really have fun with. 20 years later my husband still makes me laugh daily. Also I really care about his needs as much as my own and he tries to meet my needs.
I feel difficult to love and find it difficult to love.
Commitment I've got covered. I'm a very committed person.
When people say "I love him/her more than the day I married him/her". I don't get that.
Its not that I'm selfish and think only of myself. I do put everything about my husband first. I've done that almost 29 years.
I always wanted some personal space in the bed and in my day. When people say "I could never spend a night away from my spouse", I don't get it. I enjoy time away...enjoy the getting back together too.
I actually don't even like to say the word "love". It's overused and I know I overuse it. "I love that color". "Love those shoes". Etc....
SteveinMN
8-24-18, 11:41am
My initial answer to this question was that I think some people make it harder for others to love them. Sociopathic tendencies, lack of engagement, etc., all can make loving someone difficult.
But then I thought of our dog (stay with me on this, people...). When people ask if I miss our (recently departed) dog I tell them that I don't as much as I thought I would because she was a hard dog to love. Why? She homed in on certain people (me) as a fixation or obsession. She engaged when she wanted to and not at any other time. She didn't do most of the things we typically associate with a dog. But DW loved her. Her foster (whom we let know she passed) was heartbroken; she'd had a tough time parting with Dog when we adopted her.
So obviously the dog was not hard to love, but was hard for me to love. So there's something in the way I reacted to/interpreted the dog's actions that made me think she was -- if not unlovable -- hard to love.
People who know how to love, put their partners interests first.
I can't agree with that. IMHO if you don't love yourself first, you can't love someone else (and mean it). As others have posted, that does not mean you always get your way. There must be compromise and thought put to what your partner wants. I do lots of things for DW that I don't prefer for myself because I know she likes them. But that does not mean I completely subjugate my values or principles. One could argue that one should not be partners with someone who forces that kind of choice, but I don't know anyone who's partnering with a clone of themselves so that those differences dissolve.
When people say "I love him/her more than the day I married him/her". I don't get that.
I think I can say that. Certainly there are the warts in DW that have grown more prominent with time and familiarity. But I have similar warts. What changes is that we have built enough of a track record of loving and demonstrating that love to each other that it becomes easier to forgive (or try to skim over) the foibles. I see how she has supported me in my life (and I in hers). That history -- achieved even when it wasn't convenient or took extra extra effort or when it meant deeply compromising a long-held wish -- deepens the bond. I think that's what people mean when they say that. Maybe love cannot be quantified enough to say there is more of it. But instances of the breadth and depth of that bond can be measured.
Do you think some of us are simply more difficult to love than others? Perhaps because of quirks or idiosyncrasies in our personalities?
yes,yes,yes. Daughter married who seemed like a nice guy. 3 years of hell because he has a terrible mood disorder.
Verbal abuse was common with him and she became very afraid it would become physical. So, yes and people can fool you long as you are not living with them.
I think I can say that. Certainly there are the warts in DW that have grown more prominent with time and familiarity. But I have similar warts. What changes is that we have built enough of a track record of loving and demonstrating that love to each other that it becomes easier to forgive (or try to skim over) the foibles. I see how she has supported me in my life (and I in hers). That history -- achieved even when it wasn't convenient or took extra extra effort or when it meant deeply compromising a long-held wish -- deepens the bond. I think that's what people mean when they say that. Maybe love cannot be quantified enough to say there is more of it. But instances of the breadth and depth of that bond can be measured.
I see it as commitment.
...
When people say "I love him/her more than the day I married him/her". I don't get that.
....
I get it; love grows via shared experiences, kindnesses and hardships, whether lovers are together or apart.
Teacher Terry
8-24-18, 1:09pm
I had commitment down too which is why I stayed in a marriage from hell for 22 years. Would never do that again.
Yeah, I was committed too many years to a marriage that didn't have people who loved each other in it. To each their own on definitions, and I certainly understand the importance of commitment to a long-term relationship/marriage. But my experience is that they're different. Vive la difference! :)
Ultralight
8-25-18, 9:55am
As you may have gathered, my ladyfriend and I went to Splitsville.
iris lilies
8-25-18, 10:31am
That is too bad UL, I didnt know.
As you may have gathered, my ladyfriend and I went to Splitsville.
That's too bad, but I agree with others that if it has to happen, it's better that it happen early in a relationship. Give yourself some time before the next one and enjoy doing whatever you like to do.
Ultralight
8-25-18, 10:55am
Thanks, I am hanging in there. This ain't my first rodeo.
Ultralight
8-25-18, 10:56am
Just listenin' to ol' country songs and layin' low.
Teacher Terry
8-25-18, 2:36pm
No I didn’t guess that and I am sorry.
Chicken lady
8-25-18, 2:51pm
FWIW, I don’t think you seem difficult to love.
there are, however, things about you that might make you difficult to live with. Also, it seems difficult for you to go all in on loving other people. It may not seem like it to you, but again, the standards and characteristics you are looking for really narrow your dating pool. - female, childfree, straight edge, minimalist atheists, with good financial principles, preferably of color, living in or willing to relocate to Columbus. Must like dogs.
i don’t know what happened with your relationship, but my guess is that it’s less you being difficult to love and more you being difficult to live up to and you finding the other person difficult to truly accept.
nobody wants to feel like they are being “settled for.”
catherine
8-29-18, 11:53am
My DS34 is questioning himself in the same way. He broke up with the love of his life a year ago. Now he feels like he's in a relationship desert and he'll never meet anyone. His particular insecurity is the fact that he isn't "a corporate guy making tons of money"--he's a "poor artist" trying to hold on his dream which doesn't seem to be appreciated by the women he dates. That's his interpretation. I have my own.
In any case, I know for sure that my son, and I suspect the same for you, UL, are NOT difficult to love. I tell my son to think about the women he has dated in the past--beautiful (inside and out), lovely women. Were they stupid to have picked him, even if they eventually left him?
I don't know who initiated the break-up with your latest lady friend, but rejection is difficult. Try to get beyond it and recognize your worth. As others have said, you don't know what's around the corner. I love quirky guys myself, and I believe I married one. As Flannery O'Connor said, "A good man is hard to find," so rest assured someone is hoping to find you. And hoping to find my son.
Ultralight
8-29-18, 5:40pm
My DS34 is questioning himself in the same way. He broke up with the love of his life a year ago. Now he feels like he's in a relationship desert and he'll never meet anyone. His particular insecurity is the fact that he isn't "a corporate guy making tons of money"--he's a "poor artist" trying to hold on his dream which doesn't seem to be appreciated by the women he dates. That's his interpretation. I have my own.
In any case, I know for sure that my son, and I suspect the same for you, UL, are NOT difficult to love. I tell my son to think about the women he has dated in the past--beautiful (inside and out), lovely women. Were they stupid to have picked him, even if they eventually left him?
I don't know who initiated the break-up with your latest lady friend, but rejection is difficult. Try to get beyond it and recognize your worth. As others have said, you don't know what's around the corner. I love quirky guys myself, and I believe I married one. As Flannery O'Connor said, "A good man is hard to find," so rest assured someone is hoping to find you. And hoping to find my son.
I am sorry to hear your son is going through this.
My ex-ladyfriend initiated it, though it was a discussion to some degree. I would say it was 65% her and 35% me.
ApatheticNoMore
8-29-18, 6:09pm
I do wonder how minimalism lead to a breakup. It seems odd to me. To the extent I'd guess it was probably something else.
Ultralight
8-29-18, 6:19pm
I do wonder how minimalism lead to a breakup. It seems odd to me. To the extent I'd guess it was probably something else.
It was really a constellation of things. I told her very early one, back in January, that I would need her to sign on to minimalism. She liked the idea and agreed. But when the rubber hit the road she stalled out.
She did not like that I expected some benchmarks to be met over time regarding minimizing.
Her complaints were:
-Sometimes I sound inconsiderate or even mean. I told her that my tone and facial expressions do not line up with my meaning; these things are often not congruent and I asked her to always question this if she thinks I am being inconsiderate or mean. But this was hard, she could not control her impulse to just get upset at me. I tried to say things like: "Listen to just my words when I say this important thing..."
She also was upset that we did not volunteer for causes. This was something she was into. She said: "You'd never do it."
But I did volunteer and have done so for years now! But for atheist causes. She is Xian. So apparently my volunteering did not count. And the causes she wanted to volunteer for did not spark my interest.
She was also very family oriented. Like many black folks in the US she was from a huge, tight-knit family. I did not fit in. I come from a small family that is not close, some might even say cold.
I have a strong personality. She had a strong personality. We'd sometimes just annoy the living F-CK out of each other.
She also finally noted that sharing a passion (a hobby or interest) was really important to her, and we could not land on something that suited us both.
So we called it quits.
Ultralight
8-29-18, 6:27pm
I do wonder how minimalism lead to a breakup. It seems odd to me. To the extent I'd guess it was probably something else.
Here is perhaps a clearer example of how minimalism lead to (in some senses) the break up.
She was saying: "I want to clean out my closets, try to donate the things I don't use. But I just don't know how to start."
I said: "You start by picking up an item and deciding if you want to keep it or get rid of it."
Her: "I know, but when I think of it I just... don't feel like doing it."
Me: "It is hard for me to understand. Minimizing is easy for me; it is not much of a challenge. I'd suggest just tossing it all."
Her: "That is because you are not attached to these things."
At this point I understood the huge gulf between her and I. She got attached to things, even to just having these things, as she did not use them. Whereas I am not attached to anything.
"It was really a constellation of things. I told her very early one, back in January, that I would need her to sign on to minimalism. She liked the idea and agreed. But when the rubber hit the road she stalled out.
She did not like that I expected some benchmarks to be met over time regarding minimizing."
Good God (you should pardon the expression)--you sound like Zoe Girl's boss!
I don't know if this was the on-again off-again woman from months back, but it sounds like she was patient for as long as she could stand it; there was no point in her hanging around. Maybe you'll mellow with age, and maybe you won't, but if I were you I would just fly solo until you do.
Ultralight
8-29-18, 6:42pm
"It was really a constellation of things. I told her very early one, back in January, that I would need her to sign on to minimalism. She liked the idea and agreed. But when the rubber hit the road she stalled out.
She did not like that I expected some benchmarks to be met over time regarding minimizing."
Good God (you should pardon the expression)--you sound like Zoe Girl's boss!
I don't know if this was the on-again off-again woman from months back, but it sounds like she was patient for as long as she could stand it; there was no point in her hanging around. Maybe you'll mellow with age, and maybe you won't, but if I were you I would just fly solo until you do.
She did not like the idea of benchmarks regarding minimalism until I switched it around on her. I asked if there was something, big or small, that she'd really like me to do. She said: "Mop the floor more often."
I said: "Okay, suppose we were going to move in together in a year. And you told me it was important that I mop the floor twice a week. Then I said, 'Great. Will do. I will mop the floor at least twice a week as soon as we move in together'."
She said: "That sounds like a reasonable plan."
I said: "But do you see the flaw? What happens if we move in together and I don't mop the floor? You will feel like you were misled. But let's say I say, 'Okay, I will mop floor twice a week when we move in, and I will prove to you that I will do this by mopping my floor twice a week from now until we move in together. Wouldn't that make you feel more confident in my word that I will mop as often as you need me to?"
She said: "Yes, it would. I see your point now about benchmarks."
Teacher Terry
8-29-18, 6:45pm
Since you weren’t living together benchmarks were not reasonable. You hadn’t taken that step yet. Telling people what to do is controlling. My ex was like that and eventually I got passive aggressive and did everything “wrong “ on purpose.
Ultralight
8-29-18, 6:50pm
Since you weren’t living together benchmarks were not reasonable. You hadn’t taken that step yet. Telling people what to do is controlling. My ex was like that and eventually I got passive aggressive and did everything “wrong “ on purpose.
She was a grown woman with a job and a house and a car. By what means would I be controlling her?
And benchmarks are reasonable leading up to living together. This is one way to tell if you can live together. Did you read my post above about mopping floors?
I can't even reconcile the corporate jargon of "benchmarks" with a real flesh and blood relationship. I would say you could take your benchmarks and stick them up your @$$, on the way out the door.
Teacher Terry
8-29-18, 7:21pm
Right on Jane!
Ultralight
8-29-18, 7:31pm
I can't even reconcile the corporate jargon of "benchmarks" with a real flesh and blood relationship. I would say you could take your benchmarks and stick them up your @$$, on the way out the door.
You are totally untitled to say that, as was she.
Women in the past, and even my most recent ladyfriend, have wanted benchmarks for things. They wanted benchmarks leading to marriage. These benchmarks showed them that I was moving toward the type of committed relationship that they wanted.
These things involved:
-Exclusive monogamy
-Dog merges
-Meeting her family
-Meeting her friends
-Meeting my family
-Celebrating her birthday together
-Taking a trip together
-Spending nights at each other's apartments
And so on.
Should I have told her to stick these things up her @$$ on the way out the door?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Right?
Ultralight
8-29-18, 7:32pm
Also: How does one expect to get what they want in a relationship without asking for it? Please Jane and Terry, oracles of wisdom, explain.
Teacher Terry
8-29-18, 7:34pm
Compromise but not setting benchmarks to be achieved.
Ultralight
8-29-18, 7:36pm
Compromise but not setting benchmarks to be achieved.
Explain. Give me some real life examples.
Teacher Terry
8-29-18, 7:40pm
Okay so DH messy and I am not. We finally came up with the idea that he could have some messy zones. For instance, his office, shed and garage plus his dresser. This didn’t happen overnight and took us awhile to come up with. We were perfect in many ways but still had issues to work out.
Ultralight
8-29-18, 7:40pm
Also, it is beyond me how asking your significant other to do something important to you and then expecting them to follow through after they told you they would is controlling. Seriously. Wow. Your line of "reasoning" astounds me.
Let's say I was a heavy smoker. And my significant other said: "It is important to me that you quit smoking, for your health and so I can spend more time with you. I hate smoke. Will you quit by October 1st?"
Then I say: "Yes, I know smoking is bad. I will smoke one less ciggy a day until then, at which point I will be down to zero smokes a day."
Then my significant other is apparently a controlling, totalitarian tyrant when she expects me to follow through with quitting the cancer sticks. Makes perfect sense.
Also, it is beyond me how asking your significant other to do something important to you and then expecting them to follow through after they told you they would is controlling. Seriously. Wow. Your line of "reasoning" astounds me.
Let's say I was a heavy smoker. And my significant other said: "It is important to me that you quit smoking, for your health and so I can spend more time with you. I hate smoke. Will you quit by October 1st?"
Then I say: "Yes, I know smoking is bad. I will smoke one less ciggy a day until then, at which point I will be down to zero smokes a day."
Then my significant other is apparently a controlling, totalitarian tyrant when she expects me to follow through with quitting the cancer sticks. Makes perfect sense.
I think that you have the wrong spin on that. Here is a real-life example. I know I can't "demand" my DH stops smoking, but I can tell him that he is not allowed to smoke in the house. One time I found out he wasn't honoring my boundary and I went nuts. I don't think he realized how important it was to me that he not smoke anywhere in our home. After that he stopped smoking in the house.
You can't control other people's behavior but you can establish boundaries. There's a huge difference.
ETA: I don't for one moment believe that if you were a real smoker that quitting would come that easily. ("Oh, OK, I'll smoke one less cigarette a day. No problem."). I don't think you understand nicotine addiction.
Teacher Terry
8-29-18, 7:54pm
Changing behavior is very difficult no matter how much you love someone and eventually you will resent them. In the smoking scenario it is likely to fail. My 2nd husband didn’t smoke when we got married and that was important to me. Then s year after getting married we had our first child and he passed out cigars at work. He smoked the extras and was hooked again. I was not happy about my kids being around smoke. He would not compromise by smoking outside. Our youngest got asthma at 1yo and he felt guilty and quit. Then he wouldn’t let anyone smoke in our house. A compromise has to work for both people and usually neither person gets entirely what they want.
Teacher Terry
8-29-18, 7:57pm
My dad tried to quit smoking so many times. By 54 he had to take a disability retirement. By 59 could no longer do anything but watch TV. Him and my mom didn’t get to travel in retirement. It wasn’t that he didn’t want to quit but he couldn’t.
Ultralight
8-29-18, 8:03pm
I think that you have the wrong spin on that. Here is a real-life example. I know I can't "demand" my DH stops smoking, but I can tell him that he is not allowed to smoke in the house. One time I found out he wasn't honoring my boundary and I went nuts. I don't think he realized how important it was to me that he not smoke anywhere in our home. After that he stopped smoking in the house.
You can't control other people's behavior but you can establish boundaries. There's a huge difference.
ETA: I don't for one moment believe that if you were a real smoker that quitting would come that easily. ("Oh, OK, I'll smoke one less cigarette a day. No problem."). I don't think you understand nicotine addiction.
By telling him he cannot smoke in his own home you are quite literally demanding he change his behavior. And you admittedly "went nuts" as the consequence.
Do you really think you are not controlling him and changing his behavior? Wow. I mean, this is a shocking level of lack of self awareness.
I smoked for a year when I was a teenager. Pack a day when I was 13. I also smoked a ton of cigars then too. I quit when I was 14, cold turkey.
Teacher Terry
8-29-18, 8:17pm
Compromise is he smokes outside. She didn’t demand that he quit. Win-win!
UL it seems obvious to me that you value your various identity markers more than relationships. There's nothing wrong with that, but it will always affect personal relationships, more often than not negatively. I think you should just get used to it.
By telling him he cannot smoke in his own home you are quite literally demanding he change his behavior. And you admittedly "went nuts" as the consequence.
Do you really think you are not controlling him and changing his behavior? Wow. I mean, this is a shocking level of lack of self awareness.
I smoked for a year when I was a teenager. Pack a day when I was 13. I also smoked a ton of cigars then too. I quit when I was 14, cold turkey.
No, I am not controlling him. He's an adult. He can smoke all he wants. But the house is co-owned and co-habited and I have a right to ask him to smoke outside. The reason I went nuts is because I trusted that he was taking my request seriously, but he betrayed that trust.
Ultralight
8-29-18, 8:33pm
UL it seems obvious to me that you value your various identity markers more than relationships.
Explain more...
Explain more...
You value the strict constraints of minimalism and atheism more than the element of compromise required for any close relationship. Expecting others to adapt to your requirements will never work.
Teacher Terry
8-29-18, 8:54pm
You nailed it Alan!
Ultralight
8-29-18, 9:02pm
You nailed it Alan!
I would love for you to explain how he "nailed it." Really, please do.
Ultralight
8-29-18, 9:06pm
You value the strict constraints of minimalism and atheism more than the element of compromise required for any close relationship. Expecting others to adapt to your requirements will never work.
For minimalism, that is true. For atheism, no. I am willing to compromise on that. I'd date a religious person and we can agree to disagree.
I am actually open to compromise about minimalism too, to some degree.
For instance, I would be open to having a totally minimalist apartment where all the shared areas are minimalist. But my partner could do whatever to her our room.
Here is another thing I would be open to: If I was dating a Christian partner and she wanted me to go to church on Sundays, I would -- if she went minimalist. That would be a compromise I would be open too.
I would not believe in Christ, and she would not believe in Minimalism. But we'd both do what the other wanted, and if that worked for us then great.
I would much rather she be an atheist and a minimalist because she was truly into it though, obviously.
iris lilies
8-29-18, 9:15pm
I dont get why, UL, you think you can actually share space when you have such rigid standards. Give up that idea. I noticed above that you gave a hypothetical that you could live with someone where all of your shared space is minimal, but one room could be hers to keep all of her stuff in as she likes.
Think about that—the majority of the space has to meet your standards.
Why, in the spirit of compromise, couldn’t you have one room in your space that is clean clear and minimalist to your satisfaction and the rest of the space meets
HER standards?
Chicken lady
8-29-18, 9:29pm
UL, you commented in the past about attracting submissive women, and seemed upset about it. But your approach with the benchmarks and the assigning spaces, and clarity about what you will and won’t accept, and the way you communicate it, are all the sort of markers that submissive women respond to. And honestly, I think you might do better in that dating pool. Not all submissive are masochists - which I think is what really upset you. But they are almost universally looking for someone who has his (since we’re talking about you) sh*t together and will help them get/keep theirs together. And they respond well to being told what to do. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t smart, or independent or self-sufficient. It just means that when you announce it’s time to clean out the closet, or eat at the poverty level, or start an exercise routine, or read particular books, they are all in.
I think UL should only date women who already meets his requirements, rather than trying to change them.
Chicken lady
8-30-18, 5:11am
Sure, but UL can’t find any women who already meet his requirements. So, if he’s going to try to change them, starting with one willing to be changed seems like a good idea.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 6:38am
Think about that—the majority of the space has to meet your standards.
Why, in the spirit of compromise, couldn’t you have one room in your space that is clean clear and minimalist to your satisfaction and the rest of the space meets
HER standards?
Why should the majority of the space meet her standards and not mine?
I have the right to ask for what I want. I also am well within my rights to terminate a relationship if I am unhappy with it for any reason. I am also within my rights to say: "Minimize or we break up."
A significant other is within her rights to ask for what she wants or to terminate a relationship for any reason. She is also well within her rights to make an ultimatum based on something important to her.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 6:39am
UL, you commented in the past about attracting submissive women, and seemed upset about it. But your approach with the benchmarks and the assigning spaces, and clarity about what you will and won’t accept, and the way you communicate it, are all the sort of markers that submissive women respond to. And honestly, I think you might do better in that dating pool. Not all submissive are masochists - which I think is what really upset you. But they are almost universally looking for someone who has his (since we’re talking about you) sh*t together and will help them get/keep theirs together. And they respond well to being told what to do. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t smart, or independent or self-sufficient. It just means that when you announce it’s time to clean out the closet, or eat at the poverty level, or start an exercise routine, or read particular books, they are all in.
You make some good points. Bring on the submissives!
Ultralight
8-30-18, 6:40am
I think UL should only date women who already meets his requirements, rather than trying to change them.
That'd be nice!
Ultralight
8-30-18, 7:29am
UL it seems obvious to me that you value your various identity markers more than relationships.
What Alan does not seem to understand is that "identity markers" usually come with certain practices, certain ways of life.
A heavy metal guitar shredder, for instance, probably wants to play loud guitar and listen to Ozzy at high volume.
A Buddhist probably wants quiet time and space to to meditate for long periods frequently.
Now sure, a Buddhist and metal guitarist could find compromises, like the Bhuddist could say: "No playing guitar in your own home."
And maybe certain people would think that is simply asking for a reasonable compromise. But the guitarist might think: "In my own home? This request is an affront to my identity and what I love doing! That is not compromise."
Identity markers aren't just: "I am a _______".
Identity markers mean: "I do ______"
I have the right to ask for what I want. I also am well within my rights to terminate a relationship if I am unhappy with it for any reason. I am also within my rights to say: "Minimize or we break up."
You're absolutely correct. You also have the right to start threads that are titled "difficult to love". ;)
Ultralight
8-30-18, 8:12am
You're absolutely correct. You also have the right to start threads that are titled "difficult to love". ;)
And people can ignore or join in the threads. The moderators can delete them or tell me not to create threads.
I know I can't "demand" my DH stops smoking, but I can tell him that he is not allowed to smoke in the house.
No, I am not controlling him. He's an adult. He can smoke all he wants. But the house is co-owned and co-habited and I have a right to ask him to smoke outside.
And he has a right to refuse the request. Not trying to be "that guy" (and not indicating agreement with UL's approach to relationships) but the first quote upthread does not imply negotiation; it sets what I believe UL calls a "benchmark" and I can understand why he views it no differently than how he views a minimalist home he shares with his partner (the "who-gets-the-room-that-meets-their-preference" discussion).
I think couples negotiate things that they will and will not do. If someone goes and does something behind someone's back, like has an affair or opens a credit card and runs up secret debt--that will lead to a feeling of betrayal and a rupture in the relationship. Only the couple determines what are those boundaries in the relationship. For some it might be smoking in house after agreeing not to, letting dog run off leash when it is unsafe to do so, voting for Donald Trump, owning too many tschokes (sp?), speeding, speaking to partner in a cold tone of voice, bringing up old grievances, or sponge painting the front hall (a real life example from my own marriage, that my first husband could not forgive me for doing)-- these are all things that people might elect to fight about or break up over.
It sounds like in the OP's case, the couple could not agree on mutual boundaries and realized it was a good idea for both of them to part. It's inevitable to feel grief at any parting, but unless the love bringing you together outweighs the problems tearing you apart, being together is not going to work and it's better to end it.
And of course it still hurts a lot!! Sorry for your pain, OP.
I have the right to ask for what I want. I also am well within my rights to terminate a relationship if I am unhappy with it for any reason. I am also within my rights to say: "Minimize or we break up."
Which brings us to this latest in the ongoing series of threads regarding your love life. Maybe it will be different next time, good luck!
catherine
8-30-18, 10:19am
And he has a right to refuse the request. Not trying to be "that guy" (and not indicating agreement with UL's approach to relationships) but the first quote upthread does not imply negotiation; it sets what I believe UL calls a "benchmark" and I can understand why he views it no differently than how he views a minimalist home he shares with his partner (the "who-gets-the-room-that-meets-their-preference" discussion).
Hmmm.. what's the difference between a benchmark and a boundary? And if something is really important to someone is it wrong to establish non-negotiables?
If DH said to me, "scr*w you, I'm smoking in my house," then I'd have to determine whether I'd be willing to compromise. Would I separate or divorce my husband over this? I don't know.
BTW, I agree with you that my no-smoking boundary is like UL's expectation that he has a right to a minimal living space if that's important to him. I've already said that.
dado potato
8-30-18, 10:44am
Live, Love, Laugh...
2469
LIVE simply, dream big. Be grateful. Give LOVE. LAUGH lots
-- Pillow Cushion
Ya know I was thinking about my marriage (ended many years ago after 15 years). I was vegetarian, punk kid, Buddhist. My ex was meat eater, metal head and pot smoker. So we had things to work out. He came home high and drunk and woke me up so I said no way. That was a boundary of respect. However his family were hunters, I never tried to change that about him. I talked to him and his dad because I didn't understand it, I came from the suburbs, and actually changed my mind a little when I learned about responsible hunting. It was frustrating that I was teased the entire time about my food! But that kinda happened everywhere I went even with my own family. After awhile with kid food allergies we changed to eating meat, I had to learn how to cook everything. Still the entire time we were vegetarian he could cook meat to go with the meal, I never had an issue with it and it was not something I kept score on. I simply didn't know how to cook meat safely or in a way that was edible and I cooked almost all the meals.
I think I get the sense from this that there is a scorecard or a fixed sense of the relationship. Even in 15 years there were many things that changed and we had to negotiate, even after we were divorced. I asked that with guns our son attend hunter safety classes (he never expected the girls to have guns). I also checked in before I shaved the kids' heads into mowhawks. After the divorce it was hard not to keep a compromise checklist, still we were able to negotiate some things and both have a bottom line.
Turns out that the difference between punk and metal was a total non-concern. Our kids like The Clash and Metalica.
Teacher Terry
8-30-18, 11:26am
Ultimatums do not make for good relationships. It is not a win-win. Without compromise a relationship will not last or will be full of resentment. The very definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Keep taking that spoiled milk out of the refrigerator, take a drink and be shocked it’s still spoiled and then put it back for the next day.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 5:15pm
Ultimatums do not make for good relationships. It is not a win-win.
Compromises are not win-win. They are various quantities win-win, lose-lose, win-lose, and lose-win.
Have you ever compromised on anything?
Ultralight
8-30-18, 5:17pm
BTW, I agree with you that my no-smoking boundary is like UL's expectation that he has a right to a minimal living space if that's important to him. I've already said that.
So why don't you call your "boundary" what it is? An ultimatum. "Either you smoke outside the home or I go nuts and maybe worse."
If you called it what it is you'd probably get some flack like I get on here.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 5:18pm
Which brings us to this latest in the ongoing series of threads regarding your love life. Maybe it will be different next time, good luck!
I actually laughed out loud at this.
And thanks for the well wishes. I appreciate it.
ApatheticNoMore
8-30-18, 5:21pm
of course the whole thing might work better if you didn't live together (many a minimalist argument averted anyway).
Ultralight
8-30-18, 5:28pm
of course the whole thing might work better if you didn't live together (many a minimalist argument averted anyway).
Living together is a huge draw for me though, as I could save roughly $500+ a month on living expenses (rent and utils, etc.).
Teacher Terry
8-30-18, 5:31pm
I compromise all the time. I have spent most of my life married so am the queen of compromise.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 5:37pm
I compromise all the time. I have spent most of my life married so am the queen of compromise.
Then you would know compromise is not win-win. As I said, it is a combination of winning and losing.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 5:54pm
Ya know I was thinking about my marriage (ended many years ago after 15 years). I was vegetarian, punk kid, Buddhist. My ex was meat eater, metal head and pot smoker. So we had things to work out.
I have noticed that for Normies finding a partner or spouse is pretty easy because there are so many of them. I remember going to the park on a perfect spring day a few years ago. I saw so many couples there -- almost all were Normies.
I remember thinking: "If you put them all in a big bag, shook the bag up, and then dumped them all out in different configurations they'd all still be pretty happy with their new partners because they are unremarkable people with common preferences and tastes. They all like the same sports team, the same movies, the same shows, the same music, and so on. They all do the same hobbies."
No so for the weirdos! We need to find just the right other weirdo. But since there are so few weirdos and so few just-the-right weirdos we weirdos are often tempted to date another kind of weirdo because it is like: "At least we have the mutual feeling and experience of being a weirdo in a world of Normies, right?"
Well, unfortunately that does not usually work out well either.
So why don't you call your "boundary" what it is? An ultimatum. "Either you smoke outside the home or I go nuts and maybe worse."
If you called it what it is you'd probably get some flack like I get on here.
There is a big difference between a boundary and an ultimatum. Believe me, I've spent a decade in Al-Anon and I know the difference.
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-28073/how-to-distinguish-a-boundary-from-an-ultimatum-why-its-essential-to-relationships.html
https://vickitidwellpalmer.com/requests-demands-ultimatums/
https://www.kclanderson.com/surprising-difference-boundary-ultimatum/
https://www.lynneforrest.com/clearing-story/dealing-with-strife-hardship-coping-with-life/2009/09/setting-boundaries-or-delivering-ultimatums/
https://www.affairrecovery.com/qa-whats-difference-between-boundary-and-ultimatum
I could go on and on. Google it yourself.
BTW, as I said, I "went nuts" because I was disappointed and frustrated. He did not honor my boundary (and frankly, it wasn't the first time). There are many reasons why I feel strongly about this boundary, including the fact that my mother died of emphysema, but that's irrelevant.
If you asked someone to do or not do something because it was important to you and they continued doing it or not doing it, you would be disappointed and frustrated, too.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 6:04pm
There is a big difference between a boundary and an ultimatum. Believe me, I've spent a decade in Al-Anon and I know the difference.
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-28073/how-to-distinguish-a-boundary-from-an-ultimatum-why-its-essential-to-relationships.html
https://www.kclanderson.com/surprising-difference-boundary-ultimatum/
https://www.lynneforrest.com/clearing-story/dealing-with-strife-hardship-coping-with-life/2009/09/setting-boundaries-or-delivering-ultimatums/
https://www.affairrecovery.com/qa-whats-difference-between-boundary-and-ultimatum
I could go on and on. Google it yourself.
Okay, my boundary is: "No clutter in my home at all; everything must be minimized."
Hey, that was easy! Now I have a boundary instead of an ultimatum! Cool!
Chicken lady
8-30-18, 6:38pm
UL, I really appreciate your weirdo comment.
a few years ago, my adult Dd was working alongside a family friend and some other young adults, and a teen they were working with began talking about her parent’s upcoming divorce. The family friend (whose parents are divorced) asked another of the adults “how old were you when your parents got divorced?” And one by one, all the other adults shared with the kid that they too had been through a parental divorce at age []. Until only my Dd was left. And the family friend looked at her and said “your parents will never get divorced. They are both too weird to ever date anyone else.
Years ago, I had was at a party with an incredibly supercilious character who, at one point, surveyed the crowd and said something like "Look at them--they all think they're having a good time..." My unspoken thought was "I know they're having a far better time than I am." Shortly after that, I developed a mysterious headache and had him take me home. Your comment about "normies" made me think of him.
Teacher Terry
8-30-18, 7:07pm
If people were just happy with anyone there wouldn’t be so many divorces. Setting a boundary that probably eliminates 95% of the population doesn’t make for good odds of finding a partner. Do you want to be right or happy? Compromise can be a win win done correctly where you really listen to each other. If you can’t then the relationship is not right or having your own way is more important than the other person.
I've known both married and unmarried partners who lived separately. That way you could maintain your space the way you like it.
Chicken lady
8-30-18, 7:22pm
Looked at another way, if people were pickier there wouldn’t be so many divorces.
40-50% of US marriages end in divorce. I wonder what percentage of the population they eliminated?
statistically speaking, I eliminated all of it. I eliminated people I never met, women, gay men, people who were already married, people who were still children, people who were more than a few years older than I, and smokers.
then I started getting picky about what was left. Eventually, I eliminated everyone but dh. Dh is literally the only person I ever considered marrying.
ps, as I always provide contrast to TT - I frequently remind dh that compromise is when nobody gets what they want.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 7:31pm
If people were just happy with anyone there wouldn’t be so many divorces. Setting a boundary that probably eliminates 95% of the population doesn’t make for good odds of finding a partner. Do you want to be right or happy? Compromise can be a win win done correctly where you really listen to each other. If you can’t then the relationship is not right or having your own way is more important than the other person.
The "do you want to be right or happy" sound byte is a false dichotomy. Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
Your comment about divorce rates actually proves my point. Consider "divorce" the bag that the normies get shaken up in. They end up marrying other, very similar normies when they remarry. And they are just has happy or unhappy as before with their previous normies.
Also I love the whole idea of "listening" to each other. It is important to "make sure everyone feels heard." And be sure "everyone has a voice." Sure. Yeah. lol.
What I am saying is that just because you listen to someone does not mean that you or they will do anything as a result of the listening. But keep the hippy-dippy ideas comin'! And I will keep hammering them with reality.
ps, as I always provide contrast to TT - I frequently remind dh that compromise is when nobody gets what they want.
Well, even though UL called me a controlling deliverer of ultimatums, I don't believe that compromise is when nobody gets what they want. In my case (and I'm seriously starting to regret I got personal on this thread) I actually conceded that DH could smoke in his office. This was still difficult for me because the smoke still travels through air ducts, etc and still causes my own clothes to stink (according to my daughter), but it was a compromise. As I said, in VT DH is very happy in his "man-cave" and I'm very happy with a smoke-free house.
Inability to compromise is a risk factor for violence, so I am on Teacher Terry's side.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 7:36pm
Well, even though UL called me a controlling deliverer of ultimatums, I don't believe that compromise is when nobody gets what they want.
This is untrue. I did not call you any names.
In my case (and I'm seriously starting to regret I got personal on this thread) I actually conceded that DH could smoke in his office. This was still difficult for me because the smoke still travels through air ducts, etc and still causes my own clothes to stink (according to my daughter), but it was a compromise. As I said, in VT DH is very happy in his "man-cave" and I'm very happy with a smoke-free house.
Not what I would call a win-win.
Inability to compromise is a risk factor for violence, so I am on Teacher Terry's side.
What do you mean?
Not what I would call a win-win.
In my situation, what would you call a win-win? I'm curious.
What do you mean?
I mean that if people are so rigidly devoted to their own whatever-it-may-be and are not willing to negotiate AT ALL, the buck will stop somewhere and the person who wants what they want will inevitably fight for it.
Teacher Terry
8-30-18, 7:59pm
Carry on with your dismal beliefs about people, benchmarks etc and cuddle up with that on a cold night. Me I prefer to be happy, compromise and enjoy my life with my husband.
Teacher Terry
8-30-18, 8:03pm
IL, I am curious did you drop out of the social work program?
Ultralight
8-30-18, 8:08pm
IL, I am curious did you drop out of the social work program?
I withdrew, despite getting excellent grades. It was not a good fit for someone like me.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 8:10pm
In my situation, what would you call a win-win? I'm curious.
I would call your situation highly compromised, especially for you.
Win-win situations are very rare.
I mean that if people are so rigidly devoted to their own whatever-it-may-be and are not willing to negotiate AT ALL, the buck will stop somewhere and the person who wants what they want will inevitably fight for it.
You like literally fight, like fisticuffs?
Ultralight
8-30-18, 8:13pm
Carry on with your dismal beliefs about people, benchmarks etc and cuddle up with that on a cold night.
Not sure how to take this...
Me I prefer to be happy, compromise and enjoy my life with my husband.
Good on you! I am sincerely glad to know you are happy. :)
Teacher Terry
8-30-18, 8:13pm
I am sure you did well as you appear to be intelligent. I understand why it was not a good fit. I doubt Catherine means physically fight.
Chicken lady
8-30-18, 8:14pm
So Teacher Terry, there is the difference. You “enjoy your life with your husband.” From that, one assumes you are happy in your compromise with your husband. Therefor, you found someone who met all the metrics on which you could not compromise. But UL can not find anyone who does that. So he would not be happy with any of his options to date. Probably because your list was shorter.
if your husband was exactly the same, but he beat you a couple times a week, you would probably not be happy with your compromise. The fact that most people (one could certainly argue “all rational people”) would not equate those beatings with UL’s lady having a pile of crap all over the kitchen counter, does not necessarily make that pile any less intolerable to UL.
Chicken lady
8-30-18, 8:15pm
(I got the impression Catherine did.)
Ultralight
8-30-18, 8:19pm
I am sure you did well as you appear to be intelligent. I understand why it was not a good fit.
I doubt Catherine means physically fight.
Thanks.
Catherine used the word "violence." So I think she did mean fight. But that is unfortunate. I don't really see people physically fighting over things like smoking in the house or clutter. I mean, that'd be totally crazy. like CRAZE-BALLZ level of crazy.
Heck, break up or divorce. But don't get violent.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 8:21pm
So Teacher Terry, there is the difference. You “enjoy your life with your husband.” From that, one assumes you are happy in your compromise with your husband. Therefor, you found someone who met all the metrics on which you could not compromise. But UL can not find anyone who does that. So he would not be happy with any of his options to date. Probably because your list was shorter.
if your husband was exactly the same, but he beat you a couple times a week, you would probably not be happy with your compromise. The fact that most people (one could certainly argue “all rational people”) would not equate those beatings with UL’s lady having a pile of crap all over the kitchen counter, does not necessarily make that pile any less intolerable to UL.
You express ideas clearly that I cannot seem to express well.
Chicken lady
8-30-18, 8:24pm
Thanks, but most of what I say doesn’t make any sense to her either.
We’re learning to compromise. ;)
Ultralight
8-30-18, 8:34pm
Good point.
Ultralight
8-30-18, 8:39pm
CL: You are leaving me in suspense with that PM! lol
Teacher Terry
8-30-18, 11:16pm
What I have seen is that when people become rigid and have such unbending standards they end up alone. If you are fine with that great. I know someone on another forum where they bought houses next door to each other and that has worked for them for 30 years. You want to share expenses so that won’t work. Maybe get a submissive mail order bride. CL already suggested submissive. My husband and I value our marriage after being in bad ones and also want to please one another. On this forum it sounds like many of us older folks are in good satisfying marriages. Nothing is perfect. Getting older and having friends lose spouses has made me very aware that life can be short.
Gardenarian
8-31-18, 12:09am
I agree, TT.
I think the thing is not to look for someone who is completely compatible with you, but to seek out people who are flexible, open-minded, and caring. (It helps if you are these things yourself :)
My DH is extremely noisy (he's a professional sax player) and I'm a quiet, bookish person. We make space for the other person to be themselves.
In recent years that has meant literal space - we have a spread-out house plus he has a separate music/recording studio. But we started off in a 1 bedroom apartment.
I have fairly low expectations from relationships. You have to make your own happiness, whether you're with someone else or not.
I think this dichotomy between normies and weirdos is self-defeating. Who would call themself a normie? It's like your question about being "basic." Why the need to put people in little boxes?
ApatheticNoMore
8-31-18, 1:30am
I may be one of those outliers who is probably with their partner in part because me and him are very similar people (and it was eerily apparent even early on). I wasn't demanding it, it just happened, there are still downsides.
Ultralight
8-31-18, 7:00am
Maybe get a submissive mail order bride.
Tell me more.
Ultralight
8-31-18, 7:01am
I may be one of those outliers who is probably with their partner in part because me and him are very similar people (and it was eerily apparent even early on). I wasn't demanding it, it just happened, there are still downsides.
Good for you all! Glad to hear it.
I agree, TT.
I think this dichotomy between normies and weirdos is self-defeating. Who would call themself a normie? It's like your question about being "basic." Why the need to put people in little boxes?
I realized that some years ago, I was not developing friendships because I saw myself as too odd. Then I realized it was more me than them, just avoiding rejection because maybe they would reject me. Actually developing some friendships with 'normies' over shared things (I love when my younger friends have babies) showed me that I was being limited. It also helped me get out of some of my bad habits, like obsessing about some things.
Sometimes I do try to explain neuro-typical as compared to people with differences, like when working with children or even myself and the way I need to process. When I work with people with some basic kindness and social awareness it rarely comes up however.
Ultralight
8-31-18, 7:47am
I think this dichotomy between normies and weirdos is self-defeating. Who would call themself a normie? It's like your question about being "basic." Why the need to put people in little boxes?
Who would call themselves weirdos? People who are honest with themselves. I am a weirdo. I am cool with it. My sis and BIL are normies and I love them.
Why put people in categories? Because it is really handy. Why give a person a name like Dave or Sue or Mike or Sally? It is really handy.
Why call someone a sax player? Why not call them "a particular individual who plays the sax?"
Because it is handy, shorter, and get the point across better.
Thanks.
Catherine used the word "violence." So I think she did mean fight. But that is unfortunate. I don't really see people physically fighting over things like smoking in the house or clutter. I mean, that'd be totally crazy. like CRAZE-BALLZ level of crazy.
Heck, break up or divorce. But don't get violent.
I meant violence in a very, very broad way. You could say that when countries can't compromise, violence of the physical nature very often breaks out in the form of war, or also in the form of revolutions like the American Revolution, French Revolution, or also think of the trouble between the Irish and the English back when Sinn Fein was around.
But when individuals refuse to budge or compromise with each other especially in relationships, in my mind it's a form of violence. The person unwilling to give over something to their partner is exerting some kind of power, or the person who submits and subjugates their own wishes to the other is in a sense committing violence against themselves in the form of resentment or anger.
When I think of violence in the broadest, most esoteric way, I think of Krishnamurti who said:
The source of violence is the `me', the ego, the self, which expresses itself in so many ways - in division, in trying to become or be somebody - which divides itself as the `me' and the `not me', as the unconscious and the conscious; the `me' that identifies with the family or not with the family, with the community or not with the community and so on. It is like a stone dropped in a lake: the waves spread and spread, at the centre is the `me'. As long as the `me' survives in any form, very subtly or grossly, there must be violence.
Inability to compromise is very often a display of the ego working, IMHO.
Ultralight
8-31-18, 8:38am
But when individuals refuse to budge or compromise with each other especially in relationships, in my mind it's a form of violence. The person unwilling to give over something to their partner is exerting some kind of power, or the person who submits and subjugates their own wishes to the other is in a sense committing violence against themselves in the form of resentment or anger.
You mean "thought violence" and "word violence?"
Oooookay...
Conflating violence with a bunch of stuff that is not violence is incredibly dangerous and does a disservice to people who have been victims of violence.
You mean "thought violence" and "word violence?"
Oooookay...
Conflating violence with a bunch of stuff that is not violence is incredibly dangerous and does a disservice to people who have been victims of violence.
Not true. There are scads of people damaged by emotional abuse (violence). Would you call the actions of cyberbullies to be violent? Wikipedia says:
Violence can be divided into three broad categories:[2]
self-directed violence
interpersonal violence
collective violence
Violent acts can be:
physical
sexual
psychological
emotional
What I’m getting from this string is that many people view relationships as a transactional, art of the deal sort of thing. There’s certainly an element of that in reducing the friction of living together, but I think the best return on investment is earned through a sort of self-interested humility.
In my case, it was when I put aside the superficial stuff and minor irritants and even some value differences, and went with someone who was clearly a kinder, braver, wiser person than me. It was that simple. After all these years I’m still a little astonished she stays with me. We need to work out any number of differences in any number of areas, but neither side is too worried about a win/loss record.
If you can get past that initial checklist phase, marrying a better person than you are means you have years to discover the treasures of courage and generosity and resilience the inevitable bad times will reveal. This normie/weirdo stuff will seem fairly childish. Disagreements over money or child management or vacations will seem fairly trivial.
I’m not sure how you go about it exactly. Luck (or grace) or maybe a certain studied insensitivity probably plays a part.
I'm with DAHL, surprisingly. "Don't sweat the small stuff, and it's all small stuff" seems to apply to many areas of one's life.
I'm with DAHL, surprisingly. "Don't sweat the small stuff, and it's all small stuff" seems to apply to many areas of one's life.
Maybe it’s one of those things that requires old age and getting punched in the face by life a few times to really appreciate.
Chicken lady
8-31-18, 9:59am
By definition, only one person in a marriage can marry someone who is “a better person” than the other. You might mean that you should seek out someone who has more or stronger depth of the traits you value than you yourself do, but UL doesn’t seem to be even that picky.
person A cares deeply about the environment and the gas usage of the household.
person B loves monster trucks.
person A refuses to compromise and they buy a leaf. So, person A has committed violence against person B?
Person B refuses to compromise and they get a monster truck. person B has committed violence against person A?
they “compromise” and get a small SUV. They both hate driving it and are unhappy every time they look at it, but no violence has been committed?
person A accepts that monster trucks are important to person B and chooses to accept the monster truck because person B’s happiness is more important to person A than person A’s feelings about the environment. Person A has removed ego from the situation and feels no anger or resentment about the choice. No violence has been committed?
all relationships are transactional. Every single example above is a transaction. The participants may or may not be keeping score - which is different.
By definition, only one person in a marriage can marry someone who is “a better person” than the other.
You’re assuming that to be an objective, measurable attribute like specific gravity. For value judgments, it’s quite possible for both parties to consider themselves to be getting a better “deal”. Eliminate the zero sum thinking, and the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.
Living together is a huge draw for me though, as I could save roughly $500+ a month on living expenses (rent and utils, etc.).
Just an observation here... the boundary of "all common spaces must be minimalist" currently costs you $500+ a month. That's 84,203.49 over 10 years.
Chicken lady
8-31-18, 10:50am
Yes LDAHL, that’s what I meant by “you might mean...”
Just an observation here... the boundary of "all common spaces must be minimalist" currently costs you $500+ a month. That's 84,203.49 over 10 years.
How do you calculate that?
Just an observation here... the boundary of "all common spaces must be minimalist" currently costs you $500+ a month. That's 84,203.49 over 10 years.
I have to say that money has never, ever entered my mind where relationships are concerned. I believe in paying my own way and I probably wouldn't want to support someone else financially for an extended period of time. But that hasn't come up.
Teacher Terry
8-31-18, 11:31am
This idea that compromise leaves no one happy may happen for some people but in my world and many of my friends compromise works well for both people.
catherine
8-31-18, 11:35am
I have to say that money has never, ever entered my mind where relationships are concerned. I believe in paying my own way and I probably wouldn't want to support someone else financially for an extended period of time. But that hasn't come up.
I think merince is thinking of the "opportunity cost"--and I don't think it's unusual for people to think of money when considering their relationships. Some people get married in their late 50s to take advantage of Social Security benefits, for example. It sounds like money would enter your mind if you you wound up supporting someone else financially for an extended period of time. I've heard money is the #1 thing couples fight about. Sad but true.
Money isn't a big factor in my relationship, either.
iris lilies
8-31-18, 11:43am
I have to say that money has never, ever entered my mind where relationships are concerned. I believe in paying my own way and I probably wouldn't want to support someone else financially for an extended period of time. But that hasn't come up.
Money, money handling, values surrounding money, all were of utmost importance in my mind in choosing a spouse.
ApatheticNoMore
8-31-18, 11:51am
well I think you could also see it as not paying the cost of having your own place or side by side duplexes or whatever (if that's what it really takes because of minimalism) might be costing one a relationship that in other ways added a great deal to one's life. So there is that. Yea I'm assuming one isn't going bankrupt in the meantime, if one is well then different choices make sense. It assumes stable middle class incomes, which I'd say government work is, if anything on earth is. But I could be wrong.
I have to say that money has never, ever entered my mind where relationships are concerned. I believe in paying my own way and I probably wouldn't want to support someone else financially for an extended period of time. But that hasn't come up.
I believe in it, I'm just increasingly at a loss as to how to make it happen ...
Money never entered my mind, so if we end up living in a van together because homelessness and neither of us having great choices of opportunities, well money did not enter my mind suffice to say .... and that really is the truth. :~). Before my present partner I dated a guy who could never seem to save up enough money to get a car (because of a very low income frankly), he asked if I saw it as shameful, not owning a car, no sir, I found it ADMIRABLE in many ways ... (cars are destroying the world afterall). Still I had a car even if that makes me a rotten person.
Money, in general, is important only in that I have enough to support myself adequately. I've taken and endured jobs I didn't much like in order to have that "enough." Other than that, I have no interest in it; investing and all the surrounding issues is a complete snoozer to me. That might change if I approached it as a game or something, but probably not.
Chicken lady
8-31-18, 11:57am
I think compromise works best for people who don’t actually care very much and people who are already in the same ballpark.
example - when dh and I chose flooring, I wanted really dark floors and he wanted really light. I picked up a sample and said “no lighter than this.” And he said “no darker than that.” And I said “we have a winner.” We also chose our silverware by crossing out all the ones we each hated and buying the one that was left, and named our son by dh choosing his initials, me making a list of name combinations with those initials, and dh choosing the one he liked best.
There are other areas in our lives where compromise is simply not possible. I minimized those by choosing dh. I would not have married a smoker because there is no acceptable comprise for me between “I smoke” and “you do not ever smoke.” I dated my last smoker when I was 15. Then I dated a guy whose dad smoked and put “parents smoke” on my unacceptable list. Dh didn’t add anything to my list. And he met all the essential check marks. So I married him.
How do you calculate that?
I used the Bankrate savings calculator.
Teacher Terry
8-31-18, 12:09pm
Money was not important to me in choosing a partner. It never was but the third time even less so because I wanted to be compatible with someone and just have fun and be happy.
I used the Bankrate savings calculator.
That would assume about a 6.5% cost of capital for UL.
I think compromise works best for people who don’t actually care very much and people who are already in the same ballpark.
example - when dh and I chose flooring, I wanted really dark floors and he wanted really light. I picked up a sample and said “no lighter than this.” And he said “no darker than that.” And I said “we have a winner.” We also chose our silverware by crossing out all the ones we each hated and buying the one that was left, and named our son by dh choosing his initials, me making a list of name combinations with those initials, and dh choosing the one he liked best.
There are other areas in our lives where compromise is simply not possible. I minimized those by choosing dh. I would not have married a smoker because there is no acceptable comprise for me between “I smoke” and “you do not ever smoke.” I dated my last smoker when I was 15. Then I dated a guy whose dad smoked and put “parents smoke” on my unacceptable list. Dh didn’t add anything to my list. And he met all the essential check marks. So I married him.
You excluded people on the basis of the parent’s habits?
Teacher Terry
8-31-18, 12:35pm
I also find that totally bizarre too. But then she ended up with a crazy mean MIL. I would rather have a sweet smoker for a inlaw.
Chicken lady
8-31-18, 12:37pm
Yes. Having children was a core goal for me. My grandfather smoked. I contemplated the effect smoking was going to have on my relationship with my in laws and how I interacted in their relationship with my children and how that might complicate my relationship with my spouse, and decided my life would be much easier if I didn’t date the sons of smokers.
Chicken lady
8-31-18, 12:39pm
I’d rather have my crazy mil. My kids completely understand that she is crazy and neither my husband nor society in general have ever criticized my attempts to protect myself or my kids from her.
Teacher Terry
8-31-18, 12:46pm
We always asked smokers to smoke outside no matter who they were. Problem solved. My first MIL was crazy and it was not fun. The last 2 were sweet. The last one was a smoker who smoked outside.
mschrisgo2
8-31-18, 12:49pm
I totally get looking a parents' habits! If I had only paid attention ... twice... the breaking points were family values that played out in everyday habits.
Chicken lady
8-31-18, 12:52pm
Do you ask them to smoke outside their own houses? Refuse to visit? No one has ever been upset by this? And by “we” you mean you and your spouse were in agreement. I suppose I could have asked the sons of smokers “are you ok with me never visiting your parents or allowing my children to be in their home if they smoke inside and are you ok with me requiring them to only smoke in places the smoke will not drift into my breathing or living space even if the weather is horrible?” before getting involved with them....
Chicken lady
8-31-18, 12:55pm
Had I realized my mil was crazy sooner, I would have brought it up sooner and I suppose dh and I would have broken up or he would have gotten the mental health help he needed sooner, or both.
Teacher Terry
8-31-18, 1:06pm
My MIL smoked outside voluntarily when we visited because I have asthma.
I suppose it’s just a matter of time before they start marketing premarital genetic testing to the general public.
I suppose it’s just a matter of time before they start marketing premarital genetic testing to the general public.
That would be really, really useful to head off the possibility of recessive-borne genetic diseases like Cystic Fibrosis.
And some thoughts on LDAHLs criticism of the transactional relationship
a) I had no idea that a Reagan Republican accountant could be such a romantic! LDAHL, I'm sure your wife is lucky to have you, too.
b) I think that overall the "gestalt" of a relationship is the key thing in most cases--the gut feeling. Sometimes your gut sends you the wrong signals, though, like when you were brought up in an abusive environment and you look to repeat history or rewrite your family script, which happens a lot. In those cases you must go with your head.
c) The "transactional" part in today's culture is more about the day-to-day stuff. So I can be an incurable romantic and run off with my soul mate without thinking about it, but there are still going to be every day details to negotiate. He wants to golf, I want him to go shopping with me. He doesn't like my college friends; I want him to be my escort at the reunion. I don't believe in corporate punishment; he thinks a little swat on the backside now and then is a necessary "correction".
d) In prior days, transaction was all there was. There were dowries, and family arrangements before the kids were old enough to hold hands. I have a friend whose mother picked his wife, much as a casting director chooses an actor. When he met her at his engagement party he told his mother, "Mom, you did good!" As Tevye said in Fiddler on the Roof; "Love..it's a new style."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_y9F5St4j0
And some thoughts on LDAHLs criticism of the transactional relationship
a) I had no idea that a Reagan Republican accountant could be such a romantic! LDAHL, I'm sure your wife is lucky to have you, too.
b) I think that overall the "gestalt" of a relationship is the key thing in most cases--the gut feeling. Sometimes your gut sends you the wrong signals, though, like when you were brought up in an abusive environment and you look to repeat history or rewrite your family script, which happens a lot. In those cases you must go with your head.
c) The "transactional" part in today's culture is more about the day-to-day stuff. So I can be an incurable romantic and run off with my soul mate without thinking about it, but there are still going to be every day details to negotiate. He wants to golf, I want him to go shopping with me. He doesn't like my college friends; I want him to be my escort at the reunion. I don't believe in corporate punishment; he thinks a little swat on the backside now and then is a necessary "correction".
d) In prior days, transaction was all there was. There were dowries, and family arrangements before the kids were old enough to hold hands. I have a friend whose mother picked his wife, much as a casting director chooses an actor. When he met her at his engagement party he told his mother, "Mom, you did good!" As Tevye said in Fiddler on the Roof; "Love..it's a new style."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_y9F5St4j0
Conservatism is an essentially romantic worldview. It is rooted in gratitude for the hard won achievements bequeathed us from the past rather than resentment for their shortcomings. It asserts the primacy of the individual and voluntary associations over top down social engineering overseen by an elite. It believes good government is the product of a virtuous society rather than the other way around. Conservatives talk about the shining city on the hill. Their opposition carps “You didn’t build that”.
It demands personal responsibility as the prerequisite for personal freedom. Or course that is a hopelessly romantic view.
It demands personal responsibility as the prerequisite for personal freedom. Or course that is a hopelessly romantic view.And may its adherents never falter.
Worthy political philosophy; we could use a few of its adherents in government. Maybe after we get rid of the current crop of toadies, thieves, frauds, and poseurs, we can vote some in.
This normie/weirdo stuff will seem fairly childish.
This is what I would expect a normie to say, not that I am saying you are one.
If the words normie and weirdo don't sit right with you, try this:
-Think of normies as people who live very conventional lives, very normative lives within the dominant culture.
-Think of weirdos as people who don't live conventional, normative lives; or think of weirdos as people who manage to live just conventionally enough to get by in this society while spending all their free time doing their weird stuff or thinking their weird ideas.
Here is a couple good pieces of philosophy about living an unconventional life. The first part is by Alan Watts. The second part is by Charles Bukowski. It addresses the normie and weirdo stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwPoVmDSgH4
What do you believe “conventional” means? Boring types with stable relationships, gainful employment, not especially interested in drawing attention?
“Weirdo” in this case simply seems to be a way to congratulate oneself for being unique. I would suspect the vast majority of the population would class themselves that way.
We all want to be special.
Many times I thought I was unique. Then I would read a news story about “many Americans have started doing this new thing” ... and I would realize that I’m one of them ... and not that special.
😄
Teacher Terry
9-2-18, 12:19am
We all want to take care of ourselves and not depend on others. But life has a way of intervening for some people.
ApatheticNoMore
9-2-18, 2:23am
What do you believe “conventional” means? Boring types with stable relationships, gainful employment, not especially interested in drawing attention?
those for whom it comes naturally maybe. For others it comes sometimes but only under strain or in some cases after great difficulty.
Think of weirdos as people who don't live conventional, normative lives; or think of weirdos as people who manage to live just conventionally enough to get by in this society while spending all their free time doing their weird stuff or thinking their weird ideas.
frankly I doubt one can be much of a weirdo and live conventionally enough to get by really, the demands for conformity these days are greater than that imo. I may often have done so, but ... what kind of fool would follow me.
What's the (quantitative) difference between a "weirdo" and a "normie" with a kink (or two)?
Specious labels.
I don't think such categorization is at all useful; it just puts more distance between us--but humans seem to love labels and rankings. To some, I'm a normie, to others a weirdo, depending on point of view. It makes not the slightest difference in my life.
Chicken lady
9-2-18, 11:03am
“Everybody is somebody else’s weirdo” - Scott Adams.
i think it depends on how closely you adhere to the norms of your particular social group/society and how tolerant of deviation that particular social group/society is. If you have a high level of conformity or a highly tolerant cohort, it is going to be easier to find a mate.
When I started doing my husband's geneaology, I discovered so many weird interconnections of time and place in our background, such as our grandmothers being from the same town in Iowa, etc. Then, I discovered that we have at least four sets of grandparents in common so we are actually related.
I think the ancestors got us together.
When I started doing my husband's geneaology, I discovered so many weird interconnections of time and place in our background, such as our grandmothers being from the same town in Iowa, etc. Then, I discovered that we have at least four sets of grandparents in common so we are actually related.
I think the ancestors got us together.
Those kinds of discoveries are the catnip of genealogy.
What do you believe “conventional” means? Boring types with stable relationships, gainful employment, not especially interested in drawing attention?
No, not necessarily. Some weirdos have stable relationships, but they could be polyamorous, for instance. And this would rapidly move them into weirdoville. But a more normative style of relationship would likely make a person more of a normie, like if they met their spouse in their last year of college, got engaged two years later, then got married, then had a couple kids and bought a mini-van.
See how this works?
“Weirdo” in this case simply seems to be a way to congratulate oneself for being unique. I would suspect the vast majority of the population would class themselves that way.
Congratulating yourself for being unique? I am sure some folks do that. Heck, I have known some that do. Being a weirdo can be a bit of a mild curse. It is harder to find "your people." It is harder to find a partner who suits you well. Being non-normative also makes career success trickier and harder.
But I also know folks who congratulate themselves on being normies and look down on weirdos.
I also don't think that unique is an especially good term to use to describe weirdos. I think different is probably a better word, and different than the norm is probably a better phrase. Unique implies betters, like: "Billy is such a unique musician." People would think Billy is a better musician because he is labeled unique. But he could be unique because his style is horrible and ear-punishing.
We all want to be special.
Many times I thought I was unique. Then I would read a news story about “many Americans have started doing this new thing” ... and I would realize that I’m one of them ... and not that special.
I dunno about that. My sister never wanted to be "special." She just wanted to live a normal, comfortable middle class life. So she went to college, became a nurse, married a guy who works a normal job in finance, had two kids, lives in a fairly nice little cul de sac in the suburbs. She likes OSU football, popular country music, and shopping at Costco.
She is rather normative. I say this not as any insult. I think perhaps people read this thread and think I am just insulting normies for being normative. I am not doing this.
I am also not congratulating weirdos for being weirdos or for being "special" because I don't necessarily think they are special. Many weirdos are annoying twits. Think about the goofballs in theater when you were in high school. haha
...humans seem to love labels and rankings.
We humans love labels because they are incredibly useful. Try going one whole day without using labels.
You could start by changing your name on here from JaneV2.0 to Jane or to nothing.
humans
Why label us humans? Why not just call us animals? Oh, that'd be a label too. Tricky, huh?
I don't disagree with UL on this. There is definitely a mainstream culture with all its expectations, and many people toe the line ("normies"), and others either can't or won't. There are tons of examples of cultural "misfits" even within the microcosm of any high school. In high school you always knew who was a "normie" and who was a "weirdo." Casting aside judgements about whether or not the "popular kids" should have been labeling their classmates, or whether or not those classmates were indeed "weird" those broad distinctions exist in society. I think probably Tolstoy's wife thought he had become a weirdo when he rejected his wealth. My son was a "weirdo" who dropped out of school. Hippies were all "weirdos" at the start of that countercultural movement.
Maybe "weirdo" is a bit of an extreme label, though. I prefer "misfit toys". :)
2491
We humans love labels because they are incredibly useful. Try going one whole day without using labels.
You could start by changing your name on here from JaneV2.0 to Jane or to nothing.
I agree that labels--nouns, I guess--are useful for most things. I find constant nitpicky analysis tiresome, but it's clearly sport for some.
I kind of like "nothing," but Jane is generic enough for me.
...Jane is generic enough for me. Then drop the V2.0.
I agree that labels--nouns, I guess--are useful for most things.
Thank you for acknowledging this. Very graceful of you.
Then drop the V2.0.
I was Jane something else before the forum was switched up; thus V2.0. Not that I owe you an explanation.
I was Jane something else before the forum was switched up; thus V2.0. Not that I owe you an explanation.
Seriously. Since when do we control what others call themselves on the board? How odd.
iris lilies
9-3-18, 12:01pm
Seriously. Since when do we control what others call themselves on the board? How odd.
He is “controlling” a name? I dont think so.
More like he is presenting a logical falacy (in his mind anyway, not saying I agree. And Jane isnt gonna be controlled, anyway.)
Ultralight
9-3-18, 12:02pm
Seriously. Since when do we control what others call themselves on the board? How odd.
Tybee, you must change your name to Tybeee. I am now controlling you too. Watch how well it works!
When you start telling people what to post and what to call themselves, then you are acting in a controlling fashion.
Ultralight
9-3-18, 12:04pm
When you start telling people what to post and what to call themselves, then you are acting in a controlling fashion.
See my above comment to you. And then thank me for this important lesson on what controlling others is and is not.
iris lilies
9-3-18, 12:06pm
See my above comment to you. And then thank me for this important lesson on what controlling others is and is not.
Do you mean “thank meeeeeee!?”
(Insider joke.)
Do you mean “thank meeeeeee!?”
(Insider joke.)
Oh, how I miss those days...
Ultralight
9-3-18, 12:13pm
And Jane isnt gonna be controlled, anyway.
No truer statement ever said!
Oh, how I miss those days...
I get 5 or 6 "thank meeeeee" messages a week, and have for the past couple of years, so haven't had a chance to miss those days yet.
“Everybody is somebody else’s weirdo” - Scott Adams.
I go into peoples' homes quite often when they are least expecting company, and haven't had time to "straighten up" their presentation.
Pretty much everyone is a weirdo, when you catch them on the other side of the veil they put up to pretend to be "normal".
Actually, it's quite weird to find someone normal in these circumstances.
iris lilies
9-3-18, 12:54pm
I get 5 or 6 "thank meeeeee" messages a week, and have for the past couple of years, so haven't had a chance to miss those days yet.
This made me laugh so hard! But I am not removing any blocks. :)
Aw, I miss Packy!
Like I'd miss a toothache... ;)
Teacher Terry
9-3-18, 6:20pm
Steve I totally agree!
I miss a lot of the "old" folk, including Packy. That is so funny, the "meeee" reference! Thanks for making me smile!
ToomuchStuff
9-4-18, 2:09am
Aw, I miss Packy!
You should send him a pizza.
You should send him a pizza.
And bring him to a Joe Bonamassa concert!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.