Why do you stick around this forum?

Obsidian wrote:He could also be the primary earner in an even smaller family by becoming single if he acts like a complete retard. :­P

A complete retard? If he's firing his rifle out the living room window in the country then she should get up and go do something else if it bothers her. That's what I would do.

I would want to see my husband happy, not repress him.

And this isn't just about shooting the rife while she's watching Tv. Among the other examples I already mentioned, she withholds sex from him when he's angry, as if training him to control his emotions. It's infantilizing. He's not a child that needs to be trained and even given his condition it's not her place to do that.

He's a grown man.

Okay, so that even the child in the room understands.
If the other person is annoying they can both choose to leave at any time, but neither wants to do that, so what's left to do? Compromising.
Neither will be entirely happy but at the same time not annoyed enough to leave.

justonemoreperson is probably not overly happy about all compromises but he prefers them over the other option, and the same for her.

But yea, the person who likes the other person more is always at a disadvantage in a relationship. The colder one has the other person's feelings as leverage. :­P

Yes, in a relationship where 'winning' or control of the other is the goal Obsidian...


Because he is the primary earner, and because she wants to see him happy (*cough cough*), she should let him shoot his rifle when he wants to.

Surely he's not sitting there shooting it around the clock.

-- Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:33 am --

Anyway, Crackers is insecure, and hence she controls him. She even has him telling her that she's appealing on a daily basis. She tells him to tell her this

Fyi: If you can't get those compliments naturally, they don't mean anything.

They have a shared economy, she has the same amount of money as he.
Anyway, I give up, another perspective is useless for a blind person. :­P

Obsidian, I more directly responded to your post below.

And she is a nurse, she doesn't make the same as him.

Obsidian wrote:If the other person is annoying they can both choose to leave at any time, but neither wants to do that, so what's left to do? Compromising.

Why does it have to be a compromise? Why can't he, in this instance, just get what he wants?

She'll get what she wants in another situation.

Compromise is for people who keep score on every issue. And if you're keeping score in this manner in a relationship then you aren't focusing on what's important: your partner's happiness.

It's about reciprocation. She allows him to do some things that annoy her, while he allows the same for her when the time comes.

I understand your perspective Obsidian but there are better alternatives to compromise.

The part you quoted was about leaving the relationship and having to come up with compromises to avoid that. :­P

I don't know why I quoted that.

Anyway, do you see the alternative and how that's more conducive to happiness in a relationship?

Some things that make Jomp happy annoy her, but his happiness is far more a gain to Jomp than her annoyance is a detriment to her.

He's gaining more than she's losing in these moments of happiness in their relationship.

When her time comes, Jomp will make it all about Crackers; he will let her do whatever she wants, her way, to her fullest potential/desire.

So you trade moments of happiness where each does exactly what they want to their full desire instead of compromising on every issue which leaves nobody ever really happy...

If you're so focused on making the relationship last, by compromising on every issue, you miss the point of being in a relationship.

What's the point of making an unhappy or unfulfilling relationship last?

Such a relationship is merely functional, and I think that's the type o relationship Jomp and Crackers are in.

A loveless, unexciting, functional relationship.

You don't have all variables, but it's fair to say that they have found a balance. :­P

No I don't.

But it's fair to say that that is their relationship, and those are some of the underlying variables.

If it suits them fine. But it could be more fullfiling for both of them.

crystal_richardson_ wrote:She allows him to do some things that annoy her, while he allows the same for her when the time comes.

Two people who respect each other and are, therefore, considerate of each other's needs shouldn't have to tolerate the other's annoyance's if those annoyance's are inappropriate and could be resolved with some sort of compromise.

I understand your perspective Obsidian but there are better alternatives to compromise.

Compromise allows a couple to reach a mutual agreement. What could be a better alternative than that?