Will Take On New Writer

[Kev H]

Wow, I thought only AH threads got yanked this far off course. Oh! Hi, cloudy. (Just teasin'--lighten up, dear crusader.)

 

[cloudy]

Wow, I thought only AH threads got yanked this far off course. Oh! Hi, cloudy. (Just teasin'--lighten up, dear crusader.)

I did.

I conceded we'd just have to agree to disagree....that's further than I'm usually willing to go.

 

[Khukuri]

Your word choice and phrasing still leads me to interpret what you're saying as the opposite of what you're claiming. Sorry. Your language shows your feelings quite clearly. I can't believe you're too dense not to see it. If your husband is happy then you're happy? Dear god, read what you've said.

I'll just agree to disagree with you.

I don't mind having someone disagree with my ideas, but please understand the idea first. You've taken my words out of context with the rest of the message.

"If your husband is happy then you're happy?" was not the message behind "I hope this clarifies things. As always, I strive for equality and fairness. If my husband is happy, then I find that I am happier too because we both get what we want without oppressing the other."

I am not saying that what my husband says is law. I am saying that I am happy because we've blended what he wanted and what I wanted. My whole point was to keep all things equal in the relationship through compromise.

If you feel that equality in a relationship is not the best policy and will have to disagree with me on that term, then I don't have a problem with that. You are entitled to the opinion that one mate should dominate the other in a relationship. I just can't agree, because I feel that you have to give a little to get a little (and that goes for both in the relationship -- men included).

 

[snooper]

... My whole point was to keep all things equal in the relationship through compromise. ...

Compromise - An arrangement where everybody gets what nobody wants.

 

[nici]

Compromise - An arrangement where everybody gets what nobody wants.

Very true. If compromise is the basis and not shared interests, I would tend to agree with Cloudy.

 

[cloudy]

Very true. If compromise is the basis and not shared interests, I would tend to agree with Cloudy.

Thank you.

I don't mind having someone disagree with my ideas, but please understand the idea first. You've taken my words out of context with the rest of the message.

"If your husband is happy then you're happy?" was not the message behind "I hope this clarifies things. As always, I strive for equality and fairness. If my husband is happy, then I find that I am happier too because we both get what we want without oppressing the other."

I am not saying that what my husband says is law. I am saying that I am happy because we've blended what he wanted and what I wanted. My whole point was to keep all things equal in the relationship through compromise.

If you feel that equality in a relationship is not the best policy and will have to disagree with me on that term, then I don't have a problem with that. You are entitled to the opinion that one mate should dominate the other in a relationship. I just can't agree, because I feel that you have to give a little to get a little (and that goes for both in the relationship -- men included).

Amateurish try at turning the argument around on me, although I give you points for trying. I realize you don't know me, but many do, and they'd laugh you out of here for trying to put those words in my mouth.

Do try again, though.

 

[Khukuri]

On numerous occasions you twist my meaning around and then label me to boot. What is the purpose of tearing me apart? Amusement?

I hope you had your fill, as well as everyone else.

You don't know me either, and from what I gather from our first introductions, I would rather not know you.

I just voiced an opinion like everyone else. From what I gathered from other people posting on this site, I didn't expect for an opinion to be met with such hostility. Not once did I step out of line or offend anyone with the idea I presented. In fact, I went through great pains not to offend anyone.

Yet my idea is twisted out of its own meaning, belittled repeatedly, and then I'm looked down upon as the offender? I simply expressed an idea (which was misunderstood). You can either agree or disagree with my opinion, to do more is unnecessary.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I don't mind having someone disagree with my ideas, but please understand the idea first. You've taken my words out of context with the rest of the message.

"If your husband is happy then you're happy?" was not the message behind "I hope this clarifies things. As always, I strive for equality and fairness. If my husband is happy, then I find that I am happier too because we both get what we want without oppressing the other."

I am not saying that what my husband says is law. I am saying that I am happy because we've blended what he wanted and what I wanted. My whole point was to keep all things equal in the relationship through compromise.

If you feel that equality in a relationship is not the best policy and will have to disagree with me on that term, then I don't have a problem with that. You are entitled to the opinion that one mate should dominate the other in a relationship. I just can't agree, because I feel that you have to give a little to get a little (and that goes for both in the relationship -- men included).

I thought what you said made sense. There has to be compromise in a relationship, no one party can always come out on the winning or losing end. Compromise is not, and can not be everyone gets what nobody wants.

I totally agree that a relationship should be based on equality. Give and take is necessary. We have to take the good with the bad, and at the end of the day, hope that there is more good than bad.

 

[Khukuri]

I thought what you said made sense. There has to be compromise in a relationship, no one party can always come out on the winning or losing end. Compromise is not, and can not be everyone gets what nobody wants.

I totally agree that a relationship should be based on equality. Give and take is necessary. We have to take the good with the bad, and at the end of the day, hope that there is more good than bad.

I tried several times to express the idea that there has to be compromise in order to have a successful relationship. Sadly, my point was missed, or worse, contorted into something it's not.

I thank you for taking the time to explain in a different way what I was essentially trying to say.

 

[nici]

I thought what you said made sense. There has to be compromise in a relationship, no one party can always come out on the winning or losing end. Compromise is not, and can not be everyone gets what nobody wants.

I totally agree that a relationship should be based on equality. Give and take is necessary. We have to take the good with the bad, and at the end of the day, hope that there is more good than bad.

A relationship should not be based upon anyone needing to compromise. Any relationship should be based first on common interests.

Never, ever should the question “Am I winning or losing” be a part of marital thinking. If it is an issue in a marriage, that marriage has little hope of existing over time. If it is, the next question that should be ask is, “Divorce or change.”

Marriage is about sharing commonalities, interests, and goals. If two people have differing goals, than how can they share with each other? Two partners can differ, but those differences should be “two halves of a whole”.

Compromising can be done now and then, but if it is done too often the relationship suffers. People in a marriage need to share and not compromise. Otherwise, where is the growing together? Differences should be accepted where differences exist, but no relationship can exist continually compromising.

 

[cloudy]

On numerous occasions you twist my meaning around and then label me to boot. What is the purpose of tearing me apart? Amusement?

I hope you had your fill, as well as everyone else.

You don't know me either, and from what I gather from our first introductions, I would rather not know you.

I just voiced an opinion like everyone else. From what I gathered from other people posting on this site, I didn't expect for an opinion to be met with such hostility. Not once did I step out of line or offend anyone with the idea I presented. In fact, I went through great pains not to offend anyone.

Yet my idea is twisted out of its own meaning, belittled repeatedly, and then I'm looked down upon as the offender? I simply expressed an idea (which was misunderstood). You can either agree or disagree with my opinion, to do more is unnecessary.

I'm not in the least bit hostile towards you, and I haven't "belittled you repeatedly."

I'm sorry you take discussions or people disagreeing with you so personally. I haven't said you're an "offender," or anything even close.

Please, step back, take a breath and realize I was disagreeing with what you said, and stop taking anyone that disagrees with you so personally. I'm guessing you are very young, but please take my advice - if you react so harshly to people that disagree with your ideas, life is going to be long and hard.

No hard feelings. If you have them, well, then, that's your deal, not mine.

 

[cloudy]

I thought what you said made sense. There has to be compromise in a relationship, no one party can always come out on the winning or losing end. Compromise is not, and can not be everyone gets what nobody wants.

I totally agree that a relationship should be based on equality. Give and take is necessary. We have to take the good with the bad, and at the end of the day, hope that there is more good than bad.

That's exactly what I said, and if you'll read my first post in this thread, I stated that I agreed with much of what she said.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

A relationship should not be based upon anyone needing to compromise. Any relationship should be based first on common interests.

Never, ever should the question “Am I winning or losing” be a part of marital thinking. If it is an issue in a marriage, that marriage has little hope of existing over time. If it is, the next question that should be ask is, “Divorce or change.”

Marriage is about sharing commonalities, interests, and goals. If two people have differing goals, than how can they share with each other? Two partners can differ, but those differences should be “two halves of a whole”.

Compromising can be done now and then, but if it is done too often the relationship suffers. People in a marriage need to share and not compromise. Otherwise, where is the growing together? Differences should be accepted where differences exist, but no relationship can exist continually compromising.

For the most part I think we are saying the same things. Compromises do have to be made. "I want Italian." "I want Chinese." I want to see a chick flick." "I want to see an action movie." These are the types of compromises that I'm talking about.

 

[Khukuri]

A relationship should not be based upon anyone needing to compromise. Any relationship should be based first on common interests.

Never, ever should the question “Am I winning or losing” be a part of marital thinking. If it is an issue in a marriage, that marriage has little hope of existing over time. If it is, the next question that should be ask is, “Divorce or change.”

Marriage is about sharing commonalities, interests, and goals. If two people have differing goals, than how can they share with each other? Two partners can differ, but those differences should be “two halves of a whole”.

Compromising can be done now and then, but if it is done too often the relationship suffers. People in a marriage need to share and not compromise. Otherwise, where is the growing together? Differences should be accepted where differences exist, but no relationship can exist continually compromising.

I agree that there should be common interests and goals initially. This would reduce the need for compromises, and the compromises that are made would be more easily accepted. However, I have seen relationships in which neither party is willing to compromise even the tiniest bit. They are always frustrated, angry, saddened, and eventually they become strangers living under the same roof. I was generally referring to situations that do not allow any "give," and both parties feel that there must be a "winner" and a "loser."

 

[snooper]

... Compromises do have to be made. "I want Italian." "I want Chinese." ...

Exactly my point. If you compromise on visiting a Tex-Mex then everyone gets what nobody wants.

The only exception to this is in Hong Kong where there is an excellent restaurant in Wan Chai which sells Italian food but is entirely owned and staffed by Chinese. I'm sure they would be able to serve both cuisines at one table.

 

[snooper]

... I was generally referring to situations that do not allow any "give," and both parties feel that there must be a "winner" and a "loser."

Ah, the classic case of two dominant personalities in one marriage. I, too, have seen this occasionally, but I could never understand how they got into that predicament in the first place. I cannot imagine what the "courting" situation must have been like, or was Lehrer right when he said, It's just 'Hya, honey,' and hop into bed?

 

[nici]

Khukuri,

I fully agree with Cloudy. No one is belittling you. We debate intellectually ideas and thoughts. Who brought up the thought is irrelevant to the debate. You shouldn’t in any way take such a debate personally.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Exactly my point. If you compromise on visiting a Tex-Mex then everyone gets what nobody wants.

The only exception to this is in Hong Kong where there is an excellent restaurant in Wan Chai which sells Italian food but is entirely owned and staffed by Chinese. I'm sure they would be able to serve both cuisines at one table.

Actually there is one here, Eli and Wongs, serves Italian and Chinese food....

 

[Khukuri]

Ah, the classic case of two dominant personalities in one marriage. I, too, have seen this occasionally, but I could never understand how they got into that predicament in the first place. I cannot imagine what the "courting" situation must have been like, or was Lehrer right when he said, It's just 'Hya, honey,' and hop into bed?

In the case of my sister-in-law, it was a "just passing through" relationship initially. Then they found out about my soon-to-be niece, unexpectedly. Both of their families do not believe in children born out of wedlock, so they married during the 8th month of pregnancy. One is openly dominating and the other is passive aggressive. Although my niece is physically well cared for, she will suffer emotionally for sure, as she is refer to as "the baby," and spends more time over at her grandparents' houses.

Their movies are labeled his or hers, according to who bought it. There isn't a a single item in the house that belongs to both. Even their little girl is considered the mother's problem not the father's. There isn't such a thing as compromise in that household. The bills are always paid late, since they aren't paid until one or the other finally gives in and pays it.

My sister-in-law talks of divorce, but fears that her little girl would grow up to hate her. So, she remains with a man that doesn't really love her. Such a relationship motivates my husband and me to strive more for equality and tolerance.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

In the end I'll choose to be sneaky and have my "man-card" validated.